Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
Originally posted by: Original Earl
This is a Jewish site no?
Maybe better for the bbc is always full of it crowd
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1085293.html
the article states that LEFTIST Jewish groups and former US ambassadors to Israel are pushing for a two state solutions.
No disagreement there.
This is the rant by the OP that I was referring to.
Originally posted by: Red Irish
Following the recent series of atrocities committed by the Jewish State, shelling civilian areas and refusing to listen to the demands for cessation issued by various countries, Israel has found itself increasingly isolated on the international stage. Many have described these actions as the bloodiest election campaign in history.
Here is an article:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worl.../gaza-israel-palestine
I am not alone in these views: a lot of people are ranting. Why aren't you?
And below is what I originally posted
[Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
What the US politically states will be of no relevance - it will be the actions of Israel's opponents that will determine the result.
As long as the world continues to pamper the Arabs, Israel will raise the finger.
Pulling articles from the BBC (which has always been pro-Arab) diminishes the value of you posts along with your rant in the middle.
Instead of looking at my last comment; look at the first two.
Why? I think the fact that you state that the BBC has a bias in favour of the Palestinians is highly relevant in terms of apprasing the worth of your posts.
What the US politically states will be of no relevance
What the US states in public is not always what happens behind the scenes in private.
The lobby force for Israel as an ally in the ME is strong.
The Jewish lobby itself is also very strong.
Politicians will provide lip service at the most.
it will be the actions of Israel's opponents that will determine the result.
As long as there are Arabs/Palestinians out there that are attacking Israel and/or threatening
a) it increase support for Israel from the above
b) it weakens the support of the opponent
c) it strengthens the resolve of Israel to not take a chance on compromising their safety.
What you say is true; however, you forgot to add that building on Arab land and shelling civilians increases support for the Arabs.
As long as the world continues to pamper the Arabs
When ever (over the past 65 years) the Arabs/Palestinians have provoked and/or attacked Israel, they have been slapped down hard by Israel. Every time, the Arabs have had to play the sympathy card to get Israel from finishing the job. Each time, the Arabs have promised to be good and play nice in the sandbox. Every time the Arabs have broken their word - either directly, through proxies or found excuses to give a wink to the troublemakers.
Pamper the Arabs? You are crazy. The world has stood by and watched Israel massacre hundreds of Palestinians without imposing a single sanction. Thankfully, many Israelis are not right-wing tyrants and see the need for communciation and compromise.
Israel will raise the finger.
Until the Arabs come up with a leader that can be trusted to keep the opposition in check and demonstrates that they have to power to honor a commitment/treaty, Israel is not going to accept anything that comes out of meetings/conferences/public statements.
Maybe it shouldn't be left in the hands of Israel, or the Palestinians.
Right or wrong, Israel is going to take care of Israel first and the Palestinians will get the leftovers. This is a result of actions from both sides over the past 60 years.
At least you recognise shared blame: you are making progress.
Israel "trusted" the partition plan and was willing to accept the initial land allotment. When that was shown to be dangerous; they expanded to take what available/lost by conflict.
The West Bank was taken and rather than remove all the Palestinians. Israel started the wall to protect itself. Which has demonstrated to be fairly successful.
The settlement expansion is a thorn; but that land is under their control; not the country of Jordan which was originally in charge. Jordan did not want the responsibility of the land and the people.
As an example that others have used; the US government bought & took by treaty most of the country west of the Mississippi. Then the local inhabitants were displaced.
Why are you explaining this by providing further examples? It's wrong, pure and simple.
Another example: China & Tibet.
A very useful comparison.
Most countries boundaries are fixed - however, some people do not want what has been decided outside their realm of influence/control. They have to either deal with it or change it. Choosing to change means they have to accept the consequences of actions if they fail to achieve their result. While they may be right; forcing the issue does not allow them a redo button if they fail.
I assume you mean that Israel will have to accept what the UN, the US and the international community says, as an example of decisons made "outside their realm of influence/control". I would suggest that Israel needs to begin dealing with the fact that it cannot act as it pleases.
Facebook
Twitter