How Obama Got Elected

[Kuya]

Understand that the reason anyone strikes down the idea that Obama will change token issues is because, as you may well agree, there is is strange euphoria in people that Obama is somehow different, not only because he's a Democrat but... who knows why, and even if Obama were somehow different, just as you say, there's very little he can do, but that's a problem with people thinking that their role ends at voting every 4 years.

His economic policies, in my opinion, are very unsatisfying.

edit: I know that there is very little the president can do, but that's also my point. I believe he should also be criticized thoroughly even though i know he won't really work out as well as some may think.

[Dimmauk]

I think its funny how people try to say shit about a someone that hasnt even taken office yet. Lets wait till after the first year, then talk shit.

[Cephius]

I think it's gotten a little out of hand how people view Obama. He inspires change, but the idea that he's going to take office and everything will turn to gold is getting a tad ridiculous. I don't think anything is going to change drastically in his first term, I really don't think 4 years is enough time to turn the economy around and reverse the damage Bush did to our foreign policy and relations.

That said, I think the one thing Obama has going for him is that he's a very intelligent man and he knows how to surround himself with good people. His campaign execution was near flawless, largely due to his staff which were groundbreaking in their fund raising techniques and grassroots organization. Obviously there's only so much one man can do, and he's not probably not even going to get to change as much as he wants to, but as long as he gets the country steered in the right direction I think that's all we can reasonably hope for.

His economic proposals seem decent to sketchy at this point, you really can't pass judgment on them until they're actually instituted and we can judge if they have any kind of effect or not. The man hasn't even taken office yet.. it's a bit premature to critique his policies.

[Zilong]

I'm personally is hating his stance on Israel right now, but I've gotten borderline anti-semitics the past week or so just by watching/reading the news.

But who knows, maybe it's that shit that you have to spew as a president, but the fact that the israeli are using his "I would fight back so my children can sleep peacefully without worrying about rockets" response as a motherfucking propaganda just doesn't bode well with me.

[Charla]

...there is is strange euphoria in people that Obama is somehow different, not only because he's a Democrat...

Even if he was just another Democrat, that would be plenty for me. Considering that nothing short of genocide is likely to settle the Israel issue in my lifetime, I refuse to hold failing to settle it against anyone.

[Zilong]

Apparently genocide is only genocide when ovens are involved.

[Elvis]

Naomi Klein recently wrote an article on what regular people could do to stop the apartheid in Israel-Palestine.

Israel: Boycott, Divest, Sanction

Important excerpt:

3. Why single out Israel when the United States, Britain and other Western countries do the same things in Iraq and Afghanistan? Boycott is not a dogma; it is a tactic. The reason the BDS strategy should be tried against Israel is practical: in a country so small and trade-dependent, it could actually work.

This method was used to help stop the apartheid in South Africa. It can happen again. You can't depend on our government to make a 'moral' judgment on this conflict considering our own track record/history/foreign policy.

[Kuya]

Even if he was just another Democrat, that would be plenty for me. Considering that nothing short of genocide is likely to settle the Israel issue in my lifetime, I refuse to hold failing to settle it against anyone.

I was more concerned with the "twenty billion bases from here to the moon" that the US seems to love to have and that is reasonably within his power to affect.

[Charla]

I was more concerned with the "twenty billion bases from here to the moon" that the US seems to love to have and that is reasonably within his power to affect.

Oh I'm sorry, I thought you were talking about geopolitics, not military policy.

Elvis, boycotting South Africa over Apartheid was all well and good, but there's a difference between that and destroying a reasonably stable nation for the sake of another less stable nation.

Now, if you think Israel could remain stable without something you'd call Apartheid of some sort, that's another matter.

[Elvis]

Oh I'm sorry, I thought you were talking about geopolitics, not military policy.

Elvis, boycotting South Africa over Apartheid was all well and good, but there's a difference between that and destroying a reasonably stable nation for the sake of another less stable nation.

Now, if you think Israel could remain stable without something you'd call Apartheid of some sort, that's another matter.

Huh? "Something I call Apartheid"?

I could care less about Israel's economic stability. Anyways, the boycott is not meant to destroy Israel. It's meant to apply enough pressure that they start treating the Palestinians like human beings.

Look it up yourself - describing Israel/Palestine as an apartheid State is not taboo. Everyone from Jimmy Carter to the most anti-Zionist academics/scholars have accepted that analogy. It's not even new. Israeli scholars/etc. have known this for a long time.

At the very least, Israel is a colonial-power/State in a post-colonial era in time.

EDIT:

In fact, Ronnie Kasrils, a prominent South African politician, said the architecture of segregation he saw in the West Bank and Gaza was "infinitely worse than apartheid".

[Kyreth]

At the very least, Israel is a colonial-power/State in a post-colonial era in time.

Except, of course that the people they're negotiating with have one pre-requisite... that Israel not exist at all.

Apartheid, you had a group of people that didn't want to remove South Africa from the map- they wanted equal rights. I'm all for Palestinan territory being treated as the sovereign nation it deserves to be.

This includes being invaded when they engage in attacking neighboring countries. Don't want the Israelis bombing and rolling tanks over your borders? STOP FUCKING SENDING SUICIDE BOMBERS AND ROCKETS OVER THEN.

Seriously. Do you see Israel bombing Egypt anytime lately? No. Why? They aren't blowing up Israelis, all the while saying "You shouldn't exist, we'll destroy you." They used to. The Israelis beat the shit out of them. They made peace and stopped. Now they're friendly neighbors.

It's not that fucking hard. Stop sending your kids, women, and men over with explosives strapped on, stop launching rockets at random population centers, just stop thinking that because you can blow up a few random Jews, eventually you'll get rid of them. Invading their country didn't do it, sending entire armies over didn't do it, all it did was encourage the Israelis to dig in harder and want land for buffer areas.

Eventually, the Palestinans will learn this and we'll have more peace in the Middle East and there will be a Palestine worth mentioning again. Or finally one of them will get an WMD, launch it from Gaza and Israel will glass the place and everyone there is fucked over, permamently.

[Elvis]

Except, of course that the people they're negotiating with have one pre-requisite... that Israel not exist at all.

Apartheid, you had a group of people that didn't want to remove South Africa from the map- they wanted equal rights. I'm all for Palestinan territory being treated as the sovereign nation it deserves to be.

This includes being invaded when they engage in attacking neighboring countries. Don't want the Israelis bombing and rolling tanks over your borders? STOP FUCKING SENDING SUICIDE BOMBERS AND ROCKETS OVER THEN.

Seriously. Do you see Israel bombing Egypt anytime lately? No. Why? They aren't blowing up Israelis, all the while saying "You shouldn't exist, we'll destroy you." They used to. The Israelis beat the shit out of them. They made peace and stopped. Now they're friendly neighbors.

It's not that fucking hard. Stop sending your kids, women, and men over with explosives strapped on, stop launching rockets at random population centers, just stop thinking that because you can blow up a few random Jews, eventually you'll get rid of them. Invading their country didn't do it, sending entire armies over didn't do it, all it did was encourage the Israelis to dig in harder and want land for buffer areas.

Eventually, the Palestinans will learn this and we'll have more peace in the Middle East and there will be a Palestine worth mentioning again. Or finally one of them will get an WMD, launch it from Gaza and Israel will glass the place and everyone there is fucked over, permamently.

Don't even know where to begin with your argument. It's completely ridiculous and inanely stupid - no offense.

Last time I checked, ISRAEL is bombing PALESTINE as we speak.

Palestinians do not have the capacity to bomb anyone in the manner you suggest.

Have you been living under a rock for the past 2-3 weeks?

As to suicide bombing - I think it's very ignorant to conflate an entire people with the actions of extremists.

Furthermore, your comments (one sentence in ALL CAPZ) on Palestinian terrorism are entirely superficial.

All violence has to be put in context. No one DEFENDS suicide bombing. I'm more concerned with the conflict in it's entirety and not just who engages in exotic murder (terrorism).

Israel kills 5 times as many civilians as the terrorists. Israel kills 10 times as many children as the terrorists.

And maybe, just MAYBE, the reason why people end up strapping a bomb to their chest is that they're seeing their land stolen and colonized right before their eyes. Suicide bombing in Palestine began in 1994. This occupation has been going on for 40 years now.

[Charla]

Suicide bombing in Palestine began in 1994. This occupation has been going on for 40 years now.

Exactly! How much of the current population of Palestine (and more specifically, the tiny fraction actively engaged in fighting Israel) was alive 40 years ago? (hint: I don't actually know, but I could take a guess). At this point, they're fighting for an idea (which is fine in and of itself, but not quite as defensible as fighting to protect something). Unfortunately, their first and possibly only goal is inherently unacceptable in my view, because it would involve replacing a more stable state with a less stable state. And all morality aside, that's bad. Please note that by stable, I mean politically, not economically. Sorry for the earlier confusion.

Furthermore, I should clarify that I don't question the Apartheid analogy, I'm questioning the viability of any other option. "Treating Palestinians like human beings" is great and all, but it doesn't provide a means of treating the (very) small portion of them that are also mass murderers like mass murderers. I'm not even talking about justice here, but merely containment. If there is a viable way to simultaneously prevent violence against relatively civilized Israeli people and provide human rights and political and economic stability to disenfranchised Palestinian people, that would be just wonderful and I wish all world leaders involved the best of luck with such a solution. Until then, I'm afraid I'll have to take the side of the more stable and, although I hesitate to use the term, more civilized nation.

[Elvis]

Exactly! How much of the current population of Palestine (and more specifically, the tiny fraction actively engaged in fighting Israel) was alive 40 years ago? (hint: I don't actually know, but I could take a guess). At this point, they're fighting for an idea (which is fine in and of itself, but not quite as defensible as fighting to protect something). Unfortunately, their first and possibly only goal is inherently unacceptable in my view, because it would involve replacing a more stable state with a less stable state. And all morality aside, that's bad. Please note that by stable, I mean politically, not economically. Sorry for the earlier confusion.

Furthermore, I should clarify that I don't question the Apartheid analogy, I'm questioning the viability of any other option. "Treating Palestinians like human beings" is great and all, but it doesn't provide a means of treating the (very) small portion of them that are also mass murderers like mass murderers. I'm not even talking about justice here, but merely containment. If there is a viable way to simultaneously prevent violence against relatively civilized Israeli people and provide human rights and political and economic stability to disenfranchised Palestinian people, that would be just wonderful and I wish all world leaders involved the best of luck with such a solution. Until then, I'm afraid I'll have to take the side of the more stable and, although I hesitate to use the term, more civilized nation.

I'm going to respond without citations. I've used sources in every other Israel-Palestine thread so I feel like I'm just regurgitating those posts.

@1st bolded text
Completely irrelevant. My point is that people living under occupation - surrounded by violence/discrimination/etc. - will react violently. There was a non-violent movement but Israel crushed it. This entire Hamas-Israel conflict is a joke. Israel essentially created Hamas. 20+ years ago Israel did the same thing they're doing now, to the PLO. The PLO was a secular organization. Yet, here we are now and they are giving Hamas all this shit for being an 'Radical Islamist organization'.

It's not about Islam/etc. It's about crushing the Palestinian resistance movement. Hamas - as bad as they are - are very popular. They provide a lot of social services. Much like Hezbollah.

Anyways, as I said, your statement is irrelevant. I don't think you know what life is like under occupation. There's plenty of dimensions to this. For example, I think only 2.5 percent of all Israeli soldiers who are charged with abuses against Palestinians in the OT, serve time - which even then is minimal.

There's also the water allocation. Israel siphons(correct word?) off the majority of the water (80%) - mostly from Palestinian land, the OT.

Then there's house demolitions/checkpoints/curfews/etc. etc. I would read B'tselem - the Israeli Center for Human Rights in the OT. All the abuses are documented there - by both sides.

@second bolded text

I'm confused, do you know what the Occupied Territories are? Or the 2-State Solution? Or the Arab League Proposal?

The settlement proposed by the Arab league is a return to the pre-June 1967 War borders. East Jerusalem as the capital. Etc.

It's not replacing an Israel for a Palestine. It's 2 states living side by side.

If you don't agree with international law or the world court then that's fine. We've already gone there before in other threads. No need to rehash.

@first italics

I don't like this term 'civilized'. It's so sanctimonious. As if Israel is burdened by these Arabs. These Arabs just came out of nowhere to trouble the poor Israelis. Anyways, I'd simply suggest you read more about the early history of the conflict. Or maybe about colonial conflicts in general? That's what this is.

One country is colonizing another. Terrorism is exotic violence. Israel kills vastly more innocent people than any of the Palestinian (not all Palestinians) terrorists.

So when it comes to the notion of tactics, I have to always provide my own view on terrorism. I won't here, I've done that before in other Israel-Palestine threads.

[Kuya]

Exactly! How much of the current population of Palestine (and more specifically, the tiny fraction actively engaged in fighting Israel) was alive 40 years ago? (hint: I don't actually know, but I could take a guess). At this point, they're fighting for an idea (which is fine in and of itself, but not quite as defensible as fighting to protect something). Unfortunately, their first and possibly only goal is inherently unacceptable in my view, because it would involve replacing a more stable state with a less stable state. And all morality aside, that's bad. Please note that by stable, I mean politically, not economically. Sorry for the earlier confusion.

Furthermore, I should clarify that I don't question the Apartheid analogy, I'm questioning the viability of any other option. "Treating Palestinians like human beings" is great and all, but it doesn't provide a means of treating the (very) small portion of them that are also mass murderers like mass murderers. I'm not even talking about justice here, but merely containment. If there is a viable way to simultaneously prevent violence against relatively civilized Israeli people and provide human rights and political and economic stability to disenfranchised Palestinian people, that would be just wonderful and I wish all world leaders involved the best of luck with such a solution. Until then, I'm afraid I'll have to take the side of the more stable and, although I hesitate to use the term, more civilized nation.

YouTube - Pro-Israel Rally For Attacking Gaza, NYC, 1-11-09

These people know what's going on.

[Anton]

http://leisureguy.wordpress.com/2008...us-citizenship

And about 37% of the senate is dual US/Israeli citizenship too, or so says the news guy at my cafe.

Something to consider

[Charla]

One country is colonizing another. Terrorism is exotic violence. Israel kills vastly more innocent people than any of the Palestinian (not all Palestinians) terrorists.

I don't like this term 'colonizing'. It's so sanctimonious. As if innocent people are currently being kicked off their land by these Israelis. These Jews just came out of nowhere to slaughter these poor Arabs. Anyways, I'd simply suggest you read more about the outcome of that open war, but I remember you telling me yourself that Israel won it. Or maybe winning a war doesn't count these days? Because that's what's going on, attempting to overturn the outcome of a war. It's true that the head count method of assigning guilt is popular, but I think it's also significant to note that Israel doesn't target civilians, but rather inflicts those vastly larger casualty numbers through collateral damage.

Now while that was fun, I think your more important point was the possibility of a two-state solution. As I said in my last post, I'm not arguing against a viable and peaceful two-state solution, I simply don't think that such a solution would be accepted in any form by Hamas or anyone who voted for Hamas (I hear there's a lot of them) at this point in the conflict. If, as they say, Hamas will settle for nothing less than the dissolution of Israel, then my use of the word 'replacement' stands. I hope I'm wrong, however, and I'm glad to see that you feel Hamas is overstating its own position.

[0ni0n]

Interesting list: people with dual Israeli/US citizenship � Later On

And about 37% of the senate is dual US/Israeli citizenship too, or so says the news guy at my cafe.

Something to consider

I'm not sure about the senate, but here's a list of people who hold dual citizenship in our current administration.

American / Isreali Dual Citizens in the American Government
Attorney General - Michael Mukasey
Head of Homeland Security - Michael Chertoff
Chairman Pentagon’s Defense Policy Board - Richard Perle
Deputy Defense Secretary (Former) - Paul Wolfowitz
Under Secretary of Defense - Douglas Feith
National Security Council Advisor - Elliott Abrams
Vice President Dick Cheney’s Chief of Staff (Former) - “Scooter” Libby
White House Deputy Chief of Staff - Joshua Bolten
Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs - Marc Grossman
Director of Policy Planning at the State Department - Richard Haass
U.S. Trade Representative (Cabinet-level Position) - Robert Zoellick
Pentagon’s Defense Policy Board - James Schlesinger
UN Representative (Former) - John Bolton
Under Secretary for Arms Control - David Wurmser
Pentagon’s Defense Policy Board - Eliot Cohen
Senior Advisor to the President - Steve Goldsmith
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary - Christopher Gersten
Assistant Secretary of State - Lincoln Bloomfield
Deputy Assistant to the President - Jay Lefkowitz
White House Political Director - Ken Melman
National Security Study Group - Edward Luttwak
Pentagon’s Defense Policy Board - Kenneth Adelman
Defense Intelligence Agency Analyst (Former) - Lawrence (Larry) Franklin
National Security Council Advisor - Robert Satloff
President Export-Import Bank U.S. - Mel Sembler
Deputy Assistant Secretary, Administration for Children and Families - Christopher Gersten
Assistant Secretary of Housing and Urban Development for Public Affairs
- Mark Weinberger
White House Speechwriter - David Frum
White House Spokesman (Former) - Ari Fleischer
Pentagon’s Defense Policy Board - Henry Kissinger
Deputy Secretary of Commerce - Samuel Bodman
Under Secretary of State for Management - Bonnie Cohen
Director of Foreign Service Institute - Ruth Davis

[Kuya]

As if innocent people are currently being kicked off their land by these Israelis.

lol

[Elvis]

I don't like this term 'colonizing'. It's so sanctimonious. As if innocent people are currently being kicked off their land by these Israelis. These Jews just came out of nowhere to slaughter these poor Arabs. Anyways, I'd simply suggest you read more about the outcome of that open war, but I remember you telling me yourself that Israel won it. Or maybe winning a war doesn't count these days? Because that's what's going on, attempting to overturn the outcome of a war. It's true that the head count method of assigning guilt is popular, but I think it's also significant to note that Israel doesn't target civilians, but rather inflicts those vastly larger casualty numbers through collateral damage.

Look, I was sincere. I meant what I said. I think it's sanctimonious of people in Israel or even here to go on and on about terrorism.

We don't ask ourselves why terrorism happens. If we do, the answer is trivialized.

For example, Iraq/Afghanistan has been - at some point - 'liberated' 3 times in the past century. First it was the British. Then the Russians. Then us. After we left, the Taliban comes in. Then we go into Iraq again. Now, we're in Afghanistan after the Taliban/Al Qaeda.

That region is violent and very poor. The wealth goes into the pockets of the corrupt leadership. Whether it's the family dictatorship in Saudi Arabia or the puppet governments in Jordan (Queen Youtube and King Playstation), etc.

Anyways, back to Palestine.

You can't mirror my post like that and make sense. First of all, it's true that Israel is colonizing Palestine. It's building settlements. It's stealing land by kicking Palestinians from their homes; their ancestral homes.

The last time we spoke about this subject, it boiled down to our respective moral and political values either conflicting or colluding over international law and World Court rulings.

It just so happens, that what I'm saying coincides with the latter 2 legal entities.

It is illegal to acquire land by war. It is illegal to transfer your population to another entities land. Those walls Israel builds for 'defense' are illegal. Check points - illegal. The occupation on the whole - illegal.

Now, I know you insist that because a country wins a war, they are entitled to reap the spoils. That is not a legal judgment but a moral one.

My reason for putting so much stock in international law is because we have had so much progressiveness in the past 100+ years or so. We have the International Declaration of Human Rights. We have the United Nations. We have all these rules and whatnot that are designed to improve the quality of life for not only individual people but countries as well.

I think it's very hypocritical of you to dismiss these international rules when you live well here in the US (or wherever) because of domestic progressiveness.

It's the same exact idea. All these revolutions are meant to make the world more civil. I think because we're such a strong country we don't expect to be conquered. We don't expect to have another country occupy us and take our land/etc.

So, it's convenient to say that about the Palestinians. They just happen to be fucked. Too bad. Well, we have rules now and sticking to those rules is how we should live. It protects everyone - obviously us too. Just because it's not likely we'd go through the same situation (someone beating us and occupying our land) doesn't mean we should dismiss the rules.

It's about principle and most of all - reciprocity.

As to the rest of your post - seriously, it's almost nonsensical.

And the last part I have in bold is just completely untrue.

I don't get why people take the moral high ground with this term, 'collateral damage.'

The unavoidable conclusion is that innocent people will die. The survivors don't give a fuck that you meant well. Who would? Does anyone expect that?

Israel killed 1000 civilians and 200-ish combatants in the last Lebanon War in 2006. They dropped 4 million cluster bomblets all over South Lebanon. This was the densest bombing of it's kind in history. People are still dying today as a result of the bombing.

I don't understand how that's not intentional. Of course, once again, this will just come down to your personal moral judgment. I think it's a disgusting display of disproportionate force.

Right now in Gaza, 300 children are dead. There are several stories that corroborate the view that Israel is not showing any interest in avoiding civilian casualties.

Anyways this is just rehashing an exchange we already had - the Israel thread that Churchill started a month or so ago I think.

Now while that was fun, I think your more important point was the possibility of a two-state solution. As I said in my last post, I'm not arguing against a viable and peaceful two-state solution, I simply don't think that such a solution would be accepted in any form by Hamas or anyone who voted for Hamas (I hear there's a lot of them) at this point in the conflict. If, as they say, Hamas will settle for nothing less than the dissolution of Israel, then my use of the word 'replacement' stands. I hope I'm wrong, however, and I'm glad to see that you feel Hamas is overstating its own position.

Wrong. Hamas has accepted the Arab League proposal.

Hamas is the democratically elected government of the Palestinians.

Just curious, do you know the background of the so-called 'peace process'? I do. So tell me the details. Show me proof that Hamas and the Palestinians don't want a 2 State solution.

All this - once again - SANCTIMONIOUS crying about Hamas wanting to destroy Israel is inane.

All militant nationalistic movements have employed terror. All militant nationalistic movements have articulated grandiose romantic notions of revolution in their charters/philosophy.

The early Zionists did it when Israel was formed.

Everyone from George Washington to Che Guevara have used the same sort of rhetoric and tactics.

In the end, Hamas - such as they are - accept the 2 State solution proposed by the Arab League.

The Palestinians were the ones making all the concessions - and Israel refused, with US support. The simple fact that Israel is continuing it's colonization while denying Palestinian self-determination is sufficient evidence.

Lastly, while Hamas or whatever terror group pops up this week claims to be dedicated to destroying Israel - Israel is successively destroying Palestine.

The words of Hamas and it's exotic violence (terrorism) versus the reality on the ground is an important distinction to make. There is a lot of blabbering about accepting Israel's "right to exist."

This is utter garbage. The Palestinians do not have to accept that. Just like the Native Americans do not have to accept the United States' right to exist.

They do have to accept that Israel is a FACT or that the United States is a FACT. Both are now countries. Well-established. I think it's reasonable to accept them as a fact of life. But to accept their RIGHT to exist? That's another matter.

The extermination and ethnic cleansing of the native population of the Americas was intrinsic to Manifest Destiny.

The ethnic cleansing of Historic Palestine was intrinsic to Zionism. That's well understood now. It's a fact that is bolstered by the ongoing treatment the Palestinians endure. Whether it's the Jews-only roads in the OT, in comparison to the 'paths' for the Palestinians OR the substantial difference in water allocation and seizing of Palestinian land. All these dimensions give context to what's happening - colonization.

Perhaps my argument is not convincing enough. All I can say about what YOU said is that there is no proof to support your assertions. Furthermore, we simply differ in our moral values. Specifically in the case of conquest.