idrankwhat

The positive steps that Israel has taken, like withdrawing from Sinai and the Gaza withdrawal should be and are welcomed. However the oppression and basic human rights violations in Gaza and the West Bank continue. First of all I'll state that I have no sympathy for the families who were removed from Gaza. They knew that their settlements were internationally illegal, they were paid to live there and they were paid handsomely to leave. While there were living there amongst 1.3 million Palestinians the 8000 Israeli settlers controlled 40% of the land and almost half of the water and needed 12,000 troops to protect them. Removing them was a good idea. However since the withdrawal the Palestinians have been imprisoned. According to the Carter Center there are now 1.4 million people, 3700/square kilometer in Gaza. It is surrounded by a separation barrier that is only penetrable through Israeli checkpoints and there is a single, personnel only opening into Egypt. Transportation by air and by sea is not permitted, even fishing boats can't leave the harbor. (following excerpt from "Peace, not Apartheid") "...workers are prevented from going to outside jobs, the import or export of food and other goods is severely restricted and often cut off completely, and the police, teachers, nurses and social workers are deprived of salaries. Per capita income has decreased 40 percent during the last three years, and the poverty rate has reached 70 percent. The U.N. Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food has stated that acute malnutrition in Gaza is already on the same scale as that seen in the poorer countries of the Southern Sahara, with more than half of all Palestinian families eating only one meal a day. This was the impact of Israel's unilateral withdrawal, even before Israel's massive bombardment and reinvasion in July 2006 after being provoked by Hamas militants. As for your assertion that Hamas won't recognize previous agreements, that's not true. After Hamas was elected Prime Minister Haniyeh publicly stated that they are "ready for dialog" with the quartet and will recognize Israel if the Palestinian Authority negotiates with Israel and Palestinian people accept it. The US stated that Hamas had to recognize Israel first, renounce violence and honor the previous agreements. Israel's response was to target for assassination all 74 Hamas parliament members. Apparently the majority of Palestinians and Israelis support a two state solution. It's the leadership that's causing the problem. The Israelis can't seem to come to an agreement themselves. Some want to abide by resolution 242 and go back to the 1967 borders in exchange for in peace. Some prefer to expand the settlements, build a wall, lock up the Palestinians and live in an apartheid situation similar to what is going on now. Olmert was elected on a promise that the settlements would cease, they haven't. He has also stated that he's not interested in negotiating until absolutely "all" acts of violence cease. That's unrealistic and he knows it. Meanwhile, the settlements continue to grow and the human rights abuse continues. In a nutshell, UN resolution 242 is the accepted law of the land. Israel needs to respect it's 1967 borders (with minor modifications possible through land swap). The Quartet recognizes it, Israel has recognized it, the Palestinians recognize it. It's part of the "roadmap" and the Geneva initiative and it's the official US policy. And the obligation to abide by it has been reaffirmed by all parties in 1978 at Camp David, 1993 at Oslo and in the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative. The parties involved are actually very close to being able to come to an agreement. Neither side just seems to be willing to drop their stupid prerequisites for negotiation. And I place the blame for this firmly in George Bush's policy of staying completely out any negotiations since he came into office. The White House even COMPLETELY IGNORED the 2003 Geneva Initiative. Powell embraced it publicly but we all know how much this White House listens to him. We have the power to get these groups together. We're not doing it and the US, Israel and the Palestinians are all poorer and less safe because of it.

History shows otherwise. Israel has taken down settlements for peace before. you must understand that these lands are considered "home" to us just as much as they do for the Palestinians. what you call "stolen", I call liberated. And this is why we disagree yet i'm willing to give these lands for some peace and quiet (and the majority of Israelis think the same) Then there needs to be some indicator that Israel plans to end the occupation and is interested in withdrawal. Otherwise many will just quit reading after the word "liberated" in your post. it won't solve anything. there was war and people were forced to move. almost a million arab jews were kicked out of their homes and found refuge in the newly founded Israel. my family had lost several houses in Hebron (during the 1930's riots) after living there for hundreds of years, and I dont expect to get them back. 2 states for 2 nations, the jewish people living in what will be Palestine will move to Israel and the palestinians will build a homeland for themselves. you are still ignoring the very basic point that the current PA (or what's left of it) is refusing to accept signed agreements, what's the point in having new ones? Getting the parties involved in a peace process? If the peace proposal is to do nothing but say "they will never......" then it is assured that there will never be a chance at peace. O

History doesn't repeat itself but it sure does rhyme.

Which is still better than what I'm getting. Damn.

Especially since they didn't take advantage of the opportunity to point out that it's not environmentally friendly at those speeds. 100mph has got to knock the mpg down to at least 30. Can you check it out on the way home and get back to us Bill?

White guy. Long clean hair flowing over a crisp white robe. No, really, I've seen pictures!

actually, more than one side want them started. there is nothing new in this initiative and its very clear to everyone that the final borders will be around the 1967 line. I've heard you make this claim before but the maps I've seen and the continued building of homes in the West Bank would indicate otherwise. the two major open issues are jerusalem (solvable in a creative way) and the right of return which is a big issue (dont forget there were refugees on both sides). I'm not sure how to handle the right of return concept, short of the single state solution mentioned on the other thread. the only factor currently refusing to sit and talk is the palestinians (led by Hamas). as long as they refuse to accept exisitng treaties, what's the point in signing new ones? From my perspective, the US is also missing from the table. And we're the ones who have the financial ability to get things moving.

That hasn't historically worked out very well. It would be nice.

What are you talking about? "Everyone is all over Armitage"? Who? Are people calling for him to be prosecuted? And what it is the Rove does? Outing (arguably) covert agents? Which agents? Sorry, I meant "all over Armitage" as in rhetoric about being the source of the leak. Rove did the same thing with Matt Cooper. I think he did it twice but I can't remember the other instance specifically.

The United States does it. Also, aren't there plenty of Palestinians living in Israel already?

A new Verb!!! And I'm sure that it will get a lot of airplay, regardless of how much of a misnomer it is. Nifong withheld evidence. Fitzgerald asked more questions than some would like. Libby lied and obstructed and got convicted. He also got nearly the exact same sentence as someone who did nearly the exact same thing, according to the SCOTUS. Look up Victor Rita. So Bush's claim is that the jail time was excessive, but only in Libby's case. It wouldn't be the first time Bush has cherry picked. It really doesn't matter, other than looking smarmy, that he commuted the sentence. He can legally do it if he wants to and he'll most probably finish off with a full pardon. My only question is about Rove. Everyone's all over Armitage about running his mouth but Rove does the same thing and gets a pass.

Well, when he said that the administration was selling us a bunch of crap, he wasn't discredited. When he, as he put it "misspoke" about the forged documents and the CIA, he was discredited. Interestingly enough, his statement about the forgeries was correct and the CIA had told the administration not to use the yellowcake claim. So yea, he was wrong when he was right

And how is it that the above doesn't apply to the people who got us into this war in the first place? Basically, Wilson and all of the other people who pointed out that the Bush administration's justification for war was based on crap and that "the intelligence was being fixed around the policy", have been proven to be right.

Move the magnifying glass back a little more. Who started this whole mess? How far back? 9/11/01? Clinton passing up the opportunity to get Osama? The Iraq War (1991)? How about 1947? Or do you want to limit it to this (the outing of Valerie Plame) particular story? How about the disinformation from the people which was used to get us into a pre-meditated war in Iraq? Wasn't that why Wilson wrote his piece?

As do I but thankfully, the new SC is starting to turn this around. Yea, 360 degrees.

Move the magnifying glass back a little more. Who started this whole mess?

You mean the Gallup poll from back in March, about giving Libby a full (clean record, no jail, no fine) pardon? Or are you talking about a current poll about Bush's decision, as your statement indicated? I'm not sure, but that's what "I heard". I wouldn't be surprised if that number that number got bigger with commutation of the jail time was the sole criteria. But honestly, if that's the case, then I'll bet that my post is probably just pre-mature. I expect a full pardon by the end of Bush's term. And it's really no big surprise. Powerful people get different treatment than the rest of us. Shit rarely flows uphill. Just ask the soldiers who have been convicted of detainee mistreatment, you know, the "few bad apples".

I'm not sure which one you're replying to, but I'm assuming that it's the one about the flag. Flying the flag upside down is a sign of distress. I consider the US to be in a Constitutional distress.

Thanks for pointing this out. I think that the US missed a real opportunity for initiating peace last year after Hamas was elected. You don't have to like them, but if you give them the respect that a democratically elected leadership deserves then you're much more likely to get them to behave like responsible leaders, as they did with recent events. This policy of continued beating until morale improves doesn't work.

Have you looked up the Arab Peace Initiative yet? Using the info that you provided, Israel moved back to pre-1967 lines. The recent Arab proposal just called for the 1967 lines to be recognized. Admittedly, other provisions like the right of return are more sticky, but that's why they call them "negotiations". One side seems to want to get them started.

Bad question alert! People like Hannity, O'Reilly and Limbaugh ask questions worded like this. It's leading, loud, emotional, contains more commentary than question, only addresses part of a complex issue yet demands a yes or no answer.

I heard earlier today that a gallup poll indicates that about 20% of Americans agree with The Decider's decision. I'm beginning to believe that they're all posting on this thread

I need to read some more but this one could get quite sticky, especially when you consider Russia's relationship with Venezuela as well. Interesting spin in the article though. It says that Chavez kicked out Exxon and Conoco but the BBC reported that they weren't able to come to an ownership agreement and that Exxon is still pursuing options. BP, Chevron, Total and Norway's Statoil however are still tapped in. From a US national security standpoint I could see how this would not bode well. We have alienated quite a few allies and we are heavily heavily heavily oil dependent. Russia, Venezuela and Iran, along with a very friendly string of Caribbean Islands working together could prove to have formidable influence on US policy and interests. As for the oil companies, they'll be fine in the end, regardless of who "wins" in a conflict.

Alas, one glimmer of hope. Here's the link to the video. http://youtube.com/watch?v=3T34hzHJG2c