The PA wanted East Jerusalem, Israel was going to give it to them.
The Bridging Proposal is still the best offer that’s ever been on the table.
So the US supports the 4th Geneva Convention and international law while saying that a ceasefire should be implemented asap… and that shows that it’s a Zionist Occupied Government. On the other hand, people who demand that a sovereign nation accept indiscriminate rocket fire against its citizens with no military response are upholding the law of armed conflict.
Kay.
I know, it’s so unfair. You can hardly claim these days that the ZOG is running America without people, quite unfairly, noticing what you said. It is unfair of people to pay attention.
Especially when good ol’ Pat says things like Hilary Clinton was a member of Mossad. Or that the US shouldn’t prosecute Nazi war criminals any more. Or when he specifically scored American Jews telling them that they should be “Americans first” (although purveyors of the Dual Loyalty slur probably won’t see a problem with that) and wrote in his notebook at the time, the observation: “Succumbing to the pressure of the Jews”. Or that the Nazis SS were “victims just as surely as the victims in the concentration camps.” Or in '93 when he addressed the Christian Coalition and declared “Our culture is superior. Our culture is superior because our religion is Christianity and that is the truth that makes men free”.
Why, all that coupled with claims of a ZOG would mean that only the most scurrilous noticers would dare, ya know, notice.
Should you be finished attacking that particular source, I can give you as many as you’d like so you may stay up all night defending the honor of Mighty Israel. No need to remind you to attack the source, be it author or nation, and ‘forget’ the content – you’re obviously quite adept at it.
Wrong, no doubt, every one of them, for as we have been admonished time and time again by Mr Finn, Israel can’t simply do any wrong.
Anxiously awaiting his rebuttal in order to forward same to the journalists, editors and protesters in those articles. Surely after reading what Mr Finn has to say they’ll realize the error of their ways and meekly surrender their own subconscious anti-Semitism in order to further the indiscriminate punishmen Israel is dishing out…and cheer them on as opposed to protest. Because, well, that’s how it should be.
Sorry to interrupt this all too familiar parading of the usual polarizing knee jerk responses but allow me to point out some significant common grounds.
We have in this thread an agreement that Israel needs to make significant concessions to the PA on issues regarding the West Bank and that an American administration would be appropriate to pressure Israel to do so. Hard to accuse Finn of saying that “Israel can’t simply do any thing wrong.” when he begins his comment with “The US should, certainly, make it clear that we’ll cut off the spigot if there is any new construction of the settlements, at all.” don’t you think?
We have posters who are generally extremely sympathetic to the Palestinian positions agreeing that Jerusalem is likely best kept off the table.
We can disagree about the nature of the concessions and what is just but there is some very significant agreement here. That rarely happens on this subject.
Before this descends into the usual crap Israel PA thread, or we get a post posting something just be hyperbolic (:)), let us just enjoy this microsecond of people actually thinking about what can actually work.
Okay. Back to the descent into crapola in progress.
My main point is that some tangible movement on the ground is needed and needed quickly. The unilateral withdrawel from Gaza was a mistake, but the evacuation (leave the buildings in place for Palestinian refugees) of a few settlements could form the basis to kick-start the dialogue and create a basis for establishing trust.
What this is really all about is speculating as to the what the rank-and-file in the Arab world are liable to accept and how they can be made to come around to reasonableness.
Funny you should mention the Swiss Guards because I thought of them as an analogy of some kind of security force disinterested in the religious intrigues. I was thinking more like the Japanese or Australian Aborigines. Or something.
As for Tom Clancy, he’s ripping me off (er, or rather, great minds think alike). I came up with the idea of a Jewish-Muslim-Christian triangulation administering Jerusalem. But I’m not sure Muslims would be completely trusting of Jews&Christians, so I think some kind of secular umbrella organization is needed.
You’ve begun with a flawed understanding of the US-Israeli relationship. It is master and servant. Israel speaks, the US obeys. Obama is powerless and has no capacity to exert the pressure you imagine, rather his Israel policy is read out to him via hotline from Tel Aviv.
How about this? Get the Israelis, the Muslims and the Christians to understand that “holiness” is an attribute of humanity. It cannot devolve upon bits of land or structures. To suggest otherwise is to blaspheme against the concept of the Creator credited with inventing humanity.
G_D DOES NOT WANT YOU FIGHTING OVER THESE PLACES, GUYS!
You are familiar with the history of religion, aren’t you? Better to keep what each think God wants out of this as much as possible. And good luck imposing what you think God wants on everyone else.
Misrepresent the argument I put to your heart’s content.
Then come back in a year’s time when Obama hasn’t deviated an iota from the voices of Israel in the US. We’ll talk then.
Edit: On reflection; Here we’re fighting ignorance, supposedly. Now I can dimly see why the board’s residents often give a dispensation when the subject is Israel. That said, you’re fighting ignorance, or you’re not.
My analysis is pragmatic, the fault lines, the power shifts. I’m not venturing any moral lessons, I assume the general humanity of my correspondents, I expect them to assume mine.
Amos Oz said it best, that the truest tragedy is when both antagonists have legitimate grievances. Only a fanatic or a fool could see this horror as a clear cut case of right and wrong, good guys and bad guys, I am neither. Very often.
I could have sworn I’ve people of all persuasions say things very similar about Presidents and leaders of other states of the past too. Citizens! Don’t worry your pretty little heads. Just let the wise and noble leader do your thinking for you!
It hasn’t always worked out so well doing that and I think that you’ll find few of either party willing to give that a try this time.
Put your independent thought processes off-line if you wish, but many of the rest of us intend to be evaluating a President we worked for as critically as those we’ve worked against.
Oh this deserves a response. Well played with the noting that you did say what God does not want. But how is anyone ever “objectively” correct about God’s desires? Heck, even if one accepts “revealed truth” as the basis - there is little support there for saying that God has clearly said not to fight over these places. Quite the opposite in fact. Sort of a problem there. Maybe God gave us this world. Maybe not. But it any case making it a more perfect world is our job not “His” and we may be better off if we keep “Him” out of our political business for a while.
