Israel Snubs U.S.

[Shogun]

msnbc.com Video Player


**** it. here. If jill wants to deflect the attention away from israel by screaming bloody ******* martyr about an arab nation go ahead and watch for yourself. The very fact that she cries about ARAB nations while making every excuse for a JEWISH nation, both ethnic standards, is almost as laughable as her willingness to call an aparthied wall "just a fence" while insisting that israel isn't trying to expand or sanctions settlers.

WATCH THE VIDEO. You tell me who the ISRAELI soldiers decided to defend: palis and their grazing land or jews and their squatted settlements.

 

[Ravi]

Quite a few Americans would like to see a fence along the Mexican border. I don't think it will work here, either.

And I can't really say that I see a difference between the two, except that Mexicans aren't trying to blow us up.

 

[jillian]

The settlements are expansions. There is no way around that. Israel was attacked in 1967? I thought the Isareli attacked the Eqyptain water company before that starting the hostilities?

You think Israel attacked first on Yom Kippur??? I haven't even heard Arabs say that. Try learning history. Here's a cliffs notes version to start. The fact was that Israel made an intentional decision NOT to engage in pre-emptive attack despite the buildup of troops on its borders.

Yom Kippur War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The settlements are expansions in the same way California is.

 

[editec]

Quite a few Americans would like to see a fence along the Mexican border. I don't think it will work here, either.

I think it might help a bit. enough to justify the cost? I'm not qualified to say, really.

And I can't really say that I see a difference between the two, except that Mexicans aren't trying to blow us up.

Oh I think the many difference are fairly obvious, aren't they?

Here's the most obvious one, of course...

When we stole all that land from Mexico, Mexico finally signed a treaty (a number of them actually) accepting their fate.

 

[Shogun]

Quite a few Americans would like to see a fence along the Mexican border. I don't think it will work here, either.

And I can't really say that I see a difference between the two, except that Mexicans aren't trying to blow us up.

of course you dont.


OF COURSE you dont.

Like I said.. watch the video. or dont.

 

[Ravi]

When we stole all that land from Mexico, Mexico finally signed a treaty (a number of them actually) accepting their fate.

Good point.

 

[Shogun]

Oh I think the many difference are fairly obvious, aren't they?

Here's the most obvious one, of course...

When we stole all that land from Mexico, Mexico finally signed a treaty (a number of them actually) accepting their fate.

She'd blame the INDEPENDENT Texas succession on America despite Mexico GRANTING the land to gringos too if she thought acting dense would keep her from having to learn something.


And it's a ******* joke to say California is anything like Mexico. CA wasn't purged of latinos for the sake of whites. Hell, CAli acted on it's own accord. Bear Flag Republic anyone? Hell, we have an AUSTRIAN ******* governor in place.


funny though.. anyone wanna admit to watching the antisemitic video from NBC nightly news?

 

[Reality]

You think Israel attacked first on Yom Kippur??? I haven't even heard Arabs say that. Try learning history. Here's a cliffs notes version to start. The fact was that Israel made an intentional decision NOT to engage in pre-emptive attack despite the buildup of troops on its borders.

Yom Kippur War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I think you are a bit mixed up Jillian. Yom Kippur was '73, the poster referred to '67 I believe. You are right there isn't any debate on who attacked who in '73, but the beginning of hostilities in '67 are much debated.

The settlements are expansions in the same way California is.

Through bloody insurrection, displacing the inhabitants and demographic warfare. You are correct there.

 

[Reality]

anyone wanna admit to watching the antisemitic video from NBC nightly news?

Its rather par for the course for settler types, much like their militant counterparts on the other side.

 

[Shogun]

Jill, Edetic.. did you WATCH the video?


both sides have their militant elements. It's just that ONE side is rationalized as acceptable. But, when we have proof that the martyr routine is nothing more than an empty excuse for a blank check, I want to know if the usual enabling suspects have even put forth the effort to give a **** and take a peak.

 

[jillian]

I think you are a bit mixed up Jillian. Yom Kippur was '73, the poster referred to '67 I believe. You are right there isn't any debate on who attacked who in '73, but the beginning of hostilities in '67 are much debated.



Through bloody insurrection, displacing the inhabitants and demographic warfare. You are correct there.

No. There isn't any debate about who attacked in '67.

And do you hear anyone saying give Cali to the Mexicans? Except for Absolut that is.

And do let me know when you fight for my right to my grandparents' and great grandparents' property in Belarus.

 

[Charles_Main]

1967 was a perfect example of pre-emption. I do not think anyone disputes that Israel launched the first attacks, but to Ignore the fact they did this in the face of Massing of tanks and troops on their border, and clear indications that several Arab nations were about to invade Israel, is to ignore REALITY. IMO Israel was well with in their rights, and acting in their own defense when they launched those attacks. Though I am sure many of you will call me a "racist Zionist Jew" for holding that opinion.

 

[jillian]

1967 was a perfect example of pre-emption. I do not think anyone disputes that Israel launched the first attacks, but to Ignore the fact they did this in the face of Massing of tanks and troops on their border, and clear indications that several Arab nations were about to invade Israel, is to ignore REALITY. IMO Israel was well with in their rights, and acting in their own defense when they launched those attacks. Though I am sure many of you will call me a "racist Zionist Jew" for holding that opinion.

I don't agree that it was pre-emption.

In May 1967, Egypt expelled the United Nations Emergency Force (UNEF) from the Sinai Peninsula, which had been stationed there since 1957 (following the 1956 Sinai invasion by the British, French, and Israelis to allow for a free Suez Canal) to provide a peace-keeping buffer zone. Egypt also amassed 1,000 tanks and 100,000 soldiers on the border, closed the Straits of Tiran to all ships flying Israeli flags or carrying strategic materials, and called for unified Arab action against Israel.[5] After warning Egypt to cease its hostilities for several weeks, Israel launched a pre-emptive attack[6] against Egypt's airforce. Jordan, which had signed a mutual defence treaty with Egypt on May 30, then attacked western Jerusalem and Netanya.[7][8][9] At the war's end, Israel had gained control of the Sinai Peninsula, the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, eastern Jerusalem, and the Golan Heights. The results of the war affect the geopolitics of the region to this day.

Six-Day War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Egypt committed an act of war by closing the Suez Canal, expelling the UNEF and amassing tanks and troops.

A limited response, via attacking the Egyptian air force, was absolutely appropriate response to that aggression.

I know how some people think Jews should just die. I object to that.

 

[Charles_Main]

I don't agree that it was pre-emption.



Six-Day War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Egypt committed an act of war by closing the Suez Canal, expelling the UNEF and amassing tanks and troops.

Ok, maybe I misspoke, My point was that Israel was the first to launch actual military strikes, and that was indeed an act of pre-emption. They pre-empted what was a clear and obvious coming attack by their enemy.

A limited response, via attacking the Egyptian air force, was absolutely appropriate response to that aggression.

I agree 100% and I am not sure why, if you did, you would get the impression I think anything else but that. after all didn't I say this "IMO Israel was well with in their rights, and acting in their own defense when they launched those attacks."

I know how some people think Jews should just die. I object to that.

As do I, again I hope you do not think I feel that way, because if you did you would be wrong, and I would wonder how you could have drawn that conclusion from my post.

 

[Reality]

No. There isn't any debate about who attacked in '67.

There is much debate about the actions of both sides in the preceding months. Again, not a good guy/ bad guy issue.

And do you hear anyone saying give Cali to the Mexicans? Except for Absolut that is.

No. Mexicans have agreed to cede that land since. When Palestinians decide to do the same you will have a point.

And do let me know when you fight for my right to my grandparents' and great grandparents' property in Belarus.

I didn't know there is a large Palestinian presence in Belarus. That wasn't right and neither is displacing Palestinians.

 

[jillian]

There is much debate about the actions of both sides in the preceding months. Again, not a good guy/ bad guy issue.


No. Mexicans have agreed to cede that land since. When Palestinians decide to do the same you will have a point.



I didn't know there is a large Palestinian presence in Belarus. That wasn't right and neither is displacing Palestinians.

No good guys bad guys? That's retarded. Seriously. Once Egypt told the UNEF to leave and ammassed weapons at the border... there were bad guys. Unless of course, you think the UN was kidding when it said Israel was a legitimate state.... I guess they only weren't kidding when they later went back and called zionism racist, eh?

The point being, since you seem to have intentionally missed it.... is populations leave areas. The palestinans have as much right to Israel as I have to my family property in Belarus. And we didn't attack Belarus after the nazi grand mufti of jerusalem order to leave and attack like the pals did.

Funny how that works.

 

[Reality]

1967 was a perfect example of pre-emption. I do not think anyone disputes that Israel launched the first attacks, but to Ignore the fact they did this in the face of Massing of tanks and troops on their border, and clear indications that several Arab nations were about to invade Israel, is to ignore REALITY.

Like the Egyptians denied reality in '56? They were repeatedly told tuff shit during the Israeli buildup to be pimped out by the Brits and French for British colonialist holdings. When Nasser built up forces on the the Suez border, he told Israel tuff shit. Of course thats ok, basically because of Aswan, which was ideologs in the State Dept's fault, not Nasser's. After Tiran was closed the dynamic changes. Deciding to colonize much of the Middle East outside of the Peninsula is the root cause of today's continued violence. Since closing Tiran was an act of war, Israel was within its rights. It was, however, more than happy to do nothing to deescalate tensions leading up to the war, because it knew it had the advantage. The occupation didn't just come about by virtue of happenstance. Nasser walked into a shit pile. Israel kept shoveling shit onto the pile and has been doing so since.

IMO Israel was well with in their rights, and acting in their own defense when they launched those attacks. Though I am sure many of you will call me a "racist Zionist Jew" for holding that opinion.

Zionism is a political ideology. Judaism is a religion. I try very hard to never combine the two, because they are not the same at all.

 

[jillian]

Zionism is a political ideology. Judaism is a religion. I try very hard to never combine the two, because they are not the same at all.

Perhaps that's true. Or perhaps one keeps the other alive.

Either way, Jews aren't going to die for people who think Israel shouldn't exist. So it's really time to stop this revisionist history you seem to like and talk about two-state solutions.

Are you as offended by Muslim countries as by the Jewish one?

Just wondering.

 

[Reality]

I don't agree that it was pre-emption.



Six-Day War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Egypt committed an act of war by closing the Suez Canal, expelling the UNEF and amassing tanks and troops.

Egypt is a sovereign nation and has the right to do what it wishes with its troops on its land, as does Israel (occupied land is not Israeli land). Rejecting the UN is something Israel is quiet accustomed to. Closing Tiran, which amounts to an embargo, is definitely an act of war.

A limited response, via attacking the Egyptian air force, was absolutely appropriate response to that aggression.

I know how some people think Jews should just die. I object to that.

Could you reserve those comments for when you are addressing someone of that mindset?

 

[Reality]

Perhaps that's true. Or perhaps one keeps the other alive.

Either way, Jews aren't going to die for people who think Israel shouldn't exist. So it's really time to stop this revisionist history you seem to like and talk about two-state solutions.

The context of this discussion was historical. If you would like to play the who can dig up more citations game I'd be happy to play. Historical narrative is written by victors and empires. History is often quite different.

Are you as offended by Muslim countries as by the Jewish one?

Just wondering.

I recently heard Dr. Chomsky (yea yea he's one of those self-haters that reads 6 newspapers and 80 journals and met his wife in Hebrew school) in talking about the press express that he feels it rather cowardice when the press criticizes situations it has no impact on. My take on what he said is that the American press criticizing, say, Saddam Hussein is easy. Its what the public relations, meaning advertising industry wants to hear. Its similar when the Iranian press criticizes American policy. It is when members of the press stand up and criticize their own government, in the face of government and advertiser pressure, to stand up for a principle that they can effect is when the press is courageous. A perfect example: Seymour Hersh.

Israeli foreign policy and American foreign policy are inextricably intertwined. My own country's policy is something I can, in theory, impact. I don't pretend I'm doing it, but in theory it is possible.

What exactly can I accomplish by criticizing Hezzbollah or Hamas or Syria or whatever? Nothing. Its an easy target. I always try to stand for self determination and generically democratic principles (not American version of democracy). I expect those principles to be promoted and adhered to by our country and our allies. Those not our allies I have no expectation of.

And, for the record, I am quite critical of the Saudi regime as well as the dictator regime in Egypt. That fits into the above perspective.