Agnapostate
Banned
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2008
- Messages
- 5,497
- Reaction score
- 912
- Location
- Between Hollywood and Compton.
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
What exactly do you think their goals are?
History debunks your assertion. If empire was the goal, Israel would never have signed comprehensive peace treaties with Egypt (1979) and Jordan (1994), would never have withdrawn from Lebanon (1982/2006), nor would she currently be involved in bi-lateral negotiations with Syria and Palestine to settle all outstanding territorial disputes.Israeli leaders and state officials have a pronounced desire to dominate the section of the Middle East that they believe has been ordained to their possession directly by Yahweh.
Maybe. From what I've read regarding it, it's more concern for ourselves rather then Israel.
1) Israel is unlikely to stop Iran's program
2) An attack would likely result in open war
3) US assets in Afghanistan and Iraq would be subject to strikes
With very little benefit and obvious massive costs, even the most rabid warmonger would have to say no.
but now Bush is doing BOTH of those things but no one on the right is even calling bush a *****.
Its a speech to the COMMON person. Its not a high level policy document. Have you no understanding of propaganda and "dumbing it down"? You think even a QUARTER of the population could comprehend the background and in depth analysis that is required when designing foreign policy? You are having a serious problem of understanding the PURPOSE and MOTIVATION for speeches, IMHO.But the presentment of their foreign policy is based on a black and white perception of the world.
In other words: people think that their own opinion or reasoning is correct and that it should be implemented?:shock: Well duh.Generally they do hold an ideological commitment that our way is the best way to do things and as Israel does things our way we should back them whatever.
:shock: What planet are you living on?Pretty gloomy outlook, there are no serious ideological divisions left in the world the great powers are pretty interdependent, Europe is more stable than ever, a "depression" is pretty unlikely.
Only tinfoil hats truly believe we are slaves to Israel. We have had mutual interests for a long time and thus we have a close relationship for quite some time.People like Gates aren't interested in abandoning Israel, they just don't base their entire foreign policy around Israeli interests. They base it, funnily enough, on American interests.
You got the general idea of the analogy. Don't over analyze it.Also the UK and Israel are very different types of allies for the US. The US doesn't offend the rest of Europe by backing us no matter what, the UK is a globalish power in her own right and generally helps US security rather than hinders it.
Wow! It's been a long time since I saw a liberal give Bush any credit whatsoever for doing something right.
(Assuming this is true), I don't think we'll be hearing many more cries of "warmonger!" from those who were convinced that Bush desperately wanted to attack Iran.
History debunks your assertion. If empire was the goal, Israel would never have signed comprehensive peace treaties with Egypt (1979) and Jordan (1994), would never have withdrawn from Lebanon (1982/2006), nor would she currently be involved in bi-lateral negotiations with Syria and Palestine to settle all outstanding territorial disputes.
David Ben-Gurion said:After the formation of a large army in the wake of the establishment of the state, we will abolish partition and expand to the whole of Palestine.
Yes it is, but what I have a conern about, is that Iran has been lying all along, telling the world that they are only building nuclear plants for energy sources. What do they have to hide? If they are going to build a nuclear bomb, then why not tell the world their intentions and be done with it. Why all the secrecy? However, If I was the king of Israel, I would head my bombers straight toward the nuclear facilities of Iran. Iran will launch its' first nuclear bomb on Israel. Israel cannot sit idly by and have that happen.The proliferation of nuclear weapons and the technological know-how to make such weapons is a future far worse than most that I can imagine.
History debunks your assertion. If empire was the goal, Israel would never have signed comprehensive peace treaties with Egypt (1979) and Jordan (1994), would never have withdrawn from Lebanon (1982/2006), nor would she currently be involved in bi-lateral negotiations with Syria and Palestine to settle all outstanding territorial disputes.
Don't mess with folks and bad stuff won't happen...Israel's initial invasion of Lebanon was egregious enough, let alone the fact that they employed the use of American cluster munitions against civilian areas.
2006 Lebanon War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaThe conflict began when Hezbollah militants purposely fired rockets at Israeli border towns as a diversion for an anti-tank missile attack on two armored Humvees patrolling the Israeli side of the border fence.[20] Of the seven Israeli soldiers in the two jeeps, two were wounded, three were killed, and two were captured and taken to Lebanon.[20] Five more were killed in a failed Israeli rescue attempt.
Once again, you mess with folks and the gamble doesn't pay off... there are consequences. Too bad so sad.Israel would not need to be engaged in any "peace process" had it not been for their annexation of the Golan Heights and continued illegal settlement constructions in the Occupied Territories. Neither has Israel been particularly willing to engage in peace treaties with the Palestinians in the past, perhaps most potently evidenced by their predetermined will to violate the partition plan.
Not according to the memoirs of various US presidents who brokered negotiations.Hogwash. All 'peace' negotiations that have ever taken place between Israel and Palestine have been so unbalanced that it's almost ridiculous, and the peace agreement with other nations was largely a result of the US offering financial aid.
Really? IIRC, the Egyptians repaired the barrier that separates Gaza from Egypt after it was breached with bulldozers. You should perhaps peruse the status of the Rafah Crossing during the last three years.Egyptian governments still let the Gazan's float through the Rafah crossing when Israeli blockades get too much.
Land captured during war. In the absence of peace accords with Palestine and Syria, she will continue to occupy captured territory. Believe it or not lol, Russia still occupies Japanese islands captured during World War II.Israel may not be looking for an empire in the wider, stricter sense, but it's definitely expansionist. It still sits on occupied lander.
Israel's initial invasion of Lebanon was egregious enough...
Israel would not need to be engaged in any "peace process" had it not been for their annexation of the Golan Heights and continued illegal settlement constructions in the Occupied Territories.
Whilst Israel talked of peace they expanded the settlements...
To me this proves that a final peace is not possible with the current players. The only way to maintain the status quo is to deny anyone over there the ability to make nukes. The status quo is the current situation, and is about as peaceful as it's going to get.Hezbollah's abduction of two Israeli soldiers was the incident that led to Israel's military mission. Before then, Hezbollah's rocket fire into Israel was commonplace. Every country has a right to act in self-defense. Israel is no exception.
Syria had the opportunity to receive most of the Golan Heights except for a tiny strip of a few hundred meters along Lake Tiberius. The Palestinians had the chance to gain a fully sovereign state on 97% of the West Bank (inclusive of land swaps), 100% of the Gaza Strip, all of East Jerusalem except for the Western Wall under President Clinton's bridging proposal. Yasser Arafat did not accept that agreement.
Israel has more than met the test of peace. Where nations are willing to engage in reasonable negotiations and accept reasonable agreements, they have achieved peace with Israel. Egypt and Jordan are two examples.
The only way to maintain the status quo is to deny anyone over there the ability to make nukes.
Not according to the memoirs of various US presidents who brokered negotiations.
Tashas said:Really? IIRC, the Egyptians repaired the barrier that separates Gaza from Egypt after it was breached with bulldozers. You should perhaps peruse the status of the Rafah Crossing during the last three years.
Tashas said:Land captured during war. In the absence of peace accords with Palestine and Syria, she will continue to occupy captured territory. Believe it or not lol, Russia still occupies Japanese islands captured during World War II.
Donsutherland said:Had Yasser Arafat accepted President Clinton's bridging proposal, the Palestinians would have gained 97% of the West Bank and all of the Gaza Strip. Israeli settlements would have been removed from the territory given to the Palestinians. Yasser Arafat did not.
In August 2005, Israel unilaterally and completely withdrew all of its settlements from the Gaza Strip. The residents of Gaza had an enormous opportunity to begin building a viable society and economy. Instead, terrorist organizations such as Hamas began a war of attrition via rockets.
You read them. Particularly the memoirs of Clinton, Madeline Albright, Dennis Ross etc. They all agree that Palestine squandered a golden opportunity.To which? US offering of aid or the unbalanced nature of the talks? Or both?
Egypt and the EU jointly administer the Rafah Crossing. Egypt unilaterally closed the border when Hamas seized power in Gaza. As a matter of fact, many Palestinians stranded in Egypt were granted conveyance through Israel to re-enter Gaza on the Israeli side.And they've re-opened it a few times now, despite Israeli pressures to close it. They kept it open a lot longer than Israeli wanted it to, too.
I personally do not agree with the settlements.There's a sharp contrast between occupation and building on that occupied land. It violates international law, it goes against promises made by Rabin during the Oslo accord and it infringes on the basic human rights of the Palestinian people.
These are among the items being negotiated at the present. At this time, I think the only viable solution is a land swap.The West Bank and Gaza are some 23% of the original territory. The fact the land they conceded is away from the water supplies and allowed all major settlements to be near the roads and good land is hardly inspiring confidence. Not accepting it is hardly surprising.
As with any nation, Israel has every right to regulate the movement of people and material within and through Israel proper.And yet this withdrawal still decided who can go in and out of Gaza, or whether a family in the West Bank can go and see their families in the strip. Israel still controls their airspace and their waters.
Rockets fired from Gaza struck Sderot the very day after the withdrawal.They promoted partial freedom. Military raids still happened straight after the withdrawal.
Last month, the government of Israel forbade any new settlement construction.The problem is that neither side has any real determination for peace. Israel continues to settle and groups like Hamas continue to order a jihad every five seconds.
No additional settlement homes will be built in the West Bank. Israel has released hundreds of Palestinian prisoners, but Cpl. Shavit still remains in captivity. With the mediation of Turkey, Israel and Syria are negotiating the Golan Heights. Israel and Abbas are and have been engaged in settlement negotiations.There is simply no real willingness to concede. Israel will withdraw troops from Gaza but build a thousand more Israeli homes in the West Bank. Hamas will sign a truce and fire rockets into Sderot.
The Bush administration has been pushing hard for a ME peace deal in the last few months; such a strike by Israel would have put off any hope of an accomplishment. But for whatever the reason, good for Bush for reigning them in, and his recent decision to open a US liaison office in Teheran.
As with any nation, Israel has every right to regulate the movement of people and material within and through Israel proper.
(Assuming this is true), I don't think we'll be hearing many more cries of "warmonger!" from those who were convinced that Bush desperately wanted to attack Iran.
A side note: I wonder why so many people in the US either ignore this function (as well as responsibility) of sovereignty or condemn it?
Many people like you and I take this right of sovereignty for granted, yet, it seems that most American liberals/Democrats despise it as they characterize the exercise of such sovereignty as racism, nativism, nationalism, etc.
Lets hope the Israeli's hold steadfast to this principle of sovereignty and avoid the mistake the US has made in essentially believing that non-citizens have some innate right to cross our borders and then remain here as long as they like.
I find the talk of respecting and understanding soveriegnty to be ironic from those whom whole heartily supported the Iraq war.
(Assuming this is true), I don't think we'll be hearing many more cries of "warmonger!" from those who were convinced that Bush desperately wanted to attack Iran.
Oh, geez...are you serious?
I was talking about a nation's sovereign right to control its borders and to be responsible for its borders.
How does that, in any way, say anything about my views on the Iraq war?
What? If I say that a nation's sovereignty entitles it to control it borders and to be responsible for its borders means that I cannot argue that war is justifiable?
Screw your head on straight...
First off, it was a general comment. I have heard many people break out the sovereignty argument when defending Israel. I have heard many of those same people defend the removal of the Iraqi government and occupation of Iraq. I find that to be rather ironic. These things are true whether or not you personally fall into the category.
Secondly, it's not that war isn't justifiable (this is a rather large leap in logic here as well. I don't think you really considered my words before jumping on the attack). It's that this particular one was not.
To understand that base of what sovereignty is, one could not accept the Iraq war as justifiable. Iraq was a sovereign nation which in no way threatened the sovereignty of the United States.
Thus, when we go in on an undeclared war and remove the government of a sovereign state;
that is infringement of the sovereignty of that land.
War is sometimes justifiable, and can be perfectly within the lines of sovereignty.
But I think your little response there proved my point. Some don't take it for the whole of what it is. Rather they'll use the term and use sovereignty to defend some positions, but will conveniently sweep it under the rug for other arguments.
As for my head being on straight, it is. I know well the concepts of soveriegnty and argue on the side of it oft.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?