Losing the Jews: Obama dumped by big Dem donor

[hwt 0]

Quote

Sometimes it's more important to try to do the right thing than try to get re-elected.

How long has the Jewish religion been around?
how long has the muslim religion been around?
Who was really there first?

[kallend 2,026]

Quote

Quote

Sometimes it's more important to try to do the right thing than try to get re-elected.

How long has the Jewish religion been around?
how long has the muslim religion been around?
Who was really there first?

The Canaanites. Next.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[wsd 0]

Paul is a pretty smart guy, I disagree with a bit of your statement, yeah he is a liberal.

he probably could have explained the reasoning for his opinions a bit better.

[quade 4]

I assume you're talking about me.

In any event, my opinions are based on HISTORY. Not the way some people would like history to be, or what they believe a sort of manifest destiny of Israel is to take over Gaza and the West Bank, but actual history supported by things like maps and treaties.

See; http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/03/v3_israel_palestinians/maps/html/

If you work your way through the history of the state of Israel, you'll plainly see they have always attempted to expand their borders by force rather than by the consensus of the population of indigenous people that lived there. This is simply the wrong way to go about things.

Yes, of course I understand the "irony" of an American saying that. Duh.

That said, we no longer live in a primitive and untamed world. If Mexico suddenly decided to annex the south half of Arizona, I'm fairly certain most Americans would be up in arms about it and rightly so. On the other hand, if the citizens of southern Arizona decided to break away from the rest of the US and join forces with Mexico, I don't think there's really much the US could do about it.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[falxori 0]

Quote

If you work your way through the history of the state of Israel, you'll plainly see they have always attempted to expand their borders by force rather than by the consensus of the population of indigenous people that lived there

That is simply not true. Israel responded to wars that were forced upon it.
Even in 1967, when Israel took control of the west bank, Israel warned King Hussein not to join the war (which he did, based on the Egyptian lies that Israel is about to fall).

Quote

That said, we no longer live in a primitive and untamed world. If Mexico suddenly decided to annex the south half of Arizona, I'm fairly certain most Americans would be up in arms about it and rightly so

going on with your analogy, what if Mexico attacked Arizona and lost?

I (like most Israelis) have no interest in controlling 4M Palestinians and I'll be happy for them to have a state if a way is found that will keep Israel's security. Saying that Israel "attempted to expand their borders by force" is simply not true

"Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero."

[quade 4]

Quote

I (like most Israelis) have no interest in controlling 4M Palestinians and I'll be happy for them to have a state if a way is found that will keep Israel's security. Saying that Israel "attempted to expand their borders by force" is simply not true

History is not on your side of that statement.

If Mexico attempted to invade Arizona and lost, it would not justify the US taking over sections of Mexico. It would mean the US could do quite a bit to force Mexican settlers off US land, but not past the US borders.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

I (like most Israelis) have no interest in controlling 4M Palestinians and I'll be happy for them to have a state if a way is found that will keep Israel's security. Saying that Israel "attempted to expand their borders by force" is simply not true

History is not on your side of that statement.

If Mexico attempted to invade Arizona and lost, it would not justify the US taking over sections of Mexico. It would mean the US could do quite a bit to force Mexican settlers off US land, but not past the US borders.

Not the same. If Mexico started firing rockets into San Diego, the US might very well decide it needed to create a larger buffer between Mexico and San Diego and annex enough Mexican land to accomplish the degree of security we deemed necessary.

[falxori 0]

Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Reply To
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I (like most Israelis) have no interest in controlling 4M Palestinians and I'll be happy for them to have a state if a way is found that will keep Israel's security. Saying that Israel "attempted to expand their borders by force" is simply not true

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


History is not on your side of that statement.

If Mexico attempted to invade Arizona and lost, it would not justify the US taking over sections of Mexico. It would mean the US could do quite a bit to force Mexican settlers off US land, but not past the US borders.

By that logic, starting a war is a win-win situation. Either you win or you go back to the same border. I doubt that logic will prevent many wars..

History is very much on my side of the statement. Your claim would only be valid is Israel initiated wars with the goal of capturing land.

And to your point about Mexico, what if the Mexican government waived its claimed on the parts captured by the US? After all, neither Jordan nor Egypt wanted the West Bank and the Gaza Strip back. Since you rely on international borders, these areas were Jordan and Egypt, not Palestine.

Again, I support a Palestinian state but it is not a given. I simply reject your initial claim that Israel started a war in order to expand when it actively tried to avoid fighting Jordan in 1967

"Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero."

[quade 4]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I (like most Israelis) have no interest in controlling 4M Palestinians and I'll be happy for them to have a state if a way is found that will keep Israel's security. Saying that Israel "attempted to expand their borders by force" is simply not true

History is not on your side of that statement.

If Mexico attempted to invade Arizona and lost, it would not justify the US taking over sections of Mexico. It would mean the US could do quite a bit to force Mexican settlers off US land, but not past the US borders.

Not the same. If Mexico started firing rockets into San Diego, the US might very well decide it needed to create a larger buffer between Mexico and San Diego and annex enough Mexican land to accomplish the degree of security we deemed necessary.

I don't think so. It is almost always a stupid move to attempt to occupy an area of indigenous people that don't want you there. They have the advantage because they have the luxury of time and create sympathy for their cause due to collateral deaths. We've seen this time and time again.

Unless the people WANT to be part of the occupying force, and in the case of Gaza, the West Bank and the Golan Heights we know that's certainly not true, then they will ALWAYS attempt to resist.

While that makes for a great military industrial complex that feeds itself on death, it's incredibly stupid in terms of advancing your population's standard of living.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[quade 4]

Quote

Your claim would only be valid is Israel initiated wars with the goal of capturing land.

Which is exactly what happened when Israel launch the attack on the Sinai in 1967. The attack on the Sinai came first. The other countries got involved because they saw an additional threat to them, but Israel clearly started it.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

I (like most Israelis) have no interest in controlling 4M Palestinians and I'll be happy for them to have a state if a way is found that will keep Israel's security. Saying that Israel "attempted to expand their borders by force" is simply not true

History is not on your side of that statement.

If Mexico attempted to invade Arizona and lost, it would not justify the US taking over sections of Mexico. It would mean the US could do quite a bit to force Mexican settlers off US land, but not past the US borders.

Not the same. If Mexico started firing rockets into San Diego, the US might very well decide it needed to create a larger buffer between Mexico and San Diego and annex enough Mexican land to accomplish the degree of security we deemed necessary.

I don't think so. It is almost always a stupid move to attempt to occupy an area of indigenous people that don't want you there. They have the advantage because they have the luxury of time and create sympathy for their cause due to collateral deaths. We've seen this time and time again.

Unless the people WANT to be part of the occupying force, and in the case of Gaza, the West Bank and the Golan Heights we know that's certainly not true, then they will ALWAYS attempt to resist.

While that makes for a great military industrial complex that feeds itself on death, it's incredibly stupid in terms of advancing your population's standard of living.

Even a very limited knowledge of American history would prove you very wrong.

[quade 4]

Quote

Even a very limited knowledge of American history would prove you very wrong.

Again, talking in the modern age here, not the age of Guns, Germs and Steel.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[falxori 0]

Quote

Which is exactly what happened when Israel launch the attack on the Sinai in 1967. The attack on the Sinai came first. The other countries got involved because they saw an additional threat to them, but Israel clearly started it.

You've got to be kidding me...
1967 war broke after the Egyptians moved troops into the demilitarized Sinai, blockaded Israel's access to the red sea, kicked out the UN peace keepers and publicly announced that it was going to destroy Israel.
claiming that "Israel started it" because it shot first is simplistic and misses what took place.
Israel's preemptive strike against Egypt was a tactical move when war was unavoidable.

"Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero."

[quade 4]

Quote

Quote

Which is exactly what happened when Israel launch the attack on the Sinai in 1967. The attack on the Sinai came first. The other countries got involved because they saw an additional threat to them, but Israel clearly started it.

You've got to be kidding me...
1967 war broke after the Egyptians moved troops into the demilitarized Sinai, blockaded Israel's access to the red sea, kicked out the UN peace keepers and publicly announced that it was going to destroy Israel.
claiming that "Israel started it" because it shot first is simplistic and misses what took place.
Israel's preemptive strike against Egypt was a tactical move when war was unavoidable.

Of course, an Israeli history book is going to tell a different version than the rest of the planet, but war IS avoidable until the first shot is fired.

Israel fired the first shot.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

Even a very limited knowledge of American history would prove you very wrong.

Again, talking in the modern age here, not the age of Guns, Germs and Steel.

No, what you are trying to do is limit the scope of history because you know if you don't, history will not be on your side.

[falxori 0]

Quote

Of course, an Israeli history book is going to tell a different version than the rest of the planet, but war IS avoidable until the first shot is fired.

Israel fired the first shot.

A state of war existed since 1948, when Egypt invaded Israel (and fired the first shot).
before 1967 there was an an armistice. All of the Egyptian actions mentioned above (troops in the Sinai, kicking the UN peacekeepers and the blockade) violated that armistice. When the Egyptians broke the armistice and declared they are going to destroy Israel, that is more than enough to be considered a state of war.

Things are not as simple as who shot first but if you insist, the state of war existed since 1948 where the Egyptians shot firts

"Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero."

[quade 4]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Even a very limited knowledge of American history would prove you very wrong.

Again, talking in the modern age here, not the age of Guns, Germs and Steel.

No, what you are trying to do is limit the scope of history because you know if you don't, history will not be on your side.

Oh, so you're suggesting Israel would be justified using overwhelming military force and germ warfare to accomplish their "security" goals? Seriously?

No. We, the US, an outside 3rd party, shouldn't be promoting that.

The takeover of the Americas, north, central and south, had more to do with inadvertent germ warfare than most people give it credit. It's also why the creation of the US is significantly different and not comparable to the creation of Israel.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[quade 4]

Quote

Quote

Of course, an Israeli history book is going to tell a different version than the rest of the planet, but war IS avoidable until the first shot is fired.

Israel fired the first shot.

A state of war existed since 1948, when Egypt invaded Israel (and fired the first shot).
before 1967 there was an an armistice. All of the Egyptian actions mentioned above (troops in the Sinai, kicking the UN peacekeepers and the blockade) violated that armistice. When the Egyptians broke the armistice and declared they are going to destroy Israel, that is more than enough to be considered a state of war.

Things are not as simple as who shot first but if you insist, the state of war existed since 1948 where the Egyptians shot firts

Do you think the US would be justified in invading Japan today because in 1941 Japan attacked Pearl Harbor?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Even a very limited knowledge of American history would prove you very wrong.

Again, talking in the modern age here, not the age of Guns, Germs and Steel.

No, what you are trying to do is limit the scope of history because you know if you don't, history will not be on your side.

Oh, so you're suggesting Israel would be justified using overwhelming military force and germ warfare to accomplish their "security" goals? Seriously?

No. We, the US, an outside 3rd party, shouldn't be promoting that.

The take over of the Americas, north, central and south, had more to do with inadvertent germ warfare than most people give it credit.

Happy to discuss it if you think you can do so without putting words in my mouth. Surely, a sign you have no argument left. What's next? A Hitler reference?

[falxori 0]

Quote

Do you think the US would be justified in invading Japan today because in 1941 Japan attacked Pearl Harbor?

not the same. The state of war ended when Japan surrendered in 1945.
but, if you insist...
If Japan would violate the terms specified in the agreement that ended the war, then yes, the US would have the right to declare war on it.
Now, if Japan would also blockade the US and mobilize its army, the US would have every right to launch a preemptive strike.

Violating an armistice terms is an act of war.

"Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero."

[quade 4]

Quote

Happy to discuss it if you think you can do so without putting words in my mouth. Surely, a sign you have no argument left. What's next? A Hitler reference?

Well, again, some people think the creation of the US was mostly an act of "stealing" the land from and a systematic genocide of the indigenous tribes that lived here. That's only partly true. A hell of a lot of indigenous people in the western hemisphere died of an inadvertent germ warfare; smallpox. They had no immunity to it whatsoever and their numbers dwindled to nearly zero because of it.

The reality is, for the most part we simply moved in and -didn't- wipe out the population systematically, but rather accidentally.

The remaining tribes that attempted to resist simply couldn't because they were technologically unable to compete with the European guns and the incredibly rapid westward movement of population because of trains.

Again, that situation is not in any way applicable to the situation in Israel.

Both sides have access to extremely deadly weapons so that is almost a draw but with a slight advantage to Israel in terms of military and a slight advantage to the Palestinians in terms of terrorist/guerrilla warfare. The Palestinians CAN resist quite well.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[RonD1120 62]

Quote

It is almost always a stupid move to attempt to occupy an area of indigenous people that don't want you there. They have the advantage because they have the luxury of time and create sympathy for their cause due to collateral deaths.

That is applicable to our current situation here. American conservatives feel hostility toward the influx of socialist liberals.

No need for you to respond, it is just an observation.

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[RonD1120 62]

Generally speaking, you are not gaining sympathizers for your anti-Israel cause.

No need to respond, it is just an observation.

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[quade 4]

Quote

Generally speaking, you are not gaining sympathizers for your anti-Israel cause.

I don't have an anti-Israel cause.

What I have is an opinion untarnished by self interest, which is something that can't be said for religious fanatics or people from Israel.

I don't have a dog in this hunt other than I think it would be beneficial to the entire planet for Israel and its neighbors to stop blowing each other up.

I think a good step in that direction would be for Israel to stop trying to expand into areas beyond its own borders. Reverting to its 1967 borders as suggested by President Obama is not unreasonable. It's a datapoint in history where a LOT of excess tension began.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[RonD1120 62]

Quote

Quote

Generally speaking, you are not gaining sympathizers for your anti-Israel cause.

I don't have an anti-Israel cause.

What I have is an opinion untarnished by self interest, which is something that can't be said for religious fanatics or people from Israel.

I don't have a dog in this hunt other than I think it would be beneficial to the entire planet for Israel and its neighbors to stop blowing each other up.

I think a good step in that direction would be for Israel to stop trying to expand into areas beyond its own borders. Reverting to its 1967 borders as suggested by President Obama is not unreasonable. It's a datapoint in history where a LOT of excess tension began.

As soon as you post an opinion you have a dog in the hunt. We all see that, no problem.

BHO's recommendation is unreasonable because it threatens the existence of Israel.

The Bible clearly explains why a lot of excess tension began in that area.

The Bible also states prophetically that it is going to get worse. I truly believe the U.S. should choose sides wisely. A Muslim leader is not likely to make the wise choice.

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.