View Full Version : The silly Israeli-Palestinian solution from the left
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=33021
The silly Israeli-Palestinian solution from the left
By Don Crawford
A friend of mine has a daughter who is a beautiful, bright young woman whose life should be a time of adventures and opportunities opening up to her. Instead, her life is full of fear, despair and darkness because she has spent the last four years of her life with a guy who beats her horribly for any perceived wrong she has done.
My friend begs and pleads with her daughter to leave the bum and to file charges. But her pleadings are fruitless. This young woman irrationally believes that she is part of the problem: If she would just be a better mate, if she would just think before she spoke, if she would be more careful about the kind of emotions she shows on her face – if ... if ... IF.
Calling "evil" a "communications failure" is to blame victims!
A fundamental tenet of the values revolution foisted on this culture by the left in the '60s was the absurd denial of evil, replacing it with the naive belief that all human conflicts are a result of communication difficulties that are the fault of both parties. However, in the face of women and children abused by sick men, this belief that all conflicts are the responsibility of both parties is patently absurd.
Yet, many family members will tell an abused mate that she needs to try harder, she needs to avoid doing things that upset the man, she needs to show more love to the man. This is sick! No, what she needs to do is to recognize evil as evil and to put as much distance as possible between herself and this source of evil in her life.
Tragically, this is what we do with Israel regarding Palestine.
Tragically, this left-fostered naivete that all problems in relationships are merely communication problems is what our government and the Bush administration are foisting upon Israel as it tries to deal with the Palestinian Authority. This is sheer stupidity that will only extend the torment.
The parties broke up in 1946. The "man" was given the house and all the property, which became the Palestinian state known as "Jordan" (an abbreviation for the "trans-Jordan region of Palestine). The "woman" was given a small efficiency apartment called "Israel."
But the man won't quit stalking the woman, beating her up and stating his raison d'etre is to destroy the woman and to take back the efficiency apartment. The more the woman tries to appease the man, the more the man says it is proof of her guilt and increases his assaults on the woman.
Nevertheless, guided by the left, the solution of recent American administrations – as well as the United Nations – has been to insist that both parties have to try harder, and the woman in good faith needs to give up her living room and kitchen. The man says he will then discuss whether or not he should continue to attempt to kill her, all the while laughingly telling his friends at every opportunity about how he is going to rape and kill the woman.
Amazingly, this poor woman has tragically followed the left's counsel and has given up much of her efficiency apartment to the man. Yet he keeps breaking into her bedroom, stabbing her repeatedly and trying to kill her. And as she fights to fend him off, the world media wags its head at the "unending cycles of violence" and asks the woman to show good faith by giving up her bedroom and moving entirely into the bathroom.
This is beyond sick – it is a despicable evil that must end.
This is a sick, despicable, immoral participation in evil that is beyond comprehension. Talk about peace through compromise at this point is merely to participate in immeasurable evil, stupidity and cruelty. It is time for the silly talk to end. If there is any decency in the onlookers, we will reassure the woman that we will no longer allow the man to attack her.
And the next time the man breaks in, we will stand in front of the woman and dispatch the creep ourselves. For the only way to deal with unremitting evil is to put an end to it. Then, some degree of justice will be restored into the woman's life, and peace will finally return to the estate and its neighbors. And the world "will be a better place" indeed.
Dude, America - more than anyone else - knows the intricacies of the Middle East. It has taken a huge rule in the creation of the modern Arab World and Israel. The administration knows exactly of all the problems, details, perils, and etc.... Administration has no illusion of what has to be done and how to achieve peace. The solution is to fundamentally remake the entire Arab world but in the meantime all they can output is - SLOGANS which in reality don't mean much.
I beg to differ - sir. America has not played a hughe part in the modern arab and Israel, if anything America did not want to know the ins and outs of what was an "League of Nations - European Branch" business. America has made sure in the early years that they got in bed with Saudi Arabia but as far as ISrael is concerned they declared an embargo on arm to the region in december 1947. The American administration new damn well that the British and the French left depots of ammunition to the nice neighboors of what came to be Israel.
The Administration don't know the problem, if they did they would not mentioned "occupation" or "Palestinian State" 2 words that Bush was the first president to endorse personnally. Even Oslo spoke of a Palestinian Autonomy. Secondly they seem to have forgotten that when they want to get Saddam they drop 3 * 3-tons bomb on a building in a build up area or that they carpet bombed afghanistan no matter how many "collateral dammage" yet Israel is according to them "undermining peace" by killing members of an organization that Bush called himself a "terrorist group that undermine peace". Is this the result of TEMPORARY AMNESIA? No, I think not! I think Bush is the victim from his father crownies primarily the legendary incompetent and arabist Powell. There may be willing and dealing in petrol around it with the Saudis but I still beleive everywhere Powell goes, there is misery for Israel.
In the meanwhile, whilst we are reshaping the darkness of the arab world which by the way is a GREAT plan (no sarcasm), I would hate to think that Israel must die to keep arabs happy, if you see what I mean. So if America can ransack the place to protect themselve so should Israel and please let's stop thinking that making the only ally and reliable friend that America has in the region MUST suffer to appease the petrol owners whilst the middle east gets reshaped.
Originally posted by Mil
Dude, America - more than anyone else - knows the intricacies of the Middle East. It has taken a huge rule in the creation of the modern Arab World and Israel. The administration knows exactly of all the problems, details, perils, and etc.... Administration has no illusion of what has to be done and how to achieve peace. The solution is to fundamentally remake the entire Arab world but in the meantime all they can output is - SLOGANS which in reality don't mean much.
Posted by yoyo:
I beg to differ - sir. America has not played a hughe part in the modern arab and Israel
You kidding.
, if anything America did not want to know the ins and outs of what was an "League of Nations - European Branch" business.
What are you talking about? The reason why America never joined the League because it did not want to get involved in idiotic European affairs which were in no way based on peace but on pure politics.
America has made sure in the early years that they got in bed with Saudi Arabia but as far as ISrael is concerned they declared an embargo on arm to the region in december 1947.
Yeah, so? America, since 1967 is the principle supplier of arms to Israel.
The American administration new damn well that the British and the French left depots of ammunition to the nice neighboors of what came to be Israel.
What are you talking about?
The Administration don't know the problem, if they did they would not mentioned "occupation" or "Palestinian State"
It is occupation - even Israelis call it that. West bank and Gaza were occupied during the 1967 war.
2 words that Bush was the first president to endorse personnally.
So? If Israelis admit it why not America?
Even Oslo spoke of a Palestinian Autonomy. Secondly they seem to have forgotten that when they want to get Saddam they drop 3 * 3-tons bomb on a building in a build up area or that they carpet bombed afghanistan no matter how many "collateral dammage" yet Israel is according to them "undermining peace" by killing members of an organization that Bush called himself a "terrorist group that undermine peace".
I guess your knowledge of modern ME is very limited - though I can recommend some reading material. This is not an emotional issue.
Is this the result of TEMPORARY AMNESIA? No, I think not! I think Bush is the victim from his father crownies primarily the legendary incompetent and arabist Powell.
So you would know. America would ALWAYS stand behind Israel no matter what the dispute. If any case America diminishes its support to Israel the entire American foreign policy principles would collapse with it. Want to guess why?
There may be willing and dealing in petrol around it with the Saudis but I still beleive everywhere Powell goes, there is misery for Israel.
There were worse times like during the Eisenhower and especially Jimmy Carter years.
In the meanwhile, whilst we are reshaping the darkness of the arab world which by the way is a GREAT plan (no sarcasm), I would hate to think that Israel must die to keep arabs happy, if you see what I mean.
Israel is definetly not dying. No, I don't see what you mean.
So if America can ransack the place to protect themselve so should Israel and please let's stop thinking that making the only ally and reliable friend that America has in the region MUST suffer to appease the petrol owners whilst the middle east gets reshaped.
If it was only about oil there would have been peace long time back.
Originally posted by Mil
What are you talking about? The reason why America never joined the League because it did not want to get involved in idiotic European affairs which were in no way based on peace but on pure politics.
And the people that create countries in the middle east was the League of Nations - that is what I mean, America has been involved fully much later.
Originally posted by Mil
Yeah, so? America, since 1967 is the principle supplier of arms to Israel.
Did I say the contrary? And why has America replaced Europe in this respect since 1967? Because they understand that Israel do and could kick arses. A unique cold war ally and a unique partnership with a country that was created with the same values. Beside on the 3 billions that America gives Israel the vast majority (2/3rd I beleive) has to be spend with US armement company. I am not spitting on what America has done for Israel, I am arguing that there is as much give as there is take in this relationship - America (or should I say Bush Sr. & Jr.) has no right to impose whatever on Israel. It is a friend-friend relation not a master-slave.
Originally posted by Mil
[regarding arms left by the British and the French] What are you talking about?
What I am talking about is that the Jordanians, the Egyptians, the Irakis, the Syrians and the rest of them use arms that was left over by the British and the French before they left. What I am saying is that the UN (America & Russia first) accepted the partition but where not ready to sell them arms to defend themselve and it was Jews that had to import quickly arms from Eastern Europe.
Originally posted by Mil
It is occupation - even Israelis call it that. West bank and Gaza were occupied during the 1967 war. So? If Israelis admit it why not America?
No it is a dispute and has been under 242 and 338. Yeah Belin & co the far left will call it that, Israeli governement from Rabin to Sharon call it a dispute. The "occupation" words that from Sharon was Bush pressure. In fact according to Arutz Sheva it was mistranslated, the word he used is "conquest". Second, in diplomatic language, "occupation" refers to rights under the Geneva Convention not to ownership of land. Since the arabs in the territories are under the PA rule, there are no occupied. Bush has used it since his June speech far before Sharon was coerce to say it with the threat of sanctions (for which I thought he should have called Bush bluff - I can't see Congress passing anything of the sort)
Originally posted by Mil
I guess your knowledge of modern ME is very limited - though I can recommend some reading material. This is not an emotional issue.
Test me!
Originally posted by Mil
So you would know. America would ALWAYS stand behind Israel no matter what the dispute. If any case America diminishes its support to Israel the entire American foreign policy principles would collapse with it. Want to guess why?
America focus on the "Road Map" is directly against Israel's interest. People accuse America of siding too much with Israel but what is the problem of saying "so what?". Why should Bush try to appear balanced by unloyal denonciation of targeted killing of a mass murderer from a terrorist group? The Quartet that drew the "Road Map" is biased against ISrael. The UN + Russia + Europe have arab best interest in mind, why shouldn't 1/4 of that Quartet be openly the opposite?
Originally posted by Mil
There were worse times like during the Eisenhower and especially Jimmy Carter years.
Yes there have been worst, today is today. And it is true that even the most antisemite like Nixon did the right thing when Israel needed it.
Originally posted by Mil
Israel is definetly not dying. No, I don't see what you mean.
The imposition within 2 years of a terrorist state at the door of Israel is an existancial danger to Israel. The refrain that Israel "must" observe to please the Clinton and the Bush administration are spilling the blood of Israel.
You know what? I was partially wrong. There was some moment of genius that Powell was blessed by - short nevertheless extraordinary. He said in his autobiography "the lessons I absorbed from Panama: Use all the force necessary, and do not apologize for going in big if that is what it takes. Force ends wars quickly and in the long run saves lives"
Originally posted by Mil
If it was only about oil there would have been peace long time back.
I never said "it was all about oil" re-read what I said! What I am saying however is that it is undeniable that Bush have an unhealthy relationship with the Saudis and maybe just maybe it sometimes cloud his judgement when it comes to Israel.
Posted by Yoyo:
And the people that create countries in the middle east was the League of Nations - that is what I mean, America has been involved fully much later.
Israel was created by United Nations with two main parties behind it - US and USSR. The Palestinian Mandate was created by the British.
Did I say the contrary? And why has America replaced Europe in this respect since 1967?
Because the French, main suppliers of Israeli arms up to 1967, wanted to disangage themselves from the Arab world and their colonial past in general following disasterous events of the Suez crisis, Algiers. and Vietnam. What's funny that the only time French weapons saw their days of glory was in Israel's hands.
Because they understand that Israel do and could kick arses.
Because Israel has proved itself as a regional power very friendly to the United States.
Beside on the 3 billions that America gives Israel the vast majority (2/3rd I beleive) has to be spend with US armement company.
As does Egypt - but all 2 billion.
I am not spitting on what America has done for Israel, I am arguing that there is as much give as there is take in this relationship - America (or should I say Bush Sr. & Jr.) has no right to impose whatever on Israel.
America has every right.
It is a friend-friend relation not a master-slave.
Lets call it political neccessity.
What I am talking about is that the Jordanians, the Egyptians, the Irakis, the Syrians and the rest of them use arms that was left over by the British and the French before they left.
Okay.
What I am saying is that the UN (America & Russia first) accepted the partition but where not ready to sell them arms to defend themselve and it was Jews that had to import quickly arms from Eastern Europe.
Read up on early years. There were not as many problems with arms. Israel had a problem with heavy arms as tanks and planes but small arms were more than in abundance. Europe just ended WWII and the amount of arms in that continent and the people to man and sell them or even the people with knowledge on how to manufacture them were more then enough. Arab armies were not that better off.
No it is a dispute
Occupation.
and has been under 242 and 338.
Still occupied.
Yeah Belin & co the far left will call it that, Israeli governement from Rabin to Sharon call it a dispute.
The call it occupied.
The "occupation" words that from Sharon was Bush pressure.
Of course - no self respecting Israeli government would call it otherwise. But everyone knows these are occupied.
In fact according to Arutz Sheva it was mistranslated, the word he used is "conquest". Second, in diplomatic language, "occupation" refers to rights under the Geneva Convention not to ownership of land. Since the arabs in the territories are under the PA rule, there are no occupied.
Following Oslo they had an autonomy but before that it was occupation.
Bush has used it since his June speech far before Sharon was coerce to say it with the threat of sanctions (for which I thought he should have called Bush bluff - I can't see Congress passing anything of the sort)
Bush would not have said anything without agreeing on the words with Israelis. That's how it was more than likely was and that's how it has always been in America/Israeli relationship.
Test me!
Okay - Okay.
America focus on the "Road Map" is directly against Israel's interest.
Nope. How?
People accuse America of siding too much with Israel but what is the problem of saying "so what?".
The reason why America sides with Israel is because Israel is a DEMOCRACY!!!!
Why should Bush try to appear balanced by unloyal denonciation of targeted killing of a mass murderer from a terrorist group?
You are right - American administration would never take non-Democracies too seriously. Actually Democracy is the cornerstone of American foreign Diplomacy and the answer to my question above.
The Quartet that drew the "Road Map" is biased against ISrael.
Lets put it this way - they just want to have this thing over with.
The UN + Russia + Europe have arab best interest in mind,
I don't blame Europe. Russia has it's own goals. And UN - irrelevant.
why shouldn't 1/4 of that Quartet be openly the opposite?
Actually US is the QUARTET the rest are there just to give US a bit extra political legitimacy. Neither Europe or Russia are very dependable on either political, military, economic commitments.
Yes there have been worst, today is today.
Today Israel has probably the most friendly administration ever.
And it is true that even the most antisemite like Nixon did the right thing when Israel needed it.
You are really lost. Behind Nixon stood Kissinger, who by the way was Jewish, who virtually ran the entire foreign and military policy of the United States where Nixon was all consumed by WaterGate.
The imposition within 2 years of a terrorist state at the door of Israel is an existancial danger to Israel. The refrain that Israel "must" observe to please the Clinton and the Bush administration are spilling the blood of Israel.
What do you propose to happen?
You know what? I was partially wrong. There was some moment of genius that Powell was blessed by - short nevertheless extraordinary. He said in his autobiography "the lessons I absorbed from Panama: Use all the force necessary, and do not apologize for going in big if that is what it takes. Force ends wars quickly and in the long run saves lives"
Israel has used force many-many-many times..... It helped Israel to defeat its neighbors but not national movements.
I never said "it was all about oil" re-read what I said! What I am saying however is that it is undeniable that Bush have an unhealthy relationship with the Saudis and maybe just maybe it sometimes cloud his judgement when it comes to Israel.
No - may be it's because it's time to remake the Middle East and the Israeli/Arab conflict plays a big part in it. The way to resolve the "War on Terrorism" is to remake the Middle East. Agree?
All right, now I think we can have an interesting argumentation, but if you allow me, we cannot have kilometers of answers which expotienally grow - therefore not getting a detail argument. I challenge you on the following points - 1 by 1.
1) The legitimacy of the State of Israel which I will argue do not have its root at the United Nations
2) The historical relationship between the US and Israel
3) The right of America to impose a policy on Israel
4) The dispute/occupation
5) The "Road Map" and how it is dangerous for Israel
6) The pattern of loyalty of Jews to Israel in US Administration
7) Bush "best friend" of Israel
8) Military solution or diplomatic solution to the conflict.
Do you accept? Whatever your answer, I'll only be able to answer you tommorow as it is late where I live.
Isiah 2:4
06-11-2003, 05:42 PM
The reason why America sides with Israel is because Israel is a DEMOCRACY!!!!
NO....its because there are many Christians in the U.S who want Christ to return and defeat the evil forces of the world on the Temple Mount. They need Israel to be strong, they need Israel to be restored to its biblical borders and they need full Jewish control of Yerushalayim. They need this because of their beliefs.
They are not interested in the welfare of the Jews as a nation.
Isiah 2:4
06-11-2003, 06:16 PM
Yoyo...i would like to answer your premises.
1) Israel is the homeland of the Jewish people. They have never had any other. Their religious, social and constitutional history is dervied from there love of the land of Israel. They have lived there for years that
far exceed the length of any Roman, Turk, Arab or Western occupation. Israel was created as a modern state when the U.N partioned a territory of the British Empire called Palestine, and divided into Israel and he Arab territory. This was a legitimate action, validated by all of the members of the U.N
2) The relationship between israel and the U.S only begun when the Oil corporations realised they could exploit the middlle east situation so as to play off all of the combatants and win brownie points. The relationship is built on strategic power and economic gain. The Succesive U.S governemnts allow for the jewish vote to be blamed for their Middle east policy throughout the years. The requests of the current adminstration are founded on Bush's need to win the next election, appease the Arab world after a unnecessary war, and convince the world that american intiatives are not all that bad.
3) America has no right to impose any cultural, political or social policy on any other country. All of us know that any actions that aim to acheive these goals are imperialist by default. Encouragement is fine, enforcement is unreasonable.
4) In many defensive wars, Israel has both occupied and relinquised captured territory. The Palestinian areas were once completely contolled by israel authorities. Now, many areas are under the juristiction of the PA. Those areas that are are under IDF control are not legitimately Israeli territory.
I believe that the modern State of Israel can survive and exist as a Jewish national home without the inclusion of the west bank and gaza. these are superfluous, and as long as populalation levels are monitored, water supplies are guaranteed and the security of the israeli population is ensured, then the Arabs can do what they like with the rest of it. Jerusalem is the Jewish capital and it should remain so, but with full entry for anybody to any religious sites allowed, and complete religious freedom within the city.
5) The roadmap will only succeed if the militant organisations are dealt with properly, by both sides. As long as terrorists control schools, newspapers and lives of palestinian people, then no peace plan will ever work.
6) Dont completely understand this one. But as far as i can decifer in the current state i am in, ( 2.00am, after a night in the pub), then the Jews which are present in congress or any other political echelons of the US political system vary a great deal. Some want nothing to do with Israeli affairs, others not so
. Some fear they will branded with dual loyalties if there are seen to be too much in Israel's interests. I believe that if Jews want to support israel they should do it either spritually, physically ( visting and immigrating there ) or verbally. It doesnt matter what your profession is. Just do it.
7) Bush is not the best friend of israel. Bush is no-ones friend in the traditional sense of the word.
8) The conflict is now part of a wider battle between the east and west, the extremists in both sides, and the ongoing, stupid and pointless arguments between differing civilisations. Nobody at this moment wants the same goals to be acheived in the settling of the conflict, until that happens, no solution can be reached.
Okay, im tired, and only just sobering up....that post let me clear my thoughts before sleep. I hope that didn't seem too realistic, but i cant help thinking that everything i wrote is the truth. Sad, pessimistic (not like me!), but the truth.
Johnny Yuma
06-11-2003, 06:40 PM
Originally posted by Isiah 2:4
NO....its because there are many Christians in the U.S who want Christ to return and defeat the evil forces of the world on the Temple Mount. They need Israel to be strong, they need Israel to be restored to its biblical borders and they need full Jewish control of Yerushalayim. They need this because of their beliefs.
They are not interested in the welfare of the Jews as a nation.
There's no denying that there are such people here, in the United States, but not nearly as many as your post would seem to have the reader believe. The very concept of what you have stated would be lost on the vast majority of Americans.
Some, on the other hand, would be more willing to agree that the reason America's policy towards settling the dispute between the Pals and Israelis is to have an unimpeded, low cost oil supply. That's why, every time you see a peace protest march emanating from this country, on the television, undoubtably, you will see a non-contributing eater brandishing a "No Blood For Oil" picket.
Then there are others who believe the United States supports Israel because it is a democracy. And that the US supports and fosters democracies in order to have open markets.
There are those in this country that believe that the Jews need a place where they can be safe from persecution, not only because of the Holocaust, but because of other persecutions they have suffered across many thousands of years.
The list goes on and on....
Then there are people like me. I'm not waiting around for a "second coming". I don't even believe in a first coming. However, what I do truly believe is that the Jews are G_d's chosen people, and I take the cliché "you're either with us, or against us", very seriously, when it comes to G_d and the side he's on. Just look back, historically, and see what happened, eventually, to all the cultures that stood on the opposite side of the Jewish people. Most of them are gone to the point that all that is left of their civilizations are a few pot shards, if that; yet the Jews are still with us. The others chose, "unwisely".
Bottom line: There are many reasons for America's support of Israel; not just one.
Posted by yoyo:
All right, now I think we can have an interesting argumentation,
I was hoping for a challenge !!!! I mostly post on another forum. However, everyone there got tired of all the Iraqi, America, ME, Russia, France, Denmark, etc... that it has lowered down for a while. I guess everyone is currently in the process of pouring over the facts in Hillary's new book :)
but if you allow me, we cannot have kilometers of answers which expotienally grow - therefore not getting a detail argument. I challenge you on the following points - 1 by 1.
Right on.
1) The legitimacy of the State of Israel which I will argue do not have its root at the United Nations
Yes it is. The fundamental role of United Nations is to uphold and legitimize something called "National Self Determination." Which in basic terms means to politically legitimize the existance of nations wiith borders - implying that if a nation is created and is approved by the global community it has a full right to remain a nation with borders. Israel was created and legitimized by UN along with many other countries.
Let me remind you that Palestine was not the only place considered for a national Jewish homeland by Herzl. Such places as Ghana and Argentina were proposed. Don't forget to mention that there is still a Jewish National Republic called Berobedzan in Sibera - many times larger then Israel - though almost no Jews.
The creation of Israel was completely a secular concept not a religious experience.
2) The historical relationship between the US and Israel
The historical relationship between US and Israel started in 1948 when US endorsed the creation of the state of Israel. The real political relationship between US and Israel started at around 1964 when the relationship with France started to cool.
3) The right of America to impose a policy on Israel
This is not something I can explain in few sentences. But I recommend you read up on Kissinger.
4) The dispute/occupation
It's occupation. There is no question on the matter. I know all the history of 1967 and these territories were occupied. If you want to argue on the Six Days war - lets do it in a different thread.
5) The "Road Map" and how it is dangerous for Israel
Okay - if the "Road Map" will not work there will be "Road Map II", and then "Road Map III" and etc.... it will go on and on and on until the Arab world around Israel will be forced to democratize. At the end Palestinians will still have a state in the West Bank and Gaza.
6) The pattern of loyalty of Jews to Israel in US Administration
If anything the Jewish lobby is not very popular... American support for Israel has nothing to do with the "Jewish vote" but with the fact that Israel is a Democracy. I am tired of repeating this alredy.
There are very wealthy and influential Arabs in the States with billions of invested dollars but who, in comparison to Israel, have nothing but oil to offer. Israel does.
7) Bush "best friend" of Israel
Define "Best Friend." But if you are implying that America greatly depends on US support - it does. Actually economic support is negligible compared to all else.
8) Military solution or diplomatic solution to the conflict.
There is no such thing as Diplomatic solution with dicatorships, monarchies, or theocracies... Something that the Europeans have learned through there long and bloody history. Unless the ME would be democratized there would be no genuine diplomatic solution. Peace between Israel, Egypt and Jordan is not real. However, peace between France and Germany is - very real, given that you know the history of affairs between the two countries.
Do you accept?
Sure.
Whatever your answer, I'll only be able to answer you tommorow as it is late where I live.
No problem - I do all my foruming at work.
Johnny Yuma
06-11-2003, 09:07 PM
Originally posted by Mil
No problem - I do all my foruming at work.
Really? Wow! That must be a really cool place to work, if you can do all your foruming at work. I bet there's a lot of people, here, that would like to get a job working wherever you work. What do you do?
Really? Wow! That must be a really cool place to work, if you can do all your foruming at work. I bet there's a lot of people, here, that would like to get a job working wherever you work. What do you do?
Don't laugh - but I am an engineer. :)
Johnny Yuma
06-12-2003, 12:49 PM
Originally posted by Mil
Really? Wow! That must be a really cool place to work, if you can do all your foruming at work. I bet there's a lot of people, here, that would like to get a job working wherever you work. What do you do?
Don't laugh - but I am an engineer. :)
Yeah. Me too. But I don't spend more than a few minutes perusing, (like right now). I do the bulk of mine at home. BTW, I'm a EE. You?
Now I know that I chose the wrong career! ;)
1) Israel found international recognition well before the United Nations was created at the San Remo Conference of 1920. In 1947 the United Nations accepted the PARTITION of the state of the State of Israel (west) and the second state of Palestine (east) but this was voted at the General Assembly thus under Chapter VI. It was refuse by one party (the arabs) therefore the United Nations under Chapter VI had no mandate to enforce it. The only legal document that remained was then the San remo Remo Conference which give sole right and legitimacy to the Jewish people to make the Jewish National Homeland.
2) The US and the Soviets did indeed recognize the State of Israel, the Soviets condemn arab agression, the US urge a Security Council resolution to provide the international community with power to impose it. But The State Departement refused to sell arms to Israel (or the arabs for that matter) knowing full well that the number of men and guns where not on Israel's side. Would the US have send troops in a successful invasion of of infant Israel, who knows? The fact is they knew the score.
3) Occupation of what? of who? The Palestinians? The Jordaniens? The Egyptians? OF WHAT? I won't repeat the Resolution 242 and 338, it is in my letter to Robin Cook
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/article.php3?id=2128
In light of the San Remo Conference, Israel is entitled to WHOLE of the Mandate of Palestine. In 1948-49 an ARMISTICE line was created, those territories have been DISPUTED since then with Jordan. Since 1989, Jordan gave up those territories, therefore it belong to the other side of the dispute. But you will say, what's about the Golan Height? This was integral part of the Mandate of Palestine, given illegally by the British to the French Mandate of Syria.
5) The Road Map is dangerous for Israel because it impose on Israel to create a "Palestinian State" without regards for the continuing violence, it legitimize a very potential terrorist state at the door of Israel, it nullify the concept of dispute thus tempering with the part of 242 that says "secured and recognizable borders" and it do not impose on arabs to recognize Israel as a JEWISH STATE, it does not acknowledge that the "refugee" where mostly Jews and that the UN at the time called it an "exchange of population consistent with population movement in modern history".
You may count on Road Map 1, 2, 3, 95, 2003, 2005, and whatever plan would be drafted by whatever power, if you look at the political spectrum in Israel is has shifted to the right and is still shifting. You know, when all of the solutions would have been exhausted, there will be one left - no not massacre that is so unjewish but transfer of population to their 76% of the mandate - Jordan (or should I say the Arabian Hashemite thief of Jordan).
6) You where saying that a jewish Secretary of State is a proof of loyalty, I dispute that. Many Jews, including Madeleine Albright has display their loyalty solely with the US. And I am saying that is the correct thing to do, you have to be loyal to the country you reside in FIRST.
I am not sure the democratic argument really stand 100%, the US have made deals in the past with many dictature, starting with one of the worst - Saudi Arabia. On the other hand, this argument stands because it is easier to identify with people who speak like you, see the same movie or have the same values. However friends also have their national interest which differs from time to time.
7) Let me get something straight. What would you tell Israel asking you to negotiate with Saddam or the Baath Party? What's about they tell you going to Yemen and target kill a terrorist from Al-Aquada is not "helping peace in the region"? Hamas is on YOUR list of terrorist as well last time I checked. Are we still having a merciless war on terror?
8) I join into saying that diplomatic solution is not real with dictatorship, but I think it is very naive to think that the US can impose democracy. Democracy was earn by your and mine ancestors at the price of their blood. The only thing you can impose is mutli-party dictatorial ruling. Thus keeping them in check by balancing the [military] faction. The other point for which I beleive arabs are incapable of democracy is that everytime they have a democratic choice, they choose the islamist. It happened in Algeria, to a large extend it happened it non-arab but muslim Turkey, etc.. With a model like Turkey where the army make sure the state remain secular, it works - that is not very democratic but it works. And the last point is the following. One of the main argument of arabs is that "the regime in power are not muslim they are puppet of the US serving US/Zionist interests" to which I conclude that the "friendship" perceived to the West is not wanted by the man on the street - what kind of policies do you think they want their governement to go for?
NB: Sorry for the delay, I had an unexpected work to do.
Yeah. Me too. But I don't spend more than a few minutes perusing, (like right now). I do the bulk of mine at home. BTW, I'm a EE. You?
Dude, I have been going to internet forums for the past 4 years - thus call me an expert :) I type fast :)
Johnny Yuma
06-13-2003, 12:27 PM
Originally posted by Mil
Yeah. Me too. But I don't spend more than a few minutes perusing, (like right now). I do the bulk of mine at home. BTW, I'm a EE. You?
Dude, I have been going to internet forums for the past 4 years - thus call me an expert :) I type fast :)
4 years? No kidding? Wow! That's awesome! I've a few years under my belt, as well.
I did a charity (I may as well call it that) job for a guy in Silverton, Colorado, back in 1984. He paid me with an IBM XT. He still owed me money, but I let him off the hook for the rest. It wasn't my first machine, but it was the best number cruncher I'd had up until then; especially with the military burn-in math co-processer I got from my neighbor.
So you are into computers as well? !!!!
Originally posted by Mil
So you are into computers as well? !!!!
What do you do with computer?
Believe it or not I write software for slot machines. How about you - dude?
Originally posted by Mil
Believe it or not I write software for slot machines. How about you - dude?
Well I write software too but Windows or Linux. What do you write in? straight assembler?
danholo
06-13-2003, 01:36 PM
Please. This is not IRC, ICQ or AIM. Continue your discussion elsewhere or with PMs.
Please. This is not IRC, ICQ or AIM. Continue your discussion elsewhere or with PMs.
Common!!!!!! May be we are Massad agents talking our Massad stuff. :)
Well I write software too but Windows or Linux. What do you write in? straight assembler?
Yeah - I had my share of debuggin 80/86 Assembler :) I love talking to engineers !!!!
Originally posted by danholo
Please. This is not IRC, ICQ or AIM. Continue your discussion elsewhere or with PMs.
Relax, Mil an I are just taking tea while he takes some time to answer my response. It is all part of knowing "the beast".
Originally posted by Mil
Yeah - I had my share of debuggin 80/86 Assembler :) I love talking to engineers !!!!
I wrote TSR in my time, now I use assembler to debug or shifting bits routines. Me too, engineers tend to think laterrally to problems. Oh well, maybe I am sometimes a bit too much binary minded :)
Am Yisrael
06-13-2003, 02:12 PM
Hehe maybe we should make a little engineering section on this forum. :D Currently a Technician aiming for "chartered Engineer". :cool:
Relax, Mil an I are just taking tea while he takes some time to answer my response.
Though I think it will be coming next Monday. I don't have time for long responses today -- just enough for short senceless sentences :)
Mediocrates
06-13-2003, 02:30 PM
C is Assembler designed by engineers.
C++ is Assembler designed by CSci majors.
It's not interesting that it works well. It's interesting that it works at all. :p
Delphi and Kylix - best tools around
C# - Microsoft Java
Johnny Yuma
06-13-2003, 06:53 PM
Originally posted by Mil
So you are into computers as well? !!!!
I have quite a collection, starting with an ELF, every 80xxx series from IBM/Clones, up to this 2.4ghz pentium 4 with 1 gig of RAM. Lots of computers. Lots. Several CPM machines; Trash 80's, Timex-Sinclairs, Commies, and on and on. Recently acquired an old VAX mainframe, just to watch the tapes spin and have another anachronism to clutter up the house. All of them still function. They fill a room of my house. I suppose you could say I'm "into" computers.
Yoyo - I have read through you post and I can say there is too much typing for this. We can discuss it somewhere else.
Originally posted by Mil
Yoyo - I have read through you post and I can say there is too much typing for this. We can discuss it somewhere else.
sure... I've sent you an email...
vBulletin® v3.8.4, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.