Silver Bullet
Member
If Iran gets the atom bomb, I think my concern will be what are the difficulties involved in bringing it into the United States in a suitcase across the Mexican border.
Iran is only a few months away from creating an atomic bomb
- Thread starter jsalcedo
- Start date
- Status
NineseveN
member
Silver Bullet said:
Oh that's easy, difficulties? There are none, (except maybe the suitcase part, not the getting it across part). Sleep easy now.
Silver Bullet
Member
Exactly why I’m in favor of bringing home most of our overseas stationed troops (especially any left in Europe; I’m tired of propping them up with our tax dollars), and using them to guard our borders, and spend all that money in the USA.
Sheesh. Too many to list here, but how's this for a more recent example:
In talks at Camp David and the Whitehouse in 2000, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered to withdraw from 97 percent of the West Bank and 100 percent of the Gaza Strip. In addition, he agreed to dismantle 63 isolated settlements. In exchange for the 5 percent annexation of the West Bank, Israel would increase the size of the Gaza territory by roughly a third.
Barak also made previously unthinkable concessions on Jerusalem, agreeing that Arab neighborhoods of East Jerusalem would become the capital of the new state. The Palestinians would maintain control over their holy places and have "religious sovereignty" over the Temple Mount.
According to U.S. peace negotiator Dennis Ross, Israel offered to create a Palestinian state that was contiguous, and not a series of cantons. Even in the case of the Gaza Strip, which must be physically separate from the West Bank unless Israel were to be cut into non-contiguous pieces, a solution was devised whereby an overland highway would connect the two parts of the Palestinian state without any Israeli checkpoints or interference.
“[Prime Minister Barak] was prepared to make decisions; Arafat was not. I believe he is capable of launching the process, but he is not capable of concluding it.”
— U.S. mediator Dennis Ross on the failure of the Camp David Summit
The proposal also addressed the refugee issue, guaranteeing them the right of return to the Palestinian state and reparations from a $30 billion international fund that would be collected to compensate them.
Israel also agreed to give the Palestinians access to water desalinated in its territory.
Arafat was asked to agree to Israeli sovereignty over the parts of the Western Wall religiously significant to Jews (i.e., not the entire Temple Mount), and three early warning stations in the Jordan valley, which Israel would withdraw from after six years. Most important, however, Arafat was expected to agree that the conflict was over at the end of the negotiations. This was the true deal breaker. Arafat was not willing to end the conflict. "For him to end the conflict is to end himself," said Ross.
The prevailing view of the Camp David/White House negotiations – that Israel offered generous concessions, and that Yasser Arafat rejected them to pursue the intifada that began in September 2000 – prevailed for more than a year. To counter the perception that Arafat was the obstacle to peace, the Palestinians and their supporters then began to suggest a variety of excuses for why Arafat failed to say "yes" to a proposal that would have established a Palestinian state. The truth is that if the Palestinians were dissatisfied with any part of the Israeli proposal, all they had to do was offer a counterproposal. They never did.
“In his last conversation with President Clinton, Arafat told the President that he was "a great man." Clinton responded, "The hell I am. I'm a colossal failure, and you made me one.”
So, Arafat was offered a Palestinian state, refused it, and instead began an intifada against the Jews.
Master Blaster
Member
They dont need a suitcase, Just a Big ole 18 wheeler will do.
A freighter with a container would also work.
A freighter with a container would also work.
Cousin Mike
Member
NineseveN said:
I don't seem to recall ever saying in my posts saying that labeling people as anti-semitic happened here on THR. My comments were referring to society in general. Like if you were to bring this up at a bar or other public place, or in the media. I thought I made that clear.
I also don't recall name calling, or saying anything about hating Israel or anyone else. Basically your post is proving my comments. It's inflammatory in it's wording, the context you quote us in is innacurate, and there is no real reason for it, unless you're trying to rally support for the popular opinion.
Almost this entire thread disagrees with me. I knew that when I posted this comment, but I did not feel the need to attack anyone on their specific or collective point of view. What I said is that I do not understand, and disagree with the point of view in question.
Who needs to be less dramatic again?
shootinstudent
Member
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2005
- Messages
- 786
That is a grossly inaccurate description of the Camp David meetings. Arafat was clearly not a good faith negotiator though, that's true....but neither were the Israelis. Look at the new lines they would've drawn and the rights demanded. If you can provide the primary sources you relied on for that info, you'll see that.
On top of this, Camp David and the Wye River accords weren't "recent examples"...they're the only examples, and interestingly, the idea behind them was similar to that of the good friday accords in Northern Ireland.
Edit:
What I'm really hoping is that we can find a way to secure the rights of all parties involved. The Israelis especially have managed to build a good economy and provide civil liberties to their populations, and I think it'd be a shame to have all that hinge only on continued military support...because it won't always be there. I'd rather live in a world where we are getting closer to doing away with hatred and violence against Israel than one in which we have to keep being on super-high alert militarily to prevent more horrors from being visited upon those people.
Last edited:
Dave Markowitz
Member
Cousin Mike said:
Bullpuckey.
Up until 1918, Palestine (the Roman name for the area, BTW) was part of the Ottoman Empire under the rule of the Ottoman Turks. It was not an independent country, nor had it been one since the time of the Crusades (if you count the Kingdom of Jersalem). After the end of World War I, in which the Ottoman Empire was on the losing side, Palestine was basically given to the British as a "mandate" by the League of Nations, the even more toothless predecessor to the United Nations. In 1917, even before the end of WWI, Britain's Balfour Declaration indicated the UK's support for the creation of a Jewish homeland in Palestine.
During the inter-War period there was an increase in Jewish immigration to Palestine. Contrary to your assertion, the Palestinian Arabs commited many violent acts against the Jewish settlers and the British. In response a British officer, Charles Orde Wingate formed the Special Night Squads, made up of largely Jewish personnel, who performed counterinsurgency ops. (Wingate went on to found the Brit special ops groups called the Chindits in Burma during WW2.)
In 1940 the Grand Mufti of Jersalem visited Hitler in Germany, seeking Nazi assistance in driving the Jews from Palestine.
There was hardly peaceful coexistence of Jews, Muslims, and Christians in pre-1948 Palestine.
scout26
Member
General Wingate was truly a brillant military strategist/thinker with regards to insurgency/counter-insurgency operations, with some somewhat "eccentric" personal habits.
shootinstudent
Member
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2005
- Messages
- 786
True but that was the direct result of the British forcing the Palestinians to accept immigrants that they did not want. I think it's always wrong to attack civillians no matter what, but it's not like this sprang out of the blue...the British decided, without the consent of the Palestinians, that it should be the new home for Jewish refugees. Then when the British banned immigration to Palestine, it continued illegaly until the insurgent groups grew strong enough to revolt and establish a Jewish state.
Unlike the crimes against Jews in Europe, which sprang out of thousands of years of calls to exterminate the Jewish people, anti-Semitic violence in the Palestine was more similar to the calls for violence against Mexican illegal immigrants into the US today....and of course, radicals joined the fray, as they always do on both sides, and it turned into a discussion about religions and cultures and hating whole peoples...sad situation, if you ask me. As long as "just kill more of them than they killed of us this time" is the best solution, it's not going to change.
That's not really the story. The British response to Jewish immigration set a precedent of appeasing the Arabs, which was followed for the duration of the Mandate. The British placed restrictions on Jewish immigration while allowing Arabs to enter the country freely. Apparently, London did not feel that a flood of Arab immigrants would affect the country's absorptive capacity.
During World War I, the Jewish population in Palestine declined because of the war, famine, disease and expulsion by the Turks. In 1915, approximately 83,000 Jews lived in Palestine among 590,000 Muslim and Christian Arabs. According to the 1922 census, the Jewish population was 84,000, while the Arabs numbered 643,000. Thus, the Arab population grew exponentially while that of the Jews stagnated.
In the mid-1920s, Jewish immigration to Palestine increased primarily because of anti-Jewish economic legislation in Poland and Washington’s imposition of restrictive quotas.
The record number of immigrants in 1935 (see table) was a response to the growing persecution of Jews in Nazi Germany. The British administration considered this number too large, however, so the Jewish Agency was informed that less than one-third of the quota it asked for would be approved in 1936.
The British gave in further to Arab demands by announcing in the 1939 White Paper that an independent Arab state would be created within 10 years, and that Jewish immigration was to be limited to 75,000 for the next five years, after which it was to cease altogether. It also forbade land sales to Jews in 95 percent of the territory of Palestine. The Arabs, nevertheless, rejected the proposal.
Jewish Immigrants to Palestine
1919 1,806
1920 8,223
1921 8,294
1922 8,685
1923 8,175
1924 13,892
1925 34,386
1926 13,855
1927 3,034
1928 2,178
1929 5,249
1930 4,944
1931 4,075
1932 12,533
1933 37,337
1934 45,267
1935 66,472
1936 29,595
1937 10,629
1938 14,675
1939 31,195
1940 10,643
1941 4,592
By contrast, throughout the Mandatory period, Arab immigration was unrestricted. In 1930, the Hope Simpson Commission, sent from London to investigate the 1929 Arab riots, said the British practice of ignoring the uncontrolled illegal Arab immigration from Egypt, Transjordan and Syria had the effect of displacing the prospective Jewish immigrants.
The British Governor of the Sinai from 1922-36 observed: “This illegal immigration was not only going on from the Sinai, but also from Transjordan and Syria, and it is very difficult to make a case out for the misery of the Arabs if at the same time their compatriots from adjoining states could not be kept from going in to share that misery.”
The Peel Commission reported in 1937 that the “shortfall of land is...due less to the amount of land acquired by Jews than to the increase in the Arab population.”
NineseveN
member
Cousin Mike said:
I don't think it was, but it is now. People tend to skim things more often than not and pick out the charged portions of a post. I was hoping you would clarify, you did and I appreciate it.
Again, clear as day, thank you for your time. Apparently you were not talking about anyone in this thread in particular, which I figured to be the case. But if that's the deal, then why bring it up at all? We're not the public at large. We purposefully seclude ourselves from Joe average because he just doesn't get it. While we all disagree on certain points, the one thing we hold true, and possibly of importance above all else, is the right to keep and bear arms. That makes us a subculture or our own little society, without all of our houses physically on the same street. I agree, folks on both sides get erratic when talkng about this in society, out and about. Some hate this group, some hate that group, some say this, some say that. I'd just ask that we try to focus on what's going on in this thread, I care little about the opinion of Joe public or even what we think of him in most cases, because he wants the government to take away our guns just as much as he wants Israel to nuke Palestine...then we know all we need to.
No disresepct intended.
seansean
Member
I don't know about you, but my world extends beyond this message board. Criticizing israel is a taboo topic, and in my life, off this board, I've seen friends of mine get very uncomfortable when the topic comes up. I was agreeing with what I think is the overall point of the post, which is essentially correct, to wit: We (The United States) should not be blindly supportive of israel or anyone else, for that matter.. I never said I was being censored by anyone here, or any other those other things. You're the one being dramatic and overreacting, and taking it personally for some reason. Why is that?NineseveN said:
Cousin Mike
Member
Not much for me to add, except I guess I should provide historical facts, details, links, essays and documents with every post 
Basically, to put it all in short, my humble opinion:
We're talking about a group of people who are a lot alike and have hated eachother for 5,000 years. I don't support one side over the other. I don't agree with one side over the other. I think they both do terrible things to eachother, and after thousands of years of fighting (figuratively) and decades of military conflict, it's hard for me to see who's right or wrong anymore.
Basically, to put it all in short, my humble opinion:
We're talking about a group of people who are a lot alike and have hated eachother for 5,000 years. I don't support one side over the other. I don't agree with one side over the other. I think they both do terrible things to eachother, and after thousands of years of fighting (figuratively) and decades of military conflict, it's hard for me to see who's right or wrong anymore.
model 649
Member
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2005
- Messages
- 544
On the radio today I heard a piece of a report that Iran is in the midst of a billion dollar deal with Russia to buy, among other things, missiles. The reporter didn't mention wether these missiles were large, guided, nuclear payload capable. Wonder if they were? Anyone else hear about this latest deal?
Josh
Josh
NineseveN
member
seansean said:
I'm not taking it personally, which is why I asked if I was taking you wrong, or did you miss that part? I don't particualrly think I attacked you in any way, if you feel i did, if you felt I insulted you, report it to a Moderator and let them decide. All I asked was that if you're going to argue someone's point on this board, what they said here, it's useless to interject what you see out in the world, unless that person's point is, "mainstream America thinks" such and such a way.
This is common problem that brings entire discussions quickly off-track:
Person A:
My opinion is that the people of Tribe X were wrong to make war with Tribe Y.
Person B:
Well, considering Tribe Y was encroaching the land of Tribe X and there's a lot tension between the two, I can understand why Tribe X would strike.
Person C:
Well, every time people try to discuss this in society, all I see is unconditional support for Tribe X when they are murderesr and instigators.
Person B:
How did they instigate?
Person D:
Every time we disucss this, it becomes taboo to discuss the acts that Tribe Y has committed.
Person A:
Huh? Who said anything about that?
Person B:
*blinks*
Person D:
You're a racist!
Whatever, like I said, just because I quote you doesn't mean I was attacking you. I asked that you clarify if I was wrong, you did, I was and I wasn't. Thank you.
Cousin Mike said:
Tell that to the Jews who lived in Hebron and Jerusalem and were massacred (man, woman, child) in the Arab riots instigated by Haj Amin El Husseini, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, in 1929 and the 1930s.
Cousin Mike said:
The "country of Palestine"? Who ruled it? Where was its capital? Where were it's borders?
in regards to earlier posts:
In 1967, yes, Israel did strike first--in response to the closing of the Straits of Tiran by Egypt. This was a Causus Belli specified in the 1965 armistice.
And in 1973? You want to tell me that Israel struck first?
I do not say that there are not poblems with Israel's policy vis-a-vis the Palestinians. But you statements are blatantly one sided.
As far as those who question the relationsip of the US and Israel--there is no question that Israel is quite dependent on US foreign aid. However, the US does get something in return-- a stable ally in an unstable, strategically significant area. In additin, the US has managed to make a number of strategic gains because of its partnership with Israel. I do not suggest that it is an even exchange. But it is not entirely one sided.
As to peace negotiation with the Palestinians (which, if anyone cares, I happen to favor) they were happily progressing until ONE SIDE decided to see if they could increase pressure by violence. This current phase of the shooting was started by one side, and it was not Israel. Israel's inital response (Sept 2000) was to destroy property--not people. It was only when these responses failed to stop the Palestinian attacks that Israel's response level was raised.
shootinstudent
Member
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2005
- Messages
- 786
The Palestinians were the majority (and had been for something like 1300 years) in that part, and they consented to different Arab migrations (which weren't as large as you imply.) They did not want European and Russian Jews having uncontrolled access, fearing that said Jews would not integrate into their society and would instead become a rebellious minority.
And of course, look at it from the Palestinian side: They were promised independence after a transition period from the Ottoman days, and the British were to rule on their behalf...what right did the British have to convert their home into a refugee-basin for European Jews, who didn't speak their language or share their culture?
I would appreciate in these posts if you'd add a link to your source material or a citation to the book you got it from, because it makes checking the work you rely on much easier.
shootinstudent said:
Shootinstudent, You could also provide some citations. For example, who promised the Palestinians independence? The "Palestine" was to be divided into Jewish and Arab states, true, but the original "Palsetine included what is now Jordan. Where was there provision for 2 Arab states in Palestine?
Please providce me for any evidence for any provision of an independent Arab state between the Jordan and Meditaranean. I submit to you that the clkosest that the Palestinians ever came to that accomplishment was during the time of the Oslo Accords, which the Palestinians abandoned in favor of the current intifada.
As far as the accusation that you made that Israel was not negotiationg in good faith at Camp David, I beg to differ. Your evidence of the current security wall is not applicable--such a wall was not contemplated at that time--it was a hastily drawn up response to the suicide bombings.
I would agree that a return to negotiations between Israelis and Paestinians is the best solution. (For transparency's sake--I am Israeli.) However, the Palestinian Authority has no ability to do this- Hamas and Islamic Jihad, and indeed, some of the militias associated with their own Fatah party, have refused to accept such negotiations and have mangaed to sabotage EVERY attempt at restarting them. Israel has made a comittment to resume negtiations at any time should these militias be disarmed--which the PA is unwilling or unable to do.
I am sure that we would all agree that it is within one's right to kill a suicide bomber attempting to kill as amany civilians as possible. If said suicide bomber is a retarded teenager (clearly incapable of making such decisions by himself), sent by a Hamas leader who then is openly paraded as a "leader" by Palestinian society-- well, it is difficult to negotiate with under those circumstances.
And, I do submit that there is a difference between Israeli and Palestinian actions. True, the loss of life on both sides is dreadful. However, in this conflict, the goal of the Palestinians has been to intentionally maximize civilian death. Abbas has never condemned the immorality of suicide bombings; he has simply denounced them as counterproductive to the Palestinian cause.
Israel, on the other hand does not intentionally cause civilian casualties. But when your enemy, who is launching rockets targeting civilian centers, deliberately chooses schools for launch sites, what is Israel to do? What would you do if your home town were targeted under those circumstances?
shootinstudent
Member
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2005
- Messages
- 786
Here's one such plan: http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/un/res181.htm
If you read through the original sources, you will find that every single party involved except for the Jewish Agency proposed an independent Palestinian state. http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/mideast/mideast.htm
There wasn't a single involved party that proposed anything other than a Palestinian state occupying a substantial piece of what is now Israel.
They are able to do this because the Palestinians have absolutely no confidence in Israeli good faith, and indeed, why would they? When have the Israelis conceded land to Palestinians? If the Israelis would deal with people like Abbas and go forward, leaving the militants out and not making decisions based on them, they would quickly lose legitimacy. Focusing on militants and retarding the peace process only gives them more ammunition to say "SEE! The Jews really aren't going to give you back your land!"
Well, until Abbas there was no popular representation to see what the Palestinian people wanted...and even Abbas's government isn't really democratic. Who knows what they would vote for? On the other hand, there have been independent radicals on the Israeli side who intentionally killed Palestinian civillians, like Baruch Goldstein, and Israeli soldiers have been caught doing similar things. There is hatred on both sides, and I think the fact that it is not state sanctioned in Israel is pretty good proof that having a stable, democratic government is the best way to prevent state-sanction slaughter. Let's hope the Palestinians can follow that lead...the whole middle east, even.
After the 6 Day War, Israel's leaders fully expected to negotiate a peace agreement with their neighbors that would involve some territorial compromise. Almost immediately after the war, Israel's leaders expressed their willingness to negotiate a return of at least some of the territories. Israel subsequently returned all of the Sinai to Egypt, territory claimed by Jordan was returned to the Hashemite Kingdom, and nearly all of the Gaza Strip and more than 40 percent of the West Bank was given to the Palestinians to establish the Palestinian Authority. To date, approximately 93 percent of the territories won in the defensive war have been given by Israel to its Arab neighbors as a result of negotiations. This demonstrates Israel's willingness to trade land for peace.
Look, if nukes might be flying, a lot of discussion about land seized in a war becomes moot.
San Diego was a vital WW II mobilization center, with many bases, training areas, and manufacturing plants that supported the war.
Yet, some people claim that it really ought to be a part of Mexico.
During WW II, did that REALLY matter (barring the Zoot Suit Riots, I guess)?
I'm going to purposely misappropriate a moonbat bumper sticker, because it's true: "War doesn't decide who's right, only who's left."
San Diego was a vital WW II mobilization center, with many bases, training areas, and manufacturing plants that supported the war.
Yet, some people claim that it really ought to be a part of Mexico.
During WW II, did that REALLY matter (barring the Zoot Suit Riots, I guess)?
I'm going to purposely misappropriate a moonbat bumper sticker, because it's true: "War doesn't decide who's right, only who's left."
Yes, the is hatred on both sides. But when people like Baruch Goldstein commit their acts (if they survive, which he did not) they are tried and convicted. Name one instnace of that occuring on the Palestinian side.
As far as the Palestinian side not being democratic prior to this, well, I agree. However, they now have their chance. Trouble is, that a large percentage of Paletinians polled (whether by Israeli, Palestinian, or other sources, say theat they would prefer the armed struggle to continue, even if there is a Palestinain State, until the State of Israel is wiped off the map. (This is not true of the Israeli side, a large majority subscribes to to the "land for peace" formula.) Now, will this be reflected in a Palestinian vote? You don't know, and neither do I. All we can do is hope for the best.
As far as lack of Palestinian confidence in Israeli good faith, I do assure you that the feeling is mutual. In the current intifada, the Palestinians broke every single one of the Olso accords that they had signed, whether respect for Jewish holy sites, return to armed conflict, or whatever. Yes, it is possible to blame Arafat for a good deal of this. But noone yet has repudiateed this. And again, the return to an armed congflict was definately unilateral on the Palestinain side (for awhile at least).
Yes, we also broke some of the Oslo accords, for example sending the Israeli military back into West Bank cities and restricting travel. But that was done in order to stop the plethora of suicide bombings- a long time afterr the intifada had reduced the Oslo accords to rubble. For example, several times the IDF rolled into towns bodering Bethlehem to stop rifle fire into Gilo. After a period of calm, the army withdrew. And the attacks started again. Same thing with towns like Nablus and Jenin-- the army rolls in, the suicide bombings abate. After a relative period of calm, the IDF withdraws. And the bombings start again. The only possible conclusion is that there is a significant fraction of Palestinian society that wishes to torpedo any period of calm and any return to talks. Until "mainstream" Palestinian society stops these people, it will be very difficult to return to the negotiation table. Now, of course there are Israelis who also want to torpedo any possiblitiy of a negotiated settlement. However, our societ deals with that pretty well. Look at the withdrawl from Gaza.
As far as the Palestinian side not being democratic prior to this, well, I agree. However, they now have their chance. Trouble is, that a large percentage of Paletinians polled (whether by Israeli, Palestinian, or other sources, say theat they would prefer the armed struggle to continue, even if there is a Palestinain State, until the State of Israel is wiped off the map. (This is not true of the Israeli side, a large majority subscribes to to the "land for peace" formula.) Now, will this be reflected in a Palestinian vote? You don't know, and neither do I. All we can do is hope for the best.
As far as lack of Palestinian confidence in Israeli good faith, I do assure you that the feeling is mutual. In the current intifada, the Palestinians broke every single one of the Olso accords that they had signed, whether respect for Jewish holy sites, return to armed conflict, or whatever. Yes, it is possible to blame Arafat for a good deal of this. But noone yet has repudiateed this. And again, the return to an armed congflict was definately unilateral on the Palestinain side (for awhile at least).
Yes, we also broke some of the Oslo accords, for example sending the Israeli military back into West Bank cities and restricting travel. But that was done in order to stop the plethora of suicide bombings- a long time afterr the intifada had reduced the Oslo accords to rubble. For example, several times the IDF rolled into towns bodering Bethlehem to stop rifle fire into Gilo. After a period of calm, the army withdrew. And the attacks started again. Same thing with towns like Nablus and Jenin-- the army rolls in, the suicide bombings abate. After a relative period of calm, the IDF withdraws. And the bombings start again. The only possible conclusion is that there is a significant fraction of Palestinian society that wishes to torpedo any period of calm and any return to talks. Until "mainstream" Palestinian society stops these people, it will be very difficult to return to the negotiation table. Now, of course there are Israelis who also want to torpedo any possiblitiy of a negotiated settlement. However, our societ deals with that pretty well. Look at the withdrawl from Gaza.
NineseveN
member
shaldag said:
No, I think you about summed it up.
- Status