Israel pushes plans for 3000 new settlements

[Yamato]

Making friends isn't likely, regardless what they do. I believe they take advantage of every opportunity that the Palestinians give them. If RIGHT NOW in the midst of this bluster about new construction (not a hammer has swung yet) the Palestinians agreed to sit down and talk about EVERYTHING and have it mediated by an international committee of some sort then they could probably do more to stop construction that they ever will by their current tack. But the truth is that any Palestinian leader who agrees to ANY concessions that do not include right of return is just signing his own death warrant. The Palestinians have ridden the dragon so far and so long that if they try to get off his back now he'll turn and consume them.

Talking with criminals about understanding their crime as a means of crime deterrence? Imagine that!

The reason these settlements exist isn't because some Palestinian leader didn't talk, or rode the "dragon". (dragon?)

The reason for the settlements is the theft of property. As Israel is also depriving Palestinians of freedom on their own land, the best justification for war is self evident, so I will never chide Palestinians for defending their homes, families, freedom, and country. Palestinian weapons are so primitive, their defense might be purely psychological but winning psychologically is the only way to win a brutal conflict against tyranny like this in the end. Keeping their chins up and their hearts whole might be their greatest weapon of all if it's the last they can hold onto.

[+and-then]

Talking with criminals about understanding their crime as a means of crime deterrence? Imagine that!

The reason these settlements exist isn't because some Palestinian leader didn't talk, or rode the "dragon". (dragon?)

The reason for the settlements is the theft of property. As Israel is also depriving Palestinians of freedom on their own land, the best justification for war is self evident, so I will never chide Palestinians for defending their homes, families, freedom, and country. Palestinian weapons are so primitive, their defense might be purely psychological but winning psychologically is the only way to win a brutal conflict against tyranny like this in the end. Keeping their chins up and their hearts whole might be their greatest weapon of all if it's the last they can hold onto.

The dragon is the hellish hate they (the leaders) have used to stoke anger and give themselves power. Recently Abbas made an offhand (maybe) comment about seeing his old home and then saying ti wasn't really his any longer - I paraphrase - but his meaning seemed to be a nod to the reality of surrendering the right of return. He was INSTANTLY and widely vilified and threatened. Do you believe an agreement can be made that will include the Palestinians giving up this "right"?

[Yamato]

The dragon is the hellish hate they (the leaders) have used to stoke anger and give themselves power. Recently Abbas made an offhand (maybe) comment about seeing his old home and then saying ti wasn't really his any longer - I paraphrase - but his meaning seemed to be a nod to the reality of surrendering the right of return. He was INSTANTLY and widely vilified and threatened. Do you believe an agreement can be made that will include the Palestinians giving up this "right"?

So long as we can't reach the people through their leaders this problem will never end. The leaders don't have a monopoly on hate. Settlers hate Palestinians and Palestinians hate settlers. And when we accept government shenanigans that make this oppression possible we are doing our guilty part in perpetrating it. The Israeli regime deserves no support, no respect, and no cooperation. Shamelessly funding it, arming it, and providing political cover for it that only the US has been brainwashed into doing makes us responsible. I have to continuously remind people, we are not responsible for the world and severing our government's role in this nightmare is the way we get our taxpayers off the hook.

It's time we reassess our policies and no longer endanger our people. 3,000 dead on 9/11/2001 are the horrific result of this clueless sheep herd support for Israel. Enough blood, enough treasure.

[+and-then]

So long as we can't reach the people through their leaders this problem will never end. The leaders don't have a monopoly on hate. Settlers hate Palestinians and Palestinians hate settlers. And when we accept government shenanigans that make this oppression possible we are doing our guilty part in perpetrating it. The Israeli regime deserves no support, no respect, and no cooperation. Shamelessly funding it, arming it, and providing political cover for it that only the US has been brainwashed into doing makes us responsible. I have to continuously remind people, we are not responsible for the world and severing our government's role in this nightmare is the way we get our taxpayers off the hook.

It's time we reassess our policies and no longer endanger our people. 3,000 dead on 9/11/2001 are the horrific result of this clueless sheep herd support for Israel. Enough blood, enough treasure.

Some day - possibly soon - our government just may take your advice. Then we'll get to see how it all works out. You know my mind on this. I think it puts them in a corner to too great an extent but who knows? Maybe they won't need to use a nuke to defend themselves. But if all their neighbors break bad on them at the same time I wouldn't bet on it.

[WHO U KIDDIN]

So long as we can't reach the people through their leaders this problem will never end. The leaders don't have a monopoly on hate. Settlers hate Palestinians and Palestinians hate settlers. And when we accept government shenanigans that make this oppression possible we are doing our guilty part in perpetrating it. The Israeli regime deserves no support, no respect, and no cooperation. Shamelessly funding it, arming it, and providing political cover for it that only the US has been brainwashed into doing makes us responsible. I have to continuously remind people, we are not responsible for the world and severing our government's role in this nightmare is the way we get our taxpayers off the hook.

It's time we reassess our policies and no longer endanger our people. 3,000 dead on 9/11/2001 are the horrific result of this clueless sheep herd support for Israel. Enough blood, enough treasure.

14 UNSC members slam settlement plans; US mum

By HERB KEINON, MELANIE LIDMAN

12/19/2012 22:26

France, Britain, Germany, Portugal issue joint statement expressing "extreme concern" over construction plans in E1.

The US prevented a UN Security Council condemnation of Israel on Wednesday over a spate of settlement construction decisions, leading the other 14 countries on the 15-member council to issue separate condemnations of their own instead....

The statement said that “the viability of a two-state solution is threatened by systematic expansion of settlements,” and that “all settlement activity, including in east Jerusalem, must cease immediately.”...

http://www.jpost.com....aspx?id=296634

The USA this past Wednesday 12/19 vetoed the UN Security Council condemnation on Israeli plans for expansion of illegal settlements.

Agreed Yam, it's time the USA reassess its policies in regards to Israel. These policies have only lead to death for America's youth and the bankruptcy of our economy, and have overall damaged the USA's relations with the rest of the world.

I recently posted a Newsweek article in this thread that stated the USA was to pursue a new policy towards Israel which they labelled 'Benign Neglect'.

But as the recent USA veto in the UN demonstrates, 'it ain't happening any time soon'.

Edited December 22, 2012 by WHO U KIDDIN

[+and-then]

The irony I see in this situation is that the restraint the Israelis have shown up to now in not building on land that is their's (according to their beliefs)may be lost once they have had actual sanctions imposed. I can foresee a time when Israel's government could get into an extended "pushing match" back and forth over this issue and eventually just go ahead and annex the areas in question. What would the world do? Iran is surviving just fine, thank you, with the worst sanctions ever imposed by the world. Who says Israel couldn't? They could actually begin a process of expelling the Gazans block by block if they wanted to. Would the Arab nations unite and attack? They won't even do that against someone slaughtering Arab children -someone who doesn't have nukes. And even if they did - wouldn't that just start a major regional war that everyone has been trying to keep at bay for decades? There is merit to both sides and to ask that one side be "bulldozed" into the demands of the other without negotiation is wrong and impractical. THESE dems and repubs kill as second nature.

[Guest]

Israel has not shown restraint - it has been building in the occupied territories since it existed.

If I came to your back garden and claimed a religious right to build on it - maybe you would defend your land with your guns.

There is no fundamental difference here and only a twisted world view allows you to justify the building of settlements in occupied Palestine.

Br Cornelius

[+and-then]

Israel has not shown restraint - it has been building in the occupied territories since it existed.

If I came to your back garden and claimed a religious right to build on it - maybe you would defend your land with your guns.

There is no fundamental difference here and only a twisted world view allows you to justify the building of settlements in occupied Palestine.

Br Cornelius

When the world tells me the land is no longer all mine, but that I must share it then I would decide whether and who to attack to defend my land. Israel did not invade this land - it was given to them. Then they gained more in defensive wars. The fact that a state cannot legally keep land gained in a defensive war is wrong IMO. I understand not being allowed to keep land as a benefit of violent adventurism, but Israel has not done so. They attacked preemptively in '67 because of divisions of forward mobilized Egyptians AND the closing of an international waterway at the straights of Tiran. Nasser and every other Arab leader out there in Jordan and Syria, Iraq and Lebanon, etc. were using warlike rhetoric against Israel. Historical records show the intentions of preemptive attack by the Egyptians...they just hesitated too long. You can call the land occupied as long as you like. But if the Arab armies had preempted and won then there would have been no conflict today - just a slightly larger Arab nation (s) with a few more citizens. The issue of a nation called "Palestine" would have never existed but for the hatred for the Jews of Israel. You can boycott, divest, spread propaganda and even lies ad infinitum but the land is inhabited by people willing to die for it. I doubt that anyone will ever just "talk them to death".

[Yamato]

Israel did not invade this land - it was given to them.

But you can't have it both ways. If the UN has legitimacy then Israel is in violation of more legitimate resolutions than all other countries of the Middle East combined. That isn't arguing that Israel's land isn't Israel's. That's the consistent argument that recognizes the legitimacy of the UN. The UN's legitimacy doesn't emanate from Israel. But you want to have your cake and eat it too. You want to believe that the UN had the authority to give land away and create a new nation out of it, then you can't also believe that nothing else that bureaucracy did after that point has any weight or consequence. Israel, while we're agreeing with the existence of the nation, should also be held accountable for the resolutions it's in violation of. Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq was invaded, occupied, forcibly removed from power and he was ultimately executed by the new government for violating UN resolutions. If that's a legal pretense for war, a coalition of the willing to invade Israel would be on the table for discussion.

And Palestine too, was birthed by the same process and if we respect that Israel was given land we must be consistent and respect that Palestine was too. You can't side with the one nation that's in violation of the international law they needed to exist and forget that a 2nd nation was created by the same legal process that wasn't a nation that invaded Israel when you speak of Israel's defensive wars, forgiving the fact that the ENTIRE REGION voted NO on the creation of BOTH states. This habit of blaming Palestinians for all manner of crap they had nothing to do with is perpetual in the Zionist spin room.

[+and-then]

But you can't have it both ways. If the UN has legitimacy then Israel is in violation of more legitimate resolutions than all other countries of the Middle East combined. That isn't arguing that Israel's land isn't Israel's. That's the consistent argument that recognizes the legitimacy of the UN. The UN's legitimacy doesn't emanate from Israel. But you want to have your cake and eat it too. You want to believe that the UN had the authority to give land away and create a new nation out of it, then you can't also believe that nothing else that bureaucracy did after that point has any weight or consequence. Israel, while we're agreeing with the existence of the nation, should also be held accountable for the resolutions it's in violation of. Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq was invaded, occupied, forcibly removed from power and he was ultimately executed by the new government for violating UN resolutions. If that's a legal pretense for war, a coalition of the willing to invade Israel would be on the table for discussion.

And Palestine too, was birthed by the same process and if we respect that Israel was given land we must be consistent and respect that Palestine was too. You can't side with the one nation that's in violation of the international law they needed to exist and forget that a 2nd nation was created by the same legal process that wasn't a nation that invaded Israel when you speak of Israel's defensive wars, forgiving the fact that the ENTIRE REGION voted NO on the creation of BOTH states. This habit of blaming Palestinians for all manner of crap they had nothing to do with is perpetual in the Zionist spin room.

I believe this is on store for the future. As to the ridiculous number of statements made against Israel since it's founding I see that as ample evidence of the general spirit of hatred against this state. If Israel had bent to the wishes of these agenda driven resolutions then the state would have ceased to exist by now. It would have been laid vulnerable to those who have OPENLY AND REPEATEDLY vowed it's destruction. But I believe that in course of time the scenario you mentioned will happen. A coalition of the willing will come. How all that works out can be found in Ezekiel's book - chapters 38/39.

[Yamato]

I believe this is on store for the future. As to the ridiculous number of statements made against Israel since it's founding I see that as ample evidence of the general spirit of hatred against this state. If Israel had bent to the wishes of these agenda driven resolutions then the state would have ceased to exist by now. It would have been laid vulnerable to those who have OPENLY AND REPEATEDLY vowed it's destruction. But I believe that in course of time the scenario you mentioned will happen. A coalition of the willing will come. How all that works out can be found in Ezekiel's book - chapters 38/39.

Israel is allegedly a nuclear power and nuclear powers aren't invaded so with zero precedent it doesn't appear plausible. I'd weigh in at the table against that bet.

Hatred goes both ways. Focusing on hatred, especially that on one side of the conflict, isn't going to produce any viable solution when there's enough of that for everyone. Making decisions on emotions like fear and hatred will lead to the worst results; it's bad enough for individuals, it's many orders of magnitude worse when it's used as the justification for a policy and forced on people by government.

[WHO U KIDDIN]

Bethlehem Christians feel the squeeze as Israeli settlements spread

Near a biblical landscape of donkeys and olive trees, homes are being built and Palestinian Christians fear for their future

...

But this terrain will soon be covered in concrete after the authorisation last week of the construction of more than 2,600 homes in Givat Hamatos, the first new Israeli settlement to be built since 1997.

It lies between two existing settlements: Gilo, home to 40,000 people, sits atop one hill; to its east, on another hill, stands Har Homa, whose population is around 20,000, with further expansion in the pipeline. Both are largely built on Bethlehem land...

In the birthplace of Jesus, the impact of Israeli settlements and their growth has been devastating. In a Christmas message, the Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas said Bethlehem was enduring a "choking reality"

He added: "For the first time in 2,000 years of Christianity in our homeland, the Holy Cities of Bethlehem and Jerusalem have been completely separated by Israeli settlements, racist walls and checkpoints."...

On the other side of Bethlehem, another mainly Christian community is also facing a battle, this one against the planned route of the separation barrier. Under present proposals it will cut off 58 families, plus a monastery and convent, from their land. The monks and nuns of Cremisan have joined forces with residents to fight a legal battle over the route, which will be decided in the Israeli courts early next year....

About two-thirds of the 400-mile West Bank barrier is complete; 85% of its route runs inside the West Bank, swallowing almost 8.5% of Palestinian land. In 2004, the International Court of Justice ruled it was illegal and that construction must stop....

Read: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/dec/23/bethlehem-christians-feel-squeeze-settlements

[+and-then]

Bethlehem Christians feel the squeeze as Israeli settlements spread

Near a biblical landscape of donkeys and olive trees, homes are being built and Palestinian Christians fear for their future

...

But this terrain will soon be covered in concrete after the authorisation last week of the construction of more than 2,600 homes in Givat Hamatos, the first new Israeli settlement to be built since 1997.

It lies between two existing settlements: Gilo, home to 40,000 people, sits atop one hill; to its east, on another hill, stands Har Homa, whose population is around 20,000, with further expansion in the pipeline. Both are largely built on Bethlehem land...

In the birthplace of Jesus, the impact of Israeli settlements and their growth has been devastating. In a Christmas message, the Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas said Bethlehem was enduring a "choking reality"

He added: "For the first time in 2,000 years of Christianity in our homeland, the Holy Cities of Bethlehem and Jerusalem have been completely separated by Israeli settlements, racist walls and checkpoints."...

On the other side of Bethlehem, another mainly Christian community is also facing a battle, this one against the planned route of the separation barrier. Under present proposals it will cut off 58 families, plus a monastery and convent, from their land. The monks and nuns of Cremisan have joined forces with residents to fight a legal battle over the route, which will be decided in the Israeli courts early next year....

About two-thirds of the 400-mile West Bank barrier is complete; 85% of its route runs inside the West Bank, swallowing almost 8.5% of Palestinian land. In 2004, the International Court of Justice ruled it was illegal and that construction must stop....

Read: http://www.guardian....eze-settlements

Netanyahu has said repeatedly that he is willing to meet in Ramallah immediately to begin negotiations. Abbas is insisting on the precondition that settlement activity stop first. The Israelis seem to be taking full advantage of Abbas' and Hamas' intransigence on the issue to continue to change facts on the ground. So doesn't it make more sense that Abbas should just agree to meet him? What harm can be done? Is it not possible that such an act would deflate Netanyahu's ability to continue building at the current pace? Is it not at least worth trying? Or is it just possible that Abbas makes no such effort because he knows that ending the conflict would also end himself and the PLO's power? The Israeli politicians are being counter productive to continue to allow building but they have a constituency to listen to as well. Abbas and Hamas COULD cause a change in Israel's behavior if they took the simple action of sitting down. But they won't. That tells me they believe their best chance is through conflict. Why would that be so? I think it's because of their willing supporters in the west who keep encouraging them. It's shameful to give them the false hope that they someday will be allowed to take all of the land that Israel currently sits on. And those who do it will be just as responsible for the spilled blood as those who set off the explosives or pull the triggers.

[WHO U KIDDIN]

Netanyahu has said repeatedly that he is willing to meet in Ramallah immediately to begin negotiations. Abbas is insisting on the precondition that settlement activity stop first. The Israelis seem to be taking full advantage of Abbas' and Hamas' intransigence on the issue to continue to change facts on the ground. So doesn't it make more sense that Abbas should just agree to meet him? What harm can be done? Is it not possible that such an act would deflate Netanyahu's ability to continue building at the current pace? Is it not at least worth trying? Or is it just possible that Abbas makes no such effort because he knows that ending the conflict would also end himself and the PLO's power? The Israeli politicians are being counter productive to continue to allow building but they have a constituency to listen to as well. Abbas and Hamas COULD cause a change in Israel's behavior if they took the simple action of sitting down. But they won't. That tells me they believe their best chance is through conflict. Why would that be so? I think it's because of their willing supporters in the west who keep encouraging them. It's shameful to give them the false hope that they someday will be allowed to take all of the land that Israel currently sits on. And those who do it will be just as responsible for the spilled blood as those who set off the explosives or pull the triggers.

First Netanyahu is not willing to negotiate with the Palestinians, only the blind cannot see that.

From a Newsweek article entitled 'Why Obama Will Ignore Israel': Senior administration officials believe the Israeli leader has no interest in the wrenching compromises necessary to birth a viable Palestinian state. Instead, they believe, he wants the façade of a peace process because it insulates him from international pressure.

Second to negotiate in good faith means a freeze on all current and future settlement building. Israeli settlements on Palestinian lands must stop all construction, there are no ifs and buts.

International law is clear and unambiguous. Israeli settlements on occupied lands are illegal.

Fourth Geneva's Article 49 states:

"Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive."...

Third if Abbas believed that his best chances were through conflict why has the West Bank not exploded like Gaza since 2005?

Instead the Palestinians living there for the most part have turned to peaceful protests in solidarity with people from around the world, as Israeli bulldozers continuously destroy olive grooves and villages in their expansion of settlements on Palestinian land. Meanwhile gaining worldwide sympathy for the Palestinian cause, and acceptance into the UN with observer status, where perhaps once and for all this whole mess may be finally resolved.

[+and-then]

First Netanyahu is not willing to negotiate with the Palestinians, only the blind cannot see that.

From a Newsweek article entitled 'Why Obama Will Ignore Israel': Senior administration officials believe the Israeli leader has no interest in the wrenching compromises necessary to birth a viable Palestinian state. Instead, they believe, he wants the façade of a peace process because it insulates him from international pressure.

Second to negotiate in good faith means a freeze on all current and future settlement building. Israeli settlements on Palestinian lands must stop all construction, there are no ifs and buts.

International law is clear and unambiguous. Israeli settlements on occupied lands are illegal.

Fourth Geneva's Article 49 states:

"Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive."...

Third if Abbas believed that his best chances were through conflict why has the West Bank not exploded like Gaza since 2005?

Instead the Palestinians living there for the most part have turned to peaceful protests in solidarity with people from around the world, as Israeli bulldozers continuously destroy olive grooves and villages in their expansion of settlements on Palestinian land. Meanwhile gaining worldwide sympathy for the Palestinian cause, and acceptance into the UN with observer status, where perhaps once and for all this whole mess may be finally resolved.

All Abbas has to do is to accept the offer to sit at the table and if YOU are correct then Netanyahu will look like a fool and a warmonger. So why not just sit down at the table? If the settlements are being constructed anyway (as they are) then what does Abbas have to lose, just to talk? Talking sets no legal precedent that would cause the Palestinians loss. And even if you are correct and the international community decrees that Israeli construction is legal, what progress is to be made by refusing to talk? The status quo remains and that means the building continues. Bottom line seems that you and the Palestinians both have an irrational expectation that the world is someday just going to solve this problem by coercion or force.

[Yamato]

All Abbas has to do is to accept the offer to sit at the table and if YOU are correct then Netanyahu will look like a fool and a warmonger. So why not just sit down at the table? If the settlements are being constructed anyway (as they are) then what does Abbas have to lose, just to talk? Talking sets no legal precedent that would cause the Palestinians loss. And even if you are correct and the international community decrees that Israeli construction is legal, what progress is to be made by refusing to talk? The status quo remains and that means the building continues. Bottom line seems that you and the Palestinians both have an irrational expectation that the world is someday just going to solve this problem by coercion or force.

Let all international press into the room when they sit down at the table then. No more closed back room deals and sweetheart bribes between bureaucrats that we're then told by our respective medias after the fact what supposedly happened. Let's open the roof and let the sunshine in. It doesn't matter who looks like what. It matters that all of the people on all sides see what their leaders are doing. I also don't see this as an opportunity for the people to sit and wait for what their leaders talk up next, but what to do next, which may include what to do next about their leaders.

As for the building, I've seen far less pretext for war than that; including just war. It's expecting a lot to get someone to sit down at a table and talk about it. If peoples' homes were being bulldozed by authorities in this country, I would support them whether their rifles came out their windows or not. If we can't even respect property rights, we can't respect liberty.

[+and-then]

Let all international press into the room when they sit down at the table then. No more closed back room deals and sweetheart bribes between bureaucrats that we're then told by our respective medias after the fact what supposedly happened. Let's open the roof and let the sunshine in. It doesn't matter who looks like what. It matters that all of the people on all sides see what their leaders are doing. I also don't see this as an opportunity for the people to sit and wait for what their leaders talk up next, but what to do next, which may include what to do next about their leaders.

As for the building, I've seen far less pretext for war than that; including just war. It's expecting a lot to get someone to sit down at a table and talk about it. If peoples' homes were being bulldozed by authorities in this country, I would support them whether their rifles came out their windows or not. If we can't even respect property rights, we can't respect liberty.

I am NOT turning a blind eye to OR supporting the justification of more settlements. I'm simply saying that if Abbas refused to stop trying based on that insult/assault then it would be a gambit to force Netanyahu to put up or shut up. It would give Abbas the gravitas of peacemaker and reasonable leader (important) and it would cause movement of some kind in the process - hopefully in a positive direction. As to who sits at the table - it shouldn't matter as long as everyone who is really involved in decisions on the ground is included. Hamas can derail with rockets so they need a few chairs. The PA of course... and anyone else from any country that has a vested interest to move the process along. But ultimately the decision to stop the bloodletting has to come from those who've been doing the blood letting.

[Yamato]

I am NOT turning a blind eye to OR supporting the justification of more settlements. I'm simply saying that if Abbas refused to stop trying based on that insult/assault then it would be a gambit to force Netanyahu to put up or shut up. It would give Abbas the gravitas of peacemaker and reasonable leader (important) and it would cause movement of some kind in the process - hopefully in a positive direction. As to who sits at the table - it shouldn't matter as long as everyone who is really involved in decisions on the ground is included. Hamas can derail with rockets so they need a few chairs. The PA of course... and anyone else from any country that has a vested interest to move the process along. But ultimately the decision to stop the bloodletting has to come from those who've been doing the blood letting.

I won't limit the sources of where humanity's self-determination comes from; I'll accept any and all sources, even unexpected and unpredictable ones. If freedom comes by AK-47 or a handshake, then so be it.

[+and-then]

I won't limit the sources of where humanity's self-determination comes from; I'll accept any and all sources, even unexpected and unpredictable ones. If freedom comes by AK-47 or a handshake, then so be it.

It's not 1776 any longer Yam. If we don't soon get this right we would end ourselves. This is my primary reason for ranting about an Iranian bomb. It isn't just Iran, it's the idea that it's "just" for all nations to have one. All nations don't have the stability to protect or reasonably handle the power that comes with them. Eventually some tinpot or religious nut job is going to start a fire for independence that will nearly burn the world down. I think it's inevitable - the only variable is how much time we can buy before it comes upon us.

[Yamato]

It's not 1776 any longer Yam. If we don't soon get this right we would end ourselves. This is my primary reason for ranting about an Iranian bomb. It isn't just Iran, it's the idea that it's "just" for all nations to have one. All nations don't have the stability to protect or reasonably handle the power that comes with them. Eventually some tinpot or religious nut job is going to start a fire for independence that will nearly burn the world down. I think it's inevitable - the only variable is how much time we can buy before it comes upon us.

Self defense is what's just. If nuclear weapons are necessary for self defense, then that's the atmosphere put upon the world by the nations who already have them. I don't piddle over Iran to the exclusion of all other nations, especially the ones who already have nukes. The security of Russia's arsenals are a far greater security threat than Ahmadinejad mythology.

Anyway this thread isn't about an Iranian bomb; there are plenty of other threads covering that.

[+and-then]

Self defense is what's just. If nuclear weapons are necessary for self defense, then that's the atmosphere put upon the world by the nations who already have them. I don't piddle over Iran to the exclusion of all other nations, especially the ones who already have nukes. The security of Russia's arsenals are a far greater security threat than Ahmadinejad mythology.

Anyway this thread isn't about an Iranian bomb; there are plenty of other threads covering that.

And I did not intend to derail - just making the point that since the status quo is unmoved for decades then maybe if the Palestinians gave a bit - like Israel did in 2008 with the ten month moratorium... then maybe - just maybe - some progress can be made. But while they see Europeans and Americans beginning to line up in support then why not wait and see? Maybe they can have all their desire yet. It's insane.

[Yamato]

And I did not intend to derail - just making the point that since the status quo is unmoved for decades then maybe if the Palestinians gave a bit - like Israel did in 2008 with the ten month moratorium... then maybe - just maybe - some progress can be made. But while they see Europeans and Americans beginning to line up in support then why not wait and see? Maybe they can have all their desire yet. It's insane.

If a burglar gave me a 10-minute reprieve to sit down and talk about his crimes against my property before his burglarizing continued, I'd talk to him with a magnum slug.

[+and-then]

If a burglar gave me a 10-minute reprieve to sit down and talk about his crimes against my property before his burglarizing continued, I'd talk to him with a magnum slug.

So what outcome do you foresee then? Don't punt.... take it to logical conclusion(s).

[Yamato]

So what outcome do you foresee then? Don't punt.... take it to logical conclusion(s).

Knowing what I would do personally doesn't presume I can foresee the outcome.

But as I've said before, I see the end of the Zionist regime before the Apocalypse. I predict this last colony will go out with a whimper not a bang, and the heaviest factor in that process will be the Israeli and American people.

[WHO U KIDDIN]

Israel to change route of separation fence near Jerusalem to cut off Palestinians from E-1 area

Defense Minister Ehud Barak has decided to close the breach in the barrier between Jerusalem and Ma'aleh Adumim, which will leave residents of Al-Zaim cut off by a fence to the east and by a wall to the west.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/national/israel-to-change-route-of-separation-fence-near-jerusalem-to-cut-off-palestinians-from-e-1-area.premium-1.495178

The apartheid walls continue going up, and more Palestinian land is being stolen daily.

And even when the Palestinians peacefully demonstrate on their own land they are removed and jailed by the Israeli authorities:

Israel removes Palestinian protest camp outside Jerusalem

Tent city pitched near Beit Iksa just a week after Israel evacuated Palestinian encampment in E-1.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/israel-removes-palestinian-protest-camp-outside-jerusalem-1.495335