Can you say smack-down?

He might as well whip it out and pee on the podium.

It looks like quite a few delegates walked out on his speech.

Bastards.

I stand with Israel. - ONSP

Benjamin Netanyahu is calling out the United Nations: “Will you stand with Israel or will you stand with the terrorists?”

It looks like quite a few delegates walked out on his speech.

They're standing in the hallways with the terrorists.

Egypt and UAE are still there.

Hell, if I didn't have some of these people wanlk out when I was talking, I'd wonder how I'd gone so wrong.

F*ck the UN. More worthless that tits on a bull.

Bibi is the Man.

“Will you stand with Israel or will you stand with the terrorists?”

It looks like quite a few delegates walked out on his speech.

I guess we know where some of them stand then. Too bad we won't hold them accountable any time in the near future.

Taking a wild guess, I thinking the OIC has decided to take a smoke break.

re: #8 Truck Monkey

F*ck the UN. More worthless that tits on a bull.

And not half as useful for metaphors.

Demand pre-conditions, Bibi!

“Will you stand with Israel or will you stand with the terrorists?”
I thought there was no such thing as a stupid question...

re: #8 Truck Monkey

F*ck the UN. More worthless that tits on a bull.

I always heard "tits on a boar".

darn it. Gotta go. Go Israel!

He said "World Order" Killgore, you catch that?

re: #13 Baier

“Will you stand with Israel or will you stand with the terrorists?”
I thought there was no such thing as a stupid question...

Kind of like: "do you walk to work, or do you carry your lunch?"

re: #14 MandyManners

I always heard "tits on a boar".

I've always hear "worthless as tits on a woman you can't have."

I hope ShortShit gets the point that Bibi is coming.

re: #14 MandyManners

I always heard "tits on a boar".

All I heard was "tits"...

re: #18 Walter L. Newton

I've always hear "worthless as tits on a woman you can't have."

Well. There you go.

Remember how just a couple of days ago, Obama said that the Israelis and Palestinians would resume negotiations?
The Palis have responded not with an unclenched fist, but with a raised finger:
Abbas: We can't return to negotiations

Abbas said he wants to avoid a crisis with the Obama administration at any cost, but that "there is no common ground for discussion" with Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu.

Of course not. Israel wants to exist as a Jewish state; Abbas wants to get rid of it or make it another Muslim Arab state.

Ended his speech in Hebrew.

Bravo Bibi. I need a copy of that speech.

re: #23 buzzsawmonkey

Israel should leave the UN.

As should we.

Keep your enemies close?

That was a very powerful speech, aimed straight at Iran and Ahmadinejad.

Why don't we have a Netanyahu, rather than a babbler?

re: #27 Charles

That was a very powerful speech, aimed straight at Iran and Ahmadinejad.

He laid out his case for war.

I'm sure I'm not the only one who couldn't listen, so if anyone gets a link to a transcript, please post it.

I wonder if Obama was able to understand Bibi's speech or if he is still in lala land.

United Nations = League of Nations, Part Deux. Or maybe, Part Duh? Part D'Oh? Help me out here, people.

re: #32 Leonidas Hoplite

United Nations = League of Nations, Part Deux. Or maybe, Part Duh? Part D'Oh? Help me out here, people.

No, it's like a more expensive, less effective version of the League of Nations, but with more evil.

Glad to hear CNN refer to Ahmadinejad's speech an "anti-Semitic rant."

Saudi Arabia opens first co-ed university

Saudi Arabia has opened its first fully coed university where women will not have to wear veils and can mix freely with men.

The King Abdullah Science and Technology University opened Wednesday at Thuwal north of Jeddah. The institution is designed to break ground on Saudi Arabia's scientific learning ambitions and apparently soften gender segregation.

In the past, women in the notoriously gender restrictive kingdom could only take classes separately from men. Another taboo will be passed by at the new school -- women will be able to drive.

Early reaction to the university is reportedly largely positive.

re: #27 Charles

Unfortunately for Israel they are going to have to deal with Iran on their own. The world will cry about it out loud but in private they will be grateful to Israel. No where will there be more graceless grateful people than in the magic kingdom. They do not love Iran.

re: #27 Charles

That was a very powerful speech, aimed straight at Iran and Ahmadinejad.

Contrast that to the one Dinnerjacket gave...day and night

re: #32 Leonidas Hoplite

United Nations = League of Nations, Part Deux. Or maybe, Part Duh? Part D'Oh? Help me out here, people.

As I understand it from yesterday's session, there's pressure to turn the Security Council into a General Assembly Mark II.

The ball is now in your court Abbas. Oh yeah, he already took a pass on that:

Abbas: We can't return to negotiations

This speech sure made a point of contrast to the naive speech given yesterday by our President.

As Lawhawk has said numerous times regarding the UN - 'You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy anywhere on the planet."

re: #27 Charles

You ain't kiddin' chief. Honestly one of the most dramatic and powerful speeches ever given at that pig-pen.

re: #8 Truck Monkey

Yep,,, the only difference is that the tits on the bull don't really hurt anything.

re: #35 Danny

Glad to hear CNN refer to Ahmadinejad's speech an "anti-Semitic rant."

The last time I watched CNN, I thought they were doing a good job at being more centered in their reporting.

Let them walk out, lock them out, then close all the restrooms for 3 blocks around.

re: #40 Creeping Eruption

The ball is now in your court Abbas. Oh yeah, he already took a pass on that:

Abbas: We can't return to negotiations

Then they can return to their tents.

I swore when I registered that I'd stay away from Israel vs the terrorists threads on LGF.

See ya'll next thread!

re: #30 Kosh's Shadow

I'm sure I'm not the only one who couldn't listen, so if anyone gets a link to a transcript, please post it.

Me too!

Protesters against Ahmadinejad's regime unfurled a mile long banner across the Brooklyn Bridge today.

re: #28 MikeySDCA

Because we're not really facing any kind of war. Just some random criminal actions here and there, the courts can handle 'em...
///

The rebuttal of Ahmadinejad was well done. Bibi produced minute of the Wannsee conference and architectural plans for Auschwitz-Birkenau signed by Himmler.

Well if the world stopped sending welfare to Palestine ... we'd see some interesting news.

Remember that state of the art greenhouse that Israel abandoned in their withdrawal and how the Palestinians trashed it, then demanded that Israel come fix it and run it?

Sounds like the pre-emptive strike on Iran is lined up on the runway. One thing you can say for Israel...her civilization never slumbers in dangerous denial.

re: #52 Equable

then demanded that Israel come fix it and run it?

LOL. That I did not know.

re: #23 buzzsawmonkey

Israel should leave the UN.

As should we.

Charter of the UN

A lofty goal when it started. A wonderful plan if all of the members believed in the same thing. There are too many dictator's and tyrants sending representatives now. It's a joke...a giant worthless joke.

re: #35 Danny

Glad to hear CNN refer to Ahmadinejad's speech an "anti-Semitic rant."

Wow. So who is going to get fired?

I missed most of that speech. I'm happy to see that I can read about it here. Thank you, Charles.

I like hearing Mr. Netanyahu speak. I always have.

re: #53 rikzilla

Sounds like the pre-emptive strike on Iran is lined up on the runway. One thing you can say for Israel...her civilization never slumbers in dangerous denial.

They can't afford it.

re: #47 Conservative Moonbat

I swore when I registered that I'd stay away from Israel vs the terrorists threads on LGF.

See ya'll next thread!

A thread flounce?

Anybody know who walked out on Bibi?

re: #45 poteen

Better yet, start collecting the fines from all those overdue parking tickets.
We'd be halfway home on the deficit.

Everyone needs to remember that Ahmadinejad did engineering calculations years ago that predicted every word of bibi's speech.

/

re: #59 debutaunt

A thread flounce?

Did the same thing on the previous thread, too. Odd.

Oh, and for those willing to read the bile, here's Ahmadinejad's speech, in which he references the return of the Madhi several times.

Well...

The UN does create a lot of business for dear old Gotham...

/Just sayin'

re: #63 Guanxi88

Did the same thing on the previous thread, too. Odd.

Strike two!

re: #54 Creeping Eruption

Well those wretches don't produce anything - no industry, no technology or science or pretty much anything, for that matter. All they produce is little Palestinians hell bent on blowing shit up, meanwhile holding their hand out demanding a free ride.

I am so fucking sick of it I could puke.

re: #49 lawhawk

That's wonderful.

re: #65 experiencedtraveller

Well...

The UN does create a lot of business for dear old Gotham...

/Just sayin'

So does the Joker. Doesn't mean he's welcome or desirable.

I would love to have seen Obama's reaction if he even saw it. Or gave a damn.

"Saddam Hussein is a bell end."

-Ali G at the UN

re: #46 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Then they can return to their tents Jordan and Egypt.

FTFY

re: #59 debutaunt

A thread flounce?

More like just making sure I don't get myself in trouble. I'm more supportive of Israel than many on the left but I have a hunch it's not enough for the status quo around here so I'm just staying out of it.

re: #63 Guanxi88

Did the same thing on the previous thread, too. Odd.

re: #63 Guanxi88

Did the same thing on the previous thread, too. Odd.

Obviously waiting for a boob thread...me too...but I will make do with this one for now.

re: #47 Conservative Moonbat

I swore when I registered that I'd stay away from Israel vs the terrorists threads on LGF.

See ya'll next thread!

Why?

re: #34 buzzsawmonkey

The UN has become as epic fail as the League of Nations.

The US has a very simple and easily supportable position - until the UN undertakes complete and total reforms - there will be no additional funds or support to the core UN operations.

If they dislike this - then the UN is free to relocate their headquarters...preferably to some cesspool of villainy that they prefer to not address...like Iran, Zimbabwe, Somalia...

re: #48 Mad Al-Jaffee

Me too!

If you go to UN Speech Texts, it may be posted there soon. I see that the Turkish PM's speech is already there.

re: #73 Conservative Moonbat

Naah no need to duck and cover, Israel surely does some creepy things but they pale in comparison to what others do to her.

re: #65 experiencedtraveller

Well...

The UN does create a lot of business for dear old Gotham...

/Just sayin'

yup..call girls and parking ticket writers may be in trouble...

re: #64 lawhawk

Oh, and for those willing to read the bile, here's Ahmadinejad's speech, in which he references the return of the Madhi several times.

Well well well.

(or should that be Well ¹³?)

re: #61 tradewind

Better yet, start collecting the fines from all those overdue parking tickets.
We'd be halfway home on the deficit.

Diplomatic immunity protects them from that and public urination/ indecent exposure charges, but the pictures would be priceless.

re: #55 Desert Dog

Charter of the UN

A lofty goal when it started. A wonderful plan if all of the members believed in the same thing. There are too many dictator's and tyrants sending representatives now. It's a joke...a giant worthless joke.

The UN is the deformed child made from an FDR ejaculation onto the fertile soil of conflict and desperation, then raised to adulthood by terrorists.

re: #52 Equable

Well if the world stopped sending welfare to Palestine ... we'd see some interesting news.

Remember that state of the art greenhouse that Israel abandoned in their withdrawal and how the Palestinians trashed it, then demanded that Israel come fix it and run it?

Now they're demanding that Isreael fix the sewer system that they destroyed.

Next up is...Hugo Chavez.

re: #74 Desert Dog

Obviously waiting for a boob thread...me too...but I will make do with this one for now.

I already started the boob thread in my #8 did I not?

re: #85 buzzsawmonkey

Oh hey I can justify what I said - by creepy I mean things of the clandestine nature.

But they sure as shit wouldn't be doing those things if people stopped fucking with her.

re: #85 buzzsawmonkey

The Israelis have been fightingkicking jihadis ass since the 1880s.

FIFY

There's an anti-Iranian nukes protest going on in Farragut Park in D.C. Fair amount of foot traffic.

I was tempted to go down to the White House and see what is going on there as well, but don't have time. Last time I went, I discovered that Obama had used police cruisers and police tape to block off all foot traffic access to Pennsylvania Ave in front of the White House (which is already perpetually closed to civilian vehicles anyway). Several dozen Anti-Iranian protesters instead had to set up shop north across Pennsylvania in Lafayette Square. Even during the most heated moments of anti-Bush demagoguery over the years, I never saw Bush or the Secret Service stop protesters from setting up shop on Pennsylvania -- let alone when it was only a few dozen people. None of this was noticed by the media, of course.

re: #84 John Neverbend

Next up is...Hugo Chavez.

No shit?

So, I have a disagreement going with a lib. He says no muslim would ever in a million years nuke close to Jerusalem because of it's holiness to them. I say that a "twelver" Shia would love to do so because of the fire and chaos unleashed. Any thoughts?

re: #50 tradewind

Because we're not really facing any kind of war. Just some random criminal actions here and there, the courts can handle 'em...
///

You can't hold the Nuremburg trials until you've got the principals in custody. Dismantling a large and well-armed organization sufficiently to seize its leadership, apart from a handful of Eichmann types who scuttle away, requires organized fighting with more men and weapons than the police can bring to bear. In short, war.

re: #90 MandyManners

No shit?

Actually, he's full of it.

re: #83 MandyManners

Hell if anybody is supporting those dregs it's the Israelis. Lookit all the free houses and infrastructure the Palestinians get.

re: #84 John Neverbend

Next up is...Hugo Chavez.

I wonder if he still smells the devil at the podium?

re: #83 MandyManners

Now they're demanding that Isreael fix the sewer system that they destroyed.

The sewer has a sewer system? Funny that.

re: #73 Conservative Moonbat

More like just making sure I don't get myself in trouble. I'm more supportive of Israel than many on the left but I have a hunch it's not enough for the status quo around here so I'm just staying out of it.

/ No flouncing without proper drama./ or tight fitting leotard

re: #60 BigPapa

Anybody know who walked out on Bibi?

I saw the Palestine wench pack up and leave. But it was near the end. She sat through most of it.

re: #90 MandyManners

Lots of shit, doubtless.

re: #90 MandyManners

re: #84 John Neverbend

Next up is...Hugo Chavez.

No shit?

Plenty of shit, I'm sure.

re: #91 Spenser (with an S)

So, I have a disagreement going with a lib. He says no muslim would ever in a million years nuke close to Jerusalem because of it's holiness to them. I say that a "twelver" Shia would love to do so because of the fire and chaos unleashed. Any thoughts?

...you ever see their fighters hide in a mosque?

re: #86 Truck Monkey

I already started the boob thread in my #8 did I not?

I missed it, thanks! :-)

I wonder what the UN would look like if they picked it all up and moved it to Damascus.

Maybe NY might be able to balance their budget on the land sale.

re: #91 Spenser (with an S)

So, I have a disagreement going with a lib. He says no muslim would ever in a million years nuke close to Jerusalem because of it's holiness to them. I say that a "twelver" Shia would love to do so because of the fire and chaos unleashed. Any thoughts?

I'd say your opponent has his head up his butt.

re: #100 JamesTKirk

re: #99 MikeySDCA

Advantage, MikeSDCA

re: #99 MikeySDCA

Lots of shit, doubtless.

re: #100 JamesTKirk

Plenty of shit, I'm sure.

Was it good for you two?

re: #95 sattv4u2

I wonder if he still smells the devil at the podium?

Nope - he's retired to Texas.

Today it will likely be a full on rant against Israel with a lesser attack on the elements in the US preventing our President from implementing a hard left agenda of appeasement and weakness.

Attention UN delegates: remember to pick up your complimentary souvenir copy of Vince Vance and the Valiants' hit album ' I Know What it Means to Miss New Orleans'... Image: 510v3q2js4L._SS500_.jpg
you'll love tracks 11 and 12!

re: #105 Danny

ROFL!

re: #106 MandyManners

Was it good for you two?

I'm still smoking.

Next time I gotta use lube.

re: #101 Charpete67

...you ever see their fighters hide in a mosque?

I laughed out loud when Netanyahu mentioned how the Jordyptians used a mosque to store weapons.

re: #91 Spenser (with an S)

So, I have a disagreement going with a lib. He says no muslim would ever in a million years nuke close to Jerusalem because of it's holiness to them. I say that a "twelver" Shia would love to do so because of the fire and chaos unleashed. Any thoughts?

I really don't know. Speaking purely theoretically, a relatively low yield moderate altitude airburst will cause plenty of damage on the ground but with little or no fall-out, so taking out Netanya, say, would have potentially no effect on Jerusalem. This is too awful to contemplate.

re: #103 gregb

I wonder what the UN would look like if they picked it all up and moved it to Damascus.

Maybe NY might be able to balance their budget on the land sale.

ka'daffy offered to move it somewhere else so we wouldn't have to deal with the cost and extra security...that was nice of him...

re: #96 Truck Monkey

The sewer has a sewer system? Funny that.

The Palis bought 10,000 septic tanks. As soon as then learn how to drive them, they're invading Israel.

re: #89 Diamond Bullet

Back in the day, when you could drive past the WH, it was always fun to wave and give a "Hellooo, Mr. President" out the window.

re: #91 Spenser (with an S)

So, I have a disagreement going with a lib. He says no muslim would ever in a million years nuke close to Jerusalem because of it's holiness to them. I say that a "twelver" Shia would love to do so because of the fire and chaos unleashed. Any thoughts?

Jerusalem isn't that holy (it is not mentioned by name in the Koran), and bringing the Mahdi is very important. I say they would.
But even if they wouldn't, what would stop them from nuking Tel Aviv, Haifa, and a lot of other places?

re: #101 Charpete67

re: #104 MandyManners

Good points, both.

re: #110 JamesTKirk

Ick.

re: #118 MandyManners

Ick.

You asked for it.

re: #111 MandyManners

I laughed out loud when Netanyahu mentioned how the Jordyptians used a mosque to store weapons.

I laugh when the pal's deny that they do that and then two days later Israel release a 15 minute warplane video showing them running around inside a mosque...

re: #112 John Neverbend

I really don't know. Speaking purely theoretically, a relatively low yield moderate altitude airburst will cause plenty of damage on the ground but with little or no fall-out, so taking out Netanya, say, would have potentially no effect on Jerusalem. This is too awful to contemplate.

And of course operates under the false premise that they could a) build it to the correct yield and b) get the aim down to a few hundred miles of accuracy.

All you cats talking about poo need to just SCAT!

... oh dear.

Did the US walk out?
How about the UK?

It is a real shame that these are now considered legitimate questions.
The most antisemitic comments I ever heard was in a chain bookstore in London

re: #110 JamesTKirk

I'm still smoking.

Next time I gotta use lube.

QUESTION: do you smoke after sex?

ANSWER: Hell, I don't know. I never look down there!

re: #112 John Neverbend

Mosques are holy to them, aren't they? They use 'em for arsenals all the time.
Besides, it'd be for a holy purpose. I don't think they'd have any qualms.

re: #121 Spenser (with an S)

And of course operates under the false premise that they could a) build it to the correct yield and b) get the aim down to a few hundred miles of accuracy.

Correct on both counts.

re: #79 Spider Mensch

yup..call girls and parking ticket writers may be in trouble...

Parking tickets? The diplomats don't pay those!

But seriously, the occasional freak show aside, the 'business' of the UN in NYC is quite substantial. Reforming the UN would be better than throwing the bums out completely...

re: #120 Charpete67

I laugh when the pal's deny that they do that and then two days later Israel release a 15 minute warplane video showing them running around inside a mosque...

Like when the dearly departed butchered innocent pali civilian falls off his funeral bier and runs with his buddies for cover when an IDF helicopter hovers overhead...

re: #128 experiencedtraveller

Parking tickets? The diplomats don't pay those!

But seriously, the occasional freak show aside, the 'business' of the UN in NYC is quite substantial. Reforming the UN would be better than throwing the bums out completely...

LOTS of high class restaurants and hookers would go out of business

notice NO sarc tag

re: #122 buzzsawmonkey

Not entirely true. There were a number of early Zionist efforts in the late 19th and early 20th centuries that failed because of Arab raids.

correct...but, Israel took careful notes and has since rectified the situation...

re: #120 Charpete67

I laugh when the pal's deny that they do that and then two days later Israel release a 15 minute warplane video showing them running around inside a mosque...

Of course, when Israel shows such a video, the UN denies there is any evidence that mosques were used to store ammo. (See the Goldstone report)

re: #67 Equable

Well those wretches don't produce anything - no industry, no technology or science or pretty much anything, for that matter. All they produce is little Palestinians hell bent on blowing shit up, meanwhile holding their hand out demanding a free ride.

I am so fucking sick of it I could puke.

Kinda reminds you of the liberals here in the good old USA don't it!

re: #103 gregb

Half of those ME countries and most of the third world would never show. They come for the 3 B's... babes , booze, and Broadway. **
**For their wives, scratch babes, substitute Barney's.

re: #133 Czarny_Smok

Well said and well done.

re: #134 tradewind

Half of those ME countries and most of the third world would never show. They come for the 3 B's... babes , booze, and Broadway. **
**For their wives, scratch babes, substitute Barney's.

Depends on the country.

re: #130 sattv4u2

Your UN dues at work...

re: #128 experiencedtraveller

Parking tickets? The diplomats don't pay those!

But seriously, the occasional freak show aside, the 'business' of the UN in NYC is quite substantial. Reforming the UN would be better than throwing the bums out completely...

well in that case, then they should move to a country that could really use the extra money all those diplomats bring..lets see..there are some countries in Africa that sure could use that type of finacial help, southeast asia maybe..why not?

re: #126 tradewind

Mosques are holy to them, aren't they? They use 'em for arsenals all the time.
Besides, it'd be for a holy purpose. I don't think they'd have any qualms.

the average Jihadi has to weigh whether or not 72 virgins is worth destroying a holy site...I'm not really in a position to make that call for them...it's really a decision they need to make for themselves through careful prayer and consulting with their mullah...

Not completely OT:

They're torturing me, Honduras' Manuel Zelaya claims

Honduras' fallen leader told The Miami Herald he is being subjected to mind-altering gas and radiation -- and that `Israeli mercenaries' are planning to assassinate him.

Meanwhile, thanks to the abdication of the leaders of Europe and the USA,
the current defender and champion of western values and civilization
resides in Jerusalem.

nothing quite like being considered a pariah state for not having tthe good graces to just die already...

I hate the UN.

re: #142 LudwigVanQuixote

It's worse than Israel just not dying already - the fact that it is the one real success in the region galls them even more.

"Honduras' fallen leader told The Miami Herald he is being subjected to mind-altering gas and radiation -- and that `Israeli mercenaries' are planning to assassinate him."

I have a tin foil hat--made in Israel--which will deflect those mind-altering rays.
Where do I send it to him?

re: #91 Spenser (with an S)

So, I have a disagreement going with a lib. He says no muslim would ever in a million years nuke close to Jerusalem because of it's holiness to them. I say that a "twelver" Shia would love to do so because of the fire and chaos unleashed. Any thoughts?

It's not a given that Shiis would sign on for nuking Jerusalem. There are several drawbacks. First, Jerusalem is home to a significant number of Muslims. Second, it's the site of the Al Aqsa mosque, one of the most impressive ever built, and important to Muslims. Third, Iran is an ancient and long-lived civilization. No such civilization got that old without having some deep rooted cultural self-preservation imperative. There are mosques in Iran too, and Muslims in number. Most Iranians are in no hurry to die, and even those who would accept personal death as the price of "victory" would be hesitant to offer up their whole nation to retributive nuclear fire.

Fourth, the nuclear festivities would require the participation of air force or rocket artillery professionals. These people cannot possibly do their jobs unless they have some sort of ability to think objectively about the physical world. And if they can do that, they can't help thinking that launching on Jerusalem would be a bad idea. Khrushchev ran into that reaction when he ordered a nuclear attack on the United States during the Cuban missile crisis. Soviet professional military went white and told him no. Shortly thereafter, the Soviet State, as an institution, eased K. out.

The danger to Jerusalem rests largely in the possibility that Ahmadinejad, personally, has or will have all the decisions in his own hand. Why, after all, is he such an admirer of Hitler? There are greater generals in history, greater conquerors, and Genghis Khan even killed more people, at least percentagewise. But Hitler didn't have to share power. He was head of state, commander in chief, commander in the field, and commander of operations down to the battalion level, when it pleased him.

re: #22 Kosh's Shadow

Remember how just a couple of days ago, Obama said that the Israelis and Palestinians would resume negotiations?
The Palis have responded not with an unclenched fist, but with a raised finger:
Abbas: We can't return to negotiations

Of course not. Israel wants to exist as a Jewish state; Abbas wants to get rid of it or make it another Muslim Arab state.

Fuck Abbas. What does he have to bring to the table?

Oh yeah, BUPKIS.

The chicken I swung over my head last night is worth more than whatever Abbas has to offer.

re: #140 Pianobuff

Not completely OT:

They're torturing me, Honduras' Manuel Zelaya claims

Honduras' fallen leader told The Miami Herald he is being subjected to mind-altering gas and radiation -- and that `Israeli mercenaries' are planning to assassinate him.

This is the guy our State department and official government position support and want to see returned to power? Sheesh. Our foreign policy is so bassackward.

re: #144 Condor

Address it to:

Mr. Paranoid
Leadlined Room
Brazilian Embassy
Tegucigalpa, Honduras

Did you guys see the "behind the scenes" video of Dinnerjacket hosting a dinner party last night full of western useful idiots? It boggles the mind to see such tools swarm around him like a movie star.

At least one Iranian dissident had the guts to stand up and yell out questions.

re: #150 Cheese Eating Victory Monkey

Did you guys see the "behind the scenes" video of Dinnerjacket hosting a dinner party last night full of western useful idiots? It boggles the mind to see such tools swarm around him like a movie star.

At least one Iranian dissident had the guts to stand up and yell out questions.

Was Sean Penn there?

re: #145 lostlakehiker

As I said, though, nothing is stopping Iran from planning to nuke Tel Aviv, Haifa, etc. They certainly won't care if Israel is a radioactive mess.
They have to be stopped whether or not they'll nuke Jerusalem.

I noticed that the Romanian delegation stuck around for Dinnerjacket's speech.

re: #151 Pianobuff

Was Sean Penn there?

No, but a tall blonde groupie was on him like flies on poo.

re: #83 MandyManners

Now they're demanding that Isreael fix the sewer system that they destroyed never had to begin with.

FTFY.

re: #153 Kosh's Shadow

Ahmahwhackjob is on record saying that Iran is capable of utterly destroying Israel regardless of the retaliation - that the exchange would be worth it.

He would have little direct compulsion hitting Jerusalem...and just blaming it on Israel's failure to not leave the region decades ago...

re: #145 lostlakehiker

I didn't say that were no reasons at all to think they wouldn't do it, but could you sleep under "They might not nuke us"?

I'm back.

Thousands at the rally.

It was great.

re: #60 BigPapa

Anybody know who walked out on Bibi?

It really doesn't take much imagination to figure that out.
In general, some of the worst human rights violators.

The UN is beyond pathetic. Truly free democraices are in the minority and the agenda is largely driven by unfree nations who revel in their ability to VOTE ( usually in some reference to Israel) at the UN "democracy" while largely not affording such freedoms to their own peoples.

Bibi

I'm not sure WHAT to think!

re: #143 Athos

No joke... compare the oasis of lush growth that is Israel in the middle of that arid desert wasteland that is most of the rest of the joint...got to sting.

re: #63 Guanxi88

Did the same thing on the previous thread, too. Odd.

Wait for it.

...Since the UN seems to think the only reason for its existence is to make the US pay for all of the world's sins and to condemn Israel for taking in air...

*spit*

I can't find the speech online. Anyone know if it is there somewhere?

Im having a hard time finding a link to the entire replay of the speech, does anyone have a link? cheers.

re: #26 MandyManners

Keep your enemies close?

Yep, preferably in a glass jar on the back porch.

All I can say is:

I stand with Israel. God bless Israel.

Good for Bibi in calling out the UN. What a contrast with the man sitting in the Oval Office, eh?

re: #161 Charpete67

When he says "have you no decency, have you no shame", is that a deliberate callback to the McCarthy hearings (to appeal to the American left)? Or just a coincidence?

Discuss.

re: #41 Athos

This speech sure made a point of contrast to the naive speech given yesterday by our President.

As Lawhawk has said numerous times regarding the UN - 'You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy anywhere on the planet."

Has Lawhawk recently looked at the US Congress?

re: #157 Athos

Not only that, remember Ahmanutjob is part of sect that claims the Mahadi will only come back when there's world wide chaos and what not, so I wouldn't put is past them to try something like nuking Israel to bring that about. Dangerous times, folks, and the "Leader Of The Free World" is more concerned about Climate Change. Right now, the only Climate Change we should be worried about is the one caused by nuclear fallout.

re: #134 tradewind

Half of those ME countries and most of the third world would never show. They come for the 3 B's... babes , booze, and Broadway. **
**For their wives, scratch babes, substitute Barney's.

Or as John DeLorean put it, thus forever memorializing the word, "lines, limos, and bimbos."

I wonder how much of the NY economy is based on that.

I fantasize about a world that no longer depends on petroleum products so that the Arab and Persian nations will receive the respect (or lack thereof) they actually deserve.

re: #174 transient

I fantasize about a world that no longer depends on petroleum products so that the Arab and Persian nations will receive the respect (or lack thereof) they actually deserve.

Shorter transient: I hate arabs and persians.

re: #174 transient

Also... you might want to look at this chart.

Iran would have no problem whatsoever with irradiating all those Palestinians in order to annihilate Israel. After all, they're good Muslims, so they'd end up in Paradise as martyrs.

And the Palestinians that aren't Muslim? Well, screw 'em - they're infidels.

Definition of chutzpah:
UNRWA asks for more funds for Palestinian refugees.

"The Palestinians make up the world's largest refugee group, and their plight has gone on longer than any other," UNRWA Commissioner-General Karen Abu Zayd said at Thursday's ceremony.

Because unlike any other refugee group, their status has been deemed hereditary.

And because, unlike any other refugee group, they have been deliberately maintained as refugees as a political tool. The answer is very simple for those who truly sympathize with the Palestinians. Stop whining about their situation, and grant them citizenship and rights in the Arab nations where they currently live.

re: #177 Salamantis

Iran would have no problem whatsoever with irradiating all those Palestinians in order to annihilate Israel. After all, they're good Muslims, so they'd end up in Paradise as martyrs.

And the Palestinians that aren't Muslim? Well, screw 'em - they're infidels.

If the Iranian regime doesn't care about what happens on this earth, and are only worried about "paradise" why are they clinging to power so tenaciously? Rigging elections to maintain control over the country? It just doesn't make any sense that Iran would do ALL of what they are doing to acquire a nuclear weapon, only to launch a first-strike that will undeniably see every single man woman and child in Iran vaporized by the Israeli/US counterstrike.

re: #175 drcordell

Shorter transient: I hate arabs and persians.

I don't hate all Arabs and Persians. I don't know most of them, and I've had cordial work relations with a few. But I am endlessly disgusted that the West kowtows to a group of nations that we would not give the time of day to if we did not desperately need the filthy tar that freely spews from their lands.

re: #174 transient

I fantasize about a world that no longer depends on petroleum products so that the Arab and Persian nations will receive the respect (or lack thereof) they actually deserve.

"Green Crude" IMHO is one of the best technologies in my lifetime.

re: #178 transient

Definition of chutzpah:
UNRWA asks for more funds for Palestinian refugees.

Because unlike any other refugee group, their status has been deemed hereditary.

And because, unlike any other refugee group, they have been deliberately maintained as refugees as a political tool. The answer is very simple for those who truly sympathize with the Palestinians. Stop whining about their situation, and grant them citizenship and rights in the Arab nations where they currently live.

I agree with you. Except for your assertion that the Palestinians are being used as a political football by Arab states somehow means they deserve their plight? What does Arab states acting like pricks have to do with funding for refugees?

re: #177 Salamantis

Iran would have no problem whatsoever with irradiating all those Palestinians in order to annihilate Israel. After all, they're good Muslims, so they'd end up in Paradise as martyrs.

And the Palestinians that aren't Muslim? Well, screw 'em - they're infidels.

There isn't much love lost between Persians and Arabs, or, for that matter, between most Arabs and Palestinians. If the Iranians or Arabs chose to nuke Israel, they would view the Palestinian deaths as "unfortunate but necessary" collateral damage.

However, there are other reasons the Arabs or Iranians might balk at first strike. Arab nations downwind might not be as celebratory.

re: #179 drcordell

If the Iranian regime doesn't care about what happens on this earth, and are only worried about "paradise" why are they clinging to power so tenaciously? Rigging elections to maintain control over the country? It just doesn't make any sense that Iran would do ALL of what they are doing to acquire a nuclear weapon, only to launch a first-strike that will undeniably see every single man woman and child in Iran vaporized by the Israeli/US counterstrike.

"I care not if Iran burns, so long as it advances the cause of Islam."
- Ayatollah Khomeini

And the Hojatiyyists, who fervently wish the expedient Return of the Mahdi, the long-awaited Twelfth Iman - the Shia version of a Second Coming - who are committed to facilitating it, and who believe that a global conflagration centering on Israel would hasten that Return, were considered by Khomeini himself to be so extreme that he banned the sect; they only re-emerged after his death.

Ahmedinejad is a Hojatiyyist.

re: #180 transient

I don't hate all Arabs and Persians. I don't know most of them, and I've had cordial work relations with a few. But I am endlessly disgusted that the West kowtows to a group of nations that we would not give the time of day to if we did not desperately need the filthy tar that freely spews from their lands.

Again, first I suggest you look at this chart right here. Image: 090911-OGUS-USOilImports.png

Second, by your logic we are "kowtowing" to plenty of nations because of their oil. Nations that you don't seem to have a problem with because they aren't made up of arabs or persians.

re: #184 Salamantis

"I care not if Iran burns, so long as it advances the cause of Islam."
- Ayatollah Khomeini

And the Hojatiyyists, who fervently wish the expedient Return of the Mahdi, the long-awaited Twelfth Iman - the Shia version of a Second Coming - who are committed to facilitating it, and who believe that a global conflagration centering on Israel would hasten that Return, were considered by Khomeini himself to be so extreme that he banned the sect; they only re-emerged after his death.

Ahmedinejad is a Hojatiyyist.

In other words, they need their hands to continue to firmly grasp the reins of power in Iran in order to make this happen. Whether that grasp is legitimate or not.

re: #184 Salamantis

"I care not if Iran burns, so long as it advances the cause of Islam."
- Ayatollah Khomeini

And the Hojatiyyists, who fervently wish the expedient Return of the Mahdi, the long-awaited Twelfth Iman - the Shia version of a Second Coming - who are committed to facilitating it, and who believe that a global conflagration centering on Israel would hasten that Return, were considered by Khomeini himself to be so extreme that he banned the sect; they only re-emerged after his death.

Ahmedinejad is a Hojatiyyist.

So, basically the Hojatiyyists believe exactly what Huckabee and the large majority of Christian fundamentalists believe. Just swap out the 12th imam for Jesus.

re: #187 drcordell

So, basically the Hojatiyyists believe exactly what Huckabee and the large majority of Christian fundamentalists believe. Just swap out the 12th imam for Jesus.

Except the Christian Fundamentalists aren't trying to get nukes to start it. BIG difference.

re: #188 Kosh's Shadow

Except the Christian Fundamentalists aren't trying to get nukes to start it. BIG difference.

We already have the nukes...

re: #182 drcordell

I agree with you. Except for your assertion that the Palestinians are being used as a political football by Arab states somehow means they deserve their plight? What does Arab states acting like pricks have to do with funding for refugees?

Not sure how you draw the conclusion that I believe the Palestinians deserve the prolongation of their plight. I did not intend that. However I reiterate that if someone were truly concerned with Palestinian welfare, they should be looking to the Arab nations to resettle the Palestinians, not to Israel.

It is widely assumed that any state of Palestine based on the territories will not be able to hold all the refugees currently living in camps in Lebanon, Syria, etc. So the refugee problem will not be completely solved even if a state of Palestine comes into being.

The refugees are one of the most intractable parts of the conflict. The solution is obvious but the Arabs will not address it because they want them to return to Israel: in other words, they want the dissolution of Israel.

Under UNHCR, support for refugees is not indefinite. Refugees are expected to return to their original homes; if this is not possible, then to be resettled. It is the Arab nations that have prevented the timely solution to resettlement. Why should the rest of the world support UNRWA forever? It's time to look for an alternate solution: funding nations that would accept the refugees, and increasing the burden on the Arab nations that will not grant citizenship to the people who were born on their own territory.

re: #27 Charles

That was a very powerful speech, aimed straight at Iran and Ahmadinejad.

Dang, I missed the speech because I'm at work. Is it possible for someone to post it and update the article when the video is made available?

re: #189 drcordell

We already have the nukes...

But even if Christian fundamentalists did have complete control of nukes, they aren't trying to use them to bring the Messiah.

Iran isn't going to wait over 65 years.

re: #185 drcordell

Again, first I suggest you look at this chart right here. [Link: cache.gawker.com...]

Second, by your logic we are "kowtowing" to plenty of nations because of their oil. Nations that you don't seem to have a problem with because they aren't made up of arabs or persians.

I wouldn't support kowtowing to Venezuela either, but it does not seem to me that our foreign policy is significantly affected by our importation of Venezuelan or Russian, let alone Canadian oil. The Arab nations (+ Iran) have the greatest reserves and form a bloc that has affected and continues to affect the foreign policies of Western nations. If you don't appreciate that, you need to read a lot more history of the Middle East.

re: #190 transient

The Arabs really are going to have to be forced to take them. Even the Saudi "peace" plan uses a euphemism to say they aren't taking them. ("Any Palestinian repatriation must take into account the special circumstances of the Arab nations." - translation, they want Israel to take them all and become another Muslim Arab country.)

re: #194 Kosh's Shadow

The Arabs really are going to have to be forced to take them. Even the Saudi "peace" plan uses a euphemism to say they aren't taking them. ("Any Palestinian repatriation must take into account the special circumstances of the Arab nations." - translation, they want Israel to take them all and become another Muslim Arab country.)

It's no more fanciful a notion than that espoused by other posters, that Jordan and/or Egypt take them, along with responsibility for the West Bank and/or Gaza (in part or in toto). I know it's relatively unrealistic, for the same reason it is unfortunately unrealistic to expect the Arabs to recognize a Jewish State.

If there is going to be a peaceful solution, as defined by the West (since of course "peace" defined by the Arabs = disappearance of Israel through either military or demographic means), it must include disposition of the refugees. They all cannot go to "Palestine." Relatively few will be allowed to return to Israel, under the guise of "family reunification." Justifiably, Israel will not recognize any Palestinian "right of return" to Israel. Where do the rest go? Europe?

Bush was far from perfect, but at least he recognized that the Arabs had to make some concessions too. Until then, it seemed that Israel was the only party expected to make concessions.

I still don't see Obama calling for much on the Palestinians' part except for the usual rhethorical calls for peace, security, and unicorns.

re: #193 transient

I wouldn't support kowtowing to Venezuela either, but it does not seem to me that our foreign policy is significantly affected by our importation of Venezuelan or Russian, let alone Canadian oil. The Arab nations (+ Iran) have the greatest reserves and form a bloc that has affected and continues to affect the foreign policies of Western nations. If you don't appreciate that, you need to read a lot more history of the Middle East.

I need to read more history? I'm not exactly sure which books you've been reading. In the ones that I've read, the Middle East is invaded repeatedly throughout history, carved up into nations with completely arbitrary borders by Western powers, and constantly roiled in conflict due to the value of the oil reserves.

Your interpretation of the term "kowtow" also seems to differ from mine. Where I come from, invading several different countries in the region and maintaining military bases in countless others isn't really a "kowtow." It's more like a "here is my giant army bombing your region back into the fucking stone age."

Obviously oil and control of oil reserves drives our foreign policy. Oil is the single lifeblood of our economy. But to say that we are "kowtowing"?

rhetorical, PIMF.
Internal spellcheck FAIL.

Evening Lizards!

Charles, you might want to include a link to this page that has a live stream next time you make a post about the UN GA etc.

The typical error here is to consider the Iranians to be rational actors, like the Soviet Union was; they're not.

Nuclear deterrence does not work on a nation whose leaders devoutly desire apocalypse and armageddon for fanatical religious reasons. For them, such prospects constitute an incentive, rather than a deterrent.

re: #197 drcordell

I need to read more history? I'm not exactly sure which books you've been reading. In the ones that I've read, the Middle East is invaded repeatedly throughout history, carved up into nations with completely arbitrary borders by Western powers, and constantly roiled in conflict due to the value of the oil reserves.

Not to mention roiled in conflict before the discovery of oil reserves, but that's not to the point.

Obviously oil and control of oil reserves drives our foreign policy. Oil is the single lifeblood of our economy. But to say that we are "kowtowing"?

Yes, our policy decisions are based on our dependence on oil. That is exactly what I said, more than once, and said I dreamed of a day when it would no longer be the case.

A day when the US and other Western nations might make decisions that might take into account the fact that Israel is a true ally, sharing democracy, freedom of speech and religion, pioneering spirit; and the Arab nations share nothing but desire to buy/sell oil.

A day when Israel is no longer pressured to make concession after concession in order to appease the Arabs, who have made none.

What can the UN do, exactly? Thousands of UNRWA employees are in the Middle East, providing welfare to the Palestinian Arabs there, and how is the Secretary-General supposed to protect them without international troops and police that he knows the Security Council won't provide?

If you were running the UN, what would you do under the circumstances? Might you not choose to issue reports exculpating those who threaten your employees, even as you try to document their crimes in the hope that they could one day in the future be brought to justice? Bray loudly in agreement with tormentors as you whisper for help to others? Doesn't the Goldstone Report contain the admission of Hamas leaders that they employed civilians as human shields, even if they call it boasting rather than proof of criminal intent?

So the UN stands with the terrorists - for now. But listen to the whispers...the one thing one cannot do is take what the UN says about Arabs and Israelis at face value.

Probably the whole UNRWA mission should end. The Arabs could establish their own welfare system, if they want.

re: #202 Solomon2

What can the UN do, exactly? Thousands of UNRWA employees are in the Middle East, providing welfare to the Palestinian Arabs there, and how is the Secretary-General supposed to protect them without international troops and police that he knows the Security Council won't provide?

If you were running the UN, what would you do under the circumstances? Might you not choose to issue reports exculpating those who threaten your employees, even as you try to document their crimes in the hope that they could one day in the future be brought to justice? Bray loudly in agreement with tormentors as you whisper for help to others? Doesn't the Goldstone Report contain the admission of Hamas leaders that they employed civilians as human shields, even if they call it boasting rather than proof of criminal intent?

So the UN stands with the terrorists - for now. But listen to the whispers...the one thing one cannot do is take what the UN says about Arabs and Israelis at face value.

FYI, the overwhelming majority of UNRWA employees are Palestinians. (This is another significant difference between UNHCR and UNRWA. In UNHCR, the people providing the assistance are not part of the refugee population.)

re: #203 Solomon2

Probably the whole UNRWA mission should end. The Arabs could establish their own welfare system, if they want.

The Arabs would let them starve and blame it on the Jews.

The UNRWA mandate should be changed so that it runs according to UNHCR criteria, and perhaps eventually merged with it, but that's not likely.

re: #201 transient

A day when Israel is no longer pressured to make concession after concession in order to appease the Arabs, who have made none.

Concessions? Such as...

re: #201 transient

Yes, our policy decisions are based on our dependence on oil. That is exactly what I said, more than once, and said I dreamed of a day when it would no longer be the case.

A day when the US and other Western nations might make decisions that might take into account the fact that Israel is a true ally, sharing democracy, freedom of speech and religion, pioneering spirit; and the Arab nations share nothing but desire to buy/sell oil.

A day when Israel is no longer pressured to make concession after concession in order to appease the Arabs, who have made none.

I might also add that unfortunately this is capitalism and globalization at work. You can't necessarily choose which nations to deal with if they have the resources that your nation needs to successfully grow its economy.

I agree with you that our foreign policy is influenced by our need for oil, but you seem to think that we are somehow in a subservient position rather than a dominant one. Saudi arabia doesn't have military bases in America, we have bases on their soil. Saudi arabia hasn't invaded two neighboring countries to us, we have invaded their neighbors. When OPEC tries to cut oil supplies and keep prices from falling, who continues to expand production because short-term it benefits the United States? Saudi arabia does.

re: #206 drcordell

Concessions? Such as...

Let's say we start with the return of the Sinai in 1956.
No, wait...let's go back to the British handing over police stations to the Arabs in '47 that were supposed to go to the Jews (Safed, noted example). Wait, let's go back farther still...the White Paper--restricting Jewish immigration to Palestine while not bothering to document continued Arab immigration, to appease the Arabs.

Then we can jump to the numerous wars where Israel has been told to stop before the enemy was crushed.

Then we can jump to the negotiations of the past 18 years, where Israel has been told to give up more and more land for "peace" that was manifestly not forthcoming.

re: #207 drcordell

I might also add that unfortunately this is capitalism and globalization at work. You can't necessarily choose which nations to deal with if they have the resources that your nation needs to successfully grow its economy.

I agree with you that our foreign policy is influenced by our need for oil, but you seem to think that we are somehow in a subservient position rather than a dominant one. Saudi arabia doesn't have military bases in America, we have bases on their soil. Saudi arabia hasn't invaded two neighboring countries to us, we have invaded their neighbors. When OPEC tries to cut oil supplies and keep prices from falling, who continues to expand production because short-term it benefits the United States? Saudi arabia does.

You'll forgive me if I have a lot more sympathy for Israel, which has faced enemies dedicated to her annihilation for the past 60 years (and before her rebirth as a state, enemies hoping for her abortion) than for Saudi Arabia.

re: #208 transient

Let's say we start with the return of the Sinai in 1956.
No, wait...let's go back to the British handing over police stations to the Arabs in '47 that were supposed to go to the Jews (Safed, noted example). Wait, let's go back farther still...the White Paper--restricting Jewish immigration to Palestine while not bothering to document continued Arab immigration, to appease the Arabs.

Then we can jump to the numerous wars where Israel has been told to stop before the enemy was crushed.

Then we can jump to the negotiations of the past 18 years, where Israel has been told to give up more and more land for "peace" that was manifestly not forthcoming.

I'm referring specifically to the most recent attempts at peace. The negotiations of the past 18 years. What land has been given up?

re: #210 drcordell

I'm referring specifically to the most recent attempts at peace. The negotiations of the past 18 years. What land has been given up?

Gaza, and the Palestinians have a lot of control over their areas.
What has Israel received in return?
I'll answer - terrorism. Terrorism that is stopped in Judea and Samaria by the separation barrier, and hasn't stopped in Gaza (but was set back by Operation Cast Lead.)

I would say if "land for peace" is operable, then when Israel gets peace then they can consider further concessions.

I'm not attempting to state that concessions and efforts towards peace have never been made by Israel. But to say that the burden of the peace process rests entirely on Israel making concessions is, in my eyes, disingenuous.

As of right now, Israel almost wholly occupies most of what constitutes "Palestine." What isn't directly occupied is for all intents and purposes almost completely cut off from other neighboring countries and Israel. I personally believe that Israel has a right to exist, should exist, and should continue to exist in perpetuity. But I also recognize the Palestinians claim to a slice of land as well. And as long as Israel maintains control of that land, the resolution of the conflict will obviously involve ceding some of the disputed territories. There's just no getting around it.

Land for peace is not a solution that is being forced upon Israel by outside powers, it just happens to be the only solution there is. At least, the only solution that isn't simply maintaining the status quo, which is effectively a ghettoized Palestinian state that is almost wholly dependent on Israel for its needs.

re: #210 drcordell

I'm referring specifically to the most recent attempts at peace. The negotiations of the past 18 years. What land has been given up?

I am not solely referring to the past 18 years. The West has adapted our policy to oil ever since it was discovered in the Middle East.

As for the past 18 years, I think the lands given up are pretty evident. If you need details of the negotiations, refer to Oslo, Wye Accords, and/or to concessions forced over Gaza crossings during final Bush years.

The West never seems to lose "hope" that the next Israeli concession will bring "peace," despite the facts on the ground-- increasing terrorism and absolute lack of any fundamental Palestinian concession that might lead to the end of conflict (e.g. on Jerusalem or the demand that Israel destroy itself by allowing the influx of a hostile majority of refugees.)

re: #213 transient

I am not solely referring to the past 18 years. The West has adapted our policy to oil ever since it was discovered in the Middle East.

As for the past 18 years, I think the lands given up are pretty evident. If you need details of the negotiations, refer to Oslo, Wye Accords, and/or to concessions forced over Gaza crossings during final Bush years.

The West never seems to lose "hope" that the next Israeli concession will bring "peace," despite the facts on the ground-- increasing terrorism and absolute lack of any fundamental Palestinian concession that might lead to the end of conflict (e.g. on Jerusalem or the demand that Israel destroy itself by allowing the influx of a hostile majority of refugees.)

I guess my question for you is, what's the alternative. How do you see this ever playing out to the point where a peace is achieved without the creation of some sort of Palestinian state? I understand how from your perspective it seems as if Israel is giving, giving, giving with nothing in return. But when they are the party that is in control, obviously they are going to be the party making concessions. Thats just the nature of the game.

re: #212 drcordell

I'm not attempting to state that concessions and efforts towards peace have never been made by Israel. But to say that the burden of the peace process rests entirely on Israel making concessions is, in my eyes, disingenuous.

As of right now, Israel almost wholly occupies most of what constitutes "Palestine." What isn't directly occupied is for all intents and purposes almost completely cut off from other neighboring countries and Israel. I personally believe that Israel has a right to exist, should exist, and should continue to exist in perpetuity. But I also recognize the Palestinians claim to a slice of land as well. And as long as Israel maintains control of that land, the resolution of the conflict will obviously involve ceding some of the disputed territories. There's just no getting around it.

Land for peace is not a solution that is being forced upon Israel by outside powers, it just happens to be the only solution there is. At least, the only solution that isn't simply maintaining the status quo, which is effectively a ghettoized Palestinian state that is almost wholly dependent on Israel for its needs.

And Israel has said they will accept a Palestinian state - even today, in Netanyahu's speech. The Palestinians have never accepted Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state.
I don't think Israel will need to be forced into making concessions for peace, but I do think they shouldn't be forced until we see some motion from the Palestinians. They've given enough for now; let's see some "concessions" from the other side, starting with the acceptance of Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state.

re: #91 Spenser (with an S)

So, I have a disagreement going with a lib. He says no muslim would ever in a million years nuke close to Jerusalem because of it's holiness to them. I say that a "twelver" Shia would love to do so because of the fire and chaos unleashed. Any thoughts?

Yeah, who was it blowing up mosques and such in Iraq to foment civil war?

re: #215 Kosh's Shadow

And Israel has said they will accept a Palestinian state - even today, in Netanyahu's speech. The Palestinians have never accepted Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state.
I don't think Israel will need to be forced into making concessions for peace, but I do think they shouldn't be forced until we see some motion from the Palestinians. They've given enough for now; let's see some "concessions" from the other side, starting with the acceptance of Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state.

How do you measure the achievement of this goal? There isn't a single Palestinian government that can codify such a concession. I just don't really see what exactly Palestinians really have of value that can be conceded? They live in an occupied territory. And assuming 99% of Palestinians renounce violence, terrorism and acknowledge Israel there can be that 1% that just fucks everything up for everyone.

re: #212 drcordell

I'm not attempting to state that concessions and efforts towards peace have never been made by Israel. But to say that the burden of the peace process rests entirely on Israel making concessions is, in my eyes, disingenuous.

The problem is the rest of the world does not seem willing to understand that the peace process--and its eventual conclusion--also rests on the Arabs making concessions. Do you agree that the Arabs must also make concessions?

As of right now, Israel almost wholly occupies most of what constitutes "Palestine." What isn't directly occupied is for all intents and purposes almost completely cut off from other neighboring countries and Israel. I personally believe that Israel has a right to exist, should exist, and should continue to exist in perpetuity. But I also recognize the Palestinians claim to a slice of land as well. And as long as Israel maintains control of that land, the resolution of the conflict will obviously involve ceding some of the disputed territories. There's just no getting around it.

Land for peace is not a solution that is being forced upon Israel by outside powers, it just happens to be the only solution there is. At least, the only solution that isn't simply maintaining the status quo, which is effectively a ghettoized Palestinian state that is almost wholly dependent on Israel for its needs.

Oh good Lord, where to start.
First, I never made the statement that I oppose Israel giving up any land. I challenge you to find such a statement in my posts. What I object most vociferously to is for Israel to give up land without peace. And so far, peace is not forthcoming.

You are gravely in error if you believe that Israel's occupation of the territories (and we should note that Israel no longer occupies Gaza) is the cause for the conflict. There were wars and terror attacks before Israel occupied (or liberated) the territories. There were terrorist attacks on the Yishuv, the Jewish population of Palestine, before statehood. To pretend that the territories are the only, or even the primary issue, is to be in denial.

The Arabs did not want a State of Israel to come into being and they continue to want it to go away. Until the Palestinians and Arab nations are willing to accept a Jewish State and renounce terrorism as a means to destroy it, there will be no peace.

Refugees: they will not be resettled in Israel. All of them cannot possibly fit in "Palestine." So where will they go? So far, the Palestinians have refused to renounce their "right of return" to Israel. This is an unrealistic demand, not to mention an entirely fictional "right." Until the Arab nations are willing to give up on this "right" (which is destruction of Israel by demographic means), and resettle the refugees elsewhere, there will be no peace.

Jerusalem: The Palestinians have refused to recognize Israel's right to Jerusalem and have demanded Eastern Jm including the Old City as part of their own state. In fact, the Palestinians have no legal basis whatsoever to demand Jerusalem. Until the Palestinians are willing to compromise on Jerusalem, there will be no agreement, and no peace.

I just listed 3 major things that the Palestinians must make concessions on for peace. It is not merely, or mostly about the settlements or the territories or the checkpoints or the fence, drcordell. These three things are why there has been no final settlement. The fact that there "isn't a single Palestinian government that can codify such a concession" explains why there has been, and will not be, in the foreseeable future, any agreement.

This is why I am extremely pessimistic about any future agreement. But the point is, rather than pressuring Israel for more concessions that don't address the fundamental issues, more work must be done to pressure the Arabs to agree to recognizing the Jewish State, to agree (in principle) to alternate resettlement for the refugees, and to be more flexible on borders, including (but not limited to) Jerusalem.

This is why Obama's first steps were fundamentally flawed: they focused on what is one of the least important issues: the settlements. The conflict, for all the Arabs' propaganda, is not about the settlements. It's about whether the Arabs are prepared to stop planning Israel's destruction.

What a sad,spineless and leaderless world this has become.

Time to get some work done. Will check back later.

re: #217 drcordell

How do you measure the achievement of this goal? There isn't a single Palestinian government that can codify such a concession. I just don't really see what exactly Palestinians really have of value that can be conceded? They live in an occupied territory. And assuming 99% of Palestinians renounce violence, terrorism and acknowledge Israel there can be that 1% that just fucks everything up for everyone.

They haven't tried to renounce violence. I don't expect 100% success, but better than 0.0001% effort.
And if they don't have a government that can deliver peace, who are the Israelis supposed to negotiate with? No peace process in that case.
In that case, someone should take over the Palestinian areas until they can have a government of their own. That leaves Israel (oooh, an occupation) or another Arab country, none of whom want the job.

For those of you who missed it, here is Binyamin Netanyahu's UN speech, in 4 parts:

re: #223 Salamantis

Thanks. Just got to the bottom of the thread and was wondering if I could find the video instead of having to read the transcript.

Thanks, Salamantis!

Thanks , Salamantis

a good speech but I I'm not optimistic

re: #223 Salamantis

Thank you for posting this.

I can honestly say I've never heard more clear common sense spoken at the UN.

I'd be willing to bet this speech doesn't get 1 10th the air time in the MSM tonight either of the nutjobs that spoke at the UN yesterday got last night.

Here it is complete from the UN:
[Link: www.un.org...]

Wow, that was one hell of a speech.

If the UN nor the US cannot see the danger in having or accommodating a government founded upon a literal belief in the apocalypse in order to fulfill a religious prophecy with nukes only proves how regressive and inept civilization is when faced with the chance to stop evil in its tracks.

The French balked when the under-armed Wermacht went into the Rhineland, Hitler even admitted to his confidants that had France stopped him, he and the Nazis would have been ousted by the German people.

We cannot balk to the dinnerjacket and as Anderson Cooper's guests said last night on CNN, we have to take these lunatics seriously. Just because they look like fools up on the podium doesn't mean they and their governments cannot act on their impulses. Hitler was a raving moron in Mien Kampf, he followed through on what he wrote and guess what, the damn book is one of the most popular books in the Arab world. And then you have dinnerjacket and the Mullahs chanting death to Israel and holding holocaust denial events while they hang and torture their own people using Sharia law.

We all know the OIC and many in the third world are going to continue to support the islamists. That's just a given. The developed world needs to stop joking around with political correctness and moral relativism and see evil for what it is. The Iranian government and its proxies are evil, they seek an evil outlook for the world and espouse religious supremacism and discrimination.

OT, you have to love the FU-style irony of the beginning of Bibi's speech...the prime minister of Israel standing before the international community holding the schematic building prints for Auschwitz-Birkinau and the minutes of the Wansee conference. You can only imagine what the looks on the faces of Heinrich Himmler and Reinhard Heydrich would have been. We defeated evil over 60 years ago, I have a feeling that sooner rather than later, the world will be faced once again with a situation of global danger and many will remember Bibi's speech as when notice was served.

Excellent speech. I just wish I was not left with the impression that Bibi is acting naive and hoping that the UN and the world will act differently "this time" when Israel gives away part of her security or Jerusalem, and allows Israel to be traversed by a Palestinian highway linking Gaza to the West Bank, as it appears Pres. Obama wants with his "no preconditions but Israel has to give up this and give up that".

Fine fine speech powerful because it was truthful. And then, as I scroll down, I see Dr. Cordell do his best to undermine that truth. I assume Dr. Cordell is not unlike many others I've met in my life, and so I'm betting, especially since I have some evidence of this on another thread, that Dr. Cordell likes to make accusations, but really doesn't like to answer questions. Consequently, I have a list of questions I'd like him to answer--in the hopes (place tongue firmly in cheek) of establishing a basis for meaningful dialogue. (What I expect is that he will not answer the questions because he is most definitely NOT interested in dialogue.)

Here are the questions: 1. What significant things occurred in Germany between the years of 1942-1945? 2. What are the four times the "Palestinians" rejecting the conceptual agreement for their own state? 3. Could you please name a minority group in any other country that receives billions of dollars in foreign aid, has its own UN agency in charge of their lives, has their own government, not only one but two? 4. Can you name another minority group within another nation that has its own seat at the UN? 5. Can you recite a brief history of the formation of the PLO, starting in 1965, before the war of 1967? 6. Can you name the parts of Palestine that they were focused on liberating? 7. Is there a difference between murder and terror, and if so, what is it? 8. How many minorities in other countries have their own Soviet-style controlled media continually showing programming advocating the murder of the majority population? 9. How many of such minorities have received hundred of millions and tens of billions of dollars in foreign aid over the last ten years yet still suffer from 'humanitarian disasters"? 10. Where does this money go? 11. Are you aware that refusing to recognize the existence of a state is the same thing as rejecting the right to life of the citizens of that state? 12. If you are not aware of that, are you aware of what happens to masses of people when a particularly well armed group refuses to recognize their basic humanity and therefore right to life? 13. At what point did the surviving victims of the Holocaust become the aggressors--1948? Really? Are you aware that would be the first time in history when a group of emaciated, recently tortured people were able to defeat the declaration of war by several rather healthy populations. That is, are you aware that the state of Israel had to begin and existential struggle for survival immediately after its inception? 14. I missed the announcement that such attempts at genocide have stopped. Please inform me of the date of this change of policy. That ought to do it. My guess is you'll avoid this post entirely and go on attacking 'transient'. Prove me wrong an answer the questions.

Very well written. This kind of a speech is long overdue to the UN. Now if only President Obama would use his speaking for this kind of a cause...

re: #229 Paco from Sefarad

Thanks for the link.

Bad Arolsen articles are a good link to argue against those who dispute the Holocaust. Documents on 17 million concentration camp inmates (both Jews and non-Jews).