|
Stay on topic. I cannot put it more clearly then that. Derailments will be met with consequences. ~Nyovne |
On December 02 2012 06:33 Op wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2012 06:31 Goozen wrote:On December 02 2012 06:27 Op wrote:On December 02 2012 05:39 Goozen wrote:
No we dont, the reason Jabri was eliminated was due to good inelegance. Once he was targeted the rest went in to hiding and the only way to reach them without raising entire blocks with people in them would be a ground assault. Even if we were to kill all of the Hamas this wouldn't bring peace, only way to achieve peace is by having negotiations with those who accept your right to exist. From what I understand Abbas accepts Israel's right to exist, and he has been stopping the violence from the West-Bank. Why doesn't Israel negotiate with him ? and show that Abbas' attitude is the correct one, by coming to a deal with him ? This will show Hamas that their violent approach is wrong and will not lead to anything. Not an expert on Israeli politics but it seems some people like Olmert would be in favor of this, whereas Netanyahu seems to focus on Hamas being evil in order to avoid advancing anywhere with Abbas. Would a change in the Israeli government mean a better chance for peace ? He wont agree to negotiate with us without preconditions. Do you know what are these pre-conditions ? Does Netanyahu also have any pre-conditions or is he willing to negotiate ?
He wants a stop in construction with anything over the green line first. The reason this claim is silly is because any city/town w/e with over 500+ people wont be evacuated in an agreement anyway. instead what Olmert offered was a land for land, any place that wont be given as its settled different land is offered in other places instead.
|
On December 02 2012 06:33 Op wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2012 06:31 Goozen wrote:On December 02 2012 06:27 Op wrote:On December 02 2012 05:39 Goozen wrote:
No we dont, the reason Jabri was eliminated was due to good inelegance. Once he was targeted the rest went in to hiding and the only way to reach them without raising entire blocks with people in them would be a ground assault. Even if we were to kill all of the Hamas this wouldn't bring peace, only way to achieve peace is by having negotiations with those who accept your right to exist. From what I understand Abbas accepts Israel's right to exist, and he has been stopping the violence from the West-Bank. Why doesn't Israel negotiate with him ? and show that Abbas' attitude is the correct one, by coming to a deal with him ? This will show Hamas that their violent approach is wrong and will not lead to anything. Not an expert on Israeli politics but it seems some people like Olmert would be in favor of this, whereas Netanyahu seems to focus on Hamas being evil in order to avoid advancing anywhere with Abbas. Would a change in the Israeli government mean a better chance for peace ? He wont agree to negotiate with us without preconditions. Do you know what are these pre-conditions ? Does Netanyahu also have any pre-conditions or is he willing to negotiate ?
It's all about the borders. I am not very knowledgeable about this, but Palestine generally is willing to negotiate under the '67 borders, while Israel says that is impossible. Just few day ago Netanyahu approved more settlements to be built. But I'll be honest I do not know a lot about it.
Just as Goozen said, it seems to be the problem around settlements and by building more of them the peace is slipping through the fingers at an even faster rate.
|
On December 02 2012 05:06 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2012 04:31 sc2superfan101 wrote:just in case you try the "the charter is outdated!" argument: Hamas official Ahmad Bahr: Oh Allah, destroy the Jews and their supporters. Oh Allah, destroy the Americans and their supporters. Oh Allah, count them one by one, and kill them all, without leaving a single one. Hamas Immam Yousif al-Zahar: Jews are a people who cannot be trusted. They have been traitors to all agreements. Go back to history. Their fate is their vanishing. Hamas legislator and Imam, Sheik Yunus al-Astal: Therefore we are sure that the Holocaust is still to come upon the Jews Yousif al-Zahar: Wherever you have been you've been sent to your destruction. You've killed and murdered your prophets and you have always dealt in loan-sharking and destruction. You've made a deal with the devil and with destruction itself – just like your synagogue. Hamas MP Marwan Abu Ras The Jews are behind each and every catastrophe on the face of the Earth. This is not open to debate. This is not a temporal thing, but goes back to days of yore. They concocted so many conspiracies and betrayed rulers and nations so many times that the people harbor hatred towards them...Throughout history – from Nebuchadnezzar until modern times... They slayed the prophets, and so on...Any catastrophe on the face of this Earth – the Jews must be behind it. Hamas statement about a Holocaust conference: This conference bears a clear Zionist goal, aimed at forging history by hiding the truth about the so-called Holocaust, which is an alleged and invented story with no basis. (...) The invention of these grand illusions of an alleged crime that never occurred, ignoring the millions of dead European victims of Nazism during the war, clearly reveals the racist Zionist face, which believes in the superiority of the Jewish race over the rest of the nations. (...) By these methods, the Jews in the world flout scientific methods of research whenever that research contradicts their racist interests. source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas#Antisemitism_and_anti-Zionism(of course even Hamas can't get it straight whether they hate Jews or Zionists or both) Now do the same for the Likud charter - the right wing party that has led Israel or had a major influence in the Knesset throughout the entire existence of the country. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LikudThe 2 below quotes are taken from the above link: "The Jewish communities in Judea, Samaria and Gaza are the realization of Zionist values. Settlement of the land is a clear expression of the unassailable right of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel and constitutes an important asset in the defense of the vital interests of the State of Israel. The Likud will continue to strengthen and develop these communities and will prevent their uprooting. "The Government of Israel flatly rejects the establishment of a Palestinian Arab state west of the Jordan river. The Palestinians can run their lives freely in the framework of self-rule, but not as an independent and sovereign state. Thus, for example, in matters of foreign affairs, security, immigration and ecology, their activity shall be limited in accordance with imperatives of Israel’s existence, security and national needs." Does not really sound like they are very interested in a bistate peaceful solution either.
that's unfortunate but does it change the point, which is that Israel has no reason whatsoever to work with Hamas, or make peace with Hamas? you could make the argument that Hamas shouldn't work with the Likud party, but then again, is the Likud a terrorist organization, or a legitimate political party with undesirable beliefs? there is a difference, and it's not just semantics.
if you want me to say that Israel is perfect, then you're gonna have to wait a long time. nobody is perfect, and even Israel might have some elements that don't belong in a civil society. but they are not what basically constitutes a terrorist state and Gaza seems to be exactly that right now. Israel, like it or not, is a legal state with the legal right to defend themselves against any and all aggression. does Hamas share that right? No. no criminal has the right to "defend" himself against lawful arrest, and terrorists do not have the right to "defend" themselves against the nations and peoples they terrorize.
even the Palestinian people don't support these attacks:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_rocket_attacks_on_Israel#Palestinians
Hamas themselves have come out against the attacks before (good evidence of how heinous it actually is):
On at least one occasion in 2009, Hamas itself criticized rocket attacks by an unknown group, apparently out of fears that new rocket fire could disrupt reconciliation talks between Hamas and Fatah which were then underway.
granted, that was largely political, but it still proves that the rocket attacks aren't appropriate in any way, at all. and they are NOT the only option Hamas has, and it is offensive to say that they are.
The firing of rockets from the Gaza Strip into Israel has been opposed by those living closest to the firing location due to Israeli military responses. On July 23, 2004 a family attempted to physically prevent the Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades from setting up a rocket launcher outside their house. Members of the brigade shot and killed one boy and wounded 5 others.
you can hold the opinion that Israel is doing something wrong, or needs to be better, without comparing them to Hamas.
|
On December 02 2012 06:36 Goozen wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2012 06:33 Op wrote:On December 02 2012 06:31 Goozen wrote:On December 02 2012 06:27 Op wrote:On December 02 2012 05:39 Goozen wrote:
No we dont, the reason Jabri was eliminated was due to good inelegance. Once he was targeted the rest went in to hiding and the only way to reach them without raising entire blocks with people in them would be a ground assault. Even if we were to kill all of the Hamas this wouldn't bring peace, only way to achieve peace is by having negotiations with those who accept your right to exist. From what I understand Abbas accepts Israel's right to exist, and he has been stopping the violence from the West-Bank. Why doesn't Israel negotiate with him ? and show that Abbas' attitude is the correct one, by coming to a deal with him ? This will show Hamas that their violent approach is wrong and will not lead to anything. Not an expert on Israeli politics but it seems some people like Olmert would be in favor of this, whereas Netanyahu seems to focus on Hamas being evil in order to avoid advancing anywhere with Abbas. Would a change in the Israeli government mean a better chance for peace ? He wont agree to negotiate with us without preconditions. Do you know what are these pre-conditions ? Does Netanyahu also have any pre-conditions or is he willing to negotiate ? He wants a stop in construction with anything over the green line first. The reason this claim is silly is because any city/town w/e with over 500+ people wont be evacuated in an agreement anyway. instead what Olmert offered was a land for land, any place that wont be given as its settled different land is offered in other places instead.
I can understand the pre-condition from their point of view (they feel like their land gets annexed, and it is in-line with the UN & quartet requirements), but it doesn't make sense to go into negotiations with pre-conditions, otherwise you will never negotiate, and the longer the Palestinians wait the worse it will get for them...
And from Netanyahu's side ? He's ready to negotiate or also has his pre-conditions ?
|
I think there is a BIG difference between what the official Palestinian government is putting on paper, and what the Hamas and other islamic extremists are want to and not do, controlling behind the scenes...
Israel should stand their ground, and if fired upon, snub the insolent rebels like bugs.
|
On December 02 2012 06:13 Goozen wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2012 06:11 WhiteDog wrote:On December 02 2012 06:10 Goozen wrote:On December 02 2012 06:07 Art.FeeL wrote:On December 02 2012 03:52 Goozen wrote:On December 02 2012 03:39 Intact wrote:On December 02 2012 03:32 Goozen wrote:On December 02 2012 03:27 Elroi wrote:On December 02 2012 03:25 Goozen wrote:Legal arguments According to Princeton University professor emeritus of international law Richard Falk, there exists an "overwhelming consensus" view among qualified international law specialists that both the blockade and its enforcement are illegal.[21] In September 2011, a UN investigative committee concluded in the Palmer Report that the blockade is legal.[18][19][20] The findings of the Palmer report on the legality of the blockade were disputed by a panel of five UN human rights experts, who said that the blockade amounted to a "flagrant contravention of international human rights and humanitarian law".[151] The panel said the Palmer report failed to recognize that the naval blockade was part of Israel's closure policy toward Gaza, which disproportionately affects civilians. Richard Falk said the authors of the Palmer report were poorly qualified to assess legal aspects of the blockade,[21] and that they were politically motivated to find the naval blockade legal.[151] Since 2005 Israel asserts that it ended its occupation of Gaza when it disengaged from the coastal strip in 2005.[152][153] After Israel's unilateral disengagement plan from the Gaza strip, Israel no longer has troops stationed within Gaza. Israel has retained control over Gaza's airspace and coastline, and over its own border with the territory. Egypt has control of its border with Gaza. Israel and Egypt also control the flow of goods in and out. Israel controls fuel imports to Gaza, and also controls the majority of electricity used in Gaza (approximately 60%), which it supplies from the Israeli electrical grid.[37][154] There have been a series of attacks by Israeli ground forces such as the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict, as well as rocket attacks on Israeli civilians and cross-border attacks by Gazan militant groups against Israeli troops. Human Rights Watch argues that Israel is still an occupying power and is responsible for Gaza under the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention, which seeks to protect the civilian population.[37] BBC's World Affairs correspondent Paul Reynolds said that if Gaza is treated as a "hostile entity" the question is whether the measures used by Israel and Egypt sufficiently distinguish between civilian and military. The 1977 amendment to the Geneva Conventions protocols prohibits the use of collective measures that do not distinguish between civilians and military.[37] The amendment protects civilian populations in time of conflicts that fall short of war. Israel has not signed these protocols but there is an expectation internationally that it should respect them.[37] Hamas does not administer an internationally recognized state and also has not signed these protocols. Amnesty International said that “The blockade constitutes collective punishment under international law and must be lifted immediately,” and that as the occupying power, Israel has a duty under international law to ensure the welfare of Gaza’s inhabitants, including their rights to health, education, food and adequate housing.[155] Justus Weiner and Avi Bell of the JCPA said that Israel’s combat actions and blockade cannot be considered collective punishment. They cite Article 75(4)(b) of Protocol I Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, which says the bar on collective punishment forbids the imposition of criminal-type penalties on individuals or groups on the basis of another’s guilt, or the commission of acts that would otherwise violate the rules of distinction and/or proportionality.[156] According to Weiner and Bell, the blockade does not "involve the imposition of criminal-type penalties or the violation of the rules of distinction and proportionality."[157] source So the blockade is illegal... that's what we are saying. In September 2011, a UN investigative committee concluded in the Palmer Report that the blockade is legalNope, navel is legal according to the UN Are you kidding ? The article you posted contains EIGHT people/organisations that deem the blockade illegal, and five of them work for the UN. 8 to 1 is pretty good odds you know. But they are not the UN, they are private NGO's with agendas and individuals with personal opinion. Goozen. Before you mentioned UN to prove your point and dismissed other organization as biased. Now you say the opposte. What's going on here? Not at all, if i claim that the UN has a pro Palestinian biased and yet they found Israel in the right, it means that there is no doubt they were in the right. The UN is dominated by the US who is pro Israelis to the core, what are you talking about. Security council =\= Human rights, answer the question i put fourth, Israel has been singled out more then any other nation by a large margin in resolution criticizing it for human rights. Do you believe that Israel is the biggest violate of human rights or even close to it? Why would we want Gaza dependent on us? Nothing would make us happier then Egypt or the even those who live in Gaza could supply their own food/water.fuel/electricity. That would save the Israeli government billions each year.
I guess Amnesty International is just another group of anti Semites too then?
Amnesty's concerns within Israel-proper, the area inside the 1949 (W. Bank/E. Jerusalem) and 1951 (Gaza Strip) armistice lines (also called the '1967 borders') include but are not limited to, ill-treatment and torture of detainees, excessive use of force, the detention of conscientious objectors, and forced evictions and home demolitions within 'unrecognized' Bedouin villages.
The Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory (the West Bank including East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip) is in its fifth decade and the undercurrent of violence and inherent abuses of fundamental human rights and disregard for international law inherent in any long-standing military occupation is presented by both sides. Both Israeli and Palestinian civilians continue to bear the brunt of the violence in the region.
Now... I have tried to be patient with your bs about giving "aid" to the Palestinians but you are just not listening to reason. That aid is the equivalent to giving food to some one that you have imprisoned: they deny the Palestinians access to their cultivable land, they deny them access to export and trade, they deny them the possibility to fish. Lastly, Israel is making way more money from the stolen lands of the Palestinians.
I am sorry but I feel there is just no point talking to you anymore. I don't know if you care, but I am Jewish and I come from a very pro Israel background. When you start to think about this outside of the set phrases ("throw all the Jews into the sea", "make the desert bloom" etc), you can only condemn Israels policy toward the Palestinians. It is shameful and the the judgment of history will come down hard.
|
An ideal solution is for Palestine to merge with Egypt, and give a decent amount of land from Israel to Egypt at the border.
There will never be peace as long as it is in Iran's benefit to provide weapons through Egypt to Palestine.
The stalemate will just carry on and on until Iran runs out of oil money. Then the middle east goes to hell, with maybe Israel surviving.
|
On December 02 2012 06:37 Art.FeeL wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2012 06:33 Op wrote:On December 02 2012 06:31 Goozen wrote:On December 02 2012 06:27 Op wrote:On December 02 2012 05:39 Goozen wrote:
No we dont, the reason Jabri was eliminated was due to good inelegance. Once he was targeted the rest went in to hiding and the only way to reach them without raising entire blocks with people in them would be a ground assault. Even if we were to kill all of the Hamas this wouldn't bring peace, only way to achieve peace is by having negotiations with those who accept your right to exist. From what I understand Abbas accepts Israel's right to exist, and he has been stopping the violence from the West-Bank. Why doesn't Israel negotiate with him ? and show that Abbas' attitude is the correct one, by coming to a deal with him ? This will show Hamas that their violent approach is wrong and will not lead to anything. Not an expert on Israeli politics but it seems some people like Olmert would be in favor of this, whereas Netanyahu seems to focus on Hamas being evil in order to avoid advancing anywhere with Abbas. Would a change in the Israeli government mean a better chance for peace ? He wont agree to negotiate with us without preconditions. Do you know what are these pre-conditions ? Does Netanyahu also have any pre-conditions or is he willing to negotiate ? It's all about the borders. I am not very knowledgeable about this, but Palestine generally is willing to negotiate under the '67 borders, while Israel says that is impossible. Just few day ago Netanyahu approved more settlements to be built. But I'll be honest I do not know a lot about it. Just as Goozen said, it seems to be the problem around settlements and by building more of them the peace is slipping through the fingers at an even faster rate.
No new ones are being constructed, just expanded. Also some of its what are called settlement are neighborhoods in Jerusalem with other 60,000 people in them. For every meter lost, a meter has been offered in different land that was conquered before 67 so its not a big problem.
Worth to add that during the start of Bibi's Term there was a 10 month freeze but Abbas didnt agree to negotiate.
|
On December 02 2012 06:41 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2012 05:06 Ghostcom wrote:On December 02 2012 04:31 sc2superfan101 wrote:just in case you try the "the charter is outdated!" argument: Hamas official Ahmad Bahr: Oh Allah, destroy the Jews and their supporters. Oh Allah, destroy the Americans and their supporters. Oh Allah, count them one by one, and kill them all, without leaving a single one. Hamas Immam Yousif al-Zahar: Jews are a people who cannot be trusted. They have been traitors to all agreements. Go back to history. Their fate is their vanishing. Hamas legislator and Imam, Sheik Yunus al-Astal: Therefore we are sure that the Holocaust is still to come upon the Jews Yousif al-Zahar: Wherever you have been you've been sent to your destruction. You've killed and murdered your prophets and you have always dealt in loan-sharking and destruction. You've made a deal with the devil and with destruction itself – just like your synagogue. Hamas MP Marwan Abu Ras The Jews are behind each and every catastrophe on the face of the Earth. This is not open to debate. This is not a temporal thing, but goes back to days of yore. They concocted so many conspiracies and betrayed rulers and nations so many times that the people harbor hatred towards them...Throughout history – from Nebuchadnezzar until modern times... They slayed the prophets, and so on...Any catastrophe on the face of this Earth – the Jews must be behind it. Hamas statement about a Holocaust conference: This conference bears a clear Zionist goal, aimed at forging history by hiding the truth about the so-called Holocaust, which is an alleged and invented story with no basis. (...) The invention of these grand illusions of an alleged crime that never occurred, ignoring the millions of dead European victims of Nazism during the war, clearly reveals the racist Zionist face, which believes in the superiority of the Jewish race over the rest of the nations. (...) By these methods, the Jews in the world flout scientific methods of research whenever that research contradicts their racist interests. source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas#Antisemitism_and_anti-Zionism(of course even Hamas can't get it straight whether they hate Jews or Zionists or both) Now do the same for the Likud charter - the right wing party that has led Israel or had a major influence in the Knesset throughout the entire existence of the country. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LikudThe 2 below quotes are taken from the above link: "The Jewish communities in Judea, Samaria and Gaza are the realization of Zionist values. Settlement of the land is a clear expression of the unassailable right of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel and constitutes an important asset in the defense of the vital interests of the State of Israel. The Likud will continue to strengthen and develop these communities and will prevent their uprooting. "The Government of Israel flatly rejects the establishment of a Palestinian Arab state west of the Jordan river. The Palestinians can run their lives freely in the framework of self-rule, but not as an independent and sovereign state. Thus, for example, in matters of foreign affairs, security, immigration and ecology, their activity shall be limited in accordance with imperatives of Israel’s existence, security and national needs." Does not really sound like they are very interested in a bistate peaceful solution either. that's unfortunate but does it change the point, which is that Israel has no reason whatsoever to work with Hamas, or make peace with Hamas? you could make the argument that Hamas shouldn't work with the Likud party, but then again, is the Likud a terrorist organization, or a legitimate political party with undesirable beliefs? there is a difference, and it's not just semantics. if you want me to say that Israel is perfect, then you're gonna have to wait a long time. nobody is perfect, and even Israel might have some elements that don't belong in a civil society. but they are not what basically constitutes a terrorist state and Gaza seems to be exactly that right now. Israel, like it or not, is a legal state with the legal right to defend themselves against any and all aggression. does Hamas share that right? No. no criminal has the right to "defend" himself against lawful arrest, and terrorists do not have the right to "defend" themselves against the nations and peoples they terrorize. even the Palestinian people don't support these attacks: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_rocket_attacks_on_Israel#PalestiniansHamas themselves have come out against the attacks before (good evidence of how heinous it actually is): Show nested quote +On at least one occasion in 2009, Hamas itself criticized rocket attacks by an unknown group, apparently out of fears that new rocket fire could disrupt reconciliation talks between Hamas and Fatah which were then underway. granted, that was largely political, but it still proves that the rocket attacks aren't appropriate in any way, at all. and they are NOT the only option Hamas has, and it is offensive to say that they are. Show nested quote +The firing of rockets from the Gaza Strip into Israel has been opposed by those living closest to the firing location due to Israeli military responses. On July 23, 2004 a family attempted to physically prevent the Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades from setting up a rocket launcher outside their house. Members of the brigade shot and killed one boy and wounded 5 others. you can hold the opinion that Israel is doing something wrong, or needs to be better, without comparing them to Hamas.
What you quoted just shows that Hamas doesn't control every group in Gaza. I guess Israel also has other alternatives excluding bombing. So can we agree that both sides are wrong and that life is a life whether it be Palestinian or Israeli, it has the same value?
And be careful, Palestinians too have a right to defend themselves whether you accept them as a country or not.
|
On December 02 2012 06:44 Goozen wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2012 06:37 Art.FeeL wrote:On December 02 2012 06:33 Op wrote:On December 02 2012 06:31 Goozen wrote:On December 02 2012 06:27 Op wrote:On December 02 2012 05:39 Goozen wrote:
No we dont, the reason Jabri was eliminated was due to good inelegance. Once he was targeted the rest went in to hiding and the only way to reach them without raising entire blocks with people in them would be a ground assault. Even if we were to kill all of the Hamas this wouldn't bring peace, only way to achieve peace is by having negotiations with those who accept your right to exist. From what I understand Abbas accepts Israel's right to exist, and he has been stopping the violence from the West-Bank. Why doesn't Israel negotiate with him ? and show that Abbas' attitude is the correct one, by coming to a deal with him ? This will show Hamas that their violent approach is wrong and will not lead to anything. Not an expert on Israeli politics but it seems some people like Olmert would be in favor of this, whereas Netanyahu seems to focus on Hamas being evil in order to avoid advancing anywhere with Abbas. Would a change in the Israeli government mean a better chance for peace ? He wont agree to negotiate with us without preconditions. Do you know what are these pre-conditions ? Does Netanyahu also have any pre-conditions or is he willing to negotiate ? It's all about the borders. I am not very knowledgeable about this, but Palestine generally is willing to negotiate under the '67 borders, while Israel says that is impossible. Just few day ago Netanyahu approved more settlements to be built. But I'll be honest I do not know a lot about it. Just as Goozen said, it seems to be the problem around settlements and by building more of them the peace is slipping through the fingers at an even faster rate. No new ones are being constructed, just expanded. Also some of its what are called settlement are neighborhoods in Jerusalem with other 60,000 people in them. For every meter lost, a meter has been offered in different land that was conquered before 67 so its not a big problem. Worth to add that during the start of Bibi's Term there was a 10 month freeze but Abbas didnt agree to negotiate.
Expanding or not, there are more houses being built whether in West Bank or East Jerusalem. Those shouldn't be there. It is also not fair that Israel can choose where to build their houses and then give Palestinians other regions in return. Let's not forget that the water is very important in that area. And as I said it's not only the settlements its also about the 67 borders
|
On November 02 2011 00:43 buhhy wrote:
I also lol at how the Harper is pretty much the faithful dog of the US, following it's every motion.
This really disappoints me too. I really wish Harper could disagree with the US on some things.
|
On December 02 2012 06:44 Goozen wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2012 06:37 Art.FeeL wrote:On December 02 2012 06:33 Op wrote:On December 02 2012 06:31 Goozen wrote:On December 02 2012 06:27 Op wrote:On December 02 2012 05:39 Goozen wrote:
No we dont, the reason Jabri was eliminated was due to good inelegance. Once he was targeted the rest went in to hiding and the only way to reach them without raising entire blocks with people in them would be a ground assault. Even if we were to kill all of the Hamas this wouldn't bring peace, only way to achieve peace is by having negotiations with those who accept your right to exist. From what I understand Abbas accepts Israel's right to exist, and he has been stopping the violence from the West-Bank. Why doesn't Israel negotiate with him ? and show that Abbas' attitude is the correct one, by coming to a deal with him ? This will show Hamas that their violent approach is wrong and will not lead to anything. Not an expert on Israeli politics but it seems some people like Olmert would be in favor of this, whereas Netanyahu seems to focus on Hamas being evil in order to avoid advancing anywhere with Abbas. Would a change in the Israeli government mean a better chance for peace ? He wont agree to negotiate with us without preconditions. Do you know what are these pre-conditions ? Does Netanyahu also have any pre-conditions or is he willing to negotiate ? It's all about the borders. I am not very knowledgeable about this, but Palestine generally is willing to negotiate under the '67 borders, while Israel says that is impossible. Just few day ago Netanyahu approved more settlements to be built. But I'll be honest I do not know a lot about it. Just as Goozen said, it seems to be the problem around settlements and by building more of them the peace is slipping through the fingers at an even faster rate. No new ones are being constructed, just expanded. Also some of its what are called settlement are neighborhoods in Jerusalem with other 60,000 people in them. For every meter lost, a meter has been offered in different land that was conquered before 67 so its not a big problem. Worth to add that during the start of Bibi's Term there was a 10 month freeze but Abbas didnt agree to negotiate.
Didn't the Palestinians also want Jerusalem as their capital ? or is this another part of Jerusalem ?
This thing is extremely difficult, and I am happy not to go through what people on both sides are going through. I just fail to understand why for the benefits of their people and to save human lives in general both governments cannot go sit together and talk... (they have to have some other motives)
|
İts not a big problem?
ahah that s funny. With what right, and authority does isreal can say which land to take and which land to pay instead.
|
Taking all the land you find desirable, and offering an equal amount of land you find undesirable doesn't sound like a very fair trade.
|
On December 02 2012 06:52 Op wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2012 06:44 Goozen wrote:On December 02 2012 06:37 Art.FeeL wrote:On December 02 2012 06:33 Op wrote:On December 02 2012 06:31 Goozen wrote:On December 02 2012 06:27 Op wrote:On December 02 2012 05:39 Goozen wrote:
No we dont, the reason Jabri was eliminated was due to good inelegance. Once he was targeted the rest went in to hiding and the only way to reach them without raising entire blocks with people in them would be a ground assault. Even if we were to kill all of the Hamas this wouldn't bring peace, only way to achieve peace is by having negotiations with those who accept your right to exist. From what I understand Abbas accepts Israel's right to exist, and he has been stopping the violence from the West-Bank. Why doesn't Israel negotiate with him ? and show that Abbas' attitude is the correct one, by coming to a deal with him ? This will show Hamas that their violent approach is wrong and will not lead to anything. Not an expert on Israeli politics but it seems some people like Olmert would be in favor of this, whereas Netanyahu seems to focus on Hamas being evil in order to avoid advancing anywhere with Abbas. Would a change in the Israeli government mean a better chance for peace ? He wont agree to negotiate with us without preconditions. Do you know what are these pre-conditions ? Does Netanyahu also have any pre-conditions or is he willing to negotiate ? It's all about the borders. I am not very knowledgeable about this, but Palestine generally is willing to negotiate under the '67 borders, while Israel says that is impossible. Just few day ago Netanyahu approved more settlements to be built. But I'll be honest I do not know a lot about it. Just as Goozen said, it seems to be the problem around settlements and by building more of them the peace is slipping through the fingers at an even faster rate. No new ones are being constructed, just expanded. Also some of its what are called settlement are neighborhoods in Jerusalem with other 60,000 people in them. For every meter lost, a meter has been offered in different land that was conquered before 67 so its not a big problem. Worth to add that during the start of Bibi's Term there was a 10 month freeze but Abbas didnt agree to negotiate. Didn't the Palestinians also want Jerusalem as their capital ? or is this another part of Jerusalem ? This thing is extremely difficult, and I am happy not to go through what people on both sides are going through. I just fail to understand why for the benefits of their people and to save human lives in general both governments cannot go sit together and talk... (they have to have some other motives)
It used to be that they wanted Hebron, around the 90;s they decided they wanted Jerusalem instead, As someone who loves there i can tell you its not doable and will never be able to happen.
İts not a big problem?
ahah that s funny. With what right, and authority does isreal can say which land to take and which land to pay instead. Funny, last i checked Israel conquered that land from Jordan in 76/
|
On December 02 2012 06:44 Goozen wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2012 06:37 Art.FeeL wrote:On December 02 2012 06:33 Op wrote:On December 02 2012 06:31 Goozen wrote:On December 02 2012 06:27 Op wrote:On December 02 2012 05:39 Goozen wrote:
No we dont, the reason Jabri was eliminated was due to good inelegance. Once he was targeted the rest went in to hiding and the only way to reach them without raising entire blocks with people in them would be a ground assault. Even if we were to kill all of the Hamas this wouldn't bring peace, only way to achieve peace is by having negotiations with those who accept your right to exist. From what I understand Abbas accepts Israel's right to exist, and he has been stopping the violence from the West-Bank. Why doesn't Israel negotiate with him ? and show that Abbas' attitude is the correct one, by coming to a deal with him ? This will show Hamas that their violent approach is wrong and will not lead to anything. Not an expert on Israeli politics but it seems some people like Olmert would be in favor of this, whereas Netanyahu seems to focus on Hamas being evil in order to avoid advancing anywhere with Abbas. Would a change in the Israeli government mean a better chance for peace ? He wont agree to negotiate with us without preconditions. Do you know what are these pre-conditions ? Does Netanyahu also have any pre-conditions or is he willing to negotiate ? It's all about the borders. I am not very knowledgeable about this, but Palestine generally is willing to negotiate under the '67 borders, while Israel says that is impossible. Just few day ago Netanyahu approved more settlements to be built. But I'll be honest I do not know a lot about it. Just as Goozen said, it seems to be the problem around settlements and by building more of them the peace is slipping through the fingers at an even faster rate. No new ones are being constructed, just expanded. Also some of its what are called settlement are neighborhoods in Jerusalem with other 60,000 people in them. For every meter lost, a meter has been offered in different land that was conquered before 67 so its not a big problem. Worth to add that during the start of Bibi's Term there was a 10 month freeze but Abbas didnt agree to negotiate.
This is pathetic. Every major expert on this subject know that it is a conscious policy from the Israelis to divide the Palestinians and make any functioning Palestinian state an impossibility. Chomsky summarizes it well:
It's given accurately by the leading academic specialist on the occupation, Harvard's Sara Roy, as she writes that under the terms of disengagement, Gazans are virtually sealed within the Strip, while West Bankers, their lands dismembered by relentless Israeli settlement, will continue to be penned into fragmented geographic spaces, isolated behind and between walls and barriers.
Her judgment is affirmed by Israel's leading specialist on the West Bank, Meron Benvenisti, who writes that 'the separation walls snaking through the West Bank will create three Bantustans (his words): north, central and south, all virtually separated from East Jerusalem, the center of Palestinian commercial, cultural and political life. And he adds that this, what he calls the soft transfer from Jerusalem, that is an unavoidable result of the separation wall, might achieve its goal. Quoting still, 'the goal of disintegration of the Palestinian community, after many earlier attempts, have failed.' 'The human disaster being planned,' he continues, 'will turn hundreds of thousands of people into a sullen community, hostile, and nurturing a desire for revenge.' So, another example of the sacrifice of security through expansion that's been going on for a long time.
A European Union report concludes that U.S.-backed Israeli programs will virtually end the prospects for a viable Palestinian state by the cantonization and by breaking the organic links between East Jerusalem and the West Bank. Human Rights Watch, in a recent statement, concurs.
|
On December 02 2012 06:54 Saryph wrote:
Taking all the land you find desirable, and offering an equal amount of land you find undesirable doesn't sound like a very fair trade.
Most of the settlements are in the Desert, such as the city of Maleh Edumim. the fact that we would give them bad land in exchange is a assertion.
|
On December 02 2012 06:44 ContrailNZ wrote:
An ideal solution is for Palestine to merge with Egypt, and give a decent amount of land from Israel to Egypt at the border.
There will never be peace as long as it is in Iran's benefit to provide weapons through Egypt to Palestine.
The stalemate will just carry on and on until Iran runs out of oil money. Then the middle east goes to hell, with maybe Israel surviving.
That's a terrible solution. The best solution would be along the '67 borders. The majority supports it excluding Israel.
|
On December 02 2012 06:56 Goozen wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2012 06:54 Saryph wrote:
Taking all the land you find desirable, and offering an equal amount of land you find undesirable doesn't sound like a very fair trade. Most of the settlements are in the Desert, such as the city of Maleh Edumim. the fact that we would give them bad land in exchange is a assertion.
Doesn't matter they are strategically places to divide the land
+ Show Spoiler +
don't know how to resize image
|
On December 02 2012 06:56 Art.FeeL wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2012 06:44 ContrailNZ wrote:
An ideal solution is for Palestine to merge with Egypt, and give a decent amount of land from Israel to Egypt at the border.
There will never be peace as long as it is in Iran's benefit to provide weapons through Egypt to Palestine.
The stalemate will just carry on and on until Iran runs out of oil money. Then the middle east goes to hell, with maybe Israel surviving.
That's a terrible solution. The best solution would be along the '67 borders. The majority supports it excluding Israel.
Because its unidendable and Israel won it in the war. Not to mention this still wont solve the Refugee issue.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d8/Westbankjan06.jpg)
