http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jan/23/palestine-papers-expose-peace-concession

Not from Julian Assange & team, though they did release some cables of their own to support this.

Anyway, the big thrust of the leaks is that the Palestinian authorities basically offered Israel everything they'd been asking for, up to an including ceding the illegal settlements to Israel. Israel categorically rejected the offer though, because as is becoming very bloody obvious to everyone who's paying attention, Israel really has no desire for peace.

It's becoming just as obvious that this situation will not change until real and meaningful pressure is put on Israel to play its part in resolving the issue.

Damn wiki-leaks.

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:Damn wiki-leaks.

This isn't from wikileaks. It's US embassy leaks that ended up with al-Jazeera.

Israel has to do its part, or it can expect more of its people to die.

Secret documents from Palestine say mean things about Israel?

I wonder what the Israeli documents say about those same issues.

Monster Rain wrote:Secret documents from Palestine say mean things about Israel?

I wonder what the Israeli documents say about those same issues.

So you didn't read the link then? Because it has nothing to do with Palestine saying mean things about Israel, and everything to do with the scope of Palestinian concessions to Israel - concessions Palestine would not want public as it would reveal how weak their position is to Palestine.

Monster Rain wrote:Secret documents from Palestine say mean things about Israel?

I wonder what the Israeli documents say about those same issues.

The leaks from the US consulate appear to agree with the Palestinian sources.

My tin foil hat theory is that Israel leaked this stuff so that it will make the current Palestinian leadership appear weak and cause a divide amongst the Palestinians once again. Violence will obviously break out between the factions and once an Isreali is killed they will have some "moral high ground" to respond in kind. The cycle continues.

My personal opinion is, there will never be peace until one side is destroyed completely.

NELS1031 wrote:My personal opinion is, there will never be peace until one side is destroyed completely.

Given the population of both states are growing quite quickly, and that the violence between the two is on the level of minor skirmishes, there is no possibility of one side or the other being destroyed. Instead we have to look at the end-states that might actually happen. Given the long history of nay-sayers declaring that peace is inevitable, and saying it increasingly loudly until peace is actually reached, we have to realise that peace is never impossible, and that it can be reached provided both sides have a reason to seek it.

Right now the problem is that only one side wants peace. This is not because one side is inherently more peaceful or morally superior to the other, it's because one side is in the grips of an Israeli/Egyptian blockade that keeps it's citizens in utter poverty. The other side has no desire for peace, because it operates as it pleases - why would it agree to Palestinian offers of land, when it could just finish the current settlements, then expand again?

This will only change when diplomatic support for Israel drops away, and they are threatened with international sanction unless they attempt peace talks in earnest.

This wouldn't of happened if Wiki-leaks didn't start this.

And removal of support of Israel by the US would be a serious invitation by Islamic nations to consider a more hostile and possibly war-like option against them.

WarOne wrote:And removal of support of Israel by the US would be a serious invitation by Islamic nations to consider a more hostile and possibly war-like option against them.

This is nonsense. For a start, there is no nation in the region with the political, economic, and military capability to threaten Israel. Most notably, Egypt has become a US client state, the recipient of the second greatest amount of US military aid after Israel, and would have nothing to do with future antagonism against Israel.

Second of all, you can maintain close relations with a country and maintain a pact to defend it in the wake of any hostile action, while refusing to condone it's effective imprisonment of a whole population. In fact, you can use one as leverage to gain the other.

Hopefully, as more of the world begins to understand that the idea of Israel as a poor little nation besieged on all sides is nonsense, the above will become politically viable.

Only an idiot would invade Israel. They have nukes. They have stated that they will use them.

Amaya wrote:Only an idiot would invade Israel. They have nukes. They have stated that they will use them.

Indeed

sebster wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:Secret documents from Palestine say mean things about Israel?

I wonder what the Israeli documents say about those same issues.

So you didn't read the link then? Because it has nothing to do with Palestine saying mean things about Israel, and everything to do with the scope of Palestinian concessions to Israel - concessions Palestine would not want public as it would reveal how weak their position is to Palestine.

I read it.

This is not going to change anyone's mind.

In large part because, despite all the trappings about rational security or humanitarian interest, the issue is, for most people, and emotional one.

Monster Rain wrote:I read it.

This is not going to change anyone's mind.

You read it, but going by your first post it's clear you didn't bother to comprehend it. Note when I mentioned in my OP that the reality of the situation is very obvious to everyone who's paying attention... you're one of the ones who isn't paying attention. So no, it isn't going to change your mind, you've got your side and that's enough for you.

Fortunately there's always folk out there who are paying attention, who are thinking about the issue, and as the reality of the situation in Palestine becomes more clear, those people are no longer supporting Israel. The trend is inevitable, and eventually it will be great enough that Israel will have to stop the blockade and the construction of illegal settlements.

I'm paying attention.

Forgive me if I'm skeptical of Al Jazeera airing that they finally proved that Israel is as evil as we always thought they were.

Last night Erekat said the minutes of the meetings were "a bunch of lies and half truths". Qureia told AP that "many parts of the documents were fabricated, as part of the incitement against the … Palestinian leadership".

I also comprehended this part of your story, even though its much more fun to jump to conclusions.

dogma wrote:In large part because, despite all the trappings about rational security or humanitarian interest, the issue is, for most people, and emotional one.

Which is weird, because most folk have no emotional ties. I think the appeal of the narrative, Jews gaining their homeland after the Holocaust, defending it brilliantly against a league of Arabic countries... is a really powerful narrative. So much so that when that story ended in the 1970s, they never bother to keep reading. I can kind of understand why, the narrative became a lot grittier, suddently the Jews weren't so perfectly good anymore, and were allied with half their old enemies, and now the sympathetic guy are the civilians in Palestine, who are coupled with a brutal occupier and a corrupt government of their own... but who wants to read about a victim.

So they just stopped reading in the 70s, and pretend the story never changed.

sebster wrote:
Which is weird, because most folk have no emotional ties. I think the appeal of the narrative, Jews gaining their homeland after the Holocaust, defending it brilliantly against a league of Arabic countries... is a really powerful narrative. So much so that when that story ended in the 1970s, they never bother to keep reading. I can kind of understand why, the narrative became a lot grittier, suddently the Jews weren't so perfectly good anymore, and were allied with half their old enemies, and now the sympathetic guy are the civilians in Palestine, who are coupled with a brutal occupier and a corrupt government of their own... but who wants to read about a victim.

So they just stopped reading in the 70s, and pretend the story never changed.

It gets even stranger. I'm 24, and I know people my age (so, not even conceived in the 70's) whose parents are first-generation Asian immigrants (so, not really connected to that era of American politics, having landed at the end of the CW) that have a strong, visceral reactions to any speech that is critical of Israel. I acknowledge that the narrative is powerful, but I think a larger part (at least in America) may be the extent to which stances on Israel-Palestine are tightly bound to political parties, and therefore the rest of the vitriol that permeates this nation's politics.

Monster Rain wrote:I'm paying attention.

Forgive me if I'm skeptical of Al Jazeera airing that they finally proved that Israel is as evil as we always thought they were.

There's little doubt about the authenticity of the leaks. If you read the article you'd know they contain verbatim transcripts of meetings, which have been verified by sources in diplomatic and intelligence services, and have been matched against leaks from US embassies on the matter.

The only reason to doubt them is to invent a reason to look past them, something a person might want to do if they were trying to avoid asking some hard truths about their political view of the situation.

Last night Erekat said the minutes of the meetings were "a bunch of lies and half truths". Qureia told AP that "many parts of the documents were fabricated, as part of the incitement against the … Palestinian leadership".

I also comprehended this part of your story, even though its much more fun to jump to conclusions.

Of course the Palestinian leadership denies it. They now look like they offered up everything and still couldn't get peace. Their positions are now untenable... what else would they do but deny them?

sebster wrote:
Of course the Palestinian leadership denies it. They now look like they offered up everything and still couldn't get peace. Their positions are now untenable... what else would they do but deny them?

Someone else mentioned it earlier in the thread, but it bears mentioning again (if only because it lends credence to your point) that this is exactly the sort of thing Israel might release in order to undermine Fatah, and thereby justify a much more aggressive policy towards the West Bank if a mor extreme group were to take over.

I mean, its win-win. Even if Israel is found to be responsible for the leaks, it still makes Fatah look impotent.

dogma wrote:It gets even stranger. I'm 24, and I know people my age (so, not even conceived in the 70's) whose parents are first-generation Asian immigrants (so, not really connected to that era of American politics, having landed at the end of the CW) that have a strong, visceral reactions to any speech that is critical of Israel. I acknowledge that the narrative is powerful, but I think a larger part (at least in America) may be the extent to which stances on Israel-Palestine are tightly bound to political parties, and therefore the rest of the vitriol that permeates this nation's politics.

It's very weird, that emotional attachment to the issue.

I'm not sure it's tied to politics, I mean the only political party in the world that's more aggressive in it's defence of Israeli foreign policy than the US Democrats is the US Republicans, and I'm including Israeli parties in that


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:Someone else mentioned it earlier in the thread, but it bears mentioning again (if only because it lends credence to your point) that this is exactly the sort of thing Israel might release in order to undermine Fatah, and thereby justify a much more aggressive policy towards the West Bank if a mor extreme group were to take over.

I mean, its win-win. Even if Israel is found to be responsible for the leaks, it still makes Fatah look impotent.

I can certainly see Palestine becoming more militant. Which would only make Israel's position easier. Here's hoping it doesn't happen.

The US and Judaism has a much longer shared history than the US and Islam. While not always really positive, Judaism has a much more positive place in the American psyche. Islam is typically (even pre-9/11) associated with Terrorism and backwardness. Add in the political dimension and it just ramps up the us versus them attitude. It is emotional becuase most people don't have an inordinate amount of time to research every foreign affair situation they go on cultural shorthand. Hell, how often have we heard the 'modern democracy' associated with Israel? They are modern, the surrounding areas are barely post-barbarism, amiright? Of course not, but the attitude is their. I could go into more points but I am incredibly lazy.

Still, I find it odd that people I know side with Israel, despite having no relationship with Jews, but an extended relationship with Muslims.

dogma wrote:Still, I find it odd that people I know side with Israel, despite having no relationship with Jews, but an extended relationship with Muslims.

I wasn't attempting to be definitive, just add to what you had already posited. I would guess it goes back to the superstructure of the underlying language we use when discussing the problem in the public sphere. Generally. I also think it is our nature to want clear cut good guys and bad guys in situations. If your led to believe for a long period of time someone is a good guy you tend to not want to believe you were wrong the whole time. We want simple answers from an incredibly complicated situation, so they make it simple.

Ahtman wrote:The US and Judaism has a much longer shared history than the US and Islam. While not always really positive, Judaism has a much more positive place in the American psyche. Islam is typically (even pre-9/11) associated with Terrorism and backwardness.

Yeah, I get this and understand much of it about picking the Jews over the Muslims. But if you've got a friend and he's in an ongoing dispute with his neighbour that you don't like, you're going to reflexively back your friend. But at some point over the next 30 years of the dispute, you'd think you'd try and find out what's going on, and when you find out your mate keeps taking the other guy's land, and that the other guy offered to surrender all the stolen land to just make the problem go away...

It is emotional becuase most people don't have an inordinate amount of time to research every foreign affair situation they go on cultural shorthand.

This is the real mystery... "I'm no expert but I've got a strong opinion" indeed. I mean, if you don't have the time to actually learn the why's and wherefores of the problem... just don't form an opinion. Leave it to others. Or spend the time reading.

1. Israel: democracy. Rest of Middle East isn't.

2. Israel: Terrorism against US: 0
Other Guys: lots

sebster wrote:

WarOne wrote:And removal of support of Israel by the US would be a serious invitation by Islamic nations to consider a more hostile and possibly war-like option against them.

This is nonsense. For a start, there is no nation in the region with the political, economic, and military capability to threaten Israel. Most notably, Egypt has become a US client state, the recipient of the second greatest amount of US military aid after Israel, and would have nothing to do with future antagonism against Israel.

Second of all, you can maintain close relations with a country and maintain a pact to defend it in the wake of any hostile action, while refusing to condone it's effective imprisonment of a whole population. In fact, you can use one as leverage to gain the other.

Hopefully, as more of the world begins to understand that the idea of Israel as a poor little nation besieged on all sides is nonsense, the above will become politically viable.

And don't forget that Wiki-leaks has put them in this position!

This is nonsense. For a start, there is no nation in the region with the political, economic, and military capability to threaten Israel.

*Except for Iran and Turkey. Of course when attacked its typically 2-3 countries at a time against Israel so add in Syria. Additionally, it means nothing when Hammas and Hezbullah continue to fire rockets into Israel, daily. But we shouldn't be concerned about that I guess.

Frazzled wrote:
This is nonsense. For a start, there is no nation in the region with the political, economic, and military capability to threaten Israel.
*Except for Iran and Turkey. Of course when attacked its typically 2-3 countries at a time against Israel so add in Syria. Additionally, it means nothing when Hammas and Hezbullah continue to fire rockets into Israel, daily. But we shouldn't be concerned about that I guess.

Which part is nonsense?

Alright, let me actually put on my serious mode rather than be an idiot goading others into addressing my baseless comments.

Extremist reactionaries and relatively peaceful activists are both not going to harm Israel on a militaristic level. There can be outcries of overreaction for what Israel does, and extremists who do not wish to compromise on issues that favor Israel will turn to other means, such as rhetoric, rockets, or whatever gets thrown.

It shouldn't harm Israel so long as Israel does not provoke a neighbor or lose genuine support that is normally enjoys.

I'm sure people would be more sympathetic to the position of the people of Palestine if they didn't elect terrorists to political office.

WarOne wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
This is nonsense. For a start, there is no nation in the region with the political, economic, and military capability to threaten Israel.
*Except for Iran and Turkey. Of course when attacked its typically 2-3 countries at a time against Israel so add in Syria. Additionally, it means nothing when Hammas and Hezbullah continue to fire rockets into Israel, daily. But we shouldn't be concerned about that I guess.

Which part is nonsense?

Alright, let me actually put on my serious mode rather than be an idiot goading others into addressing my baseless comments.

Extremist reactionaries and relatively peaceful activists are both not going to harm Israel on a militaristic level. There can be outcries of overreaction for what Israel does, and extremists who do not wish to compromise on issues that favor Israel will turn to other means, such as rhetoric, rockets, or whatever gets thrown.

It shouldn't harm Israel so long as Israel does not provoke a neighbor or lose genuine support that is normally enjoys.

Sorry my bad, copying a quote over from another post. That was a response to "this is nonsense." Let me tweak.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Monster Rain wrote:I'm sure people would be more sympathetic to the position of the people of Palestine if they didn't elect terrorists to political office.

True that.

Frazzled wrote:1. Israel: democracy. Rest of Middle East isn't.

Sigh. Lebanon is also a democracy. I've explained to you in three or four Israel threads that Israel isn't the only democracy in the region.

Forget that I've been telling you this for all this time, half an hour of research will tell you that Israel isn't the only democracy in the region. At what point in your life did you just stop caring if your political views had any relation to the real world? Was it Reagan?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:*Except for Iran and Turkey. Of course when attacked its typically 2-3 countries at a time against Israel so add in Syria. Additionally, it means nothing when Hammas and Hezbullah continue to fire rockets into Israel, daily. But we shouldn't be concerned about that I guess.

The idea that Turkey is going to abandon it's geo-political goals to begin an attack on Israel is ridiculous. The idea that Iran has the force projection to move over US allied nations and into Israel is, let alone the force to do anything of substance to the Israelis is, well, less ridiculous.

And you know this. Yet you believe it anyway. It's incredible.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Monster Rain wrote:I'm sure people would be more sympathetic to the position of the people of Palestine if they didn't elect terrorists to political office.

It doesn't seem to matter. They vote in conciliatory parties, and Israel takes their land, they vote in hardliners, and Israel takes their land. All the while the usual suspects post nonsense about Israel being invaded.

Alrighty. I think we need to take a step back before this conversation devolves.

So let us talk civilly about the probability and possibility of who and when Israel may get invaded rather than dismiss it off hand as being an impossible event.

Sigh. Lebanon is also a democracy. I've explained to you in three or four Israel threads that Israel isn't the only democracy in the region.
***The bottom third of Lebanon is ruled by Hezzbullah, which just blew out the government. Its no democracy.

Forget that I've been telling you this for all this time, half an hour of research will tell you that Israel isn't the only democracy in the region. At what point in your life did you just stop caring if your political views had any relation to the real world? Was it Reagan?
***Wow, that’s trolling. As a mod I’d have to react to that if you had posted this to another poster.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:*Except for Iran and Turkey. Of course when attacked its typically 2-3 countries at a time against Israel so add in Syria. Additionally, it means nothing when Hammas and Hezbullah continue to fire rockets into Israel, daily. But we shouldn't be concerned about that I guess.


The idea that Turkey is going to abandon it's geo-political goals to begin an attack on Israel is ridiculous.
***I didn’t say that, merely responded to you question. Turkey has the power to attack Israel.

The idea that Iran has the force projection to move over US allied nations and into Israel is, let alone the force to do anything of substance to the Israelis is, well, less ridiculous.
***Except for missiles armed with nukes of course. But no one has fired missiles at Israel over a neutral country before, what must I be smoking? Israel’s never shot patriot missiles to stop incoming missiles before, no sir not at all.

sebster wrote:It doesn't seem to matter. They vote in conciliatory parties, and Israel takes their land, they vote in hardliners, and Israel takes their land. All the while the usual suspects post nonsense about Israel being invaded.

You can't divorce the discussion from the PLO and Hamas's bad behavior in the past. They made Israel into the sympathetic figure in this conflict due to their savagery.

If one hasn't "stopped reading about this in the 70s" this should come as no surprise.

This conversation is so different in Ireland that it's bloody firghtening in a way. There, people support Palestine while condemning terrorist actions by Palestine. The all or nothing sentiment...it's just...

I dunno. This thread depresses me greatly. I don't know if I want to keep reading.

Frazzled wrote:1. Israel: democracy. Rest of Middle East isn't.

Democratic states in the Middle East:

Israel
Turkey
Iran
Iraq
Kuwait
Bahrain
Yemen
Lebanon

There are a lot of democracies in the Middle East. Democracy does not mean "Liberal Democracy".

Frazzled wrote:
2. Israel: Terrorism against US: 0
Other Guys: lots

That is an absolutely atrocious means of understanding the political division in the Middle East. You may as well say "Here Be Dragons."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:The bottom third of Lebanon is ruled by Hezzbullah, which just blew out the government. Its no democracy.

We don't actually know who killed Hariri, and instigated the crisis there; there are at least 6 different groups, of 6 different religious affiliations, that might be responsible.

In any case, yeah, its been democratic for a long time. Hezbollah was voted into power, just like everyone else. Again, democracy doesn't mean "Liberal Democracy".

Democratic states in the Middle East:

Israel
***Agreed
Turkey
***Agreed, except of course the semi annual coup the military has to keep radicals out.
Iran
***Wait, you’re talking about the country that had its political repression televised and youtubized for the world to see? Did you think East Germany was a democracy too?
Iraq
***Getting there. We’ll see what happens six months after we leave.
Kuwait
***Constitutional monarchy. Only 10% of populace is eligible to vote.
http://www.traveljournals.net/explore/kuwait/government.html

Bahrain
***I’ll give you that (consititutional monarchy) But with a population less than 1.5MM who gives a rat’s ass?

Yemen
***Seriously?

Lebanon
***1/3 controlled by Hezzbullah, the Iranian client state. Government can’t exist without said power now. Was democracy, not now.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

That is an absolutely atrocious means of understanding the political division in the Middle East. You may as well say "Here Be Dragons."

Your argument is nonsensical. Israel has not attacked the US. Supporters of Palestine have committed a wide variety of terrorist acts. If you think this has no impact upon US support for a particular side I'd proffer thats remarkably short in understanding human nature. Strangely if one side kills your people and the other doesn't you tend to go with the side not killing you.

Frazzled wrote:Agreed, except of course the semi annual coup the military has to keep radicals out.

There hasn't been a coup in 30 years, and the party that was previously removed is now in power. The military no longer has the power to initiate a coup.

Frazzled wrote:
Wait, you’re talking about the country that had its political repression televised and youtubized for the world to see? Did you think East Germany was a democracy too?

Did you think the US was a democracy when there were anti-sedition laws, and the American Legion was used to induct children into the military while ferreting out dissenters?

And lets be honest here, the Greens weren't a t peaceful protest, they were rioting.

Frazzled wrote:
Getting there. We’ll see what happens six months after we leave.

Two rounds of free and fair elections is equivalent to democracy.

Frazzled wrote:
Constitutional monarchy. Only 10% of populace is eligible to vote.
http://www.traveljournals.net/explore/kuwait/government.html

Misleading, all citizens are eligible to vote (all male until recently); 64.8% of Kuwait's population is composed of expatriates; usually employees with a residency of less than 5 years. Kuwait has the highest migration rate in the world.

Frazzled wrote:
Seriously?

Yeah, seriously. Suffrage is universal. The President is democratically elected. The lower house is democratically elected.

Frazzled wrote:
1/3 controlled by Hezzbullah, the Iranian client state. Government can’t exist without said power now. Was democracy, not now.

Hezbollah is a political party, not a state. Still a Democracy until its proven that it isn't, unless the Civil War ended US democracy.

Frazzled wrote:
Your argument is nonsensical. Israel has not attacked the US. Supporters of Palestine have committed a wide variety of terrorist acts. If you think this has no impact upon US support for a particular side I'd proffer thats remarkably short in understanding human nature. Strangely if one side kills your people and the other doesn't you tend to go with the side not killing you.

You didn't understand my argument, as usual. You're inferring that this is a case of Israel versus everyone else, and therefore glossing over the massive number of differences between category of "everyone else". It is precisely this sort of self-reinforcing ignorance that has created problems, primarily on the Conservative side of the aisle, with any sort of Middle East policy that does not explicitly support Israel.

Also, committing a terrorist act is not committing a terrorist act against the US. You're equivocating.

Wow you're right. I'm shocked how I missed Yemen and Iran were stable democracies with none of that hanging and torture of dissidents thing going on. If thats your standard for democracy then, well, never mind. I'll let you rant about Israel some more if it makes you feel nice and warm and superior inside.


But you're right committing a terrorist act is not the same as committing a terrorist act against the US, which is not what I was stating. I finally get to yell-STRAWMAN!!!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The timeliness of this is almost amusing. yep Yemen is a democracy all right. President for 32 years eh?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110124/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_yemen_3

Yemeni president tries to defuse calls for ouster
Buzz up!1 vote ShareretweetEmailPrint AP – Yemeni students chant slogans calling on their president Ali Abdullah Saleh to leave the government and … By AHMED AL HAJ, Associated Press Ahmed Al Haj, Associated Press – Mon Jan 24, 1:47 pm ET
SANAA, Yemen – Yemen's president tried to defuse calls for his ouster, forcefully denying claims by opponents that he plans to install his son as his successor and raising salaries for the army.

In several days of protest, student activists and opposition groups in the Arab world's most impoverished nation — buoyed by the example of the popular revolt in Tunisia — have boldly called for the removal of U.S.-allied President Ali Abdullah Saleh.

The protests are presenting Yemen's ruler — in power for nearly 32 years — with a new and unpredictable challenge, adding to the threat from an al-Qaida offshoot aiming to topple him, a southern secessionist movement and an on-and-off armed rebellion in the north.

Seeing to quell the new outbursts of dissent, Saleh delivered a televised speech Sunday night describing talk of him aiming to bequeath power to his son as the "utmost rudeness" and insisting the rumors were untrue.

He also announced he was increasing salaries for the armed forces in a step apparently meant to ensure the army's loyalty in the face of the rising challenges.

After the Tunisian turmoil, Saleh also ordered income taxes slashed in half and instructed his government to control prices. He also deployed anti-riot police and soldiers to several key areas in the capital, Sanaa, and its surroundings to prevent riots.

Still, critics of his rule have taken to the streets in three days of protests calling for him to step down. Such calls had been a red line that few dissenters dared to cross, though Saleh has been under pressure not to extend his rule either by running again or by placing his son in power.

Saleh has long been believed to be grooming his son Ahmed, who commands the republican guard and the army's special forces, to succeed him.

"We are against succession," Saleh stressed in Sunday's speech to several hundred officers. "We are in favor of change ... and these are rude statements, they are the utmost rudeness."

He accused opposition leaders of trying to take over by rallying people to the streets "while they are hiding in the basement."

In the latest demonstrations, the main opposition groups on Monday announced a campaign to oust Saleh.

"It's about time for the political parties to lead a mass movement against the corrupt and despotic regime," Mohammed Abdul Malik, head of an alliance of opposition groups, told the rally in Sanaa.

The groups later said one of their leaders was kidnapped by people believed to be linked to the authorities.

They said Naef al-Qanis was beaten by unidentified people who later moved him to an unknown location.

Nearly half of Yemen's population lives below the poverty line of $2 a day and doesn't have access to proper sanitation. Less than a tenth of the roads are paved. Tens of thousands have been displaced from their homes by conflict, flooding the cities.

The government is riddled with corruption, has little control outside the capital, and its main source of income — oil — could run dry in a decade.

Saleh's current term in office expires in 2013 but proposed amendments to the constitution could let him remain in power for two additional terms of ten years.

Ali Seif Hassan, a Yemeni political analyst, said Saleh's speech indicates he was not likely to step down. "Saleh will run again in 2013 and will run after the next time," he said. "No Arab leader leaves power democratically to sit and write his diaries."

Frazzled wrote:
Your argument is nonsensical. Israel has not attacked the US. Supporters of Palestine have committed a wide variety of terrorist acts. If you think this has no impact upon US support for a particular side I'd proffer thats remarkably short in understanding human nature. Strangely if one side kills your people and the other doesn't you tend to go with the side not killing you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Liberty_incident#Ongoing_controversy_and_unresolved_questions

efarrer wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
Your argument is nonsensical. Israel has not attacked the US. Supporters of Palestine have committed a wide variety of terrorist acts. If you think this has no impact upon US support for a particular side I'd proffer thats remarkably short in understanding human nature. Strangely if one side kills your people and the other doesn't you tend to go with the side not killing you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Liberty_incident#Ongoing_controversy_and_unresolved_questions

Woah. Good find. That is very disturbing, but I'm not all that surprised that Israel is willing to bite the hand that feeds them.

People worry about Iran or NK getting nukes. Israel has nukes and they are a loose cannon. They might not nuke us, but I can certainly understand fear and distrust of Israel by Middle East nations.

efarrer wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
Your argument is nonsensical. Israel has not attacked the US. Supporters of Palestine have committed a wide variety of terrorist acts. If you think this has no impact upon US support for a particular side I'd proffer thats remarkably short in understanding human nature. Strangely if one side kills your people and the other doesn't you tend to go with the side not killing you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Liberty_incident#Ongoing_controversy_and_unresolved_questions

Did you check the source of that conspiracy? It isn't exactly what I would call peer reviewed and reliable.

That's some good readin'.

Monster Rain wrote:

That's some good readin'.

I see your sign and raise you...ALUMINUM HAT KITTY!!!!

sebster wrote:http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jan/23/palestine-papers-expose-peace-concession

Not from Julian Assange & team, though they did release some cables of their own to support this.

Anyway, the big thrust of the leaks is that the Palestinian authorities basically offered Israel everything they'd been asking for, up to an including ceding the illegal settlements to Israel. Israel categorically rejected the offer though, because as is becoming very bloody obvious to everyone who's paying attention, Israel really has no desire for peace.

It's becoming just as obvious that this situation will not change until real and meaningful pressure is put on Israel to play its part in resolving the issue.

Nothing unexpected, Israel needs to continue as planned, its way too late to try a different tactic because they crossed the line long ago. Palestinains 'need' to be placed under the boot continually to keep therm angry and thus keep them weak. The ultimate disaster for Israel would be if the Palestinians had enough breathing space to stop being angry and stop reacting with violence of their own.

Israel can take anything ther Paslestinains can throw at them, except a Palestinian 'Ghandi'.

Even so some compromise is preferable to none for maintaining ther international image.

sebster wrote:
Israel really has no desire for peace.

I think we can clarfiy this position a little better. The Likud party has no desire for peace. Benjamin Netanyahu is still Prime Minister, and he is amongst the most virulent opponents of any form of peace settlement with the Palestinians, and is opposed to any remission of their suffering unless his hand is forced.

Frazzled wrote:Wow you're right. I'm shocked how I missed Yemen and Iran were stable democracies with none of that hanging and torture of dissidents thing going on.

Democracy does not imply stability. You can have a country that is both unstable, and a democracy. You can also have a democracy that hangs and tortures dissidents.

If a large group of people wanted to turn America into a totalitarian state, and had a realistic chance of doing so, I'm fairly certain you would have no problem hanging and torturing them. Hell, you frequently suggest more with respect to terrorists with similar aims.

Frazzled wrote:
If thats your standard for democracy then, well, never mind.

My standard for democracy is any state in which the people elect the government according to reasonably free and fair process.

Frazzled wrote:
I'll let you rant about Israel some more if it makes you feel nice and warm and superior inside.

I haven't even mentioned Israel outside of stating that they are a democracy.

Frazzled wrote:
But you're right committing a terrorist act is not the same as committing a terrorist act against the US, which is not what I was stating. I finally get to yell-STRAWMAN!!!

It is exactly what you stated, maybe it wasn't what you intended, but its what you stated,

Supporters of Palestine have committed a wide variety of terrorist acts. If you think this has no impact upon US support for a particular side I'd proffer thats remarkably short in understanding human nature. Strangely if one side kills your people and the other doesn't you tend to go with the side not killing you.

You're equating terrorist attacks, with terrorist attacks on the US. Its very obvious that you're doing it. So obvious that you almost certainly did it intentionally.

Frazzled wrote:
The timeliness of this is almost amusing. yep Yemen is a democracy all right. President for 32 years eh?

Yeah, primarily because he is well liked by the constituents of his Northern party, and only opposed by the much smaller constituency of the Southern party; its a common thing in regions torn by major ethnic or religious imbalances in demography.

Infrequent turnover does not indicate that a state is not a democracy.

Ahtman wrote:

efarrer wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
Your argument is nonsensical. Israel has not attacked the US. Supporters of Palestine have committed a wide variety of terrorist acts. If you think this has no impact upon US support for a particular side I'd proffer thats remarkably short in understanding human nature. Strangely if one side kills your people and the other doesn't you tend to go with the side not killing you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Liberty_incident#Ongoing_controversy_and_unresolved_questions

Did you check the source of that conspiracy? It isn't exactly what I would call peer reviewed and reliable.

I remember a half hour piece on the Current (a CBC news magazine with a good reputation) about the Liberty attack.

The tribune piece seems to tell a pretty good version...
http://www.chicagotribune.com/services/newspaper/eedition/chi-liberty_tuesoct02,0,43090.story

What more do you want?

WarOne wrote:Alrighty. I think we need to take a step back before this conversation devolves.

People often make the mistake of thinking civil conversation is about polite conversation. If all I'm doing is politely skimming your posts, then politely posting nonsense that no person who's somewhat read on the issue could honestly believe... then I'm actually not being very polite at all.

So let us talk civilly about the probability and possibility of who and when Israel may get invaded rather than dismiss it off hand as being an impossible event.

It's an impossiblity, and a silly one. The actual issue at hand is what it would take for Israel to come to the table with the intent of actually brokering a deal. As the leaks have shown, there's nothing Palestine can offer to make that happen. They offered everything and Israel refused to even discuss the mater.

At this point it becomes obvious that peace won't be achieved if all we think about is getting both sides to agree on some sticking points. Because in the current climate no peace deal could be as good for Israel as the current situation. So we need to look at changing the current situation, changing our unquestioning support for Israel.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:***The bottom third of Lebanon is ruled by Hezzbullah, which just blew out the government. Its no democracy.

There's a vote across the general population that decides political power. That's democracy.

***Wow, that’s trolling. As a mod I’d have to react to that if you had posted this to another poster.

We've talked about this before, and I've pointed out the errors in your claim before. So has Dogma. Yet here we are, and it's groundhog day all over again. What response should be given when someone just decides they're never going to learn anything, but keeps jumping in to say the same old thing over and over again?

*Except for Iran and Turkey. Of course when attacked its typically 2-3 countries at a time against Israel so add in Syria. Additionally, it means nothing when Hammas and Hezbullah continue to fire rockets into Israel, daily. But we shouldn't be concerned about that I guess.

Of course we should be concerned, it's a horrible situation. That's exactly why we need to be as honest as possible about who is looking to resolve this situation and who isn't. For enough powerful and influential people in Israeli government, those attacks are the price worth paying for continued expansion.

***I didn’t say that, merely responded to you question. Turkey has the power to attack Israel.

And the US has the power to occupy Australia. Yet we don't build foreign policy around the possibility that it might happen, because we're not insane. Israel is also not insane, and so doesn't factor the possiblity of Turkey attacking it when considering it's foreign policy. You know this, and therefore you know it's pointless to mention Turkey when discussing Israeli foreign policy.

***Except for missiles armed with nukes of course. But no one has fired missiles at Israel over a neutral country before, what must I be smoking? Israel’s never shot patriot missiles to stop incoming missiles before, no sir not at all.

And grinding out the IDF in Palestine does so much to protect Israel from Iranian nukes. I mean, the cyberattacks on Iran's nuclear facilities - awesome. Think they were the right thing to do and cool as hell. But that's got nothing to do with Israel's occupation of Palestine.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Monster Rain wrote:You can't divorce the discussion from the PLO and Hamas's bad behavior in the past. They made Israel into the sympathetic figure in this conflict due to their savagery.

If one hasn't "stopped reading about this in the 70s" this should come as no surprise.

They were sympathetic when the left Europe in the wake of the holocaust. They were sympathetic when a coalition of Arab nations attacked them, and they were downright heroic in defeating them. But when they occupied Palestine, blockaded it and turned it into a ghetto they were not so sympathetic, and bizarrely unaware of their own history. And yes, when rockets are fired into Israel the victims are very sympathetic. But no less sympathetic than the Palestinian victims, and we need to remember there's around a hundred Palestinian casualties for every Israeli. But whether they're Israeli or Palestinian, everyone of those victims deserves our sympathy.

And to have as few more as possible we need to be honest about the peace process, and honest about what is currently stopping the talks. And the answer there is simple; Israel.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Da Boss wrote:This conversation is so different in Ireland that it's bloody firghtening in a way. There, people support Palestine while condemning terrorist actions by Palestine.

I took it for granted that no-one here supported Palestinian terrorism, and that no-one would assume anyone else did. One of the major reasons to reach peace is to reduce the amount of Palestinian terrorism.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ahtman wrote:Did you check the source of that conspiracy? It isn't exactly what I would call peer reviewed and reliable.

Are you questioning that the USS Liberty was struck by Israel, or that they might have done it on purpose?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Orlanth wrote:I think we can clarfiy this position a little better. The Likud party has no desire for peace. Benjamin Netanyahu is still Prime Minister, and he is amongst the most virulent opponents of any form of peace settlement with the Palestinians, and is opposed to any remission of their suffering unless his hand is forced.

Yes, good point. Thankyou for expanding on my point, I was pretty lazy there. I should have said Israel at present has no desire for peace, and this is a product of the people currently in power and the changing political dynamic in the country. Israel has in the past been earnest in it's desire for a peace deal.

sebster wrote:

Ahtman wrote:Did you check the source of that conspiracy? It isn't exactly what I would call peer reviewed and reliable.

Are you questioning that the USS Liberty was struck by Israel, or that they might have done it on purpose?

That it was done on purpose. Or with a porpoise.

It was a part of the great Porpoise Conspiracy to overthrow us, and the dolphins.

dogma wrote:It was a part of the great Porpoise Conspiracy to overthrow us, and the dolphins.

sebster wrote:

WarOne wrote:Alrighty. I think we need to take a step back before this conversation devolves.

People often make the mistake of thinking civil conversation is about polite conversation. If all I'm doing is politely skimming your posts, then politely posting nonsense that no person who's somewhat read on the issue could honestly believe... then I'm actually not being very polite at all.

Fair enough. I will probably not add more to this thread as most of what I know and understand are probably not of the intellectual depth to add to this conversation.

Ahtman wrote:That it was done on purpose. Or with a porpoise.

Fair enough. Why'd you add the pun? Just for the halibut?

Sebster: Oh, I didn't think that, it's just, you wouldn't get this manic support of Israel that borders on the irrational. We accept that Israel does some pretty nasty things and that it is being needlessly cruel to an entire population. Of course the people vote for terrorists in that situation- they see them as freedom fighters, the only ones "doing something" about their awful situation. It just suprises me how little empathy is in this conversation.

I feel empathy for ordinary Israelis too. I dated an Israeli girl for a while and she certainly did her best to give me an insight into their point of view, but I still think it's a batgak crazy point of view!

Talking of absolutes in a situation like this...I mean, I know for a fact that the lads in this thread who are rabidly pro Israel (and have shown that stance time and again) are much more nuanced and capable of seeing the greys when it comes to domestic politics or whatever. What is it about Israel that provokes this loyalty?

sebster wrote:

Ahtman wrote:That it was done on purpose. Or with a porpoise.

Fair enough. Why'd you add the pun? Just for the halibut?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

We accept that Israel does some pretty nasty things and that it is being needlessly cruel to an entire population.

Who's we?

What is it about Israel that provokes this loyalty?

And what is it about Israel that provokes such antipathy. Oh wait I know. Never mind.

Frazzled wrote:And what is it about Israel that provokes such antipathy.

I'd guess it has something do with Israel's treatment of Palestine. In fact, I even heard that Israel refuses to play ball with Palestine. There's a thread about in the OT section. You should read it; you may learn a thing or two.

Maybe I missed something. Did all this nastiness from Israel start before or after the attempted invasions, rockets and suicide bombings?

I'm genuinely curious.

That depends on the extent to which you view the creation of Israel as a hostile act, and many, many people in the Middle East see it that way; and not without good reason. If nothing else, Israel is a very concrete reminder of the legacy of Imperialism; something that the Middle East is just developed enough to find deeply resentful.

That's something that often gets glossed over on this side of the world. Yeah, the British controlled Palestine before the creation of Israel, and in that sense gave it over as a Jewish homeland, but many people that lived there never saw the British as rightful rulers to begin with; again, with good reason.

There's also the bit about expansionist tendencies beyond the original mandate, but that's a much fuzzier issue.

Gah.

This is all to complicated. Aren't we way overdue for a one world government anyway?

China has proposed a world reserve currency that isn't staked to a nation, that's basically the first step.

dogma wrote:China has proposed a world reserve currency that isn't staked to a nation, that's basically the first step.

Would that work?

I'm not remotely qualified to comment on that.

I'll need to wait and see what Glenn Beck has to say about it.

Melissia wrote:Israel has to do its part, or it can expect more of its people to die.

LOL are you ****** mad!? I mean hell i hate terrorism and all crazy stuff that happens over there. But the kind of stuff the Israel military does violates a lot of the geneva convention protocols. Isreal military has killed TOOOOONS of innocents all in the name of safety and then continues to make outposts that arent even in their territory. I also love how the US millitary gets gak for killing innocents (which is obviously bad) but then Isreal goes completely of the radar. Bad stuff happens in that country for the word Safety, the military can often strap you onto tables and beat the living f*** out of you and get away for it, this actually happens a lot to people that arent jewish. I mean for national security purposes if you need to scout ahead and do so.... sure, go for it. However thats defintely not that case.

Emperors Faithful wrote:

dogma wrote:China has proposed a world reserve currency that isn't staked to a nation, that's basically the first step.

Would that work?

Right now? No, probably not. Just look at all the problems with the Euro.

Given an apparatus similar to the US Fed? Maybe, but that's a long way off.

Even if it did happen, the reserve currency wouldn't be something of the sort that mere mortals trade in.

dogma wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:

dogma wrote:China has proposed a world reserve currency that isn't staked to a nation, that's basically the first step.

Would that work?

Right now? No, probably not. Just look at all the problems with the Euro.

Given an apparatus similar to the US Fed? Maybe, but that's a long way off.

Even if it did happen, the reserve currency wouldn't be something of the sort that mere mortals trade in.

For some reason I'm getting the mental image of Zeus reclining on a throne of World Curreny.

Monster Rain wrote:Gah.

This is all to complicated. Aren't we way overdue for a one world government anyway?

Yeah. How are we supposed to fend off the incoming hive fleet?

Cadichan Support wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:Gah.

This is all to complicated. Aren't we way overdue for a one world government anyway?

Yeah. How are we supposed to fend off the incoming hive fleet?

We Need Him To lead us! Where's the Emprah when we need him?!

Emperors Faithful wrote:
For some reason I'm getting the mental image of Zeus reclining on a throne of World Curreny.

That's basically what they did with Ambrosia*.





*No, not that terrible fruit salad.

Fraz, I hope you're not implying I'm anti-semetic.

Tophawtdog4411 wrote:

Melissia wrote:Israel has to do its part, or it can expect more of its people to die.

LOL are you ****** mad!? I mean hell i hate terrorism and all crazy stuff that happens over there. But the kind of stuff the Israel military does violates a lot of the geneva convention protocols. Isreal military has killed TOOOOONS of innocents all in the name of safety and then continues to make outposts that arent even in their territory. I also love how the US millitary gets gak for killing innocents (which is obviously bad) but then Isreal goes completely of the radar. Bad stuff happens in that country for the word Safety, the military can often strap you onto tables and beat the living f*** out of you and get away for it, this actually happens a lot to people that arent jewish. I mean for national security purposes if you need to scout ahead and do so.... sure, go for it. However thats defintely not that case.

Because if you question them you're obviously an anti-semetic, holocaust denying nazi dog. Basically the play the 'poor little us' card. I for one am long sick of it. I'm not a fan of war but I do think that just nuking israel to kingdom come would solve a lot of issues and help us towards world peace. Essentially the US backs them to wage its war on the middle east.

Oof! This should be interesting...

dogma wrote:That depends on the extent to which you view the creation of Israel as a hostile act, and many, many people in the Middle East see it that way; and not without good reason. If nothing else, Israel is a very concrete reminder of the legacy of Imperialism; something that the Middle East is just developed enough to find deeply resentful.

That's something that often gets glossed over on this side of the world. Yeah, the British controlled Palestine before the creation of Israel, and in that sense gave it over as a Jewish homeland, but many people that lived there never saw the British as rightful rulers to begin with; again, with good reason.

There's also the bit about expansionist tendencies beyond the original mandate, but that's a much fuzzier issue.

Translation: The PLO started killing Jews before Israel conquered the Gaza strip and West Bank after being attacked by multiple Arab and Middle Eastern countries.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Emperors Faithful wrote:

dogma wrote:China has proposed a world reserve currency that isn't staked to a nation, that's basically the first step.

Would that work?

Its worked awesomely for Europe.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Da Boss wrote:Fraz, I hope you're not implying I'm anti-semetic.

No I'm implying you're anti semantic.

We will not rest until world antisemanticism ends, or I get tired and run out of coffee!

Tophawtdog4411 wrote:

Melissia wrote:Israel has to do its part, or it can expect more of its people to die.

[snip]

... you realize that I was talking about the peacemaking process?


IE: "Israel must offer concessions to the peace process in order for it to work, it cannot rest solely on the backs of the Palestinians as they are just one party in this."

Phototoxin wrote:
Because if you question them you're obviously an anti-semetic, holocaust denying nazi dog. Basically the play the 'poor little us' card. I for one am long sick of it. I'm not a fan of war but I do think that just nuking israel to kingdom come would solve a lot of issues and help us towards world peace. Essentially the US backs them to wage its war on the middle east.

Not a Nazi - Wants Israel Nuked
Doesn't like War - Wants Israel Nuked.
Wants World Peace - Wants Israel Nuked.



I'm all for nukes, your just nuking the wrong things. Nuke the Moon! That cheese based, tidal dominator has mocked us for too long.

Frazzled wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:

dogma wrote:China has proposed a world reserve currency that isn't staked to a nation, that's basically the first step.

Would that work?

Its worked awesomely for Europe.

That isn't the case Frazzie, the Euro was tied between the contributing countries in Europe Euro Zone. So when ireland and greece couldnt get their economies straight Germany sneezed and they all fell down. Tying your economy to Greece and relying on the Greek government not to overspend or be corrupt is not exactly smart. The Euro backers thought that Germany, Benelux and France could ofset that, but the result was something similar to leaving your credit card with an overspending wife, you have to be more than merely rich to survive doing that over time.

Orlanth wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:

dogma wrote:China has proposed a world reserve currency that isn't staked to a nation, that's basically the first step.

Would that work?

Its worked awesomely for Europe.

That isn't the case Frazzie, the Euro was tied between the contributing countries in Europe Euro Zone. So when ireland and greece couldnt get their economies straight Germany sneezed and they all fell down. Tying your economy to Greece and relying on the Greek government not to overspend or be corrupt is not exactly smart. The Euro backers thought that Germany, Benelux and France could ofset that, but the result was something similar to leaving your credit card with an overspending wife, you have to be more than merely rich to survive doing that over time.

How would that be better than trying the same for the world when you have such sterling countries as Zimbabwe floating around?

Da Boss wrote:Sebster: Oh, I didn't think that, it's just, you wouldn't get this manic support of Israel that borders on the irrational. We accept that Israel does some pretty nasty things and that it is being needlessly cruel to an entire population. Of course the people vote for terrorists in that situation- they see them as freedom fighters, the only ones "doing something" about their awful situation. It just suprises me how little empathy is in this conversation.

I feel empathy for ordinary Israelis too. I dated an Israeli girl for a while and she certainly did her best to give me an insight into their point of view, but I still think it's a batgak crazy point of view!

Talking of absolutes in a situation like this...I mean, I know for a fact that the lads in this thread who are rabidly pro Israel (and have shown that stance time and again) are much more nuanced and capable of seeing the greys when it comes to domestic politics or whatever. What is it about Israel that provokes this loyalty?

This is the thing. I feel a great deal of sympthy for the citizens of Israel. I feel just as much sympathy for the citizens of Palestine. The Israelis don't deserve to lose hundreds of their citizens to rocket and bomb attacks, just as the Palestinians don't deserve to lose thousands of their's to Israeli military actions, or to be kept in poverty and under constant blockade.

Thinking along those lines, and simply wanting the issue resolved makes you anti-semitic, apparently. Whereas picking a side and cheering for it regardless of the human cost makes you a noble defender of the rights of minorities. Or something.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Monster Rain wrote:

Maybe I missed something. Did all this nastiness from Israel start before or after the attempted invasions, rockets and suicide bombings?

I'm genuinely curious.

The nastiness is product of occupying someone else's country. It's inevitable. It doesn't matter how noble your aims are, every occupation turns nasty sooner or later.

Thing is, when the Israelis first occupied Palestine everyone thought it would become part of Israel in time. Most refugees would leave and repatriate in Arab nations, and the rest would become part of a greater Israel. And it wasn't an unreasonable assumption, it had happened plenty of times before.

Except it didn't happen. Palestine had, at some point along the way, and likely due in large part to this latest occupation, formed it's own identity. People really saw themselves as Palestinian. The folk that fled Palestine didn't just repatriate, they stayed in the camps and waited until they could return to their homeland, and they're still waiting.

So the Israeli situation was suddenly very different, and it's dragged out into an occupation many decades old. So it got nasty, on both sides.

Now there's an element of Israel that really believes in zionist expansion and who are actively hostile to the Palestinians. The rest, like people everywhere, just want the whole thing to go away so they can back to watching tv and trying to get a better job to buy a nicer car. But that minority, unfortunately, has a pretty strong say in Israeli politics, and while the rest of Israel is kind of embarressed about that fanatical element, they aren't always hostile to them (mostly in the wake of some Palestinian group blowing something up).

Then you add in the strong financial interests of Israeli business groups (everyday hundreds of thousands of Palestinians commute into Israel to work for near slave wages, a rate of pay they'd never accept is Palestine was allowed its own economy). The result is a peace process that enough powerful people simply don't want.

So the occupation grinds on. And it keeps getting nastier, as all occupations do.

To be perfectly frank, I wonder why the perceived injustices of the Israeli's against the Palestinians garners so much negative left wing attention, when there are plenty of dictators and whatnot around the world who place various other peoples in far worse straits, and conduct genocide. Regardless of what Israel does, there is far worse going on, yet I've yet to see a 'boycott of academics from the University of Zimbabwe' or other such ridiculous notions.

In the same way some people come out as rabidly pro-Israel, there are many others in the left wing press who come out as rabidly anti-israel who proclaim themselves as defending human rights, yet don't seem half as enthusiastic on many other issues.

Frazzled wrote:
Translation: The PLO started killing Jews before Israel conquered the Gaza strip and West Bank after being attacked by multiple Arab and Middle Eastern countries.

That doesn't have anything at all to do with what I said, you aren't even referencing the same time period.

And yes, the PLO predates Israeli control of Gaza and the West Bank. Palestine isn't just Gaza and the West Bank.

Additionally, if you're really serious about moderating this forum like the rest of the board, maybe you should adhere more closely to the rules. It isn't very polite to willfully misrepresent statements made by someone else.

Ketara wrote:To be perfectly frank, I wonder why the perceived injustices of the Israeli's against the Palestinians

"percieved"? The feth? Plain and simple, there can be absolutely no pretending that the Israeli's have done some very messed up things in Palestine. We can talk about the hows and wherefores of what's been done, but pretending that a lot of Palestinians haven't been killed without having done anything wrong is just plain silly.

Regardless of what Israel does, there is far worse going on, yet I've yet to see a 'boycott of academics from the University of Zimbabwe' or other such ridiculous notions.

I don't believe Israel should be cast into the absolute fringes of the diplomatic community, like we've done with Zimbabwe. I do believe that we should not give military aid to Israel until they join peace talks in earnest. Whether or not we should refuse any sale of military arms to Israel... well, you're the one that compared them to Zimbabwe.

In the same way some people come out as rabidly pro-Israel, there are many others in the left wing press who come out as rabidly anti-israel who proclaim themselves as defending human rights, yet don't seem half as enthusiastic on many other issues.

Yeah, there's rabid folk. But so what? Ignore them, and talk with the people who aren't rabid and who are in this very thread.

Frazzled wrote:

Orlanth wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:

dogma wrote:China has proposed a world reserve currency that isn't staked to a nation, that's basically the first step.

Would that work?

Its worked awesomely for Europe.

That isn't the case Frazzie, the Euro was tied between the contributing countries in Europe Euro Zone. So when ireland and greece couldnt get their economies straight Germany sneezed and they all fell down. Tying your economy to Greece and relying on the Greek government not to overspend or be corrupt is not exactly smart. The Euro backers thought that Germany, Benelux and France could ofset that, but the result was something similar to leaving your credit card with an overspending wife, you have to be more than merely rich to survive doing that over time.

How would that be better than trying the same for the world when you have such sterling countries as Zimbabwe floating around?

Ther idea is to tie the currency against something other than national economies, which id different from tying it into all member economies.
Best meassn to do that is to in validate currency exchanges from the new currency except back into the original currency one exchanged from at the same rate and up to the same ammounts.

So a tourist, or company can change mobile assets in dollars into the new currency, and be guaranteed the same exchange rate for up to the same amount back, once on the strength of the receipt of exchange. Howver one cannot use the new currency to link between two other currencies therefore it cannot be speculated on, therefore its value is independent.

I dont know if that is what the Chinese want to do, but its how I would do it.

Ketara wrote:To be perfectly frank, I wonder why the perceived injustices of the Israeli's against the Palestinians garners so much negative left wing attention, when there are plenty of dictators and whatnot around the world who place various other peoples in far worse straits, and conduct genocide. Regardless of what Israel does, there is far worse going on, yet I've yet to see a 'boycott of academics from the University of Zimbabwe' or other such ridiculous notions.

In the same way some people come out as rabidly pro-Israel, there are many others in the left wing press who come out as rabidly anti-israel who proclaim themselves as defending human rights, yet don't seem half as enthusiastic on many other issues.

It is strange, but to some extent I think its simply a natural consequence of popular interest. There are a lot people, educated and otherwise, that are interested in Israel. There are few that are interested in Darfur.

One other thing to note is that Israel is a developed nation. This is important because it has a huge impact on the amount and quality of information available regarding the conflict. If you want to see what's going on with regard to the conflict, you can just pull up the English homepage of an Israeli newspaper. You can't do the same if you want to learn about Darfur.

"percieved"? The feth? Plain and simple, there can be absolutely no pretending that the Israeli's have done some very messed up things in Palestine. We can talk about the hows and wherefores of what's been done, but pretending that a lot of Palestinians haven't been killed without having done anything wrong is just plain silly.

Certainly. But simultaneously, there have been plenty of Israelis' killed by various ways and means. I just find it very interesting to note how the articles in the newspapers usually seem to consist of large double page spreads about the lack of an economy in Gaza, the cruelty of the Israeli government, etc, and then you'll have a single sentence down the bottom adding , 'However, three people were killed by a missile attack the other day'. There's a certain disparity in the press I tend to find.

I don't believe Israel should be cast into the absolute fringes of the diplomatic community, like we've done with Zimbabwe. I do believe that we should not give military aid to Israel until they join peace talks in earnest. Whether or not we should refuse any sale of military arms to Israel... well, you're the one that compared them to Zimbabwe.

That's a whole other ball court. I was referring to a movement about a year or so back to boycott Israel academically. A movement that seemingly had little basis in anything. The people in charge were shouting about Palestinian rights, however, the people in the Israeli Universities have little more influence upon government policy there than the University of Zimbabwe does upon Robert Mugabe. Boycotting them would have little to no effect. And so I wondered why this particular sanction was called for against Israel, and not Zimbabwe. Arms sales are neither here nor there. I was relating back to my thoughts on how rabidly anti-israel the left wing press here seems to be.

Yeah, there's rabid folk. But so what? Ignore them, and talk with the people who aren't rabid and who are in this very thread.

I beg your pardon? You made a comment about how some people were rabidly pro-Israel, and I was responded with my thoughts on how their opposite numbers could easily be found, and seem to dominate the media over here. You seem to be trying to argue with me over something here.

Ketara wrote:Certainly. But simultaneously, there have been plenty of Israelis' killed by various ways and means. I just find it very interesting to note how the articles in the newspapers usually seem to consist of large double page spreads about the lack of an economy in Gaza, the cruelty of the Israeli government, etc, and then you'll have a single sentence down the bottom adding , 'However, three people were killed by a missile attack the other day'. There's a certain disparity in the press I tend to find.

It is the opposite in the US. The majority of news will be about if someone was killed in Israel, a missile here, a suicide bomber there. We do get more of the Palestinian side these days but it is generally Israeli-heavy.

Ketara wrote:Certainly. But simultaneously, there have been plenty of Israelis' killed by various ways and means. I just find it very interesting to note how the articles in the newspapers usually seem to consist of large double page spreads about the lack of an economy in Gaza, the cruelty of the Israeli government, etc, and then you'll have a single sentence down the bottom adding , 'However, three people were killed by a missile attack the other day'. There's a certain disparity in the press I tend to find.

There is a disparity, but it certainly doesn't go the way you're suggesting. Because most folk draw their knowledge from news reports, they see coverage of the rocket attacks and the like and assume that most of the deaths are Israelis. Most folk I've talked to on the subject, even those who don't agree with what Israel has done, have assumed most deaths have been Israelis, when the truth is the overwhelming number of casualties have been Palestinian, like 4 Palestinians for every Israeli.

I just stumbled upon this link while checking that my ratio was correct, http://www.ifamericansknew.org/media/net-report.html, it's actually a study of US coverage of the war, comparing the ratio of deaths shown in the media against the actual deaths. It showed a ratio of 3 or 4 Israeli deaths for every Palestian, when in reality the ratio is the exact opposite.

That's a whole other ball court. I was referring to a movement about a year or so back to boycott Israel academically. A movement that seemingly had little basis in anything. The people in charge were shouting about Palestinian rights, however, the people in the Israeli Universities have little more influence upon government policy there than the University of Zimbabwe does upon Robert Mugabe. Boycotting them would have little to no effect. And so I wondered why this particular sanction was called for against Israel, and not Zimbabwe. Arms sales are neither here nor there. I was relating back to my thoughts on how rabidly anti-israel the left wing press here seems to be.

Sure, and you've got a fair point that the debate over Israel seems to occupy a whole lot of media time compared to other situations. I don't believe that's because there's a particularly anti-Israeli agenda (in fact Israel is continuously defended, despite so many of their actions being entirely indefensible). I think that's a large part of it, really, there is still a debate over the morality of Israel's occupation, whereas Zimbabwe is pretty much 'Mugabe is bad, here's more of Mugabe being bad' and then everyone says 'yep'. It's the debate that encourages more coverage.

I beg your pardon? You made a comment about how some people were rabidly pro-Israel, and I was responded with my thoughts on how their opposite numbers could easily be found, and seem to dominate the media over here. You seem to be trying to argue with me over something here.

Oh, sorry, I didn't realise your comment on rabid anti-Israeli folk was in that context. It's a fair point, and I'm sorry I misread you, and sorry I was that aggressive, I should have given you more benefit of the doubt.

Ketara wrote:To be perfectly frank, I wonder why the perceived injustices of the Israeli's against the Palestinians garners so much negative left wing attention, when there are plenty of dictators and whatnot around the world who place various other peoples in far worse straits, and conduct genocide. Regardless of what Israel does, there is far worse going on, yet I've yet to see a 'boycott of academics from the University of Zimbabwe' or other such ridiculous notions.

In the same way some people come out as rabidly pro-Israel, there are many others in the left wing press who come out as rabidly anti-israel who proclaim themselves as defending human rights, yet don't seem half as enthusiastic on many other issues.

What can I say? Anti-semanticism is worldwide.

Oh God, now it thinks it's funny.

Emperors Faithful wrote:Oh God, now it thinks it's funny.

It puts the lotion in the basket or else it gets the hose again!

There is a disparity, but it certainly doesn't go the way you're suggesting. Because most folk draw their knowledge from news reports, they see coverage of the rocket attacks and the like and assume that most of the deaths are Israelis. Most folk I've talked to on the subject, even those who don't agree with what Israel has done, have assumed most deaths have been Israelis, when the truth is the overwhelming number of casualties have been Palestinian, like 4 Palestinians for every Israeli.

You would assume that, but the truth is that I tend to find in the UK, it does go the way I just described. There was actually an internal investigation done at the BBC as to whether the BBC are pro-palestinian/anti-Israel, and the result was that after the report was finished, the BBC went to tremendous amounts of effort to deny the public access to it. Despite several FoI requests, and legal attempts launched to force them to publish it, they're still refusing to this day. I believe its been in the legal wrangler for a few years now, and millions of pounds of taxpayers money have been wasted by the BBC in their efforts to not have to show this document. It must be said, the result is that you begin to wonder exactly what they're trying to hide. If the report said, 'The BBC is completely neutral', would they be trying to so hard to suppress it?

That is of course, just one example of the media over here. Nonetheless, I do find the press here takes a rather pro-palestinian view of the whole affair. For example, on the whole thing of ships getting into gaza, the headlines were simply along the lines of 'plucky freedom loving peoples defy cruel inhuman tyrannical oppresion'.

It may be different in the States or Australia, but over here, whenever the human rights organisations get bored of shouting about Guantanamo, they come up with their latest scheme to 'fight the power' by doing things like boycotting Israeli Universities as mentioned before.

sebster wrote:Sure, and you've got a fair point that the debate over Israel seems to occupy a whole lot of media time compared to other situations. I don't believe that's because there's a particularly anti-Israeli agenda (in fact Israel is continuously defended, despite so many of their actions being entirely indefensible). I think that's a large part of it, really, there is still a debate over the morality of Israel's occupation, whereas Zimbabwe is pretty much 'Mugabe is bad, here's more of Mugabe being bad' and then everyone says 'yep'. It's the debate that encourages more coverage.

Dogma wrote:
t is strange, but to some extent I think its simply a natural consequence of popular interest. There are a lot people, educated and otherwise, that are interested in Israel. There are few that are interested in Darfur.

One other thing to note is that Israel is a developed nation. This is important because it has a huge impact on the amount and quality of information available regarding the conflict. If you want to see what's going on with regard to the conflict, you can just pull up the English homepage of an Israeli newspaper. You can't do the same if you want to learn about Darfur.

This is broadly correct I would think. The two quotes here sum it up. Although I would still be interested in learning why the media here in England does seem heavily biased towards the Palestinians.

Oh, sorry, I didn't realise your comment on rabid anti-Israeli folk was in that context. It's a fair point, and I'm sorry I misread you, and sorry I was that aggressive, I should have given you more benefit of the doubt.

No problem.

Ketara wrote:Although I would still be interested in learning why the media here in England does seem heavily biased towards the Palestinians.

Maybe you have a better news service?