Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Bibi's speach - Yea or Nay? (Page 6)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 6 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6   
Author Topic: Bibi's speach - Yea or Nay?
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"I'm saying boy wouldn't it be nice to get proof positive for a change. But instead the public is fed the same slop as always and nothing changes. It basically means an administration that is supposed to represent the people is completely autocratic and does whatever it wants. This isn't news to anyone, but it would be nice to at least acknowledge how stupid the situation is. How many false flags or outright deceptions are needed before this isn't tolerated any more? "...

This is all verifiably true without even making reference to Iran's nuclear program [Smile] (which is also verifiable). What you seem to want Fenring is an isotope analysis. Destroy the hardened underground production facilities, and atmospheric sampling all the way to Norway can give you the answer.

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Mynion,

"Meir Dagan, the Mossad chief from 2002 until 2011, has often voiced a differing opinion from that of Netanyahu on how to deal with the Iranian nuclear issue, and how close Iran may be to the bomb.

Before leaving office in January 2011, Dagan broke away from earlier predictions and said that in his view, Iran would obtain a nuclear weapon only in 2015."

http://www.jpost.com/Arab-Israeli-Conflict/Report-Leaked-intelligence-document-shows-Mossad-didnt-think-Iran-sought-nuclear-weapon-391902

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
We could always give them Texas or Utah. They like Putin's leadership style, I hear, and it's not like we need either state.

Remind me a little of Utah's history of agression against its neighbors? Or link
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mynnion
Member
Member # 5287

 - posted      Profile for Mynnion   Email Mynnion   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Noel-These were leaked documents not public statements. Lets look at this. We have one individual who is responsible for the gathering of intelligence. We have another individual who uses fear of Iran to maintain political power. Who would you choose to believe?
Posts: 1271 | Registered: Sep 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by noel c.:
"I'm saying boy wouldn't it be nice to get proof positive for a change. But instead the public is fed the same slop as always and nothing changes. It basically means an administration that is supposed to represent the people is completely autocratic and does whatever it wants. This isn't news to anyone, but it would be nice to at least acknowledge how stupid the situation is. How many false flags or outright deceptions are needed before this isn't tolerated any more? "...

This is all verifiably true without even making reference to Iran's nuclear program [Smile] (which is also verifiable). What you seem to want Fenring is an isotope analysis. Destroy the hardened underground production facilities, and atmospheric sampling all the way to Norway can give you the answer.

You know the adage that doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result means you're crazy (or stupid)? I'll posit a similar version, which is that having the same thing done to you over and over, and expecting that this time it will be different, makes you crazy (or stupid).

After repeatedly being led into either wars or military engagements justified by lies (yes, including Iraq), one would think it would be simple to just assume anything the government says about military necessity is a lie until proven otherwise. The idea that "that was in the past, this time we should trust what they say" is simply crazy (or stupid). But it's really easy to overcome this mistrust - have the government start to build some real trust, by providing real evidence for the public's perusal.

But of course this will never happen for now, because it's just too convenient and lucrative to act autocratically rather than responsibly.

Even if you're right that showing the public where Iran's nuclear sites are would cause those sites to move and delay our ability to deal with them, a far greater victory will have been achieved, which is that of rallying Americans behind a government they trust. Tracking down the errant sites would be no big deal for U.S. intelligence and spy satellites; it would be no more than a small inconvenience. The Iranians are not right at the brink of developing nukes, so this operation is not of an immediately time-sensitive nature (i.e. within weeks or a few months).

Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Mynnion,

Yes, let's look at it. Prior to the last Israeli air strike Dagan said;
"An Israel Air Force attack against Iran’s nuclear facilities would start a regional war whose end Israel cannot foresee... An aerial attack against Iran’s nuclear reactors would be foolish... Anyone attacking Iran needs to understand that art a regional war which will include missile fire from Iran and Hezbollah in Lebanon. The Iranian problem must be made an international problem, and we must continue to work to delay the nuclear program,”

Of course, we all remember that war, right? Now after a very active effort to delay Iranian aspirations Dagan says, prior to leaving office, that the Iranians will have nukes this year. He, and Netanyahu appear to be on the same page. So, who should we now believe?

Fenring,

"Even if you're right that showing the public where Iran's nuclear sites are would cause those sites to move and delay our ability to deal with them, a far greater victory will have been achieved, which is that of rallying Americans behind a government they trust. Tracking down the errant sites would be no big deal for U.S. intelligence and spy satellites; it would be no more than a small inconvenience. The Iranians are not right at the brink of developing nukes, so this operation is not of an immediately time-sensitive nature (i.e. within weeks or a few months). "...

This is really confusing. On the one hand, you have justified faith that we have the ability to locate the sites, and on the other you fail to understand that the fissile material is highly transportable. To top it off, you also seem to "know" that Iran is not on the brink of weapons production.

Is there a subtext to your feelings on this subject?

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Noel, I'm not claiming to know one way or the other about Iran's supposed program. That's the point, no one should assume anything until the government shows some facts to back it up. Otherwise they could claim just about anything and we'd be none the wiser. As for my faith in the ability to locate sites, if you'll pardon the pun, I don't think it's rocket science.
Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
II am ok with barry making treaties with iran if he takes the trouble to follow constitutional treaty processes. And if he can't, he should be impeached, as should any potus who wipes his ass on article One. I hope that anyone who disagrees with me on that issue [the conctitution] does not claim to be American. If he thinks he can bypass the Senate because they invited Nyetty without Barry's blessing, the he should grow up. We need a potus, not a poutus. Being snubbed doesnt give him license to go off like Malificent on the rag.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ScottF
Member
Member # 6897

 - posted      Profile for ScottF         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Fenring, how specific do you think the government should get if/when they release any intel to the public prior to acting? Satellite photos of locations? Actual coordinates? Do you agree that could be problematic?
Posts: 177 | Registered: Mar 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ScottF:
Fenring, how specific do you think the government should get if/when they release any intel to the public prior to acting? Satellite photos of locations? Actual coordinates? Do you agree that could be problematic?

There is some grey zone in between "he said she said" and "show the public everything we've got." It will be somewhere in there. I also think that certain details don't actually need to be put on the news, but can instead be submitted to select senators or congressmen from both parties as representatives of the people. The latter leaves an element of doubt but is better than no one at all outside of some inner circle knowing the truth.
Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Makes more sense for israel to do it , assuming that it needs to be done. It's israel on the front line
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Barry's blessing, the he should grow up. We need a potus, not a poutus. Being snubbed doesnt give him license to go off like Malificent on the rag. "...

Thanks Pete, you just made me blow my Chobani all over the iPhone.

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
“Something isn’t going the way it should. Netanyahu’s speech to Congress last week should have created a turning point for us and strengthened Likud in the polls. It’s clear that we didn’t achieve the desired outcome,” a senior figure in Likud told Haaretz.
link

Okay, so a Likud acknolwedgement of promoting war as a campaign stunt. who would have thought it..?

Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DJQuag
Member
Member # 3582

 - posted      Profile for DJQuag   Email DJQuag       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Speaking of Israel, something interesting I've read about recently.

So, there was a minister of something or other who raised the minimum of votes to have representatives in the Knesset, and most people looked at this as him trying to silence the Arab Israeli vote.

Following this, a man has emerged who is attempting to bring together the Arab vote. Ohed, I think his name is. He's trying to get the 1/5 Arab population of Israel to rally together to allow their voice to be heard.

I think this is admirable. And I hope he's successful. From what I've read, Arabs face discrimination in daily life. They need a venue to fight against discrimination. I hope that he's sucessful and becomes the opposition party there.

Posts: 476 | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Hannibal
Member
Member # 1339

 - posted      Profile for Hannibal   Email Hannibal   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The minister was Avigdor Liberman. The poetic justice will be if, due to the raised minimum, his own party will not make it to the parliament.

That said... There is no country in the middle east where Arabs have as many benefits and civil liberties as Israel.

This is a topic for a whole new discussion, but I wouldn't cry about how miserable and wronged the Israeli Arabs are, without mentioning how counter productive they are as well

Posts: 3495 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DJQuag
Member
Member # 3582

 - posted      Profile for DJQuag   Email DJQuag       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm interested in hearing how they are counterproductive.
Posts: 476 | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
II am ok with barry making treaties with iran if he takes the trouble to follow constitutional treaty processes.

And what should be done if the Senate comes out ahead of time and warns that it will intentionally not ratify any treaty that he manages to negotiate, as the letter it sent to Iran communicated?
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Get the Senate back on board or don't make a treaty. Assuming there isn't some other legitimate means to get a treaty.
Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
II am ok with barry making treaties with iran if he takes the trouble to follow constitutional treaty processes.

And what should be done if the Senate comes out ahead of time and warns that it will intentionally not ratify any treaty that he manages to negotiate, as the letter it sent to Iran communicated?
That's the Senate's privilege. I know this administration seems to think that when Congress doesn't do what they want it gives them some kind of magical power to ignore the Constitution but that would be incorrect.
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
That's the Senate's privilege. I know this administration seems to think that when Congress doesn't do what they want it gives them some kind of magical power to ignore the Constitution but that would be incorrect.
It should be the Senates privilege to undermine negotiations and perhaps even provoke war by saying that it will not even consider the content of a treaty, but simply reject it to undermine the President that is trying to negotiate it?
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by NobleHunter:
Get the Senate back on board or don't make a treaty. Assuming there isn't some other legitimate means to get a treaty.

On board what? That would suggest that they're disagreeing with the content of the treaty, not simply trying to render the president unable to negotiate anything in good faith and instead provoke armed conflict.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
On board with conducting government business in a reasonable manner then. As Seneca points out, just because Congress is controlled by a pack of idiots with the intellectual depth of a teaspoon, doesn't mean Obama has extra powers. If he can't get a treaty through the Senate, he can't get a treaty (of the sort he needs to get through the Senate, anyways). It doesn't matter if they think he's the anti-christ (this would be a good place to cite the percentage that does but I don't have it handy) or if they can't agree on whether or not to use the oxford comma. No Senate, no treaty, the why is totally irrelevant to the exercise of power.
Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yes, but there's a difference between a Senate that simple refuses to pass anything and one that goes out of its way to preemptively _provoke_ conflict. Not passing a Treaty is the Senate's prerogative. Antagonizing other countries, making the US look like it's acting in bad faith, and attempting to gin up conflict is not.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
That may be true, but there probably isn't a means of redress other than no re-electing the idiots. If more sensible Congresses want/wanted to prevent such actions, they can/could make laws about it. Yes, there's that one law but it appears to be something of a farce.

I understand the impulse to be able to do something constructive about elected officials acting in unsuitable ways. I live on the periphery of Toronto's sphere of influence, waiting for Rob Ford to be unelected was painful. But without pre-existing methods of correction, there's nothing to do but wait.

ETA: I may be misunderstanding you, but I interpret you to mean something like "how's the President supposed to get anything done if Congress is out to sabotage him?". He probably isn't, there's nothing to but wait and suffer or agitate for constitutional change. Your rules aren't intended to create good government and there aren't a lot of ways around that.

[ March 17, 2015, 01:38 PM: Message edited by: NobleHunter ]

Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
Yes, but there's a difference between a Senate that simple refuses to pass anything and one that goes out of its way to preemptively _provoke_ conflict. Not passing a Treaty is the Senate's prerogative. Antagonizing other countries, making the US look like it's acting in bad faith, and attempting to gin up conflict is not.

AAhem. Who had power to declare war, Pyr?
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
Yes, but there's a difference between a Senate that simple refuses to pass anything and one that goes out of its way to preemptively _provoke_ conflict. Not passing a Treaty is the Senate's prerogative. Antagonizing other countries, making the US look like it's acting in bad faith, and attempting to gin up conflict is not.

AAhem. Who had power to declare war, Pyr?
I'm sorry, did I miss Congress passing a declaration of war against Iran? Declaring war is a formal change of the US's diplomatic stance, specifically in response to a conflict. It is not an attempt to provoke conflict in and of itself.

Congress declaring war on Iran is a vastly different thing than Congress attempting to undermine negotiations and create a conflict sever enough that it can reasonably act to declare war.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I may be misunderstanding you, but I interpret you to mean something like "how's the President supposed to get anything done if Congress is out to sabotage him?". He probably isn't, there's nothing to but wait and suffer or agitate for constitutional change. Your rules aren't intended to create good government and there aren't a lot of ways around that.
No, I meant "Why are you impugning the President with made up accusations, while Congress is the one that has already acted in ways that actually fit the bill for such bad behavior?"
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Oh. That's a silly question.
Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JoshCrow
Member
Member # 6048

 - posted      Profile for JoshCrow   Email JoshCrow   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Hahaha, well THAT didn't take very long!

I wonder if any hard-liners in Israel are angry today...

Posts: 2281 | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
But remember, this is the guy with a spine we want negotiating with Iran.
Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Except despite the liberal MSM trying to portray it as a flip flop, it's not.

His position was and still is there probably won't be a Palestinian state while he is PM because he knows it will take a long time for the Arabs in the West Bank and Gaza to eliminate their terrorist factions and governments, and until they do Israel will not allow them even more power to launch rockets and attacks at them.

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JoshCrow
Member
Member # 6048

 - posted      Profile for JoshCrow   Email JoshCrow   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Seneca:

His position was and still is there probably won't be a Palestinian state while he is PM

You're in the spin zone, dude.

quote:

But Netanyahu's most strident statement came when he was asked by the rightwing NRG website if it was true that there would be no Palestinian state established if he was reelected.
'Indeed,' said Netanyahu, who in 2009 had endorsed the idea of two states living side by side.
He later told public radio the two-state solution was now irrelevant, saying the 'reality has changed' and 'any territory which would be handed over would be taken over by radical Islamists'.


Posts: 2281 | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It's not spin at all, actually it makes perfect sense.

As long as the Palestinians are in bed with Hamas and other terrorists Israel cannot allow a Palestinian state. Do YOU think the Palestinians will give Hamas and other terrorists the boot from their society anytime soon? That was his whole point. And it is very valid.

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
yossarian22c
Member
Member # 1779

 - posted      Profile for yossarian22c   Email yossarian22c       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Netanyahu's party holds 30 of the 120 seats. I think if I understand the politics neither of the next two largest parties (24 and 13 seats) are likely to join to form a government. Does anyone have an idea what the final collation might look like? Is there any precedent (in Israel) for a majority party to be unable to form a government?
Posts: 1121 | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The reason that Herzog rightfully conceded is that it's already pretty clear how Netanyahu's coalition will work.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/03/19/world/middleeast/netanyahu-likud-election-knesset-coalition.html?_r=0

Likud's governing coalition will actually be more secure than before.

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
There is no country in the middle east where Arabs have as many benefits and civil liberties as Israel.
As I have started thinking about Netanyahu's position that there is no two state solution, that creates some very unanticipated moral consequences. If Israel is the only nation West of the Jordan River, then that nation may not clearly rank better than other Arab nations.

You can't have it both ways. If Israel is the only nation West of the Jordan River, then all of the roughly 4 million Palestinians in the teritories should now be considered to be within Israel - that's about 40% of the population. So we would have to measure standards in proportion to the population. If some of these Palestinians live in horrible conditions because of Hamas brutality, and what nation is responsible for that? If there is only one nation, then Israel is responsible. Does Israel count as a democratic nation when 40% of its population is not allowed to vote? Admittedly, there are free elections in which 60% of the population votes, but can you exclude 4 million residents in your nation and still call yourself a democracy? After all, South Africa had free and open elections that a subset of the population was allowed to participate in, but that regime was generally not considered a democracy

Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
There is no country in the middle east where Arabs have as many benefits and civil liberties as Israel.
As I have started thinking about Netanyahu's position that there is no two state solution, that creates some very unanticipated moral consequences. If Israel is the only nation West of the Jordan River, then that nation may not clearly rank better than at least some other Arab nations.

You can't have it both ways. If Israel is the only nation West of the Jordan River, then all of the roughly 4 million Palestinians in the teritories should now be considered to be within Israel - that's about 40% of the population. So we would have to measure standards in proportion to the population. If many of these Palestinians live in horrible conditions because of brutality (including Hamas brutality), then the nation that gets responsibility for that is Israel. If there is only one nation, then Israel is responsible. Does Israel count as a democratic nation when 40% of its population is not allowed to vote? Admittedly, there are free elections in which 60% of the population votes, but can you exclude 4 million residents in your nation and still call yourself a democracy? After all, South Africa had free and open elections that a subset of the population was allowed to participate in, but that regime was generally not considered a democracy.

Israel is still clearly better than Syria and most other Arab regimes - but under the one-state assumption the boundary gets more blurred with Tunisia (where there wasn't a similar disenfranchisement of a minority of the population). Perhaps a better comparison would be with the non-Arab nation of Turkey. The Turks do allow the Kurds to vote, whereas the Palestinians who would live in a one-state Israel do not get to vote in elections for the government that rules them. On the other hand, Israel and Turkey are both US allies, we don't always agree, they don't always treat their minorities the way we would like, but in general we share common interests.

What comes out of this thought experiment for me is that Israel would still be a US ally, but with no basis for any special relationship.

Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
This is truly bizarre. The Obama admin is taking one of Netanyahu's statements from his campaign out of context, but even if they weren't, so what? Should we hold Obama 100% accountable for all of his campaign promises? What would it look like if we did?
http://www.msnbc.com/all/obama-holds-netanyahu-pre-election-promise

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
More significantly, obama is about misrepresenting nyetty actually said:

" “I think that anyone who moves to establish a Palestinian state today, and evacuate areas, is giving radical Islam an area from which to attack the State of Israel,” according to The Times of Israel."

Not now =\= not during my reign.

A one state solution there is a prescription for genocide.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 6 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1