Elections
- Thread starter moreluck
- Start date
Trip,
Yes, you are one of those evil right wing defenders. There is a reason for making this request of Israel and the right wing knows it. Its called Un Resolution 242.
You can even go back to Reagan to establish the wanting of the 1967 borders.
Quote:
The United States has historically backed Israel's view that UN Security Council Resolution 242, adopted on November 22, 1967, does not require a full withdrawal to the 1949 Armistice Lines (the 1967 borders). Moreover, in addition to that interpretation, both Democratic and Republican administrations have argued that Israel was entitled to "defensible borders." In other words, the American backing of defensible borders has been bipartisan, right up to its latest rendition that was provided by President George W. Bush in April 2004. And it was rooted in America's long-standing support for the security of Israel that went well beyond the various legal interpretations of UN resolutions.
Why is the U.S. position so important to consider? First, while it is true that ultimately Israel and the Palestinians themselves must decide on the whereabouts of the future borders as part of any negotiation, the U.S. position on borders directly affects the level of expectation of the Arab side regarding the depth of the Israeli concessions they can obtain. To the extent that the U.S. limits its demands of Israel through either presidential declarations or statements of the secretary of state, then the Arab states and the Palestinian Arabs will have to settle for less in terms of any Israeli withdrawal. U.S. declaratory policy, then, fundamentally affects whether Arab-Israeli differences can ultimately be bridged at the negotiating table or whether they simply remain too far apart. Second, there is a related dynamic. Historically, Arab diplomats preferred to extract Israeli concessions through international bodies, like the UN, or even through the U.S., and thereby limit the direct concessions they must provide to Israel in return. According to this scenario, the UN, with U.S. acquiescence, could set the terms of an Israeli withdrawal in the West Bank that Israel would be pressured to fulfill with only minimal bilateral commitments provided by the Arab states. In fact, it was Egyptian President Anwar Sadat who used to say that the U.S. "holds 99 percent of the cards" in the peace process, before he signed the Israeli-Egyptian Treaty of Peace in 1979. Therefore, if the Arab states understand that the U.S. won't just deliver Israel according to their liking, then they will be compelled to deal with Israel directly.
Full Story about the UN resolution :
http://www.defensibleborders.org/gold.htm
The U.S. Policy isnt trying to hurt Israel, they are trying to make peace happen. You have to realize that Israel continues to "encroach" on land that doesnt belong to them.
The take it by the end of a gun. They have taken all the good land from the palestinians and forced them into bad land, undeveloped land, land with no water or resources.
The Israelis have taken rich farmlands, water rights, and developed land and built housing on that land.
Israel must be FORCED to stop taking more land and establish a BORDER where a line has to be drawn or they will continue to spark violence.
Yes, Israel is an ally, but even an ally has to be slapped down if it acts unjustly.
Establishing a "way point" for Israel will stop the construction of dwellings and communities on palestinian lands.
The palestinian people deserve a homeland as well. Remember, it was Israel that did not exist prior to 1948 and the land was called PALESTINE.
Migration of russian jews (40 thousand of them) with farming skills came to the disputed land and took over forcing the palestinian farmers out.
The british formed Palestine in 1921.
The British Mandate (and rule) of Palestine, including the Balfour Declaration, was confirmed by the League of Nations in 1922 and came into effect in 1923. The boundaries of Palestine were drawn by the British and included modern Jordan. Britain signed an additional treaty with the USA (which did not join the League of Nations) in which the USA endorsed the terms of the mandate.
In 1921, the Zionist Commission was granted official status as the Jewish Agency for Palestine in Article 4 of the Mandate. An offer to create a similar Arab Agency was rejected by Arab leaders.
The mandate charged the Jewish Agency with facilitating Jewish immigration into Palestine and land purchases and it operated as an arm of the Zionist leadership. It ran schools and hospitals, and later formed a militia, the Haganah. Chaim Weizmann was the leader of both the Zionist Organisation and the Jewish Agency until 1929. The Jewish Agency distributed entry permits to new immigrants (the number was fixed by the British) and funds donated by Jews abroad. [47]
From 1920, the Va'ad Leumi (or Jewish National Council, or JNC) was the main institution of the Jewish community ('Yishuv') within the British Mandate of Palestine (it was democratically elected and included non-Zionist Jews). This body functioned as a virtual government for the Jews in Palestine. The Political Department of the JNC was responsible for relations with the Arabs, ties with the Jewish Agency and negotiations with the British government. As the Yishuv grew, the JNC adopted more functions, such as education, health care and welfare services, internal defence and security matters.
Most of the revenue raised by the Mandate came from the Jewish minority but was spent on funding the British administration. Therefore, with British permission, the Va'ad raised their own taxes[48] and ran independent services for the Jewish population.[49] Education and health care for Jews in Palestine were in the hands of the major Zionist political parties: the General Zionists, the Mizrahi and the Socialist Zionists, with each operating independent services and (except for Mizrahi) sports organizations funded by local taxes, donations and fees. The Zionist movement also established the Hebrew University in Jerusalem and the Technion (technological university)in Haifa (both 1925).
During the whole interwar period, the British, appealing to the terms of the mandate, rejected the principle of majority rule or any other measure that would give the Arab majority control over the government of Palestine.
Overcrowding in Israel is the problem now, as more migrants are moving to Israel than they can handle. As this happens, more settlements are being built as Israeli tanks and soldiers fight off the people who lived on that land prior to construction.
As long as this is the practice, Israel will not have peace.
Un resolution 242 clearly established the 1967 borders and every president SINCE has tried to get Israel to stay with those borders.
A palestinian state must be formed so they can move on with thier lives and not be kicked of land they presently hold.
President Obama is merely following Un Resolution 242 and all you guys can do is mock him because you are TOLD WHAT TO THINK.
Try the thought process for a change.
Peace
moreluck
golden ticket member
Trip,
Yes, you are one of those evil right wing defenders. There is a reason for making this request of Israel and the right wing knows it. Its called Un Resolution 242.
You can even go back to Reagan to establish the wanting of the 1967 borders.
Quote:
The United States has historically backed Israel's view that UN Security Council Resolution 242, adopted on November 22, 1967, does not require a full withdrawal to the 1949 Armistice Lines (the 1967 borders). Moreover, in addition to that interpretation, both Democratic and Republican administrations have argued that Israel was entitled to "defensible borders." In other words, the American backing of defensible borders has been bipartisan, right up to its latest rendition that was provided by President George W. Bush in April 2004. And it was rooted in America's long-standing support for the security of Israel that went well beyond the various legal interpretations of UN resolutions.
Why is the U.S. position so important to consider? First, while it is true that ultimately Israel and the Palestinians themselves must decide on the whereabouts of the future borders as part of any negotiation, the U.S. position on borders directly affects the level of expectation of the Arab side regarding the depth of the Israeli concessions they can obtain. To the extent that the U.S. limits its demands of Israel through either presidential declarations or statements of the secretary of state, then the Arab states and the Palestinian Arabs will have to settle for less in terms of any Israeli withdrawal. U.S. declaratory policy, then, fundamentally affects whether Arab-Israeli differences can ultimately be bridged at the negotiating table or whether they simply remain too far apart. Second, there is a related dynamic. Historically, Arab diplomats preferred to extract Israeli concessions through international bodies, like the UN, or even through the U.S., and thereby limit the direct concessions they must provide to Israel in return. According to this scenario, the UN, with U.S. acquiescence, could set the terms of an Israeli withdrawal in the West Bank that Israel would be pressured to fulfill with only minimal bilateral commitments provided by the Arab states. In fact, it was Egyptian President Anwar Sadat who used to say that the U.S. "holds 99 percent of the cards" in the peace process, before he signed the Israeli-Egyptian Treaty of Peace in 1979. Therefore, if the Arab states understand that the U.S. won't just deliver Israel according to their liking, then they will be compelled to deal with Israel directly.
Full Story about the UN resolution :
http://www.defensibleborders.org/gold.htm
The U.S. Policy isnt trying to hurt Israel, they are trying to make peace happen. You have to realize that Israel continues to "encroach" on land that doesnt belong to them.
The take it by the end of a gun. They have taken all the good land from the palestinians and forced them into bad land, undeveloped land, land with no water or resources.
The Israelis have taken rich farmlands, water rights, and developed land and built housing on that land.
Israel must be FORCED to stop taking more land and establish a BORDER where a line has to be drawn or they will continue to spark violence.
Yes, Israel is an ally, but even an ally has to be slapped down if it acts unjustly.
Establishing a "way point" for Israel will stop the construction of dwellings and communities on palestinian lands.
The palestinian people deserve a homeland as well. Remember, it was Israel that did not exist prior to 1948 and the land was called PALESTINE.
Migration of russian jews (40 thousand of them) with farming skills came to the disputed land and took over forcing the palestinian farmers out.
The british formed Palestine in 1921.
The British Mandate (and rule) of Palestine, including the Balfour Declaration, was confirmed by the League of Nations in 1922 and came into effect in 1923. The boundaries of Palestine were drawn by the British and included modern Jordan. Britain signed an additional treaty with the USA (which did not join the League of Nations) in which the USA endorsed the terms of the mandate.
In 1921, the Zionist Commission was granted official status as the Jewish Agency for Palestine in Article 4 of the Mandate. An offer to create a similar Arab Agency was rejected by Arab leaders.
The mandate charged the Jewish Agency with facilitating Jewish immigration into Palestine and land purchases and it operated as an arm of the Zionist leadership. It ran schools and hospitals, and later formed a militia, the Haganah. Chaim Weizmann was the leader of both the Zionist Organisation and the Jewish Agency until 1929. The Jewish Agency distributed entry permits to new immigrants (the number was fixed by the British) and funds donated by Jews abroad. [47]
From 1920, the Va'ad Leumi (or Jewish National Council, or JNC) was the main institution of the Jewish community ('Yishuv') within the British Mandate of Palestine (it was democratically elected and included non-Zionist Jews). This body functioned as a virtual government for the Jews in Palestine. The Political Department of the JNC was responsible for relations with the Arabs, ties with the Jewish Agency and negotiations with the British government. As the Yishuv grew, the JNC adopted more functions, such as education, health care and welfare services, internal defence and security matters.
Most of the revenue raised by the Mandate came from the Jewish minority but was spent on funding the British administration. Therefore, with British permission, the Va'ad raised their own taxes[48] and ran independent services for the Jewish population.[49] Education and health care for Jews in Palestine were in the hands of the major Zionist political parties: the General Zionists, the Mizrahi and the Socialist Zionists, with each operating independent services and (except for Mizrahi) sports organizations funded by local taxes, donations and fees. The Zionist movement also established the Hebrew University in Jerusalem and the Technion (technological university)in Haifa (both 1925).
During the whole interwar period, the British, appealing to the terms of the mandate, rejected the principle of majority rule or any other measure that would give the Arab majority control over the government of Palestine.
Overcrowding in Israel is the problem now, as more migrants are moving to Israel than they can handle. As this happens, more settlements are being built as Israeli tanks and soldiers fight off the people who lived on that land prior to construction.
As long as this is the practice, Israel will not have peace.
Un resolution 242 clearly established the 1967 borders and every president SINCE has tried to get Israel to stay with those borders.
A palestinian state must be formed so they can move on with thier lives and not be kicked of land they presently hold.
President Obama is merely following Un Resolution 242 and all you guys can do is mock him because you are TOLD WHAT TO THINK.
Try the thought process for a change.
Peace
Because no one else has thought processes....just you !!!
pees
Well, youd be the only one right if it happened, and we know thats not the case.
peace.
trplnkl
555
I think what I think and don't follow any party lines, unlike you and your hate filled left winger buddies. You were the one that said the three previous presidents said pretty much the same thing as what 0bama said. My assertion is simple, why even say that if you know it hasn't worked in the past and won't work now?Trip,
Yes, you are one of those evil right wing defenders. There is a reason for making this request of Israel and the right wing knows it. Its called Un Resolution 242.
You can even go back to Reagan to establish the wanting of the 1967 borders.
Quote:
The United States has historically backed Israel's view that UN Security Council Resolution 242, adopted on November 22, 1967, does not require a full withdrawal to the 1949 Armistice Lines (the 1967 borders). Moreover, in addition to that interpretation, both Democratic and Republican administrations have argued that Israel was entitled to "defensible borders." In other words, the American backing of defensible borders has been bipartisan, right up to its latest rendition that was provided by President George W. Bush in April 2004. And it was rooted in America's long-standing support for the security of Israel that went well beyond the various legal interpretations of UN resolutions.
Why is the U.S. position so important to consider? First, while it is true that ultimately Israel and the Palestinians themselves must decide on the whereabouts of the future borders as part of any negotiation, the U.S. position on borders directly affects the level of expectation of the Arab side regarding the depth of the Israeli concessions they can obtain. To the extent that the U.S. limits its demands of Israel through either presidential declarations or statements of the secretary of state, then the Arab states and the Palestinian Arabs will have to settle for less in terms of any Israeli withdrawal. U.S. declaratory policy, then, fundamentally affects whether Arab-Israeli differences can ultimately be bridged at the negotiating table or whether they simply remain too far apart. Second, there is a related dynamic. Historically, Arab diplomats preferred to extract Israeli concessions through international bodies, like the UN, or even through the U.S., and thereby limit the direct concessions they must provide to Israel in return. According to this scenario, the UN, with U.S. acquiescence, could set the terms of an Israeli withdrawal in the West Bank that Israel would be pressured to fulfill with only minimal bilateral commitments provided by the Arab states. In fact, it was Egyptian President Anwar Sadat who used to say that the U.S. "holds 99 percent of the cards" in the peace process, before he signed the Israeli-Egyptian Treaty of Peace in 1979. Therefore, if the Arab states understand that the U.S. won't just deliver Israel according to their liking, then they will be compelled to deal with Israel directly.
Full Story about the UN resolution :
http://www.defensibleborders.org/gold.htm
The U.S. Policy isnt trying to hurt Israel, they are trying to make peace happen. You have to realize that Israel continues to "encroach" on land that doesnt belong to them.
The take it by the end of a gun. They have taken all the good land from the palestinians and forced them into bad land, undeveloped land, land with no water or resources.
The Israelis have taken rich farmlands, water rights, and developed land and built housing on that land.
Israel must be FORCED to stop taking more land and establish a BORDER where a line has to be drawn or they will continue to spark violence.
Yes, Israel is an ally, but even an ally has to be slapped down if it acts unjustly.
Establishing a "way point" for Israel will stop the construction of dwellings and communities on palestinian lands.
The palestinian people deserve a homeland as well. Remember, it was Israel that did not exist prior to 1948 and the land was called PALESTINE.
Migration of russian jews (40 thousand of them) with farming skills came to the disputed land and took over forcing the palestinian farmers out.
The british formed Palestine in 1921.
The British Mandate (and rule) of Palestine, including the Balfour Declaration, was confirmed by the League of Nations in 1922 and came into effect in 1923. The boundaries of Palestine were drawn by the British and included modern Jordan. Britain signed an additional treaty with the USA (which did not join the League of Nations) in which the USA endorsed the terms of the mandate.
In 1921, the Zionist Commission was granted official status as the Jewish Agency for Palestine in Article 4 of the Mandate. An offer to create a similar Arab Agency was rejected by Arab leaders.
The mandate charged the Jewish Agency with facilitating Jewish immigration into Palestine and land purchases and it operated as an arm of the Zionist leadership. It ran schools and hospitals, and later formed a militia, the Haganah. Chaim Weizmann was the leader of both the Zionist Organisation and the Jewish Agency until 1929. The Jewish Agency distributed entry permits to new immigrants (the number was fixed by the British) and funds donated by Jews abroad. [47]
From 1920, the Va'ad Leumi (or Jewish National Council, or JNC) was the main institution of the Jewish community ('Yishuv') within the British Mandate of Palestine (it was democratically elected and included non-Zionist Jews). This body functioned as a virtual government for the Jews in Palestine. The Political Department of the JNC was responsible for relations with the Arabs, ties with the Jewish Agency and negotiations with the British government. As the Yishuv grew, the JNC adopted more functions, such as education, health care and welfare services, internal defence and security matters.
Most of the revenue raised by the Mandate came from the Jewish minority but was spent on funding the British administration. Therefore, with British permission, the Va'ad raised their own taxes[48] and ran independent services for the Jewish population.[49] Education and health care for Jews in Palestine were in the hands of the major Zionist political parties: the General Zionists, the Mizrahi and the Socialist Zionists, with each operating independent services and (except for Mizrahi) sports organizations funded by local taxes, donations and fees. The Zionist movement also established the Hebrew University in Jerusalem and the Technion (technological university)in Haifa (both 1925).
During the whole interwar period, the British, appealing to the terms of the mandate, rejected the principle of majority rule or any other measure that would give the Arab majority control over the government of Palestine.
Overcrowding in Israel is the problem now, as more migrants are moving to Israel than they can handle. As this happens, more settlements are being built as Israeli tanks and soldiers fight off the people who lived on that land prior to construction.
As long as this is the practice, Israel will not have peace.
Un resolution 242 clearly established the 1967 borders and every president SINCE has tried to get Israel to stay with those borders.
A palestinian state must be formed so they can move on with thier lives and not be kicked of land they presently hold.
President Obama is merely following Un Resolution 242 and all you guys can do is mock him because you are TOLD WHAT TO THINK.
Try the thought process for a change.
Peace
wkmac
Well-Known Member
Trip,
Yes, you are one of those evil right wing defenders. There is a reason for making this request of Israel and the right wing knows it. Its called Un Resolution 242.
You can even go back to Reagan to establish the wanting of the 1967 borders.
Quote:
The United States has historically backed Israel's view that UN Security Council Resolution 242, adopted on November 22, 1967, does not require a full withdrawal to the 1949 Armistice Lines (the 1967 borders). Moreover, in addition to that interpretation, both Democratic and Republican administrations have argued that Israel was entitled to "defensible borders." In other words, the American backing of defensible borders has been bipartisan, right up to its latest rendition that was provided by President George W. Bush in April 2004. And it was rooted in America's long-standing support for the security of Israel that went well beyond the various legal interpretations of UN resolutions.
Why is the U.S. position so important to consider? First, while it is true that ultimately Israel and the Palestinians themselves must decide on the whereabouts of the future borders as part of any negotiation, the U.S. position on borders directly affects the level of expectation of the Arab side regarding the depth of the Israeli concessions they can obtain. To the extent that the U.S. limits its demands of Israel through either presidential declarations or statements of the secretary of state, then the Arab states and the Palestinian Arabs will have to settle for less in terms of any Israeli withdrawal. U.S. declaratory policy, then, fundamentally affects whether Arab-Israeli differences can ultimately be bridged at the negotiating table or whether they simply remain too far apart. Second, there is a related dynamic. Historically, Arab diplomats preferred to extract Israeli concessions through international bodies, like the UN, or even through the U.S., and thereby limit the direct concessions they must provide to Israel in return. According to this scenario, the UN, with U.S. acquiescence, could set the terms of an Israeli withdrawal in the West Bank that Israel would be pressured to fulfill with only minimal bilateral commitments provided by the Arab states. In fact, it was Egyptian President Anwar Sadat who used to say that the U.S. "holds 99 percent of the cards" in the peace process, before he signed the Israeli-Egyptian Treaty of Peace in 1979. Therefore, if the Arab states understand that the U.S. won't just deliver Israel according to their liking, then they will be compelled to deal with Israel directly.
Full Story about the UN resolution :
http://www.defensibleborders.org/gold.htm
The U.S. Policy isnt trying to hurt Israel, they are trying to make peace happen. You have to realize that Israel continues to "encroach" on land that doesnt belong to them.
The take it by the end of a gun. They have taken all the good land from the palestinians and forced them into bad land, undeveloped land, land with no water or resources.
The Israelis have taken rich farmlands, water rights, and developed land and built housing on that land.
Israel must be FORCED to stop taking more land and establish a BORDER where a line has to be drawn or they will continue to spark violence.
Yes, Israel is an ally, but even an ally has to be slapped down if it acts unjustly.
Establishing a "way point" for Israel will stop the construction of dwellings and communities on palestinian lands.
The palestinian people deserve a homeland as well. Remember, it was Israel that did not exist prior to 1948 and the land was called PALESTINE.
Migration of russian jews (40 thousand of them) with farming skills came to the disputed land and took over forcing the palestinian farmers out.
The british formed Palestine in 1921.
The British Mandate (and rule) of Palestine, including the Balfour Declaration, was confirmed by the League of Nations in 1922 and came into effect in 1923. The boundaries of Palestine were drawn by the British and included modern Jordan. Britain signed an additional treaty with the USA (which did not join the League of Nations) in which the USA endorsed the terms of the mandate.
In 1921, the Zionist Commission was granted official status as the Jewish Agency for Palestine in Article 4 of the Mandate. An offer to create a similar Arab Agency was rejected by Arab leaders.
The mandate charged the Jewish Agency with facilitating Jewish immigration into Palestine and land purchases and it operated as an arm of the Zionist leadership. It ran schools and hospitals, and later formed a militia, the Haganah. Chaim Weizmann was the leader of both the Zionist Organisation and the Jewish Agency until 1929. The Jewish Agency distributed entry permits to new immigrants (the number was fixed by the British) and funds donated by Jews abroad. [47]
From 1920, the Va'ad Leumi (or Jewish National Council, or JNC) was the main institution of the Jewish community ('Yishuv') within the British Mandate of Palestine (it was democratically elected and included non-Zionist Jews). This body functioned as a virtual government for the Jews in Palestine. The Political Department of the JNC was responsible for relations with the Arabs, ties with the Jewish Agency and negotiations with the British government. As the Yishuv grew, the JNC adopted more functions, such as education, health care and welfare services, internal defence and security matters.
Most of the revenue raised by the Mandate came from the Jewish minority but was spent on funding the British administration. Therefore, with British permission, the Va'ad raised their own taxes[48] and ran independent services for the Jewish population.[49] Education and health care for Jews in Palestine were in the hands of the major Zionist political parties: the General Zionists, the Mizrahi and the Socialist Zionists, with each operating independent services and (except for Mizrahi) sports organizations funded by local taxes, donations and fees. The Zionist movement also established the Hebrew University in Jerusalem and the Technion (technological university)in Haifa (both 1925).
During the whole interwar period, the British, appealing to the terms of the mandate, rejected the principle of majority rule or any other measure that would give the Arab majority control over the government of Palestine.
Overcrowding in Israel is the problem now, as more migrants are moving to Israel than they can handle. As this happens, more settlements are being built as Israeli tanks and soldiers fight off the people who lived on that land prior to construction.
As long as this is the practice, Israel will not have peace.
Un resolution 242 clearly established the 1967 borders and every president SINCE has tried to get Israel to stay with those borders.
A palestinian state must be formed so they can move on with thier lives and not be kicked of land they presently hold.
President Obama is merely following Un Resolution 242 and all you guys can do is mock him because you are TOLD WHAT TO THINK.
Try the thought process for a change.
Peace
It's a real shame IMO that people in the west only want to understand the Middle East in a "current events" (no pun) POV and never reach back and understand it from the Sykes/Picot Agreement & Belfour Declaration events coming forward. We completely miss the 19th century US policy in regards to the plains indians (not unlike the eastern indians either) and how the Middle Easter events of the 20th and now 21st century are nothing more than a replication of that horrific policy.
TOS,
Not sure of your entire geneology in relation to south of the border but the indigenous peoples to our south who have lived in this area for maybe 1000's of years have also been very much a victim of this same policy of gov't. The poverty of which you saw is IMO as much a product of a statist system as it is a product of religion although I'm inclined to accept the religious angle on the basis of the Platoian Noble Lie. Both the lie of state and religion need one another to advance their own cause. That's my take on it anyway!
moreluck
golden ticket member
NO, I use mine moreluck, and dont rely on cable news to provide it for me.
Peace
At about the 1:00 mark......
Babagounj
Strength through joy
Now let's see if I have this right; The USA policy is to have Israel give up all the lands in currently occupies and set it borders at their 1967 lines. I am I understanding this correctly ?
If so, then should we ( the USA ) also lead by example and re-set our borders to their 1847 limits ? After all we fought a war and claimed all those lands as our, just like Israel did after the 1967 war.
If so, then should we ( the USA ) also lead by example and re-set our borders to their 1847 limits ? After all we fought a war and claimed all those lands as our, just like Israel did after the 1967 war.
Did you miss the part where it is a UN resolution?? 242 to be exact.
This is all the president is saying, the US position has been to support this resolution. What Obama said isnt something "NEW" like how its being portrayed by the right wing. "Obamas new position on israel...blah blah blah"
Even the newest right wing dunce cap Hermain Cain, when asked, said he disagrees with Obamas position, even though its been a republican position for decades. Cain didnt even know about the UN resolution 242 but he wants to be president and handle foreign policy.
Thats the trouble with the republicans, pure hypocrites.
I bet he can see cuba from his backyard too!
Peace.
Cool your jets baba, Israel continues to build settlements every month on land they dont own. Using its military might against an unarmed people (not country) they force palestinians off land and begin new construction.
They have been told to stop the expansion of settlements yet laugh in our face and do it anyways.
They have taken more land in the last 8 years than they should have. A half million jews will be forced out if the lines are drawn.
Its the right thing to do.
Peace
Which one are u speaking of: Palin? Gingrich? Pawlenty? Cain? Bachman? Huntsman? Paul? West? Perry? Santorum?
Or the entire republican field of candidates in general?
Peace.
wkmac
Well-Known Member
OT: But it does pertain to elections, just the one in Spain taking place today. Over the last week or so I've been keeping up with the growing protests in Spain that some describe as a growing revolution. Here and Here for example. The press coverage here in America has been limited but with elections today, the American press may be a bit more forthcoming. MSNBC posted a story on it earlier this morning but what caught my attention more than anything else was the following:
Wonder if our own oligarchs of the single party/2 headed state will start to get nervous? With all the authoritarian programs in place under the guise to "protect us" from terrorism, how far would big brother go if we follow the Spanish's lead?
klein
Für Meno :)
Why just take Spain for an example, when actually 10 countries that recently held elections booted out the liberals :
Why did all the West’s big centrist parties go down the drain?
The Liberals in Canada. The Christian Democrats and Social Democrats in many European countries. Labour in Britain and the Netherlands, and the Socialists in Spain and France. These big-tent operations covered so much of the electoral horizon, and spent so much time in power, that they came to be known in many countries as the “natural governing party.”
Suddenly, they are falling apart, their gradual seepage of voter support during the past 10 or 15 years exploding into sudden ballot embolisms. Canadians experienced the meltdown firsthand last month with the dramatic collapse of the Liberal party –
Why did all the West’s big centrist parties go down the drain?
The Liberals in Canada. The Christian Democrats and Social Democrats in many European countries. Labour in Britain and the Netherlands, and the Socialists in Spain and France. These big-tent operations covered so much of the electoral horizon, and spent so much time in power, that they came to be known in many countries as the “natural governing party.”
Suddenly, they are falling apart, their gradual seepage of voter support during the past 10 or 15 years exploding into sudden ballot embolisms. Canadians experienced the meltdown firsthand last month with the dramatic collapse of the Liberal party –
Similar threads
