Israeli Elections

[Magox]

strong rebuttal there….

It really doesn't warrant a serious rebuttal. Your views are so out of the mainstream the only appropriate response is derisive mockery.

[DC Tom]

I just can't see any rational reason why anyone would say Palestine is a threat to Israel. I debated greatly whether or not I should hit the "add reply" button.

 

It depends on your definition of "threat."

 

I actually agree with you - the Palestinians are not an existential threat. But it gets back to my point about al Qaeda - they weren't an existential threat to the US, either. But we still went after them.

[FireChan]

Day after day. Year after year. All you hear on the news is Israel's security is being threatened. I don't blame anyone for thinking that way. It simply isn't true.

Terrorist attacks in Israel are a rarity these days. Btw, ever wonder why terrorists are far more effective in their attacks on muslim land as opposed to anywhere else? With the exception of 9/11 of course.

Terrorist attacks are rare in Israel? Okay. What happened all last summer? Were bombs being launched daily at Israel, or am I misremembering?

 

We've had this discussion before. We know where you stand. The Palestinians/Hamas only had the means to kill a couple thousand Israelis, which they try capitalize on. For whatever reason, this means Israel should say, "aw shucks, you guys aren't so bad." That's not how the world works. Tom is exactly correct with the Al Queda comparison. They were never going to storm the White House, but they were a threat to some of our citizens.

an alternative explanation is that they, like you, have a dog in the hunt. i'd like to see a poll of americans with no close ties to either side (like me), and that includes fundamentalists that think israel must fulfill bible prophecy. i think such a poll would be quite unfavorable to netanyahu's israel.

What "dog in the fight" do you think any of us have?

[birdog1960]

Terrorist attacks are rare in Israel? Okay. What happened all last summer? Were bombs being launched daily at Israel, or am I misremembering?

 

We've had this discussion before. We know where you stand. The Palestinians/Hamas only had the means to kill a couple thousand Israelis, which they try capitalize on. For whatever reason, this means Israel should say, "aw shucks, you guys aren't so bad." That's not how the world works. Tom is exactly correct with the Al Queda comparison. They were never going to storm the White House, but they were a threat to some of our citizens.

 

What "dog in the fight" do you think any of us have?

no idea. it's the only alternative explanation i can muster for yall's dogged defense of the us' massive financial support for israel when so many of you cling to liberterian ideologies on virtually every other issue.

[TH3]

no idea. it's the only alternative explanation i can muster for yall's dogged defense of the us' massive financial support for israel when so many of you cling to liberterian ideologies on virtually every other issue.

 

The dog in the fight is a vitriolic hate for all things Obama. BO could negotiate a nuclear stand down from Iran delivered on unicorns farting heart shaped golden eggs that cured cancer....and they would hate it.

 

"The purpose of the senate GOP is to make sure the the Presidency of the BO is a failure" - Mitch McConnell

[FireChan]

no idea. it's the only alternative explanation i can muster for yall's dogged defense of the us' massive financial support for israel when so many of you cling to liberterian ideologies on virtually every other issue.

I think most of us feel that Israel's foreign policy is at least partially justified. That's a separate issue from sending financial aid, but they are usually conflated.

 

I can see the benefits of sending aid to Israel, although I probably wouldn't vote for it myself.

 

The dog in the fight is a vitriolic hate for all things Obama. BO could negotiate a nuclear stand down from Iran delivered on unicorns farting heart shaped golden eggs that cured cancer....and they would hate it.

 

"The purpose of the senate GOP is to make sure the the Presidency of the BO is a failure" - Mitch McConnell

If there's any hatred present, it's for plans or ideas not grounded in realism.

[Justice]

Terrorist attacks are rare in Israel? Okay. What happened all last summer? Were bombs being launched daily at Israel, or am I misremembering?

 

We've had this discussion before. We know where you stand. The Palestinians/Hamas only had the means to kill a couple thousand Israelis, which they try capitalize on. For whatever reason, this means Israel should say, "aw shucks, you guys aren't so bad." That's not how the world works. Tom is exactly correct with the Al Queda comparison. They were never going to storm the White House, but they were a threat to some of our citizens.

 

What "dog in the fight" do you think any of us have?

A couple thousand Israelis died? Where did you get this number from?

 

That's nowhere near correct. Are you lying on purpose or was that a honest mistake?

Edited March 23, 2015 by Justice

[IDBillzFan]

do you even read the news? the prime minister's uninvited speech to congress was a clear affront to the president.

 

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/boehner-netanyahu-congress-invitation-obama

 

The Prime Minister was invited to speak to Congress. The thin-skin-in-chief may not have liked it, but the PM was invited.

 

Perhaps you felt the same anger when Barry had David Cameron calling US Senators to pressure them about Iran sanctions.

 

Or more realistically...perhaps not.

[TakeYouToTasker]

no idea. it's the only alternative explanation i can muster for yall's dogged defense of the us' massive financial support for israel when so many of you cling to liberterian ideologies on virtually every other issue.

Like FireChan said, I support Israel's foriegn policy; though I'm not keen on footing the bill for it.

 

It is, however, important to note that our dollars tie Israel to us, and work to prevent them from taking an even more aggressive approach with their hostile neighboors.

Edited March 23, 2015 by TakeYouToTasker

[B-Man]

 

 

 

"The purpose of the senate GOP is to make sure the the Presidency of the BO is a failure" - Mitch McConnell

 

 

You really shouldn't put quotes on something that is not true.

 

 

Here is what Sen. Mitch McConnell told National Journal in 2010

 

McConnell: The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.

 

 

.

 

[birdog1960]

I think most of us feel that Israel's foreign policy is at least partially justified. That's a separate issue from sending financial aid, but they are usually conflated.

 

I can see the benefits of sending aid to Israel, although I probably wouldn't vote for it myself.

 

If there's any hatred present, it's for plans or ideas not grounded in realism.

they're "conflated" because one is a necessary condition for the other

[TakeYouToTasker]

they're "conflated" because one is a necessary condition for the other

Again, without our defense dollars, Israel would be forced into a situation in which their survival depended on taking an even more aggressive approach with their hostile neighboors.

 

There would be no discussion about the plight of the Palestinians, because there would be no Palestinians.

[FireChan]

A couple thousand Israelis died? Where did you get this number from?

 

That's nowhere near correct. Are you lying on purpose or was that a honest mistake?

That's not what I said. They only have the means to kill a couple thousand Israelis, although that's a rough estimation.

they're "conflated" because one is a necessary condition for the other

What would happen if we reduced our funding to Israel? Give me your predictions.

[birdog1960]

Again, without our defense dollars, Israel would be forced into a situation in which their survival depended on taking an even more aggressive approach with their hostile neighboors.

 

There would be no discussion about the plight of the Palestinians, because there would be no Palestinians.

pure conjecture. an "even more aggressive approach" might be counterproductive. there's no doubt they're between a rock and a hard place. it just doesn't seem a good idea to take clear sides in such a lose-lose dispute.

That's not what I said. They only have the means to kill a couple thousand Israelis, although that's a rough estimation.

 

What would happen if we reduced our funding to Israel? Give me your predictions.

i doubt much would change. we supposedly are paying for leverage on the peace process. that's clearly wasted money. perhaps israel would allocate more of their own wealth away from settlements and into their military.

Edited March 23, 2015 by birdog1960

[FireChan]

pure conjecture. an "even more aggressive approach" might be counterproductive. there's no doubt they're between a rock and a hard place. it just doesn't seem a good idea to take clear sides in such a lose-lose dispute.

 

i doubt much would change. we supposedly are paying for leverage on the peace process. that's clearly wasted money. perhaps israel would allocate more of their own wealth away from settlements and into their military.

The way I view the Israel funding is like a prison. We are funding the "prison" that allows Palestinians to keep their lives and somewhat keep their homes. Without the money to fund this "prison," the Israelis would be forced to kill them because they can't hold or contain them. I agree with Tasker's insinuation that without our money, the Israelis would be forced to kill the Palestinians.

[birdog1960]

The way I view the Israel funding is like a prison. We are funding the "prison" that allows Palestinians to keep their lives and somewhat keep their homes. Without the money to fund this "prison," the Israelis would be forced to kill them because they can't hold or contain them. I agree with Tasker's insinuation that without our money, the Israelis would be forced to kill the Palestinians.

and i don't. they're already pariahs. they would be globally hated if they outright murdered palestinians. it would be a stupid and immoral choice althouygh i doubt immorality would dissuade them.

[FireChan]

and i don't. they're already pariahs. they would be globally hated if they outright murdered palestinians. it would be a stupid and immoral choice althouygh i doubt immorality would dissuade them.

Before I address this, I'd like to point out your contradictions.

 

You said that the issues of US support and Israel's foreign policy were conflating because one is not possible with another. Then, not two posts later, you said that nothing would change in Israel if we reduced our financial support. What?

 

Now, onto your post, killing those who do not recognize your right to exist and want your Nation destroyed is immoral and "murder?"

Edited March 23, 2015 by FireChan

[birdog1960]

Before I address this, I'd like to point out your contradictions.

 

You said that the issues of US support and Israel's foreign policy were conflating because one is not possible with another. Then, not two posts later, you said that nothing would change in Israel if we reduced our financial support. What?

 

Now, onto your post, killing those who do not recognize your right to exist and want your Nation destroyed is immoral and "murder?"

it's not contradictory at all. i believe we are wasting money on israel. they'll fiond a way without our money to maintain their defense system. and we won't lose the influence that we clearly haven't bought.

[FireChan]

it's not contradictory at all. i believe we are wasting money on israel. they'll fiond a way without our money to maintain their defense system. and we won't lose the influence that we clearly haven't bought.

Then how in the world is Israel's foreign policy conditional on US support?

[Justice]

Before I address this, I'd like to point out your contradictions.

 

You said that the issues of US support and Israel's foreign policy were conflating because one is not possible with another. Then, not two posts later, you said that nothing would change in Israel if we reduced our financial support. What?

 

Now, onto your post, killing those who do not recognize your right to exist and want your Nation destroyed is immoral and "murder?"

God forbid the US is ever overtaken, but if it were, would you recognize your oppressors right to exist?

That's not what I said. They only have the means to kill a couple thousand Israelis, although that's a rough estimation.

 

What would happen if we reduced our funding to Israel? Give me your predictions.

They must have been holding back during the "war" then because they only killed 64.

[DC Tom]

God forbid the US is ever overtaken, but if it were, would you recognize your oppressors right to exist?

 

The key difference being: Jews didn't invade Palestine. There were a great number of Jewish communities there before the partition. And the Palestinians want those destroyed, too.

[Justice]

 

The key difference being: Jews didn't invade Palestine. There were a great number of Jewish communities there before the partition. And the Palestinians want those destroyed, too.

They took land by force. They still do to this day.

[FireChan]

God forbid the US is ever overtaken, but if it were, would you recognize your oppressors right to exist?

 

They must have been holding back during the "war" then because they only killed 64.

False comparison. The Israelis were attacked long before they "overtook," anything. Do we have to do the same old "it was GB's land" song and dance?

 

How many did they intend to kill? Pretty sure the payload in those rockets is able to kill more than that.

 

Would the US have been justified in going after Al-Queda if they had caught and prevented 9/11? Yes, they would have been. Just because the Israelis are adept at protecting themselves doesn't somehow absolve Hamas and Gaza. We've discussed this before, and it's a nuance you fail to accept. It is not a "no harm, no foul" situation. Period.

[birdog1960]

Then how in the world is Israel's foreign policy conditional on US support?

it's not. let them sort it out themselves. it's what i've been saying from the start. we don't need to bwe complicit in their crimes.

[Justice]

False comparison. The Israelis were attacked long before they "overtook," anything. Do we have to do the same old "it was GB's land" song and dance?

 

How many did they intend to kill? Pretty sure the payload in those rockets is able to kill more than that.

 

Would the US have been justified in going after Al-Queda if they had caught and prevented 9/11? Yes, they would have been. Just because the Israelis are adept at protecting themselves doesn't somehow absolve Hamas and Gaza. We've discussed this before, and it's a nuance you fail to accept. It is not a "no harm, no foul" situation. Period.

Yes. That's right. They're the victims.

 

And our response to 9/11 was/is way over the top. The Patriot Act, amongst other things, can attest to that.

 

Our involvement in that whole region made things worse. This government and many of you will never understand the ME.

Edited March 23, 2015 by Justice

[FireChan]

I think most of us feel that Israel's foreign policy is at least partially justified. That's a separate issue from sending financial aid, but they are usually conflated.

 

I can see the benefits of sending aid to Israel, although I probably wouldn't vote for it myself.

 

If there's any hatred present, it's for plans or ideas not grounded in realism.

 

 

they're "conflated" because one is a necessary condition for the other

 

 

That's not what I said. They only have the means to kill a couple thousand Israelis, although that's a rough estimation.

 

What would happen if we reduced our funding to Israel? Give me your predictions.

 

 

pure conjecture. an "even more aggressive approach" might be counterproductive. there's no doubt they're between a rock and a hard place. it just doesn't seem a good idea to take clear sides in such a lose-lose dispute.

i doubt much would change. we supposedly are paying for leverage on the peace process. that's clearly wasted money. perhaps israel would allocate more of their own wealth away from settlements and into their military.

 

 

Then how in the world is Israel's foreign policy conditional on US support?

 

 

it's not. let them sort it out themselves. it's what i've been saying from the start. we don't need to bwe complicit in their crimes.

 

I should give you the Mitt treatment right now.

Yes. That's right. They're the victims.

White flag already?

 

I must say, it's an endearing defense to plug your ears and say "nah-nah-nah." You almost swayed me.

Edited March 23, 2015 by FireChan

[Justice]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I should give you the Mitt treatment right now.

 

White flag already?

 

I must say, it's an endearing defense to plug your ears and say "nah-nah-nah." You almost swayed me.

Sarcasm was pretty thick. I guess you didn't catch it.

[birdog1960]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I should give you the Mitt treatment right now.

 

mea culpa. mea maxima culpa. i retract that us support is a necessary condition. let's just say it's a highly desired condition by the israelis

[FireChan]

Sarcasm was pretty thick. I guess you didn't catch it.

I caught it. Like I said, white flag. Just keep repeating that Israel hasn't been a victim. It might become true eventually.

mea culpa. mea maxima culpa. i retract that us support is a necessary condition. let's just say it's a highly desired condition by the israelis

I'd definitely agree that they desire US financial support.

[Justice]

I caught it. Like I said, white flag. Just keep repeating that Israel hasn't been a victim. It might become true eventually.

Take a visit to Israel and then Palestine and then tell me if you stick by that bs.

Matter of fact why don't you tell your buddies to lay off the freaking scraps they left the Palestinians. Is that so difficult for them? Do they really need to steal from the 22% of land the Palestinians hold?

[DC Tom]

They took land by force. They still do to this day.

 

Not the previously existing Jewish communities, they didn't. And those would be the ones that the Arabs tried to take by force during and after the British withdrawal.

 

And when's the last time Israel has taken land by force? I'll give you a hint: 1967. Since then, they've actually given up land (Sinai and Gaza). What you really mean to say is that they take land by settlement to this day.

[FireChan]

Take a visit to Israel and then Palestine and then tell me if you stick by that bs.

An appeal to emotion.

 

Do you find it strange that you call out many on here for pro-Israel biases, yet never stop to think that, perhaps, you may have a touch of bias due to your heritage? Does bias only affect the people who don't agree with you?

 

And please, let me know where my bs is. Demonstrate it, not with one-line, uninspired sarcasm. I'm eager to hear your version of the story.

[DC Tom]

Take a visit to Israel and then Palestine and then tell me if you stick by that bs.

Matter of fact why don't you tell your buddies to lay off the freaking scraps they left the Palestinians. Is that so difficult for them? Do they really need to steal from the 22% of land the Palestinians hold?

 

22% of WHAT land?

 

That right there - a statement that the Palestinians only own part of the land - is a tacit admission that Israel doesn't have a right to exist.

[Justice]

I hear a lot of "recognizing the right to exist" and the Palestinians "wanting to destroy Jewish communities", but in actuality Israel doesn't recognize Palestine's right to exist and they are currently destroying Palestine. I guess "want to" and rhetoric are worse than reality.

 

Not the previously existing Jewish communities, they didn't. And those would be the ones that the Arabs tried to take by force during and after the British withdrawal.

 

And when's the last time Israel has taken land by force? I'll give you a hint: 1967. Since then, they've actually given up land (Sinai and Gaza). What you really mean to say is that they take land by settlement to this day.

That's what I meant.

[FireChan]

I hear a lot of "recognizing the right to exist" and the Palestinians "wanting to destroy Jewish communities", but in actuality Israel doesn't recognize Palestine's right to exist and they are currently destroying Palestine. I guess "want to" and rhetoric are worse than reality.

 

That's what I meant.

The US should side with whoever is losing?

 

Once the Allies drove into Berlin, the US should've dropped out, they weren't recognizing the Germans' right to exist!

Edited March 23, 2015 by FireChan

[Justice]

 

22% of WHAT land?

 

That right there - a statement that the Palestinians only own part of the land - is a tacit admission that Israel doesn't have a right to exist.

No it doesn't. Just stay off the 22%. I didn't say I wanted more. And the only reason I say that is every single settlement comes with a military base.

[DC Tom]

I hear a lot of "recognizing the right to exist" and the Palestinians "wanting to destroy Jewish communities", but in actuality Israel doesn't recognize Palestine's right to exist and they are currently destroying Palestine. I guess "want to" and rhetoric are worse than reality.

 

That must be why they allowed self-rule in Gaza, and withdrew and dismantled all Israeli settlements.

No it doesn't. Just stay off the 22%. I didn't say I wanted more. And the only reason I say that is every single settlement comes with a military base.

 

"Stay off" the 22%? But you brought it up. What exactly did you mean?

[Justice]

 

That must be why they allowed self-rule in Gaza, and withdrew and dismantled all Israeli settlements.

 

 

"Stay off" the 22%? But you brought it up. What exactly did you mean?

I mean exactly what I said. The West Bank and Gaza make up 22% of Israel. Go live on the other 78%. Dismantle your settlements and army bases and leave us be.

 

Allow us to repair our roads. Allow us to import and export goods. Allow our children the right to grow up without looking at AK-47s and Tanks and allow them to live without hateful and racist remarks. I've been there. I've seen it and heard it all. It's a horrible occupation.

 

Yeah. They left Gaza all right. They just go back every few years and destroy the infrastructure.

Edited March 23, 2015 by Justice

[B-Man]

So will the latest U.S. aid to Palestine (440 Million) in October go towards building roads, schools and hospitals ?

 

or will the money again be diverted to building tunnels into Israel, from which terrorists can attack ?

 

 

 

.

[Justice]

So will the latest U.S. aid to Palestine (440 Million) in October go towards building roads, schools and hospitals ?

 

or will the money again be diverted to building tunnels into Israel, from which terrorists can attack ?

 

 

 

.

No. That money will go straight to the corrupt government's bank accounts. Edited March 23, 2015 by Justice