|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
 Posted: Sat Mar 13, 2010 7:32 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| bacasper wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
http://www.philstar.com/Article.aspx?articleId=556639&publicationSubCategoryId=200
Maybe the reporter in the article mentioned in the OP should have checked his facts.
According to THIS article Netanyahu had no idea of what was going on. (see last paragraph). This seems to have be an unilateral decision by the Interior Ministry. Given that they are apparently run by a far right religious group and given that such groups see any territorial concessions as blasphemy it's hardly strange that they would choose Biden's visit to make a political point.
Whereas Netanyahu is likely more politically astute. |
Nice attempt at spin. The article does NOT say that is how it was, but rather how it "may have been." Either way, it does not matter. Netanyahu knew or should have known. The buck stops there.
Furthermore, your article also states
| Quote: |
| Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has rebuffed calls from the White House to halt all settlement activity |
Netanyahu is hardly the innocent bystander you make him out to be here. |
Talk about spin. The calls Netanyahu rebuffed were in the past not about these new buildings. Furthermore just after that quote it states that Netanyahu HAS agreed to a limited freeze.
On top of that how could Netanyahu possibly have known if this was a unilateral decision by the Interior Ministry?
The article clearly states that his spokesman said that he did not. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
The Happy Warrior
Joined: 10 Feb 2010
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 14, 2010 5:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
Clinton slams Netanyahu over settlements expansion
| Quote: |
"The announcement of the settlements on the very day that the vice president was there was insulting," Clinton said in an interview with CNN Friday. "It was just really a very unfortunate and difficult moment for everyone, the U.S., our vice president who had gone to reassert America's strong support for Israeli security, and I regret deeply that that occurred and made that view known."
Clinton called "to make clear that the United States considered the announcement to be a deeply negative signal about Israel's approach to the bilateral relationship and counter to the spirit of the vice president's trip," State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley told reporters.
"The secretary said she could not understand how this happened, particularly in light of the United States' strong commitment to Israel's security and she made clear that the Israeli government needed to demonstrate not just through words but through specific actions that they are committed to this relationship and to the peace process," |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 14, 2010 8:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
Good for Clinton. Now what?
And if Israel attacks Iran? All those soldiers in Iraq are sitting ducks for Iranian retaliation.
This is why you don't stick your head in a beehive. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 14, 2010 6:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
White House blasts Israel housing decision
WASHINGTON, March 14 (UPI) -- White House senior adviser David Axelrod called Israel's plan to build 1,600 homes in East Jerusalem a "calculated" attempt to undermine peace efforts.
"What happened there was an affront, it was an insult, but that's not the most important thing," Axelrod said on ABC's "This Week."
He noted Israel announced the housing plan last week during a visit by Vice President Joe Biden for negotiations aimed at restarting peace talks between the Palestinians and the Israelis.
"We've just gotten so-called proximity talks going between the Palestinians and the Israelis, and this seemed calculated to undermine that, and that was distressing to everyone who is promoting the idea of peace and security in the region," Axelrod said. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Happy Warrior
Joined: 10 Feb 2010
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 14, 2010 6:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mises wrote: |
Good for Clinton. Now what?
And if Israel attacks Iran? All those soldiers in Iraq are sitting ducks for Iranian retaliation.
This is why you don't stick your head in a beehive. |
Well, that's precisely why the US won't allow an Israeli airstrike thru the Iraq corridor. Turkey won't allow it, either. And since Israel needs tacit American support for an airstrike on Iran, anyway, we can pretty much rule it out. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 14, 2010 7:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Anyway it's a moot point.
http://www.debka.com/article/8647/
In reference to the 1600 new homes being built "Netanyahu told Biden it had come about without his knowledge"
So why didn't he just cancel the decision? The article lays out the reasons why pointing out that Nethanyahu's government could easily be at risk of collapsing were he seen to bow to foreign pressure. His government depends on right-wing groups for its existence.
So what did he do?
He apparently made some new legislature ("mechanism") which required prejudging of all planned construction for Jerusalem which "by slowing down planning permission for construction this device will have the effect of extending the West Bank building freeze to Jerusalem as well."
So much ado about nothing.
Since this thread shows that Israel is doing the right thing (this was just one ministry acting on its own)....I predict this thread will quietly die in the next few days, while the anti-Israelis on here search frantically for the next pretext to attack Israel. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blade
Joined: 30 Jun 2007
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 14, 2010 7:26 pm Post subject: Re: Israel Sandbags Biden |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
We're talking about nations that have kept Palestinian refugees segregated from society and prevented any possible integration specifically to use them in political posturing against Israel (excepting Jordan, who initially granted them citizenship, but is now moving in the opposite direction and revoking it). These nations aren't harmed by Israel in any way; their opposition to Israel is pure politics. Governments like these do best when they have something to be against, and being against Israel is quite effective.
|
Fox. in a previous tread I covered why Arab nations weren't in a position to adsorb all the expelled Palestinians so I just don't understand why you keep bringing this up. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 14, 2010 7:37 pm Post subject: Re: Israel Sandbags Biden |
|
|
| blade wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
We're talking about nations that have kept Palestinian refugees segregated from society and prevented any possible integration specifically to use them in political posturing against Israel (excepting Jordan, who initially granted them citizenship, but is now moving in the opposite direction and revoking it). These nations aren't harmed by Israel in any way; their opposition to Israel is pure politics. Governments like these do best when they have something to be against, and being against Israel is quite effective.
|
Fox. in a previous tread I covered why Arab nations weren't in a position to adsorb all the expelled Palestinians so I just don't understand why you keep bringing this up. |
I keep bringing it up because your attempted justification of the Arabic abuse of Palestinian refugees was simply another example of you saying anything and doing anything to keep blaming Israel while excusing the Arab nations around it.
In short, it was bullshit. I'm not going to alter my case because of bullshit. The Arab nations in question could easily absorb all the Palestinian refugees. They could have very easily settled them on the land left behind by the Jews they drove away, using the resources of the Jews they drove away. But they didn't, did they? And you refuse to accept that possibility because it contradicts the totally false narrative you've created in your head wherein Israel is an evil monstrosity and the Arab nations in question are all totally blameless.
I'm sorry Blade, but I feel your position on this topic has no merit what-so-ever. You, like the other anti-Israelis on this board, live in a total fantasy world when it comes to the Middle East. The Arabs in question are actively chosing to block the integration of Palestinian refugees for purely political reasons. They aren't trying and failing to integrate all of them, they're refusing to even try. Only Jordan temporarily did otherwise, and even Jordan is now revoking the citizenships it granted. It's pathetic.
I'll never understand the commitment people like you have to some of the most hateful, dangerous, poorly run, abusive nations on the planet at the expense of the only nation in the region whose values even remotely match our own. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Underwaterbob
Joined: 08 Jan 2005
Location: In Cognito
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 14, 2010 7:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Palestine and Israel: Fanatic vs fanatic. The sympathy ship has sailed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blade
Joined: 30 Jun 2007
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 14, 2010 8:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Read what Erskin Childers said about the Palestine refugee problem.
Fox do you think he was lying?
| Quote: |
In this inquiry, I propose only briefly to examine the last two of these three claims. The last, about a "solution," is that if the Arab host governments were willing, they could resettle the refugees quite easily outside Palestine-where, as Israel claims and as President Kennedy's 1960 election platform also had it, "there is room and-opportunity for them." This is not even remotely true. UNRWA's new chief, Dr. John Davis, has now bluntly and bravely warned against "facile assumptions that it rests with the host governments to solve the problem ... the simple truth is that the jobs ... do not exist today within the host countries." Nor can the jobs be created, Dr. Davis reports, because most of the refugees are unskilled peasants-precisely the host countries' worst problem among their own rapidly expanding populations.
These Arabs, in short, are displaced persons in the fullest, most tragic meaning of the term-an economic truth cruelly different from the myth. But there is also the political myth, and it too has been soothing our highly pragmatic Western conscience for thirteen years. This is the Israeli charge, solemnly made every year and then reproduced around the world, that these refugees are-to quote a character in Leon Uris's Exodus-"kept caged like animals in suffering as a deliberate political weapon."
This, again, Dr. Davis has now bravely called a "misconception." The reality here is that the refugees themselves fanatically oppose any resettlement outside Palestine. UNRWA even had to persuade them that concrete huts, even in the U.N. camps, replacing their squalid tents and hovels, would not be the thin end of a resettlement wedge. Unlike other refugees, these refuse to move; they insist on going home.
Why? The answer, I believe, lies in the third of the three issues Israel argues-in the cause itself of the mass exodus. The very fact that cause is argued by both sides is significant. Israel claims that the Arabs left because they were ordered to, and deliberately incited into panic, by their own leaders who wanted the field cleared for the 1948 war. It is also argued that there would today be no Arab refugees if the Arab States had not attacked the new Jewish State on May 15, 1948 (though 800,000 had already fled before that date). The Arabs charge that their people were evicted at bayonet-point and by panic deliberately incited by the Zionists.
Examining every official Israeli statement about the Arab exodus, I was struck by the fact that no primary evidence of evacuation orders was ever produced. The charge, Israel claimed, was "documented"; but where were the documents? There had allegedly been Arab radio broadcasts ordering the evacuation; but no dates� names of stations, or texts of messages were ever cited. In Israel in 1958, as a guest of the Foreign Office and therefore doubly hopeful of serious assistance, I asked to be shown the proofs, I was assured they existed, and was promised them. None had been offered when I left, but I was again assured. I asked to have the material sent on to me. I am still waiting.
http://www.users.cloud9.net/~recross/israel-watch/ErskinChilders.html |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 14, 2010 8:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| blade wrote: |
Read what Erskin Childers said about the Palestine refugee problem.
Fox do you think he was lying? |
Yes I think he was lying. How clear do I have to be? The man has an agenda, just like you. He wants to demonize Israel, and to do so, he needs to lie. And people like you, who also want to demonize Israel, simply accept his words at face value, because they tell you what you want to hear.
Last edited by Fox on Sun Mar 14, 2010 8:51 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blade
Joined: 30 Jun 2007
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 14, 2010 8:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| blade wrote: |
Read what Erskin Childers said about the Palestine refugee problem.
Fox do you think he was lying? |
Yes I think he was lying. How clear do I have to be? The man has an agenda, just like you. |
He doesn't say what you want to hear so therefore he must be lying.
It is you sir that is living in fantasy land. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 14, 2010 9:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| blade wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| blade wrote: |
Read what Erskin Childers said about the Palestine refugee problem.
Fox do you think he was lying? |
Yes I think he was lying. How clear do I have to be? The man has an agenda, just like you. |
He doesn't say what you want to hear so therefore he must be lying.
It is you sir that is living in fantasy land. |
Whatever helps you sleep at night. Nevermind how totally irrational his entire case is, you believe it because it supports your anti-Semitic sentiments.
Let's talk about how totally irrational his case is:
1) The proposal that there are no jobs for the Palestinian refugees: the Palestinian refugees are there no matter what. They're consuming resources no matter what. Regardless of whether jobs are there, they are there no matter what. And regardless of whether jobs are there, they would be better off being allowed to integrate into society than being prevented from doing so. So the entire concept of jobs being an important part of the equation is a red herring (or better put, a lie).
He says further that jobs can't be created because the Palestinians are "unskilled peasants." What nonsense; as adults who have survived for any reasonable period of time, they surely have some capability or competency. Further, people can be trained to do things. Finally, if these people are so inherently incompetent and untrainable so as to be impossible to integrate into the societies in question, then any nation populated exclusively by these people is doomed to be a cesspit of eternal starvation and failure. The idea that these people are incompetent to even partake in basic labor is totally incompatible with the idea that they should have a state of their own. Anyone rational can see this; anyone blinded by Jew hate cannot. No surprise which category you fell into.
2) The idea that the refugees themselves fanatically oppose any resettlement: Jordan granted some of their refugees citizenship, and they accepted it. This part is such a totally obvious lie that I'm confused about how anyone could possibly fall for it. The idea that all -- or even most -- Palestinians would prefer to be endlessly kept outside of the mainstream population indefinitely on some slim hope of returning to lands they haven't been to for a long, long time is so inherently ridiculous that again, only someone totally obsessed with finding any cause to hate Israel could possibly accept it. Refer to [urlhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_refugees?#Jordan_refugees]this[/url]:
| Quote: |
| There are as many as 3,043,877 Palestinian refugees in Jordan,(The near majority of the kingdoms population) of whom 350,000 are still living in refugee camps [29]. Jordan granted most of the Palestinian refugees the Jordanian citizenship in 1950. The percentage of Palestinian refugees living in refugee camps to those who settled outside the camps is the lowest of all UNRWA fields of operations. Palestinian refugees are allowed access to public services and healthcare, as a result, refugee camps are becoming more of poor city suburbs than refugee camps. Most refugees moved out of the camps to other parts of the country reducing the number of refugees in need of UNRWA services to only 338,000. This caused UNRWA to reduce the budget allocated to Palestinian refugee camps in Jordan. Former UNRWA chief-attorney James G. Lindsay says: "In Jordan, where over 2 million Palestinian refugees live, all but 167,000 have citizenship, and are fully eligible for government services including education and health care." Lindsay suggests that eliminating services to refugees whose needs are subsidized by Jordan "would reduce the refugee list by 40%." |
Wow, nearly 3 million Palestinians had no problem resettling in Jordan. So much for the theory that they fanatically resist resettling. Unfortunately Jordan has caved to pressure from other Arabic nations and is in the process of stripping Palestinians of the citizenship they were granted.
3) The idea that the Palestinians were driven away by "Zionist terrorists" rather than by evacuation calls: this is pure conspiracy-theory driven speculation. He more or less flat out says that he's just assuming this is the case until the Israelis prove otherwise. Wow, that's mighty compelling... if you've all ready decided Israel is an evil monstrosity. For the rest of us, rational people that we are, it's meaningless.
Everything about this article is rubbish. I don't think it's a lie because it doesn't say what I want, I think it's a lie because it's such obvious, irrational rubbish that only someone desparate for their anti-Israeli sentiment to be vindicated would accept it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blade
Joined: 30 Jun 2007
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 14, 2010 9:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| blade wrote: |
Read what Erskin Childers said about the Palestine refugee problem.
Fox do you think he was lying? |
Yes I think he was lying. How clear do I have to be? The man has an agenda, just like you. |
And what agenda would that be exactly? It's interesting that when Sergio quotes people who support his arguments you accept them without question but when I or anyone with an opposing viewpoint does so you accuse us of having an agenda.
| Quote: |
He wants to demonize Israel, and to do so, he needs to lie.
|
What exactly is it you want when you attack the Arabs? Can we say hypocrite?
| Quote: |
And people like you, who also want to demonize Israel, simply accept his words at face value,
|
No jackass. I've actually spent a lot of time examining both sides of the argument. Not just like you focusing on the side that shares our so called western values. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 14, 2010 9:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| blade wrote: |
| And what agenda would that be exactly? It's interesting that when Sergio quotes people who support his arguments you accept them without question but when I or anyone with an opposing viewpoint does so you accuse us of having an agenda. |
Sergio quotes statistical numbers grounded in reality. You quote opinion pieces which blatantly contradict the facts (as I described in my post above). That's a key difference.
| blade wrote: |
| What exactly is it you want when you attack the Arabs? Can we say hypocrite? |
Do you even understand what hypocrisy is? I accused him of lying. For me to be a hypocrite, I would have to be a liar myself. If I've posted a knowing lie, you show me where. But you can't, because I haven't, because I don't need to lie to defend my position that Israel isn't the horrific monstrosity brain-dead anti-Semites construe it as. It's an imperfect nation in a very difficult situation that has done some regrettable things, which places it in the same position as many other nations. It's only people like you who try to construe it as some sort of atypically horrible place, and we all know why you do it.
| blade wrote: |
| No jackass. I've actually spent a lot of time examining both sides of the argument. |
Why lie to me? No one who posts the utterly rubbish sources that you do has spent "a lot of time" examining anything except anti-Israeli opinion pieces. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
