Skip to main content

View Diary: Ask Senators For Balance In MidEast "Dear Colleague" Letter (Updated) (235 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Question, please: (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    deaniac20, canadian gal

    Why are we making "settlement freeze" a pre-condition for negotiations?

    Why is the construction of a mere 20 housing units in East Jerusalem, or construction within settlements that will end up being part of Israel, anyway, used as an excuse to avoid talks?

    As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly. - Mr. Carlson

    by Karmafish on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 09:35:18 PM PDT

    •  I guess, honesty for starters. (14+ / 0-)

      Al-Maliki stated that the Israeli settlement expansion in the West Bank and East Jerusalem are the primary problems, as the prevention of settlement expansion was Israel's first and only commitment to the Palestinians during the Annapolis talks.

      link

      When Israel told the Palestinians it would stop, then didn't, it kinda put the ball back on Israel. If Israel had no intentions of a freeze, whey did they say they would?

      And the number of illegal occupiers reaches 300,000. A 2.3% increase since January! More water/land taken.

      And you think this is a non-issue?

      Here is an account of cattle ranchers vs Shephards in Texas. A simple little thing like whether some had sheep or cows lead to laws and deaths.

      There are other explanations for the cattleman's antipathy for the woolgrower. Sheepmen were closely associated with the Mexicans' consequently the cattlemen classified all sheepmen,whether Mexican or not, as the "inferior" people conquered at San Jacinto. Also cattlemen decried the presence of sheep on the same range with cattle because sheep supposedly marked thegrass with an odor so disagreeable that cattle would not feedon it. Plus those nasty animals trampled down the range with their hooves and ate the grass so low thus ruining the landfurther for the cattle—so thought the cowman. But there is yet another reason why the cowboys looked down upon the sheepman,perhaps even literally. Being mounted on a horse was considereda status symbol in those days. Since sheepherders walked on foot with their flock, they were branded socially inferior. The aristocrat of the saddle regarded the careless, dusty dress ofthe sheepherder, compared to the fancier-dressed cowboys, asanother indication of the sheepmen being a somewhat lesser species. All of these factors contributed to the ridicule harrassment and sometimes bloodshed that the sheepmen faced. As Charles Towne and Edward Wentworth describe in their Shepherd's Empire:Cowboys were always careful to outnumber the herder five or ten to one, and being mounted, they were always in a position to gain surprise, attack quickly, and withdraw from their scenes of carnage with due celerity. Their activities expressed the mob spirit in one of its most cowardly forms, (p. 190)In 1881 the Texas Legislature passed a law which made it illegal to graze sheep on land belonging to another without the owner's permission. Cattle and horses were obviously ex-cepted under the law.

      And you don't think Israel taking land and water is a big deal? It won't lead to bloodshed? Have you ever read history?

    •  Well, if everything Israel wants (6+ / 0-)

      "will end up being part of Israel, anyway," why waste time negotiating?  There's nothing to negotiate.

    •  Just a guess: (0+ / 0-)

      Because stealing people's land is generally considered unacceptable in matters of diplomacy.

      "Words ought to be a little wild for they are the assault of thought on the unthinking." - John Maynard Keynes

      by Drew J Jones on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 03:06:29 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site