Roadmap to HELL - One man caught on a barbed wire fence ....

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
"Now that they have those things, they don't seem so important to this current Israeli government, partly because it's a different country," said Clinton. "In the interim, you've had all these immigrants coming in from the former Soviet Union, and they have no history in Israel proper, so the traditional claims of the Palestinians have less weight with them."
^ That reminded me of something Bill Clinton said a year ago, at the same conference, about the impact of recent mass immigration of Russian Jews (now 20% of Israel's Jewish population) on attitudes towards land-for-peace:
"An increasing number of the young people in the IDF are the children of Russians and settlers, the hardest-core people against a division of the land. This presents a staggering problem," Clinton said. "It's a different Israel." ...According to Clinton, the Russian immigrant population in Israel is the group least interested in striking a peace deal with the Palestinians. "They've just got there, it's their country, they've made a commitment to the future there," Clinton said. "They can't imagine any historical or other claims that would justify dividing it."

To illustrate his view on the Russian immigrant community, Clinton related a conversation he had with Natan Sharansky, the former Soviet dissident turned Israeli parliamentarian, who he said was the only Israeli minister to reject the comprehensive peace agreement Clinton proposed at the Camp David Summit in 2000. The proposal was eventually rejected by Palestinian President Yasser Arafat. "I said, ‘Natan, what is the deal [about not supporting the peace deal],'" Clinton recalled. "He said, ‘I can't vote for this, I'm Russian...I come from one of the biggest countries in the world to one of the smallest. You want me to cut it in half. No thank you.'" Clinton responded, "Don't give me this, you came here from a jail cell. It's a lot bigger than your jail cell."

Clinton used the anecdote to explain the Russian immigrant population's attitude toward a land-for-peace deal with the Palestinians."[Sharansky] was nice about it, a lot of them aren't," Clinton said.
I suspect that last line is his diplomatic way of hinting that as a group they appear to have imported certain stereotypically undesirable i.e. deeply illiberal features of Russian political culture along with them, which Israel's critics in turn often express in a not-so-nice way (making it doubly weird to contemplate that it was Russian kibbutzniks who basically laid the foundations for the modern country). Obviously there's much more to it than this, it's also Hamas and the Second Intifada and the settlements policy and the rapid growth of nationalist-religious Judaism since the 1970s (all of which are interconnected), but like the latter two factors, it's one you'd hardly know existed from reading the American papers.
 
That's not a valid comparison and you know it.

Of course it is.....why doesn't anyone dispute that Washington DC is the capital of the United States?

We can argue back and forth all day and all year but the fact remains that Jerusalem has always been our capital city (ALL of it) and we reclaimed the entire city in 1967 when we recaptured the east side which includes our holy places.

Jerusalem is a unified city and it will remain so......

Again, I understand that people don't accept it...
 
Of course it is.....why doesn't anyone dispute that Washington DC is the capital of the United States?

We can argue back and forth all day and all year but the fact remains that Jerusalem has always been our capital city (ALL of it) and we reclaimed the entire city in 1967 when we recaptured the east side which includes our holy places.

Jerusalem is a unified city and it will remain so......

Again, I understand that people don't accept it...

Even if that's true the building of new settlements at this point is unhelpful from an optics point of view.
 
The desecration of Christian and Muslim graves that occured the other day is not acceptable. If these people are not firmly dealt with by Israel then the international community will have to re-consider its support.
 
The desecration of Christian and Muslim graves that occured the other day is not acceptable. If these people are not firmly dealt with by Israel then the international community will have to re-consider its support.

I assure you that these criminals WILL be caught and prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

It is a well-known fact that Israel grants full freedom of religion to all three major faiths and any desecration of any holy site (including cemetaries) is considered a violation of our own belief system and is viewed with the utmost severity.
 
Israel's Immigration Ministry (MOIA) has an ad campaign running here now aimed at Israeli expats in the US, consisting of billboards in expat enclaves and a series of video ads darkly warning that they and/or their children will lose their heritage and identity if they stay here. The ads are raising hackles in the American Jewish community, particularly one featuring an Israeli expat and her cute-but-shallow boyfriend who just doesn't get why it's important to her to observe Yom HaZikaron (Israel's Memorial Day) when there are, like, parties and stuff they could be attending instead. Although the ad (probably strategically) doesn't explicitly state his ethnicity, most American Jews who've seen it got the distinct impression the boyfriend is meant to be seen as an American Jew, and therefore an unworthy match. A voiceover at the end somberly warns [rough translation], "They will always remain Israelis--their partners won't always understand."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FP3gJN_YScM&feature=player_embedded

"War on Christmas" enthusiasts may enjoy another ad from the series, in which we see Bubbe and Zayde's adoring faces fall as they discover via Skype that their American granddaughter is celebrating...Christmas!! (As if there aren't plenty of Russian Ashkenazim in Israel who do just that, and as if there aren't plenty of American Jews, me included, who never have.)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YB-7734p-EI&feature=player_embedded

Jeffrey Goldberg at The Atlantic:
I don't think I have ever seen a demonstration of Israeli contempt for American Jews as obvious as these ads. I understand the impulse behind them: Israel wants as many of its citizens as possible to live in Israel. This is not an abnormal desire. But the way it is expressed, in wholly negative terms, is somewhat appalling. How about, "Hey, come back to Israel, because our unemployment rate is half that of the US' "? Or, "It's always sunny in Israel"? Or, "Hey, Shmulik, your mother misses you"? These government-sponsored ads suggest that it is impossible for Jews to remain Jewish in America.

...The idea, communicated in these ads, that America is no place for a proper Jew, and that a Jew who is concerned about the Jewish future should live in Israel, is archaic, and also chutzpadik (if you don't mind me resorting to the vernacular). The message is: Dear American Jews, thank you for lobbying for American defense aid (and what a great show you put on at the AIPAC convention every year!) but, please, stay away from our sons and daughters.
 
Last edited:
"War on Christmas" enthusiasts may enjoy another ad from the series, in which we see Bubbe and Zayde's adoring faces fall as they discover via Skype that their American granddaughter is celebrating...Christmas!!



is it wrong that a part of me loved this one?
 
I'm all for bringing Jews back to Israel the homeland but I believe that immigration (or repatriation) should be done by choice and not by coersion(sp?) or by making them feel guilty.

The first clip - with the memorial day - wasn't actually bad or offensive, although I would have conveyed the message a little differently by having the girl explain to her boyfriend the significance of the candles and why she felt the need to express solidarity with the fallen solders of Israel - in my opinion, THAT's why her partner didn't understand - because it wasn't explained to him.

The second clip was removed so I couldn't see it, but from the description I can understand the message. Through a process of interfaith marriages, there is a danger of American Jews losing their identity.

Again, I wouldn't put it in such a way as to create resentment among American Jews who feel "forced" to immigrate to Israel. As I said, Israel is the homeland of the Jewish people and every Jew should have the free will to immigrate if they want to - not because they've been bullied into it.

At any rate, PM Netanyahu ordered the campaign stopped after hearing the criticism from the American Jewish community.
 
Here's a "dammed if you do and dammed if you don't" story.

As you know, the temple mount is open to all religions who want to go up and pray. There is only one bridge leading to the temple mount and it is in severe disrepair and in danger of collapse.

Israel wants to tear down the bridge and build a safer one but the Muslims are against it and they say that it is another step in our desire to "destroy the Al-Aksa mosque".

What is wrong with these people? If we don't repair the bridge and it collapses and there are dozens of casualties - then we will be condemmed for neglecting the access to the holy places. If we try to repair it then we'll be condemmed for violating the status quo and accused of trying to capture the Mosque.

As of now, the bridge is closed and, as expected, there is widespread condemnation across the Arab world.

What can we do?


Jerusalem closes Mughrabi Bridge leading to Temple Mount - Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News
 
Washington Post, Dec. 15
Defying a crackdown on Jewish extremists ordered by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, vandals set fire to a mosque in the West Bank on Thursday and defaced it with Hebrew graffiti after Israeli forces tore down structures in an unauthorized settlement outpost.

The arson attack in the Palestinian village of Burqa, near Ramallah, was the latest in a string of similar attacks on mosques in the West Bank. It came a day after an unused mosque was vandalized in a Jewish neighborhood of Jerusalem. The wave of extremist violence, which included a rampage by militant settlers at a West Bank army base on Tuesday, has brought expressions of alarm from across the Israeli political spectrum and prompted a government announcement Wednesday of a series of measures to rein in violent Jewish radicals. The steps include detention without trial and prosecution in military courts, measures normally applied to Palestinians in the West Bank but not to Jewish settlers there. Other measures include banning suspected militants from the West Bank and authorizing soldiers in the West Bank to arrest Israelis.
 
Reuters, Feb. 2
Defense Secretary Leon Panetta believes there is a growing possibility Israel will attack Iran as early as April to stop Tehran from building a nuclear bomb, US media reported on Thursday. The Washington Post first reported that Panetta was concerned about the increased likelihood Israel would launch an attack over the next few months. CNN said it confirmed the report, citing a senior Obama administration official, who declined to be identified. "Panetta believes there is a strong likelihood that Israel will strike Iran in April, May or June--before Iran enters what Israelis described as a 'zone of immunity' to commence building a nuclear bomb," Washington Post columnist David Ignatius wrote. "Very soon, the Israelis fear, the Iranians will have stored enough enriched uranium in deep underground facilities to make a weapon--and only the United States could then stop them militarily"...Ignatius did not cite a source. He was writing from Brussels where Panetta was attending a NATO defense ministers' meeting.

Panetta and the Pentagon both declined comment on the Post report.

...Israel's military intelligence chief said on Thursday he estimated that Iran could make four atomic bombs by further enriching uranium it had already stockpiled, and could produce its first bomb within a year of deciding to build one. But in his rare public remarks, Major-General Aviv Kochavi held out the possibility that stronger international sanctions might dissuade Tehran from pursuing a policy he had no doubt was aimed at developing nuclear weapons. Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak said separately that "if sanctions don't achieve the desired goal of stopping (Iran's) military nuclear program, there will be a need to consider taking action."
The article linked in that last paragraph does go on to say that...
Administration officials have hinted that the United States might not intervene militarily in a hostile exchange between Israel and Iran unless the conflict began to threaten US forces or Israeli population centers. In an interview last month on CBS’s “60 Minutes,” Panetta said that in the event of an Israeli strike, US military officials’ primary concern would be “to protect our forces.”
...which I guess could be considered somewhat reassuring, particularly since any mutual "hostile exchanges" would be unlikely to take the form of open war--as it is, over the last two years Iran's tolerated a string of assassinations and explosions (mostly targeting nuclear-program-linked people and facilities) which it attributes to Mossad/CIA, without retaliations occurring.

I don't know what Romney's response to all this would be.
 
Last edited:
yolland said:
I don't know what Romney's response to all this would be.

Pre election? Red meat. Remember how the founding fathers were super clear about defending Israeli 'freedom'/regional nuclear monopoly?

Post election?... ???
 
Would any of you that insisted that the meaning of Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's 2005 statement that Israel must be "wiped off the map" was somehow lost in translation, care to explain away this one?

"From now on, in any place, if any nation or any group confronts the Zionist regime, we will endorse and we will help. We have no fear expressing this," adding that Israel is a "cancerous tumor that should be cut and will be cut."
-- Islamic Republic's Supreme Leader Ayatollah
2/3/2012
 
after gaddafi, kim jong-il and bin laden in the past 12 months, i wouldn't be shocked if the ayatollah is looking over his shoulder.

largely iran going into any war would be tragic. practically only the madmen leaders in the country would be interested in any kind of war, and no doubt a lot of civillians would have a pretty terrible time of it, to put it lightly.
 
INDY500 said:
Would any of you that insisted that the meaning of Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's 2005 statement that Israel must be "wiped off the map" was somehow lost in translation, care to explain away this one?

Nothing worth paying attention to. You actually believe Iran would ever attack Israel? Can you think of *any* reason why they would?
 
Back
Top Bottom