FREE TAPATALK APP

Thunder · 23rd November 2007, 08:24 PM

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satelli...cle%2FShowFull

Caroline Glick, this piece of trash, dares to comdemn America's attempts to resolve the 100 year Middle East conflict.

And end to this conflict, is good for America's security. A Palestinian state next to a Jewish state, is good for America's security (and Israel's security). And end to the Arab-Israeli conflict, is good for the security of America, and for the world.

Its time to end this childish war. The Jews and the Arabs need to grow the hell up, and put this bs aside. 9-11 partially happened because of this damn Middle East mess, and its time the USA demands that they get there house in order.

How dare the Israelis condemn the USA for pushing for peace. Israel exists for one reason only....we protect them. Talk about chutzpah. Talk about biting the hand that feeds you.

America supports Israel..but we are in no way abliged to support Israel when it puts our own security and economic interests at risk.

WildCat · 23rd November 2007, 08:43 PM

Shouldn't the thread title read "Caroline Glick Dares to Condemn the USA"?

Or does she speak for all Israelis?

Ziggurat · 23rd November 2007, 09:52 PM

Originally Posted by parky76

How dare the Israelis condemn the USA

How dare she? Why, the same way everybody who condemns the US for anything does: with the absolute certainty that she will face no serious repercussions for that condemnation. Which is the same way you "dare" to condemn Israel for various sins. But noteably NOT the same way residents of Gaza dare to criticise Hamas.

Quote:

Israel exists for one reason only....we protect them. Talk about chutzpah.

No, Parky. We've been over this before, and IIRC you failed to offer any response the last time too. Israel's survival does not depend upon our assistance. Their existence might be mpre rough, and you can bet your *** that the Palestinians would lead comparably harsher lives as well, but what exactly do you think would have destroyed Israel had we not been giving them aid?

And if we withdrew aid, what possible leverage could we exert to prevent them from becoming a client state of China instead? China is not above using money and a UNSC veto to support Israel in exchange for military technology, and they'd be about as sympathetic to pleas for Palestinian self-determination as they are to "Free Tibet" bumper stickers.

webfusion · 24th November 2007, 03:08 AM

Glick was born in Chicago and graduated from Columbia University (NY) with a Bachelor of Arts in Political Science.
---from Wiki --- Her credentials are impeccable, both in the sphere of journalism and as a critical thinker. For you to call her "a piece of trash" makes you look stupid, parky76.

Quote:

Its time to end this childish war.

This sounds like you are in favor of convincing the arab jihadists nicely, and diplomatically, instead of tearing them apart at the roots.

No, I would like to see the Israelis win decisively against these jihadis, and the arab islamic radicals forced to sue for peace on Israel's terms. Each time arabs had their backs against the wall in fighting with Israeli troops, the USA interceded on the behalf of the arabs. That formula has to stop being the rule.

Annapolis will come and go, and the Israelis will continue dying in their cities at the hands of bombers, and the missiles will continue to fall on their communities, and innocent men like Ido Zoldan, (killed on Monday while driving along a public road) will continue to be shot in cold blood by islamic terrorists.

In fact, the continuation of this war is being promoted as necessary and vital ---- by the jihidist leaders of the palestinians, and their supporters in Iran and Syria.

No, parky76, I agree with Caroline Glick:
American intervention against Israel right now is strengthening the jihadists all over the arab world, as they are thrilled that Israel is being pressured to surrender their security interests, leaving the State of Israel vulnerable to more terror.

UnrepentantSinner · 24th November 2007, 04:20 AM

I see your anti-Semitic tirade was posted with a misleading thread title, but to address it - so what? The government of Israel is that of a soverign nation and they are just as free to criticize the U.S. the government, or government members of China, Germany, England or Venezuela.

Originally Posted by parky76

Talk about chutzpah.

Was this an attempt at irony?

gumboot · 24th November 2007, 05:11 AM

Originally Posted by webfusion

Glick was born in Chicago and graduated from Columbia University (NY) with a Bachelor of Arts in Political Science.
---from Wiki --- Her credentials are impeccable, both in the sphere of journalism and as a critical thinker.

Not to mention her credentials in the realm of Palestine/Israel peace efforts. As an IDF officer in the Judge Advocate General division she edited and co-authored Israel, the Intifada, and the Rule of Law, and she was the coordinator of negotiations with the Palestinian Authority after the Oslo Accords.

-Gumboot

Schneibster · 24th November 2007, 05:25 AM

What bothers me the most is that there's a fair bit of wisdom in that piece. Rice and Shrub are idiots, if Iraq wasn't enough to convince anyone, look at Afghanistan, then at Iran. They had the mullahs in the palm of their hand and they peed all over them so they'd elect a hard-liner. We OWNED Afghanistan, now Al Qaeda is taking it over again while these idiots play Risk in Iraq. Now they want to attack Iran just like as if they hadn't make a complete mess of everything else they've tried. They're making foreign policy based on how they want things to be, not on how they are; and ignoring the fact that what they want isn't possible, and will damage our allies. This has precedent in ignoring Afghanistan, and at least partly in Pakistan where they seem to be abetting a cluster **** of unimaginable proportions. Not to mention idiot frat-boi declaring how Putin is his bestest buddy evar.

I'm no war-monger; I don't have a dog in the Israeli-Palestinian fight. I'd rather see it go away, with happy returns for all parties. Far as I'm concerned, Israel has made as many bad moves as the Palestinians have; Palestinians got suicide bombers, Israelis got bulldozers. There have been plenty of chances to make peace, and the last time it looked like someone was actually going to get the bread sliced some dink ups and assassinates probably the best PM Israel ever had. Ariel Sharon is an obvious hard-liner fool; the only thing to recommend him is he ain't Benjamin Netanyahu (I could not BELIEVE he got elected). Olmert is damaged goods, with things the way they are now; there's no way for him to negotiate in good faith.

Meanwhile the Palestinians are doing the usual Arab negotiation thing, which is to demand the moon and stars, and whine about how you're killing their children if you want to pay a single penny less. If I was the Israelis, I'd walk in demanding the same moon and stars they did, and offer some meaningless concession to get the ball rolling. They gotta know they aren't getting jack **** out of that list without some major concessions, and the way you deal with that is everybody gets some meaningless thing they can take back to shut the folks at home up with; THEN the real negotiations start. The Israelis never quite seem to get the hang of that; it's how you keep people at the table. But that ain't even gonna START until Shrub and Kindasleazy shut their big fat mouths and siddown. When you guys gonna elect someone has some kinda clue how to negotiate? Never mind us; we're workin' on that, hopefully frat-boi doesn't totally screw up the entire freakin' world before the election next year, or the Congresscritters grow some cojones or something.

Disturbing, like I say.

Thunder · 24th November 2007, 07:43 AM

Israel unilaterally doubled the size of Jerusalem after the 1967 war. Now they say to return some of those sections that were unilaterally annexed would be "dividing jerusalem". that is deceitful and childish.

Israel says it cannot allow any refugees to return. Even 1st generation refugees, who are 60 years old or more, are a threat to Israel's jewish character and security?
that is deceitful and childish.

This all puts America at risk. As long as Israel refuses peace because of childish and deceitful reasons, Americans are at risk.

I support Israel's right to exist..and live within defensable borders. In 1967, that may have been the Jordan river. But today, with hundreds of nuclear weapons and a state of the art military, Israel can defend any border, at any time, with a minimal amount of work.

Anyone who puts pragmatism ahead of religous extremism and nationalistic fantasy knows what must be done to make peace. Unfortunately, Israel is clearly guided by fantasy and not reality.

Thats fine. But America should not suffer for Israel's delusions.

webfusion · 24th November 2007, 08:02 AM

Quote:

...This all puts America at risk.

Ridiculous. The one who is delusional here, parky76, is you.

UnrepentantSinner · 24th November 2007, 08:02 AM

Originally Posted by parky76

I support Israel's right to exist..

And yet the OP suggests you don't support the right of Israel to be critical of the U.S. or United States policy decisions.

Don't you find that a bit of a paradox, or are there other nations you support the right to exist that you think should not be critical of the U.S. or our policy decisions?

Ziggurat · 24th November 2007, 08:10 AM

Originally Posted by parky76

Anyone who puts pragmatism ahead of religous extremism and nationalistic fantasy knows what must be done to make peace.

No, Parky. People disagree on this quite a bit irregardless of religion or "nationalistic fantasy", and that's nothing new or peculiar to this conflict.

Quote:

But America should not suffer for Israel's delusions.

Indeed. Instead, Israel should be suffering for the peacenik's delusions. Much better that way around.

Charlie Monoxide · 24th November 2007, 11:41 AM

Originally Posted by webfusion

No, parky76, I agree with Caroline Glick:
American intervention against Israel right now is strengthening the jihadists all over the arab world, as they are thrilled that Israel is being pressured to surrender their security interests, leaving the State of Israel vulnerable to more terror.

Say it ain't so Joe. Does this mean another "diplomatic effort" is going to backfire for the Bush circus?

Charlie (aren't they all bedoins?) Monoxide

webfusion · 24th November 2007, 12:43 PM

Charlie, I gotta tell you, I have no illusions about the Annapolis Summit bringing forward any new proposals, or anything which could be considered a "breakthrough" in relations between Israel and the arabs.

parky76 seems to think that Israel is not at risk, and that the USA can just wave a magic wand and the arabs will suddenly start singing kumbaaya.

Ugh.

Let's set the clock back to summer 2006 -

Quote:

But today, with hundreds of nuclear weapons and a state of the art military, Israel can defend any border, at any time, with a minimal amount of work.

Right now, there are two Israeli captives/hostages in Lebanon named Goldwasser and Regev. Remember them? Will this upcoming conference even mention their names? Doubtful.

Yet, with all the nukes, and the State of the Art Military, Israel was forced to war, defending itself against missile attacks that started from the other side of the border with Lebanon. The Hezbollah wasn't deterred by the nukes, and it didn't much care about the IDF capabilites. Haifa came under attack, and it suited the Hezbollah just fine to see the resulting IAF retaliation across Lebanon. They actually were pleased that they had woken-up the Israeli giant and had an opportunity to parade the media around, showing the results of the war they had started. To this very day, Hezbollah thumbs its nose at the world community, and especially at Israel.

There will not be any end to this conflict, not in this lifetime. Get used to it, and come up with Plan B, because Israel is not about to capitulate to islamic terror and threats from jihadists. Do you happen to think that Israel will just turn around, recall the IDF to barracks, and leave the field to the HAMAS and HEZBOLLAH?

Dr Adequate · 24th November 2007, 02:33 PM

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

irregardless

I don't think that I know how to bring peace to the Middle East but by **** I can stop you doing that.

THAT IS NOT A REAL WORD.

"Irrespective", yes. "Regardless", yes.

"Irregardless"? THE JIHAD STARTS HERE!!!

Ziggurat · 24th November 2007, 02:45 PM

Originally Posted by Dr Adequate

"Irregardless"? THE JIHAD STARTS HERE!!!

"Irregardless" is part of the revelations of the Later-Day Websters. Your failure to recognize its divinely ordained lexiconographic validity marks you as an infidel. Death to the unbelievers of "irregardless"!

Dr Adequate · 24th November 2007, 02:55 PM

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

"Irregardless" is part of the revelations of the Later-Day Websters. Your failure to recognize its divinely ordained lexiconographic validity marks you as an infidel. Death to the unbelievers of "irregardless"!

* blows himself up *

Prometheus · 24th November 2007, 03:52 PM

Originally Posted by webfusion

.... Get used to it, and come up with Plan B,

Send in the homeopaths!

Thunder · 24th November 2007, 07:11 PM

Israel is at risk from no one. Not Syria..not Egypt...not Saudi Arabia...not Jordan..not Libya..not Lebanon. And why? Cause Israel can make them glow in the dark for a long long time. There will never be another conventional war against Israel from an Arab state.

Is Iran a threat? They can fire missiles at Israel..but they cannot threaten its existance.

So where is this huge threat that Israel faces? Surely not from Iranian nukes. They dont have them and dont have the centrifuges to make one.

Israel's sense of existance, is based on the percieved threat. They need to feel threatened to survive. The Arabs could offer a full and comprehensive peace plan, and the Israelis would still feel threatened. Its a Jewish thing.

Better the devil you know...then the devil you dont know. And the devil the Jews know..is the sense of constant threat. Its a case of large scale co-dependancy.

webfusion · 24th November 2007, 07:39 PM

Quote:

The Arabs could offer a full and comprehensive peace plan...

Where is it? Have you some evidence of one?

Puppycow · 24th November 2007, 08:23 PM

Originally Posted by Caroline Glick

Americans have shown themselves to be unworthy of Israel's trust.

Why does Caroline Glick hate the American people?

stilicho · 24th November 2007, 08:46 PM

Originally Posted by parky76

There will never be another conventional war against Israel from an Arab state.

Wow. All I can say. Wow.

Mycroft · 24th November 2007, 09:08 PM

Originally Posted by parky76

Israel is at risk from no one. Not Syria..not Egypt...not Saudi Arabia...not Jordan..not Libya..not Lebanon. And why? Cause Israel can make them glow in the dark for a long long time. There will never be another conventional war against Israel from an Arab state.

I think it's funny when the same people that claim Israel depends on the United States for its existence then turn around and claim Israel faces no threat at all from its enemies. Can you really not see that those two things contradict each other?

Originally Posted by parky76

Is Iran a threat? They can fire missiles at Israel..but they cannot threaten its existance.

It's only a matter of time before Iran can arm one of those missiles with a nuke.

Originally Posted by parky76

So where is this huge threat that Israel faces? Surely not from Iranian nukes. They dont have them and dont have the centrifuges to make one.

Which is why Iran is working very hard to build more centrifuges.

Originally Posted by parky76

Israel's sense of existance, is based on the percieved threat. They need to feel threatened to survive. The Arabs could offer a full and comprehensive peace plan, and the Israelis would still feel threatened. Its a Jewish thing.

Because the Jewish people have a long history of reacting to imaginary threats?

Originally Posted by parky76

Better the devil you know...then the devil you dont know. And the devil the Jews know..is the sense of constant threat. Its a case of large scale co-dependancy.

Your racial stereotyping is disgusting.

Kopji · 24th November 2007, 09:29 PM

An alternate view would be that Bush is now nearing his final year in office; he is beginning to worry how history will remember him. A nice peace conference will look good in his memoirs. I'd predict window dressing more than anything else.

What was leaked was a preliminary draft. Lacking any diplomatic skills whatsoever, 'leaks' are sort of this administration's version of getting down to business. Leaks have no relationship to what the final version will be. What can happen now is that the admittedly weak leadership of Israel can look stronger standing up against the US.

With minimal luck and skill, the Israelis will return home looking tired and worn from all the hard fought position wrangling with the US. It was tough but we showed 'em we won't be pushed around.

The very notion that the US is "pro Palestinian" must require effort for a columnist to assert with a straight face. Tis' just not the reality.

JoeEllison · 24th November 2007, 09:31 PM

Originally Posted by Kopji

The very notion that the US is "pro Palestinian" must require effort for a columnist to assert with a straight face. Tis' just not the reality.

It is a flat-out lie, and assumes that the reader is an ****** idiot.

Ziggurat · 24th November 2007, 09:34 PM

Originally Posted by parky76

Israel exists for one reason only....we protect them.

Originally Posted by parky76

Israel is at risk from no one. Not Syria..not Egypt...not Saudi Arabia...not Jordan..not Libya..not Lebanon.

How does your head not explode from the pressure of this sort of contradiction?

Kopji · 25th November 2007, 12:47 AM

Originally Posted by JoeEllison

It is a flat-out lie, and assumes that the reader is an ****** idiot.

Yeah, until that remark I think she had some valid points. Sort of a 'gong' moment.

I just can't picture Bush or Rice in a serious diplomatic effort. It's like thinking of Santa Claus scuba diving. If the mideast issues were easy to solve they've have been by now. I suppose we should thank them for trying though, peace is always worth another try.

Schneibster · 25th November 2007, 04:15 AM

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

"Irregardless" is part of the revelations of the Later-Day Websters. Your failure to recognize its divinely ordained lexiconographic validity marks you as an infidel. Death to the unbelievers of "irregardless"!

Isn't that "lexicographic," or am I risking having to blow myself up too?

Schneibster · 25th November 2007, 04:20 AM

Originally Posted by Kopji

I just can't picture Bush or Rice in a serious diplomatic effort. It's like thinking of Santa Claus scuba diving.

You owe me a new computer screen; the beer dripped down and shorted it out.

geni · 25th November 2007, 04:54 AM

Originally Posted by webfusion

No, I would like to see the Israelis win decisively against these jihadis, and the arab islamic radicals forced to sue for peace on Israel's terms.

Are you prepared to accept genocide as a reasonable means to archive that end?

Quote:

Each time arabs had their backs against the wall in fighting with Israeli troops, the USA interceded on the behalf of the arabs. That formula has to stop being the rule.

As and when Israel gets it's hands on as much oil as saudi arabia maybe.

Quote:

Annapolis will come and go, and the Israelis will continue dying in their cities at the hands of bombers, and the missiles will continue to fall on their communities, and innocent men like Ido Zoldan, (killed on Monday while driving along a public road) will continue to be shot in cold blood by islamic terrorists.

If any of the arab idiologies were any good at produceing cold blooded terrorists they would have been a lot more sucessful.

geni · 25th November 2007, 04:57 AM

Originally Posted by parky76

Israel is at risk from no one. Not Syria..not Egypt...not Saudi Arabia...not Jordan..not Libya..not Lebanon. And why? Cause Israel can make them glow in the dark for a long long time. There will never be another conventional war against Israel from an Arab state.

Saudi arabia has the cash to outright buy nukes. Pervez Musharraf could probably do with a few billion right now.

geni · 25th November 2007, 05:02 AM

Originally Posted by webfusion

Yet, with all the nukes, and the State of the Art Military, Israel was forced to war, defending itself against missile attacks that started from the other side of the border with Lebanon.

No Isreal was forced to go to war because it failed to think far enough ahead when giving a casus belli for operation summer rains. The attacks were due to the kidnapping the missile attacks didn't really get going until some time latter.

Beerina · 25th November 2007, 08:27 PM

Originally Posted by parky76

So where is this huge threat that Israel faces? Surely not from Iranian nukes. They dont have them and dont have the centrifuges to make one.

For now. In any case, take uranium hexaflouride gas and diffuse it thorugh a membrane over and over again. It takes a lot longer than a centrifuge, but it'll work. It worked for one of the two bombs actually used in war, IIRC.

Do you really wear such blinders that 10 years from now, or 20, is not anyone's concern? Isn't that how we got in this mess in the first place? I'm sure you can recite chapter and verse how the US, by meddling to help create banana republics around the world (better our dictator than the Soviet's) laid the groundwork for the fires of the past decade.

Quote:

Israel's sense of existance, is based on the percieved threat.

You'll pardon them, given what's happened to them, still in living memory.

Quote:

They need to feel threatened to survive. The Arabs could offer a full and comprehensive peace plan, and the Israelis would still feel threatened. Its a Jewish thing.

So hateful you are, you do not see "The Israelis" as being merely a convenient focus of hatred for the domestic yokels around the Middle East, used by their vicious leaders to gain and keep power?

Have you never had a rudimentary world history class, and learned how leaders have the masses focus hatred on this or that small group? Or a rudimentary psychology class, for that matter, which also discusses this?

webfusion · 26th November 2007, 04:20 AM

Geni, I often have difficulty understanding where you are coming from. This is one of those times, sorry to say.

Quote:

The attacks were due to the kidnapping the missile attacks didn't really get going until some time latter.

Here are the facts: They fly in the face of your claim.

At around 9:00 AM local time, on 12 July 2006, Hezbollah launched rocket attacks on Zar'it, and Shlomi, two quiet Israeli villages. These bombardments were a diversionary tactic, and the main target for the Hezbollah was an incursion across the internationally-recognized Israeli border, with the aim to capture hostages (in that mission, they succeeded, taking Goldwasser and Regev and killing the rest of the IDF patrol unit).

Going back to the OP ---

Quote:

As long as Israel refuses peace because of childish and deceitful reasons, Americans are at risk.

Israel is not refusing peace.
Americans are not at risk.

Next case.

Darth Rotor · 26th November 2007, 06:56 AM

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

We've been over this before, and IIRC you failed to offer any response the last time too. Israel's survival does not depend upon our assistance.

Can I have some of what you are smoking, Zig? The history of the past sixty years suggests you are, in a word, wrong.

Quote:

And if we withdrew aid, what possible leverage could we exert to prevent them from becoming a client state of China instead? China is not above using money and a UNSC veto to support Israel in exchange for military technology, and they'd be about as sympathetic to pleas for Palestinian self-determination as they are to "Free Tibet" bumper stickers.

Agreed. Survival instinct is strong in Israel.

DR

Darth Rotor · 26th November 2007, 06:59 AM

Originally Posted by webfusion

Glick was born in Chicago and graduated from Columbia University (NY) with a Bachelor of Arts in Political Science.
---from Wiki --- Her credentials are impeccable, both in the sphere of journalism and as a critical thinker. For you to call her "a piece of trash" makes you look stupid, parky76.

Just add that to the list of things, web.

Quote:

No, parky76, I agree with Caroline Glick:
American intervention against Israel right now is strengthening the jihadists all over the arab world, as they are thrilled that Israel is being pressured to surrender their security interests, leaving the State of Israel vulnerable to more terror.

Of course, American intervention hardly ever is to Israel's benefit, right?

Regardless of our move, any US attempt to act as honest broker (if anyone buys that anymore) will raise the fears of Americans selling out, or acting as enablers for Israel's enemies.

I recall a few such cries cropping up perdiodicaly, when the US gets involved in the negotiations, since about the time of Camp David. I read the news a lot, but maybe it was all complete rubbish.

DR

Ziggurat · 26th November 2007, 10:33 AM

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor

Can I have some of what you are smoking, Zig? The history of the past sixty years suggests you are, in a word, wrong.

No, Darth. Perhaps their first thirty years suggested something of that kind, but the last 30? Our assistance has made their existence much easier, of that I have little doubt. But seriously, who would have destroyed them during the last 30 years? Who would destroy them now if we stopped lending assistance? The only realistic future candidate is a nuclear-armed Iran, but even in that case, our past and present assistance isn't capable of stopping a nuclear cataclysm should Iran choose to pursue that path.

Darth Rotor · 26th November 2007, 01:58 PM

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

No, Darth. Perhaps their first thirty years suggested something of that kind, but the last 30? Our assistance has made their existence much easier, of that I have little doubt. But seriously, who would have destroyed them during the last 30 years? Who would destroy them now if we stopped lending assistance? The only realistic future candidate is a nuclear-armed Iran, but even in that case, our past and present assistance isn't capable of stopping a nuclear cataclysm should Iran choose to pursue that path.

Got it. Then there has been no need for 3-5 billion per year (overt) in assistance to them for thirty years.

Sorry, Zig, but we are still in the land of puff, puff, Pass.

As to furture threats, and if you were speaking purely in futuristic modes, Iran isn't the only problem for Israel, though Iran tends to be the biggest pain in the nose to Israel.

Looking into the future, and depending on how the bones roll, Turkey, should it go Islamist, makes for a whole new ball game. They are in a decent relationship with Israel now. Not so likely if the political base changes.

DR

Ziggurat · 26th November 2007, 02:21 PM

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor

Got it. Then there has been no need for 3-5 billion per year (overt) in assistance to them for thirty years.

Need? Need isn't the question. Benefit is. And I didn't say there was no benefit, did I?

Quote:

Sorry, Zig, but we are still in the land of puff, puff, Pass.

That's beneath you, Darth. Again, who could have destroyed Israel?

Quote:

Looking into the future, and depending on how the bones roll, Turkey, should it go Islamist, makes for a whole new ball game.

That's only an existential threat if they also go nuclear. And both of those are, well, quite speculative.

geni · 26th November 2007, 02:44 PM

Originally Posted by webfusion

Geni, I often have difficulty understanding where you are coming from. This is one of those times, sorry to say.

Here are the facts: They fly in the face of your claim.

At around 9:00 AM local time, on 12 July 2006, Hezbollah launched rocket attacks on Zar'it, and Shlomi, two quiet Israeli villages. These bombardments were a diversionary tactic, and the main target for the Hezbollah was an incursion across the internationally-recognized Israeli border, with the aim to capture hostages (in that mission, they succeeded, taking Goldwasser and Regev and killing the rest of the IDF patrol unit).

Hardly uncommon for Hezbollah carry out such shellings. Fairly trivial to simply chuck a few shells back hit, a few Hezbollah positions (worked for india and pakistan most of the time) but the kidnapping presented more of a PR problem.

marksman · 26th November 2007, 02:47 PM

In post 31 you write "the missile attacks didn't really get going until some time latter" and in your last post you say that missile attacks were "Hardly uncommon". Well, which is it, geni?

23rd November 2007, 08:24 PM	#1
Thunder Banned Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Queens Posts: 34,947	Israelis Dare to Condemn the USA http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satelli...cle%2FShowFull Caroline Glick, this piece of trash, dares to comdemn America's attempts to resolve the 100 year Middle East conflict. And end to this conflict, is good for America's security. A Palestinian state next to a Jewish state, is good for America's security (and Israel's security). And end to the Arab-Israeli conflict, is good for the security of America, and for the world. Its time to end this childish war. The Jews and the Arabs need to grow the hell up, and put this bs aside. 9-11 partially happened because of this damn Middle East mess, and its time the USA demands that they get there house in order. How dare the Israelis condemn the USA for pushing for peace. Israel exists for one reason only....we protect them. Talk about chutzpah. Talk about biting the hand that feeds you. America supports Israel..but we are in no way abliged to support Israel when it puts our own security and economic interests at risk.
	Last edited by Thunder; 23rd November 2007 at 08:25 PM.

23rd November 2007, 09:52 PM	#3
Ziggurat Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 26,285	Originally Posted by parky76 How dare the Israelis condemn the USA How dare she? Why, the same way everybody who condemns the US for anything does: with the absolute certainty that she will face no serious repercussions for that condemnation. Which is the same way you "dare" to condemn Israel for various sins. But noteably NOT the same way residents of Gaza dare to criticise Hamas. Quote: Israel exists for one reason only....we protect them. Talk about chutzpah. No, Parky. We've been over this before, and IIRC you failed to offer any response the last time too. Israel's survival does not depend upon our assistance. Their existence might be mpre rough, and you can bet your *** that the Palestinians would lead comparably harsher lives as well, but what exactly do you think would have destroyed Israel had we not been giving them aid? And if we withdrew aid, what possible leverage could we exert to prevent them from becoming a client state of China instead? China is not above using money and a UNSC veto to support Israel in exchange for military technology, and they'd be about as sympathetic to pleas for Palestinian self-determination as they are to "Free Tibet" bumper stickers.
	__________________ "As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law

24th November 2007, 03:08 AM	#4
webfusion Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Near I-95 Posts: 6,216	Who is Caroline Glick? Glick was born in Chicago and graduated from Columbia University (NY) with a Bachelor of Arts in Political Science. ---from Wiki --- Her credentials are impeccable, both in the sphere of journalism and as a critical thinker. For you to call her "a piece of trash" makes you look stupid, parky76. Quote: Its time to end this childish war. This sounds like you are in favor of convincing the arab jihadists nicely, and diplomatically, instead of tearing them apart at the roots. No, I would like to see the Israelis win decisively against these jihadis, and the arab islamic radicals forced to sue for peace on Israel's terms. Each time arabs had their backs against the wall in fighting with Israeli troops, the USA interceded on the behalf of the arabs. That formula has to stop being the rule. Annapolis will come and go, and the Israelis will continue dying in their cities at the hands of bombers, and the missiles will continue to fall on their communities, and innocent men like Ido Zoldan, (killed on Monday while driving along a public road) will continue to be shot in cold blood by islamic terrorists. In fact, the continuation of this war is being promoted as necessary and vital ---- by the jihidist leaders of the palestinians, and their supporters in Iran and Syria. No, parky76, I agree with Caroline Glick: American intervention against Israel right now is strengthening the jihadists all over the arab world, as they are thrilled that Israel is being pressured to surrender their security interests, leaving the State of Israel vulnerable to more terror.
	Last edited by webfusion; 24th November 2007 at 03:12 AM.

24th November 2007, 04:20 AM	#5
UnrepentantSinner A post by Alan Smithee Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: USAian is not a word Posts: 26,446	I see your anti-Semitic tirade was posted with a misleading thread title, but to address it - so what? The government of Israel is that of a soverign nation and they are just as free to criticize the U.S. the government, or government members of China, Germany, England or Venezuela. Originally Posted by parky76 Talk about chutzpah. Was this an attempt at irony?
	__________________ I am an American citizen who is part of American society and briefly served in the American armed forces. I use American dollars and pay taxes that support the American government. And yes, despite the editorial decison to change American politics to the nonsensical "USA politics" subforum, I follow and comment on American politics.

24th November 2007, 05:11 AM	#6
gumboot lorcutus.tolere Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: New Zealand Posts: 23,194	Originally Posted by webfusion Glick was born in Chicago and graduated from Columbia University (NY) with a Bachelor of Arts in Political Science. ---from Wiki --- Her credentials are impeccable, both in the sphere of journalism and as a critical thinker. Not to mention her credentials in the realm of Palestine/Israel peace efforts. As an IDF officer in the Judge Advocate General division she edited and co-authored Israel, the Intifada, and the Rule of Law, and she was the coordinator of negotiations with the Palestinian Authority after the Oslo Accords. -Gumboot
	__________________ O xein', angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti têde keimetha tois keinon rhémasi peithomenoi. A fan of fantasy? Check out Project Dreamforge.

23rd November 2007, 08:43 PM	#2
WildCat NWO Master Conspirator Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Albany Park, Chicago Posts: 49,471	Shouldn't the thread title read "Caroline Glick Dares to Condemn the USA"? Or does she speak for all Israelis?

24th November 2007, 05:25 AM	#7
Schneibster Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 3,966	What bothers me the most is that there's a fair bit of wisdom in that piece. Rice and Shrub are idiots, if Iraq wasn't enough to convince anyone, look at Afghanistan, then at Iran. They had the mullahs in the palm of their hand and they peed all over them so they'd elect a hard-liner. We OWNED Afghanistan, now Al Qaeda is taking it over again while these idiots play Risk in Iraq. Now they want to attack Iran just like as if they hadn't make a complete mess of everything else they've tried. They're making foreign policy based on how they want things to be, not on how they are; and ignoring the fact that what they want isn't possible, and will damage our allies. This has precedent in ignoring Afghanistan, and at least partly in Pakistan where they seem to be abetting a cluster ** of unimaginable proportions. Not to mention idiot frat-boi declaring how Putin is his bestest buddy evar. I'm no war-monger; I don't have a dog in the Israeli-Palestinian fight. I'd rather see it go away, with happy returns for all parties. Far as I'm concerned, Israel has made as many bad moves as the Palestinians have; Palestinians got suicide bombers, Israelis got bulldozers. There have been plenty of chances to make peace, and the last time it looked like someone was actually going to get the bread sliced some dink ups and assassinates probably the best PM Israel ever had. Ariel Sharon is an obvious hard-liner fool; the only thing to recommend him is he ain't Benjamin Netanyahu (I could not BELIEVE he got elected). Olmert is damaged goods, with things the way they are now; there's no way for him to negotiate in good faith. Meanwhile the Palestinians are doing the usual Arab negotiation thing, which is to demand the moon and stars, and whine about how you're killing their children if you want to pay a single penny less. If I was the Israelis, I'd walk in demanding the same moon and stars they did, and offer some meaningless concession to get the ball rolling. They gotta know they aren't getting jack ** out of that list without some major concessions, and the way you deal with that is everybody gets some meaningless thing they can take back to shut the folks at home up with; THEN the real negotiations start. The Israelis never quite seem to get the hang of that; it's how you keep people at the table. But that ain't even gonna START until Shrub and Kindasleazy shut their big fat mouths and siddown. When you guys gonna elect someone has some kinda clue how to negotiate? Never mind us; we're workin' on that, hopefully frat-boi doesn't totally screw up the entire freakin' world before the election next year, or the Congresscritters grow some cojones or something. Disturbing, like I say.
Schneibster Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 3,966

24th November 2007, 07:43 AM	#8
Thunder Banned Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Queens Posts: 34,947	Israel unilaterally doubled the size of Jerusalem after the 1967 war. Now they say to return some of those sections that were unilaterally annexed would be "dividing jerusalem". that is deceitful and childish. Israel says it cannot allow any refugees to return. Even 1st generation refugees, who are 60 years old or more, are a threat to Israel's jewish character and security? that is deceitful and childish. This all puts America at risk. As long as Israel refuses peace because of childish and deceitful reasons, Americans are at risk. I support Israel's right to exist..and live within defensable borders. In 1967, that may have been the Jordan river. But today, with hundreds of nuclear weapons and a state of the art military, Israel can defend any border, at any time, with a minimal amount of work. Anyone who puts pragmatism ahead of religous extremism and nationalistic fantasy knows what must be done to make peace. Unfortunately, Israel is clearly guided by fantasy and not reality. Thats fine. But America should not suffer for Israel's delusions.

24th November 2007, 08:02 AM	#9
webfusion Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Near I-95 Posts: 6,216	Quote: ...This all puts America at risk. Ridiculous. The one who is delusional here, parky76, is you.
	Last edited by webfusion; 24th November 2007 at 08:02 AM.

24th November 2007, 08:02 AM	#10
UnrepentantSinner A post by Alan Smithee Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: USAian is not a word Posts: 26,446	Originally Posted by parky76 I support Israel's right to exist.. And yet the OP suggests you don't support the right of Israel to be critical of the U.S. or United States policy decisions. Don't you find that a bit of a paradox, or are there other nations you support the right to exist that you think should not be critical of the U.S. or our policy decisions?
	__________________ I am an American citizen who is part of American society and briefly served in the American armed forces. I use American dollars and pay taxes that support the American government. And yes, despite the editorial decison to change American politics to the nonsensical "USA politics" subforum, I follow and comment on American politics.

24th November 2007, 08:10 AM	#11
Ziggurat Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 26,285	Originally Posted by parky76 Anyone who puts pragmatism ahead of religous extremism and nationalistic fantasy knows what must be done to make peace. No, Parky. People disagree on this quite a bit irregardless of religion or "nationalistic fantasy", and that's nothing new or peculiar to this conflict. Quote: But America should not suffer for Israel's delusions. Indeed. Instead, Israel should be suffering for the peacenik's delusions. Much better that way around.
	__________________ "As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law

24th November 2007, 11:41 AM	#12
Charlie Monoxide Wag Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: London, Ontario Posts: 2,761	Originally Posted by webfusion No, parky76, I agree with Caroline Glick: American intervention against Israel right now is strengthening the jihadists all over the arab world, as they are thrilled that Israel is being pressured to surrender their security interests, leaving the State of Israel vulnerable to more terror. Say it ain't so Joe. Does this mean another "diplomatic effort" is going to backfire for the Bush circus? Charlie (aren't they all bedoins?) Monoxide
	__________________ Major General Wag of JREF

24th November 2007, 12:43 PM	#13
webfusion Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Near I-95 Posts: 6,216	Charlie, I gotta tell you, I have no illusions about the Annapolis Summit bringing forward any new proposals, or anything which could be considered a "breakthrough" in relations between Israel and the arabs. parky76 seems to think that Israel is not at risk, and that the USA can just wave a magic wand and the arabs will suddenly start singing kumbaaya. Ugh. Let's set the clock back to summer 2006 - Quote: But today, with hundreds of nuclear weapons and a state of the art military, Israel can defend any border, at any time, with a minimal amount of work. Right now, there are two Israeli captives/hostages in Lebanon named Goldwasser and Regev. Remember them? Will this upcoming conference even mention their names? Doubtful. Yet, with all the nukes, and the State of the Art Military, Israel was forced to war, defending itself against missile attacks that started from the other side of the border with Lebanon. The Hezbollah wasn't deterred by the nukes, and it didn't much care about the IDF capabilites. Haifa came under attack, and it suited the Hezbollah just fine to see the resulting IAF retaliation across Lebanon. They actually were pleased that they had woken-up the Israeli giant and had an opportunity to parade the media around, showing the results of the war they had started. To this very day, Hezbollah thumbs its nose at the world community, and especially at Israel. There will not be any end to this conflict, not in this lifetime. Get used to it, and come up with Plan B, because Israel is not about to capitulate to islamic terror and threats from jihadists. Do you happen to think that Israel will just turn around, recall the IDF to barracks, and leave the field to the HAMAS and HEZBOLLAH?

24th November 2007, 02:33 PM	#14
Dr Adequate Banned Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Waiting Long Enough By The River Posts: 17,897	Originally Posted by Ziggurat irregardless I don't think that I know how to bring peace to the Middle East but by **** I can stop you doing that. THAT IS NOT A REAL WORD. "Irrespective", yes. "Regardless", yes. "Irregardless"? THE JIHAD STARTS HERE!!!

24th November 2007, 02:45 PM	#15
Ziggurat Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 26,285	Originally Posted by Dr Adequate "Irregardless"? THE JIHAD STARTS HERE!!! "Irregardless" is part of the revelations of the Later-Day Websters. Your failure to recognize its divinely ordained lexiconographic validity marks you as an infidel. Death to the unbelievers of "irregardless"!
	__________________ "As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law

24th November 2007, 02:55 PM	#16
Dr Adequate Banned Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Waiting Long Enough By The River Posts: 17,897	Originally Posted by Ziggurat "Irregardless" is part of the revelations of the Later-Day Websters. Your failure to recognize its divinely ordained lexiconographic validity marks you as an infidel. Death to the unbelievers of "irregardless"! * blows himself up *

24th November 2007, 03:52 PM	#17
Prometheus Acolyte of Víðarr Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: North of Reality Posts: 43,270	Originally Posted by webfusion .... Get used to it, and come up with Plan B, Send in the homeopaths!
	__________________ As Einstein once said, "If you can't think of something relevant to say, just make something up and attribute it to some really smart dead guy." "I find your lack of pith disturbing," - Darth Rotor .......... Don't be offended. I'm not calling you a serial killer. -- Ron Tomkins.

24th November 2007, 07:11 PM	#18
Thunder Banned Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Queens Posts: 34,947	Israel is at risk from no one. Not Syria..not Egypt...not Saudi Arabia...not Jordan..not Libya..not Lebanon. And why? Cause Israel can make them glow in the dark for a long long time. There will never be another conventional war against Israel from an Arab state. Is Iran a threat? They can fire missiles at Israel..but they cannot threaten its existance. So where is this huge threat that Israel faces? Surely not from Iranian nukes. They dont have them and dont have the centrifuges to make one. Israel's sense of existance, is based on the percieved threat. They need to feel threatened to survive. The Arabs could offer a full and comprehensive peace plan, and the Israelis would still feel threatened. Its a Jewish thing. Better the devil you know...then the devil you dont know. And the devil the Jews know..is the sense of constant threat. Its a case of large scale co-dependancy.

24th November 2007, 07:39 PM	#19
webfusion Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Near I-95 Posts: 6,216	Quote: The Arabs could offer a full and comprehensive peace plan... Where is it? Have you some evidence of one?

24th November 2007, 08:23 PM	#20
Puppycow Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Japan Posts: 16,028	Originally Posted by Caroline Glick Americans have shown themselves to be unworthy of Israel's trust. Why does Caroline Glick hate the American people?
	__________________ “Some men are born mediocre, some men achieve mediocrity, and some men have mediocrity thrust upon them. With Major Major it had been all three.” ― Joseph Heller, Catch-22

24th November 2007, 08:46 PM	#21
stilicho Trurl's Electronic Bard Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 4,716	Originally Posted by parky76 There will never be another conventional war against Israel from an Arab state. Wow. All I can say. Wow.
	__________________ "Suppose you're thinking about a plate of shrimp. Suddenly someone will say, 'Plate' or 'Shrimp' or 'Plate of shrimp,' out of the blue. No explanation and there's no point in looking for one either. It's all part of the cosmic unconsciousness." -- REPO MAN LondonJohn: "I don't need to cite."

24th November 2007, 09:08 PM	#22
Mycroft High Priest of Ed Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 16,149	Originally Posted by parky76 Israel is at risk from no one. Not Syria..not Egypt...not Saudi Arabia...not Jordan..not Libya..not Lebanon. And why? Cause Israel can make them glow in the dark for a long long time. There will never be another conventional war against Israel from an Arab state. I think it's funny when the same people that claim Israel depends on the United States for its existence then turn around and claim Israel faces no threat at all from its enemies. Can you really not see that those two things contradict each other? Originally Posted by parky76 Is Iran a threat? They can fire missiles at Israel..but they cannot threaten its existance. It's only a matter of time before Iran can arm one of those missiles with a nuke. Originally Posted by parky76 So where is this huge threat that Israel faces? Surely not from Iranian nukes. They dont have them and dont have the centrifuges to make one. Which is why Iran is working very hard to build more centrifuges. Originally Posted by parky76 Israel's sense of existance, is based on the percieved threat. They need to feel threatened to survive. The Arabs could offer a full and comprehensive peace plan, and the Israelis would still feel threatened. Its a Jewish thing. Because the Jewish people have a long history of reacting to imaginary threats? Originally Posted by parky76 Better the devil you know...then the devil you dont know. And the devil the Jews know..is the sense of constant threat. Its a case of large scale co-dependancy. Your racial stereotyping is disgusting.
	__________________ Surely Israel is the party to blame? -a_unique_person I do have Mycroft on ignore, he is pretty much the Matt Giwer of your side. -a_unique_person Palestinian Refugees

24th November 2007, 09:29 PM	#23
Kopji Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Mogollon Rim Posts: 7,710	An alternate view would be that Bush is now nearing his final year in office; he is beginning to worry how history will remember him. A nice peace conference will look good in his memoirs. I'd predict window dressing more than anything else. What was leaked was a preliminary draft. Lacking any diplomatic skills whatsoever, 'leaks' are sort of this administration's version of getting down to business. Leaks have no relationship to what the final version will be. What can happen now is that the admittedly weak leadership of Israel can look stronger standing up against the US. With minimal luck and skill, the Israelis will return home looking tired and worn from all the hard fought position wrangling with the US. It was tough but we showed 'em we won't be pushed around. The very notion that the US is "pro Palestinian" must require effort for a columnist to assert with a straight face. Tis' just not the reality.

24th November 2007, 09:31 PM	#24
JoeEllison Cuddly Like a Koala Bear Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Florida Posts: 7,276	Originally Posted by Kopji The very notion that the US is "pro Palestinian" must require effort for a columnist to assert with a straight face. Tis' just not the reality. It is a flat-out lie, and assumes that the reader is an ****** idiot.

24th November 2007, 09:34 PM	#25
Ziggurat Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 26,285	Originally Posted by parky76 Israel exists for one reason only....we protect them. Originally Posted by parky76 Israel is at risk from no one. Not Syria..not Egypt...not Saudi Arabia...not Jordan..not Libya..not Lebanon. How does your head not explode from the pressure of this sort of contradiction?
	__________________ "As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law

25th November 2007, 12:47 AM	#26
Kopji Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Mogollon Rim Posts: 7,710	Originally Posted by JoeEllison It is a flat-out lie, and assumes that the reader is an ****** idiot. Yeah, until that remark I think she had some valid points. Sort of a 'gong' moment. I just can't picture Bush or Rice in a serious diplomatic effort. It's like thinking of Santa Claus scuba diving. If the mideast issues were easy to solve they've have been by now. I suppose we should thank them for trying though, peace is always worth another try.

25th November 2007, 04:15 AM	#27
Schneibster Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 3,966	Originally Posted by Ziggurat "Irregardless" is part of the revelations of the Later-Day Websters. Your failure to recognize its divinely ordained lexiconographic validity marks you as an infidel. Death to the unbelievers of "irregardless"! Isn't that "lexicographic," or am I risking having to blow myself up too?
Schneibster Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 3,966

25th November 2007, 04:20 AM	#28
Schneibster Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 3,966	Originally Posted by Kopji I just can't picture Bush or Rice in a serious diplomatic effort. It's like thinking of Santa Claus scuba diving. You owe me a new computer screen; the beer dripped down and shorted it out.
Schneibster Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 3,966

25th November 2007, 04:54 AM	#29
geni Anti-homeopathy illuminati member Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: UK Posts: 26,642	Originally Posted by webfusion No, I would like to see the Israelis win decisively against these jihadis, and the arab islamic radicals forced to sue for peace on Israel's terms. Are you prepared to accept genocide as a reasonable means to archive that end? Quote: Each time arabs had their backs against the wall in fighting with Israeli troops, the USA interceded on the behalf of the arabs. That formula has to stop being the rule. As and when Israel gets it's hands on as much oil as saudi arabia maybe. Quote: Annapolis will come and go, and the Israelis will continue dying in their cities at the hands of bombers, and the missiles will continue to fall on their communities, and innocent men like Ido Zoldan, (killed on Monday while driving along a public road) will continue to be shot in cold blood by islamic terrorists. If any of the arab idiologies were any good at produceing cold blooded terrorists they would have been a lot more sucessful.

25th November 2007, 04:57 AM	#30
geni Anti-homeopathy illuminati member Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: UK Posts: 26,642	Originally Posted by parky76 Israel is at risk from no one. Not Syria..not Egypt...not Saudi Arabia...not Jordan..not Libya..not Lebanon. And why? Cause Israel can make them glow in the dark for a long long time. There will never be another conventional war against Israel from an Arab state. Saudi arabia has the cash to outright buy nukes. Pervez Musharraf could probably do with a few billion right now.

25th November 2007, 05:02 AM	#31
geni Anti-homeopathy illuminati member Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: UK Posts: 26,642	Originally Posted by webfusion Yet, with all the nukes, and the State of the Art Military, Israel was forced to war, defending itself against missile attacks that started from the other side of the border with Lebanon. No Isreal was forced to go to war because it failed to think far enough ahead when giving a casus belli for operation summer rains. The attacks were due to the kidnapping the missile attacks didn't really get going until some time latter.

25th November 2007, 08:27 PM	#32
Beerina Sarcastic Conqueror of Notions Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: A floating island above the clouds Posts: 23,835	Originally Posted by parky76 So where is this huge threat that Israel faces? Surely not from Iranian nukes. They dont have them and dont have the centrifuges to make one. For now. In any case, take uranium hexaflouride gas and diffuse it thorugh a membrane over and over again. It takes a lot longer than a centrifuge, but it'll work. It worked for one of the two bombs actually used in war, IIRC. Do you really wear such blinders that 10 years from now, or 20, is not anyone's concern? Isn't that how we got in this mess in the first place? I'm sure you can recite chapter and verse how the US, by meddling to help create banana republics around the world (better our dictator than the Soviet's) laid the groundwork for the fires of the past decade. Quote: Israel's sense of existance, is based on the percieved threat. You'll pardon them, given what's happened to them, still in living memory. Quote: They need to feel threatened to survive. The Arabs could offer a full and comprehensive peace plan, and the Israelis would still feel threatened. Its a Jewish thing. So hateful you are, you do not see "The Israelis" as being merely a convenient focus of hatred for the domestic yokels around the Middle East, used by their vicious leaders to gain and keep power? Have you never had a rudimentary world history class, and learned how leaders have the masses focus hatred on this or that small group? Or a rudimentary psychology class, for that matter, which also discusses this?
	__________________ "Great innovations should not be forced [by way of] slender majorities." - Thomas Jefferson The government should nationalize it! Socialized, single-payer video game development and sales *now!* More, cheaper, better games, right? Right?

26th November 2007, 04:20 AM	#33
webfusion Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Near I-95 Posts: 6,216	Geni, I often have difficulty understanding where you are coming from. This is one of those times, sorry to say. Quote: The attacks were due to the kidnapping the missile attacks didn't really get going until some time latter. Here are the facts: They fly in the face of your claim. At around 9:00 AM local time, on 12 July 2006, Hezbollah launched rocket attacks on Zar'it, and Shlomi, two quiet Israeli villages. These bombardments were a diversionary tactic, and the main target for the Hezbollah was an incursion across the internationally-recognized Israeli border, with the aim to capture hostages (in that mission, they succeeded, taking Goldwasser and Regev and killing the rest of the IDF patrol unit). Going back to the OP --- Quote: As long as Israel refuses peace because of childish and deceitful reasons, Americans are at risk. Israel is not refusing peace. Americans are not at risk. Next case.

26th November 2007, 06:56 AM	#34
Darth Rotor Salted Sith Cynic Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Rat cheer Posts: 34,378	Originally Posted by Ziggurat We've been over this before, and IIRC you failed to offer any response the last time too. Israel's survival does not depend upon our assistance. Can I have some of what you are smoking, Zig? The history of the past sixty years suggests you are, in a word, wrong. Quote: And if we withdrew aid, what possible leverage could we exert to prevent them from becoming a client state of China instead? China is not above using money and a UNSC veto to support Israel in exchange for military technology, and they'd be about as sympathetic to pleas for Palestinian self-determination as they are to "Free Tibet" bumper stickers. Agreed. Survival instinct is strong in Israel. DR
	__________________ Helicopters don't so much fly as beat the air into submission. "Jesus wept, but did He laugh?"--F.H. Buckley____"There is one thing that was too great for God to show us when He walked upon our earth ... His mirth." --Chesterton__"If the barbarian in us is excised, so is our humanity."--D'rok__ "I only use my gun whenever kindness fails."-- Robert Earl Keen__"Sturgeon spares none.". -- The Marquis Last edited by Darth Rotor; 26th November 2007 at 06:56 AM.

26th November 2007, 06:59 AM	#35
Darth Rotor Salted Sith Cynic Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Rat cheer Posts: 34,378	Originally Posted by webfusion Glick was born in Chicago and graduated from Columbia University (NY) with a Bachelor of Arts in Political Science. ---from Wiki --- Her credentials are impeccable, both in the sphere of journalism and as a critical thinker. For you to call her "a piece of trash" makes you look stupid, parky76. Just add that to the list of things, web. Quote: No, parky76, I agree with Caroline Glick: American intervention against Israel right now is strengthening the jihadists all over the arab world, as they are thrilled that Israel is being pressured to surrender their security interests, leaving the State of Israel vulnerable to more terror. Of course, American intervention hardly ever is to Israel's benefit, right? Regardless of our move, any US attempt to act as honest broker (if anyone buys that anymore) will raise the fears of Americans selling out, or acting as enablers for Israel's enemies. I recall a few such cries cropping up perdiodicaly, when the US gets involved in the negotiations, since about the time of Camp David. I read the news a lot, but maybe it was all complete rubbish. DR
	__________________ Helicopters don't so much fly as beat the air into submission. "Jesus wept, but did He laugh?"--F.H. Buckley____"There is one thing that was too great for God to show us when He walked upon our earth ... His mirth." --Chesterton__"If the barbarian in us is excised, so is our humanity."--D'rok__ "I only use my gun whenever kindness fails."-- Robert Earl Keen__"Sturgeon spares none.". -- The Marquis Last edited by Darth Rotor; 26th November 2007 at 07:00 AM.