LOL you're agreeing with someone who believes what you believe. Hilarious. I gave you the facts on Israeli terrorism, how they refuse to declare their nuclear weapons, and how they refuse to sign a treaty. FACTS
And the Palestinians refuse to sign treaties too and act in their own self interest. So again I ask, why did the Palestinians launch the Second Infidata instead of accepting Clinton's pace accords?
It's not all Bush's fault, I blame it all on Moses. He led the Israelites out of Egypt to the wrong place. It didn't even have any oil. But naturally that's where Israel had to locate again when the new state was established, in the worst possible place, surrounded by Muslims who hate Jews almost as much as they hate women. (The Muslims' big problem is that they can do without Jews but can't survive without women.)
What Moses should have done was load his people on boats and sail for some New World. If he had done that, America wouldn't be owned by Israel today. America would be Israel.
__________________ It takes a lot of time to be a genius, you have to sit around so much doing nothing. – Gertrude Stein
Your facts are other people's propaganda, just as their facts are your propaganda. There are three sides to every story, and you, AF, only ever spew the anti-Israeli side. Certainly the Israelis are far from lily-white, but if the Arabs wanted peace, why did they instead of accepting the Clinton accords, launch the Second Infidata? Is it because the Arabs in the region will only accept peace on their own terms, meaning Israel no longer exists?
There have been plenty of opportunities for peace in the region, but as the saying goes, "The Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss and opportunity." You can see why, throughout the past 60 years or so, the Israelis have become more and more suspect of their neighbors. Again, Israel itself shoulders plenty of blame, but the Palestinians and their supporters are far from angels too. So far from angels that in this conflict, yes, I would say the Palestinians are the "evil" ones. Maybe if the Palestinians stopped firing rockets into Israel...Let's just say, I won't hold my breath.
The Palestinians have been oppressed for decades now. The wikileaks documents showed that the Israeli government has destroyed their water supply, keep the economy on the brink of collapse, and also continue building thousands of illegal settlements even after the UN named Palestine a "non-member state."
They've been poking the Arabs in the eye and then whine when they fight back. Furthermore, those "rockets" they fire at Israel are built with fertilizer. They can't even be controlled. The Israelis then drop phosphorus bombs on them IE: a chemical weapon.
The only country that wants war in the Middle East is Israel.
If Israel wanted peace, the wikileaks documents wouldn't have shown the above facts.
If Israel wanted peace, they would want to get nuclear weapons out of that region.
If Israel wanted peace, they would stop building illegal settlements.
If Israel wanted peace, they would at least sign a nuclear treaty.
As it is, our politicians look the other way at the above facts while hammering Iran for signing a treaty and following UN law.
Still haven't answered my question about the Clinton accords. I know you are avoiding it because you don't like the answer. Truth is, both sides have been fighting for generations. When Israel first became a nation, Golda Meir nailed it when she said, "There will be peace when the Arab's start loving their children more then they hate Israeli children." Unfortunately, that never happened, and now, we have both sides hating more than loving.
I believe the Clinton accords were the last, best chance for a lasting peace for the next 50 or so years. The Israelis were all on-board, but at the last minute, the Palestinians launched another attack instead. Sorry, but until you can admit the Arabs are at least equally complicit (more in my opinion), then what you spew is little more than hate speech. So again, please answer the question why the Palestinian response to the Clinton accords was more violence?
Still haven't answered my question about the Clinton accords. I know you are avoiding it because you don't like the answer. Truth is, both sides have been fighting for generations. When Israel first became a nation, Golda Meir nailed it when she said, "There will be peace when the Arab's start loving their children more then they hate Israeli children." Unfortunately, that never happened, and now, we have both sides hating more than loving.
I believe the Clinton accords were the last, best chance for a lasting peace for the next 50 or so years. The Israelis were all on-board, but at the last minute, the Palestinians launched another attack instead. Sorry, but until you can admit the Arabs are at least equally complicit (more in my opinion), then what you spew is little more than hate speech. So again, please answer the question why the Palestinian response to the Clinton accords was more violence?
The Palestinian side to that story is that the Clinton accords were worthless since a short period of time later the Israelis continued building more illegal settlements.
Answer this - why won't Israel sign a nuclear treaty (like Iran has) or at least declare that they have nuclear weapons? How can any country say they want peace when they won't do that? Do you believe Israel is above international law?
The Palestinian side to that story is that the Clinton accords were worthless since a short period of time later the Israelis continued building more illegal settlements.
Answer this - why won't Israel sign a nuclear treaty (like Iran has) or at least declare that they have nuclear weapons? How can any country say they want peace when they won't do that?
The Palestinian side to the story is bull and you know it. The Israelis started building more illegal settlements because the Palestinians both loudly and with actions, announced the second Infidata. The Clinton accords, though agreed to by Arafat, were never accepted by the Palestinians, and have lead to the split between the Palestinian Liberation Authority and Hamas. Basically, the hard-liners saw Arafat as weak and giving in to Israel, and in response, took power and decided to launch more attacks on Israel.
As to why Israel has never signed a nuclear treaty? They don't trust anyone, and with enemies on three sides, wants to keep everyone guessing. Personally, with the stockpile I believe the Israelis have, I'd like to see them open up more and sign a treaty as a show of good faith. But again, I also think the next path to real peace isn't going to happen for a few generations. Of course, had the Palestinians accepted Clinton's proposals, perhaps there would have been a chance at peace, and Israel would have either by now, signed a nuclear treaty, or be on that path. But again, the Palestinians missed their opportunity.
Last but not least, history shows treaties are rarely worth the paper they are printed on. Just ask Native Americans, or what the Germans thought of the Treaty of Versailles after WW I. So ask yourself this, what do the Israelis have to gain by attempting another peace treaty with part(ies) that the last time they went through the process, lead to the other parties attacking Israel again?
Your facts are other people's propaganda, just as their facts are your propaganda. There are three sides to every story, and you, AF, only ever spew the anti-Israeli side. Certainly the Israelis are far from lily-white, but if the Arabs wanted peace, why did they instead of accepting the Clinton accords, launch the Second Infidata? Is it because the Arabs in the region will only accept peace on their own terms, meaning Israel no longer exists?
There have been plenty of opportunities for peace in the region, but as the saying goes, "The Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss and opportunity." You can see why, throughout the past 60 years or so, the Israelis have become more and more suspect of their neighbors. Again, Israel itself shoulders plenty of blame, but the Palestinians and their supporters are far from angels too. So far from angels that in this conflict, yes, I would say the Palestinians are the "evil" ones. Maybe if the Palestinians stopped firing rockets into Israel...Let's just say, I won't hold my breath.
+1.
Israel is certainly far from lily-white in their handling of international or domestic affairs...but every time I think to apportion "blame" (if you want to call it that), their actions are far more reasonable or understandable when you consider what the Palestinians and/or Arabs have done.
I think the main thing Israel needs to stop doing is so aggressively building settlements in the West Bank. It only complicates the peace process and makes it harder for both parties to arrive at an accord in the future.
BUT...then again, when you look at the "why" and "when" Israel started their aggressive settlement expansion, the root of it dealt with Palestinian unreasonableness in the first place. Israel offered them 90% of the West Bank...and that was rejected. Afterwards, I think they adopted the mentality of: "screw them...if they're going to be unreasonable, might as well do what we want since they're going to reject anything we put forth in front of them."
The Palestinian side to the story is bull and you know it. The Israelis started building more illegal settlements because the Palestinians both loudly and with actions, announced the second Infidata. The Clinton accords, though agreed to by Arafat, were never accepted by the Palestinians, and have lead to the split between the Palestinian Liberation Authority and Hamas. Basically, the hard-liners saw Arafat as weak and giving in to Israel, and in response, took power and decided to launch more attacks on Israel.
As to why Israel has never signed a nuclear treaty? They don't trust anyone, and with enemies on three sides, wants to keep everyone guessing. Personally, with the stockpile I believe the Israelis have, I'd like to see them open up more and sign a treaty as a show of good faith. But again, I also think the next path to real peace isn't going to happen for a few generations. Of course, had the Palestinians accepted Clinton's proposals, perhaps there would have been a chance at peace, and Israel would have either by now, signed a nuclear treaty, or be on that path. But again, the Palestinians missed their opportunity.
Last but not least, history shows treaties are rarely worth the paper they are printed on. Just ask Native Americans, or what the Germans thought of the Treaty of Versailles after WW I. So ask yourself this, what do the Israelis have to gain by attempting another peace treaty with part(ies) that the last time they went through the process, lead to the other parties attacking Israel again?
But yet Iran should be invaded for "supposedly" trying to build a nuclear weapon when they've signed a nuclear treaty and are following UN law? You realize that Israel is the ultimate hypocrite for talking about war knowing that they refuse to follow any international law whatsoever, right?
So, Israel gets to follow certain "rules" when they've done nothing but violate international law while Iran can be invaded while following international law and having signed a peace treaty.
LOL you're agreeing with someone who believes what you believe. Hilarious. I gave you the facts on Israeli terrorism, how they refuse to declare their nuclear weapons, and how they refuse to sign a treaty. FACTS
I don't need to agree with a post to understand the words are conceived with reason and executed with objective logic. Heck, I have no problem with people lacing their posts with opinion; indeed, I expect that most of the posts would be opinion-based. It is posts like yours when you endeavor to disguise your opinion as fact that I am forced to respond.
You don't have any clue as to what the word "fact" actually means. You vomit false propaganda, and then repeat the same lies over and over and over again, until someone takes your lies as the truth. Once a word is written enough times, people actually start to believe it. That is why your propaganda cannot go unchecked, even on sites such as this.
I don't need to agree with a post to understand the words are conceived with reason and executed with objective logic. Heck, I have no problem with people lacing their posts with opinion; indeed, I expect that most of the posts would be opinion-based. It is posts like yours when you endeavor to disguise your opinion as fact that I am forced to respond.
You don't have any clue as to what the word "fact" actually means. You vomit false propaganda, and then repeat the same lies over and over and over again, until someone takes your lies as the truth. Once a word is written enough times, people actually start to believe it. That is why your propaganda cannot go unchecked, even on sites such as this.
We all have, at minimum, a predisposition on these kinds of issues, if not an outright prejudgment and / or agenda.
Not all of them are bad, either.
Unabashed Jew-hating is one that is.
I totally agree with this. I wouldn't expect all people to believe everything that Israel does is "right." I know I am highly critical of certain policies, particularly including the continuation of the provocative building of settlements.
On the other hand, imagine the pressure that the World could place on Israel if the Palestinians and Israel's neighbors actually behaved in a peaceful manner. Imagine the Israeli public's pressure on its own government to secure lasting peace, if the public was not faced with the constant threat to their survival from cross border bombings and intra-border suicide attacks. For once, give Israel a legitmate reason to stop building their settlements. Give Israel the bona fide hope for peace, and watch how that nation responds.
[quote=AmericaFirst;6379900]The Palestinian side to that story is that the Clinton accords were worthless since a short period of time later the Israelis continued building more illegal settlements.
Quote:
Answer this - why won't Israel sign a nuclear treaty (like Iran has) or at least declare that they have nuclear weapons?
That's been answered many times--but, typically, you ignore the answers.
Signing the nuclear treaty means acknowledging how many nuclear weapons you have and what your capacity is (ie: how many warheads are located on ships, nuclear missiles, bombs, etc). The "fine print" of those nuclear treaties, as it were.
Israel is the smallest nuclear-armed country and doesn't exactly have vast swaths of land in which to hide their nuclear arsenal. Since those weapons solely exist for security/deterrence purposes, telling the world how many weapons they have and what they are also allows an enemy to have a decent idea of where they are (since, again, there's a finite amount of land in the country and a definite number of military bases in which to store and secure sophisticated nuclear weapons) and how many nuclear weapons would be needed to destroy 50% (or more) of Israel's nuclear arsenal.
If you remember the Cold War concept of MADD--it was predicated on the fact that a "first strike" was impossible...you could never destroy enough of a nation's nuclear arsenal without suffering impossibly high damage in a counter-strike.
With Israel, MADD doesn't exist. It's too small of a country and the only deterrent value in having nukes is to keep enemies/adversaries guessing on exactly how large their arsenal is.
I'll give a pretty simple analogy here that will probably be lost on you--but others might find it useful:
Say nuclear weapons (ICBMs, sub or air-launched bombs/cruise missiles) are the equivalent of guns (assault rifles, shotguns, and pistols). Only a few nations actually have "guns" for protection...everyone else has knives or clubs. The US, Russia, China, India would basically be like large plantation or ranch owners. Lots of land to set up defensive arrangements to use their multiple "guns" against potential adversaries. France and Britain would be smaller-scale landowners with a couple of acres or so...but still plenty of room to hide multiple "guns" though.
Israel would be like having a 2-room condo. Forcing them to declare how many guns they have and what they are (rifles, shotguns, pistols), would allow a potential adversary to figure out to a reasonable probability which weapons are located where. It's impractical to use an assault rifle in the kitchen (too confined an area)--you'd probably store a pistol in there. The heavier-duty stuff (shotguns and assault rifles) would more likely be in the bedrooms.
Kinda wrecks the deterrent/security value. Which is the whole point of why Iran makes this so much of an issue and why the rest of the UN Security Council considers this a non-issue.
Quote:
How can any country say they want peace when they won't do that? Do you believe Israel is above international law?
Well, since you so deftly ignored my previous question--why does Iran claim to have a nuclear program "for peaceful, non-military purposes" when:
1.) the nuclear facilities are located underground and on military installations
2.) international diplomats have offered Iran nuclear reactors for power generation..whereby other countries would provide enriched uranium, but it'd be for civilian use...and they declined
Certainly seems like a reasonable compromise--IF Iran was actually wanting nuclear reactors for peaceful purposes. Not that Sacha Baron Cohen's recent stuff has been funny--but this particular scene kinda sums it up:
If the United States and Israel can have nuclear weapons, I don't see why Iran can't. In fact, the aggressive warmongering of the United States and Israel provides the perfect justification for Iran to develop nuclear weapons.
Iran's centrifuges will produce nuclear material that will be used only for peaceful purposes.
__________________
On the third day he rose again in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.
Awesome!! Our resident Iranian caliph who ironically refers to himself as "AmericaFirst" is back in action, spitting out his racist, anti-Israel propaganda. A reader's delight ...
AmericaFirst can thank ChartsandGraphs. He is now the 2nd biggest racist/terrorist lover on here...
AmericaFirst can thank ChartsandGraphs. He is now the 2nd biggest racist/terrorist lover on here...
According to The Institute For Middle East Understanding, no country knows racism and how to carry out terrorist acts better than Israel. Jews in Iran are treated better than Palestinians in Israel.
Facts. Being an Israel supporter, that makes you the "racist/terrorist lover" since you support the despicable acts below. And you call yourself a liberal? What kind of liberal supports institutionalized discrimination that is solely based on ethnicity? I guess in your mind it's ok for America to be extremely liberal these days but it's also ok for Israel to be one of the only countries in the world to still discriminate based on race. Hypocrite much?
Institutionalized discrimination
There are more than 30 laws that discriminate against Palestinian citizens of Israel. directly or indirectly, based solely on their ethnicity, rendering them second or third class citizens in their own homeland.
93% of the land in Israel is owned either by the state or by quasi-governmental agencies, such as the Jewish National Fund, that discriminate against non-Jews. Palestinian citizens of Israel face significant legal obstacles in gaining access to this land for agriculture, residence, or commercial development.
More than seventy Palestinian villages and communities in Israel, some of which pre-date the establishment of the state, are unrecognized by the government, receive no services, and are not even listed on official maps. Many other towns with a majority Palestinian population lack basic services and receive significantly less government funding than do majority-Jewish towns.
Since Israel's founding in 1948, more than 600 Jewish municipalities have been established, while not a single new Arab town or community has been recognized by the state.
Israeli government resources are disproportionately directed to Jews and not to Arabs, one factor in causing the Palestinians of Israel to suffer the lowest living standards in Israeli society by all socio-economic indicators.
Most Americans are hopelessly clueless about the real history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. They only get the Zionist side of the story, courtesy of the Jewish controlled media in the U.S.
This documentary does a pretty decent job of explaining the conflict in a more balanced manner:
Linear Mode
