Palestine Goes For The Full Monty

By Which I Mean Sovreignty. Now clearly, the US will veto it, but as ever, the song-and-dance continues.

Go go Palestine! I sincerely hope this works out for them but I also sincerely doubt it will.

If there's one thing a Western democracy should be in opposition to, it's the right to have people form a free nation and govern themselves. Nothing captures our nation's ideals like making sure the Palestinians remain second-class citizens without a home. Go freedom!

MilkmanDanimal wrote:
If there's one thing a Western democracy should be in opposition to, it's the right to have people form a free nation and govern themselves. Nothing captures our nation's ideals like making sure the Palestinians remain second-class citizens without a home. Go freedom!

You clearly missed the fine print on our national identity. The right to form a free country only applies to "certain" people of our choosing. Kinda like how certain offers on TV aren't available in some states.

Bear wrote:
MilkmanDanimal wrote:
If there's one thing a Western democracy should be in opposition to, it's the right to have people form a free nation and govern themselves. Nothing captures our nation's ideals like making sure the Palestinians remain second-class citizens without a home. Go freedom!

You clearly missed the fine print on our national identity. The right to form a free country only applies to "certain" people of our choosing. Kinda like how certain offers on TV aren't available in some states.

True, but subsections of sovereign states is a sore point for us. We smacked the south down pretty hard when they tried. I think it's mostly because the US is pretty black and white in our morality. The idea that there are two different parts of a whole that should be split up and governed separately is sort of complicated for us. If two groups disagree it's because one of them is wrong, and deserves to lose. We have decided that Palestine is wrong, so giving any ground to them is weakness.

Just can't get that excited about someone saying "yeah, but we want to be oppressed by our OWN co-religionists!"

It's not the first time the the Palestinians force US to use its veto power. Most of the stuff I heard on the radio and news is that things won't change much after the deceleration unless the Palestinians become violent . There were only two Israeli deaths so far this week. A father and his baby were killed when a rock hit their car( they are saying it was possibly a drive by).

I think that's fairly acceptable amount of terrorism. This year it was only the Fogel family, and the shooting of some police officers.There might have been other events but I guess not enough people or children killed to stay long in the collective consciousness. Gaza terrorism is kinda separate and we lost about 7 people there recently.My co worker went biking on that road (12) about or two weeks later.

The Palestinians can declare they live in the holy land of the Flying Spaghetti Monster for all I care. It's all fine with me as long as they don't shoot at my general direction. Erdogan said in his speech that rockets don't kill many Israelis while Israeli killed 100s of thousand Palestinians. I guess our rocket dodging skills improved and with Iron dome they find it harder to hit people with AP artillery rockets . It seem that both him and Mahmud Abbas(Abu Mazen ) are influenced by Lenin's who said that "A lie told often enough becomes the truth".

People keep joking on the radio that you can pass a UN resolution in the general assembly claiming that the Earth is flat. In the security council there are a few members with veto power And I heard that in the Kosavo case one of them threatened to use it. As far as I know the US and Israel is trying to get enough countries to abstain in order to avoid using the US veto power. The US made it clear to the Palestinians that they'll US will use its veto power if needed to prevent them from joining the UN.

It's all fine with me as long as they don't shoot at my general direction.

They probably wouldn't if you'd stop settling their land, and gave them back what you stole.

Malor wrote:
It's all fine with me as long as they don't shoot at my general direction.

They probably wouldn't if you'd stop settling their land, and gave them back what you stole.


Jordan didn't want it back. We are willing to return the entire Gaza strip to Egypt but I doubt they'll want it.

What the Palestinians perceive as their land is all of Israel without the Jews( I can get you recent quotes if needed). The previous owners of the land, British Mandate were relatively clear about their plans:

British Mandate of Palestine wrote:
...Whereas the Principal Allied powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country; and

Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connexion of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country; ...

Lucky for the Palestinians the international court system doesn't recognize historical right of any type.The two side have to either negotiate or fight each other until they agree to negotiate. Large scale war against Israel failed, Terrorism also failed, now the Arab countries are trying to abuse different judicial systems.

Jordan didn't want it back. We are willing to return the entire Gaza strip to Egypt but I doubt they'll want it.

Just get the f*ck out of Palestine and they will figure it out just fine. That land had owners before you showed up with tanks and bulldozers and wiped out their neighborhoods.

Y'know, Niseg, some jackass kid threw a rock at my car a few days ago, too. Never really thought to call the black helicopters on him.

Malor wrote:
Just get the f*ck out of Palestine and they will figure it out just fine.

Got any suggestions? We need a nice spot preferably beach front on a west coast. California will suits us just fine. Just get rid of the extra people and make sure they take the debt with them. We want a homeland for all the Jews and California would be a nice spot. I guess some people can stay as long as the can tolerate socialism, loose law enforcement ,strict gun regulations and working on Sunday.
Malor wrote:
That land had owners before you showed up with tanks and bulldozers and wiped out their neighborhoods.

I'm not sure what you base that on .It doesn't matter anyways because historical right has no meaning under international law.

LobsterMobster wrote:
Y'know, Niseg, some jackass kid threw a rock at my car a few days ago, too. Never really thought to call the black helicopters on him.

The damage depends on how big the rock is and how fast the thrower and the victim's vehicles were moving. They wrote on Ynet there is a new trend of throwing rock from a moving car kinda like "driveby", this way you get a rock about 2-5 lb traveling at a speed of about 180 kph . The victim, Asher Palmer had fractures of the skull and they also found a rock with human blood on it. I'm not sure how the baby died they said the car flipped over a few times and that his gun was missing. I guess if they find the gun the can find the killer.

It's new implementation of assault with a deadly weapon. Actually It's not that new because there was a person who got killed by rock throwing in the October riots. There were probably others in the past but I can't recall anything. Rock throwing has been going on for ages.

This morning I saw a report of the use of Molotov cocktail on the news at the doctor's office and told my wife - "business as usual there are no news". People there were more concern about getting in than meaningless report of use of molotov cocktail. It used to be "interesting" when someone met his unfortunate untimely death but now most people ignore those reports too. 7 people died last month -and we pretty much forgot they ever existed. It's recorded in the general consciousness but we don't talk about it anymore.

We got so used to terrorism we now rate the victim/potential victim performance according to his/her circumstance and his/her outcome . People who miraculously survive score pretty high especially if they did something to promote their self preservation. There was a guy that did something silly. He drove to the south to check on his pregnant wife and a rocket hit his car... There was another guy who ran home when he heard the alarm and then a rocket hit the car he got out of . Generally people who are careful survive longer. If you stay outside while there are rocket flying you are taking too much risk. People used to watch and/or record videos the Iron Dome intercepting rockets but after it missed one I doubt they'll take that risk again.

I'd be happiest if both sides would stop blowing each other up and learn how to share arable land respectfully.

Yeah, idealistic silliness, I know.

Farscry wrote:
I'd be happiest if both sides would stop blowing each other up and learn how to share arable land respectfully.

Yeah, idealistic silliness, I know.

Okay, sounds like a plan. Now, tell us how to convince two sides who've seen family members, friends, neighbors, etc. killed by rockets, suicide bombs, soldiers or tanks by a people they've been raised to distrust/hate/fear are their new, peaceful neighbors. Also, who has what fair claim to what land that someone else's family has been farming for generations, with what water rights and under what governmental jurisdiction. A lot of people have conflicting and valid claims to the same land, and frankly there are too many people there to support with the limited resources available.

/end response directly to Farscry's post

There is a lot of magic thinking that people seem to come up with as far as this conflict. Either it is a brutal occupation by the Israelis or a constant stream of terrorist attacks by the Palestinians. And there is a lot of pretending that one side should just ignore the violence from the other side and acquiesce to their demands. In reality, that never happens anywhere. America never gave land back to Mexico or to the natives, most the USSR was all too ready to throw out the Russians at the first opportunity, and the Afghans have never backed down from anyone.

Neither side is composed entirely of good actors, as the reports from Palestine on Israeli violence and reports + anecdotes from Niseg show. But neither side is made up of hateful monsters. Maybe the American history of the vastly-superior white American majority crushing the natives, driving out the Mexicans and enslaving then subjugating the Africans has altered something in our collective world view, but I really cannot see either side in this conflict as having the moral high ground that I see asserted so often.

A lot of people have conflicting and valid claims to the same land,

Showing up with tanks is not a valid claim to land. And the Bible is not a land deed.

I am still waiting for the logical reason why the US should use its political capital and its veto power in a fight between unreasonable Arabs and equally unreasonable Jews.

For a second there, I read the thread title as 'Palin goes for the full monty'. She would, you know, if that's what it would take to remain in the spotlight.

Ehm... go Palestine or Israel!

Kraint wrote:
Maybe the American history of the vastly-superior white American majority crushing the natives, driving out the Mexicans and enslaving then subjugating the Africans has altered something in our collective world view, but I really cannot see either side in this conflict as having the moral high ground that I see asserted so often.

Funny how that winds up becoming 'American history' when it got started before America even existed and continued long after...

Paleocon wrote:
I am still waiting for the logical reason why the US should use its political capital and its veto power in a fight between unreasonable Arabs and equally unreasonable Jews.

Because whatever happens, in an unreasonable world, we'll get blamed somehow?

CheezePavilion wrote:

Paleocon wrote:
I am still waiting for the logical reason why the US should use its political capital and its veto power in a fight between unreasonable Arabs and equally unreasonable Jews.

Because whatever happens, in an unreasonable world, we'll get blamed somehow?

We'll get blamed for it anyway. Why bother spending the effort?

Paleocon wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:

Paleocon wrote:
I am still waiting for the logical reason why the US should use its political capital and its veto power in a fight between unreasonable Arabs and equally unreasonable Jews.

Because whatever happens, in an unreasonable world, we'll get blamed somehow?

We'll get blamed for it anyway. Why bother spending the effort?

It's a tough question. My answer would be that at least if we pick a side, that side won't blame us, but then again...yeah, that's no guarantee either.

You do bring up a good question: nobody assembled the veto members of theSecurity Council of the U.N. because they believed those countries would constitute a wise body of advisers on world affairs. They assembled it because those were the countries with a practical veto, the countries that if they decided to defy the U.N. could trigger a world war with their resistance; if all five got on board with an idea, they could make everyone else fall into line.

Maybe it's okay for the U.S. to occasionally be as self-serving as other members of the Security Council, considering we weren't put there in the first place to be self-sacrificing.

CheezePavilion wrote:
Paleocon wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:

Paleocon wrote:
I am still waiting for the logical reason why the US should use its political capital and its veto power in a fight between unreasonable Arabs and equally unreasonable Jews.

Because whatever happens, in an unreasonable world, we'll get blamed somehow?

We'll get blamed for it anyway. Why bother spending the effort?

It's a tough question. My answer would be that at least if we pick a side, that side won't blame us, but then again...yeah, that's no guarantee either.

You do bring up a good question: nobody assembled the veto members of theSecurity Council of the U.N. because they believed those countries would constitute a wise body of advisers on world affairs. They assembled it because those were the countries with a practical veto, the countries that if they decided to defy the U.N. could trigger a world war with their resistance; if all five got on board with an idea, they could make everyone else fall into line.

Maybe it's okay for the U.S. to occasionally be as self-serving as other members of the Security Council, considering we weren't put there in the first place to be self-sacrificing.

I'm okay with self-serving. I'm just mystified how this serves ourselves.

I sincerely don't understand all the bashing of Israel - 'stole' the land? Come on...the nature of history is combative in nature. Maybe we can all return to the previous boundaries established in the Paleolithic era...will that work?

From what I've seen, Israel has as least given a 50% effort over the years, offering incentives and pulling back to some degree time and again in the effort to compromise. When its not returned, the 'hey, lets build more settlements as a buffer zone' response comes into play sadly. On the flip side, I pretty much see nothing other than the Palestinian's demanding they be given what they want, and offering up more attacks as their part of the 'incentives package. Its all insane to me.

Toss on Obama's appeasement of the issue to embolden the Palestinians to make the bid, and you have a recipe that isn't going to work. Lets make sure we alienate the few countries who do actually consider the US a friend and ally...sounds like a plan (a decidedly stupid plan...but a plan) - to me!

Don't know how many of you have much experience with the Arab world...but you throw your lot in with them...well, don't be surprised when you are left on the side of the road stranded in massive disappointment...because I'll be one standing there saying "we told ya so...". I mean, whether US ally or enemy, its generally the same - we have Libya, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Saudi, Kuwait, Yemen, Palestine ...and the list goes on - you have one nutjob regime after another, and we want to throw our lot in with them as the oppressed. Oh, the poor Palestinians... (I will take side notes of the successes of Jordan, Oman and the UAE as rare and notable exceptions...credit is due in those cases)

All I continue to look at in history is where appeasement (the greatest example being WWII) gets us. I for one, stand firmly in our allies' corner with Israel. Do they need to compromise - of course - but that is a two way street. The Security Council's veto still won't keep a limited recognition going from our beloved friends in the general assembly. Yay...

CheezePavilion wrote:
Kraint wrote:
Maybe the American history of the vastly-superior white American majority crushing the natives, driving out the Mexicans and enslaving then subjugating the Africans has altered something in our collective world view, but I really cannot see either side in this conflict as having the moral high ground that I see asserted so often.

Funny how that winds up becoming 'American history' when it got started before America even existed and continued long after...

Slavery, seizing Texas/Arizona/New Mexico/Southern California, and small pox blankets + reservations all happened well after our nation was founded. That said, Americans didn't form out of the aether in 1776, it is all part of our collective history as a people, regardless of which king, colonial governor or president held the reins at the time. I'm just trying to point out what feels like a few very odd points-of-view regarding Israel v. Palestine that seem to be prevalent among people I know/read/post with that seem to treat it like a special case rather than SOP for humanity.

Paleocon wrote:
I am still waiting for the logical reason why the US should use its political capital and its veto power in a fight between unreasonable Arabs and equally unreasonable Jews.

That I don't have a good answer for. I have an okay answer, supporting a modern, democratic nation with which we have useful trade ties and cultural links in an otherwise hostile region. It isn't a great answer, since a decent part of the hostility relates to our support for them and our support seems disproportionate to their need, but I am in favor of us helping pretty much any beleaguered nation with a reasonable government.

Kraint wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:
Kraint wrote:
Maybe the American history of the vastly-superior white American majority crushing the natives, driving out the Mexicans and enslaving then subjugating the Africans has altered something in our collective world view, but I really cannot see either side in this conflict as having the moral high ground that I see asserted so often.

Funny how that winds up becoming 'American history' when it got started before America even existed and continued long after...

Slavery, seizing Texas/Arizona/New Mexico/Southern California, and small pox blankets + reservations all happened well after our nation was founded.

And nothing comparable happened in other countries with a white majority during that time frame?

That said, Americans didn't form out of the aether in 1776, it is all part of our collective history as a people, regardless of which king, colonial governor or president held the reins at the time. I'm just trying to point out what feels like a few very odd points-of-view regarding Israel v. Palestine that seem to be prevalent among people I know/read/post with that seem to treat it like a special case rather than SOP for humanity.

Considering how much American history has in common with Canadian history and European history when it comes to this sort of stuff, I don't think the place to look for any very odd points-of-view is here.

Kraint wrote:

Paleocon wrote:
I am still waiting for the logical reason why the US should use its political capital and its veto power in a fight between unreasonable Arabs and equally unreasonable Jews.

That I don't have a good answer for. I have an okay answer, supporting a modern, democratic nation with which we have useful trade ties and cultural links in an otherwise hostile region. It isn't a great answer, since a decent part of the hostility relates to our support for them and our support seems disproportionate to their need, but I am in favor of us helping pretty much any beleaguered nation with a reasonable government.

As you mention, the lack of democratic institutions in the Arab world have as much to do with our historical intervention on the part of dictators like Mubarak and Gaddafi as they do with anything else. This is precisely why anti-Arab hardliners like Netanyahu are sweating over this whole Arab Spring business.

It is worth noting that the Israeli resistance and opposition to the democratization of its neighbors and self determination of the Palestinians has soured its relations with its most important regional ally (Turkey) to the point that they no longer share diplomatic relations.

The Arabs are done with our 50's era puppet dictators and the region is evolving. It's time for our policy to evolve with it.

Paleocon wrote:
The Arabs are done with our 50's era puppet dictators and the region is evolving. It's time for our policy to evolve with it.

I guess my issue is I wonder how 'evolved' Palestine is--is it like these other countries of the Arab Spring in our most optimistic opinion of it, or are we going to get a mess of a country, another illiberal democracy? I mean, what does Israel do when Palestine won't hand over a terrorist leader? Does Israel then get to re-invade? I just think on how long we wound up in Afghanistan under that justification--however convincing or not anyone individually finds it--and wonder what happens to that first Palestinian government that faces the question of whether to co-operate with Israel and hand someone over or risk Israeli invasion. Either way, I don't see that government lasting too long.

Paleocon wrote:
I am still waiting for the logical reason why the US should use its political capital and its veto power in a fight between unreasonable Arabs and equally unreasonable Jews.

Israel can counter with a resolution of it's own by annexing its settlements in a way it would be extremely hard to return any land in the future. The Golan Heights was originally a bargaining chip but after quiet a few attempt to negotiate peace with Syria Israel practically annexed it and it's now holding it longer than Syria ever did. To that you have to add the new law that say that before any land is given up the public must agree to it using the voting mechanism.

I think that the US is threatening to veto is because of the escalation potential. Israel already said that would retaliate with its own one sided step. The Palestinians are trying to form a state while annexing land that is currently controlled by Israel. If there is no negotiation then everything is up for grabs. This would create such a mess that may cause another regional war. The US probably doesn't want to get dragged into that mess or clean up afterwards. It may not cause a war because no side other than the Iranians and Palestinians have an interest in destabilizing the region .

Any new conflict will usually mean The Palestinians would need more aid to cover any subsequent economic impact. The Israelis economy is generally not affected much by war. It mainly got into trouble due to macro economic stupidity ( I'm reading a book about it).

People shouldn't be too too excited about the American Veto. there are a few functioning countries who don't have a UN membership mainly due to Veto and invasion threats and are doing just fine. I'm not sure what people find in the UN. It's generally a good place to do cease fire negotiations but most of the times they think up anti-Israeli resolutions. that don't really affect anyone. I agree that the Palmer report was relatively good for Israel but then Turkey rejected it and started going crazy which wasn't such a good outcome.

The permanent members of the UN security council have too much power and they tend to abuse it when needed . This turns the other member states into pawns in the game that takes place between the five "big" nuclear superpowers .

Kraint wrote:
Farscry wrote:
I'd be happiest if both sides would stop blowing each other up and learn how to share arable land respectfully.

Yeah, idealistic silliness, I know.

Okay, sounds like a plan. Now, tell us how to convince two sides who've seen family members, friends, neighbors, etc. killed by rockets, suicide bombs, soldiers or tanks by a people they've been raised to distrust/hate/fear are their new, peaceful neighbors. Also, who has what fair claim to what land that someone else's family has been farming for generations, with what water rights and under what governmental jurisdiction. A lot of people have conflicting and valid claims to the same land, and frankly there are too many people there to support with the limited resources available.

/end response directly to Farscry's post

Hence why I said it was idealistic silliness. My mind sees a concept of a utopian society where people could build anew and put past wrongs behind them. But human nature revolts against that kind of approach.

Israel approves settlements despite peace talks

Israel has approved the construction of 1,100 new settlement homes on disputed land in the West Bank, less than a week after promising to pursue peace with the Palestinians.

Stay classy, Israel.

Hypatian wrote:
Israel has approved the construction of 1,100 new settlement homes on disputed land in the West Bank, less than a week after promising to pursue peace with the Palestinians.

Stay classy, Israel.

Not that it's planning to give up any part of Jerusalem . While the Palestinians don't want to talk as I say everything is up for grabs. We got the land from Jordan. The government actually don't approve it directly. The Jerusalem planning and building committee has a free hand .

I just looked at the prices in that area you can get a 3 bedroom for 270k- 320k $ on the 3rd-4th floor without an elevator :lol:. The apartment that they are building is more in the 400k$+ range so that's project is worth at least 440 million dollar . The motives aren't only nationalist or grabbing land. There is a shortage in apartments in Israel and Jerusalem is considered "hot" area especially if you are very religious or a newcomer.

Yeah, well what about the f*cking people who own that land now? You assholes just show up with bulldozers because you want it. People live there. You have no right to kick them out and annex that land into Israel; you are digesting Palestine piece by piece, taking all the good stuff, and leaving the sh*t land for the Palestinians to starve on.

If you stayed in your 1967 borders, nobody much would have a beef with you. As is, you are rightfully viewed as one of the most awful states in existence.