|
Main Paineframe posted:What's the special snowflake word for holding Arabs to a higher standard than Israelis, then? "Welcome to the Republican Party"
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2015 22:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 23:32 |
|
|
Optimism as Iran nuclear deal framework announcedCNN posted:Lausanne, Switzerland (CNN)There are plenty of details left to iron out, but negotiators took a significant step Thursday toward a landmark deal aimed at keeping Iran's nuclear program peaceful.  Politoons thread crossposting: I am totally picturing Bibi looking like Yaakov Kirschen's self-insert from 'Dry Bones', all angry and crosseyed staring at this headline
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2015 22:54
|
|
|
fade5 posted:Also the Iran deal is still in talks, and Bibi's victory might be the last, spiteful push needed to come to a deal with Iran. "Fine, you guys want that fucker Bibi so much? Well then enjoy our new deal with Iran that you assholes tried so loving hard to tank." Liberal_L33t posted:Optimism as Iran nuclear deal framework announced  Thanks Bibi, you did the impossible and managed to make the US start to pivot away from Israel to Iran. Nice work buddy, you deserve a medal for pulling that off.  fade5 fucked around with this message at 00:15 on Apr 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2015 23:21
|
|
|
I think it's a little premature to claim the U.S. has pivoted away from israel. Like someone earlier in this thread pointed out, no matter how many sharp words obama has said about bibi's election wankery the money/fighter jets/etc are still en route and on time and the occupation is nowhere near an end.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2015 03:13
|
|
|
I love the headline in the NY Times today:quote:Israeli Response to Deal Could Have Broader Implications Yes, because the peace process was going swimmingly until now 
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2015 22:45
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:I love the headline in the NY Times today: If they're going to demand every piece of paper signed by anyone in the region include "Israel has a right to exist" in it, it very well could!
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2015 22:55
|
|
|
That whole 'right to exist'/'must be recognized as a jewish state' caveat gets thrown up as some sort of barrier to peace so often. Individuals definitely can claim this right in my mind but the idea of an entire nation invoking it is about as meaningful as when Bank of America or Wal-Mart claim it as well.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2015 00:41
|
|
|
It's the dumbest thing. Imagine if every country did that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2015 02:06
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2015 02:35
|
|
|
chag sameach, friends and neighbours please leave out a glass of alcohol (any type is fine) for ariel
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2015 03:07
|
|
|
Avshalom posted:chag sameach, friends and neighbours one part blood of Arab, one part tears of settler, and of course one part slivovitz
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2015 07:00
|
|
|
Ultramega posted:I think it's a little premature to claim the U.S. has pivoted away from israel. Like someone earlier in this thread pointed out, no matter how many sharp words obama has said about bibi's election wankery the money/fighter jets/etc are still en route and on time and the occupation is nowhere near an end. Oh undoubtably, but there is definitely a swing away from Israel, if only a small one. Which is more than I've ever seen America do. Not long ago Iran was America's best friend in the region, I think while not likely the US breaking its client state relationship with Israel isn't as impossible as people think. There are always other countries America can turn into labratories/spendin' holes for weapons.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2015 08:04
|
|
|
nopantsjack posted:Not long ago Iran was America's best friend in the region, quote:I think while not likely the US breaking its client state relationship with Israel isn't as impossible as people think. There are always other countries America can turn into labratories/spendin' holes for weapons.  if you think our relationship with them isn't just as complicated as our relationship with Israel.
Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 08:24 on Apr 4, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2015 08:22
|
|
|
I support our best friends in the region, the mujahadeen.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2015 08:23
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:If you're talking about 1979, I'd remind you that we have Senators younger than that. No we don't. Tom Cotton is the youngest and he's 37
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2015 16:26
|
|
|
I for one think there can never be peace in the Middle East. If there isn't peace anywhere else, including our own countries, why do we think we can force peace onto a foreign one?
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2015 18:13
|
|
|
I have faith in a relative peace but it's not the united state's business to get into the fray and start negotiating the terms even though that's basically been the rule for the past century or so w/r/t international relations with weaker powers. I'm about to start reading A Peace to End All Peace, and please correct me if I'm wrong here but until around the end of the first world war, the middle east was kind of a lovely place to live but it wasn't the powder keg it was today. Although sectarian violence wasn't surprising, the hate didn't seem to run as deep as it seems to today. I'm admittedly a newcomer to the ME/I-P discussion and I'm actually really eager to hear from people who are more versed in the historical record of the region.
Ultramega fucked around with this message at 01:02 on Apr 5, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2015 00:59
|
|
|
Maybe you could say the truth ........ is in the middle? But for real, that's sort of a bullshit hand wave away of all the specific factors contributing to problems today. Problems like, say, the US unquestioningly supporting Israel in everything they do and giving them free use of our Security Council veto. You can't just throw your hands up and say everyone's at fault, because that's just not true.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2015 03:00
|
|
|
Yeah there aren't too many steps from "peace is unattainable or even desirable in the middle east", to "nuke everyone." Not saying that's your position but that was definitely my feeling on the situation before I started reading more about it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2015 16:54
|
|
|
Ultramega posted:I have faith in a relative peace but it's not the united state's business to get into the fray and start negotiating the terms even though that's basically been the rule for the past century or so w/r/t international relations with weaker powers. I'm about to start reading A Peace to End All Peace, and please correct me if I'm wrong here but until around the end of the first world war, the middle east was kind of a lovely place to live but it wasn't the powder keg it was today. Although sectarian violence wasn't surprising, the hate didn't seem to run as deep as it seems to today. I'm admittedly a newcomer to the ME/I-P discussion and I'm actually really eager to hear from people who are more versed in the historical record of the region. The Ottoman Empire became increasingly violent and crazy as the war progressed. Genocide, etc.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2015 18:22
|
|
|
LeftistMuslimObama posted:What if we split the difference? Could you have a federalized, 2-state 1-country? How about The United State of Israel and Palestine. Israel gets a state parliament and Jews continue to have the right of return to the state of Israel. Gaza and the West Bank become a state with its own state parliament. A federal parliament with 1/2 seats from Israel and 1/2 seats from Palestine sits in Jerusalem and handles all matters that affect both states, whilst the two states are free to rule themselves in purely internal matters via their state parliaments. Neither side wants equal representation, though. The Israelis believe that majority Jewish leadership is essential to Israel's nature as a Jewish state, and the Palestinians are aware that they outnumber the Israelis and that any "equal representation" scheme amounts to undemocratically limiting their political power for the Israelis' sake. It's just another compromise you're offering to people with no intention of compromising. Ultramega posted:I have faith in a relative peace but it's not the united state's business to get into the fray and start negotiating the terms even though that's basically been the rule for the past century or so w/r/t international relations with weaker powers. I'm about to start reading A Peace to End All Peace, and please correct me if I'm wrong here but until around the end of the first world war, the middle east was kind of a lovely place to live but it wasn't the powder keg it was today. Although sectarian violence wasn't surprising, the hate didn't seem to run as deep as it seems to today. I'm admittedly a newcomer to the ME/I-P discussion and I'm actually really eager to hear from people who are more versed in the historical record of the region. After WWI, basically every part of the Middle East was colonized by European powers. It led to weird territorial divisions and encouraged radicals, terrorists, and anti-Western attitudes to spring up. Some of that was already happening as the Ottoman Empire crumbled, but having their governments taken over by Europeans only exacerbated the issues. With democracy and independence movements being suppressed by the leadership, and Western cultural ideas being introduced by force, religious fundamentalists were often the ones best able to withstand the crackdowns and maintain an organized movement. Colonialism balkanized the Middle East and created radical attitudes and movements that have been causing problems for Western interests ever since.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2015 18:40
|
|
|
corn in the bible posted:The Ottoman Empire became increasingly violent and crazy as the war progressed. Genocide, etc. I could swear that they were not the only empire that had rebellions break out against them in the war and were not the only ones to react with brutality to said rebellions. Crowsbeak fucked around with this message at 19:59 on Apr 5, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2015 18:45
|
|
|
World War I is a pretty hosed war when it comes to countries dealing with their citizens. You had the French and Russians killing their own troops to install fear in the rest, you got the Ottomans blaming minorities for their mistakes and genociding them. And you got all the Allies loving over people who didn't deserve it after the war. Europe deserved World War II.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2015 18:58
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Neither side wants equal representation, though. The Israelis believe that majority Jewish leadership is essential to Israel's nature as a Jewish state, and the Palestinians are aware that they outnumber the Israelis and that any "equal representation" scheme amounts to undemocratically limiting their political power for the Israelis' sake. It's just another compromise you're offering to people with no intention of compromising. Before WWI, every part of the Middle East was colonized by Ottomans. Colonialism was not suddenly introduced to the region with Sykes-Picot.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2015 19:05
|
|
|
TheImmigrant posted:Before WWI, every part of the Middle East was colonized by Ottomans. Colonialism was not suddenly introduced to the region with Sykes-Picot. Yeah but that was Muslims colonizing Muslims. Probably a lot different when you have Western invaders forcing their Christian values on them.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2015 19:28
|
|
|
Hitlers Gay Secret posted:Yeah but that was Muslims colonizing Muslims. Probably a lot different when you have Western invaders forcing their Christian values on them. Colonization is okay if the colonizers share a religion with the colonized?
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2015 19:39
|
|
|
TheImmigrant posted:Colonization is okay if the colonizers share a religion with the colonized? No, I was only pointing that it was probably a lot different when you actually share religious views with the natives.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2015 19:43
|
|
|
also lol at conflating ottoman imperialism with western european colonialism both were lovely, but they were lovely in distinctly different ways
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2015 19:46
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:also lol at conflating ottoman imperialism with western european colonialism Why lol?
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2015 19:49
|
|
|
there weren't many ethnically turkish colonists in the levant during ottoman times, were there nor distinctly turkish laws or customs being installed in an attempt to civilise the heathens. the ottoman imperial relationship was much more old-fashioned than that, which you'd know if you knew anything about it
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2015 19:50
|
|
|
Hitlers Gay Secret posted:No, I was only pointing that it was probably a lot different when you actually share religious views with the natives. Well, Lebanon and Palestine, both of which had heavy Christian populations, were not overwhelmingly Muslim under the Ottomans. A large number of people, possibly a majority, in what is today Lebanon very likely preferred the French to the Ottomans.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2015 19:52
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:there weren't many ethnically turkish colonists in the levant during ottoman times, were there There weren't very many ethnically French colonists in the Levant during the French mandatory period either. Why do you post like e. e. cummings?
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2015 19:53
|
|
|
TheImmigrant posted:Well, Lebanon and Palestine, both of which had heavy Christian populations, were not overwhelmingly Muslim under the Ottomans. A large number of people, possibly a majority, in what is today Lebanon very likely preferred the French to the Ottomans. Considering that the Christian populations lasted so long under Ottoman rule seems a lot different compared to non-Christian populations in Christian colonies hmm?
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2015 19:57
|
|
|
Hitlers Gay Secret posted:Considering that the Christian populations lasted so long under Ottoman rule seems a lot different compared to non-Christian populations in Christian colonies hmm? Which 'Christian colonies'? India is overwhelmingly Hindu and Muslim today - Christians constitute less than 2% of its population. Algeria, Tunisia, and Morocco have even fewer Christians. Ottomans imposed jizya on non-Muslim populations in most of their vilayet. I'm not sure whether the British and French had a similar tax for non-Christian populations in their colonies, but I don't think they imposed anything like it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2015 20:04
|
|
|
TheImmigrant posted:Why do you post like e. e. cummings? Why do you post like you have something to say.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2015 20:08
|
|
|
Although in the case of IP in some cases the British followed the inherited Ottoman policy.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2015 20:18
|
|
|
TheImmigrant posted:Which 'Christian colonies'? India is overwhelmingly Hindu and Muslim today - Christians constitute less than 2% of its population. Algeria, Tunisia, and Morocco have even fewer Christians. there you have one of the differences, by the way. what you call ottoman "colonies" were essentially sub-nations dealing with their own affairs so long as they paid tribute in men and cash to the central authority. there was very little missionary activity in the empire, which is why bulgaria isn't majority islamic these days. overwhelmingly, the ottoman empire was an empire in the sense that it was a conglomerate of nations ruled from constantinople, not in the contemporary imperialist sense of establishing their own local elite to extract raw materials for the profit of domestic industrial concerns. contemporary imperialism was a deeply capitalist phenomenon. the ottoman empire was not.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2015 20:25
|
|
|
TheImmigrant posted:Which 'Christian colonies'? India is overwhelmingly Hindu and Muslim today - Christians constitute less than 2% of its population. Algeria, Tunisia, and Morocco have even fewer Christians. The jizya still allowed them to follow their beliefs. But I was referring more to the more 'pagan' ie American religions. But that was more based on other factors so I'll concede.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2015 20:27
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:there you have one of the differences, by the way. what you call ottoman "colonies" were essentially sub-nations dealing with their own affairs so long as they paid tribute in men and cash to the central authority. there was very little missionary activity in the empire, which is why bulgaria isn't majority islamic these days. overwhelmingly, the ottoman empire was an empire in the sense that it was a conglomerate of nations ruled from constantinople, not in the contemporary imperialist sense of establishing their own local elite to extract raw materials for the profit of domestic industrial concerns. contemporary imperialism was a deeply capitalist phenomenon. the ottoman empire was not. Well, of course Ottoman and European colonialism were different phenomena. I was simply trying to figure out whether you were making some kind of normative statement with this observation.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2015 20:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 23:32 |
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:there you have one of the differences, by the way. what you call ottoman "colonies" were essentially sub-nations dealing with their own affairs so long as they paid tribute in men and cash to the central authority. there was very little missionary activity in the empire, which is why bulgaria isn't majority islamic these days. overwhelmingly, the ottoman empire was an empire in the sense that it was a conglomerate of nations ruled from constantinople, not in the contemporary imperialist sense of establishing their own local elite to extract raw materials for the profit of domestic industrial concerns. contemporary imperialism was a deeply capitalist phenomenon. the ottoman empire was not. The word you're looking for here is milets, the various subdivisions of Ottoman minorities. Paying jizya is an element, as is a modicum of self-governance, plus (in the case of Greek Orthodox) the janissary levy. You could arguably say Sykes-Picot's creation of Lebanon as a Maronite Christian client state wasn't too dissimilar, but the Protestant missions in the British Mandate, which spent a lot of time harassing both Jewish and Muslim populations to convert, are clearly different.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2015 20:37
|
|
