189 replies to this topic

[All_In]

Palestinian objections

Netanyahu's 'Palestinian state' would not include east Jerusalem, which was annexed by Israel after the 1967 Middle East war and is seen by the Palestinians as their future capital

It would not have many of the normal trappings of statehood under the vision: control of their own borders, airspace, a military and the right to sign treaties with other nations

Netanyahu refused to freeze all settlement activity in the West Bank, which it also occupied in 1967, despite US pressure and Israel agreeing to such a move in the 2003 "road map"

He stated that Palestinian families displaced from lands that are now in Israel would not be able to return, a key demand for the Palestinians (frequently described as 'Israel's right to exist')
------

If anyone thinks this is a genuine proposal, they need their head checked.

[Pot Odds RAC]

I want my own Country too.

Now.

[BigDMcGee]

Palestinian objections

Netanyahu's 'Palestinian state' would not include east Jerusalem, which was annexed by Israel after the 1967 Middle East war and is seen by the Palestinians as their future capital

It would not have many of the normal trappings of statehood under the vision: control of their own borders, airspace, a military and the right to sign treaties with other nations

Netanyahu refused to freeze all settlement activity in the West Bank, which it also occupied in 1967, despite US pressure and Israel agreeing to such a move in the 2003 "road map"

He stated that Palestinian families displaced from lands that are now in Israel would not be able to return, a key demand for the Palestinians (frequently described as 'Israel's right to exist')
------

If anyone thinks this is a genuine proposal, they need their head checked.

I think israel should be flexible on all of those demands, but the one thing I just don't think is ever going to change is jerusalem. Israel is never giving that up, ever, and don't know if there ever can be peace because of that

[CaneBrain]

Palestinian objections

Netanyahu's 'Palestinian state' would not include east Jerusalem, which was annexed by Israel after the 1967 Middle East war and is seen by the Palestinians as their future capital

It would not have many of the normal trappings of statehood under the vision: control of their own borders, airspace, a military and the right to sign treaties with other nations

Netanyahu refused to freeze all settlement activity in the West Bank, which it also occupied in 1967, despite US pressure and Israel agreeing to such a move in the 2003 "road map"

He stated that Palestinian families displaced from lands that are now in Israel would not be able to return, a key demand for the Palestinians (frequently described as 'Israel's right to exist')
------

If anyone thinks this is a genuine proposal, they need their head checked.

If anyone thinks the Palestinians deserve a genuine proposal, they need their head checked. Israel annexed East Jerusalem and the West Bank after defeating a cowardly sneak attack on Yom Kippur. You say they "occupied" it like it was part of an invasion.

Palestine is entitled to jack shit and they should consider themselves lucky Isreal is offering them anything other than the middle finger and a laser-guided bomb up their ass.

[vbnautilus]

If anyone thinks the Palestinians deserve a genuine proposal, they need their head checked. Israel annexed East Jerusalem and the West Bank after defeating a cowardly sneak attack on Yom Kippur. You say they "occupied" it like it was part of an invasion.

Palestine is entitled to jack shit and they should consider themselves lucky Isreal is offering them anything other than the middle finger and a laser-guided bomb up their ass.

Seems like you have let your emotions get the best of you here.

The Israelis are not innocent of moral transgression in this history either, and all people are "entitled" to some basic freedoms. Regardless of that, from a practical standpoint it seems pretty clear that neither side is going to live in peace until a reasonable compromise is achieved, so the point of view you are expressing seems rather unhelpful.

[CaneBrain]

Seems like you have let your emotions get the best of you here.

The Israelis are not innocent of moral transgression in this history either, and all people are "entitled" to some basic freedoms. Regardless of that, from a practical standpoint it seems pretty clear that neither side is going to live in peace until a reasonable compromise is achieved, so the point of view you are expressing seems rather unhelpful.

<------------not looking to help.

It may be that Isreal's best solution is to compromise....but that does not mean they should feel obligated to compromise. Isreal is not innocent of moral transgression but they have been reactors, not instigators for the majority of this conflict. The idea that Isreal occupied areas on a whim or as part of a pre-planned idea to gain more territory is complete BS and I am tired of all in's attempts to portray it as such.

I find the idea that Palestine deserves any land equivalent to the idea that we should give Texas back to Mexico.













On 2nd thought.....what's the number for Mexico?

[Plus one]

Palestinian objections

Netanyahu's 'Palestinian state' would not include east Jerusalem, which was annexed by Israel after the 1967 Middle East war and is seen by the Palestinians as their future capital

It would not have many of the normal trappings of statehood under the vision: control of their own borders, airspace, a military and the right to sign treaties with other nations

Netanyahu refused to freeze all settlement activity in the West Bank, which it also occupied in 1967, despite US pressure and Israel agreeing to such a move in the 2003 "road map"

He stated that Palestinian families displaced from lands that are now in Israel would not be able to return, a key demand for the Palestinians (frequently described as 'Israel's right to exist')
------

If anyone thinks this is a genuine proposal, they need their head checked.

Bout time someone here really understands the jewish mentality. Not since the fuhrer has there been someone with as keen an understanding of the jewish question as the op.

Well done.

[JOhnWaters]

Seems like you have let your emotions get the best of you here.

The Israelis are not innocent of moral transgression in this history either, and all people are "entitled" to some basic freedoms. Regardless of that, from a practical standpoint it seems pretty clear that neither side is going to live in peace until a reasonable compromise is achieved, so the point of view you are expressing seems rather unhelpful.

it appears YOU have let emotion get the best of you, that and marxism. Mr. CaneBrain is completely right.

to your first point: Israel is well behind the Muslims that surround them in initiated force. WELL behind. Second, all people are entitled to basic freedom? its clear you dont understand the ethics behind what you speak of, and are going on pure emotion. People who initiate force are not entitled to anything except retaliation. Lastly, what do you think we have been trying this whole time? only an idiot could think that compromise is a solution, as if that isnt whats been going on. Israel should invade and and hold whatever it wants. If the Palestinians want to launch their little homemade rockets at them, then Israel should keep killing them until they are gone.

The fact is that on one side you have a civilized, sophisticated country that has proved its worth and on the other you have a dark age of mysticism and savagery. Im on the side that upholds individual rights for all people. YOU apparently, are not.

for more: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wuqxo0c2Wh8...feature=channel

[vbnautilus]

it appears YOU have let emotion get the best of you, that and marxism.

marxism?

to your first point: Israel is well behind the Muslims that surround them in initiated force. WELL behind.

I don't disagree. But this isn't a competition.

Second, all people are entitled to basic freedom? its clear you dont understand the ethics behind what you speak of, and are going on pure emotion. People who initiate force are not entitled to anything except retaliation.

I strongly disagree, and I am perplexed as to which emotion you think my sense of ethics is blinded by.

Lastly, what do you think we have been trying this whole time?

Retaliating. Isn't that what you have recommended?

only an idiot could think that compromise is a solution

This statement is empirically false, as many intelligent people believe that a compromise is possible.

, as if that isnt whats been going on. Israel should invade and and hold whatever it wants. If the Palestinians want to launch their little homemade rockets at them, then Israel should keep killing them until they are gone.

That's pretty much the situation we are in now, and no one seems to be happy with it.

The fact is that on one side you have a civilized, sophisticated country that has proved its worth and on the other you have a dark age of mysticism and savagery. Im on the side that upholds individual rights for all people. YOU apparently, are not.

I am having trouble reconciling these two statements. You want to uphold the rights of all people, except those who are savages?

[JOhnWaters]

lots of words spaced out as much as possible

you are severely confused.

im not speaking empirically, im speaking within this context, and thats obvious to the rationals here among us, so stop diverting the issue.

Your whole argument is that killing is intrinsically wrong. This kind of thinking is idiotic.

There is a context here, as with everything, and we must speak within that context to speak effectively. Israel provides much more individual freedoms for all people than Palestine or any other dark age Islamic country, that is not up for argument. Now, when savages initiate force upon you, what do you do? compromise with them? No. Drop this multi-culturalist bullshit that you are letting control your thinking. All cultures are not empirically good. All cultures do not deserve rights when they become violent. When a country with elected terrorists as leaders starts attacking you you destroy them.

Israel has not been allowed to fully retaliate at any point in the last 50 years. You clearly dont know the history of this if you think otherwise. If they hadnt been held back by the US and Russia among others Palestine would be gone and this would not be a problem today, and the world would be a better place with an individual rights supporting country like Israel in charge of land that once belonged to dark age fundamentalists that are against individual freedoms for their citizens. SO, are you for or against individual rights?

[FCP Bob]

Israel has not been allowed to fully retaliate at any point in the last 50 years. You clearly dont know the history of this if you think otherwise. If they hadnt been held back by the US and Russia among others Palestine would be gone and this would not be a problem today, and the world would be a better place with an individual rights supporting country like Israel in charge of land that once belonged to dark age fundamentalists that are against individual freedoms for their citizens. SO, are you for or against individual rights?

So you're saying that you support the idea of a genocide of the Palestinians and you wish that it would have happened in the 60's and 70's.

Gotcha

[vbnautilus]

you are severely confused.

im not speaking empirically, and thats obvious to the rationals here among us, so stop diverting the issue.

I take this as a concession that your statement was not true. You are agreeing that it is not supported by evidence.

but its funny that you should mention the word empirically because that is the basis behind your whole argument. that it is empirically wrong for people to kill other people. That is it empirically wrong for there to be death and destruction. This kind of thinking is idiotic.

I have made no such argument. I don't even see where the issue of whether it is wrong to kill people has been discussed.

There is a context here, as with everything, and we must speak within that context to speak effectively. Israel provides much more individual freedoms for all people than Palestine or any other dark age Islamic country, that is not up for argument. Now, when savages initiate force upon you, what do you do? compromise with them? No. Drop this multi-culturalist bullshit that you are letting control your thinking. All cultures are not empirically good. All cultures do not deserve rights when they become violent. When a country with elected terrorists as leaders starts attacking you you destroy them.

I am not a cultural relativist, and I don't believe that all cultures are equally "good". You seem to be reading far beyond what I have written. The issue of what to do in a situation like this one is exactly what we are discussing. (for the record, I think Islam is a destructive and unhealthy ideology and would like to see it go away, but killing all the people who believe it is not the solution) If you think it is a settled issue that revenge is the solution then why hasn't it worked?

Israel has not been allowed to fully retaliate at any point in the last 50 years. You clearly dont know the history of this if you think otherwise. If they hadnt been held back by the US and Russia among others Palestine would be gone and this would not be a problem today, and the world would be a better place with an individual rights supporting country like Israel in charge of land that once belonged to dark age fundamentalists that are against individual freedoms for their citizens. SO, are you for or against individual rights?

This is so convoluted that I have to suspect, along with your low post count, that you are simply trolling. "Kill everyone who I don't consider civilized" is not a tenable ethical or practical position.

[owise1]

Seems like you have let your emotions get the best of you here.

The Israelis are not innocent of moral transgression in this history either, and all people are "entitled" to some basic freedoms. Regardless of that, from a practical standpoint it seems pretty clear that neither side is going to live in peace until a reasonable compromise is achieved, so the point of view you are expressing seems rather unhelpful.

Your statement seems to imply some type of equality, like 'they are both wrong and both sides have acted badly'. This is a simplistic view and also seems imply there is a moral equivalence between Palestinian Terrorists and the Israeli response.

The reality is that every reasonable school of philosophy, theology, jurisprudence, and common sense distinguishes between deliberately targeting civilians and inadvertently killing civilians while targeting terrorists who hide among them.

Also Canebrain, I agree with you 100% except it is spelled Israel not Isreal.

[vbnautilus]

Your statement seems to imply some type of equality, like 'they are both wrong and both sides have acted badly'. This is a simplistic view and also seems imply there is a moral equivalence between Palestinian Terrorists and the Israeli response.

The reality is that every reasonable school of philosophy, theology, jurisprudence, and common sense distinguishes between deliberately targeting civilians and inadvertently killing civilians while targeting terrorists who hide among them.

Also Canebrain, I agree with you 100% except it is spelled Israel not Isreal.

No, I have made no claims to moral equivalence; I think the whole idea is rather silly. My point is that placing blame is largely irrelevant at this point, and what we need is a practical solution. The stalemate involves both sides tossing blame back and forth, which is counter-productive.

[All_In]

Isreal... have been reactors, not instigators for the majority of this conflict.

According to a joint Tel Aviv University-European University study, this fits a larger pattern in which Israeli violence has been responsible for ending 79 per cent of all lulls in violence since the outbreak of the second intifada, compared with only 8 per cent for Hamas and other Palestinian factions.

http://english.aljazeera.net/focus/war_on_...2723260741.html

i'll save people here from embarrassment, and point out that the text above refers to an Israeli university/European study..

it is so sad to see how easily people can be fooled by the media into believing anything.

[CaneBrain]

According to a joint Tel Aviv University-European University study, this fits a larger pattern in which Israeli violence has been responsible for ending 79 per cent of all lulls in violence since the outbreak of the second intifada, compared with only 8 per cent for Hamas and other Palestinian factions.

http://english.aljazeera.net/focus/war_on_...2723260741.html

i'll save people here from embarrassment, and point out that the text above refers to an Israeli university/European study..

it is so sad to see how easily people can be fooled by the media into believing anything.

ah one study in an al-jazeera article. I totally changed my mind now. your last line is deliciously ironic.

[Balloon guy]

They never should have stopped their counter attacks that always seem to result in the Israel taking the land from the people who attacked them in the first place, with the intention of Jewish genocide.

Also, if they would just import Mexicans to do the manual labor instead of the Palestinians, then they could just close the border and save a lot of problems. Poor Mexicans are better workers, better people and would eventually start importing Palenstinians and there wouldn't be any of this blowing yourself up with Mexican gangs patroling the barrios along the border.

I'm sure that Jordan and Syria would step up and supply the Palestinians with jobs, running water, electricity, roads, education, healthcare, access to falalfal vendor carts and cable television.

After they starved them and killed them I mean.

Which would be ignored by Al-geewhiz.

[Balloon guy]

ah one study in an al-jazeera article. I totally changed my mind now. your last line is deliciously ironic.

I love the qualifier.

"After the first two attempts to kill every Jew in the world, THEY have been the bad guys more than we have."


"I suspect that if you only count the times Israel started it, they have been the aggresor almost 75% of the time"

[All_In]

ah one study in an al-jazeera article. I totally changed my mind now. your last line is deliciously ironic.

WOW. i mean, really, wow. even after i quoted text that mentioned it was a joint study with an ISRAELI UNIVERSITY, even after i stated this fact again, just to be clear on it, you still were fooled!! like i siad about the media...keep believing what u r told to believe, like a good little boy.

LOL, u r officially no longer relevant in this discussion. i mean, u don't even have the brain power to prevent such a laughable post????

[vbnautilus]

They never should have stopped their counter attacks that always seem to result in the Israel taking the land from the people who attacked them in the first place, with the intention of Jewish genocide.

Also, if they would just import Mexicans to do the manual labor instead of the Palestinians, then they could just close the border and save a lot of problems. Poor Mexicans are better workers, better people and would eventually start importing Palenstinians and there wouldn't be any of this blowing yourself up with Mexican gangs patroling the barrios along the border.

I'm sure that Jordan and Syria would step up and supply the Palestinians with jobs, running water, electricity, roads, education, healthcare, access to falalfal vendor carts and cable television.

After they starved them and killed them I mean.

Which would be ignored by Al-geewhiz.

hmmm... falafel... tacos... falafel... tacos...

this is difficult.