Any one wish to discuss Israel vs. Palestine here?

[Vidi]

It was nice to see Shimon speak so highly of President Obama today. If you listen to the R's, he's the anti-Jew made real. LOL

Romney was his usual Court Jester in Israel and if elected prez, will spend most of his time saying that what he meant to say ...

You can blame it on Obama or Romney but that won't change that what Obama said is true - They really do need to take responsibility for their own country's borders. They need to duke this out between themselves and, never mind what the R says, we can't and should not do this for them.

Obama is right about this. Romney is dead wrong. Especially about sending them even more money. (Why is it that the R always wants to spend more money on other countries than on their own?)

we have never "done" for israel. we aid our ally the way we aid allies elsewhere. the difference is that israel doesn't fund terrorists who want to attack us with the aid we give them. i'll also point out that we are obligated by treaty to give certain funds to egypt and israel. last i check, those treaties hadn't been terminted or broken in any way.

my main question is why is israel the only country that certain types of people complain about aiding...

i don't hear the same people complaining that we gave billions to the pals and to the saudis...

I think its because what it gets us in return.

Some may say that one of the biggest reasons America is a target of terrorism is our support of Israel.

 

[Dot Com]

The Lavon Affair? Don't forget about the Franklin espionage scandal & the fact that they asked for Pollard to be released in the not too distant past. My major bone of contention is their inordinate presence in influential positions given the aforementioned incidents & their lobby's control over the gov't:
American Israel Public Affairs Committee - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The annual Policy Conference is second only to the State of the Union address for the number of federal officials in attendance at an organized event.[citation needed]

I have found, on the internet, that if one questions israel's preferential status they are labelled anti-semites however,

 

[Billo_Really]

i am not sure if they are in violation of over 200 UN resolutions. .

Here's what I've found so far...

Since 1948, the Security Council has adopted 223 resolutions in condemnation of Israel 's violations of international law, including the occupation of Palestinian lands, unilateral incursions into the Lebanese and Syrian soils, developing nuclear weapons, deporting the Palestinian citizens from their homes and building illegal settlements in the West Bank .

That's quite a bit!

What if Iran was in violation of that many?

i am always suspect of articles where the author has a vested interest in the subject. kourosh ziabari is an iranian muslim and i find what he says a bit disengenuous and dramatic. i always have. also, i think the 'centre for globalization research" has a clear bias. it impresses me as the other side of the MEMRI coin, although it has a broader scope. i see no need to exaggerate or distort israel's violation of humanitarian practices and laws. i think thye word "condemnation" was used erroneously and deceptively in his statement "the Security Council has adopted 223 resolutions in condemnation of Israel 's violations of international law..."

The Futility of UN Security Council Resolutions

the security council passes numerous resolutions of concern or position that do not amount to condemnations.

i think this is a more accurate list of the now 224 resolutions passed at the security council level CONCERNING israel.

List of United Nations resolutions concerning Israel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

if you look through the resolutions, you will see a lot of really minor things and duplicates but you will also get a better and more accurate picture of what is going on in actuality without having the accusation of a biased source being thrown back in your face. i think the bare facts condemn israel far greater than an opinion piece, no matter how accurate that opinion piece may be or how much i agree with it.

here is another one though regarding the USA vetoes on behalf of israel...

http://wikispooks.com/wiki/UN_Vetoes_for_Israel

i think that says a lot as well.

all i am really saying is that i think we (people who speak for justice for palestine and her people) should be very hard on ourselves and our arguments and be very wary of our sources. if i open the door for global research etc, i am allowing them to open the door for MEMRI and CAMERA. also, i want to be squeaky clean when i bring up unbiased sources like mearsheimer and walt, or be able to hammer them when "fourteen members resign from carter center advisory board in protest over peace, not apartheid" and blah, blah, blah when, what, twelve of theem were jewish. that is a signiicant fact. the fact that the carter center had almost twice the jewish presence on his advisory board than their presence in the general population would indicate flys in the face of jewish claims of his anti-semitism.

all i am really saying is we win by playing our game, and our game has always been truth and hard facts from reliable, unbiased sources. their game has always been propaganda, which they are good at and which we should point out constantly. they are beginning to fail at tthat game big time. also, there are quite a few honest jews who oppose zionism to speak out against the zionist propaganda.

just my opinion.

We always consider the source, just to be prudent. However, the truth or falsehood of an assertion does not rest soley on the source from which it came. GlobalResearch is a non-partisan, Canadian, alternative media outlet. They have no stake in the outcome. With that being said, I don't think anyone should just take the word of someone else (and that includes media outlets), but should find out for themselves using as many different sources commenting on the same subject as they can. The more perspectives you get on a certain topic, the closer you will get to the truth.

 

[Shogun]

The land should be combined and shared among the two peoples. equally. If propping up a favored race in America is racism then so, too, is it racism in Israel. All we are doing is propping up the Strom Thurmans of israel by validating zionism in that land. There will only be peace when both people are mutually equal.

fact.

 

[sealadaigh]

Here's what I've found so far...
That's quite a bit!

What if Iran was in violation of that many?

i am always suspect of articles where the author has a vested interest in the subject. kourosh ziabari is an iranian muslim and i find what he says a bit disengenuous and dramatic. i always have. also, i think the 'centre for globalization research" has a clear bias. it impresses me as the other side of the MEMRI coin, although it has a broader scope. i see no need to exaggerate or distort israel's violation of humanitarian practices and laws. i think thye word "condemnation" was used erroneously and deceptively in his statement "the Security Council has adopted 223 resolutions in condemnation of Israel 's violations of international law..."

The Futility of UN Security Council Resolutions

the security council passes numerous resolutions of concern or position that do not amount to condemnations.

i think this is a more accurate list of the now 224 resolutions passed at the security council level CONCERNING israel.

List of United Nations resolutions concerning Israel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

if you look through the resolutions, you will see a lot of really minor things and duplicates but you will also get a better and more accurate picture of what is going on in actuality without having the accusation of a biased source being thrown back in your face. i think the bare facts condemn israel far greater than an opinion piece, no matter how accurate that opinion piece may be or how much i agree with it.

here is another one though regarding the USA vetoes on behalf of israel...

http://wikispooks.com/wiki/UN_Vetoes_for_Israel

i think that says a lot as well.

all i am really saying is that i think we (people who speak for justice for palestine and her people) should be very hard on ourselves and our arguments and be very wary of our sources. if i open the door for global research etc, i am allowing them to open the door for MEMRI and CAMERA. also, i want to be squeaky clean when i bring up unbiased sources like mearsheimer and walt, or be able to hammer them when "fourteen members resign from carter center advisory board in protest over peace, not apartheid" and blah, blah, blah when, what, twelve of theem were jewish. that is a signiicant fact. the fact that the carter center had almost twice the jewish presence on his advisory board than their presence in the general population would indicate flys in the face of jewish claims of his anti-semitism.

all i am really saying is we win by playing our game, and our game has always been truth and hard facts from reliable, unbiased sources. their game has always been propaganda, which they are good at and which we should point out constantly. they are beginning to fail at tthat game big time. also, there are quite a few honest jews who oppose zionism to speak out against the zionist propaganda.

just my opinion.

We always consider the source, just to be prudent. However, the truth or falsehood of an assertion does not rest soley on the source from which it came. GlobalResearch is a non-partisan, Canadian, alternative media outlet. They have no stake in the outcome. With that being said, I don't think anyone should just take the word of someone else (and that includes media outlets), but should find out for themselves using as many different sources commenting on the same subject as they can. The more perspectives you get on a certain topic, the closer you will get to the truth.

we're on the same side here on the issue. unlike the pro-israelis however, i don't nthink we have to march in lockstep and i am sure you don't either.

GlobalResearch has an agenda and sites with agendas are propaganda sites. it makes no difference whether i agree with the propoganda or not. they may not have a stake in the outcome on the particular issue per se, but they do have a stake in presenting issues to their readership in such a way as to encourage donations.

sites such as this, the ADL, etc are very useful for providing information that can be checked out from more acceptaable, non-biased sources. i've even read srtuff in rense that was true, but i would never use it and instead look to verify what actually happened from a mainstream news source. given the facts, i can say something like what kourosh ziabari said in my own words. that way i am more sure of my argument.

i also don't think you need to look to a lot of different sources to form an opinion or gain a perspective. the pro-israelis go to a lot of sources, MEMRI, CAMERA, ADL, the jewish virtual library, etc. and all they are doing is reinforcing their perspective and taking them further from the truth. hate sites don't give me much of a perspective other than to show me soe people are really scarey (i do like the black background and the red dripping letters and the spooky music ones with the pope and his minioms burning in hell).seriously, look at the arguments they present. why do you think so many of them slip into one line responses involving vulgarity and argumentum ad hominem.

i just prefer mainstream sources that have a reputation for objectivity if at all possible and i can mke my arguments from there. it isn't always possible, o know. i certainly don't do it myself. i am sitting on one right now that i believe has accurate facts and very little bias, if any, that is far easier to follow than the 20 or so links i have had to click to verify the facts.

the whole thing is getting ridiculous anyway. we shouldn't have to prove their assertions wrong. they should have to prove their assertions right, like we do ours.

lol..i ain't mad atcha.

 

[Billo_Really]

we're on the same sife here on the issue. unlike the pro-israelis however, i don't nthink we have to march in lockstep and i am sure you don't either.

GlobalResearch has an agenda and sites with agendas are propaganda sites. it makes no difference whether i agree with the propoganda or not. they may not have a stake in the outcome on the particular issue per se, but they do have a stake in presenting issues to their readership in such a way as to encourage donations.

sites such as this, the ADL, etc are very useful for providing information that can be checked out from more acceptaable, non-biased sources. i've even read srtuff in rense that was true, but i would never use it and instead look to verify what actually happened from a mainstream news source. given the facts, i can say something like what kourosh ziabari said in my own words. that way i am more sure of my argument.

i also don't think you need to look to a lot of different sources to form an opinion or gain a perspective. the pro-israelis go to a lot of sources, MEMRI, CAMERA, ADL, the jewish virtual library, etc. and all they are doing is reinforcing their perspective and taking them further from the truth. hate sites don't give me much of a perspective other than to show me soe people are really scarey (i do like the black background and the red dripping letters and the spooky music ones with the pope and his minioms burning in hell).seriously, look at the arguments they present. why do you think so many of them slip into one line responses involving vulgarity and argumentum ad hominem.

i just prefer mainstream sources that have a reputation for objectivity if at all possible and i can mke my arguments from there. it isn't always possible, o know. i certainly don't do it myself. i am sitting on one right now that i believe has accurate facts and very little bias, if any, that is far easier to follow than the 20 or so links i have had to click to verify the facts.

the whole thing is getting ridiculous anyway. we shouldn't have to prove their assertions wrong. they should have to prove their assertions right, like we do ours.

lol..i ain't mad atcha.

I don't know where you are on the political spectrum, but the one thing I've noticed as a difference between liberals and conservatives, is that liberals are more inclinded to disagree with each other than the cons. It might just be me, but I rarely see con-on-con warfare. But when it happens, I don't forget it. In fact, it's kind of nice to see.

I remember one time a guy in another forum told this right wing administrator that he just blindly believes everything Glenn Beck says and the righty went off! He said, "Hey, don't group me in with that psycho! He doesn't speak for me and he doesn't share my values". I got all warm and fuzzy hearing that and thought to myself, maybe the old, fiscal conservative, William F. Buckley republican's are still out there. I hope so. I definately do not want a "one party" government. We need about 15 or 20 different party's competing for seats.

Right wingers who hate Limbaugh party
Liberals who don't have bleeding hearts party
Jews who hate Israeli's party
Christian's against neocons party
Guy's who like chick flicks party
The gay KKK party
The we only drink malt liquour party
NRA members for gun control party
Judeo-muslim pacifists party
the we hate the Celtics party​

We need to open this thing up. Right now, we got reps and dems, which are flip-sides of the same coin.

 

[sealadaigh]

It was nice to see Shimon speak so highly of President Obama today. If you listen to the R's, he's the anti-Jew made real. LOL

Romney was his usual Court Jester in Israel and if elected prez, will spend most of his time saying that what he meant to say ...

You can blame it on Obama or Romney but that won't change that what Obama said is true - They really do need to take responsibility for their own country's borders. They need to duke this out between themselves and, never mind what the R says, we can't and should not do this for them.

Obama is right about this. Romney is dead wrong. Especially about sending them even more money. (Why is it that the R always wants to spend more money on other countries than on their own?)

we have never "done" for israel. we aid our ally the way we aid allies elsewhere. the difference is that israel doesn't fund terrorists who want to attack us with the aid we give them. i'll also point out that we are obligated by treaty to give certain funds to egypt and israel. last i check, those treaties hadn't been terminted or broken in any way.

my main question is why is israel the only country that certain types of people complain about aiding...

i don't hear the same people complaining that we gave billions to the pals and to the saudis...

no need to be coy. i think many of us know what you mean by "certain types of people." maybe you mean those of the egalitarian variety, but somehow i doubt it. this certain person compkains about a lot of things and attacks them in various ways and at vertain time. china and most favoured nation and foreign aid while they were committing labour abuses, farmers for contributing to illehal immigration to provide cheap labour (and that includes agriprocessor). haiti, pakistan, india for child labour, many countries for using children as soldiers, the WTO and IMF and on and on. recently on this message board i complained about china and the olympic uniorms and i complained about people wanting to get rid of the minimum wage.

i do not like my country's foreign aid money going to a country that flagrantly commits human rights abuses, war crimes, and in my opinion, acts of genocide. i do not want to look back some day when there is no palestinian people or bedouin tribes and say to myself "why didn't i do more?"

i have know idea where you are getting your figures. could you provide a source, particularly about the billions given to the pal E S T I N I A N S (look, i do not refer to jewish people as "heebs" or for the most part, i don't even call them "jews". i try to call them jewish people or jewish israelis. i'm not perfect, but i try. if you meant it as a term of endearment, i apologise.

here is a site that breaks down foreign aid. it is easy to follow and i think is somewhat accurate.

http://www.vaughns-1-pagers.com/politics/us-foreign-aid.htm

here is another site that is the horses mouth.l i used it to check the accuracy of the above but it is way to labour intensive, but feel free.

http://gbk.eads.usaidallnet.gov/data/country.html

and here is another...

United States foreign aid - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


i think you are mixing up apples and oranges and maybe even a fish or two. maybe you could be more speciific.

as for allies, here is something that is about to hit the fan...although there does seem to be a good job of covering it up going on...

FBI: Bibi Helped in Plot for US Nuclear Equipment - Defense/Security - News - Israel National News

FBI: Bibi Helped in Plot for U.S. Nuclear Equipment
Declassified FBI documents implicate PM Netanyahu in a 1970s plot to use U.S. technology for Israel’s nuclear program.

The sale of nuclear technology to Israel is illegal under U.S. law because Israel is not a signatory of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.

(thanks, my good friend, joannie, for the link)

i am just really trying to figure out what you are trying to say and if you can back things up. do you want us not to talk about the foreign aid package we give to israel?

 

[SayMyName]

Realistically, however, Israel is a powerful, static aircraft carrier for the United States. Our defence, capital, and intelligence industries are almost completely intertwined. Whether we agree or disagree on the politics of the Palestinian question, withdrawing support from Israel in the region is almost a rhetorical question alone. It could not be done easily and swiftly.

 

[JoeB131]

Realistically, however, Israel is a powerful, static aircraft carrier for the United States. Our defence, capital, and intelligence industries are almost completely intertwined. Whether we agree or disagree on the politics of the Palestinian question, withdrawing support from Israel in the region is almost a rhetorical question alone. It could not be done easily and swiftly.

Not really.

First, we can't base our troops or planes from there, because even our Arab allies would go nuts.

Remember when in 1991, Saddam launched SCUDs against Israel, and we had to beg them not to retaliate because we were afraid the Arab states we were counting on would switch sides if the Israelis got involved?

Second, Israel has its own agenda which isn't our agenda.

Third, there are only two ways the Palestinian question gets resolved. Either a two-state soution or they eventually become the numerical majority in Israel, and vote Zionism out of existence.

 

[SayMyName]

Realistically, however, Israel is a powerful, static aircraft carrier for the United States. Our defence, capital, and intelligence industries are almost completely intertwined. Whether we agree or disagree on the politics of the Palestinian question, withdrawing support from Israel in the region is almost a rhetorical question alone. It could not be done easily and swiftly.

Not really.

First, we can't base our troops or planes from there, because even our Arab allies would go nuts.

Remember when in 1991, Saddam launched SCUDs against Israel, and we had to beg them not to retaliate because we were afraid the Arab states we were counting on would switch sides if the Israelis got involved?

Second, Israel has its own agenda which isn't our agenda.

Third, there are only two ways the Palestinian question gets resolved. Either a two-state soution or they eventually become the numerical majority in Israel, and vote Zionism out of existence.

But, as many Israeli friends of mine would retort, "...there already is a Palestinian state. It's called Jordan."

Anyway, we already have had troops on Israeli soil during the first Gulf War. It continues to serve as an extension of our own policy and arm in the war against terror. Regardless Israel's own aims, which is to survive, it serves ours in that war.

 

[blackhawk]

If you didn't have Iran and Syria helping Hamas and Hezbollah though Syria is helping less now because of it's own internal problems I think Israel and Palestine could work something out that both could live with.

 

[JoeB131]

But, as many Israeli friends of mine would retort, "...there already is a Palestinian state. It's called Jordan."

Anyway, we already have had troops on Israeli soil during the first Gulf War. It continues to serve as an extension of our own policy and arm in the war against terror. Regardless Israel's own aims, which is to survive, it serves ours in that war.

Actually, what Israel does is drag us into wars in a part of the world we shouldn't have a thing to do with.

And sorry, Jordan is not the "Palestinian State". Palestine is.

 

[Vidi]

Realistically, however, Israel is a powerful, static aircraft carrier for the United States. Our defence, capital, and intelligence industries are almost completely intertwined. Whether we agree or disagree on the politics of the Palestinian question, withdrawing support from Israel in the region is almost a rhetorical question alone. It could not be done easily and swiftly.

Not really.

First, we can't base our troops or planes from there, because even our Arab allies would go nuts.

Remember when in 1991, Saddam launched SCUDs against Israel, and we had to beg them not to retaliate because we were afraid the Arab states we were counting on would switch sides if the Israelis got involved?

Second, Israel has its own agenda which isn't our agenda.

Third, there are only two ways the Palestinian question gets resolved. Either a two-state soution or they eventually become the numerical majority in Israel, and vote Zionism out of existence.

Theres a third way and one I find far more likely than any other unfortunately:

Eventually theres war and ethnic cleansing becomes the "final solution". I do not expect the Palestinians will win that conflict. I expect that the Israelis will eventually exterminate them.

And I think that it will be viewed by history as another Holocaust.

I just dont see those folks over there EVER finding a way to peacefully co-exist.

 

[American Horse]

[...]
Look at it this way. those who can afford to are leaving it in droves. israel is bending its own ruless on immigration to maintain their "jewish" hegemony and are generally attracting low income hooligans who couldn't make it wherever. brooklyn gun toters and russian neo-nazis etc. that is a very broad generalisation, but with some truth to it.

by dismantle i think i meant let's see if we can get those people out of there who can't afford to get away from it themselves.

In the years 1990 - 2011 Israel's population increased 67%
In the years 1990 - 2011 U.S.'s population increased 24%

That set of statistics doesn't support the bolded statement above, since Israel's population grew almost 300% (279%) faster than ours.

In spite of the hardships and risks Israel is growing robustly.

Demographics of Israel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Demographics of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[sealadaigh]

Realistically, however, Israel is a powerful, static aircraft carrier for the United States. Our defence, capital, and intelligence industries are almost completely intertwined. Whether we agree or disagree on the politics of the Palestinian question, withdrawing support from Israel in the region is almost a rhetorical question alone. It could not be done easily and swiftly.

Not really.

First, we can't base our troops or planes from there, because even our Arab allies would go nuts.

Remember when in 1991, Saddam launched SCUDs against Israel, and we had to beg them not to retaliate because we were afraid the Arab states we were counting on would switch sides if the Israelis got involved?

Second, Israel has its own agenda which isn't our agenda.

Third, there are only two ways the Palestinian question gets resolved. Either a two-state soution or they eventually become the numerical majority in Israel, and vote Zionism out of existence.

Theres a third way and one I find far more likely than any other unfortunately:

Eventually theres war and ethnic cleansing becomes the "final solution". I do not expect the Palestinians will win that conflict. I expect that the Israelis will eventually exterminate them.

And I think that it will be viewed by history as another Holocaust.

I just dont see those folks over there EVER finding a way to peacefully co-exist.

i grew up in post war europe and the german children were like regular little kids except they were ashamed. there was a sense of sadness about them and where most kids brag about their parents, they never did...even if their parents had nothing to do with the NAZIs.

germany was big enough to recover from that national shame as her children grew up and had children.

another victim of zionism may well be the jews themselves. already, they are losing people to intermarriage and other reasons. i couldn't imagine being a jew after the palestinian holocaust.

 

[there4eyeM]

More likely, either by sheer numerical superiority or developing a weapon or strategy, the state of Israel will be over run or obliterated by its surrounding enemies.
It is like the pogroms of the past, except this time Zionists have established their own ghetto and set themselves up as a target.
Note, this is not a scenario I want, recommend or look forward to, so don't misinterpret. This is merely an outcome I find probable.

 

[SayMyName]

No one has been a harsher critic in the past of Israel than I. Yet, I will never delude myself. That one would compare the actions of Israel in relation to the Palestinians with those of the Nazis is either uneducated or deliberately deceiving. Furthermore, I doubt there is any real shame if one is alive in the aftermath of a major struggle in that arena. You only feel relief. Israel will, undoubtedly be able to handle any military challenge in the area, now more than ever with the Arab world in upheaval. As a last resort, to ensure its security, it has multiple nuclear strike weapons as sophisticated as any in ours. True, there is much not to like, but in the end, she serves our needs, and we serve hers, so she will be around for a long while after others come and go.

 

[Two Thumbs]

I'm curious to see how the discussions will go in a temperate zone.

I'll give 100 - 1 odds that the evul joos win again and again vs the pals

with or with out our help.

 

[Two Thumbs]

But, as many Israeli friends of mine would retort, "...there already is a Palestinian state. It's called Jordan."

Anyway, we already have had troops on Israeli soil during the first Gulf War. It continues to serve as an extension of our own policy and arm in the war against terror. Regardless Israel's own aims, which is to survive, it serves ours in that war.

Actually, what Israel does is drag us into wars in a part of the world we shouldn't have a thing to do with.

And sorry, Jordan is not the "Palestinian State". Palestine is.

What war has Israel dragged us into?

Pals are Jordinians, the land was taken for Jordan. the pals are such low lifes that they wouldn't let them leave Israel.

 

[Foxfyre]

If you didn't have Iran and Syria helping Hamas and Hezbollah though Syria is helping less now because of it's own internal problems I think Israel and Palestine could work something out that both could live with.

They cannot work anything out as long as the official position of the Palestinian leadership, whether it be Hamas, Hezbollah, or some splinter group, is to deny Israel's existence. Most especially when those same government continue to be engaged in acts of terrorism against Israelis.