Total number of comments: 200 (since 2010-02-01 12:08:35)
Showing comments 200 - 101Page: 2 1
and of course school teachers. oh yes and photographers. and of course people just interested in seeing for themselves.
Right around the world teachers in American sponsored missions are always kept away because... well because.
Well good for Kerry. An accurate and timely statement.
I hope that he does not resile.
thanks for the update; I see that the new party line is that failing to blame the palestinians for being brutally occupied and driven out is to treat them as children. The "evidence" from Mr Abrams remains the same old horrible lies:
"Five years ago, in the spring of 2008, the parties were negotiating, apparently seriously, as part of what was then called “the Annapolis process.” That failed when Mahmoud Abbas refused an extremely generous offer from Israeli Prime Minister Olmert. The Formerly Eminent Persons appear to have forgotten this, or far more likely to be seeking to avoid that truth. "
I believe that they support it primarily _because_ they know that it does not work.
Istratine continues to illegally control Gaza. It never left. More, never signed a peace treaty, never made reparation. A blockade is an act of war, as affirmed repeatedly by Istratine. Worse, Gaza remains the largest open air prison in the world.
During war firing rockets is par for the course. A moral USA would have supplied Gaza with an efficient defensive system able to match its attacker one for one. Failing that, it is not unreasonable to do what they can.
The isratine's have a proposal. It is called the Allon plan, or more correctly the open air prison plan, and it would give the Palestinians' nothing. Actually, worse than nothing. If they were unwise enough to sign, they would lose even the right that they have now to complain that they are being grossly abused and cause their criminal jailor's some inconvenience.
Seeking recognition by the international court of justice remains the only option that might or might not lead to justice.
the israel within the 1967 cease fire lines is a straightforward apartheid-theocratic state. 93% of the land is not accessible to christians or muslims. Christians and muslims cannot live in many communities, crimes against them are frequently not punished, they cannot access the same resources, and laws and legal rulings in the their favor are often not enforced and their mere existance is branded so that they can be identified as non-jews.
The USA is a flawed democracy. Istratine is not a democracy.
No shots were fired at the outpost; confirmed in the preliminary report. The IDF was not at risk. The IDF killed two unarmed protestor and seriously wounded people trying to help them. This is significantly worse than say Russia in recent wars. Right up there with north korea and other bastions of freedom.
An accurate description of Israel's behavior! Thank you for summarizing it so eloquently.
This sort of thing is exactly why I have gone from polite evasion to bluntly rejecting monotheism as inconsistent with reality.... or any reasonable social outcome. Of course, also I get to annoy people more that way.
Seriously, though many of my friends and relations who married across cultural divides wound up moving large distances. It could be co-incidence, young people move, however in several cases I know that there was a lot of family pressure, which subsided markedly once the grandparents realised what they had done.
Vile. It is particularly objectionable that they continue to use the old lies long after they were proven to be lies.
This is plain dysloyalty, not dual loyalty.
Interesting. An example of why moderation often fails in the face of extremism.
A serious question, why was somebody like Mr Lewis still supportive of a state such as Istratine that we know had such strong apartheid tendencies inside the 1967 borders. Yes it is better than the worst of the worst, but from the start it had serious theocratic and fascistic elements. Why was he trying to love it at all?
again, a gross misrepresentation that has been repeatedly discredited on this forum. The great majority of the 'oriental jews' were persuaded to emigrate by Istratine and chose to leave. These people report being actively insulted by the suggestions that they fled rather than make an active choice. Many were terrorised by false flag criminal incidents by Israel. Some felt unwanted in the wake of war crimes committed by the nascent state. It is striking that were the historic jewish communities stayed, as in Iran, they have chosen not to emigrate after 65 years.
a complete disgrace. Benign neglect would be so much less damaging that this.
Seriously, why is Mr Obama doing this?
"According to Asharq al-Awsat, Abbas told Obama that he would wait two months before taking any action at the ICC in hopes that the US could convince Israel to freeze settlement construction as a precondition for relaunching peace talks. He added, however, that should Israel follow through on plans to build in the E1 corridor in the Ma’aleh Adumim settlement, he would turn to the ICC immediately."
link to jpost.com
Not too bad. Does anybody see any prospects that diplomacy would be better than appealing for justice?
I could not agree more. They should have gone to the ICC during his visit.
Anything less than this merely ensures that the ultimate, Yalon plan, prison farm solution will happen.
Easy. It would be exactly like the first 'partial' freeze, except even less. Building permits would continue to be issued ad libitum within the west bank settlements, just not officially to 'new' settlements. Would there be any official action against 'unofficial' expansion? Probably nothing except verbal objection. But of course they are not endorsed, so they wouldn't count.
Of course, just as last time, so much activity has already been approved, it would take months to catch up.
Of course Israel has many preconditions, and any one of them would make a state impossible.
right action: link to icj-cij.org
The should go there while mr obama is in the country. This is a choice for the UN's newest observer state of course. We should not kid ourselves, things can always get worse, much worse. On the other hand, I am being to wonder, just how much worse would it be than slow motion murder and expulsion?
International court of justice: link to ictj.org
The Palestinians clearly cannot win or break even. today is the day to formally request prosecution of Istratine for war crimes.
This is how it started last time, when SA was still a pillar of the 'West'.
the only country in the Middle East with protection for
free speech. Except that you may find yourself arrested, exiled or in prison if you take advantage of it.
free press. Currently 112th/179. this is not a free press as we know it. Lebanon is 101st. Eygpt a military dominated state that is only just starting recover from a dictatorship is currently 158th.
religious freedom. Except that everybody is labelled by religion. marriage is regulated by religious authorities. Immigration is regulated by religion. Access to land or residence is restricted by religion. Jewish women may not pray in certain places. Christians are spat on with no protection from authority. bah. More simply, there is intense legal and social discrimination by religion that would be correctly denounced as severe abuse if the USA practised it. What religious freedom?
women’s rights. Women cannot pray in places that they consider significant. Marriage and divorce are widely religiously regulated. hmmm.
gay rights. Only in Tel Aviv.
worse, as everybody appreciates, if you do not control your borders then you do not have a state. If it is otherwise self contained, perhaps a province, or a canton. Not state. If you also don't control your water or radiofrequencies or right to access minerals or to prevent violence, then what you have is a prison. That is what Rabin, and Olmert and Mr N every at the very most offered the Palestinians.
I have never quite understood the defensible borders thing. Istratine has only once been attacked, and this physical size made no difference.
Almost exactly the tactics of the Inquisitio Haereticae Pravitatis, and the means by which they became both wealthy and hated for all time. I have to say though, probably more through than the Inquisitio Haereticae.
Because of this nonjews have no access to the overwhelming majority of the land within the armistice lines and have been forced to live with separate laws. The pre-1967 Istratine therefore was (and is) an apartheid state. I no longer know what the proper label is for post-1967 Istratine? It is serious nonliberal, and nonfree, abusive, interns over a third of its population and has strong theocratic tendencies. Occupation state?
Dear Prof Slater,
I must thank you again for your article the other week. It was a beautiful piece of black humour. It wasn't 'swiftian' but without question, the late Mr Swift would have enjoyed it.
I disagree only with your suggestion that the crimes of the Nazi's was unique. The true h0rror of the 20th Century was the sheer numbers of awful mass crimes, each systematically organised and ruthless carried out, in everycase by people who thought that they were the good guys. I won't repeat it; everybody here is familiar with the list.
Putting these crimes on a pedestal as unique horrors makes it easier to deny that _we_ will ever do the same.
Every disaster is unique in its own way. It was apartheid + 67 years ago and inside the 1948 ceasefire lines. In the rest of Istratine, this is now so much worse than apartheid that I am no longer comfortable with this description. This is the internment and progressively expel strategy. Neither was really part of the 'original' apartheid.
Some time ago, I helped patch people up after the protests against the springbok tours, in Wellington. Red squad were brutal idiots. Fine. The worst of it is that I know that the people in the stands _wanted_ them to be brutal. It was a pretty small minority who either protested or at least supported the protesters.
Indeed, the holy roman empire of the 20th century, which as Voltaire observed, was neither holy nor roman nor an empire.
It is not a democracy, since its citizens rights are religiously defined.
it is not liberal, since its 'press freedom' is subject to retrospective suppression and journalists who do not support the state have been murdered. Current rating: 112/179
this week it was reported that they kidnapped an australian citizen, held him under a false name and in secret, and allowed him to die under very suspicious circumstances. Habeus corpus dates from the magna carta.
I understand that our rights are often pressured even in the most 'liberal' countries during war. Fear is horrible, and often facilitates immoral actions. It may be fairly argued of course that the only reason that Istratine is under threat is because it keeps attacking others. However, that would be a red herring. The great declarations of rights, the magna carta, the american constitution, were developed to defend people who were believed to be traitors by the authorities.
We lose sight too easily of this central belief throughout the ages that those who are against them should be locked up or killed for the greater good of the country...
Dear Annie and Sean,
I don't wish to interfere in this interesting argument, however, we may postulate that to be a secular jew is a curious state of affairs since the definition of being jewish is religious. If you define your 'ethnicity' following religious terms, then you are not really secular, merely nonobservant. The same applies to at least as many Catholics, aye and Protestants of my acquaintance.
A lovely bit of swiftian humor.
Reporters Without Borders 2013 Press Freedom Index has just been published. Last year, Israel was ranked 92nd and it sunk a further 20 spaces to 112th this year (out of 179 ranked).
link to en.rsf.org
The only liberal democracy: not liberal and not a democracy.
One thing should never be forgotten. This was the Allon plan long before Mr Ross added to the sum of human woes. I will try not to break Godwin's law, but there are definite parallels.
actually this would be much better
Let us not dismiss the original partition too lightly. The original plan represents the only borders with any legitimacy. 55% to the Zionists was (and is) injust but it is clearly closer than the ~ the 40% of 22% currently on offer.
I would like to suggest that we stop using the Bantustans comparison.
My reason is simply that what is being proposed as part of the Allon plan is far more unjust and punitive than the Bantustans ever where.
What has been offered in the past is best described as the self-funding prison solution.
Why yes, just as they deliberately provoked the previous protests, and then escalated them by murdering unarmed protestors
already the largest open air prison in the world, and the only one that is meant to be funded entirely by the inmates.
the steadfast creation of “the only prison in the world where the prisoners have to provide for themselves” Dov Weisglass
The only fault of Abbas was excessive compromise for no gain.
The IDF is consistently embedded among civilians, its buildings are in civilian neighbourhoods, and they have routinely murdered teenagers and farmers playing and working well inside the Gaza border and recently murdered a state official who even they agree was trying to prevent other factions from launching rockets. Would any country, anywhere not try and retaliate ?
The war on Christmas, how dare you question this: Jon Stewart edition...
link to thedailyshow.com
The best line... 'Christmas is now so big it is eating other holidays'
This supposed war is now taking up more time and anguish on Fox news than real wars. Who knew that it was real in your best ally?
Mr Rosenburg, you are a principled supporter of the rogue state of Israel. I greatly admire your principles, honesty and courage. I would be very interested to better understand _why_ you support Israel?
this comment cannot be emphasized enough; this is the prison-state + explusion solution.
A fundamental interesting debate. Many good points, but +++ to Mooser again!
It is simply not true that Istratine is singled out.
1. in New Zealand, visiting Chinese dignitaries have to take convoluted, rapidly changing routes to parliament to avoid being trapped in protests. On the last visit, they dodged the protests... but one of our members of parliament blocked them on the steps with a personal protest sign. A good man. He was formally censored by the party in power and just shrugged.
This just never happens to the ambassador for Isratine.
2. For me personally, I spent the first 16 years of my life in a community where christmas trees just did not happen. As a trainee, my friends were people who thought that ordering a pizza on call was shall we say .... a thrill. Even as a current anti-monothesist, wouldn't it be strange if I wasn't still interested in/worried for the community?
3. Finally, I checked, we still have no established church, and never had one. The founders of the USA explicitly rejected this as fundamental to liberty. Why is it OK for istratine to be founded on a theocracy/ethocracy/non free basis, if it would not be OK for little NZ?
Surprisingly, the Dec 16th edit is to the best of my understanding completely accurate...
Istratine has only ever offered the disconnected prison-statelets solution. If the inmates learn to believe that their inhumane punishment is wayyyy better than they deserve and thank the gaolers heartily enough each and every day, then they will be promised one day to be allowed to pay for a slow, torturous connection between the prison cells.
The connection will never actually be built, of course.
I read Nick Dyrenfurth's commentary hoping for greater moral insight. Disappointingly it is just standard, rote talking points, every single one of which has been repeatedly shown to be either factually incorrect or a wilful misrepresentation of the truth.
Is this the truth that is so delicate that it must be attended by a bodyguard of lies?
Good on him and the Age.
The same thing happened in New Zealand in 2003, but not such a good outcome:
"(New Zealand Press Association) -- An award-winning cartoonist dumped by New Zealand's biggest newspaper because of his drawings on the Middle East conflict said he stood by his work and rejected an editor's right to direct what he could or could not draw."
link to rense.com
The first reaction of Zionists to any criticism is censorship, and personal attacks. The Boycott Divestment and Sanctions movement is no more than simple turnabout.
Could not agree more. The problem though boils down to "the Palestinian's" are definitely the abused victim and now cannot win or breakeven. If they capitulate, they gain a series of disconnected ghettos, with no water, no control over the economic resources, no control over their borders and no way to stop abuse by their neighbours. Their existance is maintained in such a miserable level that they steadily emigrate to gain a better life. This is the prison light senario. If they do not capitulate, they are sequeezed into the same ghettos and attacked/kidnapped/tortured until they all slowly emigrate to gain a better life. This is the prison harsh senario.
In both only Jews are recognised as legitimate inhabitants of Palestine, and all others remain by favor.
I cannot see any senario in which even a truncated real, democratic and economically viable state of Palestine emerges.
Given this, I don't see what the weasel or the Schmuck are offering that would off set the potential gains from going to the international court of Justice?
If the ICC cannot address this conflict, then it is only a mechanism for abusing failed dictators and is of no value.
"There is always a worse place" was the central Roman policy to control slaves. That is to say: however awful the current conditions, there is always a worse place to send the slave.
This is one of the most striking insights; that boycott is their very first reaction to any thinking that they don't agree with, but must not be used in return.
I am sure that they would be pleased be demonstrating a key Christian parable as part of interfaith initiatives: "cast out first the beam out of thine own eye, and then shalt thou see clearly to pull out the mote that is in thy brother's eye"
The only liberal democracy in the middle east. Not the only democracy, not a democracy at all, and not liberal...
What reason does anybody offer for delaying or abandoning the bid? As best I can tell the Palestinians' must know that after 65 years, they cannot possibly win or break even. This way they might just inconvenience some war criminals. Doing nothing will leave them with not even that.
Again, it is neither the 'sole, nor democratic, nor liberal. As a whole it is rather an exemplar of the opposite.
Actually, given the recent evidence of thought surveillance, I now question even whether it is any of these things even for jews.
Could not agree more. If the EU does not respond to such a stark report, we will know that human rights apply only to the EU.
Of course Israel's occupied lands inside the 1967 ceasefire line but outside the 1948 plan's borders should also be labelled as occupied.
I have to believe that the evil that has happened in Istratine for the last 64 years is not an expression of Jewish culture. Actually what I think that we are seeing is more an expression of antique Greece, or rather specifically Athens. We tend to think of it as the apotheosis of democracy. I am thinking though of the very same limited democracy that excluded women and whole classes of people, kept slaves, exiled people with unwanted views or just killed them, extorted money from the other city states in the name of their 'defence' and then escalated the war with Sparta with what even they thought were horrible war crimes until everything fell apart.
Even the references to an unruly, 'vibrant' democracy have horrible vibes.
Indeed. The USA shipped grain into France through out the Napoleonic wars, with at most brief inspection, despite the hunger of the British fleet for prizes.
Since children's toys or building material are not contraband, this is simple piracy.
I have always understood that a summary trial followed by immediate execution was traditional for piracy. The same applied to anybody receiving goods from pirates.
In the Napoleonic wars, American, and other neutral vessels, were immune from the very active blockade of France, and from the kidnap ('pressing') of their sailors. If a neutral vessels was captured, the British captain not only lost his share of the loot (sorry there is a better word I amsure), but was prosecuted in the civil court for losses.
“When the world currently is focused on the Iranian nuclear threat to the entire Middle East and the world, Christian leaders have chosen to mount another political attack on Israel,” "these Christian leaders have chosen to initiate a polemic against Israel, a country that protects religious freedom and expression for Christians, Muslims and others.”
As best I can tell there is no Iranian nuclear threat what so ever, to anybody. Given the enormous Israeli stockpile of weapons, and lack of international treaty's, this is the rankest of double dealing.
Israel compromises religious freedom in many ways, and at best comparable to Iran. Given that Iran's jews haven't fled, whereas, Christians are being driven out of Israel and occupied territories, de facto it is worse. The restrictions on marriage and prayer for jews in Israel are very hard for me to accept as good for religious freedom.
I can only agree with Joe that the Interfaith is about control of others, not tolerance.
Containment, meaning starve them in to forgoing a countbalance from an aggressive and known dangerous, rogue enemy, is in this case completely immoral. The USA should _give_ Iran nukes.
Living with the bomb has been no joke. MAD? Completely Mad! And yet, I hate to say it, but I seriously wonder if its existence is one of the things that reduced the numbers of serious, all out wars in the last half century?
As part of a negotiated solution, would it be better to _give_ Iran enough missiles to reassure it that it was not about to be attacked?
This the Allon plan come to full fruition, to transform the Palestinian state into the world's largest open air prison, with just less than enough food water or space to live.. You have to admire the sheer persistence, but decry the lack of imagination.
Good to see that Geller is triggering a vigorous response. Why is this called islamophobia by the way? As opposed to say anti-islamacism? or anti-muslimism?
It is hard to believe that the US will start or support such a truely immoral war for no obvious strategic reason.
Everytime I think that, I am reminded of the single stupidest battle in recent history.
After the Peace of Nicias the Athenian's became convinced that they needed to retaliate for various incidents. They therefore dispatched "a massive expeditionary force to attack Syracuse in Sicily ; the attack failed disastrously, with the destruction of the entire force, in 413 BC"(from W-P). What this doesn't mention is that lots of athenians thought that it was stupid before the attack, and the city's administrators tried to discourage it by warning of the dangers and suggesting what they thought was an impossible cost.... The Athenian neocon/washington posts/'patriots' of the time were having nothing of this, raised denounced the cautious, raised a huge loan to pay for a very large force and went ahead. As it eventuated sensible anti-neocons of the day would have been better to say nothing--- the loss of a smaller force would have been less of a total disaster, wouldn't have bled them to defenselessness.
'Fush und chups' = NZ, 'Feeesh and Cheeep' = Australian.
'Fish, eh' =canadian.
Just a little while ago, a roman citizen could cry out: Civis romanus est! and expect that any foreign government would respect his or her person.
In the the great scandal prosecuted by Cicero against Verres, a particularly rapacious governor of Sicily, what appears to cause him to flee for his life was not the evidence of grand scale theft, of casual murder and cruelty, but the testimony that Publius Gavius called out only that phrase while being beaten (from memory) to death.
That Americans are now being murdered casually and with no repercussions is quite remarkable.
The arguments justifying turning Gaza into an open air, starvation-diet, prison camp could readily be applied fully and reciprocally to the rogue state of Israel. Israel has consistently been the aggressor, and therefore the blockade should be more rather than less stringent of of course.
All of the above is true, but even members of parliament downunder protest against the occupation of Tibet.
link to stuff.co.nz
OK, this is a member of the green party, but even our right wing party didn't have a go at him. Even more telling: Everytime a dignitary visits from China whole streets are blocked off, and they have to circle around to avoid it. This never ever happens for Isratine.
Congratulations from across the Tasman. You are doing way better that we are!
This is the second most disturbing thing that I have seen for a long time. The absolute worse being the introduction of torture. The USA is training its elite soldiers to kill women? This is simply evil.
An interesting lawsuit against one of the israeli-firsters.
link to motherjones.com
I have no insight in to whether this true, but the reporter takes the time to specificy that: "Adelson's donations are motivated in part his disapproval of Obama on Israel policy and by his belief that "the two-state solution is a stepping stone for the destruction of Israel and the Jewish people." (It's unclear what fate Adelson intends for the millions of Palestinians who remain under Israeli occupation, whom he considers "an invented people.")"
“This year’s index finds the same group of countries at its head, countries such as Finland, Norway and Netherlands that respect basic freedoms. This serves as a reminder that media independence can only be maintained in strong democracies and that democracy needs media freedom. It is worth noting the entry of Cape Verde and Namibia into the top twenty, two African countries where no attempts to obstruct the media were reported in 2011.”
If press freedom is maintained by democracies, it is fair to question whether countries without are actually democratic. Currently Istratine is either 92nd for its israeli territory or 133rd for the occupied state. Even jewish citizens living inside the green line must be troubled that they are on a par with benin and lebanon and far far below Cape Verde or Namibia. And this is the core state. Palestine is now the home of over half a million israeli's and subject to israeli law. It is therefore part of israel --- in _israel's_ opinion. There press freedom is worse than Jordan, the Emirates, Qatar, Turkey (despite a serious fall there) . Still it is better than North Korea or Eritrea.
The perfect slogan, we are better than Eritrea!
I fully agree. Israel is extremely similar to Iran; both have some democratic institutions combined with some religious oppression. In someways Iran is better, in others it is worse.
Again, I cannot but concur with you that press freedom is one of the most important indices of freedom, if only because if your journalists are being arrested and persecuted, they are coming for you next.
link to en.rsf.org.
Israel currently ranks 133rd and falling. It is below Jordan, a neighbouring state with some democratic institutions. Currently below Ethiopia oh my, but one step above Lebanon. I would be happy to agree that it has been broadly similar to both over time. Who else is better? Brunei, not really a democracy at all. Algeria, a badly damaged state, the Ukraine...
"Ce corps qui s'appelait et qui s'appelle encore le saint empire romain n'était en aucune manière ni saint, ni romain, ni empire." from memory, Voltaire.
The only liberal democracy in the middle east is neither the only, or liberal or democratic. At the very best it is an unpleasant ethnocracy with strong Fascistic and Theocratic elements. No country that deliberately and systematically restricts who may marry or immigrate through religious courts, arbitrarily arrests, tortures suspects, spies on and beats up its protesters or so aggressively limits press freedom is anyway liberal.
There are many other countries that are as bad or worse. Yes, and? I am happy to grant that Israel is better that the worst of the worst. Does this make its oppression better? And the truth is that in many cases, 'we', the so called west successfully made them that way. I am no longer sure that 'we' can actually 'make' countries good, but at the very least we should stop supporting oppression.
I hate to ask, but who are these fascists? How close are they to the Theocratic government of Israel?
“The position of the Palestinians has deteriorated?” Unfortunately, I think from the context that this is meant to mean that the Palestinians are being less supportive of peace. It isn't meant in any way to reflect any sympathy for the ongoing Israeli reign of terror, quite the reverse,,
Sorry, guys I really did think that Mr Obama would be a change, even just in being a president with some genuine human values behind the inevitable needs of politics. When did that guy get replaced by Mr Bush?
so, keeping this year, you start a war by using terrorism to drive out the great majority of the original inhabitants. You capture 78% of the land, steal their property, and place the few who remain under martial law.
This works, so you start new wars and during one of the wars of choice recapture many of those who fled your original war plus the remaining 22% of the land. You control the newly recaptured inhabitants by a combination of tyranny and poverty, and devise a plan to formally take over ~ 80% of this 22% particularly including all of the potable water and most of the arable land and divide up the the remaining 15 to 20% with prison barriers so that their lives will be unliveable; in the most cynical manner possible you implement this plan, all the while claiming to persecuted and attacked.
the original inhabitants prove to be unreasonably reasonable, and agree to give up 78% AND any self defense AND the stolen property and to negotiate for those who were driven to leave by unspeakable acts, return for a usable 22%.
The deal on offer rewards the aggressors right down the line, and gives the victims very little. It is at least questionable whether 22% with such restrictions can really be viable. Nevertheless, the victims are willing to try, to move on with their lives.
and the aggressor rejects it. I personally believe that the reasons are theocratic, but I am interested to hear otherwise.
Without question, yes, based on Israel's principles, no member of the IDF should be allowed to travel to any other country.
Ummm, ladies and gentlemen, I hate to ask, but in what way is this possibly be a good outcome?
I naturally wish Mr Rosenberg the absolute very best. However, this is yet another victory for the israel-first censorship of any disagreement over the wonderfulness of Israel. Mr Dersh will unquestionably burn in hell. Yes. But, here and now, he has yet again won. Those who are interested in Mr Rosenberg's views will continue to find them. However, let us not delude ourselves. Those who do not seek him out, ordinary non fascists who read media matters, will not see them.
May he live long and prosper.
Dear Mr Weiss,
What is most striking to me about the comments is that the majority still repeat the same old lies. There was a long argument about 'government land'; pointless even it wasn't still a war crime.
I would be very interested in your opinion. As somebody who has honestly and consistently the same views as Beinart and Robert Wright and Andrew Sullivan and MJ have now reached, what is your own view of the long-term outcome?
I abjured monotheism long ago, but it is hard not to reach for the old bad stories. This is not S&G. Breaking the silence and the others show that there really are righteous Israeli's. Just so few that I cannot now see how this can end except very very badly.
Noam Sheizaf in +972: "The major problem right now is that an inherently immoral order represents the most desirable political option for Israelis. All the left’s effort to demonstrate the problems the occupation creates – like the burden on the state budget – won’t help, since political choices are made based on alternative options, and right now the alternatives are more expensive, more painful, and more dangerous."
I admit that it took me a very very long time to realize this. mea culpa maxima. It looks to me very much that Noam's view explains people like Mr Burston (and Beinart) who I think genuinely are 'liberal' and yet somehow have rationalized 65 years of grossly wrong acts by the state, aye and by his friends, and himself.
More importantly, it is hard to know what this late dawn really means. My fear remains that we won't see the 'promised land' emerge, ever, but rather that sooner or later the 1948 solution will be continued. The bibi's of this world, the man himself or a successor will wait until some crisis, and then move.
no, we supported our friends. It wasn't simply the commonwealth or our boys would never have been dying in Korea or Vietnam. In every miserable tin shack town in new zealand there are simple monuments to the world wars, with lists of names of those who died. Remember just how small the whole of NZ is compared to even a medium sized capital, and you bleed.
cannon fodder for donkeys, thats us.
I am begging that you don't do it to us again, this time to 'protect the world' from a country that hasn't attacked anybody in modern history.
1. Yes indeed.
2. it has been alleged, but australian politics is played as a blood sport. I think that Julia just saw an opportunity. She blew it by supporting a carbon tax after saying that she wouldn't. one of her ministers is now making his own play...
what is disturbing is that a lot of american money goes into trying to influence aussie politicians; less so with NZ cause it is so small. They don't even bother to deny it.
I am not sure if most commentators quite understand how the USA is now seen outside of the continent?
From downunder the USA is now seen as a nation of mad warmongers. AIPAC, Israel and so forth are invisible. No surprise of course; there is essentially no independent news gathering, so we see what is on the wire or the tube only.
In Australia the local green branches tried to delay council based boycotts, and were massively attacked by the media and parliament. I suppose this all ensures that when the next major war happens, we will be being blown up at your side.
I would like to highlight the single most striking aspect of this...
The Zionist approach is consistently to crush, fire, shun and generally exclude any speech that they do not agree with, witness in chief the vile Mr Dersh.
When a forum of any kind does present the most minimally different view they demand 'balance' or the right to present their views, but never ever agree to reciprocate.
To informed observers this does come across as desperate, as highlighted in the last few days by the editors of this site and many others. Unfortunately I think it has worked for them. if you aren't actively looking for information, their strategy means that there really is only one voice, and yes what they are hearing at the moment is that Iran is 1. evil, 2. irrational, 3. on the verge of attacking us, so it would be an act of good to attack
My own beliefs are now really really simple. those who initiate war are damned. I just hope that they will not pull the rest of us down in to hell.
We should not discount the pernicious role of what is fundamentally romanticism amongst the neocons, and indeed bibi et al.
I what I mean is that they aren't necessarily or at least not only sociopaths. The truely dangerous thing is that they dream of being Winston Churchill, leading their nations against the ruthless onslaught of evil. Winston was a great man; but they want to be him without either the intelligence, or doing the hard yards. Even Winston himself was famous for saying that "To jaw-jaw is always better than to war-war". Instead, they want to leap straight into war-war.
More important everybody damns chamberlain for appeasement. Really, could England have gone to war then? They were massively unprepared, and would have been swamped. My reading is that he genuinely thought that it was possible to avoid war; in retrospect we can say he was naive, but unlike his critics was also well aware that they weren't ready to fight. Chamberlain bought time that made all the difference. He was not an 'appeaser' he was an informed, clever patriot and I believe saved England.
In the modern world I can only agree with American; if we are 'appeasing' anybody, it is the war mongers and terrorists of the likud.
'Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts.' is a great quote, usually attributed to Daniel Patrick Moynihan. I see it used frequently by people, particularly Zionists, immediately before presenting long discredited 'facts'. Did the NYT actually stand up for the historical record?
This discussion is terrific and very much to the point. The outcome described by VR is the Allon plan. At this point, I cannot see how it can be avoided.
Everything I have now come to understand about the west bank says that it is coming to fruition. Everything that nice people say about trying to make the occupation less horrible is irrelevant; every statement from the resident habaristas' on this blog make it clear that the primary goal is to make life so unpleasant that the Palestinian's will leave piecemeal.
This vision of the nonstate solution has the Palestianians on no more than 8% of the area of Palestine, in a series of prisons. If they surrender, they will be allowed to leave through tight security to work in factories under the control of israel. If not, well it is other peoples responsibility to feed them.
If there is a 1ss, then given that we are dealing with a progrom state, I cannot see how it will be less horrible.
In response to Pablemont, my question is whether even this goal would be viable. It is very small. The access to the sea, or to jordan or between gaza and the WB are all extraordinarily dependent on the good will of a state that has never shown good will. The water supplies have been appropriated by Israel --- so they would be dependent on desalination plants run by the same people. Every statement from Israel I have seen says that that the current 'agreed' allocation is inviolable, and the engineering solution is that or thirst.
Finally, yep, hot pursuit and the oppressed guaranteeing the security of the oppressor, has been consistently required, and as best I can tell was agreed to.
All of this comes before we get to what this state is actually like. Currently, it looks like a police state. I am not criticizing the people at all, but this isn't a good place to start. We may equally note, Israel has very strong neo-fascist, theocratic-police state tendencies, and is also a long way from becoming a fully democratic state.
An interesting point; totally the sheer energy put into preventing progress was the one feature suggesting that something important has happened. Can we take the stated reason as correct, that an actual veto would enrage the world against the US, and therefore it would better for the US to bury it?
I personally would have said that this public determination to ever prevent justice was just as bad as a formal veto, but this is diplomacy. Not rocking the boat is seen as a positive goal. I suppose by everybody except for those being murdered by israeli pogroms.
and down south, in Australia protesters against Max Brenner are "kettled", roughed up by policy while holding a legal and both peaceful and honestly nondisruptive protest, charged with illegal assembly. Now there is a great catch 22. They were investigated for an illegal secondary boycott, which would have been very very expensive, but got off on the grounds that it wasn't sufficiently effective to cause economic loss.
Now there is a faint judgment. Democracy? Only if you are on the governments side.
You know he won't answer, 8-), because even neofascists know that what they intend is wrong. Tony Judt's last comment is still the best
"What I do know is that since I wrote that in 2003, everyone from Moshe Arens through Barak to Olmert has admitted that Israel is on the way to a single state with a potential Arab majority in Bantustans unless something happens fast. That's all that I said in my essay. But ok, since it looks as though Israel is determined to give itself this future, what will it look like? Hell. "
Again, there is an element of truth here.
However, again, I guess that the Palestinians also know this. Still, but they have been offered a deal that offers less than nothing, enshrining them in an open air prisons for ever, possibly this is still the less bad option?
Unfortunately, you are right, at least in practical terms, as much as a reasonable and ethical person might hope otherwise. I have two questions though.
First why are Israel's representatives going mental? This seems to suggest that they are not sanguine.
Second, even if the UN gains the Palestinians nothing, what do they get from "negotiating"? We already know from the Palestianian Papers that previous Istratine governments offered the Palestinians less than they have now as an oppressed minority. We also know that the current prime minister considers the previous team to have been insanely generous.
Less than nothing vs nothing. I would have said that UN was therefore the least bad option, but I await clarification.
It isn't clear to me whether Florida is really all that different from the rest of the US. Still, isn't this the state of which Brian Griffin once said "somewhere, Jeb Bush is eating a puppy'
I have gradually come to believe that 'Israel' has never intended to share... anything. Murdering unarmed demonstrators is all of a piece with the rest of its actions. The goal remains the Allon plan, to make life sufficiently miserable for the palestinians that eventually they will leave. The bibbi one and a tenth state plan is just a variation on this, the 'generous compromise'... that will give them 10% of their original territory in a nonviable prison-like pseudostate.
the worst of it is that as far as I can see, even if the palestinian state was genuinely established according the best possibility 'on offer', the 1967 borders, on 22% of the original territory, to supposedly take in many times the current population of 'greater israel' would it be even remotely economically viable?
The french offer was well meant, however, from what I read, we could reasonable take from it that actually the french intended to again lean on the palestinians to compromise, to give up space and water and resources and border control, all the things that make a state real, in return for having a 'state'.
I am beginning to wonder whether it would be better to go all out to boycott istratine forever, and work for justice to happen in 200o years?
Comments are closed.