This will have a huge impact on the future of the world.

2/11/2009 11:04:18 PM

Yes, Israel should always be the center of attention.

2/11/2009 11:09:25 PM

I think that the type of attention the Israelis get, most nations would rather do without.

2/11/2009 11:13:54 PM

The US tends to be the center of attention in every little thing that happens in the world.

The difference in ideals and policy differences between Netenyahu and Livni can have a major effect on the course of world history.

2/11/2009 11:18:11 PM

I could stand to hear less about the US in the world news, but I don't think the results of Israel's elections will be earth-shaking. How do N's and L's differences set this election apart from every other Israeli election?

2/12/2009 1:20:32 AM

The OP is right and ^ should try to do some research before posting the rolleyes.

Netanyahu will likely try to take out Iran's nuclear facilities as his first order of business if he takes power. He has repeatedly compared Iran to Nazi Germany, and all but stated that he would launch a preemptive strike on Iran if elected. He broke with Ariel Sharon a couple of years ago because he thought Sharon was too nice to the Palestinians. The guy wasn't too bad when he was in power back in the 90's, but he has shifted more to the right in recent years and would likely cause a war to break out if he becomes leader of the ruling coalition.


[Edited on February 12, 2009 at 3:14 AM. Reason : 2]

2/12/2009 3:11:30 AM

and where Israel goes, the US goes.

2/12/2009 9:56:02 AM

and when the US goes, they screw up everything.

[Edited on February 12, 2009 at 10:02 AM. Reason : atleast, lately they have]

2/12/2009 10:01:47 AM

My bad.

2/12/2009 11:31:45 AM

not they won't.

Chimerica will not need fossil fuels, nor will the strategic importance of the Suez Canal or the Straits of Hormuz be an issue.


...and i'm talking about 2069 here folks

2/12/2009 11:31:47 AM

Livni is pretty moderate on most issues, but she's seen as a radical by some for the fact that she's in favor of giving land for peace. Although I hate Netenyahu, Livni might be a little too optimistic to do what needs to be done. I would be all for the land for peace argument if it had worked the previous 3 times Israel tried it. On the other hand, Netenyahu will probably go too far and do plenty of things that don't need to be done.

If I had been able to vote I probably would have voted Livni (I'm hoping to have dual citizenship by the next election so I'll actually be able to)

^5769 is now...dumbass.

[Edited on February 12, 2009 at 1:27 PM. Reason : -]

2/12/2009 1:26:04 PM

Quote :

"would be all for the land for peace argument if it had worked the previous 3 times Israel tried it."

To suggest that Israel made a genuine attempt at a "land for peace" deal is egregious at best and down right disingenuous at worst. Israel has not made a fair attempt at giving land for peace. Through each attempt that has been made Israel has made half-hearted attempts by presenting offers which they knew no self-respecting nation would accept. Many of the offers made by Israel have only divided up the palestinian land in a way where the three major sections would be separated and have difficulties of trade imposed on them which would no doubt strangle the formation and development of the area and eventually lead in a consequential dissolution of the new state providing Israel control of those areas once again. It would be one thing if the lands requested by Palestine were unreasonable, hwoever,Palestine didn't even require full pre-1967 borders. During the 2000/2001 negotiations Palestine, after years of fighting for their position, finally had Israel agree to a deal- which was essentially the same that Palestine had requested since the 70's, however Israel reneged on that deal.

2/12/2009 3:48:35 PM

I guess Israel almost broke out into civil war for nothing after Ariel Sharon ordered all the Jewish settlers out in 2006.

Quote :

"three major sections"

I only count two...

Quote :

"Palestine didn't even require full pre-1967 borders."

Palestine doesn't require any land, but Israel has given so much of it back anyway. (When a foreign power attacks you and you strike back and win, you get land. That's how war works.)

2/12/2009 5:08:58 PM

^^^ oic

but my point still stands, sooner rather than later, America's silk road is over the pacific in planes powered by something other than fossil fuels.

the past is NEVER more important than the future.

with the help of technology, Chimerica will no longer need oil, nor the strategic positioning of that part of the world. all the desert dwelling worshippers of blood can go back to chopping each others heads off to the point that they're nothing more than a queef stain in path of human progress.

i don't care what your bloodlust religions decree, i was told all this by the Sun-God while doing my yoga sun salutations this morning ok... and then i ate some oatmeal and went back to watching cnbc.



[Edited on February 12, 2009 at 5:22 PM. Reason : ]

2/12/2009 5:09:30 PM

Quote :

"I guess Israel almost broke out into civil war for nothing after Ariel Sharon ordered all the Jewish settlers out in 2006. "

I didn't know there were no more settlers in the West Bank anymore!!! (all illegal under international law)

2/12/2009 5:15:12 PM

They are almost none left in Gaza. That's what I was referring to. Sharon gave his own people eviction notices and soldiers had to force Israelis from their homes in Gaza. It was supposed to be a showing of good will and hope for the future but Hamas didn't respond that way.

This is my point from earlier though, the difference between these candidates could mean more offers of land (and most likely more turmoil between Israelis) or a complete refusal to negotiate at all.

2/12/2009 5:19:38 PM

Quote :

"I only count two..."

Clearly i'm talking about the segments which would be ceded to Palestine that separate Bethlehem-Hebron, Jenin-Nablus, and Ramalah from one another through roads that would forbid palestinian travel. This segmenting of regions creates a stranglehold that destines these severed regions to failure.

Quote :

"I guess Israel almost broke out into civil war for nothing after Ariel Sharon ordered all the Jewish settlers out in 2006."

For starters a lot were them were given subsidies and other incentives to move to the Heights, and this "civil war" was largely just a production with the real goal being further expansion. Nethanyahu himself, when regarding the move, stated that Israel was to invest hundreds of millions into creating new settlements on the west bank as it removed itself from the Gaza. The Gaza entire move could have been done without military intervention, all that was required was a notice and a timely and civil departure by the settlers. The intervention was used to gain sorrow and so that people would disregard the west bank expansion (which is against law). This happened before in 1982, which was described by Israeli journalists as largely a farce. General Erez, who conducted the operation, even said that it was all planned from the beginning. During this removal those removed were subsidized to go and settle the Golan Heights. I guess the major difference between the two events, 82 and 05, is that the first time this production took place they didn't leave the remaining palestinians there and surrounded by an electric fence.

Quote :

"Palestine doesn't require any land, but Israel has given so much of it back anyway. (When a foreign power attacks you and you strike back and win, you get land. That's how war works.)"

Israel has barely given any land back, and that which has been given back has been done so with consequence, as pointed out above. A UN resolution was even formed demanding the pre-1967 bordres and the UN demanded again in the 90s that Israel create a solution that is Pre-1967 borders, and the only three to vote it down were the US, Israel and some random country, dominica, maybe. Evidently not everyone agrees with your concept of "thats how war works".

Also you may actually want to read about the '67 war. Israel did a pre-emptive strike against egypitan forces. Egypt wasn't attacking Israel, and definitely not Palestine.

2/13/2009 9:48:18 AM

Indecision 5769 - Jews or Lose
http://www.hulu.com/watch/57527/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart-indecision-5769---jews-or-lose#s-p1-st-i1

Jon Stewart, as always, with the comic relief.

2/13/2009 4:32:32 PM

Quote :

"Nethanyahu himself, when regarding the move, stated that Israel was to invest hundreds of millions into creating new settlements on the west bank as it removed itself from the Gaza."

Sharon called for the move, Netenyahu was against it. They weren't exactly friendly with each other.

Quote :

"Israel did a pre-emptive strike against egypitan forces. Egypt wasn't attacking Israel"

Pre-emptive being key. Egypt wasn't attacking yet. But there was clear evidence that they were going to. Israel then took the Sinai Peninsula. But they gave it back, and they haven't been a problem to each other since then. The Sinai Peninsula is twice the size of Israel itself, I wouldn't call that an insignificant giving back of land.

2/13/2009 7:05:27 PM

Quote :

"Sharon called for the move, Netenyahu was against it. They weren't exactly friendly with each other."

Are you insinuating that Nethanyahu was suggesting negative intentions of the move as to discredit sharon? That seems a bit outlandish.

Quote :

"Pre-emptive being key. Egypt wasn't attacking yet. But there was clear evidence that they were going to. Israel then took the Sinai Peninsula. But they gave it back, and they haven't been a problem to each other since then. The Sinai Peninsula is twice the size of Israel itself, I wouldn't call that an insignificant giving back of land."

Pre-emptive does not always imply that you are in immediate and unpreventable peril, see Iraq war, for example. Egypt had lined up troops, but was not attacking attacking because they were confirming information provided from Russia that Israel was mounting an attack against them. This information could have proved to be false, and Egypt would have never attacked. Israel had only discredit this information and there would be no strike by Israel. Be that as it may, if Egypt had attacked first it could easily be explained, based on the information they had at large, as a preemptive strike, and based on your apparent rationalization of events would have been okay.

While Israel may have given land back to Egypt, Palestine is what is in question and is to what you were referring in your post regarding the elections and the candidates ideas of peace. Conceding the Sinai is of little benefit to the nation state of Palestine. Only insignificant returns to land, despite the UN declarations, have been provided to Palestine; furthermore, these returns usually come at the price of further entrenched expansion into other areas and more suffocation of the palestinian resources.

To come full circle and encompass the topic at hand I do not feel that it is accurate to say earnest attempts of Land for peace have been made, in that case I would strongly prefer a dove like Livni, and its good that the citizens of Israel are appearing to favor such a position as well. A hawk such as Nethanyahu would be too extreme.

2/16/2009 11:02:44 AM

Quote :

"Are you insinuating that Nethanyahu was suggesting negative intentions of the move as to discredit sharon? That seems a bit outlandish."

Huh? Sharon had to break with Netanyahu and Likud, and create the Kadima party as a result of the move. Of course Netanyahu was trying to discredit Sharon and the Gaza pullout, since they became rivals. Any proclamations by Netanyahu about settlements in the West Bank carried no weight, since he was no longer part of the ruling coalition.

2/16/2009 12:50:17 PM

To suggest that Nethanyahu would not still have the understanding of the workings of government and plans at that point is preposterous. Regardless of your take on the comments that were made that does not alter the fact that 10s (i was in correct earlier with hundreds it was 10s) of millions of dollars were funneled to the west bank for further expansion, which Nethanyahu supported, immediately following the 2005 'eviction'.

2/16/2009 2:10:44 PM

Quote :

"JERUSALEM (Reuters) – Benjamin Netanyahu's chances of becoming Israel's prime minister were boosted on Thursday by the conditional backing of an ultranationalist politician who emerged as a kingmaker in a photo-finish election. Avigdor Lieberman, leader of the Yisrael Beiteinu party, recommended to President Shimon Peres that he tap Netanyahu to form a government, if the right-wing Likud chief pursued a broad coalition. Netanyahu has said he would do so. "

Looks like Netanyahu is gonna be the man in charge.

Prepare for lots of sabre-rattling, aggressive crackdowns on Palestinian militants and maybe even a pre-emptive attack on Iran.

This could get ugly.

2/19/2009 10:25:22 AM