The hundred years' war

[QuantumPion]

Originally posted by: Stoneburner
Jaskalas - you are completely wrong on a certain point.

Since the peace process began circa 93 or so, israel has always maintained that settlements will be kept regardless of anything. So while they have delayed the peace process often themselves, and often by the palis do it, the fact is Israel has consistently kept building settlements. Only Sharon in his second term did any pullback from the settlements. Because of the israeli right wing, the israeli govt does NOTHING about it. So the Israelis are the ones who have been taking land ILLEGALLY by anybody's standard.

Playing devil's advocate for a moment:

Suppose Israel really was allowing settlements in areas where Arabs didn't want them, in land that Arabs think they should have control over.

How is launching suicide bombing campaigns and rocket strikes against Israel's civilian centers an appropriate response to this action?

 

[Stoneburner]

Originally posted by: QuantumPion

Originally posted by: Stoneburner
Jaskalas - you are completely wrong on a certain point.

Since the peace process began circa 93 or so, israel has always maintained that settlements will be kept regardless of anything. So while they have delayed the peace process often themselves, and often by the palis do it, the fact is Israel has consistently kept building settlements. Only Sharon in his second term did any pullback from the settlements. Because of the israeli right wing, the israeli govt does NOTHING about it. So the Israelis are the ones who have been taking land ILLEGALLY by anybody's standard.

Playing devil's advocate for a moment:

Suppose Israel really was allowing settlements in areas where Arabs didn't want them, in land that Arabs think they should have control over.

How is launching suicide bombing campaigns and rocket strikes against Israel's civilian centers an appropriate response to this action?

Appropriate? When is desperation ever going to result in an appropriate response? It's not an overstatement when multiple sources suggest that the Israeli government pretended like the palestinians never existed. Golda Meir infamously once stated that "THere's no such thing as a Palestinian"

Violence has been the only way the palestinians got attention. This is unfortunately Israel's fault to some extent because they have never rewarded good behavior, they've punished bad behavior. What incentive did the israelis give to move the palestinians toward peace before the first intifada?

The point isn't who is in a morally superior position. Right now the moral high ground is about a 60 - 40 edge to Israel. The problem is, too many in the UNITED STATES do not recognize that Israel has done wrong and continues to do wrong. Unflinchingly supporting israel is not a solution.

The most ironic part is, even though Israelis WITHIN israel openly discuss Israel's faults and problems, even though new scholarship from Israeli authors about the 600k refugees and the 48 war and such implicates Israel more strongly, it's the U.S. and its citizens that buy the Likud party line ENTIRELY. Either U.S. citizens should have a full range of knowledge about this matter and be free to express a full range of opinions OR everybody should shut the fukk up entirely.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: Lemon law

Originally posted by: Xellos2099
Didn't Hamas proclaim that Israel need to wipe off the map? For Israel, they are following human instinct, survival instinct.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not sure if Hamas made that statement, but Iran certainly did. And Israeli propagandists have gleefully seized on the Statement without explaining its real meaning.

Because the alternate meaning is that Israel will go back to its original borders that it had between 1948 and up until the 1967 war that greatly expanded the size of Israel.

Meaning those Israeli conquests would be wiped off the map, which is also the position taken by the UN charter, that basically states all land taken by conquest in war is not legitimate. Thus far, Israel has only given back the worthless Sinai desert, continues to occupy the rest, but that occupation is only as legitimate as the USA's occupation of Iraq. And as we saw, the US had to make major concessions just to get a temporary extension of UN permission.

And at some future time, the UN and the rest of the world may say to Israel, out damn spot, and Israel will have no legitimacy at all in retaining any land captured in the 1967 war, which would also mean it would have zero claim to Jerusalem.

As for Hamas, I have heard the claim its leaders demand death to all of Israel including the original 1948 borders, basically the same position Arifat originally took, so we have to wonder how valid those claims are, and if the rest of the world
accepted some "reasonable" peace deal fair to all sides, Hamas would either be forced to modify its position, or Hamas support would vanish.

Basic lesson, don't listen too much to extremist hard liners on either sides, the problem is that we have driven the moderates out of the political discussion.

Nice try at misinformation......

 

[JS80]

Cliffs:

the palestinians ?never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity?