Discussion in 'The Sanctum Santorum' started by Dan Lawrence, Jan 5, 2012.
Well, I guess that's better.
Yeah if that's how Israel deals with the nonviolent types, then I have no idea how you stop them. I guess the best we can do is hope the US stops supporting such a repugnant regime.
Well Mandela was also imprisoned, so I guess the solution is to write some cheesy pop songs, because if five minute histories of apartheid have taught me anything, its that those were definitely the primary reason for his release.
"Free Bassem al-Tamimi" anyone?
I think it would be easier to get support for a "Free Charles Taylor" campaign than a "Free *any Arabic name here*" campaign, unfortunately.
Lum, are you saying that you think the rockets and other terrorist violence by the Palestinian side are a just response to Israeli oppression?
Highlight Israeli violations by all means, but trying to use those violations to dismiss the threat from rockets and other attacks from the Palestinian side isn't helpful if you want peace for the region.
I suspect he is more of the mind that the rocket attacks, while definitely a bad thing are somewhat inevitable when you have a semi-lawless & poverty stricken occupied people and that, in terms of long term damage to the viability of a peace process, they pale in comparison to Israeli settlements which have a much more dramatic impact on the 'facts on the ground'.
I guess it's worth pointing out again that due to the overwhelming military superiority enjoyed by the Israeli's they always kill far more Palestinians in their rocket retaliation strikes than the rockets ever manage to kill in the first place.
I stand corrected.
I just don't even
No, I'm mocking brettmcd's trolling derailing an otherwise unrelated discussion of Israeli politics.
I don't know. I would have said the same thing about the Apartheid South Africa, East Germany, and the Soviet Union. That they could end so swiftly just didn't seem credible to me. Sure, Israel seems more entrenched, but sometimes things change in spite of that.
Not that I'm putting money on it or anything. ;-)
Gee Lum, I didn't think that you were part of the 'disagree with me you must then be a troll' group here. Sadly I stand corrected on that assumption.
You didn't disagree with me, you literally ignored everything I said and repeated your same cant about "you guys think Israel is horrible and bad and ignore all those awful Muslim rockets falling from the sky" in a literally unrelated conversation. The only two conclusions that can be drawn are either that you intentionally did so to troll or that you cannot read. Since I am a charitable sort, I assumed the former.
Kalle did answer your question, one can only assume that you're a part of that group yourself.
France and Britain consider pulling ambassadors (or at least drop word that they are considering) as a result of latest batch of settlement proposals.
Seems like this latest 'proposal' (since at the moment it's really just some sabre rattling about an old proposed settlement) would effectively divide the West Bank in half and cut off all the main roads that lead from the West Bank into Jerusalem. It's a pretty big fuck you to any two state solution.
I didn't mean proposal like "proposal for peace" but rather "proposed settlements announced in wake of Palestinian UN moves". But it was lousy phrasing. My bad.
Well, that settles it. I'm never going back. I try to rationalise these type of decisions thinking that there is no partner for negotiations hence the stalemate etc, This is just guaranteeing that a two state solution will never be viable. Its derived directly from the 'River Jordan has two banks, this one's ours and the other one as well' (sounds better in Hebrew) doctrine which Netanyahu learned from his extra radical dad. He never admits to subscribing to these views, but I guess deeds speak louder then words.
I don’t see American support eroding in the near future (as in, at least the next few presidential cycles). With the polarization of US politics and the dominance of a few swing states like Florida, the money and influence of pro-Israeli lobbyists will ensure that both Republicans and Democrats fall over themselves in their assurances of 100% support for whatever Israel does, just as Obama and Romney both did this time around.
Here in Canada, Stephen Harper seems to be angling for an honorary Likud party membership. When the Liberals were running things we were a lot more even-handed when it came to the Middle East. It’s curious, since Arab immigration to Canada has been growing steadily since the 1990s and they now form a pretty large chunk of the population in cities like Toronto and Montreal. It doesn’t make a lot of sense to alienate them.
Yeah, E1 is the red-line settlement - it prevents anything other than a swiss cheese West Bank "state" and not incidentally cuts off the city with the largest Palestinian population in the West Bank (East Jerusalem) from the rest. It's a declaration that the peace process is dead (not that anyone other than maybe the US had any delusion otherwise). Considering that there is almost zero support for negotiation with the PA all down the Israeli political spectrum, it's not much of a surprise.
Sorry, one of the largest (checked demographics:
East Jerusalem: 208k Arab, 195k Jewish settlers
Israel over the past few decades has constructed a ring of settlements (Israel calls them suburbs, which neatly avoids the whole built-on-other-peoples-land thing) around Jerusalem as part of ensuring that it is never ceded to a Palestinian state. E1 would be the last spoke in the wheel.
My impression, as a foreigner with only rudimentary insight in Canadian politics, was that it was a result of Harper wanting to move Canada closer to the US and standing beside the US on decisions like this should be able to broker him a bit more influence in Washington.
Alienating people and Canadians in particular has never been a concern of Harper's.
It's also good to remember that Harper comes from an evangelical background - he's a member of the Christian And Missionary Alliance, and evangelical Protestant church.
Those aren't settlers! Those are commuters!
Ironically, they are both.
How legal is it for Israel to have settlements in the West Bank? Isn't it like have suburbs built on native American reservation land?
I sometimes feel that Israel does not always have the highest respect for international law and gets what it wants through direct and indirect force.
It's not legal according to the Geneva Convention.
It's legal because the Israelis write the law, and don't give a damn about what foreigners think of their passive aggressive belligerence.
Or more specifically because the body that is nominally in charge of enforcing said rules has friend with veto power when it comes to Israel. To be fair, quite a few shitty behaving countries have said veto friends.
I wouldn't lay it all at the US's feet -- though I certainly think the US is a prime culprit, primarily due to it's long history of vetoing resolutions against Israeli abuse in the UN.
France and Britain have at least as much to do with it, being largely responsible for the fucked up boundaries throughout the Middle East, as well as giving Israel the nuclear weapon technology that has let them act with such reckless impunity.
I think it's more to do that until recently, Israel was at least trying to work towards a peaceful solution. The first disengagement, successful peace negotiations with Egypt and Jordan, Israel hasn't always been a festering blister full of hate.
It's certainly worse now, but I'm still not convinced that Israel has ever been working towards anything but a long term de facto Settler Annexation strategy. I'm dubious that they have ever negotiated in good faith with Palestine.
What is an argument people use to defend/excuse/justify the settlements and Israel's treatment of the Palestinians at large (not Hamas)? I don't think I've actually ever heard one, just that it's being done and the Israeli's won't stop because bla bla political climate/history/other stuff I don't know.
"They deserve it because they aren't throwing Hamas out of office therefore they're all morally culpable terrorist scum" is one that I've heard from dozens of Israelis.
I dunno. I think Sharon was serious about it. I joke that his stroke is evidence that God wants Israel to continue committing suicide.
And Americans, including in this thread right here! (BUT ROCKETS)
Meh I blame the Ottomans for failing to hold the middle east
Perhaps, but he was also willing to engage in provocative political grandstanding on the temple mount at a time when Palestinian dissatisfaction with the results of the Oslo accord where mounting. Though I don't think what followed can be laid entirely at his feet he was at least willing to throw fuel on the fire to gather political points.
A historical look at the origins of Israel Palestinian conflict.
The Dome of the Rock is pretty
I blame the Mamluks, for losing it to the Ottomans.
Separate names with a comma.