idrankwhat

Well that does relate directly to the OP but.....ok. If he was killing his own people, like he was doing when he was our ally (or shortly thereafter) and the Arab League and NATO were asking for our help then I probably would have reluctantly agreed that it was appropriate action. I also would have been very skeptical that Bush would be eager to simply leave and hand the operations over to NATO. First of all, drawing lines in the sand and acting unilaterally was what Obama campaigned against. Secondly, we still have to walk a fine line with regard to our alliances. Are we going to attack Bahrain or are we going to keep our mouths shut and continue to operate out of our base there? And finally, we literally can't afford to draw a line in the sand. We're broke. Sadly, AQ is winning on that front. We should have picked our wars better.

I'm not a fan of our involvement in Libya but I certainly see it as very different from our involvement in Iraq. We were sold a bill of goods WRT Iraq. There is no hindsight involved because we had the information to prove that the crap we were sold was indeed crap. The national dialog just decided not to exclude most of it. In contrast, the actions in Libya demanded quick attention to avoid additional slaughter. Obama also approached it pretty much as he promised he would handle his foreign policy. Instead of taking a unilateral approach and after a request for help by the Arab League he joined a coalition (note the word "joined" as opposed to buying off one member at a time). Also, his desire was to provide help and then hand off the operation to others. Whether that's actually possible is my biggest question. So while I'm disappointed that we're involved I don't think it was necessarily the wrong thing to do. And I certainly don't agree that anyone can equate this action in Libya with our our multi-trillion dollar, trumped up "war of choice" in Iraq. And for the record, if Bush had nixed the Iraq BS in favor of sending troops to Darfur in 2003 I wouldn't have had a problem with it.

You're both barking up the right tree. The Authority did ask us to buy a form of insurance that was unattainable and they are not applying standards uniformly. They also seem to want their hangar back and they're using fire code violations to get us out of it. There's enough injustice going on that it can be approached from many angles.

Scans were too big to upload. Here's a link to the two scans. http://pilot168.smugmug.com/Other/WPSA-Eviction/14814444_HAkgK

We essentially are being kicked off the airport. We asked to buy or lease land elsewhere on airport property so we could build our own buildings with our own money. They don't want us physically located on their land. The quote from the airport authority attorney in a recent news article is "The Authority is not banning skydiving operation at the airport, it is only requiring that West Point Skydiving Adventures move a portion of its operations off of airport property."

The airport authority has been working to to get us off the property for months. We approached them about expanding and they shut us down at each opportunity. They have even demanded that we buy types of insurance that do not even exist. The local community wants us to stay, as do the local pilots. The only ones who want us out are a few people on a newly elected Airport Authority board comprised of non-pilots. The previous manager retired, the new board was elected, the current manager is an accountant for the county and he has pissed off the previous employees to the point that most, if not all of them have left. All activities such as the very successful Bluegrass Fly in and cancer awareness fundraiser have been cancelled. They even recently posted an advertisement for a new manager however it's been reduced to a part time position. The Airport Authority is on track to destroy our club as well as the airport. Please read my response to an article that was posted in a local rag. It gives a decent summary. And please help if you can. We need to make as much noise as possible. http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=169715333049873&topic=259

I ran across this today and realized that it would only appeal to a very narrow segment of the population. You pHreaks came to mind. Enjoy! And to tie it in to the forum, I think the editing is great! http://www.todaysbigthing.com/2010/11/15

Perhaps you can show me where in this op ed piece that : Is stated? Sorry, grabbed the wrong link. That case was referred to by the Peace Now investigation that is linked on the BBC piece. http://www.the-american-interest.com/article.cfm?piece=781

If they can prove that it is a security reason - then - voila - issues solved. Precisely my point. Israel is using loopholes, labeling all of those yellow areas on the map I posted yesterday as necessary for their security. That way they can justify stealing the land that is not theirs. And as noted on the other links, even private Palestinian land that has not been determined to be "state" land has been stolen as well. Let's not forget that in the eyes of the international community they are all illegal though. So we're back to my original point which is that Israel is stealing land and is not interested in sitting down at a peace table because it hasn't finished stealing land. If some of you are ok with Israel stealing land and treating its inhabitants as second class citizens then that's your prerogative. I'll simply have to disagree and be content that my views coincide with international law and the official stance of the US on this issue.

It was a pretty ridiculous question in my opinion. Juanesky seems to want an answer though so....... "October 1979 in the Elon Moreh case, in which the Court ruled that the state could not seize private Palestinian land for the purpose of allowing a settlement to be built. The Court said that, in order to seize land, there needed to be a specific and concrete security reason. Three weeks after the Court’s decision, the Israeli government decided that: the full Cabinet would need to approve the establishment of a new settlement; a settlement could be established only on “state land”; the settlement would need an approved municipal building plan; and the local IDF commander would need to approve the settlement’s municipal boundaries." http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2009/06/28/israels-settlements-are-shaky-ground Yet Israeli settlements are still built on Palestinian land in violation of its own laws, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6168752.stm and not giving a crap what the US thinks. http://www.haaretz.com/news/settlements-grow-on-arab-land-despite-promises-made-to-u-s-1.203258 That's the Israeli law. International laws consider them all illegal. wiki summary

It is only illegal if there is a law against it.

Re-summarized without your bullshit glasses: Really shitty things happened to the Jews and as a result Israel was formed in the aftermath of WWII. Agreed I'm not talking about the current state of Israel and neither are the vast majority of people who are pushing for peace. I'm talking about the treatment of the people in the land that is NOT Israel. I don't see any bullshit. Look at the argument angle that Jeanne and some others choose. It has nothing to do with the border conflict and is focussed on historical mistreatment of the Jewish community. What happened to the Jews anywhere else in the world other than the current state of Israel is off the thread as far as I'm concerned. Israel has a border. We've (and I mean "we" as in US) let it become ridiculously ambiguous over the last decade and a half. That has to stop if there's going to be peace and that's going to entail pissing off both sides. Ori, I'll get back to you later but I don't have time at the moment. It's a valid question though. Unfortunately I'm weak enough that when someone tells me that I'm full of shit that I feel the need to respond....to a point.

That belongs in another thread in my opinion. I, and the better part of the world recognize that the West Bank is not part of Israel and that Israel did not "win" it in a war. They occupied it after the war which is perfectly legal by international law but that is supposed to be a temporary measure. The occupying force is allowed to keep representatives of its military there for security reasons but it is not allowed to transfer its population (settlements) into the occupied territory. It is also not allowed to transfer the residents of the occupied territory out. Israel has played the game for decades now that everything was only "security related" and not a land grab. It's obvious that that's nonsense. What is interesting about this thread however is that it's been good to get on record the reasoning for some people's justification for the treatment of the Palestinians. It seems to boil down to "really shitty things have happened repeatedly to the Jewish people. In return, I think it's ok that they do shitty things to another group of people..............over there.". My view has been consistent. The United States officially, and rightly IMO, does not recognize Gaza and the West Bank as belonging to Israel. On the other hand we behave hypocritically in our treatment of the war crimes committed by the parties involved. Not only is that hypocrisy wrong but it's also one of the main reasons that some religious fanatics want to harm America. If we treat Israel and the Palestinians equally in the resolution of this problem then not only is there a good chance at reaching a peaceful compromise (in which neither side gets everything they want), but we take away the hypocrisy argument, which in then end, will save lives and a ton of taxpayer dollars.

Look, a chance for the thread to drift back on topic!

I am too. At first I wasn't sure how to fight it. Now I've decided the best plan is to embrace it. Next time I get asked for either full body screen or a "pat down", if there's not a really hot TSA agent, doing the latter then I'm simply going to drop trou and give 'em the full monty Of course I'll be sure to give them the "it's a bit chilly in here" disclaimer.

Look the the attached map and tell me who you think is getting the short end of the stick. Israel is on the left, little blue dots are Israeli settlements, and pay special attention to what the yellow areas indicate.

so how long of a freeze would indicate Israel Is a willing partner ? 10 months is not long enough? What indicates to u that the Palestinians are a willing partner? Their stated desire to negotiate and with the added bonus of a US mediator who is actually willing to pursue a peace process. Those two entities are asking Israel to join in. Why not take them up on it? My point is that the settlements are illegal in the eyes of the international community, including the United States. So is the "security" (aka "land grab") barrier. For a decade and a half the US has allowed Israel to expand its settlements in the West Bank and during that time, even Israeli leaders have conceded that they're going to have to abandon some of those settlements. Why keep building if you're going to have to leave anyway? In a nutshell, because if you grab as much land as you can you can keep most of it. The more you grab, the greater your portion when some peace agreement is reached. If someone REALLY wanted peace now then they would take EVERY opportunity to sit down and work towards it. Instead, Netanyahu has kicked Olmert's concessions to the curb so that he can grab more land. And it's working. Not only are other West Bank settlements allowed to continue to grow but the US is pretty much conceding East Jerusalem with its most recent bribe. Two out of three primary parties are, as Jeanne so often prescribes, trying to "make peace". All the third has to do is quit stealing more land and join them. So that to me seems to be the choice. Does Israel want to "make peace" or would it prefer to put it off and steal more land? Or . . . Maybe they have some self respect and are tired of someone trying to continue to bully them as they have the entirety of their written existance. So if a people are oppressed then it's ok if they oppress another group of people? That excuse seems to be recurring in these discussions.

so how long of a freeze would indicate Israel Is a willing partner ? 10 months is not long enough? What indicates to u that the Palestinians are a willing partner? Their stated desire to negotiate and with the added bonus of a US mediator who is actually willing to pursue a peace process. Those two entities are asking Israel to join in. Why not take them up on it? My point is that the settlements are illegal in the eyes of the international community, including the United States. So is the "security" (aka "land grab") barrier. For a decade and a half the US has allowed Israel to expand its settlements in the West Bank and during that time, even Israeli leaders have conceded that they're going to have to abandon some of those settlements. Why keep building if you're going to have to leave anyway? In a nutshell, because if you grab as much land as you can you can keep most of it. The more you grab, the greater your portion when some peace agreement is reached. If someone REALLY wanted peace now then they would take EVERY opportunity to sit down and work towards it. Instead, Netanyahu has kicked Olmert's concessions to the curb so that he can grab more land. And it's working. Not only are other West Bank settlements allowed to continue to grow but the US is pretty much conceding East Jerusalem with its most recent bribe. Two out of three primary parties are, as Jeanne so often prescribes, trying to "make peace". All the third has to do is quit stealing more land and join them. So that to me seems to be the choice. Does Israel want to "make peace" or would it prefer to put it off and steal more land? edited to add: I don't know if current negotiations would eventually lead to a permanent peace. I DO however know that if you don't start a negotiation then you'll never know.

so how long of a freeze would indicate Israel Is a willing partner ? 10 months is not long enough? What indicates to u that the Palestinians are a willing partner? Their stated desire to negotiate and with the added bonus of a US mediator who is actually willing to pursue a peace process. Those two entities are asking Israel to join in. Why not take them up on it? My point is that the settlements are illegal in the eyes of the international community, including the United States. So is the "security" (aka "land grab") barrier. For a decade and a half the US has allowed Israel to expand its settlements in the West Bank and during that time, even Israeli leaders have conceded that they're going to have to abandon some of those settlements. Why keep building if you're going to have to leave anyway? In a nutshell, because if you grab as much land as you can you can keep most of it. The more you grab, the greater your portion when some peace agreement is reached. If someone REALLY wanted peace now then they would take EVERY opportunity to sit down and work towards it. Instead, Netanyahu has kicked Olmert's concessions to the curb so that he can grab more land. And it's working. Not only are other West Bank settlements allowed to continue to grow but the US is pretty much conceding East Jerusalem with its most recent bribe. Two out of three primary parties are, as Jeanne so often prescribes, trying to "make peace". All the third has to do is quit stealing more land and join them. So that to me seems to be the choice. Does Israel want to "make peace" or would it prefer to put it off and steal more land?

Or test to see if Israel is actually a willing partner.

So, you choose not to try. I understand, those in the more powerful position have that luxury. Personally, I'd like Israel to try which is why I suggest that we tighten the purse strings until Netanyahu pays attention. (Not dole out military hardware for the promise of only 3months extension of the moratorium).

There's a lot that people over here don't see or hear about. Here's a great site if you want a more fair and balanced approach to the situation. http://www.btselem.org/English/

Does it matter? They want to sit at the peace table. I think someone should take them up on it. Like you said, the freeze was in effect for ten months. What's the big deal in extending it if there's a chance at arriving at some sort of solution?

I see them as equal. The reason I put the impetus on Israel at this particular moment is that they have an opportunity to to sit down at the peace table and they're choosing to build instead. If you want peace why not just chill out on the building permits, get the Palestinians to the table and see where it goes? If you don't really care because you're the more powerful and you're still subscribing to Sharon's cry to "grab every hill top" then you just thumb your nose at this opportunity. If they want a peaceful two state solution then it's not going to happen unless you sit down at the table. After the agreements are made then you bring in the reinforcements (us) and apply an equally heavy hand on those who try to sabotage the decision. There are people on both sides who are going to try to use terror to interfere. Hard core Palestinians and pissed off settlers are likely to kill quite a few people. Prosecute each equally for a change.

People don't seem to catch the difference between "recognizing Israel" and "recognizing Israel as a Jewish state". Netanhahu knows that's a non-starter for discussion which is why he chose that wording. We just offered them what is essentially a very expensive bribe just to stop construction for another three months so negotiations can continue. Peace makers should be annoyed with Israel's response. Deficit hawks should be pissed. Regardless of your angle, it's very difficult for anyone to argue that Israel is not the impediment to the peace process.