Or what?

A two state solution is the key to peace in the ME along with education.

Tough talk, combined with a carrot and a stick approach is necessary for this to be realized.

After "The Diplomatic Slap Heard Round the World" last week Hill's response here was required.

Be Well.

Or what?

#1 | Posted by Dave

Great question.

I agree, I'm tired of being Israels bitch. If we pull our undying support I bet they won't be so arrogant or they will suffer the results of their actions. With Iran now developing nuclear technology Israel is longer the only big fish in the ME and we all know Iran is just waiting for the chance to start a war with Israel.

"we all know Iran is just waiting for the chance to start a war with Israel."

I don't think we all know that. I doubt it quite seriously, especially with nukes. Iran fears invasion, nukes are really only valuable as a defensive weapon.

Please. This is just politics. Cover for when they finally bow to Israel. They just want to give the appearance of hard talk to placate their base. Like I asked the other day, is there anybody here who really believes that there is anything that Israel can do that will jeopardize the strong commitment between the two governments?

The solution is quite simple really. Per the 1948 UN Charter, neither the Israelis nor the Palestinians get Jerusalem: it is to be an international city under UN control since Christians, Muslims, and Jews all have a spiritual connection to that city. Tel Aviv is to be the Capitol of Israel.

"The solution is quite simple really."

LOL.

But seriously, that may have been relatively simple in 1948, but with the partitioning of Palestinian territories, walls, rocket attacks and suicide bombers, there's so much more insult added to the initial injury, that the idea that everything could boil down to a stalemate over Jerusalem seems a little to hopeful. Especially since I just had my bacon egg and cheese sammy.

there's so much more insult added to the initial injury,

That is the hard part. The solution is simple; getting these morons to follow it is hard. Somebody has to be the adult and say "that was then, this is now."

#10

FF!

Psycho.

*smh

Israel has time and time again proven their commitment to peace. It is the Arabs in "Palestine" that simply don't want peace. They want the complete destruction of Israel.

How do you commit to peace when the opposing party wants to break you? You can't negotiate madness.

How do you commit to peace when the opposing party wants to break you? You can't negotiate madness.
#13 | Posted by pragmatous

FF!

LOL!

You can't negotiate with a closed mind either. lmao!!

Israel SHOULD suggest going back to the initial treaty that founded Israel in 1948. They should agree to give back 100% of the land not included in that deal as a gesture to the world that they are willing to do what it takes. Then, if/when Israel is attacked again, the world will see exactly whom is to blame.

They won't, but they should. I have been to Tel Aviv and Jerusalem and I can tell you Tel Aviv is a much more fun city.

"... They should agree to give back 100% of the land not included in that deal as a gesture to the world that they are willing to do what it takes.... they won't, but they should."

Yeah, I have my pie in the sky fantasies too.

or else what is right. They have to bow and kiss ass because the money involved in politics. Campaign finance reform is the U.S.'s only chance of survival. Oh yeah, and give the Jews Arizona.

Arizona may have worked after WWII, but now the zionist have the two parties in their back pocket.

and AGAIN yesterday I listened to a report once again telling us that in an agreement signed by all earlier and even in the form of a map by ABBAS....this part of the 'city'.,.israel can build anything they want.....

"we all know Iran is just waiting for the chance to start a war with Israel."

No, they are cowards who fight via proxies in Hamas and Hezbollah. They have no desire to see their military destroyed by Israel. They need it to keep their own people in line. They will continue their policy of using proxies and getting Palestinians and Lebanese killed in the crossfire.

"Israel has time and time again proven their commitment to peace."

At times they have but whether they are committed to peace at any given moment depends on who is in charge at the moment. Announcing new settlements precisely when the Palestinians start opening up to negotations again is a calculated move specifically made to stall the peace process. So the current Israeli government is saying it doesn't want peace. This can't be reasonably denied.

Israel operates the strongest lobby in the USA. They have had complete control of Congress and the White House for decades. They are the reason Rahm Emanuel and Joe Biden are in the White House now. We keep their war machine and health program going, but have no say in their policies, just like Wall Street. There is no consequence for any evil thing Israel does. Whether Israel machine guns US troops on the Liberty Ship or traffics in Palestinian human body parts, our political system is too rotten and broken to act against or even publicize those wrongs.

If we pull our undying support I bet they won't be so arrogant or they will suffer the results of their actions.

I doubt that. I think an Israel "off the leash" will be far more aggressive without having to take the will of the US into consideration.

"I think an Israel "off the leash" will be far more aggressive without having to take the will of the US into consideration."

They got away with sinking one of our ships and machine gunning the life rafts.

They are routinely caught spying on us.

That last bit about the settlements during the Biden visit was the latest blatant "Fuck you!" they've presented our government (and they embarassed Bush this way too).

What about their behavior now indicates that they take what Americans want into consideration at all?

@Sully - it's Israels land!

Would you give up your land to your neighbor when he has several houses of his own surrounding yours?

There are several Arab countries surrounding Israel in which the Palestinians can move in with their own Arab friends. They don't need Israels land they simply want Israel destroyed.

Sully

Israel doesn't have to listen to a ga'damn thing the US has to say. They're there own country with their own sovereign rights.

What would you say if Europe told the US what to do?

Honestly, I don't give a damn about Israel one way or another. I don't care if they destroy the Palestinians or if they crumble none of it really matters to me. My only concern is whether this country will get drug down in the process.

"@Sully - it's Israels land!"

Then why don't they just annex the West Bank and Gaza and be done with it? Why let this mess play out for decades to the detriment of everyone involved?

Your position that it is all their land has NEVER been the official position of ANY Israeli government.

"Israel doesn't have to listen to a ga'damn thing the US has to say. They're there own country with their own sovereign rights."

I would agree. Except Americans have money taken out of our pockets and given to Israel. And Israel accepts our money. It isn't reasonable to take our money and expect us to be quiet about what you do with it.

I would love nothing more than to see the US stop giving money to both Israelis and Palestinians and then wash our hands of the whole mess.

"What would you say if Europe told the US what to do?"

Not a fair comparison. We don't take handouts from Europe. If we did and then we come to find out that *gasp* the money came with strings attached, I'd say "no shit". You can be independent or you can be a mooch but you can't be both.

It isn't reasonable to take our money and expect us to be quiet about what you do with it.

The person giving the money can place any strings they want on it and the person accepting the money can either take the money AND the strings, or take neither.

would agree. Except Americans have money taken out of our pockets and given to Israel. And Israel accepts our money. It isn't reasonable to take our money and expect us to be quiet about what you do with it.

#28 | Posted by Sully at 2010-03-18 12:29 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

hhmm thats funny

this logic doesnt exist when libs talk about other countries who take our money...wonder what the difference is?

I KNOW I KNOW I KNOW

Sully

It's ok to take our money and give it to third would countries as a penalty to the US for causing "global warming"? read Copenhagen treaty.

What about how we give money to the UN?

What about how we give money to Europe? China? Japan? India? Pakistan? Iraq? We gave billions to Iraq to fight Iran before the first gulf war? is that ok?

Israel is our Allie and this is why we give them money.

China isn't really our allie but we give them billions? Is that ok?

Why is it not OK for Israel? I'm curious ...

ally*

"this logic doesnt exist when libs talk about other countries who take our money...wonder what the difference is?"

I'm not for giving money away to anyone overseas so I don't know why you're telling me this.

The "Peace Process" is an Orwellian label and nothing less.

Using the word "peace" when describing anything related to the Middle East should be laughable if it weren't so pathetically inaccurate.

Why is it the American taxpayers financial obligation to fund Israel, if they aren't Jewish?

10 billion per year for what?

"The person giving the money can place any strings they want on it and the person accepting the money can either take the money AND the strings, or take neither."

I agree. But the problem with Israel is that our politicians are afraid to put clear conditions on our funding. Because when Israel refuses to meet those conditions, they would have to cut of the funding. And they are terrified to be seen as anti-Israel. So instead of telling them what they have to do in order to receive our money, we give them money and then beg them to do certain things and they tell us to blow it out our asses. Its a stupid arrangement on our end but that doesn't mean we have no right to question what they do with our money.

"It's ok to take our money and give it to third would countries as a penalty to the US for causing "global warming"? read Copenhagen treaty."

I wouldn't agree to such a thing but treaties are legally binding. We should elect people who better look out for our interests and we won't end up with shit like this.

"What about how we give money to the UN?"

I don't think charging dues in the UN is wrong but we shouldn't be paying the disproportional amount that we do.

"What about how we give money to Europe? China? Japan? India? Pakistan? Iraq? We gave billions to Iraq to fight Iran before the first gulf war? is that ok?"

I wouldn't give money to any of them if it were up to me.

"Israel is our Allie and this is why we give them money. "

If we have to pay a country to be your ally, they are not our ally.

If we find they are spying on us, they are not our ally.

If we are fighting two wars in their region of the world and they have zero troops helping us, they aren't that useful of an ally.

If they've attacked us one more time than they've ever helped us in combat, they aren't a good ally.

Israel is a marginal ally at best who is often more parasitic than helpful. I don't see how you could reasonably argue otherwise.

"China isn't really our allie but we give them billions? Is that ok?"

No.

"Why is it not OK for Israel? I'm curious ..."

Because it is not the job of our government to lower the quality of life of Americans (by taking our money) for the benefit of foreigners. That is true of Israel and everyone else. You really couldn't figure that one out on your own?

"this logic doesnt exist when libs talk about other countries who take our money...wonder what the difference is?"

If we stopped giving away our money to places like Israel then we would have more money to spend and would not have to borrow from China.

Sully

so should we stop funding the UN then? What about China?

richardspirit

Do you even know why we give our allies money? Why we fund the UN 22% of the UN's budget?

Do you understand how the world works or just pretend the world is only the US?

Interesting op-ed in the NYT written by the Israeli embassador to the US.

Very interesting piece Mod.

Though not uncontested, Israel's policy on Jerusalem did not preclude the conclusion of peace agreements with Egypt and Jordan. Nor did it prevent the Palestinians from negotiating with Israel for more than 15 years after the Oslo accords of 1993.

Food for thought.

"Sully

so should we stop funding the UN then?"

We should stop paying a disproporionate amount of the UN budget. To the extent that we want to stay members, we should be dues like anyone else. I thought I said that a few posts agao.

"What about China?"

What part of "No." did you not understand the first time you asked if I think we should be giving them money - unless you are talking about paying back what we've borrowed but I don't think you are as that isn't what we're talking about here.

Pragmatous,

I grew up on the street where you made ally's to survive. You do not support an ally that offers nothing in return. If there were two people on the block that were beefing each wanting to kill each other. Do you think I would give money and guns to the one that has never backed me up? The one that has attacked me? Not likely, in fact if this played out on the street I would likely observe from a long distance. I would only get involved if it benefited me AND I could not be pointed to as taking a side. In essence, I would let them kill each other. Now if there beef started to affect me or my loved ones then I would end it for both of them whether it be through negotiation or violence. And anyone that openly opposed me or ignored me would be taught some humility.

"Do you even know why we give our allies money?"

The real reason is that we apparently have the self confidence of a fat chick who supports an abusive, unemployed boyfriend.

Whatever you think the reason is, it isn't a good one. Any ally who needs us to fund them isn't all that useful. Any money that we give them would better serve our national defense if we spent it ourselves (assuming we needed to do so, which we really don't).

Any money that we give them would better serve our national defense if we spent it ourselves

You two have reached an impass. One is a globalist and the other is an isolationist. You have conflicting world views.

HC: I partially disagree. Some countries, such as Pakistan, we effectively do bribe. But the money we give is not because we fear them coordinating to destroy us or work against us. Traditionally an overwhelming majority of Americans have supported Israel, and that has been the reason for our eager financial backing. That is now changing, and I believe will continue to change. As it changes, it will be interesting to see how that affect our future levels of financial support.

I think any changes in the opinions and consequent actions of our representatives are going to lag behind the prevailing sentiment of the general population by decades. And I don't know if that's a good or bad thing.

"You two have reached an impass. One is a globalist and the other is an isolationist. You have conflicting world views."

I'm not an isolationist at all. We should have relationships with other countries and work together on mutual interests. There's just no reason for money to change hands in order for us to do that (or at least it should be a very rare case). If you have to pay to get people to cooperate with you, that cooperation is going to be so conditional that it isn't worthwhile anyway.

And I'm all for Americans privately donating to the needy abroad or to the IDF or anyone else they choose to support. It just isn't our government's job to make it compulsory.

What I said about national defense is 100% true and demonstrable. Israel is never going to help us fight a war unless that war is taking place in Israel. We're fighting a war next door to them and they don't have any troops there. Even with the sensitivities around Israeli troops in Muslims countries, they could still find a way to help us. Send the IDF to watch South Korea and free up our marines for our war efforts, for example. Such a thing will never happen because we have a completely one sided arrangement with them where we support them uncondtionally and they don't care all that much about us.

Even after 9/11, NATO allies didn't want to help in Afghanistan and some of them didn't help or barely have. They were obligated to help under the NATO treaty. We have one worthwhile ally and that is Great Britain and we've probably compromised their reliability by lying them into Iraq.

The fact that I'm aware that the US governement's job is to take care of the US first does not make an isolationist. It makes me sane.

Sully,
I wasn't using that term as an insult. I am also a "spend on us first, then share the leftovers" thinker.

"Sully,
I wasn't using that term as an insult. "

Sorry. Its one of those words people tend to use an insult if you question their globalist agenda.

"Protectionist" is another although the root of that word is alot more positive than "isolation".

Israel should say enough is enough and push all those rats out of their lands into gaza.Build a big fucking wall, control all incoming shipping and let them live in the squaler they deserve.
All you idiots who purport to know about events after 1948 thinking Israel is to blame for their condition know squat.
You got to be the dumbest fuckers sucking air on this earth.
A simple equation for you to know,all money flows to the top in arab world.
All money.

rwd

Wish they would speak to Iran, Nokos, Chicoms, most of Africa, Mexico and any other hundred countries in such a manner - difference being is the U.S. will suffer dearly for this. It is written.

re: It is written.

#53 | Posted by nanc at 2010-03-19 12:26 AM | Reply | Flag:

Where is it written that creepy apocalyptic fundamentalists (you) in the US have Jews best interests in mind?

I don't find that "written " anywhere.

I don't find that "written " anywhere.

What a pointless statement

Israel should say enough is enough and push all those rats out of their lands into gaza.Build a big fucking wall, control all incoming shipping and let them live in the squaler they deserve.

I don't recall Jesus advocating the genocide of people he referred to as "rats".

Maybe my New Testament is missing some Old Testament pages...

Or maybe there are some very un-Christian sadists in the world who pretend to be righteous.

Goatman-
re: Wish they would speak to Iran, Nokos, Chicoms, most of Africa, Mexico and any other hundred countries in such a manner - difference being is the U.S. will suffer dearly for this. It is written.

#53 | Posted by nanc at 2010-03-19 12:26 AM | Reply | Flag:

Help me out, Goatman.

I don't know where that "is written" either, Goatman.

I don't find that "written " anywhere.

What a pointless statement

#56 | Posted by goatman at 2010-03-19 12:36 AM | Reply | Flag:

Well, if you had actually paid some attention to the thread you would know that someone stated that:

Wish they would speak to Iran, Nokos, Chicoms, most of Africa, Mexico and any other hundred countries in such a manner - difference being is the U.S. will suffer dearly for this. It is written.

#53 | Posted by nanc at 2010-03-19 12:26 AM | Reply | Flag:

But, of course, you can't be troubled with the substance of the thread when you are obsessed with me.

I tend to pity you, but am not petty or stupid enough to truly understand you, goatman.

Genesis 12:3: "And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed."

We are cursed as a nation if we curse Israel. It IS written. Believe it.

I tend to pity you...

That means so much to me boy(d)

Nanc-
I prefer the New Testament, but maybe Jesus is a bit too radical for you and your desired Armageddon.

It's been edifying, Nanc.

Have a good night.

P.S. This blessing promised to Abraham is still available to all who heed, conversely so are the curses to the nations that do not.

#64 - The covenant is neverending, betelg - it still stands. You cannot have the NT without the OT.

Nanc-
Just one more note : You seem to pretend that Christ never existed while proclaiming to be a Christian.

#65 - p.s. I don't remember the last time I DIDN'T! Rightbackatcha!

Nanc-
re: You cannot have the NT without the OT.

You seem to prefer the OT to the New Law.

#68 - whatever floats your boat. Goodnight! TA!

Jesus came for naught in your heart, Nanc.

The covenant is neverending, betelg - it still stands

The new one, yes. The old one is historical now, and that's about it.

Unless, of course, you think it's appropriate to kill people for wearing two kinds of cloth, or eating shellfish, or mixing their crops...

Or about 500 other reasons the OT had for killing people.

The bible isn't a buffet, you can't pick and choose what you want out of it. If you're a christian, a follower of CHRIST, the NT is YOUR book. The OT belongs to the Jews. You can't cherry pick from both books to fit your right wing ideology.(well, you can...but folks can call you on it, and will)

#70 - if the NT had never been put to parchment, the OT has enough evidence of Jesus in the book of Isaiah alone to know of His birth, death, burial, resurrection AND return. There is no new law. Now, go to bed. I do love the OT prophets.

wow, this nanc woman is a kook. and she's on drudge all the time too. sad life.

Hey, nanc. Your next outing to red lobster for all it's yummy shellfish is gonna cost you.

Don't believe me? Look up the punishment in the new testament. Oh, shit...it's not THERE? hahahaha

Think of Israel as a business, they probably have more lobbyists than the oil companies. Sounds racist in an offhand way to say it that way, so if that offends oh well, wasn't meant racist.

And like someone else posted, it's just talk, will always be just talk unless Israel does something so fucked up we have no other choice.

MOSCOW Hoping to defuse a fight between friends, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton agreed Thursday to meet next week in Washington to confront an embarrassing dispute over Israeli land claims.

The Obama administration's special envoy for Mideast peace, George Mitchell, prepared to return to the region for talks with Israeli and Palestinian leaders.

Netanyahu called Clinton on Thursday. State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley declined to provide details of the conversation, which he described as the Israeli prime minister's response to Clinton's call last week in which she harshly criticized Israel's announcement of additional Jewish settlement housing in east Jerusalem.

"They discussed specific actions that might be taken to improve the atmosphere for progress toward peace," the department said in a statement released by Clinton's traveling party.

Crowley said U.S. officials will review Netanyahu's response and "continue our discussions with both sides to keep proximity talks moving forward."

Netanyahu's office said the prime minister clarified Israeli policy in the call with Clinton and suggested "mutual confidence-building measures" by Israel and the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank.

Netanyahu planned to be in Washington next week for the annual gathering of the premier pro-Israel lobby, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. Clinton was scheduled to speak to the group on Monday.

What a pointless statement

#56 | Posted by goatman at 2010-03-19 12:36 AM | Reply | Flag: Pot calling the kettle black

"We are cursed as a nation if we curse Israel. It IS written. Believe it."

If that is what you believe then your God is an asshole. Fuck him.

"We are cursed as a nation if we curse Israel. It IS written. Believe it."

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

bullshit

Amusing to see the name Clinton and the word commitment in the same sentence - LOL

There is no new law.

#73 | Posted by nanc at 2010-03-19 01:12 AM | Reply | Flag:

Then you are in opposition to the New Testament of Jesus Christ