Is Israel Its Own Worst Enemy?

Man you are dambo...

What Netanyahu emphasized

Source please
But hey all that is covered in Obamas speech

Obama set a precedent

In Obamas speech then

It made 1967 borders a precondition to peace talks

Obamas speech then

That's one of the reason why Obama messed up everything in his speech calling for 1967 borders.

Obamas speech

Then few days later moaned that he did not mean that and it was all about territory exchange based on 1967 borders.

Obamas speech, obviously the one on the 22nd as it cannot be the one on the 20th which followed the one on the 19th

Face it MH there are only two options.
That you were spouting bull is undeniable.
So the options are either you havn't the faintest idea what was actually said in the statements you are objecting to, or are just making up crap about those statements even though you do know what was said.
So which is it today from you MH, accidental lies or flat out deliberate ones?

[_dgn_]

Smashing!

Vendor initiated another of his great "hot" threads, with a nice subject.

Badly years ago, I saw a scene filmed by an American journalists team (CNN ?) and screened on the French TV : 2 paratroopers were crashing to pieces the elbows of a young boy with pieces of rock.

A barbarous act !

Was it an old document presented during the Nuremberg trial ? No. It was screened "live" during the First Intifada (1987).

The 2 swoldiers were Israelian and the boy Palestinian.

This scene was shown (naturally) once and disappeared quickly : it's more interesting to point out the crimes of the past and to hide those of the present ... Some lobbies are very powerful in France (and elsewhere).

For this time, Israel has continued to gain always more sympathy in the world (with bombings of civilians, murders of children, arbitrary expropriations, maritime piracy ...).

Now, I understand why Israel Is Its Own Worst Enemy, and why, as for Carthago, "Israel delenda est !".

[MH]

As for security, every state has the right to self-defense, and Israel must be able to defend itself -- by itself -- against any threat. Provisions must also be robust enough to prevent a resurgence of terrorism; to stop the infiltration of weapons; and to provide effective border security. The full and phased withdrawal of Israeli military forces should be coordinated with the assumption of Palestinian security responsibility in a sovereign, non-militarized state. The duration of this transition period must be agreed, and the effectiveness of security arrangements must be demonstrated.
These principles provide a foundation for negotiations. Palestinians should know the territorial outlines of their state; Israelis should know that their basic security concerns will be met.



I know that these steps alone will not resolve this conflict. Two wrenching and emotional issues remain: the future of Jerusalem, and the fate of Palestinian refugees. But moving forward now on the basis of territory and security provides a foundation to resolve those two issues in a way that is just and fair, and that respects the rights and aspirations of Israelis and Palestinians.

The issue after the RED must be resolved first before the yellow takes place including prolonged israeli military presence in Jordan valley.
It can not work otherwise.

AIPAC

As for security, every state has the right to self-defense, and Israel must be able to defend itself – by itself – against any threat. Provisions must also be robust enough to prevent a resurgence of terrorism; to stop the infiltration of weapons; and to provide effective border security. The full and phased withdrawal of Israeli military forces should be coordinated with the assumption of Palestinian security responsibility in a sovereign, non-militarized state. The duration of this transition period must be agreed, and the effectiveness of security arrangements must be demonstrated.

................

[MH]

Originally Posted by _dgn_

Smashing!

Vendor initiated another of his great "hot" threads, with a nice subject.

Badly years ago, I saw a scene filmed by an American journalists team (CNN ?) and screened on the French TV : 2 paratroopers were crashing to pieces the elbows of a young boy with pieces of rock.

A barbarous act !

Was it an old document presented during the Nuremberg trial ? No. It was screened "live" during the First Intifada (1987).

The 2 swoldiers were Israelian and the boy Palestinian.

This scene was shown (naturally) once and disappeared quickly : it's more interesting to point out the crimes of the past and to hide those of the present ... Some lobbies are very powerful in France (and elsewhere).

For this time, Israel has continued to gain always more sympathy in the world (with bombings of civilians, murders of children, arbitrary expropriations, maritime piracy ...).

Now, I understand why Israel Is Its Own Worst Enemy, and why, as for Carthago, "Israel delenda est !".

I have seen the videos like this too so be cool.
Since Israelis are not into this crap like some other ME nation Yitzhak Rabin signed Oslo agreements and so on...
Ahh the Jewish lobbyist.....will take over France soon.

[Skybird]

The demand for full and unlimited return of Palestinian "refugees" (look at the age structure of the Palestinians - the very overwhelming majority of them do not have a living memory of any places they want to "return" to) is nothing else but an expression of the desire that Israel must be brought to the status of not existing as a sovereign state anymore. It would result in a condition where the understanding of Israel as a sovereign, "Israeli", non-Arab/non-Palestinian nation is not only negated, but rendered competely meaningless.

But that is exactly the reason why it is being demanded. It is meant as bringing Israel to refusing its own existence.

[MH]

Originally Posted by Skybird

The demand for full and unlimited return of Palestinian "refugees" (look at the age structure of the Palestinians - the very overwhelming majority of them do not have a living memory of any places they want to "return" to) is nothing else but an expression of the desire that Israel must be brought to the status of not existing as a sovereign state anymore. It would result in a condition where the understanding of Israel as a sovereign, "Israeli", non-Arab/non-Palestinian nation is not only negated, but rendered competely meaningless.

But that is exactly the reason why it is being demanded. It is meant as bringing Israel to refusing its own existence.

Its unacceptable demand that PA do not want to drop in part due to leadership ideology and general populism.
For many(the peaceful ones)two state solution is a temporary compromise.

The issue after the RED must be resolved first before the yellow takes place including prolonged israeli military presence in Jordan valley.
It can not work otherwise.

And how does any of that statement relate to what you had claimed it said
Come along darling I want these preconditions you said it contained and these borders you said it insisted on

Just out of interest, these 1967 lines the "evil" Americans now "insist" on as a rough guide, can you explain the difference between them as a rough framework and the armistice lines from the 1940s the last US president used and the President before him and the President before him and the President......?
Amazing isn't it, lines which somehow are "indefensible" certainly got defended for a bloody long time and the same rough basis the current President outrageously suggests now are the same as have been suggested by the Presidents for decades.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

darling

Still incapable of arguing without pissing on people?

[MH]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

And how does any of that statement relate to what you had claimed it said
Come along darling I want these preconditions you said it contained and these borders you said it insisted on

Just out of interest, these 1967 lines the "evil" Americans now "insist" on as a rough guide, can you explain the difference between them as a rough framework and the armistice lines from the 1940s the last US president used and the President before him and the President before him and the President......?
Amazing isn't it, lines which somehow are "indefensible" certainly got defended for a bloody long time and the same rough basis the current President outrageously suggests now are the same as have been suggested by the Presidents for decades.

Since i went to so much trouble for you its your turn now.

BW

Did i say evil Americans?- stop playing dambo again.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by MH

Its unacceptable demand that PA do not want to drop in part due to leadership ideology and general populism.
For many(the peaceful ones)two state solution is a temporary compromise.

If it is a temporary compromise only, can those suppoorting it be called "peaceful"? I mean what do they think is coming when the temporariness comes to an end? Voluntary self-dissolving of Israel?

I think if a two-state solution only is seen as temporarily, then what is coming after it necessarily must be violent a solution attempt again, which would be according to Islamic ideology as well (which prohibits lasting peace settlements, but allows only temporary seize-fires of limited, preferred: short lasting - to buy time to again top regain the needed strength to overcome opponents of Islam by force).

I know this is a fundamental aspect of Islamic ideology in general and not explicitly tailored to the Palestinian issue alone, but nevertheless - it is part of the Islamic ideologic self-understanding on which also thew Palestinians - as the Muslims that they are - are basing. So it has to be taken into account. Islam accepts "peace treaties" only in the meaning of temporary seize-fires when it is meeting a force stronger then it'S own. The time of letting rest the fight serves the purpose to gain the power to contunue the fight once chances are more promising.

Still incapable of arguing without pissing on people?

Not in the slightest, but when they spread the bull that thickly then it invites a watering down.

Since i went to so much trouble for you its your turn know.

Its already done, it was done in that first quote several pages ago.
However you kindly supplied the avenue for the answers to those last questions, the same author you had used earlier did a nice piece two years ago on Netanyahu trying to keep the Americans happy without destroying his government, he did it by speaking lots but saying very little, However he keeps on getting screwed over by his Israeli partners though who seem unable to speak at all without saying lots of things they shouldn't be saying

[MH]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Not in the slightest, but when they spread the bull that thickly then it invites a watering down.



Its already done, it was done in that first quote several pages ago.
However you kindly supplied the avenue for the answers to those last questions, the same author you had used earlier did a nice piece two years ago on Netanyahu trying to keep the Americans happy without destroying his government, he did it by speaking lots but saying very little, However he keeps on getting screwed over by his Israeli partners though who seem unable to speak at all without saying lots of things they shouldn't be saying

There are loads of articles about Netanyahu and his government but this has nothing to do with Netanyahu.
Jerusalem issue refugee and Israel as Jewish state have to resolved first.
All this crap about stopping construction in Gilo as precondition and then fight about it later is bull.

[Jimbuna]

Come on now....let us keep a level of acceptable behaviour.

[MH]

Originally Posted by jimbuna

Come on now....let us keep a level of acceptable behaviour.

LOL
Let him have his sexy time.

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by MH

LOL
Let him have his sexy time.

Not into taking sides but getting a bit tired of the endless 'tennis games' and I can assure you I am not alone in making that statement.

The exchange of posts between the pair of you is quite predictable.

My advice whether you both agree to take it or not would be to agree to disagree and move on.