WASHINGTON (The Blaze/AP) — President Barack Obama is endorsing the Palestinians’ demand for their future state to be based on the borders that existed before the 1967 Middle East war, in a move that will likely infuriate Israel. Israel says the borders of a Palestinian state have to be determined through negotiations...
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/obama-endorses-palestinian-border-demands/
Jeez, would you look at all the morons in the comments section.
"Glenn told us this would happen!"
"Obama bin Laden is the anti-Christ!"
"He hates a whole race. The Jews!"
"Next he's going to give America to the Arabs, too, I'll bet."
"If the Arabs didn't want their land taken away, they shouldn't have tried to fight against Israel!"
"Barry and Jimmy hate the Jews. How come they hate Jesus, who was a Jew?"
What logic. What intelligence.
I guess that is what you get from a site that also has a link to an article "Is heaven for real? A little boy vs. Stephen Hawking."
How is Israel's anger, or more accurately the people who make up the government of Israel being angry my problem? I have no quarrel with those people nor have I aggressed against them in any way where I would have to pay restitution. I have no idea why the government of the USA feels so beholden to the government of this little country. And the people there are just a bunch of welfare recipients because they take money in aid from USA. If they were anything else they would pay the US tax payers all the money ever given by the USA Government plus interest.
Now how the folks in Israel treat their neighbors in the area once called Palestine is of interest to me as it is the flash point for conflict and it was one of the 5 issues that Osama Bin Laden had with the USA on why he orchestrated the attacks on 09/11/2001.
This is foolish. Giving borders to countries with no people is a recipe for war, if Versailles taught us anything. The whole Israeli-Palestinian issue (1948 I mean) is truly tragic but whatever happened back than does not change the fact that Palestinians no longer live in the territories they seek, and the only ‘redress’ they cousl seek (and their leader know this well) is ethnic cleansing of those land form Israelis.
Setting borders by local referendum is the only just, practical and (to a degree) peaceful way of setting borders. This is being said from a guy whose people lost huge tracts of lands to their neighbors.
I don't think even borders established through "referendum" can create peace. The problem isn't just with Israel, but with Hamas and governments who legitimize their policies by directing frustration against Israel. Peace can only be provided through the market. What steps can make the emergence of a market easier, I don't know.
Jonathan M. F. Catalán: What steps can make the emergence of a market easier, I don't know.
What steps can make the emergence of a market easier, I don't know.
My take is not thrusting under the same rule people that hate each other. It absolutely blocks logical though. Again, I speak from what I saw with my own fellows back when they were living under a state they didn’t like, and form the experience of those who still do. I suspect that borders-by-referendum would do much to speed up the evolution of spontaneous orders. That it is not the cure for all ills, this should not be surprising.
You don't know, or you don't want to know? There is a difference. The first step towards a market are property rights. That is easy enough to figure out.
WASHINGTON (The Blaze/AP) — President Barack Obama is endorsing the Palestinians’ demand for their future state to be based on the borders that existed before the 1967 Middle East war, in a move that will likely infuriate Israel. Israel says the borders of a Palestinian state have to be determined through negotiations... http://www.theblaze.com/stories/obama-endorses-palestinian-border-demands/
Of course 'the 1967 borders' solution is very silly in that these borders were not between Israel and Palestine but between Israel and Jordan and Israel and Egypt. The Palestinians' were screwed long before 1967 with their land being partitioned between Israel, Jordan and Egypt. Even so however the vast mayority of them would settle for just the parts of Palestine that were given to Jordan and Egypt. That is good for peace, but not so hot for justice and property.
Abolish both governments and there will be no border problems. Just saying.
Freedom has always been the only route to progress.
Marko,
I don't mean what steps in the broadest possible sense. I mean, steps that can be realistically (and practically) implimented as a solution.
There is nothing "broad" about giving people back their property. It is only practically unrealistic in Palestine because of people who are dragging their feet and do not want to make it possible.
And actually it is you who is into needless broadness. Your claim that peace can only be accomplished through the market is silly. There were no markets in Soviet Union or in China, but they managed to live in peace. There are hundreds of states that manage to do so. You place impossible and needless, superflous conditions to the solution of Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I suspect your concern for peace in Palestine is disingenious and that you have other priorities.
Marko:I suspect your concern for peace in Palestine is disingenious and that you have other priorities.
If anybody is being disingenuous here, it is you bringing up this bullshit statist argument about Palestinians getting their property back. Anyone who had been forcefully driven off his private property deserves to claim it back. But the vast majority of land was not settled by anybody. Palestinians don't have any automatic right to some land within some arbitrarily defined boarders no more then the Israelis do.
No one has a right to a State. The solution is not for another State to form. We don't need to form new States. We need to abolish the old ones.
What is the seemingly progressive fascination with Palestine? What is the conservative fascination with Israel? Why should we even care about those countries? I just don't understand their mindset. Well, that is to say I understand the Republican mindset, but I don't understand the Democratic position. The Republican view is stupid, but why do Democrats defend Palestine?
Yes, I am a huge Dodgers fan.
Anti-state since I learned about the Cuban Revolution and why my dad had to flee the country.
Beer, Guns and Baseball My blog
If anybody is being disingenuous here, it is you bringing up this bullshit statist argument about Palestinians getting their property back. Anyoney who had been forcefully driven off his private property deserves to claim it back. But the vast majority of land was not settled by anybody. Palestinians don't have any automatic right to some land within some arbitrarily defined boarders no more then the Israelis do.
The right of return is one of the stumbling blocks to the conclusion of the Israeli-Palestianian conflict.
Of course you are too much of a sectarian to know that, or anything else about it, so you do not actually have anything to contribue here.
The right of return? Palestinians for the most part have shown that they will not be satisfied until Isaraelis are wiped completely away from the area. There's not much peace in the Palestinian position, either.
Since you have already made up your mind what is the point of asking questions?
Since you choose to ignore anyone who disagrees with you, why should I bother responding to you?
Tony Fernandez:The Republican view is stupid, but why do Democrats defend Palestine?
Because that's how any political system works. You draw a line in the sand so that you can only stand on either side. The line will always be at approximately the median point and policy will always tend to emerge from close proximity to the line.
A great, tidy general answer. Perfectly sectarian. Unfortunately also totally useless. Actually both Republicans and Democrats back Israel heavily.
I've only seen support for Palestine from those who call themselves Democrats (or at least part of the American left in general).
I've only seen concern about chemtrails from those who call themselves Democrats. It doesn't make it a Democrat issue.
"And actually it is you who is into needless broadness. Your claim that peace can only be accomplished through the market is silly. There were no markets in Soviet Union or in China, but they managed to live in peace. There are hundreds of states that manage to do so. You place impossible and needless, superflous conditions to the solution of Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I suspect your concern for peace in Palestine is disingenious and that you have other priorities."
I'm not sure I would call the Soviet Union or even modern day China at "peace." Think about when Lenin ended money, basically removing the market, that was not peace. When all of those people lost their homes so the olympic stadium was built. I think its ok to generally say that the freemarket brings peace.
I agree with Jonathan, unless you can provide simple feasible solutions, then it is you who is being disingenuous to suggest that his concern for peace in palestine is suspect.
They were at peace with each other. Are we discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict or saving all the World's problems here? The solution to Israel-Palestine conflict does not hinge on saving every other problem out there first and does not need to be tied in with them. Just because Israelis and Palestinians do not have free markets does not mean they have to be at war.
Nonsense. Insisting on a hugely ideological and broad solution like "peace through markets", but dismissing all but the narrowest, least meaningful moves to get there because they can not be "practically and realistically implemented" is a perfect plan to never have peace. Sure I have simple, feasible solutions. An end to agression. Israel dismantles the settlements, withdraws from West Bank including East Jerusalem, stops its chokehold on Gaza and allows the right of return to all Palestinians who wish to do so. It is not I who pretends this is more complicated than it really is and attempts to tie it in with a load of other problems out there so that it may seem that path to peace is not clear. It is extremely clear.
Even so, the China, Russia relationshipis not a good analogy. And I will not contend that Israel and Palestine must be at war each other unless they have freemarkets. I'm simply asserting that free markets will be a part of the solution.
"Sure I have simple, feasible solutions. An end to agression. Israel dismantles the settlements, withdraws from West Bank including East Jerusalem, stops its chokehold on Gaza and allows the right of return to all Palestinians who wish to do so."
I am not sure how realistic you are being, I mean the UN has passed numerous resolutions, every country takes thier stance and the Israeli's dont budge. Which means that feasible translates to useless. As for the chokehold on gaza I agree, and I dont support the agruement of restricting trade for fear of contraband. Are you suggesting we militarily force them to withdraw?
I'm simply asserting that free markets will be a part of the solution.
And I am asserting that Israelis and Palestinians learning to hold hands while they sing Kumbaya, my Lord will be a big part of it. :rolleyes: I am not sure how realistic you are being, I mean the UN has passed numerous resolutions, every country takes thier stance and the Israeli's dont budge. Which means that feasible translates to useless.
I am not sure how realistic you are being, I mean the UN has passed numerous resolutions, every country takes thier stance and the Israeli's dont budge. Which means that feasible translates to useless.
It is irrelevant how realistic my solutions are in the absolute as long as they are the most realistic solutions out there, which they are. This is the simplest, easiest path to a reasonably robust peace that there is. It does not mean it is as simple or as easy as eating a pie. Obviously it is not, ending 60 year old conflicts generally isn't. All the more reason not to mix in other stuff with it so that the path is obscured even more. As you have noted it does not lack for difficulty even without that.
Are you suggesting we militarily force them to withdraw?
I am suggesting Israelis retreat on their own. Just like I am suggesting you get out of Iraq, voluntarily and immediately - not after you introduce free markets in the US.
"And I am asserting that Israelis and Palestinians learning to hold hands while they sing Kumbaya, my Lord will be a part of it. :rolleyes:"
That's Nice? It's as plausible as:
"I am suggesting Israelis retreat on their own. Just like I am suggesting you get out of Iraq, the day before yesterday - not after you introduce free markets in the US."
Why would you assume I'm for being in Iraq? What part of "the Isaelis will not retreat on thier own" do you not understand?
I am from Israel, and I can tell you for sure that all the "simple" and "feasible" solutions are you suggesting will not work. If solving this conflict would have been easy it would have been done decades ago. There is no solution to this conflict as long as Palestinians don't change their culture of hate. The Jews in Israel just don't trust the Palestinians, they've broken many promises, they use violence every time something is not their liking. We simply can't trust them to end hostilities. They can have their state, Israel has given them about a dozen of opportunities for it, but they refused it each time. I can't say for sure what they want, and I'm not sure they even understand it, besides what they want can change tomorrow and then we'll have more terrorist attacks. Israel just has no incentives to go to further concessions because we don't trust these people to keep the peace whatever they are given.
The point is they are holding a grudge against Israel since the 40's, Eugene. Regardless of whether or not they should "get over it", it was the imposition of a State by higher powers-that-be that caused this unnecessary conflict.
Eugene,
"I can't say for sure what they want, and I'm not sure they even understand it, besides what they want can change tomorrow and then we'll have more terrorist attacks. Israel just has no incentives to go to further concessions because we don't trust these people to keep the peace whatever they are given."
Just change Israel to Palestintians. And it is exactly what 70 year old palestinian would say.
Wars and conflicts are very natural to civilization especially in early stages of development, and especially civilizations in which religion and honor play a very significant part. That's why we saw Europeans fighting each other in the middle ages on a daily basis, that's why we see the Muslims fighting each other all over the world. It is naive to think that any single act caused the conflict, this conflict would have occured without the state no matter the circumstances.
We as libertarians believe that once the majority accepts NAP anarchy may work, well, when the majority of the Muslim population not only doesn't accept NAP, but also doesn't accept liberal values, it is no wonder that they will fight and continue fighting. When your culture is so intolerant and the motive of vengeance is so deep rooted, you'll be a danger to yourself and to others around you. That's I believe why the Arabs are such a failed nation and why its virtually impossible to have peace in this region.
Why would you assume I'm for being in Iraq?
Why would you assume I assume you are for being in Iraq? If I assumed that then why would I bring it up? Naturally I assume you are against being in Iraq. I also assume you do not tie in the issue of ending the US War in Iraq to the establishment of free markets, no more than to Iraqis and Americans learning to hold hands as they sing Kumbaya. I assume that you comprehend that all that is required for peace between Americans and Iraqis is that the US gets the hell out of there. Was I wrong in any of these assumptions? What part of "the Isaelis will not retreat on thier own" do you not understand?
What part of "the Isaelis will not retreat on thier own" do you not understand?
Never? I am pretty sure they will retreat eventually. Eternity is a long time. Sure, as long as Israel is capable of maintaing its occupation and it is not too costly and harmful for it to do so, the occupation will continue. This will be the case for at least as long it has the finacial and diplomatic backing of a hyperpower, perhaps beyond that. Everybody knows this. So what? What is your point?
Yes Israel has other priorities than peace, this is why there is a war. Do you understand what a war is? But if it wanted an end to war it could have it. The simplest way it could have it is by taking these steps.
I agree, Eugene, the Arab lands are utter failures because they haven't made any philosophical progress. The Europeans got out of feudalism with the concept of individual liberty and that has allowed for the expansion of worldwide markets. Over the last 150 years, we went from being an agrarian farming culture to one that relies on digital communication. That's an amazing achievement, but when you look at the rest of the world, they have no real moral foundation that allows for participation in the marketplace to actually take place. Islam is the most political religion and if they are focused on punishing infidel apostates or women who don't abide by their laws, then no wonder they can't get off the ground.
But with regards to Israel, the Arabs may have bought into the evil banker caricature and have this simplistic idea of Jews from a distance, but plenty of violence would have been avoided if Israel was never made.
"It is naive to think that any single act caused the conflict, this conflict would have occured without the state no matter the circumstances."
We are talking specifically about Palestine-Israeli. Not the Arab world. So let's not wallow in ignorance.
The conflict is fueled by Arab dictators who use Israel as a scapegoat to divert the attention of their people. It is the Israeli-Arab conflict, not the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The Palestinians are just Arabs who live in Palestine and are mostly tools of the Muslim nations.
"Why would you assume I assume you are for being in Iraq? If I assumed that then why would I bring it up?"
I'm pretty sure you told me to get out of Iraq. Yes, naturally I am against Iraq.
And I understand what you are saying. But it is not really an arguement. You say Israel will retreat eventually, and there are steps it can take to make the it the simplest. I agree that it would be the simplest way, but i doubt it will voluntarily retreat.
It is the Israeli-Arab conflict, not the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Marko, i thought we were talking about Israel_palestine. But i will admit the 1967 borders deal with other nations specifically, but not the entire arab world.
I am pretty sure that before that you asked if I thought if the US should force Israel to get out and used the word "we" to do it. If you are touchy about me using "you" when I mean the US, then don't say "we" in place of the US. I only approximated your own terms in order to make myself easier to understand.
I agree that it would be the simplest way, but i doubt it will voluntarily retreat.
So what? Again, what is your point? The chance in any given timeframe that they will withdraw (eg due to anti-war public opinion, or from having to improve relations with neighbouring Arab states as they become stronger in relation to it) is much greater than that in that same timeframe, they, as well as the Palestianians, will fully discover the wonders of a fully free market. States have actually occassionally withdrew from occupations, but we have not jet ever seen free markets in recorded history, so don't tell me which of the two will happen sooner. This is the peace that will happen the first. If there will be peace in our lifetimes it will be this peace. Not the Kumbaya peace and not the free market peace (as much as I would like it). But that is OK, because it would be a step in the right direction if a limited one.
I meant the international community, but thats fine if you want to categorize.
Well, what I originally was trying to make my point was that obviously free market ideas could steer things in a better direction and not that a blanket "throw some freemarket on that fire to put it out," was actually a solution. I'm not sure if thats exactly what jonathan meant. But it was silly,right? as pointed out by you. Which leads me to say, anti-war public opinion is not strictly a function of the market, but improved relations with neighbors I think is a function of the market. Either way a free"er" market leads to more peace, which was my point.