Carter's Op-Ed in NY Times

If Zionist Isreal really wanted peace it could have achieved it decades ago,
Of course they want peace. However, their version of peace is all of Palestine without the Palestinians. It has been like that for a hundred years.
Incorrect.

The Muslim-Arab share of Old Palestine is on the East Side of the Jordan River.

It's called "Jordan" nowadays.
 
If Zionist Isreal really wanted peace it could have achieved it decades ago,
Of course they want peace. However, their version of peace is all of Palestine without the Palestinians. It has been like that for a hundred years.
Incorrect.

The Muslim-Arab share of Old Palestine is on the East Side of the Jordan River.

It's called "Jordan" nowadays.

You would parrot Zionist propaganda. Just a bunch of bull crap from a moron.
 
Strange policy if they wanted to expel the Jews. LOL

"September 10, 1959


JERUSALEM (Sep. 9)

Despite powerful barriers against emigration, at least half of Morocco’s 200,000 Jews want to come to Israel to join families here, it was learned reliably today. Since the establishment of Israel, about 120,000 Moroccan Jews have come here....."

Half of Morocco’s Remaining Jews Would Emigrate if They Could

So what's your point? That not all countries actively expelled Jews?

That some of them made life miserable for their Jews, and then prohibited them from emigrating to Israel, through pressure from the Arab League?

Less than 2,000 Jews remain in Morocco. Why do you think that is?
 
Do you see an Arab exodus from Israel? Of course not.

Ask yourself why not?
 
Reference:
America Must Recognize Palestine
By JIMMY CARTER NOV. 28, 2016

ForeverYoung436, et al,

The (former) President (Carter), speaks eloquently as he always has. Yet I find it very unconvincing in many respects.

What do y'all think of it? Agree or Disagree?
(COMMENT)

I see that the Former President express a compound idea, that is challengeable from the outset.

• That the US has any business attempting to shape the outcome of the conflict.
• The the vacating administration should attempt to induce some change, before the next administration assume the office.

WHY? Why does the US even have to shape the outcome? This is never answered.

Israel is an ally. If the US wants to give Israel's opponent the advantage, then we should switch sides. But if the US is going to remain an Ally to Israel, then the US should not even suggest something that might undermine Israel. In this conflict, the political and diplomatic position for either side is essentially a domestic issue for which the internal political process for to gripe. The US should not be in the business of intervening in the internal decision making process of Israel ESPECIALLY when the issue of their national survival is at stake. We should not risk Israel's national security just because we think we know better. The US is a Superpower in the decline, and should not take risks with others interests in assets when we have been so very wrong in the past. I am an alumni of The Ohio State. I cheer for the Buckeyes every game. I contribute to The Team. But I don't intervene in the strategy and plays. If the US is going to be an Ally, then be an Ally. But don't intervene.
WHY? Why must the current administration with so little time left make a very last minute decision to intervene? Why must the US act before a change in presidents?

The very idea to go in at the minute of the game and make critical changes for which the new administration might have to live with indefinitely. There are some things that are irrevocable. If the current administration make even a minor adjustment, like the recognition of the Palestinians, under current customary international law, recognition is unconditional and irrevocable. The new administration can not just say it revokes that decision (too late). With all due respect, what the former President is suggesting is totally inappropriate; and could be considered interference with foreign affairs of the next administration. IF any action is so imperative and critical to the interest of our nation that the current administration need to double time out to New York and take action now --- THEN --- the current administration should have taken it long before now. But, we know the current administration is not now, nor has it been guilty of a failure to perform an act that is required by law or in the national security interest.
We've discussed the whole US Security Council Resolution 242 issue and what the authors had to say about it. AGAIN --- IF the US is an ally of Israel, THEN the right thing to do is support Israel. IF the US and the former President wish to undermine Israel and its national security, THEN the US should openly announce its lack of support so that the US domestic constituent know what the policy is and exact how much it means to be an ally of the US.

America has to take it stand and hold it. America should not care one whip if 139 countries believe this or that. What matters is the question of if we are going to trade our good word and reputation --- abandoning the highest rated nation on the Human Development Index (#18) -- higher than any Arab League nation (even the oil rich nations), the highest in the entire Region, ONLY to replace with a nation that has not been able to support itself since the end of the Great War.

I could write for hours on this subject, but the issue is, who are we and what do we stand for. Do we support the Jihadist, Deadly Fedayeen, Hostile Insurgent, Radicalized Islamist, and Asymmetric Fighters? --- OR --- Do we support, help protect and extend our hand to the only Jewish Nation in the world darkness the darkness spread by the likes of the Islamic Resistance Movement and those that distinguished themselves and defined terrorism with their attack on the Olympic Village in Munich.

We have to take a stand.

Most Respectfully,
R

That's quintessentially the problem, America HAS interfered since at least 1967 in support of it's "ally" and attempted to "shape the outcome of the conflict" in that "ally's" favour. All recognition of Palestine would achieve, is that America would join the 136 other member states of the U.N. who already do recognise the state of Palestine and that would spur the remaining 57 states to do the same. That at least, will level the playing field somewhat.

As for the scaremongering comments on Zionist Israel's "national survival" being at stake, that's manifestly ridiculous, along with the blatently Islamophobic ramblings of our friend Rocco R.

If Zionist Isreal really wanted peace it could have achieved it decades ago, had it not been bolstered by it's US ally, such misguided support encouraged it to flout or ignore international law, and made the US hated and ridiculed in the Muslim world.

Had America poured in so much aid to every other country in the region they'd all be rated similarly on Rocco R's favourite yardstick, the Human Development Index.


Let me guess ... History wasn't your strong point in junior high, was it?
 
If Zionist Isreal really wanted peace it could have achieved it decades ago,
Of course they want peace. However, their version of peace is all of Palestine without the Palestinians. It has been like that for a hundred years.
Incorrect.

The Muslim-Arab share of Old Palestine is on the East Side of the Jordan River.

It's called "Jordan" nowadays.

You would parrot Zionist propaganda. Just a bunch of bull crap from a moron.
Slither back under your rock, Fatima... your IslamoNazi propaganda tactics are both transparent and laughable.

Not to mention being endlessly repetitive and boring as hell.

Now... drag your smelly, raunchy old Muslim-Arab ass back across to the East side of the Jordan, where you belong.

You've lost...

Thanks to your Great Arab Skeddadle of 1948.

"He who pisses his pants, then runs away, lives to regret it, for many a day."

Leave, loser.

Vae victus.
 
Last edited:
Yes, there were anti Jewish riots as well, but they were mainly as a result of the universal outrage felt in those countries because of what the Zionists did to the Palestinians.

And you should be outraged that all of these countries expelled their own citizens (natives of those countries, according to you). Why aren't you outraged at that?

Is being pissy at people in another country enough of a reason to collectively punish everyone from that religious or ethnic group?

Because it never happened in the way Zionist myth-historiography portrays it, when you start to dig deeper; and if the actions of the people in another country are so outrageous, often human nature seeks to punish those of the same religion closer to hand. Britain's last anti-Jewish riots even if they are totally innocent After 9/11, turbans made Sikhs targets - CNN.com
 
Reference:
America Must Recognize Palestine
By JIMMY CARTER NOV. 28, 2016

ForeverYoung436, et al,

The (former) President (Carter), speaks eloquently as he always has. Yet I find it very unconvincing in many respects.

What do y'all think of it? Agree or Disagree?
(COMMENT)

I see that the Former President express a compound idea, that is challengeable from the outset.

• That the US has any business attempting to shape the outcome of the conflict.
• The the vacating administration should attempt to induce some change, before the next administration assume the office.

WHY? Why does the US even have to shape the outcome? This is never answered.

Israel is an ally. If the US wants to give Israel's opponent the advantage, then we should switch sides. But if the US is going to remain an Ally to Israel, then the US should not even suggest something that might undermine Israel. In this conflict, the political and diplomatic position for either side is essentially a domestic issue for which the internal political process for to gripe. The US should not be in the business of intervening in the internal decision making process of Israel ESPECIALLY when the issue of their national survival is at stake. We should not risk Israel's national security just because we think we know better. The US is a Superpower in the decline, and should not take risks with others interests in assets when we have been so very wrong in the past. I am an alumni of The Ohio State. I cheer for the Buckeyes every game. I contribute to The Team. But I don't intervene in the strategy and plays. If the US is going to be an Ally, then be an Ally. But don't intervene.
WHY? Why must the current administration with so little time left make a very last minute decision to intervene? Why must the US act before a change in presidents?

The very idea to go in at the minute of the game and make critical changes for which the new administration might have to live with indefinitely. There are some things that are irrevocable. If the current administration make even a minor adjustment, like the recognition of the Palestinians, under current customary international law, recognition is unconditional and irrevocable. The new administration can not just say it revokes that decision (too late). With all due respect, what the former President is suggesting is totally inappropriate; and could be considered interference with foreign affairs of the next administration. IF any action is so imperative and critical to the interest of our nation that the current administration need to double time out to New York and take action now --- THEN --- the current administration should have taken it long before now. But, we know the current administration is not now, nor has it been guilty of a failure to perform an act that is required by law or in the national security interest.
We've discussed the whole US Security Council Resolution 242 issue and what the authors had to say about it. AGAIN --- IF the US is an ally of Israel, THEN the right thing to do is support Israel. IF the US and the former President wish to undermine Israel and its national security, THEN the US should openly announce its lack of support so that the US domestic constituent know what the policy is and exact how much it means to be an ally of the US.

America has to take it stand and hold it. America should not care one whip if 139 countries believe this or that. What matters is the question of if we are going to trade our good word and reputation --- abandoning the highest rated nation on the Human Development Index (#18) -- higher than any Arab League nation (even the oil rich nations), the highest in the entire Region, ONLY to replace with a nation that has not been able to support itself since the end of the Great War.

I could write for hours on this subject, but the issue is, who are we and what do we stand for. Do we support the Jihadist, Deadly Fedayeen, Hostile Insurgent, Radicalized Islamist, and Asymmetric Fighters? --- OR --- Do we support, help protect and extend our hand to the only Jewish Nation in the world darkness the darkness spread by the likes of the Islamic Resistance Movement and those that distinguished themselves and defined terrorism with their attack on the Olympic Village in Munich.

We have to take a stand.

Most Respectfully,
R

That's quintessentially the problem, America HAS interfered since at least 1967 in support of it's "ally" and attempted to "shape the outcome of the conflict" in that "ally's" favour. All recognition of Palestine would achieve, is that America would join the 136 other member states of the U.N. who already do recognise the state of Palestine and that would spur the remaining 57 states to do the same. That at least, will level the playing field somewhat.

As for the scaremongering comments on Zionist Israel's "national survival" being at stake, that's manifestly ridiculous, along with the blatently Islamophobic ramblings of our friend Rocco R.

If Zionist Isreal really wanted peace it could have achieved it decades ago, had it not been bolstered by it's US ally, such misguided support encouraged it to flout or ignore international law, and made the US hated and ridiculed in the Muslim world.

Had America poured in so much aid to every other country in the region they'd all be rated similarly on Rocco R's favourite yardstick, the Human Development Index.


Let me guess ... History wasn't your strong point in junior high, was it?

Being British, I never attended an American junior high school, and given the appalling state of the American educational system, I'm glad I didn't. Thank you for your concern, but I have both GCE 'O' and 'A' levels in History. :)
 
Strange policy if they wanted to expel the Jews. LOL

"September 10, 1959


JERUSALEM (Sep. 9)

Despite powerful barriers against emigration, at least half of Morocco’s 200,000 Jews want to come to Israel to join families here, it was learned reliably today. Since the establishment of Israel, about 120,000 Moroccan Jews have come here....."

Half of Morocco’s Remaining Jews Would Emigrate if They Could





Not really as you then have captive slaves that can be forced to work for you, like your people did with the Jews in the 1930's-1940's. So they can manipulate the stock markets and money markets on your favour making you richer
 
Strange policy if they wanted to expel the Jews. LOL

"September 10, 1959


JERUSALEM (Sep. 9)

Despite powerful barriers against emigration, at least half of Morocco’s 200,000 Jews want to come to Israel to join families here, it was learned reliably today. Since the establishment of Israel, about 120,000 Moroccan Jews have come here....."

Half of Morocco’s Remaining Jews Would Emigrate if They Could

An article from 1959?

Hilarious. You're scouring the web for decades old articles to cut and paste.

Scouring? Facts are available directly from the Jewish Telegraphic Agency (JTA). How can you hope to be credible when you don't have the vaguest idea as to where the facts are?






Which is nothing more than a wire like A.P. or Rueters, and monte seems to think they are official Israeli policy makers.
 
Strange policy if they wanted to expel the Jews. LOL

"September 10, 1959


JERUSALEM (Sep. 9)

Despite powerful barriers against emigration, at least half of Morocco’s 200,000 Jews want to come to Israel to join families here, it was learned reliably today. Since the establishment of Israel, about 120,000 Moroccan Jews have come here....."

Half of Morocco’s Remaining Jews Would Emigrate if They Could

An article from 1959?

Hilarious. You're scouring the web for decades old articles to cut and paste.

Scouring? Facts are available directly from the Jewish Telegraphic Agency (JTA). How can you hope to be credible when you don't have the vaguest idea as to where the facts are?

I just find it hilarious that you spend enormous amounts of time feverishly scouring the web for decades old articles to cut and paste when those articles serve no relevant purpose.







Simple to deflect away from the subject matter because it is running away from his control. Just point this out and ask that it be removed and carry on as normal. He will have a melt down and leave the board
 
Do you see an Arab exodus from Israel? Of course not.

Ask yourself why not?

Simple, if they left, the Zionists wouldn't let them back in.







Like the arab muslim nations do, and why they forced the right of return into the trash can. Or dont you want to know about such things outside of Israel
Do you see an Arab exodus from Israel? Of course not.

Ask yourself why not?
Palestinian refugee camps were established after the 1948 Arab–Israeli War to accommodate the Palestinian refugees who fled or were expelled during the 1948 Palestinian exodus. United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) Resolution 194 grants Palestinians the right to return to their homeland if they wish to "live at peace with their neighbors".
Palestinian refugee camps - Wikipedia







And seeing as they refuse to "live at peace with their neighbours" they cant return. And the majority left of their own accord, only 50,000 were expelled to another part of palestine so not really refugees. Then the UN had to create new rules to cover the palestinians as they did not match the existing ones regarding refugees. So they imposed the two year limit on residency making all the illegal immigrants palestinian mandate citizens
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top