Palestine/Israel

[j2k4]

We know the politics of it all J2, however as i said... there is a big difference between refusing to Trade with someone and withholding money already "earned" as it were.

The difference is between being Legal and doing something blatently illegal.

As i said earlier.. the whole "Democracy" thing is on trial in the Middle East at the moment and keeping money from an "elected" leadership because you dont like the result is not exactly being "Pro-Democracy".

It is in fact playing right into Hamas' hands... remember they dont like Democracy, they'd rather have a Religion controlled country.

All true, but "politics as usual" encompasses an especially broad range in the mideast, as I'm sure you also know.

We could debate legalities and illegalities no end, but if you are pointing this up as an exceptional circumstance to be stacked atop what you see as a history of unilateral Israeli actions conducted in defiance of the international community, you are not breaking new ground.

This doesn't even qualify as "desperate" by traditional standards, and the U.N. is feckless as ever.

As an American, I do not see this as anything other than a typical tactic brought about by an eternally intractible situation.

Let Palestine/Hamas clarify a few things if they want to be paid; if I'm Olmert, that's fine with me.

Actually, if Arafat were still around, he'd have just pocketed the money anyway, the people be damned...

[Rat Faced]

Actually, despite the title of the thread, im talking about the west in general..

Everyone could have predicted Israel's response.. the rest of the west have made more trouble for themselves by actually supporting their move by and large.

If everyone had objected and done nothing about it (as usual) then the western nations would be in a better position politically with the Muslim Nations regarding the subject of Democracy...especially if they'd continued their aid to the Palestinian Authority.

And Israel would have crowed about anti-semetism and done what they wanted to anyway..(as usual)

I told you years ago that we should have been more forthright in our support of the Palestinian Authority to keep Hamas etc OUT of the governing power there.

It was plain to see that they were gaining support fast, and also why they were.

[j2k4]

Actually, despite the title of the thread, im talking about the west in general..

Everyone could have predicted Israel's response.. the rest of the west have made more trouble for themselves by actually supporting their move by and large.

If everyone had objected and done nothing about it (as usual) then the western nations would be in a better position politically with the Muslim Nations regarding the subject of Democracy...especially if they'd continued their aid to the Palestinian Authority.

And Israel would have crowed about anti-semetism and done what they wanted to anyway..(as usual)

I told you years ago that we should have been more forthright in our support of the Palestinian Authority to keep Hamas etc OUT of the governing power there.

It was plain to see that they were gaining support fast, and also why they were.

1. I see this latest strictly as an opportunistic reaction to Hamas, nothing more.

You see, as a matter of foreign policy, it is not even necessary that Israel be considered in order to conclude Hamas is morally corrupt and objectionable.

2. The Palestinians' situation is actually better now; before, the money went directly into Arafat's accounts, never to be seen by his people.

As things stand currently, there still exists the possiblity it might get where it was intended.

3. I don't see any Muslim nations being impressed with democracy no matter what we do; theocracies are inherently undemocratic, as well you know.

[hobbes]

My take is rather simplistic:

Democracy is favored by those who believe that people, within a political jurisdiction, should have a voice in the laws and policies which govern their land. The acts of this elected government may not reflect the desires of each individual citizen, but are supported by the population as a whole.

If, in a democratic society, the elected officials voice a philosophy which is repugnant (drive Isreal into the sea) to other countries, then these countries may take whatever action they deem necessary to deal with this country.

The philospophy of the government far trumps the means in which they came to power.

To me, a very delicate situation is evolving. Before, the Palestinean Authority could publically denounced the activities of Hamasand beg for financial assitance, but in truth support Hamas and pocket the money.

Before, the actions of Hamas were portrayed as extremist actions and not approved by the "average" Palestinean.

The truth is now in, the "average" Palestinean agrees with suicide bombers and supports Hamas. All nut bag fucktards.

If Hamas continues suicide bombings and also wants to be considered the legimate representative of the Palestinean people, then those acts are not those of some fringe group, but an act of the Palestinean Authority and therefore acts of war.

Democracy is a great idea. But if the Klu Klux Klan decides that their new country hates black and wants them dead, should I continue to send them money because they were democratically elected,or should I object to what they represent and do everything in my power to bring them down.

I would do the latter.

Sometimes popular opinion, is an oppressive and unsatisfactory one.

In the US, we could easily pass a law that forbids white women from marrying black men. It would pass via the democratic process, but would fail big time if we looked at an indiviuals right to live as he desires.

The point is that the philosophy of a government is the most important, and not the manner in which they were elected.

[j2k4]

My take is rather simplistic:

Democracy is favored by those who believe that people, within a political jurisdiction, should have a voice in the laws and policies which govern their land. The acts of this elected government may not reflect the desires of each individual citizen, but are supported by the population as a whole.

If, in a democratic society, the elected officials voice a philosophy which is repugnant (drive Isreal into the sea) to other countries, then these countries may take whatever action they deem necessary to deal with this country.

The philospophy of the government far trumps the means in which they came to power.

To me, a very delicate situation is evolving. Before, the Palestinean Authority could publically denounced the activities of Hamasand beg for financial assitance, but in truth support Hamas and pocket the money.

Before, the actions of Hamas were portrayed as extremist actions and not approved by the "average" Palestinean.

The truth is now in, the "average" Palestinean agrees with suicide bombers and supports Hamas. All nut bag fucktards.

If Hamas continues suicide bombings and also wants to be considered the legimate representative of the Palestinean people, then those acts are not those of some fringe group, but an act of the Palestinean Authority and therefore acts of war.

Democracy is a great idea. But if the Klu Klux Klan decides that their new country hates black and wants them dead, should I continue to send them money because they were democratically elected,or should I object to what they represent and do everything in my power to bring them down.

I would do the latter.

Sometimes popular opinion, is an oppressive and unsatisfactory one.

In the US, we could easily pass a law that forbids white women from marrying black men. It would pass via the democratic process, but would fail big time if we looked at an indiviuals right to live as he desires.

The point is that the philosophy of a government is the most important, and not the manner in which they were elected.

You are wrong, Hobbes; your take isn't "simplistic"-it is simple, and has the added feature of being correct, as well.

[thewizeard]

Do we really want to escalate one of the biggest causes of world terrorism even more?

I am afraid the alternative is appeasement ... and the terror will continue anyway.

[j2k4]

Do we really want to escalate one of the biggest causes of world terrorism even more?

I am afraid the alternative is appeasement ... and the terror will continue anyway.

Just so-

To escalate Jihad gives us....what?

Jihad squared?

They will do what they will do; they do not allude to negotiated de-escalation, and, if past events are an indicator, truces soon become one-way, and the soup boils over once again...