A demilitarized zone is a buffer yes, the settlements are a buffer as well keeping the rockets from firing deeper inside Israel. Your idea of human shields is incorrect since the border is militarized.
A demilitarized zone is a buffer yes, the settlements are a buffer as well keeping the rockets from firing deeper inside Israel. Your idea of human shields is incorrect since the border is militarized.
- Jul 31, 2006
- 4,506
- 0
- 76
- Jul 31, 2006
- 4,506
- 0
- 76
Thats why plenty of Palestinians from the west bank work in Israel, and go back to their homes in the west bank.
no civil rights right?
kylebisme
Diamond Member
- Mar 25, 2000
- 9,396
- 0
- 0
The settlements aren't anywhere near the rockets, the former are all across the West Bank while the latter come from Gaza, those two Palestinian territories being separated by miles of Israel.
The boarder along with entirety of West Bank is under Israeli military control. That does nothing to change the fact that civil settlements in occupied territory as a defensive measure is use of human shields.
Human shields require a sense of being "forced"
They live there willingly and are protected by the IDF.
The rockets come from whereever they feel like shooting them, as we saw with rockets coming in from Lebannon.
The settlements will not be removed until the world recognizes and plans for Israel security after there removal. It is that simple.
kylebisme
Diamond Member
- Mar 25, 2000
- 9,396
- 0
- 0
I wasn't comparing anything, I was pointing out the flaw in Palehorse's suggestion.
Israel imposing martial law on the West Bank is why all Palestinians there are denied civil rights, as it has been for the past 42 years. Exploiting them for cheep labor does win any brownie points.
- Jul 31, 2006
- 4,506
- 0
- 76
now, while I do not agree on just throwing them all away out of Israel, I do think their "brethren" should help them leave if they so choose.
- Jul 31, 2006
- 4,506
- 0
- 76
kylebisme
Diamond Member
- Mar 25, 2000
- 9,396
- 0
- 0
Sure, such as by economic persuasion, which Israeli government creates though tax incentive and housing subsidies for settlers.
Yet the settlements aren't between Lebannon and Israel either. Again, they are all across the West Bank.
The settlements continue to expand, further provoking the hostility which threatens Israel's security.
- Jul 31, 2006
- 4,506
- 0
- 76
well maybe their ancestors shouldn't have lived on lands that were previously Jewish.
secondly, the last thing any jew escaping from the holocaust or surviving it needs is a fight. like I have said MANY times in the past, all of the land jews had was mostly bought, and was bad land such as swamps. all you do is deny it because that means you are wrong.
secondly, the last thing any jew escaping from the holocaust or surviving it needs is a fight. like I have said MANY times in the past, all of the land jews had was mostly bought, and was bad land such as swamps. all you do is deny it because that means you are wrong.
- Jul 31, 2006
- 4,506
- 0
- 76
evading the main topic once again.
like I have said, (god typing this out to you 100 times is really getting annoying)
Israel has already offered 98% of the land back in one deal, 95% + land in the negev to make up the 5% to the palestinians for peace.
so lets think of why they wouldnt accept it... hmm maybe because 1. they want all of israel destroyed and for themselves, 2. they think they deserve more or 3. they are dumbasses who dont care for the actual land, they just want to continue to carry out terrorist attacks, because they know they will get their face kicked in the day they attack israel after a treaty was signed.
1 and 3 sound just about right.
so please deny what I just wrote. history is history.
Economic incentive is not forced is it?
Until there is a sustained history if peace in the settlements, they will not be dismantled since Israel cannot assure her security after the are.
The settlements expand due to natural population increases, not out of bringing in new settlers, this is perfectly fine.
Sadly, the problem Hamas has, which is evidently reinforced in your view is a view that the removal of settlements will either be a 100% thing or not, when in reality the Palestinians in any two state solution will not receive 100% of the land. Another issue that has to be settled outside of some simplistic view you have of the issue that is a simple "If you give them back the problem will go away". You are a perfect representation of what is causing the nationalism to sweep across Israel, a representation of a world that ignores the problems Israel has towards the Palestinians. The people who continue to ignore the problems on Israels side when championing a "do this or nothing" type mentality will ultimately result in the full election of a far right wing party which will ensure no two solution will ever be implemented.
No one is going to go to war over Palestine.
kylebisme
Diamond Member
- Mar 25, 2000
- 9,396
- 0
- 0
It is to those who don't have the means to sustain a respectable quality of life in Israel, but only with those economic incentive they receive as settlers, and to the chidern who don't get to choose for themeselves.
I don't suggest dismantling the settlements anyway, just withdrawing those Israeli civilians from Palestinian territory who don't want Palestinian citizenship.
The population growth among West Bank settlers was three times higher than that of the rest of Israel during the past 12 years, which is obviously not natural population growth.
The problem is, as long as Israel refuses to grant Palestinians civil rights as Israeli citizens, Palestinians need enough of the settlements withdrawn to allow them to exist as a sovereign nation of their own. Furthermore, Palestinians already ceded 100% of the land Israel conquered from them in 1948, and considering how poorly that turned out for them, they are left with no motivation to cede anything more.
I never suggested anything so simple-minded as that.
Parties from left to right have been insuring no two solution will ever be implemented since long before I was born. Willful ignorance of such facts and incessant finger pointing is what is causing nationalist fervor to sweep across Israel.
You mean no one but Israel and the few Palestinians who resist, eh? And what was your point with that comment anyway?
palehorse
Lifer
- Dec 21, 2005
- 11,521
- 0
- 76
Their actions would become the responsibility of the sovereign nations they assimilate into. Any rockets launched from any of those countries would be deemed acts of war by a sovereign nation. Besides, it's much easier to create a DMZ/buffer zone along internationally-recognized borders between sovereign nations -- ie, the Sinai, which I once had the pleasure of patrolling for six months -- than it is to do so along arbitrary lines drawn in zig-zag lines through their lands.
On that note, wouldn't a two state solution require some sort of connected landmass between Gaza and the West Bank? How, exactly, would that be handled? I've always wondered about that... it seems to me that Israel would have to give up more than just Gaza and the West Bank in order for the Palestinians to create one unified state... right?
It's an option -- and one that I think Israel would seriously consider if/when they completely own the West bank and Gaza.
Besides, there might only be one or two Palestinians left who don't have a history of violence against Israel, or a history of supporting those who commit violence against Israel... so the citizenship problem might just solve itself when you make the lack of support for the militants a requirement of citizenship.
It sounds to me like 99% of them just might need to go live with their loving cousins elsewhere... Jordan, Syria, and Egypt would let them in, wouldn't they? No? But... but... I thought they cared!?
Even if Israel agrees and gives up every square inch of the West Bank and Gaza, the rockets won't stop. So what then?
As I said, the rockets won't stop as long as there is a single militant within striking distance of Israeli land.
I will answer your other points later, but the last one. The point is no one is going to physically intervene in this issue. There will not be a liberator, or alliance that suddenly solves this. It will only be dealt with by Israel and Palestine. Goliath and David, except Goliath is in full body armor and anything that looks like it might beat him will result in complete destruction of the Palestinians through the nationalism that is already rampant in Israel.
A scenario we would all like to avoid, from left to right. You suggested something as simple minded by your inability to propose any thought on this issue that takes anything else into context besides that simple issue. (A question I've posed to you many many times you have ignored is "What happens after the settlements are returned?"). Your problem is that you think the issue of solving this starts with the dismantling of the occupied territories, when in reality, that will be the last step in any peace process. Maybe that is why you fail to see exactly why Israel acts the way it does. If the peace process was 26 steps, you would put Dismantling at A-C and Israel would put it somewhere on X-Z.
Either way, the final point I made was in this battle, Palestine will pretty much be a Finland in the end. It will make concessions for peace. The problem is, no one, not just you, or this board, but the world over either ignore the issue, or cry everytime the Arabs put a dead kid on thge TV. Yes, that is tragic, what is more tragic though is that this attitude which has been predominant since 1948 has shifted Israel policy, starting after the 6day war, from political authenticity to a military authenticity. The world makes Israel feel like it is being backed into a corner.
Bullshit you might say..
A recent poll done during the last elections put support for far right parties between 13-17 year olds at 86%. Which means unless major things are resolved in the next 4 years we will not see peace within our lifetime as the ugly roots of nationalism take a firm hold in Israel, caused in part by the world failing to acknowledge any of Israels concern. If that happens, than any argument you and I make will be worthless, since there will no longer be any "leeway" in Israels position.
So when I said No one is going to go to war over Palestine, this was why. In 4 years or so a far right group will take power, it will dismantle Arabic and Muslim voting rights through loyalty oaths, it will wage large wars and it will fortify the settlements (all taken from its platform from this election.).
You and others like you taking your hardliner stance has had the direct result of forcing a nationalism fervor upon Israel who sees it as standing alone against the thread of radical Islam.
It was a straw man, not an 'assumption'. The actual argument was that the settlements need to be emoved because they're wrong, and you need to deal with security issues in another way than the settlements. You changed the argument to pretend it had said 'remove the settlements and everyithing is roses, no security issues', and then proceeded to point out the flaw in the stra man you had created, and not address the actual argument. That's the very definition of a straw man.
Sorry, you are doing nothing more than saying you will do wrong because it's something you want to do. 9/11 could be defended using that same logic.
'As long as the Americans can put their forces in Saudi Arabia, can kill Muslim children with economic boycotts and arming Israel, without any price, they will do so.
So, they have to taste the same medicine they are dealig out, and only then might they reconsider the wrongs they are doing. It's an act of self-defense'.
You can say it's wrong all you like, but it's the same sort of basic logic that you can do whatever you want that you think helps your own security. It's wrong, period.
You have no excuse for the settlements. Again, you have to find some other solution to security. The fact that you didn't take my offer for military posts says a lot.
I notice again you fail to be able to give an answer to the simple question of "What happens after the settlements are removed"
Have you thought about that at all yet?
That is if you assume the settlements are wrong. How about you Craig? Have you actually given thought to what happens after the settlements are removed?
I didn't think you had :laugh:
Its only the 6th time I've asked you that and you have ignored it. You want to make yourself look like a shortsighted idiot anymore or will you actually share your great plan of peace?
Zebo
Elite Member
- Jul 29, 2001
- 39,398
- 19
- 81
You're an idiot - Jews lived there first and are given right to all they want by incessant Jihadi shock troops from the religion of peace. Same thing that let France keep the Alsace Lorraine or Italy keep the Alto Adige once and for all from German war mongers and terrorists.
Germans who are worshiped by Muslims for killing Jews. The best sellers after the Qu'ran in the ummah, aka nations of the Muslim Believers, is Hitlers mien kampf followed by protocols of Zion - hate through and through. I have no sympathy for those who's hate wakes them up. Or detached 'underdog worshiping' stupid fuckers like you who lick their balls claiming they are victims.
Live there a couple weeks, if you make it out alive you can let me know what understanding human beings they are. Until then you are clueless in Kansas.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter