For those of you critical of America supporting Israel..

[alevok]

Soooooooo Alevok. Since your so worried about illegal occupation of lands. Can I ask your view's on Kurdistan?. And Turkeys terrible, terrible record of human rights abuse's? What about your illegal occupation of Cyprus?

Other's here. Put it this way. If Israel had lost just ONE war in their unprecedented struggle for statehood and peace, just ONE loss America would be fighting Russia and china in Iraq now, not the rag tag sh*t ass band of insurgents its bravely fighting now.

At this stage I think its time to apolgise to the board and not just bdtr for posting here last night. I was drunk as a lord after a night celebrating our (Ireland's) 1916 easter rebellion against Englands occuption and oppression of Ireland. You know, when I think about it, I've spent more time in the service of peace in other countries hotspots than I have in my own country.

So Alevok, any answer's to the questions I asked re. Kurdistan, Cyprus and Turkeys despicable record of human rights?

Kurdistan? There is no country called kurdistan. It just does not exist. Kurds live in SE Turkey N iraq and Syria. Kurdish terrorists called PKK took 50000 lives past 15 years! Syria supported them all the way, provided them training lands and sent to Turkey for their terrorist activities. PKK is recognized as a terrorist group not only by turkey but also by other countries from the region.(USA as well)
In Turkey there are many ethnic groups live in peace but kurds are provoked by other countries France for example and damages our financial development. Because of the PKK 1/3 of the taxes went to national security, that money could be spent on education instead. Other countries just dont wish my country get better so they purposely undermine our economy by creating problems in that region.
Cyprus (whole island) belonged to Ottoman empire for centuries, after our national war against european invaders it became home to both turks and greeks. In 1974 cypriots (cyprus greeks) attacked on turkish civilians and killed many. That year turkish army answered back, and new territories were formed. We are not occupying cyprus because we were there already. Greeks and Turks lived in peace till 1974, but they drew the first blood not us. Comparing this situation to israels is like comparing oranges to apples, just not the same. It is south cyprus who does not want us there, we are ok with their presence at the south.
Cyprus is very important to us, we know greece would plant their missiles right there if the north part was given, do you know how close the northern side to Turkey?, you are a military man you know the importance of strategic points.

[OGPackin]

Kurdistan? There is no country called kurdistan. It just does not exist. Kurds live in SE Turkey N iraq and Syria. Kurdish terrorists called PKK took 50000 lives past 15 years! Syria supported them all the way, provided them training lands and sent to Turkey for their terrorist activities. PKK is recognized as a terrorist group not only by turkey but also by other countries from the region.(USA as well)
In Turkey there are many ethnic groups live in peace but kurds are provoked by other countries France for example and damages our financial development. Because of the PKK 1/3 of the taxes went to national security, that money could be spent on education instead. Other countries just dont wish my country get better so they purposely undermine our economy by creating problems in that region.
Cyprus (whole island) belonged to Ottoman empire for centuries, after our national war against european invaders it became home to both turks and greeks. In 1974 cypriots (cyprus greeks) attacked on turkish civilians and killed many. That year turkish army answered back, and new territories were formed. We are not occupying cyprus because we were there already. Greeks and Turks lived in peace till 1974, but they drew the first blood not us. Comparing this situation to israels is like comparing oranges to apples, just not the same. It is south cyprus who does not want us there, we are ok with their presence at the south.
Cyprus is very important to us, we know greece would plant their missiles right there if the north part was given, do you know how close the northern side to Turkey?, you are a military man you know the importance of strategic points.

Just a little more info on the Kurds and Kurdistan..

Since the end of World War I, Kurdistan has been administered by five sovereign states, with the largest portions of the land being respectively in Turkey (43%) , Iran (31%), Iraq (18%), Syria (6%) and the former Soviet Union (2%).

The Iranian Kurds have lived under that state's jurisdiction since 1514 and the Battle of Chaldiran. The other three quarters of the Kurds lived in the Ottoman Empire from that date until its break-up following WWI. The French Mandate Syria received a piece, and the British incorporated central Kurdistan or the "Mosul Vilayet" and its oil fields at Kirkuk into their recently created Mandate of Iraq. Northern and western Kurdistan were to be given choice of independence by the Treaty of Sevres(August 10, 1920) which dismantled the defunct Ottoman Empire, but instead they were awarded to the newly established Republic of Turkey under the term of the Treaty of Lausanne (June 24, 1923). The Russian/Soviet Kurds had passed into their sphere in the course of the 19th century when territories were ceded by Persia/Iran.

The Kurds remained the only ethnic group in the world with indigenous representatives in three world geopolitical blocs: the Arab World (in Iraq and Syria), NATO (in Turkey), the South Asian-Central Asian bloc (in Iran and Turkmenistan), and until recently the Soviet bloc (in the Caucasus, now Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia). As a matter fact, until the end of the Cold War, Kurds along with the Germans were the only people in the world with their home territories used as a front line of fire by both NATO and the Warsaw Pact forces.

[OGPackin]

Cyprus is very important to us, we know greece would plant their missiles right there if the north part was given, do you know how close the northern side to Turkey?, you are a military man you know the importance of strategic points.

Just a question, whats the difference then with Israel keeping the Golon Heights. It is a very important military site where Syria tried to attack Israel from. Do u know how close the Golon Heights are to Israel? Figured id ask the same questions u are...

OG

[Slick Arrado]

This was one long a$$ thread for me to read. Lots of good points made, but also a lot of dumb ones too. Good to see no one hijacked the thread at any time. Hehe.

[BOUNCER]

Found this today. It was wrote back in 1968 but just consider for a few minutes the second last paragraph....




This was written in 1968 !!!! It is so sad but still rings true.


Eric Hoffer was a American social
philosopher. He was born in 1902 and died in 1983, after writing nine books and winning the Presidential Medal of Freedom. His first book, The True Believer, published in 1951, was widely recognized as a classic.)

ISRAEL'S PECULIAR POSITION
By Eric Hoffer (LA Times 5/26/68)

The Jews are a peculiar people: things permitted to other nations are forbidden to the Jews.

Other nations drive out thousands, even millions of people and there is no refugee problem. Russia did it, Poland and Czechoslovakia did it, Turkey threw out a million Greeks, and Algeria a million Frenchman.

Indonesia threw out heaven knows how many Chinese-and no one says a word about refugees. But in the case of Israel the
displaced Arabs have become eternal refugees.
Everyone insists that Israel must take back every single Arab. Arnold Toynbee calls the displacement of the Arabs an atrocity greater than any committed by the Nazis.

Other nations when victorious on the battlefield dictate peace terms. But when Israel is victorious it must sue for peace. Everyone expects the Jews to be the only real Christians in this world.

Other nations when they are defeated survive and recover but should Israel be defeated it would be destroyed. Had Nasser triumphed last June he would have wiped Israel off the map, and no one would have lifted a finger to save the Jews.

No commitment to the Jews by any
government, including our own, is worth the paper it is written on. There is a cry of outrage all over the world when people die in Vietnam or when two Negroes are executed in Rhodesia. But when Hitler slaughtered Jews no one remonstrated with him.

The Swedes, who are ready to break of diplomatic relations with America because of what we do in Vietnam, did not let out a peep when Hitler was slaughtering Jews. They sent Hitler choice iron ore, and
ball bearings, and serviced his troop trains to Norway.

The Jews are alone in the world. If Israel survives, it will be solely because of Jewish efforts. And Jewish resources.

Yet at this moment Israel is our only reliable and unconditional ally. We can rely more on Israel than Israel can rely on us. And one has only to imagine what would have happened last summer had the Arabs and their Russian backers won the war to realize how vital the survival of Israel is to America and the West in general.

I have a premonition that will not leave me; as it goes with Israel so will it go with all of us. Should Israel perish the holocaust will be upon us.

The End....


Should we not be thanking Israel for stopping Russia in its tracks?. I mean, what would have happened had Russia gotten control over the oil fields of the middle east. For a possible scenario what that would mean read 'Red storm rising' (Tom Clancy) its fiction but cut close to the truth.

Right now that we're all settled down again. I'd really like to see Cycleon's view on this editoral I found. if anyone else want to post the usual 'nuke em all' rubbish please hold off, you can see where it decended.

Cycleon ?

[Tock]

This quote looks awfully familiar, and I'm sure I commented on it a little while ago. Since I know y'all have such excellent memories, I won't bother to refresh 'em . . .
-Tock

[LM1332]

Hey guys just read this history site. It will explain how Palestine and State of Israel was formed. Cause when i was reading some facts about formation of Israel and Palestine were WAY OFF

http://www.masada2000.org/historical.html

[BOUNCER]

50%, Carlos and Tock abviously haven't read what American's backing of Israel means to America. Without Israel in the middle east Russia and China would have all that lovely oil. Now if thats not in America's interest what is?..

Anyway, I'm looking for Cycleons imput as he's risen above all the 'nuke em' and 'couldn't careless' guys. I think Rak_Ani and I have posted just about everything to enlighten people here. Thankfully some people took the time to read both sides of the story, I'd value Cycleons input on that editorial I posted.

[Rak_Ani]

50%, Carlos and Tock abviously haven't read what American's backing of Israel means to America. Without Israel in the middle east Russia and China would have all that lovely oil. Now if thats not in America's interest what is?..

Anyway, I'm looking for Cycleons imput as he's risen above all the 'nuke em' and 'couldn't careless' guys. I think Rak_Ani and I have posted just about everything to enlighten people here. Thankfully some people took the time to read both sides of the story, I'd value Cycleons input on that editorial I posted.

If I many add anothter reason for the US, and pretty much the whole world to back Israel...If it weren't for Israel the US will now be fighting a state with nuclear power. Some might remember how in the beginning of the 1980's Israel bombed the nuclear plant in Iraq and by that probably preventing it from becoming a nuclear weapons holder. I hate to think of what would have happened to the world if Saddam had nukes. Some might remember Ilan Ramon, the Israeli astronaut who was killed last year. He was one of the pilots who participated in that mission.

[Tock]

If I many add anothter reason for the US, and pretty much the whole world to back Israel...If it weren't for Israel the US will now be fighting a state with nuclear power. .

I daresay that if Israel didn't exist, the Arabs would most likely have not been stirred up to the frenzy they are in today. After all, the Arabs don't hate America because we want to buy their oil, they hate us because they see us supporting their arch enemy who stole a chunk of their prime real estate.

Ya, probably without the arab-israeli tensions, no one over there would have bothered with nuclear bombs at all . . .
-Tock

[BOUNCER]

After all, the Arabs don't hate America because we want to buy their oil, they hate us because they see us supporting their arch enemy who stole a chunk of their prime real estate.

-Tock

A chunk of what ''prime real estate''?. Israel has no oil reserves, and no mineral wealth. Israel is something like 0.1% of the Middle East land mass. I won't even bother wasting words replying to anything else you write since your incapable of reading and digesting that information. Pictures speak a thousend words.


Tock, even you can work out where Israel is represented in these pictures (I think)

[Tock]

A chunk of what ''prime real estate''?. Israel has no oil reserves, and no mineral wealth. Israel is something like 0.1% of the Middle East land mass. I won't even bother wasting words replying to anything else you write since your incapable of reading and digesting that information. Pictures speak a thousend words.


Israel is represented in yellow in the pictures.

Prime Real Estate = prime farmland, the best fertile soil, right smack dab on the Meditterean Seacoast.
--Tock

[Cycleon]

well, first of all - Israel is not the only one with a problem due to a country being recently established (we will say reestablished in this case) with displaced populations of disparate religions - Kashmir is a fine example - but it is true that the Jewish states gets more than its fair share of blame, mostly because it has not only the origional palestinians to protest, but it is in the interests of most of the arab surrounding states to get rid or at least weaken Israel - since many of them are oil producing, they have a lot of influence in the EU who has no natural petroleum resources of its own.

As to whether their presence there kept the US from having to cede the middle east to the USSR, I say that the US would have found other allies, as we did with both Iran under the Shah and Iraq earlier and now Saudi, Kuait, Yemen, etc. But there is no doubt that the Israeli intelligence has served the US well during the Cold war period and they could always be generally counted upon to stay our allies without too much backstabbing (which seems pretty inimical in the spy biz).

As for today, having Israel as an ally is a great benefit and a great problem at the same time - abenefit because they still do have much better intelligence in many ways than we do in that region (but we are working on that and give us a few years and we will improve) - they also take the bulk of the money and anger of the Arab problem in their direction - on the other hand, the US would not really have that much of an Arab problem except for Israel, whom it is supposed we support in every action. We would much more effectively be able to buy off and keep the arabs working against each other and working with us if the Israeli issue wasnt there - without that one common cause, they are pretty easy to manage, as disorganized and individually greedy as they are.

But noooooo Bush just has to go and give them democracy and a chance at a real country - and I hope we succeed but it is awefully hard to change people who have been indoctrinated from birth like Militiaguy to see the truth - it is possible tho - look at all the former communists

[Cycleon]

I will admit that was convenient for us to let you do that since everyone hated you anyway - but obviously that was a US sanctioned hit - still, it was well done and very neccessary or indeed they would have had nukes - now, what interests me is whether we will see a similar action just before Iran's major facility comes online, when it is to late without killing a lot of people. I am sure old Sharon has been thinking about it

[Rak_Ani]

I will admit that was convenient for us to let you do that since everyone hated you anyway - but obviously that was a US sanctioned hit - still, it was well done and very neccessary or indeed they would have had nukes - now, what interests me is whether we will see a similar action just before Iran's major facility comes online, when it is to late without killing a lot of people. I am sure old Sharon has been thinking about it

Well, I don't know about Sharon, but I surely have been wondering about that. So I was thinking, since at the moment you guys are closer to Iran than we are, why don't we do this: You hop over for a few minutes, bomb their plant, then come to Israel and we'll throw you a nice party. :spudnikpa
What do you say?

[spywizard]

so........... President Bush was on a news conference with the prime minister of Israel, together they answered questions.........

The end results...... Isreal can keep it's wall, and alot of land..... and Israel agrees to take direct action to facilitate the creation on a Palestinian State.............

what do ya think?? CNN 1:30 central

[Rak_Ani]

so........... President Bush was on a news conference with the prime minister of Israel, together they answered questions.........

The end results...... Isreal can keep it's wall, and alot of land..... and Israel agrees to take direct action to facilitate the creation on a Palestinian State.............

what do ya think?? CNN 1:30 central

Well, I didn't watch the news conference, so I can only relay on the Israel news websites, and they're saying that Sharon couldn't have hoped for more sympathy from Bush. They're saying that Bush spoke about how the Palestinian refugees' solution need to be found in a Palestinian state, not in Israel, and how it's not realistic to expect Israel to pull back to 1949 lines. He also spoke about the security fence and it's justification.
This is a link to the American document:
http://my.ynet.co.il/pic/doc/bush/page1.htm
On the top right there's a small gray triangle pointing to the right. Press it to go to the next page.
And this is the Israeli document: http://my.ynet.co.il/pic/doc/sharon/page1.htm
From what I'm reading, the results of the meetings were very good, and hopeufully, as Sharon said, the withdrawal from Gaza and some WB will be completed in 2005.
You know, I don't know about internal issues in the US, but from the way Bush speaks and acts regarding Israel-Palestinian issues I can't understand why some people take him for a stupid man. The fact that he has managed to understand many things that presidents before him didn't understand, that gives him a lot of points in my book. He's not stupid, and if only more people in the US could see things with a more global view and not just "my back yard" view, they would understand what he's doing and why.

[BOUNCER]

You know, I don't know about internal issues in the US, but from the way Bush speaks and acts regarding Israel-Palestinian issues I can't understand why some people take him for a stupid man. The fact that he has managed to understand many things that presidents before him didn't understand, that gives him a lot of points in my book. He's not stupid, and if only more people in the US could see things with a more global view and not just "my back yard" view, they would understand what he's doing and why.

Never thought of it that way, nicely put.

[spywizard]

yep that was it.......

It was actually funny some of the things that were said..... and meant to be by Pres. Bush to Sharon..... and they both laughed at the reporters....

Well, I didn't watch the news conference, so I can only relay on the Israel news websites, and they're saying that Sharon couldn't have hoped for more sympathy from Bush. They're saying that Bush spoke about how the Palestinian refugees' solution need to be found in a Palestinian state, not in Israel, and how it's not realistic to expect Israel to pull back to 1949 lines. He also spoke about the security fence and it's justification.
This is a link to the American document:
http://my.ynet.co.il/pic/doc/bush/page1.htm
On the top right there's a small gray triangle pointing to the right. Press it to go to the next page.
And this is the Israeli document: http://my.ynet.co.il/pic/doc/sharon/page1.htm
From what I'm reading, the results of the meetings were very good, and hopeufully, as Sharon said, the withdrawal from Gaza and some WB will be completed in 2005.
You know, I don't know about internal issues in the US, but from the way Bush speaks and acts regarding Israel-Palestinian issues I can't understand why some people take him for a stupid man. The fact that he has managed to understand many things that presidents before him didn't understand, that gives him a lot of points in my book. He's not stupid, and if only more people in the US could see things with a more global view and not just "my back yard" view, they would understand what he's doing and why.

[tryingtogetbig]

sounds good....but....people over there will still be pissed and bitching about something....mark my words!! They came true the last time....remember?!

peace,

ttgb

[tryingtogetbig]

Yeah....Bush is very intelligent and likes to surround himself with extremely intelligent people for his staff....He just isn't a good public speaker....that's what most people harp on him about....personal attacks on his public speaking ability....that's usually all they have though....

peace,

ttgb

[Tock]

Well, the idiot Bush has just about guaranteed that the Arabs are going to fight the Israelis even harder and hate the US even more, thanks to his latest foreign policy flub, planting the US squarely behind 99% of what Israel wanted and 99% against what the Palestinians wanted.
I really can't beleive this . . . I can't think of any possible way Bush could have made things more irresolvable than what he just did. It's like the guy simply does not want to see a fair and equitable resolution of the conflict over there; like he's taking sides not because of anything to do with justice, but only because they happen to be of a "Judeo-Christian" religion, like he is.
GDMF what an idiot.
--Tock
AP news story follows . . .
==============================

Bush Endorses Israel's Plan on West Bank
1 hour, 7 minutes ago

By BARRY SCHWEID, AP Diplomatic Writer

WASHINGTON - In a historic policy shift, President Bush (news - web sites) on Wednesday endorsed Israel's plan to hold on to part of the West Bank in any final peace settlement with the Palestinians. Bush also ruled out Palestinian refugees returning to Israel, bringing strong criticism from the Palestinians.



An elated Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon (news - web sites) said his plan to pull back from parts of the West Bank and Gaza, hailed by Bush, would create "a new and better reality for the state of Israel."


But Palestinian Prime Minister Ahmed Qureia — with whom the Bush administration deals while boycotting leader Yasser Arafat (news - web sites) — called Bush "the first president who has legitimized the (Israeli) settlements in Palestinian territories."


"We as Palestinians reject that," Qureia said. "We cannot accept that. We reject it and we refuse it."


Arafat earlier called the idea "the complete end of the peace process." And Palestinian Cabinet minister Saeb Erekat said of Bush's statement: "This is like someone giving a part of Texas' land to China."


"If Israel wants to make peace, it must talk to the Palestinian leadership," Erekat said.


Palestinian leaders had previously said they had been assured by the Bush administration they would be consulted before any endorsement of Sharon's plan.


Bush's statement on settlements "will be read by the Arab world as justification of Sharon's sovereignty over major (settlement) blocs," Edward S. Walker, a former U.S. ambassador to Israel and to Egypt, said in an interview.


Previous U.S. administrations have described Jewish settlements as obstacles to peace. One of Bush's predecessors, Jimmy Carter, went even further and called them illegal.


A senior Israeli official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Sharon thought that no American president had ever made concessions so important to Israel as Bush did on Wednesday.


Sharon, in gaining Bush's backing of his unilateral plan to withdraw all Jewish settlers and military installations from Gaza and from some areas of the West Bank, offered several concessions in a letter to Bush.


The Israeli leader said he would limit the growth of Jewish settlements and remove all unauthorized outposts on the West Bank. And Sharon said a security fence Israel is building to deter Palestinian attacks was "temporary rather than permanent."


Also, Sharon renewed his commitment to the so-called road map for peacemaking backed by the United States but said the Palestinian Authority (news - web sites) had failed to stop terror and to reform its security service.


Bush called Sharon's plan historic and urged Palestinians to match Israel's "boldness and courage."


In his break with long-standing U.S. policy, Bush said it was unrealistic to expect Israel to disband all large Jewish settlements in the West Bank — or to return to the borders it held before capturing the territory in the 1967 Mideast war — in any final peace deal.


Behind the scenes, Bush administration officials tried to cast the day's events as Bush gaining concessions from Sharon. A senior U.S. official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the Palestinians' statements were viewed as simply reflecting anxiety that would be eased once they read Bush's and Sharon's statements on the issue, released separately.


But Bush, in a news conference with Sharon at his side, gave a key concession the Israeli leader had sought, saying there were "new realities" on the West Bank since Israel captured the land along with Gaza and east Jerusalem in the 1967 war.





Past U.S. presidents have operated on the assumption there could be some changes in Israel's borders. But Bush went much further.

He committed himself to Israel's retention of parts of the West Bank settlements in a letter to Sharon in which he said that approach was necessary for Israel's security — an approach long taken by the former general.

In another major concession sought by Sharon, Bush said a final peace deal should provide for Palestinian refugees to be resettled in a Palestinian state, not in Israel.

Palestinian leaders have argued that tens of thousands of Palestinians are from families evicted by Israel upon creation of the Jewish state in 1947-48 and have a right to return to Israel. Arafat rejected a peace proposal by former President Clinton (news - web sites) that would have turned over virtually all of the West Bank to the Palestinians because it did not include that right.

Bush said the "realities on the ground and in the region have changed greatly" since 1967 and should be reflected in any final peace deal.

He again held out the prospect of Palestinian statehood. But Palestinians, wanting all of the West Bank and Gaza and part of Jerusalem for a state, fear that Sharon is sacrificing Gaza and parts of the West Bank as a prelude to keeping other disputed areas.

Sharon, smiling broadly during the news conference with Bush, said he was encouraged by the president's support for his plan, which the Israeli leader had sought as a way to win support within his own Likud political party at home.

Asked outright if the United States recognized Israel's right to keep some settlements in the West Bank, Bush said Sharon had started the process of removing settlements and conclusive decisions had to wait for "final status" negotiations between the Israelis and Palestinians on a Palestinian state.

___

[Rak_Ani]

There's no reason in the world the refugees should be allowed back in Israel. Not only they were the ones who opened the war, they were also the ones who chose to leave. Those who stayed are now Israeli citizens. Those who left - though luck. Besides that, in history there were many refugee problems resulting from a war, and what you're asking of Israel - to take back the refugees, has never been done by any other country nor had it been asked to be done of any other country. Never before had an attacked country taken back refugees after it won a war. Not only that, but the Jewish refugees, for some reason, in your eyes have no rights. One of my grandmothers' family was kicked out of Spain many generations ago. Does that give me a right in your eyes to demand a Spanish citizenship? Do you think the Spanish people will be right denying me one? And what about the Mexicans. What if the Mexicans demanded that your government gives them citizenship because some of your land was once theirs? Do you think the Mexicans should have a "right of return" to the US?

The Israeli leader said he would limit the growth of Jewish settlements and remove all unauthorized outposts on the West Bank. And Sharon said a security fence Israel is building to deter Palestinian attacks was "temporary rather than permanent."

That's being done already. As of today funding of settlements was frozen.

Tock, either you don't read what I post, or you lack the knowledge to answer me, but for some reason you keep repeating the same things over and over ignoring facts that are presented to you. Do I have to drag you down to Egypt and introduce you to Muslim Brotherhood members so that an Arab (who are the only ones you seem to believe) will tell you they have hated your guts before Israel was a state? Is that what it will take to make you stop repeating the same chant over and over about how Israel is the cause of hatred of the Arabs for the US? You sound too smart to be that ignorant. Does your understanding of the conflict really start and end with "they hate us and it's your fault"?

[tryingtogetbig]

Tock, either you don't read what I post, or you lack the knowledge to answer me, but for some reason you keep repeating the same things over and over ignoring facts that are presented to you. Do I have to drag you down to Egypt and introduce you to Muslim Brotherhood members so that an Arab (who are the only ones you seem to believe) will tell you they have hated your guts before Israel was a state? Is that what it will take to make you stop repeating the same chant over and over about how Israel is the cause of hatred of the Arabs for the US? You sound too smart to be that ignorant. Does your understanding of the conflict really start and end with "they hate us and it's your fault"?

Anything that might make Bush look good, Tock will be very much against. He usually won't even address the issues head on when you prove him wrong....so don't worry about it too much. He just hates Bush.

peace,

ttgb

[Cycleon]

hate to say it but Bush's position on that reflects base reality - Israel is not going to ever agree to go all the way back to its old borders and since they fought a couple of unprovoked wars to get them, I can see why - they cant allow return into Israel or they will be in the minority so why not just change Israels name to Palestine? those things are unrealistic - the final area of the wall is still in play - but the real question is whether the PLO can actually run a real government when they have a territory - and the truth is, they dont want one because then their own people would not allow them to steal while not giving any services - they couldnt blame it all on Israel anymore

[Tock]

[QUOTE=CYCLEON]
1) hate to say it but Bush's position on that reflects base reality - Israel is not going to ever agree to go all the way back to its old borders and since they fought a couple of unprovoked wars to get them, I can see why -

2) they cant allow return into Israel or they will be in the minority so why not just change Israels name to Palestine? those things are unrealistic -

/QUOTE]


1) Well, so long as the US will support what Israel wants to do, it isn't about to change. And it's this unconditional support of Israel's stubborness that contributes to Arab hatred of the US.
Not what ya want when you're running an economy so dependant on arab oil.
My guess is that the Arabs are going to keep jacking the price of oil higher and higher until the US public finally catches on, or the US economy takes a dive.

2) Eventually, the way the Israeli Arabs are making babies, there will be more of them than Jews in Isreal, then they can, through democratic processes, re-name the country and merge it with Palestine and then everyone will be happy.
I'd give things 50-75 years . . .

[Rak_Ani]

[QUOTE=Tock]

1) hate to say it but Bush's position on that reflects base reality - Israel is not going to ever agree to go all the way back to its old borders and since they fought a couple of unprovoked wars to get them, I can see why -

2) they cant allow return into Israel or they will be in the minority so why not just change Israels name to Palestine? those things are unrealistic -

/QUOTE]


1) Well, so long as the US will support what Israel wants to do, it isn't about to change. And it's this unconditional support of Israel's stubborness that contributes to Arab hatred of the US.
Not what ya want when you're running an economy so dependant on arab oil.
My guess is that the Arabs are going to keep jacking the price of oil higher and higher until the US public finally catches on, or the US economy takes a dive.

2) Eventually, the way the Israeli Arabs are making babies, there will be more of them than Jews in Isreal, then they can, through democratic processes, re-name the country and merge it with Palestine and then everyone will be happy.
I'd give things 50-75 years . . .

If you're into "competing" about who makes more babies, then yes, the average Israeli Arab has more children then the average non-religious Israeli Jew, but then again there are also the religious Jews who have more babies and the orthodox Jews who have even more than that. Besides that, as I said before, and I have been told this by Israeli Arabs, the Israeli Arabs don't want to be under a Palestinian state. They like the Israeli democracy and the freedom and options it gives them. Go ask them yourself. They'll tell you.

[chicamahomico]

Does anyone know if Jordan was a landlocked country before Israel was given that land?

[BOUNCER]

Does anyone know if Jordan was a landlocked country before Israel was given that land?

http://www.dartmouth.edu/~gov46/mideast-1930.gif

http://www.dartmouth.edu/~gov46/pal-transjrdn-1922.gif

Sometimes I think Jews should have been given all the land between the Euphrates River and the Nile. Instead of the paultry little bit of desert and swamp land they got.