ARE YOU NEW HERE? NOT LOGGED IN? PLEASE TAKE A MOMENT TO REGISTER FOR AN ACCOUNT AND LOGIN TO REMOVE THIS WINDOW
Welcome to PatsFans.com. Do you have an account? If not - please take a moment to register for our forum and experience a much smoother experience with fewer ads, along with no longer having to see this notification window. Also learn about how you can receive a free Patriots T-Shirt from the Patriots Official ProShop by CLICKING HERE. Please enjoy your stay here, and Go Pats!
PS, the very fact that the spokeswoman made a projection of our future stances ("We will continue to...") at least augurs for a second term in which some balance can be brought to the U.S./Israel relationship. "Balance" in this context means going from 99% hawkish on Israel to 90% hawkish on Israel... but that's probably where we were under Carter when we got Begin and Sadat shaking hands on the white house lawn.
DONATE TO PATSFANS.COM
RECEIVE A FREE PATS T-SHIRT AND SAVE 15% OFF WHEN YOU BUY FROM THE OFFICIAL PROSHOP!
Free T-Shirt & Save 15% Off!
Like Our Site? Please help support our site and server costs by DONATING TO PATSFANS.COM and receive a FREE PATRIOTS T-SHIRT and SAVE 15% off EVERY purchase you make from PatriotsProShop.com. You'll also receive added benefits to your account including Removing All Ads During Your Experience Here At Our Forum.
NEEDED YEARLY SITE DONATIONS: 345 | CURRENT # OF SUBSCRIBED SUPPORTERS: 98
Darryl, interesting quote. You know me - my belief in the existence and legitimacy of Israel is for all intents and purposes absolute; my belief in the behavior of the Israelis at any given moment is as up to question as my belief in American actions at any given moment. So I do actually like that the Administration is making clear what it thinks of further expansion of settlements. I don't quickly embrace notions like "What the U.S. has to do is cut off all aid to Israel." I do acknowledge that the U.S. aid commitment to Israel (and by the way, also the U.S. aid commitment to Egypt,) are out of proportion to all our other aid commitments. I'd support a measured reduction over time of both commitments, although we have to use aid as the carrot for all parties to get to "peace."
Although I could see saying "10% reduction for any year in which new settlements continue, cumulative for consecutive years" (for example,) the whole "all-or-nothing" mindset ("cut off all aid NOW!") immediately goes to the question of fairness given the existential threat Hamas explicitly states, even if they do not have the power to act.
But what's interesting is the response I can expect to see here from the American right. I'll be a "heritage Jew" who isn't really Jewish enough, or I'll be a commie pinko liberal, or I'll be hopelessly naive and not really understand the real world in the Middle East, as measured from someone's mom's basement in Woburn or wherever.
In fact, I like what we said in the quote you posted. I also agree with you that talk is cheap, but it's more expensive than not-talk. A continuing effort to emphasize what we do and do not think is "helpful" in itself will be held up in the next electoral cycle as proof that Dems aren't "friends of Israel." So I share that frustration with those I oppose on the grounds of Israel's underlying legitimacy.
So I guess I'll just hang here with the yellow stripes and dead armadillos. Feh.
As a person without a real dog in this fight, do not understand any path to peace that goes through taking the land of another "country".. the whole process seems like bullying and borders on the absurd.
I also think that the raining of rockets on Israel is also as counterproductive.. so where does all this end, Armageddon?? Is all hope lost, as time goes no beginning to think so.
For the amount of money we funnel into Israel, one might think we would have more influence... or perhaps our government just responds to provide some form of "lip service", because they are supposed to say something, anything...
“We like to say that dependability is more important than ability,” Bill Belichickism....
This is the silliest argument ever. By some arbitrary designation we will deny you rights!
*cough**cough* American Indian *cough**cough*
and then I guess Tibet is not worth the messiness?
__________________ “ I think good coaches will coach with the personnel they have, and if you only have one (good) linebacker, you’re not going to play a 3–4. ”
—Hank Bullough, who installed one of the first 3–4 defenses with the New England Patriots.
Last edited by IllegalContact; 12-01-2012 at 04:14 PM..
The Palestinians have a shared history and shared national identity, ironically formed specifically in reaction to the existence and actions of Israel. Resolution 181 specifically called for an Arab Palestinian state, which Arab Palestinians rejected, insisting that the entirety of Palestine should be a province of some greater entity, usually Syria.
What Israel did not incorporate in the 1948 borders, was occupied by Egypt and Jordan for 19 years. It was only in the 1960s that nationalist Palestinian movements started up -- a day late and a dinar short.
But for the whole lives of most Palestinians living today, there's a shared narrative that makes them not a Jordanian, not a Syrian, and not an Egyptian -- that's not who they are, and that's not how they view themselves.
Now, it's true that Kurds -- who exist in much greater numbers -- can say precisely the same thing. Same with Chechnyans, same with Protestant Irishmen. Hell, you can make an argument that in Apartheid South Africa, the "nationhood is arbitrary" argument would argue for the international recognition of the sham bantustans only recognized by South Africa. Where's your "Free Bophuthatswana" bumper sticker, Doc?
There are a few ways nations become states... ending in full sovereignty over a territory, and full international recognition.
PR's right, we should understand that Palestine's not a state, in that they have no sovereignty. There is no accountable central authority. And if that central authority that can control all of Palestine arises, whatever the choice of other nations, Israel in particular has a responsibility to its citizens to protect against that state being founded on the premise that Israel must commit national suicide.
Those are your "boundaries" in this particular case: a state can't accept a neighboring state to be established for the express purpose of wiping out the first state.
A two-state solution presupposes the acceptance by Hamas of Israel's right to exist, or disbanding of Hamas in favor of a Palestinian leadership that recognizes said right.
So, you can have an occupying power that's extremely tired of your sh1t, and be a militant. Or, you can advocate for peace between two states one day living side by side. Militancy doesn't seem to have served the Palestinians well the last 65 years.
This thread just like the thread about Obama getting ready for war in Syria just shows that it really does not matter who is President. They just do what the money tells them to do.
Makes me wonder where all the threads about the evil military/industrial complex disappeared to after Obama was elected. After all nothing changed but the letter behind our Presidents name.
Actually, I disagree with that perception. We had a President who decided to invade a country because (any member can submit their answer). That has never happened in our countries history. How do we know, if a disciple of Cheney was elected that we are not at war with Iran or Syria?