>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker: The real problem is the fact that Isreal is making a VERY simple request. "Accept Isreal as a Jewish State".

Did you even watch the video? Both sides need to expand their perspectives, both sides need to take responsiblity and both sides need to be willing to take steps to fix the situation.

Oh yeah, and the people with nukes, attack choppers, artillery, tanks and white phosphorous should probably stop taking cheap shots at the people bottled up in the worlds largest concentration camp with nothing more than assault rifles and the occasional RPG. It's like watching Mike Tyson beat up a kid in a wheelchair.

In reply to this comment by Farhad2000:
>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
Nentanyahu’s speech was Sunday. In it he said that he wanted Isreal recognized as a Jewish state.

You deal in half truths.

The recognition of Israel as a Jewish state means that there is no chance for any resettlement of Palestinians in those areas that Israel pushed them out of them. It means no right of return.

It means Israeli Arabs within Israel become second class citizens.

It means no land returns to those areas settled illegally by Israelis in Palestinian areas. Because de facto these are Jewish holy sites. Those should belong to Israel.

The conditions also required Palestine that has no military force. Nor has any control of it's own airspace.

It means Palestine as a state would simply exist as it does today, an open air prison ringed by military walls and incurred on by illegal settlements. It offers no compromise beyond making sure that the peace process continues to exist in a dead zombie state giving false hope to Palestinians while allowing Israel to further capture areas in the West bank through encroaching settlements.


this was GREAT my friend.
how many americans are aware of the machinations and subtrefuge by political lobbyists to control the information they see or read?
its just sad in its simplicity to rectify.
great response bud..fantastic!
till next time.
namaste.

No - I deal in full truths. You simply don't like them. The reality is that acknowledging Isreal as a Jewish state does have implications and inherent problems for Palestinians. But the creation of a Palestinain state causes tons of problems for Isreal too so it isn't all one-sided. That's diplomacy. You give up something to get something.

The Palestinians want a state. That's reasonable. Isreal wants the Arab world to acknowledge it's right to exist. That's also reasonable. Both sides agreeing to this basic right of existence would be a great beginning. Initially it's going to be tough on both sides. They're both going to need to compromise. Isreal is at least starting the process and saying, "Here's what we want..." Now the Palenstinians need to step up and say, "OK you can exist, but we need these territories..." or make some sort of counter offer. That's how diplomacy works.

Quite frankly, the fact that the simple "we want to exist" request is the one that is being so flatly rejected is a real head-shaker to me. If Arab's can't even do that, then this is all pointless. There’s no reason they can’t just say, “We will acknowledge Israel as an official Jewish state, but we need “X, Y, Z” concessions in order to function as a Palestinian state.” What’s so hard about that?

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
Nentanyahu’s speech was Sunday. In it he said that he wanted Isreal recognized as a Jewish state.

You deal in half truths.

The recognition of Israel as a Jewish state means that there is no chance for any resettlement of Palestinians in those areas that Israel pushed them out of them. It means no right of return.

It means Israeli Arabs within Israel become second class citizens.

It means no land returns to those areas settled illegally by Israelis in Palestinian areas. Because de facto these are Jewish holy sites. Those should belong to Israel.

The conditions also required Palestine that has no military force. Nor has any control of it's own airspace.

It means Palestine as a state would simply exist as it does today, an open air prison ringed by military walls and incurred on by illegal settlements. It offers no compromise beyond making sure that the peace process continues to exist in a dead zombie state giving false hope to Palestinians while allowing Israel to further capture areas in the West bank through encroaching settlements.

you dont read much do you mr pennypacker? or if you do,its pretty biased material judging by your comment above.

I read quite a lot. I read so much that I have the ability to determine when it is appropriate to use the grammatical conventions of both capitalization and punctuation. A skill that you sadly have not yet mastered, leading me to the conclusion that if anyone's reading, writing, and comprehension skills are in doubt - they are yours.

Regardless, I said nothing controversial or biased. I stated plain, simple facts. Nentanyahu’s speech was Sunday. In it he said that he wanted Isreal recognized as a Jewish state. The reaction from the Arab world has been plain and clear. The precondition of an acknowledged Isreali Jewish state is unacceptable.

Now – you tell me – is that a ‘diplomatic’ response from the Palestinian/Arab community? Sounds pretty extremist to me. Isreal said, “We’ll accept a Palestinian state if you accept a Jewish state”. THAT sounds diplomatic and fair to me. For the response to such a simple, reasonable, basic request to be, “NO @#$%ING WAY!” from the Arab community pretty much spells out what we’re dealing with here.

While Shawn/Vecini/Zek did a fine job describing the hard-line Isreali side of the debate, he did VERY little to describe the hard-line Arab position the Isrealis are forced to deal with.

Whether you think the 'world' should have given the Jews Isreal after World War 2 or not is academic. What is done is done and Isreal - for better or for worse - is there to stay. No amount of hand-wringing, moaning, and bellyaching is going to change that fact. Unless you subscribe to the need for a second holocaust then Isreal as a Jewish State is an immutable reality that must be accepted.

The REAL problem here is not Isreali 'lopsided responses' when attacked. The real problem is the fact that Isreal is making a VERY simple request. "Accept Isreal as a Jewish State". And that simple request is flatly rejected by Palestine, Iran, Egypt, and pretty much every player in the game. I mean, get real. Isreal could respond to Arab attacks by lobbing kittens, cottonballs, and dryer lint and they'd still get massive hate for it.

It is all well and good to belly ache about the ‘hardline Isreali stance’. But to completely ignore that the hardline Arab stance is FAR more extremist does nothing to advance this discussion. Until the Arab world is willing to go on the record and acknowledge Isreal as an official Jewish state then there is really nothing to discuss at all. If they can’t even bring themselves to allow Isreal to EXIST then this whole issue is pointless. There can be no peace when the hardline Arab position is so extreme. And you know what? That ISN'T Isreal's fault.

>> ^longde:
Very succinct and TRUE summary of the situation.
What was new to me was the explanation of the Israeli justification of assymetric casualties. Great sift.


i disagree with that justification.
you would think that for a people that suffered so greatly in so many terrible ways would at LEAST have the cognitive understanding what they are perpetrating on another people.
the term "jewish people" is not an entirely representative statement.there are many jewish nationalities.which particualr jewish tribe was promised isreal by the british empire?khazars,newly converted.
does that make them any less jewish?of course not.
i only state these things to lend context to an otherwise entangled situation.
before the amended balfor declaration 3 million lived in jerusalem peacefully,christian,jew and muslim,that changed with the balfor declaration.
so i do agree with his premise on the wrongs of empirialism,and its long-lasting affects.
but i heartily disagree with his justification for it assumes that all jews are the same.they are not.

great post GEO!
so basically netanyaho is saying:
"we shall have all the weapons and control and you all can have a flag and an anthem and THEN we shall call you a palestinian state"
and the collosal prick award goes to........
i think we can also give a douche award to britain for amending the balfor declaration giving converted khazars 55% of palestinian lands in 1922.
and lets not forget america in 1948 for rushing like a horny teenage boy to vote its new girlfriend ISREAL into nationhood.

the isreali/palestinian conflict is probably the largest propagator of muslim extremism towards the western world,and is not easily going to be rectified.
who profits?that is my question...
because as usual,it is the common man,the poor that pays the price for the arrogance of the political,influential and the elite.
and by what right do the converted khazars claim isreal?
aaaah..thats right.a book.
lovingly called the bible.or torah..no matter.
this travesty of humanity makes me crazy with rage.the millions that have suffered in the name of god,that still suffer today.
self-righteous murdering fucktwits,
in the name of god?
my ass.

M'eh. The Iranian election was as predictable as the sunrise. The extremists who are in charge wanted "The Shrimp" re-elected and that's exactly what happened. Aslan can talk about diplomacy all he wants, but it is meaningless. Diplomacy with Iran has very little to do with whichever bozo gets the gig after their so-called 'elections'.

Proof positive in the pudding... Isreal. Netenyahu pretty much spiked any chance of a treaty with just ONE simple, reasonable little phrase... "Recognize Isreal as a Jewish state..." The hubub in the circles of 'diplomacy' is that such a pre-condition makes any hope of an agreement absolutely and unequivocally impossible. The only solution that will be accepted by the political world of the Middle East is the annihilation of Isreal as a state and the expulsion of all Jews from the region.

Now – how do you engage in ‘diplomacy’ with a position that is so extreme? Obama can make all the pointless speeches he wants, and a few eggheads like this guy might think he’s brilliant. They are all missing the point completely, which is sadly not atypical when this topic comes up. The point is that militant Islamists are the ones in charge and there is no possible way to successfully negotiate with a pack of half-insane, religious extremists whose only desired outcome is annihilation.

You didn't even watch this video.

Sure did. Watched his whole speech. Not only that, but I applied my considerable critical thinking skills to it. I know that's a foreign practice to a neo-lib, but for a person like me it is second nature.

Regardless, it was a typical Obama speech. He took credit for a lot of stuff he didn't do. He promised a lot of stuff that he can't possibly accomplish. He told a bunch of lies that no one will ever hold him accountable for. He blamed a bunch of stuff on people besides himself. Yawn. Lather, rinse, repeat in Germany...

I honestly think that Obama is very much interested in eliminating the state of Isreal as soon as possible. He's been horking down at the teat of neolib anti-Semitism for decades (Ayers, Alinksy, Rev. Wright, et al). I think this is just his method for getting rid of Isreal in a way that he thinks he can 'sell'. Obviously if he just pulled out and let Isreal die in a fire he'd catch it hot from a lot of sources. But if he wraps it all up in pretty speeches about playing nicey-nicey with the 'Muslim world'? Well, The Messiah can't be blamed for what happens to poor Isreal after he declares 'peace'... Hello Holocaust 2.0.

The speech essentially makes attempts to minimize the violence and despotism of the Muslim world while grossly exaggerating the faults of Western civilization in an attempt to make himself sound moderate - sprinkled with complete BS on a variety of subjects. Typical political speech. Long, dull, and full of crap.

His position from this speech is pretty clear though. He thinks he's going to get Muslims to like us, and he's going to hang Isreal out to dry to do it. He's a profoundly stupid man if he think's that is going to accomplish squat except Holocaust 2.0.

I think this guy has a bit more credibility and first-hand knowlege of the topic. Even more-so that Cheney

Proves my point exactly. You've 'chosen' to accept him as a credible source because he's saying things you like. There are senior interrogators who disagree with this guy's opinion, but you give them no credibility because you don't want to.

I'm more interested in the semantics of this debate, personally. I find them to be highly misleading. This doofus is deliberately attempting to make it sound like 'torture' is the ONLY reason that terrorists go to Iraq. So we're supposed to believe somehow that every insurgent in Iraq is there ONLY because of US torture pics and junk.

But news stories of prisoner treatment did not become widespread until late in 2004 when internal documents and photos were leaked. At that point the Iraq insurgency was already stuff, and foreign fighters were flocking into the country. "Torture" could not possibly have motivated this, because it wasn't publicized. The real motivations are myriad and include Isreal, money, and many other things. Be realistic. If all the US had done was put terrorists in a comfy bungalow, then there would still be terrorists in Iraq by the thousands.

Therefore the joker in this vid is totally up in the night. Terrorist activity was stiff and rampant far earlier than 'torture' became an issue. Now, that is irrefutable fact. But you people here will have none of it, because it contradicts an argument that you desperately want to be correct. Pathetic.

People started walking out when he said Isreal had a racist government with regard to the occupied territories - which is hard to argue against - The UN itself has officially condemned Israel for those issues. I guess the folks that walked out wanted safer racism to talk about at the anti-racism conference.

Also, if wikipedia is right it seems like he's more of a right-to-question-the holocaust person than he is a holocaust denier.

You say the Arab world is supporting Palestinian efforts but don't acknowledge the large military and political help the Israelis receive from the US.

I acknowledge it, but I consider it non-germaine to the topic. The issue is whether countries have the right to defend their citizens? In Isreal's case, there is a large population of armed partisans, geurilla fighters, terrorists, and agent provokateurs right at the door. Sadly, among the population of bad guys are a lot of innocents who don't have anywhere else to go. It is grossly unfair.

But suppose Isreal makes nice, gives Gaza to the Palestinians, pulls down the walls, and disbands the border security. Now the Palestinians can move freely. What happens next? History has proven for the past 60 years that if Isreal doesn't have walls, checkpoints, buffer zones, and blockades then they get car explosions, suicide bombers, and dead citizens. Past treaties made MANY concessions to the Palestinains but the violence never stopped.

Clearly some of you are of the mind that the Isreali government should put its citizens at risk from the bad guys so as to relieve the pressure on the innocent Palestinians. You may also believe that doing this will make the bad guys less prone to violence, and make the Palestinian people in general 'more favorable' to Isreal. I would ask you to supply the logic and evidence that leads you to that conclusion, because it runs counter to over 50 years of evidence.

The kicker is that you want to put the most incompetent organization on the planet (the U.N.) in charge of Isreal's security. No one in thier right mind could believe that is a good idea.

Personally I still think my solution is best. 1. American gives Rhode Island to the Palestinians and relocates them. 2. Italy gives Sicily to Isreal and relocates them. 3. Jerusalem and all the surrounding region is turned into a historical landmark where no one is allowed to live.

There's no spin. It's an accurate and fair assessment of the situation. There are more players in the game than just Isreal and the Palestinians. There's plenty of blame to spread around and the situation is not the sole pervue of any one side.

I have more historical perspective than you perhaps, but I recall quite well the peace efforts of the 70s, 80s, 90s, and early 00s where Isreal made concession after concession after concession. But it was never enough. The objective of the militant Pals is not peaceful coexistence. It is the complete elimination of the Isreali state.

Therefore you and others like you are operating from a false position that only exists within the confines of your fantasies. You probably haven't been around long enough, and so you don't remember that this is all ground that has been covered before over and over and over.

You think that Isreal is to blame for this mess because you think there is some mythical 'concession' Isreal could make that would make the Palestinians happy. Baloney. The so-called 'peace' talks of the 70s, 80s, 90s, and early 00s proved unequivocally that there are NO concessions Isreal can make that will satisfy the Palestinians. The only thing that will satisfy them is when Isreal is booted out of 'thier' country.

So your argument is an utterly false magician's choice, and I think even yo know this deep down. Isreal is doing what it thinks it needs to do in order to prevent the deaths of thier citizens. That's the right of any country, and the main duty of a government. I don't blame them for that. They want security from a bunch of uncompromising, half-insane terrorists. Who doesn't?

What the Palestinians need to do is reign in thier extremists and show they are willing to give Isreal a peaceful option that will actually work. Frankly, I don't think that is possible because there are too many factions in the Middle East (Iran, Egypt, Lebanon, et al) that are too intent on keeping a bunch of poor, angry Palestinians around as a stable of useful idiots to funnel bombs to.