I am not dismissing every politician's words, however many of the quotes made by politicians were for just that-political purposes to garner votes in the next election.
Key word. Many.
Also, did the Arabs really have the need to sway voters since they weren't democracies?
Again, do not dismiss the quotes, since many of them can stand alone as substantial evidence.
And while we're at it, I only see people picking fault with quotes, but not actual arguments.
And why would a dictatorship actually care about that? They were able to utilise hatred for Israel and religious fanaticism to whip up support, as well as a call for solidarity.
Nay, dismissing all of what politicians say is shooting yourself in the foot in an argument.
And why would a dictatorship actually care about that? They were able to utilise hatred for Israel and religious fanaticism to whip up support, as well as a call for solidarity.
Umm... exactly? Dictators need some semi-support from their people so that the country does not erupt into a full blown civil war.
I'm sorry, I don't fully understand what is being said here.
Yes dictators can get support easily by using (some) religion(s) (namely Islam).
Dictators don't need to use speeches/make statements?
Dictators need some semi-support from their people so that the country does not erupt into a full blown civil war.
I'm sorry, I don't fully understand what is being said here.
Yes dictators can get support easily by using (some) religion(s) (namely Islam).
Dictators don't need to use speeches/make statements?
What I was trying to say was twofold. One, dictators do not need to placate the public like democracies, where information flows freely and civil protests are more or less legal. They solidify their power through armed force, and these are the groups they need to lavish attention and money on, which the Arab leaders did.
Two, the Arab rulers utilised an effective social glue to bind the people together, which was religion.
Two, the Arab rulers utilised an effective social glue to bind the people together, which was religion.
but if that was the case, they had no right to do so because the quran says that the land that was once and now israel belongs to the Jews. this shows that they were just trying to be greedy.
religious fanaticism cannot work, unless these fanatics were heretics.
but if that was the case, they had no right to do so because the quran says that the land that was once and now israel belongs to the Jews. this shows that they were just trying to be greedy.
religious fanaticism cannot work, unless these fanatics were heretics.
You misconstrued the point. There are many ways to appeal to religion, and referring to the Holy Texts is but one of them.
For example, many of the Arab leaders appealed to the populace to support their Palestinian brothers, emphasizing the fact that they shared the same religion.
Or another way, such as Pan Arabism, the ideology espousing the unification--or, sometimes, close cooperation and solidarity against perceived enemies of the Arabs--of the countries of the Arab world, from the Atlantic Ocean to the Arabian Sea; the idea of being an Arab itself has religion as a central tenet.
I absolutely support Israel. Amongst many reasons, they're the only Middle Eastern country that hasn't tried to backstab the U.S. at one time or another.
I don't really see how that is ''sad'' unless of course you mean it closes another outlet on attacking the argument....
I don't know.
I absolutely support Israel. Amongst many reasons, they're the only Middle Eastern country that hasn't tried to backstab the U.S. at one time or another.
Eh? Who said that? Either way, I don't see why it's a valid point in supporting Israel just because their a sidekick of the world's policeman, so I'm with you on this one Sniper.
I'm all for peaceful means of resolving the issue, but when Hamas/PLO starts blowing up little kids and Israel escalates to protect its citizens then it hurts both sides. Eventually, it just turns to hate and both sides forget what they're fighting for besides to kill the other side.
I know they're very different, I was just speaking in general(they both have blown up people just at different times). The PLO is mostly legit now. I was just saying that eventually it turns into a conflict of religious hatred instead of a conflict between countries, which it is. One can be resolved; The other not so much.
I don't actually think that the Palestinians will forget what they are fighting for, which is stated clearly in the PLO Charter.
Don't you think that's a little naive to say? People lose sight of things very easily and even easier when there's a lot of them. I'm not saying its gonna happen but isn't the whole Hamas kill em all mentality gaining ground?
Don't you think that's a little naive to say? People lose sight of things very easily and even easier when there's a lot of them. I'm not saying its gonna happen but isn't the whole Hamas kill em all mentality gaining ground?
Support for Hamas has fallen if the latest surveys for the elections are to be believed. But support for a two state solution has surged on both sides; clearly both sides haven't lost sight of what they are fighting for. So no, I don't think it's naive.
I'm all for peaceful means of resolving the issue, but when Hamas/PLO starts blowing up little kids and Israel escalates to protect its citizens then it hurts both sides. Eventually, it just turns to hate and both sides forget what they're fighting for besides to kill the other side.
Which is why there needs to be peace. If Israel were negotiating with people like Nicho, there would be peace, and both sided would go home unhappy (a good compromise). Unfortunately, the people who are negotiating are the Punishers of the two sides, so nothing gets done.
