Europe, PM Cameron and obviously the world seems to stand behind the most powerful man in the world.

Now whats your opinion?

@topic,

If the 1967 borders were the solution, why then was there a war between Isreal and her neighbors? So would Gaza go back under Egyptian control then?

Tayo-D:

@topic,

If the 1967 borders were the solution, why then was there a war between Isreal and her neighbors? So would Gaza go back under Egyptian control then?

I do not see how Gaza and Egyptian control has any link with the issue above. The fact of the matter is that the area been asked to give back are occupied territories which were not part of the original plan in the creation of the state of Isreal.

TayoD am sure you have been told times without number that when someone in an act of deceit takes what is not theirs that's stealing, and when someone takes what is not theirs by force that's robbery.

@Ikomi,

This is why it is difficult to have an intellectually robust discussion with you. So you are unaware that Gaza was under Egyptian rule in 1967 and that Israel actually took over the territory from an antagonistic neighbor?

There was no act of deceit here. Again you start your argument from a wrong premise. Israel obtained that territory and others from neighbors that were amassing to wipe them out. If my neighbor builds a tower to take snipe shots at me in order to kill me and my children, it is not a theft if I chase him out of that tower and take it over until he renounces violence against me and mine.

Tayo-D:

@Ikomi,

This is why it is difficult to have an intellectually robust discussion with you. So you are unaware that Gaza was under Egyptian rule in 1967 and that Israel actually took over the territory from an antagonistic neighbor?

There was no act of deceit here. Again you start your argument from a wrong premise. Israel obtained that territory and others from neighbors that were amassing to wipe them out. If my neighbor builds a tower to take snipe shots at me in order to kill me and my children, it is not a theft if I chase him out of that tower and take it over until he renounces violence against me and mine.

So you would have Israel withdraw to the '67 borders on the condition that the Arabs say "no more war" and demonstrate their readiness to accept Israel?

MyJoe:

So you would have Israel withdraw to the '67 borders on the condition that[b] the Arabs say "no more war" and demonstrate their readiness to accept Israel?[/b]

Yup. When pigs fly & TayoD becomes a Liberal

Ayatollah Ikomi, how body now? longest time.

JeSoul:

Yup. When pigs fly & TayoD becomes a Liberal

Well, I'm not so sure. If my memory serves me right, the Saudis, the Syrians and some others have expressed their willingness to accept this position.

^perhaps there is an Arab leadership minority that genuinely wants peace with their Israeli neighbor - but that's what it is, unfortunately a minority.

wat ef is this, obama got the right to do what he wants to, the arab leaders are the evil in all these can't you see,

JeSoul:

^perhaps there is an Arab leadership minority that genuinely wants peace with their Israeli neighbor - but that's what it is, unfortunately a minority.

We can't be so sure of that, either. Remember Egypt and Jordan already have diplomatic ties with Israel. Morocco, Algeria and Mauritania are not particularly anti-Israel. Egypt is the most important country in the Arab world, followed, probably, by Saudi Arabia. If these accept Israel with the other countries mentioned, that would leave the likes of Libya and Iran in the minority and those can't really influence nada as far as peace goes. Even they can be brought over - all it would take is a change of leadership.

MyJoe:

We can't be so sure of that, either. Remember Egypt and Jordan already have diplomatic ties with Israel. Morocco, Algeria and Mauritania are not particularly anti-Israel. Egypt is the most important country in the Arab world, followed, probably, by Saudi Arabia. If these accept Israel with the other countries mentioned, that would leave the likes of Libya and Iran in the minority and those can't really influence nada as far as peace goes. Even they can be brought over - all it would take is a change of leadership.

I like your positivity, but I think you're painting a far more optimistic situation than actually exists. I'm not an expert on Israeli affairs/history, but as of today, of the what 24? members of the Arab League, only 2 of them (Egypt and Jordan as you mentioned) have ties with Israel- that is a very slim and revealing statistic. Though yes Egypt is a powerful ally, that alone does not begin to scratch at the deficit (not to mention the same Egypt is currently struggling, and the Islamists are smelling blood and want to take over and the future of the nation's political dispensation is still in question).

  As for the change in leadership - I'm not so optimistic about that either. I belive a nation is reflected in their leadership. I believe leaders like Dinnerjacket got into power because they have and continue to have support from the majority of their people. I don't think majority of the ME wants to be at peace with Israel. The hate is too deep and ingrained.

  But hey, I could be wrong. It wouldn't be the first or last time.

Tayo-D:

@Ikomi,

This is why it is difficult to have an intellectually robust discussion with you. So you are unaware that Gaza was under Egyptian rule in 1967 and that Israel actually took over the territory from an antagonistic neighbor?

There was no act of deceit here. Again you start your argument from a wrong premise. Israel obtained that territory and others from neighbors that were amassing to wipe them out. If my neighbor builds a tower to take snipe shots at me in order to kill me and my children, it is not a theft if I chase him out of that tower and take it over until he renounces violence against me and mine.

Your stupidity has not left you after a long while of my absence, and you will never learn to stay away from that individual that lacks mental rigor.

I still ask you how Egypt ruling over Gaza has anything to do with Israel going back to the 1967 agreed borders between Palestine and Israel.

You would always keep confusing yourself with the illusion that you are making a point. Proper I.d.i.o.t. I wanted an opinion not an argument.

What you are trying to point out is like the case of Britain in the days it ruled Taiwan. It was only a former colony. Therefore today in your opinion, the Taiwanese Govt has only 2 choices. It either accepts Chinese leadership, or go back to British rule, but never call for Taiwan's independence. Your such an i.d.i.o.t.

@topic,

People don't need to look any further than nairaland to understand why the Mid East may never know peace.  With leading characters as temperament and hard-headed as Ayatollah Ikomi, what hope is there for the region?

Just like a leading Fatah cabinet member said that Netanyahu's address to US legislators was an act of war, we see a similar man of like passion here on nairaland treading the war path for the silliest of excuses. These followers of the religion of piss sha!!!

.

ghostmaile:

Well what can I say, since our dear republicans have thrown their weight behind Natayahu, That fat pig!~

You need not be surprised, it was Pat Buchanan that once said and I quote "The US congress is an Isreali occupied territory".

JeSoul:

I like your positivity, but I think you're painting a far more optimistic situation than actually exists. I'm not an expert on Israeli affairs/history, but as of today, of the what 24? members of the Arab League, only 2 of them (Egypt and Jordan as you mentioned) have ties with Israel- that is a very slim and revealing statistic. Though yes Egypt is a powerful ally, that alone does not begin to scratch at the deficit (not to mention the same Egypt is currently struggling, and the Islamists are smelling blood and want to take over and the future of the nation's political dispensation is still in question).

  As for the change in leadership - I'm not so optimistic about that either. I belive a nation is reflected in their leadership. I believe leaders like Dinnerjacket got into power because they have and continue to have support from the majority of their people. I don't think majority of the ME wants to be at peace with Israel. The hate is too deep and ingrained.

  But hey, I could be wrong. It wouldn't be the first or last time.

Well, it was actually a small coalition made up of the Saudi and a few other Arab states, not the Saudis and the Syrians as I said earlier, that came up with the position I alluded to earlier. The Syrians have always told anyone that thrusts a microphone in front their noses that the only problem they have with Israel is the Golan Heights.

On Egypt the current rulers of the country have stated explicitly that they will honour the country’s agreements with Israel, so no threats there. The Muslim Brotherhood says it is not interested in running the country, so no threats from there.

It’s true a nation is reflected in its leadership, but to what extent do decisions taken by leaders reflect popular sentiments? Whether in democracies or dictatorships, leaders don’t always consider the will on the streets. I have listened to countless people from the USA and other Western countries complain endlessly about the fact their governments give aid to third world countries. They wonder why their government won’t fix their own unemployment, indebtedness and destitution first before giving aid to poor countries. But whatever government comes to power in Washington or London, liberal or conservative, these aids continue. Why? Because the leadership sees things the man on the street doesn’t. They have an understanding of the national interest that eludes the masses. That is why they can take decisions they believe are good for the country, sometimes not minding what the man on the street thinks.

Coming to the Middle East. Those who killed Anwar Sadat may have thought a new government will jettison the agreements with Israel, but what did they get? And now you have another government stating clearly they intend to leave things as they are. The crowds in Egypt and Jordan (not sure of the percentages, though) are opposed to peace with Israel yet successive governments have eagerly kept the position. Why, then, can’t other Arab governments do the same? Ahmadinejad got to power because he had the support of the religious establishment which controls the levers of the Iranian theocratic state. He does not have the support of the majority of the Iranian people. Yes, Iran is a special case, with all those mullahs. It would require a change of the leadership structure of Iran for anything positive to happen – and in spite of Egypt and Tunisia, I doubt that is likely to happen soon.

Also, I’d really like to state that the problem of intransigence in this matter is not the exclusive property of the Arabs. With the coalition currently ruling Israel – Likud-Yisrael Bitenu! – Obama is wasting his time. You don’t tell a government led by Netanyahu and Liberman to give up one inch of anything. In fact, the likes of Liberman would sooner see the Palestinians driven out of Gaza and the West Bank to make way for Greater Israel. Israel will not accept Obama’s position, not because “it is not the solution” as the “conservative” fellow says up there, but because, like Hamas and co, a section of the Israeli society wants everything.

If the ’67 thing is taken serious, I believe almost all the Arab countries that are friendly with the US can be brought on board to make peace with Israel. Oh, yes, there are other issues. But there always are. And maybe a democratic Middle East will also help, since no two democratic states have ever gone to war against each other. Whatever you may think of him, maybe Bush was smart to want a democratic Middle East!

Netanyahu is such a joke. Mr. "I want freedom for everyone". His everyone must exclude Palestinians.

JeSoul:

I like your positivity, but I think you're painting a far more optimistic situation than actually exists. I'm not an expert on Israeli affairs/history, but as of today, of the what 24? members of the Arab League, only 2 of them (Egypt and Jordan as you mentioned) have ties with Israel- that is a very slim and revealing statistic. Though yes Egypt is a powerful ally, that alone does not begin to scratch at the deficit (not to mention the same Egypt is currently struggling, and the Islamists are smelling blood and want to take over and the future of the nation's political dispensation is still in question).

  As for the change in leadership - I'm not so optimistic about that either. I belive a nation is reflected in their leadership. I believe leaders like Dinnerjacket got into power because they have and continue to have support from the majority of their people. I don't think majority of the ME wants to be at peace with Israel. The hate is too deep and ingrained.

  But hey, I could be wrong. It wouldn't be the first or last time.

Jesoul, no insult intended but i think-just a thought- you should go back to the religion section, as anyone that follows the Israeli-Palestine conflict knows that the Arabs had given the Isreali the Land for peace proposal which simply indicates that unless the Isreali returns land that stole sorry collected with force they will be no peace, for you to indicate that they are insincere is to claim to be in league with the holy ghost in order to read peoples mind, now that in itself is being hypocritical and tantamount to assaulting the sacred value of ruth. What people like you pretend sorry again are ignorant of is that Isreal actually killed, terrorize and forcefully ejected the Palestine out of their land. What makes Isreal a joke is their policy of importing "Jews" from abroad to fill up lands they stole, yet the real owners whom they kicked out they insist must not return back to Palestien now called Isreal.

Again you pretend as if you have survey the opinion of the arabs really think about the peace with Isreal. What i do know people like Netanyahu and the overwhelming majority of Isrealis prefer keeping stolen lands rather than peace. The truth of the matter is that this is only possible because the Isreali nation depends on American funds and fundamentalist christians whom, expect the another world war to start from the ME using the problem, to keep it policy of stealing and massacring the Palestine

Isreal obviously owns the united states, but if anyone says that publicly they get branded an anti-Semite or a Jew hater. Just goes to show how deep their ownership is.

Obama is being naive and extremely fóolish by suggesting that Israel should turn the clock back into time amid the painful sacrifices made. . .bullshyt!!!

The surrounding countries have stated their intention to eliminate the state of Isreal. In 1967 they launch a premeditated & unprovoked attack by multiple countries on multiple fronts against Isreal to try & wipe them out. Isreal kicks their asses and then keeps much of the land they secured BECAUSE OF THE UPROVOKED ATTACK by these other countires. Now they say thats not fair. KMA. Isreal should have continued the war and taken over the whole region - maybe the could do somthing beside breed dictators and terrorists.

What's funny is, in 1948, the Israelis were willing to live within the boundaries set up by the United Nations -, so you'd think everybody would've been happy with the arrangement -- but the Arab countries surrounding the old Mandate weren't, and immediately fell in upon Israel in 1948, shortly after it declared itself a sovereign nation (Harry Truman, God bless him, almost immediately declared that the U.S. recognized Israel as a sovereign state).

That first war of annihilation, which backfired badly on those Arabs and their Arab Legion, led to the famous saying "Ein breira," or "there is no alternative." That means the Israelis would love to just live in peace, but if given no other choice, which the Arabs almost have never given them, they'll fight.

I'm confused, as well, by what part of "Never Again," the Left just refuses to understand? Netanyahu said it again in his speech to the Congress the other day, reinforcing it even more by saying that "When we say never again, we really mean NEVER AGAIN."

That should tell everybody the lengths to which Israel will go to prevent another Jewish Holocaust. I can't say that I'm not sympathetic with his observation, that's for sure. And all the Palestinians have to do is accept a Jewish state called Israel and their problems would immediately be solved.

@topic,

In conflict resolution, The President's brand is "idealism". We have seen him exhibited this trait time after time. So this does not come as a surprise. Just as it was out-of-element for President Bush to yield for peaceful outcomes, it is out-of-nature for President Obama to confront harshly.
Now, ethical and moral conscience demands that losses can be graciously endured as a sacrifice for the progress and unity of mankind. An altruistic positioning!

On the other hand, mundane reality teaches us by way of experience and history that any concession made, faithfully in trust, or as a negotiated outlet for survival, must be done so with prudence and forbearance.

In view of developments, current and projected, in the Middle East, what guarantees of securities do the Jews have, not just from the Arabs, but from Europeans as well - who twice in history has targeted them for extinction- ?

Negro_Ntns:

@topic,

In conflict resolution, The President's brand is "idealism". We have seen him exhibited this trait time after time. So this does not come as a surprise. Just as it was out-of-element for President Bush to yield for peaceful outcomes, it is out-of-nature for President Obama to confront harshly.
Now, ethical and moral conscience demands that losses can be graciously endured as a sacrifice for the progress and unity of mankind. An altruistic positioning!

On the other hand, mundane reality teaches us by way of experience and history that any concession made, faithfully in trust, or as a negotiated outlet for survival, must be done so with prudence and forbearance.

In view of developments, current and projected, in the Middle East, what guarantees of securities do the Jews have, not just from the Arabs, but from Europeans as well - who twice in history has targeted them for extinction- ?

LOL. In that case who is the true enemy Arabs or Europeans. Watch your answer cause my next question would be why the Palestinians should pay for others sins.

Negro_Ntns:

Now, ethical and moral conscience demands that losses can be graciously endured as a sacrifice for the progress and unity of mankind. An altruistic positioning!

On the other hand, mundane reality teaches us by way of experience and history that any concession made, faithfully in trust, or as a negotiated outlet for survival, must be done so with prudence and forbearance.

Gbam so hard that in infact just close the thread now lol.

vedaxcool:

Jesoul, no insult intended but i think-just a thought- you should go back to the religion section, as anyone that follows the Israeli-Palestine conflict knows that the Arabs had given the Isreali the Land for peace proposal which simply indicates that unless the Isreali returns land that stole sorry collected with force they will be no peace, for you to indicate that they are insincere is to claim to be in league with the holy ghost in order to read peoples mind, now that in itself is being hypocritical and tantamount to assaulting the sacred value of ruth. What people like you pretend sorry again are ignorant of is that Isreal actually killed, terrorize and forcefully ejected the Palestine out of their land. What makes Isreal a joke is their policy of importing "Jews" from abroad to fill up lands they stole, yet the real owners whom they kicked out they insist must not return back to Palestien now called Isreal.

Again you pretend as if you have survey the opinion of the arabs really think about the peace with Isreal. What i do know people like Netanyahu and the overwhelming majority of Isrealis prefer keeping stolen lands rather than peace. The truth of the matter is that this is only possible because the Isreali nation depends on American funds and fundamentalist christians whom, expect the another world war to start from the ME using the problem, to keep it policy of stealing and massacring the Palestine

The problem with people like you . . . when you encounter a position that is in the slightest of contradiction to yours, you only have one tactic to employ - tell them they don't know anything. So darn predictable you lot are.

Do us both a favor, skip over my posts anytime you see them. We wouldn't want you stooping down and condescending to respond to reasoning that is beneath your self-ascribed intelligence. I would send you back to the religion section, but better yet, go back to your local cleric or anti-isreal website and get your weekly update of 'anti-zionist' talking points so you can regurgitate anytime you see the key word 'Israel'. *shakes the dust off and moves on*

Let me respond to better pesin jare . . . Myjoe,

MyJoe:

Well, it was actually a small coalition made up of the Saudi and a few other Arab states, not the Saudis and the Syrians as I said earlier, that came up with the position I alluded to earlier. The Syrians have always told anyone that thrusts a microphone in front their noses that the only problem they have with Israel is the Golan Heights.

  Honestly dear, I have very little confidence in most Arab nations. While there are no moral (in the pure sense of the word) nations in the world, there are some that score far far less in that regard. It was just yesterday it was reported the Syrian govt was gunning their own citizens, protesters. I grade a nation by how they treat their own citizens, and Arab/ME countries are notorious offenders of human rights - of their own people self. Egypt showed they are a different breed by how their crisis was handled - Syria, yemen and co show they're not. The intl press was supressed in almost every other place apart from Egypt. There is a fundamental problem that needs to be addressed before any meaningful trust or alliances can be formed. Which is why I give Israel the benefit of the doubt - as far as I know, they don't kill their people and no one is held accountable, shut down the press and haul off opponents to black holes and no one ever sees them again. Have they also done plenty of wrong? hell yes! and a lot of it was done to defend themselves and protect their interests from very hostile neighbors.

On Egypt the current rulers of the country have stated explicitly that they will honour the country’s agreements with Israel, so no threats there. The Muslim Brotherhood says it is not interested in running the country, so no threats from there.

Really Myjoe? when did we start taking the word of the MB?

It’s true a nation is reflected in its leadership, but to what extent do decisions taken by leaders reflect popular sentiments? Whether in democracies or dictatorships, leaders don’t always consider the will on the streets.

  To the extent that the people allow it, and do nothing. That is honestly my belief. It is true that the leaders do not consult the masses before making these decisions but at the end of the day, they were either elected or chosen and supported enough to rise to power - that is tacit approval. I don't believe people have a right to complain about leadership if they do nothing to change it. And if the majority is not enough to change it, it means they approve of it. I know things are not always this black and white, but as a general approach, this is my belief.

I have listened to countless people from the USA and other Western countries complain endlessly about the fact their governments give aid to third world countries. They wonder why their government won’t fix their own unemployment, indebtedness and destitution first before giving aid to poor countries. But whatever government comes to power in Washington or London, liberal or conservative, these aids continue. Why? Because the leadership sees things the man on the street doesn’t. They have an understanding of the national interest that eludes the masses. That is why they can take decisions they believe are good for the country, sometimes not minding what the man on the street thinks.

This I agree with 100%. And I said something similar a while back. Which is why I have scarcely criticized Obama foreign policy - especially his handling of Egypt and co.

JeSoul:

Prez and Thameamead,

  As much as I agree with both of you about the sorry state of the dynamics of international politics, I can't help but feel that I think if we were in a position of power, we would see things very differently, and be less cavalier about what we expect to happen. What you're asking of Obama is unrealistic in the world that we live in. A leader has to do what he has to do for the best interest of his country - not his ideals. He cannot risk antagonizing the source of our oil, or attack the Chinese on their human rights violations because they're our bankers right now etc etc. If he were Bono or Nelson Mandela or some other private citizen/activist that would be a different story. Honestly, we have to sometimes put idealism on the backburner and face up with realism.

Realism in international relations theory
Realism in international relations theory is one of the dominant schools of thinking within the international relations discipline. Realism or political realism prioritizes national interest and security over ideology, moral concerns and social reconstructions. This term is often synonymous with power politics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realism_in_international_relations_theory

Coming to the Middle East. Those who killed Anwar Sadat may have thought a new government will jettison the agreements with Israel, but what did they get? And now you have another government stating clearly they intend to leave things as they are. The crowds in Egypt and Jordan (not sure of the percentages, though) are opposed to peace with Israel yet successive governments have eagerly kept the position. Why, then, can’t other Arab governments do the same? Ahmadinejad got to power because he had the support of the religious establishment which controls the levers of the Iranian theocratic state. He does not have the support of the majority of the Iranian people. Yes, Iran is a special case, with all those mullahs. It would require a change of the leadership structure of Iran for anything positive to happen – and in spite of Egypt and Tunisia, I doubt that is likely to happen soon.

  Honestly, I think the likes of Egypt are a different breed. I think their people think differently and that is reflected in the kind of society they have today. About dinejad, you say he rose because of the religious establishment . . . who makes up the religious establishment? that is not altogether different from the people is it? Perhaps he in particular may not be popular - but I believe his flavor of politics and views certainly are. In any case, what does it matter anyways? he (and anyone else installed into the office) is merely a figurehead taking orders from the Supreme Leader.

Also, I’d really like to state that the problem of intransigence in this matter is not the exclusive property of the Arabs. With the coalition currently ruling Israel – Likud-Yisrael Bitenu! – Obama is wasting his time. You don’t tell a government led by Netanyahu and Liberman to give up one inch of anything. In fact, the likes of Liberman would sooner see the Palestinians driven out of Gaza and the West Bank to make way for Greater Israel. Israel will not accept Obama’s position, not because “it is not the solution” as the “conservative” fellow says up there, but because, like Hamas and co, a section of the Israeli society wants everything.

Ehen now, who be mugu? when you're surrounded largely by hounds licking their chops at the prospects of your demise, you berra arm yourself and your leadership with the baddest of badasses to run things (forgive my choice of diction lol).

If the ’67 thing is taken serious, I believe almost all the Arab countries that are friendly with the US can be brought on board to make peace with Israel. Oh, yes, there are other issues. But there always are. And maybe a democratic Middle East will also help, since no two democratic states have ever gone to war against each other. Whatever you may think of him, maybe Bush was smart to want a democratic Middle East!

Lai lai. I wish I shared your optimism, rather, I suspect if the land was given back, they will quickly find something else they want given back. Until they become 'moral' nations, I would not consider making any kind of concessions as I feel they would be wasted on the wrong generation of leadership/people.

violent:


Obama is being naive and extremely fóolish by suggesting that Israel should turn the clock back into time amid the painful sacrifices made. . .bullshyt!!!

The surrounding countries have stated their intention to eliminate the state of Isreal. In 1967 they launch a premeditated & unprovoked attack by multiple countries on multiple fronts against Isreal to try & wipe them out. Isreal kicks their asses and then keeps much of the land they secured BECAUSE OF THE UPROVOKED ATTACK by these other countires. Now they say thats not fair. KMA. Isreal should have continued the war and taken over the whole region - maybe the could do somthing beside breed dictators and terrorists.

What's funny is, in 1948, the Israelis were willing to live within the boundaries set up by the United Nations -, so you'd think everybody would've been happy with the arrangement -- but the Arab countries surrounding the old Mandate weren't, and immediately fell in upon Israel in 1948, shortly after it declared itself a sovereign nation (Harry Truman, God bless him, almost immediately declared that the U.S. recognized Israel as a sovereign state).

That first war of annihilation, which backfired badly on those Arabs and their Arab Legion, led to the famous saying "Ein breira," or "there is no alternative." That means the Israelis would love to just live in peace, but if given no other choice, which the Arabs almost have never given them, they'll fight.

I'm confused, as well, by what part of "Never Again," the Left just refuses to understand? Netanyahu said it again in his speech to the Congress the other day, reinforcing it even more by saying that "When we say never again, we really mean NEVER AGAIN."

That should tell everybody the lengths to which Israel will go to prevent another Jewish Holocaust. I can't say that I'm not sympathetic with his observation, that's for sure. And all the Palestinians have to do is accept a Jewish state called Israel and their problems would immediately be solved.

The whole crux of the matter, and a song they continue to sing to whomever will listen.
As Negro said, I don't think Obama is naive at all. He is merely an idealist who's read too many utopian books, dreamt too many utopian dreams and discussed too many utopian ideals - while sipping green tea in a buddhist temple in the mountains of the Sichuan province in China. He knows how the world works, but foolishly hopes he can change people with his words, instead of accepting the reality on ground and working within it towards a realistic end.

JeSoul:

The whole crux of the matter, and a song they continue to sing to whomever will listen.
As Negro said, I don't think Obama is naive at all. He is merely an idealist who's read too many utopian books, dreamt too many utopian dreams and discussed too many utopian ideals - while sipping green tea in a buddhist temple in the mountains of the Sichuan province in China. He knows how the world works, but foolishly hopes he can change people with his words, instead of accepting the reality on ground and working within it[b] towards a realistic end[/b].

In one sentence define for us what you mean by a realistic end.

Ikomi:

In one sentence define for us what you mean by a realistic end.

Unity a la Barney & friends style is the idealistic/unrealistic end. Co-existence (without constant threats of war & annihilation) is the realitistic end.

You sef, I greeted you earlier and you didn't answer me, na so you vex for Tayo reach? lol

JeSoul:

You sef, I greeted you earlier and you didn't answer me, na so you vex for Tayo reach? lol

That guy in his absolute ignorance makes me cringe.

JeSoul:

Unity a la Barney & friends style is the idealistic/unrealistic end. Co-existence (without constant threats of war & annihilation) is the realitistic end.

And you believe you can achieve that with injustice. I can tell you right from your definition it is not Obama that is unrealistic. There would never be peace with injustice.

And you believe you can achieve that with injustice. I can tell you right from your definition it is not Obama that is unrealistic. There would never be peace with injustice.

And how do you define injustice?

violent:

And how do you define injustice?

Simple Chief: Violation of rights or the right of another.  _{Mariam-Webster Dictionary}

In other words Isreal as a nation has the right to exist, while the Palestinians has the right to sovereignty within its defined borders. Full Stop.

Hope I answered your question chairman?

Ikomi:

Simple Chief: Violation of rights or the right of another. _{Mariam-Webster Dictionary}

In other words Isreal as a nation has the right to exist, while the Palestinians has the right to sovereignty within its defined borders. Full Stop.

Hope I answered your question chairman?

So what happens when Israel's right to exist as a nation is threatened? Do you suppose it is unjust if a smaller nation (by landmass) takes measures to protect itself from bigger sharks who feel it shouldn't have a right to exist?