Reply With Quote
Before I answer that, I have to assess the reasons better. I am currently reviewing:
U.S. Foreign Aid to Israel
Jeremy M. Sharp
Specialist in Middle Eastern Affairs
December 4, 2009
I'll answer the question for you. They need our help far more than we need theirs so it would be to their benefit to not piss us off.
Before I answer that, I have to assess the reasons better. I am currently reviewing:
U.S. Foreign Aid to Israel
Jeremy M. Sharp
Specialist in Middle Eastern Affairs
December 4, 2009
Never ever mistake me for having any love for jews.
But i am pro israeli only because i understand the dogs arab leaders and fanatics are. I don't support them for being "God's People", i support them for having won their right to their land since the 67 war, which they won. It's their land. If the arabs want to take back some of that land, tell them to go themselves. They waged a war, they should live by the results.
Israel should not give up any part of it's land just to appease the arabs ridiculous demands to have the right of arab return only to endanger the israeli populace once they lose their sovereignty. Their demands are irrational. Us telling them to act and play along is idiotic and a waste of time.
HAVING SAID ALL THAT...
We are funding them, a little common courtesy would be nice. And they should respect us.
But now i'm starting to get fed up with these heads in Israel and the AIPAC.
That's what you get for supporting a guy with a muslim background, who attended a church that had antisemitic rants. You jews deserve everything you get for being so dumb to take a chance with Barrack OBama.
No sympathy for AIPAC and it's treasonous travelers who have spyed on our country.
So it's safe to say this:
was bull .
LOL...So it's safe to say this:
was bull .
Do you know how to parse sentences? Sometime necessity outweighs desire.
Chumpdumper is king of nothing and sucks at everything, but WC...
U 2 need to read the article before you spout . You look re ed.
Israel should also not take any land that is not theirs. Which they have been doing and obviously plan to continue doing, thus the reason uncle Sam is pissed off
Which land has Israel took that isn't theirs?
Like I said. Bulldoze down all the places mortars can be fired from. Would that be better than having communities that can watch for the mortars? Is that more acceptable to you?
cept.. it is theirs. They gave up that land after winning it to appease america's interest with the oil countries, on conditions that the Palestinians wouldn't launch attacks and be good neighbors. Well rinse, wash, repeat. The Palestinians never live up to their end of the bargain and we're surprised why there never seems to be peace.
cmon, don't be so dense. Just because you're brown doesn't mean you have to take up the side of every brown person on earth. The Palestinians don't give a , would take up slaves, and murder mexicans if they saw fit. them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...Resolution_446
United Nations Security Council Resolution 446, adopted on March 22, 1979, concerned the issue of Israeli settlements in the "Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem".[1] This refers to the Palestinian territories of the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip as well as the Syrian Golan Heights.
In the Resolution, the Security Council determined: "that the policy and practices of Israel in establishing settlements in the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967 have no legal validity and cons ute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East"
just because you're white as a ghost doesn't mean you have to act it.
Read and educate yourself. The settlements are considered illegal by USA and the rest of the world.
Like i said. they've acquired those territories when they kicked arab ass. They won. To the victor goes the spoils. The UN doesn't know , see africa, see the lebanese confrontation.
So now that you're giving weight to UN resolutions. The U.S. had the right to commit actions against saddam no?
I think since giving up all that land has done no good, they should take it back.
except they continue to take territories as we speak. So wrong again.
USA also considers them illegal.So now that you're giving weight to UN resolutions. The U.S. had the right to commit actions against saddam no?
wow.. i'm white. That's news to me.just because you're white as a ghost doesn't mean you have to act it.
Read and educate yourself. The settlements are considered illegal by USA and the rest of the world.
Thanks for assuming and further fueling the stereotype that all us "indian" looking mexicans are ignorant.
The rest of the worlds oppinion and the U.S's oppinion on legalities are not the final authority on what's just.
Do you smoke pot, or not?
The US thinks pot is illegal. So i guess you don't.
well my indian brother. I apologize.
as for the Pot comparison, FAIL.
you mean.. sovereign territories from syria and the S.A?
They won those territories and in the 67 war, then gave them back on conditions of peace. The P's didn't hold their end of the bargain, so therefore the israelis are just taking back what they gave on conditions of promise.
Glad you participated.
refers to the Palestinian territories of the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip
I know.. it doesn't help your cause.
They should break their peace agreements with Egypt and Jordan and start a war now?
I think since giving up all that land has done no good, they should take it back.
Great thinking, genius.
nah. Comparing a domestic social issue with an international religious conflict is just... dumb.
did israel seize control of those in the 6 day war? Did they not?
so you are in favor of letting Israel take all land they can? (Because they do it kicking arab ass??)
because the whole conflict is that Israel plans to annex the rest of Old Jerusalem, where Arabs are now. You are in favor of allowing them that?
Is anyone here saying both are equally severe and pertinent matters? But they have one thing in common.
the US condemns the actions of both as illegal. You're trying to use the U.S.'s view as a final source of authority in one argument, but dismiss it in another. Whether it's two different issues or not. I have shown that you are not consistent with the way you chose a support for your argument.
If you want us to only take your source of authority half of the time, why should we?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
