6
   

Obama steps away from Israel

 
 
Frugal1
 
  -2  
Reply Fri 30 Dec, 2016 02:02 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
You have already confirmed this.

How do you feel about 0bama marking ALL Jews in Israel for death?
Walter Hinteler
 
  4  
Reply Fri 30 Dec, 2016 02:07 pm
@Frugal1,
Frugal1 wrote:
You have already confirmed this.
Give sources for it. And your credentials in history.

Frugal1 wrote:
How do you feel about 0bama marking ALL Jews in Israel for death?
I haven't heard such. But since I'll meet a member of the Central Council of Jews in Germany on Sunday, I'll ask her.
Frugal1
 
  -2  
Reply Fri 30 Dec, 2016 02:15 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
Frugal1 wrote:

How do you feel about 0bama marking ALL Jews in Israel for death?

Quote:
I haven't heard such.


I don't believe you, not for a second.
0 Replies
 
Foofie
 
  -2  
Reply Fri 30 Dec, 2016 03:04 pm
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:

Foofie.


...What do you want to do?...




I want to eat a tuna on rye with a half-sour pickle. Stop interviewing me. My opinion has nothing to do with what will occur. Prognostication is more interesting, if based on some logic. However, much of this forum seems to excel in the ability to promulgate one's opinion, as though it is objective truth.

And, wars are won by guessing/discerning what an enemy is planning to do, not what is the moral/ethical thing to do. This thread is bubkas (chicken feed), in my opinion.

maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Dec, 2016 04:17 pm
@Foofie,
Quote:
And, wars are won by guessing/discerning what an enemy is planning to do, not what is the moral/ethical thing to do. This thread is bubkas (chicken feed), in my opinion.


Ohhhhh,,,,

I see the problem now Foofie. You want war. I am trying to talk about Peace. No wonder you can't see why morals and ethics are the important thing. War is not ethical. And when you are at war, you don't think about your "enemies" as human beings.

My question is about Peace... particularly about what to do with the Palestinians when Israel decides to have peace (however they decide to do that).

It is a fair question about what to do with the Palestinians after a Peace is reached.

Oralloy is the only person who has answered the question. He wants them fenced in and forcibly removed from areas outside the fence. Oralloy was honest enough to admit that this might involve killing people who are in the way of the plan.

I honestly don't believe that fencing people in is a reasonable solution. But, I respect that Oralloy has stated this clearly (although it seems he tried to take it back afterwords).

But it is a fair question. If the Israel/Palestine conflict is to be resolved. I only see three ways to do it.

1) To forcibly remove the Palestinians to fenced in areas, leaving the rest of the land for Israelis.

2) To have an apartheid system where Palestinians can live in Israel with no voting rights and limited rights in general.

3) To take the land and accept the Palestinians as citizens with voting rights (and other rights).

It is a fair question. And I would like to see an answer. Oralloy claims that there are other options, but he hasn't given any. I would be delighted to hear another possible outcome.

Israel is going to have to answer this question. And Trump may just be the person to force them to make the choice about what type of country they want to be sooner rather than later. You can have your tuna without responding to the issues. But, I don't see why you keep posting here if you aren't even willing to address the questions being raised.
Frugal1
 
  -2  
Reply Fri 30 Dec, 2016 04:20 pm
@maxdancona,
But the Palestinians want nothing to do with peace, they want to kill Israeli Jews and obama is helping them.

Frugal1
 
  -2  
Reply Fri 30 Dec, 2016 04:23 pm
Congress just decommissioned Obama's Facebook page before he could un-friend all our allies.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Fri 30 Dec, 2016 07:13 pm
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:
Ohhhhh,,,,
I see the problem now Foofie. You want war. I am trying to talk about Peace.

You've fought to prevent peace from happening. You've (unfortunately) succeeded in making peace impossible. For you to now pretend to be pro-peace is obscene.


maxdancona wrote:
No wonder you can't see why morals and ethics are the important thing. War is not ethical.

War is ethical if you fight for the good guys.

You likely see war as unethical because you are fighting for the bad guys.


maxdancona wrote:
And when you are at war, you don't think about your "enemies" as human beings.

And rightly so. The bad guys are not in any way human.


maxdancona wrote:
My question is about Peace... particularly about what to do with the Palestinians when Israel decides to have peace (however they decide to do that).

This sort of nonsense (acting like Israel isn't already pro-peace) is what you did to undermine the peace process. Shame!


maxdancona wrote:
It is a fair question about what to do with the Palestinians after a Peace is reached.

Presumably if peace were reached, the Palestinians would become normal upstanding citizens of the Palestinian State.


maxdancona wrote:
Oralloy is the only person who has answered the question. He wants them fenced in and forcibly removed from areas outside the fence.

The only Palestinians who even might be forcibly removed under my plan are the residents of East Jerusalem. And that would be a side option, and not the main part of my plan.

A strong border fence to prevent people from crossing Israel's international borders without permission, yes. My proposal does include that.


maxdancona wrote:
Oralloy was honest enough to admit that this might involve killing people who are in the way of the plan.

You've made peace impossible. War is the only alternative.


maxdancona wrote:
I honestly don't believe that fencing people in is a reasonable solution.

Lots of countries enforce their borders with a physical boundary.

Especially countries that have a high risk of hostile people crossing into their country.


maxdancona wrote:
But, I respect that Oralloy has stated this clearly (although it seems he tried to take it back afterwords).

You had asked me what I thought of forcibly deporting all Palestinians from the entire West Bank area. The answer: I think it's awesome.

But that was not my proposal for how to deal with the Palestinians. The only people who even might be at risk of deportation under my plan are the residents of East Jerusalem, and that would only be a side option to my plan. And if Israel did elect to deport the residents of East Jerusalem, under my plan they'd likely be deported to some part of the West Bank (Area A of course).


maxdancona wrote:
It is a fair question. And I would like to see an answer. Oralloy claims that there are other options, but he hasn't given any.

I did give an option, and in detail:

First, finish building the Security Fence, including around Jerusalem and in all the other areas where Israel is being pressured not to finish it. Then declare that as Israel's official international border. Annex all land on Israel's side of the Fence.

The ONLY Palestinians who would be impacted by this move are the residents of East Jerusalem. Israel would have to choose between making them Israeli citizens or deporting them. East Jerusalem, the Old City, the Temple Mount, etc would all be on the Israeli side of the Security Fence.


Second, increase Israeli military control over Areas B and C, so that when the Palestinian State is declared it is confined to Area A alone.

The only Palestinians who are present in Area C are the workers who scrub the settlers' toilets.

Area B is Palestinian farmland. There are some Palestinian farmers there, but their numbers are few. Most of the farmland is filled with crops instead of people.

All major concentrations of Palestinian population (aside from East Jerusalem) are already inside Area A. Confining them to Area A will not involve forcing them to move anywhere. They are already there.
0 Replies
 
InfraBlue
 
  4  
Reply Fri 30 Dec, 2016 08:20 pm
@Frugal1,
Frugal1 wrote:

But the Palestinians want nothing to do with peace, they want to kill Israeli Jews and obama is helping them.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8EDW88CBo-8[/youtube]

The guy in your video merely regurgitates Zionist propaganda. The truth of the matter is that the Zionists want a Jewish state in Palestine where the majority of the people aren't Jewish and they've been oppressing this majority in pursuit of their never-never state. The Zionists are disingenuous when they blame the violence they've experienced at the hands of the majority on anything other than the Zionists oppression of the majority peoples in Palestine. The Zionists will never experience peace on their own terms. The Zionists must redress their iniquities against this majority before they can begin to even dream of peace.
Frugal1
 
  -2  
Reply Fri 30 Dec, 2016 09:16 pm
@InfraBlue,
No, he states facts.

Thanks for watching though.
0 Replies
 
Frugal1
 
  -2  
Reply Sat 31 Dec, 2016 07:20 am


Hamas thrilled that Obama let UN pass anti-Israel resolution
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sat 31 Dec, 2016 05:39 pm
Israel's critics devote a lot of energy on referring to the West Bank and Gaza as "Occupied."

The word presumes that the inhabitants rightfully own the territories and the "occupiers" are foreign invaders. This can and will be argued until the cows come home, but a question we should ask is why has Israel maintained a presence within and limited control over these lands, through a pattern of withdrawal and return?

The answer is that the Palestinians continue to use these territories as a base from which to launch attacks against Israelis either through the air or on the ground.

If such attacks totally ceased does anyone think Israel would continue its "occupation" and if so, why? Because they are evil racists who just enjoy making the lives of Palestinians miserable? Because somehow, in some bizarre and futile way, "occupation" will lead to the voluntary emigration of Palestinians from these lands?

Saying the Settlements are the primary barrier to peace is absurd. The refusal of the Palestinians to recognize the right of Israel to exist and the violent, and frankly fruitless, measures they have been taking for decades to drive them from the region are the primary barriers to peace and the settlements have been one of Israel's responses to them. Another has been so-called "occupation."

If the lives of the Palestinians are so horrible under the oppressive Israeli yoke, what do they have to lose from clearly and unequivocally recognizing the existence and right to exist of Israel? What do they have to lose from putting an immediate and total end to all attacks against Israelis?

Twice now they have been offered virtually everything they have asked for and twice they have walked away from the table.

There is always something else to be demanded, because they do not want peace. At least their leaders don't and they are too stupid or too filled with irrational rage to see they are being failed by those who claim to have their best interests in mind.

The UN is an obscene joke and anyone who relies on it and it's resolutions as moral authority for their criticism of Israel is, at best, a cynical hypocrite.

In Syria, something like 500,000 civilians have been killed by a brutal dictator who, in violation of all civilized global law and norms, employs the use of chemical weapons, yet in 2015 when there were 20 UN resolutions targeting Israel, there were 3 aimed at Syria. In 2016 it was again 20 against Israel but this time only 2 against Syria.

What's more, since the Syria targeted resolutions made up the majority of the non-Israel resolutions, this means that the UN can't be bothered to even consider condemnation of the myriad of terrible things happening throughout the rest of the world.

It's an outrageously pathetic joke that Obama and Kerry cravenly joined in on for the sake of petty spite during the waning days of a failed foreign policy.

Of course the people and their leaders around the world should be able to walk and chew gum at the same time and so there is no reason for them to ignore what they believe to be injustices, simply because there are worse ones being committed elsewhere, but the absence of any meaningful focus on the worst one makes their obsession with Israel utterly hollow, and has all the earmarks of the behavior of a mob of schoolyard bullies.

Just imagine what the fate of Israel and the region would be if the US extended the perfidy of Obama and Kerry and completely abandoned Israel. The wolves would be on the Jewish State in a matter of months. Of course Israel would ferociously fight back as any nation threatened with extinction would, but eventually it would likely fail. However, Jews will never again go meekly to the gas chambers, and before Israel falls completely, the region's deserts will be turned to plains of glass, and the cities of Cairo, Damascus, Tehran, Medina and Mecca will be reduced to smoldering rubble. It will be a humanitarian and ecological disaster like none we have ever seen before. This is what is ultimately at stake, because Israel cannot count on any of it's Western allies except the US to stand in harm's way to save it, and the world cannot count on Arab and Iranian restraint or the willingness of Israelis to go down without doing everything and anything in their power to strike back at its enemies.

The pitiful left-wing boycott movement has had virtually no effect on Israel, nor has the morally bankrupt UN's condemnations at the behest of murdering dictators. Even the violence perpetrated essentially non-stop by groups like Fatah, Hamas, Hezbollah, and half a dozen poetically named bands of terrorist murderers backed by Iran have not only failed in their effort to drive Jews from the region, but barely caused the nation to skip a beat. A democratic nation, with a free market economy and populated by brave and committed citizens is stronger than all of the pauper states and oil principalities that are ruled by tyrants and lined up against it.

It is not going away and it will not yield to the pressure of anti-Semitic leftists who have discarded any sense of proportion, if not justice, in order to be seen as among the sanctimonious cool gang who wear Che shirts and keffiyehs.

Thankfully, a true friend of Israel will be moving to the White House in January and the our foreign policy will reflect the friendship and admiration the majority of Americans have for Israel.

The are a lot of unanswered questions about how Trump will be as president, and he is sure to make his share of mistakes (some may even be of major significance) but there is one thing of which we can be pretty confident, he will not spend 7 years and 11 months of his presidency pretending to be Israel's friend only to stab them in the back when he's got one foot out the door and no Jewish voters or campaign contributors to keep happy.

InfraBlue
 
  4  
Reply Sun 1 Jan, 2017 04:38 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
Israel doesn't have a right to exist since its existence is predicated on the perpetual oppression of the Palestinian peoples.

The Zionist state must be dismantled if the Zionists in Palestine ever want to experience peace.

Unfortunately, they're willing to go down in a blaze of violence in defense of their oppressive never-never state, with the US willingly following along behind it.
Frugal1
 
  -3  
Reply Sun 1 Jan, 2017 06:30 am
@InfraBlue,
Hey Boo Boo, fu*k the Palestinian peoples.
Frugal1
 
  -3  
Reply Sun 1 Jan, 2017 07:04 am
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C0xixJwUsAAExZg.jpg:large
0 Replies
 
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 Jan, 2017 08:39 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
Finn,

Thank you for a reasoned response. I appreciate that you are actually backing up your arguments with evidence, and I will try to respond to you (rather than the other people on this thread). Likewise, I would like to point out that I am not in agreement with InfraBlue.

First of all, where we agree...

I absolutely agree that the Palestinian leadership has failed the Palestinian people. And, I agree that the Palestinian refusal to accept Israel's right to exist, and their use of terrorism, has hurt peace... and has hurt the cause.

I kind of agree about Syria, although the real complaint is the realpolitik of the modern world. The US generally supports Israel. Russia generally supports Syria. They both have vetoes. Yes... this latest resolution was a departure from that.

The issue at hand is about The Settlements.

I see no moral defense for the Settlements. I don't see any legitimate claim that Israel has to expel the people have been living for centuries in what is now called the West Bank.

The US has always been against the settlements. And, that was the UN security counsel resolution. The UN is not condemning Israel's right to exist. They are not condemning their right to defend themselves. They are not supporting terrorism.

The resolution stated the fact that the settlements are morally wrong, and an obstacle to peace in the opinion of many Americans, most of the World, and even a signicant majority of Israelis.

We can disagree about this. But you should understand what it means. I support Israels right to exist. I strongly condemn the settlements. Don't confuse the two issues.

Now, let me quibble with you about facts.

1. The word "occupation" is a legal term, and it is correct. The land was won in a war. The army controls the territory. The people living in it have no political power. The term "occupied territories" is correct.

2. Neither Obama, nor Kerry have ever suggest abandoning Israel. They only allowed a sanction condemning a single behavior by the Israeli government.

3. To claim that criticism of Israel, and particularly their highly controversial practice of expanding the settlements, is "antisemitism" is an ad hominem attack. I also criticized the Apartheid South Africa, and Nicaragua and Myanmar and Syria.

Now Finn... I would like you to answer my question about where you see Israel ending up. Is there an ethnic cleansing with a fence? Is there a future where Palestinians stay, but have no political rights.

Israel is going to have to figure out where this all ends up. I would love to hear your opinion?




Frugal1
 
  -2  
Reply Sun 1 Jan, 2017 08:47 am
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C1F8as-WEAAsslf.png
McGentrix
 
  -2  
Reply Sun 1 Jan, 2017 11:57 am
@Frugal1,
Can probably use permanent ink on that sign...
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 1 Jan, 2017 06:52 pm
@InfraBlue,
InfraBlue wrote:
Unfortunately, they're willing to go down in a blaze of violence in defense of their oppressive never-never state, with the US willingly following along behind it.

It must be horrible being evil in a world where the good guys are strong. If you weren't evil I'd have sympathy for you.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Sun 1 Jan, 2017 06:53 pm
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:
I will try to respond to you (rather than the other people on this thread).

You will use any excuse to justify not confronting my facts. But the truth is, you know you have no answer to the facts that I've provided.


maxdancona wrote:
The issue at hand is about The Settlements.

The settlements have no significance. You are just using them to distract from the fact that the Palestinians refuse to make peace.


maxdancona wrote:
I see no moral defense for the Settlements.

That's easy. The converse of "land for peace" means that when the Palestinians refuse to make peace with Israel, Israel gets to keep the land.


maxdancona wrote:
I don't see any legitimate claim that Israel has to expel the people have been living for centuries in what is now called the West Bank.

Israel isn't expelling anyone. Got any other false accusations to levy against Jews?


maxdancona wrote:
The resolution stated the fact that the settlements are morally wrong, and an obstacle to peace in the opinion of many Americans, most of the World, and even a signicant majority of Israelis.

You overstate the number of people who agree with your hate.

Settlements are no obstacle to peace. You are just using them to distract from the Palestinians' refusal to make peace with Israel.


maxdancona wrote:
Now, let me quibble with you about facts.

1. The word "occupation" is a legal term, and it is correct. The land was won in a war. The army controls the territory. The people living in it have no political power. The term "occupied territories" is correct.

Your alleged facts are entirely fiction.

The Palestinians are in full control over all of the Gaza Strip and all of Area A. The handful of Palestinian farmers who live in Area B have political autonomy.

Your term occupation is just another lie.


maxdancona wrote:
3. To claim that criticism of Israel, and particularly their highly controversial practice of expanding the settlements, is "antisemitism" is an ad hominem attack.

If you don't want to be denounced for anti-Semitism, stop making false accusations against Jews.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
So....Will Biden Be VP? - Question by blueveinedthrobber
My view on Obama - Discussion by McGentrix
Obama/ Love Him or Hate Him, We've Got Him - Discussion by Phoenix32890
Obama fumbles at Faith Forum - Discussion by slkshock7
Expert: Obama is not the antichrist - Discussion by joefromchicago
Obama's State of the Union - Discussion by maxdancona
Demand a plan - Discussion by H2O MAN
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 11/29/2021 at 10:32:05