20.4% of the citizens of Israel are Arab. That is 1,573,000 citizens. Many are Bedouin, and mostly Sunni Muslim.
Israel has never kicked Arabs out as a race, and Arabs are able to own their own land within Israel. They successfully have run for political office and hold government jobs. Trouble makers have been shut out, not legitimate citizens
This is not a racial/religious issue. It is a political issue generated by extremists in the Muslim community.
Interesting statistic. There's a larger percentage of Arabs in Israel than there are African Americans in the U.S. (according to the 2010 Census.)
So if peaceful Arabs wanted to live there, they can, and do.
[This message has been edited by Formula88 (edited 05-22-2011).]
20.4% of the citizens of Israel are Arab. That is 1,573,000 citizens. Many are Bedouin, and mostly Sunni Muslim.
Israel has never kicked Arabs out as a race, and Arabs are able to own their own land within Israel. They successfully have run for political office and hold government jobs. Trouble makers have been shut out, not legitimate citizens
This is not a racial/religious issue. It is a political issue generated by extremists in the Muslim community.
Don't forget that Jordan doesn't want them. Egypt doesn't want them and Syria doesn't want them.
You need a separate state for them but, they will not rest until they have driven Israel off the continent. It is just that simple.
So peace is not likely any time soon. So, the wall is a great idea, albeit with its own set of problems.
Arn
So your assertion is no arabs were displaced by the formation of Israel?
Then I read that there might not actually be any such thing as a "Palestinian". It seems to be a catch-all phrase for migrant workers of various origins. One thing I read said that there were basically no people in what is now Israel at the time that Jewish people started arriving in the early part of the 20th century. It was described as barren like the moon. There were no cities. The Jews who settled there reclaimed the land.
If there is such a thing as a Palestinian, and their heritage and home go back centuries, then yes, they should have a homeland. But I don't think the issue is as simple as it is made out to be.
The big question I have - if the Arab world cares so much for these people, why haven't Syria, Jordan or Egypt given them some land, even if it were only temporary? I don't see any of them bending over backwards for these "Palestinians", and most of them seem only to care about the Palestinians at the *expense* of Israel.
Well thanks for the answer.
Where did you read that there where no people in what is now Israel? I would like to see evidence of that.
I would agree that it would be great if other Arab nations just "gave" them some land but is that a solution that would work I wonder? Not easy to tell a people to just give up their homeland and get out.
Be like saying why doesn't Germany give up their land for the Jewish people, they certainly "owe" them and it would solve the Israel thing, just have them all pack up and move North.
Interesting perspective here, albeit still from a pro-Palestinian point of view IMO.
quote
In the Israeli narrative, Jews faced obliteration in the Holocaust. They came back to their land in Palestine peacefully, fought a valiant struggle against massive Arab armies bent on the killing of Jews in 1948, miraculously won that war, and continue to struggle against evil, anti-Semitism and terrorism. The 1929 Hebron massacre of over 100 Jews, including pregnant women, illustrates the problem the Jews faced. Israel has defended herself in war after war started by her Arab neighbors. Israel manifests the best example of democracy, of treating all people as equal, has the highest moral standards in every way, and would never kill or mistreat anyone, unless forced to do so for self-defense, and even then would do so only reluctantly. There wouldn't be a problem if Arabs would just recognize Israel's right to exist and would settle Arab refugees in any of over 20 Arab countries.
In the Palestinian narrative, racist European Jews came to Palestine with a plan to create a greater Israel run by Jews, to expel peaceful Christian and Muslim families from their homes, families who had been living peacefully along side Palestinian Jewish people for centuries. The British, who would not give Palestinians their right of self-determination, forced colonizing European Jews upon the local population. The Hebron and other riots of 1929 in which over 800 Palestinians were killed illustrate the problems that Palestinians faced. In 1948, Zionist Jews, well armed under British colonial rule, violently expelled whole villages of Palestinians, destroyed the villages, and, with racism no different from South African Apartheid, continues to dispossess, mistreat and kill Palestinian people. Israel has engaged in multiple wars to expand its control over greater Israel. Sure, Nazi Germany mistreated Jews, but there wouldn't be a problem if Germany or other Western countries would take the Jews back and give them a homeland where they belong.
There is a third, more objective narrative, one that neither "side" much recognizes. Clearly, Jews were mistreated in Europe. They came to Palestine seeking refuge, though they also brought some of their European prejudices with them. Nevertheless, while there were violent acts committed by both sides, the vast, vast majority of people-Jews, Christians and Muslims- lived peacefully together, until 1948 when violence by both sides increased, culminating in Palestinians being expelled from their homes and villages by Jewish people who felt it was the only way for them to achieve peace. Jewish families don't want to mistreat Palestinians; Jewish families want to be allowed to live in peace. Palestinian Christians and Muslims don't want to kill Jews, they want to return to their homes and villages and live in peace as well.
Your comments in this thread (and many others) are all the proof anyone needs. Your own words betray you.
I'll go a step further seeing as you have called me a troll many times now.
Let's look at this particular thread for example, the topic being "Obama tells Israel back to 67 borders", I have stated my opinion and what I believe on the issue (admittedly it got heated and times and off on a tangent at times as well) but can you point out where I have shown examples of trolling? Are you going to tell me I don't believe what I am saying?
Now let's look at your posts in this thread.
Here is your fist post in direct response to one of mine in which you appear to be trying to correct something I said (though what I said was in fact correct in the first place). This post is on topic but is another example of your usual copy and paste without taking a actual postion on the topic at hand.
quote
Originally posted by avengador1:
Israel has been a nation since it's war of Independence in 1948 but the Israelites have been around since Biblical times. Read this Wiki article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Israel
Originally posted by avengador1: Fierobear, DON'T FEED THE TROLL!!!
So this time not even on topic just a "hit and run" with a snide little remark towards me accusing me of being a troll. I responded by asking you to back it up to which you, as usual, did nothing.
And finally:
quote
Originally posted by avengador1: Your comments in this thread (and many others) are all the proof anyone needs. Your own words betray you.
Again name calling with nothing to even attempt to back it up. I will give you credit though for using the tongue sticking out emoticon rather than your usual tired winky one, that did surprise me.
So 5 pages of discussion and debate on an issue and you contributed 3 posts all in response to me, two of which had nothing at all to do with the topic but just personal attacks. Yet I'm being a troll for having an opinion? Interesting to say the least.
. . "Your comments in this thread (and many others) are all the proof anyone needs. Your own words betray you." Truer words may have never been spoken about the person who wrote it.
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 05-22-2011).]
Well Obama made another speech today to applause. He backtracked from what he said thursday. He said he 'meant' they should not go back to 1967 borders (exactly what he did say), but use that as a starting point and have Palestinians and Jewish to meet and find middle ground. Well ya, isnt that what theyve been trying to do for 50 years and Palestinians wont have any part of negotiations hence where it is now. So in effect he just says what makes him look like hes helping while in actuallity, hes not doing anything but moving his lips. People clapping at his speeches only do more to boost his ego.
IP: Logged
07:03 PM
PFF
System Bot
texasfiero Member
Posts: 4674 From: Houston, TX USA Registered: Jun 2003
Ok, I'll take a stab at it. Here's where you kicked the table over for me. I simply asked you a question.
quote
Originally posted by newf: ..................I only have stated that I believe the displaced arab people who as far as I know are now called Palastinians deserve a homeland like most other peoples...................
quote
Originally posted by texasfiero:
Do they? Why?
There has never been a nation of Palestine. They have never had or maintained a 'nation' with specific borders. Why should a group of migrant nomads, which includes people from numerous lands, be able to claim part of another nation as their own?
Why haven't their own people provided 'homeland' for them? Why can't they assimilate within the lands of their own peoples?
It would be a good thing to understand who the 'Palestinians' are before declaring that they should have part of another nation's lands as their own.
Your response: NONE
Seems to me that you would have had a response in defense of the claim that the 'Palestinians' had a right/claim to the land.
The descendants of Abraham settled there and founded a nation. The map you posted showed the boundaries of "Palestinian and Jewish land in 1946". What about PRIOR to 1946? What about 70A.D.? I saw no mention of those years or the existing borders and by whom the nation was populated. I saw no mention of the name of the nation (Israel in case you have forgotten). Bias much? Hmmmmm?
Why are you only willing to go back 100 years? Why were they given the land and allowed to reform a nation after almost 2000 years? Don't you think that Britan and most of the rest of the world felt they deserved to be "returned to the land"?
You could have defended your position, but you didn't!
I then posted a somewhat off-thread link and comment about the peoples who are making the claim for the land which SHOULD have made the point as to why Israel should not have to surrender the land. BTDT and it didn't work then either.
In response you began your claim of "bias" and unreliable sources. No rebuttal, just claims of bias. Might just as well have claimed 'racism'.
From there it deteriorated to the same kind of response that is to be expected. Name calling, ridicule of apposing opinions and personalities.
"You can have your own opinion, but you can't have your own facts".
quote
Originally posted by newf:
You might want to inquire about the "righty" policies as well as many of them are exactly the same on this issue towards the right to Palestinians to have a homeland.
Back up my claims with evidence? You mean you don't think the links you provided were biased?
Some of the "facts" you seem to be believing aren't facts, they are Op-ed pieces.
I'm not sure what google results and times have to do with anything, maybe you should search "Santorum" and see if you think that quoting google results matters.
quote
Originally posted by newf:
haha funny stuff Bear, all the bashing you do to me and I make one joke and you get upset. I don't think it was any worse than you saying "If I could dance like that, I'd go for my own reality TV show."
But I'm truly sorry if I hurt your feelings.
You can go ahead and answer the questions now.
BTW each time I've been called a troll by a member of what I affectionately call the "Conservatorium" I have asked them to back it up, to which there has yet to be a reply. I suspect that some people equate a difference of opinion or being asked direct questions with being a troll and the only thing they can come up with when someone takes a different position or asks a tough question is to respond with name calling.
That seems pretty 'trollish' to me. Though I didn't make the call, I DID post the definition and the consensus seems to support it.
You decide.
BTW, the numbers of results of the Google searches just demonstrated that you had an opportunity to gather and enter the debate with facts. I even suggested that you pick those that supported your claim. Your response was that you rely on 'reliable' sources such as Reuters , etc.
quote
Originally posted by newf:
Uh huh... I like to read sources such as Reuters, Associated press articles, BBC, and other major media outlets. Some have slight biases but when you can read the same subject matter from various reliable sources I find that helps. Most of the older news agencies still have journalistic integrity and attempt to hold each other accountable. I don't think the same can be said for internet blogs and opinion pieces that get picked up and regurgitated.
Google search: Reuters bias: About 6,960,000 results (0.12 seconds)
Reuters was accused of bias against Israel in its coverage of the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict, in which the company used two doctored photos by a Lebanese freelance photographer Adnan Hajj.[21] On 7 August 2006, Reuters announced[22] it severed all ties with Hajj and said his photographs would be removed from its database.
In 2010, Reuters was criticised again for anti-Israeli bias when it cropped out activists' knives and a naval commando's blood from photographs taken aboard the Mavi Marmara during the Gaza flotilla raid.[23][24] In two separate photographs, knives held by the activists were edited out of the versions of the pictures published by Reuters.[23][24][25] The live arms wielded by the Israeli forces who had boarded the ship were not cropped out.
But, then again, THAT one too is probably "biased"!
[This message has been edited by texasfiero (edited 05-22-2011).]
IP: Logged
07:55 PM
rinselberg Member
Posts: 16118 From: Sunnyvale, CA (USA) Registered: Mar 2010
I wonder if it would be helpful if Obama would address some of the other aspects of that situation, aside from the conflict over the borders between Israelis and Palestinians? Such as:
• The Palestinians must recognize that Israel is the national homeland of the Jewish people.
• Any peace agreement must end the conflict and all claims against the State of Israel.
• The problem of the Palestinian refugees must be resolved outside Israel’s borders. [Israel must not be forced to accept the resettlement of Palestinians within Israeli borders, regardless of how Israeli borders are redrawn in any peace agreement.]
• A Palestinian state must be demilitarized and not endanger Israel’s security. Israel would be allowed to keep a military presence along the Jordan Valley, as part of those security arrangements.
• Israel will retain the [major Israeli] settlement blocs [in the West Bank].
• Jerusalem will remain the united, sovereign capital of Israel.
Newf, you suffer from a condition known as diarrhea of the mouth. You don't know when to shut up and try too hard to defend yourself from even the slightest accusation. If you had nothing to hide you wouldn't be trying so hard to defend yourself. I don't need to "man up" to prove anything. You have already shown your true colors repeatedly, so there is nothing for me to do. Can one infer that since you are against the nation of Israel that you also are anti-semitic?
[This message has been edited by avengador1 (edited 05-22-2011).]
IP: Logged
08:02 PM
texasfiero Member
Posts: 4674 From: Houston, TX USA Registered: Jun 2003
I wonder if it would be helpful if Obama would address some of the other aspects of that situation, aside from the conflict over the borders between Israelis and Palestinians? Such as:
• The Palestinians must recognize that Israel is the national homeland of the Jewish people.
• Any peace agreement must end the conflict and all claims against the State of Israel.
• The problem of the Palestinian refugees must be resolved outside Israel’s borders. [Israel must not be forced to accept the resettlement of Palestinians within Israeli borders, regardless of how Israeli borders are redrawn in any peace agreement.]
• A Palestinian state must be demilitarized and not endanger Israel’s security. Israel would be allowed to keep a military presence along the Jordan Valley, as part of those security arrangements.
• Israel will retain the [major] settlement blocs.
• Jerusalem will remain the united, sovereign capital of Israel.
It will not be helpful. Those who desire a settlement in the region MUST recognize the history and heritage of the people of Israel. Others have tried and failed.
The most surprising, for me, was Jimmy Carter. Much was said about his being a "Southern Baptist Sunday School teacher". He, above ALL others should have understood and remembered the Biblical instructions regarding the nation of Israel.
Genesis 12:3 - "I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse; and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you.”
Numbers 33: 50~ "The Borders and Division of Canaan
50 And the Lord spake unto Moses in the plains of Moab by Jordan near Jericho, saying, 51 Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When ye are passed over Jordan into the land of Canaan; 52 Then ye shall drive out all the inhabitants of the land from before you, and destroy all their pictures, and destroy all their molten images, and quite pluck down all their high places: 53 And ye shall dispossess the inhabitants of the land, and dwell therein: for I have given you the land to possess it. 54 And ye shall divide the land by lot for an inheritance among your families: and to the more ye shall give the more [4] inheritance, and to the fewer ye shall give the less inheritance: every man's inheritance shall be in the place where his lot falleth; according to the tribes of your fathers ye shall inherit. 55 But if ye will not drive out the inhabitants of the land from before you; then it shall come to pass, that those which ye let remain of them shall be pricks in your eyes, and thorns in your sides, and shall vex you in the land wherein ye dwell. 56 Moreover it shall come to pass, that I shall do unto you, as I thought to do unto them."
It is their history, their culture, their destiny. History demonstrates that a nation which denies that is set for ruin.
The Jewish people have survived thousands of years because God's hand is upon them. They are His chosen.
Jimmy Carter sought peace through the division of the land. It failed and cost Anwar Sadat his life.
Bill Clinton failed, George Bush failed, and Barack Obama will also fail. Even Israeli leaders who seek peace through weakness (division of the land) will fail. They have a covenant to the land and it will not be denied them.
The current call for the division of land and for the division of the city of Jerusalem, I believe, will lead to all out war in the region that will probably draw most of the rest of the world into it.
Biblical prophecy indicates that it could be soon, and the single prophecy that has a time stamp on it will be fulfilled. (Revelation 13) Prophecy says that there WILL be an agreement where the city and temple mount will be shared. From that date, the Bible says, we will be 7 years away from Armageddon.
Say what you will, the conflict in that region is the clearest indicator of where we are on God's timetable. The conflict WILL NOT be solved by forcing Israel to capitulate and surrender her land.
Ok, I'll take a stab at it. Here's where you kicked the table over for me. I simply asked you a question.
At least someone has the Gonads to at least reply. Thank you.
quote
Originally posted by texasfiero:
Your response: NONE
Seems to me that you would have had a response in defense of the claim that the 'Palestinians' had a right/claim to the land.
Now let's see. You say you simply asked a question, yet it seems you asked 5 questions. Were they not rhetorical?? Did you ask them again directly? As you just copied one line from my many posts to take issue with and posted a bunch of links to make your point.
quote
Originally posted by texasfiero:
You could have defended your position, but you didn't!
I then posted a somewhat off-thread link and comment about the peoples who are making the claim for the land which SHOULD have made the point as to why Israel should not have to surrender the land. BTDT and it didn't work then either.
In response you began your claim of "bias" and unreliable sources. No rebuttal, just claims of bias. Might just as well have claimed 'racism'.
From there it deteriorated to the same kind of response that is to be expected. Name calling, ridicule of apposing opinions and personalities.
Now this is very interesting, it seems you are saying that I am a troll because I didn't defend my position. I think I defended it numerous times throughout this thread and another on the same subject. I would assume if your questions were not rhetorical and it bothered you that much you would havae reiterated them, wouldn't you?
Now I know this might be a leap but I accused your sources as biased, not you, you seem to have taken that accusation personally for some reason as your answers got progressively "snippy" from then on. If you don't think a website called Palestinian Media Watch might ...just might be a little biased then I doubt you seee bias in anything.
And no it's not the same as calling out something as racism at all. As for no rebuttal the fact that I believe your source as obviously biased is the rebuttal. If you can't agree to a source of something then what is to discuss? It just becomes to people not believing the other sides facts. (see many other threads on here).
quote
Originally posted by texasfiero: From there it deteriorated to the same kind of response that is to be expected. Name calling, ridicule of apposing opinions and personalities.
"You can have your own opinion, but you can't have your own facts".
As for the Name calling ridicule of opposing opinions and personaltities. I admit things got heated but I stand by what I said, probably with the exception of the joke I made at Bears expense as he seemed miffed by it. I don't normally get too personal unless attacked myself, not that that's a good excuse.
To the facts. Are there any agreed upon facts here? Do you have a source that you can provide that is unbiased (within reason) and with corroboration. I can probably provide some if you cannot.
quote
Originally posted by texasfiero:
That seems pretty 'trollish' to me. Though I didn't make the call, I DID post the definition and the consensus seems to support it.
You decide.
Not at all, some of you have some kind of theory that expressing a difference of opinion is being a troll. It is not and furthermore for people that like to hold free speech in such high regard I think it shows more the truth. That free speech is to be tolerated only when it's something you like or agree with. Why not show using your definition how I am being a troll? In fact calling someone a troll for non-troll like behaviorur might in itself be considered trolling or at least trying to subvert the poster.
quote
Originally posted by texasfiero:
BTW, the numbers of results of the Google searches just demonstrated that you had an opportunity to gather and enter the debate with facts. I even suggested that you pick those that supported your claim. Your response was that you rely on 'reliable' sources such as Reuters , etc.
To me this makes absolutely no sense, I can google something as outlandish as "Bush behing 9-11" and get plenty of results in microseconds, does that make it true somehow?
The last part of your post is answered by the above.
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 05-22-2011).]
Newf, you suffer from a condition known as diarrhea of the mouth. You don't know when to shut up and try too hard to defend yourself from even the slightest accusation. If you had nothing to hide you wouldn't be trying so hard to defend yourself. I don't need to "man up" to prove anything. You have already shown your true colors repeatedly, so there is nothing for me to do. Can one infer that since you are against the nation of Israel that you also are anti-semitic?
Oh Avengador. I will defend myself as long as someone misrepresents what I say. I have absolutely nothing to hide. Again you try and turn the direct question back on me and are unable to defend your position, similar to the threads you start without the testes to say if you agree with them or not. Those are true colours.
And then you show yourself as the exact thing you are accusing me of by infering I might be antisemetic when if you actually read this thread and the other one you would clearly see that's not the case. However by your use of the "winky" emoticon I suspect it's just another attempt to rile up someone you suspect is a "lefty" as you admitted in a thread a while back. You are a sad sad person IMO.
Look at Fierobear, we at are at each others throats at times but at least he believes what he says, I may rarely (if ever) agree with him but at least he showed some balls in this thread and was honest and shared his views on the issue.
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 05-22-2011).]
IP: Logged
09:08 PM
texasfiero Member
Posts: 4674 From: Houston, TX USA Registered: Jun 2003
To me this makes absolutely no sense, I can google something as outlandish as "Bush behing 9-11" and get plenty of results in microseconds, does that make it true somehow?
The last part of your post is answered by the above.
Do they have a right to the land?
My question is STILL not answered. My point is made. I'm done!
My question is STILL not answered. My point is made. I'm done!
Ask it clearly. Does who have a right to what land? Is that the only question you are asking.
IF you are asking do I think the Palestinians have a right to the land they occupy now. Yes I do.
If you read through this and the other similar thread you will see that my postion on that has been very clear. I think both the Israelis and Palestinians have claims to land in the area of what is now Israel, exactly where and how much I would hope would be negotiated peascefully. How clearer can I be?
Or is this just an attempt to ignore my response and take your ball and go home by feigning you are upset?
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 05-22-2011).]
There's a problem with that Newf. Here it is. What you belive and what the two sides (PA and Israelites) believe are 2 different things. #1. The Palestinians don't want just ANY homeland--they want the land--all of it--that Israel now occupies, including Tev Aviv and everywhere else. For them, that is non negotiable, and they have stated so many times.
#2. When you say 'return to pre 1967 borders" is a starting point", it is not--it's the end of Israel, and both sides know it, as do most people who have followed this isse for decades. See #3.
#3. Most certainly, the PA would gladly now accept what they declined decades ago, but that wouldn't be the end of it, just the beginnng of it. If, it's your belief that the UN would secure the reimplemented borders, you are very much mistaken. UNEF (United Nations Emergency Forces) cannot go or stay anywhere they are not invited and allowed by a soverign nation. UNEF was present in May 1967 and were thrown out by Egypt's President Nasser in anticipation of him positioning over 100,000 troops along the Egyptian/Israeli border. He intended to invade June 12, initiated a Naval blockade of Israel the last week in May and then Israel beat them to the punch the 1st week of June. We have seen many aggressor nations throw UN peacekeepers out over the years, and according to UN regs and rules, they have to obey the govts of any foreign nation they are stationed in. (This, is why NATO is involved in Libya and not the UN) . The only place UN troops remained, was in East Jeruselem, which was NOT under Egyptian rule or part of Egyptian soverign territory. Israel could easily be overun by Arab forces, and the UN would be powerless to stop them other than slinging a few useless words of objection (just as they did when Egypt blockaded Jewish harbors in '67) in New York.
#4. Israel will never again allow any of the nations that participated in any of the wars against them to have the capacity to form up an invasion force right on the borders of Israel proper. They want, and understandably need those buffer zones. As bad as the rockets and mortars might be today, or the suicide bombers coming from the Palestinian portion of Gaza, it was much much worse before '67. Syria routinely shelled (large bore long range artillery) Israel, as did Egypt and Jordan from permanent positions in their land that was taken during the 6 day war by Israel. Now, add Iran into the mix, and security and buffer zones become much more important/ (Iran was not involved in the 6 Day War, as the Shah still had control and was a US ally and they opted out of Nassar's plan)
#5. Getting back to the Palestinian question regarding them being thrown out of their homes, the youngest of those Palestinians would now be 61 yrs old, as they would have been born in 1949 when Israel was formed by the British. In 30 years, there will be (probably) less than 1000 Palestinians who can say they were uprooted or lost anything. Another decade would mean close to zero living palestinians who were around in 1949, which then brings us into the same question regarding where you draw the line as far as previous claims to land, when there are only descendants left alive, much like we see in North America regarding Mexican claims to Texas, Indian claims to Manhattan, First Nations claim to Canada etc.
#6. Tho there is plenty of land in the region, again, the PA want none of it outside their ancesteral homeland. Can't blame them for not wanting the nearby Egyptian land--it's Sinai desert. Add to that, no one else is willing to give up any of their territory either. At one time, (80s I believe) when Syria had their troops in control of Lebanon, they threw the Plastinians out, because trouble follwed where ever the Palestinians went.
#7. The Israeli rule and control of Gaza and Jeruselem is much more lenient than when the Palestinians had control of it. A religious place for all different sects, the Isralis allow anyone to worship and enter any shrine, mosque or other religious area. The palestinians forade Jews or Christians entry into any part of East Jeruselem. Many Arabs and Jews live peacefully side by side.
Politics and religion aside, there are only 2 realities to this issue. Israel is NOT going to allow themselves to be closely surrounded by those who even today have vowed to exterminate them and the Palestinians want only the land Israel currently sits upon, and will settle for nothing else.
[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 05-23-2011).]
There's a problem with that Newf. Here it is. What you belive and what the two sides (PA and Israelites) believe are 2 different things. #1. The Palestinians don't want just ANY homeland--they want the land--all of it--that Israel now occupies, including Tev Aviv and everywhere else. For them, that is non negotiable, and they have stated so many times.
#2. When you say 'return to pre 1967 borders" is a starting point", it is not--it's the end of Israel, and both sides know it, as do most people who have followed this isse for decades. See #3.
#3. Most certainly, the PA would gladly now accept what they declined decades ago, but that wouldn't be the end of it, just the beginnng of it. If, it's your belief that the UN would secure the reimplemented borders, you are very much mistaken. UNEF (United Nations Emergency Forces) cannot go or stay anywhere they are not invited and allowed by a soverign nation. UNEF was present in May 1967 and were thrown out by Egypt's President Nasser in anticipation of him positioning over 100,000 troops along the Egyptian/Israeli border. He intended to invade June 12, initiated a Naval blockade of Israel the last week in May and then Israel beat them to the punch the 1st week of June. We have seen many aggressor nations throw UN peacekeepers out over the years, and according to UN regs and rules, they have to obey the govts of any foreign nation they are stationed in. (This, is why NATO is involved in Libya and not the UN) . The only place UN troops remained, was in East Jeruselem, which was NOT under Egyptian rule or part of Egyptian soverign territory. Israel could easily be overun by Arab forces, and the UN would be powerless to stop them other than slinging a few useless words of objection (just as they did when Egypt blockaded Jewish harbors in '67) in New York.
#4. Israel will never again allow any of the nations that participated in any of the wars against them to have the capacity to form up an invasion force right on the borders of Israel proper. They want, and understandably need those buffer zones. As bad as the rockets and mortars might be today, or the suicide bombers coming from the Palestinian portion of Gaza, it was much much worse before '67. Syria routinely shelled (large bore long range artillery) Israel, as did Egypt and Jordan from permanent positions in their land that was taken during the 6 day war by Israel. Now, add Iran into the mix, and security and buffer zones become much more important/ (Iran was not involved in the 6 Day War, as the Shah still had control and was a US ally and they opted out of Nassar's plan)
#5. Getting back to the Palestinian question regarding them being thrown out of their homes, the youngest of those Palestinians would now be 61 yrs old, as they would have been born in 1949 when Israel was formed by the British. In 30 years, there will be (probably) less than 1000 Palestinians who can say they were uprooted or lost anything. Another decade would mean close to zero living palestinians who were around in 1949, which then brings us into the same question regarding where you draw the line as far as previous claims to land, when there are only descendants left alive, much like we see in North America regarding Mexican claims to Texas, Indian claims to Manhattan, First Nations claim to Canada etc.
#6. Tho there is plenty of land in the region, again, the PA want none of it outside their ancesteral homeland. Can't blame them for not wanting the nearby Egyptian land--it's Sinai desert. Add to that, no one else is willing to give up any of their territory either. At one time, (80s I believe) when Syria had their troops in control of Lebanon, they threw the Plastinians out, because trouble follwed where ever the Palestinians went.
#7. The Israeli rule and control of Gaza and Jeruselem is much more lenient than when the Palestinians had control of it. A religious place for all different sects, the Isralis allow anyone to worship and enter any shrine, mosque or other religious area. The palestinians forade Jews or Christians entry into any part of East Jeruselem. Many Arabs and Jews live peacefully side by side.
Politics and religion aside, there are only 2 realities to this issue. Israel is NOT going to allow themselves to be closely surrounded by those who even today have vowed to exterminate them and the Palestinians want only the land Israel currently sits upon, and will settle for nothing else.
Confused that you think that Israel would be "surrounded" in anyway by the Palestinians, using the '67 borders as a starting point with negotiations that cannot happen, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip are too small for that.
Whatever the Palestinian Authority have said about wanting all of Israel is a non-starter, if that is their stance then they cannot be reasoned with just as a stand by Israel to rid themselves of the Palestinians would be. So a mutually agreed upon recognition of both sides would be prefered and necessary to begin talks.
How can you say a return to '67 borders is the end of Israel? A negotiatied peace would mean the end of Israel? The Clinton administration almost achieved it but for Arafat. You mean to tell me the Israeli's and Palestinians knew it would mean the end of Israel and Arafat chose to ensure that didn't happen?
Anyways I have been saying all along that I think both sides should be able to work out lands for both to live side by side in peace. If that ever comes to pass I will be surprised but that doesn't mean they shouldn't try. Both sides have done some horrible things to one another and both have legitmate claims to lands in the area but that's what negotiating is for, taking the present day people, getting them to discuss and come up with a solution that is somehow pallatable to both sides. Not easy but worth it to many.
Under a series of agreements signed through 1999, Israel transferred to the Palestinian Authority (PA) security and civilian responsibility for many Palestinian-populated areas of the West Bank and Gaza. The current PA government in the West Bank is led by independent Salam Fayyad, the prime minister.
ISRAEL
Land area: 8,356 sq miles Population: 7,233,701*
Religion: Jewish 76.4% Muslim 16% Arab Christians 1.7% other Christian 0.4% Druze 1.6% unspecified 3.9%
GDP: $205.2 billion or $28,400 (2009 est.) per capita Unemployment: 8%
WEST BANK
Land area: 2,178 sq miles Population: 2,461,267
Religion: Muslim 75% (predominantly Sunni) Jewish 17% Christian and other 8%
GDP: $12.79 billion or $2,900 (2008 est.) per capita Unemployment: 19%
*note: includes about 187,000 Israeli settlers in the West Bank, about 20,000 in the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights, and fewer than 177,000 in East Jerusalem
source: CIA World Factbook
IP: Logged
01:50 AM
partfiero Member
Posts: 6923 From: Tucson, Arizona Registered: Jan 2002
Well Obama made another speech today to applause. He backtracked from what he said thursday. He said he 'meant' they should not go back to 1967 borders (exactly what he did say), but use that as a starting point and have Palestinians and Jewish to meet and find middle ground. Well ya, isnt that what theyve been trying to do for 50 years and Palestinians wont have any part of negotiations hence where it is now. So in effect he just says what makes him look like hes helping while in actuallity, hes not doing anything but moving his lips. People clapping at his speeches only do more to boost his ego.
Well then he should fire the speech writer. No way what he said the first time can be taken as meaning what he said today. If he is so confused about saying one thing but meaning another, should be an interesting campaign.
WASHINGTON—President Barack Obama, speaking on Sunday to the nation’s foremost pro-Israel lobbying group, repeated his call for Palestinian statehood based on Israel’s pre-1967 borders adjusted for land swaps, issuing a challenge to the Israeli government to “make the hard choices that are necessary to protect a Jewish and democratic state for which so many generations have sacrificed.”
In his remarks to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the president, while offering praise for the relationship with Israel, did not back down from his speech Thursday, which had infuriated Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Rather, the president took indirect aim at Netanyahu, first by repeating what the Israeli prime minister so objected to — the phrase pre-1967 borders — and then by challenging those whom he said had “misrepresented” his position.
The president emphasized the “mutually agreed swaps,” then went into an elaboration of what he believes that means. Netanyahu, in his critique of Obama’s remarks, had ignored the “mutually agreed swaps” part of the president’s proposal.
“By definition, it means that the parties themselves — Israelis and Palestinians — will negotiate a border that is different than the one that existed on June 4, 1967,” Obama said. “It is a well known formula to all who have worked on this issue for a generation. It allows the parties themselves to account for the changes that have taken place over the last 44 years.” http://www.thestar.com/news...to-make-hard-choices
Confused that you think that Israel would be "surrounded" in anyway by the Palestinians, using the '67 borders as a starting point with negotiations that cannot happen, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip are too small for that.
Where are almost all the current problems for Israel currently emanating from? Answer--Gaza. In the event the pre'67 lines are re-established, Gaza would be controlled fully by Palestine, with a border to both Israel and Egypt. In '67, with the Egyptian air force partially decimated, and it's AF still busy with the remainder and hitting armored columns in Syria, Israel had fight it's way thru Gaza with no air cover. Nassar's Palestinian Division was massed there, behind strong fortifications and had to be dealt with before the breakout into Sinai. Gaza may not be very big, but it was big enough to hold a reinforced dvision of infantry and light armor. The Egyptian plan (before Israel struck first) was for the Palestinian Division to pour out of Gaza, into Israel and head for Tev Aviv, under Egyptian air cover, with three Egyptian divisions right behind, but since those divisions were all the way on the south end of Gaza, it would take them a bit longer to travel thru Gaza even tho they would be unimpeded.
West bank, is not tank country. Sharp hills valleys, twisting roads and streets and densly populated. On the eve of war, the days before June 5, Jordan had deployed in the West Bank opposite Israel ten of its eleven brigades, totaling some 45,000 men. In the north were three infantry brigades: one near the Jordan river, opposite the Israeli town of Beit Shean, one around the city of Jenin, and one near the city of Tulkarem (where Israel is only about 10 miles wide). In the central sector were four brigades: an infantry brigade near Qalqilya, right on the Israeli border, another near Latrun, also on the border, and two around Jerusalem. In the south was an infantry brigade around Hebron, and in the rear, near the Damia bridge over the Jordan river and near Jericho, were two armored brigades, the main striking forces of the Jordanian army. When Israel went into battle against this force, it was a bloody, slow slugfest. Not something they want to have to do again.
quote
How can you say a return to '67 borders is the end of Israel? A negotiatied peace would mean the end of Israel? The Clinton administration almost achieved it but for Arafat. You mean to tell me the Israeli's and Palestinians knew it would mean the end of Israel and Arafat chose to ensure that didn't happen?
No, I'm not saying that at all. You've been missing the point all along. The Clinton era plan would have allowed for both a Palestinian State and the continuation of Israel as an autonomous state. Arafat chose to reject a plan that included the continued existance of Israel--his followers wouldn't allow him to. When I say "an end to Israel", I don't mean an overnight end, just an inevitable end. Make no mistake tho, it would happen sooner rather than later, and there is nothing short of a major intervention by an outside military force that could stop it. (unless Israel opted to use it's nuclear arsenal--which they will before allowing themselves to be conquered)
Israel rejected it because they knew they would have to give up their bufferzones and security and they knew they were far safer with them than without them.
You do remember, that Anwar Sadat made peace with israel, and lost his life for his trouble?
Today, Egypt is a much much stronger military power than it was in '67, with hardened aircraft shelters, Abrahm tanks, Apache helicopters and Oliver Hazar Perry class frigates. LOTS of Abrahms tanks, and LOTS of F-16s, and LOTS of amored personell carriers, artillery, 3 million men in active arms and reserves, (450,000 full time standing army) and enough trucks to move them anywhere they want in a hurry--with no obvious enemy. Mubarak built the military (with US help), and promised to stay out of Israel's way. No one knows what will happen with that country, but most analysts believe Egypt built their modern military with Israel in mind. Discounting Israel's nuke capability, Egypt is far and away the big dog on the mid East block.
[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 05-23-2011).]
IP: Logged
04:00 AM
partfiero Member
Posts: 6923 From: Tucson, Arizona Registered: Jan 2002
“By definition, it means that the parties themselves — Israelis and Palestinians — will negotiate a border that is different than the one that existed on June 4, 1967,” Obama said. “It is a well known formula to all who have worked on this issue for a generation. It allows the parties themselves to account for the changes that have taken place over the last 44 years.”
Wow, so America doesn't believe they should go back to the 67 boarders like he said in his first speech. It was just code for the baffled BS explanation above! When he say by definition, is that definition in Wikipedia or just his mind?
WASHINGTON—President Barack Obama, speaking on Sunday to the nation’s foremost pro-Israel lobbying group, repeated his call for Palestinian statehood based on Israel’s pre-1967 borders adjusted for land swaps, issuing a challenge to the Israeli government to “make the hard choices that are necessary to protect a Jewish and democratic state for which so many generations have sacrificed.”
In his remarks to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the president, while offering praise for the relationship with Israel, did not back down from his speech Thursday, which had infuriated Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Rather, the president took indirect aim at Netanyahu, first by repeating what the Israeli prime minister so objected to — the phrase pre-1967 borders — and then by challenging those whom he said had “misrepresented” his position.
The president emphasized the “mutually agreed swaps,” then went into an elaboration of what he believes that means. Netanyahu, in his critique of Obama’s remarks, had ignored the “mutually agreed swaps” part of the president’s proposal.
“By definition, it means that the parties themselves — Israelis and Palestinians — will negotiate a border that is different than the one that existed on June 4, 1967,” Obama said. “It is a well known formula to all who have worked on this issue for a generation. It allows the parties themselves to account for the changes that have taken place over the last 44 years.” http://www.thestar.com/news...to-make-hard-choices
Which, is all moot if neither party gives in--and they won't. Land swaps? You gotta be kidding me. You have to actually own something of value when you trade and the Palestinians have no land that Israel wants. Israel has the land, Palestine has the bloody nose and not much else. Their words are not to be trusted--there have been at least 3 major military attempts by Arabs in my lifetime to drive the Jews to extinction or at least off the African continent. Israel also understands all too well, that anyone giving up a bit of realestate for security ends up with neither.
IP: Logged
04:37 AM
82-T/A [At Work] Member
Posts: 22710 From: Florida USA Registered: Aug 2002
Hardly, I can't even get you to give me an honest opinion about Ally Bank vs AmeriCredit which I've posted numerous links to you which show clear shadyness... and you ignore it, and don't respond to it. You basically want a post from a reputable source, that lists everything you could possibly ask, and you want me to do all the research for you.
How about this, I demand you show me proof that Ally Bank and AmeriCredit swap is not shady... before I put any more effort into arguing you (it's well past the point of debate), you need to actually make an effort too.
I know what I've read and seen over the past 2 years, I don't keep a "Newf Debate Links" favorites folder for every time I read something.
IP: Logged
09:59 AM
fierobear Member
Posts: 27075 From: Safe in the Carolinas Registered: Aug 2000
Originally posted by maryjane: Today, Egypt is a much much stronger military power than it was in '67, with hardened aircraft shelters, Abrahm tanks, Apache helicopters and Oliver Hazar Perry class frigates. LOTS of Abrahms tanks, and LOTS of F-16s, and LOTS of amored personell carriers, artillery, 3 million men in active arms and reserves, (450,000 full time standing army) and enough trucks to move them anywhere they want in a hurry--with no obvious enemy. Mubarak built the military (with US help), and promised to stay out of Israel's way. No one knows what will happen with that country, but most analysts believe Egypt built their modern military with Israel in mind. Discounting Israel's nuke capability, Egypt is far and away the big dog on the mid East block.
Add to that Egypt's new emerging leadership seems to be the Muslim Brotherhood, which is VERY anti-Israel. This could get ugly.
IP: Logged
10:26 AM
PFF
System Bot
avengador1 Member
Posts: 35467 From: Orlando, Florida Registered: Oct 2001
Originally posted by newf I suspect it's just another attempt to rile up someone you suspect is a "lefty" as you admitted in a thread a while back
Well...if the shoe fits, wear it! You haven't written anything that would show you are a conservative either. As I said, your words betray you. I don't need to man up to answer any of your questions as you don't answer the ones posted to you by myself and others. What are you hidding? It is you who needs to man up and admit what everyone else already knows about you. In the meanwhile I will keep having fun getting your panties in a bunch.
For the record. No one needs to have an opinion on any article they post. Most of the time it's just to pass along information. Don't overthink it.
quote
Originally posted by newf And then you show yourself as the exact thing you are accusing me of by infering I might be antisemetic when if you actually read this thread and the other one you would clearly see that's not the case.
I didn't infer anything, I asked if one could infer that you are anti-semitic by your postings. I guess you don't like a taste of your own medicine.
[This message has been edited by avengador1 (edited 05-23-2011).]
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: Hardly, I can't even get you to give me an honest opinion about Ally Bank vs AmeriCredit which I've posted numerous links to you which show clear shadyness... and you ignore it, and don't respond to it. You basically want a post from a reputable source, that lists everything you could possibly ask, and you want me to do all the research for you.
How about this, I demand you show me proof that Ally Bank and AmeriCredit swap is not shady... before I put any more effort into arguing you (it's well past the point of debate), you need to actually make an effort too.
I know what I've read and seen over the past 2 years, I don't keep a "Newf Debate Links" favorites folder for every time I read something.
Oh my 82 you seem to be ignoring a lot yourself. First off the quote you used was not directed at you but whatever.
I answered your question (to my question) about Ally Bank and Americredit but I'll reiterate it again, They were/are part of the whole GM infastructure as far as I can tell which the Gov't felt necessary to take over (rightly or wrongly). However even if it was a shady deal ( i'm not saying it was or wasn't) that in no way supports your claim that THOUSANDS of companies are being bought by the U.S. Gov't under Obama which is what I FIRST asked you to show or at least mention where you learned of this.
If you can't tell me where you got your information should I just take your word for it because you are such a swell guy? I'm sorry but I usually like to see things for myself or at least know how someone learned of something before I follow.
Now if you want to actually say where you heard that the U.S. Gov't is buying thousands of companies under Obama, then great, I really didn't think it would be that hard. Did you read it somewhere? Did you see it on TV? Did you hear it on the radio? Did you overhear it on the street?
For the record I never said I didn't think it was plausable just that I would like to see some proof, to which you can't even seem to answer where you learned of it.
IP: Logged
11:43 AM
82-T/A [At Work] Member
Posts: 22710 From: Florida USA Registered: Aug 2002
Oh my 82 you seem to be ignoring a lot yourself. First off the quote you used was not directed at you but whatever.
I answered your question (to my question) about Ally Bank and Americredit but I'll reiterate it again, They were/are part of the whole GM infastructure as far as I can tell which the Gov't felt necessary to take over (rightly or wrongly). However even if it was a shady deal ( i'm not saying it was or wasn't) that in no way supports your claim that THOUSANDS of companies are being bought by the U.S. Gov't under Obama which is what I FIRST asked you to show or at least mention where you learned of this.
If you can't tell me where you got your information should I just take your word for it because you are such a swell guy? I'm sorry but I usually like to see things for myself or at least know how someone learned of something before I follow.
Now if you want to actually say where you heard that the U.S. Gov't is buying thousands of companies under Obama, then great, I really didn't think it would be that hard. Did you read it somewhere? Did you see it on TV? Did you hear it on the radio? Did you overhear it on the street?
For the record I never said I didn't think it was plausable just that I would like to see some proof, to which you can't even seem to answer where you learned of it.
Bull **** ... that's not an answer... you fail to recognize anything about Ally Bank. Why if Ally Bank was already geared for offering car loans, did the US government need to buy AmeriCredit and merge it with GM, when they could very well have taken Ally Bank and re-absorbed it into GM? AmeriCredit had nothing to do with GM before the government bought it, but GMAC (Ally Bank) had everything to do with car loans.
Now.. Ally Bank has absolutely NOTHING, NOTHING AT ALL to do with GM, and doesn't have any aggreements with GM. Why then does the US government still own 73% of it?
You won't answer that, you're beating around the Bush.
Here's a real quick link that I found from 2008 showing that the US was buying up "equity" stakes.
What you don't realize is the difference between buying shares, and loans. When the government offers loans, it expects those to be paid back. When the government buy's STOCK... that doesn't need to be paid back, so when a bank says "We've paid off all our government loans..." they might have, but the US government STILL owns the banks.
This article only lists the major banks, but there are close to a THOUSAND smaller banks, which you can easily find a list of by going to http://www.recovery.gov/Pages/default.aspx
Again, you seem to ignore the difference between buying "equity" and loans... you fall right into the trap. It's like when GM said "We've paid back all our loans..." yes, they did... but that doesn't say anything about the fact that the US Government and Canadian government owned 72.5% of the company still. In every case, through equity (common stock), they wipe out the board of directors and elect their own. This has happened in the vast majority of these cases. They immediately inject their own politics into how the corporation is run. A perfect example of this is Chase / JP Morgan, who refuses to make loans to any organization or company that deals with the sale of firearms: http://thefiringline.com/fo...wthread.php?t=100489
And... OMG, would you believe it? Citi-bank also now holds the same policy after having it's common stock purchased by the US Government and it's board of directors wiped out: http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=1928
You STILL have not answered my question. This is really starting to get annoying, you say "it appears" which means you haven't read any of the articles / links I posted.
Again... what do you think, you're ignoring what I'm saying above about Ally and AmeriCredit.
Originally posted by maryjane: Where are almost all the current problems for Israel currently emanating from? Answer--Gaza. In the event the pre'67 lines are re-established, Gaza would be controlled fully by Palestine, with a border to both Israel and Egypt. In '67, with the Egyptian air force partially decimated, and it's AF still busy with the remainder and hitting armored columns in Syria, Israel had fight it's way thru Gaza with no air cover. Nassar's Palestinian Division was massed there, behind strong fortifications and had to be dealt with before the breakout into Sinai. Gaza may not be very big, but it was big enough to hold a reinforced dvision of infantry and light armor. The Egyptian plan (before Israel struck first) was for the Palestinian Division to pour out of Gaza, into Israel and head for Tev Aviv, under Egyptian air cover, with three Egyptian divisions right behind, but since those divisions were all the way on the south end of Gaza, it would take them a bit longer to travel thru Gaza even tho they would be unimpeded.
West bank, is not tank country. Sharp hills valleys, twisting roads and streets and densly populated. On the eve of war, the days before June 5, Jordan had deployed in the West Bank opposite Israel ten of its eleven brigades, totaling some 45,000 men. In the north were three infantry brigades: one near the Jordan river, opposite the Israeli town of Beit Shean, one around the city of Jenin, and one near the city of Tulkarem (where Israel is only about 10 miles wide). In the central sector were four brigades: an infantry brigade near Qalqilya, right on the Israeli border, another near Latrun, also on the border, and two around Jerusalem. In the south was an infantry brigade around Hebron, and in the rear, near the Damia bridge over the Jordan river and near Jericho, were two armored brigades, the main striking forces of the Jordanian army. When Israel went into battle against this force, it was a bloody, slow slugfest. Not something they want to have to do again.
No, I'm not saying that at all. You've been missing the point all along. The Clinton era plan would have allowed for both a Palestinian State and the continuation of Israel as an autonomous state. Arafat chose to reject a plan that included the continued existance of Israel--his followers wouldn't allow him to. When I say "an end to Israel", I don't mean an overnight end, just an inevitable end. Make no mistake tho, it would happen sooner rather than later, and there is nothing short of a major intervention by an outside military force that could stop it. (unless Israel opted to use it's nuclear arsenal--which they will before allowing themselves to be conquered)
Israel rejected it because they knew they would have to give up their bufferzones and security and they knew they were far safer with them than without them.
You do remember, that Anwar Sadat made peace with israel, and lost his life for his trouble?
Today, Egypt is a much much stronger military power than it was in '67, with hardened aircraft shelters, Abrahm tanks, Apache helicopters and Oliver Hazar Perry class frigates. LOTS of Abrahms tanks, and LOTS of F-16s, and LOTS of amored personell carriers, artillery, 3 million men in active arms and reserves, (450,000 full time standing army) and enough trucks to move them anywhere they want in a hurry--with no obvious enemy. Mubarak built the military (with US help), and promised to stay out of Israel's way. No one knows what will happen with that country, but most analysts believe Egypt built their modern military with Israel in mind. Discounting Israel's nuke capability, Egypt is far and away the big dog on the mid East block.
OK a few things I see about this.
1. I would think any "peace" plan would have definate caveats that would keep the Palestinian homeland from building or supporting anything but a small defensive military. It also could include buffer zones. This is the whole point of negotiations isn't it? To ensure it's a workable solution for both sides.
2. A lot of your assumptions of the surrounding countries seem to be based in the past and maybe a distrust of Muslims. The U.S. has brokered deals with almost all of these countries with the specific intent of peace with Israel and for the past decades it's held. To assume that Egypt or other countries have used U.S. military aid to build an army specifically to war with Israel is simply conjecture IMO. Now Iran on the other hand has said in no uncertain terms their intention of wiping Israel of the map and are not part of any peace agreement. Your point of view seems to be that the Arabs will never change so why try? While I am saying I think you have to keep trying.
3. You ask: Where are almost all the current problems of Israel emanating from? I would think we could debate that as long as the Arabs Jews and Christians have been fighting with each other. Like I've said both sides are at fault IMO. The Palestinians for using terrorist tactics and electing Hamas, the Israelis for currently occupying the the West Bank and Gaza and illegaly constructing settlements. And those things are just the tip of the iceberg as far as I can tell. Again that's what peace talks and negotiation is for IMO.
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: Bull **** ... that's not an answer... you fail to recognize anything about Ally Bank. Why if Ally Bank was already geared for offering car loans, did the US government need to buy AmeriCredit and merge it with GM, when they could very well have taken Ally Bank and re-absorbed it into GM? AmeriCredit had nothing to do with GM before the government bought it, but GMAC (Ally Bank) had everything to do with car loans.
Now.. Ally Bank has absolutely NOTHING, NOTHING AT ALL to do with GM, and doesn't have any aggreements with GM. Why then does the US government still own 73% of it?
You won't answer that, you're beating around the Bush.
Here's a real quick link that I found from 2008 showing that the US was buying up "equity" stakes.
What you don't realize is the difference between buying shares, and loans. When the government offers loans, it expects those to be paid back. When the government buy's STOCK... that doesn't need to be paid back, so when a bank says "We've paid off all our government loans..." they might have, but the US government STILL owns the banks.
This article only lists the major banks, but there are close to a THOUSAND smaller banks, which you can easily find a list of by going to http://www.recovery.gov/Pages/default.aspx
Again, you seem to ignore the difference between buying "equity" and loans... you fall right into the trap. It's like when GM said "We've paid back all our loans..." yes, they did... but that doesn't say anything about the fact that the US Government and Canadian government owned 72.5% of the company still. In every case, through equity (common stock), they wipe out the board of directors and elect their own. This has happened in the vast majority of these cases. They immediately inject their own politics into how the corporation is run. A perfect example of this is Chase / JP Morgan, who refuses to make loans to any organization or company that deals with the sale of firearms: http://thefiringline.com/fo...wthread.php?t=100489
And... OMG, would you believe it? Citi-bank also now holds the same policy after having it's common stock purchased by the US Government and it's board of directors wiped out: http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=1928
You STILL have not answered my question. This is really starting to get annoying, you say "it appears" which means you haven't read any of the articles / links I posted.
Again... what do you think, you're ignoring what I'm saying above about Ally and AmeriCredit.
82, I will take the time to look at your links but I am disappointed that you keep accusing me of ignoring your question when you haven't even once answered where you are getting your information from. Or maybe you are just piecing this all together yourself and no one else has yet. Is that it?
Just so we are clear your assertion is: " when in fact in the last 2 years, we've purchased over 1000 corporations." correct?
Also are we saying that TARP is a Obama administration program being used to buy companies over the last 2 years?
You seem to be hell bent on making a point about Ally and a couple of others, what is it you want me to say about them? I don't know if they were shady deals or wrong ones (maybe I will have a better opinion after I look at your links) and I don't particularly care. I just want to clarify if in fact the U.S. gov't in the last 2 years has been buying up thousands of companies as you said.
Again I will look at the links and I honeslty would like to see the truth one way or another but it would be helpful to know if you are sticking by your assertion and it would be great if you showed/mentioned exactly where you got your information.
IP: Logged
12:34 PM
Formula88 Member
Posts: 53788 From: Raleigh NC Registered: Jan 2001
1. I would think any "peace" plan would have definate caveats that would keep the Palestinian homeland from building or supporting anything but a small defensive military. It also could include buffer zones. This is the whole point of negotiations isn't it? To ensure it's a workable solution for both sides.
2. A lot of your assumptions of the surrounding countries seem to be based in the past and maybe a distrust of Muslims. The U.S. has brokered deals with almost all of these countries with the specific intent of peace with Israel and for the past decades it's held. To assume that Egypt or other countries have used U.S. military aid to build an army specifically to war with Israel is simply conjecture IMO. Now Iran on the other hand has said in no uncertain terms their intention of wiping Israel of the map and are not part of any peace agreement. Your point of view seems to be that the Arabs will never change so why try? While I am saying I think you have to keep trying.
3. You ask: Where are almost all the current problems of Israel emanating from? I would think we could debate that as long as the Arabs Jews and Christians have been fighting with each other. Like I've said both sides are at fault IMO. The Palestinians for using terrorist tactics and electing Hamas, the Israelis for currently occupying the the West Bank and Gaza and illegaly constructing settlements. And those things are just the tip of the iceberg as far as I can tell. Again that's what peace talks and negotiation is for IMO.
If you don't think the issues emanate from Gaza, you haven't been paying attention to history or the news. This isn't a discussion in a bubble about a theoretical event - it's the daily reality for a multitude of people, Israeli and Arab alike. Where is your source for the Israeli settlements being "illegal."
Your points show a certain naiveté with the situation, but ignoring that consider if you're right and peace is possible, all Israel has to do is give up much of their currently controlled land in exchange for weakened defenses and the promise of peace. If you're wrong, Israel stands to be destroyed.
The stakes are pretty high if you're wrong and history has given no reason to suspect you're right.
If you don't think the issues emanate from Gaza, you haven't been paying attention to history or the news. This isn't a discussion in a bubble about a theoretical event - it's the daily reality for a multitude of people, Israeli and Arab alike. Where is your source for the Israeli settlements being "illegal."
Your points show a certain naiveté with the situation, but ignoring that consider if you're right and peace is possible, all Israel has to do is give up much of their currently controlled land in exchange for weakened defenses and the promise of peace. If you're wrong, Israel stands to be destroyed.
The stakes are pretty high if you're wrong and history has given no reason to suspect you're right.
I'll find the source and edit in in this response in a bit.
So "my" points show a naiveté? Maybe but I would suggest that apparently the same naiveté has been shared by your leaders and plenty others for the last 40 years or so and I would suggest the stakes are higher if peace is not attempted or achieved.
I'll find the source and edit in in this response in a bit.
So "my" points show a naiveté? Maybe but I would suggest that apparently the same naiveté has been shared by your leaders and plenty others for the last 40 years or so and I would suggest the stakes are higher if peace is not attempted or achieved.
Here you go: (Whoops I meant to just edit )
quote
An Israeli settlement is a Jewish civilian community built on land that was captured by Israel during the 1967 Six-Day War and is considered occupied territory by the international community.[1] Such settlements currently exist in the West Bank. Israeli neighborhoods in East Jerusalem and communities in the Golan Heights, areas which have been annexed by Israel, are considered settlements by the international community, which does not recognize Israel's annexations of these territories.[2] Settlements also existed in the Sinai and Gaza Strip until Israel unilaterally disengaged from these areas.
The International Court of Justice and the international community say these settlements are illegal,[3][4] and no government supports Israel's settlements.[5] Israel disputes the position of the international community.[6] The United Nations has repeatedly upheld the view that Israel's construction of settlements constitutes violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention
