My Prediction

[cdowis]

I have a prediction.  With the recent passage of the UN resolution, with our failure to veto that resolution condemning Israel, events have been put into play with the inevitable result of war in the Middle East.

There may be temporary delays, but nothing that can be done to stop it.  

With his treaty with Iran and his tacit approval of this resolution, Obama has guaranteed this war against Israel.  He has now revealed the man behind the mask.

Edited December 24, 2016 by cdowis

[sunstoned]

U.S. backing of Israel has been a constant for decades.  It was something that was a given.  All Israel's enemies, including Russia, knew that if they pushed Israel too far they would have to deal with the U.S.   Now that has changed, and it is a destabilizing change in MHO.  

Russia now has air basis and a military presents in Syria.   This is not a time when we should be distancing ourselves from Israel.

Edited December 24, 2016 by sunstoned

[cdowis]

3 hours ago, sunstoned said:

Russia now has air basis and a military presents in Syria.  

Interesting observation.
 "military presents" == it is Christmas.

[HappyJackWagon]

4 hours ago, sunstoned said:

U.S. backing of Israel has been a constant for decades.  It was something that was a given.  All Israel's enemies, including Russia, knew that if they pushed Israel too far they would have to deal with the U.S.   Now that has changed, and it is a destabilizing change in MHO.  

Russia now has air basis and a military presents in Syria.   This is not a time when we should be distancing ourselves from Israel.

I agree. Israel has been a troubled area as long as it has existed as a state, and the region has been a disaster waiting to happen for millennia. No one person is going to change or be responsible for the conflict. Not Obama and not Trump. I do find it interesting though that people are blaming Obama for the veto failure just as there are people blaming Trump for chiming in in opposition. As usual, it is way to complicated for a few lines of text on a Mormon discussion board.

[The Nehor]

Well, hopefully Trump's recent attempts to restart the Cold War arms race will stabilize the situation.  

I agree with the UN. Israel needs to stop their jingoistic flag waving, I have a hard time figuring out why we have to support their silly provocative settlement policy. If war comes then both sides deserve it. I am just trying to figure out why we should be involved.

[Scott Lloyd]

7 hours ago, cdowis said:

I have a prediction.  With the recent passage of the UN resolution, with our failure to veto that resolution condemning Israel, events have been put into play with the inevitable result of war in the Middle East.

There may be temporary delays, but nothing that can be done to stop it.  

With his treaty with Iran and his tacit approval of this resolution, Obama has guaranteed this war against Israel.  He has now revealed the man behind the mask.

It strikes me the difference one man can make. Under a Trump administration, the veto would probably have occurred. But for the vote of a single Supreme Court justice, same-sex marriage would not be the law of the land today. 

[cdowis]

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I agree with the UN. Israel needs to stop their jingoistic flag waving, I have a hard time figuring out why we have to support their silly provocative settlement policy. 

Let's find out whether you are infomed about the issues, or just a low information commentator (allowing someone else to do your thinking for you).

Where are these settlements being built?  What is the history of this piece of land?  What role does it play in the negotiations -- what is the basic negotiation principle or goal does it represent.

What is meant by "direct negotiations" == what is the Israeli position on negotiations, and what method of negotiations are the Palestinians pursuing currently.

Based on your informed answers above, what EXACTLY do you mean by "silly provocative settlement policy"?  For example, what is the "measured" alternative.

Nehor, let's see if you are making a meaningful comment, or just blowing hot air.  This is the central issue of negotiation, and the difference between war and peace.

Edited December 24, 2016 by cdowis

[thesometimesaint]

The so called Israeli settlements are on Syrian lands.

[cdowis]

42 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

The so called Israeli settlements are on Syrian lands.

Yes, the Golan Heights, and also the West Bank and East Jerusalem.  All have been occupied by Israel since the Six Day War.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_settlement

For a general discussion, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli–Palestinian_conflict  Pay special attention to the "two state solution" which had the general principal of "trading land for peace".  The basic conflict is that the Israelis rightfully claim that they Palestinians are refusing direct negotiations, and are using UN resolutions to force terms on Israel, and the "land for peace" agreements in the past were not being honored.

"OK, you are not keeping the agreement, so we will start using the land for settlements."  So this "silly" policy is in response to the violence from the Palestinians, and their refusal (?) for direct talks.  The Palestinians are requiring certain pre-conditions before meeting with the Israelis, and the latter sees this as a ploy to gain concessions without anything coming from the Palestinians.

I see no jingoistic flag waving, but simply an attempt to survive.
 

Of course, this is a simplistic view of what is going on and may not be very accurate.  This is my own understanding.

Edited December 24, 2016 by cdowis

[The Nehor]

45 minutes ago, cdowis said:

Let's find out whether you are infomed about the issues, or just a low information commentator (allowing someone else to do your thinking for you).

Where are these settlements being built?  What is the history of this piece of land?  What role does it play in the negotiations -- what is the basic negotiation principle or goal does it represent.

What is meant by "direct negotiations" == what is the Israeli position on negotiations, and what method of negotiations are the Palestinians pursuing currently.

Based on your informed answers above, what EXACTLY do you mean by "silly provocative settlement policy"?  For example, what is the "measured" alternative.

Nehor, let's see if you are making a meaningful comment, or just blowing hot air.  This is the central issue of negotiation, and the difference between war and peace.

Do I get a gold star if my answers meet your approval o wise teacher?

[cdowis]

5 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Do I get a gold star if my answers meet your approval o wise teacher?

No sarcasm intended, but this is a life and death struggle for Israel, and shallow, uninformed comments are not helpful.

Please look at my post above and tell us what you think.  This is a very complex issue, and I hope I was able to give it some context.

Edited December 24, 2016 by cdowis

[Sleeper Cell]

4 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I agree. Israel has been a troubled area as long as it has existed as a state, and the region has been a disaster waiting to happen for millennia. No one person is going to change or be responsible for the conflict. Not Obama and not Trump. I do find it interesting though that people are blaming Obama for the veto failure just as there are people blaming Trump for chiming in in opposition. As usual, it is way to complicated for a few lines of text on a Mormon discussion board

But isn’t the President responsible for how his UN ambassador votes?  

I agree that the issues are way too complicated for a few lines of text (something that I wish Trump would learn).  But to me, the primary issue is not the UN resolution, per se.  What troubles me is an outgoing president, in effect, using a UN resolution to undercut the foreign policy of his successor.  Like it or not (and I don’t), in a few weeks, Trump will be president.    

[The Nehor]

1 minute ago, cdowis said:

No sarcasm intended, but this is a life and death struggle for Israel, and shallow, uninformed comments are not helpful.

Please look at my post above and tell us what you think.

It is a life and death struggle for them.

I think Israel needs to live up to their promise of being a nation of kings and priests if they want God's favor to protect them. Armageddon is not a battle between good and evil. Almost everyone is supposed to die on both sides and God saves a remnant. If God is not going to back Israel why should we?

Before the nation of Israel existed Jews, Christians, and Muslims lived together in relative peace in the Holy Land. Now they are at each other's throats. Israel is not a success story. It has enflamed tensions and continues to do so. The settlements are in territory claimed due to a tight victory in war. The losers want it back. The settlements are imperialist 'planting the flag' implying they are never leaving. Not exactly a recipe for creating some kind of workable solution. I am not sure there is a workable solution. Both sides hate each other and I am not sure why we are arming one side and not the other. I think we picked the wrong ally in the Middle East.

[Marmonboy]

IMNSHO, the problem lies not with Israel, but the Palestinians. The corruption in the Palestinian Authority will prohibit a settlement--they need to keep the locals stirred up to prevent them from seeing how they are being robbed by their own leaders. They want the whole enchilada, not just the Golan Heights and the West Bank. There is a belief within Islam that, once an area has been conquered, it is forever the property of Islam. That's why they hate Spain, Italy, and France so much.  Parts of all three were once Islamic territory, and they want them back. It doesn't matter if they took them from you, or when, you have no right to take them back. The Holy Land was Christian at the time the Moslems conquered it, but that's too bad--since they had it, it is forever theirs, never mind who had it before that. I do not see there ever being a real peace in the Middle East until the Millennium. The Moslems will never give up.

[The Nehor]

1 minute ago, Marmonboy said:

IMNSHO, the problem lies not with Israel, but the Palestinians. The corruption in the Palestinian Authority will prohibit a settlement--they need to keep the locals stirred up to prevent them from seeing how they are being robbed by their own leaders. They want the whole enchilada, not just the Golan Heights and the West Bank. There is a belief within Islam that, once an area has been conquered, it is forever the property of Islam. That's why they hate Spain, Italy, and France so much.  Parts of all three were once Islamic territory, and they want them back. It doesn't matter if they took them from you, or when, you have no right to take them back. The Holy Land was Christian at the time the Moslems conquered it, but that's too bad--since they had it, it is forever theirs, never mind who had it before that. I do not see there ever being a real peace in the Middle East until the Millennium. The Moslems will never give up.

To be fair the Muslims made attempts at democracy but the imperialist powers of Europe crushed these attempts in many of their territories. Then Britain made a deal with rebels in the Ottoman Empire in the First World War to give the various Islamic states independence if they overthrew the Empire. They did and then Britain set up puppet governments and they and France administered the whole region. And people wonder why they do not trust the western world?

Also which conquest of the Holy Land are you referring to? The post-crusade one or when they took it from the collapsing Roman Empire?

 

[mfbukowski]

6 hours ago, cdowis said:

Interesting observation.
 "military presents" == it is Christmas.

Not to mention a basis in air.

Not exactly a firm foundation.

[Marmonboy]

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

To be fair the Muslims made attempts at democracy but the imperialist powers of Europe crushed these attempts in many of their territories. Then Britain made a deal with rebels in the Ottoman Empire in the First World War to give the various Islamic states independence if they overthrew the Empire. They did and then Britain set up puppet governments and they and France administered the whole region. And people wonder why they do not trust the western world?

Also which conquest of the Holy Land are you referring to? The post-crusade one or when they took it from the collapsing Roman Empire?

 

The Muslims have never made a fair attempt at democracy. There has never been a fair and honest Muslim democracy. While elections have been held, really how fair, open, and honest are they? Islam doesn't need democracy, in their eyes, because Allah is their ruler, and his laws are the only ones they need. Islam is a religion (so-called) of conquest from the beginning. Did European powers double-cross Muslim countries? Yes, they did. And they ignored tribal and cultural boundaries when they set up their puppet states, just as they did all over the world. Let me ask you this--how many African or Asian states are attacking Europe with bombs and terrorist acts?

I was referring to the last conquest at the end of the Crusades. Israel was conquered by the Romans, who ultimately converted to Christianity, making Israel a de facto Christian state. The Crusades happened when Muslim invaders took it, and the European Christians fought to get it back.

[Glenn101]

   If the Bible has any basis as a historical document,  we are dealing with a religious belief on the one hand that God gave the land to Abraham and his descendants. Israel believes that Isaac was the legitimate heir. Then there are the descendants of Hagar and later Esau who believe that they are the legitimate heirs to the land. It is an age old conflict, a set of beliefs, that most os the rest of the world does not share nor understand. Nor can the rest of the world do much about it. It is going to play out to the bitter end. And the end will be bitter for many.

I do not really know what to do or think. They are all God's children and I believe that the best efforts of the U.S. should be to work for a peace which I feel is doomed to fail, but that we still must strive to achieve. We will never be seen as friends to most of the Arab world as long as we do not accede to their viewpoint that Israel should be destroyed. But as another poster has said, peace will not come until the Millennium.

Glenn

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Marmonboy said:

The Muslims have never made a fair attempt at democracy. There has never been a fair and honest Muslim democracy. While elections have been held, really how fair, open, and honest are they? Islam doesn't need democracy, in their eyes, because Allah is their ruler, and his laws are the only ones they need. Islam is a religion (so-called) of conquest from the beginning. Did European powers double-cross Muslim countries? Yes, they did. And they ignored tribal and cultural boundaries when they set up their puppet states, just as they did all over the world. Let me ask you this--how many African or Asian states are attacking Europe with bombs and terrorist acts?

I was referring to the last conquest at the end of the Crusades. Israel was conquered by the Romans, who ultimately converted to Christianity, making Israel a de facto Christian state. The Crusades happened when Muslim invaders took it, and the European Christians fought to get it back.

Not true. There were attempts, especially in North Africa, by Muslim majority nations under foreign rule to practice forms of self-rule. Their colonial overlords squashed the attempts and tried to wipe out their culture. Saying Muslims can never be democratic because of their religion is not fair. The same argument could be made that because Christianity acknowledges God as their king they cannot have a working democracy but it worked.

There are lots of terrorists in Africa and Asia. They just tend to pick targets closer to home. Not hating the West does not make you a better terrorist and it is very provincial to only care about terrorism when it influences your own life.

But the Romans conquering it does not make it Christian. By that logic the Ptolemies and Seleucids were rightful rulers and the Maccabean revolt was terrorism.

[Marmonboy]

Self-rule does not equal democracy. And yes, there are terrorists in other parts of the world. But who among them has sworn jihad on the West, and announced their intention to see the black flag over the White House and 10 Downing Street? Muslims could be democratic--Turkey was for awhile, but seems to be turning away from secularism. The problem is that the ones with the most guns and the loudest voices tend to be the least democratic. Heck, they can be as autocratic as they want to be, in their own countries, but when they try to force it on me I don't like it.

 

The Maccabbean revolt was terrorism, in the same way that the American Revolution was--oppressed people ovethrowing their occupiers. I don't even have an issue with the people of the Middle East kicking out their colonial masters. But it's gone well beyond that, with the occupied seeking to overthrow and destroy their ex-occupiers in their own countries.

[The Nehor]

11 minutes ago, Marmonboy said:

Self-rule does not equal democracy. And yes, there are terrorists in other parts of the world. But who among them has sworn jihad on the West, and announced their intention to see the black flag over the White House and 10 Downing Street? Muslims could be democratic--Turkey was for awhile, but seems to be turning away from secularism. The problem is that the ones with the most guns and the loudest voices tend to be the least democratic. Heck, they can be as autocratic as they want to be, in their own countries, but when they try to force it on me I don't like it.

 

The Maccabbean revolt was terrorism, in the same way that the American Revolution was--oppressed people ovethrowing their occupiers. I don't even have an issue with the people of the Middle East kicking out their colonial masters. But it's gone well beyond that, with the occupied seeking to overthrow and destroy their ex-occupiers in their own countries.

There were several attempts at democratic self-rule in those attempts.

I take Muslim terrorists goal of ruling the United States as seriously as I do the threat of North Korea invading or the idea that monarchial libertarians are bent on installing a king in the White House. Propaganda can be fun but you should not believe it.

[Marmonboy]

Nobody ever said they would actually succeed in taking over the country; there's too many deer rifles and AR-15s out there. But that doesn't mean they won't try. Heck, nobody thought the Viet Cong would win, either.

[longview]

30 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Propaganda can be fun but you should not believe it.

Israel can only do so much without putting their necks on the chopping block.  Yasser Arafat and other militant Jihadists are not content with a two-state solution since their ultimate goal is the complete eradication of the State of Israel.  From the Oslo Peace Process (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_Camp_David_Summit#Accusations_of_Palestinian_responsibility):

• Most of the Israeli and American criticism for the failure of the 2000 Camp David Summit was leveled at Arafat.  Ehud Barak portrays Arafat’s behavior at Camp David as a “performance geared to exact as many Israeli concessions as possible without ever seriously intending to reach a peace settlement or sign an “end to the conflict."
• In his book, The Oslo Syndrome, Harvard Medical School professor of psychiatry and historian Kenneth Levin summarized the failure of the 2000 Camp David Summit in this manner: "[D]espite the dimensions of the Israeli offer and intense pressure from President Clinton, Arafat demurred. He apparently was indeed unwilling, no matter what the Israeli concessions, to sign an agreement that declared itself final and forswore any further Palestinian claims."  Levin argues that both the Israelis and the Americans were naive in expecting that Arafat would agree to give up the idea of a literal "right of return" for all Palestinians into Israel proper no matter how many 1948 refugees or how much monetary compensation Israel offered to allow.

[The Nehor]

45 minutes ago, Marmonboy said:

Nobody ever said they would actually succeed in taking over the country; there's too many deer rifles and AR-15s out there. But that doesn't mean they won't try. Heck, nobody thought the Viet Cong would win, either.

Yes, our surrender to the Vietnam Cong and giving them the White House was one of the saddest days in American history.

24 minutes ago, longview said:

Israel can only do so much without putting their necks on the chopping block.  Yasser Arafat and other militant Jihadists are not content with a two-state solution since their ultimate goal is the complete eradication of the State of Israel.  From the Oslo Peace Process (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_Camp_David_Summit#Accusations_of_Palestinian_responsibility):

• Most of the Israeli and American criticism for the failure of the 2000 Camp David Summit was leveled at Arafat.  Ehud Barak portrays Arafat’s behavior at Camp David as a “performance geared to exact as many Israeli concessions as possible without ever seriously intending to reach a peace settlement or sign an “end to the conflict."
• In his book, The Oslo Syndrome, Harvard Medical School professor of psychiatry and historian Kenneth Levin summarized the failure of the 2000 Camp David Summit in this manner: "[D]espite the dimensions of the Israeli offer and intense pressure from President Clinton, Arafat demurred. He apparently was indeed unwilling, no matter what the Israeli concessions, to sign an agreement that declared itself final and forswore any further Palestinian claims."  Levin argues that both the Israelis and the Americans were naive in expecting that Arafat would agree to give up the idea of a literal "right of return" for all Palestinians into Israel proper no matter how many 1948 refugees or how much monetary compensation Israel offered to allow.

The Palestinians are not the good guys either. I just do not sympathize with either side.

[sunstoned]

13 hours ago, cdowis said:

Interesting observation.
 "military presents" == it is Christmas.

I'll blame this one on auto correct