• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Mossad Chief: Israel becoming a burden for the USA

darn, I forgot. it is a violation of the ADL's and Simon Wiesenthal Center's code of conduct, to question Israel's value to the USA. sorry guys.

:)
 
Thunder said:
oooooooh. A strawman argument from Wildcat. Shocking.

No, Wildcat. Israel should not "march themselves into the sea".

They should end the illegal and immoral blockade of Gaza, end all settlement building in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, and sit down with the Palestinians to finalize a peace agreemant, where most Israeli settlers will move home to Israel.

But if you see such moves as tantamount to "marching into the sea", then you are beyond reasoning and I cannot help you.
Click to expand...

Should I see Israel do the things in the middle paragraph, then *I* will become a staunch supporter of Israel against attacks from their neighbors.
 
Almo said:
Should I see Israel do the things in the middle paragraph, then *I* will become a staunch supporter of Israel against attacks from their neighbors.
Click to expand...

You've already seen it during Camp David, so I doubt if you see it again, it will make much difference.
 
Almo said:
Should I see Israel do the things in the middle paragraph, then *I* will become a staunch supporter of Israel against attacks from their neighbors.
Click to expand...

ahh..so you want the Jews to march into the Sea??

;)
 
McHrozni said:
In other words, they should march themselves into the sea.
Click to expand...
For the record that was invented by some Israeli. If you wish to be the first to find a Palestinian source for it you can perhaps make a bit of a name for yourself.

The Palestinians will accept nothing less. For Hamas it would be unconstitutional to do so, and Fatah isn't much better.
Click to expand...

At least the Israeli could do is end occupation.

Does he get stundie points for saying something is a straw man, then proposes the exact same solution as the alledged straw man?

McHrozni
Click to expand...

It is a straw man until a Palestinian source for that can be identified. As it can only be found from Israeli sources it is in fact an Israeli straw man.
 
Skeptic said:
Even if so, I fail to see what Israel would achieve by weakening itself and bending to Arab demands. The Arab real demand, as the Palestinian Fatah conference made crystal clear as late as August 2009, is that Israel disappear per the "staged plan" for its destruction.
Click to expand...

How does removing squatters from occupied territory constitute giving in to any demands? The US has always held they are in violation of international law. No country considers them legitimate. All countries but the perpetrator recognize it is a violation of international law for a country to settle its population in occupied territory.

No country in the world recognizes Israel's supposed annexation of east Jerusalem. No country in the world recognizes Israel's theft of water from the West Bank and the Syrian, aka Golan, Heights. No country recognizes the Apartheid social order in the West Bank.

But as to demands: for eight years the Arab League has offered, not demanded, Israel recognition and normalization of diplomatic relations in return for a return to its internationally recognized 1948 borders. In addition 30+ predominantly Muslim countries have signed on to the offer.

Israel has never considered it even just to reject it. Israel has never given reason why it has never considered it. I assume I will hear from all kinds of people who claim personal knowledge of internal Israeli government reasons not to even consider it so when you do tell me how you know.

Look what the withdrawal from Lebanon and Gaza, which were supposed to raise Israel in the international arena and justify it, caused: merely further terrorist attacks, another Intifada which killed 1600 Israelies, and international condemnation for fighting back.
Click to expand...

Hezbollah drove Israel out of Lebanon, ending a 20 year occupation which followed an Israeli war against Lebanon that Ariel Sharon started on his own -- so the isreality goes. Israel did not leave voluntarily. Similarly Hamas made it more expensive for Israel to keeps it squatters in Gaza than to remove them. Sharon gave the cost as the reason.

So doing as Parky said would, if anything, would vastly increase terrorism again and force Israel to fight even more and be condemned even more, and merely make the USA even less of a reliable ally, more willing to throw Israel overboard for worthless smiles from the Arab world.
Click to expand...

So far as real history goes the only war Israel did not start was the 1973 war. I suggest should Israel give the same Justice to Palestinians and it demands for Jews it would be a very good start and see what happens.
 
Darth Rotor said:
Since then, the asset/liability balance has tipped back and forth a bit. Pres Obama seems to me willing to watch it swing for a while.

DR
Click to expand...

OK, I'll play the game. Exactly in what way is Israel an asset to the US? I mean not declarations of what Israel is but how that is a benefit to the US.
 
Not likely. If Israel does just that, and the Palestinians -- as before -- pocket the Israeli concessions, demand more, and start a war when they don't get it, experience shows that the "peace camp" folks will simply blame Israel as usual.

Y'all will just convince yourself Israel didn't offer enough, or that the claim Israel offered everything is "zionist propaganda", or ...

... again, speaking from (long) experience here.
 
Thunder said:
offering to lease 27% of the West Bank for up to 25 years, is not an offer.

but this is exactly what Israel did at Camp David.
Click to expand...
It certainly is an offer. Perhaps not a good offer, but the PA never made a counteroffer. Aren't you one who advocates compensation for lost land? Leasing is an offer of compensation. And the land would be returned after the lease lapses.
 
mortimer said:
It certainly is an offer. Perhaps not a good offer, but the PA never made a counteroffer. Aren't you one who advocates compensation for lost land? Leasing is an offer of compensation. And the land would be returned after the lease lapses.
Click to expand...

this is a derail and should be continued elsewhere.
 
Thunder said:
No, Skeptic did. And as I have been recieving a lot of infractions lately, I'm not gonna continue the derail. PM me if you like.
Click to expand...
Why not delete your repsonse to the alleged derail and report the original? Or did you want to get your 2c in and then claim "derail"?
 
Skeptic said:
Not likely. If Israel does just that, and the Palestinians -- as before -- pocket the Israeli concessions, demand more, and start a war when they don't get it, experience shows that the "peace camp" folks will simply blame Israel as usual.

Y'all will just convince yourself Israel didn't offer enough, or that the claim Israel offered everything is "zionist propaganda", or ...

... again, speaking from (long) experience here.
Click to expand...

The occupation must end completely and without condition or exception. That is the minimum and cannot be considered to be any kind of concession.

Rather anything short of that is no more than an excuse to continue the crime of occupation.
 
mortimer said:
It certainly is an offer. Perhaps not a good offer, but the PA never made a counteroffer. Aren't you one who advocates compensation for lost land? Leasing is an offer of compensation. And the land would be returned after the lease lapses.
Click to expand...

Yes they did. They offered peace in exchange for an end to the occupation.

There is nothing to negotiate but the schedule of israeli withdrawal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom