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.
Why the hell do the Pals give a toss about the Golan Heights - it's a Syrian problem...
It has to do with the settlements... they shouldn't give a toss, but as syria is one of the funders of terrorists, they use it as a wedge. and if it is going to take a global resolution, then syria is one of the considerations.
personally, i don't think syria should ever get back the golan heights... too easy to fire into settlements like they used to.
I'd give it back to them. Won't take much to get 'em back if the Syrians start getting antsy. Apparently Assad jnr is a little more liberal than his father....
It has to do with the settlements... they shouldn't give a toss, but as syria is one of the funders of terrorists, they use it as a wedge. and if it is going to take a global resolution, then syria is one of the considerations.
personally, i don't think syria should ever get back the golan heights... too easy to fire into settlements like they used to.
I'd give it back to them. Won't take much to get 'em back if the Syrians start getting antsy. Apparently Assad jnr is a little more liberal than his father....
i disagree... but partly that's because you really don't 'get' just how surrounded israel is until you stand there.
they use the bunkers there to fire into israel. a dmz? maybe... but syria? no. plus, there are too many israeli's living there. why would israel give it back?
i disagree... but partly that's because you really don't 'get' just how surrounded israel is until you stand there.
they use the bunkers there to fire into israel. a dmz? maybe... but syria? no. plus, there are too many israeli's living there. why would israel give it back?
i disagree... but partly that's because you really don't 'get' just how surrounded israel is until you stand there.
they use the bunkers there to fire into israel. a dmz? maybe... but syria? no. plus, there are too many israeli's living there. why would israel give it back?
it's not hard to 'get' how surrounded Israel is. There is a map that shows it plain and simple.
The Golan Heights is not that big a patch of land. Israel would see a Syrian build-up way before they even got troops there. They should give it back because it doesn't belong to them and it would get rid of a thorn in their side....
the problem is it's high ground and they use it for target practice on israelis. also, as a matter of principle, i'm not sure i see any reason to give it to syria.
it belongs to them like california and texas belong to us
and i didn't mean "get" to sound snarky... was trying to emphasize. sorry.
i disagree... but partly that's because you really don't 'get' just how surrounded israel is until you stand there.
they use the bunkers there to fire into israel. a dmz? maybe... but syria? no. plus, there are too many israeli's living there. why would israel give it back?
it's not hard to 'get' how surrounded Israel is. There is a map that shows it plain and simple.
The Golan Heights is not that big a patch of land. Israel would see a Syrian build-up way before they even got troops there. They should give it back because it doesn't belong to them and it would get rid of a thorn in their side....
the problem is it's high ground and they use it for target practice on israelis. also, as a matter of principle, i'm not sure i see any reason to give it to syria.
it belongs to them like california and texas belong to us
and i didn't mean "get" to sound snarky... was trying to emphasize. sorry.
the problem is it's high ground and they use it for target practice on israelis. also, as a matter of principle, i'm not sure i see any reason to give it to syria.
it belongs to them like california and texas belong to us
and i didn't mean "get" to sound snarky... was trying to emphasize. sorry.
Really? The Golan Heights is high ground? With a name like that, whoda thought??
Anyway, there is satellite technology that would easily see..
Texas chose to belong to the US (well, they had to go really - indepedence wasn't what it was cracked up to be). And California was a good 200 years ago. Golan Heights, not that long ago. Give Israel the moral high ground too...
i'm all for moral high ground, but not in exchange for security. and i think it would be. ultimately, netanyahu has to answer to the israeli's too...
we should israel as we do any other nations.....we let the un decide on gassing the kurds and bush sr used the us vote to keep the council from censuring saddam..israel is dooming itself...americans pull for the underdog....not the empire
Kath, you need to stop reading stuff that would be right wing even in Israel.This is what the jpost is saying:
Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu left Saturday night for the US for what is widely considered a critical first meeting with US President Barack Obama that may go a long way toward setting the tone of US-Israel relations for years to come.
While Iran and the Palestinian track are expected to dominate the talks, diplomatic officials said that what was even more crucial to establish in this first meeting between the two new leaders was trust and confidence in one another.
The White House has cleared a considerable amount of Obama's Monday schedule for the talks, which will begin in late morning, run through lunch and continue on into the afternoon.
Senior Obama administration officials said on Saturday that the pair had already established a good personal working relationship, but they also related to differences in the two leaders' outlooks.
Netanyahu has refused to specifically endorse the vision of a "two-state solution" to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. His Likud ministerial colleague Yisrael Katz said on Saturday night that the prime minister would push for a joint American-Israeli partnership to launch a fresh "diplomatic initiative for the Middle East" in place of the Arab League initiative and previous negotiating tracks.
Katz also said Netanyahu would not be bound to the kind of "shelf" agreement on two states that prime minister Ehud Olmert had sought to finalize with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas.
The Washington officials, by contrast, stressed on Saturday that Obama had been committed from day one of his presidency to pursuing comprehensive Middle East peace, which would include a secure Jewish state of Israel alongside an independent, viable Palestinian state.
Obama has also welcomed the Arab League initiative as constructive and indicated it could serve as a basis for progress.
Netanyahu's aides have spoken in recent days of the prime minister's support for "natural growth" in the West Bank settlements - another area of possible contention, with some reports suggesting Obama wants to see a settlement freeze.
The administration officials would not directly answer questions about Obama's stance on Saturday, beyond saying that all parties had responsibilities and obligations to give the US a chance to be successful. Israel, they said, had responsibilities on settlements and outposts, and the Palestinians had responsibilities on security and terrorism.
Netanyahu, Obama hope for mutual trust | Israel | Jerusalem Post
so, while there are questions, and a lot will depend on what happens at these meetings, I don't think either Obama or Netanyahu are stupid. Much like China being opened by the anti-commie Nixon, Netanyahu may have the street cred to make a deal that doesn't sell out Israel.
but on this issue, too, your guys failed massively... de-stabilized the region, empowered Iran... so perhaps its time for the extremists who think they should 'bomb bomb bomb...bomb bomb iran" need to sit back, pour themselves a shot or two and get out of the way.
I don't understand the particulars that are holding up the peace process.
Can anyone clearly explain to me the specific issues where Isreal and Palestine are at complete loggerheads?
So when will Jillian drop her Obama worship? After he sells out Israel? Looks like he already did from where I am sitting.
