PDA

View Full Version : Netanyahu's speech to Congress shows America will buy anything



abso
06-05-2011, 01:27 PM
Netanyahu's speech to Congress shows America will buy anything



It was an address with no destination, filled with lies on top of lies and illusions heaped on illusions. Only rarely is a foreign head of state invited to speak before Congress. It's unlikely that any other has attempted to sell them such a pile of propaganda and prevarication, such hypocrisy and sanctimony as Benjamin Netanyahu did yesterday.

The fact that the Congress rose to its feet multiple times to applaud him says more about the ignorance of its members than the quality of their guest's speech. An Israeli presence on the Jordan River - cheering. Jerusalem must remain the united capital of Israel - applause. Did American's elected representatives know that they were cheering for the death of possibility? If America loved it, we're in big trouble.

The fact that the only truth spoken in the Capitol was that of a former Israeli shouting "equal rights for Palestinians" is a badge of honor for us and a mark of shame for America. Netanyahu's "speech of his life" was the speech of the death of peace.


http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/netanyahu-s-speech-to-congress-shows-america-will-buy-anything-1.363897

revelarts
06-05-2011, 02:41 PM
Netanyahu's speech to Congress shows America will buy anything

... Only rarely is a foreign head of state invited to speak before Congress....

The fact that the Congress rose to its feet multiple times to applaud him says more about the ignorance of its members than the quality of their guest's speech. ....


http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/netanyahu-s-speech-to-congress-shows-america-will-buy-anything-1.363897

I think it speaks more to the political influence of Israel over congress and the U.S. gov't in general.



But Abso, If Israel did go back to the "1967 boarders":
would the Palestinians be happy and be at peace with Israel?
would Hamas be happy and be at peace with Israel?
would the Syrians be happy and be at peace with Israel?
would the Iranians be happy and be at peace with Israel?
would the Middle East be happy and be at peace with Israel?
would the YOU be happy and be at peace with Israel?

abso
06-05-2011, 02:56 PM
I think it speaks more to the political influence of Israel over congress and the U.S. gov't in general.



But Abso, If Israel did go back to the "1967 boarders":
would the Palestinians be happy and be at peace with Israel?
would Hamas be happy and be at peace with Israel?
would the Syrians be happy and be at peace with Israel?
would the Iranians be happy and be at peace with Israel?
would the Middle East be happy and be at peace with Israel?
would the YOU be happy and be at peace with Israel?

its not the matter of people being happy, its lands being occupied illegaly, they have to return it wether they like it or not, they can't keep using their security as an excuse to occupy lands, they can't keep building illegal settlements while defying the whole world which asks for the settlements build to stop !!!


does the whole world ask israel to go back to 67 borders just to make Hamas happy or because its the right thing to do ?

and yes is my answer, many people will be glad and happy if israel went back to 67 borders, its a start, something to build our mutual trust on, but how can the arabs be at peace with israel while it refuses to return the lands it stole ???

and you can notice that i said many not all, because you can never make everyone happy and content, but at least you can try to achieve justice which is something Israel is not willing to do.

SassyLady
06-05-2011, 03:07 PM
its not the matter of people being happy, its lands being occupied illegaly, they have to return it wether they like it or not, they can't keep using their security as an excuse to occupy lands, they can't keep building illegal settlements while defying the whole world which asks for the settlements build to stop !!!


does the whole world ask israel to go back to 67 borders just to make Hamas happy or because its the right thing to do ?

and yes is my answer, many people will be glad and happy if israel went back to 67 borders, its a start, something to build our mutual trust on, but how can the arabs be at peace with israel while it refuses to return the lands it stole ???

and you can notice that i said many not all, because you can never make everyone happy and content, but at least you can try to achieve justice which is something Israel is not willing to do.

Tell me again why they should go back to the 67 borders? Didn't they gain the extra land through wars waged against them? Seems to me that those lands belong to the victor.

fj1200
06-05-2011, 03:11 PM
First of all, if you start a war you should be ready to lose some land if you lose the war. Second, if those who you can't make happy REALLY HATE YOU I would think it's acceptable to desire as much buffer as you can get. And third, Palestinians should work for their own justice and not throw all the hate on Israel. Having land today you didn't have yesterday doesn't improve your life.

abso
06-05-2011, 03:15 PM
Tell me again why they should go back to the 67 borders? Didn't they gain the extra land through wars waged against them? Seems to me that those lands belong to the victor.

1. I Proved in another thread that they started it.

some replied to me saying that they started it as a preventive was because egypt was going to attack, and i proved that egypt was never going to attack, Nasser promised USA and Soviet Union that he is not going to fire first, i posted alot of qutations from Israelian leaders saying that they knew that Egypt was never going to attack but they took the chance they had to occupy Sinai.


2. International Law doesn't have anything that legalise preventive war.

3. Even if arabs attacked first, international law doesn't allow the victor to take any lands as spoils, annexation of any land for any reason have been illegal since the formation of United Nations.

abso
06-05-2011, 03:17 PM
First of all, if you start a war you should be ready to lose some land if you lose the war. Second, if those who you can't make happy REALLY HATE YOU I would think it's acceptable to desire as much buffer as you can get. And third, Palestinians should work for their own justice and not throw all the hate on Israel. Having land today you didn't have yesterday doesn't improve your life.

again i say israel started it, and losing land is not acceptable since formation of UN, go back to where i posted many qoutations from israelian leaders saying that they started the war to take the chance and occupy lands, they knew Egypt was never going to start a war.

what do you mean by work for their own justice ???, israel is occupying their land, so what do you suggest they do ?

fj1200
06-05-2011, 03:25 PM
again i say israel started it, and losing land is not acceptable since formation of UN, go back to where i posted many qoutations from israelian leaders saying that they started the war to take the chance and occupy lands, they knew Egypt was never going to start a war.

Which war?


what do you mean by work for their own justice ???, israel is occupying their land, so what do you suggest they do ?

Their own justice should have nothing to do with the occupied land. They don't live in poverty because of Israel. I suggest they increase the economic freedoms of their citizens, What is your opinion of the non-Jewish that live in Israel?

Kathianne
06-05-2011, 03:26 PM
Abso, you are not going to like the source, but the citations you need to prove wrong to complain:

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths/mf6.html


...MYTH

"Israel's military strike in 1967 was unprovoked."

FACT

A combination of bellicose Arab rhetoric, threatening behavior and, ultimately, an act of war left Israel no choice but preemptive action. To do this successfully, Israel needed the element of surprise. Had it waited for an Arab invasion, Israel would have been at a potentially catastrophic disadvantage.

While Nasser continued to make speeches threatening war, Arab terrorist attacks grew more frequent. In 1965, 35 raids were conducted against Israel. In 1966, the number increased to 41. In just the first four months of 1967, 37 attacks were launched.5

Meanwhile, Syria's attacks on Israeli kibbutzim from the Golan Heights provoked a retaliatory strike on April 7, 1967, during which Israeli planes shot down six Syrian MiGs. Shortly thereafter, the Soviet Union — which had been providing military and economic aid to both Syria and Egypt — gave Damascus information alleging a massive Israeli military buildup in preparation for an attack. Despite Israeli denials, Syria decided to invoke its defense treaty with Egypt.

On May 15, Israel's Independence Day, Egyptian troops began moving into the Sinai and massing near the Israeli border. By May 18, Syrian troops were prepared for battle along the Golan Heights.

Nasser ordered the UN Emergency Force, stationed in the Sinai since 1956, to withdraw on May 16. Without bringing the matter to the attention of the General Assembly, as his predecessor had promised, Secretary-General U Thant complied with the demand. After the withdrawal of the UNEF, the Voice of the Arabs proclaimed (May 18, 1967):

As of today, there no longer exists an international emergency force to protect Israel. We shall exercise patience no more. We shall not complain any more to the UN about Israel. The sole method we shall apply against Israel is total war, which will result in the extermination of Zionist existence.6

An enthusiastic echo was heard May 20 from Syrian Defense Minister Hafez Assad:

Our forces are now entirely ready not only to repulse the aggression, but to initiate the act of liberation itself, and to explode the Zionist presence in the Arab homeland. The Syrian army, with its finger on the trigger, is united....I, as a military man, believe that the time has come to enter into a battle of annihilation.7

On May 22, Egypt closed the Straits of Tiran to all Israeli shipping and all ships bound for Eilat. This blockade cut off Israel's only supply route with Asia and stopped the flow of oil from its main supplier, Iran. The following day, President Johnson expressed the belief that the blockade was illegal and unsuccessfully tried to organize an international flotilla to test it.

Nasser was fully aware of the pressure he was exerting to force Israel's hand. The day after the blockade was set up, he said defiantly: "The Jews threaten to make war. I reply: Welcome! We are ready for war."8

Nasser challenged Israel to fight almost daily. "Our basic objective will be the destruction of Israel. The Arab people want to fight," he said on May 27.9 The following day, he added: "We will not accept any...coexistence with Israel...Today the issue is not the establishment of peace between the Arab states and Israel....The war with Israel is in effect since 1948."10

King Hussein of Jordan signed a defense pact with Egypt on May 30. Nasser then announced:

The armies of Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon are poised on the borders of Israel...to face the challenge, while standing behind us are the armies of Iraq, Algeria, Kuwait, Sudan and the whole Arab nation. This act will astound the world. Today they will know that the Arabs are arranged for battle, the critical hour has arrived. We have reached the stage of serious action and not declarations.11

President Abdur Rahman Aref of Iraq joined in the war of words: "The existence of Israel is an error which must be rectified. This is our opportunity to wipe out the ignominy which has been with us since 1948. Our goal is clear -- to wipe Israel off the map."12 On June 4, Iraq joined the military alliance with Egypt, Jordan and Syria.

The Arab rhetoric was matched by the mobilization of Arab forces. Approximately 250,000 troops (nearly half in Sinai), more than 2,000 tanks and 700 aircraft ringed Israel.13

By this time, Israeli forces had been on alert for three weeks. The country could not remain fully mobilized indefinitely, nor could it allow its sea lane through the Gulf of Aqaba to be interdicted. Israel's best option was to strike first.On June 5, the order was given to attack Egypt...

DragonStryk72
06-05-2011, 03:27 PM
its not the matter of people being happy, its lands being occupied illegaly, they have to return it wether they like it or not, they can't keep using their security as an excuse to occupy lands, they can't keep building illegal settlements while defying the whole world which asks for the settlements build to stop !!!

Ah good. Nice to see you come to admission of the point that you don't care that it would do nothing for peace, and would just end up threatening Israel with further violence.

does the whole world ask israel to go back to 67 borders just to make Hamas happy or because its the right thing to do ?


They ask either because they want more land, in order to hurt Israel, or because they somehow think it's going to bring peace. You have cleared it up, it won't.

Kathianne
06-05-2011, 03:32 PM
They ask either because they want more land, in order to hurt Israel, or because they somehow think it's going to bring peace. You have cleared it up, it won't.

There is nothing Israel can do, short of ceasing to agreeing to exist, that will appease her neighbors. Since that's not going to happen...

abso
06-05-2011, 04:01 PM
Which war?

1967 war




Their own justice should have nothing to do with the occupied land. They don't live in poverty because of Israel. I suggest they increase the economic freedoms of their citizens, What is your opinion of the non-Jewish that live in Israel?

i am not talking about them being poor or rich, i am talking about their right in the occupied land, we are not discussing their economic position, we are discussing the occupied land which israel has annexed illegaly.

egypt was poor when we got Sinai back, and we are still poor, very large debts, but that didn't stop us from reclaiming Sinai via all possible means, war and diplomacy, when your neighbour occupy your house, you won't think much about geting paid more in your job to be able to buy a new house, you will think about how you can get back your house, because that's your right.


Abso, you are not going to like the source, but the citations you need to prove wrong to complain:

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths/mf6.html

i won't discuss that subject again, i have already done that and provided quotations for Israelian leaders saying that they knew that Egypt was never going to start war but still they had to take that chance to occupy Sinai.

in short:
US President sent a message to Nasser through the Egyptian ambassador in USA, US President warned Nasser from the consequences if Egypt started the war and urged Nasser not to be the first one to attack.

same night at 3 AM, the Soviet Union ambassador in Egypt asked for an urgent meeting with Nasser, and then he told Nasser at the meeting that the Soviet Union urges Egypt not to start the war.

both US and Soviet Union assured Egypt that Israel would never attack, thats why Nasser refused the requests from Marshal Field Amer to start a preempitive war against Israel because everyone anticipated Israelian attack, but Nasser refused repeatedly and insisted that all Egyptian troops in Sinai act as defensive troops, and never to start the war according to the US and SU requests and assurances.



"King Hussein arrived in Cairo on 30 May and committed Jordan to the United Arab Command (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Arab_Command)—an alliance which also included Egypt and Syria—under the command of Egyptian general Muhammad Sidqi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_Sidqi_Mahmud). Amer anticipated an Israeli attack and advocated Egypt launch a preemptive strike. He was backed by former Syrian prime minister Amin al-Hafiz (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amin_al-Hafiz). Due to assurances, however, from the American administration and the USSR that Israel would not attack, Nasser refused Amer's suggestion, insisting that Egyptian forces in the Sinai should only act defensively. In addition, he questioned the Egyptian military's readiness since the air force lacked pilots, the army reserve lacked training"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamal_Abdel_Nasser#Resignation_and_aftermath


Israelian leaders knew that all the Egyptian troops in Sinai were of defensive nature, they were sent to the borders because of a soviet intel that said that israel is going to attack Syria and Egypt had a mutual defense pact with Syria so we had to be ready in case of war.


They ask either because they want more land, in order to hurt Israel, or because they somehow think it's going to bring peace. You have cleared it up, it won't.

israel should do it's part, then after that, i think israel is more than capable of defending it's border if anything happens from Hamas, but you can't occupy and be the victim at the same time, now when Hamas attack we can say that they are fighting for their land, but after going back to 67 borders, if Hamas attacks everyone will blame them, of course everyone is already blaming them without blaming israel for its occupation, everyone are only concerned about the security of israel, never about the security of palestine.

Kathianne
06-05-2011, 05:47 PM
i won't discuss that subject again, i have already done that and provided quotations for Israelian leaders saying that they knew that Egypt was never going to start war but still they had to take that chance to occupy Sinai.

in short:
US President sent a message to Nasser through the Egyptian ambassador in USA, US President warned Nasser from the consequences if Egypt started the war and urged Nasser not to be the first one to attack.

same night at 3 AM, the Soviet Union ambassador in Egypt asked for an urgent meeting with Nasser, and then he told Nasser at the meeting that the Soviet Union urges Egypt not to start the war.

both US and Soviet Union assured Egypt that Israel would never attack, thats why Nasser refused the requests from Marshal Field Amer to start a preempitive war against Israel because everyone anticipated Israelian attack, but Nasser refused repeatedly and insisted that all Egyptian troops in Sinai act as defensive troops, and never to start the war according to the US and SU requests and assurances.



"King Hussein arrived in Cairo on 30 May and committed Jordan to the United Arab Command (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Arab_Command)—an alliance which also included Egypt and Syria—under the command of Egyptian general Muhammad Sidqi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_Sidqi_Mahmud). Amer anticipated an Israeli attack and advocated Egypt launch a preemptive strike. He was backed by former Syrian prime minister Amin al-Hafiz (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amin_al-Hafiz). Due to assurances, however, from the American administration and the USSR that Israel would not attack, Nasser refused Amer's suggestion, insisting that Egyptian forces in the Sinai should only act defensively. In addition, he questioned the Egyptian military's readiness since the air force lacked pilots, the army reserve lacked training"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamal_Abdel_Nasser#Resignation_and_aftermath


Israelian leaders knew that all the Egyptian troops in Sinai were of defensive nature, they were sent to the borders because of a soviet intel that said that israel is going to attack Syria and Egypt had a mutual defense pact with Syria so we had to be ready in case of war.

So you have a huge number of very educated Jews, a very few of which are agreeing with the mobs, we know about that, we have them too. Problem for Israel, they are small and the opposition has no moderating influence folks, as you've now proved.

Indeed, with this last post, you've proved yourself not a moderate, but a person that wants annihilation of Israel. I'm ashamed that I ever HOPED, not counted, on making friends with you. Not possible.

So do you have your Muslim Brotherhood card? Are you ready to kill all those not Sharia compliant? You are becoming whom you feared. Good luck with that, it's not going to get better, only worse.

DragonStryk72
06-05-2011, 06:12 PM
israel should do it's part, then after that, i think israel is more than capable of defending it's border if anything happens from Hamas, but you can't occupy and be the victim at the same time, now when Hamas attack we can say that they are fighting for their land, but after going back to 67 borders, if Hamas attacks everyone will blame them, of course everyone is already blaming them without blaming israel for its occupation, everyone are only concerned about the security of israel, never about the security of palestine.

Okay, so you admit that Israel would then have to defend those borders. so what you're saying is that they should surrender land that has acted as a defensive bulwark for them so that they can be attacked again, this time with no buffer between the enemy and Israel's innocent civilians.

Perhaps if Hamas would stop being rat bastards at every turn, people would feel differently, but that's just not the reality. No one is going to cede their only shield while being assailed on all sides. You are asking them to act blatantly against their own survival, and not even for peace or safety. Blaming Hamas after the fact will not do anything for the dead women and children that will result from their attacks.

And why are we trusting Palestine, btw? Given the sheer number of times they've broken treaty and cease-fires, what sane person would trust them again?

Gaffer
06-05-2011, 06:12 PM
nassar said he wouldn't fire first. He wouldn't have too. There were plenty of other countries that would do that. He could sit back until it started and then join his allies.

The pals can consider themselves lucky. If the arabs had broken through Israels defenses they would have been going up against American forces. I don't know how many were waiting to go to Israel but my whole brigade was on stand by for three days.

Kathianne
06-05-2011, 06:45 PM
i won't discuss that subject again, i have already done that and provided quotations for Israelian leaders saying that they knew that Egypt was never going to start war but still they had to take that chance to occupy Sinai.

in short:
US President sent a message to Nasser through the Egyptian ambassador in USA, US President warned Nasser from the consequences if Egypt started the war and urged Nasser not to be the first one to attack.

same night at 3 AM, the Soviet Union ambassador in Egypt asked for an urgent meeting with Nasser, and then he told Nasser at the meeting that the Soviet Union urges Egypt not to start the war.

both US and Soviet Union assured Egypt that Israel would never attack, thats why Nasser refused the requests from Marshal Field Amer to start a preempitive war against Israel because everyone anticipated Israelian attack, but Nasser refused repeatedly and insisted that all Egyptian troops in Sinai act as defensive troops, and never to start the war according to the US and SU requests and assurances.



"King Hussein arrived in Cairo on 30 May and committed Jordan to the United Arab Command (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Arab_Command)—an alliance which also included Egypt and Syria—under the command of Egyptian general Muhammad Sidqi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_Sidqi_Mahmud). Amer anticipated an Israeli attack and advocated Egypt launch a preemptive strike. He was backed by former Syrian prime minister Amin al-Hafiz (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amin_al-Hafiz). Due to assurances, however, from the American administration and the USSR that Israel would not attack, Nasser refused Amer's suggestion, insisting that Egyptian forces in the Sinai should only act defensively. In addition, he questioned the Egyptian military's readiness since the air force lacked pilots, the army reserve lacked training"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamal_Abdel_Nasser#Resignation_and_aftermath


Israelian leaders knew that all the Egyptian troops in Sinai were of defensive nature, they were sent to the borders because of a soviet intel that said that israel is going to attack Syria and Egypt had a mutual defense pact with Syria so we had to be ready in case of war.

So now you are saying the 'super powers, whomever they may be' have ultimate power over the ME? You do realize what you are saying, right? Note please, it's not recognized yet, but the former Soviet Union, along with today's Russia, and today's US, none are super powers. You do get that? Right.

Kathianne
06-05-2011, 06:49 PM
So now you are saying the 'super powers, whomever they may be' have ultimate power over the ME? You do realize what you are saying, right? Note please, it's not recognized yet, but the former Soviet Union, along with today's Russia, and today's US, none are super powers. You do get that? Right.

The US couldn't control/contain Israel if it wanted to. Hell, we can't control our own borders. We can't afford our military, no matter what debt ceiling is implemented or any budget agreed to. We are toast.

So Abso, good luck to the Arabs, Islam folks, it's your time. Ours is past. That doesn't mean we won't cause problems, we will. However the time is over. Hang in there with the cockroaches.

revelarts
06-05-2011, 08:52 PM
its not the matter of people being happy, its lands being occupied illegaly, they have to return it wether they like it or not, they can't keep using their security as an excuse to occupy lands, they can't keep building illegal settlements while defying the whole world which asks for the settlements build to stop !!!


does the whole world ask israel to go back to 67 borders just to make Hamas happy or because its the right thing to do ?

and yes is my answer, many people will be glad and happy if israel went back to 67 borders, its a start, something to build our mutual trust on, but how can the arabs be at peace with israel while it refuses to return the lands it stole ???

and you can notice that i said many not all, because you can never make everyone happy and content, but at least you can try to achieve justice which is something Israel is not willing to do.

See this my problem "its a start...".
It's"...something to build on" but not much left for Israel to build on literally is there though?

It just seems to me there's no way to satisfy most of the middle east except by the TOTAL ELIMINATION of Israel.
How is Israel suppose to negotiate "reasonably" if the goal of the other sides is your Elimination. That crazy.

If i'm wrong please tell me what land really belongs to Israel from your point of view.

fj1200
06-06-2011, 08:54 AM
1967 war

OK, not sure if you were talking about one of the other conflicts where Israel defended itself against attack. Kathianne's post is pretty damning.


i am not talking about them being poor or rich, i am talking about their right in the occupied land, we are not discussing their economic position, we are discussing the occupied land which israel has annexed illegaly.

I'm talking about other ways in which a real peace could be secured. As long as the leaders can rile up a poor population against the myth of oppression then peace can't be obtained. We had a recent thread going on about this, I wish you had commented on it.


egypt was poor when we got Sinai back, and we are still poor, very large debts, but that didn't stop us from reclaiming Sinai via all possible means, war and diplomacy, when your neighbour occupy your house, you won't think much about geting paid more in your job to be able to buy a new house, you will think about how you can get back your house, because that's your right.

That is largely my point. Israel has embraced freedom and they have achieved prosperity. The Palestinians and Arabs in general have not.

Regarding the house; Did I repeatedly threaten my neighbor from my house? Was I taking shots at his house from my house? Am I still belligerent from my other house right next door? Was I massing huge amounts of friends and ammunition from my house during my threats against his house? Am I repeatedly being told that my life is worse because my neighbor took my house away rather than working on making my own situation better which may lead me to getting my house back in the first place? Rhetorical questions I know. :rolleyes:

BTW, What is your opinion of Arabs living in Israel?

abso
06-06-2011, 09:11 AM
So you have a huge number of very educated Jews, a very few of which are agreeing with the mobs, we know about that, we have them too. Problem for Israel, they are small and the opposition has no moderating influence folks, as you've now proved.

Indeed, with this last post, you've proved yourself not a moderate, but a person that wants annihilation of Israel. I'm ashamed that I ever HOPED, not counted, on making friends with you. Not possible.

So do you have your Muslim Brotherhood card? Are you ready to kill all those not Sharia compliant? You are becoming whom you feared. Good luck with that, it's not going to get better, only worse.

okay, i am not going to laugh and i am not going to be sarcastic about what you said although you have used your usual method, to condemn me for anything you hate just because i am a muslim, and to accuse me of everything i am not.

1. I never belonged to any Islamic group and never participated in any activity supervisied by any Islamic group and i would never join the MB.

2. I never asked for the annihilation of Israel.

3. I never said that i would kill anyone who doesn't comply with the sharia law.

4. I never agreed with killing anyone on any side, except soliders in war zones.

5. I never agreed with killing any civilian of any nationality or race or religion who lives in any place even war zones, not even as collateral damage which is a principle that i don't believe in.

6. If i have to kill 5 israeli civilians along with 10,000 israeli solider, i would refuse to do that, because i have no believe in the collateral damage principle, i refuse to accept any civilian casualities of any number or any ratio.

7. I never treated women in a bad manner and never will, i am very sure that i treat women better than any man you have ever seen in your life, and if you really knew me in reality you would have seen this yourself, i never treat women as inferior humans, maybe someday my gf will agree to participate in this forum and then you can ask her yourself about the way i treat her.

8. the thing about me and you being friends, although i like to treat everyone in a good manner and befriend everyone, but you have proved yourself to be very biased against me and my religion, you have your justifications due to the current problems and misunderstandings between our cultures, but i think that i have let go of such problems and misunderstandings, and i am ready to befriend everyone, but apparently you still can't.

abso
06-06-2011, 09:13 AM
Okay, so you admit that Israel would then have to defend those borders. so what you're saying is that they should surrender land that has acted as a defensive bulwark for them so that they can be attacked again, this time with no buffer between the enemy and Israel's innocent civilians.

Perhaps if Hamas would stop being rat bastards at every turn, people would feel differently, but that's just not the reality. No one is going to cede their only shield while being assailed on all sides. You are asking them to act blatantly against their own survival, and not even for peace or safety. Blaming Hamas after the fact will not do anything for the dead women and children that will result from their attacks.

And why are we trusting Palestine, btw? Given the sheer number of times they've broken treaty and cease-fires, what sane person would trust them again?

i didn't admit that Hamas would attack again, i said "if", if hamas attacked again then UN forces will deal with it, and maybe egyptian forces will participate, we can put UN forces on the borders, so that Hamas can never fire, because in such case they would be attacking everyone including US and EU.

abso
06-06-2011, 09:18 AM
nassar said he wouldn't fire first. He wouldn't have too. There were plenty of other countries that would do that. He could sit back until it started and then join his allies.

The pals can consider themselves lucky. If the arabs had broken through Israels defenses they would have been going up against American forces. I don't know how many were waiting to go to Israel but my whole brigade was on stand by for three days.

your brigade were on stand by and would have stayed on stand by forever whoever started it, because USA would never risk WWIII for israel security, and i am sure that you already know that any american involvement would have made the soviet union involvement inevitable.

and no arab country could have started the war, none in the arabs dare to start a war with israel withouth egyptian participation, and Nasser would have never gave his permission to any other arab state to fire first, because his promise to US and SU was a binding promise for all the arab states.

and again you can read the quotations by israelian leaders admitting that they already knew that all the Egyptian forces in Sinai were of defensive nature, and were never intended for a war, Nasser lacked pilots, we had more planes than we could operate, so as an ex-army, do you imagine any army going to war without air cover ? :rolleyes:

abso
06-06-2011, 09:22 AM
So now you are saying the 'super powers, whomever they may be' have ultimate power over the ME? You do realize what you are saying, right? Note please, it's not recognized yet, but the former Soviet Union, along with today's Russia, and today's US, none are super powers. You do get that? Right.

who said anything about today's Russia and today's US ?

i was speaking about the situation at the time of the war, not now, and anyway, why do you consider Russia and US not super powers now ?

abso
06-06-2011, 09:29 AM
The US couldn't control/contain Israel if it wanted to. Hell, we can't control our own borders. We can't afford our military, no matter what debt ceiling is implemented or any budget agreed to. We are toast.

So Abso, good luck to the Arabs, Islam folks, it's your time. Ours is past. That doesn't mean we won't cause problems, we will. However the time is over. Hang in there with the cockroaches.

first time i see you using insults, seems that you have fallen to what i call "the jim zone", i wished that you could have remained respectful as you have always been, but seems that speaking respectfully is a very rare virtue in this forum, few are able to do so.

anyway, in my opinion US is still a super power, leaving debt aside, i don't measure the power by the standard of money, i measure it by technological advancement, maybe thats because technology is what i study and like, but i think its true enough, that technology is the power now, arabs have more money than you can imagine, but still not powerfull enough, maybe we could destroy the wolrd economy by just preventing oil supplies for few weeks, but then what ?, will we be able to create our own weapons, our own cars, our own computers ?, when the arabs can achieve the technological advancement that US have, only then you can say that your time is over, and that time won't be soon, so in my opinion, US is still the most powerfull country in the world and you are not history yet.

abso
06-06-2011, 09:38 AM
See this my problem "its a start...".
It's"...something to build on" but not much left for Israel to build on literally is there though?

It just seems to me there's no way to satisfy most of the middle east except by the TOTAL ELIMINATION of Israel.
How is Israel suppose to negotiate "reasonably" if the goal of the other sides is your Elimination. That crazy.

If i'm wrong please tell me what land really belongs to Israel from your point of view.

in my point of view, i accept 67 borders, and if i am in control of the arab states i would sign a peace agreement based on 67 borders with my promise to peaceful coexistence without any wars.

but that is not an approval of the legality of israel existence, as Ghandi once said that he accepts pakistan existence as a fact, but he doesn't have to accept the legality of the creation of pakistan.

so you don't have to force the arabs to accept the legality of israel existence, because in fact the UN partition plan was not a binding order so it has no legal basis, and the israel creation itself is not legal, but now its a fact, and i can't go and tell the people who was born there to leave and find some place to live, they have done nothing wrong.

so, if israel goes back to 67 borders, i would accept its existence as a fact, and i would never think about waging any war against them, i would recognize the 67 borders as the israelian country, and i would recognize those lands as their lands which belongs to them.


now, can you tell me from your point of view, what land really belongs to israel ?

Kathianne
06-06-2011, 09:43 AM
first time i see you using insults, seems that you have fallen to what i call "the jim zone", i wished that you could have remained respectful as you have always been, but seems that speaking respectfully is a very rare virtue in this forum, few are able to do so.

anyway, in my opinion US is still a super power, leaving debt aside, i don't measure the power by the standard of money, i measure it by technological advancement, maybe thats because technology is what i study and like, but i think its true enough, that technology is the power now, arabs have more money than you can imagine, but still not powerfull enough, maybe we could destroy the wolrd economy by just preventing oil supplies for few weeks, but then what ?, will we be able to create our own weapons, our own cars, our own computers ?, when the arabs can achieve the technological advancement that US have, only then you can say that your time is over, and that time won't be soon, so in my opinion, US is still the most powerfull country in the world and you are not history yet.

Oh but you should consider both money and debt when looking at governments. Think France in 1938, the 'world' thought it was still a major military power, it acted as though it was. It was a shell after the Great War. Think of the fall of the USSR, what had been presumed to be a Superpower, couldn't maintain it's nuclear arsenal or even its infrastructure. If you think the US can continue its technology today, you really are delusional. You aren't alone though, many in this country don't see what's ahead either.

abso
06-06-2011, 09:52 AM
I'm talking about other ways in which a real peace could be secured. As long as the leaders can rile up a poor population against the myth of oppression then peace can't be obtained. We had a recent thread going on about this, I wish you had commented on it.


i completely agree, but about me not being here to comment on them, blame the one who banned me.



Regarding the house; Did I repeatedly threaten my neighbor from my house? Was I taking shots at his house from my house? Am I still belligerent from my other house right next door? Was I massing huge amounts of friends and ammunition from my house during my threats against his house? Am I repeatedly being told that my life is worse because my neighbor took my house away rather than working on making my own situation better which may lead me to getting my house back in the first place? Rhetorical questions I know. :rolleyes:


logical questions, but does threatening to attack is the same in law as attacking ?, does threatening to steal your friend's care makes you responsible for buying him a new car if someone else stole his car ?

massing defensive troops on the borders according to a soviet intel that said israel is going to attack, is that considered as a crime now ?

gaving your promise to the 2 existing superpowers that no arab will start the war, and abiding by your word, and losing sinai because of that promise, is that the fair price to pay for abiding by your promise ?




BTW, What is your opinion of Arabs living in Israel?

i like the idea of coexistence, i wish everyone could do that allover the world, but the fact remains that arabs are being treated badly within israel.

even the treatment of Sephardic in israel is very different then the way Ashkenazi are being treated.

racism is still applied in israel till now.

abso
06-06-2011, 09:58 AM
Oh but you should consider both money and debt when looking at governments. Think France in 1938, the 'world' thought it was still a major military power, it acted as though it was. It was a shell after the Great War. Think of the fall of the USSR, what had been presumed to be a Superpower, couldn't maintain it's nuclear arsenal or even its infrastructure. If you think the US can continue its technology today, you really are delusional. You aren't alone though, many in this country don't see what's ahead either.

i know that reaching 14,000 billion in debt isn't an easy disaster to recover from, but the nice thing in USA is that the industry and technological research is not completely dependant on the federal government, most of the technological advancements are achieved through private institutions as i think, and such institutions won't be affected much by the federal debt, maybe the federal government is collapsing but the private sectors isn't much affected by that, and even when it gets affected, the private sector has proved itself able to recover fast from any crisis in contrary to governments.

at least that's my opinion which maybe completely wrong, i am still young and don't really know much about the interior matters of USA and how the country is being run.

fj1200
06-06-2011, 10:14 AM
i completely agree, but about me not being here to comment on them, blame the one who banned me.

You were banned? Too much of that goes on around here.


logical questions, but does threatening to attack is the same in law as attacking ?, does threatening to steal your friend's care makes you responsible for buying him a new car if someone else stole his car ?

massing defensive troops on the borders according to a soviet intel that said israel is going to attack, is that considered as a crime now ?

gaving your promise to the 2 existing superpowers that no arab will start the war, and abiding by your word, and losing sinai because of that promise, is that the fair price to pay for abiding by your promise ?

Now we're talking about cars? I'd say massing troops on the border is more than defensive.


i like the idea of coexistence, i wish everyone could do that allover the world, but the fact remains that arabs are being treated badly within israel.

even the treatment of Sephardic in israel is very different then the way Ashkenazi are being treated.

racism is still applied in israel till now.

Such as?

Kathianne
06-06-2011, 10:15 AM
i know that reaching 14,000 billion in debt isn't an easy disaster to recover from, but the nice thing in USA is that the industry and technological research is not completely dependant on the federal government, most of the technological advancements are achieved through private institutions as i think, and such institutions won't be affected much by the federal debt, maybe the federal government is collapsing but the private sectors isn't much affected by that, and even when it gets affected, the private sector has proved itself able to recover fast from any crisis in contrary to governments.

at least that's my opinion which maybe completely wrong, i am still young and don't really know much about the interior matters of USA and how the country is being run.

No you don't understand how the US and business operates. As I said, look at the two examples given or any major power in history.

abso
06-06-2011, 10:29 AM
Now we're talking about cars? I'd say massing troops on the border is more than defensive.

Israelian leaders admitted that they knew that all the egyptian troops in Sinai were of defensive nature, and Nasser didn't mass his troops there, he refused to do so due to the requests from US and USSR.




Such as?
read about the Sephardic and Ashkenazi and you will understand.

abso
06-06-2011, 10:31 AM
No you don't understand how the US and business operates. As I said, look at the two examples given or any major power in history.

maybe, but the way i see france now, it haven't fallen much, its technological advancement is still good, although it has fallen as a military power.

fj1200
06-06-2011, 10:34 AM
Israelian leaders admitted that they knew that all the egyptian troops in Sinai were of defensive nature, and Nasser didn't mass his troops there, he refused to do so due to the requests from US and USSR.

I thought you stated that there was massing. Wikipedia says there were 100,000 Egyptian troops in the Sinai.


read about the Sephardic and Ashkenazi and you will understand.

I'll take a look.

Kathianne
06-06-2011, 11:00 AM
I thought you stated that there was massing. Wikipedia says there were 100,000 Egyptian troops in the Sinai.



I'll take a look.

They were massing, in May Egypt told the UN to get their forces out:

http://www.sixdaywar.co.uk/index.htm

Lots here not just on the loss, but what happened before.

abso
06-06-2011, 11:56 AM
They were massing, in May Egypt told the UN to get their forces out:

http://www.sixdaywar.co.uk/index.htm

Lots here not just on the loss, but what happened before.


sending defensive troops, isn't the same as massing troops for a war, what do you expect from a president when he revieve an intel from USSR telling him that Israel is going to attack ???

although he knew about the attack, he believed in USA and USSR, and he promised not to start the war, but apparently USA was too weak to abide by its own word, US requested that Egypt does not start the war but permitted Israel to start the war, what a surprise from US, i can't say that i am surprised by US abandoning its promise.

Kathianne
06-06-2011, 11:58 AM
sending defensive troops, isn't the same as massing troops for a war, what do you expect from a president when he revieve an intel from USSR telling him that Israel is going to attack ???

although he knew about the attack, he believed in USA and USSR, and he promised not to start the war, but apparently USA was too weak to abide by its own word, US requested that Egypt does not start the war but permitted Israel to start the war, what a surprise from US, i can't say that i am surprised by US abandoning its promise.

Israel had no plans to 'attack' prior to the rhetoric and then the troops from Arab countries. It wasn't Israel and US that were making pacts for how to invade, indeed.

abso
06-06-2011, 12:03 PM
Israel had no plans to 'attack' prior to the rhetoric and then the troops from Arab countries. It wasn't Israel and US that were making pacts for how to invade, indeed.

Israel had no plans to attack ????, really ??? if you really think so then all i have to say is ok.

Kathianne
06-06-2011, 12:05 PM
Israel had no plans to attack ????, really ??? if you really think so then okay.

Show where they showed any inclination at all, prior to the beginning of '67, when Arab rhetoric along the lines of Iran's today, began?

abso
06-06-2011, 12:09 PM
Show where they showed any inclination at all, prior to the beginning of '67, when Arab rhetoric along the lines of Iran's today, began?

later, when i finish exams, unfortunatelly i don't have time to search and find sources and authenticate what i say right now, since my final exams will start this thursday, wish me luck :salute:.

Kathianne
06-06-2011, 12:16 PM
later, when i finish exams, unfortunatelly i don't have time to search and find sources and authenticate what i say right now, since my final exams will start this thursday, wish me luck :salute:.

I do wish you luck, but you probably don't need it for exams, but probably will for finding what you're looking for here in response.

revelarts
06-06-2011, 08:42 PM
in my point of view, i accept 67 borders, and if i am in control of the arab states i would sign a peace agreement based on 67 borders with my promise to peaceful coexistence without any wars.

but that is not an approval of the legality of israel existence, as Ghandi once said that he accepts pakistan existence as a fact, but he doesn't have to accept the legality of the creation of pakistan.

so you don't have to force the arabs to accept the legality of israel existence, because in fact the UN partition plan was not a binding order so it has no legal basis, and the israel creation itself is not legal, but now its a fact, and i can't go and tell the people who was born there to leave and find some place to live, they have done nothing wrong.

so, if israel goes back to 67 borders, i would accept its existence as a fact, and i would never think about waging any war against them, i would recognize the 67 borders as the israelian country, and i would recognize those lands as their lands which belongs to them.


now, can you tell me from your point of view, what land really belongs to israel ?

Abso, Yes I think if you were the head of your country you could probably be trusted work in good faith from that position. But I guess my question is could you stay in power there, democratically, with that as an honest position.

But I don't think you speak for most of the Middle East Leadership or rank and file.
I get the impression that Most of them are much less reasonable than you say you would be.


Your really not going to like, where i think the boarders should be. I think it should much larger according to biblical standards. but I don't think they should take any from anyone one.
But in the present situation
I think that ONLY if they can reasonably believe that they will be left in peace by all the middle east should they consider giving up anything.
The land they have at this point does seems militarily strategic.
Concerning Jerusalem I see no reason why they should give it up. Jordan's annex was as illegal as you consider Israel's. And when Jordan annexed the eastern side and exiled Jews that had been there for centuries. the Jew in control now allow Jews Muslims, Christians and all nationalities to move freely through out the city. If any Palestinians were displaced then they should be compensated.

Concerning the Illegality of of the Jewish state.
There was never a free Palestine run by Muslim Palestinians. The Kurds don't have a state right now if the U.N. backed them with part of Iraq would that be an Illegal state?
Weren't most of the Middle eastern states unnaturally craved up by European and Turkish powers anyway. Many only received "freedom" in the 20th century. some in the 60's and 70's.
I'm not sure why Israel's case is so horrible in comparison to the other middle Eastern countries. Jews have continually lived in the area for thousands of years. Why can't they be seen as having legal rights as well as the Muslim Palestinians?

DragonStryk72
06-07-2011, 03:34 PM
i didn't admit that Hamas would attack again, i said "if", if hamas attacked again then UN forces will deal with it, and maybe egyptian forces will participate, we can put UN forces on the borders, so that Hamas can never fire, because in such case they would be attacking everyone including US and EU.

So now Israel isn't allowed to defend their own borders? I also never mention HAMAS specifically, that was you. I stated that they would then have to defend those borders. And here a thought: What if Hamas used a bomb they slip in? I know, radical thought, but maybe the radical for the destruction of Israel might do something, I don't know, radical?

How would the UN stop anyone from firing a shot, btw? Are they going to demilitarize all these other countries?

The countries surrounding Israel have broken UN agreements previously, period. You don't get around that fact by saying the UN will take care of it. Oh, they'll act, as usual, by trying to talk everyone down, and shove a few more compromises down Israel's throat.

And again, you've failed to address the key point: That Israel would not be giving up land for peace, but so that they could be under more constant threat. I've already answered your direct points here.

Little-Acorn
06-07-2011, 03:40 PM
It was an address with no destination, filled with lies on top of lies and illusions heaped on illusions.

I just ducked in to see what this thread was about.

I see it's the usual smearing, namecalling, and denigration of a prominent Jew by the usual Jew-hating liar of the board.

(yawn)