up-country_sinclair

You're probably right, Wallaby.

But Netanyahu's actions are so recklessly dangerous we can only hope for someone in Israel to take control of the situation.

Hi,

Is there a theater in Bangkok that shows independent films as opposed to the most current Hollywood blockbusters?

I searched "independent cinema in Bangkok" through google, and found APEX Cinema Siam Square , but they're showing Pirates of the Caribbean, X-Men, The Hangover and Kung <deleted> Panda. These are not what comes to mind when I think of independent cinema.

Any information or suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks.

UCS

^^ What's the name of that hotel?

I enjoy the countryside. Cities are for visiting. Briefly.

How is it possible that he won't be extradited to the country where the crimes were committed?

The last public hanging in the UK was in 1868, it just puts Iran into perspective considering the year is 2011.

Some would argue that all state sponsored executions should be done publicly.

Perhaps they are the ones that wish to bid on the food and beverage concessions?

Or perhaps they are the ones that wish for their government to not hide their actions when it comes to executions.

Maybe these two were indeed rapists. However, what happens if these tow people were not given a trial, but were instead accused by someone and there was questionable evidence? What happens if the two were not guilty of the crimes they were killed for?

An awful lot of "maybes" and "what happens ifs" included here.

The last public hanging in the UK was in 1868, it just puts Iran into perspective considering the year is 2011.

Some would argue that all state sponsored executions should be done publicly.

Could someone give me a rough estimate of what it would cost to build a 30 M lap pool here in Thailand?

I'm considering the following dimensions (30 x 3 x 1.75) with a very basic design and using salt water.

Thanks.

In addition to providing relief to the people of Palestine, this is a massive achievement/victory for the government, and could be a significant factor in the UN vote that will take place in September.

As I posted earlier, so much of Netanyahu's petulance stems from his trying to appease the more radical elements in his fragile coalition, and the current opposition leader chastised him for putting the US/Israel relationship in jeopardy. Once Netanyahu's government collapses, more moderate voices will lead Israel closer towards peace and justice for all in the region.

For example, take a look at this quote from former PM Olmert in 2008:

"We must give up Arab neighborhoods in Jerusalem and return to the core of the territory that is the State of Israel prior to 1967, with minor corrections dictated by the reality created since then,"

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/olmert-israel-must-return-to-1967-borders-1.257032

Again, this was a former Israeli PM, and he said it while in office. Returning to pre-1967 borders is not even remotely as controversial as some on this board are trying to make it out to be.

How lucky are the Israeli's that they have a super strong hawk as Prime Minister?

You're right that Netanyahoo is an ultra-right PM. And when his fragile coalition inevitably falls apart, a more moderate and peace minded PM will take the reins and make a fair and just deal on the pre-1967 borders. Opposition leader Tzipi Livni recently blasted Netanyahoo for needlessly putting the US / Israeli relationship in jeopardy with his belligerent and petulant antics.

Yes, I do realize large portions of the world sincerely hope Jewish Israel never existed. Tough cookies.

Yes, I do realize that a small handful of nations don't want a two state solution based on 1967 borders. Tough cookies.

It's only a question of "when", not "if". And I believe it will be sooner than many of us think.

I find your comment silly. Against incredible odds, the Jewish state of Israel still exists.

Now that's just silly.

I don't know what you consider to be "incredible" odds, but I'll take the full support of the US military on my side every time. Especially when many on the other side are throwing rocks.

Incredible odds? Really?

the only rational explanation for all this is that it is part of something

much much bigger although I couldn't define what that " something " is exactly

It's called justice. And it's long overdue.

We'll have to see, won't we? The overwhelming majority of UN member states support Palestinian membership.

The overwhelming majority of UN member states according to you. :lol:

In an earlier post you claimed to have "studied this issue". I think it's time to hit the books again.

Israeli diplomats have concluded that somewhere between 130 to 140 out of 192 UN member states will support Palestinian membership.

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/features/j-lem-130-un-members-will-support-palestinian-state-1.362002

Is this where I insert three laughing smileys?

however you need to get the pre-1967 borders out of your head. It simply will not happened under any administration, even if it means another war. Its as simple as that

With all due respect, you need to get your head out of the distant past. The Clinton, Bush and Obama administrations have all included pre-1967 borders in any discussion/negotiations.

The present and future belong to Palestinian statehood on pre-1967 borders. It's not a question of "if", but "when". It's as simple as that.

Morse manure. America has the veto and Obama has already said that he will use it.

The U.N. Charter states the admission of new members "will be effected by a decision of the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council." The council makes its membership recommendation through a resolution, meaning it must be approved by at least nine of the council's 15 members and not be vetoed by one of the five permanent members, including the U.S.

The General Assembly has never admitted a member without a favorable ruling of the Security Council, said John B. Quigley, an international law professor at Ohio State University.

But, he said, the Palestinians and their supporters could try to rally arguments for the assembly to bypass council approval.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43144106/ns/world_news-mideast_n_africa/t/palestinian-un-bid-enters-unknown-territory/

We'll have to see, won't we? The overwhelming majority of UN member states support Palestinian membership.\

And there's another option around the veto:

(the) "Uniting for Peace" resolution, first invoked in 1950 to circumvent further Soviet vetoes during the course of the Korean war, U.N. officials say.

Such a resolution allows the General Assembly to consider collective action if the Security Council, because of a veto, "fails to exercise its primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security."

To date, 10 emergency special sessions have been convened under "Uniting for Peace." The Palestinians and their supporters could seek to hold another one, arguing that not recognizing a Palestinian state constitutes a threat to international peace and security, said U.N. officials, speaking on condition of anonymity because they are not authorized to discuss the issue publicly.

To date, 10 emergency special sessions have been convened under "Uniting for Peace."

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas said Wednesday he would seek U.N. recognition of Palestinian statehood if there was no breakthrough in the peace process by September.

Addressing a meeting of the Palestine Liberation Organization in Ramallah, he said Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's vision for peace — outlined in a speech on Tuesday — contained "nothing we can build on."

However, Abbas praised President Barack Obama's Mideast parameters, saying they laid a positive foundation for negotiations. Obama has said border talks should be based on the pre-1967 lines.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43164966/ns/world_news-mideast_n_africa/

For all intents and purposes, this debate is over and all the players (Israel, The US, the Palestinians) know it. Netanyahoo is simply playing up to his base in order to keep his domestic political coalition together.

It's simply a matter of time until there are two states on what will essentially be pre-1967 borders.

In front of AIPAC yesterday, the US president displayed impressive leadership:

"If there's a controversy, then it's not based in substance," Obama said in a well-received speech. "What I did on Thursday was to say publicly what has long been acknowledged privately. I have done so because we cannot afford to wait another decade, or another two decades, or another three decades, to achieve peace."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110523/ap_on_re_us/us_obama

By the way, I've noticed that Netanyahu is ratcheting down his belligerence over the last two days. This is likely due to the fact that everyone now realizes that President Obama said essentially the same thing as President Bush did in 2008.

I stayed at a place a few years ago, but can't remember the exact name.

Bangtao Bungalows, perhaps? It was located about 2K from Laguna.

It seems Netanyahu's belligerence could be due to domestic political pressures:

Tzipi Livni, leader of Israel’s opposition Kadima party, also backed Mr Obama’s two-state solution and accused Mr Netanyahu of putting Israel at risk in order to save his right-wing coalition.

“The prime minister has violated relations between Israel and the United States,” she said, speaking after Mr Obama’s speech but before the Oval Office meeting. “He has endangered the security of Israel and its power of deterrence.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/us-politics/8527852/Pro-Israeli-lobby-urged-not-to-boo-Barack-Obama-after-Middle-East-peace-address.html

the elected "Palestinian" government

Do you insist on putting Palestinian in quotation marks because you're trying to convince yourself that they don't exist?

No matter. The only question of importance now is whether Israel will realize the error of its ways and recognize Palestine before 140 nations do at the UN in September.

Is this a plain enough explanation?

I'm sure what you cited from the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs explains something to someone on a different topic, but it's not what we were discussing on the previous page. And that was the fact that Bush said essentially the same thing about the two state solution in 2008 that Obama said last week. By any chance did you make a post at the time comparing Bush to Neville Chamberlain like you did with Obama on page one of this thread?

By no means is this a personal attack on you, and I hope you don't perceive it that way. I'm simply illustrating what is apparent to me to be selective outrage on this issue.

Obama said nearly the same as Bush.

mutually agreed swaps = mutually agreed adjustments

armistice lines of 1949 = the 1967 lines

Thank you for helping to make it abundantly clear.

US policy on the two state solution has not changed in over a decade, but suddenly there is outrage.

President Barack Hussein Obama the Capitulator will go down in history with Neville Chamberlain the appeaser of fascist Germany.

I share with these two leaders the vision of two democratic states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security. Both of these leaders believe that the outcome is in the interest of their peoples and are determined to arrive at a negotiated solution to achieve it.

The point of departure for permanent status negotiations to realize this vision seems clear: There should be an end to the occupation that began in 1967. The agreement must establish Palestine as a homeland for the Palestinian people, just as Israel is a homeland for the Jewish people. These negotiations must ensure that Israel has secure, recognized, and defensible borders. And they must ensure that the state of Palestine is viable, contiguous, sovereign, and independent.

It is vital that each side understands that satisfying the other's fundamental objectives is key to a successful agreement. Security for Israel and viability for the Palestinian state are in the mutual interests of both parties.

Achieving an agreement will require painful political concessions by both sides. While territory is an issue for both parties to decide, I believe that any peace agreement between them will require mutually agreed adjustments to the armistice lines of 1949 to reflect current realities and to ensure that the Palestinian state is viable and contiguous. I believe we need to look to the establishment of a Palestinian state and new international mechanisms, including compensation, to resolve the refugee issue.

George W. Bush

10 January 2008

Jerusalem

http://reliefweb.int/node/254093

Again, what's evidenced in this thread appears to be little more than selective outrage.