Just 14 pro-Zionism countries remaining

Arabs didnt want an Israel....they wanted 'palestine' all to themselves.

 

How about Abbas outlaws the Al Aksa Brigades?

 

If they want to become a state, they need to assume responsibility for the actions of their citizens. Not much point in international relations if individuals are free to pursue their own foreign policy

 

How's about Israel stops being a military with a State, and becomes a State with a military.

 

Why wouldnt they?

Wouldnt you?

 

I've read some mind-boggling stupidity in most posts from Israel apologists over the past years but the above comment borders on insanity.

Say what? May you never experience what it is actually like to be under brutal military occupation. Let alone for all of your life.

 

Why you want to make it easier for Hamas and Israel's other enemies to destroy her? Peace first.

 

I haven't seen you campaigning to give Masschusetts to the poor Jews. Does that mean that you are as anti-Semite as the unconditionally hated Semites? Why can't the Jews have 2% of America?

 

How about "Israel" outlaws the illegal "Israeli Settlers" instead founding and even arming some of them?

Hmmm....

Salam

 

That would be anti-Semite, to prohibit racists from murdering hated Semite civilians beyond Israeli borders.

 

Mr R what are you doing here wth these daft comments?

Could you even back that up?

The west bank and gaza was occupied long before any intifada. Have you any idea of the israeli desire for these lands?

Im getting sick of educating you on the nature of both sides here. You clearly arent interested in anything but youre own opinion.

 

Ja. Ve must rid ourselves of zeze troublesome Englanders .

 

The enemies Israel has is predominantly down to the fact that, since the days of the Mandate, the Zionists have been going out of their way to make them.

Why blame Israel's enemies for being enemies and not Israel for making them?

 

Because Israel desperately needs to create enemies so that it can fool the American Guilt Complex victim into incorrectly thinking that nuclear Israel is being "threatened" while it expands its illegal settlements.

 

Wait... what?
There isn't more to Palestine than the Israeli point of view?
What about the Palestinian POV? Or Iranian? Turkey, Chinese, Russian...
They don't all take the Israeli point of view.


If Turkey decided not to vote for Palestine, then that does NOT mean that they are taking the Israeli point of view. They can also decide not to vote for Israel too.

 

I hasten to disagree. There is no legitimate reason for voting against Palestine except that of appeasing the Zionists and their paymasters. You've seen that only the US of AIPAC bloc- and a couple of satellite islands- voted against Palestine. Why would that be and what might be their reasoning that isn't shared by the rest of the world ?

 

So Australia, Canada, Czech Republic, Germany, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Panama, Sweden, Israel and the US are the US of AIPAC bloc?

 

They are all victims of Guilt Complex misuse, except for Israel which is the misuser of such.

 

You want to take them one at a time and determine that ? Save Israel ' til last.

 

The difference is the fallout.

I noticed you didn't disagree with me that President "67 lines" Obama is the one ultimately in charge of what we do for votes in the UN. So hopefully that means you do know that to be correct.

The way UN law is structured works against Israel in that, not being a state, terrorist activities and rockets fired by Palestinians aren't cosidered the war crimes they otherwise would be. But Israel's expansion of settlements is considered illegal. Similarly it doesn't contain the idea of countries posing a threat or launching attacks at some point in the future as a justification for much, except in a rather informal way.

So from a legalistic point of view one should side with the Palestinians. And, while I think the Palestinians are very much in the wrong, Israel can't really be considered to be in the right with their expansion and restrictions either, even from a moral high ground standpoint.

The problem is that whatever the structure of the UN's laws the reality is that Hamas refuses to change its charter to recognize Israel, and there is no indication that a truely free Palestine wouldn't just be a source of constant terror attacks and eventually yet another Arab attempt at annihilating Israel and conquering the Jews.

I think this is generally understood. However I think most countries simply don't much care. They might like to see the US stuck in another war, might like the legal precedents set, and Jews aren't known for blowing up busses across Europe or gunning down Olympic athletes when you go against what they'd like, so who cares about them?

However Obama cares, becuase he'd lose his next election horribly, and probably cost a lot of future democrats their races, if he essentially caused a bunch of terror attacks and a war because he allowed the creation of a Palestine without a meaningful peace.

Is meaningful peace truely such a hard thing to ask of the Palestinians? They don't even have to meet all the desires of Israel, just Obama.

 

And I assume you have links to show that Likud has changed its charter to one which is not just as racist and inimicable to the Palestinians and their prospects of a state..and, while I have never read them, I shudder to think of what the Shas and the Leiberman's lot's charters say.

Let's be honest here.......there has never been a meaningful peace negotiation, because, at no time, has America ever been anything other than the Israeli Family lawyer?

I posted this in another thread..and will continue to post it in every appropriate thread until I get a cogent answer.....which explains the Israeli reaction to the satisfaction of people who do sensible rather than "entitled"..

And I do have to consider it proven that Israel has a non-peaceful, land grabbing agenda when I consider that

Senator [J.William Fulbright] proposed in 1970 that America should guarantee Israel’s security in a formal treaty, protecting her with armed forces if necessary. In return, Israel would retire to the borders of 1967. The UN Security Council would guarantee this arrangement, and thereby bring the Soviet Union — then a supplier of arms and political aid to the Arabs — into compliance. As Israeli troops were withdrawn from the Golan Heights, the Gaza Strip and the West Bank they would be replaced by a UN peacekeeping force. Israel would agree to accept a certain number of Palestinians and the rest would be settled in a Palestinian state outside Israel.

“The plan drew favorable editorial support in the United States. The proposal, however, was flatly rejected by Israel. ‘The whole affair disgusted Fulbright,’ writes [his biographer Randall] Woods. ‘The Israelis were not even willing to act in their own self-interest.’” Allan Brownfield in “Issues of the American Council for Judaism.” Fall 1997.[Ed.—This was one of many such proposals]

 

Oh a jewish judge ruling in favour of jews......if his ruled this in favour of the jews what else has he ruled in jews favour.

 

No. Obama was trapped and skinned. He was trapped and skinned by Americans according to AIPAC's bidding. The President is now just a decoration on the AIPAC warhead. Billary is smacking her lips.

 

Why don't you tell me?

While you are at it perhaps you'd like to look at what "ruling in favour of jews" means in the context of a constitutional judge...sounds like the ramblings of a conspiracist to me

 

Hmm, well you can disagree, but I'll have to add that if someone doesn't agree with one person, that doesn't mean they agree with the other. One country may have issues with Palestine, but may have bigger issues with Israel. Supporting NEITHER country is a valid option. There is no requirement to fall in line or support one or the other.

It may be that not supporting Palestine makes Israel happy, but that doesn't mean that your intention is to support Israel.