Israel destroys West Bank road

[EagleKeeper]

You did not prove me wrong.

Only that you have a different perception of handing out punishment.

ISrael does not hand out olive branches any more.

they respond with disproportional force to ensure that the problem does not come back to haunt them.

They made many mistakes by allowing the UN to come in to allow the Arabs and Oalestinains to fight another day.

Hopefully that stop with the kid gloves the next time.

If the Palestinians do not want peace, then they get what they are asking for.
If the Palestinians want peace, then they will get it according to ISrael's terms - ceasation off hostilies. Elect some leadership that are thinking it your best interests rather than theirs.

 

[rudeguy]

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/photo/2011-03/25/c_13797654.htm

"It is the second time Israel destroys the two-kilometer " Freedom" street, which the Palestinian National Authority opened two months ago with a fund of 400,000 U.S. dollars, the sources said"

wow, your tax dollars at work right there. collective punishment on a whole civilian population is a war crime. :thumbsdown:

where is the news reports on this? why must i get all my international news from russia and china? :\

because no one here cares about this petty stuff. You are really grasping at straws here.

 

[Jhhnn]

Like Israel taking over Gaza.

Had the Palestinians showed up for talks when the freeze, that they requested, was in effect, progress was hoped to be made.
But they refused to show up. They claim that they want peace, yet refuse to even try for it. But they want to be rewarded for deliberate failure.

They have succeeded in this attitude for the past 50 years - why break a good streak.

What a blind and silly man. Israel's "withdrawal" from Gaza? They can "withdraw' from the West Bank, too, anytime they feel like it. But they don't, because they intend to take it all, which is what I referenced, if not precisely. There was no freeze- Israel merely refrained from announcing new settlements, which they obviously intend, and kept right on building the ones they had announced. Kinda like Khadafi's "truce" in Libya- say one thing, do another. Khadafi just doesn't have a chorus of American fanbois, that's all.

I noticed you didn't even attempt to defend your original statement about destroyed palestinian homes being only as the result of "terrorist" activities by the occupants or family members... If that's what you believe, you're in denial, and if it's not, then you're merely parroting propaganda...

Probably a "terrorist" road, too, huh?

 

[Lemon law]

I noticed that Common Courtesy said Israel is 'Not handing out Olive Branches anymore."

When did Israel ever hand out Olive Branches to anyone?

But that leads to the final point, Israel is painting itself into a final corner, if Israel wants to pig it all, the alternative to that position is that Israel may end up with nothing.

Sometimes its far wiser to compromise and get a half a loaf, but when things start to go against Israel, the Israeli delusion is that they can retain the option to finally be fair and that will still be an option.

 

[FaaR]

You did not prove me wrong.

More like you proved yourself wrong to be more accurate...

If you believe in collective punishment in the occupied territories, then surely it's good enough for the United States too. You're suspected of armed robbery and on the lam. So as retaliation and supposed suppression of further criminal activity on your part, the gov't bulldozes your brother's house. He's got a wife and four kids. He also takes care of your elderly grandmother.

Is this a good idea, or bad? ASK YOURSELF THIS, SERIOUSLY.

Jeez. The shortsighted stupidity in some people...

ISrael does not hand out olive branches any more.

Hmm, remind me...when did they actually do that?

they respond with disproportional force to ensure that the problem does not come back to haunt them.

Oh, and since when did that tactic actually work? All they're doing is further provoking the other side into reacting (although that's more than likely the actual intent - and not as you claim, to try and curb further action.)

If the Palestinians do not want peace, then they get what they are asking for.

LOL, ok, yes clearly the palestinians are clearly the only ones at fault here... ROFL! Please. You couldn't be more one-sidedly partisan if you tried.

All your posts in this thread have a distinct flavor of "final solution" to them, which is ironic, considering modern jewish history.

 

[Freshgeardude]

When did Israel ever hand out Olive Branches to anyone?

Arafat was offered http://www.jewishfederations.org/page.aspx?id=101041

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered to withdraw from 97 percent of the West Bank and 100 percent of the Gaza Strip. In addition, he agreed to dismantle 63 isolated settlements. In exchange for the 5 percent annexation of the West Bank, Israel would increase the size of the Gaza territory by roughly a third.

Barak also made previously unthinkable concessions on Jerusalem, agreeing that Arab neighborhoods of East Jerusalem would become the capital of the new state. The Palestinians would maintain control over their holy places and have "religious sovereignty" over the Temple Mount.

According to U.S. peace negotiator Dennis Ross, Israel offered to create a Palestinian state that was contiguous, and not a series of cantons. Even in the case of the Gaza Strip, which must be physically separate from the West Bank unless Israel were to be cut into non-contiguous pieces, a solution was devised whereby an overland highway would connect the two parts of the Palestinian state without any Israeli checkpoints or interference.
The proposal also addressed the refugee issue, guaranteeing them the right of return to the Palestinian state and reparations from a $30 billion international fund that would be collected to compensate them.
Israel also agreed to give the Palestinians access to water desalinated in its territory.
Arafat was asked to agree to Israeli sovereignty over the parts of the Western Wall religiously significant to Jews (i.e., not the entire Temple Mount), and three early warning stations in the Jordan valley, which Israel would withdraw from after six years. Most important, however, Arafat was expected to agree that the conflict was over at the end of the negotiations. This was the true deal breaker. Arafat was not willing to end the conflict. "For him to end the conflict is to end himself," said Ross.30c

The prevailing view of the Camp David/White House negotiations - that Israel offered generous concessions, and that Yasser Arafat rejected them to pursue the intifada that began in September 2000 - prevailed for more than a year. To counter the perception that Arafat was the obstacle to peace, the Palestinians and their supporters then began to suggest a variety of excuses for why Arafat failed to say "yes" to a proposal that would have established a Palestinian state. The truth is that if the Palestinians were dissatisfied with any part of the Israeli proposal, all they had to do was offer a counterproposal.

They never did.

You clearly ignored my post in the other thread stating just this.

this is a pretty good example of an olive branch

 

[Nebor]

Given the option of peace and prosperity, or continuing their Jihad against Israel, the Palestinian people chose Jihad. Israel could starve the lot of them and bomb the orphanages and the West wouldn't care. They've chosen their fate, and it's war against a vastly superior enemy.

 

[FaaR]

What makes you believe there's any option of peace and prosperity whatsoever, on the table or anywhere else?

There's politicians in the Israeli knesset that are outspoken proponents of ethnic cleansing of arabs and nuking arab territories. Peaceful? I wouldn't say so.

 

[Freshgeardude]

What makes you believe there's any option of peace and prosperity whatsoever, on the table or anywhere else?

There's politicians in the Israeli knesset that are outspoken proponents of ethnic cleansing of arabs and nuking arab territories. Peaceful? I wouldn't say so.

Arafat was offered http://www.jewishfederations.org/page.aspx?id=101041



Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered to withdraw from 97 percent of the West Bank and 100 percent of the Gaza Strip. In addition, he agreed to dismantle 63 isolated settlements. In exchange for the 5 percent annexation of the West Bank, Israel would increase the size of the Gaza territory by roughly a third.

Barak also made previously unthinkable concessions on Jerusalem, agreeing that Arab neighborhoods of East Jerusalem would become the capital of the new state. The Palestinians would maintain control over their holy places and have "religious sovereignty" over the Temple Mount.

According to U.S. peace negotiator Dennis Ross, Israel offered to create a Palestinian state that was contiguous, and not a series of cantons. Even in the case of the Gaza Strip, which must be physically separate from the West Bank unless Israel were to be cut into non-contiguous pieces, a solution was devised whereby an overland highway would connect the two parts of the Palestinian state without any Israeli checkpoints or interference.
The proposal also addressed the refugee issue, guaranteeing them the right of return to the Palestinian state and reparations from a $30 billion international fund that would be collected to compensate them.
Israel also agreed to give the Palestinians access to water desalinated in its territory.
Arafat was asked to agree to Israeli sovereignty over the parts of the Western Wall religiously significant to Jews (i.e., not the entire Temple Mount), and three early warning stations in the Jordan valley, which Israel would withdraw from after six years. Most important, however, Arafat was expected to agree that the conflict was over at the end of the negotiations. This was the true deal breaker. Arafat was not willing to end the conflict. "For him to end the conflict is to end himself," said Ross.30c

The prevailing view of the Camp David/White House negotiations - that Israel offered generous concessions, and that Yasser Arafat rejected them to pursue the intifada that began in September 2000 - prevailed for more than a year. To counter the perception that Arafat was the obstacle to peace, the Palestinians and their supporters then began to suggest a variety of excuses for why Arafat failed to say "yes" to a proposal that would have established a Palestinian state. The truth is that if the Palestinians were dissatisfied with any part of the Israeli proposal, all they had to do was offer a counterproposal.

They never did.

this is why

 

[Lemon law]

Maybe 20 20 hindisight Arifat should have inked a deal, but was unwilling to ever relinquish the Palestinian right to return. The point is and remains, its ancient history.

Now ask if Israeli thought it was fair then, why should Israel ask for even more now? That Israeli logic is clearly crapola now.

The point is and remains, the Palestinian right to return is still on the table, and even as Arifar is long dead, he may prove to be the man who was right, as a final settlement deal may give the Palestinian people a better deal than Israel offered then.

As I said before, those that choose to think they can get it all, have that downside risk of getting nothing instead.

 

[SandEagle]

Homes that are destroyed usually belong to a terror suspect and/or family members.

Homes are not randomly destroyed.

lulz. you should do stand up comedy. really, you should.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tW1-_JmXQt0

 

[Freshgeardude]

Maybe 20 20 hindisight Arifat should have inked a deal, but was unwilling to ever relinquish the Palestinian right to return. The point is and remains, its ancient history.

Now ask if Israeli thought it was fair then, why should Israel ask for even more now? That Israeli logic is clearly crapola now.

The point is and remains, the Palestinian right to return is still on the table, and even as Arifar is long dead, he may prove to be the man who was right, as a final settlement deal may give the Palestinian people a better deal than Israel offered then.

As I said before, those that choose to think they can get it all, have that downside risk of getting nothing instead.

israel offered the right of return in the deal.

did you miss something?



and wow, you think arafat was the right guy for treaty? he was a crook, who stole billions and had more money than every israeli counterparts' salaries combined in private accounts

 

[SandEagle]

israel offered the right of return in the deal.

did you miss something?



and wow, you think arafat was the right guy for treaty? he was a crook, who stole billions and had more money than every israeli counterparts' salaries combined in private accounts

FGD - the fake 17 year old here in P&N talking about things that he knows nothing about. what 17 year old is interested in ME politics? run along little man and play with your legos.

 

[the DRIZZLE]

I noticed that Common Courtesy said Israel is 'Not handing out Olive Branches anymore."

When did Israel ever hand out Olive Branches to anyone?

But that leads to the final point, Israel is painting itself into a final corner, if Israel wants to pig it all, the alternative to that position is that Israel may end up with nothing.

Sometimes its far wiser to compromise and get a half a loaf, but when things start to go against Israel, the Israeli delusion is that they can retain the option to finally be fair and that will still be an option.

Despite what you think Israel has most of the leverage now and for the foreseeable future. The wall has mostly taken away to Palestinian's ability to launch terror attacks. If the new missile defense system doesn't stop the rockets, they'll keep working until it does. The Palestinians have much more to gain than Israel from a deal so they will have to give more to get a deal done.

But those leverage issues aren't really whats driving the problem from the Palestinian side. The Palestinian leadership probably couldn't implement a deal even they wanted to make one.

 

[Freshgeardude]

FGD - the fake 17 year old here in P&N talking about things that he knows nothing about. what 17 year old is interested in ME politics? run along little man and play with your legos.

You give up? Personal attacks truely show how desperate you are.


Seem to have skipped right over the post you knew you couldn't defend.


Hey, guess what? There are people that are interested in politics at my age. Its nbd, but in your eyes I'm fake lmao.

Truely looking at the world through a peep hole.

 

[Atreus21]

When did Israel ever hand out Olive Branches to anyone?

How conveniently people forget.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/4235768.stm

 

[EagleKeeper]

Maybe 20 20 hindisight Arifat should have inked a deal, but was unwilling to ever relinquish the Palestinian right to return. The point is and remains, its ancient history.

Now ask if Israeli thought it was fair then, why should Israel ask for even more now? That Israeli logic is clearly crapola now.

The point is and remains, the Palestinian right to return is still on the table, and even as Arifar is long dead, he may prove to be the man who was right, as a final settlement deal may give the Palestinian people a better deal than Israel offered then.

As I said before, those that choose to think they can get it all, have that downside risk of getting nothing instead.

Your Palestinians should also realize this.
Since '48, this has been the problem.

If Israel thought it was fair and the Palestinians rejected the offer; why should Israel put forth the same offer again to be rejected.

Let the Palestinians put forth an offer that they know that they can/will honor and go from there.

At this point all they have done is whine because they can not get it there way.

The Middle East is not Burger King.

 

[Atreus21]

Your Palestinians should also realize this.
Since '48, this has been the problem.

If Israel thought it was fair and the Palestinians rejected the offer; why should Israel put forth the same offer again to be rejected.

Let the Palestinians put forth an offer that they know that they can/will honor and go from there.

At this point all they have done is whine because they can not get it there way.

The Middle East is not Burger King.

Out of curiosity, are you posting from a phone?

 

[Londo_Jowo]

The Middle East is not Burger King.

Using your logic again, why should Israeli get it their way?

 

[Nebor]

Using your logic again, why should Israeli get it their way?

Because they're holding all the cards. The Palestinians have virtually nothing to bargain with, and even less to fight with.

 

[EagleKeeper]

The Middle East is not Burger King.

Using your logic again, why should Israeli get it their way?

Israel has always been willing to have peace.

It is the Arabs and the Palestinians that refuse to accept that peace is better than nothing.

Israel ws not the one that did not show up for peace talks
Israel is not the one that walked away from the peace talks.

Israel is not asking for everything, unlike the Palestinians.
Israel was asking for peace - the Palestinians refused.

 

[kylebisme]

Israel asks for peace while constantly expanding settlements throughout Palestinian territory under cover of a brutal military occupation. Palestinians, along with anyone who has at least two functional braincells to rub together, know that actions speak louder than words.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Israel has always been willing to have peace.

It is the Arabs and the Palestinians that refuse to accept that peace is better than nothing.

Israel ws not the one that did not show up for peace talks
Israel is not the one that walked away from the peace talks.

Israel is not asking for everything, unlike the Palestinians.
Israel was asking for peace - the Palestinians refused.

Israel plays the game so well. I've been on the end of their threats onboard a US Navy Destroyer. They want what they want and will never allow the Palestinians to have their own state.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Because they're holding all the cards. The Palestinians have virtually nothing to bargain with, and even less to fight with.

Thanks to the UK/UN for stealing land from the Arabs and US taxpayer money.

 

[EagleKeeper]

The Israelis purchaseda large amount of land from the original inhabitants.

then the Arabs decided to take it all back without recompensation.

Orignal intent of theft