PDA

View Full Version : Int'l Issues Raise your hand if you're surprised: Romney trashes the two-state solution in Israel.


Pages : [1] 2

Direckshun
09-18-2012, 07:48 AM
And the melding of the Likud and the GOP is now complete.

We have ourselves now a transnational political party. Any light that existed between these two organizations is now gone.

The GOP, at least its foreign policy wing, is officially led by Benjamin Netanyahu. If it hadn't been already for years, which I suspect it has.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/09/romney-secret-video-israeli-palestinian-middle-east-peace

SECRET VIDEO: On Israel, Romney Trashes Two-State Solution
At a private fundraiser, the GOP candidate calls Middle East peace "almost unthinkable" and says he would "kick the ball down the field."
—By David Corn
Tue Sep. 18, 2012 3:00 AM PDT

At the private fundraiser held May 17 where Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney candidly spoke about political strategy—noting that he saw half of the American electorate as freeloaders and "victims" who do not believe in personal responsibility—he discussed various foreign policy positions, sharing views that he does not express in public, including his belief that peace in the Middle East is not possible and a Palestinian state is not feasible.

Mother Jones has obtained video of Romney at this intimate dinner and has confirmed its authenticity. The event was held at the home of controversial private equity manager Marc Leder in Boca Raton, Florida, with tickets costing $50,000 a plate. During the freewheeling conversation, a donor asked Romney how the "Palestinian problem" can be solved. Romney immediately launched into a detailed reply, asserting that the Palestinians have "no interest whatsoever in establishing peace, and that the pathway to peace is almost unthinkable to accomplish."

Romney spoke of "the Palestinians" as a united bloc of one mindset, and he said: "I look at the Palestinians not wanting to see peace anyway, for political purposes, committed to the destruction and elimination of Israel, and these thorny issues, and I say there's just no way."

Romney was indicating he did not believe in the peace process and, as president, would aim to postpone significant action: "[S]o what you do is, you say, you move things along the best way you can. You hope for some degree of stability, but you recognize that this is going to remain an unsolved problem…and we kick the ball down the field and hope that ultimately, somehow, something will happen and resolve it."

Romney did note there was another perspective on this knotty matter. He informed his donors that a former secretary of state—he would not say who—had told him there was "a prospect for a settlement between the Palestinians and the Israelis." Romney recalled that he had replied, "Really?" Then he added that he had not asked this ex-secretary of state for further explanation.

Here's Romney's full response; he starts out saying he has "two perspectives," but as he answers the question, it turns out that's not really the case:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ukhFBJgrZxM

I'm torn by two perspectives in this regard. One is the one which I've had for some time, which is that the Palestinians have no interest whatsoever in establishing peace, and that the pathway to peace is almost unthinkable to accomplish. Now why do I say that? Some might say, well, let's let the Palestinians have the West Bank, and have security, and set up a separate nation for the Palestinians. And then come a couple of thorny questions. And I don't have a map here to look at the geography, but the border between Israel and the West Bank is obviously right there, right next to Tel Aviv, which is the financial capital, the industrial capital of Israel, the center of Israel. It's—what the border would be? Maybe seven miles from Tel Aviv to what would be the West Bank…The other side of the West Bank, the other side of what would be this new Palestinian state would either be Syria at one point, or Jordan. And of course the Iranians would want to do through the West Bank exactly what they did through Lebanon, what they did near Gaza. Which is that the Iranians would want to bring missiles and armament into the West Bank and potentially threaten Israel. So Israel of course would have to say, "That can't happen. We've got to keep the Iranians from bringing weaponry into the West Bank." Well, that means that—who? The Israelis are going to patrol the border between Jordan, Syria, and this new Palestinian nation? Well, the Palestinians would say, "Uh, no way! We're an independent country. You can't, you know, guard our border with other Arab nations." And now how about the airport? How about flying into this Palestinian nation? Are we gonna allow military aircraft to come in and weaponry to come in? And if not, who's going to keep it from coming in? Well, the Israelis. Well, the Palestinians are gonna say, "We're not an independent nation if Israel is able to come in and tell us what can land in our airport." These are problems—these are very hard to solve, all right? And I look at the Palestinians not wanting to see peace anyway, for political purposes, committed to the destruction and elimination of Israel, and these thorny issues, and I say, "There's just no way." And so what you do is you say, "You move things along the best way you can." You hope for some degree of stability, but you recognize that this is going to remain an unsolved problem. We live with that in China and Taiwan. All right, we have a potentially volatile situation but we sort of live with it, and we kick the ball down the field and hope that ultimately, somehow, something will happen and resolve it. We don't go to war to try and resolve it imminently. On the other hand, I got a call from a former secretary of state. I won't mention which one it was, but this individual said to me, you know, I think there's a prospect for a settlement between the Palestinians and the Israelis after the Palestinian elections. I said, "Really?" And, you know, his answer was, "Yes, I think there's some prospect." And I didn't delve into it.

After saying all that, Romney emphasized that he was against applying any pressure on Israel: "The idea of pushing on the Israelis to give something up to get the Palestinians to act is the worst idea in the world."

On his campaign website, Romney, whose foreign policy advisers include several neocons known for their hawkish support for Israel, does not explicitly endorse the peace process or a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. But the Republican Party platform does state unequivocal backing for this outcome: "We envision two democratic states—Israel with Jerusalem as its capital and Palestine—living in peace and security." The platform adds, "The US seeks a comprehensive and lasting peace in the Middle East, negotiated between the parties themselves with the assistance of the US."

In public, Romney has not declared the peace process pointless or dismissed the two-state solution. In July, when the Israeli newspaper Haaretz asked Romney if he supports a two-state solution and the creation of a Palestinian state, he replied, "I believe in a two-state solution which suggests there will be two states, including a Jewish state." Yet Romney’s remarks to these funders—this was one of his longest answers at the fundraiser—suggest he might be hiding his true beliefs regarding Israel and the peace process and that on this subject he is out of sync with the predominant view in foreign policy circles that has existed for decades.

Throughout the hourlong fundraiser, Romney discussed other foreign policy matters with his patrons, especially Iran. He repeated the tough talk he has issued on the campaign trail, but he also provided an odd reason for drawing a red line with Tehran about its nuclear program:

If I were Iran, if I were Iran—a crazed fanatic, I'd say let's get a little fissile material to Hezbollah, have them carry it to Chicago or some other place, and then if anything goes wrong, or America starts acting up, we'll just say, "Guess what? Unless you stand down, why, we're going to let off a dirty bomb." I mean this is where we have—where America could be held up and blackmailed by Iran, by the mullahs, by crazy people. So we really don't have any option but to keep Iran from having a nuclear weapon.

Romney didn't appear to understand that a dirty bomb—an explosive device that spreads radioactive substances—does not require fissile material from a nuclear weapons program. Such a bomb can be produced with, say, radioactive medical waste. If Iran's nuclear program poses a threat, it is not because this project will yield a dirty bomb.

Talking to these funders, Romney also demonstrated that his campaign-long efforts to criticize Obama's handling of foreign policy in simplistic and exaggerated terms—he's an appeaser, he's an apologist—are not reserved for public consumption. Romney told these well-to-do backers that the president is a naïf with an oversized ego:

The president's foreign policy, in my opinion, is formed in part by a perception he has that his magnetism, and his charm, and his persuasiveness is so compelling that he can sit down with people like Putin and Chávez and Ahmadinejad, and that they'll find that we're such wonderful people that they'll go on with us, and they'll stop doing bad things. And it's an extraordinarily naive perception.

Romney did share a disappointment with his patrons, noting it was "frustrating" to him that on a "typical day" when he does several fundraising events, "the number of foreign policy questions I get are between zero and one." He complained that "the American people are not concentrated at all on China, on Russia, Iran, Iraq." But at this fundraiser, Romney received several queries related to national security—and was afforded the opportunity to tell his financial backers what he does not (and will not) tell the public.

Lightrise
09-18-2012, 08:05 AM
What is most revealing about this is that Romney does not have patience for diplomacy, and that would certainly extend to every endeavor of his involvement. That translates to costly misinformed decisions. This is what disqualifies him for national leadership. The American people will get it right and Romney will not become president. As for the issue itself I can understand the conclusion, however, it falls woefully short of thinking about the true motives of Israel. The Israeli's don't ever want peace either. They will not stop with the settlements and even the idea of the land swap to preserve a security arrangement and return borders to 1967 levels is unthinkable for them. They continue to steal land and build these illegal settlements. They violated the terms of the Oslo accords. That is always easy for them, they don't like an agreement their government makes and then change their government and nothing ever happened. In my view, the Oslo Accords are still the best chance for peace. They recognized Israel's right to exist. Peace is probably not at hand now given changes in Egypt, Netanyahu's extremism and the lame duck situation in Iran with the mess in Syria. What is needed now is a two year timeout for the area to cool off. I think a solution is possible and perhaps this can be pursued as the divisive players leave the scene for good. Romney as a divisive influence will be the first to go here and that is best for everyone.

patteeu
09-18-2012, 08:10 AM
Baiting for anti-semites?

He didn't trash the two state solution, he just (correctly) explained why it's unattainable until some dramatic changes take place in the region. Not the least of which, btw, is the lack of interest in a two state solution on the part of the palestinians.

No reasonable person can think that peace in the form of a two state solution is attainable in the near term. And when I say "reasonable", I certainly don't include anyone who could post under the catch phrase "black for palestine".

oldandslow
09-18-2012, 08:13 AM
patteeu:

He's done. He cannot say stuff like this, even if he feels that way. Kick the can down the road, indeed.

The repubs should have won this election. They won't.

patteeu
09-18-2012, 08:14 AM
What is most revealing about this is that Romney does not have patience for diplomacy, and that would certainly extend to every endeavor of his involvement. That translates to costly misinformed decisions. This is what disqualifies him for national leadership. The American people will get it right and Romney will not become president. As for the issue itself I can understand the conclusion, however, it falls woefully short of thinking about the true motives of Israel. The Israeli's don't ever want peace either. They will not stop with the settlements and even the idea of the land swap to preserve a security arrangement and return borders to 1967 levels is unthinkable for them. They continue to steal land and build these illegal settlements. They violated the terms of the Oslo accords. That is always easy for them, they don't like an agreement their government makes and then change their government and nothing ever happened. In my view, the Oslo Accords are still the best chance for peace. They recognized Israel's right to exist. Peace is probably not at hand now given changes in Egypt, Netanyahu's extremism and the lame duck situation in Iran with the mess in Syria. What is needed now is a two year timeout for the area to cool off. I think a solution is possible and perhaps this can be pursued as the divisive players leave the scene for good. Romney as a divisive influence will be the first to go here and that is best for everyone.

It's laughable to accuse Romney of lacking patience. There's nothing in this article that even suggests such a thing.

patteeu
09-18-2012, 08:15 AM
patteeu:

He's done. He cannot say stuff like this, even if he feels that way. Kick the can down the road, indeed.

The repubs should have won this election. They won't.

Do you think a two state solution that brings peace to Israel and the palestinians can be achieved without some unanticipated transformational event?

oldandslow
09-18-2012, 08:27 AM
Yes, I do...and the attempt certainly beats the Bush Doctrine that we have been following for the past 12 years.


"kicking the can down the road." Really???That's the best you got?

Direckshun
09-18-2012, 08:35 AM
Baiting for anti-semites?

Of course. Criticizing the GOP/Likud alliance means I hate Jews. Got it.

He didn't trash the two state solution, he just (correctly) explained why it's unattainable until some dramatic changes take place in the region.

If he's running for office, he needs to be forthright with the country about his opinion about one of our most important foreign policy priorities. He hasn't. He does not believe it is possible, he doesn't believe it's worth pursuing, he doesn't think Israel should compromise.

It's 100% Palestine's fault. That's literally his position. Which he has not heretofore revealed to voters.

He is a puppet of Benjamin Netanyahu and the Likud.

Not the least of which, btw, is the lack of interest in a two state solution on the part of the palestinians.

No reasonable person can think that peace in the form of a two state solution is attainable in the near term.

He doesn't even think Israel should compromise.

And he admits to brushing off a secretary of state who argued the two-state solution was attainable.

He, Mitt Romney. The head of the most inexperienced foreign policy ticket in modern Presidential history.

Direckshun
09-18-2012, 08:36 AM
Do you think a two state solution that brings peace to Israel and the palestinians can be achieved without some unanticipated transformational event?

A two-state solution will reduce violence.

Direckshun
09-18-2012, 08:38 AM
"kicking the can down the road." Really???That's the best you got?

That's the best Romney's got, yes.

This is an absolute travesty for a Republican Party that once prided itself on foreign policy, and as recently as four years ago was committed to a two-state solution.

What a sad devolution of a major political party we've witnessed.

Saulbadguy
09-18-2012, 08:44 AM
Kick the ball down the field

I enjoy sport

patteeu
09-18-2012, 08:47 AM
Yes, I do...

Wow.

patteeu
09-18-2012, 08:49 AM
Of course. Criticizing the GOP/Likud alliance means I hate Jews. Got it.

I don't know whether you do or not. But accusing Romney of being led by Netanyahu or accusing the GOP of having merged with Likud is the kind of red meat a person would feed to his would-be-allies in the anti-Semite world.

patteeu
09-18-2012, 08:50 AM
He is a puppet of Benjamin Netanyahu and the Likud.

There you go again. Shameful. :shake:

patteeu
09-18-2012, 08:57 AM
If he's running for office, he needs to be forthright with the country about his opinion about one of our most important foreign policy priorities. He hasn't. He does not believe it is possible, he doesn't believe it's worth pursuing, he doesn't think Israel should compromise.

It's 100% Palestine's fault. That's literally his position. Which he has not heretofore revealed to voters.

His position is that he's in favor of Israel and the palestinians continuing to talk as long as both parties are interested in talking. He's made it clear that he would break from Obama's shift toward the palestinians and that he would oppose the larger global effort to delegitimize Israel and to force unilateral concessions from her.


He doesn't even think Israel should compromise.

And he admits to brushing off a secretary of state who argued the two-state solution was attainable.

He doesn't express any opinion on whether or not Israel should be willing to compromise. You're making that part up. He doesn't think Israel should be pressured into a compromise that they wouldn't freely accept.

He doesn't admit to brushing anyone off. For whatever reason, they didn't "delve into it".

patteeu
09-18-2012, 08:59 AM
A two-state solution will reduce violence.

Duh. The question was whether or not a two-state solution can be achieved, not what the results of such an achievement would be. If you're saying that the two states should come first and hope that the peace follows, you're black for ridiculous.

BucEyedPea
09-18-2012, 09:24 AM
Of course. Criticizing the GOP/Likud alliance means I hate Jews. Got it.

Well, THAT is the NeoCon way.

BucEyedPea
09-18-2012, 09:27 AM
Not the least of which, btw, is the lack of interest in a two state solution on the part of the palestinians.

The whole two-state solution is not wanted by the extremists on both sides. THAT is the problem.
Likud wants a Greater Israel—period. Ariel Sharon ( Likud) instigated the second Intifada in order to justify taking more land by inciting violence.

Don't generalize.

Direckshun
09-18-2012, 09:28 AM
I don't know whether you do or not.

Of course you don't. Why should you? I support the two-state solution, a known position for j00 haters going on 4 years in GOP Land. I can understand the confusion you must be experiencing.

But accusing Romney of being led by Netanyahu or accusing the GOP of having merged with Likud is the kind of red meat a person would feed to his would-be-allies in the anti-Semite world.

I don't give two shits where it plays, I care if it's true, brother.

And it is. There is no light between the GOP and the Likud, a fact that's been apparent for years now.

Direckshun
09-18-2012, 09:30 AM
There you go again. Shameful. :shake:

He admitted to blowing off a secretary of state, despite being on the weakest FP ticket in modern history, in order to default to Netanyahu's platform.

The GOP and Likud have merged. Romney is a puppet of Netanyahu.

patteeu
09-18-2012, 09:35 AM
Of course you don't. Why should you? I support the two-state solution, a known position for j00 haters going on 4 years in GOP Land. I can understand the confusion you must be experiencing.



I don't give two shits where it plays, I care if it's true, brother.

And it is. There is no light between the GOP and the Likud, a fact that's been apparent for years now.

It's not true, it's a smear designed to play for anti-semites.

Direckshun
09-18-2012, 09:42 AM
His position is that he's in favor of Israel and the palestinians continuing to talk as long as both parties are interested in talking. He's made it clear that he would break from Obama's shift toward the palestinians and that he would oppose the larger global effort to delegitimize Israel and to force unilateral concessions from her.

Talk about what? He doesn't think Israel should compromise.

This is as radical a position as the GOP candidate has taken in a general election that normally demands moderation. It's a brush aside of the past half-century-plus of diplomacy. It's a sign that Israel does not have to even come close to establishing good faith in negotiations, they can just do as they please with no remote concern of anything but total American approval.

This is extremely radical, but it's where the GOP is today. It's where the Likud are as well.

Direckshun
09-18-2012, 09:43 AM
It's not true, it's a smear designed to play for anti-semites.

What's not true?

The fact that there is no light between the GOP and the Likud anymore?

They have merged in all but name. They are a transnational political party dedicated to defying the two-state solution.

qabbaan
09-18-2012, 09:54 AM
Doesn't seem to me like Obama believes in a two state solution either, if you know what I mean.

patteeu
09-18-2012, 10:03 AM
Talk about what? He doesn't think Israel should compromise.

This is as radical a position as the GOP candidate has taken in a general election that normally demands moderation. It's a brush aside of the past half-century-plus of diplomacy. It's a sign that Israel does not have to even come close to establishing good faith in negotiations, they can just do as they please with no remote concern of anything but total American approval.

This is extremely radical, but it's where the GOP is today. It's where the Likud are as well.

He doesn't have anything against Israel compromising if Israel comes to the conclusion that compromise is warranted. He's against outside pressure on Israel to compromise against her will. You're confused.

patteeu
09-18-2012, 10:05 AM
What's not true?

That the GOP and Likud have merged and that Romney is a puppet of Netanyahu. Anti-semite baiting is no better than race baiting.

Lightrise
09-18-2012, 10:12 AM
It's laughable to accuse Romney of lacking patience. There's nothing in this article that even suggests such a thing.

Frankly it's astonishing there are still people on the planet that do not know of Romney's patience problem. We saw it less than a week ago when he made statements without all the facts. We've seen it numerous times on the campaign trail not thinking first....corporations are people too? The patience problem has surfaced several times in Fox News interviews, was demonstrated in the manner in which he ran Bain, at the Olympics in London and often in the primary debates. One dramatic example is the people of foreign policy he has as advisors in the campaign. One of them failed to get a senate confirmation for a foreign policy appointment, and in large part it was because of his demeanor and lack of patience. That is very rare in American history.

Impatience, misinformed decision making, perpetration of lies, hypocrisy, and the outright begging of the party establishment to give him the nomination personify the wimp that Mitt Romney is. There is no honor, patience and vision to lead the greatest nation on earth.

If you only bury your head in an article you miss what millions of Americans have been seeing for months, even years.

patteeu
09-18-2012, 11:00 AM
Frankly it's astonishing there are still people on the planet that do not know of Romney's patience problem. We saw it less than a week ago when he made statements without all the facts. We've seen it numerous times on the campaign trail not thinking first....corporations are people too? The patience problem has surfaced several times in Fox News interviews, was demonstrated in the manner in which he ran Bain, at the Olympics in London and often in the primary debates. One dramatic example is the people of foreign policy he has as advisors in the campaign. One of them failed to get a senate confirmation for a foreign policy appointment, and in large part it was because of his demeanor and lack of patience. That is very rare in American history.

Impatience, misinformed decision making, perpetration of lies, hypocrisy, and the outright begging of the party establishment to give him the nomination personify the wimp that Mitt Romney is. There is no honor, patience and vision to lead the greatest nation on earth.

If you only bury your head in an article you miss what millions of Americans have been seeing for months, even years.

If you mean he isn't paralyzed when under pressure to perform, I agree. He's a leader, not a guy who is going to delegate that leadership task to Congress and then head out to the links.

Direckshun
09-18-2012, 11:20 AM
He doesn't have anything against Israel compromising if Israel comes to the conclusion that compromise is warranted. He's against outside pressure on Israel to compromise against her will. You're confused.

I'm confused? Wherever you're getting those statements from, my guess is you're getting them from when Romney is in front of voters, in front of cameras, mic'd up and ready to sell.

Behind closed doors, he's saying exactly what AIPAC is paying him to: "the Palestinians" don't want peace, Israel shouldn't have to compromise, the two-state solution is folly, the '67 borders are BS. On and on.

The Republican Party nor the Likud want a two-state solution. They want Israel for Israelis, period. And they've married one another to accomplish it.

Direckshun
09-18-2012, 11:21 AM
That the GOP and Likud have merged and that Romney is a puppet of Netanyahu. Anti-semite baiting is no better than race baiting.

There is no light between the GOP and the Likud, anymore. They have merged in all but name. They are a transnational political party dedicated to defying the two-state solution.

Romney/Ryan entered this ticket with absolutely no serious FP credentials, so their FP is now dictated in Tel Aviv.

Direckshun
09-18-2012, 11:35 AM
Yeah, I'm the racist.

http://dailydish.typepad.com/.a/6a00d83451c45669e2017744d23e54970d-550wi

Pull your head out of your ass, pat.

mnchiefsguy
09-18-2012, 11:36 AM
I'm confused? Wherever you're getting those statements from, my guess is you're getting them from when Romney is in front of voters, in front of cameras, mic'd up and ready to sell.

Behind closed doors, he's saying exactly what AIPAC is paying him to: "the Palestinians" don't want peace, Israel shouldn't have to compromise, the two-state solution is folly, the '67 borders are BS. On and on.

The Republican Party nor the Likud want a two-state solution. They want Israel for Israelis, period. And they've married one another to accomplish it.

As long as the Palestinians fail to acknowledge the right of Israel to exist, they don't want peace. Israel should not compromise anything as long as the primary goal of the Palestinians is to wipe them completely off of the planet.

Israel has offered land for peace many, many times over its history. Remember Arafat rejecting the deal broker by Clinton at the end of his second term? Israel was giving the Palestinians virtually everything they were asking for....but Arafat rejected because he would have to acknowledge that Jews and Israel have a right to exist on this planet.

But Israel is the one that never compromises. When are the Palestinian supports going to acknowledge that their side has never offered a compromise on anything?

Name one compromise that the Palestinians have offered Direckshun. Name one time when they have even remotely come close to acknowledging the basic human right of Jews in Israel, and around the world, to live.

As long as the Palestinian position fails to acknowledge Israel's right to exist and call for the genocide of the Jewish people...I don't think Israel should compromise on anything. Why compromise when the ones you are negotiating with are just going to try to kill you the first chance they get?

patteeu
09-18-2012, 11:38 AM
I'm confused? Wherever you're getting those statements from, my guess is you're getting them from when Romney is in front of voters, in front of cameras, mic'd up and ready to sell.

Behind closed doors, he's saying exactly what AIPAC is paying him to: "the Palestinians" don't want peace, Israel shouldn't have to compromise, the two-state solution is folly, the '67 borders are BS. On and on.

The Republican Party nor the Likud want a two-state solution. They want Israel for Israelis, period. And they've married one another to accomplish it.

I read the article you posted without the "black for palestine" distortion filter in place.

alpha_omega
09-18-2012, 11:40 AM
It's the internet...how do you raise your hand?

patteeu
09-18-2012, 11:40 AM
There is no light between the GOP and the Likud, anymore. They have merged in all but name. They are a transnational political party dedicated to defying the two-state solution.

Romney/Ryan entered this ticket with absolutely no serious FP credentials, so their FP is now dictated in Tel Aviv.

Merging in all but name would mean that they share the same bank account and that they have the same leadership, among other things. Your smears are both unseemly and preposterous. Stop playing to anti-semites.

Lightrise
09-18-2012, 11:41 AM
If you mean he isn't paralyzed when under pressure to perform, I agree. He's a leader, not a guy who is going to delegate that leadership task to Congress and then head out to the links.

I agree, he isn't paralyzed, he's reckless and everyone should be concerned about the reckless republican legislators in congress, those that voted to shove this great nation into default in order to screw the private sector.

cosmo20002
09-18-2012, 11:45 AM
He didn't trash the two state solution, he just (correctly) explained why it's unattainable until some dramatic changes take place in the region. Not the least of which, btw, is the lack of interest in a two state solution on the part of the palestinians.

No reasonable person can think that peace in the form of a two state solution is attainable in the near term. And when I say "reasonable", I certainly don't include anyone who could post under the catch phrase "black for palestine".

There's a leader for you.

Someone needs to Photoshop one of those inspirational posters with Mitt and "Leadership" underneath. Then, the quote, or at least the bolded part:

"You hope for some degree of stability, but you recognize that this is going to remain an unsolved problem…and we kick the ball down the field and hope that ultimately, somehow, something will happen and resolve it."

patteeu
09-18-2012, 11:49 AM
I agree, he isn't paralyzed, he's reckless and everyone should be concerned about the reckless republican legislators in congress, those that voted to shove this great nation into default in order to screw the private sector.

Ha ha, reckless. Yeah, Romney the Reckless. It's got a nice ring. Run with it.

patteeu
09-18-2012, 11:52 AM
There's a leader for you.

Someone needs to Photoshop one of those inspirational posters with Mitt and "Leadership" underneath. Then, the quote, or at least the bolded part:

"You hope for some degree of stability, but you recognize that this is going to remain an unsolved problem…and we kick the ball down the field and hope that ultimately, somehow, something will happen and resolve it."

He's not running for the office of the dictator of the Levant. One aspect of a great leader is to know how to avoid wasting your resources on an insurmountable task.

qabbaan
09-18-2012, 11:53 AM
Does it seem to anyone else like the incidence of Internet liberals having at least a dull resentment toward Jews, if not an outright dislike for them, is quite high?

patteeu
09-18-2012, 11:56 AM
Does it seem to anyone else like the incidence of Internet liberals having at least a dull resentment toward Jews, if not an outright dislike for them, is quite high?

The ones most closely associated/aligned with this President, yes.

RINGLEADER
09-18-2012, 12:27 PM
What is most revealing about this is that Romney does not have patience for diplomacy

!!!

How long are we supposed to wait? It's been 65 years!?!

Israel's been attacked twice. They have crazed fanatics trying to get nukes for the expressed purpose (or so the Iranians say) of wiping Israel off the map. I'm all for diplomacy, but you have to have a willing partner for it to work and neither the Palestinians nor the Iranians can legitimately be counted on as willing partners.

RINGLEADER
09-18-2012, 12:33 PM
The whole two-state solution is not wanted by the extremists on both sides. THAT is the problem.

This is the answer.

RINGLEADER
09-18-2012, 12:35 PM
Having just seen Romney's response, again, I don't know what he's saying that's untrue.

I wish he'd talk like this more in public...

BucEyedPea
09-18-2012, 12:42 PM
Obama is a "born-again neocon," boasts Kid Kristol). The elephant has morphed into a donkey!

"The neocons are digging up their old playbook from the early Bush years— everyone who opposes them is an anti-Semite." ~ Christopher Manion

Once again, we have the wonderful Trotskyite dialectic -- what Orwell called "DoubleThink":

what was bad for Maureen Dowd to say (neocons have commandeered the Romney Campaign) is proclaimed with proud braggadocio when uttered by a neocon (Obama is a "born-again neocon," boasts Kid Kristol).

How can this be? Here is the key:
Dr. Paul correctly identified the neocon principle of "noble lying" almost ten years ago -- long before the nation had to suffer the disastrous consequences. "Truth will make you free," said Solzhenitsyn (NOT a neocon!), but falsehood always brings violence in its wake."

The forbidden question:
Why can neocons celebrate their triumphs freely, while critics who point them out are vilified as bigots?

An it's curious, isn't it, that those who pulled the trigger on Dowd for telling the truth didn't brag about it instead?

Here enters DoubleThink:
They did, they do, and they will. After all, two "born-again neocons" are the major party "choices" in the coming presidential elections.

The neocons can't lose. Their dirty little secret? DoubleThink dialectic allows them to weep, even as they gloat.

Christopher Manion (http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/121197.html)

Lightrise
09-18-2012, 12:44 PM
!!!

How long are we supposed to wait? It's been 65 years!?!

Israel's been attacked twice. They have crazed fanatics trying to get nukes for the expressed purpose (or so the Iranians say) of wiping Israel off the map. I'm all for diplomacy, but you have to have a willing partner for it to work and neither the Palestinians nor the Iranians can legitimately be counted on as willing partners.

I'm just as frustrated with the process as you are. Years of illegal settlements, Sharon's 18 years of occupation in Lebannon, the failure of Israel to abide by the Oslo Accords. The fact is that Begin, Mr. Settlements himself, was a terrorist too having been involved in bombings. Now I'm not going to defend Bush's support for Hamas participating in the democratic process, but Israel changes governments so often nothing can ever get done. Unfortunately lasting peace just isn't possible now. But bulldozers isn't the answer either.

RINGLEADER
09-18-2012, 12:49 PM
I'm just as frustrated with the process as you are. Years of illegal settlements, Sharon's 18 years of occupation in Lebannon, the failure of Israel to abide by the Oslo Accords. The fact is that Begin, Mr. Settlements himself, was a terrorist too having been involved in bombings. Now I'm not going to defend Bush's support for Hamas participating in the democratic process, but Israel changes governments so often nothing can ever get done. Unfortunately lasting peace just isn't possible now. But bulldozers isn't the answer either.

It's also slightly strange, though I think the Palestinians are mostly corrupt, that almost every Israeli leader - after leaving office - seems to be embroiled in some corruption scheme of their own.

I do think that Israel is a more stable partner in the middle east, however. And I do think they're entitled to a slightly higher moral high ground -- but not much higher.

RINGLEADER
09-18-2012, 12:50 PM
A two-state solution will reduce violence.

Probably, but as Romney correctly points out the Palestinian people are supporting leaders who don't agree with your conclusion.

Again, Romney may not be talking the politics you want to hear, but he's correct.

Donger
09-18-2012, 03:26 PM
So, have the Palestinians acknowledged Israel's right to exist yet? If not, I'd say Romney's correct.

Donger
09-18-2012, 03:31 PM
He doesn't even think Israel should compromise.


Would you care to explain why is Israel should compromise at all unless and until the "Palestinians" recognize Israel's right to exist?

Donger
09-18-2012, 03:33 PM
No weepy "Black for Palestine" Direckshun thread would be complete without this:

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/KrM0dAFsZ8k" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Lightrise
09-18-2012, 04:18 PM
Does it seem to anyone else like the incidence of Internet liberals having at least a dull resentment toward Jews, if not an outright dislike for them, is quite high?

Naw, that's an absurd suggestion.

Lightrise
09-18-2012, 04:20 PM
Would you care to explain why is Israel should compromise at all unless and until the "Palestinians" recognize Israel's right to exist?

Uh, the Palestinians did this in the Oslo Accords, an agreement the Israelis signed and later disowned so they could continue to steal land and build illegal settlements.

Donger
09-18-2012, 04:36 PM
Uh, the Palestinians did this in the Oslo Accords, an agreement the Israelis signed and later disowned so they could continue to steal land and build illegal settlements.

If memory serves, right after the accord was signed, Hamas and others stepped up attacks on Israel while Israel actually began to withdraw forces from the "occupied territories." Sharon then became PM and it all basically fell apart.

Anyway, that's the past. Try dealing with the present, where the PA refuses to acknowledge Israel's right to exist. You may note that Israel has shown willingness to compromise and negotiate in the past when that necessity has been agreed upon.

patteeu
09-18-2012, 05:00 PM
If memory serves, right after the accord was signed, Hamas and others stepped up attacks on Israel while Israel actually began to withdraw forces from the "occupied territories." Sharon then became PM and it all basically fell apart.

Anyway, that's the past. Try dealing with the present, where the PA refuses to acknowledge Israel's right to exist. You may note that Israel has shown willingness to compromise and negotiate in the past when that necessity has been agreed upon.

Yeah, Lightrise seems to have learned his history at the University of Hamas. In pursuit of a final agreement following the Oslo Accords, Bill Clinton tried to broker a deal between Israel and Arafat in the late 90s. After Israel offered a sweeter deal than the palestinians should have ever dreamed of getting (and should probably never hope to get again), Arafat's response was Intifada 2. Sharon came to power after the 2nd Intifada was engaged, probably at least in part as a response to the palestinians' violence and bad faith in the peace talks.

http://binaryapi.ap.org/f7c19309d12f4ae0a223cde5a2f18cb6/512x.jpg

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Q6nsQWC51Mo/TY0UT0J8pII/AAAAAAAAALU/xULHdZS1FLk/s1600/1987_intifada2.jpg

RINGLEADER
09-18-2012, 05:17 PM
Yeah, Lightrise seems to have learned his history at the University of Hamas. In pursuit of a final agreement following the Oslo Accords, Bill Clinton tried to broker a deal between Israel and Arafat in the late 90s. After Israel offered a sweeter deal than the palestinians should have ever dreamed of getting (and should probably never hope to get again), Arafat's response was Intifada 2. Sharon came to power after the 2nd Intifada was engaged, probably at least in part as a response to the palestinians' violence and bad faith in the peace talks.

http://binaryapi.ap.org/f7c19309d12f4ae0a223cde5a2f18cb6/512x.jpg

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Q6nsQWC51Mo/TY0UT0J8pII/AAAAAAAAALU/xULHdZS1FLk/s1600/1987_intifada2.jpg

Pretty true -- but the Palestinian leadership isn't really interested in solving the issue absent the extinction of Israel. That's a big part of the problem.

Direckshun
09-18-2012, 05:21 PM
As long as the Palestinians fail to acknowledge the right of Israel to exist, they don't want peace. Israel should not compromise anything as long as the primary goal of the Palestinians is to wipe them completely off of the planet.

The problem is that you are describing the Palestinians as a blanket statement, and as a population that isn't desperate and dynamic.

It's the same error Romney commits in the OP, and while it's clearly why you love whatever it is he had to say up there, it's why his statement (and yours) are drastically misguided.

Israel has offered land for peace many, many times over its history. Remember Arafat rejecting the deal broker by Clinton at the end of his second term? Israel was giving the Palestinians virtually everything they were asking for....but Arafat rejected because he would have to acknowledge that Jews and Israel have a right to exist on this planet.

But Israel is the one that never compromises. When are the Palestinian supports going to acknowledge that their side has never offered a compromise on anything?

That is factually inaccurate. There's enough bullshit wafting around in this thread, try to steer clear of hyperbole.

You're dead right that too much of the Palestinian leadership over the years, from Arafat to Hamas, have cynically capitalized on fear among Palestinians in order to entrench their own power. But that does not mean the Palestinian population does not want a two-state solution.

Name one compromise that the Palestinians have offered Direckshun.

One compromise? One?

How about the '67 borders. That's a pretty significant idea for compromise that Palestine has long endorsed but Israel is just now moving away from.

mnchiefsguy
09-18-2012, 05:21 PM
Pretty true -- but the Palestinian leadership isn't really interested in solving the issue absent the extinction of Israel. That's a big part of the problem.

You could say that is the problem, since no compromise can be made. The Palestinians want Israel extinct. Israel wishes to continue to thrive as a nation and a people. This positions are mutually exclusive, no middle ground or compromise can be reached. One side would have to concede the point to the other.

Direckshun
09-18-2012, 05:22 PM
I read the article you posted without the "black for palestine" distortion filter in place.

Riiiiight. As if you are not deep in the tank for the Likud/GOP coalition.

Direckshun
09-18-2012, 05:22 PM
It's the internet...how do you raise your hand?

I... didn't think of that.

THREAD OVAR

mnchiefsguy
09-18-2012, 05:23 PM
The problem is that you are describing the Palestinians as a blanket statement, and as a population that isn't desperate and dynamic.

It's the same error Romney commits in the OP, and while it's clearly why you love whatever it is he had to say up there, it's why his statement (and yours) are drastically misguided.



That is factually inaccurate. There's enough bullshit wafting around in this thread, try to steer clear of hyperbole.

You're dead right that too much of the Palestinian leadership over the years, from Arafat to Hamas, have cynically capitalized on fear among Palestinians in order to entrench their own power. But that does not mean the Palestinian population does not want a two-state solution.



One compromise? One?

How about the '67 borders. That's a pretty significant idea for compromise that Palestine has long endorsed but Israel is just now moving away from.

Did Clinton's deal that Arafat rejected include the 67 borders? Who can blame Israel from stepping back from that position when there is no movement at all from the other side on acknowledging their right to exist.

Direckshun
09-18-2012, 05:23 PM
Merging in all but name would mean that they share the same bank account and that they have the same leadership, among other things.

They do share the same bank accounts. They do have the same leadership.

Merging in all but name means they are pursuing the exact same goals, and are committed to furthering one another's cause against their domestic oppositions.

Direckshun
09-18-2012, 05:25 PM
Having just seen Romney's response, again, I don't know what he's saying that's untrue.

I wish he'd talk like this more in public...

It's his opinion, it's not necessarily true or false, it's just a historically radical perspective of the facts on the ground.

One that is born not of any remote understanding of foreign policy, but instead one that is bought and paid for by AIPAC.

I wish he'd talk more like this in public too. Because it exposes the radical stances his campaign is taking, and it has the added bonus of absolutely deflating the Jewish vote for the Republican Party.

Direckshun
09-18-2012, 05:27 PM
It's also slightly strange, though I think the Palestinians are mostly corrupt, that almost every Israeli leader - after leaving office - seems to be embroiled in some corruption scheme of their own.

I do think that Israel is a more stable partner in the middle east, however. And I do think they're entitled to a slightly higher moral high ground -- but not much higher.

I would agree.

Lightrise
09-18-2012, 05:28 PM
Well, it wasn't me who lobbied for Hamas to participate in the democratic process, it was GW Bush and the failed Roadmap to Peace. I never completely understood Bush's proclamation that 'Islam is Peace'. But I never understood Bush's proclamation that 'Man and fish can coexist' either.

Donger
09-18-2012, 05:28 PM
It's his opinion

Just to be clear, what do you think is opinion versus fact in Romney's statements?

Direckshun
09-18-2012, 05:29 PM
Probably, but as Romney correctly points out the Palestinian people are supporting leaders who don't agree with your conclusion.

Palestinians are freaked the fuck out. Most of them have absolutely no idea who or what they support. They believe they are being pushed off their land, which isn't exactly an inaccurate way of describing things.

You radicalize when you are desperate. And when things are desperate, you look to the people bellowing the biggest words and more aggressive ideas, as well as the people providing the most domestic aid.

Right now, regrettably, that's Hamas. But it doesn't have to be this way.

patteeu
09-18-2012, 05:29 PM
Did Clinton's deal that Arafat rejected include the 67 borders? Who can blame Israel from stepping back from that position when there is no movement at all from the other side on acknowledging their right to exist.

Israel didn't step back from the deal brokered by Clinton, Arafat did. No, the deal wasn't based strictly on the '67 borders. It included some of the settlements in Israeli territory as well. Like I said before though, it was the high water mark for Israeli concessions and I doubt they'll get back to that point anytime soon.

Direckshun
09-18-2012, 05:29 PM
Would you care to explain why is Israel should compromise at all unless and until the "Palestinians" recognize Israel's right to exist?

This sentence is a mess, grammatically. I am having trouble understanding it.

Donger
09-18-2012, 05:31 PM
This sentence is a mess, grammatically. I am having trouble understanding it.

Meh. Remove the extraneous "is" and it makes perfect sense.

Direckshun
09-18-2012, 05:31 PM
You could say that is the problem, since no compromise can be made. The Palestinians want Israel extinct. Israel wishes to continue to thrive as a nation and a people. This positions are mutually exclusive, no middle ground or compromise can be reached. One side would have to concede the point to the other.

You paint with too broad a brush.

mnchiefsguy
09-18-2012, 05:31 PM
Israel didn't step back from the deal brokered by Clinton, Arafat did. No, the deal wasn't based strictly on the '67 borders. It included some of the settlements in Israeli territory as well. Like I said before though, it was the high water mark for Israeli concessions and I doubt they'll get back to that point anytime soon.

I completely agree and think Arafat was stupid to reject it. I just could not recall if the deal strictly adhered to the 67 borders or not.

mnchiefsguy
09-18-2012, 05:32 PM
You paint with too broad a brush.

It is the official position of Hamas is it not? How is that painting with too broad a brush?

Direckshun
09-18-2012, 05:33 PM
Did Clinton's deal that Arafat rejected include the 67 borders? Who can blame Israel from stepping back from that position when there is no movement at all from the other side on acknowledging their right to exist.

I actually don't blame either side for the strong hesitancies they hold. I don't.

But unlike the Republican/Likud alliance, I believe a two state solution is achievable in the twenty first century.

I also recognize the damning barriers in the way to that solution. But it does not have to be that way.

patteeu
09-18-2012, 05:34 PM
They do share the same bank accounts. They do have the same leadership.

Merging in all but name means they are pursuing the exact same goals, and are committed to furthering one another's cause against their domestic oppositions.

:facepalm: Do you realize how absurd you sound saying things like this? I don't know if you think we've got a large anti-semite audience here for your performance, but maybe we do. Are you getting much jew-hate rep?

Direckshun
09-18-2012, 05:37 PM
Just to be clear, what do you think is opinion versus fact in Romney's statements?

Fact:

And I don't have a map here to look at the geography, but the border between Israel and the West Bank is obviously right there, right next to Tel Aviv, which is the financial capital, the industrial capital of Israel, the center of Israel. It's—what the border would be? Maybe seven miles from Tel Aviv to what would be the West Bank…The other side of the West Bank, the other side of what would be this new Palestinian state would either be Syria at one point, or Jordan. And of course the Iranians would want to do through the West Bank exactly what they did through Lebanon, what they did near Gaza. Which is that the Iranians would want to bring missiles and armament into the West Bank and potentially threaten Israel. We live with that in China and Taiwan. All right, we have a potentially volatile situation but we sort of live with it, and we kick the ball down the field and hope that ultimately, somehow, something will happen and resolve it. We don't go to war to try and resolve it imminently.
Opinion:

I'm torn by two perspectives in this regard. One is the one which I've had for some time, which is that the Palestinians have no interest whatsoever in establishing peace, and that the pathway to peace is almost unthinkable to accomplish. So Israel of course would have to say, "That can't happen. We've got to keep the Iranians from bringing weaponry into the West Bank." Well, that means that—who? The Israelis are going to patrol the border between Jordan, Syria, and this new Palestinian nation? Well, the Palestinians would say, "Uh, no way! We're an independent country. You can't, you know, guard our border with other Arab nations." Well, the Palestinians are gonna say, "We're not an independent nation if Israel is able to come in and tell us what can land in our airport." These are problems—these are very hard to solve, all right? And I look at the Palestinians not wanting to see peace anyway, for political purposes, committed to the destruction and elimination of Israel, and these thorny issues, and I say, "There's just no way." And so what you do is you say, "You move things along the best way you can." You hope for some degree of stability, but you recognize that this is going to remain an unsolved problem.

Direckshun
09-18-2012, 05:38 PM
Meh. Remove the extraneous "is" and it makes perfect sense.

M'alright.

Would you care to explain why Israel should compromise at all unless and until the "Palestinians" recognize Israel's right to exist?

Because the right compromises could realistically reduce violence, reduce Palestinian desperation, and eventually dislodge Hamas' popular support?

Direckshun
09-18-2012, 05:40 PM
It is the official position of Hamas is it not? How is that painting with too broad a brush?

Because the leaders of a nation are not always the same as that nation.

You miss the fact that Hamas is the most cynical organization on earth, exercising their support from Palestinian hardship into extreme pronouncements that drive Israel further into their right wing, which in turn continues to entrench Hamas.

Donger
09-18-2012, 05:40 PM
Fact:

And I don't have a map here to look at the geography, but the border between Israel and the West Bank is obviously right there, right next to Tel Aviv, which is the financial capital, the industrial capital of Israel, the center of Israel. It's—what the border would be? Maybe seven miles from Tel Aviv to what would be the West Bank…The other side of the West Bank, the other side of what would be this new Palestinian state would either be Syria at one point, or Jordan. And of course the Iranians would want to do through the West Bank exactly what they did through Lebanon, what they did near Gaza. Which is that the Iranians would want to bring missiles and armament into the West Bank and potentially threaten Israel. We live with that in China and Taiwan. All right, we have a potentially volatile situation but we sort of live with it, and we kick the ball down the field and hope that ultimately, somehow, something will happen and resolve it. We don't go to war to try and resolve it imminently.
Opinion:

I'm torn by two perspectives in this regard. One is the one which I've had for some time, which is that the Palestinians have no interest whatsoever in establishing peace, and that the pathway to peace is almost unthinkable to accomplish. So Israel of course would have to say, "That can't happen. We've got to keep the Iranians from bringing weaponry into the West Bank." Well, that means that—who? The Israelis are going to patrol the border between Jordan, Syria, and this new Palestinian nation? Well, the Palestinians would say, "Uh, no way! We're an independent country. You can't, you know, guard our border with other Arab nations." Well, the Palestinians are gonna say, "We're not an independent nation if Israel is able to come in and tell us what can land in our airport." These are problems—these are very hard to solve, all right? And I look at the Palestinians not wanting to see peace anyway, for political purposes, committed to the destruction and elimination of Israel, and these thorny issues, and I say, "There's just no way." And so what you do is you say, "You move things along the best way you can." You hope for some degree of stability, but you recognize that this is going to remain an unsolved problem.

I agree on some, not on others. It's a fact that the Palestinians aren't presently willing to agree to the one item that will get Israel to negotiate and compromise. You agree with that, right?

Direckshun
09-18-2012, 05:42 PM
:facepalm: Do you realize how absurd you sound saying things like this? I don't know if you think we've got a large anti-semite audience here for your performance, but maybe we do. Are you getting much jew-hate rep?

Heh.

It certainly says something that the idea that anybody who dares criticize the Likud/GOP alliance is automatically a racist hatemonger.

And it doesn't say anything good.

There literally is no place in the Likud/GOP for criticizing the actions of Israel, lest one be branded an anti-semite.

Donger
09-18-2012, 05:42 PM
Because the right compromises could realistically reduce violence, reduce Palestinian desperation, and eventually dislodge Hamas' popular support?

Absolutely they could, but the Palestinians won't.

So why should Israel even try to negotiate with the Palestinians who refuse to even acknowledge Israel's right to exist? You think that's a good way to begin compromise?

mnchiefsguy
09-18-2012, 05:44 PM
Because the leaders of a nation are not always the same as that nation.

You miss the fact that Hamas is the most cynical organization on earth, exercising their support from Palestinian hardship into extreme pronouncements that drive Israel further into their right wing, which in turn continues to entrench Hamas.

None of this excuses the fact they wish genocide upon the nation of Israel.

go bowe
09-18-2012, 05:45 PM
:facepalm: Do you realize how absurd you sound saying things like this? I don't know if you think we've got a large anti-semite audience here for your performance, but maybe we do. Are you getting much jew-hate rep?

criticizing israel's government makes you an anti-semite?

that's an interesting take...

Direckshun
09-18-2012, 05:46 PM
I agree on some, not on others. It's a fact that the Palestinians aren't presently willing to agree to the one item that will get Israel to negotiate and compromise. You agree with that, right?

Sadly, I'm not sure how much standard negotiation techniques are going to work right now. You're not going to get Hamas and Netanyahu to parse nuance at a common table, even if you got them both sat down.

Direckshun
09-18-2012, 05:48 PM
Absolutely they could, but the Palestinians won't.

So why should Israel even try to negotiate with the Palestinians who refuse to even acknowledge Israel's right to exist? You think that's a good way to begin compromise?

If I were to bath myself in Hamas' cynicism, I'd say that particular chip is like the one piece of leverage Hamas thinks they have.

That and violence.

qabbaan
09-18-2012, 05:49 PM
Romney is completely correct. And he hasn't taken anything away from a two state solution. He simply says as any thinking person would that he didn't believe it will happen in our lifetimes from the looks of things because the Palestinians are not interested in dividing land up and living in peace and harmony with a Jewish state. There is nothing new about this at all. Abbas hasn't been to any negotiation in over two years. It's been this way since 1948.

Direckshun
09-18-2012, 05:49 PM
None of this excuses the fact they wish genocide upon the nation of Israel.

Hamas wishes for the consolidation of their own power. Period.

Netanyahu has done his part to ensure it stays that way.

Donger
09-18-2012, 05:54 PM
Sadly, I'm not sure how much standard negotiation techniques are going to work right now. You're not going to get Hamas and Netanyahu to parse nuance at a common table, even if you got them both sat down.

Yes, it is a shame that the "Palestinians" elected Hamas into real power.

Wait, you aren't trying to equate Netanyahu and Hamas, are you?

Direckshun
09-18-2012, 05:58 PM
Yes, it is a shame that the "Palestinians" elected Hamas into real power.

Wait, you aren't trying to equate Netanyahu and Hamas, are you?

Depends what you mean by equate.

I've made my opinions about Hamas and Netanyahu very clear in countless discussions. As an active participant in most of those discussions, you should know exactly what I think of both parties.

I will say they are similarly uninterested in the two-state solution.

Donger
09-18-2012, 06:00 PM
Depends what you mean by equate.

I've made my opinions about Hamas and Netanyahu very clear in countless discussions. As an active participant in most of those discussions, you should know exactly what I think of both parties.

I will say they are similarly uninterested in the two-state solution.

I believe you are on record as agreeing that Hamas is a terrorist organization, no? If so, do you think that a Netanyahu-PMed Israel is a similar terrorist state/organization?

From the perspective of an American, if you can still separate that from your support for Palestine.

Direckshun
09-18-2012, 06:01 PM
http://www.attackerman.com/deserving-freedom/

Deserving Freedom
Spencer Ackerman
September 18, 2012

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/ukhFBJgrZxM" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

By now you’ve probably read a lot of people expressing shock at Mitt Romney’s comments on walking away from an Israeli-Palestinian peace process (http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/09/romney-secret-video-israeli-palestinian-middle-east-peace). (If not, start with Dan Drezner (http://drezner.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/09/18/oh_mitt).) Let’s zero in on something Romney doesn’t say, but which he’ll have to address if he becomes president now that these comments are out there. That’s the idea that Palestinian freedom is a reward for good behavior.

Romney questions whether the Palestinians — all of ‘em, from Ismail Haniyeh to Salam Fayyad to the dude on the street in Ramallah — want peace with Israel. Then he runs through a series Israeli security concerns about the West Bank under Palestinian sovereignty, which he considers an inevitable Iranian proxy. These concerns have salience as modalities for independence. They do not have salience as grounds to oppose independence, unless you conceive of Palestinian independence as justly conditional on Israel’s comfort with granting it. Then they’re the whole ballgame.

There is an alternative available. That alternative says that Palestinians deserve independence by virtue of their humanity and their nationhood. The modalities of their independence ought to be worked out with Israel as part of a process moving toward that goal, since the security of both states on the day after independence is a legitimate concern. I believe Zionism, which advanced precisely this argument to establish the first principle that there ought to be a Jewish state in a Jewish homeland, compels accepting this alternative.

My understanding from Romney’s public remarks is that he cheers the Arab Spring, because of its promise to advance human freedom in a region lacking it. Maybe I’m misunderstanding. But if he accepts that proposition, there are no grounds to deny it to Palestinians. Should Romney become president, his Arab interlocutors will justifiably wonder what his position is on any of these foundational questions — a bitter irony for someone attacking President Obama for inviting Mideast embassy attacks through policy vagueness (http://professional.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444017504577647310123010848.html?mg=reno64-wsj). Even if he walks the Palestinian comments back, he’ll probably have to deal with questions about his sincerity on the Freedom Question through his presidency.

U.S. policy in the Mideast does not reduce to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. But I’ve tended to find that people in the region, Arab and Israeli, consider an American president’s perspective on the conflict to be a threshold issue, a prism through which they can understand what sort of relationship to expect from the U.S., and whether that presidency ought to be embraced or endured. Romney may not be interested in the peace process, but the Mideast is very interested in Mitt Romney, and turning away from the peace process — either explicitly or through neglect — will have a cascading effect on anything else he wants to accomplish in the region.

Direckshun
09-18-2012, 06:03 PM
I believe you are on record as agreeing that Hamas is a terrorist organization, no? If so, do you think that a Netanyahu-PMed Israel is a similar terrorist state/organization?

From the perspective of an American, if you can still separate that from your support for Palestine.

I take the United Kingtom's designation that Hamas is not a terrorist organization, but it has a militant wing that is distinctly terrorist. And nobody but pro-Palestine fanatics believe that the Likud is a terrorist organization, though there has been occasional Zionist terrorism enabled by its policies. But that's a big difference.

The Likud/GOP is no more interested in a two-state solution than Hamas is.

mnchiefsguy
09-18-2012, 06:10 PM
I take the United Kingtom's designation that Hamas is not a terrorist organization, but it has a militant wing that is distinctly terrorist. And nobody but pro-Palestine fanatics believe that the Likud is a terrorist organization, though there has been occasional Zionist terrorism enabled by its policies. But that's a big difference.

The Likud/GOP is no more interested in a two-state solution than Hamas is.

So Hamas, which endorses the bombing of innocent women and children (civilian targets), is not a terrorist organization. Got it.

If the "non-militant" majority of Hamas is unwilling to part with its militant wing, then the whole organization must be considered terrorist.

Donger
09-18-2012, 06:10 PM
I take the United Kingtom's designation that Hamas is not a terrorist organization, but it has a militant wing that is distinctly terrorist. And nobody but pro-Palestine fanatics believe that the Likud is a terrorist organization, though there has been occasional Zionist terrorism enabled by its policies. But that's a big difference.

I don't believe that the UK makes any distinction between Hamas' wings, but I could be wrong, because I don't really care what they think.

I'm glad to see that you don't think that Israel is a terrorist organization.

The Likud/GOP is no more interested in a two-state solution than Hamas is.

I disagree with this, however. Both groups apparently share the same requirement for such talks to even begin, though.

Direckshun
09-18-2012, 06:14 PM
So Hamas, which endorses the bombing of innocent women and children (civilian targets), is not a terrorist organization. Got it.

If the "non-militant" majority of Hamas is unwilling to part with its militant wing, then the whole organization must be considered terrorist.

You paint with too broad a brush, and you don't understand the dynamic in which Hamas exists.

patteeu
09-18-2012, 06:17 PM
Heh.

It certainly says something that the idea that anybody who dares criticize the Likud/GOP alliance is automatically a racist hatemonger.

And it doesn't say anything good.

There literally is no place in the Likud/GOP for criticizing the actions of Israel, lest one be branded an anti-semite.

You've been criticizing Israel for a long time, but it didn't ever appear that you were playing to anti-semites until you started on this ridiculous Romney is the puppet of Netanyahoo, the GOP is run by Likud thing. When you go over the top to make associations like this, I have to believe that you have more in mind than honest dialogue.

patteeu
09-18-2012, 06:18 PM
criticizing israel's government makes you an anti-semite?

that's an interesting take...

That has nothing to do with my take.

mnchiefsguy
09-18-2012, 06:25 PM
You paint with too broad a brush, and you don't understand the dynamic in which Hamas exists.

Swing and a Miss. Israel as a country is held accountable for what they do. We do not break down Israel into a "military wing" and a "civilian wing"....the nation as a whole is judged on what they do. As Hamas should be, since they are the elected leaders of the Palestinians. The reality is, the "militant wing" of Hamas has support, or they would not be doing what they are doing. If the Palestinians wanted peace, then why did they vote for terrorists to lead them?

Direckshun
09-18-2012, 06:25 PM
You've been criticizing Israel for a long time, but it didn't ever appear that you were playing to anti-semites until you started on this ridiculous Romney is the puppet of Netanyahoo, the GOP is run by Likud thing.

Get the sand out of your vagina.

The GOP and the Likud are just as subject to criticism for their actions as any other organization on earth.

mnchiefsguy
09-18-2012, 06:26 PM
Get the sand out of your vagina.

The GOP and the Likud are just as subject to criticism for their actions as any other organization on earth.

Except for Hamas, of course. They are just a bunch of peace loving folk trying to get along with their neighbors.

Direckshun
09-18-2012, 06:34 PM
The reality is, the "militant wing" of Hamas has support, or they would not be doing what they are doing. If the Palestinians wanted peace, then why did they vote for terrorists to lead them?

From earlier in the thread:

Palestinians are freaked the **** out. Most of them have absolutely no idea who or what they support. They believe they are being pushed off their land, which isn't exactly an inaccurate way of describing things.

You radicalize when you are desperate. And when things are desperate, you look to the people bellowing the biggest words and more aggressive ideas, as well as the people providing the most domestic aid.

Right now, regrettably, that's Hamas.

Except for Hamas, of course. They are just a bunch of peace loving folk trying to get along with their neighbors.

From earlier in the thread:

You miss the fact that Hamas is the most cynical organization on earth, exercising their support from Palestinian hardship into extreme pronouncements that drive Israel further into their right wing, which in turn continues to entrench Hamas.

You're boring the shit out of me, man.

mnchiefsguy
09-18-2012, 06:42 PM
From earlier in the thread:





From earlier in the thread:



You're boring the shit out of me, man.

Hamas being cynical is not excuse for their actions. You seem to think it is okay for them to bomb women, children, and civilians because they are "cynical." Israel does not.

mnchiefsguy
09-18-2012, 06:43 PM
You're boring the shit out of me, man.

Your support of terrorists is disgusting to me, so I guess we are even.

Direckshun
09-18-2012, 06:52 PM
Hamas being cynical is not excuse for their actions.

I was responding to your suggestion that I believe Hamas is above reproach.

Direckshun
09-18-2012, 06:53 PM
Your support of terrorists is disgusting to me, so I guess we are even.

I support an independent, demilitarized Palestinian state based on the '67 borders with agreed upon land swaps.

If that is the same thing as supporting terrorists in your eyes, then you can join patteeu in the shower because you two have got a lot of sand to clean out.

mnchiefsguy
09-18-2012, 06:53 PM
I was responding to your suggestion that I believe Hamas is above reproach.

Well, you won't even admit that they are terrorists. Donger asked you point blank, and you dodged the question with some British militant wing BS.

Dallas Chief
09-18-2012, 06:56 PM
I don't even need to read this pud thumping thread OP. Palestinian man meat really gets shunned all lathered up.

Direckshun
09-18-2012, 06:58 PM
Well, you won't even admit that they are terrorists. Donger asked you point blank, and you dodged the question with some British militant wing BS.

LMAO

I didn't dodge it. I answered it point blank.

Dallas Chief
09-18-2012, 07:00 PM
LMAO

I didn't dodge it. I answered it point blank.

FAP FAP FAP FAP FAP FAP

mnchiefsguy
09-18-2012, 07:03 PM
LMAO

I didn't dodge it. I answered it point blank.

No you did not.

Yes or no....is Hamas a terrorist organization?

Direckshun
09-18-2012, 07:04 PM
No you did not.

Yes or no....is Hamas a terrorist organization?

From earlier in the thread:

I believe you are on record as agreeing that Hamas is a terrorist organization, no?

I take the United Kingtom's designation that Hamas is not a terrorist organization, but it has a militant wing that is distinctly terrorist.

WHAT A DODGE.

I gotta be honest. You're losing me here.

BigRedChief
09-18-2012, 07:07 PM
Hamas is a terriost organization who still hasnt renounced the idea of wiping Israel off the map. They hate America. The Muslim brotherhood applaued the 9/11 attacks. How is Joe six pack suppose to relate to that except in a negative way.

The people in the streets that do the work in the Muslim world , as was made clear recently, have no clue what a democracy is and their leaders have no desire to give it to them.

Why should the USA take an Arab position against Israel? Because they have a billion people and Israel has a few million Jews? You could make that argument.

On moral, politically and military grounds the Israeli's are our brothers. You sometimes have a fight with your brother (Israel wanting an Iran line in the sand) but in the end, they are your brother.

And FTR, there will never, ever be a lasting peace in the middle east between the Jews and the Muslims. The extremes on both sides will not allow a peace.

mnchiefsguy
09-18-2012, 07:07 PM
From earlier in the thread:



You're losing me, buddy.

So your answer is no then? There are two, and only two, answers to the question:

YES or NO.

Saying "Hamas is not a terrorist organization, other than the part of it engages in terrorism" is not answering the question.

Once again,

Is Hamas a terrorist organization?

You are starting to sound very Frankie like in your answers.

mnchiefsguy
09-18-2012, 07:09 PM
Hamas is a terriost organization who still hasnt renounced the idea of wiping Israel off the map. They hate America. The Muslim brotherhood applaued the 9/11 attacks. How is Joe six pack suppose to relate to that except in a negative way.

The people in the streets that do the work in the Muslim world , as was made clear recently, have no clue what a democracy is and their leaders have no desire to give it to them.

Why should the USA take an Arab position against Israel? Because they have a billion people and Israel has a few million Jews? You could make that argument.

On moral, politically and military grounds the Israeli's are our brothers. You sometimes have a fight with your brother (Iran line in the sand) but in the end, they are your brother.

And FTR, there will never, ever be a lasting peace in the middle east between the Jews and the Muslims. The extremes on both sides will not allow a peace.


Well said and I agree with this post. Mid-East peace is like perfection....not attainable, but you still try the best you can anyway.

Too bad Direckshun cannot admit what Hamas is....

Direckshun
09-18-2012, 07:10 PM
So your answer is no then? There are two, and only two, answers to the question:

YES or NO.

Saying "Hamas is not a terrorist organization, other than the part of it engages in terrorism" is not answering the question.

Once again,

Is Hamas a terrorist organization?

You are starting to sound very Frankie like in your answers.

You have lost me.

I've answered your question. You just want it to be simpler than it is.

If you want to further this conversation, I'm game.

But I'm done answering the same question over and over. It just bores me.

Direckshun
09-18-2012, 07:10 PM
Well said and I agree with this post. Mid-East peace is like perfection....not attainable, but you still try the best you can anyway.

Unless you're Mitt Romney. LMAO

Then you just kick the can down the road.

mnchiefsguy
09-18-2012, 07:12 PM
You have lost me.

I've answered your question. You just want it to be simpler than it is.

If you want to further this conversation, I'm game.

But I'm done answering the same question over and over. It just bores me.

You have avoided the question. It is a simple question with a simple answer.

Why are you avoiding the answer?

Direckshun
09-18-2012, 07:12 PM
You have avoided the question. It is a simple question with a simple answer.

It's actually not simple. Israel/Palestine is an insanely complex situation with a ton of moving parts that are dynamic and change regularly.

mnchiefsguy
09-18-2012, 07:15 PM
It's actually not simple. Israel/Palestine is an insanely complex situation with a ton of moving parts that are dynamic and change regularly.

This is true...but the fact as to whether or not Hamas is a terrorist organization is a simple one.

I think you know deep down that they are terrorists, but you don't want to admit it, so you try to parse your answer.

Grow some balls and answer the question.

Is Hamas a terrorist organization?

YES or NO?

Direckshun
09-18-2012, 07:18 PM
This is true...but the fact as to whether or not Hamas is a terrorist organization is a simple one.

I think you know deep down that they are terrorists, but you don't want to admit it, so you try to parse your answer.

No, it's actually not a simple answer. Sorry.

BigRedChief
09-18-2012, 07:21 PM
No, it's actually not a simple answer. Sorry.yes, it is. Until they renouce their previously public statements, Hamas is a terriost organization.

Direckshun
09-18-2012, 07:24 PM
yes, it is. Until they renouce their previously public statements, Hamas is a terriost organization.

Well, define terrorist organization.

The United Nations: "a terrorist organization commits criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or any other nature that may be invoked to justify them."

Sound good to you?

patteeu
09-18-2012, 07:25 PM
Get the sand out of your vagina.

The GOP and the Likud are just as subject to criticism for their actions as any other organization on earth.

Don't be obtuse.

mnchiefsguy
09-18-2012, 07:25 PM
No, it's actually not a simple answer. Sorry.

Yes it is.

The question is not "Should Israel negotiate with terrorists?"
It is not "Should the US support Hamas?"
It is not "Is the cause of Hamas just and true?"

The question is...Is Hamas a terrorist organization?

BRC had no trouble answering the question. Donger had no trouble answering it. I have no qualms about my answer to the question.

Answer the question, or are you a coward?

Direckshun
09-18-2012, 07:27 PM
The question is...Is Hamas a terrorist organization?

BRC had no trouble answering the question. Donger had no trouble answering it. I have no qualms about my answer to the question.

I believe your answers are overly simplistic and paint with too broad a brush.

mnchiefsguy
09-18-2012, 07:27 PM
Well, define terrorist organization.

The United Nations: "a terrorist organization commits criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or any other nature that may be invoked to justify them."

Sound good to you?

There you go dodging the question again. Should we start debating what the meaning of is is?

Direckshun
09-18-2012, 07:27 PM
Don't be obtuse.

The GOP and the Likud are just as subject to criticism for their actions as any other organization on earth.

mnchiefsguy
09-18-2012, 07:28 PM
I believe your answers are overly simplistic and paint with too broad a brush.

So Donger and BRC paint with too broad a brush as well? Is yours the only brush that is capable of painting properly?

Direckshun
09-18-2012, 07:28 PM
There you go dodging the question again. Should we start debating what the meaning of is is?

Does the UN definition sound quality enough for you?

Direckshun
09-18-2012, 07:29 PM
So Donger and BRC paint with too broad a brush as well? Is yours the only brush that is capable of painting properly?

On this issue, they are, yes.

I don't think I have the monopoly on truth. I think I'm just closer to it on this issue than you are.

mnchiefsguy
09-18-2012, 07:29 PM
Don't be obtuse.

Hey pat, here is a question for you. Direckshun says it is far too complicated a question to ever answer, so I am interested in your opinion.

Is Hamas a terrorist organization?

Here is a hint...it is a yes or no question.

Direckshun
09-18-2012, 07:30 PM
Hey pat, here is a question for you. Direckshun says it is far too complicated a question to ever answer, so I am interested in your opinion.

Swing and a miss.

mnchiefsguy
09-18-2012, 07:30 PM
On this issue, they are, yes.

I don't think I have the monopoly on truth. I think I'm just closer to it on this issue than you are.

No. You are so blinded by your loyalty that you cannot see the truth that is right in front of you.

mnchiefsguy
09-18-2012, 07:30 PM
Swing and a miss.

Then answer the question.

Until you do, the point stands.

Direckshun
09-18-2012, 07:31 PM
http://ordinary-gentlemen.com/blog/2012/09/the-foreign-policy-shoe-drops/

The foreign policy shoe drops…
by Nob Akimoto
on September 18, 2012

…and it’s pretty ugly.

A precis:

1. Romney thinks the best solution to the Israel-Palestine problem is to “kick the can down the road.” Most observers of the situation emphatically believe this is the worst possible thing to do, given that demographics and political constraints would eventually make a settlement even more difficult. But I suppose apartheid state is fine so long as the problem doesn’t harm Mitt Romney.

2. He evidently thinks you need enriched uranium to make a radiological weapon. Either his advisers are feeding him really bad information, or he’s not well read on this subject. (This does not speak well to counter-proliferation efforts by the by.)

3. Evidently he believes his “John Wayne” Diplomacy (Or “Chuck Norris” Diplomacy, or whatever meme you wanna stand in…) plan is actually an improvement and that the biggest substantive critique of the Obama Administration is that they try engagement at all…

This is seriously unreal. I was ready to chalk up some of his campaign trail nonsense to not knowing what the hell he was talking about, but he was able to go at length about the Israel/Palestine situation and his solution essentially is just one of those things you never, ever admit to, even in the most private of company. That he dismissed a former Sec-State (I’d imagine this is probably Baker) saying there’s the prospect of a settlement without even asking what that prospect is is also quite unbelievable.

Either he’s thoroughly in thrall of the neocons on his advisory staff or…well I can’t think of the alternative right now. He can’t be that stupid, right?

Direckshun
09-18-2012, 07:31 PM
No. You are so blinded by your loyalty that you cannot see the truth that is right in front of you.

okay....

Loyalty to whom, may I ask?

mnchiefsguy
09-18-2012, 07:32 PM
okay....

Loyalty to whom, may I ask?

Look at your avatar and the sentence below it.

Direckshun
09-18-2012, 07:34 PM
Look at your avatar and the sentence below it.

LMAO

What does that even mean? That I'm "loyal" to Palestine? LMAO

I want to hear this spelled out. Go on.

mnchiefsguy
09-18-2012, 07:34 PM
LMAO

What does that even mean? That I'm "loyal" to Palestine? LMAO

I want to hear this spelled out. Go on.

Answer my question and I will answer yours.

patteeu
09-18-2012, 07:35 PM
I believe your answers are overly simplistic and paint with too broad a brush.

Yes, of course. To answer that question, you must assess all the nuances of the various components of Hamas and their various motivations, aspirations, approaches, and beliefs and when you get done with this monumental analysis, no doubt you will conclude that some aspects of Hamas are terrorists, some are not, and the rest are somewhere in between.

Meanwhile, the GOP and Likud have merged into a single monolithic entity in all but name.

Sounds intellectually honest to me.

BigRedChief
09-18-2012, 07:37 PM
On this issue, they are, yes.

I don't think I have the monopoly on truth. I think I'm just closer to it on this issue than you are.I can freely admit that spending a year and a half of my life in Israel has helped formed my views.

We argee on a lot of things. But on this we are going to have to disagree. I see no need to get into english linguinstics. Hamas was freely elected by the people. Hamas does do good work for its citzens it serves.

But Hamas interests and who they serve is not the USA interests. Whether you support Israel or not, Hamas is no friend of the USA. They should be considered an enemy until they renounce their past and turn over a new leaf.

Direckshun
09-18-2012, 07:38 PM
Answer my question and I will answer yours.

LMAO

Hamas is not a terrorist organization, but it has a militant wing that is distinctly terrorist.

I've answered your question three times now. You just hate the answer.

If you want to follow up and ask me what I mean by that, you are welcome to. But if you want to try to break it down even more than that, well that's as simple as I go on the issue. It only spirals into complexity from there.

So what are you saying, when you say I am loyal to Palestine?

I absolutely gotta hear this. You have reinvigorated my love for this thread.

Direckshun
09-18-2012, 07:39 PM
Yes, of course. To answer that question, you must assess all the nuances of the various components of Hamas and their various motivations, aspirations, approaches, and beliefs and when you get done with this monumental analysis, no doubt you will conclude that some aspects of Hamas are terrorists, some are not, and the rest are somewhere in between.

Basically, yeah.

mnchiefsguy
09-18-2012, 07:41 PM
LMAO

Hamas is not a terrorist organization, but it has a militant wing that is distinctly terrorist.

I've answered your question three times now. You just hate the answer.

If you want to follow up and ask me what I mean by that, you are welcome to. But if you want to try to break it down even more than that, well that's as simple as I go on the issue. It only spirals into complexity from there.

So what are you saying, when you say I am loyal to Palestine?

I absolutely gotta hear this. You have reinvigorated my love for this thread.

Restating your parsed answer over and over gets you nowhere.

Just admit you support and endorse terrorists and be done with it.

Direckshun
09-18-2012, 07:43 PM
Restating your parsed answer over and over gets you nowhere.

Just admit you support and endorse terrorists and be done with it.

So that's what you meant, right?

That I consider myself loyal to terrorists?

To Islamicism?

Over, I would imagine, Israel?

Over the United States?

Over democracy and self-determination?

mnchiefsguy
09-18-2012, 07:45 PM
So that's what you meant, right?

That I consider myself loyal to terrorists?

To Islamicism?

Over, I would imagine, Israel?

Over the United States?

Over democracy and self-determination?

I won't put words in your mouth. But your support of an organization that likes to bomb women and children, and wants to wipe out an entire race of people off of the planet is very telling.

Direckshun
09-18-2012, 07:47 PM
I won't put words in your mouth. But your support of an organization that likes to bomb women and children, and wants to wipe out an entire race of people off of the planet is very telling.

You said I was loyal to Hamas! ROFL What do you mean you're not going to put words in my mouth?

So, my "loyalty" is "very telling" of what, exactly? Sounds fucking ominous.

I want to hear this. I want you to spell it out.

mnchiefsguy
09-18-2012, 07:50 PM
You said I was loyal to Hamas! ROFL What do you mean you're not going to put words in my mouth?

So, my "loyalty" is "very telling" of what, exactly? Sounds ****ing ominous.

I want to hear this. I want you to spell it out.

Don't know if you are "loyal" to Hamas or not. Do you know the secret handshake? Have you taken an oath to them? I do not know the answer to that.

You support them though, you have made that clear.

Direckshun
09-18-2012, 07:52 PM
Don't know if you are "loyal" to Hamas or not. Do you know the secret handshake? Have you taken an oath to them? I do not know the answer to that.

You support them though, you have made that clear.

What do you mean by calling me "loyal" to Palestine?

I want to know if it was a benign comment about how I sympathize with their plight, or if you've gone off the ****ing deep end.

So what do you mean by calling me "loyal" to Palestine?

mnchiefsguy
09-18-2012, 07:56 PM
What do you mean by calling me "loyal" to Palestine?

I want to know if it was a benign comment about how I sympathize with their plight, or if you've gone off the ****ing deep end.

So what do you mean by calling me "loyal" to Palestine?

Sorry to disappoint you, but you can interchange "support" and "loyalty" in this particular instance. Sorry if you interpreted that to mean that you were a card carrying member of Hamas.

Direckshun
09-18-2012, 07:57 PM
Sorry to disappoint you, but you can interchange "support" and "loyalty" in this particular instance. Sorry if you interpreted that to mean that you were a card carrying member of Hamas.

You mentioned that my alleged support of Hamas is "telling."

Of what, exactly, is it telling?

mnchiefsguy
09-18-2012, 07:59 PM
You mentioned that my alleged support of Hamas is "telling."

Of what, exactly, is it telling?

That you support terrorists.

Direckshun
09-18-2012, 08:02 PM
That you support terrorists.

Thank you jesus.

http://thumbs.dreamstime.com/thumblarge_569/1293649468N36E0A.jpg

This is what I stuck around for. This thread is now justified.

Mnchiefsguy, whomever you are... You are the wind beneathe my wings.

My Jew-hatin', Islamist, terrorist-supporting wings.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/wbQSAdU4Qb4" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

mnchiefsguy
09-18-2012, 08:05 PM
Thank you jesus.

http://thumbs.dreamstime.com/thumblarge_569/1293649468N36E0A.jpg

This is what I stuck around for. This thread is now justified.

Mnchiefsguy, whomever you are... You are the wind beneathe my wings.

My Jew-hatin', Islamist, terrorist-supporting wings.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/wbQSAdU4Qb4" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>


Wow. It is easier for you to admit you hate Jews that it is for you to state that Hamas is a terrorist organization.....you indeed have issues. LMAO

Direckshun
09-18-2012, 08:05 PM
Wow. It is easier for you to admit you hate Jews that it is for you to state that Hamas is a terrorist organization.....you indeed have issues. LMAO

I apparently do!

patteeu
09-18-2012, 08:33 PM
Black for palestine!

http://media.govolsxtra.com/media/img/photos/2012/07/25/456943_t607.JPG

Donger
09-18-2012, 09:21 PM
You mentioned that my alleged support of Hamas is "telling."

Of what, exactly, is it telling?

Do you support the "non-terrorist" part of Hamas, namely Ismail Haniyeh?

Direckshun
09-18-2012, 09:26 PM
Do you support the "non-terrorist" part of Hamas, namely Ismail Haniyeh?

I'm not sure what that means -- do I support Haniyeh or not. I really don't.

I support any efforts he takes to provide Palestinians humanitarian aid, and any efforts to broach the two-state solution.

Edited to add: Haniyeh's the exact embodiment of why I feel what I feel about Hamas. He banks on Palestinian desperation by casting Israel as oppressors, and Americans as foreign meddlers. These lines of attack play very well in Palestine these days, which allows him to basically shore up public support by shitting on the US through any means necessary, up to and including condemning the US for killing Bin Laden.

Donger
09-18-2012, 09:29 PM
I'm not sure what that means -- do I support Haniyeh or not. I really don't.

I support any efforts he takes to provide Palestinians humanitarian aid, and any efforts to broach the two-state solution.

You don't support him, but you support ANY efforts he takes to provide Palestinians humanitarian aid, and any efforts to broach the two-state solution?

Direckshun
09-18-2012, 09:30 PM
You don't support him, but you support ANY efforts he takes to provide Palestinians humanitarian aid, and any efforts to broach the two-state solution?

That sounds about right. I am not a fan of Hamas in general, but I support and empathize for the Palestinian people.

Donger
09-18-2012, 09:33 PM
That sounds about right. I am not a fan of Hamas in general, but I support and empathize for the Palestinian people.

I'm sure that makes you feel good, especially considering their reaction to 9/11.

Anyway, you are aware that the "non-terrorist" part of Hamas refuses to acknowledge Israel's right to exist, correct?

Direckshun
09-18-2012, 09:36 PM
I'm sure that makes you feel good, especially considering their reaction to 9/11.

Anyway, you are aware that the "non-terrorist" part of Hamas refuses to acknowledge Israel's right to exist, correct?

Thus my disdain for that organization.

I'm not exactly somebody you need to sell on Hamas' craven-ness.

Donger
09-18-2012, 09:41 PM
Thus my disdain for that organization.

I'm not exactly somebody you need to sell on Hamas' craven-ness.

Okay, that's actually good. I'm glad to hear that you agree that acknowledging Israel's right to exist is a prerequisite of any substantive negotiations between Hamas/PA on the matter of a two-state solution.

Donger
09-18-2012, 09:45 PM
One other thing, and them I'm off to bed. Direckshun, do you agree that Israel has shown restraint, perhaps even tremendous restraint, in her dealings with the Palestinians/Hamas? You acknowledge that her military could basically kill every single Palestinian and "solve" the situation?

If so, do you think that if the Palestinians had the same capabilities, they would show the same restraint that Israel does?

Direckshun
09-18-2012, 09:48 PM
I'm glad to hear that you agree that acknowledging Israel's right to exist is a prerequisite of any substantive negotiations between Hamas/PA on the matter of a two-state solution.

Swing and a miss.

I don't think it's something that needs to happen, but it would show tremendous good faith by the Palestinian people. But the political atmosphere isn't there in Palestine.

Direckshun
09-18-2012, 09:51 PM
One other thing, and them I'm off to bed. Direckshun, do you agree that Israel has shown restraint, perhaps even tremendous restraint, in her dealings with the Palestinians/Hamas?

At times, I would say so, yes.

You acknowledge that her military could basically kill every single Palestinian and "solve" the situation?

Heh. They could, but that would probably create a lot more violence in the long-term, actually.

Israel has an interest in the two-state solution.

If so, do you think that if the Palestinians had the same capabilities, they would show the same restraint that Israel does?

I have absolutely no idea. Everything in the Middle East is contextual, and so, so dynamic.

For me to imagine this kind of switcheroo, it would involve a radical change of power such that the Middle East would look completely different than it does today. So I really have no idea.

Chocolate Hog
09-18-2012, 09:53 PM
This thread lowered everyones IQ who's read it.

Donger
09-18-2012, 09:53 PM
Swing and a miss.

I don't think it's something that needs to happen, but it would show tremendous good faith by the Palestinian people. But the political atmosphere isn't there in Palestine.

You don't think that acknowledging Israel's right to exist is a prerequisite for Israel to be motivated to move toward peace? You are aware that history says you are wrong, correct?

Direckshun
09-18-2012, 09:55 PM
You don't think that acknowledging Israel's right to exist is a prerequisite for Israel to be motivated to move toward peace? You are aware that history says you are wrong, correct?

I do, I understand that. I would say it's important.

But I can envision a two-state solution that succeeds despite that serious roadblock.

go bowe
09-18-2012, 09:56 PM
That sounds about right. I am not a fan of Hamas in general, but I support and empathize for the Palestinian people.

i suspect that you feel the same way towards the israeli people...

i sympathize with the ordinary people on both sides who are caught in such a web of hate and never-ending violence...

Donger
09-18-2012, 09:57 PM
At times, I would say so, yes.

I would say "at all times" and so should you, if you actually want to be realistic.

Heh. They could, but that would probably create a lot more violence in the long-term, actually.

Israel has an interest in the two-state solution.

Good, more progress.

I have absolutely no idea. Everything in the Middle East is contextual, and so, so dynamic.

For me to imagine this kind of switcheroo, it would involve a radical change of power such that the Middle East would look completely different than it does today. So I really have no idea.

Yeah, thankfully they only have rudimentary weapons at this point. Hopefully, they aren't given access to more formidable weaponry in the future. I've no doubt it would be used.

Donger
09-18-2012, 09:58 PM
I do, I understand that. I would say it's important.

But I can envision a two-state solution that succeeds despite that serious roadblock.

How? You want Israel to make concessions to a people/group/whatever that openly calls for her destruction. Please, elaborate how this could possibly be accomplished?

go bowe
09-18-2012, 09:59 PM
This thread lowered everyones IQ who's read it.

and we sincerely appreciate your contribution...

go bowe
09-18-2012, 10:10 PM
How? You want Israel to make concessions to a people/group/whatever that openly calls for her destruction. Please, elaborate how this could possibly be accomplished?

concessions?

aren't all negotiations based on compromise...

i know that's a dirty word to house republicans, but making compromises is how you reach an agreement...

as far as how this could be accomplished, it is very unlikely but the likud government might fall and left-wing peaceniks could take over and make a serious effort to negotiate without precondition in good faith...

if that happened, i think you would see an agreement with the west bank pa reached with all deliberate speed...

and to stretch this improbable tale even further i think the gaza residents would see the benefits of having reached a settlement for the west bank and vote out hamas or force them to relinquish violence and negotiate in good faith...

and little pink unicorns ride unicycles in my head... :) :) :)

mnchiefsguy
09-18-2012, 10:57 PM
concessions?

aren't all negotiations based on compromise...

i know that's a dirty word to house republicans, but making compromises is how you reach an agreement...

as far as how this could be accomplished, it is very unlikely but the likud government might fall and left-wing peaceniks could take over and make a serious effort to negotiate without precondition in good faith...

if that happened, i think you would see an agreement with the west bank pa reached with all deliberate speed...

and to stretch this improbable tale even further i think the gaza residents would see the benefits of having reached a settlement for the west bank and vote out hamas or force them to relinquish violence and negotiate in good faith...

and little pink unicorns ride unicycles in my head... :) :) :)

There are things that can be compromised and some things that can't. Israel is not going to compromise on their right to exist and the acknowledge thereof. As complicated as the Middle East is, it all boils down to that. Israel will never compromise. You want to negotiate with them, you must show good faith and acknowledge their right to exist.

go bowe
09-19-2012, 01:53 AM
There are things that can be compromised and some things that can't. Israel is not going to compromise on their right to exist and the acknowledge thereof. As complicated as the Middle East is, it all boils down to that. Israel will never compromise. You want to negotiate with them, you must show good faith and acknowledge their right to exist.

i'm a little sketchy just now, but didn't the pa acknowledge israel's right to exist in the oslo accords?

is it the official policy of the pa to destroy israel?

hamas is a different story but the pa has negotiated with and implicitly recognized israel as a legitimate state, hasn't it?

what more does the west bank/pa have to do to show good faith?

KILLER_CLOWN
09-19-2012, 02:49 AM
I don't trust Romney on anything, He's pretty much Obama with a hankering to start another endless war. This is the main issue I couldn't bring myself to vote for him, the Neocons seem to want WW III to start.

patteeu
09-19-2012, 06:18 AM
i'm a little sketchy just now, but didn't the pa acknowledge israel's right to exist in the oslo accords?

is it the official policy of the pa to destroy israel?

hamas is a different story but the pa has negotiated with and implicitly recognized israel as a legitimate state, hasn't it?

what more does the west bank/pa have to do to show good faith?

Stop launching intifadas and reign in terrorist groups like Hamas.

Donger
09-19-2012, 11:40 AM
i'm a little sketchy just now, but didn't the pa acknowledge israel's right to exist in the oslo accords?

No. The PA didn't exist then.

is it the official policy of the pa to destroy israel?

Not that I'm aware of.

hamas is a different story but the pa has negotiated with and implicitly recognized israel as a legitimate state, hasn't it?

No, it hasn't and still doesn't.

what more does the west bank/pa have to do to show good faith?

Recognizing and accepting Israel's right to exist would be a peachy start.

La literatura
09-19-2012, 11:54 AM
Recognizing and accepting Israel's right to exist would be a peachy start.

Is that a one-way street, or should Israel recognize a Palestinian right to exist?

patteeu
09-19-2012, 11:56 AM
Is that a one-way street, or should Israel recognize a Palestinian right to exist?

Yes and they do.

Donger
09-19-2012, 11:58 AM
Is that a one-way street, or should Israel recognize a Palestinian right to exist?

Absolutely, and Israel has, both through deeds and restraint.

La literatura
09-19-2012, 12:00 PM
Yes and they do.

Absolutely, and Israel has, both through deeds and restraint.

They recognize the right of a Palestinian state existence, or the right of Palestinian individuals to live?

patteeu
09-19-2012, 12:06 PM
They recognize the right of a Palestinian state existence, or the right of Palestinian individuals to live?

The latter. I'm not sure what the official position is on the former, but I know that they've repeatedly demonstrated a willingness to allow such a state to exist (whether they accept it as a right or not).

La literatura
09-19-2012, 12:09 PM
Okay. It seems fair that if we want Palestine to recognize Israel's right to exist as a state, the Israelis should recognize a parallel existence for a Palestinian state.

Donger
09-19-2012, 12:16 PM
Okay. It seems fair that if we want Palestine to recognize Israel's right to exist as a state, the Israelis should recognize a parallel existence for a Palestinian state.

As Israel has done, with the caveat that the Palestinians (including Hamas) accept Israel's right to exist. They won't.

La literatura
09-19-2012, 12:20 PM
As Israel has done, with the caveat that the Palestinians (including Hamas) accept Israel's right to exist. They won't.

So . . . "You recognize our right to exist, and then we'll recognize your right to exist."

Donger
09-19-2012, 12:25 PM
So . . . "You recognize our right to exist, and then we'll recognize your right to exist."

Not at all. Israel already recognizes their right to exist. Israel did that with Oslo, basically allowing and agreeing with the Palestinians to set up their own government, which today is the PA and Hamas.

patteeu
09-19-2012, 12:50 PM
Okay. It seems fair that if we want Palestine to recognize Israel's right to exist as a state, the Israelis should recognize a parallel existence for a Palestinian state.

That's not an issue. Israel has demonstrated their willingness to make peace with the palestinians in a palestinian state.

stevieray
09-19-2012, 01:39 PM
Arabstinians right to exist....LMAO

and prophecy keeps marching on...shouldn't be much longer now.

La literatura
09-19-2012, 04:29 PM
Not at all. Israel already recognizes their right to exist. Israel did that with Oslo, basically allowing and agreeing with the Palestinians to set up their own government, which today is the PA and Hamas.

And didn't the PLO recognize Israel's right to exist with the Oslo Accords?

La literatura
09-19-2012, 04:34 PM
That's not an issue. Israel has demonstrated their willingness to make peace with the palestinians in a palestinian state.

And it's arguable that Palestine has as well. Why does Israel continue to expand settlements!? That is a step backwards from every step forward (of demonstrating their willingness to make peace . . . ).

Donger
09-19-2012, 04:35 PM
And didn't the PLO recognize Israel's right to exist with the Oslo Accords?

Yes, and now the PA (and more vociferously Hamas) doesn't.

La literatura
09-19-2012, 04:36 PM
Arabstinians right to exist....LMAO

and prophecy keeps marching on...shouldn't be much longer now.

Why is that funny? And why don't you use the term "Palestinian?"

Donger
09-19-2012, 04:38 PM
And it's arguable that Palestine has as well. Why does Israel continue to expand settlements!? That is a step backwards from every step forward (of demonstrating their willingness to make peace . . . ).

Israel continues to expand settlements because the Palestinians have never proven to be serious about wanting peace. Don't forget that this isn't "stolen" land, despite what others may call it. It was taken in response to being attacked a few times, each time taken in response to hostility.

La literatura
09-19-2012, 04:39 PM
Yes, and now the PA (and more vociferously Hamas) doesn't.

Does the current right-wing Israeli government agree on a Palestinian state's right to exist?

La literatura
09-19-2012, 04:42 PM
Israel continues to expand settlements because the Palestinians have never proven to be serious about wanting peace. Don't forget that this isn't "stolen" land, despite what others may call it. It was taken in response to being attacked a few times, each time taken in response to hostility.

But the expansions are contradictions to the Oslo Accords. If Israel doesn't care about the Oslo Accords, why do you think the Palestinians should?

Donger
09-19-2012, 04:43 PM
Does the current right-wing Israeli government agree on a Palestinian state's right to exist?

Netanyahu's on record as being fine with a two-state solution, last I heard. That requires acknowledgement from both the PA and Hamas on Israel's right to exist, however. They won't.

Donger
09-19-2012, 04:46 PM
But the expansions are contradictions to the Oslo Accords. If Israel doesn't care about the Oslo Accords, why do you think the Palestinians should?

I don't believe that Israeli settlements were addressed by Oslo.

RedNeckRaider
09-19-2012, 04:46 PM
Netanyahu's on record as being fine with a two-state solution, last I heard. That requires acknowledgement from both the PA and Hamas on Israel's right to exist, however. They won't.

You suffer fools better than average~

La literatura
09-19-2012, 04:50 PM
Netanyahu's on record as being fine with a two-state solution, last I heard.

Where does he recognize the Palestinian state's right to exist?

Donger
09-19-2012, 04:55 PM
Where does he recognize the Palestinian state's right to exist?

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2009/0615/p06s16-wome.html

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu broke new ground with his speech Sunday. He voiced support for the first time for a Palestinian state. But he also attached a condition that no other Israeli leader has put on peace negotiations: Palestinians must recognize Israel as a Jewish state.

"A fundamental prerequisite for ending the conflict is a public, binding, and unequivocal Palestinian recognition of Israel as the nation state of the Jewish people," argued Mr. Netanyahu, who said the issue lies at the core of the Arab-Israeli conflict.Under pressure from the Obama administration to move forward with a two-state solution, the prime minister has complied. But in the process, say Palestinian and Israeli critics, the prime minister has created a new roadblock to Palestinian statehood.

La literatura
09-19-2012, 04:56 PM
I don't believe that Israeli settlements were addressed by Oslo.

Do you think there were agreements detailing the Gaza Strip and the West Bank with Oslo?

Donger
09-19-2012, 04:57 PM
Do you think there were agreements detailing the Gaza Strip and the West Bank with Oslo?

Yes, with regard to the IDF being there, IIRC. Like I said, I don't believe Oslo decided anything with regard to settlements.

go bowe
09-19-2012, 04:58 PM
Stop launching intifadas and reign in terrorist groups like Hamas.

have there been any recent intifadas?

israel hasn't been able to reign in the terrorist groups like hamas for 50 years or more, how is the weak and demilitarized pa supposed to do it?

if the precondition is reigning in hamas, there will never be any negotiations...

is israel trying to negotiate with the pa or with the terrorists?

the pa is willing to negotiate peace, the terrorists aren't...

mnchiefsguy
09-19-2012, 05:00 PM
Do you think there were agreements detailing the Gaza Strip and the West Bank with Oslo?

It does not appear that the settlements were addressed by the Oslo accords.

http://muftah.org/original-sin-how-the-oslo-accords-enabled-continued-settlement-growth-by-khaled-elgindy/

Given the Palestinians’ persistent demands for an end to Israeli settlement activity and the nearly universal international opposition to it, one might expect to find the terms of a formal settlement freeze spelled out in the Oslo Accords, the first major breakthrough in Israeli-Palestinian negotiations. Yet, Oslo made no mention of a settlement freeze—formal or otherwise—and, in fact, deferred the settlement issue altogether until so-called “permanent status” negotiations to be held in five years. Oslo’s failure to address the need for a freeze, and more importantly the PLO’s failure to codify it within the Accords themselves, remains one of the most serious and far-reaching flaws of the Oslo process—the “original sin” that continues to haunt the peace process and the Palestinian leadership to this day.

Donger
09-19-2012, 05:00 PM
the pa is willing to negotiate peace, the terrorists aren't...

Considering the last I heard, the PA PM still refuses to acknowledge Israel's right to exist, no, PA isn't willing to negotiate or compromise.

La literatura
09-19-2012, 05:01 PM
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2009/0615/p06s16-wome.html

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu broke new ground with his speech Sunday. He voiced support for the first time for a Palestinian state. But he also attached a condition that no other Israeli leader has put on peace negotiations: Palestinians must recognize Israel as a Jewish state.

"A fundamental prerequisite for ending the conflict is a public, binding, and unequivocal Palestinian recognition of Israel as the nation state of the Jewish people," argued Mr. Netanyahu, who said the issue lies at the core of the Arab-Israeli conflict.Under pressure from the Obama administration to move forward with a two-state solution, the prime minister has complied. But in the process, say Palestinian and Israeli critics, the prime minister has created a new roadblock to Palestinian statehood.

Doesn't that seem like "You recognize our right to exist, and then we'll recognize your right to exist."

Donger
09-19-2012, 05:03 PM
Doesn't that seem like "You recognize our right to exist, and then we'll recognize your right to exist."

No. Israel already acknowledges the right of the Palestinians to exist. What that shows is that Israel was willing to acknowledge and accept a Palestinian state as well.

mnchiefsguy
09-19-2012, 05:05 PM
have there been any recent intifadas?

israel hasn't been able to reign in the terrorist groups like hamas for 50 years or more, how is the weak and demilitarized pa supposed to do it?

if the precondition is reigning in hamas, there will never be any negotiations...

is israel trying to negotiate with the pa or with the terrorists?

the pa is willing to negotiate peace, the terrorists aren't...

If the PA wishes to be considered a separate entity from the terrorists, they must unilaterally condemn their terrorist activities, and participate in bringing them to justice.

Has the PA condemned any of Hamas terrorist activities lately? Or ever?

La literatura
09-19-2012, 05:08 PM
Yes, with regard to the IDF being there, IIRC. Like I said, I don't believe Oslo decided anything with regard to settlements.

Do you agree that the continuing settlements are violations of international law?

La literatura
09-19-2012, 05:10 PM
No. Israel already acknowledges the right of the Palestinians to exist. What that shows is that Israel was willing to acknowledge and accept a Palestinian state as well.

Yes, they would recognize a Palestinian state, so long as Palestine recognized a Jewish state. Palestinians already acknowledge the right of Israeli people to exist.

Donger
09-19-2012, 05:13 PM
Do you agree that the continuing settlements are violations of international law?

Yes, although I understand why Israel doesn't agree.

Donger
09-19-2012, 05:14 PM
Palestinians already acknowledge the right of Israeli people to exist.

Link?

mnchiefsguy
09-19-2012, 05:16 PM
Yes, they would recognize a Palestinian state, so long as Palestine recognized a Jewish state. Palestinians already acknowledge the right of Israeli people to exist.

Somebody needs to send Hezbollah and Hamas the memo. I do not think they got it.

go bowe
09-19-2012, 05:17 PM
If the PA wishes to be considered a separate entity from the terrorists, they must unilaterally condemn their terrorist activities, and participate in bringing them to justice.

Has the PA condemned any of Hamas terrorist activities lately? Or ever?

at this point i don't think the pa wishes to be considered a seperate entity, that was entirely my observation/opinion...

preconditions on both sides will prevent any negotiations from ever taking place with the consequence of eternal strife and instability...

as far as bringing terrorists to justice, as i posted before, israel hasn't been able to do it for 50 why would a weak and non-militarized government go about that?

and no, the pa has not condemned hamas (although they might like to if it was politically feasible)...

patteeu
09-19-2012, 06:16 PM
And it's arguable that Palestine has as well. Why does Israel continue to expand settlements!? That is a step backwards from every step forward (of demonstrating their willingness to make peace . . . ).

No, I'm sorry, that's not arguable at all.

La literatura
09-19-2012, 07:41 PM
Link?

The right to exist idea is a state issue; it's always been about the existence of the state, not about the actual people.

La literatura
09-19-2012, 07:46 PM
No, I'm sorry, that's not arguable at all.

You don't think winning a Nobel Peace Prize for coming together with Israel to establish a peace treaty isn't a demonstration of a willingness to have peace in the region?

RedNeckRaider
09-19-2012, 07:48 PM
You don't think winning a Nobel Peace Prize for coming together with Israel to establish a peace treaty isn't a demonstration of a willingness to have peace in the region?

There will never be peace in that region as long as the people who lead think some invisible man gave them title and deed to the land~

Pawnmower
09-19-2012, 07:49 PM
Yes, they would recognize a Palestinian state, so long as Palestine recognized a Jewish state. Palestinians already acknowledge the right of Israeli people to exist.

Hamas doesn't. And Hamas seems to be the party that Palestinians are choosing to represent them.......

What do you think if you look at the numbers overall (Gaza, westbank) the number of Hamas supporters would be?

Hamas is bent on the destruction of Israel....

If we cant agree on a % of Palestinians, the fact remains a VERY LARGE percent support Hamas, which does not recognize Israel's right to exist.

I don't have the number memorized but I think it is a very big number.

HonestChieffan
09-19-2012, 07:51 PM
Muslim calls to kill Christians and Jews are just sort of poppycock. Palestinians and hezbolla basically love the Jews

La literatura
09-19-2012, 07:53 PM
Pawnmower, I agree that Hamas is a significant roadblock to peace between Israel and Palestine. I don't mean to suggest that Palestine should have a clear conscience. I do mean to argue that Israel's continuing settlement policy is also a significant roadblock to peace.

patteeu
09-19-2012, 07:57 PM
You don't think winning a Nobel Peace Prize for coming together with Israel to establish a peace treaty isn't a demonstration of a willingness to have peace in the region?

No, not at all. What matters is what you do when you get together, not just the fact that you made the trip.

Let's not forget that Barack Obama got a Peace Prize simply because he wasn't named Bush. They've been giving those things away like door prizes at quarterly sales meetings.

Pawnmower
09-19-2012, 07:58 PM
Pawnmower, I agree that Hamas is a significant roadblock to peace between Israel and Palestine. I don't mean to suggest that Palestine should have a clear conscience. I do mean to argue that Israel's continuing settlement policy is also a significant roadblock to peace.

Well, to suggest that "Palestinians acknowledge Israel's right to exist" is fairly well wrong.

Polls indicate that 75-85% of Palestinians do not agree with Israel's right to exist.

Furthermore, the Palestinian people (and I do acknowledge there are other reasons for this) seem to vote Hamas into power when given the chance.

A people who vote this sort of group into power are not seeking peace...Hamas makes the right wingers in the Likud look like peace loving hippies.

La literatura
09-19-2012, 07:59 PM
No, not at all. What matters is what you do when you get together, not just the fact that you made the trip.

Let's not forget that Barack Obama got a Peace Prize simply because he wasn't named Bush.

What do you think Israel has done so much better to promote peace than Palestinians? What more do you think Palestinians need to do in order to "demonstrate a willingness to peace?"

mnchiefsguy
09-19-2012, 08:00 PM
What do you think Israel has done so much better to promote peace than Palestinians? What more do you think Palestinians need to do in order to "demonstrate a willingness to peace?"

Well, they don't target women and children for suicide bombings like Hamas has, for starters.

La literatura
09-19-2012, 08:02 PM
Well, to suggest that "Palestinians acknowledge Israel's right to exist" is fairly well wrong.

Polls indicate that 75-85% of Palestinians do not agree with Israel's right to exist.

Furthermore, the Palestinian people (and I do acknowledge there are other reasons for this) seem to vote Hamas into power when given the chance.

A people who vote this sort of group into power are not seeking peace...Hamas makes Likud look like peace loving hippies.

Please note that I said "Palestinians acknowledge the right of Israeli people to exist." It's the state of Israel that is the issue for Palestinians. I think Israel as a state has a right to exist (I think a Palestinian state does, too), but I can understand where some would say that state of Israel should not exist if there isn't a mutual expression of the Palestinian state to exist. What I cannot accept is refusing to recognize a right to Israeli people to exist; but that, I don't think, is the issue.

Pawnmower
09-19-2012, 08:02 PM
The last free election in Palestine, Hamas won 76-43.

That is the like the KKK winning a 2-1 majority in the congress, and having 63 out of 100 in the senate.

La literatura
09-19-2012, 08:03 PM
Well, they don't target women and children for suicide bombings like Hamas has, for starters.

It helps having a modern, powerful military, but yes, that is true.

Pawnmower
09-19-2012, 08:03 PM
Please note that I said "Palestinians acknowledge the right of Israeli people to exist." It's the state of Israel that is the issue for Palestinians.

Correct me If I am wrong, but if there is no state of Israel, there can be no "Israeli People"

La literatura
09-19-2012, 08:05 PM
Correct me If I am wrong, but if there is no state of Israel, there can be no "Israelis"

Yes, I think that's technically true. But I'm referring to the citizens that are Jewish that live in Israel. The issue is not that those people don't have a right to exist.

patteeu
09-19-2012, 08:06 PM
What do you think Israel has done so much better to promote peace than Palestinians? What more do you think Palestinians need to do in order to "demonstrate a willingness to peace?"

Israel agreed to give up most of the so-called occupied territories in return for peace. Arafat gave them Intifada 2 in return.

After Arafat's death, Israel gave the autonomous government of the PA aid and support so that they could police their own territory. The palestinian people responded by kicking the PA out of power in favor of Hamas and Israel was forced to suspend their coordination.

Israel unilaterally gave up Gaza and the Gaza settlements and in return, the palestinians launched barrage after barrage of rockets at targets in Israel-proper.

Pawnmower
09-19-2012, 08:07 PM
Yes, I think that's technically true. But I'm referring to the citizens that are Jewish that live in Israel.

If the state of Israel doesn't exist, there are no 'jewish citizens living in Israel'

Are you really this dumb?

mnchiefsguy
09-19-2012, 08:10 PM
Yes, I think that's technically true. But I'm referring to the citizens that are Jewish that live in Israel. The issue is not that those people don't have a right to exist.

It is for Hamas. It is for the leader of Iran and other Muslim countries that spew hate speech about the lack of proof for the holocaust and how Jews should be wiped out.

I know, your reply is going to be that those folks are just the crazy fringe, etc.....but if your neighbor was saying he was going to wipe your family off of the face of the earth...even if you thought he was crazy, you would still take caution, would you not?

This is why the acknowledgment of the state of Israel must come from the Palestinian side before any real peace can be achieved. Such a declaration is the first step in renouncing the ideals of the radical Muslim and is a first, necessary step for peace.

La literatura
09-19-2012, 08:16 PM
If the state of Israel doesn't exist, there are no 'jewish citizens living in Israel'

Are you really this dumb?

There are Jewish citizens living in Israel now, though. Even without the state of Israel, those people will still exist. Nobody (important, anyway) is arguing that those people don't have a right to exist. That's a lot different than saying "Israel doesn't have a right to exist." Do you agree?

Pawnmower
09-19-2012, 08:18 PM
This is why the acknowledgment of the state of Israel must come from the Palestinian side before any real peace can be achieved. Such a declaration is the first step in renouncing the ideals of the radical Muslim and is a first, necessary step for peace.

This absolutely. The sad thing is that there is/was a party (Fatah) who had this on their platform.

Hamas beat them by 2-1 in the last free election.

The PEOPLE in Palestine do not accept Israel....the real question is WHY?

I think people can see many of the answers......Hamas hands out money, food, etc...(all money coming from Iran, to prop up Hamas as a power....to destabalize the region).......

And,

Sadly the religion of Islam itself is not exactly a peaceful one...and the laws of Islam (Sharia) do not exactly bode well for non muslims.
I am pretty pessimistic, but if there were a vote today, I think Hamas would still win 2-1.

The real question is WHY and how to change this fact..Or even if we SHOULD change this fact....

I mean, I personally detest meddling in other people's politics....but the problem is that the politics of Hamas is bent on the conversion, destruction, subjugation, and degradation of everyone who isn't a Muslim.

To me thats the point where I go "ok, fuck them....gloves are off."

You can only give so many chances to people (free elections)...then what? What are people supposed to do?

La literatura
09-19-2012, 08:18 PM
It is for Hamas. It is for the leader of Iran and other Muslim countries that spew hate speech about the lack of proof for the holocaust and how Jews should be wiped out.

I know, your reply is going to be that those folks are just the crazy fringe, etc.....but if your neighbor was saying he was going to wipe your family off of the face of the earth...even if you thought he was crazy, you would still take caution, would you not?

This is why the acknowledgment of the state of Israel must come from the Palestinian side before any real peace can be achieved. Such a declaration is the first step in renouncing the ideals of the radical Muslim and is a first, necessary step for peace.

Will you acknowledge that you are asking for the Palestinian people to do something that Israel will only do conditionally?

Pawnmower
09-19-2012, 08:21 PM
There are Jewish citizens living in Israel now, though. Even without the state of Israel, those people will still exist. Nobody (important, anyway) is arguing that those people don't have a right to exist. That's a lot different than saying "Israel doesn't have a right to exist." Do you agree?

No. I disagree 100%. Take away the STATE of Israel and what happens to the Jews? You tell me...do you think Hamas would treat them well? Allow them to have Synagogs? All you have to do is look at the LAWS in Islamic countries and look at the reality. If there was no state of Israel, they would probably be wiped out, chased off...etc...

Be realistic...You tell me what happens to Jewish people in a state run by Hamas.

Pawnmower
09-19-2012, 08:24 PM
Will you acknowledge that you are asking for the Palestinian people to do something that Israel will only do conditionally?

In the end both sides would have conditions.

If the 2-state solution happens, both sides will have to sign some kind of treaty...and there will be conditions on both sides.

edit:

I think Israel is justified in asking the Palestinians to say 'we acknowledge your right to exist' because only their parties (Hamas etc...) have platforms bent on the destruction of Israel.

I am not aware of any serious Israeli political movement with any kind of power who has as a public platform the complete eradication of Palestinians.

mnchiefsguy
09-19-2012, 08:25 PM
Will you acknowledge that you are asking for the Palestinian people to do something that Israel will only do conditionally?

No. Israel has never advocated wiping out the Palestinians. You can be a Palestinian and a Muslim and live in peace in Israel. Can you be a Jew in Syria? Jordan? Iran or Iraq?

Israel has the high ground on this issue. They have not advocated genocide, are a democratic state, and non-Jewish citizens of Israel have equal rights with that of Jewish citizens.

Given the nature of how Israel has been attacked over the years, Israel has a responsibility to not blindly go to the negotiating table without at least a minimal guarantee that those on the other side will not continue to seek genocide against them.

La literatura
09-19-2012, 08:26 PM
No. I disagree 100%. Take away the STATE of Israel and what happens to the Jews? You tell me...do you think Hamas would treat them well? Allow them to have Synagogs? All you have to do is look at the LAWS in Islamic countries and look at the reality. If there was no state of Israel, they would probably be wiped out, chased off...etc...

Be realistic...You tell me what happens to Jewish people in a state run by Hamas.

I don't think the Palestinian people would begin genocide of former Israeli Jews. I don't think Jews would be treated well at all under Hamas, though. I think there would be many executions.

mnchiefsguy
09-19-2012, 08:26 PM
In the end both sides would have conditions.

If the 2-state solution happens, both sides will have to sign some kind of treaty...and there will be conditions on both sides.

Look at the deal Arafat rejected at the end of Clinton's second term...Israel threw in just about everything but the kitchen sink...but Arafat rejected it because acknowledging Israel's right to exist was just too much to ask...

La literatura
09-19-2012, 08:28 PM
I am not aware of any serious Israeli political movement with any kind of power who has as a public platform the complete eradication of Palestinians.

There isn't one, as far as I know. However, there is a continued policy of settlement expansion, and it is devastating and preventing peace in the region, as far as I can tell.

La literatura
09-19-2012, 08:32 PM
No. Israel has never advocated wiping out the Palestinians. You can be a Palestinian and a Muslim and live in peace in Israel. Can you be a Jew in Syria? Jordan? Iran or Iraq?

Israel has the high ground on this issue. They have not advocated genocide, are a democratic state, and non-Jewish citizens of Israel have equal rights with that of Jewish citizens.

Given the nature of how Israel has been attacked over the years, Israel has a responsibility to not blindly go to the negotiating table without at least a minimal guarantee that those on the other side will not continue to seek genocide against them.

Do you think Israel should have a standing policy of recognizing a Palestinian right to exist?

Pawnmower
09-19-2012, 08:33 PM
I don't think the Palestinian people would begin genocide of former Israeli Jews. I don't think Jews would be treated well at all under Hamas, though. I think there would be many executions.

All you have to do is look at any of the religious the minorities in Islamic countries...and what has happened over the last few decades even...

You can witness it in Egypt, and what is happening right now to the Copts.

I'm not sure how you can deny this basic fact, but to be ANYTHING but Muslim in the vast majority of Islamic countries is extremely dangerous.

mnchiefsguy
09-19-2012, 08:33 PM
I don't think the Palestinian people would begin genocide of former Israeli Jews. I don't think Jews would be treated well at all under Hamas, though. I think there would be many executions.

Then you have not listened to the Palestinians and the leaders they have freely elected:

http://www.seraphicpress.com/hamas-and-fatah-agree-kill-all-the-jews/

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/12/hamas-allah-kill-christians-and-jews-to-the-last-one.html

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/hamas-cleric-the-jews-will-be-annihilated-palestine-will-be-capital-of-new-caliphate/

http://palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi=427

And this is just from page 1 on google.

Again, if this was your neighbor talking about your family like this...repeatedly, while trying to blow up your shed and kill your dog, wouldn't you take them seriously, even though you think they might be crazy?

La literatura
09-19-2012, 08:35 PM
Look at the deal Arafat rejected at the end of Clinton's second term...Israel threw in just about everything but the kitchen sink...but Arafat rejected it because acknowledging Israel's right to exist was just too much to ask...

Are you sure? My understanding is that Arafat did recognize Israel's right to existence, starting in the 1980s, without ever going back on that.

Pawnmower
09-19-2012, 08:36 PM
There isn't one, as far as I know. However, there is a continued policy of settlement expansion, and it is devastating and preventing peace in the region, as far as I can tell.

Absolutely. I agree with you on this....MANY Israelis are completely against this...

But

Lets look at it from a right wing Israeli's perspective for a second:

What else do they have to bargain with..? If they stop expanding , what other bargaining chip do they have to bring to the table? I think that is the main reason right wingers pull that crap.....

What if Israel would agree to not expand even one settlement more, if hamas, and the palestinian people would acknowledge Israel's right to exist?

La literatura
09-19-2012, 08:36 PM
All you have to do is look at any of the religious the minorities in Islamic countries...and what has happened over the last few decades even...

You can witness it in Egypt, and what is happening right now to the Copts.

I'm not sure how you can deny this basic fact, but to be ANYTHING but Muslim in the vast majority of Islamic countries is extremely dangerous.

Yes, but there is not genocide going on. Muslims do not hold that people of other faiths have no right to exist.