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.

frankj1 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.

borndead1 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.

HockeyDad 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.

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.

frankj1 wrote:

Finkelstein reading from index cards? That's what you base your facts about 1967 on? -- I said in my post that I didn't feel like digging up and posting a bunch of this stuff. I just gave 1 link. 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. -- Are you talking about Finkelstein's claim that Alan Dershowitz plagiarized stuff for his book? His claims were pretty valid if you look over the info.

Like Chomsky (who you may belive to be unAmerican) his communist leanings may play a part in his hatred of any ethnic state. -- I don't consider Chomsky to be a communist. He's more of an Anarchist really.

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. -- Because he wrote the intro to a Holocaust revisionist book that he hadn't even read? His intro was some generalized stuff about freedom of speech.

I seriously have no issue with your opinions on historical events or contemporary politics, keeps things interesting for sure. -- Absolutely. These types of discussions need to happen.

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 agree and hope the same of you. 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 wrote:

I just have on question for Mit. Was the bus a VW?

teedubbya wrote:

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 wrote:

Sorry but it is true and there is clear leadership there. It is the same leadership marching to the UN in September for Palestinian statehood.

Israel has not strengthened any borders. Israel just simply maintains the occupation. Israel didn't see any unrest coming and there are inquiries within Israeli intelligence as to why that is the case.

Meanwhile Egypt has already said they will respect all treaties. You're still hunting for an enemy to justify a 44 year long occupation.

HockeyDad wrote:

Well,,,

If one country invades another and loses in six days,,,,

To the victor go the spoils...

So,it's not really an occupation,IMHO

There is no Rite of Return...

Btw,

Nothing coming from Egypt is credible right now.

wheelrite wrote:

Fair enough. Israel should annex the land and all residents are now full Israeli citizens. You would support that, right? That would make it not an occupation.

Are you sure you're really OK with the idea that refugees from wars have no right of return?

...and if all the arabs nations got together again and attacked Israel and wiped it out, to the victor goes the spoils, right?

HockeyDad wrote: