• on a comment on No settlement freeze-No U.S. aid over 4 years ago

    on a personal note, i've lived in s. korea and tell you that threat of war is v. real to the people there and the US military presence there is unmistakable all over the country.

  • on a comment on No settlement freeze-No U.S. aid over 4 years ago

    international law prohibits the forcible transfer of segments of the population of a state to the territory of another state which it has occupied as a result of the resort to armed force. this principle, which is reflected in article 49 of the fourth geneva convention, was drafted immediately following the WW2. the principle was intended to protect the local population from displacement, including endangering its separate existence as a race, as occurred with respect to the forced population transfers in czechoslovakia, poland and hungary before and during the war. this is clearly not the case with regard to the west bank and gaza.

    a more probable outcome will be that the israelis are going to have to either hand over governance of the settlements to the palestinians or complete dismantlement. i think the former is more likely - but who knows.

  • on a comment on No settlement freeze-No U.S. aid over 4 years ago

    yes japan has an army. in fact - seoul to fukawoka is about an hours flight. meaning that one  to kookiest nuclear threats is about a stone's throw away from japan proper. note that i didn't mention american aid (military $) to s. korea which is quite substantial as well. i believe there are about 34,000 US troops in s. korea alone.

    but why isn't that right?  i don't think there is much disagreement on these boards that the settlements need to stop.  perhaps my semantics are dripped with a bit of sarcasm, but this is more about the tiresome tone and one-sidedness that these threads tend to devolve to especially with this particular diarist.

  • on a comment on No settlement freeze-No U.S. aid over 4 years ago

    perhaps you should clarify that this was a result of the camp david accord of the seventies....

    most of the foreign aid the US provides to israel is in military credits, meaning, israel must use the funds to purchase arms for US. very little in fact consists of outright grants. most aid given to israel, comes from private sources, not tax dollars. this military aid allows israel to keep it's technical edge over its neighbours. the US has its own strategic interests for doing this. a weak israel would invite disaster to itself, as well as oil supplies to the west.  

    interestingly america's largest expenditure to most countries isn't even designated in the foreign aid budget. most money is spent on the defense of countries in southeast asia like japan, but because it's part of the defense budget, people don't get their knickers in a twist although it far surpasses anything given to israel by tens of billions of dollars. In fact, i believe there was a senator who suggested that the money given to israel be transferred to the defense budget since that's what most of it goes for...

  • on a comment on No settlement freeze-No U.S. aid over 4 years ago

    i thought you were talking about principle.

  • so we're back here are we?

    to be honest with you - i find these 2 last comments - like the others from the other day - rude and arrogant. i have provided my opinion - backed with an independent third party source and you just won't have it huh? we're back to personal shots and name-calling.

    yes - perhaps gideon levy and myself are desperate for peace so much so that we dare disagree with you in are simplistic dream-world.

  • that makes no sense - a permanent institutionalization of an intolerable status quo? isn't having a sovereign state and all of the other things that will result from it mean that the status quo is no longer?

  • all indicators that i have read (including the poll referenced in the article) don't mesh with your characterization i'm afraid.

  • well clearly that's a possibility.  but i hope you are wrong.

  • well there is not much there i would disagree with save for this being "a first offer" - "starting point" or whatever we want to call it.  whether or not netanyahu intended it to or not - it is. that is how it has been received by most of the world including of course israelis themselves.

    kadima won the majority of seats and the most major polls show that israelis want peace. besides all this of course - obama - and most importantly - clinton are aware of all the pitfalls of the past and i dare-say are ready for them

    now if we could just dump netanyahu, get the majority of palestinians to support abbas amongst a laundry list of other things we could mark this box as checked. but even considering all that - i am pretty certain a peace plan will be achieved and that the obama administration is banking on it.

  • yes some palestinians are terrorists mainstreet.

    as to my position with regard to the who i am for or otherwise is on the record for the community to see as is yours.

    i suggest that you and the other people that use this account coordinate the message better because clearly you're missing key parts of the debate here.

    but i sincerely hope that this diary and subsequent comments are looked at by the community just to see how far across the line you've gone this time - or perhaps you can delete this diary like you did with the other.

  • how is this productive? moving forward means exactly that.

    you and mainstreet could go back and forth here all day but what would that solve? perhaps you could focus on how a solution could and will be reached rather than this.

  • as to who people on this site are or are not - perhaps there are people who are anti-semites and perhaps there are some that are not - i'll leave that for the community to decide. being pro-palestinian however - as i am, certainly does not mean that you adhere to ugly stereotypes and promote anti-semitic ideas to advocate for one side.

    if you would like to hide behind that list of names that is your prerogative i guess. buy you have to account for your own words and the implications of them.

    and they're not pretty.

  • oh come now - surely you understand what i mean.

    world jewish conspiracies, AIPAC controlling US politicians. progressives do not support occupation - but they don't support anti-semites either. perhaps you would be better served remembering this.

Diaries

Advertise Blogads