Obama's Betrayal of Israel and Arming of Iran

I asked you what "peace" you offer and the reply was destroying the esablishment of Israel, that's what I am against of, anyone that supports this view is not at peace with israel, anyone that follows this view with actions is at war with Israel, our leaders know Iran would retaliate and I support them on any decision in any case.

I know that, im not suggesting they support Palestinians more then Israel but you cant deny that both US and Israel always offered peace throu history on the concept of 2 states while there are many Palestinians who's idea of peace resembels yours, meaning none.

 

Where would this Palestinian state be located?

 

The thread title suggests Obama is actually arming Iran.
I suspect this is deliberate.

 

Most probebly a one sided move, they will declare thier borders. in theory thou it should be an agreement around 67 lines with land swaps.

 

All Jewish settlements outside the '67 borders should be vacated this afternoon.
They are illegal under international law.

 

What will you do with 300,000 angry settlers?

 

300,000 Jerusalem and will stay there unless the Palestinians will agree to have a state without controling their own borders (slim chance) - then some will be evacuated, about 14,000 live deeper inside and will be evacuated.

 

So were the shooting on our civilians before 68, those that see us as bitter enemies to be driven away got what they deserved I suppose...

 

Do we even have confirmation that Iran "sponsors" terrorism? What do you mean "Killer of UN Troops in ME wars"?(For starters, the UN has troops?) Secondly, if Iran *did* kill UN "troops" and this were confirmed, the last thing we'd talk about is the Iranian nuclear "program".

The last thing Iran wants is a direct confrontation with a world power, considering we have thousands of nukes even with the recent reductions.

Your philosophy as it pertains to rooting for Israel "Because you're an American and you value your life" is also pathetically misguided. Stop it. Is this the "United States of Israel?" No! It's the United States of America!

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/06/07/alan-hart-israels-attack-on-the-uss-liberty-the-full-story/

Speaking of Israel's nukes, don't you find that the least bit ironic? It complains about the Iranian Program, but it itself isn't even a part of the NPT! They have no business complaining until they sign INTL. treaties, and reveal the extent of their nuclear and chemical capabilities.

Between attacking us, spying on us and taking billions of U.S dollars in "aid". Ally? Hah, hardly. There's nothing admirable about this rogue regime in the region, it's just as theocratic, religious and extremist as every other country.

 

The real question is why the NPT nations and the UN Security Council, as the enforcement agency, isn't addressing the rogue nuclear weapon nations of India, Pakistan and Israel that are already rogue nuclear weapon nations. The UNSC is addressing N Korea but not the other rogue nuclear weapon nations.

If Israel wants Middle East to be WMD free that include a ban on all biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons then all it has to do is join in the Middle East WMD-Free Zone agreement that has been proposed in one form or another for decades. It provides verification provisions that will prevent any nation from developing or possessing any WMD's and every Middle East nation, including Iran, has been promoting this initiative for years. The only nation opposing it is Israel that has no possible use for it's nuclear weapons as it cannot use those weapons for any purpose.

Israel, as a rogue nuclear weapon nation, is the problem in the Middle East when it comes to potential proliferation of nuclear weapons. It represents a nuclear threat against all other nations in the Middle East which provides the rationalization for other nations to produce nuclear weapons as a deterrent to a possible nuclear weapon attack by Israel.

 

Indeed, this would be more accurate. So it doesnt make sense to make it a hot war. Its not one you can win in any case. Iran is too big, and too ready. Its had years to prepare for a strike and thus has spread its assets far a wide.

In fact while Iran does not recnogise Israell and seeks a unitary state Iran has supported the PAs bid for UN recognition.

So you think its okay for them to have a nuke to bomb other people but not yourself is that it?

 

One can also ask why in the world we live in does the Human rights council of the UN pay so much attention to Israel disregarding other countries ? the answer is because the UN does not stand for justice or blind law, its run on intestes of the powers in the world. perhaps its only natural but ppl shouldnt be cunfused.

Israel doesnt want a ME free of WMD, it wants a levrage on its enemies and as long as those enemies only view on 'peace" is to level the state and build a new one - I say we have every right to oppose them including having better weapons. I dont see an end to this fued as the ones that feed it live thousands of miles away from the battles.

 

I agree, but if them holding such a weapons will eventually means we need to live with fluent bombings from Lebanon/ Gaza and perhaps Syria, I say go with it (if we can).

Like I said that's not "peace", that's what our racists say on the Palestinians, destroy their leadership and let those that want to stay (surrounded by Jewish fanatics) live here, free buses to Jordan for those that dont, Iran suggests the same thing only with Arab majurity, at least our ppl dont call it a "peace" offer.

I'm saying if we were'nt enemies I would care for their Nuke, I dont think UN laws can turn the world to be peacful, only a world wide dictator can do that at gun point for the simple reason it goes against Human nature.

 

We can be in agreement that the United Nations should be "blind" politically when addressing violations of human rights but that doesn't imply that condemnation for the violation of human rights by Israel are invalid. The greatest problem that I see related to Israel is that it constantly uses the argument that "Other nations are tyrannical" in rationalizing it's own tyranny. Sorry but relative tyranny is not a justification for tyranny.

There is hypocrisy by many Middle East Muslim nations in their condemnation of the Zionist regime in Israel. They condemn Zionism for being tyrannical, and it is, but fail to recognize the tyranny inherent in any nation that uses religion, race, ethnic heritage, social class, gender, or other invidious criteria as a foundation for the nation. Many of these nations do condemn Israel because it's founded upon invidious criteria but all they propose it to replace Zionist tyranny with Islamic tyranny.

It can be noted that there is middle ground where all of the Middle East Islamic nations have agreed in principle to the provisions of UN Security Council Resolution 242. If Israel will comply with that resolution, withdraw its military from the territories occupied in 1967, then all of the Middle East nations would be willing to accept the territorial integrity and right of Israel to live in peace with the other Middle East nations. Yes, there are some hardcore Islamic extremists that want all of Palestine reunited as a single country that, based upon demographics, would become a tyrannical Islamic nation, but they are relatively few and easily over-ridden politically.

It is Israel that is the primary party blocking peace in the Middle East as it continue to refuse to withdraw from the occupied territories that it has allowed illegal immigration to territories of military occupation in violation of international law as established by Article 49 of the Geneva Conventions. Remember that there is a primary push by the extreme Zionists to force Arabs out of all of Palestine but that is an extremist position just like the Muslim position that Palestine should be united based upon a vote of everyone in all of Palestine (including Israel) that would result in an Islamic nation.

Figuratively speaking the extremists on both sides should be taken out and shot because they're the real problem.

 

I believe that was after you booted out so many Arabs from their homes.
That may be a clue as to why they're less than pleased with Israelis.

 

The security fences also cut the Palestinians off from family, farms and olive groves.

 

I didnt waive Israel violations, just like an IRS review usally finds problems but still is accepted, if the same ppl are always under such review and others are not, I wouldnt call that justice, it looks as if those ppl are a stain while those that never went throw the inspection are "clean".

The Arab view includes Millions of refugees and their families to go into Israel terretory, that's supposed to be the nail in the coffin, and I disagree with you its only a few extremists, about half of the Palestinians say it outloud.

Gov's should attend to their fanatics, hold them at bay, throw them in jail etc', that's what we expect of the Palestinians but after Abu Mazen said he cannot agree to some Israeli offers for the fear his ppl will hang him its obvoius he will not unite his ppl under one goal, so the Israeli approach takes that into account, we wil continue to fight even after an agreement will be achived.

 

We can scroll down a 100 years ago to find who shot the first shot in this fued, yes Israel fought and drived many Palestinains away - after they tuned up the fight against the Jews, the day after 181 passed, sniper shots and Jerusalem seige among others.

I am aware of all that wich is why I say 67 lines are not the heart of the despute, its much bigger than that and will never end, so why do you think an Israeli retreat would end it ?

 

Yes.. an Israelis retreat from the occupied territories would end it.

Don't you think Jewish only highways, security fences that cut the Palestinians off, continued settlement building is radical?

 

I sadly disagree, the best offer from the Arab side was the Saudi that demanded complete withdrawal, about 500,000 jews to be evacuated, refugees issue open (they didnt even put that off the table) which gives any Palestinian the right to continue fighting, and even then Hamas + others opposed, a few days a go I heard the Hamas spokman in Gaza shouting in a rally "we will never accept Israel" repeatdly, I just want to show you the fued will continue not that I fear Israel will actually be destroyed by Gaza, just something we know will happen and need to take into account.

I think it is extreme and I would'nt allow so many settelments in the WB if I had the power, but here we are..

 

Wait a minute. Why would Irans bomb mean you have to live with bombs from Lebanon? That makes no sense. Youd still be free to invade as you usually do. Iran isnt going to nuke you for that. It knows what the consequences are.

Thats not peace with Iran, they oppose you of course. But theyre not stopping the PA from making peace with you.

So, outside of them being your enemy, there is no real reason per se for them not to have a nuke. Like us with Germany, we didnt oppose them having weapons, we opposed them invading europe.

 

The Saudis also ordered a study to reopen and repair TAPLINE with a spur to Haifa.. and the Arabs as a whole were planning to develop infrastructure and jobs for the Palestinians.

 

And had Germany not been stripped of her frontiers, she probably wouldn't have done so. British Imperialism really did damage Britain more than what they bargained for.

 

But turn a blind eye to the Palestinians that will continue to fight, such suggestions ignore Gaza yet include it in the peace agreement for Israel to attend, I dont see Abu Mazen uniting Gaza.

 

I don't know about that.. The agreement was to guarantee Israel's security..

Consider for a moment that Israel cannot stop the settlers from destroying the olive trees..

And, look at what is going on in Silwan now..


Israeli land claims: Archaeology and ideology



Critics say Holy Basin archaeology is being exploited to advance Israeli claims to its 'eternal city'.



Samuel Nelson Gilbert Last updated: 16 Nov 2013 08:54


http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/fe...archaeology-ideology-2013111113012956687.html