Political Crossfire Forums

[Swandazi]

Well if Iran gets nukes, (they probably will unless the US stops messing around in the UN and says screw it were going in their to destroy them and their nuclear reactors and bombs and whoever wants to come help come with us, and if you oppose our invasion well, you can go to the UN and try to give us Sanctions) Israel will need nukes, to retailiate against a Iranian nuclear missle strike.

[superskippy]

Quote: Likewise, skippy, but I have more imporant things in life to attend to, and even defending Islam here on PCF is becoming a small part of it.

Ah well just dont leave us permanently come on every once and a while. And when it comes to defend Islam itself I like to think I've always been there on your side.

Quote: know that he's just a soldier.

Well actually now I'm just a reservist, I'm going to school and I'm thinking about going abroad for a year or so. By the way what are you up to these days?

Quote: Btw, I am an advocate of the one-state solution, but the Palestinian two-state solution is something I also support at the moment because it seems to be the more practical settlement.

If we could really hammer something out I beleive a two state solution is the most likely and possible goals, what needs to happen though is more work on the water problam, I'm personally still partial to the Jordanian-Israeli-Palestinian plan of a canal fromt he straits of Tiran to run through the Negev, Jordan, and the West Bank. Also security needs to be hammered out and for Israel to silence it's guns we also need the radical elements of the Palestinian groups to be brought low and all attacks to cease as well. Also an often unlooked at but equally important relations building between a Palestinian government that has a moderate cabinet and a correspending Israeli government, the reason is because no state will come about between two hostile governments and nations.

[Saracen]

superskippy wrote: Ah well just dont leave us permanently come on every once and a while. And when it comes to defend Islam itself I like to think I've always been there on your side.

Likewise when it comes to defending against anti-Semitism and anti-Judaism (there's a difference between the 2, btw).

I won't leave permanently. I might when my life takes a turn for other things (marriage, for example, but that's a long way off, but you catch my draft).

Quote: Well actually now I'm just a reservist, I'm going to school and I'm thinking about going abroad for a year or so. By the way what are you up to these days?

Oh, dammit! Guess I was wrong... :P

I'm quite busy, preparing myself for university.

Quote: If we could really hammer something out I beleive a two state solution is the most likely and possible goals, what needs to happen though is more work on the water problam, I'm personally still partial to the Jordanian-Israeli-Palestinian plan of a canal fromt he straits of Tiran to run through the Negev, Jordan, and the West Bank. Also security needs to be hammered out and for Israel to silence it's guns we also need the radical elements of the Palestinian groups to be brought low and all attacks to cease as well. Also an often unlooked at but equally important relations building between a Palestinian government that has a moderate cabinet and a correspending Israeli government, the reason is because no state will come about between two hostile governments and nations.

That's what I meant.

[Pareve]

Saracen wrote: I am an advocate of the one-state solution, but the Palestinian two-state solution is something I also support at the moment because it seems to be the more practical settlement.

I feel the same way.

[thatisnotme]

superskippy wrote:
If we could really hammer something out I beleive a two state solution is the most likely and possible goals



Just a friendly reminder (especially to our Arab friends). UN resolution of 1947 proposed exactly that: a two-state solution that was rejected by the Arab countries which went to war against Israel. It is very difficult for the Arab countries to acept that since such a gesture would demand from them to justify nearly 60 years of needless war.

[fiction416]

thatisnotme wrote: superskippy wrote:
If we could really hammer something out I beleive a two state solution is the most likely and possible goals



Just a friendly reminder (especially to our Arab friends). UN resolution of 1947 proposed exactly that: a two-state solution that was rejected by the Arab countries which went to war against Israel. It is very difficult for the Arab countries to acept that since such a gesture would demand from them to justify nearly 60 years of needless war.


And what about resolution 242 - LINK

Just a friendly reminder (to all our Israeli frinds) that Israel is in violation of the most UN resolutions - LINK

Also, the US vetoes almost every resolution against Israel - LINK

[fiction416]

Pareve wrote: fiction416 wrote:


2) For the most part, those comments have been taken out of context by the Media.
How about we hear from the Iranian president in his own words?

"We are asked why we have started [nuclear] research. We answer that there is no limitation to research. There are no limits imposed on research in NPT [Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty] or in the Additional Protocol. Nor have we made such a commitment. Research is necessary for the life and dynamism of a nation."
-Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

"As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map."
- Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

"Anybody who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation's fury."
- Mahmoud Ahmadinejad



They may be his own words, but the are taken out of context, just as i mentioned initially (what part of that did you not understand, while posting quotes, that are taken out of context?).

[thatisnotme]

fiction416 wrote: thatisnotme wrote: superskippy wrote:
If we could really hammer something out I beleive a two state solution is the most likely and possible goals



Just a friendly reminder (especially to our Arab friends). UN resolution of 1947 proposed exactly that: a two-state solution that was rejected by the Arab countries which went to war against Israel. It is very difficult for the Arab countries to acept that since such a gesture would demand from them to justify nearly 60 years of needless war.


And what about resolution 242 - LINK

Just a friendly reminder (to all our Israeli frinds) that Israel is in violation of the most UN resolutions - LINK

Also, the US vetoes almost every resolution against Israel - LINK

UN 188 preceded UN 242. The Arab countries didn't respect UN 188, now you want Israel to respect 242, what hypocrisy???

[fiction416]

thatisnotme wrote: fiction416 wrote: thatisnotme wrote: superskippy wrote:
If we could really hammer something out I beleive a two state solution is the most likely and possible goals



Just a friendly reminder (especially to our Arab friends). UN resolution of 1947 proposed exactly that: a two-state solution that was rejected by the Arab countries which went to war against Israel. It is very difficult for the Arab countries to acept that since such a gesture would demand from them to justify nearly 60 years of needless war.


And what about resolution 242 - LINK

Just a friendly reminder (to all our Israeli frinds) that Israel is in violation of the most UN resolutions - LINK

Also, the US vetoes almost every resolution against Israel - LINK

UN 188 preceded UN 242. The Arab countries didn't respect UN 188, now you want Israel to respect 242, what hypocrisy???


Irrelevant!

Have you read the language of 242?

Quote: withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict & termination of all claims or states of belligerency

This has to do with the occupation of land in the aftermath of the 1967 war.

it was even reinforced by UN Resolution 338

[thatisnotme]

fiction416 wrote: thatisnotme wrote: fiction416 wrote: thatisnotme wrote: superskippy wrote:
If we could really hammer something out I beleive a two state solution is the most likely and possible goals



Just a friendly reminder (especially to our Arab friends). UN resolution of 1947 proposed exactly that: a two-state solution that was rejected by the Arab countries which went to war against Israel. It is very difficult for the Arab countries to acept that since such a gesture would demand from them to justify nearly 60 years of needless war.


And what about resolution 242 - LINK

Just a friendly reminder (to all our Israeli frinds) that Israel is in violation of the most UN resolutions - LINK

Also, the US vetoes almost every resolution against Israel - LINK

UN 188 preceded UN 242. The Arab countries didn't respect UN 188, now you want Israel to respect 242, what hypocrisy???


Irrelevant!

Have you read the language of 242?

Quote: withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict & termination of all claims or states of belligerency

This has to do with the occupation of land in the aftermath of the 1967 war.

it was even reinforced by UN Resolution 338

You haven't addressed my point. Why should Israel care about 242, when the Arab countries don't give a hoot about 188?

[fiction416]

thatisnotme wrote:
You haven't addressed my point. Why should Israel care about 242, when the Arab countries don't give a hoot about 188?


I'm looking for some text on 188 - all i can find is this:

Quote: The Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America today applauded the United States Senate for unanimously
adopting Senate Resolution 188 calling for Israeli membership in a United Nations regional group.

The resolution which had 54 co-sponsors was spearheaded by United States Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D-NY).

The Orthodox Union has long advocated Israel's acceptance into a United Nations regional group. Israel, as the only member state of the UN in long-standing that has never been accepted to a regional bloc, should gain admittance to the United Nation's Western European and Others group. This would enable Israel to play a more active role in the United Nations while enabling the UN to reverse an act of discrimination against the State of Israel.

Since joining the United Nations in 1949, Israel has been isolated from any one regional bloc. Due to opposition from
Arab states, Israel's membership to the Asian grouping has been prevented. Since the WEO group is based on
principles that unify Western style democracies rather than by regional grouping, Israel should be included in the
WEOG, whose members include, among others, New Zealand, Australia and Canada.

Israel has demonstrated its willingness to participate fully in the proceedings and work of the United Nations and her
acceptance into the WEO group would help nations of the world get the full benefit of Israel's participation.

Senator Moynihan and the United States Senate deserve praise for this most important resolution. Israel, by not
being accepted into any regional group, cannot exercise its full right as a member of the UN, cannot be nominated
for membership in many UN groups and is therefore left out of important decision making processes. We hope that
this excellent resolution on the part of the United States Senate will lead to a positive response to Israel's request to
address the situation that reflects ultimately on the credibility of the United Nations.

SOURCE


Is this what you are talking about?

If not, can you provide a link so i could review the text?

[Pareve]

fiction416 wrote: Pareve wrote: fiction416 wrote:


2) For the most part, those comments have been taken out of context by the Media.
How about we hear from the Iranian president in his own words?

"We are asked why we have started [nuclear] research. We answer that there is no limitation to research. There are no limits imposed on research in NPT [Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty] or in the Additional Protocol. Nor have we made such a commitment. Research is necessary for the life and dynamism of a nation."
-Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

"As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map."
- Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

"Anybody who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation's fury."
- Mahmoud Ahmadinejad



They may be his own words, but the are taken out of context, just as i mentioned initially (what part of that did you not understand, while posting quotes, that are taken out of context?).

I really don't think there's a way to put "Anybody who recognizes Israel will burnin the fire of the Islamic nation's fury" in a good context. Seriously.

[Pareve]

181 is the number.
Wikipedia Link About It

I hope Wikipedia is OK... I know it can be edited and stuff, and while I wouldn't use it for a scholarly paper, I think it is usually fine for quick reference.

[Pareve]

fiction416 wrote: thatisnotme wrote: superskippy wrote:
If we could really hammer something out I beleive a two state solution is the most likely and possible goals



Just a friendly reminder (especially to our Arab friends). UN resolution of 1947 proposed exactly that: a two-state solution that was rejected by the Arab countries which went to war against Israel. It is very difficult for the Arab countries to acept that since such a gesture would demand from them to justify nearly 60 years of needless war.


And what about resolution 242 - LINK

Just a friendly reminder (to all our Israeli frinds) that Israel is in violation of the most UN resolutions - LINK

Also, the US vetoes almost every resolution against Israel - LINK

Why should Israel care about these resolutions when the original resolution mandating for two separate states was completely ignored by the surrounding Arab nations and the Palestinians?

[Secondary Oak]

fiction416 wrote: If not, can you provide a link so i could review the text?
I believe he is referring to the general assembly resolution 181.
Wikipedia entry
Full text (click on 181).


Edit: Pareve beat me to it...

[Pareve]

Secondary Oak wrote: fiction416 wrote: If not, can you provide a link so i could review the text?
I believe he is referring to the general assembly resolution 181.
Wikipedia entry
Full text (click on 181).

Thanks for the full text! :)

[superskippy]

Quote: And what about resolution 242 - LINK

What about it?

We have complied with it, it doesnt say we have to withdraw from all territories nor does it specify it as a one way deal. The debate was enormous in 1967 to see if we could remove the words "All the" from the resolution in the end we won out and got territories as the label. And since it says territories we have complied with it, since we have withdrawn from 'territories' namely the Sinai in exchange for peace.

It also states that and I quote Quote: Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area. Syria has yet to terminate a state of belligerency and we are still at war having fought as recently as 1982-1983.

We have secured our agreement with Egypt thus ruling out that part of the resolution, and with Jordan, only Syria remains and we are still at war. Also the resolution never states that we have to withdraw in place of the Palestinians, Jordan and Egypt have both given up claim to Gaza and the West Bank respectivly and as the Palestinians are no recognized succesors to a 40 years old resolution they cannot claim rights to resolution 242 which very specifically deals with Israel and it's national neighbors.

The resolution also made very clear that the final borders would be negotiated and that a total immediate withdrawel was not even wanted, it introduced the concept of Land for Peace which proved so effective in Egypt and allowed us to hammer out our own peace agreement, as with Jordan whom we amde peace with but did not ask for the West Bank or East Jerusalem back.

Quote: Also, the US vetoes almost every resolution against Israel

Yeah and? What do you think the Soviets did for half a century? They even managed to keep the 1973 war going until their own supported side was being defeated. The US has taken up a firm position as our allies and we are grateful beyond belief. The Arab Bloc makes up 1/3 of the UN, it is enormously difficult for us to ever get a fair shake in the first place.

[fiction416]

Pareve wrote:
Why should Israel care about these resolutions when the original resolution mandating for two separate states was completely ignored by the surrounding Arab nations and the Palestinians?


because every Arab state, including India, voted against 181. It says alsot when every nation in the Middle East votes against it, no?

[Pareve]

fiction416 wrote: Pareve wrote:
Why should Israel care about these resolutions when the original resolution mandating for two separate states was completely ignored by the surrounding Arab nations and the Palestinians?


because every Arab state, including India, voted against 181. It says alsot when every nation in the Middle East votes against it, no?

India is not an Arab, or even a Middle Eastern country. And all it says is that many Arabs don't want there to be an Israel. Big suprise there.

[superskippy]

Quote: because every Arab state, including India, voted against 181. It says alsot when every nation in the Middle East votes against it, no?

So the Arabs didnt get their way, whats your point?