israel has the largest and most powerful military in the region. they can more than handle themselves. they do not need support from us. if you want to save money and resources, why would you not support the us ending it's $4 billion a year in military aid to israel every year?
do you know how israel was founded after WWII?
why would we move a potential palestinian state into iran or iraq?? the palestinian state has to be where it is proposed now. the land that israel is claiming is on palestinian land. the international community agrees on the pre-1967 borders and israel keeps building settlements on stolen land. sone places have apartheid conditions. we should not stand by such an ally as long as they keep doing what they are doing. we were against the aparthied in south africa, so why aren't we against it now in the israel/palestine conflict??
Well, I'm sure that $4 billion is helping with their poweful military (which I agree - other than size, I wouldn't want the US to mess with them). But, I have no problem reviewing what the money is used for to determine if that size support is necessary. (Just like every item from welfare to military should be reviewed and not simply looked at from where we are today, but what we really need).
And, yes Iran and Iraq are silly. But, there are other bordering nations. Why was that piece of land chosen? If the rest of the world determined that Iraq should have West Virginia, should we allow that? Why should Israel? It's the same exact thing. Just because it's convenient for everyone does not make it right.
And the concept of stolen land is yours. Again, just because a lot of folks believe that does not make it right.
And, I do agree that apartheid is wrong. As does the US. But why it was going on in South Africa is a completely different reason why it is happening there. In S. Africa it was pure racism. In Israel it is partially that (truth be told), but mostly safety reasons. And reason and intent are important. So, yes, we should councel Israel on it. But, we also have to look at the big picture.
a few quick things here...
-there is no way to determine what the money from the us is being spent on. we do not just give them cash, we give them military eqiupment and weapons of war.
-if you had read from both sides you would know exactly why that land was chosen. your analogy for iraq having west virginia based on international opinion is completely absurd. when did iraq possess the land that is west virginia, and when did the us steal it from iraq?? i believe you are missing the point. israel is building settlements on land that was palestinian land before the war in 1967. the rest of the world did not recognize the land grab by israel. the only people who are not agreeing that that is palestinian land are the zionists and the hardliners that happen to be in control of israel at the moment.
and lastly, the aparthied rule in the west bank and gaza is not based on safety. how many terrorist attacks or rocket launches into israel have actually hit anything of significance or killed any israelis? how many palestinians have been killed in israel's completely overblown and out of proportion retaliations for these attacks? how many llaestinans have died as a result of this occupation and these apartheid conditions? how many attacks have been prevented by the roadblocks, check points, and military occupation of this land?
i suggest you maybe do a little more reading from things other than the network news sites...
Post edited by gimmesometruth27 on
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
yeah ... your opinion is based on objective reading on both sides ... :roll:
Well, we're both objective to our own opinions. Like I said - this constant - you should read more - response on here is not only unproductive, it's a bit insulting.
And if you get right down to it - none of us are purely objective. Anything we read is through the glasses of what we believe. We try to be as open minded as possible, but we all have to admit to seeing things the way we want to see them. That's why it's unhelpful to give slanted - it's all Israel's fault - opinions when copying an article. It's so clear that that's not the case that it all becomes laughable. Palestine can blatantly go against peace accords they've signed, and it's ok. But, it's not ok if Israel "rataliates."
dude ... i totally agree with you ... but sadly, based on what you type ... it is the conclusion i've drawn ...
again - we've been discussing this issue for many years on this thread ... often with israelis who are pro-israel ... and even they wouldn't say the things you are saying ...
even your last sentence here lacks any context whatsoever ... it's a decidedly pro-israel position without any consideration whatsoever to the palestinian side ... i'm sorry but the only conclusion i can draw is that your knowledge on this issue is gleaned from distinctly biased sources ...
-there is no way to determine what the money from the us is being spent on. we do not just give them cash, we give them military eqiupment and weapons of war.
-if you had read from both sides you would know exactly why that land was chosen. your analogy for iraq having west virginia based on international opinion is completely absurd. when did iraq possess the land that is west virginia, and when did the us steal it from iraq?? i believe you are missing the point. israel is building settlements on land that was palestinian land before the war in 1967. the rest of the world did not recognize the land grab by israel. the only people who are not agreeing that that is palestinian land are the zionists and the hardliners that happen to be in control of israel at the moment.
and lastly, the aparthied rule in the west bank and gaza is not based on safety. how many terrorist attacks or rocket launches into israel have actually hit anything of significance or killed any israelis? how many palestinians have been killed in israel's completely overblown and out of proportion retaliations for these attacks? how many llaestinans have died as a result of this occupation and these apartheid conditions? how many attacks have been prevented by the roadblocks, check points, and military occupation of this land?
i suggest you maybe do a little more reading from things other than the network news sites...
Ok. You are right. My analogy was off. What if the international community got together and said Great Britain should have Virginia. Is that better? I think you get the point.
And, yes. Israel has been the more overtly agressive. Self preservation has a way of doing that. Again, I will reiterate - I am ok with a Palestinian state. As long as they agree to certain parameters that include ensuring that they and their allies recognize Israel and respect whatever borders are finally determined. Which they have already said they don't and won't. So, what's in it for Israel? Lifelong war with smaller buffer for their borders? That seems like quite the deal. I have no idea why they wouldn't want to sit down AGAIN.
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
And I am ignoring your repeated insult to what I have and have not read. Yes, my view comes from a pro-Israel view point. Just as yours comes from an anti-Israel viewpoint. I think we can both agree on that.
The news is garbage. I rarely watch it other than to hear what is going on in the world, and I certainly don't take my opinions from entertainers masquerading as objective news folks - and that goes for the liberal traditional over the air channels and their partners and Fox and its partners. News is not the news anymore. It's info-tainment.
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
Regarding Israel speeding up settlements in the West Bank link. The thousands of protestors who recently protested for affordable housing in Central Israel over the last 6 months would also be happy to hear this :roll:
this is happening as a result of the palestinian efforts to get recognition from the un. israel will not negotiate with them so no peace deal can be made....palestine goes to the un to ask for something us brokered peace talks have never been able to accomplish....then israel punishes palestine by building more settlements at a faster rate on palestinian land...
the cycle continues...
israel is inflaming tensions by continuing to build, then complaining to the us that the rest of the world is condemning them.
it is very easy. if you do not want to be criticized, stop doing shit that warrants such criticism...
I love your slant that this is one sided. Palestine circumvents the peace process, but it's all Israel's fault. Too funny. Good for Israel. They have tried to negotiate. Just because they won't negotiate on Palestine's terms, does not mean they are not willing to negotiate. This is all a two way street. And, in this case I see Palestine as the main instigator.
It’s quite telling that you completely ignored the very article you’re quoting. Settlement expansion is not a two way steet. How do you think the settlements affect the peace process? In what way would you like to see the Palestinians negotiate them?
At it’s core, this dispute is over land, and Israel is taking more without negotiation…yet you ignore that and call the Palestinians the main instigators? Hmmmm….
That’s some funny shit. Israel complains to your beloved UN, the world community, anyone who will listen, non-stop…and (mostly by proxy), they spend millions upon millions lobbying to ensure that their complaints are heard, and that the other side is silenced..
http://www.google.ca/search?q=israel+co ... g-v3&aql=1
12.7 million hits.
Some are legit (rocket/mortar attacks)…while a great deal of them are about media coverage, Apple apps, civilian protests in other countries, etc etc…
I am FOR a Palestine State. In Jordan or Iran, or Iraq, or anywhere else that has supported their cause. Why do they need to take land from an already tiny nation?
I take it you've never heard of the Israeli occupation then?
Let me explain it for you: In 1967 Israel attacked Egypt in the Sinai and subsequently captured territories that it still holds to this day. Israel's occupation of this land is considered illegal under international law, and U.N Resolution 242 calls for a full and immediate withdrawal of all Israeli forces from land occupied during and after the 1967 war. This land isn't Israel's. It doesn't belong to Israel. When Israel was declared a state in 1948 another resolution was passed - 181 - apportioning all of the remaining land to the Palestinians. That law is binding and is still effective today.
The Israeli settlements are illegal under international law:
'The establishment of settlements in the West Bank violates international humanitarian law which establishes principles that apply during war and occupation. Moreover, the settlements lead to the infringement of international human rights law.
The Fourth Geneva Convention prohibits an occupying power from transferring citizens from its own territory to the occupied territory (Article 49). The Hague Regulations prohibit an occupying power from undertaking permanent changes in the occupied area unless these are due to military needs in the narrow sense of the term, or unless they are undertaken for the benefit of the local population.
The establishment of settlements results in the violation of the rights of Palestinians as enshrined in international human rights law. Among other violations, the settlements infringe the right to self-determination, equality, property, an adequate standard of living, and freedom of movement.'
As for anybody taking land from an already tiny nation, maybe you should cast your eyes on the following map to see that like every other Israel apologist you are simply trying to turn reality on it's head:
I am ok with a Palestinian state. As long as they agree to certain parameters that include ensuring that they and their allies recognize Israel and respect whatever borders are finally determined.
Which they have already said they don't and won't.
The borders have already been determined. They are the 1967 borders, with MINOR adjustments. The whole of the international supports this, including Hamas and the Palestinian Authority, and Israel and the U.S stand alone in the World in opposing it. So we have the whole World on one side, and Israel and the U.S on the other side calling for more 'peace talks' (substitute for 'stalling tactics').
The United Nations General Assembly annually votes on a resolution titled, “Peaceful Settlement of the
Question of Palestine.” This resolution uniformly includes these tenets for “achieving a peaceful settlement of the question of Palestine”: (1) “Affirming the principle of the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war”; (2) “Affirming also the illegality of the Israeli settlements in the territory occupied since 1967 and of Israeli actions aimed at changing the status of Jerusalem”; (3) “Stresses the need for: (a) The realization of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people, primarily the right to self-determination; (b) The withdrawal of Israel from the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967”; (4) “Also stresses the need for resolving the problem of the Palestine refugees in conformity with its resolution 194 (III) of 11 December 1948.” Here is the recorded vote on this resolution the past decade:
1997 [155-2-3] (155 In Favour, 2 Against, 3 Abstentions)
Israel, United States
1998 [154-2-3]
Israel, United States
1999 [149-3-2]
Israel, United States , Marshall Islands
2000 [149-2-3]
Israel, United States
2001 [131-6-20]
Israel, United States , Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Tuvalu
2002 [160-4-3]
Israel, United States , Marshall Islands, Micronesia
2003 [160-6-5]
Israel, United States , Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Palau, Uganda
2004 [161-7-10]
Israel, United States , Australia, Grenada, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Palau
2005 [156-6-9]
Israel, United States , Australia, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Palau
2006 [157-7-10]
Israel, United States , Australia, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau
2007 [161-7-5]
Israel, United States , Australia, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau
2008 164-7
Israel, United States , Australia, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau
2009 [163-7]
United States, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau, Panama,
2010 [165-7-4]
Israel, United States, Australia, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau
Comments
-there is no way to determine what the money from the us is being spent on. we do not just give them cash, we give them military eqiupment and weapons of war.
-if you had read from both sides you would know exactly why that land was chosen. your analogy for iraq having west virginia based on international opinion is completely absurd. when did iraq possess the land that is west virginia, and when did the us steal it from iraq?? i believe you are missing the point. israel is building settlements on land that was palestinian land before the war in 1967. the rest of the world did not recognize the land grab by israel. the only people who are not agreeing that that is palestinian land are the zionists and the hardliners that happen to be in control of israel at the moment.
and lastly, the aparthied rule in the west bank and gaza is not based on safety. how many terrorist attacks or rocket launches into israel have actually hit anything of significance or killed any israelis? how many palestinians have been killed in israel's completely overblown and out of proportion retaliations for these attacks? how many llaestinans have died as a result of this occupation and these apartheid conditions? how many attacks have been prevented by the roadblocks, check points, and military occupation of this land?
i suggest you maybe do a little more reading from things other than the network news sites...
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
dude ... i totally agree with you ... but sadly, based on what you type ... it is the conclusion i've drawn ...
again - we've been discussing this issue for many years on this thread ... often with israelis who are pro-israel ... and even they wouldn't say the things you are saying ...
even your last sentence here lacks any context whatsoever ... it's a decidedly pro-israel position without any consideration whatsoever to the palestinian side ... i'm sorry but the only conclusion i can draw is that your knowledge on this issue is gleaned from distinctly biased sources ...
Ok. You are right. My analogy was off. What if the international community got together and said Great Britain should have Virginia. Is that better? I think you get the point.
And, yes. Israel has been the more overtly agressive. Self preservation has a way of doing that. Again, I will reiterate - I am ok with a Palestinian state. As long as they agree to certain parameters that include ensuring that they and their allies recognize Israel and respect whatever borders are finally determined. Which they have already said they don't and won't. So, what's in it for Israel? Lifelong war with smaller buffer for their borders? That seems like quite the deal. I have no idea why they wouldn't want to sit down AGAIN.
The news is garbage. I rarely watch it other than to hear what is going on in the world, and I certainly don't take my opinions from entertainers masquerading as objective news folks - and that goes for the liberal traditional over the air channels and their partners and Fox and its partners. News is not the news anymore. It's info-tainment.
It’s quite telling that you completely ignored the very article you’re quoting. Settlement expansion is not a two way steet. How do you think the settlements affect the peace process? In what way would you like to see the Palestinians negotiate them?
At it’s core, this dispute is over land, and Israel is taking more without negotiation…yet you ignore that and call the Palestinians the main instigators? Hmmmm….
http://www.google.ca/search?q=israel+co ... g-v3&aql=1
12.7 million hits.
Some are legit (rocket/mortar attacks)…while a great deal of them are about media coverage, Apple apps, civilian protests in other countries, etc etc…
I take it you've never heard of the Israeli occupation then?
Let me explain it for you: In 1967 Israel attacked Egypt in the Sinai and subsequently captured territories that it still holds to this day. Israel's occupation of this land is considered illegal under international law, and U.N Resolution 242 calls for a full and immediate withdrawal of all Israeli forces from land occupied during and after the 1967 war. This land isn't Israel's. It doesn't belong to Israel. When Israel was declared a state in 1948 another resolution was passed - 181 - apportioning all of the remaining land to the Palestinians. That law is binding and is still effective today.
The Israeli settlements are illegal under international law:
http://www.btselem.org/settlements/international_law
'The establishment of settlements in the West Bank violates international humanitarian law which establishes principles that apply during war and occupation. Moreover, the settlements lead to the infringement of international human rights law.
The Fourth Geneva Convention prohibits an occupying power from transferring citizens from its own territory to the occupied territory (Article 49). The Hague Regulations prohibit an occupying power from undertaking permanent changes in the occupied area unless these are due to military needs in the narrow sense of the term, or unless they are undertaken for the benefit of the local population.
The establishment of settlements results in the violation of the rights of Palestinians as enshrined in international human rights law. Among other violations, the settlements infringe the right to self-determination, equality, property, an adequate standard of living, and freedom of movement.'
As for anybody taking land from an already tiny nation, maybe you should cast your eyes on the following map to see that like every other Israel apologist you are simply trying to turn reality on it's head:
The borders have already been determined. They are the 1967 borders, with MINOR adjustments. The whole of the international supports this, including Hamas and the Palestinian Authority, and Israel and the U.S stand alone in the World in opposing it. So we have the whole World on one side, and Israel and the U.S on the other side calling for more 'peace talks' (substitute for 'stalling tactics').
The United Nations General Assembly annually votes on a resolution titled, “Peaceful Settlement of the
Question of Palestine.” This resolution uniformly includes these tenets for “achieving a peaceful settlement of the question of Palestine”: (1) “Affirming the principle of the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war”; (2) “Affirming also the illegality of the Israeli settlements in the territory occupied since 1967 and of Israeli actions aimed at changing the status of Jerusalem”; (3) “Stresses the need for: (a) The realization of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people, primarily the right to self-determination; (b) The withdrawal of Israel from the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967”; (4) “Also stresses the need for resolving the problem of the Palestine refugees in conformity with its resolution 194 (III) of 11 December 1948.” Here is the recorded vote on this resolution the past decade:
1997 [155-2-3] (155 In Favour, 2 Against, 3 Abstentions)
Israel, United States
1998 [154-2-3]
Israel, United States
1999 [149-3-2]
Israel, United States , Marshall Islands
2000 [149-2-3]
Israel, United States
2001 [131-6-20]
Israel, United States , Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Tuvalu
2002 [160-4-3]
Israel, United States , Marshall Islands, Micronesia
2003 [160-6-5]
Israel, United States , Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Palau, Uganda
2004 [161-7-10]
Israel, United States , Australia, Grenada, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Palau
2005 [156-6-9]
Israel, United States , Australia, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Palau
2006 [157-7-10]
Israel, United States , Australia, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau
2007 [161-7-5]
Israel, United States , Australia, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau
2008 164-7
Israel, United States , Australia, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau
2009 [163-7]
United States, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau, Panama,
2010 [165-7-4]
Israel, United States, Australia, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."