"With words we govern men" – Disraeli

Alexey Sazonov's column

Entries

04 November, 2009, 05:30

How Will the Lisbon Treaty Change the EU?

permalink

The ratification of the Lisbon Treaty brings about a new era in EU political affairs and in the international arena, as well.

The treaty consists of the following points – it creates the new post of an EU President (President of European Council), it creates the new post of high representative for foreign affairs, more decisions will be implemented by the majority, rather than by unanimous vote, and a row of other points. These, however, I feel are the most important. The road that the European Union is taking is not unique. It is unique in that it is occurring at a time when such shifts are occurring between civilized, developed nations. It is not unique in that the United States followed the same path when it was developing the revolutionary idea of a representative state.

When the United States was declared independent, it drafted the Articles of the Confederation. For those who do not remember their US History – the US was a confederation in the beginning. Each state was a sovereign. It could raise an army, print its own currency, and have a government that was quite autonomous and independent from the other states in the union. The EU had a similar beginning. It took a long time for a federation to emerge, but now it can be safely said that there is a certainty to the creation of a union.

The EU, up until recently, could freely be considered a confederation. For the most part, each EU member state is sovereign. They can raise their own army, as one major point. They have independent governments who have an autonomous governmental structure that is able to deal with its internal affairs independently from other member states. There are Europhiles and Eurocrats (as in the Republican and Democrat parties in the US). One side of the spectrum advocates more power to Brussels, the other side is for more decentralized power. The list of similarities keeps on going. You can most likely fill it in yourself if you remember the history of the US and follow the development of the EU governmental structure.

The Lisbon treaty creates a single EU President. No longer will there be a rotation between the member states for the position of the EU President. There will be implemented a majority voting system that will allow the states to choose the leader. This, in itself, is centralizing more power in Brussels. Europhiles, such as Vaclav Klaus, have reason to stand firm because this directly goes against their belief that EU member states need to be more sovereign. The creation of a single EU President will allow for more power to be gathered in Brussels and will decrease, in the long run, the sovereignty of EU member states’ internal governments.

The most interesting, and probably even more important point of the Lisbon Treaty is the creation of a single post for a representative for foreign affairs. The first purpose of this point is self evident – it gives the EU a single voice on the international level and will allow Europe to be represented as a single political body.

In the long run, there will no longer be deal making between France and China, for example. There will be deals between Europe and China. This does have benefits. All EU member states’ interests will be considered in international affairs. However, if there is a deal that benefits France alone and does not really concern the other countries in that it does not carry any externalities with it, the potential deal will be harmful to France and slow down the process of international bargaining. The foreign minister needs to answer to a higher authority – that authority is the newly created EU President post. In essence, the consolidation of the power to represent the EU on the international level in one post reaffirms and gives more power to Brussels.

The last point, about majority voting, allows EU member states to be proportionally represented. This makes sense, but there also needs a body created that will be an evenly representational legislative institution – a bicameral system. Currently, there is the European parliament. This Lisbon Treaty will decrease the number of representatives and provide proportional representation. As I mentioned in the beginning, the EU follows a path similar to the US.

The United States had some states that wanted to have a proportional representation, while others, the smaller ones, wanted equal representation in the legislative body. The end result was the creation of the House of Representatives and the Senate in the US. The EU, most likely, will have the same waiting for it in the future.

The purpose of this article is to show how the EU is becoming increasingly like the United States in terms of it government’s organization. The structure looks more and more alike and this process seems to be a rule when countries or sovereign states pool together to create a single body. It will be interesting to see the effects of the Lisbon Treaty.

From what can be seen right now, it looks like the EU will be represented as a single union in the international arena. Maybe not in the UN, but as a single entity when conducting foreign policies with Russia, Ukraine, United States, and others. The Lisbon Treaty aims to bring more power to the EU Council. What will come of it? We’ll just have to wait and see. To have a probable picture – open the US history book and refresh your memory on the development of the US government.

Show comments (9)

Garrick

12 November, 2009, 07:51

The Lisbon Treaty seems to have overtones of Soviet influence where the government overlaid an iron blanket upon 15 so-called constituent republics. Those republics each had their own longstanding histories and cultures, but were forced into the Soviet Union. In this union, the republics could "voluntarily secede" if they so wished- but we all know what would happen if any one of them attempted this- the Soviet government would send in the tanks- even to places not within USSR borders, but within the "sphere of influence". Take the 1956 Hungarian uprising or the 1968 Prague Spring; when revolt was attempted, the tanks rolled in and the revolts were quelled by force.
I'm not saying that the EU would go to that extreme (at least I hope not), hopefully they have learned from history. However, I can see the point of view of the EU- after centuries of warfare, WWII being the most recent and most devastating, that they want to build a lasting continental peace between the nations and have been working on that since roughly 1945.
Some people have compared the EU to the US. We started out as 13 colonies, who, over a period of almost 170 years, grew into a self-sustaining "proto- country", capable of self governance tired of tyrannical rule. We declared independence and sought a new form of democratic, republican government. Yes we were a loose confederation under the Articles of Confederation, and no they didn't really work, but it was a first step in a new experiment in self government. The US Constitution came into effect in 1789, effectively uniting us as one country with a shared values and goals.
Europe, on the other hand, is a collection of sovereign nations, with a common goal of peace and economic partnership, but putting them under a "unified blanket" of federation may prove troublesome. The current confederation appears to work well, and offers regional security, but how will 50+ countries come together as one? Certainly the US example only goes so far- we were several colonies who came together to form one country.

Rikard Baric

08 November, 2009, 10:53

America was a dream before becoming USA. Besides South America never became USA. So it must have been some common human dream landing out there in Americas and kept growing. Why North part grew up so differently from the South? Both roots were Judeo-Christian and we used to cling up only to Christian predominant image. However it’s much fairer to observe what happened with Jewish independent political development. We remind ourselves that political means basically only share in the complex ownership.
We say “America” and the thing is vaguely-finished. But WW I entered only USA and far from her territory. The Americans couldn’t possibly be motivated from Christian spiritual reserves being North or South. So the profit from the victory went to USA in particular – we see now – to Jewish wing of Judeo-Christianity. USA did not join Judeo-Christian Russia in the war with Japan, but joined later in WW I being one-go Jewish policy aligned with induction of – lately nominated as - Russian revolution.
WW II was of the same spirit. Russia – absolutely unexpected – won making the turning point for USA to join. Again far, far away from her territory. It went all the way up to “Hiroshima declaration of nuclear human rights” where the Jewish warrior signed its mental pattern of dominance over Christian one.

We split forever.

Now, Alexey you make nice overview of Lisbon Treaty not forgetting any rationale. But the question is – how we now have to live in view of new coming war? It is so much justifiable worry among the people. They don’t frustrate because being neurotic, they are made as such.
The two world wars resulted in profit. My son studied in USA same as you Alexey now and there he learned to apply war as an input on the economic regulatory loop. Why not to make clear – this is the mental view of Jewish inheritance it was never Christian unless…unless the Jewish suffering within Judeo-Christianity joint venture became at some stage – unbearable!
It sounds human to me, though remains unknown. But the thing puzzling the world community is who on earth ever managed to solve own tragedy – by making profit? If you kill myself – would your money compensation cover the loss to my family? And what happened with Jewish families? How come they feel so well with so much nuclear stuff around? Healing their souls with making sustained nuclear war with Iran focused to new profits. Do they, the Jews – once being so atomically separated from Christians today – do they really need so much to heal their religious pursuit or – they don’t have any?

To end this comment – how will Lisbon Treaty align with the new war?

Bianca

07 November, 2009, 20:04

The Lisbon changes are against the will of majority of European population. The last round of voting in Ireland was a joke. After hitting Irelend below the belt, and showing them exactly what can be done to their "prosperity", it scared the urban population our of their wits.

Comparison with US has one valid factor. The more united Europe is forged by US. The "Europe dillema", as discussed by Zbignew Brzezinski in "The Grand Chessboard" is ahead of US policy makers. The dillema consists of giving Europe more regional indpendence, or using the more centralized and unified Europe as a means of easier and more effective control.

History lessons cannot be learned by rigid application of analytical principles taken out of its context. Unified Europe, Lisbon style, would have only twenty years ago meant more US controlled Europe. Today, it is anybody's guess. Under new financial restructuring going on globally, it is very possible that Europe may become a regional power, the way Turkey is now emerging. Turkey may not have European economic and financial leverage, but has more then Europe in geopolitical leverage. It is very likely that Japan will emerge as a regional power, while the situation on Indian subcontinent has yet to play itself out.

Given the trends, it is more likely that Europe charts its own course. We may have seen the evidence just last week. The day Ms. Markel was leaving US, as an afterthough, GM --- in fact US government that is the majority owner --- decides not to sell Opel. The sound of the slap has been heard accross Atlantic. Within 48 hours, Europe strikes back. Finland and Sweden approve, on the same day, the environmental plan for Nord Stream. Or just a strange "coincidence".

It is inevitable for Europe, Turkey and Japan to assert more independent role. Not in opposition to US by any stretch of immagination. But to insure that their own regional interests are not just simply submerged and lost in the "global" management pursued by US. Turkey has been the first to seek economic and political connections with Asia and Middle East, and strenghten ties with Russia. Japan and Europe are just now evaluating their interests, balancing them with the needs of US partner. Japan has become especially vulnerable, as it became isolated from the Asian economic integrations. Now, it has some catching up to do, especially in regard to trade relations with China. Europe has some catching up to do as well with Russia. But in Europe, this will prove more difficult. Lisbon will minimize the damage that the "new Europe" created over time. But the unsettled Balkans will remain a problem.

Obama Administration is suffering from leaving many holdovers from previous administrations (both Clinton and Bush) in key positions all over the Government. This is why many projects are happening by inertia, by people who have been in charge of those projects. Every now and then, the virus kicks in, and there is a "renewed" spirit of Halbrooke in Bosnia, examining and reexamining, stirring things up, and forging loyalties. Same is true with stirring things up in Bulgaria, Romania, Moldova, Serbia, Macedonia and of course --- Kosovo.
Will Obama Administration finally come to the lower ranks of its Administration, and get some fresh air in --- nobody knows. Or it perhaps will not be possible for as long as Ms. Clinton is in charge.

All other comparisons with US history are not very applicable. America was shaped at first by a happy historical circumstance --- isolationism. British Empire did not grasp the significance of loosing colonies, and when it did, it was too late. The potential for development, that is, endless explansion to new lands and resources without serious military threat from natives, created an unusual set of circumstances. The civil war was mostly the war for the control of the West, and Westward expansion --- no matter what the other, more romantic stories tell us. The end of the civil war created the unity of INTERESTS, not ideals. Ideals came AFTER the interests issues have been ironed out among the elites. Other historic fortunes involved the relative distance from the European wars of self-destruction, WWI and WWII.
Europe thought they were about to control the entire world. it was within their grasp. This is the main reason why they fought --- to insure that the winner takes all. Well, they misjudged. After WWI, British Empire was not Empire any more, even though in their vocabulary and attitudes, they believed they were. WWII clarified that, for sure.

Cold war was, according to Condoleeza Rice, the largest economic blocade known to mankind. Soviet Union was under tight economic blocade by the most developed countries, and that isolated and suffocated its innovation, trade and standard of living.

These circumstances also benefited US, as war devastated Europe was in no position to bargain.

It is only in the post Cold War world, that US is acting on its own accord, and not taking advantage of favorable external circumstances. That not being the "political habit", brought to the top various "thinkers" with "global" view. From Zbignew Brzezinski's theory of the control of Eurasian landmass, to the neocon revolutionary spread of democracy world wide, to the "war on terrorism", the new pro-active actors are on stage. America is experiencing discomfort, determination to "stay the course", even when wrong, and increasingly relies on chaos to create opporunities for advancing interests. Behind the pro-active elite, stand global corporations, primarily energy. Their interests have become identified with the national inerests. But America has come to the point of having to rethink this. The whole concept has no economic nor political future.

Will the traditional American strength again come to the rescue? The ability to learn and self-correct, reinvent and prosper have been the mainstay of American history.

But were those only the result of favorable historic circumstances, or indeed the strenght of the system?

The times ahead will tell. In the meantime, more regional visibility to regional actors is going to shape our near future. Will Europe be part of that trend? I cannot see how can it stay out. Its economy depends on going global, and typical European navel-gazing exercise will have to be ditched. Leaving provincial, baroque, quaint Europe with some learning to do. Learning how to live with diversity, how to talk to "other" world without giving lectures, and treating them as equals? It may be exciting time for Europe, or it may prove to be too much. If that happens, the Appendix on the great Eurasian body, called Europe, may atrrofie and shrivel.

aleks mici

06 November, 2009, 23:05

This EU let us see and konws that ther is not any kind of democracy !
Now it is clear that democracy is just onother practical joke!
It is just the creation on unnatural way of the former Roman Imperium !

john

06 November, 2009, 09:58

EU has no future unless they get rid of american occupaton.

johnx

05 November, 2009, 23:18

@D. Larsen

"Though flattered that the EU is being mentored by the American historical experience, one can only hope they pick up on our virtues and not our vices."

They did help create that god awful state in Kosovo.

Artyom

05 November, 2009, 15:25

This is absolutely ridiculous to compare USA and the EU. United States was a Confederation in the beginning coming from the Colonies. They became a nation United by the fact they all have in common ideals and common goal. Europe is full of nation states full of different cultures and history that span the ages. EU government is being placed on top of nation states government practically against their will. This treaty has been rejected multiple times and they can't take NO for an answer and kept pushing it. There isn't anything democratic about the EU what so ever. Most people refer to it as the EUSSR for a reason and its rise to power is definitely concerning.

D. Larsen

04 November, 2009, 21:18

Though flattered that the EU is being mentored by the American historical experience, one can only hope they pick up on our virtues and not our vices.

Carlos Cortiglia

04 November, 2009, 16:00

The people in Britain were not given the opportunity to decide when others peoples in Europe had their say. British Democracy? What British Democracy?

post comment

31 October, 2009, 15:40

It doesn’t matter who wins the Afghan elections

permalink

Regardless of who wins the elections in Afghanistan, the overall picture will not change. The United States simply cannot let the events unfold as they do, because that would make their war effort lose diplomatic legitimacy. After all, one of the main points for the invasion of Afghanistan in the first place was not only going after terrorists, but also “spreading democracy”. Thus, it is important to hold a show of fair political representation in Afghanistan so that, years down the road, it can be claimed that there was effort made in installing a legitimate and democratically elected government.

Hamid Karzai has been in power for almost the entirety of America’s official involvement in Afghanistan. His rule is viewed as illegitimate by many of the Afghans. In addition, representation in Afghan cultures is different from the Western idea of a representative voting system. The Afghans entrust their elders to cast the village’s votes. The EU and US officials tend to view this as infringement upon the newly created and enforced electoral system in Afghanistan - thus the claims of overwhelming fraud and other such violations.

The current election process was bound not to go the way that it was supposed to. The Taliban are not going to sit on their butts and see their former area of rule desecrated by the villainous Westerners. It was to be expected that they were going to step up their operations in Afghanistan. There was most likely a sense of false safety inside Kabul. Also, taking into account Pakistan’s efforts in South Waziristan, some top officials may have thought that the main efforts of the Taliban would be concentrated on repelling the Pakistani Army. And yet, the Taliban have managed to deal heavy blows to the NATO presence and UN operations in Afghanistan.

Regardless of the candidate that wins the next election in Afghanistan, what will happen is that they will be the façade of US power in Afghanistan. As most Afghans do not view the current leadership as a central theme to be rallied around, the purpose of the governing body is lost. If the people do not have faith in the government, the government is only legitimate on paper. Well, it is radical to say that all Afghans oppose the leadership. On the contrary, the Afghans mainly oppose the fact that the leadership is led and manipulated by external governments.

Reading the recent news about the elections and the bombing in Afghanistan, it becomes ever more clear that the current US strategy of “democratizing” the Afghans is failing. It is not to say that that endeavor was destined for failure from the beginning. The strategy needs to implement the local governing traditions and customs. It is impossible to change a culture in a short amount of time. It is a lot easier to work with the flow than trying to redirect it in a completely different direction.

post comment

Show comments (1)

michaelhockney

01 November, 2009, 17:05

What I find quite amazing is the inability of the foreign forces in Afghanistan to undertake any serious reasoning of their actions. Eight years into a war you think this wouldhave happened. It has not apart from a few isolatedmutterings from Nato generals which are quickly buried or treated as unpatriotic.To be involved in a war of any kind is by definition "a failure". A failure of diplomatic abilities as well as a failure of moral high ground; even if you are forced into a war. We have not advanced very far at all from Victoria gun boat diplomacy days. Historians essentially ridicule the events leading up to the first world war as if the magnitude of such a diplomatic folly will never happen again. Well actually it is. The folly of the saving and democratization of Afghanistanand the holy war the west is waging on Islam. The CIA, Mosad, Nato etc have been impotent in their ability to capture osama Bin Laden.It has becomea joke. The most powerful and technologically advanced nations cannot find him. One could understand a year or so,possibly 2, but no capture in 8 years? The reason is staring them right in the face. The war is not about technology. It is not Desert Storm played on a flat desert. The reason is also the very reason the USSR pulled out. The Afghan terrain makes it impossible for foreignmilitary victory. What is inevitable is that many more Afghan civilians,nato trops and Taliban will die. I will bet you anything you like that in 10 years nato and everyone else will be gone and the historians will write their academic reports on another foreign intervention disaster in Afghanistan. I will also bet something else. Nowone from Nato command has made a call to The Russian military to get some expert first-hand advice on how to conduct military operations in Afghanistan. Someone might say well The Russians were there years ago under different circumstances. true but this underlines the exact reason why Nato is doomed to fail here. This is a holy war that is fought in terms of decades or centuries. The Soviet time-line is indeed very relevant in the eyes of Afghans.

28 October, 2009, 01:52

Israel’s Politics of Solving the “Palestinian Question”

permalink

Israel is genuinely scared of Palestinians. Their approach to the Arab population and the Palestinians cannot be called anything but the “Palestinian Question.” The policies that Israel enacts are aimed at decreasing the quality of life in Gaza and other Muslim dominated areas for one reason only – to decrease the birth rate of Palestinians and decrease the available land in order to contain the birthrate and eventually make the Palestinians a marginal people in the country.

Why is this Israel’s main concern? That’s an easy question to answer. The Palestinians are born more often than Israeli Jews. The current article will not be about the reasons for disparity in birth rates, but about how Israel deals with this. It is mindboggling to see how low a civilized state is willing to go in order to push through an agenda that is racist and discriminating.

Amnesty International -- an organization that I, personally, do not particularly like --released a report recently that states that Israel restricts the flow of water resources to Palestine and other Muslim-dominated areas. Considering that Israel is located in an area where there is not much fresh water - it is essential to life.

Palestinians are part of Israel, currently. Yet the Israeli government discriminates by allocated this vital resource to the Jewish population and restricts its flow to the Arab areas. There is a minimum level of water that has to be consumed by a single person in order to survive. The Israeli government has calculated the rate of water that is to be allocated to designated areas in order to curb the birth rates and the standards of living. This is a particularly low blow that should definitely be investigated by international agencies. Under everyone’s noses, the people that themselves were discriminated against are enacting racist policies themselves.

The Israeli government is bringing in large numbers of Jews from around the world into the new settlements in the West Bank and other areas. Why is this relevant and how does this help? Of course, the most evident reason is that this pushes out the Arab population and confines them into an increasingly smaller area.

However, there is more to the settlements than that. The settlers are armed. They are not government officials and are “allowed” to settle disputes with the Arab neighbors in their own ways. The actions are simple – destroy the olive orchards, destroy the gardens, get the most water, etc. Numerous incidents have been reported by the International Solidarity Movement (ISM), but no action has been taken on any level.

The Palestinians are left to fend for themselves. If the Palestinians arm themselves, they will be considered terrorists and radicals and prosecuted under Israeli law. The law looks the other way when the settlers, wielding weapons, move into the Palestinian area and push out the local population.

The last thing that I would like to mention is that Israel restricts deliveries of almost all medical supplies into Gaza and other areas. This is a story that I heard from an ISM volunteer. When the Israeli IDF moved into Gaza and began bombing the strip, ISM had a ship loaded with supplies coming out of Cyprus. The ship was loaded with medical supplies and volunteers.

The Cyprian government officials signed a document stating that the ship had been checked for weapons and that the there was nothing onboard that would be used to arm terrorists and support them in their cause. The ship was ordered to turn around when it entered Israeli waters. After refusing to do so, an Israeli ship actually got an order from the top officials to ram the ISM ship. The ship, after being severely damaged, had to turn around to go back to Cyprus.

To date, the Israeli government does not allow any organization to bring in large quantities of medical supplies and volunteers to any area such as the Gaza Strip or the West Bank, where primarily Arabs live. This is not to say that different organizations don’t use illegal means to smuggle in the necessary medical supplies, but when caught, everything gets confiscated without explanation or chance of getting back the supplies.

The purpose of this article is to bring attention to the violations and double standards of the Israeli government. The fact that a state that was created for those that have been brutally pursued and killed is behaving in a racist and indiscriminate fashion is simply unacceptable. Israeli soldiers go unpunished when they perform crimes against the civilian population in Gaza and the West Bank.

The Israeli government is afraid that the Arab population will get too large to be able to contain, and so the policies of Tel Aviv are becoming increasingly aimed at diminishing the quality of life of the Palestinians and other Arabs, in turn hoping to decrease birth rates and population numbers. The new settlements call on anyone that wants to live there that is not Muslim in order to push out the Arabs.

Anyone with even a slight hint of Jewish heritage is allowed to settle in the West Bank and other areas. I do not support the ways of terrorist organizations that fight Israel. I also do not support the racist and discriminate policies of Israel. Both sides need to peacefully sit down and talk. The current means of policy enforcement is not the way that differences are solved in a civilized world.

post comment

Show comments (7)

lelorrain

31 October, 2009, 05:14

In 1947 Palestine was divided not the way you claim.

johnx

30 October, 2009, 15:28

Depopulation strategy in the future might be a survival strategy because if a hostile Palestinian population becomes a majority that would have dire effects on Jews and non-Muslim citizens of Israel where Israel would cease to exist as when Muslims become a significant majority over there Christian or other non-Muslim inhabitants usually involves ethnic cleansing of it’s non Muslims inhabitants as an example Kashmir over 300,000 ethnic Indians, Chechnya over 200,000 ethnic Russians, Serbs from Bosnia and over 200,000 Serbs from Kosovo also mention that Hamas was involved in the Jihad in Bosnia and Chechnya against Serbs and Russians claiming decent from SS division in Bosnia during WW2. Also cite killing of Buddhists in Thailand, Christians in Philippines, Han Chinese in Xinjing province, regions in Africa, etc even civil strife between different Muslim groups with civil war in Algeria and Pakistan.

It is extremely hypocritical however for Jewish groups to be spearheading the immigration policy into Europe and the US as well as prominent Jewish figures in the feminist movement and free abortion that has helped change the demographics of Europe and the US.
Also to mention there sponsorship and support along with Zionist Jewish Neocon like Pearle supporting Islamic movements with clear connections to international terrorism across the world other than Palestine most noticeably in the Balkans, Chechnya and Russia’s other regions and Xinjing with the US the only country to recognize it as independent East Turkmenistan

As the late Tom Lantos addressing Nicholas Burns of the State Department said:

"Let me just raise a few items, Mr. Secretary. The first one: just a reminder to the predominantly Muslim-led governments in this world that here is yet another example that the United States leads the way for the creation of a predominantly Muslim country in the very heart of Europe. This should be noted by both responsible leaders of Islamic governments, such as Indonesia, and also for jihadists of all color and hue. The United States' principles are universal, and in this instance, the United States stands foursquare for the creation of an overwhelmingly Muslim country in the very heart of Europe."

General Wesley Clark during the bombing of Serbia:

"There is no place in modern Europe for ethnically pure states. That’s a 19th-century idea and we are trying to transition into the 21st century, and we are going to do it with multiethnic states.”

john

30 October, 2009, 07:02

The Palestinian problem cannot be solved. Average Palestinian woman has nine children. No economy in the world is able to support such population growth. In particular the Palestinian economy does not even exist. All Palestinian budget comes from donations and unemployment is over 80%. There are just too many people growing up without education, qualifications and jobs. Their only purpose in life is to create problems for Israel. The Palestinian state has no chance to exist on its own. It can only be a puppet state artificially kept alive.

Rose

30 October, 2009, 03:30

They treat Palestinian Prisoners terribly plus those who are charged many times are innocent. They are either tortured or imprisoned until they plead guilty.

Paul

29 October, 2009, 08:21

Robert,

Your comment is nonsensical. Everything Fred wrote is spot on. You talk about firing missiles at Oregon, which shows you don't have a grasp of the situation. A more accurate analogy is if you were keeping people locked in the hallway of your apartment building with no food or water (and tortured them on your way home everyday), and then some of these people in the hallway decided to kick in your front door. That is a fitting analogy Robert. Israel is commiting state terrorism, violating numerous U.N . resolutions, and has no moral or legal credibility. Free the Palestinians!

Paul

Robert Curley Jacobs

29 October, 2009, 03:37

u.n. resolution 181 (in 1947) divided Israel into a palestinian state and an israeli state. but then the palestinians and their arab buddies started multiple wars with israel and lost their land. this is on top of the fact that islam didn't start until 500 ad and the jews have been on the land for thousands of years (jesus kicked it there for example). i'd love to come out to oregon and just take your house, or at least lob some rockets into your backyard. and then i'm going to get a bunch of assholes like you to say that you are a war criminal and lots of other bullshit.

Fred

28 October, 2009, 22:38

Alexey,

Thank you for highlighting some ongoing acts of barbarism committed by Israel against the Palestinians. I appreciated your piece. In your last paragraph, you stated you do not support the means used by "terrorist organizations" to fight Israel. You rightfully questioned why Israel would carry out such policies, but you labeled Israel a "civilized state" and you referred to the Palestinians organizations that use violence as "terrorist organizations." As George Galloway noted most people around the world consider Israel a terrorist state. Now, let me be clear to you, I condemn all forms of terrorism. But you cannot point the finger at the slave and condemn his violence while calling the slave master civilized. There is nothing civilized about Israeli policy towards Arabs in Israel proper and, certainly not, in the occupied terror ties. How are they civilized? Is it because Israel is a client state of the U.S. and by default it becomes "civilized?" Or do you jest? And this brings me to my central point. You highlighted some of the abuses carried out by Israel, but you did not mentioned one word about Washington funding these atrocities and providing unwavering diplomatic support-- a carte blanche. Remember, during the Reagan administration, Nelson Mandela was on the State Department's official list of terrorists; black South Africans suffered under a U.S. supported apartheid regime. The Palestinians continue to suffer under the foot of a U.S. supported apartheid regime.

You conclude by stating,” Both sides need to peacefully sit down and talk." In order to talk and have serious negotiations, parties to a dispute need a neutral arbiter-- the U.S. is the biggest road block to that peaceful negotiation as it continually rewards Israel for massacres, provides cover for Israel barbarity, and demonizes the Palestinians in its mass media. Washington doesn't seem to blink at the Israeli butchery committed in Gaza and the West Bank-- the billions keep flowing.

Fred.......Oregon, USA.......

<< Previous posts

Following posts >>

About author

My name is Alexey Sazonov. I was 11 years old when I came to United States from St. Petersburg, Russia. I have been interested in politics my whole life. I believe in rational thinking, especially when it comes to politics. Political analysis should be unbiased and verified. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions and loyalties. However, public news and analysis should be based on multiple sources and facts.

I am currently a student at University of Illinois at Chicago, majoring in Economics, with minors in International Business and Political Science. I believe it is everyone's essential duty to understand the politics of today's world for everyone on this planet is effected by world leaders' daily decisions.

“With words we govern men” – Disraeli.

Blogs&Columns

Corporate Profile

Broadcasting

Feedback

Career

On Air Talent

Forums

Extras

Programs

RT Galleries

Partners