NationStates Jolt Archive

JERUSALEM (AP) - Israel and Syria have reached understandings on a future peace deal between the two countries following a series of secret talks between its representatives, the Israeli daily Haaretz reported Tuesday.

According to the report, Israeli and Syrian officials met secretly in Europe several times between September 2004 and July 2006, reaching a framework for a deal that would include an Israeli withdrawal from the Golan Heights, which it captured in the 1967 Mideast war.

David Baker, an official in the Prime Minister's office, said "the Israeli government is unaware of any such meetings."

Former Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom told Israel's Army Radio that he first learned of the talks by reading Tuesday's paper. He said the last contact Israel had with a Syrian representative was in 2003.

Haaretz reported that Israel was represented in the talks by Alon Liel, a former top diplomat, and that former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon was briefed on the meetings and that Prime Minister Ehud Olmert had been informed.

The Syrian representative in the talks was Ibrahim Suleiman, an American citizen, who had visited Jerusalem and delivered a message on Syrian interest in an agreement with Israel.

The report said Syrian President Bashar Assad initiated the meetings, and that Turkish mediators came the first contacts between the two sides. The Turkish involvement ended in the summer of 2004, when an unknown European took over as the leading go-between.

Official peace talks between Israel and Syria broke down in 2000.

According to the report, Israel agreed to withdraw to the lines of the Sea of Galilee, but would retain control of its waters and those of the Jordan River. A park that will cover a significant portion of the Golan Heights will be set up for joint use by Israelis and Syrians. The border area will be demilitarized along a 1:4 ratio in Israel's favor.

According to the terms, Syria also will agree to end its support for Hezbollah and Hamas and will distance itself from Iran, the report said.

Not all matters were agreed upon as the timetable for the withdrawal remained open. Syria demanded the pullout be carried out over a five-year period, while Israel asked for the withdrawal to be spread out over 15 years, Haaretz reported.

Haaretz published a text of the agreed upon document, described as a "non-paper," which outlines the understandings but is not signed and lacks legal standing. It was prepared in August 2005 and has been updated during a number of meetings in Europe, the last of which took place during last summer's war between Israel and Hezbollah guerrillas in Lebanon, the report said.

So if this does somehow work. (or if it's real) Hezbollah has no leg to stand on, Syria gets some land back, and Hamas has lost funding. Win win?

Its a start.

The only way israel will ever "win" is to return to its legal borders.

Its a start.

The only way israel will ever "win" is to return to its legal borders.

Well basicly if this passes through and the West Bank\Gaza thing follows through they ARE back to their previous borders.

Its a start.

The only way israel will ever "win" is to return to its legal borders.

WHICH legal borders? The UN says one thing and has no traditional interpretations on it's side, Israel has another concept and has a valid claim under the concept of annexation of land used to attack it, and the Arabs have a third one which says that Israel does not legally exist - and they also have traditional interpretations of border law on their side.

The only way we will settle the question of borders is by negotiations. Preferably without the UN being involved.

what took so long?

, Israel has another concept and has a valid claim under the concept of annexation of land used to attack it,.

Ha. My ass. And its the US that can't be directly involved, not the UN.

Without a legally binding treaty between Israel and Syria, I would, under no conditions, remove forces from the Golan. Because, without the defensive positions provided by the Golan, an armored assault would have an open plain, a clean shot straight into Tel Aviv. In 1973 Israeli defenders were almost overwhelmed in the Golan, if they had been on the open plain, the strategic situation in the region today would look radically different. If I were Olmert, I would be supremely reluctant to give the Golan up, a major strategic error.

Disclaimer: I have made no normative judgements, only offering my opinions on what the most prudent strategic decision would be.

The Golan is the one piece of land Israel can't give up.

Whoever controls the Golan has control of the Kinneret (i.e. water). It also gives Syria the ability to overrun both the upper and lower Galilee before Israel would be able to get any force up there.

It's suicide. The entire reason Israel took that land in 1967 was that almost every day the farmers of the Hula Valley had to endure rocket attacks from the Syrian Army.

Keeping the Golan is what allowed Israel to survive the 73 War. If there is another war, not having the Golan will be the death of Israel.

So if this does somehow work. (or if it's real) Hezbollah has no leg to stand on, Syria gets some land back, and Hamas has lost funding. Win win?

Anything that'll keep people from blowing each other up.

PS: 500th post!

No protection if they give it back, no peace if they don't... How's that for options?

So if this does somehow work. (or if it's real) Hezbollah has no leg to stand on, Syria gets some land back, and Hamas has lost funding. Win win?Not really. Look who gets to keep the water in an area where water will be getting scarce soon.

No protection if they give it back, no peace if they don't... How's that for options?

Maybe the game doesn't allow for real options.

I think they could share joint-control, which would be a huge step forward. Israel should not and will not fully withdraw from Golan until it is certain there is no threat from Syria.

Its a start.

The only way israel will ever "win" is to return to its legal borders.

Well, I see Israel as defending itself. Frankly they're too nice for my taste.

Its a start.

The only way israel will ever "win" is to return to its legal borders.

No, the only way Israel will ever win is for their Messiah to come back and trample Israel's enemies under His feet, which He will NOT do until they apologize to Him for their role in His death. You see, He came to them 2000 years ago, but they mistook Him for a blasphemer and crucified Him as such, and since that time He has been "returning the favor", i.e., letting them get slaughtered en masse by their enemies, and they will CONTINUE to be persecuted and killed by their enemies until they recognize Jesus as their Messiah and believe on Him as such. THEN He will come back and rescue them from their enemies.

I am strongly PRO-Israel. I wish the nation of Israel well, and want it to prosper and flourish, but it will NOT until they recognize Jesus as their Messiah and believe on Him.

God said to Abraham, the first Jew, "I will bless them that bless thee and curse him that curseth thee, and in thee shall all the families of the earth be blessed." Genesis 12:3

Well, I see Israel as defending itself. Frankly they're too nice for my taste.

Poor israel, always defending itself against the siege of decency and lawfulness.

Poor israel, always defending itself against the siege of decency and lawfulness.

Pardon? Since when were terrorist who are connected with the murder of thousands of Americans in any way allied with those two positive nouns?

You see the problem with you Liberals is, you want to do good, and belive so much that Conservatives want to do bad, you belive anybody we hate HAS to be good. WRONG!

Pardon? Since when were terrorist who are connected with the murder of thousands of Americans in any way allied with those two positive nouns?
If you think Israel is being too nice, surely you also desire the deaths of many innocent people (even if they're not Americans)?

The problem with you conservatives is that your respect for human life is so selective as to be a sham.

No, the only way Israel will ever win is for their Messiah to come back and trample Israel's enemies under His feet, which He will NOT do until they apologize to Him for their role in His death. You see, He came to them 2000 years ago, but they mistook Him for a blasphemer and crucified Him as such, and since that time He has been "returning the favor", i.e., letting them get slaughtered en masse by their enemies, and they will CONTINUE to be persecuted and killed by their enemies until they recognize Jesus as their Messiah and believe on Him as such. THEN He will come back and rescue them from their enemies.

I am strongly PRO-Israel. I wish the nation of Israel well, and want it to prosper and flourish, but it will NOT until they recognize Jesus as their Messiah and believe on Him.

God said to Abraham, the first Jew, "I will bless them that bless thee and curse him that curseth thee, and in thee shall all the families of the earth be blessed." Genesis 12:3

No offence buddy, but because some sickies killed a saint a couple of thousand years ago, you think that God, who is all benevolent will punish their descendants by supporting evil? God will support the devil just because of a long-standing grudge? Highly unlikely.

If you think Israel is being too nice, surely you also desire the deaths of many innocent people (even if they're not Americans)?

The problem with you conservatives is that your respect for human life is so selective as to be a sham.

Yup. If I could choose whether to get my change for buying a coke, or to save the life of a terrorist, I'd pick the change in a heart-beat. And more innocent life will be lost if Israel doesn't crush the enemy. I guess you forgot the it was NOT Israel who started this. They gave chance-after-chance to these guys.

No, the only way Israel will ever win is for their Messiah to come back and trample Israel's enemies under His feet, which He will NOT do until they apologize to Him for their role in His death. You see, He came to them 2000 years ago, but they mistook Him for a blasphemer and crucified Him as such, and since that time He has been "returning the favor", i.e., letting them get slaughtered en masse by their enemies, and they will CONTINUE to be persecuted and killed by their enemies until they recognize Jesus as their Messiah and believe on Him as such. THEN He will come back and rescue them from their enemies.

I am strongly PRO-Israel. I wish the nation of Israel well, and want it to prosper and flourish, but it will NOT until they recognize Jesus as their Messiah and believe on Him.

God said to Abraham, the first Jew, "I will bless them that bless thee and curse him that curseth thee, and in thee shall all the families of the earth be blessed." Genesis 12:3

http://i99.photobucket.com/albums/l319/OregonTrailZomg/troll.jpg

Don't worry kids. Don't feed it and it will go away.

*Insert example of Deacon* Sigh, Another for my ignore list.

The Golan is the one piece of land Israel can't give up.

Whoever controls the Golan has control of the Kinneret (i.e. water). It also gives Syria the ability to overrun both the upper and lower Galilee before Israel would be able to get any force up there.

It's suicide. The entire reason Israel took that land in 1967 was that almost every day the farmers of the Hula Valley had to endure rocket attacks from the Syrian Army.

Keeping the Golan is what allowed Israel to survive the 73 War. If there is another war, not having the Golan will be the death of Israel.

QFT.

No protection if they give it back, no peace if they don't... How's that for options?

Looks like the latter is by far the best option, seeing as Israel has a good enough capability to defend itself in its current situation.

Pardon? Since when were terrorist who are connected with the murder of thousands of Americans in any way allied with those two positive nouns?

You see the problem with you Liberals is, you want to do good, and belive so much that Conservatives want to do bad, you belive anybody we hate HAS to be good. WRONG!

Palestinians were not involved in the attacks on NYC etc. Those "terrorists" were, in the majority, Saudi Arabian, and from gulf states nominally "friendly" to the US.

Israel, by building civillian settlements in the occupied territories, has shown that it is an aggressor, bent on land annexation by force. America, by protecting Israel from non-violent legal sanction - is at the least - sponsoring colonialism.

The Golan is the one piece of land Israel can't give up.

Whoever controls the Golan has control of the Kinneret (i.e. water). It also gives Syria the ability to overrun both the upper and lower Galilee before Israel would be able to get any force up there.

It's suicide. The entire reason Israel took that land in 1967 was that almost every day the farmers of the Hula Valley had to endure rocket attacks from the Syrian Army.

Keeping the Golan is what allowed Israel to survive the 73 War. If there is another war, not having the Golan will be the death of Israel.

And theres you on the other thread saying that Golan was a totally unimportant lump of rock in Syria, and that they shouldn't be worried about Israel controlling it, and it wasn't imperialism etc.

So, make up your mind, is it important or not?

On a personal note I believe any kind of peace in the region can only be established by restoring the legal boundaries, of course that would eventually mean Jerusalem becoming the Palestinian capital, but it's a start I guess.

Golan IS of course Syrian sovereign territory, and there breaking international law every second they stay there. Their doing of course the same thing in the territories but that isn't what this thread is about.

But of course international law does not concern the pro-Zionist administation in Washington. I mean when your leader basically says 'Hezbollah/Syria/Iran/PLO/Hamas/Fatah/Al-quida' are all the same thing, bad policy is abound.

Palestinians were not involved in the attacks on NYC etc. Those "terrorists" were, in the majority, Saudi Arabian, and from gulf states nominally "friendly" to the US.

Israel, by building civillian settlements in the occupied territories, has shown that it is an aggressor, bent on land annexation by force. America, by protecting Israel from non-violent legal sanction - is at the least - sponsoring colonialism.
QFT 100%.

snip

Oh please.

I suppose your anti-semitic buddy Charlie Reese told you all of that too.

The Golan is important for Israel and Israel alone. Controlling the Golan means Israel can't be threatened by Syria.

Syria lost their claim to the Golan Heights when they used that land for 19 years to launch attacks daily at Israeli Kibbutzim in the Hula Valley and at the city of Tverya. Israel had every right to take that land in order to protect its people. If the Syrians didn't attack Israel, they'd still have that land.

And theres you on the other thread saying that Golan was a totally unimportant lump of rock in Syria, and that they shouldn't be worried about Israel controlling it, and it wasn't imperialism etc.

So, make up your mind, is it important or not?

On a personal note I believe any kind of peace in the region can only be established by restoring the legal boundaries, of course that would eventually mean Jerusalem becoming the Palestinian capital, but it's a start I guess.

Golan IS of course Syrian sovereign territory, and there breaking international law every second they stay there. Their doing of course the same thing in the territories but that isn't what this thread is about.

But of course international law does not concern the pro-Zionist administation in Washington. I mean when your leader basically says 'Hezbollah/Syria/Iran/PLO/Hamas/Fatah/Al-quida' are all the same thing, bad policy is abound.

The Golan Heights are VERY strategically important. They are, as the name suggests, high ground, and their hilly terrain provides ample cover to any army that may be based there. Not to mention that all of the major tributaries into the River Galilee start there. The Golan Heights are essential for Israeli security, and handing them over to an enemy that has sworn to destroy your state is insane.

The Golan Heights are VERY strategically important. They are, as the name suggests, high ground, and their hilly terrain provides ample cover to any army that may be based there. Not to mention that all of the major tributaries into the River Galilee start there. The Golan Heights are essential for Israeli security, and handing them over to an enemy that has sworn to destroy your state is insane.

You are very right about the tributaries. Most of the tributaries into the Jordan have been dammed by the Lebanese and Syrians to keep water out of Israel. If the Golan goes to Syria, then the Jordan River, Lake Kinneret, and Dead Sea will cease to exist.

Ha. My ass. And its the US that can't be directly involved, not the UN.

Don't be ridiculous. It's the UN that's fragged the entire question.

The Arabs have a point that Israel was wrongly placed and that the land was stolen from the Palestinians. That's the main reason why, aside from Jordan and Egypt, they don't recognize ANY borders of Israel.

Israel, on the other hand, has every right to the Golan Heights, the West Bank, all of Jerusalem and Gaza, because those areas were used to pursue a war of aggression (actually, genocide) against Israel. These were legally annexed in the name of securing Israel's borders - an action almost every country has undertaken at one time or another.

The UN, on the other hand, has attempted to force a half-assed, poorly thought-out and even more poorly designed solution on everyone involved, one which would guarantee another war inside of five years.

The US has done no more than support an ally - whuich they have every right, and some obligation, to do. They have also expended considerable political capital and effort at getting the two sides to talk to one another - which is the ONLY way any of this is going to get resolved.

So in this case you can take your stupid anti-American empty rhetoric and shove it where the sun doesn't shine.

Don't be ridiculous. It's the UN that's fragged the entire question.

The Arabs have a point that Israel was wrongly placed and that the land was stolen from the Palestinians. That's the main reason why, aside from Jordan
and Egypt, they don't recognize ANY borders of Israel..

However, the conflict now is outside the state of Israel, which is recognised, soverign and a nuclear power.



Israel, on the other hand, has every right to the Golan Heights, the West Bank, all of Jerusalem and Gaza, because those areas were used to pursue a war of aggression (actually, genocide) against Israel. These were legally annexed in the name of securing Israel's borders - an action almost every country has undertaken at one time or another...

The 1967 war had not genocial intent. I can say that because I havent seen or heard mentioned Egyptian/Syrian plans for death-camps and gas chambers every time the subject comes up. Secondly, the areas were not legally annexed. Were this the case, they would not still be referred to as "Occupied territory" in international forum, on maps, in the UN etc. Since at least the end of WWII it has been the case that unilateral annexation of territory by war is deemed "illegal". Thirdly, Israel has not turned these areas into protective, miltarised buffer zones, but built civillian housing there and used troops not to secure borders, but to protect its colonies, and impose a two-teir semi apartheid system on the inhabitants. This is not the act of a nation bent on self-defence, but of one bent on expansion.


The US has done no more than support an ally - whuich they have every right, and some obligation, to do. They have also expended considerable political capital and effort at getting the two sides to talk to one another - which is the ONLY way any of this is going to get resolved.
...

As the US is, as you admit, an ally of Israel, how can it be pursuing anything other than a "solution" that is favourable to the Israeli state? It cannot therefore be a 'honest broker' in any negotiation/arbitration between the parties, as its one sidedness disqualifies it automatically.


So in this case you can take your stupid anti-American empty rhetoric and shove it where the sun doesn't shine.

Over 30 US vetoes of UNSC resolutions against Israel prove that its American rhetoric that is empty. As well as hypocritical in the extreme.

The 1967 war had not genocial intent. I can say that because I havent seen or heard mentioned Egyptian/Syrian plans for death-camps and gas chambers every time the subject comes up.

"We knew the closing of the Gulf of Aqaba meant war with Israel ... the objective will be Israel's destruction" ~Egyptian President Nasser

"Arab masses, this is your day. Rush to the battlefield ... Let them know that we shall hang the last imperialist soldier with the entrails of the last Zionist." ~Damascus Radio

"Strike the enemy's [civilian] settlements, turn them into dust, pave the Arab roads with the skulls of Jews. Strike them without mercy" ~Hafiz al-Assad addressing Syrian soldiers (he described the war as "a battle of annihilation".

"There will be practically no Jewish survivors." ~Iraqi Prime Minister

Israeli Intelligence reported that the Egyptian army had been issued with canisters of poison gas. Then you've got the propaganda posters (this is one of the more moderate ones):

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/7f/Al-Farida%2C_Lebanon_pre-1967_war.jpg

Note the grotesquely characterised Jew being driven into the sea. Add to this the way in which Arab armies and air-forces routinely chose to attack Israeli civilians rather than military targets and you've got a pretty good case for attempted genocide.

However, the conflict now is outside the state of Israel, which is recognised, soverign and a nuclear power.

And is recognized as none of those things by Saudi Arabia, Syria, and a number of other Arab states. As far as they are concerned, every meter of Israel is occupied territory.


The 1967 war had not genocial intent. I can say that because I havent seen or heard mentioned Egyptian/Syrian plans for death-camps and gas chambers every time the subject comes up.

True. However, the stated objective was the total destruction of Israel. I cannot stretch my credulity far enough to believe that tehy did not have an unpleasent fate in store for the survivors - assuming there were any.


Secondly, the areas were not legally annexed. Were this the case, they would not still be referred to as "Occupied territory" in international forum, on maps, in the UN etc. Since at least the end of WWII it has been the case that unilateral annexation of territory by war is deemed "illegal". Thirdly, Israel has not turned these areas into protective, miltarised buffer zones, but built civillian housing there and used troops not to secure borders, but to protect its colonies, and impose a two-teir semi apartheid system on the inhabitants. This is not the act of a nation bent on self-defence, but of one bent on expansion.

The Israelis clearly consider them to be annexed territory. Whether you agree or disagree is quite irrelevant to their point of view.

Oh, and there is no such thing as International Law, so the actions of a sovereign state are never "illegal" unless someone steps in and makes it so.

As the US is, as you admit, an ally of Israel, how can it be pursuing anything other than a "solution" that is favourable to the Israeli state? It cannot therefore be a 'honest broker' in any negotiation/arbitration between the parties, as its one sidedness disqualifies it automatically.

IF the US had been acting as an Disinterested Party, you would be correct. But the US has never done that. What they HAVE done is act as a go-between and encourager of dialogue, providing resources and secure locations for face-to-face meetings and diplomatic exchanges. The US can do this and still be a clear ally of one side, provided they are open and above-board about it, which they have been. I would also point out that the US is ALSO allied with Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, and has a good relationship with Egypt - so it CAN act as a Disinterested Party for Israel's relations to THOSE countries.

Over 30 US vetoes of UNSC resolutions against Israel prove that its American rhetoric that is empty. As well as hypocritical in the extreme.

Those UNSC resolutions are a joke and everyone knows it. They're just a way of needling someone without having to back it up. The UNSC is a tool to allow big countries to make little ones obey and still feel good about it, that's all it ever was, is or will be.

And is recognized as none of those things by Saudi Arabia, Syria, and a number of other Arab states. As far as they are concerned, every meter of Israel is occupied territory..

Yet the Saudis have at least once proposed recognition of Israel in return for a palestinian state.



True. However, the stated objective was the total destruction of Israel. I cannot stretch my credulity far enough to believe that tehy did not have an unpleasent fate in store for the survivors - assuming there were any.

I doubt the survivors of any war have a "pleasant" time of it under enemy occupation. However there is no grounds for presuming pre-planned "genocide". Certainly were that the case, Israel would hardly be building civillian colonies in the path of such a genocidal force.



The Israelis clearly consider them to be annexed territory. Whether you agree or disagree is quite irrelevant to their point of view..

Indeed this is true. Just as their view is irrelevant to the vast majority of the worlds nations.



Oh, and there is no such thing as International Law, so the actions of a sovereign state are never "illegal" unless someone steps in and makes it so.
.

...within its own borders. Its not acting within its borders now in the occupied territory, which is why the US must use its veto occassionally.


IF the US had been acting as an Disinterested Party, you would be correct. But the US has never done that. What they HAVE done is act as a go-between and encourager of dialogue, providing resources and secure locations for face-to-face meetings and diplomatic exchanges. The US can do this and still be a clear ally of one side, provided they are open and above-board about it, which they have been. I would also point out that the US is ALSO allied with Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, and has a good relationship with Egypt - so it CAN act as a Disinterested Party for Israel's relations to THOSE countries..

But as its blocked all efforts to put pressure on Israel, it cannot be realistically seen as genuinely "disinterested" and more importantly, helpful.



Those UNSC resolutions are a joke and everyone knows it. They're just a way of needling someone without having to back it up. The UNSC is a tool to allow big countries to make little ones obey and still feel good about it, that's all it ever was, is or will be.

Yet the threat of sanctions had Syria out of Lebanon within quick time.......

[I]"We knew t-----and air-forces routinely chose to attack Israeli civilians rather than military targets and you've got a pretty good case for attempted genocide.

Yet a few quotes and a racist cartoon do not a genocidal design make. Where is the Wansee document of the 1967 plan to eliminate the Jewish population?

Last time I checked, the Jews weren't blowing up cities in Syria and Palestine with suicide bombers.

Last time I checked, the Jews weren't blowing up cities in Syria and Palestine with suicide bombers.

Wtf?

Yet a few quotes and a racist cartoon do not a genocidal design make.

Erm... when the Syrian President is quoted, telling his troops to pave the roads with Jewishs skulls I think that's pretty damn clinching.

Where is the Wansee document of the 1967 plan to eliminate the Jewish population?

Because every genocidal scheme is detailed in easily available paperwork. :rolleyes:

I suppose you don't think the Sudanese and the Rwandan genocides took place because the governments in question failed to mail you the appropriate paperwork in triplicate. We have direct quotes from heads of state and state run radio stations urging the indiscriminate murder of Jews, how much more evidence do you need before you'll stop being so unreasonable?

Yup. If I could choose whether to get my change for buying a coke, or to save the life of a terrorist, I'd pick the change in a heart-beat. And more innocent life will be lost if Israel doesn't crush the enemy. I guess you forgot the it was NOT Israel who started this. They gave chance-after-chance to these guys.
I'm not talking about the terrorists, but about the civilians (those who aren't Israeli). Another problem with conservatives is that they relentlessly lie that everyone they favour killing is a terrorist, it's like you yourselves know that this is morally unjustifiable if you admit the truth.

Lol, Israel is a sovereign country.

Does that mean I could go into an Arab country with my mob of thugs, kill, maim and enslave a bit of the population, build a settlement and say I am sovereign?

Israel is even less legitimate than this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principality_of_Sealand) country, and the sooner they are expelled back to Europe the better.

Lol, Israel is a sovereign country.

Does that mean I could go into an Arab country with my mob of thugs, kill, maim and enslave a bit of the population, build a settlement and say I am sovereign?

Israel is even less legitimate than this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principality_of_Sealand) country, and the sooner they are expelled back to Europe the better.

??? Kill maim??? Israel didn't invade the 1949 areas.

And Sealand is techincally illegal if you follow the claim that the British built that place.

PS for all those who claim the land is illegal, we should dissolve Poland and most of eastern Europe because it was the 1917 treaty that created them.

Lol, Israel is a sovereign country.

Does that mean I could go into an Arab country with my mob of thugs, kill, maim and enslave a bit of the population, build a settlement and say I am sovereign?

Israel is even less legitimate than this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principality_of_Sealand) country, and the sooner they are expelled back to Europe the better.
Oh go shut up. You're nothing but an anti-semite. Even those who agree with your side tell you to shut up because you make them look like fools.

Oh go shut up. You're nothing but an anti-semite. Even those who agree with your side tell you to shut up because you make them look like fools.

See, now you can't define between anti-semite and anti-zionist, you best do that.

See, now you can't define between anti-semite and anti-zionist, you best do that.

You basically called for Iran and Syria to commit genocide in the thread earlier this month about the Fox News report on Israel's congency plans for Iran. You are an anti-semite and you quote other anti-semites such as Charlie Reese when you need a source.

You basically called for Iran and Syria to commit genocide in the thread earlier this month about the Fox News report on Israel's congency plans for Iran. You are an anti-semite and you quote other anti-semites such as Charlie Reese when you need a source.

Now, I called for the destruction of the murderous and illegitimate Zionist regime in Israel, not the people. You can continue to take everything I say out of context, but in the end you look the fool. At that convention held by the Iranian President, anti-Zionist Jews were actually their, those that think the holocaust is used as pretext for violence. So you can't claim any anti-semitic links, no matter how hard you try, Zionism is to Jew what Nazi is to German.

Now, I called for the destruction of the murderous and illegitimate Zionist regime in Israel, not the people. You can continue to take everything I say out of context, but in the end you look the fool. At that convention held by the Iranian President, anti-Zionist Jews were actually their, those that think the holocaust is used as pretext for violence. So you can't claim any anti-semitic links, no matter how hard you try, Zionism is to Jew what Nazi is to German.

Do you even know what Zionism is? You are nothing but an uneducated troll on this subject.

By your definition, Hitler couldn't have been an anti-semite since there were a few Jews in high positions in the Nazi Party (this was up until the mid-30s). Ahmedinejad is clearly an anti-semite and to say otherwise is either a lie or proof you have no reasoning skills.

The Anti-Zionist Jews are just religious fanatics who believe G-d has to do everything for them and deny that those Jews who don't buy into their religious extremism aren't Jews at all.

Do you even know what Zionism is? You are nothing but an uneducated troll on this subject.

By your definition, Hitler couldn't have been an anti-semite since there were a few Jews in high positions in the Nazi Party (this was up until the mid-30s). Ahmedinejad is clearly an anti-semite and to say otherwise is either a lie or proof you have no reasoning skills.

The Anti-Zionist Jews are just religious fanatics who believe G-d has to do everything for them and deny that those Jews who don't buy into their religious extremism aren't Jews at all.

Now, see what your doing now? Your saying that your particular nationalist and beliefs are better than these other Jews, your assuming what you think is better just because it's what you think, who are you to discount Jews who don't believe in imperialist Zionism.

This is the face of Zionism. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avigdor_Liberman)

The Anti-Zionist Jews are just religious fanatics who believe G-d has to do everything for them and deny that those Jews who don't buy into their religious extremism aren't Jews at all.

The settlers are a hundred times more fanatical than the Anti-Zionist Jews.

The settlers are a hundred times more fanatical than the Anti-Zionist Jews.

No. The anti-zionist Jews contend that the Holocaust was brought on by G-d to punish the Jews. They are idiots.

Now, see what your doing now? Your saying that your particular nationalist and beliefs are better than these other Jews, your assuming what you think is better just because it's what you think, who are you to discount Jews who don't believe in imperialist Zionism.

This is the face of Zionism. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avigdor_Liberman)

Lieberman actually supports a Palestinian State. His ideas are radical and too extreme, but I do buy into his theory that the best chance for a peaceful coexistance is to have the final borders drawn up based on demographics. That is just simple logic.

The settlers are a hundred times more fanatical than the Anti-Zionist Jews.

Of course, you would have to be damn fanatical to go and live under constant threat of attack as a colonist in an occupied country, just because you believe in an 'Greater Israel'. I've said it once, and I'll say it a thousand times, the Israelis put themselves at threat by making these colonies that deserved to be attacked for what they represent and are. They have created an endless cycle of victimization for themselves.

Israel is even less legitimate than this country, and the sooner they are expelled back to Europe the better.

Not going to happen in seeable future. Jews are not interested in it and Arabs have been repeatedly humiliated in wars then they tried it.

Lieberman actually supports a Palestinian State. His ideas are radical and too extreme, but I do buy into his theory that the best chance for a peaceful coexistance is to have the final borders drawn up based on demographics. That is just simple logic.
Executing all Arab members of Parliament for being 'Nazi supporters'?
Kicking all Arab citizens out of Israel?

The guy is a racist and ethnic-nationalist, their is no place for such people.

No. The anti-zionist Jews contend that the Holocaust was brought on by G-d to punish the Jews. They are idiots.
Their you go again, assuming your beliefs on the future of the Jews etc are better than others, assuming you are right to the exclusion of all other opinions is not good.

No. The anti-zionist Jews contend that the Holocaust was brought on by G-d to punish the Jews. They are idiots.

http://www.stlimc.org/newswire/display/2561/index.php

Much, much crazier, and they take their lunacy to the next level by harming other people with it.

Executing all Arab members of Parliament for being 'Nazi supporters'?
Kicking all Arab citizens out of Israel?

The guy is a racist and ethnic-nationalist, their is no place for such people.

Yeah, and he was kicked out of the cabinet for having those views. To say that this minor political figure is somehow a model Israeli is absurd and as irrational as the rest of the racist BS you've been sprouting.

Their you go again, assuming your beliefs on the future of the Jews etc are better than others, assuming you are right to the exclusion of all other opinions is not good.

WTF? Then what are you doing? Equating Zionism to Nazism, "their(sic) is no place for such people"... you are clearly a hypocrit. And an inept one at that, as IDF's statement about the anti-Zionist sects (most of them anyway) was true, so he isn't assuming a damn thing.

http://www.stlimc.org/newswire/display/2561/index.php

Much, much crazier, and they take their lunacy to the next level by harming other people with it.
Wow, what wonderful and tolerant people, wouldn't you agree IDF?

Or were you one of the settlers who did it.....?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desmond_Tutu#Views_on_Israel.2C_the_Jewish_people_and_the_Israeli-Palestinian_conflict

Also btw, nice topic avoiding IDF.

This is the true face of Zionism, look closely. (http://www.stlimc.org/newswire/display/2561/index.php)

Wow, what wonderful and tolerant people, wouldn't you agree IDF?

Or were you one of the settlers who did it.....?You know that according to that same source, NationStates is a second StormFront?

You know that according to that same source, NationStates is a second StormFront?

Are you saying the story is made up?

Honestly, politics aside, if some punk ass kids came over to my neighbourhood and sought to have me evicted from my home without ever even getting to know me or my family, I couldn't definitely say that I wouldn't snap.

Honestly, politics aside, if some punk ass kids came over to my neighbourhood and sought to have me evicted from my home without ever even getting to know me or my family, I couldn't definitely say that I wouldn't snap.

Your condoning a human rights charity worker being spat at, humiliated, beaten, and mutilated with a glass bottle for just helping some Palestinians? Way to go there....

This is beyond just criminal action, this is community violence, while the IDF soldiers sat their and did nothing.

Nice going.

Are you saying the story is made up?I'm saying Indymedia has been known to exaggerate and therefore I won't be relying on it.

I'm saying Indymedia has been known to exaggerate and therefore I won't be relying on it.

Well when most Israel/Palestine stories have a pro-Israel slant on them, an 'exaggerated' source is the only way to get anywhere close to the reality of the story. The Pro-Israel lobby in the west after all does have alot of money.

Well when most Israel/Palestine stories have a pro-Israel slant on them, an 'exaggerated' source is the only way to get anywhere close to the reality of the story. The Pro-Israel lobby in the west after all does have alot of money.:rolleyes:

I'd say corporate media is infinitely more bias than any independent media source.

Now, see what your doing now? Your saying that your particular nationalist and beliefs are better than these other Jews, your assuming what you think is better just because it's what you think, who are you to discount Jews who don't believe in imperialist Zionism.

This is the face of Zionism. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avigdor_Liberman)

Bump to show people what Zionist settlers are really like.

I'd say corporate media is infinitely more bias than any independent media source.Nope. It's not a guarantee.

The Pro-Israel lobby in the west after all does have alot of money.

Yep those fucking Jews control all of the world's money supply.:rolleyes:

I wonder what is it that the Syrians are giving up for this deal? hmmmm...methinks maybe toning down support to hizb...after all Syria controls the road to Bekaa...

So the question is, is Syria selling Iran down the river ;)

Yet the Saudis have at least once proposed recognition of Israel in return for a palestinian state.

Yes. This is progress, and I wish more had come of it. Unfortunately, a proposal to change policy is not an actual change of policy. Still - it makes for hope.


I doubt the survivors of any war have a "pleasant" time of it under enemy occupation. However there is no grounds for presuming pre-planned "genocide". Certainly were that the case, Israel would hardly be building civillian colonies in the path of such a genocidal force.


To a certain extent, Israel has "Victory Disease" - they can't really see themselves ever actually losing. Besides which, the Arab coalitions that existed prior to the Six-Day and Yom Kippur wars really don't exist any more - and Israel doesn't see it's neighbours as a credible military threat.

I called those wars Genocidal in intent because that's what the Arab countries said. Their stated intent was to drive the Israelis into the sea. That doesn't leave a lot of wriggle room.


Indeed this is true. Just as their view is irrelevant to the vast majority of the worlds nations.

Exactly.


...within its own borders. Its not acting within its borders now in the occupied territory, which is why the US must use its veto occassionally.


No. Soveriegn nations do whatever they wish. Legality only rears it's head if someone is willing to say "STOP" - and back it up.


But as its blocked all efforts to put pressure on Israel, it cannot be realistically seen as genuinely "disinterested" and more importantly, helpful.


What is more helpful than pursuing the only path that might actually work? And it has NOT blocked all attempts to put pressure on Israel - the US has blocked sanctions, with the stated belief that they would not be appropriate. There has been considerable political pressure on Israel at various times, and a fair amount of it has come FROM the US.

And as I stated, the US has not been acting as a Disinterested Party. They have been acting as an Involved Party with a stated interest - and a known desire to broker a permanent peace.


Yet the threat of sanctions had Syria out of Lebanon within quick time.......

What did I say about "Big countries bullying little ones"?

Erm... when the Syrian President is quoted, telling his troops to pave the roads with Jewishs skulls I think that's pretty damn clinching.?

Given the regions penchant for 'Biblical' rhetoric, I'd say not.



Because every genocidal scheme is detailed in easily available paperwork. :rolleyes: .?

Actually, it often is, at least in relation to modern outbreaks.

I suppose you don't think the Sudanese and the Rwandan genocides took place because the governments in question failed to mail you the appropriate paperwork in triplicate. We have direct quotes from heads of state and state run radio stations urging the indiscriminate murder of Jews, how much more evidence do you need before you'll stop being so unreasonable?

Actually, I think throwing out accusations of attempted genocide is "unreasonable" and is an offence to those who suffered under the genuine article.

So the question is, is Syria selling Iran down the river ;)
We can hope.

Oh and Andaras Prime? You've made my Ignore List as well.

A pull out of the Golan Heights?

Quickly, before they sploodge.

No. The anti-zionist Jews contend that the Holocaust was brought on by G-d to punish the Jews. They are idiots.

While I regard all who take religon too seriously as idiotic in some sense, it must be said that the settlers are the "kill for God" type, and thus tossers of the highest order. Anti zionist Jews seem to be carrying on the ancient Jewish tradition of arguing, and are thus unlikely to be walking around with an uzi during an Arab-only curfew.


Honestly, politics aside, if some punk ass kids came over to my neighbourhood and sought to have me evicted from my home without ever even getting to know me or my family, I couldn't definitely say that I wouldn't snap..

But theres a 40/60 chance that your "home" is built on land seized forcibly from its owners, and the other 60 wouldnt nessecarily stand too much scrutiny either.

Odd that you can't apply that logic to the people whose land was seized in the first place.....

I'm saying Indymedia has been known to exaggerate and therefore I won't be relying on it. ..

They do tend to get all worked up now and again...However you'll find B'tselem and Settlement watch have many similar tales, of both attacks on aid workers and on Arabs.


Legality only rears it's head if someone is willing to say "STOP" - and back it up...

In the sense that its a crime that goes unpunished, yes.

What is more helpful than pursuing the only path that might actually work? And it has NOT blocked all attempts to put pressure on Israel - the US has blocked sanctions, with the stated belief that they would not be appropriate. There has been considerable political pressure on Israel at various times, and a fair amount of it has come FROM the US....

Yet, while they may have been dissuaded from the most extreme actions, the settlement building and occupation has continued. Not only that, but very specific resolutions - condemning settlements, for example - have been blocked. Now no matter what one thinks of Israels military actions against Palestinians, the settlements are clearly wrong, regardless of what Palestinians/Arabs do or do not do. This is quite rightly seen as hypocrisy by the US, who preach freedom and democracy, yet block it when it doesn't suit them.

Lack of official plans for death camps doesn't mean that there wouldn't had been any genocide. Genocide can be carried out effectively by armed milita(like in Sudan) and governments can deny any connection to it.

Also that if Arab governments actualy wanted to ethnically clean all Israel from jews or not is actualy quite irrelevant. Their rethoric showed that its clear possibility and that means that israeli offencive was justified. If you promise to push another country to sea then you must be ready to pay the price, no matter if you were serious about it or it was only a propaganda.

Olmedreca;12223378']Lack of official plans for death camps doesn't mean that there wouldn't had been any genocide. Genocide can be carried out effectively by armed milita(like in Sudan) and governments can deny any connection to it.

Also that if Arab governments actualy wanted to ethnically clean all Israel from jews or not is actualy quite irrelevant. Their rethoric showed that its clear possibility and that means that israeli offencive was justified. If you promise to push another country to sea then you must be ready to pay the price, no matter if you were serious about it or it was only a propaganda.

Nowhere have I said that Israel was not justified in defending itself. What I have said is that claims for genocide are speculative, and - as they are used to justify occupation and settlement - highly suspect.

About settlements I agree, there isn't any realistic justification for building them in occupied territory. I would understand it if Israel would had officially annexed some territories for security reasons but building settlements on territory that is officially occupied to justify possible annexation in future at ethnic basis is dirty and deserves to be condemned.

The Golan is the one piece of land Israel can't give up.

Whoever controls the Golan has control of the Kinneret (i.e. water). It also gives Syria the ability to overrun both the upper and lower Galilee before Israel would be able to get any force up there.

It's suicide. The entire reason Israel took that land in 1967 was that almost every day the farmers of the Hula Valley had to endure rocket attacks from the Syrian Army.

Keeping the Golan is what allowed Israel to survive the 73 War. If there is another war, not having the Golan will be the death of Israel.


Who said isarael is clever?

Legality only rears it's head if someone is willing to say "STOP" - and back it up...
In the sense that its a crime that goes unpunished, yes.

Not quite my point. For there to be actual law, there must be a mechanism of enforcement. Without that, you don't have law - at best you have a selection of suggestions.

That's the situation today with so-called "international law". Since there is no mechanism of enforcement, there is no actual law, only a set of excuses for one country to do unto another, IF they are willing to put their own people and prestige on the line.

Legality is an irrelevance. The only real question is whether someone cares enough to call you on your actions AND has the military might to make it stick. If no one does, what you did was legal by default.


Originally Posted by Dodecapod
What is more helpful than pursuing the only path that might actually work? And it has NOT blocked all attempts to put pressure on Israel - the US has blocked sanctions, with the stated belief that they would not be appropriate. There has been considerable political pressure on Israel at various times, and a fair amount of it has come FROM the US....

Yet, while they may have been dissuaded from the most extreme actions, the settlement building and occupation has continued. Not only that, but very specific resolutions - condemning settlements, for example - have been blocked. Now no matter what one thinks of Israels military actions against Palestinians, the settlements are clearly wrong, regardless of what Palestinians/Arabs do or do not do. This is quite rightly seen as hypocrisy by the US, who preach freedom and democracy, yet block it when it doesn't suit them.

I agree that the settlements are wrong. But I honestly don't see that allowing the resolutions through would have changed anything, since no one actually cares enough to do anything about it anyway.

At least the US is honest about who they support. Europe, it seems, cries foul over any action the Israelis take - while counting the money they make trading with them. Which is the greater hypocrisy?

Not quite my point. For there to be actual law, there must be a mechanism of enforcement. Without that, you don't have law - at best you have a selection of suggestions.

That's the situation today with so-called "international law". Since there is no mechanism of enforcement, there is no actual law, only a set of excuses for one country to do unto another, IF they are willing to put their own people and prestige on the line.

Legality is an irrelevance. The only real question is whether someone cares enough to call you on your actions AND has the military might to make it stick. If no one does, what you did was legal by default.



I agree that the settlements are wrong. But I honestly don't see that allowing the resolutions through would have changed anything, since no one actually cares enough to do anything about it anyway.


Sanctions,

I agree with Andaluciae (which is happening a lot these days): the Golan Heights give Israel a strategic advantage, and it should only give them up for definites (i.e. a non-aggression pact, funds, etc.). However, I firmly believe that the Israel situation will not end until it escalates into a MAD situation, preferrably with Iran so the US can then go in to clean up and take all the oil. Cynicism towards world affairs is always the healthiest, and usually most accurate, attitude.

The 1967 war had not genocial intent. I can say that because I havent seen or heard mentioned Egyptian/Syrian plans for death-camps and gas chambers every time the subject comes up.

Gas chambers and death camps are not necessary for genocide. The rival African tribes in Sierra Leone can commit genocide with just a few AK-47s.

Since at least the end of WWII it has been the case that unilateral annexation of territory by war is deemed "illegal".

Syria's attack on Israel in 1967 was also illegal.

Gas chambers and death camps are not necessary for genocide. The rival African tribes in Sierra Leone can commit genocide with just a few AK-47s..

Plans tend to be indispensable, however. Particularily when dealing with military forces from three nations.



Syria's attack on Israel in 1967 was also illegal.

Yes it was.

Your condoning a human rights charity worker being spat at, humiliated, beaten, and mutilated with a glass bottle for just helping some Palestinians? Way to go there....

This is beyond just criminal action, this is community violence, while the IDF soldiers sat their and did nothing.

Nice going.

I'm not condoning, I'm saying I can understand. Just like I can understand Palastinian terrorism.

It's still better than your condoning of Syria's plan to massacre of innocent Jews.

Sanctions,

But sanctions on only one side of a problem won't solve it.

Syria's attack on Israel in 1967 was also illegal.

In war there are no rules.

Win a territory? Keep it. Lose a territory? Too bad, maybe you can go to the negotiating table to get it back. Civilians die? Civilians have died in every war since the beginning of humanity, cry me a river. I don't see how you can call an attack on a sovereign nation legal or illegal (calling it "illegal" implies that there are legal ways to attack a sovereign nation, and "legal" [or more frequently "legitimate"] implies that somehow certain circumstances validate going around killing people and burning cities).

In war there are no rules.

Win a territory? Keep it. Lose a territory? Too bad, maybe you can go to the negotiating table to get it back. Civilians die? Civilians have died in every war since the beginning of humanity, cry me a river. I don't see how you can call an attack on a sovereign nation legal or illegal (calling it "illegal" implies that there are legal ways to attack a sovereign nation, and "legal" [or more frequently "legitimate"] implies that somehow certain circumstances validate going around killing people and burning cities).

The "rules" are there for PR purposes - so your enemies can deride your barbaric activity and gain sympathy, and so you can criticize your enemies and score PR points.

While there may have been an initial "true meaning" behind these rules, and while some people in some organizations like Amnesty International or the ICRC may actually believe in them as humanitarian rules, most nations and all terrorist organizations only use these "rules" for throwing shit on each other.

But sanctions on only one side of a problem won't solve it.

Until the occupation ends, sanctions against Palestinians are rather pointless. The current sanctions against Hamas, for instance, are designed to cause more infighting and splits. The people suffer a bit more, but the overall problem is not being resolved. In fact, by causing a greater split in Palestinian society, it may make a solution harder to achieve. Sanctions against Israel to force withdrawal first. They are the occupier, and by building its civillian settlements, have shown its intent is not to just enhance its security.

Until the occupation ends, sanctions against Palestinians are rather pointless. The current sanctions against Hamas, for instance, are designed to cause more infighting and splits. The people suffer a bit more, but the overall problem is not being resolved. In fact, by causing a greater split in Palestinian society, it may make a solution harder to achieve. Sanctions against Israel to force withdrawal first. They are the occupier, and by building its civillian settlements, have shown its intent is not to just enhance its security.

I agree, actually. The current sanctions against the Palestinian Authority (not just Hamas) are causing far more problems, and bringing the entire situation farther from, rather than closer to, any sort of solution. And are quite unjustified.

The problem is, I can see the same being true of sanctions against Israel. Sanctions appear to work about one time in three; the other two times the sanctioned country just forts up, gets used to buying on the black market and writes off any pretense of looking good to the rest of the world. Squeeze Israel, and we could see good things - or we could see the real zealots take over and the Palestinians simply evicted altogether. Not a good outcome.

I agree, actually. The current sanctions against the Palestinian Authority (not just Hamas) are causing far more problems, and bringing the entire situation farther from, rather than closer to, any sort of solution. And are quite unjustified.

The problem is, I can see the same being true of sanctions against Israel. Sanctions appear to work about one time in three; the other two times the sanctioned country just forts up, gets used to buying on the black market and writes off any pretense of looking good to the rest of the world. Squeeze Israel, and we could see good things - or we could see the real zealots take over and the Palestinians simply evicted altogether. Not a good outcome.

Yet they were employed against Iraq, Libya, Syria, Iran, North Korea and many others, with varying degrees of success. Failure to even make the effort feeds the more extreme elements in Palestinian society, to both sides eventual detriment.

Well, I'd only say they had success in one of those cases. In Iraq and Libya we eventually resorted to violence (which worked, more or less, in the case of Libya); with Iran and NK they have, so far, comprehensively failed.

Syria did what we wanted for a number of reasons, not just the sanctions. They want OFF our shitlist entirely (which is understandable) and were getting significant pressure both from the Lebanese and their own people to get out (the US ain't the only country that has a "bring home the troops" faction).

Sanctions can be effective, but only as part of an overall strategy and pressure campaign to get a country to do what you want it to. I don't see anyone willing to expend that sort of capital on behalf of the Palestinians - even the other Arab states, to be honest.

Well, I'd only say they had success in one of those cases. In Iraq and Libya we eventually resorted to violence (which worked, more or less, in the case of Libya); with Iran and NK they have, so far, comprehensively failed.

Syria did what we wanted for a number of reasons, not just the sanctions. They want OFF our shitlist entirely (which is understandable) and were getting significant pressure both from the Lebanese and their own people to get out (the US ain't the only country that has a "bring home the troops" faction).

Sanctions can be effective, but only as part of an overall strategy and pressure campaign to get a country to do what you want it to. I don't see anyone willing to expend that sort of capital on behalf of the Palestinians - even the other Arab states, to be honest.


Were that they case, the US wouldnt have had to veto so many times.

Were that they case, the US wouldnt have had to veto so many times.

The US has had to do it so many times for no reason that has to do with Israel or Palestine. By and large, these resolutions have been moved for the sole reason that the US is almost certain to veto them.

There have been exceptions, of course. The recent resolution against Israel's actions in southern Lebanon was almost certainly legitimate - nobody wants a real shooting war. But by and large, these "resolutions" are just a cheap way of needling Israel and the US, and a hypocritical action to enable the "enlightened" (read: sanctimonius) bringers of the resolution to feel superior to the "barbaric" (read: loyal) Americans and their Israeli "puppets".

The US is a great target for this kind of crap because it's the Big Guy right now, and because it by and large doesn't follow what the rest of the Western World sees as "the rules". Never mind the fact that said "rules" change without notice, or intellect.

The US has had to do it so many times for no reason that has to do with Israel or Palestine. By and large, these resolutions have been moved for the sole reason that the US is almost certain to veto them.

There have been exceptions, of course. The recent resolution against Israel's actions in southern Lebanon was almost certainly legitimate - nobody wants a real shooting war. But by and large, these "resolutions" are just a cheap way of needling Israel and the US, and a hypocritical action to enable the "enlightened" (read: sanctimonius) bringers of the resolution to feel superior to the "barbaric" (read: loyal) Americans and their Israeli "puppets".

The US is a great target for this kind of crap because it's the Big Guy right now, and because it by and large doesn't follow what the rest of the Western World sees as "the rules". Never mind the fact that said "rules" change without notice, or intellect.

A great many of those resolutions were quite moderate and defined in scope. Being 'loyal' to a repeat offender is of dubious value to both.

A great many of those resolutions were quite moderate and defined in scope. Being 'loyal' to a repeat offender is of dubious value to both.

Some have been, some haven't. But if the US allows even one through after vetoing the first one (which was neither moderate nor reasonable) the results could be catastrophic.

First, this would be seen as abandoning an ally, something the US has always been very leery of. As they should be. Abandoning an ally is an act that will haunt a nation for centuries, and weaken ALL of that country's alliances, as your allies will quite reasonably wonder whether they're next.

Secondly, there are elements in the Middle East that would see this as a "green light" to take up a more confrontational aspect towards Israel. The current rulers of Egypt and Jordan are non-hostile, and Saudi seems to be tending the same way; but that leaves a lot of Arab and other mid-east nations that are implacably hostile. In large part, they won't act because the wrath of the US is not something they want to deal with.

Finally, it would encourage more such resolutions - and ones that would almost certainly be much less moderate than the ones the US let through. If the US then turned around and vetoed those, the calls of "hypocrisy!" would be deafening, regardless of the truth of the matter.

Besides all of that, the UN has proven singularly inept at handling this kind of situation, inevitably trying to impose it's will on the situation - and through it's mismanagement ensuring an ongoing and neverending crisis. I see no reason to think it would be any different this time.

First, this would be seen as abandoning an ally, something the US has always been very leery of. As they should be. Abandoning an ally is an act that will haunt a nation for centuries, and weaken ALL of that country's alliances, as your allies will quite reasonably wonder whether they're next..

How did they survive Noriega, Suharto, Pinochet and the Shah? And how is allowing the law to roll out "abandoning"? I havent suggested they throw Israel to the wolves, just let justice take its course. Thats the kind of thing you're supposed to do to stop people resorting to military means.


Secondly, there are elements in the Middle East that would see this as a "green light" to take up a more confrontational aspect towards Israel. The current rulers of Egypt and Jordan are non-hostile, and Saudi seems to be tending the same way; but that leaves a lot of Arab and other mid-east nations that are implacably hostile. In large part, they won't act because the wrath of the US is not something they want to deal with...

We're talking about orderly, lawful sanctions as an alternative to violence here. The current situation has the population of the middle east extremely hostile, so were democracy to break out, as the plan was supposedly with regards to Iraq, things would destabilise further.


Finally, it would encourage more such resolutions - and ones that would almost certainly be much less moderate than the ones the US let through. If the US then turned around and vetoed those, the calls of "hypocrisy!" would be deafening, regardless of the truth of the matter....

But the hypocrisy is blatant, clear and now.


Besides all of that, the UN has proven singularly inept at handling this kind of situation, inevitably trying to impose it's will on the situation - and through it's mismanagement ensuring an ongoing and neverending crisis. I see no reason to think it would be any different this time.

The reason its been inept is largely the blocking actions by the US.

So you can't claim any anti-semitic links, no matter how hard you try, Zionism is to Jew what Nazi is to German.
Just shut up, you complete idiot. You're making critics of Israel look like morons.

How did they survive Noriega, Suharto, Pinochet and the Shah? And how is allowing the law to roll out "abandoning"? I havent suggested they throw Israel to the wolves, just let justice take its course. Thats the kind of thing you're supposed to do to stop people resorting to military means.

The US DIDN'T abandon any of those allies. Noriega outright turned on the US, and reaped the rewardfs therof. Pinochet and Suharto were ousted by their own people; the US rightly kept out of those situations. And the Shah spent his last years in US paid-for luxury.
I don't agree with many of those decisions. Pinochet, particularly, was slime we should have assassinated ourselves. But by following the rule of "never abandon your allies", the US gets a good name among it's allies. They may not like all our decisions, but they canultimately trust us not to screw them over.

We're talking about orderly, lawful sanctions as an alternative to violence here. The current situation has the population of the middle east extremely hostile, so were democracy to break out, as the plan was supposedly with regards to Iraq, things would destabilise further.

You and I can see this as an orderly, lawful turn of events aiming for justice. We are reasonable people. But many of the people we are talking about are NOT reasonable, and they would see the US' allowing of sanctions as something quite different.
It's not just how something actually works that we have to take into account; it is also how a particular action is perceived.


But the hypocrisy is blatant, clear and now.

Perception again. You see hypocrisy; I see self-interest and loyalty to an ally.
There is, of course, no reason why both of these perceptions cannot be correct.

The reason its been inept is largely the blocking actions by the US.

No, that one I have to call you on. The US had very little to do with the ongoing disaster that is Bosnia-Herzegovina, or any of the rest of ex-Yugoslavia. Nor was the US involved in the years of bloody and futile conflict of Angola, when everybody was carefully NOT admitting that the country was being torn apart in a proxy war between the Union of South Africa and their northern neighbours.

Face it, the UN is great as a debating society, and some of the organs (WHO, UNICEF come to mind) do real good works around the globe. But as a problem solver, it's pretty much useless.

The US DIDN'T abandon any of those allies. Noriega outright turned on the US, and reaped the rewardfs therof. Pinochet and Suharto were ousted by their own people; the US rightly kept out of those situations. And the Shah spent his last years in US paid-for luxury.
I don't agree with many of those decisions. Pinochet, particularly, was slime we should have assassinated ourselves. But by following the rule of "never abandon your allies", the US gets a good name among it's allies. They may not like all our decisions, but they canultimately trust us not to screw them over..

Emm....The Kurds in 1976/Kissinger?


Face it, the UN is great as a debating society, and some of the organs (WHO, UNICEF come to mind) do real good works around the globe. But as a problem solver, it's pretty much useless.

Its not the ultimate superhero collection, however to do nothing merely strengthens the case for violence.

Its not the ultimate superhero collection, however to do nothing merely strengthens the case for violence.

In many ways you're quite correct. But doing the wrong thing can also increase violence. The perfect example was the banning of weapon sales into Croatia, Serbia, Bosnia-Herzegovina and Montenegro at the start of the Yugoslav war of...well, whatever the appropriate term is for that war, I don't claim to know.
The Yugoslavian/Serbian Nationalist/Republika Serbska forces already had all the weapons they needed, seeing as they had been in large part the Yugoslav Army. All they needed was ammunition - and Serbia had all the manufacturing ability to do that on their own. The Croats managed to get enough weapons to supply their own forces.
The Bosnians, of all the various ethnicities, by and large didn't. So the Serbs were able to walk all over them in open battle, and "Ethnically Cleanse" any area of their choice. The Weapons Ban didn't reduce the violence - it just ensured that one side was going to be stomped flat and have no chance to fight back.

Now, some reasonable sanctions on Israel aren't going to have an effect like that, of course. But I have to ask, what are we trying to do, specifically? Stop settlements? Valid, but more of a symptom than the heart of the disease. Stop the Wall? But, the wall is saving lives.

To me, the only way any of this is going to be resolved is Israel sitting down on one side of the table and the Palestinians on the other. And pressure on only one side of the problem isn't going to make that any more likely.

In many ways you're quite correct. But doing the wrong thing can also increase violence. The perfect example was the banning of weapon sales into Croatia, Serbia, Bosnia-Herzegovina and Montenegro at the start of the Yugoslav war of...well, whatever the appropriate term is for that war, I don't claim to know.
The Yugoslavian/Serbian Nationalist/Republika Serbska forces already had all the weapons they needed, seeing as they had been in large part the Yugoslav Army. All they needed was ammunition - and Serbia had all the manufacturing ability to do that on their own. The Croats managed to get enough weapons to supply their own forces.
The Bosnians, of all the various ethnicities, by and large didn't. So the Serbs were able to walk all over them in open battle, and "Ethnically Cleanse" any area of their choice. The Weapons Ban didn't reduce the violence - it just ensured that one side was going to be stomped flat and have no chance to fight back.

Now, some reasonable sanctions on Israel aren't going to have an effect like that, of course. But I have to ask, what are we trying to do, specifically? Stop settlements? Valid, but more of a symptom than the heart of the disease. Stop the Wall? But, the wall is saving lives.

To me, the only way any of this is going to be resolved is Israel sitting down on one side of the table and the Palestinians on the other. And pressure on only one side of the problem isn't going to make that any more likely.

The wall would be valid if it followed the border, as oppossed to being a means to annex territory. However we must be realistic - the side that needs reigning in is Israel. Only after occupation has ended can the Palestinians be penalised for whatever transgressions occur.

The wall would be valid if it followed the border, as oppossed to being a means to annex territory. However we must be realistic - the side that needs reigning in is Israel. Only after occupation has ended can the Palestinians be penalised for whatever transgressions occur.

I can agree with that in principle, but then we get back to what areas are Israel, what areas are occupied, and what areas are Palestine? I think I've made my point that the UN recommendations are totally non-viable. Where do we draw the lines?

I am right and you are wrong, because my good friend Dubya says so.

Thanks for your contribution.

Remember, this is the face of Zionist imperialism, look very closely. (http://www.stlimc.org/newswire/display/2561/index.php)

No protection if they give it back, no peace if they don't... How's that for options?


yikes....scary but true.

Thanks for your contribution.

Remember, this is the face of Zionist imperialism, look very closely. (http://www.stlimc.org/newswire/display/2561/index.php)

Wow. Someone needs a makeover.

I can agree with that in principle, but then we get back to what areas are Israel, what areas are occupied, and what areas are Palestine? I think I've made my point that the UN recommendations are totally non-viable. Where do we draw the lines?

Pre-1967 Borders.

No meaningful and fair peace can be established until a full Palestinian state is created with Jerusalem as it's capital.

Pre-1967 Borders.

Which, I believe ARE the UN Guidelines. Israel MIGHT be willing to pull back from most of that area, but I seriously doubt they would give up the Golan Heights. And let's be honest - they would have to be pretty STUPID to do that. Not without a rock-solid treaty with Syria.

That's why I don't think putting any prearranged conditions on talks will ever work. Both sides have demands that really need to be worked out at the table. The only way anything is going to work is Israel on one side, Palestine on the other, everything on the table and everybody else OUT OF THE ROOM.