Analyst: Secret Report Reveals Kerry's Plan 'Fraud'

Jroc

יעקב כהן
Joined
Oct 19, 2010
Messages
19,795
Reaction score
6,438
Points
390
Location
Michigan
Kerry and the whole Obama administration are frauds in my book:eusa_eh:


Mark Langfan uncovers secret 1967 USJCoS memorandum, says it proves Kerry's proposals are 'fraud on Israel and the Jews

A secret US Joint Chiefs of Staff (USJCoS) Memorandum from 1967 has been uncovered by Arutz Sheva analyst Mark Langfan. Langfan says the report proves that US Secretary of State John Kerry's current proposed security arrangements are a "military security fraud on Israel and the Jews."

Kerry is currently in Israel, pushing his proposals for the Jordan Valley which Palestinian Authority (PA) Chief Mahmoud Abbas again rejected on Friday morning. Langfan has revealed in the past that the arrangements are based on the 1967 "Allon Plan," and are a "death-trap" for Israel.

The newly revealed secret document, dated June 29, 1967 and referenced as "JSCM-373-67," take Israel's "defensible" borders as its subject. It was signed by then-Chairman of the USJCoS, US Gen. Earle G. Wheeler.

The memorandum shows the necessity of Israeli control over the high ground of western Samaria.

"From a strictly military point of view...the views of the Joint Chiefs of Staff...(see as necessary Israeli) control of the prominent high ground running north-south" through Judea and Samaria, reads the report. Langfan notes that this region, deemed crucial for defensible Israeli borders, is the very area that is slated to be given to the PA under Kerry's plan.
Analyst: Secret Report Shows Kerry's Plan 'Fraud' - News from America - News - Israel National News
 
OP
Jroc

Jroc

יעקב כהן
Joined
Oct 19, 2010
Messages
19,795
Reaction score
6,438
Points
390
Location
Michigan
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bHxOkmNiEJc]Israel Security - The Allon Plan - YouTube[/ame]
 

georgephillip

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2009
Messages
36,617
Reaction score
2,591
Points
1,125
Location
Los Angeles, California
Kerry and the whole Obama administration are frauds in my book:eusa_eh:


Mark Langfan uncovers secret 1967 USJCoS memorandum, says it proves Kerry's proposals are 'fraud on Israel and the Jews

A secret US Joint Chiefs of Staff (USJCoS) Memorandum from 1967 has been uncovered by Arutz Sheva analyst Mark Langfan. Langfan says the report proves that US Secretary of State John Kerry's current proposed security arrangements are a "military security fraud on Israel and the Jews."

Kerry is currently in Israel, pushing his proposals for the Jordan Valley which Palestinian Authority (PA) Chief Mahmoud Abbas again rejected on Friday morning. Langfan has revealed in the past that the arrangements are based on the 1967 "Allon Plan," and are a "death-trap" for Israel.

The newly revealed secret document, dated June 29, 1967 and referenced as "JSCM-373-67," take Israel's "defensible" borders as its subject. It was signed by then-Chairman of the USJCoS, US Gen. Earle G. Wheeler.

The memorandum shows the necessity of Israeli control over the high ground of western Samaria.

"From a strictly military point of view...the views of the Joint Chiefs of Staff...(see as necessary Israeli) control of the prominent high ground running north-south" through Judea and Samaria, reads the report. Langfan notes that this region, deemed crucial for defensible Israeli borders, is the very area that is slated to be given to the PA under Kerry's plan.
Analyst: Secret Report Shows Kerry's Plan 'Fraud' - News from America - News - Israel National News
In 1967 any existential threat Israel faced was likely a land invasion through the Jordan valley. Today such a threat simply doesn't exist; however, if you're concerned with Palestinian History and reparations...

"Zochrot presents the first Nakba map in Hebrew.
It includes the localities in the country that were destroyed between the beginning of Zionist colonization and the 1967 war.

"The map shows:
678 Palestinian localities that Israel destroyed during the Nakba: 220 of them with less than 100 inhabitants, 428 localities with 100 - 3,000 people, 30 towns and cities with more than 3,000 people;
22 Jewish localities destroyed in 1948 (some of which were re-established that same year);
14 Palestinian localities still existing today, whose inhabitants were expelled temporarily partially during the Nakba;
62 Palestinian localities destroyed during Zionist colonization of the country before 1948;
3 Jewish localities destroyed before 1948 and not re-established;
3 Palestinian localities destroyed in the 1967 war;
127 Syrian localities destroyed by Israel in the 1967 war."

Right of Return?

http://www.zochrot.org/en/content/nakba-map
 

RoccoR

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2010
Messages
10,101
Reaction score
2,623
Points
290
Location
Reynoldsburg, OH
Jroc; et al,

I doubt very seriously that a 45 year old assessment could possibly have any bearing on the political conditions set today.

Kerry and the whole Obama administration are frauds in my book:eusa_eh:
Mark Langfan uncovers secret 1967 USJCoS memorandum, says it proves Kerry's proposals are 'fraud on Israel and the Jews

A secret US Joint Chiefs of Staff (USJCoS) Memorandum from 1967 has been uncovered by Arutz Sheva analyst Mark Langfan. Langfan says the report proves that US Secretary of State John Kerry's current proposed security arrangements are a "military security fraud on Israel and the Jews."
... ... ...

The newly revealed secret document, dated June 29, 1967 and referenced as "JSCM-373-67," take Israel's "defensible" borders as its subject. It was signed by then-Chairman of the USJCoS, US Gen. Earle G. Wheeler.

The memorandum shows the necessity of Israeli control over the high ground of western Samaria.
(COMMENT)

These are very old documents that don't take into account the advancements in technology.

They use a ground strategies that date back to and were used by Hannibal, Alexander the Great, and Roman Legion: Hold the high ground, extend the forward edge of battle as far out as possible, confine the enemy's route of travel.

There is nothing new or secret about this. What is new and (probably) secret is the 21st Century Strategies of military necessity - versus - the political (human, military, economic, infrastructure, etc) cost.

Today, the evaluation has to be made by both sides of the conflict. The Palestinians must know that the lion's share of the military engagement must be fought over their territory, causing the greatest level of destruction in their territory.

Jordan must know that the battle space is small, and the ADA systems will be located in their territory - making targetable all the Jordanian power sources and transmission lines, communications network facilitates and anything use to critically support detection arrays.

The Arab Palestinians must know that a vast majority of their territorial infrastructure will be destroyed anywhere that Hostile Arab formations are discovered. It will be up to them to decide how much they are willing to sacrifice for the conflict.​

Plans that are now nearly a half century old mean almost nothing. Nice to know historically, but not all that relevant today. So I don't think that it has any impact on what SECSTATE is doing or promoting.

Most Respectfully,
R
 
OP
Jroc

Jroc

יעקב כהן
Joined
Oct 19, 2010
Messages
19,795
Reaction score
6,438
Points
390
Location
Michigan
Jroc; et al,

I doubt very seriously that a 45 year old assessment could possibly have any bearing on the political conditions set today.

Kerry and the whole Obama administration are frauds in my book:eusa_eh:
Mark Langfan uncovers secret 1967 USJCoS memorandum, says it proves Kerry's proposals are 'fraud on Israel and the Jews

A secret US Joint Chiefs of Staff (USJCoS) Memorandum from 1967 has been uncovered by Arutz Sheva analyst Mark Langfan. Langfan says the report proves that US Secretary of State John Kerry's current proposed security arrangements are a "military security fraud on Israel and the Jews."
... ... ...

The newly revealed secret document, dated June 29, 1967 and referenced as "JSCM-373-67," take Israel's "defensible" borders as its subject. It was signed by then-Chairman of the USJCoS, US Gen. Earle G. Wheeler.

The memorandum shows the necessity of Israeli control over the high ground of western Samaria.
(COMMENT)

These are very old documents that don't take into account the advancements in technology.

They use a ground strategies that date back to and were used by Hannibal, Alexander the Great, and Roman Legion: Hold the high ground, extend the forward edge of battle as far out as possible, confine the enemy's route of travel.

There is nothing new or secret about this. What is new and (probably) secret is the 21st Century Strategies of military necessity - versus - the political (human, military, economic, infrastructure, etc) cost.

Today, the evaluation has to be made by both sides of the conflict. The Palestinians must know that the lion's share of the military engagement must be fought over their territory, causing the greatest level of destruction in their territory.

Jordan must know that the battle space is small, and the ADA systems will be located in their territory - making targetable all the Jordanian power sources and transmission lines, communications network facilitates and anything use to critically support detection arrays.

The Arab Palestinians must know that a vast majority of their territorial infrastructure will be destroyed anywhere that Hostile Arab formations are discovered. It will be up to them to decide how much they are willing to sacrifice for the conflict.​

Plans that are now nearly a half century old mean almost nothing. Nice to know historically, but not all that relevant today. So I don't think that it has any impact on what SECSTATE is doing or promoting.

Most Respectfully,
R
the fact that the documents are very old doesn't change the fact that this deal Kerry is pushing is a bad deal, just as the deal he made with Iran is a bad deal. If Obama has his way Israel will be back to the pre '67 cease fire lines, aint happening no matter how much Obama would like it to

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k2hZ6SlSqq0]outstanding Explanation: Why Israel can't withdraw to its pre '67 borders line - Please Share - YouTube[/ame]
 

georgephillip

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2009
Messages
36,617
Reaction score
2,591
Points
1,125
Location
Los Angeles, California
Jroc; et al,

I doubt very seriously that a 45 year old assessment could possibly have any bearing on the political conditions set today.

Kerry and the whole Obama administration are frauds in my book:eusa_eh:
(COMMENT)

These are very old documents that don't take into account the advancements in technology.

They use a ground strategies that date back to and were used by Hannibal, Alexander the Great, and Roman Legion: Hold the high ground, extend the forward edge of battle as far out as possible, confine the enemy's route of travel.

There is nothing new or secret about this. What is new and (probably) secret is the 21st Century Strategies of military necessity - versus - the political (human, military, economic, infrastructure, etc) cost.

Today, the evaluation has to be made by both sides of the conflict. The Palestinians must know that the lion's share of the military engagement must be fought over their territory, causing the greatest level of destruction in their territory.

Jordan must know that the battle space is small, and the ADA systems will be located in their territory - making targetable all the Jordanian power sources and transmission lines, communications network facilitates and anything use to critically support detection arrays.

The Arab Palestinians must know that a vast majority of their territorial infrastructure will be destroyed anywhere that Hostile Arab formations are discovered. It will be up to them to decide how much they are willing to sacrifice for the conflict.​

Plans that are now nearly a half century old mean almost nothing. Nice to know historically, but not all that relevant today. So I don't think that it has any impact on what SECSTATE is doing or promoting.

Most Respectfully,
R
the fact that the documents are very old doesn't change the fact that this deal Kerry is pushing is a bad deal, just as the deal he made with Iran is a bad deal. If Obama has his way Israel will be back to the pre '67 cease fire lines, aint happening no matter how much Obama would like it to

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k2hZ6SlSqq0]outstanding Explanation: Why Israel can't withdraw to its pre '67 borders line - Please Share - YouTube[/ame]
Do you agree with this: in 1967 Arab armies could have massed in Jordan for a land invasion of Palestine without putting their capital cities at risk? Today Israel would incinerate the capitals of any Arab state threatening a land invasion. BDS is a much greater threat to the Jewish state today.
 
OP
Jroc

Jroc

יעקב כהן
Joined
Oct 19, 2010
Messages
19,795
Reaction score
6,438
Points
390
Location
Michigan
Jroc; et al,

I doubt very seriously that a 45 year old assessment could possibly have any bearing on the political conditions set today.


(COMMENT)

These are very old documents that don't take into account the advancements in technology.

They use a ground strategies that date back to and were used by Hannibal, Alexander the Great, and Roman Legion: Hold the high ground, extend the forward edge of battle as far out as possible, confine the enemy's route of travel.

There is nothing new or secret about this. What is new and (probably) secret is the 21st Century Strategies of military necessity - versus - the political (human, military, economic, infrastructure, etc) cost.

Today, the evaluation has to be made by both sides of the conflict. The Palestinians must know that the lion's share of the military engagement must be fought over their territory, causing the greatest level of destruction in their territory.

Jordan must know that the battle space is small, and the ADA systems will be located in their territory - making targetable all the Jordanian power sources and transmission lines, communications network facilitates and anything use to critically support detection arrays.

The Arab Palestinians must know that a vast majority of their territorial infrastructure will be destroyed anywhere that Hostile Arab formations are discovered. It will be up to them to decide how much they are willing to sacrifice for the conflict.​

Plans that are now nearly a half century old mean almost nothing. Nice to know historically, but not all that relevant today. So I don't think that it has any impact on what SECSTATE is doing or promoting.

Most Respectfully,
R
the fact that the documents are very old doesn't change the fact that this deal Kerry is pushing is a bad deal, just as the deal he made with Iran is a bad deal. If Obama has his way Israel will be back to the pre '67 cease fire lines, aint happening no matter how much Obama would like it to

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k2hZ6SlSqq0]outstanding Explanation: Why Israel can't withdraw to its pre '67 borders line - Please Share - YouTube[/ame]
Do you agree with this: in 1967 Arab armies could have massed in Jordan for a land invasion of Palestine without putting their capital cities at risk? Today Israel would incinerate the capitals of any Arab state threatening a land invasion. BDS is a much greater threat to the Jewish state today.
None of these Arab countries are stable. The peace treaties Israel has with Egypt and Jordan are good only with a stable governments. Jordan could be taken over by the radical, muslim, nutjobs Egypt is fighting them now. You don't give up any advantage you have, no matter how much you Israel haters would like it .I know it kills you georgie that Israel is strong and can actually defend itself, too bad. Jews aren't going to be put in a position where they are at the mercy of the people who want to destroy them.
 

georgephillip

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2009
Messages
36,617
Reaction score
2,591
Points
1,125
Location
Los Angeles, California
the fact that the documents are very old doesn't change the fact that this deal Kerry is pushing is a bad deal, just as the deal he made with Iran is a bad deal. If Obama has his way Israel will be back to the pre '67 cease fire lines, aint happening no matter how much Obama would like it to

outstanding Explanation: Why Israel can't withdraw to its pre '67 borders line - Please Share - YouTube
Do you agree with this: in 1967 Arab armies could have massed in Jordan for a land invasion of Palestine without putting their capital cities at risk? Today Israel would incinerate the capitals of any Arab state threatening a land invasion. BDS is a much greater threat to the Jewish state today.
None of these Arab countries are stable. The peace treaties Israel has with Egypt and Jordan are good only with a stable governments. Jordan could be taken over by the radical, muslim, nutjobs Egypt is fighting them now. You don't give up any advantage you have, no matter how much you Israel haters would like it .I know it kills you georgie that Israel is strong and can actually defend itself, too bad. Jews aren't going to be put in a position where they are at the mercy of the people who want to destroy them.
How stable is Greater Israel today?
There are roughly equal numbers of Jews and Arabs living between the River and the sea and every one is subject to laws, civil and military, that are authored, interpreted, and enforced by Jews. If you don't enfranchise all Arabs living under Jewish laws, your racist Jewish state will fall in exactly the same way White South Africa disappeared two decades ago. No invasion required.
 
OP
Jroc

Jroc

יעקב כהן
Joined
Oct 19, 2010
Messages
19,795
Reaction score
6,438
Points
390
Location
Michigan
Do you agree with this: in 1967 Arab armies could have massed in Jordan for a land invasion of Palestine without putting their capital cities at risk? Today Israel would incinerate the capitals of any Arab state threatening a land invasion. BDS is a much greater threat to the Jewish state today.
None of these Arab countries are stable. The peace treaties Israel has with Egypt and Jordan are good only with a stable governments. Jordan could be taken over by the radical, muslim, nutjobs Egypt is fighting them now. You don't give up any advantage you have, no matter how much you Israel haters would like it .I know it kills you georgie that Israel is strong and can actually defend itself, too bad. Jews aren't going to be put in a position where they are at the mercy of the people who want to destroy them.
How stable is Greater Israel today?
There are roughly equal numbers of Jews and Arabs living between the River and the sea and every one is subject to laws, civil and military, that are authored, interpreted, and enforced by Jews. If you don't enfranchise all Arabs living under Jewish laws, your racist Jewish state will fall in exactly the same way White South Africa disappeared two decades ago. No invasion required.
:doubt: Yeah ok...Arabs citizens of Israel have it better then they do in any Arab country even Arabs in the so-called "west bank" Judea and Samaria have it much better than most Arab muslim shitholes..They should be thankful
 
Last edited:

RoccoR

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2010
Messages
10,101
Reaction score
2,623
Points
290
Location
Reynoldsburg, OH
50_RiaL, et al,

Israel must make every attempt to make a good faith effort. It must be absolutely clear, such that any reasonable and prudent man can see that every attempt was made to come to an agreement that was not one-sided.

Israel must not budge on this issue. Look what happen at Gaza.
(COMMENT)

There must be room for compromise and reasonable risk.

Most Respectfully,
R
 

georgephillip

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2009
Messages
36,617
Reaction score
2,591
Points
1,125
Location
Los Angeles, California
50_RiaL, et al,

Israel must make every attempt to make a good faith effort. It must be absolutely clear, such that any reasonable and prudent man can see that every attempt was made to come to an agreement that was not one-sided.

Israel must not budge on this issue. Look what happen at Gaza.
(COMMENT)

There must be room for compromise and reasonable risk.

Most Respectfully,
R
Rocco...do you believe the creation of a unitary, federal or confederate Israeli-Palestinian state encompassing all of present day Israel. the West Bank and Jerusalem, and Gaza is a possibility?

"The one-state solution and the similar binational solution are proposed approaches to resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.[1]

"Proponents of a binational solution to the conflict advocate a single state in Israel, the West Bank, and possibly the Gaza Strip,[1][2] with citizenship and equal rights in the combined entity for all inhabitants of all three territories, without regard to ethnicity or religion.[1]

"While some advocate this solution for ideological reasons,[1] others feel simply that, due to the reality on the ground, it is the de facto situation."

One-state solution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 

RoccoR

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2010
Messages
10,101
Reaction score
2,623
Points
290
Location
Reynoldsburg, OH
georgephillip, et al,

No, I do not believe that a "(long-term and successful) Confederation is possible. Such a Union would require both sides to trust one another (politically, economically, and morally) and come together under a common Constitution.

50_RiaL, et al,

Israel must make every attempt to make a good faith effort. It must be absolutely clear, such that any reasonable and prudent man can see that every attempt was made to come to an agreement that was not one-sided.

Israel must not budge on this issue. Look what happen at Gaza.
(COMMENT)

There must be room for compromise and reasonable risk.
Rocco...do you believe the creation of a unitary, federal or confederate Israeli-Palestinian state encompassing all of present day Israel. the West Bank and Jerusalem, and Gaza is a possibility?

"The one-state solution and the similar binational solution are proposed approaches to resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.[1]

"Proponents of a binational solution to the conflict advocate a single state in Israel, the West Bank, and possibly the Gaza Strip,[1][2] with citizenship and equal rights in the combined entity for all inhabitants of all three territories, without regard to ethnicity or religion.[1]

"While some advocate this solution for ideological reasons,[1] others feel simply that, due to the reality on the ground, it is the de facto situation."
(COMMENT)

The Arab-Palestinian is an unaffordable economic parasite to any relationship it has; and gives back nothing in return. It would smother Israel and destroy any advancements it has made. The State of Palestine is a welfare state, unable to support itself. It is certainly unable to cohesively establish a free society and eliminate racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia, and related intolerance. It would not be able to achieve conditions whereby everyone may enjoy his civil and political rights, as well as his economic, social and cultural rights.

Most Respectfully,
R
 
Last edited:

georgephillip

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2009
Messages
36,617
Reaction score
2,591
Points
1,125
Location
Los Angeles, California
georgephillip, et al,

No, I do not believe that a "(long-term and successful) Confederation is possible. Such a Union would require both sides to trust one another (politically, economically, and morally) and come together under a common Constitution.

50_RiaL, et al,

Israel must make every attempt to make a good faith effort. It must be absolutely clear, such that any reasonable and prudent man can see that every attempt was made to come to an agreement that was not one-sided.


(COMMENT)

There must be room for compromise and reasonable risk.
Rocco...do you believe the creation of a unitary, federal or confederate Israeli-Palestinian state encompassing all of present day Israel. the West Bank and Jerusalem, and Gaza is a possibility?

"The one-state solution and the similar binational solution are proposed approaches to resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.[1]

"Proponents of a binational solution to the conflict advocate a single state in Israel, the West Bank, and possibly the Gaza Strip,[1][2] with citizenship and equal rights in the combined entity for all inhabitants of all three territories, without regard to ethnicity or religion.[1]

"While some advocate this solution for ideological reasons,[1] others feel simply that, due to the reality on the ground, it is the de facto situation."
(COMMENT)

The Arab-Palestinian is an unaffordable economic parasite to any relationship it has; and gives back nothing in return. It would smother Israel and destroy any advancements it has made. The State of Palestine is a welfare state, unable to support itself. It is certainly unable to cohesively establish a free society and eliminate racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia, and related intolerance. It would not be able to achieve conditions whereby everyone may enjoy his civil and political rights, as well as his economic, social and cultural rights.

Most Respectfully,
R
Mearshimer and Walt give the impression it's Israel that qualifies as an unaffordable parasite for the US taxpayer, at least. Since 1976 it has not been the case that the HoAP has received the largest annual amount of direct US economic and military assistance.

How many "Jews" were living on the West Bank in 1976?

I think it's fair to say the number would be much less than what it is today if the HoAP had received $8 million a day since Carter's election.

It wasn't the Arabs who evicted 650,000 Jews from their homes in 1948 while stealing 60% of the land between the River and the sea; maybe that's where the recent lack of trust took root?
 

RoccoR

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2010
Messages
10,101
Reaction score
2,623
Points
290
Location
Reynoldsburg, OH
georgephillip, et al,

I think there is something wrong with your analysis.

georgephillip, et al,

No, I do not believe that a "(long-term and successful) Confederation is possible. Such a Union would require both sides to trust one another (politically, economically, and morally) and come together under a common Constitution.

Rocco...do you believe the creation of a unitary, federal or confederate Israeli-Palestinian state encompassing all of present day Israel. the West Bank and Jerusalem, and Gaza is a possibility?

"The one-state solution and the similar binational solution are proposed approaches to resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.[1]

"Proponents of a binational solution to the conflict advocate a single state in Israel, the West Bank, and possibly the Gaza Strip,[1][2] with citizenship and equal rights in the combined entity for all inhabitants of all three territories, without regard to ethnicity or religion.[1]

"While some advocate this solution for ideological reasons,[1] others feel simply that, due to the reality on the ground, it is the de facto situation."
(COMMENT)

The Arab-Palestinian is an unaffordable economic parasite to any relationship it has; and gives back nothing in return. It would smother Israel and destroy any advancements it has made. The State of Palestine is a welfare state, unable to support itself. It is certainly unable to cohesively establish a free society and eliminate racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia, and related intolerance. It would not be able to achieve conditions whereby everyone may enjoy his civil and political rights, as well as his economic, social and cultural rights.
Mearshimer and Walt give the impression it's Israel that qualifies as an unaffordable parasite for the US taxpayer, at least. Since 1976 it has not been the case that the HoAP has received the largest annual amount of direct US economic and military assistance.

How many "Jews" were living on the West Bank in 1976?

I think it's fair to say the number would be much less than what it is today if the HoAP had received $8 million a day since Carter's election.

It wasn't the Arabs who evicted 650,000 Jews from their homes in 1948 while stealing 60% of the land between the River and the sea; maybe that's where the recent lack of trust took root?
(QUESTION)

$8M a day ($2.9B/year); Since the Carter Administration (1977 - 1981), before adjustment to current dollar values, is approximately $93B.

(OBSERVATION)

Summary: U.S. Foreign Aid to Israel said:
To date, the US has provided Israel $118 billion (current, or non-inflation-adjusted, dollars) in bilateral assistance.

SOURCE: Congressional Research Service Report: RL33222

Updated 12/18/2013
Key economic statistics
......................................................This week.....Month ago.....Year ago
Gross Domestic Product (billions)......$16890.8.....$16857.6......$15797.4​

SOURCE: Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is the value of all goods and services produced in the U.S.
The entire 32 years of aid, since the end of the Jimmy Carter Administration, amounts to seven tenths of one per cent of last weeks of the US GDP for one year (2013). Putting the amount in a daily form ($8M/day) is dramatic sounding, and good political theater, but hardly in a form that people will readily appreciate and understand.

Just as a means of comparitive value and ranking, I've listed the GDP - purchasing power parity 2013 Rankings of the EU, the US, and a few of the Arab League states, along with Israel and the West Bank:

1 European Union $15,700,000,000,000 2012 est.
2 United States....$15,660,000,000,000 2012 est.
23 Saudi Arabia..........$740,500,000,000 2012 est.
27 Egypt....................$537,800,000,000 2012 est
50 UAE......................$271,200,000,000 2012 est.
51 Israel....................$247,900,000,000 2012 est.
60 Kuwait..................$165,900,000,000 2012 est.
61 Iraq......................$155,400,000,000 2012 est.
69 Syria.....................$107,600,000,000 2011 est.
76 Oman.....................$90,660,000,000 2012 est.
88 Lebanon.................$63,690,000,000 2012 est.
91 Yemen...................$57,760,000,000 2012 est.
105 Jordan...................$38,670,000,000 2012 est.
155 West Bank ...............$8,020,000,000 2011 est.​

SOURCE: CIA World Factbook 2013

(COMMENT)

The Palestinian has a non-mutual symbiotic relationship between its regional neighbors, where it benefits at the expense of the others. The West Bank has very limited financial support from its regional neighbors because they receive no mutual benefit and have no expectation that the future will bring otherwise; even if the Occupation Force is totally withdrawn and Israeli Settlements are abandon.

The endorsement by SECSTATE Kerry, of the Saudi inspired Arab Peace Initiative of 2002, is probably a demonstration of how desperately the current Administration wants a settlement under its guiding hand. There is no possible way that the Saudi Plan is even remotely fair to the Israelis. And, that may actually be the purpose. There is no real benefit to the Arab League for a settlement. In fact, from a regional security standpoint, a Israeli-Palestinian Settlement may actually have a negative impact on the individual internal defense and development of each neighboring state. It presents even a greater threat when the (most likely outcome) Syrian situation is factored into the assessment. That will set the stage for the domination of the corridor into Lebanon and a fundamental Shi'a branch of Islam (the official state religion of Iran) from the East to the North.

While the Arab will rejoice in the beginning, they will grow to adjust to the impact of Shi'a Law in every segment of their community.

Most Respectfully,
R
 

P F Tinmore

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2009
Messages
59,142
Reaction score
2,524
Points
1,815
georgephillip, et al,

No, I do not believe that a "(long-term and successful) Confederation is possible. Such a Union would require both sides to trust one another (politically, economically, and morally) and come together under a common Constitution.

50_RiaL, et al,

Israel must make every attempt to make a good faith effort. It must be absolutely clear, such that any reasonable and prudent man can see that every attempt was made to come to an agreement that was not one-sided.


(COMMENT)

There must be room for compromise and reasonable risk.
Rocco...do you believe the creation of a unitary, federal or confederate Israeli-Palestinian state encompassing all of present day Israel. the West Bank and Jerusalem, and Gaza is a possibility?

"The one-state solution and the similar binational solution are proposed approaches to resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.[1]

"Proponents of a binational solution to the conflict advocate a single state in Israel, the West Bank, and possibly the Gaza Strip,[1][2] with citizenship and equal rights in the combined entity for all inhabitants of all three territories, without regard to ethnicity or religion.[1]

"While some advocate this solution for ideological reasons,[1] others feel simply that, due to the reality on the ground, it is the de facto situation."
(COMMENT)

The Arab-Palestinian is an unaffordable economic parasite to any relationship it has; and gives back nothing in return. It would smother Israel and destroy any advancements it has made. The State of Palestine is a welfare state, unable to support itself. It is certainly unable to cohesively establish a free society and eliminate racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia, and related intolerance. It would not be able to achieve conditions whereby everyone may enjoy his civil and political rights, as well as his economic, social and cultural rights.

Most Respectfully,
R
Palestine was self sufficient (Israel never has been) until the Zionists stole their stuff.
 

RoccoR

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2010
Messages
10,101
Reaction score
2,623
Points
290
Location
Reynoldsburg, OH
P F Tinmore; georgephillip, et al,

See Posting #15, in this thread.

georgephillip, et al,

No, I do not believe that a "(long-term and successful) Confederation is possible. Such a Union would require both sides to trust one another (politically, economically, and morally) and come together under a common Constitution.

Rocco...do you believe the creation of a unitary, federal or confederate Israeli-Palestinian state encompassing all of present day Israel. the West Bank and Jerusalem, and Gaza is a possibility?

"The one-state solution and the similar binational solution are proposed approaches to resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.[1]

"Proponents of a binational solution to the conflict advocate a single state in Israel, the West Bank, and possibly the Gaza Strip,[1][2] with citizenship and equal rights in the combined entity for all inhabitants of all three territories, without regard to ethnicity or religion.[1]

"While some advocate this solution for ideological reasons,[1] others feel simply that, due to the reality on the ground, it is the de facto situation."
(COMMENT)

The Arab-Palestinian is an unaffordable economic parasite to any relationship it has; and gives back nothing in return. It would smother Israel and destroy any advancements it has made. The State of Palestine is a welfare state, unable to support itself. It is certainly unable to cohesively establish a free society and eliminate racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia, and related intolerance. It would not be able to achieve conditions whereby everyone may enjoy his civil and political rights, as well as his economic, social and cultural rights.
Palestine was self sufficient (Israel never has been) until the Zionists stole their stuff.
(COMMENT)

Ah yes, the permanent and perpetual "Palestinian Victim" defense. It is never the fault of the Palestinian. They always did the right thing. They never did anything wrong. They had a perfect right to pledge a solemn oath of genocide on the Jewish People. They are freedom fighters and not terrorists.
The Zionist did this and the Zionist did that. It is always the Zionist who are at fault.

Most Respectfully,
R
 

aris2chat

Gold Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2012
Messages
18,678
Reaction score
4,677
Points
280
>>Palestine was self sufficient (Israel never has been) until the Zionists stole their stuff.<<

The Ottomans encourage Jewish immigration and the influx of money that came as well with the change of policy. Palestine was draining Ottoman finances instead of paying enough taxes to cover cost.

Palestine was never self sufficient, and is still not. Gaza is a bankrupt mess that is now, for the moment, agreeing to form a unity government in principle with the PA.
The Authority, especially gaza is funded by charity of other states and aid organization.
They are taking billions every year from other states. How is that self sufficient????
Right now the Palestinian Authority is a welfare state, a state only in principle. With unity and peace come full statehood.
 

P F Tinmore

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2009
Messages
59,142
Reaction score
2,524
Points
1,815
P F Tinmore; georgephillip, et al,

See Posting #15, in this thread.

georgephillip, et al,

No, I do not believe that a "(long-term and successful) Confederation is possible. Such a Union would require both sides to trust one another (politically, economically, and morally) and come together under a common Constitution.


(COMMENT)

The Arab-Palestinian is an unaffordable economic parasite to any relationship it has; and gives back nothing in return. It would smother Israel and destroy any advancements it has made. The State of Palestine is a welfare state, unable to support itself. It is certainly unable to cohesively establish a free society and eliminate racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia, and related intolerance. It would not be able to achieve conditions whereby everyone may enjoy his civil and political rights, as well as his economic, social and cultural rights.
Palestine was self sufficient (Israel never has been) until the Zionists stole their stuff.
(COMMENT)

Ah yes, the permanent and perpetual "Palestinian Victim" defense. It is never the fault of the Palestinian. They always did the right thing. They never did anything wrong. They had a perfect right to pledge a solemn oath of genocide on the Jewish People. They are freedom fighters and not terrorists.
The Zionist did this and the Zionist did that. It is always the Zionist who are at fault.

Most Respectfully,
R
Are you saying that the Zionists did not go to Palestine to take over the country?
 

RoccoR

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2010
Messages
10,101
Reaction score
2,623
Points
290
Location
Reynoldsburg, OH
P F Tinmore, et al,

The Zionist had "national aspirations" the same as the Ruling Elite in the "Arab" world has "national aspirations." The Arab Ruling Elite and the Zionist understood quite well the the "aspirations" of the other. However, both the Arab Ruling Elite and the Zionist were well aware that the key to achieving their individual goals and aspirations rested in securing the cooperations of the Mandatory Power.

Are you saying that the Zionists did not go to Palestine to take over the country?
(OBSERVATION)

Neither the Arab Ruling Elite and the Zionist had the capacity, the physical ability, or the legal authority, to "take over" anything in the Territory described by treaty as: "from the Mediterranean to the frontier of Persia." In that regard to that specific region:

Lausanne Treaty: Part I said:
Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.

The provisions of the present Article do not prejudice any special arrangements arising from neighbourly relations which have been or may be concluded between Turkey and any limitrophe countries.

Treaty of Sevres --- PART III - POLITICAL CLAUSES - TREATY OF PEACE BETWEEN THE ALLIED AND ASSOCIATED POWERS AND TURKEY said:
ARTICLE 132.

Outside her frontiers as fixed by the present Treaty Turkey hereby renounces in favour of the Principal Allied Powers all rights and title which she could claim on any ground over or concerning any territories outside Europe which are not otherwise disposed of by the present Treaty.

Turkey undertakes to recognise and conform to the measures which may be taken now or in the future by the Principal Allied Powers, in agreement where necessary with third Powers, in order to carry the above stipulation into effect.​

ARTICLE 139.

Turkey renounces formally all rights of suzerainty or jurisdiction of any kind over Moslems who are subject to the sovereignty or protectorate of any other State.​

SOURCE: SECTION XIII. GENERAL PROVISIONS. SIGNED AT SÈVRES 10 AUGUST 1920
SOURCE: TREATY OF PEACE WITH TURKEY SIGNED AT LAUSANNE, JULY 24, 1923
(COMMENT)

The question is, who were either the "Arab Ruling Elite and the Zionist" going to takeover the country from? (Rhetorical) Certainly not the indigenous population. The territory was not under the authority or control of the indigenous population. It passed from the Sovereign Power to the Allied Powers; no matter which treaty, charter, convention, or agreement one might examine.

And since the territory passed from the Sovereign Power to the Allied Powers, under Treaty (International Law), and it was agreed that the Allied Powers were to pass it under Mandate (San Remo Conference decided on April 24, 1920 and Mandate for Palestine, 12 August 1922), AND --- whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed in favor of the establishment Jewish Nation Home; and the facilitation Jewish immigration and territorial citizenship for the purpose of reconstituting the Jewish National Home. The purpose and intent was controlled by powers, other than, Zionist or the Jewish Agency.

(SUMMARY)

No matter what the "Arab Ruling Elite and the Zionist" may have said as to their purpose, it cannot over emphasized, neither had the capacity, the physical ability, or the legal authority, to do anything beyond that authorized by the League of Nation Mandate Commission or the Mandatory Power. And certainly, the indigenous population had no similar authority.

Most Respectfully,
R
 
Last edited:

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top