Netanyahu Calls On World To Halt Iran's March Of Conquest And Terror

Nodin

Icepick wrote: »

Lying again. The Palestinian population within Israel is growing too.
Here is the graph again:

I'm sorry but there seems to be some willfull misunderstanding going on here. In the areas I've mentioned, the Palestinian population is moved out by various methods to facilitate the construction of settlements and the expansion of the colonist population. It's fairly clearly cut, and I'm not sure what saying "the Palestinian population is growing" repeatedly is supposed to achieve.

You might actually engage with the information provided
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=94759401&postcount=347

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=94760076&postcount=348

Just a little Samba

Icepick wrote: »

Lying again. The Palestinian population within Israel is growing too.
Here is the graph again:

You mean the arab Israeli population inside Israel is rising? As in, non-Jewish Israeli citizens?
What has that got to do with the ongoing land grabs in the West Bank and Palestinian East Jerusalem?

PopePalpatine

From the looks of that graph, it could be explained by a slightly higher birthrate for Arabs than Jews.

Just a little Samba

PopePalpatine wrote: »

From the looks of that graph, it could be explained by a slightly higher birthrate for Arabs than Jews.

I still fail to see how the demographics of Israeli changing in a fashion which is consistent with everything we know about demographics and birthrates on an international level, ie poorer ethnic groups tend to have higher birth rates and a younger average age than more wealthy ethnic groups in general, has anything to do with the blatant and unashamed ethnic cleansing of the West Bank and Palestinian East Jeresulam.

If anyone knows please feel free to let me in on the secret here.

It's not like the leader of Israel said openly in the media last week that he plans on expanding settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem after being re-elected or anything.

Oh wait, yes he did.

Nodin

Just a little Samba wrote: »

I still fail to see how the demographics of Israeli changing in a fashion which is consistent with everything we know about demographics and birthrates on an international level, ie poorer ethnic groups tend to have higher birth rates and a younger average age than more wealthy ethnic groups in general, has anything to do with the blatant and unashamed ethnic cleansing of the West Bank and Palestinian East Jeresulam.

If anyone knows please feel free to let me in on the secret here.

It's not like the leader of Israel said openly in the media last week that he plans on expanding settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem after being re-elected or anything.

Oh wait, yes he did.

And indeed that's what been happening anyway, so whiles its "news" its not exactly new.

Karl Stein

The Israelis vacated Sinai because the Americans told them to.

Gringo180

jank wrote: »

In 2004 Israeli's gave back land to the Palestinians

How can you give back something that doesn't belong to you? Israel is a terrorist state and at the moment are being governed by a maniac.

What sort of civilised democracy targets civilian infrastructure in the way they do? Why aren't they held to task for the war crimes they commit?

I don't see how any decent human being can defend what Israel has done and are continuing to do in Gaza, The West Bank and East Jerusalem.

JRant

jank wrote: »

In summary.. Israel and USA are totally responsible for the current state of the Middle East. No mention on the elephant in the room, that is Islam and the more extreme versions of it? No? Especially the long running 1000 year old Sunni vs Shia rivalry? Israel to blame for that too?

I think you are giving these countries far too much credit in how they can influence an entire region.

Sorry jank, I completely missed this post.

No, I do not think that the US and Isreal are totally responsable for the current state of the region. Never said they did. They do however need to accept a large proportion of responsibility for the current climate.

Islam is not the elephant in the room at all. The West has been fighting Islam for centuries. From the crusaders to the Moors.

SeanW

Nodin wrote: »

.................and to follow on from Post 347 with a further example

"A hard-hitting EU report on Jerusalem warns that the city has reached a dangerous boiling point of “polarisation and violence” not seen since the end of the second intifada in 2005.

Calling for tougher European sanctions against Israel over its continued settlement construction in the city – which it blames for exacerbating recent conflict – the leaked document paints a devastating picture of a city more divided than at any time since 1967, when Israeli forces occupied the east of the city.
........................

Ethnic cleansing, clear as day.

Yeah, the Israelis are evil monsters trying to "ethnically cleanse" "Palestine" of Arabs and Muslims ...

Oh wait - the above is demonstrably false by looking at the history of Arab citizens of Israel. Not only is Israels population 20% arab (and 5% others) leaving the so-called Jewish state only about 75% Jewish (and falling every year), but Arabic is an official working language of Israel - many road signs are trilngual - Hebrew first, Arabic second and English third). Israeli Arabs have served at very high levels in every major institution of Israel from its military and municipal police forces, through the Knessett to all important judicial bodies.

If I supported Israel because I liked the idea of ethnic cleansing (I don't), I'd be looking for my (figurative) money back, because if their objective is to have no Arabs in lands claimed by Israel they're doing a pretty piss-poor job of it.

end of the road

SeanW wrote: »

Yeah, the Israelis are evil monsters trying to "ethnically cleanse" "Palestine" of Arabs and Muslims ...

Oh wait - the above is demonstrably false by looking at the history of Arab citizens of Israel. Not only is Israels population 20% arab (and 5% others) leaving the so-called Jewish state only about 75% Jewish (and falling every year), but Arabic is an official working language of Israel - many road signs are trilngual - Hebrew first, Arabic second and English third). Israeli Arabs have served at very high levels in every major institution of Israel from its military and municipal police forces, through the Knessett to all important judicial bodies.

If I supported Israel because I liked the idea of ethnic cleansing (I don't), I'd be looking for my (figurative) money back, because if their objective is to have no Arabs in lands claimed by Israel they're doing a pretty piss-poor job of it.

no, its just the palestinians they want cleansed so they can steal the land and create a bigger state

SeanW

end of the road wrote: »

no, its just the palestinians they want cleansed so they can steal the land and create a bigger state

On what planet?

Israeli Arabs and "Palestinians" are the exact same people - some left Israel in 1967 and other times, you call them "Palestinians", the others took Israel's offer to STAY IN THEIR HOMES and become citizens of Israel! Those are Israeli-Arabs. They're the same people!

If Israel really wanted to ethnically cleanse the lands it administers, it would need to start with its own legislative, military and judicial bodies. As well as de-listing Arabic as a national language. But they're not doing that, there's no indication that they want to do that. It's bull.

And as to them wanting to "create a bigger state" seriously? The Zionists only ever claimed a small sliver of the Middle East, most of it worthless desert. Unlike the World War II allies and virtually every war victor in human history, Israel has returned to pre-wartime control 90% of the territory it ever took. The last of which, the Gaza strip has proven to be a terrible mistake.

The world has proven time and time again that there is a need for a strong, defensible Jewish state. And it's in all of our interests to ensure this.

end of the road

SeanW wrote: »

Israeli Arabs and "Palestinians" are the exact same people - some left Israel in 1967 and other times, you call them "Palestinians", the others took Israel's offer to STAY IN THEIR HOMES and become citizens of Israel! Those are Israeli-Arabs. They're the same people!

and many were exiled hence the fight for the right of return

SeanW wrote: »

If Israel really wanted to ethnically cleanse the lands it administers, it would need to start with its own legislative, military and judicial bodies. As well as de-listing Arabic as a national language.

or they can continue with saving themselves the trouble by bombing the **** out of the place as per

SeanW wrote: »

But they're not doing that, there's no indication that they want to do that. It's bull.

no, they are bombing the **** out of the place and doing all sorts within israel itself. plenty of indication they want rid of the palestinians and more. so its not bull

SeanW wrote: »

And as to them wanting to "create a bigger state" seriously? The Zionists only ever claimed a small sliver of the Middle East, most of it worthless desert. Unlike the World War II allies and virtually every war victor in human history, Israel has returned to pre-wartime control 90% of the territory it ever took. The last of which, the Gaza strip has proven to be a terrible mistake.

they want more

SeanW wrote: »

The world has proven time and time again that there is a need for a strong, defensible Jewish state.

yes. however not one which behaves like a wild animal, constantly commits terrorism and war crimes and cleansing, and emotionaly blackmailing the world so they can get away with it all.

SeanW wrote: »

it's in all of our interests to ensure this.

not at the cost of that state commiting war crimes terrorism and ethnic cleansing and other human rights abuses.

jank

JRant wrote: »

Sorry jank, I completely missed this post.

No, I do not think that the US and Isreal are totally responsable for the current state of the region. Never said they did. They do however need to accept a large proportion of responsibility for the current climate.

Islam is not the elephant in the room at all. The West has been fighting Islam for centuries. From the crusaders to the Moors.

The Shia vs Sunni conflict is the biggest destabilising force in the Middle East. This has NOTHING to do with the west. Zero. It would be trying to blame the Ottoman empire for the 30 years war between Catholics and Protestants.

The big two sides in this conflict are Iran and Saudi Arabia. Of course the US backs Saudi and offers it protection. If it didn't then both sides would be looking for a local hegemony and pursue an arms race to be the most dominant military in the region. The US does this not cause they like playing the bad guys, they do it because of the strategic importance of the region to the worlds energy supply. If the US did not step into this breach then you can be certain that a certain Russia or China would be glad to step in as a 'peace broker'...

I would even argue that without the US being the biggest military force in the region the place would be far far worse off then it is. Be careful what you wish for. A war between the major powers would make the Balkans look like weekend at Mosney.

Israels sphere of influence and care is around her border. It does not really care what countries like Qatar, Saudi, UAE and so on do, so long as they are not backing terrorists finically and with weapons aimed at attacking her directly. This again is why Israel is so anti-Iran, they fund terrorist groups right on their northern and southern border. If Iran were not engaged in this (I see no one even contests that they do this) then Israel would be much cooler about Iran.

No one can deny the effects of religion on the region. It would be like discussing the history of South Africa without discussing the issue of race. One must discuss the issue of religion when discussing the middle east. It puzzles me why people are so sensitive which this specific point.

I was at a talk about 2 years ago. The topic of the debate was "Has the Arab spring turned into an Arab winter" The talk itself was kinda disappointing. Lots of airy fairy rhetoric. 'It will all be grand'.. There was a PLO guy on the panel and every point he made was a dig at the west and Israel. Anyway, when it came to Q&A a guy asked the above question regarding South Africa. He was South African himself and asked the question about religion and its affects in the Middle East. The response was predictable. The PLO guy went on a rant about religiosity in the US, completely off topic. He then said something about the MB being tolerant in Egypt. Then all hell broke lose. Two women behind me, Egyptians freaked out and started roaring at him about the treatment of coptic chritsians in Egypt and elsewhere in these 'tolerant' Muslim dominant countries. That kind of shut him up for a bit and put him in his place.

Anyway, after the debate there was a book shop setup outside the hall (it was in the Sydney opera house) I went for a browse and was then walking out the Exit when I saw an aide to the PLO guy shouting insults at the guy who asked the question about religion. He was just a guy who was there with his wife at a debate and he just asked a rather simple question. The aide was calling him 'stupid, a fool, unintelligent, an idiot'. A passerby told him to calm down and he went off on him as well. The guy was like 'have a debate and discuss like a grown adult'. The aide just started calling everyone names and then walked off like a child would in a playground. I was like WTF? Where did that come from.

I often thought about that debate and the incident after and I wonder if its an insight into an inability of Muslims from the Middle East to accept any valid crisitism of their own affairs and accept responsibility for their actions. It seems its easy to blame a third party for all that is wrong in your life or your country. (One can make this point with Israel too!)

We for example blamed the Brits for everything. Dev promised us 'fair maidens', glorious a republican utopia so long your were a nationalist, not a woman, a staunch catholic etc.etc... Well almost 100 years of independence later we don't blame the Brits anymore, we blame the EU, de banks, FF, the RCC... anyone but ourselves.

Which brings my point full circle. People have to accept responsibility. There is more than enough blame apportioned to the West from within the West and in the Middle East. There is a constance self examination in day to day discourse.

I am just wondering when are people going to apportion any blame at all at the people of the Middle East and the ideology and religion they follow?

porsche959

Seems to me the Israeli electorate have been driven into voting for Netanyahu because they increasingly feel under threat, given the news of the vile anti-semitic terrorist attacks in France and elsewhere that have occured.

I don't like Netanyahu, as a matter of fact I can't imagine voting for him, but when he gave that address in the synagogue in Paris, I was with him.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ajadpBS7h20

Surely the Arab world and the entire world can tolerate one small Jewish state?

porsche959

Nodin wrote: »

As pointed out



eg
http://www.yesh-din.org/postview.asp?postid=287

http://www.yesh-din.org/postview.asp?postid=299

http://www.btselem.org/facing_expulsion_blog

Personally I find denial of this fact revolting.



....in order to concentrate resources on the West Bank and Arab East Jerusalem and wrongfoot Arafat.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3720176.stm

Lots of things that happen in this world of ours are revolting.

Don't you find the effective ethnic cleansing of most Jews from Arab/Muslim countries equally revolting?

Do you know that the 'moderate' Muslim country Malaysia (which is not even in Arabia) does not even allow Israeli citizens on its soil, encourages anti-semitic myths such as the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and the impoverished sector of its citizenry are basically brainwashed by state-controlled media into thinking that the Jews are the sources of all their problems?

Personally, much as the election result is disappointing, I know where I stand. I'm with the civilised, on a bad day, against the savage bigots, on a good one.

jank

JRant wrote: »

We'll never know if Iraq could have transitioned in a peaceful manner though. Nature abhors a vacuum and the US created a huge one when they went in all "shock and awe".

The strong arm tactics imposed by saddam were of course abhorrent. Nobody can deny that. But look at the devastation caused firstly by US led sanctions on millions of ordinary Iraqi's. This was a regime that daddy Bush had great time for and held them in favour until they disobeyed him.

The same can be said of Iran. It was heading in the right direction until the US decided it was against their best interests to allow a democratically elect government rule.

More recently when Brasil was offering to exchange low enriched materials for fuel rods the US threw their toys out of the pram. Sanctions were threatened and that was the end of the matter. Yet this was a solution that ensured Iran could develop their power stations and not have to bother with the enrichment programmes.

I didn't mention Egypt initially but they are also another case of the US thinkering in the region.

https://www.amnesty.org/en/articles/news/2011/12/usa-repeatedly-shipped-arms-supplies-egyptian-security-forces/

The US have an enormous responsability to own up to in the region. The sooner this happens the sooner a real resolution to the problems affecting it can be resolved.

If your going to mention the Ottomans and it's 500 year rule can we mention the Romans too?

I'm not sure what relevance they have considering it's over 100 years since they ruled anywhere. Especially when we have recent historical documentation that proves the US has been meddling in the past 40 years up to and including today.

Look, you have to take a step back and look at the region as a whole. This is an interesting debate you may want to watch.

Some valid points raised there by Niall Ferguson. That debate happened in 2011. The pessimist is winning the argument it seems.

At what point do we stop blaming the west and look at the factors that have contributed to the current climate that now exit in the Middle East much of which is deep rooted going back centuries.

end of the road

jank wrote: »

The Shia vs Sunni conflict is the biggest destabilising force in the Middle East. This has NOTHING to do with the west. Zero. It would be trying to blame the Ottoman empire for the 30 years war between Catholics and Protestants.

The big two sides in this conflict are Iran and Saudi Arabia. Of course the US backs Saudi and offers it protection. If it didn't then both sides would be looking for a local hegemony and pursue an arms race to be the most dominant military in the region. The US does this not cause they like playing the bad guys, they do it because of the strategic importance of the region to the worlds energy supply. If the US did not step into this breach then you can be certain that a certain Russia or China would be glad to step in as a 'peace broker'...

I would even argue that without the US being the biggest military force in the region the place would be far far worse off then it is. Be careful what you wish for. A war between the major powers would make the Balkans look like weekend at Mosney.

Israels sphere of influence and care is around her border. It does not really care what countries like Qatar, Saudi, UAE and so on do, so long as they are not backing terrorists finically and with weapons aimed at attacking her directly. This again is why Israel is so anti-Iran, they fund terrorist groups right on their northern and southern border. If Iran were not engaged in this (I see no one even contests that they do this) then Israel would be much cooler about Iran.

No one can deny the effects of religion on the region. It would be like discussing the history of South Africa without discussing the issue of race. One must discuss the issue of religion when discussing the middle east. It puzzles me why people are so sensitive which this specific point.

I was at a talk about 2 years ago. The topic of the debate was "Has the Arab spring turned into an Arab winter" The talk itself was kinda disappointing. Lots of airy fairy rhetoric. 'It will all be grand'.. There was a PLO guy on the panel and every point he made was a dig at the west and Israel. Anyway, when it came to Q&A a guy asked the above question regarding South Africa. He was South African himself and asked the question about religion and its affects in the Middle East. The response was predictable. The PLO guy went on a rant about religiosity in the US, completely off topic. He then said something about the MB being tolerant in Egypt. Then all hell broke lose. Two women behind me, Egyptians freaked out and started roaring at him about the treatment of coptic chritsians in Egypt and elsewhere in these 'tolerant' Muslim dominant countries. That kind of shut him up for a bit and put him in his place.

Anyway, after the debate there was a book shop setup outside the hall (it was in the Sydney opera house) I went for a browse and was then walking out the Exit when I saw an aide to the PLO guy shouting insults at the guy who asked the question about religion. He was just a guy who was there with his wife at a debate and he just asked a rather simple question. The aide was calling him 'stupid, a fool, unintelligent, an idiot'. A passerby told him to calm down and he went off on him as well. The guy was like 'have a debate and discuss like a grown adult'. The aide just started calling everyone names and then walked off like a child would in a playground. I was like WTF? Where did that come from.

I often thought about that debate and the incident after and I wonder if its an insight into an inability of Muslims from the Middle East to accept any valid crisitism of their own affairs and accept responsibility for their actions. It seems its easy to blame a third party for all that is wrong in your life or your country. (One can make this point with Israel too!)

We for example blamed the Brits for everything. Dev promised us 'fair maidens', glorious a republican utopia so long your were a nationalist, not a woman, a staunch catholic etc.etc... Well almost 100 years of independence later we don't blame the Brits anymore, we blame the EU, de banks, FF, the RCC... anyone but ourselves.

Which brings my point full circle. People have to accept responsibility. There is more than enough blame apportioned to the West from within the West and in the Middle East. There is a constance self examination in day to day discourse.

I am just wondering when are people going to apportion any blame at all at the people of the Middle East and the ideology and religion they follow?

it has a lot to do with the west. the US does do it because they like the power, and because the region is strategically important to americas energy supply. they would happily leave the rest of us out in the cold if they needed to. america steps in because of its own self interest not because it cares about the rest of us. the US isn't stopping the middle east from being worse off. iran don't fund anyone. its made up nonsense. once the palestinians are cleansed from their land and israel takes it over, they will go for more countries. the only reason why israel has a problem with iran is because iran has potential and could be a country that many could do business with in the right hands, leaving israel in the cold where it deserves to be for being a terrorist themselves. they don't care about iran or any other country, they want to be the number one terrorist state in the region

jank

Anyway, perhaps we should get back on topic regarding Bibi and this election rather then the perpetual "Israel is bad m'kay'

Simon Schema gives his view on the election victory.
Some interesting insights. Most notably that talk of giving Palestine more autonomy is a bad idea right now in the view of Israeli voters given that ISIS are just up the road and of course the emergence of Arab voters where he mentions the irony that no where else in the Middle East would an Arab have a vote, yet do in Israel.

jank

end of the road wrote: »

it has a lot to do with the west. the US does do it because they like the power, and because the region is strategically important to americas energy supply. they would happily leave the rest of us out in the cold if they needed to. america steps in because of its own self interest not because it cares about the rest of us. the US isn't stopping the middle east from being worse off. iran don't fund anyone. its made up nonsense. once the palestinians are cleansed from their land and israel takes it over, they will go for more countries. the only reason why israel has a problem with iran is because iran has potential and could be a country that many could do business with in the right hands, leaving israel in the cold where it deserves to be for being a terrorist themselves. they don't care about iran or any other country, they want to be the number one terrorist state in the region

Not even sure to begin with this.
So quickly...

You will find that countries don't spend domestic tax payers money on indirect foreign policy intervention or even direct military action just for the sake of it. There is normally a reason behind this. Those reasons may be flawed but they don't do it for the sake of it or for liking 'power'.

You will now find the America is now a net EXPORTER of energy, as its domestic supply will power its economy. The oil argument is over blown and will become less and less important as the years move on where shale oil and gas grown in prominence. The more interesting question to ask is what will happen when/if America retreat back and leave the region to itself. You can be sure others will step into the breach.



Iran don't fund any terrorist groups? Wow. You may as well call the sky green so.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/09/hamas-iran-rebuild-ties-falling-out-syria
http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/06/world/meast/mideast-hamas-support/
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2014/01/iran-says-hezbollah-missile-power-improved-201411110403686996.html
http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/view/hezbollah-finances-funding-the-party-of-god

There is no evidence that Israel want to take over 'more countries' (which countries??) in the Middle East. It is not in their interest to do so regardless. Such talk is baseless, hysterical never mind dangerous.

Nodin

SeanW wrote: »

Yeah, the (................)ett to all important judicial bodies. .

And of course this skims past the rather inconvenient case of Arab East Jerusalem, The West Bank etc, examples that were given here
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=94759401&postcount=347

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=94760076&postcount=348

You might engage with the above facts.

Porsche959 wrote:

Surely the Arab world and the entire world can tolerate one small Jewish state?

It's Israel's colonial expansion outside its recognised borders that causes the real problems, not the state as internationally recognised.

porsche959 wrote:

Personally, much as the election result is disappointing, I know where I stand.
I'm with the civilised, on a bad day, against the savage bigots, on a good one.

I'm unsure what the crimes of others do to suddenly cancel out the expansionism of Israel.........

A nation that indulges in brutal colonialism doesn't deserve the mantle cast on the western world generally. I suggest that you read up on the regime inflicted on the occupied territories.

Jank wrote:

Most notably that talk of giving Palestine more autonomy is a bad idea right now in the view of Israeli voters given that ISIS are just up the road and of course the emergence of Arab voters where he mentions the irony that no where else in the Middle East would an Arab have a vote, yet do in Israel.

Yet don't in areas outside Israels borders controlled by that state, in their millions. There seems to be a general urge in some quarters to ignore the actual problem here, and refer to Israel proper only.

JRant

jank wrote: »

The Shia vs Sunni conflict is the biggest destabilising force in the Middle East. This has NOTHING to do with the west. Zero. It would be trying to blame the Ottoman empire for the 30 years war between Catholics and Protestants.

The big two sides in this conflict are Iran and Saudi Arabia. Of course the US backs Saudi and offers it protection. If it didn't then both sides would be looking for a local hegemony and pursue an arms race to be the most dominant military in the region. The US does this not cause they like playing the bad guys, they do it because of the strategic importance of the region to the worlds energy supply. If the US did not step into this breach then you can be certain that a certain Russia or China would be glad to step in as a 'peace broker'...

I would even argue that without the US being the biggest military force in the region the place would be far far worse off then it is. Be careful what you wish for. A war between the major powers would make the Balkans look like weekend at Mosney.

Israels sphere of influence and care is around her border. It does not really care what countries like Qatar, Saudi, UAE and so on do, so long as they are not backing terrorists finically and with weapons aimed at attacking her directly. This again is why Israel is so anti-Iran, they fund terrorist groups right on their northern and southern border. If Iran were not engaged in this (I see no one even contests that they do this) then Israel would be much cooler about Iran.

No one can deny the effects of religion on the region. It would be like discussing the history of South Africa without discussing the issue of race. One must discuss the issue of religion when discussing the middle east. It puzzles me why people are so sensitive which this specific point.

I was at a talk about 2 years ago. The topic of the debate was "Has the Arab spring turned into an Arab winter" The talk itself was kinda disappointing. Lots of airy fairy rhetoric. 'It will all be grand'.. There was a PLO guy on the panel and every point he made was a dig at the west and Israel. Anyway, when it came to Q&A a guy asked the above question regarding South Africa. He was South African himself and asked the question about religion and its affects in the Middle East. The response was predictable. The PLO guy went on a rant about religiosity in the US, completely off topic. He then said something about the MB being tolerant in Egypt. Then all hell broke lose. Two women behind me, Egyptians freaked out and started roaring at him about the treatment of coptic chritsians in Egypt and elsewhere in these 'tolerant' Muslim dominant countries. That kind of shut him up for a bit and put him in his place.

Anyway, after the debate there was a book shop setup outside the hall (it was in the Sydney opera house) I went for a browse and was then walking out the Exit when I saw an aide to the PLO guy shouting insults at the guy who asked the question about religion. He was just a guy who was there with his wife at a debate and he just asked a rather simple question. The aide was calling him 'stupid, a fool, unintelligent, an idiot'. A passerby told him to calm down and he went off on him as well. The guy was like 'have a debate and discuss like a grown adult'. The aide just started calling everyone names and then walked off like a child would in a playground. I was like WTF? Where did that come from.

I often thought about that debate and the incident after and I wonder if its an insight into an inability of Muslims from the Middle East to accept any valid crisitism of their own affairs and accept responsibility for their actions. It seems its easy to blame a third party for all that is wrong in your life or your country. (One can make this point with Israel too!)

We for example blamed the Brits for everything. Dev promised us 'fair maidens', glorious a republican utopia so long your were a nationalist, not a woman, a staunch catholic etc.etc... Well almost 100 years of independence later we don't blame the Brits anymore, we blame the EU, de banks, FF, the RCC... anyone but ourselves.

Which brings my point full circle. People have to accept responsibility. There is more than enough blame apportioned to the West from within the West and in the Middle East. There is a constance self examination in day to day discourse.

I am just wondering when are people going to apportion any blame at all at the people of the Middle East and the ideology and religion they follow?

Is anyone arguing that religion doesn't have a role to play though?

In your first example you mention the Saudi and Iranians. Who is directly responsible for the regimes in each country other than the US?

Who has directly armed many of the worst leaders in the region other than the US?

Yes the people in the region need to take ownership of the issues they can solve. That's easier said than done when you have a regime run from Washington that is hell bent on arming the most undesirable people imaginable.

If you keep oppressing people by the gun or sanctions then don't be surprised if extremists take hold.

Anyway Bibi's disgraceful behaviour in Paris and the US has obviously worked on the Isreali voters.

Icepick

Just a little Samba wrote: »

You mean the arab Israeli population inside Israel is rising? As in, non-Jewish Israeli citizens?
What has that got to do with the ongoing land grabs in the West Bank and Palestinian East Jerusalem?

shifting the goal posts again

There was a claim made about a genocide and ethnic cleansing.
When it was pointed out that the Palestinian population is rising, the claim was changed to Palestinians being driven out of Israel.
The graph shows that the Palestinian (Arab) population is rising within Israel too.
So we can discuss settlements and land grabs, but without the hysterical nonsense about ethnic cleansing and genocide.
But that doesn't belong in this thread.

Just a little Samba

Icepick wrote: »

shifting the goal posts again

There was a claim made about a genocide and ethnic cleansing.
When it was pointed out that the Palestinian population is rising, the claim was changed to Palestinians being driven out of Israel.
The graph shows that the Palestinian (Arab) population is rising within Israel too.
So we can discuss settlements and land grabs, but without the hysterical nonsense about ethnic cleansing and genocide.
But that doesn't belong in this thread.

I'm not shifting anything, people are talking about the obvious and undeniable ethnic cleansing of the West Bank and East Jeresulam and you and your cohorts keep trying to deflect by talking about Arab citizens of Israel, which has no relevance to the conversation, because you know you haven't a leg to stand on if you actually stay on topic.

So really, who's shifting the goal posts? I'm talking about the Israeli treatment of Palestinians and you keep bringing up demographic changes within the Israeli population. It's brainless deflection and painfully transparent.

This thread has gone to balls anyway, it started off about Bibi's lies in regards to the Iranian nuclear programme and as always ends up into a clusterpoop of whataboutary from the hasbarabots.

jank

Nodin wrote: »

It's Israel's colonial expansion outside its recognised borders that causes the real problems, not the state as internationally recognised.

Perhaps you may want to review your history as the Arab world not once put twice tried to nib a Jewish Israeli state in the bud even after a UN resolution recognising the state.

Nodin wrote: »

Yet don't in areas outside Israels borders controlled by that state, in their millions. There seems to be a general urge in some quarters to ignore the actual problem here, and refer to Israel proper only.

Of course its a problem. Everyone recognises that. The solution is the crux. However, the only thing that will solve this are the Israeli voters themselves (not a bunch of Europeans in the safe middle class suburbs) and they will not be ready to cede autonomy until the region is stabilised and guarantees of peace are made. In the current climate with ISIS, Hamas and Hezbeloh surrounding Israel this is less likely.

As the region destabilises the likelihood of a solution is put to the back burner. That may be unfortunate for the average Palestinian but that is just the way it is. Remember they had chances in the past at peace. Remember the quote from Abba Eban "The Arabs never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity". The Palestinian have been lead terribly by utterly corrupt men. Talk and rhetoric of how bad Israel is, boycotts and all the other nonsense that surrounds this debate is futile and a waste of time.

And finally, given the other issues ongoing in the Middle East there are far more pressing issues that deserver greater analysis and debate rather than this perpetual issue.

jank

JRant wrote: »

Is anyone arguing that religion doesn't have a role to play though?

In your first example you mention the Saudi and Iranians. Who is directly responsible for the regimes in each country other than the US?

The US back the Suadi's but they do not dictate domestic or foreign policy. The US do not back the current Iranian regime what so ever. These are the biggest two power brokers in the Middle East. One is a dominant Shia and the other a dominate Sunni state. This fact has more to do with what happened 1000 years ago not what the US did or did not do in the last 50.

JRant wrote: »

Who has directly armed many of the worst leaders in the region other than the US?

The old USSR for one.
Are forgetting about the Cold War?

JRant wrote: »

Yes the people in the region need to take ownership of the issues they can solve. That's easier said than done when you have a regime run from Washington that is hell bent on arming the most undesirable people imaginable.

Well, you have your wish now. We are living in a post Arab Spring era where Western backed leaders have been toppled... can you smell the utopia or is that ISIS chopping someones head off.

karma_

jank wrote: »

The US back the Suadi's but they do not dictate domestic or foreign policy.

Don't they? I'm not so sure. If we look at what happened when Edward Snowden requested asylum from Germany the US threatened that should this request be granted that they would withhold intelligence from Germany in the event a terrorist attack were to occur on German soil. That's right, the US would allow an attack on an ally to happen with prior knowledge, this is a clear dictation of domestic policy which we wouldn't even know about without a whistleblower, what else do we not know?

Nodin

Icepick wrote: »

shifting the goal posts again

There was a claim made about a genocide and ethnic cleansing.
When it was pointed out that the Palestinian population is rising, the claim was changed to Palestinians being driven out of Israel.
The graph shows that the Palestinian (Arab) population is rising within Israel too.
So we can discuss settlements and land grabs, but without the hysterical nonsense about ethnic cleansing and genocide.
But that doesn't belong in this thread.

I never made any such claim.

Nodin

jank wrote: »

Perhaps you may want to review your history as the Arab world not once put twice tried to nib a Jewish Israeli state in the bud even after a UN resolution recognising the state...

Past history. We're talking about the problem now.

jank wrote: »

Of course its a problem. Everyone recognises that. The solution is the crux. However, the only thing that will solve this are the Israeli voters themselves (not a bunch of Europeans in the safe middle class suburbs) and they will not be ready to cede autonomy until the region is stabilised and guarantees of peace are made. In the current climate with ISIS, Hamas and Hezbeloh surrounding Israel this is less likely. ..

And before IS, Hamas and Hezbollah there were other excuses. The colonisation of the OT has been going on since 1967. Why should an issue that's a crime against international law be left to "the Israeli voters themselves"?

Just a little Samba

Nodin wrote: »

I never made any such claim.

Indeed most of them were driven out of "Israel" in the months leading up to and after the 15th of May 1948 by militias of racist thugs like Irgun.

Gringo180

Just a little Samba wrote: »

Indeed most of them were driven out of "Israel" in the months leading up to and after the 15th of May 1948 by militias of racist thugs like Irgun.

Its a state that was founded on terrorism. Look at all the innocent civilians the Jewish terror gangs murdered in Palestine to cause havoc in the region. The King David Hotel bombings, the murder of Count Bernodotte of Sweden, the hanging of 2 British soldiers etc. I could go on all day.


The fact of the matter is Israel is a rogue state and always was, it runs the biggest open air prison on the planet which is a scar on the face of humanity.

Nodin

"Iran's President Hassan Rouhani says that progress made in nuclear talks means a final deal can be reached.

"There is nothing that cannot be resolved," although some differences still remain, Iranian state media quoted him as saying.

US Secretary of State John Kerry also said that "substantial progress" had been made in the talks.

Six world powers are negotiating a deal with Iran aimed at limiting its nuclear activity, with a late March deadline."
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-31999158

Good news, it seems - save in the case of Bibi.

Just a little Samba

Nodin wrote: »

"Iran's President Hassan Rouhani says that progress made in nuclear talks means a final deal can be reached.

"There is nothing that cannot be resolved," although some differences still remain, Iranian state media quoted him as saying.

US Secretary of State John Kerry also said that "substantial progress" had been made in the talks.

Six world powers are negotiating a deal with Iran aimed at limiting its nuclear activity, with a late March deadline."
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-31999158

Good news, it seems - save in the case of Bibi.

Great news, hopefully the deadline can be met, sanctions can be wound down and Iran can get on with the business of rebuilding it's economy.

It will be interesting to see how Israel and Saudi Arabia deal with a stable, oil and gas rich neighbour who are playing nicely with the big boys.

Iran can achieve economic growth similar to that which Russia has seen over the last 15 years if managed correctly, their gas reserves and oil fields will make them the regional power in the next 10-15 years IMHO.

jank

karma_ wrote: »

Don't they? I'm not so sure. If we look at what happened when Edward Snowden requested asylum from Germany the US threatened that should this request be granted that they would withhold intelligence from Germany in the event a terrorist attack were to occur on German soil. That's right, the US would allow an attack on an ally to happen with prior knowledge, this is a clear dictation of domestic policy which we wouldn't even know about without a whistleblower, what else do we not know?

This is not a dictation of domestic policy. Germany were still free to give asylum but would know that it could or would come at a cost. Dictating generally means, well dictating. What happened above (even if it did happen, post a link perhaps as I never heard that) is just strong arm diplomacy. If realpolitik offends you then you are in the wrong forum.

jank

Nodin wrote: »

Past history. We're talking about the problem now.

Ah, so convenient. Ignore the 100 years history of the region where Jews just wanted to carve out a small state for itself, which has been opposed every single time and every single step by their Muslim neighbours and has been attacked twice.... Lets ignore that the Arabs ignored the 1947 UN declaration, the Balfour declaration etc...

Lets just ignore all that seeing as this is the root cause of why the Palestinians are stateless. Nevermind the fact that neither Egypt nor Jordon nor any other Muslim neighbours offered statehood to the Palestinians when they occupied the West Bank and Gaza respectively prior to 1967. Ignore all the peace accords, Camp David and so on where Arafat walked out after being offered a state with 92% of the West Bank

Clinton blamed Arafat after the failure of the talks, stating, "I regret that in 2000 Arafat missed the opportunity to bring that nation into being and pray for the day when the dreams of the Palestinian people for a state and a better life will be realized in a just and lasting peace." The failure to come to an agreement was widely attributed to Yasser Arafat, as he walked away from the table without making a concrete counter-offer and because Arafat did little to quell the series of Palestinian riots that began shortly after the summit.[29][30][31] Arafat was also accused of scuttling the talks by Nabil Amr, a former minister in the Palestinian Authority.[32] In My Life, Clinton wrote that Arafat once complimented Clinton by telling him, "You are a great man." Clinton responded, "I am not a great man. I am a failure, and you made me one

There are millions of Palestinians stateless and its all Israel's fault. Got it!

Nodin wrote: »

And before IS, Hamas and Hezbollah there were other excuses. The colonisation of the OT has been going on since 1967. Why should an issue that's a crime against international law be left to "the Israeli voters themselves"?

Ah, so now you want to talk history.... so which is it? Ignore the inconvenient history and pick and chose your version of events? Ignore everything from 1917 to 1967 and only concentrate only on 1967 onwards... Sorry but it doesn't work like that.

Again, they were offered a deal in 2000 and Arafat walked...
Didn't they find over $1 Billion in secret bank accounts belonging to Arafat? What a great guy!

If the Palestinians were offered that deal today, they would bite the hand of Bibi. This is what happens went you elect bad leaders to make decisions on your behalf. The upper echelons of the PLO will be OK, they have their corrupt millions to keep them going. I feel sorry for the average Palestinians.

The Israeli voters themselves hold the key to giving statehood to the Palestinians. That may not be fair in your eyes but nothing you can do can change that try as you might. It is funny though. The West Bank was never occupied when the Kingdom of Jordon occupied it. Now that Israel control it its 'occupied'.

And again, in reference to the Middle East much bigger fish to fry than this issue.

jank

Just a little Samba wrote: »

Great news, hopefully the deadline can be met, sanctions can be wound down and Iran can get on with the business of rebuilding it's economy.

It will be interesting to see how Israel and Saudi Arabia deal with a stable, oil and gas rich neighbour who are playing nicely with the big boys.

Iran can achieve economic growth similar to that which Russia has seen over the last 15 years if managed correctly, their gas reserves and oil fields will make them the regional power in the next 10-15 years IMHO.

Iran are already a regional power but if they want to be reliant on energy exports then they may have missed the boat on that one with oil prices collapsing and will in the medium to short term anyway never be as high as they were according to most analysts.



Best thing Iran could do it get rid of their ruling clergy, open up the economy to market forces and liberalise the country socially. Stop killing gays would be a good start in that aspect.

Nodin

jank wrote: »

Ah, so convenient. Ignore the 100 years history of the region where Jews just wanted to carve (...............)that Israel control it its 'occupied'.

And again, in reference to the Middle East much bigger fish to fry than this issue.

The deal offered with regard to Arab East Jerusalem was unacceptable. Talks took place later in Taba but failed as Sharon was elected before they could end.

None of what you posted really addresses on-going colonisation of the OT. And again, leaving the issue in the hands of Israel is a laughable concept, which I doubt you would suggest be applied elsewhere.

Icepick

Just a little Samba wrote: »

I'm not shifting anything, people are talking about the obvious and undeniable ethnic cleansing of the West Bank and East Jeresulam and you and your cohorts keep trying to deflect by talking about Arab citizens of Israel, which has no relevance to the conversation, because you know you haven't a leg to stand on if you actually stay on topic.

So really, who's shifting the goal posts?

Yes, you downscaled again because you clearly can't support the ridiculous general statements about genocide and ethnic cleansing.
But the Palestinian population of Jerusalem and West Bank are rising too.
Stats here

Just a little Samba wrote: »

This thread has gone to balls anyway, it started off about Bibi's lies in regards to the Iranian nuclear programme and as always ends up into a clusterpoop of whataboutary from the hasbarabots.

The thread's focus was shifted to Israel bashing.

Nodin

Icepick wrote: »

Yes, you downscaled again because you clearly can't support the ridiculous general statements about genocide and ethnic cleansing.
But the Palestinian population of Jerusalem and West Bank are rising too.
Stats here
.

.....which ignores the forced transfer within those areas highlighted earlier, and on which you've yet to remark.

jank

Nodin wrote: »

The deal offered with regard to Arab East Jerusalem was unacceptable. Talks took place later in Taba but failed as Sharon was elected before they could end.

Actually it broke down on the right of return. Arafat I suppose wanted to keep adding to his millions so had no real interest in a peace agreement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_Camp_David_Summit#Aftermath

In his book, The Oslo Syndrome, Harvard Medical School professor of psychiatry and historian[35] Kenneth Levin summarized the failure of the 2000 Camp David Summit in this manner: "[D]espite the dimensions of the Israeli offer and intense pressure from President Clinton, Arafat demurred. He apparently was indeed unwilling, no matter what the Israeli concessions, to sign an agreement that declared itself final and forswore any further Palestinian claims."[30] Levin argues that both the Israelis and the Americans were naive in expecting that Arafat would agree to give up the idea of a literal "right of return" for all Palestinians into Israel proper no matter how many 1948 refugees or how much monetary compensation Israel offered to allow.

Alan Dershowitz, an Israel advocate and a law professor at Harvard University, said that the failure of the negotiations was due to "the refusal of the Palestinians and Arafat to give up the right of return. That was the sticking point. It wasn't Jerusalem. It wasn't borders. It was the right of return." He claimed that President Clinton told this to him "directly and personally.

He should have followed the Irish example, swallow pride, accept partition, take an oath to the King in order to start running your own state.

Nodin wrote: »

None of what you posted really addresses on-going colonisation of the OT. And again, leaving the issue in the hands of Israel is a laughable concept, which I doubt you would suggest be applied elsewhere.

I addressed it. The Palestinians had many chances for a state of their own (see above) but each time dropped the ball. Now they have to live with the consequences until the Israeli voters trust them to deliver peace.

Unless you favour invading Israel or regime change in Israel, only they as in the Knesset voted in democratically by Israeli citizens can sign an agreement with the Palestinians. So yes, it is in their hands. Sorry but thats the way of it.

Just a little Samba

Icepick wrote: »

Yes, you downscaled again because you clearly can't support the ridiculous general statements about genocide and ethnic cleansing.
But the Palestinian population of Jerusalem and West Bank are rising too.
Stats here


The thread's focus was shifted to Israel bashing.

When did I down scale exactly? When was I ever talking about modern day ethnic cleansing by Israel anywhere besides the West Bank and East Jerusalem?
You'd do well to find a post where I did.


By the way, just because the population is rising doesn't mean it's not ethnic cleansing or genocide, you're just being extremely selective with your definitions of both.

I never said genocide was happening by the way, someone else did, I just posted the legal definition and pointed out that it could be applied to the OT.

Ethnic cleansing on the other hand, that's a cut and dry, it's happening, it's there for anyone with a brain and a bit of common sense to see.

Are you actually denying that Palestinian's are being forcefully removed from lands in the West Bank and East Jerusalem?

Because trying to make such a claim would be laughable.
You sure can type a lot and say nothing of actual worth, so I'm not sure if genuine intelligence has been lost in your walls of mundane rhetoric which seem to pass as posts.


But still, it has absolutely nothing to do with the topic of this thread is is about the Iranian negotiations with the P5+1 nations and how Israel is trying their utmost to scupper them to prevent the Iran from becoming the major regional economic power.

<snip>

MOD: PM'd.

Nodin

jank wrote: »

Actually it broke down on the right of return. Arafat I suppose wanted to keep adding to his millions so had no real interest in a peace agreement..

I wouldn't take Dershovitzs word on it.

They've since dropped the demand for the right of return. For some strange reason, theres still no deal.

jank wrote: »

He should have followed the Irish example, swallow pride, accept partition, take an oath to the King in order to start running your own state..

This presumes honesty of intention on the Israeli side, something undermined by its constant expansion.

jank wrote: »

Unless you favour invading Israel or regime change in Israel, only they as in the Knesset voted in democratically by Israeli citizens can sign an agreement with the Palestinians. So yes, it is in their hands. Sorry but thats the way of it.

Sanctions, boycotts and whatever nessecary. If it was good enough to end apartheid, its good enough to end Israeli colonialism.

Just a little Samba

jank wrote: »

Iran are already a regional power but if they want to be reliant on energy exports then they may have missed the boat on that one with oil prices collapsing and will in the medium to short term anyway never be as high as they were according to most analysts.



Best thing Iran could do it get rid of their ruling clergy, open up the economy to market forces and liberalise the country socially. Stop killing gays would be a good start in that aspect.

Remember that time Iran had a democratically elected government being well run by a popular president. That was great, I wonder what happened to that...

Nice oil price graph all the same

You do realise that graph ignores current economic sanctions as well as the fact that Iran is sitting on 15% of the planets proven natural gas reserve, don't you?

Remove the sanctions (roll on June 30th) and add natural gas exports and the graph is now meaningless.

Whataboutery at it's absolute finest by the way, you're great at that.

Next.

Just a little Samba

Nodin wrote: »

Sanctions, boycotts and whatever nessecary. If it was good enough to end apartheid, its good enough to end Israeli colonialism.

I can see this being the straw that breaks the camels back to be honest.

I reckon we are potentially only months away from a large scale campaign of non-violent civil disobedience. If this happens and Israel react in their usual manner the PR war is over with them. They are already losing the support of young Jewish Americans on college campuses. The leader of their student lobby group and president of UCLA student union wrote a long open letter about his dismay at the election result and Bibi's comments about never allowing the creation of a Palestinian state in which he basically says the mask has slipped and himself and his companions can no longer blindly support Israeli actions.


But again, how about those nukes?

Just a little Samba

jank wrote: »

And again, in reference to the Middle East much bigger fish to fry than this issue.

Every. Single. One. of your posts comes down to this.

"WHAT ABOUT THEM AND THOSE GUYS?!?!"

No actual contribution just deflection, half truths and whataboutery.

Edgarfrndly

jank wrote: »

Ignore all the peace accords, Camp David and so on where Arafat walked out after being offered a state with 92% of the West Bank.

It would behoove you to actually study what occurred during the talks and why they failed. This is not what happened, not even remotely close. Jeremy Pressman wrote a great paper on this very topic, I would encourage you to read it.

The 91% claim is only valid if you agree with Israel's definition of Palestinian territory, and not objective international standards of what is accepted as Palestinian territory. Pressman comments on that very issue in his paper:

Jeremy Pressman wrote:

Three factors made Israel’s territorial offer less forthcoming than it initially appeared. First, the 91 percent land offer was based on the Israeli definition of the West Bank, but this differs by approximately 5 percentage points from the Palestinian definition. Palestinians use a total area of 5,854 square kilometers. Israel, however, omits the area known as No Man’s Land (50 sq. km near Latrun),41 post-1967 East Jerusalem (71 sq. km), and the territorial waters of the Dead Sea (195 sq. km), which reduces the total to 5,538 sq. km. Thus, an Israeli offer of 91 percent (of 5,538 sq. km) of the West Bank translates into only 86 percent from the Palestinian perspective.

Second, at Camp David, key details related to the exchange of land were left unresolved. In principle, both Israel and the Palestinians agreed to land swaps whereby the Palestinians would get some territory from pre-1967 Israel in exchange for Israeli annexation of some land in the West Bank. In practice, Israel offered only the equivalent of 1 percent of the West Bank in exchange for its annexation of 9 percent.

There were many other issues at hand - like the quality of land the Palestinians would receive in the swap (which was not of comparable value to what they would give up in the West Bank).

No objective commentator would agree with the offer being given to the Palestinians as "fair".

jank

Nodin wrote: »

I wouldn't take Dershovitzs word on it.

They've since dropped the demand for the right of return. For some strange reason, theres still no deal.

Levin then, do you take his word on it? Anyway, the deal that was on the table is gone, that is the way with negotiations, which proves my point. They were offered a state but declined. If you don't take an offer then you can't cry about it later when you want it back. No one to blame there but the Palestinian leadership with their corrupt billions in swiss bank accounts.

Nodin wrote: »

This presumes honesty of intention on the Israeli side, something undermined by its constant expansion.

By all intents in purposes it was Arafat who reneged on the deal. You do not believe Bill Clinton so in this respect? You take the word of a corrupt terrorist who weaselled away 1 Billion for himself and his wife but do not believe Bill Clinton?

Nodin wrote: »

Sanctions, boycotts and whatever nessecary. If it was good enough to end apartheid, its good enough to end Israeli colonialism.

Whatever necessary? Lol, thats hilarious. I can see the placards already
"Invade Israel to end apartheid" right next to "Stop Western bombing of ISIS"
You could not make this up. You are free of course to organise support for this military action.

Ineffective boycotts is all you have got. If you want to be fair, you will need to boycott all that cheap Russian gas you get that keeps you warm in Winter and all those cheap Chinese goods you buy in shops.. fair is fair

However all said and done, I suppose killing all the Jews in Israel is one way to end apartheid. Whatever is necessary eh? How far would you go.

Nodin

Just a little Samba wrote: »

I can see this being the straw that breaks the camels back to be honest.

I reckon we are potentially only months away from a large scale campaign of non-violent civil disobedience. If this happens and Israel react in their usual manner the PR war is over with them. They are already losing the support of young Jewish Americans on college campuses. The leader of their student lobby group and president of UCLA student union wrote a long open letter about his dismay at the election result and Bibi's comments about never allowing the creation of a Palestinian state in which he basically says the mask has slipped and himself and his companions can no longer blindly support Israeli actions.


But again, how about those nukes?

I disagree with your timeline there, as I'd say its far too optimistic. Years left yet, but you can see the traction building.

Nodin

jank wrote: »

They've since dropped (..................)you go.

It's hard to answer that post, given its content. Suffice to say that Edgar has kindly dealt with your remarks on peace negotiations.

I find your hostility to sanctions and boycott somewhat strange.

Just a little Samba

Nodin wrote: »

I disagree with your timeline there, as I'd say its far too optimistic. Years left yet, but you can see the traction building.

I say potentially because I believe if Bibi ramps up settlement expansion and "outpost" building as well as moving more Palestinians out of Jerusalem, I could see the locals getting a little riled.


And with the Palestinian membership of the ICC coming into effect at the start of next month I expect to see the old collective punishment tactics being increased in the West Bank to "pay back" the Palestinians for having the "cheek" to use the law to their favour.

jank

Just a little Samba wrote: »

You do realise that graph ignores current economic sanctions as well as the fact that Iran is sitting on 15% of the planets proven natural gas reserve, don't you?

Remove the sanctions (roll on June 30th) and add natural gas exports and the graph is now meaningless.

Of course. Macro economic environments change all the time. I was just alluding to your false premise that oil and gas could be the sole saviour of Iran's economy by doing a Russia on it when in fact they will need a lot more than that given they missed the boat of high energy prices. Those prices won't be back for decades if ever if analysts are to be believed.

The Saudi's see the writing on the wall, hence their fight for market share of the oil market rather then keeping the price high. Shale oil and gas will keep a lid on prices.

As regards oil reserves, well Venezuela has more and their economy is in the toilet (bread queues anyone?) so its really meaningless in the short to medium term.