• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

General Israel/Palestine discussion thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Thunder said:
I am confident the Palestinians will accept a token number of returning refugees to Israel, say 100,000..and compensation for the rest.

no serious Palestinian politician or otherwise, expects millions of Palestinians to move to Israel, let alone hundreds of thousands.
Click to expand...

So by "confident" you actually mean "wishful thinking".
 
Dragoonster said:
All my President would have to do was give an honest assesement on the Israel-OT situation, and move the United States forward based on this.
Click to expand...

And then congress will promptly cut said president off at the knees and force him to backtrack.

Congress raves over Israeli prime minister

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu received a rapturous reception worthy of a rock star from lawmakers on both sides of the political aisle on Capitol Hill on Tuesday - a stark contrast to last week’s tense White House visit.

His speech to a joint session of Congress was repeatedly punctuated by sustained applause, laughter and more than two dozen standing ovations. It also received some high praise from bipartisan admirers who raved about his speech.

“For someone who has listened to a lot of speeches, I have to say you’ve made the all-star team,” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat, told Mr. Netanyahu at a press conference afterward
Click to expand...

Why such a warm reception for Benjamin Netanyahu at US Congress?

The moment many US lawmakers were waiting for came toward the end of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's speech Tuesday to a joint session of Congress. "Israel will not return to the indefensible boundaries of 1967," he said, to a vigorous burst of cheers and applause.

With that, Mr. Netanyahu may have demonstrated that the American Congress stands with Israel, and not with President Obama, on the matter of a starting point for resuming peace talks with the Palestinians – if and when such negotiations ever do resume.
. . .
Presidents who cross the pro-Israel lobby typically do so at their peril. In 1991, Congress pushed back against a bid by President George H.W. Bush to withhold $10 billion in loan guarantees to pressure Israel to curb new settlements in “occupied territories." President George W. Bush also had to roll back threats to reduce US loan guarantees to Israel over construction of a wall on contested soil.
Click to expand...

(I don't think this is a good thing. It's just the reality.)
 
Last edited:
Puppycow said:
And then congress will promptly cut said president off at the knees and force him to backtrack.
Click to expand...

Obama can win any time he wants to win. It is really very simple. He simply needs to be shocked to discover Israel has nuclear weapons.

Upon doing so he will have to comply with a half dozen laws. One of the prohibits any aid to any country with nuclear weapons. It will become illegal for Americans to send money to any institution or its representative in Israel. All military assistance and cooperation in any form must be suspended. There are several other requirements.

Compliance with the requirements of the law will be enough to bring down Israel.
 
Puppycow said:
And then congress will promptly cut said president off at the knees and force him to backtrack.

Congress raves over Israeli prime minister



Why such a warm reception for Benjamin Netanyahu at US Congress?



(I don't think this is a good thing. It's just the reality.)
Click to expand...

That was a pretty weird reaction by the Congress. They all stood up and cheered and applauded when Netanyahu announced to them that Israel will not return to the borders of June 4th 1967 IIRC.

But, Obama did not say that IIRC.
 
angrysoba said:
That was a pretty weird reaction by the Congress. They all stood up and cheered and applauded when Netanyahu announced to them that Israel will not return to the borders of June 4th 1967 IIRC.

But, Obama did not say that IIRC.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but that's how the AP and some other media reported it, and that's the impression that has stuck.

Senate Democrats may join rebuff of Obama on Israeli border issue

Now his own craven party will join republicans in "rebuking" him. Just like they refused to back him up on closing Gitmo.
 
The Fool said:
and you have not responded to my request to name one of the parliaments that the british left behind in the middle east (as you claim).

This is your task for the day: name one of the parliaments. Go.
Click to expand...

Iraq. I already said that.
 
ANTPogo said:
A parliament under a ruling monarch.

If post-independence Iraq under King Faisal was a democracy, then modern Kuwait is a democracy too.
Click to expand...


The Allies promised the Arabs democracy in the Middle East. What democracy was set up in the Middle East after WW1??

answer: none.
 
WildCat said:
That isn't the British model?
Click to expand...

As stokes234 pointed out, it depends on how much power the monarch has vs. the parliament. And as I said, Kuwait is also a parliamentary monarchy on the British model, so if the Kingdom of Iraq as set up by the British counts as democracy in the middle east, so does Kuwait.

So does Jordan, for that matter, which is also a parliamentary monarchy under a Hashemite king.
 
WildCat said:
Who did you vote for in the last House of Lords election?
Click to expand...

House of Lords =/= monarchy. And even the house of lords can only reject acts of parliament once (they go through automatically the second time), and they can't reject finance bills (which the current government is stretching to cover anything that saves or costs money).

If you believe that this is the same as having a king who runs most of the country, well... you're wrong.
 
stokes234 said:
House of Lords =/= monarchy. And even the house of lords can only reject acts of parliament once (they go through automatically the second time), and they can't reject finance bills (which the current government is stretching to cover anything that saves or costs money).

If you believe that this is the same as having a king who runs most of the country, well... you're wrong.
Click to expand...

I'm sure the difference between a parliamentary democracy with a titular head of state and a monarchy is fully understood but thats not important when the objective is to blow a smokescreen around virus's statement.....
 
Virus said:
So nobody actually dealt with my elephant in the room.

This is your task for the day: provide a blueprint for peaceful coexistence with a Nazi-inspired death-cult. Go.
Click to expand...

Jesus wept.

The palestinians, like all the other arabs under the rule of the Ottoman Empire, wanted freedom and self determination, long before any of this started. When Britain was supposed to do the deal, it and it's colonial partners created a major screwup.
 
Last edited:
Thunder said:
The Allies promised the Arabs democracy in the Middle East. What democracy was set up in the Middle East after WW1??

answer: none.
Click to expand...

Because the Arabs couldn't make the Western-style institutions left over from colonialism work. They were sized by the most ruthless tribes and turned into instruments of repression and control, due to ingrained tribal habits which never had any concept of consensual rule or compromise.
 
stokes234 said:
House of Lords =/= monarchy. And even the house of lords can only reject acts of parliament once (they go through automatically the second time), and they can't reject finance bills (which the current government is stretching to cover anything that saves or costs money).

If you believe that this is the same as having a king who runs most of the country, well... you're wrong.
Click to expand...
So what does the House of Lords do, other than giving upper class twits an office and expense account?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom