@old europe,
oh, My sentiments exactly! When both understand that compromise is the only solution, and both sides work towards that goal, anything is possible. Each side must first understand that both sides are suffering from the same uncompromising position. When innocent people are killed, most people can only think of is revenge, and that perpetuates the problem they want to solve.
@cicerone imposter,
Do you believe that compromise is ALWAYS the best way?
@mysteryman,
Hmmm let's see.
The police agree with the bank robber and say he can keep the money and go if he lets the hostages go. Strong deterrant for bank robbery? Probably not. But it was a compromise.
Twice before we have compromised to solve the illegal immigrant problem in the USA--okay if you satisfy certain conditions you can stay but that's it. Nobody else can come illegally. The last time we did that was in the mid 1980's when there were an estimated 3 million illegals in the country. Now there are 12 to 20 million and some are recommending the same kind of thing again. Deterrent for those who want to come into the country illegally? Nope. But it is a compromise.
The firemen have to decide whether to let everything burn or let the house burn while they focus all their efforts and resources on saving a business. They choose the business. Satisfactory outcome for the folks who lost their house? No. But it was a compromise.
And now Israel is faced with rewarding the Palestinians who have pledged to destroy Israel by helping them form their own country as opposed to insisting that the Palestinians cease and desist hostilities permanently before Israel lifts a finger to help them. In the end Israel will probably again make concessions. And the militant Palestinians will probably again use that opportunity to regroup, rearm, and resume their attempts to drive Israel out.
But it will be compromise.
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:
Foofie writes
Quote:I believe a poster should prove his/her position based on facts, not on comments about another poster.
Foofie, even though we all occasionally slip with an ad hominem argument, intentionally insulting comments directed to or about other members is the single most destructive thing that happens here. It has severely limited participation by or driven away many members that used to be a positive influence here and fun to have around.
If you could get that one point through a few thick heads, you would be my hero (heroine) and I think would be up for A2K member of the year.
It reminds me of a schoolyard, when the tough kids decide to play a game there. Many of the other kids realize they might just as well go home, since the tough kids will make life annoying for the other kids.
Perhaps, A2K brings out the Peter Pan in some of us?
Also, what makes this thread particularly problematic, in my opinion, is the subject has idealogues on both sides. So, there is no way to know in cyberspace if one's position, on this thread's subject, reflects an idealogical position, or a position from one's own perspective.
Needless to say, it appears to me that some of the same people that were so anti-Bush and pro-Obama are also anti-Israel. Perhaps, just a coincidence? And those that were for McCain might be pro-Israel? Not a 100% correlation, but one that might be statistically significant?
I voted for McCain and Palin, and I am pro-Israel. So, there is a sample size of one.
What is bothersome is that the idealogical position of the far left today, worldwide, is very anti-Israel, and I cannot help but think that one of the reasons is not necessarily because of the concerns about the Palestineans, but because far left politics might be more marketable, if it is marketed as a legitimate reason to be against many Jews. In other words, is the continuing existence of anti-Semitism being exploited by the far left as a marketing tool?
Now that brings up a sad thought that anti-Semitism might be so indelible in society that it could be used as a vehicle for marketing left wing politics (in effect, be left wing and get a legitimate reason to voice one's anti-Semitism). That can be exhilerating, I would guess, in an otherwise politically correct society.
@Foofie,
Yes I think ideology does sometimes get in the way but not always.
The support or condemnation of Israel (or illegal immigration for that matter) is not split along strictly party lines or ideological lines. For instance, you have one rather prolific member here who is stridently pro-Israel while avidly and openly despising the GOP, conservatives, George Bush, Ronald Reagan or anything else associated with the right. And another member who posts less frequently but perhaps more competently than most, is a pretty strong conservative in most things but has been consistently critical of just about everything about Israel while giving the Palestinians mostly a pass or at least sometimes seems to imply that Israel's behavior justifies the Palestinians' terrorist activities.
I'm frankly not particularly on either side but have strongly defended Israel's right to do whatever it has to defend itself from those who are pledged to destroy Israel. At such time as the Palestinians recognize Israel and show by word and deed that they will do whatever they can do to stop hostilities targeted at Israel by Palestinians, then I will expect Israel to become good neighbors to the Palestinians. If they did not, I would then be on the Palestinians side, not as a matter of preference, but as a matter of justice.
I am surprised that you voted McCain/Palin though. I had you pegged as a strong Obama supporter. Just goes to show that we usually don't get it right when we make assumptions without knowing.
@Foofie,
You said: "Needless to say, it appears to me that some of the same people that were so anti-Bush and pro-Obama are also anti-Israel. Perhaps, just a coincidence? And those that were for McCain might be pro-Israel? Not a 100% correlation, but one that might be statistically significant?"
I read something on this, and, for some reason, it is definitely the case. My view is that libs have a natural tendency to lean toward the underdog, which is, of course, the Pals. To me, their support of the Pals defies all logic and the facts of the situation.
Btw, having read a number of your thoughtful posts, I am somewhat amazed you voted for McCain and Palin. Have you changed your views on this?
@Foofie,
Foofie- I am convinced that the left wing is reflexively Anti-Israel because the left wing is dedicated to the downfall of the USA with its present Capitalistic System. The Anti-American haters of the sixties and seventies--the bombers--the Weathermen--the qausi Communists--are still with us.
I am heartened that BO is going to visit Israel. He will find that he will not be able to bullshit Nathanyahu.
I am always amused by the fanatic Islamists in Iran and Pakistan who, despite their huge numerical advantage in people and territory, demand the destruction of Israel.
Not while Bibi is there. He has promised--"Never Again"
The Times had a five-hour interview with the Hamas head in which the latter presented the organization's demands. The demands are basically a joke, which would result in the demise of Israel within a relatively short time span.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-oped0511krauthammermay11,0,281845.story
Here is an excellent piece relative to the somewhat fatal mistakes of Hamas and Hizbullah.
Middle East
Guy Bechor Photo: Yariv Katz
Our enemies’ mistakes
Guy Bechor says this was good year for Israel, as our enemies made series of mistakes
Guy Bechor Published: 05.10.09, 12:15 / Israel Opinion
Our enemies would love to forget the past year, as all of them made major mistakes in their assessments, and for that they paid, and are still paying, heavy prices. Compared to them, our mistakes were very minor.
Hamas’ mistake: Hamas leaders believed their own rhetoric and that of Hizbullah. They truly believed that Israel will bow down before them, that it would be scared to enter Gaza, and that it would certainly refrain from going in deep. We can see the amazement on their face to this day. Their arrogant and belligerent displays have disappeared. Hamas now understands: It is merely a small organization that jailed itself and its society in a bottle.
In contradiction to its own lies, Hamas sustained a decisive military blow and has trouble recovering from it. The smuggling tunnel network it built is indeed helping it to get stronger, yet improved Egyptian efforts are making this more difficult.
Hizbullah’s mistake: Nasrallah made two grave mistakes this past year. His forces’ entry into western Beirut shattered his position in Lebanon and presented Hizbullah for what it is: A sectarian Shiite organization that merely makes pretenses of fighting Israel. The elections for the Lebanese parliament will be held next month, and at this time the group’s status is at a low point. Hizbullah is again being perceived as a dangerous militia that can push the country into confrontation, even though there are fears that pro-Syrian organizations will “steal” the elections, through fraud.
Nasrallah’s second mistake was made this month, when he admitted that the terrorist Sami Shihab is a Hizbullah man. Even though he was detained back in November, the Egyptians took out all their anger on Shihab, and through Nasrallah launched a campaign to rehabilitate their regional status. Mubarak gravely undermined Nasrallah’s image, or whatever is left of it.
Ahmadinejad’s mistake: The Iranian president, who will apparently end his part in history on July 12th, attempted to blame Israel for all his misdeeds: Harsh international isolation, deep economic sanctions, boycotts by the banks and on top of it a drop in oil prices.
Just like Hamas and Hizbullah, Ahmadinejad believed his own lies. He believed that the world is surprised and charmed by him. He will be paying a price for this, and he is already starting to understand this. Therefore, he recently softened his stance: Yes, he will be willing to recognize Israel, should it reach an agreement with the Palestinians.
Assad’s mistake: As opposed to others, Syria’s president was captivated by Hizbullah, yet today he already understands the Shiite manipulation, and he is being cautious. When his nuclear reactor was bombed in September 2007 he did not retaliate, and he knows why.
Assad did not believe that the international tribunal for the assassination of Rafik al-Hariri that may incriminate him would be established. Yet there, despite all the tricks of evasion, murder, concealment and deception, the tribunal is active. The Syrian president is worried. He hoped to use the old trick of “use Israel, and then throw it away” in order to gain legitimacy, as was the case during the days of Rabin, Barak, Netanyahu and Olmert, and for a few days he indeed courted the Netanyahu government " yet this time he encountered Netanyahu’s and Lieberman’s tough stance and the trick failed.
Mubarak’s mistake: Egypt’s president is not an enemy of Israel, he really isn’t, yet he is a rival, and Mubarak made a mistake after Gaza was occupied by Hamas in 2007. He viewed the Strip as a remote point that is intimately connected to Israel, and he did not wish to understand that the moment the Philadelphi Route has opened, this became his problem too, for the first time since 1967.
Now he understands this very well. The uncovered Hizbullah terror connection was meant to grant legitimacy to the aggressive move he is adopting at this time against activists of Hamas, political Islam, and the Palestinians. Egypt is again looking at Gaza, and Gaza is again looking south to Egypt. The only one that can disrupt this process is Israel, should it reopen its crossings to Gaza.
This was a good year for Israel that boosted its deterrent power. We should always be prepared to face anything, but we are also allowed to watch with pleasure as our enemies become entangled.
@genoves,
genoves wrote:
Foofie- I am convinced that the left wing is reflexively Anti-Israel because the left wing is dedicated to the downfall of the USA with its present Capitalistic System. The Anti-American haters of the sixties and seventies--the bombers--the Weathermen--the qausi Communists--are still with us.
I am heartened that BO is going to visit Israel. He will find that he will not be able to bullshit Nathanyahu.
I am always amused by the fanatic Islamists in Iran and Pakistan who, despite their huge numerical advantage in people and territory, demand the destruction of Israel.
Not while Bibi is there. He has promised--"Never Again"
As Lois Lane (or Jimmy Olsen) might say, "Clark, it almost seems like you have x-ray vision like Superman."
@Advocate,
Advocate wrote:
You said: "Needless to say, it appears to me that some of the same people that were so anti-Bush and pro-Obama are also anti-Israel. Perhaps, just a coincidence? And those that were for McCain might be pro-Israel? Not a 100% correlation, but one that might be statistically significant?"
I read something on this, and, for some reason, it is definitely the case. My view is that libs have a natural tendency to lean toward the underdog, which is, of course, the Pals. To me, their support of the Pals defies all logic and the facts of the situation.
Btw, having read a number of your thoughtful posts, I am somewhat amazed you voted for McCain and Palin. Have you changed your views on this?
I do not believe that the fact that the left has a "natural tendency to lean toward the underdog" is a sequitor. Any new Palestinean state might become leftist, possibly; therefore, one more friend in the left's camp.
Also, there can be many people who are exhilarated to bash Israel, since the Holocaust originally left no doubt that white Christians might have something to feel guilty about. And, the Holocaust did not cure anti-Semitism; it just made it go underground, I believe, for awhile.
And, why would you think I would vote for Obama? Just because there could be some Republicans, that might think of me as a social pariah, does not mean I should not vote for a party that believes the U.S. should maintain its military strength in the world. I could care less what fellow Republicans think of me. I might not think they are all the cat's meow either.
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:
I am surprised that you voted McCain/Palin though. I had you pegged as a strong Obama supporter. Just goes to show that we usually don't get it right when we make assumptions without knowing.
I am surprised that you, or anyone, would think I would be for Obama?
Or, why would you, or anyone, think I would not be for McCain and Palin?
Are you subscribing to popular stereotypes about folks like myself? Any moment now, I might start taking umbrage, so I will stop here.
@Foofie,
No no, no umbrage necessary. I just thought I had seen you criticizing the previous administration and being supportive of Obama. Of course at times I have been too and nobody suspected I would vote for Obama. But then I am branded a incorrigible ideologue by some, which I actually am not, and you have thus far escaped most stereotyping. No intent to do that. I was just probably remembering some of your other comments wrong.
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:
No no, no umbrage necessary. I just thought I had seen you criticizing the previous administration and being supportive of Obama. Of course at times I have been too and nobody suspected I would vote for Obama. But then I am branded a incorrigible ideologue by some, which I actually am not, and you have thus far escaped most stereotyping. No intent to do that. I was just probably remembering some of your other comments wrong.
Fine. I have squelched all possible thoughts of umbrage.
If the press was quick to report the Muslim disappointment with Pope Benedict's visit to Jordan, it is being less quick to judge the Israeli reception to Pope Benedict's call for a Palestinian homeland:
Quote:Pope in Israel calls for Palestinian homeland
May 11, 5:34 AM (ET)
By VICTOR L. SIMPSON
TEL AVIV, Israel (AP) - Pope Benedict XVI called for the establishment of an independent Palestinian homeland immediately after he arrived in Israel Monday, a stance that could put him at odds with his hosts on a trip aimed at easing strains between the Vatican and Jews.
The pope also took on the delicate issue of the Holocaust, pledging to "honor the memory" of the 6 million Jewish victims of the Nazi genocide at the start of his five-day visit to Israel and the Palestinian territories.
Benedict urged Israelis and Palestinians to "explore every possible avenue" to resolve their differences in remarks at the airport after he landed.
"The hopes of countless men, women and children for a more secure and stable future depend on the outcome of negotiations for peace," he said. "In union with people of goodwill everywhere, I plead with all those responsible to explore every possible avenue in the search for a just resolution of the outstanding difficulties, so that both peoples may live in peace in a homeland of their own within secure and internationally recognized borders."
While Benedict's support for a Palestinian homeland alongside Israel is widely shared by the international community, including the United States, it was noteworthy that he made the call in his first public appearance. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, leader of the hard-line Likud Party, has pointedly refused to endorse the two-state solution since his election. But he is expected to come under pressure to do so when he travels to Washington next week.
The pope has tried to improve interfaith relations throughout his four-year papacy. But Benedict has had to tread carefully on his Middle East visit after coming under sharp criticism from both Muslims and Jews for past statements. He is hoping his weeklong trip to the Holy Land, which began with three days in neighboring Jordan, will improve interfaith ties.
More here:
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20090511/D983V2B00.html
And then there was the Jersusalem incident that graphically illustrates what the prospects for peace are up against:
Quote:May 11, 2009
Sheikh attacks Israel, pope walks out
By JPOST.COM STAFF
Chief Islamic Judge of the Palestinian Authority, Sheikh Tayseer Rajab Tamimi, launched a poisonous verbal attack at Israel at a Monday night gathering attended by Pope Benedict XVI.
(
Slideshow: Pope in Israel, Day I In a meeting with organizations involved in inter-religious dialogue at the Notre Dame Jerusalem Center, Tamimi called upon Muslims and Christians to unite against what he said were the murderous Israelis. )
Taking the podium after the pope without being on the original list of speakers scheduled for the evening, Tamimi accused Israel of murdering women and children in Gaza and making Palestinians refugees, and declared Jerusalem the eternal Palestinian capital.
Following the diatribe and before the meeting was officially over, the pope exited the premises. Army Radio reported that the pope shook Tamimi's hand before walking out.
Minutes after the embarrassing occurrence, Father Federico Lombardi, director of the Holy See press office, released a response to the incident.
"The intervention of Sheikh Tayseer Tamimi was not previewed by the organizers of the interreligious meeting that took place at Notre Dame Centre in Jerusalem," the message read. "In a meeting dedicated to dialogue, this intervention was a direct negation of what [it] should be," it continued.
"We hope that such an incident will not damage the mission of the Holy Father aiming at promoting peace and interreligious dialogue, as he has clearly affirmed in many occasions in this pilgrimage," Father Lombardi added.
"We hope also that interreligious dialogue in the holy land will not be damaged by this incident," the message concluded.
Last month, Tamimi reissued a warning to Palestinians against selling their homes or properties to Jews, saying those who violated the order would be accused of "high treason" - a charge that carries the death penalty.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1242029499952&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
@Foofie,
What the hell are you talking about? Our military spending is taking us to the poor house, and it is hugely wasteful. The last time I looked, we were spending more than the next 26 countries in spending combined. How many more countries must we invade? Are we trying to be another Roman Empire?
@Advocate,
And by the same token...how many other countries were NOT invaded because we were willing to spend massive amounts of money on the military?
@mysteryman,
More importantly, what would we and all those other countries be facing if we were not spending massive amounts of money on the military?
