[News] All Around The World

Pages

A posting place for news from places around the globe, outside of the US/Europe.

sonny615 wrote:

^ So glad to hear about Modi.

Somehow I doubt my family, Muslim Indians, some of whom who have had to relocate out of fear of escalating religious violence, are as glad.

sonny615 wrote:

I really hope this doesn't pave the way for Jeremy Corbyn to be elected. What a disaster that would be.

Corbyn seems like the least-worst option, frankly.

The alternative is what, Boris? A Farage-alike without the charm? Fuuuucck. That.

You can have trump.....please....

farley3k wrote:

You can have trump.....please....

Oh my god, can we? Just to have that chump stand up in the Commons and be booed, constantly.

Tanglebones wrote:

My shocked face at Sonny supporting the election of an anti-muslim nationalist.

^ Was this comment really necessary?

I'm not an expert on Indian politics, far from it, but my support for Modi doesn't originate in him being an "anti-muslim nationalist" (nor me, please stop painting me as one...), but based on what I hear and know of him. I have met quite a few people from India over the years, muslim too. I have friends, co-workers and employees there, so I did get to hear many views and opinions from the Indian people about their politics. Their views honestly convinced me that Modi is the best for man India. This is what my friends want and I am simply happy for them.
In addition, the relations between India and Israel greatly improved during his time so I see nothing wrong with supporting him.

Some 'local' news, since I'm here anyway.
Palestinians refuse to even begin discussing peace, again. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Palestinians officially refuse invitation to US economic peace summit in Bahrain

The Palestinian Authority on Wednesday formally rejected an invitation to a US-led peace conference in Bahrain next month, where Washington is expected to unveil the economic aspects of its long-awaited Middle East peace plan.

The meeting is planned for June 25-26 in the capital city of Manama. The PA had previously indicated that it would not participate in the event, but had not officially refused.

“This is an official announcement that Palestine will not attend the Manama meeting, This is a collective Palestinian position, from President Mahmoud Abbas and the PLO Executive Committee to all Palestinian political movements and factions, national figures, private sector and civil society,” Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat said in a statement.

Erekat added that the PA was not sending a representative of any kind to negotiate on its behalf.

“Those concerned and [who] want to serve the interest of the Palestinian people should respect this collective position,” he said.

The White House has announced that it will roll out the first phase of its peace proposal at a summit focusing on economic aspects that US Middle East envoy Jason Greenblatt said has the “potential to unlock a prosperous future for the Palestinians.”

In his statement, Erekat rejected Greenblatt’s assertion, saying, “Palestine’s full economic potential can only be achieved by ending the Israeli occupation, respecting international law and UN resolutions.”

Gee, wonder why they don't want to meet with someone as "impartial" as Greenblatt?

[ Palestinian prime minister, Mohammad ] Shtayyeh had been on the job for less than a week when Greenblatt in April chastised him for dismissing the yet-to-be-unveiled peace plan. Greenblatt offered the new prime minister some professional advice: "You have an obligation to first look at an opportunity before you dismiss it."

In 280 characters or less, Greenblatt has accused Saeb Erekat, the chief Palestinian negotiator who would ostensibly be at the table for any peace talks, of "dishonest hysteria." He charged Palestinian Authority spokesman Nabil Abu Rudeineh of being "both anti-Semitic and anti-Christian," and in three languages — English, Arabic and Hebrew — echoed a speech by former U.N. ambassador Nikki Haley urging the world to tell "Palestinian leadership how foolish they look" for preemptively rejecting Trump's peace plan.

Daoud Kuttab, a Palestinian journalist and former Princeton University visiting professor, said that after Greenblatt accused him on Twitter of anti-Semitism, hatred and a "completely detached" grasp of history, Kuttab performed his own analysis of two months of Greenblatt's tweets to identify any patterns. He said he concluded it showed Greenblatt was "committed to delegitimizing Palestinian nationalism."

He said one tweet irked him more than any other: an April post praising Brazil for following Trump's lead by moving its embassy to Jerusalem and adding: "We encourage all nations to consider moving their embassies to the capital of the State of Israel."

"You're trying to negotiate peace," Kuttab said by phone from Jerusalem. "You're trying to do things that make people want to engage with you. Why do you get Palestinians angry? You're not an activist for Israel. It's not your job to get the entire world to move their embassy."

So the Palestinains reject to even discuss a peace offer they haven't seen yet because they didn't like a tweet by Jason Greenblatt? Makes total sense.

sonny615 wrote:

So the Palestinains reject to even discuss a peace offer they haven't seen yet because they didn't like a tweet by Jason Greenblatt? Makes total sense.

It does. You generally don't trust someone who has consistently tweeted ridicule of you and praise for your opponent to be fair when they offer to negotiate peace between you and them

Imo, not giving credibility to the Trump administration, by showing up to what are most likely to be a farce, seems reasonable. Let US show their hand first. If it did turn out US actually want to interfere in good faith, then the situation changes.

Anyone showing up to negotiate with the Trump administration in the last 2 years end up getting burned.

Shadout wrote:

Anyone showing up to negotiate with the Trump administration in the last 2 years end up getting burned.

I don't know North Korea seemed to do ok. Not sure what will happen next but they got a lot more respect and worldwide acceptance on the back of trump's negotiations.

Shadout wrote:

Imo, not giving credibility to the Trump administration, by showing up to what are most likely to be a farce, seems reasonable. Let US show their hand first. If it did turn out US actually want to interfere in good faith, then the situation changes.

Anyone showing up to negotiate with the Trump administration in the last 2 years end up getting burned.

Plus Greenblatt has worked for Trump since 97. He's not some otherwise qualified ambassador or advisor who's merely been tapped by Trump for this. He's there to push Trump's agenda, not to find a resolution both sides can live with.

farley3k wrote:
Shadout wrote:

Anyone showing up to negotiate with the Trump administration in the last 2 years end up getting burned.

I don't know North Korea seemed to do ok. Not sure what will happen next but they got a lot more respect and worldwide acceptance on the back of trump's negotiations.

North Korea likely didn't want a deal. So by not getting a deal I guess you can say they are doing okay. Still, nothing came of it.
But have anyone entered negotiations with the Trump administration, hoping for a deal, and got out with anything resembling a good deal?
I guess the best case might be the NAFTA 2.0, merely because they ended up with something fairly close to what they had - but it is not like that deal is 100% done yet either. Tariffs only got removed a few days ago, and who knows when the agreement will be signed.

Imo, dont bother negotiating with Trump at this point. Trump just ends up using the negotiations for whenever he needs to take attention away from another disaster.

Stengah wrote:
sonny615 wrote:

So the Palestinains reject to even discuss a peace offer they haven't seen yet because they didn't like a tweet by Jason Greenblatt? Makes total sense.

It does. You generally don't trust someone who has consistently tweeted ridicule of you and praise for your opponent to be fair when they offer to negotiate peace between you and them

Guys, I'm sorry but you make no sense at all. Can you imagine if all negotiations in our history would not even be conducted because someone said something?
Enemies make peace after wars, multiple casualties and suffering... refusing to begin negotiations over a tweet is ridiculous.

I would somewhat understand if the Palestinians at least looked at the proposal and then said no but not showing up at all? Say what you want, this isn't about a tweet, it's a much deeper reason. It's a consistent and strategic Palestinian decision of not wanting peace, not recognizing Israel's right to exist and not wanting a two state solution.

Tricky to negotiate a two state solution when the guy in charge of the other side is ramping up for annexation.

Tanglebones wrote:

Tricky to negotiate a two state solution when the guy in charge of the other side is ramping up for annexation.

The previous, what, 14 USA presidents didn't "ramp up for annexation", what was the Palestinian excuse then?

sonny615 wrote:
Tanglebones wrote:

Tricky to negotiate a two state solution when the guy in charge of the other side is ramping up for annexation.

The previous, what, 14 USA presidents didn't "ramp up for annexation", what was the Palestinian excuse then?

That's a reference to this, not Trump:
https://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Ne...

sonny615 wrote:

Can you imagine if all negotiations in our history would not even be conducted because someone said something?

This is one of the stupidest things I've read this week.

Any serious negotiator takes account of their opposition's previous stances, and no serious negotiator walks into a negotiation where there's clear evidence that their opposite has no intention of participating in good faith.

sonny615 wrote:

Guys, I'm sorry but you make no sense at all. Can you imagine if all negotiations in our history would not even be conducted because someone said something?
Enemies make peace after wars, multiple casualties and suffering... refusing to begin negotiations over a tweet is ridiculous.

I would somewhat understand if the Palestinians at least looked at the proposal and then said no but not showing up at all? Say what you want, this isn't about a tweet, it's a much deeper reason. It's a consistent and strategic Palestinian decision of not wanting peace, not recognizing Israel's right to exist and not wanting a two state solution.

If it was Israels negotiaters showing a 'bias', it would be quite different. Of course the two main groups in the negotiations are not going to trust each other, and will blame each other for just about everything. But US as a mediator is not supposed to be the opposition. They really act like it though.
When you then also know that US is simply not trustworthy right now... what is the point really.

Besides, are the Palestinians actually refusing to begin negotiations? Sounds like, based on the previous link, that they are refusing to show up for an announcement about future negotiations.

The White House has announced that it will roll out the first phase of its peace proposal at a summit focusing on economic aspects that US Middle East envoy Jason Greenblatt said has the “potential to unlock a prosperous future for the Palestinians.”

Come with the peace plan first. Then everyone have a better idea if this is supposed to be a political PR stunt or meaningful negotiations.

Jonman wrote:
sonny615 wrote:

Can you imagine if all negotiations in our history would not even be conducted because someone said something?

This is one of the stupidest things I've read this week.

This is the 2nd time tonight I read an offensive comment aimed at me.
I understand that I am in minority here and I've been told that people with similar opinions gave up on this forum already.

However I am trying to have a discussion in good faith and I don't think I deserve these low level remarks.
Feel free to have a debate with me. I hope the mods are taking action.

Jonman wrote:

If it was Israels negotiaters showing a 'bias', it would be quite different.

I understand your point. Many Israelis felt that Obama was leaning in favor of the Palestinians, he and Netanyahu definitely didn't get along. It still didn't prevent Israel from showing up for negotiations.

I also understand the Palestinian feeling like things are less in their favor with the current administration. Still, not even looking at a proposal is pretty much shutting the door on peace and opening another door for more conflict and one sided actions (which usually aren't good).

As I mentioned, the Palestinians have a historic track record of refusing every single proposal over the years (except for the Oslo agreement which they signed then immediately violated). So blaming this on Trump (or Jason Greenblatt) sounds like a very weak excuse. Had the Palestinians been serious about making peace, they'd act differently.

Jonman wrote:

Also, are they actually refusing to begin negotiations? Sounds like, based on the previous link, that they are refusing to show up for an announcement about future negotiations.

I understand from the news that this is not just an announcement but rather a discussion about the economic parts of the future agreement (otherwise, why is there a need for a summit with the Arab countries?).

sonny615 wrote:
Jonman wrote:
sonny615 wrote:

Can you imagine if all negotiations in our history would not even be conducted because someone said something?

This is one of the stupidest things I've read this week.

This is the 2nd time tonight I read an offensive comment aimed at me.

"What you wrote was stupid" doesn't seem much different to me than the "You're talking nonsense" it was responding to:

sonny615 wrote:

Guys, I'm sorry but you make no sense at all.

Edit - Also, liking your own posts is kinda gauche

Tanglebones wrote:
sonny615 wrote:
Tanglebones wrote:

Tricky to negotiate a two state solution when the guy in charge of the other side is ramping up for annexation.

The previous, what, 14 USA presidents didn't "ramp up for annexation", what was the Palestinian excuse then?

That's a reference to this, not Trump:
https://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Ne...

Oh, I misunderstood.

In that case my claim is even stronger.

Palestinians call for the destruction of Israel all the time, they launch rockets at civilians, commit suicide bombings, slaughter Israeli children in their beds, use blood libels and antisemitic rhetoric, hold Israeli captives without basic rights like visit from the Red Cross, Mahmud Abbas is a holocaust denier, etc. etc....
All those things don't prevent Israel from reaching out and saying it will sit and negotiate peace.
Netanyahu hinting at annexation a week before election to get more right wing votes is *not* the reason for Palestinian refusal to talk. They refused before Netanyahu. Heck, they refused before the first Israeli settlement was created.

I agree with you that this is tricky, very tricky.

However, if you don't try and you don't start talking (and if you don't actually want it), then peace won't just come by itself one day.

Stengah wrote:
sonny615 wrote:
Jonman wrote:
sonny615 wrote:

Can you imagine if all negotiations in our history would not even be conducted because someone said something?

This is one of the stupidest things I've read this week.

This is the 2nd time tonight I read an offensive comment aimed at me.

"What you wrote was stupid" doesn't seem much different to me than the "You're talking nonsense" it was responding to:

sonny615 wrote:

Guys, I'm sorry but you make no sense at all.

I said 'you make no sense at all', as in I don't understand your logic.
Calling people stupid is something completely different. Anyway, I won't take part in derailing this any further.

He didn't call you stupid, he called your oversimplified reduction of the situation stupid.

Israel to hold fresh election as Netanyahu fails to form coalition

Man, I would be heated. You literally just had to sit through one ridiculous election, so let's do it again not even a year later!

Israeli lawmakers have voted to dissolve parliament after Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu failed to form a coalition government.

The decision triggers a fresh election, to be held in September.

Mr Netanyahu was unable to reach a deal for a fresh right-wing coalition following last month's election.

At the heart of the impasse was a military conscription bill governing exemptions for ultra-Orthodox Jewish seminary students.

Parliament voted 74-45 in favour of dissolving itself after the prime minister missed a midnight local time (21:00 GMT) deadline on Wednesday night.

Mr Netanyahu appeared set for a fifth term after his Likud Party won 35 of the Knesset's 120 seats in April's election, but he could not reach a deal with former Defence Minister Avigdor Lieberman, whose support became vital.

sonny615 wrote:

Guys, I'm sorry but you make no sense at all. Can you imagine if all negotiations in our history would not even be conducted because someone said something?
Enemies make peace after wars, multiple casualties and suffering... refusing to begin negotiations over a tweet is ridiculous.

I would somewhat understand if the Palestinians at least looked at the proposal and then said no but not showing up at all? Say what you want, this isn't about a tweet, it's a much deeper reason. It's a consistent and strategic Palestinian decision of not wanting peace, not recognizing Israel's right to exist and not wanting a two state solution.

A mediator is supposed to be unbiased and able to look at the positions held by both sides independently. When the mediator, before even meeting you, has regularly established he holds the opinion that your side should lose and has no legitimacy, then you don't have a mediator, you have a shill.

Stengah wrote:

He didn't call you stupid, he called your oversimplified reduction of the situation stupid.

This.

I genuinely have no idea if you are or are not stupid. I barely know you. Maybe you're a goddamn genius.

But that thing you said? Dumb as a rock.

And good job using your oh-so-wounded sense of pride to entirely dodge my rebuttal.

Prederick wrote:

Man, I would be heated. You literally just had to sit through one ridiculous election, so let's do it again not even a year later!

Well, it is a chance for a better outcome But probably not.

Prederick wrote:

Israel to hold fresh election as Netanyahu fails to form coalition

Man, I would be heated. You literally just had to sit through one ridiculous election, so let's do it again not even a year later!

Israeli lawmakers have voted to dissolve parliament after Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu failed to form a coalition government.

The decision triggers a fresh election, to be held in September.

Mr Netanyahu was unable to reach a deal for a fresh right-wing coalition following last month's election.

At the heart of the impasse was a military conscription bill governing exemptions for ultra-Orthodox Jewish seminary students.

Parliament voted 74-45 in favour of dissolving itself after the prime minister missed a midnight local time (21:00 GMT) deadline on Wednesday night.

Mr Netanyahu appeared set for a fifth term after his Likud Party won 35 of the Knesset's 120 seats in April's election, but he could not reach a deal with former Defence Minister Avigdor Lieberman, whose support became vital.

This is f*cking ridiculous.

Netanyahu is taking the country to yet another round of elections to save himself from court.

I don't believe things will get drastically different, if anything the 'lost votes' from previous elections will flow to the right so Netanyahu will form his desired government and basically pass all the laws that cripple the supreme court, get himself immunity and strengthen the ultra orthodox Jews who don't work, don't serve in the army, don't study anything else but torah making them an even further burden on the Israeli society just so he can survive. It seems like Netanyahu is on his way to become a modern sultan like Turkey's Erdogan. Perhaps things will turn out differently but this is the likely and unfortunate scenario the way I see it.

The Guardian: Bolsonaro tight-lipped as minister faces calls to resign over Lula scandal

Brazil’s justice minister is facing growing calls to resign after a series of politically explosive leaks that some observers believe could have a profound effect on Brazilian politics and the administration of the far-right president, Jair Bolsonaro.

Sérgio Moro became an A-list celebrity in Brazil for leading the historic “Car Wash” anti-corruption investigation.

He controversially took his job last year after helping jail Bolsonaro’s key election rival, former president Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, and has been widely tipped as a future president himself.

But Moro’s political future was thrown into doubt on Sunday after the Intercept began publishing a series of exposés based on what it called “a vast trove” of secret documents provided by an anonymous source.

The Intercept: Secret Brazil Archive, Part 2: Exclusive: Brazil's Top Prosecutors Who Indicted Lula Schemed in Secret Messages to Prevent His Party From Winning 2018 Election.

Guess that means Season 3 of The Mechanism is a shoe-in for Netflix.

Pages