# America should change sides and support Palestine.



## Indofred

I've popped this in 'clean debate' in an attempt to seriously chat about US middle eastern policy.

*America should change sides and support Palestine.*

Imagine the advantages:

Way cheaper than supporting Israel.
Only one enemy in the middle east
No worries about oil supply.

Can anyone suggest why the US supporting Palestine has a downside?


----------



## Meathead

The thinking is the same that got Obama re-elected. Not exactly free stuff, but the equivalent on a national level. The downside would be the same as well, a loss of self-respect.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Lets see. Support Hamas, a known terror organization that lobs missiles, mortars and rockets indiscriminately into civilian targets. SPECIFICALLY targeting schools, day care centers , civilian bus lines, shopping centers , pizza parlors and the like. They use civilian tenement buildings , school yards and hospitals to launch their attacks from. For the sole purpose of using the dead civilians they got killed as publicity fodder. A group supported by Iran. Great plan.


----------



## Lumpy 1

Indofred said:


> I've popped this in 'clean debate' in an attempt to seriously chat about US middle eastern policy.
> 
> *America should change sides and support Palestine.*
> 
> Imagine the advantages:
> 
> Way cheaper than supporting Israel.
> Only one enemy in the middle east
> No worries about oil supply.
> 
> Can anyone suggest why the US supporting Palestine has a downside?



Well, there is that small matter of Israeli nuclear weapons but Obama might be just stupid enough to try it anyway.


----------



## Indofred

RetiredGySgt said:


> Lets see. Support Hamas, a known terror organization that lobs missiles, mortars and rockets indiscriminately into civilian targets. SPECIFICALLY targeting schools, day care centers , civilian bus lines, shopping centers , pizza parlors and the like. .



Well, guidance systems are so poor, most fall onto fields or in the sea but they can target a pizza queue.
So, excluding the emotive lies, can you explain why support for Palestine instead of Israel would hurt the US?


----------



## waltky

Granny says, "Dat's right - Israel givin' Hamas a thwackin' fer flingin' dem missiles at Tel Aviv & Ja'rusalem...

*Israeli air strikes hit Hamas HQ in Gaza, death toll hikes to 33*
_Saturday 17 Nov 2012 - Israeli air strikes shell the cabinet headquarters of Gaza's Hamas government, the group said early Saturday, with eyewitnesses reporting extensive damage to the building_


> Israeli air strikes hit the cabinet headquarters of Gaza's Hamas government early Saturday. Later, an Israeli air strike killed three Palestinians in the central Gaza Strip, medics said, with Palestinian security sources confirming they were Hamas militants.  The latest deaths raised the overall death toll in Gaza to 33 as a relentless Israeli air campaign against Gaza militants entered its fourth straight day.  Friday,  Tel Aviv called up thousands more reservists in readiness for a potential ground war.  The Israeli military said it had sealed off all the main roads around the Gaza border, declaring the area a closed military zone, in the latest sign that Israel's patience with the rocket fire was at an end and it was poised to launch its first ground offensive on the territory since 2008-9.
> 
> The Hamas government said its cabinet headquarters was targeted with four strikes, and witnesses reported extensive damage to the building.  "The IDF (army) has targeted (Hamas prime minister) Ismail Haniya's headquarters in Gaza," an Israeli army spokesman told AFP.  "Over the past six hours, the IDF targeted 85 more terror sites," the military spokesperson's official Twitter account said.  "The headquarters was completely destroyed and neighbouring houses were damaged as a result of the barbaric Israeli bombing," a Hamas official told AFP.
> 
> The raid on the building came as Israel renewed strikes across Gaza, bombing the headquarters of the Hamas police force in western Gaza City and the government's internal security headquarters in the north of the city.  In the northern Jabalia camp, a strike left at least five people injured from the same family, according a source at the Kamal Odwan hospital.  An AFP correspondent earlier reported seeing tanks massed along the Gaza-Israel frontier, and a steady stream of reservists arriving throughout the day Friday.  President Barack Obama reiterated US support for Israel's right to defend itself during a call with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu about the conflict in Gaza.
> 
> Israeli air strikes on Gaza on Friday night killed six Palestinians, raising the toll in two days of violence to 30, a Hamas health ministry spokesman said.  An Israeli military spokesman said one strike destroyed a Hamas military drone production workshop.  Israeli ministers approved the call-up of as many as 75,000 reservists as Netanyahu held late evening talks at the defence ministry in Tel Aviv with his inner circle, Channel Two television reported.  The military wing of the Islamist Hamas movement that rules Gaza said it fired the rocket at Jerusalem, the first from the territory ever to strike the outskirts of the Holy City.  It marked a major escalation by Hamas in the face of a deadly pounding since Wednesday by Israeli aircraft that has sparked outrage across the Arab and Islamic world.  A rocket attack also killed three Israelis.
> 
> MORE


----------



## Indofred

Lumpy 1 said:


> Well, there is that small matter of Israeli nuclear weapons but Obama might be just stupid enough to try it anyway.



So, are you saying Israel's US supplied nuclear weapons would be a threat to America if the US stopped support for Israel?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Indofred said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lets see. Support Hamas, a known terror organization that lobs missiles, mortars and rockets indiscriminately into civilian targets. SPECIFICALLY targeting schools, day care centers , civilian bus lines, shopping centers , pizza parlors and the like. .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, guidance systems are so poor, most fall onto fields or in the sea but they can target a pizza queue.
> So, excluding the emotive lies, can you explain why support for Palestine instead of Israel would hurt the US?
Click to expand...


I am sure one could have made a similar argument about Japan in 1941. I mean we were making a lot of money off selling Oil and metal to Japan. 

As for pizza parlors Hamas used suicide bombers on buses and pizza parlors full of teenagers.


----------



## Meathead

I don't see Obama that concerned with the issue, but his more radical followers think that 50% of the vote gave them a mandate to change basic tenants of American foreign policy. The OP's question as a hypothetical exercise is valid, as a practical matter, it is a non-starter.


----------



## Lumpy 1

Indofred said:


> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, there is that small matter of Israeli nuclear weapons but Obama might be just stupid enough to try it anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, are you saying Israel's US supplied nuclear weapons would be a threat to America if the US stopped support for Israel?
Click to expand...


No the ultimate conflagration of the middle-east is more likely. 

btw.. when was the end of the world as we know it supposed to be..12/21/2012 I'm thinkin.


----------



## sealadaigh

Indofred said:


> I've popped this in 'clean debate' in an attempt to seriously chat about US middle eastern policy.
> 
> *America should change sides and support Palestine.*
> 
> Imagine the advantages:
> 
> Way cheaper than supporting Israel.
> Only one enemy in the middle east
> No worries about oil supply.
> 
> Can anyone suggest why the US supporting Palestine has a downside?



what america should do is support a just and peaceful settlement or get out of the picture and that peaceful settlement should begin with UN resolution 181 as a starting point in negotiating borders.

HAMAS will not be defeated and they are not going anywhere so america should bring them to the negotiating table with no preconditions. there will be no solution without HAMAS. israel knows this and reuses to negotiate with them which, coincidentally, allows them to continue their illegal settlement building.

israel should release marwan barghouti to lead the palestinian negotiating team, provided HAMAS and the PLO agree, which i am sure they would. of course, israel won't do that because, coincidentally, it would mean a cessation of illegal settlement building which is contrary to israel's intentions.

the downside is that american jews, who have been putting their nickels and dimes in those little blue cans since maybe forever, have an unrealistic idea that israel need include judea and samaria, or the west bank which is a necessity for a viable palestinian homeland, and yhey are willing to sacrifice untold jewish and palestinian lives so that they can have their perect little paradise, complete with a ski resort on stolen syrian land.

not much of a downside if you ask me.

one may also want to comsider the fact that, as the surrounding arab countries rise up and struggle for a democracy, we are going to look awfully foolish supporting a failed colonial enterprise.

america should embrace the principles that made us great, and cunduct ourselves in such a manner in the mideast. it is about time.


----------



## sealadaigh

RetiredGySgt said:


> Lets see. Support Hamas, a known terror organization that lobs missiles, mortars and rockets indiscriminately into civilian targets. SPECIFICALLY targeting schools, day care centers , civilian bus lines, shopping centers , pizza parlors and the like. They use civilian tenement buildings , school yards and hospitals to launch their attacks from. For the sole purpose of using the dead civilians they got killed as publicity fodder. A group supported by Iran. Great plan.



israel will not defeat HAMAS, and HANAS represents a large portion of the palestinian people. they need to be at the table. they need to be part of the negotiations.


----------



## sealadaigh

RetiredGySgt said:


> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lets see. Support Hamas, a known terror organization that lobs missiles, mortars and rockets indiscriminately into civilian targets. SPECIFICALLY targeting schools, day care centers , civilian bus lines, shopping centers , pizza parlors and the like. .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, guidance systems are so poor, most fall onto fields or in the sea but they can target a pizza queue.
> So, excluding the emotive lies, can you explain why support for Palestine instead of Israel would hurt the US?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am sure one could have made a similar argument about Japan in 1941. I mean we were making a lot of money off selling Oil and metal to Japan.
> 
> As for pizza parlors Hamas used suicide bombers on buses and pizza parlors full of teenagers.
Click to expand...


and israel and/or israelis drops bombs on apartment buildings full of children, commits war crimes by using certain weapons illegally violates international law constantly, and commits acts of genocide as defined by the convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide...

and where does this two sidedd litany of sins get us. nowhere.

HAMAS is not defeated and they represent a lot of people. to exclude them from any part in negotiating and planning a future palestinian state is folly.


----------



## Meathead

I would no more expect Israel to sit at the table with Hamas than I would expect the US, even under Obama, to sit at the table with Al-Queda.


----------



## Lumpy 1

Meathead said:


> I would no more expect Israel to sit at the table with Hamas than I would expect the US, even under Obama, to sit at the table with Al-Queda.




 I wouldn't be all that surprised if there was an Al-Queda weenie sucking tour by Obama...


----------



## sealadaigh

Meathead said:


> I would no more expect Israel to sit at the table with Hamas than I would expect the US, even under Obama, to sit at the table with Al-Queda.



al-queda represents whom? al-queda.

sinn fein was a proscribed organisation and the UK sat down with them. and we ended up with the good friday/belfast agreement.

but that is fine. the conflict will continue in a war where israel cannot even afford one defeat, and they will be fighting an enemy that cannot be defeated.

israel's intransience on negotiating will lead to one or the other peoples being pushed into the sea, and either way, israel loses.

another thing to consider is that, if israel continues as they are doing, there is probably going to be a backlash against jewish people world wide.

israel can negotiate from a position of strength now, or they can negotiate from a poition of weakness later.


----------



## Meathead

When Hamas is ready to sit on the table, Israel will. Israel will not sit down with any entity whose goal is Israel's annihilation.

From the Hamas platform:

_Article Thirteen

[Peace] initiatives, the so-called peaceful solutions, and the

international conferences to resolve the Palestinian problem, are all

contrary to the beliefs of the Islamic Resistance Movement. For renouncing

any part of Palestine means renouncing part of the religion; the

nationalism of the Islamic Resistance Movement is part of its faith, the

movement educates its members to adhere to its principles and to raise the

banner of Allah over their homeland as they fight their Jihad: "Allah is

the all-powerful, but most people are not aware."_

So I ask you, why would Israel bother?


----------



## sealadaigh

Lumpy 1 said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would no more expect Israel to sit at the table with Hamas than I would expect the US, even under Obama, to sit at the table with Al-Queda.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wouldn't be all that surprised if there was an Al-Queda weenie sucking tour by Obama...
Click to expand...


lol...well, that probably isn't an appropriate comment for the CDZ, but i sometimes have to remind myself where i am too. that palestine/israel board gets in the blood, and there is plenty of itt being spilled over there.

i would be surprised if there were such a tour. our president is made of sterner stuff.

the election is over and obama won. i think, as americans, we need to support him. we can still disagree with him but if this country continues to pull their feet when it comes to adressing issues based upon who is elected president, we are going nowhere but down a big rabbit hole.


----------



## sealadaigh

Meathead said:


> When Hamas is ready to sit on the table, Israel will. Israel will not sit down with any entity whose goal is Israel's annihilation.
> 
> From the Hamas platform:
> 
> _Article Thirteen
> 
> [Peace] initiatives, the so-called peaceful solutions, and the
> 
> international conferences to resolve the Palestinian problem, are all
> 
> contrary to the beliefs of the Islamic Resistance Movement. For renouncing
> 
> any part of Palestine means renouncing part of the religion; the
> 
> nationalism of the Islamic Resistance Movement is part of its faith, the
> 
> movement educates its members to adhere to its principles and to raise the
> 
> banner of Allah over their homeland as they fight their Jihad: "Allah is
> 
> the all-powerful, but most people are not aware."_
> 
> So I ask you, why would Israel bother?



there is an implicit nullification of that portion of the  charter in the fact that HAMAS is willing to sit down and negotiate.

haniyeh has distanced himself from the charter, as have other leading HAMAS figures, to include the recently assassinated al-jabari.

i would never ever suggest we change our declaration of independence to accomodate our current relationship with great britain.

here is what wiki says about the charter...

Relevance of the Charter in the 21st centuryBritish diplomat and former British ambassador to the UN Sir Jeremy Greenstock stated in early 2009 that the Hamas charter was "drawn up by a Hamas-linked imam some [twenty] years ago and has never been adopted since Hamas was elected as the Palestinian government in 2006 as part of their political program".[8] Mohammed Nimer of American University comments on the Charter, &#8220;It&#8217;s a tract meant to mobilize support and it should be amended... It projects anger, not vision.&#8221;[14] Pastor states that *those who quote the charter rather than more recent Hamas statements may be using the Charter as an excuse to ignore Hamas.[*6]

Dr. Ahmed Yousef, an adviser to Ismail Haniyeh (the senior political leader of Hamas) has questioned the use of the charter by Israel and its supporters to brand Hamas as a fundamentalist, terrorist, racist, anti-Semitic organization and claims that they have taken parts of the charter out of context for propaganda purposes. He claims that they dwell on the charter and ignore that Hamas has changed its views with time.He further states that "the Israelis have, for example, translated the charter to several languages, English and French included, intentionally perverting the substance of its tenets to suit their purposes. Those aims were to market its fraudulent translation to as many Western politicians, academics and media channels as possible; and therefore make it easier to claim security concerns as the basis for their legal infractions. The fear-mongering is designed to horrify the West so much that it turns a blind eye to Israels crimes against humanity which contravene international law".[13]

In a further move away from their charter Hamas have stated according to Agence France-Presse and Al Jazeera "the question of recognizing Israel is not the jurisdiction of one faction, nor the government, but a decision for the Palestinian people."[15][16] However many remain sceptical of Hamas's new stance, and view at as a ploy to hide its true agenda, "but it is equally true that the &#8220;new&#8221; discourse of diluted religious content&#8212;to say nothing of the movement&#8217;s increasing pragmatism and flexibility in the political domain&#8212;reflects genuine and cumulative changes within Hamas."[7]

Hamas Covenant - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

a peace is not achieved by people dragging their feet. it is only achieved by negotiation with ALL interested parties.


----------



## Indofred

Lumpy 1 said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would no more expect Israel to sit at the table with Hamas than I would expect the US, even under Obama, to sit at the table with Al-Queda.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wouldn't be all that surprised if there was an Al-Queda weenie sucking tour by Obama...
Click to expand...


Perhaps you can explain how that is anything to do with the question laid out in the OP.
I'm serious, America's enemies are almost all down to American intervention, in the middle east, all of them down to intervention in Israel.

If the US stopped funding Israel, all those enemies would disappear, almost overnight.


----------



## editec

The USA already supports the Palestinian Athurity... to the tune of  roughly $200,000,000 a year


----------



## Politico

I appreciate your clean debate cop out. But America shouldn't be supporting anyone.


----------



## sealadaigh

editec said:


> The USA already supports the Palestinian Athurity... to the tune of  roughly $200,000,000 a year



and we support israel to the tune of $2, 854,000,000.00, or about 15X more than what we give the PA.

i mean, i don't know what that has to do with anything, but if we are doing the math, we save a heck of a lot more cutting ties with israel.


----------



## sealadaigh

Politico said:


> I appreciate your clean debate cop out. But America shouldn't be supporting anyone.



i don't know to whom you are referring, but i do not regard the CDZ as a cop out at all. from where i have just come, the palestine/israel board, is a cop out. over there, arguement consist of who can call whom the more vulgar and demeaning name.

i gladly will concede that victory to the pro-israeli/zionist/jewish posters. i think if confronted with UNGA resolution 242, they would just try to add the numbers up...and probably wouldn't even be able to come up with the correct answer to that.


----------



## georgephillip

Indofred said:


> I've popped this in 'clean debate' in an attempt to seriously chat about US middle eastern policy.
> 
> *America should change sides and support Palestine.*
> 
> Imagine the advantages:
> 
> Way cheaper than supporting Israel.
> Only one enemy in the middle east
> No worries about oil supply.
> 
> Can anyone suggest why the US supporting Palestine has a downside?


The Jewish State is not going to change its policies of "creeping annexation" and "creeping transfer".
As Chomsky's pointed out repeatedly these go back to the 1920s: "dunam after dunam."
Always arousing as little attention as possible, but never losing sight of the goal:
A Jewish State from the Mediterranean Sea to the Jordan River with minority rule by Jews and their useful idiots.

The world is waking, and Israel will eventually suffer the same fate as White South Africa.
The US should lead the way, but that will never happen as long as Republicans AND Democrats control the US government.
The solution begins with FLUSHING the US Congress of Republicans AND Democrats.
Then FLUSH Israel.

_Failed States_ p.191


----------



## Truthseeker420

RetiredGySgt said:


> Lets see. Support Hamas, a known terror organization that lobs missiles, mortars and rockets indiscriminately into civilian targets. SPECIFICALLY targeting schools, day care centers , civilian bus lines, shopping centers , pizza parlors and the like. They use civilian tenement buildings , school yards and hospitals to launch their attacks from. For the sole purpose of using the dead civilians they got killed as publicity fodder. A group supported by Iran. Great plan.



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AEEkEUcb2Y4]Israel and Hamas Gaza Strikes: The &#39;Collateral Damage&#39; (Disturbing Video) - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yb3vF6Vcjr0]Ron Paul - Israel Created Hamas 01-09-09 - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## WillowTree

reabhloideach said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lets see. Support Hamas, a known terror organization that lobs missiles, mortars and rockets indiscriminately into civilian targets. SPECIFICALLY targeting schools, day care centers , civilian bus lines, shopping centers , pizza parlors and the like. They use civilian tenement buildings , school yards and hospitals to launch their attacks from. For the sole purpose of using the dead civilians they got killed as publicity fodder. A group supported by Iran. Great plan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> israel will not defeat HAMAS, and HANAS represents a large portion of the palestinian people. they need to be at the table. they need to be part of the negotiations.
Click to expand...


That's a good idea Israel should bring hamas to the table and then blow up the table. Hamas should reap what it sows.


----------



## georgephillip

WillowTree said:


> reabhloideach said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lets see. Support Hamas, a known terror organization that lobs missiles, mortars and rockets indiscriminately into civilian targets. SPECIFICALLY targeting schools, day care centers , civilian bus lines, shopping centers , pizza parlors and the like. They use civilian tenement buildings , school yards and hospitals to launch their attacks from. For the sole purpose of using the dead civilians they got killed as publicity fodder. A group supported by Iran. Great plan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> israel will not defeat HAMAS, and HANAS represents a large portion of the palestinian people. they need to be at the table. they need to be part of the negotiations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a good idea Israel should bring hamas to the table and then blow up the table. Hamas should reap what it sows.
Click to expand...

Please mention that to Moshe the next time you see him.

In 1970 Moshe Dayan told his cabinet his message for all Palestinians was simply this: we have no solution, you shall continue to live like dogs, and whoever wishes may leave, and we will see where the process leads.

The process leads to Gaza.


----------



## Katzndogz

Meathead said:


> I would no more expect Israel to sit at the table with Hamas than I would expect the US, even under Obama, to sit at the table with Al-Queda.



obama wouldn't be sitting at the table with Al Queda.  obama would be under the table on his knees.


----------



## Jimmy_Jam

Change sides? Am I the only person who recognizes that taking sides in a religious war is what got us into trouble in the first place?


----------



## SAYIT

reabhloideach said:


> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've popped this in 'clean debate' in an attempt to seriously chat about US middle eastern policy.
> 
> *America should change sides and support Palestine.*
> 
> Imagine the advantages:
> 
> Way cheaper than supporting Israel.
> Only one enemy in the middle east
> No worries about oil supply.
> 
> Can anyone suggest why the US supporting Palestine has a downside?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what america should do is support a just and peaceful settlement or get out of the picture and that peaceful settlement should begin with UN resolution 181 as a starting point in negotiating borders.
> 
> HAMAS will not be defeated and they are not going anywhere so america should bring them to the negotiating table with no preconditions. there will be no solution without HAMAS. israel knows this and reuses to negotiate with them which, coincidentally, allows them to continue their illegal settlement building.
> 
> israel should release marwan barghouti to lead the palestinian negotiating team, provided HAMAS and the PLO agree, which i am sure they would. of course, israel won't do that because, coincidentally, it would mean a cessation of illegal settlement building which is contrary to israel's intentions.
> 
> the downside is that american jews, who have been putting their nickels and dimes in those little blue cans since maybe forever, have an unrealistic idea that israel need include judea and samaria, or the west bank which is a necessity for a viable palestinian homeland, and yhey are willing to sacrifice untold jewish and palestinian lives so that they can have their perect little paradise, complete with a ski resort on stolen syrian land.
> 
> not much of a downside if you ask me.
> 
> one may also want to comsider the fact that, as the surrounding arab countries rise up and struggle for a democracy, we are going to look awfully foolish supporting a failed colonial enterprise.
> 
> america should embrace the principles that made us great, and cunduct ourselves in such a manner in the mideast. it is about time.
Click to expand...


I will cleanly address two of your points,
1) UN 181, a non-binding Gen Ass res, is a dead issue (although the Arabs, who violently rejected it in 1947, now regularly ask for a do-over).
2) What Jews in America want - as if one could get a monolithic opinion on this subject - is for the Arabs and Israelis to find a peaceful solution to their conflict.
Oh, and have a nice day.


----------



## Bleipriester

RetiredGySgt said:


> Lets see. Support Hamas, a known terror organization that lobs missiles, mortars and rockets indiscriminately into civilian targets. SPECIFICALLY targeting schools, day care centers , civilian bus lines, shopping centers , pizza parlors and the like. They use civilian tenement buildings , school yards and hospitals to launch their attacks from. For the sole purpose of using the dead civilians they got killed as publicity fodder. A group supported by Iran. Great plan.


Lets see. Israel killed the "Hamas military chief" and put a video of this murder proudly into the internet. But the world complains of the reaction - the lates missile attacks.
And what you say about the Hamas fits exactly to Israel, but they use modern weapons.

To the topic:
America should neither support Israel nor Palestine. It is up to the UN to ensure that peace will come to the region. And this means a Palestine nation.
Why are the US supporting Israel?
Isn´t it due to the "Jewish" capital, wich would cause an US economy crash, in the case of being withdrawn?
And isn´t it due to the influence the Jews take on American politics and public opinion?


----------



## SAYIT

reabhloideach said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, guidance systems are so poor, most fall onto fields or in the sea but they can target a pizza queue.
> So, excluding the emotive lies, can you explain why support for Palestine instead of Israel would hurt the US?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am sure one could have made a similar argument about Japan in 1941. I mean we were making a lot of money off selling Oil and metal to Japan.
> 
> As for pizza parlors Hamas used suicide bombers on buses and pizza parlors full of teenagers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and israel and/or israelis drops bombs on apartment buildings full of children, commits war crimes by using certain weapons illegally violates international law constantly, and commits acts of genocide as defined by the convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide...
> 
> and where does this two sidedd litany of sins get us. nowhere.
> 
> HAMAS is not defeated and they represent a lot of people. to exclude them from any part in negotiating and planning a future palestinian state is folly.
Click to expand...


Woo. 
I agree with your "litany of sins" assessment and have long held that view.
What is past cannot be undone and cannot be allowed to destroy any chance of a peaceful future, IMHO.


----------



## SAYIT

Meathead said:


> I would no more expect Israel to sit at the table with Hamas than I would expect the US, even under Obama, to sit at the table with Al-Queda.



I would expect and even require our gov't to talk to al Qaeda if it saved lives. Notice I did not say surrender. I expect those in our gov't to hold human life to be more important than principles.


----------



## SAYIT

reabhloideach said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would no more expect Israel to sit at the table with Hamas than I would expect the US, even under Obama, to sit at the table with Al-Queda.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> al-queda represents whom? al-queda.
> 
> sinn fein was a proscribed organisation and the UK sat down with them. and we ended up with the good friday/belfast agreement.
> 
> but that is fine. the conflict will continue in a war where israel cannot even afford one defeat, and they will be fighting an enemy that cannot be defeated.
> 
> israel's intransience on negotiating will lead to one or the other peoples being pushed into the sea, and either way, israel loses.
> 
> another thing to consider is that, if israel continues as they are doing, there is probably going to be a backlash against jewish people world wide.
> 
> israel can negotiate from a position of strength now, or they can negotiate from a poition of weakness later.
Click to expand...


Woo. I agree with that assessment also.


----------



## Katzndogz

A backlash against Jewish people has been going on for hundreds of years.   Nothing that is done today will change that.


----------



## SAYIT

reabhloideach said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> When Hamas is ready to sit on the table, Israel will. Israel will not sit down with any entity whose goal is Israel's annihilation.
> 
> From the Hamas platform:
> 
> _Article Thirteen
> 
> [Peace] initiatives, the so-called peaceful solutions, and the
> 
> international conferences to resolve the Palestinian problem, are all
> 
> contrary to the beliefs of the Islamic Resistance Movement. For renouncing
> 
> any part of Palestine means renouncing part of the religion; the
> 
> nationalism of the Islamic Resistance Movement is part of its faith, the
> 
> movement educates its members to adhere to its principles and to raise the
> 
> banner of Allah over their homeland as they fight their Jihad: "Allah is
> 
> the all-powerful, but most people are not aware."_
> 
> So I ask you, why would Israel bother?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there is an implicit nullification of that portion of the  charter in the fact that HAMAS is willing to sit down and negotiate.
> 
> haniyeh has distanced himself from the charter, as have other leading HAMAS figures, to include the recently assassinated al-jabari.
> 
> i would never ever suggest we change our declaration of independence to accomodate our current relationship with great britain.
> 
> here is what wiki says about the charter...
> 
> Relevance of the Charter in the 21st centuryBritish diplomat and former British ambassador to the UN Sir Jeremy Greenstock stated in early 2009 that the Hamas charter was "drawn up by a Hamas-linked imam some [twenty] years ago and has never been adopted since Hamas was elected as the Palestinian government in 2006 as part of their political program".[8] Mohammed Nimer of American University comments on the Charter, Its a tract meant to mobilize support and it should be amended... It projects anger, not vision.[14] Pastor states that *those who quote the charter rather than more recent Hamas statements may be using the Charter as an excuse to ignore Hamas.[*6]
> 
> Dr. Ahmed Yousef, an adviser to Ismail Haniyeh (the senior political leader of Hamas) has questioned the use of the charter by Israel and its supporters to brand Hamas as a fundamentalist, terrorist, racist, anti-Semitic organization and claims that they have taken parts of the charter out of context for propaganda purposes. He claims that they dwell on the charter and ignore that Hamas has changed its views with time.He further states that "the Israelis have, for example, translated the charter to several languages, English and French included, intentionally perverting the substance of its tenets to suit their purposes. Those aims were to market its fraudulent translation to as many Western politicians, academics and media channels as possible; and therefore make it easier to claim security concerns as the basis for their legal infractions. The fear-mongering is designed to horrify the West so much that it turns a blind eye to Israels crimes against humanity which contravene international law".[13]
> 
> In a further move away from their charter Hamas have stated according to Agence France-Presse and Al Jazeera "the question of recognizing Israel is not the jurisdiction of one faction, nor the government, but a decision for the Palestinian people."[15][16] However many remain sceptical of Hamas's new stance, and view at as a ploy to hide its true agenda, "but it is equally true that the new discourse of diluted religious contentto say nothing of the movements increasing pragmatism and flexibility in the political domainreflects genuine and cumulative changes within Hamas."[7]
> 
> Hamas Covenant - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> a peace is not achieved by people dragging their feet. it is only achieved by negotiation with ALL interested parties.
Click to expand...


While lately I've stopped using Hamas's Charter as a talking point, if they were sincerely interested in ending the carnage they would EXPLICITLY renounce it. Just sayin'.


----------



## FckingAmazing

Indofred said:


> I've popped this in 'clean debate' in an attempt to seriously chat about US middle eastern policy.
> 
> *America should change sides and support Palestine.*
> 
> Imagine the advantages:
> 
> Way cheaper than supporting Israel.
> Only one enemy in the middle east
> No worries about oil supply.
> 
> Can anyone suggest why the US supporting Palestine has a downside?



If America is biggest democracy , i think they should be objective , and they should stop the war ..  they can loose Israel's money but its worth for JUSTICE..

and the problem is ..that if America just be objective , Israel will start hate America .. 

If America just be objective i think problem solved .. and everybody will live in peace... we all together fight with real terrorists ..


----------



## sealadaigh

SAYIT said:


> reabhloideach said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've popped this in 'clean debate' in an attempt to seriously chat about US middle eastern policy.
> 
> *America should change sides and support Palestine.*
> 
> Imagine the advantages:
> 
> Way cheaper than supporting Israel.
> Only one enemy in the middle east
> No worries about oil supply.
> 
> Can anyone suggest why the US supporting Palestine has a downside?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what america should do is support a just and peaceful settlement or get out of the picture and that peaceful settlement should begin with UN resolution 181 as a starting point in negotiating borders.
> 
> HAMAS will not be defeated and they are not going anywhere so america should bring them to the negotiating table with no preconditions. there will be no solution without HAMAS. israel knows this and reuses to negotiate with them which, coincidentally, allows them to continue their illegal settlement building.
> 
> israel should release marwan barghouti to lead the palestinian negotiating team, provided HAMAS and the PLO agree, which i am sure they would. of course, israel won't do that because, coincidentally, it would mean a cessation of illegal settlement building which is contrary to israel's intentions.
> 
> the downside is that american jews, who have been putting their nickels and dimes in those little blue cans since maybe forever, have an unrealistic idea that israel need include judea and samaria, or the west bank which is a necessity for a viable palestinian homeland, and yhey are willing to sacrifice untold jewish and palestinian lives so that they can have their perect little paradise, complete with a ski resort on stolen syrian land.
> 
> not much of a downside if you ask me.
> 
> one may also want to comsider the fact that, as the surrounding arab countries rise up and struggle for a democracy, we are going to look awfully foolish supporting a failed colonial enterprise.
> 
> america should embrace the principles that made us great, and cunduct ourselves in such a manner in the mideast. it is about time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I will cleanly address two of your points,
> 1) UN 181, a non-binding Gen Ass res, is a dead issue (although the Arabs, who violently rejected it in 1947, now regularly ask for a do-over).
> 2) What Jews in America want - as if one could get a monolithic opinion on this subject - is for the Arabs and Israelis to find a peaceful solution to their conflict.
> Oh, and have a nice day.
Click to expand...


and i did not say that israel need accept UN resolution 181 (although they have twice). what i said is that the negotiations about borders should begin with those defined in 181. and yes, 181 is non-binding, but as a condition of UNGA resolution 273, where the conditions by which israel was to gain acceptance as a member state to the UN are defined, israel agree to abide by 181...and yes, 273 is also nonbinding as a resolution but it has validity as an agreement.

this agreement was made after the arab israeli war also, negating all the assertions about israel agreed and "the arabs didn't". resolution 273 was an agreement between the UN and israel.

if you are saying that israel cannot be trusted to honour their agreements, well, of course i agree.

yes, some jews in america want a just peaceful solution, but they are few and far between. i donate to their cause. other jews think a peaceful solution is for the west bank to be ethnically cleansed. those are the ones i encounter most often.

i think the world has heard too many times that israel wants peace and have seen very little genuine efforts to achieve that end. the arab peace initiative gave israel everything they said they wanted, and when it was offered, israel wanted more.

but, why don't you tell me, specifically, what you think a just peace would involve. perhaps you would even be willing to show a map as to where the borders would be and discuss east al quds.

we can start at 181 as a reference point.


----------



## sealadaigh

SAYIT said:


> reabhloideach said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am sure one could have made a similar argument about Japan in 1941. I mean we were making a lot of money off selling Oil and metal to Japan.
> 
> As for pizza parlors Hamas used suicide bombers on buses and pizza parlors full of teenagers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and israel and/or israelis drops bombs on apartment buildings full of children, commits war crimes by using certain weapons illegally violates international law constantly, and commits acts of genocide as defined by the convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide...
> 
> and where does this two sidedd litany of sins get us. nowhere.
> 
> HAMAS is not defeated and they represent a lot of people. to exclude them from any part in negotiating and planning a future palestinian state is folly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Woo.
> I agree with your "litany of sins" assessment and have long held that view.
> What is past cannot be undone and cannot be allowed to destroy any chance of a peaceful future, IMHO.
Click to expand...


the borders aren't done and the right of return is still a right of return...i.e. the refugee status is not done.


----------



## sealadaigh

SAYIT said:


> reabhloideach said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> When Hamas is ready to sit on the table, Israel will. Israel will not sit down with any entity whose goal is Israel's annihilation.
> 
> From the Hamas platform:
> 
> _Article Thirteen
> 
> [Peace] initiatives, the so-called peaceful solutions, and the
> 
> international conferences to resolve the Palestinian problem, are all
> 
> contrary to the beliefs of the Islamic Resistance Movement. For renouncing
> 
> any part of Palestine means renouncing part of the religion; the
> 
> nationalism of the Islamic Resistance Movement is part of its faith, the
> 
> movement educates its members to adhere to its principles and to raise the
> 
> banner of Allah over their homeland as they fight their Jihad: "Allah is
> 
> the all-powerful, but most people are not aware."_
> 
> So I ask you, why would Israel bother?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there is an implicit nullification of that portion of the  charter in the fact that HAMAS is willing to sit down and negotiate.
> 
> haniyeh has distanced himself from the charter, as have other leading HAMAS figures, to include the recently assassinated al-jabari.
> 
> i would never ever suggest we change our declaration of independence to accomodate our current relationship with great britain.
> 
> here is what wiki says about the charter...
> 
> Relevance of the Charter in the 21st centuryBritish diplomat and former British ambassador to the UN Sir Jeremy Greenstock stated in early 2009 that the Hamas charter was "drawn up by a Hamas-linked imam some [twenty] years ago and has never been adopted since Hamas was elected as the Palestinian government in 2006 as part of their political program".[8] Mohammed Nimer of American University comments on the Charter, Its a tract meant to mobilize support and it should be amended... It projects anger, not vision.[14] Pastor states that *those who quote the charter rather than more recent Hamas statements may be using the Charter as an excuse to ignore Hamas.[*6]
> 
> Dr. Ahmed Yousef, an adviser to Ismail Haniyeh (the senior political leader of Hamas) has questioned the use of the charter by Israel and its supporters to brand Hamas as a fundamentalist, terrorist, racist, anti-Semitic organization and claims that they have taken parts of the charter out of context for propaganda purposes. He claims that they dwell on the charter and ignore that Hamas has changed its views with time.He further states that "the Israelis have, for example, translated the charter to several languages, English and French included, intentionally perverting the substance of its tenets to suit their purposes. Those aims were to market its fraudulent translation to as many Western politicians, academics and media channels as possible; and therefore make it easier to claim security concerns as the basis for their legal infractions. The fear-mongering is designed to horrify the West so much that it turns a blind eye to Israels crimes against humanity which contravene international law".[13]
> 
> In a further move away from their charter Hamas have stated according to Agence France-Presse and Al Jazeera "the question of recognizing Israel is not the jurisdiction of one faction, nor the government, but a decision for the Palestinian people."[15][16] However many remain sceptical of Hamas's new stance, and view at as a ploy to hide its true agenda, "but it is equally true that the new discourse of diluted religious contentto say nothing of the movements increasing pragmatism and flexibility in the political domainreflects genuine and cumulative changes within Hamas."[7]
> 
> Hamas Covenant - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> a peace is not achieved by people dragging their feet. it is only achieved by negotiation with ALL interested parties.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> While lately I've stopped using Hamas's Charter as a talking point, if they were sincerely interested in ending the carnage they would EXPLICITLY renounce it. Just sayin'.
Click to expand...


first of all, it actually is a covenant, which is different. secondly, it has a historical significance to the palestinian people.

HAMAS has said they would recognise the '67 borders.

HAMAS is willing to sit down and negotiate. israel isn't. if israel were truly interested in peace, they wouldn't let a piece of paper that HAMAS leaders have rejected some portions of. this is ridiculous.

how would you feel if israel were asked to amend "the basic law". what about the hariri decision. papers come and go.

the bottom line, too, is that israel woulf not be exactly negotiatiing with HAMAS. they would be negotiating with the palestinian authority. HAMAS would fall under that umbrella.


----------



## SAYIT

reabhloideach said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> reabhloideach said:
> 
> 
> 
> what america should do is support a just and peaceful settlement or get out of the picture and that peaceful settlement should begin with UN resolution 181 as a starting point in negotiating borders.
> 
> HAMAS will not be defeated and they are not going anywhere so america should bring them to the negotiating table with no preconditions. there will be no solution without HAMAS. israel knows this and reuses to negotiate with them which, coincidentally, allows them to continue their illegal settlement building.
> 
> israel should release marwan barghouti to lead the palestinian negotiating team, provided HAMAS and the PLO agree, which i am sure they would. of course, israel won't do that because, coincidentally, it would mean a cessation of illegal settlement building which is contrary to israel's intentions.
> 
> the downside is that american jews, who have been putting their nickels and dimes in those little blue cans since maybe forever, have an unrealistic idea that israel need include judea and samaria, or the west bank which is a necessity for a viable palestinian homeland, and yhey are willing to sacrifice untold jewish and palestinian lives so that they can have their perect little paradise, complete with a ski resort on stolen syrian land.
> 
> not much of a downside if you ask me.
> 
> one may also want to comsider the fact that, as the surrounding arab countries rise up and struggle for a democracy, we are going to look awfully foolish supporting a failed colonial enterprise.
> 
> america should embrace the principles that made us great, and cunduct ourselves in such a manner in the mideast. it is about time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I will cleanly address two of your points,
> 1) UN 181, a non-binding Gen Ass res, is a dead issue (although the Arabs, who violently rejected it in 1947, now regularly ask for a do-over).
> 2) What Jews in America want - as if one could get a monolithic opinion on this subject - is for the Arabs and Israelis to find a peaceful solution to their conflict.
> Oh, and have a nice day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and i did not say that israel need accept UN resolution 181 (although they have twice). what i said is that the negotiations about borders should begin with those defined in 181. and yes, 181 is non-binding, but as a condition of UNGA resolution 273, where the conditions by which israel was to gain acceptance as a member state to the UN are defined, israel agree to abide by 181...and yes, 273 is also nonbinding as a resolution but it has validity as an agreement.
> 
> this agreement was made after the arab israeli war also, negating all the assertions about israel agreed and "the arabs didn't". resolution 273 was an agreement between the UN and israel.
> 
> if you are saying that israel cannot be trusted to honour their agreements, well, of course i agree.
> 
> yes, some jews in america want a just peaceful solution, but they are few and far between. i donate to their cause. other jews think a peaceful solution is for the west bank to be ethnically cleansed. those are the ones i encounter most often.
> 
> i think the world has heard too many times that israel wants peace and have seen very little genuine efforts to achieve that end. the arab peace initiative gave israel everything they said they wanted, and when it was offered, israel wanted more.
> 
> but, why don't you tell me, specifically, what you think a just peace would involve. perhaps you would even be willing to show a map as to where the borders would be and discuss east al quds.
> 
> we can start at 181 as a reference point.
Click to expand...


It doesn't matter where I believe the lines should be drawn ... it is up to the Arabs and Israelis to sort that out without external interference and the "Peace Initiative" has not found enthusiastic support amongst "Palestinians" either.
"Islamist political party Hamas, the elected government of the Gaza Strip, is deeply divided with most factions rejecting the plan"
Arab Peace Initiative - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## sealadaigh

SAYIT said:


> reabhloideach said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would no more expect Israel to sit at the table with Hamas than I would expect the US, even under Obama, to sit at the table with Al-Queda.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> al-queda represents whom? al-queda.
> 
> sinn fein was a proscribed organisation and the UK sat down with them. and we ended up with the good friday/belfast agreement.
> 
> but that is fine. the conflict will continue in a war where israel cannot even afford one defeat, and they will be fighting an enemy that cannot be defeated.
> 
> israel's intransience on negotiating will lead to one or the other peoples being pushed into the sea, and either way, israel loses.
> 
> another thing to consider is that, if israel continues as they are doing, there is probably going to be a backlash against jewish people world wide.
> 
> israel can negotiate from a position of strength now, or they can negotiate from a poition of weakness later.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Woo. I agree with that assessment also.
Click to expand...


the operative word in all of the above is "negotiate".

so, we agree on something. good.


----------



## SAYIT

reabhloideach said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> reabhloideach said:
> 
> 
> 
> there is an implicit nullification of that portion of the  charter in the fact that HAMAS is willing to sit down and negotiate.
> 
> haniyeh has distanced himself from the charter, as have other leading HAMAS figures, to include the recently assassinated al-jabari.
> 
> i would never ever suggest we change our declaration of independence to accomodate our current relationship with great britain.
> 
> here is what wiki says about the charter...
> 
> Relevance of the Charter in the 21st centuryBritish diplomat and former British ambassador to the UN Sir Jeremy Greenstock stated in early 2009 that the Hamas charter was "drawn up by a Hamas-linked imam some [twenty] years ago and has never been adopted since Hamas was elected as the Palestinian government in 2006 as part of their political program".[8] Mohammed Nimer of American University comments on the Charter, Its a tract meant to mobilize support and it should be amended... It projects anger, not vision.[14] Pastor states that *those who quote the charter rather than more recent Hamas statements may be using the Charter as an excuse to ignore Hamas.[*6]
> 
> Dr. Ahmed Yousef, an adviser to Ismail Haniyeh (the senior political leader of Hamas) has questioned the use of the charter by Israel and its supporters to brand Hamas as a fundamentalist, terrorist, racist, anti-Semitic organization and claims that they have taken parts of the charter out of context for propaganda purposes. He claims that they dwell on the charter and ignore that Hamas has changed its views with time.He further states that "the Israelis have, for example, translated the charter to several languages, English and French included, intentionally perverting the substance of its tenets to suit their purposes. Those aims were to market its fraudulent translation to as many Western politicians, academics and media channels as possible; and therefore make it easier to claim security concerns as the basis for their legal infractions. The fear-mongering is designed to horrify the West so much that it turns a blind eye to Israels crimes against humanity which contravene international law".[13]
> 
> In a further move away from their charter Hamas have stated according to Agence France-Presse and Al Jazeera "the question of recognizing Israel is not the jurisdiction of one faction, nor the government, but a decision for the Palestinian people."[15][16] However many remain sceptical of Hamas's new stance, and view at as a ploy to hide its true agenda, "but it is equally true that the new discourse of diluted religious contentto say nothing of the movements increasing pragmatism and flexibility in the political domainreflects genuine and cumulative changes within Hamas."[7]
> 
> Hamas Covenant - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> a peace is not achieved by people dragging their feet. it is only achieved by negotiation with ALL interested parties.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While lately I've stopped using Hamas's Charter as a talking point, if they were sincerely interested in ending the carnage they would EXPLICITLY renounce it. Just sayin'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> first of all, it actually is a covenant, which is different. secondly, it has a historical significance to the palestinian people.
> 
> HAMAS has said they would recognise the '67 borders.
> 
> HAMAS is willing to sit down and negotiate. israel isn't. if israel were truly interested in peace, they wouldn't let a piece of paper that HAMAS leaders have rejected some portions of. this is ridiculous.
> 
> how would you feel if israel were asked to amend "the basic law". what about the hariri decision. papers come and go.
> 
> the bottom line, too, is that israel woulf not be exactly negotiatiing with HAMAS. they would be negotiating with the palestinian authority. HAMAS would fall under that umbrella.
Click to expand...


You say potaytoes, I say potatoes. The Covenant is also referred to as their Charter. 
Historical my butt and while Israel indeed should not let it stand in the way, "Palestinians" also should not.
I'm not certain the PA still has the authority to negotiate. They were recognized at Oslo but Hamas is now the gov't. The devil, as always, is in the details.


----------



## sealadaigh

SAYIT said:


> reabhloideach said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> I will cleanly address two of your points,
> 1) UN 181, a non-binding Gen Ass res, is a dead issue (although the Arabs, who violently rejected it in 1947, now regularly ask for a do-over).
> 2) What Jews in America want - as if one could get a monolithic opinion on this subject - is for the Arabs and Israelis to find a peaceful solution to their conflict.
> Oh, and have a nice day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and i did not say that israel need accept UN resolution 181 (although they have twice). what i said is that the negotiations about borders should begin with those defined in 181. and yes, 181 is non-binding, but as a condition of UNGA resolution 273, where the conditions by which israel was to gain acceptance as a member state to the UN are defined, israel agree to abide by 181...and yes, 273 is also nonbinding as a resolution but it has validity as an agreement.
> 
> this agreement was made after the arab israeli war also, negating all the assertions about israel agreed and "the arabs didn't". resolution 273 was an agreement between the UN and israel.
> 
> if you are saying that israel cannot be trusted to honour their agreements, well, of course i agree.
> 
> yes, some jews in america want a just peaceful solution, but they are few and far between. i donate to their cause. other jews think a peaceful solution is for the west bank to be ethnically cleansed. those are the ones i encounter most often.
> 
> i think the world has heard too many times that israel wants peace and have seen very little genuine efforts to achieve that end. the arab peace initiative gave israel everything they said they wanted, and when it was offered, israel wanted more.
> 
> but, why don't you tell me, specifically, what you think a just peace would involve. perhaps you would even be willing to show a map as to where the borders would be and discuss east al quds.
> 
> we can start at 181 as a reference point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It doesn't matter where I believe the lines should be drawn ... it is up to the Arabs and Israelis to sort that out without external interference and the "Peace Initiative" has not found enthusiastic support amongst "Palestinians" either.
> "Islamist political party Hamas, the elected government of the Gaza Strip, is deeply divided with most factions rejecting the plan"
> Arab Peace Initiative - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


the vast maority of palestinians approve of the initiative, even though that is less after the last war in gaza.

it should be epected that a group like HAMAS would be divided. i think such a division should be viewed as a positive. there is disccussion.

people can see that if they read your link.

they can also see israel's intransigence..

i just asked a question about where you thought the lines should be drawn. that is important and perhaps highlights the problem. zionists and the israeli government are not very forthcoming with what they actually want and try to conceal it. as for borders, what they say they want always changes from time to time, and always to israel's advantage.

do think judea and samaria belong to the jewish people and the state of israel? if that is the case, do you think the palestinians in the west bank should become israeli citisens or, if not, what should happen to them? if you think that a viable state is created in the west bank, do you think east al quds should be the future capital of that state?


----------



## sealadaigh

SAYIT said:


> reabhloideach said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> While lately I've stopped using Hamas's Charter as a talking point, if they were sincerely interested in ending the carnage they would EXPLICITLY renounce it. Just sayin'.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> first of all, it actually is a covenant, which is different. secondly, it has a historical significance to the palestinian people.
> 
> HAMAS has said they would recognise the '67 borders.
> 
> HAMAS is willing to sit down and negotiate. israel isn't. if israel were truly interested in peace, they wouldn't let a piece of paper that HAMAS leaders have rejected some portions of. this is ridiculous.
> 
> how would you feel if israel were asked to amend "the basic law". what about the hariri decision. papers come and go.
> 
> the bottom line, too, is that israel woulf not be exactly negotiatiing with HAMAS. they would be negotiating with the palestinian authority. HAMAS would fall under that umbrella.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You say potaytoes, I say potatoes. The Covenant is also referred to as their Charter.
> Historical my butt and while Israel indeed should not let it stand in the way, "Palestinians" also should not.
> I'm not certain the PA still has the authority to negotiate. They were recognized at Oslo but Hamas is now the gov't. The devil, as always, is in the details.
Click to expand...


i think the PA is still the body to negotiate with, and HAMAS would be at the table under their umbrella. complicated, sure, but israel is the one who won't negotiate.

israel, if they truly wanted to negotiate, would release marwan barghouti. he is the only one who can bring the various factions together.


----------



## MHunterB

Indofred said:


> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, there is that small matter of Israeli nuclear weapons but Obama might be just stupid enough to try it anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, are you saying Israel's US supplied nuclear weapons would be a threat to America if the US stopped support for Israel?
Click to expand...


Your sig line is far from historically accurate.  Have you no idea why the Marines sing about 'the shores of Tripoli'?


----------



## MHunterB

reabhloideach said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, guidance systems are so poor, most fall onto fields or in the sea but they can target a pizza queue.
> So, excluding the emotive lies, can you explain why support for Palestine instead of Israel would hurt the US?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am sure one could have made a similar argument about Japan in 1941. I mean we were making a lot of money off selling Oil and metal to Japan.
> 
> As for pizza parlors Hamas used suicide bombers on buses and pizza parlors full of teenagers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and israel and/or israelis drops bombs on apartment buildings full of children, commits war crimes by using certain weapons illegally violates international law constantly, and commits acts of genocide as defined by the convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide...
> 
> and where does this two sidedd litany of sins get us. nowhere.
> 
> HAMAS is not defeated and they represent a lot of people. to exclude them from any part in negotiating and planning a future palestinian state is folly.
Click to expand...


The unsupported  - and inaccurate - allegations are duly noted.  As is the ' ... but let's not discuss the topic' after the allegations are made AND before any response can be given.

Some would suggest the above is a cynical tactic to stifle true debate.


----------



## FckingAmazing

i cannot say i like Iran , i like Syria or Iraq just becoz of they are muslim becoz i dont like dictatorships... but i am sure i cannot say that i like  Israel too .. becoz Israel behaving like terrorist state .. so i hope democrat American people will be with Justice and they will stop this war.. without any fear losing some interests ..


----------



## Staidhup

Lets look at the record, Israel negotiates and capitulates to US strong arm demands, rockets continue to fly, terrorist activities continue, media and the liberal left blame Israel. The fact is, regardless of Israeli policies, there is no end,  the Palestinians will never accept a peace accord, Hamas has made it clear as to their objectives and intentions. Reminds me of the nevi-tae beliefs and actions of Neville Chamberlain.


----------



## SherriMunnerlyn

Indofred said:


> I've popped this in 'clean debate' in an attempt to seriously chat about US middle eastern policy.
> 
> *America should change sides and support Palestine.*
> 
> Imagine the advantages:
> 
> Way cheaper than supporting Israel.
> Only one enemy in the middle east
> No worries about oil supply.
> 
> Can anyone suggest why the US supporting Palestine has a downside?



Indofred,

Just imagine, if the US changes sides and supports Palestine instead of Israel, our weapons and tax dollars would not be spent funding the killings of the children in Gaza depicted in the photos below. Each child killed here in these photos was killed by Israel in operations in Gaza in the past week.







http://mondoweiss.net/images/2012/11/TWu4N.jpg

The second photo, BBC journalist Jihad Masharawi carries his son&#8217;s body at a Gaza hospital. (Photo: AP)







Sherri


----------



## FckingAmazing

The child in this picture i think represent Palestinian innocent children..
will you save that child or leave alone ? 





Paris people for Palestina


----------



## FckingAmazing

why this double standard ? these chilren are not human ?


----------



## sealadaigh

MHunterB said:


> reabhloideach said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am sure one could have made a similar argument about Japan in 1941. I mean we were making a lot of money off selling Oil and metal to Japan.
> 
> As for pizza parlors Hamas used suicide bombers on buses and pizza parlors full of teenagers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and israel and/or israelis drops bombs on apartment buildings full of children, commits war crimes by using certain weapons illegally violates international law constantly, and commits acts of genocide as defined by the convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide...
> 
> and where does this two sidedd litany of sins get us. nowhere.
> 
> HAMAS is not defeated and they represent a lot of people. to exclude them from any part in negotiating and planning a future palestinian state is folly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The unsupported  - and inaccurate - allegations are duly noted.  As is the ' ... but let's not discuss the topic' after the allegations are made AND before any response can be given.
> 
> Some would suggest the above is a cynical tactic to stifle true debate.
Click to expand...


on the contrary. i was responding to a simple comment made by the marine. what eactly would you like me to substantiate.

where exactly did i say "let's not discuss the topic."

what would you like to discuss, maggie?

i hope you wouldn't be one of those suggesting that i am employing such a tactic?


----------



## sealadaigh

Staidhup said:


> Lets look at the record, Israel negotiates and capitulates to US strong arm demands, rockets continue to fly, terrorist activities continue, media and the liberal left blame Israel. The fact is, regardless of Israeli policies, there is no end,  the Palestinians will never accept a peace accord, Hamas has made it clear as to their objectives and intentions. Reminds me of the nevi-tae beliefs and actions of Neville Chamberlain.



fine, let's look at the record?

and after that, i would like to look at the record of the USA lone vetoes against UNSC resolutions regarding israel.

oh, and when you produce this "record", please use a reliable and main stream source, if possible.

thank you.


----------



## FckingAmazing




----------



## MHunterB

" israel and/or israelis drops bombs on apartment buildings full of children, commits war crimes by using certain weapons illegally violates international law constantly, and commits acts of genocide as defined by the convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide..."

I do not think it's possible to substantiate the above, because I know of no instance where Israel knew there were "apartment buildings full of children" and chose to violate the GC by dropping bombs.  I know of the LEGAL use of WP and such IN LEGAL WAYS during Cast Lead - which did NOT violate international law (WP isn't totally completely outlawed).  And I do not see the committing of acts of genocide by Israel AS CLAIMED.  There are certainly unlawful and simply wrong actions by assorted individuals with Israeli citizenship, and even 'official' acts by government which are wrong (and often protested vigorously by Israelis and Jews in other nations)

All of the allegations claimed against Israel, have many times been proven true of "Palestinian freedom fighters" - the deliberate seeking of civilian targets, particularly children (schoolbus abduction, Purim bombing, etc)  The call for genocide is clear in the HAMAS Charter, the use of 'suicide' bombings against civilians is well-documented - as are the BIG LIES of faked 'atrocities' (Jenin, Mohammed al-dura, the 'ambulance hit by a bomb'....)  

And then of course there are the very real atrocities - the murders of the Fogel family, the lynching and murder of two Israelis *in police custody* complete with 'triumphant' song and dance as the muderers displayed their bloody hands to the mob - and other such incidents which somehow are always forgotten and excused by the so-claimed 'peace activists'.

The quote above IMPLIES that all or 'most' or 'more' of the intolerable violence is from the Israelis.   That is hardly accurate - unless, of course, one believes that the Palestinians are always 'justified' and the Israelis are always wrong.

If that IS anyone's position here - intellectual honesty demands they disclose their view.  

My apologies:  I thought I'd made it clear what I was asking to be substantiated.  Of course, I've also previously mentioned that I do NOT like being addressed as 'Maggie' - but that also seems to have gone unnoticed.


----------



## georgephillip

Jimmy_Jam said:


> Change sides? Am I the only person who recognizes that taking sides in a religious war is what got us into trouble in the first place?


Religious war has been deliberately stoked in Palestine, largely to the advantage of western imperial ambitions:

"Following the absorption of the Ottoman Empire after World War I, the British set about shoring up their rule by the tried and true strategy of pitting ethnic group against ethnic group, tribe against tribe, and *religion against religion*. 

"When British Foreign Secretary Arthur James Balfour issued his famous 1917 Declaration guaranteeing a 'homeland' for the Jewish people in Palestine, he was less concerned with righting a two thousand year old wrong than *creating divisions* that would serve *growing British interests in the Middle East*."

Divide and Conquer as Imperial Rules | FPIF


----------



## MHunterB

From the Wiki article on the 'Institute for Policy Study', which is a (?how far)left-leaning 'independent think tank'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_for_Policy_Studies

The IPS opposed the Iraqi no-fly-zone that was set up to protect Kurds and Shias after the Gulf War.[18]
 The IPS opposed the NATO war undertaken to stop Slobodan Milo&#353;evi&#263;'s alleged ethnic cleansing campaign in Kosovo.[18]


Care to comment on those views ? The IPS is the parent group for the article GP cited.   I fail to see where it matters so much what the British wanted or were trying to do- particularly as it appears to be the radical Islamists of HAMAS who are seeking a religious war.  The US and the UK usually have goals quite similar, so if anything that'd be a recommendation to NOT change policy.


----------



## Rozman

I think the President really needs to step up big time and make it perfectly clear that we are 100%
behind the survival of Israel.


----------



## Politico

Katzndogz said:


> obama wouldn't be sitting at the table with Al Queda.  obama would be under the table on his knees.



Bless your heart. You think Obama would show up to the table.


----------



## skye

Rozman said:


> I think the President really needs to step up big time and make it perfectly clear that we are 100%
> behind the survival of Israel.



I agree.

In words and deeds!


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Indofred said:


> I've popped this in 'clean debate' in an attempt to seriously chat about US middle eastern policy.
> 
> *America should change sides and support Palestine.*
> 
> Imagine the advantages:
> 
> Way cheaper than supporting Israel.
> Only one enemy in the middle east
> No worries about oil supply.
> 
> Can anyone suggest why the US supporting Palestine has a downside?



American shouldnt support any side.


----------



## skye

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've popped this in 'clean debate' in an attempt to seriously chat about US middle eastern policy.
> 
> *America should change sides and support Palestine.*
> 
> Imagine the advantages:
> 
> Way cheaper than supporting Israel.
> Only one enemy in the middle east
> No worries about oil supply.
> 
> Can anyone suggest why the US supporting Palestine has a downside?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> American shouldnt support any side.
Click to expand...



In your dreams!


----------



## georgephillip

MHunterB said:


> From the Wiki article on the 'Institute for Policy Study', which is a (?how far)left-leaning 'independent think tank'
> 
> Institute for Policy Studies - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> The IPS opposed the Iraqi no-fly-zone that was set up to protect Kurds and Shias after the Gulf War.[18]
> The IPS opposed the NATO war undertaken to stop Slobodan Milo&#353;evi&#263;'s alleged ethnic cleansing campaign in Kosovo.[18]
> 
> 
> Care to comment on those views ? The IPS is the parent group for the article GP cited.   I fail to see where it matters so much what the British wanted or were trying to do- particularly as it appears to be the radical Islamists of HAMAS who are seeking a religious war.  The US and the UK usually have goals quite similar, so if anything that'd be a recommendation to NOT change policy.


I have no idea why IPS opposed Operation Southern Watch unless someone anticipated an event like Khobar Towers:

"On 25 June 1996, a barracks at a US base in Khobar, Saudi Arabia housing personnel supporting Operation Southern Watch was blown up by a truck bomb. The blast killed 19 US Air Force servicemen and a Saudi national, and injured 372 people. Who ordered the bombing is still in doubt, with suspicion being cast on Iraq, Iran or the Al-Qaida terrorist organization..."

Many opposed NATO's air efforts in Yugoslavia since they seemed designed to ensure Milosevic's ethnic cleansing would become even more deadly. Which is precisely what happened.

Western imperial interests have soaked several major continents in blood over the last 500 years, and Lord Balfour's declaration, coming as it did at precisely the same time the Royal Navy was switching from coal to oil to power its fleets, has always reeked of corporate hypocrisy.

The first British Military Governor of Jerusalem apparently saw the connection you claim to be missing:

"Sir Ronald Storrs, the first Governor of Jerusalem, certainly had no illusions about what a 'Jewish homeland' in Palestine meant for the British Empire: 'It will form for England, he said, a little loyal Jewish Ulster in a sea of potentially hostile Arabism.'

Divide and Conquer as Imperial Rules | FPIF


----------



## georgephillip

Rozman said:


> I think the President really needs to step up big time and make it perfectly clear that we are 100%
> behind the survival of Israel.


At what level of expense?
How many more US taxpayer dollars?
How many more US lives lost (like those on the _USS Liberty_)
It's long past time for Israel to sink or swim on its own.


----------



## Indofred

Jimmy_Jam said:


> Change sides? Am I the only person who recognizes that taking sides in a religious war is what got us into trouble in the first place?



Not at all.
I believe lots of people know this fact.


----------



## Indofred

Katzndogz said:


> A backlash against Jewish people has been going on for hundreds of years.   Nothing that is done today will change that.



Could you explain how that excuses Israel's stealing of Palestinian land and attempted genocide of the Palestinians?


----------



## Indofred

MHunterB said:


> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, there is that small matter of Israeli nuclear weapons but Obama might be just stupid enough to try it anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, are you saying Israel's US supplied nuclear weapons would be a threat to America if the US stopped support for Israel?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your sig line is far from historically accurate.  Have you no idea why the Marines sing about 'the shores of Tripoli'?
Click to expand...


I assume you're talking about the Barbary pirate's attack on Florida, oh, no, US forces were in their area.
True, they were evil and nasty as were British and American slavers of that time...what, you don't know America was the major slave buying nation of the world at one time?

The pirates took about 700 Americans as slaves, how many Africans were slaves in America at that time?


----------



## Indofred

Rozman said:


> I think the President really needs to step up big time and make it perfectly clear that we are 100%
> behind the survival of Israel.



Please explain why.


----------



## Indofred

Politico said:


> I appreciate your clean debate cop out. But America shouldn't be supporting anyone.



Not a cop out, just an attempt to see real ideas regarding US support for Israel.
This way, the usual insults and mud slinging can be avoided in favour of valid points in favour of either side.

What is very telling is the lack of some more insulting posters on this thread.
That suggests there is little actual contribution available from them against my assertion, The US should stop supporting Israel.


----------



## FckingAmazing

maybe .. we need to go with a new MAVI MARMARA  with good Jews brothers ..


----------



## sealadaigh

MHunterB said:


> " israel and/or israelis drops bombs on apartment buildings full of children, commits war crimes by using certain weapons illegally violates international law constantly, and commits acts of genocide as defined by the convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide..."
> 
> I do not think it's possible to substantiate the above, because I know of no instance where Israel knew there were "apartment buildings full of children" and chose to violate the GC by dropping bombs.  I know of the LEGAL use of WP and such IN LEGAL WAYS during Cast Lead - which did NOT violate international law (WP isn't totally completely outlawed).  And I do not see the committing of acts of genocide by Israel AS CLAIMED.  There are certainly unlawful and simply wrong actions by assorted individuals with Israeli citizenship, and even 'official' acts by government which are wrong (and often protested vigorously by Israelis and Jews in other nations)
> 
> All of the allegations claimed against Israel, have many times been proven true of "Palestinian freedom fighters" - the deliberate seeking of civilian targets, particularly children (schoolbus abduction, Purim bombing, etc)  The call for genocide is clear in the HAMAS Charter, the use of 'suicide' bombings against civilians is well-documented - as are the BIG LIES of faked 'atrocities' (Jenin, Mohammed al-dura, the 'ambulance hit by a bomb'....)
> 
> And then of course there are the very real atrocities - the murders of the Fogel family, the lynching and murder of two Israelis *in police custody* complete with 'triumphant' song and dance as the muderers displayed their bloody hands to the mob - and other such incidents which somehow are always forgotten and excused by the so-claimed 'peace activists'.
> 
> The quote above IMPLIES that all or 'most' or 'more' of the intolerable violence is from the Israelis.   That is hardly accurate - unless, of course, one believes that the Palestinians are always 'justified' and the Israelis are always wrong.
> 
> If that IS anyone's position here - intellectual honesty demands they disclose their view.
> 
> My apologies:  I thought I'd made it clear what I was asking to be substantiated.  Of course, I've also previously mentioned that I do NOT like being addressed as 'Maggie' - but that also seems to have gone unnoticed.



my son is coming home on leave before he goes overseas and i am all he has in this world, so i am going to ejnoy his company. i do not have the time to respond to this in the detail i would like.

"israel and/or israelis"...i said israel and/or israelis. most israelis who committhese  rimes are given no more than a slap on the wrist. soldiers are even better. even when 35 IDF soldiers gang rape a 12 y.o. jewish girl over a two year period, a slap on the wrist forr two of the soldiers and the rest were nothing. zionists defended the soldiers by saying thr sex was consentual. imam al-hams killer, capt. R, was tried after emptying a clip into her head. conduct unbecoming, illegal use of a weapon, perverting course of ustice...not guilty...promoted to major R.

links to substantiate some allegations i have made re: childrern, war crimes, 

2009 Ibrahim al-Maqadna Mosque strike - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Abd Rabbo family incident - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Salah Shehade - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Iman Darweesh Al Hams - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Al-Fakhura school incident - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Zeitoun incident - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



and last but not least, you will find a PDF link to "the united nations fact finding mission on the gaza conflict". please note, to those of you who want to say richarfd goldstone backed away from the report later, that richard goldstone was the head of the committee, not the entire committee. the other members stand by their findings. richard goldstone backed of after he had suffered such severe ostracism from his south african community and the subect of such hateful backlash that he could not attend his grandson's bar mitzvah

United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza conflict

war crimes and crimes against humanity...had germany won WWII,  had they been victors, they would have been heroes instead of war criminals. israel's military courts have regularly a exonerated  soldiers in the IDF of any responsibility for their often deadly "mistakes." the IDF has come to operate with an aire of impunity, in fact, they operate with such an aire of impunity that they celebrate war crimes and crimes against humanity with shirts that glorify the killing of pregnant woman.

as for white phosphorus...

Israel used white phosphorus in Gaza civilian areas | Amnesty International

Israel: White Phosphorus Use Evidence of War Crimes | Human Rights Watch

and the above UN fact finding mission.

and for what it is worth, i am/was a master gunner/fdc in the U.S. Army Field Artillery and i watch the 11 o'clock news. they only said "artillery fire in gaza" with the film and i right awaay knew it was WP rounds being fired into a heavily populated civilian area, so don't you dare try to tell me thaat it was not a war crime. IT WAS!!! there is absolutly no reason to fire WP rounds like that other than terrorise the civilian population.

you can claim that these were not deliberate. some may not have been, bit the "we didn't knows" will only go so far. they should have known. how in the world is their surveilance of salah shehade be so precise and thorough and yet miss the dozen plus civilians, including seven children. there are too many "we didn't know."

and we seem to have two incredibly inept militaries at work here. the military, which does everything it can to protect palestinian children and civilians, is killing gets at a rate of ten to one more than HAMAS, who deliberately targets children. i hate body counts, but if you check B'Tselem, you will find plenty of incidents where a child is or children are killed and yet, no islamist is killed and no IDF soldier is wounded by return fire. yes, HAMAS has used human shields on occasion, as have the IDF, but not to any great extent that i can tell by either side and certainly not enough to account for the number of palestinians killed.

genocide...ok...CPPCG was adopted by the UN in '48...

definition.

...any of the following *acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group,* as such:

(a) Killing members of the group; 
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; 
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; 
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; 
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group. 

Genocide Convention - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

do you actually think the palestinian peoples have a chance of forming a nation after israel has finished  slicing and dicing the west bank.

also, the bedouins are a seprate cultural group...

Israel: Halt Demolitions of Bedouin Homes in Negev | Human Rights Watch

Stop creating forests that are destroying Bedouin lives | Amnesty International


i think i can condemn calley, medina, americal for war crimes and my lai without mentioning the viet cong and NVA atrocities. that doesn't mean i condone them. your quote by me above "IMPLIES" nothing at all. bringing up the fogel family is ridiculous in the context of this discussion. i suppose i could bring up son of sam, david berkowitz.

i, more than anyone, zionest or pro-palestinian, have condemned atrocities committed by the other sides. i, more than anyone, zionest or pro-palestinian, have defended incidents commtted by the other side when i thought the accusation lacked evidence or was wrong.

i have never even once seen you, or any other zionest or that matter, condemn any act committed by any israeli other than the obligatory "shame, shame, baruch goldstein" for his actions at al-khalil, and it is not at all unusual for theose "shame, shame"s to be followed by a "but...".

and,maggie, i do not recall you asking me that. what i do recall is that i have, on numerous occasions, to copy  the post to which you are replying. you seem to be more guilty of false portryal than i. also, provibing substantiation isn't your long suit exactly, either.


----------



## Katzndogz

Politico said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> obama wouldn't be sitting at the table with Al Queda.  obama would be under the table on his knees.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bless your heart. You think Obama would show up to the table.
Click to expand...


He's be at the table with Al Quaeda, we all know he wouldn't be at a table with Israel.


----------



## SAYIT

reabhloideach said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> reabhloideach said:
> 
> 
> 
> and i did not say that israel need accept UN resolution 181 (although they have twice). what i said is that the negotiations about borders should begin with those defined in 181. and yes, 181 is non-binding, but as a condition of UNGA resolution 273, where the conditions by which israel was to gain acceptance as a member state to the UN are defined, israel agree to abide by 181...and yes, 273 is also nonbinding as a resolution but it has validity as an agreement.
> 
> this agreement was made after the arab israeli war also, negating all the assertions about israel agreed and "the arabs didn't". resolution 273 was an agreement between the UN and israel.
> 
> if you are saying that israel cannot be trusted to honour their agreements, well, of course i agree.
> 
> yes, some jews in america want a just peaceful solution, but they are few and far between. i donate to their cause. other jews think a peaceful solution is for the west bank to be ethnically cleansed. those are the ones i encounter most often.
> 
> i think the world has heard too many times that israel wants peace and have seen very little genuine efforts to achieve that end. the arab peace initiative gave israel everything they said they wanted, and when it was offered, israel wanted more.
> 
> but, why don't you tell me, specifically, what you think a just peace would involve. perhaps you would even be willing to show a map as to where the borders would be and discuss east al quds.
> 
> we can start at 181 as a reference point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't matter where I believe the lines should be drawn ... it is up to the Arabs and Israelis to sort that out without external interference and the "Peace Initiative" has not found enthusiastic support amongst "Palestinians" either.
> "Islamist political party Hamas, the elected government of the Gaza Strip, is deeply divided with most factions rejecting the plan"
> Arab Peace Initiative - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the vast maority of palestinians approve of the initiative...
Click to expand...


You have something which substantiates that claim?


----------



## sealadaigh

SAYIT said:


> reabhloideach said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't matter where I believe the lines should be drawn ... it is up to the Arabs and Israelis to sort that out without external interference and the "Peace Initiative" has not found enthusiastic support amongst "Palestinians" either.
> "Islamist political party Hamas, the elected government of the Gaza Strip, is deeply divided with most factions rejecting the plan"
> Arab Peace Initiative - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the vast maority of palestinians approve of the initiative...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have something which substantiates that claim?
Click to expand...



"Polls of the Palestinian people have generated large support for the plan. Support has decreased slightly after the Gaza War. However, the majority is still in favor."

Arab Peace Initiative - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

or see link at the bottom of your original post above.

(gee, didn't have to go far for that one now, did i?)

for two people who rarely substantiate anything in their own posts, you and maggie sure expect a lot out of others. one might almost suspect harrassment.


----------



## FckingAmazing

Injustice anywhere is a threat to the justice everywhere
Martin Luther King Junior

Londra


----------



## Meathead

FckingAmazing said:


> Injustice anywhere is a threat to the justice everywhere
> Martin Luther King Junior
> 
> Londra


Since killings happen from and on both sides, I cannot tell you how impressed I would be to see a Palestinian, or any Arab for that matter, carry a similar sign. I see Israelis carrying signs like that, and I realize the stark difference between the sides and why I support Israel.


----------



## FckingAmazing

Meathead said:


> FckingAmazing said:
> 
> 
> 
> Injustice anywhere is a threat to the justice everywhere
> Martin Luther King Junior
> 
> Londra
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since killings happen from and on both sides, I cannot tell you how impressed I would be to see a Palestinian, or any Arab for that matter, carry a similar sign. I see Israelis carrying signs like that, and I realize the stark difference between the sides and why I support Israel.
Click to expand...


maybe becoz you wanna see like that you want ? you are a good person or you are a racist ? which side you are ?


----------



## FckingAmazing




----------



## Meathead

FckingAmazing said:


> maybe becoz you wanna see like that you want ? you are a good person or you are a racist ? which side you are ?


I am a man who sees things as I see them. I do not consider whether people judge me as either racist or good. Additionally, I do not necessarily divide good/bad along what others decide.

What I think perhaps you do not understand is what Spinoza articulated much better than I ever could:

"_Every man is by indefeasible natural right the master of his own thoughts."_ 

Whether that is deemed good or bad is immaterial. Whatever thoughts are mine I feel obligated to express freely, especially since I live in a society where I am free to do so. The opinions and judgement of others be damned.


----------



## P F Tinmore

reabhloideach said:


> and last but not least, you will find a PDF link to "the united nations fact finding mission on the gaza conflict". please note, to those of you who want to say richarfd goldstone backed away from the report later, that richard goldstone was the head of the committee, not the entire committee. the other members stand by their findings. richard goldstone backed of after he had suffered such severe ostracism from his south african community and the subect of such hateful backlash that he could not attend his grandson's bar mitzvah
> 
> United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza conflict



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zh1be2EX8Ws]Goldstone Reignites Gaza Debate - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## FckingAmazing

Four children from the same family, Aldalou, have been killed by an Israeli airstrike attack on their house in Gaza strip.

Rest in Peace

*No graphic pics-Meister*


----------



## FckingAmazing

USA TIMES

Gazze'ye destek iin israil bayra yrtan museviler


----------



## MHunterB

NK are nobody's friends but themselves.  They insist that they are the only 'real' Jews - just as the Taliban claim to have the only 'real' understanding of Islam.  And just as Fred Phelps claims to have the only 'real' understanding of Christianity.

There are more NK than there are Phelps' Church - but less than the Taliban and their 'supporters'.

If someone wishes to pretend the NK are 'correct', I wish they'd at least familiarize themselves with what those people actually believe.   One should know with whom one is  politically getting into bed.


----------



## Katzndogz

FckingAmazing said:


> Four children from the same family, Aldalou, have been killed by an Israeli airstrike attack on their house in Gaza strip.
> 
> Rest in Peace
> 
> *XXXXXXX*][/url]



Are they dead or is it Pallywood?

If they are dead, that means four fewer future terrorists.


----------



## emilynghiem

Indofred said:


> I've popped this in 'clean debate' in an attempt to seriously chat about US middle eastern policy.
> 
> *America should change sides and support Palestine.*
> 
> Imagine the advantages:
> 
> Way cheaper than supporting Israel.
> Only one enemy in the middle east
> No worries about oil supply.
> 
> Can anyone suggest why the US supporting Palestine has a downside?



America and the ministers and diplomats intervening should support the
PEACEMAKERS on both sides.  Anyone who wants public support should be on the side of PEACE, including restitution and corrections for past wrongs, not denial projection and war.

Any country that wants authority to own and use weapons should be required to show experience and background in resolving conflicts civilly, where it is clear they are skilled in law enforcement and defense to PREVENT escalating conflicts.

People and countries should be rewarded for peacemaking and sustainable cooperative solutions, not for war mongering and bullying to dominate by force. Military force should be used for defense, and when that is done properly, there wouldn't need to be any wars!

If there are wars, then something failed in negotiations and corrections, so you need to put other people in charge who can achieve peace.


----------



## Katzndogz

Sometimes there is nothing to negotiate.


----------



## Darkwind

Indofred said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lets see. Support Hamas, a known terror organization that lobs missiles, mortars and rockets indiscriminately into civilian targets. SPECIFICALLY targeting schools, day care centers , civilian bus lines, shopping centers , pizza parlors and the like. .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, guidance systems are so poor, most fall onto fields or in the sea but they can target a pizza queue.
> So, excluding the emotive lies, can you explain why support for Palestine instead of Israel would hurt the US?
Click to expand...

You do realize that your statements is a more telling indictment of Hamas than the person you were responding to?

Their guidance system is so poor, they cannot control where the missile will land. Therefore, they are uncaring about who they kill.  Indiscriminate murderers, not caring that they are not even launching at targets that has a military component to it.

All the while they are intentionally murdering people for their own enjoyment, they are breaking international law by hiding military assets in what is clearly civilian area's of the Gaza, violating UN Humanitarian laws of warfare.

I have yet to see any justifiable reason to support Hamas with anything but a long rope attached to their necks.


----------



## Darkwind

FckingAmazing said:


> Four children from the same family, Aldalou, have been killed by an Israeli airstrike attack on their house in Gaza strip.
> 
> Rest in Peace
> 
> *XXXXXXXX*][/URL]


So, why are you not asking for the prosecution of Hamas for hiding military assets in and among the civilian population?  These deaths clearly lay at their feet.


----------



## P F Tinmore

MHunterB said:


> NK are nobody's friends but themselves.  They insist that they are the only 'real' Jews - just as the Taliban claim to have the only 'real' understanding of Islam.  And just as Fred Phelps claims to have the only 'real' understanding of Christianity.
> 
> There are more NK than there are Phelps' Church - but less than the Taliban and their 'supporters'.
> 
> If someone wishes to pretend the NK are 'correct', I wish they'd at least familiarize themselves with what those people actually believe.   One should know with whom one is  politically getting into bed.



Rabbi Meir Hirsh, the leader of Naturei Karta in Israel

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=enTbBx622-8]85 sleepless Gaza Jerusalem.divx - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## eots

Meathead said:


> FckingAmazing said:
> 
> 
> 
> Injustice anywhere is a threat to the justice everywhere
> Martin Luther King Junior
> 
> Londra
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since killings happen from and on both sides, I cannot tell you how impressed I would be to see a Palestinian, or any Arab for that matter, carry a similar sign. I see Israelis carrying signs like that, and I realize the stark difference between the sides and why I support Israel.
Click to expand...


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_ygEI9OkQQ]&#39;Palestine peace punched in face by Israel anti-boycott law&#39; - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## eots

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQgWswj_HQY]Israeli & Palestinian Teenagers Unite to Make a Music Video - &#39;Step for Peace&#39; - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## FckingAmazing

yeahh i like this clean debate forum ... all racist peope are just absent here


----------



## Indofred

FckingAmazing said:


> yeahh i like this clean debate forum ... all racist peope are just absent here



That's why I out the thread here. This way, no need to clear out the rubbish and get directly down to actual opinions, hopefully with reasoned argument.


----------



## theHawk

Indofred said:


> I've popped this in 'clean debate' in an attempt to seriously chat about US middle eastern policy.
> 
> *America should change sides and support Palestine.*
> 
> Imagine the advantages:
> 
> Way cheaper than supporting Israel.
> Only one enemy in the middle east
> No worries about oil supply.
> 
> Can anyone suggest why the US supporting Palestine has a downside?



The biggest reason we should not is because Islam is the enemy of the free world.

As far as I am concerned all Islamic states should be declared an enemy of the US, since they already are.


----------



## georgephillip

Darkwind said:


> FckingAmazing said:
> 
> 
> 
> Four children from the same family, Aldalou, have been killed by an Israeli airstrike attack on their house in Gaza strip.
> 
> Rest in Peace
> 
> *XXXXXXXX*]
> 
> 
> 
> So, why are you not asking for the prosecution of Hamas for hiding military assets in and among the civilian population?  These deaths clearly lay at their feet.
Click to expand...

Gazans' are within their rights guaranteed by international law when they resist an illegal occupation; Israel violates those same laws by imposing an illegal occupation. As occupying power, Israel is clearly responsible for all the dead children on both sides of the conflict.

Why aren't you asking Israel to abide by the nearly 100 UNSC Resolutions calling for its withdrawal from the territories it currently occupies?


----------



## MHunterB

Indofred said:


> FckingAmazing said:
> 
> 
> 
> yeahh i like this clean debate forum ... all racist peope are just absent here
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's why I out the thread here. This way, no need to clear out the rubbish and get directly down to actual opinions, hopefully with reasoned argument.
Click to expand...


While racism *is* an obscenity - there is loads of racism on this thread.  Including the presumption that anyone not sharing a certain view must be 'racist'.  It seems the racists here are reduced to posting videos and their sig lines as their 'arguments'.

Meanwhile, I've got to go out to replace that irony meter yet again........


----------



## theHawk

georgephillip said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FckingAmazing said:
> 
> 
> 
> Four children from the same family, Aldalou, have been killed by an Israeli airstrike attack on their house in Gaza strip.
> 
> Rest in Peace
> 
> *XXXXXXXX*]
> 
> 
> 
> So, why are you not asking for the prosecution of Hamas for hiding military assets in and among the civilian population?  These deaths clearly lay at their feet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gazans' are within their rights guaranteed by international law when they resist an illegal occupation; Israel violates those same laws by imposing an illegal occupation. As occupying power, Israel is clearly responsible for all the dead children on both sides of the conflict.
> 
> Why aren't you asking Israel to abide by the nearly 100 UNSC Resolutions calling for its withdrawal from the territories it currently occupies?
Click to expand...


UN security resolutions aren't laws.

They don't need to abide by them.  The UN is nothing more than an alliance of thugs these days.


----------



## Indofred

theHawk said:


> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've popped this in 'clean debate' in an attempt to seriously chat about US middle eastern policy.
> 
> *America should change sides and support Palestine.*
> 
> Imagine the advantages:
> 
> Way cheaper than supporting Israel.
> Only one enemy in the middle east
> No worries about oil supply.
> 
> Can anyone suggest why the US supporting Palestine has a downside?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The biggest reason we should not is because Islam is the enemy of the free world.
> 
> As far as I am concerned all Islamic states should be declared an enemy of the US, since they already are.
Click to expand...


I think you have to explain why you think that.

Perhaps you could compare the number of wars started by Islamic countries against America compared with the number of wars America has started or supported against Islamic countries. Try not to forget CIA bombing raids against Indonesia and many other countries.
When you look at the numbers (I'll give you a clue, Islam has started none against the US) I think you'll find America is the war monger. 
Most attacks against the US stem from American support for Israel. The so called terrorists  are simply attacking supply lines and the troops of an invading army.


----------



## Indofred

theHawk said:


> UN security resolutions aren't laws.
> 
> They don't need to abide by them.  *The UN is nothing more than an alliance of thugs these days*.



America is a member of the UN.
Are you saying the US of A is a thug nation?

I would tend to agree with you.


----------



## theHawk

Indofred said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've popped this in 'clean debate' in an attempt to seriously chat about US middle eastern policy.
> 
> *America should change sides and support Palestine.*
> 
> Imagine the advantages:
> 
> Way cheaper than supporting Israel.
> Only one enemy in the middle east
> No worries about oil supply.
> 
> Can anyone suggest why the US supporting Palestine has a downside?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The biggest reason we should not is because Islam is the enemy of the free world.
> 
> As far as I am concerned all Islamic states should be declared an enemy of the US, since they already are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you have to explain why you think that.
> 
> Perhaps you could compare the number of wars started by Islamic countries against America compared with the number of wars America has started or supported against Islamic countries. Try not to forget CIA bombing raids against Indonesia and many other countries.
> When you look at the numbers (I'll give you a clue, Islam has started none against the US) I think you'll find America is the war monger.
> Most attacks against the US stem from American support for Israel. The so called terrorists  are simply attacking supply lines and the troops of an invading army.
Click to expand...


Islamic countries don't start wars with their military because they are too weak, and they know they would get beat down within one day of starting one.  Instead the cowards resort to terrorism.

Since you want to count a bombing raid as an act of war, then that means we get to count every bomb set off by little chickenshit Islamists around the world.

That happens to be a pretty long list for the number of wars started by radical Islamists.


As for the ideology itself being at odds with freedom, it's written in their own doctrine, penned by a Pedophile false-Prophet.  I'm fairly certain you are familiar with his work.


----------



## High_Gravity

Indofred said:


> I've popped this in 'clean debate' in an attempt to seriously chat about US middle eastern policy.
> 
> *America should change sides and support Palestine.*
> 
> Imagine the advantages:
> 
> Way cheaper than supporting Israel.
> Only one enemy in the middle east
> No worries about oil supply.
> 
> Can anyone suggest why the US supporting Palestine has a downside?



How is supporting Palestine cheaper that supporting Israel? the Palestinians are getting by soley off of international aid, and Palestine does not have oil.


----------



## theHawk

Indofred said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> UN security resolutions aren't laws.
> 
> They don't need to abide by them.  *The UN is nothing more than an alliance of thugs these days*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> America is a member of the UN.
> Are you saying the US of A is a thug nation?
> 
> I would tend to agree with you.
Click to expand...


I don't believe the US should even be a member of the UN anymore.

The UN's agenda is to push a socialist/marxist agenda.


----------



## syrenn

Indofred said:


> I've popped this in 'clean debate' in an attempt to seriously chat about US middle eastern policy.
> 
> *America should change sides and support Palestine.*
> 
> Imagine the advantages:
> 
> Way cheaper than supporting Israel.
> Only one enemy in the middle east
> No worries about oil supply.
> 
> Can anyone suggest why the US supporting Palestine has a downside?



I guess you have never stuck up for a kid who was being bullied by a crowd have you?


----------



## FckingAmazing

Turkish Foreign minister  in Gazza


----------



## Darkwind

georgephillip said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FckingAmazing said:
> 
> 
> 
> Four children from the same family, Aldalou, have been killed by an Israeli airstrike attack on their house in Gaza strip.
> 
> Rest in Peace
> 
> *XXXXXX*]
> 
> 
> 
> So, why are you not asking for the prosecution of Hamas for hiding military assets in and among the civilian population?  These deaths clearly lay at their feet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gazans' are within their rights guaranteed by international law when they resist an illegal occupation; Israel violates those same laws by imposing an illegal occupation. As occupying power, Israel is clearly responsible for all the dead children on both sides of the conflict.
> 
> Why aren't you asking Israel to abide by the nearly 100 UNSC Resolutions calling for its withdrawal from the territories it currently occupies?
Click to expand...

Hamas is a self-sustaining governing body, fully subject to the rules of war, humanitarian laws, and decent conduct of its military.

It is a direct violation to house military assets, ammunition, rockets, vehicles, troops, in areas that can be clearly delineated as 'civilian' enclaves.  This is what is termed as a 'human shields'.  A direct violation of all decency standards and applicable laws, and violates human rights.

Gazans are NOT resisting occupation when they indiscriminately launch un-guided or poorly guided missiles into civilian areas of another country.  The deliberate attacking of civilians in any resistance is a violation of human rights and international law.  Deaths that occur to civilians due to the placement of military assets in civilian enclaves or areas and boundaries that are clearly of a civilian nature are the responsibility of those who violate these laws.

As a violator of human rights, Geneva Convention protocols and international law, Hamas bears the entire burden of deaths incurred, both Israeli and Palestinian.

In fact, the launching of missiles that deliberately target civilian assets in Israel amount to nothing more than premeditated murder, not an act of resistance in any manner proscribed by civilized peoples.

These dead children are the result of Hamas.


----------



## Katzndogz

theHawk said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, why are you not asking for the prosecution of Hamas for hiding military assets in and among the civilian population?  These deaths clearly lay at their feet.
> 
> 
> 
> Gazans' are within their rights guaranteed by international law when they resist an illegal occupation; Israel violates those same laws by imposing an illegal occupation. As occupying power, Israel is clearly responsible for all the dead children on both sides of the conflict.
> 
> Why aren't you asking Israel to abide by the nearly 100 UNSC Resolutions calling for its withdrawal from the territories it currently occupies?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> UN security resolutions aren't laws.
> 
> They don't need to abide by them.  The UN is nothing more than an alliance of thugs these days.
Click to expand...


We also don't know if this picture is real, part of the Pallywood industry, killed by Hamas and posed, or dug up out of their graves for the purpose of this picture.


----------



## FckingAmazing

to kill civilians is not right whoever do this ... but still it doesn't change that Isreal've behaved like as terrorist state , and behaving..  and if you make a systematic genocide in front of the world .. they are gonna  defence themself to stop the terrorist state ,  as whatever  they can do ..


----------



## P F Tinmore

Darkwind said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, why are you not asking for the prosecution of Hamas for hiding military assets in and among the civilian population?  These deaths clearly lay at their feet.
> 
> 
> 
> Gazans' are within their rights guaranteed by international law when they resist an illegal occupation; Israel violates those same laws by imposing an illegal occupation. As occupying power, Israel is clearly responsible for all the dead children on both sides of the conflict.
> 
> Why aren't you asking Israel to abide by the nearly 100 UNSC Resolutions calling for its withdrawal from the territories it currently occupies?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hamas is a self-sustaining governing body, fully subject to the rules of war, humanitarian laws, and decent conduct of its military.
> 
> It is a direct violation to house military assets, ammunition, rockets, vehicles, troops, in areas that can be clearly delineated as 'civilian' enclaves.  This is what is termed as a 'human shields'.  A direct violation of all decency standards and applicable laws, and violates human rights.
> 
> Gazans are NOT resisting occupation when they indiscriminately launch un-guided or poorly guided missiles into civilian areas of another country.  The deliberate attacking of civilians in any resistance is a violation of human rights and international law.  Deaths that occur to civilians due to the placement of military assets in civilian enclaves or areas and boundaries that are clearly of a civilian nature are the responsibility of those who violate these laws.
> 
> As a violator of human rights, Geneva Convention protocols and international law, Hamas bears the entire burden of deaths incurred, both Israeli and Palestinian.
> 
> In fact, the launching of missiles that deliberately target civilian assets in Israel amount to nothing more than premeditated murder, not an act of resistance in any manner proscribed by civilized peoples.
> 
> These dead children are the result of Hamas.
Click to expand...




> Gazans are NOT resisting occupation when they indiscriminately launch un-guided or poorly guided missiles into civilian areas of another country.



All of the rockets out of Gaza land inside Palestine's borders.

Israeli citizens are not considered "civilians" in international law.

Your post is based on false premise.


----------



## ekrem

"Changing sides" implies you have the option to do so.
US politicians don't have the option to change sides.


----------



## georgephillip

Darkwind said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, why are you not asking for the prosecution of Hamas for hiding military assets in and among the civilian population?  These deaths clearly lay at their feet.
> 
> 
> 
> Gazans' are within their rights guaranteed by international law when they resist an illegal occupation; Israel violates those same laws by imposing an illegal occupation. As occupying power, Israel is clearly responsible for all the dead children on both sides of the conflict.
> 
> Why aren't you asking Israel to abide by the nearly 100 UNSC Resolutions calling for its withdrawal from the territories it currently occupies?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hamas is a self-sustaining governing body, fully subject to the rules of war, humanitarian laws, and decent conduct of its military.
> 
> It is a direct violation to house military assets, ammunition, rockets, vehicles, troops, in areas that can be clearly delineated as 'civilian' enclaves.  This is what is termed as a 'human shields'.  A direct violation of all decency standards and applicable laws, and violates human rights.
> 
> Gazans are NOT resisting occupation when they indiscriminately launch un-guided or poorly guided missiles into civilian areas of another country.  The deliberate attacking of civilians in any resistance is a violation of human rights and international law.  Deaths that occur to civilians due to the placement of military assets in civilian enclaves or areas and boundaries that are clearly of a civilian nature are the responsibility of those who violate these laws.
> 
> As a violator of human rights, Geneva Convention protocols and international law, Hamas bears the entire burden of deaths incurred, both Israeli and Palestinian.
> 
> In fact, the launching of missiles that deliberately target civilian assets in Israel amount to nothing more than premeditated murder, not an act of resistance in any manner proscribed by civilized peoples.
> 
> These dead children are the result of Hamas.
Click to expand...

Hamas doesn't supply its own electricity or water; neither does it control its air space or coastal waters.
In what way do those deficiencies make Hamas a "self-sustaining government body?"


----------



## georgephillip

ekrem said:


> "Changing sides" implies you have the option to do so.
> US politicians don't have the option to change sides.


Republicans AND Democrats in the US Congress are far more united in their support for Israel than the US population as a whole. It is probably true that any elected R or D who strays to far from licking Israel's boots will find themselves facing a well-funded opponent in their next primary election.


----------



## emilynghiem

Katzndogz said:


> FckingAmazing said:
> 
> 
> 
> Four children from the same family, Aldalou, have been killed by an Israeli airstrike attack on their house in Gaza strip.
> 
> Rest in Peace
> 
> *XXXXXXXXXX*]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are they dead or is it Pallywood?
> 
> If they are dead, that means four fewer future terrorists.
Click to expand...


Please, Katzndogz, have mercy on us ALL.

Do you understand your comment is EXACTLY how jihadist terrorists feel about Americans? As spawn of the "Great Satan" that are "better off dead" than corrupting society with our unchecked "free enterprise", enslaving abused workers and monopolizing natural resources, thinking we are God's gift to the world. (Which we are of course, but still...)

Please think before you post something this sad about innocent civilians killed because of hostility of others they had no say in. Think of the 4 people we just lost in Libya. Would you REALLY want someone speaking ill of those dead as you just did with these poor children?

(Now, if these kids were Democrats who voted for Obama
that's another story! Say whatever you want!)


----------



## FckingAmazing

It's Palestinians who have the right to defend themselves



It's Palestinians who have the right to defend themselves | Seumas Milne | Comment is free | The Guardian

.
.


----------



## FckingAmazing

Question: Which country alone in the Middle East has nuclear weapons?
Answer: Israel .

Question: Which country in the Middle East has just recently used a weapon of mass destruction, a one-ton smart bomb, dropping it in the center of a highly populated area killing civilians including children?
Answer: Israel .

Question: What country in the Middle East was cited by Amnesty International for demolishing more than 4000 innocent Palestinian homes as a means of ethnic cleansing?
Answer: Israel .

Question: What country on Planet Earth has the second most powerful lobby in the United States , according to a recent Fortune magazine survey of Washington insiders?
Answer: Israel .

Question: Which country in the Middle East receives U.S. weapons for free and then sells the technology to the Republic of China even at the objections of the U.S. ?
Answer: Israel .

Question: Which country in the Middle East regularly violates the Geneva Convention by imposing collective punishment on entire towns, villages, and camps, for the acts of a few, and even goes as far as demolishing entire villages while people are still in their homes?
Answer: Israel .

Question: Which country in the Middle East routinely kills young Palestinian children for no reason other than throwing stones at armored vehicles, bulldozers, or tanks?
Answer: Israel .

Question: Which country in the Middle East refuses to sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and bars international inspections? ?
Answer: Israel .

Question: Which country in the Middle East seized the sovereign territory of other nations by military force and continues to occupy it in defiance of United Nations Security Council resolutions?
Answer: Israel .

Question: Which country in the Middle East routinely violates the international borders of another sovereign state with warplanes and artillery and naval gunfire?
Answer: Israel .

Question: What American ally in the Middle East has for years sent assassins into other countries to kill its political enemies (a practice sometimes called exporting terrorism)?
Answer: Israel .

Question: In which country in the Middle East have high-ranking military officers admitted publicly that unarmed prisoners of war were executed?
Answer: Israel .

Question: What country in the Middle East refuses to prosecute its soldiers who have acknowledged executing prisoners of war?
Answer: Israel .

Question: What country in the Middle East created millions of refugees and refuses to allow them to return to their homes, farms and businesses?
Answer: Israel .

Question: What country in the Middle East refuses to pay compensation to people whose land, bank accounts and businesses it confiscated?
Answer: Israel .

Question: In what country in the Middle East was a high-ranking United Nations diplomat assassinated?
Answer: Israel .

Question: In what country in the Middle East did the man who ordered the assassination of a high-ranking U.N. diplomat become prime minister?
Answer: Israel .

Question: What country in the Middle East blew up an American diplomatic facility in Egypt and attacked a U.S. ship, the USS Liberty, in international waters, killing 34 and wounding 171 American sailors?
Answer: Israel .

Question: What country in the Middle East employed a spy, Jonathan Pollard, to steal classified documents from USA and then gave some of them to the Soviet Union ?
Answer: Israel .

Question: What country at first denied any official connection to Pollard, then voted to make him a citizen and has continuously demanded that the American president grant Pollard a full pardon?
Answer: Israel .

Question: What Middle East country allows American Jewish murderers to flee to its country to escape punishment in the United States and refuses to extradite them once in their custody?
Answer: Israel .

Question: What Middle East country preaches against hate yet builds a shrine and a memorial for a murderer who killed 29 Palestinians while they prayed in their Mosque.?
Answer: Israel .

Question: Which country in the Middle East deliberately targeted a civilian U.N. Refugee Camp in Qana , Lebanon and killed 103 innocent men, women, and especially children?
Answer: Israel .

Question: Which country in the Middle East is in defiance of 69 United Nations Security Council resolutions and has been protected from 29 more by U.S. vetoes?
Answer: Israel .

Question: Which country in the Middle East receives more than one-third of all U.S. aid to the world yet is the 16th richest country in the world?
Answer: Israel .

Question: Which country in the Middle East had its Prime Minister announce to his staff not to worry about what the United States says because "We control America ?"
Answer: Israel .

Question: Which country in the Middle East signed the Oslo Accords promising to halt any new Jewish Settlement construction, but instead, has built more than 270 new settlements since the signing?
Answer: Israel .

Question: Which country in the Middle East has assassinated more than 100 political officials of its opponent in the last 2 years while killing hundreds of civilians in the process, including dozens of children?
Answer: Israel .


*
Question: So who is the terrorist? *


----------



## sealadaigh

Darkwind said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, why are you not asking for the prosecution of Hamas for hiding military assets in and among the civilian population?  These deaths clearly lay at their feet.
> 
> 
> 
> Gazans' are within their rights guaranteed by international law when they resist an illegal occupation; Israel violates those same laws by imposing an illegal occupation. As occupying power, Israel is clearly responsible for all the dead children on both sides of the conflict.
> 
> Why aren't you asking Israel to abide by the nearly 100 UNSC Resolutions calling for its withdrawal from the territories it currently occupies?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hamas is a self-sustaining governing body, fully subject to the rules of war, humanitarian laws, and decent conduct of its military.
> 
> It is a direct violation to house military assets, ammunition, rockets, vehicles, troops, in areas that can be clearly delineated as 'civilian' enclaves.  This is what is termed as a 'human shields'.  A direct violation of all decency standards and applicable laws, and violates human rights.
> 
> Gazans are NOT resisting occupation when they indiscriminately launch un-guided or poorly guided missiles into civilian areas of another country.  The deliberate attacking of civilians in any resistance is a violation of human rights and international law.  Deaths that occur to civilians due to the placement of military assets in civilian enclaves or areas and boundaries that are clearly of a civilian nature are the responsibility of those who violate these laws.
> 
> As a violator of human rights, Geneva Convention protocols and international law, Hamas bears the entire burden of deaths incurred, both Israeli and Palestinian.
> 
> In fact, the launching of missiles that deliberately target civilian assets in Israel amount to nothing more than premeditated murder, not an act of resistance in any manner proscribed by civilized peoples.
> 
> These dead children are the result of Hamas.
Click to expand...


the world thinks differently.

some israelis are afraid to leave their country for fear of a reverse mordechai vanunu.

HAMAS has been in a siege-like state for years. a blockade is an act of war.

those dead children are israel's fault; and it is the fault of any person who supports israel.


----------



## Katzndogz

emilynghiem said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FckingAmazing said:
> 
> 
> 
> Four children from the same family, Aldalou, have been killed by an Israeli airstrike attack on their house in Gaza strip.
> 
> Rest in Peace
> 
> *XXXXXXXXXX*]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are they dead or is it Pallywood?
> 
> If they are dead, that means four fewer future terrorists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please, Katzndogz, have mercy on us ALL.
> 
> Do you understand your comment is EXACTLY how jihadist terrorists feel about Americans? As spawn of the "Great Satan" that are "better off dead" than corrupting society with our unchecked "free enterprise", enslaving abused workers and monopolizing natural resources, thinking we are God's gift to the world. (Which we are of course, but still...)
> 
> Please think before you post something this sad about innocent civilians killed because of hostility of others they had no say in. Think of the 4 people we just lost in Libya. Would you REALLY want someone speaking ill of those dead as you just did with these poor children?
> 
> (Now, if these kids were Democrats who voted for Obama
> that's another story! Say whatever you want!)
Click to expand...


I absolutely know that that is EXACTLY how jihadists feel about Americans.    Do you understand that?   It is EXACTLY how jihadists feel about Americans and they always have.    We are corrupted, women show their tits and their faces.    The women are whores and the men are whoremongers who don't grow a decent beard.  Americans will fuck anything.  They have evil music and dance.   Did you think for a minute it was because we have free enterprise?  No.  They don't care about Free Enterprise, nor do they give a thought to natural resources.   They care about killing off beauty (100 people died in the Beauty Contest riots in Africa) and ending what they consider anti islamic infidels.


----------



## Katzndogz

Hamas was duly elected by the palestinian people.   Therefore all palestinian people are equally as guilty as Hamas.  Palestine needs to be carpet bombed.


----------



## AlexWA

Katzndogz said:


> Hamas was duly elected by the palestinian people.   Therefore all palestinian people are equally as guilty as Hamas.  Palestine needs to be carpet bombed.



Nobody needs to be carpet bombed. Both sides have blood on their hands and both sides need to accept that fact and make concessions if they ever want any sort of real and lasting peace.


----------



## eots

Katzndogz said:


> Hamas was duly elected by the palestinian people.   Therefore all palestinian people are equally as guilty as Hamas.  Palestine needs to be carpet bombed.



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Wfz1DA6x_I&feature=g-high-lik]Blowback: Did Israel Help To Create Hamas? - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Darkwind

reabhloideach said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gazans' are within their rights guaranteed by international law when they resist an illegal occupation; Israel violates those same laws by imposing an illegal occupation. As occupying power, Israel is clearly responsible for all the dead children on both sides of the conflict.
> 
> Why aren't you asking Israel to abide by the nearly 100 UNSC Resolutions calling for its withdrawal from the territories it currently occupies?
> 
> 
> 
> Hamas is a self-sustaining governing body, fully subject to the rules of war, humanitarian laws, and decent conduct of its military.
> 
> It is a direct violation to house military assets, ammunition, rockets, vehicles, troops, in areas that can be clearly delineated as 'civilian' enclaves.  This is what is termed as a 'human shields'.  A direct violation of all decency standards and applicable laws, and violates human rights.
> 
> Gazans are NOT resisting occupation when they indiscriminately launch un-guided or poorly guided missiles into civilian areas of another country.  The deliberate attacking of civilians in any resistance is a violation of human rights and international law.  Deaths that occur to civilians due to the placement of military assets in civilian enclaves or areas and boundaries that are clearly of a civilian nature are the responsibility of those who violate these laws.
> 
> As a violator of human rights, Geneva Convention protocols and international law, Hamas bears the entire burden of deaths incurred, both Israeli and Palestinian.
> 
> In fact, the launching of missiles that deliberately target civilian assets in Israel amount to nothing more than premeditated murder, not an act of resistance in any manner proscribed by civilized peoples.
> 
> These dead children are the result of Hamas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the world thinks differently.
> 
> some israelis are afraid to leave their country for fear of a reverse mordechai vanunu.
> 
> HAMAS has been in a siege-like state for years. a blockade is an act of war.
> 
> those dead children are israel's fault; and it is the fault of any person who supports israel.
Click to expand...

The world does not think differently.  They simply have not been informed, nor will they likely be in the future.

However, there are reasons that it is a violation of human rights to house military assets in civilian areas.  It is amazing to Me that no one ever dares question the Palestinians, and demands justice for their criminal acts.


----------



## Darkwind

georgephillip said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gazans' are within their rights guaranteed by international law when they resist an illegal occupation; Israel violates those same laws by imposing an illegal occupation. As occupying power, Israel is clearly responsible for all the dead children on both sides of the conflict.
> 
> Why aren't you asking Israel to abide by the nearly 100 UNSC Resolutions calling for its withdrawal from the territories it currently occupies?
> 
> 
> 
> Hamas is a self-sustaining governing body, fully subject to the rules of war, humanitarian laws, and decent conduct of its military.
> 
> It is a direct violation to house military assets, ammunition, rockets, vehicles, troops, in areas that can be clearly delineated as 'civilian' enclaves.  This is what is termed as a 'human shields'.  A direct violation of all decency standards and applicable laws, and violates human rights.
> 
> Gazans are NOT resisting occupation when they indiscriminately launch un-guided or poorly guided missiles into civilian areas of another country.  The deliberate attacking of civilians in any resistance is a violation of human rights and international law.  Deaths that occur to civilians due to the placement of military assets in civilian enclaves or areas and boundaries that are clearly of a civilian nature are the responsibility of those who violate these laws.
> 
> As a violator of human rights, Geneva Convention protocols and international law, Hamas bears the entire burden of deaths incurred, both Israeli and Palestinian.
> 
> In fact, the launching of missiles that deliberately target civilian assets in Israel amount to nothing more than premeditated murder, not an act of resistance in any manner proscribed by civilized peoples.
> 
> These dead children are the result of Hamas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hamas doesn't supply its own electricity or water; neither does it control its air space or coastal waters.
> In what way do those deficiencies make Hamas a "self-sustaining government body?"
Click to expand...

They are elected by the Palestinian people to govern.  Their inability to do so does not negate the fact that they bear responsibility for getting their people killed.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Indofred said:


> I've popped this in 'clean debate' in an attempt to seriously chat about US middle eastern policy.
> 
> *America should change sides and support Palestine.*
> 
> Imagine the advantages:
> 
> Way cheaper than supporting Israel.
> Only one enemy in the middle east
> No worries about oil supply.
> 
> Can anyone suggest why the US supporting Palestine has a downside?



18 USC § 2339B - Providing material support or resources to designated foreign terrorist organizations

18 USC § 2339B - Providing material support or resources to designated foreign terrorist organizations | LII / Legal Information Institute


----------



## P F Tinmore

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've popped this in 'clean debate' in an attempt to seriously chat about US middle eastern policy.
> 
> *America should change sides and support Palestine.*
> 
> Imagine the advantages:
> 
> Way cheaper than supporting Israel.
> Only one enemy in the middle east
> No worries about oil supply.
> 
> Can anyone suggest why the US supporting Palestine has a downside?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 18 USC § 2339B - Providing material support or resources to designated foreign terrorist organizations
> 
> 18 USC § 2339B - Providing material support or resources to designated foreign terrorist organizations | LII / Legal Information Institute
Click to expand...


Is there a meaning to this post?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Katzndogz said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are they dead or is it Pallywood?
> 
> If they are dead, that means four fewer future terrorists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please, Katzndogz, have mercy on us ALL.
> 
> Do you understand your comment is EXACTLY how jihadist terrorists feel about Americans? As spawn of the "Great Satan" that are "better off dead" than corrupting society with our unchecked "free enterprise", enslaving abused workers and monopolizing natural resources, thinking we are God's gift to the world. (Which we are of course, but still...)
> 
> Please think before you post something this sad about innocent civilians killed because of hostility of others they had no say in. Think of the 4 people we just lost in Libya. Would you REALLY want someone speaking ill of those dead as you just did with these poor children?
> 
> (Now, if these kids were Democrats who voted for Obama
> that's another story! Say whatever you want!)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I absolutely know that that is EXACTLY how jihadists feel about Americans.    Do you understand that?   It is EXACTLY how jihadists feel about Americans and they always have.    We are corrupted, women show their tits and their faces.    The women are whores and the men are whoremongers who don't grow a decent beard.  Americans will fuck anything.  They have evil music and dance.   Did you think for a minute it was because we have free enterprise?  No.  They don't care about Free Enterprise, nor do they give a thought to natural resources.   They care about killing off beauty (100 people died in the Beauty Contest riots in Africa) and ending what they consider anti islamic infidels.
Click to expand...




> I absolutely know that that is EXACTLY how jihadists feel about Americans.



Indeed, a blond, Christian woman, from the US, Rachel Corrie, has been honored in Gaza by naming a children's center after her. In Ramallah they have named a street in her honor.

When they had an honorary funeral for her in Gaza, the US flag was respectfully displayed on the coffin.

That is what they think about Americans.


----------



## SherriMunnerlyn

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've popped this in 'clean debate' in an attempt to seriously chat about US middle eastern policy.
> 
> *America should change sides and support Palestine.*
> 
> Imagine the advantages:
> 
> Way cheaper than supporting Israel.
> Only one enemy in the middle east
> No worries about oil supply.
> 
> Can anyone suggest why the US supporting Palestine has a downside?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 18 USC § 2339B - Providing material support or resources to designated foreign terrorist organizations
> 
> 18 USC § 2339B - Providing material support or resources to designated foreign terrorist organizations | LII / Legal Information Institute
Click to expand...

Palestine is not a terrorist organization.


----------



## SherriMunnerlyn

eots said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hamas was duly elected by the palestinian people.   Therefore all palestinian people are equally as guilty as Hamas.  Palestine needs to be carpet bombed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Wfz1DA6x_I&feature=g-high-lik]Blowback: Did Israel Help To Create Hamas? - YouTube[/ame]
Click to expand...


I see that as an illustration of how we reap what we sow!


----------



## emilynghiem

Katzndogz said:


> I absolutely know that that is EXACTLY how jihadists feel about Americans.    Do you understand that?   It is EXACTLY how jihadists feel about Americans and they always have.    We are corrupted, women show their tits and their faces.    The women are whores and the men are whoremongers who don't grow a decent beard.  Americans will fuck anything.  They have evil music and dance.   Did you think for a minute it was because we have free enterprise?  No.  They don't care about Free Enterprise, nor do they give a thought to natural resources.   They care about killing off beauty (100 people died in the Beauty Contest riots in Africa) and ending what they consider anti islamic infidels.



Hi K: Sounds like we are on the same page with most of this.
I consider "selling beauty" as part of free enterprise, ie. images of women sell in the media.
And clearcutting forests for profit is also unchecked because corporations claim freedom as private individuals. So that is part of the abuses of our free enterprise system.

If taken to extremes, capitalism can become more like worshipping Mammon instead of God.


----------



## emilynghiem

FckingAmazing said:


> Question: Which country alone in the Middle East has nuclear weapons?
> Answer: Israel .
> 
> Question: Which country in the Middle East has just recently used a weapon of mass destruction, a one-ton smart bomb, dropping it in the center of a highly populated area killing civilians including children?
> Answer: Israel .
> 
> 
> Question: Which country in the Middle East has assassinated more than 100 political officials of its opponent in the last 2 years while killing hundreds of civilians in the process, including dozens of children?
> Answer: Israel .
> 
> *
> Question: So who is the terrorist? *



Careful where you go with this.
Remember the US is credited with bombing Japan and killing off not only a mass of people instantly, but causing generations afterward to be born with crippling or fatal birth defects.
We have armed and funded genocides also, in Indonesia and elsewhere.

I think the solution to arms control is similar to the Second Amendment.
People who use arms should have at least taken the same oath and training as any other military or police officer sworn to defend Constitutional laws, and never abuse force to violate laws or rights/freedoms of others.

With global force weapons, countries should be required to have experience in diplomatic conflict resolution and defense, so the same rules and standards apply to all nations who wish to use arms to defend themselves. There has to be an agreement to use them for defense only.


----------



## FckingAmazing

P F Tinmore said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please, Katzndogz, have mercy on us ALL.
> 
> Do you understand your comment is EXACTLY how jihadist terrorists feel about Americans? As spawn of the "Great Satan" that are "better off dead" than corrupting society with our unchecked "free enterprise", enslaving abused workers and monopolizing natural resources, thinking we are God's gift to the world. (Which we are of course, but still...)
> 
> Please think before you post something this sad about innocent civilians killed because of hostility of others they had no say in. Think of the 4 people we just lost in Libya. Would you REALLY want someone speaking ill of those dead as you just did with these poor children?
> 
> (Now, if these kids were Democrats who voted for Obama
> that's another story! Say whatever you want!)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I absolutely know that that is EXACTLY how jihadists feel about Americans.    Do you understand that?   It is EXACTLY how jihadists feel about Americans and they always have.    We are corrupted, women show their tits and their faces.    The women are whores and the men are whoremongers who don't grow a decent beard.  Americans will fuck anything.  They have evil music and dance.   Did you think for a minute it was because we have free enterprise?  No.  They don't care about Free Enterprise, nor do they give a thought to natural resources.   They care about killing off beauty (100 people died in the Beauty Contest riots in Africa) and ending what they consider anti islamic infidels.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I absolutely know that that is EXACTLY how jihadists feel about Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indeed, a blond, Christian woman, from the US, Rachel Corrie, has been honored in Gaza by naming a children's center after her. In Ramallah they have named a street in her honor.
> 
> When they had an honorary funeral for her in Gaza, the US flag was respectfully displayed on the coffin.
> 
> That is what they think about Americans.
Click to expand...


the thing that Israel wants to create a big hate against to muslims ..  could be that El-kaide or other terrorist groups created by Israel.. and supporting .. as they supporting PKK in Middle east..  thats a strategie to make US against Muslims..


----------



## theHawk

For all you people that complain about Isreal violating human rights, it might help your credibility if you had the same outrage over the bus bombs and every other type of terrorist attack the Islamists do.

But you don't so you reek of bullshit.


----------



## Sunni Man

Israel is a terrorist apartheid state based on fascism and fueled by racism.


----------



## theHawk

Sunni Man said:


> Israel is a terrorist apartheid state based on fascism and fueled by racism.



The exact same thing can be said of any middle eastern country.

Minus the whole apartheid thing because they've already taken care of the infidels.


----------



## Katzndogz

How dare Israel defend itself!  For that matter how dare anyone defend themselves whether in Israel or in the US.   Whether it's hamas or your local gang banger, to the left there is no right of self defense.


----------



## PaulS1950

Israel has been defending itself from invaders and terrorists since the land was given to them after WWII. They have never lost a war and I can't remember them ever starting one. They try to keep themselves safe and the neighbors keep saying that they refuse to live next to Jews. 
OK! Like I said in another thread, lets give them Nevada. They won't have to live next to jews and if they are still unhappy and start making bombs the we can just make another test site.


----------



## eots

PaulS1950 said:


> *Israel has been defending itself from invaders and terrorists since the land was given to them after WWII.* They have never lost a war and I can't remember them ever starting one. They try to keep themselves safe and the neighbors keep saying that they refuse to live next to Jews.
> OK! Like I said in another thread, lets give them Nevada. They won't have to live next to jews and if they are still unhappy and start making bombs the we can just make another test site.



Who gave it to them ?....and what right did they have to do so ?


----------



## eots

btw...I like your Nevada Idea !


----------



## PaulS1950

The land provided for the Jews was owned and administered by France.  After the war France gave it to the displaced Jews because of the way they were treated for no reason. Jews from around the world applied to become members of the new (and old in a biblical sense) Israel. You had to start with nothing and build a Kibutz - a town from the land with farms to feed the people. You had to take on a Hebrew name and there were many who died making the first Kibutz's. There was no infrastructure, roads, running water, electricity, sewage - nothing. It all had to be made out of what the desert offered.

I don't see the Palistinians trying to do that - they want high paying jobs so they can buy a home. The Israelis earned that land in more ways than one.


----------



## P F Tinmore

PaulS1950 said:


> The land provided for the Jews was owned and administered by France.  After the war France gave it to the displaced Jews because of the way they were treated for no reason. Jews from around the world applied to become members of the new (and old in a biblical sense) Israel. You had to start with nothing and build a Kibutz - a town from the land with farms to feed the people. You had to take on a Hebrew name and there were many who died making the first Kibutz's. There was no infrastructure, roads, running water, electricity, sewage - nothing. It all had to be made out of what the desert offered.
> 
> I don't see the Palistinians trying to do that - they want high paying jobs so they can buy a home. The Israelis earned that land in more ways than one.



Actually, it was a British mandate not French. A mandate was an administrative appointment. Britain never annexed or otherwise claimed ownership of Palestine. It was not theirs to give away.

BTW, Palestine produced a surplus of food that was exported to other  Arab countries and Europe.


----------



## eots

> PaulS1950 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The land provided for the Jews was owned and administered by France.  After the war France gave it to the displaced Jews
> 
> 
> 
> 
> France owned the land..who did the purchase it from ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> because of the way they were treated for no reason. Jews from around the world applied to become members of the new (and old in a biblical sense) Israel. You had to start with nothing and build a Kibutz - a town from the land with farms to feed the people. You had to take on a Hebrew name and there were many who died making the first Kibutz's. There was no infrastructure, roads, running water, electricity, sewage - nothing. It all had to be made out of what the desert offered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did any of the indigenous people offer aid ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see the Palistinians trying to do that - they want high paying jobs so they can buy a home. The Israelis earned that land in more ways than one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqJ-JR_vBo0]THIS IS MY LAND - YouTube[/ame]
Click to expand...


----------



## craner

Well I see the author of this BS is banned....thats the best reply to this insane thread.


----------



## Colin

PaulS1950 said:


> *The land provided for the Jews was owned and administered by France.  After the war France gave it to the displaced Jews because of the way they were treated for no reason*. Jews from around the world applied to become members of the new (and old in a biblical sense) Israel. You had to start with nothing and build a Kibutz - a town from the land with farms to feed the people. You had to take on a Hebrew name and there were many who died making the first Kibutz's. There was no infrastructure, roads, running water, electricity, sewage - nothing. It all had to be made out of what the desert offered.
> 
> I don't see the Palistinians trying to do that - they want high paying jobs so they can buy a home. The Israelis earned that land in more ways than one.



I don't know where you learned your history, but it's wrong. After the First World War, the League of Nations granted Britain and France control over former Ottoman territories. France was given the mandate over Syria and Britain got the mandate over what is now Israel, the West Bank, The Gaza Strip and Jordan. The British divided their mandate in two. East of the River Jordan became the Emirates of Transjordan and rule was given to prince Faysal's brother, Abdullah. West of the Jordan became the Palestine mandate and remained under British control.

It was Britain who promised the Jews a homeland under the Balfour Declaration of 1917. France had nothing to do with it.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Colin said:


> PaulS1950 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The land provided for the Jews was owned and administered by France.  After the war France gave it to the displaced Jews because of the way they were treated for no reason*. Jews from around the world applied to become members of the new (and old in a biblical sense) Israel. You had to start with nothing and build a Kibutz - a town from the land with farms to feed the people. You had to take on a Hebrew name and there were many who died making the first Kibutz's. There was no infrastructure, roads, running water, electricity, sewage - nothing. It all had to be made out of what the desert offered.
> 
> I don't see the Palistinians trying to do that - they want high paying jobs so they can buy a home. The Israelis earned that land in more ways than one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know where you learned your history, but it's wrong. After the First World War, the League of Nations granted Britain and France control over former Ottoman territories. France was given the mandate over Syria and Britain got the mandate over what is now Israel, the West Bank, The Gaza Strip and Jordan. The British divided their mandate in two. East of the River Jordan became the Emirates of Transjordan and rule was given to prince Faysal's brother, Abdullah. West of the Jordan became the Palestine mandate and remained under British control.
> 
> It was Britain who promised the Jews a homeland under the Balfour Declaration of 1917. France had nothing to do with it.
Click to expand...


That is true. Palestine was divided into two states in 1922 (Palestine and Transjordan) and the international borders were defined. Britain promised the Arabs an independent state and then promises the Zionists a homeland for the Jews.

Now, this homeland was not to be a Jewish state. The mandate, as approved by the League of Nations, was to facilitate the Immigration of Jews and to assist them in obtaining Palestinian citizenship. The government was to include the Arabs and the Jews.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Soon all nations will oppose Israel. I've read the end of the book.


----------



## P@triot

Indofred said:


> I've popped this in 'clean debate' in an attempt to seriously chat about US middle eastern policy.
> 
> *America should change sides and support Palestine.*
> 
> Imagine the advantages:
> 
> Way cheaper than supporting Israel.
> Only one enemy in the middle east
> No worries about oil supply.
> 
> Can anyone suggest why the US supporting Palestine has a downside?



You mean other than supporting terrorists who would still hate us and attempt to kill us? And that's just 1 of about a million "downsides" I can think of.

America should do what's RIGHT. And for the record, we have zero "worries" about oil supply. We have enough oil in Alaska, Texas, and Oklahoma to keep us going for a LONG time (especially Alaska).


----------



## SAYIT

P F Tinmore said:


> Colin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaulS1950 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The land provided for the Jews was owned and administered by France.  After the war France gave it to the displaced Jews because of the way they were treated for no reason*. Jews from around the world applied to become members of the new (and old in a biblical sense) Israel. You had to start with nothing and build a Kibutz - a town from the land with farms to feed the people. You had to take on a Hebrew name and there were many who died making the first Kibutz's. There was no infrastructure, roads, running water, electricity, sewage - nothing. It all had to be made out of what the desert offered.
> 
> I don't see the Palistinians trying to do that - they want high paying jobs so they can buy a home. The Israelis earned that land in more ways than one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know where you learned your history, but it's wrong. After the First World War, the League of Nations granted Britain and France control over former Ottoman territories. France was given the mandate over Syria and Britain got the mandate over what is now Israel, the West Bank, The Gaza Strip and Jordan. The British divided their mandate in two. East of the River Jordan became the Emirates of Transjordan and rule was given to prince Faysal's brother, Abdullah. West of the Jordan became the Palestine mandate and remained under British control.
> 
> It was Britain who promised the Jews a homeland under the Balfour Declaration of 1917. France had nothing to do with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is true. Palestine was divided into two states in 1922 (Palestine and Transjordan) and the international borders were defined. Britain promised the Arabs an independent state and then promises the Zionists a homeland for the Jews.
> 
> Now, this homeland was not to be a Jewish state. The mandate, as approved by the League of Nations, was to facilitate the Immigration of Jews and to assist them in obtaining Palestinian citizenship. The government was to include the Arabs and the Jews.
Click to expand...


And it does. 
Among Israel's nearly 8 million people are nearly 2mil non-Jewish citizens including over 1.5mil Arabs who not only have the right to vote for their gov't (and they do) but also the right to serve in that gov't (and they do).


----------



## P F Tinmore

SAYIT said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Colin said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know where you learned your history, but it's wrong. After the First World War, the League of Nations granted Britain and France control over former Ottoman territories. France was given the mandate over Syria and Britain got the mandate over what is now Israel, the West Bank, The Gaza Strip and Jordan. The British divided their mandate in two. East of the River Jordan became the Emirates of Transjordan and rule was given to prince Faysal's brother, Abdullah. West of the Jordan became the Palestine mandate and remained under British control.
> 
> It was Britain who promised the Jews a homeland under the Balfour Declaration of 1917. France had nothing to do with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is true. Palestine was divided into two states in 1922 (Palestine and Transjordan) and the international borders were defined. Britain promised the Arabs an independent state and then promises the Zionists a homeland for the Jews.
> 
> Now, this homeland was not to be a Jewish state. The mandate, as approved by the League of Nations, was to facilitate the Immigration of Jews and to assist them in obtaining Palestinian citizenship. The government was to include the Arabs and the Jews.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And it does.
> Among Israel's nearly 8 million people is nearly 2mil non-Jewish citizens including over 1.5mil Arabs who not only have the right to vote for their gov't (and they do) but also the right to serve in that gov't (and they do).
Click to expand...


Do those Arabs still own the same homes, land, and businesses that they owned before 1948


----------



## SAYIT

reabhloideach said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gazans' are within their rights guaranteed by international law when they resist an illegal occupation; Israel violates those same laws by imposing an illegal occupation. As occupying power, Israel is clearly responsible for all the dead children on both sides of the conflict.
> 
> Why aren't you asking Israel to abide by the nearly 100 UNSC Resolutions calling for its withdrawal from the territories it currently occupies?
> 
> 
> 
> Hamas is a self-sustaining governing body, fully subject to the rules of war, humanitarian laws, and decent conduct of its military.
> 
> It is a direct violation to house military assets, ammunition, rockets, vehicles, troops, in areas that can be clearly delineated as 'civilian' enclaves.  This is what is termed as a 'human shields'.  A direct violation of all decency standards and applicable laws, and violates human rights.
> 
> Gazans are NOT resisting occupation when they indiscriminately launch un-guided or poorly guided missiles into civilian areas of another country.  The deliberate attacking of civilians in any resistance is a violation of human rights and international law.  Deaths that occur to civilians due to the placement of military assets in civilian enclaves or areas and boundaries that are clearly of a civilian nature are the responsibility of those who violate these laws.
> 
> As a violator of human rights, Geneva Convention protocols and international law, Hamas bears the entire burden of deaths incurred, both Israeli and Palestinian.
> 
> In fact, the launching of missiles that deliberately target civilian assets in Israel amount to nothing more than premeditated murder, not an act of resistance in any manner proscribed by civilized peoples.
> 
> These dead children are the result of Hamas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the world thinks differently.
> 
> some israelis are afraid to leave their country for fear of a reverse mordechai vanunu.
> 
> HAMAS has been in a siege-like state for years. a blockade is an act of war...
Click to expand...


According to the UN's 2011 Palmer report the blockade is legal.  
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...lYDADQ&usg=AFQjCNH4uIb0WdcQ3BwUvCF16u0yIYy8Rw


----------



## SAYIT

P F Tinmore said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is true. Palestine was divided into two states in 1922 (Palestine and Transjordan) and the international borders were defined. Britain promised the Arabs an independent state and then promises the Zionists a homeland for the Jews.
> 
> Now, this homeland was not to be a Jewish state. The mandate, as approved by the League of Nations, was to facilitate the Immigration of Jews and to assist them in obtaining Palestinian citizenship. The government was to include the Arabs and the Jews.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And it does.
> Among Israel's nearly 8 million people is nearly 2mil non-Jewish citizens including over 1.5mil Arabs who not only have the right to vote for their gov't (and they do) but also the right to serve in that gov't (and they do).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do those Arabs still own the same homes, land, and businesses that they owned before 1948
Click to expand...


How many people anywhere own the same homes, land, and businesses that they owned before 1948? I know i don't. Do you?


----------



## MHunterB

I know that the Jews who lived in 'East Jerusalem' in 1947 got ethnically cleansed out of their homes, etc in '48 by the invading Jordanians.


----------



## P F Tinmore

SAYIT said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> And it does.
> Among Israel's nearly 8 million people is nearly 2mil non-Jewish citizens including over 1.5mil Arabs who not only have the right to vote for their gov't (and they do) but also the right to serve in that gov't (and they do).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do those Arabs still own the same homes, land, and businesses that they owned before 1948
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many people anywhere own the same homes, land, and businesses that they owned before 1948? I know i don't. Do you?
Click to expand...


Deflection.


----------



## P F Tinmore

MHunterB said:


> I know that the Jews who lived in 'East Jerusalem' in 1947 got ethnically cleansed out of their homes, etc in '48 by the invading Jordanians.



That is true. Many Jews got screwed by Israel's war.


----------



## MHunterB

P F Tinmore said:


> MHunterB said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know that the Jews who lived in 'East Jerusalem' in 1947 got ethnically cleansed out of their homes, etc in '48 by the invading Jordanians.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is true. Many Jews got screwed by Israel's war.
Click to expand...


It wasn't  "Israel's" war -  the Arab League decided to invade. 

 Jordan had no right to the territory they captured:  they neither annexed it nor returned it to 'Palestinian' control - but somehow they should be absolved of any wrong-doing to anyone for those actions?  How is exonerating Jordan reasonable?


----------



## saveliberty

Supporting Palestine should have some benefit to the US in order for this "discussion" to even have a point.  Seems as if Israel has much more consistently supported US interests in the Middle East.  I really see no point.


----------



## P F Tinmore

MHunterB said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MHunterB said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know that the Jews who lived in 'East Jerusalem' in 1947 got ethnically cleansed out of their homes, etc in '48 by the invading Jordanians.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is true. Many Jews got screwed by Israel's war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It wasn't  "Israel's" war -  the Arab League decided to invade.
> 
> Jordan had no right to the territory they captured:  they neither annexed it nor returned it to 'Palestinian' control - but somehow they should be absolved of any wrong-doing to anyone for those actions?  How is exonerating Jordan reasonable?
Click to expand...


Jordan was promised $3M a year for five years and the West Bank if they did not attack Israel in the 1948 war. But they failed to secure the rights of the Jews.


----------



## MHunterB

I found it interesting that nobody seemed to have noticed that the OP is from the UK and lives in Indonesia - not that there's anything wrong with either being a Brit or living in Indonesia, but neither one is the US.

Why does someone who's not an American feel that we should do what *they* think we should?  We 'shouldn't'  trust US interests to a foreign government.


----------



## MHunterB

P F Tinmore said:


> MHunterB said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is true. Many Jews got screwed by Israel's war.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn't  "Israel's" war -  the Arab League decided to invade.
> 
> Jordan had no right to the territory they captured:  they neither annexed it nor returned it to 'Palestinian' control - but somehow they should be absolved of any wrong-doing to anyone for those actions?  How is exonerating Jordan reasonable?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jordan was promised $3M a year for five years and the West Bank if they did not attack Israel in the 1948 war. But they failed to secure the rights of the Jews.
Click to expand...


Do you have an actual source for that other than AL propaganda?  Who did the promising?


----------



## patrickcaturday

> According to the UN's 2011 Palmer report the blockade is legal.
> http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...lYDADQ&usg=AFQjCNH4uIb0WdcQ3BwUvCF16u0yIYy8Rw



Quote from Sayit[/QUOTE]


*Can you tell me the exact portions of the Palmer Report that you are siting as the report is 105 pages long and while I have familiarized myself with it I do not agree with your conclusion.  Throughout the Report the commission states that it is not a court and deliberately refrains from issuing legal opinions.  It appears to me that the Report is more in the nature of an attempt to reconcile the differences between the Turkish summary of the events and the Israeli version.*


----------



## aSeattleConserv

Indofred said:


> I've popped this in 'clean debate' in an attempt to seriously chat about US middle eastern policy.
> 
> *America should change sides and support Palestine.*
> 
> Imagine the advantages:
> 
> Way cheaper than supporting Israel.
> Only one enemy in the middle east
> No worries about oil supply.
> 
> Can anyone suggest why the US supporting Palestine has a downside?



With the amount of visits the pro Hamas Muzzie Brotherhood has had with B. Hussein Obama and Queen Hillary, what makes you think that we're not already?


----------



## sealadaigh

patrickcaturday said:


> According to the UN's 2011 Palmer report the blockade is legal.
> http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...lYDADQ&usg=AFQjCNH4uIb0WdcQ3BwUvCF16u0yIYy8Rw
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote from Sayit
Click to expand...



*Can you tell me the exact portions of the Palmer Report that you are siting as the report is 105 pages long and while I have familiarized myself with it I do not agree with your conclusion.  Throughout the Report the commission states that it is not a court and deliberately refrains from issuing legal opinions.  It appears to me that the Report is more in the nature of an attempt to reconcile the differences between the Turkish summary of the events and the Israeli version.*[/QUOTE]

i read the whole thing, and if say it wants to cite that as some sort of authoritative evidence as to the legality of the blockade, i am good to go...PROVIDED he accepts similar reports by the UN and doesn't cherry pick the points he wants to make and rejects any findings in such reports contrary to his opinion.

also, he may want to check the various bodies that interpret and prosecute international law as to exactly what is israel's responsibility to the people of gaza during the imposition of such a blockade and whether such a blockade constitutes and occupation or not.

he may also want to consider the very limited scope of the report and the stated intentions and disclaimers of the report.

i myself have no problem saying the blockade is legal and, actually, have said so in the past, but i think a lot of the legality of the blockade is dependant upon how that blockade is conducted.


----------



## P F Tinmore

MHunterB said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MHunterB said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know that the Jews who lived in 'East Jerusalem' in 1947 got ethnically cleansed out of their homes, etc in '48 by the invading Jordanians.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is true. Many Jews got screwed by Israel's war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It wasn't  "Israel's" war -  the Arab League decided to invade.
> 
> Jordan had no right to the territory they captured:  they neither annexed it nor returned it to 'Palestinian' control - but somehow they should be absolved of any wrong-doing to anyone for those actions?  How is exonerating Jordan reasonable?
Click to expand...


Actually, history says they invaded Palestine.

Anyway, they did not invade until after Israel invaded Palestine.

Jordan is the uncle Tom of the ME.


----------



## MHunterB

There is nobody named 'history', so I am assuming there is no reference for your views, Tinny.


----------



## sealadaigh

MHunterB said:


> I know that the Jews who lived in 'East Jerusalem' in 1947 got ethnically cleansed out of their homes, etc in '48 by the invading Jordanians.



and that is wrong and, dependng on the circumstances, they or their immediate decendents should be allowed to return or compensated.

and i am not sure "ethnically cleansed" is the phrase you are looking for. if they are fleeing a war zone they are refugees with a right to return but that is not ethnically cleansing, per se.

a similar fate befell the arab population of western al quds as a result of the same conflict. they were displaced by invading european colonial/zionest armies. they should receive the same consideration the displaced indigenous jews receive.

don't ya just love word games. maggie?


----------



## sealadaigh

aSeattleConserv said:


> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've popped this in 'clean debate' in an attempt to seriously chat about US middle eastern policy.
> 
> *America should change sides and support Palestine.*
> 
> Imagine the advantages:
> 
> Way cheaper than supporting Israel.
> Only one enemy in the middle east
> No worries about oil supply.
> 
> Can anyone suggest why the US supporting Palestine has a downside?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With the amount of visits the pro Hamas Muzzie Brotherhood has had with B. Hussein Obama and Queen Hillary, what makes you think that we're not already?
Click to expand...


the huskies lost too.


----------



## MHunterB

reabhloideach said:


> MHunterB said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know that the Jews who lived in 'East Jerusalem' in 1947 got ethnically cleansed out of their homes, etc in '48 by the invading Jordanians.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and that is wrong and, dependng on the circumstances, they or their immediate decendents should be allowed to return or compensated.
> 
> and i am not sure "ethnically cleansed" is the phrase you are looking for. if they are fleeing a war zone they are refugees with a right to return but that is not ethnically cleansing, per se......
> 
> QUOTE]
> 
> They were ordered out by Jordanian soldiers at gunpoint.
> 
> For the THIRD time:  please do not call me 'maggie'.
Click to expand...


----------



## P F Tinmore

MHunterB said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MHunterB said:
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn't  "Israel's" war -  the Arab League decided to invade.
> 
> Jordan had no right to the territory they captured:  they neither annexed it nor returned it to 'Palestinian' control - but somehow they should be absolved of any wrong-doing to anyone for those actions?  How is exonerating Jordan reasonable?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jordan was promised $3M a year for five years and the West Bank if they did not attack Israel in the 1948 war. But they failed to secure the rights of the Jews.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have an actual source for that other than AL propaganda?  Who did the promising?
Click to expand...


I saw it a couple of places but I don't bookmark everything.

I did, however, find this. It doesn't give the whole story but...



> The West Bank of the Jordan was occupied by Jordan and later annexed, consistent with secret agreements with the Jewish leadership made before the outbreak of hostilities.
> 
> Timeline (Chronology) of Israel War of Independence - 1948 Arab-Israeli War


----------



## sealadaigh

MHunterB said:


> reabhloideach said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MHunterB said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know that the Jews who lived in 'East Jerusalem' in 1947 got ethnically cleansed out of their homes, etc in '48 by the invading Jordanians.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and that is wrong and, dependng on the circumstances, they or their immediate decendents should be allowed to return or compensated.
> 
> and i am not sure "ethnically cleansed" is the phrase you are looking for. if they are fleeing a war zone they are refugees with a right to return but that is not ethnically cleansing, per se......
> 
> QUOTE]
> 
> They were ordered out by Jordanian soldiers at gunpoint.
> 
> For the THIRD time:  please do not call me 'maggie'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and that is wrong and, dependng on the circumstances, they or their immediate decendents should be allowed to return or compensated.
> 
> and i am not sure "ethnically cleansed" is the phrase you are looking for. if they are fleeing a war zone they are refugees with a right to return but that is not ethnically cleansing, per se.
> 
> *a similar fate befell the arab population of western al quds as a result of the same conflict. they were displaced by invading european colonial/zionest armies. they should receive the same consideration the displaced indigenous jews receive.*
> 
> don't ya just love word games. maggie?
> 
> my understanding is that there was fleeing and orcing on both sides, and the forcing was not justified by either side and those who fled should have had the right to return.
> 
> the thing is...the israaelis are still doing it.
Click to expand...


----------



## pbel

reabhloideach said:


> MHunterB said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> reabhloideach said:
> 
> 
> 
> and that is wrong and, dependng on the circumstances, they or their immediate decendents should be allowed to return or compensated.
> 
> and i am not sure "ethnically cleansed" is the phrase you are looking for. if they are fleeing a war zone they are refugees with a right to return but that is not ethnically cleansing, per se......
> 
> QUOTE]
> 
> They were ordered out by Jordanian soldiers at gunpoint.
> 
> For the THIRD time:  please do not call me 'maggie'.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and that is wrong and, dependng on the circumstances, they or their immediate decendents should be allowed to return or compensated.
> 
> and i am not sure "ethnically cleansed" is the phrase you are looking for. if they are fleeing a war zone they are refugees with a right to return but that is not ethnically cleansing, per se.
> 
> *a similar fate befell the arab population of western al quds as a result of the same conflict. they were displaced by invading european colonial/zionest armies. they should receive the same consideration the displaced indigenous jews receive.*
> 
> don't ya just love word games. maggie?
> 
> my understanding is that there was fleeing and orcing on both sides, and the forcing was not justified by either side and those who fled should have had the right to return.
> 
> the thing is...the israaelis are still doing it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Years and years of posting and the same broken record of the politics of hate...of course the Palestinians got the shaft from the Western Powers to control the oil by the Israeli puppet state to instill fear into the region...The result Ethnic cleansing on both sides...The right of return or at the very least compensation for their losses is only Just.
> 
> Without that: there will never be a lasting peace.
Click to expand...


----------



## Two Thumbs

Indofred said:


> I've popped this in 'clean debate' in an attempt to seriously chat about US middle eastern policy.
> 
> *America should change sides and support Palestine.*
> 
> Imagine the advantages:
> 
> Way cheaper than supporting Israel.
> Only one enemy in the middle east
> No worries about oil supply.
> 
> Can anyone suggest why the US supporting Palestine has a downside?



Way cheaper than supporting Israel.  How do you figure?  Are you going to tell me that their demand for arms to destroy Israel will be less than Israels demand for enough to defend themselves?
Only one enemy in the middle east   Unmitigated horse apples.
No worries about oil supply.  We don't worry now.

Can anyone suggest why the US supporting Palestine has a downside?
Pals are evil
The only export is death and misery
They have never done anything for the world or their community
They will be the wrong kind of muslim or arab or whatever to someone else and we would still be hated by them and the rest of the ME.



How naive do you think we are?


----------



## P F Tinmore

MHunterB said:


> I know that the Jews who lived in 'East Jerusalem' in 1947 got ethnically cleansed out of their homes, etc in '48 by the invading Jordanians.



Indeed, you cannot blame the Palestinians for that. The west Bank was given to Jordan by the Zionists before the war.


----------



## MHunterB

P F Tinmore said:


> MHunterB said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know that the Jews who lived in 'East Jerusalem' in 1947 got ethnically cleansed out of their homes, etc in '48 by the invading Jordanians.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, you cannot blame the Palestinians for that. The west Bank was given to Jordan by the Zionists before the war.
Click to expand...


Did you mistakenly think I was 'blaming' the Pals for the actions of the Jordanians?  Since over 50% of 'Jordanians' were ethnic Palestinians, I can understand your confusion....but I was simply relating information.

Of course the Pals are no more responsible for the ethnic cleansing of Jews from 'east Jerusalem'  than they were for the unconscionable Arab Leauge boycott or the AL conspiracy to beggar and eject all Jewish citizens from member nations (starting before the actual 'partition' and subsequent hostilities).

But an overall just and lasting peace isn't likely to come about unless the damages from the  'war crimes' of ALL the nations in the area are repaired so far as may be possible.


----------



## P F Tinmore

MHunterB said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MHunterB said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know that the Jews who lived in 'East Jerusalem' in 1947 got ethnically cleansed out of their homes, etc in '48 by the invading Jordanians.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, you cannot blame the Palestinians for that. The west Bank was given to Jordan by the Zionists before the war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you mistakenly think I was 'blaming' the Pals for the actions of the Jordanians?  Since over 50% of 'Jordanians' were ethnic Palestinians, I can understand your confusion....but I was simply relating information.
> 
> Of course the Pals are no more responsible for the ethnic cleansing of Jews from 'east Jerusalem'  than they were for the unconscionable Arab Leauge boycott or the AL conspiracy to beggar and eject all Jewish citizens from member nations (starting before the actual 'partition' and subsequent hostilities).
> 
> But an overall just and lasting peace isn't likely to come about unless the damages from the  'war crimes' of ALL the nations in the area are repaired so far as may be possible.
Click to expand...


Indeed, all people have the right to return to their homes but are separate issues.


----------



## P F Tinmore

P F Tinmore said:


> MHunterB said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jordan was promised $3M a year for five years and the West Bank if they did not attack Israel in the 1948 war. But they failed to secure the rights of the Jews.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have an actual source for that other than AL propaganda?  Who did the promising?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I saw it a couple of places but I don't bookmark everything.
> 
> I did, however, find this. It doesn't give the whole story but...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The West Bank of the Jordan was occupied by Jordan and later annexed, consistent with secret agreements with the Jewish leadership made before the outbreak of hostilities.
> 
> Timeline (Chronology) of Israel War of Independence - 1948 Arab-Israeli War
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...




> The West Bank of the Jordan was occupied by Jordan...



Jordan could not occupy the West Bank if it did not belong to a state. (Or so I have heard a million times.) What state was that?


----------



## Londoner

The USA, through a CIA coup, got rid of the only democratically elected leader Iran ever had - Mosaddeq. They replaced him with the brutal, Hussein-like Shaw because he was more willing to play ball with western energy needs.

The result of this tinkering was the Iranian Revolution, the energies of which cleared a populist space for groups like Hamas.

Republicans need to study the law of unintended consequences. 

Big Government tried to make the region better by getting rid of Mosaddeq. (Hi, I'm from the government and I'm here to help)

Then they tried to make things better by supporting Hussein (Having lost Iran to Khomeini)

In each case the plan backfired. 

Republicans need to learn how to question Washington. Sometimes when big government tries to improve the world, they make it worse. 

If you want to get rid of Hamas and stabilize the region, than do the opposite of what Washington wants. If the USA took a more neutral stance toward Palestinians (rather than siding so heavily against them), they could destroy Hamas by empowering Muslim moderates. This is the kind of organic change that Edmund Burke would support, rather than top down military solutions. It's called consensus building. 

You can't defeat a billion muslims militarily. Dropping bombs on their sacred cities and overthrowing popular leaders only empowers the most radical elements.

To see what I mean, read "Washington's China". It describes the right wing hysteria over China in the 40s and 50s. Nixon said the only way to exist with China is to work with them rather than demonize them. Now they are the primary manufacturer for global capitalism. 

When Nixon first opened China he faced serious opposition, much like what Reagan faced when he got tight with Gorby. In each instance the crazies on the far Right did not want to relinquish their enemy - which gave them a context for global intervention in important regions. 

What do I mean by "context for intervention"?

The threat of the Soviet Union gave Washington the ability to pull resource-rich parts of the developing world under the protective wing of the Eagle. It became a context to create markets all over the globe. Same thing with terrorism, which replaced the Cold War as the context for intervention. Middle East instability makes it easier for the neocons to justify building bases and changing regimes in a geopolitically vital region.

Never underestimate the utility of a good enemy. Never underestimate the ability of Washington to pursue that enemy in such a way as to create unintended consequences.


----------



## MHunterB

Two Thumbs, while I generally agree with most of what you posted - this part:

"Pals are evil  The only export is death and misery"

is inaccurate and incorrect.    I can't condone the characterization of an entire people as 'evil' - it can't possibly be true.

We may never know what the Pals are capable of in terms of positive achievements, until there is a just and complete peace for them to flourish.

What we have seen, decade after decade, is the AL nations using 'Palestine' as an excuse for ethnic cleansing of their Jewish citizenry (who - no wonder! - are not very interested in 'returning'), for keeping the Pals unemployed and hemmed in in squalid 'camps', for abusing the Pals within their assorted nations where they serve as 'untouchables'....... 

It's sadly true that the rest of the Arab tribes seem to hold little respect or affection for their Pal "brethren".  I do not think that's the 'fault' of either Israelis or Pals, but those Arab tribes which hold themselves superior to the Pals.


----------



## Aristotle

The reason why the U.S will not support Palestine is because Obama while enduring all the media hype due to his "arabic" name will be seen as realizing the accusation that he is Muslim A Barack Hussein Obama would be seen as going against the grain by opposing "God's chosen people" by supporting "the muslims."

Point blank do I believe United States should support Palestine? No.

I say let Israel and Palestine blow each other up. There is too much going on in the United States to start taking sides in a conflict.


----------



## pbel

Londoner said:


> The USA, through a CIA coup, got rid of the only democratically elected leader Iran ever had - Mosaddeq. They replaced him with the brutal, Hussein-like Shaw because he was more willing to play ball with western energy needs.
> 
> The result of this tinkering was the Iranian Revolution, the energies of which cleared a populist space for groups like Hamas.
> 
> Republicans need to study the law of unintended consequences.
> 
> Big Government tried to make the region better by getting rid of Mosaddeq. (Hi, I'm from the government and I'm here to help)
> 
> Then they tried to make things better by supporting Hussein (Having lost Iran to Khomeini)
> 
> In each case the plan backfired.
> 
> Republicans need to learn how to question Washington. Sometimes when big government tries to improve the world, they make it worse.
> 
> If you want to get rid of Hamas and stabilize the region, than do the opposite of what Washington wants. If the USA took a more neutral stance toward Palestinians (rather than siding so heavily against them), they could destroy Hamas by empowering Muslim moderates. This is the kind of organic change that Edmund Burke would support, rather than top down military solutions. It's called consensus building.
> 
> You can't defeat a billion muslims militarily. Dropping bombs on their sacred cities and overthrowing popular leaders only empowers the most radical elements.
> To see what I mean, read "Washington's China". It describes the right wing hysteria over China in the 40s and 50s. Nixon said the only way to exist with China is to work with them rather than demonize them. Now they are the primary manufacturer for global capitalism.
> 
> When Nixon first opened China he faced serious opposition, much like what Reagan faced when he got tight with Gorby. In each instance the crazies on the far Right did not want to relinquish their enemy - which gave them a context for global intervention in important regions.
> 
> What do I mean by "context for intervention"?
> 
> The threat of the Soviet Union gave Washington the ability to pull resource-rich parts of the developing world under the protective wing of the Eagle. It became a context to create markets all over the globe. Same thing with terrorism, which replaced the Cold War as the context for intervention. Middle East instability makes it easier for the neocons to justify building bases and changing regimes in a geopolitically vital region.
> 
> Never underestimate the utility of a good enemy. Never underestimate the ability of Washington to pursue that enemy in such a way as to create unintended consequences.




That is the problem in the long run. Technological military powers today like America and Europe are great for "Shock and Awe," but are useless in changing politics because you need boots on the ground for a long time to make permanent change.

Look at Vietnam, Iraq, and soon Afghanistan quagmires lost because in wars of attrition numbers win...Over 400 million Arabs and 1.4 billion Muslims...

The only way Israel will ever be accepted is her inclusion into the very fabric of the ME through peace, and trade before Islamists are in power in all of the ME...The 2002 peace proposal offered by the Arab League in 2002 should be given a second look.


----------



## theHawk

Londoner said:


> The USA, through a CIA coup, got rid of the only democratically elected leader Iran ever had - Mosaddeq. They replaced him with the brutal, Hussein-like Shaw because he was more willing to play ball with western energy needs.
> 
> The result of this tinkering was the Iranian Revolution, the energies of which cleared a populist space for groups like Hamas.
> 
> Republicans need to study the law of unintended consequences.
> 
> Big Government tried to make the region better by getting rid of Mosaddeq. (Hi, I'm from the government and I'm here to help)
> 
> Then they tried to make things better by supporting Hussein (Having lost Iran to Khomeini)
> 
> In each case the plan backfired.
> 
> Republicans need to learn how to question Washington. Sometimes when big government tries to improve the world, they make it worse.
> 
> If you want to get rid of Hamas and stabilize the region, than do the opposite of what Washington wants. If the USA took a more neutral stance toward Palestinians (rather than siding so heavily against them), they could destroy Hamas by empowering Muslim moderates. This is the kind of organic change that Edmund Burke would support, rather than top down military solutions. It's called consensus building.
> 
> You can't defeat a billion muslims militarily. Dropping bombs on their sacred cities and overthrowing popular leaders only empowers the most radical elements.
> 
> To see what I mean, read "Washington's China". It describes the right wing hysteria over China in the 40s and 50s. Nixon said the only way to exist with China is to work with them rather than demonize them. Now they are the primary manufacturer for global capitalism.
> 
> When Nixon first opened China he faced serious opposition, much like what Reagan faced when he got tight with Gorby. In each instance the crazies on the far Right did not want to relinquish their enemy - which gave them a context for global intervention in important regions.
> 
> What do I mean by "context for intervention"?
> 
> The threat of the Soviet Union gave Washington the ability to pull resource-rich parts of the developing world under the protective wing of the Eagle. It became a context to create markets all over the globe. Same thing with terrorism, which replaced the Cold War as the context for intervention. Middle East instability makes it easier for the neocons to justify building bases and changing regimes in a geopolitically vital region.
> 
> Never underestimate the utility of a good enemy. Never underestimate the ability of Washington to pursue that enemy in such a way as to create unintended consequences.



Agreed to some degree.  I don't think we should meddle with ME governments just to get a "pro-US" one in place.  I'd rather we deal with an anti-US government if the people of that nation are anti-US as well.  

But that also means we should hold the entire country responsible for its government's actions.

I disagree that muslims cannot be defeated militarily.  Bombing them from pillar to post will put them in their place.  Doing this nation building crap and pretending muslims can be peaceful if they have a democratic government is a waste of time and only gives us a false sense of security.


----------



## jtpr312

Indofred said:


> I've popped this in 'clean debate' in an attempt to seriously chat about US middle eastern policy.
> 
> *America should change sides and support Palestine.*
> 
> Imagine the advantages:
> 
> Way cheaper than supporting Israel.
> Only one enemy in the middle east
> No worries about oil supply.
> 
> Can anyone suggest why the US supporting Palestine has a downside?




There is no such nation as Palistine and their are no such people as Palistinians.  Next.


----------



## mudwhistle

Indofred said:


> I've popped this in 'clean debate' in an attempt to seriously chat about US middle eastern policy.
> 
> *America should change sides and support Palestine.*
> 
> Imagine the advantages:
> 
> Way cheaper than supporting Israel.
> Only one enemy in the middle east
> No worries about oil supply.
> 
> Can anyone suggest why the US supporting Palestine has a downside?



Why don't we all just saw our heads off while we're at it and just get it over with now. 


I would sooner dump Israel than put my head in a chipper-shredder.


----------



## georgephillip

jtpr312 said:


> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've popped this in 'clean debate' in an attempt to seriously chat about US middle eastern policy.
> 
> *America should change sides and support Palestine.*
> 
> Imagine the advantages:
> 
> Way cheaper than supporting Israel.
> Only one enemy in the middle east
> No worries about oil supply.
> 
> Can anyone suggest why the US supporting Palestine has a downside?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no such nation as Palistine and their are no such people as Palistinians.  Next.
Click to expand...

"His Majesty's government view with favour the establishment *in Palestine* of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of *existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine*, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."

Balfour Declaration - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## jtpr312

georgephillip said:


> jtpr312 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've popped this in 'clean debate' in an attempt to seriously chat about US middle eastern policy.
> 
> *America should change sides and support Palestine.*
> 
> Imagine the advantages:
> 
> Way cheaper than supporting Israel.
> Only one enemy in the middle east
> No worries about oil supply.
> 
> Can anyone suggest why the US supporting Palestine has a downside?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no such nation as Palistine and their are no such people as Palistinians.  Next.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "His Majesty's government view with favour the establishment *in Palestine* of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of *existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine*, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."
> 
> Balfour Declaration - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


Screw her majesty's govt, the land wasn't theirs to begin with.  The land was Judea, and it belonged to the Jews for thousands of years,  It was the Romans that changed the name to Syria Palaestina as punishment  for the Jewish uprising.  You still never addressed the fact that there is no such thing as a Palistinian people.  They are arabs, jordanian, egyptians, syrians, etc.  No Palistinian language, no palistinian culture, no palistinian history, no palistinian people.


----------



## P F Tinmore

jtpr312 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jtpr312 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no such nation as Palistine and their are no such people as Palistinians.  Next.
> 
> 
> 
> "His Majesty's government view with favour the establishment *in Palestine* of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of *existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine*, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."
> 
> Balfour Declaration - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Screw her majesty's govt, the land wasn't theirs to begin with.  The land was Judea, and it belonged to the Jews for thousands of years,  It was the Romans that changed the name to Syria Palaestina as punishment  for the Jewish uprising.  You still never addressed the fact that there is no such thing as a Palistinian people.  They are arabs, jordanian, egyptians, syrians, etc.  No Palistinian language, no palistinian culture, no palistinian history, no palistinian people.
Click to expand...


Now if you could only convince millions of Palestinians that load of crap.


----------



## eots

jtpr312 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jtpr312 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no such nation as Palistine and their are no such people as Palistinians.  Next.
> 
> 
> 
> "His Majesty's government view with favour the establishment *in Palestine* of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of *existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine*, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."
> 
> Balfour Declaration - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Screw her majesty's govt, the land wasn't theirs to begin with.  The land was Judea, and it belonged to the Jews for thousands of years,  It was the Romans that changed the name to Syria Palaestina as punishment  for the Jewish uprising.  You still never addressed the fact that there is no such thing as a Palistinian people.  They are arabs, jordanian, egyptians, syrians, etc.  No Palistinian language, no palistinian culture, no palistinian history, no palistinian people.
Click to expand...



All irrelevant bullshit the "Arabs" and had been for a long long time before masses of European immigrants came and stole their land  


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KPFCdPXUAV8]Palestine Before 1948 - Real History By Israeli Historians Living Outside Of The Zionist Bubble - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Billo_Really

Indofred said:


> I've popped this in 'clean debate' in an attempt to seriously chat about US middle eastern policy.
> 
> *America should change sides and support Palestine.*
> 
> Imagine the advantages:
> 
> Way cheaper than supporting Israel.
> Only one enemy in the middle east
> No worries about oil supply.
> 
> Can anyone suggest why the US supporting Palestine has a downside?


Why do we have to pick sides?  Why can't we just treat them equally? Be fair to both.  Take no sides at all.  Our mission statement could read:

*"Our name is Paul and this is between ya'll"​*


----------



## sealadaigh

mudwhistle said:


> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've popped this in 'clean debate' in an attempt to seriously chat about US middle eastern policy.
> 
> *America should change sides and support Palestine.*
> 
> Imagine the advantages:
> 
> Way cheaper than supporting Israel.
> Only one enemy in the middle east
> No worries about oil supply.
> 
> Can anyone suggest why the US supporting Palestine has a downside?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't we all just saw our heads off while we're at it and just get it over with now.
> 
> 
> I would sooner dump Israel than put my head in a chipper-shredder.
Click to expand...


well, i suppose.

i think you can show your dislike and utter disdain for israel in ways other than putting your head in a chipper-shredder though. that seems awfully extreme.


----------



## georgephillip

jtpr312 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jtpr312 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no such nation as Palistine and their are no such people as Palistinians.  Next.
> 
> 
> 
> "His Majesty's government view with favour the establishment *in Palestine* of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of *existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine*, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."
> 
> Balfour Declaration - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Screw her majesty's govt, the land wasn't theirs to begin with.  The land was Judea, and it belonged to the Jews for thousands of years,  It was the Romans that changed the name to Syria Palaestina as punishment  for the Jewish uprising.  You still never addressed the fact that there is no such thing as a Palistinian people.  They are arabs, jordanian, egyptians, syrians, etc.  No Palistinian language, no palistinian culture, no palistinian history, no palistinian people.
Click to expand...

In 1948, 650,000 Jews inflicted a Jewish State on 1.2 million Arabs and others living in Mandate Palestine.

What makes you think Jews alone, out of all the nations of the world, are entitled to land their ancestors lived on thousands of years ago?


----------



## Aristotle

jtpr312 said:


> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've popped this in 'clean debate' in an attempt to seriously chat about US middle eastern policy.
> 
> *America should change sides and support Palestine.*
> 
> Imagine the advantages:
> 
> Way cheaper than supporting Israel.
> Only one enemy in the middle east
> No worries about oil supply.
> 
> Can anyone suggest why the US supporting Palestine has a downside?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no such nation as Palistine and their are no such people as Palistinians.  Next.
Click to expand...


Philistines - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## jtpr312

P F Tinmore said:


> jtpr312 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> "His Majesty's government view with favour the establishment *in Palestine* of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of *existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine*, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."
> 
> Balfour Declaration - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Screw her majesty's govt, the land wasn't theirs to begin with.  The land was Judea, and it belonged to the Jews for thousands of years,  It was the Romans that changed the name to Syria Palaestina as punishment  for the Jewish uprising.  You still never addressed the fact that there is no such thing as a Palistinian people.  They are arabs, jordanian, egyptians, syrians, etc.  No Palistinian language, no palistinian culture, no palistinian history, no palistinian people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now if you could only convince millions of Palestinians that load of crap.
Click to expand...



No need to convince them, they already know they are syrians, egyptians, jordanians, etc.  They already know the country their families came from, they already know their heritage, they already know what language they speak, they already know what nation their traditions come from, what nations their cultures come from.


----------



## jtpr312

eots said:


> jtpr312 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> "His Majesty's government view with favour the establishment *in Palestine* of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of *existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine*, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."
> 
> Balfour Declaration - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Screw her majesty's govt, the land wasn't theirs to begin with.  The land was Judea, and it belonged to the Jews for thousands of years,  It was the Romans that changed the name to Syria Palaestina as punishment  for the Jewish uprising.  You still never addressed the fact that there is no such thing as a Palistinian people.  They are arabs, jordanian, egyptians, syrians, etc.  No Palistinian language, no palistinian culture, no palistinian history, no palistinian people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> All irrelevant bullshit the "Arabs" and had been for a long long time before masses of European immigrants came and stole their land
> 
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KPFCdPXUAV8]Palestine Before 1948 - Real History By Israeli Historians Living Outside Of The Zionist Bubble - YouTube[/ame]
Click to expand...


The Jews conquered NON-Arabic peoples to take and occupy that land and they have had a continous presense in the land of Judea for thousands of years.  The arabs are the late comers.  Try reading some history books on the subject instead of getting your info from Al-Jezzera.


----------



## eots

jtpr312 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jtpr312 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Screw her majesty's govt, the land wasn't theirs to begin with.  The land was Judea, and it belonged to the Jews for thousands of years,  It was the Romans that changed the name to Syria Palaestina as punishment  for the Jewish uprising.  You still never addressed the fact that there is no such thing as a Palistinian people.  They are arabs, jordanian, egyptians, syrians, etc.  No Palistinian language, no palistinian culture, no palistinian history, no palistinian people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now if you could only convince millions of Palestinians that load of crap.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No need to convince them, they already know they are syrians, egyptians, jordanians, etc.  They already know the country their families came from, they already know their heritage, they already know what language they speak, they already know what nation their traditions come from, what nations their cultures come from.
Click to expand...

*
they  know where they and their ancestors lived before the invaders came...*


----------



## jtpr312

georgephillip said:


> jtpr312 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> "His Majesty's government view with favour the establishment *in Palestine* of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of *existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine*, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."
> 
> Balfour Declaration - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Screw her majesty's govt, the land wasn't theirs to begin with.  The land was Judea, and it belonged to the Jews for thousands of years,  It was the Romans that changed the name to Syria Palaestina as punishment  for the Jewish uprising.  You still never addressed the fact that there is no such thing as a Palistinian people.  They are arabs, jordanian, egyptians, syrians, etc.  No Palistinian language, no palistinian culture, no palistinian history, no palistinian people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In 1948, 650,000 Jews inflicted a Jewish State on 1.2 million Arabs and others living in Mandate Palestine.
> 
> What makes you think Jews alone, out of all the nations of the world, are entitled to land their ancestors lived on thousands of years ago?
Click to expand...


They maintained a continous presense there for one, and secondly, the Jews never threw the arabs out, the arabs ran like the cowardly whelps they are.


----------



## jtpr312

Aristotle said:


> jtpr312 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've popped this in 'clean debate' in an attempt to seriously chat about US middle eastern policy.
> 
> *America should change sides and support Palestine.*
> 
> Imagine the advantages:
> 
> Way cheaper than supporting Israel.
> Only one enemy in the middle east
> No worries about oil supply.
> 
> Can anyone suggest why the US supporting Palestine has a downside?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no such nation as Palistine and their are no such people as Palistinians.  Next.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Philistines - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...



What do the Philistines, who where a NON-Arabic people, have to do with the arabs that call themselves palistinians?


----------



## eots

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrgWvZDQVy4]Israel&#39;s Dirty Secret The Creation Of Zionist (RADIO MAGAS) - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## jtpr312

eots said:


> jtpr312 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now if you could only convince millions of Palestinians that load of crap.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No need to convince them, they already know they are syrians, egyptians, jordanians, etc.  They already know the country their families came from, they already know their heritage, they already know what language they speak, they already know what nation their traditions come from, what nations their cultures come from.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> they  know where they and their ancestors lived before the invaders came...*
Click to expand...




Yeah, syrian, jordan, egypt, etc.  What's your point?


----------



## eots

so the Jewish immigrants arrived to a desert empty but for a small number of Jews *XXXXXX*


----------



## jtpr312

eots said:


> so they Jewish immigrants arrived to a desert empty but for a small number of *XXXXX* ?



I'm not selling any lie.  They came back to their anscetoral homeland, a land that was under foreign occupation by English invaders, they kicked the crap out of the English and their muslim allies, they re-establsihed the land of Israel, the arabs fled in the hopes of coming back and throwing the Jews out, the Jews never threw them out  They massed their armies, many led by English mercenaries, they attacked the Jews in Isreal and they got their collective asses kicked.  They tried it a few times more over the years, and time after time they got their collectives asses kicked.


----------



## eots

jtpr312 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> so they Jewish immigrants arrived to a desert empty but for a small number of Jews is that the lie you are trying to sell ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not selling any lie.  They came back to their anscetoral homeland, a land that was under foreign occupation by English invaders
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> so how long had they been gone from their _ancestral _homeland ?
> 
> was it the British invaders that caused them to leave ???>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> , they kicked the crap out of the English and their muslim allies, they re-establsihed the land of Israel
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> so they were like terrorist ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> , the arabs fled in the hopes of coming back and throwing the Jews out, the Jews never threw them out  They massed their armies, many led by English mercenaries, they attacked the Jews in Isreal and they got their collective asses kicked.  They tried it a few times more over the years, and time after time they got their collectives asses kicked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *XXXXX-Meister*
Click to expand...


----------



## jtpr312

eots said:


> jtpr312 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> so they Jewish immigrants arrived to a desert empty but for a small number of Jews is that the lie you are trying to sell ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so how long had they been gone from their _ancestral _homeland ?
> 
> was it the British invaders that caused them to leave ???>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so they were like terrorist ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> , the arabs fled in the hopes of coming back and throwing the Jews out, the Jews never threw them out  They massed their armies, many led by English mercenaries, they attacked the Jews in Isreal and they got their collective asses kicked.  They tried it a few times more over the years, and time after time they got their collectives asses kicked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lol...for future reference..its called._.Israel_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The Jews have maintained a presense there for thousands of years, the arabs where the late comers and nice of you to point out my typos, thanks.
Click to expand...


----------



## georgephillip

jtpr312 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jtpr312 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Screw her majesty's govt, the land wasn't theirs to begin with.  The land was Judea, and it belonged to the Jews for thousands of years,  It was the Romans that changed the name to Syria Palaestina as punishment  for the Jewish uprising.  You still never addressed the fact that there is no such thing as a Palistinian people.  They are arabs, jordanian, egyptians, syrians, etc.  No Palistinian language, no palistinian culture, no palistinian history, no palistinian people.
> 
> 
> 
> In 1948, 650,000 Jews inflicted a Jewish State on 1.2 million Arabs and others living in Mandate Palestine.
> 
> What makes you think Jews alone, out of all the nations of the world, are entitled to land their ancestors lived on thousands of years ago?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They maintained a continous presense there for one, and secondly, the Jews never threw the arabs out, the arabs ran like the cowardly whelps they are.
Click to expand...

Currently there are five million Jews and six million Arabs living between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River. All Arabs are subject to Israeli civil or military law, yet over a million Arabs are unable to vote in Israeli elections. Assuming the concept of popular sovereignty applies to all human beings, how do you justify five million Jews ruling six million Arabs?


----------



## jtpr312

georgephillip said:


> jtpr312 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> In 1948, 650,000 Jews inflicted a Jewish State on 1.2 million Arabs and others living in Mandate Palestine.
> 
> What makes you think Jews alone, out of all the nations of the world, are entitled to land their ancestors lived on thousands of years ago?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They maintained a continous presense there for one, and secondly, the Jews never threw the arabs out, the arabs ran like the cowardly whelps they are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Currently there are five million Jews and six million Arabs living between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River. All Arabs are subject to Israeli civil or military law, yet over a million Arabs are unable to vote in Israeli elections. Assuming the concept of popular sovereignty applies to all human beings, how do you justify five million Jews ruling six million Arabs?
Click to expand...


*XXXXX-Meister*, as arabs who are Israeli citizens may not only vote, but can run for office and are in the Knesset.  Show me ONE arab nation where Jews are given ANY right to vote, or right to hold office.  As a matter of fact, show me an arab state where Jews aren't murdered for bieng Jewish.  Arabs who live in Israel as citizens are much better off than 99% of the arabs that live in arab nations as a matter of fact.


----------



## eots

jtpr312 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jtpr312 said:
> 
> 
> 
> They maintained a continous presense there for one, and secondly, the Jews never threw the arabs out, the arabs ran like the cowardly whelps they are.
> 
> 
> 
> Currently there are five million Jews and six million Arabs living between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River. All Arabs are subject to Israeli civil or military law, yet over a million Arabs are unable to vote in Israeli elections. Assuming the concept of popular sovereignty applies to all human beings, how do you justify five million Jews ruling six million Arabs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *XXXXX-Meister*, as arabs who are Israeli citizens may not only vote, but can run for office and are in the Knesset.  *Show me ONE arab nation where Jews are given ANY right to vote,* or right to hold office.  As a matter of fact, show me an arab state where Jews aren't murdered for bieng Jewish.  Arabs who live in Israel as citizens are much better off than 99% of the arabs that live in arab nations as a matter of fact.
Click to expand...


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rn4ZX99Fbxs]Jews in Iran - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## jtpr312

eots said:


> jtpr312 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Currently there are five million Jews and six million Arabs living between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River. All Arabs are subject to Israeli civil or military law, yet over a million Arabs are unable to vote in Israeli elections. Assuming the concept of popular sovereignty applies to all human beings, how do you justify five million Jews ruling six million Arabs?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *XXXXX-Meister*, as arabs who are Israeli citizens may not only vote, but can run for office and are in the Knesset.  *Show me ONE arab nation where Jews are given ANY right to vote,* or right to hold office.  As a matter of fact, *show me an arab state *where Jews aren't murdered for bieng Jewish.  Arabs who live in Israel as citizens are much better off than 99% of the arabs that live in arab nations as a matter of fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rn4ZX99Fbxs]Jews in Iran - YouTube[/ame]
Click to expand...




  Hmmm, you are aware that Iranians are not arabs, and that Iran is not an arab nation right?


----------



## MHunterB

Not to mention that the 'Jewish vote' is for a single seat which is allocated to dhimmi religions under the Iranian "Constitution" - sounds like apartheid AND quotas to me.

The estimated 25,000 Jews in Iran after the 'Revolution' is now down to something like one THIRD of that number.......  gee, one wonders why.


----------



## georgephillip

jtpr312 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jtpr312 said:
> 
> 
> 
> They maintained a continous presense there for one, and secondly, the Jews never threw the arabs out, the arabs ran like the cowardly whelps they are.
> 
> 
> 
> Currently there are five million Jews and six million Arabs living between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River. All Arabs are subject to Israeli civil or military law, yet over a million Arabs are unable to vote in Israeli elections. Assuming the concept of popular sovereignty applies to all human beings, how do you justify five million Jews ruling six million Arabs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *XXXXX-Meister*, as arabs who are Israeli citizens may not only vote, but can run for office and are in the Knesset.  Show me ONE arab nation where Jews are given ANY right to vote, or right to hold office.  As a matter of fact, show me an arab state where Jews aren't murdered for bieng Jewish.  Arabs who live in Israel as citizens are much better off than 99% of the arabs that live in arab nations as a matter of fact.
Click to expand...

Over one million Arabs living in the Occupied Territories are subject to Jew law without having the option of voting in Jew elections. See how that contradicts democracy and human rights?


----------



## jtpr312

georgephillip said:


> jtpr312 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Currently there are five million Jews and six million Arabs living between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River. All Arabs are subject to Israeli civil or military law, yet over a million Arabs are unable to vote in Israeli elections. Assuming the concept of popular sovereignty applies to all human beings, how do you justify five million Jews ruling six million Arabs?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *XXXXX-Meister*, as arabs who are Israeli citizens may not only vote, but can run for office and are in the Knesset.  Show me ONE arab nation where Jews are given ANY right to vote, or right to hold office.  As a matter of fact, show me an arab state where Jews aren't murdered for bieng Jewish.  Arabs who live in Israel as citizens are much better off than 99% of the arabs that live in arab nations as a matter of fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Over one million Arabs living in the Occupied Territories are subject to Jew law without having the option of voting in Jew elections. See how that contradicts democracy and human rights?
Click to expand...


They're not Israeli citizens so why should they be allowed to vote in Israel's elections.


----------



## georgephillip

jtpr312 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jtpr312 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *XXXXX-Meister*, as arabs who are Israeli citizens may not only vote, but can run for office and are in the Knesset.  Show me ONE arab nation where Jews are given ANY right to vote, or right to hold office.  As a matter of fact, show me an arab state where Jews aren't murdered for bieng Jewish.  Arabs who live in Israel as citizens are much better off than 99% of the arabs that live in arab nations as a matter of fact.
> 
> 
> 
> Over one million Arabs living in the Occupied Territories are subject to Jew law without having the option of voting in Jew elections. See how that contradicts democracy and human rights?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They're not Israeli citizens so why should they be allowed to vote in Israel's elections.
Click to expand...

Because they're subject to Israeli law and occuptaion.


----------



## jtpr312

georgephillip said:


> jtpr312 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Over one million Arabs living in the Occupied Territories are subject to Jew law without having the option of voting in Jew elections. See how that contradicts democracy and human rights?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They're not Israeli citizens so why should they be allowed to vote in Israel's elections.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because they're subject to Israeli law and occuptaion.
Click to expand...



That may be because their own countries won't allow them to go back to the lands they belong in, you know, like Jordan, Syria, Egypt, etc, and would rather keep them as pawns in their battle against the Jews.


----------



## Billo_Really

jtpr312 said:


> That may be because their own countries won't allow them to go back to the lands they belong in, you know, like Jordan, Syria, Egypt, etc, and would rather keep them as pawns in their battle against the Jews.


They are in their own country. 

They've been living there for over a 1000 years.


----------



## Lipush

georgephillip said:


> jtpr312 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Currently there are five million Jews and six million Arabs living between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River. All Arabs are subject to Israeli civil or military law, yet over a million Arabs are unable to vote in Israeli elections. Assuming the concept of popular sovereignty applies to all human beings, how do you justify five million Jews ruling six million Arabs?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *XXXXX-Meister*, as arabs who are Israeli citizens may not only vote, but can run for office and are in the Knesset.  Show me ONE arab nation where Jews are given ANY right to vote, or right to hold office.  As a matter of fact, show me an arab state where Jews aren't murdered for bieng Jewish.  Arabs who live in Israel as citizens are much better off than 99% of the arabs that live in arab nations as a matter of fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Over one million Arabs living in the Occupied Territories are subject to Jew law without having the option of voting in Jew elections. See how that contradicts democracy and human rights?
Click to expand...


Vote for WHOSE elections??


----------



## Lipush

georgephillip said:


> jtpr312 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Over one million Arabs living in the Occupied Territories are subject to Jew law without having the option of voting in Jew elections. See how that contradicts democracy and human rights?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They're not Israeli citizens so why should they be allowed to vote in Israel's elections.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because they're subject to Israeli law and occuptaion.
Click to expand...


Are you SERIOUS??

You condemn the fact that we don't let the same people who blow up our busses and throw stones at are car, VOTE in our country?

Are even listening to yourself?? Which country allowed the enemy community to VOTE for its own leaders?


----------



## Lipush

loinboy said:


> jtpr312 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That may be because their own countries won't allow them to go back to the lands they belong in, you know, like Jordan, Syria, Egypt, etc, and would rather keep them as pawns in their battle against the Jews.
> 
> 
> 
> They are in their own country.
> 
> They've been living there for over a 1000 years.
Click to expand...


 ^
 |
 |
 |


----------



## georgephillip

Lipush said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jtpr312 said:
> 
> 
> 
> They're not Israeli citizens so why should they be allowed to vote in Israel's elections.
> 
> 
> 
> Because they're subject to Israeli law and occuptaion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you SERIOUS??
> 
> You condemn the fact that we don't let the same people who blow up our busses and throw stones at are car, VOTE in our country?
> 
> Are even listening to yourself?? Which country allowed the enemy community to VOTE for its own leaders?
Click to expand...

You control their airspace, coastal waters, and freedom of movement.
You kill their children for sport and profit.
If you can't take the heat, stop stealing Arab desert.


----------



## Lipush

georgephillip said:


> Lipush said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because they're subject to Israeli law and occuptaion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you SERIOUS??
> 
> You condemn the fact that we don't let the same people who blow up our busses and throw stones at are car, VOTE in our country?
> 
> Are even listening to yourself?? Which country allowed the enemy community to VOTE for its own leaders?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You control their airspace, coastal waters, and freedom of movement.
> You kill their children for sport and profit.
> If you can't take the heat, stop stealing Arab desert.
Click to expand...


If they want freedom of movement, they should stop killing our civilians.

nowhere in this sane world one can be expected to feed the thing which kills him.

It is wicked to demand that.


----------



## jtpr312

loinboy said:


> jtpr312 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That may be because their own countries won't allow them to go back to the lands they belong in, you know, like Jordan, Syria, Egypt, etc, and would rather keep them as pawns in their battle against the Jews.
> 
> 
> 
> They are in their own country.
> 
> They've been living there for over a 1000 years.
Click to expand...



The Jews have had a conitunous presense there since at least 1200BC, the muslims didn't get there until 641AD.


----------



## Charles_Main

What I want to know is where was the International outcry for a Palestinian State when the WB and Gaza were controlled by Jordan and Egypt? Answer, there was NONE.

and if you are going to go back 1000 years and say Muslims have lived there that long, then why not go back even further and realize Jews were there first, and were KICKED out and Sold into Slavery by Conquering Arab Armies.


----------



## georgephillip

Lipush said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lipush said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you SERIOUS??
> 
> You condemn the fact that we don't let the same people who blow up our busses and throw stones at are car, VOTE in our country?
> 
> Are even listening to yourself?? Which country allowed the enemy community to VOTE for its own leaders?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You control their airspace, coastal waters, and freedom of movement.
> You kill their children for sport and profit.
> If you can't take the heat, stop stealing Arab desert.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If they want freedom of movement, they should stop killing our civilians.
> 
> nowhere in this sane world one can be expected to feed the thing which kills him.
> 
> It is wicked to demand that.
Click to expand...

Your civilians should stop stealing Arab land and water and uprooting their orchards.
Your "military" should renounce its Dahiya Doctrine:

"What happened in the Dahiya quarter of Beirut in 2006 will happen in every village from which Israel is fired on. We will apply disproportionate force on it and cause great damage and destruction there. From our standpoint, these are not civilian villages, they are military bases. This is not a recommendation. This is a plan. And it has been approved.&#8221;

If you think Israel isn't swimming in the same cesspool as White South Africa of forty years ago, think again.

Israel


----------



## sealadaigh

Charles_Main said:


> What I want to know is where was the International outcry for a Palestinian State when the WB and Gaza were controlled by Jordan and Egypt? Answer, there was NONE.
> 
> and if you are going to go back 1000 years and say Muslims have lived there that long, then why not go back even further and realize Jews were there first, and were KICKED out and Sold into Slavery by Conquering Arab Armies.



do you actually think that a people have a right to go back some arbitrary length of time thousands of years ago and inhabit the land where they once lived with little or no regard for the current residents who have live there for generations and kick them out.

that is what you are asking me to believe.

also, it was the romans  who destroyedd the temple and took their people as slaves.

as for jews maintaining a continuous presence in israel...actually al quds...yes, you are right, there was a small group who remained in al quds and they were well accepted...and guess what? they didn't want jewish european colonialists flooding into the region either. they probably hated them worse than any arab people did.

i thought you all were against revisionist history. well, it is a double edged sword.

but right now, it is time to celebrate...138 yes::9 no.


----------



## Billo_Really

jtpr312 said:


> The Jews have had a conitunous presense there since at least 1200BC, the muslims didn't get there until 641AD.


BFD!  In 1948, arabs were the majority landowners in the area.





I don't know if this is your position, but generally speaking, people migrating into an area, do not automatically have more rights than the people already living there.  And what happened 2000 years ago, has no legal justification today, nor did have in 1948.


----------



## Charles_Main

reabhloideach said:


> Charles_Main said:
> 
> 
> 
> What I want to know is where was the International outcry for a Palestinian State when the WB and Gaza were controlled by Jordan and Egypt? Answer, there was NONE.
> 
> and if you are going to go back 1000 years and say Muslims have lived there that long, then why not go back even further and realize Jews were there first, and were KICKED out and Sold into Slavery by Conquering Arab Armies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> do you actually think that a people have a right to go back some arbitrary length of time thousands of years ago and inhabit the land where they once lived with little or no regard for the current residents who have live there for generations and kick them out.
Click to expand...


Do you really think that is what is happening? The Jews Returned to their Home Land only a few Generations after losing it, and have had a continuous Presence there ever since. 

How can you argue out one side of your mouth about how Palestinians have been there for 1000 years, while at the same time saying it does not matter that Jews were there 4000 years ago, and have had some presence there the entire time, save for their Biblical Exile.


----------



## georgephillip

Charles_Main said:


> reabhloideach said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Charles_Main said:
> 
> 
> 
> What I want to know is where was the International outcry for a Palestinian State when the WB and Gaza were controlled by Jordan and Egypt? Answer, there was NONE.
> 
> and if you are going to go back 1000 years and say Muslims have lived there that long, then why not go back even further and realize Jews were there first, and were KICKED out and Sold into Slavery by Conquering Arab Armies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> do you actually think that a people have a right to go back some arbitrary length of time thousands of years ago and inhabit the land where they once lived with little or no regard for the current residents who have live there for generations and kick them out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you really think that is what is happening? The Jews Returned to their Home Land only a few Generations after losing it, and have had a continuous Presence there ever since.
> 
> How can you argue out one side of your mouth about how Palestinians have been there for 1000 years, while at the same time saying it does not matter that Jews were there 4000 years ago, and have had some presence there the entire time, save for their Biblical Exile.
Click to expand...

In 1948 CE 650,000 Jews inflicted a Jewish state on 1.2 million Arabs and others
700,000 Arabs fled or were expelled, and an equal number of Jews from around the world moved into displaced Arab homes and businesses. In 1967 Israel expanded its territory by a factor of three, placing another one million Arabs firmly under the IDF boot.

Currently, five million Jews and six million Arabs live between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River with the same Jewish boot planted firmly on Arab necks.

What's your solution?


----------



## jtpr312

loinboy said:


> jtpr312 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Jews have had a conitunous presense there since at least 1200BC, the muslims didn't get there until 641AD.
> 
> 
> 
> BFD!  In 1948, arabs were the majority landowners in the area.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know if this is your position, but generally speaking, *people migrating into an area, do not automatically have more rights than the people already living there*.  And what happened 2000 years ago, has no legal justification today, nor did have in 1948.
Click to expand...



reallly?  Tell that to the American Indians slick.  As for "legal justification", the arabs attacked Israel, Israel, while defending against that attack, took that land.  That's all the legal justification" they need.


----------



## sealadaigh

Charles_Main said:


> reabhloideach said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Charles_Main said:
> 
> 
> 
> What I want to know is where was the International outcry for a Palestinian State when the WB and Gaza were controlled by Jordan and Egypt? Answer, there was NONE.
> 
> and if you are going to go back 1000 years and say Muslims have lived there that long, then why not go back even further and realize Jews were there first, and were KICKED out and Sold into Slavery by Conquering Arab Armies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> do you actually think that a people have a right to go back some arbitrary length of time thousands of years ago and inhabit the land where they once lived with little or no regard for the current residents who have live there for generations and kick them out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you really think that is what is happening? The Jews Returned to their Home Land only a few Generations after losing it, and have had a continuous Presence there ever since.
> 
> How can you argue out one side of your mouth about how Palestinians have been there for 1000 years, while at the same time saying it does not matter that Jews were there 4000 years ago, and have had some presence there the entire time, save for their Biblical Exile.
Click to expand...


most of the jews in israel are from europe or russia or places other than the mideast or are descended from those people. they have very little connection with this so called "homeland" other than in their own deluded minds.

even culturaally and religiously these europeans had/have little, if anything, in common with the imdigenous jews of the region and were rejected by them.

at a time when wester culture was realising the folly of colonisation and withdrawing, in part because after WWII, small emerging nationss began to rise up against their oppressoers and take their place in the world, jewish europeans decided to interject themselves into a foreign land and inflict their culture on an indigenous people.

european jews have no  more right to a homeland in the mideast than some obscure tribe in the dark heart of the amazon jungle.

israel is a colossally failed experiment that has done nothing but create strife and turmoil in their insistance that the millions o people in the region bend to their will.

the jews should go home.


----------



## P F Tinmore

jtpr312 said:


> loinboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jtpr312 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Jews have had a conitunous presense there since at least 1200BC, the muslims didn't get there until 641AD.
> 
> 
> 
> BFD!  In 1948, arabs were the majority landowners in the area.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know if this is your position, but generally speaking, *people migrating into an area, do not automatically have more rights than the people already living there*.  And what happened 2000 years ago, has no legal justification today, nor did have in 1948.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> reallly?  Tell that to the American Indians slick.  As for "legal justification", the arabs attacked Israel, Israel, while defending against that attack, took that land.  That's all the legal justification" they need.
Click to expand...


Of course that is not true.


----------



## sealadaigh

jtpr312 said:


> loinboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jtpr312 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Jews have had a conitunous presense there since at least 1200BC, the muslims didn't get there until 641AD.
> 
> 
> 
> BFD!  In 1948, arabs were the majority landowners in the area.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know if this is your position, but generally speaking, *people migrating into an area, do not automatically have more rights than the people already living there*.  And what happened 2000 years ago, has no legal justification today, nor did have in 1948.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> reallly?  Tell that to the American Indians slick.  As for "legal justification", the arabs attacked Israel, Israel, while defending against that attack, took that land.  That's all the legal justification" they need.
Click to expand...


in light of the holocaust, i don't really think you want to go with the "might makes right" argument.

as for native americans, that dispossession began 400 years ago and is a little bit hard to undo. we treated them wrong, and i think the reparations they are due falls far to short but they have nothing to do with the failed state of israel. 

but let me get this right. you think native americans have a right to rise up and kick the people of european ancestry out of the americas. i mean, that's OK with me. i did something good for a local tribal group and was made a member. i don't have any federal rights or anything but i do have tribal rights. it was a great honour...so i'm good.

when will you be moving to israel and what is the weather like in maryland this time of year? just PM me when i can move in. thanks.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Charles_Main said:


> What I want to know is where was the International outcry for a Palestinian State when the WB and Gaza were controlled by Jordan and Egypt? Answer, there was NONE.
> 
> and if you are going to go back 1000 years and say Muslims have lived there that long, then why not go back even further and realize Jews were there first, and were KICKED out and Sold into Slavery by Conquering Arab Armies.



There were Palestinians fighting against the occupation of their country all through the 1950s.

In 1948, 80 or so Palestinian leaders declared independence for their state only to have the UN divide their country into three occupations less than a year later.


----------



## P F Tinmore

jtpr312 said:


> loinboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jtpr312 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That may be because their own countries won't allow them to go back to the lands they belong in, you know, like Jordan, Syria, Egypt, etc, and would rather keep them as pawns in their battle against the Jews.
> 
> 
> 
> They are in their own country.
> 
> They've been living there for over a 1000 years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The Jews have had a conitunous presense there since at least 1200BC, the muslims didn't get there until 641AD.
Click to expand...


So, there was nobody living there but Jews until 641AD?


----------



## JoeB131

Indofred said:


> I've popped this in 'clean debate' in an attempt to seriously chat about US middle eastern policy.
> 
> *America should change sides and support Palestine.*
> 
> Imagine the advantages:
> 
> Way cheaper than supporting Israel.
> Only one enemy in the middle east
> No worries about oil supply.
> 
> Can anyone suggest why the US supporting Palestine has a downside?



We shouldn't support either side. We have no dog in that fight. 

What we should do is invest the money we are currently wasting on maintaining the ability to strike on the other side of the planet into producing alternative energy sources.  A "Manhatten Project" on energy, if you will.


----------



## Swagger

JoeB131 said:


> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've popped this in 'clean debate' in an attempt to seriously chat about US middle eastern policy.
> 
> *America should change sides and support Palestine.*
> 
> Imagine the advantages:
> 
> Way cheaper than supporting Israel.
> Only one enemy in the middle east
> No worries about oil supply.
> 
> Can anyone suggest why the US supporting Palestine has a downside?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We shouldn't support either side. We have no dog in that fight.
> 
> What we should do is invest the money we are currently wasting on maintaining the ability to strike on the other side of the planet into producing alternative energy sources.  A "Manhatten Project" on energy, if you will.
Click to expand...


I couldn't agree more. furthermore, the sooner the West discovers or develops an alternative source of fuel for the combustion engine, the sooner we extract ourselves and our dependence on the oil producing regions.


----------



## MHunterB

The greatest failure of Carter's Presidency, I feel, was the failure to promote the development of 'local' energy sources.   The 1973 (yes, before Carter) oil embargo from OPEC *should* have awakened us to the problem.  

Whoever comes up with the alternative to current combustion tchnology to produce *electricity* is going to rule the century after this one:  the transportation is only TEN Percent of the usage.   The least efficient thing one can do with crude oil is burn it for fuel : ((


----------



## nodoginnafight

Lumpy 1 said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would no more expect Israel to sit at the table with Hamas than I would expect the US, even under Obama, to sit at the table with Al-Queda.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wouldn't be all that surprised if there was an Al-Queda weenie sucking tour by Obama...
Click to expand...


Not in line with the ideals of the Clean Debate Zone.


----------



## JoeB131

MHunterB said:


> The greatest failure of Carter's Presidency, I feel, was the failure to promote the development of 'local' energy sources.   The 1973 (yes, before Carter) oil embargo from OPEC *should* have awakened us to the problem.
> 
> Whoever comes up with the alternative to current combustion tchnology to produce *electricity* is going to rule the century after this one:  the transportation is only TEN Percent of the usage.   The least efficient thing one can do with crude oil is burn it for fuel : ((



You should probably learn the history of that era.  Carter did exactly that. He promoted alternative energy, established Millage Standards, started the Department of Energy and established the Strategic Oil Reserve. 

And the Oil Companies hated him, and did everything they could to get him out of office. 

The minute Reagan was in, he tore the solar panels off the White House and let the oil companies do whatever they wanted.


----------



## Billo_Really

jtpr312 said:


> The Jews have had a conitunous presense there since at least 1200BC, the muslims didn't get there until 641AD.


I never said they didn't.

Both lived in that area with no major incidents of violence with each other, until the zionists showed up with jewish terrorist groups like Irgun.


----------



## Billo_Really

jtpr312 said:


> reallly?  Tell that to the American Indians slick.


What we did to native American's, is a black mark on this country from which we will never be able make amends for. That's a cross we will have to bear for eternity.




jtpr312 said:


> As for "legal justification", the arabs attacked Israel, Israel, while defending against that attack, took that land.  That's all the legal justification" they need.


Both sides were guilty of violence.  But the major violence started when zionists migrated into the area with their racist, apartheid policies.


----------



## jtpr312

loinboy said:


> jtpr312 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Jews have had a conitunous presense there since at least 1200BC, the muslims didn't get there until 641AD.
> 
> 
> 
> I never said they didn't.
> 
> Both lived in that area with no major incidents of violence with each other, until the zionists showed up with jewish terrorist groups like Irgun.
Click to expand...


You know being stupid is ok, but not being embarresed about it and letting everyone know how stupid you are like you do here every day is just plain painful to watch.  What exactly do you think happened when the muslims laid seige to Jerusalem and conquered that land?  You think they showed up and the Jews just said, hey, welcome, take what's our and make yourselves at home.  Man you're a true dumbass.


----------



## jtpr312

loinboy said:


> jtpr312 said:
> 
> 
> 
> reallly?  Tell that to the American Indians slick.
> 
> 
> 
> What we did to native American's, is a black mark on this country from which we will never be able make amends for. That's a cross we will have to bear for eternity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jtpr312 said:
> 
> 
> 
> As for "legal justification", the arabs attacked Israel, Israel, while defending against that attack, took that land.  That's all the legal justification" they need.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Both sides were guilty of violence.  But the major violence started when zionists migrated into the area with their racist, apartheid policies.
Click to expand...


Wrong dumbass, on both counts.  It's no black mark on this nation, it is what it is.  The Indians where a war like and savage peope and we had no choice but to subjugate them in order to build this nation, tough shit for them that they didn't get with the program.  As for the violence starting with the zionists, wrong against you stupid sob.  The violence started when the muslims made war on the Jews and Christians by invading the Holy Lands, laying siege to Jerusalem and then conquering the land adn forcfully converting or enslaving those they didn't murder.  This was thousands of years before there ever even was a such thing as a "Zionist".


----------



## P F Tinmore

jtpr312 said:


> loinboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jtpr312 said:
> 
> 
> 
> reallly?  Tell that to the American Indians slick.
> 
> 
> 
> What we did to native American's, is a black mark on this country from which we will never be able make amends for. That's a cross we will have to bear for eternity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jtpr312 said:
> 
> 
> 
> As for "legal justification", the arabs attacked Israel, Israel, while defending against that attack, took that land.  That's all the legal justification" they need.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Both sides were guilty of violence.  But the major violence started when zionists migrated into the area with their racist, apartheid policies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong dumbass, on both counts.  It's no black mark on this nation, it is what it is.  The Indians where a war like and savage peope and we had no choice but to subjugate them in order to build this nation, tough shit for them that they didn't get with the program.  As for the violence starting with the zionists, wrong against you stupid sob.  The violence started when the muslims made war on the Jews and Christians by invading the Holy Lands, laying siege to Jerusalem and then conquering the land adn forcfully converting or enslaving those they didn't murder.  This was thousands of years before there ever even was a such thing as a "Zionist".
Click to expand...




> The Indians where a war like and savage peope ...



Colonialists always say that about the natives. That is a justification to throw them off their land.


----------



## jtpr312

P F Tinmore said:


> jtpr312 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> loinboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> What we did to native American's, is a black mark on this country from which we will never be able make amends for. That's a cross we will have to bear for eternity.
> 
> 
> Both sides were guilty of violence.  But the major violence started when zionists migrated into the area with their racist, apartheid policies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong dumbass, on both counts.  It's no black mark on this nation, it is what it is.  The Indians where a war like and savage peope and we had no choice but to subjugate them in order to build this nation, tough shit for them that they didn't get with the program.  As for the violence starting with the zionists, wrong against you stupid sob.  The violence started when the muslims made war on the Jews and Christians by invading the Holy Lands, laying siege to Jerusalem and then conquering the land adn forcfully converting or enslaving those they didn't murder.  This was thousands of years before there ever even was a such thing as a "Zionist".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Indians where a war like and savage peope ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Colonialists always say that about the natives. That is a justification to throw them off their land.
Click to expand...


It's a fact of American Indian history slick, not colonial history.  They, the Indians, where a warrior breed.  Their long history of internecine warfare is part of THEIR oral histories, much like the internecine warfare among many of the European tribes.  The fact is that the white man was just a far more advanced and superior peoples and the Indians couldn't beat them.  If they could have, the results would have been much different than they are today.  We, the white European, at least placed them on reservations and fed, clothed and housed them, all the way up until today.  The Indians had a history of treating our settlers quite barbarically, so it's doubtful they would have been as merciful in victory as we were.  We are the conquerers, we need no justification for throwing them off their land.  ALL lands and ALL people's where at one time or another conquered by others, it's just a fact of life.


----------



## Billo_Really

jtpr312 said:


> Wrong dumbass, on both counts.  It's no black mark on this nation, it is what it is.  The Indians where a war like and savage peope and we had no choice but to subjugate them in order to build this nation, tough shit for them that they didn't get with the program.


So you think might makes right? You think you can just impose your will on others and the only option they have is to take it?  You think you can go over to someone's home, or place where they've been living for generations and start telling them what to do?   Or are one of those who believe in that American exceptionalism garbage and everything is okay if we do it?



jtpr312 said:


> As for the violence starting with the zionists, wrong against you stupid sob.  The violence started when the muslims made war on the Jews and Christians by invading the Holy Lands, laying siege to Jerusalem and then conquering the land adn forcfully converting or enslaving those they didn't murder.  This was thousands of years before there ever even was a such thing as a "Zionist".


What happened 2000 years ago, don't mean shit today.  Prior to the late 1800's, there were no major incidents of violence in that area, until zionists started pouring in and stripping the people already living there of their land rights.  You can't move to an area and just walk up and take someone's home.  

Here's a thought, why don't you, right now, walk across the street, go into the first house you come to, without knocking, just walk in and whomever you meet there, start barking orders at them to get out, because this was your great gradma's house and your here to claim your ancestrial home.  Then come back here and tell us how it went.  

BTW, you're in a "clean debate forum", you'll need to call me "dumbass" somewhere else, but not here.  Or are you going to go with your current MO and tell the mods that you've made new rules for this forum and if they don't like your program, then they can just shove it?


----------



## Billo_Really

jtpr312 said:


> You know being stupid is ok, but not being embarresed about it and letting everyone know how stupid you are like you do here every day is just plain painful to watch.  What exactly do you think happened when the muslims laid seige to Jerusalem and conquered that land?  You think they showed up and the Jews just said, hey, welcome, take what's our and make yourselves at home.  Man you're a true dumbass.


Like I said, I don't give a shit about what happened 2000 years ago.

It has nothing to do with the state of Israel.


----------



## nesta

funnily enough what allegedly happened 2000 years ago is the whole basis for the existence of israel.


----------



## nesta

jtpr312 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jtpr312 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong dumbass, on both counts.  It's no black mark on this nation, it is what it is.  The Indians where a war like and savage peope and we had no choice but to subjugate them in order to build this nation, tough shit for them that they didn't get with the program.  As for the violence starting with the zionists, wrong against you stupid sob.  The violence started when the muslims made war on the Jews and Christians by invading the Holy Lands, laying siege to Jerusalem and then conquering the land adn forcfully converting or enslaving those they didn't murder.  This was thousands of years before there ever even was a such thing as a "Zionist".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Indians where a war like and savage peope ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Colonialists always say that about the natives. That is a justification to throw them off their land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a fact of American Indian history slick, not colonial history.  They, the Indians, where a warrior breed.  Their long history of internecine warfare is part of THEIR oral histories, much like the internecine warfare among many of the European tribes.  The fact is that the white man was just a far more advanced and superior peoples and the Indians couldn't beat them.  If they could have, the results would have been much different than they are today.  We, the white European, at least placed them on reservations and fed, clothed and housed them, all the way up until today.  The Indians had a history of treating our settlers quite barbarically, so it's doubtful they would have been as merciful in victory as we were.  We are the conquerers, we need no justification for throwing them off their land.  ALL lands and ALL people's where at one time or another conquered by others, it's just a fact of life.
Click to expand...


all that is irrelevant though, the fact is it was their land and you conducted a genocide of them in order to take it.  thats a fact.


----------



## jtpr312

loinboy said:


> jtpr312 said:
> 
> 
> 
> wrong dumbass, on both counts.  It's no black mark on this nation, it is what it is.  The indians where a war like and savage peope and we had no choice but to subjugate them in order to build this nation, tough shit for them that they didn't get with the program.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so you think might makes right? You think you can just impose your will on others and the only option they have is to take it?  You think you can go over to someone's home, or place where they've been living for generations and start telling them what to do?   Or are one of those who believe in that american exceptionalism garbage and everything is okay if we do it?  i believe that history is chock full of nations and peoples invading, conquering and subjugating other peoples and that this is often what makes advancement and civilization possible, as certainly was the case in the european's conquest of the united states.
> 
> 
> jtpr312 said:
> 
> 
> 
> as for the violence starting with the zionists, wrong against you stupid sob.  The violence started when the muslims made war on the jews and christians by invading the holy lands, laying siege to jerusalem and then conquering the land adn forcfully converting or enslaving those they didn't murder.  This was thousands of years before there ever even was a such thing as a "zionist".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> what happened 2000 years ago, don't mean shit today.  Prior to the late 1800's, there were no major incidents of violence in that area, until zionists started pouring in and stripping the people already living there of their land rights.  You can't move to an area and just walk up and take someone's home.  you're right, it don't mean shit today, and today the jews have re-conquered their anscestoral homelands and have repeatedly defended that homeland from muslim invasions and aggression and will continue to do so for a long, long time to come.  The arabs that live within the borders of the jewish lands should thank their god that they live there, for most live better under jewish rule than the vast majority of arabs live under arabic rule.
> 
> 
> here's a thought, why don't you, right now, walk across the street, go into the first house you come to, without knocking, just walk in and whomever you meet there, start barking orders at them to get out, because this was your great gradma's house and your here to claim your ancestrial home.  Then come back here and tell us how it went.  your strawman argument won't work here slick.  We aren't talking about my grandma's house, which was legally sold, but rather about lands that the arabs stole from the jews by force of arms and that were retaken by the jews by force of arms.
> 
> btw, you're in a "clean debate forum", you'll need to call me "dumbass" somewhere else, but not here.  Or are you going to go with your current mo and tell the mods that you've made new rules for this forum and if they don't like your program, then they can just shove it?  i didn't realize i was in the clean debate forum nor did i realize that pointing out one's ignorance and insistance on acting like an ass was being "unlcean" or uncivil, but feel free to run and whine to a moderator if you'd like
Click to expand...

.


----------



## Katzndogz

What happened 2000 years ago is meaningless when the liberals need for it to be meaningless.   When liberals need for it to be important, then what happened 2000 years ago becomes vital.   For instance, palestine aside, liberals are happy to drag out the Crusades as justification for killing Christians today.


----------



## Political Junky

Then who could object to Native Americans claiming their land back?


----------



## jtpr312

P F Tinmore said:


> jtpr312 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> loinboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are in their own country.
> 
> They've been living there for over a 1000 years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Jews have had a conitunous presense there since at least 1200BC, the muslims didn't get there until 641AD.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, there was nobody living there but Jews until 641AD?
Click to expand...


No, there were others, but it was a Jewish nation for thousands of years prior to 641.


----------



## jtpr312

reabhloideach said:


> jtpr312 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> loinboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> BFD!  In 1948, arabs were the majority landowners in the area.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know if this is your position, but generally speaking, *people migrating into an area, do not automatically have more rights than the people already living there*.  And what happened 2000 years ago, has no legal justification today, nor did have in 1948.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> reallly?  Tell that to the American Indians slick.  As for "legal justification", the arabs attacked Israel, Israel, while defending against that attack, took that land.  That's all the legal justification" they need.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> in light of the holocaust, i don't really think you want to go with the "might makes right" argument.  In light of the fact that the might of the allied armies put a stop to the holocaust and the pigs that carried it out, I don't think your analogy fits very well.
> 
> as for native americans, that dispossession began 400 years ago and is a little bit hard to undo. we treated them wrong, and i think the reparations they are due falls far to short but they have nothing to do with the failed state of israel. Nope they don't, and as for the Indians, they made war on innocent settlers, not to mention many have been living on the tax payer's teat for generations, so I have little sympathy for them.
> 
> but let me get this right. you think native americans have a right to rise up and kick the people of european ancestry out of the americas. i mean, that's OK with me. i did something good for a local tribal group and was made a member. i don't have any federal rights or anything but i do have tribal rights. it was a great honour...so i'm good.  If they could have they would have done so long ago, they can't,  so it's a moot point.
> 
> when will you be moving to israel and what is the weather like in maryland this time of year? just PM me when i can move in. thanks.  Weather's nice here, but no plans to move to Israel, why would I, I'm not Jewish, I'm American.
Click to expand...

.


----------



## jtpr312

nesta said:


> jtpr312 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Colonialists always say that about the natives. That is a justification to throw them off their land.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's a fact of American Indian history slick, not colonial history.  They, the Indians, where a warrior breed.  Their long history of internecine warfare is part of THEIR oral histories, much like the internecine warfare among many of the European tribes.  The fact is that the white man was just a far more advanced and superior peoples and the Indians couldn't beat them.  If they could have, the results would have been much different than they are today.  We, the white European, at least placed them on reservations and fed, clothed and housed them, all the way up until today.  The Indians had a history of treating our settlers quite barbarically, so it's doubtful they would have been as merciful in victory as we were.  We are the conquerers, we need no justification for throwing them off their land.  ALL lands and ALL people's where at one time or another conquered by others, it's just a fact of life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> all that is irrelevant though, the fact is it was their land and you conducted a genocide of them in order to take it.  thats a fact.
Click to expand...



So what?  And it's not irelevent seeing as how this nation is STILL called the United States, and the Indians were given reservations to live on, and allowed to suck the tax payer's teat, out of the kindness of their victor's hearts, so all in all I think they got off pretty good.


----------



## Billo_Really

jtpr312 said:


> As for "legal justification", the arabs attacked Israel, Israel, while defending against that attack, took that land.  That's all the legal justification" they need.


It all depends on when you start the clock.

Someone moves into your neighborhood and immediately treats you like you have no rights at all.  They build a fence across your front lawn in such away that you can't back your car out of the driveway.  And everytime you come close to the fence that they built on your property, they start shooting at you.

How are you going to react to that?


----------



## jtpr312

loinboy said:


> jtpr312 said:
> 
> 
> 
> As for "legal justification", the arabs attacked Israel, Israel, while defending against that attack, took that land.  That's all the legal justification" they need.
> 
> 
> 
> It all depends on when you start the clock.
> 
> Someone moves into your neighborhood and immediately treats you like you have no rights at all.  They build a fence across your front lawn in such away that you can't back your car out of the driveway.  And everytime you come close to the fence that they built on your property, they start shooting at you.
> 
> How are you going to react to that?
Click to expand...



We're not discussing your little fantasy world, we're discussing the Jewish/arab problem in Israel and your little analogy doesn't even come close to fitting the facts.


----------



## Billo_Really

jtpr312 said:


> i believe that history is chock full of nations and peoples invading, conquering and subjugating other peoples and that this is often what makes advancement and civilization possible, as certainly was the case in the european's conquest of the united states.


Another one of these _"we had to destroy the city in order to save it" _speeches.  

This might have been true for the history of mankind on   earth, but that all changed after WWII.



jtpr312 said:


> you're right, it don't mean shit today, and today the jews have re-conquered their anscestoral homelands and have repeatedly defended that homeland from muslim invasions and aggression and will continue to do so for a long, long time to come.  The arabs that live within the borders of the jewish lands should thank their god that they live there, for most live better under jewish rule than the vast majority of arabs live under arabic rule.


Say what?  How does "jew only" roads benefit arabs?  How is having your home bulldozed down in the middle of the night with only a half-hours notice, a benefit to arabs?  How is constantly being demonized, like the nazis treated the jews, a benefit to arabs?  How is being considered sub-human, a benefit to arabs?  Israel is a racist, apartheid state, that wants to wipe out all the arabs in the area, so they can have their own version of an Aryian nation.



jtpr312 said:


> your strawman argument won't work here slick.  We aren't talking about my grandma's house, which was legally sold, but rather about lands that the arabs stole from the jews by force of arms and that were retaken by the jews by force of arms.


Prove it.  People were living there a thousand years.  Then zionists migrated in and drove out over 700,000 arabs with the use of jewish terrorist groups like Irgun.



jtpr312 said:


> i didn't realize i was in the clean debate forum nor did i realize that pointing out one's ignorance and insistance on acting like an ass was being "unlcean" or uncivil, but feel free to run and whine to a moderator if you'd like.


How you react to my posts, has more to do with you, than  me.  All I was doing was flashing my headlights as I passed by, because yours were not on.  

BTW, don't report people, nor do I put anyone on ignore.  I can handle what people say.  I don't need others fighting my battles for me.


----------



## P F Tinmore

jtpr312 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jtpr312 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Jews have had a conitunous presense there since at least 1200BC, the muslims didn't get there until 641AD.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, there was nobody living there but Jews until 641AD?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, there were others, but it was a Jewish nation for thousands of years prior to 641.
Click to expand...


Who were those other people?

How many were there?

Where did they go?


----------



## P F Tinmore

MHunterB said:


> The greatest failure of Carter's Presidency, I feel, was the failure to promote the development of 'local' energy sources.   The 1973 (yes, before Carter) oil embargo from OPEC *should* have awakened us to the problem.
> 
> Whoever comes up with the alternative to current combustion tchnology to produce *electricity* is going to rule the century after this one:  the transportation is only TEN Percent of the usage.   The least efficient thing one can do with crude oil is burn it for fuel : ((



Did you forget the rules on this board?


----------



## PaulS1950

You know, the Jews that settled in Israel had to build the entire country - there was little there when they were provided ownership. Why don't the Palestinians try that approach instead of trying to fight a war? The Jews did it while the rest of the region made it harder than embargos and road blocks. They never once started a war but they won every one that they fought.
The palestinians seem to want it handed to them on a silver platter - oh and they want the Jews out or dead. Maybe they would get more respect if they spent their energy on building a country instead of trying to destroy one.


----------



## georgephillip

PaulS1950 said:


> You know, the Jews that settled in Israel had to build the entire country - there was little there when they were provided ownership. Why don't the Palestinians try that approach instead of trying to fight a war? The Jews did it while the rest of the region made it harder than embargos and road blocks. They never once started a war but they won every one that they fought.
> The palestinians seem to want it handed to them on a silver platter - oh and they want the Jews out or dead. Maybe they would get more respect if they spent their energy on building a country instead of trying to destroy one.


How do  you expect Palestinians to "build their country" when Jews uproot and burn their orchards, bulldoze their homes and businesses, and use Arab children for target practice?


----------



## Billo_Really

PaulS1950 said:


> You know, the Jews that settled in Israel had to build the entire country - there was little there when they were provided ownership.


Bullshit!  There was over a half-million arabs living there that owned 70% of the land.



PaulS1950 said:


> Why don't the Palestinians try that approach instead of trying to fight a war?


They're not trying to fight a war. 

They're resisting foreign aggression in their homeland. 



PaulS1950 said:


> The Jews did it while the rest of the region made it harder than embargos and road blocks. They never once started a war but they won every one that they fought.


WTF you talking about?  

Israel started the last 6 wars its been in.



PaulS1950 said:


> The palestinians seem to want it handed to them on a silver platter - oh and they want the Jews out or dead. Maybe they would get more respect if they spent their energy on building a country instead of trying to destroy one.


They can't build anything.  They're a population under the control of a belligerent occupation.  The only thing they can do, is what Israel allows them to do.  In Gaza, they can't even repair the buildings that were destroyed from air strikes, because Israel will not allow building materials into the area.


----------



## zakdavis

So, responding to getting shot at is starting a war? News to me. 

P.S. I'm not talking about repression and all that other jazz, because I really don't care. I just want to know how responding to an Intfada is starting a war.


----------



## Indofred

zakdavis said:


> So, responding to getting shot at is starting a war? News to me.
> 
> P.S. I'm not talking about repression and all that other jazz, because I really don't care. I just want to know how responding to an Intfada is starting a war.



Read your history. The Israeli side started the war with acts of terrorism. It's well documented so I'm sure you can google the string of bombings and shootings the fledgling Israeli terrorists were guilty of.


----------



## Billo_Really

zakdavis said:


> So, responding to getting shot at is starting a war? News to me.
> 
> P.S. I'm not talking about repression and all that other jazz, because I really don't care. I just want to know how responding to an Intfada is starting a war.


The 45 year belligerent occupation of Palestinian land, is an act of war.

The 6 year siege on Gaza, is an act of war.

Shooting at Palestinian fishermen, farmers and anyone who comes within a 100 meters of that Iron Curtain, is an act of war.

Violating sovereign Palestinian air space on a daily basis with un-manned drones, is an act of war.


----------



## zakdavis

loinboy said:


> zakdavis said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, responding to getting shot at is starting a war? News to me.
> 
> P.S. I'm not talking about repression and all that other jazz, because I really don't care. I just want to know how responding to an Intfada is starting a war.
> 
> 
> 
> The 45 year belligerent occupation of Palestinian land, is an act of war.
> 
> The 6 year siege on Gaza, is an act of war.
> 
> Shooting at Palestinian fishermen, farmers and anyone who comes within a 100 meters of that Iron Curtain, is an act of war.
> 
> Violating sovereign Palestinian air space on a daily basis with un-manned drones, is an act of war.
Click to expand...


So it's six wars, or the Six Day war is really the 45 year war?


----------



## zakdavis

Indofred said:


> zakdavis said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, responding to getting shot at is starting a war? News to me.
> 
> P.S. I'm not talking about repression and all that other jazz, because I really don't care. I just want to know how responding to an Intfada is starting a war.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Read your history. The Israeli side started the war with acts of terrorism. It's well documented so I'm sure you can google the string of bombings and shootings the fledgling Israeli terrorists were guilty of.
Click to expand...


Which war?


----------



## Billo_Really

zakdavis said:


> So it's six wars, or one really long one?


I think the latter would be more succinct.


----------



## zakdavis

In '67, wasn't Gaza Egyptian, West Bank Jordinian, and the Golan Heights Syrian? Wouldn't that then make them Syrian, Jordanian, and Egyptian?


----------



## Billo_Really

zakdavis said:


> In '67, wasn't Gaza Egyptian, West Bank Jordinian, and the Golan Heights Syrian? Wouldn't that then make them Syrian, Jordanian, and Egyptian?


The only thing that is relevent in '67, was that Gaza and the West Bank, was not Israel's.

And ever since WWII, it has been illegal to hold onto land seized in a war.

To say Israel has a right to that land, would be to say it was okay for Hitler to annex Poland.


----------



## zakdavis

loinboy said:


> zakdavis said:
> 
> 
> 
> So it's six wars, or one really long one?
> 
> 
> 
> I think the latter would be more succinct.
Click to expand...


Okay, just wanted to clarify.


----------



## georgephillip

650,000 Jews inflict a Jewish State upon 1.2 million Arabs and Others, leading to...

*"The 1948 Palestinian exodus*, known in Arabic as the Nakba (Arabic: &#1575;&#1604;&#1606;&#1603;&#1576;&#1577;*, an-Nakbah, lit. 'disaster', 'catastrophe', or 'cataclysm'),[1] occurred when *approximately 711,000 to 725,000 Palestinian Arabs left, fled or were expelled from their homes*, during the 19471948 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine and the 1948 Arab-Israeli War.[2] 

"The term nakba also refers to the period of war itself and events affecting Palestinians December 1947 to January 1949, and is synonymous in that sense with what is known to Israelis as the War of Independence (Hebrew: &#1502;&#1500;&#1495;&#1502;&#1514; &#1492;&#1506;&#1510;&#1502;&#1488;&#1493;&#1514; or &#1502;&#1500;&#1495;&#1502;&#1514; &#1492;&#1511;&#1493;&#1502;&#1502;&#1497;&#1493;&#1514;, Milkhemet Ha'atzma'ut, a term which covers those two events).[3][4][5][6]

"The exact number of refugees is a matter of dispute.[7] The causes remain the subject of fundamental disagreement between Arabs and Israelis."

1948 Palestinian exodus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Billo_Really

zakdavis said:


> Okay, just wanted to clarify.


Welcome to the forum!

This might be a little off-topic, but what's life like living as a howley in Hawaii?


----------



## zakdavis

loinboy said:


> zakdavis said:
> 
> 
> 
> In '67, wasn't Gaza Egyptian, West Bank Jordinian, and the Golan Heights Syrian? Wouldn't that then make them Syrian, Jordanian, and Egyptian?
> 
> 
> 
> The only thing that is relevent in '67, was that Gaza and the West Bank, was not Israel's.
> 
> And ever since WWII, it has been illegal to hold onto land seized in a war.
> 
> To say Israel has a right to that land
Click to expand...


I don't think anybody is saying they have a right to it, but nobody wants to make concessions on anything. 

Also, it may be illegal, but that hasn't really stopped anybody.


----------



## Billo_Really

zakdavis said:


> I don't think anybody is saying they have a right to it, but nobody wants to make concessions on anything.
> 
> Also, it may be illegal, but that hasn't really stopped anybody.


Well, that's true.


----------



## zakdavis

loinboy said:


> zakdavis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, just wanted to clarify.
> 
> 
> 
> Welcome to the forum!
> 
> This might be a little off-topic, but what's life like living as a howley in Hawaii?
Click to expand...



Haole  Just like going anywhere else, you know the places where you will get dead just by looking at em.


----------



## Billo_Really

zakdavis said:


> Haole  Just like going anywhere else, you know the places where you will get dead just by looking at em.


Thanks for the correction and no one wants to be another Reginald Denny.


----------



## zakdavis

loinboy said:


> zakdavis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Haole  Just like going anywhere else, you know the places where you will get dead just by looking at em.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for the correction and no one wants to be another Reginald Denny.
Click to expand...


Also, thanks for the greetings! Yeah, the race problem here isn't nearly as bad as LA's was in the eighties or nineties, but there is the occasional 'I knifed him because he's white' bullcrap.


----------



## Billo_Really

zakdavis said:


> Also, thanks for the greetings! Yeah, the race problem here isn't nearly as bad as LA's was in the eighties or nineties, but there is the occasional 'I knifed him because he's white' bullcrap.


I got into it once with my uncle and he told me, _"You know, I could put a bullet in you!"  _

I said,_ "And I know just where it would go..........IN MY BACK!"  _

Then he got all bummed out I called him a _"back shooter"!_

Go figure!


----------



## P F Tinmore

zakdavis said:


> loinboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zakdavis said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, responding to getting shot at is starting a war? News to me.
> 
> P.S. I'm not talking about repression and all that other jazz, because I really don't care. I just want to know how responding to an Intfada is starting a war.
> 
> 
> 
> The 45 year belligerent occupation of Palestinian land, is an act of war.
> 
> The 6 year siege on Gaza, is an act of war.
> 
> Shooting at Palestinian fishermen, farmers and anyone who comes within a 100 meters of that Iron Curtain, is an act of war.
> 
> Violating sovereign Palestinian air space on a daily basis with un-manned drones, is an act of war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So it's six wars, or the Six Day war is really the 45 year war?
Click to expand...


Israel started this war a hundred years ago.

BTW, welcome to the board.


----------



## zakdavis

P F Tinmore said:


> Israel wasn't around in 1912.


----------



## P F Tinmore

zakdavis said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel wasn't around in 1912.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The name was not official yet but the flag had been flying since the 1890s.
Click to expand...


----------



## zakdavis

Then what is the difference with other nationalist movements?


----------



## P F Tinmore

zakdavis said:


> Then what is the difference with other nationalist movements?



The Palestinian national movement was natives and the Israeli nationalist movement was foreigners.


----------



## zakdavis

P F Tinmore said:


> zakdavis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then what is the difference with other nationalist movements?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinian national movement was natives and the Israeli nationalist movement was foreigners.
Click to expand...


So I guess every single Israelie leave then.


----------



## P F Tinmore

zakdavis said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zakdavis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then what is the difference with other nationalist movements?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinian national movement was natives and the Israeli nationalist movement was foreigners.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So I guess every single Israelie leave then.
Click to expand...


The creation of Israel in Palestine was illegal. Its existence is illegal. It has never legally acquired any land and sits inside Palestine's international borders.

Israel has created quite a mess for itself.


----------



## zakdavis

P F Tinmore said:


> zakdavis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinian national movement was natives and the Israeli nationalist movement was foreigners.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So I guess every single Israelie leave then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The creation of Israel in Palestine was illegal. Its existence is illegal. It has never legally acquired any land and sits inside Palestine's international borders.
> 
> Israel has created quite a mess for itself.
Click to expand...


Whoa there, Palestine was Greater Syria.


----------



## P F Tinmore

zakdavis said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zakdavis said:
> 
> 
> 
> So I guess every single Israelie leave then.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The creation of Israel in Palestine was illegal. Its existence is illegal. It has never legally acquired any land and sits inside Palestine's international borders.
> 
> Israel has created quite a mess for itself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whoa there, Palestine was Greater Syria.
Click to expand...


Not since 1922.



> A dispute regarding the status of the territories was settled by an Arbitrator appointed by the Council of the League of Nations. It was decided that Palestine and Transjordan were newly created states according to the terms of the applicable post-war treaties.
> 
> State of Palestine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## zakdavis

zakdavis said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zakdavis said:
> 
> 
> 
> So I guess every single Israelie leave then.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The creation of Israel in Palestine was illegal. Its existence is illegal. It has never legally acquired any land and sits inside Palestine's international borders.
> 
> Israel has created quite a mess for itself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whoa there, Palestine was Greater Syria.
Click to expand...


Know what else was illegal? China conquering Tibet, but nobody gives a shit about it.


----------



## zakdavis

P F Tinmore said:


> zakdavis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The creation of Israel in Palestine was illegal. Its existence is illegal. It has never legally acquired any land and sits inside Palestine's international borders.
> 
> Israel has created quite a mess for itself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whoa there, Palestine was Greater Syria.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not since 1922.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A dispute regarding the status of the territories was settled by an Arbitrator appointed by the Council of the League of Nations. It was decided that Palestine and Transjordan were newly created states according to the terms of the applicable post-war treaties.
> 
> State of Palestine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Yeah, I'm looking at it, but I don't see a country called Palestine. I see a lot of compromise offered, but blown off and war declared instead.


----------



## P F Tinmore

zakdavis said:


> zakdavis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The creation of Israel in Palestine was illegal. Its existence is illegal. It has never legally acquired any land and sits inside Palestine's international borders.
> 
> Israel has created quite a mess for itself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whoa there, Palestine was Greater Syria.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Know what else was illegal? China conquering Tibet, but nobody gives a shit about it.
Click to expand...


Indeed, but that is a subject for another thread just like Kurdistan or Cashmere.


----------



## P F Tinmore

zakdavis said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zakdavis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whoa there, Palestine was Greater Syria.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not since 1922.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A dispute regarding the status of the territories was settled by an Arbitrator appointed by the Council of the League of Nations. It was decided that Palestine and Transjordan were newly created states according to the terms of the applicable post-war treaties.
> 
> State of Palestine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, I'm looking at it, but I don't see a country called Palestine. I see a lot of compromise offered, but blown off and war declared instead.
Click to expand...


Over 100 countries at the UN just recognized Palestine as an already existing state.


----------



## zakdavis

P F Tinmore said:


> zakdavis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not since 1922.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I'm looking at it, but I don't see a country called Palestine. I see a lot of compromise offered, but blown off and war declared instead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Over 100 countries at the UN just recognized Palestine as an already existing state.
Click to expand...


*Just* recognized? Wouldn't they have done that in 1948, and if so, what took them so long to decide?


----------



## zakdavis

P F Tinmore said:


> zakdavis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zakdavis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whoa there, Palestine was Greater Syria.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Know what else was illegal? China conquering Tibet, but nobody gives a shit about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indeed, but that is a subject for another thread just like Kurdistan or Cashmere.
Click to expand...


My point: Do every people who want their own country get it?


----------



## P F Tinmore

zakdavis said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zakdavis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I'm looking at it, but I don't see a country called Palestine. I see a lot of compromise offered, but blown off and war declared instead.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Over 100 countries at the UN just recognized Palestine as an already existing state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Just* recognized? Wouldn't they have done that in 1948, and if so, what took them so long to decide?
Click to expand...


Western politics. Palestine has been recognized by many countries and several international organizations for decades. But not in the "west."


----------



## zakdavis

P F Tinmore said:


> zakdavis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not since 1922.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I'm looking at it, but I don't see a country called Palestine. I see a lot of compromise offered, but blown off and war declared instead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Over 100 countries at the UN just recognized Palestine as an already existing state.
Click to expand...


and the PLO recognizes Israel, who also recognizes the PLO(meta). Israel recognizes that the West Bank and Gaza Strip are Palestinian. Is this what would constitute Palestine, or is Palestine supposed to be the entirety of the old Mandate of Palestine?


----------



## P F Tinmore

zakdavis said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zakdavis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Know what else was illegal? China conquering Tibet, but nobody gives a shit about it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, but that is a subject for another thread just like Kurdistan or Cashmere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My point: Do every people who want their own country get it?
Click to expand...


Want is not the definitive term. The natives of a defined territory have the right to a state.


----------



## P F Tinmore

zakdavis said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zakdavis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I'm looking at it, but I don't see a country called Palestine. I see a lot of compromise offered, but blown off and war declared instead.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Over 100 countries at the UN just recognized Palestine as an already existing state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and the PLO recognizes Israel, who also recognizes the PLO(meta). Israel recognizes that the West Bank and Gaza Strip are Palestinian. Is this what would constitute Palestine, or is Palestine supposed to be the entirety of the old Mandate of Palestine?
Click to expand...


Those were proposals offered during peace negotiation that were never concluded.

No agreements have been made to change Palestine's international borders that were defined in 1922.


----------



## zakdavis

P F Tinmore said:


> zakdavis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Over 100 countries at the UN just recognized Palestine as an already existing state.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Just* recognized? Wouldn't they have done that in 1948, and if so, what took them so long to decide?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Western politics. Palestine has been recognized by many countries and several international organizations for decades. But not in the "west."
Click to expand...


While the US is apparently the only western country out there, it appears that we have, indeed, treated the PLO as the authority of Palestine. Not Hamas and Hizbullah, though.


----------



## zakdavis

P F Tinmore said:


> zakdavis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, but that is a subject for another thread just like Kurdistan or Cashmere.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My point: Do every people who want their own country get it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Want is not the definitive term. The natives of a defined territory have the right to a state.
Click to expand...


Yes, break up every single country into smaller, shitty little states. Works wonders.


----------



## P F Tinmore

zakdavis said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zakdavis said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Just* recognized? Wouldn't they have done that in 1948, and if so, what took them so long to decide?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Western politics. Palestine has been recognized by many countries and several international organizations for decades. But not in the "west."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> While the US is apparently the only western country out there, it appears that we have, indeed, treated the PLO as the authority of Palestine. Not Hamas and Hizbullah, though.
Click to expand...


You noticed that too.


----------



## zakdavis

P F Tinmore said:


> zakdavis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Western politics. Palestine has been recognized by many countries and several international organizations for decades. But not in the "west."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While the US is apparently the only western country out there, it appears that we have, indeed, treated the PLO as the authority of Palestine. Not Hamas and Hizbullah, though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You noticed that too.
Click to expand...


The PLO, or the Hamas and Hizbullah part? I see nothing wrong with not recognizing the last two, as they are not commie nationalist organizations like the PLO. Instead, Hamas and Hizbullah are theocratic, and want a religious state instead of a secular (ish) one.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Indofred said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lets see. Support Hamas, a known terror organization that lobs missiles, mortars and rockets indiscriminately into civilian targets. SPECIFICALLY targeting schools, day care centers , civilian bus lines, shopping centers , pizza parlors and the like. .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, guidance systems are so poor, most fall onto fields or in the sea but they can target a pizza queue.
> So, excluding the emotive lies, can you explain why support for Palestine instead of Israel would hurt the US?
Click to expand...


How would supporting a terrorist regime HELP the US?

Keep in mind, Hamas doesn't like us either.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Lonestar_logic said:


> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lets see. Support Hamas, a known terror organization that lobs missiles, mortars and rockets indiscriminately into civilian targets. SPECIFICALLY targeting schools, day care centers , civilian bus lines, shopping centers , pizza parlors and the like. .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, guidance systems are so poor, most fall onto fields or in the sea but they can target a pizza queue.
> So, excluding the emotive lies, can you explain why support for Palestine instead of Israel would hurt the US?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How would supporting a terrorist regime HELP the US?
> 
> Keep in mind, Hamas doesn't like us either.
Click to expand...


Who told you they don't like us?

US Jews spending the day in Gaza.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W2eLFtfeowY]Codepink built a playground at beach camp in Gaza - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Lonestar_logic

P F Tinmore said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, guidance systems are so poor, most fall onto fields or in the sea but they can target a pizza queue.
> So, excluding the emotive lies, can you explain why support for Palestine instead of Israel would hurt the US?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How would supporting a terrorist regime HELP the US?
> 
> Keep in mind, Hamas doesn't like us either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who told you they don't like us?
> 
> US Jews spending the day in Gaza.
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W2eLFtfeowY]Codepink built a playground at beach camp in Gaza - YouTube[/ame]
Click to expand...


No one has to tell me that. It's common sense. We are supplying and supporting their enemy (Israel). I'm sure we are not on their Christmas list.



"We regard this as a continuation of the American policy based on oppression and the shedding of Muslim and Arab bloodWe condemn the assassination and the killing of an Arab holy warrior. We ask God to offer him mercy with the true believers and the martyrs." 

(Ismail Haniyeh, head of the Hamas administration in the Gaza Strip commenting on the killing of Osama Bin Laden, May 2, 2011)


----------



## P F Tinmore

Lonestar_logic said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> How would supporting a terrorist regime HELP the US?
> 
> Keep in mind, Hamas doesn't like us either.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who told you they don't like us?
> 
> US Jews spending the day in Gaza.
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W2eLFtfeowY]Codepink built a playground at beach camp in Gaza - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one has to tell me that. It's common sense. We are supplying and supporting their enemy (Israel). I'm sure we are not on their Christmas list.
> 
> 
> 
> "We regard this as a continuation of the American policy based on oppression and the shedding of Muslim and Arab bloodWe condemn the assassination and the killing of an Arab holy warrior. We ask God to offer him mercy with the true believers and the martyrs."
> 
> (Ismail Haniyeh, head of the Hamas administration in the Gaza Strip commenting on the killing of Osama Bin Laden, May 2, 2011)
Click to expand...


Somebody must have forgotten to tell them how dangerous Hamas is.

They have been to Gaza several times.


----------



## expand

Indofred said:


> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, there is that small matter of Israeli nuclear weapons but Obama might be just stupid enough to try it anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, are you saying Israel's US supplied nuclear weapons would be a threat to America if the US stopped support for Israel?
Click to expand...


It was France that supplied Israel with the technological know-how required to assemble a nuclear weapon. The U.S. was completely against their nuclear ambitions.


----------



## Polk

RetiredGySgt said:


> Lets see. Support Hamas, a known terror organization that lobs missiles, mortars and rockets indiscriminately into civilian targets. SPECIFICALLY targeting schools, day care centers , civilian bus lines, shopping centers , pizza parlors and the like. They use civilian tenement buildings , school yards and hospitals to launch their attacks from. For the sole purpose of using the dead civilians they got killed as publicity fodder. A group supported by Iran. Great plan.



There is a lot of things to be critical of Hamas for, but it's highly misleading to say they're targeting anything with the "rockets" and "missiles". The things are basically glorified grenade launchers.


----------



## MHunterB

Polk said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lets see. Support Hamas, a known terror organization that lobs missiles, mortars and rockets indiscriminately into civilian targets. SPECIFICALLY targeting schools, day care centers , civilian bus lines, shopping centers , pizza parlors and the like. They use civilian tenement buildings , school yards and hospitals to launch their attacks from. For the sole purpose of using the dead civilians they got killed as publicity fodder. A group supported by Iran. Great plan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is a lot of things to be critical of Hamas for, but it's highly misleading to say they're targeting anything with the "rockets" and "missiles". The things are basically glorified grenade launchers.
Click to expand...


And the use of such missiles towards anything BUT a totally military area, contitutes terrorism and crimes against humanity.  Even AI has acknowledged that intentional choice by HAMAS as being illegal and unlawful and criminal.

They ARE 'targeting' something:  they are 'targeting' Israel.  The entire nation, every last one of its citizens (including the 20% or so who are Arab Muslims).


----------



## Polk

MHunterB said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lets see. Support Hamas, a known terror organization that lobs missiles, mortars and rockets indiscriminately into civilian targets. SPECIFICALLY targeting schools, day care centers , civilian bus lines, shopping centers , pizza parlors and the like. They use civilian tenement buildings , school yards and hospitals to launch their attacks from. For the sole purpose of using the dead civilians they got killed as publicity fodder. A group supported by Iran. Great plan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is a lot of things to be critical of Hamas for, but it's highly misleading to say they're targeting anything with the "rockets" and "missiles". The things are basically glorified grenade launchers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the use of such missiles towards anything BUT a totally military area, contitutes terrorism and crimes against humanity.  Even AI has acknowledged that intentional choice by HAMAS as being illegal and unlawful and criminal.
> 
> They ARE 'targeting' something:  they are 'targeting' Israel.  The entire nation, every last one of its citizens (including the 20% or so who are Arab Muslims).
Click to expand...


I don't disagree with any of those points, but I felt the need to comment on this idea that they're precision strikes.


----------



## MHunterB

A, I hadn't inferred that those were 'precision' strikes.  Altough it's known tha tHAMAS made a specific effort to hit a school bus travelling in the Negev, which is how one boy was killed recently.

It IS quite true that crowded civilian venues were chosen for "suicide" bomb attacks.  The attack on the Dietzengoff (?sp) Center was timed so that hundreds of young Israeli children would be in there (it's a shopping center) during Purim - the holiday when Jewish kids do a 'trick-or-treat' thing.

So we can see that, although the nature of such weapons is 'indiscriminate' - there certainly has been time and effort put in by HAMAS and PFLP and others to try to kill Israeli civilians, particularly children.  Certainly nobody hijacks a full school bus if they are trying to AVOID killing children.


----------



## RoccoR

Polk, RetiredGySgt, _et al,_

This is very dependent on which rocket system is being used.  Lately, some of the rockets were of the Iranian type Fajr-5 [range of about 75 km].

Short News Article:  [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UPWWzOS82rA]Iran : Supplying FAJR-5 Missiles to Hamas Terrorist in their secret war with Israel (Nov 19, 2012) - YouTube[/ame]  Well worth the minute and a half it takes to watch.

This is a little more sophisticated than just a grenade launchers.



Polk said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lets see. Support Hamas, a known terror organization that lobs missiles, mortars and rockets indiscriminately into civilian targets. SPECIFICALLY targeting schools, day care centers , civilian bus lines, shopping centers , pizza parlors and the like. They use civilian tenement buildings , school yards and hospitals to launch their attacks from. For the sole purpose of using the dead civilians they got killed as publicity fodder. A group supported by Iran. Great plan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is a lot of things to be critical of Hamas for, but it's highly misleading to say they're targeting anything with the "rockets" and "missiles". The things are basically glorified grenade launchers.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

It is a 333mm Rocket, a bit bigger than the 122mm fire I experienced in Vietnam and Baghdad.  And the 122mm is scary enough to most people.  But like the 122mm, it is not much more than a MRL banket or indiscriminate indirect barrage fire weapon with little targeting capacity beyond a large target box.  It is scary if it lands anywhere near you.

In an asymmetrical format, the use of such a weapon is to impart fear, not casualties, although if fired into a densely populated area it can do both.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## RandallFlagg

RoccoR said:


> Polk, RetiredGySgt, _et al,_
> 
> This is very dependent on which rocket system is being used.  Lately, some of the rockets were of the Iranian type Fajr-5 [range of about 75 km].
> 
> Short News Article:  Iran : Supplying FAJR-5 Missiles to Hamas Terrorist in their secret war with Israel (Nov 19, 2012) - YouTube  Well worth the minute and a half it takes to watch.
> 
> This is a little more sophisticated than just a grenade launchers.
> 
> 
> 
> Polk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lets see. Support Hamas, a known terror organization that lobs missiles, mortars and rockets indiscriminately into civilian targets. SPECIFICALLY targeting schools, day care centers , civilian bus lines, shopping centers , pizza parlors and the like. They use civilian tenement buildings , school yards and hospitals to launch their attacks from. For the sole purpose of using the dead civilians they got killed as publicity fodder. A group supported by Iran. Great plan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is a lot of things to be critical of Hamas for, but it's highly misleading to say they're targeting anything with the "rockets" and "missiles". The things are basically glorified grenade launchers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> It is a 333mm Rocket, a bit bigger than the 122mm fire I experienced in Vietnam and Baghdad.  And the 122mm is scary enough to most people.  But like the 122mm, it is not much more than a MRL banket or indiscriminate indirect barrage fire weapon with little targeting capacity beyond a large target box.  It is scary if it lands anywhere near you.
> 
> In an asymmetrical format, the use of such a weapon is to impart fear, not casualties, although if fired into a densely populated area it can do both.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


Thank you! I don't really understand the math of artillery (I was a mere infantryman), but I have been fired on with RPGs. These rockets, while not terribly accurate are a great deal more powerful than RPGs. 

And, I might add, the logic is still flawed. What if Mexico or Canada began lobbing rockets at us? Would our allies claim that "it's nothing to get upset over! These things aren't really accurate and they do little damage?"

My support of Israel will never wane. My Bible and my faith command me to support Israel. I know, and realize, that that is a proposition that many of you on this forum simply cannot fathom. That's fine. I will live with the consequences of my faith and some of you will live with the consequences of yours.


----------



## RoccoR

expand, Indofred, Lumpy 1,  _et al,_

Israel holds a nuclear weapons ambiguous status.  It's history is very mixed.



expand said:


> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, there is that small matter of Israeli nuclear weapons but Obama might be just stupid enough to try it anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, are you saying Israel's US supplied nuclear weapons would be a threat to America if the US stopped support for Israel?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was France that supplied Israel with the technological know-how required to assemble a nuclear weapon. The U.S. was completely against their nuclear ambitions.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

You almost have it right.

It was the Israelis that showed the French how to do it.  The Israelis had the brain power and the French had the money and resources.  They collaborated.  I wrote extensively in another thread on this subject.  But the French and the Israelis did their initial weapons testing together in the Algerian Desert.  And it was the French that helped bring the Israeli reactors on line (initially).

The US actually did not want the Israelis to have the weapon, but instead, wanted to maintain a balance of power in the region.  But the Israelis successfully came up with some weapons grade material (read about the Apollo Affair) and the US was very concerned that if the Israelis did deploy their first weapons, a US fingerprint would be all over it.

Most Respectfully,
R

*References:*

http://www.nps.edu/Academics/centers/CCC/conferences/recent/ProlifPathways/Israeli Nukes.pdf
http://berkeleyjournalofsocialsciences.com/March4.pdf
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/israel/documents/reveal/01-01.htm 
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/israel/documents/reveal/02-01.htm
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/israel/documents/reveal/03-01.htm
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/israel/documents/reveal/04-01.htm
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/israel/documents/reveal/06-01.htm
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/israel/documents/reveal/07-01.htm
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/israel/documents/reveal/08-01.htm
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/israel/documents/reveal/09-01.htm
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/israel/documents/reveal/10-01.htm
http://docs.nrdc.org/nuclear/files/nuc_10149601a_174.pdf
*Note:* _These are all multiple page documents that require manual paging._​

Marcoule Nuclear Site  Marcoule site - AREVA
Atoms for Peace Program  Atoms for Peace - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Israeli Research Reactor at Soreq  About Us
Apollo Affair  Zalman Shapiro - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Nuclear Weapons test in Algeria (Sahara Desert) Israel's Nuclear Weapons
EL-102 Reactor in Dimona  Nuclear weapons and Israel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Israeli Nuclear Weapons and Research Program Israeli Nuclear Threats and Blackmail


----------



## eots

RandallFlagg said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Polk, RetiredGySgt, _et al,_
> 
> This is very dependent on which rocket system is being used.  Lately, some of the rockets were of the Iranian type Fajr-5 [range of about 75 km].
> 
> Short News Article:  Iran : Supplying FAJR-5 Missiles to Hamas Terrorist in their secret war with Israel (Nov 19, 2012) - YouTube  Well worth the minute and a half it takes to watch.
> 
> This is a little more sophisticated than just a grenade launchers.
> 
> 
> 
> Polk said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is a lot of things to be critical of Hamas for, but it's highly misleading to say they're targeting anything with the "rockets" and "missiles". The things are basically glorified grenade launchers.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> It is a 333mm Rocket, a bit bigger than the 122mm fire I experienced in Vietnam and Baghdad.  And the 122mm is scary enough to most people.  But like the 122mm, it is not much more than a MRL banket or indiscriminate indirect barrage fire weapon with little targeting capacity beyond a large target box.  It is scary if it lands anywhere near you.
> 
> In an asymmetrical format, the use of such a weapon is to impart fear, not casualties, although if fired into a densely populated area it can do both.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you! I don't really understand the math of artillery (I was a mere infantryman), but I have been fired on with RPGs. These rockets, while not terribly accurate are a great deal more powerful than RPGs.
> 
> And, I might add, the logic is still flawed. What if Mexico or Canada began lobbing rockets at us? Would our allies claim that "it's nothing to get upset over! These things aren't really accurate and they do little damage?"
> 
> My support of Israel will never wane. My Bible and my faith command me to support Israel. I know, and realize, that that is a proposition that many of you on this forum simply cannot fathom. That's fine. I will live with the consequences of my faith and some of you will live with the consequences of yours.
Click to expand...


what would you do if a Canadian or a Mexican came to your door and told you at gun point the house you live in and the land your family has lived on for hundreds of years was  now theirs because..your god said so..?


----------



## eots

and where in _your book _does it say you are to support the secular state of Israel without question ??


----------



## flacaltenn

Indofred said:


> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would no more expect Israel to sit at the table with Hamas than I would expect the US, even under Obama, to sit at the table with Al-Queda.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wouldn't be all that surprised if there was an Al-Queda weenie sucking tour by Obama...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps you can explain how that is anything to do with the question laid out in the OP.
> I'm serious, America's enemies are almost all down to American intervention, in the middle east, all of them down to intervention in Israel.
> 
> If the US stopped funding Israel, all those enemies would disappear, almost overnight.
Click to expand...


The only thing keeping the Arabs from destroying EACH OTHER is the conflict with Israel and the Great Satan. You act as tho peace and stability would bloom in that region if we withdrew support from Israel and let the Arabs drive them out. Far from it -- they have little respect for EACH OTHER. 

To understand the stalemate over Palestine -- you only need to read the King of Jordan describe in his OWN WORDS --- why he threw the Palestinians and the West Bank under the bus. After all -- the West Bank WAS part of Jordan when it was taken. 

Within a couple years of the loss of the West Bank -- Palestinians were commandeering army vehicles and driving into Amman and otherwise wrecking havoc with the Kings' peaceful and prosperous Kingdom. He cut them loose -- renounced any claim to the West Bank -- and washed his hands of the entire affair. At a HUGE loss of good agricultural and developed land. 

*THAT is why I can't accept your proposal in the OP* Because even the King of Jordan found this Arab faction to be unreasonable and disruptive.

Seems like INSTABILITY is inherent in the culture and we will never understand how different the value system is between us and the radical Arab populace. They don't VALUE education, stability, and infrastructure or commerce the same way. And they are willing to be bombed backed into the Stone Age on principles..


----------



## flacaltenn

P F Tinmore said:


> zakdavis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not since 1922.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I'm looking at it, but I don't see a country called Palestine. I see a lot of compromise offered, but blown off and war declared instead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Over 100 countries at the UN just recognized Palestine as an already existing state.
Click to expand...


Not true.. They were given "observer status". An option that COULD be given to any STATELESS recognized faction.


----------



## eots

flacaltenn said:


> indofred said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> i wouldn't be all that surprised if there was an al-queda weenie sucking tour by obama...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> perhaps you can explain how that is anything to do with the question laid out in the op.
> I'm serious, america's enemies are almost all down to american intervention, in the middle east, all of them down to intervention in israel.
> 
> If the us stopped funding israel, all those enemies would disappear, almost overnight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the only thing keeping the arabs from destroying each other is the conflict with israel and the great satan. You act as tho peace and stability would bloom in that region if we withdrew support from israel and let the arabs drive them out. Far from it -- they have little respect for each other.
> 
> To understand the stalemate over palestine -- you only need to read the king of jordan describe in his own words --- why he threw the palestinians and the west bank under the bus. After all -- the west bank was part of jordan when it was taken.
> 
> Within a couple years of the loss of the west bank -- palestinians were commandeering army vehicles and driving into amman and otherwise wrecking havoc with the kings' peaceful and prosperous kingdom. He cut them loose -- renounced any claim to the west bank -- and washed his hands of the entire affair. At a huge loss of good agricultural and developed land.
> 
> *that is why i can't accept your proposal in the op* because even the king of jordan found this arab faction to be unreasonable and disruptive.
> 
> Seems like instability is inherent in the culture and we will never understand how different the value system is between us and the radical arab populace. They don't value education, stability, and infrastructure or commerce the same way. And they are willing to be bombed backed into the stone age on principles..
Click to expand...



wow ...what a load of bullshit


----------



## RoccoR

RandallFlagg,  _et al,_

Let there be no mistake about what I am saying.



RandallFlagg said:


> Thank you! I don't really understand the math of artillery (I was a mere infantryman), but I have been fired on with RPGs. These rockets, while not terribly accurate are a great deal more powerful than RPGs.
> 
> And, I might add, the logic is still flawed. What if Mexico or Canada began lobbing rockets at us? Would our allies claim that "it's nothing to get upset over! These things aren't really accurate and they do little damage?"
> 
> My support of Israel will never wane. My Bible and my faith command me to support Israel. I know, and realize, that that is a proposition that many of you on this forum simply cannot fathom. That's fine. I will live with the consequences of my faith and some of you will live with the consequences of yours.


*(COMMENT)*

There is essentially NO comparison to a tradition enemy RPG-7 _[or B-40 (Vietnam era)] _series weapon.  The Fajr-5 (usually fired in a volley of 4) has anywhere between a 90kg and 175kg HE warhead.  An RPG will have less than a 5kg warhead.

No, you are absolutely correct, these are very dangerous.  BUT, what we're talking about is the ability to accurately hit a target at the optimum range.  You are more likely to hit a target with an RPG-7 (50% chance at 200m) than you are with a Fajr-5 (15%- chance at 70km).

While an RPG-7 can takeout one or two rooms in a building, a Fajr-5 can totally demolish a multi-story building (average house) with some collateral damage all around.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## MHunterB

"what would you do if a Canadian or a Mexican came to your door and told you at gun point the house you live in and the land your family has lived on for hundreds of years was now theirs because..your god said so..?"

Thar's entirely inaccurate and inadequare as an analogy for past history.  For one thing, many of the 'houses' were not owned by those families - and were legally purchased from their owners.  And that 'analogy' is also flawed because it ignores a whole slew of third parties and their actions.


----------



## flacaltenn

eots said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> indofred said:
> 
> 
> 
> perhaps you can explain how that is anything to do with the question laid out in the op.
> I'm serious, america's enemies are almost all down to american intervention, in the middle east, all of them down to intervention in israel.
> 
> If the us stopped funding israel, all those enemies would disappear, almost overnight.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the only thing keeping the arabs from destroying each other is the conflict with israel and the great satan. You act as tho peace and stability would bloom in that region if we withdrew support from israel and let the arabs drive them out. Far from it -- they have little respect for each other.
> 
> To understand the stalemate over palestine -- you only need to read the king of jordan describe in his own words --- why he threw the palestinians and the west bank under the bus. After all -- the west bank was part of jordan when it was taken.
> 
> Within a couple years of the loss of the west bank -- palestinians were commandeering army vehicles and driving into amman and otherwise wrecking havoc with the kings' peaceful and prosperous kingdom. He cut them loose -- renounced any claim to the west bank -- and washed his hands of the entire affair. At a huge loss of good agricultural and developed land.
> 
> *that is why i can't accept your proposal in the op* because even the king of jordan found this arab faction to be unreasonable and disruptive.
> 
> Seems like instability is inherent in the culture and we will never understand how different the value system is between us and the radical arab populace. They don't value education, stability, and infrastructure or commerce the same way. And they are willing to be bombed backed into the stone age on principles..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> wow ...what a load of bullshit
Click to expand...


Really? What part? That the West Bank belonged to Jordan -- not the Palestinians? Or that King of Jordan essentially washed his hands of the Palestinians after he tired of them disrupting his Kingdom? 

Or is it the observation that a Middle East WITHOUT Israel would be anything but peaceful and stable? How many Arabs killed in Iran-Iraq war? The invasion of Kuwait? And that's just the MOST recent history.


----------



## flacaltenn

From the website of the King of Jordan EOTS -----
\


> Jordan - History - Disengagement from the West Bank
> 
> 
> Consequently, in December 1948, a group of Palestinian leaders and notables from the West Bank convened a historic conference in Jericho, where they called for King Abdullah to take immediate steps to unite the two banks of the Jordan into a single state under his leadership.
> 
> On April 11, 1950, elections were held for a new Jordanian parliament in which the Palestinian Arabs of the West Bank were equally represented. Thirteen days later, Parliament unanimously approved a motion to unite the two banks of the Jordan River, constitutionally expanding the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan in order to safeguard what was left of the Arab territory of Palestine from further Zionist expansion.
> 
> The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan now included nearly one and a half million people, more than half a million of whom were refugees evicted from Jewish-occupied Palestine. All automatically became citizens of Jordan, a right that had first been offered in December 1949 to all Palestinians who wished to claim it. Although the Arab League opposed this plan, and no other Arab government followed Jordan&#8217;s lead, the Hashemite Kingdom offered the possibility of normal life for many people who would have otherwise remained stateless refugees.
> 
> 
> When the final UN cease-fire was imposed on June 11, Israel stood in possession of a wide swath of Arab land, including the Egyptian Sinai, Syria&#8217;s Golan Heights, and, most significantly, what remained of Arab Palestine&#8212;the West Bank, including Arab East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip.
> 
> Of the states participating in the conflict, Jordan paid by far the heaviest price. As a result of the war, more than 300,000 Palestinian Arabs became refugees and fled to Jordan. For many of them, this was the second uprooting in less than two decades, having been driven from their original homes in 1948. Jordan&#8217;s economy was also devastated. About 70% of Jordan&#8217;s agricultural land was located in the West Bank, which produced 60 to 65% of its fruits and vegetables. Half of the Kingdom&#8217;s industrial establishments were located in the West Bank, while the loss of Jerusalem and other religious sites devastated the tourism industry. Altogether, areas now occupied by Israel had accounted for approximately 38% of Jordan&#8217;s gross national product.
> 
> *The partnership with the Palestinians desired by King Hussein fell apart in September, 1970. The pervasive and chaotic presence of armed Palestinian fedayeen groups who expected immunity from Jordan&#8217;s laws was leading to a state of virtual anarchy throughout the Kingdom. Moderate Palestinian leaders were unable to reign in extremist elements, who ambushed the king&#8217;s motorcade twice and perpetrated a series of spectacular hijackings. Forced to respond decisively in order to preserve his country from anarchy, King Hussein ordered the army into action.
> The situation prompted different reactions throughout the Arab world. While most leaders privately expressed sympathy with the position of King Hussein, many took a public stance in favor of the fedayeen in order to embellish their credentials as &#8220;Arab nationalists.&#8221; The conflict reached a crisis point in September when some 200 Syrian tanks, camouflaged rather unconvincingly as Palestinian Liberation Army tanks, crossed into Jordan. The Syrians were bereft of air cover, however, and Jordanian aircraft forced a Syrian retreat within three days. In a brief yet intense campaign ending in July 1971, the Jordanian army put an end to the chaotic actions of these Palestinians guerrillas in Amman.*
> 
> On July 28, 1988, King Hussein announced the cessation of a $1.3 billion development program for the West Bank, explaining that the measure was designed to allow the PLO more responsibility for the area. Two days later, he formally dissolved Parliament, ending West Bank representation in the legislature. Finally, on July 31 King Hussein announced the severance of all administrative and legal ties with the occupied West Bank. Accordingly, electoral districts were redrawn to represent East Bank constituencies only. This disengagement decision marks the turning point that launched the current democratic process, and began a new stage in Jordan&#8217;s relationship with West Bank Palestinians.


----------



## eots

flacaltenn said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> the only thing keeping the arabs from destroying each other is the conflict with israel and the great satan. You act as tho peace and stability would bloom in that region if we withdrew support from israel and let the arabs drive them out. Far from it -- they have little respect for each other.
> 
> To understand the stalemate over palestine -- you only need to read the king of jordan describe in his own words --- why he threw the palestinians and the west bank under the bus. After all -- the west bank was part of jordan when it was taken.
> 
> Within a couple years of the loss of the west bank -- palestinians were commandeering army vehicles and driving into amman and otherwise wrecking havoc with the kings' peaceful and prosperous kingdom. He cut them loose -- renounced any claim to the west bank -- and washed his hands of the entire affair. At a huge loss of good agricultural and developed land.
> 
> *that is why i can't accept your proposal in the op* because even the king of jordan found this arab faction to be unreasonable and disruptive.
> 
> Seems like instability is inherent in the culture and we will never understand how different the value system is between us and the radical arab populace. They don't value education, stability, and infrastructure or commerce the same way. And they are willing to be bombed backed into the stone age on principles..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> wow ...what a load of bullshit
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really? What part? That the West Bank belonged to Jordan -- not the Palestinians? Or that King of Jordan essentially washed his hands of the Palestinians after he tired of them disrupting his Kingdom?
> 
> Or is it the observation that a Middle East WITHOUT Israel would be anything but peaceful and stable? How many Arabs killed in Iran-Iraq war? The invasion of Kuwait? And that's just the MOST recent history.
Click to expand...


All of it is bullshit and spin but especially this..

Seems like instability is *inherent in the culture *and we will never understand how different the value system is between us and the radical arab populace*. They don't value education, stability, and infrastructure or commerce the same way*


----------



## eots

who has Iran ever invaded ?


----------



## eots

who has Afghanistan ever invaded ?


----------



## RoccoR

MHunterB,  _et al,_

I had heard something to this effect when I was in the Middle East.  I was having coffee with a Egyptian couple.  But I've not seen anything written about it.



MHunterB said:


> "what would you do if a Canadian or a Mexican came to your door and told you at gun point the house you live in and the land your family has lived on for hundreds of years was now theirs because..your god said so..?"
> 
> Thar's entirely inaccurate and inadequare as an analogy for past history.  For one thing, many of the 'houses' were not owned by those families - and were legally purchased from their owners.  And that 'analogy' is also flawed because it ignores a whole slew of third parties and their actions.


*(HEARSAY)*

As I was told, the Jewish Immigrants and permanent residents in Palestine had been buying up property from the original land owners in Egypt, Jordan, and other countries, and made the property owners rich.  That many of those that claim they were evicted did not actually own the property.

Is there any truth to this?  I cannot find much on this topic.  But many Palestinians claim they owned the land.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## MHunterB

Aside from the emotion conveyed, there really is no factual information in the last few comments made by EOTS.

That makes 'discussion' rather difficult.  The only fact so far is that EOTS disagrees.....pretty well useless on its own.


----------



## eots

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=urAjTX51ebc]1953 - CIA Overthrow of Iran, Mohammed Mosaddeq - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## eots

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pbd5CTQCXto]1954, Guatemala - CIA & the United Fruit Company, Jacobo Arbenz - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## MHunterB

Rocco, you might want to look up info on JNF, the 'Jewish National Fund' - it may have had another name before the State of Israel was established.  

But yes, the earliest kibbutzim, etc were established on land which was bought by groups of Jews who had pooled their funds to set up cooperative farms.  The same, incidentally, was done in the US - small groups of people from one town or area basically emigrated to places where they could 'go back to the land'.

I was having some of this disussion earlier with another poster who presumed to inform me that 'Zionism began in the late 19th C'.    I would date the beginnings of 'Zionism' to the Babylonian Exile, which period also sees the first hints of 'Rabbinic' Judaism as the Jewish People were forced to find a way to worship YHVH withOUT a Temple and its rites.   

Whether the Exile is the beginning of Zionism or not, there certainly was a continual movement by individuals AND small groups of Jews from many places in the Diaspora to return to Zion, to Jerusalem, to Israel.

That is why in the 15th C, the town of Sfat/Safed was a center of Jewish studies - because people came there to resettle in the Holy Land.


----------



## RoccoR

eots,  _et al,_

I'll be the first to admit that US Foreign Policy and the establishment of the hegemony needs to be straightened-out.



> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> who has Iran ever invaded ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> who has Afghanistan ever invaded ?
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

The US needs to leave the Middle East and these little countries like Afghanistan all together.  We need to let them sort their own disputes out and choose their own destiny.  If they kill themselves off, so be it.  And we definitely need to keep our distance with respect to Egypt, Libya, Syria, Yemen, and any other country that wants to create another destabilized nationor failed state.

If we are so eager to nation build, we need to start at home; rebuilding our own infrastructure. 

We should never Occupy.  If we have to retaliate against one of these nations for committing or supporting a terrorist action against US interests, we should have a policy to strike, burn it to the ground, and then immediately leave --- no nation building and no foreign aid.

As a general rule, we should not render any type of aid to any country what so ever, unless they are a proven ally and not just hired allies.

Our US Foreign Policy needs to be so simple, everyone will understand it.  It can't be so complicated that it takes a Minister Counsellor to the President to explain it.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## MHunterB

"wow ...what a load of bullshit "

Aside from the emotional content there's no factual componant to this post - which makes 'discussion' rather difficult.


----------



## flacaltenn

eots said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> wow ...what a load of bullshit
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really? What part? That the West Bank belonged to Jordan -- not the Palestinians? Or that King of Jordan essentially washed his hands of the Palestinians after he tired of them disrupting his Kingdom?
> 
> Or is it the observation that a Middle East WITHOUT Israel would be anything but peaceful and stable? How many Arabs killed in Iran-Iraq war? The invasion of Kuwait? And that's just the MOST recent history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All of it is bullshit and spin but especially this..
> 
> Seems like instability is *inherent in the culture *and we will never understand how different the value system is between us and the radical arab populace*. They don't value education, stability, and infrastructure or commerce the same way*
Click to expand...


I quoted directly from the Kings' website. Take it up with Abdullah. I didn't make up official Jordanian history. 

You only have to look at recent events in Egypt to SEE the instability that is inherent. They will fight until someone consolidates enough dictatorial power to suppress the insurrections.

Our foreign policy has ALWAYS sucked since I started paying attention. Nothing being discussed here is intended to defend any of that.


----------



## eots

flacaltenn said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> really? What part? That the west bank belonged to jordan -- not the palestinians? Or that king of jordan essentially washed his hands of the palestinians after he tired of them disrupting his kingdom?
> 
> Or is it the observation that a middle east without israel would be anything but peaceful and stable? How many arabs killed in iran-iraq war? The invasion of kuwait? And that's just the most recent history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> all of it is bullshit and spin but especially this..
> 
> Seems like instability is *inherent in the culture *and we will never understand how different the value system is between us and the radical arab populace*. They don't value education, stability, and infrastructure or commerce the same way*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> i quoted directly from the kings' website. Take it up with abdullah. I didn't make up official jordanian history.
> 
> You only have to look at recent events in egypt to see the instability that is inherent. They will fight until someone consolidates enough dictatorial power to suppress the insurrections.
> 
> *our foreign policy has always sucked since i started paying attention. *nothing being discussed here is intended to defend any of that.
Click to expand...




must be something that is _inherent_ in non-arabs


----------



## flacaltenn

eots said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> all of it is bullshit and spin but especially this..
> 
> Seems like instability is *inherent in the culture *and we will never understand how different the value system is between us and the radical arab populace*. They don't value education, stability, and infrastructure or commerce the same way*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i quoted directly from the kings' website. Take it up with abdullah. I didn't make up official jordanian history.
> 
> You only have to look at recent events in egypt to see the instability that is inherent. They will fight until someone consolidates enough dictatorial power to suppress the insurrections.
> 
> *our foreign policy has always sucked since i started paying attention. *nothing being discussed here is intended to defend any of that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> must be something that is _inherent_ in non-arabs
Click to expand...


If i was jealous of the superiority of Arab foreign policy --- that might be true.


----------



## RoccoR

flacaltenn, eots, _et al,_

I must say, it is an interesting observation.



flacaltenn said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> i quoted directly from the kings' website. Take it up with abdullah. I didn't make up official jordanian history.
> 
> You only have to look at recent events in egypt to see the instability that is inherent. They will fight until someone consolidates enough dictatorial power to suppress the insurrections.
> 
> *our foreign policy has always sucked since i started paying attention. *nothing being discussed here is intended to defend any of that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> must be something that is _inherent_ in non-arabs
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If i was jealous of the superiority of Arab foreign policy --- that might be true.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

First, is there any such thing as Arab Policy _(let alone foreign policy)_?  I'm not sure that the Arab World has a single view or policy that it follows.  I believe that, absent an authoritarian government, Arab Policies follow almost small tribal lines.  

Yes, looking at Libya, Egypt, Iraq, --- yes and elsewhere --- yes I begin to appreciate the view that:  "They will fight until someone consolidates enough dictatorial power to suppress the insurrections."  *(MAO-A Gene)*

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## georgephillip

Rocco...

What's your take on the Muslim Brotherhood?

"The complexities of the Arab Spring and the struggle for political freedom throughout the Arab world should not obscure what has now become an absolutely essential understanding for all anti-imperialists: the Muslim Brotherhood is one of the most powerful weapons of the Western ruling class in the Muslim world."

Would you agree?

Unmasking the Muslim Brotherhood » Counterpunch: Tells the Facts, Names the Names


----------



## MHunterB

Shouldn't one ask what's one's take on 'Counterpunch'?

Mine is that they are promoting a Communist agenda, and doing so by continually distorting and manipulating to present the US and 'capitalism' as actually being fascist like Hitler's Nazis. 

The truth, of course, is that there's very little to choose between Fascism and Communism:  both are totalitarian rule and inimical to democracy or the US Constitution.


----------



## RoccoR

georgephillip, MHunterB, _et al,_

I like to read selected topics from "_Counterpunch_," but only as a reference.  In this case, I tend to think that the analysis is wrong.



MHunterB said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rocco...
> 
> What's your take on the Muslim Brotherhood?
> 
> "The complexities of the Arab Spring and the struggle for political freedom throughout the Arab world should not obscure what has now become an absolutely essential understanding for all anti-imperialists: the Muslim Brotherhood is one of the most powerful weapons of the Western ruling class in the Muslim world."
> 
> Would you agree?
> 
> Unmasking the Muslim Brotherhood » Counterpunch: Tells the Facts, Names the Names
> 
> 
> 
> Shouldn't one ask what's one's take on 'Counterpunch'?
> 
> Mine is that they are promoting a Communist agenda, and doing so by continually distorting and manipulating to present the US and 'capitalism' as actually being fascist like Hitler's Nazis.
> 
> The truth, of course, is that there's very little to choose between Fascism and Communism:  both are totalitarian rule and inimical to democracy or the US Constitution.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

The Muslim Brotherhood (MB) is a multifacet organization that has components within it that are separate and distinct in character; each one is evolving differently.  It is not unlike the evolution of the Hezbollah _("political" vs "armed" wings, & civic works elements)_ or the Sinn Fein _(a serious and legitimate political force today, but often better known or remembered for the once clandestine armed terrorist wing it had, the IRA)_.  And one must remember that the Jewish Independence Movements _(Herut/Irgun/Likud have a evolutionary relationship in the same way as Bar-Giora/Hashomer/Haganah)_.  My opinion is that "_Counterpunch_" it is a bit myopic in it's view of MB and the molecular way in which it is assembled now, and the way it is realigning itself into a new national power of influence.  One cannot look at MB as a homogenous organization with a single focus and common voice _(if has many facets reflecting back as you look at MB as you would a cut diamond)_.

* "Allah is our objective; the Quran is our law, the Prophet is our leader; Jihad is our way; and death for the sake of Allah is the highest of our aspirations."*​
MB is potentially a very dangerous option for the Egyptians to choose.  While MB has many aspect that are moderate in nature when it comes to Islamic Law, there are elements within the fold that have turn radical.  One of the more classic examples is the case of Doctor Ayman Mohammed Rabie al-Zawahiri, formerly a surgeon in the Egyptian Army, an Islamic theologian and current leader of the militant Islamist terrorist organization known as al-Qaeda; --- Dr al-Zawahiri is a product of MB, a member since he was a young teenager.  He is not an isolated case.   IF _(big "IF" yet very important)_ key members of the government are puppets for the MB, then the security of the Middle East region may be threatened.  The Supreme Guide of the MB, has called for a fresh jihad effort on Israel, which is not in the furtherance of peace and regional security.  And if this mentality is allowed to entangle the new Egyptian Government, it may actually cause more hardship than the average Egyptian can imagine.  They may come to regret the Arab Spring.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## arKangel

MHunterB said:


> Shouldn't one ask what's one's take on 'Counterpunch'?
> 
> Mine is that they are promoting a Communist agenda, and doing so by continually distorting and manipulating to present the US and 'capitalism' as actually being fascist like Hitler's Nazis.
> 
> The truth, of course, is that there's very little to choose between Fascism and Communism:  both are totalitarian rule and inimical to democracy or the US Constitution.



Israel is quasi-communist/fascist country.
State funded abortion, compulsory slavery to the military (unless you are a member of the elite), and clearly ethnocentric... Not exactly the land of the free.
Sounds more like a pinko paradise.

'Not saying that we should "switch sides".  We shouldn't be on any side to begin with!
America should be on it's own side.


----------



## georgephillip

Do you believe American government should side with the richest 1% or the majority of humanity?


----------



## RoccoR

georgephillip,  _et al,_

Many would argue that this is already a description of the US; whether you look at it domestically _(the influence and treatment of the upper 1% of Americans, or the connection is has with the global affluent population)_.



georgephillip said:


> Do you believe American government should side with the richest 1% or the majority of humanity?


*(COMMENT)*

Technically the US is geared to accomodate those that have access to the the Power Broker; which is the upper 1% of the affluent in America.  And _(as a general rule)_ the affluent do not mingle with the members of the poor, the struggling, or those of a lower social status unless there is some higher agenda to be served.

The majority of humanity - are people still in the lower rungs of Maslow's Ladder.  There day to day issues have virtually nothing in common with the affluent class _(less issues of the heart, love and family)_.   The affluent don't buy a car based on its utility to the family, it milage, and the cost of insurance and maintenance.  These are not their concerns.  They don't worry about their next paycheck and their credit rating. 

In the global arena, regional security is often influenced by the control exerted by the rich, powerful, and influential; which is especially true of the Middle East.  US Foreign Policy is often set to exploit these conditions.  Thus the interventionist style of diplomacy.  Unfortunately, the US connection to the Middle Eastern world _(but not exclusively to that region)_, built on exploitation, does not foster a mutual friendship between the non-influential class of people organic to the region.  It is a decision made by the influential of the US to gain and maintain more influence; and not based on providing support to the regional lower/middle class.  And because it generally disregards the impact on the regional lower/middle class, there grows an association _(as perceived by the view from the bottom)_ between the US and the various dictatorships, princes and potentates that are prominent throughout the land.

So, it becomes a matter of US Foreign Policy _(mostly a mystery to the average American)_ crafted by the rich, powerful and influential, as to how the US will interact and respond. 

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## MHunterB

Mlitary service in Israel is *not* compulsory.

Nor does state-funded abortion make it 'communist' or 'fascist'.

As for the 'clearly ehnocentric' - Israel is the only nation in the ME where the Christian population is INcreasing.   And it has taken in immigrants AND refugees from virtually every other nation in the world - including many from Africa.

Since 'arKangel's' comments are so ill-informed, I don't put much stock in its opinions.


----------



## arKangel

MHunterB said:


> Mlitary service in Israel is *not* compulsory.
> 
> Nor does state-funded abortion make it 'communist' or 'fascist'.
> 
> As for the 'clearly ehnocentric' - Israel is the only nation in the ME where the Christian population is INcreasing.   And it has taken in immigrants AND refugees from virtually every other nation in the world - including many from Africa.
> 
> Since 'arKangel's' comments are so ill-informed, I don't put much stock in its opinions.



Compulsary military service in Israel:
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2024.html


> Israel: 18 years of age for compulsory and voluntary military service; both sexes are obligated to military service



As for abortion, you do realize which country first mandated state funded abortion don't you?
It was the Soviet Union.  
Abortion has been a goal of pinko scum since the get go.

BTW,
Any of you so-called "Libertarians" who support the "right to choose...to kill babies" rhetoric do realize you are supporting communist propaganda right?

Ethnocentric Israel:
Vatican official says Israel fostering intolerance of Christianity - Telegraph


> Police inaction and an educational culture that encourages Jewish children to treat Christians with "contempt" has made life increasingly "intolerable" for many,



Franciscan official laments discrimination against Christians in Israel : News Headlines - Catholic Culture



> It's an unjust law because in the Middle East, as also in Israel, the separation of state and Church doesnt exist, and then in this very intricate identity complex it creates very strong and also unjust hardships, because its an injustice to make someone who is not a Jew declare fidelity to Jewish principles,.



Oh you zio-nutters, always telling fibs.


----------



## MHunterB

I don't know about you, but to me 'compulsory' means you get punished (fined, go to jail) if you don't participate.  That doesn't seem to be the case.

And I fail to see what the availability or funding of abotion has to do with the topic of economic paradigms.  

The 'ethnocentrism' is  still not 'established' by the sources cited, as they tend to be biased - albeit in a different direction.


----------



## georgephillip

RoccoR said:


> georgephillip,  _et al,_
> 
> Many would argue that this is already a description of the US; whether you look at it domestically _(the influence and treatment of the upper 1% of Americans, or the connection is has with the global affluent population)_.
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you believe American government should side with the richest 1% or the majority of humanity?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Technically the US is geared to accomodate those that have access to the the Power Broker; which is the upper 1% of the affluent in America.  And _(as a general rule)_ the affluent do not mingle with the members of the poor, the struggling, or those of a lower social status unless there is some higher agenda to be served.
> 
> The majority of humanity - are people still in the lower rungs of Maslow's Ladder.  There day to day issues have virtually nothing in common with the affluent class _(less issues of the heart, love and family)_.   The affluent don't buy a car based on its utility to the family, it milage, and the cost of insurance and maintenance.  These are not their concerns.  They don't worry about their next paycheck and their credit rating.
> 
> In the global arena, regional security is often influenced by the control exerted by the rich, powerful, and influential; which is especially true of the Middle East.  US Foreign Policy is often set to exploit these conditions.  Thus the interventionist style of diplomacy.  Unfortunately, the US connection to the Middle Eastern world _(but not exclusively to that region)_, built on exploitation, does not foster a mutual friendship between the non-influential class of people organic to the region.  It is a decision made by the influential of the US to gain and maintain more influence; and not based on providing support to the regional lower/middle class.  And because it generally disregards the impact on the regional lower/middle class, there grows an association _(as perceived by the view from the bottom)_ between the US and the various dictatorships, princes and potentates that are prominent throughout the land.
> 
> So, it becomes a matter of US Foreign Policy _(mostly a mystery to the average American)_ crafted by the rich, powerful and influential, as to how the US will interact and respond.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

Rocco:

At the end of WWII, some elite planners in the US State Department pondered how much time the average American spent thinking about foreign policy issues. As I understand the story, their conclusion was about ten minutes a day; today, those ten minutes are probably diminished by multi-tasking.

I don't see how the 99% of Americans being victimized by today's plutocracy change anything by "choosing" between Democrat OR Republican in the voting booth since both major parties depend on the 1% to fund their campaigns.

Possibly, when the next economic crisis CRASHES the US Economy loudly enough to focus our attention the same way 911 did, enough of us will see the revolutionary force that Capitalism becomes after it emasculates government.

Do you have any thoughts on which side of that class conflict elites in the US military will side with?


----------



## MHunterB

George, would yu like to explain a few things?

1) what are you imagining as 'the next economic crisis' ?

2)revolutionary force?

3) 'class conflict' 

The US military *knows* it is never supposed to take political sides.  All the veterans of that military know so as well.  I very much doubt there would be any 'unified' response from our military to any poitical or economic situation.

And none of that has anything whatsoever to do with 'supporting Israel' so far as you've posted.


----------



## georgephillip

MHunterB said:


> George, would yu like to explain a few things?
> 
> 1) what are you imagining as 'the next economic crisis' ?
> 
> 2)revolutionary force?
> 
> 3) 'class conflict'
> 
> The US military *knows* it is never supposed to take political sides.  All the veterans of that military know so as well.  I very much doubt there would be any 'unified' response from our military to any poitical or economic situation.
> 
> And none of that has anything whatsoever to do with 'supporting Israel' so far as you've posted.


*Marge...possibly a 90% "correction" in the US stock market?*

"Despite the 6.5% stock market rally over the last three months, a handful of billionaires are quietly dumping their American stocks . . . and fast.

"Warren Buffett, who has been a cheerleader for U.S. stocks for quite some time, is dumping shares at an alarming rate. He recently complained of '*disappointing performance*' in dyed-in-the-wool American companies like Johnson & Johnson, Procter & Gamble, and Kraft Foods.

"In the latest filing for Buffett&#8217;s holding company Berkshire Hathaway, Buffett has been drastically reducing his exposure to stocks that depend on consumer purchasing habits. Berkshire sold roughly 19 million shares of Johnson & Johnson, and reduced his overall stake in 'consumer product stocks' by 21%. Berkshire Hathaway also sold its entire stake in California-based computer parts supplier Intel.

"With 70% of the U.S. economy dependent on consumer spending, Buffett&#8217;s apparent lack of faith in these companies&#8217; future prospects is worrisome."

Billionaires Dumping Stocks, Economist Knows Why 

For generations, US investors needed a potent US middle class to provide the goods and services and drive 79% of US GDP with their purchases. Since US investors now have a much larger middle class rising in Brazil, India, and China, I look for continuing stagnation and decline for 90% of Americans.

Pentagon elites are among the richest 10% of Americans with some among the richest 1%.
I don't think they are likely to value "democracy" more than their lifestyle.

Supporting Israel has always had more to do with subsidizing US arms sales to the Jewish State with US tax dollars. If Wiedemer is correct (again) about the coming "correction", the Pentagon isn't going to be able to borrow enough money to subsidize the Jewish State or wage war on the opposite side of the globe, and yet the US economy will still be addicted to war and fraud.

What do you think will happen?


----------

