(03-03-2015 02:14 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-03-2015 11:48 AM)Ole Blue Wrote:  

(03-03-2015 05:23 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  You can't negotiate and solve conflicts through peaceful resolution when
1) the other side is unwilling to negotiate in good faith, and (and probably because)
2) there is no viable solution available to negotiate toward.

They are willing to negotiate, and they are acting in their own rational way. It is important to be sure to realize their positions, interests, and needs before coming to the table. And one of those stuck in somewhere is the fact that Iran is a signatory (an original one) to the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty. That means they are guaranteed peaceful development of nuclear POWER plants, with the added caveat of not using them for weaponry. However, with drama outside of the nuclear realm chilling relations, that makes it difficult to make sure the IAEA can verify everything successfully...

I was referring to the Palestinians rather than Iran, but the same comments apply to either.

1. I said, "willing to negotiate in good faith," not, "willing to negotiate." That is a very substantive difference. And no, I do not believe that either the Iranians or the Palestinians are willing to negotiate in good faith. They are using negotiations as a tactic toward a different end.
2. I do believe they are both being entirely rational. In both cases, stringing out the negotiations as long as possible is the best way to achieve their goals. They are both using the "negotiation" process as a tactic.

What do you mean by "in good faith"? If you mean "in order to achieve their goals", then yes, both sides are doing things the way they want to do. Our definition of "in good faith" can't be shaped by the results we want to see, but instead has to realize the positions, interests, and needs of each side of the conflict. With that said, you have to wonder if there is even a solution that can be negotiated. If not, what else can you do? War would be a terrible worst-case scenario, but leaving things at the status quo would have bad costs too.

(03-03-2015 02:18 PM)Ole Blue Wrote:  What do you mean by "in good faith"? If you mean "in order to achieve their goals", then yes, both sides are doing things the way they want to do. Our definition of "in good faith" can't be shaped by the results we want to see, but instead has to realize the positions, interests, and needs of each side of the conflict. With that said, you have to wonder if there is even a solution that can be negotiated. If not, what else can you do? War would be a terrible worst-case scenario, but leaving things at the status quo would have bad costs too.

What I mean by "in good faith" is that when you agree to something in negotiation, you agree to be bound by that commitment. Both Iran and the Palestinians have histories of agreeing to things in negotiations and then violating those agreements before the ink was dry.

In both cases, lying in negotiation is the rational and logical way to advance their self-interests. That's why I agree with you on the rational self-interest part. There is no viable two-state solution to the Palestinian problem. The Palestinians understand that, and I believe that Bibi does as well. But they really don't have another way to go but to pay lip service to the two-state solution to buy time. Iran is buying time to develop a nuclear weapon. The longer they can string the negotiations out, the more time they buy.

You're in a part of the world where dishonesty is an accepted negotiation technique.

(03-03-2015 01:52 PM)TStatebobcat Wrote:  

(03-03-2015 11:48 AM)Ole Blue Wrote:  

(03-03-2015 05:23 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-03-2015 01:29 AM)Ole Blue Wrote:  When Israel builds more settlements in the West Bank, the Palestinians become even more enraged. It may only be a matter of time before another intifada begins... and with Netanyahu's propensity for hawkish behavior, adding a war on top of that would just be total chaos... Need to negotiate and solve conflicts through peaceful resolution, NOT lose-lose situations.

You can't negotiate and solve conflicts through peaceful resolution when
1) the other side is unwilling to negotiate in good faith, and (and probably because)
2) there is no viable solution available to negotiate toward.

They are willing to negotiate, and they are acting in their own rational way. It is important to be sure to realize their positions, interests, and needs before coming to the table. And one of those stuck in somewhere is the fact that Iran is a signatory (an original one) to the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty. That means they are guaranteed peaceful development of nuclear POWER plants, with the added caveat of not using them for weaponry. However, with drama outside of the nuclear realm chilling relations, that makes it difficult to make sure the IAEA can verify everything successfully...

Why would a country with one of the largest reserves of oil in the world need nuclear power? They could meet their energy needs for the next 100 years probably without ever needing their nuclear reactors.

Because nuclear is far cheaper and cleaner to operate than oil?

You also can't just pull oil out of the ground and burn it for energy. There is a refining process and Iran has very little refining infrastructure.

There is also opportunity cost. If you can sell oil on the world market for far more than it costs per kilowatt hour for nuclear energy, why the hell would you literally burn your profit?


*this post is not an endorsement for letting Iran attain nuclear status.

If you can't do a deal with Iran, which is likely the case, what are the better options?

(03-03-2015 01:29 AM)Ole Blue Wrote:  When Israel builds more settlements in the West Bank, the Palestinians become even more enraged. It may only be a matter of time before another intifada begins... and with Netanyahu's propensity for hawkish behavior, adding a war on top of that would just be total chaos... Need to negotiate and solve conflicts through peaceful resolution, NOT lose-lose situations.

You imply cause and effect and there is only a loose correlation. The Palestinians are still upset over partition in 1948 and nothing will change that. Those settlements never were an obstacle to negotiations until Obama made it an issue, so you can chalk that as a victory of his diplomacy. There won't be another intifada until there is a benefactor to pay for it, and it serves the interests of that benefactor, so negotiations with Iran are a better gauge for intifada than the settlement issue. If you want an indication of how rational the Palestinian side is, one Jew walked onto the al Aqsa grounds last year (he and several Jews at a Jersusalem Synagogue were killed in the aftermath), and the PM of the Palestinian Authority characterized that act as Israeli genocide. Palestinian driving a car into a crowd at a bus stop and killing an Israeli infant? Praised as Martyrdom by HAMAS and the Palestinians.

Palestinian driving a car into a crowd at a bus stop and killing an Israeli infant? Praised as Martyrdom by HAMAS and the Palestinians.

Source?

Past history of HAMAS maybe?

Another Liberty Unyielding perhaps??????

Another Reportedly report.......................

You can't take this stuff at face value.

(03-04-2015 01:19 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Palestinian driving a car into a crowd at a bus stop and killing an Israeli infant? Praised as Martyrdom by HAMAS and the Palestinians.

Source?

From the official Fatah Facebook page
https://www.facebook.com/fatehal3sfh/pho...=1&theater

How about this from a Reuters reporter?
https://twitter.com/LukeReuters/status/5...9549469697

How about USA Today?
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world.../17774323/

Quote:Other young Israelis have uprooted olive trees Palestinians rely on for the olive oil harvest, burned vehicles and written "Death to Arabs" graffiti on mosques and schools.

Though the Israeli government is cracking down on such extremists by making more arrests and holding those accused for a longer period of time in prison, Fatah and Hamas praised Wednesday's car attack, calling it a heroic act.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014...-jerusalem

I found this on NPR. A trusted site. Doesn't say ANYTHING about killing a baby. Now there could have been other Palestinian mini van plunging into a bus stop scenarios, but again, we need reliable sources and innocents have been killed by both sides.

KHAN YOUNIS, Gaza — The blast from the Israeli strike was so powerful that it threw an iron door clear over several neighboring houses. It came to rest along with a twisted laundry rack still laden on Monday with singed clothes and a child’s slipper.

When the strike leveled a four-story house in the southern Gaza Strip the night before, it also killed 25 members of four family households — including 19 children — gathered to break the daily Ramadan fast together. Relatives said it also killed a guest of the family, identified by an Israeli human rights group as a member of the Hamas military wing, ostensibly Israel’s target.

The attack was the latest in a series of Israeli strikes that have killed families in their homes, during an offensive that Israel says is meant to stop militant rocket fire that targets its civilians and destroy Hamas’s tunnel network.

Continue reading the main story
RELATED COVERAGE

A Blast, a Fire and an Israeli Soldier Goes MissingJULY 22, 2014
Arriving in Cairo on Monday, Secretary of State John Kerry was greeted by Nabil Habashi, Egypt’s minister of foreign affairs protocol chief, ahead of a diplomatic push to forge a cease-fire in the Israel-Hamas fighting.To Talk With Hamas, U.S. Needs Help From a Testy Trio of NationsJULY 21, 2014
Israel Is Facing Difficult Choice in Gaza ConflictJULY 21, 2014
A restaurant in Sarcelles, a Paris suburb, was damaged during protests against Israel's Gaza offensive.Israel’s Gaza Incursion Sets Off Protests in EuropeJULY 21, 2014
Max Steinberg, of California's San Fernando Valley, was a sharpshooter for the Golani Brigade in the Israel Defense Forces.For Two Slain Americans, Commitment Came EarlyJULY 21, 2014
Neighborhood Ravaged on Deadliest Day So Far for Both Sides in GazaJULY 20, 2014
Havens Are Few, if Not Far, for Palestinians in Gaza StripJULY 20, 2014
The Palestinian deaths — 75 percent of them civilians, according to a United Nations count — have prompted a wave of international outrage, and are raising questions about Israel’s stated dedication to protecting civilians.

Photo
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/22/world/....html?_r=0

(03-04-2015 01:42 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014...-jerusalem

I found this on NPR. A trusted site. Doesn't say ANYTHING about killing a baby. Now there could have been other Palestinian mini van plunging into a bus stop scenarios, but again, we need reliable sources and innocents have been killed by both sides.

Different attack.

Click on the link from USA Today provided above concerning the 22 OCT attack and actually read the article and you'll see this:

Quote:The frequent incidents received little international coverage until Wednesday, when a Palestinian drove his car into a crowd waiting at a Jerusalem light-rail train stop.

The assault, which police called a terrorist attack, left a 3-month-old girl with American citizenship dead and eight people wounded. The driver, Abd al-Rahman al-Shaludi, 20 — twice imprisoned by Israel for security offenses — was shot and killed by police as he tried to flee the scene.

If you had just added "killing a baby" to your search

terrible.

Disclaimer: this was found on a Google image search of Obama and Netenyahu. This photo is not doxxing.

(03-04-2015 03:00 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

Disclaimer: this was found on a Google image search of Obama and Netenyahu. This photo is not doxxing.

...is funny nonetheless (from my vantage of irony)