14
   

Would you support suspending aid to Israel and Palestine?

 
 
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Nov, 2009 09:20 pm
@panzade,
panzade wrote:

Quote:
And, I would not be surprised if after any cutting of diplomatic/economic tethers, the Arab states collectively send the message that if the U.S. has truly changed its thinking, in regards to Israel, then the U.S. must participate in its eventual dissolution as a Zionist state.


What are you smoking?


And, I would not be surprised if after any cutting of diplomatic/economic tethers, the Arab states collectively send the message that if the U.S. has truly changed its thinking, in regards to Israel, then the U.S. must participate in the eventual dissolution OF ISRAEL as a Zionist state.

[The above should clarify what I meant to say.]

It might not be farfetched in a future scenario, with Iran having nukes, in my opinion.
Robert Gentel
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Nov, 2009 01:13 pm
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:
It's not a tactic, and y0u have produced no evidence of this alleged "powerful" influence on the executive branch. Given that you have not, i have every reason to dismiss what appears to me to be your snotty reaction to being contradicted. I agreed with you that we should end this aid, as a salutary measure for a variety of reasons. Now, however, having been contradicted--something it appears irks you inordinately--you want to argue that the measure you called for yourself would have an appreciably adverse affect on any administration implementing the measure. Nonsense.


I don't mind being contradicted, and really have no interest in your pissing matches so I don't think this merits any further response.
Robert Gentel
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Nov, 2009 01:15 pm
@jjorge,
jjorge wrote:
Robert, I attended J Street's first annual Conference in D.C. October 25-28 and was very encouraged by it.


I was very pleasantly surprised by J Street's appearance on the scene. About time!
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Nov, 2009 01:44 pm
@Robert Gentel,
If you don't mind being contradicted (and, in fact, i contradicted Mr. Bush's contention), then why did you start the pissing match? It's your pissing match, because you needn't have replied to my post in the first place.

You claimed that i was insisting that i be believed simply because it was i who was speaking. But that's not true, i provided a source for my claim about Jewish American voting. It seems to me that you are the one who is expecting to be believed simply because it was you who was speaking--just as you are the one who made this a pissing match, not me.
0 Replies
 
panzade
 
  2  
Reply Fri 13 Nov, 2009 03:31 pm
@Foofie,
Quote:
It might not be farfetched in a future scenario, with Iran having nukes, in my opinion.


again...I ask you. What kind of weed are you smoking?

The single most powerful deterrent to Iran's nuclear arms usage is the state of nuclear ready Israel. Why would the US even consider participating in its dissolution.
jjorge
 
  2  
Reply Fri 13 Nov, 2009 05:14 pm
@panzade,
I concur with panzade. With all the talk of Iran as an existential threat, the so-called pundits seldom bring up Israel's nuclear deterrent --estimated to be about 200 nukes. Israel has the capacity to obliterate Iran and the Iranians know it.

Israel does not officially acknowledge their nukes and they are a bit of an embarrassment for the U.S.
[ because we have jaw-boned and threatened every OTHER country that aspired to have nukes except Israel!]
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Nov, 2009 06:07 pm
@panzade,
panzade wrote:

Quote:
It might not be farfetched in a future scenario, with Iran having nukes, in my opinion.


again...I ask you. What kind of weed are you smoking?

The single most powerful deterrent to Iran's nuclear arms usage is the state of nuclear ready Israel. Why would the US even consider participating in its dissolution.


Since you choose to preface your question with the offensive question about "weed," I will not answer your question. Be civil, and I will be civil also.

The question about "weed" is offensive, because the question implies I could be the type of person that would smoke "weed." I find that offensive, since I do not associate with those that do smoke "weed." You might think it was just acceptable repartee; however, you might need to learn that the world does not all subscribe to your mode of communicating.

0 Replies
 
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Nov, 2009 06:20 pm
@jjorge,
jjorge wrote:

I concur with panzade. With all the talk of Iran as an existential threat, the so-called pundits seldom bring up Israel's nuclear deterrent --estimated to be about 200 nukes. Israel has the capacity to obliterate Iran and the Iranians know it.

Israel does not officially acknowledge their nukes and they are a bit of an embarrassment for the U.S.
[ because we have jaw-boned and threatened every OTHER country that aspired to have nukes except Israel!]


I believe, you have then made a good case for why the Arabs would want the U.S. to prove its changed diplomatic relationship with Israel. In effect, no Zionist state, and all those nukes in Israel would be disarmed. Then Iran could be dealt with by others, as a threat to peace in the region.

If the U.S. offered residency to Israelis and Palestineans, would there be a rush to the U.S.? In effect, Israel could lose a percentage of its Jewish population, and then live in a scaled down version of its current land? The Palestineans too might even think that a token state, with many Palestineans living in the U.S. is a better Christmas present than the current lump of coal they now have.

Not that I would want to see Israel dissolve. However, I am a realist, and I am not convinced that the U.S. historical feelings towards Israel would be like the Rock of Gibralter, under a voting public in the U.S. that has less and less regard for Israel's existence. I say that in context of the likely changing demographics in the U.S. that will include many new citizens that previously were here illegally.

jjorge
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Nov, 2009 08:08 pm
@Foofie,
foofie wrote:

"I believe, you have then made a good case for why the Arabs would want the U.S. to prove its changed diplomatic relationship with Israel. In effect, no Zionist state, and all those nukes in Israel would be disarmed. Then Iran could be dealt with by others, as a threat to peace in the region. "

I don't think so, Foofie. The scenario you describe seems extremely unlikely.
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Nov, 2009 08:12 am
@jjorge,
jjorge wrote:

foofie wrote:

"I believe, you have then made a good case for why the Arabs would want the U.S. to prove its changed diplomatic relationship with Israel. In effect, no Zionist state, and all those nukes in Israel would be disarmed. Then Iran could be dealt with by others, as a threat to peace in the region. "

I don't think so, Foofie. The scenario you describe seems extremely unlikely.


O.K.; your opinion is correct, and my opinion is wrong.
jjorge
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Nov, 2009 08:39 am
@Foofie,
They are both opinions Foofie. We have no certitude on these things.
0 Replies
 
engineer
 
  4  
Reply Sat 14 Nov, 2009 09:34 am
@Foofie,
I think you are confusing encouraging Israel to escape its self made trap with Arab appeasement. Like any good friend, the US needs to tell it straight to Israel. Continuing to turn a blind eye to what settlers are doing in the occupied territories or even encouraging it is hurting Israel internationally and crushing it morally. If the people of Israel really want to lead a happy life in peace, they will need to bring their occupation of Palestine to a conclusion. It has nothing to do with what Arab states want or a desire for better Arab relations.
jjorge
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Nov, 2009 11:20 am
@engineer,
Bien dicho!
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Tue 27 Apr, 2010 02:21 am
@Robert Gentel,
Robert Gentel wrote:
This is something that I've wanted to see many times in recent history. Israeli and Palestinian leaders persist in such stupidity, and stupidity that is against their own self-interests (not to mention America's) that I have long wished that we'd cut them both off and put real pressure on them to find a viable solution. I always saw it as a non-starter though, what with the very strong Israeli lobby in Washington, but recently more prominent journalists have been calling for it and I think the current economic climate might actually bring it within the realm of possibility.


If Israel had less military strength they would have to regularly demolish their neighbors to ensure that their neighbors also had less strength.

If anyone ever did manage to overcome Israel's military, Israel would fire a volley of atomic artillery shells at the invading army. Israel doesn't keep a battery of 8-inch artillery in perfect working order for nothing.




Robert Gentel wrote:
Abbas' ridiculous posturing about refusing to negotiate has a legitimate gripe behind it: Israel currently has no real intention of making a real peace, but at the same time the Palestinian position does nothing at all to advance their interests. It is in their interest more so than Israel's to advance the negotiations.


Not so legitimate. It is true that Likud isn't all that interested in peace, but the only reason Likud is in power right now is the Israeli voters remember what the Palestinians did the last time Israel tried to make peace.

The day you see the Israeli voters convinced that if they support peace, they'll be treated fairly and will not be murdered for their trouble, a Labor government will be elected to power.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  2  
Reply Tue 27 Apr, 2010 02:30 am
@Robert Gentel,
Robert Gentel wrote:
Instead of Likud driving Israel off a cliff I'd like to see Kadima.


That surprises me. Instead of negotiating with the Palestinians, Kadima wants to unilaterally draw Israels borders (so that Israel gets all of Jerusalem).

I like Kadima too. I thought you'd be more in favor of Labor and their dreams of negotiating peace with the Palestinians.
Foofie
 
  0  
Reply Tue 27 Apr, 2010 05:10 am
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:

Robert Gentel wrote:
Instead of Likud driving Israel off a cliff I'd like to see Kadima.


That surprises me. Instead of negotiating with the Palestinians, Kadima wants to unilaterally draw Israels borders (so that Israel gets all of Jerusalem).

I like Kadima too. I thought you'd be more in favor of Labor and their dreams of negotiating peace with the Palestinians.


Israel already has all of Jerusalem. Sort of like the U.S. already has California.
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Apr, 2010 05:28 am
@Foofie,
Foofie wrote:
oralloy wrote:
Robert Gentel wrote:
Instead of Likud driving Israel off a cliff I'd like to see Kadima.


That surprises me. Instead of negotiating with the Palestinians, Kadima wants to unilaterally draw Israels borders (so that Israel gets all of Jerusalem).

I like Kadima too. I thought you'd be more in favor of Labor and their dreams of negotiating peace with the Palestinians.


Israel already has all of Jerusalem. Sort of like the U.S. already has California.


Labor would negotiate a deal with the Palestinians that would give them East Jerusalem as their capital.

Kadima would just draw the borders so that the Palestinians got none of Jerusalem, and then would impose the borders unilaterally without negotiating.
0 Replies
 
jjorge
 
  2  
Reply Tue 27 Apr, 2010 08:26 am
for a perspective that is both Pro-Israel and Pro-peace, AND favors a just settlement with the Palestinians, take a look at J Street:
www.jstreet.org
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Apr, 2010 07:47 pm
@jjorge,
jjorge wrote:
for a perspective that is both Pro-Israel and Pro-peace, AND favors a just settlement with the Palestinians, take a look at J Street:
www.jstreet.org


My understanding is that J Street supports the Goldstone report, which is nothing but a series of outright lies about Israel.

And it also looks like they support the Obama attempt to depart from the Roadmap and give Israel an unfair deal.

I don't think they are nearly as pro-Israel or pro-just-settlement as they claim.
0 Replies
 
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 May, 2011 03:41 pm
Israel is a state founded on terrorism. They repaid the liberation of Belsen by the British with the murder and bombing of our soldiers. Since then they've continued to terrorise their neighbours, lanching missiles, commando raids and wars without any respect for international law. Israel is not, and never has been interested in peace. Israel is interested in land. The recent disclosures show a supine Palestinian authority bending over backwards with concessions, and an intransigent Israel.

Israel was the sole voice shouting out in favour of Mubarak. Israel talks loudly about being the voice of democracy whilst bombing and invading the only two other democracies, Lebanon, and Palestine.

Israel has a right to exist. It does not have the right to occupy and brutally suppress the Paletinian people. What is going on in Palstine is far more brutal than anything happening in Tibet. The Americans have little influence over China but a great deal over Israel and could stop it right now. There will never be peace in the middle east and there will always be the threat of Islamic terrorism in the wider world as long as the Israeli tail wags the American dog. America needs to stop all aid now until the illegal settlements are dismantled and Israel goes back to its 1967 borders.

Unfortunately that's not going to happen, so the only thing that can be done realistically is to join the Israeli boycott. I refuse to buy anything from Israel. Usually, oranges, avocado and red peppers. If I can't get them from somewhere else I do without. I go out of my way to buy Palestinian olive oil, about the only Palestinian product available in the West, and I've joined the Palestinian solidarity movement.
 

Related Topics

Israel's Reality - Discussion by Miller
THE WAR IN GAZA - Discussion by Advocate
Israel's Shame - Discussion by BigEgo
Eye On Israel/Palestine - Discussion by IronLionZion
 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/21/2019 at 02:30:23