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.
Nobody denies that it exists now. ("Nation" is not the same as "state".)
Quote:
Colonialism? You con sider a few hundred square miles colonialism right THERE, not across an ocean, to be colonialism?
Considering that nearly all the founders of Israel were transplants from another continent, yes, that qualifies as colonialism.
Quote:
What's bigger, Palestinian territories or Tibet?
What's bigger, our foreign aid to Israel or our foreign aid to China?
Quote:
Why aren't you pissed off about Russia occupying half of Asia? Why aren't you pissed out they kicked out chinese and koreans out of Vladivostok?
Mainly because I'm not paying for it.
Quote:
Why aren't you pissed off that the UK and France has territories all over the world? Why is Guyana an actual Department of France? YOu go to South America, the north coast, and suddenly you're in the EU and they use the Euro?
I'm not paying for it, and most of the people living there like it. I wouldn't lose any sleep if the UK and French and Dutch were kicked out of the hemisphere (wasn't that the point of the Monroe Doctrine?) but it's not exactly creating an international crisis.
Quote:
You only seem to have a problem when it's the Jews.. Just like libbies and the far right..
(Yawn.)
Quote:
Turkey is in Cyprus, I don't see you whining about that..
Not paying for it.
Quote:
Indonesia invaded and occupies N Guinea. No problem there.
Not paying for it. (Since 1999).
Quote:
Russia invaded Georgia and takes S. Ossetia, no problem there..
The people actually living there considered it a liberation, not an occupation. Plus: not paying for it.
Quote:
Gee, what's teh common denominator
The common denominator is: those occupations are not being done with my money or in my name and they do not make my country less safe.
While in practice all of Israel is supposedly disputed by some, the fact of the matter is there are much more tangible disputes over the post '67 boundaries, then there are over the post '48 boundaries. The central reason East Jerusalem is so disputed is that was conquered from Jordan in the 1967 war. (And please don't give me the whole...well Israelis had it 3000 years ago stuff, that is mere moralist justification and I am talking about modern events here.) So in essence Gaza, The West Bank, and East Jerusalem are far more in dispute then much of the rest of Israel which was more or less acquired in the free for all after the British withdrew.
Quote:
Originally Posted by betamanlet
I would say that about 95% of the arab world thinks israel has no right to exist, so it is all disputed..
I'm curious, was jerusalem disputed when Jordan controlled it from 1948-1967 or disputed only happen when Jews win territories?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomstudent
Most of the Arab world may say that. But most of the discussion in the rest of the world revolves around the 1967 boundaries.
To answer your question in one word. Yes. Jerusalem has been disputed since the fall of the Ottoman empire. In fact Jerusalem has been disputed on and off since Roman times.
Quote:
Originally Posted by betamanlet
Israel doesn't live amongst the rest of the world, it lives amongst the arab world, which most of which wants israel gone...
Okay, so if Jerusalem has been despited since Roman times, who else besides Jews has been forbidden from constructing there?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomstudent
Israel sure does live among the rest of the world...If it didn't it would not have the trade and military relationships it does with Europe, America, East Asia and South Africa. As to the Arab world the two out of Israel's 3 major neighbors recognize Israel, have peace treaties with Israel, and have diplomatic relationships with Israel.
Quote:
Originally Posted by betamanlet
But that could easily change with an islamist revolution in those countries. The "peace" is on a governmental level, but not amongst the people. Remember, the top song in egypt a couple years ago was "I hate Israel". Their media etc still demonizes jews and israelis..
israel is surrounded by a sea of millions of people who want it destroyed, and a couple of islamic revolutions in Egypt, Jordan, etc.. and Israel will be back where it started from except with even crazier enemies than the secular pan arabists like Nasser.
I amuses me when we, westerners argue about peace in the middle east from thousands of miles away.
Anyway, Israel has to sign a peace treaty not with the US and/or the EU, but with its Arab neighbors. I have no idea why westerners want to force Israel into what appeals to their sense of humanism and fairness, but has nothing with Arabs involved in the conflict. Better listen carefully to what they (the Arabs) have to say. How they envision the future middle east after a peace agreement. I find them surprisingly open and honest when answering such questions.
I amuses me when we, westerners argue about peace in the middle east from thousands of miles away.
Anyway, Israel has to sign a peace treaty not with the US and/or the EU, but with its Arab neighbors. I have no idea why westerners want to force Israel into what appeals to their sense of humanism and fairness, but has nothing with Arabs involved in the conflict. Better listen carefully to what they (the Arabs) have to say. How they envision the future middle east after a peace agreement. I find them surprisingly open and honest when answering such questions.
Very simple, we have more leverage against Israel then we do against the Arabs, because they want our foreign aid. On top of that most of American foreign policy with the Arabs focuses around one thing...Oil. As long as there is enough stability to keep the oil flowing I cannot see how most Americans, many of whom cannot point out the Middle East on a map care how they envision the Middle East. The way I see it Peace--->Stability---->steady supply of oil and that is why the US wants to be seen as an honest broker for peace in the Middle East.
There are thousands of Russian nuclear missiles pointed at the US that make those short range low explosive power missiles look like fireworks. Just because there are two heavily armed states staring each staring down the barrel of a gun at their hated enemies doesn't mean something akin to peace cannot be worked out...If that were the case I would not be typing this to you right now.
That is true, but in actuality 99% of the land is not 99% of the value simply because water is the most important resource in the region. It would be akin to us having a debate over how to divide the Southwest and me offering you 99% of Southern Arizona save for the areas along the Salt, Gila, and Colorado rivers. You would have to be insane to accept something like that.
Responding to what you say in the first paragraph: Again, I can't see how peace is possible with an enemy who believes it is their religious obligation to destroy you. I do believe peace is possible but only with those who wish to live next to Israel in peace. The possibility of peace would arise only with the downfall of the Iranian proxies.
Regarding Syria and the point you make about the water resource: Syria is not dependant at all on the Sea of Galilee for it's water. It is vital only for Israel. I think it demanded 100% of the Golan for reasons of pride - it would be a way of totally reversing Israel's victory in 1967. Another possibility is that a Syrian presence on the shores of Israel's main water source could always be used by Syria a a sword of Damocles.
Responding to what you say in the first paragraph: Again, I can't see how peace is possible with an enemy who believes it is their religious obligation to destroy you. I do believe peace is possible but only with those who wish to live next to Israel in peace. The possibility of peace would arise only with the downfall of the Iranian proxies.
Communists had an ideological quasi-religious drive to destroy capitalism and the west felt the same way about "Godless Communism."
As to Iranian proxies, they can only exist with Syrian support. This is because it is through Syria that they get their weapons and tacit support. Were Syria to stop this support they and the Secular Lebanese could crush the Iranian proxies just as Syria destroyed its own radical Muslims at Hama and Aleppo and more recently to a lesser degree in Lebanon at Tripoli.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lamontnow
Regarding Syria and the point you make about the water resource: Syria is not dependant at all on the Sea of Galilee for it's water. It is vital only for Israel. I think it demanded 100% of the Golan for reasons of pride - it would be a way of totally reversing Israel's victory in 1967. Another possibility is that a Syrian presence on the shores of Israel's main water source could always be used by Syria a a sword of Damocles.
Syria is not dependent on the water, but access to that water equates to more that 1% of the value as your post suggests.
Responding to what you say in the first paragraph: Again, I can't see how peace is possible with an enemy who believes it is their religious obligation to destroy you.
It has nothing to do with a religious obligation. It's revenge, plain and simple. In my opinion it's entirely righteous, but either way, if you spit in someone's face and they try to fight back, it's infantile to resort to explanations about "religion" for their behavior.
Communists had an ideological quasi-religious drive to destroy capitalism and the west felt the same way about "Godless Communism."
I wish I could agree that the Islamic radicals of Hezbollah and Hamas can change their religious beliefs and desire to destroy Israel in the way that Communists changed their ideology. But I don't think they can do that any more than a tiger can erase it's stripes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomstudent
As to Iranian proxies, they can only exist with Syrian support. This is because it is through Syria that they get their weapons and tacit support. Were Syria to stop this support they and the Secular Lebanese could crush the Iranian proxies just as Syria destroyed its own radical Muslims at Hama and Aleppo and more recently to a lesser degree in Lebanon at Tripoli.
You make a good point here. IF Syria can be taken out of the Iranian orbit then, yes, it would weaken the Iranian proxy armies considerably. But that's a big if. The disagreements that caused the Camp David negotiations to fail are still there. Israel will not agree to a Syrian presence on the shores of its main water supply, and it would be crazy for it to do so. And the Syrians are very clear about the withdrawal they demand, but are not forthcoming about the specifics of the nature of the peace that they are willing to give. If these hurdles can be jumped the picture would change dramatically.
I wish I could agree that the Islamic radicals of Hezbollah and Hamas can change their religious beliefs and desire to destroy Israel in the way that Communists changed their ideology. But I don't think they can do that any more than a tiger can erase it's stripes.
Once again...the BIG LIE that only "Islamic radicals" are opposed to Israel and that "religion" is the only comprehensible basis for why anyone would do so...strictly for the birds.
None of those countries are occupying/subjugating anyone. Israel is kicking people off their land and building apartheid settlements that turn the West Bank into swiss cheese. Their eventual goal is to become a majority in the area and just kick the Palestinians off more and more of their land until they simply give up (they're not they are fighting back with what little resources they have -- which is why they resort to the little bottle rockets and such).
Israel's virtually turned the West Bank & Gaza into the Warsaw ghetto.
Responding to what you say in the first paragraph: Again, I can't see how peace is possible with an enemy who believes it is their religious obligation to destroy you.
The Arabs have an interesting tactic that seems to work well with the media. Instead of telling the world what they wish in regard to Israel, they always choose a minor issue (in the general context) to bash Israel: the shooting of a demonstrator, bulldozing of a building, planning of a new Israeli settlement in the west bank.
This way they achieve two goals: a continuous harassment of Israel and avoiding debate about the real Arab demands for peace in the middle east.
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.
