Obama throws Israel under the Bus

[Xavier_Onassis]

I do not understand what you mean with this "deflection" nonsense.

I agree that it is impossible that the US would agree to any treaty that would oblige it to nuke both Israel and Palestine over another crazy Rabbi Goldberg machine-ginning a mosqueful of Palestinians or one rocket taking out a kindergarten in Keriat Shimona or anything like that. There are crazy people on both sides.

But to me your constant claiming of "deflections" is simply a way of marking your territory with the Mark of sirs: one-=ce marked, sirs has won this argument, as the whole area around it clearly reeks of sirs' irrefutable logic.

[sirs]

I do not understand what you mean with this "deflection" nonsense.

Asked and answered already.  Like your use of "nonsense", that is a bit of a deflection, in trying to minimize its substance to a person's posting one.  They're kinda like a dodge, as well (no, not the car, oh mighty literal nazi)

It's either a purposeful (or perhaps unintended) answer to a question that was never asked, or a prompting of a position that was never requested or had to do with the point of the question, or the prompting of a postion that's irrelevent to the point of the original post being responded to.  It's an effort to try and make folks "don't look here, but look over there", because their original position or point either can't be defended, supported, or perhaps they're even embarrased by it

But to me your constant claiming of "deflections" is

...merely pointing out when they're being tried.  Don't pull them, & you'll never see me point them out

[BT]

So apparently Sirs was wrong when he proclaimed that i wanted to roll back the borders to the pre 67 positions, since as you have pointed out, i haven't stated a position. I have simply stated what i think Israel will do. Is that correct?

[sirs]

Yea, I was wrong as to when you 1st prefaced the non-starter position of a nuclear peace plan....now that we've dispensed with that irrelevency, we can get back to......oh wait, your position itself is a non-starter.  Oh well

[BT]

Yea, I was wrong as to when you 1st prefaced the non-starter position of a nuclear peace plan....now that we've dispensed with that irrelevency, we can get back to......oh wait, your position itself is a non-starter.  Oh well

Actually you were wrong in two instances. One as to when i went on record with the nuke option and two my stated position re the 67 borders.

[sirs]

No, your positions on the 67borders remains just as ambiguous as when this topic 1st got started.  You agreed with Bsb, yet when being pushed to take a position, you punted to a prediction, vs proclaiming that which Bt would be advocating.....outside of yet another ambiguous land swap.

But, as we've all noted, since your position on the peace process is a non-starter to begin with, all this extra time and energy is irrelevent use of band width.  I recommend "take a chance"......try advocating a policy/plan that actually has a starting component to it.  1 that has some assemblence of reality built in

[sirs]

Coming straight from Haaretz... if only 15% of Israelis even know about the 22-state Arab Peace Initiative, how many of YOU knew about it?

Miss Henny, since I respect you so much, and know that you really do want peace, yet won't mince words, I'd like to ask you directly:

Is this or is this not a reasonable starter??

- Hamas MUST remove from its charter death of Israel
- in Writing, the surrounding Arab nations, including the Palestinians, as run by Hamas, MUST acknowledge the right of Israel to exist, right where it is

----------------------------------------------------------------

From that point:
Israel will move back to its 67borders...IF....in writing, there are clear repercussions to befall any organization and/or nation that dares to launch ANY attack on the new Israel and its 67borders

Repercussions can include military attacks upon any and/or all CnC centers, any and/or all communication centers, and any/or all vehicles with wheels.  Repercussions to be swift and total

If Israel were to act "mischevious" by trying to place settlements in those new Palestinian territories, they will be met by military vehicles, and bulldozers if necessary

??

[BT]

No, your positions on the 67borders remains just as ambiguous as when this topic 1st got started.

Then why claim that you knew my position, which as CU pointed out, i never stated. And why go to all that trouble to back up that claim, with links that just point out the predictions i was making.

The fact that my nuke solution may or may not be workable has zip to do with when i went on record with it. It certainly wasn't just now, as you stated.

Planes idea is just as unworkable, what mother would give up her child to be reared by the enemy, yet you seemed willing to entertain that idea.

[Christians4LessGvt]

So apparently Sirs was wrong when he proclaimed that i wanted to roll back the borders to the pre 67 positions, since as you have pointed out, i haven't stated a position. I have simply stated what i think Israel will do. Is that correct?

lol....whats does it matter "who thinks who said what when"?....blah blah"
when you can just answer the simple question?
in my mind we just want to know what you BT support
we're not asking what you think someone else might or might not do
CU = Does not support return of '67 borders
SIRS = Does not support return of '67 borders
BT= ?

why is it difficult to be straightforward?
are you afraid of having to defend a position...so you keep it vague?

[BT]

So apparently Sirs was wrong when he proclaimed that i wanted to roll back the borders to the pre 67 positions, since as you have pointed out, i haven't stated a position. I have simply stated what i think Israel will do. Is that correct?

lol....whats does it matter "who thinks who said what when"?....blah blah"
when you can just answer the simple question?
in my mind we just want to know what you BT support
we're not asking what you think someone else might or might not do
CU = Does not support return of '67 borders
SIRS = Does not support return of '67 borders
BT= ?

why is it difficult to be straightforward?
are you afraid of having to defend a position...so you keep it vague?

Actually Sirs is willing to move the borders back to pre-67 positions.

[BT]

So apparently Sirs was wrong when he proclaimed that i wanted to roll back the borders to the pre 67 positions, since as you have pointed out, i haven't stated a position. I have simply stated what i think Israel will do. Is that correct?

lol....whats does it matter "who thinks who said what when"?....blah blah"
when you can just answer the simple question?
in my mind we just want to know what you BT support
we're not asking what you think someone else might or might not do
CU = Does not support return of '67 borders
SIRS = Does not support return of '67 borders
BT= ?

why is it difficult to be straightforward?
are you afraid of having to defend a position...so you keep it vague?

My position is Israel would be foolish to give up the Golan Heights, without major concessions from Syria. I think the West Bank can be dealt with on a hectare by hectare basis.

[Xavier_Onassis]

All starters must be met with an counter agreement.

I give you this, if you give me that.

IF Hamas swears to remove its pledge to destroy Israel, what is Israel prepared to swear to do?

Israel COULD have been well on the way to an agreement with the West Bank Fatah, but before anything substantial was discussed, Israel allowed some foolishness with East Jerusalem, and did this twice. Netanyahu wants no serious discussions.

All talks must start with the 1967 borders, because that is what the UN Mandate requires. Israel exists because the UN agreed to its existence.

The Golan was never a part of Palestine. That would be the subject of a separate agreement. It is illegally annexed Syrian territory. Israel will have to trade something in return.

[sirs]

All starters must be met with an counter agreement.  I give you this, if you give me that.  IF Hamas swears to remove its pledge to destroy Israel, what is Israel prepared to swear to do?.....All talks must start with the 1967 borders, because that is what the UN Mandate requires. Israel exists because the UN agreed to its existence.

NO, that is a NON-STARTER.  You can't even start negotiations with an entity that doesn't recongnize your right to exist.  You can't.  Swear is not enough.  Pinky swear is not enough.  "PROMISE" is not enough.

No, your positions on the 67borders remains just as ambiguous as when this topic 1st got started.

Then why claim that you knew my position, which as CU pointed out, i never stated.

Because you made repeated concurrences to BsB's return to the 67borders (with the also ambiguous land swap).  But as we all can tell by now, THIS is what you want everyone to try and focus on, instead of......

The fact that my nuke solution may or may not be workable has zip to do with when i went on record with it. It certainly wasn't just now, as you stated.

It is irrelevant to the notion of trying to debate a peace process

Planes idea is just as unworkable, what mother would give up her child to be reared by the enemy, yet you seemed willing to entertain that idea.

Apparently you missed the part where I referenced impossible & impractical.  I "liked it" because it was a peace process that didn't require the mass killing of millions, in the after effects of a rocket attack upon Jerusalem from the West Bank

Soooo........going to try advocating a policy/plan that actually has a starting component to it.  1 that has some assemblance of reality built in?  Or are we going to be stuck on this irrelevant deflective accusatory loop?

[BT]

Because you made repeated concurrences to BsB's return to the 67borders

There ya go again. Show me repeated, and just to be clear that does not mean quoted, concurrences with BSB's statement.

[sirs]

So you want to keep playing the irrelevent deflective accusatory loop, rather than deal with the topic at hand and debate some serious issues regarding the ME peace process.  Sorry, count me out of that game