Israel/Palestine
Related: About this forumPA mourns death of 'loyal friend'
Ramallah extends condolence to Caracas over Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez' passing. Ahmadinejad: He was a martyr. Putin: An extraordinary man is gone
The Palestinian Authority has extended its condolence to the Venezuelan people over the death of President Hugo Chavez.
A Wednesday report carried by the Palestinian news agency Maan, quoted senior Fatah official Nabil Shaath as saying that "Palestine says goodbye to a loyal friend who passionately defended our right to freedom and self determination.....
....Longtime Chavez' ally Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad also paid tribute to Chavez Wednesday, saying he was who died yesterday, seeing him was a "Martyr for his people. He served and protected human values and he was a revolutionary."
Iran declared a day of national mourning for Chavez.
"Hugo Chavez is a name known to all nations. His name is a reminder of cleanliness and kindness, bravery ... dedication and tireless efforts to serve the people, especially the poor and those scarred by colonialism and imperialism," Ahmadinejad said.
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4352969,00.html
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Kolesar
(31,182 posts)For a century, America had been sending in troops and weapons to install dictators to protect oil producers, mine owners and banana plantation owners.
[link:http://www.soawatch.org|
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)
Venezuelans mourn late President Hugo Chavez
Seven days of national mourning begins after the leftist leader was announced dead from cancer.
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/americas/2013/03/201336143816243498.html
oberliner
(58,724 posts)North Korea's next leader escorted his father's hearse in an elaborate state funeral on a bitter, snowy day today, bowing and saluting in front of tens of thousands of citizens who wailed and stamped their feet in grief for Kim Jong Il.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/crowds-pack-snowy-route-for-kim-jongils-funeral-6282220.html
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)Better luck next time.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)The point was to show that photos of popular outpouring of grief at the death of the leader do not necessarily mean that the leader was benevolent.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)You're lost, and in the wrong thread.
Enjoy the rest of your day.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)You are seriously off base yourself and definitely in the wrong thread as well.
Go to one of the Chavista Lionization Threads in the main forum.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)You're a trip, kid.
The arrogance that you even imagine you speak clearly for the people of Venezuela and
what a foolish attempt with your pics..but knock yourself out.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)And Chavez' party has nothing in common with the the Workers' Party of Korea.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Venezuela has nothing in common with North Korea. Cheap shot.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)Check the main forums.
shira
(30,109 posts)Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)
Millions are gathering in Caracas to mourn the late Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez on the day of his funeral. More than 30 world leaders are expected to attend today’s ceremony as Venezuelans brave long lines to see Chávez lying in state. We go to Caracas to speak with Carol Delgado, Venezuelan consul general in New York, who has returned home for the funeral. Delgado responds to the torrent of U.S. corporate media criticism that has followed Chávez to the grave, arguing that Chávez has been attacked in spite of — and perhaps because of — his social programs benefiting Venezuela’s poor majority, and a global reach that extended to impoverished neighborhoods of the United States. [includes rush transcript]
AMY GOODMAN: We begin today’s show in Venezuela, where millions are gathering to mourn the late President Hugo Chávez on the day of the funeral. Chávez, who led the country for 14 years, died Tuesday after a two-year battle with cancer. The head of Venezuela’s presidential guard told the Associated Press Chávez died of a massive heart attack triggered by his advanced stage of cancer. More than two million people have already come to pay their respects, standing in lines miles long for hours to see him lying in state.
Speaking Thursday, acting President Nicolás Maduro announced a seven-day extension in the mourning period and said Chávez’s body would be embalmed and put on display in a military museum following today’s funeral.
ACTING PRESIDENT NICOLÁS MADURO: [translated] I want to tell the people and the world it has been decided that the body of the comandante will be embalmed so that it remains eternally on view for the people at the museum, as Ho Chi Minh is, as Lenin is, as Mao Zedong is. The body of our comandante-in-chief, embalmed in the Museum of the Revolution, in a special way, so he can be in a glass case, and our people can have him there present always and always with the people.
in full: http://www.democracynow.org/2013/3/8/hugo_chavez_funeral_derided_by_us
shira
(30,109 posts)And BTW, the religious nut Ayatollahs running the show there are the ultimate Imperialists.
Their goal is an Islamic Caliphate.
You know what that is?
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)with how he governed Venezuela...I can't wait.
on edit: Let me know why you keep all this information about Chavez exclusive to this
I/P group.
shira
(30,109 posts)Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)shira
(30,109 posts)shira
(30,109 posts)After enacting a new constitution with ample human rights protections in 1999 – and surviving a short-lived coup d’état in 2002 – Chávez and his followers moved to concentrate power. They seized control of the Supreme Court and undercut the ability of journalists, human rights defenders, and other Venezuelans to exercise fundamental rights.
By his second full term in office, the concentration of power and erosion of human rights protections had given the government free rein to intimidate, censor, and prosecute Venezuelans who criticized the president or thwarted his political agenda. In recent years, the president and his followers used these powers in a wide range of prominent cases, whose damaging impact was felt by entire sectors of Venezuelan society.
Many Venezuelans continued to criticize the government. But the prospect of reprisals – in the form of arbitrary or abusive state action – forced journalists and human rights defenders to weigh the consequences of disseminating information and opinions critical of the government, and undercut the ability of judges to adjudicate politically sensitive cases.....
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)shira?
First of all, I have no idea what you mean by any Israeli government..when have they been different regarding
the occupation and expanding settlements..answer; they haven't been.
Where does it say at HRW that children are taken from their homes in the middle of the night for
throwing stones..where does it say they're also left with no legal representation. I could go on,
but you get the point.
I am so pleased you have accepted HRW as a legitimate source, next time you'll gladly apply it to Israel.
I applaud their work, and to answer your question..which is weird, no sane person would prefer
to be ruled by a government that continued to occupy people with such brutal force and means
as the Israeli government. Your comparison question is sad..sad to think anyone would prefer such
a thing. You don't say why you dislike Chavez, I imagine it's because he speaks so poorly of Israel.
What I appreciate about Chavez the politician is that he would throw right back at the US the same
horse shit they use on others..labeling your adversaries as evil. You can google what he called GW
Bush, if you're interested.
I doubt you've read human rights reports on the United States, but I'll post it for you and you can
do a compare and contrast on that one too. Despite the economic inequity expanding in the US, among
other serious issues..the US government continues to claim it is the greatest nation on earth. Some
actually believe it....increasingly there are more American citizens that do not.
HRW has done well to highlight issues, keep in mind it is also stressing :
While sharp criticism of the government is still common in the print media, on Globovisión, and in some other outlets, the fear of government reprisals has made self-censorship a serious problem.
You should get out more often, no one suggests, most especially the people of Venezuela, that Chavez
was perfect.
Chavez pursued ending poverty and did so with a vengeance...just like Israel, just like the US? NO, not
even close.
Not surprising he won 13 of 14 national votes with an overwhelming majority and they do not have
transparency issues on their voting apparatus means in Venezuela. To suggest as some have
attempted, Chavez never forgot where he came from...extreme poverty. He never forgot nor ever turned his
back on the poor, he was not liked by those of the elite..but here in the US, we understand why they would
not...we in the US are beholding to corporate greed in our politics.
He used his resources, the oil rich nation, for good, and was able to tell the big shots to go fuck off...in a nut shell.
You should read about life for the people of Venezuela before Chavez..who was making a life and who was not.
Read how the Bush administration tried to use then Brazil's beloved Lulu to screw with Venezuela, that didn't work
either. It is not surprising he is so despised in other parts of the world..who in their right minds in the US would nationalize
oil AND then begin to end poverty with money from it..ack, what kind of crazy government does that?
South America is a different place today..one that hopefully will stay safe from US hegemony. I wish Maduro
all the best, for they'll be giving it all they've got for another shot at a coup..just like 2002.
Oh, Amnesty International report on the US
http://www.amnesty.org/en/region/usa/report-2012
USA: See no evil – government turns the other way as judges make findings about torture and other abuse
USA: Digging a deeper hole – administration and Congress entrenching human rights failure on Guantánamo detentions
Cruel conditions for pre-trial detainees in US federal custody
USA: 100 years in solitary – the “Angola 3” and their fight for justice
USA: Remedy blocked again – Injustice continues as Supreme Court dismisses rendition case
USA: An embarrassment of hitches – reflections on the death penalty, 35 years after Gregg v. Georgia, as states scramble for lethal injection drugs
“This is where I’m going to be when I die”: Children facing life imprisonment without the possibility of release in the USA
USA: Amnesty International calls for urgent reforms to California security housing units as prison hunger strike resumes
USA: Guantánamo – a decade of damage to human rights
Deadly delivery: The maternal health care crisis in the USA - one year update, spring 2011
shira
(30,109 posts)And apparently you don't see anything problematic with Chavez's relationship with and support of Iran.
Okay....
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)But do ignore the content and go with the title of the HRW report.
shira
(30,109 posts)...which would explain why you prefer Chavez over any other Israeli leader.
And you're laughing?
Classic.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)shira
(30,109 posts)...and that tossed HRW out of its country to Israel.
Let's keep this in mind from now on whenever you criticize Israel while defending Chavez.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)was that Israel's government? hmmm?
Please, do keep this thread in mind as you defend Israel..I know I will.
Next time post your Chavez threads in GD, you'll receive more hits that way.
*on edit for clarity.
idwiyo
(5,113 posts)shira
(30,109 posts)Israel ended occupations in Lebanon (2000) and Gaza (2005) and have fought 3 wars there since. If you feel another war is preferable to Israel's occupation of the W.Bank, why not just say so?
Question: If Israel leaves the W.Bank w/o making a peace deal with the Palestinians, and a war breaks out as a result within months or a few years, would it be worth it?
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)claims and reality are two very different things.
The claim is that the occupation is temporary, uh..yea..sure. The claim is that it's for security...well, there
are years and years worth of actions by the Israeli's that say otherwise. One needs to look at what Israel
the state has said to their own people, their own political messaging and the laws that are passed.
The annexation of East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, the widespread placement of substantial illegal Israeli civilian settlements throughout the occupied territories connected by Israeli-use only roads, and the construction of a wall/fence throughout the West Bank virtually destroying the communities it cuts through or surrounds, both of which create a condition of de facto annexation which significantly interferes with the Palestinian people's rights to self-determination and their human rights, the significant transformation of the local legal system in the territories giving the Israeli settlements special privileges and legally and financially linking them to Israel, and then establishing a separate governing system for the Palestinian population centers which both oppresses them and exploits them thus also violating their human rights and inalienable right of self-determination.
*Amnesty International, HRW and B'Tselem due credit.
shira
(30,109 posts)Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)In upside down world, that is.
shira
(30,109 posts)AKA land-for-peace. Israel legally occupies until a peace agreement is made. Israel has offered while the Palestinian leadership has rejected.
===========
What you want - a violation of 242 - will result in war if Israel were to just unilaterally withdraw w/o a peace settlement. That was tried in Gaza (and S.Lebanon) and neither scenario worked out so well for the Palestinians or Lebanese (worked out decently for Israel, however).
If you feel the risk is worth it and don't mind another Gaza or Lebanon type war, or worse, just admit that's the price for a Palestinian state as you see it. What's a few more thousand dead Palestinians to you?
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)stop peddling otherwise.
Keep in mind the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war ( Res. 242 ) Their baseless security claims
have been addressed as well , see Maoz below.
The peace settlement Israel wants no part of:
For the past three decades the international community has consistently supported a settlement of the Israel-Palestine conflict that calls for two states based on a full Israeli withdrawal to its June 1967 border, and a “just resolution” of the refugee question based on the right of return and compensation. The vote on the annual U.N. General Assembly resolution, “Peaceful Settlement of the Question of Palestine,” supporting these terms for resolving the conflict in 2008 was 164 in favor, 7 against (Israel, United States, Australia, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau), and 3 abstentions. ( N. Finkelstein ) see UN website here:
66/17. Peaceful settlement of the question of Palestine ( 2012 )
http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/997AAD7178DBFD66852579950056A99C
If you kept your head out of filth websites you might learn something.
Zeev Maoz is Professor of Political Science at the University of California, Davis. He is the former head of the Graduate School of Government and Policy and of the Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies at Tel Aviv University, as well as the former academic director of the M.A. Program at the Israeli Defense Forces' National Defense College.
Defending the Holy Land is the most comprehensive analysis to date of Israel's national security and foreign policy, from the inception of the State of Israel to the present. Author Zeev Maoz's unique double perspective, as both an expert on the Israeli security establishment and esteemed scholar of Mideast politics, enables him to describe in harrowing detail the tragic recklessness and self-made traps that pervade the history of Israeli security operations and foreign policy.
Most of the wars in which Israel was involved, Maoz shows, were entirely avoidable, the result of deliberate Israeli aggression, flawed decision-making, and misguided conflict management strategies. None, with the possible exception of the 1948 War of Independence, were what Israelis call "wars of necessity." They were all wars of choice-or, worse, folly.
Demonstrating that Israel's national security policy rested on the shaky pairing of a trigger-happy approach to the use of force with a hesitant and reactive peace diplomacy, Defending the Holy Land recounts in minute-by-minute detail how the ascendancy of Israel's security establishment over its foreign policy apparatus led to unnecessary wars and missed opportunities for peace.
http://www.amazon.com/Defending-Holy-Land-Critical-Analysis/dp/0472033417
shira
(30,109 posts)It would just say:
"GTFO".
The end.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)
shira
(30,109 posts)And given that it hasn't done so for 45 years, why hasn't anyone accused Israel of violating 242?
Oh, I forgot.
You don't answer anything....
Weak.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)to you on the subject other than to say, it's legal..cause you say so. Res 242 does not
justify the occupation as legal.
Res 242: snip* Affirms that the fulfillment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of...the following principles:
(i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict...
...Considers that all legislative and administrative measures and actions taken by Israel, including expropriation of land and properties thereon, which tend to change the legal status of Jerusalem are invalid and cannot change that status; [and] Urgently calls upon Israel to rescind all such measures already taken and to desist forthwith from taking any further action which tends to change the status of Jerusalem...
snip*Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, are illegal and an obstacle to peace and to economic and social development [... and] have been established in breach of international law. -International Court of Justice Ruling, July 9, 2004
Try and think, shira.
shira
(30,109 posts)That can't happen w/o a peace deal.
Try again.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)Go play somewhere else..secure recognized borders..yea, the West Bank for Israel you mean.
shira
(30,109 posts)That won't happen w/o a peace deal.
You're wrong.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)to counter that fact.
shira
(30,109 posts)You still believe Gaza is occupied, FFS!
Hey, is that legal?
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)Gaza is under siege, you have another version of that event too? lol
shira
(30,109 posts)Is that your view now?
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)How is it so, shira? You know full well of the blockade and all it's trappings..you know of
international law and how it applies to the area...stop playing games with the facts.
It is not one or the other, shira..but you knew this too:
snip* The laws of occupation apply if a state has "effective control" over the territory in question. The High Court has held contrary to Israel 's claim, stating that the creation and continuation of an occupation does not depend on the existence of an institution administering the lives of the local population, but only on the extent of its military control in the area. Furthermore, a certain area may be deemed occupied even if the army does not have a fixed presence throughout the whole area. Leading experts in humanitarian law maintain that effective control may also exist when the army controls key points in a particular area, reflecting its power over the entire area and preventing an alternative central government from formulating and carrying out its powers. The broad scope of Israeli control in the Gaza Strip, which exists despite the lack of a physical presence of IDF soldiers in the territory, creates a reasonable basis for the assumption that this control amounts to "effective control," such that the laws of occupation continue to apply.
http://www.btselem.org/gaza_strip/israels_obligations
shira
(30,109 posts)It says you're still in no way serious. So indulging you further is just a waste of time.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)and what you have brought to the table.
I'm confident you're at a loss, although willfully so.
Enjoy the rest of your evening.
shira
(30,109 posts)As to Gaza occupation, the 1907 Hague Regulations state:
That rules Israel out WRT occupying Gaza.
Yea, like I said, secure recognized borders for Israel is their quest, among other objectives, to have
the West Bank for their state.
1907 Hague Regulations? You're hilarious.
Where is your link, another porn website like the last one?
shira
(30,109 posts)"Secure, recognized borders" is from 242. Sucks to be wrong, huh?
And the 1907 Hague Regulations is the only legal definition of occupation. That's International Law. Too bad it was crafted 60 years before the 6 day war and not after....
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)Your responses are based in rhetoric, and still no link to a 1907 Hague Regulation.
B'Tselem among others have detailed for you why Gaza is considered occupied and under a blockade..you have
yet to explain why they're incorrect.
You do realize the ICJ advisory ruling was in 2004..you know after 1907.
shira
(30,109 posts)MILITARY AUTHORITY OVER THE TERRITORY OF THE HOSTILE STATE
Art. 42. Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army.
The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.
http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/full/195
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)That you're in the know and they ignored what you believe is the correct application of this?
You're very foolish to believe such a thing. Very foolish to believe a human rights organization
is also as dumb.
shira
(30,109 posts)They can't make a ruling the contradicts the Hague Regulations of 1907.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)suggesting otherwise. Where is the wall, shira, south jersey?
By thirteen votes to two,
All States are under an obligation not to recognize the illegal situation resulting from the construction of the wall and not to render aid or assistance in maintaining the situation created by such construction; all States parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 12 August 1949 have in addition the obligation, while respecting the United Nations Charter and international law, to ensure compliance by Israel with international humanitarian law as embodied in that Convention”;
- “E. By fourteen votes to one,
The United Nations, and especially the General Assembly and the Security Council, should consider what further action is required to bring to an end the illegal situation resulting from the construction of the wall and the associated régime, taking due account of the present Advisory Opinion.”
http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?pr=71&code=mwp&p1=3&p2=4&p3=6
shira
(30,109 posts)The wall is illegal according to them, not the occupation.
Seriously - I don't think any of you are capable of ever getting any story correct.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)The occupation is illegal and it is substantiated by the means given to you in each of my posts.
If you were correct, the Wall would be covered by the same reference to the Hague 1907 link you offered.
IT IS NOT relevant in the manner you wish to use it.
shira
(30,109 posts)That's a fucking lie.
Why didn't they just say so, outright, if that's the case?
IT IS NOT relevant in the manner you wish to use it.
No, the wall is covered by the ICJ in the same way they see the settlements. They're consistent labeling both as illegal. That has nothing to do with the occupation.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)The term "Occupying Power" has taken on a precise legal meaning following the International Court of Justice ruling in July 2004 that Israel is illegally occupying this territory in violation of international law.[6] The Israeli High Court of Justice concurs with this language, and has ruled that Israel holds the West Bank under "belligerent occupation".[7]
Israeli governments have preferred the term "disputed territories" in the case of the West Bank.[8][9]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli-occupied_territories
shira
(30,109 posts)...that Israel's occupation is illegal. They didn't even rule it was belligerent. Have your read the document? Look for the language and you'll find it simply isn't there:
http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/131/1677.pdf
Show us all where "belligerent" or "illegal occupation" is in the language of the ruling.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)Who is us? Where do you get these absurd ideas from...Hasbara.com ?
I have to point it out to you?...lol. Go read it yourself.
Hint: The language they use REPEATEDLY, : OCCUPIED PALESTINIAN TERRITORIES are illegal ...the
occupation is illegal...no legitimacy....West Bank, East Jerusalem, the Gaza Strip.
Under Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention...it is inadmissible for an occupying power to transfer its population to occupied territory..
The belligerent comes from Israel's High Court..read the link. It's an accurate assessment.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)is what they're up to and you know it. What exactly do you think 242 protects Israel from, accepting
a UN resolution passed for three decades? Israel wants what they want, and it has NOTHING to do with a
legitimate need for security.
Zeev Maoz is Professor of Political Science at the University of California, Davis. He is the former head of the Graduate School of Government and Policy and of the Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies at Tel Aviv University, as well as the former academic director of the M.A. Program at the Israeli Defense Forces' National Defense College.
Defending the Holy Land is the most comprehensive analysis to date of Israel's national security and foreign policy, from the inception of the State of Israel to the present. Author Zeev Maoz's unique double perspective, as both an expert on the Israeli security establishment and esteemed scholar of Mideast politics, enables him to describe in harrowing detail the tragic recklessness and self-made traps that pervade the history of Israeli security operations and foreign policy.
Most of the wars in which Israel was involved, Maoz shows, were entirely avoidable, the result of deliberate Israeli aggression, flawed decision-making, and misguided conflict management strategies. None, with the possible exception of the 1948 War of Independence, were what Israelis call "wars of necessity." They were all wars of choice-or, worse, folly.
Demonstrating that Israel's national security policy rested on the shaky pairing of a trigger-happy approach to the use of force with a hesitant and reactive peace diplomacy, Defending the Holy Land recounts in minute-by-minute detail how the ascendancy of Israel's security establishment over its foreign policy apparatus led to unnecessary wars and missed opportunities for peace.
http://www.amazon.com/Defending-Holy-Land-Critical-Analysis/dp/0472033417
Adding additional edits to your response after you receive one from me is cheap.
1907 Hague Regulation does not support what you imagine it does..but so sweet that you
acknowledge international law even if it comes at this late date..lol. So big of you.
And still, no link from you.
shira
(30,109 posts)Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)does not establish support nor does it apply as you suggest. You have yet to provide a link
and have not proven B'Tselem incorrect..although they're not standing alone on this issue.
Not by a long shot.
shira
(30,109 posts)...of occupation in Gaza according to International Law.
When you have some rational answer for "secure, recognized borders" I'm sure you'll let me know...
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)There is no rational answer for what Israel claims as their need for security..that is what
you're stuck on.
Zeev Maoz is Professor of Political Science at the University of California, Davis. He is the former head of the Graduate School of Government and Policy and of the Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies at Tel Aviv University, as well as the former academic director of the M.A. Program at the Israeli Defense Forces' National Defense College.
Defending the Holy Land is the most comprehensive analysis to date of Israel's national security and foreign policy, from the inception of the State of Israel to the present. Author Zeev Maoz's unique double perspective, as both an expert on the Israeli security establishment and esteemed scholar of Mideast politics, enables him to describe in harrowing detail the tragic recklessness and self-made traps that pervade the history of Israeli security operations and foreign policy.
Most of the wars in which Israel was involved, Maoz shows, were entirely avoidable, the result of deliberate Israeli aggression, flawed decision-making, and misguided conflict management strategies. None, with the possible exception of the 1948 War of Independence, were what Israelis call "wars of necessity." They were all wars of choice-or, worse, folly.
Demonstrating that Israel's national security policy rested on the shaky pairing of a trigger-happy approach to the use of force with a hesitant and reactive peace diplomacy, Defending the Holy Land recounts in minute-by-minute detail how the ascendancy of Israel's security establishment over its foreign policy apparatus led to unnecessary wars and missed opportunities for peace.
http://www.amazon.com/Defending-Holy-Land-Critical-Analysis/dp/0472033417
shira
(30,109 posts)Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)idwiyo
(5,113 posts)
idwiyo
(5,113 posts)idwiyo
(5,113 posts)SA, UAE and a number of our dear dictator friends we supported and nurtured over the years...
shira
(30,109 posts)Their ayatollahs are Imperialists calling for an Islamic Caliphate.
They've armed Hamas with rockets that were used against Israeli civilians (Iran's little proxy war vs. Israel).
========
But you don't have a problem with them b/c Mr. Chavez was a good friend of Tehran.
idwiyo
(5,113 posts)Unlike you, I have problems with governments, not with ordinary people.
Be careful when you start throwing stones. US happily supported Taliban & OBL not that long ago. How is that any different than supporting Hamas? It's not a damn secret that Israel and US support anyone who can help to destabilise Iran, doesn't matter how unspeakably vile those people are.
BTW I don't have a single problem with Iran developing nuclear power for civilian use.
shira
(30,109 posts)...with them or vice-versa?
idwiyo
(5,113 posts)How they function internally is their own business. Of course I doubt very much that Saud family will last more than a week if US minds its own business and gets the fuck out of ME. Both US and my own UK government, mind you. Same for UAE.
And I'd like to point again, I don't have a problem with people, I have problem with respective governments.
Anymore questions?
idwiyo
(5,113 posts)ocpagu
(1,954 posts)Thankfully his ideas will live to inspire the oppressed and intimidated worldwide to rise. Wish there was a man like him in Israeli politics. A man with his heart in the right place, like he had, would do wonders for Palestines.
