|
The I-P Negotiation Scam
May 19, 2011 – Obama Sees ’67 Borders as Starting Point for Peace Deal
Mr. Obama declared that the prevailing borders before the 1967 Arab-Israeli war — adjusted to some degree to account for Israeli settlements in the West Bank — should be the basis of a deal. While the 1967 borders have long been viewed as the foundation for a peace agreement, Mr. Obama’s formula of land swaps to compensate for disputed territory created a new benchmark for a diplomatic solution.
July 20, 2013 – Palestinian officials say Kerry gave guarantees that 1967 borders are basis for new talks
Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas agreed to resume peace talks with Israel only after U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry gave him a letter guaranteeing that the basis of the negotiations will be Israel’s pre-1967 borders, two senior Palestinian officials said Saturday.
A Western official, however, later denied that the ‘67 lines would be the basis of negotiations.
So Obama, for once, actually did what he said? The “Western official” in the above is likely an Israeli. The article later refers to an “U.S. official” distinguishing it from the “Western official” source. The Israeli may be lying. But what did Kerry guarantee or not?
July 22, 2013 – Analysis: How Netanyahu averted coalition crisis
Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu succeeded in preventing his governing coalition from unraveling over the weekend following the announcement of forthcoming negotiations with the Palestinian Authority.
Netanyahu kept Bayit Yehudi leader Naftali Bennett satisfied by receiving a commitment from the Americans that they would not say the talks would be based on pre-1967 borders.
It seems to me that Kerry (and Obama) are giving each side diverging promises. That shows that they are not serious about finding any solution. The scam of negotiations between the two already very unequal sides continues with the U.S. putting its weight as always on the already too strong side of the Israelis. Meanwhile the colonizing of Palestine continues.
George Washington warned Americans against alliances with foreign nations… he was the first but certainly not the last to do so. Here are excerpts from his Farewell Address:
“… [Page 23]
In the execution of such a plan nothing is more essential than that permanent inveterate antipathies against particular Nations and passionate attachments for others should be excluded; and that in place of them just & amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated. The Nation, which indulges towards another an habitual hatred, or an habitual fondness, is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest. Antipathy in one Nation against another–disposes each more readily to offer insult and injury, to lay hold of slight causes of umbrage, and to be haughty and intractable, when accidental or trifling occasions of dispute occur. Hence frequent collisions, obstinate envenomed and bloody contests. The Nation, prompted by ill will & resentment sometimes impels to War the Government, contrary to the best calculations of policy. The Government sometimes participates in the national propensity, and adopts through passion what reason would reject; at other times, it makes the animosity of the Nation subservient to projects of hostility instigated by pride, ambition and other sinister & pernicious motives. The peace often, sometimes perhaps the Liberty, of Nations has been the victim. [return to top]
[Page 24]
So likewise, a passionate attachment of one Nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favourite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest, in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels & Wars of the latter, without adequate inducement or justification: It leads also to concessions to the favourite Nation of priviledges denied to others, which is apt doubly to injure the Nation making the concessions–by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained–& by exciting jealousy, ill will, and a disposition to retaliate, in the parties from whom eql priviledges are withheld: And it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the favourite Nation) facility to betray, or sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity; gilding with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good, the base or foolish compliances of ambition corruption or infatuation.
As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent Patriot. How many opportunities do they afford to tamper [return to top]
[Page 25]
with domestic factions, to practice the arts of seduction, to mislead public opinion, to influence or awe the public Councils! Such an attachment of a small or weak, towards a great & powerful Nation, dooms the former to be the satellite of the latter.
Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence, (I conjure you to believe me fellow citizens,), the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake; since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of Republican Government. But that jealousy to be useful must be impartial; else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defence against it. Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another, cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real Patriots, who may resist the intriegues of the favourite, are liable to become suspected and odious; while its tools and dupes usurp the applause & confidence of the people, to surrender their interests.
The Great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign Nations is in extending our comercial relations to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements let them be fulfilled, [return to top]
[Page 26]
with perfect good faith. Here let us stop.”
http://gwpapers.virginia.edu/documents/farewell/transcript.html
Posted by: crone | Jul 23 2013 0:09 utc | 13
@ Don Bacon #61 & #62
one should clean up one’s own crap, esp. when it comes from Faux News or some other conservative, racist source…
“… Instead, Zimmerman’s legal team went straight to the self-defense, defense…..calculating that because witness accounts were sketchy and inconsistent, and whose voice was crying out, inconclusive…..the burden was on the prosecution to prove that Zimmerman’s life WASN’T on the line. Zimmerman stalked Martin, yes. Zimmerman instigated the tragic event by stalking Martin, yes. But, the defense argued, Martin attacked Zimmerman with such life-threatening ferocity that George Zimmerman had no choice but to use lethal force against the 17 year old.
Fear is subjective, of course…..but medical examiner reports usually aren’t…..
Dr. Valerie Rao, the Jacksonville, Fla., medical examiner for Duval, Clay and Nassau counties, testified that she reviewed Zimmerman’s photographs and medical records. She was not involved in the autopsy of Martin.
The wounds displayed on Zimmerman’s head and face were “consistent with one strike, two injuries at one time,” she testified. “The injuries were not life-threatening,” she said, adding they were “very insignificant.”
Other than the gunshot wound, Trayvon Martin only had one other pertinent injury. A 1/8 inch-by-1/4 inch mark on his ring finger. This, with the medical examiner’s testimony, suggests, although not conclusively, that Trayvon Martin did surprise the stalking Zimmerman with a sucker punch…which could have resulted in Martin getting on top of Zimmerman very briefly.
But what do you do with the medical examiner’s words…..”the injuries (to Zimmerman) were not life-threatening”….in fact, they were “very insignificant?” Not just “insignificant” but “very insignificant.” Can objective evidence from the medical examiner simply be discounted in favor of the “feelings” of George Zimmerman at the time? If Zimmerman’s life was not actually being threatened…..and how could it have been otherwise if Zimmerman’s injuries were “very insignificant?”….is justice served by discounting the nature of those injuries and, instead, deferring to how George Zimmerman “felt”?
That brings us back to Florida’s “stand your ground” law. Yes, I know, Zimmerman waived his appeal to “stand your ground”…..but Zimmerman’s defense team still used “stand your ground” rationale. It’s the ‘resonable fear’ thing….
Florida Statutes CHAPTER 776 JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE
776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force.
However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony…
(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
“imminent death or great bodily harm”…..and the entirely subjective “reasonably believes”. Isn’t that Zimmerman’s defense? George Zimmerman’s story is that he feared for his life…..he “believed”, he said, that his life was in grave danger. But was Zimmerman’s claimed “belief” “reasonable?”
The medical examiner testified under oath, (something Zimmerman did not do), that injuries to Zimmerman were “very insignificant.” If Zimmerman’s injuries, the delivery of which allegedly led Zimmerman to his “belief” that his life was in imminent danger, were medically-speaking, “very insignificant”…..how was Zimmerman’s belief that his life was in imminent danger “reasonable?”
And if Zimmerman’s claim of fear of death or grave bodily harm from Trayvon Martin is not “reasonable”…..then shouldn’t Mr. Zimmerman be found guilty of manslaughter?”
http://www.ohio.com/blogs/mass-destruction/blog-of-mass-destruction-1.298992/key-medical-examiner-evidence-zimmerman-injuries-very-insignificant-1.412884
Documentation for blog comments is affirmed in LATimes article here:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-george-zimmerman-medical-examiner-20130702,0,1358679.story
Posted by: crone | Jul 24 2013 16:39 utc | 71
|
