A quick note:
I'd much rather be on this forum discussing actual science, but since my latest post in physics has gone unanswered to date, I'll just chill here instead.
A rose amongst the thorns, or a thorn amongst the roses? How do you suggest the Palestinians go about building an attractive way of life when they are imprisoned, starved, bombarded and invaded willy nilly? Calls for an end to the blockade have gone unheard for 2 years now.
They can start by not teaching their kids to demonize the jewish race and seek martyrdom.
The fact is there is NOTHING on the menu. No incentive, no trust, and NO compromise from the Zionists. The Palestinians are expected to compromise, but not Israel?
I think it's fair to demand that Israel accept Hamas as the government of Gaza and open its borders. But there are 2 completely reasonable conditions to demand in exchange:
1) That Hamas acts to police the territory it governs and to actively prevent and disrupt all attempts to mount terrorist attacks against Israel from within this territory.
2) An understanding is reached with the world about how to deal with Gaza in the event Hamas breaches its part of any ceasefire deal. If Hamas is going to use a ceasefire to arm itself to the teeth, dig tunnels into Israel and prepare for an all out war, then either the international community must commit to direct military intervention on Israel's behalf, or they must recognize Israel's right to a strong military response.
In a nutshell. Iran pre 1953 and post 1953.
So you're saying Iran had no involvement with the west prior to 1953? No doubt imposing the Shah was a mistake, as was America's support for the Ayatollah when the communists started what later became the "Islamic Revolution". However, up until 1953, not only did Iran thrive from relations with the west, but the west also protected Iranian territory from a massive Soviet land grab. Stalin was prepared to carve out a chunk for himself until the US sent an aircraft carrier to put them on notice.
1. Iran is a signatory to the NTP - Israel is NOT.
What good is it signing a deal and not complying with it? Israel should sign the NTP as well then, and declare Dimona off limits like the Iranians have done with their most sensitive sites.
2. Iran has no recent history of invading sovereign nations, Israel HAS.
A couple of decades ago Iran was staging massive human wave attacks into Iraq, hoping to expel Hussein and replace him with an islamic regime much like the one in Iran. Now one can argue that Saddam invaded them first and provoked them, but can you name me an instance in which Israel invaded someone who wasn't already attacking them? Besides, Iran is threatening the destruction of a fellow UN member, I don't see Israel doing that (nor advocating the destruction of the Palestinians).
3. Since when does the West play the role of policeman in nuclear tech? That is another remnant of colonialism.
We have every right not to trade with someone we feel is hostile, belligerent, and close to the possession of WMD's. That's not colonialism, it's a demand that Iran's islamic rulers show a basic respect for other nations and cultures before they can be trusted with potentially lethal technologies.
Good. that is refreshing to hear. I think the world should demand greater cooperation from Israel to reveal what its doing, and Israels various trading partners can decide for themselves how they want to proceed based on how Israel responds.
I believe they have already made those decisions, and continue to review those decisions on a regular basis.
Yeah, there are plenty of accounts of the history of IAEA's investigation into Iran's activities. You will find the vast majority of them begin with the revelation of Iran's nuclear program by Iranian dissidents, the ones you've reflexively labeled lying propagandists. Not worth my time to Google it for you, you're just as capable of digging this info up as I am.
OK. Past half century is WAY better than 2000 years ago dont you think? The land called Palestine, had been inhabited for untold generations.
And again, those who lived there for untold generations are only a small fraction of the population that today calls itself Palestinian. There has been a continuous jewish presence in Israel for thousands of years, but most Israelis descend from European immigrants and jewish arab refugees. There has been a long term Palestinian presence in the same land, but most Palestinians also descend from arab immigrants who arrived at the same time as the jews. The "we're natives here" argument can be equally applied and refuted for both sides.
You pass my accounting of the 1948 war off as a myth, and your verifying source is an opinionated blogger? This guy casually dismisses a great deal of evidence in claiming there was no jewish diaspora under the Romans, and replaces this evidence with speculation that "they probably all just converted to islam or something". Great, thanks for nothing. I don't see any need to spend the time providing you with facts and resources if this is all you're going to come up with to support your arguments.
Mistakes were made, and are being made. The crux of the matter is for Israel to exist, is for Palestine NOT to exist. That in a nutshell is the Arab objection to the establishment of the Israeli state.
This argument fully enshrines the desire of the arabs to avoid their share of responsibility for the Palestinian Nakba. Sure Israel's existence comes at the exclusion of the Palestinians, but only if you assume the arabs don't have any responsibility to pony up land or absorb "refugees" born on their lands as much as 60 years ago.
Outsiders from Europe, fantasizing and calling on a 2000 year old legend, displaced indigenous Arabs in Palestine.
This again demonstrates the root of the conflict- the Palestinians are nothing but a tool for the arabs to establish hegemony over land they consider holy to islam. There's your conflict in a nutshell.
So you accused me of being a mouthpiece for CNN and Fox, neither of which I watch except on very rare occasions because of the poor quality info they provide (too much celebrity gossip crap). I pointed out that everything you say is a repetition of what the terrorists and their apologizers have already said, you asked for an example, and I just gave it.
2. There are Christian, Hindu and Buddhist minorities living quite safely in Muslim nations.
And again I ask, have any of them grown in size in recent years relative to the rest of the population? In Israel, the population of Israeli arab citizens has grown in proportion to the rest of the population. The treatment of other religions in muslim countries is to slowly grind them down until a token population at best is all that remains. Lebanon was not so long ago a majority christian nation and even they couldn't survive the muslim onslaught. No, the arabs are light years away from understanding what it means to live in a secular, democratic, multicultural, multiethnic state.
Yes, France has millions of muslim citizens crammed into ghettos far from the economic activity of its cities, prevented from seeking ordinary jobs and discriminated against at every turn. Their treatment is far worse than what Israeli arab citizens receive, even though both groups are accorded "equal rights" under the law. Just because France systematically ignores its social problems and talks the big talk about racial equality, that doesn't mean they make any real effort to put it into practice. France has always been like that.
They could see the writing on the wall. And it was written in BLOOD. And they were right.
So you're admitting that the arabs launched a pre-emptive war against the jews in 1948. You're aware what the world thinks of pre-emptive wars these days, aren't you?
The mythology of Victimhood. Smoke and mirrors. A history of suffering does not give one the right to inflict suffering in return.
Oh and the Palestinian national tale doesn't contain any myths of its own? A history of suffering gives the jews every right to protect themselves from those who seek to cause them further suffering, such as the arabs in 1948.
Correct. What took you so long?
I have been saying from the start that the arabs must be part of the solution as they have, from the beginning, been part of the problem as well. They must give up land, absorb refugees and provide financial compensation for the mess they helped create. Israel can't afford to provide all these things on its own, and there is no reason why it should be obliged to.
The Russians sold Alaska in a moment of weakness, and it is the land of their forefathers. Does that give them the right of return?
Nope, they sold it fair and square. And the arabs never had a right of return to lands they sold to the jews either. Their demand for national hegemony over land they already abandoned and sold is what caused the crisis in the first place.
Hamas gains legitimacy in the process of DIALOGUE and INCLUSION.
Ok, and if they return to violence, would that not render them even more illegitimate than before? Or do we all just turn our heads and look the other way as usual?
