America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 12 years ago by Kawak. 195 replies replies.
4 Pages1234>
Romney: Obama 'threw Israel under the bus'
fishinguitarman Offline
#1 Posted:
Joined: 07-29-2006
Posts: 69,152
HANOVER, N.H. – Republicans looking to unseat President Barack Obama charged that he undermined the sensitive and delicate negotiations for Middle East peace with his outline for resumed talks between Israelis and Palestinians.

Former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman said Obama, whom he served as U.S. ambassador to China until last month, undercut an opportunity for Israelis and Palestinians to build trust. Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney said Obama "threw Israel under the bus" and handed the Palestinians a victory even before negotiations between the parties could resume. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich called it "the most dangerous speech ever made by an American president for the survival of Israel."

Foreign policy has hardly been the center of the debate among the still-forming GOP presidential field. Instead, the candidates and potential candidates have kept their focus — like the country's — on domestic issues that are weighing on voters and their pocketbooks. Obama's speech Thursday provided one of the first opportunities for Republicans to assert their foreign policy differences with Obama and his Democratic administration.

Obama endorsed Palestinians' demands for the borders of its future state based on 1967 borders — before the Six Day War in which Israel occupied East Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza. That was a significant shift in U.S. foreign policy.

Campaigning here in the state that hosts the first presidential nominating primary, Huntsman also said the United States should respect Israel and work to foster trust between Israelis and Palestinians.

[ For complete coverage of politics and policy, go to Yahoo! Politics ]


"If we respect and recognize Israel as the ally that it is, we probably ought to listen to what they think is best," said Huntsman, who served in the administrations of Presidents Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush before surprising his party and serving Obama, a Democrat.

He acknowledged he didn't watch Obama's speech and was reacting to news coverage — or, as he called it, "the aftermath."

"It is disrespectful of Israel for America to dictate negotiating terms to our ally," Romney said in an interview with The Associated Press. "It is not appropriate for the president to dictate the terms."

Instead, the United States should work with Israel to push for peace without acceding to the Palestinians, he said.

Gingrich said Israel simply cannot go back to the 1967 borders and expect to remain secure, given technological advancements that would allow its enemies to fire rockets deeper into the state.

"Get a map of the region and look at what Hamas does in firing missiles into Israel," Gingrich told The Associated Press. "The president should have said that Hamas has to abandon its determination to destroy Israel."

Obama urged Israel to accept that it can never have a truly peaceful nation based on "permanent occupation." That follows what other Republicans have painted as hostility from this administration toward a stalwart ally in the Middle East.

"The current administration needs to come to terms with its confused and dangerous foreign policy soon, as clarity and security are the necessary conditions of any serious and coherent American set of policies," Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania said in a statement.

Obama's speech at the State Department addressed the uprisings sweeping the Arab world. Speaking to audiences abroad and at home, he sought to leave no doubt that the U.S. stands behind the protesters who have swelled from nation to nation across the Middle East and North Africa.

"We know that our own future is bound to this region by the forces of economics and security; history and faith," the president said.

But the remarks only muddied things, especially on the dicey issue of Jerusalem, said former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty.

"The city of Jerusalem must never be re-divided," Pawlenty said. "At this time of upheaval in the Middle East, it's never been more important for America to stand strong for Israel and for a united Jerusalem."

Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota, a tea party favorite who is leaning toward a run, called the border suggestions "a shocking display of betrayal" to Israel.

"Today President Barack Obama has again indicated that his policy towards Israel is to blame Israel first," she said in a statement.

On Twitter, former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin didn't directly address the speech but urged Obama to publicly welcome Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu instead of ushering him into private meetings away from reporters, as has occurred on Netanyahu's previous visits. The two leaders will talk Friday at the White House.

"Dear Mr. President, please allow our ally, PM Netanyahu, to respectfully arrive through the front door this time. Thanks, Concerned Americans," she tweeted.

DrMaddVibe Offline
#2 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,528
Mittens = Owebama in whiteface.

Nothing to see there.

Move along.
chiefburg Offline
#3 Posted:
Joined: 01-31-2005
Posts: 7,384
I believe Israel now owns the land in dispute. The Palestinians attempted to invade and destroy Israel. Israel held off the attack and took the spoils of war. It's been their land since 1967. Too frickin' bad......if you don't want to lose land, don't attack your neighbor....
HockeyDad Offline
#4 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,169
If the goal all along has been that Israel is the land from the sea to the river and the USA backed that plan, then Obama threw Israel under the bus. If that was not the goal, Obama's speech was tame and only stated the obvious and Romney and Gingrich are just trying to automatically take some sort of opposition viewpoint for political gain.
HockeyDad Offline
#5 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,169
chiefburg wrote:
I believe Israel now owns the land in dispute. The Palestinians attempted to invade and destroy Israel. Israel held off the attack and took the spoils of war. It's been their land since 1967. Too frickin' bad......if you don't want to lose land, don't attack your neighbor....




War for land conquest ended with World War 2. Your logic would dictate that Iraq and Afghanistan and now permanent US possessions.

However, I can be convinced that the land is now Israel. In that case, Israel should officially annex it all and all residents of the West Bank and Gaza (formerly known as the Palestinian Territories) should now become full Israeli citizens with all rights and privileges.

Problem solved.
DrMaddVibe Offline
#6 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,528
Newtered is on a roll lately.

That jackwagon can't make up his mind on any issue and looks great in glitter.

Sorry, but if this is the best the GOP can roll out then its obvious that we've become a one party system.

Wake up America.

They're taking your rights one by one and we're sleeping.

Overthrow the Federal Reserve.

Cut the spending

Bring the Boys back home.

Stop the insanity.

RON PAUL 2012.
DrMaddVibe Offline
#7 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,528
HockeyDad wrote:
However, I can be convinced that the land is now Israel. In that case, Israel should officially annex it all and all residents of the West Bank and Gaza (formerly known as the Palestinian Territories) should now become full Israeli citizens with all rights and privileges.

Problem solved.


THAT is NOT going to happen.

You know it too.
HockeyDad Offline
#8 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,169
Well we can't maintain status quo for another 40 years!

Eliminate all US foreign aid to Israel until the concentration camps are dismantled.
DrMaddVibe Offline
#9 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,528
Giving money to other nations MUST stop.

Under conditions shouldn't even be an option.
DrafterX Offline
#10 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,566
will they still get cheese..??? Huh
fishinguitarman Offline
#11 Posted:
Joined: 07-29-2006
Posts: 69,152
Hillary Palin Pelosi 2012
daveincincy Offline
#12 Posted:
Joined: 08-11-2006
Posts: 20,033
If Obama can organize a community, surely he can bring nations together. He knows what he's doing.

...and don't call him Shirley.
Papachristou Offline
#13 Posted:
Joined: 10-20-2010
Posts: 845
DrMaddVibe wrote:
Newtered is on a roll lately.

That jackwagon can't make up his mind on any issue and looks great in glitter.

Sorry, but if this is the best the GOP can roll out then its obvious that we've become a one party system.

Wake up America.

They're taking your rights one by one and we're sleeping.

Overthrow the Federal Reserve.

Cut the spending

Bring the Boys back home.

Stop the insanity.

RON PAUL 2012.


yessir, i think youve nailed it, we are losing rights faster than i am losing my hair, dont get me started on the fed or soldiers, ron paul will not win i am sad to say. a vote to him is lost in the wind.
borndead1 Offline
#14 Posted:
Joined: 11-07-2006
Posts: 5,216
chiefburg wrote:
I believe Israel now owns the land in dispute. The Palestinians attempted to invade and destroy Israel. Israel held off the attack and took the spoils of war. It's been their land since 1967. Too frickin' bad......if you don't want to lose land, don't attack your neighbor....



Umm...no. That's the story that has been told for the last 40 years, but no. Israel struck first, claiming they were in imminent danger of an attack from Egypt, which even our own intelligence said wouldn't likely happen and would have been futile on Egypt's part anyway.
HockeyDad Offline
#15 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,169
DrMaddVibe wrote:


Sorry, but if this is the best the GOP can roll out then its obvious that we've become a one party system.




On the topic of the Republican presidential candidates......

Game over.

Get under the Obama Cone of Protection
DrMaddVibe Offline
#16 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,528
HockeyDad wrote:
On the topic of the Republican presidential candidates......

Game over.

Get under the Obama Cone of Protection



No way.

I'd NEVER vote for someone with no experience. He's flying by the seat of his pants racing to the bottom.
HockeyDad Offline
#17 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,169
....but he's got like two years of experience now!
HockeyDad Offline
#18 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,169
HEY FUZZNJ>>>>>>

Notice I took Obama's side??

....and you call me a right wing hack.
DrMaddVibe Offline
#19 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,528
HockeyDad wrote:
....but he's got like two years of experience now!



and he's *****ed up everything he's done!

Yeah...WINNING...DUH!d'oh!
HockeyDad Offline
#20 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,169
Well he did parachute into Pakistan and kill Osama Bin Laden with his bare hands just like Chuck Norris would have done.
DrMaddVibe Offline
#21 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,528
HockeyDad wrote:
Well he did parachute into Pakistan and kill Osama Bin Laden with his bare hands just like Chuck Norris would have done.



And lost a Top Secret helicopter to the ChiComs!

Just like Chuck!

See, I'm Team Bauer.whip

You never see it coming.ram27bat

The moron couldn't even hold a decent beer summit and you want to vote for him?

Good luck with that.

Frying pan Frying pan Frying pan
HockeyDad Offline
#22 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,169
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8JFGdH5wgCs&feature=related
DrafterX Offline
#23 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,566
I thought the war puppy-dog killed him...? Huh
FuzzNJ Offline
#24 Posted:
Joined: 06-28-2006
Posts: 13,000
HockeyDad wrote:
HEY FUZZNJ>>>>>>

Notice I took Obama's side??

....and you call me a right wing hack.


You are, but you also have been very consistent about the Palestinian/Israel situation over the years. It is one of your only left leaning positions.

;)
HockeyDad Offline
#25 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,169
In unrelated news. Syria killed 21 protesters today. This tops Israel's tally of 13 dead protesters last Sunday and gives Syria the title of "Most Protesters Killed" for the week.

Congratulations Syria. Israel, try harder!
rfenst Online
#26 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,382
chiefburg wrote:
I believe Israel now owns the land in dispute. The Palestinians attempted to invade and destroy Israel. Israel held off the attack and took the spoils of war. It's been their land since 1967. Too frickin' bad......if you don't want to lose land, don't attack your neighbor....



Exactly.
HockeyDad Offline
#27 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,169
I have no problem with a one state solution. All residents of the West Bank and Gaza (formerly known as the Palestinian Territories) should now become full Israeli citizens with all rights and privileges.
frankj1 Offline
#28 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,234
borndead1 wrote:
Umm...no. That's the story that has been told for the last 40 years, but no. Israel struck first, claiming they were in imminent danger of an attack from Egypt, which even our own intelligence said wouldn't likely happen and would have been futile on Egypt's part anyway.

no need for revisionistas. The story is still widely accepted because of its accuracy, sorry to say. Egypt amassed huge amounts of military on the border as others surrounding Israel began synchronized maneuvering...Syrian tanks on another front etc. This was not going to be a picnic, whaddya think??!! The reason intelligence later proclaimed the futility of Egypt's moves was because of what ensued! Predictability of Israel kicking their asses may have proven Egypt's plan stupid, but they absolutely planned to join in with their brethren in an attempt to eliminate Israel from the face of the Earth. Bad plan, goodbye land. Absolutely the way it happened.

It is also widely accepted that a threatened country striking first is considered a pre-emptive strike. Had they not, you wouldn't have Israel to kick around anymore.
FuzzNJ Offline
#29 Posted:
Joined: 06-28-2006
Posts: 13,000
The 1967 borders is not a new US position. The Bush administration also proposed the same thing. The 'outrage' from the right is strange considering that fact, but predictable.
borndead1 Offline
#30 Posted:
Joined: 11-07-2006
Posts: 5,216
frankj1 wrote:
no need for revisionistas. The story is still widely accepted because of its accuracy, sorry to say. Egypt amassed huge amounts of military on the border as others surrounding Israel began synchronized maneuvering...Syrian tanks on another front etc. This was not going to be a picnic, whaddya think??!! The reason intelligence later proclaimed the futility of Egypt's moves was because of what ensued! Predictability of Israel kicking their asses may have proven Egypt's plan stupid, but they absolutely planned to join in with their brethren in an attempt to eliminate Israel from the face of the Earth. Bad plan, goodbye land. Absolutely the way it happened.

It is also widely accepted that a threatened country striking first is considered a pre-emptive strike. Had they not, you wouldn't have Israel to kick around anymore.


I hate to pull a Fuzz, but do some research...just because something is repeated thousands of times for decades doesn't make it true. I don't feel like digging around much for this stuff, but here is 1 link.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ila4LOWP6F8
FuzzNJ Offline
#31 Posted:
Joined: 06-28-2006
Posts: 13,000
What's pull a Fuzz and why do you hate it? ;)

donutboy2000 Offline
#32 Posted:
Joined: 11-20-2001
Posts: 25,000
FuzzNJ wrote:
The 1967 borders is not a new US position. The Bush administration also proposed the same thing. The 'outrage' from the right is strange considering that fact, but predictable.





GWB did NOT propose the same thing.



Read & learn:


Netanyahu said he would urge Obama to endorse a 2004 American commitment, made by then President George W. Bush, to Israel. In a letter at the time, Bush said a full withdrawal to the 1967 lines was "unrealistic" and a future peace agreement would have to recognize "new realities on the ground."

Israelis have interpreted Bush's commitment as U.S. support for retaining the major settlement blocs. Earlier this week, Netanyahu said Israel would have to retain the blocs as part of any future peace agreement.

ctv
FuzzNJ Offline
#33 Posted:
Joined: 06-28-2006
Posts: 13,000
Bush 5-26-05

Any final status agreement must be reached between the two parties, and changes to the 1949 Armistice lines must be mutually agreed to. A viable two-state solution must ensure contiguity of the West Bank, and a state of scattered territories will not work. There must also be meaningful linkages between the West Bank and Gaza. This is the position of the United States today, it will be the position of the United States at the time of final status negotiations.

he imminent Israeli disengagement from Gaza, parts of the West Bank, presents an opportunity to lay the groundwork for a return to the road map. All parties have a responsibility to make this hopeful moment in the region a new and peaceful beginning. That is why I assigned General Kip Ward, who is with us today, to support your efforts, Mr. President, to reform the Palestinian security services and to coordinate the efforts of the international community to make that crucial task a success. The United States also strongly supports the mission of the Quartet's special envoy, Jim Wolfensohn, to make sure that the Gaza disengagement brings Palestinians a better life.

1-10-08

There should be an end to the occupation that began in 1967…The agreement must establish Palestine as a homeland for the Palestinian people, just as Israel is a homeland for the Jewish people.

Achieving an agreement will require painful political concessions by both sides…While territory is an issue for both parties to decide, I believe that any peace agreement between them [the Israelis and Palestinians] will require mutually agreed adjustments to the armistice lines of 1949 to reflect current realities and to ensure that the Palestinian state is viable and contiguous.
frankj1 Offline
#34 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,234
borndead1 wrote:
I hate to pull a Fuzz, but do some research...just because something is repeated thousands of times for decades doesn't make it true. I don't feel like digging around much for this stuff, but here is 1 link.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ila4LOWP6F8

Finkelstein reading from index cards? That's what you base your facts about 1967 on? OK by me for you to believe anything you want but at least know that this fellow, though clearly brilliant, receives assignments from Noam Chomsky to do hatchet jobs on any Pro-Israel/Pro-Judaism scholars and authors. His repeated and typical methods are to claim plagiarism based on minutiae, seemingly enough to make the non-scholars among us "question" those works. And then that "questioning" takes on a life of its own given enough fertilizer. Such is the method of ugly revisionism.

Like Chomsky (who you may belive to be unAmerican) his communist leanings may play a part in his hatred of any ethnic state. Do not confuse his Jewish start in life with who he is today. This is the same guy whose many other writings twisted the legacy of the Holocaust into something quite ugly and bordering on Neo-Nazi denial.

I seriously have no issue with your opinions on historical events or contemporary politics, keeps things interesting for sure. Clearly we would simply argue fruitlessly so I'll just respect your rights to your thoughts while I believe they are very misguided from your choice of sources. Sometimes we seek sources that will "prove" what we wish to believe...I hope you do not do that. I have been enjoying some of your humor and insights on these boards for a while, but I had to respond to what I felt was an injustice...I'm sure you understand.

Frank
frankj1 Offline
#35 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,234
FuzzNJ wrote:
Bush 5-26-05

Any final status agreement must be reached between the two parties, and changes to the 1949 Armistice lines must be mutually agreed to. A viable two-state solution must ensure contiguity of the West Bank, and a state of scattered territories will not work. There must also be meaningful linkages between the West Bank and Gaza. This is the position of the United States today, it will be the position of the United States at the time of final status negotiations.

he imminent Israeli disengagement from Gaza, parts of the West Bank, presents an opportunity to lay the groundwork for a return to the road map. All parties have a responsibility to make this hopeful moment in the region a new and peaceful beginning. That is why I assigned General Kip Ward, who is with us today, to support your efforts, Mr. President, to reform the Palestinian security services and to coordinate the efforts of the international community to make that crucial task a success. The United States also strongly supports the mission of the Quartet's special envoy, Jim Wolfensohn, to make sure that the Gaza disengagement brings Palestinians a better life.

1-10-08

There should be an end to the occupation that began in 1967…The agreement must establish Palestine as a homeland for the Palestinian people, just as Israel is a homeland for the Jewish people.

Achieving an agreement will require painful political concessions by both sides…While territory is an issue for both parties to decide, I believe that any peace agreement between them [the Israelis and Palestinians] will require mutually agreed adjustments to the armistice lines of 1949 to reflect current realities and to ensure that the Palestinian state is viable and contiguous.

So now they'll happily take what they refused in 1949 because it established Israel also...right? Hope so, but could use some reassurance.
HockeyDad Offline
#36 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,169
There should be an end to the occupation that began in 1967.



That pretty much covers it.
HockeyDad Offline
#37 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,169
The only assurance that exists in the world is international recognition of borders. Israel only partially has this due to their own repeated failures and Netanyahoo is accelerating that trend towards pariah state.

End US funding. End the occupation.
topper7788 Offline
#38 Posted:
Joined: 06-21-2006
Posts: 4,719
Frank,

Why are even bothering or trying to debate this here? Might as well try and have a open discussion on abortion here?

Just admit Israel started the 67 war to gain land and be done with it. Your not going to change anyone's mind around here on anything. LOL

As mentioned above all those tanks and soldiers where just sightseeing on the boarder and Israel overreacted !! Come on everyone knows thatand land gained from a military victory MUST be given back be use it'd te right thing to do.

If Israel would just be m
topper7788 Offline
#39 Posted:
Joined: 06-21-2006
Posts: 4,719
Damn iPhone ,

Con't, more resonable everything will be fine!!
frankj1 Offline
#40 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,234
HockeyDad wrote:
There should be an end to the occupation that began in 1967.



That pretty much covers it.

so now I know. sounds so simple.

actually, I'd like to see it end but that won't bring a peaceful 2 state solution in and of itself. still to be addressed is why the arabs did not accept the 2 state offering 18 years prior to 1967...and now we are to believe they would?? When did they shift from that?? Or is that all they ever wanted?? They suddenly decided Israel is cool with them??

spare me sound bites as i am weary of the circle we have danced. End the occupation...and then what? Katy bar the door???
frankj1 Offline
#41 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,234
HockeyDad wrote:
The only assurance that exists in the world is international recognition of borders. Israel only partially has this due to their own repeated failures and Netanyahoo is accelerating that trend towards pariah state.

End US funding. End the occupation.


I can understand Americans who want to end US funding to just about all other nations. But UN and/or international recognition of borders don't protect a single person. That's not the assurance required, and you know what I meant.

per Topper, no one wants to read me argue with you anymore. no one will change opinions due to us.
HockeyDad Offline
#42 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,169
topper7788 wrote:
Frank,

Why are even bothering or trying to debate this here? Might as well try and have a open discussion on abortion here?

Just admit Israel started the 67 war to gain land and be done with it. Your not going to change anyone's mind around here on anything. LOL

As mentioned above all those tanks and soldiers where just sightseeing on the boarder and Israel overreacted !! Come on everyone knows thatand land gained from a military victory MUST be given back be use it'd te right thing to do.

If Israel would just be m





Not a problem. Keep all the land and annex it. All West Bank And Gaza people are now immediately Israeli citizens.

That would end the occupation.
HockeyDad Offline
#43 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,169
[quote=frankj1}still to be addressed is why the arabs did not accept the 2 state offering 18 years prior to 1967...and now we are to believe they would?? When did they shift from that?? Or is that all they ever wanted?? They suddenly decided Israel is cool with them??
[/quote]



Sorry but that is more BS. There are no outstanding questions from why each side chose their respective paths in 1949. It is 2011.

Do you want peace or do you want a perpetual occupation and eventually more war. That is what needs to be addressed.
HockeyDad Offline
#44 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,169
frankj1 wrote:
I can understand Americans who want to end US funding to just about all other nations. But UN and/or international recognition of borders don't protect a single person. That's not the assurance required, and you know what I meant.

per Topper, no one wants to read me argue with you anymore. no one will change opinions due to us.




The Unites States has no assurance that Canada or Mexico will not attack. You are holding out for something imaginary as an excuse for inaction and continued occupation.

You don't even have to try to argue with me. If you choose to do so, you simply must defend a 44 year long military occupation and 500K Israeli Jews that have colonized the West Bank with the backing of the military occupation.
fishinguitarman Offline
#45 Posted:
Joined: 07-29-2006
Posts: 69,152
I've got gas...
rfenst Online
#46 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,382
borndead1 wrote:
I hate to pull a Fuzz, but do some research...just because something is repeated thousands of times for decades doesn't make it true. I don't feel like digging around much for this stuff, but here is 1 link.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ila4LOWP6F8


OK. Let's assume that Finklstein, a Jew, is right. Israel attacked its enemy Egypt tanks for no legitimate reason because Israel KNEW Egypt had no plan to attack. Israel also KNEW that should Egypt attack Israel, Israel would had zero chance of losing.

What then?

What now?
frankj1 Offline
#47 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,234
#43 Sorry but that is more BS. There are no outstanding questions from why each side chose their respective paths in 1949. It is 2011.

Do you want peace or do you want a perpetual occupation and eventually more war. That is what needs to be addressed.



Incorrect...the same question has yet to be answered, or at least has yet to be answered "yes": do they accept Israel's right to exist? The answer has been "no" every time they have had a chance to have a state of their own or they would have had one since 1949, or several times since. "Occupation" is the result of this refusal.
frankj1 Offline
#48 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,234
HockeyDad wrote:
The Unites States has no assurance that Canada or Mexico will not attack. You are holding out for something imaginary as an excuse for inaction and continued occupation.

You don't even have to try to argue with me. If you choose to do so, you simply must defend a 44 year long military occupation and 500K Israeli Jews that have colonized the West Bank with the backing of the military occupation.

That is a ridiculous comparison. If Canada and Mexico were brothers dedicated to wiping us out from the Atlantic to the Pacific it would have relevance. Currently, it's idiotic but if true you'd have a clue what Israel faces. But you may sadly be correct when you say it is imaginary to ask for them to be the type of neighbors that we have. We agree there. So Israel needs security more than we do at the borders.

How is it that when I reference significant years you say "it's 2011" but you are allowed to start at 1967? OK, start at 1967. Who owns the land?

Next question? Never mind, we all know...make them all citizens. Brilliant. Geesh.
HockeyDad Offline
#49 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,169
frankj1 wrote:
#43 Sorry but that is more BS. There are no outstanding questions from why each side chose their respective paths in 1949. It is 2011.

Do you want peace or do you want a perpetual occupation and eventually more war. That is what needs to be addressed.



Incorrect...the same question has yet to be answered, or at least has yet to be answered "yes": do they accept Israel's right to exist? The answer has been "no" every time they have had a chance to have a state of their own or they would have had one since 1949, or several times since. "Occupation" is the result of this refusal.




The Palestinian Authority recognizes Israel's right to exist. Now that your question has already been answered, Israel can go ahead and pull out of the West Bank and end the occupation, right?

HockeyDad Offline
#50 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,169
frankj1 wrote:
That is a ridiculous comparison. If Canada and Mexico were brothers dedicated to wiping us out from the Atlantic to the Pacific it would have relevance. Currently, it's idiotic but if true you'd have a clue what Israel faces. But you may sadly be correct when you say it is imaginary to ask for them to be the type of neighbors that we have. We agree there. So Israel needs security more than we do at the borders.

How is it that when I reference significant years you say "it's 2011" but you are allowed to start at 1967? OK, start at 1967. Who owns the land?

Next question? Never mind, we all know...make them all citizens. Brilliant. Geesh.



OK, have it your way and let's play out the scenario. Israel owns the land now because they won it in war. It is occupied by a couple of million Palestinians and you do not want them as Israeli citizens.. What's your solution? Bataan Death March or Trail of Tears?


2011 is the only significant year. Referencing past events in history only serves the purpose of trying to make the claim that people cannot change....Israeli or Palestinian.

Japan 1941......they're about to attack the USA again. Maybe not.


It is very simple..... you simply must defend a 44 year long military occupation and 500K Israeli Jews that have colonized the West Bank with the backing of the military occupation. It is not a very defensible position.

You also cannot support a one state solution where Palestinians become Israeli citizens for the exact same reason you cannot support Palestinian refugees returning to their homes in what is now Israel. Israel needs ethnic cleansing to be a "Jewish State".
Users browsing this topic
Guest
4 Pages1234>