Politics as usual: another bad sign for world peace; Obama cowers to pro-Israelis

[eliteforce]

There was not a conflict between Jews and Muslims in the middle east, yes they are both predominantly dark skinned. There was a conflict between predominantly caucasian (ashkanazi) Jews in Europe with other Europeans, so those Jews with alot of western support invented this idea of a Jewish 'safe-haven' in Palestine, "and then we'll just sweep these arabs under the rug and no one will notice.." this was all during S.Africa, Rhodesia, British India, and French Indochina days where it was thought that you wouldn't get that much resistance from the developing world.. it was a miscalculation in the late 1940s.

Well then maybe than the consistancy is equally clear that Jews were all well and good with Arabs as long as they were brown right?

[Kratos]

There was not a conflict between Jews and Muslims in the middle east, yes they are both predominantly dark skinned. There was a conflict between predominantly caucasian (ashkanazi) Jews in Europe with other Europeans, so those Jews with alot of western support invented this idea of a Jewish 'safe-haven' in Palestine, "and then we'll just sweep these arabs under the rug and no one will notice.." this was all during S.Africa, Rhodesia, British India, and French Indochina days where it was thought that you wouldn't get that much resistance from the developing world.. it was a miscalculation in the late 1940s.

Wow, I'm amazed you managed to quote me on something completly change the subject. A simple you can't have it both ways statement, and you somehow managed to fabricate a point that ends in blaming white people.

Should I even bother to answer your posts as having anything of value? So far they have not been too profound.

[eliteforce]

OK so basically your against peace, any peace deal, against a Palestinian state and pro aphartied, you support a system where Palestinians are second and third calss citizens based on trumped up security threats.. there no difference between you and your settlers friends and the KUKluxKlan(extreme elements of it anyways, as most KKK groups only wanted segregation, not aphartied), the white-only governments in S Africa or Rhodesia-both of which referred to their indigenous oppositions as security threats or as a communist threat, tying them into a web of global conquest like the 'reds'. You do that with the Islamic thing.

Your basically saying that Israel is inherently oppressive and that it can never be based on equal rights in a 1 state solution (because then it would become a bi national state or a 'greater' Palestine, OR in a 2 state solution, you think you are making an argument for it's existence but in reality you making an argument for it's abolition, since most people in the world would come to the conclusion that it should faze in the bi-national plan given your "security-reality".

You also said:
"Israel would loose all rights to use military force in this region without being attacked first."
in response to me saying that if Israel withdrew to the 1967 borders and Hamas blew up a bus in telaviv anyways-then they could always easily re-invade the territory..what you said is hubris--Israel would face limited int outcry for marching back in and the Palestinians would KNOW that is the consequence and they would have a big incentive not to push their luck.. I believe they are capable of 100% cessation of violence in the event of the 1967 border pullback and they say they're ready to deliver so they should atleast be given a chance considering all that they have suffered.
If Israel invades another country without being attacked first then they will face pressure to resolve whatever issue they are complaining about peacefully, like water or whatever..same like every other country.

You also appear to say that in the 60's 70's 80's and 90s the occupation didn't exist
more nonsense or acting like you don't know what the occupation is, or that occupation is a meta-physical thing..it's not really there.. The Palestinians had everything they needed back then..so what if they're banned from using roads, or that their farm land is taken away to build a settlement or that their house is demolished or that they have no representation or rights.

There is no reason to think that the daily permit system, will cause violence because daily workers have to go home to where they live at night after they finish their day trip to work, shop, or do business..they have this system all over the world in neighboring countries...thats what you said near that you posted.

hmm what else..oh black people in america may not have forgiven and forgotten everything, but once treaty as equal citizens they did not pursue a MalcomeX or black panther strategy for their remaining issues.. had the US responded to their civil rights movement with apartheid and KKK attacks then it would have radicalized them and they would have responded with more rioting and terrorist attacks-- believe, if pushed, anyone will do it, not just arabs ..

ok and the last thing ..

I am proposing the 1967 border, the internationally recognized border, the border that israel is supposed to withdraw to according to binding security council resolution 242,338.. that is " 'more' borders not 'less' ".. you are trying to cloud the issue.. Israel existed fine from 1948-1967 with that border and NEVER was it's existence threatened..yet you claim it just so dangerous..
last item, per the Egyptian peace treaty, Egypts forces are moved back, israel's are allowed anywhere near the border(because israel is the smaller country)..for the Syrian track, a similar arrangement can be negotiated leaving the Syrian army away from the border.

[Kratos]

OK so basically your against peace, any peace deal, against a Palestinian state and pro aphartied

The concept of calling Israel an apartheid has been controversal to begin with...but I guess if you want to go with the technical definition of apartheid one does exsist. To compare Israel to South Africa is a radical standpoint, not that I don't know where you stand. I'm saying a 2 state soloution doesn't end an apartheid by your definition, hate for Israel will continue to perpetuate in the Arab world. Races will be divided among borders and those borders will eventually be breached.

, you support a system where Palestinians are second and third calss citizens based on trumped up security threats..

Maybe you could define palestinians for me.

there no difference between you and your settlers friends and the KUKluxKlan(extreme elements of it anyways, as most KKK groups only wanted segregation, not aphartied),

Of course, call me names when I don't feel like joining you in oversimplifing a soloution to Israel that is a non-soloution and only serves the Muslim world.
the white-only governments in S Africa or Rhodesia-both of which referred to their indigenous oppositions as security threats or as a communist threat,

More anti white people talk, big suprize.

Your basically saying that Israel is inherently oppressive and that it can never be based on equal rights in a 1 state solution (because then it would become a bi national state or a 'greater' Palestine

No, I think you're saying Israel is inherently oppressive and can never be based on equal rights. I'm saying the state of Israel is in constant threat of becoming a Muslim controled Palistine from multiple fronts and political means.


You also said:
"Israel would loose all rights to use military force in this region without being attacked first."
in response to me saying that if Israel withdrew to the 1967 borders and Hamas blew up a bus in telaviv anyways-then they could always easily re-invade the territory..what you said is hubris--Israel would face limited int outcry for marching back in and the Palestinians would KNOW that is the consequence and they would have a big incentive not to push their luck..

Based on what history would Palestininas support a bloody take over of their borders given something so small as a bus blowing up? As I said before they would not likely be so short sighted. Do Palestinians support Israel's invasion of Gaza if a cese fire is broken with Hamas cause they knew they had it comming? Ridiculous, there is outcry for the Muslim world for every dead citizen. Everytime Israel kills a Muslim it threatens peace with all it's borders. This creates a situation for potential martyrs used for the justification from entire countries.

They will accept retake of the West bank because they know they deserve it after a bus blows up. How stupid is that!

I believe they are capable of 100% cessation of violence in the event of the 1967 border pullback and they say they're ready to deliver so they should atleast be given a chance considering all that they have suffered.
If Israel invades another country without being attacked first then they will face pressure to resolve whatever issue they are complaining about peacefully, like water or whatever..same like every other country.

Because Muslim nations respect the 1967 borders as the correct borders as they respect Israel's right to exist. That's totally ludicris. They resent all borders and don't recognize the state of Israel and neither do you.
You also appear to say that in the 60's 70's 80's and 90s the occupation didn't exist
more nonsense or acting like you don't know what the occupation is, or that occupation is a meta-physical thing..it's not really there.. The Palestinians had everything they needed back then..so what if they're banned from using roads, or that their farm land is taken away to build a settlement or that their house is demolished or that they have no representation or rights.

The Palestinians had everything they needed and were happy? This is such bull crap I don't want to take time to respond. You act like none of there rights were lost as a result of security.

"1970 onward
Popular Palestinian guerilla movements came to the fore in this time. Aircraft hijackings and bombings took place, the 1972 Israeli Olympic team was attacked and eleven athletes were killed. This led Israel to launch reprisal assassinations in Operation Wrath of God. Palestinian groups later on adopted suicide bombings. These actions were operated by a large number of groups and individuals, which made detection and prevention difficult, and were targeted not only at Israelis, but also at the nationals of other countries felt to be aiding them, principally America. Many of these actions were supported at State level, with countries such as Syria, Libya and others openly sponsoring attacks of this kind."

Posted from wikipedia to save effort in responding to your dribble. But of course by your logic, you know these measures were deserved so the people accepted them and didn't resent the moves to secure Israel.

There is no reason to think that the daily permit system, will cause violence because daily workers have to go home to where they live at night after they finish their day trip to work, shop, or do business..they have this system all over the world in neighboring countries...thats what you said near that you posted.

This would be a border along racial lines, racial profiling would be common in permit checks. There is already much resentment of borders in this region.

hmm what else..oh black people in america may not have forgiven and forgotten everything, but once treaty as equal citizens they did not pursue a MalcomeX or black panther strategy for their remaining issues.. had the US responded to their civil rights movement with apartheid and KKK attacks then it would have radicalized them and they would have responded with more rioting and terrorist attacks-- believe, if pushed, anyone will do it, not just arabs ..

Current feeling of opression combined with future inequality will never grant full equal rights. A major difference in this case.

ok and the last thing ..

I am proposing the 1967 border, the internationally recognized border, the border that israel is supposed to withdraw to according to binding security council resolution 242,338.. that is " 'more' borders not 'less' ".. you are trying to cloud the issue.. Israel existed fine from 1948-1967 with that border and NEVER was it's existence threatened..yet you claim it just so dangerous..

Israel did not exist just fine between 1948 to 1967...you know that's false. Israel was attacked in 1948 with the Arab-Israeli War. The invasion of the West bank was a pre-emptive strike, and not a will of the Israel people. Arabs at that time did not recognize 1967 borders which is why the boders changed in the first place.
last item, per the Egyptian peace treaty, Egypts forces are moved back, israel's are allowed anywhere near the border(because israel is the smaller country)..for the Syrian track, a similar arrangement can be negotiated leaving the Syrian army away from the border.

Is the acceptance of any state of Israel acceptable to Iran? Answer: no, so how could it be to Syria?
http://www.usip.org/pubs/usipeace_br...yria_iran.html

You are minimizing any Muslim agression on Israel...they do not accept this state in any form.

Arab tensions did not begin post 1967
http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_man...ts_1920-21.php

PLO and Fateh were founded prior in 1964 with the aim of "liberating" "Palestine" - that is, destroying Israel
Fatah's first major guerrilla attack came on January 3, 1965, when they attempted to sabotage the Israeli National Water Carrier, which had recently started operation.

Don't tell me Muslims were happy with 1967 borders.

[Kratos]

There was a conflict between predominantly caucasian (ashkanazi) Jews in Europe with other Europeans, so those Jews with alot of western support invented this idea of a Jewish 'safe-haven' in Palestine, "and then we'll just sweep these arabs under the rug and no one will notice.." .

Now that I told you what happend do you still think this is an intelligent statement?