What is with the repeated misspelling of Israel? Is it a political or religious jab? 
Wall?
Look, Isreal has to put some pressure on the Palestinians, otherwise the staus quo, which benefits the terrorists & polititians but not the people of Palestine will continue forever, with terror attacks and retaliation forever, and the Palestinian people getting worse and worse off.
My spellchecker stopped working for this site, sorry.
Yes, their plight is entirely their own responsibility. Nothing anyone else can do about it, or should. It’s all the other guys’ problem.
Is that it? It’s certainly easy, and even gratifyingly self-righteous, to think so, I’m sure.
If you read back, I also blamed the current very Conservative government of Israel. But yes, most of the blame is due to the terrorist Palestinian leadership.
Quelle grande suprise.
But of course, it would be so ruining the purity of the intentions, one can never ever have success if ever a leader of uMkhonto we Sizwe were ever to be negotiated with.
It is so unique and so great the double standard to expect this.
Not sure how many people would get the reference.
I think it’s more relevant that Likud evolved out of two different terrorist groups; the Stern Gang/Lehi and Irgun and the Arabs were willing to negotiate with both Begin and Shamir.
For that matter, while he was never labeled a terrorist, Sharon did some pretty disgusting things and could legitimately IMHO be called a mass murderer.
what he was only labelled a terrorsist by the americans, but they like to whitewash the history
I’m not sure how many people have heard of the Spear of the Nation. That was my point.
While it’s largely beside the point, classifying them as a terrorist group is as legitimate as classifying the IRA, Irgun, and the FLN as terrorist groups.
Again, I don’t think the “we don’t negotiate with terrorists” is terribly compelling coming from the Likud party and their supporters.
Humor, persi.
Elvis:
It means that RIGHT NOW, in the absence of any negotiations, the Israeli government favors this policy.
It does not mean that a Palestinian state cannot be created, including the settlements with the current residents removed to Israel proper, as a result of negotiations. Remember that the Israeli government once also favored Israeli settlement in Gaza, but they decided that ultimately it was in their best interests to remove those settlers. They also, before 1979, did plenty of building in the Sinai, but handed it back to Egypt as a result of the treaty. If they decide that it will be in their best interests (i.e., to achieve a peace treaty as a result of negotiations) to evacuate the West Bank settlements, they will do so as well.
It also does not mean that the settlement situation going forward is any more of an issue for future negotiations than the current settlement situation. Settlements are already there and are an issue to be dealt with, more of them doesn’t change that. If a two-state solution was at all possible with 100 settlements, it’s equally possible with 120 settlements.
What, you mean the wall that the Israelis built back in the early 2000’s? That was a security measure, because there was a major wave of terrorist attacks from the West Bank at the time. What does that have to do with Netanyahu talking about building more settlements nowadays?
:rolleyes: Begging the question. *Why *do they favor it? I think we both know, even if only one of us is willing to say it.
And we can skip all your blather about what it does not mean, what *does *it mean? There’s no value in your evading it.
The wall is similarly evidence that Israel and its yahoos elsewhere have no intention of ever dealing in true good faith with the Palestinians as neighbors. And please don’t put it on Netanyahu, btw. He’s only doing what he was elected to do. I think you know that too.
What’s obvious here is that it’s not about Jerusalem, it’s about Israel’s existence as a Jewish state. Stop pretending.
If you mean the subject is ethnic supremacism vs. democracy, I am doing exactly the opposite of pretending. How about you?
Ethnic supremacism? That’s a new one on me. And as for democracy, do you mean, as they say in Africa or the Arab Middle East, “One Person, One Vote, One Time”?
Democracy as in if Israel ever annexes the West Bank de jure, they will either become an apartheid nation, where the Arab/Palestinian majority don’t get any votes, or they become a non-Jewish nation, because the Palestinians outnumber the Israelis. Any one-state solution is the death of the Israeli soul.
I would say that your sources are the real pretenders, they are the ones that tell us that it is about Israel’s existence when it comes from many conservative evangelicals, but in reality it is about dispensationalism, and the practical and final disposal of the Jewish state.
That IMHO tells me that while the people of Israel can be glad for the support they get by a president that is all hat and really no religious cattle now, the worrisome item is that eventually Evangelicals will grow tired to see the lamb (Israel) that they knew were fattening for the slaughter to happily ignore the prophecy (that, if you know the Christian Bible, is not kind at all with the Jewish people that for starters do not think that Jesus was the Messiah.)
IOW, I do think that Israel should not be asking for help from politicians that have followers that only look at you as an expected sacrificial lamb when we “are so close to end of times”, as in having guys that are experting payment soon.
I think that the number of evangalicals that beleive this is very small, and the number of politicians even less.
If you read it again, you will see that I do notice that politicians like Trump are pandering.
As for support, the evangelicals in favor of Israel surveyed reported that:
Other polls show about how many evangelicals look at biblical prophesy or that we are at the “end of times”
https://www.charismanews.com/us/40965-poll-most-evangelicals-believe-we-re-living-in-the-end-times
another attempt at distraction we see like the idiotic, factually completely failed Berlin attempt. Of course no person here made any statement like this.
Oh I see it is also the bigotted political assertions demarche as well, dredged up from the 1970s like so much of the rhetoric and the examples you use.
But Mr mandela the terrorist, yes he resulted in one vote one time… oh wait…