"Israel is for Jewish people only" - Netanyahu

[tshile]

Bag of hammers is interesting

 

theres lots of “bag of”’s I’d expect to hear as a descriptor but not one of hammers

 

 

[@DCGoldPants]

Yonatan Netanyahu was the good son of Benzion. Bibi has always been the shady one.

[Destino]

13 minutes ago, Larry said:

You're right. A one state solution means they can't be an apartheid country any more. 

Sure it can, eventually, just not the one that is currently in place. The middle east isn't the sort of neighborhood where I'd bet on secular government and religious freedom lasting very long. 

 

[Larry]

1 minute ago, Destino said:

Sure it can, eventually, just not the one that is currently in place. The middle east isn't the sort of neighborhood where I'd bet on secular government and religious freedom lasting very long. 

 

 

Note:  You are now attempting to support a government by pointing out that it's based on apartheid, by trying to claim that it's everybody else's fault.  

 

[Renegade7]

3 hours ago, Larry said:

Not really mad at Israel for doing this. 

It's their country. They're not required to recognize freedom of speech. 

And I've got to say, I don't think the Congress, let alone individual congressmen, should be engaging in foreign policy like that. 

Lots of things about this that I AM mad about. But not so much this one. 

 

If that's what comes with the territory in being friends with them, that says a lot of their government and ours.  Political retribution on one end with the other side calling criticism of their racisim racisim?  And you're okay with that?

[Destino]

Just now, Larry said:

 

Note:  You are now attempting to support a government by pointing out that it's based on apartheid, by trying to claim that it's everybody else's fault.  

 

I am not in support of the Israeli government.  It was a bad idea from the word go, but it does exists and that's the position from which we must proceed.  I am also not claiming it's everyone's fault.  I'm not even sure what that means in this context. 

 

If I'm doing anything it's taking shots at the one state solution sales pitch.  The kindest thing I can say about it, is that it's naive.  It sets the stage for a massive power struggle between two deeply bitter sides surrounded by nations that would gladly see the Jews ejected from the region.  That is not the path to peace and tolerance. 

[Renegade7]

Just now, Destino said:

I am not in support of the Israeli government.  It was a bad idea from the word go, but it does exists and that's the position from which we must proceed.  I am also not claiming it's everyone's fault.  I'm not even sure what that means in this context. 

 

If I'm doing anything it's taking shots at the one state solution sales pitch.  The kindest thing I can say about it, is that it's naive.  It sets the stage for a massive power struggle between two deeply bitter sides surrounded by nations that would gladly see the Jews ejected from the region.  That is not the path to peace and tolerance. 

 

I really wished they could find a way to work it out because the inland territory the Palestinians would be getting in a two-solution won't help them at all from an economic standpoint and likely just a staging ground for Hezbollah once they take power and have to be invaded again.  

 

It really sucks, the population are borderline equal, there'd have to be concessions on the Isreali side they don't want to make but the real best case scenario is to stop fighting over that land and find some way to share it.  

 

It may be too late for a two-state solution, West Bank has spent more time occupied then an actual independent country now.

[Larry]

2 hours ago, Destino said:

I am not in support of the Israeli government.  It was a bad idea from the word go, but it does exists and that's the position from which we must proceed.  I am also not claiming it's everyone's fault.  I'm not even sure what that means in this context. 

 

Maybe it's just me.  But it sure looked to me like you were 

 

1)  Defending Israel's actions by pointing out that the Congressmen opposed Apartheid, and Israel was founded on it.  

 

2)  And when I pointed out that you were now defending said apartheid, replied with:

 

2 hours ago, Destino said:

Sure it can, eventually, just not the one that is currently in place. The middle east isn't the sort of neighborhood where I'd bet on secular government and religious freedom lasting very long. 

 

 

Which sure looked to me like attempting to justify apartheid by saying "Well, those folks over there, . . . "

 

2 hours ago, Destino said:

If I'm doing anything it's taking shots at the one state solution sales pitch.  The kindest thing I can say about it, is that it's naive.  It sets the stage for a massive power struggle between two deeply bitter sides surrounded by nations that would gladly see the Jews ejected from the region.  That is not the path to peace and tolerance. 

 

Now, though, I do agree with (what I think is) your position.  Expecting Israeli and the Palestinians to all form one nation, with full protection for whichever religion isn't in power?  Not happening.  

 

If the Jews are the minority, then the apartheid continues.  If they ever lose the majority, then the Palestenians will view it as time to get even for 50 years of concentration camps.  

 

The Israelis will deserve it, because of the aforementioned 50 years of concentration camps.  But it's not something I'm cheering for.  (Well, OK, part of me is.)  And it's certainly not a workable solution.  

 

No, the only way this ends is with an Israeli state and a Palestinian state, with a really good wall in between them.  (Or a genocide of the Palestinian people.)

 

I wouldn't be surprised if what it would take would be for the US to occupy the Palestinian country for 50 years, first.  

 

My own proposal for a Mideast peace plan involves the US simply announcing that we're sending military force to the region, and imposing the following plan, whether either country agrees with it or not.  

 

1)  Effective immediately, there are two countries in this region, Israel and Palestine.  Both are officially recognized by the US government.  (OK, the Palestinians have the right to use whatever democratic mechanism they agree to, to design their own government.)  

2)  These countries will be drawn on the 1967 borders.  

2a)  Yes, that means that every single one of the "settlements" that Israel has built in Palestine, is now in Palestine.  No, the current occupants of said land do not own it.  Call it your fine for 40 years of war crimes.  

2b)  If Israel and Palestine want to get together and negotiate some tweeks to that border, I'm cool with that.  But the 67 borders will be the starting point.  

3)  The Israeli blockade of Palestine is now over.  Any attempt by Israel to impose one will result in war with the US Navy.  

3a)  However, 50 years of Palestine launching rockets and other attacks at Israeli civilians make it very clear that there is a legitimate need to deny weaponry to the Palestenians.  Effective immediately, the US will be responsible for conducting customs inspections of all shipments into Palestine.  Weapons (above the level needed for internal law enforcement, and infantry weapons for the Palestinians to create a defensive militia) will be prohibited.  But maccaroni and cheese, medical replacement parts, and concrete will be arriving.  

3b)  It is hoped that this measure will be temporary, but we're talking years.  

4)  I assume that a big chunk of foreign aid will be headed for Palestine, too.  It is in America's advantage for Palestine to become prosperous, or at least comfortable.  

5)  And - Israel gets Jerusalem.  Yes, I know it was supposed to be an international city.  Yes, I'm aware that Israel grabbed it following an act of Israeli terrorism, and that they've been imposing apartheid on it ever since.  But, I don't see the option of creating a hole in the middle of Israel, and calling it "not Israel" as working.  And they've been in charge of it for a long time, anyway.  And I think that my deal has to give them something.  

 

I don't see any solution short of this one working.  

 

I don't see any way of getting to this solution other than somebody with a big enough military walking in and imposing it at gunpoint.  And I don't see anybody having either the guns, or the moral position, to impose it.  

[visionary]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

8 hours ago, Larry said:

And I've got to say, I don't think the Congress, let alone individual congressmen, should be engaging in foreign policy like that. 

Huh?

Edited August 16, 2019 by visionary

[Larry]

21 minutes ago, visionary said:

Huh?

 

I don't think Congress (either as a whole, or individual members) should be doing things like meeting with representatives of foreign states, or visiting foreign countries.  

 

To me, that's the President (and those he designates) jobs.  

 

For example, the President may spend years engaged in the detailed, line by line, negotiation of a treaty.  Congress' job is to decide whether the US will take or reject the product of the finished negotiation.  Having Congress engage the other country directly undercuts the Executive's ability to negotiate.  

 

Maybe I could see Congress, by passing a resolution, direct the President as to the broad strokes of which foreign policy they would like him to work out the detailed implementation of.  

[visionary]

 

[visionary]

8 hours ago, Larry said:

 

I don't think Congress (either as a whole, or individual members) should be doing things like meeting with representatives of foreign states, or visiting foreign countries.  

 

To me, that's the President (and those he designates) jobs.  

 

Members of congress visit other countries all the time as part of their job.  They also sometimes want to get away for a bit and some have relatives in other places.

Edited August 16, 2019 by visionary

[Larry]

9 minutes ago, visionary said:

Members of congress visit other countries all the time as part of their job.  They also sometimes want to get away for a bit and some have relatives in other places.

 

I wasn't clear.  

 

I've got no problem with members of congress taking overseas vacations.  I don't think they should be conducting foreign policy.  When I said "visiting foreign countries" I was thinking along the lines of "state visit", not "trip to Tokyo Disney."  

[Renegade7]

How would we look as a country that prides itself on freedom of speech bearing people from visiting our country because their critical of our government or one of our allies?  It looks weak.

[Dan T.]

19 hours ago, Larry said:

Not really mad at Israel for doing this. 

It's their country. They're not required to recognize freedom of speech. 

And I've got to say, I don't think the Congress, let alone individual congressmen, should be engaging in foreign policy like that. 

Lots of things about this that I AM mad about. But not so much this one. 

 

10 hours ago, Larry said:

 

I don't think Congress (either as a whole, or individual members) should be doing things like meeting with representatives of foreign states, or visiting foreign countries.  

 

To me, that's the President (and those he designates) jobs.  

 

For example, the President may spend years engaged in the detailed, line by line, negotiation of a treaty.  Congress' job is to decide whether the US will take or reject the product of the finished negotiation.  Having Congress engage the other country directly undercuts the Executive's ability to negotiate.  

 

Maybe I could see Congress, by passing a resolution, direct the President as to the broad strokes of which foreign policy they would like him to work out the detailed implementation of.  

 

 

You know that Congress holds the purse strings on foreign assistance, right?  

[Cooked Crack]

 

[@DCGoldPants]

I don't want to come off as some Anti-Israel Jew because the situation is complicated with most of the actors here being ****ty IMO.

 

You have the Bibi Gov't that wants to continue building in areas that are going to cause the most angst just for the reason to have them upset and have his supporters feel like he's under attack for simply being Jewish. There is no reason to really keep building in these areas. They could build up or elsewhere.

 

You have the Palestinian people who are packed in these areas being fueled to fight by other Arab states in the region.

 

You have these other Arab states that also wouldn't accept these people into their countries. They use them as pawns to attack Israel indirectly.

 

You have idiots in the US screaming "I support Israel" but when it comes to supporting us American-Jews. Well, **** that. Those people aren't the same because they aren't voting Republican.

 

 

Edited August 16, 2019 by @SkinsGoldPants

[Mooka]

4 hours ago, Dan T. said:

 

 

 

You know that Congress holds the purse strings on foreign assistance, right?  

 

Ilhan Omar is also on the foreign relations committee.

[tshile]

Maybe congress shouldn’t have a foreign relations committee then

 

(lol)

[Destino]

6 hours ago, Renegade7 said:

How would we look as a country that prides itself on freedom of speech bearing people from visiting our country because their critical of our government or one of our allies?  It looks weak.

I agree it looks weak.  But I doubt the US, and American people, would look kindly on foreign politicians coming to the US to demand the UN sanction the US and that the world join together to harm the us economically.  People in general don't want foreign critics showing up and demand the world harm their country. 

[Destino]

19 hours ago, Larry said:

Maybe it's just me.  But it sure looked to me like you were 

 

1)  Defending Israel's actions by pointing out that the Congressmen opposed Apartheid, and Israel was founded on it.  

 

2)  And when I pointed out that you were now defending said apartheid, replied with:

 

 

Which sure looked to me like attempting to justify apartheid by saying "Well, those folks over there, . . . "

Religious discrimination is the norm in the region.  Most of the region has a dominant religion controlling it's government.  None of the groups involved have wide spread support for secular government or religious freedom.  Pointing this out isn't a defense of Israel, or blaming everyone, it's just the political reality.  A reality people pushing for a one state solution desperately want to avoid discussing because it casts their "solution" is a decidedly different light.

 

This doesn't mean that I'm for the status quo or I think that Israel is doing the right thing.  I do not.  It just means that I don't agree with threatening Israel with sanctions if they refuse to commit suicide. 

 

 

[Barry.Randolphe]

20 minutes ago, Destino said:

I agree it looks weak.  But I doubt the US, and American people, would look kindly on foreign politicians coming to the US to demand the UN sanction the US and that the world join together to harm the us economically.  People in general don't want foreign critics showing up and demand the world harm their country. 

 

Didn't we have Ahmadinejad come to NYC for UN meetings on multiple occasions doing exactly that?

[tshile]

1 minute ago, Barry.Randolphe said:

 

Didn't we have Ahmadinejad come to NYC for UN meetings on multiple occasions doing exactly that?

Wasn’t it met with protests including our officials not sitting in the audience for his speech?

[Barry.Randolphe]

Just now, tshile said:

Wasn’t it met with protests including our officials not sitting in the audience for his speech?

 

Yes, I'm pretty sure most people got up and left the room....but the point being, he still had the right to free speech in a hostile country that labeled his country a part of the 'axis of evil', we just didn't have to listen to him spout his bull****

[Renegade7]

22 minutes ago, Destino said:

I agree it looks weak.  But I doubt the US, and American people, would look kindly on foreign politicians coming to the US to demand the UN sanction the US and that the world join together to harm the us economically.  People in general don't want foreign critics showing up and demand the world harm their country. 

 

We might not like it, but we have Americans saying pretty spiteful stuff about what we should be doing or even on air saying they hope for a recession, and they have the right to do it.  I'd brush it off, but I'm not everyone, fair.

 

And we do have UN headquarters here for anyone to do jus that if they wanted to.  Jus for clarification, is US occupying a whole country in violation of international law that I dont know about?  I see your point, but the context doesn't match the reality on the ground in comparison.

1 hour ago, tshile said:

Maybe congress shouldn’t have a foreign relations committee then

 

(lol)

Bernie brought up a good point if Israel wants to start banning our elected officials we should rethink all that aid we're sending them.