SteveThaiBinh

Looks like Obsidian have finally noticed that they won this award. The home page has changed. It's what now, a week since the official announcement? Two weeks since we knew unofficially? I'm sure they're all busy QA-testing NWN2. Gotta catch them bugs! Congratulations, Obsidian! (again)

And you chose wisely, my friend.

I'm not that familiar with the UNDP, and I've not seen anything on the UNDP website that couldn't be made to support your or my interpretation of its role. But I know that UNDP is a development agency, and the development agencies in general are doing the kinds of things that I'm talking about. This is taken from UNDP's section on civil society: I think this implies the kind of thing I'm talking about, though I'll agree the language is vague, probably intentionally so in order to give local UNDP officers some discretion in how they apply it in different contexts. The point is that UNDP is pro-poor, and is giving money in order to give a voice to the poor. The settlers are not poor (by most definitions), and the state of Israel is certainly not, so UNDP doesn't work there. Most things are potentially hostile. A mug saying 'The Palestinians have a right to a state' would be seen as hostile by some in Israel. For the UNDP to reject to slogan which expressed a desire for a Palestinian Jerusalum would have been to undermine its neutrality more, and certainly its credibility when it says it wants to promote freedom of speech in Palestine. The message on the mugs is chosen by the people of Palestine to express their own views. We are entitled to disagree with it, but arguably what the UNDP has done is allowed them to express their view in a way that their poverty would otherwise have prevented them from doing. That's good for democracy. I'm specifically not defending the use of the logo, and I think the UNDP does deserve some criticism for that and should certainly review its procedures for monitoring how its funds are used. See, I'm not 'ruthlessly' defending the UN, Mothman.

Really? That's a shame. *puts hockey stick back in cupboard* So many comments would be appropriate here, I just can't choose between them .

K, I get that . It's interesting for me to read an opposing point of view. Please don't be offended if I split your posts up a bit when I reply - I know that bothers some people, but I'm doing it because I want to give a serious response to your arguments, though I can't respond to everything. We're interepreting the job of the UNDP very differently, and I think the disagreement centres around the approach to advocacy and campaigning. The job of the UNDP is not to advocate directly for freedom of speech and democracy. It's job is to develop the abilities of Palestinians to advocate for themselves, on issues of their own choosing and in a democratic and peaceful way. That is how democratic governance is really supported and made a reality on the ground. In order to do that, you have to give as much control as possible to the Palestinians, so that they 'own' the democratic process. Otherwise it's just a foreign intervention with no lasting effect. Of course, that means that the Palestinians will be using UNDP money to advocate for things that are very controversial, not least to the Israelis. But that's still a legitimate use of the money if it succeeds in promoting peaceful advocacy as a means of political expression, because that will inevitably strengthen democratic development (and weaken terrorism). UNDP retains its political neutrality by funding the campaigns of any non-violent groups, even those with competing views, without endorsing the message of one group or another. It's exactly the same as states which fund all competing political parties equally. That's why I consider the only problem here to be the use of the logo. When the guy says "We can't be involved in political messaging" I wonder what he's thinking of - every message is political in one way or another. A campaign for free education is a political message. That's also a political message. No, but I think that like a tabloid journalist they are magnifying one problem and not looking at the situation as a whole.

Not me. Apparently Mr. Cynic doesn't want to go back, because he's busy. Do you want to force him? Are we sure that Mr. Gallo is the one to blame for LucasArts' (alleged) poor treatment of Kotor 2 and Obsidian. Was he maybe just the messenger?

Different context. The United States has a long tradition of democracy and doesn't need the UN to come in and help them understand how democracy works in practice. I can't believe I just wrote that.

This is taken from UNDP's website: These mugs come under 'advocacy', in that they represent a campaign for a particular policy. It's an essential part of the democratic process, and I'm sure UNDP is working on all the others at the same time. Unfortunately, this one aspect has been publicised and attacked, while the rest has been ignored, but that's tabloid journalism for you. The whole point is to build up peaceful, public debate and campaigning on whatever issues the people feel are important, in order to strengthen peaceful politics and weaken terrorism. I'm sure UNDP insists that the messages are not pro-violence, but if it were to go beyond that and insist they be pro-Israeli as well, the Palestinians would become disillusioned and the effort would fail. Newspapers and slogans on mugs are both expressions of free speech. Local priorities have to take precedence over what is palatable to Western donors. On what grounds should UNDP have refused funding for these mugs? If you're trying to promote peaceful democratic governance, you can refuse funding for messages that promote violence, but what's wrong with this message? Only that it promotes one side of the argument, and upsets supporters of the other side. A fine democracy it would be if that were unacceptable.

UNDP's job is to build up freedom of speech and peaceful politics by allowing people to express the political messages of their own choosing, not just those that are palatable to the US. It has clearly been peaceful Just because it's the violence that gets the headlines, doesn't mean there've been no peaceful efforts to present the Palestinian case. We should be supporting both Israel and the Palestinians in making their arguments peacefully. Israel, however, doesn't need UNDP money, but if it did, I hope it would get it. Everybody makes mistakes, and the mistake here was to allow the use of the UNDP logo, nothing more. The funding of peaceful expression of political views is entirely within UNDP's remit.

No, it's not inappropriate. The use of the UNDP logo is inappropriate, but not the funding itself. UNDP is a development agency, and it rightly takes a broad view of its role. Development includes the development of civil society, freedom of speech, and democracy, something I thought Mr. Bolton would have approved of. These banners express a peaceful political aspiration, and are therefore an entirely legitimate use of UNDP funds. The UNDP is not supporting the aspiration itself, any more than the state funding of political parties in other countries represents support for their views.

I'm Yrkoon.

Why is it that when I read this and I hear the word 'Nukehavistan' in my mind, it's automatically George Bush's voice that's saying it.

I'm getting nothing. Is 'Yrkoon' the correct spelling?

Briefly, I suspect.

How does that affect games they publish, like Gothic 3? Do the developers just find another publisher, or what?

This is not about denying Gaza to the Israelis out of spite, it's about allowing the self-determination of the people who live there. Why don't we try this? Let all the settlers return to their settlements, then hold a plebiscite in the Gaza Strip in which people choose between belonging to the state of Israel or becoming an independent Palestinian State. The Palestinian State option would win by a huge margin, probably 90%+. Then the new Palestinian government would evict the settlers from the land that doesn't belong to them, and they could either make new homes in Palestine or return to Israel. Still awaiting the source for that. I'm not saying I don't believe you, but I want to know exactly what the 'Palestine' is that made such a statement on behalf of the people of Gaza. Also waiting for a list of these 'concessions' that Israel has made or been asked to make.

That's the primary argument? Is it? That's not the thread I've been reading. And if the purpose of dropping the bomb had been to hasten the end of the war, they would have dropped it out in Tokyo Bay, killing no-one. I said that Hiroshima had military and strategic value, not that it was chosen as a target for that reason. Why were other Japanese cities bombed by conventional weapons while Hiroshima was left virtually untouched? Because it was needed to test the effects of the Atomic Bomb. Of course that's not their intent. The Israeli Army has at time gone out of its way to protect civilians, both Israeli and Palestinians, and at other times shown a callous disregard of those same civilians. The Israeli military's intent is to create a state of Israel that is militarily secure, and that can best be achieved, they think, by weakening the Palestinians, preventing the creation of a Palestinian State, and ensuring that should such a state ever exist it will have the smallest and least coherent territory possible. They think this is the best way to achieve security. They are wrong.

Kofi Annan called it illegal. Evidence has emerged that the UK's legal advisors thought it was probably illegal until they changed their minds, for no apparent reason, shortly before the invasion. It's true that the legal position isn't entirely clear (what law ever is?), so 'of questionable and unproven legality' might be a more strictly accurate description, but I think 'illegal' serves. It's certainly my opinion, and as I said, the opinion of most of the world. Now you've called me a liar and a hypocrite. What's next, anti-Semite? Honestly, Ender, I know that Comissar wanted more active political debate on the forum, but I don't think he meant that we should sink to that level.

Are you really going to keep dodging the question? I do indeed. Not in the slightest. I'm not saying that we should enforce UNSCR on Israel by military force, as you well know. The weapons inspectors were enforcing UNSCR peacefully before the US launched its illegal war of aggression. If you want to argue that yet again, better to do it on a separate thread.

First of all, as I said, I don't accept the self-serving distinction between targetting civilians and conducting actions targetted at non-civilians but which you know are highly likely to result in civilian deaths. Israel assassinated a Hamas leader in an attack which also killed nine children. Ariel Sharon called it "a great success". I think I've mentioned Caoimhe Butterly before - she was an Irish peace protestor in the Occupied Territories who was shot by an Israeli soldier while shielding children with her body. As she has red hair, it's unlikely the soldier mistook her for a terrorist, so that suggests that he was targetting the children, or shooting randomly in a civilian area.

I believe Israel is illegally occupying because there are United Nations Security Council resolutions ordering it to withdraw to the pre-1967 borders, which excludes the Occupied Territories. The US occupation of Iraq was also deemed illegal by most of the rest of the world until a United Nations resolution was passed legitimising it. The Israelis and Palestines should indeed share 'Palestine', as it appears on the British Mandate map. That does not mean that Israeli have the right to throw Palestinians out of existing settlements and claim the land for themselves. Could you please tell us what are the concessions that you claim Israel has made or been called upon to make?

I'm sorry, but what are these concessions? What does an illegal occupier concede to an occupied people? Since when does the rest of the world accept Bush's policy? Bush has no interest in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict - why this should be, we can only speculate. The Palestinian Authority is far from perfect. but it represents, on this issue at least, the will of the Palestinian people - it is not a gang that has seized power like the Taleban. If you weaken it, what are you hoping will replace it? Link. You say he's lying when he says he's trying to stop the attacks? I'd say he's doing everything he can to hold his government and people together and push them towards peace, despite the extremely weak position he's been put in by the Israelis. And what about people like this? Don't they get on the media? Link. What Israel has demonstrated in Jerusalem is arrogance, deceit and intolerance. How many Palestinians have been evicted from their homes, in order to make Jerusalem a Jewish city?

I hope you're not seeking to offer the deaths of Jews elsewhere as a justification for what happened. It's a cliche, but two wrongs don't make a right. If you're saying that it's perhaps understandable, though not justified, then I might agree with you; but then, Israel has never admitted that, because it would mean acknowledging that the evictees had a right to return to their homes. No, the UK hasn't forgotten its role in all of this, which is why our government agonises over the issue and our having let both sides down, and works so hard to find a solution. Yet others condemn us for seeking 'peace in the Middle East' rather than just condemning the terrorists and leaving it at that.

The Palestinian Authority's power has been weakened by direct Israeli attacks destroying infrastructure, and also weakened morally by Israel's flouting of the peace accords and the failure of the Oslo peace process. You can argue that the Palestinians were as much to blame for that as the Israelis, but that doesn't alter the point. The Palestinian Authority is not powerful enough, in terms of manpower or moral authority within the Palestinian community, to 'crack down' on the terrorists, and Israel is at least partly to blame for that fact. You're listening to the wrong media. I hear both Palestinian and Israeli voices for peace a lot. And why not? Or are you assuming that 'Jerusalem next' means 'Jerusalem next by violent means' simply because it's a Palestinian holding the sign? The Palestinians have a legitimate case for Jerusalum being part of a future Palestinian state. Being attacked by an aggressor does not give you the right to the territory of the aggressor, nor to the territory of a third party that sided with the aggressor. It just creates more problems. Look at the bitterness caused in France by the German annexation of Alsace-Lorraine in 1871.

Neither we nor the post-WW2 powers can meaningfully do that. The Jews (soon to be Israelis) chose the place where they wanted to settle, and as they had historically as much right, no more and no less, as anyone else, that was their decision. What they didn't have the right to do was to throw people out of their homes in order to establish their state, deny that anyone else had a legitimate claim to the land, and disenfranchise an entire people. There was too much Israeli propaganda about, declaring that this was The Promised Land given by God to the Jews, ignoring the very real claims of the people already living there. You can argue that an aggressive approach was justified in the context of Arab hostility, but nevertheless it took us further away from a solution to all this. If 'God' (fate?) gave this land to the Israelis, he also gave them the Palestinians to share it with.