idrankwhat

The lands historically belong to both of you. And what you're claiming to be willing to give up is not currently recognized by the world community as being yours to give based on the 1967 border issue. That's pretty much where I think this conversation is going to end since we both have differing views on who the land "belongs" to and I don't see either of us changing our minds. You're looking at it as historically yours with some justification by the result of the 1967 war. I'm looking at it as what is historically belonging to both parties as well as "what's on the official world map" at the moment. Let's just hope that Pat Robertson doesn't decide to start another Crusade and throw a third party into the mix. And by the way, good call for you guys to put an end to his amusement park over there. I think he's cheapened his God enough. Have fun in Ireland and be careful. Christians are know for fighting even themselves over there.

I don't think that US supporting israel is the main/only cause for that and even if it is, i think its wrong to desert your allies just because someone else doesnt like it. I'm not of the mind to continue to support allies who do things that I don't approve of. I fully expect others to feel the same way about us. That's why I'm not surprised to hear Bush getting badgered by the international community over Guantanamo. They need to keep us in line. what's wrong with being an advocate for one side if you share the same values and believe this side is right? Not everyone does think one side is right. I think both sides are dealing with this poorly

the border didn't disappear and Israel has not declared that it did. Your quote: "there is no "official border". Israel has controlled the west bank since 1967" one can describe your "occupied Palestinian territory" as liberated israeli land. the arguement of whos land is it is as old and this region itself. This is all starting to prove the point that I've been trying to make. That Israel isn't officially laying claim to the occupied territories but it's pretty much claiming much of the land. The gray area about whether or not the green line is the official border or the "liberated Israeli land" concept etc. I fully understand that this dispute has about 2000 years of repetitive history. Even the Christians came in to spice up the debate by claiming it a few centuries ago. My question is, when will people quit repeating this history? Well, we're not going to make much headway in this debate because I consider the green line the official border right now. Israel has the upper hand militarily and financially so it will certainly gain more land in any peace negotiations, if/whenever that happens. Unfortunately, until it does, the "cease fire" will continue to kill hundreds/thousands of people and our country will continue to finance that violence to the tune of $8-12 million per day.

Well, now I know why they raised the price of stamps! http://www.defensetech.org/archives/002522.html This quote got my attention: the department "cited a vaguely worded federal law that authorizes the USPS to furnish property and services to executive branch agencies and vice versa."

Other than the obvious symbolic connection, what other problems are there? That I'm not getting a scholarship for one of the programs. I need to get current and get typed in a Caravan and I don't want to pay for it

I don't need to "run" anywhere to see that this is what it is. It's a story about finding some old, useless stuff that even the adminstration doesn't claim to be of any significance and not war related. And that it's going to be used by those egg faced war proponents as PROOF of the imminent threat that Saddam posed and worth every life and dollar we've sacrificed. I mean it IS an election year and isn't (P)Rick getting a bit nervous? Damn. Sorry. You got me feeding your fetish again! I had been in a discussion with someone else in this forum and we were actually exchanging some respectful dialog. Who would have believed that!!! I even learned a couple of things. I let my guard down. Hope you enjoyed it. Stroke on!

Yes, there is an "expiration date". And secondly, we went to war for WMD's, no wait, liberation, no wait, WMD's....not for pollutants. Oh yea, I forgot to mention. Kudos to FOX for that great, non-misleading fair and balanced headline

I don't need to "run" anywhere to see that this is what it is. It's a story about finding some old, useless stuff that even the adminstration doesn't claim to be of any significance and not war related. And that it's going to be used by those egg faced war proponents as PROOF of the imminent threat that Saddam posed and worth every life and dollar we've sacrificed. I mean it IS an election year and isn't (P)Rick getting a bit nervous?

that's the US, not the UN and the US has an interest in Iraq that goes beyond the well being of the poor average Iraqi. Again, congratulations. You're one of the few who recognizes this. If I do it here I get called "anti-American" or "America hater". and honestly, i don't think an American soldier would or should risk his life here. You might be surprised. I could be wrong but I dont' think so. And while I'm not a strong proponent of using our military as a police force or nation builder, I see the Israel/Palestine conflict as one that is having serious ramifications on our national security in foreign policy. If we can help solve this issue then I think it will be to our benefit as well. but what happens if they don't? you keep saying peace talks is the way and I agree. but what do you do if you have no one to talk to? They need to be actively engaged and I put much of that responsibility on our State Dept. and President. Sadly, I don't expect much hope for progress until at least 2009 at the very earliest. You can't be an effective moderator if you are also an unblinking advocate for one side

first of all, who says they have no right to exist? second of all, if we were talking about suicide bombers, most of them blew up in towns within the 67 border. and just so you know, gush etzion, was actually supposed to be a part of israel according to the plans but was taken by jordan during the 1948 war. But those cities are not considered by the international community as part of Israel. Maybe they will be when it's settled but they are significant Israeli settlements residing in occupied Palestinian territory. But I guess arguing that point is an exercise in futility if there's no agreement as to where the green line went.

boo fucking hoo Israel is sending the right message even with the colateral damage. Have you ever considered actually adding something of substance to the conversation or are you just content to beat your chest and grunt? Sorry in advance Bill. I tried to tone it down.

if you still think israel is just shooting into gaza for fun and at anything moving, nothing i'll say will make a difference. israel is trying to hit those who try to hit it, and although civilians get hurt, they have only the terrorist groups to blame. and we already talked about the beach incident and that its very likely that it was not israeli fire at all. I'll be interested to see what happens with the beach incident but I don't expect much more than what's happened in the past, which is just for the story to fade away. As for the "targeted" attacks, I don't know what the current status is on the practice and maybe you can clear it up for me, but I never considered bulldozing the homes of family members of militants, sometimes with the family members still in them, as being simply collateral damage to a retaliation strike. if i thought for one second that UN peace keepers will be effective in stoping terrorists, i'd agree. will they confront terrorists in gaza and stop them from lunching rockets? will they check them at checkpoints risking getting blown up? i'm not sure i would if it wasnt in order to save my family and friends. Well, we are actually doing that very thing right now in Iraq i'm realistic. one's terrorist is another's freedom fighter. some of israel's founding fathers were also considered terrorists by the brits. the difference is that they knew when to change. just so you know, the current PA president Abbas was one of the bloodiest terrorists of the PLO, but he's realized there is a good chance for talking rather than shooting and he is accepted as a moderate leader now. Sounds exactly like Sharon. It's too bad he's not around to finish what he started if Hamas commit to stopping terrorism and start talking, i have no problem talking to them. but i refuse to talk at gun point, Realistically, both are pointing guns at each other. Seems to me that "cease fire" was a poor term to choose. israel has more guns, more powerful than the ones being used now. We know, as does everyone else sure, if you can help make hamas accept the signed treaties, stop shooting and start talking, be my guest. I think that's a great idea. Now if we can just get our State dept. to try some actual diplomacy instead of this shotgun diplomacy crap. It obviously doesn't work.

that was part of the plan of post wwII. and Israel (or the leaders of the jewish community then) accepted it. the arabs did not. according to your suggestion, i can refuse to accept a plan, start a war, if i win, cool. but if i lose i can ask to go back to that plan. My understanding is that the green line is still the official border according to the international community. Is that right? Is Israel officially claiming otherwise? well i'm pretty sure most of the suicide bombers blew themselves up in israeli towns (within the 67 borders), unless you don't consider Tel-Aviv, Netanya, Hadera, etc to be Israeli towns (and more than once arab israelis got hit too, but they are also israelis) I was referring more to Ariel, Maale Abdumim, Gutz Etzion to name the big ones hmmm thats simply not true. i looked at some maps (in pro palestinians sites actually) and most of the security fence (especially in the northern part, near Jenin) is pretty much on the 1967 border line (the green line) get your facts straight first Hmm...got me there. I was looking at the 2003 route, not the 2005 revised route. When the wall was being started the proposed route was running south from Jenin. It was easy to see the possibility of it wandering towards Ariel. That would have been a sizeable grab.

You beat me to it. Marketplace on NPR talks about it all the time. Damn libs.

Unfortunately I can't get to all of this today but... supposed to? why? Because that is how modern day Israel was created when its boundaries were drawn post WWII I assume that Jerusalem was supposed to be and international city because of it's religious significance to all religions based on Abraham. I'll have to check that one. and there are checkpoints where needed. and as long as terrorist try to blow themselves up in our cities, there will be. It's the "our cities" part that I disagree with. maybe because Jenin is one of the major terrorists' nests in the west bank? So if it's their "terrorist nest" why is Israel putting the wall on the eastern instead of the western side of Jenin? i can't control what it looks like to you. and you know what? if the PA insists not to talk and keep shooting then let it be the border until they are willing to talk. sorry, but I have to go for now but it's interesting to talk to you

A lot of dead Palestinian civilians, an American protester as well as a few Egyptians might just disagree with you.

you could say that although the international stand is that the future of these parts needs to be decided by negotiations. Agreed. So we need to get on with it. The current US position on the issue is not one that's interested in starting a dialog towards peace and compromise. now? yes. getting from the west bank into israel is a matter of 2 minutes walk and these checkpoints have stopped more suicide bombers than you can imagine. after the oslo accords, most of the major palestinian cities were under PA rule completely and even during the violent times "quiet" cities like jerico were almost free. does it make life hard on the west bank? yes. but as long as terrorists ARE being stopped at checkpoints, you can't convice me that they are not needed. I don't have a problem with the check points near Jerusalem (which by my understanding is supposed to be an international city). The maps I've seen show check points all the way to the dead sea. its a security barrier and it has proven itself. i wish it was not needed. but sadly it is. If it's for security of Israel then why does this security fence have to extend past Jenin, and why does it look like it will probably end up cutting off almost half of the West Bank? It looks like a land grab to us outsiders. yes. when they are at war with you, does it make sense to give them money? and money is being transferred for humanitary causes to non governmental organization (since hamas is the government) It was their money and like it or not, Hamas was democratically elected. I don't like my president either but that doesn't mean that he's not legally my president. The US really blew it on this one as far as I'm concerned. We should have recognized Hamas as the elected leadership and treated them with the respect that they were/are due. We didn't even wait for the polls to close before we told them that we wouldn't deal with them. That was wrong, especially since we're supposedly "spreading democracy" through the middle east. By taking the stance that we have and by cutting off their money in an effort to have Hamas kicked out we have shown how much we value the democratic process. It's embarrassing. since the Gaza strip only borders with israel and egypt, i don't see your point. Military gunships flying/firing overhead constantly as well as ships lobbing shells into the beach comes to mind looking at the history of "un peacekeepers", i think it will do more harm then good. when they were posted in the PA, the were threatened by terror organizations and fled. in lebanon (another place were israel is at gun point for no reason, the un peace keepers are often actually helping hezbollah. if you were a swedish un peace keeper, would you risk more than you have to and actually stand up against these groups? I'm thinking more along the scale of what we have dedicated in Iraq. I think this conflict warrants it, even though we (now) don't have the manpower to do it. yeah, ok, and? the difference is that Rabin's killer is an extermist. hamas are extremists who are also the government. huge difference. Seems to me that there are quite a few extremists in the Israeli government as well. When Sharon is considered too "moderate", that says something. as for the rest of your post. the fight here is not about religion (although it doesnt help). at the end, its about land (culture etc. is a secondary reason IMO). they think its their land and we think its our land. who is right? both (and lets skip the who was here first debate) most israelis have come to accept that the solution will be dividing this land between the two nations. if it can be by negotiation , cool, and if not israel is planning to pull out of the west bank like it did from gaza. Sounds good to me too. i support that move, but what will happen if rockets will also fly out the west bank? will it be ok to blindly use artillary like they do? if they want to fight they will find a reason to fight and we'll get pulled in again. If that happened then I'd have no problem sending our troops and military hardware over to help keep the peace. by that logic, why were france/UK/spain/etc. were targeted? terrorism is a method that cannot be tolerated. if you accept it here in israel you will soon get it all over the world (and you already do) Thanks for being one of the few who recognizes that terrorism is a "method". But again, when you feel like you're being oppressed you fight back with any method you have at your disposal. Our own George Washington was one of our most highly regarded terrorists. i think Israel's interest is even greater. but what can you do if you have no one to talk to on the other side and the PA government refuses to accept your existance? Ask for and accept help? and the BBC is biased (something like FOX, just to the opposite) news is always biased. when the network used local palestinians as reporters that's what you get. O

Seems to me.. that since 1948.... and even before.. the Palistinians... and members of the Arab League had attacked Israel over and over. Every time they did they ended up losing MORE territory. Personally I do not blame the Israelis for holding on to that land to secure thier territory.... and as a bargaining position leading towards peace.. If the A rabs can not or will not make peace.. they have made their own bed....let them lie in it for perpetuity. The Egyptians made peace.. and they got the Sinai back...... Personally I think that Israel needs to quit building the wall, unless they want to build it on their recognized border, the green line. If they would pull back to their border then I would have no problem sending money and troops over there to help Israel protect its border. But my understanding is that Israel is not interested in peacekeeper help because they know that we can't provide them any official support outside of the green line without joining Israel in violating numerous UN resolutions. In short, they don't want our help because what they're doing violates international law. Speaking again as a US taxpayer, we need to start playing hardball with both sides or we need to take our checkbook and leave. This conflict is one of the reasons that we're in Iraq right now and I don't want my son to grow up so that he can be drafted into what is essentially a holy war (with a chewy imperialist center).

the BBC is pro palestinians and always have been. I forgot to mention that I completely disagree with this statement. I don't see the the BBC as being "pro" anything one way or the other. A fair depiction of simply what happened is not bias.

Actually I was just pointing out that you said you won't count non-US votes that don't include an explanation. But you say that you want the Iraqis to "win". What if "winning" means that the majority of them are able to install a theocratic dictatorship? Is that ok or does "winning" have to mean that there is a US modeled democracy installed?

I disagree. If it was really about the oil, we'd own it. So, clearly, it's not about that. It is about oil. It's about who controls it. People we like or people we don't like.

Good. Hopefully it's just the proverbia l"Tip of the Iceburg". Altho I think it's deeper than the TIP. More like the Titanic I hope Not likely that it will go much further. Maybe after they tackle ethics reform, or the balanced budget amendment. Ha...haha.....hahhahahahahahhahahaaaaa!!!!

billvon, you didn't state why you want the Iraqis to win. Apparently your vote won't count.

I'll start by admitting that the "few rocks" statement was a deliberate understatement. I'm well aware of the rockets that the Palestinians launch and the fact that they use suicide bombers as a weapon. But I can't blame them for using what they have. We don't supply them with large sums of money, tanks, and planes like we do Israel. That said, I have a few questions. Maybe you can help me out. Is Israel occupying west bank territory that is outside of Israel's internationally recognized borders? Does Israel control all or nearly all travel through the West Bank? Is the wall that Israel is building in the West Bank only a "security barrier" as has been officially claimed or is it a means for a deliberate land grab? Did or did not Israel withhold the millions of dollars per month that it collects for the Palestinian Authority? While it's true that Israel pulled out of the Gaza settlements last fall, isn't it true that Israel still controls/patrols Gaza's airspace, coastline and the only border that it doesn't control is the one with Egypt? Is it true that Israel is not interested in having the United Nations peacekeepers come to help with the conflict? Who killed one of your most successful peacemakers, Rabin? Palestinians or Israelies? Now I understand that the Palestinians need to recognize your right to exist but considering the degree to which they have been oppressed I can't say that I don't understand why they're as angry as they are. If you're interested in where my viewpoint comes from its that of an American taxpayer who is completely baffled by the fact that this is 2006 and people on this earth are still physically fighting over religious and cultural differences. The differences are not biological or even economic. The parties involved share a long history of coexistence and are essentially the same people. I'm sure you'll disagree but I'm taking the third party, scientific approach. Secondly, Israel is our ally and we send you tremendous amounts of money. I expect our allies to take the high road when it comes to human rights and morality. And yes, I'm disgusted at our own, especially recent, failings in that regard and I speak out as vocally on that issue. Thirdly, we are dealing with our own terrorism issues and one of the reasons that we're being targeted is our blatantly one sided view of the Arab/Israel conflict. It is in our best interest as a country to help settle this issue fairly and quickly.

That's what I'm trying to find out from akarunway. He seems to think that picking up a $5 snow globe as a momento from a pile of rubble deserves the same punishment as intentionally stealing tens of thousands of dollars of critically needed emergency supplies, like generators. And if that's the case, then stealing a pen from work should fall into the same category too. So I guess that there are different degrees in dishonesty as well? Interesting concept. I think I have to agree with you there. So I suppose you'll agree that being dishonest about something of little to no consequence, say.....a consensual sexual relationship between two adults would not merit more scrutiny/punishment than say.......dishonesty that resulted in the loss of thousands of lives and billions in taxpayer dollars......right?