Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Thumbs up to Israel ...

Thumbs up to Israel ...
Thread Tools
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 29, 2006, 03:50 PM
 
... on making a good choice.
     
Weyland-Yutani
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: LV-426
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 29, 2006, 04:02 PM
 
..they ordered a pepperoni, mushroom, green pepper and pineapple pizza? Then they certainly made a good choice! I think I'll have a slice

mmm

cheers

W-Y

“Building Better Worlds”
     
Spliffdaddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: South of the Mason-Dixon line
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 29, 2006, 04:06 PM
 
Did they finally take back Palestine?
     
Rumor
Moderator
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: on the verge of insanity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 29, 2006, 05:58 PM
 
Did they choose to bathe?
I like my water with hops, malt, hops, yeast, and hops.
     
Wiskedjak  (op)
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 30, 2006, 01:16 AM
 
Surprising that there's no discussion of yesterday's elections
     
abe
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 30, 2006, 04:08 AM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak
Surprising that there's no discussion of yesterday's elections
Sometimes I get tired of breaking new news here.

I watched a Frontline:World presentation this evening on PBS and it was pretty interesting. Half of it profiled Ehud Olmert and after watching it I agree with you that the Israelis may have chosen wisely. He isn't as hard right wing as Netanyahu but he's certainly not a liberal dove.

In his family (wife and several grown children) he is the only one who ISN'T a liberal. His tolerance of their political opinions is a revealing characteristic. He has done some politically courageous things along the way and one of them might have been to campaign in a manner that's a bit unique. Rather than being safely ambiguous and telling people what they want to hear during the campaign, he, instead, told them exactly what his thoughts and positions are.

And he STILL won!

(Many of their liberal 'friends' have been so put off by some of his decisions or his policies that they stopped talking or associating with the family and it's only 10 years later that some of those relationships are starting to be repaired.)

Olmert is an admirable and a likable guy. I have always admired Netanyahu, what little I knew about him (my postings here forced me to learn more about him than I ever felt necessary before) but Olmert seems to be a strong and reasonable leader who had this responsibility thrust upon him with Sharon's illness and the nation has responded to his brief tenure with a mandate to continue the unilateral withdrawal from the West Bank areas.

It won't be easy for him, of course. He has a Palestinian Hamas before him to deal with AND he has a 'Hamas' in his own country, that being the right wing factions who believe God wants them to NOT compromise land for peace.

That's all I wanna write about him for now. Here's an article.

http://www.forbes.com/entrepreneurs/...ap2631507.html


Associated Press
Update 26: Olmert Seeks to Quickly Form Coalition
By RAVI NESSMAN , 03.29.2006, 03:14 PM


Acting Prime Minister Ehud Olmert began informal negotiations Wednesday with dovish and religious factions to try to knit together a coalition government that will give him the freedom to partially withdrawal from the West Bank.

A day after Olmert's centrist Kadima Party won Israeli elections, party officials said they would need at least a year to finalize pullout plans while waiting to see if the Palestinians' new Hamas-led Cabinet, which was sworn in Wednesday night, moderated its position toward Israel.

Olmert has said he prefers to set Israel's borders in the framework of a peace deal. But he plans to unilaterally withdraw from most of the West Bank while strengthening Israel's hold over major settlement blocs if an agreement cannot be reached quickly.

Such an agreement appeared highly unlikely with Hamas' rise to power. The Islamic militant group is responsible for dozens of suicide attacks on Israel. Israel refuses to deal with Hamas unless it renounces violence, recognizes Israel's right to exist and respects past accords.

Hamas has brushed off those demands and quickly rejected Olmert's plan.

"Olmert's statement is a clear threat," said Nasser Shaer, Hamas' deputy prime minister. "He has his own plan, and he wants to implement it, whether we accept it or not."

Moderate Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, who was elected last year to a four-year term, urged Olmert to resume peace talks.

"We assume that this government, if it wants to start off right, will follow a policy based on peace, based on negotiations, based on international legitimacy," he said.

Israeli officials said they would continue working with Abbas, but do not see him as an alternative to Hamas.

"We are all very cognizant of the fact that the real political power has been transferred, unfortunately, to Hamas," Foreign Ministry spokesman Mark Regev said. "And there has to be a question, when you deal with someone, when you negotiate with someone, do they have the ability to deliver?"

Kadima captured 28 of the 120 seats in Israel's parliament in Tuesday's elections, about seven less than had been predicted, but more than any other party.

President Bush congratulated Olmert in a phone call Wednesday and invited him to Washington after he forms his government. Olmert told Bush he planned to follow in the footsteps of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, who remains comatose after suffering a devastating stroke on Jan. 4, Olmert's office said.

British Prime Minister Tony Blair also called Olmert, and French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy said the election result was "good news for peace."

Israel's ceremonial president, Moshe Katsav, said he will talk to party leaders next week about forming a coalition. Traditionally, the president taps the leader of the largest party to form a government. The would-be premier then has six weeks to form a coalition backed by 61 lawmakers.

Olmert has said only parties that agree to his withdrawal plan will be asked to join the coalition.

Haim Ramon, a senior Kadima lawmaker, said the party is confident it will have a government in place after the weeklong Jewish holiday of Passover, which begins in mid-April.

"I believe we will have more than 70 legislators who will support the disengagement plan," Ramon told Israel Radio, referring to the West Bank pullout.

Kadima officials said informal talks had already begun. Likely coalition partners include the Labor Party, which won 20 seats; the Pensioners' Party, which won seven seats, the ultra-Orthodox Shas, which captured 13 seats, and a smaller Orthodox party with six seats.

The dovish Meretz party could also join the coalition with its four seats, and Olmert is likely to receive tacit support from Arab parties that won 10 seats.

Olmert and Labor leader Amir Peretz plan to meet in the coming days.

Labor lawmaker Eitan Cabel said the party would seek the coveted Finance Ministry. But Olmert, a staunch capitalist, opposes that, Kadima officials said.

"We have more than one option to establish a government. That is one of the best things about yesterday's results. It will depend on the price ... and negotiations," said Lior Horev, a Kadima adviser.

Kadima lawmaker Otniel Schneller said during its first year in power, the new government would try to finalize its withdrawal plan while waiting to see whether Hamas moderates its views.
America should know the political orientation of government officials who might be in a position to adversely influence the future of this country. http://tinyurl.com/4vucu5
     
Big Mac
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 30, 2006, 07:40 AM
 
Abe, I'm rather surprised and dismayed that you would equate Israel's right wing with Hamas.

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
vmarks
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Up In The Air
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 30, 2006, 07:42 AM
 
Rather than seek victory, Israelis have developed a lengthy menu of approaches to manage the conflict. These include:

· Unilateralism (building a wall, partial withdrawals): The current policy, as espoused by Ariel Sharon, Ehud Olmert, and the Kadima Party.

· Lease for 99 years the land under Israeli towns on the West Bank: The Labor Party of Amir Peretz.

· Palestinian economic development: Shimon Peres.

· Territorial compromise: The premise of Oslo diplomacy, as initiated by Yitzhak Rabin.

· Outside funding for the Palestinians (on the Marshall Plan model): U.S. Representative Henry Hyde.

· Retreat to the 1967 borders: Israel’s far left.

· Push the Palestinians to develop good government: Natan Sharansky (and President George W. Bush).

· Insist that Jordan is Palestine: Israel’s right.

· Transfer the Palestinians out of the West Bank: Israel’s far right.


Among those, you will note that none of them actually mean victory against Hamas' policy of eradicating Israel. You should also note that Olmert's policy of withdrawal is not much different from the far left's policy of withdrawal to 1967 borders. After the implementation of such plans, expect to see two things:

One, the PA-Hamas still calling the areas withdrawn from as 'under occupation' even though they will be in charge of those territories, and
two, calls for returns to pre-1948 borders.
If this post is in the Lounge forum, it is likely to be my own opinion, and not representative of the position of MacNN.com.
     
iLikebeer
Mac Elite
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: /OV DRK 142006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 30, 2006, 07:53 AM
 
I still don't understand why a tiny nation that won a lot of land during a defensive war is getting crap for compromising and trying to make peace over the last 10 years (while giving away everything they won when the alternative was every Jew being dead). Israel got screwed by the PC wave that swept the world through the late 80's through today.
     
Big Mac
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 30, 2006, 08:02 AM
 
Originally Posted by vmarks
Rather than seek victory, Israelis have developed a lengthy menu of approaches to manage the conflict. These include. . .
I read that recent article from Pipes, too, and while he's a terrific pundit, his main assertion has left me confounded. He states Israel should finally fight to win the war, yet he does not offer any specifics on how to get that accomplished. There's no way Israel can "win" without addressing the demographic threat being dealt with through an equitable and orderly population transfer.

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
Kevin
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 30, 2006, 08:12 AM
 
Originally Posted by iLikebeer
I still don't understand why a tiny nation that won a lot of land during a defensive war is getting crap for compromising and trying to make peace over the last 10 years (while giving away everything they won when the alternative was every Jew being dead). Israel got screwed by the PC wave that swept the world through the late 80's through today.
Indeed they did.
     
vmarks
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Up In The Air
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 30, 2006, 08:40 AM
 
Originally Posted by Big Mac
I read that recent article from Pipes, too, and while he's a terrific pundit, his main assertion has left me confounded. He states Israel should finally fight to win the war, yet he does not offer any specifics on how to get that accomplished. There's no way Israel can "win" without addressing the demographic threat being dealt with through an equitable and orderly population transfer.
If you've ever met Pipes or read him more completely, you would know that he addresses the so-called-demographic-threat by showing that there isn't really one. At least not in the way you think.

The so-called-Palestinians living in Jerusalem have expressed that they would rather be under Israel than under a Palestine, because they get treated better. Likewise for those living in Jaffa (Yafo) or Haifa, or anywhere else inside undisputed Israel.

What Pipes is really calling for is a dismissal to failed policy, failed 'peace process', failed 'putting negotiations before Palestinians are ready to agree to concessions or keep promises', failed surgical strikes - The Palestinians want war? Give them war. Not just targets here or there, or one with days off, but war until one side comes to understand that it can afford to lose no more and comes to the table sincerely.

Peace doesn't occur until parties have been beaten. Negotiations prior to that prolongs the war.
If this post is in the Lounge forum, it is likely to be my own opinion, and not representative of the position of MacNN.com.
     
Weyland-Yutani
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: LV-426
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 30, 2006, 09:03 AM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak
Surprising that there's no discussion of yesterday's elections
It would have helped if you had provided a link. I for one don't read news from the Middle-East. Not my turf.

cheers

W-Y

“Building Better Worlds”
     
Wiskedjak  (op)
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 30, 2006, 09:42 AM
 
Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani
It would have helped if you had provided a link. I for one don't read news from the Middle-East. Not my turf.

cheers

W-Y
Apologies. This news was widely covered by the mainstream media where I live (western Canada). I had assumed that it would be equally well covered in other Western countries.
     
von Wrangell
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Under the shade of Swords
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 30, 2006, 12:59 PM
 
Originally Posted by vmarks
· Retreat to the 1967 borders: Israel’s far left.
The only option that will bring peace to the ME. All of Israels neighbours have accepted this and even have accepted a proposal very similar to this.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/1844214.stm

But Israel isn't interested in peace. They are interested in war, domination and more land. So they can continue to import foreigners into another peoples land.

To those against whom war is made, permission is given (to fight), because they are wronged;- and verily, Allah is most powerful for their aid
     
von Wrangell
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Under the shade of Swords
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 30, 2006, 01:02 PM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak
... on making a good choice.
I don't see how anyone would give a nation a thumbs up for electing a party that says it will violate international laws.

But then, democracy doesn't always give us what we want.

To those against whom war is made, permission is given (to fight), because they are wronged;- and verily, Allah is most powerful for their aid
     
vmarks
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Up In The Air
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 30, 2006, 01:34 PM
 
von Wrangell:

Answer please the following:

When Kadima's Olmert withdraws from the West Bank to what is as close to the 1967 borders as you'll likely see, what will prevent

(a) Hamas from continuing their genocidal call for eradication of Israel

and

(b) calls to return to pre-1948 borders? After all, I'm sure that "all of Israel's neighbors" would accept such a proposal.
     
von Wrangell
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Under the shade of Swords
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 30, 2006, 02:00 PM
 
Originally Posted by vmarks
von Wrangell:

Answer please the following:

When Kadima's Olmert withdraws from the West Bank to what is as close to the 1967 borders as you'll likely see...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/h...021/html/1.stm

Not really close to the '67 borders.

But for a good historical comparison we have this:

http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/afric..._homelands.gif

To those against whom war is made, permission is given (to fight), because they are wronged;- and verily, Allah is most powerful for their aid
     
davesimondotcom
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Landlockinated
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 30, 2006, 02:00 PM
 
Originally Posted by von Wrangell
I don't see how anyone would give a nation a thumbs up for electing a party that says it will violate international laws.

But then, democracy doesn't always give us what we want.
This is about the Israeli election, not the Palastinian one from a few months ago.
[ sig removed - image host changed it to a big ad picture ]
     
von Wrangell
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Under the shade of Swords
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 30, 2006, 02:04 PM
 
Originally Posted by davesimondotcom
This is about the Israeli election, not the Palastinian one from a few months ago.
1. Annexation of occupied territory is forbidden under intertnational laws.

2. Building permament settlements on occupied territory is forbidden under international laws.

But for you as an American that probably doesn't matter. For the rest of the world it does though.

To those against whom war is made, permission is given (to fight), because they are wronged;- and verily, Allah is most powerful for their aid
     
davesimondotcom
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Landlockinated
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 30, 2006, 02:13 PM
 
Originally Posted by von Wrangell
1. Annexation of occupied territory is forbidden under intertnational laws.

2. Building permament settlements on occupied territory is forbidden under international laws.

But for you as an American that probably doesn't matter. For the rest of the world it does though.
Blowing up of busses, discos and cafes full of innocent people, though, that's totally forgivable.
[ sig removed - image host changed it to a big ad picture ]
     
von Wrangell
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Under the shade of Swords
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 30, 2006, 02:19 PM
 
Originally Posted by davesimondotcom
Blowing up of busses, discos and cafes full of innocent people, though, that's totally forgivable.
Did I say that?

Or was it just because I have a verse from the Quran in my sig that made you kneejerk?

To those against whom war is made, permission is given (to fight), because they are wronged;- and verily, Allah is most powerful for their aid
     
davesimondotcom
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Landlockinated
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 30, 2006, 02:28 PM
 
Originally Posted by von Wrangell
Did I say that?
No, I'm just talking about Hamas, not what you said. Otherwise I would have quoted you.

Originally Posted by von Wrangell
Or was it just because I have a verse from the Quran in my sig that made you kneejerk?
Oh, man. This has nothing to do with your religion. At least not from my point of view.

Have you never read the threads where I'm arguing along side you when it comes to people who are anti-Muslim?

Come on now, you are smarter and more thoughtful than this post shows.
[ sig removed - image host changed it to a big ad picture ]
     
von Wrangell
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Under the shade of Swords
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 30, 2006, 02:33 PM
 
Originally Posted by davesimondotcom
No, I'm just talking about Hamas, not what you said. Otherwise I would have quoted you.
And what has that to do with this thread?
Oh, man. This has nothing to do with your religion. At least not from my point of view.

Have you never read the threads where I'm arguing along side you when it comes to people who are anti-Muslim?

Come on now, you are smarter and more thoughtful than this post shows.
Might well be. It's just so few left that actually do that that the noise coming from vmarks and co drowns them (you) out.

But again, what has your original comment then to do with this thread?

To those against whom war is made, permission is given (to fight), because they are wronged;- and verily, Allah is most powerful for their aid
     
vmarks
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Up In The Air
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 30, 2006, 03:36 PM
 
Wow. you got off onto accusing DSDC of the same groundless accusations you toss at me?

Just. Wow.

Still waiting for you to answer my question, actually.
     
abe
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 30, 2006, 03:59 PM
 
Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani
It would have helped if you had provided a link. I for one don't read news from the Middle-East. Not my turf.

cheers

W-Y
It would have helped had Wiskedjak provided a link.

However, you're admitting you are too LAZY to go to Google News???

And if that's NOT your 'turf' then leave this thread and don't return, because after all...
Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani
I for one don't read news from the Middle-East. Not my turf.
America should know the political orientation of government officials who might be in a position to adversely influence the future of this country. http://tinyurl.com/4vucu5
     
abe
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 30, 2006, 04:10 PM
 
Originally Posted by Big Mac
Abe, I'm rather surprised and dismayed that you would equate Israel's right wing with Hamas.
http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/st...deo_index.html

Here's the link to the program I referred to. The QT or RealPlayer online presentation won't be available until April 4. But check your local PBS listings as it may be shown again before April 4th.

I was paraphrasing one of Olmert's friends and advisors who cautioned that Olmert has a 'Hamas' of sorts within his own country to deal with.

You'll hear this toward the end of the show.

I'm sure he meant it the same way I took it, not as a LITERAL Hamas, but as an intractable group that must be dealt with but without an easy way of dealing with them in sight. In that way the hard liners are the same as Hamas.

I know that were you and I talking one on one you would have understood my interpretation of his comment. And when you watch the show you will understand that there was little or nothing lost in my 'translation' from the screen to this thread.

But, for the record...

There is no similarity between Hamas, and any of the hard right wing factions within Israel EXCEPT the difficulty the Israeli Government will have in dealing with them, likely due to the fact that both say their direction comes from God.
America should know the political orientation of government officials who might be in a position to adversely influence the future of this country. http://tinyurl.com/4vucu5
     
von Wrangell
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Under the shade of Swords
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 30, 2006, 05:11 PM
 
Originally Posted by vmarks
Wow. you got off onto accusing DSDC of the same groundless accusations you toss at me?

Just. Wow.
Didn't accuse him of anything. I asked him. Maybe you don't understand the difference?
Still waiting for you to answer my question, actually.
Why answer a question that is based on a lie to begin with?

To those against whom war is made, permission is given (to fight), because they are wronged;- and verily, Allah is most powerful for their aid
     
itai195
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Cupertino, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 30, 2006, 05:24 PM
 
Originally Posted by von Wrangell
I don't see how anyone would give a nation a thumbs up for electing a party that says it will violate international laws.

But then, democracy doesn't always give us what we want.
I hope this isn't too snarky of me, but:

Originally Posted by von Wrangell
for the Palestinians in fighting for their right to be able to vote for whomever they see fit in ruling their nation
Link
     
von Wrangell
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Under the shade of Swords
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 30, 2006, 05:26 PM
 
Originally Posted by itai195
I hope this isn't too snarky of me, but:

Link
Not at all.

Like I said, democracy doesn't always give us what we want. And while one nation was holding "yet another election" the other had to fight for the right (to paaartyyy!!!.... hrmmmm, nevermind) to vote. Big difference in what should be expected from those two elections don't you think?

To those against whom war is made, permission is given (to fight), because they are wronged;- and verily, Allah is most powerful for their aid
     
vmarks
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Up In The Air
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 31, 2006, 09:19 PM
 
Democracy is being able to stand in the public square, speak freely, and not worry about being hanged/shot/decaptitated for it.


The Palestinian election of Hamas was not democracy, it is facism with a fetish for voting.


In December 2005 the leader of the Hamas contingent at the municipal council of Bethlehem, Hassam El-Masalmeh, told The Wall Street Journal that Hamas intends to re-institute the "jizya", a tax mandated by the Qur'an (sura 9:29) to be imposed on non-Muslims who have chosen not to convert to Islam and must now pay for their right to life. (Jizya is a form of systematic religious humiliation, persecution and extortion). (Link 2)

On 3 February 2006, Hamas leader Khaled Mash'al gave a fiery speech at a mosque in Damascus that demonstrated clearly Hamas is not interested in peace or any dilution of Sharia (Islamic Law). In his speech Mash'al warns that "...the law of Allah cannot be changed or replaced", and threatens that Hamas is prepared "...to place the entire Palestinian people at the disposal of the resistance and its weapons". (Link 3) We need to ask: what will this mean for Palestinian Christians who do not support Islamic jihad?

2) "Democrats" For Jihad and Jizya

by Andrew G. Bostrom. 30 Dec 2005

http://www.americanthinker.com/artic...rticle_id=5116

3) Hamas Leader Khaled Mash'al at a Damascus Mosque MEMRI (No 1087). 7 Feb 2006

http://www.memri.org/bin/opener_latest.cgi?ID=SD108706

November 2004--
At the talk on Wednesday, Eli (using a pseudonym), a gay Palestinian now living in Israel, told a story about his friend Adam, who at the age of 17, fled from his home after he was caught with another man. "After Adam managed to flee from the wrath of his father, his father held a funeral for him, pronouncing, 'As far as we are concerned, our son is dead.'" The Palestinian Authority subsequently arrested Adam three times for his sexual orientation, torturing and humiliating him. It is illegal to be gay in the Palestinian Authority, Eli said, and the police actually employ special undercover agents that seek out gay men, whom the police then torture, kill, or force to work as prostitutes. It is not surprising, Eli said, that he and Adam decided to flee to Israel, the only place where they would not be persecuted for their sexuality.
-- http://www.yaleherald.com/article.php?Article=3749

The Palestinian election was not fought for, it was a simple necessity since Arafat wasn't around to maintain that he had been freely elected (for life.)

Is there a difference in what should be expected from those two elections? Or is this von Wrangell revealing a double standard?


And I'm pleased von Wrangell posted the map at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/h...021/html/1.stm because it reveals how very close what Olmert will surrender is to the 1967 cease-fire (not border) line. When territory is handed over, it is no longer possible to consider it occupied.

Essentially the questions remain:

What will stop Hamas from continuing their genocidal goals?

What will prevent the calls to return to pre-1948 borders?
     
PacHead
Baninated
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Capital of the World
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 1, 2006, 01:43 PM
 
Israel shouldn't give up one more inch of their land. Israel should just prepare itself for destroying those who need to be destroyed, because that's what's eventually going to happen anyway, IMO.
     
ShortcutToMoncton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Apr 1, 2006, 07:56 PM
 
Originally Posted by vmarks
Democracy is being able to stand in the public square, speak freely, and not worry about being hanged/shot/decaptitated for it.

The Palestinian election of Hamas was not democracy, it is facism with a fetish for voting.
Your definition of democracy is quite incorrect.

Democracy is, first and foremost, "the rule of the people." Elections – free, fair, open – are the essence of democracy, but governments produced may be "inefficient, corrupt, shortsighted, irresponsible, dominated by special interests, and incapable of adopting policies emanded by the public good." (Fareed Zakaria) To go beyond this definition and link democracy with a comprehensive set of social, economic and political rights "turns the word…into a badge of honor rather than a descriptive catagory."

Zakaria further notes that Sweden has an economic system that arguably curtails individual property rights, France until recently had a state monopoly on TV and England has an established religion. Thus, to have democracy mean a subjective "good government" makes the term useless for analytical purposes.

You are referring to constitutional liberalism – which is not about the procedures for selecting a government, but rather that government's goals. Western traditions of rule of law, separation of powers, and protection of basic individual liberties of freedom of speech, assembly, religion and property.

There are many democratic governments in the world today which are democratic, yet do not or did not hold to these constitutional liberties. Indeed, the United States has or has had close partnerships with many of these countries – consider Egypt, Pakistan, the Phillipines, etc. for example. Others include(d) Sierra Leone, Algeria, Peru, Slovakia, Belarus and, to some extent, Russia (among many others of course).

Singling out the election of Hamas to power as some sort of travesty against democracy would not only be incorrect, but set a dangerous precedent.

greg

Now Playing: Wolf Parade – The Sons and Daughters of Hungry Ghosts
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
moeknows
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: The Beanery.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 1, 2006, 08:08 PM
 
Originally Posted by PacHead
Israel shouldn't give up one more inch of their land. Israel should just prepare itself for destroying those who need to be destroyed, because that's what's eventually going to happen anyway, IMO.
Let them all destroy each other over there. Not many people REALLY care.
JAFO
     
Kevin
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 1, 2006, 08:11 PM
 
Uh what an absurd statement oh banned one. (Take a hint, scat)
     
abe
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 1, 2006, 08:52 PM
 
Originally Posted by von Wrangell
Not at all.

Like I said, democracy doesn't always give us what we want. And while one nation was holding "yet another election" the other had to fight for the right (to paaartyyy!!!.... hrmmmm, nevermind) to vote. Big difference in what should be expected from those two elections don't you think?
If the Palestinian people decide they don't like the government they chose let's see what happens THEN!

How many elections might it take before the Palestinians decide they no longer want violence and vote for a government which is dedicated to peaceful co-existence?

You seem anxious to declare democracy a failure or plant the seed for future discontent.
America should know the political orientation of government officials who might be in a position to adversely influence the future of this country. http://tinyurl.com/4vucu5
     
Spliffdaddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: South of the Mason-Dixon line
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 1, 2006, 09:14 PM
 
If the Palestinian people elected a government that threatens Israelis - then Israel has every right to remove Palestine from the face of the Earth.

You can't say that the Palestinian leadership is doing something against the will of its people.
     
vmarks
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Up In The Air
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 1, 2006, 09:23 PM
 
Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton
Your definition of democracy is quite incorrect.

Democracy is, first and foremost, "the rule of the people." Elections – free, fair, open – are the essence of democracy, but governments produced may be "inefficient, corrupt, shortsighted, irresponsible, dominated by special interests, and incapable of adopting policies emanded by the public good." (Fareed Zakaria) To go beyond this definition and link democracy with a comprehensive set of social, economic and political rights "turns the word…into a badge of honor rather than a descriptive catagory."
This definition is best simplified as "tyranny by the many."

I linked democracy to speech free from governmental restriction. While not the Greek definition, it certainly fits countries that are free. Your list of countries that "did not hold these constitutional values" are tyrannies and should be singled out as I singled out Hamas.

consider Egypt, Pakistan, the Phillipines, etc. for example. Others include(d) Sierra Leone, Algeria, Peru, Slovakia, Belarus and, to some extent, Russia (among many others of course).
I do. Tell us about the dissidents from those societies. Freedom is rooted in the right to dissent. Democracy, not just facism with a fetish for elections, has the power to overturn such tyranny. Iran also had elections, but tell me what dissent exists there?

There are plenty of democracies that don't share the same values when it comes to property rights and capitalistic competition, but I say to you that the democracy that doesn't share our values but does possess freedom to dissent is safer than the dictatorship that befriends. The price for stability in nondemocratic regimes is terror.

How many of the places you listed are dictatorships? How many are led by leaders elected for life? The PLO was, and an election following the death of the past elected-for-life leader doesn't indicate change, especially when all the sane governments of the world are leaning on the Hamas-led PA to moderate, and they're flatly, publicly declaring they won't. As far as they're concerned they were elected on a platform of genocide and oppression justified by Islam and they intend to adhere to that platform. And what do we see? Russia and the EU beginning to cave, and either meeting with them or saying they'll meet with them, support them.
     
ShortcutToMoncton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Apr 1, 2006, 09:58 PM
 
Originally Posted by vmarks
This definition is best simplified as "tyranny by the many."

I linked democracy to speech free from governmental restriction. While not the Greek definition, it certainly fits countries that are free. Your list of countries that "did not hold these constitutional values" are tyrannies and should be singled out as I singled out Hamas.
Again...you are imposing Western-based traditional constitutional standards of democracy on the term as a whole.

I'm not arguing with your opinion of Hamas, or of the countries that I mentioned (altho I'll get to that in a moment). I am also not advocating warfare or violence that is legitimized by the majority of a country…eg. Hamas attacks on Israel.

Significantly, however, in the quote above you interchange the terms "democracy" and "free." Does one imply the other? Apparently it does, in the Western world, as you note. That is often not, and has often not, been the case with many or perhaps even most recent democratic transitions around the world.


Originally Posted by vmarks
I do. Tell us about the dissidents from those societies. Freedom is rooted in the right to dissent. Democracy, not just facism with a fetish for elections, has the power to overturn such tyranny. Iran also had elections, but tell me what dissent exists there?

There are plenty of democracies that don't share the same values when it comes to property rights and capitalistic competition, but I say to you that the democracy that doesn't share our values but does possess freedom to dissent is safer than the dictatorship that befriends. The price for stability in nondemocratic regimes is terror.

How many of the places you listed are dictatorships? How many are led by leaders elected for life? The PLO was, and an election following the death of the past elected-for-life leader doesn't indicate change, especially when all the sane governments of the world are leaning on the Hamas-led PA to moderate, and they're flatly, publicly declaring they won't. As far as they're concerned they were elected on a platform of genocide and oppression justified by Islam and they intend to adhere to that platform. And what do we see? Russia and the EU beginning to cave, and either meeting with them or saying they'll meet with them, support them.
All of the countries that I mentioned were democratic, ie. had elections, at some recent point in their history. The elected rulers either began limiting the institutions of constitutional liberalism, or took power and formed an authoritarian state directly.

The reasons for this are many and varied. One important aspect is that democracy in the Western sense has depended on constitutional liberalism – ie. it was developed in some part first, and then later democracy was implemented (eg. many civil liberties were in place before Britain was a democracy). This can be found in most Western European nations and also in former colonies (British for example). However, while constitutional liberalism may indeed lead to democracy, the reverse does not seem to be the case: the implementation of democracy does not in fact necessarily lead to constitutional liberalism.

Many would seem to argue that "democracy" as you seem to want to incorrectly define it – a democratic country considered "free" (ie. constitutional liberalism upholds the rule of law, etc) in fact is dependant upon this constitutional liberalism being implemented.

This is what has happened in the countries that I mentioned, that were formerly "democratic" (ie. they held elections) and are now so-called "illiberal democracies" or are even authoritarian. Elected leaders (or leaders of coups) in countries which have no standards of liberalism (rule of law, checks and balance of power) find it all too easy to become corrupt and seize power.

I repeat: "democracy" does not necessarily mean free. I find it slightly amusing when people from the United States of America are strong advocates of big "democratic" elections abroad...but their own country has been described as having a form of government that is distinctly most undemocratic. Think about it.



I started a thread on democracy a couple weeks back and Felizecat made a good post, but I had a ton of work to do and couldn't bring myself to spend a lot of time thinking and writing about it, and the thread got neglected. It's too bad; it's a really interesting subject.

greg
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
abe
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 1, 2006, 11:00 PM
 
Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy
If the Palestinian people elected a government that threatens Israelis - then Israel has every right to remove Palestine from the face of the Earth.

You can't say that the Palestinian leadership is doing something against the will of its people.
What I'm saying is that if, sometime in the future, the people get smart and decide enough was enough and if they had a clear choice, they could vote to change the direction of their government.

And THAT is why we should have faith in the power of the democratic process.

Many of the people who fear that VW's criticism of democracy might have some truth to it should take heart that the beauty of the democratic process is it's own reward. The people will have recourse.

Clearly the Palestinians don't feel that way today. But, by using the 'carrot and stick' principle Israel COULD make the Palestinian people to want peace more than they want to wipe Israel off the map and kill the Jews.

However, the prospect of that kind of motivation being inflicted upon the Palestinians is what, in part, fuels the martyr philosophy.

The terrorist leadership knows that fear of death or injury can work to make people compliant. But if you remove that 'arrow' from your opponent's quiver then you can negate his power.

Ahmed: "You think I will do as you say just because you threaten to kill me? Look, at this! (Explosion) We WELCOME death! The fear of death is no longer a tool you can use to manipulate us!"

And the power of that tactic has forced the Israelis to respond and adopt new methods of dealing with the Palestinians.

However, what we haven't yet determined is how many Palestinians have actually taken the philosophy of martyrdom to heart?

Enough to completely make the whole P.A. immune to the influence of force?

And if you use the threat of force as a deterrent you have to be willing and able to follow through and actually use that power if pushed to the wall.

But, on the other hand we all know that one false move by certain parties could ignite an end of the world scenario so what does all this matter?

I'm right with my maker.

You?
America should know the political orientation of government officials who might be in a position to adversely influence the future of this country. http://tinyurl.com/4vucu5
     
Kevin
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 1, 2006, 11:07 PM
 
Yeah I vote for not wiping people off the planet.
     
ShortcutToMoncton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Apr 1, 2006, 11:13 PM
 
Originally Posted by abe
I'm right with my maker.

You?
I'm right with a fine bottle of Newfoundland Screech at the moment.

I hope that counts.

greg


Now Playing: Sly and the Family Stone – Love and Haight
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
abe
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 1, 2006, 11:26 PM
 
Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton
I'm right with a fine bottle of Newfoundland Screech at the moment.

I hope that counts.

greg
What? You think all you have to do is give me a juicy straight line and I'll just automatically fall for it???

OK.



Dustin "Screech" Diamond and some chick.
America should know the political orientation of government officials who might be in a position to adversely influence the future of this country. http://tinyurl.com/4vucu5
     
   
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:35 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,