[CatLuvkaLover]

[QUOTE=joyb;1676827]

Israel is a racist-aphartied state, its a kukluxklan state..remember this thread:

http://www.uspoliticsonline.com/war-...-violence.html

A thread started by you, which you flooded with propaganda bullshit stories. The first page only has three other posters.

Sorry I don't buy Anti-Semitism disguised as anti-Israelism. You have posted 59 times and have created 3 threads. Your threads are titled, NAZI-Zionist Secret Pact (4 replies), Jewish Settler Violence (57 replies, though I wonder how many were generated by you), and Iran takes Obama nuclear threat to UN (14 replies, but that‘s a new one and its only 13 hours old ). Two out of three are anti-Semitism disguised as anti-Zionists-anti-Israeli bullshit, is there a theme here?

The rest of your rant, well I have beachfront property in Nevada if your interested in buying it. After that I have a bridge in New York, if you want one.

Tashi deleks,

M

[payowlirriply]

Those reports of jewish settler violence are not "bullshit stories",these attacks are documented by a number human rights groups, particularly Israeli ones like btselem..call it what you want "anti-semitism" or anti-israelism",it doesn't change the fact that Israel is jim-crow racist state with policies that are far in excess of anything we have seen before in south africa or americas deep south, your not denying anything, if my posts are so outrageous, not nearly as outrageous as calling Israel a 'democracy' or saying that it's 'free'.

I mean if you were an opponent of South Africa's aphartied regime, then what are you, an 'anti-whity' , an 'anti-european', calling israels critics "racist" when it's in fact a racist aphartied system..

Israeli hypocrisy this Holocaust Remembrance Day | Al Jazeera Blogs

look at the map here:
BBC News - Israeli PM says Jerusalem policy will not change

you can't deny that's aphartied!

watch the video here about how the israelis kidnapped this familys mother and deported her to Gaza and they can now never see each other again, she wasn't even allowed to say goodbye..

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/mi...726639765.html

i'm not the racist, YOU and the zionists are the racists!

[Casyimipist]

IMO 1. Israel is the "biggest" deterrent to peace in the Middle East.

2. An equally armed Iran (in respect to Israel) is the counter force necessary to to break the logjam in negotiations between the various factions.

3. We have the means to end all argument...and both sides need to be reminded of this fact from time to time.

I dont get why these...support for Isreal threads keep appearing on this site.

Take the US out of the picture.....who else really supports and is a ally of Isreal?


You all know if the US ever gets the balls to say, "Isreal you are on your own you keep building settlement when we have asked you not to and you are only using that Jesus Christ was born there knowing the US is basically a Christian country not jewish against us...isnt going to work any more!"

The problem in the middle east would sort itself out...if neighboring arabs invade, so be it! It wont be the 1st or last group of people to invade another!


Show me outside of Isreal where they send troops, use their wealth to support those that do in the fight against terrorism.

If their allies have no sway with them...let them go it alone!

[Sadsidioribre]

One more thing.......if Isreali's flee there country due to war unlike other refugee the US and Europe would welcome them with open arms!..............................or would they, it not like Europe didnt try to rid themselves of jews, remember Hitler and that sentinment still exist in europe!

[Andoror]

[QUOTE=Mahasattva;1677351]

A thread started by you, which you flooded with propaganda bullshit stories. The first page only has three other posters.

Sorry I don't buy Anti-Semitism disguised as anti-Israelism. You have posted 59 times and have created 3 threads. Your threads are titled, NAZI-Zionist Secret Pact (4 replies), Jewish Settler Violence (57 replies, though I wonder how many were generated by you), and Iran takes Obama nuclear threat to UN (14 replies, but that‘s a new one and its only 13 hours old ). Two out of three are anti-Semitism disguised as anti-Zionists-anti-Israeli bullshit, is there a theme here?

The rest of your rant, well I have beachfront property in Nevada if your interested in buying it. After that I have a bridge in New York, if you want one.

Tashi deleks,

M

I remember being called an anti semite because I spoke of a Rabbi Trust as a way of getting around restrictive laws related to pensions.

Your posts in describing my views suggest I use Israel's actions to cover up or disguise my anti semitism.You suggested recently that Israel's actions have never been Illegal 'tho our own government has warned them of such.
INvading,occupying and settling occupied land is against international law.

You seem to be shooting from the hip in respect to this subject to the degree one might consider some of your remarks to favor Israel over the United States.

You speak of Israel's "constitution" and yet I have read they have yet to write one.

Your religious tenets embrace "The God Of Israel" etc.etc. Different God than Christians ?

Being anti Israel does not make one anti Jewish or anti-semetic.

Being pro Israel does not make one anti-American.

I've spent countless hours studying this subject digging up solid facts and printing them. All to no avail in any respect. It is a hopeless chore and only in somewhat rare instances do I use such facts.

cool it !

[hygtfrdes]

Originally Posted by Mahasattva
Nope, no guarantee. Yet it often does end up in some corrupt dictators Swiss bank.

Wouldn't you say that often, our aid does end up in the hands of people who cluster bomb civilians?

You mean like the foreign aid that was sent to Hamas, who have purposely targeted Israeli civilians, sending their own children to die as suicide bombers?

it's like saying Poison X is the best poison because it causes a painless death. It's still a poison.

And also here:

It may be a pool of rotten apples, and maybe Israel is the least rotten, but it's still rotten.

Is Israel rotten or not in your opinion?

I wrote: So we are hated by Iran and Syria, those of Hezbollah and Hamas, and certain Palestinians who raise their children to become suicide bombers. I can live with that. Some times the enemies who hate you help define who you are.

I'm glad you agree that it leads people to hate us. I agree that doing the right thing may lead those who oppose doing the right thing to hate us. Their hatred or the lack of their hatred does not influence my decision to support doing the right thing.

So what are you going to argue now? That maybe it's a good thing? Yes, it is good that we support Israel militarily.

I wrote: We receive much more than that from Israel. Doing the right and honorable thing some times leads enemies who oppose doing the right and honorable thing to hate you. I can live with that.
It's right and honorable to cluster bomb civilians? Please show me any evidence that Israel purposely targets civilians.

Or is it right and honorable to financially support those who do so? Looks like you're only listing those "good feelings for being so compassionate" you mentioned. Anything concrete? As in, something that shows that what we give is less than or equal to the return? Perhaps if you search something beyond anti-Semitic neo-Nazi websites you would understand the tangible “concrete” benefits we receive from our relationship with Israel. [sarcasm alert!]

I wrote: A negative effect that you wont lose any sleep over and have no problem with. Mmmkay.

No, not losing any sleep was in reference to:

I think they're both animals and both enjoy killing one another. I won't lose any sleep over it if they slaughter one another. You have stated your belief very clearly. I disagree with that belief. All of the evidence has shown which group has acted badly. Yes, Israel has made mistakes, they are not perfect. But Hamas, Hezbollah, and the rest have not made mistakes -- they have committed their crimes with willful forethought and purposeful resolve. One side has held back from the destruction and damage they could do, the other has held nothing back and committed all they could do.

Giving up money to be hated by someone does concern me quite a bit more. The Iranians call us the Great Satan. They call Israel the Little (or small) Satan. Do you actually believe that if we stopped sending military aid to Israel that suddenly the Iranians or the rest would stop hating us?

I wrote: Yes, I understand that you made a baseless comparison and presented a analogy that is grounded in a false premise.

Do you understand what a false dilemma is? Do you understand what a false premise is?

I wrote: Nope. That’s a handout. But as I said, if you cannot tell the difference between military aid to an ally, and foreign aid which is basically international welfare, I doubt I can explain it in simple enough terms.

The difference is that one sends money to an entity technically (on paper) consider to be a "military ally," and the other sends it to an entity technically (on paper) consider to be a "US citizen." Or to make the comparison closer in terms of foreign aid, to someone who is not on that list of military allies. In other words, the difference is what a piece of paper says. I'm looking for a practical return on what we give up, though, not a piece of paper. As I said, I doubt I can explain it in simple enough terms.

I wrote: Nope. I am presenting facts that reveal the character of the players involved.

Well, if trying to force a decision via false dilemma is not your goal, what is? An emotional and irrational response? I am not attempting to force any decision by any means. Everyone on the forum is well aware of your debating style and how you will continue to beat the dead and well tenderized horse for page after page. It does not matter what facts are presented, you will continue to apply your own twisted sense of “logic” to “prove” in your own mind that you have won something from “the game.” For example, your reply to the next quote.

I wrote: Sure, both sides “could be evil.” But both sides are not evil.

Showing that only one side is evil does not prove that the other side is not. Based on your statements below (that the answer is not Israel), you were only discussing one side. I am not claiming that anyone is evil, you on the other have claimed that they are both “animals,” and that you don’t care if they slaughter each other. And you are implying that Israel is evil, at least equally as evil as Hamas and Hezbollah. Sorry I consider such a comparison bullshit and baseless.

I wrote: And personally I would not use the term evil for either side. Still, is the answer Israel, to any of my questions you quoted? Nope. Israel does not have an established curriculum teaching hatred, as is found in many Arab, Palestinian, and Iranian schools. The Israeli military does not purposely target civilians for murder, as Hezbollah and Hamas do as a standard tactic.

So they accidentally used those cluster bombs? Did the guy who installed the bombs think they were candy? Do you have any credible evidence that would support your implied claim that it is standard operating procedure of the Israeli military or the Israeli government to purposely target civilians?

I wrote: Nor do Israelis celebrate the deaths of innocent Palestinians, as Arabs, Palestinians, Syrians, and Iranians regularly do. Nor does it state in the Israeli constitution that it's purpose of existing is to destroy the Palestinian people, as it does in the Hamas‘ charter.

Once again, you're making a comparative argument and implicitly trying to force a decision via a false dilemma (that one side must be "not evil" because the other side is evil). There is no such dilemma. You’re right there is no dilemma. My decision to support Israel and to support military aid to Israel is very easy.

I wrote: Nope. I am saying that there are very big differences between military aid to an ally and foreign aid to a country or group, like say Hamas which has received foreign aid from us.

Yes, one is an "ally" on paper and the other is not. Not sure how this difference actually affects my argument, though. Yep, on paper. There is also the fact that in the real world Hamas is a terrorist organization that has engaged in suicide bombing of civilians, while Israel has contributed to our efforts against terrorist organizations regionally and globally. One is a terrorist organization, the other helps us fight against terrorist organizations.

I wrote: You have explained why you think its stupid.

Yep, Israel spends nothing on their own defense.

That was in reference to the "free shit" I mentioned, not a statement in general regarding their entire "defense." I am well aware what you were referring to, but my sarcasm was lost on you. To be fair, I did not write my usual [sarcasm alert!], so I don’t fault you completely.

Context is important and strawmen (in this case, a strawman that, even if it weren't a strawman, wouldn't make a difference) are still logical fallacies. Yes, context is important, but you have refused to acknowledge the context of Israel’s situation surrounded by those who want to destroy her. You have refused to acknowledge that while Israel has refrained from actually doing what it could, her enemies have done all they can to destroy her.

I wrote: And we receive nothing in return from our ally in the region. Just in case you missed it, there was a whole lot of sarcasm in the preceding statement.

So once again, I ask you to show me how the returns we have received are greater than or equal to our losses. What losses? The 5 billion that goes into American companies is not a loss, its profit for American companies. We have a friend in the region that we can rely on. A friend that does not use their petrol-dollars or our aid money to finance schools that teach hatred of Israel and America. We have an ally who stands beside us against international terrorist. Or should I say we had a friend, considering the way Obama has treated Israel and its leadership, we may loss that friendship.

I wrote: I am well aware of your’s and skeptic’s anti-Israeli stance. Be happy. It appears that we have a president who shares the same stance. I disagree with anti-Semitism disguised as anti-Israelism, but hey that’s just me.

It's actually anti-foreign aid (okay, even if the party being aided is technically on some list), I know that you are not capable of understanding or acknowledging the qualitative difference between foreign aid and military aid to an ally.

but keep hiding behind the "anti-Semitism" victim card. You are either arguing for the sake of arguing or you’re an anti-Semitic hiding behind anti-Israelism. I have little patience for either one.

If you are in fact not anti-Semitics I apologize for implying you are.

Tashi deleks,

M

[gambleingsites]

Those reports of jewish settler violence are not "bullshit stories",these attacks are

Blab blab blab blab

I mean if you were an opponent of South Africa's aphartied regime, then what are you, an 'anti-whity' , an 'anti-european', calling israels critics "racist" when it's in fact a racist aphartied system.. Blaba blaba blaba blabaaa

Israeli hypocrisy this Holocaust Remembrance Day | Al Jazeera Blogs Unbiased objective reporting blaba blab blab blaba blab

look at the map here:
BBC News - Israeli PM says Jerusalem policy will not change Jews have lived in that section of Jerusalem since before Israel was founded. There have be Jewish settlements there for about a century.

you can't deny that's aphartied! Sure I can. Even more, facts both historical and current prove that its not aphartied.

watch the video here about how the israelis kidnapped this familys mother and deported her to Gaza and they can now never see each other again, she wasn't even allowed to say goodbye..

Al Jazeera English - Middle East - Israeli order raises eviction risk More unbiased objective reporting blab blaba blab bla blaba blab blab

i'm not the racist, YOU and the zionists are the racists! More blaba blab blab blaba blab, baseless delusional claim blaba blab blaba

I'd rather be an Arab living in Israel, than an Arab living in Saudi Arabia

Racist is not what I called you.

tashi deleks,

M

[GlictStiply]

I remember being called an anti semite because I spoke of a Rabbi Trust as a way of getting around restrictive laws related to pensions.

O k a y

Your posts in describing my views suggest I use Israel's actions to cover up or disguise my anti semitism. Yep.

You suggested recently that Israel's actions have never been Illegal 'tho our own government has warned them of such. The flack by the Obama admin. over building new homes in East Jerusalem is garbage. Jews have lived there for over a hundred years.

INvading,occupying and settling occupied land is against international law. Israel left Gaza. What did that get them?

You seem to be shooting from the hip in respect to this subject to the degree one might consider some of your remarks to favor Israel over the United States.

You speak of Israel's "constitution" and yet I have read they have yet to write one. The Hamas' charter states clearly that its existence is the destruction of Israeli. There is nothing like that in Israeli law about Palestinians.

Your religious tenets embrace "The God Of Israel" etc.etc. Different God than Christians ? Ah, no my religious tenets do not embrace "The God of Israel." I am neither a Jew or a Christian.

Being anti Israel does not make one anti Jewish or anti-semetic. Of course it doesn't.

Being pro Israel does not make one anti-American. I agree completely.

I've spent countless hours studying this subject digging up solid facts and printing them. All to no avail in any respect. It is a hopeless chore and only in somewhat rare instances do I use such facts. Wasting your time on neo-Nazi websites is not studying, nor will it lead to sold facts. When you link those sites, as you have in the past, as your source leads me to believe that you are anti-Semite in anti-Israel drag.

cool it ! Nope

tashi deleks,

M

[Theorsell]

IMO 1. Israel is the "biggest" deterrent to peace in the Middle East.

2. An equally armed Iran (in respect to Israel) is the counter force necessary to to break the logjam in negotiations between the various factions.

3. We have the means to end all argument...and both sides need to be reminded of this fact from time to time.

I don't think Israel (the modern country) is the problem; I think Israel the historical ideal, is the problem. There hasn't been peace in the Middle East for 2000 years, and I doubt there ever will be. The main problem with the region as I see it is religion. You have three religions competing for the land of an area: Christianity, Judaism and Islam. It has been this way for over 2000 years, and it doesn't look like stopping any time soon. If people learnt to embrace the love aspect of their religion, rather than fighting for it, then there might be peace in the Mid-East. But, love and religion don't go together; religion and war (or fear) do. The only way religions keep people following is to make them afraid of something: the penalty for sinning; hell; etc. It's all about fear, not love and compassion. That as I see it, is the root problem.

[bubborn]

You mean like the foreign aid that was sent to Hamas, who have purposely targeted Israeli civilians, sending their own children to die as suicide bombers?

Well, no, I was referring to Israelis. But foreign aid to Palestine must stop, as well.
I’ll repeat myself: If you cannot tell the qualitative difference between military aid to an ally and foreign aid, then I doubt I could explain it in simple enough terms.
You're playing with semantics. Foreign aid is aid to a foreign country. Military aid to an ally is aid. Our "ally" is a foreign nation. The two are not mutually exclusive. If you want to actually point out how aid to anyone else is much worse than aid to Israel, I already suggested how you could do so. You can start by pointing out how our returns are greater than or equal to our losses in sending aid to Israel.
Deleted Slon’s list of NATO members, which can be found here: NATO - Member countries
So, if the US government started sending them money in amounts proportional to their population (using Israel as an example), you wouldn't have a problem with it? We would, in essence, become the socialist wealth distribution component of the world.
Yes, I would support those nations, since they are our allies and we do have treaty obligations that require fulfillment. I would also support any other nation we have a treaty with and have an alliance with.



ANY country that assists us in national security issues and that we have ratified a treaty with we need to aid under the conditions of that treaty.
The question is, is the treaty worth keeping. I don't think such a treaty, which I see as having a net negative effect on us, is worth keeping. I have outlined some of the reasons why.
Personally I prefer that we only give military aid and refrain from “foreign aid” since too often it ends up negatively affecting the citizens of those countries. “Food aid” is a good example of how this causes negative effects economically for farmers and food suppliers within that country. American military aid does not compete with indigenous manufacturers, since often those countries either do not have the manufacturing base to compete or the Americans are supplying something that cannot be produced in that country, such as personal or organizational structure with NATO.
Okay, you provided one way in which some foreign aid may actually result in harming some nations. Just because this is presumably not one of the effects of our foreign aid to Israel, does not mean it is worth keeping. It just means that this reason you posted, in particular, cannot be used to argue against it. However, I presented a different reason (hatred against the US, waste of money, etc...).
Is it really? Please post the percentage of our budget that is spent on ALL foreign aid. Go ahead, will wait.
I didn't say it is, I said that that would be. Hence, posting current foreign aid alone spending would not substantiate that.
Yes, we know what it looks like to you.

In my opinion and in the opinion of many involved in security and foreign policy issues the answer is a resounding YES!
And what is your evidence of this?
Oh really? Lets see what you have posted here: And also here:
In other words, I didn't say Israel was more rotten than anyone else in the region. Actually, my post implies that, according to some measurements, it may be the least rotten in the region. Thus, asking me to show how Israel is more rotten than someone else in the region is kind of stupid. Thanks for making my point for me.

Poison X is the best poison
maybe Israel is the least rotten
Is Israel rotten or not in your opinion?
Based on evidence that I have seen, I do not think it is worth it to send them free aid handouts. In that sense, I consider them too rotten to be worth the handout.
I agree that doing the right thing may lead those who oppose doing the right thing to hate us. Their hatred or the lack of their hatred does not influence my decision to support doing the right thing.
Supporting people who cluster bomb civilians is "the right thing?'
Yes, it is good that we support Israel militarily.
Not what I asked.
Please show me any evidence that Israel purposely targets civilians.
IDF admits targeting civilian areas in Lebanon with cluster bombs - Haaretz - Israel News
Perhaps if you search something beyond anti-Semitic neo-Nazi websites you would understand the tangible “concrete” benefits we receive from our relationship with Israel. [sarcasm alert!]
So, are you going to post some of these concrete benefits, or will you just keep using the anti-Semitic victim card?
You have stated your belief very clearly. I disagree with that belief. All of the evidence has shown which group has acted badly. Yes, Israel has made mistakes, they are not perfect. But Hamas, Hezbollah, and the rest have not made mistakes -- they have committed their crimes with willful forethought and purposeful resolve. One side has held back from the destruction and damage they could do, the other has held nothing back and committed all they could do.
First of all, yes, the evidence has shown which group has acted badly: both of them! And could you explain to me how using cluster munitions on populated areas could have been a "mistake" entirely? Is this the "accident" type of mistake, as in, "oops! I thought those were candy machines, not cluster bombs!"?

And yet AGAIN you drag out the false dilemma fallacy. Look, I already agree that we should not be funneling money into Hamas. It has not been my argument that we should. That Hamas is bad does not make Israel good. Please stop treating this as a dilemma in which we must take sides: Hamas or Israel. There is no such requirement.
The Iranians call us the Great Satan. They call Israel the Little (or small) Satan. Do you actually believe that if we stopped sending military aid to Israel that suddenly the Iranians or the rest would stop hating us?
It would give them less of a reason to do so. There will always be someone who hates us.
Do you understand what a false premise is?
Yes.
As I said, I doubt I can explain it in simple enough terms.

I am not attempting to force any decision by any means. Everyone on the forum is well aware of your debating style and how you will continue to beat the dead and well tenderized horse for page after page. It does not matter what facts are presented, you will continue to apply your own twisted sense of “logic” to “prove” in your own mind that you have won something from “the game.” For example, your reply to the next quote.
Why are you dodging the question? Why did you go about presenting those facts if you're not trying to force a false dilemma decision?
I am not claiming that anyone is evil, you on the other have claimed that they are both “animals,” and that you don’t care if they slaughter each other. And you are implying that Israel is evil, at least equally as evil as Hamas and Hezbollah. Sorry I consider such a comparison bullshit and baseless.
No, that is not what I am implying. Actually, I am suggesting the opposite.

maybe Israel is the least rotten


Do you have any credible evidence that would support your implied claim that it is standard operating procedure of the Israeli military or the Israeli government to purposely target civilians?
Where did I say it was "standard operating procedure?" I said they did it. And enough for articles to pop out about it and enough to kill lots of people.
You’re right there is no dilemma. My decision to support Israel and to support military aid to Israel is very easy.
*sigh* I didn't say that you had a dilemma (regular usage) in deciding which side to support. I said you were trying to push a false dilemma (the logical fallacy) on me.
Yep, on paper. There is also the fact that in the real world Hamas is a terrorist organization that has engaged in suicide bombing of civilians, while Israel has contributed to our efforts against terrorist organizations regionally and globally. One is a terrorist organization, the other helps us fight against terrorist organizations.
Why should I care about Hamas/destroying Hamas? Is it worth the money to America?
I am well aware what you were referring to, but my sarcasm was lost on you. To be fair, I did not write my usual [sarcasm alert!], so I don’t fault you completely.
Yes, sarcasm which implied that I thought Israel spent nothing on its own defense. Not sure why you think it was lost on me.
Yes, context is important, but you have refused to acknowledge the context of Israel’s situation surrounded by those who want to destroy her. You have refused to acknowledge that while Israel has refrained from actually doing what it could, her enemies have done all they can to destroy her.
You're right, Israel could be more violent. And lots of people hate it. I don't know if I actually "refused" to acknowledge it in the past. I guess I just didn't say it every chance I could since, you know, IT'S IRRELEVANT TO MY ARGUMENT! That people hate Israel only means they would also hate those that support it, which actually creates a reason not to fund Israel.
What losses? The 5 billion that goes into American companies is not a loss, its profit for American companies. We have a friend in the region that we can rely on. A friend that does not use their petrol-dollars or our aid money to finance schools that teach hatred of Israel and America. We have an ally who stands beside us against international terrorist. Or should I say we had a friend, considering the way Obama has treated Israel and its leadership, we may loss that friendship.
What losses? Are you joking? Federal aid is derived from taxes. It may result in profit for those companies, but it's taken out of the pockets of US citizens. Money doesn't come from thin air, for fuck's sake. I can't imagine you would actually say what you said there.

Whether they use it to buy shit from us or to build schools, it is still money being given to them.

I also don't see how having a theoretical friend against "International terrorist" is worth the increased hatred (from more would be terrorists) or the money.
I know that you are not capable of understanding or acknowledging the qualitative difference between foreign aid and military aid to an ally.
I know you still haven't explained how this semantics issues matters.
You are either arguing for the sake of arguing or you’re an anti-Semitic hiding behind anti-Israelism. I have little patience for either one.

If you are in fact not anti-Semitics I apologize for implying you are.

Tashi deleks,

M I would like to present a third possibility. Perhaps you're wrong because you keep using the logical fallacy known as a false dilemma. I think this possibility is 100% likely.

[resegooredo]

Its not about Jews living in the westbank, it's about people having equal rights, if your building houses for jews and then throwing palestinians out, it's not fair or equal-a racist policy

I call racism unfair policies, not anger towards a country that has unfair policies.

What exactly are these 'facts' that prove it's not aphartied, i noticed you neglected to mention them.

* the country is segregated with Palestinians living in confined areas, surrounded by jewish settlements, and the settlemenst have jewish only roads that bypass Palestinian areas and create more confinement.
* the country has elections but the Palestinians are not voting in them, which is why they are being so brutally repressed in the first place. it creates a right wing government.
* this example of this famly being separated with the kids mother deported to gaza is grouse-these are innocent people-the mother was never accused of being a militant, and its just 1 example.
* Every south african academic, desmond tutu, nelson mandela , etc. black and white have described israel as a racist aphartied state, most saying it's worse that s.africa ever was..
* Israeli's, Ehud Barak, Shimon Perez even use the word aphartied! sure you can say it's not but your a nobody.

and we're not talking about Israeli-Arabs, we're talking about the Palestinians who have had their territory incorporated into israel w/o democratic rights, (per your israel vs. saudi arabia remark..)

Blab blab blab blab



Blaba blaba blaba blabaaa



Unbiased objective reporting blaba blab blab blaba blab



Jews have lived in that section of Jerusalem since before Israel was founded. There have be Jewish settlements there for about a century.



Sure I can. Even more, facts both historical and current prove that its not aphartied.



More unbiased objective reporting blab blaba blab bla blaba blab blab



More blaba blab blab blaba blab, baseless delusional claim blaba blab blaba

I'd rather be an Arab living in Israel, than an Arab living in Saudi Arabia

Racist is not what I called you.

tashi deleks,

M

[DoroKickcrofe]

Some people like birds have only one note to sing and display no eye pleasing colors giving wonder as to why they exist.

Some people like the sparrow ad to our distaste and steal rather than build on what already exists dislodging the previous owners.

The sparrow of course is not without any virtue as are people if "persistence" can will out in the end.

[wepoiyub]

Part 1

Originally Posted by Mahasattva
You mean like the foreign aid that was sent to Hamas, who have purposely targeted Israeli civilians, sending their own children to die as suicide bombers?

Well, no, I was referring to Israelis. But foreign aid to Palestine must stop, as well.

I know who you were referring.

I had said, “Nope, no guarantee. Yet it often does end up in some corrupt dictators Swiss bank.”

And you replied, “Wouldn't you say that often, our aid does end up in the hands of people who cluster bomb civilians?”

It may be a pool of rotten apples, and maybe Israel is the least rotten, but it's still rotten.

It is your contention that Israel “is the least rotten, but still rotten.” I do not believe that Israel is rotten.

but it's still rotten.

Which is a belief that I do not accept as valid or true.

I asked: Is Israel rotten or not in your opinion?

Based on evidence that I have seen, I do not think it is worth it to send them free aid handouts. In that sense, I consider them too rotten to be worth the handout. Free aid is aid without conditions, the military aid given to Israel has very strict conditions. You believe that Israel is rotten, something I do not accept.

I wrote: I agree that doing the right thing may lead those who oppose doing the right thing to hate us. Their hatred or the lack of their hatred does not influence my decision to support doing the right thing.

Supporting people who cluster bomb civilians is "the right thing?' Is there any evidence that supports the assertion that it is standard operating procedure or a point of governing policy that either the Israeli military or the Israeli government purposely targets civilians? No there is not.

I wrote: Yes, it is good that we support Israel militarily.

Not what I asked. You asked “what are we going to argue about now? That it’s a good thing?"
You were referring to those who hate us in the Middle East, implying that if we stopped supporting Israel they would stop hating. That is simply a silly and simplistic conclusion.

I wrote: Please show me any evidence that Israel purposely targets civilians.

IDF admits targeting civilian areas in Lebanon with cluster bombs - Haaretz - Israel News Which is not evidence that Israel purposely targets civilians. Here are the first two paragraphs of your article: The Israel Defense Forces discovered that there had been "irregularities" in the use of cluster munitions, even before the end of the recent Lebanon war, sources in the defense minister's office said Monday. As a result of this information, Defense Minister Amir Peretz ordered an "extensive inquiry" into the use of these munitions before the war's end.

Meanwhile, for the first time Monday, the IDF admitted targeting populated areas with cluster munitions. In a statement released by the IDF Spokesman's Office, "the use of cluster munitions against built-up areas was done only against military targets where rocket launches against Israel were identified and after taking steps to warn the civilian population."

[And later in the article]: Following reports first published in Haaretz regarding the scale of cluster bomb use, Halutz appointed Brigadier General Mishel Ben Baruch to head a probe into the use of the weapons.

The inquiry's findings were handed over to Halutz and IDF Advocate General Avichai Mendelblit, who will determine whether the case merits court-martial proceedings.

Based on the findings, Halutz decided to appoint Hacohen to investigate why field commanders blatantly disobeyed his orders. First, the IDF did not purposely target civilians to kill them, as Hamas and Hezbollah regularly do. When it was learned that cluster bomber were possibly being used improperly what did the Israeli military do? They began an investigation which may likely lead to court-martial proceedings. Now if it were Hamas or Hezbollah there would have been celebrations.

I wrote: Perhaps if you search something beyond anti-Semitic neo-Nazi websites you would understand the tangible “concrete” benefits we receive from our relationship with Israel. [sarcasm alert!]

So, are you going to post some of these concrete benefits, or will you just keep using the anti-Semitic victim card? I am not posting any links. I have already pointed you towards those wonderful places where they collect books of all kinds that you can borrow.

End of Part 1

tashi deleks,

M

[perpelverw]

Part 2

I wrote: You have stated your belief very clearly. I disagree with that belief. All of the evidence has shown which group has acted badly. Yes, Israel has made mistakes, they are not perfect. But Hamas, Hezbollah, and the rest have not made mistakes -- they have committed their crimes with willful forethought and purposeful resolve. One side has held back from the destruction and damage they could do, the other has held nothing back and committed all they could do.

First of all, yes, the evidence has shown which group has acted badly: both of them!

Ah the bullshit moral equivalency argument. There is no comparison between the two groups (well actually its multiple groups since its Israel against the whole region).

So far, Israel simply leeches resources off of us. "Best" is a relative term and in this case is meaningless since, like you said, all the other nations there supposedly want to slit our throats.

Probably because they get handouts from a huge nation like the USA.

And this doesn't hurt, either:

You were the one who framed the argument that, “’Best’ is a relative term.” You also assert that Israel is rotten, perhaps a little less rotten then the rest, but rotten none the less. I consider your moral equivalency argument bullshit and your assertion that Israel is rotten baseless. There is no dilemma, false or otherwise.

I wrote: I am not claiming that anyone is evil, you on the other have claimed that they are both “animals,” and that you don’t care if they slaughter each other. And you are implying that Israel is evil, at least equally as evil as Hamas and Hezbollah. Sorry I consider such a comparison bullshit and baseless.

No, that is not what I am implying. Actually, I am suggesting the opposite.

maybe Israel is the least rotten I do not consider Israel rotten. Period. Israel is not perfect, no nation is, but by an large I consider Israel worthy of my respect and worthy to be our ally in the region and worthy of our military aid.

I wrote: Do you have any credible evidence that would support your implied claim that it is standard operating procedure of the Israeli military or the Israeli government to purposely target civilians?

Where did I say it was "standard operating procedure?" I said they did it. And enough for articles to pop out about it and enough to kill lots of people. Collateral damage happens in all conflicts and they especially happen when groups like Hamas and Hezbollah use children and women as human shields. Israel, like ourselves and other Western liberal democracies attempt to minimize collateral damage, often putting their own soldiers in greater danger. Hamas, Hezbollah, and other such groups seek to utilize and exploit collateral damage. That is when they are not seeking it purposely.

I wrote: You’re right there is no dilemma. My decision to support Israel and to support military aid to Israel is very easy.

*sigh* I didn't say that you had a dilemma (regular usage) in deciding which side to support. I said you were trying to push a false dilemma (the logical fallacy) on me. I know how you are using false dilemma. If you thought I was trying to push anything on you I am sorry. I simply reject the false premise that you hold that would make the false dilemma a possible logical flaw.

I wrote: Yep, on paper. There is also the fact that in the real world Hamas is a terrorist organization that has engaged in suicide bombing of civilians, while Israel has contributed to our efforts against terrorist organizations regionally and globally. One is a terrorist organization, the other helps us fight against terrorist organizations.

Why should I care about Hamas/destroying Hamas? I have no idea what point you are trying to make with the above sentence.

Is it worth the money to America? If you are asking is it worth the money to America to support Israel, you already have my answer -- yes.

I wrote: I am well aware what you were referring to, but my sarcasm was lost on you. To be fair, I did not write my usual [sarcasm alert!], so I don’t fault you completely.

Yes, sarcasm which implied that I thought Israel spent nothing on its own defense. Not sure why you think it was lost on me. Well, I thought (and still think) it was lost on you because I was not implying that you thought Israel spent nothing on its own defense.

I wrote: Yes, context is important, but you have refused to acknowledge the context of Israel’s situation surrounded by those who want to destroy her. You have refused to acknowledge that while Israel has refrained from actually doing what it could, her enemies have done all they can to destroy her.

You're right, Israel could be more violent. And lots of people hate it. I don't know if I actually "refused" to acknowledge it in the past. I guess I just didn't say it every chance I could since, you know, IT'S IRRELEVANT TO MY ARGUMENT! That people hate Israel only means they would also hate those that support it, which actually creates a reason not to fund Israel. And if I were 12 or 13 years old or a coward I would allow the hateful “feelings” of others to influence decisions that require clarity and forethought.

I wrote: What losses? The 5 billion that goes into American companies is not a loss, its profit for American companies. We have a friend in the region that we can rely on. A friend that does not use their petrol-dollars or our aid money to finance schools that teach hatred of Israel and America. We have an ally who stands beside us against international terrorist. Or should I say we had a friend, considering the way Obama has treated Israel and its leadership, we may loss that friendship.

What losses? Are you joking? Federal aid is derived from taxes. Yep, and on some rare occasions those taxes are actually used for things I approve.

It may result in profit for those companies, but it's taken out of the pockets of US citizens. Money doesn't come from thin air, for fuck's sake. I can't imagine you would actually say what you said there. Imagine it. Believe it. I said it.

Whether they use it to buy shit from us or Or nothing, they cannot use it for anything other than military defense and they are required to buy American.

to build schools, it is still money being given to them. Yep. It is. And they are required to buy American with that money. I consider that arrangement a win-win plus for both sides.

I also don't see how having a theoretical friend against
"International terrorist" is worth the increased hatred (from more would be terrorists) or the money. 1. Israel is not a theoretical friend, she is a real friend. 2. The hatred in the region is not increased because of our relationship with Israel, it is fanned and inflamed by the radical Jihadists, but not increased. Without Israel their hatred would be more focused on us. 3. If we gave up all our support to Israel tomorrow, it would only confirm another of the beliefs held by radicals, America cannot keep its promises to its allies in the face of real threats and real danger.

I wrote: I know that you are not capable of understanding or acknowledging the qualitative difference between foreign aid and military aid to an ally.

I know you still haven't explained how this semantics issues matters. That’s right I haven’t, though it is not a semantic issue. As I said, I doubt I could explain it to you in simple enough terms.

I wrote: You are either arguing for the sake of arguing or you’re an anti-Semitic hiding behind anti-Israelism. I have little patience for either one.

If you are in fact not anti-Semitics I apologize for implying you are.

I would like to present a third possibility. Perhaps you're wrong because you keep using the logical fallacy known as a false dilemma. I think this possibility is 100% likely. For that dilemma to be false, your premise must be true. Your premise is not only false, its bullshit. As long as you assert your false premise that brings about the dilemma. Drop the false premise, no dilemma. Also, as I have said several times, I do not view this as an either or issue. The situation in the Middle East is a complex issue. The Israeli-Palestinian “problem” is a manufactured problem that is pushed onto the global stage by certain Arab and Iranian players as a distraction and an excuse for their own failures. While the Israelis would love to find a peaceful solution to this “problem” others in the region will not allow it. An historical example of this is the peace accords that Arafat refused to agree to. If he had accepted the peace accords his position of power would have been lost and the Palestinians would have had to accept their own failures as their own responsibility and fault. He could not lose the former and was unwilling to accept the latter.

End of Part 2

tashi deleks,

M

[PharmACT]

Its not about Jews living in the westbank, it's about people

Blaba blab blab blaba blab blab

I used to engage and argue with conspiracy nuts, racists, and anti-Semitics, but eventually learned that it was a complete waste of time. Its like trying to talk sense to a fanatic cult member, no amount of rational evidence or reasoned logic will sway them from their cherished belief. So, joyb, blaba blab blaba blab blab, yadda yadda yadda.

thank you for playing and tashi deleks,

M

[autoloanexpert]

Part 1

Sure I could agree to play your game, but I wont. Again, there are qualitative differences between military aid and foreign aid. Obviously those differences are lost on you.

Then you are refusing to substantiate your argument. There's really no way we can continue this debate without that.
If it wasn’t for America’s contribution to European defense there would be no NATO, and there probably would still be a Soviet Union though a larger having fed off a larger portion of Europe. An aside, if America had pulled its defense umbrella from Europe, it would have probably not been in a position to fund its social experiments like universal healthcare.
You're dodging. That's not what I asked.
Yes, it is worth keeping.
You've made your position clear, but you continually refuse to substantiate it.
Actually the only direct reason I remember you giving on this thread is that there are people who hate us for supporting Israel, even though they would continue to hate us if we were to stop supporting Israel.
Really? So there was no mention of the money spent? Ever?
I do not believe it is a waste of money and basing your decisions on how others feel about you is a bit juvenile. Particularly when they would continue to hate us even if we stopped.
Are you being obtuse on purpose? I said the hatred can be expected to decline relative to what it is when we do support it. Basing my decisions on how others feel, when those others could blow shit up, is hardly juvenile.
I did not think you would provide the percentage. So, you admit that current spending on foreign aid is a very small percentage of the federal budget and that there are many other things on the federal budget that we should really be concerned over.
Large or small is irrelevant. It is there and getting rid of that unnecessary spending is not mutually exclusive with addressing other forms of waste.
If you have not noticed, I am not providing links or citations to my posts to you. There have been many foreign policy and security experts and historians who have written reams of material about Israel and our relationship with Israel, as a visit to any public library would reveal. Visit one.
Yes, I know you are not going to substantiate your argument.
This is what you wrote:

It is your contention that Israel “is the least rotten, but still rotten.” I do not believe that Israel is rotten.

I'm glad you understand my contention. I'm sorry you do not share my view that cluster bombing civilians is a bad thing.

Which is a belief that I do not accept as valid or true.
But do you at least understand what I said now? That was why I said what I said, since you apparently failed to understand it or decided to argue against a strawman.
Free aid is aid without conditions, the military aid given to Israel has very strict conditions. You believe that Israel is rotten, something I do not accept.
Food stamps have restrictions, too. You can only use them to buy food. Are you going to argue that food stamps are not "free aid?"
Is there any evidence that supports the assertion that it is standard operating procedure or a point of governing policy that either the Israeli military or the Israeli government purposely targets civilians? No there is not.
Where did I say anything about "standard operating procedure?" Looks like it's something you made up. I didn't say it, and so asking me to prove it is stupid.
You asked “what are we going to argue about now? That it’s a good thing?"
You were referring to those who hate us in the Middle East, implying that if we stopped supporting Israel they would stop hating. That is simply a silly and simplistic conclusion.
No, I said there was a good chance they would hate us less. I did not say they would stop hating us entirely. Is that clear enough for you or would you like to post some more strawmen?
Which is not evidence that Israel purposely targets civilians. Here are the first two paragraphs of your article:

First, the IDF did not purposely target civilians to kill them, as Hamas and Hezbollah regularly do. When it was learned that cluster bomber were possibly being used improperly what did the Israeli military do? They began an investigation which may likely lead to court-martial proceedings. Now if it were Hamas or Hezbollah there would have been celebrations.
Okay, so they target the ground beneath the civilians. Why does this matter? I suppose Hamas only targets the coordinates where civilians are located and not the actual civilians. Can we please drop the silly semantics bullshit? A court martial doesn't mean shit, certainly not without a conviction.
I am not posting any links. I have already pointed you towards those wonderful places where they collect books of all kinds that you can borrow. Then you're shifting the burden of proof. What a surprise! Another fallacy from you!

[saerensenatljn]

Part 2


Ah the bullshit moral equivalency argument. There is no comparison between the two groups (well actually its multiple groups since its Israel against the whole region).

I didn't say they were morally equal. I said they were both bad (not equally bad, just bad). There are various degrees of "bad." May I remind you that this is a thread about US support for ISRAEL and that I have already stated that I do NOT want US aid to go to Palestine?
What did your article state? That Israel did not celebrate the use of cluster munitions on populated areas during a war. They did not deny or try to cover up the use of cluster munitions. That they began an investigation which could lead to court-martial proceedings, whereas if we were talking about Hezbollah they would be looking to promote someone.
I'm glad you agree that they cluster bombed civilians. Perhaps since they did not try to deny it or cover it up, you won't either? Hezbollah has nothing to do with this and continually mentioning them does not help your argument.
Your right, there is no such requirement, but I am not treating my decision to support Israel as an either or dilemma. I believe in supporting Israel because she is the one democracy in the region that we can trust and depend on. It also happens to be the right thing to do.
So far it looks like we can trust and depend on Israel to take our money and equipment. In any case, even the US is not a democracy, so supporting it because of it's election process is silly.
Which is why their hatred does not influence my decision to support Israel. Regardless of what we do they will continue to hate us. Personally I think these groups use this “hatred of Israel” as a convenient wedge to distract their own citizens from their own failures. Israel is a convenient scapegoat, nothing more.
Once again, being hated less is better than being hated more.
Good. Then you understand why I don’t accept your argument that Israel is rotten.
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on that one. I think cluster bombing civilians is bad, you don't. I doubt I'll be able to convince you otherwise.
My first reply to you on this thread was to your post to Boggernose here:

You were the one who framed the argument that, “’Best’ is a relative term.” You also assert that Israel is rotten, perhaps a little less rotten then the rest, but rotten none the less. I consider your moral equivalency argument bullshit and your assertion that Israel is rotten baseless. There is no dilemma, false or otherwise.
I did not say they were equally bad. Why do you keep accusing me of moral equivalency arguments?
I do not consider Israel rotten. Period. Israel is not perfect, no nation is, but by an large I consider Israel worthy of my respect and worthy to be our ally in the region and worthy of our military aid.
Worthy of a federal handout at the expenses of US taxpayers because you respect them. You should have just said that that was your argument. It would have saved me a lot of trouble wading through your piles and piles of semantics arguments and logical fallacies.
Collateral damage happens in all conflicts and they especially happen when groups like Hamas and Hezbollah use children and women as human shields. Israel, like ourselves and other Western liberal democracies attempt to minimize collateral damage, often putting their own soldiers in greater danger. Hamas, Hezbollah, and other such groups seek to utilize and exploit collateral damage. That is when they are not seeking it purposely.
It is your argument that using cluster bombs in populated areas is an attempt to minimize collateral damage?
I know how you are using false dilemma. If you thought I was trying to push anything on you I am sorry. I simply reject the false premise that you hold that would make the false dilemma a possible logical flaw.
Then why are you constantly mentioning Hamas and Hezbollah? Claiming that Israel is the better of the two? I keep hearing your whining about there being no equivalency, after all, even though I did not say they were equal. You did this over, and over, and over again.
I have no idea what point you are trying to make with the above sentence.
In other words, WTF does Hamas have to do with this? Why do you keep mentioning Hamas?
If you are asking is it worth the money to America to support Israel, you already have my answer -- yes.
Yeah, but I kind of hoped you would at least attempt to substantiate your claim. So far, we have the fact that we are giving up money, and in return, what do we get? You know, besides satisfying your desire to fund them because you respect them.
Well, I thought (and still think) it was lost on you because I was not implying that you thought Israel spent nothing on its own defense.
Then what was the point of what you said?
And if I were 12 or 13 years old or a coward I would allow the hateful “feelings” of others to influence decisions that require clarity and forethought.
It's not so much their "feelings" as it is the possibly result of those "feelings." Believe it or not, getting bombed by someone does make a difference and ignoring it is downright silly.
Yep, and on some rare occasions those taxes are actually used for things I approve.
Good. Then you agree that the money does have to come from somewhere and that someone has to give it up before it goes to Israel.
Imagine it. Believe it. I said it.



Or nothing, they cannot use it for anything other than military defense and they are required to buy American.



Yep. It is. And they are required to buy American with that money. I consider that arrangement a win-win plus for both sides.
Maybe for the US company and Israel, but not for American taxpayers, who are stuck with the bill.
1. Israel is not a theoretical friend, she is a real friend.
You have not shown any practical gains from funneling money into Israel.
2. The hatred in the region is not increased because of our relationship with Israel, it is fanned and inflamed by the radical Jihadists, but not increased.
Are you actually going to engage in a semantics debate regarding the difference between "fanned and flamed" and "increased?" Holy shit. Fine, then I don't want the hatred fanned and flamed. Happy?
Without Israel their hatred would be more focused on us.
The friend of one's enemy can also be seen as an enemy. Hence, having the US support Israel, an enemy of Hamas, would lead Hamas to hate the US more.
3. If we gave up all our support to Israel tomorrow, it would only confirm another of the beliefs held by radicals, America cannot keep its promises to its allies in the face of real threats and real danger.
I thought caring about their hateful feelings was for 13-year-olds?
That’s right I haven’t, though it is not a semantic issue. As I said, I doubt I could explain it to you in simple enough terms.



For that dilemma to be false, your premise must be true. Your premise is not only false, its bullshit. As long as you assert your false premise that brings about the dilemma. Drop the false premise, no dilemma. Also, as I have said several times, I do not view this as an either or issue. The situation in the Middle East is a complex issue. The Israeli-Palestinian “problem” is a manufactured problem that is pushed onto the global stage by certain Arab and Iranian players as a distraction and an excuse for their own failures. While the Israelis would love to find a peaceful solution to this “problem” others in the region will not allow it. An historical example of this is the peace accords that Arafat refused to agree to. If he had accepted the peace accords his position of power would have been lost and the Palestinians would have had to accept their own failures as their own responsibility and fault. He could not lose the former and was unwilling to accept the latter.

End of Part 2

tashi deleks,

M I'll make it easier for you. You said:

You are either arguing for the sake of arguing or you’re an anti-Semitic hiding behind anti-Israelism.

This implies that only one of the following can be true:

1. I am arguing for the sake of arguing
2. I am anti-Semitic

Hence, a dilemma.

One third option, however, is that I am arguing because I do not enjoy having my money funneled to a foreign nation with no shown practical return that is equal to or greater than what is given up.

Hence, it is a false dilemma. Do you understand?

[Rtebydou]

The Israeli-Palestinian “problem” is a manufactured problem that is pushed onto the global stage by certain ..
Mahasattva refuses to even acknowledge that the racist aphartied state is even a "problem", even after numerous examples of israeli human rights abuses have been posted by myself, he then dismisses that as "biased reporting", not even bothering to refute them in anyway. FOr example it's not a problem when this families mother is snatched and deported to the Gaza strip for no apparent reason, or that Palestinians homes ae demolished, the farmland stolen or that they constantly harass them in so many other ways..

Then there's this business that Arafat was offered something in 2000 and he rejected it so therefore this whole thing is his fault. Lets be clear after 10 years of negotiations, there were 2 times when final status negotiations took place, 1 at camp david; this is where this very debatable 'offer' was made , and at Taba shortly thereafter-both times the negotiations were ended by first the US and then by Israel at Taba, the Palestinians have wanted to restart those negotiations where they left off ever since but the Israeli government has sought to buy time ever since..and of cource the question is why are there not final status negotiations now? The reason is that Israel avoids them because they refuse to end the occupation of the west bank, or anything even close to it-which is why the negotiations failed 10 years ago, despite Clintons and Ehud Baraks claims to the contrary-the reason those negotiations failed was because Ehud Barak had right wing parties in his government like Shas, and they were vetoing the necessary concessions needed to sign the deal..

The Palestinian authority did send an official delegation to the Geneva to finish the negotiations that had been in taba with the Israeli negotiators that had been at taba(these politicians like yossi beilen were now in opposition to Ariel Sharons government), at that point a (mock) deal was signed (The Geneva Accords), the point is here that the Palestinians are willing to sign that kind of a compromise but Israel is not .. and of cource the Arab initiative of 2002 has received no response .. The oppression of the Palestinians is not because of something that the Fatah or Hamas are doing or not doing, it's because the Israelis always have a right-wing government; blind american support for israel and the billions of dollars in aid that country gets anchors these governements..

if you remember the only reason there ever was an 'oslo peace process' was because GW Bush sr. blocked loan guarantees (just the loan guarantees, not the foreign aid) until israel agreed to somekind of a 'process'.

[occurrini]

The Israeli-Palestinian “problem” is a manufactured problem that is pushed onto the global stage by certain ..
Mahasattva refuses to even acknowledge that the racist aphartied state is even a "problem", even after numerous examples of israeli human rights abuses have been posted by myself, he then dismisses that as "biased reporting", not even bothering to refute them in anyway. FOr example it's not a problem when this families mother is snatched and deported to the Gaza strip for no apparent reason, or that Palestinians homes ae demolished, the farmland stolen or that they constantly harass them in so many other ways..

Then there's this business that Arafat was offered something in 2000 and he rejected it so therefore this whole thing is his fault. Lets be clear after 10 years of negotiations, there were 2 times when final status negotiations took place, 1 at camp david; this is where this very debatable 'offer' was made , and at Taba shortly thereafter-both times the negotiations were ended by first the US and then by Israel at Taba, the Palestinians have wanted to restart those negotiations where they left off ever since but the Israeli government has sought to buy time ever since..and of cource the question is why are there not final status negotiations now? The reason is that Israel avoids them because they refuse to end the occupation of the west bank, or anything even close to it-which is why the negotiations failed 10 years ago, despite Clintons and Ehud Baraks claims to the contrary-the reason those negotiations failed was because Ehud Barak had right wing parties in his government like Shas, and they were vetoing the necessary concessions needed to sign the deal..

The Palestinian authority did send an official delegation to the Geneva to finish the negotiations that had been in taba with the Israeli negotiators that had been at taba(these politicians like yossi beilen were now in opposition to Ariel Sharons government), at that point a (mock) deal was signed (The Geneva Accords), the point is here that the Palestinians are willing to sign that kind of a compromise but Israel is not .. and of cource the Arab initiative of 2002 has received no response .. The oppression of the Palestinians is not because of something that the Fatah or Hamas are doing or not doing, it's because the Israelis always have a right-wing government; blind american support for israel and the billions of dollars in aid that country gets anchors these governements..

if you remember the only reason there ever was an 'oslo peace process' was because GW Bush sr. blocked loan guarantees (just the loan guarantees, not the foreign aid) until israel agreed to somekind of a 'process'.

What a pant load. It's not complicated as someone pointed out. When those savage palestinians stop attacking Israelis there will be peace. But if the Israelis stop defending themselves they will be annihilated by those shreds of human debris. The muslims are at it in another part of the world and yet again being defended by liberal "intellects" the world over. The world has lost it's entire mind.

[Andrius]

The Israeli-Palestinian “problem” is a manufactured problem that is pushed onto the global stage by certain ..
Mahasattva refuses to even acknowledge that the racist aphartied state is even a "problem", even after numerous examples of israeli human rights abuses have been posted by myself, he then dismisses that as "biased reporting", not even bothering to refute them in anyway.

I do not accept your biased anti-Semitic characterization of Israel as a racist aphartied state. I believe it driven by an irrational hatred and have no foundation in history or truth. I dismiss your "examples," like I would dismiss the ravings of a lunatic, and do not bother refuting them since it would be about as productive as trying to refute the ravings of a lunatic.

FOr example it's not a problem when this families mother is snatched and deported to the Gaza strip for no apparent reason, or that Palestinians homes ae demolished, the farmland stolen or that they constantly harass them in so many other ways.. “Yawn”

Then there's this business that Arafat was offered something in 2000 and he rejected it so therefore this whole thing is his fault.

Lets be clear after 10 years of negotiations, there were 2 times when final status negotiations took place, 1 at camp david; this is where this very debatable 'offer' was made , and at Taba shortly thereafter-both times the negotiations were ended by first the US and then by Israel at Taba, the Palestinians have wanted to restart those negotiations where they left off ever since but the Israeli government has sought to buy time ever since..and of cource the question is why are there not final status negotiations now? “Yawn”

The reason is that Israel avoids them because they refuse to end the occupation of the west bank, or anything even close to it-which is why the negotiations failed 10 years ago, despite Clintons and Ehud Baraks claims to the contrary-the reason those negotiations failed was because Ehud Barak had right wing parties in his government like Shas, and they were vetoing the necessary concessions needed to sign the deal.. Blaha blahba blahba blab blab

The Palestinian authority did send an official delegation to the Geneva to finish the negotiations that had been in taba with the Israeli negotiators that had been at taba(these politicians like yossi beilen were now in opposition to Ariel Sharons government), at that point a (mock) deal was signed (The Geneva Accords), the point is here that the Palestinians are willing to sign that kind of a compromise but Israel is not .. and of cource the Arab initiative of 2002 has received no response .. The oppression of the Palestinians is not because of something that the Fatah or Hamas are doing or not doing, it's because the Israelis always have a right-wing government; blind american support for israel and the billions of dollars in aid that country gets anchors these governements.. Blah blahba blah blah blahba

if you remember the only reason there ever was an 'oslo peace process' was because GW Bush sr. blocked loan guarantees (just the loan guarantees, not the foreign aid) until israel agreed to somekind of a 'process'. Ah, … there is no person named George Walker Bush Sr. Anyone who seriously wants to know the facts should do their own research, but be aware that there are thousands of websites that promote anti-Semitic attitudes and spread malicious lies like some of the ones being asserted on this thread. Relying on neo-Nazi and Islamofascist websites and wonderfully non-biased [sarcasm alert] news services like Ma’an for information is the height of silliness.

tashi deleks,

M