Iran nuclear deal signed in Geneva

Good, because I have no time for liars who can't handle the truth.

From your link



Only two civilians killed by Hamas, 1462 killed by Israel. That says it all, and shows the depths of your hypocrisy.

You have no credibility.

Clearly you're either delusional or whoever you have me mixed up with is to whom and where you should direct your comments.

Big picture is..you have offered no constructive solution or even a hint of a suggestion. Your endless vitriol towards Israel speaks volumes.
Why not stop eternal finger-pointing and offer some positive suggestion for peace or a truce? This is part of your multitudinous character flaws.

multitudinous. wow, that can't be good, huh. I gotta stay away from Izzy.

Chuckling.
'Snew, Snood? How be you?

There is a solution, end the occupation. That won't happen because Israel keeps building illegal settlements on occupied land. Israel is the perpetrator, the occupier. They're the ones who need to shift, compromise, like we did in Northern Ireland. That's why I'm a member of the Palestinian Solidarity Campaign and why I support the boycott, just like I did with apartheid South Africa.

One way to at least perhaps still some hostilities is for Israel to disband all the illegal settlements and pledge to build no more without any pre-conditions being set. It would show at least good faith on the part of Israel and their desire for peace. Just a thought. I am not educated on any previous actions and/or treaty agreements, but if I were a Palestinian that would be a starting point for me because otherwise any treaty agreements being drawn up starts out with Israel already on land that doesn't belong to them so it's like Palestinians would have to concede that land before the treaty agreements talks even start which is why it is called land grab.

You compared Shamir to George Washington. As you're an American I would consider that high praise indeed. I'm not confusing you with anyone.



http://able2know.org/reply/post-5031480/quote/<br />

I'll accept you normally are on the side of the angels, but you have a huge blind spot where Israel's concerned.

The above quotation is not from a thread babout Israel, but a thread about Yitzhak Shamir. It was his defence Ragman leapt to, not Israel's.



http://www.theguardian.com/world/2006/feb/07/southafrica.israel<br /> <br />

http://www.britannica.com/biography/John-Vorster

Israel gave up the Gaza Strip back in 2005.

That is something that could only be said by someone who completely misunderstands what's going on. Sharon didn't unilaterally pull out of Gaza as a gesture of good faith. It was for economic reasons, it was taking up too many resources that could be more effectively employed elsewhere.

Concessions have been made by Israel and land has been obtained by the Palestinians, they got what they wanted...

That is not what happened. A unilateral pullout for economic reasons is not a concession, it's a consolidation.

Who has control of the Gaza Strip?

You just blew your whole argument. He isent anti semitic. He is anti Isralie government. BIG difference.

Israel, they've got it under siege.

Remove Netanyahu, and his government and put a non Nazi government in its place.

No they don't. It is controlled by the Palestinians. Now which govt controls the Palestinians is another question. Seems at one point there was a unity govt of both Hamas and Fatah, which seems to be in question since 2014. Israel does not control any portion of the Gaza Strip, unless you count access to the Gaza Strip from portions of Israel. Lots of walls in Israel...

Clearly you don't understand what siege means.

I believe that only currently unknowable future events can tell us whether this was a wise move or not. There are historical precedents on both sides, though most of those that come to mind suggest caution and skepticism.

Most political leaders in Western Europe rejoiced at the 1938 agreement with Hitler in Munich, believing that, if not the "peace in our time" proclaimed by British PM Chamberlain, it would at least be peace for four or five more years. Both groups were proven wrong, as war broke out with Hitler's invasion of Poland just 14 months later. We now know that Hitler was opportunistically betting on the moral weakness of Western Leaders and seeking only to improve Germany's starting point for his planned war to expand the "thousand year Reich", and that between the inaction of Western Leaders from the Rhineland reoccupation to the annxation of Austria and finally Munich, all the will and motivation for those German military leaders who resented and contemplated overthrowing Hitler vanished entirely. Together that was a very high price for a 14 month delay.

After WWII an exhausted Britain was economically unable to sustain the obligations of an Empire that was no longer producing the steady income of the past, particularly in India and the Middle East. Hastily put together exits were implemented - a treaty in India and a handoff to the newly created UN in Palestine. Both led only to war, extermination and decades of continued conflict (India vs Pakistan and the continuing war and instability in the Middle East. These too were hailed as peaceful, lasting solutions to long-term problems by those who implemented them.

In the case of Iran we're giving up on the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (though it has already been badly weakened by the development of weapon capabilities in India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea). We can expect to see efforts to build a bomb in Saudi Arabia soon.

I suspect that some in the Administration are pinning their hopes on a controllable unfolding of the growing conflict between Sunni and Shia Islam, one in which a resergent Shia Iran will contain or checkmate the extremist Sunni ISIS movement now embracing northern Iraq and Syria. Though there may well be some merit in this argument,this too will accelerate the likely efforts of the Saudis to develop a Sunni coalition (perhaps including ISIS) to combat them.

Notwithstanding some vacuous and pious pronouncements made earlier here, sanctions are not immoral in themselves, and they are far less damaging than war.