[Login / Register]

Menu

Forums

error

This forum is not active, and new posts may not be made in it.

Share on Google+

Peter 1470 7259 Lod	Re: HSIG - The Fallacy And Dangers Of The Two State Solution 6/20/2009 3:41:25 AM
	Hello Friends, The 2 state solution is an ongoing issue for quite a while now. The basic assumption is that if the Palestinians have their own state they will normalize their behavior, not use terrorism, stop firing rockets on Israel, stop the suicide bombers, stop teaching hate and murder to their innocent children and the list goes on and on. There are a few points that all seem to either ignore or forget. Israel unilaterally withdrew from Gaza and the result was Hamas and non stop rockets and mortars fired on Israel, suicide bombers and of course their declaration that the only thing they are interested in is the total annihilation of Israel and all Jews. So the fallacy that 2 states for 2 people will solve the conflict is nonsensical and has been proven time and again to be the wrong path to take. The only result will be a united terrorist state whose only mandate is the destruction and annihilation of the State of Israel and its peoples. Steven Plaut wrote an excellent article about this controversy and uses the "what if" or "maybe they will" to unequivocally prove that the 2 state solution is not the answer and would prove to be disastrous to Israel and the security of the country. Shalom, Peter Zionist Conspiracy Monday, June 15, 2009 The Silly and Harmful Fantasy of "Two States for Two Peoples" By Steven Plaut Those who support the "Two States for Two Peoples" doctrine, and I suppose that now one must even include Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu in that category, no matter how reluctantly he joined it, have a very simple position. Indeed, the entire "Two States for Two Peoples" doctrine can be summed up in one simple idea, in fact in onXye simple sentence. It is this: maybe after the Palestinians get their own state, then they will agree to live in peace with Israel. No matter how complex and "scholarly" is any article or position paper that supports "Two States for Two Peoples" doctrine, once one clears away the verbiage it all boils down to that one simple idea. To put it even more strongly, no one who is currently promoting "Two States for Two Peoples" would still be promoting it if they could be persuaded beyond all doubt that the Palestinians would NOT live in peace after getting their own state under "Two States for Two Peoples," or if they discovered with certainty that the second of those states ("Palestine") would be used for nothing other than terrorist aggression. Well, almost no one would. In the increasingly anti-Semitic Left around the world and even at the margins of the Israeli Far Left there are already people arguing that Israel should agree to "Two States for Two Peoples" even if it is totally clear and obvious that "Palestine" will be used for nothing besides terrorist aggression against Israel. They support that idea because they think that creating a Palestinian state is the right thing to do no matter how destructive it will be and no matter how disastrous for Israel will be the consequences of its creation. The more honest far Leftists defend this position by admitting that they want Israel annihilated and all of its Jews thrown into the sea. Today to promote "Two States for Two Peoples" requires a bit of cognitive dissonance. After all, Israel withdrew from the Gaza Strip, turning it over to the "Palestinian Authority," and the whole world saw the consequences. They included 8000 rocket missiles aimed at Jewish civilians inside Israel. So those who insist that the Palestinian will desire to live in peace once they have their own state are about as consistent and credible as are people who argue that North Korea and Iran will seek genuine peace once they get nuclear weapons, or those that once insisted that Hitler would be satisfied once he gets the Sudetenland. But more generally, the whole "Two States for Two Peoples" campaign is nothing more than a special case of the "Then Maybe they Will" doctrine. For the past 30 years the Israeli political establishment has been prisoner to the "Then Maybe They Will" doctrine. Every major policy decision made by the government has reflected the power of wishful thinking and faith in the make-pretend. Here is a brief recapitulation of the doctrine: If Israel gives Sinai back to the Egyptians, THEN MAYBE THEY WILL stop the Nazi-like anti-Semitic propaganda in their state-run media. If Israel agrees to limited autonomy for Palestinians, THEN MAYBE THEY WILL stop seeking Israel's destruction and the world will not try to set up an independent Palestinian Arab terror state. If Israel provides the Palestinian Authority with arms and funds, THEN MAYBE THEY WILL not be used for terrorist atrocities against Israel. If Israel grants its Arab citizens affirmative action preferences, THEN MAYBE THEY WILL stop cheering terrorists and seeking the annihilation of Israel and its Jewish population. If Israel frees thousands of jailed Palestinian terrorists, THEN MAYBE THEY WILL renounce violence and not murder any more Jews. If Israel agrees to hold talks with representatives of the PLO, THEN MAYBE THEY WILL put a stop to Palestinian terrorism. If Israel allows the Palestinians to hold elections, THEN MAYBE THEY WILL not elect Hamas. If the Palestinians elect Hamas, THEN MAYBE THEY WILL not pursue a program of aggression and terrorism against Israel. If Israel holds talks with terrorists, THEN MAYBE THEY WILL renounce their genocidal ambitions and seek peace. If Israel conducts a unilateral withdrawal from all of southern Lebanon and allows Hezb'allah terrorists to station rockets on the border, THEN MAYBE THEY WILL not launch any of them. If Israel sits back while the Syrians exert their hegemony over Lebanon, THEN MAYBE THEY WILL rein in Hezb'allah and stop border attacks on Israel. If Israel refrains from retaliating against Hezb'allah terrorists after they murder captive Israeli soldiers in cold blood, THEN MAYBE THEY WILL not seek to kidnap any more soldiers. If Israel agrees to one cease-fire after another with the Arabs, THEN MAYBE THE ARABS WILL eventually comply with one. If Israel allows Arabs in Israel to build illegally, including on public lands, THEN MAYBE THEY WILL become pro-Israel and moderate. If Israel agrees to the stationing of UN troops in Lebanon, THEN MAYBE THEY WILL actually do something to stop terror attacks on Israel. If Israel ignores Hezb'allah border violations, THEN MAYBE THEY WILL come to an end. If Israel lets the Muslims control the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, THEN MAYBE THEY WILL respond with friendship and moderation. If Israel expels all Jews from Gaza as a gesture of friendship to the Palestinians, THEN MAYBE THEY WILL reciprocate with friendship toward the Jews. If Israel turns the Gaza Strip over to the Palestinians, THEN MAYBE THEY WILL not use it as a base for terror attacks against Israel. If Israel turns the other cheek after Qassam rocket attacks from Gaza, THEN MAYBE THEY WILL stop being fired. If Israel allows the Palestinian Authority to control parts of the West Bank, THEN MAYBE THE PALESTINIANS WILL not fire rockets at Jews the same way they do from Gaza. If Israel returns the Golan Heights to Syria THEN MAYBE THE SYRIANS WILL seek peace and reject the idea of using the Heights to attack Israel again. If Israel agrees to place its neck in the Oslo/Road Map/Saudi Plan noose, THEN MAYBE THE ARABS WILL not pull the rope. If Israel officially agrees in principle to let the Palestinians have a state, THEN MAYBE THEY WILL abandon their agenda of annihilating Israel.
	Peter Fogel Babylon 7
	+0

Peter 1470 7259 Lod	Re: HSIG - The Left, Far Left And NY Times Critize John Voight's Speech 6/20/2009 5:38:35 AM
	Hello Friends, I'm constantly amazed by the chutzpah of the left and far left. When a decent man has the guts to stand up amidst his peers and publicly state that he's against B Hussein and all that he stands for the left and far left get their bowels in an uproar. John Voight is one of the few Hollywood actors willing to say what has to be said and should be said. He did just that last week at the National Republican Congressional Committee and the denouncements are coming in fast and furious. Most of Hollywood, The MSM were bashing President Bush on a non stop basis and that of course was completely legitimate and all John Voight says "we have to bring to an end the false prophet Obama" and they are going gaga. Well the sooner we are rid of B Hussein the better. The far left and communist are supporters of the Great Pretender B Hussein cos he embraces their dogma and is doing his damnest to implement it ALL in the US. It's a crying shame that there aren't more men of character like John Voight and more power to him for being the brave person he is. Here is the video of the speech that got the left and far left so furious and below the article reporting their comments. Just as a thought I guess he won't be invited any time in the foreseeable future to the Oprah Winfrey Show. :) ((youtube id="s75P8xNMZEE"))((/youtube)) Shalom, Peter Home > News > National Voight meets harsh political criticism Thumbs down from the far left for Academy Award-winning actor By Jennifer Harper (Contact) \| Wednesday, June 17, 2009 Jon Voight is at the cusp of a cultural moment. Fellow actors and celebrities are not heaping criticism on the silver-screen conservative following his feisty criticisms of President Obama, made in a speech before Republicans and in The Washington Times last week. But Mr. Voight is getting some serious flak in the political realm, and the criticism is ideologically driven. He's being accused of hate speech. The Academy Award-winning actor was cited Monday by People's Weekly World, a magazine once known as the "Daily Worker" and sympathetic to the Communist Party. In a wide-ranging editorial denouncing "home-grown terrorism," the publication pounced on Mr. Voight's mention of an effort "to bring an end to this false prophet, Obama" as he addressed the National Republican Congressional Committee last week. "I don't want to equate what Jon Voight said as expressing a conservative opinion on politics. It went way beyond that. He made a threat against the president of the United States to a crowd at a GOP fundraiser and got a good response from the Senate minority leader and other powerful people. And that is scary," said Teresa Albano, editor of the publication. Marsha Zakowski, president of the Coalition of Labor Union Women, was alarmed, too. "Jon Voight is a celebrity. He can influence people. Voight has just been coming out with this ultraconservative point of view. It is deplorable," she told the magazine in a separate article. Mr. Voight's entire comment was a little longer than the eight words cited. He was in the process of lauding a list of 23 Republicans and conservatives - from former House Speaker Newt Gingrich to historian Shelby Steele and Fred Barnes, executive editor of the Weekly Standard. "Let's give thanks to them for staying on course to bring an end to this false prophet, Obama," Mr. Voight said that night, according to his handwritten speech, shared during a recent visit to The Times newsroom. But the abbreviated phrase, isolated out of context, for the most part, stuck in the craw of many. Mr. Voight attracted the attention of some prominent journalists who were not treating the 71-year-old performer as a novelty act, simple-minded Hollywood conservative or some upstart curiosity left over from the John Wayne era. Frank Rich, Op-Ed columnist for the New York Times, included Mr. Voight on a roster of "Obama haters' silent enablers" and also cited the abbreviated passage. Mr. Rich observed: "This kind of rhetoric, with its pseudo-scriptural call to action, is toxic." New York Times columnist Paul Krugman cited Mr. Voight's words in an Op-Ed called "The Big Hate" that accused certain conservatives and news organizations - including The Washington Times - of "mainstreaming right-wing extremism" systematically as far back as the Clinton administration. The blogosphere also reverberated with anti-Voight statements that segued into a Republican bashing as well. "Actor Jon Voight typified right-wing vitriol by calling for 'an end to this false prophet, Obama.' Compared to Obama's feel for relevance, what matters to real people, Republicans aren't even in the same game," noted Robert Becker of BeyondChron.com, a San Francisco-based blog. None of the accounts referred to Mr. Voight's entire speech, which included references to new Republican strategies, his fear over the safety of Israel and his hopes for the nation in general. He can be lofty and shrewd as well. "Democracy is an extraordinary adventure. It's difficult, full of daring and risk and danger," Mr. Voight told The Times on June 10. "Obama is a very good actor. He knows how to play it. And he is very adept at creating this 'Obama' - this character who is there whenever the world needs something," he later added. "Jon Voight definitely delivered when it came to giving a message at the right time. And he got a lot of attention because of the high-profile platform he was given - asked to headline a top Republican Party fundraiser. The press was watching," said Republican strategist Ron Bonjean. "It's not easy for conservatives to punch through in an Obama-dominated news cycle," he said. But as Hollywood conservatives like Mr. Voight gain more traction in the political landscape, the new role requires prudence, caution and attention to language. "When a speech like that is over, you ask 'did it have a positive impact on listeners?' That's really key," Mr. Bonjean said. "But you have to be very careful about picking language, because there are boundaries. And I think Jon Voight was walking the thin line in his Republican speech." Some ridiculed the idea of lumping Mr. Voight in with hate-mongers altogether. "For Krugman and others to seize on the case of neo-Nazi [and suspect in the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum shooting] James W. von Brunn as a rationale for ranting against Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and actor Jon Voight is the height of absurdity. Nothing they have said or done is even remotely connected to this murderous nut or anyone else who might share his anti-Semitic views," countered Jonathan Tobin of Commentary magazine. But while he has irked audiences in the political realm, Mr. Voight is getting some love on the celebrity circuit, and from his peers in Hollywood and beyond. He has garnered recent critical praise for his role as a villain in the Fox broadcast network series "24." On Sunday, he also received the Marquee Award - "recognizing his artistic excellence, professional accomplishment and dedication to cinema" - from CineVegas, an annual five-day film festival in Las Vegas. This week, Variety also praised Mr. Voight's "long and distinguished career."
	Peter Fogel Babylon 7
	+0

Peter 1470 7259 Lod	Re: HSIG - What's Wrong With BHO's Approach to The Iran Crisis ? 6/21/2009 8:40:41 PM
	Hello Friends, This past week we've all seen and read about the "tensions" and murders in Iran. The daily unrest and what are now turning into riots and mayhem in the streets of Iran are documented and the world stands by and does nothing. The great pretender B Hussein upped a bit his normal rhetoric but unequivocally stated that interfering in the (bogus) elections in Iran is tampering with internal policy of a foreign nation and the US has no right to do that. Interesting point isn't it? He will not interfere with Iran a country that poses a threat to the security of the world but he will interfere with the internal policy of Israel (a long time ally) for the "security" of the United States. This is such a transparent policy that even the blind, deaf and dumb supporters of B Hussein should be able to see that. His almost unconditional support of everything that concerns Islam is past being a joke and is now becoming a danger to the world. The remark he made that there is no major difference between Ahmadinejad and Mousavi is strange. Even though there might be similarities between the two in some ways Mousavi is definitely a more "moderate" person and one that would possibly come to agreements with the west something that Ahmadinehad is not willing to approach in any way matter or form. Ahmadinejad is pure evil and Mousavi is definitely the lesser evil! In any case Iran is blaming the USA for interfering with the elections whether they did or not so why not deal with this serious crisis in a relevant manner? Below is an interesting article well worth reading. Shalom, Peter Sunday, June 21, 2009 Talking Iran Crisis Blues: What’s Wrong with Western Passivity By Barry Rubin Many years ago, I was asked to address a large conference of Iranian-Americans and Iranians in the United States. Annoyed by previous speakers who spoke as if all of Iranian history was determined by the United States and Britain—including claims that the 1979 Islamic revolution was an American operation and Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini a U.S. puppet--I included in my talk a strong rejection of these conspiracy theories. Afterward, an audience member came up to me and said that he could not agree more with my talk. After all, he continued, “It wasn’t the Americans who really determined everything that happened in Iran and it wasn’t the British. It was the French!” Clearly, Iranian political culture is saturated with belief that foreigners determine everything. Perhaps this has now changed somewhat, with the massive street demonstrations showing that Iranians are taking their fate into their own hands. If that’s true, they won’t care if the hated regime blames America for their movement; and if it is true they will cheer the United States if they believe this to be so. One thing is certain, however. The way things are going now, they will curse the United States and the West for not doing more to help them. In fact, they will say—as many Turks in that country’s opposition do—that Washington and the West are actually on the side of the Islamist regime and want Ahmadinejad and Khamenei to win. Indeed, to listen to what the Obama administration says—though it has moved up its rhetoric one step in recent days—there is some truth to that assertion. Yet it is foolish indeed for anyone to hope for that outcome. What is the greater danger: Iran has a less fanatical and adventurous faction in charge. It continues some of its problematic policies but is more cautious, less prone to risk-taking, devotes fewer resources to spreading revolution, and is more eager to avoid war. Or Power being in the hands of a group determined to become the region’s dominant power, eager to use money, subversion, and even nuclear weapons to do so no matter what the consequences. I’ll choose the first alternative. And so when President Obama says there is no difference between these factions and gives only the minimum possible verbal support to the opposition, he is making a mistake that may in retrospect ensure that his administration is not only a failure but a disaster internationally. What are the key factors here. 1. The administration does not speak about the revolt because it does not identify the Iranian regime as an adversary but as a potential negotiating partner. The problem is that the Tehran regime is an adversary and if it puts down this revolt it is going to be all the more hardline and dangerous. This is so not only because of the type of people running the regime but also due to the logic of such governments in such societies. Westerners think that a regime at bay will be more flexible. The reverse is true—as the history of Middle East dictators should have taught policymakers—it is tougher in order to show its strength, rally support and intimidate people at home and in the neighborhood. While Western societies extol weakness—people make fun of themselves, leaders apologize, governments think compromise is the route to survival—Middle Eastern dictatorships believe that strength is the best way to gain their objectives and stay in power. 2. The United States cannot speak about the revolt, goes the argument, because the regime will exploit this intervention. This is a typical example of “a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.” This is one of two ideas President Obama seems to grasp about Iran and it’s as outdated as the idea that the supreme guide and not the president is the country’s real ruler. The regime will claim American intervention no matter what Washington does and there will be no gratitude for America’s standing by and letting the opposition be crushed. See the anecdote that opened this article. And also here is one of many examples of the regime making such claims already. 3. There is also a hidden reason. This administration holds the view that America interferes too much in other people’s business. What other countries and governments think of as legitimate great power behavior has become in the administration’s thinking shameful imperialism. Since America has no right to act, it cannot intervene anywhere. Since it is a land so loaded with sin, it has no right to judge others. Such ideological baggage can be lost by the airline of history but that isn’t inevitable and for this administration hasn’t happened yet.
	Peter Fogel Babylon 7
	+0

Peter 1470 7259 Lod	Re: HSIG - Has The Revolt In Iran Reached The Point Of Critical Mass ? 6/21/2009 11:58:17 PM
	Hello Friends, The Iranian government's reprisals definitely show the radical desire for total subjugation of their people and the unwillingness to tolerate any opposition to their rule. They are already murdering innocent citizens whose only sin is wanting to be free. Free from the oppressive radical Islamic government. Killing and arresting protesters and those that oppose them is the name of the game now. The question is what if any will be the results of this revolt? Mousavi has spoken against the religious leaders of Iran and up till now this was unheard of. Will this revolt take on a life of its own and create a climate of change in the minds of an oppressed people to stand up for their rights, change the leadership and the form of government is yet to be seen. We can only hope and pray that it will. I'm not sure that if the government hadn't created such a farce of the past elections and "allowed" the opposition more votes then they had the situation wouldn't have been as acute as it is now. The supposed "lead" Ahmadinejad had over Mousavi was totally beyond comprehension as was the speedy declaration of the results shortly after the voting was over. Greed and the desire to show a massive victory was a miscalculation on their part and they didn't foresee the revolt in the making their own actions caused. How far will the opposition and the revolt go is a question that remains to be seen. We can give out moral support to these students, women and freedom loving Iranians and hope they will have the ability to maintain a strong front and not cave in to the oppressive radical Islamic government. Todays Dry Bones as usual catches the essence of the revolt and it's unknown ending. Shalom, Peter A new and unstable element? The whole world is watching the Iranian post-election street demonstrations and I, certainly, am not willing to go out on a limb and make any prediction. But maybe you're braver than I am. So what's your prediction about how the situation in Iran will develop? Will it reach "critical mass"? Nu? -Dry Bones- Israel's Political Comic Strip Since 1973
	Peter Fogel Babylon 7
	+0

Peter 1470 7259 Lod	Re: HSIG - Australia - 2 Christian Pastors Sued For Criticizing Islam 6/22/2009 3:17:33 AM
	Hello Friends, Two pastors from Australia were sued and found guilty of criticizing Islam. They were found guilty and were ordered by the court to apologize and they refused. After 5 years and over $500,000 in expenses the verdict was set aside but they are facing a retrial. Now brace yourselves. These two Pastors were guilty of reading the Koran during a symposium and all the above occurred cos of that. This is in a way similar to what happened to Geert Wilders. His Fitna movie quotes verses from the Koran and shows the outcome of the written word and for that he is being sued. The sad part is that a similar law is on the table in the House now and if passed will cos the same problems within the US. All should notify their Congressmen and Senators that this law is an abomination and against freedom of speech. The below video explains it all. Thanks Atlas Shrugs. Shalom, Peter ((youtube id="Ut6avCybQjg&feature"))((/youtube))
	Peter Fogel Babylon 7
	+0

Like us on Facebook!