The Official Unofficial Obama Administration Policy on Israel

I say we should simply nuke the entire region from orbit. Then let's see if the parties in question still want to fight over it.

The government that signed the agreement was not a puppet government - it was the legitimate government, although it may have acted under duress. And as a result, there's continuing controversy over the status of Tibet.

This is the only one of your examples that may have some merit, though it's obviously striking that in both this case and the case of Israel, the overwhelming might of a superpower is responsible for the anomaly.

Have what both ways? Russia is the successor state of the RSFSR - in law it was that entity renamed. And Chechnya had been a constituent part of that.

Are you kidding?

Religion makes Indian Hindus lap up milk rats have licked and shit in, because rats are "sacred".

Some spaced out "pilgrims", kissing and dry-humping some radioactive rubble is no tall order at all.

A system of law which is voluntarily-subscribed to is far different than the world government which you're implying. Still, I'm all for nations behaving themselves with each other - acting like good neighbors and such.

But when one democratic nation, established by what even you call the closest thing to a world government (and we can dispute that) is attacked repeatedly by dictatorships sworn to its destruction and not even pretending to abide by the minimums of that world organization defends itself, I'm going to go with the good (or, at least, the better) guys. It is interesting that those same dictatorships have, over the years, managed to learn to play the victim so well that they've grabbed the sympathy vote.

Do you want them to go back to the 1948 borders? Are you willing to pay the Israeli settlers to be moved? Are you willing to put U.N. forces into the region permanently? Who's going to pay for them? Not the U.S., of course. We're already paying for Israeli security. They're doing just fine but you don't like it so you must have another solution. Are you willing to have the U.N. go on offensive maneuvers into Syria, Lebanon, the West Bank, etc. if/when they start attacking Israel as they've done continuously for the last 60 years? Of course, also, the U.S. has to stop paying Egypt to support peace as well so someone's got to start helping them out. What's the plan there? I know you've got the answer and it can't be America or increased American payments to the U.N. - that would obviously mean too much U.S. control over affairs there.

America has its hands full taking care of its own wrecked economy. Cutting several billion dollars a year in aid to the ME (along with a lot of other, even more wasteful, spending) would be a great help.

We have the technology...

Link?

Nope. 1967, with mutual and minor adjustments.

Can't answer the rest of your loaded questions, except to say that comprehensive peace treaties with all Arab nations would obviously be part of a settlement.

Not to the arms industry. They like it just the way it is.

Yes, it is. But you have a singular capacity for misrepresentation, since I did not say it.

OK

That's still quite a stretch. The appointed government of Tibet is about as legitimate as the appointed goverments of East Germany and the others the Soviets appointed in Eastern Europe. Or were they OK, too?

It's interesting to see how some how virtually no problem with terrorist nations murdering innocents in Israel, yet foam at through when Israel defends itself.

Can't you read? It was not an "appointed government", or a "puppet government" or any other variation on that form.

Has no answer to the question of Israeli self-defense or how Israel is to be defended against those who've sworn their destruction, either. Same Rick, Different Day.

Can you "try" to answer the question "Do you still beat your wife?"

Does "approved and micro-managed by a brutal communist dictatorship" work better for you?

You claim my questions are somehow illegitimate.

One of the first ones I asked was, "Are you willing to pay the Israeli settlers to be moved?" This implies a lot of things that are actually pro-Palestinian. For you to call mine "loaded questions" means you're not even reading my posts but just responding blindly.

C'mon, man. You really aren't even trying anymore, are you? Admit it!

I claim that they are loaded, which they are, with the presumption that Israel is acting solely in self-defense, whereas others are "attacking".

But fair enough, I'll answer this one...

Many of the Israeli settlements would be within the redrawn borders. Israel would have to bear the cost of relocating others. And some, which aren't even recognised by the Israeli government, will need to suffer the consequence of their decision to set up home in someone else's territory, by either selling up, leaving, or making some form of agreement with the new Palestinian state.

So all Israel has to do is to grab Abu Mazzen, force him to sign a document giving Israel control over all the WB and Gaza and you'll be happy eh?

As for your claim regarding Russia, that too I'd bullshit. After the end of the USSR, many former occupied lands broke away. The fact that they refused Chechnya makes them occupiers.

I would not be "happy". I'm not happy about Tibet either. I'm simply describing the legal situation, and illustrating that Israel is not being held to a higher standard.

You can say it, but it won't make it so. Those that broke away were other Soviet Republics. Chechnya was part of the Russian Republic.

^ Okay, so you would not be happy, but if Israel did that in your mind the WB and Gaza would legally belong to Israel the same as Tibet belongs to China, correct?

Thanks! At least you haven't completely dismissed me.

I know there's good and bad on this issue. I strongly support the Israeli "defensible borders" argument and the right of a lot of their settlers to move into those territories (as long as they're willing to recognize they're living in dangerous frontier areas, that is.) But you also have a point that not all that land will eventually remain theirs. The tough (impossible?) point in the peace process is coming up with some kind of iron-clad agreement that helps Israel maintain real security (which they don't have even now) yet gives the Palestinians something they never had (a homeland.)

Here's my two bits worth on that. Maybe the "Arab Spring" will shake things up enough that Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, etc. will realize they can't beat concessions out of Israel. Between them and Israel maybe they can work out a brand-new piece of land to arbitrarily call Palestine that contains Arab land. And, those Arab countries that can't give up land can give up some serious amounts of cash to help relocate the Palestinians on the West Bank.

Dreaming, I know, but taking it all out of Israeli territory is not a viable option, IMO.

*Raises hand*
I will!

Someone riddle me this. How do you have an effective state when the two parts are not contiguous and are separated by another country with no other connection. There is no country in the world like that, so how would this work here?

Maybe if the U.S. had taken Bin Laden to Gitmo, tortured the crap out of him, and made him sign away ownership of Al Qaeda, we could be running Afghanistan legitimately now. Just askin'...

Again, not really, since what happened with Tibet was considerably more complicated. But if there was an analogous situation, it would at least muddy the waters in an equivalent way.

Notably, Palestinians (and everyone else in the region including Israel) have already had their actions influenced by threats of violence. That should stop.

^ you're right it's different. Tibet never attacked China once, let alone 4 times. Israel conquered the land in a defensive war fighting for it's very survival. China was just expanding territory in a war of aggression.

I think we've clearly shown you're holding Israel to a very different standard than any other country. Your position is based on bias and that has been proven over and over.

How do you conquer in self defense?

If you try to mug me, and I blow you away, do I get to clean out your pockets?

And if your house keys happen to be in there,..hey..

It really is amazing how oblivious he is to the Orwellian nature of what he's saying.

Are you really this fucking stupid?

You can't figure out that when you're attacked by another country and a war ensues and you conquer land that you have conquered land during a defensive war?

The lesson is don't start a war you can't win.