HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Well it looks like Israel...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 10:05 PM

 

Well it looks like Israel may be at full blown war by the end of the week

http://www.kansascity.com/2012/11/15/3919342/all-out-war-feared-as-israel-moves.html

62 replies, 3769 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 62 replies Author Time Post
Reply Well it looks like Israel may be at full blown war by the end of the week (Original post)
former-republican Nov 2012 OP
msongs Nov 2012 #1
garthranzz Nov 2012 #2
cpwm17 Nov 2012 #31
patrice Nov 2012 #52
R. Daneel Olivaw Nov 2012 #7
Honeycombe8 Nov 2012 #8
liberal_at_heart Nov 2012 #9
R. Daneel Olivaw Nov 2012 #15
Honeycombe8 Nov 2012 #19
PCIntern Nov 2012 #45
R. Daneel Olivaw Nov 2012 #12
Honeycombe8 Nov 2012 #20
R. Daneel Olivaw Nov 2012 #28
former-republican Nov 2012 #14
Honeycombe8 Nov 2012 #21
Douglas Carpenter Nov 2012 #22
Honeycombe8 Nov 2012 #29
Douglas Carpenter Nov 2012 #33
Honeycombe8 Nov 2012 #34
magical thyme Nov 2012 #36
Honeycombe8 Nov 2012 #39
cali Nov 2012 #37
Honeycombe8 Nov 2012 #40
cali Nov 2012 #41
liberalhistorian Nov 2012 #58
cpwm17 Nov 2012 #23
Honeycombe8 Nov 2012 #35
whatchamacallit Nov 2012 #57
DisgustipatedinCA Nov 2012 #62
DonCoquixote Nov 2012 #55
hrmjustin Nov 2012 #3
former-republican Nov 2012 #4
former-republican Nov 2012 #11
R. Daneel Olivaw Nov 2012 #13
former-republican Nov 2012 #18
R. Daneel Olivaw Nov 2012 #25
cali Nov 2012 #38
R. Daneel Olivaw Nov 2012 #43
cali Nov 2012 #44
R. Daneel Olivaw Nov 2012 #48
patrice Nov 2012 #53
On the Road Nov 2012 #5
former-republican Nov 2012 #6
marasinghe Nov 2012 #10
nadinbrzezinski Nov 2012 #16
johnq45 Nov 2012 #17
AverageJoe90 Nov 2012 #24
R. Daneel Olivaw Nov 2012 #26
former-republican Nov 2012 #30
former-republican Nov 2012 #27
Prometheus Bound Nov 2012 #32
choie Nov 2012 #56
former-republican Nov 2012 #42
RomneyLies Nov 2012 #46
R. Daneel Olivaw Nov 2012 #47
siligut Nov 2012 #50
Fire Walk With Me Nov 2012 #49
BlueCaliDem Nov 2012 #60
Fire Walk With Me Nov 2012 #61
underoath Nov 2012 #51
hobbit709 Nov 2012 #54
patrice Nov 2012 #59

Response to former-republican (Original post)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 10:06 PM

1. so the occupied and people who had their lands stolen are fighting back. quel surprise nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msongs (Reply #1)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 10:08 PM

2. And someone else goes on full ignore

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to garthranzz (Reply #2)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 11:37 PM

31. Some people like to ignore reality n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cpwm17 (Reply #31)

Fri Nov 16, 2012, 11:33 AM

52. That's why "we" call them ignorant. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msongs (Reply #1)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 10:22 PM

7. Careful. You're not supposed to mention that part.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msongs (Reply #1)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 10:26 PM

8. A deal was offered years ago...what they wanted, actually. Palestinians turned it down.

That leader with the big ears, the tunic...what was his name? Anyway, he turned it down, when in fact it was what they were demanding.

That showed a lot. One side didn't want a compromise or war to end. One did.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Honeycombe8 (Reply #8)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 10:29 PM

9. Isreal never stopped building on Palestinian land

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal_at_heart (Reply #9)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 10:40 PM

15. Just imagine if US citizens, let's say the Cajuns, decided to take the Canadian maritimes?


How long do you think that would last? Not even a minute.

So why does Israel turn a continual blind eye to its citizens setting up shop on Palestinian land?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal_at_heart (Reply #9)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 10:56 PM

19. I just told you. Israel accepted their offer of a deal, then the Palestinians reneged.

They really didn't want a deal.

Whatever their offer was...Israel accepted. I saw an interview with that man years later (Larry King? Or who?), and he asked the man about that. The man just sat there, refusing to answer why he had not honored the deal.

That spoke volumes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Honeycombe8 (Reply #19)

Fri Nov 16, 2012, 09:53 AM

45. +1 nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Honeycombe8 (Reply #8)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 10:33 PM

12. It was big of the Israelis to offer the Palestinians 95% of their own land to them.


So what if they decided to keep the other 5% for themselves?

So how much does land Israel intend to keep now?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Reply #12)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 10:57 PM

20. Whatever deal the Palestinians offered, Israel accepted.

I think it was back to the, what is it, 1967 borders? Or something like that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Honeycombe8 (Reply #20)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 11:21 PM

28. Interesting find from the WIK

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oslo_I_Accord

In a 2001 video, Netanyahu, reportedly unaware he was being recorded, said: "They asked me before the election if I'd honor ... I said I would, but I'm going to interpret the accords in such a way that would allow me to put an end to this galloping forward to the '67 borders. How did we do it? Nobody said what defined military zones were. Defined military zones are security zones; as far as I'm concerned, the entire Jordan Valley is a defined military zone. Go argue." Netanyahu then explained how he conditioned his signing of the 1997 Hebron agreement on American consent that there be no withdrawals from "specified military locations", and insisted he be allowed to specify which areas constituted a "military location"—such as the whole of the Jordan Valley. "Why is that important? Because from that moment on I stopped the Oslo Accords", Netanyahu affirmed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to former-republican (Reply #14)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 10:57 PM

21. That's him. Thank you. It's hell getting old. (but truth is, I've always been bad w/names)nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Honeycombe8 (Reply #8)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 11:01 PM

22. The Myth of the Generous Offer: Distorting the Camp David negotiations By Seth Ackerman for FAIR

FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting)

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1113


The seemingly endless volleys of attack and retaliation in the Middle East leave many people wondering why the two sides can't reach an agreement. The answer is simple, according to numerous commentators: At the Camp David meeting in July 2000, Israel "offered extraordinary concessions" (Michael Kelly, Washington Post, 3/13/02), "far-reaching concessions" (Boston Globe, 12/30/01), "unprecedented concessions" (E.J. Dionne, Washington Post, 12/4/01). Israel’s "generous peace terms" (L.A. Times editorial, 3/15/02) constituted "the most far-reaching offer ever" (Chicago Tribune editorial, 6/6/01) to create a Palestinian state. In short, Camp David was "an unprecedented concession" to the Palestinians (Time, 12/25/00).

But due to "Arafat's recalcitrance" (L.A. Times editorial, 4/9/02) and "Palestinian rejectionism" (Mortimer Zuckerman, U.S. News & World Report, 3/22/02), "Arafat walked away from generous Israeli peacemaking proposals without even making a counteroffer" (Salon, 3/8/01). Yes, Arafat "walked away without making a counteroffer" (Samuel G. Freedman, USA Today, 6/18/01). Israel "offered peace terms more generous than ever before and Arafat did not even make a counteroffer" (Chicago Sun-Times editorial, 11/10/00). In case the point isn't clear: "At Camp David, Ehud Barak offered the Palestinians an astonishingly generous peace with dignity and statehood. Arafat not only turned it down, he refused to make a counteroffer!" (Charles Krauthammer, Seattle Times, 10/16/00).

This account is one of the most tenacious myths of the conflict. Its implications are obvious: There is nothing Israel can do to make peace with its Palestinian neighbors. The Israeli army’s increasingly deadly attacks, in this version, can be seen purely as self-defense against Palestinian aggression that is motivated by little more than blind hatred.

Locking in occupation

To understand what actually happened at Camp David, it's necessary to know that for many years the PLO has officially called for a two-state solution in which Israel would keep the 78 percent of the Palestine Mandate (as Britain's protectorate was called) that it has controlled since 1948, and a Palestinian state would be formed on the remaining 22 percent that Israel has occupied since the 1967 war (the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem). Israel would withdraw completely from those lands, return to the pre-1967 borders and a resolution to the problem of the Palestinian refugees who were forced to flee their homes in 1948 would be negotiated between the two sides. Then, in exchange, the Palestinians would agree to recognize Israel (PLO Declaration, 12/7/88; PLO Negotiations Department).

Although some people describe Israel's Camp David proposal as practically a return to the 1967 borders, it was far from that. Under the plan, Israel would have withdrawn completely from the small Gaza Strip. But it would annex strategically important and highly valuable sections of the West Bank--while retaining "security control" over other parts--that would have made it impossible for the Palestinians to travel or trade freely within their own state without the permission of the Israeli government (Political Science Quarterly, 6/22/01; New York Times, 7/26/01; Report on Israeli Settlement in the Occupied Territories, 9-10/00; Robert Malley, New York Review of Books, 8/9/01).

The annexations and security arrangements would divide the West Bank into three disconnected cantons. In exchange for taking fertile West Bank lands that happen to contain most of the region's scarce water aquifers, Israel offered to give up a piece of its own territory in the Negev Desert--about one-tenth the size of the land it would annex--including a former toxic waste dump.

Because of the geographic placement of Israel’s proposed West Bank annexations, Palestinians living in their new "independent state" would be forced to cross Israeli territory every time they traveled or shipped goods from one section of the West Bank to another, and Israel could close those routes at will. Israel would also retain a network of so-called "bypass roads" that would crisscross the Palestinian state while remaining sovereign Israeli territory, further dividing the West Bank.

Israel was also to have kept "security control" for an indefinite period of time over the Jordan Valley, the strip of territory that forms the border between the West Bank and neighboring Jordan. Palestine would not have free access to its own international borders with Jordan and Egypt--putting Palestinian trade, and therefore its economy, at the mercy of the Israeli military.

Had Arafat agreed to these arrangements, the Palestinians would have permanently locked in place many of the worst aspects of the very occupation they were trying to bring to an end. For at Camp David, Israel also demanded that Arafat sign an "end-of-conflict" agreement stating that the decades-old war between Israel and the Palestinians was over and waiving all further claims against Israel.

Violence or negotiation?

The Camp David meeting ended without agreement on July 25, 2000. At this point, according to conventional wisdom, the Palestinian leader's "response to the Camp David proposals was not a counteroffer but an assault" (Oregonian editorial, 8/15/01). "Arafat figured he could push one more time to get one more batch of concessions. The talks collapsed. Violence erupted again" (E.J. Dionne, Washington Post, 12/4/01). He "used the uprising to obtain through violence...what he couldn't get at the Camp David bargaining table" (Chicago Sun-Times, 12/21/00).

But the Intifada actually did not start for another two months. In the meantime, there was relative calm in the occupied territories. During this period of quiet, the two sides continued negotiating behind closed doors. Meanwhile, life for the Palestinian population under Israeli occupation went on as usual. On July 28, Prime Minister Barak announced that Israel had no plans to withdraw from the town of Abu Dis, as it had pledged to do in the 1995 Oslo II agreement (Israel Wire, 7/28/00). In August and early September, Israel announced new construction on Jewish-only settlements in Efrat and Har Adar, while the Israeli statistics bureau reported that settlement building had increased 81 percent in the first quarter of 2000. Two Palestinian houses were demolished in East Jerusalem, and Arab residents of Sur Bahir and Suwahara received expropriation notices; their houses lay in the path of a planned Jewish-only highway (Report on Israeli Settlement in the Occupied Territories, 11-12/00).

The Intifada began on September 29, 2000, when Israeli troops opened fire on unarmed Palestinian rock-throwers at the Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem, killing four and wounding over 200 (State Department human rights report for Israel, 2/01). Demonstrations spread throughout the territories. Barak and Arafat, having both staked their domestic reputations on their ability to win a negotiated peace from the other side, now felt politically threatened by the violence. In January 2001, they resumed formal negotiations at Taba, Egypt.

The Taba talks are one of the most significant and least remembered events of the "peace process." While so far in 2002 (1/1/02-5/31/02), Camp David has been mentioned in conjunction with Israel 35 times on broadcast network news shows, Taba has come up only four times--never on any of the nightly newscasts. In February 2002, Israel's leading newspaper, Ha'aretz (2/14/02), published for the first time the text of the European Union's official notes of the Taba talks, which were confirmed in their essential points by negotiators from both sides.

"Anyone who reads the European Union account of the Taba talks," Ha'aretz noted in its introduction, "will find it hard to believe that only 13 months ago, Israel and the Palestinians were so close to a peace agreement." At Taba, Israel dropped its demand to control Palestine's borders and the Jordan Valley. The Palestinians, for the first time, made detailed counterproposals--in other words, counteroffers--showing which changes to the 1967 borders they would be willing to accept. The Israeli map that has emerged from the talks shows a fully contiguous West Bank, though with a very narrow middle and a strange gerrymandered western border to accommodate annexed settlements.

In the end, however, all this proved too much for Israel's Labor prime minister. On January 28, Barak unilaterally broke off the negotiations. "The pressure of Israeli public opinion against the talks could not be resisted," Ben-Ami said (New York Times, 7/26/01).

Settlements off the table

In February 2001, Ariel Sharon was elected prime minister of Israel. Sharon has made his position on the negotiations crystal clear. "You know, it's not by accident that the settlements are located where they are," he said in an interview a few months after his election (Ha'aretz, 4/12/01).


They safeguard the cradle of the Jewish people's birth and also provide strategic depth which is vital to our existence.

The settlements were established according to the conception that, come what may, we have to hold the western security area , which is adjacent to the Green Line, and the eastern security area along the Jordan River and the roads linking the two. And Jerusalem, of course. And the hill aquifer. Nothing has changed with respect to any of those things. The importance of the security areas has not diminished, it may even have increased. So I see no reason for evacuating any settlements.


Meanwhile, Ehud Barak has repudiated his own positions at Taba, and now speaks pointedly of the need for a negotiated settlement "based on the principles presented at Camp David" (New York Times op-ed, 4/14/02).

In April 2002, the countries of the Arab League--from moderate Jordan to hardline Iraq--unanimously agreed on a Saudi peace plan centering around full peace, recognition and normalization of relations with Israel in exchange for a complete Israeli withdrawal to the 1967 borders as well as a "just resolution" to the refugee issue. Palestinian negotiator Nabil Sha'ath declared himself "delighted" with the plan. "The proposal constitutes the best terms of reference for our political struggle," he told the Jordan Times (3/28/02).

Ariel Sharon responded by declaring that "a return to the 1967 borders will destroy Israel" (New York Times, 5/4/02). In a commentary on the Arab plan, Ha'aretz's Bradley Burston (2/27/02) noted that the offer was "forcing Israel to confront peace terms it has quietly feared for decades."


http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1113

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Douglas Carpenter (Reply #22)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 11:32 PM

29. Arafat himself this was a desirable accord. Then he later walked away. He was given a chance

in the interview I saw to explain. Instead, he sat there silent, refusing to comment on why he walked away.

I can only guess that many of the rank and file Palestinians didn't like it.

Both sides are in the wrong. Both sides have to let go of the past. Israel has to give up this "this land is my land" mindset, because God gave it to them centuries ago. And Palestine has to give up the "this land is my land" mindset because they had lived on it for centuries, even tho they hadn't bothered to create a government and really claim it.

They both have to take some hurt, and go forward, if they want to live in peace.

Most recently, Israel, at the request of the U.S. and others, gave Gaza to the Palestinians. Many Israelis didn't want to do that, for fear the Palestinians would use it as a launching pad for rockets into Israeli neighborhoods. But the Israeli leaders did it, anyway. And sure enough, their worst fears were realized. The Palestinians did indeed use Gaza as a launching pad for rockets into Israeli neighborhoods.

So I can see why Israel takes a hard line. And I can see why the Palestinians take a hard line. But both sides taking a hard line doesn't lead to a resolution or peace, or a place for children to grow up without having hteir arms and legs blown off. The children learn to live in violence, and grow up accustomed to it.

The borders won't go back to 1947, which is what the Palestinians want. Not gonna happen. And Palestinians refuse to allow that Israel has a right to exist as a state.

Israel took land that wasn't theirs, in 1947. It was in fact given to them by others who had no right to give it. Nonetheless, that was a wrong that was done to the Palestinians. But that can't be corrected now, any more than we can "give back" land taken from the Native Americans here. Not gonna happen. No good way to do it, anyway.

It's a mess. Some believe it is God's will that the arabs and jews hate each other and kill each other. That may be at the heart of why they won't live in peace with each other. Also, extremists are useless for a prosperous and safe future. Both sides have too many of those, IMO.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Honeycombe8 (Reply #29)

Fri Nov 16, 2012, 12:07 AM

33. Even the Chief Israeli negotiator and Israeli Foreign Minister Shlomo ben-Ami said that he would hav

rejected the Camp David 2000 offer if he had been a Palestinian leader. To to have accepted the Camp Dave 2000 offer would have turned the Palestinians Territories into a non-viable state - disconnected into multiple cantons. The Taba conference of January 2001 did offer some hope - but the Israelis - not the Palestinians walked out. Although to be fair, they were on the eve of Israeli elections which everyone foresaw a win by Sharon who absolutely vowed that he would not accept any agreement with the Palestinians. This was all very unfortunately because all sides did state and the European Unions records does support the claim - that they were actually getting close to an agreement. But it was certainly not the Palestinians who walked away. You can read this document which was published later in Haaretz : http://prrn.mcgill.ca/prrn/papers/moratinos.html

The Israeli redeployment from the Gaza only made the Gaza non-viable as an entity completely cut off from the world - everyone knows. There is not a single credible human rights organization in the world involved in this issue who would say otherwise. At the same time they were withdrawing from the Gaza they were continuing relentless expansion in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

It is a bit disingenuous of the Israelis to claim that they have made any concessions when - they have done nothing but relentless expansion at all points. Here is a table recording Israeli settlement expansion from 1972 to 2011.

http://www.fmep.org/settlement_info/settlement-info-and-tables/stats-data/comprehensive-settlement-population-1972-2006

Damn, I vowed that I would not talk about the Israeli/Palestinian conflict anymore - because there is no hope for peace as long as one side has such overwhelming power and the other side is pretty much powerless - until demographics changes that equations- which eventually it probably will - there will not be a settlement.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Douglas Carpenter (Reply #33)

Fri Nov 16, 2012, 07:40 AM

34. Only one side intentionally targets innocent civilians for murder.

Only one side engages in terrorism.

Israel has made concessions over the years. Maybe not enough. The Palestinians have not, that I'm aware of. Seems to me they are content to live the way they live - in terrorism - for eternity. They have never given an inch over their original demands.

Great Britain and the UN are majorly to blame for all this mess.

But the arabs have been committing terrorism in the area since almost the turn of the 20th century in that area. Seems to me that is what they want, that is how they live. Seems to me they are simply filled with hatred, and it has nothing to do with land or economic prosperity or democracy.

Had the Palestinians not used Gaza for a launching pad to kill innocent Israelis, it would have been another basis to use as an example for future giving over of land. But the Palestinians used it for terrorism, and still do.

That's what Palestinians are mainly about, seems to me. Killing people they just don't like and don't want in the area. No matter what. Give them land, don't give them land. Give them economic opportunity, or don't. No matter what, they will kill innocent people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Honeycombe8 (Reply #34)

Fri Nov 16, 2012, 07:52 AM

36. Only one side commits terrorism?!?! Only one side targets innocents?

You're going on ignore before I write something that will get me PPRd.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to magical thyme (Reply #36)

Fri Nov 16, 2012, 07:54 AM

39. Yes. If you can't stand the heat, get outta the kitch, as they say.

I see why you can't see a path forward for children to grow up, with education, get jobs, prosper, if you can't even discuss it. That of course means that I won the argument.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Honeycombe8 (Reply #34)

Fri Nov 16, 2012, 07:52 AM

37. I'm sorry, but that truly doesn't cut it.

Gaza, as my Senator says, is a prison camp. Yes, all of Gaza. The guards are outside the actual prison but that doesn't make it any less of a prison. That doesn't justify Hamas' actions, but it's important information.

In addition, the Israelis fire upon Gaza is in pretty indiscriminate. And yes, the Israelis have used used terrorism too. It was used a tool prior to the formation of the state.

I think your post is disturbing with your broad brush painting of Palestinians as murderous thugs who want only to kill people.

Honestly, your post disgusts me- as do all the one sided posts, from either side, on this topic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Reply #37)

Fri Nov 16, 2012, 07:57 AM

40. Well, I guess so...if someone were lobbing rockets at you,

killing your kids, you'd try to restrain that activity, too.

Fact: Palestinians want Gaza.

Fact: Israelis don't want Palestinians in Gaza...too close to Israeli neighborhoods. Afraid they will use it to launch rockets at innocent Israelis.

Fact: Palestinians promise they won't commit terrorism from Gaza. Please please please. We want Gaza.

Fact: Israeli leaders agree to Gaza, despite it being unpopular iwth Israeli citizens.

Fact: Palestinians move into Gaza.

Fact: Palestinians quickly start using the close proximity of Gaza to kill innocent Israeli citizens.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Honeycombe8 (Reply #40)

Fri Nov 16, 2012, 08:03 AM

41. this post no more cuts it than the one I responded to.

Your "facts" aren't facts. Your omission of vital and pertinent information is in your talking points amounts to mendacity.

You omit that the Israelis have been building settlements illegally on Palestinian land for decades. You might fight back if that was the case for YOU.

Gaza is in an open air prison and the Israelis are practicing collective punishment of the Gazans: From my Senator's website:

However, he also disagrees with the economic blockade of Gaza as it amounts to collective punishment, with Israel's use of excessive force in Gaza which resulted in the deaths of hundreds of civilians, and the continuation of settlement construction in the West Bank. Like President Obama, Senator Leahy believes that the dire situation for the Palestinian people is intolerable and contributes to Israel's insecurity. He has long maintained that the Palestinians' fundamental rights must be respected and that they need a state of their own

http://www.leahy.senate.gov/issues/policies-by-

Hamas is not the Palestinian or Gaza people.

You characterize Palestinians as sub-human. It is vile.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Honeycombe8 (Reply #34)

Fri Nov 16, 2012, 11:57 AM

58. Bullshit.

Plain and simple bullshit. Far more Palestinians have died in the illegal occupation and continued ILLEGAL SETTLEMENT OF WHAT LITTLE LAND THE PALESTINIANS NOW HAVE LEFT TO THEM THAT WAS TAKEN FROM THEM IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Honeycombe8 (Reply #8)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 11:06 PM

23. They were offered a warm bucket of piss

Any time Israel "offers" the Palestinians anything it's really a way for Israel to steal more from the Palestinians.

Dennis Ross and Martin Indyk of AIPAC were Bill Clinton's "peace process" negotiators that tried to broker the deal. That there will tell you how fair the "peace process" was.

Here some info on the Camp David Accords: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_Camp_David_Summit

If the Palestinians had accepted the deal, it could have made the West Bank like the Gaza Strip.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cpwm17 (Reply #23)

Fri Nov 16, 2012, 07:45 AM

35. Either people want to live in people and prosperity, or they don't.

There's plenty of hurt in the past. On both sides.

Israel didn't steal any land. It was given to them and sold to them. Blame the U.K. and the U.N. Spilled milk. In the past. Water under the bridge. Etc.

We stole land from the Native Americans. Nothing can be done about that now. Spilled milk. Besides, I personally and you personally did not do that.What if teh Native Americans had been committing terrorism all these years against you and me, for wrongs committed by our ancestors? For one thing, we wouldn't be trying to "get along" or get peace accords with them. They'd all be dead by now. We wouldn't put up with it.

Palestinians have been committing terrorism in the area since th early 1900's.

Any group that uses terrorism is on the wrong side, IMO. That side will never have the moral right on its side. The Palestinians are just killing people, who knows why, other than hatred of jews.

You either want your children to get a good education, live in democracy, not be exposed to terrorists and death and maiming, etc., or you don't. Seems the Palestinians care more about killing Israeli children than providing a secure future for their own children. They raise their children to be terrorists.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Honeycombe8 (Reply #35)

Fri Nov 16, 2012, 11:52 AM

57. Issued from the twisted mouth of

a privileged and protected citizen of the world's most warring nation. Spilled milk my ass.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Honeycombe8 (Reply #8)

Fri Nov 16, 2012, 01:51 PM

62. Well then fuck 'em. Should we just slaughter all the Palestinians since they turned down a deal

several years ago?

You seem to have hatred for the Palestinian people. Why is this?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msongs (Reply #1)

Fri Nov 16, 2012, 11:39 AM

55. question

If Israel gave back Gaza, do you think the Arabs would stop launchign rockets?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former-republican (Original post)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 10:08 PM

3. And we will just let them do it. How many civilians have to die before it stops.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hrmjustin (Reply #3)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 10:12 PM

4. It's a messed up situation for sure

 

I don't think we will ever see peace .
If I'm not mistaken we have some exercises going on there so we have a lot of troops there right now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hrmjustin (Reply #3)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 10:33 PM

11. It's not our call

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former-republican (Reply #11)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 10:36 PM

13. Actually it is.


Our politicians are doing back flips in support of Israel, but never seem to tell them in strong enough terms to get their citizens to move back inside Israel's own borders.

The USA is all carrot and no stick with Israel.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Reply #13)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 10:45 PM

18. I disagree

 

It's not our call .
If we stopped the billion in aid every year I don't think Israel would care.

Israel is going to do what Israel wants or thinks it needs to protect it's state and citizens.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former-republican (Reply #18)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 11:08 PM

25. And as an ally that has spied on us, attacked our ships...accidentally they say,

has a large lobbying force AKA pressure group and as you pointed out takes our treasure ($3 billion year) then we as an friend and ally should be able to put some well-earned pressure on them to start taking concrete steps to ease tensions.

Yeah, it won't be easy, and I don't want to see Israel turned into a shooting gallery.

We could apply pressure, but our politicians have a severe lack of will in some areas.

If the USA did find the balls to tell Israel go back to the bargaining table I would applaud it wholeheartedly.

Israel could always tell the USA to go fuck themselves, but where else could they find a friend who is so welcome to abuse?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Reply #13)

Fri Nov 16, 2012, 07:53 AM

38. Not all of them. My Senator, Patrick Leahy

certainly doesn't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Reply #38)

Fri Nov 16, 2012, 09:49 AM

43. What is his position?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to cali (Reply #44)

Fri Nov 16, 2012, 11:24 AM

48. Thanks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hrmjustin (Reply #3)

Fri Nov 16, 2012, 11:34 AM

53. +!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former-republican (Original post)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 10:13 PM

5. And This Scoop is Directly from.........

Kansascity.com?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to On the Road (Reply #5)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 10:15 PM

6. No , there's other links

 

And some reservists from Israel have already posted they are being called in.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former-republican (Original post)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 10:31 PM

10. not to mention the sideshow of Iran being right on the periphery of a war zone. (n/t)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former-republican (Original post)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 10:42 PM

16. Well at least this breaking news

Is not going the usual way. It did in the morning

For the record, not agnostic, just not n the mood anymore.

I wish you luck.

Oh and you are correct...reserves are getting called and the Gitani Brigade is setting up in staging points near the expected line of departure.


Then again, spoke too early.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former-republican (Original post)


Response to former-republican (Original post)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 11:07 PM

24. It does seem that a repeat of 2006 may very well be in the cards at this point. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AverageJoe90 (Reply #24)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 11:12 PM

26. I don't't want to see any more violence. I hope that it doesn't go there.


You never know if Hezbollah will join in from the north, and Israel really didn't seem to win that one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to AverageJoe90 (Reply #24)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 11:16 PM

27. It sure looks it tonight

 

but things could calm down there.

At least calm down enough where they won't roll in like last time.
If it happens it will start in a couple of days.

Events and cease fires happen so often that it's hard to keep track of them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former-republican (Original post)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 11:59 PM

32. "Iranian-made Fajr missiles, which Israeli officials say Hamas militants have smuggled into Gaza"

How the hell could they smuggle rockets 30 feet long and 2000 pounds through tunnels!

What a pile of crap!

An excuse to bomb Iran.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Prometheus Bound (Reply #32)

Fri Nov 16, 2012, 11:43 AM

56. absolutely right

Israel is either using this as a proxy war against Iran and they are hoping that Iran either enters the hostilities to back the Palestinians or that they will find some "proof" that they have been behind the violence all along. And we, like suckers, will join in.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former-republican (Original post)

Fri Nov 16, 2012, 09:30 AM

42. getting worse by the hour

 

The Muslim Brotherhood, which brought him to power in an election after the downfall of pro-Western Hosni Mubarak, has called for a "Day of Rage" in Arab capitals on Friday.

The Israel Defence Forces (IDF) said they had targeted over 450 "terror activity sites" in the Gaza Strip since Operation Pillar of Defence began with the assassination of Hamas' top military commander on Wednesday by an Israeli missile.

Some 150 medium range rocket launching sites and ammunition dumps were targeted overnight, the IDF said

http://news.yahoo.com/egypt-pm-visit-gaza-support-hamas-against-israel-003232434.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former-republican (Original post)

Fri Nov 16, 2012, 09:57 AM

46. As far as I see this one, Israel started it

 

They killed a leader of Hamas via a missile, so they started this round of violence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to RomneyLies (Reply #46)

Fri Nov 16, 2012, 11:26 AM

50. They did and it would seem that it continues to be one sided

Looks a bit like Bibi is pinging Obama.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former-republican (Original post)

Fri Nov 16, 2012, 11:25 AM

49. Iran, Syria, Gaza; the Israeli government appears desperate for war. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fire Walk With Me (Reply #49)

Fri Nov 16, 2012, 01:07 PM

60. My take exactly. That's what the Israelis get for voting for Bibi - a NEOCON.

No wonder Sheldon Adelson pumped so much money into Newt's and Willard's campaigns, hoping to buy the election. He cut more checks when Duhbya's neocons began to congregate around Willard.

Neocons want war and they want it NOW.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueCaliDem (Reply #60)

Fri Nov 16, 2012, 01:46 PM

61. Follow the money: Who profits from war? Banks, the MIC and weapons manufacturers.

 

We've certainly seen their mark with the current endless war standing and budget. Halliburton must be like a pig rolling in mud.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former-republican (Original post)

Fri Nov 16, 2012, 11:30 AM

51. shits bout to hit the fan...

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former-republican (Original post)

Fri Nov 16, 2012, 11:36 AM

54. Why do I think of V.K. Plehve's statement?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former-republican (Original post)

Fri Nov 16, 2012, 11:59 AM

59. Aren't those US weapons they are using to kill the Palestinians? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread