Making Baby Jesus Cry

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by sgtclub
What do you make of the Israeli pullout this weekend?

Pullout is seldom effective in the long term.



If Israel is such a great ally, why are they always spying on us?

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Pretending there is an equivalency is offensive. There is no cycle. Terrorists from inside and outside Israel criminally kill Israeli citizens in the name of treasonous insurrection. Israel takes appropriate self-defensive measures.

But the State of Israel was born of treasonous insurrection. The difference, as Not Bob noted, was that Shamir and Sharon were on the winning side.

The Israeli-palestinian conflict will either (i) never be solved or (ii) solved when both sides recognize that each has a historical and political claim to the territory and they both find a way to peacefully assimilate in a single, secular state.

There are no real good guys in this fight. It's been raging for over 2000 years. Neither side has a majority willing to find a true compromise.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Pullout is seldom effective in the long term.

Worked for me through high school.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
If Israel is such a great ally, why are they always spying on us?

Same reason we spy on them, GB, and our other allies.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Not Bob
Republicans pushed peace plans even less favorable to Israel. Why don't you attack Eisenhower (who leaned on the French and British to cut and run from Suez and leave the Israelis in the lurch in 1956), Nixon (who had to be browbeaten by Kissinger into resupplying the IDF in 1973 during the Yom Kippur War, and whose Rogers Plan was met with much joy in Tel Aviv), and Bush I (whose administration actually first met with the PLO)? The GOP attitude towards Israel and the Jews was famously noted by James A. Baker III: "Fuck them -- they didn't vote for us."

1. Eisenhower- I agree. Awful move.
2. Nixon-agree,
3. From this point onward you can confidently assume unless I state otherwise that I despise everything Bush I ever did from a policy standpoint OTHER THAN (1) going to war in Iraq, which is trumped by the fact that he fucked it up; and (2) throwing up on the prime minister of Japan (why can't I find a pic of this on the net?!!?!?).

Originally posted by Not Bob


Nice try. A more comparable analogy would be to Northern Ireland -- peace negotiations were meaningless until the British Goverment started to talk to Sinn Fein and the IRA.

Nice try, but I disagree. Arafat is one man who is the moral symbol of the palestinians for 40 years and who was the impetus for the actions. bin Laden is serving the same purpose for the Islamofacists. Gerry Adams doesn't equal Arafat or bin Laden.

Originally posted by Not Bob


Yeah, but that's because his side won.

And victory for Arafat's side is the destruction of Israel, rather than just having a nation that seeks to peaceably exist in a larger region. With Begin we see that after he uses some freedom fighter tactics he can behave as a good citizen. Arafat has already announced his goal is genocide.

[baltassoc]

Originally posted by sgtclub
What do you make of the Israeli pullout this weekend?

I think it is a good thing. I hope that it will last as a meaningful step forward. Experience has not given me complete confidence, however.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Spanky
jew-hater works. Why do you think it is "viscerally offensive"?. The only problem with the word hate is that lots of people hate a lot of things but don't necessarily want to destroy or kill them. .

the babyjesus hates the sin, but loves the sinner, although sometimes that love is tough and requires banishment to Hell (eg: the nazis, the islamofacists, arafat, hillary etal.).

[Oliver_Wendell_Ramone]

Originally posted by baltassoc
I think it is a good thing. I hope that it will last as a meaningful step forward. Experience has not given me complete confidence, however.

Translation: it seemed like a good idea at the time, but RT didn't much like it when I pulled out and delivered the money shot all over her face.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Oliver_Wendell_Ramone
Translation: it seemed like a good idea at the time, but RT didn't much like it when I pulled out and delivered the money shot all over her face.

I swallowed.

[baltassoc]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Gerry Adams doesn't equal Arafat or bin Laden.

I think I'm getting this. It's 'cause he's not Muslim, right?

[baltassoc]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Pretending there is an equivalency is offensive. There is no cycle. Terrorists from inside and outside Israel criminally kill Israeli citizens in the name of treasonous insurrection. Israel takes appropriate self-defensive measures.

This is because one side is Muslim, right?

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Same reason we spy on them, GB, and our other allies.

To get them to do our dirty work?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5908785

And let's not forget the case of Jonathon Pollard, who passed on U.S. secrets regarding the former Soviet Union, which the Israelis then passed along to the Soviet Union in return for Jewish scientists and technology to enhance their nuclear missile program.

I support Israel, but not the extremists there who would like nothing more than an ultimate showdown. We should be cautious with this ally and be careful not to subvert our own national interests to theirs.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by baltassoc
This is because one side is Muslim, right?

That's just bullshit. One's side's stated goal is to drive the other side into the sea. The other side's stated goal is to live in peace with reasonable and defensible boundaries (which will be something less than what they are entitled to).

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by sgtclub
That's just bullshit. One's side's stated goal is to drive the other side into the sea. The other side's stated goal is to live in peace with reasonable and defensible boundaries (which will be something less than what they are entitled to).

Which one is which?

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by taxwonk
But the State of Israel was born of treasonous insurrection. The difference, as Not Bob noted, was that Shamir and Sharon were on the winning side.

Again, the difference to me is, when Shamir, Begin and Sharon are on the winning side, by winning it meant getting a nation. Once they had that they were interested in administering that nation as a responsibile member of the regional and international community. Arab state aggression has caused them to act in manner of self-defence that other's criticise as excessive or aggressive; however Israel seems to have the capacity to peacefully coexist with its neighbours (see Jordan, and Egypt). OTOH, Arafat and the rest of the PLO leadership was fairly clear that their idea of victory meant no more Israel, no more Jews in the middle east. they may have (and be) softpeddling this of late but go to the Arabic versions of their speeches (i.e not what they say when the liberal MSM is around and they speak in English) for their true intent.

Originally posted by taxwonk


There are no real good guys in this fight. It's been raging for over 2000 years. Neither side has a majority willing to find a true compromise.

I disagree. I think modern day Israel has the moral highground.