My Prediction

[thesometimesaint]

9 hours ago, cdowis said:

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.

It is more complicated

SEE

 

Edited December 25, 2016 by thesometimesaint

[Robert F. Smith]

18 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.

 

17 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.

Come on, gents.  Let's get real.  Nothing has really changed, and it is no great shakes to predict a war where war has been the one constant and predictable factor.  Obama has done nothing to improve or destabilize the Israel-Palestine dispute, which began long before he was born, and will still be around long after he has gone to Val Holl.  These are intractable problems on which even the Israelis themselves cannot agree on proper policy, not to mention that the Palestinians have never come to a policy agreement among themselves.

Israel is one of our country's closest allies, and will continue to be so.  We have not distanced ourselves from Israel, but we have not allowed Bibi Netanyahu to determine our foreign policy for us -- though he has tried hard to do so.  Perhaps he will have better luck with Trump, Vlad's good buddy.

[thesometimesaint]

Russia has had a base in Syria for over 40 years.

[Glenn101]

1 hour ago, thesometimesaint said:

It is more complicated

 

And it is even more complicated than the video itself presented. They glossed over so much of the ancient history as well as the more recent histories. It is a tangled mess. I have not been able to find a web site that I can trust to portray the facts in an unbiased manner. I don't know what all of the facts are.

Glenn

[thesometimesaint]

It is always more complicated than any Readers Digest style condensation can describe. But overall this one is a pretty good summary. I'm a more of a pox on both their houses type myself.

[cdowis]

12 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

 

Come on, gents.  Let's get real.  Nothing has really changed, and it is no great shakes to predict a war where war has been the one constant and predictable factor.  

Of course, but I am pointing out that the mechanism or structure for the war has now been put into place.  The international community is united in its view of Israel as a pariah, a rogue state.  The militarization of the Middle East -- Russia and Iran -- is coming into place.  The pieces are coming together and the prophecy of this war is becoming a practical reality.

Obama has done nothing to improve or destabilize the Israel-Palestine dispute,

You missed my point.  For the past 50 years the US has vetoed this or similar resolutions, and now it has been approved by the international community.  His treaty has made nuclear weapons possible with the knowledge and consent of this community.

The script was written thousands of years ago, but the stage is now set, the props and costumes are almost in place.  We now simply await the raising of the curtain.

Israel is one of our country's closest allies, and will continue to be so.  We have not distanced ourselves from Israel, but we have not allowed Bibi Netanyahu to determine our foreign policy for us -- though he has tried hard to do so.  Perhaps he will have better luck with Trump, Vlad's good buddy.

Obama, et al,  has actively sought to weaken our Armed Forces, allowed Russia and Iran to build a strong presence.  Hopefully, it is not too late to recover before the curtain rises.  But the script seems to relegate the US to a secondary role, unable to protect its ally.

 

Edited December 25, 2016 by cdowis

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, cdowis said:

Of course, but I am pointing out that the mechanism or structure for the war has now been put into place.  The international community is united in its view of Israel as a pariah, a rogue state.  The militarization of the Middle East -- Russia and Iran -- is coming into place.  The pieces are coming together and the prophecy of this war is becoming a practical reality.

You missed my point.  For the past 50 years the US has vetoed this or similar resolutions, and now it has been approved by the international community.  His treaty has made nuclear weapons possible with the knowledge and consent of this community.

The script was written thousands of years ago, but the stage is now set, the props and costumes are almost in place.  We now simply await the raising of the curtain.

Obama, et al,  has actively sought to weaken our Armed Forces, allowed Russia and Iran to build a strong presence.  Hopefully, it is not too late to recover before the curtain rises.  But the script seems to relegate the US to a secondary role, unable to protect its ally.

For those of us who have lived in the Middle East for many years, and who have continued to study the situation there for many decades, your comments here are either false or incoherent.  The status of Israel is basically the same as it has always been, and there is nothing new in the offing.  The State of Israel has by far and away the most powerful armed forces in the region, their aircraft much more advanced and effective than anything the Russians can bring to bear.  In addition to their technical and intelligence superiority in all matters related to warfare, commercial research & production, etc., Israel also has newly discovered oil shale and natural gas deposits likely to shortly make it an energy giant in the region.

Obama has been far more aggressive than previous presidents in stopping Iranian development of nuclear weapons (experts like the treaty), and he proposed a 7.8% increase in military spending for the 2015-2016 fiscal year, but the Republican Congress cut his request to only 6% increase.  The biggest cuts recently were generated by the dysfunctional Republican Congress' "sequestration" rule, which causes automatic across-the-board cuts when they cannot agree on a spending bill.  No president of the U.S. has ever deported as many people as Obama, and none has been as forceful in killing enemy leaders (including Osama bin Laden).  None has used Black Ops and drones more widely.  His predecessors all ho-hummed and dithered, making lousy excuses for their failures -- especially George Bush Jr's idiotic invasion of Iraq, leaving Obama to clean up his mess.  Not to mention the Great Recession created by the Repubs, which was adroitly overcome by Obama.

If we have anything to fear, it should be the clown act we will have endure for at least the next four years.

[cdowis]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Obama has been far more aggressive than previous presidents in stopping Iranian development of nuclear weapons (experts like the treaty),

Please give us the name and credentials of these experts and exactly what they have said about it.  You can assume that this is a CFR.

Hint: In case you have not kept up, this has been shown to be just another untruth.

Edited December 25, 2016 by cdowis

[cdowis]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

 and he proposed a 7.8% increase in military spending for the 2015-2016 fiscal year, but the Republican Congress cut his request to only 6% increase.  The biggest cuts recently were generated by the dysfunctional Republican Congress' "sequestration" rule, which causes automatic across-the-board cuts when they cannot agree on a spending bill.  No president of the U.S. has ever deported as many people as Obama, and none has been as forceful in killing enemy leaders (including Osama bin Laden).  None has used Black Ops and drones more widely.  His predecessors all ho-hummed and dithered, making lousy excuses for their failures -- especially George Bush Jr's idiotic invasion of Iraq, leaving Obama to clean up his mess.  Not to mention the Great Recession created by the Repubs, which was adroitly overcome by Obama.

If we have anything to fear, it should be the clown act we will have endure for at least the next four years.

I apologize if it appears that this has become a general discussion on domestic politics.  We obviously will not come to a consensus on that subject.

Edited December 25, 2016 by cdowis

[bcuzbcuz]

43 minutes ago, cdowis said:

I apologize if it appears that this has become a general discussion on domestic politics.  We obviously will not come to a consensus on that subject.

Finally. With the US withholding its vote, the aggressive land grabs by the Israeli government of Palestinian territories have been labeled with what they are, illegal encroachments of another countries territroy.. 

The Israeli peope who have moved into these disputed lands can have an acre for a family of four (And goats) while a famiy of 12 in the Palestinianterritories are forced to live in a two bedroom apartment.

The only reason anyone can view such land grabs as right and legal is by turning a blind eye to how the nation of Israel is bent of skrinking the Palestinian territories year after year.

Will the Israeli government press the issue into a weaponed conflict? Only time will tell.

[cdowis]

4 hours ago, bcuzbcuz said:

Finally. With the US withholding its vote, the aggressive land grabs by the Israeli government of Palestinian territories have been labeled with what they are, illegal encroachments of another countries territroy..  etc etec

Sounds like you have a very one-side view of very complex issues.  For example, the "illegal" as defined by the UN?  the Palestinians.  Another question is, when is "illegal" activities justified.  This is literally war, and "grabbing land" in a war for survival may be justified as an alternative to killing people.  Unfortunate, but necessary.

May I suggest you consider whether you yourself are blind to the realities of the situation where the Arabs refuse to recognize the very existence of Israel and their ultimate goal is the destruction of that state. Perhaps you should check into that before calling others blind.  Why are the Palestinians refusing direct negotiations with Israel would be a good start.  Are they willing to recognize Israel at the end of those negotiations?

Let's open your eyes a little.

Edited December 26, 2016 by cdowis

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, bcuzbcuz said:

Finally. With the US withholding its vote, the aggressive land grabs by the Israeli government of Palestinian territories have been labeled with what they are, illegal encroachments of another countries territroy.. 

The Israeli peope who have moved into these disputed lands can have an acre for a family of four (And goats) while a famiy of 12 in the Palestinianterritories are forced to live in a two bedroom apartment.

The only reason anyone can view such land grabs as right and legal is by turning a blind eye to how the nation of Israel is bent of skrinking the Palestinian territories year after year.

Will the Israeli government press the issue into a weaponed conflict? Only time will tell.

 

4 hours ago, cdowis said:

Sounds like you have a very one-side view of very complex issues.  For example, the "illegal" as defined by the UN?  the Palestinians.  Another question is, when is "illegal" activities justified.  This is literally war, and "grabbing land" in a war for survival may be justified as an alternative to killing people.  Unfortunate, but necessary.

May I suggest you consider whether you yourself are blind to the realities of the situation where the Arabs refuse to recognize the very existence of Israel and their ultimate goal is the destruction of that state. Perhaps you should check into that before calling others blind.  Why are the Palestinians refusing direct negotiations with Israel would be a good start.  Are they willing to recognize Israel at the end of those negotiations?

Let's open your eyes a little.

Everybody in the Middle East has been moving to the right now for decades, positions hardening all the while.  The hate levels have been increasing and the likelihood of any meaningful negotiations simultaneously decreasing.  This will likely go on for the next half century at least.  Eyes are not opening, but narrowing.

The Israeli settlement project for the West Bank and Gaza began generations ago, and only Ariel Sharon had the courage to abandon the Gaza settlements.  The justification for settlements is that a Jew should have the right to live on any land bequeathed to him by God, and the West Bank Settlement project began immediately following the Six Day War of 1967.  I was there and saw it first hand.  Had the Palestinians made a deal early on, there would be no settlements.  Plain and simple.  There could have been two peaceful, neighboring states.  Now they will have to endure continuing occupation and settlements, but without Israeli citizenship and the right to vote.  This is a disaster for democracy and peace.

[cdowis]

53 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Had the Palestinians made a deal early on, there would be no settlements.  Plain and simple.  There could have been two peaceful, neighboring states.  Now they will have to endure continuing occupation and settlements, but without Israeli citizenship and the right to vote.  This is a disaster for democracy and peace.

To have on so would have been a recognition of the legitimacy of the state of Israel and its boundaries, that the Jews have a rightful claim to this territory, which was the whole issue behind the 1967 war.d

Allowing the passage of this resolution basically takes the direct negotiations for peace from being unlikely to becoming virtually impossible.

Edited December 26, 2016 by cdowis

[The Nehor]

43 minutes ago, cdowis said:

To have on so would have been a recognition of the legitimacy of the state of Israel and its boundaries, that the Jews have a rightful claim to this territory, which was the whole issue behind the 1967 war.d

Allowing the passage of this resolution basically takes the direct negotiations for peace from being unlikely to becoming virtually impossible.

I am not sure you want to set the precedent that your religious and cultural ancestors occupying land two millennia ago is a good reason to claim land as yours. Unless you are okay with native reservations crowding us Gentiles into smaller and smaller living areas.

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, cdowis said:

To have on so would have been a recognition of the legitimacy of the state of Israel and its boundaries, that the Jews have a rightful claim to this territory, which was the whole issue behind the 1967 war.d

Allowing the passage of this resolution basically takes the direct negotiations for peace from being unlikely to becoming virtually impossible.

Nonsense.  You are simply not familiar with the actual history and implications of such abstention, perhaps listening only to hysterical reactions from the extreme right wing -- see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdsiVzfIMeY .  You need to understand that there are far more balanced appraisals.

The sole reason for the 1967 War was the move by Egypt of a full army into the Sinai, and the closing of the Straits of Tiran -- acts of war.  This resulted in the preemptive strike by Israel on the Egyptian armed forces.  Only when the Jordan Legion began shelling the Israelis did that result in an Israeli invasion of the West Bank, and this applied also to Syrian shelling of Israel from the Golan Heights.  Israel took six days to defeat all three aggressor armies.  I was there and saw it first hand.  Egypt later made a peace treaty with Israel and got the entire Sinai back.

Edited December 26, 2016 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

8 hours ago, cdowis said:

Please give us the name and credentials of these experts and exactly what they have said about it.  You can assume that this is a CFR.

Hint: In case you have not kept up, this has been shown to be just another untruth.

The treaty was endorsed unanimously by the U.N. Security Council, accepted by the Republican-controlled U.S. Senate (https://www.corker.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/iran-nuclear-agreement-review-act), and by Saudi Arabia and the Arab Gulf States, but also fully supported by the only experts who matter, the experienced scientists, engineers, and technicians who constitute the I.A.E.A. (International Atomic Energy Agency) and their inspectors -- https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/statements/iaea-director-general’s-statement-iran .

You have clearly been getting your information from the hysterical right-wing, and seem unaware that the former Israeli Mossad chief (Efraim Halevy), who knows the facts first-hand, favors the treaty -- http://www.npr.org/2015/07/31/427990359/ex-mossad-chief-supports-iran-nuclear-deal .  Like another former Mossad chief, the late Meir Dagan, Halevy considers Netanyahu a "fear monger." -- http://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Netanyahu-is-a-fear-monger-administration-coming-to-an-end-455567 .

An excellent and balanced discussion of the treaty is available on Charley Rose (interviews with Ian Bremmer and Ari Shavit) -- https://charlierose.com/videos/23081 .

[cdowis]

18 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Nonsense.  You are simply not familiar with the actual history and implications of such abstention, perhaps listening only to hysterical reactions from the extreme right wing -- see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdsiVzfIMeY .  You need to understand that there are far more balanced appraisals.

Please enlighten us on why are there no direct negotiations between Israel and Palestine.  My understanding is that the Palestinian auhorities refuse to do so because they are demanding pe-conditions to be met first, while Israel is saying pre-conditions are unacceptable.

 Also, Hamas, a major player in the governing process of Palestine, continues to refuse the legitimacy of the very existence of the state of Israel so they cannot negotiate in good faith.  http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-13331522

Now please enlighten us.

[cdowis]

51 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The treaty was endorsed unanimously by the U.N. Security Council, accepted by the Republican-controlled U.S. Senate (https://www.corker.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/iran-nuclear-agreement-review-act),

1. This is not a treaty although even you would agree that it should have been presented to Congress as such.  It was simply a "I have a pen, I have a phone" type of thing.

2. Thus, there was no "treaty" approved by the Senate.  The use of the phrase  "accepted by the Republican-controlled  Senate" is very strange in this context.  It is not a lie, it is not the truth, it's just cleverly constructed to give a false impression that a treaty had been passed by Congress.  You even gave a link to the non-existent event.

Sigh.  Perhaps you thought and hoped that I would not notice.

3. I certainly suggest that you read your link to see what the Senate actually approved. 

4.  UN approval is irrelevant, including the AEA.  The issue with this agreement is not a technical one, and beyond the scope of the AEA.

5. etc .........

 I have lost interest in continuing this conversation and untangling your clever rhetoric and personal aspersions.  Give you the last word.

Edited December 26, 2016 by cdowis

[Robert F. Smith]

23 minutes ago, cdowis said:

1. This is not a treaty.

2. Thus, there was no "treaty" approved by the Senate.

3. I suggest that you read your link to see what the Senate actually approved. 

You are correct, of course: https://www.lawfareblog.com/state-department-affirms-iran-deal-only-political-commitment .  However, the point is that they supported the agreement.  I note that you immediately left out the major part of my post:  the response to your CFR request, which should have brought from you an affirmation that I was correct -- something that is always so difficult for the right-wing.

23 minutes ago, cdowis said:

4. You continue to use personal aspersions in our discussion.  I have lost interest in continuing this conversation with you, and give you the last word.

Naturally, if you take positions based on emotion, rather than on reasoned discourse based on facts, there can be no real exchange of ideas.

[bcuzbcuz]

11 hours ago, cdowis said:

Sounds like you have a very one-side view of very complex issues.  For example, the "illegal" as defined by the UN?  the Palestinians.  Another question is, when is "illegal" activities justified.  This is literally war, and "grabbing land" in a war for survival may be justified as an alternative to killing people.  Unfortunate, but necessary.

May I suggest you consider whether you yourself are blind to the realities of the situation where the Arabs refuse to recognize the very existence of Israel and their ultimate goal is the destruction of that state. Perhaps you should check into that before calling others blind.  Why are the Palestinians refusing direct negotiations with Israel would be a good start.  Are they willing to recognize Israel at the end of those negotiations?

Let's open your eyes a little.

Are you stating the churches position? Or is your opinion a relic of a thinking pattern you established in your youth? 

You say I don't understand a very complex question, you call this situation a "war". You're not answering a question, you're giving a very tired rhetorical response to the current, fresh, daily occurrence of Israel purposefully occupying land they neither own nor have a right to by international law. It is a political statement. But it effects normal, everyday people on the ground, giving land to a few while taking it from the many.

Give me churches statements regarding Israeli occupation.

[bcuzbcuz]

Yesterday at Al-Jazeera. It's worth the read.

The UN settlement resolution is too little and too late

Palestinians know that they have been offered only stale crumbs from the UN Security Council's table.

The United Nations Security Council vote decrying Israel's policy of settlement expansion is a welcome, but empty, gesture - all but irrelevant to the contest waged daily between Israel and Palestinians, but perfectly suited to the new fascination with entertainment as policy. 

Every lead player in this manufactured drama on New York's East River has written a script that puts its role in the best light. 

The international community has done nothing of substance in almost 50 years to constrain Israel's appetite for new territory in Palestinian areas conquered in June 1967.

Israel has not been able to achieve the extraordinary feat of defying the international consensus against its settlement policies for decades by being complacent in the face of such international opposition, no matter how inconstant. 

It has long pursued a policy based on the adage that "creating facts on the ground" - moving its citizens to conquered territory and in doing so, denying Palestinians the opportunity to create sovereignty based upon unchallenged control of territory - creates the context for diplomacy, and that everything else, including the pontifications from New York, or even Washington, while certainly a cause for concern, is hostage to this strategy. 

Indeed, the UNSC vote, which fails to suggest any remedy, is scripted perfectly to match the central claim of Israel's long-serving prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, who himself learned a thing or two about international diplomacy as Israel's representative to the UN a generation ago. 

The vote, and its self-evident, if notable, inclusion of East Jerusalem as occupied territory, will play well in Israel and among its many allies as yet the latest in an ignominious history of international opposition to the Jewish state, and will offer Netanyahu another politically potent arrow is his "the world is against us" quiver.

For the small but vocal pro-Palestinian Israeli community that punches well above its weight, if only in foreign capitals, the UNSC resolution is the best news they have heard in many years. 

Like wanderers in the desert, they see the vote as an oasis - offering a tantalising hint of effective international action to force an Israeli retreat to secure and defensible borders. 

Like all mirages, however, this one too is a dream that is bound to disappoint. The international community remains unwilling to save Israel from itself by imposing a diplomatic framework to negotiate an end to occupation and the creation of a Palestinian state, and, with or without the council's actions, Israeli opponents of occupation are too weak and uncertain to succeed on their own. 

Stale crumbs 

Palestinians know better than anyone the calamitous effectiveness of this strategy. They are at the centre of an Arab political community that, in our generation, is distinguished by its weakness in the face of external and internal challenges and the consequent undermining of state sovereignty across the region that follows as a result. 

The Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and its tired representatives have not scored a substantive diplomatic achievement since Yitzhak Rabin acknowledged them a quarter century ago.

An Israeli decision to withdraw its settlements and army from Palestinian territory - the ostensible objective of the international community - was won not by the UN, Washington, or the PLO, but by Hamas, which convinced Israel the old fashioned way - through blood and fire - that sitting in Gaza as conquerors was simply not worth the trouble.

Palestinians know that they have been offered only stale crumbs from the Security Council's table, none better than the villagers who have seen their lands and livelihoods compromised by settlement expansion. 

But what else can their leaders do, but wave this new resolution as proof of yet another historic achievement on the road to an inevitable, if faraway victory? 

Another record of US failure 

The United States as always reserves for itself a key influence in matters international, but this time it has chosen a non-speaking role. 

The Obama administration has recorded a singular failure. It is the only US administration since the June 1967 war that has left barren the diplomatic effort to negotiate an end to the occupation. 

During eight years of energetic effort, it failed to move Israel to negotiate directly with the PLO, let alone to withdraw from territories occupied almost half century ago.

Washington had not had an idea in more than three years, since the expected failure of its central proposition that US good offices were enough to convince Israel to act in its enlightened self-interest, get with its facile "right side of history" programme, and lighten up on the Palestinians.

Now as he heads for the exit, Barack Obama has yet again been dragged from behind, letting the caravan pass in a feel-good abstention that puts Washington on the periphery of the right side of history. 

That moment is destined to pass. US support for the vote would not, in and of itself, been a game changer. Remember the Clinton parameters, an inexact, but far more prescriptive, policy that fell from the tree almost as soon as it was ripe. 

WATCH: Palestinians react to UN settlements vote (2:25)

 

The Trump factor 

Perhaps the most important players were those not celebrating the victory on First Avenue. Donald Trump has promised to ignore Obama's last, toothless gasp, and offered the UN as yet another object of Washington's scorn by adopting a new look in US policy that treats Israel's expanding presence in the West Bank and Jerusalem as legitimate. 

Trump's main allies in this effort are not surprisingly Netanyahu, for whom a Trump White House is almost a dream come true, and less obviously Abdel Fattah al-Sisi's Egypt, who offered to sacrifice the resolution it had drafted and sponsored in the hope of re-establishing a more solid base of cooperation with the incoming administration and preserving its expansive security ties in the Sinai and Gaza with Israel. 

UNSC Resolution 2334 joins an undistinguished list of long-forgotten efforts to end occupation and settlement, and more broadly to create a Palestinian state and fix Israel's place as an accepted and acknowledged part of the region. 

The international community continues to bark, but Israel's settlement machine sees no cause to pause the work of generations in the service of Greater Israel.

 

 

[thesometimesaint]

17 hours ago, cdowis said:

Please give us the name and credentials of these experts and exactly what they have said about it.  You can assume that this is a CFR.

Hint: In case you have not kept up, this has been shown to be just another untruth.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/obamas-deportation-policy-numbers/story?id=41715661

[longview]

2 hours ago, bcuzbcuz said:

Yesterday at Al-Jazeera. It's worth the read.

No, it isn't.  I do not trust the religion (call it a totalitarian ideology) that advocates the eradication of the State of Israel and murder of Jews around the world.  Israel have always accommodated many ethnic groups within its borders.  There are Palestinians and Moslems in the Knesset.  On the other hand, we see Jihadists firing hundreds of rockets at civilian targets from Gaza, Lebanon, Syria, and even from Iraq (Scud missiles during the Iraq war).  And scores of tunnels in order for them to get past the security barriers.  Iran is vigorously supplying men and weapons and logistics to Hezbollah (Lebanon and Syria) and the Hamas.

[bcuzbcuz]

16 minutes ago, longview said:

No, it isn't.  I do not trust the religion (call it a totalitarian ideology) that advocates the eradication of the State of Israel and murder of Jews around the world.  Israel have always accommodated many ethnic groups within its borders.  There are Palestinians and Moslems in the Knesset.  On the other hand, we see Jihadists firing hundreds of rockets at civilian targets from Gaza, Lebanon, Syria, and even from Iraq (Scud missiles during the Iraq war).  And scores of tunnels in order for them to get past the security barriers.  Iran is vigorously supplying men and weapons and logistics to Hezbollah (Lebanon and Syria) and the Hamas.

Well, don't let me disturb your biases. 

[cdowis]

1 hour ago, thesometimesaint said:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/obamas-deportation-policy-numbers/story?id=41715661

What does this have to do with the topic of the Iranian agreement??