Not as I see it- I'm just making a rhetorical argument in response to arguments favouring the status quo. Maybe not now, but if one truly cares about Israel's long-term well-being, and America's long-term standing as a leader of the democratic world, then one must ask how these short-term stall tactics are of any lasting benefit to either party. It's better that the problem be dealt with now, rather than letting it fester so that Israelis might one day face the backlash from a more hostile America and world. Specifically, how else are Palestinians supposed to live their lives in a secure, stable and normalized fashion, i.e. one which most Israelis would readily accept if they were faced with similar circumstances? Though the Palestinians might fail to win their own national homeland, it would set a bad precedent for our own grandchildren if we permitted this effort to flounder. I don't think the Palestinians have been given a fair chance to establish their own sovereign homeland in the last 1000 years, if ever, and now it's time for us to do what we can to afford them that chance, rather than obstructing it. At minimum, if we can't act positively then we shouldn't act at all- no power on Earth can hold a knife to America's throat and force it to vote one way or another at the UN or to even vote at all. It's a shame that Israel and its affiliated advocates are trying to capitalize on America's internal politics in order to secure its support; it's almost as if many Israeli advocates believe Zeus himself will come down from the clouds to set everything straight just before their political games come back to bite them... oh wait... The world might indeed be a jungle at heart (I certainly think so), but we shouldn't allow ourselves to contribute to that sort of environment. For example, I've said several times from here in Canada that I don't like seeing my Prime Minister spending his political capital in Israel's defense. His support for Israel is due to an Evangelical ideology which is not open to any form of rational debate, and it goes strongly against the mainstream Canadian viewpoint. I hate seeing him sacrifice political points like this, because the opposition parties to his left are almost hellbent on spending money the country simply doesn't- and will never- have. A strong economy is the only way to secure a strong social support network, and I'll be damned if I watch that economy thrown away over a trivial issue like settlers' rights to evict Palestinians in preparation for the Rapture. For America's part, imagine another Arab oil embargo were to be called out of frustration with the lack of progress at the UN and elsewhere. Perhaps the Arabs would suffer a great deal more than the US from the economic upheaval, but as gas prices in the US increased, its citizens would inevitably gain more awareness of the events causing these prices to rise, and they would most definitely be pissed at anyone seen as stirring the pot. It's not in Israel's interest to allow even a remote possibility of its closest ally seeing it as a liability, and I believe Israel should not do what's not in its own best interest. Yeah, but if the former two were constantly re-arming and declaring war on the latter, the US and EU probably wouldn't object much to territorial annexation in self-defense, just like we wouldn't (and didn't) object to such measures being taken against Germany if it kept starting world wars. Under such a scenario, there would only be so many wars Egypt and Jordan could start before they altogether ran out of the land needed for their populations to sustain the effort, and Israel has long maintained the capacity to erase those nations from the books of history altogether if need be. As it stands, Egypt and Jordan have a lasting and functional peace with Israel, and the majority of the Palestinians they once governed have always been bystanders to the current conflict (or uncontrollably manipulated by external governments and media, at best). We're at the point now where regional powers can harass them, as we saw in 2006 with Hezbollah, but anyone who touches them, including Hezbollah, always ends up badly burnt and whining for generations about the burns; Israel is more secure today than they've ever been vis-a-vis the Palestinians, who have no control over Iran's mullahs in any case (for those using Iran's belligerency as the excuse du jour to obstruct a Palestinian state). For many decades to come, under all viable scenarios including a regional MAD nuclear war, no one will get so much as a sniff at overtaking Israel militarily (and surviving) unless the US intentionally looks the other way. Yes, and of course that's why the world hasn't completely choked Israel to death over its occupation of those territories. Decades have since passed, a population indisputably indigenous to the region for several generations continues to be oppressed and displaced, but we don't see the US or Israeli governments telling their own citizens and officials to STFU when they make religious arguments for holding onto these lands in violation of basic human rights. If Israel has proof of the Palestinians playing a necessary or leading role in the fighting of 1967, they should present such proof to the UN instead of huffing and puffing and turning their backs, as most of the world finds it implausible that the local citizenry could have had much of an impact on anything while being curb-stomped in six days. Furthermore, as long as Israel insists on having a permanent military presence on all sides of the Palestinian territories as part of any final peace deal, there's no additional security benefit in having settlements closer to the front lines. If Israel's military control over both nations' borders were to be legally entrenched, then further settlement enterprises in the name of "security" would be akin to putting civilians on the front lines of the conflict, which I thought Israel strongly opposed. Their hypocrisy must be exposed and thwarted, rather than giving fodder to the extremists who seek any convenient excuse to oppose them.
Ruth Dayan: Zionist Dream Has Run Its Course I think she is right. I don't think it is possible to salvage Israel. I notice many old Zionists have a tendency to see the glory days as something to aim for when at the same time, they were shooting Palestinians who wanted to return to their homes. But even with this blinkered view, many of them recognise that what Israel is today has no future In other news the latest Gaza flotilla Tahrir, which was kept under wraps is one day away from Gaza. They have avoided taking any Turkish citizens even though they set off from Turkey, to avoid the Turkish navy accompanying them. They bring letters of solidarity for the Gazan people from all over the world Canadian and Irish boats: Amy Goodman on Democracy Now http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Of3kK63o2Fo website for Tahrir boat http://www.tahrir.ca/
ahh so not only were you counseling patience but were also joyously singing que sera sera? hmm quad? are you a god fearing man? /curious
American people ought to be recognized as being not the same as American leaders...clearly there is a difference, though often I see generalized statements that concern me, in which it would appear all Americans think the same.... If America were a single entity of thought and motive we wouldn't be seeing occupation of wall street....would we... it isn't so much about America vs. the world anymore as mislead or confused thinkers may believe... the world is far more complex and changing too fast to be so simple. The extreme rich who yeild tremendous influence over world policies use politicians like puppets... they do not see themselves as belonging to some nation but as international entities...
Thats not really true is it? Its not the elite and extreme rich who are people on the ground in Iraq or Afghanistan, is it? If the WTC or Pentagon gets bombed people don't say, oh well, they are targeting the 1% its nothing to do with us, do they?
I personally want the US to stop funding Israel...and the thing is, the mainstream media continues to mislead the majority of the US population about who and what exactly is going on in Israel. I think if we saw some of the Al-Jazeera images of our tax dollars at work on little kids, the funding would dry up. Because I've seen some of those images, I want the funding to dry up... Hmm...
It is the 'elite' and extreme rich that slant media and operate propaganda to manipulate naive and uninformed people and yes, there are many many of those in America and everywhere else...America has a greater proportion then normal of naive folk who serve and pawns, it is that...a proportion. Meaning there is a proportion that does not support the ideals of the extreme rich and who consciously oppose them. I don't think those occupying wall street will be easily told to go and kill and die for some rich brats who hardly recognize them as something other then a resource to be exploited. I was born in America...but I have no loyalty to any nation. First and formost to humanity at large, this entire world. Back in 2002 the marine corps came knocking on my door and tried to recruit me for the war, they didn't say there would be a war...though I had observed a pattern that made it predictable and one year later sure enough it began. My answer was ''I'll think about it''...then I left the country to go think about it in Europe as a free man, for if I would say yes I would become property of the united states...and I don't like the idea of being anyone's property. So here I am...still thinking about it as a free man. Its getting harder for the extreme rich to keep the public misinformed, leaves me wondering what desperate measures might they take in the future? The 911 did provide a good shock, a means to coerce people with fear into acting without thinking, and to distract them while new policies are enacted. Obviously most of these new policies weren't such the secret though, else we wouldn't be able to discuss them. When it happened on the very day the towers came down I was hit with this strong feeling within 5 minutes after the news got to me that it was an inside job collaborated with outside forces. I was immediately suspicious of my own government... I didn't think or ask does the 1% have nothing to do with me, instead I was asking myself what manipulation will come out of this, how is it being used to perpertrate manipulation of a public people. It worked too, but not so good, afterall...how many people have less trust now then before?? Poor America is often used by the extreme rich as a fall guy for their policies, their interests, which do not include any nation. The 'elite' and extreme rich are far too cowardly to go and fight on the ground... Including myself, I can think of many many Americans who would refuse to go to war for these cowards. I can also think of many who would. Its a mix up. I don't want to be stereotyped as a dumb pawn American who blindly or naively can be told what to do, and I speak on behalf of those other Americans that are like me. I'm not saying America is not a problem for the world, it clearly has created many messy problems for glutonous motives...though it has been backed by non Americans whom can so easily hide behind this mask called America so America gets most of the blame as it is duped into doing the dirty work for INTERNATIONAL INVESTORS.... From what I observe, America is not the source of the problems of injustice and inequality, it is the extreme rich of the entire planet...Russians, Chinese, Germans, French, English, Indians, Isreals... all have their share of extreme rich people collaborating beyond boundaries to racketeer wealth from the masses as well as oppress. America has shown itself to be easy to manipulate, it is a young nation, like a naive child... most of it's media is owned by entities in Isreal.... which says a lot by itself...
I agree with the substance of your post Jozen-Bo. I agree that the media, which is supposed to represent the views, concerns and opinions as well as well being of the public and monitor the representatives has sold out its ethics. I also agree that most Americans are poorly informed about how their tax dollars are at work. What surprises me is how easily Americans are duped into thinking that such and such people hate them or want to attack them. Take this case in point. The US is going to take its vote and money out of UNESCO - how does this benefit American interests? The US is going to veto the Palestinian state in November. What is the reaction of the American people to this? Where is the forum where this is being addressed? What do Americans think of the fact that the US is incapable or impotent before Israeli lobbies such that they are afraid to withold a single dollar from the 3 billion a year given to them by American taxpayers?
This is a valid point, and the duping can be formulated into exploitation rooted in fear. I don't know how to address this problem exactly, or if anyone can.. Some feeling I get is that many Americans could feel unconsciously guilty of their history (specifically recent history), or embarrassed and raised to be proud, making it more difficult to address such embarrassment and easier to self deny it. Another factor could be that daily life is so mixed up and vexing. Uniformity does not exist, some work so much that they are exhausted at the end of the day and have barely the time or energy to consider such things, they are happy to simply unwind from the grind of working so much. But this is opening a big bag of worms...so many groups can be classified...it would tax time to list them.. American policies makers are starting to isolate America from the world it appears. First question that comes to my mind...why? Who would benefit from this and how and why over time???... and if there is such a group of people...how likely is it that they have the power and capacity to influence such an environment? My observation is there is no interest in withdraw, if that is so then chance is there is a purpose, a design to it... What do American policy makers have against Palestan anyways???? I have Palestian friends, we have talked about the ridiculous state of affiars between America, Isreal, and their sovereign nation, and we agree it is absurd. This forum appears to address the foresaid concern...Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! My own reaction, personally, is suspicion...that there is an attempt to set a stage for mass manipulation...and certain elements need to be eliminated to make that stage more conductive to the desired manipulation techniques to take place. I'm not saying I am right or wrong, just that is my first reaction...
Why do you think that you know the "truth" but the rest of us Sheeple are mislead ??? Images alone can be very misleading. Indeed, I could take video of almost any event, and with subtle editing I could make it appear that either side was in the wrong. As to the US funding, do you really think it would make a big difference? Israel has a large and robust economy, with govt revenues of ~$60 billion per year. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Israel The US aid has been running about $2.5 Billion. http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/RL33222.pdf
Ahhhh, so that's what happened to Iraq's WMD's- the terrorists keep editing our news clips so we don't realize they've already been found and neutralized. Seriously, your argument just says "Believe what you want, and when the camera blatantly contradicts you, blame it on Dreamworks productions." Why even bother, then? Great, so if it's mere peanuts anyhow, I'm sure Israel won't mind if the US eventually stops all that funding, just so no one of importance in the international community gets the wrong idea about who supports or enables whatever they do.
Not at all, just that videos alone can be quite misleading. Remember the dancing Palestinians after 9/11? Turned out the video was from another date and had nothing to do with 9/11. The point being that the truth is not so easy to come by, particularly when the people putting out the information have a slanted point of view. It's not "peanuts, but it isn't that much either in comparison to their revenue stream. The point being our ability to influence Israeli behavior based on our relatively small level of economic aid is somewhat limited. Arthur
Was not sure whether to put this here or in the previous Palestine thread, but this being the latest: So the Palestinian bid for statehood at the UN has failed showing with great clarity what it means to have the "chosen" cast the vote vs the majority as demonstrated by the landslide entry of the Palestinians into UNESCO So what next? 1. 4 days ago, al Maliki indicated that Palestinians would not go to the UNGA if the bid failed at the UNSC 2. Today's article in the HuffPo indicates that Abbas or the PA is not yet willing to throw the keys of the West Bank to Israel. So if the Palestinians are not willing to push ahead at the UN and are also unwilling to throw away the keys, it will be upto Israel to change the status quo Israel it seems is voting for one state. Palestinians have already started their civil rights movement: From Jonathan Pollak of the Popular Struggle Coordination Committee in Palestine:
Okay - but you addressed said argument directly to me, phrased it so as to suggest that I oppose Palestinian diplomacy in pursuit of recognition of statehood, etc. The thing about democracy, is that it comes with a huge incentive to delay any problems until after the next election/term limit. It's a systemic thing with electoral politics - a problem delayed, is a problem denied, as they say. Which is to say that you shouldn't really go asking democracies about long-term policies. You can only really expect them to have good answers about how to get re-elected the next time around. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. There's a real risk that going out on a limb with bold, immediate plans will result in frustration and big electoral downsides, thereby further discrediting such initiative, etc. Which already happened in this case. Obama went into his term trying to 'reset' various relations and reinvigorate the peace process, only to by stymied by recalcitrant players and end up stuck in a bad posture. Sure - but hasn't US policy for decades now been to achieve a stable, negotiated peace that answers both sides' legitimate demands? The problem doesn't seem to be a desire to achieve something like that, but a lack of practical answers on how to get from here to there. The thing about sovereign national homelands is that if you need someone else to give you a fair chance at one, then by definition you aren't powerful enough to sustain one. Sovereign nation-states are geopolitical entities answerable to raw power. This is not a high school debate club we're talking about. Also, Palestinian national identity is substantially newer than 1000 years. It's only unequivocably existed for a bit over 100 years. Even generous estimates tend to cap out around 200 years. Inaction is not an option for states that occupy positions as pre-eminent as America does in the international system. In the definitional sense, that even inaction itself represents a form of action. The point is more that we don't really have the power to override the basic nature of geopolitics. It's great to foster a more elevated environment, but in order to do that effectively one must produce a strategy that is answerable to power politics (and not just airy moral exhortations). Except that there already was an Arab oil embrago over the Israel issue, and its effect was not to isolate Israel from America, but to distance America from the Arabs. Which is predictable - you go and punch someone in the face while insisting you're only doing it because he's friends with so-and-so, the result is going to be that he thinks you're a dick, and not a re-appraisal of his relationship with so-and-so. Indeed, he's very likely to double-down on his relationship with so-and-so as retaliation for your use of force against him. This kind of thing will just drive Israel and the USA closer together - it would be very easy for Israel to say "see, we're you're only real friends in this part of the world" and very easy for Americans to buy that. Isn't this exactly what happened, and why the status quo of Israel controlling the West Bank and Gaza Strip was accepted in the first place? I think you overstate Israel's capabilities there, and underestimate the demographic advantage of Egypt relative to Israel. Israel has possessed a qualitative military edge over Egypt etc. for quite some time (in terms of technology), but Egypt et al. have been willing to wage war regardless, and the calculations underpinning that had everything to do with their relative abilities to sustain troop losses and maintain strategic depth. I.e., even if the balance of troop deaths favors Israel 3-to-1, Egypt would still be able to exhaust Israel's ability to fight and the small size of Israel means that if an enemy can manage to capture a few small, strategic locations Israel will be hopelessly split apart and shattered. I think the implication there runs more along the lines that because Iran has co-opted the Palestinian cause, the Palestinian question has necessarily become subsidiary to regional power considerations vis-a-vis Iran. I dunno - Turkey seems in position to pull that off in short order. Again, the implication does not seem to be that the Palestinians are leaders of the Arab armies, but that various strategic land areas need to be held. The biggest changes challenging that are probably in the realm of modern warfare - this stuff dates from the days of artillery and tanks, and makes much less sense in the days of ballistic missiles and air strikes. I've never heard anyone claim that the settlers enhance Israeli security with a straight face. The goal is expansion, not security for the pre-1967 areas. I'm unaware of any such strong opposition from Israel. Indeed, the basic perspective seems to be that the size of the country dictates that all Israelis everywhere are necessarily on the "front lines" at all times. This is the typical mentality of small countries which lack strategic depth.
There are generals and other high-level military leaders stationed on the ground in those countries, whom I would consider members of "the elite" without any reservation. Except those attacks didn't target the 1% to any particular exclusivity of others. And the premise of the Occupy Wall Street movement is not that the 99% have no stake in the fates of the 1% - quite the opposite - nor that said 1% should be violently eliminated. That said, I've always maintained that if terrorists had limited their attacks to military targets like the Pentagon, and avoided using civilian airliners full of random, innocent people, that the response would have been very different. Nobody even mentions that one Pakistani dude who shot up the a bunch of CIA employees at Langley back in the 1990's, for example.
Yeah, all it seems to take is a bunch of fanatics to make videos about how much they hate Americans, and then show up and kill thousands of American civilians in cold blood, and idiot Americans somehow get the insane idea that these guys and the people they claim to represent hate Americans and want to attack them. It's just completely out of left field.
Nah, we are pretty good at figuring that one out SAM even though you are apparently clueless. Because we stick to our convictions and doing so will make other UN agencies think twice about doing the same thing. Besides, we weren't members of UNESCO for decades, we won't really miss not sending them lots of US dollars. Apparently They agree with this. http://www.gallup.com/poll/146408/americans-maintain-broad-support-israel.aspx Our newspapers, magazines, the internet, the TV news, the Cable shows, the Congress and the State Dept. Well we aren't either incapable of impotent, the majority of us actually do support the Israelis. Arthur
I'm not seeing where that poll indicates what Americans think about vetoing the Palestinian application for UN member state status, as such. One can perfectly well like Israel more than the PA without thinking that this is a good move for America. I also have some doubts as to whether proponents of the silly law about defunding international organizations that recognize Palestine are going to like the effects of the spotlight being shined on that particular law, now that the rubber is meeting the road. My feeling is that it was enacted on the assumption that it would end up being purely symbolic - this was in a time when the assumption was that a US-brokered peace process would have resulted in a fully-recognized Palestinian state long before 2011.
The last poll I saw showed only about 45% in favor, so we might not be strongly against it, but we don't strongly support this either. Well if you were correct then we could you know, change the law. But I've seen no move to do so.
