Much of this strikes me as continued excuse making for the currently Palestinian leadership. How anyone talks themselves into believing that you get more "pie" by refusing to negotiate while the other side is eating it that one would by talking is a mystery to me.
The Palestinian leadership sat down with Clinton as the go-between. They even sat down with Bush in that role. But for Obama, it's a wall of refusal.
If anyone has a reason to be reluctant to sit down, it's the Israelis, as the other side is half under the control of the terrorist organization, Hamas, who writes into their own charter that they will never negotiate for a permanent settlement with Israel. Their talk of purely temporary peace is wisely taken for exactly what it is: a promise to attack Israel at some more convenient date down the road. The such is the concern for their people that Hamas constantly blocks new elections taking place, their own constitution be damned.
If Hamas would ever allow elections, I have no doubt that Fatah would win. If they then took that to the negotiating table, I think it likely that they would obtain for themselves an area equivalent to all of the West Bank, with 1-to-1 land swaps. What final deal they would be able to work out over East Jerusalem, I am less certain of.
But by their disunity and foot-dragging, they do the radical settlers work for them.
1) Yes, but the attack on Libya has no Congressional backing, unlike the war in Iraq, making it of very questionable constitutionality.
2) The Iraqi people had attempted to overthrow Saddam multiple times, and they were always brutally put down, essentially showing that, without outside help, they had very little chance.
3) So there's a statute of limitations on genocide?
4) While getting the blessing of a council of dictators to overthrow one of there own is useful in some ways, it should hardly be sin que non for humanitarian regime change.
5) Ground invasion is what make regime change possible. Let's see if doing it purely from the air does any more than creating a long-term standoff. I hope this reinvigorates the oppostion so that they can now overthrow Qaddafi. I really do. Let's see.
6) As my backing of the Iraq war was based purely on humanitarian grounds, the revelations that there were no chemical weapons, while embarassing and shameful, wasn't terribly relevant.
7) I fail to see the relevancy of who drops the bombs. What gets hit and what effect it has on the outcome are what matter.
8) In other words, the US invasion established majority rule, and some of the Sunni leaders turned to terrorism, to which the Shia eventually replied with terrorism of their own.
9) Unfortunately it it true that the US paid brides. But this in no way effects the humanitarian argument.
10) Once again, this just establishes a statute of limitations for starting wars of aggression. And if we want to speculate on possible future threats, what should we draw Saddam asking his nuclear engineers about how long it would take to reestablish the nuclear weapons program if sanctions were removed?
I supported (and still support) the invasion of Iraq. I know that that will annoy some people here and elsewhere, but I did/do.
I also have been disappointed at how things turned out. Crime has skyrocketed. There was (and, to a lesser degree, still is) great insecurity. Corruption has gotten totally out of hand. And the new democracy has functioned at best marginally well.
But people demonstrating against corruption and lack of services isn't the same as having to demonstrate against fake or no elections.
Today, Iraq, just like Egypt, has something they haven't had in a long, long time: a shot at democracy. Granted, that shot takes place in a country that has been badly wounded by actions, both foreign and domestic, to the point where forming a concensus is all but impossible.
But if such things as severe internal divisions to the point of it being all but impossible to form a government render a country non-democracit, then the Netherlands must not be a democracy (as it just replaced Iraq as the country to go the longest with no government today).
Is it any coincidence that he did this Thursday night? Or is he hoping that Friday prayers will get people mad enough that they'll do something that gives him an excuse to crack down?
There (and in the above comment, if you read it for context) you'll see that Israel didn't "set up" Hamas. What happened was that Israel conquered Gaza in 1967 and didn't keep up the harsh suppression of Islamic movements there that Egypt had had in place. Yes, they exchanged one conqueror for another, but under the new one, non-violent Islamic movements were allowed more freedom to preach and to grow. That benign neglect, however, ened when Hamas turned to violence.
So, what's the moral? That scheming Israel created a terrorist organization in order to undermine the secular and legitimate expression of Palestinian hope for the future? Or is it that Israel helped throw off the shackles of Egytian tyranny and that former victims viciously turned on their benefactor?
Seriously, the answer to me is "none of the above". The truth is, there was a war in 1967. Israel won. That gave them control over a people who didn't want them in control any more than it wanted the Egyptians in control. As occupier (and later colonizer), they were unwilling or unable to use the tools of supression that their predecessors used. And in this new environment of (somewhat improved freedom), they played a strategy known as "the enemy of my enemy is my friend."
They didn't CREATE Hamas, and any claim otherwise makes no more sense then to say that the US created Stalin, since we armed him against Hitler. But they didn't go out of the way to keep them from harassing their most pressing enemy, the PLO, either.
While I disagree with the idea that the Palestinians shouldn't be allowed to have a military (Jordan and Egypt have long-standing peace treaties with Israel, and they have militaries), saying that a de-militerized Palestine won't be a state at all is like saying Costa Rica, which also has no military, isn't a state.
And, no, the fact that Costa Rica chose this outside of a treaty obligation with another country while Palestine would be doing it within the confines of one, while a major difference, is not a a defining one, unless you see Weimar Germany as also "not a state".
A Palestinian state lacking a military will still benefit its people far more than the current situation. And friends of peace would do well not to pre-reject reasonable solutions for the stateless situation of the Palestinians that they deplore.
you are correct that Dr. Cole never said “AIPAC has the ability to determine Presidential outcomes”, but Otis (to whom Louie was replying) essentially did, though he framed it in terms of "the Israeli lobby rather than mentioning AIPAC itself.
The first two items don't even sound like "heck", let alone "hell".
Much of this strikes me as continued excuse making for the currently Palestinian leadership. How anyone talks themselves into believing that you get more "pie" by refusing to negotiate while the other side is eating it that one would by talking is a mystery to me.
The Palestinian leadership sat down with Clinton as the go-between. They even sat down with Bush in that role. But for Obama, it's a wall of refusal.
If anyone has a reason to be reluctant to sit down, it's the Israelis, as the other side is half under the control of the terrorist organization, Hamas, who writes into their own charter that they will never negotiate for a permanent settlement with Israel. Their talk of purely temporary peace is wisely taken for exactly what it is: a promise to attack Israel at some more convenient date down the road. The such is the concern for their people that Hamas constantly blocks new elections taking place, their own constitution be damned.
If Hamas would ever allow elections, I have no doubt that Fatah would win. If they then took that to the negotiating table, I think it likely that they would obtain for themselves an area equivalent to all of the West Bank, with 1-to-1 land swaps. What final deal they would be able to work out over East Jerusalem, I am less certain of.
But by their disunity and foot-dragging, they do the radical settlers work for them.
1) Yes, but the attack on Libya has no Congressional backing, unlike the war in Iraq, making it of very questionable constitutionality.
2) The Iraqi people had attempted to overthrow Saddam multiple times, and they were always brutally put down, essentially showing that, without outside help, they had very little chance.
3) So there's a statute of limitations on genocide?
4) While getting the blessing of a council of dictators to overthrow one of there own is useful in some ways, it should hardly be sin que non for humanitarian regime change.
5) Ground invasion is what make regime change possible. Let's see if doing it purely from the air does any more than creating a long-term standoff. I hope this reinvigorates the oppostion so that they can now overthrow Qaddafi. I really do. Let's see.
6) As my backing of the Iraq war was based purely on humanitarian grounds, the revelations that there were no chemical weapons, while embarassing and shameful, wasn't terribly relevant.
7) I fail to see the relevancy of who drops the bombs. What gets hit and what effect it has on the outcome are what matter.
8) In other words, the US invasion established majority rule, and some of the Sunni leaders turned to terrorism, to which the Shia eventually replied with terrorism of their own.
9) Unfortunately it it true that the US paid brides. But this in no way effects the humanitarian argument.
10) Once again, this just establishes a statute of limitations for starting wars of aggression. And if we want to speculate on possible future threats, what should we draw Saddam asking his nuclear engineers about how long it would take to reestablish the nuclear weapons program if sanctions were removed?
I supported (and still support) the invasion of Iraq. I know that that will annoy some people here and elsewhere, but I did/do.
I also have been disappointed at how things turned out. Crime has skyrocketed. There was (and, to a lesser degree, still is) great insecurity. Corruption has gotten totally out of hand. And the new democracy has functioned at best marginally well.
But people demonstrating against corruption and lack of services isn't the same as having to demonstrate against fake or no elections.
Today, Iraq, just like Egypt, has something they haven't had in a long, long time: a shot at democracy. Granted, that shot takes place in a country that has been badly wounded by actions, both foreign and domestic, to the point where forming a concensus is all but impossible.
But if such things as severe internal divisions to the point of it being all but impossible to form a government render a country non-democracit, then the Netherlands must not be a democracy (as it just replaced Iraq as the country to go the longest with no government today).
I'm with BG.
Is it any coincidence that he did this Thursday night? Or is he hoping that Friday prayers will get people mad enough that they'll do something that gives him an excuse to crack down?
Well, I think he's overstating his point or that you're misinterpreting it.
A good place to start on this is
http://online.wsj.com/article/NA_WSJ_PUB:SB123275572295011847.html
There (and in the above comment, if you read it for context) you'll see that Israel didn't "set up" Hamas. What happened was that Israel conquered Gaza in 1967 and didn't keep up the harsh suppression of Islamic movements there that Egypt had had in place. Yes, they exchanged one conqueror for another, but under the new one, non-violent Islamic movements were allowed more freedom to preach and to grow. That benign neglect, however, ened when Hamas turned to violence.
So, what's the moral? That scheming Israel created a terrorist organization in order to undermine the secular and legitimate expression of Palestinian hope for the future? Or is it that Israel helped throw off the shackles of Egytian tyranny and that former victims viciously turned on their benefactor?
Seriously, the answer to me is "none of the above". The truth is, there was a war in 1967. Israel won. That gave them control over a people who didn't want them in control any more than it wanted the Egyptians in control. As occupier (and later colonizer), they were unwilling or unable to use the tools of supression that their predecessors used. And in this new environment of (somewhat improved freedom), they played a strategy known as "the enemy of my enemy is my friend."
They didn't CREATE Hamas, and any claim otherwise makes no more sense then to say that the US created Stalin, since we armed him against Hitler. But they didn't go out of the way to keep them from harassing their most pressing enemy, the PLO, either.
While I disagree with the idea that the Palestinians shouldn't be allowed to have a military (Jordan and Egypt have long-standing peace treaties with Israel, and they have militaries), saying that a de-militerized Palestine won't be a state at all is like saying Costa Rica, which also has no military, isn't a state.
And, no, the fact that Costa Rica chose this outside of a treaty obligation with another country while Palestine would be doing it within the confines of one, while a major difference, is not a a defining one, unless you see Weimar Germany as also "not a state".
A Palestinian state lacking a military will still benefit its people far more than the current situation. And friends of peace would do well not to pre-reject reasonable solutions for the stateless situation of the Palestinians that they deplore.
Janet,
you are correct that Dr. Cole never said “AIPAC has the ability to determine Presidential outcomes”, but Otis (to whom Louie was replying) essentially did, though he framed it in terms of "the Israeli lobby rather than mentioning AIPAC itself.