05 Jan 12
1 edit
If you don't know anything about Palestine, this is the article to read (again from Slate):
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/intelligence_squared/2012/01/
[WORD TOO LONG].single.html
"Dr. Mustafa Barghouthi is gentle and soft-spoken, as befits a Palestinian leader known for his commitment to nonviolence."
Slate: But why can’t you negotiate about the settlements with Israel directly?
Barghouthi: Because they’ve insisted on continuing the settlements. And talking to Israel while they continue the settlements is like two sides negotiating over a piece of cheese. One side, the Palestinian side, is stuck behind bars; the other side, the Israeli side, is negotiating and eating the piece of cheese at the same time. By the end there will be nothing left to negotiate about."
===
Barghouthi: "It will not, maybe, change the daily life, but it will definitely provide Palestinians with hope. It will provide a context where the illegal measures on the ground, enforced by the military power of Israel which we cannot stop, remain illegal, so it’s moral power against military power. When we joined UNESCO [the cultural arm of the United Nations] we were practically creating the power of culture against the culture of power.
That’s how countries in the world liberated themselves. That’s how a person like Gandhi who had no military power managed to unify India and get independence. That’s how Martin Luther King liberated the United States from the segregation system. It’s the power of the idea, the power of culture, and the power of dignity. And that is something that maybe some military governments don’t understand, but that I hope politicians would understand."
Originally posted by spruce112358To take Barghouthi's example at face value, the fact that the other person is eating the cheese is all the more reason to negotiate now when there's still some cheese left.
If you don't know anything about Palestine, this is the article to read (again from Slate):
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/intelligence_squared/2012/01/
[WORD TOO LONG].single.html
"Dr. Mustafa Barghouthi is ge some military governments don’t understand, but that I hope politicians would understand."
It's a really, really big piece of cheese and it's being eaten really slowly. The piece of cheese is some 5 or 6 thousand square miles and it's being "eaten" at the rate of what? A square mile per year at this point? 2 square miles? Not much more than that. The only settlement expansion that's going on right now is natural construction in existing settlements; and even that is not happening very much. At this rate, there will be "no cheese left" in just a couple of thousand years.
To say that they won't negotiate because once in a while (a couple of times a year, at most), Israel is approving a few thousand new houses (which doesn't really take up much space) is just plain daft.
Silly little similes like that may work for the feeble minded, but they don't stand up to two minutes' thought worth of scrutiny.
Edit: Oh, and it's not the Palestinians who are behind bars. It's him that is behind bars. Being convicted in civilian court of multiple counts of murder tends to do that to you.
Originally posted by sh76If al Quaida bombs a skyscraper now and then in USA isn't much either. There are many left where it goes. It will take thousands of years until there are no big houses left in whole of USA. So let them continue. It's not a great deal. al Quaida isn't so bad after all. They just eat a little of the big apple now and then. Why fuzz?
To take Barghouthi's example at face value, the fact that the other person is eating the cheese is all the more reason to negotiate now when there's still some cheese left.
It's a really, really big piece of cheese and it's being eaten really slowly. The piece of cheese is some 5 or 6 thousand square miles and it's being "eaten" at the rate of what? A square feeble minded, but they don't stand up to two minutes' thought worth of scrutiny.
See the parallel?
05 Jan 12
Originally posted by FabianFnasNo.
If al Quaida bombs a skyscraper now and then in USA isn't much either. There are many left where it goes. It will take thousands of years until there are no big houses left in whole of USA. So let them continue. It's not a great deal. al Quaida isn't so bad after all. They just eat a little of the big apple now and then. Why fuzz?
See the parallel?
I really do not see the parallel at all.
Not even one eensie weensie teeny tiny little bit.
You're comparing (using the word "parallel" no less) the blowing up of crowded buildings with the intent of killing the people inside to building a houses on previously empty sand.
No. Seriously. Not even one iota.
05 Jan 12
Originally posted by sh76Or maybe the point is that it's hard to negotiate with someone who is still gaining from the current situation. It is in the best interests of some Israeli politicians that things stay as they are, they can hand out other peoples land to the settles in exchange for votes. Because of this, the price the Palestinians will have to pay to stop this at the negotiating table will be high, it is no wonder that they are trying other ways to change the situation in their favour first before negotiating.
To take Barghouthi's example at face value, the fact that the other person is eating the cheese is all the more reason to negotiate now when there's still some cheese left.
It's a really, really big piece of cheese and it's being eaten really slowly. The piece of cheese is some 5 or 6 thousand square miles and it's being "eaten" at the rate of what? A square ...[text shortened]... onvicted in civilian court of multiple counts of murder tends to do that to you.
05 Jan 12
Originally posted by BartsWhy can't they negotiate and do those other things simultaneously?
Or maybe the point is that it's hard to negotiate with someone who is still gaining from the current situation. It is in the best interests of some Israeli politicians that things stay as they are, they can hand out other peoples land to the settles in exchange for votes. Because of this, the price the Palestinians will have to pay to stop this at the negotiat ...[text shortened]... at they are trying other ways to change the situation in their favour first before negotiating.
05 Jan 12
1 edit
Originally posted by spruce112358Ghandi and Martin Luther King fired missiles at neighborhoods and car bombed restaurants?
That’s how countries in the world liberated themselves. That’s how a person like Gandhi who had no military power managed to unify India and get independence. That’s how Martin Luther King liberated the United States from the segregation system. It’s the power of the idea, the power of culture, and the power of dignity. And that is something that maybe some military governments don’t understand, but that I hope politicians would understand."
Edit: Oops, I was getting non-violent Mustafa Barghouthi, referenced in your link, with terrorist Marwan Barghouti. My bad. I denounce myself.
05 Jan 12
Originally posted by sh76Because negotiations are, in part at least, based on trust between the parties. Can the Israelis trust the Palestinians to negotiate in good faith when they know the Palestinians would rather wait until international pressure stops the expansion of settlements anyway ? And can the Palestinians trust the Israelis when they know that they aren't looking for a fair deal, as that could mean political suicide for the negotiators ?
Why can't they negotiate and do those other things simultaneously?
Do note that this and my previous post aren't endorsements of Barghouti's position. Of course it'd be better if there were negotiations in good faith by both parties, but for the time being I don't see any great breakthroughs happening at the negotiation table. Neither does a part of the Palestinian population so I'm trying to show you how their positions isn't that unreasonable. Instead of dismissing that feeling as you do, you might want to think about solutions that might make negotiations successful. Stopping the expansion of the settlements would be a big step in showing that Israel is serious about the peace process and create that trust and it would actually bring the end of the conflict closer. Telling the Palestinians they should just ignore a valid grievance they have won't.
05 Jan 12
Originally posted by BartsFirst of all, negotiations are not necessarily based on trust. If anything, trust develops through negotiations. Are you saying you don't negotiate with someone unless you first trust him? That makes no sense. As an attorney, I negotiate with people I don't trust all the time. That's why you get the agreement in writing. Did Begin trust Sadat and Sadat trust Begin when they negotiated a peace agreement that has, more or less, held for over 30 years?
Because negotiations are, in part at least, based on trust between the parties. Can the Israelis trust the Palestinians to negotiate in good faith when they know the Palestinians would rather wait until international pressure stops the expansion of settlements anyway ? And can the Palestinians trust the Israelis when they know that they aren't looking for a fa ...[text shortened]... ser. Telling the Palestinians they should just ignore a valid grievance they have won't.
I'm not dismissing the Palestinian positions on settlements. I admit that they have some just grievances. And of course I agree that settlement expansion should be stopped in an ideal world. Moreover, I don't blame the Palestinians for taking other measures such as appealing to the UN. It's in their self-interest to do so, so let them do it.
But to use that as an excuse to stay away from the negotiating table is absurd. It's childish political posturing and digging in their heals for no good reason. Netanyahu does it too sometimes. I won't deny that. That doesn't make it right.
05 Jan 12
Originally posted by sh76So you don't see that while Israel munches up part after part of the Palestinian territory angers the Palestians, when their land is taken much by much? USA has many scrapers so one more or less doesn't matter.
No.
I really do not see the parallel at all.
Not even one eensie weensie teeny tiny little bit.
You're comparing (using the word "parallel" no less) the blowing up of crowded buildings with the intent of killing the people inside to building a houses on previously empty sand.
No. Seriously. Not even one iota.
Okay, apart from the fact that many americans was killed that day (I am a peace loving guy), if al Quaida told US in advance, and then took down the scraper, then it's okay?
(Apart from killing) do you see the parallel now?
