Skip to main content

View Diary: Khatami is In--This is a Clear Signal (309 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I truly hope Khatami wins (8+ / 0-)

    That would be absolutely huge.

    Now we just gotta pray Netanyahu loses, and we may have some real opportunity  to reduce tensions in the region.

    Truth is what most contradicts itself in time.

    by Blicero on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 07:08:14 PM PST

    •  Re: Netanyahu... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      ...everyone thought that Ariel Sharon would set back the I/P conflict generations (especially after his march on the Dome of the Rock), but -- right before his stroke -- there were at least positive steps being made. So while Netanyahu has a history of bellicosity, never underestimate the "only Nixon can go to China" adage.

      it fitfully blows, half conceals, half discloses

      by Addison on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 07:13:22 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  What we really need (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Red Sox, filby, tari, shenderson

        is someone on the Palestinian side who wants peace to become more popular than Abbas or Hamas.

        Israelis don't particularly trust Netanyahu and will dump him in the next election is there is real movement from the other side.

      •  The Right Can Make Concessions in Israel (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        bicycle Hussein paladin

        Begin was a good example of this-albeit grudgingly. And Sharon made some small moves in the right direction.

        But Netanyahu, unfortunately,  seems too entrenched in his own rhetoric to move forward in any positive, conciliatory way.

        Tax Cuts Are Their Jesus -B. Whitford

        by Indieman on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 01:57:19 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Sharon was was awfal + Netanyahu will be worse (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        KenBee, elwior, Johnny Q

        Don't fool yourself a vote for Netanyahu is a vote for war.

        A Promise of War
        The past four Israeli elections have been won by a candidate who promised to end Israel's conflict with the Palestinians. Tomorrow, for the first time in decades, Israelis may choose a prime minister who is promising to wage war.

        The idea that Sharon was a man of peace is based on pure ignorance.

        Israel Committing "State Terror" in Gaza Attack, Preventing Peace

        AVI SHLAIM: President Bush described Ariel Sharon as a man of peace. I’ve done a great deal of archival research on the Arab-Israeli conflict, and I can honestly tell you that I have never come across a single scintilla of evidence to support the view of Ariel Sharon as a man of peace. He was a man of war, a champion of violent solutions, a man who rejected totally any Palestinian right to self-determination. He was a proponent of Greater Israel, and it is in this context that I see his decision to withdraw unilaterally from Gaza in August of 2005.

        The withdrawal was officially called the unilateral Israeli disengagement from Gaza. I would like to underline the word "unilateral." Ariel Sharon was the unilateralist par excellence. The reason he decided to withdraw from Gaza was not out of any concern for the welfare of the people of Gaza or any sympathy for the Palestinians or their national aspirations, but because of the pressure exerted by Hamas, by the Islamic resistance, to the Israeli occupation of Gaza. In the end, Israel couldn’t sustain the political, diplomatic and psychological costs of maintaining its occupation in Gaza.

        And let me add in parentheses that Gaza was a classic example of exploitation, of colonial exploitation in the postcolonial era. Gaza is a tiny strip of land with about one-and-a-half million Arabs, most of them—half of them refugees. It’s the most crowded piece of land on God’s earth. There were 8,000 Israeli settlers in Gaza, yet the 8,000 settlers controlled 25 percent of the territory, 40 percent of the arable land, and the largest share of the desperately scarce water resources.

        Ariel Sharon decided to withdraw from Gaza unilaterally, not as a contribution, as he claimed, to a two-state solution. The withdrawal from Gaza took place in the context of unilateral Israeli action in what was seen as Israeli national interest. There were no negotiations with the Palestinian Authority on an overall settlement. The withdrawal from Gaza was not a prelude to further withdrawals from the other occupied territories, but a prelude to further expansion, further consolidation of Israel’s control over the West Bank. In the year after the withdrawal from Gaza, 12,000 new settlers went to live on the West Bank. So I see the withdrawal from Gaza in the summer of 2005 as part of a unilateral Israeli attempt to redraw the borders of Greater Israel and to shun any negotiations and compromise with the Palestinian Authority.

        nor can we consume the world's resources without regard to effect. For the world has changed, and we must change with it. - Barack Obama

        by Lefty Coaster on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 06:02:51 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  I disagree... (0+ / 0-)

      I think he needs to win, but with a close election, so he has no drastic mandate.  

      For any lasting peace agreement, the hardliners need to be the ones at the negotiation table. Any deal the moderates would make would be scoffed at by the hardliners - however any deal the hardliners make would be respected by the moderates.

      Netanyahu winning is the only real chance for a lasting peace deal.

      Gillibrand vs Jindal in 2016 - Who ya got?

      by Jonze on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 07:51:06 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site