11
   

Why There Cannot Be Peace Between Israel and the Palestinians

 
 
Setanta
 
  3  
Reply Sat 1 Dec, 2012 04:01 am
@oralloy,
You say that it's all in the past now, and yet claim the Jews retained title to the land after being absent for almost 2000 years. You really are blinded by polemic. The 1967 borders have nothing to do with it. GA Resolution 181 called for a customs and economic union of Jews and Arabs, the Israelis have never complied, and they began driving those people off their land in 1947, not 1967. You only see what you want to see, and what you see is only what conforms to the polemic you have adopted.
BillRM
 
  -2  
Reply Sat 1 Dec, 2012 07:02 am
@reasoning logic,
Quote:
OK so there are a lot of extremest in Palestine, Should we stereotype them all in this way?


Their so call government is paying rewards to the families of suicide bombers who are killing women and children and showing TV programs to young children in how wonderful such behaviors happen to be!!!!!!!!!!

So that is the kind of people you think anyone can make peace with???????
reasoning logic
 
  2  
Reply Sat 1 Dec, 2012 08:00 am
@BillRM,
Quote:
So that is the kind of people you think anyone can make peace with???????


It hard to believe isn't it? Do you think that it could be possible for a country to make peace with another country that dropped 2 nuclear bombs on them?
BillRM
 
  0  
Reply Sat 1 Dec, 2012 08:18 am
@reasoning logic,
Quote:
could be possible for a country to make peace with another country that dropped 2 nuclear bombs on them?


LOL .......... the choices were for the Japanese to be wiped out completely or to surrender and it is Israel who in the middle that are the local nuclear arm superpower not the Palestinians thank god.

It is the Israel who have the power to wiped the Palestinians off the face of the planet not the other way around.

Oh the Japanese was doing the same kind of nonsense as the Palestinians in trying to talk their people into resisting the Americans with boom sticks and kids carrying bombs on their backs.

Tell me if the murderers that are in control of the Palestinians were given the power to wiped out the Israel people how many minutes do you think it would take then to push the button?

Sorry it would be more like seconds........not minutes.
reasoning logic
 
  1  
Reply Sat 1 Dec, 2012 08:33 am
@BillRM,
Quote:
It is the Israel who have the power to wiped the Palestinians off the face of the planet not the other way around.


Do you think that there would be more peace if the Palestinians had the same power? Do you think that both parties might try a little harder to work something out?

Quote:
Tell me if the murderers that are in control of the Palestinians were given the power to wiped out the Israel people how many minutes do you think it would take then to push the button?


Under the current conditions this is probably true.
BillRM
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 1 Dec, 2012 09:14 am
@reasoning logic,
Quote:
Do you think that there would be more peace if the Palestinians had the same power? Do you think that both parties might try a little harder to work something out?


The Palestinians leadership are using children TV to try to indoctrinated their own children to be suicide bombers so somehow I have zero faith in them acting in a rational/sane manner any more then they have in the past no matter what the balance of power happen to be any more then would had the Japanese if they had been on a more equal footing with the allies during WW2.
reasoning logic
 
  1  
Reply Sat 1 Dec, 2012 09:36 am
@BillRM,

'Palestine can now sue Israel for illegal occupation?


JTT
 
  2  
Reply Sat 1 Dec, 2012 10:23 am
@BillRM,
Quote:
Their so call government is paying rewards to the families of suicide bombers who are killing women and children and showing TV programs to young children in how wonderful such behaviors happen to be!!!!!!!!!!

So that is the kind of people you think anyone can make peace with???????


That is precisely the same type of propaganda that the US is subjected to, Bill. And you're so dumb you don't even realize it.

Quote:


The Church committee found that the CIA had co-opted several hundred journalists, including some of the biggest names in the business. The latest flap or scandal we had about that was a year and a half ago. Lesley Gelb, the heavyweight with the New York Times, was exposed for having
been working covertly with the CIA in 1978 to recruit journalists in Europe, who would introduce stories, print stories that would create sympathy for the neutron bomb.

The Church committee found that they had published over 1,000 books, paying someone to write a book, the CIA puts its propaganda lines in it, the professor or the scholar gets credit for the book and gets the royalties. The latest flap we had about that was last year. A professor at Harvard was exposed for accepting 105,000 dollars from the CIA to write a book about the Middle East. Several thousand professors and graduate students co-opted by the CIA to run its operations on campuses and build files on students.

And then we have evidence - now, which has been hard to collect in the past but we knew it was happening - of CIA agents participating, trying to manipulate, our elections. FDN, Contra commanders, traveling this country on CIA plane tickets, going on television and pin-pointing a Congressional and saying, `That man is soft on Communism. That man is a Sandinista lover.' A CIA agent going on television, trying to manipulate our elections.

All of this, to keep America safe for freedom and democracy.

In Nicaragua the objective is to stop the Cuban and Soviet take-over, we say. Another big operation in which we said the same thing was Angola, 1975, my little war. We were saying exactly the same thing - Cubans and Soviets.

Now I will not going into great detail about this one tonight because I wrote a book about it, I detailed it. And you can get a copy of that book and read it for yourselves. I have to urge you, however - please do not rush out and buy a copy of that book because the CIA sued me. All of my profits go to the CIA, so if you buy a copy of the book you'll be donating 65 cents to the CIA. So check it out from your library!

If you have to buy a copy, well buy one copy and share it with all your friends. If your bookstore is doing real well and you want to just sort of put a copy down in your belt...

I don't know what the solution is when a society gets into censorship, government censorship, but that's what we're in now. Do the rules change? I just got my book back, my latest book back from the CIA censors. If I had not submitted it to them, I would have gone to jail, without trial - blow off juries and all that sort of thing - for having violated our censorship laws....

So now we have the CIA running the operation in Nicaragua, lying to us, running 50 covert actions, and gearing us up for our next war, the Central American war. Let there be no doubt about it, President Reagan has a fixation on Nicaragua. He came into office saying that we shouldn't be afraid of war, saying we have to face and erase the scars of the Vietnam war. He said in 1983, `We will do whatever is necessary to defeat the Sandinistas. Admiral LaRoque, at the Center for Defense Information in Washington, says this is the most elaborately prepared invasion that the U.S. has ever done. At least that he's witnessed in his 40 years of association with our military.

We have rehearsed the invasion of Nicaragua in operations Big Pine I, Big Pine II, Ocean Venture, Grenada, Big Pine III. We have troops right now in Honduras preparing. We've built 12 bases, including 8 airstrips. Obviously we don't need 8 airstrips in Honduras for any purpose, except to support the invasion of Nicaragua. We've built radar stations around, to survey and watch. Some of these ventures have been huge ones. Hundreds of airplanes, 30,000 troops, rehearsing
the invasion of Nicaragua.

And of course, Americans are being given this negative view of these evil Communist dictators in Managua, just two days drive from Harlington, Texas. (They drive faster than I do by the way). I saw an ad on TV just two days ago in which they said that it was just two hours from Managua to Texas. All of this getting us ready for the invasion of Nicaragua, for our next war.

Most of the people - 75% of the people - are polled as being against this action. However, President Eisenhower said, `The people of the world genuinely want peace. Someday the leadership of the world are going to have to give in and give it to them'. But to date, the leaders never have, they've always been able to outwit the people, us, and get us into the wars when they've chosen to do so.

People ask, how is this possible? I get this all the time.... Americans are decent people. They are nice people. And they're insulated in the worlds that they live in, and they don't understand
and we don't read our history. History is the history of war. Of leaders of countries finding reasons and rationales to send the young men off to fight.

In our country we talk about peace. But look at our own record. We have over 200 incidents in which we put our troops into other countries to force them to our will. Now we're being prepared to hate the Sandinistas. The leaders are doing exactly what they have done time and again throughout history. In the past we were taught to hate and fight the Seminole Indians, after the leaders decided to annex Florida. To hate and fight the Cherokee Indians after they found gold
in Georgia. To hate and fight Mexico twice. We annexed Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, part of Colorado, and California.

In each of these wars the leaders have worked to organize, to orchestrate public opinion. And then when they got people worked up, they had a trigger that would flash, that would make people angry enough that we could go in and do....

We have a feeling that the Vietnam war was the first one in which the people resisted. But once again, we haven't read our history. Kate Richards-O'Hare. In 1915, she said about WW I, `The Women of the U.S. are nothing but brutesalles, producing sons to be put in the army, to be made into fertilizer'. She was jailed for 5 years for anti-war talk.

The lessons of the Vietnam war for the American people is that it was a tragic mistake.... 58,000 of our own young people were killed, 2 million Vietnamese were killed. We withdrew, and our position wound up actually stronger in the Pacific basin.

You look around this society today to see if there's any evidence of our preparations for war, and it hits you in the face....

'Join the Army. Be all that you can be'. Now if there was truth in advertising, obviously those commercials would show a few seconds of young men with their legs blown off at the knees, young men with their intestines wrapped around their necks because that's what war is really all about.

If there was honesty on the part of the army and the government, they would tell about the Vietnam veterans. More of whom died violent deaths from suicide after they came back from Vietnam then died in the fighting itself.

Then you have President Reagan.... He talks about the glory of war, but you have to ask yourself, where was he when wars were being fought that he was young enough to fight in them? World War II, and the Korean war. Where he was was in Hollywood, making films, where the blood was catsup, and you could wash it off and go out to dinner afterwards....

Where was Gordon Liddy when he was young enough to go and fight in a war? He was hiding out in the U.S. running sloppy, illegal, un-professional breaking and entering operations. Now you'll forgive my egotism, at that time I was running professional breaking and entering operations....

What about Rambo himself? Sylvester Stallone. Where was Sylvester Stallone during the Vietnam war? He got a draft deferment for a physical disability, and taught physical education in a girls' school in Switzerland during the war.

Getting back to President Reagan. He really did say that `you can always call cruise missiles back'.... Now, you can call back a B-52, and you can call back a submarine, but a cruise missile is different.... When it lands, it goes boom!. And I would prefer that the man with the finger on the button could understand the difference. This is the man that calls the MX a peace-maker. This is the man who's gone on television and told us that nuclear war could be winnable. This is the man who's gone on television and proposed that we might want to drop demonstration [atom] bombs in Europe to show people that we're serious people. This is the man who likens the Contras to the moral equivalents of our own founding fathers. This is the man who says South Africa is making progress on racial equality. This is the man who says that the Sandinistas are hunting down and hounding and persecuting Jews in Nicaragua. And the Jewish leaders go on TV the next day in this country and say there are 5 Jewish families in Nicaragua, and they're not having any problems at all. This is the man who says that they're financing their revolution by smuggling drugs into the U.S. And the DEA says, `It ain't true, it's president Reagan's Contras that are doing it'....

[When Reagan was governor of California, Reagan] said `If there has to be a bloodbath then let's get it over with'. Now you have to think about this a minute. A leader of the U.S. seriously proposing a bloodbath of our own youth. There was an outcry of the press, so 3 days later he said it again to make sure no one had misunderstood him.


http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Stockwell/StockwellCIA87_2.html



BillRM
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 1 Dec, 2012 11:11 am
@reasoning logic,
Quote:
'Palestine can now sue Israel for illegal occupation?


LOL along with thousands of other groups over lands issues that span a few thousands years.

Too bad there is no world government with the power to enforce any such rulings as President Jackson once told the US SC enforce your own rulings concerning the ban on the force removing of the tribes to West of the Mississippi river.

A court ruling that have no power of enforcement is just a piece of worthless paper

JTT
 
  2  
Reply Sat 1 Dec, 2012 12:19 pm
@BillRM,
Quote:
President Jackson once told the US SC enforce your own rulings concerning the ban on the force removing of the tribes to West of the Mississippi river.


Bill's admission of the US governments' acts of cultural and actual genocide against Native Americans.

Quote:
A court ruling that have no power of enforcement is just a piece of worthless paper


Proof positive that the US does not operate by the rule of law. It operates just like a set of mobsters.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Sat 1 Dec, 2012 12:56 pm
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:
You say that it's all in the past now, and yet claim the Jews retained title to the land after being absent for almost 2000 years.


Yes. Negotiations are in the past now. 1967 borders are in the past now.

Yes. Israel retains their right to their ancient homeland.



Setanta wrote:
The 1967 borders have nothing to do with it. GA Resolution 181 called for a customs and economic union of Jews and Arabs, the Israelis have never complied, and they began driving those people off their land in 1947, not 1967.


The point of 1967 borders is that people hoped a Palestinian state would be created based on 1967 borders. That dream died two days ago with the outrageous actions at the UN.

I suppose it really died back in 2000, when the Palestinians massacred civilians until the negotiations collapsed. But having the UN abrogate the Oslo Accords really ended it for good.

GA 181 was stillborn. The Arab world attacked Israel, resulting in a massive territorial gain by Israel.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Sat 1 Dec, 2012 12:57 pm
@reasoning logic,
reasoning logic wrote:
BillRM wrote:
So that is the kind of people you think anyone can make peace with???????


It hard to believe isn't it? Do you think that it could be possible for a country to make peace with another country that dropped 2 nuclear bombs on them?


Japan knows that the A-bombs were dropped on military targets at the height of a brutal war (and that Japan was responsible for making the war so brutal).
JTT
 
  2  
Reply Sat 1 Dec, 2012 12:58 pm
@oralloy,
Another gush of semen from the mouth of the semen slurper.
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Sat 1 Dec, 2012 01:01 pm
@reasoning logic,
reasoning logic wrote:
BillRM wrote:
It is the Israel who have the power to wiped the Palestinians off the face of the planet not the other way around.


Do you think that there would be more peace if the Palestinians had the same power? Do you think that both parties might try a little harder to work something out?


Israel has always been willing to make peace. The Palestinians just have no interest in peace.

No, giving the Palestinians better tools to commit their murders with will not cause them to change course and try making peace. It would only cause them to be a greater threat to Israel, and then force Israel to eliminate that threat.
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Sat 1 Dec, 2012 01:06 pm
@reasoning logic,
reasoning logic wrote:
'Palestine can now sue Israel for illegal occupation?


Well, other than the fact that the Palestinians are not being occupied, and the fact that occupation isn't illegal.....
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Sat 1 Dec, 2012 01:07 pm
@JTT,
Quote:
The latest flap or scandal we had about that was a year and a half ago. Lesley Gelb, the heavyweight with the New York Times, was exposed for having been working covertly with the CIA in 1978 to recruit journalists in Europe, who would introduce stories, print stories that would create sympathy for the neutron bomb.


That's a good weapon. Eliminates concentrations of enemy troops with minimal (for a nuke anyway) collateral damage.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  0  
Reply Sat 1 Dec, 2012 01:07 pm
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:

Israel has always been willing to make peace. The Palestinians just have no interest in peace.
Change "peace" to "Palestinian surrender" and you will have a truthful statement.

oralloy wrote:

No, giving the Palestinians better tools to commit their murders with will not cause them to change course and try making peace. It would only cause them to be a greater threat to Israel, and then force Israel to eliminate that threat.
The parallelism between this rationale and Hitler's arguments for the necessity of exterminating the Jews is quite remarkable.
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Sat 1 Dec, 2012 01:10 pm
@JTT,
JTT wrote:
oralloy wrote:
Japan knows that the A-bombs were dropped on military targets at the height of a brutal war (and that Japan was responsible for making the war so brutal).


Another gush of semen from the mouth of the semen slurper.


You'd be so much nicer if you didn't always act like a creep.

The A-bombs were in fact dropped on military targets, and at the height of a brutal war, so what's your problem?
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Sat 1 Dec, 2012 01:19 pm
@georgeob1,
georgeob1 wrote:
oralloy wrote:
Israel has always been willing to make peace. The Palestinians just have no interest in peace.


Change "peace" to "Palestinian surrender" and you will have a truthful statement.


No, the statement was truthful as I wrote it. The Israelis offered peace. The Palestinians refused peace and chose to murder civilians.



georgeob1 wrote:
oralloy wrote:
No, giving the Palestinians better tools to commit their murders with will not cause them to change course and try making peace. It would only cause them to be a greater threat to Israel, and then force Israel to eliminate that threat.


The parallelism between this rationale and Hitler's arguments for the necessity of exterminating the Jews is quite remarkable.


Hitler killed people who were not doing any harm to anyone. The Palestinians actually try to harm innocent people.

It is very unlikely that that hypothetical war would lead to any move to exterminate the Palestinians. Israel would just do what was necessary to eliminate the threat.
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Sat 1 Dec, 2012 01:19 pm
@oralloy,
It would be impossible for you to ever be nicer because you are an Uncle sam semen slurper. You relish the fact that the US has committed genocidal acts against most of the peoples of the world, that it is one of the most brutal nations to have ever existed. A strong argument could be made that it is thee most brutal. It's certainly the most hypocritical.

============

Jon Stewart: Truman's a War Criminal for Bombing Hiroshima

=============
Quote:
Sunday 5 August 2012
Phil Strongman: Hiroshima is a war crime that haunts my family, 67 years on

The US intentionally prolonged the war for the sole purpose of testing the atomic bomb on real cities

...


Apologists for these events have used two arguments. These attacks were necessary because Japan wouldn't surrender without them, and because a land invasion against Japan's disciplined troops would have caused 300,000 US casualties or more. The bombing also kept the Soviets out of Japan and helped speed the end of the war. This thought now dominates – anyone disagreeing is "a soft peacenik". No one objected to the A-Bomb's use in 1945, we are told. No one who knew the score amongst the military high-ups. There was no alternative.

But the argument that no one in the know objected is a fallacy. General Eisenhower opposed it, "Japan was already defeated… dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary." The Pacific Fleet commander Admiral Nimitz agreed: "The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in their defeat." Admiral Leahy, President Truman's Chief of Staff, concurred: the atomic attacks were "of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already ready to surrender…"

By the spring of 1945 Japan was faltering. Germany surrendered in May and since April US aircraft had roamed almost at will over Japan. Heavy bombing raids using dozens of B-29s were met with token resistance, and the firebombing of Tokyo had not been seriously opposed. A sea blockade had decimated imports.

During this time Japan put out peace feelers: on 25 July Japan tried to get envoys to Russia, carrying Imperial letters which read, in part: "His Majesty… mindful of the fact that the present war daily brings greater evil and sacrifice of the peoples… desires from his heart that it may be quickly terminated. But as long as England and the US insist upon unconditional surrender the Japanese Empire has no alternative but to fight on… for the honour and existence of the Motherland …"

These feelers were rebuffed by the US demand for unconditional surrender. But this was unacceptable to Japan, for it could mean that Hirohito –seen as semi-divine – could be put on trial. In mid-1945 The Washington Post kept asking why Truman was demanding unconditional surrender while granting that a condition could swiftly end hostilities. In July, Time wondered whether the answer was some "deep secret" while the United States News confirmed, days after Hiroshima, that "competent testimony exists to prove that Japan was seeking to surrender many weeks before the atomic bomb…"

And, of course, post-Nagasaki, the US did grant the condition that the Emperor be left alone. So if America could agree to this in August, why not in July or even June? Why not end the war earlier? US stubbornness only makes sense if it's seen for what it really is: an excuse to delay peace long enough to test the bomb on real cities. Which is why previous heavy bombing raids had always spared the first atomic targets: Hiroshima, Kokura, Niigata and Kyoto.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/commentators/phil-strongman-hiroshima-is-a-war-crime-that-haunts-my-family-67-years-on-8008821.html
 

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 © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 01/10/2025 at 06:11:57