REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Peace in the MiddleEast no longer possible

POSTED BY: GINOBIFFARONI
UPDATED: Sunday, December 13, 2009 10:59
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 1603
PAGE 1 of 1

Thursday, December 10, 2009 2:42 PM

GINOBIFFARONI


http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2009/12/20091291327306638
27.html



Israeli MPs pass referendum bill



The Israeli parliament has passed the first reading of a bill requiring a referendum to approve a pullout from annexed east Jerusalem and the Golan Heights.

At least 31 members of parliament were absent from the voting on Wednesday, 68 were in favour of the bill, 22 were against and one abstained.

The bill requires that any peace agreement reached between the Israeli government which entails an Israeli withdrawal from annexed territories must first be approved by a 61-MP majority in the 120-member parliament.

The passing of the first reading of the bill is seen as a boost to those opposing Israel's withdrawal from the occupied Golan Heights under a future peace deal with Syria.

The bill concerns the strategic Golan plateau and east Jerusalem, which Israel occupied in the 1967 Six Day War and later annexed, in moves not recognised by the international community.

Syria has repeatedly demanded a full Israeli withdrawal from the Golan in exchange for peace and the Palestinians want to make east Jerusalem as the capital of their promised state.

Yariv Levin, a supporter of bill and a member of the Likud party, rejected criticism that the bill sought to impede peace.

"It is only appropriate that fateful and significant questions such as the country's borders should be voted by the widest possible majority and not only in Knesset," he told AFP.

The government-backed bill needs to pass two additional readings before becoming a law.

If approved in parliament, the agreement will have to be put to a national referendum within 80 days.




So much for negotiations, this idea seems to parallel California state politics which binds everyones hands to the status quo

I wonder if this is in response to outside pressures trying to push the peace process ahead


EU backs Jerusalem as joint capital
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/europe/2009/12/200912814524721465.ht
ml



or pressures trying to restrict that same process

Jewish settlers in West Bank building curb protest
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8404850.stm




either way, hope for a negotiated settlement is gone




Either your with the terrorists, or ... your with the terrorists


Lets party like its 1939

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, December 10, 2009 5:53 PM

DREAMTROVE


Ah well, so Israel self destructs. The logical fallacy of empire I've never fully understood: Why in the world would you extend your empire to the point where you became a minority in your own empire, especially among subjects that hated you?

Israel's manifest destiny will lead it to conquer the Levant, under a theological fiction that at some point in the past, Israel or Zion ruled the Levant. Not only is this not the case, but Israel and Zion were never one political entity until 1919. But nevertheless, here they go. When they succeed, they will be vastly outnumbered by people who hate them. This will last until some liberal govt. agrees to give "subjects" the vote, whereupon the Zionist extremists will be voted out of office and the end result will be South Africa. (Another example: If south africa had remained a small capetown colony, it could have been an isolated nation in an otherwise uninhabited land. Instead, they had to conquer people who outnumbered them. The end result was inevitable.)

Expect to see the major middle eastern powers continue to do nothing but use the palestinian issue as a political soap box at home and abroad. What a perfect wedge issue. why solve the problem when you can get so much mileage out of it.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, December 10, 2009 11:47 PM

GINOBIFFARONI


Quote:

Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Ah well, so Israel self destructs. The logical fallacy of empire I've never fully understood: Why in the world would you extend your empire to the point where you became a minority in your own empire, especially among subjects that hated you?

Israel's manifest destiny will lead it to conquer the Levant, under a theological fiction that at some point in the past, Israel or Zion ruled the Levant. Not only is this not the case, but Israel and Zion were never one political entity until 1919. But nevertheless, here they go. When they succeed, they will be vastly outnumbered by people who hate them. This will last until some liberal govt. agrees to give "subjects" the vote, whereupon the Zionist extremists will be voted out of office and the end result will be South Africa. (Another example: If south africa had remained a small capetown colony, it could have been an isolated nation in an otherwise uninhabited land. Instead, they had to conquer people who outnumbered them. The end result was inevitable.)

Expect to see the major middle eastern powers continue to do nothing but use the palestinian issue as a political soap box at home and abroad. What a perfect wedge issue. why solve the problem when you can get so much mileage out of it.




I agree with you that the two state solution is no more, and probably never was...

But you criticism of the other countrys in the middle east confuses me...

Do you propose they should act with military force? Against a country with the biggest military spending in the region, nukes and the unconditional backing of the United States?

Diplomatically ? Iran is already a harsh critic, not much else for them to do, Saudi Arabia has no diplomatic ties and has pushed at the UN, as have Jordan and Kuwait. Egypt has been walking a line between appeasing the US and keeping its own citizens under control... Lebanon is a shambles, Syria is probably worried about being attacked by either or both Israel or the US if they cause troubles...


How do they solve the problem




Either your with the terrorists, or ... your with the terrorists


Lets party like its 1939

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, December 11, 2009 3:49 AM

HERO


Quote:

Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Israel's manifest destiny...When they succeed, they will be vastly outnumbered by people who hate them.


How is that different then any other time in the history of mankind?

Even if you just count recent history, since the day it was born Isreal has been surrounded on 3 sides by folks who want to kill them and drive them into the sea. I note for the record that the Arabs have always been the aggressors in the ongoing conflict. Its not like they EVER sat down in protest and started singing "we shall overcome".

The Arabs bomb, murder, kill, invade, kidnap, etc...leaving Isreal no option but military response. As President Obama noted in his Peace Prize lecture, "A nonviolent movement could not have halted Hitler's armies. Negotiations cannot convince al-Qaidas leaders to lay down their arms. To say that force is sometimes necessary is not a call to cynicism — it is a recognition of history, the imperfections of man and the limits of reason."

Isreal has been living with this truth since before it existed as a modern state. It was nonviolent movement that shuffled millions into neatly ordered lines for efficient disposal. I don't blame them for fighting back.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, December 11, 2009 7:31 AM

DREAMTROVE


Hero,

I meant all empires, not just Israel. Israel is full of people put there by the Rothschild's pet project. I feel for them, but not their leaders. Arabs don't hate Jews intrinsically, they hate them because of the way the govt. of Israel has behaved for much of the last 90 years.


Gino,

Put their money where their mouth is. The fact is, Palestine makes a great wedge issue for any mideastern politician.

No politician wants rid of a wedge issue. If republicans wanted rid of abortion, they could have done so a long time ago, economically. Abortion is elective surgery. Most elective surgery is really expensive. Cost relation has no basis in this: An MRI is expensive without costing anything. It's just a picture. But it costs thousands. So could abortion. OTOH, adoption pays thousands, tens of thousands. If adoption was worth +$30,000 and abortion was -$4,000, virtually all women would carry all pregnancies to term, even if they didn't want the baby. Afterall, the overwhelming majority of unwanted pregnancies are not had by the rich. Outlawing abortion would probably be less effective actually, it would reduce abortions by around 2/3 from what I've read.

But that's not what it's about: It's about the value of the wedge issue.

Going to war with Israel would be moronic. Arming Gaza at any point over the last century, defensively, would have been easy. Similarly Future targets, such as Lebanon (Okay, Iran has armed Lebanon.)

But also, economically. Why does no one invade Dubai? It would take about 8 hours for Iran to seize control of Dubai, and about 40 minutes to obliterate it.

Reality, no one attack Dubai for the same *real* reason no one attacked Switzerland in WWII. Too many financial interests. If Gaza was a major financial center, particularly one that affected Israeli interests, they would never dare attack it.

In short: There are lots of ways to play this one if you actually wanted to protect Palestine. There are also lots of muslim nations in the world with lots of power, particularly over oil, the could use that power to leverage teh US to stop arming Israel, they could use it to leverage Europe into supporting a palestinian state, or to pressure, China, or Japan, to do the same, or the UN to recognize Palestine. Or any one of the Five Permanent Members to veto any resolution in support of Israel or against Palestine until this nonsense stops.

That is not, IMHO, how they've decided to play it, in large part. They've decided to use it as a picture perfect wedge issue.

And no, no slight was intended against Iran or Syria in this, they're not really who I'm talking about. I'm referring to Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Oman, The UAE, Kuwait, Jordan, Egypt, the Sudan, Lybia and the former Iraq. The proof of this one is look how Palestinians are treated in Jordan, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, where they live in large numbers, or the UAE. Their status runs from refugee camp to slave labor. I'm afraid that Arab leadership is as coming to the rescue of Palestine as much as the US and USSR came to the rescue of the Jews: It sure sounds good, but is clearly not the agenda.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, December 11, 2009 7:33 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg


Nuke the entire site for morbid..

Its the only way to be sure.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, December 11, 2009 7:49 AM

BYTEMITE


Hero: You mean Palestinians, Syrians, and Lebanese, not Arabs. Arabs are a race. The other three are nationalities, comprised of numerous middle eastern tribes, ethnicities, and religions. One of which are Arabic Jews.

Arab =! Muslim =! Palestinian, Syrian, or Lebanese.

And probably, of the Palestinians, the people you really don't like are Hamas. It seems the only people who like Hamas are the Palestinians. There's no accounting for taste... or political leaders.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, December 11, 2009 8:18 AM

GINOBIFFARONI


Quote:

Originally posted by Bytemite:
Hero: You mean Palestinians, Syrians, and Lebanese, not Arabs. Arabs are a race. The other three are nationalities, comprised of numerous middle eastern tribes, ethnicities, and religions. One of which are Arabic Jews.

Arab =! Muslim =! Palestinian, Syrian, or Lebanese.

And probably, of the Palestinians, the people you really don't like are Hamas. It seems the only people who like Hamas are the Palestinians. There's no accounting for taste... or political leaders.



I think the thing with that is if you have been beaten down and abused for years, you tend to cling to the loudest voice screaming about your cause...

another point is the west hasn't exactly helped or even acknowledged that the abused goes on... so any pro western faction really starts at the bottom of the pile

What they want is strong leadership to get them out of the place they are in, and all the other voice appear to sell tham out...



Either your with the terrorists, or ... your with the terrorists


Lets party like its 1939

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, December 11, 2009 8:21 AM

GINOBIFFARONI


Quote:

Originally posted by Hero:
Quote:

Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Israel's manifest destiny...When they succeed, they will be vastly outnumbered by people who hate them.


How is that different then any other time in the history of mankind?

Even if you just count recent history, since the day it was born Isreal has been surrounded on 3 sides by folks who want to kill them and drive them into the sea. I note for the record that the Arabs have always been the aggressors in the ongoing conflict. Its not like they EVER sat down in protest and started singing "we shall overcome".

The Arabs bomb, murder, kill, invade, kidnap, etc...leaving Isreal no option but military response. As President Obama noted in his Peace Prize lecture, "A nonviolent movement could not have halted Hitler's armies. Negotiations cannot convince al-Qaidas leaders to lay down their arms. To say that force is sometimes necessary is not a call to cynicism — it is a recognition of history, the imperfections of man and the limits of reason."

Isreal has been living with this truth since before it existed as a modern state. It was nonviolent movement that shuffled millions into neatly ordered lines for efficient disposal. I don't blame them for fighting back.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.




When were they a non violent movement?

in the 1930's and 1940's they were the terrorists fighting the British with ambushes and bombings



Either your with the terrorists, or ... your with the terrorists


Lets party like its 1939

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, December 11, 2009 8:33 AM

GINOBIFFARONI


Quote:

Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Hero,

I meant all empires, not just Israel. Israel is full of people put there by the Rothschild's pet project. I feel for them, but not their leaders. Arabs don't hate Jews intrinsically, they hate them because of the way the govt. of Israel has behaved for much of the last 90 years.


Gino,

Put their money where their mouth is. The fact is, Palestine makes a great wedge issue for any mideastern politician.

No politician wants rid of a wedge issue. If republicans wanted rid of abortion, they could have done so a long time ago, economically. Abortion is elective surgery. Most elective surgery is really expensive. Cost relation has no basis in this: An MRI is expensive without costing anything. It's just a picture. But it costs thousands. So could abortion. OTOH, adoption pays thousands, tens of thousands. If adoption was worth +$30,000 and abortion was -$4,000, virtually all women would carry all pregnancies to term, even if they didn't want the baby. Afterall, the overwhelming majority of unwanted pregnancies are not had by the rich. Outlawing abortion would probably be less effective actually, it would reduce abortions by around 2/3 from what I've read.

But that's not what it's about: It's about the value of the wedge issue.

Going to war with Israel would be moronic. Arming Gaza at any point over the last century, defensively, would have been easy. Similarly Future targets, such as Lebanon (Okay, Iran has armed Lebanon.)

But also, economically. Why does no one invade Dubai? It would take about 8 hours for Iran to seize control of Dubai, and about 40 minutes to obliterate it.

Reality, no one attack Dubai for the same *real* reason no one attacked Switzerland in WWII. Too many financial interests. If Gaza was a major financial center, particularly one that affected Israeli interests, they would never dare attack it.

In short: There are lots of ways to play this one if you actually wanted to protect Palestine. There are also lots of muslim nations in the world with lots of power, particularly over oil, the could use that power to leverage teh US to stop arming Israel, they could use it to leverage Europe into supporting a palestinian state, or to pressure, China, or Japan, to do the same, or the UN to recognize Palestine. Or any one of the Five Permanent Members to veto any resolution in support of Israel or against Palestine until this nonsense stops.

That is not, IMHO, how they've decided to play it, in large part. They've decided to use it as a picture perfect wedge issue.

And no, no slight was intended against Iran or Syria in this, they're not really who I'm talking about. I'm referring to Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Oman, The UAE, Kuwait, Jordan, Egypt, the Sudan, Lybia and the former Iraq. The proof of this one is look how Palestinians are treated in Jordan, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, where they live in large numbers, or the UAE. Their status runs from refugee camp to slave labor. I'm afraid that Arab leadership is as coming to the rescue of Palestine as much as the US and USSR came to the rescue of the Jews: It sure sounds good, but is clearly not the agenda.




What about the oil embargo in the 1970's ?

that economic protest didn't really work out for them,

and it seems to me anytime there is even minor foreign investment in Gaza, you soon hear about it being bulldozed or bombed... besides the current blockade prohibits any such action


as for the Palestinian refugee problem, you are right there... but I have to point out two things... they are treated the same as other foreign labor in those countrys ( like crap )

and if they integrated into those societys the arguement would be made they nolonger had the right to return as they were now Jordanian, etc and should just stay there


Has there been any recent UN motions in support of Israel to veto ?

I have only read of the ones blocked by the US against Israel

Such as the Goldstone report which they countrys you list pushed for action on



Either your with the terrorists, or ... your with the terrorists


Lets party like its 1939

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, December 11, 2009 12:53 PM

DREAMTROVE


A minor one, yes. Not a major one.

It's like military containment. You don't set up shop where the fight is *now*, you predict down the road where it will end up, and set up shop there.

This Gaza invasion was a long time in coming, but late in the day. As for the leadership of said countries, it's pretty corrupt. Corrupt leadership needs a bugbear to distract people, to prevent them from asking whether or not King Abdullah is really the best leadership they could hope for.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, December 11, 2009 4:14 PM

GINOBIFFARONI


Quote:

Originally posted by dreamtrove:
A minor one, yes. Not a major one.

It's like military containment. You don't set up shop where the fight is *now*, you predict down the road where it will end up, and set up shop there.

This Gaza invasion was a long time in coming, but late in the day. As for the leadership of said countries, it's pretty corrupt. Corrupt leadership needs a bugbear to distract people, to prevent them from asking whether or not King Abdullah is really the best leadership they could hope for.



Yes, leadership in most countrys these days is pretty questionable...

But I don't see it as a distraction alone as you say, I think they don't have a plan because there is nothing more within their power to do...

Unless they want to try and disrupt oil supplys and as that didn't work before.....



Either your with the terrorists, or ... your with the terrorists


Lets party like its 1939

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, December 11, 2009 5:32 PM

GINOBIFFARONI


This is more the type of thing that could have a result


http://english.aljazeera.net/news/europe/2009/12/20091211105654910486.
html


UK calls for clearer Israeli labels
The voluntary guidance says labels should give more precise information like 'Palestinian produce' [EPA]

Britain has advised UK supermarkets selling goods from the West Bank to state explicitly on the labels whether the content has come from Israeli settlement or Palestinian-owned farms.

The recommendation, issued by the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), is not a legal requirement but Israeli officials and settler leaders have reacted angrily to the decision, saying it will lead to a boycott of their goods.

Until now, food has been labelled "Produce of the West Bank", but Defra's voluntary guidance says labels should give more precise information, like "Palestinian produce" or "Israeli settlement produce".

The Guardian, a British newspaper, said that 27 Israeli companies working in settlements and exporting to Britain had been identified, with stores selling such produce including Waitrose, Tesco, Sainsbury, Somerfield, John Lewis and B&Q.

'Hostile step'

Separately, Defra said retailers would be committing an offence if they declared produce from occupied Palestinian territories as "Produce of Israel".

The guidelines said: "Traders would be misleading consumers, and would therefore almost be certainly committing an offence, if they were to declare produce from the OPT, including from the West Bank, as 'Produce of Israel'.

"This would apply irrespective of whether the produce was from a Palestinian producer or from an Israeli settlement in the OPT [Occupied Palestinian Territories].

"This is because the area does not fall within the internationally recognised borders of the State of Israel."

Produce from the Israeli settlements includes cosmetics, pharmaceuticals, fruit and textiles.

European Union law already requires a distinction to be made between goods originating in Israel and those from the occupied territories, though pro-Palestinian campaigners say this is not always observed.

The Jerusalem Post, an Israeli newspaper, quoted Yigal Palmor, a spokesman for Israel's foreign minister, as saying that the guidelines were effectively "caving into Palestinian organisations, and will only radicalise Palestinian positions even more".

"The decision comes at a critical phase and harms Israeli and international efforts to renew the peace process on the basis of mutual agreements," Palmor said.

The Guardian quoted Dani Dayan, an Israeli settler representative, as saying that the decision was the "latest hostile step" from Britain.


Short of a complete boycott of Israeli exports, letting people decide themselves is a step forward.



Either your with the terrorists, or ... your with the terrorists


Lets party like its 1939

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, December 11, 2009 5:48 PM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Nuke the entire site for morbid..


LOL!
Sorry. Not funny.
LOL.


The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, December 11, 2009 7:03 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


"Nuke it for morbid"?

http://ask.metafilter.com/42787/Nuked-from-orbit

Mike

Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, December 12, 2009 4:27 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:

Yes, leadership in most countrys these days is pretty questionable...


These days?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, December 12, 2009 9:03 AM

GINOBIFFARONI


Quote:

Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:

Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:

Yes, leadership in most countrys these days is pretty questionable...


These days?




well okay, it has always been questionable...

but I think either I am more aware of the issues or it has become worse

rather than thinking my leaders were happy idiots robbing me blind, now I think they are malicious whack a doodles out to create chaos and suffering everywhere they go


am I wrong



Either your with the terrorists, or ... your with the terrorists


Lets party like its 1939

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, December 12, 2009 9:09 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
Yes, leadership in most countrys these days is pretty questionable...

But I don't see it as a distraction alone as you say, I think they don't have a plan because there is nothing more within their power to do...




But the beauty of it from their point of view is that they don't have to do much at all. Send a few bucks to Hamas and some of the more violent Palestinian groups. Have state media stir up the populace and refugees. DON'T use any bucks to actually improve the lot of the mass of Palestinians - either in Israel or refugees in your country. DON'T grant any Palestinian refugees citizenship or full rights, even though they've been in your country for generations. Wait for the Israelis' knee-jerk reaction toward any violence by the Palestinian radicals you fund. It's the gift that keeps on giving.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, December 12, 2009 11:25 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:


well okay, it has always been questionable...

but I think either I am more aware of the issues or it has become worse

rather than thinking my leaders were happy idiots robbing me blind, now I think they are malicious whack a doodles out to create chaos and suffering everywhere they go


am I wrong


I think if anything our present leadership, in the west at least, is better than ever before. Before the 1920's government was mainly rich old guys manipulating the masses to get richer.

Ok it's still like that, but there is more public involvement in government affairs. Now they have to convince the populace to support wars, where as before they'd just, you know, go to war.

But that's probably an aberration that's about to swing back to some techno-quasi-feudalism.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, December 12, 2009 12:47 PM

GINOBIFFARONI


Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:

Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
Yes, leadership in most countrys these days is pretty questionable...

But I don't see it as a distraction alone as you say, I think they don't have a plan because there is nothing more within their power to do...




But the beauty of it from their point of view is that they don't have to do much at all. Send a few bucks to Hamas and some of the more violent Palestinian groups. Have state media stir up the populace and refugees. DON'T use any bucks to actually improve the lot of the mass of Palestinians - either in Israel or refugees in your country. DON'T grant any Palestinian refugees citizenship or full rights, even though they've been in your country for generations. Wait for the Israelis' knee-jerk reaction toward any violence by the Palestinian radicals you fund. It's the gift that keeps on giving.

"Keep the Shiny side up"




But the Israelis have even removed the option of trying to send anything in to improve the lot of Palestinians, the embargo currently enforced not only has limited food, construction materials, clothing, medical supplies, etc from being shipped in but money as well.

And to the argument that citizenship should be applied to Palestinian refugees in other states, I suppose the flip side of the coin is why don't all the European jews trying to immigrate to Israel simply stay put and try to live a better life where they are



Either your with the terrorists, or ... your with the terrorists


Lets party like its 1939

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, December 12, 2009 12:50 PM

GINOBIFFARONI


Quote:

Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:

Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:


well okay, it has always been questionable...

but I think either I am more aware of the issues or it has become worse

rather than thinking my leaders were happy idiots robbing me blind, now I think they are malicious whack a doodles out to create chaos and suffering everywhere they go


am I wrong


I think if anything our present leadership, in the west at least, is better than ever before. Before the 1920's government was mainly rich old guys manipulating the masses to get richer.

Ok it's still like that, but there is more public involvement in government affairs. Now they have to convince the populace to support wars, where as before they'd just, you know, go to war.

But that's probably an aberration that's about to swing back to some techno-quasi-feudalism.



Well historically you are quite right,

I suppose I was not only speaking within my lifetime, but was basing my point on my perspective of Canadian politics as well

Good Points



Either your with the terrorists, or ... your with the terrorists


Lets party like its 1939

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, December 12, 2009 1:11 PM

DREAMTROVE


I agree with Citizen. The Saudis, for example, are not a creation of the British. I looked it up when PN posted that, but they've been doing their thing since the 1700s. It's just like Afgh, the conquering power has to deal with the local petty power. I think this might be a factor of how long a population has lived in an area. The long, it seems, the more petty warlordism there is.


Nuke them for morbid? Sorry. Provides ammunition, armaments, and target.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, December 12, 2009 1:54 PM

GINOBIFFARONI


Quote:

Originally posted by dreamtrove:
I agree with Citizen. The Saudis, for example, are not a creation of the British. I looked it up when PN posted that, but they've been doing their thing since the 1700s. It's just like Afgh, the conquering power has to deal with the local petty power. I think this might be a factor of how long a population has lived in an area. The long, it seems, the more petty warlordism there is.


Nuke them for morbid? Sorry. Provides ammunition, armaments, and target.




Pre WW1 There were quite a number of tribes plus the Bedouin doing there own thing
http://jrobb.mindplex.org/stories/2004/12/07/saudiTribes.html

The House of Saud, took control of these tribes with British support post WW1 and with the breakup of the Ottoman empire and the Treaty of Versailles became defacto rulers of the country.

Without the British support, or the war... they likely would have simply remained as they were one tribe among many.



Either your with the terrorists, or ... your with the terrorists


Lets party like its 1939

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, December 12, 2009 1:59 PM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:

Without the British support, or the war... they likely would have simply remained as they were one tribe among many.


I assume he's referring to the various saudi states that existed from 1744. The first Saudi state encompassed roughly the same area as the current state, the area was disputed on and off between the house of saud and the ottomans from the mid 1800's up till the first world war.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, December 12, 2009 2:34 PM

GINOBIFFARONI


Quote:

Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:

Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:

Without the British support, or the war... they likely would have simply remained as they were one tribe among many.


I assume he's referring to the various saudi states that existed from 1744. The first Saudi state encompassed roughly the same area as the current state, the area was disputed on and off between the house of saud and the ottomans from the mid 1800's up till the first world war.




Third Saudi Dynasty
Main articles: Unification of Saudi Arabia and Saudi Arabia

After his defeat at Mulayda, Abdul Rahman ibn Faisal went with his family into exile in the deserts of eastern Arabia among the Al Murra bedouins. Soon afterwards, however, Abdul Rahman found refuge in Kuwait as a guest of the Kuwaiti emir, Mubarak Al Sabah. In 1902, Abdul Rahman's son, Abdul Aziz, took on the task of restoring Saudi rule in Riyadh. Supported by a few dozen followers and accompanied by some of his brothers and relatives, Abdul Aziz was able to capture Riyadh's Masmak fort and kill the governor appointed there by Ibn Rashid. Abdul Aziz, reported to have been barely 20 at the time, was immediately proclaimed ruler in Riyadh. As the new leader of the House of Saud, Abdul Aziz became commonly known from that time simply as "Ibn Saud" ("son of Saud").

Ibn Saud spent the next three decades trying to re-establish his family's rule over as much of the Arabian Peninsula as possible, starting with his native Nejd. His chief rivals were the Al Rashid clan in Ha'il, the Sharifs of Mecca in the Hejaz, and the Ottoman Turks in al-Hasa. Ibn Saud also had to contend, however, with the descendents of his late uncle Saud ibn Faisal (later known as the "Saud al-Kabir" branch of the family), who posed as the rightful heirs to the throne. Though for a time acknowledging the sovereignty of the Ottoman Sultans and even taking the title of pasha, Ibn Saud allied himself to the British, in opposition to the Ottoman-backed Al Rashid. For the period between 1915 and 1927, Ibn Saud's dominions was a protectorate of the British Empire, pursuant to the 1915 Treaty of Darin.

By 1932, Ibn Saud had disposed of all his main rivals and consolidated his rule over much of the Arabian Peninsula. He declared himself king of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia that year. Previously, he had gone through several titles, starting with "Sultan of Nejd" and ending with "King of Hejaz and Nejd and their dependencies." Ibn Saud's father, Abdul Rahman retained the honorary title of "imam." A few years later, in 1937, American surveyors discovered near Dammam what later proved to be Saudi Arabia's vast oil reserves.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Saud#First_Saudi_Dynasty


the way I have read it there were many factions, none really having enough power to say they were in control of the region, until post WW1 Britain in the negotiations which carved up the Ottoman empire, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, etc backed one of those factions, Ibn Saud's and Saudia became a protectorate of the British Empire, deciding the power struggle that existed in the day, and also established the line which rule today.

I have also read that the British had made some promises during the war that large sections of Iraq, Jordan, and Kuwait would also become part of their country... but that did not happen



Either your with the terrorists, or ... your with the terrorists


Lets party like its 1939

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, December 12, 2009 2:52 PM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
the way I have read it there were many factions, none really having enough power to say they were in control of the region,



Quote:

The period beginning from 1744 is usually referred to by historians as the First Saudi State. This period was marked by conquest of neighboring areas and by religious zeal. At its height, the First Saudi State included most of the territory of modern-day Saudi Arabia, and raids by Al Saud's allies and followers reached into Yemen, Oman, Syria, and Iraq.

Really? It was up and down, the first Saudi state was overthrown by the ottomans because they thought it was getting too powerful. They're puppet government was quickly overthrown which created the second saudi state. There were likely many different factions, but that's what states were like back then, the nation state is a relatively new concept. Look at The Holy Roman Empire, dozens of different sub-kingdoms supposedly under one emperor.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, December 12, 2009 2:59 PM

GINOBIFFARONI


Quote:

Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:

Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
the way I have read it there were many factions, none really having enough power to say they were in control of the region,



Quote:

The period beginning from 1744 is usually referred to by historians as the First Saudi State. This period was marked by conquest of neighboring areas and by religious zeal. At its height, the First Saudi State included most of the territory of modern-day Saudi Arabia, and raids by Al Saud's allies and followers reached into Yemen, Oman, Syria, and Iraq.

Really? It was up and down, the first Saudi state was overthrown by the ottomans because they thought it was getting too powerful. They're puppet government was quickly overthrown which created the second saudi state. There were likely many different factions, but that's what states were like back then, the nation state is a relatively new concept. Look at The Holy Roman Empire, dozens of different sub-kingdoms supposedly under one emperor.



or the city states of Italy I see what your saying



Either your with the terrorists, or ... your with the terrorists


Lets party like its 1939

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, December 12, 2009 4:02 PM

FREMDFIRMA



Problem with boycotts these days, is fuckin bailouts.

I mean, I boycotted american automakers, and GM specifically, for some damned good reasons and here goes the bloody government robbing taxes from me to give to THEM cause I didn't buy their shitty overpriced deathtraps - so I am out the same money and I don't even get the crummy car!

Financial services, the same, I refuse to stick my neck in the noose of Citi bank, they still get my goddamn money...

And if I boycott the fuckin Izzies, the State Dept will just rob me of the money via taxes and shovel it to em in the form of foreign aid so what's the cursed point of it ?

Last time such a thing ever WORKED was Thailand, and even then it was a combination of that and other factors including publicity and public shaming given the cause of the boycott in the first place - which in the end still never did solve the problem.
(See Also: Dont Buy Thai!)

So you'd have to cut off the foreign aid tap or quit cock-blocking UN sanctions before even pretending a boycott would work - and probably have to extend them to the USA in order to prevent us from pissing our whole country down the tubes for an "ally" that does naught but giggle and backstab us at ever chance they've ever had to do it.

Was it up to me, I'd knock em off our tit and leave em to stand on their own, either they'd learn to get along with their neighbors in a damn hurry (unlikely) or they'd start actually suffering the consequences of being such dicks for once - and either way would be just fine by me.

-F

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, December 12, 2009 4:52 PM

GINOBIFFARONI


Frem,

the US is already bailing the pricks out, this would only make that bailout more public

and I like the way the bastards are crying when rules to label the origin point of their products are enacted.. they know they are doing something wrong, and don't like the fact they may suffer at all for it


Besides, Do you think China will bailout the US in the end...

If you all don't get off that boat you may sink with it




Either your with the terrorists, or ... your with the terrorists


Lets party like its 1939

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, December 13, 2009 10:59 AM

GINOBIFFARONI


Bailout number one....


Perhaps Arab banks will buy their debt?

then foreclose


http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2009/12/20091213173713432
526.html



Israel approves aid for settlements



The Israeli cabinet has decided to list some Jewish settlements in the occupied West Bank as "national priority zones".

The decision announced on Sunday entitles the communities built on land taken from Palestinians to millions of dollars of extra state funding.

The cabinet's move comes just weeks after Israel instituted a 10-month moratorium on new building permits in the settlements after months of US pressure.

The cabinet voted to approve a proposal to include settlements in the list of communities designated as national priority zones, which entitles them to credits worth $41 million.

The cabinet had been expected to approve the proposal during its morning session, but put off the vote amid disagreements over which communities inside Israel should be included on the list.

Ehud Barak, the Defence Minister and Labour party leader, insisted that the coastal city of Ashkelon, a bastion of support for his centre-left party, be included, public radio reported.

The cabinet's vote also decided to create a commission that will decide within 30 days on whether to include Askhelon and other communities on the list, a government official said.

The new credits will benefit 110,000 settlers and can be used for vocational training programmes and other educational or cultural activities.

Thorny issue

The issue of Israeli settlements on land forcibly taken from Palestinians is one of the thorniest in the stalled Middle East peace talks.

The communities affected from the vote are mainly outside the large settlement blocs Israel wants to annex under any peace accord with the Palestinians.

Yuval Steinitz, the minister of finance, told public radio that the move was aimed at expressing support for settlements amid the moratorium.

"With this, we want to send a message [to the settlers] that we understand their difficulties and want to support them," Steinitz said.

The European Union on Friday expressed concern over the plan and said it would consult its partners in the Middle East Quartet over the move.

Carl Bildt, the Swedish foreign minister, whose country holds the EU's rotating presidency, said: "Coordination with the Quartet I think is called for in view of the serious nature of such a move."

He said: "If I understand it rightly, it is a rather serious step," he said. "If that is the decision that will be taken by the Israeli government, we will most certainly express our views on it."




Either your with the terrorists, or ... your with the terrorists


Lets party like its 1939

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Salon: NBC's Ronna blunder: A failed attempt to appeal to MAGA voters — except they hate her too
Thu, March 28, 2024 07:04 - 1 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Thu, March 28, 2024 05:27 - 6154 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Thu, March 28, 2024 02:07 - 3408 posts
Russian losses in Ukraine
Wed, March 27, 2024 23:21 - 987 posts
Elections; 2024
Wed, March 27, 2024 22:19 - 2069 posts
human actions, global climate change, global human solutions
Wed, March 27, 2024 15:03 - 824 posts
NBC News: Behind the scenes, Biden has grown angry and anxious about re-election effort
Wed, March 27, 2024 14:58 - 2 posts
BUILD BACK BETTER!
Wed, March 27, 2024 14:45 - 5 posts
RFK Jr. Destroys His Candidacy With VP Pick?
Wed, March 27, 2024 11:59 - 16 posts
Russia says 60 dead, 145 injured in concert hall raid; Islamic State group claims responsibility
Wed, March 27, 2024 10:57 - 49 posts
Ha. Haha! HAHA! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHA!!!!!!
Tue, March 26, 2024 21:26 - 1 posts
You can't take the sky from me, a tribute to Firefly
Tue, March 26, 2024 16:26 - 293 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL