Herman Cain: You Mess With Israel, You Mess With the U.S.

[^_^ 5,021]

And yet, you have already brought up Palestine's right to exist.

Of course they have a right to exist. But getting there will require negotiations between Israel (the occupying force) and Palestinians who do not believe Israel has no right to exist at all.

[_Simpson_ 250]

For some reason I had the idea that you were in this thread because you kept up with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

In fact, the video is about the current protests and BDS movement (both in Palestine and outside) against Israel’s illegal occupation, illegal settlement enterprise, and illegal annexation wall.

The people in the video you see “throwing rocks in the wrong direction” and using garbage cans for shields are actually unarmed Palestinian civilians on Palestinian land, who must use whatever is at hand to resist Israeli soldiers. You know, those heavily armed foreign occupation troops which have invaded their land as part of a systematic, state-condoned and -orchestrated process to enable and sustain the illegal annexation of their property.... ????? These foreign occupation troops are attacking these particular Palestinians in an attempt to suppress their right to resist the occupation with public protests.

But if you need a detailed history of the conflict, I can direct you to lots of reference materials.

I was being a little facetious. They should be throwing rocks at the people with in there own authority who strap bombs to kids or just throw the rocks in the direction of Syria or Lebanon. As far as the garbage can shields goes, you have people who are being irrational, so full of anger and hate that they would use garbage cans as shields. How bad these Israeli people must be, right?...no? So the point that I'm getting at is that these Palestinian people are being used as pawns in the attempt to destroy Israel. This video gives you no real idea of what is going on over there and directs all the anger towards Israel. Kids eat this ####### up.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Of course they have a right to exist. But getting there will require negotiations between Israel (the occupying force) and Palestinians who do not believe Israel has no right to exist at all.

Israel will never let Palestine exist any more than Turkey will let Kurdistan exist, China will let Tibet exist, or India will let Kashmir exist.

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

The argument is that if we went to the pre 67 boarders that Israel couldn't defend itself. Considering Israel's military capabilities I have a hard time believing that. Does anybody have some insight into this?

Martin van Creveld, preeminent Israeli military historian and theorist, argues that Israel's hold on the West Bank not only fails to make Israel any safer, but instead actually puts Israel at increased risk:

Israel doesn't need the West Bank to be secure

As far as the threat of a land invasion, it is of course true that the distance between the former Green Line and the Mediterranean is very small — at its narrowest point, what is sometimes affectionately known as “Old” Israel is just nine miles wide. As was noted before, it is also true that the West Bank comprises the high ground and overlooks Israel’s coastal plain.

On the other hand, since the West Bank itself is surrounded by Israel on three sides, anybody who tries to enter it from the east is sticking his head into a noose. To make things worse for a prospective invader, the ascent from the Jordan Valley into the heights of Judea and Samaria is topographically one of the most difficult on earth. Just four roads lead from east to west, all of which are easily blocked by air strikes or by means of precision-guided missiles. To put the icing on the cake, Israeli forces stationed in Jerusalem could quickly cut off the only road connecting the southern portion of the West Bank with its northern section in the event of an armed conflict.

...

...it is crystal-clear that Israel can easily afford to give up the West Bank. Strategically speaking, the risk of doing so is negligible. What is not negligible is the demographic, social, cultural and political challenge that ruling over 2.5 million — nobody knows exactly how many — occupied Palestinians in the West Bank poses. Should Israeli rule over them continue, then the country will definitely turn into what it is already fast becoming: namely, an apartheid state that can only maintain its control by means of repressive secret police actions.

To save itself from such a fate, Israel should rid itself of the West Bank, most of Arab Jerusalem specifically included. If possible, it should do so by agreement with the Palestinian Authority; if not, then it should proceed unilaterally, as the — in my view, very successful — withdrawal from Gaza suggests. Or else I would strongly advise my children and grandson to seek some other, less purblind and less stiff-necked, country to live in.

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

Martin van Creveld, preeminent Israeli military historian and theorist, argues that Israel's hold on the West Bank not only fails to make Israel any safer, but instead actually puts Israel at increased risk:

Israel doesn't need the West Bank to be secure

For some reason, that link did not format to come through properly. Here it is again:

http://www.forward.com/articles/133961/

[_Simpson_ 250]

For some reason, that link did not format to come through properly. Here it is again:

http://www.forward.com/articles/133961/

The link is still not working. NM its working now.

I agree with you on this, I dont buy some peoples claim that by going back to the 67 borders would surely lead to the destruction of Israel. I think the real concern/issue with politicians when it comes to withdrawing from the occupied territories is the dismantling of the settlements all the while keeping the support they need on the home front. They need a leader who can stick it out even when the suicide bombings increase(it will) and their support on the home front decreases.

Edited May 25, 2011 by _Simpson_

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

I was being a little facetious. They should be throwing rocks at the people with in there own authority who strap bombs to kids or just throw the rocks in the direction of Syria or Lebanon. As far as the garbage can shields goes, you have people who are being irrational, so full of anger and hate that they would use garbage cans as shields. How bad these Israeli people must be, right?...no? So the point that I'm getting at is that these Palestinian people are being used as pawns in the attempt to destroy Israel. This video gives you no real idea of what is going on over there and directs all the anger towards Israel. Kids eat this ####### up.

What are you talking about? No one in the Palestinian Authority is strapping bombs to kids. And why would Palestinians throw rocks at Syria or Lebanon? Neither Syria nor Lebanon is occupying Palestinian land.

How in the world do you figure that people use garbage cans as shields because they are "full of anger and hate ?!" They are being shot at. They are unarmed civilians in a protest against the illegal occupation - they don't have Kevlar or bullet proof vests.

"Pawns to destroy Israel" ?! LOL.... In fact, these are the people being destroyed - by Israel's illegal occupation and annexation of their land. They know exactly what's being done to them and why - they are being pushed out so that Israel may expand its territory.

These protests are going on all over the West Bank, and they are grass-roots movements on the village level led by the villagers themselves (often joined by Israelis and other internationals.) Several villages have been holding these peaceful protests every week for the last 4, 5, even 6 years. And they are almost always met with brutal violence from the Israeli army.

This film tells the remarkable story of one particular village's experience that took a surprising turn:

(BTW who are the kids you keep talking about ? Cuz this is a forum for grown folks to discuss politics & such.)

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

The link is still not working. NM its working now.

I agree with you on this, I dont buy some peoples claim that by going back to the 67 borders would surely lead to the destruction of Israel. I think the real concern/issue with politicians when it comes to withdrawing from the occupied territories is the dismantling of the settlements all the while keeping the support they need on the home front. They need a leader who can stick it out even when the suicide bombings increase(it will) and their support on the home front decreases.

The settlements are exactly why Netanyahu is balking at returning to the pre-1967 armistice lines. He is trying to pump himself up with his precariously cobbled-together power base back home (a coalition heavily dependent on parties representing extreme right-wingers and settler fanatics, all of the expansionist mentality.) If he said anything else, they would bring down his government. And it's nothing new - Netanyahu has advocated this line for most of his political career.

However, long-time U.S. policy including under GW Bush (as well as the policy of the Quartet, the U.N. and the rest of the world) is that a final peace agreement will be based on the pre-1967 armistice lines, with minor mutually-agreed border adjustments. In fact, many of Israel's own military and security experts agree with that assessment, and have recommended as the most prudent course for Israel to take.

What makes you think suicide bombings would "increase" if Israel ended the occupation ? They were a response to the occupation. Hamas no longer uses that tactic, other Palestinian groups have stopped using it, and there haven't been any Palestinian suicide bombings at all in more than 3 years.