PDA

View Full Version : IT'S OFFICIAL! Obama sides with Arabs over Israel!



LWW
05-19-2011, 12:42 PM
The betrayal of America's staunchest allies continues.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama is endorsing the Palestinians' demand for their future state to be based on the borders that existed before the 1967 Middle East war, in a move that will likely infuriate Israel. Israel says the borders of a Palestinian state have to be determined through negotiations.
In a speech outlining U.S. policy in the Middle East and North Africa, Obama on Thursday sided with the Palestinians' opening position a day ahead of a visit to Washington by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Netanyahu is vehemently opposed to referring to the 1967 borders.

Until Thursday, the U.S. position had been that the Palestinian goal of a state based on the 1967 borders, with agreed land swaps, should be reconciled with Israel's desire for a secure Jewish state through negotiations. </div></div>
<span style='font-size: 23pt'>LIGHTNING FROM THE HEIGHTS STRIKES AGAIN (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110519/ap_on_re_us/us_obama_mideast_palestinians_1)</span>

pooltchr
05-19-2011, 12:51 PM
Are you surprised? Why would you think Obama would support Isreal?

Steve

LWW
05-19-2011, 03:32 PM
I'm not surprised at all.

I predicted that President Hussein, if given a second term and no longer accountable to the electorate, would use US forces to protect the Palestinians and Iranians from Israeli retribution for their murderous acts.

Sev
05-20-2011, 06:15 PM
The White House may be trying to force Operation Samson.

Soflasnapper
05-20-2011, 07:09 PM
This is truly pathetic ahistorical spin.

Truth: Obama sides with all US presidents and the consistent policy of the United States since 1967, as codified in UN Security Council Resolution 242, and which up until now has been what even Israeli leaders have agreed to and negotiated on.

Official US policy has always referred to peace on the basis of the enactment of UN SC 242, and President GW Bush said so himself several times.

Far from harming Israel's interests, this is about the only hope for its continued existence, according to Israelis and American Jewish organizations.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Israeli Generals, Former Ambassadors Run Ad: "Recognizing A Palestinian State Based On The 1967 Borders Is Vital For Israel's Existence." According to the organization J Street, 18 retired Israeli generals, "[o]ver 5 former ambassadors, consul generals, and directors of the foreign ministry," and 27 Israeli prize laureates signed a letter that was reportedly published widely in Israeli papers, titled in English, "Recognizing a Palestinian State Based On the 1967 Borders is Vital for Israel's Existence." J Street paid for the statement to be run in English in The New York Times. From the statement:

We, the citizens of Israel, call on the public to support the recognition of a democratic Palestinian state as a condition for ending the conflict, and reaching agreed borders on the basis of the 1967 borders. Recognition of such a Palestinian state is vital for Israel's existence. It is the only way to guarantee the resolution of the conflict by negotiations, to prevent the eruption of another round of massive violence and end the risky isolation of Israel in the world. [J Street, 5/18/11, accessed 5/20/11]

American Jewish Organizations Also Approved Of Obama's Remarks

American Jewish Committee "Praised President Obama's Call Today." The American Jewish Committee issued a statement praising Obama's comments, specifically citing the president's comments on a "two-state solution":

"President Obama has sternly warned the Palestinians, and the international community, to stop this senseless drive to try to achieve a state without any negotiated agreement with Israel," said AJC Executive Director David Harris.

"The parameters of a two-state solution are just as clear today as they were when Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas walked away from the peace talks last September," said Harris. "The Palestinians must return now to close the deal." [American Jewish Committee, 5/19/11]

ADL: "We Support The President's Vision Of A Negotiated Israeli-Palestinian Settlement." The Anti-Defamation League also praised Obama's speech, stating:

We welcome President Obama's compelling speech on the priorities for American policy in the Middle East. We applaud his strong outlining of the principles which motivate that policy, including supporting the universal rights of free speech, equality and religious freedom, opposing the use of force and political repression, and promoting political and economic reforms. These are a reflection of American values and promote American interests.

[...]

We support the President's vision of a negotiated Israeli-Palestinian settlement with strong security provisions for Israel, and a non-militarized Palestinian state. We appreciate his direct rejection of a unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state and his understanding that the Hamas-Fatah agreement poses major problems for Israel. [Anti-Defamation League, 5/19/11]

Jewish Council For Public Affairs: We "[Join] In The President's Vision Of Two States For Two Peoples." From a May 19 statement released by the Jewish Council for Public Affairs, an American Jewish advocacy group:

"The JCPA joins in the President's vision of two states for two peoples. We hope that the Palestinian leadership, one committed to peace with Israel and nonviolence, will soon agree to join with Israel in direct negotiations. The President's strong expressions of support for Israeli security; repudiation of efforts to delegitimize Israel; recognition that Hamas currently is not an acceptable peace partner; and his rejection of unilateral declaration of Palestinian statehood, are welcomed," said JCPA Chair Dr. Conrad Giles. [Jewish Council for Public Affairs, 5/19/11]
</div></div>

eg8r
05-20-2011, 08:26 PM
No surprise here, maybe he will bow before them also.

eg8r

cushioncrawler
05-20-2011, 08:49 PM
Historikally the usofa haz only sided with Israel koz of their oil.
mac.

Perky
05-20-2011, 09:02 PM
An excellent post which strikes directly to the heart and truth of the matter.

Israel deserves a homeland which is safe and respected by all it's neighbors... Palestine deserves a homeland which is safe and respected by all it's neighbors.

This can only be accomplished by the extremely difficult give and take of mutual compromise.

Sadly there are those who will continue to resist and prefer to remain in the never ending cycle of revenge.

Should the majority of these two populations ever learn to work together for their mutual benefit... they will make the desert flower.

LWW
05-21-2011, 03:33 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: cushioncrawler</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Historikally the usofa haz only sided with Israel koz of their oil.
mac. </div></div>

Mac, I thought you to be smarter than that.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The leader of Hezbollah declared "open war" against Israel on Friday following the bombing of his offices in Beirut, Lebanon. The president of Iran has announced that if Israel were to expand the hostilities by attacking Syria, that would represent "an attack on the whole Islamic world and the regime will face a crushing response." Given the grim state of Arab-Israeli relations, where does Israel get its oil?

From Russia and former Soviet republics. Israel produces only a couple thousand barrels of oil a day, which means it relies on the global market for more than 99 percent of its consumption. </div></div>

OH DEAR! (http://www.slate.com/id/2145704/)

LWW
05-21-2011, 03:34 AM
Your quotes do not support your claim my friend.

Sev
05-21-2011, 06:39 AM
The extermination of the Jews is the endgame.
The enemies of the Israelite's are not just contained to the middle east.

Are not the Palestinians displaced Jordanians? If so why are they not welcomed back to their homeland?

Qtec
05-21-2011, 07:20 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The betrayal of America's staunchest allies continues. </div></div>

Really. Why does your closest ally SPY on you?

link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JWpWc_suPWo)

Did they let 9/11 happen?

Q

Qtec
05-21-2011, 07:26 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The video was shown on Friday night on Israel's Channel 10

Candid Camera 2001 -

Netanyahu:"I know what America is. <span style='font-size: 20pt'>America is a thing you can move very easily,</span> move it in the right direction. They won't get in the way."

Compare this with the 2001 statement of then Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon:

On October 3, 2001, I.A.P. News reported that according to Israel Radio (in Hebrew) Kol Yisrael an acrimonious argument erupted during the Israeli cabinet weekly session last week between Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and his foreign Minister Shimon Peres. Peres
warned Sharon that refusing to heed incessant American requests for a cease-fire with the Palestinians would endanger Israeli interests and "turn the US against us." Sharon reportedly fired back at Peres, saying:

"Every time we do something you tell me Americans will do this and will do that. I want to tell you something very clear, don't worry about American pressure on Israel, <span style='font-size: 26pt'>we, the Jewish people control America, and the Americans know it."</span> </div></div>

link (http://www.rense.com/general91/nnet.htm)


Oh boy! Bow down guys.

Q

Soflasnapper
05-22-2011, 04:56 PM
Good question.

Israel may be among our more dangerous alleged allies, as Truman's advisors knew when they unanimously advised him not to vote for its existence, and as both Eisenhower and Kennedy knew when they refused to arm the tiny enclave. (The communist/atheist Israelis were clients of the Eastern European socialist republics for their armaments, until LBJ.)

If there was ever a geostrategic US interest in Israel it was as a bulwark against Soviet invasion into the ME. With the end of the cold war, it is little mentioned, but again the universal position of our national security analysts that Israel is a profound liability to our national security interests.

I think our own country's interests should come first, but feel free to hold your affections and demand policies that favor another country over our own if you can somehow rationalize that kind of constructive treason.

cushioncrawler
05-22-2011, 06:52 PM
THE JOKE has been told by generations of Jews, most famously Golda Meir, the former prime minister of Israel: 'Why did Moses lead us to the one place in the Middle East without oil?'
But an updated version may be required if Harold Vinegar and his colleagues get their way. Dr Vinegar, the former chief scientist of Royal Dutch Shell, is at the centre of an ambitious project to turn Israel into one of the world's leading oil producers.

Israel Energy Initiatives, where Dr Vinegar is chief scientist, is working on projects to extract oil and natural gas from oil shale from a 238sq km area of the Shfela Basin, to the south and west of Jerusalem.

Oil shale mining is often frowned upon, not least by the environmental lobby, as a dirty process that is both energy and water-intensive. IEI believes that its technique will be cleaner than that of other operators because the oil will be separated from the shale rock up to 300m beneath the ground. Water will be a by-product of the process rather than being consumed by it in large volumes.

According to Dr Vinegar, Israel has the second-biggest oil shale deposits in the world, outside the US: "We estimate that there is the equivalent of 250 billion barrels of oil here. To put that in context, there are proven reserves of 260 billion barrels of oil in Saudi Arabia."

The marginal cost of production, IEI estimates, will be between $US35 and $US40 per barrel. This, Dr Vinegar points out, is cheaper than the $US60 or so per barrel that it costs to extract crude from inhospitable locations such as the Arctic, and compares with $US30-$US40 per barrel in some of the deepwater oilfields off the coast of Brazil.

"These Israeli deposits have been known about, but have never been listed before. It was previously assumed there was not the technology to deal with it."

According to Dr Vinegar, IEI, which is owned by the American telecoms group IDT Corp, hopes to begin production on a commercial basis by the end of the decade, with a view to producing 50,000 barrels per day at the outset. This would be a fraction of the 270,000bpd consumed daily by Israel, but would be a significant step towards making the country energy-independent.

LWW
05-22-2011, 07:02 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The betrayal of America's staunchest allies continues. </div></div>

Really. Why does your closest ally SPY on you?

link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JWpWc_suPWo)

Did they let 9/11 happen?

Q </div></div>

Because we have leftist anti semitic hate mongers within our gubmint ... now what does that have to do with what you said?

Qtec
05-23-2011, 03:15 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> constructive treason. </div></div> Like it. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/cool.gif

Most Israelis want a settlement! They want peace. Problem is they have a Govt made up of a coalition of RWers and religious nutjobs. ie those who believe the West Bank, Gaza <u>and particularly Jerusalem </u>,are part of 'Israel' and they will never give them up.
They don't want a peace deal. They want it all.

Q




Another thing.
In most surveys taken in the ME that I have seen, the Palestinian situation was a major factor in motivating young men into joining the jihad.
Its never mentioned on US TV that the ME sees what's happening in Gaza and sees the US hypocrisy.

Warsaw ghetto, Gaza ghetto. Same thing, different jailers. Gaza is the biggest prison on the planet!

LWW
05-23-2011, 03:31 AM
Who created the palestinian refugee problem?

Soflasnapper
05-25-2011, 12:20 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Who created the palestinian refugee problem? </div></div>

Please update your propaganda talking points, since holding onto 60 year old ones that even the Israelis themselves have long ago corrected makes you seem... a little out of touch with reality.

The revisionism in Israeli history of the creation of the refugee problem was led among others by Benny Morris, who used the newly released (at the time) records of the state and the military to revisit the subject in his seminal work in about 1988.

The fact is that Ben-Gurion stated that for Israel to exist, the native Moslem and Christian Arab populations needed to be driven out (his part was little known or documented until Morris' research from governmental archives), and among the methods were using the Stern Gang and the Irgun, two terror organizations, to massacre entire villages (Deir Yassin, eg.). An International Herald Tribune reporter on the scene posted dispatches describing large columns of fleeing Arabs being napalmed from the air.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> No doubt, Arab fright and flight was leavened by reports of real and imagined Jewish atrocities - and there were many real ones, as the recently released documentation shows. Pillage was almost de rigueur, rape was not infrequent, the execution of prisoners of war was fairly routine during the months before May 1948 (the country was under British administration and the Haganah had no PoW camps), and small- and medium-scale massacres of Arabs occurred during April, May, July and October to November. Altogether, there were some two dozen cases. </div></div>

From the Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/jan/14/israel)

Morris came under fierce denunciation, and has since clarified that although he condemns the rape and terror-massacres, he thinks that the expulsion strategy (which had been wholly denied by Israel's supporters, but had since proven true with the release of government archives) was actually warranted.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> He denounced the atrocities committed against Palestinians but supported the policy of expelling them:

There is no justification for acts of rape [...] or acts of massacre. Those are war crimes. But in certain conditions, expulsion is not a war crime. I don't think that the expulsions of 1948 were war crimes. You can't make an omelet without breaking eggs.

There are circumstances in history that justify ethnic cleansing. I know that this term is completely negative in the discourse of the 21st century, but when the choice is between ethnic cleansing and genocide—the annihilation of your people—I prefer ethnic cleansing. &lt;p&gt; That was the situation. That is what Zionism faced. A Jewish state would not have come into being without the uprooting of 700,000 Palestinians. Therefore it was necessary to uproot them. There was no choice but to expel that population. It was necessary to cleanse the hinterland and cleanse the border areas and cleanse the main roads. It was necessary to cleanse the villages from which our convoys and our settlements were fired on. &lt;/blockquote&gt; In contrast to his earlier conclusions (and see below), Morris believes the atrocities were part of a conscious strategy:

Apparently, various officers who took part in the operation understood that the expulsion order they received permitted them to do these deeds in order to encourage the population to take to the roads. The fact is that no one was punished for these acts of murder. Ben-Gurion silenced the matter. He covered up for the officers who did the massacres."

According to Morris, the leader of the Yishuv (and later first prime minister of Israel) David Ben-Gurion was an ardent supporter of population transfer (the removal of Arabs):

From April 1948, Ben-Gurion is projecting a message of transfer. There is no explicit order of his in writing, there is no orderly comprehensive policy, but there is an atmosphere of [population] transfer. The transfer idea is in the air. The entire leadership understands that this is the idea. The officer corps understands what is required of them. Under Ben-Gurion, a consensus of transfer is created. &lt;p&gt; He understood that there could be no Jewish state with a large and hostile Arab minority in its midst. There would be no such state. It would not be able to exist. [...] If he had not done what he did, a state would not have come into being. [...] Without the uprooting of the Palestinians, a Jewish state would not have arisen here.

Morris takes Ben-Gurion to task for not doing the job more thoroughly:

I think he made a serious historical mistake in 1948. Even though he understood the demographic issue and the need to establish a Jewish state without a large Arab minority, he got cold feet during the war. In the end, he faltered. If he was already engaged in expulsion, maybe he should have done a complete job. [...] my feeling is that this place would be quieter and know less suffering if the matter had been resolved once and for all. If Ben-Gurion had carried out a large expulsion and cleansed the whole country -- the whole Land of Israel, as far as the Jordan River. If he had carried out a full expulsion -- rather than a partial one -- he would have stabilized the State of Israel for generations."

There is no question in his mind of the legitimacy of the Zionist project, including ethnic cleansing:

The desire to establish a Jewish state here is legitimate, there was no other choice. It was impossible to leave a large fifth column in the country. [...] Even the great American democracy could not have been created without the annihilation of the Indians. There are cases in which the overall, final good justifies harsh and cruel acts that are committed in the course of history. &lt;p&gt; You have to put things in proportion. These are small war crimes. All told, if we take all the massacres and all the executions of 1948, we come to about 800 who were killed. In comparison to the massacres that were perpetrated in Bosnia, that’s peanuts. In comparison to the massacres the Russians perpetrated against the Germans at Stalingrad, that’s chicken feed. When you take into account that there was a bloody civil war here and that we lost an entire 1 percent of the population, you find that we behaved very well. [1]

Regarding the suffering and condition of the Palestinians, he writes:

I feel sympathy for the Palestinian people, which truly underwent a hard tragedy. I feel sympathy for the refugees themselves. But if the desire to establish a Jewish state here is legitimate, there was no other choice. It was impossible to leave a large fifth column in the country. From the moment the Yishuv [pre-1948 Jewish community in Palestine] was attacked by the Palestinians and afterward by the Arab states, there was no choice but to expel the Palestinian population. To uproot it in the course of war. &lt;p&gt; Remember another thing: the Arab people gained a large slice of the planet. Not thanks to its skills or its great virtues, but because it conquered and murdered and forced those it conquered to convert during many generations. But in the end the Arabs have 22 states. The Jewish people did not have even one state. There was no reason in the world why it should not have one state. Therefore, from my point of view, the need to establish this state in this place overcame the injustice that was done to the Palestinians by uprooting them.

Morris' willingness to reverse his earlier opinion he bases on his access to newly released military documents, as he described in an article that appeared in the Guardian, in accordance with the law that government archives release their records after 50 years. Thus the cabinet deliberations, Haganah and IDF archives in the run up to and during the 1948-1949 Arab-Israeli war came into the public sphere at the end of the 1990s. </div></div>

The problem is that just as rape and terror-massacres are war crimes, so too is ethnic cleansing.

Soflasnapper
05-25-2011, 01:31 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The betrayal of America's staunchest allies continues.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama is endorsing the Palestinians' demand for their future state to be based on the borders that existed before the 1967 Middle East war, in a move that will likely infuriate Israel. Israel says the borders of a Palestinian state have to be determined through negotiations.
In a speech outlining U.S. policy in the Middle East and North Africa, Obama on Thursday sided with the Palestinians' opening position a day ahead of a visit to Washington by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Netanyahu is vehemently opposed to referring to the 1967 borders.

Until Thursday, the U.S. position had been that the Palestinian goal of a state based on the 1967 borders, with agreed land swaps, should be reconciled with Israel's desire for a secure Jewish state through negotiations. </div></div>
<span style='font-size: 23pt'>LIGHTNING FROM THE HEIGHTS STRIKES AGAIN (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110519/ap_on_re_us/us_obama_mideast_palestinians_1)</span>
</div></div>

Except Netanyahu said the same thing not long ago.

From the Israeli official Ministry of Foreign Affairs site, showing this was a joint statement release. (http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Government/Communiques/2010/Joint_statement_PM_Netanyahu_US_Sec_Clinton_11-Nov-2010.htm)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Andrew Sullivan ran a gem yesterday, noting a joint statement from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, issued in November.

One line, in particular, may jump out at you.

The Prime Minister and the Secretary agreed on the importance of continuing direct negotiations to achieve our goals. The Secretary reiterated that “the United States believes that through good-faith negotiations, the parties can mutually agree on an outcome which ends the conflict and reconciles the Palestinian goal of an independent and viable state, based on the 1967 lines, with agreed swaps, and the Israeli goal of a Jewish state with secure and recognized borders that reflect subsequent developments and meet Israeli security requirements.” [emphasis added]

So, President Obama’s “outrageous” line from last week echoes a statement issued by Netanyahu himself six months ago.

As best as I can tell, there was no outcry or controversy when the statement was issued. And to be sure, no one accused the Israeli Prime Minister at the time of being anti-Israel.

Yet, there’s Netanyahu, continuing to say that his country can’t return to mid-1967 borders, knowing full well what he said in November, and knowing full well that’s not what Obama said.

It’s almost as if the apoplexy regarding the president’s statement has no foundation in reality, and this is just the latest in a series of annoying manufactured outrages. That couldn’t be, could it?
by Steve Benen </div></div>

Gayle in MD
05-25-2011, 01:45 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Good question.

Israel may be among our more dangerous alleged allies, as Truman's advisors knew when they unanimously advised him not to vote for its existence, and as both Eisenhower and Kennedy knew when they refused to arm the tiny enclave. (The communist/atheist Israelis were clients of the Eastern European socialist republics for their armaments, until LBJ.)

If there was ever a geostrategic US interest in Israel it was as a bulwark against Soviet invasion into the ME. With the end of the cold war, it is little mentioned, but again the universal position of our national security analysts that Israel is a profound liability to our national security interests.

I think our own country's interests should come first, but feel free to hold your affections and demand policies that favor another country over our own if you can somehow rationalize that kind of constructive treason. </div></div>

Excellent post!

I've been saying that for years, and accused of being anti-semite for saying it.

It's as though the Israeli's intend to use the horrors of what happened to them, generations ago, to justify any and all of their own infractions.

If any country, including the U.S., is going to intervene, in any way, it should be from the middle, with neither country more favored than the other, IMO.

Soon, the entire matter will be out of the Israeli's hands, anyway, as they are going to be so outnumbered, in the region, and the sad part is that their own continued land grabbing and hard headed refusals to negotiate, reasonably, will probably be the end for the United States, as well.

G.

pooltchr
05-25-2011, 01:52 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Soon, the entire matter will be out of the Israeli's hands, anyway, as they are going to be so outnumbered, in the region, and the sad part is that their own continued land grabbing and hard headed refusals to negotiate, reasonably, will probably be the end for the United States, as well.

G. </div></div>

Don't worry. Obama is on track to bring the US down long before Isreal could do anything.

Steve

nAz
05-25-2011, 08:39 PM
Was it Truman who said...."a hundred year headache"?
Israel is a one bomb country and we know it.

Obama said:

"technology will make it harder for Israel to defend itself in the absence of a genuine peace"

Soflasnapper
05-27-2011, 04:13 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: nAz</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Was it Truman who said...."a hundred year headache"?
Israel is a one bomb country and we know it.

Obama said:

"technology will make it harder for Israel to defend itself in the absence of a genuine peace"
</div></div>

Never heard of that quote before, but perhaps.

But yes, the alleged indefensibility of the Israeli borders from '49 to '67 was concerning armored warfare, columns of tanks, etc. In the era of jet planes, cruise missiles, air-effect munitions like the MOAB, etc., the extra width of the country by filling in that narrow isthmus with the West Bank occupied territory buys prolly no more than 30 seconds flight time, with no greater defensive ability gained.

LWW
05-28-2011, 01:27 AM
Are you aware at all of the actual history of the region?

Are you aware that the their is a palestinian homeland and a palestinian state, and has been for over 60 years?

Are you aware why there is a palestinian refugee problem?

Qtec
05-28-2011, 02:41 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Are you aware that the their is a palestinian homeland and a palestinian state, and has been for over 60 years? </div></div>

Really? Can you show us a map?

Q

LWW
05-28-2011, 04:31 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Are you aware that the their is a palestinian homeland and a palestinian state, and has been for over 60 years? </div></div>

Really? Can you show us a map?

Q </div></div>

Certainly:

http://www.rebelyid.com/wp-content/uploads/transjordan1922.jpg

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In 1923 Palestine was divided into two areas by the British - 25% of the land (west of the Jordan River) was to be the Jewish homeland and administratively run by the Palestinian Jews. The remaining 75%, called Trans-Jordan would be the Arab-Palestinian homeland. </div></div>

OH DEAR! (http://www.essortment.com/history-state-israel-21214.html)

Qtec
05-28-2011, 05:07 AM
I mean a map that actually says Palestine on it.

Q

LWW
05-28-2011, 06:24 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I mean a map that actually says Palestine on it.

Q </div></div>

Nobody said that.

I said the palestinians were given a homeland state.

You denied it.

I proved it to be true.

You try to say you said something else.

You didn't.

We both know that.

Gayle in MD
05-28-2011, 09:08 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Soon, the entire matter will be out of the Israeli's hands, anyway, as they are going to be so outnumbered, in the region, and the sad part is that their own continued land grabbing and hard headed refusals to negotiate, reasonably, will probably be the end for the United States, as well.

G. </div></div>

Don't worry. Obama is on track to bring the US down long before Isreal could do anything.

Steve </div></div>


Bush already did that! Where were you? Listening to Limpballs, in your truck cab?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Let me turn your claim around for you. It isn't blind support of the president that drives these go-rounds, but your blind opposition to him, in conflict with the facts and reason.

Soflasnapper </div></div>

Applies to you as well as your Wonk hero.

G.

pooltchr
05-28-2011, 09:48 AM
You are such an elitist, snob. You really do think you are better than anyone.

You are no better than the dog crap that occasionally needs to be scraped off of one's shoe.

Steve

Gayle in MD
05-28-2011, 09:49 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You are such an elitist, snob. You really do think you are better than anyone.

You are no better than the dog crap that occasionally needs to be scraped off of one's shoe.

Steve </div></div>

Right back atcha, Bubba.

Soflasnapper
05-28-2011, 11:29 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I mean a map that actually says Palestine on it.

Q </div></div>

Nobody said that.

I said the palestinians were given a homeland state.

You denied it.

I proved it to be true.

You try to say you said something else.

You didn't.

We both know that. </div></div>

If they'd really been given it, it wouldn't still have been an issue that came before the UN. So what Britain PLANNED and SAID was not instituted on the ground. In fact, Britain was forced out of its position by terror tactics by the Israelis (as when they terror-bombed the King David Hotel, dressed as Arabs).

LWW
05-28-2011, 03:34 PM
Incorrect, as usual.

The palestinian refugee issue happened because the arabs promised palestinian arabs living inside Israel that they would receive the Jews property if they got out of the way and allowed the combined arab armies to slaughter the Israelis.

When the arabs were trounced, the arab nations betrayed the palestinian arabs ... and blamed the Israelis because they wouldn't take them back.

Soflasnapper
05-28-2011, 04:40 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Incorrect, as usual.

The palestinian refugee issue happened because the arabs promised palestinian arabs living inside Israel that they would receive the Jews property if they got out of the way and allowed the combined arab armies to slaughter the Israelis.

When the arabs were trounced, the arab nations betrayed the palestinian arabs ... and blamed the Israelis because they wouldn't take them back. </div></div>

So, the terror massacres of entire villages, men, women and children, over two dozen such examples, by the Irgun and the Stern Gang, were entirely in vain? And the firebombing with napalm of fleeing Arab columns of refugees wasn't even necessary, because all those people were leaving peacefully (albeit with evil intent) all on their own?

What a tragedy then for Israel, who resorted to war crimes that didn't even work, and weren't necessary in any event?

Please, familiarize yourself with Benny Morris' work. As I said to begin with, answering your question in this thread originally, your talking points have been withdrawn by the Israelis themselves because of Morris' historical research published in '88, although it may have taken into the '90s to sink in.

So you're 20 years out of date. Americans never know as much as the Israeli public, because we are not allowed to know it.

LWW
05-29-2011, 02:10 AM
Odd that you can't document a stitch of that.

Well, actually ... it isn't.

LWW
05-29-2011, 02:35 AM
You may want to watch THIS (http://www.terrorismawareness.org/what-really-happened/) if your interest lies in finding truth.

And, BTW, I have read much of Benny Morris' wrk ... and although it is controversial, you either distorting his work ir being spoon fed a warped version.

Yes, in addition to palestinians who left willingly and palestinians who stayed peacefully in Israel ... there were palestinians who stayed during the 1948 war and acted as a fifth column and were forcibly expelled. And your point is what ... other than to strengthen the Israeli case, and mine.

Sev
05-29-2011, 07:18 AM
To bad Marvin doesn't post here.
He has been on a tare recently about antisemitism on AZ.
He has been ripping Abbassi pretty bad.

Qtec
05-29-2011, 12:35 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You may want to watch THIS (http://www.terrorismawareness.org/what-really-happened/) if your interest lies in finding truth.

And, BTW, I have read much of Benny Morris' wrk ... and although it is controversial, you either distorting his work ir being spoon fed a warped version.

Yes, in addition to palestinians who left willingly and palestinians who stayed peacefully in Israel ... there were palestinians who stayed during the 1948 war and acted as a fifth column and were forcibly expelled. And your point is what ... other than to strengthen the Israeli case, and mine. </div></div>

The law is clear. The Israelis are in violation. They have claimed land that they took over in a time of war.

ie, if you can invade a country by force and call that land your own , then Hitler didn't do anything wrong when he invaded Poland.

Q

Soflasnapper
05-29-2011, 01:25 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Odd that you can't document a stitch of that.

Well, actually ... it isn't. </div></div>

I documented Benny Morris saying that in an interview (see above), based on his research into the state and the military archives as they became declassified.

He was so vilified and condemned that he's modified his stance to say whatever was done was necessary and proper and not a war crime at all, but hasn't changed what he reported was done.

Which is what I said, and quoted from him, that along with the rumors of massacres and slaughters there were REAL incidents of that kind as well, which he said numbered at least two dozen or so.

Given Morris' sympathetic position to what the Israelis did and the purpose behind what they did, that he continues to report and assert these details of his research into Israeli government reports, it is difficult to think those details are in error.

Sev
05-29-2011, 03:10 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You may want to watch THIS (http://www.terrorismawareness.org/what-really-happened/) if your interest lies in finding truth.

And, BTW, I have read much of Benny Morris' wrk ... and although it is controversial, you either distorting his work ir being spoon fed a warped version.

Yes, in addition to palestinians who left willingly and palestinians who stayed peacefully in Israel ... there were palestinians who stayed during the 1948 war and acted as a fifth column and were forcibly expelled. And your point is what ... other than to strengthen the Israeli case, and mine. </div></div>

The law is clear. The Israelis are in violation. They have claimed land that they took over in a time of war.

ie, if you can invade a country by force and call that land your own , then Hitler didn't do anything wrong when he invaded Poland.

Q
</div></div>

What you win through conquest is yours to keep.
In the end Hitler lost and all he gained through conquest was forfeit.

The Arabs lost the war with Israel and the Palestinians are rightfully shit out of luck.

LWW
05-29-2011, 05:28 PM
Abassi is a racist.

LWW
05-29-2011, 05:28 PM
Your only problem is that this didn't happen.

Sev
05-29-2011, 06:39 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Abassi is a racist. </div></div>

Perhaps.
However I have never seen Marvin act like this. Abbassi has really gotten under his skin.

Soflasnapper
05-29-2011, 06:55 PM
What you win through conquest is yours to keep.
In the end Hitler lost and all he gained through conquest was forfeit.

The Arabs lost the war with Israel and the Palestinians are rightfully shit out of luck.

Not anymore. The UN General Charter outlawed aggressive war and forbids retaining any lands from said war.

Remember Iraq's invasion of Kuwait?

Sev
05-29-2011, 07:47 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What you win through conquest is yours to keep.
In the end Hitler lost and all he gained through conquest was forfeit.

The Arabs lost the war with Israel and the Palestinians are rightfully shit out of luck.

Not anymore. The UN General Charter outlawed aggressive war and forbids retaining any lands from said war.

Remember Iraq's invasion of Kuwait? </div></div>

OH EWWWWW. The united nations forbid it. Fug them. We could wipe out most of the membership of that racist pile of dog shit with one salvo of Titan missiles.

Soflasnapper
05-29-2011, 10:34 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What you win through conquest is yours to keep.
In the end Hitler lost and all he gained through conquest was forfeit.

The Arabs lost the war with Israel and the Palestinians are rightfully shit out of luck.

Not anymore. The UN General Charter outlawed aggressive war and forbids retaining any lands from said war.

Remember Iraq's invasion of Kuwait? </div></div>

OH EWWWWW. The united nations forbid it. Fug them. We could wipe out most of the membership of that racist pile of dog shit with one salvo of Titan missiles. </div></div>

I see you do not appreciate that the imposition of international law was the doings of the US for our own interests?

No law works perfectly, but the international law regime we created and got the world to sign up to has prevented the outbreak of large scale hostilities on the scale of the world wars.

Qtec
05-30-2011, 06:31 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">At the Gaza border, the army opened fire on unarmed demonstrators with tanks, injuring dozens. Israeli forces fired unusually high amounts of teargas at protesters in Qalandiya, wounding scores in the West Bank city which was completely surrounded by the separation wall. Joseph Dana, who documented the Qalandiya protest, told me a group of shabab attempted to pull down a section of the wall but failed in somewhat comical fashion because their rope was too short.

Now that Israeli forces are conducting house-to-house searches for those who managed to surmount the Jewish state’s demographic walls, <u>the word “infiltrator”</u> has retured to the Israeli vocabulary. The term was coined in the months and years after the Nakba when the Israeli military focused on preventing those it had expelled in 1947 and ‘48 from returning to their villages, their land and their families. Israel’s search and expulsion operations, designed to maintain the demographic integrity that the Zionist militias established through ethnic cleansing, represent an under-acknowledged but absolutely crucial component of the history of the Nakba. Indeed, the Nakba did not end in 1948.

Perhaps the most comprehensive account of Israel’s efforts to prevent the refugees from returning home is Benny Morris’ 1993 book, “Israel’s Border Wars: 1949-1956.” Morris’ flaws — his crude racism, rejection of Arab historians and sources, and allegiance to Zionism — are well known. As a pure archivist, however, he is among the best. The sections in his book on infiltration depict in cold, clinical detail the Israeli military’s tactics against those who tried to return. They included detaining refugees in barbed wire enclosed camps that reminded some observers of Nazi Germany; the extraction of fingernails and other torture methods; and forced marches through the desert without food or water. Tawfiq Toubi, the first Arab to serve in Israel’s Knesset, called the search and expulsion operations “pogroms.”

Below, I have excerpted several testimonies about Israel’s operations to stop “infiltration:”

In May 1950, a woman from a kibbutz in the South witnessed Palestinian refugees being packed into trucks and unloaded at a camp [pp. 147-48]:

We were waiting for a hitch beside one of the big army camps… Suddenly two large trucks arrived, packed with blindfolded Arabs (men, women, and children). Several of the soldiers guarding them got down to drink and eat a little, while the rest stayed on guard. To our question ‘Who are these Arabs?’ they responded: ‘These are infiltrators, on their way to being returned over the borders.’ The way the Arabs were crowded together [on the trucks] was inhuman. Then one of the soldiers called his friend ‘the expert’ to make some order [among the Arabs]. Those of us standing nearby had witnessed no bad behavior on the part of the Arabs, who sat frightened, almost one on top of the other. But the soldiers were quick to teach us what they meant by ‘order. The ‘expert’ jumped up and began to…hit [the Arabs] across their blindfolded eyes and when he had finished, he stamped on all of them and then, in the end, laughed uproariously and with satisfaction at his heroism. We were shocked by this despicable act. I ask, does this not remind us exactly of the Nazi acts towards the Jews? And who is responsible for such acts of brutality committed time and time again by our soldiers? </div></div>

link (http://maxblumenthal.com/2011/05/after-1948-how-israel-stopped-the-outcast-race-from-returning-home/)




<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The Nakba briefly appears in Tom Segev’s magisterial history of Israel and the Holocaust, “The Seventh Million.” In a single (very long) paragraph, Segev tells the story of how survivors of a genocide were transformed by the Zionist enterprise into participants in a campaign of ethnic cleansing.


Segev writes on pp. 161-62: “Then the War of Independence broke out, and tens of thousands of homes were suddenly available. This was what Shaul Avigur called ‘the Arab miracle’: Hundreds of thousands of Arabs fled, and were expelled from their homes. Entire cities and hundreds of villages left empty were repopulated in short order with new immigrants. In April 1949 they numbered 100,000, most of them Holocaust survivors. The moment was a dramatic one in the war for Israel, and a frightfully banal one, too, focused as it was on the struggle over houses and furniture.<span style='font-size: 14pt'> Free people–Arabs–had gone into exile and become destitute refugees; destitute refugees–Jews–took the exiles’ places as a first step in their new lives as free people. One group lost all they had, while the other found everything they needed–tables, chairs, closets pots, pans, plates, sometimes clothes, family albums, books, radios, and pets. Most of the immigrants broke into the abandoned Arab houses without direction, without order, without permission. For several months the country was caught up in a frenzy of take-what-you-can, first-come, first-served. Afterwards, the authorities tried to halt the looting and take control of the allocation of houses, but in general they came too late. Immigrants also took possession of Arab stores and workshops, and some Arab neighborhoods soon looked like Jewish towns in prewar Europe, with tailors, shoemakers, dry goods merchants–all the traditional Jewish occupations.”</span> </div></div>

link (http://maxblumenthal.com/2011/05/when-the-shoah-met-the-nakba-one-group-lost-all-while-the-other-found-everything-they-needed/)

Q...theft is theft.

LWW
05-30-2011, 05:08 PM
Being that the people returning home were traitors who were willing participants in an attempted genocide ... how do you think the Israelis should have handled it?

Where is your outrage at the many attempts at genocide against the Jewish people?