|
| Posted by | Message | SammyTiger 
LSU Fan
Baton Rouge, LA
Member since Feb 2009
4756 posts
 Online
| re: Egypt’s New Leader Spells Out Terms for U.S.-Arab Ties (Posted on 9/23/12 at 1:01 pm to NC_Tigah)
I don't care if Egypt wants to take over its own destiny and politics. What do we need them for besides being stable enough for tourists to visit. If they want to take up the Palestinian State cause, as long as they do it diplomatically then i also have no problem with that.
It has to worry you that in a fledgling democracy a radical group like the Muslim Brotherhood is so popular.
| | Back to top | | Poodlebrain
LSU Fan
Way Right of Rex
Member since Jan 2004
12705 posts
| re: Egypt’s New Leader Spells Out Terms for U.S.-Arab Ties (Posted on 9/23/12 at 6:50 pm to trackfan)
quote:
Why shouldn't they expect to get all their territory back? The Germans started two world wars and got all of their territory back.
Really, where in Germany is Danzig? What about Konigsburg? At the end of WWII Poland moved several hundred miles west, and the Soviet Union took territory that used to be part of Poland.
quote:
Besides, they weren't the perpetrators of the Holocaust to begin with, so it was foolish of the West to not expect Arab resistance to their 1948 Israel plan.
They fought over the very existence of Israel three times and got their asses handed to them each time. Are you admitting that the Arabs' issue with Israel is still existential rather than just the status of the Occupied Territories? Because that is why the Palestinians haven't been able to negotiate in good faith. They haven't yet agreed to Israel's right to exist, much less any territorial concessions reflecting the outcomes of three wars.
| | Back to top | | trackfan
LSU Fan
Baton Rouge
Member since Sep 2010
10902 posts
| re: Egypt’s New Leader Spells Out Terms for U.S.-Arab Ties (Posted on 9/23/12 at 8:30 pm to Poodlebrain)
quote:
They fought over the very existence of Israel three times and got their asses handed to them each time. Are you admitting that the Arabs' issue with Israel is still existential rather than just the status of the Occupied Territories? Because that is why the Palestinians haven't been able to negotiate in good faith. They haven't yet agreed to Israel's right to exist, much less any territorial concessions reflecting the outcomes of three wars.
Of course the Arabs didn't accept Israel's right to exist in 1948 because they felt that Germans should be paying the price for the Holocaust, not them. However, the Egyptians accepted their right to exist in 1979 when they signed a Peace Treaty with Israel, the Palestinians accepted Israel's right to exist in 1993 when they signed the Oslo Peace Accords and the Jordanians accepted their right to exist in 1994 when the signed a Peace Treaty with Israel. Furthermore, in 2002, the whole Arab world signed off on the Saudi Peace Plan which was a de facto recognition of Israel's right to exist provided they comply with the outstanding U.N. resolutions regarding the conflict, in particular 194, 242 and 338.
| | Back to top | | Poodlebrain
LSU Fan
Way Right of Rex
Member since Jan 2004
12705 posts
| re: Egypt’s New Leader Spells Out Terms for U.S.-Arab Ties (Posted on 9/24/12 at 3:43 am to trackfan)
You incorrectly claimed that Germany lost no territory despite starting and losing two wars. Why should the Arabs be treated differently than the Germans when they started and lost three wars? That is the Palestinian demand, no territorial consequences for prior bad acts.
| | Back to top | | trackfan
LSU Fan
Baton Rouge
Member since Sep 2010
10902 posts
| re: Egypt’s New Leader Spells Out Terms for U.S.-Arab Ties (Posted on 9/24/12 at 7:07 am to Poodlebrain)
quote:
You incorrectly claimed that Germany lost no territory despite starting and losing two wars. Why should the Arabs be treated differently than the Germans when they started and lost three wars? That is the Palestinian demand, no territorial consequences for prior bad acts.
Because I don't consider the Arabs to be the instigators of the conflict, I consider the founding fathers of Israel to be the instigators. They are the original usurpers and terrorists. What the Arabs did in 1948 was just a reaction to what was done to them to begin with.
| | Back to top | | Poodlebrain
LSU Fan
Way Right of Rex
Member since Jan 2004
12705 posts
| re: Egypt’s New Leader Spells Out Terms for U.S.-Arab Ties (Posted on 9/24/12 at 8:39 am to trackfan)
Well than shouldn't Muslims give back all of the lands Mohammed conquered since he was the instigator of all the conflicts in the Middle East between Muslims and non-Muslims? Without Mohammed we wouldn't be having these issues. He was the greatest usurper the region has ever known, and he wasn't above using terror to achieve his aims. I can just as easily choose an arbitrary point in history to make my case as to who instigated the conflict.
| | Back to top | |
Back to top
|
