Benjamin Netanyahu Speech.

[prisonchaplain]

Really?  The majority of European countries are very much pro Israel, they are even included in the Eurovision Song Contest and they aren't even in Europe.  The EU is very much pro Israel and falls over itself to defend any and all things Israeli.  

 

I admit that my perception is the U.S. and Israel are often very lonely in the U.N., and that our EU friends seem to keep distant.  Apparently I'm not alone though:  http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/edwest/100043460/why-does-europe-hate-israel/

 

Israel is without doubt the military superpower of the region, having the 4th largest military in the world, a nuclear power that could annihilate every other neighbour with a flick of a switch.  Hardly the small powerless nation you seem to be implying in your David vs Goliath analogy.  That you condone the way Israel treats child detainees speaks volumes about the moral decay prevalent in US society today, that children should be subjected to the abuse they receive in Israeli prisons should cause outrage against Israel not support for it.

 

Israel is the size of New Jersey, and is surrounded by nations that want it gone.  The country has enemies within its borders, and is regularly pressured by the world community to be ever less-cautious with them.  It has enemy adolescent "soldiers" who carry military grade material against them, and then Israel gets hammered by propagandists for treating them as what they are--enemy combatants indeed! 

 

Nobody wants to see teens put in isolation, or treated to American penitentiary-style incarceration.  That's what's done to prisoners of war.  Oh...but yeah...they kinda are, aren't they?  And, who made them that way?

 

It may sound overwhelming to say that Israel is a nuke power--Goliath-like, even.  Except that Israel is not bent on genocide.  Shame on those who force the hand of the Jews, requiring them to arm at as a super power, just to survive.  Shame on them for sending children to kill, and then having the nerve to blame those who must defend against the children, for daring to protect their own lives. 

Edited March 22, 2015 by prisonchaplain

[Just_A_Guy]

Not at all, but that doesn't mean they should go and lob tons of ordinance onto civilians in response.  There has been a peace deal on the table for a long time which would solve all the problems.  There has been a peace deal on the table for a long time which would solve all the problems.  The creation of a homeland for the Palestinians, recognition of and peace treaties with all the Arab nations with Israel.  Why are they so adamant that they won't come to the table to discuss it?  Because they want all the land for themselves and have seen over the last 60 plus years that at the end of the day nothing will be done if they decide not to engage in peace talks.

 

Was it indiscriminate carpet-bombing, or was it the elimination of specific, defined targets who happened to be hiding out among civilians? 

 

I don't think Israel is under the delusion that they can get all of Gaza and the West Bank and just make the Palestinians disappear.  Sizeable constituencies of their own voting population, don't want it.  This source claims that as of 2012, sixty percent of settlers live in five settlements which are quite close to the 1967 border; and all Israeli settlements comprise only 1.7% of the West Bank.  Moreover, Israel does have a history of closing its own settlements--as it did in Gaza, for instance.  (The graphic you present at the bottom of your post is interesting; but its suggestion that there was no Jewish landholding presence in the Holy Land as of 1917 is just plain silly--there were 94,000 Jews there as of 1914, per Wikipedia.)

 

Now, Israel obviously does want whatever government runs the region, not wind up becoming a base for future attacks on Israel itself; and to that end they've repeatedly told the Palestinians:  "You want to show us you're serious about maintaining security, fine--make the rockets stop, and we'll talk."

 

 

​ If a two state solution is going to work, there has to be a withdrawal of Israel forces from Palestinian lands.  You cannot have peace when your occupying the land of those you are seeking peace with.  

 

Then you need to assure the Israelis--through concrete actions--that you will consider the pullout a (pardon the loaded connotation here) "final solution" contingent to a lasting peace, rather than "a good start" preparatory to the annihilation of the Jewish State.

 

 

This is where the land swaps come into play.

I don't quite follow you--can you flesh this out?

 

My comment was about attacks from the surrounding Arab nations, there has been no wars between Arab states and Israel since the end of the 1973 war. 

 

 

OK; but that strikes me as a distinction without a difference.

 

 

Not at all as the Jewish settlements are in the occupied territories and are illegal.  There would be no Palestinian settlements within the heartland of Israel.  On the whole I think Israel comes out of the two state solution with the best deal, the Palestinians having offered to live in only 22% of the land that was originally partitioned to them in 1948.

 

Wait--what?  There's a right to return to all of the Holy Land, but there will be no Palestinians living in the heartland of Israel?

 

Or do you interpret "right of return" as being only to the Palestinian state?

 

Also, I think your 22% figure may be off a bit--from what I can find online the offer was to live on 22% of all of "Palestine" as defined under the British Mandate, not the Palestinian-allocated territories under the UN partition plan.

[Just_A_Guy]

That you condone the way Israel treats child detainees speaks volumes about the moral decay prevalent in US society today, that children should be subjected to the abuse they receive in Israeli prisons should cause outrage against Israel not support for it.

 

I'm all for treating children--and any captives--humanely; and if there are issues with the way these kids are being interrogated, housed, fed, etc--those should, naturally, be dealt with. 

 

However, I was interested to skim that UNICEF report you cited; because it cites principles of juvenile law that I see in operation myself (I currently practice child welfare law in juvenile court in the US)--especially, the idea that you keep offenders in detention for as little as possible.

 

Now, this principle works in your standard, stable society where juvenile offenders are most likely to be in the system because of drugs, or sexual acting out, or unusual aggression--nearly all of which can be addressed by counseling and increased family support.  But in war zones where the detained child is in fact an enemy combatant (or seriously and sincerely suspected of being such), this principle really breaks down. 

 

If the UN really thinks that the best way to deal with--say--Joseph Kony's Ugandan child soldiers, or rock-throwing would-be warriors in the Gaza Strip, is to send 'em home and require them to see a therapist once a week; then I think the UN needs to do some soul-searching of its own.

Edited March 22, 2015 by Just_A_Guy

[Latter Days Guy]

 

Really?  The majority of European countries are very much pro Israel, they are even included in the Eurovision Song Contest and they aren't even in Europe.  The EU is very much pro Israel and falls over itself to defend any and all things Israeli.  

 

I admit that my perception is the U.S. and Israel are often very lonely in the U.N., and that our EU friends seem to keep distant.  Apparently I'm not alone though:  http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/edwest/100043460/why-does-europe-hate-israel/

 

Israel is without doubt the military superpower of the region, having the 4th largest military in the world, a nuclear power that could annihilate every other neighbour with a flick of a switch.  Hardly the small powerless nation you seem to be implying in your David vs Goliath analogy.  That you condone the way Israel treats child detainees speaks volumes about the moral decay prevalent in US society today, that children should be subjected to the abuse they receive in Israeli prisons should cause outrage against Israel not support for it.

 

Israel is the size of New Jersey, and is surrounded by nations that want it gone.  The country has enemies within its borders, and is regularly pressured by the world community to be ever less-cautious with them.  It has enemy adolescent "soldiers" who carry military grade material against them, and then Israel gets hammered by propagandists for treating them as what they are--enemy combatants indeed! 

 

Nobody wants to see teens put in isolation, or treated to American penitentiary-style incarceration.  That's what's done to prisoners of war.  Oh...but yeah...they kinda are, aren't they?  And, who made them that way?

 

It may sound overwhelming to say that Israel is a nuke power--Goliath-like, even.  Except that Israel is not bent on genocide.  Shame on those who force the hand of the Jews, requiring them to arm at as a super power, just to survive.  Shame on them for sending children to kill, and then having the nerve to blame those who must defend against the children, for daring to protect their own lives. 

 

Yes Israel is a small nation, a small nation with a massive war machine!  One thing we do see is that Israel doesn't give in to pressure from any direction, even from the US.  Those adolescent soldiers you comment on are armed with stones and slings and more often than not are taken into custody in the middle of the night from their beds, or on the streets playing football.  Yes we can find images of kids from Palestinian villages holding AK47's, just like we can find pictures of kids in the US holding M16's.  Doesn't mean they are out shooting up people with them, propaganda comes in many forms.

Yes nobody wants to see teens locked away, and they cannot be classed as enemy combatants as that would contravene the Geneva convention.

Who made them that way?  Israel with the harsh and degrading treatment of the Palestinians for 60 plus years.

Is Israel committing genocide?:

http://www.juancole.com/2014/08/committing-genocide-palestinians.html

Israel has had many opportunites to come to the peace table, the terms are far more favourable to the Israeli's than to the Palestinians but it would seem the Palestinians are willing to give up more to end the conflict and the Israelis just want their cake and eat it. 

[Latter Days Guy]

 

Was it indiscriminate carpet-bombing, or was it the elimination of specific, defined targets who happened to be hiding out among civilians? 

 

It was the deliberate targeting of civilian homes, hospitals, schools.

 

I don't think Israel is under the delusion that they can get all of Gaza and the West Bank and just make the Palestinians disappear.  Sizeable constituencies of their own voting population, don't want it.  This source claims that as of 2012, sixty percent of settlers live in five settlements which are quite close to the 1967 border; and all Israeli settlements comprise only 1.7% of the West Bank.  Moreover, Israel does have a history of closing its own settlements--as it did in Gaza, for instance.  (The graphic you present at the bottom of your post is interesting; but its suggestion that there was no Jewish landholding presence in the Holy Land as of 1917 is just plain silly--there were 94,000 Jews there as of 1914, per Wikipedia.)

 

Which is where the land swaps would come into play. 

 

Now, Israel obviously does want whatever government runs the region, not wind up becoming a base for future attacks on Israel itself; and to that end they've repeatedly told the Palestinians:  "You want to show us you're serious about maintaining security, fine--make the rockets stop, and we'll talk."

 

And that was the case with both the PA and Hamas both agreeing to stop the missiles though some of the smaller splinter groups did continue to fire them in a sporadic manner but were often stopped by Hamas and the PA.  Even then most of the attacks were in response to Israeli air strikes.

 

Then you need to assure the Israelis--through concrete actions--that you will consider the pullout a (pardon the loaded connotation here) "final solution" contingent to a lasting peace, rather than "a good start" preparatory to the annihilation of the Jewish State.

 

When you have all the neighbouring Arab States offering to sign peace treaties and recognising the state of Israel's right to exist, what more could they possibly want?

 

I don't quite follow you--can you flesh this out?

 

The land swaps where where large Jewish settlements built in the occupied territories close to the proposed border would be incorporated into Israel in exchange for other pieces of land on the Israeli side of the border which have no settlements on them.

 

OK; but that strikes me as a distinction without a difference.

 

War can only be defined as war if it is  between two nation states, since no nation states have been at war with Israel since 1973 there has been no war.

 

Wait--what?  There's a right to return to all of the Holy Land, but there will be no Palestinians living in the heartland of Israel?

 

No, there should be a right for all to return to the proposed Palestinian state.

 

Or do you interpret "right of return" as being only to the Palestinian state?

 

Yes, but even that is opposed by Israel.

 

Also, I think your 22% figure may be off a bit--from what I can find online the offer was to live on 22% of all of "Palestine" as defined under the British Mandate, not the Palestinian-allocated territories under the UN partition plan.

 

The offer that was tabled by the Arab league in support of the US backed peace initiative in 2002 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_Arab_League_summit

http://www.jpost.com/Arab-Israeli-Conflict/Abbas-says-ready-to-set-up-Palestinian-State-on-22-percent-of-land-382865

 

 

[Latter Days Guy]

I'm all for treating children--and any captives--humanely; and if there are issues with the way these kids are being interrogated, housed, fed, etc--those should, naturally, be dealt with. 

 

However, I was interested to skim that UNICEF report you cited; because it cites principles of juvenile law that I see in operation myself (I currently practice child welfare law in juvenile court in the US)--especially, the idea that you keep offenders in detention for as little as possible.

 

Now, this principle works in your standard, stable society where juvenile offenders are most likely to be in the system because of drugs, or sexual acting out, or unusual aggression--nearly all of which can be addressed by counseling and increased family support.  But in war zones where the detained child is in fact an enemy combatant (or seriously and sincerely suspected of being such), this principle really breaks down. 

 

If the UN really thinks that the best way to deal with--say--Joseph Kony's Ugandan child soldiers, or rock-throwing would-be warriors in the Gaza Strip, is to send 'em home and require them to see a therapist once a week; then I think the UN needs to do some soul-searching of its own.

When you address the reasons why they are throwing stones, then maybe those kids wouldn't be throwing stones in the first place.  But then I don't believe that locking kids up in military prison and subjecting them to the things mentioned in the report for throwing stones is in any way justifiable in the first place.

[Just_A_Guy]

It was the deliberate targeting of civilian homes, hospitals, schools.

 

Because these were also the sites of rocket launchers, or because Israelis just get their kicks out of killing civvies?

 

And - source?

 

 

And that was the case with both the PA and Hamas both agreeing to stop the missiles though some of the smaller splinter groups did continue to fire them in a sporadic manner but were often stopped by Hamas and the PA.

 

But apparently not to Israel's satisfaction.  Do you have numbers on launch rates for the period?

 

 

When you have all the neighbouring Arab States offering to sign peace treaties and recognising the state of Israel's right to exist, what more could they possibly want?

 

Subject to this right of return to the ostensibly-Jewish territories.  Existing the right of a Jewish State to exist, but subject to a proviso that it will no longer be able to maintain its identity as a Jewish State, is no compromise at all.

 

Democracy, cultural identity, and open borders--you can have any two of the three.  The Arab states' terms seem to be a calculated plan to deny Israel its cultural identity over the long haul.

 

I don't quite follow you--can you flesh this out?

 

The land swaps where where large Jewish settlements built in the occupied territories close to the proposed border would be incorporated into Israel in exchange for other pieces of land on the Israeli side of the border which have no settlements on them.

 

 

Thanks for the clarification.  But from what I can gather, weren't land swaps proposed by Israel around 2010-ish and rejected by the Palestinians?

 

 

War can only be defined as war if it is  between two nation states, since no nation states have been at war with Israel since 1973 there has been no war.

 

So, anything goes, as long as the attacker can't be plausibly linked back to a nation state--and again, the victim just has to sit there and take it?

 

I strongly disagree.

 

No, there should be a right for all to return to the proposed Palestinian state.

 

OK, I agree with you here; but my understanding of the Arab proposal was that right of return applied to ALL of Mandate-era Palestine.

The offer that was tabled by the Arab league in support of the US backed peace initiative in 2002 

http://en.wikipedia....b_League_summit

http://www.jpost.com...-of-land-382865

 

 

 

Wikipedia, as far as I can tell, lacks the 22% figure.  The Jerusalem Post article cites Abbas as saying the proposed state is 22% of "what it should be"--not 22% under the 1948 plan.  Indeed, just looking at the map you offer shows that the current Palestinian territories--while less than what was promised--are certainly more than 22%.

 

But Abbas' statement just gives another reason not to trust the Palestinians--that continuing "all for me, none for you; and any compromise is just a baby step towards our ultimate goal" mentality.

[Crypto]

 Yes we can find images of kids from Palestinian villages holding AK47's, just like we can find pictures of kids in the US holding M16's.  Doesn't mean they are out shooting up people with them, propaganda comes in many forms.

I was informed of the "AK47's" and "M16's" being held and used by kids by a Palestinian himself that I attended an educational institution with. (Who is very anti Israel and basically hates Jews, and celebrates when they have problems...deaths..., just like the Israelis sitting and celebrating bombings. Other than that he seems to be a good guy) While these images may be used as propaganda in some circumstances it is very much a reality. It is also true that most kids do throw rocks rather than shoot at Israeli forces (same guy as source). Which rock throwing is also used as propaganda.

Edited March 22, 2015 by Crypto

[Latter Days Guy]

Because these were also the sites of rocket launchers, or because Israelis just get their kicks out of killing civvies?

 

And - source?

 

The only problem with that is the Israelis admitted they couldn't for sure of the exact place the launchers were so hit the general area. As for source, take a look on google.

 

But apparently not to Israel's satisfaction.  Do you have numbers on launch rates for the period?

 

The figure I remember reading was 1 or two a month got through but were shot down by Israel after launch.

 

Subject to this right of return to the ostensibly-Jewish territories.  Existing the right of a Jewish State to exist, but subject to a proviso that it will no longer be able to maintain its identity as a Jewish State, is no compromise at all.

 

Which Pre 1947 were not ostensibly Jewish territories but Arab territories.  So if Israel is a purely Jewish nation what happens to all the Christians and Muslims who are citizens of Israel, are they to be stripped of citizenship for their non-Jewishness?

 

Democracy, cultural identity, and open borders--you can have any two of the three.  The Arab states' terms seem to be a calculated plan to deny Israel its cultural identity over the long haul.

 

Not at all, peace is what they want but a just peace for the Palestinians.

 

I don't quite follow you--can you flesh this out?

 

 

Thanks for the clarification.  But from what I can gather, weren't land swaps proposed by Israel around 2010-ish and rejected by the Palestinians?

 

Nope, they have always been a part of the Arab Leagues peace plan which has repeatedly been rejected by Israel.

 

So, anything goes, as long as the attacker can't be plausibly linked back to a nation state--and again, the victim just has to sit there and take it?

 

Not at all, as the attackers don't have a nation, they are stateless.  The only victim here is the Palestinians who have been given a raw deal since 1948 when they were expelled from their land for no good reason other than the collective guilt of western nations of the Holocaust.

 

I strongly disagree.

 

Which is your right.

 

 

OK, I agree with you here; but my understanding of the Arab proposal was that right of return applied to ALL of Mandate-era Palestine.

 

No the land that was taken during the 1967 war which is referred to as the occupied territories.

 

 

Wikipedia, as far as I can tell, lacks the 22% figure.  The Jerusalem Post article cites Abbas as saying the proposed state is 22% of "what it should be"--not 22% under the 1948 plan.  Indeed, just looking at the map you offer shows that the current Palestinian territories--while less than what was promised--are certainly more than 22%.

 

No, the 22% is the land consisting of the West Bank and Gaza strip, which is considerably less than the land they originally had been given by the UN in 1948.  The map shows the reality of the encroaching spread of Israel into what is at the end of the day occupied territory, showing how what had once been Palestinian land has been lost to illegal settlements and the expansion policy of the Israeli government over time.

 

But Abbas' statement just gives another reason not to trust the Palestinians--that continuing "all for me, none for you; and any compromise is just a baby step towards our ultimate goal" mentality.

The ultimate goal of the PA is to get a real settlement for the Palestinians.  That the land that they have asked for has slowely shrunk until its current 22% shows that they are willing to give up more than Israel is to get peace.  The PA has given up the armed struggle for the negotiation table, in return they have been stalled and ignored for over 20 years.

Edited March 22, 2015 by Latter Days Guy

[Latter Days Guy]

I was informed of the "AK47's" and "M16's" being held and used by kids by a Palestinian himself that I attended an educational institution with. (Who is very anti Israel and basically hates Jews, and celebrates when they have problems...deaths..., just like the Israelis sitting and celebrating bombings. Other than that he seems to be a good guy) While these images may be used as propaganda in some circumstances it is very much a reality. It is also true that most kids do throw rocks rather than shoot at Israeli forces (same guy as source). Which rock throwing is also used as propaganda.

That is very true, there are those on both sides who no doubt hate each other and celebrate when the other side suffers.  But that doesn't mean that all Israelis and Palestinians hold these feelings and it would be wrong to label them so.

[Just_A_Guy]

The only problem with that is the Israelis admitted they couldn't for sure of the exact place the launchers were so hit the general area. As for source, take a look on google.

 

So, you admit that they weren't trying to kill civilians; they were trying to neutralize the launchers.

 

The figure I remember reading was 1 or two a month got through but were shot down by Israel after launch.

 

Source?  (Not just "google", but source).  And, how was this possible since Iron Dome wasn't online yet?

 

 

Which Pre 1947 were not ostensibly Jewish territories but Arab territories.  So if Israel is a purely Jewish nation what happens to all the Christians and Muslims who are citizens of Israel, are they to be stripped of citizenship for their non-Jewishness?

 

First you tell me that Palestinian Right of Return doesn't apply to the Israeli-allocated territories, next you're telling me that it whether it does or doesn't--it should. 

 

If the Palestinians have been that squishy, then no wonder there's not a lasting peace settlement.

 

 

Not at all, peace is what they want but a just peace for the Palestinians. [Emphasis added]

 

Not a loaded term at all.  :)

 

Nope, they have always been a part of the Arab Leagues peace plan which has repeatedly been rejected by Israel.

 

The Daily Telegraph says Israel offered land swaps in 2010.  And again, the Arab League was insisting on right of return; which Wikipedia (and the UN resolutions, as they've been interpreted by the Palestinians) defines as the right to return to wherever they came from--not just the Palestinian-allocated territories.

 

And, I reiterate:  Right of return, within the borders of Israel, just ain't gonna happen. 

 

 

Not at all, as the attackers don't have a nation, they are stateless.  The only victim here is the Palestinians who have been given a raw deal since 1948 when they were expelled from their land for no good reason other than the collective guilt of western nations of the Holocaust.

 

Then Israel isn't violating any treaties with the Palestinians, since treaties can only be signed by state actors--right?

 

More seriously:  I have difficulty sympathizing with these semantical games, which basically seem to grow out of a rather stupendous apathy for the plight of Israeli civilians in conjunction with a determination to make excuses for the Palestinians--no matter how heinous their atrocities--and a subtle suggestion that the Jews deserve whatever horrors the Palestinians are capable of visiting upon them.

 

And you really can't understand why the Israelis won't sign a treaty with people who think like you? 

No [right of return is to] the land that was taken during the 1967 war which is referred to as the occupied territories.  [Addition added for clarity--JAG]

 

OK, but that's not what Wikipedia says; and even you--in your unguarded moments--betray a belief that the right of Palestinian return should apply everywhere; as I've noted above.

 

No, the 22% is the land consisting of the West Bank and Gaza strip, which is considerably less than the land they originally had been given by the UN in 1948. 

 

The 1948 scheme seems to be shown in the third of the five maps in your graphic; the Gaza/West Bank is shown in the 5th.  Just eyeballing it, it is clear that--while it's certainly not what was promised--it's far more than 22%; more like 60-70%. 

 

By contrast:  Wikipedia gives the area for the old British Mandate of Palestine as 26,184 square kilometers.  It has Gaza's area at 360 square kilometers and the West Bank at 5640 square kilometers--so together, Gaza and the West Bank constitute 22.914 percent of Mandate-era Palestine.

 

So, when Abbas says that Palestinian lands under his proposal were 22% of what they should be--what he's saying is that the Palestinians should have all of it, and the Jews should just go away.

 

The PA has given up the armed struggle for the negotiation table, in return they have been stalled and ignored for over 20 years.

 

Two thousand, five hundred rockets launched from PA-controlled territory in three years.

 

And the PA had nothing--nothing!!!!--to do with it!  They didn't know nuthin' about nuthin'--but they still think they can run a viable, stable and secure state; and Israel should go ahead and make a deal with them.

Edited March 22, 2015 by Just_A_Guy

[Latter Days Guy]

So, you admit that they weren't trying to kill civilians; they were trying to neutralize the launchers.

 

No, they targeted the area, and what the heck if there were non combatants in the area, after all there just arabs nobody cares about them!

 

Source?  (Not just "google", but source).  And, how was this possible since Iron Dome wasn't online yet?

 

Yes it was.

 

First you tell me that Palestinian Right of Return doesn't apply to the Israeli-allocated territories, next you're telling me that it whether it does or doesn't--it should. 

 

What exactly are you going on about?  Do you not know that there are actually non Jews with Israeli citizenship?  

 

If the Palestinians have been that squishy, then no wonder there's not a lasting peace settlement.

 

 

Not a loaded term at all.  :)

 

 

The Daily Telegraph says Israel offered land swaps in 2010.  And again, the Arab League was insisting on right of return; which Wikipedia (and the UN resolutions, as they've been interpreted by the Palestinians) defines as the right to return to wherever they came from--not just the Palestinian-allocated territories.

 

And, I reiterate:  Right of return, within the borders of Israel, just ain't gonna happen. 

 

Nope, the land swap was first brought to the table in 2002 as part of the Arab League peace proposal.

 

 

Then Israel isn't violating any treaties with the Palestinians, since treaties can only be signed by state actors--right?

 

Actually they are as Israel recognised the Palestinian right to self determination when it signed the Oslo accords.

 

More seriously:  I have difficulty sympathizing with these semantical games, which basically seem to grow out of a rather stupendous apathy for the plight of Palestinian civilians in conjunction with a determination to make excuses for the Israelis--no matter how heinous their atrocities--and a subtle suggestion that the Palestinians deserve whatever horrors the Israelis are capable of visiting upon them.

 

There you go I fixed it for you.

 

And you really can't understand why the Israelis won't sign a treaty with people who think like you? 

 

I know exactly why the Israelis don't want to sign, they aren't interest in peace only in having total control over the occupied territories, making it a homeland for the pure Jewish race with none of those nasty little Arabs polluting the purity of that holy land.  

 

OK, but that's not what Wikipedia says; and even you--in your unguarded moments--betray a belief that the right of Palestinian return should apply everywhere; as I've noted above.

 

Nope, I believe that they should have a right to return to the occupied territories that would be the basis of a Palestinian state as defined by the various treaties and accords sign by both Israel and the PA since 1993 when both sides acknowledged the right for each side to exist.

 

The 1948 scheme seems to be shown in the third of the five maps in your graphic; the Gaza/West Bank is shown in the 5th.  Just eyeballing it, it is clear that--while it's certainly not what was promised--it's far more than 22%; more like 60-70%. 

 

Hardly.

 

By contrast:  Wikipedia gives the area for the old British Mandate of Palestine as 26,184 square kilometers.  It has Gaza's area at 360 square kilometers and the West Bank at 5640 square kilometers--so together, Gaza and the West Bank constitute 22.914 percent of Mandate-era Palestine.

 

So, when Abbas says that Palestinian lands under his proposal were 22% of what they should be--what he's saying is that the Palestinians should have all of it, and the Jews should just go away.

 

Nope.

 

Two thousand, five hundred rockets launched from PA-controlled territory in three years.

 

And the PA had nothing--nothing!!!!--to do with it!  They didn't know nuthin' about nuthin'--but they still think they can run a viable, stable and secure state; and Israel should go ahead and make a deal with them.

Yes, that would be correct.  And the Rockets were not fired from PA controlled territory, they were fired from Hamas controlled territory in response to the Israeli aggression towards Gaza.

[Latter Days Guy]

Even the Israeli media are saying that Israel doesn't want peace:

 

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/israel-peace-conference/1.601112

[Just_A_Guy]

The Israeli media--unlike the media in other sectors of the Middle East--is not a monolithic bloc of government apologists. Some naive, gullible, or just plain oikophobic Israeli individuals and media outlets do think as you do; and--mirabile dictu!--they, unlike citizens of most other nations in the region, are free to express their concerns without fear of imprisonment or death.

And, did you actually read the article you cited?

Its rejectionism is embedded far more deeply – in its DNA, its bloodstream, its raison d’être, its most primal beliefs. There, at the deepest level, lies the concept that this land is destined for the Jews alone. There, at the deepest level, is entrenched the value of “am sgula” – God’s “treasured people” – and “God chose us.” In practice, this is translated to mean that, in this land, Jews are allowed to do what is forbidden to others.

You would NEVER give someone a pass for writing that way about Muslims. In fact, the way things are going in much of the West, the author of such a statement about Muslims might well find himself facing prosecution.

But, Jews? Open season, even on British soil, as recently as last night.

Edited March 22, 2015 by Just_A_Guy

[Latter Days Guy]

The Israeli media--unlike the media in other sectors of the Middle East--is not a monolithic bloc of government apologists. Some naive, gullible, or just plain oikophobic Israeli individuals and media outlets do think as you do; and--mirabile dictu!--they, unlike citizens of most other nations in the region, are free to express their concerns without fear of imprisonment or death.

And, did you actually read the article you cited?

You would NEVER give someone a pass for writing that way about Muslims. In fact, the way things are going in much of the West, the author of such a statement about Muslims might well find himself facing prosecution.

But, Jews? Open season, even on British soil, as recently as last night.

The unfortunate fact of the matter is that is exactly what the majority if Israelis believe about the land of Israel. And there are far worse things said about Muslims in the press in the UK, on social media and the net and not much is done about it, not even a hint of prosecution.

 

As for the video, one event hardly means its open season on Jews in Britain and the Rabbi has said it wasn't an anti-Semitic attack, but then there attacks on Masjid's in the UK are a regular occurrence. Both are wrong.

Edited March 22, 2015 by Latter Days Guy

[Just_A_Guy]

The unfortunate fact of the matter is that is exactly what the majority if Israelis believe about the land of Israel.

And I think Abbas' statement betraying an implicit and similarly exclusive claim by the Palestinians to the whole of the same territory, is exactly what the majority of Palestinians/Arabs believe. Which brings us back to square one: if you're Israel, do you allow five million such people to set up housekeeping on your doorstep (if right of return is limited to the UN-determined Palestinian areas) or in your living room (if you believe it extends to the entire region), and trust that you won't be evicted in the next few decades? As Cabaret's Brian Roberts asks--you still think you can control them?  Why set up a new state specifically as a home for the Jewish people, if you're also going to decree that it can and should be co-opted by any ethnic group that despises Jews and has a higher birth rate than the Jews do?

I think we're getting near the point where we'll start going in circles soon (if we aren't already), so I'm going to bow out at this point lest I become tiresome. I have learned a lot in this discussion, so thanks for putting up with me. :)

Edited March 22, 2015 by Just_A_Guy

[Latter Days Guy]

As the little animation I posted earlier states, you only create more problems when you give one group of refugees the land of another people which then makes them refugees.  I believe that now the Palestinians want only peace and the right to live in a state of their own.  With so much tragedy through the past 60 plus years they are willing to compromise and give up most of the claims on the land and accept the best offer they are going to get is a state based upon the West bank and Gaza.  I firmly believe that if that became a reality, then the Arab League would honour its statement of offering a peace treaty and normalisation of relations between its member states and recognition to the state of Israel and its right to exist.  

The only problem being that I don't think Israel wants peace and gains more from being in conflict with its neighbours and the Palestinians. My prayers and hopes are with both sides seeing sense, and soon.

[Crypto]

I like hearing the different view points.

[Guest]

This confusion happens when you rely on media for your political point of view instead of studying the historical development of a specific geopolitical area.

These arguments have gone on for too long - who did this, who did that, who fired first, who killed last... This is not how you determine a political point of view. This is what you do in a WORLD CUP SOCCER MATCH! You fling accusations like penalty kicks!

You can get a better understanding of what is going on in that area if you study the history of the Middle East as far back from Yasser Arafat as you can - as many sources as you can find. Pre 1800's history would be great. Study the population demographics (especially ethnicity) in this area and how it has changed and why it changed from then until now... who was in power, why power changed, what happened when power changed... and take into account the colonial era and what that meant to ethnicity and borders and government... and then take into account the end of the colonial era and what that meant to borders and government that leads to today.

And please try to find a reason why it wasn't until Arafat that a "Palestinian State" even became an issue... and they happen to land on that tiny area they have now instead of being absorbed into all the NEWLY FORMED AFTER WWI arab countries that occupy 99% (just my own guesstimate, don't quote me) of the Middle East. And especially why Jordan closed the doors to the PLO while at the same time egging on their conflict against the Israelis...

Then note how there is only ONE Jewish State whereas there are numerous muslim countries 20+ of which are Arab Nations... yet Palestinians choose to stay in that teeny tiny patches of land and undermined border negotiations post WWII and then surrounding Arab Nations tell them they need to expand into Israel to support their population instead of expanding into... say Jordan or Egypt.

Then try to figure out why the PLO still has the destruction of Israel in their charter and why Israel is peaceful with Egypt even ceding Sinai over (by the way, figure out why Israel owns Sinai in the first place to hand over to Egypt)... etc. etc.

When you look at this rich history in detail then fly up to 5,000 feet and look down at what drives these events, you can see clearly that it's quite a miracle that Israel hasn't gotten blown up yet. And Netanyahu's determination and strength and political know-how has a lot to do with that. So that, instead of seeing a war criminal (as Nelson Mandela was seen by many), you might see how strong this little teeny tiny State has to be.

Now, of course, Palestinian territories are even more teeny tiny - but, looking at the history, you might see what I see - the INTENTIONAL isolation of the Palestinian territories from the 99% Arab/Muslim nations to make the Jewish State seem like a BIG BAD WOLF swatting at the little piggies... because, the truth that Israel is actually not fighting just Palestinians but the rest of its neighbors will make those silly "Israeli expansion of borders" pictures seem comical.

You just might see what I see - that the Palestinians are merely PAWNS and that everyday Palestinians and their supporters don't need to be shaking their sticks at Israel and Netanyahu, rather, they need to have a come-to-Allah-moment with the muslim caliphate and the pan-arabists for their desperate lot in life - so desperate that they are driven to put bombs around their children to kill Israelis! The Sinai Peninsula is huge and it is owned by Egypt. So we could as easily have a Palestinian-Egyptian conflict and there's the West Bank which could easily have a Palestinian-Jordanian conflict - and it's not so out of the realm of possibility that Palestinians are going to strap bombs on their children to send to Egypt or Jordan. But no, it has to be Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Why is That?

The answer to that question may determine if Netanyahu is truly a war criminal.

Edited March 23, 2015 by anatess

[Capitalist_Oinker]

I hadn't realised that the US had gone back to to the good ole days of McCarthyism and the reds under the bed mentality! 

 

 

Yeah, those McCarthyites---what a bunch of maroons, eh?

Here's a sampling of some of their "reds under the bed mentality."

 

"Communism being hostile and incompatible with true Church membership, of necessity no faithful Church member can be a communist. We call upon all Church members completely to eschew Communism." (Message from the First Presidency, Heber J. Grant, J. Reuben Clark, David O. McKay, 1936)

 

"The conflict between communism and freedom is the problem of our time. It overshadows all other problems." (President David O. McKay, Conference Oct. 1959)

 

"The fight against godless communism is a very real part of every man's duty who holds the priesthood. It is the fight against slavery, immorality, atheism, terrorism, cruelty, barbarism, deceit, and the destruction of human life through a kind of tyranny unsurpassed by anything in human history. Here is the struggle against the evil, satanical priestcraft of Lucifer. Truly it can be called, a continuation of the war in heaven.

No true Latter-day Saint and no true American can be a socialist or a communist or support programs leading in that direction. These evil philosophies are incompatible with Mormonism, the true gospel of Jesus Christ."

(Ezra Taft Benson, Conference, Oct. 1961)

 

"Why are we so timid in standing up to a Godless communist police state…? Our liberty is in danger. We must be vigilant. Let us unite. Let us join in the fight against the forces of anti-Christ." (Ezra Taft Benson Oct. 1962)

 

"The position of this Church on the subject of communism has never changed. We consider it the greatest Satanical threat to peace, prosperity, and the spread of God's work among men that exists on the face of the earth." (President (David O. McKay, Conference, April 1966)

 

"Communism is Satan's counterfeit for the gospel plan...it is the greatest anti-Christ power in the world today and therefore the greatest menace...to our preservation as a free people. By the extent to which we tolerate it, accommodate ourselves to it, permit ourselves to be encircled by its tentacles and drawn to it, to that extent we forfeit the protection of the God of this land." (Marion G. Romney, First Presidency Message, Ensign, September 1979)

 

This is just a small sampling of the "reds under the bed" mentality of modern-day prophets and apostles. I could list more from Brigham Young, John Taylor, J. Reuben Clark, Stephen L. Richards, Melvin J. Ballard, Albert E Bowen, Spencer W. Kimball, Howard W. Hunter, and many others. 

These are men we have sustained as prophets, seers, and revelators. Don't you think it would be wise to seriously consider their warnings?

C'mon LDG, lay aside your political ideology and exercise a little faith in prophets and apostles. Have some faith that they actually understand a little about Satan's game plan and strategies. Have some faith that they warn about these things while being guided by the Holy Spirit. Have some faith that they are in fact God's "Watchmen upon the tower."

 

You wrote: "The US is hardly a bastion of freedom and liberty though is it..."

 

Cool. You and I actually agree on something! 

 

And why is it no longer a "bastion of freedom and liberty"?

Because for the past 100+ years we have slowly but surely supplanted constitutional principles with communist/socialist principles just as prophets and apostles warned us against.

We have done precisely what the Nephites of old were guilty of---we have allowed modern-day Gadianton Robbers to infiltrate government and corrupt the laws that God himself established; and if we continue further down the same path we will suffer for it just as they did. 

While J. Reuben Clark was serving as a counselor in the First Presidency he warned the members of the Church--- "The paths we are following will inevitably lead us to Socialism or Communism and these two are as like as two peas in a pod in their ultimate effect upon our liberties. Never forget for one moment that Communism and Socialism are state slavery."

He also said to those members of the Church who may have communist leanings--- "I ask you prayerfully and humbly to think this thing over, because if it comes here there will be a lot of vacant places among those who guide and direct this church of ours."

Think about a warning like that coming from a prophet, seer and revelator!

 

You wrote: "...and the only nation that has ever been founded by God was ancient Israel..."

 

I'll admit I'm totally baffled as to how any Latter-day Saint can make such a claim? 

Have you read and considered the 13th chapter of 1 Nephi?

Have you read and considered the 101st section of the D&C?

Have you read and considered Ezra Taft Benson's Conference talk of April 1962?

Have you read and considered the Church’s Bicentennial year message titled "God’s Hand in the Founding of America."?

America has its "Founding Fathers" and God proclaims that He "raised those men up for that very purpose"! 

Scores of past prophets and apostles have spoken about America's DIVINE "preparation", "founding", and "destiny". 

 

Like I said, you need to lay aside your political ideology long enough to read, ponder, and pray about those things prophets and apostles have said about communism, the importance of agency, and the preparation and destiny of America.

 

Edited March 23, 2015 by Capitalist_Oinker

[Latter Days Guy]

This confusion happens when you rely on media for your political point of view instead of studying the historical development of a specific geopolitical area.

 

Nope, I base my views on study, and actually talking to the people involved.

 

These arguments have gone on for too long - who did this, who did that, who fired first, who killed last... This is not how you determine a political point of view. This is what you do in a WORLD CUP SOCCER MATCH! You fling accusations like penalty kicks!

You can get a better understanding of what is going on in that area if you study the history of the Middle East as far back from Yasser Arafat as you can - as many sources as you can find. Pre 1800's history would be great. Study the population demographics (especially ethnicity) in this area and how it has changed and why it changed from then until now... who was in power, why power changed, what happened when power changed... and take into account the colonial era and what that meant to ethnicity and borders and government... and then take into account the end of the colonial era and what that meant to borders and government that leads to today.

 

I have done and there was very small numbers of Jews living in Palestine until be beginning of the modern Zionism movement.  There was however large groups of Palestinian Christians and Muslims under the Ottomans rule in that area.

 

And please try to find a reason why it wasn't until Arafat that a "Palestinian State" even became an issue... and they happen to land on that tiny area they have now instead of being absorbed into all the NEWLY FORMED AFTER WWI arab countries that occupy 99% (just my own guesstimate, don't quote me) of the Middle East. And especially why Jordan closed the doors to the PLO while at the same time egging on their conflict against the Israelis...

 

Actually there was a Palestinian independence movement during the Ottoman period.

Then note how there is only ONE Jewish State whereas there are numerous muslim countries 20+ of which are Arab Nations... yet Palestinians choose to stay in that teeny tiny patches of land and undermined border negotiations post WWII and then surrounding Arab Nations tell them they need to expand into Israel to support their population instead of expanding into... say Jordan or Egypt.

 

As far as I know there are no purely Muslim countries, Israel isn't a purely Jewish state either as it does in fact have Arab Christian and Muslim citizens.

Then try to figure out why the PLO still has the destruction of Israel in their charter and why Israel is peaceful with Egypt even ceding Sinai over (by the way, figure out why Israel owns Sinai in the first place to hand over to Egypt)... etc. etc.

 

Eh, no it doesn't and it hasn't done since they formally recogised that the State of Israel has a right to exist.

When you look at this rich history in detail then fly up to 5,000 feet and look down at what drives these events, you can see clearly that it's quite a miracle that Israel hasn't gotten blown up yet. And Netanyahu's determination and strength and political know-how has a lot to do with that. So that, instead of seeing a war criminal (as Nelson Mandela was seen by many), you might see how strong this little teeny tiny State has to be.

 

You are seriously comparing a right wing zealot with Nelson Mandela?

 

Now, of course, Palestinian territories are even more teeny tiny - but, looking at the history, you might see what I see - the INTENTIONAL isolation of the Palestinian territories from the 99% Arab/Muslim nations to make the Jewish State seem like a BIG BAD WOLF swatting at the little piggies... because, the truth that Israel is actually not fighting just Palestinians but the rest of its neighbors will make those silly "Israeli expansion of borders" pictures seem comical.

 

None of Israel's neighbours have fought against Israel since 1973, but then Israel has attacked several of its neighbours.  That says a lot more about Israel's intent in the region than its neighbours. 

You just might see what I see - that the Palestinians are merely PAWNS and that everyday Palestinians and their supporters don't need to be shaking their sticks at Israel and Netanyahu, rather, they need to have a come-to-Allah-moment with the muslim caliphate and the pan-arabists for their desperate lot in life - so desperate that they are driven to put bombs around their children to kill Israelis! The Sinai Peninsula is huge and it is owned by Egypt. So we could as easily have a Palestinian-Egyptian conflict and there's the West Bank which could easily have a Palestinian-Jordanian conflict - and it's not so out of the realm of possibility that Palestinians are going to strap bombs on their children to send to Egypt or Jordan. But no, it has to be Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Why is That?

 

It makes me think what would make someone so desperate that they would see no other option but to strap bombs to themselves to be heard?  The Palestinians have been marginalised since 1948 by the world community, Israel has ducked and dived its way out of the peace process at every opportunity.  But the crux of the matter is a large population of refugees from Europe were given the land of the indigenous Palestinian Arabs, thus creating a second group of refugees who have been without a homeland for over 60 years.  You do know that the Sinai was given back to Egypt with their peace treaty right?  That it was never actually a part of Israel or Palestine and has always been a part of Egypt?

The answer to that question may determine if Netanyahu is truly a war criminal.

 

All the evidence points to him being one and Israel is getting investigated by the Hague War Crimes tribunal so they must think so as well.

Edited March 23, 2015 by Latter Days Guy

[Latter Days Guy]

 

Yeah, those McCarthyites---what a bunch of maroons, eh?

Here's a sampling of some of their "reds under the bed mentality."

 

Your words not mine!  Though I think you meant MORON's and not a dark shade of red!

 

"Communism being hostile and incompatible with true Church membership, of necessity no faithful Church member can be a communist. We call upon all Church members completely to eschew Communism." (Message from the First Presidency, Heber J. Grant, J. Reuben Clark, David O. McKay, 1936)

 

"The conflict between communism and freedom is the problem of our time. It overshadows all other problems." (President David O. McKay, Conference Oct. 1959)

 

"The fight against godless communism is a very real part of every man's duty who holds the priesthood. It is the fight against slavery, immorality, atheism, terrorism, cruelty, barbarism, deceit, and the destruction of human life through a kind of tyranny unsurpassed by anything in human history. Here is the struggle against the evil, satanical priestcraft of Lucifer. Truly it can be called, a continuation of the war in heaven.

No true Latter-day Saint and no true American can be a socialist or a communist or support programs leading in that direction. These evil philosophies are incompatible with Mormonism, the true gospel of Jesus Christ."

(Ezra Taft Benson, Conference, Oct. 1961)

 

"Why are we so timid in standing up to a Godless communist police state…? Our liberty is in danger. We must be vigilant. Let us unite. Let us join in the fight against the forces of anti-Christ." (Ezra Taft Benson Oct. 1962)

 

"The position of this Church on the subject of communism has never changed. We consider it the greatest Satanical threat to peace, prosperity, and the spread of God's work among men that exists on the face of the earth." (President (David O. McKay, Conference, April 1966)

 

"Communism is Satan's counterfeit for the gospel plan...it is the greatest anti-Christ power in the world today and therefore the greatest menace...to our preservation as a free people. By the extent to which we tolerate it, accommodate ourselves to it, permit ourselves to be encircled by its tentacles and drawn to it, to that extent we forfeit the protection of the God of this land." (Marion G. Romney, First Presidency Message, Ensign, September 1979)

 

This is just a small sampling of the "reds under the bed" mentality of modern-day prophets and apostles. I could list more from Brigham Young, John Taylor, J. Reuben Clark, Stephen L. Richards, Melvin J. Ballard, Albert E Bowen, Spencer W. Kimball, Howard W. Hunter, and many others. 

These are men we have sustained as prophets, seers, and revelators. Don't you think it would be wise to seriously consider their warnings?

C'mon LDG, lay aside your political ideology and exercise a little faith in prophets and apostles. Have some faith that they actually understand a little about Satan's game plan and strategies. Have some faith that they warn about these things while being guided by the Holy Spirit. Have some faith that they are in fact God's "Watchmen upon the tower."

 

All well and nice but I'm not a communist, don't believe in communism but also don't believe in right wing garbage either.

 

 

You wrote: "The US is hardly a bastion of freedom and liberty though is it..."

 

Cool. You and I actually agree on something! 

 

And why is it no longer a "bastion of freedom and liberty"?

 

I blame the Martians, its always those pesky Martians... And communists.... No wait, you beat them... Its those pesky Moozlums!  

 

Because for the past 100+ years we have slowly but surely supplanted constitutional principles with communist/socialist principles just as prophets and apostles warned us against.

We have done precisely what the Nephites of old were guilty of---we have allowed modern-day Gadianton Robbers to infiltrate government and corrupt the laws that God himself established; and if we continue further down the same path we will suffer for it just as they did. 

While J. Reuben Clark was serving as a counselor in the First Presidency he warned the members of the Church--- "The paths we are following will inevitably lead us to Socialism or Communism and these two are as like as two peas in a pod in their ultimate effect upon our liberties. Never forget for one moment that Communism and Socialism are state slavery."

He also said to those members of the Church who may have communist leanings--- "I ask you prayerfully and humbly to think this thing over, because if it comes here there will be a lot of vacant places among those who guide and direct this church of ours."

Think about a warning like that coming from a prophet, seer and revelator!

 

You wrote: "...and the only nation that has ever been founded by God was ancient Israel..."

 

I'll admit I'm totally baffled as to how any Latter-day Saint can make such a claim? 

Have you read and considered the 13th chapter of 1 Nephi?

Have you read and considered the 101st section of the D&C?

Have you read and considered Ezra Taft Benson's Conference talk of April 1962?

Have you read and considered the Church’s Bicentennial year message titled "God’s Hand in the Founding of America."?

America has its "Founding Fathers" and God proclaims that He "raised those men up for that very purpose"! 

Scores of past prophets and apostles have spoken about America's DIVINE "preparation", "founding", and "destiny". 

 

Like I said, you need to lay aside your political ideology long enough to read, ponder, and pray about those things prophets and apostles have said about communism, the importance of agency, and the preparation and destiny of America.

 

The difference I see here is that God influenced the founding fathers and gave them the inspiration to write the constitution.  Where as in the case of Ancient Israel God was an active part of the conquest of the land and the creation of ancient Israel.

Edited March 23, 2015 by Latter Days Guy

[Guest]

It's really stupid to have to point this out... Latter Days Guy is clearly hard-lined.

Lebanon War - 70's and early 2000's

Rise of PLO insurgency in South Lebanon after they got kicked out of Jordan - Question - WHY did Jordan wash their hands of them and made them an Israeli problem?

1982 - Israeli invasion of South Lebanon - WHY? Remember the assassination attempt of Israel's ambassador to Britain? Do you also remember the PLO attacks against Northern Israel? After 10 years of this, Israel finally invaded South Lebanon and wiped the area clean. It's still going on until today... Iran is still funding Hezbollah and Israeli Prime Ministers continue making speeches about nuke ban on Iran...

All an Israeli has to do is sneeze on a Palestinian and Palestine has a cause to mass protest... Simply settled by one question - who gets to control the Territories? The loser or winner of war? Who gets to control the Falklands? Britain or Argentina? Same concept.

Like I said... PAWNS. All bought and paid for by anti-semitist powers and the bleeding hearts of gullible guys.

And by the way... War Criminal is neither left nor right wing. If that's how you see things then go play soccer with your politics. That's pretty much ALL it's worth.

If we're going to point marginalization of Palestinians since 1948 go put that entire lot and dump it on the lap of your beloved British Parliament. America has been cleaning your mess ever since!

Edited March 23, 2015 by anatess

[Capitalist_Oinker]

Your words not mine!  Though I think you meant MORON's and not a dark shade of red!

 

Maroon is a term made famous by a cartoon character (Bugs Bunny) meaning a pushover, or one easily fooled. Maybe he added an extra "o" to indicate a double moron?

 

You wrote: "All well and nice but I'm not a communist, don't believe in communism but also don't believe in right wing garbage either."

 

So in your opinion, which of those prophets and apostles (perhaps all?) were spouting "right wing garbage". 

 

You wrote: "I blame the Martians, its always those pesky Martians... And communists.... No wait, you beat them... Its those pesky Moozlums!"

 

Ah yes, a classic dodge. Run out of argument; ridicule the premise. How pathetic.

 

You wrote: "The difference I see here is that God influenced the founding fathers and gave them the inspiration to write the constitution.  Where as in the case of Ancient Israel God was an active part of the conquest of the land and the creation of ancient Israel."

 

The story of America began long before the Founding Fathers. 

The BOM clearly explains that God motivated Columbus (many prophets and apostles have affirmed that the "man among the Gentiles" Nephi saw in vision was Columbus) to cross the waters to America.

The BOM clearly explains that God motivated other Gentiles to travel to America also.

The BOM clearly explains that God fought their battles and delivered them out of the hands of those who would have enslaved them once more.

And as I've already pointed out, numerous prophets and apostles have spoken about America's DIVINE "preparation", "founding", and "destiny". President Benson spoke eloquently testifying that America was established by God to be His base of operations in the last days. 

But I suppose all of that is just more "right wing garbage"?

 

I'm curious, LDG. Is there anything a prophet or apostle could say, that wouldn't square with your left wing ideology, that you would accept as being true?

[Vort]

Your words not mine!  Though I think you meant MORON's and not a dark shade of red!

 

Clearly not a Bugs Bunny fan.