Nick McClure wrote: > I see what you are saying, But take 400-500 Years ago. > > The distance between London and what is now the US was even further than > that of Gaza and Jerusalem. > > It would seem that the people, the regular people; not the governments, > want to live in peace and could probably do so, if they could just get past > the propaganda coming from all sides. > > But when people realized what Columbus found, they weren't looking to make > peace with the newly found people, they wanted to kill them or enslave them > and take the land so they could expand. > > I don't think Israel is really trying to expand, they want to ensure the > safety of their citizens. Not the same at all.
Well, to come back to the original example about the Dutch colonies: we weren't trying to expand either. We were just trying to trade. Only when protection of the traders was necessary, certain area's (mainly ports to start with) were brought under Dutch control. Not really organized, nor planned, nor desired in a masterplan, it just happened. And when it had happened to protect trade, people started to do other things there. Settle for instance. Not as a matter of policy, it just happened. Policy followed a few centuries later. Only when people had settled there, these areas became something more as just protection. People got attached to those areas, they had interests their, property etc. That is also when giving up these territories became a problem, to the extend that the Netherlands were prepared to fight a war (only they called it anti-terror actions) over them in Indonesia. And later again in New Guinea, which only just was averted by the Americans convincing the Netherlands to give up. The Netherlands started for protection of their traders. Israel for protection of their citizens. That was originally the only goal. People settled in Indonesia. People settled in Gaza/West Bank. Stakes got higher. The Netherlands grew dependent on money from the colonies. Israel is growing dependent on water/labour/etc from the occupied territories [1]. The stakes grow even higher. No evil masterplan. Just things that happen as the result of many small, accumulated decisions, from the starting point of a decision on security. I do really see many parallels. And many of the same decisions that a few centuries later in hindsight are called mistakes. Time will tell how we will view the Israel-Palestina conflict. [1] Not really yet, but if you count in the the Golan Israel is getting pretty dependant on water from disputed territories. I also believe that Israel occasionally has labour problems if they decide to close the border. This entanglement makes the obvious solution to the terrorist bombing, build a new Iron Curtain and do not let anybody enter [2], harder and harder. But I believe this is being recognized in Israel as well. The question is of course whether they can do anything about it, economics/history has it's way to make things happen, even if you don't want them, through the accumulation of many insignificant decisions. [2] This is based on the assumption that the threat of a full scale invasion by a neighbouring country can be dealt with in other ways, even if the currently occupied territories (that is excluding the Golan) are no longer occupied. Jochem ______________________________________________________________________ Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
