Bob Tiernan wrote:
>
> Martin W. Smith wrote:
>
> > alohacyberian wrote:
>
> > > Literally dozens of Arab Terrorists, including Yasser
> > > Arafat have made that assertion. Are you saying the
> > > Arabs are lying? It hasn't been tested because the
> > > Israelis won't let the Arabs or the terrorists test it.
>
> > It hasn't been tested, because Israel has never made a fair
> > offer to the Palestinians.
>
> Gotta be careful. Israel will get only *one*
> chance to test this. Unlike the old USSR
> the Israelis have virtually no wide expanse
> into which they could retreat and regroup
> and resupply in the case of a massive attack
> by an Arab coalition taking advantage of
> the Israelis reducing their security on
> a chance.
That isn't going to happen because, as I said, if and when Israel
decides to take this step, support from the US and the EU will be
immediate and overwhelming. There is no possibility of a sustained Arab
attack militarily, because all Arab militaries are supplied by the US
and the EU + Russia. Once the Palestinians are on side (the
Palestinians, not the fanatic terrorists), the only remaining obstacle
is the fundamentalist, fanatic Islam, get-rid-of-Israel faction. It is a
problem, but once it becomes isolated, as it would if Israel took this
step, then Islam itself would act to eliminate the problem because the
majority of Muslims are not fanatic fundamentalists. Islamic reform will
not happen as long as there is this tacit approval by the majority of
the terrorism of the fanatic minority. Take the Palestinian problem off
the board, and the tacit approval goes away.
> Why do you have such cynical views regarding
> general support for Israel?
The current support is as misplaced as is the support of Arab
dictatorships. Support for Israeli rejectionism and support for Arab
dictatorships are two problems preventing progress in the Middle East.
> Support for
> Israel might even be called an exception to
> the usual political game in that Israel's
> supporters could have easily sided with
> the other countries that actually have oil.
> If oil rules, why would the US and a few other
> countries have put so many chips into backing
> Israel (up to a point)?
Israel is supported by the US for two reasons: 1. It is a recognized
democratic state (albeit with latent racism) and so deserves to exist,
and 2. Jewish culture is important in the US both politically and
culturally.
I certainly don't object to supporting Israel. I want to solve the
problem.
martin
--
Martin Smith email: mws@no-spam
Vollsveien 9 tel. : +47 6783 1188
P.O. Box 482 mob. : +47 932 48 303
1327 Lysaker, Norway
Bill Bonde wrote:
>
> "Martin W. Smith" wrote:
> >
> > alohacyberian wrote:
> > > Have you taken leave of your senses? Recently the Jews agreed to 100% of
> > > what the Palestinian Authority demanded and the Palestinians rejected their
> > > own proposals!
> >
> > No, I haven't taken leave of my senses, and Israel has never agreed to
> > 100% of what the Palestinian Authority demands, because it demands the
> > implementation of UN-242.
> >
> Then why doesn't it implement 242 itself? Because 242 is a bilateral
> demand by the UN Security Council and not something that one or the
> other side can do only by itself.
That's right, of course, but before both can implement it, both have to
agree to implement it. Israel refuses to agree to implement it. But
UN-242 isn't my preferred solution anyway, so put your mind at rest.
> It wasn't vetoed by the US because it
> was bilateral. It is always invoked by the pro-Pali nuts though as a
> unilateral demand on Israel.
No, Keith, what is required is for Israel to accept it as the final
goal. Once that is done, Israel and Palestine will receive unlimited
assistance to implement it from the US, the EU, and Russia.
> > > A map? Whose side are you on? If you look at a map of Eretz Israel from the
> > > time of the Balfour Declaration (and centuries, no millennia before) you'll
> > > see that 78% of Israel was ceded to the Palestinians in 1948!
> >
> > We are here talking about the map of what Israel offered to the
> > Palestinians as 95% or 97% of what it was supposed to get according to
> > UN-242, *not* the map you refer to. The map of what Israel offered
> > shows the West Bank is divided into bantustans. I wouldn't accept it
> > for myself; you wouldn't, and the Palestinians won't accept it either.
> >
> Why did Clinton force that on the two parties?
He didn't. President Clinton has nothing to do with this.
> Everyone knew that it
> wouldn't succeed at that point. Clinton's actions are what opened it
> back up for the suicide terrorists we've had for the last few years.
No, the current situation is not President Clinton's doing. It is the
Israelis's and Palestinian's doing.
> The
> Palestinians should be happy with 95% or 97% of the land and a cash
> settlement, say ten billion dollars in aid per year for 25 years. They
> should also probably get some land on the EAST BANK.
Well, whatever two-state solution is proposed, the Palestinian state
must be an independent state, and it must be economically viable.
Otherwise, the solution won't work, and we will be right back where we
are now. That is why I don't prefer the two-state solution. I don't
think Israel will ever allow Palestine to be an independent, viable
state.
martin
--
Martin Smith email: mws@no-spam
Vollsveien 9 tel. : +47 6783 1188
P.O. Box 482 mob. : +47 932 48 303
1327 Lysaker, Norway
"Martin W. Smith" wrote:
>
> Bill Bonde wrote:
> >
> > "Martin W. Smith" wrote:
> > >
> > > alohacyberian wrote:
> > > > Have you taken leave of your senses? Recently the Jews agreed to 100% of
> > > > what the Palestinian Authority demanded and the Palestinians rejected their
> > > > own proposals!
> > >
> > > No, I haven't taken leave of my senses, and Israel has never agreed to
> > > 100% of what the Palestinian Authority demands, because it demands the
> > > implementation of UN-242.
> > >
> > Then why doesn't it implement 242 itself? Because 242 is a bilateral
> > demand by the UN Security Council and not something that one or the
> > other side can do only by itself.
>
> That's right, of course, but before both can implement it, both have to
> agree to implement it. Israel refuses to agree to implement it.
>
Geez, you are a nut. I point out that the Libs bring up 242 and pretend
it is unilateral against Israel and you acknowledge it isn't and then
blame the reason it hasn't happened on Israel. Don't you know that
Israel's main demand is security? Don't you know it's hard not to frame
everything in those terms when you are dealing with an endless line of
suicide bombers?
> But
> UN-242 isn't my preferred solution anyway, so put your mind at rest.
>
> > It wasn't vetoed by the US because it
> > was bilateral. It is always invoked by the pro-Pali nuts though as a
> > unilateral demand on Israel.
>
> No, Keith, what is required is for Israel to accept it as the final
> goal. Once that is done, Israel and Palestine will receive unlimited
> assistance to implement it from the US, the EU, and Russia.
>
Who is Keith?
> > > > A map? Whose side are you on? If you look at a map of Eretz Israel from the
> > > > time of the Balfour Declaration (and centuries, no millennia before) you'll
> > > > see that 78% of Israel was ceded to the Palestinians in 1948!
> > >
> > > We are here talking about the map of what Israel offered to the
> > > Palestinians as 95% or 97% of what it was supposed to get according to
> > > UN-242, *not* the map you refer to. The map of what Israel offered
> > > shows the West Bank is divided into bantustans. I wouldn't accept it
> > > for myself; you wouldn't, and the Palestinians won't accept it either.
> > >
> > Why did Clinton force that on the two parties?
>
> He didn't. President Clinton has nothing to do with this.
>
He was gunning for a legacy and things got out of control. It all didn't
have to break up like it did.
> > Everyone knew that it
> > wouldn't succeed at that point. Clinton's actions are what opened it
> > back up for the suicide terrorists we've had for the last few years.
>
> No, the current situation is not President Clinton's doing. It is the
> Israelis's and Palestinian's doing.
>
It's the Palestinians doing because they are the suicide bombers.
Clinton facilitated their violence by playing for something which he
shouldn't have, a legacy to replace the Monica thing.
> > The
> > Palestinians should be happy with 95% or 97% of the land and a cash
> > settlement, say ten billion dollars in aid per year for 25 years. They
> > should also probably get some land on the EAST BANK.
>
> Well, whatever two-state solution is proposed, the Palestinian state
> must be an independent state, and it must be economically viable.
>
It's difficult to see how it could be economically viable if they keep
blowing themselves up.
> Otherwise, the solution won't work, and we will be right back where we
> are now. That is why I don't prefer the two-state solution. I don't
> think Israel will ever allow Palestine to be an independent, viable
> state.
>
You want to destroy the Israeli state, right?
--
"So if you want these horses, I sell them to you. Did you bring some
gold with you?"
"Nope."
"Silver?"
"Just lead."
-+John Wayne, "Chisum"
"Martin W. Smith" wrote:
>
> Bob Tiernan wrote:
> >
> > Martin W. Smith wrote:
> >
> > > alohacyberian wrote:
> >
> > > > Literally dozens of Arab Terrorists, including Yasser
> > > > Arafat have made that assertion. Are you saying the
> > > > Arabs are lying? It hasn't been tested because the
> > > > Israelis won't let the Arabs or the terrorists test it.
> >
> > > It hasn't been tested, because Israel has never made a fair
> > > offer to the Palestinians.
> >
> > Gotta be careful. Israel will get only *one*
> > chance to test this. Unlike the old USSR
> > the Israelis have virtually no wide expanse
> > into which they could retreat and regroup
> > and resupply in the case of a massive attack
> > by an Arab coalition taking advantage of
> > the Israelis reducing their security on
> > a chance.
>
> That isn't going to happen because, as I said, if and when Israel
> decides to take this step, support from the US and the EU will be
> immediate and overwhelming.
>
So Israel should take steps to make itself insecure militarily in the
hopes that europe will completely change course and support it? Europe
didn't do this after Israel gave all that land back to Egypt.