Harper's Stance on Obama's Palestinian Plan

[GostHacked]

Why is it that whenever Palestinians try to assert themselves it is regarded as a threat to Israel? Why is it when they stand up for themselves it is considered bad by everyone else?

If the Palestinians one day was able to bowl over Israel, would any of you Isreali supporters say 'Well that is the spoils of war'. or would most of you just sit here and cry about it, saying it was wrong?

[eyeball]

A cold beer for BC2004.

And a raison d'etre for military industrial-complexes everywhere.

[DogOnPorch]

Why is it that whenever Palestinians try to assert themselves it is regarded as a threat to Israel? Why is it when they stand up for themselves it is considered bad by everyone else?

If the Palestinians one day was able to bowl over Israel, would any of you Isreali supporters say 'Well that is the spoils of war'. or would most of you just sit here and cry about it, saying it was wrong?

Gosthacked, the Arabs have tried to do that many times. That's why they're in this mess now.

Edited May 24, 2011 by DogOnPorch

[bush_cheney2004]

And a raison d'etre for military industrial-complexes everywhere.

...sure beats fishin' for a living!

Edited May 24, 2011 by bush_cheney2004

[GostHacked]

Gosthacked, the Arabs have tried to do that many times. That's why they're in this mess now.

How does this answer the question I posed?

[Remiel]

Oh, the Mufti's men were also @ war with Israel. They kicked-off the festivities in 1948.

And who exactly did the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem represent?

In any case, I recommend the following article on the subject of 1947-1948.

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/zionism-does-not-need-propaganda-1.363443

[Bob]

This is either an endorsement of the status quo, or just a non-statement. I mean, of course most people would prefer a negotiated solution, but the fact is that we have been waiting for a negotiated solution for too long. The recent dance around what was needed to start negotiation was the straw that broke the camels back, I think, and the reason the Palestinians decided they needed to come up with a new plan.

It's quite simple what it means, Harper rejects the idea of the 1967 lines being the starting point for negotiations. He rejects the Holy Grail of these lines, they are not the acceptable points of reference for Israel. Harper has stated in the past he supports Palestinian statehood, and now he has elaborated, or made more specific, his perspective.

The critical part of Israeli/Palesine negotiations is the recognition of Israel's right to exist and their right to peace and security. Until that is expressed - with no reservations - by all elements in the conflict.....then all cards should be held close to the vest. You do NOT start to negotiate before. Period.

Sometimes I think this is overstated. I mean, here we are, in Israel, in a Jewish state, regardless of the "rejection" from the Arabs. Granted, their rejection of our right to statehood in this land as Jewish people is the foundation of this conflict, but I think negotiations could be made and a final status agreement could be achieved even without this symbolic recognition. After all, even if the Palestinian leadership uttered the words of recognition, would you really believe them? You know in their heart of hearts they view the entirety of this land as their own.

Its a pretty well known fact that hes opposed to peace. Its not too shocking.

Right. Since your opinion is what defines "peace". I guess rejecting the left's positions is now being "opposed to peace". Yes, we don't accept your definition of "peace". I guess we're in the anti-peace camps! Isn't meaningless rhetoric lovely?

[cybercoma]

So do I. I am proud to once again have a neighbor who, as in 1914 and 1939, is ahead of my country in supporting the force of civilization against the lawlessness of the savages.

Oh boy. Let's go back to those days, where other people and cultures were savages and we brought them God and civilization!

[DogOnPorch]

And who exactly did the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem represent?

In any case, I recommend the following article on the subject of 1947-1948.

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/zionism-does-not-need-propaganda-1.363443

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Higher_Committee

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Muslim_Council

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Islamic_Congress

Edited May 24, 2011 by DogOnPorch

[GostHacked]

Sometimes I think this is overstated. I mean, here we are, in Israel, in a Jewish state, regardless of the "rejection" from the Arabs. Granted, their rejection of our right to statehood in this land as Jewish people is the foundation of this conflict, but I think negotiations could be made and a final status agreement could be achieved even without this symbolic recognition. After all, even if the Palestinian leadership uttered the words of recognition, would you really believe them? You know in their heart of hearts they view the entirety of this land as their own.

Just as you support driving the rest of the Palestinians off whatever land they have left claiming it as Israels (illegal settlements, illegal placements of the 'security wall' barrier.

Right. Since your opinion is what defines "peace". I guess rejecting the left's positions is now being "opposed to peace". Yes, we don't accept your definition of "peace". I guess we're in the anti-peace camps! Isn't meaningless rhetoric lovely?

I will say that you are one that does not support peace or a two state solution either. Your posts have been more than clear on that note.

[DogOnPorch]

How does this answer the question I posed?

You deal in hypotheticals while the Arabs tried several times for real.

[Bob]

Just as you support driving the rest of the Palestinians off whatever land they have left claiming it as Israels (illegal settlements, illegal placements of the 'security wall' barrier.

I've never said such stupidity. And "illegal settlements" aren't built on land where Palestinians reside. Over 90% of the settlements and the settlers live in settlement blocks adjacent to the Green Line, on about 5% of West Bank Land, near Jerusalem. This image of Palestinians being "driven out" to make way for settlers is pure fantasy.

Putting quotations around the security wall/fence displays, for about the thousandth time, that you really have no appreciation of Israeli security concerns. We must have imagined the thousands of casualties, victims of war and terror. The statistics suggest that the security wall/fence has indeed been effective. The security wall/fence could not be built exactly along the 1967 lines, anyways. They were impractical. So yes, some "Palestinian land" is on the western side of the security wall/fence. It's a fair price to pay to save lives.

I will say that you are one that does not support peace or a two state solution either. Your posts have been more than clear on that note.

I support a two state solution that's workable, as long as it is in our best interests. They have no right to state at our expense that will threaten our existence.

[Black Dog]

The problem with the Quartet's approach to peace is that it assumes that it is dealing with civilized people. It is hard to make peace with people steeped in medieval superstitions, whose life cycle is to reproduce, raise children to become "fighters" and die after a life which is, to quote Hobbes, "nasty, brutish and short". There is utterly no evidence that these people, as a group, have any interest in peace, productivity or work. They are interested in peace only to the extent that it advances the ball towards further territorial gains.

You're right. You should probably gas them.

[DogOnPorch]

In any case, I recommend the following article on the subject of 1947-1948.

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/zionism-does-not-need-propaganda-1.363443

OK...what value was I supposed to get from this article?

[GostHacked]

You deal in hypotheticals while the Arabs tried several times for real.

But you still have not answered my question.

[DogOnPorch]

But you still have not answered my question.

You want to know if I'd be crying and bitching about Israel being destroyed 60 years ago in your hypothetical scenario? No...better things to do with my time than cry for a do-over of an event from the WW2 era. Only folks like yourself have that sort of foolhardy temerity.

[bloodyminded]

.or is there truth to the rumour that Obama is secretly a Muslim? And anti-Israel?

I think you should run with that. You're really on to something.

[bloodyminded]

The only way to negotiate with the Palestinians is with a gun.

Another fine theory. Shout it to the rafters!

[Tilter]

Explain why the people that are being punished now (Palestinians) are rather conspicuously not the same people who started those wars (Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, and Jordan).

did I mention--- Palestine is not a country, has never been a country and does not in the future deserve to be a country. In order to engage in war, one has to be a country--- any other action is terrorism

[DogOnPorch]

did I mention--- Palestine is not a country, has never been a country and does not in the future deserve to be a country. In order to engage in war, one has to be a country--- any other action is terrorism

Either way, the Mufti was in the war feet first.

[GostHacked]

You want to know if I'd be crying and bitching about Israel being destroyed 60 years ago in your hypothetical scenario? No...better things to do with my time than cry for a do-over of an event from the WW2 era. Only folks like yourself have that sort of foolhardy temerity.

And yet you keep replying wasting your precious time. I am not talking about the past. I am talking about the future.

If there is another big war, and Israel gets wiped out, and those spoils go to the victor, are you and your like going to cry foul, or just suck it up like you are telling the Palestinians? It's an important question in my view. Call it roleplaying if you will. Or by answering that will it show your true colours and what you really support? I know you've ignored it in a couple other threads where I posted this. Again, I don't expect a real answer, because you never really had one.

If you want to waste time answering great, if you don't want to waste time answering, then simply don't.

[DogOnPorch]

And yet you keep replying wasting your precious time. I am not talking about the past. I am talking about the future.

If there is another big war, and Israel gets wiped out, and those spoils go to the victor, are you and your like going to cry foul, or just suck it up like you are telling the Palestinians? It's an important question in my view. Call it roleplaying if you will. Or by answering that will it show your true colours and what you really support? I know you've ignored it in a couple other threads where I posted this. Again, I don't expect a real answer, because you never really had one.

If you want to waste time answering great, if you don't want to waste time answering, then simply don't.

It'll never happen. Arabs are perhaps the worst soldiers on the planet. Their idea of command control is firing their crappy weapons into the air.

[bloodyminded]

Maybe I'm wrong but BC Chick, in this Leftist opposition to Israel, there is an undercurrent of anti-semitism.

Yeah, it's funny, it's always an "undercurrent" that can never be concretely delineated (boy oh boy, those lefties are wily!); but you just know it's there, because you heard it said somewhere...maybe in the "leftist" media by those "journalists who want to be hip"!

I've had two serious debates with two very open anti-semites here on this board. (I tried to convince them otherwise, but should have known that was a useless endeavour.)

Both were unabashed right-wingers.

So--by your formulation, not mine--it is the right wing that are comprised of the most anti-semites.

[GostHacked]

It'll never happen. Arabs are perhaps the worst soldiers on the planet. Their idea of command control is firing their crappy weapons into the air.

And yet they are the largest 'threat' to Israels existence? Surprised they have the ability to train a suicide bomber, since they suck so much at war. I guess they are more of a nuisance than a threat.

[DogOnPorch]

And yet they are the largest 'threat' to Israels existence? Surprised they have the ability to train a suicide bomber, since they suck so much at war. I guess they are more of a nuisance than a threat.

Arabs do suck at all forms of conventional warfare. If there are pregnant women to ambush (or other Arabs), then they have a chance at pulling off a victory.