Senate Israel/Palestine

You have absolutely no idea what you'd support or not support in this situation. You can't take your current personality and values as granted for any background you might potentially have had.

 

Not that I want to give any credibility to Palestinians = Nazis, but this amuses me. De-Nazification was abandoned as ineffective, many former Nazis held posts in the post-war FRG, and the Western Allies heavily invested in the West German economy in part to keep Germany from becoming an enemy again (by going Communist). "JOBS!?!?!" absolutely helped.

 

How do you know?

Jobs happened after the surrender. Not before. And De-Nazification was so effective that you'd have a hard time going out in the streets of Germany and declare yourself a Nazi.

And let me remake a solid point...we didn't go into Germany with jobs. We went in with tanks.

 

Yeah, I don't see Gaza blitzkrieg'in anything.

 

The question isn't what I know, the question is what you claim to know. You claim to know that you'd be the same. You don't have any basis in claiming that.

 

Sure I do. I know me.

 

Then just giving them jobs won't do anything.

 

Yes, you know you, but you didn't spring forth from the womb as you are. You're a collection of experiences and circumstances that made you who you are. Change any of that and you cease to be you.

 

You know you as you are now. You don't know who you'd be with different parents, different life experiences, different worldviews.

This isn't rocket science.

 

Oh come on, it's simple.

In answer to the Rawlsian question of how to structure society in an equitable way when you will not know what position you will have, the answer is to say you don't care because, no matter what, you'll be on top because you're a winner and everyone else a loser!

What could possibly be wrong with such an outlook?

 

This is a weird and nonsensical debate and needs to be settled with some eighties Stevie.

 

But symbols do have value. And the Palestinians joining an international arbiter is a step in the right direction for an eventual settlement that will require outside assistance. But you are right there is nothing the ICC can do to compel Israelis to appear before the court.

 

YEAH GUYS.

J-Rod is right. When are people finally going to start coddling the Palestinians and go in with a full scale military occupation that doesn't recognize them as having rights as citizens and demolishes their houses and. . .


Oh, wait.

 

It's on people!
We have a deal. The US is happy. Iran is ecstatic.
Israel? Yahoo thinks the deal threatens Israel's survival.
"The deal does not block Iran's path to a bomb, it paves it!"

New lines in the sand are drawn. Old allegiances are cast in a new light. Does Yahoo know something we don't, about the upcoming US presidential election?

 

Netanyahu will only be satisfied if no enrichment whatsoever is permitted on Iranian soil, which is an unrealistic demand, and he knows it. Ironically, though, I think his dissatisfaction will make it easier for the Iranian team to sell the deal at home. I can imagine the accusations of treason and appeasement that would be hurled at the foreign minister if he had made a deal that Israel expressed happiness over. If Netanyahu keeps up the complaining all the way through to June 30th, he just may have inadvertently secured himself a big foreign policy victory. And if I may so suggest, he should be really happy with the terms that have been agreed to.

 

How? It's not until November 2016 and the new President won't be inaugurated until January 2017. That's a pretty long time to keep up his whining, though I'm sure he'll try.

 

Netanyahu isn't the biggest threat to the potential deal, the Republican party is.

And what's up with Boehner touring the Middle East like he's some opposition President? The disrespect that has been shown towards Obama is nothing short of phenomenal.

 

Well, Boehner has to perfect his tan somehow, right?

Speaking of the 2016 elections, the GOP [mostly as yet unannounced] candidates are falling over themselves to proclaim that they will torpedo the deal if elected, with Scott Walker explicitly stating that the European partners are irrelevant. Some are couching their language to the effect that they would only undo the deal if it is not approved by Congress, but given the current composition of Congress, it seems unlikely Obama will be able to obtain their consent. Though I'm sure they'll offer him a lot of advice.

 

Nancy Pelosi's 2007 trip to Syria, was, I'm sure, the epitome of respect. /sarcasm

 

The sarcasm slashy is redundant. And no one in this thread has said that it was. You've really got to get over this, "If they don't mention it in their criticism then the opposite must be true," BS.

I don't like Israel, in fact, I'd be happy if we cut them off from our funding. That doesn't mean I want the death of Israel or that I wholeheartedly love the Palestinians. I just see Israel as an oppressive state that's edging closer and closer to a solution that may be final if this violence keeps up and they keep electing people like Netanyahu. And I won't support a nation that acts so abhorrently.

 

What deal was Bush trying to make at the time that Pelosi went to the Middle East to rally against?

 

I wasn't aware Pelosi had Bashar Al-Assad over to address a joint session of the Democratically-controlled Congress at that time.

Or did I miss something?

 

I was tipped about this article in Haaretz , but it's behind a pay wall. Does anyone have more insight into this?

Netanyahu to cabinet: Our biggest fear is that Iran will fully honor nuclear deal

 

If you google "Netanyahu Haaretz", then scroll down to the correct article and click on the link, it will bypass the paywall.