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 want my own Country too.

Now.

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

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.

<------------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?

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.

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

marxism?



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



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



Retaliating. Isn't that what you have recommended?



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



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



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

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?

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

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




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.




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?



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.

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.

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.

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.

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"

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????

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

this is difficult.

We are the only country in world that has tried to help them. The brother Islam and Arab states treat them like lepers except or turn them into suicide bombers.

They don't recognize Isreal's right to exist, and they elected terrorist to lead them.

Oh, and then there is this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KrM0dAFsZ8k

Play with the Bull too often and eventually you get the horns. They deserve everthing they get.

blah, blah blah...

Good answer, because that's all your posts really are anyway.

Thanks for finally admitting it.

Then let me push you over to the right side by adding Ricky Martin AND Menudo


( the soup not the boy band )

joke account? be honest.

I wonder if an American university has ever published a study other Americans disagreed with. you cant quote al-jeezera for 99% of your posts and then tell me I am believing what the media tells me.

well you can.....and thats what you were never relevant in the first place.

what were the parameters of the study? what was considered an act of violence? isnt picking "after the 2nd infitadah" pretty convenient? since that is roughly the time period where the Jews could fight back with more strength than their persecutors?

but hey you could never possibly be fooled by anything. you once read an article on a Muslim website about a study. Arizona State would probably give you an honorary degree.

Thanks.


Love, All_in

no.


well a LOT of americans still don't believe in evolution, so i guess there's precedent for americans, on a whim, not believing in the pursuit of truth through science/evidence.
i was, at the heart of it, quoting an israeli/european university study. u can look this study up. because u r not told about it in your chosen media does not mean it isn't true.


i love it! do u even have a CLUE as to what u r talking about???



u r really a funny guy.

anyways, all of my posts were not flames, and this thread generated some 'normal' debate, until , of course, when someone got offended by facts (the study, which i really shouldn't have to mention again, came from a joint israeli/european university effort).

i'll admit it, i LOL'd.

WRONG. Please dont morph my words into yours. I am in support of the killing of terrorist fundamentalists who INITIATE force. That is not genocide. But yes, I wish this would have happened in the 60s and you do too if you prefer rational civilized humans to accompany you in this world.

revenge? please. what a simplistic twisted way to brush aside Israel's rational self protection. When uncivilized people come at you with a gun, your moral high ground will not stop the bullet. When someone initiates force, force becomes the standard. Acting otherwise is immoral because it will lead you to death.

you are an emotionalist intrinsicist who ignores context.

Israel should invade and take over Palestine and give them all individual freedom that they could never dream of. And then we should help them do the same in Iran.

Do you really not have the time to spell out the words here. I mean this is a forum ... we aren't texting back and forth. What are you a 15 year old girl who just got her new phone and thinks it's cool to shorten everything. Or are we infidels not worth the precious extra seconds it takes to write out the word.

+1

There will never be peace in the Middle East, but we can never be on the other side when it comes to Israel.

I'm not going to jump into the debate, both sides have done bad things and I pretty much despise the new Israeli government although I am more pro Israel.... anyway, what he said is not important, things will change, its the fact that he said it is what we should be happy about. Obviously hes not going to come out and say everything they are willing to concede, this is a first step and the fact that its happening is good.

Of course it could be disastrous and so many things could go wrong but its a good sign in an almost impossible quest.

Again, implying moral equivalence, which is simply not true.

What has been done by the Palestinians (through there leaders in Hamas, the PLO, The al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades, etc...) has been terrorism. Like bombing a cafe, pizza parlor, beach, crowded tourist area, etc...

The Israeli military target the terrorist groups and their leaders, they don't bomb anyone anywhere.

First, I said, "Imply" I know you didn't say anything directly but this idea that many people have is something like, 'well, both sides have made mistakes and both sides are bad'. This kind of thinking implies or sometimes directly states that there is a moral equivalence of both the actions of the Israeli government through their military versus several different terrorist groups. Check out the list of foreign terrorists about 30 of the 44 are Islamist groups.

There was a practical solution made during the Barak-Clinton Peace Proposal in 2000-2001. This solution gave the Palestinian state about 97% of the occupied territories, the old city of Jerusalem other that the Jewish and Armenian Quarters and $30 billion in compensation for the refugees. (an offer that many Israelis now regard as a naive and overgenerous offer) Arafat said no. Made no conter offer and did what he always did, start up terrorist bombings in Israel and about 3000 died.

Both Presidents Clinton and George W. Bush placed all of the blame on Arafat and so did many of Arafat's closest advisers at that time.

It's not moral equivalence, its more like unclean hands.

The conception of the Israeli military as only targeting terrorist leaders is clearly bogus. Just a few months ago the UN accused Israel of war crimes when they shelled a house full of evacuees. They have killed thousands of civilians, including hundreds of children. Amnesty International found major humanitarian transgressions by Israel in the recent conflict.

Again, I'm not concerned with weighing whose actions were worse, but given the way both sides have behaved neither is really in a position to take a moral high ground.

I think Islam is one of the world's biggest problems right now, and I agree that Arafat totally blew that chance.

OK, where do I start. I am getting tired of this.

The tactic of having a terrorist headquarters, or a terrorist leader's home right beside (or in the basement of) a hospital, school, mosque, etc... has long been used by these terrorist groups. It's a win win situation for them.

If Israel does nothing, they keep bombing, with their notoriously inacurate missles & bombs (Katyusha and others see below). They don't care who they hit, civilians or otherwise. And, if and when Israel attacks them, look what happens. The media says a school was bombed. Well, if the terroists are operating out of the basement, this is what is going to happen. So they win in the media and get public opinion on their side.

About your links above and those of other posters, i would suggest a couple of books which would educate everyone book 1 and book 2. I didn't name them so you will have to click on the links to find out

From wikipedia:

During the 2006 Lebanon War, Hezbollah fired between 3,970 and 4,228 rockets, from light truck-mounts and single-rail man-portable launchers. About 95% of these were 122 mm (4.8 in) Syrian-manufactured Katyusha artillery rockets, which carried warheads up to 30 kg (66 lb) and had a range of up to 30 km (19 mi).^[13][14] An estimated 23% of these rockets hit built-up areas, primarily civilian in nature.^[15][13][16] Hamas has launched 122-mm “Grad-type Katyusha” rockets from the Gaza Strip against several cities in Israel,^[17] although they are not reported to have truck-mounted launchers

You don't have to convince me that Hezbollah is bad or that the Israelis had reason to attack. That's not in dispute.

What is in dispute is the pure innocence of Israel that you are portraying. In the incident I cited the house was not near a terrorist hide-out, and in fact Israeli soldiers had told the civilians to hide there. Then they destroyed it.

If anyone thinks any "genuine" proposal should exclude the responsibilities of Lebanon, Syria and the rest of the Arab world need their head checked.

Simply put, why the fuck is it all up to Israel to make amends for the Palestinians?

And I agree with VBNautilus (and his dreadlocked dog): It IS a tough choice between tacos and falafel.

ok so you have established that pure innocence doesnt exist on either side, IN A WAR. congrats. thanks for wasting our time and arguing a minor point instead of focusing on the major general issue. israel having or not having pure innocence is completely irrelevant and obvious. stop diverting the issue. should we support terrorist states initiating attacks or should we support sophisticated stable republics?

why shouldnt israel be allowed to destroy everyone around them who threatens them? why not? tell me why not.

Easy there, cowboy.

Religion has always been a problem.

Yes, it has.

But Islam combined with the modern world is an especially bad combination.

Exactly! Well said.
There is often a double standard applied to Israel. Other countries that get attacked have the right to retaliate, but when Israel does the media is all over it as being wrong.


Hoping for a better response than this.

I don't think his attitude warranted any more of a response that that, and I'm not convinced he is a real account.

But seriously, are you asking me to explain why Israel should not commit genocide? Did you two go to the Ahmadinejad School of International Relations? Just wipe them off the map is your honest suggestion?

CHRIST VS MOHAMMED!
TACOS VS FALAFEL!

DO WE NEED A POLL???

thanks for proving my point that you are an emotionalist. you ignore the logic of my argument and concentrate on your feelings being hurt.

retaliating against attackers is not genocide. where do you get that ridiculous idea? its actually Israel that has been constantly threatened with genocide in the past 50 years, by all of the Muslims around them.

it doesnt matter that fundamentalist, terrorist Muslims are Muslims, its just that theyre evil. why not wipe evil off the map? would you allow nazi's to stay on the map? when irrational dangerous philosophies become mobilized and violent, yes, you do wipe them off the map, or let them wipe you off.

For instance, right here a few sentences later in your post?

im done with you. once again you side step what we are talking about, ignore the issue, ignore context, and make some stupid comment. the key you are missing is the initiation of force. retaliation against a group attacking you is not genocide, its self defense. i cant believe i have to explain this.

now, make sure you dont actually reply to the issue at hand by mistake.