what do you make of thisPosted by BGCPed on 9/11/03 at 22:32 (129679)
Jerusalem Post Editorial: Kill Arafat
Thu Sep 11 2003 22:11:57 ET
The world will not help us; we must help ourselves. We must kill as many of the Hamas and Islamic Jihad leaders as possible, as quickly possible, while minimizing collateral damage, but not letting that damage stop us. And we must kill Yasser Arafat, because the world leaves us no alternative.
No one seriously argues with the fact that Arafat was preventing Mahmoud Abbas, the prime minister he appointed, from combating terrorism, to the extent that was willing to do so. Almost no one seriously disputes that Abbas on whom Israel, the US, and Europe had placed all their bets failed primarily because Arafat retained control of much of the security apparatus, and that Arafat wanted him to fail.
The new prime minister, Ahmed Qurei, clearly will fare no better, since he, if anything, has been trying to garner more power for Arafat, not less. Under these circumstances, the idea of exiling Arafat is gaining currency, but the standard objection is that he will be as much or more of a problem when free to travel the world than he is locked up in Ramallah.
If only three countries Britain, France, and Germany joined the US in a total boycott of Arafat this would not be the case. If these countries did not speak with Arafat, it would not matter much who did, and however much a local Palestinian leader would claim to consult with Arafat, his power would be gone.
But such a boycott will not happen. Only now, after more than 800 Israelis have died in three years of suicide bombings and other terrorist attacks, has Europe finally decided that Hamas is a terrorist organization. How much longer will it take before it cuts off Arafat? Yet Israel cannot accept a situation in which Arafat blocks any Palestinian break with terrorism, whether from here or in exile. Therefore, we are at another point in our history at which the diplomatic risks of defending ourselves are exceeded by the risks of not doing so.
Such was the case in the Six Day War, when Israel was forced to launch a preemptive attack or accept destruction. And when Menachem Begin decided to bomb the Iraqi nuclear reactor in 1981. And when Israel launched Operation Defensive Shield in Palestinian cities after the Passover Massacre of 2002. In each case, Israel tried every fashion of restraint, every plea to the international community to take action that would avoid the need for 'extreme' measures, all to no avail. When the breaking point arrives, there is no point in taking half-measures. If we are going to be condemned in any case, we might as well do it right.
Arafat's death at Israel's hands would not radicalize Arab opposition to Israel; just the opposite. The current jihad against us is being fueled by the perception that Israel is blocked from taking decisive action to defend itself.
Arafat's survival and power are a test of the proposition that it is possible to pursue a cause through terror and not have that cause rejected by the international community. Killing Arafat, more than any other act, would demonstrate that the tool of terror is unacceptable, even against Israel, even in the name of a Palestinian state. Arafat does not just stand for terror, he stands for the refusal to make peace with Israel under any circumstances and within any borders.
In this respect, there is no distinction, beyond the tactical, between him and Hamas. Europe's refusal to utterly reject him condemns Palestinians, no less than Israelis, to endless war and dooms the possibility of the two-state solution the world claims to seek.
While the prospect of a Palestinian power vacuum is feared by some, the worst of all worlds is what exists now: Terrorists attack Israel at will under the umbrella of legitimacy provided by Arafat. Hamas would not be able to fill a post-Arafat vacuum; on the contrary, Hamas would lose the cover it has today.
A word must be said here about the most common claim made by those who would not isolate Arafat, let alone kill him: that he is the elected leader of the Palestinian people. Even if Arafat was chosen in a truly free election (when does his term end?), which we would dispute, this does not close the question of his legitimacy.
Whom the Palestinians choose to lead them is none of our business, provided it is a free choice, and provided they do not opt for leaders who choose terror and aggression. So long as the Palestinians choose such a leadership, it should be held no more immune to counterattack by Israel than the Taliban and Saddam Hussein were by the United States.
We complain that a double standard is applied to us, and it is. But we cannot complain when we apply that double standard to ourselves. Arafat's survival, under our watchful eyes, is living testimony to our tolerance of that double standard. If we want another standard to be applied, we must begin by applying it ourselves
Re: what do you make of thisEd Davis, DPM on 9/11/03 at 22:40 (129681)
Nothing could be more true. Israel has been stuck in a protracted conflict without realistic hope of resolution as long as the Euros insist that Arafat be a party to the process. Arafat's power is based on the continuation of the conflict. Asking Israel to negotiate with Arafat is like asking the US to negotiate with bin Laden.
Re: Some times people must stand up for their rights and fight...Ed Davis, DPM on 9/11/03 at 23:00 (129686)
There Is Only A Military Solution
by Ariel Natan Pasko
Sep 10, '03 / 13 Elul 5763
E-mail This Print Homepage
One only has to look as far east as Iraq, to see that force of arms can change a regime and impose a solution.
The Problem: One nation, spiritually and historically attached to its ancient homeland, is being constantly attacked militarily, both directly and through terrorist actions against its civilian population, from the adjoining contiguous territory - there are no natural borders - which is also part of its ancient homeland, now occupied by an enemy population who has invaded it over time.
The Military Solution, which can be imposed, offers several choices.
1. Declare a total, all-out war against the enemy, hit all targets, military, political, economic, and destroy their infrastructure. Maximize enemy casualties - including civilian - with the express purpose of reducing the enemy population drastically and facilitating the elimination of it from your homeland. Guarantee peace by eliminating the enemy's ability to wage war, and greatly reducing the enemies will to wage war. Reunite your ancient homeland under your exclusive control, declare victory, peace, and praise G-d.
2. Declare a total, all-out war against the enemy's military, hit all targets, including their political and military command-and-control centers, and military leaders' residences. Eliminate enemy military actions against your population and facilitate the evacuation of the enemy's occupying population from your homeland. Reunite your ancient homeland under your exclusive control, declare victory, peace, and praise G-d.
3. Declare a total, all-out war against the enemy's leadership. Eliminate them wherever they can be found. Destroy the enemy's military infrastructure and reduce the occupying enemy to a servile population. Facilitate the evacuation of most of the enemy population and incorporate the rest into your population. Reunite your ancient homeland under your exclusive control, declare victory, peace, and praise G-d.
If you stop and think for a moment, there are those who are attempting to implement a combination of these choices, as we speak. No, not Kahanist elements, the Jewish settler movement, and the far-right fringe in Israel; but Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Fatah - such as their Tanzim and al-Aqsa Brigades - and others. They see a military solution to the conflict. Just listen to what Hamas leader Abdel Aziz Rantisi recently said, 'We will continue with our holy war and resistance until every last criminal Zionist is evicted from this land. By G-d, we will not leave one Jew alive in Palestine. We will fight them with all the strength we have. This is our land, not the Jews.'
And they're working to implement their vision. Their suicide murderers roam around looking for more victims. Jerusalem: August 19th, 22 people murdered, including seven children, and over 130 were injured, including 40 children, in a bus bombing, returning from evening prayers at the Western Wall of the Temple Mount. Rishon L'Tzion area: September 9th, seven people murdered and over 30 injured near the Tzrifin military base, in a bombing that some believe was originally intended for the nearby Assaf HaRofeh Hospital itself. It seems that heightened security at the hospital caused the killers to pick an easier target, soldiers standing at a bus stop. Jerusalem: the same day, September 9th, another seven people murdered and over 50 injured when a bomber tries to enter a cafe, then explodes himself and his victims.
If you think that these are just extremist elements in Palestinian society, think again. According to a May 2003 Pew Global Attitudes Project opinion poll, 80% of Palestinians agreed with the statement: 'The rights and needs of the Palestinian people cannot be taken care of as long as the State of Israel exists.' They clearly want to destroy the Jewish state.
This is most clearly reflected in the attitudes of Palestinians regarding the so-called refugee problem. On the Official Palestinian Authority website, they posted the results of a Poll from May 2003, conducted by Human Rights International Solidarity Institute (HRISI) about the Palestinian refugee 'right of return', surveying Arabs in northern 'refugee camps' in the West Bank, 84% of respondents expressed their hope to return to their homes in pre-1967 Israel. In regard to the proposal to live in the Jewish settlements instead of returning to their homes that they left in 1948, 87% of the respondents opposed this solution. So one can clearly see a desire to establish an independent Palestinian State in Judea and Samaria - the West Bank - and flood Israel with refugees, creating a bi-national state. How long will it take for irredentists to begin fighting the then-Jewish-minority in Israel, agitating to merge with Palestine, and effectively killing the State of Israel?
And killing Jews, Israelis, and the State of Israel isn't just for Rantisi or Hamas. Monthly public opinion polls by the Jerusalem Media & Communication Centre, from December 2002 to April 2003, have consistently shown that around 75% of Palestinians, 'strongly or somewhat support the continuation of the al-Aqsa Intifada,' meaning 'continued military operations inside Israel and/or inside the 'occupied' territories.' When asked in April 2003 about suicide bombing operations against Israeli civilians, 59.9% of Palestinians, 'strongly or somewhat support them.' Support for suicide bombings has consistently been between the high 50s and 80% for several years now.
In a poll carried out between August 21-28, 2003 for Yasser Arafat's Gaza-based 'Office of Palestinian Information' - of Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip - they found that 60.2% continue to support attacks on Jews and 88.8% oppose the detention of members of Hamas and Islamic Jihad by the Palestinian Authority. Besides the fact that the above results do not correspond with the commonly held working assumptions of the Bush and Sharon Administrations, that the Palestinian public actually opposes terror and would support Palestinian compliance with the Roadmap, the poll found that 56% believe attacks serve Palestinian national interests and 79.7% oppose the PA's decision to freeze contacts with Hamas and Islamic Jihad. A clear majority wants to continue warfare against Israeli soldiers and civilians, including suicide bombings. This certainly isn't just a fanatical fringe, but Palestinian society's wishes. They are an enemy to the Jewish People. They are in an all-out war until the end.
What we see from all this is that not only the 'military' - i.e. terror - organizations, but the rank and file on the Palestinian street desire a military victory, the collapse of the Jewish state -Israel - and its replacement with an Arab state - Palestine - from the 'river to the sea'. If the Palestinian Authority ever agrees to a negotiated settlement bringing an end to the conflict, it is far from clear that Palestinian society will accept it. A more likely prognosis would be continued warfare, a possible take-over by Hamas and others of the PA, and continued terror, with the goal of Israel's destruction.
So, how does a state defend its citizens under such circumstances?
For a long time now we've been hearing the mind-numbing mantra of the Left, 'There is no military solution to the conflict,' with its let's-throw-our-hands-up-and-surrender-already corollary, 'There is only a political solution.' But one must understand, there can only be a political solution to a conflict if the parties involved want to accept a political solution. If one side insists on total and absolute victory, even to the point of exterminating its enemy, and the other side pursues a political solution, then you have a prescription for disaster.
You can throw water on a normal fire to put it out, but throw water on an electrical fire and all you do is spread the area of danger. Not only is there danger from the fire, but now from electrocution as well. Such one-sided behavior on the part of Israeli leaders, attempting to achieve 'peace' with a society that wants to exterminate it, has spread the danger.
Although Israeli society seems to be confused as to how to respond to this existential threat, one issue has been consistently clear in the minds of an overwhelming majority of Israelis for several years already, they don't want a Palestinian state to come into existence. A Poll by the Hanoch Smith Institute (HSI) in November 2001 found 68% of Israeli Jews believe that 'regardless of the size or strength of a Palestinian state, if one is established it will constitute a threat to the State of Israel.' A later poll done by HSI in June 2002 found 80% of Israeli Jews oppose the proposal that Israel withdraw to the 1967 borders and create a Palestinian Arab state in the vacated territories.
The Geocartography Institute carried out a poll on February 25, 2003 for the Ariel Center for Policy Research. They asked: 'In light of the experience that has accumulated since the Oslo agreements, do you support or oppose a Palestinian state?' 61% said they oppose creating such a state; only 31% said they support it.
And after the crowning of Mahmoud Abbas - Abu Mazen - PA Prime Minister, Dahaf carried out a poll of Israelis (including Israeli Arabs) the week of May 2, 2003, that asked: Will the election [he wasn't elected, but appointed] of Abu Mazen affect Palestinian terror? 68% answered that there would be no change or there would be an increase. Clearly, Israelis hold out no hope that so-called Palestinian political reforms will bring an end to the violent struggle the Palestinians have been carrying out. It seems that Jews in Israel understand just how extreme the Arabs are in their Palestinian visions of mass annihilation of the Jews. Hamas leader Rantisi's murderous statements just express those visions more openly than most.
But Abbas didn't last too long as prime minister. Some have blamed Yasser Arafat for interfering with Abbas's job, but an honest look reveals otherwise. Abbas himself was unwilling to implement the Roadmap commitment to criminalize terror organizations and dismantle their infrastructure; he resigned on September 6th, 2003.
And who has replaced him?
Ahmed Qureia - known by his underground name, Abu Ala - speaker of the Palestinian legislative Council. He's been touted as a moderate - as Mahmoud Abbas was - due to his early involvement in the Oslo process. But don't forget, he's been appointed by Arafat and has no political base of his own, just like Abbas.
'Moderate' PA Prime Minister-elect Ahmed Qureia said, in a December 1997 interview, that there would be 'no compromise for one centimeter of the West Bank, including Jerusalem,' not even on such integral parts of Jerusalem as French Hill or Ramat Eshkol. 'Nothing,' Abu Ala said, 'not settlements or settlers either. [French Hill and Ramat Eshkol are] occupied territory from 1967. [Those who live there] are welcome to apply for citizenship under Palestinian law.'
In December 1998 - after the Wye summit - Qureia published an article in the PA daily al-Hayyat al-Jadida stating that the borders of the future independent Palestinian State, that would be declared in May 1999, are the boundaries set by the 1947 Partition Resolution. That doesn't even give Israel Beersheva.
And in a September 1999 visit to China - according to the newspaper al-Ayyam -Abu Ala demanded the so-called 'right of return' as a basic condition for peace: 'Either [we achieve] a just peace that will guarantee the legitimate national rights of the Palestinian people, including [the] Return, self determination, and the establishment of an independent state with Jerusalem as its capital, or there will be no peace, but a return to the struggle in all its forms.' Very 'moderate', indeed!
After the Jerusalem bus bombing of August 19th, the Israeli government declared an all-out war against Hamas and the other terror groups. Within 36 hours, Israel picked-off one of Hamas' top leaders, Ismail Abu Shanab. Hamas quickly threatened that Israeli Prime Minister Sharon and other government leaders were now targets. Several days later, Hamas leaders were holding a meeting at the home of senior Hamas official and Islamic University lecturer, Dr. Marwan Abu Ras when Israeli F-16s struck, unsuccessfully. At the meeting were high-ranking officials Mohammed Deff and Adnan al-Rul, as well as Abdel Aziz Rantisi, the target of an unsuccessful Israeli Air Force missile strike in June. Israeli security sources confirmed that Hamas 'spiritual' leader Sheikh AhmedYassin and other senior officials in the organization were the targets of the attack, as they were meeting 'to plan future terror attacks against Israelis.' The Israeli Army vowed to continue waging 'relentless war against Hamas.'
Speaking recently at the Herzliya Interdisciplinary Center's annual counterterrorism conference, IDF Chief of Staff Gen. Moshe Ya'alon hinted Israel could start targeting terrorist leaders in places from Syria to Lebanon to Iran who support Palestinian terror cells, saying 'all leaderships should be held accountable.'
Eight such Israeli missile strikes since the Jerusalem bus bombing have killed 12 terrorist operatives. Out of seven prominent Hamas leaders in the Gaza Strip, three (Salah Shahada, Dr. Ibrahim Maqadmeh and Ismail Abu Shanab) have been killed since July 2002; two were lightly hurt in assassination strikes (Sheikh Yassin and Dr. Abdel Aziz Rantisi in June); one escaped injury in an attack (Ismail Haniya) and only one, Dr. Mahmoud a-Zahar, has not yet been targeted in an attack [a-Zahar was targeted mere hours after this article was submitted - ed.].
A war of words has begun. After the attempt on Sheikh Yassin, the Hamas military wing, Iz a-Din al-Kassam announced, 'Each Zionist who occupies our land is a target for us, but we did not select a specific target and we leave this to the judgment of our fighters and their ability to reach targets. Our response to the attempted killing of the head of the Hamas organization pyramid will be of the type that Israel has never seen before. We call on all organization cells in various cities to heighten the state of alert and prepare for an especially harsh response against the enemy.'
One Hamas supporter shouted through a loudspeaker as Yassin was treated in a hospital right after the attack: 'Sharon, your head is now wanted.' Others chanted: 'Bomb Tel-Aviv.' Later, Yassin, after praying at a mosque, told a crowd of angry supporters, 'You will pay the price for this crime,' aiming his comments at Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. 'The Israeli people will pay a dear price for this crime... Our people will not raise the white flag. The [Israeli] entity will be removed.' Supporters outside the mosque waved Hamas flags, chanting, 'We will sacrifice our blood for Yassin!'
Former PA Prime Minister Abbas, it was reported at the time, telephoned Hamas 'spiritual' leader Sheikh Yassin to express his condolences over the death of Abu Shanab. The Palestine Media Center - an official arm of the PA - reported that about 150,000 people in Gaza attended Abu Shanab's funeral. Earlier, it had been reported that fireworks celebrations were set off over the Arab part of Hebron and Palestinian radio stations began broadcasting upbeat, happy music when news of the August 19th bus bombing reached them. Celebrations were also reported in Gaza after the news of the September 9th bombings as well, with shooting in the air and the handing out of candies. Who said that Hamas and Islamic Jihad terror against Jews doesn't have popular support amongst the Palestinians?
Sharon's response after the recent assassination attempt on Hamas 'spiritual' leader Sheikh Ahmed Yassin and others was, 'It's us or them. They are dead men. We won't give them any rest since they have just one goal, our destruction.'
'We intend to liquidate all of Hamas, without any distinction between the political and military branches of this terrorist organization,' an unnamed Israeli official was quoted as saying.
It's nice to see that PM Sharon realizes that '...they have just one goal, our destruction.' But this 'limited war' against Hamas terrorists obfuscates the real problem - all of Palestinian society is at war with Israel. When Israeli leaders admit this, when they begin to internalize that 'peace' is not possible with a society that wants to replace Israel, then they can begin to see that there is only a military solution.
Now, go back to the top, and pick - 1, 2 or 3....
(c) 2003/5763 Pasko
E-mail This Print Homepage Top of page
Comment on this story
9 comments have been published to this story.
1. 'praise G-d'
John Liebman (21:52, Sep-10, 03)
2. If only the Israeli leadership understand
Mick_in_China, Beijing, China (22:03, Sep-10, 03)
3. Drive them out
Scott P. Aarons, MD, Baytown, Texas (01:12, Sep-11, 03)
4. GENOCIDE BOMBERS
(18:03, Sep-11, 03)
5. Outrage to continued terror attacks
M Cohen (19:02, Sep-11, 03)
Robert Rijsdijk, Paramaribo, Suriname (19:54, Sep-11, 03)
7. to John Liebman (#1)
Sergey, Los Angeles (22:39, Sep-11, 03)
8. War is the ONLY solution
Mark Walker, Chesapeake, Virginia USA (00:21, Sep-12, 03)
9. Mr. Pasko - Great Commentary!
Yitzchak Ze'ev ben Ari HaCohain, Des Plaines, Il., U.S.A. (00:43, Sep-12, 03)
Ariel Natan Pasko
Ariel Natan Pasko, an independent analyst and consultant, has a Master's Degree in International Relations & Policy Analysis. His articles appear regularly on numerous news/views and think-tank websites and in newspapers.
Recent by Ariel Natan Pasko:
There Is Only A Military Solution
Sep 10, '03
Israeli Fool's Gold
Aug 22, '03
Israel Hit Syria Not Hizbollah!
Aug 12, '03
The Wall in My Heart
Aug 10, '03
Prisoner Releases From Hell
Aug 04, '03
All rights reserved IsraelNationalNews ©
Arutz Sheva Israel Broadcasting Network (email removed) Binamica - web design in Israel
Re: To Dr DavisDavid J. on 9/12/03 at 04:34 (129692)
The phrase 'our ancient homeland' runs through this piece like a broken record. It prompts me to ask you if it (and if the piece as a whole) represents your own considered view of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Like yourself, I am a Jew; and the person closest to me lost family members in Hitler's camps. I was active in the Zionist movement for several years in the 1940s when I still lived in the States. At that time I was quite young, which I offer as my excuse for having accepted the premise that we Jews had the God-given right to claim, as our own, land which - though it was 'our ancient homeland' - had been the homeland of others for nearly 2000 years. I DON'T accept that premise now.
I'm not saying I know what the solution is. I more and more fear that there may not be one. I certainly do not accept the 'total war' scenario, in which of course Israel, with nuclear capability, would be victorious. (Can you REALLY want that to happen?)
What I AM saying is that their are two sides to this unbearably sad story. I am sorry that you, and others who post here, do not seem to see that.
Re: To Dr Davis - PSDavid J. on 9/12/03 at 04:36 (129693)
Please if you respond do not ask me if I support terrorists.
Re: David J,Rick R on 9/12/03 at 07:29 (129701)
The allied countries that carved up the Middle East at the end of WWII (not to mention WWI) all bear a responsibility for the current crisis. What I struggle with, is how to support the legitimate concerns of the Palestinians without in some way rewarding or reinforcing their methods of getting our attention? I have a hard time believing the voters in the US would even have this on our radar screen if it wasn't for terrorism. How can we even allow the implication that terrorism is the way to get us to take responsibility for our actions. I think it's a lot easier to ignore the other side of the issue, least one risk being gored on the horns of this dilemma.
Re: To Dr DavisEd Davis, DPM on 9/12/03 at 10:55 (129708)
I don't know if you read the second piece carefully but what the author was doing was parotting the stated goals of the Palestinian Islamists; he was not looking for a tit for tat, nor a 'total war.' Use of nuclear weapons leaves the entire region unusable for ALL parties and nobody has advocated their use. Israel's nuclear arsenal is it's 'Samson option' to be used under a cataclysmic destruction by the Arabs.
When you say there are 'two' sides, I would like to hear your version of the 'other' side. The territories currently termed 'occupied' by Israel were part of Arab states, Egypt, Jordan and Syria before 1967 and those states had no intention of forming a 'Palestinian' state there. Why should more be expected from Israel in this area, especially when the destruction of Israel has been the stated goal of the PLO. If the PLO and its various factions were to go away, there would be some hope of negotiating a settlement. Even when offered almost everything in Oslo, the PLO rejected peace.
I am even more sorry than you that a Jewish person such as yourself cannot recognize the needs of survival for several million Israelis.
Re: To Dr Davismarie on 9/12/03 at 14:08 (129725)
I think we should look at the survival of mankind and not the focus of one group over another. Israel certainly has the right to defend herself, but I don't see an end and feel the worse is yet to come.
Re: To Dr DavisEd Davis, DPM on 9/12/03 at 14:25 (129727)
I prefer not to be a pessimist. You had stated 'I don't see an end and the worse is yet to come.' I don't want to sound trite but we often do have to weather the worst storms before the sun appears. I really can envision a solution to the mideast problem. I feel that there are those who have a vested interest in protracting the conflict (eg. Arafat) as well as those who are acting as obstructionists (many of the European countries acting in short term selfish interests or out of fear -- ie, the term Euro-weenies). I think that my derogatory little 'stab' at those European obstructionists is extremely mild when one coniders the consequences of their actions.
Re: To Dr DavisDavid J. on 9/12/03 at 14:58 (129731)
The other side is the Palestinian side, of course. You do not appear, from your posts, to acknowledge their side.
If I wished to I could say a great deal about this, but you will have to excuse me because I prefer not to enter into discussion with you about this or any other of the grave issues that face the world today. As I told you a few days ago, I have read your posts carefully over the past year. I have observed that despite your frequent professions you do not actually respect the views of others, so it is my choice not to discuss with you.
I have noticed that you frequently express 'sorrow' over another person's opinions. Don't be 'sorry' about mine, please. You have not the right to take a superior attitude to the views of another. My sorrows about the Second World War are my own. So are my views.
Re: To Dr DavisEd Davis, DPM on 9/12/03 at 15:13 (129733)
You take the opportunity to levy insults on a public forum about what you infer about my attitude but don't want to 'enter into a discussion' with me. You think it is okay to express your views but you state that when I express my views, that I 'actually don't respect the views of others.'
I respect the view of all who want to enter into a rational discussion of the issues. I don't respect those like yourself who engage in name calling and who treat others like myself with a condescending attitude.
Re: To Dr Davismarie on 9/12/03 at 15:39 (129737)
I'm just tired of getting my hopes up only to have it lown away, no pun intended, by some new violent act. And please, please stop referring to Europeans as Euro-weenies. If you dish it out just keep in mind that you need to be prepared to take it. Just a friendly reminder from your heelspurs feely touchy liberal. I'm glad you conservatives never show emotion cause otherwise thes conversations would erupt in emotion. ;)
best wishes marie
Re: To Dr DavisBonnie D on 9/12/03 at 16:03 (129742)
Conservatives never show emotion??????????????please, Marie
Re: To Dr Davismarie on 9/12/03 at 16:06 (129744)
Re: To RickDavid J. on 9/12/03 at 16:32 (129751)
I share your view of the history, certainly, and appreciate the cogency with which you state the problem. I struggle with it too. I would say you've got it in a nutshell, and this is exactly why I'm beginning to despair of a solution ever being found. However, while of course it's easier to ignore the other side, responsibility must, somehow or other, be taken, mustn't it? Israelis and Palestinians are both equally entitled to what we Americans have grown up to take for granted because it is written into our constitution: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Re: To Dr DavisEd Davis, DPM on 9/12/03 at 16:35 (129752)
I know exactly how you feel. Keep in mind that there are those out there who have the motive of trying to torpedo any move toward peace. Going after those parties is something that is long overdue, in my opinion.
Re: To RickDorothy on 9/12/03 at 16:46 (129753)
And how do you reconcile your last statement with the long-standing, entrenched, pervasive, embraced and oft-stated view of the 'Palestinians' and many others in the Middle East that Israel has NO right to any of those, must be destroyed, eliminated, its citizens all eradicated....
Tell us, please. How would YOU react if your own personal neighbor held those publicly stated attitudes about YOU? Smile, invite them for tea, and then offer them a permanent guest room in your home?
I don't agree with everything that Israel has done, but the attitudes toward Israel throughout the Middle East should not be glossed over.
As things stand now, it seems to be an intractable situation. I think that the world should bring heavy-duty pressure on Jordan, Syria, Saudi Arabia,Egypt etc. to make a welcome home for the Palestinians - build them houses, give them jobs, the whole thing - in one or all of those countries. End the fight over Israel. Put all the holy sites under U.N. control. Force an end to it. It dominates too much of everyone's attention and resources. There are other dangers and other horrors on the planet.
Re: To Dr DavisDavid J. on 9/12/03 at 16:51 (129756)
Well, I guess I think you SAY you respect the views of others, but it doesn't seem to me like you do, and I've seen plenty of evidence that you don't, and that is why I don't choose to get into discussion with you. That is my choice. If you think I am condescending, that's fine with me.
And if we're talking about insults, what about 'euro-weenies?' Did you not notice that some people, not just me, thought this offensive? Shucks, I forgot. You were joking, weren't you?
Re: To DorothyDavid J. on 9/12/03 at 17:03 (129758)
I know that is the Palestinian view. It's not mine. I am not taking sides, I think it is important to see both sides.
I expect your idea is as good as any, and probably better than most. How to get them moving on it, though - now there's a puzzle.
Re: To Dr DavisEd Davis, DPM on 9/12/03 at 17:07 (129759)
You can certainly keep repeating your accusations if you want. If it is easier on you, all you have to do is write the insult once then hit the send button several times. I have made no personal accusations against you so I don't know why you insist on attacking me. You are welcome to discuss issues and I am happy to debate you on issues if you wish but again, I must ask that you stick to the issues and leave the personal attacks out.
You are welcome to joke about certain political groups but that is different than insulting a specific poster such as myself.
Re: To DorothyEd Davis, DPM on 9/12/03 at 19:06 (129783)
It is important see consider both sides in a reasoned debate --- one side having its goal of eradicating an entire nation is not part of a reasoned debate. Would it be reasonable for someone to have stated that we should listen to, say, Hitler's side, before WW2 -- we can hear what he has to say but we will not give it credence other than considering it a threat.
Re: To Dr DavisPhil on 9/12/03 at 19:21 (129785)
Your background and posting style is very similar to a person who used to post on this board named Julie. She was from England, a former Zionist, about your age, similar political views and got into personal attacks when it came to political arguments ,etc. If I did not know better, I would wonder if you were her. Oh well.
Whoever you are, you will be more respected if you can discuss issues without personal attacks on other posters.
Re: Many joyful questionsmarie on 9/12/03 at 20:24 (129793)
Dr. Ed, David, Dorothy and anyone else that can help me,
From what little I know about the history of Israel and Palestine I feel ill equiped to even discuss the topic. Please help me out a little here. My memory tells me that in 1947 England divided up the land giving a chunk of it to Israel and a chunk to the Palestinians. The Arabs agreed to it at the time thinking that they could easily irradicate Israel and reclaim it for themselves. Why didn't the land belong to the Arabs and what say did they have in the agreement? How much input did the Arabs have in the decison making process?
Then in 1967 Israel attacked the Arabs because they thought the Arabs were preparing to attack them. Wasn't that known as the 'Six Day War'? Israel won and gave a chunk of land back to Egypt in the treaty that involved Sadat and Begin.
Then there was another war in 1973 and Israel won again. The Israelis were not to anxious to give up the land known as the Gaza Strip because they were defending themselves from a group whose soul purpose was to drive them from that part of the world. I can understand that.
I really think what it comes down to is that the Jewish people are simply not wanted in the Arab world. Aren't most of the Jewish people living in Israel of European decent? Could it be that the Israelis represent the Imperialism of they former occupants who the Arabs despise.....England? Jewish people are not the only members of Israel. There are many Christians who also live there and feel the same as Jewish Israelis...that they can best practice their faith in the Holy Lands.
I like Dorothy's idea of having the Holy Lands governed by the UN since so many groups claim it to be sacred to their religion. Good idea. I'm not sure we can talk the Israelis to move to New Jersey as Dr. Z had once suggested. It just seems to me that God is not about a place. His home is within each of our hearts and it is our heart that guides us to understanding his wishes. Now I wear a the Cross of Jerusalem that was blessed at the sight of Christ's birth....which is owned by the Greek Orthodox Church.....so I do value the sacredness of the place. But it's how I live not were I live that brings me closer to God. Is that too Christian of me...although both Jew and Christian worship the same God?
Well thanks for listening and please feel free to help me with the historical information that I may be lacking.
best wishes to all, marie
Re: Many joyful questionsEd Davis, DPM on 9/12/03 at 21:38 (129799)
Going back a little further in history is important. The first thing to realize was that there was never a country called 'Palestine.' There was a territory that the British won from the Ottoman Empire known as the British Mandate of Palestine which included the land which is know Israel and Jordan. That part of the land east of the Jordan river, known as trans-Jordan was given to a minority Arab group known as the Hashemites by the Brits. The Hashemites are related to the Saudi royal family. Jordan is composed of 2/3 'Palestinian' arabs and, as such, is a Palestinian state. The Brits had promised the land west of the jordan River to the Jews but instead that land was partioned yet again into an Arab area and Jewish state in 1947. The Israelis recognized the partition but the Arabs did not and invaded. The Israelis won much of the land but not the west bank which stood with Jordan.
The Arabs asked the UN to leave so they could attack Israel and 'drive the Jews into the sea' in 1967 and the UN readily stepped aside. The Israelis launched a pre-emptive strike winning an impressive victory and re-capturing the west bank as well as taking the Gaza Strip and the Sinai peninsula. Interestingly, while the west bank was in Jordanian hands and Gaza in Egyptian hands, there was never a call for a 'Palestinian' state by the Arabs in those territories.
Re: Many joyful questionsEd Davis, DPM on 9/12/03 at 21:44 (129800)
The Israelis have recognized the right of all religions to worship in the holy lands. Incredibly, due to international pressure, the Israeli government has not recently allowed Jews to worship at the Temple Mount (ruins of Solomon's 2nd temple) in order to avoid angering the Arabs. The Arabs, in disrespect for the Temple Mount built a mosque on that site, the Dome of the Rock, in order to stake a competing claim.
Re: Many joyful questionsmarie on 9/12/03 at 21:53 (129802)
Thanks this has helped me fill in some of the holes.
Re: To DorothyDorothy on 9/13/03 at 01:00 (129815)
Dr. Ed, if your comment is directed at something I wrote, I am not sure that I follow what you are saying - and not in relation to anything that I have written. Have I missed your point? Feel free to try again, if you care to. It is entirely possible that I am having a dense day.
Re: To DorothyDorothy on 9/13/03 at 01:13 (129816)
I'm afraid I don't understand your comments directed to me. What, in what I said, would constitute the 'Palestinian view'?? From everything I am aware of, what I suggested would NOT be the Palestinian view at all. What is happening to the Palestinian people is tragic, but I cannot take the 'Palestinian view' because to do so would place me against Israel's existence and that I can never, ever do. I think the Palestinians feel an overwhelming sense of injustice and this feeds their rage - the feeling of 'why doesn't the world care about us?' If there are any people on the planet who can identify with that despair and rage, it is the Jewish people, historically and in the present. The peoples of the Middle East HAVE to say - and mean it and have it enforced through WORLD enforcement, not just Israel and the U.S. - that Israel can exist, in peace, no more attacks. Arafat has lied and lied about that and cannot be trusted. But that is the absolute requirement before anything else can happen. That will not be peace, but it will be truce and truce without violence will be acceptable. Maybe someday peace will develop, but that is doubtful – look at the Balkans, look at Turkey and Greece, etc etc. Cessation of violence and learning to live a comparatively normal life will be fine.
By the way, while I disagree with what I THINK to be Dr. Ed's attitudes about the Bush administration and its motives and integrity, I do agree with him that you have taken a condescending and patronizing tone with him; furthermore, I do not think that the criticisms leveled at him are fair. I have taken a look over what he has written lately and I do not find material that warrants the tone you take. Obviously, you can disagree with his point of view; I often disagree with is point of view, but I think he is courteous and tolerant. Have I missed some offensive and harsh thread? I think that his critics are confusing their disagreeing with him as opposed to his manner of presenting his viewpoints. People seem to criticise his manner of presentation more than his point of view, and I have not seen anything but civil persuasive speech which he uses to try to persuade others to his point of view in his presentations. I think people here are making far too much of 'euro-weenies'. It is silly and was meant (by P.J. O'Rourke, we are told, not Dr. Ed) to be humorous. (O'Rourke purports to be a humor/political writer)Do you suppose that the Europeons' use of 'cowboy' is a term of endearment? Good grief! People continue to harp on it as if Dr. Ed and others had leveled some horrendous epithet at someone. Nothing – or almost nothing – is too sacred to laugh at. If you are Jewish, David, you should have an appreciation for that quality as it has been a traditional characteristic of Jewish people through a long history of very unfunny events. Dr. Ed is hawkish; that's an attitude, a point of view. It doesn't necessarily make him all of the negative things that you, and others, have accused him of. I don't agree with him on a number of issues, as he presents his ideas here, but I have not thought his presentations to be offensive or intolerant, just single-minded. In America, we have lots of room and lots of tradition – oh, by golly we even have our founding documents! – to allow for two, even many more, points of view. It is what we are about, or what we are supposed to be about. England (Hyde Park?) used to be about that as well. I assume that Dr. Ed's and John H.'s and Marie's and Phil's and Rick's and so many others' points of view about political matters to be motivated by their own baseline of love for their country. I thank goodness that people still love our country and want to protect it. It's the WHAT we love and HOW to protect it that gets us in a sticky place.
I don't know the answer to the Israel-'Palestinian' problem, but it doesn't lie in what they have been doing. I will say that it strikes me as pretty astonishing to hear that the Bush people have told Israel not to oust Arafat. Are these the same Bush people who have been telling the world how crucial it was to oust Hussein from power?
Re: To DorothyDavid J. on 9/13/03 at 02:53 (129823)
I may have misunderstood you - I rushed that post off late last night and I was tired. I'll try to clear it up. You asked me:
'And how do you reconcile your last statement with the long-standing, entrenched, pervasive, embraced and oft-stated view of the 'Palestinians' and many others in the Middle East that Israel has NO right to any of those, must be destroyed, eliminated, its citizens all eradicated....'
I replied that this (i.e. Israel has no right to ...) was the Palestinian view, not mine. I may have misunderstood your question, and now wonder if by 'your last statement' you meant what I had previously said about Israel's right to establish a state in the 'ancient homeland'. I do believe that Israel has the right to exist - I just no longer believe that it had the God-given right to establish a state in the 'ancient homeland', which after all had been the homeland of other peoples for a very long time. That was a 'hindsight' statement. Rightly or wrongly, Israel is where it is and I hope profoundly that a way can be found for it to continue to exist. Apart from anything else, I have good friends there. But even given all the sympathy the Jews had after the war, it was NEVER going to be accepted that the Jews had the right to territory that had long been lived in by other people, or the right to displace those people, which is what happened. The partition was a mishandled disaster, just like in India. Even then, it might have worked had it not been for the expansion of Israel's borders consequent on the six-day war, and the displacement of more people. I understand that the war and the occupation happened because Israel felt, and was, under threat, but wasn't it a mistake to hang onto the occupied territories? (I'm asking - I think you know more about this than I do. I don't know.)
Anyway, that's how I see the (most recent) background - a partial view, obviously, of an extremely complex problem. I agree with all you say (and said the other day) about the present situation. Certainly I agree about Arafat - but am not sure that getting rid of him would lead even to truce, let alone to a real solution. I can't imagine that ousting him would stop the suicide bombers, can you? It might unleash lots more of them. Perhaps that's why the US govt told them to hold their horses.
I agree with you too about the tone of my post to Dr Davis. I don't think 'euro-weenies' is funny, whoever coined the term, I think it is insulting. I said that calmly and politely a few days ago, expecting him to apologise, but he has continued to use it, and that irritated me. I don't think I am making too much of it, but if I am, well, that's how I feel. 'Euro-traitors' wasn't especially nice either.
Re: what do you make of thisDr. Z on 9/13/03 at 07:11 (129827)
I would have as Sharon calls it pull Mr. Arafat to sleep along time ago. Israel must take the risk of a future as she has in the past. What could be worse. Please tell me.
Re: what do you make of thismarie on 9/13/03 at 08:36 (129829)
Use of a nuclear weapon here or abrad. We need to determine if wmd actually exhisted in Iraq or not. I don't want one showing up in Cleveland or Israel..
Re: To DorothySharon W on 9/13/03 at 09:47 (129833)
I know this wasn't directed at me, but for what it's worth, I would love it if we could ALL agree to avoid incendiary terms like 'Euro-weenies,' EVEN WHEN DIRECTED AT A LARGE GROUP OR CATEGORY RATHER THAN AT AN INDIVIDUAL POSTER. There have been some very negative ones thrown out in the opposite direction as well, in the past.
But I do think it represents an escalation of hostilities, if you will, to direct insults at an individual poster. Kind of like the distinction between directing hostility at 'America' or directing it at 'Americans'... the more you personalize your criticism, the more likely it is that you will provoke and emotional/defensive/angry reaction rather than civil debate.
Just my opinion, of course.
Re: Many joyful questionsSharon W on 9/13/03 at 09:55 (129836)
Dr. Ed's summary seems to me very complete. Dr. Ed, I always appreciate your exceptional ability to explain things in a way that anyone can understand; it's a very special talent.
Re: To Dorothyjohn h on 9/13/03 at 09:58 (129837)
As I and others have commented this war is no longer about land. It is about a clash of cultures and religion. It is about land only in so far that the Muslims (not just the Palestinens) do not recognize Israel's right to exist in this area.
Re: To Dr Davismarie on 9/13/03 at 10:15 (129840)
I don't think Julie will post here again. I know that she occasionally stops in to read what's going on and get medical information. And I know if she feels a strong need to post she has used her name.
Re: Many joyful questionsSharon W on 9/13/03 at 10:24 (129844)
That was a brilliant summation of a very complex topic! I wonder, however, if what I was told is untrue (since you left it out): that the Palestinian West Bank was actually settled, for the most part, by JORDANDIANS after the Arabs seized that territory from the newly-created country of Israel in 1947. So, depending on how you look at it (aye, there's the rub!) the Jordanian Arabs did, then, exactly the same thing that Israel is so universally criticized for trying to do after 'taking back' the West Bank: they put settlers into the area to solidify their claim and to help fight for the land if need be. Many of these settlers continued to carry Jordanian passports until quite recently; they gave their holders certain advantages.
(Correct me if I'm wrong here.) The decendants of those early settlers who moved into the West Bank from JORDAN compose much, probably MOST, of the 'Palestinian' population of the area now.
Just a comment.
Re: JulieSharon W on 9/13/03 at 10:48 (129849)
Yes, I cannot imagine Julie not 'owning' her own words. She is a very honest and forthright person. I wish she WOULD return, but I agree, it's very unlikely.
Re: Many joyful questionsEd Davis, DPM on 9/13/03 at 11:40 (129856)
There are still more 'Palestinians' in what is now Jordan than in the West Bank. Keep in mind that Israel could have, after 1967, annexed the West Bank. They did not. The West Bank is part of Eretz Israel, ie, historical/biblical Israel. Important things like the tomb of Joseph are there -- it was recently desecrated by the Arabs -- what a tragedy. It contains towns such as Jericho and Bethlehem. The more religious sects in Israel would have liked to have seen the area annexed to Israel and the Arabs relocated east of the Jordan River.
Practical politics kept the Israeli government from annexing the West Bank. Many could envision an autonomous region there linked to Jordan with some international supervision of religious sites. That will not be allowed to happen with the current radical leadership of the Palestinian Arabs.
For years, it has been necessary to remove that radical leadership. For years, pressure from the Euro-weenies has prevented that from happening.
Re: To DorothyEd Davis, DPM on 9/13/03 at 11:54 (129857)
It was a cell of terrorists out of Hamburg, Germany that planned 9-11.
After the murder of 3000 Americans 2 years ago and watching in disgust as those who we have helped so much, refuse to help us fight terrorism. I harldy think my little barb about 'Euro-weenies' should carry much counter-weight in your mind. Quite frankly, I am furious at the attitudes of the Germans and French, not only in regards to the war on terror but with regards to their and other country's of EU support of Arafat. Arafat has murdered thousands of Israelis. Jews in Germany have been told that they should not be on the streets wearing garb that makes them easily identifiable as Jews for concern for their safety. Synagogues in France have been firebombed while the French authorities turn the other way and the French press hurls invectives at the Israelis for protecting themselves. And you think it is important to 'present' the Arab point of view -- something the media has repeated to us ad nauseum. What is wrong with you?
Re: To DorothyDorothy on 9/13/03 at 13:01 (129869)
I think possibly the occupied territories mean different things to different people. To some, a potential bargaining chip; to others, rightfully gained territory; to yet others, a tangible direct confrontation, a 'taunt', if you will. To some, probably something as ordinary as wanting a new place of their own...
You wrote 'The partition was a mishandled disaster, just like in India...'
Absolutely true. I have been wondering if the only way to approach anything that even remotely resembles justice - in Israel, in the U.S. with regard to slavery, in India - is to deconstruct the process that led to hostility and hate and then rebuild from that point, rather than trying to build upon the wrongs. To use the 'way-back machine' (I LOVE that cartoon!) for present peace-making. Idealistic and utopian, perhaps - but so be it.
Thank you for your thoughtful and reasoned response.
Re: To DorothyEd Davis, DPM on 9/13/03 at 13:04 (129871)
The Arabs consider ALL of Israel to be 'occupied territory.' Textbooks used in schools on the West Bank, financed by the EU, show students maps of 'Palestine' that includes all of what is now Israel with no mention of the State of Israel. Israel is only referred to as the 'Zionist entity.'
Re: To DorothyDorothy on 9/13/03 at 13:08 (129872)
I know - it is symbolic erasure and says it all, doesn't it.
Re: JulieJulie on 9/13/03 at 14:49 (129874)
That's a lovely thing to say, Sharon, and I appreciate it. Thank you!
Re: JuliePhil on 9/13/03 at 15:16 (129875)
What a coincidence! Welcome back. Are you aquainted with our new poster, David?
Re: JulieEd Davis, DPM on 9/13/03 at 15:25 (129876)
Are you trying to 'out' David? Does seem like quite the coincidence.
Welcome back Julie.
Re: JulieAngie on 9/13/03 at 17:47 (129885)
B-) This is marie I am incognito. I am trying to find out if Dr. Ed is really Phil. Shhhhhh....don't tell.
Re: To DorothyMason M. on 9/13/03 at 17:50 (129887)
Dorothy: I want you to know that, politically, I disagree with some things you post but more often I agree with many things you post. No poster is a saint, certainly myself included, especially when dealing with hot topics.
I believe Ed Davis has contributed much to this board; but I must dissent when you refer to him as nothing but 'courteous and tolerant,' using nothing but 'civil persuasive speech.' Even at my utmost polite, in the past, he saw fit in short order to characterize me and my motives very negatively, and to misinterpret - I think knowingly.
My purpose here is not to demonize anyone, for we all have shortcomings. But you asked for an example of a post of Ed's that is beneath the bounds of courtesy, tolerance, and civil persuasive speech. I hope you don't think examples such as the post of Ed's copied below should be overlooked as belonging in the negative category simply because he is a medical professional. Note the 'pinkos' slur and the grotesque characterization of me as someone who 'spits on the graves of those who gave their lives for your freedom.' That was courteous, tolerant, and civil persuasive speech? Not to mention that it bears no relation to reality. In a recent post you complained that I dip in here and cause you some kind of consternation, but the following is an example of why I do not post often and why I end up leaving quickly - as do many who disagree politically with the majority here.
Posted by Ed Davis, DPM on 9/09/03 at 00:46
Specifically state who you are calling arrogant. In what manner are the policies of our adminsitration based on untruths? Be specific.
Do you beleive that the US is responsible for the death of 500,000 Iraqi children as Wendyns' post purports? Despite several queries I cannot seem to get a straight answer from her on that. How about you? I will answer any question forthrightly and directly. Why does evasiveness seem to be a problem with the pinkos on this board?
Defensiveness? Some call it backbone. Some call it a willingness to stand on principles -- to honor the principles that countless numbers of American soldiers died for. They died to defend the principles that you and your ilk are trying to trash. They died so that all of us have the freedom to speak, even people like yourself who spit on the graves of those who gave thier lives for your freedom.
Re: To DorothyEd Davis, DPM on 9/13/03 at 18:04 (129892)
Yes, beleive it or not even conservatives have feelings and respond when attacked. You have taken my post out of context. It had some strong statements but was in response to your attack.
Re: JuliePhil on 9/13/03 at 18:21 (129894)
I am one of a couple of Dr. Davis' patients who posts on the Social Board, another is a regular poster but have not seen him on this board.
I could be him if he would only quit his membership in the Sierra Club. :D
Re: To Dorothymarie on 9/13/03 at 18:26 (129895)
Ed I didn't think conservatives had feelings or emotions...I thought you had to be a liberal to be all touchy feely. I thought you guys were like Spock...all logical and stuff. Thanks for sharing. ;)
Re: To DorothyPhil on 9/13/03 at 18:39 (129896)
You liberals are so mean sprited! Do you and a few of your cohorts sit around and try to figure out ways to bait Dr. Davis so he will respond to your attacks and then take his responses out of context? I cannot count the number of times he has asked to stick with the issues and leave personalities out of it. I am sure that if you keep up the name calling and personal attacks you are going to get a response and that is what you are waiting for so you can use it against him.
Obviously, you must have very little confidence in what you stand for if every time you cannot defend your ideas you need to resort to calling your opponent 'arrogant' or have the need to launch a personal attack.
Dr. Davis asked some simple straightforward questions to you and Wendyn who posted the article accusing the US with responsibility for the death of 500,000 Iraqi children and I still have not seen a straightforward answer. Why? That is a very serious accusation and not something that one posts just so we can see the 'other side.'
Re: JulieEd Davis, DPM on 9/13/03 at 18:47 (129897)
I did quit the Sierra Club. The environment, as you know, is one of the areas I break ranks with conservatives. On the other hand, I am not satisfied with the approach taken by many of the environmental groups -- they are into regulating the way to things while I look more at how utilization of resources and infrastructure affects the environment. I think Dorothy understands where I am coming from on this.
Re: Juliemarie on 9/13/03 at 18:51 (129898)
Don't you think that's a bit coincidental that you just happen to be a patient of Dr. Ed. :) Hmmm....I think I'm on to something here. Just joshin'.
Re: JulieEd Davis, DPM on 9/13/03 at 18:54 (129900)
I am sort of releived that you don't think I am Peter.;) That would really set Mason off.
Re: JulieEd Davis, DPM on 9/13/03 at 19:07 (129903)
Careful Marie -- I've got a lot of loyal patients reading this web site so I can call out the troops if need be. :) The only problem is, I don't know how many are conservatives like Phil and Max.
I do have to give credit to ScottR though because this is about the best reading on the subject I can give to patients especially on ESWT. I really need to talk with him about a print version that I could use as a handout -- I don't want to plagiarize the site.
Re: Philmarie on 9/13/03 at 19:16 (129906)
No one has baited or made Dr. Davis do anything. The only person who is in control of Dr. Davis is Dr. Davis. I have spoken enough to Dr. Ed to know that he is a fine doctor who happens to have very different opinions than most. He is perfectly capable of making choices.
I met Dr. Michael Thompson Ph.D of psychology. He spoke to a group of teachers just before school started. I will share what he calls 'Dr. Mike's six Critical Questions'. This is copywrited but all he asks is that we give him credit. Here is a link to his sight if you'd like more information.
INSERT YOUR PROBLEM HERE
Who owns the PROBLEM?
Who owns the REPONSIBILITY?
Who made the DECISIONS?
Who has the POWER?
Who has the CONTROL?
Who makes the CHOICES?
DR. MIKE'S EIGHT AREAS OF 'The Power of Productive Choices'
1. Thinking from 'Reaction' to RETHINKING
2. Rethinking from 'Problems' to OPPORTUNITIES
3. Rethinking from 'Out of Control' to CONTROL
4. Rethinking from 'No Choice' to CHOICES
5. Rethinking from 'Controlling' to RELATIONSHIP
6. Rethinking from 'Wants' to NEEDS
7. Rethinking from 'External' INTRNAL
8. Rethinking from 'Outcome' to PROCESS
Phil many of your posts are meant to push buttons. All I ask is that you remember this is not a war zone. We're discussing differing opinions and lets leave it at that.
best wishes marie
Re: PhilEd Davis, DPM on 9/13/03 at 19:25 (129908)
If someone walks up to a person and takes a swing at them, the person is probably going to respond by punching back. That does not make the person on the defense a violent person. Of course we have control over our actions but anyone is going to respond emotionally and reflexively when under attack. I am sure you realize that the best behaved student in your class can and will respond angrily and perhaps violently if adequately instigated. The fault lies with the individual who insists on being the instigator.
Re: JulieDorothy on 9/13/03 at 21:58 (129931)
Made me laugh! Very cute...um, Angie.
Re: To DorothyMason M. on 9/13/03 at 22:27 (129936)
Dorothy asked for an example, and I obliged. It is rather difficult around here to get credit for cooperation. This is one reason that I choose not to spend days doing research to answer other questions for the few who are not interested in another look at things anyway.
Perhaps I should encourage some of my conservative friends to post here. Yes, they do have feelings, bless 'em! We have many a lively discussion about subjects talked about here and much more; attack is not part of those discussions. I wonder why.
Re: To DorothyMason M. on 9/13/03 at 22:44 (129937)
Yes, Phil, I know that liberals are mean-spirited. It is their most prominent flaw. They will have to work on that one. I expect many will improve by the year, say, 2092. When will you? So far your posts have exhibited almost nothing but whines about liberals on this board. I personally do not see most issues in terms of liberal or conservative.
I have the utmost confidence in what I stand for.
Why have you not seen an answer in regard to the 500,000 Iraqi children question? Perhaps you have not been reading closely. See the thread titled 'Iraqi children,' which starts off with a somewhat lengthy post by me and then becomes much better as it moves along. You won't like it, though, Phil, so you might want to save yourself the trouble.
This is a terrific site, but of course there are no saints here. One poster comes close, though: Marie. She has great values, intelligence, and compassion, and she keeps her sense of humor in the face of a good deal of humorless manipulation and trashing of non-conservatives. I shall recover my own sense of humor - give me two minutes - and with that I sign off.
Re: Philmarie on 9/13/03 at 23:30 (129942)
I understand that you may have felt attacked recently. I also think that Mason feels the same way and maybe some others do to. You know not everyone likes everyone or is liked by everyone. I would suggest to you and Mason to try to be polite or simply not talk to each other. I believe Mason is more than willing to discuss with you. I appreciate all the posters here.....and yes that includes Phil. Sometimes I agree with folks and sometimes I don't. Is it worth getting fired up about ....heck no. The subjects that we discuss are to important to all of us. Ya know it doesn't help when folks are labeled...it really just isn't conducive to a positive discussion. For instance...and don't think I am picking on you, but calling liberal pinkos is sort of antagnistic. I'm not a pinko and I didn't like it when you said that. I told you that it bugged me and that was the end of it. No harm done. We move on. I don't have the right to try to control anyone so obviously the choice is all yours. I consider you a valued friend...even if your a way beyond conservative conservative. I also appreciate many of the thoughtful posts by Mason and David. Each one of you makes me think and afterall isn't that why we're here. To think. It's so simple GOOD CHOICE, BAD CHOICE, YOUR CHOICE.
Take care and as always best wishes, marie
Re: To Dorothymarie on 9/13/03 at 23:34 (129943)
Find your sense of humor quick....I'm running out of the good stuff!!;)
best wishes marie
PS: I don't think they read my post. Oh well. I'm glad you did. And I am glad I found that information because it has lead to a great deal more.
Re: EdJulie on 9/14/03 at 02:22 (129951)
Thank you, Ed. I'm not really 'back', but I saw Sharon's kind post and I wanted to thank her. I do read the boards, mainly, as Marie said, for medical/foot issues information. I'm still addicted to it - a professional disease, I suppose - and I always find your medical posts clear and informative. I stopped posting several months ago because the political discussions were taking up time I didn't have and still don't, and I doubt I'll be posting much again. Thanks for the welcome, though.