Israel

Re: Israel

Postby YMix » Sat Aug 08, 2015 3:41 pm

Nonc Hilaire wrote:I dunno. Huge, Jewish, antizionist mobs camped out in the streets of Tel Aviv for weeks.


At some point, Israel will have to deal with this conflict.
“There are a lot of killers. We’ve got a lot of killers. What, do you think our country’s so innocent? Take a look at what we’ve done, too.” - Donald J. Trump, President of the USA
User avatar
YMix
 
Posts: 4285
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 4:53 am
Location: Department of Congruity - Report any outliers here

Re: Israel

Postby Parodite » Sat Aug 08, 2015 5:15 pm

Nonc Hilaire wrote:I dunno. Huge, Jewish, antizionist mobs camped out in the streets of Tel Aviv for weeks.


Define zionism, zionist, antizionist...
Outside, away from the noise, grows a flower.
User avatar
Parodite
 
Posts: 4039
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 9:43 pm

Re: Israel

Postby Heracleum Persicum » Sat Aug 08, 2015 5:30 pm

Parodite wrote:
Nonc Hilaire wrote:I dunno. Huge, Jewish, antizionist mobs camped out in the streets of Tel Aviv for weeks.


Define zionism, zionist, antizionist ...

.



Zionism is a political movement

Zionist are people neither believing in nor practicing Judaism claiming somebody promised them somebody else's home.

AntiZionist are people who cater to "Mensch".


.
User avatar
Heracleum Persicum
 
Posts: 8049
Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2012 7:38 pm

Re: Israel

Postby Parodite » Sun Aug 09, 2015 12:12 am

Heracleum Persicum wrote:
Parodite wrote:
Nonc Hilaire wrote:I dunno. Huge, Jewish, antizionist mobs camped out in the streets of Tel Aviv for weeks.


Define zionism, zionist, antizionist ...

.



Zionism is a political movement

Zionist are people neither believing in nor practicing Judaism claiming somebody promised them somebody else's home.

AntiZionist are people who cater to "Mensch".


A secular political movement hmm? Political suggests there is a political party... so who are those people, where are they? What is their agenda? etc...
Outside, away from the noise, grows a flower.
User avatar
Parodite
 
Posts: 4039
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 9:43 pm

Re: Israel

Postby Heracleum Persicum » Sun Aug 09, 2015 8:32 am

.


In an interview with CNN
Obama Hints Netanyahu's Interference in U.S. Affairs



.

In an interview with CNN's Fareed Zakaria to be aired in full later on Sunday, the president was asked if it was "appropriate of a foreign head of government to inject himself into an American affair.”

“I will let you ask Prime Minister Netanyahu that question," Obama responded, adding: "I don’t recall a similar example.”

.




American Joe witnessing Zionist "meddling" in American "National security, Foreign Policy" affairs

Do American Jewish want that ? ? making "dual loyalty" a farce.

American Jewish "elite" .. Bloomberg, Kissinger (Paul Wolfowitz, William Kristol, Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, Scooter Libby, Michael Ledeen) and others .. must now step forward and show JOE where their loyalty rests.

American Joe now witnessing what Shah said to Mike Wallace 35 yrs ago





.
User avatar
Heracleum Persicum
 
Posts: 8049
Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2012 7:38 pm

Re: Israel

Postby Parodite » Sun Aug 09, 2015 11:37 am

Parodite wrote:
Heracleum Persicum wrote:
Parodite wrote:
Nonc Hilaire wrote:I dunno. Huge, Jewish, antizionist mobs camped out in the streets of Tel Aviv for weeks.


Define zionism, zionist, antizionist ...

.



Zionism is a political movement

Zionist are people neither believing in nor practicing Judaism claiming somebody promised them somebody else's home.

AntiZionist are people who cater to "Mensch".


A secular political movement hmm? Political suggests there is a political party... so who are those people, where are they? What is their agenda? etc...


HP and Nonc check out the various Zionist fruit salads to pick from (and on):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionism

The political movement of Zionism was Herzl's with its stated goal of establishing a Jewish territory. It his history. There are no political Zionists left as they are all dead. To be "antizionist" is meaningless.

There is the state of Israel now with its governments and their politics. That's all there is. And Israelis with often very different ideas, political views, opinions and beliefs.

As for the various Zionisms post-Israel and today.. they are just identity-fetish clubs that cook up fancy Jewish dishes. It has become free food and a label for anyone, Jews and non-Jews to use... or abuse. What a joke :D
Outside, away from the noise, grows a flower.
User avatar
Parodite
 
Posts: 4039
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 9:43 pm

Netanyahu’s Lobby vs. the World

Postby Heracleum Persicum » Wed Aug 12, 2015 1:14 pm

.


Iran deal pits the allies of Israel's prime minister against an international consensus.



The Iran deal debate is huge and historic: a committed and eloquent president in his prime, able to mobilize scientists and diplomats and most of Washington’s foreign-affairs establishment on one hand; opposing him, groups funded by a few billionaires, able to saturate selected congressional districts with television advertising and frighten many office holders. It’s a subject that will draw historians for decades to come. If the government of Israel and its friends are able to block the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (Israeli security professionals are not enthusiastic about the deal but, unlike Netanyahu, generally favor it as the best thing possible), it will be perceived to be just as pivotal as Woodrow Wilson’s failure to secure the United States’s adherence to the League of Nations, effectively dooming that organization.

On the face of it, the international coalition in favor of the deal should seem overwhelming. That diplomats from France, Germany, and Britain spent last week in Congress warning that all hell would break loose if the deal were scuttled was barely reported in the American press, but it did happen. The UN Security Council voted 15-o in favor of the deal. If, against such odds, Netanyahu, AIPAC, and the perennially well-funded let’s-start-a-war-against-Iraq crowd—The Weekly Standard, Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, Commentary, New York Sun, etc.—can overcome the combined foreign-policy establishments of the United States, Russia, China, Britain, France, and Germany, it will be truly an event for the ages. If the result of scuttling the deal is war, which Obama believes, and which the more honest of the deal’s opponents publicly hope, they will fully own the war. If the result is an Iranian rush to the bomb and no war, they will own that result as well.

If one is to look clearly at American politics, and indeed much of the world’s, it is apparent that the old concept of dual loyalty (often used as a smear) is no longer relevant in a day that celebrates competing identities. Dual loyalty was a charge leveled at European Jews in the heyday of European nationalism, which insinuated that Jews remained more loyal to their own group than to their country of citizenship, and of course this charge was often inextricably tied up with the most extreme anti-Semitism. During the same historical period, leading American politicians railed at hyphenated Americans—Germans and Swedes and other opponents of intervention in the First World War, for example—and afterwards, often repressive pro-assimilation legislation was turned against immigrants of almost every stripe.

It is now obvious that many in the West have complicated and potentially competing loyalties. European nationalism of the nation-state variety is a subdued and increasingly less pronounced sentiment, and a high proportion of college-educated European baby boomers consider the European Union a noble and idealistic endeavor that competes with or even overrides their sense of Frenchness or Italianness. In America, too, not only are we “all multiculturalists now” but our patriotism comes in different layers. Many young Americans feel themselves part of a new transnational, tech-savvy, entrepreneurial bourgeoisie, which imagines itself as borderless; many more are married to persons of another nationality or faith. Personal experiences, even a stint in the Peace Corps, can produce some ties of allegiance. Who at some moment has not contemplated where they might try to emigrate—France? Ireland? Canada? Australia?—if politics here took a truly bad turn? Or even if they didn’t.

So let’s stipulate that the loyalty questions now spilling out over the Iran debate are muddy. Is it over the top when the Huffington Post headlines an (excellent) article by David Bromwich “Netanyahu and his Marionettes“? Some think so. But truth also has its claims—and much of Capitol Hill’s embrace of the Netanyahu position would simply not exist were it not for campaign funds from Israel-linked organizations. If something of this importance is true, should it not be written?

Last week the Times ran an AIPAC-inspired story in which various unnamed AIPAC officials accused the White House of using “dog whistles” in its efforts to combat the campaign against the deal. This was a subtle sign, shortly followed by much tougher accusations of anti-Semitism in the Tablet, The Weekly Standard (by Eliott Abrams no less), the Wall Street Journal, and the New York Post. Obama is notoriously cautious and lawyerly in his language, and not a phrase in his American University speech could be fairly construed as a “dog whistle”—unless you are AIPAC and so thoroughly accustomed to politicians’ obsequiousness that any opposition can cause a temper tantrum. But to be sure, in left-wing websites and other venues dual-loyalty accusations have been made. Chuck Schumer likes to tell Jewish audiences that his name means “guardian” in Hebrew, while promising them that he will conduct himself as Israel’s guardian. Is it an anti-Semitic dog whistle to point out that fact? Does it mean his assessment of the deal is based on what he deems best for Israel, rather than his own constituents? Is it politically effective to point that fact out? I would probably answer no, yes, no—but clearly we’re in uncertain waters here.

New factors are coming into play as well. The National Iranian American Council filled an important role in briefing journalists and lobbying legislators throughout the negotiation process; in the Times there recently appeared an ad signed by hundreds of prominent Iranian-Americans in support of the deal. The Iranian-American community has been apolitical for years—probably most of its most prominent professional members are refugees or the children of refugees from Iran’s Islamic revolution. Still, given the choice between a deal that may open up Iran to the world and the bombing of their country that America’s neoconservatives yearn for, they overwhelmingly prefer the former. Are they too under the spell of a kind of dual loyalty? Yes, of course: what kind of person would want to see their parents’ country bombed and destroyed?

The Iranian-American community now ranks, I believe, as the single best-educated ethnic group in the United States, and is, generally speaking, professionally quite successful. It is relatively small, but knowing quite a few of its members, I hope its political influence will only grow. Even 10 years ago, few prominent Iranian-Americans would have signed such a letter. But the American polity concerned with foreign policy is evolving every day. Obama is in many ways a result of that. And deference to Israel is slowly but steadily becoming less mandatory

Some predictions :

The effort to stomp out criticism of the JCPOA’s opponents by charging anti-Semitism, unwarranted in virtually every case, will not succeed. Basically, this is not a matter of defending a groundbreaking book by two prominent scholars, or the record of a intelligently reactionary presidential candidate. The Iran deal is a broad establishment project, a world establishment project—and charging anti-Semitism isn’t going to cut it. But that said, individual members of Congress do live in dread getting on AIPAC’s bad side. And a massive fear-mongering media campaign has moved and will continue to move the polls against the deal. Crude TV ads are really effective, as any student of American politics knows.

How will it end ?

I would predict the Democrats will sustain Obama’s veto of the Netanyahu-inspired legislation. The political landscape will be transformed. But it will be transformed whatever happens. Whoever said that the Israel lobby is a night flower, which flourishes in the dark and withers in the sunlight, is likely to be vindicated.

.




:lol: :lol: :lol:

well, folks , that "dual loyalty" just rubbish as said and posted here and elsewhere many times, no such thing as "half pregnant", you either pregnant or not .. these guys "Foreign Agent"

Could not dream of a better circumstances .. this shows American Joe who the BOSS here .. In any clash between the United States and Israel over U.S. policy in the Middle East, bet on Bibi. Bet on Israel. America is Israel’s poodle now.

Am puzzled how American Jewish community does not realize what is happening.

.
User avatar
Heracleum Persicum
 
Posts: 8049
Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2012 7:38 pm

Re: Netanyahu’s Lobby vs. the World

Postby Heracleum Persicum » Wed Aug 12, 2015 1:53 pm

.


The New Yorker



And aipac now seems acutely sensitive to the appearance of dual loyalty. The theme of this year’s aipac conference was “Israel, an American Value,” and, for the first time, “Hatikvah,” the Israeli national anthem, was not sung. The only anthem heard was “The Star-Spangled Banner.”



When Spengler, David Goldman, said he American representing American values and Israel and America same values, I told him, posted in his last fora, he neither American nor American and Israeli Values same .. days later was banned


.
User avatar
Heracleum Persicum
 
Posts: 8049
Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2012 7:38 pm

Editor for the Jewish Forward reporting from Tehran

Postby Heracleum Persicum » Wed Aug 12, 2015 2:10 pm

.


Jerusalem Post


' We object to Israeli policies, not its existence,' Iranians tell US Jewish journalist


Larry Cohler-Esses, the assistant managing editor for the Jewish 'Forward', wrote that Iranians are far more moderate and eager to engage with the world than outsiders think.

Despite extremist rhetoric by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iranian government officials and clerics object to Israeli policies rather than its existence, according to an American Jewish journalist who was granted a rare reporting visa to the Islamic Republic.

In a special dispatch from Iran, Larry Cohler-Esses, the assistant managing editor for the Jewish Forward weekly newspaper, wrote that Iranians are far more moderate and eager to engage with the world than outsiders think.

Cohler-Esses, who is believed to be the first American Jewish journalist from an overtly pro-Israel newspaper to be granted permission to report from Iran since the 1979 Islamic Revolution, authored a 7,000-word article in which he quotes a number of Iranians who aren't shy about expressing critical opinions about their government.

"During the course of my conversations with several senior ayatollahs and prominent political and government officials, it became clear that there is high-placed dissent to the official line against Israel," Cohler-Esses wrote. "No one had anything warm to say about the Jewish state."

"But pressed as to whether it was Israel’s policies or its very existence to which they objected, several were adamant: It’s Israel’s policies. Others, notwithstanding their ideological objection to a Jewish state, made it clear they would accept a two-state solution to Israel’s conflict with the Palestinians if the Palestinians were to negotiate one and approve it in a referendum."


The Forward journalist wrote that ordinary Iranians were far more preoccupied with the high unemployment rate in their country and removing the burden of international isolation than any thoughts of eliminating Israel.

“The people of Iran want in some way to show the world that what’s going on in the last years is not the will of the Iranian people but of the Iranian government,” the owner of a butcher shop in northern Tehran told Cohler-Esses. “We have no hostility against Israel.”

During his stay in Iran, the Forward reporter wrote that young people were curious about the outside world despite efforts by the regime to impose censorship on the Internet.

The Forward is America's oldest Jewish newspaper. Founded in 1897 by American Jewish socialists, it became a mass circulation Yiddish-language daily that served the influx of immigrants from Eastern Europe.

User avatar
Heracleum Persicum
 
Posts: 8049
Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2012 7:38 pm

Re: Israel

Postby Heracleum Persicum » Thu Aug 13, 2015 10:26 am

User avatar
Heracleum Persicum
 
Posts: 8049
Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2012 7:38 pm

Re: Israel

Postby Heracleum Persicum » Fri Aug 14, 2015 10:10 am

.


"There are things being said that are both harmful and carry with them long-term potential damage," ..
"This will not end at the end of the debate, when you hint at dual loyalty, or that segments of the population are promoting war,
when in fact we want peace.



All matter of definition


For Zionist, they have now "Peace" in IRAQ and SYRIA

Every day bombs go off in Iraq and Syria, 1000s killed every week, as long as those killed Arabs, be my guest

That is what Zionist call "peace".

For Zionist it can't be better as long as Arabs kill each other .. Arabs weaken and Subject of guys coming from Ukraine and Latvia and Estonia and Russia bulldozing Pali homes and calling Palli terrorist is "off the table"

That is "PEACE" Zionist, Neocon style.

Yes .. what is happening now in US will change American Joe perception .. for so long Joe was told : Zionist control things in our beloved America by their "media and money", although all facts on the ground indicated that, he did not engage .. but now, American political decision makers and elite made "fundamental" groundbreaking decisions regarding American foreign policy road ahead for next century in tandem with ALL other world powers AND all world nations , except Israel, but the Las Vegas Bordello owner saying NO. :lol:


.
User avatar
Heracleum Persicum
 
Posts: 8049
Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2012 7:38 pm

Re: Israel

Postby Heracleum Persicum » Mon Aug 17, 2015 1:11 pm

.


Washington Post



.

The conflict over the Iran deal has exposed a substantial rift between American Jews and the groups generally known as “the Jewish leadership,” “major Jewish organizations” and “influential Jewish organizations.”

These leaders and groups are not, in fact, leading American Jewish opinion on the Iran deal.

They are defying it.

They doubtless represent the views of their board members, but those views are at odds with the majority of rank-and-file American Jews, who, in fact, support the deal more than Americans generally.

..

One of us (Cohen) conducted a poll last month for the Jewish Journal on the Iran accord. This is the only poll of American Jews on the subject to explicitly include Jews with no religion — those who said that, “aside from religion,” they “consider themselves Jewish.” They were asked their opinion of “an agreement . . . in which the United States and other countries would lift major economic sanctions against Iran, in exchange for Iran restricting its nuclear program in a way that makes it harder for it to produce nuclear weapons.” Of the three-quarters who said they knew enough to offer an opinion on the deal, 63 percent supported it.

Simultaneously, the same polling agency asked the same questions of a sample of all Americans. Of those who said they knew enough, 54 percent supported the deal, while 46 percent opposed it. (Only 52 percent of this total sample said they knew enough.)

The poll asked whether Congress should “vote to approve or oppose the deal.” Jews leaned heavily toward approval, 54 percent to 35 percent, with 12 percent undecided. By contrast, the national sample divided 41 percent for vs. 38 percent against, with 21 percent undecided.

Jews support the agreement despite their mixed — even skeptical — views of its outcomes. Asked whether “this agreement would prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons over the next 10 years or so,” just 43 percent were “somewhat” or “very” confident, while 54 percent were “not so confident” or “not confident at all.”

So more than three-fifths of American Jews who express an opinion support the deal, compared with a bit more than half of Americans overall. Jews are far more sharply divided over the deal than non-Jews. The old saw “two Jews, three opinions” understates the matter.

But among the official “Jewish leaders,” this is hardly the case. AIPAC says that the deal “would facilitate rather than prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon and would further entrench and empower the leading state sponsor of terror.” The American Jewish Committee says the deal creates only “a temporary freeze” on Iranian nuclear weapons. The ADL agrees that it “represents a pause, not a stop to Iran’s nuclear weapons quest.” None of them offer any plausible alternative means to close the door on that quest.

Why is the “Jewish leadership” so unrepresentative of the population it claims to speak for on one of the most consequential and controversial American foreign policy decisions of our time? Why did these Jewish organizations announce plans to spend more than $20 million on advertising against the deal, while J Street raised $2 million to spend in favor?

For one thing, the dominant leadership is somewhat older and more conservative than Jews on the whole. Perhaps even more important, it disproportionately represents wealthy Jews. Contrary to age-old anti-Semitic propaganda, the wealthy are a small minority of all Jews, but among all Americans, this is a plutocratic age. Those who pay pipers call tunes. Some Democratic members of Congress, such as Sen. Charles Schumer , who objects to the deal, ignore the fact that among self-described Jewish Democrats polled, about five times as many support the deal as oppose it (62 percent vs. 13 percent). Of the 10 Jewish senators, Schumer is, at this writing, the only one to have formally voiced opposition to the deal. Five support it (Barbara Boxer, Dianne Feinstein, Al Franken, Bernie Sanders and Brian Schatz) and the remaining four (Michael Bennet, Richard Blumenthal, Benjamin Cardin and Ron Wyden) have yet to declare.

What accounts for the disparity between the views of American Jews overall and the views of the Jewish establishment? As we learned by analyzing the Pew Research Center’s 2013 survey of Jewish Americans, those who belong to Jewish organizations (18 percent of all Jews) differ in many ways from those who do not. The affiliated are more affluent (31 percent have incomes of at least $150,000, as opposed to 24 percent among the unaffiliated), more Republican (18 percent vs. 12 percent) and less likely to identify as liberal (46 percent vs. 53 percent). Even in 2013, the organizationally affiliated were more likely to disapprove of President Obama’s handing of the Iran issue (42 percent as opposed to 33 percent).

But perhaps the most critical distinction is that the affiliated include hardly any of the large minority of Jews who profess no religion. These “Jews with no religion” (JNRs, in Pew’s lexicon) did not answer “Jewish” when asked their faith but did say they were Jewish when asked, “Aside from religion, do you consider yourself Jewish or partially Jewish, or not?” These JNRs account for 5 percent of Jewish organization members but more than five times as many (27 percent) nonmembers. In the Jewish Journal survey, while 39 percent of Jews-by-religion want Congress to reject the deal, only half as many (19 percent) of the JNRs are opposed.

While our survey technique explicitly included JNRs, other recent surveys on the views of American Jews — such as a July poll commissioned by the Israel Project, which opposes the nuclear deal — rely solely on the religion question to qualify respondents and fail to ask the follow-up: “Aside from religion, do you consider yourself Jewish or partially Jewish?” In other words, Jewish organizations are understandably populated by Jews who are more engaged in conventional Jewish life. Not so understandably, surveys that purport to delineate American Jewish opinion frequently ignore what is perhaps the fastest growing “denomination” in American Judaism: Jewish with no religion.

Plainly, the idea that American Jews speak as a monolithic bloc needs very early retirement. So does the canard that their commitment to Israel or the views of its prime minister overwhelms their support for Obama and the Iran deal. So does the idea that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu leads, or represents, the world’s Jews. So does the notion that unrepresentative “leaders” speak for American Jews generally on the urgent matter of nuclear arms in the Middle East. They may speak for their donors, leaders and members, but they certainly do not speak for the American Jewish public at large and, in particular, the large population of American Jewish liberals who overwhelmingly support the deal and want their senators and representatives to approve it next month.

.



:lol:


.
User avatar
Heracleum Persicum
 
Posts: 8049
Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2012 7:38 pm

Re: Israel

Postby Heracleum Persicum » Fri Aug 21, 2015 7:17 pm

.


Ehud Barak :
Steinitz, Ya'alon got cold feet just before
Israel was about to attack Iran



Ehud Barak, the former defense minister, said that a plan to launch an attack against Iran was sabotaged by the hesitancy of fellow cabinet ministers Yuval Steinitz and the man who would replace him at the Kirya Defense Ministry compound, Rhubarb Ya'alon.

The bombshell revelations were made in a tape recording obtained by Channel 2. The clip was aired on its flagship Friday news magazine.

Barak said that the attack plans against Iran were drawn up and approved by him and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu sometime between 2009 and 2010.

According to Barak, when the plan went before the so-called "forum of eight" ministers, it was Ya'alon and Steinitz - two of the most vocal anti-Iran hawks in the current administration - who "melted."

Once it became apparent that Ya'alon and Steinitz were not completely on board with the attack plan, Netanyahu and Barak lost their majority in the "forum of eight," forcing them to shelve the initiative, the former defense minister is heard saying.

According to Channel 2, Barak tried to prevent the television network from airing the audio, claiming that they violate military censorship rules. However the military censor approved of the contents of the tape, Channel 2 said.

..

According to Barak, another critical factor that short-circuited an Israeli attack on Iran's nuclear facilities was opposition from then-army chief Gabi Ashkenazi.

The IDF chief of staff refused Barak and Netanyahu's pleas to officially declare that the military was "beyond the threshold of operational capacity."

"You can't go to the cabinet [and expect it to endorse an attack on Iran]" when the army chief refused to definitively state that the IDF was fully capable of executing an assault, Barak is heard saying.

Another obstacle standing in the way of Netanyahu and Barak was "the forum of eight." According to Barak, he was assured by Netanyahu that Ya'alon and Steinitz were on board with the plan. Their support was critical since other more dovish members of the forum - Benny Begin, Dan Meridor, and Eli Yishai - were opposed to the plan, as were senior officials in the Israeli defense and intelligence communities.

Once the "forum of eight" convened to discuss the plan, Barak said that he "saw before my own eyes how Steinitz and Ya'alon were melting."

"It was their questions, their facial expressions - and these are the men who are the most militant ministers when it comes to Iran," Barak is heard saying.

After it became clear that Steinitz and Ya'alon were no longer in the "yes" camp, Netanyahu and Barak had lost their majority in the "forum of eight."

"Without a majority in the 'forum of eight,' we didn't have the legitimacy to bring the plan before the entire cabinet," Barak said.

Barak said that Israel had another opportunity to launch an attack against Iran - this time in 2012, as has been reported in foreign media outlets.

According to Barak, Israel was set to attack Iran - but there was a major problem. It had scheduled a major joint military drill with the United States, and the Israeli government did not want to embarrass Washington by launching an attack against Iran just as it was set to engage in military exercises since that would give the appearance that the Americans were involved.

Without offering an explanation, Barak had convinced then-defense secretary Leon Panetta to re-schedule the drill, except that the new date still did not allow ample time for Israel to stage the attack against Iran without implicating the Americans.



.
User avatar
Heracleum Persicum
 
Posts: 8049
Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2012 7:38 pm

Re: Israel

Postby Parodite » Fri Sep 18, 2015 9:01 am

As usual things are not as bad as they seem and even improving.

Our society is not disintegrating

Op-ed: There are indeed negative phenomena, such as racism and extremism, in Israel. But it's the media which give extremist voices outsize attention, concealing the fact that social gaps are actually decreasing.

[...]
Outside, away from the noise, grows a flower.
User avatar
Parodite
 
Posts: 4039
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 9:43 pm

Re: Israel

Postby Heracleum Persicum » Fri Sep 18, 2015 5:51 pm

User avatar
Heracleum Persicum
 
Posts: 8049
Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2012 7:38 pm

Re: Israel

Postby Heracleum Persicum » Mon Oct 12, 2015 11:38 am

.


' Jesus was a Palestinian '



Thought this fits here .. best example of "evolution"

Palestinian Jesus morphing into Ukrainian and Latvia and Polish one.

Spengler, when asked, said, this happened by "miracle".


:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


.
User avatar
Heracleum Persicum
 
Posts: 8049
Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2012 7:38 pm

Re: Israel

Postby Heracleum Persicum » Tue Oct 13, 2015 9:37 am

User avatar
Heracleum Persicum
 
Posts: 8049
Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2012 7:38 pm

Third "Intifada"? Who could rejoice?

Postby Alexis » Mon Oct 19, 2015 11:31 am

Heracleum Persicum wrote:' You can’t bury ideas any more '


I don't know if the present wave of knife and other attacks will continue into a full-size "intifada".

If it does, contrary to what you're suggesting there would not be any reason to rejoice for anybody:
- Israelis would suffer a number of losses
- Palestinians would suffer more losses, and even worse their material situation would severely degraded because of precautions by Israeli forces to protect their civilian population. Many Palestinians are working in Israel, many more depend on contact with Israelis in other ways. If Israelis enforced total separation of Palestinians and Israelis, West Bank Palestinians would find themselves in similar predicament as Gaza Palestinians, with further impoverishment as a result. Obviously the project for Palestinians to have their own independent State would be sent back further

Only those people hateful enough of Israelis and indifferent enough to Palestinians would be able to rejoice.
User avatar
Alexis
 
Posts: 1216
Joined: Tue Jan 03, 2012 2:47 pm

Re: Third "Intifada"? Who could rejoice?

Postby Heracleum Persicum » Mon Oct 19, 2015 2:53 pm

Alexis wrote:
Heracleum Persicum wrote:' You can’t bury ideas any more '


I don't know if the present wave of knife and other attacks will continue into a full-size "intifada".

If it does, contrary to what you're suggesting there would not be any reason to rejoice for anybody:

- Israelis would suffer a number of losses

- Palestinians would suffer more losses, and even worse their material situation would severely degraded because of precautions by Israeli forces to protect their civilian population. Many Palestinians are working in Israel, many more depend on contact with Israelis in other ways. If Israelis enforced total separation of Palestinians and Israelis, West Bank Palestinians would find themselves in similar predicament as Gaza Palestinians, with further impoverishment as a result. Obviously the project for Palestinians to have their own independent State would be sent back further

Only those people hateful enough of Israelis and indifferent enough to Palestinians would be able to rejoice.

.



Not rejoicing at all

What I am sayin is, this will not end until there is "real" solution for issue at hand

Two state solution is now off the table .. "One state" now fact

In that sense, the 2 opponents must sit down and built a common state.





.
User avatar
Heracleum Persicum
 
Posts: 8049
Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2012 7:38 pm

Re: Third "Intifada"? Who could rejoice?

Postby Alexis » Mon Oct 19, 2015 9:11 pm

Heracleum Persicum wrote:What I am sayin is, this will not end until there is "real" solution for issue at hand

Two state solution is now off the table .. "One state" now fact

In that sense, the 2 opponents must sit down and built a common state.


Well not only the two state solution is off the table :( ... the one state solution is just as much, if not even more. All the potential solutions are off all tables now.

I readily agree that the two opponents should sit down and make peace, whatever arrangement they arrive to. It's just that I can't see that happening anytime soon, and the "knife intifada", if it comes to that, will only put back even further the time of sitting down and getting to an arrangement.

In the meantime, yes, "this" will not end. This being intifadas, protection walls, rocket shooting, bombing in Gaza, more knife attacks... and more which may be in store.
User avatar
Alexis
 
Posts: 1216
Joined: Tue Jan 03, 2012 2:47 pm

Re: Israel

Postby Heracleum Persicum » Tue Oct 20, 2015 1:23 am

.


Mismanaging the Conflict in Jerusalem


Last month, a survey of Palestinians found support for an armed intifada at 57 percent (and at 71 percent among 18- to 22-year-old men). Support was highest in Hebron and Jerusalem. Two-thirds of those surveyed wanted Mr. Abbas to resign.



.
User avatar
Heracleum Persicum
 
Posts: 8049
Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2012 7:38 pm

Re: Israel

Postby Typhoon » Fri Oct 23, 2015 3:16 am

All the world's a stage.
User avatar
Typhoon
 
Posts: 13480
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 6:42 pm

Re: Israel

Postby Brecher » Fri Oct 23, 2015 3:23 am

I guess Bibi will have to try something else, like "that awkward moment when you realize she's in to the other guy, not you" is all the Palestinian's fault.
Brecher
 
Posts: 110
Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2015 2:24 am

Re: Israel

Postby Heracleum Persicum » Fri Oct 23, 2015 4:50 am

User avatar
Heracleum Persicum
 
Posts: 8049
Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2012 7:38 pm

Re: Israel

Postby Typhoon » Sat Oct 24, 2015 1:34 am

Brecher wrote:I guess Bibi will have to try something else, like "that awkward moment when you realize she's into the other guy, not you" is all the Palestinian's fault.


I suppose.

Die Welt | Why Netanyahu’s Holocaust Theory Sounds So Ugly In Germany

Netanyahu is starting to sound as crazy and conspiracy theory prone as his surrounding neighbours have been for ages.
All the world's a stage.
User avatar
Typhoon
 
Posts: 13480
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 6:42 pm

PreviousNext

Return to The Muslim World | The Middle East

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest