Hamas & Israel Cease-Fire. Hamas Violates cease-fire.

[Marc39]

This is correct. I am an American citizen...not a citizen of Israel.

Do they have airplanes flying from America to Israel? Why bother, when there's the Internet, right?

 

[Marc39]

Maybe the situation in the middle east is a plaything for "playtime intellectuals"?

Playtime, yes. Intellectual? Is it possible to be an intellectual if you're mentally impaired?

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

This is the first political message board I have ventured onto

We all believe you.

 

[Slayhamlet]

With over 7,000 posts, it's about time you did.

Parky's been posting for about two and a half years. You've been posting for a little over two months and you've already spewed out over 700 posts. At the rate you're going you'll have made well over 10,000 posts if you stay as long as he has.

You're the flip side of TinFoilTimothy, just more snide and a little less shrill. Equally as obnoxious, though.

 

[Marc39]

Parky's been posting for about two and a half years. You've been posting for a little over two months and you've already spewed out over 700 posts. At the rate you're going you'll have made well over 10,000 posts if you stay as long as he has.

You're the flip side of TinFoilTimothy, just more snide and a little less shrill. Equally as obnoxious, though.

That's the best you can do? The President of the I Love Parky Fan Club.

 

[Slayhamlet]

That's the best you can do? The President of the I Love Parky Fan Club.

Absolutely no one here is persuaded by your infantile debating tactics or thinks you're in the least bit clever. No one. Just give up.

 

[lupus_in_fabula]

I am not quite sure what this means: "current progression is prevailed" but I would like to call your attention to the following news bulletin, which contains the assessment that an Israeli raid to Iran "is possible" -------

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1085619.html

• Abdullah Toukan and Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, prepared a comprehensive 114-page study meticulously gathering all available data on Israel's military capabilities and its nuclear program, and on Iran's nuclear developments and aerial defenses, as well as both countries' missile inventory.
  
  After analyzing all the possibilities for an attack on Iran, Toukan and Cordesman conclude: "A military strike by Israel against Iranian nuclear facilities is possible..."

Of course it is possible – no one is denying that – but it being possible does not mean that it is likely to happen. It is my contention that it simply will not happen. The article you pointed to includes some of the reasons. In fact the same sentence you cited continues with: "... [but] would be complex and high-risk and would lack any assurances that the overall mission will have a high success rate."

With "prevailing current progression" I simply mean the beginnings of a 'dialogue between Iran and the U.S.' (including other Western and international parties). It's pretty clear it is happening. That might of course end, but as long as it is kept alive, Israel isn't allowed to do anything stupid. There are some signs that Iran is taking the talks seriously. For instance when Roxana Saberi is released after being sentenced for espionage. This whole episode should also be considered within the context of talks between Iran and the U.S. Furthermore, there seems to be a minor movement inside Iran's top clerics against Ahmadinedžad. For instance: Iran President rebuked by Khamenei.

Diplomatically the situation seems to be something like this: Haaretz; Israel: U.S. Will know before any Iran strike

Israel has acceded to American demands by pledging to coordinate its moves on Iran with Washington and not surprise the United States with military action.

During a trip to Jerusalem earlier this week, CIA chief Leon Panetta informed Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that U.S. President Barack Obama demanded that Israel not launch a surprise attack on Iran. The message expressed concern that Israel would cause an escalation in the region and undermine Obama's efforts to improve relations with Tehran.

Realistically, it appears to be somewhat different however. If the U.S. is against a strike, it's highly unlikely to happen. Which incidentally manifests in seemingly paradoxical political messages across the board. On the one hand, Peres and Lieberman might say a strike against Iran is always on the table. On the other hand, we hear comments which tones down such considerations: Peres: Bombing Iran may not be the 'best solution' or Lieberman: Israel will not attack Iran - even if sanctions fail.

 

[scissorhands]

Parky's country is the USA.

Without wanting to risk another infraction, Parky is well aware what I meant by that post.
I will try not to personalise the debate any further though.

Ahhhhhhhh, to be back at the beach in Bat Yam, drinkin' a cold Goldstar.
Yer killin' me, man.

Cool video, isnt it?

 

[Marc39]

Absolutely no one here is persuaded by your infantile debating tactics or thinks you're in the least bit clever. No one. Just give up.

Prove me wrong on anything.

 

[webfusion]

Of course it is possible – no one is denying that – but it being possible does not mean that it is likely to happen. It is my contention that it simply will not happen. The article you pointed to includes some of the reasons. *snip* If the U.S. is against a strike, it's highly unlikely to happen.

A well-designed and perfectly explained post. Very impressive, and I will bookmark it. Thank you for taking the time to present a coherent and logical rebuttal.

Furthermore, there seems to be a minor movement inside Iran's top clerics against Ahmadinedžad.

Indeed, there is open backing by cleric Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani.
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3712884,00.html
Mir Hossein Mousavi and Mohsen Rezaei and former parliament speaker Mahdi Karroubi are three of the major candidates who are trying to unseat the president in the June 12 election. (There is also 12-year old boy running for election -- talk about democracy!!!)

 

[portlandatheist]

Ahhhhhhhh, to be back at the beach in Bat Yam, drinkin' a cold Goldstar.
Yer killin' me, man.

I would love to travel to Israel, definitely on my top 10 places I'd love see

 

[Thunder]

I would love to travel to Israel, definitely on my top 10 places I'd love see

I would love to see Jerusalem, the Galilee, the Negev, and Haifa.

But I refuse to travel to Israel until they give up their racist practices and Apartheid-like regime in the West Bank.

I have also not visited China for the exact same reason. I won't spend one dollar in totalitarian or racist regimes.

 

[portlandatheist]

Totalitarian?!? Seriously Parky?

 

[Thunder]

Totalitarian?!? Seriously Parky?

China is totalitarian. Israel is racist.

Yes....."seriously".

do you support China's genocide and occupation of Tibet???

 

[Marc39]

Apartheid-like regime in the West Bank.

Except for the inconvenient fact that the West Bank is not part of Israel, rendering such a charge as inane.

 

[a_unique_person]

Except for the inconvenient fact that the West Bank is not part of Israel, rendering such a charge as inane.

Then why is the IDF running the place? Why are roads and settlments being built?

 

[Thunder]

Then why is the IDF running the place? Why are roads and settlments being built?

Some Israelis were under the impression that they could dishonestly turn the West Bank into part of Israel without actually annexing it. They would confiscate as much Arab land as possible, build as many settlements as possible, and by the time the world figured out what happened, it would be too late.

But these Neo-Zionists failed to realize one important thing: some Israeli-Jews actually have a conscience and reported these pathetic and disgusting acts to the world.

If the Neo-Zionist Israelis were honest people, they would have at least had the guts to annex those sections of the WB they intended to keep. But that would have meant taking in hundreds of thousands of Palestinian-Arabs, and Neo-Zionists can't stand the idea of more Arabs with the right to vote in Israeli elections.

So, they confiscated Arab WB land for military purposes (legal) and then turned that confiscated land into civilian Israeli-Jewish settlements (illegal).

This is cowardly, pathetic, deceitful, and deserves great contempt.

 

[Marc39]

Then why is the IDF running the place? Why are roads and settlments being built?

"Running the place" is an incorrect description. The IDF is providing security because the PA either refuse or are incapable of doing so. So, the IDF has to do the PA's job for them.

 

[Marc39]

Some Israelis were under the impression that they could dishonestly turn the West Bank into part of Israel without actually annexing it. They would confiscate as much Arab land as possible, build as many settlements as possible, and by the time the world figured out what happened, it would be too late.

But these Neo-Zionists failed to realize one important thing: some Israeli-Jews actually have a conscience and reported these pathetic and disgusting acts to the world.

If the Neo-Zionist Israelis were honest people, they would have at least had the guts to annex those sections of the WB they intended to keep. But that would have meant taking in hundreds of thousands of Palestinian-Arabs, and Neo-Zionists can't stand the idea of more Arabs with the right to vote in Israeli elections.

So, they confiscated Arab WB land for military purposes (legal) and then turned that confiscated land into civilian Israeli-Jewish settlements (illegal).

This is cowardly, pathetic, deceitful, and deserves great contempt.

Baseless anti-Israel rhetoric.

 

[Marc39]

Why are roads and settlments being built?

Because Jews have an historical tie to the West Bank and want to live there. Are you suggesting they should not or are not allowed to do so?