Why US supports Israel?

wes

Serenity Now! wrote: »

Other way round.

Going to have to disagree with you there. If that was the case, the thread title would be "Why does the US support Palestine?".

brianthebard

wes wrote: »

Going to have to disagree with you there. If that was the case, the thread title would be "Why does the US support Palestine?".

No it wouldn't, it would be why is politics complicated?

If Saudi money was taken out if the US the economy would grind to a halt....oh wait.

jtsuited

i always thought it came to down to that public money/private money magic trick the US government loves to do.

As in,
The US government collects taxes (public money), sends a load of money to israel who buy guns with it from the US arms companies and the money becomes the profits of private business.

The effect being akin to the president writing a weekly cheque to the arms companies out of public taxes.

Or something like that.

Nodin

Serenity Now! wrote: »

Only today, the Israeli govt cut off support to settlers who keep expanding. A tad late to say the least but its got to start somewhere. .

Indeed. We shall see.

Serenity Now! wrote: »

They havent placed any leaders in charge of Israel via coup or otherwise so I dont think its the same as Chile, Honduras, Haiti, Panama or Nicaragua. .

It was more of the sense of backing a b/astard than a precisely similar situation that I meant it.

DublinWriter

luckyfrank wrote: »

You dont see the israelis flying planes into skyscrappers do you ?

Nope, just some of their top spies diplomats kicked out of the states in the days directly after 9/11.

I think it's more to do with finance than demographics as just under 2% of the population of the states claim to be Jewish.

It's also important to distinguish between the terms Jewish and Zionist, people seem to think that they are interchangeable.

Serenity Now!

DublinWriter wrote: »

Nope, just some of their top spies diplomats kicked out of the states in the days directly after 9/11

:rolleyes:

Serenity Now!

wes wrote: »

Going to have to disagree with you there. If that was the case, the thread title would be "Why does the US support Palestine?".

No, it wouldnt be anything of a sort.
Its just big business. The Saudi govt care about as much as the Palestinians as they do about Iran. They have always lumped the Palestinians as a Jordanian/Egyptian/Syrian problem and nothing to do with them. Hence the faciliatatorship of pan-Arabic talks with the Israelis.
Their intelligence service, GID, has been f**king around with the middle east and Central Asia for five decades at this rate. The self-serving govt there have about as much control over it as the Pakistan govt has had over its ISI ie. next to none.

wes

Serenity Now! wrote: »

No, it wouldnt be anything of a sort.
Its just big business. The Saudi govt care about as much as the Palestinians as they do about Iran. They have always lumped the Palestinians as a Jordanian/Egyptian/Syrian problem and nothing to do with them. Hence the faciliatatorship of pan-Arabic talks with the Israelis.
Their intelligence service, GID, has been f**king around with the middle east and Central Asia for five decades at this rate. The self-serving govt there have about as much control over it as the Pakistan govt has had over its ISI ie. next to none.

Again, going to have to disagree. If the Saudi's had the influence on the US, there would be at a minimum a Palestinians state alongside Israel. Even this bare minimum hasn't been accomplished.

During the 1st Gulf war the Saudi's paid billions to the US to save them from a potential attack by Saddam. The Saudi's are no where near as powerful as people make them out to be. They need the US to protect there regime more than anything else. We are seeing the same thing with Iran, the Saudi's need the US to protect them from Iran, as they have a huge Shia population, that just so happens to live on top of a lot of oil. The Saudi's need the US more, than the US needs them imho.

wes

brianthebard wrote: »

If Saudi money was taken out if the US the economy would grind to a halt....oh wait.

If the Saudi's did that, I would reckon there regime would collapse within a year or 2.

Serenity Now!

wes wrote: »

Again, going to have to disagree. If the Saudi's had the influence on the US, there would be at a minimum a Palestinians state alongside Israel. Even this bare minimum hasn't been accomplished

There is nothing "bare minimum" about the implementation of the two-state solution.

During the 1st Gulf war the Saudi's paid billions to the US to save them from a potential attack by Saddam. The Saudi's are no where near as powerful as people make them out to be. They need the US to protect there regime more than anything else. We are seeing the same thing with Iran, the Saudi's need the US to protect them from Iran, as they have a huge Shia population, that just so happens to live on top of a lot of oil. The Saudi's need the US more, than the US needs them imho.[/quote]

Look, its quite simple.
No Saudis. No money. This is why Saudi Arabia has the US and the UK eating out of its hand. Saudi's influence on the region both diplomatically and on the intelligence front, its strategic position and its wallet is why they call what goes.

wes

Serenity Now! wrote: »

Look, its quite simple.
No Saudis. No money. This is why Saudi Arabia has the US and the UK eating out of its hand. Saudi's influence on the region both diplomatically and on the intelligence front, its strategic position and its wallet is why they call what goes.

The money probably buys them some influence, but the Chinese are owed a ton of money as well and they don't have much influence as well. I really doubt they have any real say in what goes.

They need to pay billions to get the US to do anything, as I mentioned with the Gulf War. The Saudi's are at best a important client state for the US due to the cash and thats about it.

Serenity Now!

wes wrote: »

They need to pay billions to get the US to do anything, as I mentioned with the Gulf War. The Saudi's are at best a important client state for the US due to the cash and thats about it.

So apart from the money, being the most influential country in the region, having its fingers dipped in most Middle Eastern and Central & Near Asian country's affairs and a guarantor/underwriter for the US exchequer/balance of trade............."thats about it"???? :rolleyes:

wes

Serenity Now! wrote: »

So apart from the money, being the most influential country in the region, having its fingers dipped in most Middle Eastern and Central & Near Asian country's affairs and a guarantor/underwriter for the US exchequer/balance of trade............."thats about it"???? :rolleyes:

I was talking about there influence on the US, which seems minimal to me. What exactly do the Saudi's get the US to do? Sorry, but the US super pro-Israel stance show how little influence the Saudi's actually have and they do care about the Palestinians issue, they just don't like to do there own dirty work (e.g. funding the Afghan Mujahadeen against the Soviets etc). If the Saudi's could get the US to take a different stance on this, they would. It would show them as the leaders of Muslims, as opposed to there enemy Iran, which has been trying to do just that to make themselves out to be the leaders of Muslims. Now, the only reason the Saudi's would care, is that the Palestinian issue, is a really populist issue, for a group who want to be leaders of the Muslim world. So for them to pull that off they can't ignore that, hence there recent attempts to broker a peace deal, which failed. If they had more influence on the US, they would have got them to bring Israel to the table, they didn't even manage that.

The Saudi's do what the US says, not the other way around.

Serenity Now!

wes wrote: »

I was talking about there influence on the US, which seems minimal to me. What exactly do the Saudi's get the US to do? Sorry, but the US super pro-Israel stance show how little influence the Saudi's actually have and they do care about the Palestinians issue, they just don't like to do there own dirty work (e.g. funding the Afghan Mujahadeen against the Soviets etc). If the Saudi's could get the US to take a different stance on this, they would.

It would show them as the leaders of Muslims, as opposed to there enemy Iran, which has been trying to do just that to make themselves out to be the leaders of Muslims. Now, the only reason the Saudi's would care, is that the Palestinian issue, is a really populist issue, for a group who want to be leaders of the Muslim world. So for them to pull that off they can't ignore that, hence there recent attempts to broker a peace deal, which failed. If they had more influence on the US, they would have got them to bring Israel to the table, they didn't even manage that.

The Saudi's do what the US says, not the other way around.

You almost argue against your point, there are so many contradictions in that post.
Israel has strategic value to the States hence their financial support of the country every year.
The US ignores almost every facet of Saudi Arabia's discard of human rights. It never condemns it. Now, why do you think that is? Without the Saudis, the US is hurt fiscally and in the Middle East.
Israel not joining in talks via Saudi moderatorship is down to the US??? Its down to Israel and Saudi Arabia. Not the States. If the US had the Saudis in their pocket, Israel would be "at the table" and there would also be trade between Israel and Saudi Arabia.
Everybody wants a piece of Saudi Arabia and Saudi Arabia dictates who gets what.

wes

Serenity Now! wrote: »

You almost argue against your point, there are so many contradictions in that post.
Israel has strategic value to the States hence their financial support of the country every year.
The US ignores almost every facet of Saudi Arabia's discard of human rights. It never condemns it. Now, why do you think that is? Without the Saudis, the US is hurt fiscally and in the Middle East.
Israel not joining in talks via Saudi moderatorship is down to the US??? Its down to Israel and Saudi Arabia. Not the States. If the US had the Saudis in their pocket, Israel would be "at the table" and there would also be trade between Israel and Saudi Arabia.
Everybody wants a piece of Saudi Arabia and Saudi Arabia dictates who gets what.

The US ignores Saudi human rights, they do exactly the same for Egypt and they did the same for the likes of Suharto and Pinochet. Ignoring Human rights is nothing special at all for the US, so not the best example of Saudi influence, when the US does this for everyone of there dodgy friends.

The Saudi peace plan, clearly wanted to negotiate with the Israeli's, hence why the proposed it in the first place. It was a comprehensive plan that would have involved the entire Arab league. If they had power over the US, they would have gotten them to pressure Israel into it. Also, I never said that the Israeli's didn't join due to the US, but that the US could influence them to engage in talks, what with them giving them billions each year. It would have normalized relations, and would have allowed the trade you speak of btw.

So if the Saudi's can influence the US, they could get them to influence the Israeli's to the table. Which, we know didn't happen.

Serenity Now!

wes wrote: »

The US ignores Saudi human rights, they do exactly the same for Egypt and they did the same for the likes of Suharto and Pinochet. Ignoring Human rights is nothing special at all for the US, so not the best example of Saudi influence, when the US does this for everyone of there dodgy friends

An example all the same. Didnt say it was the entire basis of my assertion. The US has no influence over Saudi Arabia. Even via its allies in the Arab League.

wes wrote: »

The Saudi peace plan, clearly wanted to negotiate with the Israeli's, hence why the proposed it in the first place. It was a comprehensive plan that would have involved the entire Arab league. If they had power over the US, they would have gotten them to pressure Israel into it. Also, I never said that the Israeli's didn't join due to the US, but that the US could influence them to engage in talks, what with them giving them billions each year. It would have normalized relations, and would have allowed the trade you speak of btw.

So if the Saudi's can influence the US, they could get them to influence the Israeli's to the table. Which, we know didn't happen.

Do you even know what the Saudis want with Israel (without looking it up)? The US and Saudi Arabia do not agree on Israel one iota. The borders are not recognised by Saudi Arabia. There is no trade or diplomatic relations between the two countries. This is why Israel refused to attend further or participate even by proxy. The US couldn't do anything about it. Now all talks are on hold because Israel goes down the election road next february. Using your logic, if the US ran what Saudi did, the talks would have gone ahead. The States can't influence either country in any condition or level for this insolvable scenario.

wes

Serenity Now! wrote: »

An example all the same. Didnt say it was the entire basis of my assertion. The US has no influence over Saudi Arabia. Even via its allies in the Arab League.

Fair enough, but the US is good to its client states in general.

Serenity Now! wrote: »

Do you even know what the Saudis want with Israel (without looking it up)? The US and Saudi Arabia do not agree on Israel one iota. The borders are not recognised by Saudi Arabia. There is no trade or diplomatic relations between the two countries. This is why Israel refused to attend further or participate even by proxy. The US couldn't do anything about it. Now all talks are on hold because Israel goes down the election road next february. Using your logic, if the US ran what Saudi did, the talks would have gone ahead. The States can't influence either country in any condition or level for this insolvable scenario.

Without looking it up? No problem, they wanted Israel to go back to the 1967 borders and for a solution to the refugee problem, not as Israel claimed when they rejected it, that it insisted in a right to return. This is what Israel had claimed it wanted in the past. Last, I checked the US also claims to believe in the 2 state solution. It had nothing to do with not having relations. Everything Israel claimed it wanted was there for the taking and they rejected it, without even engaging in talks.

Also, the offer was made twice in the last few years and having no relations shouldn't be a problem as that was a part of the deal being offered.

Also, I disagree, the US has huge influence over Israel, they could easily threaten to stop giving them billions and stop using there veto on there behalf.

Also, the solution for the problem that the majority of both sides agree on (if the polls are to be believed) is the 2 state solution. Its the religous fundamentalists nutters in Hamas and the Colonists, whom are making peace impossible. Both sides need to stand up to them, while the solution still stands a chance.

Serenity Now!

wes wrote: »

Without looking it up? No problem, they wanted Israel to go back to the 1967 borders and for a solution to the refugee problem, not as Israel claimed when they rejected it, that it insisted in a right to return. This is what Israel had claimed it wanted in the past. Last, I checked the US also claims to believe in the 2 state solution. It had nothing to do with not having relations. Everything Israel claimed it wanted was there for the taking and they rejected it, without even engaging in talks

You forgot Jerusalem. Israel will not discuss Jerusalem with anyone. Livni has refused to block any talks on the city and even threatens cutting funding to active groups both secular and non-secular and as a result is looking like losing support for any form of coalition govt.

wes wrote: »

Also, the offer was made twice in the last few years and having no relations shouldn't be a problem as that was a part of the deal being offered

Again, Jerusalem is a major problem here.

wes wrote: »

Also, I disagree, the US has huge influence over Israel, they could easily threaten to stop giving them billions and stop using there veto on there behalf

Not as long as there is a huge electorate (Jewish or Gentile) which supports Israel ceding nothing.

wes wrote: »

Also, the solution for the problem that the majority of both sides agree on (if the polls are to be believed) is the 2 state solution. Its the religous fundamentalists nutters in Hamas and the Colonists, whom are making peace impossible. Both sides need to stand up to them, while the solution still stands a chance.

The solution is untenable for at least three or four generations. There is not enough of a powerbase in Israel to do anything but adhere to the status quo.

Excuse me if I faint. I'm not used to threads on a subject like this being discussed in a calm, collected manner. I'm glad we got all this talked about before the usual wallies hijack the thread

Nodin

It is a bit odd for it to go 4 pages without various parties being accused of being an agent of 'the Jew', or 'muslims' etc. Mind you I'm normally on boards where its mostly Americans.....

marcsignal

Serenity Now! wrote: »

Excuse me if I faint. I'm not used to threads on a subject like this being discussed in a calm, collected manner. I'm glad we got all this talked about before the usual wallies hijack the thread

Here Here ! Compliments to all for corteous debating

wes

Serenity Now! wrote: »

You forgot Jerusalem. Israel will not discuss Jerusalem with anyone. Livni has refused to block any talks on the city and even threatens cutting funding to active groups both secular and non-secular and as a result is looking like losing support for any form of coalition govt.

Again, Jerusalem is a major problem here.

True. The Palestinians, however have been willing to have the city as a joint capital, so it doesn't have to be split, this would allow both groups full access to holy sites etc.

The thing is, is that Israel already has the majority of what was once Palestine, if there not willing to share the capital, they will come off as unreasonable.

Serenity Now! wrote: »

Not as long as there is a huge electorate (Jewish or Gentile) which supports Israel ceding nothing.


The solution is untenable for at least three or four generations. There is not enough of a powerbase in Israel to do anything but adhere to the status quo.

I disagree, its a small group of religous nutters, who the secularists are pandering too. I am not sure if this is due to there own Zionism, where they want all the land, or just that they are afraid of losing power, either way its a bad thing for them.

The thing is, the colonies will eventually render a 2 state solution impossible, Olmert has made comments to his effect and he is right. If there is no 2 state solution, then all the Palestinians have to do is make themselves a civil rights and anti-apartheid movement, which some in Palestine are actually considering, as between the colonies, the apartheid wall and the road blocks, most of West Bank is gone for them and they are basically living in Bantustans.

Serenity Now! wrote: »

Excuse me if I faint. I'm not used to threads on a subject like this being discussed in a calm, collected manner. I'm glad we got all this talked about before the usual wallies hijack the thread

Have my fingers crossed, it will last.

Serenity Now!

wes wrote: »

The Palestinians, however have been willing to have the city as a joint capital, so it doesn't have to be split, this would allow both groups full access to holy sites etc

Very, very incorrect. "The Palestinians" have not ceded on any of their desires on Jerusalem. Fatah have hinted at some sort of checkpoint charlie city but Hamas are most definitely against what has been suggested. Not one Arab state accepts any Israeli idiom upon Jerusalem. Not one. Not even Jordan.

wes wrote: »

The thing is, is that Israel already has the majority of what was once Palestine, if there not willing to share the capital, they will come off as unreasonable

Yes, they are unreasonable.

wes wrote: »

I disagree, its a small group of religous nutters, who the secularists are pandering too. I am not sure if this is due to there own Zionism, where they want all the land, or just that they are afraid of losing power, either way its a bad thing for them

They are not a small group. Not all Zionists are religious. Not all religious Israelis are Zionists. Why do you think that the coalitions of the past three or four administrations have been pepperdashed with members from parties all across the political spectrum? To keep Likud out. If there was a solution viable in the eyes of those in power, it would have been well under way by now. There's isn't though and it hasn't.

wes wrote: »

The thing is, the colonies will eventually render a 2 state solution impossible, Olmert has made comments to his effect and he is right

Olmert is gone. His party can very well get hammered in next february's elections.

wes wrote: »

If there is no 2 state solution, then all the Palestinians have to do is make themselves a civil rights and anti-apartheid movement, which some in Palestine are actually considering, as between the colonies, the apartheid wall and the road blocks, most of West Bank is gone for them and they are basically living in Bantustans

I'm sorry and I don't mean to be a git here, but I find this fairly naive. "All they have to do"?

wes

Serenity Now! wrote: »

Very, very incorrect. "The Palestinians" have not ceded on any of their desires on Jerusalem. Fatah have hinted at some sort of checkpoint charlie city but Hamas are most definitely against what has been suggested. Not one Arab state accepts any Israeli idiom upon Jerusalem. Not one. Not even Jordan.

Fair enough, I was under the impression, that what they meant by share was differenet.

Your correct that Hamas, right now, want everything, but long before they came to power, Fatah was willing to compromise and they accepted that they wouldn't get there entire country back.

Serenity Now! wrote: »

They are not a small group. Not all Zionists are religious. Not all religious Israelis are Zionists. Why do you think that the coalitions of the past three or four administrations have been pepperdashed with members from parties all across the political spectrum? To keep Likud out. If there was a solution viable in the eyes of those in power, it would have been well under way by now. There's isn't though and it hasn't.

Just to point out, that it was under the Israeli left that saw the bigger expansions in the colonies in the West Bank. Its seems to me that Likud are just more honest than the "moderate" Israeli parties.

I know Zionists come in all shapes and sizes and the current excuse being offered by Israel is that its the religous guys fault, which I don't buy completely myself.

Serenity Now! wrote: »

Olmert is gone. His party can very well get hammered in next february's elections.

Well, he is still caretaker Prime Minister, but regardless of his current siituation, what he says has a lot of truth.

If there is no 2 state solution, then where do the Palestinians go next? The only way for them, would be to transform themselves from a nationalists movment, to an anti-apartheid and civil rights movement.

Serenity Now! wrote: »

I'm sorry and I don't mean to be a git here, but I find this fairly naive. "All they have to do"?

Well, it will extremely hard going (should have made that clearer), but the current tactics have been a failure. A civil rights movement will be far harder for Zionists to disagree with. It will be far harder for there supporters in the west to defend Israel, without coming off as racist or at least being apologist for it. If they don't give them civil rights, it will be impossible for them not to be seen as racist.

To put it simply, if there is no 2 state solution on offer, then the Palestinian won't exactly have any other choice.

RedPlanet

If you ask regular yanks you can expect 2 different answers:

1 - They're the only "democracy" in the ME; which of course is a rubbish excuse.
2 - Cause they are the "choosen people", which is hard to keep a straight face.

I think that most americans support israel for reasons that are unknown to them. They are sheep. They don't really know why they support israel, bar that they are told to.

Serenity Now!

RedPlanet wrote: »

If you ask regular yanks you can expect 2 different answers:

1 - They're the only "democracy" in the ME; which of course is a rubbish excuse.
2 - Cause they are the "choosen people", which is hard to keep a straight face.

I think that most americans support israel for reasons that are unknown to them. They are sheep. They don't really know why they support israel, bar that they are told to.

When the original poster asked the question, I don't think they were referring to Joe Soap on the street when writing the "US" but the US Govt.
I would also disagree with your generalism on how a few hundred million people all think.

marcsignal

without straying too far from the OP

Serenity Now! wrote: »

Not necessarily based on religion. Jews are a semitic race.
The Irish have a huge lobby in the States. There is a large African American lobby in Washington. Hispanic too. The NRA have their own lobby groups. The corporate sector has many lobby avenues in Washington and can be argued to be bigger than any other lobby groups around.

well yes I fully accept that there are other lobby groups pushing for their little piece of the cake, so to speak, but again, I'm not a religious person, so I'm unclear as to the relevance of the fact you point out, that Jews are a semetic race, and whether that adds any kind of legitimacy to their claims over land in the ME. Without intending to show any disrespect, for the personal religious beliefs of Jewish People (and I mean that sincerely) Claims based on religious aspirations, really mean nothing to me.

RedPlanet wrote: »

If you ask regular yanks you can expect 2 different answers:

1 - They're the only "democracy" in the ME; which of course is a rubbish excuse.
2 - Cause they are the "choosen people", which is hard to keep a straight face.

I think that most americans support israel for reasons that are unknown to them. They are sheep. They don't really know why they support israel, bar that they are told to.

I think RedPlanet sums it up for me in his 2nd point above, I just can't see where any groups religious aspirations, have any relevance in their claims to land down here in the 'real world' and I'd have to re-iterate RedPlanets point again when he uses the term 'Chosen People' Chosen by who ? An invisible man who lives up in the sky ?

Having said all that, the Jewish groups are not the only Religious groups in the U.S. by any means, whos aspirations I find perculiar. The things being said by the Evangelical Preacher Here 10mins into this documentary posted earlier, disturbs me a little also.

Not legitimate grounds for any territorial claims surely ?

Serenity Now!

marcsignal wrote: »

I'm unclear as to the relevance of the fact you point out, that Jews are a semetic race, and whether that adds any kind of legitimacy to their claims over land in the ME

I think RedPlanet sums it up for me in his 2nd point above, I just can't see where any groups religious aspirations, have any relevance in their claims to land down here in the 'real world' and I'd have to re-iterate RedPlanets point again when he uses the term 'Chosen People' Chosen by who ? An invisible man who lives up in the sky ?

Having said all that, the Jewish groups are not the only Religious groups in the U.S. by any means, whos aspirations I find perculiar. The things being said by the Evangelical Preacher Here 10mins into this documentary posted earlier, disturbs me a little also.

Not legitimate grounds for any territorial claims surely ?

You are making the same mistake as the poster you mention. Not all Zionism is religiously based. The term 'Jew' is not a religious term but, as I pointed out, a racial term. The people who make the most of this from a religious apart from a section of religious Jewish people are actually Gentile. Not Jewish.

The border situation is NOT an entirely religious situation. Jews had had enough of being treated as they were, resettled in Palestine (their Israel) and the 30s and early 40s were the final straw for survivors who were to flee there afterwards.
1967 is the result of when four Arab countries mobilised against the country, lost out in 6 days and lost a lot of land as a result of this. What did these countries expect? Egypt was already occupied with Yemen yet still went ahead with incursions via the Sinai Desert. Syria was spread all over its front. All four were weak when their airfields were taken out of the equation and their armoured divisions annihilated in no-mans land.

I don't really agree with what has happened but I still understand why the govts of Israel have used security as an excuse for their current lay of the land. They took advantage of it and will always continue to do so as long as there is the threat that there is now with its neighbours.

It will never change. Neither side will give up on anything and the longer this goes on, the more cemented the hatred and mistrust of the other party will become.
Sad but true.

wes

Israel has made peace with both Egypt and Jordan. Both Syria and Lebanon are not a threat. The threat Israel talks about ended a long time ago and the Arab states have offered peace. If Israel wants to live in 1967 and continue there racist policies against the Palestinians, they will be in this situation forever.

The chance for peace is there, the Arab states have made it known they are willing to talk, which is a different situation than the past. The reason Israel doesn't want peace, is that as per there own ideology Zionism, they want land and even during the last major peace process they were grabbing more and more land.

Also, to point out, when Zionists decided to kick out the indigenous population in 1948, this was clearly never going to lead to peace. In fact there policy of the Iron wall, was very much the opposite of making peace. If Israel really wanted to peace as they often claim, they have been undermining it since the very start of the whole sorry mess. In fact, Israel has been consistent in acquiring land via violence since the inception of there state.

Right now is the perfect oppurtunity for Israel to make peace, as the Arab states are more worried about Iran, than they are Israel. Its not 1967, when the Arab states said they would never recognise Israel, now there willing to talk about it. Thats huge progress and if Israel continues to live in the past, then thats to the detrement of there own people.

Serenity Now!

wes wrote: »

Both Syria and Lebanon are not a threat

??????

wes wrote: »

The threat Israel talks about ended a long time ago and the Arab states have offered peace. If Israel wants to live in 1967 and continue there racist policies against the Palestinians, they will be in this situation forever

The Arab States have not offered peace (and it can be argued that certain quarters in Israeli politics don't want peace). This is grossly incorrect.

wes wrote: »

The chance for peace is there, the Arab states have made it known they are willing to talk, which is a different situation than the past. The reason Israel doesn't want peace, is that as per there own ideology Zionism, they want land and even during the last major peace process they were grabbing more and more land

One word: Jerusalem. Need you be reminded again? You tried to claim that "The Palestinians" have ceded it as an open city. "They" have not. A faction within a faction (a group inside Fatah) have suggested as such but nobody else. Not one other.

wes wrote: »

Also, to point out, when Zionists decided to kick out the indigenous population in 1948, this was clearly never going to lead to peace. In fact there policy of the Iron wall, was very much the opposite of making peace. If Israel really wanted to peace as they often claim, they have been undermining it since the very start of the whole sorry mess. In fact, Israel has been consistent in acquiring land via violence since the inception of there state

Who invaded the West Bank before Israel? Who took the Sinai Desert previously? Methinks you are looking through a very narrow telescope.

wes wrote: »

Right now is the perfect oppurtunity for Israel to make peace, as the Arab states are more worried about Iran, than they are Israel. Its not 1967, when the Arab states said they would never recognise Israel, now there willing to talk about it. Thats huge progress and if Israel continues to live in the past, then thats to the detrement of there own people.

They are not willing to accept any of Israel's conditions and a minority within Israelis political circles is only willing to cede on the major issues. Stopping three or four settlements is not giving up anything in comparison to what needs to be done (and without a powerbase in the coalition not objecting, it won't be done).

wes

Serenity Now! wrote: »

??????

There both Israel immediate neighours.

Serenity Now! wrote: »

The Arab States have not offered peace (and it can be argued that certain quarters in Israeli politics don't want peace). This is grossly incorrect.

The Arab states have gone from "we will never accept Israel" to "we are willing to talk about accepting Israel". Maybe, I exagerated there offer.

However, I would disagree with you, when you say certain quarters are against peace. All of the main political parties are basically against it, the colonial enterprise, has expanded under every successive Israeli government, since it began.

Serenity Now! wrote: »

One word: Jerusalem. Need you be reminded again? You tried to claim that "The Palestinians" have ceded it as an open city. "They" have not. A faction within a faction (a group inside Fatah) have suggested as such but nobody else. Not one other.

Israel are the ones who are unwilling to give up East Jerusalam, which they know is a bare minimum for peace and under international law, they are illegally occupying it.

Israel nows what they need to do for peace, but are simply unwilling and want more land.

Serenity Now! wrote: »

Who invaded the West Bank before Israel? Who took the Sinai Desert previously? Methinks you are looking through a very narrow telescope.

Sorry, I am not looking at a narror telescope. The Israeli's engaged in ethnic cleansing long before any Arab state invaded, see the "Deir Yassin" massacre. The Arab invasion took place after this. Thats also leaving out all the violence the Zionists have been perpetrating long before this as well.

It faily simple, the Zionists came from Europe and started a violent campaign to take over. They kicked out the indigenous population to do this and they (the Palestinians) and others in the region are naturally enough pissed about it.

Its insane to see any other outcome from the Zionist project. The mess was created with a group of foreigners wanting to create an exclusive ethnic enclave in the ME and they were willing to trample over the people already there to do so. This was always going to lead to the situation we see currently. The Zionists are the invaders, not the other Arab states who came to aid of the Palestinians.

Again, look at Israel policy of the "Iron wall", you can read about it in the following book:
"The Iron Wall" By Avi Shlaim


As for 1967, it was a continuation of the 1948 war, basically and I will point that Israel, where the one who attack first and they are just as responsible as anyone else in the conflict.

Serenity Now! wrote: »

They are not willing to accept any of Israel's conditions and a minority within Israelis political circles is only willing to cede on the major issues. Stopping three or four settlements is not giving up anything in comparison to what needs to be done (and without a powerbase in the coalition not objecting, it won't be done).

Well, then the Israeli's want land more than peace, which is what I have basically said. I don't see the main political parties being held hostage at all, the colonies are very well taken care of by the Israel government and they are pretty 2 faced about it, on the one hand condemning and on the other providing everything the colonists need to succeed.