How to get your F35 fighters for free

[P4man]

Perhaps you are suggesting we look back a few hundred years in American history as well, see who exactly started what, and who is entitled to what land ? That could be fun. Im sure you'd feel any gang of recently immigrated Hispanics is entitled to bulldozer your neighborhood, expel all US citizens from the region, plant a Spanish flag and build a settlement on your land. With the blessing of the pope of course.

That is, until native americans come along.

Im quite aware of Israels history, but you have failed to explain how going back 60 or 2000 years changes international law or human rights today. If historical events do change that somehow, tell me how and we can discuss ancient history.

 

[EagleKeeper]

P4man

At what point should Israel have rolled over and surrendered?

 

[JEDIYoda]

P4man

At what point should Israel have rolled over and surrendered?

Pull up a chair and grabs a bag of popcorn and a nice cool glass of Gingerale, turns on the 102 inch plasma TV and waits for the answer to this most provacative question......
BTW has anybody seen P4man...............

 

[P4man]

P4man

At what point should Israel have rolled over and surrendered?

Have you read and understood anything I wrote?

Your question is as nonsensical as asking how a West bank farmer that already lost his land and house to Israeli settlers should surrender even more, or what more a gaza child that lost a leg and both parents should do to stop being attacked.

 

[Freshgeardude]

Perhaps you are suggesting we look back a few hundred years in American history as well, see who exactly started what, and who is entitled to what land ? That could be fun. Im sure you'd feel any gang of recently immigrated Hispanics is entitled to bulldozer your neighborhood, expel all US citizens from the region, plant a Spanish flag and build a settlement on your land. With the blessing of the pope of course.

That is, until native americans come along.

Im quite aware of Israels history, but you have failed to explain how going back 60 or 2000 years changes international law or human rights today. If historical events do change that somehow, tell me how and we can discuss ancient history.

lol you cant compare the history of the US and Israel, because they are completely different.

according to modern day law, what the colonies did was illegal

but no one is going after them


with israel, they were given land by the UN after already having LEGAL settlements, bought during the british rule of the land.


I am not asking to go back 1000 years. I do not think land won in battles 2000 years ago matters today. I am asking to go back to the late 1800s, a little more than 100 years when jews started to move to the land, bought it legally, prospered, and dealt with jealous arab neighbors who started to attack the jewish settlements, causing the jews of the time to create groups like the Haganah (defense in hebrew) and sub divisions of such.

 

[EagleKeeper]

P4man

At what point should Israel have rolled over and surrendered?

Have you read and understood anything I wrote?

Your question is as nonsensical as asking how a West bank farmer that already lost his land and house to Israeli settlers should surrender even more, or what more a gaza child that lost a leg and both parents should do to stop being attacked.

You are stating that Israel should give the Palestinians everything that is being asked for.

Yet the Arabs/Palestinians have always asked for Israel to give it up.

And you have the "elected" leadership of the Palestinians wanting the destruction of Israel.

So back to my question.

When should have Israel given into the demands? And do you think those demands, if not all encompassing, will stop?

As as a bonus question; why the '67 borders - what is so special about them?
All of the other Palestinian supporters duck these hard questions - will you do the same?

 

[P4man]

lol you cant compare the history of the US and Israel, because they are completely different..

Good point :whiste:
But the analogy isnt even that far fetched. Most of the extremist settlers are recent immigrants coming from all over the world, Russia, India, the US, many of them with no traceable roots to the region for centuries. Yet they claim land that Palestenians can document has been theirs and their families for 10 generations. Id say that compares rather well with a Mexican immigrant claiming your land based on Spanish roots. Or just race.

according to modern day law, what the colonies did was illegal
but no one is going after them

Actually, those laws didnt exist back then, so it wasnt illegal, at most immoral. What Israel is doing today is both immoral and illegal. Are you still disputing that, or merely arguing why its okay for them to break international laws?

with israel, they were given land by the UN after already having LEGAL settlements, bought during the british rule of the land.

Have a look what land was given to them, and have a look at the map today. Let me help:

Does that look like a 2 state solution even still makes any sense?

I am asking to go back to the late 1800s, a little more than 100 years when jews started to move to the land, bought it legally, prospered, and dealt with jealous arab neighbors who started to attack the jewish settlements, causing the jews of the time to create groups like the Haganah (defense in hebrew) and sub divisions of such

There is that word defense again. I love how that seems to have reversed its meaning somehow in the last century. Stern group was also defense I assume, like when they drove a truck of explosive in to a British police station or when they mined railroads killing dozens. And some think its Arabs that invented terrorism.

Regardless, look at the map above, no one is buying that land. And even if it was bought, if I buy land in the US, it might be my land, but its still US territory and its not suddenly governed by Chinese or Australian law. I cant annex it.

 

[P4man]

You are stating that Israel should give the Palestinians everything that is being asked for.

Yet the Arabs/Palestinians have always asked for Israel to give it up.

And you have the "elected" leadership of the Palestinians wanting the destruction of Israel.

So back to my question.

When should have Israel given into the demands? And do you think those demands, if not all encompassing, will stop?

As as a bonus question; why the '67 borders - what is so special about them?
All of the other Palestinian supporters duck these hard questions - will you do the same?

Hard questions? They are rather nonsensical questions. Which demands are you talking about? If you mean UN demands, the list is pretty damn long, but Id say Israel should have complied with each of those before those resolutions where even voted. The only reason they were voted was because Israel was already violating Geneva conventions. Some countries get hit by sanctions (and invasions) for far less.

Will 'they' stop? I dont know even know what that means, if you mean if no demands will be made (by who?) beyond whats demanded by international LAW and the UN, well, at this point, who really cares? The reality is so incredibly far from your hypothetical that I cant even begin to imagine a situation where Israel actually complies, let alone what other demands could be made on top of that. I dont think any Palestenian can either.

As for why the 67 borders; good question. One may wonder why not the 1948 borders. Frankly it doesnt matter. What point is there in discussing these borders when in reality the borders arent anywhere close and there isnt even the slightest chance of Isreal receding to anything like those borders. Its almost like discussing the German-Polish borders in 1943 when Germany had extended its reach from Moscow to North Africa.

 

[Lemon law]

Common Courtesy, in all due respects, you are out of your mind if you are complaining about Israel giving up anything. All that Israel is being asked to do is quit grubbing more.

To start out, in 1948, Israel was given the right to form a government and govern a part of the former British mandate of Palestine, As Israeli leaders promised to grant equal rights to ALL JEWISH AND NON JEWISH inhabitants. When the surrounding Arab States defied the UN and attacked Israel, Israel used that as an excuse to disenfranchise and steal all Palestinian land regardless if the individual Palestinians regardless if they fought on the Arab side or not. Its called illegal collective punishment but net result, chaching, a 60% of all the land in Israel gain for only Jews. That goes by the name of the right to return and is an issue that has not and never will go away.

Then in 1967&73, Israel illegally gained more land by military conquest, land that by UN doctrine Israel cannot ever own or claim. Yet Israel continues to settle upon those lands under the assumption they can claim it anyway.

At least in my mind, Israel has only gained gained and gained land it does not legally own, and existing peace deals will retain some of what Israel illegally stole, can only be a regarded as a net gain for Israel post 1948, but can only be formalized by inking an internationally approved deal.

Yet the Israeli hopes can only be summed up as they plan to retain all they illegally stole post 1948, maybe validating your claim that Israel must give something they never owned back. To start out a very risky strategy for Israel, because my guess is that the Israeli negotiating position will only get weaker in the future as Israeli pisses off more and more nations by its greed and destabilizing influences in the mid-east. And if it ever comes to binding third party arbitration, Israel will lose a lot more than the deal offered now. As Israel may go the same way as that other apartheid State of South Africa whose piggish greed wagon got fixed with an international economic embargo.

This only 2010, and for 43 years the world has waited and waited and waited for Israel and the Palestinians to ink a deal, ya we all know the Israeli propaganda line, its all the Palestinians fault, the problem for Israel is that the Israeli propaganda line credibility is becoming more dubious by the day.

And at some point, almost everyone in the world will realize that Israel is like the thief that robbed a bank, and now has the chutzpah to demand to retain all of what it stole.
And instead may realize what all logic dictates, they lose 100% of what they stole and
then get further punished for illegally robbing the bank.

I should also point out, right now, all that is saving the butt of Israel is the veto of the USA in the security council. As Israel and Apac demand the USA ask not we they can do for the USA and instead what the USA can do for Israel. But now two factors come into play. The price for the US one sided support of Israel is likely to become far far more expensive at exactly at a time when US economy is declining. Secondly, the US blew all its international cred in starting wars in Afghanistan and Iraq on the cheap and incompetent, and if both Iraq and Afghanistan do not end well, the international community will have to start dope slapping American imperialism.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Should Israel even fought back in '48?

Should they have fought back in '67?

Should they have fought back in '73?

Should Israel just accept the rocket and suicide bombers that the Palestinians sent in?

When Egypt and Jordan dumped the Gaza and West Bank; should Israel have refused to take control of such land?

Any theories why Jordan and Egypt did not want those areas of responsibility? They were assigned those area by the UN to oversee.

Why penalize Israel for what the proper legal land holders did not want.
The Palestinians are a group of peple that no one wants responsibility for and they themselves are not responsbile enough to make it on their own. So you want to penalize those that were assigned by default, yet ignoring those that are held responsible by the courts.

As shown in the WikiLeaks - the Palestinians are their own worst enemy. Egypt does not want anything to do with them and Israel has indicated that they are willing to concede much of what is requested (again).

But the Palestinians can not make up their minds if they want to be a state.

Isarel gets these weapon systems for trying to work things out; the Palestinians get a state if they want to work things out.

There will be no state in a year or 5 years. Because the Palestinians do not want one and be responsbile for it.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Common Courtesy, in all due respects, you are out of your mind if you are complaining about Israel giving up anything. All that Israel is being asked to do is quite grubbing more.

To start out, in 1948, Israel was given the right to form a government and govern a part of the former British mandate of Palestine, As Israeli leaders promised to grant equal rights to ALL JEWISH AND NON JEWISH inhabitants. When the surrounding Arab States defied the UN and attacked Israel, Israel used that as an excuse to disenfranchise and steal all Palestinian land regardless if the individual Palestinians regardless if they fought on the Arab side or not. Its called illegal collective punishment but net result, chaching, a 60% of all the land in Israel gain for only Jews. That goes by the name of the right to return and is an issue that has not and never will go away.

Then in 1967&73, Israel illegally gained more land by military conquest, land that by UN doctrine Israel cannot ever own or claim. Yet Israel continues to settle upon those lands under the assumption they can claim it anyway.

At least in my mind, Israel has only gained gained and gained land it does not legally own, and existing peace deals will retain some of what Israel illegally stole, can only be a regarded as a net gain for Israel post 1948, but can only be formalized by inking an internationally approved deal.

Yet the Israeli hopes can only be summed up as they plan to retain all they illegally stole post 1948, maybe validating your claim that Israel must give something they never owned back. To start out a very risky strategy for Israel, because my guess is that the Israeli negotiating position will only get weaker in the future as Israeli pisses off more and more nations by its greed and destabilizing influences in the mid-east. And if it ever comes to binding third party arbitration, Israel will lose a lot more than the deal offered now. As Israel may go the same way as that other apartheid State of South Africa whose piggish greed wagon got fixed with an international economic embargo.

This only 2010, and for 43 years the world has waited and waited and waited for Israel and the Palestinians to ink a deal, ya we all know the Israeli propaganda line, its all the Palestinians fault, the problem for Israel is that the Israeli propaganda line credibility is becoming more dubious by the day.

And at some point, almost everyone in the world will realize that Israel is like the thief that robbed a bank, and now has the chutzpah to demand to retain all of what it stole.
And instead may realize what all logic dictates, they lose 100% of what they stole and
then get further punished for illegally robbing the bank.

Israel never took the land from the Palestinians. It was land handed over to Israel by Jordan and Egypt without any conditions.

Egypt and Jordan abdicated their responsibility and force the humanitarian issue of control of those areas. why did not the UN force Jordan and Egypt to take those areas back.

If the Palestinians and Arabs over the past 65 years had been willing to allow peace with Israel, there would have been a state with less land from the '67 borders being taken by Israeli settlements. Every year that they have not wanted peace, is costing them. And the world will not force the issue. PArt of the reason may be that they screwed up by trusting the Arabs before and either do not want another fiasco or be shown to be incompetent.

The lack a desire for peace and a state leaves the area in limbo.
Now it is up to Israel to negotiate what the boundaries of the proposed Palestinian state will be. Jordan and Egypt had their chances and did not want to do anything with it.

Do the Palestinians get most of everything or do they get nothing by wanting (again) everything?

Given your track record with predictions; I will expect that they will stall for another time frame and get the later.

 

[P4man]

Israel never took the land from the Palestinians. It was land handed over to Israel by Jordan and Egypt without any conditions.

Either you say the land is Israeli, and therefore all its inhabitants are Israeli citizens with equal rights (it is a democracy after all, isnt it?). Either that, or its not Israel, and they are occupied territories that fall under the Geneva conventions and Israel has no right to anything its doing there (but a ton of obligations its definitely not fulfilling)

You cant have it both ways. What Israel is doing, is grabbing the lands that it wants (high grounds, fertile lands, water resources), demolish the houses on them, defacto annexe them behind an annexation wall, strip the legal owners of their property rights, not give them citizen rights, instead, ethnically cleanse the area's. Thats the worst traits of apartheid and colonialism rolled in to one, and blatant violation of international law.

Here is a nice link for you:
http://salemshalom.blogspot.com/2007/12/heres-list-of-u.html

I hope you dont mind I keep posting Jewish links to substantiate my points, but its good to know not all Isreali's have lost their minds and sense of justice.

Do the Palestinians get most of everything or do they get nothing by wanting (again) everything?

You mean should they agree to legitimize the theft of 90% of their land? I say they shouldnt.

 

[Lemon law]

I will address only three Common Courtesy points, thereafter he has only bullshit.

"Should Israel even fought back in '48?"
(Yes yes and yes, no argument there, but when Israel switches blame from The Arab rascal states that attacked it to the Palestinians that did not, therein is the root of the problem.

"Should they have fought back in '67?"
(Maybe a good question without a good answer, undeniable, once again, the Arab states plotted to attack Israel, and Israeli intel was way ahead of the Arab States. As as Arab armies mobilized at the Israeli border, Israeli armies mobilized in defensive positions as Israel had to conscript most of its civilian workers to military uses. Diminishing the Israeli civilian economy in the process while the Arab armies, similarly alerted, realized that Israel was onto their dastardly sneak attack plot. Which resulted in a multi-week stalemate period of desired peace through strength. But still disadvantage Israel, Arab armies could camp legally at Israeli borders until the cows came home without committing a single act of aggression, while Israeli armies could not camp at Israeli borders in superior defensive positions without decimating the Israeli civilian economy. And after waiting some weeks, Israel decided instead to be the aggressor, starting the war first and any revisionist history painted the Arabs as the first aggressor is bullshit. )

"Should they have fought back in '73?"
( Again a weird question with an end answer. Again Israel was basically the aggressor, but 1973 marked that turning point when Israeli military hegemony ended any Arab delusions that single or collectively any Arab States can hope to beat Israel on any military basis. And that is where in my mind Israel went wrong. Once Israeli security was guaranteed, Israel was at a crossroad, its could use diplomacy to prove to other Arab States that they could be a positive addition to the Mid-east, and have forged a solid future peace dividend by now, or Israel could use its military hegemony to prove Israel can never become a positive peaceful new kid on the block mid-east State that overcame initial hostility. We now know Israel choose greed instead of peace, and now Israeli inherits the wind. )

 

[Freshgeardude]

I will address only three Common Courtesy points, thereafter he has only bullshit.

"Should Israel even fought back in '48?"
(Yes yes and yes, no argument there, but when Israel switches blame from The Arab rascal states that attacked it to the Palestinians that did not, therein is the root of the problem.

the palestinians helped their "brethren" lol

"Should they have fought back in '67?"
(Maybe a good question without a good answer, undeniable, once again, the Arab states plotted to attack Israel, and Israeli intel was way ahead of the Arab States. As as Arab armies mobilized at the Israeli border, Israeli armies mobilized in defensive positions as Israel had to conscript most of its civilian workers to military uses. Diminishing the Israeli civilian economy in the process while the Arab armies, similarly alerted, realized that Israel was onto their dastardly sneak attack plot. Which resulted in a multi-week stalemate period of desired peace through strength. But still disadvantage Israel, Arab armies could camp legally at Israeli borders until the cows came home without committing a single act of aggression, while Israeli armies could not camp at Israeli borders in superior defensive positions without decimating the Israeli civilian economy. And after waiting some weeks, Israel decided instead to be the aggressor, starting the war first and any revisionist history painted the Arabs as the first aggressor is bullshit. )


Well, if moving 100,000 troops to your border doesnt set off flags you are preparing for a war, nothing would.

yea, israel attacked first, but not after weeks of back and forth skirmishes.

"Should they have fought back in '73?"
( Again a weird question with an end answer. Again Israel was basically the aggressor, but 1973 marked that turning point when Israeli military hegemony ended any Arab delusions that single or collectively any Arab States can hope to beat Israel on any military basis. And that is where in my mind Israel went wrong. Once Israeli security was guaranteed, Israel was at a crossroad, its could use diplomacy to prove to other Arab States that they could be a positive addition to the Mid-east, and have forged a solid future peace dividend by now, or Israel could use its military hegemony to prove Israel can never become a positive peaceful new kid on the block mid-east State that overcame initial hostility. We now know Israel choose greed instead of peace, and now Israeli inherits the wind. )

israel was the agressor? really??


REALLY??

I mean, seriously, Israel was attacked on YOM KIPPUR.

and i know you know what yom kippur is.


and they were the agressors

yay for more biased talk on your behalf

 

[JEDIYoda]

You cant have it both ways.

YES you can have it both ways...happens all the time!!
Just because the land was handed over to Israel by Egypt and Jordan doesn`t mean the inhabitants of that land have to be given full citizenship and the same rights as Israel`s populace.

Being a Democracy has nothing at all to do with this.

When the United states invaded Iraq and took control over vast amounts of land, the people were made citizens of the United states with full rights as Citizens.....were they??

P4man says --Thats the worst traits of apartheid and colonialism rolled in to one, and blatant violation of international law.

P4man does not even know what apparthied or colonialism is....

Well when he searches the internet he will copy and paste some nonesense....

For now -- The apartheid analogy is critically flawed. It bears little resemblance to the realities of contemporary Israel and plays down the uniqueness of the apartheid state in South Africa. That state was extraordinarily repressive, regulating every detail of the lives of its subjects – 90 percent of whom were non-white – on the basis of their skin color. By contrast, Israel is a democracy which encourages vibrant debate, which has a flourishing free press and which shares with other liberal democracies a core value: the equality of all its citizens before the law.

to be continues I am sure...

 

[Lemon law]

The FGD delusion is that a state of aggression can exist infinitely without a final resolution.

Maybe FGD and other pro Israeli fan clubbers can yump up and down saying Yah hooray, Israel has the present military hegemony.

But when Israel is a tiny tiny Island of maybe 5.6 million Jews in an ocean of of 275 million Arabs who are daily reminded by Israeli arrogance why they should hate Israel, its not rocket science to predict the Israeli strategy is short sighted and stupid. Especially since Israeli greed now does nothing, nothing at all, to contribute to any better and more stable mid-east.

As it is, Israel is too itsy bitsy teenie weenie to hope to extend its present military hegemony into further gains, while the surrounding Arab States will do nothing but wait for times to change. And with the weight of Arab population and oil money, long term, Israel can do nothing but lose in the end if Israel continues to gloat in building the hatreds of all its neighbors.

Maybe the biggest delusion lies in any notion that Israeli, when Arab v Israeli power shifts can smoothly finally adapt to the better strategy of proving Israel can be a positive addition to the mid-east. The risk for Israel there is that if it builds all the hatreds of its neighbors to incredible levels, that it will never be be, in future able to smoothly reverse course and defuse the hatreds that will and must doom Israel in the end.

It just depends on the wisdom of looking at the Israeli future in a 5 or ten year time frame or if the Israeli future is viewed in the larger 20, 30, or 40 year future.

 

[Lemon law]

Of course we can always address the thread title, the nation who gets the most F-35's will dominate the skies in the mid-east.

As if Israel does not already dominate the skies in the mid-east, so to some extent F-35's are like carrying coal to New Castle as the Brits say. Or in economist speak, diminishing marginal utility.

But wait, Israel only gets these F-35's, some freebies and some at cost if and only if Israel inks a deal with the Palestinians. Otherwise Israel gets no F-35's

But failing Israel inking a deal with the Palestinians, there is the other option, The USA can make huge profits by selling F-35's at way above raw costs to Egypt, Lebanon, Jordon, under the proviso they cannot be used to attack Israel. And then see what happens to the Israeli ability to use its planes to violate the air space of and terrorize their immediate Neighbors.

After all, the best way to ensure peace is a strong defense by all parties involved. As any aggressor that dares to attack beyond their borders automatically loses. An excellent time proven way to achieve peace in the mid-east and anywhere else. Especially when a larger external force will punish any aggressor and be on them like stink on shit if they go beyond their borders.

 

[Freshgeardude]

The FGD delusion is that a state of aggression can exist infinitely without a final resolution.

Maybe FGD and other pro Israeli fan clubbers can yump up and down saying Yah hooray, Israel has the present military hegemony.

But when Israel is a tiny tiny Island of maybe 5.6 million Jews in an ocean of of 275 million Arabs who are daily reminded by Israeli arrogance why they should hate Israel, its not rocket science to predict the Israeli strategy is short sighted and stupid. Especially since Israeli greed now does nothing, nothing at all, to contribute to any better and more stable mid-east.

As it is, Israel is too itsy bitsy teenie weenie to hope to extend its present military hegemony into further gains, while the surrounding Arab States will do nothing but wait for times to change. And with the weight of Arab population and oil money, long term, Israel can do nothing but lose in the end if Israel continues to gloat in building the hatreds of all its neighbors.

Maybe the biggest delusion lies in any notion that Israeli, when Arab v Israeli power shifts can smoothly finally adapt to the better strategy of proving Israel can be a positive addition to the mid-east. The risk for Israel there is that if it builds all the hatreds of its neighbors to incredible levels, that it will never be be, in future able to smoothly reverse course and defuse the hatreds that will and must doom Israel in the end.

It just depends on the wisdom of looking at the Israeli future in a 5 or ten year time frame or if the Israeli future is viewed in the larger 20, 30, or 40 year future.

Why don't you directly answer what I wrote instead of blabbing away like you always do?



Blabbing =/= answering

 

[Lemon law]

Why don't you directly answer what I wrote instead of blabbing away like you always do?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By answering I assume you want to talk only about the 1973 Yom Kipper war.

Well at least two or more ways to look at that question. On one hand we can say maybe the Arabs were justified in attempting to take back what they lost in the 1967 war, as they rearmed after their defeat in 1967. on the other hand there is still much debate in Israel to this day about waiting too long to counterattack, making the Arabs the clear aggressors at the expense of Israeli security. But at the end of the day, Israel kicked ass again when they did counterattack. And therefore we can ask is a N of one lesson a reliable predictor of the entire future?

But still, we can make another comment, the 1973 war ended any Arab illusions that they could ever successfully defeat Israel in a purely military conflict. A situation unaltered to day. And when subsequent events lead to Egypt leaving the Soviet Orbit, and getting rewarded with the return of the can't grow a weed Sinai desert its somewhat understandable that it was a win win win for Israel.

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

The devil in the details is that the 1973 war was somewhat an Israeli high point, since then Israel has totally failed to make future progress or to build on that success.

And in the same way we can say Hitler gained a valuable lesson by grabbing the regaining some territory in France and later in Czechoslovakia, two wondrous successes in a row, as
Japan and Italy at the same time had already done the same. Oh sweet success until Japan and Germany tried the same trick again but over reached in Pearl Harbor and Poland respectively.

Its somewhat said, the best way to defeat your enemy is to teach them bad habits, and we should all wonder if Israel are now stuck on stupid in embracing the very bad habits that ensure their defeat in the end.

Just some food for thought FGD.

But I wonder if we are debating at cross purposes. We are united in the idea that Israel should survive and be a positive force in the Mid-east, we just have different ideas about how to get there. And while you may think that I have the wrong way to get there, I point out Israel must lose in the end if they try their present strategy which is an automatic sure loser in the end.

Which end do you want FGD, the time to choose is running out.

 

[P4man]

Why don't you directly answer what I wrote instead of blabbing away like you always do?
Blabbing =/= answering

Precisely. When will you answer the question on whether or not the west bank settlements are illegal under international law or not? You keep dodging that question.

 

[P4man]

But wait, Israel only gets these F-35's, some freebies and some at cost if and only if Israel inks a deal with the Palestinians. Otherwise Israel gets no F-35's

Where did you read that? Thats not how I read it:
http://www.haaretz.com/print-editio...ighters-for-90-day-settlement-freeze-1.324524

What I read is that Israel simply has to slow down its illegal activities for a short while, pretend to negotiate and three months later they can blame the Palestenians for not wanting to accept their 'most sincere and generous' offer of returning 5% of the 40% land they stole 100% illegally (none of which will contain the Palestinian capital Israel already annexed), resume building, stealing land since those F35s are in the pocket. Rince and repeat in a year or so. No obligation to come to an agreement.

BTW, if I somehow misread that, I would actually welcome any proposal from the US that makes aid to Israel dependent on an agreement with the Palestenians or the very least compliance with UN resolutions, especially thoseeven the US voted for. Thats the only way to give Israel any incentive at all, at least in theory, in reality Israel will get what it wants regardless. Rewarding Israel to the tune of billions for doing something that violates international law, undermines US position in the world, violates the UN resolutions even the US voted for.. Im not sure what kind of message that sends.

After all, the best way to ensure peace is a strong defense by all parties involved.

I completely disagree. Large armies almost inevitably lead to armed conflict; once you have all that material, the military industrial complex gains money and therefore political power (as if they dont already have enough in both Israel and the US) which creates an incentive to increase military spending more, the sort of logic you see some people preach here, lets build more war machines to help our economy, and then there is an automatic push to put that stuff to use.

Its no surprise Israel has been waging wars on its neighbors in the past decades, or the US feels such an urge to fight wars in every corner of the planet. The beast needs to be fed and having strong "defense" (offense really is the correct word) will invariably lead to militarized political thinking and armed conflict. Always has. The only way to ensure peace is take away the seeds of hate. Embracing international law would be a good start.

 

[Freshgeardude]

Precisely. When will you answer the question on whether or not the west bank settlements are illegal under international law or not? You keep dodging that question.

lol I havent. read my entire posts.

but for the interests of proving you wrong,


egypt ceded the land to israel after the treaty with them, when israel gave back the sinai

Jordan gave up claims and ceded the land to israel in their treaty.



go check the history if you dont believe me

 

[EagleKeeper]

I
<snip>
"Should they have fought back in '73?"
( Again a weird question with an end answer. Again Israel was basically the aggressor, but 1973 marked that turning point when Israeli military hegemony ended any Arab delusions that single or collectively any Arab States can hope to beat Israel on any military basis. And that is where in my mind Israel went wrong. Once Israeli security was guaranteed, Israel was at a crossroad, its could use diplomacy to prove to other Arab States that they could be a positive addition to the Mid-east, and have forged a solid future peace dividend by now, or Israel could use its military hegemony to prove Israel can never become a positive peaceful new kid on the block mid-east State that overcame initial hostility. We now know Israel choose greed instead of peace, and now Israeli inherits the wind. )

How was Israel the aggressor in '73?

Every time there was a war with the Arab states, the Arabs would ask for peace when their asses were being handed to them. They would also promise with their fingers crossed to not attack Israel again.

This is also a trait the Palestinians picked up.

The other Arab states in the region may not want anything to do with Israel in battle, but they were not going to welcome her with open arms. By supporting the Palestinians in attacking Israel; they aptly showed such.

As long as the Palestinians as a group are willing to attack Israel or support those that are, there will be friction.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Why don't you directly answer what I wrote instead of blabbing away like you always do?
Blabbing =/= answering

Precisely. When will you answer the question on whether or not the west bank settlements are illegal under international law or not? You keep dodging that question.

I would like to know why such settlements should be considered illegal on land that was ceded to Israel vs land that was taken before the '67 conflict.

Were there any conditions placed on the land by Jordan or Egypt that Israel could not use the land?

Where was the outrage by the Palestinians and Arabs after '67 when Israel started up settlements?

Or did the outrage only happen when the Arabs & Palestinians (as LL explained) finally realized that they could not wipe out Israel, so had to find other ways of fighting and crying for help after promises were broken

 

[Lemon law]

How was Israel the aggressor in '73?

Every time there was a war with the Arab states, the Arabs would ask for peace when their asses were being handed to them. They would also promise with their fingers crossed to not attack Israel again.

This is also a trait the Palestinians picked up.

The other Arab states in the region may not want anything to do with Israel in battle, but they were not going to welcome her with open arms. By supporting the Palestinians in attacking Israel; they aptly showed such.

As long as the Palestinians as a group are willing to attack Israel or support those that are, there will be friction.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IMHO, except for the fact Israel has kicked Arab butt every time SO FAR, the rest, IMHO is simply bullshit rapped in a layer of self fulling prophesy. At this time Israel is simply too
strong for the Arabs to dream of attacking. Yet if Israel remains stuck on building hatreds it will never know any peace, because all its neighbors will fund terrorism against it.

Israel is not the only country that found itself stuck in a sea of hostility but some nations defuse those hostilities and finally get accepted, and others, well they simply don't survive all that long. With all that long can go in time frames of up to a 100 years or so.

Think about, all the positive cjhanges we have seen in the past 60 years. The end of the cold war, the defacto end of Irish terrorism against England, the end of apartheid S. Africa, the reunification of Germany of Vietnam, and so many other examples where former hostility is replaced by inter-dependence and a peace dividend.

Why not in Israel? I know In know, you blame the Arabs and I blame the Israelis, but the whole mid-east is heading to a bloodbath and a trainwreck unless both sides can start defusing the tensions.

And to some extent, the world is getting tired of Israeli refusal to allow a Palestinians State.
And I also predict, this is the last time the world will ask Israel, because failing success this time, the world will start demanding Israel vacate the land illegally gained in 1967&73 wars. And will probably use an economic embargo to enforce those demands.

I freely acknowledge it may not happen real soon, but it will in the end. The only question is will Israel volentarily do it, or will the larger world keep upping the pressure until Israel does, or will terrorist technology get to the point where they become very effective at damaging Israel by maybe using chemical and biological weapons.

Even Russia and the USA whose militaries are many times stronger than Israel's have found
the use of force only aides the spread of terrorism.