Obama throws Israel under the Bus

[Plane]

Like I said when i first walked away from this thread - Arabs aren't human. Kill them all, no one cares. 

  That is a problem.

   For the sake of self respect we ought not be that way, being aware of this as a root cause , what can be done?

   Whatever can be done , is there any use in doing it unilaterally?

[Xavier_Onassis]

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.

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.

[BSB]

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

[Plane]

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.

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.

If Egyptias and Jordanian soldiers are added in the ratio might be worse than that.

As has already been pointed out Isrelis are outnumbered , if the ratio of casualtys "improved" to five or six to one Isreal might loose one of these fights.

Is that the point?
Should the bigger side have a right to win?

[Plane]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/t/egypt-permanently-opens-g_1_74468776107708416.html

Here is a development.

[Xavier_Onassis]

The point is that the side least threatened has the least reason to constantly claim that they are insecure.

Look at a map: Israel could be secure only if it were moved. The middle of the Pacific might be a better location. No one bothers Tonga much.

The Jews were not conquered so many times because of any conspiracy, they were just stubborn about being in everyone's way.

[sirs]

The point is that the Palestinians have died at the ratio of 11 to 1

Ahhh, interesting, we've moved from a claim of Israel just out and out killing Palestinians, to Palestinians merely dying in greater #'s.  To which I don't believe anyone is disagreeing with, so its kind of a moot point, once the context of the claim had been addressed

and yet it is the Israelis, which a huge army and nuclear weapons, that are squawkimng about "security"

Good thing then, since they are outnumbered at a ratio probably greater than 11:1

Netanyahu CLAIMS that he wants a two-state solution

While the Palestinians walk away every time one is tried.  Add to that the same folks here even justifying why the Palestinian leader need not even recognize Israel's right to exist, While Nentanayu publically recognizes Palistinians' rghts, in a 2 state scenario

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.

Quite the opposite, since at this point, the starting point is with the Palestinians

[sirs]

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.

You know, I grasp the notion how in war, its getting more of the enemy to die for their country/cause, then that of your own.  Yet, here, its a condemnation.  How dare the israelis be better at it.  They need to die just as equally     

Further, lets not forget, Israel had no problem defending its '67 borders. In fact they kicked ass while doing it.

BSB

And let's not forget that strategic locations of land that offer better defensive positions, make surviving/defending easier, and less casualty potential.  You, of all people, should know that

Sirs

[sirs]

The Jews were not conquered so many times because of any conspiracy, they were just stubborn about being in everyone's way.

WOW     

[Xavier_Onassis]

There are no actual possible defensible borders in Palestine/Israel, other than shallow streams and some hills.

Israeli was conquered by nearly everyone in the area at least once. Egyptians, Hittites, Assyrians, Babylonians, Greeks, Romans, Turks, British and others.


The goal of the two-state process is to have two states that will not attack one another.

[sirs]

The goal is unattainable, so long as one of those states, has as a governing mandate the destruction and death of the other state.  End of story

[BSB]

Well I'm glad you agree with both my points.

A) The Israelis have out killed the Palestinians. And, btw, probably by a lot more than 11 to 1. Generally you do kill a lot more people when you go into a densely populated area with roman plows, high speed 50s, gunships, and fast movers, as opposed to lobbing in a few rockets now and then.  Funny how that works.

B) They had no problem defending their '67 borders, even when being attacked from several different directions at the same time. So they can go right back to the borders they had when Israel was first formed without missing a beat. 

BSB

[sirs]

A) Was not in dispute, as soon as the context of the "killings" was provided, and the fact that a state of war still exists

B) They'll have even less problem defending from the territories they aquired, the last time they were attacked from those same territories --> less potential death of those troops and especially the citizenry

Sirs

[Xavier_Onassis]

They'll have even less problem defending from the territories they aquired, the last time they were attacked from those same territories --> less potential death of those troops and especially the citizenry

====================================
This makes no actual sense.

[sirs]

For someone that doesn't understand anything about war and defensive positions, perhaps.  If you have the means to project your defensive boundry further out, thus keeping the enemy further away, especially from your population centers, --> less likely hood of death, to both soldiers, but more so civilians.  Made even more so if its higher ground, that you're defending from

It's kind of a common sense/logic thing, so I can understand why you might not get it