So we still talk about how Arab countries don't want peace with Israel....

[orangat]

Originally posted by: palehorse74
.......
........
Anyone who believes that Israel is driven by "expansionist" ideals, or has expansionist goals, is a complete idiot.
period.

In your post, you have stated your position 2 times without stating your reasons why except to say it is absurd/what idiots believe.

Its quite well known (at least outside the US) that Israel is using its occupied territories as a colonial settlement. Resources like land for farming, water are taken at the expense of the Palestinians. Palestine is a market for Israeli goods and Palestinians are taxed but receive relatively less social benefits compared to Israelis.

http://www.btselem.org/english.../International_Law.asp
http://www.btselem.org/english...er/Consumption_Gap.asp
Water crisis in Gaza

There is also a religious right in Israel that is driven by a messianic vision of redeeming the entire land of Eretz Israel. This entails Israeli settlers occupying every inch of Palestinian WB/Gaza of course and so it is an expansionist vision.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: orangat

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy

Originally posted by: orangat

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
.........
Yet the Palestinian standarad of living is greater on the West Bank than any other Palestinians areas in other Arab countries. And the improvement percentage have been greater in the past 60 years than most Arab populations with the exception of the oil royalty.

What have the Arabs countries done to improve the Palestinian standard of living?

Remember that all this happen in spite of not because of Israeli occupation. And don't forget the international community under the UN has done alot to help the Palestinians with social services as well.

If the living standards were as high as Europe, do you think the military occupation of Israel should be condoned?

Originally posted by: AndrewR
So, Israel gives up the Golan Heights, from which the Syrians bombed Israeli cities to great effect? Why am I not surprised that the "solution" is not palatable to the Israelis but acceptable to the Arabs?

"Hey, you give up everything you've gained to ensure your security, and we'll keep all of it. Sound good? Then we'll discuss how much more you have to give up."

Its a weak argument considering the Arabs (and nearly the rest of the world) have continually voted in UN every year to go back to 1967 borders which is a great improvement over the original 1948 borders for Israel.

Israel has a huge powerful military that can take on all of its neighbours at once. Beating Syria up like rag doll is no problem. The US estimated and told Israel that it would take 10-14 days max to whoop all of its neighbors in 1967 and it took them 6 days.

The only reason why the Arabs want to go back to the '67 borders is that that is the only conflict that they can even claim to be the injured party.

Why do not the Arabs insist on the '48 or '73 borders? Out of concern for Israel - remove the rose colored glasses.

Why not 1948 borders? That would be ideal but Palestinians want to present a more politically feasible and practical solution which is to concede more land by asking for only the 1967 borders. Nearly every country in the world except for 2 (US/Israel) acknowledge this.

The 1967 borders is the international consensus to solve the issue for a Palestinian state. Every year for decades until today nearly every country in the world votes to adopt a UN resolution to call on Israel to return to 1967 borders. The only countries which oppose are the US, Israel and small countries like Micronesia.. The US and Israel were also the only who voted against against resolutions against South African apartheid until it ended. You should remove your zionist tinted glasses.

Apparently the Arabs were not to happy with the '67 borders - otherwise why the Yon Kippar (sp?) attack in '73

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: magomago
If anyone has been paying attention to the news lately, at the slightly successful (or a slight failure depending how we want to this see) Arab League meeting in Syria many of the Arab countries mentioned that they might reconsider the Peace Plan that was floated quite a few years ago by the Saudis.
What peace plan was that? Get back to 1967 lines, East Jerusalem as the Capital of Palestine. In return the right of return can be discussed to find a "just solution", and Israel gets full 100% normalization with all Arab countries. IIRC, It was reaffirmed last year as a valid offer. Even the Palestinians would have taken this.

Some of you may think this is BS and doesn't exist...but it does. You want a link? Go to google.

Yet Israel is amazingly absent in any actions to pursue or discuss this plan further, and words are the rare vague statement that doesn't have any importance.

Why? From my perspective, their government doesn't want peace because it isn't in their interest.

Instead we keep hear them talking about being committed to peace, while they ensure to stall any plans or discussions. Its a good way to keep stealing land, especially when the other side (the Palestinians) can't do anything about it.

afaik this is nearly what Isreal was willing to give when Clinton got arafat and isreali leaders to sit down. At the end of the day arafat balked and Clinton in his book talks about what a disappointment it was.

 

[orangat]

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy

Originally posted by: orangat

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy

Originally posted by: orangat

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
.........
Yet the Palestinian standarad of living is greater on the West Bank than any other Palestinians areas in other Arab countries. And the improvement percentage have been greater in the past 60 years than most Arab populations with the exception of the oil royalty.

What have the Arabs countries done to improve the Palestinian standard of living?

Remember that all this happen in spite of not because of Israeli occupation. And don't forget the international community under the UN has done alot to help the Palestinians with social services as well.

If the living standards were as high as Europe, do you think the military occupation of Israel should be condoned?

Originally posted by: AndrewR
So, Israel gives up the Golan Heights, from which the Syrians bombed Israeli cities to great effect? Why am I not surprised that the "solution" is not palatable to the Israelis but acceptable to the Arabs?

"Hey, you give up everything you've gained to ensure your security, and we'll keep all of it. Sound good? Then we'll discuss how much more you have to give up."

Its a weak argument considering the Arabs (and nearly the rest of the world) have continually voted in UN every year to go back to 1967 borders which is a great improvement over the original 1948 borders for Israel.

Israel has a huge powerful military that can take on all of its neighbours at once. Beating Syria up like rag doll is no problem. The US estimated and told Israel that it would take 10-14 days max to whoop all of its neighbors in 1967 and it took them 6 days.

The only reason why the Arabs want to go back to the '67 borders is that that is the only conflict that they can even claim to be the injured party.

Why do not the Arabs insist on the '48 or '73 borders? Out of concern for Israel - remove the rose colored glasses.

Why not 1948 borders? That would be ideal but Palestinians want to present a more politically feasible and practical solution which is to concede more land by asking for only the 1967 borders. Nearly every country in the world except for 2 (US/Israel) acknowledge this.

The 1967 borders is the international consensus to solve the issue for a Palestinian state. Every year for decades until today nearly every country in the world votes to adopt a UN resolution to call on Israel to return to 1967 borders. The only countries which oppose are the US, Israel and small countries like Micronesia.. The US and Israel were also the only who voted against against resolutions against South African apartheid until it ended. You should remove your zionist tinted glasses.

Apparently the Arabs were not to happy with the '67 borders - otherwise why the Yon Kippar (sp?) attack in '73

Yes and for good reason. The neighbouring Arabs Egypt and Jordan did not really bother with a Palestinian state in 1948-1967 and just occupied parts of it. Then came the 1967 war and Israel conquered Sinai and the WB. In this crucial period the US missed the opportunity to pressure Israel to trade the occupied land for peace. Israeli left/right now saw the occupied WB/Gaza as a colonial territories and a religious affirmation of gods plan for Eretz Israel (roughly from Jordan river->Mediterranean).

Israel began building farm settlements in the Sinai and Sadat was enormously afraid that those settlements would be a political barrier against Israel returning the Sinai. Sadat made peace overtures by offering recognition in return for the Sinai despite Arab indignation at bilateral deals(w/Israel) with no provision for the Palestinians. Israel refused and Sadat made plans to invade the Sinai. The 1973 invasion plan by Sadat was for a limited war to force Israel to the bargaining table. In 1978, Israel accepted the same terms that Sadat was offering after the 1967 war. Similar deals with Syria/Jordan happened and the Palestinians were the ones left out without a state.

 

[DarkThinker]

Originally posted by: Genx87
...
afaik this is nearly what Isreal was willing to give when Clinton got arafat and isreali leaders to sit down. At the end of the day arafat balked and Clinton in his book talks about what a disappointment it was.

Oh now why did he....let's look at some of the conditions that were on the table from the Israeli side then:

The Israeli negotiators wanted the following requirements to be part of the agreement:

<Early warning stations inside the Palestinian state;

<Israeli control of Palestinian airspace;

<the right of Israel to deploy troops in the Palestinian state in the event of an emergency;

<the stationing of an international force in the Jordan Valley.

<Furthermore the Palestinian state was to be demilitarized.

Give me an effin break here.....what kind of illusion of a peace treaty was that? That was more like a subjugation treaty. The Jews would NEVER accept anything like this on there own selves.

 

[Jaskalas]

If Arabs want to die over Israeli land ? then let them die.

 

[DarkThinker]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas
If Arabs want to die over Israeli land ? then let them die.

No dear sir, you are mistaken....Arabs would be willing to die over Arab land, take a note of that and keep it as a reminder.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: orangat

Originally posted by: palehorse74
.......
........
Anyone who believes that Israel is driven by "expansionist" ideals, or has expansionist goals, is a complete idiot.
period.

In your post, you have stated your position 2 times without stating your reasons why except to say it is absurd/what idiots believe.

Its quite well known (at least outside the US) that Israel is using its occupied territories as a colonial settlement. Resources like land for farming, water are taken at the expense of the Palestinians. Palestine is a market for Israeli goods and Palestinians are taxed but receive relatively less social benefits compared to Israelis.

http://www.btselem.org/english.../International_Law.asp
http://www.btselem.org/english...er/Consumption_Gap.asp
Water crisis in Gaza

There is also a religious right in Israel that is driven by a messianic vision of redeeming the entire land of Eretz Israel. This entails Israeli settlers occupying every inch of Palestinian WB/Gaza of course and so it is an expansionist vision.

I'm sorry, but you are NOT describing an "expansionist" regime. What you're describing is essentially the state of New Jersey wishing to control all of Atlantic City, a location already well within its internationally-recognized borders!

True "expansionism" would be a demonstration of Israel's desire to overrun and control neighboring countries, such as Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and Egypt -- or colonial conquest through force in areas well beyond their own borders. Instead, Israel has given back the land taken during the various conflicts -- with the exception of a few miles of buffer zones -- and wants nothing to do with physically expanding the current borders.

Controlling all of the land within your own borders - the area you mistakenly call "Palestine" - is NOT expansionism.

Your Zionist conspiracies are a joke.

 

[miniMUNCH]

It's both. Both sides have such strong hatred for one another that peace won't happen until the US, et al pull the rug out from under Israel. Even then, it won't be a peace... there will always be strife in the middle east... it seems to be destined for conflict (not that the US isn't helping matters a great deal).

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: orangat

Originally posted by: palehorse74
.......
........
Anyone who believes that Israel is driven by "expansionist" ideals, or has expansionist goals, is a complete idiot.
period.

In your post, you have stated your position 2 times without stating your reasons why except to say it is absurd/what idiots believe.

Its quite well known (at least outside the US) that Israel is using its occupied territories as a colonial settlement. Resources like land for farming, water are taken at the expense of the Palestinians. Palestine is a market for Israeli goods and Palestinians are taxed but receive relatively less social benefits compared to Israelis.

http://www.btselem.org/english.../International_Law.asp
http://www.btselem.org/english...er/Consumption_Gap.asp
Water crisis in Gaza

There is also a religious right in Israel that is driven by a messianic vision of redeeming the entire land of Eretz Israel. This entails Israeli settlers occupying every inch of Palestinian WB/Gaza of course and so it is an expansionist vision.

I'm sorry, but you are NOT describing an "expansionist" regime. What you're describing is essentially the state of New Jersey wishing to control all of Atlantic City, a location already well within its internationally-recognized borders!

True "expansionism" would be a demonstration of Israel's desire to overrun and control neighboring countries, such as Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and Egypt -- or colonial conquest through force in areas well beyond their own borders. Instead, Israel has given back the land taken during the various conflicts -- with the exception of a few miles of buffer zones -- and wants nothing to do with physically expanding the current borders.

Controlling all of the land within your own borders - the area you mistakenly call "Palestine" - is NOT expansionism.

Your Zionist conspiracies are a joke.

Your continuing denial of reality is the farce here, and a sick one at that. Even Bush has long since condemned Israel's expansionist policies:

...

"I told the prime minister not to undertake any activity that contravenes" the "road map" for peace supported by the United States, much of Europe and key leaders in the Middle East, Bush told reporters at the ranch, with Sharon standing by his side. "Israel has obligations under the road map. The road map clearly says no expansion of settlements."

...

Here is a map detailing the expansion Israel engaged in thoughout the West Bank since 1967, current to feburary of this year:

http://www.btselem.org/Downloa...on_Barrier_Map_Eng.pdf

Those dark blue areas are Israeli settlements filled with hundreds of thousands of Israeli civilians, that is expansion, not the "few miles of buffer zones" you absurdly claimed.

 

[jonks]

Doesn't Hamas have in it's founding charter a call for the destruction of Israel? when that gets excised I'll maybe consider listening to what they have to say. Kinda hard to make a deal with someone who is not ashamed to announce that their goal and purpose in existing is to see you destroyed.

oh, and the kiddie shows with puppets murdering presidents and preaching martyrdom, nice touch.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: TheSnowman

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: orangat

Originally posted by: palehorse74
.......
........
Anyone who believes that Israel is driven by "expansionist" ideals, or has expansionist goals, is a complete idiot.
period.

In your post, you have stated your position 2 times without stating your reasons why except to say it is absurd/what idiots believe.

Its quite well known (at least outside the US) that Israel is using its occupied territories as a colonial settlement. Resources like land for farming, water are taken at the expense of the Palestinians. Palestine is a market for Israeli goods and Palestinians are taxed but receive relatively less social benefits compared to Israelis.

http://www.btselem.org/english.../International_Law.asp
http://www.btselem.org/english...er/Consumption_Gap.asp
Water crisis in Gaza

There is also a religious right in Israel that is driven by a messianic vision of redeeming the entire land of Eretz Israel. This entails Israeli settlers occupying every inch of Palestinian WB/Gaza of course and so it is an expansionist vision.

I'm sorry, but you are NOT describing an "expansionist" regime. What you're describing is essentially the state of New Jersey wishing to control all of Atlantic City, a location already well within its internationally-recognized borders!

True "expansionism" would be a demonstration of Israel's desire to overrun and control neighboring countries, such as Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and Egypt -- or colonial conquest through force in areas well beyond their own borders. Instead, Israel has given back the land taken during the various conflicts -- with the exception of a few miles of buffer zones -- and wants nothing to do with physically expanding the current borders.

Controlling all of the land within your own borders - the area you mistakenly call "Palestine" - is NOT expansionism.

Your Zionist conspiracies are a joke.

Your continuing denial of reality is the farce here, and a sick one at that. Even Bush has long since condemned Israel's expansionist policies:

...

"I told the prime minister not to undertake any activity that contravenes" the "road map" for peace supported by the United States, much of Europe and key leaders in the Middle East, Bush told reporters at the ranch, with Sharon standing by his side. "Israel has obligations under the road map. The road map clearly says no expansion of settlements."

...

Here is a map detailing the expansion Israel engaged in thoughout the West Bank since 1967, current to feburary of this year:

http://www.btselem.org/Downloa...on_Barrier_Map_Eng.pdf

Those dark blue areas are Israeli settlements filled with hundreds of thousands of Israeli civilians, that is expansion, not the "few miles of buffer zones" you absurdly claimed.

once again, it is not genuine "expansionism" when it's conducted well within the already internationally-recognized borders.

Is it possible for the state of Virginia to "expand" into more areas of Richmond? Can New York City "expand" into more of Manhattan? Can England "expand" into more areas of London?

The Gaza Strip and West Bank are within Israel's internationally-recognized borders. Therefore, the term "expansion" does not apply.

Let me know when they try to take over the Sinai, Damascus, or Beirut -- or when they land ships on the shores of Central America with hopes of conquering and converting the Aztecs... :roll:

 

[orangat]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: TheSnowman

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: orangat

Originally posted by: palehorse74
.......
........
Anyone who believes that Israel is driven by "expansionist" ideals, or has expansionist goals, is a complete idiot.
period.

In your post, you have stated your position 2 times without stating your reasons why except to say it is absurd/what idiots believe.

Its quite well known (at least outside the US) that Israel is using its occupied territories as a colonial settlement. Resources like land for farming, water are taken at the expense of the Palestinians. Palestine is a market for Israeli goods and Palestinians are taxed but receive relatively less social benefits compared to Israelis.

http://www.btselem.org/english.../International_Law.asp
http://www.btselem.org/english...er/Consumption_Gap.asp
Water crisis in Gaza

There is also a religious right in Israel that is driven by a messianic vision of redeeming the entire land of Eretz Israel. This entails Israeli settlers occupying every inch of Palestinian WB/Gaza of course and so it is an expansionist vision.

I'm sorry, but you are NOT describing an "expansionist" regime. What you're describing is essentially the state of New Jersey wishing to control all of Atlantic City, a location already well within its internationally-recognized borders!

True "expansionism" would be a demonstration of Israel's desire to overrun and control neighboring countries, such as Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and Egypt -- or colonial conquest through force in areas well beyond their own borders. Instead, Israel has given back the land taken during the various conflicts -- with the exception of a few miles of buffer zones -- and wants nothing to do with physically expanding the current borders.

Controlling all of the land within your own borders - the area you mistakenly call "Palestine" - is NOT expansionism.

Your Zionist conspiracies are a joke.

Your continuing denial of reality is the farce here, and a sick one at that. Even Bush has long since condemned Israel's expansionist policies:

...

"I told the prime minister not to undertake any activity that contravenes" the "road map" for peace supported by the United States, much of Europe and key leaders in the Middle East, Bush told reporters at the ranch, with Sharon standing by his side. "Israel has obligations under the road map. The road map clearly says no expansion of settlements."

...

Here is a map detailing the expansion Israel engaged in thoughout the West Bank since 1967, current to feburary of this year:

http://www.btselem.org/Downloa...on_Barrier_Map_Eng.pdf

Those dark blue areas are Israeli settlements filled with hundreds of thousands of Israeli civilians, that is expansion, not the "few miles of buffer zones" you absurdly claimed.

once again, it is not genuine "expansionism" when it's conducted well within the already internationally-recognized borders.

Is it possible for the state of Virginia to "expand" into more areas of Richmond? Can New York City "expand" into more of Manhattan? Can England "expand" into more areas of London?

The Gaza Strip and West Bank are within Israel's internationally-recognized borders. Therefore, the term "expansion" does not apply.

Let me know when they try to take over the Sinai, Damascus, or Beirut -- or when they land ships on the shores of Central America with hopes of conquering and converting the Aztecs... :roll:

Palehorse,
Your contention that the West Bank/Gaza belongs to Israel is a common misconception. Did the 1948 borders demarcate the WB/Gaza as part of Israel? The WB/Gaza belongs to the Palestinians ever since 1948 despite being occupied by Israel or other Arab countries.

In the 1967 war, Israel chased the Jordanians who were occupying WB and took over military occupation of the territory - remember the word - occupation, took over Gaza from the Egyptians and annexed Jerusalem. By international law annexation is illegal and transfering the host population into an occupied territory is also illegal. The international consensus (that is nearly every country except for US/Israel) regards the occupation as illegal and tries every year for decades to adopt a UN resolution to get Israel to return to 1967 borders and it is always defeated by the usual 2.

So the WB isn't part of Israel's internationally recognized borders, it is part of Israel's military occupied territory just as Iraq was occupied by the US in the 2003 war (until Iraq regained its sovereignity a few years later). Even pro-Israeli websites refer to the WB as occupied territory but justifies it on grounds of security or on grounds that it is god's will. Alan Dershowitz who is very pro-Israel says he opposes the occupation and says settlements are illegal and a bad thing.
Democracynow Finkelstein Dershowitz 2003

Israel has a colonial appetite for land, water, markets, economic hegemony in the WB.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: orangat
Israel has a colonial appetite for land, water, markets, economic hegemony in the WB.

Sure they do. I hear they have their sites set on Indonesia, South Africa, and Guam next...

What country do the lands of the West Bank and Gaza belong to?

There is no "Palestine."

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Israel gave back some land to show good faith, what was it used for? To lob rockets on civilians.

I suggest that Israel creates a buffer zone large enough to avoid the attacks, that is the only way they will be left alone.

Don't kid yourself with this bullshit that Palestinians want peace either, Hamas would have won an election today and they do not believe Israel has a right to exist at all, they refuse to acknowledge Israel and that is the main reason why they are more popular.

Palestinians have shown that they do not want peace by electing extremist terrorist organisations to represent them, at the same time Israelis have been for moderates so that a solution can be had.

When it comes to history, if not for Israel, there would not be a Palestinian population at all and in no other surrounding parts have they been treated as well as they have in Israel.

Cease fire for almost a year and hundreds of rockets raining in on the Israeli civilian population and it is ISRAEL that is against peace?

You have to be FUCKING kidding.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: orangat
Israel has a colonial appetite for land, water, markets, economic hegemony in the WB.

Sure they do. I hear they have their sites set on Indonesia, South Africa, and Guam next...

What country do the lands of the West Bank and Gaza belong to?

There is no "Palestine."

Don't be daft desk jockey boy, there is a Palestine that is well defined on any map you've ever laid your eye on, it's internationally respected territory and you of all people should know that.

In reality, the borders aren't internationally set, so if you are claiming that there is no Palestine, then there is no Israel either as the only nation that acknowledges the current Israeli borders is Israel, not even the US acknowledges them.

There is a need and a will at least amongst the civilians to create a two state solution, Hamas won't agree to it and Abbas is believed to be well paid by the US admin (i wouldn't be the least bit surprised if that was the case either, neither would you so don't say you would be), Hamas won't acknowledge Israel and Abbas can only negotiate his own paycheck from abroad, this "peace plan" is suck a FUCKING joke, until there is a leadership in Palestine that can be negotiated with on the terms that are required, they have to acknowledge the state of Israel, this is just stupid and will only lead to more bullshit, trying to save face by doing this was probably the dumbest thing GW and his cohorts of broken minds ever tried to do, but does it surprise anyone? It's the same thing that has been done in Iraq for the last three years and it is STUPID.

 

[orangat]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: orangat
Israel has a colonial appetite for land, water, markets, economic hegemony in the WB.

Sure they do. I hear they have their sites set on Indonesia, South Africa, and Guam next...

What country do the lands of the West Bank and Gaza belong to?

There is no "Palestine."

I told you already in my previous post that the 1948 borders for Israel did not contain WB/Gaza. There was suppose to be 2 states - Israel and Palestine and the WB/Gaza would constitute the Palestinian state.

If Israel can use the old testament to justify the creation of a state then the Palestinians who were the overwhelming majority in pre-Israel Palestine with legal titles and land deeds have an infinitely greater claim to a Palestinian state.

There is a big difference between what Israel wants which is Eretz Israel and what it deserves under international law. If we were to only frame the argument from what Israel wants then it would seem to be a hugely magnanimous gesture for Israel to hands pockets of earth back to the Palestinians. But if we were to look at the matter objectively then Israel should leave the WB/Gaza and return to 1967 borders.

 

[brandonb]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Israel gave back some land to show good faith, what was it used for? To lob rockets on civilians.

I suggest that Israel creates a buffer zone large enough to avoid the attacks, that is the only way they will be left alone.

Don't kid yourself with this bullshit that Palestinians want peace either, Hamas would have won an election today and they do not believe Israel has a right to exist at all, they refuse to acknowledge Israel and that is the main reason why they are more popular.

Palestinians have shown that they do not want peace by electing extremist terrorist organisations to represent them, at the same time Israelis have been for moderates so that a solution can be had.

When it comes to history, if not for Israel, there would not be a Palestinian population at all and in no other surrounding parts have they been treated as well as they have in Israel.

Cease fire for almost a year and hundreds of rockets raining in on the Israeli civilian population and it is ISRAEL that is against peace?

You have to be FUCKING kidding.

You have to be FUCKING stupid to think that this has been a one way street. With Israel holding out its hand to feed the Palestinians, and all they seem to do is bite the hand that feeds them. I think you know better it isn't, and hasn't been that black and white. To think otherwise is just showing your own ignorance. When you have a culture clash, hostilities erupt. Jews/Arabs is a racial and a religious culture clash, and both claim the land is theirs. Geez. Thats a big one to handle. Jews and Arabs are equally as wrong as one another in the way they have been handling it.

Hamas btw, is not just an extremeist terrorist organization. Hamas has been doing plenty of civilian work in Palestinian areas. Creating basic infrastructure and basically giving out welfare to those in need, trying to keep them alive. Are palestinians going to elect the ones who are keeping them alive? Of course they are. Hamas military is fighting the only battle it can against a bigger more powerful foe. Israel has nukes, which the USA as supplied them along with billions in military aid. Palestinians have rocks. What do you expect them to do? Fight a conventional war? Geez.

For someone in the military, you don't seem to understand basic politics and warfare with a weaker side vs a much more powerful side. They didn't teach that in boot camp? Maybe thats why we are getting our asses kicked over in Iraq.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: brandonb

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Israel gave back some land to show good faith, what was it used for? To lob rockets on civilians.

I suggest that Israel creates a buffer zone large enough to avoid the attacks, that is the only way they will be left alone.

Don't kid yourself with this bullshit that Palestinians want peace either, Hamas would have won an election today and they do not believe Israel has a right to exist at all, they refuse to acknowledge Israel and that is the main reason why they are more popular.

Palestinians have shown that they do not want peace by electing extremist terrorist organisations to represent them, at the same time Israelis have been for moderates so that a solution can be had.

When it comes to history, if not for Israel, there would not be a Palestinian population at all and in no other surrounding parts have they been treated as well as they have in Israel.

Cease fire for almost a year and hundreds of rockets raining in on the Israeli civilian population and it is ISRAEL that is against peace?

You have to be FUCKING kidding.

You have to be FUCKING stupid to think that this has been a one way street. With Israel holding out its hand to feed the Palestinians, and all they seem to do is bite the hand that feeds them. I think you know better it isn't, and hasn't been that black and white. To think otherwise is just showing your own ignorance. When you have a culture clash, hostilities erupt. Jews/Arabs is a racial and a religious culture clash, and both claim the land is theirs. Geez. Thats a big one to handle. Jews and Arabs are equally as wrong as one another in the way they have been handling it.

Hamas btw, is not just an extremeist terrorist organization. Hamas has been doing plenty of civilian work in Palestinian areas. Creating basic infrastructure and basically giving out welfare to those in need, trying to keep them alive. Are palestinians going to elect the ones who are keeping them alive? Of course they are. Hamas military is fighting the only battle it can against a bigger more powerful foe. Israel has nukes, which the USA as supplied them along with billions in military aid. Palestinians have rocks. What do you expect them to do? Fight a conventional war? Geez.

For someone in the military, you don't seem to understand basic politics and warfare with a weaker side vs a much more powerful side. They didn't teach that in boot camp? Maybe thats why we are getting our asses kicked over in Iraq.

A RACIAL clash? ok, i'm not going to read more of your post after having read that, first of all, they are ALL pretty much Semites, second, there is no such thing as different races amongst humans, we do not differ enough to distinguish races you daft twat.

I shouldn't have read more, it gets worse from there on, you know NOTHING about the situation what so ever, Hamas task is and has always been to eradicate Israel, they see Jews as invaders of their holy land.

Hamas is a terrorist organisation, they have a militant branch that carries out their orders and are responsible for each and every one of the deaths that have come when the Israelis have had to strike back to defend themselves against the rockets that are lobbed by the hundreds every single week.

You really don't know the difference between a resistance group and a terrorist organisation, do you? It's sad that the heroes name now are entwined with the murder of innocent civilians as people such as yourself defend them.

One mans terrorists are another mans freedom fighters, it's said, like they really don't know the difference, and apparently they do not know the difference, which is very sad.

 

[orangat]

Originally posted by: brandonb

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Israel gave back some land to show good faith, what was it used for? To lob rockets on civilians.

I suggest that Israel creates a buffer zone large enough to avoid the attacks, that is the only way they will be left alone.

Don't kid yourself with this bullshit that Palestinians want peace either, Hamas would have won an election today and they do not believe Israel has a right to exist at all, they refuse to acknowledge Israel and that is the main reason why they are more popular.

Palestinians have shown that they do not want peace by electing extremist terrorist organisations to represent them, at the same time Israelis have been for moderates so that a solution can be had.

When it comes to history, if not for Israel, there would not be a Palestinian population at all and in no other surrounding parts have they been treated as well as they have in Israel.

Cease fire for almost a year and hundreds of rockets raining in on the Israeli civilian population and it is ISRAEL that is against peace?

You have to be FUCKING kidding.

You have to be FUCKING stupid to think that this has been a one way street. With Israel holding out its hand to feed the Palestinians, and all they seem to do is bite the hand that feeds them. I think you know better it isn't, and hasn't been that black and white. To think otherwise is just showing your own ignorance. When you have a culture clash, hostilities erupt. Jews/Arabs is a racial and a religious culture clash, and both claim the land is theirs. Geez. Thats a big one to handle. Jews and Arabs are equally as wrong as one another in the way they have been handling it.

Hamas btw, is not just an extremeist terrorist organization. Hamas has been doing plenty of civilian work in Palestinian areas. Creating basic infrastructure and basically giving out welfare to those in need, trying to keep them alive. Are palestinians going to elect the ones who are keeping them alive? Of course they are. Hamas military is fighting the only battle it can against a bigger more powerful foe. Israel has nukes, which the USA as supplied them along with billions in military aid. Palestinians have rocks. What do you expect them to do? Fight a conventional war? Geez.

For someone in the military, you don't seem to understand basic politics and warfare with a weaker side vs a much more powerful side. They didn't teach that in boot camp? Maybe thats why we are getting our asses kicked over in Iraq.

The Israel Palestine conflict is not a conflict of civilizations or religions, just as the US-Amerindian war.

The issue driving those conflicts is a very basic one - territorial dispossession. Palestinians want their own state and have made a big concession from the 1948 partition to be ready and willing to accept 1967 borders as a basis for a separate state.

The solution is very simple and straightforward. Nearly every country in the world incl the Palestinians would like Israel to return to 1967 borders but the yearly UN resolution is always defeated by just US, Israel, small islands like Micronesia and perhaps a country that badly needs a favour from the US that year.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: sirjonk
Doesn't Hamas have in it's founding charter a call for the destruction of Israel? when that gets excised I'll maybe consider listening to what they have to say. Kinda hard to make a deal with someone who is not ashamed to announce that their goal and purpose in existing is to see you destroyed.

oh, and the kiddie shows with puppets murdering presidents and preaching martyrdom, nice touch.

Thumbs up.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: orangat

Originally posted by: brandonb

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Israel gave back some land to show good faith, what was it used for? To lob rockets on civilians.

I suggest that Israel creates a buffer zone large enough to avoid the attacks, that is the only way they will be left alone.

Don't kid yourself with this bullshit that Palestinians want peace either, Hamas would have won an election today and they do not believe Israel has a right to exist at all, they refuse to acknowledge Israel and that is the main reason why they are more popular.

Palestinians have shown that they do not want peace by electing extremist terrorist organisations to represent them, at the same time Israelis have been for moderates so that a solution can be had.

When it comes to history, if not for Israel, there would not be a Palestinian population at all and in no other surrounding parts have they been treated as well as they have in Israel.

Cease fire for almost a year and hundreds of rockets raining in on the Israeli civilian population and it is ISRAEL that is against peace?

You have to be FUCKING kidding.

You have to be FUCKING stupid to think that this has been a one way street. With Israel holding out its hand to feed the Palestinians, and all they seem to do is bite the hand that feeds them. I think you know better it isn't, and hasn't been that black and white. To think otherwise is just showing your own ignorance. When you have a culture clash, hostilities erupt. Jews/Arabs is a racial and a religious culture clash, and both claim the land is theirs. Geez. Thats a big one to handle. Jews and Arabs are equally as wrong as one another in the way they have been handling it.

Hamas btw, is not just an extremeist terrorist organization. Hamas has been doing plenty of civilian work in Palestinian areas. Creating basic infrastructure and basically giving out welfare to those in need, trying to keep them alive. Are palestinians going to elect the ones who are keeping them alive? Of course they are. Hamas military is fighting the only battle it can against a bigger more powerful foe. Israel has nukes, which the USA as supplied them along with billions in military aid. Palestinians have rocks. What do you expect them to do? Fight a conventional war? Geez.

For someone in the military, you don't seem to understand basic politics and warfare with a weaker side vs a much more powerful side. They didn't teach that in boot camp? Maybe thats why we are getting our asses kicked over in Iraq.

The Israel Palestine conflict is not a conflict of civilizations or religions, just as the US-Amerindian war.

The issue driving those conflicts is a very basic one - territorial dispossession. Palestinians want their own state and have made a big concession from the 1948 partition to be ready and willing to accept 1967 borders as a basis for a separate state.

The solution is very simple and straightforward. Nearly every country in the world incl the Palestinians would like Israel to return to 1967 borders but the yearly UN resolution is always defeated by just US, Israel, small islands like Micronesia and perhaps a country that badly needs a favour from the US that year.

No, it's a religious war to the core, the ONLY thing that would be acceptable to the Palestinians would be for Israel to give up the eastern parts of Jerusalem and it will never be acceptable for the Jews to do so, both for the same reason, religion.

There is no yearly UN resolution regarding this issue either, you must be thinking about the protest that is not sanctioned and therefore never brought before the council, it happens roughly every three months and support has no meaning, even if every country would agree, it's just a condemnation of past actions.

I'd love to discuss this with someone who actually knew his head from his arse so you'll have to excuse me while i ignore you from now on.

 

[Lemon law]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: orangat
Israel has a colonial appetite for land, water, markets, economic hegemony in the WB.

Sure they do. I hear they have their sites set on Indonesia, South Africa, and Guam next...

What country do the lands of the West Bank and Gaza belong to?

There is no "Palestine."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So Palehorse74 says there is no Palestine and even his buddy JOS lights into Palehorse74.

And maybe with good reason because when the Brits occupied the area prior to the formation of Israel it was called, yes you guessed it, the Palestinian mandate and was administered by the British. And the British had this problem called Zionists terrorism and the Brits were the ones that the jewish terrorists were throwing bombs at. Two of those wonderful terrorists later became Israeli PM, but by then, both Began and Mier were denouncing Palestinian terrorism.

But to be fair, Mier and Began never lobbed any rockets at civilians, I am sure they would have if they had any at the time, so they had to make due with mere bombs. Maybe JOS remembers the King David Hotel, British headquarters at the time until Began remodeled the place.

And now in a sense there is no longer any Palestine, its all become Israel as they have annexed all the land into greater Israel while expelling all of the original Palestinian inhabitants still numbering better than three million. So in that sense there are still the Palestinian people but no place to put them. Now Israel is trying to figure out how to place all three million of them on a single piece of land no larger than a postage stamp and say, there is your Palestinian State.

And then Israel stares in open minded disbelief when the Palestinian people don't take them up on this generous offer. And still demands the land stolen from them be returned.
And then the same Israel that embraced terrorism against the British screams foul when the Palestinians use terror against them.

Its almost enough to bring tears to the eyes if you happen to be a crocodile. And a two faced one at that.

 

[bsobel]

Also note that the war in 1967 didn't start with Arabs attacking Israel, but rather Israel bombing Egypt.

What a complete historically inaccurate view. The casus belli for the 67 war was the closure of the Strait of Tiran. You claim Israel attacked first, but conveniently ignore the fact that Syria was bombing Israel from the Golans from 1965 on. The Israeli's didn't respond until 67 (the Syrian's lost 6 migs). The soviets then told Syria (falsley) that Israel was building up for an attack. Syria invoked its defense treaty with Egypt. Egypt massed troops on in the Sinai and the Israel border. Syria massed troops in the Golans. Egypt ordered the UN out of the Sinai, and then PUBLICALLY STATED via radio:

"As of today, there no longer exists an international emergency force to protect Israel. We shall exercise patience no more. We shall not complain any more to the UN about Israel. The sole method we shall apply against Israel is total war, which will result in the extermination of Zionist existence'

That my friend is a declaration of war. The Israeli smartly attacked first, and won an amazing victory by doing so. But to sit here and suggest they were the agressors in that war is complete rubbish.

 

[Jaskalas]

Wait John, isn?t Israel just the kind that kicks little arabic kids in the face and runs? Don?t you despise them and those like them? Aren?t Israelis going to grow up to become home grown terrorists? I have a difficult time finding you removed from the argument you used last week.

The truth you?ve spoken here wasn?t expected. Must have been why my image of you was initially positive before you condemned me for calling on us to use moderate Muslims to cut out the cancer that has grown in Islam. The sort of disease Israel faces in Palestine and surrounding territories. The sort we need to beware the preaching of on our soil.

Make no mistake Sir, the likes of Hamas won?t be satisfied with just Israel slain. That?s part of the reason why we can never let them have it.

One last thing to say here. Wouldn't it be nice if the Islamic groups on our soil, who are considered prominent such as CAIR would condemn the likes of Hamas instead of support them?