My thank you and my confession

[theliq]

Here's a little blurb about Israel and Netanyahu that Sally found for me.


There is no world leader more hated by bien-pensant liberals in America and Europe than Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Whereas once the bile was directed at former U.S. president George W. Bush—for invading Iraq and Afghanistan, for identifying radical Islam in both its Shi’a and Sunni variations as an existential threat, and for backing Israel—it’s now largely focused on Netanyahu, an alleged “racist” and “war criminal” who just happens to have won a resounding vote of confidence from the Israeli electorate on March 17.

Two New York Times editorials speak to my point rather elegantly. The first, published on March 13, asked whether Turkey could still be considered a reliable North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) ally—concluding, based on the Ankara government’s stance towards international crises from the Islamic State insurgency to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, that it can’t. But while the substance of the editorial was basically correct, notable was the lack of any ad hominem attack on Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. “Increasingly authoritarian” was the best the New York Times could manage when it came to describing this boorish thug, who rejoices in conspiracy theories, baits his country’s declining Jewish population even as he assures them that they are safe, and imprisons journalists with the devil-may-care attitude only a dictator can enjoy.

Contrast that with the morning-after New York Times editorial on an Israeli election that saw Netanyahu defy polling predictions by winning a clear mandate to govern. (Netanyahu’s Likud party garnered 30 Knesset seats to the Zionist Union’s 24 seats.) “Racist,” “desperate,” “craven,” and “aggressive” are just a selection of the adjectives used to describe Israel’s prime minister. We are told that Netanyahu “expected to win an easy victory and then ended up fighting for his political life,” when the exact reverse was true. The paper then bemoaned Netanyahu’s “demagogy,” claiming that he “further incites the rage that has torn his country apart.” To slam an Israeli leader for incitement when so many of Israel’s neighbors turn to the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion” anti-Semitic fabrication when they want insights into Israeli behavior is laughable, frankly.


Read more at Israel Not Netanyahu is the Ultimate Target - Israel News

Yawn

 

[teddyearp]

Really, like a Trojan horse then hey! Read this part again, and then ask why? Also reread the book of Esther and see just how Jews are, although probably just a fable, first a lie, then Esther as a Trojan horse, the her Uncle causing trouble , then an massacre, and then a celebration!

Read below again, and then tell us that its a problem with the Palestinians, they didn't create anti semitsm.

Around 150 BCE the King of Syria wanted to outlaw the Sabbath and circumcision. Funny that the City of San Fransisco wanted to outlaw circumcision in the early 21st century as well. Coincidence? Moving forward, the Jews have been persecuted all through the common era all over Europe. But nobody talks about that, especially the 'pro-palestinian' crowd. All through the middle ages, European country after country expelled the Jews, or at the very least wanted to take away their property and turn them into slaves. For what? Even Martin Luther wanted the world to hate the Jews. The Moslems have never been persecuted like that. Ever.

What does Trip Advisor have to do with this? Did you get a discount for posting pro Israel or something?

As usual, 'Loopee, you post gibberish.

 

[Hossfly]

Here's a little blurb about Israel and Netanyahu that Sally found for me.


There is no world leader more hated by bien-pensant liberals in America and Europe than Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Whereas once the bile was directed at former U.S. president George W. Bush—for invading Iraq and Afghanistan, for identifying radical Islam in both its Shi’a and Sunni variations as an existential threat, and for backing Israel—it’s now largely focused on Netanyahu, an alleged “racist” and “war criminal” who just happens to have won a resounding vote of confidence from the Israeli electorate on March 17.

Two New York Times editorials speak to my point rather elegantly. The first, published on March 13, asked whether Turkey could still be considered a reliable North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) ally—concluding, based on the Ankara government’s stance towards international crises from the Islamic State insurgency to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, that it can’t. But while the substance of the editorial was basically correct, notable was the lack of any ad hominem attack on Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. “Increasingly authoritarian” was the best the New York Times could manage when it came to describing this boorish thug, who rejoices in conspiracy theories, baits his country’s declining Jewish population even as he assures them that they are safe, and imprisons journalists with the devil-may-care attitude only a dictator can enjoy.

Contrast that with the morning-after New York Times editorial on an Israeli election that saw Netanyahu defy polling predictions by winning a clear mandate to govern. (Netanyahu’s Likud party garnered 30 Knesset seats to the Zionist Union’s 24 seats.) “Racist,” “desperate,” “craven,” and “aggressive” are just a selection of the adjectives used to describe Israel’s prime minister. We are told that Netanyahu “expected to win an easy victory and then ended up fighting for his political life,” when the exact reverse was true. The paper then bemoaned Netanyahu’s “demagogy,” claiming that he “further incites the rage that has torn his country apart.” To slam an Israeli leader for incitement when so many of Israel’s neighbors turn to the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion” anti-Semitic fabrication when they want insights into Israeli behavior is laughable, frankly.


Read more at Israel Not Netanyahu is the Ultimate Target - Israel News

Yawn

Say goodnight Gracie.

 

[teddyearp]

Wow, you're one snobbish person. How long have you lived among Israelis that you know who speaks for us, exactly?

Well I'll tell you something.....you don't that is for sure

Hmm, Steve, are you trying to imply that Lipush doesn't live in Israel? Because if that is what you are implying, you seriously have a bad rectal cranial insertion problem.

 

[theliq]

Then perhaps you didn't learn everything.

To be Pro-Palestine is not just another way of being anti-Israel.

Oh no. I believe I have learned enough. But my statement did leave out you and Humanity. However, if you look harder, you are being delusional in thinking that way. As was I. We were perhaps three amongst the rest who while being Pro-Palestinian are actually Anti-Israel. I suggest you carefully reread the myriad of posts. Even PFTinmore, as much as he seems to be peaceful, he really doesn't want the State of Israel to exist. None of them do.

No, for most of the world, being on the side of the Palestinians is to desire that the State of Israel would vanish from the face of the earth. As much as you might try to convince yourself otherwise, it the the cold hard truth.

The world learned a very hard lesson when Israel decided to attempt to give some land for peace with the Gaza withdrawal. Israel has learned it the hardest. I'll send you some pictures from Sderot if I get a chance to go there next month.

Teddy this,you statement just isn't true..............the majority of the world are in agreement that there should be an Israel but moreover there should be a Palestine........I know many Jew's,Zionists mainly preport that everyone wants to eliminate Jews from Israel.......but this is not true at all.......when Israel acts in a proper manner to the Palestinians,then peace will arrive between these two cousins............instead were have rhetoric but no innovation and desire to move forwards.....in both communities there are those that love the status-quo.......because it serves their purpose............the real problem with the Palestinians and Israelis is.......There is no real leadership on either side......and that is a fact.steve

 

[Hossfly]

Then perhaps you didn't learn everything.

To be Pro-Palestine is not just another way of being anti-Israel.

Oh no. I believe I have learned enough. But my statement did leave out you and Humanity. However, if you look harder, you are being delusional in thinking that way. As was I. We were perhaps three amongst the rest who while being Pro-Palestinian are actually Anti-Israel. I suggest you carefully reread the myriad of posts. Even PFTinmore, as much as he seems to be peaceful, he really doesn't want the State of Israel to exist. None of them do.

No, for most of the world, being on the side of the Palestinians is to desire that the State of Israel would vanish from the face of the earth. As much as you might try to convince yourself otherwise, it the the cold hard truth.

The world learned a very hard lesson when Israel decided to attempt to give some land for peace with the Gaza withdrawal. Israel has learned it the hardest. I'll send you some pictures from Sderot if I get a chance to go there next month.

Teddy this,you statement just isn't true..............the majority of the world are in agreement that there should be an Israel but moreover there should be a Palestine........I know many Jew's,Zionists mainly preport that everyone wants to eliminate Jews from Israel.......but this is not true at all.......when Israel acts in a proper manner to the Palestinians,then peace will arrive between these two cousins............instead were have rhetoric but no innovation and desire to move forwards.....in both communities there are those that love the status-quo.......because it serves their purpose............the real problem with the Palestinians and Israelis is.......There is no real leadership on either side......and that is a fact.steve

Steve, have you ever read the Hamas Charter? The PLO Charter? When a nationalistic group says in their charters they want the elimination of Jews, well, it just ain't rhetoric. It's a threat, their charter.

 

[theliq]

In 1948, sure many Arabs/Moslems were expelled from Israel (abt 750,000), but at the same time more like a million Jews were expelled from the neighboring Arab countries.

Actually, it was not more like a million. Approximately 876,000 Palestinians were expelled or fled. It was about the same number 800,000 Jews, and like the Palestinians they fled for multiple reasons - some were expelled, some fled in fear of unrest and persecution, some to escape poverty.

Then perhaps you didn't learn everything.

To be Pro-Palestine is not just another way of being anti-Israel.

In many ways, that's exactly what it is.

I disagree.

I think that is often thrown out to shut off debate.

Being Pro-Palestinian, to me - is recognizing the rights of the Palestinians for self determination in the form of either a state or full and equal citizenship, equality, and justice.

It does not mean being "anti-Israel" - I support Israel's right to exist and it's right to defend itself just like any other state.

And that is the key: like any other state.

Once the Palestinians have a state then they will be held to the same standards and same sanctions if they fail to hold up to the responsibilities of a modern state.

That's not being anti-Israel - it's about justice, equality, and doing what's right by people.

We need to know the facts before meting judgment on Israel. There were no Palestinians to expel. Here is the breakdown of property ownership prior to Israel becoming a Nation:
71.2% Britain
8.6% Jewish
3.3% resident Arabs
16.9% non resident Arabs.

What wasn't mandated to the Jews (71.2%) was bought by the Jews at a very high price from the Arabs. (16.9%). Of the 3.3% of Arab residents, (430,000) left on their own accord when the neighboring Arab countries told them to due to an upcoming invasion of Israel by Egypt and the other Muslim neighbors.
THIS was Israel's response to the exodus of those few Arabs:
"Do not fear. Do not destroy your homes with your own hands. Do not bring upon yourself tragedy by unnecessary evacuation and self imposed burdens...But in this city, yours and ours, Haifa, the gates are open for work, for life, and for peace for you and your families."

^That is a far cry from being thrown off of their property by the Jews. According to the Arab National Committee1950:
"The motivation for Arabs leaving Israel, came from Arab leadership. The removal of the Arab inhabitants was voluntary and was carried out at our request."
Those Arabs that were told to leave weren't allowed entry into these Arab countries though, and had no choice but to squat on Israeli land. They had lived in Israel for less than 24 months and didn't even qualify for aid as a refugee. They hadn't lived in Israel long enough to qualify. The law had to be changed in order to supply international aid. They weren't Palestinians. There was no Palestine. They were Egyptians living in Israel, Syrians living in Israel.......

Want to make it right? Insist on a two state solution between Egypt and "Palestinian"/Hamas. Syria and "Palestinian"/Hamas. Israel didn't make them refugees and does not owe them one inch of Israel.

This is the most ridiculous and Moronic post I have seen on USM......."Israel didn't make them refugees"!!!!!!!!! Those of you who agreed and panderd to this post and poster should be ashamed............it's like me saying "Nazis didn't murder Jews" and people agreeing with me.

Your mind is totally Fucked and so are the Fuckards that agreed with you...........theliq

 

[theliq]

Then perhaps you didn't learn everything.

To be Pro-Palestine is not just another way of being anti-Israel.

Oh no. I believe I have learned enough. But my statement did leave out you and Humanity. However, if you look harder, you are being delusional in thinking that way. As was I. We were perhaps three amongst the rest who while being Pro-Palestinian are actually Anti-Israel. I suggest you carefully reread the myriad of posts. Even PFTinmore, as much as he seems to be peaceful, he really doesn't want the State of Israel to exist. None of them do.

No, for most of the world, being on the side of the Palestinians is to desire that the State of Israel would vanish from the face of the earth. As much as you might try to convince yourself otherwise, it the the cold hard truth.

The world learned a very hard lesson when Israel decided to attempt to give some land for peace with the Gaza withdrawal. Israel has learned it the hardest. I'll send you some pictures from Sderot if I get a chance to go there next month.

Teddy this,your statement just isn't true..............the majority of the world are in agreement that there should be an Israel but moreover there should be a Palestine........I know many Jew's,Zionists mainly preport that everyone wants to eliminate Jews from Israel.......but this is not true at all.......when Israel acts in a proper manner to the Palestinians,then peace will arrive between these two cousins............instead were have rhetoric but no innovation and desire to move forwards.....in both communities there are those that love the status-quo.......because it serves their purpose............the real problem with the Palestinians and Israelis is.......There is no real leadership on either side......and that is a fact.steve

Steve, have you ever read the Hamas Charter? The PLO Charter? When a nationalistic group says in their charters they want the elimination of Jews, well, it just ain't rhetoric. It's a threat, their charter.

Well Hamas do mention this but they have watered down their claims....I think Hamas and others are stupid on this point,because there is no future for the Palestinians until they completely recind this.steve Mind you Hoss,remember there are Jewish Groups today that say they wish to eliminate the Palestinians completely......so you should have made that comment at the same time.......but you did not..why?

I am fed up with having to elucidate and complete or posters posts....next time it will be 400 lashes and ash rubbed into the wounds..........LOL steve

 

[teddyearp]

Does that mean that most Pro-Israeli's are Anti-Palestinian then?

The quick answer is hopefully no, but we know the truth. You, Humanity and I have always held out for the best here, but we have all been deluded, IMHO. For me, the answer is no, but I do know I am dreaming.

Re-read my solution that I have posted and probably repeated in my OP here and see how much sense it makes and how little traction it gets from the pro-pals. And you as well.

 

[Hossfly]

Then perhaps you didn't learn everything.

To be Pro-Palestine is not just another way of being anti-Israel.

Oh no. I believe I have learned enough. But my statement did leave out you and Humanity. However, if you look harder, you are being delusional in thinking that way. As was I. We were perhaps three amongst the rest who while being Pro-Palestinian are actually Anti-Israel. I suggest you carefully reread the myriad of posts. Even PFTinmore, as much as he seems to be peaceful, he really doesn't want the State of Israel to exist. None of them do.

No, for most of the world, being on the side of the Palestinians is to desire that the State of Israel would vanish from the face of the earth. As much as you might try to convince yourself otherwise, it the the cold hard truth.

The world learned a very hard lesson when Israel decided to attempt to give some land for peace with the Gaza withdrawal. Israel has learned it the hardest. I'll send you some pictures from Sderot if I get a chance to go there next month.

Teddy this,your statement just isn't true..............the majority of the world are in agreement that there should be an Israel but moreover there should be a Palestine........I know many Jew's,Zionists mainly preport that everyone wants to eliminate Jews from Israel.......but this is not true at all.......when Israel acts in a proper manner to the Palestinians,then peace will arrive between these two cousins............instead were have rhetoric but no innovation and desire to move forwards.....in both communities there are those that love the status-quo.......because it serves their purpose............the real problem with the Palestinians and Israelis is.......There is no real leadership on either side......and that is a fact.steve

Steve, have you ever read the Hamas Charter? The PLO Charter? When a nationalistic group says in their charters they want the elimination of Jews, well, it just ain't rhetoric. It's a threat, their charter.

Well Hamas do mention this but they have watered down their claims....I think Hamas and others are stupid on this point,because there is no future for the Palestinians until they completely recind this.steve

If they watered down their claims then they completely drenched them last summer during Protective Edge.

 

[teddyearp]

. ..when Israel acts in a proper manner to the Palestinians,then peace will arrive between these two cousins<snip>

Oh for crying out LOUD!!!!!

Let's have ANOTHER history lesson Steve, since you have such a bad rectal cranial insertion problem.

The British Mandate for Palestine and the Balfour declaration gave the whole Mandate to the Jews for a homeland. Then the portion east of the Jordan river was sliced off for the Arabs and called Trans-Jordan. The jews said, "OK". Then the UN made a mandate and carved it again and the jews said, "OK". And that is where they said "OK, here is where we will call out our country".

No, if the Palis were to act in the same manner and call it where they have it RIGHT NOW, they could have it.

 

[theliq]

Here's a little blurb about Israel and Netanyahu that Sally found for me.


There is no world leader more hated by bien-pensant liberals in America and Europe than Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Whereas once the bile was directed at former U.S. president George W. Bush—for invading Iraq and Afghanistan, for identifying radical Islam in both its Shi’a and Sunni variations as an existential threat, and for backing Israel—it’s now largely focused on Netanyahu, an alleged “racist” and “war criminal” who just happens to have won a resounding vote of confidence from the Israeli electorate on March 17.

Two New York Times editorials speak to my point rather elegantly. The first, published on March 13, asked whether Turkey could still be considered a reliable North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) ally—concluding, based on the Ankara government’s stance towards international crises from the Islamic State insurgency to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, that it can’t. But while the substance of the editorial was basically correct, notable was the lack of any ad hominem attack on Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. “Increasingly authoritarian” was the best the New York Times could manage when it came to describing this boorish thug, who rejoices in conspiracy theories, baits his country’s declining Jewish population even as he assures them that they are safe, and imprisons journalists with the devil-may-care attitude only a dictator can enjoy.

Contrast that with the morning-after New York Times editorial on an Israeli election that saw Netanyahu defy polling predictions by winning a clear mandate to govern. (Netanyahu’s Likud party garnered 30 Knesset seats to the Zionist Union’s 24 seats.) “Racist,” “desperate,” “craven,” and “aggressive” are just a selection of the adjectives used to describe Israel’s prime minister. We are told that Netanyahu “expected to win an easy victory and then ended up fighting for his political life,” when the exact reverse was true. The paper then bemoaned Netanyahu’s “demagogy,” claiming that he “further incites the rage that has torn his country apart.” To slam an Israeli leader for incitement when so many of Israel’s neighbors turn to the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion” anti-Semitic fabrication when they want insights into Israeli behavior is laughable, frankly.


Read more at Israel Not Netanyahu is the Ultimate Target - Israel News

Not a clear mandate Hoss when 70% of Voters voted against him.................steve

 

[teddyearp]

For me, the answer is no, but I do know I am dreaming.

Re-read my solution that I have posted and probably repeated in my OP here and see how much sense it makes and how little traction it gets from the pro-pals. And you as well.

And with all honesty, to continue, I confess now that there is no solution. There will never be a two state solution unless as I have said repeatedly the pals declare a democratic non-violent state right now, right where they are. But that will never happen.

I truly feel sorry for the rank and file Palestinian, they have been led down a road of no return; but frankly my dear, I could give a damn.

 

[Hossfly]

Here's a little blurb about Israel and Netanyahu that Sally found for me.


There is no world leader more hated by bien-pensant liberals in America and Europe than Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Whereas once the bile was directed at former U.S. president George W. Bush—for invading Iraq and Afghanistan, for identifying radical Islam in both its Shi’a and Sunni variations as an existential threat, and for backing Israel—it’s now largely focused on Netanyahu, an alleged “racist” and “war criminal” who just happens to have won a resounding vote of confidence from the Israeli electorate on March 17.

Two New York Times editorials speak to my point rather elegantly. The first, published on March 13, asked whether Turkey could still be considered a reliable North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) ally—concluding, based on the Ankara government’s stance towards international crises from the Islamic State insurgency to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, that it can’t. But while the substance of the editorial was basically correct, notable was the lack of any ad hominem attack on Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. “Increasingly authoritarian” was the best the New York Times could manage when it came to describing this boorish thug, who rejoices in conspiracy theories, baits his country’s declining Jewish population even as he assures them that they are safe, and imprisons journalists with the devil-may-care attitude only a dictator can enjoy.

Contrast that with the morning-after New York Times editorial on an Israeli election that saw Netanyahu defy polling predictions by winning a clear mandate to govern. (Netanyahu’s Likud party garnered 30 Knesset seats to the Zionist Union’s 24 seats.) “Racist,” “desperate,” “craven,” and “aggressive” are just a selection of the adjectives used to describe Israel’s prime minister. We are told that Netanyahu “expected to win an easy victory and then ended up fighting for his political life,” when the exact reverse was true. The paper then bemoaned Netanyahu’s “demagogy,” claiming that he “further incites the rage that has torn his country apart.” To slam an Israeli leader for incitement when so many of Israel’s neighbors turn to the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion” anti-Semitic fabrication when they want insights into Israeli behavior is laughable, frankly.


Read more at Israel Not Netanyahu is the Ultimate Target - Israel News

Not a clear mandate Hoss when 70% of Voters voted against him.................steve

An overwhelming mandate Steve. Because there are 25 Partys. It ain't the same as having 2 Partys.

 

[theliq]

. ..when Israel acts in a proper manner to the Palestinians,then peace will arrive between these two cousins<snip>

Oh for crying out LOUD!!!!!

Let's have ANOTHER history lesson Steve, since you have such a bad rectal cranial insertion problem.

The British Mandate for Palestine and the Balfour declaration gave the whole Mandate to the Jews for a homeland. Then the portion east of the Jordan river was sliced off for the Arabs and called Trans-Jordan. The jews said, "OK". Then the UN made a mandate and carved it again and the jews said, "OK". And that is where they said "OK, here is where we will call out our country".

No, if the Palis were to act in the same manner and call it where they have it RIGHT NOW, they could have it.

Your Geography scores at school must have been in single digits Teddy with respect.......Jordan or Trans Jordan was land given by the British to a Saudi Prince......it has nothing to do with the Palestinians or Jews for that matter........it was Palestine that was to be carved up.

When the UN made recommendation regarding the Partition,The Jews quickly declared the State of Israel......but in Law and to make it Law,it had to be RATIFIED by the UN Security Council...IT NEVER WAS. In Law Israel doesn't actually exist............Balfour the Jew merely made a Declaration was only that,which means fcuk all,politicians make declarations all the time.If anyone needs a lesson in history and geography Ted,its you......goodness knows who took you around Israel(maybe you could tell me)but it seems you were somewhat totally misinformed on a lot of things...saying that it really is a wonderful country to visit and it has lots of Jews and Arabs all very nice,that you can talk to........maybe on your next visit...steve

 

[theliq]

Here's a little blurb about Israel and Netanyahu that Sally found for me.


There is no world leader more hated by bien-pensant liberals in America and Europe than Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Whereas once the bile was directed at former U.S. president George W. Bush—for invading Iraq and Afghanistan, for identifying radical Islam in both its Shi’a and Sunni variations as an existential threat, and for backing Israel—it’s now largely focused on Netanyahu, an alleged “racist” and “war criminal” who just happens to have won a resounding vote of confidence from the Israeli electorate on March 17.

Two New York Times editorials speak to my point rather elegantly. The first, published on March 13, asked whether Turkey could still be considered a reliable North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) ally—concluding, based on the Ankara government’s stance towards international crises from the Islamic State insurgency to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, that it can’t. But while the substance of the editorial was basically correct, notable was the lack of any ad hominem attack on Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. “Increasingly authoritarian” was the best the New York Times could manage when it came to describing this boorish thug, who rejoices in conspiracy theories, baits his country’s declining Jewish population even as he assures them that they are safe, and imprisons journalists with the devil-may-care attitude only a dictator can enjoy.

Contrast that with the morning-after New York Times editorial on an Israeli election that saw Netanyahu defy polling predictions by winning a clear mandate to govern. (Netanyahu’s Likud party garnered 30 Knesset seats to the Zionist Union’s 24 seats.) “Racist,” “desperate,” “craven,” and “aggressive” are just a selection of the adjectives used to describe Israel’s prime minister. We are told that Netanyahu “expected to win an easy victory and then ended up fighting for his political life,” when the exact reverse was true. The paper then bemoaned Netanyahu’s “demagogy,” claiming that he “further incites the rage that has torn his country apart.” To slam an Israeli leader for incitement when so many of Israel’s neighbors turn to the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion” anti-Semitic fabrication when they want insights into Israeli behavior is laughable, frankly.


Read more at Israel Not Netanyahu is the Ultimate Target - Israel News

Not a clear mandate Hoss when 70% of Voters voted against him.................steve

An overwhelming mandate Steve. Because there are 25 Partys. It ain't the same as having 2 Partys.

2 4 6 8 it still don't make a Mandate...............could have been 100 Partys Hoss.......still don't change the fact that 70% didn't want him.....to me I am not affiliated to and polik-party in Israel,I am only quoting the disparity..steve

 

[Hossfly]

Here's a little blurb about Israel and Netanyahu that Sally found for me.


There is no world leader more hated by bien-pensant liberals in America and Europe than Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Whereas once the bile was directed at former U.S. president George W. Bush—for invading Iraq and Afghanistan, for identifying radical Islam in both its Shi’a and Sunni variations as an existential threat, and for backing Israel—it’s now largely focused on Netanyahu, an alleged “racist” and “war criminal” who just happens to have won a resounding vote of confidence from the Israeli electorate on March 17.

Two New York Times editorials speak to my point rather elegantly. The first, published on March 13, asked whether Turkey could still be considered a reliable North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) ally—concluding, based on the Ankara government’s stance towards international crises from the Islamic State insurgency to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, that it can’t. But while the substance of the editorial was basically correct, notable was the lack of any ad hominem attack on Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. “Increasingly authoritarian” was the best the New York Times could manage when it came to describing this boorish thug, who rejoices in conspiracy theories, baits his country’s declining Jewish population even as he assures them that they are safe, and imprisons journalists with the devil-may-care attitude only a dictator can enjoy.

Contrast that with the morning-after New York Times editorial on an Israeli election that saw Netanyahu defy polling predictions by winning a clear mandate to govern. (Netanyahu’s Likud party garnered 30 Knesset seats to the Zionist Union’s 24 seats.) “Racist,” “desperate,” “craven,” and “aggressive” are just a selection of the adjectives used to describe Israel’s prime minister. We are told that Netanyahu “expected to win an easy victory and then ended up fighting for his political life,” when the exact reverse was true. The paper then bemoaned Netanyahu’s “demagogy,” claiming that he “further incites the rage that has torn his country apart.” To slam an Israeli leader for incitement when so many of Israel’s neighbors turn to the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion” anti-Semitic fabrication when they want insights into Israeli behavior is laughable, frankly.


Read more at Israel Not Netanyahu is the Ultimate Target - Israel News

Not a clear mandate Hoss when 70% of Voters voted against him.................steve

An overwhelming mandate Steve. Because there are 25 Partys. It ain't the same as having 2 Partys.

2 4 6 8 it still don't make a Mandate...............could have been 100 Partys Hoss.......still don't change the fact that 70% didn't want him.....to me I am not affiliated to and polik-party in Israel,I am only quoting the disparity..steve

I can't fathom your reasoning. It really was a landslide. Live with it.

 

[Lipush]

Wow, you're one snobbish person. How long have you lived among Israelis that you know who speaks for us, exactly?

Well I'll tell you something.....you don't that is for sure

Hmm, Steve, are you trying to imply that Lipush doesn't live in Israel? Because if that is what you are implying, you seriously have a bad rectal cranial insertion problem.

Wow, I'm speechless, you're still following Steeve? I lost him on the first day, already.

 

[Lipush]

Then perhaps you didn't learn everything.

To be Pro-Palestine is not just another way of being anti-Israel.

Oh no. I believe I have learned enough. But my statement did leave out you and Humanity. However, if you look harder, you are being delusional in thinking that way. As was I. We were perhaps three amongst the rest who while being Pro-Palestinian are actually Anti-Israel. I suggest you carefully reread the myriad of posts. Even PFTinmore, as much as he seems to be peaceful, he really doesn't want the State of Israel to exist. None of them do.

No, for most of the world, being on the side of the Palestinians is to desire that the State of Israel would vanish from the face of the earth. As much as you might try to convince yourself otherwise, it the the cold hard truth.

The world learned a very hard lesson when Israel decided to attempt to give some land for peace with the Gaza withdrawal. Israel has learned it the hardest. I'll send you some pictures from Sderot if I get a chance to go there next month.

Teddy this,you statement just isn't true..............the majority of the world are in agreement that there should be an Israel but moreover there should be a Palestine........I know many Jew's,Zionists mainly preport that everyone wants to eliminate Jews from Israel.......but this is not true at all.......when Israel acts in a proper manner to the Palestinians,then peace will arrive between these two cousins............instead were have rhetoric but no innovation and desire to move forwards.....in both communities there are those that love the status-quo.......because it serves their purpose............the real problem with the Palestinians and Israelis is.......There is no real leadership on either side......and that is a fact.steve

lol

 

[The Irish Ram]

What a load of bullshit. The facts are documented. Making things up doesn't make it true. Jews owned less than 5% of the land prior to partition.

Actually it is not bullshit. Those are the numbers gathered by the British Mandate government survey of the land in question. The percentages that were used to determine what land the British would transfer to the Jews.

In 1866 Samuel Clemens went to the Middle East, and was sorely disappointed. It was deserted and desolate. He saw one nomad. That is the arid piece of nothing that was given to the Jews. God increased the rain, just like He said He would and promised that they would become fruitful. And they have.

The Muslims that migrated there, and set up house in Israel hadn't been in that area long enough to even be considered uprooted citizens entitled to the status and aid as refugees.

King Hussein's knowledge concerning the Muslims that were hung out to dry by the Egyptians:

"Since 1948 Arab leaders have approached the Palestine problem in an irresponsible manner. They have used the Palestine people for selfish political purposes. This is ridiculous, and I could say, even criminal."

This isn't a consequence of Israel becoming a nation. We are asking the wrong country to make amends to the refugees. Look at the size of Israel. Look at the size of Egypt. Which country is in the better position to carve a slice out for the Palestinians? Egypt, the ones that caused them to leave their homes, or Israel, the ones that begged them to stay?