Dog Brothers Public Forum
Return To Homepage
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
September 02, 2014, 02:05:51 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
82146 Posts in 2247 Topics by 1047 Members
Latest Member: MikeT
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  Dog Brothers Public Forum
|-+  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities
| |-+  Politics & Religion
| | |-+  Israel, and its neighbors
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 28 29 [30] 31 32 ... 41 Print
Author Topic: Israel, and its neighbors  (Read 211849 times)
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #1450 on: September 26, 2011, 10:27:33 PM »

Why not link the Eli Lake article?  It seems a lot more impartial than Tobin.

"Obama’s security cooperation extended beyond bunker busters. According to Rep. Steve Rothman (D-NJ), who serves on the committees that fund both the U.S. military and foreign aid, Obama gave “orders to the military to ratchet up the cooperation at every level with Israel.”

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/09/23/president-obama-secretly-approved-transfer-of-bunker-buster-bombs-to-israel.html


I'm curious, in article after article, our Secretary of Defense, Generals, et al have all said, Israel, if not the root and only cause, exacerbates our problems in the Middle East.
We have spent billions upon billions of dollars and thousands of American lives have been lost.  Why?  What's in it for America?  Sorry, but I'm an America first kind of guy...

This week, or soon, at great cost to America, Obama will veto Palestine's request for membership to the UN.  Note, we are the only one who would vote to veto that matter and the majority of the UN support Palestine's cause.  Frankly, the easy solution, the one that would save American lives, is to simply abstain.  Why be ostracized?  But Obama won't do that.   He's trying to find peace in the Middle East; not an easy task.  And still defend Israel.   In the interim, America pays, and pays, and pays......

So before you dump on Obama, acknowledge and give him some credit too.....
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31046


« Reply #1451 on: September 26, 2011, 10:38:56 PM »

Does this logic also apply to Taiwan, Cyprus, and the Falklands?
Logged
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #1452 on: September 26, 2011, 10:46:36 PM »

Does this logic also apply to Taiwan, Cyprus, and the Falklands?

Probably.  At least to Taiwan.  Americans would NEVER support us going to war with China over Taiwan at this point.  Risk/Benefit Analysis.  Sorry, there's not much benefit and a whole lot of risk.

Cyprus and the Falklands?  I'm not sure what our interest is, but on the other hand, there's little downside too.  So what?  It's like attacking/invading Granada.  No one cares.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31046


« Reply #1453 on: September 26, 2011, 10:53:56 PM »

I could be misremembering, but IIRC we backed Greece over Turkey in Cyprus and good relations with Turkey sure would be helpful.  Our backing of the British in the Falklands is universally unpopular in Latin America.  What would the implications be for the geo-strategic calculus of South East Asia if we were seen as abandoning Taiwan?  No need to answer really, my larger point is that Israel is not the only place where the US pursues policies not popular with many countries.

As for the larger point, in my unhumble opinion, our friendship with Israel is most definitely to the good of the US.  A few simple examples:  As has been pointed out to you here previously, Saddam Hussein would be a nuclear power now but for Osirak, and Syria would be well on its way to becoming one but for Israel.  Also, peruse this forum for reports of Saudi Arabia green lighting Israel to take out Iran's nuke program only to be stopped by Baraq.
« Last Edit: September 26, 2011, 10:58:33 PM by Crafty_Dog » Logged
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #1454 on: September 26, 2011, 11:07:07 PM »

I understand your point; but my point is risk/reward.  The Cypress issue is still an open book.  I doubt if we will take a truly strong stance one way or another.  The Falklands was over before I returned from vacation.  Do I care what Latin America thinks?  Not really.

In contrast China and Taiwan are very very different.  And so is Israel and the Middle East.  We have a lot to lose.  And not much to gain....

However, I agree with your point, other places exist where we pursue policies not popular with many countries.  But it doesn't cost many, if any, American lives.  It doesn't even cost that much money.
Israel is different.  It HAS cost American lives.  And billions upon billions of dollars.  As would a war with China over Taiwan.  No thanks....

But that's not my point.   Just give Obama some credit.  He may not be perfect, but he's still there when Israel needs him.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12000


« Reply #1455 on: September 26, 2011, 11:08:02 PM »


"Why not link the Eli Lake article?  It seems a lot more impartial than Tobin."

http://legalinsurrection.com/2011/09/obama-administration-apparently-leaks-misleading-story-to-seem-more-pro-israel-than-bush/

Obama Administration Apparently Leaks Misleading Story To Seem More Pro-Israel Than Bush
Posted by Matthew Knee   Monday, September 26, 2011 at 10:04am

 

The News Beast reports that Obama sold Israel bunker buster bombs that the Bush administration had previously blocked in 2005.
 
The problem: In 2007, the Bush arranged for the bombs to be delivered in the 2009-2010 time period, which they were.  Newsweek of course dutifully spun the story to emphasize Bush’s original refusal, rather than the fact that the bombs arrived when Bush had promised they would.
 
Obama doesn’t deserve points for every agreement with Israel he doesn’t break.  He deserves criticism for each one he does break, such as the agreement that promised Israel US support for building in certain parts of East Jerusalem.
 
But maybe I’m just too cynical.  Surely this “leak,” conveniently spun by a friendly publication,  has nothing to do with Obama’s “I’m not anti-Israel, now please give me your money so I can have four more years of being even more ‘not anti-Israel’ than I am now ” campaign to shore up his Jewish support.  No, that would be crazy talk.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12000


« Reply #1456 on: September 26, 2011, 11:12:04 PM »

"Probably.  At least to Taiwan.  Americans would NEVER support us going to war with China over Taiwan at this point.  Risk/Benefit Analysis.  Sorry, there's not much benefit and a whole lot of risk.

Cyprus and the Falklands?  I'm not sure what our interest is, but on the other hand, there's little downside too.  So what?  It's like attacking/invading Granada.  No one cares."


Right. The crushing of Taiwan's freedom will have no negative consequences? What about Japan and the rest of asia?

America: We'll defend freedom, as long as it's easy and inexpensive! 

Right?
Logged
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #1457 on: September 26, 2011, 11:16:01 PM »

Even some of the hawks from the George W. Bush administration grudgingly give Obama credit for behind-the-scenes progress. “If you say to the White House, ‘Obama has been very unfriendly to Israel,’ they say, ‘What do you mean? It’s the best military-to-military relationship ever.’ And that part is true,” says Elliott Abrams, who oversaw Middle East policy at the National Security Council. “If you look at the trajectory from Clinton to Bush to Obama, the military relationship has gotten steadily stronger. I don’t think Obama changed the trajectory, but he certainly didn’t interfere with it, and it continued under him.”

The bunker busters were a significant breakthrough. The Israelis first requested the sale in 2005, only to be rebuffed by the Bush administration. At the time, the Pentagon had frozen almost all U.S.-Israeli joint defense projects out of concern that Israel was transferring advanced military technology to China.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2011/09/25/obama-arms-israel.html
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12000


« Reply #1458 on: September 26, 2011, 11:19:06 PM »

Oh, like the rest of Obama's national security plan, he just left Bush's plans in place. I guess voting present works out well sometimes.


"They told me if I voted for McCain, it would be George W. Bush's third term. They were right!"
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12000


« Reply #1459 on: September 26, 2011, 11:24:38 PM »

Why would Israel need bunker busters anyway? I though Obama was going to meet with Aminanutjob without preconditions and use his gift. What happened?
Logged
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #1460 on: September 26, 2011, 11:29:45 PM »

Do you really think we are going to go to war with China over Taiwan?   huh huh huh  Frankly, even most Americans call them Chinese, not Taiwanese.  Most Americans don't even
know the difference and you think we would go to war with China over Taiwan?  You must be kidding.  Or are you?   huh

As for Japan, if I was Japan I would start arming.  But Japan offers a lot to America including trade, money, defense bases, etc.  It's not the same as Taiwan, sorry.  Japan is the only country
in Asia, and perhaps Korea, worth anything.  Of course China, but then I don't see them as our friend long term if they are even now.

Gosh, defending freedom sounds nice, maybe we should start more wars in the Middle East, Latin America, Asia, Africa and elsewhere to "defend freedom".  They need it!    evil

Sorry, I'm tired.  We have enough problems at home.  Iraq and Afghanistan are debacles; we don't need more.

Why would Israel need bunker busters anyway? I though Obama was going to meet with Aminanutjob without preconditions and use his gift. What happened?

Gosh, maybe Obama should just stay home and do nothing?  No money, no veto, and no bunker busters?  America would probably be better off.
But he's there for Israel; be a little grateful.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12000


« Reply #1461 on: September 26, 2011, 11:35:57 PM »

Japan is imploding in numerous ways, including their moribund economy and plummeting birthrate. If we are withdrawing from the world, there is nothing special about Japan that would differentiate it from Taiwan on any strategic level.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12000


« Reply #1462 on: September 26, 2011, 11:40:02 PM »

"This week, or soon, at great cost to America, Obama will veto Palestine's request for membership to the UN.  Note, we are the only one who would vote to veto that matter and the majority of the UN support Palestine's cause."

Anybody that hates Israel hates us too. The UN is nothing but a collection of thugs and dictators and should have been shut down long ago as an ongoing transnational criminal organization.
Logged
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #1463 on: September 26, 2011, 11:51:50 PM »

 huh huh huh

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/4142.htm

Japan's economy is the third largest in the World. 

Do you know how many dollars they hold?

Do you know how important our military bases are in Japan?

Do you know how important Japan is to America?  We have something to lose as does Japan.

Taiwan?  What do we have to lose?

But I think this discussion (although I think we are done) should be moved.  At this point, while I was drawing a similarity to Israel,
Israel seems to be dropped from the subject.

My point was/is that Obama HAS supported Israel.  Give him some credit.  Or maybe he should just stop giving them money, his veto, and arms?
Then at least you might have a point.   evil

And to finish for the evening...

"Anybody that hates Israel hates us too."

I don't think you get it; they hate us BECAUSE of our (Obama) support for Israel.  Not my words, but our Secretary of Defense, our Generals, et al.....

Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31046


« Reply #1464 on: September 26, 2011, 11:55:43 PM »

I'm gonna have to read those citations about just what the truth is with the bunker busters but it's late , , ,
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12000


« Reply #1465 on: September 27, 2011, 12:03:51 AM »


 huh huh huh

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/4142.htm

Japan's economy is the third largest in the World. 

**And dropping like it's population.

Do you know how many dollars they hold?

**The dollars Obama and his crew continue to devalue?

Do you know how important our military bases are in Japan?

**If we are not going to be the world's policeman, we have no need for those bases. If we are using them to base antiquated fighters that are no match for new generation Chinese missiles and aircraft, what's the point?

Do you know how important Japan is to America?  We have something to lose as does Japan.

**What is unique about Japan that doesn't apply to Taiwan, S. Korea or other parts of asia?

Taiwan?  What do we have to lose?

**The same we lose with Japan.

But I think this discussion (although I think we are done) should be moved.  At this point, while I was drawing a similarity to Israel,
Israel seems to be dropped from the subject.

My point was/is that Obama HAS supported Israel.  Give him some credit.  Or maybe he should just stop giving them money, his veto, and arms?
Then at least you might have a point.   evil

And to finish for the evening...

"Anybody that hates Israel hates us too."

I don't think you get it; they hate us BECAUSE of our (Obama) support for Israel.  Not my words, but our Secretary of Defense, our Generals, et al.....

**Wrong. We are kafirs, unbelievers. Just like Israel. We don't bow before Mecca and chant that Mohammad is allah's prophet. Thus they wage war against all kafir, as required by the koran and ahadith.

Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31046


« Reply #1466 on: September 27, 2011, 05:18:15 AM »

Part of my response to JDN's let Israel get pushed into the sea post in the name of US security was to point out that there are a number cases where the US goes it alone, but this is not the place for extended conversation regarding those cases. 

More to the point, indeed THE point were the various examples I gave of why friendship is GOOD for the interests of the US.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4052


« Reply #1467 on: September 27, 2011, 02:36:51 PM »

"I don't think you get it; they hate us BECAUSE of our (Obama) support for Israel.  Not my words, but our Secretary of Defense, our Generals, et al....."

Well I have been wondering why so many UN nations feel it necessary to bash Israel.  The answer is probably quite simple.

Arab oil money being spread around.  Why else would so many of these countries always vote against Israel?  What the heck, do they care about Jews one way or another.  Or for that matter they love the Palestinians so much? undecided  It has nothing to do with either.  Saudis are spreading around the cash to these countries.  It is probably just that simple.

Just like Brock is all of a sudden selling Israel bunker busters.  He wants the stupid liberal American Jew's to keep sending him money and political support.

Maxine Waters has a point.  Probably the first and last time I will agree with her:
Brock takes the Black vote for granted.  He would never had said to the Jews, to the Latinos what he told the Black Caucus. 
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31046


« Reply #1468 on: September 27, 2011, 05:20:03 PM »

Perhaps I am missing something, but I read GM's citation on the bunker busters as showing the Baraq folks as bullexcrementers.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31046


« Reply #1469 on: September 27, 2011, 10:44:07 PM »

Baird targets Israel’s foes
Foreign affairs minister talks tough in UN speech
By MIKE BLANCHFIELD The Canadian Press
Tue, Sep 27 - 4:54 AM

 
Foreign affairs minister John Baird: "Canada will not accept or stay silent while the Jewish state is attacked for defending its territory and its citizens."(Sean Kilpatrick / CP)

OTTAWA — Canada used its United Nations speaking slot Monday to lambaste opponents of Israel as no better than the appeasers who allowed fascism and communism to flourish before the Second World War.

Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird delivered Canada’s views to the General Assembly in a speech that put meat on the bones of the Harper government’s unflinching support of Israel.

"Just as fascism and communism were the great struggles of previous generations, terrorism is the great struggle of ours. And far too often, the Jewish state is on the front line of our struggle and its people the victims of terror," says a prepared text of Baird’s remarks.

"Canada will not accept or stay silent while the Jewish state is attacked for defending its territory and its citizens. The Second World War taught us all the tragic price of ‘going along’ just to ‘get along.’ "

Baird made no direct mention of the Holocaust in which six million Jews died at the hands of Nazi Germany. But he evoked the era when he quoted Winston Churchill as saying "an appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last."

Baird reiterated Canada’s opposition to the recent Palestinian bid to secure UN recognition as a state.

The UN Security Council became seized with the matter on Monday for the first time after Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas delivered his own forceful speech advocating the move.

"We supported the aspirations of those peoples who sought for themselves and their countries brighter futures during the Arab Spring that just passed," said Baird.

"But we will not go along with the unilateral actions of the Palestinian Authority."

Baird repeated Canada’s call for a negotiated settlement between the Israelis and Palestinians.

The no-holds-barred address also took aim at the UN itself, for allowing despotic regimes to hold memberships on, or occupy the chair of, major committees.

"The greatest enemies of the United Nations are not those who publicly repudiate its actions," said Baird.

"The greatest enemies of the United Nations are those who quietly undermine its principles and, even worse, by those who sit idly, watching its slow decline."


© 2011 The Halifax Herald Limited
http://thechronicleherald.ca/Canada/1265393.html
Logged
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #1470 on: September 28, 2011, 09:10:01 AM »

Israel keeps trying to make it harder, or so it seems, for it's allies to help out.

"We believe that this morning's announcement by the government of Israel approving the construction of 1,100 housing units in East Jerusalem is counterproductive to our efforts to resume direct negotiations between the parties,"

The Gilo project will expand the development to the south by several hundred yards, absorbing additional land claimed by Palestinians, Jerusalem attorney and anti-settlement activist Daniel Seidemann said. The expansion will include government buildings, a school and an industrial park.

"This expands the existing footprint of Gilo and changes the borders," and makes peace talks less viable, he said.

"The quartet is out there trying to find a way to get these kinds of events under control so negotiations can resume," Seidemann said. "The U.S., EU and everyone all engaged Israel [to stop the approval] and Israel did it anyway."

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-israel-housing-20110928,0,5140697.story
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31046


« Reply #1471 on: September 28, 2011, 10:34:43 AM »

Negotiations were going on just fine while settlements were being built until Baraq fuct things up , , , and who gives a ____ about what Daniel Seidemann has to say anyway except Pravda on the Beach?

Logged
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #1472 on: September 28, 2011, 10:41:27 AM »

I never heard of Daniel Seidemann before so I don't care.   smiley

But it seems to me that in the middle of Palestine's push at the UN, a rather delicate time, an announcement of new housing units on disputed land, at best, is rather poor PR.

At worst......
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31046


« Reply #1473 on: September 28, 2011, 11:04:19 AM »

I suppose, but ultimately it's irrelevant.  The Palestinians are not willing to recognize Israel's right to exist, so what's the point of negotiating?
Logged
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #1474 on: September 28, 2011, 11:15:26 AM »

I understand your point, but the "right to exist" is not a black and white concept. It has been argued for a long time.  It is hard to define.

I don't agree with everything (most things?) this author wrote, but he does bring up some interesting points.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0202/p09s02-coop.html

Further, I don't remember (?) another nation state demanding acknowledgment of the "right to exist", but then Israel is rather unique. 

It's not easy. 

My point is it's better not to pour gasoline on a fire...
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31046


« Reply #1475 on: September 28, 2011, 10:33:37 PM »

What specious sophistry!  tongue angry tongue  Sorry but I cannot be bothered to dignify it with a response. tongue
Logged
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #1476 on: September 28, 2011, 10:45:24 PM »

Yeah even I thought it was a little weak.  smiley. But it's good to know what's out there.
And I usually respect the Christian Science Monitor.

That said I still think Israel's timing leaves something to be improved upon.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5875


« Reply #1477 on: September 29, 2011, 09:54:41 AM »

"the "right to exist" is not a black and white concept"
  - Really, it is.

"It is hard to define."
   - No, it isn't.  A disputed border or foreign policy issue maybe, but the right to exist is a yes or it is a no.

Under American law, how do you feel about your right to exist?  Is it not a  bigger and starker issue if your neighbors all vow to kill you, destroy you and move your house off the map, than restrictions let's say on the the setback of your side yard or the height of your fence?

The Palestinian question should be enlarged to re-certify all the nations denying Israel's right to exist. I heard our ambassador to Israel just say (if I heard him correctly) that at a recent point in time something like 21 of the last 26 UN resolutions were about condemning Israel. Here is a list of 224 of them: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_Nations_resolutions_concerning_Israel   Other than the strength of the hatred they face, is Israel really the most dangerous and threatening country on earth?  Is self defense threatening?  Or is the UN, who accepted the regimes of Libya and Syria to serve on the UN Human Rights commission, the most misguided institution on earth?
Logged
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #1478 on: September 29, 2011, 10:20:23 AM »

"Really, it's NOT" black and white.   smiley

For example, "It is not a right recognized in international law."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_exist

Frankly, throughout history I'm sure we have negotiated with quite a few nations that would have preferred that we didn't "exist".  Probably, we might have
wished they didn't exist either.  But we still negotiated.

Using your analogy of my neighbor "who vowed to kill me, destroy me and move my house off the map".  According to law, is it ok because I'm stronger
and I have a tough big brother that I invade his property, put up a new fence on his property and call it mine?  And on this new land I've "acquired", can I add additional housing for my family?  But if his family is still on that portion of land I took, I evict them, I provide them no shelter?  Little food.  Even basics in life.  If my neighbor's children throw rocks at me, is it ok if I shoot them?

Yes, you would argue that your neighbor threatened to kill you etc. so you had to do what you had to do.  What do you think the Judge would say
when you neighbor complained to the Police?  I bet he would follow the law.  YOU might even be arrested for your actions. 

My point is that it is not black and white.  Negotiations need to happen.

Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31046


« Reply #1479 on: September 29, 2011, 10:47:14 AM »

Negotiations WERE happening until Baraq made it politically impossible for Abbas to continue by denouncing the settlements as a barrier to negotiations!  tongue

"According to law, is it ok because I'm stronger and I have a tough big brother that I invade his property, put up a new fence on his property and call it mine?  And on this new land I've "acquired", can I add additional housing for my family?  But if his family is still on that portion of land I took, I evict them, I provide them no shelter?  Little food.  Even basics in life.  If my neighbor's children throw rocks at me, is it ok if I shoot them?  Yes, you would argue that your neighbor threatened to kill you etc. so you had to do what you had to do."

Spectacularly off.  It wasn't threats.  It was DECADES of ACTUAL ATTEMPTS.  Your determination to get this issue wrong and throw up specious bullexcrement is rather remarkable.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5875


« Reply #1480 on: September 29, 2011, 10:53:51 AM »

I knew I was wasting my time.  embarassed

Amazing to get locked into a viewpoint so rigidly that you won't even admit YOUR right to exist.  A way of thinking we call 'centrism'??

Good luck.
Logged
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #1481 on: September 29, 2011, 11:10:55 AM »

Crafty,

"Spectacularly off."

Actually, I was quoting Doug's analogy.

"Under American law, how do you feel about your right to exist?  Is it not a  bigger and starker issue if your neighbors all vow to kill you, destroy you and move your house off the map, than restrictions let's say on the the setback of your side yard or the height of your fence?"

Perhaps I am "getting this wrong".  But it's NOT black and white.  I may have a "right to exist" in my opinion.  But my neighbor may disagree. 
In history, this issue repeats itself time after time. (see my previous link)

Doug's erroneous logic and analogy not withstanding, even if "attempts" were happening, that doesn't mean we can't negotiate and find some sort of peace.

My viewpoint is not "rigid" nor is it "bullexcrement".  It's just different than yours.  Yet, IMHO may I respectfully say you are the one who is biased in this discussion.  In contrast, most of our allies also say it's not black and white and most of our allies in some way support the Palestinians cause.  I suppose you think they are all "rigid" too?  And full of "bullexcrement"?  Or will you acknowledge that they have some good points too?

It sounds like I'm the one who is open minded to different viewpoints.  I'm only suggesting impartiality and negotiations.



Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5875


« Reply #1482 on: September 29, 2011, 12:19:08 PM »

If you correctly took my question to be an analogy then it would necessarily include the fact that you were under actual attacks for decades with bombs sent in and exploding from your neighbors, unless you deny those facts.  That big player that is partly on your side is far away and not doing anything to stop those attacks.  If you believe in your right to exist, you defend yourself in all that entails.

Does or does not Israel have a right to exist?  (Rhetorical, I have already heard your non-answer.)

Do you or do you not have a right to exist?  (Already answered with a wishy-washy negative.)  I disagree.  I am pro-death penalty, but up until conviction by your peers beyond reasonable doubt of an extremely heinous crime and exhausting all available appeals, I support your right to exist.
Logged
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #1483 on: September 29, 2011, 12:41:53 PM »

I quoted your analogy.  I didn't add or subtract.

And without the "big brother" Israel would soon cease to exist.  And when we veto the Palestinians proposal at great cost to America, is that doing nothing? That's a pretty amazing big brother I would say.  I'ld be really grateful if I had a big brother like that.

Doug, an individual's right to exist and a nation's right to exist are different.  Again, I refer you to my link previously posted.  I hope you read it. Quite a few "nations"
would like the "right to exist".  Some do some don't.

Further, as regards to nations, the concept of "right to exist" does not have legal standing.  It is a cool sound bite. 


Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5875


« Reply #1484 on: September 29, 2011, 02:54:59 PM »

I don't plan to write longer posts to placate people who pretend there is no context.  Modern Israel is a fact.  It is a country.  It is a U.S. ally.  It has borders, laws, leaders and elections.  It is a U.N. member state.  They have a flag at the Olympics.  Why are we still BSing around with this?  Israel exists.  Those who say they don't recognize that are saying they seek to destroy them and they don't hide that fact in any way.  They are not wishing to take out one specific regime like forcing Saddam out of power after he attacked four of his neighbors or Germany and Japan in WWII.  They hate them for who they are, not for what they've done. They seek to destroy a nation and all its people.  But that is not black and white? 

At least I learned a new word, nonversation.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31046


« Reply #1485 on: September 29, 2011, 03:17:55 PM »

"In contrast, most of our allies also say it's not black and white and most of our allies in some way support the Palestinians cause.  I suppose you think they are all "rigid" too?  And full of "bullexcrement"?  Or will you acknowledge that they have some good points too?  It sounds like I'm the one who is open minded to different viewpoints.  I'm only suggesting impartiality and negotiations."

Most of our Euro allies are getting out-fuct by the Muslims in their countries and are engaged in pre-emptive dhimmitude.  Much of the world is dependent on Arab oil.  (Britain released the Lockerbie bomber for an oil deal with Kaddaffy!)  1/5 (1/4?) of the world is Muslim.  The UN has countries like Syria and Kaddaffy's Libya heading the Human Rights Council. 

GET THIS JDN.  NEVER AGAIN.  No more slicing the salami with the jew hatred.  Stop trying to shoot us and bomb us.  Stop trying to push us into the sea.  Stop deliberately targeting our women and children.  Accept our right to live and let us prosper together.  WHATEVER YOUR ANSWER, WE WILL LIVE.  CHALLENGE THAT AND YOU WILL REGRET IT.

Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31046


« Reply #1486 on: October 03, 2011, 03:23:02 PM »



http://www.theblaze.com/stories/new-u-s-message-scold-israel-for-getting-more-isolated/
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4052


« Reply #1487 on: October 03, 2011, 06:38:30 PM »

Crafty this verbiage from Panetta is very bad.  What the heck does he want Israelis to do?

A large portion of the Muslim world wants then dead or driven to the sea.

How does one communicate with people who think this? 

Does he give as examples US communication with Pakistan, with China, with Egypt, with Syria, with Saudi Arabia? 

He sounds like a condescending jerk.  "They need to do this they need to do that".  Thanks alot.

So he concludes it is Israel's fault they are getting more isolated.  He advocates more talks and more talks and more communication and more diplomacy.  We've been hearing this crap from the left for 40 years.  What is new since Brock is in is that now it is mostly the fault of the Jews.

I think he just cost the Brock man another 5 % or so of the Jewish vote.

Keep it up.  I am an American first but I am not going to sit quietly and watch my heritage get wiped out which is the road it is heading in.

Logged
Rachel
Power User
***
Posts: 244


« Reply #1488 on: October 07, 2011, 07:33:31 AM »

Aerial Tour of Israel



http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=IR4o5NU8cUY
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31046


« Reply #1489 on: October 13, 2011, 12:31:28 AM »

I'm not getting the deal for Shalit at all.  Doesn't something like this only encourage the bastards?

Nor am I getting Stratfor's comment (see the Middle East War thread)  that these negotiations allow Hamas to claim sobriety.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12000


« Reply #1490 on: October 13, 2011, 12:46:49 AM »


I'm not getting the deal for Shalit at all.  Doesn't something like this only encourage the bastards?

Yes.

Nor am I getting Stratfor's comment (see the Middle East War thread)  that these negotiations allow Hamas to claim sobriety.

You'd have to be Biden-drunk to see HAMAS as sober....    rolleyes
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31046


« Reply #1491 on: October 13, 2011, 11:37:08 AM »

Israel-Hamas Prisoner Swap

Israel and Hamas have agreed to a prisoner swap deal, trading some 1,000 Palestinian prisoners for captured Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit. Early reports had suggested jailed Fatah figure Marwan Barghouti would be released as part of the deal, but Israel subsequently denied those reports. What are the terms of the deal? How does it differ from previous failed negotiations? How was it brokered? What has changed in the regional situation that would render this deal possible now after years of similar deals falling through? Are there any hints that this may pave the way for additional deals between Israel and the Palestinians? What does Hamas do next, and what impact does the release have on Fatah? Egypt has been credited with a substantial role in this deal. Why was Egypt capable of this, and what does it gain?

Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31046


« Reply #1492 on: October 15, 2011, 12:17:02 PM »



No one denies the long suffering of the Schalit family. Noam and Aviva Schalit and their relatives have endured five years and four months of uninterrupted anguish since their son St.-Sgt. Gilad Schalit was abducted from his army post by Palestinian terrorists and spirited to Gaza in June 2006. Since then, aside from one letter and one videotaped message, they have received no signs of life from their soldier son.

There is not a Jewish household in Israel that doesn't empathize with their suffering. It isn't simply that most Israelis serve in the IDF and expect their children to serve in the IDF.

It isn't just that it could happen to any of our families.

As Jews, the concept of mutual responsibility, that we are all a big family and share a common fate, is ingrained in our collective consciousness. And so, at a deep level, the Schalit family's suffering is our collective suffering.

And yet, and yet, freedom exacts its price. The cause of freedom for the Jewish people as a whole exacts a greater sacrifice from some families than from others.

Sometimes, that sacrifice is made willingly, as in the case of the Netanyahu family.

Prof. Benzion and Tzilla Netanyahu raised their three sons to be warriors in the fight for Jewish liberty. And all three of their sons served in an elite commando unit. Their eldest son Yonatan had the privilege of commanding the unit and of leading Israeli commandos in the heroic raid to free Jewish hostages held by the PLO in Entebbe.

There, on July 4, 1976, Yonatan and his family made the ultimate sacrifice for the freedom of the Jewish people. Yonatan was killed in action. His parents and brothers were left to mourn and miss him for the rest of their lives. And yet, the Netanyahu family's sacrifice was a product of a previous decision to fight on the front lines of the war to preserve Jewish freedom.

Sometimes, the sacrifice is made less willingly.

Since Israel allowed the PLO and its terror armies to move their bases from Tunis to Judea, Samaria and Gaza in 1994, nearly 2,000 Israeli families have involuntarily paid the ultimate price for the freedom of the Jewish people. Our freedom angers our Palestinian neighbors so much that they have decided that all Israelis should die.

For instance Ruth Peled, 56, and her 14- month-old granddaughter Sinai Keinan did not volunteer to make the ultimate sacrifice for the freedom of the Jewish people when they were murdered by a Palestinian suicide bomber as they sat in an ice cream parlor in Petah Tikva in May 2002.

And five-year-old Gal Eisenman and her grandmother Noa Alon, 60, weren't planning on giving their lives for the greater good when they, together with five others, were blown to smithereens by Palestinian terrorists in June 2002 while they were waiting for a bus in Jerusalem.

Their mothers and daughters, Chen Keinan and Pnina Eisenman, had not signed up for the prospect of watching their mothers and daughters incinerated before their eyes. They did not volunteer to become bereaved mothers and orphaned daughters simultaneously.

The lives of the victims of Arab terror were stolen from their families simply because they lived and were Jews in Israel. And in the cases of the Keinan, Peled, Alon and Eisenman families, as in thousands of others, the murderers were the direct and indirect beneficiaries of terrorists-for-hostages swaps like the deal that Yonatan Netanyahu's brother, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, made this week with Hamas to secure the release of Gilad Schalit.

The deal that Netanyahu has agreed to is signed with the blood of the past victims and future victims of the terrorists he is letting go. No amount of rationalization by Netanyahu, his cheerleaders in the demented mass media, and by the defeatist, apparently incompetent heads of the Shin Bet, Mossad and IDF can dent the facts.

It is a statistical certainty that the release of 1,027 terrorists for Schalit will lead to the murder of untold numbers of Israelis. It has happened every single time that these blood ransoms have been paid. It will happen now.

Untold numbers of Israelis who are now sitting in their succas and celebrating Jewish freedom, who are driving in their cars, who are standing on line at the bank, who are sitting in their nursery school classrooms painting pictures of Torah scrolls for Simhat Torah will be killed for being Jewish while in Israel because Netanyahu has made this deal. The unrelenting pain of their families, left to cope with their absence, will be unimaginable.

This is a simple fact and it is beyond dispute.

It is also beyond dispute that untold numbers of IDF soldiers and officers will be abducted and held hostage. Soldiers now training for war or scrubbing the floors of their barracks, or sitting at a pub with their friends on holiday leave will one day find themselves in a dungeon in Gaza or Sinai or Lebanon undergoing unspeakable mental and physical torture for years. Their families will suffer inhuman agony.

The only thing we don't know about these future victims is their names. But we know what will become of them as surely as we know that night follows day.

Netanyahu has proven once again that taking IDF soldiers hostage is a sure bet for our Palestinian neighbors. They can murder the next batch of Sinais and Gals, Noas and Ruths. They can kill thousands of them. And they can do so knowing all along that all they need to do to win immunity for their killers is kidnap a single IDF soldier.

There is no downside to this situation for those who believe all Jews should die.

In his public statement on the Schalit deal Tuesday night, Netanyahu, like his newfound groupies in the media, invoked the Jewish tradition of pidyon shevuim, or the redemption of captives. But the Talmudic writ is not unconditional. The rabbinic sages were very clear. The ransom to be paid cannot involve the murder of other Jews.

This deal - like its predecessors - is not in line with Jewish tradition. It stands in opposition to Jewish tradition. Even in our darkest hours of powerlessness in the ghettos and the pales of exile, our leaders did not agree to pay for a life with other life. Judaism has always rejected human sacrifice.

The real question here is after five years and four months in which Schalit has been held hostage and two-and-a-half years into Netanyahu's current tenure as prime minister, why has the deal been concluded now? What has changed? The answer is that very little has changed on Netanyahu's part. After assuming office, Netanyahu essentially accepted the contours of the abysmal agreement he has now signed in Jewish blood.

Initially, there was a political rationale for his morally and strategically perverse position.

He had Defense Minister Ehud Barak and the Labor Party to consider.

Supporting this deal was one of the many abject prices that Netanyahu was expected to pay to keep Labor and Barak in his coalition.

But this rationale ended with Barak's resignation from the Labor Party in January.

Since then, Barak and his colleagues who joined him in leaving Labor have had no political leverage over Netanyahu.

They have nowhere to go. Their political life is wholly dependent on their membership in Netanyahu's government. He doesn't need to pay any price for their loyalty.

So Netanyahu's decision to sign the deal with Hamas lacks any political rationale.

What has really changed since the deal was first put on the table two years ago is Hamas's position. Since the Syrian people began to rise up against the regime of Hamas's patron and protector President Bashar Assad, Hamas's leaders, who have been headquartered in Syria since 1998, have been looking for a way to leave. Their Muslim Brotherhood brethren are leading forces in the Western-backed Syrian opposition.

Hamas's leaders do not want to be identified with the Brotherhood's oppressor.

With the Egyptian military junta now openly massacring Christians, and with the Muslim Brotherhood rapidly becoming the dominant political force in the country, Egypt has become a far more suitable home for Hamas.

But for the past several months, Hamas leaders in Damascus have faced a dilemma. If they stay in Syria, they lose credibility. If they leave, they expose themselves to Israel.

According to Channel 2, in exchange for Schalit, beyond releasing a thousand murderers, Netanyahu agreed to give safe passage to Hamas's leaders decamping to Egypt.

What this means is that this deal is even worse for Israel than it looks on the surface.

Not only is Israel guaranteeing a reinvigoration of the Palestinian terror war against its civilians by freeing the most experienced terrorists in Palestinian society, and doing so at a time when the terror war itself is gradually escalating. Israel is squandering the opportunity to either decapitate Hamas by killing its leaders in transit, or to weaken the group by forcing its leaders to go down with Assad in Syria.

At best, Netanyahu comes out of this deal looking like a weak leader who is manipulated by and beholden to Israel's radical, surrender-crazed media. To their eternal shame, the media have been waging a five-year campaign to force Israel's leaders to capitulate to Hamas.

At worst, this deal exposes Netanyahu as a morally challenged, strategically irresponsible and foolish, opportunistic politician.

What Israel needs is a leader with the courage of one writer's convictions. Back in 1995, that writer wrote: "The release of convicted terrorists before they have served their full sentences seems like an easy and tempting way of defusing blackmail situations in which innocent people may lose their lives, but its utility is momentary at best.

"Prisoner releases only embolden terrorists by giving them the feeling that even if they are caught, their punishment will be brief. Worse, by leading terrorists to think such demands are likely to be met, they encourage precisely the terrorist blackmail they are supposed to defuse."

The writer of those lines was then-opposition leader Binyamin Netanyahu. Netanyahu wrote those lines in his book, Fighting Terrorism: How Democracies Can Defeat Domestic and International Terrorists.

Israel needs that Netanyahu to lead it. But in the face of the current Netanyahu's abject surrender to terrorism, apparently he is gone.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12000


« Reply #1493 on: October 15, 2011, 04:17:51 PM »

Glick is correct. This is setting a up a policy they'll come to regret.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31046


« Reply #1494 on: October 16, 2011, 11:09:09 AM »

I just noticed that this thread has joined the ever growing list of threads on this forum with over 100,000 reads.
Logged
Rachel
Power User
***
Posts: 244


« Reply #1495 on: October 16, 2011, 08:53:01 PM »


Perspective on the Schalit deal

Sunday, October 16, 2011

http://bogieworks.blogs.com/

Since the announcement of a deal in which Israel will be releasing as many as 1000 security prisoners (many with blood on their hands) in exchange for kidnapped Israeli soldier Gilad Schalit (who has been held in Gaza for 5 1/2 years), many have come out publicly either for or against the deal.

Many Israelis are experiencing some combination of relief and delight that a soldier son who has been held prisoner for so long will finally be returned to the family and nation that fought and prayed so hard for his release.

But understandably, many israeli families who have lost loved ones in terror attacks perpetrated by those slated for release, have been quite vocal in their objection to the deal. They have even gone so far as to file petitions asking the Israeli supreme court to block the release of the murderers.

Like many, I can honestly say that I understand and agree with both positions.

But it was my synagogue's rabbi who was finally able to help me gain the proper perspective for viewing this deal.

He said that he too was torn about whether this deal was an acceptable one, much less a good one. But then he realized that it was impossible to decide by looking at it from the viewpoint of either the bereaved families of terror victims or the bereaved family of a kidnap victim.

He said that we are reminded many times by our sages that all of Israel is responsible for one another. He posits that this means that we are obligated to view ourselves as one large family rather than a nation of families, and must make decisions based on that viewpoint.

He didn't tell us whether he favored or disapproved of the deal. But he said it was made clear to him what the right course of action would be once he looked at the situation, not from one family or the other... but rather when he looked at it as if he were a parent of a single family who had had one child killed in a terror attack, and a second child kidnapped and awaiting ransom.

That, he told us, is the only way the nation of Israel can begin to contemplate such a terrible choice.

Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31046


« Reply #1496 on: October 17, 2011, 07:20:04 PM »



http://www.investigativeproject.org/3234/libyan-missiles-headed-for-gaza-sinai
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4052


« Reply #1497 on: October 18, 2011, 09:36:42 AM »

Though certainly not a good one.

"is the only way the nation of Israel can begin to contemplate such a terrible choice."

In the end this has to be a political decision.  Unfortunately Israel has no good option.  IF they refuse the deal they don't get their "child" back and internationally they look like they are hoarding Palestinian prisoners.  If they do it they may buy a tiny smidgeon of political capital from the "international community" which is basically bought and paid for by Arab oil money to always be against the Jews.  And worse the Palestinians themselves will never appreciate the lopsided deal and as a peace or goodwill gesture and instead know this is what always results when they take a hostage.  Which is of course  why they continue to take hostages.

So either way Israel is always the poltical loser.  This is just the least bad of the choices.  And they do get their "child".

Just my armchair take.

Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12000


« Reply #1498 on: October 18, 2011, 11:13:37 AM »

The importance of taking Israelis hostage just went through the roof for the jihadists. That which you reward, you'll see more of.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31046


« Reply #1499 on: October 18, 2011, 11:21:46 AM »

That is my take on it too.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 28 29 [30] 31 32 ... 41 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!