its all comes down to the 1967 borders doesnt it. do I support them? I dont know. I do know a war was fought in 1967 and the borders changed. what those new borders should be, is in dispute. where I do think Israel is wrong, however, has been in the constant expanding of settlements in disputed land. that is wrong.
its not disputed, or up for grabs or anything like that.
land Israel is occupying outside the 67 borders is land it has taken with force.
Anyone at all serious about the issue agrees that the only plausible solution is for Israel to retreat to those borders. Its peace. Since they haven't agreed to the 67 borders, an agreement that all Arab countries including Hamas agreed to in a 2002 summit (think it was 02) tells me Israel's desire for land may be stronger than its desire for peace.
I thought you couldnt see youtube? but since you apparently did, how did those videos make you feel? it would be nice if you can answer that and not cut and paste something about Israel.
I can't see Youtube. I read another posters comments about your diversionary tactics - trying to deflect attention from the op's original subject by claiming that Palestinians use human shields.
This type of stuff has to stop. Someone has to extend a hand first.
They already have. The Palestinian leadership has already stated that it supports the international consensus of a two-state settlement along the June 1967 border - http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article9917.shtml
Meanwhile, the Israeli's continue with their familiar stalling tactics:
Israel wants peace talks, Binyamin Netanyahu tells Barack Obama
• US president says Israel must honour commitments
• Prime minister counters that primary threat is Iran
* Chris McGreal in Washington
* guardian.co.uk, Monday 18 May 2009 22.09 BST
'Israel's prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, met President Barack Obama yesterday and said that he wants to begin immediate peace talks with the Palestinians aimed at self-government, but he stopped short of explicitly committing Israel to Palestinian independence.
At discussions in the White House expected to shape the direction of one of the toughest political challenges either leader will face, Obama said he told Netanyahu that the goal of "an extraordinary opportunity" for peace must be "allowing the Palestinians to govern themselves as an independent state".
The US president was expected to press Netanyahu to make an explicit commitment to that end at the talks but, whatever was said in private, the Israeli prime minister shied away in public.
"I want to start peace negotiations with the Palestinians immediately," he said. "I want to make it clear that we don't want to govern the Palestinians. We want to live in peace with them, we want them to govern themselves without [control over] a handful of powers that could endanger Israel. There'll have to be compromises by Israelis and Palestinians alike."
Obama said he was confident that Netanyahu "is going to seize this moment".
But Netanyahu's failure to speak of an independent state – instead talking of "an arrangement where Palestinians and Israelis live side by side in dignity, in security and in peace" – and his insistence that the Palestinians be denied certain powers, such as control over their own borders and airspace, is a reminder to Obama of the difficulties he is likely to face in dealing with Israel's well practised tactics of prevarication and obstruction.
The US president laid down a marker by which to judge Netanyahu's intent, in demanding that he fulfil previous commitments that successive Israeli governments have broken to halt the expansion of Jewish settlements in the occupied territories.
"Israel is going to have to take difficult steps," Obama said. "Settlements have to be stopped in order for us to move forward. That's a difficult issue, I recognise that. But it's an important one and it has to be addressed."
But Netanyahu offered no such commitment in public.
He said a precondition of any agreement is for the Palestinians to recognise Israel as a Jewish state, which Hamas has refused to do. That in turn is likely to mean that the Israelis will insist on negotiating only with Fatah, a move likely to deepen the divide in the Palestinian camp.
But Obama suggested that Hamas should be brought in to the talks, when he spoke about the failure of isolation in dealing not only with the Palestinian group but also Hezbollah and Iran.
Obama said Netanyahu had been "very vocal" in expressing his concerns about Iran developing a nuclear weapon, which the Israeli prime minister described as "the worst danger we face". He agreed that it should be prevented, but said that diplomacy not confrontation should be given a chance.
"Understand that part of the reason that it's so important for us to take a diplomatic approach is that the approach we've been taking, which is no diplomacy, obviously has not worked. Nobody disagrees with that. Hamas and Hezbollah have got stronger. Iran has been pursuing its nuclear capabilities undiminished. Not talking clearly hasn't worked," he said.
But he warned that talks should not become an excuse for inaction "while Iran proceeds with developing and deploying a nuclear weapon".
He said he would like to see progress by the end of the year and, if there is no change in Iran's position, he would consider a range of steps "including much stronger international sanctions".
"Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon would not only be a threat to Israel and to the United States, but would be profoundly destabilising in the international community as a whole and could set off a nuclear arms race in the Middle East that could be extraordinarily dangerous for all concerned, including for Iran," Obama said.
He said the settlement of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and the Iran nuclear issue had a bearing on each other. "To the extent we can make peace between the Palestinians and Israelis then it strengthens our hand in the international community in dealing with a potential Iranian nuclear threat."
Netanyahu agreed, but added that Iran developing a nuclear weapon would have a negative effect on the search for peace with the Palestinians.
Both agreed that the issues make it necessary to draw in other governments in the region.
Obama is likely to urge Arab states to recognise Israel as part of a package that would include its withdrawal, not only from the West Bank but also the Golan Heights, after they were captured from Syria in the 1967 war.
The Egyptian president, Hosni Mubarak, and the Palestinian leader, Mahmoud Abbas, are scheduled to meet Obama in Washington next week. In early June, Obama will travel to Cairo to deliver an address to the Islamic world.'
So according to Netanyahu the Palestinians have to to recognise Israel as a Jewish state. They are asking for the Palestinians and the rest of the world to accept ethnic nationalism and racism. They're asking for the 20% of Arab-Israeli's within Israel to formally accept being second class citizens.
I'm just wondering if outlaw gets equally upset about the way Hamas treats its children. apparently not. personally I find it sickening what both sides are doing. but in doing so, I'm somehow "pro-Israeli"
Your failure - or is it refusal? - to see the bigger picture is the problem.
its all comes down to the 1967 borders doesnt it. do I support them? I dont know. I do know a war was fought in 1967 and the borders changed. what those new borders should be, is in dispute.
Firstly, Israel started the 1967 war, as I've shown time and again using quotations from the Israeli leadership.
Secondly, the land is not in dispute. I've already posted what the law states on this subject. You clearly ignored it. I'll post it again:
Resolution 242: 'Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in which every State in the area can live in security...
Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict..'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nat ... lution_242 'Lord Caradon, chief author of the resolution....[says] that the lack of a definite article is intended to deny permanence to the "unsatisfactory" pre-1967 border, rather than to allow Israel to retain land taken by force. Such a view would appear to allow for the possibility that the borders could be varied through negotiation:
'Knowing as I did the unsatisfactory nature of the 1967 line, I wasn’t prepared to use wording in the Resolution that would have made that line permanent. Nonetheless, it is necessary to say again that the overwhelming principle was the ‘inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war’ and that meant that there could be no justification for the annexation of territory on the Arab side of the 1967 line merely because it had been conquered in the 1967 war. The sensible way to decide permanent ‘secure and recognized’ boundaries would be to set up a Boundary Commission and hear both sides and then to make impartial recommendations for a new frontier line, bearing in mind, of course, the "inadmissibility" principle.[20] The purposes are perfectly clear, the principle is stated in the preamble, the necessity for withdrawal is stated in the operative section. And then the essential phrase which is not sufficiently recognized is that withdrawal should take place to secure and recognized boundaries, and these words were very carefully chosen: they have to be secure and they have to be recognized. They will not be secure unless they are recognized. And that is why one has to work for agreement. This is essential. I would defend absolutely what we did. It was not for us to lay down exactly where the border should be. I know the 1967 border very well. It is not a satisfactory border, it is where troops had to stop in 1948, just where they happened to be that night, that is not a permanent boundary...[21]'
I.e, the 67 border is a temporary border, and that therefore Israel ultimately needs to withdraw to the 1948 border or the 1949 armistice lines.
And here I thought China was so much more free than the US... or so you tried to tell me a few months ago.
You have a very short memory. I didn't say that China was more free than the U.S. I said that people live freer lives.
Still, the truth is I was exaggerating. People here are no more or no less free than people in the U.S. Both countries have their propaganda systems firmly in place, amongst other things.
its all comes down to the 1967 borders doesnt it. do I support them? I dont know. I do know a war was fought in 1967 and the borders changed. what those new borders should be, is in dispute. where I do think Israel is wrong, however, has been in the constant expanding of settlements in disputed land. that is wrong.
its not disputed, or up for grabs or anything like that.
land Israel is occupying outside the 67 borders is land it has taken with force.
Anyone at all serious about the issue agrees that the only plausible solution is for Israel to retreat to those borders. Its peace. Since they haven't agreed to the 67 borders, an agreement that all Arab countries including Hamas agreed to in a 2002 summit (think it was 02) tells me Israel's desire for land may be stronger than its desire for peace.
YES IT IS DISPUTED. and the rest of your post is true. they want the land more then they want peace. when wars are fought, land changes hands. thats what happened.
And here I thought China was so much more free than the US... or so you tried to tell me a few months ago.
You have a very short memory. I didn't say that China was more free than the U.S. I said that people live freer lives.
Still, the truth is I was exaggerating. People here are no more or no less free than people in the U.S. Both countries have their propaganda systems firmly in place, amongst other things.
people in the US are MUCH more free then you in China. you not being able to watch youtube is a perfect example.
its all comes down to the 1967 borders doesnt it. do I support them? I dont know. I do know a war was fought in 1967 and the borders changed. what those new borders should be, is in dispute.
Firstly, Israel started the 1967 war, as I've shown time and again using quotations from the Israeli leadership.
Secondly, the land is not in dispute. I've already posted what the law states on this subject. You clearly ignored it. I'll post it again:
no need for you cut and paste party. the land is in dispute. Israel wants and took it by force and Palestine wants it back. dispute.
and it doesnt matter who started the war in 1967. when wars are fought, most often, borders change as a result. that happened here. I'm not saying what is right and wrong, just that it happened. borders are always changing and this is one of those times.
How are the Palestinians to blame for the occupation and the ongoing illegal settlement building?
LOL did I say they were?
Hamas is part of the blame for the ongoing problems in the region by their deliberate targeting of Israeli civilians. which of course is something you agree with so you still wont be able to place blame on them
Hamas is part of the blame for the ongoing problems in the region by their deliberate targeting of Israeli civilians.
Are you trying to justify the ethnic cleansing of Palestine?
I'll ask you again: Why are illegal Jewish-only settlements still being built? And how is Hamas - or Fatah, or the Al Asqa Brigades, or the PLO - responsible for the settlements?
And here I thought China was so much more free than the US... or so you tried to tell me a few months ago.
You have a very short memory. I didn't say that China was more free than the U.S. I said that people live freer lives.
Still, the truth is I was exaggerating. People here are no more or no less free than people in the U.S. Both countries have their propaganda systems firmly in place, amongst other things.
Yeah, don't know how I could have made that mistake :roll: I would say China's doing more than using propaganda, they shut down and outlaw anything that doesn't toe that party line. At least we have access to outside information.
Anyway, "exaggerating." Thanks. Exactly what I always knew. Not that that stopped you from trying to argue and rationalize it.
As to Hamas and Israel, fuck em both. Why we still send money over there boggles my mind. Let those fuckers blow each other to hell. When they learn to play like grown ups, we can start talking to them again.
people in the US are MUCH more free then you in China. you not being able to watch youtube is a perfect example.
And the Patriot Act in the U.S is a perfect example of how you are not free.
I don't think he said we had no restrictions, he said China is worse. He's right. I love that you admit you were full of shit and exaggerating, and then immediately start trying to defend that nonsense again.
We have the Patriot Act. China has the patriot act, executions for violations of it, and a total ban on youtube and all other news sources that might make people aware of how they're being fucked. Yeah, we've got our shortcomings, but they pale in comparison to what goes on in China.
Hamas is part of the blame for the ongoing problems in the region by their deliberate targeting of Israeli civilians.
Are you trying to justify the ethnic cleansing of Palestine?
I'll ask you again: Why are illegal Jewish-only settlements still being built? And how is Hamas - or Fatah, or the Al Asqa Brigades, or the PLO - responsible for the settlements?
This is exactly why the situation over there is and will always be fucked. Nowhere did he ever say anything remotely like this here or anywhere else, and you know it.
If I stole $100 from you and you shot me, the fact that you shot me doesn't mean it was ok that I stole from you in the first place.
I'll ask you again: Why are illegal Jewish-only settlements still being built? And how is Hamas - or Fatah, or the Al Asqa Brigades, or the PLO - responsible for the settlements?
I NEVER SAID THEY ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE SETTLEMENTS. I made this bold and red so you understand.
Hamas is part of the ongoing problems by deliberately targeting Israeli civilians.
I would say China's doing more than using propaganda, they shut down and outlaw anything that doesn't toe that party line. At least we have access to outside information.
I have some news for you: The Chinese have internet access too.
As to Hamas and Israel, fuck em both. Why we still send money over there boggles my mind. Let those fuckers blow each other to hell. When they learn to play like grown ups, we can start talking to them again.
They have been blowing each other to hell, and with U.S support and encouragement. Israel's recent massacre in Gaza was given full support by the U.S government. You should be ashamed that your tax money contributed to the lives of over 400 Palestinian children being snuffed out.
I would say China's doing more than using propaganda, they shut down and outlaw anything that doesn't toe that party line. At least we have access to outside information.
I have some news for you: The Chinese have internet access too.
As to Hamas and Israel, fuck em both. Why we still send money over there boggles my mind. Let those fuckers blow each other to hell. When they learn to play like grown ups, we can start talking to them again.
They have been blowing each other to hell, and with U.S support and encouragement. Israel's recent massacre in Gaza was given full support by the U.S government. You should be ashamed that your tax money contributed to the lives of over 400 Palestinian children being snuffed out.
LIMITED internet access... limited to sites that are government censored and approved.
Don't tell me what I should and should not be ashamed of. You should be ashamed of your blatant intellectual dishonesty... You defend the Chinese government, whose human rights record rivals Israel's and then you point the finger at me for not taking a stand?
No, that's an example of Americans being stupid and lazy, not unfree.
So when the question was posed to them they just made it up? And it's just a coincidence that 41% said Sadaam was responsible for 9/11? I'd have thought that if they were just plucking names out of thin air that Hugo Chavez would have got a look-in somewhere, or Colonel Qaddafi, or maybe even...Osama Bin Laden.
The reason can't possibly be that the U.S media helped sow the lie of Iraq & 9/11, now can it? :roll:
And the Patriot Act in the U.S is a perfect example of how you are not free.
Also, the fact that 41% of Americans believe Sadaam Hussein was responsible for 9/11 is another example.
LOL yea ok. its fun to make up shit. fact is, you live in under a VERY restrictive government. quite sad how you actually support it.[/quote]
Firstly, what am I making up?[/quote]
patriot act does not make me less free. and 41% of Americans do not think Saddam was responsible for 9/11. go ahead have your little cut and paste party with links for 7 years ago when the Bush admin was pushing for ties between Saddam and El-queda. all of that has since been proven false and Americans now know this.
Secondly, what makes you think I support the Chinese government?
you live there, giving a significant portion of your paychecks to them. if you oppose the government, are you doing anything about it like protesting them for not allowing something as BASIC as access to a random website?
LIMITED internet access... limited to sites that are government censored and approved.
Don't tell me what I should and should not be ashamed of. You should be ashamed of your blatant intellectual dishonesty... You defend the Chinese government, whose human rights record rivals Israel's and then you point the finger at me for not taking a stand?
You think that mainstream news media in the U.S isn't government censored and approved?
Intellectual dishonesty? Great, let's begin here then: Please point out one instance where I defended the Chinese government. Thanks, I'm waiting.
patriot act does not make me less free. and 41% of Americans do not think Saddam was responsible for 9/11. go ahead have your little cut and paste party with links for 7 years ago when the Bush admin was pushing for ties between Saddam and El-queda. all of that has since been proven false and Americans now know this.
'A new Newsweek poll out this weekend exposed "gaps" in America's knowledge of history and current events.
Perhaps most alarmingly, 41% of Americans answered 'Yes' to the question "Do you think Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq was directly involved in planning, financing, or carrying out the terrorist attacks of September 11th, 2001?"
That total is actually up 5 points since September 2004.
Further, a majority of people couldn't identify Saudia Arabia as the country of origin of most of the 9/11 hijackers, even given the question in multiple choice format. 20% answered Iraq, while 14% believed the hijackers came from Iran...'
you live there, giving a significant portion of your paychecks to them. if you oppose the government, are you doing anything about it like protesting them for not allowing something as BASIC as access to a random website?
I didnt think so.
So I live here, therefore I support the government? And everyone who lives in the U.S supports the U.S government? Errm, yep...sure.
No, that's an example of Americans being stupid and lazy, not unfree.
So when the question was posed to them they just made it up? And it's just a coincidence that 41% said Sadaam was responsible for 9/11? I'd have thought that if they were just plucking names out of thin air that Hugo Chavez would have got a look-in somewhere, or Colonel Qaddafi, or maybe even...Osama Bin Laden.
The reason can't possibly be that the U.S media helped sow the lie of Iraq & 9/11, now can it? :roll:
Of course it is. In the back of their McD's soaked brain, they remembered watching the news for about a week after 9/11 and swore they recalled something like that being said. And they regurgitated it. And yes, it got there because that's what Dubya said and thus what the media repeated.
HOWEVER... and here is the crucial difference that you will no doubt ignore because it proves you wrong and reveals your hypocrisy... many other news sources called the Iraq-9/11 thing for the bullshit it was. And we could READ those sources or watch coverage of it on youtube. In China, you cannot do that because the government has blocked access and censored that information. So don't talk to me about freedom. We have the options, we just don't always use them. China doesn't even give the option.
A significant number of Americans say Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.
That number rose above 50 percent in the run-up to the war in Iraq in 2003. While that belief has since declined somewhat, for many Americans it still exists. In the latest CBS News/New York Times Poll 33 percent said they believe Saddam was personally involved in the 9/11 attacks.
As has been repeated over and over, there was and is no evidence of any such link. So why do so many people believe something that just isn’t true?
One reason might be related to the amount of time a person spends following news, something related to education and gender. Forty-four percent of those with a high school education or less say Saddam was personally involved in 9/11, while just 20 percent of college graduates say so. Thirty-eight percent of women think he was part of the attack, compared with 27 percent of men.
Another reason could involve feelings about the Iraq war itself, and the importance of reducing cognitive dissonance. The Iraq War has become a partisan issue - three in four Republicans say going to war was the right thing to do, while three in four Democrats say it was not. Nearly half of those who now say the Iraq war was the right thing to do connect 9/11 with Saddam. Consequently, 40 percent of Republicans believe Saddam was involved in 9/11, while just 27 percent of Democrats do.
Bringing down Saddam remains the key accomplishment of the war, according to the public, and those who support the war are more likely to believe this and to credit Saddam with a role in 9/11. Doing so, after all, gives them another justification for the war they support. Opponents of the war don’t have the same reason to blame Saddam.
Making a link between terrorism in general and the war in Iraq also matters. Overall, Americans are more likely to say the war in Iraq is creating more terrorists who might attack the U.S. than to say it is eliminating terrorists. But among those who believe the U.S. is eliminating terrorists by fighting in Iraq, just about half (49 percent) believe that one of those terrorists was Saddam himself!
Among Republicans, blaming Saddam is also related to the vote choice of those who say they plan to participate in a Republican primary or caucus next year. Those who support Rudy Giuliani and Fred Thompson are more likely than those who support John McCain and Mitt Romney to link Saddam with 9/11.
But finally, the belief in what isn’t true brings us back to the quality of information - to where it comes from and how it is perceived. Norbert Schwarz, a psychology professor and researcher at the University of Michigan’s Institute for Social Research, has conducted research (reported in this Washington Post article) that suggests that some people who are told something is false may actually remember it as being true. He measured the misperception within 30 minutes of the receipt of the information, and found that misperceptions may actually become stronger over time.
LIMITED internet access... limited to sites that are government censored and approved.
Don't tell me what I should and should not be ashamed of. You should be ashamed of your blatant intellectual dishonesty... You defend the Chinese government, whose human rights record rivals Israel's and then you point the finger at me for not taking a stand?
You think that mainstream news media in the U.S isn't government censored and approved?
Intellectual dishonesty? Great, let's begin here then: Please point out one instance where I defended the Chinese government. Thanks, I'm waiting.
I was referring to your inability and refusal to answer a straight question. I point out that China has blocked access to any outside news sources... you ignore that and say "hey US mainstream media is selective too." That's intellectual dishonesty... that's trying to change the question because you know you're wrong. In the US, we have access to plenty of media outside the mainstream, China doesn't. But God knows you'd never admit that... it would mean you'd have to acknowledge that there are problems in the world outside the US and that maybe people in the US do have it a little bit better than other places.
and here is the crucial difference that you will no doubt ignore because it proves you wrong and reveals your hypocrisy... So don't talk to me about freedom. We have the options, we just don't always use them. China doesn't even give the option.
My hypocrisy? Your government, and media, routinely lie to you. Are you denying that?
The fact that some media outlets may have done an about-turn a year or two after the invasion/occupation of Iraq doesn't mean shit.
People in China also have options - and most people don't always use them. Youtube was first blocked about 3 weeks ago. But for everything else there's web-proxy's.
You think Americans are so much freer than people in other countries. I say bullshit.
I point out that China has blocked access to any outside news sources... you ignore that and say "hey US mainstream media is selective too." That's intellectual dishonesty
Actually, one common form of intellectual dishonesty is distorting what people actually said. For example, I didn't say "hey US mainstream media is selective too." I said something else. You're only able to argue by fudging the facts, and moving the goalposts. Still, everyone reading this has eyes to see quite clearly what you're up to, so keep going. It's amusing if nothing else.
Comments
And here I thought China was so much more free than the US... or so you tried to tell me a few months ago.
its not disputed, or up for grabs or anything like that.
land Israel is occupying outside the 67 borders is land it has taken with force.
Anyone at all serious about the issue agrees that the only plausible solution is for Israel to retreat to those borders. Its peace. Since they haven't agreed to the 67 borders, an agreement that all Arab countries including Hamas agreed to in a 2002 summit (think it was 02) tells me Israel's desire for land may be stronger than its desire for peace.
I can't see Youtube. I read another posters comments about your diversionary tactics - trying to deflect attention from the op's original subject by claiming that Palestinians use human shields.
Very lame.
They already have. The Palestinian leadership has already stated that it supports the international consensus of a two-state settlement along the June 1967 border - http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article9917.shtml
Meanwhile, the Israeli's continue with their familiar stalling tactics:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/ma ... peacetalks
Israel wants peace talks, Binyamin Netanyahu tells Barack Obama
• US president says Israel must honour commitments
• Prime minister counters that primary threat is Iran
* Chris McGreal in Washington
* guardian.co.uk, Monday 18 May 2009 22.09 BST
'Israel's prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, met President Barack Obama yesterday and said that he wants to begin immediate peace talks with the Palestinians aimed at self-government, but he stopped short of explicitly committing Israel to Palestinian independence.
At discussions in the White House expected to shape the direction of one of the toughest political challenges either leader will face, Obama said he told Netanyahu that the goal of "an extraordinary opportunity" for peace must be "allowing the Palestinians to govern themselves as an independent state".
The US president was expected to press Netanyahu to make an explicit commitment to that end at the talks but, whatever was said in private, the Israeli prime minister shied away in public.
"I want to start peace negotiations with the Palestinians immediately," he said. "I want to make it clear that we don't want to govern the Palestinians. We want to live in peace with them, we want them to govern themselves without [control over] a handful of powers that could endanger Israel. There'll have to be compromises by Israelis and Palestinians alike."
Obama said he was confident that Netanyahu "is going to seize this moment".
But Netanyahu's failure to speak of an independent state – instead talking of "an arrangement where Palestinians and Israelis live side by side in dignity, in security and in peace" – and his insistence that the Palestinians be denied certain powers, such as control over their own borders and airspace, is a reminder to Obama of the difficulties he is likely to face in dealing with Israel's well practised tactics of prevarication and obstruction.
The US president laid down a marker by which to judge Netanyahu's intent, in demanding that he fulfil previous commitments that successive Israeli governments have broken to halt the expansion of Jewish settlements in the occupied territories.
"Israel is going to have to take difficult steps," Obama said. "Settlements have to be stopped in order for us to move forward. That's a difficult issue, I recognise that. But it's an important one and it has to be addressed."
But Netanyahu offered no such commitment in public.
He said a precondition of any agreement is for the Palestinians to recognise Israel as a Jewish state, which Hamas has refused to do. That in turn is likely to mean that the Israelis will insist on negotiating only with Fatah, a move likely to deepen the divide in the Palestinian camp.
But Obama suggested that Hamas should be brought in to the talks, when he spoke about the failure of isolation in dealing not only with the Palestinian group but also Hezbollah and Iran.
Obama said Netanyahu had been "very vocal" in expressing his concerns about Iran developing a nuclear weapon, which the Israeli prime minister described as "the worst danger we face". He agreed that it should be prevented, but said that diplomacy not confrontation should be given a chance.
"Understand that part of the reason that it's so important for us to take a diplomatic approach is that the approach we've been taking, which is no diplomacy, obviously has not worked. Nobody disagrees with that. Hamas and Hezbollah have got stronger. Iran has been pursuing its nuclear capabilities undiminished. Not talking clearly hasn't worked," he said.
But he warned that talks should not become an excuse for inaction "while Iran proceeds with developing and deploying a nuclear weapon".
He said he would like to see progress by the end of the year and, if there is no change in Iran's position, he would consider a range of steps "including much stronger international sanctions".
"Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon would not only be a threat to Israel and to the United States, but would be profoundly destabilising in the international community as a whole and could set off a nuclear arms race in the Middle East that could be extraordinarily dangerous for all concerned, including for Iran," Obama said.
He said the settlement of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and the Iran nuclear issue had a bearing on each other. "To the extent we can make peace between the Palestinians and Israelis then it strengthens our hand in the international community in dealing with a potential Iranian nuclear threat."
Netanyahu agreed, but added that Iran developing a nuclear weapon would have a negative effect on the search for peace with the Palestinians.
Both agreed that the issues make it necessary to draw in other governments in the region.
Obama is likely to urge Arab states to recognise Israel as part of a package that would include its withdrawal, not only from the West Bank but also the Golan Heights, after they were captured from Syria in the 1967 war.
The Egyptian president, Hosni Mubarak, and the Palestinian leader, Mahmoud Abbas, are scheduled to meet Obama in Washington next week. In early June, Obama will travel to Cairo to deliver an address to the Islamic world.'
So according to Netanyahu the Palestinians have to to recognise Israel as a Jewish state. They are asking for the Palestinians and the rest of the world to accept ethnic nationalism and racism. They're asking for the 20% of Arab-Israeli's within Israel to formally accept being second class citizens.
Your failure - or is it refusal? - to see the bigger picture is the problem.
Firstly, Israel started the 1967 war, as I've shown time and again using quotations from the Israeli leadership.
Secondly, the land is not in dispute. I've already posted what the law states on this subject. You clearly ignored it. I'll post it again:
Resolution 242:
'Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in which every State in the area can live in security...
Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict..'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nat ... lution_242
'Lord Caradon, chief author of the resolution....[says] that the lack of a definite article is intended to deny permanence to the "unsatisfactory" pre-1967 border, rather than to allow Israel to retain land taken by force. Such a view would appear to allow for the possibility that the borders could be varied through negotiation:
'Knowing as I did the unsatisfactory nature of the 1967 line, I wasn’t prepared to use wording in the Resolution that would have made that line permanent. Nonetheless, it is necessary to say again that the overwhelming principle was the ‘inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war’ and that meant that there could be no justification for the annexation of territory on the Arab side of the 1967 line merely because it had been conquered in the 1967 war. The sensible way to decide permanent ‘secure and recognized’ boundaries would be to set up a Boundary Commission and hear both sides and then to make impartial recommendations for a new frontier line, bearing in mind, of course, the "inadmissibility" principle.[20] The purposes are perfectly clear, the principle is stated in the preamble, the necessity for withdrawal is stated in the operative section. And then the essential phrase which is not sufficiently recognized is that withdrawal should take place to secure and recognized boundaries, and these words were very carefully chosen: they have to be secure and they have to be recognized. They will not be secure unless they are recognized. And that is why one has to work for agreement. This is essential. I would defend absolutely what we did. It was not for us to lay down exactly where the border should be. I know the 1967 border very well. It is not a satisfactory border, it is where troops had to stop in 1948, just where they happened to be that night, that is not a permanent boundary...[21]'
I.e, the 67 border is a temporary border, and that therefore Israel ultimately needs to withdraw to the 1948 border or the 1949 armistice lines.
How are the Palestinians to blame for the occupation and the ongoing illegal settlement building?
You have a very short memory. I didn't say that China was more free than the U.S. I said that people live freer lives.
Still, the truth is I was exaggerating. People here are no more or no less free than people in the U.S. Both countries have their propaganda systems firmly in place, amongst other things.
YES IT IS DISPUTED. and the rest of your post is true. they want the land more then they want peace. when wars are fought, land changes hands. thats what happened.
people in the US are MUCH more free then you in China. you not being able to watch youtube is a perfect example.
no need for you cut and paste party. the land is in dispute. Israel wants and took it by force and Palestine wants it back. dispute.
and it doesnt matter who started the war in 1967. when wars are fought, most often, borders change as a result. that happened here. I'm not saying what is right and wrong, just that it happened. borders are always changing and this is one of those times.
LOL did I say they were?
Hamas is part of the blame for the ongoing problems in the region by their deliberate targeting of Israeli civilians. which of course is something you agree with so you still wont be able to place blame on them
Resolution 242:
'Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war ...'
The occupation is illegal. This is not disputed. Period.
Are you trying to justify the ethnic cleansing of Palestine?
I'll ask you again: Why are illegal Jewish-only settlements still being built? And how is Hamas - or Fatah, or the Al Asqa Brigades, or the PLO - responsible for the settlements?
And the Patriot Act in the U.S is a perfect example of how you are not free.
Also, the fact that 41% of Americans believe Sadaam Hussein was responsible for 9/11 is another example.
Yeah, don't know how I could have made that mistake :roll: I would say China's doing more than using propaganda, they shut down and outlaw anything that doesn't toe that party line. At least we have access to outside information.
Anyway, "exaggerating." Thanks. Exactly what I always knew. Not that that stopped you from trying to argue and rationalize it.
As to Hamas and Israel, fuck em both. Why we still send money over there boggles my mind. Let those fuckers blow each other to hell. When they learn to play like grown ups, we can start talking to them again.
I don't think he said we had no restrictions, he said China is worse. He's right. I love that you admit you were full of shit and exaggerating, and then immediately start trying to defend that nonsense again.
We have the Patriot Act. China has the patriot act, executions for violations of it, and a total ban on youtube and all other news sources that might make people aware of how they're being fucked. Yeah, we've got our shortcomings, but they pale in comparison to what goes on in China.
This is exactly why the situation over there is and will always be fucked. Nowhere did he ever say anything remotely like this here or anywhere else, and you know it.
If I stole $100 from you and you shot me, the fact that you shot me doesn't mean it was ok that I stole from you in the first place.
call it whatever you like. the land is in dispute. two parties want the same land.
no, I havent even come close to saying or implying that.. are you trying to justify Hamas killing and targeting Israeli civilians??
I NEVER SAID THEY ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE SETTLEMENTS. I made this bold and red so you understand.
Hamas is part of the ongoing problems by deliberately targeting Israeli civilians.
LOL yea ok. its fun to make up shit. fact is, you live in under a VERY restrictive government. quite sad how you actually support it.
I have some news for you: The Chinese have internet access too.
They have been blowing each other to hell, and with U.S support and encouragement. Israel's recent massacre in Gaza was given full support by the U.S government. You should be ashamed that your tax money contributed to the lives of over 400 Palestinian children being snuffed out.
No, that's an example of Americans being stupid and lazy, not unfree. They could find out otherwise if they cared. But they don't.
Firstly, what am I making up?
Secondly, what makes you think I support the Chinese government?
LIMITED internet access... limited to sites that are government censored and approved.
Don't tell me what I should and should not be ashamed of. You should be ashamed of your blatant intellectual dishonesty... You defend the Chinese government, whose human rights record rivals Israel's and then you point the finger at me for not taking a stand?
So when the question was posed to them they just made it up? And it's just a coincidence that 41% said Sadaam was responsible for 9/11? I'd have thought that if they were just plucking names out of thin air that Hugo Chavez would have got a look-in somewhere, or Colonel Qaddafi, or maybe even...Osama Bin Laden.
The reason can't possibly be that the U.S media helped sow the lie of Iraq & 9/11, now can it? :roll:
LOL yea ok. its fun to make up shit. fact is, you live in under a VERY restrictive government. quite sad how you actually support it.[/quote]
Firstly, what am I making up?[/quote]
patriot act does not make me less free. and 41% of Americans do not think Saddam was responsible for 9/11. go ahead have your little cut and paste party with links for 7 years ago when the Bush admin was pushing for ties between Saddam and El-queda. all of that has since been proven false and Americans now know this.
you live there, giving a significant portion of your paychecks to them. if you oppose the government, are you doing anything about it like protesting them for not allowing something as BASIC as access to a random website?
I didnt think so.
You think that mainstream news media in the U.S isn't government censored and approved?
Intellectual dishonesty? Great, let's begin here then: Please point out one instance where I defended the Chinese government. Thanks, I'm waiting.
You love making a fool of yourself don't you.
7 years ago you say? How about 2 years ago?
http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Poll_41_o ... _0624.html
Number of Americans who believe Saddam-9/11 tie rises to 41 percent
Josh Catone
Published: Sunday June 24, 2007
'A new Newsweek poll out this weekend exposed "gaps" in America's knowledge of history and current events.
Perhaps most alarmingly, 41% of Americans answered 'Yes' to the question "Do you think Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq was directly involved in planning, financing, or carrying out the terrorist attacks of September 11th, 2001?"
That total is actually up 5 points since September 2004.
Further, a majority of people couldn't identify Saudia Arabia as the country of origin of most of the 9/11 hijackers, even given the question in multiple choice format. 20% answered Iraq, while 14% believed the hijackers came from Iran...'
So I live here, therefore I support the government? And everyone who lives in the U.S supports the U.S government? Errm, yep...sure.
Of course it is. In the back of their McD's soaked brain, they remembered watching the news for about a week after 9/11 and swore they recalled something like that being said. And they regurgitated it. And yes, it got there because that's what Dubya said and thus what the media repeated.
HOWEVER... and here is the crucial difference that you will no doubt ignore because it proves you wrong and reveals your hypocrisy... many other news sources called the Iraq-9/11 thing for the bullshit it was. And we could READ those sources or watch coverage of it on youtube. In China, you cannot do that because the government has blocked access and censored that information. So don't talk to me about freedom. We have the options, we just don't always use them. China doesn't even give the option.
yea, you really got me. since this site is probably blocked in China, I'll cut and paste it for you.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/09/ ... 3552.shtml
Polls, Truth Sometimes At Odds
How can people believe something that isn’t true?
A significant number of Americans say Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.
That number rose above 50 percent in the run-up to the war in Iraq in 2003. While that belief has since declined somewhat, for many Americans it still exists. In the latest CBS News/New York Times Poll 33 percent said they believe Saddam was personally involved in the 9/11 attacks.
As has been repeated over and over, there was and is no evidence of any such link. So why do so many people believe something that just isn’t true?
One reason might be related to the amount of time a person spends following news, something related to education and gender. Forty-four percent of those with a high school education or less say Saddam was personally involved in 9/11, while just 20 percent of college graduates say so. Thirty-eight percent of women think he was part of the attack, compared with 27 percent of men.
Another reason could involve feelings about the Iraq war itself, and the importance of reducing cognitive dissonance. The Iraq War has become a partisan issue - three in four Republicans say going to war was the right thing to do, while three in four Democrats say it was not. Nearly half of those who now say the Iraq war was the right thing to do connect 9/11 with Saddam. Consequently, 40 percent of Republicans believe Saddam was involved in 9/11, while just 27 percent of Democrats do.
Bringing down Saddam remains the key accomplishment of the war, according to the public, and those who support the war are more likely to believe this and to credit Saddam with a role in 9/11. Doing so, after all, gives them another justification for the war they support. Opponents of the war don’t have the same reason to blame Saddam.
Making a link between terrorism in general and the war in Iraq also matters. Overall, Americans are more likely to say the war in Iraq is creating more terrorists who might attack the U.S. than to say it is eliminating terrorists. But among those who believe the U.S. is eliminating terrorists by fighting in Iraq, just about half (49 percent) believe that one of those terrorists was Saddam himself!
Among Republicans, blaming Saddam is also related to the vote choice of those who say they plan to participate in a Republican primary or caucus next year. Those who support Rudy Giuliani and Fred Thompson are more likely than those who support John McCain and Mitt Romney to link Saddam with 9/11.
But finally, the belief in what isn’t true brings us back to the quality of information - to where it comes from and how it is perceived. Norbert Schwarz, a psychology professor and researcher at the University of Michigan’s Institute for Social Research, has conducted research (reported in this Washington Post article) that suggests that some people who are told something is false may actually remember it as being true. He measured the misperception within 30 minutes of the receipt of the information, and found that misperceptions may actually become stronger over time.
I was referring to your inability and refusal to answer a straight question. I point out that China has blocked access to any outside news sources... you ignore that and say "hey US mainstream media is selective too." That's intellectual dishonesty... that's trying to change the question because you know you're wrong. In the US, we have access to plenty of media outside the mainstream, China doesn't. But God knows you'd never admit that... it would mean you'd have to acknowledge that there are problems in the world outside the US and that maybe people in the US do have it a little bit better than other places.
My hypocrisy? Your government, and media, routinely lie to you. Are you denying that?
The fact that some media outlets may have done an about-turn a year or two after the invasion/occupation of Iraq doesn't mean shit.
People in China also have options - and most people don't always use them. Youtube was first blocked about 3 weeks ago. But for everything else there's web-proxy's.
You think Americans are so much freer than people in other countries. I say bullshit.
What straight question? Go ahead and remind me.
Actually, one common form of intellectual dishonesty is distorting what people actually said. For example, I didn't say "hey US mainstream media is selective too." I said something else. You're only able to argue by fudging the facts, and moving the goalposts. Still, everyone reading this has eyes to see quite clearly what you're up to, so keep going. It's amusing if nothing else.