+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 20 of 23
December 24th, 2016, 01:40 PM #1
Negotiation by Capitulation: Pres. Obama's Last Strike Against the Jewish State.
Normally in a negotiation both sides gather up all their negotiating chips. They then seek to barter these for benefits in the negotiation. If everything goes well, both sides can get what it wants most --or at least a significant measure of same-- while not giving up an extraordinary amount that it deems valuable.
In theory, in a successful negotiation both sides should walk away reasonably satisfied. In actually practice--especially in international negotiations addressing longstanding issues such as the "Arab Israeli conflict"--both sides walk away largely dissatisfied that it gave away too much and got too little. This is the nature of the beast.
There is one absolute monkey wrench in these proceedings and that is when one side declares that the other side must give up all of its negotiating positions--or at least its primary one--before it will even sit down to the table.
The United Nations, that collection of gangster states and paragons of public morality, has demanded of Israel that it give up what it already possesses, specifically the power to build Jewish settlements on the West bank and do so not through direct negotiations with the Palestinians but by gangsta fiat.
Needless to say, this has also been historically the position of the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) now the Palestinian Authority or such: Israel first gives up the right to build on West Bank and then the negotiations begin-- not exactly. There are other things Israel, by this precedent, must give up before the negotiations begin.
It has been Israel's position that if its counter-party wishes it to make a change in the status quo by ceasing building in its territory that it should sit down at the negotiating table and bargain for that. There may be demands that Israel has to make as well that may seem drastic to its counter-party. This is the nature of international negotiations. They are not pleasant for either side.
Recently Egypt was to put forth a resolution in the Security Council to --once again condemn the State of Israel but was talked out of it only to have other states pick up the bat. Mr.Obama and his current Sec. of State Kerry made history by abstaining rather than Vetoing this resolution as the United States, in support of its ally Israel has done in the past.
By doing so, it has in effect endorsed in one view the position that Israel must first give up a major bargaining chip--the right and power to build Jewish settlements in the West Bank--and do so importantly and in complete violation of normal negotiation process--and herein lies the shiv stuck in its side--must do so before the negotiations leaving it without possibly its greatest negotiating point.
Capitulation precedes negotiation
in this view.
For the other side
Get everything--give up nothing.
Now endorsed by the USA ...in the last days of he Obama administration.
JERUSALEM — When President Obama and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel met in September for the last time before Mr. Obama leaves office, the session was marked by forced smiles and strained jokes about playing golf in retirement, as if bygones were bygones after nearly eight years of clawing conflict.
Of course it was never going to end that way. How could it? The narrative of the tense and tetchy relationship between liberal president and conservative prime minister instead reached a climax in a hyper-politicized showdown over war, peace, justice, security, human rights and, at last, the very meaning of international friendship.
Mr. Obama’s decision on Friday not to block a United Nations Security Council resolution condemning Israeli settlements laid bare all the grievances the two men have nursed since shortly after they took office in 2009. For Mr. Netanyahu, it was the final betrayal by a president who was supposed to be an ally but never really was. For Mr. Obama, it was the inevitable result of Mr. Netanyahu’s own stubborn defiance of international concerns with his policies.
The two sides did little to hide their mutual contempt. After talks led them to conclude that Mr. Obama would not veto the resolution, as presidents of both parties have done in the past, Israeli officials essentially washed their hands of the incumbent and contacted his successor in the wings. President-elect Donald J. Trump promptly put out a statement calling on Mr. Obama to veto the resolution.
When that ultimately did not stop the Council from acting, Mr. Netanyahu’s team expressed blistering anger at Mr. Obama. An Israeli official, insisting on anonymity to maintain the veneer of diplomatic protocol, gave a statement to multiple reporters on Friday blasting Mr. Obama and his secretary of state, John Kerry, by name.
“President Obama and Secretary Kerry are behind this shameful move against Israel at the U.N.,” the official said. “The U.S. administration secretly cooked up with the Palestinians an extreme anti-Israeli resolution behind Israel’s back which would be a tailwind for terror and boycotts and effectively make the Western Wall occupied Palestinian territory.”
The White House bristled at the attack, denying that it was behind the resolution but defending the decision to abstain rather than veto it as consistent with longstanding, bipartisan American opposition to Israeli settlement construction as an obstacle to peace with the Palestinians.
The Israeli statement was “full of inaccuracies and falsehoods,” Benjamin J. Rhodes, a deputy national security adviser to Mr. Obama, told reporters on a conference call. The president, he said, tried repeatedly to bring the rivals together at the negotiating table, only to see Israel continue building more housing in the occupied West Bank in a way that would make a peace agreement even harder to broker.
“We tried everything,” Mr. Rhodes said. In effect, he added just after Friday’s United Nations vote, Mr. Netanyahu had it coming. “Prime Minister Netanyahu had the opportunity to pursue policies that would have led to a different outcome today,” he said. “Absent this acceleration of settlement activity, absent the type of rhetoric we’ve seen out of the current Israeli government, I think the United States likely would have taken a different view.”
The clash just four weeks before Mr. Obama leaves office culminated a fractious eight years between the men. From the start, the two did not see eye to eye. Idealistic and perhaps overconfident, Mr. Obama arrived in the White House certain that he could be the president who would finally resolve the decades-old dispute between Israelis and Palestinians. But Mr. Netanyahu saw a naďf who failed to grasp the existential threat to Israel and who demanded more of his friends than his enemies.
The relationship was marked by one conflict after another, a reflection of not just personal differences but deeply held and diverging policy objectives of the men and their countries. Mr. Obama’s demand that Israel suspend new settlements to enter negotiations infuriated Mr. Netanyahu. The announcement of new construction in East Jerusalem while Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. was visiting infuriated Mr. Obama. Two major pushes for negotiations by Mr. Obama unraveled amid mistrust and animosity
For Obama and Netanyahu, a Final Clash After Years of Conflict
The UN Security Council has voted in favour of a resolution demanding the halt of settlement activity by Israel on occupied Palestinian territory with the United States notably abstaining.
The resolution was put forward at the 15-member council for a vote on Friday by New Zealand, Malaysia, Venezuela and Senegal a day after Egypt withdrew it under pressure from Israel and US president-elect Donald Trump.
Israel and Trump had called on the United States to veto the measure.
“This is a day of victory for international law, a victory for civilised language and negotiation and a total rejection of extremist forces in Israel,” chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat told Reuters news agency.
“The international community has told the people of Israel that the way to security and peace is not going to be done through occupation … but rather through peace, ending the occupation and establishing a Palestinian state to live side by side with the state of Israel on the 1967 line,” Erekat said.
The resolution was adopted with 14 votes in favour to a resounding round of applause. It is the first resolution the Security Council has adopted on Israel and the Palestinians in nearly eight years.
“Israel rejects this shameful anti-Israel resolution at the UN and will not abide by its terms,” a statement from the office of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said.
The United States’ abstention was the biggest rebuke in recent history to longstanding ally Israel, allowing the Security Council to condemn its settlements and continuing construction in Palestinian territory as a “flagrant violation” of international law.
The resolution said Israel’s settlements on Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, have “no legal validity.
It demanded a halt to “all Israeli settlement activities”, saying this “is essential for salvaging the two-state solution”.
Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi had backtracked on the move to condemn Israel’s settlement policy on Thursday after receiving a phone call from US president-elect Donald Trump, who spoke out in favour of a US veto.
Israeli Ambassador to the UN Danny Danon said his government had expected a US veto of “this disgraceful resolution”.
“I have no doubt that the new US administration and the incoming UN secretary general will usher in a new era in terms of the UN’s relationship with Israel,” said Danon after the vote.
Trump said in a tweet: “As to the UN, things will be different after Jan 20th.”
Trump is likely to be a more staunch supporter of Netanyahu’s right-wing policies. He named a hardline pro-Israel ambassador and vowed to move the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.
Israeli settlements are seen as a major stumbling block to peace efforts as they are built on land the Palestinians see as part of their future state.
The United Nations maintains that settlements are illegal, but UN officials have reported a surge in construction over the past months.
Israeli Energy Minister Yuval Steinitz accused the US of abandoning Israel by abstaining.
“This is not a resolution against settlements, it is an anti-Israel resolution, against the Jewish people and the state of the Jews. The United States tonight has simply abandoned its only friend in the Middle East,” Steinitz, who is close to Netanyahu, told Channel Two News.
Some 430,000 Israeli settlers currently live in the West Bank and a further 200,000 Israelis live in East Jerusalem, which the Palestinians see as the capital of their future state.
The passage of the resolution changes nothing on the ground between Israel and the Palestinians, and likely will be all but ignored by the incoming Trump administration.
But it was more than merely symbolic.
The resolution formally enshrined the international community’s disapproval of Israeli settlement building, and could spur further Palestinian moves against Israel in international forums
December 24th, 2016, 11:45 PM #2The 1920 Treaty of Sčvres defines the Principal Allied Powers as the British Empire, French Republic, Italy and Japan. The Allied Powers comprised, together with the Principal Allied Powers, Armenia, Belgium, Greece, Hejaz, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Serb-Croat-Slovene state and Czechoslovakia.
Always seemed like highway robbery to me.....
December 25th, 2016, 01:01 AM #3
The Middle East was divided into a British Mandate , the relevant part here Palestine and Transjordan and a French Mandate herein Lebanon and Syria.
In the 'thirties in large part due to the growing anti-Semitism in Europe (viz. Nazism) the Zionists immigration grew on Palestine and after the WWII and the revealed horrors of the genocide of the Jews in Europe and the failure of the Western states to protect its Jewish population, the then UNO created a mandate for a Jewish state in Palestine. It should be noted that the earlier Balfour declaration was not only for a Jewish state but also an Arab state in Palestine which the cabinet minister could not provide given the animosity of the two group. Before and during the War, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem was pro-Nazi, visited Berlin to discuss anti-Jewish measures with Hitler, and his successor further agreed for Palestine to be used for the genocide of North African Jews.
The United Nations created two-state solution where one state was Israel and the other was Transjordan. This was opposed by the surrounding Arab states including Transjordan and war immediately ensued. All of the refugees of the war were denied entrance into the surrounding Arab states and effectively became "stateless"; this was intended to create political and military pressure to destroy Israel.
Sec. of State Arthur James Balfour had not only suggested a Jewish state but also implied an Arab state. The Ottoman Empire entered the war on the side of the Central Powers and Balfour believed that the only peoples under Ottoman control who were strong enough to cause the Turks some difficulty were the Jews and Arabs so he supported their nationalism, probably with little regard as to the ultimate post-war outcome . Sec. McMahon and Kind Hussein Correspondence had promised the Arabs independence in return for their support during the Great War and the secret Sykes–Picot Agreement actually provided for Anglo-French division. Hence both conflicting claims and conflicting promises helped set the stage for an intractable conflict, made no less difficult by the refusal of adjoining Arab states to take in and assimilate the Palestinian Arabs as a matter of war policy-- which remains to this day. The First World War (Great War) has cast a long shadow and Israel while nominally a direct child of WWII was also in that shadow. Some historians view both World Wars as actually one war called the Long War.
Britain had also proposed by its Sec. of State Joseph Chamberlain--a relative of Neville Chamberlain- as a solution to the growing nationalism in Europe which also meant a growing anti-Semitism that a Jewish state be created in British west Africa in what is now Kenya in the 1903 Uganda Plan. Members of the Polish parliament were to try to deport Polish Jews (1935) to Madagascar and Nazi Germany took Madagascar as a code word for places like Auschwitz.
The growing nationalism in Europe in the 19th century also meant growing Jewish "nationalism" along with anti-Semitism. The Sultan of the Ottoman Empire earlier at one point had offered prominent Jewish philanthropist Moses Montefiore a Jewish state under Ottoman sphere of influence but Montefiore had difficulty getting his friends in London to support that idea. In general, although Zionism did not start out as a religious movement but more the notion of a homeland as a haven of safety, it had greater appeal to religious Jews in Eastern Europe than secular Jews in Western Europe. The growth of Fascism across Europe in the 20th post Great War gave it a renewed impetus and also a post-war appeal across a wide range of Jewish opinion.
The wanton and intended destruction of European Jews during WWII caused a shift in public opinion and while the Labour government of Clement Atlee in Britain was fearful of antagonizing the Arabs and hence was not sympathetic toward the Zionists, Britain was facing bankruptcy and was pre-occupied with other matters so out of perceived necessity it transferred much of its responsibilities in the eastern Mediterranean- (including its spheres of influence under Yalta ) to the United States which at that time was a net exporter of oil. The support of both Harry Truman and Joseph Stalin meant support in the Security Council. I believe Britain abstained.
The Ottoman Empire was throughout the 19th century a "European necessity" as a barrier against the expansion of the Austro-Hungarian Empire and the Russian Empire so Britain and France supported it. Note the Crimean War when Russia attacked Ottoman Empire and Britain and France came to the rescue. When both A-H and Russia collapsed post Great War, it no longer served that purpose so it was dismantled. The Treaty of Sevres was that dismantlement. It had almost nothing to do with the State of Israel which was a post WWII creation of the Western allies acting in the UNO. Stalin joined in because he felt that the Jews had helped his war effort and that Israel would be a socialist state as well as a problem to Britain and the USA. Evangelical Christians have supported a Zionist state in Palestine in the belief that rebuilding of the Temple would hasten the Second Coming of Christ. Today, evangelical Christians are among Israel's strongest supporters in the United States, often consistent with a belief in the Second Coming.
My own view is that even if Israel were to concede the west bank in its entirety to the Palestinian Arabs, its problems would still continue but it would have a longer border to defend and better positioned adversaries to face. Moreover, Israel's real adversaries are not the Palestinian Arabs-- who also are the victims--but a world -wide conspiracy to create and utilize a needless conflict.
I hope this information is helpful.
See also below concerning the rights of states to maintain matters within their own borders, known as the Westphalian state system. It was this system that Winston Churchill, an Edwardian reactionary, understood was being violated if any part of Czechoslovakia was handed over to Germany in 1938, no matter how many ethnic Germans lived there. The Sudetanland was still part of Czechoslovakia.
SEE for Treaty of Westphalia and the system that resulted >>
Last edited by MegalosSkylaki; December 26th, 2016 at 02:45 PM.
December 26th, 2016, 03:55 PM #4
Edvard Benes, President of Czechoslovakia, made every effort to conciliate the Sudentenland Germans and by prior agreement with Hitler, the Sudentenland German leaders kept raising the ante , making greater and greater demands with the intent of destroying the Czech state. Benes well understood that their intent was not to be conciliated but to lead to war but Neville Chamberlain failed to understand that simple truth and pushed for the Munich agreement.
It is harder to negotiate when a great power is on the other side and the other side does not have to give up anything.
When Germany turned its attention to Poland in 1939, Josef Beck its Foreign Secretary simply refused to negotiate, recognizing the purposelessness of negotiating with a side that wants capitulation. This time around, England and France figured it out, too.
The point being that any negotiations between the Palestinian and the Israel sides are not negotiations when one side doesn't have to give up anything to get what it wants because it simply goes to the United Nations--as Hitler when to Neville Chamberlain's England--to get pressure put on it to capitulate on the point. And if there is nothing that would conciliate the other side because its sponsors want the destruction of Israel so the ante keeps getting higher and higher?
If the UN wishes to advance the negotiations, the only helpful thing it can do is to stay out of them. This way both sides are compelled to negotiate in order to obtain what it wants. Right now, one side can make drastic demand, give up nothing in return and rely on Big Brother to all but declare the other side as a non-state. The next sticking point in the " negotiations " ?
Ah!... what's the number of the UN ?..we want our side to prevail!
Unless of course the UN doesn't want a solution on the conventional sense but a final solution culminating in the destruction of the State of Israel.
December 26th, 2016, 08:16 PM #5If the UN wishes to advance the negotiations, the only helpful thing it can do is to stay out of them.
Arm both side with similar weaponry .
And , let them have it out , Once and for all.
Let the Crying rooms open their doors....
After 65 years , I'm sick and tired of the same old BS......
When can CHILDREN learn to Play in the Sand Box ??
Send 'em some FISH HEADS....
December 26th, 2016, 10:05 PM #6
Kevin Drum:For many years:
Virtually every country in the world has condemned Israel's settlements in the West Bank.
They have all repeatedly voted to say so in the UN.
The US has also opposed Israel's settlements, but hasn't officially said so in the UN.
And Israel has said very clearly that the UN is virulently anti-Israel (true) and they pay it no mind.
A few days ago one small part of this formula finally changed when the US abstained from a UN vote condemning Israel's settlements on the West Bank. It was a parting blow from a lame-duck president who has been treated appallingly by Bibi Netanyahu, and the only surprising thing about it is that President Obama managed to hold his temper this long.
In any case, it's entirely meaningless: Donald Trump will take office soon and Netanyahu claims to consider the UN illegitimate on this subject anyway. So why has everyone gone ballistic over it? Sure, there's now an "official" UN resolution condemning the West Bank settlements, but what difference does that make? An "official" UN resolution is barely worth the minute or two it takes to read it. Even as a PR coup it doesn't amount to much.
The whole Israel charade long ago ceased to interest me. I can hardly pretend to be any kind of expert, but my take is that the last chance for any kind of peace deal ended in the 90s. The huge influx of conservative Jews from Russia after the fall of the Iron Curtain, followed by the Second Intifada, turned Israel permanently against any kind of settlement with the Palestinians.
Because of this, I never blamed George Bush for not trying to broker a peace deal and never blamed Obama for not succeeding. Even people who are sympathetic toward Obama often say that he handled the Middle East badly—and the Israel relationship particularly badly—but I simply don't see how he could have done any better. Netanyahu treated him with unconcealed contempt; was unapologetic about publicly undermining him; decided to ditch bipartisanship and openly team up with the Republican Party; and very plainly was never open to any kind of settlement at all. There is absolutely nothing Obama could have done to change that.
In any case, the following things are indisputably true:
Israeli leaders will never* stop building in the West Bank. It would be electoral suicide.
Israeli leaders will never give up the West Bank. It would be electoral suicide.
Israeli leaders will never formally annex the West Bank. It would be electoral suicide.
In other words, nothing is going to happen. Period. Israel is going to keep things as they are, fight off world opinion forever, and hope that maybe over the course of several decades they can slowly get all the Palestinians in the West Bank to emigrate elsewhere. It's sort of like Mitt Romney's "self-deportation" on steroids.
And just in case you think this puts me on the side of the Arabs and Palestinians, forget it. To the extent that I stay even marginally on Israel's side, it's because the Arabs have acted even more abominably. They tried to invade Israel twice. They never cared a fig for the Palestinians except as a convenient poster child. (Jordan must have been the first country in history to lose territory in a war and be happy about it.) They never accepted Israel as legitimate, but for decades they've tacitly tolerated its existence because it gives them an easy way of stirring up demagogic hatreds that help prop up their own vicious regimes. The PLO was a murderous terrorist organization, and Hamas is worse. The intifadas were depraved and ruinous. And despite the fact that the Palestinians were clearly on the losing end of a war and needed to accept the best deal they could get, they remained delusional to the end. I've never bought into the revisionist history that Bill Clinton's Camp David summit was unfair to the Palestinians and Yasser Arafat was right to turn down the final proposal. He needed to accept it, and he probably knew it. He was just too cowardly to do it and too convinced that his own leadership was dependent on opposition to Israel.
Even in theory, there is literally no settlement that either the Israelis or the Palestinians would accept right now. This isn't necessarily true forever, but it will be true for a good long time. We should all stop wasting our time on the fantasy that peace talks have any value.
*All uses of never in this post are figurative. Never is a long time. But in this case, it means many decades at a minimum.What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. -- Christopher Hitchens (and many literary forebears)
December 27th, 2016, 04:33 AM #7
How the UN Could Have Solved the Worlds Most Intractible Conflict
Astonishingly easily and long ago.
Take all the pressure and money it applied to Israel to force it to self-destruct and instead do something to help the Palestinian Arabs: make the surrounding Arabs countries that vowed to destroy Israel and reduced the Palestinian Arabs to stateless foils to take them in and allow those that wished it to become citizens.
The Arabs league, in order to impose permanent pressure upon Israel refused the Palestinians entry into their country since 1947 (!) claiming this would force them to destroy Israel. In fact, it imposed only one solution since even Transjordon wouldn't take them in and that was to live in squalid refugee camps and their only hope forward into Israel --as the League had planned.
Both Israel and the Palestinian Arabs are victims of this policy and this policy does not end with the Middle east but extends way beyond it. This is why I've repeatedly written if Israel were to make the concession of the West bank to the Palestinian Arab Authority today, tomorrow it would find itself--as would the PA-- in a worse state of conflict. The outside forces that are driving this conflict would simply escalate from a position of advantage and the PA would once again find themselves foils to someone else's conflict.
Worse, it would lead to further pressure for dismemberment of Israel which would escalate Middle east conflict of the warring factions. Would ISIS, for example, tolerate a "two-state solution" ? Would the Sunni-Shiite conflict/Saudi-Irani ? Would the European "neo-" parties ? Or would the loss of the West bank lead to another Czechoslovakia, with further claims, dismemberment and war?
Europe was in a state of relative peace until Czechoslovakia was forced to give up part of its territory and then Poland, Hungary, the secessionist Slovaks all wanted a piece. Pres. Benes understood that states are kept together largely by the prestige--which is often illusory--of its governing people. Once that is shattered, everything goes. Netanyahu understands what Edward Benes understood and that the demands once yielded to under UN pressure will never end.
If the United Nations, those paragons of virtue, were sincere in helping the PA, it would have forced the surrounding Arabs states to take them in as refugees and allow them to earn citizenship. Many refugees have found a better life in their adopted countries but never by living generation to generation in refugee camps.
For additional information:
Palestine: The Final Reckoning.
December 27th, 2016, 08:59 AM #8Even in theory, there is literally no settlement that either the Israelis or the Palestinians would accept right now. This isn't necessarily true forever, but it will be true for a good long time. We should all stop wasting our time on the fantasy that peace talks have any value.
If the United Nations, those paragons of virtue, were sincere in helping the PA, it would have forced the surrounding Arabs states to take them in as refugees and allow them to earn citizenship. Many refugees have found a better life in their adopted countries but never by living generation to generation in refugee camps.
Unexpectedly , the inventiveness of these creatures had far surpassed their expectations, with the engineering advances that had been made, but the savageness, they hoped would wane with time, only flourished in the minds of the devious and grasping.
I'm Watter's and THIS is my world........
December 28th, 2016, 01:13 AM #9
Pres. Obama and a Three-State Solution ? Or a No-state solution?
First, I was under the impression that Palestine was divided in 1947 into Israel and Trans-Jordan, the latter of which refused to accept any Palestinian Arabs, as did the other surrounding Arab states. There was a history to this in that two Grand Mufti's of Jerusalem had allied themselves with Nazi Germany, one had visited Hitler in Berlin and one had pro-offered Palestine for the genocide of North African Jews.
Instead the chose to go to war to destroy the State of Israel. They continued to refuse to accept-and set up roadblocks against any Palestinian Arabs with the specific intent of making them warriors against the State of Israel. By and large they made them foils living in squalid refugee camps with no option to enter and assimilate into the surrounding Arab states or even Transjordan , which was the recipient of the rest of Palestine. As such, both Israeli Jews and Arabs share a common interest.
The utter foolishness of allowing the UN to arbitrate the West bank outside of the negotiation process is that tomorrow it could arbitrate the Gaza strip outside of the negotiation process and that the next tomorrow arbitrate the Golan heights outside of the negotiation process and that the next tomorrow arbitrate the Negev outside of the negotiation process and that the next tomorrow arbitrate...should I go on to boredom and infinity ?
Does the United Nations those iconic and virtuous paragons of the UN's ideals intend to piecemeal dismember the State of Israel ? Do some of its members in the full fruit of their nieviate actually believe that they would have less problems with terrorism if only they threw Israel under the wheels of a bus ? Does Obama think he would look better in the eyes of the World --or posterity--if only he got back at Netanyahu for his speech to Congress? He can't stand up to Putin's Russia so he wants to stand up to Netanyahu's Israel? Are some just plain anti-Semitic--or simply think they can divert attention from their own problems by adopting anti-Semitism? Are some UN states just hoodlums?
The hopelessly irrational aspect of the UN resolution is that if only there were a "two-state solution" --actually a three-state s we already have the two-state solution since 1947-- there would be peace in the region and World terrorism would also cease.
The only thing that would cease is Israel and like the dismemberment of Czechoslovakia the conflicting demands for what was once Israel would make World peace far less likely as the powers America, Russia, and Communist China moved their surrogates around and the
various Terrorist Orgs that have replaced all but replaced states go to war for prestige and the power associated with it in that region. This would be a truly World conflict. Remember, WWII began in the Sudetenland and many people--like British PM Neville Chamberlain sincerely thought there was a just cause in self-determination to the Sudenten Germans. Of course, they just kept wanting more tha what Czech Pres. Benes would offer. And more. And more...
Who would negotiate anything away when it doesn't have to because has the UN dictating the outcome? Is it likely that a small state forced to give up a large measure of its endowment and estate without getting anything in return in negotiations that it would not be pounced upon from all sides and from within and triggering a growing conflict? The action of Pres. Obama is as ill-considered and dangerous as that of PM Neville Chamberlain in 1938. Would the Palestinian Arabs, also under outside pressure--lots of outside pressure--stop with no further settlements in West bank or would they, too, keep demanding more, and more, and more...and never be conciliated until Israel is dismembered.
The Israeli government stepped up its running battle with the Obama administration on Tuesday, saying it had proof that the United States had orchestrated a U.N. Security Council resolution condemning settlement activity.
“We have ironclad information that emanates from sources in the Arab world and that shows the Obama administration helped craft this resolution and pushed hard for its eventual passage,” David Keyes, a spokesman for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, told reporters. “We’re not just going to be a punching bag and go quietly into the night.”
State Department deputy spokesman Mark Toner denied the administration had “precooked” the resolution. But the U.S. explanation did little to quell fears in Israel that another Security Council censure may be forthcoming, even though U.S. officials insisted no more U.N. resolutions are expected.
Toner said the United States had abstained, allowing the resolution’s passage, because it was “balanced,” also condemning Palestinian incitement to violence and terrorism, and there was growing concern that increased settlement activity was imperiling a two-state solution.
Amid acrid bitterness in Israel over what is seen as the United States’ failure to protect Israel in not using its veto, Kerry is returning to Washington from vacation to give a speech Wednesday morning outlining his vision for resolving the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians. There will be an end-to-an-era undertone to his remarks. With less than a month left before President Obama leaves office, President-elect Donald Trump has vowed that the U.S.-Israel relationship will be markedly different.
But there appeared to be little chance that the Israeli government would heed the “wake-up call” that Toner said he hoped the U.N. resolution would sound for Israel and curtail settlement activity.
A last-minute glitch came up when Russia’s ambassador to the United Nations, Vitaly Churkin, proposed postponing the vote until after Christmas, according to an interview the deputy Russian ambassador to Israel gave on Israel Army Radio. This reportedly followed a phone call between Netanyahu and Russian President Vladi*mir Putin. The other Security Council ambassadors refused to wait, however
Israel intensifies battle with U.S. over U.N. resolution on settlements
Last edited by MegalosSkylaki; December 28th, 2016 at 01:26 AM.
December 28th, 2016, 01:52 AM #10Toner said the United States had abstained, allowing the resolution’s passage, because it was “balanced,” also condemning Palestinian incitement to violence and terrorism, and there was growing concern that increased settlement activity was imperiling a two-state solution
This reminds me of when Obama caught Putin hacking into our Presidential Election and waited to see him so as to tell him, "Cut it out." That was "balanced", too.
The part I don't understand is: Israel and its counterpart are in negotiations, right, where they discuss what each side wants and what they are willing to forfeit to get it. This is to be decided by, well, the negotiations.
Now where Israel is told they can't have Jewish settlements in the West bank and are told this outside of the negotiations so the PLO doesn't have to give up anything and the negotiations are already undermined.
But here's the odd part. If Israel can't build in West bank, that means the West bank will--its been already decided --be given to the Palestinians.
So the procedure is that in negotiations, one side doesn't have to negotiate because the UN will tell the other side what to do and moreover has already decided a major piece of land that one side will cede to another.
What will the beneficiary of that cession give in return ? Err...nothing ?.
So where are the negotiations?
Is there any wonder that Israel doesn't want to succumb to such negotiations by non-negotiation?
Last edited by MegalosSkylaki; December 28th, 2016 at 02:01 AM.
December 28th, 2016, 10:15 AM #11
The West Bank, including East Jerusalem, has a land area of 5,640 km2 plus a water area of 220 km2, consisting of the northwest quarter of the Dead Sea. As of July 2015 it has an estimated population of 2,785,366 Palestinians, and approximately 371,000 Israeli settlers, and approximately another 212,000 Jewish Israelis in East Jerusalem. The international community considers Israeli settlements in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, illegal under international law, though Israel disputes this. The International Court of Justice advisory ruling (2004) concluded that events that came after the 1967 occupation of the West Bank by Israel, including the Jerusalem Law, Israel's peace treaty with Jordan and the Oslo Accords, did not change the status of the West Bank (including East Jerusalem) as occupied territory with Israel as the occupying power.
Consequences of occupation
According to the World Bank, the main reason for economic depression is the Israeli occupation.
According to a 2007 World Bank report, the Israeli occupation of the West Bank has destroyed the Palestinian economy, in violation of the 2005 Agreement on Movement and Access. All major roads (with a total length of 700 km) are basically off-limits to Palestinians, making it impossible to do normal business. Economic recovery would reduce Palestinian dependence on international aid by one billion dollars per year.
A more comprehensive 2013 World Bank report calculates that, if the Interim Agreement was respected and restrictions lifted, a few key industries alone would produce USD 2.2 billion per annum more (or 23% of 2011 Palestinian GDP) and reduce by some USD 800 million (50%) the Palestinian Authority's deficit; the employment would increase by 35%.
In August 2014, Palestinian leaders said they would apply to the United Nations Security Council for the establishment of a timetable for ending the Israeli occupation. The application would be made on 15 September 2014, following an Arab League meeting on 5 September 2014 at which support for the move would be requested. Unless a timetable was established, the Palestinian leadership said it would apply to the International Criminal Court where it would hold Israel responsible for its actions not only in the West Bank, but also in the Gaza Strip.
Last edited by pickel; December 28th, 2016 at 10:22 AM.
December 28th, 2016, 11:00 AM #12
A foreign policy "success" ?
The Obama/Kerry Administration that abjectly failed to stop Putin's Russian petro-state from invading Ukraine or from annexing the major part of Ukraine called the Crimean--or from converting Syria into a sphere of influence-- has nevertheless flexed its muscles and along with some of the goon states that make up the UN has managed to get Netanyahu's 5 million people desert Israel to halt construction on a housing development north of Jerusalem.
Way to go, Obama /Kerry ! Way to go !
Israel postpones approval of new settlement construction amid spat with U.S.
JERUSALEM — Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu instructed the Jerusalem municipality on Wednesday to wait on approving new housing units in a bid to avoid further strain in U.S.-Israeli relations, a local official said.
Jerusalem’s Municipal Planning and Construction Committee had been scheduled to finalize construction plans for some 492 new homes in Jewish neighborhoods in East Jerusalem, despite a resolution approved Friday by the United Nations Security Council that views the settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem as having “no legal validity” and as a barrier to achieving peace with the Palestinians.
The resolution, which was approved by 14 votes to 0, passed because the United States, in a break with long-standing policy, decided to abstain instead of using its veto power.
The latest move is a surprising turnabout by Netanyahu after days of attacks against President Obama and his advisers, who were accused of failing to protect Israel and “colluding” with the Palestinians to draft the resolution and push it to a vote.
It also came hours before Secretary of State John F. Kerry was scheduled to give a speech Wednesday *morning outlining his vision for resolving the conflict between the *Israelis and Palestinians.
Ahead of Kerry's speech, Israel's minister of public security, Gilad Erdan, said that if Kerry lays out principles for a peace deal at the last minute before leaving office, it would end up ensuring that the Palestinians never agree to negotiations with Israel. He called the U.S. position “pro-Palestinian,” “pathetic” and a sign that the Obama administration does not “understand what is happening in the Middle East.”
Hanan Rubin, a member of Jerusalem’s city council, confirmed that the request to postpone construction plans came directly from the prime minister, who wanted to avoid deepening the rift. He said the zoning committee agreed to abide by it because they had no interest in “causing a political storm.”
“Our goal is to provide solutions to residents of Jerusalem. We have a problem building in central Jerusalem, and this is a natural expansion for the city,” he said. The 492 housing units are part of a wider plan to build in Jewish settlements in East Jerusalem, an area the Palestinians would like to see as their capital of a future state.
On Tuesday, the Israeli government appeared to be stepping up its battle with the Obama administration, saying it had solid proof that the United States orchestrated the resolution.
“We have ironclad information that emanates from sources in the Arab world and that shows the Obama administration helped craft this resolution and pushed hard for its eventual passage,” *David Keyes, a spokesman for *the Israeli prime minister, told reporters. “We’re not just going to be a punching bag and go quietly into the night.”
State Department deputy spokesman Mark Toner denied that the administration had “precooked” the resolution. But the U.S. explanation did little to quell fears in Israel that another Security Council censure may be forthcoming, even though U.S. officials insisted that no more U.N. resolutions are expected.
On Wednesday, an Egyptian website El-Youm el-Sabaa said it had a copy of minutes from a meeting held between senior U.S. officials and a Palestinian delegation 10 days before vote.
According to those protocols, the United States allegedly said it was willing to withhold its veto power if the resolution was balanced. The position was purportedly stated in a meeting attended by Kerry, national security adviser Susan E. Rice, Palestine Liberation Organization Chairman Saeb Erekat and Majid Faraj, commander of the Palestinian General Intelligence Service.
“There is no truth to the notion that we discussed the text of any resolution or that we previewed any position we might take on a hypothetical resolution in those meetings,” said a senior State Department official, speaking on the condition of anonymity to comment on private deliberations.
Meanwhile, new details started to emerge about the behind-the-scenes diplomatic scramble that preceded the resolution, which declared that Israel’s settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem have “no legal validity” and are a “flagrant violation under international law.” It called the settlements an obstacle to achieving a two-state solution and peace with the Palestinians.
A diplomat from a Security Council nation, speaking on the condition of anonymity, largely backed up the Obama administration’s account that it played no role in bringing the resolution to a vote. It had been discussed among Security Council members for months, and the U.S. position was well known.
The United States never told anyone how it would vote, not even in a consultation room where the 15 members of the Security Council gathered before they filed in to vote, according to the diplomat. The U.S. officials in attendance said they were still in “consultations” over the resolution, the diplomat said.
In Israel, the newspaper Haaretz reported Tuesday that Britain, not the United States, appears to have been the driving force behind the resolution after Egypt, which had initially sponsored the resolution, withdrew. It described Netanyahu as being sharp and caustic in a phone call to New Zealand’s foreign minister, Murray McCully, calling the resolution “a declaration of war.”
Haaretz said Netanyahu vowed to recall Israel’s ambassador to New Zealand but that McCully rebuffed the threat.
The report said that after Egypt backed down, diplomats from the Palestinian Authority and Arab Persian Gulf states urged the four co-sponsoring nations to move on with the resolution anyway. The message was driven home by Britain, which had worked directly with the Palestinians on drafting the language.
A last-minute glitch came up when Russia’s ambassador to the United Nations, Vitaly Churkin, proposed postponing the vote until after Christmas, according to an interview the deputy Russian ambassador to Israel gave on Israel Army Radio. This reportedly followed a phone call between Netanyahu and Russian President Vladi*mir Putin. The other Security Council ambassadors refused to wait, however.
Morello reported from Washington.
PS Turkey invaded the independent state of Cyprus and still militarily occupies the northern "half" of the island nation. Other than not recognizing the "Republic of North Cyprus"--while taking its cheap German vacations there, anybody hear of massive UN efforts to bring Turkey to any Court of Criminal Justice ? Greek Orthodox icons looted from Churches and monestaries have been appearing on the black market for decades while ethnic Greek Cypriots refugees --which were accepted--are living south of the "UN green line". Ah! is it that the displacement of Christians by a Moslem State by invasion just doesn't warrant UN attention.
Last edited by MegalosSkylaki; December 28th, 2016 at 11:22 AM.
December 28th, 2016, 04:12 PM #13
What a difference a Religion Makes...Or Alliance...or Hypocrisy.
The following can't be copied but is important to read.
HANSON: Occupation hypocrisy: Gaza vs. Cyprus - Washington Times
+ + + + +
For some historical and demographic background on the island nation which is under Turkish occupation in its northern half--although you might not know it for all the attention the United Nations pays to it...I guess it had the advantage --or disadvantage-- of not being Israel.
Situated at the north-eastern end of the Mediterranean basin, Cyprus is the third largest island in the region, with an area of 9,251 square kilometres (3,572 square miles).
The latitude of Cyprus is 34° 33’-35° 34’ North, and its longitude is 32° 16’ - 34° 37’ East.
Population (de jure): 946,000 (End 2013)
72%: Greek Cypriots (690,900)
17.6%: Foreign residents (167,100)
9.6%: Turkish Cypriots (91,000)
Note: Prior to the Turkish invasion (July-August 1974), the two communities lived together in roughly the same proportions (4 Greek Cypriots: 1 Turkish Cypriot), in all six administrative districts of the island. Since the invasion, more than 58,000 Turkish Cypriots living in the occupied area have emigrated, with the result that today they constitute less than 10% of the population of Cyprus compared to 18% before July 1974.
Population of Main Towns
As of end of 2013, the population of the island’s main towns is as follows:
- Lefkosia (Nicosia): 333,800 (part of Lefkosia in the Government controlled area)
- Lemesos (Limassol): 239,700
- Larnaka (Larnaca): 145,900
- Pafos (Paphos): 91,200
- Ammochostos (Free Famagusta) rural area: 47,400
Government and Regime
Cyprus is an independent sovereign Republic with a presidential system of government. Under the 1960 Constitution, executive power is exercised by the President of the Republic, elected by universal suffrage for a five-year term of office through a Council of Ministers appointed by him. Ministers cannot serve concurrently in the House of Representatives.
On May 01, 2004 the Republic of Cyprus became a full member of the EU completing a long journey that lasted more than three decades. Accession to the EU was a natural choice for Cyprus, dictated by its culture, civilisation, history, its European outlook and adherence to the ideals of democracy, freedom and justice. EU accession has launched a new era of challenges, opportunities and responsibilities for Cyprus.
The application of the EU laws and regulations (the acquis communautaire) is suspended in the area under military occupation by Turkey, pending a solution to the division of the island. Meanwhile, the government of Cyprus in cooperation with the EU Commission, has been promoting arrangements to facilitate increased economic transactions between the two communities and improve the standard of living of Turkish Cypriots. On January 01, 2008 the Republic of Cyprus joined the Eurosystem and in so doing introduced the Euro as its official currency, replacing the Cyprus pound as the unit of account. Thus, Euro banknotes and coins are the country’s legal tender.
Cyprus is also a member of the United Nations and its specialised agencies, the Council of Europe, the Commonwealth, the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe, and many other international organisations.
The legislative authority in the Republic is exercised by the House of Representatives now consisting of 80 seats, 56 of which are for Greek Cypriot members and 24 for Turkish Cypriots. The members are elected by universal suffrage five-year term.
At the time of its establishment, the House consisted of 50 members, 35 of whom were Greek Cypriots and 15 Turkish Cypriots. According to the Constitution the ratio of members is 70% Greek Cypriots and 30% Turkish Cypriots. Following the withdrawal of the Turkish Cypriot members in 1963, the House has been functioning only with the Greek Cypriot members.
The administration of justice is exercised by the island’s separate and independent Judiciary. Under the 1960 Constitution and other legislation in force, the following judicial institutions have been established: The Supreme Court of the Republic, The Assize Court, District Courts, Military Court, Industrial Disputes Court, Rent Control Courts and Family Courts. The Supreme Court is the final appellate court in the Republic and the final adjudicator in matters of constitutional and administrative law.
Cyprus Political Question
Cyprus became an independent Republic on August 16, 1960 on the basis of the 1959 Zurich and London Agreements negotiated by Greece, Turkey and the United Kingdom.
The Greek and Turkish Cypriot communities had no substantial role in their drafting - or in the drafting of the constitution - and were never given the opportunity to vote on them. In effect, both the agreements and the constitution of the nascent republic were imposed on the people of Cyprus.
The Constitution emphasised differences between Greek and Turkish Cypriots, thereby encouraging divisive rather than integrative tendencies between the two communities. Greek Cypriots were determined to strengthen the unity of the state but the Turkish side sought ethnic segregation and geographic separation.
There were sporadic intercommunal clashes in 1963-1967 and air attacks and threats to invade by Turkey; Turkish Cypriots ceased to participate in the government. UN sponsored intercommunal talks to reach a settlement were held during 1968-1974; intercommunal tensions subsided and violence virtually disappeared during this period. Progress was reported in the talks but the process came to an end due to the Turkish invasion in the summer of 1974.
Pretext for Invasion
On July 20, 1974, Turkey invaded Cyprus with massive military force. The pretext was a criminal coup against the President of Cyprus, on July 15, instigated by the military junta of Greece. Turkey put into operation its plan to partition Cyprus, an objective advocated by Ankara for many years. Despite the swift collapse of the coup, and the restoration of the legitimate government of Cyprus, Turkey undertook a second wave of invasion in August, in violation of UN ceasefire agreements, and expanded its occupation to nearly 40 percent of the Republic’s territory.
Turkey’s military aggression against Cyprus tragically continues unabated to this date. The military occupation, forcible division, violation of human rights, massive colonisation, cultural destruction, property usurpation and ethnic segregation imposed since Turkey’s military invasion remain the main characteristics of the status quo on the island.
Today, Turkey, an aspiring member of the EU, still stands guilty of international aggression against a member-state of the EU and the UN. This is certainly a totally unacceptable state of affairs, an affront to the international legal order, and an ongoing threat to regional stability that must be urgently redressed.
The dire consequences of the invasion and subsequent military action by Turkey are still felt today by the people of this EU member-state:
- 36,2% of the sovereign territory of Cyprus is still under illegal military occupation by Turkey.
- About 200,000 Greek Cypriots - one third of the total population - who were forcibly expelled from the occupied northern part of the island (where they constituted about 70% of the population) are still deprived of the right to return to their homes and properties.
- Some 1,400 persons (among them several hundred civilians) are still missing, while the Turkish side refuses to cooperate in ascertaining their fate.
- Less than 500 Greek and Maronite Cypriots, out of 20,000 at the end of August 1974, remain enclaved in their villages which are still occupied. These people are living under conditions of oppression, harassment and deprivation. (The rest were forced to abandon their homes and become refugees).
- 43,000 troops from Turkey, heavily armed with the latest weapons, supported by air, land and sea power, are illegally stationed in the occupied area, making it one of the most militarized regions in the world.
- About 160,000 settlers from Turkey have been imported illegally to colonize the occupied area and alter the demographic structure of Cyprus.
- 58,000 out of the 116,000 Turkish Cypriots have emigrated from the island since Turkey’s invasion, according to Turkish Cypriot sources, because of the economic, social and moral deprivation which prevails in the occupied areas. Turkish Cypriots are now outnumbered by troops and settlers from Turkey by more than two to one.
- Illegal construction on Greek Cypriot land and illegal sale of property owned by Greek Cypriots who were forcibly expelled from their homes by Turkey’s invasion have intensified. This unprecedented usurpation of property is yet another flagrant violation of human rights by the Turkish side.
- The illegal Turkish Cypriot regime and Turkey continue to destroy, deliberately and methodically, the Hellenic and Christian cultural and historical heritage in occupied Cyprus.
A series of UN General Assembly and Security Council resolutions, as well as resolutions adopted by numerous other international organizations, reflect the universal condemnation of Turkey’s invasion and on-going occupation of part of Cyprus; demand the return of the refugees to their homes in safety and the tracing of the missing persons; demand the withdrawal of foreign forces and settlers from Cyprus; and call for respect for the human rights of all Cypriots as well as for the independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of Cyprus.
Moreover, the European Court of Human Rights has found the government of Turkey responsible for gross and systematic violations of human rights in Cyprus. Regrettably, most of the resolutions and court decisions remain unimplemented as Turkey continues to defy the will of the international community and the rule of law. Successive rounds of UN-sponsored talks to resolve the Cyprus problem have been unsuccessful.
Since February 2014, a new negotiating process is on track aiming at a comprehensive settlement of the Cyprus problem, in accordance with the High Level Agreements, the United Nations Security Council Resolutions and the EU principles and values.
On February 11, 2014, the leaders of the two communities, President N. Anastasiades, and Dr. D. Eroglu (since succeeded in April 30, 2015 by Mustafa Akinci), adopted a Joint Declaration setting the framework of a settlement and clarifying the methodology to be followed during the new negotiating process. The Joint Declaration reaffirms, inter alia, that the settlement will be based on a bi-communal, bi-zonal federation with political equality, as set out in the relevant Security Council Resolutions and the High Level Agreements.
It reiterates that the united Cyprus, as a member of the United Nations and of the EU, shall have a single international personality, a single sovereignty and a single citizenship. It also underlines that that any settlement should ensure the common future of all Cypriots within the EU.
The adoption of the Joint Declaration and the resumption of full-fledged negotiations attracted renewed international interest and created a new momentum for the settlement of the Cyprus Problem. The resumption of the negotiations was welcomed by the United Nations Security Council and the EU, as well as by many states.
The Cyprus Government, in its effort to maintain and enhance this positive climate, attaches great importance to the implementation of confidence building measures. In this framework, President Anastasiades submitted a comprehensive package proposal of confidence- building measures regarding Varosha. This package will be a game-changer since it will inject a new dynamism into the process and will contribute decisively to the rebuilding of mutual trust, hope and confidence of Greek and Turkish Cypriots in a solution. EU and US have expressed their support to this proposal. Nonetheless, a positive response from Turkey has not yet been received.
For further information and current developments please consult the following websites:
- Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Cyprus: www.mfa.gov.cy/
- Cyprus Press and Information Office: www.pio.gov.cy/
For more information about Cyprus, ts history and military occupation by Turkey SEE>>>
The Greek military junta is gone, but the Turkish troops remain, pushing half a century later. Once in a while, the UN expresses a vague "concern"...and the EU is considering Turkey for membership.One would think military occupation of an EU member state would be grounds for denying it membership--at least until it withdraws its occupation troops.
Last edited by MegalosSkylaki; December 28th, 2016 at 09:09 PM.
January 3rd, 2017, 01:24 AM #14
Once again the anti-semite U.N. along with our Barry and Ketchup Kerry have allowed the delegitimazation of Israel by stating the land is Arab. I can understand why the U.N., which is nothing more than a bunch of 3rd World dictators, thugs tyrants and self anointed kings, would pull this kind of crap. However, when the U.S. turns its back on our only true ally in the Middle East, I say maybe it's time we should just kick them (the U.N.) out and perhaps have them relocated to one of those 3rd World Hell Holes in the Middle East they love to back.
With this U.N. action, Israel basically has zero bargaining chips to bring to the table to negotiate with and ensure a peace for land agreement. The U.N. and the U.S. under Barry has basically thrown Israel under the bus.Mojo
I don't always exercise, but when I do it's my Constitutional right to bear arms.
January 3rd, 2017, 02:25 AM #15
Is the apparent goal of the United Nations to force Israel to make concessions--here to stop settlements--without getting anything in return and thereby create a precedent and a process wherein it enemies can piecemeal reduce Israel into non-existence.
The Greek poet Constantine Cavafy wrote "The Barbarians are Coming"
Note the last two lines.
Scapegoating and ultimately destroying Israel is a "kind of solution" for many failing states.
In reality, it destruction would lead to a calamitous conflict between Shiite and Sunni and various Muslim "political" groupings as well as disaffected states like Russia and Communist China and a World drive for Middle east hegemony, a scenario we've seen played out before with the dismemberment of Czechoslovakia.
It was historically foolish to abandon Israel by the Obama administration.
What are we waiting for, assembled in the forum?
The barbarians are due here today.
Why isn’t anything going on in the senate?
Why are the senators sitting there without legislating?
Because the barbarians are coming today.
What’s the point of senators making laws now?
Once the barbarians are here, they’ll do the legislating.
Why did our emperor get up so early,
and why is he sitting enthroned at the city’s main gate,
in state, wearing the crown?
Because the barbarians are coming today
and the emperor’s waiting to receive their leader.
He’s even got a scroll to give him,
loaded with titles, with imposing names.
Why have our two consuls and praetors come out today
wearing their embroidered, their scarlet togas?
Why have they put on bracelets with so many amethysts,
rings sparkling with magnificent emeralds?
Why are they carrying elegant canes
beautifully worked in silver and gold?
Because the barbarians are coming today
and things like that dazzle the barbarians.
Why don’t our distinguished orators turn up as usual
to make their speeches, say what they have to say?
Because the barbarians are coming today
and they’re bored by rhetoric and public speaking.
Why this sudden bewilderment, this confusion?
(How serious people’s faces have become.)
Why are the streets and squares emptying so rapidly,
everyone going home lost in thought?
Because night has fallen and the barbarians haven't come.
And some of our men just in from the border say
there are no barbarians any longer.
Now what’s going to happen to us without barbarians?
Those people were a kind of solution.
C. P. Cavafy, "Waiting for the Barbarians" from C.P. Cavafy: Collected Poems. Translated by Edmund Keeley and Philip Sherrard. Translation Copyright © 1975, 1992 by Edmund Keeley and Philip Sherrard. Reproduced with permission of Princeton University Press.
January 3rd, 2017, 08:53 AM #16Why isn’t anything going on in the senate?
Why are the senators sitting there without legislating?
With Hillary's loss and the Democrats ,well deserved, demise, and limited time to show his true "Colors", Obama's veiled prejudices, of which had been latent all through his political career , are crawling out like a viper from it's pit.
Coming from the slums of Chicago with disdain and contempt for the System and the White structure which created it ,he has used his Office and Power to do his best to destroy with , through subtle means and brilliant oratory, the accomplishments of countless other True and Real Patriots of of our Country.
History will show him for the "Man without a Country" he should be......
His Library should be erected on the west side of Rush Street where the perpetual vortex of retribution expels the trash before it has chance to take hold.
Last edited by pickel; January 3rd, 2017 at 09:09 AM.
January 5th, 2017, 07:55 PM #17
Very nice post.
Barack Obama doesn't have the balls to be a barbarian of yore. But he will snivel, weep and hide behind the skirts of his male husband's skirts. He WILL pop out to make a self aggrandizing statement or to make a trip to the U.N. to further damage Israel.
How in the world did we elect this man TWICE? A man about whom we know nothing. He and his husband both have their records sealed and we know NOTHING about them.
Does HE have something against Israel or is it his puppet master? If he would read The Bible instead of the Qu'ran he would know he had better be careful. Israel is God's chosen people, above the other 11 tribes. I often wonder if it is Gods' intent to take up 12,000 of each tribe to make up the 144,000 he plans to bring into heaven??
Trump can undo all the damage done by Hussein Obama in a year or so but my chief concern is the Constitution. Since Obama has pissed on it every day for almost 8 years, will it EVER dry out?
January 6th, 2017, 11:19 AM #18
I didn't realize a rapist who lays waste to entire cities is what is considered a positive trait in a President.
But he will snivel, weep and hide behind the skirts of his male husband's skirts. He WILL pop out to make a self aggrandizing statement or to make a trip to the U.N. to further damage Israel.
How in the world did we elect this man TWICE? A man about whom we know nothing. He and his husband both have their records sealed and we know NOTHING about them.
January 6th, 2017, 02:24 PM #19
"A million for defense...."
We should be very careful not to seek scapegoats--not even of those who themselves may be seeking a scapegoat--but seek to understand the origins of that which we decry. This was the error that Hillary Clinton made in describing a third of Americans as "deplorables", instead of seeking to understand or conciliate them.
It's not clear what motivated Pres. Obama's act, perhaps even a personal and un-Presidential 'payback' for PM Netanyahu's visit to the Congress to condemn the astonishing deal with Iran which included the release of $150 Billion worth of political influence and military arms and may put us under yet another a nuclear threat. I need not comment on the effects of a nuclear exchange in the Middle East.
Regrettably, there are many who don't understand the situation in the Middle East and its relation to World geopolitics and even some evangelical Christians who nominal support the State of Israel do so out of a belief that rebuilding of the Temple--which in fact is not very likely even with a State of Israel--will hasten end-time prophecies and Armageddon. Whatever the motive, throwing Israel under the wheels of a bus was not in America's interests, even leaving out Biblical understandings of the Holy Land.
I suspect there are many who believe that our problems with terrorism starting from 9/11 stem largely--even entirely--from our support of Israel and that Israel's problems would end if they simply capitulate to the Palestinian Arabs. They are wrong on both accounts. The geopolitics of World conflict long preceded the modern State of Israel or even the United States. It was Pres. Thomas Jefferson who first built a Navy so as not to pay tribute to the 'Barbary pirates'. "A million for defense. Not a penny for tribute", the saying goes.
Last edited by MegalosSkylaki; January 6th, 2017 at 02:54 PM.
January 6th, 2017, 03:36 PM #20I suspect there are many who believe that our problems with terrorism started from 9/11
It ALL,actually, started with the Occupations of the British Empire.......
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
By MegalosSkylaki in forum DebateIMO: Politics, Religion, ControversyReplies: 1Last Post: October 19th, 2016, 11:58 AM
By MegalosSkylaki in forum DebateIMO: Politics, Religion, ControversyReplies: 6Last Post: May 27th, 2016, 07:58 PM
By MegalosSkylaki in forum DebateIMO: Politics, Religion, ControversyReplies: 34Last Post: December 9th, 2015, 05:07 PM
By Dude111 in forum DebateIMO: Politics, Religion, ControversyReplies: 20Last Post: September 22nd, 2011, 08:28 AM