What Israel must do now

[Ulysses G.]

So long as the Israeli apologists keep digging up their phoney history, I’ll keep busting their myths.

"Phoney" [sic]? The "Israeli apologists" can prove their historical points and DO. All you - and some of your comrades - do is repeat the same lies over and over again that are easily refuted and already have been numerous times. Do you folks really think that no one notices?

It is very obvious that you are completely ignoring the fact that you have been informed a number of times already that Israel has NOT ignored every UN resolution since partition - a blatant falsehood - and that the Peel proposal wasn't rejected outright either, but clarification was sought with the hope of a better offer. The ARABS turned it down.

Edited August 18, 2014 by Ulysses G.

[Pakboong]

I sense a renewed urgency on the part of Hamas political supporters to argue that Hamas can be negotiated with, well individuals might be but the ideology explicitly laid out in the Hamas charter can't. Much has been made of the public relations problems Israel has incurred, but aside from the military losses to Hamas they are now Isolated amongst their Arab neighbors and the so called Hamas PA unity government is torn apart by deep divisions. Now the political backers of Hamas are faced with a united front of unlikely allies. As I observed before has the unexpected blowback of the Arab spring and the rise of Islamism caused a chance of peace between Israel and the PA?

http://app.debka.com/p/article/24197/A-solid-Netanyahu-Sisi-Abbas-lineup-confronts-Hamas-Islamic-Jihad-at-resumed-negotiations-in-Cairo

I agree with your logic here. Factor in some serious revenge and peace is a long way off. The revenge can be overlooked by Hamas leadership but it will never be overlooked by the population of Gaza. It would take unprecedented leadership to overcome the revenge motive and I seriously doubt that Hamas has anywhere near that kind of leadership.

[Pakboong]

What Netanyahu has managed to achieve in his disproportional agenda in Gaza is a global backlash against Israel.

In the UK and. Europe we are seeing stories such as this. Sainsbury's in London has had to remove kosher food following a demo in Birmingham at a Tesco supermarket.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2727266/Sainsbury-s-strips-kosher-food-shelves-fear-attacks-anti-Israeli-protesters.html

What is obvious is that a boycott of settlement and Israeli goods will hurt the right wing government in the pocket.

The offensive was stopped because the USA pulled the plug.

They supply the money and arms to Israel.

Dude, Kosher products are not the same thing as Israeli products. Most of the Kosher products on the shelves in England are not made in Israel. Yes, there have been Jew haters in England who have vandalized Kosher products (not the first time) including in the past putting pork products around them. It's quite revealing that you cite this incident as a case of BDS when it is actually a case of rabid antisemitism (against Jews).

Anyway, I hope you aren't suggesting that a legitimate part of the BDS movement is to harass observant Jews who want to keep Kosher.

A while back I posted a survey of British Jews revealing that a high percentage of British Jews perceive antisemitic (against Jews) intentions in the BDS movement. I hope nobody wonders why after reading this news story.

I seriously doubt that those people in general know the difference. There are a few movements to block Israeli shipments. There is one Israeli ship in Oakland that is not being allowed to unload its cargo. There is no reason to believe that it is about antisemitism. It is certainly possible not likely.

[dexterm]

dr_lucas,

Not quite 100%.

“Olmert produced a map of 6.3 percent, suggesting that for the percentage of Palestine Israel would annex, it would compensate Palestine with 5.8 percent, plus a 25-mile tunnel that would run under Israel from the South Hebron Hills to Gaza.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/13/magazine/13Israel-t.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

It was a very good basis for negotiation though. A pity it came from a lame duck Prime Minister, in his last few weeks in office and under investigation for corruption.

And just as Ariel Sharon destroyed Barak’s peace initiative at Camp David in 2000 by provoking the 2^nd Intifada walking on Temple Mount with 1,000 bodyguards (not that he was expecting trouble...ho ho ho), so too at the time of Olmert’s offer, Israel was busy provoking another conflict in Gaza...always a vote winner...Netanyahu came to power and Olmert’s plan was shelved, with the help of right wing American Zionists

Ehud Olmert: Right-wing Americans thwarted Israeli-Palestinian peace accord

In interview with CNN, former Prime Minister says time for a two-state solution is running out.

Former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert tells CNN that right-wing extremists from the United States toppled his government with “millions and millions of dollars” in order to thwart his attempt to reach a lasting peace agreement with the Palestinians.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/ehud-olmert-right-wing-americans-thwarted-israeli-palestinian-peace-accord-1.428324

As to your other points..

Reread what I wrote with more care please: I did not say the IDF were pandering to the colonists..I agree.. the colonists are a nuisance and a threaten violence to the IDF themselves sometimes. I said the majority of Israeli citizens who send their children to fight and die for Israel, when one of the main obstacles to a peace agreement which would have kept them safely in their barracks is the fanatical squatters in the West Bank.

Singaporeans doing national service don’t spend their time humiliating Palestinians at checkpoints, beating them up in demonstrations, or murdering civilians in wars provoked by Israel. There must be some psychological damage. Israeli backpackers on a post IDF gap year have one of the worst reputations of any travelers according to Lonely Planet ...many guest houses won’t accept them because of their rude aggressive behavior.

“I never heard this kind of free-trade agreement has ever been offered as an incentive to Israel by either the EU or any of its Arab neighbours”

...maybe you should read the Arab Peace Initiative then. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Peace_Initiative

And after 5-10 years of peace and prosperity nothing would stand in the way of Israel joining the EU, if they wish, just like Cyprus 90 miles off the coast, allowing Israelis double or even triple nationality to reclaim their European heritage. The sky’s the limit. They just need to give peace a chance.

Shalom.

Edited August 18, 2014 by metisdead
Oversize font reset to normal.

[Ulysses G.]

Former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert tells CNN that right-wing extremists from the United States toppled his government with millions and millions of dollars in order to thwart his attempt to reach a lasting peace agreement with the Palestinians.

What is next? The peace treaty wasn't signed because Santa Claus torpedoed it? Olmert made the offer - the largest that any Israeli government ever made - but never even got an answer from Mahmoud Abbas, who broke off the talks and refused to finalize an agreement. This is a fantasy, Olmert's government was "toppled" because he was accused of corruption and eventually convicted of it.

Edited August 18, 2014 by Ulysses G.

[Wat dee]

So long as the Israeli apologists keep digging up their phoney history, I’ll keep busting their myths.

"Phoney" [sic]? The "Israeli apologists" can prove their historical points and DO. All you - and some of your comrades - do is repeat the same lies over and over again that are easily refuted and already have been numerous times. Do you folks really think that no one notices?

It is very obvious that you are completely ignoring the fact that you have been informed a number of times already that Israel has NOT ignored every UN resolution since partition - a blatant falsehood - and that the Peel proposal wasn't rejected outright either, but clarification was sought with the hope of a better offer. The ARABS turned it down.

Your historical points are based on religious fundamentalists believing on ghosts and their promises.

[Ulysses G.]

Your historical points are based on religious fundamentalists believing on ghosts and their promises.

Please stop the stupidity. The Peel Commission and the UN Partition are historical FACTS that have nothing to do with "ghosts" or religion.

[dexterm]

Former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert tells CNN that right-wing extremists from the United States toppled his government with millions and millions of dollars in order to thwart his attempt to reach a lasting peace agreement with the Palestinians.

What is next? The peace treaty wasn't signed because Santa Claus torpedoed it? Olmert made the offer - the largest that any Israeli government ever made - but never even got an answer from Mahmoud Abbas, who broke off the talks and refused to finalize an agreement. This is a fantasy, Olmert's government was "toppled" because he was accused of corruption and eventually convicted of it.

Phoney history again, UG.

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/phoney

ADJECTIVE Not genuine; fraudulent:

"On the contrary, both Olmert and Abbas emphasized to me that neither side rejected the plan"

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/05/28/what-commentary-gets-wrong-about-olmert-abbas-negotiations.html

Please do check your information more thoroughly, UG.

Edited August 18, 2014 by metisdead
Oversize font reset to normal.

[dexterm]

So long as the Israeli apologists keep digging up their phoney history, I’ll keep busting their myths.

- and that the Peel proposal wasn't rejected outright either, but clarification was sought with the hope of a better offer.

...that's a nice euphemism for "rejected ", UG, because of Zionist greed...greed that according to Ben Gurion cost 6 million Jewish lives in the Holocaust.

It's Zionist greed that is still causing the impasse in peace negotiations today. They always want more and more land.

[Ulysses G.]

"On the contrary, both Olmert and Abbas emphasized to me that neither side rejected the plan"

Do you are a reading problem as well as all those dishonest posts? I never said that Abbas rejected it. This is EXACTLY what I said:

Olmert made the offer - the largest that any Israeli government ever made - but never even got an answer from Mahmoud Abbas, who broke off the talks and refused to finalize an agreement.

Edited August 18, 2014 by metisdead
Oversize font reset to normal.

[Ulysses G.]

So long as the Israeli apologists keep digging up their phoney history, Ill keep busting their myths.

- and that the Peel proposal wasn't rejected outright either, but clarification was sought with the hope of a better offer.

...that's a nice euphemism for "rejected ", UG

It is not a "euphemism" for rejected at all. Buy yourself a good thesaurus and a basic reader.

[dexterm]

"On the contrary, both Olmert and Abbas emphasized to me that neither side rejected the plan"

Do you are a reading problem as well as all those dishonest posts? I never said that Abbas rejected it. This is EXACTLY what I said:

Olmert made the offer - the largest that any Israeli government ever made - but never even got an answer from Mahmoud Abbas, who broke off the talks and refused to finalize an agreement.

You're just playing semantics. And no need to be so rude.

[ABCer]

Jay Sata,

You are quick to point out that US supplies money and arms to Israel.

Would be fair to point out who supplies money, arms and political support for Gaza Arabs.

You are mentioning 'disproportional' measures by Israel.

Would be fair to mention 'proportional' measures by HAMAS.

Just trying to be fair and have a balanced view of events, if you do not mind.

Alternatively, if one does not like getting 'disproportional' answers one must not ask 'disproportional' questions.

[dr_lucas]

dr_lucas,

Not quite 100%.

“Olmert produced a map of 6.3 percent, suggesting that for the percentage of Palestine Israel would annex, it would compensate Palestine with 5.8 percent, plus a 25-mile tunnel that would run under Israel from the South Hebron Hills to Gaza.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/13/magazine/13Israel-t.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

It was a very good basis for negotiation though. A pity it came from a lame duck Prime Minister, in his last few weeks in office and under investigation for corruption.

And just as Ariel Sharon destroyed Barak’s peace initiative at Camp David in 2000 by provoking the 2^nd Intifada walking on Temple Mount with 1,000 bodyguards (not that he was expecting trouble...ho ho ho), so too at the time of Olmert’s offer, Israel was busy provoking another conflict in Gaza...always a vote winner...Netanyahu came to power and Olmert’s plan was shelved, with the help of right wing American Zionists

Ehud Olmert: Right-wing Americans thwarted Israeli-Palestinian peace accord

In interview with CNN, former Prime Minister says time for a two-state solution is running out.

Former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert tells CNN that right-wing extremists from the United States toppled his government with “millions and millions of dollars” in order to thwart his attempt to reach a lasting peace agreement with the Palestinians.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/ehud-olmert-right-wing-americans-thwarted-israeli-palestinian-peace-accord-1.428324

So 99.5% lands plus a 25 mile safe tunnel on Israeli lands is not 100%, correct, it's actually more than 100%, or would you rather the Palestinians get additional 0.5% land next to the WB or Gaza without any territorial link (as was pre-1967), so that they will have to fly between them?

Since you already publicly admitted that you have an inherent bias (http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/741979-israel-prepares-for-ground-military-operation-98-dead-in-gaza-strip-airstrikes/?view=findpost&p=8175161), I guess it's not surprising you will keep on trying twisting facts, spread disinformation and excuse killing of innocent Israelis, man women, children and babies:
Ariel Sharon did not destroy anything, and you saying/justifying a non-hostile visit of an Israeli PM on a land under Israeli jurisdiction is the reason (I'd say - biggest excuse) for Arabs to start launching terror attacks, killing over 1,000 innocent civilians and permanently maiming others, is a ridiculous twist attempt of historical events, at best.

Yasser Arafat & co. were directly responsible:

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

The Palestinian Authority’s Responsibility for the Outbreak of the Second Intifada: Its Own Damning Testimony
More than ten years after the outbreak of the Second Intifada, there are still journalists, former security officials, and pundits who raise questions about the role of the Palestinian Authority in the devastating violence during which suicide bombing attacks struck Israel’s major cities, leaving more than a thousand dead and many more permanently maimed.

Israel Channel 10 television’s “The Source” presented in February 2013 what appeared to be a debate between the Israel Security Agency (Shin Bet) and Israeli Military Intelligence over this issue. But one does not have to be an intelligence officer to review the statements made by the Palestinian leaders themselves about the origins of the Second Intifada.

This body of material, presented here in an unvarnished way, reveals that Yasser Arafat and important segments of the Palestinian leadership at that time were directly responsible for what happened and no amount of revisionist history can exonerate Arafat for standing behind one of the bloodiest periods in Israel’s modern history.

Source: http://jcpa.org/article/the-palestinian-authoritys-responsibility-for-the-outbreak-of-the-second-intifada-its-own-damning-testimony/

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Yes, I know Olmert's CNN interview and him blaming some right-wing American extremists for their thwarting efforts. This does not mean they would have succeeded in thwarting the peace plan if Abbas would have actually accepted it. He didn't. (yes, he didn't outright reject it either, but not returning back to discuss it does have a weigh)

Olmert had actually a good chance to be re-elected if not for the private corruption legal proceedings. And the offer was not made in his last few weeks in office, but quite long before he left office (March 2009). The proposal to Abbas was made in 2008.

So, you see, the point of you saying there was never such an offer, and other factual "mistakes" are once again - debunked.

Reread what I wrote with more care please: I did not say the IDF were pandering to the colonists..I agree.. the colonists are a nuisance and a threaten violence to the IDF themselves sometimes. I said the majority of Israeli citizens who send their children to fight and die for Israel, when one of the main obstacles to a peace agreement which would have kept them safely in their barracks is the fanatical squatters in the West Bank.

Not true, you are now twisting your own words. What you said was: "Why does Israel sacrifice the youth of the majority of its citizens just to pander to half a million religious nutjob colonists in the West Bank. How on earth did Israel allow that to happen? It's been the thorn in the side of peace for the last 47 years."

Singaporeans doing national service don’t spend their time humiliating Palestinians at checkpoints, beating them up in demonstrations, or murdering civilians in wars provoked by Israel. There must be some psychological damage. Israeli backpackers on a post IDF gap year have one of the worst reputations of any travelers according to Lonely Planet ...many guest houses won’t accept them because of their rude aggressive behavior.

Since we have already discussed the whole thing (who were the real aggressors, provokers and murderers -> Hamas) I won't go into this off-topic debate, nor will I go into the off-topic debate of your new attempt to demonize Israelis and Israeli backpackers as well.

Your contempt for Israelis has been noted tho.

As for the Singapore analogy, you should re-read what I wrote and in-response to what.

“I never heard this kind of free-trade agreement has ever been offered as an incentive to Israel by either the EU or any of its Arab neighbours”

...maybe you should read the Arab Peace Initiative then. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Peace_Initiative

And after 5-10 years of peace and prosperity nothing would stand in the way of Israel joining the EU, if they wish, just like Cyprus 90 miles off the coast, allowing Israelis double or even triple nationality to reclaim their European heritage. The sky’s the limit. They just need to give peace a chance.

Shalom.

Yes, I am aware of the Arab Peace Initiative. I don't recall it has anything to do with any free-trade agreement and your assumption that the EU will accept Israel as a full member, while possible, is still yet to be seen. Neither of us is a prophet.

That said, I completely agree with you that Israel, together with the other parties involved, will benefit from such free trade agreements and treaties, if ever materialize.

Ma'a-Salame

Edited August 18, 2014 by dr_lucas

[dr_lucas]

There are reasonable arguments to say that Palestine SHOULD be offered 100%. If I stole $100 dollars from you, would you think it just that, when pressed, I returned only $25 and spent the rest on myself?

Your example has no bearing on reality. The Palestinians turned down the UN deal. They possessed no land to be "stolen" and they still don't. There was never an independent Arab state called Palestine. They are trying to get something that they never had and refused when offered it..

You have a very selective memory of UN resolutions, UG, and neglect to mention the fact that Israel has ignored every UN resolution since then. Very convenient.

Nor do you mention that the 20^th Zionist Congress rejected the earlier Peel Commission Plan of 1937 (when the Jewish population of Palestine was only 27%), even though Jews would have been given some of the most fertile land in the Galilee valley and more of the coastal strip than in the later UN plan, because the areas allocated to the "Jewish state" were "too small". The Zionists wanted more even then and they have never stopped wanting more.

But the most damning part of that rejection comes from Ben Gurion himself.

"Had partition been carried out, the history of our people would have been different and six million Jews in Europe would not have been killed---most of them would be in Israel" (“One Palestine, Complete: Jews and Arabs Under the British Mandate” by Tom Segev p. 414).

... all because of Zionist greed. Disgusting.

There are indeed rumours that Ben Gurion had territorial ambitions beyond the allocation of the Peel Commission and even the November 29th UN agreement. It is even plausible that he welcomed the Palestinian's refusal to cooperate with the process and the ensuing civil war. But name-calling and feeling 'disgust' over history does not promote a clear understanding of history or provide a basis for suggesting solutions to the current mess, which is what this topic is about.

Rumours? Didn't know rumors promote a clear understanding of history or provide a basis for suggesting solutions to the current mess.

<snip>

Edited August 18, 2014 by soundman
Baiting.

[7by7]

But after she was gone, Major and then Blair would negotiate. They agreed to talks with no preconditions.

Since your entire post (and suggestions) are based on the sentences above, which are not true, I'd just address them specifically:

Northern Ireland, Sinn Fein, the political party that is affiliated with the I.R.A., did not enter the negotiations until after 15 months had elapsed in the negotiations, and only then because they met two central conditions that had been established:

So, in other words, there WERE preconditions and Israel would be foolish not to do the same. Let this be the end to repeating over and over again the fabrication that Britain negotiated with the IRA without any conditions. They DIDN'T.

Dear, oh dear.

Don't you people read your own links?

The Guardian link provided by dr_lucas makes it clear that informal, private talks without preconditions took place before the formal, public ones.

But I see no point in arguing over this point.

The central and key comparison is that there would be no peace in Northern Ireland if the British government had continued to refuse to talk to Sinn Fein/IRA.

Just as there will be no peace in Gaza until the Israeli government talk to Hamas.

I have twice said before that by offering talks the Israeli government have nothing to lose; but everything to gain.

Odd that no one on the Israeli side here has commented on that!

[Ulysses G.]

The Guardian link provided by dr_lucas makes it clear that informal, private talks without preconditions took place before the formal, public ones.

But I see no point in arguing over this point.

I bet you see no point in arguing over this point.

"Indirect contacts" to work out the details of formal meetings are not the "talks without preconditions" that you have been insisting happened in post after post. It was made clear that there were conditions before there could be any actual negotiating.

You were wrong and I have to wonder if you knew it all along. Own up to it.

Edited August 18, 2014 by Ulysses G.

[7by7]

<snip>

Dude, Kosher products are not the same thing as Israeli products. Most of the Kosher products on the shelves in England are not made in Israel. Yes, there have been Jew haters in England who have vandalized Kosher products (not the first time) including in the past putting pork products around them.

There are far more incidents where idiots do the same with Halal products. Don't recall you getting upset by that!

It's quite revealing that you (Jay Sata) cite this incident as a case of BDS when it is actually a case of rabid antisemitism (against Jews).

If you read all of the Daily Mail article linked to you will see that it is a case of one Sainsbury's store taking the action thought necessary to prevent potential damage to the store and stock.

The move yesterday sparked online accusations of anti-Semitism by the grocer – despite the Sainsbury family’s well-documented Jewish ancestry dating back as far as the 19th century.

Sainsbury's insisted the decision was taken in case protesters hurled food from the shelves, which would then have to be thrown away......

Pro-Palestinian protesters in Britain have long urged supporters to boycott Israeli goods, though not kosher goods, to send a message to Israel over its blockade of Gaza......

Mr Appleby returned to the branch this evening and found the kosher food shelf had been fully reinstated, adding: 'Sainsbury's assure me the staff member has been suitably chastised.'

The firm admitted the kosher food was removed but challenged Mr Appleby's version of events.

A Sainsbury's spokesman told MailOnline there was 'no evidence' that a staff member had made the 'Free Gaza' comment and instead the decision was taken to stop protesters damaging the food.

The spokesman added: 'It was the manager's decision there and then - not company policy at all. We are a non-political organisation and we're not coming down on either side of the argument........

As for some British Jews feeling a rise in anti Semitism since the escalation of the Gaza conflict; as I showed you when you first mentioned it, there was a similar rise in Islamaphobia and Islamaphobic attacks on mosques etc. in the UK following the murder of Lee Rigby.

There are ignorant idiots everywhere who will latch onto a tragic event as an excuse for their prejudices.

[7by7]

The Guardian link provided by dr_lucas makes it clear that informal, private talks without preconditions took place before the formal, public ones.

But I see no point in arguing over this point.

I bet you see no point in arguing over this point.

"Indirect contacts" to work out the details of formal meetings are not the "talks without preconditions" that you have been insisting happened in post after post. It was made clear that there were conditions before there could be any actual negotiating.

You were wrong and I have to wonder if you knew it all along. Own up to it.

I see no point in arguing over it because no matter what I say, no matter what evidence I produce; you will not accept it.

Just as you don't accept that informal, private talks without preconditions are talks without preconditions!

So, tell us; what has Israel got to lose by offering to talk with Hamas?

If Hamas reject such talks, or if such talks break down; Israel loses nothing.

But if the talks succeed; Israel has peace, at least for the foreseeable future.

[Ulysses G.]

<snip>

Dude, Kosher products are not the same thing as Israeli products. Most of the Kosher products on the shelves in England are not made in Israel. Yes, there have been Jew haters in England who have vandalized Kosher products (not the first time) including in the past putting pork products around them.

There are far more incidents where idiots do the same with Halal products. Don't recall you getting upset by that!

Probably because it has never been brought up on this forum. Nice attempt at deflection though.

[Ulysses G.]

So, tell us; what has Israel got to lose by offering to talk with Hamas?

Those links that dr_lucas provided made it very clear, as well as the FACT that there were conditions for talks with the IRA, which you keep trying to deny. You obviously did not read them.

Edited August 18, 2014 by Ulysses G.

[Scott]

Posts and replies of a questionable nature have been deleted. Please post a link if you are making quotes.

[Jean Pierre Jacquot]

Israel has to to leave the occupied territories! As long as they continue to steal the land of others there will be never ever peace. The more Palestinians they deliberately kill the stronger Hamas is becoming in the Palestinian community and the more hate is being sawn. If Israel does not stop their human rights abuses this conflict is going to go on for many more generations.

You are correct. Israel must leave the territories. And indeed they have left the majority of the territories and there is still need for further retreat, most direly in Hebron, and to desist building new settlemnets. On the other hand the Arabs must also reciprocate by signing treaties that recognize Israel and they must also stop educating their young people to hate. Peace is always a two-way street. And I see you are beginning to realize the strategy of Hamas, that they invite civilian casualties in order to gain politically. In Gaza, Hamas is the problem and not Israel. Those who focus their discontent solely upon Israel, all the foolish marchers in London and Paris as well as sympathizers here on ThaiVisa are the ones encouraging the Hamas strategy of sacrificing civilians for political gain. The blood of these civilians is upon their hands as well.

You are right. Of course Hamas (not the Arabs, please.....) and the Palestinians need to their part in the peace process. This is absolutely clear. The article is however on what Israel needs to do now and not what the Palestinians need to do. And that is as well clear: as long as they occupy territories which are not duly theirs and as long as they create hate in Palestinians in deliberately killing civilians, bombing schools and killing children, there will be no peace. They have to do that even there are occasional self fabricated mostly harmless bombs falling into territories they control. Hope that finally Israel hardliners, like Uysses G., will understand this. Just bombing and killing more Palestinians will not create peace. No way!

[Scott]

Off-topic inflammatory posts and replies deleted. Please stay on the topic.

[Jean Pierre Jacquot]

But Mr Inbar believes that President Obama cannot undo close Israeli-US ties. The relationship is anchored in a long history and there is lots of domestic American support for Israel. We will survive Obama.

He is correct. Americans support Israel over the Palestinians by a huge margin and both political parties are even more adamant. Obama's feckless foreign policy has to be considered, but he is a lame duck and can not ignore his own democratic party.

As usual you change the truth to serve your hate viewpoints. Americans are not supporting Israel but there is American support. That is a big difference. American support means the US administration and as we all know the American Jews have huge amounts of funds and therefore call the shots what concerns America's stand towards Israel. Not to say that all the American jews do support the hardline right wing Israel government but that's another story.

[Ulysses G.]

As usual you change the truth to serve your hate viewpoints.

I don't have to "change the truth", Facts are facts.

Fifty-seven percent (57%) of Likely U.S. Voters say that, in the current conflict in Gaza, most Americans are supportive of the Israelis. A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that only eight percent (8%) believe Americans are more supportive of the Palestinians.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/israel_the_middle_east/voters_think_americans_more_supportive_of_israel_than_obama_media_are

A majority of Americans believe that the U.S. should be even-handed in the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, but more people sympathize with Israels side of the Middle East split, a new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll out Tuesday has found.

The poll, conducted July 30-Aug. 3 during ongoing violence in Gaza, found that 53% believed the U.S. should treat Israel and the Palestinians evenly, while 34% said the U.S. should favor the Israelis. Only 4% said the U.S. should favor the Palestinians over the Israelis.

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2014/08/05/u-s-should-be-even-handed-on-israel-palestinians-wsjnbc-poll/

Edited August 18, 2014 by Ulysses G.

[Seastallion]

As usual you change the truth to serve your hate viewpoints.

I don't have to "change the truth", Facts are facts.

Fifty-seven percent (57%) of Likely U.S. Voters say that, in the current conflict in Gaza, most Americans are supportive of the Israelis. A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that only eight percent (8%) believe Americans are more supportive of the Palestinians.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/israel_the_middle_east/voters_think_americans_more_supportive_of_israel_than_obama_media_are

A majority of Americans believe that the U.S. should be even-handed in the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, but more people sympathize with Israels side of the Middle East split, a new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll out Tuesday has found.

The poll, conducted July 30-Aug. 3 during ongoing violence in Gaza, found that 53% believed the U.S. should treat Israel and the Palestinians evenly, while 34% said the U.S. should favor the Israelis. Only 4% said the U.S. should favor the Palestinians over the Israelis.

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2014/08/05/u-s-should-be-even-handed-on-israel-palestinians-wsjnbc-poll/

An amusing presentation of statistics.

57% say most Americans are supportive, does not mean they themselves are supportive, just that they believe most are. Similarly with the 8%.

All those two figures really say is what Americans believe other Americans support.

And presented in a way to make the gullible reader think something else.

The one definitive statistic was the majority favour even handedness.

So what "facts" are you trying to present?

Edited August 18, 2014 by Seastallion

[Ulysses G.]

So what "facts" are you trying to present?

The FACT that Americans overwhelming support Israel over the Palestinians and always have. Get to nit-picking and trying to deny the obvious.

Edited August 18, 2014 by Ulysses G.

[Wat dee]

As usual you change the truth to serve your hate viewpoints.

I don't have to "change the truth", Facts are facts.

Fifty-seven percent (57%) of Likely U.S. Voters say that, in the current conflict in Gaza, most Americans are supportive of the Israelis. A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that only eight percent (8%) believe Americans are more supportive of the Palestinians.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/israel_the_middle_east/voters_think_americans_more_supportive_of_israel_than_obama_media_are

A majority of Americans believe that the U.S. should be even-handed in the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, but more people sympathize with Israels side of the Middle East split, a new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll out Tuesday has found.

The poll, conducted July 30-Aug. 3 during ongoing violence in Gaza, found that 53% believed the U.S. should treat Israel and the Palestinians evenly, while 34% said the U.S. should favor the Israelis. Only 4% said the U.S. should favor the Palestinians over the Israelis.

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2014/08/05/u-s-should-be-even-handed-on-israel-palestinians-wsjnbc-poll/

Jewish propaganda machine has very successfully promoted Israel in America. Most people there has no idea what really is happening in Palestine,thank's to the jewish owned media. TV and movie's product,Israeli, placements make you laugh sometimes. Wanna win a oscar or atleast be nominated...Jewish gardener watching (120min) flowers grow in Warsaw ´39.

I would love to know where and how the poll was done.

[Jingthing]

Jewish propaganda machine has very successfully promoted Israel in America. Most people there has no idea what really is happening in Palestine,thank's to the jewish owned media. TV and movie's product,Israeli, placements make you laugh sometimes. Wanna win a oscar or atleast be nominated...Jewish gardener watching (120min) flowers grow in Warsaw ´39.

I would love to know where and how the poll was done.

Jewish owned media?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism

There are a number of antisemitic canards which are used to fuel and justify antisemitic sentiment and activities. These include conspiracy theories and myths such as: that Jews killed Christ, poisoned wells, killed Christian children, or "made up" the Holocaust, plot to control the world, harvest organs, and other invented stories. A number of conspiracy theories also include accusations that Jews control the media or global financial institutions.