Well, the border may be closed to refugees, but it is certainly hemorrhaging jihadists and weaponry- and the West seems to be silent about that as well. Until Turkey and Saudi Arabia are sanctioned by the UN, as they should be under existing UN Resolutions, and the jihadists who have been allowed to be part of the opposition by the ISSG are denoted as terrorists, the problems will continue. Nor does it help that the EU has renewed its sanctions against Syria. The whole business stinks, and it is a problem facilitated, if not choreographed, by the U.S. (and facilitated by groups like HRW who are not always completely honest about the facts).
Obviously, this was a shot in the dark estimate only, and it doubtless understates by a huge factor the real losses sustained by the Palestinians. It was intended to provide some indication of the huge magnitude of an uncollected debt owed to the Palestinian people- and which if collected could end up requiring the financial liquidation of all of the assets held by the State of Israel.
It is not this reader's intention to see the State of Israel disappear, but only that it respect the rights of its Palestinian citizens and non-citizen residents in the Occupied Territories, as well as those who were forced to leave (including their descendants and heirs).
If one were to calculate a compensation of $5,000 per each of the 750,000 Palestinians driven from their land in 1948 and compounded that debt at 9% per year, the reparations would equal over $1.3 trillion, and we know darn well that if it were a multinational bank holding that debt it would collect and use all of the Western world's financial and military institutions to enforce and collect on it.
I disagree about Trump supporting intervention in Syria. I think he would defer to Russia- they are after all succeeding beyond the wildest claims of our neocon pundits- and that is because their narrative has been consistent with the facts on the ground and their policies have been sensible. I also think that, as he himself has said openly, he would be more circumspect about initiating new wars, and would instead reinvest in our economy at home. After all, that is one of the reasons the military-industrial-media-Congressional complex has come down on him with a ton of bricks.
Do I trust him? No. But I take his inflammatory language with a few grains of salt, and think those who would censor (including self-censor) in the name of political correctness, and who rely on words alone- and not deeds- are deluding themselves and others.
As for New Yorkers voting for torture, Syrian intervention and murder of innocents, that is a spot-on characterization of their vote for Hillary Clinton- and her past, as well as recent history bears it out in spades. A vote for Hillary is a vote for a psychopathic serial liar and serial war criminal who will continue to lie and commit the same atrocities again and again while covering it with politically correct language. After all who voted for and sought to perpetuate the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq? Who initiated the horrendous wars in Libya, and Syria? Who was responsible for the overthrow of the duly elected President of Honduras? Who laid the groundwork for the neo-nazi coup in Ukraine while she was Secretary of State? And who hectored her husband into bombing Yugoslavia into the stone age? The list is endless, and she must be held accountable.
Furthermore, it is clear that over a hundred thousand voters in Brooklyn alone were purged, and many more disenfranchised by the New York State primary rules, and who was responsible for that? The Party leadership that is so gung-ho on getting her elected, of course.
Trump should never have received the degree in the first place. He lobbied the Scots to build a golf course in an environmentally sensitive area and got away with it, and one wonders what the school received from it all.
About the closest Hillary's been to the New Deal and FDR is in having claimed to have 'channeled' Mrs. Roosevelt early in Bill's first term. I suspect if one had the opportunity to visit heaven (something Hillary with her record should never be allowed), and one had a chance to ask FDR and his wife, they would say they didn't know her.
For years the message has been not to trust the New York Times to be unbiased in its reporting on matters related to Israel, whether it was Shipler, Friedman, or Bronner, and now Rudoren. This blackout however goes even further, and Rudoren's lame justification for it has made the Times not only an advocate of Israel, but an agent of the Netanyahu government and its policies and and, furthermore an enemy of human rights. One might be encouraged to vent one's anger and disapproval with the NY Times publisher and editors, but it would be better yet also to inform them that the expression of one's disapproval extends to boycotting its advertisers.
How can Iran be denied their right to develop nuclear power if they are complying with the IAEA Non-Proliferation Treaty? What standing does a non-signatory (i.e., Israel) have to raise compliance issues with the IAEA? What right does Israel have to threaten war without valid U.N. Security Council authorization?
If developing a commercial nuclear program automatically presupposes the capability to build a nuclear weapon, how can any Treaty signatory that is not yet in the nuclear club ever be able to exercise its rights to develop a commercial nuclear program? If a distinction can be made, then hasn't the U.S. floated some viable proposals to bridge the gap?
Whether or not Iran would like to build a bomb, Ayatollah Khamenei has issued a public fatwah against it. Furthermore, Iran does have a strong non-military economic motivation to develop a commercial nuclear program, since right now it must subsidize the price of oil for its domestic market- including through its domestic power industry. If it could instead replace the oil it would otherwise burn to generate electricity with nuclear energy, and sell it on the open market, it would earn huge additional revenue which it could then plow into developing its economy and/or providing a larger safety net for its people.
Ultimately, the President should be ready and willing to enter into negotiations with Iran to seek a "Grand Bargain" to resolve all of our problems with that country, just as Khatami was in 2003.
Moreover, it should be obvious that a lasting peace in the Middle East cannot be achieved without a resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict- a resolution that is fair and just for all affected parties- and that means starting by acknowledging and speaking truthfully about the historical realities and the facts on the ground,
The tragedy is that a lasting peace could bring huge prosperity to all of the peoples in the region.
Well, the border may be closed to refugees, but it is certainly hemorrhaging jihadists and weaponry- and the West seems to be silent about that as well. Until Turkey and Saudi Arabia are sanctioned by the UN, as they should be under existing UN Resolutions, and the jihadists who have been allowed to be part of the opposition by the ISSG are denoted as terrorists, the problems will continue. Nor does it help that the EU has renewed its sanctions against Syria. The whole business stinks, and it is a problem facilitated, if not choreographed, by the U.S. (and facilitated by groups like HRW who are not always completely honest about the facts).
Obviously, this was a shot in the dark estimate only, and it doubtless understates by a huge factor the real losses sustained by the Palestinians. It was intended to provide some indication of the huge magnitude of an uncollected debt owed to the Palestinian people- and which if collected could end up requiring the financial liquidation of all of the assets held by the State of Israel.
It is not this reader's intention to see the State of Israel disappear, but only that it respect the rights of its Palestinian citizens and non-citizen residents in the Occupied Territories, as well as those who were forced to leave (including their descendants and heirs).
If one were to calculate a compensation of $5,000 per each of the 750,000 Palestinians driven from their land in 1948 and compounded that debt at 9% per year, the reparations would equal over $1.3 trillion, and we know darn well that if it were a multinational bank holding that debt it would collect and use all of the Western world's financial and military institutions to enforce and collect on it.
I disagree about Trump supporting intervention in Syria. I think he would defer to Russia- they are after all succeeding beyond the wildest claims of our neocon pundits- and that is because their narrative has been consistent with the facts on the ground and their policies have been sensible. I also think that, as he himself has said openly, he would be more circumspect about initiating new wars, and would instead reinvest in our economy at home. After all, that is one of the reasons the military-industrial-media-Congressional complex has come down on him with a ton of bricks.
Do I trust him? No. But I take his inflammatory language with a few grains of salt, and think those who would censor (including self-censor) in the name of political correctness, and who rely on words alone- and not deeds- are deluding themselves and others.
As for New Yorkers voting for torture, Syrian intervention and murder of innocents, that is a spot-on characterization of their vote for Hillary Clinton- and her past, as well as recent history bears it out in spades. A vote for Hillary is a vote for a psychopathic serial liar and serial war criminal who will continue to lie and commit the same atrocities again and again while covering it with politically correct language. After all who voted for and sought to perpetuate the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq? Who initiated the horrendous wars in Libya, and Syria? Who was responsible for the overthrow of the duly elected President of Honduras? Who laid the groundwork for the neo-nazi coup in Ukraine while she was Secretary of State? And who hectored her husband into bombing Yugoslavia into the stone age? The list is endless, and she must be held accountable.
Furthermore, it is clear that over a hundred thousand voters in Brooklyn alone were purged, and many more disenfranchised by the New York State primary rules, and who was responsible for that? The Party leadership that is so gung-ho on getting her elected, of course.
Trump should never have received the degree in the first place. He lobbied the Scots to build a golf course in an environmentally sensitive area and got away with it, and one wonders what the school received from it all.
About the closest Hillary's been to the New Deal and FDR is in having claimed to have 'channeled' Mrs. Roosevelt early in Bill's first term. I suspect if one had the opportunity to visit heaven (something Hillary with her record should never be allowed), and one had a chance to ask FDR and his wife, they would say they didn't know her.
For years the message has been not to trust the New York Times to be unbiased in its reporting on matters related to Israel, whether it was Shipler, Friedman, or Bronner, and now Rudoren. This blackout however goes even further, and Rudoren's lame justification for it has made the Times not only an advocate of Israel, but an agent of the Netanyahu government and its policies and and, furthermore an enemy of human rights. One might be encouraged to vent one's anger and disapproval with the NY Times publisher and editors, but it would be better yet also to inform them that the expression of one's disapproval extends to boycotting its advertisers.
How can Iran be denied their right to develop nuclear power if they are complying with the IAEA Non-Proliferation Treaty? What standing does a non-signatory (i.e., Israel) have to raise compliance issues with the IAEA? What right does Israel have to threaten war without valid U.N. Security Council authorization?
If developing a commercial nuclear program automatically presupposes the capability to build a nuclear weapon, how can any Treaty signatory that is not yet in the nuclear club ever be able to exercise its rights to develop a commercial nuclear program? If a distinction can be made, then hasn't the U.S. floated some viable proposals to bridge the gap?
Whether or not Iran would like to build a bomb, Ayatollah Khamenei has issued a public fatwah against it. Furthermore, Iran does have a strong non-military economic motivation to develop a commercial nuclear program, since right now it must subsidize the price of oil for its domestic market- including through its domestic power industry. If it could instead replace the oil it would otherwise burn to generate electricity with nuclear energy, and sell it on the open market, it would earn huge additional revenue which it could then plow into developing its economy and/or providing a larger safety net for its people.
Ultimately, the President should be ready and willing to enter into negotiations with Iran to seek a "Grand Bargain" to resolve all of our problems with that country, just as Khatami was in 2003.
Moreover, it should be obvious that a lasting peace in the Middle East cannot be achieved without a resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict- a resolution that is fair and just for all affected parties- and that means starting by acknowledging and speaking truthfully about the historical realities and the facts on the ground,
The tragedy is that a lasting peace could bring huge prosperity to all of the peoples in the region.