@Lash,
Obama has become an embarrassment... the nation looks forward to his departure.
@Irishk,
And...he should know better!
@georgeob1,
georgeob1 wrote:
Helen Thomas is the daughter of Lebanese immigrants, and that may color her views with respect to Palestine. She has long been an aggressive and sometimes controversial reporte, and has offended self important political figures of the left and right many times over the years. I find her abrupt dismissal for merely stating an honest opinion about a topical and important political matter exceedingly hypocritical, and suggestive of an idiotic and increasingly oppressive orthodoxy of political correctitude. Certainly the current Administration, given the President's apologies to Islam accompanied by widespread ass (and hand) kissing around the Arab world, is far more a threat to Israel than poor old Helen's comment. Their scolding of her was hypocritical in the extreme.
I'd like to hear what she thinks of Ms Kagen
@Miller,
When I see the words "embarrassment to the U.S." the first name that pops into my head is Bush Jr.
@rabel22,
I think he has the trademark on it and on "Mission Accomplished".
Joe(we are all DixieChicks now)Nation
@JTT,
JTT wrote:
Quote:Are you forgetting that Israel exists as a nation state specifically because, after WWII, all other countries did not want the survivors of the Final Solution in their backyard?
Hardly a sound plan upon which a nation should be founded, especially when one considers that you steal others lands to do so.
Quote:Not all Jews in the world want to spend their one existence living amongst loving Gentiles. Just like many Gentiles do not want to spend their one existence living amongst loving Jews. Not everyone is cosmopolitan.
There are only what, 7 and a half million Jews in Israel. The USA and Gt Britain could easily absorb those numbers. Finn would have no problem giving up his land and house. I personally have no problem living amongst Jews.
I have a suggestion; perhaps, novel. All peace efforts have so far been based on sides giving up land. Now what if people's faiths were given up as compensation for lost land. I say this since I recently read (who knows how true?) that if there was no Final Solution (the Holocaust was 12 million people - Jews and Gentiles) there would be approximately 32 million Jewish people in the world today (rather than 14 million). O.K., land somewhere is set aside for Jews, and an equal number of Gentiles volunteer to convert to Judaism and raise their children as Jewish.
Since Jews were never involved in becoming a "majority" anywhere, perhaps each convert should not just be counted as "1 convert." Perhaps, one Episcopalean or Presbyterian would count as "two converts." Roman Catholics would count as one convert, unless the individual had 16 years of parochial school education; then they can be counted as three converts. Being Jewish myself, I believe the Jewish culture values "quality" over "quantity," and therefore, a one to one paradigm may not be called for?
But anyway, "land for peace" may have been the wrong direction all along. "Converts for peace" might be a better solution, since it is that "minority" identity of many Jews that make them feel the need for a homeland (as a safe haven).
There could even be a Conversion Telethon. Individuals can call up and pledge their own conversion and willing members of their families. Tote boards can show how many converts were pledged from different faiths.
Oh yes. I do think it ethical that all converts come from families that historically were Christian, since we all know the Jews were fair game for the Nazis, only because of two-thousand years of European Christian anti-Semitism. Fair is fair, or what goes around comes around.
@rabel22,
rabel22 wrote:
When I see the words "embarrassment to the U.S." the first name that pops into my head is Bush Jr.
I'm inclined to think of John Winthrop 1588 - 1649, as the"embarrassment to the U.S." just as I'm inclined to think of Plato as the "embarrassment of western civilization",
@dyslexia,
rabel22 wrote:When I see the words "embarrassment to the U.S." the first name that pops into my head is Bush Jr.
dyslexia wrote:I'm inclined to think of John Winthrop 1588 - 1649, as the "embarrassment to the U.S." just as I'm inclined to think of Plato as the "embarrassment of western civilization",
The US did not exist in 1649; nor in 1588, either.
@Foofie,
Quote:I have a suggestion; perhaps, novel. All peace efforts have so far been based on sides giving up land.
Islam isn't about wanting one or two small pieces of land; they want the planet, including wherever you happen to be and including you.
Try reading Mark Twain's accounts of his travels in the Holy Land 130 years back or thereabouts. he describes the entire territory as ghost land, there was nobody living there, fewer people in and around Jerusalem than in Dodge City after it became a ghost town.
There cannot be more than five or ten of these palisavages with any family history of living in or around Israel for more than about 100 years.
going back to europe sounds great to me, who'd want to live in the middle east anyway, first off, it's too hot and second it's full of foreign people
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:
rabel22 wrote:When I see the words "embarrassment to the U.S." the first name that pops into my head is Bush Jr.
dyslexia wrote:I'm inclined to think of John Winthrop 1588 - 1649, as the "embarrassment to the U.S." just as I'm inclined to think of Plato as the "embarrassment of western civilization",
The US did not exist in 1649; nor in 1588, either.
I just can't slip one by you David. You really stay on top of history.
Israel was created within specified land boundries. Israel expanded their land boundries via war victory lands taken from parts of historic Muslim Palestine decades ago.
It is clear that the Netanyahu's religious far right Likud Party's goal is to create an expanded Jewish State based on denying non-Jews to live or own property within it's permamently expanded borders. The Muslim threat Israel claims is a result of it's theft of historic Muslim Palestine land. Israel fears the higher Muslim birth rate would result in being out-numbered by Muslims.
Likud has created excelerated conflict and attacts each time it appears the Two State solution appears to be gaining possibility. If Israel doesn't create the conflict, Palestine's more powerful Amas Party will. Both parties are extreme right parties. Neither of them want a two state solution.
American Jews about the Jewish/Muslim conflict varies widely. My many political liberal and moderate Jewish friends in California were opposed to the Likud party's goals. They believe Israel created the Muslim threats to them. The ultra religious conservative Jews agree with Likud.
BBB
FROM WIKIPEDIA
Palestinian policy
Likud has in the past espoused hawkish policies towards the Palestinians, including opposition to Palestinian statehood and support of Israeli settlements in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. However, it has also been the party which carried out the first peace agreements with Arab states. For instance, in 1979, Likud Prime Minister, Menachem Begin, signed the Camp David Accords with Egyptian President Anwar al-Sadat, which returned the Sinai Peninsula (occupied by Israel in the Six-Day War of 1967) to Egypt in return for peace between the two countries. Yitzhak Shamir was the first Israeli Prime Minister to meet Palestinian leaders at the Madrid Conference following the Persian Gulf War in 1991. However, Shamir refused to concede the idea of a Palestinian state, and as a result was blamed by some (including United States Secretary of State James Baker) for the failure of the summit. Later, as Prime Minister, Netanyahu restated Likud's position of opposing Palestinian statehood, which after the Oslo Accords was largely accepted by the opposition Labor Party, even though the shape of any such state was not clear.
In 2002, during the Second Intifada, Israel's Likud-led government reoccupied Palestinian towns and refugee camps in the West Bank. In 2005 Ariel Sharon defied the recent tendencies of Likud and abandoned the "Greater Israel" policy of seeking to settle in the West Bank and Gaza. Though re-elected Prime Minister on a platform of no unilateral withdrawals, Sharon carried out the Israeli unilateral disengagement plan, withdrawing from the Gaza Strip and demolishing the Israeli settlements there, as well as four settlements in the northern West Bank. Though losing a referendum among Likud registered voters, Sharon achieved government approval of this policy by firing most of the cabinet members who opposed the plan before the vote.
Sharon and the faction who supported his disengagement proposals left the Likud party after the disengagement and created the new Kadima party. This new party supported unilateral disengagement from most of the West Bank and the fixing of borders by the Israeli West Bank barrier. The basic premise of the policy was that the Israelis have no viable negotiating partner on the Palestinian side, and since they cannot remain in indefinite occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, Israel should unilaterally withdraw.
Netanyahu, who was elected as the new leader of Likud after Kadima's creation, and Silvan Shalom, the runner-up, both supported the disengagement plan, however Netanyahu resigned his ministerial post before the plan was executed. Most current Likud members support the Jewish settlements in the West Bank and oppose Palestinian statehood and the disengagement from Gaza.
Likud charter
The 1999 Likud charter emphasized the right of settlement in "Judea, Samaria and Azzah" (also known as the "West Bank" and Gaza),"[8] and as such, brings it into direct conflict with Palestinian claims on the same territory. Similarly, their claims of the Jordan River as the permanent eastern border to Israel and Jerusalem as "the eternal, united capital of the State of Israel and only of Israel," do the same.
The 'Peace & Security' chapter of the 1999 Likud Party platform “flatly rejects the establishment of a Palestinian Arab state west of the Jordan river.” The chapter continued: “The Palestinians can run their lives freely in the framework of self-rule, but not as an independent and sovereign state.”[8]
With Likud back in power, starting in 2009, Israeli foreign policy is still under review. Likud leader Benjamin Netanyahu, in his "National Security" platform, neither endorsed nor ruled out the idea of a Palestinian state.[9] "Netanyahu has hinted that he does not oppose the creation of a Palestinian state, but aides say he must move cautiously because his religious-nationalist coalition partners refuse to give away land."
In June 2009 Netanyahu outlined his conditions for the eventual creation of a Palestinian state, including the state being demilitarized, without an army or control of their airspace.
Anti-Arab statements by Likud members
In February 2004 Likud member and deputy defense minister Ze'ev Boim, speaking at a memorial ceremony, said "What is it about Islam as a whole and the Palestinians in particular? Is it some form of cultural deprivation? Is it some genetic defect? There is something that defies explanation in this continued murderousness." In a comment, Likud member of Knesset Yehiel Hazan supported Boim's statements: "I think this it is in their blood. It is something genetic. I have not researched this, but there is no other way to explain this,". He added "Don't believe an Arab, even one who has been in the grave for 40 years."
In remarks at the Knesset in December 2004, Likud member Yehiel Hazan repeatedly likened Palestinians to "worms" and stated that the Palestinians are a nation of "murderers" and "terrorists."
In a New Yorker magazine interview Moshe Feiglin, leader of the right wing Manhigut Yehudit faction of the Likud Central Committee, is quoted saying “You can’t teach a monkey to speak and you can’t teach an Arab to be democratic. You’re dealing with a culture of thieves and robbers. Muhammad, their prophet, was a robber and a killer and a liar. The Arab destroys everything he touches.”
Culture
Zeev JabotinskyLikud promotes a revival of Jewish culture, in keeping with the principles of Revisionist Zionism.
Likud emphasizes such Israeli nationalist themes as the use of the Israeli flag and the victory in the 1948 Arab-Israeli war. Likud publicly endorses press freedom and promotion of private sector media, which has grown markedly under governments Likud has led. A Likud government headed by Ariel Sharon, however, closed the popular right-wing pirate radio station Arutz 7 ("Channel 7). Arutz 7 was popular with the Jewish settler movement and often criticised the government from a right-wing perspective.
Historically, the Likud and its pre-1948 predecessor, the Revisionist movement advocated secular nationalism. However, the Likud's first Prime Minister and long-time leader Menahem Begin, though secular himself, cultivated a warm attitude to Jewish tradition and appreciation for traditionally religious Jews--especially from North Africa and the Middle East. This segment of the Israeli population first brought the Likud to power in 1977. Many Orthodox Israelis find the Likud a more congenial party than any other mainstream party.
History of Likud
Likud has its roots in Irgun, a militant group operating in British Mandate Palestine. The military wing of Irgun was co-opted into the Israeli Defence Forces at Israel's foundation, while the political wing became Herut and eventually Likud. Over the years it has undergone an evolution into a more pragmatic party. Likud leader Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has announced his party is committed to a "full peace" with the Palestinians, though he is still under international pressure to explicitly endorse a Palestinian state.
I just realized I mis-spelled Hamas above - oops.
WIKIPEDIA Hamas history for it's side of the conflict.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas
@BumbleBeeBoogie,
BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:
I just realized I mis-spelled Hamas
HAMAS "Islamic Resistance Movement" = TERRORIST
Let Likud and Hamas fight to the death without nuclear weapons in prison cells.
Why does Helen hate Jews?
@H2O MAN,
Quote:HAMAS "Islamic Resistance Movement" = TERRORIST
You really ought not to be casting aspersions upon others when your country, the ole US of A, is the top terrorist state in the world. You could take every Islamic Resistance Movement, combine them all together and their actions wouldn't amount to one tenth the terrorist actions propagated by the US. Hell, the USA has even tested biological weapons on its own citizens.
@JTT,
You really ought not to be casting aspersions upon others.
@H2O MAN,
Interesting interview with Helen Thomas in the current issue of
Vice. It's an odd place to find old Helen, and the interview was done in March, before her recent comments.
http://www.viceland.com/int/v17n6/htdocs/helen-thomas-517.php?page=1
