Senate Israel/Palestine

Discussion in 'Community' started by Obi-Wan McCartney, Jan 4, 2009.

  1. Condition2SQ Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Sep 5, 2012
    star 4
    What point are you trying to make? That poverty and desperation can lead to violence? Of course it can. But you're going to have to be a bit more rigorous than that. How, specifically, is this particular violent resistance movement attributable to that? Where's the nexus? And Islamist terrorists have come from wildly different economic strata, which itself seems dispositive of your hypothesis. And if's just driven by geopolitical resentments of the West, why have Islamist factions in countries that eventually liberated themselves from imperialist yoke then clashed with the moderate Muslim movements in creating a new regime? Were the moderate Muslims in Egypt being "bigoted" or "ethnocentric" when they sought to marginalize and defeat the Qutbist faction of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt? Were the constituents of the PPP similarly bigoted when they clashed with the Jamaat-i-Islami in Pakistan?
  2. Jabba-wocky Chosen One

    Member Since:
    May 4, 2003
    star 8
    That's a terrible argument. Broad social movements aren't reducible to individual actors. Many important figures in the French Revolution were aristocrats (eg Directorate member Paul Barras was born the Viscount of Barras), and Lenin was minor nobility. That doesn't mean there weren't real economic disparities serving as important drivers in both events.
  3. Condition2SQ Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Sep 5, 2012
    star 4
    I think you're misunderstanding me a bit. Surely poverty and desperation are part of the reason why people latch onto these Messiah-like figures in the first place; I'm saying that once these movements have flourished and the rhetoric widely adopted, there's no reason to think that economic empowerment is suddenly going to compel individuals to value liberal ideals(and again, why "should" they value liberal ideals, anyway?). Nazi propaganda that was grafted onto Islamic theology was disseminated widely throughout Palestine during World War II, and its influence and popularity is still rather salient today in the region. As Jello said, Islam has incorporated foreign philosophies into its theology throughout history, and this is one of the most unfortunate examples. Rigorously examining this as well as the vestigial influence of contemporary Islamist theoreticians such as Sayyed Qutb and Hassan al-Banna would seem to me the obvious place to look for why Islam has taken such a virulently violent turn in the last half-decade. Instead of charging up the blind alley of looking to Western resentment and epiphenomena, why not ask the tough questions and make these candid observations that Muslim intellectuals and reformers such as Abdelwahab Meddeb, Bassam Tibi, Abdullahi Ahmed An Na'im and others so bravely do? (Are they Islamophobic?)
    Last edited by Condition2SQ, Nov 21, 2012
  4. BaronNoir Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Sep 6, 2001
    star 1
    What is pretty hilarious is that the Hamas is now pushing the line ''we won''.

    It make me wonder what kind of trashing it would take for the Djihadists to admit a loss.
  5. Vaderize03 Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Oct 25, 1999
    star 5
    Death.
    Arawn_Fenn likes this.
  6. Likewater Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Dec 31, 2009
    star 4
    Are you sure, isnt Ethiopia 30% muslim but you don't hear a peep out of them.

    It seems to me a vast majority of the Muslim world is just trying to find their path to sucess.

    Indonisia is the largest Islamic nation on earth and they seem to have dealt with their radicals.

    it seems to me the biggest problem with Islam is that your average muslim is content to flat out ignore the radicals that are intent on destablizing sociaty, not that Islamic sociaty is not forward thinking.

    sometimes, radicals are like trolls it is best to ignore them, othertimes you have to enage or flat out quash them. And it is difficult to know when to ignore, when to engage and when to lay down the law.
  7. LostOnHoth Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 15, 2000
    star 5
    The Palestinian Authority will submit its bid for an 'upgrade' tomorrow before the UN General Assembly. Personally, I think it is a move which should be supported by the General Assembly for a number of reasons:

    The most important reason is that the PA needs to get some points on the score board if Israel wants to be able to undermine the increasing popularity of Hamas. Israel has effectively sidelined and emasculated the PA by continuing to build settlements in contravention of agreed 'Road Maps', interim peace protocols and international law. The PLO (and now the PA) has for decades attempted to rehabilitate its image and standing in the international community by publicly condemning terrorism and violence as legitimate means of achieving the objectives of the Palestinian people and by committing to a negotiated peace process which invloves a "two state solution". The PLO (and now the PA) has a seat at the UN and is recognised by the UN and Israel as the sole entity which represents the Palestinian people in world affairs. The PLO (and now the PA since the Oslo accords)) has for decades engaged with Israel in bilateral peace talks. The PA is moderate and secular and is trying to play by the rules which have been set by the other players in the conflict.

    Unfortunately, this 'rehabilitation' has not achieved the results which the people in the occupied territories desperately crave and the intervening years has seen a civil war between Fatah and Hamas further fracture Palestinian solidarity (which is a fragile beast at the best of times).

    If Israel would prefer to deal with the PA on an ongoing basis, rather than Hamas, then it needs to throw the PA a lifeline and show the Palestinian people that the respectable path is the right way. Right now Hamas popularity in Gaza and the West Bank has actually increased following the negotiation of the ceasefire whilst support for the PA appears to be on the decline. This of course is a reflection of the rising perception that the methods employed by Hamas (and denounced by the PA) actually pays dividends in practical terms. Such methods bring Israel to the table. Regrettably, that is the underlying rationale of political terrorism -to achieve a political result through violence and fear. In order to combat this, Israel has to start talking to the PA.

    The right of nations to self determination is a fundamental principle of modern international law. The Palestinian people are entitled to pursue membership of international institutions such as the UN without having to ask permission from Israel or the US. The reasons given by Israel and the US in opposing the move are just ridiculous.

    My country will abstain from voting which is a miracle- normally as a good little US lapdog we do what we are told. Not this time it seems. Let's hope the resolution passes and the PA can use this as a moral victory to undermine the methods used by Hamas. If it fails then Netanyahu may score points for re-election but he will also drive another nail in the coffin of moderate Palestinian leadership.
    Violent Violet Menace likes this.
  8. SuperWatto Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Sep 19, 2000
    star 5
    I thought the coffin of moderate Palestinian leadership was just being re-opened...
    LostOnHoth likes this.
  9. LostOnHoth Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 15, 2000
    star 5
    I wish they would just leave the old guy alone. I'm not surprised his widow is leading the charge, she was always a psycho attention whore. He was old and sick. The Israelis had no need to poison him it was clear that his days were numbered.
    Last edited by LostOnHoth, Nov 28, 2012
  10. Vaderize03 Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Oct 25, 1999
    star 5
    France will formally support Palestinian statehood/observer status at the UN, it seems.

    Interesting, given that the US and Germany oppose. Wonder how this will play out.

    Also, not to sound paranoid, but I find it somewhat odd that a man on track to become the first Jewish president of France had his career derailed at just the right moment....I'm thinking he might have had a different take on the conflict than the current government.

    Like I said, that does seem hard to believe, but it does make one wonder about a smoke-filled room in an old Paris bar somewhere...

    Peace,

    V-03
  11. LostOnHoth Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 15, 2000
    star 5
    Interesting article from the NY Times discussing the possible 'sanctions' from Israel and the US should the Palestinian Authority win its bid in the UN today.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/29/opinion/the-un-bid-from-palestinians.html?_r=0

    I have to agree that it makes absolutely no sense to talk about imposing economic sanctions on the only Palestinian institution that (a) was established from the terms of a peace accord and (b) has committed to finding a peaceful and diplomatic solution. There is nothing in the terms of the proposed resolution which suggests that enhanced Palestinian UN status and its commitment to peace negotiations with Israel are mutually exclusive. Israel seems to be worried that the PA will use any enhanced status to pursue Israel in the International Criminal Court (ICC). I can understand its concern, given the voluminous evidence which could be brought against Israel, but I don't think it would make sense for the PA to go down this path. However, I would imagine the PA will use this entitlement (if such an entitlement actually exists - which is debatable) as leverage to get Israel to the negotiation table. I think this is better than shooting rockets, personally. This whole exercise is IMHO an effort for the PA to win back some approval and authority among the Palestinian people by giving the Palestinians a symbolic moral victory against Hamas. The enhanced status will not otherwise have any other real effect.

    edit:

    Looks like the vote is in:

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012/11/29/un-palestinian-state-israel-vote.html

    [face_dancing][face_dancing][face_dancing]
    Last edited by LostOnHoth, Nov 29, 2012
  12. SuperWatto Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Sep 19, 2000
    star 5
    From your link:
    "The resolution in the UN today won't change anything on the ground," Netanyahu declared.

    Nice choice of words, 'on the ground'...
  13. Vaderize03 Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Oct 25, 1999
    star 5
    As an American Jew, I have mixed feelings about this. I fully support a two-state solution, but understand where Israel is coming from in terms of having an issue with trust with Palestinians and their feelings of frustration with what is seen as ineffective leadership from Abu Mazen. On the Palestinian side, there is sheer desperation, which of course breeds terrorism; people who have nothing have nothing to lose.

    I would like to see President Obama step up and take some leadership on this; alas, the US Congress, in a bipartisan fashion, is already threatening to cut off all aid to the Palestinians, which, while politically popular with multiple constiuences on the ground in the United States, will do little to move the process forward.

    I'm thinking the best course of action here would be for Netanyahu to lose to a more moderate leader/faction in Israel, but that just doesn't seem very likely.

    Peace,

    V-03
  14. LostOnHoth Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 15, 2000
    star 5
    Abbas is far from perfect, but he is a far better peace partner for Israel than the radical Islamic fundamentalist alternatives. Abbas has consistently intervened to halt military action by Fatah gunmen in the West Bank and was the loudest voice for ending the Second Intifada among Palestinian leaders. He has the impossible challenge of trying to lead the PA along the road of a negotiated peace whilst at the same time appeasing the angry masses who are ultimately caught in the violent and oppressive aspects of the Israeli occupation. Abbas is trying to appease the US and Israel as a partner for peace whilst keeping the snapping jaws of his own people at bay.

    If I was Netanyahu and I had a choice between Abbas as my peace partner or Khaled Meshal, I would choose Abbas. That is effectively the choice that Israel now has. By punishing and undermining the authority of the PA by imposing sanctions, the US and Israel will be pushing the Palestinian people into the arms of Hamas. And for what? The PA has made a unilateral bid for upgraded observer status in the UN. So what? Netanhayu is correct when he says that it won't change anything 'on the ground'. If that is the case, then why impose the sanctions?

    I find it incredible that the US and Israel can't grasp the fact that they need Abbas to hold together the only Palestinian entity which promotes the path of peaceful resolution. People seem to tire of Abbas constantly carrying on about UN Resolutions but those UN Resolutions are the fundamental backbone of the entire Road Map. When you tread the path of diplomatic and civilised negotiations to resolve a conflict, then the only 'weapons' you have are the rules of international law. It should therefore come as no surprise that Abbas is keen to stock up on his arsenal. I doubt the Hamas leaders know much about international law nor do they care.

    The question for the US and Israel is: what weapons would you prefer the Palestinians to wield? If they want to keep dealing with rockets and suicide bombs then by all means crush Abbas and the PA. It is within their power to do so. Hamas, Islamic Jihad and a host of other fundamentalist militant lunatics will gladly take up the helm as the representatives of the Palestinian people. If they would rather deal with the PA, whose main offensive tactic is to shore up support for the international legal obligations which underpin the entire peace process without permission, then for **** sake stop pouting like spoilt children and start negotiating.

    Vaderize03 - I agree with you wholeheartedly that Obama needs to step up and Netanhayu needs to step down.
    Last edited by LostOnHoth, Nov 29, 2012
  15. Ghost Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Oct 13, 2003
    star 6
    Israel really should reward the Abbas government in the West Bank. Yeah, they might not have wanted this... but would Israel rather have the Palestinians fighting for independence peacefully and wishing to join the UN, or would Israel rather have them sending rockets and suicide bombers? Give the peaceful, diplomatic method some respect... if Israel does impose sanctions, then it would tell Palestinians and the world that there is no peaceful way to oppose Israel, that they just want Palestinians to surrender. Give the Palestinians some incentives to become even more diplomatic... if that's showing progress then maybe the Palestinians in Gaza will be persuaded to follow that example. Sanctions on the West Bank would be absolutely mad. Especially if f the cease-fire deal with Gaza includes lifting some of the sanctions there... then that would directly tell the Palestinians that war and terrorism work but diplomacy doesn't.
    Violent Violet Menace likes this.
  16. SuperWatto Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Sep 19, 2000
    star 5
    double post
    Last edited by SuperWatto, Nov 30, 2012
  17. SuperWatto Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Sep 19, 2000
    star 5
    Some highly annoying things came out of this:
    - the US calls it 'counterproductive'. Of course Hil, in the path toward getting a sovereign state, actually getting a sovereign state is counterproductive :rolleyes:
    - "We have been clear that only through direct negotiations between the parties can the Palestinians and the Israelis achieve the peace that they deserve," Clinton said. Of course Hil. It worked so well in the past, hasn't it? And I don't recall any direct negotiations between the parties when Israel unilaterally declared its own state... And isn't "we have been clear that" just a liiiiitle bit patronizing?
    - Netanyahoo said the remarkably deceitful words "Israel's hand is always extended in peace, but a Palestinian state will not be established without (a Palestinian) recognition of the State of Israel as the Jewish people's state". I say, practice what you preach Bib. What are you recognizing?
    - Israel is threatening to impose sanctions; building more settlements, annexation, and withholding tax. Tax! Why are the Palestinians paying Israel taxes, at all?
  18. Veloz Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Aug 30, 2004
    star 6
    I read Netanyahu and Hillary's comments and :rolleyes:
  19. SithLordDarthRichie London CR

    Chapter Rep
    Member Since:
    Oct 3, 2003
    star 8
    Even if there is peace of some kind, living with a wall seperating the two peoples will still lead to trouble as will argument over who has rights to Jerusalem. I can't ever see Palestine & Israel co-existing the way Sikhs, Hindus & Buddhists do and have done for a long time in India. I doubt they could even agree what to call a united country, or if they each want seperate UN recognised states which pieces of land each side gets.
  20. Vaderize03 Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Oct 25, 1999
    star 5
    Retaliation for the UN move: 3000 more settlement homes.

    Looks like the Israelis are digging in for the long-haul.

    Not good.

    Peace,

    V-03
  21. Alpha-Red Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Apr 25, 2004
    star 5
    Is there any reason why we should oppose Palestine being accepted as a UN member besides the fact that it erodes the "Israel is an innocent little lamb" narrative that people seem to cling to?
    SithLordDarthRichie likes this.
  22. Ghost Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Oct 13, 2003
    star 6
    The map of how the UN voted on Palestine:

    [IMG]



    Also, Hillary Clinton has condemned Israel's newly-announced West Bank settlements. But when will the US actually take a real step against Israel for continuing this escalation? What can we even do?
  23. Alpha-Red Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Apr 25, 2004
    star 5
    We start by getting the word out and telling people that stealing is stealing...even when Israel does it.
  24. Rogue_Ten Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Aug 18, 2002
    star 6
    there's no key on your map, dude. what do blue and yellow mean?
    darthcaedus1138 likes this.
  25. Vaderize03 Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Oct 25, 1999
    star 5
    I'm venturing a guess that green is yes, red is no, yellow is abstention.

    The only leverage America has is a) cut off funding (never happen) and b) dismantle our alliance militarily (also never happen).

    However, there is only so much American can accomplish politically with hard-liners holding so much sway in Israel. If Netanyahu is replaced by more of a moderate with a more balanced coalition, perhaps something will change. I'm not all that optimistic, however.

    Peace,

    V-03