Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
My bad, I was referring to the West Bank. But you make my point even stronger. They have full rights within Israel, what more could you ask for? Agree with everything else you said, you are very knowledgeable on this subject, hopefully some other people who are simply anti-Israel (anti-Jew maybe?) will see that your arguments make sense and shows even further the anti-UN bias toward both the US and Israel.
Not a fan of Trump, but on this issue he knows what he is talking about. Obama simply hates Netanyahu and is using his personal animosity toward him (and lets face it Netanyahu is not the most likeable guy) to hurt Israel and risk a possible regional if not world war (with his idiotic Iran deal).
I would prefer Netanyahu to 2 Obamas. At least he can lead. All Obama can do is talk, and he can sing a little. What a disaster.
I have never heard that any Palestinian Arab homes were bulldozed in order to build Jewish settlements.
Can you provide proof of this?
In addition, losing land does not "naturally" lead people to become terrorists.
Plenty of Jews lost not only their "homes" and their "land" , but their WHOLE FAMILIES (if they were lucky enough themselves to escape alive) in both Eastern and Western Europe during World War II/the Holocaust, and have any of these Jewish people become terrorists or suicide bombers? Blowing up themselves in order to murder innocent civilians?
It is disturbing that you rationalize this kind of barbaric murderous terrorist behavior.
I rationalized nothing. Read what I wrote again.
Sure, there were Jewish terrorists. Ever hear of the King David hotel bombing? I imagine innocent people were among the 100 dead.
I would prefer Netanyahu to 2 Obamas. At least he can lead. All Obama can do is talk, and he can sing a little. What a disaster.
Why would someone who is paving the road to further war doubly preferable to someone who is trying to prevent that path? How does that make sense? What about continuing settlements under an unpopular government tenure with a bad policy seem to be the better route? The rest of the Middle East isn't going away soon, so how did you figure a radical deviation from the two state solution is a better plan? I would love an actually better plan--so provide it and I will be all for it. Tell me about this better plan you know of.
Yep. And there are Jews who oppose these settlements.
Again, most Israelis who oppose settlements oppose them on practical grounds, that it isn't good for Israel, that it takes resources from people living within Israel, that it is a demographic threat for Israel to retain (most of) the West Bank (but not East Jerusalem/the Old City), etc.
But further, I think there are worse atrocities going on in the world right now (ISIS? Syria? China occupying Tibet forever? etc.) than some "settlements" in the West Bank, no?
So why all the UN focus on Israel, all the time?
NY (& California) Jews are not necessarily known for their political savvy.
In fact, they are either clueless or just don't give a damn. Historically, they just blindly buy in to the liberal BS. Maybe many are transplants from LA LA LAND.
That said, many of my Jewish friends, raise this same question and have for years, at least 8 years -
"How can we blindly follow this liberal doctrine? For the last 8 years THE Obama admin is CLEARLY Pro Muslim, and is so blatantly anti Israel?"
ANSWER - Brainwashed, Pavlov Dog, style.
Wake up, Jews everywhere. The Obama Administration has never had your back, especially with this latest BS move, and Killary would have been worse, with 10s of millions of dollars from Arab states. There are more issues than Israel for all of us. But, though I never lost anyone in the Holocaust, Jewish people everywhere have. All Americans should all have this vested interest in keeping Israel strong. Israel is our most important ally in the troublesome Middle East.
Being that President Obama will be out of office in less than a month, why does this matter now?!
Right, possibly trillions of dollars spent over decades of conflict affecting millions of lives because it's all just that simple. What madness.
You understand that these settlements are divisive among Israeli Jews, right? And Netanyahu is unpopular across a large segment of the Israeli Jewish population, yes?
Shoshana rose gave a good response, but I would just like to add to it. Personally I think the settlements are probably a bad idea. But I can see why Netanyahu is continuing them- of course a big part of it is political as he has to fend off right wingers who think he is soft (I know shocking huh?) Most presidents are not universally popular, you could say Obama is unpopular across a large segment of the American population also.
If Israel stopped the settlements tomorrow and knocked down those that were already put in, it wouldn't matter. They have done that before and the Palestinian leaders still did not come to the table. If they would recognize Israels right to exist and renounce terrorism instead of rewarding it they could have a state in short order- YES, it really is THAT simple.
The US gives Israel military aid to protect our interests in the region, we also give similar aid to other countries in the region including Egypt and Saudi Arabia. We actually also give aid to the Palestinians though their leaders squander it.
To prove my anti-Israel bias in the UN, simply note this. The UN got an unanimous condemnation of Israel for the settlements. OK, fair enough- settlements bad. But they couldn't get a majority to sanction south Sudan for rape and genocide of thousands of people. And nothing on Syria. Someone here answer that one for me. I'll be checking in all day....
Being that President Obama will be out of office in less than a month, why does this matter now?!
It matters because the resolution cant be reversed which is why Obama put it in so close to leaving office. He stirs the pot and leaves Trump to clean up the mess. The US has options to exert pressure of course, My guess (and it is a guess only) is Trump goes hardline businessman on them and withholds funding at least to sections of the UN that are particularly good at wasting money.
Why would someone who is paving the road to further war doubly preferable to someone who is trying to prevent that path? How does that make sense? What about continuing settlements under an unpopular government tenure with a bad policy seem to be the better route? The rest of the Middle East isn't going away soon, so how did you figure a radical deviation from the two state solution is a better plan? I would love an actually better plan--so provide it and I will be all for it. Tell me about this better plan you know of.
Kerry actually came up with a pretty good plan from what I understand a couple of years ago, Netanyahu said he had some reservations but was willing to use it a a basis for negotiation. Kerry is still waitng for Abbas's response. And Clinton had an excellent plan back in the 90's which was so good he even got Arafat to the table and most of the UN supported it as well. Israel would give up a lot, the Palestinians would get a lot more than they have now, though not everything of course. It was basically a two state solution with sharing of Jerusalem. Arafat backed out and the deal blew up.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
