The US is heading toward a grave historical mistake.

Post Reply New Topic

When your people's rhetoric is to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth and literally drive them into the sea, I'm going to take your people at their word and consider that to be a threat. If your people honestly don't mean to conduct genocide, then they should tone down the rhetoric, and yeah I'm personally addressing you since you happen to live in Beirut, Lebannon.

That's Hezbollah and Iran's rhetoric, locally there are many views regarding dealing with Israel: 1- the two states solution, the peace-process (14 March alliance) 2-keep fighting Israel to force it stopping making settlements and siege Gaza (leftist movements) 3- destroying the state Israel (Iran == hezbollah's view and other radical Islamist movements).

Keep refuting 1-, and you'll make 2- and maybe even 3- a reality.

If the Palestinians stopped firing rockets into Israel and weren't so hellbent on destroying Israel, there would already be a 2 state solution implimented. The Israelis want peace, but they aren't going to be suicidal.

and if you refuse the two-states solution and you keep expanding settlements then that only means that you don't really want peace at all, then the Palestinians will remain 'savages' like this and will launch much more and more rockets on you, and the other Arab countries like Egypt and maybe the next Syrian regime, not to forget Hezbollah, might join them too.

Are you getting what I am trying to say?

Last edited by The_Face_of_Boo on 26 Sep 2011, 2:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.

what if the second holocaust has a different victim?

If the UN gives recognition to Palestine, there is no way Israel can recognize them without severely compromising their national security. You don't have to be psychic to see that Palestine will use this as an opportunity to wage war as well.

Who do you have in mind?

ruveyn

Only a foreign policy nitwit (like Romney the other day, http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/201 ... and_allies) thinks that international relationships need to align on every issue. The US relationship with the Kingdom is one long history of managing this divide. Even among the closest allies (like the USA-Australia) there are always points of separation.

Of course the Kingdom will support a Palestinian bid for statehood the relationship between these two allies has almost always been split over this issue. The relationship between the two has never really been an ideological one (they have split on the Iraq War, Terrorism, energy policy and most importantly Yemen). Rather, it is based on hard-core realism (weapons sales help too). I think it is far too early to prognosticate doom for the relationship.



They are not working hard to keep Palestine Stateless in anything but the most superficial sense. The biggest issue to be dealt with is that Abbas has actually convinced a lot of people that if the Security Council votes in favor of the proposition then things will change. No matter how good the result is for Abbas, a few weeks after the vote when nothing has changed except the name plate they possess at the UN, when they realize the issues have not been transcended in any meaningful way, they will be despondent. Either way, success or failure, the people will still be angry; there is no win for anyone here, because Abbas has not manged the situation effectively.

Abbas had a compromise option, going through the General Assembly, the US would most likely have voted against the motion but it would not have been open to veto; it would have passed and the Palestinians would have had their membership upgraded. They chose to proceed in the most aggressive way possible and its not even a certainty that they have the votes to force a veto in the security council. He also had the choice to negotiate without precondition, an opportunity he walked away from.



The peace process will resume. When the Palestinians wake up and realize that not much has changed. Israel will be there but it is done making unilateral concessions; every time it has in the past, it has lead to war, they understand this and have give up on it as a viable option. That means, no suspensions of settlement activity without something substantial in return. After the deal with Hezbollah, where they gave prisoners and received bodies, they have really had enough. After the unilateral disengagement plan all they received was rockets and Hamas. Israel has serious political issues to deal with but they remain a viable peace partner and nothing can be accomplished without negotiating with them.



Maybe, but that is Abbas's choice. It is hard to see that there will be much of a place for him in the territories after this action. There will be anger and he would be mistaken if he thinks some of it will not turn on him. Fatah will most likely not collapse, the sheer amount of state building that has occurred to strengthen them against Hamas will most likely see to that. That said, the more Palestine chose to go it alone, the greater the risk that they could collapse.



Israel has continuously reaffirmed its position supporting a two-state solution. Also, even though Israel refused the unilateral precondition on its settlements, not a single new settlement has been approved in the West Bank and building approvals in the area are down by more than 50% from 2008-2011 (http://www.fmep.org/reports/archive/vol ... -2008-2011). Israel does not have a huge problem stopping settlements, it has a MAJOR problem with unilateral concessions.

It doesn't matter who gets in power. You need oil, the arabs have it. US will keep making wars in there.

Mod blitzed

Mod blitzed

Wait, I know the answer to this one:

http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/watch ... eg=1&mod=0

Got to love them peace loving Muslims.

Time for a few more home truths:

To be a sovereign state, a nation requires a few key things:

1) A defined territory on which it exercises internal and external sovereignty
2) A permanent population
3) A government
4) The capacity to enter into relations with other sovereign states.

No amount of decision making at the UN is going to create the first and third of these criteria.

It should be obvious to even the most sympathetic supporter of Palestine that the administration in Ramallah has no internal sovereignty over Gaza. Even if we were to accept that the PNC currently in office was legitimate (and the ongoing deferral of elections call this into question) and has de jure authority to legislate for Gaza, there is clearly no capacity for the Palestinian Authority to enforce laws.

And with respect to East Jerusalem (territory also claimed by Palestine) it is clear that the Palestinian Authority has neither de facto nor de jure sovereignty. The best that could be said is that in International Law, the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem are terrae nullae.

While the Palestinian Authority certainly be described as a government, the reality is that it is not yet fully developed with the capacity for self-government. It relies on Israel to collect its revenues, which is a significant gap in self-determination.

The US is not alone in regarding this move by the Palestinians with concern. If the international community recognizes Palestine in this fashion, then the ground will clearly be laid for Taiwan to do the same--a subject on which will be displeased. The Chinese are are perfectly willing to let the United States be the bad guy on Palestine, but you can bet the farm that they have absolutely no interest in seeing a nascent Palestinian state emerge over the express objections of Israel.

The key strategic interest here is to see Abbas reelected, hopefully with a significant level of support in Gaza. If Hamas can be sidelined, there is some prospect for progress. To the extent that the application and subsequent debate shore up Abbas' position, I'm all for it. But I am not in favour of recognizing a state where no fully formed state yet exists--that's putting the cart before the horse.

I respect this opinion and think you bring wit and insight into a forum where it is sadly lacking
but your argument reads to me like Cinderellas stepmother telling her she can't go to the dance because
the does not have a dress.

+my regards.

I think if as a people we can only see ourselves as the victims how do we guard
ourselves from being the perpetrators.
not it this case
not yet
but it is possible.