User was saying it pejoratively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Which brings us to the dubious IHV contention that , " Israel is the most progressive and modern state in the ME. It negotiates with its enemies. It appeases them. It tries to win their affections." To which I by in large disagree, even though there are many things to say about Israeli virtues. And I will be the last to say that Israel is totally evel or that surrounding Arab states are totally good.
You disagree? You dispute the fact that Israel negotiates, appeases, and goes so far as to compromise their own security to win the affection of their enemies in HOPES of achieving peace, or at least a cease-fire?!
Please, feel free to prove me wrong.
The rub is that Israel seeks to advance their position based on retarding the development of surrounding Arab States, and that is good for no one.
At the end of the day, Israel has no right to settle on the disputed land its settling on, Iran has a UN granted right to develop the peaceful use of nuclear energy, and Israel is now an enemy of mid-east peace by refusing to return land illegitimately captured during the 1967 and 73 wars.
Incorrect. We've had this conversation a dozen times Lemon Law. I even explicitly cited the exact wordings of UN242 simply to PROVE YOU WRONG. And of course, you don't respond.
But then you say the same thing again, and expect no one to notice your idiocy? Israel is under no legal obligation to return land captured in a war of self-defense. UN242 was a mandate for a negotiated peace. In exchange for land, Arabs would surrender or forfeit their belligerent status.
They rejected the resolution, and passed the 3 No's (No peace, no recognition, no negotiations). This precipitated the Yom Kippur war, where the Arabs lost land in some areas and gained land elsewhere.
This is what you said before:
continual settlement on disputed land, clearly labels Israel as unwilling to be a genuine peace partner.
Even if we assume your interpretation, it doesn't negate the fact that Israel agreed to the peace process. Israel recognized the Palestinians. Israel, in the least, provided partial concessions. Partial concessions should bring partial peace? No?
Wrong. It only encouraged more war. 95% of Palestinians live under the PNA. Nablus, Ramallah, Bethlehem, Gaza, etc...all independent of Jews. Israelis can't even enter the city without the tacit approval of the PA.
PNA receives over 2 billion in EU subsidies, and 150 million in USA aid, and nearly 50 million a month in Israeli taxes.
They've gone from being the god-fathers in modern terrorism, sparking civil wars in Jordan and Lebanon, hijacking airplanes, torching embassies, assassinating US ambassadors (Arafat was indicted by the US government under terrorism charges) to the chosen people, the victims-in-chief that Israel must please or face another half decade of suicide bombers.
Funny you snip the part where I say USA is Nazi Germany compared to Israel. Do you disagree?
If we are so righteous, perhaps Israel should emulate our military policies. No?
In terms of fair, I support the right of Israel to exists, I can support a future Palestinian State, but I cannot support current Israel policy that is predicated on Israel building an apartheid State based on repressing the development of all its Arab neighbors. It can only lead to a very bad end for everyone.
I don't really understand what you're saying. "Repressing the development of its Arab neighbors"
Lemon Law, THERE ARE NO JEWS IN THE ARAB WORLD! JEWS CANNOT OWN LAND IN JORDAN! IN EGYPT! IN LEBANON! They can't even live in Gaza, and according to the UN they can't live in the WB even though they lived their prior to 1948.
And yet you say Israel is repressing the Arab governments? And not, perhaps - the Arabs are repressing Israel? And the Arabs are repressing their own population?
What isn't Israel's fault Lemon Law?
