Olmert says Israel will draw own borders

I guess something is better than nothing. It would be nice if Abbas and Olmert could negotiate and leave the extremists out.

guy's here with his hand out asking the American taxpayer to foot the bills for this shit.

They are one of the twenty (20) wealthiest countries in the World, we are the biggest debtor, what is wrong with this picture?

and the poorest countries in the world(sub-Saharan Africa)who need it more than Israel ever will combined just when it comes to foreign aid(that's excluding military aid)don't receive a quarter of that.

Israel is not one of the 20 wealthiest countries in the world by any conceivable measure.

In terms of total GDP, Israel is somewhere between #s 47-#52 in country rankings for 2005 depending on which rating is used:

Israel
International Monetary Fund: #53 at $158,306 million
World Bank: #47 at $165,738 million
CIA World Fact Book #52 at $140,100 million
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28PPP%29
As shown, Israel ranks behind such 'giant' economies as Vietnam, Nigeria, Algeria, Malaysia, Romania etc. (The U.S. is ranked #1 in all ratings ranging between $11,651,110 million-$12.427.413 million)

Even in respect to PER CAPITA income Israel is only #28 in the world with a per capita income of $17,380. This compares to the #1 ranked country Luxembourg at $56,230 per capita or the #4 ranked U.S. at $41,400 per capita.

Israel's closest 'comrades' on this listing are Cyprus and Greece--2 countries normally not considered among the "wealthiest countries in the world" In fact, Cyprus and Greece, are not normally considered 'wealthy' countries by any standard. So why do you say Israel is?

Cyprus at a 2004 per capita income of $17,580 is ranked #27; Israel at a 2004 per capita income of $17,380 is ranked #28; Greece at a 2004 per capita income of $16,610 is ranked #29.
http://www.finfacts.com/biz10/globalworldincomepercapita.htm

It is a pure canard to label Israel as one of "the 20 wealthiest countries in the world".

Someone is always quick to label one who would call for cutting aid to the sacred cow of Israel a fabulist, yet no one less than Binyamin Netanyahu made this claim to The Times on July 11, 2005. "Mr Netanyahu predicts that within a decade Israel, with a population of about seven million, will be among the world’s ten wealthiest countries. It is in the top 20 already."

How can this be explained? Certainly he isn't lying? It is no matter, Israel has no need of 2.4 Billion Dollars of borrowed money from us for weapons to kill Palestinians with. They can at least do it on their own dime.

aid" to Israel? I never said that. I never said I was in favor of ANY American foreign aid to Israel. In fact, more than just "cutting" aid, I believe ALL U.S. foreign aid to all countries in the ME should be ended at once. Of course that includes Israel. Your apology for jumping to false conclusions about my beliefs is accepted.

And who ever said that Netanyahu's remarks are sacred writ? As I showed you with multiple documented support, Israel in GNP is way down on the list ranking behind Algeria and Roumania and in terms of per capita income it is only equivalent to Cyprus and Greece. Your apologies for relying on remarks by Netanyahu and not checking the facts yourself is also accepted.

Using your own numbers, there are many countries that are much poorer where the people are starving to death. Hell, the US is bankrupting itself over Iraq and Republican corruption. Why should so much of our money go to Israel and Egypt?

There are many Israeli expats and supporters all over the world, especially in the US. Why can't they give their own money privately? I'm 100% in favor of trading with Israel, but there's no reason to give them so much aid.

Stop all aid to all countries in the ME. That includes Israel, Egypt and Jordan. Even though Israel is a democracy and Egypt and Jordan cannot even remotely be considered democratic I would support equally ending all foreign aid of every kind. (Egypt and Jordan together receive nearly the same amount of foreign aid as Israel.) If you support stopping all aid to the ME we have no disagreement.

until they learn to co-exist peacefully and show some improvements in human rights.

So much food and medicine can be purchased with that money that it makes me sick to think we are wasting it.

I've been against all forms of foreign aid for about ten years now. I understand the concept and why some may consider it useful but we are writing checks that the Bank of China cashes- and that we owe to them, with interest. Out of curiosity, because it does fall outside the discussion taking place in this forum, how do you feel about the end of all foreign aid, period?

PB

PB, you are sounding suspiciouly libertarian. That won't be well received on DU. But yes, with some exceptions for genocides like Darfur, or tragedies like the recent Tsunammi, I can agree with you. However, as you stated, thats a different subject.

...be held by other parties but which I assure you (at least in my case) is rooted in good ole-fashioned turned-out-pockets pragmatism. I should have made a clarification which I'm glad you pointed out- relief aid to disaster-stricken areas would not be construed as "foreign aid" in my book. I'm talking about the regular payments we send out to dozens of countries, in essence, to show them what great buddies we are as opposed to the Chinese, say.

But when we borrow same said funds from China (and others), it sort of breaks down the foreign-aid-as-political-currency framework started in the 50's and 60's when the spectre of communism was the boogeyman du jour.

PB

Democratic reform has been happening in Jordan for quite a while now, so why do you say that it isn't even remotely democratic?

Violet...

$2.4 Billion/6 million (Jewish population of the US)= $400

That's about 2/3's of what I give to "Red Cross" agencies each year (American Red Cross, Palestinian Red Crescent, Israeli Red Star of David).

That's about 1/4 of what I give to DCCC, DSCC, DNC, and California Democratic Council (Progressive Democratic Clubs in CA) plus the ACLU and AI.

So, I guess I can cut some of those contributions and start giving to AIPAC? Right?

What has what you claim you donate to things got to do with the price of tea in China?

Violet...

color me so suprised.

"Our deepest wish is to build a better future for our region, hand in hand with a Palestinian partner, but if not, we will move forward, but not alone,"

That does not sound like an "illegal land grab" to me.

they're glad Hamas won the election because they can use it as an excuse. This conflict is not about religion or race. Like all conflicts, it's about land, money, and power. Nobody wants to give up land, not even an inch.

What I am saying is that if Olmert "draws borders" without any general recognition of them, then aren't you exactly where you are now? Essentially he is "threatening" to unilaterally annex some of the conquered lands, which is of course what he wants to do, but it's not a change. The only changes are two:

1.) Internal Israeli formal legalities will change with respect to the "annexed" lands.
2.) Certain lands now under occupation would presumably be transitioned to some other governing authority, and all those lands not "annexed" would become officially "not annexed", like Gaza.

But, you will not in any way "settle the conflict" with this sort of action.

religion, huh? All conflicts are exclusively over "land, money, and power"? That viewpoint is straight out of Dialectic Materialism 1a. Well, its true that Marx ignored and derided religion as a prime motivator for human behavior. But we know how Marx's 'scientific' predictions turned out, don't we?

Tell me who has gone and attacked a people purely for their religious differences without trying to gain any land, money, or power?

Show me an army that has conquered or killed off a people, then turned around and left without taking anything?

"Only" or "Nothing" No nuance allowed, huh? Its not possible for wars to have many causes including religious motivations? Or predominantly religious motivations? Its only "money, land, power". For thousands of years human beings have agonized and debated over the sources and causes of human conflict and YOU, in your undoubted genius have solved the problem with 3 words: "money, land, power". Ok, lets all go home.

There have been dozens of military conflicts primarily motivated by religious fervor and fanaticism. Here's 2 obvious ones.

1) The Jewish rebellion of the Macabees against Seleucid Greece in 167 B.C. This successful armed rebellion began and was fought for nearly 30 years, because of the attempt by King Antiochus Epiphianes to erect a statue of Zeus in the Temple in Jerusalem combined with the forcible prohibition against circumcision of their (Jewish) newborn sons. The Jews rebelled and fought on purely religious reasons. They were successful and established the 3rd Jewish Commonwealth in Israel which lasted from 165BC-60BC.

2) The Arab Islamic conquests of the 7th and early 8th century AD. Inspired by religious fervor and devotion The Arabs emerged from Arabia in 632 AD and within 100 years conquered by the sword a huge area in the near and middle east, northern Africa, Spain, and portions of Southern Europe. The conquered territories were all forcibly converted to Islam. The conquests were inspired and motivated by religious fanaticism. Again, religion was the dominant motivating factor.

Note, that in both cases, there were undoubtedly individuals and groups who used the religious beliefs and fervor of others for their own purposes and took advantage of religious fanaticism for private self interest. So what? It was actions inspired by religious beliefs, not the desire for "money, land and power", though this desire did exist among some, that were the PRIMARY causes for these military conflicts. The desire for "money, land and power" was, at most, a secondary cause among a small minority.

1. "because of the attempt by King Antiochus Epiphianes to erect a statue of Zeus in the Temple in Jerusalem combined with the forcible prohibition against circumcision of their (Jewish) newborn sons." Empires succeed when the people are fairly homogeneous in their cultural beliefs. That's why emperors forced conquered people to convert. When there is cultural diversity, the people don't feel much loyalty to the empire and will have the desire to break away. That war was about power over the Jewish people, and they didn't want the king to have that much power over them. Without fighting, they could still believe in their religion because it's in their hearts and minds. Nobody can control an individual's thoughts without their permission.

2. "The Arabs emerged from Arabia in 632 AD and within 100 years conquered by the sword a huge area in the near and middle east, northern Africa, Spain, and portions of Southern Europe. The conquered territories were all forcibly converted to Islam." They got territory, which is land. Again, they converted the people to their religion because a culturally homogeneous empire is easier to keep together.

It's OK with me if we disagree, but IMHO the above conflicts were clearly about land, money, and power. Religion was a pretense used by the leaders to get their people to follow. Somebody was looking to profit from both wars. The ones who have the most to gain will try to get the others to fight. It's easier to get your average joe to fight for you if you convince him it's about religion and his God wants it. But just because the average joe on the street believes it, doesn't make it true.

It's good to discuss these things.

Either way, I'd much prefer peace! :toast:

harsh comments humbled and shamed me. I apologise for any sarcasm. Yes, its good to discuss these things. Yes, we would all prefer peace.

LeChaim.

Communications expert Frank Luntz, head of the highly respected Luntz Research Companies, arrived in Israel before PM’s trip to Washington to polish Olmert's speech before Congress, which was hailed as a success

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3256139,00.html

<snip>

"Prime Minister Ehud Olmert was assisted by American expert and political analyst Frank Luntz to polish the speech he gave at the joint session of the Senate and the House of Representatives last week, Newsweek reveals.

Dr. Frank Luntz is a communications expert and analyst, a known Jewish republican and head of the Luntz Research Companies. His firm conducts surveys for the Israel Project. Among his famous clients are former New York mayor Rudi Giuliani and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich.

Newsweek magazine reported prior to Olmert's trip to Washington that the prime minister had received consultation from Luntz in Israel."

<snip>

"Olmert's speech was described as a big success after he received 18 standing ovations from senators and House representatives. His speech was also interrupted 23 times by applause."