Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Pull US foreign aid to Israel.
Long over due.
I agree.
This is a decade out of date but I doubt the reality has changed that much: WRMEA: U.S. Aid to Israel
Israel is not a third world country.
Pull US foreign aid to Israel.
Long over due.
LOL, it must really be a thorn in your side that the JEWS are promised 10 more years of the same! Hopefully one might get to spit in your face as he take money from your pocket!
The argument that Israel uses it's aid money to buy from US suppliers is a bunch of baloney. To contend that robbing Peter to pay Paul is justification for this cash give away is absurd.
Further, it is the view of the US that Israel IS NOT economically self sufficient. I think that is complete poppy cock, but that's the way they see it. They aren't self sufficient in the same way the US is not self sufficient, we live far beyond our means and borrow to support it. Which makes this whole issue all the more clear. We are BROKE. We BORROW the money that we GIVE to Israel. Once we give it to them, they turn around and buy US T Bills with the money we gave them, collecting interest from us using the money we BORROWED to give to them. We get to pay interest on the same money twice.
These people are not our friends, friends.
Nearly all US aid to Israel is military aid and nearly all the military aid the US provides to any country is in the form of credits to buy from US companies. That means no cash is involved. Israel makes a request of the DoD to buy specific hardware and if that request is approved Israel gets the hardware and the government pays the company, creating tens of thousands of US jobs and much needed tax revenues to state and local governments. We're not giving money away, we're redistributing it within the US economy, and that's what governments do when they tax and spend, they redistribute money within the economy. And this is why the US has traditionally been more disposed to provide military aid than to provide economic aid or humanitarian aid: military aid is nearly always spent within the US economy and provides jobs for Americans and tax revenues for state and local governments, while much economic and humanitarian aid is a net drain on the US economy.
That is a load.
US aid to Israel has largely been paid by single lump sum payments. There are particular defense contractors that offer lines of credit but these credits do not nearly consume the whole of US aid to Israel. And even so, paying Israels debts to contractors still means borrowing money we don't have to pay them.
Understanding in August 2007 committing the U.S. to give Israel $30 billion in military aid over the next decade. This is grant aid, given in cash at the start of each fiscal year. The only stipulation imposed on Israels use of this cash gift is that it spend 74 per cent to purchase U.S. military goods and services.
This is just the MILITARY aid we have given them. We have given them wads of cash for domestic use too. All in cash grants.
Unlike other countries, which receive aid in quarterly installments, aid to Israel since 1982 has been given in a lump sum at the beginning of the fiscal year, leaving the U.S. government to borrow from future revenues. Israel even lends some of this money back through U.S. treasury bills and collects the additional interest.
WRMEA: U.S. Aid to Israel
Your main point being that what I said about US military aid to Israel creating tens of thousands of US jobs and much needed tax revenues to state and local governments is 74% accurate and that 26% of the money may be spent on military hardware from Israeli companies. I stand corrected.
It seems that in the past, the US agreed to allow Israel to use some of this money to develop weapons especially suited to its needs that US companies did not make and to buy the weapons from Israeli companies, but this had been done on a project by project basis, and as I now understand it, it was not until the 2007 agreement that Israel was allowed to use a fixed percentage of the aid for purchases from Israeli companies.
The process is as I described it. The money is transferred from the Treasury to an account at the Fed and as Israeli requests for purchases are approved by DoD (technically by Congress, but effectively by DoD) and the products delivered, payment is transferred from the Fed to the seller. If the sales are not approved, the money stays in the account at the Fed, but this rarely happens.
So if I understand you correctly, what rankles you is not the 74% that creates tens of thousands of American jobs and tax revenues to state and local governments, but the 26% that Israel spends with Israeli companies, $624 million in 2008. In the age of Obama when multi trillion dollar deficits are expected to become commonplace, $624 million is mere chump change, but perhaps you're right and Israel should be required to spend all the money with US companies.
You are not accounting for NON MILITARY AID. 76% of their MILITARY aid is spent with us. Just last year, 2008, we finally phased out ESF payments, which Israel has recieved in billions since 1971. At the same time we pulled the ESF, we began increasing the military aid.
One of the biggest "spit in your face" moves, is that the money that we do not give directly to israel is indeed placed into an account here, with the Federal Reserve, AN INTEREST BEARING ACCOUNT. They collect interst FROM US, using money WE GAVE them. That is INSANE.
Anyway, there is still money that we give Israel for cash assistance to immigrants. They fly in Jews from all over the world, give them language and job training, housing and cash assistance, on the US taxpayer.
Further, we extend loan guarantees that exceed our aid package and we regularly send special assistance in addition to the regular assistance.
To assert that all of the aid is spent with US contractors, or even 76% of the total aid, is a flat lie. And whatever amount they spend with US contractors does not make a difference in the amount of money we give away. And to rub a little salt in the wound, we allow them to collect interest on the money, from us.
It's all in the report.
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/RL33222.pdf
As you correctly point out, non military aid to Israel is now almost zero, and you do make a plausible argument that Israel should be forced to spend all of the military aid in the US to create tens of millions more American jobs than it is already creating.
Apparently, it is the very small amount of non military aid Israel still receives from us and the interest on the Fed account that has you so worked up. There is no question but that the US Congress continues to treat Israel favorably as compared to other countries, and no doubt this is in recognition of the fact that US influence in the ME is largely based on our close relationship with a strong Israel. Not only did Israel's victories over Soviet client states in Egypt and Syria stop Soviet expansion in the ME and US support for Egypt and Israel lock the Soviets out, thus saving the US from a potential confrontation with the USSR to protect our access to ME oil, but it is the perception of strong US influence over Israeli policy that draws the oil rich states towards close relationships with us rather than with other rich nations that could supply their technical and military needs.
So Congress understands that not only did Israel save the US from a potential confrontation with Soviet forces in the ME in the past but our close relationship with Israel continues to enhance US prestige and influence in the ME today. No other US alliance has ever served America's vital interests so well.
I agree.
This is a decade out of date but I doubt the reality has changed that much: WRMEA: U.S. Aid to Israel
Israel is not a third world country.
Pull US foreign aid to Israel.
Long over due.
LOL, it must really be a thorn in your side that the JEWS are promised 10 more years of the same! Hopefully one might get to spit in your face as he take money from your pocket!
What a stupid ass little comment, GHook; what a dumbfuck you are.
LOL, it must really be a thorn in your side that the JEWS are promised 10 more years of the same! Hopefully one might get to spit in your face as he take money from your pocket!
What a stupid ass little comment, GHook; what a dumbfuck you are.
Was a thorn in your side huh! Well think I got my point across!
Little Willy I am starting to think you own the propaganda website, since you give shouts out to it some much!
First, you know nothing about the I/P situation with your leftist blinders on!
Second, quoting only off propaganda websites do nothing to prove your points!
I will tell my Israeli relatives to make sure they spend Little Willy's dollars on something nice!
The settlements are an issue that should be decided as a part of a final status agreement, not as a precondition for starting peace talks as Obama has defined the situation. While some Arab/Muslim nations would like to see the settlement issue decided in a particular way, the fact is their relations with the US will not change one way or the other regardless of how that issue is settled. They will continue to relate to the US on the basis of their own national concerns and those concerns will not be changed because the Palestinians get a little more land or a little less land. So the US has no vital interest in how the settlement issue is resolved.
I see what you are are saying but I'm not sure I agree. There are major issues involved and both the Palestinians and the Israeli's are going to have to give - IF they really want peace and that is a pretty big "if".
The Palestinians really have nothing to lose because they have nothing - no real rights, no sovereignty, not much hope for the future right now. At any point their livelyhoods can be destroyed, their homes, their families. That kind of hopelessness feeds right into recruitment for violence. The Palestinians are also making demands that Israel can't possibly meet: the "right of return" for example which would drastically change the demographics of Israel.
The Israeli's however have more to lose then the Palestinians because their standing as the only democracy in the Middle East, and their support in the national community is at stake. You can't claim to have a "democracy" when you effectively control the lives and land of some 5 million stateless people who have no real voice in policy affecting them. You also can't have a real two-state solution with the settlements as they currently are because there is no way to create a valid state within the current boundaries allowed. You can't have a state that who's borders, trade, access to water, to utilities can be completely closed off at will by a foreign country at any time; who can not engage in treaties or agreements with countries Israel doesn't approve of, who can not keep a military to defend it's borders - borders controlled by a country that is hostile to it and a country where some political groups despise them as something like vermin - that is not "viable". The end result of such a scheme is effectively apartheid in all but name.
Then you have Jeruselum - a mutli-ethnic city, important to three major world religions. Israel has systematically been de-lousing it of Arabs and Palestinians through control of housing and building permits. These, along with the settlements are their "facts on the ground". At some point the demographics will make it impossible for it to be anything but an Israeli city.
I think that the issue of settlements must be addressed because they have been a long standing point of provocation to the Palestinians. I think the Palestinians might then be more likely be able to give on the "right of return"...maybe.
But that also calls in the question of whether they REALLY want peace.
For the Israeli's: constant threat, a common enemy, and the increasingly tarnished image of Israel as little David vs. Arab Goliath unites some very disparate political groups and puts off dealing with political and religious schisms within the population that have differing ideas of what Israel should be.
For the Palestinians: a two state solution may no longer seem so lucrative - if they push for inclusion within Israel - a one state solution - then demographically their numbers will overwhelm the Jewish population and ... depending on the strength of Israel's identity as a Jewish and secular state - it could change the nature of Israel.
So..is peace possible?
You mention that the US has no vital interest in how the settlement issue is resolved...I would disagree. I think it is the one issue of paramount importance in the Middle East because it's lack of resolution fuels every other conflict and in particular, terrorism. Will resolving it stop terrorism? No, but it will pull a leg out from under it. It will force other Arab nations to focus on extremists rather than blaming Israel for everything.
You are not accounting for NON MILITARY AID. 76% of their MILITARY aid is spent with us. Just last year, 2008, we finally phased out ESF payments, which Israel has recieved in billions since 1971. At the same time we pulled the ESF, we began increasing the military aid.
One of the biggest "spit in your face" moves, is that the money that we do not give directly to israel is indeed placed into an account here, with the Federal Reserve, AN INTEREST BEARING ACCOUNT. They collect interst FROM US, using money WE GAVE them. That is INSANE.
Anyway, there is still money that we give Israel for cash assistance to immigrants. They fly in Jews from all over the world, give them language and job training, housing and cash assistance, on the US taxpayer.
Further, we extend loan guarantees that exceed our aid package and we regularly send special assistance in addition to the regular assistance.
To assert that all of the aid is spent with US contractors, or even 76% of the total aid, is a flat lie. And whatever amount they spend with US contractors does not make a difference in the amount of money we give away. And to rub a little salt in the wound, we allow them to collect interest on the money, from us.
It's all in the report.
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/RL33222.pdf
As you correctly point out, non military aid to Israel is now almost zero, and you do make a plausible argument that Israel should be forced to spend all of the military aid in the US to create tens of millions more American jobs than it is already creating.
Apparently, it is the very small amount of non military aid Israel still receives from us and the interest on the Fed account that has you so worked up. There is no question but that the US Congress continues to treat Israel favorably as compared to other countries, and no doubt this is in recognition of the fact that US influence in the ME is largely based on our close relationship with a strong Israel. Not only did Israel's victories over Soviet client states in Egypt and Syria stop Soviet expansion in the ME and US support for Egypt and Israel lock the Soviets out, thus saving the US from a potential confrontation with the USSR to protect our access to ME oil, but it is the perception of strong US influence over Israeli policy that draws the oil rich states towards close relationships with us rather than with other rich nations that could supply their technical and military needs.
So Congress understands that not only did Israel save the US from a potential confrontation with Soviet forces in the ME in the past but our close relationship with Israel continues to enhance US prestige and influence in the ME today. No other US alliance has ever served America's vital interests so well.
The non military aid is not "almost zero".
And providing jobs? Are you kidding me? Let's get this straight: You think it's a good deal to GIVE AWAY our tax dollars to Israel because they use OUR money to pay US to WORK FOR OUR MONEY THAT WE GAVE THEM. WTF? What is your malfunction in logic? Jobs? They are paying for those jobs with our own money that was GIVEN to them BY US. The only net gain in that equation is the gain of products by Israel.
Let's look at this from a more visible level. If you think this such a good thing, I ask that you send me $1,000 today. Give it to me. In return, I will loan you $500, at interest, and use the other $500 to pay you to mow my lawn all summer. Now, you're out $1,000, you owe me interest on $500 and you get to mow my lawn all summer.
That's good for you, right? When can I expect you to start?
As you correctly point out, non military aid to Israel is now almost zero, and you do make a plausible argument that Israel should be forced to spend all of the military aid in the US to create tens of millions more American jobs than it is already creating.
Apparently, it is the very small amount of non military aid Israel still receives from us and the interest on the Fed account that has you so worked up. There is no question but that the US Congress continues to treat Israel favorably as compared to other countries, and no doubt this is in recognition of the fact that US influence in the ME is largely based on our close relationship with a strong Israel. Not only did Israel's victories over Soviet client states in Egypt and Syria stop Soviet expansion in the ME and US support for Egypt and Israel lock the Soviets out, thus saving the US from a potential confrontation with the USSR to protect our access to ME oil, but it is the perception of strong US influence over Israeli policy that draws the oil rich states towards close relationships with us rather than with other rich nations that could supply their technical and military needs.
So Congress understands that not only did Israel save the US from a potential confrontation with Soviet forces in the ME in the past but our close relationship with Israel continues to enhance US prestige and influence in the ME today. No other US alliance has ever served America's vital interests so well.
The non military aid is not "almost zero".
And providing jobs? Are you kidding me? Let's get this straight: You think it's a good deal to GIVE AWAY our tax dollars to Israel because they use OUR money to pay US to WORK FOR OUR MONEY THAT WE GAVE THEM. WTF? What is your malfunction in logic? Jobs? They are paying for those jobs with our own money that was GIVEN to them BY US. The only net gain in that equation is the gain of products by Israel.
Let's look at this from a more visible level. If you think this such a good thing, I ask that you send me $1,000 today. Give it to me. In return, I will loan you $500, at interest, and use the other $500 to pay you to mow my lawn all summer. Now, you're out $1,000, you owe me interest on $500 and you get to mow my lawn all summer.
That's good for you, right? When can I expect you to start?
Again, the Congress treats Israel favorably in recognition of the fact that Israel's victories over Soviet client states in Egypt and Syria halted Soviet expansion in the ME without the requirement that US soldiers stand at risk to protect access to ME oil supplies and that US support for a strong Egypt and a strong Israel locked the Soviets out and formed the basis for our influence in the ME and that even today, it is the perception of strong US influence over Israeli policy that draws ME states to seek close relationships with the closest ally, the US, of the most powerful ME state.
As to the impact of this military aid on the US economy, it is exactly the same as if the US were buying this equipment for its own use. It creates exactly the same number of jobs and the same tax revenues regardless of where the military hardware goes, and since this is production in excess of US requirements, it may well allow these companies to achieve new economies of scale that will lower our own acquisition costs for these items and it allows the US to maintain an excess capacity we can use in the event of emergency, allowing us to maintain smaller inventories and thus save taxpayer dollars. Again, the positive impact of this military aid would be even greater if, as you suggest, Israel were required to spend all of the money here in the US.
The non military aid is not "almost zero".
And providing jobs? Are you kidding me? Let's get this straight: You think it's a good deal to GIVE AWAY our tax dollars to Israel because they use OUR money to pay US to WORK FOR OUR MONEY THAT WE GAVE THEM. WTF? What is your malfunction in logic? Jobs? They are paying for those jobs with our own money that was GIVEN to them BY US. The only net gain in that equation is the gain of products by Israel.
Let's look at this from a more visible level. If you think this such a good thing, I ask that you send me $1,000 today. Give it to me. In return, I will loan you $500, at interest, and use the other $500 to pay you to mow my lawn all summer. Now, you're out $1,000, you owe me interest on $500 and you get to mow my lawn all summer.
That's good for you, right? When can I expect you to start?
Again, the Congress treats Israel favorably in recognition of the fact that Israel's victories over Soviet client states in Egypt and Syria halted Soviet expansion in the ME without the requirement that US soldiers stand at risk to protect access to ME oil supplies and that US support for a strong Egypt and a strong Israel locked the Soviets out and formed the basis for our influence in the ME and that even today, it is the perception of strong US influence over Israeli policy that draws ME states to seek close relationships with the closest ally, the US, of the most powerful ME state.
As to the impact of this military aid on the US economy, it is exactly the same as if the US were buying this equipment for its own use. It creates exactly the same number of jobs and the same tax revenues regardless of where the military hardware goes, and since this is production in excess of US requirements, it may well allow these companies to achieve new economies of scale that will lower our own acquisition costs for these items and it allows the US to maintain an excess capacity we can use in the event of emergency, allowing us to maintain smaller inventories and thus save taxpayer dollars. Again, the positive impact of this military aid would be even greater if, as you suggest, Israel were required to spend all of the money here in the US.
No, it is not as if we were buying this equipment for our own use. If that were the case, I suspect we could have used some of the stuff we paid for while we're right next door in Iraq.
As far as the benefits of locking out Soviet states, fine point. But let's not forget that our support for Israel was a major factor in a little event called 9/11. The people who did it have no problem telling us point blank that our military support for Israel is why they have attacked us and will continue.
We are more than capable of influencing ME affairs without sending this money to Israel. Israel managed to hold it's own before we gave them this money and can certainly continue without it. While it may have been a good thing at one time, it is now far past any benefit to us. We are broke. It's a pretty simple concept. Being broke, that is.
Nice propaganda you lying disingenious FUCK! Al Qaeda has only recently started to mention the I/P situation. They attacked us for many ideological and other reason (mainly for our presence in Saudi Arabia).
Any since your a 9/11 truther doesn't that go against your beliefs stating the Islamofacists did it! Don't you believe it was the US government with help from Mossad that did it? Get your story straight your fucking troll!
'US support for Israel spurred 9/11' | International | Jerusalem PostBin Laden wanted to make sure the attackers struck Congress because it is "the most important source of support for Israel in the United States," adding that Bin Laden twice tried to move up the dates of the attacks because of events involving Israel.
September 11 attacks - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaIn a second fatwā issued in 1998, bin Laden outlined his objections to American foreign policy towards Israel, as well as the continued presence of American troops in Saudi Arabia
The non military aid is not "almost zero".
And providing jobs? Are you kidding me? Let's get this straight: You think it's a good deal to GIVE AWAY our tax dollars to Israel because they use OUR money to pay US to WORK FOR OUR MONEY THAT WE GAVE THEM. WTF? What is your malfunction in logic? Jobs? They are paying for those jobs with our own money that was GIVEN to them BY US. The only net gain in that equation is the gain of products by Israel.
Let's look at this from a more visible level. If you think this such a good thing, I ask that you send me $1,000 today. Give it to me. In return, I will loan you $500, at interest, and use the other $500 to pay you to mow my lawn all summer. Now, you're out $1,000, you owe me interest on $500 and you get to mow my lawn all summer.
That's good for you, right? When can I expect you to start?
Again, the Congress treats Israel favorably in recognition of the fact that Israel's victories over Soviet client states in Egypt and Syria halted Soviet expansion in the ME without the requirement that US soldiers stand at risk to protect access to ME oil supplies and that US support for a strong Egypt and a strong Israel locked the Soviets out and formed the basis for our influence in the ME and that even today, it is the perception of strong US influence over Israeli policy that draws ME states to seek close relationships with the closest ally, the US, of the most powerful ME state.
As to the impact of this military aid on the US economy, it is exactly the same as if the US were buying this equipment for its own use. It creates exactly the same number of jobs and the same tax revenues regardless of where the military hardware goes, and since this is production in excess of US requirements, it may well allow these companies to achieve new economies of scale that will lower our own acquisition costs for these items and it allows the US to maintain an excess capacity we can use in the event of emergency, allowing us to maintain smaller inventories and thus save taxpayer dollars. Again, the positive impact of this military aid would be even greater if, as you suggest, Israel were required to spend all of the money here in the US.
No, it is not as if we were buying this equipment for our own use. If that were the case, I suspect we could have used some of the stuff we paid for while we're right next door in Iraq.
As far as the benefits of locking out Soviet states, fine point. But let's not forget that our support for Israel was a major factor in a little event called 9/11. The people who did it have no problem telling us point blank that our military support for Israel is why they have attacked us and will continue.
We are more than capable of influencing ME affairs without sending this money to Israel. Israel managed to hold it's own before we gave them this money and can certainly continue without it. While it may have been a good thing at one time, it is now far past any benefit to us. We are broke. It's a pretty simple concept. Being broke, that is.
While I agree with you that the ideal of two sovereign states living side by side in peace might be desirable the difficulties that would have to be overcome to achieve this are so formidable that it may be impossible, at least for the foreseeable future. And no matter how giggly some pro Palestinian folks may get contemplating a one state solution, or no matter how clever Jimmy Carter may think he is suggesting it is the only alternative to Israel caving in to Arab demands, there is no support for such an idea in Israel and the rest of the world is just not interested enough in what happens to the Israelis or the Palestinians to commit to trying to impose it.
So where does that leave us? One idea that has been suggested is that Israel, Egypt and Jordan return to the ideas of UNSC 262, the land for peace resolution, and that they sign treaties in which Israel returns to Jordan most of the land it captured in the 1967 war and it returns Gaza to Egypt. This may seem far fetched to some, but the Jordanians are taking it seriously. When Jordan annexed the West Bank in the 1950's, it made all the Arabs there Jordanian citizens and while since the 1967 war Jordan has been wobbly at times in recognizing their citizenship rights, it is now about to revoke these rights in response to suggestions from Israeli politicians that the Palestinians should really be a Jordanian and Egyptian problem. While this solution has a certain charm from a historical perspective, it is no more of a practical reality at this time that a two state or a one state solution is.
So what we are left with for the foreseeable future is the current state of Israeli-Palestinian relations, which are not stagnant, not at an impasse as some would have you believe. For the last few years, Israel, Jordan, the PA and the US have been cooperating to create new Palestinian security forces that will be a professional corp willing and able to keep the peace in the territories and to prevent terrorist attacks against Israel. The creation of such a corp is essential to the creation of any stable Palestinian government that could credibly promise Israel peace in return for the creation of a Palestinian state.
These new security forces are being trained and armed by the US in Jordan, but all four partners have agreed on all the steps to be taken in this project. If I remember correctly, ten divisions are envisioned in about two years and four are currently in operation in the West Bank. Recently, Israel agreed to the creation of an additional anti terrorism force. As these security forces have shown themselves to be effective in disarming militants and stopping terror attacks, the IDF has been pulling back and removing roadblocks and checkpoints and this process is giving the Palestinians in the West Bank greater and greater freedom and autonomy. Depending on how internal Palestinian politics are resolved, there may come a time in the not too distant future when a Palestinian leader can say to his Israeli counterpart, "I can now give you credible assurances that you will not be attacked from Palestinian territories, so let's start talking about how we can create two sovereign states living side by side in peace." Polls show the great majority of Israelis support a two state solution if it means they will not be attacked from Palestinian territories. Of course, there would still be formidable problems to be overcome, notably, the refugees, Jerusalem, access between Gaza and the West Bank and access between Israel and one of the larger settlements that is not connected directly to present day Israel, and of course, the settlements.
There is absolutely no basis in fact for believing that any Israeli concessions on the settlements, or even on building in the settlements that is not a part of an larger agreement will lead to any positive outcomes for either the US or for Israel. We can speculate on how the Arabs or the Palestinians might respond to this or that Israeli concession, but we have no basis in fact for believing in any of these speculations. The Palestinians could create such a basis in fact by creating a stable government and using these new security forces to effectively end attacks against Israel.
However, as a practical matter, do you really believe that if the Israelis and Palestinians came to agreement on the refugees, Jerusalem access between Gaza and the West Bank and a host of other issues like trade and resources that the Palestinians would say, "No, we couldn't possibly accept a Palestinian state that didn't include precisely that 5 1/2 % of the West Bank (the land Israel proposed to keep in the 2000 negotiations in exchange for pre 1967 Israeli land)"?
The only wapeace in the Me is to remove tghose of the Jewish faith from it. The perps in control have no intention of handing land back to anyone and more importantly seek to expand the state of Israel by any means required.
Should any other nation be doing this then that would be seen as an act of war but as the Zionists have their fingers in many pies its not going to happen. No what they have been trying to acieve amongst many thing is a new crusade between Christians and Muslims and they have and will kill anyone to bring this about as demonstrated by 9/11 and 7/7.
The Israelis have become the new Nazis commiting crimes against humanity and aswerable to no one even worse openly threatening to attack any nation it see's as a threat. There is more hate and racsim in Isreal today than there ever was in Nazi Germany, a corrupt and despotic nation that thrives on lies and mas murder.
There is nothing dishonest in my statement, there are many examples between the two nations if one cares to look and its not about just what Israel has done its about what it intends to do.
Perhaps you may think of wanting to nuke another country as a normal activity but I don't. You must have conveniently forgotton all the racist and hate filled comments that have come out of the mouths of Rabbi's, Politicians, the Military and everyday folk over the years and to this present day.
Forgotton all the people that have been murdered in the ME and around the World all thsoe in jail for daring to challnge the Holocaust. No other nation is allowed such power.
Israel is a nation formed on terrorism and a terrorism that it exports on a regular basis, these events are all well docummented and historical. One only has to look at the recent slaughter in Gaza as an example of Israels total comtempt for any none Jewish people. Israel is using the past to justify the present, future and its actions against other nations and their peoples.
Any other nation engaged in such activites would be condemmed on a world wide basis yet Israel gets away with it. It is the actions of the ADL and those who support the cause who want to have the protection of the law for those who speak out against the Israelis and their murderous acts.
One may ask if your nation was invaded would you yield to the invader or would you fight for your land and your people. The people of the ME are doing just that same thing, trying to fight against the tyranny of Israel, but Israel is supported by the evil twins UK/US in this unjust and unfair conflict.
While I agree with you that the ideal of two sovereign states living side by side in peace might be desirable the difficulties that would have to be overcome to achieve this are so formidable that it may be impossible, at least for the foreseeable future. And no matter how giggly some pro Palestinian folks may get contemplating a one state solution, or no matter how clever Jimmy Carter may think he is suggesting it is the only alternative to Israel caving in to Arab demands, there is no support for such an idea in Israel and the rest of the world is just not interested enough in what happens to the Israelis or the Palestinians to commit to trying to impose it.
Caving in to Palestinian demands? giggly? I pretty much agree with you on the one state (non) solution its a no brainer.
So where does that leave us? One idea that has been suggested is that Israel, Egypt and Jordan return to the ideas of UNSC 262, the land for peace resolution, and that they sign treaties in which Israel returns to Jordan most of the land it captured in the 1967 war and it returns Gaza to Egypt. This may seem far fetched to some, but the Jordanians are taking it seriously. When Jordan annexed the West Bank in the 1950's, it made all the Arabs there Jordanian citizens and while since the 1967 war Jordan has been wobbly at times in recognizing their citizenship rights, it is now about to revoke these rights in response to suggestions from Israeli politicians that the Palestinians should really be a Jordanian and Egyptian problem. While this solution has a certain charm from a historical perspective, it is no more of a practical reality at this time that a two state or a one state solution is.
Why would it not be a practical reality? Ill admit, I have not heard of it being taken seriously. My impression has been that no one really wants a potentially volatile Palestinian population under their auspices. I also suspect that not resolving the issue has as many political benefits for some of the Arab countries as it does for Israel as it deflects the more radical elements of their populations from focusing their discontent internally.
Very interesting I did not know this, you add a new dimension to the resolution of this conflict 
There is absolutely no basis in fact for believing that any Israeli concessions on the settlements, or even on building in the settlements that is not a part of an larger agreement will lead to any positive outcomes for either the US or for Israel. We can speculate on how the Arabs or the Palestinians might respond to this or that Israeli concession, but we have no basis in fact for believing in any of these speculations. The Palestinians could create such a basis in fact by creating a stable government and using these new security forces to effectively end attacks against Israel.
The settlements are a constant point of provocation to the Palestinians and they also create the impression that Israel is not a trustworthy negotiating partner. It is also impossible to create a viable state with settlements as they stand. The more settlements continue to spread the harder it will be to make them part of any agreement at all and the harder (politically) it will be to dismantle them and the Israelis know this. Even internally they provide a major point of political friction. Hardliners and extremists in both cases drive a great deal of the conflict and if they can be circumvented by the more moderate factions chances of success might be higher. By halting the settlements, the Israelis would be sending a message that they are serious about peace. By halting the attacks on Israel the Palestinians would be sending the same message. But both may be politically impossible.
However, as a practical matter, do you really believe that if the Israelis and Palestinians came to agreement on the refugees, Jerusalem access between Gaza and the West Bank and a host of other issues like trade and resources that the Palestinians would say, "No, we couldn't possibly accept a Palestinian state that didn't include precisely that 5 1/2 % of the West Bank (the land Israel proposed to keep in the 2000 negotiations in exchange for pre 1967 Israeli land)"?
I dont know.
