If we don't want to involve ourselves fully, and we're not satisfied with what we're getting for what we're investing, then why not pull out fully, and leave them to their own devices, and stop moaning about what they do? If they decide to blow up Israelis, that's none of our business, and we should leave them to it. If the Israelis decide to blow up Palestinians, that's also none of our business, and we should leave them to it. If we're not going to do anything about it, stop the moral outrage, and just let them sort things out for themselves. As I've said before, I'd be quite happy with locking in everything and everyone to do with that region, save for those whom we actually need (ie. the oil countries), and letting them live with the consequences of their actions, away from us.
What legal or moral authority do EU and US have to do that? It would be seen as occupation and rightfully so.
The ability to do so. It wouldn't be seen as an occupation, as it will be a formal occupation, and eventual incorporation. Annexation in other words. It wouldn't be morally right, but it would at least be more honest than the tut-tutting and constant undermining of all sides that is currently happening.
Alternatively, as I've also suggested, we could fully pull out of all involvement in the region, and leave them to their games. Either would be better than what we have now.
well if a nation cannot create of itself a functioning nation state, and if the result is to export instability to its neighbours, then yes maybe the answer is annexation, but quite frankly who would be stupid enough to want the palestinians? (speaking from a geo-politics point of view).
Furunculus Maneuver: Adopt a highly logical position on a controversial subject where you cannot disagree with the merits of the proposal, only disagree with an opinion based on fundamental values. - Beskar
So you are saying to annex Israel .well if a nation cannot create of itself a functioning nation state, and if the result is to export instability to its neighbours, then yes maybe the answer is annexation
Yeah apart from the 67 borders , the 48 borders , the right of return , water rights , control of their borders and control of their money, control of the sea and air... but yeah apart from those little things they could have had everythingThey already could have had everything.![]()
I'm talking about Palestine, not Hamas. If we're not satisfied that we're getting good returns from our investment, take it over completely so the returns will be in our hands, rather than filtering through via some middlemen. Or else just stop investing, and cut off all contacts. At the moment, we're telling the Palestinians what to do, but we don't want to go the whole hog and admit we're telling them what to do, and instead pretend that it's all in their own hands. It was in their own hands, and they made a decision, but we're now telling them off for making said decision, and that they should make a different one instead. If we're going to do that, why not just take over the decisionmaking completely? As I said, at least it would be more honest than what we're currently doing.
How ?The BBC has always been biased towards palestine in the way it presents news coverage.
BTW could you explain yor "no" earlier since Israel fits your bill for annexation , perhaps thats just your bias though which is why you claim the BBC is biased .
Surely any reasonable person can see that most of the Israeli and Palestinian parties are an obstacle to peace .Surely any reasonable person can see that they are an obstacle for peace.
Last edited by Tribesman; 01-26-2009 at 16:53.
That is my perception having watched BBC reporting on israel/palestine for many years, a typical example of which is described here:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/damian_...k_what_happens
you asked if my comment might equally apply to israel, and i responded;no, indicating that i was talking specifically about palestine.
Last edited by Furunculus; 01-26-2009 at 17:29.
Furunculus Maneuver: Adopt a highly logical position on a controversial subject where you cannot disagree with the merits of the proposal, only disagree with an opinion based on fundamental values. - Beskar
Aye.
And they have constituencies, vested interests and bureaucratic power to help them stay in the saddle. And if those aren't enough, the 'enemy' can always be counted on to do something profoundly stupid to stoke up the fire and underpin the most radical and useless factions on both sides.
There is even a computer game about these aspects of the conflict: Peacemaker. Among other things, the game demonstrates that positive developments and deals in the Middle East are often blocked by internal divisions of the parties concerned, whereby the radical wings destroy whatever sensible initiative the moderate wings come up with.
The bloody trouble is we are only alive when we’re half dead trying to get a paragraph right. - Paul Scott
Bookmarks