This is not suicide for Israel, just as the accords in Northern Ireland were not suicide for the IRA.
The Golan Heights deal with Syria, what does that have to do with lands to the West?
We are subsidiseing both sides.
More support to Isreal , but the Palistinians would starve quicker if we were not.
We are subsidiseing both sides.
More support to Isreal , but the Palistinians would starve quicker if we were not.
Excellent point. So, we're all in agreement, no one gets anything from the U.S., correct? No Israeli subsidizing and no Palestinian subsidizing, correct?
(http://www.tyeporter.com/PortersFTP/CNSNewsLogo01.jpg)
Rabbi: "The President of the United States is Asking for Ethnic Cleansing"
Obama is EXACTLY right to say what he said. Let Netanyahu go beg elsewhere.
Current reality pre-67 borders of no greater than 9miles, literally cut the state of Israel in half, and make an indefensible position:SIRS you are once again correct!
The '67 boarders plus land swaps is where everyone knows it has to end up.
To say that the 1967 borders are indefensible is demonstrably inaccurate, since they have been defended successfully in several wars....
You are harping on this 9 mile wide thing like perhaps Israel truly was the aggressor in the 67 war. They seemed happy with the nine miles beforehand.
There are two things which aren't up for debate, sirs, and everyone knows it whether they openly admit it or not. One: Whoever represents the Palestinians has to recognize Israel's right to exist. Two: A Palestinian state will be drawn on the pre '67 borders plus land swaps.
You are harping on this 9 mile wide thing like perhaps Israel truly was the aggressor in the 67 war. They seemed happy with the nine miles beforehand.
Yea, BEFORE THEY WERE ATTACKED....Before the surrounding Arab nations attempted to remove Israel from their location. THAT'S WHY THEY HAVE THEM NOW....AS A DEFENSIVE POSITION. They weren't "stolen"There are two things which aren't up for debate, sirs, and everyone knows it whether they openly admit it or not. One: Whoever represents the Palestinians has to recognize Israel's right to exist. Two: A Palestinian state will be drawn on the pre '67 borders plus land swaps.
Actually, there are 3 things, 1 of which is the IF, I'm referring to. Now, are any of you 3 ready to put some substance to your rhetoric and address that, or is this all just alot of blather, that will not go anywhere, and peace is simply a pipedream??
Sirs
You are harping on this 9 mile wide thing like perhaps Israel truly was the aggressor in the 67 war. They seemed happy with the nine miles beforehand.
Yea, BEFORE THEY WERE ATTACKED....Before the surrounding Arab nations attempted to remove Israel from their location. THAT'S WHY THEY HAVE THEM NOW....AS A DEFENSIVE POSITION. They weren't "stolen"There are two things which aren't up for debate, sirs, and everyone knows it whether they openly admit it or not. One: Whoever represents the Palestinians has to recognize Israel's right to exist. Two: A Palestinian state will be drawn on the pre '67 borders plus land swaps.
Actually, there are 3 things, 1 of which is the IF, I'm referring to. Now, are any of you 3 ready to put some substance to your rhetoric and address that, or is this all just alot of blather, that will not go anywhere, and peace is simply a pipedream??
Sirs
Here is a history of Israel in maps. Perhaps it will prove to be enlightening.
SIRS.....watch this to better understand how Obozo is attempting to destroy Israel.
Israel's Critical Security Needs for a Viable Peace (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ytWmPqY8TE0#)
Perhaps, you'll address the point being made. Still waiting for you to address the IF part. Can I expect a serious response to that, or no?
Here is a history of Israel in maps. Perhaps it will prove to be enlightening.
http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Facts+About+Israel/Israel+in+Maps/ (http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Facts+About+Israel/Israel+in+Maps/)
QuotePerhaps, you'll address the point being made. Still waiting for you to address the IF part. Can I expect a serious response to that, or no?
I have addressed that point for years. I am on record saying that if a two state peace is achieved any violation of said peace will result in a full nuclear attack by both the US and the Russians on all parties involved.
Upon further review. Apparently Israel does indeed relinquish the Golan Heights as part of a return to the '67 borders and the formation of a Palestinian State.
On the IF factor: A) The Israeli Army, if they're as tough as they claim to be, doesn't need to fight from the high ground, aka the Golan Heights. B) Judaism should adopt the Buddhist understanding of impermanence. As in, we all are impermanent so don't get overly attached to life.
plane: "underlying problems"
The underlying problem being that because of the suffering and pain the Jews went through, they were given land that didn't belong to them, causing pain and suffering to others?
We should move Israel to southwest Texas, they can build a big wall along the border with Mexico, fight the drug cartels, and feel right at home. That way we solve part of the illegal human trafficking that goes on along our border, the Texas Christians can have the rapture, or whatever they think is going to happen, right in their own state, and the Palestinian can have Jerusalem all to themselves.
BSB
sirs: "sirs said it"
I was correcting what I said. I pay no attention to what you say.
BSB
Strange how I've never actually heard that before, in any of the years you may be referencing. Perhaps it simply got missed. You seriously advocating nuclear Armageddon?
ok, one little reference, that could easily have been taken as tongue and cheek, does not a position make.
STILL WAITING......Debate forurm.......questions posed.......still waiting for responses to those specific questions :-\
Is that a deflection? Sure didn't seem like any answers to the questions posed. Shall I repost them for clarity?
ok, one little reference, that could easily have been taken as tongue and cheek, does not a position make.
ok, one little reference, that could easily have been taken as tongue and cheek, does not a position make.
So, let's get back the the direct questions posed, if you don't mind:
You seriously advocating nuclear Armageddon?
Please, what are these conditions of violation that would warrant this response??
So, if Hezbollah, backed by Syria & Iran equipment, launch hundreds of rockets into the New Israel, from their new positions in the Golan Heights, we........take out Lebanon with some nukes??
You seriously advocating nuclear Armageddon?
Please, what are these conditions of violation that would warrant this response??
QuotePlease, what are these conditions of violation that would warrant this response??
any violation of said peace
So, if Hezbollah, backed by Syria & Iran equipment, launch hundreds of rockets into the New Israel, from their new positions in the Golan Heights, we........take out Lebanon with some nukes??
we take out all parties involved.
Yeah i think all that was covered in the original statement
SIRS.....I would let it lie.
If you haven't noticed all three of them settled (threw in the towel)
with basically nonsensical answers to the problem yesterday.
No need to rub it in ;)
"All parties", meaning those who initiated the attacks?.......and what of those that backed them? Nukes, even tactical ones, have a pretty wide latitude of destruction & death. So, Lebanon becomes a glass parking lot under your peace plan, in the event of the 1st attack upon the New Israel, from some point within the Golan or West Bank?
CU ....Why is the glass parking lot solution nonsensical?
Just what was your question sirs? Some "if"? What if?
Quote"All parties", meaning those who initiated the attacks?.......and what of those that backed them? Nukes, even tactical ones, have a pretty wide latitude of destruction & death. So, Lebanon becomes a glass parking lot under your peace plan, in the event of the 1st attack upon the New Israel, from some point within the Golan or West Bank?
All means all.
The attacked as well as the attackers and the backers of both sides.
Well if we are seriously considering a 100% kill of both sides as a final solution, perhaps I can submit for considerations idea only half so drastic.
Lets kidnap every child in the land .
We would not need to keep them , we would only transport them across the fences and plonk them down on the other side of every wall.
It might be hard to prevent rescues , but that would be a critical part of the plan, the children of one side are the hostages of the safety of the kids of the other side.
Both sides would have an intrest in maintaining good water and food supplies to the opposite side of the fence, both sides would loose motive to toss bombs and rockets randomly or specifically.
Every child would be returned after his 12th birthday, with one would hope , no harm done more than development of a strong Stockholm syndrome.
I know this is very drastic and ugly , but the situation as it is includes raising up children to treasure hatred above love and land above blood. What plan is more drastic and ugly than this?
(http://children.foreignpolicyblogs.com/files/2007/05/mideast_lebanon_palestinian.jpg)
http://children.foreignpolicyblogs.com/2007/05/06/palestinian-children-reared-to-fight-and-die-for-a-free-palestine/ (http://children.foreignpolicyblogs.com/2007/05/06/palestinian-children-reared-to-fight-and-die-for-a-free-palestine/)
Just what was your question sirs? Some "if"? What if?
This IF (http://debategate.com/new3dhs/3dhs/obama-throws-israel-under-the-bus/msg124768/#msg124768)Quote"All parties", meaning those who initiated the attacks?.......and what of those that backed them? Nukes, even tactical ones, have a pretty wide latitude of destruction & death. So, Lebanon becomes a glass parking lot under your peace plan, in the event of the 1st attack upon the New Israel, from some point within the Golan or West Bank?
All means all.
The attacked as well as the attackers and the backers of both sides.
Well, that's pretty much a non-starter now, isn't it. Israel can't defend, and some idiots with a martyrdom complex, have the perfect plan then to rid the region of Israel, by merely attacking them. Bravo.
Quote"All parties", meaning those who initiated the attacks?.......and what of those that backed them? Nukes, even tactical ones, have a pretty wide latitude of destruction & death. So, Lebanon becomes a glass parking lot under your peace plan, in the event of the 1st attack upon the New Israel, from some point within the Golan or West Bank?
All means all.
The attacked as well as the attackers and the backers of both sides.
Well, that's pretty much a non-starter now, isn't it. Israel can't defend, and some idiots with a martyrdom complex, have the perfect plan then to rid the region of Israel, by merely attacking them. Bravo.
Why is it a non starter? All you are doing is predetermining what the consequences of breaking the peace are.
Ok, I read your "if" sirs. Sorry, no guarantees in life. Make a deal, don't make a deal. Find a way, don't find a way. Live with the consequences either way. The same applies to the other side. Step up to the plate, or don't. Live with the consequences either way.
1) International community would never support/sanction any nuke strike in any Arab lands
Quote1) International community would never support/sanction any nuke strike in any Arab lands
Then don't ask for their permission.
Quote2) As I already demonstrated, even IF you had the international community signing off on the idea of nuking everyone involved, plays right into some Hamas extremists, launching mulitple cooridinated attacks, be it car bombs and rocket barrages, from a nice lofty perch in the West Bank, knowing Israel would be turned into a glass parking lot....the ultimate suicide bomb
Either way problem solved. But you do realize The Palestinian state would also be glassed over. My guess is the govt would keep a close eye on those who have suicide in mind, and perhaps help them achieve that desired death before it creates an international incident.
LOL.....I'm actually trying to be serious here, in trying to iron out what has to be addressed if there is to be any peace, and you keep presenting positions that have a snowball's chance in hell, of seeing the light of day. Unilateral nuking of Israel & Lebanon, in the event of an attack by Hamas from the West Bank & Hezbollah from the Golan??
As I demonstrated, your "peace plan" is quite the gift from Allah, for those aformentioned Islamic radicals, bent on seeing the destruction of Israel, and launching attacks from those new coveted areas in the West Bank & Golan Heights, knowing Israel will cease to exist as a result of their actions
All that's missing is a big red bow
Actually, that's what my inquiry was all about. You, BsB, and Xo, keep claiming that Israel HAS to return to pre-67 borders, to bring about some "chance for peace". If Israel isn't going to be provided a contingency for anyone daring to attack them from these lands in the West Bank & Golan Heights, why the hell should they give up prime defensive positions??
Land for a "promise of peace", has failed miserably. Israel is still getting rockets rained on them from inside the borders of Gaza and Lebanon. My viable solution has already been referenced. Israel can go back to its pre-67 borders, WHEN there are CLEAR CUT REPERCUSSIONS, in writing, that will be enacted by messers U.S., and the International Community, upon ANYONE and any nation that dares to launch ANY attack upon the "new" Israel. and I'm not referring to sanctions, either. I sort have already mentioned this (http://debategate.com/new3dhs/3dhs/obama-throws-israel-under-the-bus/msg124758/#msg124758). Surprised you missed it.
Get THAT in writing, then we can start to pull back the borders
Actually, that's what my inquiry was all about. You, BsB, and Xo, keep claiming that Israel HAS to return to pre-67 borders, to bring about some "chance for peace". If Israel isn't going to be provided a contingency for anyone daring to attack them from these lands in the West Bank & Golan Heights, why the hell should they give up prime defensive positions??
Land for a "promise of peace", has failed miserably. Israel is still getting rockets rained on them from inside the borders of Gaza and Lebanon. My viable solution has already been referenced. Israel can go back to its pre-67 borders, WHEN there are CLEAR CUT REPERCUSSIONS, in writing, that will be enacted by messers U.S., and the International Community, upon ANYONE and any nation that dares to launch ANY attack upon the "new" Israel. and I'm not referring to sanctions, either. I sort have already mentioned this (http://debategate.com/new3dhs/3dhs/obama-throws-israel-under-the-bus/msg124758/#msg124758). Surprised you missed it.
Get THAT in writing, then we can start to pull back the borders
And nuking the peace breakers is not a clear cut repercussion?
And I'm not sure why Israel would get a pass if they decide to get mischievous.
And of course statehood accomplishes the same goal.
So what do your CLEAR CUT REPERCUSSIONS look like?
That was my inquiry. You went above and beyond with your nuking. No, not for me. I target command and control locations, thru-out the region. Take out communications, and anything that has wheels, not to mention machine guns or rocket launchers in the back of those vehicles. That's just a start, but the repercussions have to have teeth, for them to be a substantive enough deterrent for Israel to even consider going back to pre-67 borders
Frankly I don't care anymore what Israel or the Palestinians do. We've been around this block too many times. They've cost the world, and themselves, way too much already. My inclination is for us to make other plans. Move on.
BSB
QuoteThat was my inquiry. You went above and beyond with your nuking. No, not for me. I target command and control locations, thru-out the region. Take out communications, and anything that has wheels, not to mention machine guns or rocket launchers in the back of those vehicles. That's just a start, but the repercussions have to have teeth, for them to be a substantive enough deterrent for Israel to even consider going back to pre-67 borders
And who will do this enforcing?
Who's doing your nuking?Russia and the US , as previously (http://debategate.com/new3dhs/3dhs/obama-throws-israel-under-the-bus/msg124793/#msg124793)stated.
QuoteWho's doing your nuking?Russia and the US , as previously stated.
Again, my idea has far more viability than yours, it appears.
LOL...I didn't say cakewalk, just more viable than getting U.S. & Russia to jointly nuke Israel & Lebanon, or Israel & Syria. Nor did I say it had to be Nato, just that I wouldn't have a problem if they were the folks being placed with the responsibility of enforcing the repercussions
Like I said, I'm actually trying to come up with serious solutions, not keep spouting non-starters
LOL...I didn't say cakewalk, just more viable than getting U.S. & Russia to jointly nuke Israel & Lebanon, or Israel & Syria. Nor did I say it had to be Nato, just that I wouldn't have a problem if they were the folks being placed with the responsibility of enforcing the repercussions
Like I said, I'm actually trying to come up with serious solutions, not keep spouting non-starters
Looks like you are just throwing stuff against the wall to see what sticks. Try to come up with a definitive proposal. Take a risk.
They are seriously f@¢ked up, and have been so since allegedly God deeded them the place. Presumably Jacob lived in Canaan, and his next to last son Joseph was sold into slavery to an Egyptian, became prime minister, and then invited all his kinfolk in when there was a big drought. He was either a really good CEO, prophetic, or perhaps both.Tibet could have used a stronger Army , too late now , the takeing of Tibet is a feint accompli even though it occured pretty recently.
Then somehow (the Bible is silent on this) the Hebrews were enslaved, and Moses (who had an Egyptian name and was some sort of Egyptian prince, despite being a Hebrew because of rivers and baskets) organized them and they left, with God's help, and after 40 years ended up back in Canaan (where else is there after one leaves Egypt?).
Costa Rica gave up its army in 1948, Andorra never had one. Militaries have been the bane of the Middle East since independence.
Want to talk about my idea?
Lets hold a hearing in public where all of the concerned parties are tried on the charge of being bad parents, then whit the evidence examined and ruled upon a large UN force rolls up every child of vunerable age. After a stabilizeing period with the children in protective custody they are all returned to responsible parents , not their own , parents of the opposite faction. Parents who cannot demonstrate good parenting skills don't even get that.
Yes this is a tough and ugly and unlikely idea , it is only better than killing them all.
Or perhaps , waiting for them to all kill each other.
Because your "peace plan" requires the non-starter nuking of entire regions, as repercussions. Mine doesn't. that's why
Only if my goal was to eventually kill as many people as I can. Since I'm not advocating killing anyone, outside of terrorists and those trying to sabotage the peace process, not sure how you can even entertain the notion of incrementalism. Actually I do, its a perverted (if not deflective) effort to undermine my serious idea(s) at addressing the problems in the ME, while we ignore your nuking the region peace plan
Only if my goal was to eventually kill as many people as I can. Since I'm not advocating killing anyone, outside of terrorists and those trying to sabotage the peace process, not sure how you can even entertain the notion of incrementalism. Actually I do, its a perverted (if not deflective) effort to undermine my serious idea(s) at addressing the problems in the ME, while we ignore your nuking the region peace plan
The goal is peace in the region.
Your solution is the equivalent of a time out.
Mine is the equivalent of a zero tolerance expulsion.
Which do you think gets their attention?
And isn't that the goal, get their attention and change their behavior?
And your proclamation that Israel go back to its 67borders
QuoteAnd your proclamation that Israel go back to its 67borders
That was not my proposal, nor my prediction. Perhaps you can show the class where i said that.
QuoteAnd your proclamation that Israel go back to its 67borders
That was not my proposal, nor my prediction. Perhaps you can show the class where i said that.
It was your concurring, in this thread alone, with BsB, here (http://debategate.com/new3dhs/3dhs/obama-throws-israel-under-the-bus/msg124762/#msg124762), here (http://debategate.com/new3dhs/3dhs/obama-throws-israel-under-the-bus/msg124770/#msg124770), and your "historical map" here (http://debategate.com/new3dhs/3dhs/obama-throws-israel-under-the-bus/msg124784/#msg124784)
You were very clear in your agreement with BsB, in the requirement that Israel must return to its 67borders, not to mention that I never claimed it was your prediction
I think the final deal is already set. Be interesting to see what Hollywood has to say. If they don't go ballistic, my guess is that Israel will keep the most important land gains from 67 and in the spirit of peace give back the rest.
The '67 boarders plus land swaps is where everyone knows it has to end up.Please note the bolded part.
QuoteAnd your proclamation that Israel go back to its 67borders
That was not my proposal, nor my prediction. Perhaps you can show the class where i said that.
It was your concurring, in this thread alone, with BsB, here (http://debategate.com/new3dhs/3dhs/obama-throws-israel-under-the-bus/msg124762/#msg124762), here (http://debategate.com/new3dhs/3dhs/obama-throws-israel-under-the-bus/msg124770/#msg124770), and your "historical map" here (http://debategate.com/new3dhs/3dhs/obama-throws-israel-under-the-bus/msg124784/#msg124784)
You were very clear in your agreement with BsB, in the requirement that Israel must return to its 67borders, not to mention that I never claimed it was your prediction
This was what i had to say about the matter.
There is that whirlpool again.
There is that whirlpool again.
I don't know about you, but i just don't see where Sirs has proven his misrepresentation of my position.
There is that whirlpool again.
I don't know about you, but i just don't see where Sirs has proven his misrepresentation of my position.
To prove a misrep....
Now don't invite me in!
BSB "The '67 borders plus land swaps is where everyone knows it has to end up"
BT "I agree as far as the Palestinians go"
It appeared to me you were at least somewhat favoring a return to the '67 borders.
But here we are again.......what is BT's specific position on the question?
From BT's postings......does he? or doesn't he?
So gosh...lets just ask the simple question....
Do you BT support or not support returning to the '67 borders?
I think the final deal is already set. Be interesting to see what Hollywood has to say. If they don't go ballistic, my guess is that Israel will keep the most important land gains from 67 and in the spirit of peace give back the rest.
Welll gosh Mark. What part of this is ambiguous?
Don't tell me you're sticking with the non-starting, nonviable nuclear peace plan
Other than that he really doesn't give a damn other than once they do agree to peace it should be enforced by the nose of a nuke.
That wasn't the question now, was it. What's BT proclaiming should happen...NOT predict, but you being in charge, you'd proclaim that...........
And a non-starter to boot. I guess I'll focus on debating folks, on this topic, who are actually serious about trying to fashion a peace between Israel and its Arabenemies...I mean neighbors
It's not a matter of "agree", its a matter of reality. There will never be a scenario where the U.S. would nuke Israel, facilitated by an attack on Israel
We now return to our regularly scheduled reality
BT thinks that Israel will keep the most important land gains from 67 and in the spirit of peace give back the rest. Now if BT thinks that Israel will keep the most important lands gains from 1967 that kinda indicates that he doesn't think that Israel will roll back to pre-67.
Other than that he really doesn't give a damn other than once they do agree
to peace it should be enforced by the nose of a nuke.
But it is interesting that you don't know my position, yet sirs is dead certain i'm all for a roll back.
How can two different people who both have read this thread come to such different conclusions.
And the Mark thing. .....Sooner or later we will open the new site, my guess is if
you invite Facebook friends they know who you are anyway. And wasn't that your
idea to begin with?
Ok....but after you or someone stated on a few occasions about how Facebook may be
unworkable because people prefer to remain anonymous I kind of agree and think a
Facebook approach could be problematic. I think there might be a way we could market
ourselves on Facebook to reach more people, but not necessarily have each posters
profile linked to their Facebook. I know I wouldn't want some of the people that have
been on 3DHS looking at pictures of my family, my activities, ect....Of course it would
be cool with most people to be able to look, but we've had some whackjobs in here
BT and sometimes tempers and emotions particularly in political discussions can
lead to anger and potential problems with different personalities.
It's not a matter of "agree", its a matter of reality. There will never be a scenario where the U.S. would nuke Israel, facilitated by an attack on Israel
We now return to our regularly scheduled reality
No it is a matter of misrepresentation.
I do not understand what you mean with this "deflection" nonsense.
But to me your constant claiming of "deflections" is
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
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?
No, your positions on the 67borders remains just as ambiguous as when this topic 1st got started.
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?
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?
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?
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.
QuoteNo, 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.
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.
Because you made repeated concurrences to BsB's return to the 67borders
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
I have addressed the 67 borders. I am more against rolling them back than you are.
WHAT is the relevant point again?
................and......................?
Israel is free to negotiate with whom and how it sees fit.
The question is do we need to continue to subsidize them while they are looking for the perfect partner?
If so why?
I am simply positing a question: if YOU were a Gazan, what would YOU offer the Israelis?
Israel is free to negotiate with whom and how it sees fit.
The question is do we need to continue to subsidize them while they are looking for the perfect partner?
If so why?
Actually that's a completely different question than the one I posed, and still has yet to be addresed, outside of whatever Israel wants to do, they can. But oh well.
No, we don't need to subsidize anyone in the region.
What should Israel off for them to remove the statement from their charter?
The Gazans have nothing to offer
Israel is free to negotiate with whom and how it sees fit.
The question is do we need to continue to subsidize them while they are looking for the perfect partner?
If so why?
Actually that's a completely different question than the one I posed, and still has yet to be addresed, outside of whatever Israel wants to do, they can. But oh well.
No, we don't need to subsidize anyone in the region.
Good. Then what do we care what the terms and conditions of their peace agreements are?
Placating the far lesser issue.........because, unlike some apparently, I care about the death & destruction occuring in the ME, and the peace that can be achieved with Israel & its Arab neighbors, if we deal with the 300lb gorilla in the room. But no one said you had to care, so that's cool
QuotePlacating the far lesser issue.........because, unlike some apparently, I care about the death & destruction occuring in the ME, and the peace that can be achieved with Israel & its Arab neighbors, if we deal with the 300lb gorilla in the room. But no one said you had to care, so that's cool
Shouldn't it be they deal .
What are your thoughts about making Israel the 51st state. That would solve a lot of problems wouldn't it?
I've already told you my plan, and it does require a 3rd party repercussion intervention, as needed
Sure it would, but they're already home, right where they are. Definately is an upgrade from your nuclear peace plan, but why would I make them move? Why would I want to make anyone move away from their home?? Why should they want to move from their home?? You're really good with the non-starter positions, I'll grant you that
QuoteI've already told you my plan, and it does require a 3rd party repercussion intervention, as needed
Who pays for the third party intervention? Thought you agreed Israel did not need or deserve US subsidies.
QuoteSure it would, but they're already home, right where they are. Definately is an upgrade from your nuclear peace plan, but why would I make them move? Why would I want to make anyone move away from their home?? Why should they want to move from their home?? You're really good with the non-starter positions, I'll grant you that
Who says they have to move. Did the Hawaiians or Alaskans have to move? Sheeesh.
(http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y273/ItsZep/Politics/ca4ddfea.jpg)
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
So, are the repercussions not severe enough, you think??
SIRS.....realize we are talking fantasy land again
but I am not sure about statehood for Israel
I'd have to see what the ramifications were
i'm sure some up side and bad side
people smarter than me would have to
explain to me the plus/minus ratio
it's a fun "what if" but i doubt has
any practicality.....but i'd like one
aspect of it...it would drive the
IslamoNazis absolutely bonkers!
So, are the repercussions not severe enough, you think??
It would be so simple.
They could all become Christians , or the half that are not Jews could convert to Judaism , or the half that are not Muslim could convert to Islam.
They would rather die, of course< so what repercussions can be enough?
Who said we were paying Israel anything?
Further, the $'s spent in the repercussions aren't even going to Israel, they're going towards the 3rd party, enforcing the repercussions, whoever they may be.
So who is the whoever. Previously you mentioned NATO . Does that mean the US foots the bill again.
By the By. The bombs are built. The only expense other than a minimum staff is whatever delivery mechanism is used to meet the repercussions. Bet my solution is cheaper in treasure and third party casualties.
While we ignore the exponential greater loss in both 1st party treasure and casualties
QuoteWhile we ignore the exponential greater loss in both 1st party treasure and casualties
right.
heckuva incentive to keep the peace
QuoteWhile we ignore the exponential greater loss in both 1st party treasure and casualties
right.
heckuva incentive to keep the peace
And a non-starter to boot. congrats
I don't know why you keep saying it i9s a non starter. Even your boys at Townhall have talked about it.
You keep acting like Israel would be the victim of an attack instead of the aggressor. Are you aware of the history of the 67 war? Israel preemptively attacked Egypt and wiped out their entire airforce in a surprise attack.
Yeah let's talk about your starting points where ultimately Israel gives up any gains achieved by the 67 war, far more concilliatory than I am. And then once an agreement is reach you want to enforce it with UN or NATO troops as some type of peace keeping mission, being very vague as to who bears the ongoing costs of maintaining that force.
My solution is simple. Reach an agreement on borders of the two states and the duo of Russia and the US will guarantee the integrity of both borders because zero belligerence from either party will be tolerated.
You're not trying to rewrite history now, are you?? You make it sound like Israel, for the sheer hell of it, attacked Egypt. Is that what you think happened??
....WITH NUKES........(read nonstarter).
QuoteYou're not trying to rewrite history now, are you?? You make it sound like Israel, for the sheer hell of it, attacked Egypt. Is that what you think happened??
Yeah i just threw in the term pre-emptively for the hell of it. You really are a piece of work.
Quote....WITH NUKES........(read nonstarter).
Yeah like command and control won't require body bags. Your solution is half assed.
And i am aware you are requiring the Palestinians to disavow Hamas before requiring Israel to come to the negotiating table. And if Palestine does and a treaty is signed and Hamas wins the elections again, what then.
My solution changes mindsets. Yours just delays the inevitable.
It's Hamas publically REMOVING from its charter, that if Isreal's destruction. That removes the "what then"
It's called a starting point. Without it, there'll be no peace. But cudos on reinforcing how you apparently really don't care about peace in the ME. Just nuke them all :'(
Will, it sure is enlightneing to know that any treaty signed, and any public document put forth between 2 nations forging a peace agreement, is one built on falsehoods. I mean, if that's case, why haven't they done it already. They could get a great jump on the PR campaign. Look how it helped Germany, with their Treaty of Versailles. Germany signed it, then completely ignored it
So in summation, there can be no peace. Gotcha. Sounds like a support for Israel to pre-emptively take out Hamas. Since there can be no peace, that's the next best thing, I suppose
QuoteSo in summation, there can be no peace. Gotcha. Sounds like a support for Israel to pre-emptively take out Hamas. Since there can be no peace, that's the next best thing, I suppose
Rumor has it Israel has nukes, in case they are interested in settling it once and for all.
My pleasure. You've convinced me that there can be no peace, not even a starting point. That all this diplomatic sophistry is mere exercising of one's diaphragm & vocal cords, no more than that.
By all means, you've convinced me that Israel has the green light to do whatever they need to do, however way they wish, to take out Hamas, and any organization that supports the call for Israel's destruction & death to any Jewish people. Nuclear if necessary
Iran best watch out now
...you've convinced me that Israel has the green light to do whatever they need to do, however way they wish, to take out Hamas, and any organization that supports the call for Israel's destruction & death to any Jewish people. Nuclear if necessary
Iran best watch out now
Now yer talkin'
It's ok Miss Henny....I've been shown the light....there will be no peace, I'm afraid. :'( However I'll keep you and your family in my prayers for protection, always
Jeffrey Goldberg has explained quite well why it is that Netanyahu is a dolt, as well as a jerk.
It's ok Miss Henny....I've been shown the light....there will be no peace, I'm afraid. :'( However I'll keep you and your family in my prayers for protection, always
You know, there is a chance for peace.
It's ok Miss Henny....I've been shown the light....there will be no peace, I'm afraid. :'( However I'll keep you and your family in my prayers for protection, always
You know, there is a chance for peace.
It's been presented that its just not possible outside of a non-viable 3rd party nuclear deterrent. And since that'll never, nor should it, be plausible, I'm afraid there will be no functional peace. Israel has the green light to do whatever they need to, I'm afraid :-\
With all due respect Miss Henny, it's not a party line......no more than the supposed calls of Jewish propoganda & ethnic clensing at the hands of Israel. I've got a pretty good grasp of the current situation, including the dire straits the Palestinians find themselves in, and the fodder they've become at the hands of EVERYONE, not just Israel. You even conceded the King's book was one sided. Getting more of the 1 side isn't going to change the current state of what is
If I do find some extra time, I'll endeavor to check out more of that 1 side....for you. But unfortunately, regardless of what & when I can get some reading time in, there will be no peace. Bt has now convinced me of that............somewhat supported with your having missed answering a very serious question, I posed directly to you (http://debategate.com/new3dhs/3dhs/obama-throws-israel-under-the-bus/msg125070/#msg125070), as a necessary starting point. No one seemed to be able to answer that one. In particular, should, at the very least, not the Palestinian leader stand before his people and say he is willing to accept an Israeli state, just as Netanyahu is saying he can accept a Palestinian one??
With all due respect Miss Henny, it's not a party line......no more than the supposed calls of Jewish propoganda & ethnic clensing at the hands of Israel. I've got a pretty good grasp of the current situation, including the dire straits the Palestinians find themselves in, and the fodder they've become at the hands of EVERYONE, not just Israel. You even conceded the King's book was one sided. Getting more of the 1 side isn't going to change the current state of what is
No, I promise you, you have not seen the other side like this - especially not in your news. And it adds historical perspective starting with the King's father and all of the peace attempts that have gone in between. It then gradually brings you nearly to present day. It is really, really worth it. For me it was a summary of general knowledge, but incredibly well done.
If I do find some extra time, I'll endeavor to check out more of that 1 side....for you. But unfortunately, regardless of what & when I can get some reading time in, there will be no peace. Bt has now convinced me of that............somewhat supported with your having missed answering a very serious question, I posed directly to you (http://debategate.com/new3dhs/3dhs/obama-throws-israel-under-the-bus/msg125070/#msg125070), as a necessary starting point. No one seemed to be able to answer that one. In particular, should, at the very least, not the Palestinian leader stand before his people and say he is willing to accept an Israeli state, just as Netanyahu is saying he can accept a Palestinian one??
Sorry, I skipped most of this debate deliberately because it made me incredibly angry.
Go back and review the Oslo Accords. The whole thing fell apart before that point was reached. Although technically the whole thing is still sitting on the table, so to speak.
But in short, even if it is not a satisfactory response for you: for the same reason the Native Americans didn't recognize the first American colonies as a state. For the same reason that you wouldn't recognize occupiers of California who threw you out of your home as a state.
While I personally see Israel as a state - they have been there my entire life, hard to go back on that kind of thinking - I don't think the Palestinians should recognize them as sh*t until their needs are recognized.
As for having to try and find reading time? You spend enough time in here in a month to read the entire Tibetan Buddhist Nyingma School cannon. Which is, BTW, around the size of 120 large, hard cover, dictionaries.
BSB
They were doubtless killed in a variety of ways. You want a source, look it up for yourself.
What should Israel off for them to remove the statement from their charter?
....since we're so hip on the land for the "promise of peace", I'll flip it.....for Hamas to remove from its charter, the death of Israel & every Jew, Israel will "promise to go back to 67borders"
They were doubtless killed in a variety of ways. You want a source, look it up for yourself.
You want credibility to your claim, you provide it yourself
What should Israel off for them to remove the statement from their charter?
....since we're so hip on the land for the "promise of peace", I'll flip it.....for Hamas to remove from its charter, the death of Israel & every Jew, Israel will "promise to go back to 67borders"
Every Arab-Israeli negotiation contains a fundamental asymmetry: Israel gives up land, which is tangible; the Arabs make promises, which are ephemeral. The long-standing American solution has been to nonetheless urge Israel to take risks for peace while America balances things by giving assurances of U.S. support for Israel?s security and diplomatic needs.
They were doubtless killed in a variety of ways. You want a source, look it up for yourself.
You want credibility to your claim, you provide it yourself
I'll jump in here. I don't know about the statistic XO gave - I think it came from an opinion commentary I posted by an Israeli - but here is some info. I don't know if it's 11 to 1, but it sure is a whole heck of a lot to 1:
http://www.btselem.org/english/statistics/casualties.asp (http://www.btselem.org/english/statistics/casualties.asp)
They were doubtless killed in a variety of ways. You want a source, look it up for yourself.
You want credibility to your claim, you provide it yourself
I'll jump in here. I don't know about the statistic XO gave - I think it came from an opinion commentary I posted by an Israeli - but here is some info. I don't know if it's 11 to 1, but it sure is a whole heck of a lot to 1:
http://www.btselem.org/english/statistics/casualties.asp (http://www.btselem.org/english/statistics/casualties.asp)
The claim, if I recall was Israeli KILLING Palestinians, as in targeted, as in UNPROVOKED, at the supposed rate of 11:1. Not merely folks who have died, in particular, when in response to an act of war upon them. I have no problem when a defending force kills more of those who tried to kill them, but failed at it. Bt even produced the very accurate quote on war, the plan to kill more of them, then they of you. And this is a war
But I applaud your effort to actually back up the claim, while Xo just waffled in the wind
What should Israel off for them to remove the statement from their charter?
....since we're so hip on the land for the "promise of peace", I'll flip it.....for Hamas to remove from its charter, the death of Israel & every Jew, Israel will "promise to go back to 67borders"
Every Arab-Israeli negotiation contains a fundamental asymmetry: Israel gives up land, which is tangible; the Arabs make promises, which are ephemeral. The long-standing American solution has been to nonetheless urge Israel to take risks for peace while America balances things by giving assurances of U.S. support for Israel?s security and diplomatic needs.
I'm sorry, but that is incorrect. What you miss when you don't follow carefully enough is this (ever since the assassination of Rabin, anyway):
-- Israel starts a mass settlement of occupied territories.
-- Palestinians call them on it.
-- Then Israel withdraws from the land and tries to use their withdrawal from that land as the basis to restart the peace negotiation.
-- In the meantime, the Israelis start settlements on another piece of land.
These are very good reasons why I continue to maintain that you are only seeing the picture generated by your media.
The claim, if I recall was Israeli KILLING Palestinians, as in targeted, as in UNPROVOKED, at the supposed rate of 11:1. Not merely folks who have died, in particular, when in response to an act of war upon them. I have no problem when a defending force kills more of those who tried to kill them, but failed at it. Bt even produced the very accurate quote on war, the plan to kill more of them, then they of you. And this is a war
But I applaud your effort to actually back up the claim, while Xo just waffled in the wind
But unfortunately, he was right that you wouldn't accept any statistic. :-[
Like I said when i first walked away from this thread - Arabs aren't human. Kill them all, no one cares. :-X
Like I said when i first walked away from this thread - Arabs aren't human. Kill them all, no one cares. :-X
The point is that the Palestinians have died at the ratio of 11 to 1, and yet it is the Israelis, which a huge army and nuclear weapons, that are squawkimng about "security", when it is obvious that the Palestinians are 11 times less secure.If Egyptias and Jordanian soldiers are added in the ratio might be worse than that.
Netanyahu CLAIMS that he wants a two-state solution, but every time they negotiate, one of the asshole right wing groups in his coalition enlarges a settlement, takes over a neighborhood, or does something else that is designed to piss off the Palestinians.
Netanyahu SAYS what he says, because it it what the UN demands. But he has done all that he can to prevent ANY negotiations and ANY settlement, because, as I have pointed out, he is a dickhead.
The point is that the Palestinians have died at the ratio of 11 to 1
and yet it is the Israelis, which a huge army and nuclear weapons, that are squawkimng about "security"
Netanyahu CLAIMS that he wants a two-state solution
Netanyahu SAYS what he says, because it it what the UN demands. But he has done all that he can to prevent ANY negotiations and ANY settlement, because, as I have pointed out, he is a dickhead.
You'd have to have been living in a cave, or wasting too much time on some debate forum asking for verification of the obvious, not to realize that Israel has killed a greater number of Palistians, and their allies, than the number of Israelis the Palistians, and their allies, have killed.
Further, lets not forget, Israel had no problem defending its '67 borders. In fact they kicked ass while doing it.
BSB
The Jews were not conquered so many times because of any conspiracy, they were just stubborn about being in everyone's way.
As I said, if Israel does not negotiate, it is doomed.
As I said, if Israel does not negotiate, it is doomed.
If Israel becomes an unfit place to live,the Israelis, being prosperous, will simply leave, one at a time, like the Israeli mechanic that fixes my car.
Most years, more Israelis come to the US from Israel than vice versa. I think that this is also true of Canada, Chile and Australia.
Krauthammer is a pro-Zionist hack. Forget him.
What the President said, that they state with 1967 boundaries and mutually agreed upon land saps, has ALWAYS been the position of the US.
(http://www.superchefblog.com/images/washingtonpost_300dpi299x55pxl.png)
What Obama did to Israel
By Charles Krauthammer
May 26, 2011
Being as the Palestinians have nothing to give the the Israelis other than a promise.
The Israelis have it all, so it is their turn to put something on the table.
What the President said, that they state with 1967 boundaries and mutually agreed upon land saps, has ALWAYS been the position of the US.
NO, IT'S NOT. IT'S BEEN MADE ABUNDANTLY CLEAR THAT A REVERSION TO THE 67 BORDERS WAS NEVER A STARTING BLOCK WITH THE PRIOR ADMINISTRATIONS, INCLUDING CLINTON. I'm going to leave the rest of your .... either a) lying or b) ignorance alone for now
all means all
Lemme clarify....Governments
You seem to want to make it U.S. Government alone. I'm referring to all Governments
Seems the only thing both sides in this forum (excluding Henny) have agreed upon is that aid to the Middle east should stop. It would be interesting to see what road that leads to when when it does stop.
Breakout Kings
QuoteBreakout Kings
WHy wouldn't it include Israel?
QuoteBreakout Kings
WHy wouldn't it include Israel?
Just a matter of labeling - Israel doesn't consider itself a part of the ME region, even if they are geographically IN the region.
QuoteBreakout Kings
WHy wouldn't it include Israel?
Just a matter of labeling - Israel doesn't consider itself a part of the ME region, even if they are geographically IN the region.
That isn't the impression given by Netanyahos recent speech to the Congress.
"Isreal is what is Right with the Middle East!"
I think that they do consider themselves belonging there.
They are not untrue.
Sweet cartoons..........if only they were true :-\
They are not untrue. Thanks Henny. I assume that these are from the Jordanian press?
The US and Israel are directly responsible for the eternal blockages of traffic from one part of the WB to another.
Children are not prejudiced, especially if they know one another and can play with one another. This does not happen if there is a wall between them.
If two children had treehouses above the wall, they would almost certainly be torn down by the Israelis, so that one is untrue. And Palestinians children to not blow bubbles at soldiers who aim rifles at their heads, but that one is more of a mood piece.
And the wall will fall. It will not require the return of Reagan to cause this, either.
They are not untrue.
Yea, they are. Soldiers aren't targeting and assasinating children blowing bubbles. Palestinian children are being taught, IN SCHOOL, that Israel is evil, that it doesn't really belong where it currently sits.
I love the rationalizations you're providing, which then validates my point all the more, i.e. not true, as far as the cartoons go, and the point that Palestinian children are still being fed propoganda on the evils of Israel, and how it that state doesn't exist in their school books.
If I had a million dollars...
No, not the Barenaked Ladies song. My own song.
If I had a million dollars and a magic wish, I would pick up a group of ya'll and dump you right in Gaza and let you live the reality for a few weeks. To see things how they really are. To live with the "benevolent" occupiers.
After that you could cross over into Israel and see how you feel about everything.
If I had a million dollars...
No, not the Barenaked Ladies song. My own song.
If I had a million dollars and a magic wish, I would pick up a group of ya'll and dump you right in Gaza and let you live the reality for a few weeks. To see things how they really are. To live with the "benevolent" occupiers.
After that you could cross over into Israel and see how you feel about everything.
Being generous with your point of view is as good as anyone can do.
You may not be buying us all airline tickets , but the peice of your mind is valuable too.
Don't worry about , we arn't converted , ephipanys arn't easy.
What we gain in spite of all the dehumanised are depicted as people
Through little holes poked in our illusions.
I also understand now why BSB and others have asked BT to delete them from the group and block them. I keep walking away, practically screaming, and then coming back in a few days later to see the responses that I know will upset me because they are so horribly misguided, skewed and misinformed. :-\This is a joke? No?
Henny....do you not understand....this is war.
Like General Sherman in the US Civil War said..."war is hell"
There are two sides to every war....
Either side can surrender at any time....
The American Indian..finally gave up..& we now sit on & control the once disputed land
Most people in the world sit on land today that was once controlled by someone else
Israel has possession and control of the disputed land
Your side wants the land and control
Israel does not want to give up the land or control
It's happened a milllion times throughout human history
And will continue to happen
We don't need to visit to see how bad it is....
We already know "war is hell"
If I were Israel I would not give a single inch to anyone
whose stated goal is Israel's destruction....that would be defined as INSANITY.
I also understand now why BSB and others have asked BT to delete them from the group and block them. I keep walking away, practically screaming, and then coming back in a few days later to see the responses that I know will upset me because they are so horribly misguided, skewed and misinformed. :-\This is a joke? No?
That's what political discourse is......whats the point if everyone agrees?
You want people deleted (silenced) because you consider them "horribly misguided"?
You "walk away screaming mad" because there is a different opinion?
You get upset because in your opinion someone is "misinformed"?
You pretend we must visit to "really understand".
I don't have to jump off the Empire State Building to "really understand" how bad it would be.
Our opinions are of less value because we are Americans in the US?
But Iranian opinion is somehow more valued?
Sweet cartoons..........if only they were true :-\
They are true to the people living there. This is their life, not yours. You've never even set foot in the region, so I beg to differ with your perception of "true" based on the U.S. media.
Yes lets all listen to XO pontificate about the horrors of "stolen land"
while he himself sits, lives, works, and enjoys life on "stolen land"!
I wonder if some Palestinians view Israeli settlers in the West Bank the same
way some Californians view illegal Mexicans.
This is a stupid remark, much like "Christians" regular expressions of his desire to nuke Iran
and kill everyone possible.
California is US territory by virtue of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. Can you tell me the name of equivalent treaty for the West Bank?
BT maybe they could use the same genocidal tactics and force some so called "treaties" or
"agreements" like your forefathers that screwed and murdered the American Indians
with crimes against humanity so you could enjoy the good life you and your more recent
family have enjoyed over the last couple of centuries?
QuoteBT maybe they could use the same genocidal tactics and force some so called "treaties" or
"agreements" like your forefathers that screwed and murdered the American Indians
with crimes against humanity so you could enjoy the good life you and your more recent
family have enjoyed over the last couple of centuries?
And if you have been paying attention, i am not for Israel returning to pre67 borders. That is Sirs, on condition of a pinky swear that Hamas no longer hates Jews or some nonsensical position, before Israel enters peace negotiations.
The Golan Heights should be a separate discussion with Syria.
I think there is room for some land swaps in the West Bank that might protect both countries interests.
And remember i'm the one who said that if Israel or Palestine break the peace they both should be nuked.
Enough already.
But its not, now is it, as BsB referenced
Subtracting the misrepresentation of merely "stop hating the jews" nonsense, that was based on the idea that folks like the International community & the U.S. would have the balls to seriously enforce any infringement of any peace arrangements, after a starting point of the considered Palestinian state tangibly removing from the Hamas governing charter, the death of the Israeli state. Hardly some twisted rationalization that Hamas stop hating Jews.
But since you've convicned me that there can be no such peace in this 2 state arrangement, then Israel needs to hang on to every crop & cut of land necessary to better defend themselves from
And thanks again for not addressing the rather simple questions posed. Provides some serious context to this who debate
Quotesince you've convicned me that there can be no such peace in this 2 state arrangement, then Israel needs to hang on to every crop & cut of land necessary to better defend themselves from
I agree, it's always better to be told what you will get versus negotiating to make sure you get what you need.
QuoteAnd thanks again for not addressing the rather simple questions posed. Provides some serious context to this who debate
Oh did you produce the treaty with the Palestinians and Jordanians that would be the equivalent of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo.
I'll keep it even more simpler. When the 2nd states, in this 2 state utopia, takes out its mandate to destroy the other state, then they can actually enter negotiations.
And they will have to defend
since i doubt your precondition for negotiations will be met and whatever chance for a favorable peace will slip away.
Doesn't matter about my precondition.
Both sides of my family immigrated to the US in the 1880's.
Doubt they did much pioneering. Didn't own any slaves either.
My dads side started a bakery in Central PA and my moms side worked the docks in NYC.
QuoteDoesn't matter about my precondition.
on that we agree.
Both sides of my family immigrated to the US in the 1880's.
Doubt they did much pioneering. Didn't own any slaves either.
My dads side started a bakery in Central PA and my moms side worked the docks in NYC.
That's interesting BT....but in my opinion....we (whites) still reaped indirect rewards
from slavery and Indian genocide whether we or our relatives were a part of the
actual crimes or not. In fact although I do not think it is the best strategy, that's
basically what affirmative action is about....allowing "catch up" due to past crimes.
Although most Whites in the United States never owned a slave there is still
a "collective guilt" over slavery whether one agrees with it or not.
And in my opinion whites whether they owned slaves or not still did in fact benefit
indirectly in so many ways due to slavery and the Indian genocide.
Whites had access to better jobs, better healthcare, better nutrition, better education,
better housing for centuries at other's expense....and thus white's prospered
and that is in my mind an undeniable factor in who and where we are today.
Whites didn't have it "easy", but they generally had it "easier" than Blacks/Indians.
I am not saying that is the only reason white's prospered but it is one piece of a puzzle.
You can't deny people (Blacks/Indians) healthcare, property, education, housing,
jobs, voting for centuries and then expect pooof the damage to be gone and claim
"well I never owned a slave...so I just cant understand why they continue to lag behind
and it's not my problem".
When you're family immigrated in the 1880's they started a bakery in PA....that for all
practical purposes was not an option for Blacks....they also had access to land that
people had been "run off of"......so indirectly even-though I am sure your family
worked very hard and deserved what they got....they still got a "head start" solely
on the color of their skin/race/background....in other words...benefit at the expense of others.
Again....I am just saying....that our past....plays a real part in who we all are today.
Sorry, i don't do group guilt.
In 1880's PA if a black family had a kitchen and oven they had the
same advantage my ancestors had.
So unless the black family, in Pennsylvania, did not have a kitchen and neighbors
and a relative to make introductions, yes they would have the same advantage
as my great great grandfather and great great grandmother. I don't see why it is
hard to understand that concept. Immigrants to this country are still doing it today.
Affirmative action should continue until racism no longer affects the job market.
Hamas is a nasty bunch, but they did get a plurality of votes in Gaza.
I have no effect on the peace process. Nothing I say changes anything.
Netanyahu will continue to stall. He obviously wants no settlement.
Israel will face more difficult and more popular governments in Syria and Egypt.
Ummm...Yassar is no more. 1993 is...lemme count...18years ago. We need a current recognition, since at this point in time, the current state of Fatah & Hamas, the 2 primary entities behind the "Palestinian Government" has said no, to an Israeli state
Ummm...Yassar is no more. 1993 is...lemme count...18years ago. We need a current recognition, since at this point in time, the current state of Fatah & Hamas, the 2 primary entities behind the "Palestinian Government" has said no, to an Israeli state
Meanwhile the US Constitution is a couple of centuries old and everyone who signed it is dead. Does that make it non valid?
During the meeting, Abbas said that in 1993, following the Oslo accords, the Palestinians recognized the State of Israel. "We want Israel to recognize the state of Palestine within the 1967 borders," the Palestinian leader told the Hadash members.
From your own link.....Abbas: We won't recognize Israel as Jewish state
In Ramallah meeting with Hadash party members, Palestinian president calls on Israel to 'recognize state of Palestine within 1967 borders'; says opposed to population exchanges as part of permanent agreement. Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas said Friday he would not recognize Israel as a Jewish state, adding that he was also opposed to population exchanges as part of any permanent peace agreement.
In other words, the notion that Israel is or isn't recognized is based completely on an untenable precondition, that your own link makes clear, and even you don't support
Right back atcha
No, the challange was you for you to demonstrate Israel's right to exist by the Palestinians.
Recognition on a precondition is NOT recognition. My precondition is NO precondition. Can't say the same with the Palestinians now, can we
Recognition on a precondition is NOT recognition. My precondition is NO precondition. Can't say the same with the Palestinians now, can we
Your insistence that Palestine recognize the State of Israel....
During the meeting, Abbas said that in 1993, following the Oslo accords, the Palestinians recognized the State of Israel. "We want Israel to recognize the state of Palestine within the 1967 borders," the Palestinian leader told the Hadash members.
Recognizing Israel as a Jewish State is far different than recognizing the State of Israel.
Palestine has recognized the State of Israel, has since 93.
Recognizing Israel as a Jewish State is far different than recognizing the State of Israel.
Palestine has recognized the State of Israel, has since 93.
AND CURRENTLY (read, not 1993), neither Hamas, Fatah, OR the President of the Palestinians recognize the state of Israel to exist next to a state of Palestine.......UNLESS (ahhh, those dastardly preconditions, yet again). And note, there is no "Palestine" from whence they recognize Israel. There are merely Palestinian refugees
Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas said Friday he would not recognize Israel as a Jewish state, adding that he was also opposed to population exchanges as part of any permanent peace agreement.
That fact that the President of the Palestinians won't recognize Israeli's statehood, kinda says it all. What the Israeli's do with their religious component is inmaterial. You either recognize Israel, as it is, and where it is, or you don't
CURRENTLY, the Palestinians do not.
right back atcha
That fact that the President of the Palestinians won't recognize Israeli's statehood, kinda says it all. What the Israeli's do with their religious component is inmaterial. You either recognize Israel, as it is, and where it is, or you don't
CURRENTLY, the Palestinians do not.
right back atcha
That is a completely untrue statement.
The truth is an airy, wistful thing, floating above the treetops in the wondrous Land of sirs.
ISRAEL IS A JEWISH STATE...ergo, no recognition....in this lifetime, or any other apparently, by the Palestinians
Bt is wrong
why would anybody with an ounce of brain-matter negotiate with these people?
give them land you control?
are you freakin crazy?
Former Hamas Minister of Culture
"Atallah Abu Al-Subh":
"The Jews Are the Most Despicable and Contemptible Nation to Crawl upon the Face of the Earth"
http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/2897.htm (http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/2897.htm)
Palestinian Woman in a Right-of-Return Demonstration:
Palestinians Should Massacre the Jews Like We Massacred Them in Hebron
http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/2929.htm (http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/2929.htm)
Reagan negotiated with the Evil Empire.
Reagan negotiated with the Evil Empire.
lemme know when you find where Reagan ever
negotiated land to the Russians right on the American border.
Was land an issue with the Soviets?
Was land an issue with the Soviets?
no and thats why your analogy once again is:
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-MeOj6_R6CJI/TZN-LdYuPzI/AAAAAAAAAK8/NkGvMQZDFyk/s1600/apple_orange_conflict.jpg)
ISRAEL IS A JEWISH STATE...ergo, no recognition....in this lifetime, or any other apparently, by the Palestinians
Bt is wrong
Perhaps you can explain how Palestinian Authorities recognizing the State of Israel is not recognizing the State of Israel. Because they did recognize the State of Israel in 1993 and as far as i know they never rescinded that recognition. Not only that but they recognized the authority of the UN to create that state.
Sirs is scrambling.
The goals posts were never moved. The truth remains the truth. Get back to us when the Palestinian President accepts/recognizes the state of Israel, exactly how and where it is. (read, no preconditions of mandated borders or what religion they can practice)
And last time I checked, not once have I ever heard Bibi proclaim "Israel accepts a Palestinian state, but will not recognize a Palestinian Islamic state. Can't say the same for Abbas now, can you" Care to share that smoking gun, you so desperately need right now?
What you fail to grasp is the President of the Palestinians is on record as NOT RECOGNIZING ISREAL.
Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas said Friday he would not recognize Israel as a Jewish state, adding that he was also opposed to population exchanges as part of any permanent peace agreement
That would make you wrong
I remember that!
Reagan negotiated with the Evil Empire.
*snicker*
*snicker*
What were Reagan and Gorby doing in Iceland?
*snicker*
What were Reagan and Gorby doing in Iceland?
They were negotiateing Reagan style.
Probably not dictating under what circumstances, each's others border was going to be limited to....nor discussing the foundations of each country's religion as a precondition to recognizing the other's right to exist
*snicker*
What were Reagan and Gorby doing in Iceland?
They were negotiateing Reagan style.
Yes they were negotiating. What came out of those negotiations?
*snicker*
What were Reagan and Gorby doing in Iceland?
They were negotiateing Reagan style.
Yes they were negotiating. What came out of those negotiations?
Gorbachov offered sweeping arms controll , but what could he offer that was better than the collapse of the USSR?
President Reagan said "no" to exactly what president Carter ,... or Nixon... would have asked for.
According to your link:So it was not useless , OK , but Reagan refused to throw the rope to the drowning USSR that Gorbachev was asking for, the demise of the Soviet Union accomplished more and better than any agreements before or since.
Result
Despite the unexpected proximity to the potential elimination of all nuclear weapons, the meeting adjourned with no agreement; ......................None of which would have happened if Reagan had refused to negotiate with the Evil Empire.
According to your link:So it was not useless , OK , but Reagan refused to throw the rope to the drowning USSR that Gorbachev was asking for, the demise of the Soviet Union accomplished more and better than any agreements before or since.
Result
Despite the unexpected proximity to the potential elimination of all nuclear weapons, the meeting adjourned with no agreement; ......................None of which would have happened if Reagan had refused to negotiate with the Evil Empire.
So Gorbachov did not get what he needed, a rescue from Reagan.
Negotiations don't have to be even, but both sides should have something to offer, elese
"negotiation" is the wrong word to use.
What do Palestinians have to offer?
- they weren't connected by a border
Quote- they weren't connected by a border
Don't tell Sarah Palin that.
BTW could you remind me again when it was that Israel recognized a Palestinian State?
Negotiations don't have to be even, but both sides should have something to offer, elese
"negotiation" is the wrong word to use.
What do Palestinians have to offer?
Peace
I don't beleive that they have this to offer.Negotiations don't have to be even, but both sides should have something to offer, elese
"negotiation" is the wrong word to use.
What do Palestinians have to offer?
Peace
I don't beleive that they have this to offer.Negotiations don't have to be even, but both sides should have something to offer, elese
"negotiation" is the wrong word to use.
What do Palestinians have to offer?
Peace
If by "peace" you mean that the Palestinians will behave peacefully, the Syrians will not attack , that Lebanon will not harbor rocketeers, that Gazans will capture and prevent misseleers etc...
I don't think they have this to offer.
Take just one of these possibilitys , do the Palestinians civil authority controll the suicide bombers? They don't or can't admit they do .
Seeing and connecting are 2 different things. But nice to see how quick you are to jump on the bashing Palin bandwagon
I don't beleive that they have this to offer.Negotiations don't have to be even, but both sides should have something to offer, elese
"negotiation" is the wrong word to use.
What do Palestinians have to offer?
Peace
If by "peace" you mean that the Palestinians will behave peacefully, the Syrians will not attack , that Lebanon will not harbor rocketeers, that Gazans will capture and prevent misseleers etc...
I don't think they have this to offer.
Take just one of these possibilitys , do the Palestinians civil authority controll the suicide bombers? They don't or can't admit they do .
I think that Palestine should be able to control the Palestinians about as much as the US Law enforcement groups can control US citizenry. I don't think they can control what goes on in Lebanon or Syria.
So all they have to offer is to lock up their own heros?
Compare what should happen in Paslisrael with what has happened in Northern Ireland in the last 25 years or so.
It is hardly impossible.
Compare what should happen in Paslisrael with what has happened in Northern Ireland in the last 25 years or so.
It is hardly impossible.
What has happened in Northern Ireland in the last 400 years you mean.
This kind of trouble can be very persistant.
What was the carrot?Compare what should happen in Paslisrael with what has happened in Northern Ireland in the last 25 years or so.
It is hardly impossible.
What has happened in Northern Ireland in the last 400 years you mean.
This kind of trouble can be very persistant.
Perhaps the belligerents haven't been properly incentivized. Thus my Nuclear carrot/stick.
Is a fatal one time only stick really credable?
QuoteIs a fatal one time only stick really credable?
Condom sales are certainly up.
QuoteSeeing and connecting are 2 different things. But nice to see how quick you are to jump on the bashing Palin bandwagon
The fact remains that the US and Russia do share a border. And i don't see how you get that i was bashing Palin.
Post what you have re: Israel recognizing an existing Palestinian State.
QuoteIs a fatal one time only stick really credable?
Condom sales are certainly up.
In Palistine?
QuoteSeeing and connecting are 2 different things. But nice to see how quick you are to jump on the bashing Palin bandwagon
The fact remains that the US and Russia do share a border. And i don't see how you get that i was bashing Palin.
LOL....the "border" is in the ocean. I think it was pretty transparent that I was referencing land borders. And the bashing was in how Palin was ridiculed for "seeing" Russia from Alaska, and there you were joking about it, how we should't tell Palin about them not being connected
What do you think is under the water?Post what you have re: Israel recognizing an existing Palestinian State.
Are you going to play the semantic game about a literal "Palestinian state"?? Because that's not what I've been referencing at all, nor does one currently exist. It's been in referencing Israel's acceptance of having a Palestinian state next to an Israeli state. You want a plethora of THOSE links??
Nice deflection effort. I'll stick with the current issue and topic at hand...the one that includes the Palestinians not recognizing a (Jewish) Israeli state in this supposed 2 state arrangement. As if there were some other form
No demands, other than no preconditions. Simple as that
Take it any way you wish. Truth remains the truth....Palestinian president will not recognize A (Jewish) Israel state, next to a Palestinian state. Compliments nicely that of Fatah & Hamas' mindset
Yep, no peace to be had here. Best Israel keep as much defensible land as possible
Take it any way you wish. Truth remains the truth....Palestinian president will not recognize A (Jewish) Israel state, next to a Palestinian state. Compliments nicely that of Fatah & Hamas' mindset
Yep, no peace to be had here. Best Israel keep as much defensible land as possible
So this whole was much ado about nothing?
None of which would have happened if Reagan had refused to negotiate with the Evil Empire.
Well it's obvious the Israeli's are not seriously seeking peace.
Israel does not have defensible borders now.
It will not have them if it agrees to a peace treaty. If you look at a map, you will see, that there is no way that Israel could ever have defensible borders.
Israel can only make a deal not to attack or be attacked by a neighboring state, just as the US, Canada and Mexico have done.
The rockets are a minor annoyance. It would not surprise me to discover that they are secretly funded and encouraged by Netanyahu as a phony excuse.
I'm stunned.......I tell yas.....stunned that an Arab country would organize protesters, risking their very lives, in order to hopefully give a PR black eye to Israel.
Stunned, I tell yas
It should surprise no one that Syria can control the reactions of the IDF. The Israeli military has been fighting a disorganized insurgency for 60 years and it can't beat them, and it can't negotiate successfully with them. Sixty years, and they have nothing to show for their effort in this, most important, regard.
BSB
Yeah Syria set out to give Israel a PR black eye and the dumb Israeli schmucks fell for it.
Those Syrians are so smart!
It was really stupid for the Palestinians to charge across the Israeli border from a personal point of view.
It was even more stupid for Israel to gun them down.
So i guess the real question is whether Syria set out to give Israel a PR black eye and whether they succeeded in doing so.
The mere fact that there is a discussion going on in here about the level of force used by Israel to repel the protestors indicates at a minimum that Syria was at least partially successful.
Killing people unnecessarily is just wrong.
The problem is not that no one leaves Israel alone.
It is that Israel refuses to leave others alone.
Screw Netanyahu and screw the Zionists.
Israel doesn't have a mandate to push Egypt, or Syria, or even Iran into the sea. ==========================================================
Iran? Have you ever SEEN a map?
This would be like Finland pushing Kazakhstan into the sea.
Israel has killed far more Palestinians, far more women and children as well, than the Palestinians ever have. The rest of the world knows this.
I actually do not give a sh!t.
I imagine that eventually they will step over the line and even Americans will abandon their goonish asses.
The assumption that anyone polled NOW will have the same opinion for an entire lifetime is seriously defective.
QuoteThe assumption that anyone polled NOW will have the same opinion for an entire lifetime is seriously defective.
Sounds like a true statement to me.
True if the intent was that polling now guaranteed results later.
Not likely to happen in our lifetime, given the recent polling
More to the point, was my reference made in a vacuum, where a poll now guarantees a specific outcome, for even one lifetime. Merely likely, given current polling ::)
Perhaps Plane or Cu4 can explain it to you & Xo
I'll give you a hint at any of their translating.......merely likely, given current & trending polling
Let's see what they have to say.
How could this possibly happen? Israel is the Kiss of Death to US policy.
How is Israel going to be attacked from all sides.
Assad can no longer govern in Syria.
Lebanon has no organized army.
Egypt and Jordan have treaties with Israel. Both countries have far too many problems of their own to attack Israel.
Iran would certainly not stage a land invasion: look at a map to see why.
It is rather unlikely that Israel would be attacked from the sea, being as the US dominates the Mediterranean. I don't think any of Israel's potential enemies have anything that could be described as a navy.
Note that Israel has been involved in wars with its neighbors before, and the US has sent no troops. Once, Israel fired on an American ship, the Liberty, though. This was probably intentional.
I suggest that the scenario you believe in is less likely now than ever before.