Israel, the U.S. and the West Bank Settlements

[cubby1223]

Originally posted by: Craig234
It's not easy to help someone who has become terribly one-sided in their views to break out of the paradigms thay help them 'make sense' of the conflict.

:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:
:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:
:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:
:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:
:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:
:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:
:laugh::laugh:

You're lecturing someone else about being one-sided?

Right, because Craig234 knows how to solve the problems of the region. Why oh why did Obama not appoint you and your infinite wisdom to fix the situation, instead of Sen. George Mitchell?



I'd add a more meaningful comment to all this, but does anything anyone ever say change *anyone's* opinion in the forum, let alone someone so set in their superiority as you?

Pardon, I must laugh some more :laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

 

[TruePaige]

Originally posted by: kylebisme

Originally posted by: TruePaige
Unlike the apartheid reign of terror, Israel DID NOT:

1) Imprison tens of thousands of people
2) Make the arabs second class citizens

1) Around 11,000 at recent count. Then of course at this point the Gaza Strip is effectively one big open air prison at this point holding around 1.5 million.

2) Rather Israel holds millions of Arabs with no civil rights under military martial law in the West Bank while colonizing their homeland out from under them, which results in conditions
"which at least one South African apartheid victim has described as worse than conditions were for Blacks under the Apartheid regime."

As for the anonymous quotes you posted, they present a far rosier picture than even Israel's previous Prime Minster has attested. Also, when has any Arab representatives in the Knesset ever call for dismantling Israel? Having followed Israeli politics closely for around a decade now studied it's history thoroughly, I'm pretty sure whoever made that argument has a rather loose grip on reality.

I am curious, why are you so staunch in your defense of Israel while apparently having little understanding of what is going on over there?

South Africa held political prisoners. Israel does not, that is what I was referring to. Didn't think I needed to qualify everything. Dangerous men are being held by Israel, or possible terrorists.

You mean the West Bank where Israel is fought against every day, the west bank that has become a sort of security buffer because whenever the Palestinians have a chance to occupy it they wreak havoc on Israel?

Sorry if you have such a narrow view you can't understand the various examples I've presented.

Just read the Wikipedia criticism of apartheid accusations for the quotes. Pulled them directly from there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A...s_of_Israeli_apartheid

Even reading the whole article the apartheid accusations seem weakly founded.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: kylebisme

I am curious, why are you so staunch in your defense of Israel while apparently having little understanding of what is going on over there?

If I can speculate - this applies to many whether or not to him - a lot of views are based on relating to one group or another.

Once the caricatures are stablished, that he 'relates' to the Israelies and feels he understands their fear of attack, he naturally adopts a hatred of the source of that fear.

All it takes is a selectivity, a double standard, that is easy to come by.

One reason for our 'special relationship' with Britain has nothing to do with the rightness of the cause - in fact, they have quite a history of being absolute bastards around the world on the wrong side of justice in many situations. Rather, it has a lot more to do with our 'relating' to them more than any other nation, to the way they supply our ancestory that we're missing before 235 years ago. They're a sort of family connection.

That mattered little to their victims - but who cares about them, as third-worlders are hard to relate to and easy to ignore injustices to.

As are the Palestinians, who, in classic blame the victim views, deserve what they get.

 

[TruePaige]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: kylebisme

I am curious, why are you so staunch in your defense of Israel while apparently having little understanding of what is going on over there?

If I can speculate - this applies to many whether or not to him - a lot of views are based on relating to one group or another.

Once the caricatures are stablished, that he 'relates' to the Israelies and feels he understands their fear of attack, he naturally adopts a hatred of the source of that fear.

All it takes is a selectivity, a double standard, that is easy to come by.

One reason for our 'special relationship' with Britain has nothing to do with the rightness of the cause - in fact, they have quite a history of being absolute bastards around the world on the wrong side of justice in many situations. Rather, it has a lot more to do with our 'relating' to them more than any other nation, to the way they supply our ancestory that we're missing before 235 years ago. They're a sort of family connection.

That mattered little to their victims - but who cares about them, as third-worlders are hard to relate to and easy to ignore injustices to.

As are the Palestinians, who, in classic blame the victim views, deserve what they get.

Pat yourselves on the back and inhale the smug if you want. I have no idea how you could sympathize with terrorist groups like Hamas and the PLO.

You are obviously not open to the fact that Israelis are NOT the root aggressors.

Israel will prevail because they are morally right, and have the determination and will to protect the homeland they spent so long yearning for as a people.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: TruePaige

South Africa held political prisoners. Israel does not, that is what I was referring to. Didn't think I needed to qualify everything. Dangerous men are being held by Israel, or possible terrorists.

You mean the West Bank where Israel is fought against every day, the west bank that has become a sort of security buffer because whenever the Palestinians have a chance to occupy it they wreak havoc on Israel?

Sorry if you have such a narrow view you can't understand the various examples I've presented.

Just read the Wikipedia criticism of apartheid accusations for the quotes. Pulled them directly from there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A...s_of_Israeli_apartheid

Even reading the whole article the apartheid accusations seem weakly founded.

I see after asking and receiving an answer to what you ignored in my post, you are now ignoring the entire posts.

Of course Israel holds 'political prisoners'. Indeed, your describing them as 'possible terrorists', i.e., potential terrorists, is worthy of Orwell's 1984.

Here is a description of the situation from one group adovating for the prisoners.

'Security buffer'. That's what the Russians sought with their neighboring countries.

How convenient to have a buffer zone so the reaction to oppression is kept away.

Blame the victims.

You are all about the security of Israel. It's pretty easy when you value the security of the Palestenians at zero, isn't it?

Why bother with the complexities, the compromises and tradeoffs for any more just peace, when you can simply base every policy on Israel's benefit?

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: TruePaige
South Africa held political prisoners. Israel does not, that is what I was referring to. Didn't think I needed to qualify everything. Dangerous men are being held by Israel, or possible terrorists.

That was South Africa's argument too.

Originally posted by: TruePaige
You mean the West Bank where Israel is fought against every day, the west bank that has become a sort of security buffer because whenever the Palestinians have a chance to occupy it they wreak havoc on Israel?

I mean the West Bank which Israel has been colonizing all across with settlers for decades now in direct violation to international law yet tries to play innocent in the face of the hostility that provokes.

Originally posted by: TruePaige
Sorry if you have such a narrow view you can't understand the various examples I've presented.

Your inability to defend those quotes in response to my responses to them does well to demonstrate what sorry apologist for Israel's oppression of Palestinians you are.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: TruePaige

Pat yourselves on the back and inhale the smug if you want. I have no idea how you could sympathize with terrorist groups like Hamas and the PLO.

You are obviously not open to the fact that Israelis are NOT the root aggressors.

Israel will prevail because they are morally right, and have the determination and will to protect the homeland they spent so long yearning for as a people.

You prove my points better than I could ask. As I said before:

It's not easy to help someone who has become terribly one-sided in their views to break out of the paradigms thay help them 'make sense' of the conflict. There's something powerful and seductive about the Manichean view to assign one side evil and one side good and then to call for Holy War to right the wrong until good wins. It's also an extremely common syndrome in the most unjust wars.

"Power tends to corrupt..." may be the four most important words ever written on politics.

It describes how, as humanity splits from an identity as a human race into identities as groups, powerful groups can abuse other groups and yet see themselves as the victims.

Whether or not I agree the Palestenians are the 'root aggressors' has no real effect on my comments; rather, you trying to use that phrase shows you trying to frame the issue in the Manichean terms just as I described so that you can support Israel as the 'Holy' side and justify any violence against Palestenians as the evil side.

You desperately cling to things like the label 'root aggressor' because of the license it gives you to dehumanize the Palestenians and not have to come up with 'fair', 'just' solutions.

It makes you an agent of evil yourself even while you think you are for a good cause.

If I could, I'd sentence you to live as a Palestenian - but I can't. If I could, you would broaden your horizons. You won't - and thus the unjust violence goes on, driven by the rationalizations of the powerful and those who relate to them, based on power, not on principle, principle merely prostituted in propaganda.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: TruePaige
You are obviously not open to the fact that Israelis are NOT the root aggressors.

Fact? In fact your argument is little different than blaming Native Americans for living on land Europeans wanted, or blaming a rape victim for wearing a short skirt.

Originally posted by: TruePaige
Israel will prevail because they are morally right, and have the determination and will to protect the homeland they spent so long yearning for as a people.

Where did you get "so long yearning for as a people" from? Up until around the Holocaust the vast majority of Jews were disinterested if not outright opposed to the Zionist movement.

 

[piasabird]

Take all the troops from Iraq and move them to palestine. Knock down all Isreali buildings in palestine and then force all non-palestinian influence out of palestine. Close the borders with syria and egypt and lebanon. Show them what 5 years of peace is like. If you teach people hope instead of hate they will begin to believe in themselves. Let no one cross the border into isreal. Let Isreali's live without cheap palestinian labor. Then build up palestinian owned businesses and markets.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Truepage is wrong in thinking that the behavior of nations in the 19'th century can govern the behavior of nations post WW2. And thus is citing historical precedents that can no longer apply in a nuclear weapons age. And if Israel thinks it can defy the international community of nations in the UN, maybe its time to remind some pro-Israeli bots, that the UN created the State of Israel in 1948, and that same entity therefore has the power to un create the Israeli State if Israel fails to follow the international rule of law.

And any international embargo against Israel would be crippling, if nothing else Israel lacks any domestic resources for oil based fuel, and without fuel, the Israeli military machine
will grind to a halt. Israel may be self sufficient in food, but without access to export markets, Israel lacks any of the key natural resources and its economy would collapse in a matter of months.

Netanyuhu is simply speaking loudly while carrying a small twig.

Remember when Japan was hit with an embargo, The went and took what they needed,

The 56 and 67 wars were triggered by an embargo by Egypt.
Israel is not going to allow it's safety to be jeopordized by concern for the Palestinians.

For the past 30 years, the Palestinians & their sponsors have attempted to continue what they lost in the first 30 years. Isreal has demonstrated that it will be at peace with those that show that they want peace and has given land back that was captured.

When has a world embargo actually worked to change a nations direction?
Enough people will support the embargoed nation that an embargo will be for a feel good only.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
Isreal has demonstrated that it will be at peace with those that show that they want peace and has given land back that was captured.

Rather, Israel didn't show any intent of withdrawing from the Sinai until holding it lead to the Arab states attack '73, stayed in Lebanon until Hezbollah ran them out, withdrew from Gaza unilaterally despite the PA pleads to do so as part of a peace agreement, and hasn't demonstrated any interest in ever withdrawing from the West Bank.

 

[0roo0roo]

yea lets see barak call for a kurdish state in iraq/turkey/iran.

lets see this fairness continue.

over a million refugees and countless villages bulldozed in pakistan fighting terrorists. i guess its good they aren't jewish eh.

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: Lemon law


Maybe noble sentiments True Page, but the disconnect between what could be and what is, can not disgise that in the process, Israel has merely become the new Nazi's.

you must be kidding.

the ones who have the most nazi like ideology are clearly the palestinians who brainwash their children with a doctrine of death worship and hatred that goes back to when the grand mufti of palestine agreed to his portion of the holocaust. this was a man that quite literally helped set up muslim SS brigades for the fuhrer.

as for your idea that things are different now, lol, things are even more extreme, brainwashed youth, antisemitism as a norm, the left being apologists for such wicked hatred... theres nothing better about todays situation in the slightest.

just last year the palestinians sent over the equivalent of the us being bombarded with 170,000 rockets. thats about as hitlerish as it gets. and its in this atmosphere that you get on your high horse about israels reactions. let me look at your history. lets see..what did the us do when it was in trouble..hmm... its the same with many western liberals ..they fail to look at their own countries actions. let me remind you..dresden..nagasaki...tokyo....hiroshima....

you really want to start comparing people to nazis?

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
you must be kidding.

He most clearly isn't, and neither is this British MP and son of Holocaust survivors I presented previously.

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
the ones who have the most nazi like ideology are clearly the palestinians who brainwash their children with a doctrine of death worship and hatred that goes back to when the grand mufti of palestine agreed to his portion of the holocaust. this was a man that quite literally helped set up muslim SS brigades for the fuhrer.

You are referring to the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, who had to find his his recruits in the Balkans, not Palestine. Furthermore any Palestinians signed up with the British to fight the Nazis. But it seems you've been brainwashed by Zionist propaganda which misrepresents such history to perpetuate their own forms of death worship and hatred.

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
just last year the palestinians sent over the equivalent of the us being bombarded with 170,000 rockets. thats about as hitlerish as it gets.

Employing sophistical tricks to exaggerate your charges is certainly Hitler-ish, as is the whole concept of ethnic nationalist supremacist Zionism is built on, as expanding their "lebensraum" while walling off their "untermenschen" into ghettos and killing any who get in the way. Granted, Israel has carefully avoided committing to a final solution for decades, but that does nothing to absolve Zionists for the many ways they have long been acting like Nazis.

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
and its in this atmosphere that you get on your high horse about israels reactions. let me look at your history. lets see..what did the us do when it was in trouble..hmm... its the same with many western liberals ..they fail to look at their own countries actions. let me remind you..dresden..nagasaki...tokyo....hiroshima....

If you don't realise many Westerners do condemn those massacres openly and strongly, you obviously don't get around much.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: kylebisme

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
Isreal has demonstrated that it will be at peace with those that show that they want peace and has given land back that was captured.

Rather, Israel didn't show any intent of withdrawing from the Sinai until holding it lead to the Arab states attack '73, stayed in Lebanon until Hezbollah ran them out, withdrew from Gaza unilaterally despite the PA pleads to do so as part of a peace agreement, and hasn't demonstrated any interest in ever withdrawing from the West Bank.

Slightly confused here.

Israel held the Sinai because of strategic importance as a buffer against Egypt.
When Egypt made peace; the Sinai was returned.

Israel went into Lebanon to route the PLO out of there because of attacks being made on Israel. Israel left Lebanon under UN promises.

Israel also went back in to protect the Christian Lebanonese. The UN then created a buffer Zone and Israel withdrew.

Israel ran Hezbollah out of Southern Lebanon; taking casualities until Hezbollah and Syria begged for a truce. The UN and Lebanon promised to keep Hezbollah out of Southern Lebanon and have a buffer zone.

Israel left Gaza because of the headaches and the remove one of the socalled land for peace issues. All that did was allow the Palestinians to have an easier time of launching rockets into Israel proper.

All Israeli incursions into Gaza have ened up with the UN again coming in to protect the Palestinians. And everytime after that; the Palestinians start up attacks against Israel.

Why should Israel give up the West bank. Actions in Gaza have demonstrated that the Palestinians will use surrendered land as a staging area for more attacks.

The Arab armies or militants have never defeated Israel - had they done so; therre would be no Israel. Every conflict has had Israel, kicking the opponets ass and the opponetn running to the UN for protection. Every truce under UN ospicies have had the Arabs/militants coming back again for another round; showing that their words of never agin do not mean what others though.

 

[Lemon law]

Again with all due respect to Common Courtesy, what he says in "Remember when Japan was hit with an embargo, The went and took what they needed,

The 56 and 67 wars were triggered by an embargo by Egypt.
Israel is not going to allow it's safety to be jeopordized by concern for the Palestinians." , is a bad analogy from the that start.

The notion that Israel can, as a pure aggressor, can simply take what they want, ignores all the international policemen who would stop that before it even starts. Israeli air power may be able to punish its Arab foes, but without tank forces on the ground, that can blitzkrieg 1000 KM to the South and east, there is not a drop of oil to be had unless we count the Kurdish Areas of Iraq. If Israel tries anything in Iraq, the USA will be duty bound to stop Israel.

And with all the first class stealth air craft and US air assets close to Israel, even the IEF would be outclassed. And if it ever came to nukes, it would only take two or so nukes to turn all of Israel into glass. If Israel alienates the entire international community, they will be toast very quickly. How would it be foolish for Israel, let me count the ways unless they can make a real big alliance with a major Power, there is the USA, the Russians, the Chinese, and the Turks, which does not even count various European powers who would not tolerate their existing oil deals with Arabs being looted.

Go ahead, tell me again Common Courtesy, how 5 million jews can take on an entire world. And expect to win. In another day and another time, Japan got away with it for nearly four years, but they still needed a Europe distracted by Hitler, a surprise attack on the US fleet in Pearl harbor, and a China that was a basket case. None of those conditions are present today. And if Israel tries it now, they will get dope slaps from every direction, and a instant death sentence if they try to use their nukes.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo

Originally posted by: Lemon law


Maybe noble sentiments True Page, but the disconnect between what could be and what is, can not disgise that in the process, Israel has merely become the new Nazi's.

you must be kidding.

the ones who have the most nazi like ideology are clearly the palestinians who brainwash their children with a doctrine of death worship and hatred that goes back to when the grand mufti of palestine agreed to his portion of the holocaust. this was a man that quite literally helped set up muslim SS brigades for the fuhrer.

as for your idea that things are different now, lol, things are even more extreme, brainwashed youth, antisemitism as a norm, the left being apologists for such wicked hatred... theres nothing better about todays situation in the slightest.

just last year the palestinians sent over the equivalent of the us being bombarded with 170,000 rockets. thats about as hitlerish as it gets. and its in this atmosphere that you get on your high horse about israels reactions. let me look at your history. lets see..what did the us do when it was in trouble..hmm... its the same with many western liberals ..they fail to look at their own countries actions. let me remind you..dresden..nagasaki...tokyo....hiroshima....

you really want to start comparing people to nazis?

The irony is there would be no more terrorism and there would finally be peace in Israel if they did act like Nazis.

 

[TruePaige]

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy

The Arab armies or militants have never defeated Israel - had they done so; therre would be no Israel. Every conflict has had Israel, kicking the opponets ass and the opponetn running to the UN for protection. Every truce under UN ospicies have had the Arabs/militants coming back again for another round; showing that their words of never agin do not mean what others though.

You really hit the nail on the head there. It seems like an insane cycle.

Militants Attack Israel -> Israel retaliates -> Militants run to international community for protection -> Israel makes peace -> Militants break their side of the agreement and kill Israelis.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Again with all due respect to Common Courtesy, what he says in "Remember when Japan was hit with an embargo, The went and took what they needed,

The 56 and 67 wars were triggered by an embargo by Egypt.
Israel is not going to allow it's safety to be jeopordized by concern for the Palestinians." , is a bad analogy from the that start.

The notion that Israel can, as a pure aggressor, can simply take what they want, ignores all the international policemen who would stop that before it even starts. Israeli air power may be able to punish its Arab foes, but without tank forces on the ground, that can blitzkrieg 1000 KM to the South and east, there is not a drop of oil to be had unless we count the Kurdish Areas of Iraq. If Israel tries anything in Iraq, the USA will be duty bound to stop Israel.

And with all the first class stealth air craft and US air assets close to Israel, even the IEF would be outclassed. And if it ever came to nukes, it would only take two or so nukes to turn all of Israel into glass. If Israel alienates the entire international community, they will be toast very quickly. How would it be foolish for Israel, let me count the ways unless they can make a real big alliance with a major Power, there is the USA, the Russians, the Chinese, and the Turks, which does not even count various European powers who would not tolerate their existing oil deals with Arabs being looted.

Go ahead, tell me again Common Courtesy, how 5 million jews can take on an entire world. And expect to win. In another day and another time, Japan got away with it for nearly four years, but they still needed a Europe distracted by Hitler, a surprise attack on the US fleet in Pearl harbor, and a China that was a basket case. None of those conditions are present today. And if Israel tries it now, they will get dope slaps from every direction, and a instant death sentence if they try to use their nukes.

Israel does not need to take on an entire world.

The world will not back an embargo.

Japan took what it felt was needed.

If Israel feels it has its back against the wall due to an embargo it will fight to obtain what it needs. It will not roll over and let the biased world dictate to it.

The US is not going to go to war against Israel. Nukes are not going to come at Israel from the Western world and will only be used if Israel is being attacked in a manner that it can not defend against.

Bottom line is that an embargo in this day and age will not against Israel. Lip service at the best.

 

[TruePaige]

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Again with all due respect to Common Courtesy, what he says in "Remember when Japan was hit with an embargo, The went and took what they needed,

The 56 and 67 wars were triggered by an embargo by Egypt.
Israel is not going to allow it's safety to be jeopordized by concern for the Palestinians." , is a bad analogy from the that start.

The notion that Israel can, as a pure aggressor, can simply take what they want, ignores all the international policemen who would stop that before it even starts. Israeli air power may be able to punish its Arab foes, but without tank forces on the ground, that can blitzkrieg 1000 KM to the South and east, there is not a drop of oil to be had unless we count the Kurdish Areas of Iraq. If Israel tries anything in Iraq, the USA will be duty bound to stop Israel.

And with all the first class stealth air craft and US air assets close to Israel, even the IEF would be outclassed. And if it ever came to nukes, it would only take two or so nukes to turn all of Israel into glass. If Israel alienates the entire international community, they will be toast very quickly. How would it be foolish for Israel, let me count the ways unless they can make a real big alliance with a major Power, there is the USA, the Russians, the Chinese, and the Turks, which does not even count various European powers who would not tolerate their existing oil deals with Arabs being looted.

Go ahead, tell me again Common Courtesy, how 5 million jews can take on an entire world. And expect to win. In another day and another time, Japan got away with it for nearly four years, but they still needed a Europe distracted by Hitler, a surprise attack on the US fleet in Pearl harbor, and a China that was a basket case. None of those conditions are present today. And if Israel tries it now, they will get dope slaps from every direction, and a instant death sentence if they try to use their nukes.

Israel does not need to take on an entire world.

The world will not back an embargo.

Japan took what it felt was needed.

If Israel feels it has its back against the wall due to an embargo it will fight to obtain what it needs. It will not roll over and let the biased world dictate to it.

The US is not going to go to war against Israel. Nukes are not going to come at Israel from the Western world and will only be used if Israel is being attacked in a manner that it can not defend against.

Bottom line is that an embargo in this day and age will not against Israel. Lip service at the best.

Lemon Law somehow believes that Israel is making power grabs and that the rest of the world is against it.

The new administration may not look at Israel as favorably, but as our largest ally in the middle east and a valuable partner nothing to harm Israel would ever be done.

In fact, if anyone launched a nuclear attack against Israel they would be wiped off the map by their allies. I don't know what Lemon Law was thinking suggesting that anyone would fire nuclear missiles at Israel.

 

[cumhail]

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy

Why should Israel give up the West bank. Actions in Gaza have demonstrated that the Palestinians will use surrendered land as a staging area for more attacks.

You're absolutely right... they shouldn't give up the West Bank and there should not be talk of a "two state" solution. Instead, there should one unified Israel, including all of the lands it has one and all of the people it now subsequently governs.

Now since you have argued that Israel is not an apartheid state, then certainly you think that all of the people who live in this unified Israel should have an equal opportunity to participate in the politics of the country, to vote within it, and to be treated as equal citizens of the nation. Jewish, Christian, or Muslim... all are citzens of a Democracy, after all. Right to freely leave and return, as well, is a given... considering that this, too, is part and parcel of the determination of whether or not a government is functioning as an apartheid state (see link to definition of the term at the end of my post).

As we move toward this unified Israel, complete with all the lands it has rightfully won in its various wars, I will fully support the punishment of those who specifically commit crimes of terror against the state. But collective punishment, of course, is something you won't need me to argue against, as you, Jedi, and others will certainly demand it. After all, this is the Mideast's only functioning Democracy we're talking about; not some apartheid state.

So let's end all this talk of who rightfully own the West Bank or the Gaza strip. Let's accept, in fact, any and all settlements as part the natural growth within this unified Israel. And let's work to make sure that all of its inhabitants are considered equal citizens and afforded all the same rights, including full voting rights and full participation within its political systems.

Deal?

For those who may need further information on apartheid, by the way, here's a handy definition of it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...the_crime_of_apartheid

 

[Lemon law]

Ah therein lies the JS80 denial, as he says, "The irony is there would be no more terrorism and there would finally be peace in Israel if they did act like Nazis."

Maybe that is the Israeli mistake, they can't be true Nazis if they do not start up the gas ovens and kill all 3-4 millions Palestinians, but Israel simply does everything the Nazis did to loot land and possessions, and transport them to concentration camps, but fail in not having a final solution of gas ovens to wipe them off the face of the earth. Otherwise, sadly, Israel is and remains a Nazi state in almost every other way.

IMHO, the formation of the State of Israel was a correct decision, and Israel, given very wrong attacks by Arab States had some original justifications, those times are now past, and there is no longer any justification for Israel to continue to be a apartheid Nazi state. Down that road lies an end doom for Israel, and the time is rapidly running out.

 

[Lemon law]

TruePaige makes two incongruent statements.


"If Israel feels it has its back against the wall due to an embargo it will fight to obtain what it needs. It will not roll over and let the biased world dictate to it."

" In fact, if anyone launched a nuclear attack against Israel they would be wiped off the map by their allies. I don't know what Lemon Law was thinking suggesting that anyone would fire nuclear missiles at Israel."

And how can Israel take what it wants in the event of an world wide embargo, without resorting to nukes? And while I do not suggest anyone would make a preemptive nuclear strike against Israel, you can bet your sweet bippie that there are a large set of nations would nuke Israel, if they made a nuclear strike against anyone first.

And at the end of the day, the larger unbiased world is coming to the realization that a biased Israel is the entity that prevents a larger mid-east peace. And as the USA comes to the realization that its blank checks to Israel prevents such a peace, it leaves Israel forced to change or Israel will not have a single ally left in the world.

Face the facts, after 61 years, the Israeli policy has failed to bring any peace, and Israeli, even if they are a regional military power, can't hope as pure aggressor to take what it want. Them days are NOW OVER.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: cumhail

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy

Why should Israel give up the West bank. Actions in Gaza have demonstrated that the Palestinians will use surrendered land as a staging area for more attacks.

You're absolutely right... they shouldn't give up the West Bank and there should not be talk of a "two state" solution. Instead, there should one unified Israel, including all of the lands it has one and all of the people it now subsequently governs.

Now since you have argued that Israel is not an apartheid state, then certainly you think that all of the people who live in this unified Israel should have an equal opportunity to participate in the politics of the country, to vote within it, and to be treated as equal citizens of the nation. Jewish, Christian, or Muslim... all are citzens of a Democracy, after all. Right to freely leave and return, as well, is a given... considering that this, too, is part and parcel of the determination of whether or not a government is functioning as an apartheid state (see link to definition of the term at the end of my post).

As we move toward this unified Israel, complete with all the lands it has rightfully won in its various wars, I will fully support the punishment of those who specifically commit crimes of terror against the state. But collective punishment, of course, is something you won't need me to argue against, as you, Jedi, and others will certainly demand it. After all, this is the Mideast's only functioning Democracy we're talking about; not some apartheid state.

So let's end all this talk of who rightfully own the West Bank or the Gaza strip. Let's accept, in fact, any and all settlements as part the natural growth within this unified Israel. And let's work to make sure that all of its inhabitants are considered equal citizens and afforded all the same rights, including full voting rights and full participation within its political systems.

Deal?

For those who may need further information on apartheid, by the way, here's a handy definition of it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...the_crime_of_apartheid

Hmm, yes, i'm sure israel is just itching to give Paelstinians equal rights in a 1 state solution

Ehud Olmert, then Deputy Prime Minister of Israel, commented in April 2004 that; "More and more Palestinians are uninterested in a negotiated, two-state solution, because they want to change the essence of the conflict from an Algerian paradigm to a South African one. From a struggle against 'occupation,' in their parlance, to a struggle for one-man-one-vote. That is, of course, a much cleaner struggle, a much more popular struggle - and ultimately a much more powerful one. For us, it would mean the end of the Jewish state."[31] Olmert made a similar remark in November 2007: "If the two-state solution collapses, and we face a South African-style struggle for equal voting rights, then the State of Israel is finished."[32][33]

 

[Lemon law]

Phokus makes the interesting quote, " Ehud Olmert, then Deputy Prime Minister of Israel, commented in April 2004 that; "More and more Palestinians are uninterested in a negotiated, two-state solution, because they want to change the essence of the conflict from an Algerian paradigm to a South African one. From a struggle against 'occupation,' in their parlance, to a struggle for one-man-one-vote. That is, of course, a much cleaner struggle, a much more popular struggle - and ultimately a much more powerful one. For us, it would mean the end of the Jewish state."[31] Olmert made a similar remark in November 2007: "If the two-state solution collapses, and we face a South African-style struggle for equal voting rights, then the State of Israel is finished."[32][33]"

But the real question is, in such a one man one vote situation, would the State of Israel be finished or have a new beginning? Not every Nation can be lucky enough to come up with a Nelson Meddella, and all too frequently, we get a real rascal instead.