05 Jan 12
Originally posted by FabianFnasNope. Sorry. I still don't see the parallel between blowing up buildings and building on previously empty sand.
So 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.
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?
05 Jan 12
Originally posted by SleepyguyIt is an easy kind of mistake to make. In 2008, Nelson Mandela was still considered a terrorist by the US government.
Ghandi and Martin Luther King fired missiles at neighborhoods and car bombed restaurants?
Edit: Oops, I was getting non-violent Mustafa Barghouthi, referenced in your link, with terrorist Marwan Barghouti. My bad. I denounce myself.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2008-04-30-watchlist_N.htm
(Do we still want the President to be able to incarcerate any suspected terrorist indefinitely?)
05 Jan 12
Originally posted by spruce112358I just mixed up two dudes with almost identical last names, so that's not the kind of mistake I made now is it?
It is an easy kind of mistake to make. In 2008, Nelson Mandela was still considered a terrorist by the US government.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2008-04-30-watchlist_N.htm
(Do we still want the President to be able to incarcerate any suspected terrorist indefinitely?)
05 Jan 12
Originally posted by spruce112358Wasn't Nelson Mandela a terrorist by any reasonable definition of the word?
It is an easy kind of mistake to make. In 2008, Nelson Mandela was still considered a terrorist by the US government.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2008-04-30-watchlist_N.htm
(Do we still want the President to be able to incarcerate any suspected terrorist indefinitely?)
05 Jan 12
Originally posted by sh76Perhaps there wouldn't be such an uproar about Israel's persistent settlement-building if only they didn't constitute violations of international law.
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.
It doesn't matter in the slightest whether we're dealing with one new house or a "few thousand", the land doesn't belong to its current occupiers, however passionately it is claimed otherwise.
06 Jan 12
Originally posted by spruce112358Is Palestine a State?
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 ...[text shortened]... some military governments don’t understand, but that I hope politicians would understand."
06 Jan 12
Originally posted by generalissimoFortunately or unfortunately hasn't got anything to do with it. The planet earth has been ruled by the use of military force for as long as we have written historical records, and probably before that.
Fortunately we don't live in a world where might makes right and expansionist and imperialist nations get away scot-free with as much land-grabbing as they want.
06 Jan 12
Originally posted by generalissimoAnd what is the positive affects of that "constant criticism". Did it make a difference to the Tutsis slaughtered by Hutus in Rwanda? Does the Arab government of Sudan give a hoot about international whining when they commit atrocities wiping out entire villages?
Not without constant criticism from the international community, as they recognize the illegality of the settlements and the questionable nature of Israel's conduct in general.
At the end of the Revolutionary War, the British still held numerous forts in the Ohio valley, which they refused to leave until US war debt was paid. They cooperated with Indian tribes to make the land west of the Appalachians uninhabitable for the former colonials.
Taking and holding land by military force is nothing new.
06 Jan 12
Originally posted by sh76Israel has repeatedly negotiated, and compromised, and done so in-spite of their position of strength. When are the Palestinians going to negotiate, instead of insisting they get everything they want.
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.
06 Jan 12
Originally posted by sh76Ok, so negotiation may begin without trust, but if the lack of trust turns into an outright disbelief in the other party, due to constant renigs on previous deals, then there is little if any reason for further negotiations. Also, it is a given that one holding the power has the upper hand in any negotiations, and both sides have to be willing to give up something.
First 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 Be ...[text shortened]... reason. Netanyahu does it too sometimes. I won't deny that. That doesn't make it right.
06 Jan 12
Originally posted by sh76I am saying that there has to be a minimum of trust between me and the other party before I negotiate. That doesn't mean I trust them enough to give them the key to my house and access to my bank account, but I would not negotiate with anyone if I did not believe they were willing to come to an agreement and that they would honour an agreement once reached. Signing a contract as you do is a way to increase that trust, it's a lot less likely that the other party will not honour his part of the agreement if they first sign a paper that leaves them open to legal action.
First 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 Be ...[text shortened]... reason. Netanyahu does it too sometimes. I won't deny that. That doesn't make it right.
About Begin and Sadat, of course I can't read their minds, but I guess they both believed that the other side wanted peace. Again that is a form of trust, you know the other party will benefit from successfully finishing the negotiations.
Again, I too think I'd be better if the Palestinians were at the negotiating table, but if they don't trust the Israelis enough to do so, it might be time for the Israelis to make a gesture that will establish that trust.