I don't need to be emotional. A lie is a lie. And you will get called out on it. I specifically explained what you lied about and supported it with evidence.
Just because you claim it does not mean it is so.
You need to go more in depth. Start with what you call 'Turkeys actions'. And then explain what you're complaining about.
What was legal about the invasion? What about UN resolutions 541 and 550? "International law" is a farce.
You need to try harder. Half truth's won't get by with me. I refuted your lie. You completely ignored my rebuttal and started getting personal.
Calling you a Jewish extremist isn't an insult either. You are a Jewish extremist as evident by your irrational views which keep getting worse and worse.
Or are you going to deny that and tell us that you're just an average American who mysteriously goes so far to justify the Israeli policy against the Palestinian people? Ha.
I haven't ignored anything--still waiting for your explanation of why you think I lied. Any time, now.
I agree, calling me a Jewish extremist isn't an insult. Calling me a Muslim extremist would have been an insult. Some of us still remember the PLO reign of terror, followed by Palestinians celebrating in the streets after 9/11. Now, I suppose you'll tell me that the Palestinians were framed, or that I'm lying. That would be perfect.
Your New York Times article written by none other than 'Jodi Rudoren' mentions that 'Israeli leaders never agreed to such a deal'. Yet they don't mention any of these leaders by name. And proceed by quoting the radical defense minister of Israel who isn't involved in political affairs.
Defense minister is a political position, so it's difficult to understand what you mean when you say he isn't involved in political affairs. I especially like the contrast of these two statements:
Yaalon is a defense minister, the Israeli politicians made these decisions.
And proceed by quoting the radical defense minister of Israel who isn't involved in political affairs.
That's what I mean by emotional, i.e. not logical. Don't take it personally, as I sympathize with your plight.
Israeli leaders went out in public in said they cancelled the prisoner release which they originally, according to them, were going to abide by.
Israel chose to delay it, for who knows how long in order to derail the timeline agreed upon. Here is the link:
Palestinian official: Israel says it won't release last batch of prisoners - Diplomacy and Defense Israel News | Haaretz
"The Israeli government has informed us through the American mediator
that it will not abide with its commitment to release the fourth batch of Palestinian prisoners scheduled for tomorrow, Saturday 29," AFP cited Fatah official Jibril Rajoub as saying
......
Why would Israel abide by the agreement, if the negotiations had been so poisoned that they could not trust that the Palestinians would not apply for membership in international organizations immediately afterwards? Can you imagine how START would have turned out if the US were fulfilling its side of the agreement, but Russia would not agree not to rebuild nuclear weapons that had been dismantled under the treaty after its completion? It's reasonable to expect a lasting result from negotiations.
Incidentally, this is precisely what Obama is missing when he releases terrorists from Guantanamo Bay in return for a traitor. The terrorists promise not to resume operations against the US, and then as soon as they are free, declare that they will continue to wage war against the US. Just so, why would Israel release a final tranche of prisoners in the expectation that the Palestinians would immediately apply to international organizations?
And then you have the decency to blame the secretary of the United States for derailing the peace talks. While you should be kissing his and his administration's feet for dedicating dozens of billions in military aid alone to Israel. Of course that doesn't prevent Israeli leaders from expressing anger with US officials. Because those people are arrogant.
Yes, Kerry was certainly a factor in the failure. Kerry structured the talks poorly, provided too short of a time frame, and then poisoned the atmosphere by lying to both sides and then leading each side to believe that the counter-party had lied. How could it have ended otherwise?
As always, you're welcome to the last word on this matter. I do enjoy our chats.
