15
   

ISRAEL - IRAN - SYRIA - HAMAS - HEZBOLLAH - WWWIII?

 
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Apr, 2009 09:58 am
@Foofie,
Foofie wrote:
Quote:
If I was a betting person, I would still put my money on the Israelis. Why? Simple animal husbandry. The stupid and weak were killed off during the last two-thousand years.


It's now the "stupid and the strong" who will destroy themselves. Military might will never bring peace; it's simple animal husbandry.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Apr, 2009 10:50 am
@FreeDuck,
FreeDuck wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

What do you make of the administration's implied ultimatum that Israel must vacate the West Bank and THEN we WILL help them defuse the situation with Iran? Included in this short piece posted here:
http://able2know.org/topic/79142-397#post-3628525

Or perhaps Emmanuel was only saying that Israel must vacate the West Bank before we will talk about it?

I didn't see a quote of Emmanuel in that article. Do you have a link to his actual words? I don't like to have these things predigested for me.


I can appreciate your sentiment there as I am the same way. I don't let others tell me what somebody said or didn't say. I want a direct quote.

The only reason this story has legs is the wide prevalence of it on the blogs and it is beginning to pick up interest from a somewhat broader spectrum, and so far the White House has not disputed the statement as being Emanuel's position on it. Emanuel who was hailed as a Zionist and champion of the Jews when he was first appointed is now being pretty brutally savaged on the pro-Israel boards.

I know President likes to pretend that he doesn't know about or pay any attention to the polls, protests, etc., but if this story continues to gain legs, I think he will have to deal with it sooner or later to protect his hold on his Jewish constituency.

First page of 'hits" when I search Raul Emmanuel - evacuate west bank:

Quote:
Obama's stance worries Israelis [Rahm Emanuel says "get ready ...
Apr 18, 2009 ... No less a figure than White House chief-of-staff Rahm Emanuel " whose ... then get ready to start evacuating settlements in the West Bank. ...

www.aipnews.com/talk/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=... - 26k - Similar pages

http://www.aipnews.com/talk/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=3928&posts=3
Rahm Emanuel: Obama Laying Down Law To Netanyahu | TPMCafe
Apr 16, 2009 ... Ah but it does sound like Rahm Emanuel, ... get ready to evacuate settlements in the West Bank, with Yitzhar considered to be a token of an ...

tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/04/16/rahm_em... - 254k - Similar pages

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/04/16/rahm_emanuel_obama_laying_down_law_to_netanyahu/
Mondoweiss: Netanyahu, in February: 'I will not evacuate any ...
Oh Netanyahu will evacuate settlements, only they'll be caravan outposts. ... as long it keeps allowing right wing fundamentalists to seize hilltops in the West Bank, ... By the way, Rahm Emanuel makes me very nervous. ...

www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/2009/04/netanyahu... - 69k - Similar pages

http://www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/2009/04/netanyahu-in-february-i-will-not-evacuate-any-settlement.html
Rahm Emmanuel: “If Israel wants US help to defuse the Iranian ...
No less a figure than White House chief-of-staff Rahm Emanuel " whose father fought with the ... then get ready to start evacuating settlements in the West Bank. ... Even if EVERY SINGLE settlement in the West Bank was given to Muslims, ...

www.mujahideenryder.net/2009/04/18/rahm-emmanuel... - 80k - Similar pages

http://www.mujahideenryder.net/2009/04/18/rahm-emmanuel-if-israel-wants-us-help-to-defuse-the-iranian-threat-then-get-ready-to-start-evacuating-settlements-in-the-west-bank/
Zionists to Rahm Emanuel: “If you remain silent … ...
May Allah guide Rahm Emanuel and give him strength to keep up a firm stance ... threat then get ready to start evacuating settlements in the West Bank. ...

www.mujahideenryder.net/2009/04/21/zio... - 12 hours ago - Similar pages

[ More results from www.mujahideenryder.net ]

http://www.mujahideenryder.net/2009/04/21/zionists-to-rahm-emanuel-if-you-remain-silent-jews-will-arise-but-you-will-perish/
Rahm Emanuel, Traitor - Israel Forum
Rahm Emanuel, Traitor In The News. ... reported to have told Jewish leaders in Washington, then get ready to start evacuating settlements in the West Bank. ...

israelforum.com/board/showthread.php?p=298678 - 10 hours ago - Similar pages

http://israelforum.com/board/showthread.php?p=298678
West Bank settlements | Israel Policy Forum
Rahm Emanuel told an (unnamed) Jewish leader; "In the next four years ... Can you tell us about the current status of settlements and of movement ... though Israel's commitment was to evacuate the outposts. ... Following reports this week of planned expansion of the West Bank settlement of Efrat, ...

israelpolicyforum.ngphost.com/taxonomy/term/194/... - 32k - Similar pages

http://israelpolicyforum.ngphost.com/taxonomy/term/194/all
West Bank | Israel Policy Forum
Rahm Emanuel told an (unnamed) Jewish leader; "In the next four years there is ... In the West Bank settlement, Bat Ayin, yesterday a Palestinian man attacked ... from Gaza and evacuated four settlements in the northern West Bank in an ...

FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Apr, 2009 11:05 am
@Foxfyre,
I understand that it has legs (if having legs means being repeated over and over again with no new information added) but it's hard for me to take a position on something when I don't even know what it is he is purported to have said. It doesn't rise above the status of rumor for me. So to answer your question: I don't think anything about this, but I certainly do hope that the administration is pressuring the Israelis to reach a peace agreement with the Palestinians.
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Apr, 2009 11:24 am
@FreeDuck,
FreeDuck wrote:

I understand that it has legs (if having legs means being repeated over and over again with no new information added) but it's hard for me to take a position on something when I don't even know what it is he is purported to have said. It doesn't rise above the status of rumor for me. So to answer your question: I don't think anything about this, but I certainly do hope that the administration is pressuring the Israelis to reach a peace agreement with the Palestinians.


Do you hope that the administration is pressuring the Palestinians to reach a peace agreement with the Israelis?

Do you see that as an important if not critically necessary component to the effort?

Or do you see it necessary for only Israel to make concessions in order for there to be peace in the Middle East?

Agreed however that repeating the same lie over and over on however many blogs does not make it any less of a lie.

But since so many pro-Israel groups apparently are buying into the statement, my position is that if Raul Emmanuel did not say that re helping Israel with Iran, he should say so. If he did say that, then it does raise questions of whether the agenda here is to take Israel down or whether the administration actually sees Iran as a threat regardless of whether Israel exists or not.

And that I think is worth consideration here.
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Apr, 2009 11:27 am
@Foxfyre,
You don't think they've been pressured enough?

[edit] Didn't see your edits. I think the Palestinians have already made all the concessions they are capable of making.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Apr, 2009 11:30 am
@FreeDuck,
And many of those so-called "concessions" were through force; the Palestinians didn't have a choice.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Apr, 2009 11:30 am
@FreeDuck,
Really? What concessions has been demanded or required of the Palestinians? I was unaware that there is any push from the UN or anybody else requiring anything of the Palestinians in return for helping the Palestinians deal with the Israelis.
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Apr, 2009 11:40 am
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:

Really? What concessions has been demanded or required of the Palestinians? I was unaware that there is any push from the UN or anybody else requiring anything of the Palestinians in return for helping the Palestinians deal with the Israelis.

If the Palestinians were an independent people then it might be reasonable to make such requirements, but they are a subservient people to the Israelis and under occupation. They are virtually powerless and therefore cannot give much more than has already been taken: land, lives, livelihoods, freedom, independence, self-determination. What concessions do you possibly hope to attain from them?

We can and should pressure the Israelis because (1) they are our allies and we have clout, (2) we provide them with the weapons they use to subjugate the Palestinians, (3) they have almost complete control over the Palestinians and therefore have the power to make the two state solution a reality. For the last 8 years they have not been pressured at all and the result is that the people of both are further away from having peace and justice than ever before. The current government does not even believe in a two-state solution to this mess. You might ask yourself what kinds of solution remain when the two-state solution is taken off the table.
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Apr, 2009 11:43 am
Quote:
UN seeks to salvage racism summit

Ahmadinejad described Israel as a 'repressive racist regime' in his speech in Geneva on Monday [Reuters]

Delegates at a United Nations conference on racism have agreed on a final declaration calling on the global community to combat intolerance.

Amos Wako, president of the meeting in Geneva, Switzerland, described the 16-page document on Tuesday as a "historic outcome".

The decision, approved by more than 100 countries, came as leaders attempted to get the summit back on course after a speech by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran's president, led several Western diplomats to walk out of the hall.

Alan Fisher, Al Jazeera's correspondent in Geneva, said even though the declaration is being seen as a "significant diplomatic initiative", it could take years before the real effects are seen.

"It won't happen overnight and that has been the problem for this conference since it began in Durban in South Africa eight years ago," he said.

"They're trying to set up mechanisms so they can see how you put them into practice and how to monitor progress as well."

Ahmadinejad condemned Israel as a "cruel and repressive racist regime" in his speech to the conference on Monday.

It later emerged he had dropped language from his prepared speech, in which he described the Holocaust as "ambiguous and dubious".

The UN did not explain why the change was made, but Ahmadinejad's talk came after a meeting with Ban Ki-moon, the UN secretary-general.

Ban stressed that the UN did not equate Zionism with racism, and reaffirmed the historical facts of the Holocaust.

Many of those who remained to listen to Ahmadinejad's speech applauded his remarks but a number of Western nations, including the US, Britain and France, strongly criticised them.

The US, Canada, Israel, Australia, New Zealand, Germany, Poland and the Netherlands were among countries which had decided to stay away from the conference altogether amid fears Ahmadinejad would use the summit to propagate anti-Semitic views.

Silvan Shalom's, Israel's deputy prime minister, compared Iran to Nazi Germany in reaction to the speech, saying: "What Iran is trying to do right now is not far away at all from what Hitler did to the Jewish people just 65 years ago."

He made the remarks during a speech on Tuesday at the site of the Auschwitz-Birkenau Nazi death camp, hours before a Holocaust memorial ceremony.

Alan Dershowitz, a professor of law at Harvard University who attended the conference, described Ahmadinejad as an idelogical "successor to Adolf Hitler".

"I came face to face with evil yesterday. A man who would kill me if he could and kill my people and my children. A man who is a successor to Adolf Hitler ideologically but he will soon have nuclear weapons," he told Al Jazeera.

He said the conference in Geneva runs the risk of becoming a "hate-fest aginst the Jewish people".

"Ahmadinejad was the perfect speaker because he represented everything bad about this conference," Dershowitz said.

"I would hope that other democracies would understand this is not a place where democracy should be, this is a conference of tyranny."

Against this backdrop of renewed acrimony, China called for the international community to end its criticisms and focus on the conference's goals.

"We hope relevant parties can step up dialogue, eliminate disputes and concentrate on a consensus so as to combat racism with one voice," Jiang Yu, the country's foreign ministry spokeswoman, said on Tuesday.

Meanwhile, in Tehran, the Iranian capital, Ahmadinejad was met by a number of supporters as he returned after delivering his speech in Geneva.

Dozens of people gathered outside Mehrabad International airport to greet him, with some chanting "death to Israel" and "Zionist regime must be destroyed".

But not all Iranians have welcomed Ahmadinejad's comments.

Alireza Ronaghi, Al Jazeera's correspondent in Tehran, said the division between the country's conservatives and reformists was reflected in newspaper coverage of the president's speech.

"Ahmadinejad's speech seems to have had the same effect within Iran as it has abroad: antagonising his critics even further while forcing his supporters into a unified position, less than two months before Iran's next presidential election when Ahmadinejad himself will seek re-election," he said.
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/europe/2009/04/2009421141350682809.html
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  2  
Reply Tue 21 Apr, 2009 11:46 am
@Foxfyre,
This was added after I posted and I didn't see it until now.
Foxfyre wrote:

But since so many pro-Israel groups apparently are buying into the statement, my position is that if Raul Emmanuel did not say that re helping Israel with Iran, he should say so.

Of course many pro-Israel groups are buying into the (as of yet unverified and unspecified) statement. It's in their interest to do so.

Quote:
If he did say that, then it does raise questions of whether the agenda here is to take Israel down or whether the administration actually sees Iran as a threat regardless of whether Israel exists or not.

"Take Israel down"? What does that mean here? As far as whether or not this administration sees Iran as a threat, I think it pretty clearly does not seem them as a threat to the US, and may not see them as a threat to Israel. I think at most they rise to the level of "potential threat" if they have a nuclear weapon. But since Israel has nukes too, that would make it a standoff as with the US and Russia back in the day.



Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Apr, 2009 11:56 am
@FreeDuck,
Okay. So noted that you think the administration does not seem to see Iran as a threat and that you see Iran vs Israel as no different than the Soviet Union vs the USA.

Interesting to say the least.
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Apr, 2009 12:01 pm
@Foxfyre,
Fair enough. I'm still curious what "take Israel down" meant in your last post.
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Apr, 2009 12:27 pm
@FreeDuck,
Israel has begged the Pals to come to a two-state agreement. At Camp David, the Pals had no proposals of their own, and turned down a great deal proposed by Israel, and then made no counter proposals. One has to conclude that the Pals are holding out for the destruction of Israel, and no valid deals will be made. Giving up land to the Pals for peace is a nonstarter.
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Apr, 2009 12:33 pm
@Advocate,
Advocate wrote:

Israel has begged the Pals to come to a two-state agreement. At Camp David, the Pals had no proposals of their own, and turned down a great deal proposed by Israel, and then made no counter proposals. One has to conclude that the Pals are holding out for the destruction of Israel, and no valid deals will be made. Giving up land to the Pals for peace is a nonstarter.

This argument has been refuted by the facts more than once and on this very thread.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Apr, 2009 12:36 pm
@Advocate,
This nonsense has been debunked here repeatedly, but you continue to mindlessly repeat it. What land has Israel ever "given" to the Palestinians in its "quest" for peace?? I see no evidence that the current Israeli government is "begging" the Palestinians for an agreement - on the contrary they are actively distancing themselves from even the idea of negotiations.

My opinion is that a two state solution is no longer possible, given the accumulated abuse Israel has inflicted on the Palestinians since 1967 and the increasing intransigence of the Palestinians themselves. Things between the contending peoples will have to get very bad before the zealots on both sides give up their tribal/sectarian dreams and fantasies. However, the conditions that may make this possible are very clearly developing.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Apr, 2009 12:54 pm
@Advocate,
Advocate wrote:
Quote:
Israel has begged the Pals to come to a two-state agreement.


Please show us proof of this?
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Apr, 2009 01:00 pm
@georgeob1,
Well, it was really weak and wimpy, but you at least have finally kind of sort of acknowledged that there is blame on the Palestinian side too here. Smile

Seriously I do appreciate the acknowledgment. I think when the pro-Palestinian side in general is willing to do that, then there really might be a chance for peace. And yes, Israel will have to also acknowledge its own excesses and intentional acts in perpetuating the conflict. I am less pessimistic than you and think peace is possible. If Israel, Egypt, and Jordan can accomplish it, then so can everybody else.

Israel will have to vacate the West Bank, but the Palestinian leadership is going to have to officially recognize Israel's right to a peaceful existence and make that possible.

The primary difference between your point of view and mine is that Israel's treatment of the Palestinians is what has perpetuated the conflict. I don't buy that for a minute since I think the Palestinian leadership not only encourages that but wants it for propaganda purposes. But we can agree to disagree.
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Apr, 2009 01:20 pm
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:

The primary difference between your point of view and mine is that Israel's treatment of the Palestinians is what has perpetuated the conflict. I don't buy that for a minute since I think the Palestinian leadership not only encourages that but wants it for propaganda purposes. But we can agree to disagree.


One could argue the same thing about Palestinian violence -- that Israel encourages it in order to justify harsher treatment and more land grabs. Both may be true, but one is clearly more successful than the other. For all the propaganda that the Palestinians supposedly get from Israel's harsh treatment, what have they received in return? Sympathy? If I were a Palestinian I would rather have my home and my livelihood than the sympathy of strangers. In contrast, the Israeli's benefit a great deal in terms of land, natural resources, and increased odds of an extremely favorable final status by using Palestinian violence as a pretext to do that which they were already predisposed to do.

You can see how these things feed each other.
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Apr, 2009 01:31 pm
@FreeDuck,
Possibly. That does provide a different perspective. But the Israelis really have little to gain by perpetuating the violence, nor did they perpetuate violence until provoked into retaliation for real or imagined threats. Until the Arabs amassed armies with the obvious intent to exterminate Israel in 1967, Israelis didn't set foot on Palestinian lands or express any intent on doing so.

Are any of the offenses of which the Palestinians accused manufactured? I don't know. Have the Israelis acted badly? Almost certainly some have. Has Israeli policy been unjust or unreasonable? Probably it could be argued that some of it has been.

But the terrified, bloodied, maimed, and murdered Israeli men, women, and children are real, and I am confident that not one single one of us would find living under such conditions acceptable. And I think only the most ignorant and brain washed would suggest that it was deserved.

If it was Mexico or Canada or Cuba who was launching rockets randomly into the USA or who was systematically smuggling in bombers to blow up crowded markets or busloads of school children, and whose leadership not only was doing nothing to stop it but was in fact on record as intending the destruction of the United States........if that was happening, I would expect my government to do whatever was necessary to stop it, however that had to be done.

And I would see no possibility of peace or any kind of agreement, until the leadership of the offending country officially, publically, and convincingly stated and did what it needed to do to ensure that there would be no more violence or any other kind of attack on the USA. Ever.



FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Apr, 2009 01:45 pm
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:

Possibly. That does provide a different perspective. But the Israelis really have little to gain by perpetuating the violence, nor did they perpetuate violence until provoked into retaliation for real or imagined threats. Until the Arabs amassed armies with the obvious intent to exterminate Israel in 1967, Israelis didn't set foot on Palestinian lands or express any intent on doing so.

I think it's a mistake to conflate conflicts with neighboring Arab states (with whom Israel now has peace) with the ongoing conflicts with the Palestinian people.

Quote:
But the terrified, bloodied, maimed, and murdered Israeli men, women, and children are real, and I am confident that not one single one of us would find living under such conditions acceptable. And I think only the most ignorant and brain washed would suggest that it was deserved.

But this is yet another argument that is so easily turned. Not one single one of us would find living under the conditions under which the Palestinians live to be acceptable. And their dead are just as real, and quite a bit more numerous, than those on the Israeli side. I'd prefer an end to the killing all the way around, but that won't happen until there is a permanent and just settlement that allow the great majority of both Israelis and Palestinians to live in peace and freedom.

Quote:
If it was Mexico or Canada or Cuba who was launching rockets randomly into the USA or who was systematically smuggling in bombers to blow up crowded markets or busloads of school children, and whose leadership not only was doing nothing to stop it but was in fact on record as intending the destruction of the United States........if that was happening, I would expect my government to do whatever was necessary to stop it, however that had to be done.

Yes, I would expect my government to do everything necessary to stop it. And that would include finding the root causes for these things and correcting them. I am certain that if we were expanding our borders into Mexico the way that Israel expands hers into the West Bank we would have a bloody war on our hands. The difference is that the Mexicans are well-armed.

 

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 © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.12 seconds on 11/17/2024 at 08:52:27