The Israel Discussion Thread

[Adami]

Well aside from his ramblings about Iran and the Holocaust, I think his entire speech can be summed up in 2 words.


NO COMPROMISE.

creating leverage.. smart

Yea, it's worked well so far.

[EPICVIEW]

The best way to defend against a war is to end it.



@Rumby, that's what I heard too. Not sure what he meant, maybe he misspoke?

He did not mispeak. very simply if a Jew wants to stay there, they will need to be allowed to become a palestinian, and live there, rather then migrate back to Israel via being expelled from their dwelling..who knows how many will want to.

Every heard of a country's sovereignty? Palestine will have to be able to decide who they let immigrate or not. Imposing this on Palestine is just a covert way of continuing the settlements.

rumborak

so then Israel will be expel whover they decide also.. since they are sovereign. again, this was Benjis way of saying,"You dont let them stay we will expel also"

[EPICVIEW]

Well aside from his ramblings about Iran and the Holocaust, I think his entire speech can be summed up in 2 words.


NO COMPROMISE.

creating leverage.. smart

Yea, it's worked well so far.

It has..Israel still exists.. so I guess its a matter of what one thinks is "working"

[Adami]

Peace is working, war is not working.

[EPICVIEW]

Peace is working, war is not working.

How do you think the northen border of Israel will end up? with peace? or with another war?

but dont think I and most people of the world  dont want it to be peace!!, but realistically radical Islam is on the march. Israel cant let its guard down for a piece of paper which is worthless.. like we today with Egypt, those agreements may not be valid anymore... and unless the Fatah Hamas Charter is changed.. then really whats it worth..?  a hudna? so what..

[Super Dude]

For those seeking sparknotes on the conflict: mideastweb.org

[Super Dude]

Adami: having dealt now with EV the last few pages, am I so bad?

[Adami]

Adami: having dealt now with EV the last few pages, am I so bad?

No, you're not strictly sarcastic 90% of the time.

[ariich]

Sorry to have to repeat myself, but can people stop taking digs at Epicview? Disagree with him all you like, but he is posting in a perfectly civilised manner so can everyone stop making it personal please.

[Perpetual Change]

Thanks for EB and EV for clearing this issue up for me.

I also find it a bit strange that people are jumping down EV's throat for his opposition to this. Do the pro-Israeli's here aside from Epic actually agree with Obama's stance? I find that a bit surprising.

Also, it looks like the Adami of days gone by has returned. Welcome back, old Adami 

[El Barto]

I suspect the problem was with the incessant sarcasm; not the opinion.

[Perpetual Change]

I suspect the problem was with the incessant sarcasm; not the opinion.

Adami has issues with incessant sarcasm?


 

[EPICVIEW]

Thanks for EB and EV for clearing this issue up for me.

I also find it a bit strange that people are jumping down EV's throat for his opposition to this. Do the pro-Israeli's here aside from Epic actually agree with Obama's stance? I find that a bit surprising.

Also, it looks like the Adami of days gone by has returned. Welcome back, old Adami  

Youre welcome.. anytime PC.

Have a great day!!

[Super Dude]

Come now Adami, I'm not that insanely defensive of Israel, as defensive as I can be (and only when there's been an incident at that).

[Adami]

Thanks for EB and EV for clearing this issue up for me.

I also find it a bit strange that people are jumping down EV's throat for his opposition to this. Do the pro-Israeli's here aside from Epic actually agree with Obama's stance? I find that a bit surprising.

Also, it looks like the Adami of days gone by has returned. Welcome back, old Adami  

I suspect the problem was with the incessant sarcasm; not the opinion.

Adami has issues with incessant sarcasm?


 

I know you are not fond of me in the least, but the "old" me as you put it was goofy 24/7 and rude and sarcastic. I am trying to be proper, it was difficult dealing with EVs constant sarcasm, that is all.

In short, I used to be a prick. So if you think I'm being a prick again, I'll just stop posting for a while.

[hefdaddy42]

You're not a prick, don't stop posting.

[PlaysLikeMyung]

the 1967 borders are in refernece tot he 6 day war that Israel wa attacked on

You supposedly spent 30 years "researching" this topic, and then claim Israel was attacked first? Dude, even Israel conceded that they instigated it, calling it a "preemptive measure". Whether it was justifiable might be a topic of controversy, but what credence can we give to your ramblings if you can't even get the most basic facts straight?

rumborak

again.. you are incorrect... shocking.

https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/67_War.html

Syria’s attacks on Israeli kibbutzim from the Golan Heights finally provoked a retaliatory strike on April 7, 1967. During the attack, Israeli planes shot down six Syrian fighter planes — MiGs supplied by the Soviet Union. Shortly thereafter, the Soviets — who had been providing military and economic assistance to both Syria and Egypt — gave Damascus false information alleging a massive Israeli military buildup in preparation for an attack. Despite Israeli denials, Syria decided to invoke its defense treaty with Egypt and asked Nasser to come to its aid.

Hey epicview, do you bother reading your own articles?

By this time, Israeli forces had been on alert for three weeks. The country could not remain fully mobilized indefinitely, nor could it allow its sea lane through the Gulf of Aqaba to be interdicted. Israel decided to preempt the expected Arab attack. To do this successfully, Israel needed the element of surprise. Had it waited for an Arab invasion, Israel would have been at a potentially catastrophic disadvantage. On June 5, Prime Minister Eshkol gave the order to attack Egypt.

Uh..yea I did.. did you? or do you just have selective reading skillz?  What I mentioned was an attack on Israel that started the process of war.... pretty well known stuff.....

and that this Rumbarak wants to call history' subjective online BS" does not make the facts in the article incorrect, Those MIGS were shot down over Israeli airspace in an act of war. after attacks onto Israel proper from the Golan

Except we were talking about the war itself. Not a separate skirmish that came before. Ultimately Israel started the conflict

[Rathma]

It seems the majority of Israelis aren't as hawkish as Benny

https://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Middle-East/2011/May-25/Israel-PM-should-have-said-yes-to-Obama-poll.ashx#axzz1NLwqfMYZ

[Super Dude]

Indeed they're not. Look at the pages before the Nakba day riot and Adami and I were saying how we wish those people were in power and not the religious right. That said, Hamas' continued refusal to acknowledge Israel and refuse peace, and the disturbing refusal to acknowledge the Palestinian role in 1948 (as evidenced by Abbas's NYT op-ed) is leaning my opinions somewhat rightward lately.

[EPICVIEW]

the 1967 borders are in refernece tot he 6 day war that Israel wa attacked on

You supposedly spent 30 years "researching" this topic, and then claim Israel was attacked first? Dude, even Israel conceded that they instigated it, calling it a "preemptive measure". Whether it was justifiable might be a topic of controversy, but what credence can we give to your ramblings if you can't even get the most basic facts straight?

rumborak

again.. you are incorrect... shocking.

https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/67_War.html

Syria’s attacks on Israeli kibbutzim from the Golan Heights finally provoked a retaliatory strike on April 7, 1967. During the attack, Israeli planes shot down six Syrian fighter planes — MiGs supplied by the Soviet Union. Shortly thereafter, the Soviets — who had been providing military and economic assistance to both Syria and Egypt — gave Damascus false information alleging a massive Israeli military buildup in preparation for an attack. Despite Israeli denials, Syria decided to invoke its defense treaty with Egypt and asked Nasser to come to its aid.

Hey epicview, do you bother reading your own articles?

By this time, Israeli forces had been on alert for three weeks. The country could not remain fully mobilized indefinitely, nor could it allow its sea lane through the Gulf of Aqaba to be interdicted. Israel decided to preempt the expected Arab attack. To do this successfully, Israel needed the element of surprise. Had it waited for an Arab invasion, Israel would have been at a potentially catastrophic disadvantage. On June 5, Prime Minister Eshkol gave the order to attack Egypt.

Uh..yea I did.. did you? or do you just have selective reading skillz?  What I mentioned was an attack on Israel that started the process of war.... pretty well known stuff.....

and that this Rumbarak wants to call history' subjective online BS" does not make the facts in the article incorrect, Those MIGS were shot down over Israeli airspace in an act of war. after attacks onto Israel proper from the Golan

Except we were talking about the war itself. Not a separate skirmish that came before. Ultimately Israel started the conflict

Incorrect. Lets be real and be adults, the "Six Day War" was not Six days!!! Ultimately, The conflict was started by the enemies of Israel, Israel made a strategic move after being attacked, that started what really should be called "Six days" it took to have the enemy surrender. The War itself was already under way.. much like the Northen Border of Israel and Lebanon, today. Hezbollah is in a declared war as we speak.. did you know that? The conflict of agression by Russia and Syria and the attacks into Israels air space and the deaths of Israeis as I showed were the provocation that Israel called the final straw, and Syria and Egypt knew that and amassed on the borders. history shows this  succinctly.

https://www.golansights.com/history.html

in April 1967, after Syria heavily shelled Israeli villages from the Golan Heights, Israel shot down six of Syria’s MiG fighter planes, provided by the Soviet Union. Israel warned Syria against future attacks.


Before the Six-Day War, the strategic heights of the Golan, which are approximately 3,000 feet (1,000 m) above the bordering Hulah Valley in Israel, were used to frequently bombard civilian Israeli farming communities far below them. Syrian attacks killed 140 Israelis and injured many more from 1949 to 1967.

In May 1967 before the Six-Day War of 1967, Hafez Assad, then Syria's Defense Minister declared: "Our forces are now entirely ready not only to repulse the aggression, but to initiate the act of liberation itself, and to explode the Zionist presence in the Arab homeland. The Syrian Army, with its finger on the trigger, is united... I, as a military man, believe that the time has come to enter into a battle of annihilation." ( thats called a declaration of War)

During the Six-Day War of 1967 Syria's shelling greatly intensified and the Israeli army captured the Golan Heights on 9–10 June. The area which came under Israeli control as a result of the war is two geologically distinct areas: the Golan Heights proper (413 sq mi; 1,070 km²) and the slopes of the Mt. Hermon range (39 sq mi; 100 km²). The new border between the two forces was called the Purple Line.

[Rathma]

Can somebody explain to me why the U.S. supports Israel so much? I know the two are allies, but why the commitment no matter what? The public that support Israel seem to be either evangelical Christians or Islamophobes. But religiosity can't explain it all. Does the U.S. feel bad that it didn't accept enough Jewish immigrants during WWII? Seems like that guilt should be left to the Europeans though. Is it about politicians getting money from AIPAC? Is it just geopolitics? Is it just a tool for the military industrial complex to create stages of more conflicts? Or what?

[rumborak]

EV, maybe you want to take a step back and realize that when people talk about the Six Day War, they talk about the six days of military action from June 5 to June 10, 1967. That's what it's named after, that's what it refers to. In your reading up on the topic you might have broadened your view on the conflict to before and after the military events, but don't call that the 6 Day War.
I fail to see how we are supposed to have a meaningful discussion about the topic when you come in and proclaim that Israel didn't start the 6 Day War, something that plain disputes historical fact, only for you to "reveal" later that you personally redefined the term for yourself.

rumborak

[EPICVIEW]

Can somebody explain to me why the U.S. supports Israel so much? I know the two are allies, but why the commitment no matter what? The public that support Israel seem to be either evangelical Christians or Islamophobes. But religiosity can't explain it all. Does the U.S. feel bad that it didn't accept enough Jewish immigrants during WWII? Seems like that guilt should be left to the Europeans though. Is it about politicians getting money from AIPAC? Is it just geopolitics? Is it just a tool for the military industrial complex to create stages of more conflicts? Or what?

Because they share the same values for freedom and have a shared common bond of democracy. Post world war II America realized how vital the relationship was with Israel and they do share much as far as technology secrets, also Israel sereves as the platform the US Military historically uses to test its newest airforce aircrafts etc. 

[Rathma]

Because they share the same values for freedom and have a shared common bond of democracy. Post world war II America realized how vital the relationship was

Eh, Zionism has little to do with American values. And didn't the U.S. pretty much have no relationship with Israel for its first couple of decades? I suppose such a relationship could have been useful in the Cold War, and might as well be friends with nuke holders.

[EPICVIEW]

Because they share the same values for freedom and have a shared common bond of democracy. Post world war II America realized how vital the relationship was

Eh, Zionism has little to do with American values. And didn't the U.S. pretty much have no relationship with Israel for its first couple of decades? I suppose such a relationship could have been useful in the Cold War, and might as well be friends with nuke holders.

I disagree..

who should the US be supporting?  Zionism is nothing more then the Jews reclaiming their riteful Nation. I could say that the USA did the same in many ways..althoough they had no connection to the land before colonizing it.. again I could argue the birth of America and Zionism are similar as far as fleeing oppresion and freedom for all

[slycordinator]

Can somebody explain to me why the U.S. supports Israel so much? I know the two are allies, but why the commitment no matter what? The public that support Israel seem to be either evangelical Christians or Islamophobes. But religiosity can't explain it all.

Why can't it? We've got Jews in influential political organizations and even then plenty in private organizations that lobby to the politicians. And Jews are tight-knit enough culturally here in the US that if someone came out against Israel, it could be political suicide.

And there are the evangelical Christians that feel a mandate to support the country. They too, are part of politics much in the same way as the Jews.

[PlaysLikeMyung]

EV, maybe you want to take a step back and realize that when people talk about the Six Day War, they talk about the six days of military action from June 5 to June 10, 1967. That's what it's named after, that's what it refers to. In your reading up on the topic you might have broadened your view on the conflict to before and after the military events, but don't call that the 6 Day War.
I fail to see how we are supposed to have a meaningful discussion about the topic when you come in and proclaim that Israel didn't start the 6 Day War, something that plain disputes historical fact, only for you to "reveal" later that you personally redefined the term for yourself.

rumborak

This.

[EPICVIEW]

EV, maybe you want to take a step back and realize that when people talk about the Six Day War, they talk about the six days of military action from June 5 to June 10, 1967. That's what it's named after, that's what it refers to. In your reading up on the topic you might have broadened your view on the conflict to before and after the military events, but don't call that the 6 Day War.
I fail to see how we are supposed to have a meaningful discussion about the topic when you come in and proclaim that Israel didn't start the 6 Day War, something that plain disputes historical fact, only for you to "reveal" later that you personally redefined the term for yourself.

rumborak

This.

That.,... is again incorrect. unless you can point to anything factual.. your posts really dont change history, you may want to again reread history

[rumborak]

k. Great contribution.

rumborak

[PlaysLikeMyung]

EV, maybe you want to take a step back and realize that when people talk about the Six Day War, they talk about the six days of military action from June 5 to June 10, 1967. That's what it's named after, that's what it refers to. In your reading up on the topic you might have broadened your view on the conflict to before and after the military events, but don't call that the 6 Day War.
I fail to see how we are supposed to have a meaningful discussion about the topic when you come in and proclaim that Israel didn't start the 6 Day War, something that plain disputes historical fact, only for you to "reveal" later that you personally redefined the term for yourself.

rumborak

This.

That.,... is again incorrect. unless you can point to anything factual.. your posts really dont change history, you may want to again reread history

Dude, IT WAS IN THE ARTICLE YOU YOURSELF POSTED. What more do you want from me? The war lasted 6 FREAKING DAYS. What you posted WAS A MONTH PRIOR TO THE ACTUAL WAR. Israel pre-emptively struck Egypt. Choose to believe it or not, but, as YOU keep saying, this is FACT

[EPICVIEW]

EV, maybe you want to take a step back and realize that when people talk about the Six Day War, they talk about the six days of military action from June 5 to June 10, 1967. That's what it's named after, that's what it refers to. In your reading up on the topic you might have broadened your view on the conflict to before and after the military events, but don't call that the 6 Day War.
I fail to see how we are supposed to have a meaningful discussion about the topic when you come in and proclaim that Israel didn't start the 6 Day War, something that plain disputes historical fact, only for you to "reveal" later that you personally redefined the term for yourself.

rumborak

This.

That.,... is again incorrect. unless you can point to anything factual.. your posts really dont change history, you may want to again reread history

Dude, IT WAS IN THE ARTICLE YOU YOURSELF POSTED. What more do you want from me? The war lasted 6 FREAKING DAYS. What you posted WAS A MONTH PRIOR TO THE ACTUAL WAR. Israel pre-emptively struck Egypt. Choose to believe it or not, but, as YOU keep saying, this is FACT

again.. that is the name of the time it took to get the enemy to surrender ( 6 Days), not when the enemies of Israel declared war or when the conflict had started. as the article plainly states..and many articles plainly state and history shows
In May 1967 before the Six-Day War of 1967, Hafez Assad, then Syria's Defense Minister declared: "Our forces are now entirely ready not only to repulse the aggression, but to initiate the act of liberation itself, and to explode the Zionist presence in the Arab homeland. The Syrian Army, with its finger on the trigger, is united... I, as a military man, believe that the time has come to enter into a battle of annihilation." ( thats called a declaration of War)

again I showed what everyone knows about the MiGs being shot down.. and Israel stating that it was a provocation of War, the Enemy of Israel declared war and started to amass their armies for the War..

[EPICVIEW]

Lets move to another subject..anyone see Nasrallahs comments today?

[El Barto]

The local newspaper's editorial made an interesting observation.  They ran position statements from various administrations over the years and it seems that Obama's position is exactly the same one the US has had since, well, 1967.  Nothing's changed except that he actually used the term "'67 borders" rather than citing the UN resolution number. 

It's absolutely amazing how important it is for people to find things to attack the opposing party over,  even if it's something they're supposed to agree with.  It would appear that no one is supposed to have their own opinion in US politics anymore.  Only positions contrary to their opponents. 

[EPICVIEW]

The local newspaper's editorial made an interesting observation.  They ran position statements from various administrations over the years and it seems that Obama's position is exactly the same one the US has had since, well, 1967.  Nothing's changed except that he actually used the term "'67 borders" rather than citing the UN resolution number.  

It's absolutely amazing how important it is for people to find things to attack the opposing party over,  even if it's something they're supposed to agree with.  It would appear that no one is supposed to have their own opinion in US politics anymore.  Only positions contrary to their opponents.  

I think most who care about Israel are mad at Obama for many things, I think the worst was the disdain Obama had on his face when Bibi was speaking.. and lets not forget how shabbily Bibi was treated a year ago at the Whitehouse, so for many, Obama reversing GWBs and all other Presidenst postion on Israel not having to go back to the 67 lines was more of an aggresive move by Obama to rub salt in the already open wound. The timing was aweful by Obama, but we saw his toast in England so we know Obama is out to lunch..timing and protocol is not an Obama strong suit

I think Obama is trying to get Bibi out and a dove in , like Obama. to Obama Bibi is GWB and he hates him. and trust Bibi cant stand Obama, who could blame him

[El Barto]

Obama reversing GWBs and all other Presidenst postion on Israel not having to go back to the 67 lines was more of an aggresive move by Obama to rub salt in the already open wound.

“These permanent status negotiations, and the negotiations between Israel and the Arab states, will take place on the basis of Resolutions 242 and 338.”

— Invitation by U.S. Secretary of State James Baker for Arab-Israeli peace talks, in October 1991

“As part of a final peace settlement, Israel must have secure and recognized borders. These should emerge from negotiations between the parties in accordance with United Nations Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338.”

— Prepared statement by President George W. Bush in April 2005

There is no reversing.