PricelessHo said:

sassybritches said:

I have to jump in here, just have to. I would chalk her up as a bit more than an entertainer, due to her avante-garde sensibilities. And she's a shameless feminist.

ehuffnsd said:

She's a peace loving hippie with not much grasp on the realities -- at least that's the feeling I get. But then again, so am I.

sassybritches said:

yes



Are you serious? I can't imagine this scenario! I can't even grasp where it would go without US interference or backing.

heartbeatocean said:

i'm serious as a heart attack.

we have the responsibility to mediate and help facilitate a compromise if one is desired. we don't have the right, however, to put our own country and citizens at risk for the benefit of one of these states over the other. our constant (and officious) intermeddling with this sour relationship only aids in the instability of the region.

maybe if iran got nukes...or if palestine was no longer prevented by the US from getting proper defenses...israel would have a reason to negotiate. as it stands they have the complete and total upper hand thanks to us. this will not bring about peace, only further fighting and instability.

the US should step aside if no compromise can be made. if israel were to finally feel threatened (as opposed to the false claims of being threatened they speak of so frequently), they may feel required to negotiate and compromise.

heartbeatocean said:

the US needs to be even handed in its supprot though.

it tends to always allow Israel to do as it pleases, with little to no recourse.

sassybritches said:

Interesting.

heartbeatocean said:

it's important for me to stress that i believe israel has the right to exist and should be protected from destruction. but...of course there's a but...they only deserve that protection if they're trying to be fair.

thus far, they've never attempted fairness with the palestinians. like i said, they've never had to.

ehuffnsd said:

I agree completely. The U.S. is not a neutral broker of peace, no matter how much we pretend we are. I wish the U.S. would take full responsibility and not support Israel the way it does. I believe the U.S. could solve this crisis if it really, really wanted to and had some intense wisdom about it, because Israel would be lost without our backing.

But to say we should just walk away from the situation, seems uncompassionate. Maybe the area would stabilize itself without our interference. Maybe it would improve dramatically without our acting as parents -- there would have to be some "growing up" to do. (Sorry if this is a condescending metaphor) Maybe I'm just being co-dependent by feeling like the US needs to be involved. Maybe that's the problem.

heartbeatocean said:

how did pakistan and india learn to get along? why was it that the soviets and the US never come to blows?

sassybritches said:

Okay, it's getting clearer at what you're getting at. If only there could be an agent as powerful as the US who does not operate out of selfish needs. But everyone is operating out of self-interest and self-protection, that's how the world works.

That's why I think this conflict is the ultimate spiritual test for the entire planet. For anything to get resolved, people have to operate from their highest spiritual selves, beyond selfishness, fear, calculation. It can only come about by selflessness, compassion, understanding, compromise. Many, many are working on this level, but to get entire nations to work on this level -- How will that ever happen? See, no matter how many thousands of people work for peace, one suicide bomber defines the outcome. All must be enlightened or none.

sassybritches said:

balance of power? deterrency?

heartbeatocean said:

yes, exactly. and how did that come about? what is the one common factor? nuclear weapons, of course. the soviets never wanted to die and either did the US. either side would have to have had a death wish to use their big guns, for it would only be met with equal retaliation.

the same with india and pakistan. they warred for years. once pakistan got some nukes, suddenly peaceful negotiations were on the table. again, nobody wants to be blown to bits if it can be prevented.

why is the US so concerned about iran getting nukes? i know why israel is, but why the US? maybe that playing field needs to be more level. maybe iran SHOULD have nukes. we might see some talk then.

in the meantime, the ADL doesn't even want iran's president (i'm not trying to spell it, lol) to speak at columbia university. i bet they'd support madonna speaking at the university though. that kind of dialogue is alright...but not the kind that can open ears and eyes.

sassybritches said:

My ex-husband from Egypt used to ponder aloud why couldn't the Arabs have nuclear weapons? Everyone else does.

heartbeatocean said:

because stability in the middle east is not good economics for the US.

This is a great thread! I'm just surprised it hasn't been moved to PnR!

Bono is a prick but as a humanitarian he wipes the floor clean with madonna hes actually has had policies (drug wise) change in several countries
but i respect Madonnas efforts

CandaceS said:

Israel is a terrorist government, she does know that?

2freaky4church1 said:

I doubt it.

2freaky4church1 said:

they are a terrorist goverment in the eyes of the palestinians..
But in the eyes of the U.S. and britian they are allies...
And with madges kaballah background, i doubt she'll be taking the side of the palestinians...

So mmm, is this a good example of humanitarianism?

EmbattledWarrior said:

In her Reinvention tour, she had a sequence about peace (I think she was singing "Imagine" by John Lennon) and she had giant projections of the Israeli and Palestinian flags side by side, among other things. It was pretty cheesy.

heartbeatocean said:

Lennon must've been rolling over in his urn...

heartbeatocean said:

I do not understand. Then WHY is she visiting the Israeli president? I wish she would stick to entertaining. Wait... her attempts to save the world is entertaining.

Rodya24 said:

Now now be nice...
i am and i dont like her that much...
I just don't know if it's sincere or to get fame...
Like Bono
in all cases he is a self righteous asshole, at least band wise...
musically he probably thinks he is the messiah of rock & roll (which he probably is if you look at rock now)
but Bono and U2 for that matter have always had this type of stuff under their belt...
bono has been talking about aids in africa since the early 80's
and the slaughter in ireland etc...
How the us oppress latin america...
MAdonna has never done stuff like this...
and i wouldnt want her to if it wasn't sincee and not because shes a falling star

EmbattledWarrior said:

I agree with all that. To be honest I think her attempts are sincere. Sad to see because she is deluding herself into thinking that she is a catalyst to peace. I wish she would realize that her music and performance bring people together -- and that that is the most she can do as an entertainer.

EmbattledWarrior said:

Well, I think it was well-intended. I liked her anti-Bush commentary sequence during the Confessions tour much more. It was just a bunch of sass.

Rodya24 said:

That's a good question. Maybe she thinks she can talk him into giving the Palestinians a break? GO MADONNA!!!

EmbattledWarrior said:

To be fair, she did a lot to support AIDS victims in the 80s too. She has always had a sense of compassion, but she's not an intellect or an academic. That's where her efforts fall short, I think.

heartbeatocean said:

that's just it! she could do her thing without faking the intellect. that's not to say she's not smart, her business ventures quickly stomp that idea. but she's not an academic and she's not an intellect (i've read her lyrics, for god's sake). she do what she knows OR take the time to learn about this stuff first, then speak.