4/14 Bush alters U.S. Israel policy in joint press conference with Sharon.
Bush praises Sharon's "historic and courageous" actions, and says the
U.S. does not support the Palestinian "right of return", and the U.S.
also supports the unilateral withdrawal of Israel behind its new wall.
Israelis and Palestinians would be separated in this disengagement.
Bush says he does not want the peace plan scrapped, but Palestinians
say it would be if Sharon followed through. Major newspapers say that
Bush "endorses" proposal in which Israel would unilaterally keep some
parts of the West Bank. (Sorry, this last sentence is getting revised
because the news sources are changing as well.)
\_ Sharon: unilateral withdrawal from most of occupied territories
which is exactly what the Palestinians say they wanted all along.
Right of return: no one ever mentions all the Jews displaced from
their homes in Arab countries. If Israel were to be flooded with
millions of returnees it would be the end of Israel. This is a
complete red herring and everyone involved knows this will never
be allowed to happen.
\_ Yes it is a red herring, but it has symbolic value to the
Palestinians, as it amounts to Israel admiting it shouldn't have
siezed the land. It might be a good compromise if Israel said
"Yes, you have a right of return, but only X-thousand per year,
and old people get priority. Oh, and only if you were born
there. No fiesty grandkids."
\_ Why should they do this? Are the Arabs letting Jews back in?
\_ In some countries, yes.
\_ Name them.
\_ then they kill them more easily
\_ A big issue is that the right of return has been considered
for decades as a point of negotiation, and in this sense, is
definitely not a "red herring". Bush just said, "No more
negotiating. Things have changed. Why can we do it?
'cause we can. Now, is anyone going to do anything about it?"
\_ Welcome to the way the world *really* works. Might really
does make right and there's no negotiating with terrorists.
\_ If you really believe that might makes right, then
why do you even use the word "terrorist?" Are you just
trying to score political points?
\_ Well, Republicans would say that Bush is demonstrating
leadership. Democrats would say Bush is being a dumbass.
leadership. Democrats would Bush is being a dumbass.
I suppose the truth lies in between.
The wall: if Indians or Mexicans were blowing shit up all over
California and Texas, you bet your ass there'd be a wall built
with 100% support in all 3 branches of government and every
opinion poll.
\_ yeah, except Mexico is a country, Palestine is not.
\_ Palestine is an invaded land taken over by evil Jews with the
help of imperialist rich white westerners for the purpose of
humiliating the justly proud Palestinian peoples! Huzzah!
\_ Bad troll, no cookie, see below.
\_ Pathetic attempt to avoid debating the subject.
\_ Why would it be "the end of Israel"? Couldn't Israel become
a multi-ethnic secular democracy, like the rest of the
civilized world?
Israel: evil sinful place that must be destroyed and replaced with
oppressive anti-democratic gun toting jack boot thugs to make the
world a better place. Any world with fewer Jews is a better world.
(That's your cookie, enjoy it).
\_ There is already a wall built to keep Mexicans out. I guess
Canadians are ok, though.
\_ There isn't a wall. You been to the border? It goes on and
on for hundreds of miles with no wall, no patrols, no nothing.
Maybe it depends on what your meaning of "wall" is. Is. eh?
\_ Have you been to San Diego? There is a wall that runs for
many miles. The wall isnt' 3000 miles long (yet) but it
certainly exists.
\_ If Mexico had invaded the United States and the US had beaten
them back and siezed the northernmost Mexican States, and then
the Mexicans living in those states had demanded return of the
land to Mexico, and the US had not only refused but had built
a wall solidifying its control of the best parts of all of the
land while the Mexicans living in those states had started
blowing shit up in California and Texas, then you might have
a reasonable analogy, but only tenuously.
\_ Hey history genius, where the hell do you think CA/TX came
from? The US invaded Mexico and *took* them and the Mexicans
are still pissed off about it and some even talk about a right
of return everytime immigration reform comes up. When you
read a 3rd grade history book you can come back and talk with
the grownups about grownups things. Jesus Christ, I don't
even know how to get across how deeply ignorant and stupid
your statements are. READ A BOOK, DAMN IT!
\_ If you read the book then you'd know that:
A) Texas seceded on its own from Mexico, then asked
for Union membership.
\_ Don't get your history from watching "The Alamo".
The europeans settled on Mexican territory, and
for Union membership.
then stole it. End of story.
B) Similar thing happend with California (ergo Bear
Republic).
C) Latinos were complicit in both events and supported
the secession.
\_ And they were right to do it. Compare Mexico
to America. Which political system would YOU
have wanted to live under for the last 100
years?
D) The U.S. actually paid Mexico after the U.S./Mexican
war for the land.
E) We purchased another chunk of Mexico for the
railroad during the Gadsen Purchase.
Perhaps you should dig yourself up a copy of
Nivens and Commager and actually read up on
factual 19th century US history.
--williamc
\_ See, here's the part I enjoy: you didn't read my post, or
you'd've seen where I said "If Mexico had invaded the
United States." For a literate monkey, you're still
pretty illiterate.
\_ Uhm, actually he did. You're still an idiot (and
woefully ignorant to boot). You REALLY need to read
that 3rd grade history text, chum.
\_ Oh, gawd, now I'm in a "yes-he-did, no-he-didn't"
argument with two morons. The US invaded Mexico,
yes, I knew that. To make the analogy work, though,
you have to have Mexico (i.e., the Arab nations)
invade the US (i.e., Israel). THEN the ass-kicking
occurs, and THEN the landgrab occurs (rightfully
so, IMO). The US-Mexico situation lacks the Mexico
as instigator component that makes Israel look
down-right commendable.
\_ See, the original proclamation of a Jewish state
was unjust. Imagine if a bunch of Mexicans come
and proclaim a new "American state" based on the
historical Indian presence (even if historically
it was small and over 1000 years ago, and a part
of larger empires normally). Oh and the new state
grants secondary status to people not of this
group. There's no justification for a "Jewish
state" as such, theocracy is a cultural issue and
needs to stay that way. History shows what an
absolute tragedy it is when theocracy gets into
government. (c.f. collapse of greco-roman
civilization, Muslim stagnation, European dark
ages, south american human sacrifice etc.).
\_ By that logic, there are no just
states today. US is certainly not, they
seceded in armed conflict. Most
countries are a very recent development, and
if not, their borders certainly were created
as a result of injust historical processes:
armed conflict, dynastic inheritance, colonial
aggression, etc. Show me one just state.
-- ilyas
\_ Some of the Greek city-states formed
voluntary alliances. There's also a
distinction between armed secession and
armed conquest. Having said that, the
problem with Israel wasn't the state per se,
as some kind of state was being implemented
anyway, but the forced expulsions of the
existing occupants and subsequent problems.
This is not a staple feature of most other
countries, even if there are obviously
many examples.
\_ 'Staple feature'? What does that
even mean? The character of
many modern countries was _defined_
by the mass expulsions they performed,
the example which is closest is
obviously the Spanish Reconquista, where
essentially all the muslim population of
Spain was either converted at the point
of the sword or driven off into Africa.
Then there is the US and native Americans,
the expulsion of Jews from Germany (Germany
is still trying to get a sizeable Jewish
population), etc, etc, etc. Why are
you singling out Israel? Clarification
of original question: show me one just
state existing today. -- ilyas
Most of Europe was converted at point of the sword. _/
They were a bunch of pagans. That doesn't make it right.
Israel can easily be "singled out" because it's happening
in our time, in an age when we are well informed and have
and have international structures to try to prevent such
things. Germany wasn't created by the expulsion of Jews,
and besides, everyone agrees that the Nazi nation wasn't
just. It wasn't just German Jews they picked on either
I already stated there are many other examples (Turkey
is a big one IMO). But we seem to concern ourselves
with other such things like Kuwait or Serbia (or how
with other such things like Kuwait or Serbia (or how
about that Nazi Germany) so why are you singling out
Israel for exemption from criticism?
about that Nazi Germany) so why are you singling out
Israel for exemption from criticism? Oh and the Moors
conquered Spain first. And Germany was formed from the
union of Germanic kingdoms (yeah, those tribes probably
pushed some celts out or something, just like various
slavs pushed out germanics)
\_ Not at all. I don't claim Israel should be exempt
from criticism, but using the 'injust state' as
a rationalization for any sort of action will simply
not work. All modern states are 'injust.' The same
argument applies with equal force to them. I suggest
starting in alphabetical order instead of with the
letter 'i'. Also, Israel is a democratic state,
civilization, Muslim stagnation, European dark
ages, south american human sacrifice etc.).
of original question: show me one just
state existing today. -- ilyas
not work. All modern states are 'injust.' The same
argument applies with equal force to them. I suggest
starting in alphabetical order instead of with the
letter 'i'. -- ilyas
despite its injust roots, just as the US and Britain
are. We are not recommending returning large parts
of the US back to the native americans, or large
parts of Britain back to the Celts. Why is Israel
different? -- ilyas
\_ Israel's still occupying extra territories. Anyway
the point of the "not just" comment was in response
to some guy justifying Israel's land grabs. I never
said the main part of Israel should be given back.
\_ Then it seems you and the Palestinian Authority
are at odds. Look at their flag (or seal).
Note the all-of-israel-shaped silhouette with
Palestinian colors. They explicitly want it all.
-- ilyas
The US still occupies Native American land.
Surely you don't imply that just because the
landgrab happened some time ago, and there are
less indians left that it's suddenly ok for US
to keep the land, but not ok for Israel? You
can't pick and choose. -- ilyas
\_ Last desperate act of a man who knows he is going down. He will
pull a Johnson any minute now.
\_ Ok, i'll bite. What exactly does "pull a Johnson" mean?
\_ Pull the other one, mate, 's got bells on it.
\_ Uhhuhuhu huhhuu huhuuh. He said "pull my Johnson." Huh huh.
\_ "With America's sons in the fields far away, with America's
future under challenge right here at home, with our hopes
and the world's hopes for peace in the balance every day,
I do not believe that I should devote an hour or a day of
my time to any personal partisan causes or to any duties
other than the awesome duties of this office - the
round, maybe kill a few people, and then run away.
of interests.)
so don't care if they can be long gone.
Presidency of your country.
Accordingly, I shall not seek, and I will not accept,
round, kill a bunch of innocent Israelis, and then run away.
the nomination of my party for another term as your
President."
Of course, that was a real President, not a phoney pretender.
\_ Johnson? As in LBJ? I take it your definition of a "
real President" is a disgusting liar who screwed this
country 60 ways from Sunday. Quite frankly, I'd take
Bush over LBJ anyday. Heck, I'd take Gore, Nixion,
and most lower life forms. (Excluding viri and
bacteria dangerous to Human health. We have a conflict
of interests.)
\_ "viri" isn't a word.
\_ "viruses" is the plural "virus," and "viri"
is an abbreviation from latin slang meaning
"i'm a pompous ass computer geek."
\_ Israel belongs to the Jews. Read Genesis 17.
\_ The reason the "peace process" will end is the leverage the
Palestinians had (blowing up Israelis) will be gone.
\_ Why aren't the Palestinians using mortars? Just lob a few and
run away. By the time they land and the IDF finds out where you
launched from, you can be long gone.
\_ a) they don't have them b) if they did, they'd get caught
running around with them c) even if no one got caught, IDF
exacts punishment on entire area d) they're suicidal anyway
so don't care if they can be long gone.
\_ the idea is that you're much bigger to have killed yourself
and others in a "spectacular" attack, rather than lob a
round, maybe kill a few people, and then run away. |
http://csua.com/feed/