If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(BBC)   Palestinians: we can haz state, army, munitions control of airspace? Netanyahu: no, not yours. Mubarak: LOL WUT   (news.bbc.co.uk) divider line 247
    More: Fail  
•       •       •

8364 clicks; posted to Main » on 15 Jun 2009 at 5:44 PM (4 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



247 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2009-06-15 09:07:15 PM
NeoKhan: If the Palestinians had military superiority, the Israelis would all be dead.

You are speculating on the future. This is wholly impossible to prove.
 
2009-06-15 09:10:10 PM
What Went Wrong? The Collapse of the Israeli-Palestinian Peace Process.
CAMP DAVID

The general perception of the Camp David summit negotiations in July 2000 is that Barak made an unprecedented and generous offer to the Palestinians, only to be met by a shocking if not perverse rejection by Arafat, who was not only unwilling to compromise but responded by ordering a violent uprising at just the moment when the chances for peace had never been greater.

There was just enough surface plausibility in this narrative initially to have persuaded even the Israeli peace camp that they had naively misunderstood the real intentions of the Palestinian leadership and that Israel really did lack a partner for peace. But this disillusion with the Palestinians quickly gave way to a more sober reassessment among serious Israeli analysts, many of whom now are far more critical of Barak's proposals and developed a much greater empathetic understanding of the plight of Arafat and the Palestinians.

The first difficulty in assessing Camp David, as well as subsequent Israeli- Palestinian negotiations that continued until just before the February elections, is that all of Barak's proposals were verbal; evidently seeking to keep all his options open, even as he was supposedly negotiating a final settlement, Barak refused to allow the creation of an official record. As a result, even the partici- pants at Camp David and at subsequent meetings have differing accounts of precisely what Barak offered.

Still, there is general agreement on the main lines of Barak's verbal proposals:
• Israel would agree to a demilitarized Palestinian state in Gaza and 82-88 percent of the West Bank. In subsequent discussions with the Palestinians, Israeli negotiators apparently improved this offer to about 92 percent of the West Bank, though it is not clear whether Barak approved this change.
• On boundaries, Barak proposed to have Israel return to its pre-1967 bor- ders, with what he portrayed as only minor exceptions. A small part of the West Bank would be annexed to Israel, in areas immediately contiguous to Jerusalem or to the pre-1967 Israeli lines, within which 80 percent of the Israeli settlers were located. As compensation for this annexation of Pales- tinian land, there would be a territorial exchange, in which the Palestinian state would be given some Israeli land in the Negev desert adjacent to the Gaza Strip.
• On the remainder of the settlements in the heavily Palestinian-populated Gaza Strip and West Bank heartland-many of which contained the most fanatical settlers-Barak was murky. It is still not known whether he con- templated that these settlements would be removed upon an overall agree-ment; whether they would be allowed to remain in place if they so chose, but as part of the new state of Palestine; or whether they would be under nominal Palestinian sovereignty but actual Israeli military control.23 In all likelihood, not even Barak knew his own mind on this crucial issue.
• On Jerusalem, Barak proposed to incorporate into an enlarged Greater Je- rusalem all the Jewish settlements that had been built throughout Arab East Jerusalem since 1967, as well as those in the city's suburbs, which in fact extend far into the West Bank. The Palestinians would be given sover- eignty over the remaining Arab neighborhoods in East Jerusalem, as well as over the Muslim Quarter in the Old City of Jerusalem, and they would be allowed to establish their capital in these areas. Israel would retain sov- ereignty over the rest of the Old City, though at least for a while Barak apparently considered some kind of mixed sovereignty over what the Israe- lis call the Temple Mount and the Arabs call Haram al-Sharif, meaning the plateau on which stand the two major Muslim holy places, the al-Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock.
• On the Jordan river valley and nearby mountain tops, Barak insisted on continued Israeli settlements, early warning stations, and military bases and patrols for a period of six-twelve years, after which the Israeli security requirements could be reevaluated. Evidently Barak left open the possibil- ity that these Israeli forces could be nominally part of a broader interna- tional peacekeeping force, but it was clear that Israel would continue its military presence and effective control over the area.
• On the water issue, Barak apparently proposed only that Israel and the Pal- estinians cooperate on expanding the water resources for both states, prin- cipally through desalination. However, most of the existing water aquifers would be located within the 6-8 percent of the West Bank that would be annexed by Israel.
• On the Palestinian refugee issue, Barak refused to acknowledge that Israel bore any moral or historical responsibility for the creation of the refugee problem, even rejecting Palestinian papers that quoted extensively from Is- raeli memoirs, military statements, and the Israeli new history scholar- ship.24 Nor was he open to considering the possibility of distinguishing be- tween the principle and the practical implementation of any Palestinian refugee rights. At most, Barak would allow some 10,000 refugees to return to Israel as part of a family reunification program, not as a Palestinian right but as an Israeli gesture.
 
2009-06-15 09:10:27 PM
Party Boy: Maul555: not speculation

So wheres your proof?

-----

Israel's LawyerUnfortunately, too often we lose sight of the need to be advocates for both Arabs and Israelis. The most recent example of this was the Clinton administration's effort in 1999-2000 to broker final deals between Israel, Syria and the Palestinians.

With the best of motives and intentions, we listened to and followed Israel's lead without critically examining what that would mean for our own interests, for those on the Arab side and for the overall success of the negotiations. The "no surprises" policy, under which we had to run everything by Israel first, stripped our policy of the independence and flexibility required for serious peacemaking. If we couldn't put proposals on the table without checking with the Israelis first, and refused to push back when they said no, how effective could our mediation be? Far too often, particularly when it came to Israeli-Palestinian diplomacy, our departure point was not what was needed to reach an agreement acceptable to both sides but what would pass with only one -- Israel.

This critique should not diminish then-Prime Minister Ehud Barak's boldness at Camp David or Yasser Arafat's failure to negotiate seriously there. But the primary issue was neither Barak's generosity nor Arafat's perfidy; instead, the emphasis should have been on assessing, coldly and objectively, what it would take to reach an agreement acceptable to both sides. If we knew the gaps were too large (and we suspected they were), we should have resisted Barak's pressure to go for a make-or-break summit and then blame the Palestinians when it failed. What we ended up doing was advocating Israel's positions before, during and after the summit.


I was talking about the firing incidents at farmers and fishing boats... You are trying to get me to argue something that I have never mentioned after ignoring my previous comments about yet a different sub-topic. Try directing your text at someone who responded to the negations with Clinton and Arafat...
 
2009-06-15 09:11:54 PM
Party Boy, you are starting to look like a very good troll... I will give you a 10/10 if you just admit it.
 
2009-06-15 09:12:21 PM
It is true that Barak's proposal went further than any other previous Israeli offer to the Palestinians, especially in agreeing to a Palestinian state and to the sharing of at least part of Jerusalem. On the other hand, it is no less true that Barak's proposals fell far short of a genuinely fair compromise that would result in a viable Palestinian state. Within a few weeks of Camp David, a number of Israeli political analysts had reached this conclusion.25 Particularly revealing was the forthright assessment of Ze'ev Schiff, the dean of Israel's military/secu- rity journalists and a centrist in the Israeli political spectrum. According to Schiff, because of Barak's ongoing violations of the spirit of the Oslo agree- ments-"above all ... the relentless expansion of the existing settlements and the establishment of new settlements, with a concomitant expropriation of Pal- estinian land ... in and around Jerusalem, and elsewhere as well"-the Pales- tinians had been "shut in from all sides." Thus, Schiff concluded, "the prospect of being able to establish a viable state was fading right before their eyes. They were confronted with an intolerable set of options: to agree to the spreading occupation ... or to set up wretched Bantustans, or to launch an uprising."

As both the Palestinians and Israeli political analysts began to draw up de- tailed maps, it became evident not only that Gaza and the West Bank would be divided by the State of Israel, but that each of those two areas would in turn be divided into enclaves by the Israeli settlements, highways, and military posi- tions, the links between which "would always be at the mercies of Israel, the Israel Defense Forces and the settlers."27 With little or no control over its water resources, with no independently controlled border access to neighboring countries, and with even its internal freedom of movement and commerce sub- ject to continued Israeli closures, the already impoverished Palestinian state would be economically completely dependent on-and vulnerable to-Israel.28

In greater detail, this is what the consequences of Barak's proposals would have been:

Borders. First, the Jerusalem "metropolitan area," which since 1967 had been expanded to include almost one-fifth of the entire West Bank, would now be incorporated into the city. The eastern boundaries of this "Greater Jerusa- lem" and the other newly annexed settlements would reach almost to the Pales- tinian town of Jericho, itself only a short distance from the Jordan River and Dead Sea. The net effect of these Israeli facts on the ground would be to split the West Bank nearly in half.29

Second, the so-called blocs of settlements that Barak proposed to annex were ten times the area of Tel Aviv and contained Palestinian villages whose population of some 120,000 was actually greater than the settler population. What would happen to that Arab population? Since it was inconceivable that Israel would want to incorporate a large number of new Arab citizens into the Jewish state, presumably they would be relocated or transferred by one means or another, thereby adding still further to the refugee problem, with all the moral and practical problems that would entail.

Third, the land that Barak proposed to give to the Palestinian state in a territorial exchange was only about 10 percent of what Israel was taking from the Palestinians. Moreover, it was empty desert. By contrast, the land that Is- rael would annex was relatively fertile; even more important, it contained most of the West Bank underground water aquifers-precisely why the settlements had been put there in the first place.

Israeli military control. The independence of the Palestinian state would have been severely compromised-perhaps nullified-by the continuation of Israeli military control throughout the new state. Under the terms of Barak's proposals, Israel would continue to control all of Palestine's border access points with the outside world; would continue to patrol and protect all the Jew- ish settlements that remained in place in the West Bank, and perhaps even in Gaza; and would remain for at least six years-perhaps indefinitely, for all Pal- estinians knew-throughout the Jordan River valley.

Jerusalem. The situation in Jerusalem would have been intolerable for the Palestinians-and not simply for religious or symbolic reasons. As noted, Barak insisted that the Palestinians accept all of Israel's "facts on the ground" since 1967, except that they would be given sovereignty over the remaining Arab neighborhoods in East Jerusalem. The problem was that these neighbor- hoods would be isolated and impoverished enclaves, cut off not only from the rest of the Palestinian state but even from each other by the Jewish neighbor- hoods, roads, and military outposts. Since 1967 it had been Israeli policy to es- tablish Jewish political and economic control over all of Jerusalem and to create conditions that would convince the Arab residents to leave. To this end, highly- subsidized Jewish neighborhoods were built in East Jerusalem, while the Arab neighborhoods were left in poverty, denied economic assistance and even most city services. As a result, even if Arafat had agreed to Barak's proposals, the long-run prospects for Jewish-Arab stability in the context of such extreme po- litical, social, and economic inequality would have been dismal.

Some former Jerusalem city officials and city planners, including Deputy Mayor Meron Benvenisti, now openly admit that this was the purpose of Isra- el's policies. For example, see a major but little-remarked story in the New York Times on 15 March 1997, in which a number of current and former Israeli offi- cials admitted that "political planning" and "lopsided development strategies" had been employed to ensure Jewish dominance over Jerusalem and to encour- age the Palestinians to move out of the city into neighboring West Bank towns. Even long-time Jerusalem mayor, Teddy Kollek, who in the past had claimed he did everything he could to help the Jerusalem's Arab population, spoke quite differently in an 10 October 1990 interview with the Israeli newspaper, Ma'ariv. The Arabs of East Jerusalem, he bluntly admitted, had become "sec- ond and third class citizens," for whom "the mayor [that is, Kollek himself] nur- tured nothing and built nothing. For Jewish Jerusalem I did something ... For East Jerusalem? Nothing!"

The symbolic/religious issues of Jerusalem centered on political sover- eignty over the Temple Mount/Haram al-Sharif. Since 1967, the Israelis have controlled the entire Old City, although they have allowed Muslim religious authorities to administer the mosques on the Temple Mount. As indicated, at Camp David there were indications that Barak was considering a variety of sug- gested compromises: shared Jewish-Arab sovereignty over the Temple Mount, or "the sovereignty of God" rather than any state sovereignty, or an arrange- ment by which Israel would have sovereignty over the Western Wall on the lower part of the Mount, the Palestinians (or perhaps an international Muslim agency) would have sovereignty over the mosques on top of the Mount.

Arafat apparently rejected any settlement that would dilute Palestinian sovereignty over all of the Old City, save for the Jewish Quarter and the West- ern Wall. In some ways, this was a surprisingly hardline position. But, under Barak's proposals, Israel effectively would continue to control access to the Is- lamic religious shrines-a power that had frequently been employed in recent years to prevent Palestinians from outside Jerusalem from entering the Old City. As Arafat told Clinton, in responding to his proposed compromise under which Israel would allow the Palestinians a "sovereign presidential compound" next to al-Aqsa Mosque: "So there will be a small island surrounded by Israeli soldiers who control the entrances."31 Moreover, in one important respect, Barak actually hardened the Israeli position when he demanded that a place be set aside on top of the Temple Mount for Jewish prayer. When Israel cap- tured the Old City in 1967, Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Dayan had prohib- ited Jews from praying on top of the Temple Mount (as opposed to the Jewish Western Wall at its base) in the hopes of avoiding a religious conflict with not only the Palestinians but with the entire Muslim world. This prohibition has stood since then, challenged-until Barak-only by the most extreme of Jewish fundamentalist sects.32 In the last analysis, because the entire Muslim world in- sisted on undivided Muslim sovereignty over Harem al-Sharif, Arafat had little choice in the matter.33 In any case, in the months following Camp David, Barak began retreating from his apparent willingness to consider compromises over the Temple Mount; little more was heard about God's or shared sovereignty.

Water. Barak's Camp David proposals effectively perpetuated Israel's con- trol over most of the West Bank's water, since the most important aquifers would be incorporated into the newly annexed Israeli territory. If for no other reason, this made the Barak plan intolerable to the Palestinians, and a strong indication that Barak continued to resist the establishment of a genuinely inde- pendent and viable Palestinian state.

Right of return. Another intractable issue, at least on its face, was "the right of return" for the Palestinian refugees. Almost no Israeli, no matter how far to the "left," can accept the nominal-not actual-Palestinian insistence that all the refugees have the right to return to their homes and villages in Israel, most of which, in any case, no longer exist. The "return" of some three million Pales- tinians would mean that within a short time there would no longer be a Jewish majority in Israel, destroying the very raison d'etre of the creation of a Jewish state. In any case, given nearly a century of mutual violence and hatred, a large influx of Palestinians would be a formula for unending civil, religious, and eth- nic warfare. There are no contemporary precedents or models for two peoples long at war with each other suddenly becoming capable of living in peace and harmony within the confines of one small state. Cyprus, Lebanon, Northern Ireland, Bosnia, Kosovo, Rwanda, and many other states provide grim counter- examples.

However, Barak did not merely reject the Palestinian right of return, he also flatly refused to acknowledge any Israeli moral or practical responsibility for the events of 1948. That is a different matter altogether, not only because it is simply a lie to deny Israeli responsibility, but more importantly because such an acknowledgment would pave the way for a compromise on the issue, the essence of which would be to separate the principle of return from its imple- mentation.
 
2009-06-15 09:12:54 PM
vertiaset: Maul555

vertiaset: We in the West must come to understand that the Jews who had lived in Europe for 1800 years had NO RIGHT other than force of arms to come into Palestine, seize ancestral homes and farms from Muslim families that had been there for sixty generations, force them into camps, murder them and steal the patrimony of their children all with the complicity of a West guilt stricken over the holocaust.

Sure we all saw "Exodus" and other bits of Hollywood propaganda and felt sympathy for the Jews who did in fact suffer much.

However, the Arab inhabitants of Palestine did not gas six million Jews ... it was the Germans. Moreover, it was the Americans, English and Russians who defeated the Nazis and liberated those horrible camps.

In point of fact in the early days of the Zionist movement many Muslims welcomed their new hardworking Jewish neighbors and helped them start anew only to be betrayed a generation later by the sons and daughters of those they helped.

Israel is a lie. It is the land of Palestine. The Kingdom of Judea was destroyed by the Romans two thousand years ago. The Jews have no legitimate claim to that land except that, with our, meaning the Western nations, money and weapons, they conquered a weak people and took it.

This is why the Islamic world laughs at our pretense of loving justice and the rule of law. Islam is growing now and power and strength and their memories are long.

That's nice and all, but it really only matters if you have a time machine. The past is behind us, mistakes where made, and now we need to move forward. You must come to understand that Israel isn't going anywhere...

Well, the Babylonians, Assyrians, Persians, Egyptians, Seleucid Greeks and the Romans, all of who have destroyed "Jewish States" might disagree with you.

The horrible injustice perpetrated on the Muslim people who inhabited the land known as Palestine by the Jews displaced by the holocaust, the very people who had suffered from the same sort of "might makes right" mindset and should have known better has set the stage for a new Armageddon.

The Muslim peoples of the Middle East are not the backward cowards portrayed by the Western media. They fight, as do all partisans, a shadow war using guerrilla tactics against a modern European style nuclear power. However, this is changing. The world is very different now than it was in 1967.

Justice will be done either, as I hope and pray, through the ballot box and the treaty, but by guns, missiles and fighter jets if these things fail. May intelligence and humanity prevail and let there finally be peace in that land.


So that was over 60 years ago, there are very few holocaust survivors and very few "displaced" peoples left. The new generations were neither victim nor "displaced" so they need to STFU or move. My ancestors left Britian because of persecution, you don't see me clamoring on for my "ancestral home" it's time to put on the big girl panties and start acting like farking adults.
 
2009-06-15 09:13:05 PM
Maul555: I was talking about the firing incidents at farmers and fishing boats

install proof of your claims.
 
2009-06-15 09:14:13 PM
jakomo002: 8 dead Israelis since 2000 due to rocket fire.

In the same timeframe there have been HUNDREDS of Palestinian children "accidentally" killed by the IDF.

So gimme a break



Militant d-bags fire their munitions from the middle of a playground, roof of a school, parking lot of a hospital, etc...
Israelis do the math to figure out where the shots came from and return fire. HUNDREDS of Palestinian children are killed because they are put in harm's way by their own farking people.
 
2009-06-15 09:15:53 PM
 
2009-06-15 09:16:21 PM
Party Boy: Maul555: I was talking about the firing incidents at farmers and fishing boats

install proof of your claims.


Sure, Ill get right on that.. Ill just ask the Israeli Mossad why they did that...

Now I'm being asked for military intelligence from one of the most secretive agencies in the world... lol...
 
2009-06-15 09:19:02 PM
craxyd: jakomo002: 8 dead Israelis since 2000 due to rocket fire.

In the same timeframe there have been HUNDREDS of Palestinian children "accidentally" killed by the IDF.

So gimme a break


Militant d-bags fire their munitions from the middle of a playground, roof of a school, parking lot of a hospital, etc...
Israelis do the math to figure out where the shots came from and return fire. HUNDREDS of Palestinian children are killed because they are put in harm's way by their own farking people.


I just wanted to see this repeated. I have known this for a while, I'm not sure why I forgot to mention it... I'm going to blame the beer (now on my 4th glass).
 
2009-06-15 09:19:08 PM
Maul555: Sure, Ill get right on that

Dont try to rebut something on abject speculation. You'll get called out for it.
 
2009-06-15 09:21:02 PM
Maul555: I just wanted to see this repeated.

its not entirely correct, either.

I can see this has turned into a "point scoring" debate.

Doesnt matter how many points I rebut.
 
2009-06-15 09:22:10 PM
Party Boy: Maul555: Sure, Ill get right on that

Dont try to rebut something on abject speculation. You'll get called out for it.


I was completely clear on the fact that it was speculation. You however misquoted me yet again and then got on my case for it. You indeed are a good troll, carry on.
 
2009-06-15 09:23:35 PM
Party Boy: Maul555: I just wanted to see this repeated.

its not entirely correct, either.

I can see this has turned into a "point scoring" debate.

Doesnt matter how many points I rebut.


Using the word "entirely" to dismiss the entire point... nice
 
2009-06-15 09:25:02 PM
Maul555: I was completely clear on the fact that it was speculation.

Let me know when you have evidence.

Where do you get your historical narrative from? Really? How is it so skewed?
 
2009-06-15 09:25:32 PM
Neokhan : Just start with "this is what peaceful coexistence basically looks like", and then negotiate the details afterwards.

Except one side is comparatively safe, has the region's strongest, most technologically advanced army in the world, and the "honest broker" supplies them with massive military aid and unquestioning veto cover at the UN.

The other side is fragmented, has no army, no control over its own sea ports, airspace, land borders, or imports and exports. F16s against dirty guys with homemade fertilizer rockets.

Israel doesn't want peace when conflict is so profitable and their constant flouting of their responsilities is supported by the US. They suffer infinitely less than their "enemy".
 
2009-06-15 09:25:39 PM
DoBeDoBeDo:
So that was over 60 years ago, there are very few holocaust survivors and very few "displaced" peoples left. The new generations were neither victim nor "displaced" so they need to STFU or move. My ancestors left Britian because of persecution, you don't see me clamoring on for my "ancestral home" it's time to put on the big girl panties and start acting like farking adults.


The majority of Israelis are from the Middle East. Their immediate ancestors were living in Israel, or kicked out of nearby nations such as Egypt, Syria, etc. Or kicked out of "Palestinian" areas like Hebron. Immigrants from Europe/US are a minority in Israel.
 
2009-06-15 09:27:05 PM
Party Boy: Maul555: I was completely clear on the fact that it was speculation.

Let me know when you have evidence.

Where do you get your historical narrative from? Really? How is it so skewed?


Look, I was clear on the fact that I was speculation, and I gave my reasons for the speculation, go read what you decided to cut out.
 
2009-06-15 09:27:47 PM
Maul555: Using the word "entirely" to dismiss the entire point... nice

I dont see the point in dealing with it when this has turned into a point scoring debate. So far, theres been a number of horribly bad canards presented here. What is the reaction but a sense of victimization, a siege mentality, blind patriotism, belligerence, self-righteousness, dehumanization of the Palestinians and insensitivity to their suffering.
 
2009-06-15 09:28:53 PM
Maul555: I was clear on the fact that I was speculation

It has no place.
 
2009-06-15 09:30:29 PM
Party Boy: Maul555: Using the word "entirely" to dismiss the entire point... nice

I dont see the point in dealing with it when this has turned into a point scoring debate. So far, theres been a number of horribly bad canards presented here. What is the reaction but a sense of victimization, a siege mentality, blind patriotism, belligerence, self-righteousness, dehumanization of the Palestinians and insensitivity to their suffering.


Yup, I never said it had become a point scoring debate... That was all you. I was referring to the other things you misquoted me on. Now go ahead and attribute negative attributes to random ass people you disagree with...
 
2009-06-15 09:31:52 PM
HowlingFrog: There is absolutely no way that somebody calling themselves Bomb Mecca could be a troll. Not a chance.

There's also no way some butte head from rural Montana knows more than engineers and experts on how the twin towers would fall. Not a chance.

/damn hippies
 
2009-06-15 09:32:27 PM
Party Boy: Maul555: I was clear on the fact that I was speculation

It has no place.


...on a fark thread? lol... I have not been dishonest.
 
2009-06-15 09:33:19 PM
jakomo002: Neokhan : Just start with "this is what peaceful coexistence basically looks like", and then negotiate the details afterwards.

Except one side is comparatively safe, has the region's strongest, most technologically advanced army in the world, and the "honest broker" supplies them with massive military aid and unquestioning veto cover at the UN.

The other side is fragmented, has no army, no control over its own sea ports, airspace, land borders, or imports and exports. F16s against dirty guys with homemade fertilizer rockets.

Israel doesn't want peace when conflict is so profitable and their constant flouting of their responsilities is supported by the US. They suffer infinitely less than their "enemy".


I don't think I understand your point. Is it your suggestion that if someone is poor, they should be permitted to murder others? Furthermore, given that Israel is a democracy and that Israelis overwhelmingly want peace (provided that peace doesn't involve them being killed), I'm not sure I see how profit comes into the question. Finally, peace is much more profitable than war given the country's tourist potential...
 
2009-06-15 09:34:06 PM
crazyxd : Israelis do the math to figure out where the shots came from and return fire. HUNDREDS of Palestinian children are killed because they are put in harm's way by their own farking people.

Except the ratio is staggering. The IDF accidentally wipes out entire families in retaliation for a farking rocket you could make in your garage.

Advanced targeting and they still accidentally shell schools and apartment buildings and kindergartens ? Come on.
 
2009-06-15 09:34:49 PM
thegoodthebadthedumb: clambam: thegoodthebadthedumb: scally1: This is what I see.

Palestine : We want our own country, with military, etc.

Israel : We would be willing to allow this if 1) you recognize us as a Jewish state and 2) you stop dedicating yourself to killing us.

Palestine : That is completely unreasonable.

Are they really arguing over the semantics of what a "Jewish state" is?

Actually, yes. "Jewish state" implies no Palestinian right of return (new window).

You bet your goddam ass no Right of Return. Here's a bunch of people who, no matter which side is responsible for it, is dedicated to eliminating Israel. They're not even willing to recognize Israel's right to exist as a prerequisite to making peace. And they should be allowed to move into Israel and camp in peoples' backyards until they get around to murdering them? Perhaps in the Jew-free world you assholes yearn for this might happen but in the real world the Israelis are no more willing to bare their necks to the knives of their enemies than anyone else. Screw you for thinking they should.

Your unbridled anger to a post which was nothing but informational should tell you that you are too emotionally involved to have a rational discussion on this issue.

OK, OK, I will respond to this only to say that today's events in Iran have really highlighted the problem of painting entire populaces with a wide brush. Whereas most Americans have a very negative view of Iran, we've seen today that just like any other country in the world, there are people there who merely want to live peacefully and enjoy their natural rights, just like we do here.

So can't we just for one day, stop talking about "a bunch of people", be they Iranian, Israeli or Palestinian, as if they were all one homogenous group?


Die hippy infidel!
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Jk, I just couldn't resist...
 
2009-06-15 09:35:32 PM
Oops meant hospitals not kindergartens ...
 
2009-06-15 09:36:44 PM
Maul555: Yup, I never said it had become a point scoring debate

Well, it has.

Maul555: you misquoted me on.

No need to address all the speculation. Its not worth it.

We're done here.
 
2009-06-15 09:39:16 PM
Party Boy: Maul555: Yup, I never said it had become a point scoring debate

Well, it has.

Maul555: you misquoted me on.

No need to address all the speculation. Its not worth it.

We're done here.


Yes we are... Added to ignore list, I should have done it sooner, but you where too fun.
 
2009-06-15 09:43:38 PM
Neokhan : I don't think I understand your point. Is it your suggestion that if someone is poor, they should be permitted to murder others?

Nice dodge. If someone has been illegally occupied by a powerful military force for more than 40 years with no end in sight are they allowed to resist AT ALL??

Furthermore, given that Israel is a democracy and that Israelis overwhelmingly want peace...

And her entire history proves your statement false.

Finally, peace is much more profitable than war given the country's tourist potential...

The entire military industrial complex would like a word.
 
2009-06-15 09:44:14 PM
jakomo002: Oops meant hospitals not kindergartens ...

It's almost as if terrorists were deliberately choosing to launch attacks locations where they know Israel is slightly less likely to fire back at them, despite* knowing that if Israel does shoot back, more civilians are killed.

*though for many of them, this is a feature rather than a bug.
 
2009-06-15 09:51:09 PM
Neokhan : It's almost as if terrorists were deliberately choosing to launch attacks locations where they know Israel is slightly less likely to fire back at them, despite* knowing that if Israel does shoot back, more civilians are killed.

But we all know the IDF will ignore that, and, say, fire a missile from a helicopter gunship into a crowded city street to kill an old suspected terrorist in a wheelchair...

Ahmed Yassin?
 
2009-06-15 09:52:19 PM
jakomo002: Neokhan : I don't think I understand your point. Is it your suggestion that if someone is poor, they should be permitted to murder others?

Nice dodge. If someone has been illegally occupied by a powerful military force for more than 40 years with no end in sight are they allowed to resist AT ALL??

And that negates Israels right to self defense how?

Furthermore, given that Israel is a democracy and that Israelis overwhelmingly want peace...

And her entire history proves your statement false.

What have you been watching?

Finally, peace is much more profitable than war given the country's tourist potential...

The entire military industrial complex would like a word.


Let me know when you get this "industrial complex" on the phone... When I hear the words "military industrial complex", I know I'm talking with a loon.
 
2009-06-15 09:52:55 PM
I farked up 2 of the above quotes lol... I think you'll get it though
 
2009-06-15 09:56:59 PM
jakomo002: Neokhan : I don't think I understand your point. Is it your suggestion that if someone is poor, they should be permitted to murder others?

Nice dodge. If someone has been illegally occupied by a powerful military force for more than 40 years with no end in sight are they allowed to resist AT ALL??

Like in India? Yeah, Gandhi tried it and it worked great. The Palestinians should try being peaceful for like two years. Just try it. See what happens.


Furthermore, given that Israel is a democracy and that Israelis overwhelmingly want peace...
And her entire history proves your statement false.

Israel made peace with Egypt and Jordan, and now they've been enjoying peace, and they don't attack one another? The Palestinians should get in on that.


Finally, peace is much more profitable than war given the country's tourist potential...
The entire military industrial complex would like a word.

It is true that particular segments of society can benefit more from war than from peace. Are you suggesting that the fighter pilot manufacturers are somehow rigging the elections? If so, why didn't they stop Kadima from being elected in 06?

Overall, peace is much more profitable. Tourism alone would increase by billions. Industry and agriculture benefit greatly as well from improved safety, stability, and access to labor.
 
2009-06-15 10:01:43 PM
Maul999 : When I hear the words "military industrial complex", I know I'm talking with a loon.

Because multi billion dollar hardware makes and sells itself.

Because the fact that the US is the top arms supplier in the world and Israel is eighth is coincidental.

It is estimated that yearly, over 1 trillion dollars are spent on military expenditures worldwide (2% of World GDP).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_industry
 
2009-06-15 10:03:10 PM
NeoKhan: Israel made peace with Egypt and Jordan,

Paid for and negotiated by the U.S.

We're also supporting a Egyptian dictatorship as well.

Are you American?
 
2009-06-15 10:06:15 PM
jakomo002: Neokhan : It's almost as if terrorists were deliberately choosing to launch attacks locations where they know Israel is slightly less likely to fire back at them, despite* knowing that if Israel does shoot back, more civilians are killed.

But we all know the IDF will ignore that, and, say, fire a missile from a helicopter gunship into a crowded city street to kill an old suspected terrorist in a wheelchair...

Ahmed Yassin?


Suspected? Hamas and he both stated he was their leader. I'm not sure what the age or wheelchair had to do with it- he'd ordered a suicide attack at the Erez crossing just two months earlier that killed 4 civilians, and publicly stated that he was planning more such attacks.

If you ever have an opportunity to walk next to Bin Laden, I suggest you avoid doing it.
 
2009-06-15 10:06:58 PM
Neokhan : Like in India? Yeah, Gandhi tried it and it worked great.

OMIGOD, because it's the exact same situation !!!

Overall, peace is much more profitable. Tourism alone would increase by billions. Industry and agriculture benefit greatly as well from improved safety, stability, and access to labor.

Except that the Israeli defense industry is the most profitable one in the country.

HINT: it has little to do with defense.
 
2009-06-15 10:07:37 PM
RanDomino: If Israel's political establishment can't accept 12 rocket/mortar attacks per month at most, which can be expected to decrease over time, then there's no reasoning with it.

Israel's leaders are the only thing standing in the way of peace.


Call me crazy, but if Canada was lobbing "12 rocket/mortar attacks per month at most, which can be expected to decrease over time" at the United States, would you expect the U.S. political establishment to accept this?

// just wondering
// Lobbed my hand grenade into the thread, now leaving quickly.
 
2009-06-15 10:10:24 PM
Neokhan : Suspected? Hamas and he both stated he was their leader. I'm not sure what the age or wheelchair had to do with it- he'd ordered a suicide attack at the Erez crossing just two months earlier that killed 4 civilians, and publicly stated that he was planning more such attacks.

A missile from a helicopter gunship fired into a crowded city street to kill a PROVEN terrorist, then.

Still wrong, no? Not even questionable ?
 
2009-06-15 10:12:53 PM
remus : Call me crazy, but if Canada was lobbing "12 rocket/mortar attacks per month at most, which can be expected to decrease over time" at the United States, would you expect the U.S. political establishment to accept this?

Add 40 plus years of illegal military occupation and recalibrate please.
 
2009-06-15 10:13:04 PM
Party Boy:

Are you American?


I'm an American, and I also like the fact that Israel and Egypt made peace.
 
2009-06-15 10:16:07 PM
jakomo002: Neokhan : Suspected? Hamas and he both stated he was their leader. I'm not sure what the age or wheelchair had to do with it- he'd ordered a suicide attack at the Erez crossing just two months earlier that killed 4 civilians, and publicly stated that he was planning more such attacks.

A missile from a helicopter gunship fired into a crowded city street to kill a PROVEN terrorist, then.

Still wrong, no? Not even questionable ?

I don't have specific intelligence on what he was planning, and where else he could have been taken out. I do know one thing though: Don't stand next to well-known terrorist leaders.
 
2009-06-15 10:30:45 PM
NeoKhan: I'm an American, and I also like the fact that Israel and Egypt made peace


You should, you helped pay for it.
 
2009-06-15 10:49:51 PM
jakomo002: crazyxd : Israelis do the math to figure out where the shots came from and return fire. HUNDREDS of Palestinian children are killed because they are put in harm's way by their own farking people.

Except the ratio is staggering. The IDF accidentally wipes out entire families in retaliation for a farking rocket you could make in your garage.

Advanced targeting and they still accidentally shell schools and apartment buildings and kindergartens ? Come on.



I'll admit they don't seem too concerned with collateral damage. but all the advanced targeting in the world won't move human shields out of the way unfortunately. Maybe this kinda shiat wouldn't happen if the wack-jobs wouldn't shoot from heavily populated areas
 
2009-06-15 10:50:10 PM
jakomo002: Maul999 : When I hear the words "military industrial complex", I know I'm talking with a loon.

Because multi billion dollar hardware makes and sells itself.

Because the fact that the US is the top arms supplier in the world and Israel is eighth is coincidental.

It is estimated that yearly, over 1 trillion dollars are spent on military expenditures worldwide (2% of World GDP).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_industry


Nice job farking my name up...

And all that proves what exactly? I'm still not going with your conspiracy theory.
 
2009-06-15 11:28:51 PM
jakomo002: Neokhan : Suspected? Hamas and he both stated he was their leader. I'm not sure what the age or wheelchair had to do with it- he'd ordered a suicide attack at the Erez crossing just two months earlier that killed 4 civilians, and publicly stated that he was planning more such attacks.

A missile from a helicopter gunship fired into a crowded city street to kill a PROVEN terrorist, then.

Still wrong, no? Not even questionable ?


I'm pretty sure that we have all seen at least some of the footage from Apache gunships, both from America, and Israel... I don't know about you, but I have never seen anyone knowingly fire into a crowd of innocent people just to kill one guy. We aren't that farked up man.
 
2009-06-15 11:41:31 PM
craxyd: jakomo002: 8 dead Israelis since 2000 due to rocket fire.

In the same timeframe there have been HUNDREDS of Palestinian children "accidentally" killed by the IDF.

So gimme a break


Militant d-bags fire their munitions from the middle of a playground, roof of a school, parking lot of a hospital, etc...
Israelis do the math to figure out where the shots came from and return fire. HUNDREDS of Palestinian children are killed because they are put in harm's way by their own farking people.


The point being, a solution to this problem is going to have to start with a stop to rocket fire from Palestinians.

You can talk about borders, disproportionate response, etc. till you're blue in the face, the fact is that Israel has shown itself at least willing to CONSIDER real negotiations. Hamas has not shown itself capable of meeting the most basic of needs (the end of rocket fire). Put blame where you want, if it makes you feel better.
 
Displayed 50 of 247 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report