View Full Version : Buckle up : Netanyahu wins Likud race, eyes PM role
Source (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070815/ap_on_re_mi_ea/israel_politics)
So you think Cheney and the Bush boys are hawks? Want mideast peace and a palastinian state?
Welcome to reality, and say hi to a Mr Moshe Feiglin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moshe_Feiglin), who said radicals were exclusive to Islam?
Devastatin Dave
08-15-2007, 16:30
Good, time to stop giving into TERRORISTS. [...] Everytime Israel gives into [...] TERRORISTS, it only causes more issues. The best solution for TERRORISM to still kill it. Its like cancer, you don't let it linger, you kill it. The same should be for this cancer.
[...] = edited by Ser Clegane
Good, time to stop giving into TERRORISTS. [...] Everytime Israel gives into [...] TERRORISTS, it only causes more issues. The best solution for TERRORISM to still kill it. Its like cancer, you don't let it linger, you kill it. The same should be for this cancer.
Olmert is the reason for this Likud was left for dead by sharon years ago, and if he didnt make such a mess out of the lebanon these right wingers wouldnt have been news worthy.
I'll leave the palestinian issue alone for now, but how many more "wipe them off the map" statements from Iran, and a budding nuke program do you think these two are going to put up with?
I dont think very many, and this might be a blessing for the U.S. as we can finally pull the hell out of the middle east and let them settle it once and for all.
Of course we will keep an arms broker on call, but time to let the israelies regain there mystique of superior armed forces.
Come on Odin, you know as well as the rest of us that we (good ol' US) won't leave the Middle East alone while there's still oil to be had. The prospect of that oil reaching a few million degrees and being heavily irradiated doesn't bode well for the average American and our gas-sucking SUVs, so you can bet we're going to stick around and keep sticking our noses in Israel and the rest of the ME's business for a long time coming.
Bleh.
Come on Odin, you know as well as the rest of us that we (good ol' US) won't leave the Middle East alone while there's still oil to be had. The prospect of that oil reaching a few million degrees and being heavily irradiated doesn't bode well for the average American and our gas-sucking SUVs, so you can bet we're going to stick around and keep sticking our noses in Israel and the rest of the ME's business for a long time coming.
I dont know Whacker I can afford 5-7 dollars a gallon, so fire it up. Perhaps thats exactly what we need is a boot in the butt to get us off oil. My personal preference would be to continue to buy it off of them long term, I just dont want the entagling military/political/aid/financial baggage that goes with it.
Let em laugh at the dumb fat americans, I dont care. I will happily buy there oil and let them solve thier internal socioligical and religon issues. I want no more part of this happy crap and netanhayu might just be the guy to releive us of the self imposed burdens.
But your point is fair, i dont think this will happen in 2008, but 2015? Sure, I honestly believe the middle east is on the brink of a major sectarian war (boy we stirred that pot well didnt we) and meantime as shiites are killing sunni's the israeli's radicalize with Likud and actually do something about Iran.
Those are all real possibilities (not certainties). Let them have at it, as long as the oil flows and everyone makes money from it all the better, I just dont want to be on the hook any more for aid, or military prescence.
Time to cut bait.
I dont know Whacker I can afford 5-7 dollars a gallon, so fire it up. Perhaps thats exactly what we need is a boot in the butt to get us off oil. My personal preference would be to continue to buy it off of them long term, I just dont want the entagling military/political/aid/financial baggage that goes with it.
Ugh, we're about the same when it comes to socioeconomic status I think, so we could swag that too. But that's just nuts. I'm still surprised people aren't complaining more with gas above $3/gal.
Let em laugh at the dumb fat americans, I dont care. I will happily buy there oil and let them solve thier internal socioligical and religon issues. I want no more part of this happy crap and netanhayu might just be the guy to releive us of the self imposed burdens.
As I'm sure you know the deal is that unrest and warfare would drive up oil prices, but as you said, you'd be willing to pay more for it. I guess I would also, but to a point.
If anything, this just proves that we need to be moving STRONGLY and PURPOSEFULLY towards a new energy/fuel solution that's viable and can be realized in the not-to-distant future.
But your point is fair, i dont think this will happen in 2008, but 2015? Sure, I honestly believe the middle east is on the brink of a major sectarian war (boy we stirred that pot well didnt we) and meantime as shiites are killing sunni's the israeli's radicalize with Likud and actually do something about Iran.
Bah, my opinion is still largely the same as yours though. I don't think we should be in that mess at all, we have enough of our own problems to sort out.
Those are all real possibilities (not certainties). Let them have at it, as long as the oil flows and everyone makes money from it all the better, I just dont want to be on the hook any more for aid, or military prescence.
Time to cut bait.
Couldn't have put it any better myself. The thing is I don't see us doing that anytime in the near future at all. Who knows, perhaps President Hillary will do something different.
Did I just say that? I need to go bleach my skin until it falls off again.
I'm still surprised people aren't complaining more with gas above $3/gal.
they arent complaining because the vast majority can afford it.
As I'm sure you know the deal is that unrest and warfare would drive up oil prices, but as you said, you'd be willing to pay more for it. I guess I would also, but to a point.
yes drive up oil prices, perhaps to the point to make alternative fule sources viable ? :idea2:
The thing is I don't see us doing that anytime in the near future at all. Who knows, perhaps President Hillary will do something different.
I have voted for democrats in the past (clinton 96, Kerry04) and will again if I have too. Right now the democrats are offering a better choice anyway, a clear majority in the house, a pending clear majority in the senate.
I'll never get a candidate that has my complete set of values, but the republicans have had thier go at it, with clear majorities for 6 years and they made a mess, time for the next set of clowns to have a go.
In all fairness, i think Mr Clinton was a scumbag, but I made good coin during his presidency, and I think that his wife (with Mr obama as vice pres) would happily deal with Iran or any other necessity that comes along.
Devastatin Dave
08-15-2007, 20:19
Israle should not deal with TERRORISTS, they should kill TERRORISTS regardless if they are born into it or trained into it. Even weak-kneed eruo-weenies living in Belgium shouldn't have a problem with that.
Israle should not deal with TERRORISTS, they should kill TERRORISTS regardless if they are born into it or trained into it.
I agree, going further they should attack and disable states that sponsor and support terrorists too, not in the half assed manner we have but in a decisive finality that leaves nothing left to the imagination as to the current and future intent when it comes to the agents of terror.
Netanyahu is your boy then Dave, he makes cheney look like a dove.
Devastatin Dave
08-15-2007, 20:51
.
Netanyahu is your boy then Dave, he makes cheney look like a dove.
That shouldn't be too hard since Cheney's been swinging from the Saudi's raisin sacks since the 70's. Total war is the only way to solve the Middle East issue.
That shouldn't be too hard since Cheney's been swinging from the Saudi's raisin sacks since the 70's.
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
I love english :2thumbsup:
Tribesman
08-15-2007, 21:14
Israle should not deal with TERRORISTS, they should kill TERRORISTS regardless if they are born into it or trained into it. Even weak-kneed eruo-weenies living in Belgium shouldn't have a problem with that.
Israel does deal with terrorists , it has always dealt with terrorists , it will always deal with terrorists .
The only other option would be genocide , and for most people that concept is just soooooo last century Dave .
Perhaps you might feel more at home in Kigali :yes:
Lord Winter
08-15-2007, 21:20
Wow you know you've been spending to much time at the Org when you think that this has to do with a mafia game when you see it from the main fourms.
Don Corleone
08-15-2007, 21:28
A lot of the discussion in this thread seems to take it as a given that regardless of who they field as a candidate, Likud will retain majority rule in Israel and will continue to field the Prime Minister. I suppose that by electing Netenyahu as their party leader, they will watch their majority (through coalition) shrink and you'll see a Labour government in Israel sometime soon. Likud's still trying to hold onto allies after the debacle in Lebanon (one thing everyone can agree on with regards to last summer's hostilities, regardless of their outlook, was it was no net positive for Israel).
Personally, I think Labour or some other large party has a great shot at forming a coalition that might actually make some progress. The biggest obstacle Ehud Barack faced was that the had to deal with Arafat, who let's call a spade a spade, had a vested interest in seeing the hostilities continue. Now that Fatah's one-party monopoly has been challenged, they might be more willing to take a less extremist negotiating position and actually make a few concessions of their own. Hamas on the other hand... no way, no how. You can't negotiate with somebody that declares you have no right to exist.... in Israel, in USA or anywhere else, simply because of your genetic makeup.
I don't know, Don. My gut feeling is that peace between Israel and Palestine will probably come through Likud and Hamas negotiating; not Labour and the PLO. At least that's the lesson I draw from Northern Ireland. It's only the hardliners who can bring the gunmen and other troublemakers with them; and when it comes to negotiations, people want hardliners to negotiate for them (as they are more likely to play hardball to get a better deal).
It won't happen any time soon, though, sadly.
Don Corleone
08-15-2007, 21:41
Why does everyone continue to hold up Northern Ireland as a perfect example of how to resolve a conflict between armed indigenous factions? Last I checked, the IRA were still armed. Is that the sign of a healthy, functioning, peaceful democracy, armed brigands?
What's more, did anybody get anything they wanted out of those negotiations other than the IRA? The British are removing themselves (you could argue that they actually are getting what they want), the Orange are seeing a loss of power (not that that's a bad thing), but did anybody gain anything other than the IRA & Sinn Fein?
English assassin
08-15-2007, 22:09
Why does everyone continue to hold up Northern Ireland as a perfect example of how to resolve a conflict between armed indigenous factions? Last I checked, the IRA were still armed. Is that the sign of a healthy, functioning, peaceful democracy, armed brigands?
What's more, did anybody get anything they wanted out of those negotiations other than the IRA? The British are removing themselves (you could argue that they actually are getting what they want), the Orange are seeing a loss of power (not that that's a bad thing), but did anybody gain anything other than the IRA & Sinn Fein?
I'm not entirely sure what you mean by armed. Officially, they aren't. Unofficially I don't imagine everything was decommissioned, but its not being used. The IRA is still around as a criminal gang, but really, this is quite a step forward.
But your second paragraph contradicts the first. The English/Scots /welsh are not being shot at and are coming home, the catholics have power, the unionists don't, Paisley and McGuinness are laughing at each others jokes (I think, or did I dream that), what's not to like here?
As for Econ21, its the same point as Nixon getting out of Vietnam, really. A democrat would have been crucified as a burger eating surrender monkey. PLO would have been the right partner in the 70's, mind, but secular nationalism seems to be dead in palestine.
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
I love daveglish :2thumbsup:
Fixed it. But I agree :beam:
Don Corleone
08-15-2007, 22:14
I guess my point is that from this outsider's view, it looks as though the IRA let off enough bombs to get everyone else to cave. Yes, things are calmer, because everyone gave Gerry & his boys what they wanted. We can all talk about the miracles of diplomacy, Clinton and George Mitchell included, but at the end of the day, it all rings rather hollow to me.
Aside from which, Israel and Northern Ireland don't equate. The Catholics weren't fighting to exterminate every last Protestant (nor vice versa). They both were fighting for political power. The Israelis certainly mirror that sort of struggle, but the Palestinians aren't fighting for autonomy, they're fighting for the right to kill Jews and/or drive them out of the Middle East (and according to Hizbollah and Hamas, out of the US, once they're done in Israel).
English assassin
08-15-2007, 22:20
No disrespect Don, but I wonder if you aren't maybe looking at the terrorist thing in the same light as conventional war, where there has to be a winner and a loser and its just as well if we all agree who is who?
Sure, we never "defeated" the IRA, and Gerry Adams never said sorry and that he wished he hadn't planted all those bombs (as far as I know). But we are all in a better place than before and to my mind that's what matters.
Not that it does matter but my feeling is very much NOT that the IRA bombed their way to victory, more that after 30 odd years of each side bashing the other and no one making much progress, the key players had got old enough to look each other in the eye and say, this is all a bit stupid, isn't it? Lets try something else.
I mean, we Brits may be a bit slow on the uptake compared to those clever continental jonnies, but if we were going to cave in in the face of a bombing campaign, even we would get the message some time before the 30 year mark.
Tribesman
08-15-2007, 23:16
I'm not entirely sure what you mean by armed. Officially, they aren't.
Officialy they are , legally armed .
A number of handguns were not decommisioned and are retained and licensed for personal protection .
Officially the verdict is that some weapons were taken by the nutters who didn't want peace , but since they are pretty much out of the loop after Omagh they have slid into irrelevance , terrorists without support tend to be very marginalised , a lesson that can be applied to the moderate and hardline elements in the mid-east . Get a deal with the people that can be dealt with , get a deal that most ordinary people can support , and the hardline nutters wither away .
BTW most of the "protestant" groups are still armed , illegaly armed , but apart from the occasional shooting of policemen they are now just killing each other over who runs which drugs or protection racket .
Aside from which, Israel and Northern Ireland don't equate. The Catholics weren't fighting to exterminate every last Protestant (nor vice versa).
Well perhaps I am mistaken , but during the usual cultural celebrations up there on the 12th they had lots of flags with K.A.T. written on them , perhaps those initials mean something other than what they mean eh :inquisitive:
Also Don , can you re-read the charters again ,you know the floridly written pieces of crap from the actual groups not some summation off just any old website , as you seem to be making the same mistake you have made before .
IRA= apples
Middle east= oranges
Lets get back to the oranges.
As far as israel goes lets use some numbers and see if we can progress this a touch further as to where the political landscape is heading.
According to a survey conducted for the Center for the Campaign Against Racism and published on March 20th, 2007:
Culture: 37 % of the Israeli Jews polled think that the Arabic culture is inferior to the Jewish one.
Arabophobia: Each time overhearing someone speaking Arabic, 50 % of Israeli Jews feel fear and 31 % feel hatred.
Security: 56 % of the Israeli Jews think that Israeli Arabs pose a security problem to the State of Israel.
Segregation: 55 % of the Israeli Jews wish that the Jews and Arabs are kept apart in the places of leisure.
Citizenship: 40 % of the Israeli Jews think that Israeli Arabs should be deprived of their right to vote.
Source (http://www.voltairenet.org/article146943.html)
I only bolded 1 item, but these statistics are hardly pro labor, pro negotiation. Remember a month or so ago the Saudi peace deal offer? Israel isnt intrested, and anyone want to take a stab at what Olmerts popularity rating is?
Bet a pint its lower the Bush.
Have a look at this little gem too.
The War Debate on Iran (http://www.voltairenet.org/article143410.html)
The article above if you take the time to go through is a reall hoot on many levels. Mulder and Scully might take it on as a new X files movie, but I suspect there are shreads of truth in it.
an excerpt: Failing to secure a US attack on Iran, Israel constantly accelerates its plans for war with Iran and Syria. Once again the Lobby mounted a massive, sustained propaganda campaign that claimed that Iran’s President Ahmadinejad, in a speech on October 2005, declared, «Israel must be wiped off the map.» The Lobby totally falsified the English translation. In fact the Iranian President never used the word ’map’ or the term ’wiped off’ [3]. What he actually said was, «[T]his regime that is occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time.» Clearly he was referring to a regime that illegally occupies a city by military conquest, that reduces its own Arab citizens to discrimination and poverty and which colonizes the occupied territories. In other words he calls for the disappearance of a racist colonial regime, not the destruction or removal of the Jews in Israel. These and other deliberate ’mistranslations’ are part of the Lobby’s effort to build up worldwide opprobrium against Iran and to stigmatize Iran with the worst ’holocaust-denier’ features, in order to present an Israeli attack as an act against an ’Islamo-fascist’ rogue state. From January to March 2006, the Israeli military high command set in motion war plans to attack Iran — postponed temporarily as Washington went through the diplomatic motions. In September, the London Times (September 3, 2006) reported that, «Israel is preparing for a possible war with both Iran and Syria.» According to Israeli political and military sources, «The challenge from Iran and Syria is now top of the Israeli defense (sic) agenda.»
Iran makes the jews nervous, and Olmert scares them even more because he cant handle lebanon. Likud and the right are on the way back in in Israel and that means they might actually do something about Iran.
Hopefully it will be after a nice wihdraw from Iraq by the U.S. and as the poop gets deeper and deeper we can smile politiely, offer some humility and defer the matter to the prolific UN
I guess my point is that from this outsider's view, it looks as though the IRA let off enough bombs to get everyone else to cave. Yes, things are calmer, because everyone gave Gerry & his boys what they wanted. We can all talk about the miracles of diplomacy, Clinton and George Mitchell included, but at the end of the day, it all rings rather hollow to me.
The IRA wanted a united Ireland. Last time, I looked, they ain't got it.
What did people in the UK mainland want? To be honest, I don't think they cared much about Northern Ireland except that they wanted the bombing and shooting to stop. When was the last IRA bomb let off? A decade or so, I guess.
If any side caved, the IRA did. They gave up terrorism. They recognised the status quo, which is that Northern Ireland is part of the UK and are now in government helping to administer it.
I am not sure what the UK gave up?
From an insider (UK mainland) point of view, it looks to me as if the UK security forces infilitrated, grassed up, locked up and shot up enough IRA men to make them decide that letting off bombs was not going to get the UK to cave (ie to get out of Northern Ireland). That was the stick side: terrorism was not being defeated, but it was fought into a stalemate and made to seem politically bearable indefinitely (unlike, say, occupation in Iraq).
The "carrot side" for Sinn Fein/IRA was the realisation that the demographics were moving in favour of the nationalist community and that the nationalist politics were moving in favour of Sinn Fein rather than the non-violent nationalist parties. Sinn Fein/IRA realised that by seeking Irish unity peacefully through the ballot box, it was conceivable at some stage that they might get it.
I suppose that is what the UK gave up: it gave up its claim to perpetual sovereignty by saying that if a majority in Northern Ireland voted for unification, it would get it. But to most mainland Brits, that probably is not much - we would not want to hold on to a violently rebellious territory where the majority wanted out. It is hard enough holding onto one where a minority want out.
The Loyalists probably gave up more: as well as the possibility of eventually having to enter a united Ireland, they have to stomach powersharing with the Nationalists and what is worse with the Nationalists who have been bombing them for the last 30 years. But peace is probably worth that.
Aside from which, Israel and Northern Ireland don't equate. The Catholics weren't fighting to exterminate every last Protestant (nor vice versa). They both were fighting for political power. The Israelis certainly mirror that sort of struggle, but the Palestinians aren't fighting for autonomy, they're fighting for the right to kill Jews and/or drive them out of the Middle East (and according to Hizbollah and Hamas, out of the US, once they're done in Israel).
I agree, they don't equate - for example, you can't understand Northern Ireland without realising that there are at least three parties involved: the UK mainland; the Loyalists in Northern Ireland; and the Nationalists in Northern Ireland. (I suppose we should add a fourth - Ireland itself). For that to equate to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, you'd have to imagine that the Israeli settlers lived in the occupied territories for another 300 years and outnumbered the Palestinians.
But my analogy with Northern Ireland was not meant to be exact. It was meant to make some general points. For example, that if you want peace, you might eventually have to negotiate with the nasty chaps who want to kill you rather than the friendly chaps who don't.
A lot of the discussion in this thread seems to take it as a given that regardless of who they field as a candidate, Likud will retain majority rule in Israel and will continue to field the Prime Minister. I suppose that by electing Netenyahu as their party leader, they will watch their majority (through coalition) shrink and you'll see a Labour government in Israel sometime soon. Likud's still trying to hold onto allies after the debacle in Lebanon (one thing everyone can agree on with regards to last summer's hostilities, regardless of their outlook, was it was no net positive for Israel).
Kadima is still the party in power, not Likud- isn't it? Ditto for the Lebanon action.
Devastatin Dave
08-16-2007, 04:31
IRA= apples
Middle east= oranges
Excellent post.:yes:
Don Corleone
08-16-2007, 05:03
Also Don , can you re-read the charters again ,you know the floridly written pieces of crap from the actual groups not some summation off just any old website , as you seem to be making the same mistake you have made before .
Oh no you don't. Last time this came up, you claimed that Hamas and Hizbollah had nothing against Jews in general, just the State of Israel. And I showed you that in their charters and in speeches by their leaders, they are talking about the elimination of Jews worldwide. And you said "bah, they don't really mean it". If you want to make a point that I misread their charters, go do your own research. To me, when somebody has a call for genocide written into their charter (the equivalent of the US having article 3 in the Constitution calling for the extermination of all Celtic peoples, wherever they reside), I damn well take them seriously at their word.
As for the K.A.T.... T=taig (sp)? I never said the Protestants didn't have it in for the Catholics. I said their avowed goal was not the worldwide eradication of Catholics, they just wanted to squash them locally.
Tribesman
08-16-2007, 17:02
Yeah yeah yeah Don , explain article 31 perhaps:book:
The bit you refer to is the end of days bull where it says all non muslims will be killed in the great struggle , just like other religeons have the same thing in theirs where all gentiles or all non christians must perish for big party ....
Nice try , though I had expected better .
Don Corleone
08-16-2007, 19:52
Yeah yeah yeah Don , explain article 31 perhaps:book:
The bit you refer to is the end of days bull where it says all non muslims will be killed in the great struggle , just like other religeons have the same thing in theirs where all gentiles or all non christians must perish for big party ....
Nice try , though I had expected better .
The Islamic Resistance Movement is a humanistic movement. It takes care of human rights and is guided by Islamic tolerance when dealing with the followers of other religions. It does not antagonize anyone of them except if it is antagonized by it or stands in its way to hamper its moves and waste its efforts.
Under the wing of Islam, it is possible for the followers of the three religions - Islam, Christianity and Judaism - to coexist in peace and quiet with each other. Peace and quiet would not be possible except under the wing of Islam. Past and present history are the best witness to that.
It is the duty of the followers of other religions to stop disputing the sovereignty of Islam, because the day these followers should take over there will be nothing but carnage, displacement and terror. Everyone of them is at variance with his fellow-religionists, not to speak about followers of other religionists. Past and present history are full of examples to prove this fact.
"They will not fight against you in a body, except in fenced towns, or from behind walls. Their strength in war among themselves is great: thou thinkest them to be united; but their hearts are divided. This, because they are people who do not understand." (The Emigration - verse 14).
Islam confers upon everyone his legitimate rights. Islam prevents the incursion on other people's rights. The Zionist Nazi activities against our people will not last for long. "For the state of injustice lasts but one day, while the state of justice lasts till Doomsday."
"As to those who have not borne arms against you on account of religion, nor turned you out of your dwellings, Allah forbiddeth you not to deal kindly with them, and to behave justly towards them; for Allah loveth those who act justly." (The Tried - verse 8).
Emphasis mine. In other words, any place in the world that muslims don't rule under Islamic law is subject to violence and terror. Look, I know your argument Tribesman... yeah, they say they mean to kill everyone that doesn't agree with them, but they don't really mean it, it's just propaganda ... based on their actions, I actually think they do. Watch their television. Listen to their radio. Read their newspapers. Hell, go to their children's centers.... there is nothing but hatred and violence for non-muslims from these people. You'd be one of the first lined up against the wall when they get what they eventually want.
Banquo's Ghost
08-16-2007, 20:01
What seems to be missed in the discussion so far is that the Israeli electorate is traditionally quite moderate, and like all mature electorates is quite interested in economic issues rather than exclusively obsessed with terrorism. They like jobs, pay rises, tax cuts and public services along with the rest of us.
Netanyahu is an arch pragmatist and knows that he only has a chance to get Likud elected again if he can appeal to moderates. That's why he's more concerned about Feiglin's showing than anyone. PR means the nutters have proportionally more power, and the voters know this and moderate the risk.
As noted earlier, Kadima was formed by Sharon precisely because he saw Likud being taken over by the hard-line conservatives typified by Feiglin. Like most lurches to the extremes, this made Likud unelectable in the future. Sadly, Olmert ruined the Kadima experiment and Labour hasn't found a strong leader to differentiate itself sufficiently.
Netanyahu is not some wild-eyed "kill 'em all" conservative - he's very shrewd and knows his countrymen and their concerns.
What seems to be missed in the discussion so far is that the Israeli electorate is traditionally quite moderate, and like all mature electorates is quite interested in economic issues rather than exclusively obsessed with terrorism. They like jobs, pay rises, tax cuts and public services along with the rest of us.
Netanyahu is an arch pragmatist and knows that he only has a chance to get Likud elected again if he can appeal to moderates. That's why he's more concerned about Feiglin's showing than anyone. PR means the nutters have proportionally more power, and the voters know this and moderate the risk.
As noted earlier, Kadima was formed by Sharon precisely because he saw Likud being taken over by the hard-line conservatives typified by Feiglin. Like most lurches to the extremes, this made Likud unelectable in the future. Sadly, Olmert ruined the Kadima experiment and Labour hasn't found a strong leader to differentiate itself sufficiently.
Netanyahu is not some wild-eyed "kill 'em all" conservative - he's very shrewd and knows his countrymen and their concerns.
Excellent post.
:medievalcheers:
Don Corleone
08-16-2007, 20:11
Yes, great post Banquo. So do you think the way forward over there is for somebody slight-right like Netanyahu or slight-left, like Barack to try to form a centrist coalition? From what I remember, even on economic policies, Barak was a pretty reasonable fellow, at least for a Labour guy.
Tribesman
08-16-2007, 20:17
Emphasis mine. In other words, any place in the world that muslims don't rule under Islamic law is subject to violence and terror.
Actually Don it says that it is the other religeons that do the violence and terror when they rule Islamic lands .
Funny isn't it .
Not only that but if you go to the bit following what you emphasised it completely ignores Muslim/Muslim fighting .
Like I said it is a floridly written piece of crap , but it doesn't say what you claimed it says does it .
Don Corleone
08-16-2007, 20:46
It is the duty of the followers of other religions to stop disputing the sovereignty of Islam, because the day these followers should take over there will be nothing but carnage, displacement and terror.
Let's dissect this statement, shall we?
The first part,
It is the duty of the followers of other religions to stop disputing the sovereignty of Islam, is pretty clear right? Or are you contending that by this they do not mean that other religions must take a subservient role.
The problem part of the statment comes here:
because the day these followers should take over there will be nothing but carnage, displacement and terror. You claim that by this statement, the authors intended to convey that they meant that non-muslims always cause violence when they rule, even between each other. I claim it is a threat, that what they mean is that unless a muslim state is declared, violence and mayhem must be the order of the day. I would admit, due to the vague wording, either interpreation would be valid.
Banquo's Ghost
08-16-2007, 20:56
So do you think the way forward over there is for somebody slight-right like Netanyahu or slight-left, like Barack to try to form a centrist coalition? From what I remember, even on economic policies, Barak was a pretty reasonable fellow, at least for a Labour guy.
I'm not convinced anyone really knows how the political landscape will arrange itself as Olmert's regime withers. To make any inroads into the Palestinian problem, either party will need a strong, relatively unsullied leader and there's precious few of those around - neither Barak nor Netanyahu is the man, IMO. Probably why Olmert is still in office (not in power) even with an 8% approval rating (and I understand his mother is also planning to jump ship soon :wink:).
Not that it matters - until the Palestinians sort themselves out, there's no-one to talk with, and until the USA gets a new president, there's no power broker.
This is a thoughtful editorial from Haaretz (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/894038.html) that shows Netanyahu's challenges. Likud is by no means an electable party yet.
Even weak-kneed eruo-weenies living in Belgium shouldn't have a problem with that.
~:confused:
We don't have weak knees...
Evidence A (http://fr.youtube.com/watch?v=ojT_BRG3xew&mode=related&search=)
Evidence B (http://fr.youtube.com/watch?v=iGUyEcZDryE&mode=related&search=)
Evidence C (http://fr.youtube.com/watch?v=IUbh_FCo8QU)
Tribesman
08-16-2007, 21:56
You claim that by this statement, the authors intended to convey that they meant that non-muslims always cause violence when they rule, even between each other. I claim it is a threat, that what they mean is that unless a muslim state is declared, violence and mayhem must be the order of the day. I would admit, due to the vague wording, either interpreation would be valid.
No Don , thatimplies that it is when others take over Muslim lands and dispute their soveriegnty . The variance with fellow religionists bit is that they fight each other over who gets to take over the lands .
History does support that doesn't it .:yes:
Don Corleone
08-16-2007, 22:05
No Don , thatimplies that it is when others take over Muslim lands and dispute their soveriegnty . The variance with fellow religionists bit is that they fight each other over who gets to take over the lands .
History does support that doesn't it .:yes:
I'm not going to continue to argue this one with you. You interpret their statements to mean they're a bunch of freedom fighters that are just looking for their own little corner of the world. I interpret their statements to mean that they have a chip on their shoulders that's a little bigger than the Levant. We're not going to sway each other on it, so let's just agree to disagree. All the smileys in the world aren't going to sway me to your side, but by all means, keep trying amigo. ~:pat:
Tribesman
08-16-2007, 22:27
I'm not going to continue to argue this one with you. You interpret their statements to mean they're a bunch of freedom fighters that are just looking for their own little corner of the world. I interpret their statements to mean that they have a chip on their shoulders that's a little bigger than the Levant. We're not going to sway each other on it, so let's just agree to disagree. All the smileys in the world aren't going to sway me to your side, but by all means, keep trying amigo.
No Don I am not trying to sway you to thinking they are a nice bunch of people , mostly they are nuts , I am just saying that it doesn't say what you had claimed it said .
It's that simple .
Not that it matters - until the Palestinians sort themselves out, there's no-one to talk with, and until the USA gets a new president, there's no power broker.
Lets hope the one we get next allows nature to take its course and not broker anything.
This is a thoughtful editorial from Haaretz (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/894038.html) that shows Netanyahu's challenges. Likud is by no means an electable party yet.
Decent read but rather simplistic to the dynamics at work here. Most governments move to the center for the general election, but with 23% of Likud moving to the far right its not just going to go away politely with some TV commercials.
Likud can move to the center, but Netanyahu in the past has not been bashful about pressing forward with continued occupation of Palestine.
And then there is that little bugger Iran. Israel isnt alone in worrying about thier intentions and while the US is bogged down in Iraq there going to have to slog through it alone should the nuclear issue continue to move forward (all indications are its a go).
Netanyahu might be centerist for the good of the party but he has hawkish leanings, and a radical right wing element to his party thats more then a dull snore in the back of the assembly.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.