News Stories

[Mr. DJ]

In addition to losing Joe Frazier, it's been reported that Heavy D passed away earlier this afternoon cause is unknown. Despite his stage name...he lost nearly 200lbs a few years ago, though his recent performance looked like he put some of it back on, it's sad to see that someone who turned their life around, pass away. He was 44.

http://www.yidio.com/show/in-living-...vy-d-dead-4345

[Ithekro]

Ten years ago I'd be a fairly close supporter of Israel. But over the last ten years the policies and continual back and forth is getting tiring. While I generally could care less about the Palestinians, the way Israel has been handling the situation is quite irritable. Especially since I was in a Model UN group in the early 1990s (as the PLO, it was all that was left) and we more or less solved the issues. The settlements issue was unknown to us at that time. We basically had the PLO give up on Gaza as unsustainable, relocate to the West Bank, and provided a small neutral zone on the Palestinian side of the West Bank that would expand out to the 1967 line based on Palestinian compliance with treaties (not shooting or blowing up Israelis basically). I think we had Jeruselem (or at least East Jeruselem) as neutral also bound to Palestinian shows of good faith. As time went on the idea was that they would gain that land back. It would not go to Israel under the plan...I think the zone was suppose to be a joint control zone under the UN (since is was a Model UN thing) to keep order within the zone. The object was that Israel gained Gaza and and end to the violence. Palestine gained a fuctional country. The counter to that was that as a fuctional country the threat of a real war with Israel was there if they messed up. This of course was after offers by other western counties to relocate the Palestinians elsewhere (Australian Outback, Nevada desert, was the two I remember). When we finished early, we had the World War III type deal to give us something to do for two hours. It has something to do with Iraq and and general Ismalic uprising against the West if I recall (it was 1993 I think). The Model UN representatives of Israel and Palaestien both said "neutral" at the same time. Too much to worry about within the borders to worry about the outside world at that point.

There was no knowledge about the settlements on the Jordan River at that time. That really messes up the situation from my point of view. Cutting the Palestinians off from all contact for all essential purposes. Their reduced territory completely surrounded by Israel. Perhaps to the point were life is not sustainable, as they will be cut off from the River as well as any possible over land, sea, and probably air trade routes cut off by Israel. What happens then?

The Israeli Governments policies seem to me to be attempting to provoke a war. A real war as oppose to what has been going on for decades. A war would be a viable excuse to finish taking those lands without being blamed for being the aggressor, not being an occupier anymore since all the land would have been taken and claimed after the ememy started the war, and before the UN or anyone else tells them they have to stop. At which point the Palestinians can be run off.

If this is not is, just what the hell are they doing? As it certianly looks like they are trying to provoke something with their policies.

My respect for Israel was based on their success in the previous wars and their resolve defense. Now it seems like they are being the aggressors and they taints the respect they earned. Especially the way they keep expanding yet want peace. You don't call for peace while moving the border post 50 meters into your enemies land each time the work Peace is used and expect them to deal with you. Just like you don't call for peace while blowing up random civilians and expect your enemy to stay at the table.

[DonQuigleone]

How about Israel's treatment of the Bedouin's of the Negev desert?

Land confiscations seems like a pretty mean way to reward a group that's consistently served in the Israeli army and defended Israel.

[Kamui4356]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

Ten years ago I'd be a fairly close supporter of Israel. But over the last ten years the policies and continual back and forth is getting tiring. While I generally could care less about the Palestinians, the way Israel has been handling the situation is quite irritable. Especially since I was in a Model UN group in the early 1990s (as the PLO, it was all that was left) and we more or less solved the issues. The settlements issue was unknown to us at that time. We basically had the PLO give up on Gaza as unsustainable, relocate to the West Bank, and provided a small neutral zone on the Palestinian side of the West Bank that would expand out to the 1967 line based on Palestinian compliance with treaties (not shooting or blowing up Israelis basically). I think we had Jeruselem (or at least East Jeruselem) as neutral also bound to Palestinian shows of good faith. As time went on the idea was that they would gain that land back. It would not go to Israel under the plan...I think the zone was suppose to be a joint control zone under the UN (since is was a Model UN thing) to keep order within the zone. The object was that Israel gained Gaza and and end to the violence. Palestine gained a fuctional country. The counter to that was that as a fuctional country the threat of a real war with Israel was there if they messed up. This of course was after offers by other western counties to relocate the Palestinians elsewhere (Australian Outback, Nevada desert, was the two I remember). When we finished early, we had the World War III type deal to give us something to do for two hours. It has something to do with Iraq and and general Ismalic uprising against the West if I recall (it was 1993 I think). The Model UN representatives of Israel and Palaestien both said "neutral" at the same time. Too much to worry about within the borders to worry about the outside world at that point.

There was no knowledge about the settlements on the Jordan River at that time. That really messes up the situation from my point of view. Cutting the Palestinians off from all contact for all essential purposes. Their reduced territory completely surrounded by Israel. Perhaps to the point were life is not sustainable, as they will be cut off from the River as well as any possible over land, sea, and probably air trade routes cut off by Israel. What happens then?

It's easy to come up with a solution when you're removed from the situation.

[Ithekro]

Quite.

However it is also easier when one does not have all the relevant information.

Though when the Roadmap to Peace thing came up some years it looked pretty much like what our Model UN came up with...save for Gaza.

[aohige]

Originally Posted by Xellos-_^

Anyway i was look at the strategic benefits of the US/Israel alliance and whether it is worth the money the US give Israel every year and the unconditional support in the UN.

If I had to guess, I came up with two words.

Jewish bankers.


(latter half optional)

Oh, one more.
Jon Stewart's joke supplement.

Although US politics seems to be perfectly capable of supplying him the goods without the help of anyone else.

[Ithekro]

As to benefits?
First World like country in the Middle East?
Someplace that is not muslim to visit (limited benefit only to some people).
A credible military (Air Force at least) that can aid the US if things go really badly in the region...though Saudi Arabia is serving that fuction now.

A definate ally if things go to a state of war with Iran. (remember, Israel is probably a nuclear power). That does seem to be in the new a lot of late. Iran's nuclear program and Israel, the UK and US trying to figure out what to do about it, and figure out what Iran would do with it if nothing is done to stop them.

A place that will remain "friendly" even if we stop buying oil (or the oil runs out) from the Middle East.

And of course the old fashioned, religious significance of the region to the largely Christian population of the United States, and the seeming preference of the Jews controlling the places rather than the Muslims, though I image if they had a choice, the Christian groups might rather hold the place themselves...though they seem to not anymore. The Crusader spirit died a long time ago...probably before the colonial era made it unreasonable to hold those lands, but certainly by the time Imperialism died.

This might also have to do with the large numbers of European Jews in Israel. They would seem more like the European Christians and less like the Arabs that inhabit the region normally. It is easier to relate to those that are similar than to those that are different, be it skin color, religion, culture, or shared history. It is just one of those things. A comfort zone I suppose. Some fuction outside that comfort zone quite well. Others cannot. Some call them racists, but sometimes they aren't really. They just don't want to understand as it is outside their comfort zone. They see something they can't tolerate and will not tolerate it. They might be perfectly fine talking to someone of that race one on one, or even have friends of that race, but if things are going badly someplace against national interests...well then they will be racist (or perhaps more accurately "nationalist") against that group.

Or more generically, someone is being an asshole, that covers a lot of ground. Someone might use a racial slur to define an asshole so to identify him or her from other assholes. Is that racist, or being descriptive? I'd think of it as descriptive, if the only use of said racial slur is to define an asshole in a group. If there is a group of people there and one is of a different race, but not an asshole, said racial slur would not be used. Some other discriptive word may be used if needed to single that person out for someone else to find in said crowd. (Its the tall man...'which tall man, there are dozens of them', the dark skinned one....'oh him. yeah I see him'...The one with the hair or the bald one?...'The bald one'...that's not him, its the other guy with the hair....'Ohhhhh') <that sort of nonesense.

We are all humans. But it is really difficult to walk into a crowded hall with a description of someone that just says "human". So descriptions happen. Ethnic descriptons narrow that field down, but Political Correctness doesn't always help with descriptions (How am I suppose to tell from a distance if someone is a Chinese-America verses a Japanese-American, verse someone from China or Japan that is not American at all?) This is really hard, especially with some minority groups that insist you call them by their hyphenated racial descriptor (Irish-American, African-American, Italian-American..those sorts of things), especially when you might say it and it is not true. I've meet someone as dark as coal that was from Jamaca, and someone as pale as paper that was from Africa. Niether of them were Americans, yet some PC group would have insisted on calling them by one of those titles to be "politically correct". At that point hyphens fail. (Even as far back as Theodore Roosevelt was it suggested that we no longer have "hyphenated"-Americans, and he was dealing mosly with European immigrants from various countries in New York).

And by now I'm probably rambling because it is late.

[Darkbeat]

The Middle East is a strange place, I really can't get my head round it at all.

You've got;

Syria - Continues to slaughter it's own people daily.
Lebanon - Controlled by an internationally recognized terrorist group who smuggle arms to other internationally recognized terrorist groups.
Iran - Now officially building nukes, controlled by a holocaust denying madman, lack of human rights (homosexuals executed, women get hands chopped off for wearing trousers or driving etc).
Saudi Arabia - Lack of human rights.
Gaza - Continuous rockets launched at Israel's south since they left the territory in 06.
Palestinian Territories - Glorification of terrorism, lack of human rights.
Egypt - Extremism on the rise.

What baffles me is why people concentrate on Israel's building homes for Jews. I don't get it at all.

[Zakoo]

Your point of view is biased by an occidental culture, human's right isn't universal.

They fear us, we -occidental people or Russia for others countries- helped tyrant to have power in order to protect ourselves. Now we are simply asking them to forget it and follow our ideals blindily? It's foolish and conceited, you just have to see what happens to US after 9/11 to see how they were hurrr hurr and reelected -probably- the worst president I ever saw. The very same goes for them, palestinian people elected Hamas for this reasons and also because they lost faith in UN (not like we are doing anything to help them anyway).

And the reason why people concentrate on Israel is because it is the "superpower" of the region, yet isn't doing a damn thing to calm it. It answers to a international election by deciding to continue its colonisation, if one of them die they go kill a thousand, they use weapons against rocks. When they could use money and their power to stabilize the region, they aren't doing so. And now once again since 2002 and like each year, they ask US to attack Iran, without thinking on how Iranian people will respond yet without a doubt it will be "hey look, there's those dangerous people who will attack us" and it will give more power to the Mollah and strengthen the regime.

[ganbaru]

Italian borrowing costs reach breaking point
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...7A831520111109

[DonQuigleone]

You also have to remember that it was only 60 years ago that the whole region was colonised by European powers. And it was only 20 years ago that the whole region was a playing board for the cold war, with most of the dictators being put in place by western powers as puppets.

A lot of people there have a chip on their shoulder towards the west.

Israel gets most of the flack because of it's proximity, and the fact they displaced millions of fellow Arabs.

The whole region is filled with dysfunctions, the arab spring didn't come from nowhere.

Terrorism and extremism should more be viewed as the symptoms of deeper rooted problems, much of which that were established in the colonial period.

It's even worse in Africa, the other major colonised area. The sad thing, is that if it wasn't for al Quaeda attacks on the US, or hamas attacks on Israel, no one would give a damn about anything going on there, much like no one gives a damn about Africa.

[Haak]

Originally Posted by Darkbeat

What baffles me is why people concentrate on Israel's building homes for Jews. I don't get it at all.

Probably because it's actually getting support (or at least more than the others). Thought I think it's worth pointing out that maybe most of the people concentrating on that still find the others equally deplorable but simply don't have much else to add or contribute.

Anyway, Russia is clearly showing where they stand:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-15659311

[Irenicus]

Originally Posted by Darkbeat

Syria - Continues to slaughter it's own people daily.

The dictator is [the son of] one of those who took power during the last great era of Arab nationalism, most famously symbolized in the rule of Nasser in Egypt -- Mubarak was, by the way, a successor of Nasser after the assassinated Anwar Sadat; Gaddafi and Saddam too were part of that general trend. (Almost?) all outlived Nasser; most abandoned any figment of pan-Arab idealism a long time ago, and continued their oppressive reigns only on the basis of raw force, sometimes backed by the West.

The Arab Spring threatens to overthrow them all. That motherfucker in Syria is "just" trying to hold power after seeing what happened to his colleagues. May he die horribly very, very soon. I'd laugh.

Lebanon - Controlled by an internationally recognized terrorist group who smuggle arms to other internationally recognized terrorist groups.

You can actually place a large part of the blame on Israel. It went in more than once smashing the infrastructure and the government apparatus in the name of fighting Hezbollah. Hezbollah fought back...using human shields as part of their tactics, not to mention they were kind of provoking Israel in the first place. But they fought back. The Lebanese government had no real resources to conduct a similar guerilla campaign.

What kind of government holds legitimacy if it cannot defend its own people from such predations? Whatever Israel's justifications were, it attacked and bombed the hell out of Lebanon. You don't go to a bombed out city and say, oh we were just doing it against the terrorists and don't have stones thrown back at you, even if that's really the case. Israel fucked up, let its military dominate its diplomatic thinking and Hezbollah's provocation to get to them and made an enemy -- heck, a broken state -- out of their least antagonistic neighbor.

They should have instead done everything in their power to back up a pro-Western Lebanese political movement, because there, more than any other place in the Middle East, such a thing could have existed. Lebanon actually had a history of pro-Western elements, a strong Catholic (+ Orthodox) minority, and was something of a cultural melting pot. But you can't exactly bomb out a country two or three times and hope it stays "nice."

Iran - Now officially building nukes, controlled by a holocaust denying madman, lack of human rights (homosexuals executed, women get hands chopped off for wearing trousers or driving etc).

The Theocracy arose out of the popular revolution that overthrew a Western-backed Shah. Iranians don't like the West politically, not even the liberals, because of history. Let's just say the British (and the Russians) were the bad guys there. They sabotaged its earliest democratic movements, they deprived it of its independence, then they reinstated a Shah nobody wanted back.

However, tensions between Iran's powerful Shiite clerics and its more reformist thinkers predated the revolution by many, many decades. There were entire generations of embittered Iranian reformers who denounced in no uncertain terms the backwardness and self-interest of the clerical class (and who usually then had bad things happening to them). The revolution was partly theirs, before the clerics won out the struggle. They still exist. As recently as 2009 they were part of the greater "Green Revolution" mass movement, anticipating and predating the Arab Spring. Iran isn't monolithic and doomed to theocracy, oh not at all. Iranians are hungry, hungry for Democracy, for pop music, for twitter.

But the clerics are strong. And they are jealous of their power. And they will do anything to defend it. Demonizing Israel is part of their tactics ("external enemy").

Saudi Arabia - Lack of human rights.

It was built as a personal kingdom by a charismatic Bedouin chief following a puritanical sect of Islam. Before the age of oil it was just a desert nobody really cared about (and, well, the holy cities in the Hedjaz).

But then somebody dug up the black gold and a peripheral kingdom half-stuck in the Middle Ages became a key element in global oil politics. Oops.

Palestinian Territories - Glorification of terrorism, lack of human rights.

Terrorism was the only way they could fight Israel. In those places they are considered freedom fighters.

Fair? Good? Nice people? Hell no. But it's a war there. You are a people trapped, starved, despised, deprived of what you see as your rightful homes. You don't sit down, think it through, and draw an unbiased history of how you got there and who was really at fault. You see the guys with the tanks holding the checkpoints blocking you from going to the well the other side of the fence so you blame them.

Israel had its reasons of course. Stray rockets, suicide bombs in Tel Aviv...

Egypt - Extremism on the rise.

The Muslim Brotherhood was the most successful mass movement in Egypt for a long time, representing the underground opposition to Mubarak's rule (its suppression dated back to Nasser, who saw clearly that his own mass popularity had a rival in the organization, and who in any case despised Islamists). As for the popularity of Islam in Egypt, it became entangled with Egyptian nationalism very early on, representing opposition against Westernization and -- at the time -- Western occupiers.

The problem is for the liberal forces to de-entangle the Islamist position from the broader nationalist appeal, and if they would have time and strength to do it. The youth are not bought in by the Brotherhood and more extremist groups' claims -- they want a future, a real future -- but just how far can they demonstrate and popularize? The generals don't like their demonstrations any more than the Islamist groups, and as the world pays less attention to Egypt they tread less carefully over the people's sovereign rights.

What baffles me is why people concentrate on Israel's building homes for Jews. I don't get it at all.

Israel is seen as something of a Western intrusion, displacing native Arabs and all that, a relic of the despised colonial era. I say after 60+ years they belong there as well as anyone (plus, they won two wars over their right to be there), but building settlements encroaching upon Palestinian mandated territories in a strategic attempt to isolate these communities is provocation, simple extremist provocation.

[Darkbeat]

Originally Posted by Haak

Probably because it's actually getting support (or at least more than the others). Thought I think it's worth pointing out that maybe most of the people concentrating on that still find the others equally deplorable but simply don't have much else to add or contribute.

You're right in some ways, I just can't imagine why people have protests and make noise on the internet because a Jew had a kitchen extension in a (so-called) settlement, while Assad and co are ruthlessly slaughtering their own people. I have yet to see/hear of a single protest about that. It's mind-blowing.

The whole Iran thing is interesting. America is more worried about Israel going it alone to attack nuclear facilities. There's risks involved, but if I was Israeli, I'd probably not want the guy who wants to wipe my country off the map to acquire the means to follow through with his actions.

EDIT: Irenicus your answers make sense, forgive me if I don't have time to respond to them all, thank you for the clarifications.

[Haak]

Originally Posted by Darkbeat

You're right in some ways, I just can't imagine why people have protests and make noise on the internet because a Jew had a kitchen extension in a (so-called) settlement, while Assad and co are ruthlessly slaughtering their own people. I have yet to see/hear of a single protest about that. It's mind-blowing.

I think it's also worth pointing out that these settlements are seen by many as an attempt to slowly ethnically cleanse the palestinian people out, and that the internet is not a good measurement of public opinion.

Originally Posted by Darkbeat

The whole Iran thing is interesting. America is more worried about Israel going it alone to attack nuclear facilities. There's risks involved, but if I was Israeli, I'd probably not want the guy who wants to wipe my country off the map to acquire the means to follow through with his actions.

If Israel could do the same thing with Iran that they did with Iraq then that would be cool. But I don't think it will be nearly that easy.

[Darkbeat]

Originally Posted by Haak

I think it's also worth pointing out that these settlements are seen by many as an attempt to slowly ethnically cleanse the palestinian people out, and that the internet is not a good measurement of public opinion.

If Israel could do the same thing with Iran that they did with Iraq then that would be cool. But I don't think it will be nearly that easy.

You could be right, though given the demographics in the region, it must be the biggest failed attempt at ethnic cleansing ever.

I agree about Iraq/The Osirak Reactor. Honestly though I'd be surprised if they do anything at all. A lot of it is just bravado. It seems to me however that the Saudi's are more keen on the US attacking Iran nuclear facilities than Israel. Revenge on the Sunni's for killing Ali?

[Sugetsu]

I suggest anyone who is interested in Israel and its position in US politics and how it shapes American middle east foreign policy to please watch the first 15 minutes of this German documentary, you won't regret it:

AIPAC - The Israeli Lobby

Excerpt from the documentary:

" 'If a politician would rise with his point of view that United States should stop supporting Israel, what would be the effect do you think?.

'He'd lose the next election, almost certainly.' "

What the documentary argues is that pretty much everything that is going on in the middle east right now is in one way or another a result of the Jewish lobby in American politics.

[GundamFan0083]

Originally Posted by Sugetsu

I suggest anyone who is interested in Israel and its position in US politics and how it shapes American middle east foreign policy to please watch the first 15 minutes of this German documentary, you won't regret it:

*SNIP*

Excerpt from the documentary:

" 'If a politician would rise with his point of view that United States should stop supporting Israel, what would be the effect do you think?.

'He'd lose the next election, almost certainly.' "

What the documentary argues is that pretty much everything that is going on in the middle east right now is in one way or another a result of the Jewish lobby in American politics.

Occationally you post decent documentaries sugetsu, but not this time.
That antisemitic piece of shit is offensive to say the least.
It reminds me of antisemite trash like the Protocols of the Elders of Zion or Marx's bigotted 1844 paper On the Jewish Question.

The modern, secular state of Israel is a creation of the United Nations and thus if any political organization is to blame for Israel it is the UN not the US.

[bladeofdarkness]

Originally Posted by Sugetsu

What the documentary argues is that pretty much everything that is going on in the middle east right now is in one way or another a result of the Jewish lobby in American politics.

GundamFan0083 already covered what i think about the authenticity of this crap, but this is a point worth going into details over.

pretty much everything going on in the middle east right now has nothing at all to do with Israel.
this is, in reality, the point where most of the people of the Arab world finally got up and said "fuck the conflict with Israel, where is my vote".
while the conflict with Israel, for decades, was used as a way of distracting from the issue, this concept of wagging the Israeli dog is simply not working anymore and the recent upraising all over the Arab world are happening regardless to their regimes position regarding Israel.

its almost funny watching dictators from all over the political spectrum trying to blame the revolutions as "a Zionist conspiracy".

[Sugetsu]

I think you two had a knee jerk reaction to a documentary criticizing the involvement of Israel in US policy. This is not an antisemitic documentary in the least, the problem is that in the US questioning Israel is taboo.

The documentary explains how Israel's national interests are portrait as the same as American interests by the media and politicians. When the reality is no two nations in the world can have the same national interests simply because their culture and custom will vary.

I am not surprised you are calling this racist, but you certainly can't deny the great influence of Israel in US foreign policy.

Please go on ahead and point out to me specifically in the documentary what you call antisemitic. It is all matter of perception.

Edit: Click on this google video and skip to minute 12:35, what you will see is something that you probably already know, but I need to point this out to make it clear that our perceptions of the state of Israel are being actively altered.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...26245072381061