Should the US cut off Israel?..

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Wed Sep 23, 2009 12:35 pm

U.S. must cut off Israel -- baltimoresun.com

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Wed Sep 23, 2009 12:44 pm

oscar;1245676 wrote: U.S. must cut off Israel -- baltimoresun.com

What is your opinion?

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Wed Sep 23, 2009 12:48 pm

Bryn Mawr;1245679 wrote: What is your opinion?
Sneaky !!! :wah:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_e ... 09-15.html

Yes, I do believe they should withdraw funding to the Israeli Military and see Israel charged with war crimes against Hamas.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Wed Sep 23, 2009 12:51 pm

oscar;1245680 wrote: Sneaky !!! :wah:

Yes, I do believe they should withdraw funding to the Israeli Military and see Israel charged with war crimes against Hamas.

Hamas sure as hell don't help themselves but the ordinary Palestinian guy in the street does not deserve what was done to him - far less the women and children.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Wed Sep 23, 2009 1:04 pm

Bryn Mawr;1245681 wrote: Hamas sure as hell don't help themselves but the ordinary Palestinian guy in the street does not deserve what was done to him - far less the women and children.

Yes, I should have written 'The Palestinian people' there instead of Hamas.

Israel seems totally opposed to the US way of thinking anyway.

Chookie · Post by **Chookie** » Wed Sep 23, 2009 3:12 pm

oscar;1245685 wrote: Israel seems totally opposed to the US way of thinking anyway.
Maybe so, but the Zionist influences on US thinking are still there and still very effective. You'll note I said Zionist, NOT Israeli. The Israeli government, whatever it's reasons (which I could enumerate, but that's a whole different thread) has to deal with Palestinians on a day-to-day basis, the US government doesn't.

Lon · Post by **Lon** » Wed Sep 23, 2009 3:15 pm

The U.S. support of Israel has really cost us big time, and not just in money.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Wed Sep 23, 2009 4:05 pm

Lon;1245752 wrote: The U.S. support of Israel has really cost us big time, and not just in money.

I'd be very interested in your views as to why Lon.

hoppy · Post by **hoppy** » Wed Sep 23, 2009 6:57 pm

Hell yes, cut 'em off. sell out Israel like we did the Poles,Czechs and other allies. Who needs friends, right?

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Thu Sep 24, 2009 2:05 am

hoppy;1245833 wrote: Hell yes, cut 'em off. sell out Israel like we did the Poles,Czechs and other allies. Who needs friends, right?

Well you don't apparently (referring to you a representative american that is (I was going to say token but decided that might be taken as being offensive) )-at least you keep saying no one likes you, we don't appreciate you, are always criticising and you're going to go home and take all your toys. Now you're threatening to stop drinking whisky and playing the bagpipes.

Joking aside. It's not all been one sided in the past but it's clear there are those in israel that would push the Palestinians in to the sea if they could regardless of the consequences.

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Thu Sep 24, 2009 2:16 am

You get intractable problems like the Northern Irish Trouble or the Israeli/ Palestinian situation and the urge is to build a large wall round the place and let them kill eachother to their hearts' content until the survivors realise it isn't worth it.

Can't be done of course. The innocent, as ever, would suffer most. What does it take to produce an Adams and McGuinness on the one side, and a Major and Blair or the other? Why have the Irish Troubles seemed to die down and the Palestinian troubles seemed to get worse? Is it down to the "eye for an eye" mentality they seem to have out there?

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Thu Sep 24, 2009 3:04 am

gmc;1245858 wrote: Joking aside. It's not all been one sided in the past but it's clear there are those in israel that would push the Palestinians in to the sea if they could regardless of the consequences. I really can't take much more of this Auld Yin... having to agree with you twice in two days.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Thu Sep 24, 2009 3:23 am

Clodhopper;1245860 wrote: You get intractable problems like the Northern Irish Trouble or the Israeli/ Palestinian situation and the urge is to build a large wall round the place and let them kill eachother to their hearts' content until the survivors realise it isn't worth it.

Can't be done of course. The innocent, as ever, would suffer most. What does it take to produce an Adams and McGuinness on the one side, and a Major and Blair or the other? Why have the Irish Troubles seemed to die down and the Palestinian troubles seemed to get worse? Is it down to the "eye for an eye" mentality they seem to have out there?

What did it in Northern ireland was the final cutting off of financial support from the united states and the real ira finally being designated as a terrorist organisation by the us government after 911. maybe the same will work for israel. Never mind asking Libya for compensation for supplying arms to the ira they should ask the states for it as well for financing them in the first place. Talk about the elephant in the room nobody wants to mention.

hoppy · Post by **hoppy** » Thu Sep 24, 2009 4:25 am

gmc;1245882 wrote: What did it in Northern ireland was the final cutting off of financial support from the united states and the real ira finally being designated as a terrorist organisation by the us government after 911. maybe the same will work for israel. Never mind asking Libya for compensation for supplying arms to the ira they should ask the states for it as well for financing them in the first place. Talk about the elephant in the room nobody wants to mention.

Israel will always find ways to survive. Cutting off support may just do more harm than good. And not just to Israel. Israel is not stupid and helpless. The world taught them how to unite, defend themselves and be as ruthless as their enemies. So, why direct attention only to Israel? Is it jealousy, because Israel can and has won in spite of the odds against it?

I would cut off support to many other places before I would cast aside Israel.

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Thu Sep 24, 2009 5:21 am

Good Friday agreement came into force 1999 but there had been several years negotiations before that:

The first moves towards peace progressed along two parallel routes. Route one sought to maintain momentum between the constitutional parties, and route two saw the first tentative moves to involve republicans in talks. In 1990, the Northern Ireland Secretary of State Sir Peter Brooke authorised secret contact with the IRA in order to find the conditions under which republicans would consider calling a ceasefire and was complemented by more public overtures. In late 1992, the Irish Prime Minister Albert Reynolds, unaware of the back channel between the IRA and British government, authorised secret contacts between his officials and senior members of Sinn FÃ©in.

CAIN: Northern Ireland: The background to the Peace Process, by John Darby (2003)

So we had a decade of work behind the scenes before 9/11/2001. I agree that the change in attitude and law in the US forced most dissident elements of PIRA to conform with the leadership but the genuine quest for peace had begun in the early '90s - long before 911 and the proscribing of PIRA and Noraid in the States.

So I suppose I think without the US deciding to stop sponsoring terrorism the Agreement wouldn't have worked; but without McGuinness, Adams, Brooke and Major (followed by Blair) the quest for peace would never have started...

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Thu Sep 24, 2009 5:55 am

Clodhopper;1245906 wrote: Good Friday agreement came into force 1999 but there had been several years negotiations before that:

CAIN: Northern Ireland: The background to the Peace Process, by John Darby (2003)

So we had a decade of work behind the scenes before 9/11/2001. I agree that the change in attitude and law in the US forced most dissident elements of PIRA to conform with the leadership but the genuine quest for peace had begun in the early '90s - long before 911 and the proscribing of PIRA and Noraid in the States.

So I suppose I think without the US deciding to stop sponsoring terrorism the Agreement wouldn't have worked; but without McGuinness, Adams, Brooke and Major (followed by Blair) the quest for peace would never have started...

You also need to talk to both sides you can't just say you will never talk to terrorists especially if there is real cause for their grievances, if that attitude had prevailed it would still be going on. All warfare depends on economics-without the funds you can't contunue. the way to stop fundamentalist islamic terrorists IMO is to stop their funding. That means going after the saudi banks that are money laundering for them.

posted by hoppy

Israel will always find ways to survive. Cutting off support may just do more harm than good. And not just to Israel. Israel is not stupid and helpless. The world taught them how to unite, defend themselves and be as ruthless as their enemies. So, why direct attention only to Israel? Is it jealousy, because Israel can and has won in spite of the odds against it?

I would cut off support to many other places before I would cast aside Israel.

Kniowing they don;t have a blank cheque and a carte blancvhe might go some ways to getting them to sit down-same with the palestinians who is financing it all?

hoppy · Post by **hoppy** » Thu Sep 24, 2009 8:31 am

gmc;1245909 wrote: You also need to talk to both sides you can't just say you will never talk to terrorists especially if there is real cause for their grievances, if that attitude had prevailed it would still be going on. All warfare depends on economics-without the funds you can't contunue. the way to stop fundamentalist islamic terrorists IMO is to stop their funding. That means going after the saudi banks that are money laundering for them.

posted by hoppy

Kniowing they don;t have a blank cheque and a carte blancvhe might go some ways to getting them to sit down-same with the palestinians who is financing it all?

On another thread awhile back I believe it was you who whined about the USA dragging it's feet about getting involved in WW2. And about selling England arms at inflated prices while England was fighting for it's life.

But now, you seem perfectly willing, even eager, to see Israel put into that position, knowing full well it's neighbors would once more try to stomp the snot out of Israel should the USA cut Israel adrift. See how you are?

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Thu Sep 24, 2009 9:11 am

hoppy;1245931 wrote: On another thread awhile back I believe it was you who whined about the USA dragging it's feet about getting involved in WW2. And about selling England arms at inflated prices while England was fighting for it's life.

But now, you seem perfectly willing, even eager, to see Israel put into that position, knowing full well it's neighbors would once more try to stomp the snot out of Israel should the USA cut Israel adrift. See how you are?#

I wasn't whining about it I was highlighting your lack of knowledge in the vain hope it might intrigue you enough to go away and find out what actually happened, you get fed up with americans who seem to delude themselves they saved us from invasion when the reality was actually very different. You weren't allies of the poles of czechs to begin with either though I would agree we sold them down the river, churchill especially, realistically it would have meant the war continuing but against russia

The situation with israel is very different. the time when their very survival was at stake is long gone but their continuing actions in Palestine can no longer be justified merely as self defence. Islamic terrorism started with the palestinians. It's time to re-think but so long as they believe america will back them no matter what where is the incentive to talk? They will have to sit down and talk to terrorists to make peace. Israel started as a terrorist state and their first leader was a terrorist so they surely can relate to someone else using terrorism to get their point across. The threat of being cut off might be enough to do it-who knows? What if israel uses it's nuclear weapons against iran in a pre-emptive strike?

hoppy · Post by **hoppy** » Thu Sep 24, 2009 9:37 am

When I become the new world leader, none of this will happen again. Not on my watch. BRRRAAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!:yh_rotfl

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Thu Sep 24, 2009 10:01 am

hoppy;1245951 wrote: When I become the new world leader, none of this will happen again. Not on my watch. BRRRAAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!:yh_rotfl
Can I be your 2nd In command?

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Fri Sep 25, 2009 1:02 am

is the project for the new american century still around or have they faded away? haven't seen them mentioned for a while

hoppy · Post by **hoppy** » Fri Sep 25, 2009 11:48 am

It'll return when the USA elects a real president once again. The one we have now is busy waging war on Americans.

flopstock · Post by **flopstock** » Fri Sep 25, 2009 12:07 pm

Does anyone know why we originally sided with them?

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Fri Sep 25, 2009 3:10 pm

hoppy;1246279 wrote: It'll return when the USA elects a real president once again. The one we have now is busy waging war on Americans.

As opposed to the previous one who was busy waging war on the rest of the world

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Fri Sep 25, 2009 3:17 pm

flopstock;1246282 wrote: Does anyone know why we originally sided with them?

After 1945 the British placed immigration restrictions on Jews coming into Palestine - the terms of the Balfor declaration were that it should not impact the existing native population. The Americans and French over-ruled this decision and the UK gave up the Mandate as a result.

The day before the Mandate ended the Jews declared UDI and the foundation of the state of Israel.

US support has been solid ever since.

chonsigirl · Post by **chonsigirl** » Fri Sep 25, 2009 3:33 pm

oscar;1245676 wrote: U.S. must cut off Israel -- baltimoresun.com

That is the reader's opinion in the Baltimore Sun, not the paper itself. Our local papers have reader's opinions posted in the editorial section, I post 5-10 a year in the Maryland Gazette ( a couple of hundred years older than that newspaper too)-one last month on a different topic. (take that Athletic Department!)

Since I live in Baltimore, I can say this. That paper is only good for the Ravens scores. It is a very biased paper, good for local news, (slanted their way) weather and sports. Just so you have the real background on that paper, and what that article said-it was one reader's opinion, not the paper's. (look at the section it is in, Maryland Voices)

hoppy · Post by **hoppy** » Fri Sep 25, 2009 4:06 pm

Bryn Mawr;1246369 wrote: As opposed to the previous one who was busy waging war on the rest of the world

Hey, we learned it from you guys.:yh_rotfl

watermark · Post by **watermark** » Fri Sep 25, 2009 8:44 pm

Israel needs to have a homeland that is clear to me. Millions of Jews were murdered a few years back. They were taken to gas chambers and shot and starved. This one crazy guy convinced all of his sheep that he was right and thus the almost worst inhumanity ever was perpetrated against the people who were different from said ruler and crazy mini mees.

Now Jews aren't messing around with how they, as a group, do things. They aren't going to trust things to work for them just because of the favor of the universe, and so they are defensive, who could hold this against a people, a nation.

By nature. these soft spoken and humble people, are not aggressively inclined. Because of this, they depend on the U.S. to support their cause, rightfully so, since almost .24 percent of the people in the U.S. are Jewish, give or take .0004 percent. The other 76 are their spiritual kin, wives, husbands, children and also, believe they deserve their very own country.

The U.S. should not stop giving money and weapons to Israel because then it would be like saying we, as a whole, were in favor of insane rulers who could come onto land and kill people! The people of Israel want to feel secure. They want to know that their way of life is sacred. Just like the American Indians do, btw! And the Palestinians!

What needs to happen, in my opinion, is that those guys should stop bickering over which land it is they OCCUPY, and focus on their spiritual growth as a worldwide entity. And settle on less fertile soil, both the palestinians and the jews. I'm pretty sure it was Hitler who ordered the killing of the millions of Jews, not the Palestinians, anyway, for what its worth.

Bottom line is I'm sick of feeling like I'm this seaslug being pulled into the sharksmouth for an issue that hasn't a thing to do with me. Settle your disputes like grownups, is what I'm saying, instead of toddlers! I'm not sure if sharks even eat seaslugs but I'm not sure about much anyway.

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Mon Sep 28, 2009 5:28 pm

watermark: You are starting to see the problem.

Settle it like grownups? They ARE settling it like most grownups: Badly. :-1

Inernational politics is like an immature playground - issues are settled by the best abuse and or bigger brother. It's pathetic, but it's the way it is. The idea that climate change might see the Holy Land rendered uninhabitable in less than 100 years could be seen by some as God's comment on the issue.