|
Stay on topic. I cannot put it more clearly then that. Derailments will be met with consequences. ~Nyovne |
On December 02 2012 14:18 Ghostcom wrote:
Furthermore Israel already claims to have annexed Jerusalem, but have you ever wondered why there are no embassies in Jerusalem? There is this little issue with legally annexing something which require international recognition and acceptance - something Israel is not in a position to get with Jerusalem.
I find the fact that you think israel "requires" any sort of approval regarding it's capital city amusing.
If all states would move their embassies away from Copenhagen and claim it is swedish city, will that make it any less of your captial? will you be willing to give it to sweden??
|
On December 02 2012 14:42 Ranizin wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2012 14:18 Ghostcom wrote:
Furthermore Israel already claims to have annexed Jerusalem, but have you ever wondered why there are no embassies in Jerusalem? There is this little issue with legally annexing something which require international recognition and acceptance - something Israel is not in a position to get with Jerusalem. I find the fact that you think israel "requires" any sort of approval regarding it's capital city amusing. If all states would move their embassies away from Copenhagen and claim it is swedish city, will that make it any less of your captial? will you be willing to give it to sweden??
I find your lack of understanding of international law amusing. And if you ever happen to drop by San Francisco I will be happy to present you with a trophy for the worst analogy of the thread - which is an impressive feat considering the previous candidates.
|
On December 02 2012 08:39 Art.FeeL wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2012 08:31 Goozen wrote:On December 02 2012 08:24 Art.FeeL wrote:On December 02 2012 08:22 Goozen wrote:On December 02 2012 08:19 Art.FeeL wrote:On December 02 2012 08:16 SupLilSon wrote:On December 02 2012 08:13 Jormundr wrote:On December 02 2012 08:01 Art.FeeL wrote:On December 02 2012 07:59 SupLilSon wrote:On December 02 2012 07:25 Art.FeeL wrote:
[quote]
No. Mexico is a state that has good relations with USA and doesn't ask for Texas to be returned. That example is stupid and worn out, can't you be more creative? Yea, because Mexico knows that'd be a ridiculous request... Doesn't mean it's not an appropriate analogy. Completely different eras, mentalities, situations, cultures and everything else. Do not mix apples and pears. I wonder if you would have this attitude if the situation was reversed. Guess not. Which is exactly why the Israel of today has no interest in becoming the Israel of 1967. It was a completely different era, with different mentalities, and a different situation. But you're right, lets rewind time back to 1967. Give the west bank back to Jordan, give the Gaza strip back to Egypt. Haha, just kidding. We all know Egypt and Jordan don't want any Palestinians crossing their borders freely. My question to you is why it makes logical sense for Israel to propose open borders under increased Hamas terrorism when Egypt and Jordan oppose the same thing without even having to deal with the added threat of terrorist attacks. Prolly has to do with the fact that Palestinians don't fire rockets on Egypt or Jordan. Seems that the more rockets that get fired at you, the bigger of a douche you are. So much for the world wide media being controlled by Jews. And again let's play the blame game. The did it, right? No wonder there is not peace down there if the majority of you think that way. And different times in the same place and same players, is much more acceptable than comparing it to different, time and place and players involved. Its not so easy as to say "water under the bridge" out of 50 people in my high school grade, 3 lost a parent to suicide bombings in the city. You cant expect people to just say for things like this "let bygones be bygones". Aha. I completely agree. Neither Palestinians who have lost far more can say it. They have suffered much more than Israelis. What should we do now? Thats why im saying negotiations need to be held. There are 3 sticking points as of the Olmert offer: 1. 3% pf the contested land (this includes east Jerusalem and a few towns, all the rest was agreed on 2. The Refugees, the PA want to allow several hundred thousand the right to return in to Israel, effectively ending it as a Jewish state in several years. 3. The jordan valley and demilitarization. Israel want to keep the valley to prevent weapon smuggling and not allow the PA to have more then light arms. 4. Recognizing Israel as a jewish state. (the irony here is that they said their future state must be free of jews). The thing is while 30 years ago only the Israeli left wanted a 2 sate solution now its pretty much a consensus. And 30 years ago the PA wanted Hebron as the Capital, now they want Jerusalem. The PA, due to the massive international support act as if they have the upper hand and have shown no flexibility over the past years. Most Israelis hope that the PA lower their expectations if peace is to be met, That's irrelevant, because we have bibi now and as far as i know he doesnt accept a 2 state solution. By the way it's always Palestinians who have to lower their standards and submit to the Israeli will. That's pretty unfair you know. And again you are pointing fingers as if it was all Palestinian fault. The same mentality among all of pro-israeli posters: ''It's them!'' It's always them. No progress will be made like that.
Ofc Palestinians are the ones who have to lower their standards. No, this isn't about being unfair. Of course it's unfair. But in fact it's about being realistic. Do you honestly expect the stronger party to lower theirs, especially in this context, when they are satisfied with the status-quo?
Look, it would be great if Israel would do that, of course it will. I would laud and praise them if they did it. But do you honestly believe they would, especially with the right gaining power? Right now the most probable and feasible course of action is if Palestine actually accedes to agreeable terms. See, one side is alright with their gains and losses, while the other side isn't gaining anything while losing much. I would expect the latter side to take the initiative and try to stem their losses.
We already understand what wrongs Israel have done, and no one really wants to argue that, so it becomes an argument about what Palestine has done wrong since it seems like the bulk of your ilk tries to gloss over it. It would be better if everyone looks at the situation objectively, although the future seems bleak, especially if Op's scenario just got shot by Goozen's assumptions.
|
On December 02 2012 13:52 Ranizin wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2012 13:24 Ghostcom wrote:On December 02 2012 12:53 Ranizin wrote:On December 02 2012 11:45 Ghostcom wrote:
I think it is about time we cut the crap:
Please explain why it is such a bad thing that Palestine is granted the status of non-member observers? Obviously if Israel and Netanyahu wanted a reasonable 2-state solution this would be a step they should be applauding - this directly supports Abbas who will become more popular amongst the Palestinians and at the same time discredits the Hamas. A stronger Abbas should be something - provided you truly want a 2-state solution - Israel would strive for as it makes future treaties much more probable to be kept. Not to speak for Goozen, but the general line of thought is that the 2-state solution should come from both sides coming to an understanding together, and Abbas going to the UN and acting towards a state by it's own is working against that. Basically every uncoordinated step between the sides related to this issue is considered bad and is seen as another obstacle in the way of an agreed solution, and causes distrust between the sides. Also you assume that Abbas is considered a legit leader in the palestinian public, and in israel - both of those assumptions are highly controversial. I fail to see where I made that assumption - I made a statement regarding the current situation in which Abbas is leading AND is the most Israel friendly leader of the major Palestinian organizations. Whatever else you read into it will have to be on your own behalf. And here I thought that the progression towards a 2-state solution would require 2 states to be present, but apparently not? All recent trends have pointed towards an unwillingness in Israel to recognize Palestine until major concessions, concessions which it is unrealistic to expect to ever be fulfilled (like the acceptance of the current occupation of East Jerusalem which is internationally seen as illegal). The newly acquired status of Palestine will hopefully not only strengthen the pro-2-state part of the Palestinians but also make negotiations more equal, meaning a higher chance of an actual solution with which both sides can be happy with an accept. You said that israel should strive to strengthen Abbas since it will make future treaties more probable to be kept. If he isn't seen as a legit leader then it doesn't matter what treaties he signs, they will not be kept. Your talk about "isreali unwillingness", "unrealistic concessions" asked from the palestinian side and the demand from israel to let go a major part of it's capital city is completely biased. Don't be too happy with the palestinian move about "making the negotiations more equal" - if they do one-sided moves then israel can as well, such as legally annexing territories (like they did with the Golan). It's a double-edged sword. ...but in the end what's most likely to happen is that israel will do nothing and the new palestinian title in the UN will be just that - a new title.
How dare those Palestinians bid for statehood without Israel's permission?! Who do they think they are?
Absolutely, annexing territory is the right thing to do! Who cares about the people living on the land. They dared to act without Israel's permission! I don't care if Palestinian seat in the UN does not hurt Israel!
...
Am I doing it right?
|
On December 02 2012 15:11 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2012 14:42 Ranizin wrote:On December 02 2012 14:18 Ghostcom wrote:
Furthermore Israel already claims to have annexed Jerusalem, but have you ever wondered why there are no embassies in Jerusalem? There is this little issue with legally annexing something which require international recognition and acceptance - something Israel is not in a position to get with Jerusalem. I find the fact that you think israel "requires" any sort of approval regarding it's capital city amusing. If all states would move their embassies away from Copenhagen and claim it is swedish city, will that make it any less of your captial? will you be willing to give it to sweden?? I find your lack of understanding of international law amusing. And if you ever happen to drop by San Francisco I will be happy to present you with a trophy for the worst analogy of the thread - which is an impressive feat considering the previous candidates.
It wasn't an analogy - it was not supposed to reflect the current situation of Jerusalem, what I did mean to do was to make you feel that the idea I proposed was completely absurd, which I think I managed to do. The way you felt? -people in israel feel exactly the same way about the idea of saying that Jerusalem is not their capital ^^
|
how can anyone, with a straight face, condemn Israel for pushing people out of their lands, and then suggest that the only appropriate solution is to push the Israeli's out of their land (settlements)?
it's mind boggling the back-flips that will occur when you ask these questions.
|
On December 02 2012 15:26 sc2superfan101 wrote:
how can anyone, with a straight face, condemn Israel for pushing people out of their lands, and then suggest that the only appropriate solution is to push the Israeli's out of their land (settlements)?
it's mind boggling the back-flips that will occur when you ask these questions.
Because of this weird idea that Palestinians were pushed off their lands for those settlements. And that it might be wrong. I don't know, it's all so very confusing.
|
On December 02 2012 15:23 plogamer wrote:
How dare those Palestinians bid for statehood without Israel's permission?! Who do they think they are?
Absolutely, annexing territory is the right thing to do! Who cares about the people living on the land. They dared to act without Israel's permission! I don't care if Palestinian seat in the UN does not hurt Israel!
...
Am I doing it right?
Depends... what are you trying to do?
If you are trying to sound like an exaggerated me then you are doing it quite wrong.
I never said what I think that israel or the palestininas should do, I just mentioned possibilities.
If you are trying to waste everyone's time then I think you are doing it right ^^
|
On December 02 2012 15:28 plogamer wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2012 15:26 sc2superfan101 wrote:
how can anyone, with a straight face, condemn Israel for pushing people out of their lands, and then suggest that the only appropriate solution is to push the Israeli's out of their land (settlements)?
it's mind boggling the back-flips that will occur when you ask these questions. Because of this weird idea that Palestinians were pushed off their lands for those settlements. And that it might be wrong. I don't know, it's all so very confusing.
ahhh, I see.
so your solution is to continue pushing people off their land? great idea. one small problem I see with it is that you're talking about people who are backed up by one of the most powerful military's in the world, in a nation composed primarily of a people who have proven to be pretty militant about survival, and who have armed themselves with nuclear weapons and the capabilities of dropping them. oh, and this country you're talking about bullying is also supported by the majority of the most powerful, and wealthy, country on earth (US).
considering the fact that there's maybe... 4-5 nations on this earth that could bully Israel into doing anything at all, I don't know, maybe we should hesitate before we call bullying them our only solution. and we should make no mistake that telling people to leave the homes they were born in to right some prior wrong that may or may not have occurred, is bullying.
|
On December 02 2012 15:37 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2012 15:28 plogamer wrote:On December 02 2012 15:26 sc2superfan101 wrote:
how can anyone, with a straight face, condemn Israel for pushing people out of their lands, and then suggest that the only appropriate solution is to push the Israeli's out of their land (settlements)?
it's mind boggling the back-flips that will occur when you ask these questions. Because of this weird idea that Palestinians were pushed off their lands for those settlements. And that it might be wrong. I don't know, it's all so very confusing. ahhh, I see. so your solution is to continue pushing people off their land? great idea. one small problem I see with it is that you're talking about people who are backed up by one of the most powerful military's in the world, in a nation composed primarily of a people who have proven to be pretty militant about survival, and who have armed themselves with nuclear weapons and the capabilities of dropping them. oh, and this country you're talking about bullying is also supported by the majority of the most powerful, and wealthy, country on earth (US). considering the fact that there's maybe... 4-5 nations on this earth that could bully Israel into doing anything at all, I don't know, maybe we should hesitate before we call bullying them our only solution. and we should make no mistake that telling people to leave the homes they were born in to right some prior wrong that may or may not have occurred, is bullying.
Last I checked, might does not make right. I guess that's your morality but I don't care how powerful and rich Israel and it's allies are.
Oh, and how exactly is it bullying to state that taking people's lands is wrong? Bullying is to take people's lands because you're bigger and stronger.
Remember this?
it's mind boggling the back-flips that will occur when you ask these questions.
Now look in a mirror.. figuratively. Really.
|
On December 02 2012 15:34 Ranizin wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2012 15:23 plogamer wrote:
How dare those Palestinians bid for statehood without Israel's permission?! Who do they think they are?
Absolutely, annexing territory is the right thing to do! Who cares about the people living on the land. They dared to act without Israel's permission! I don't care if Palestinian seat in the UN does not hurt Israel!
...
Am I doing it right? Depends... what are you trying to do? If you are trying to sound like an exaggerated me then you are doing it quite wrong. I never said what I think that israel or the palestininas should do, I just mentioned possibilities. If you are trying to waste everyone's time then I think you are doing it right ^^
Correcto mundo! It's a waste of time to show you that annexing territory in response to Palestinian bid to statehood is not morally justifiable. The idea that you can state that as a possibility really says something about your position on the issue.
|
On December 02 2012 15:24 Ranizin wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2012 15:11 Ghostcom wrote:On December 02 2012 14:42 Ranizin wrote:On December 02 2012 14:18 Ghostcom wrote:
Furthermore Israel already claims to have annexed Jerusalem, but have you ever wondered why there are no embassies in Jerusalem? There is this little issue with legally annexing something which require international recognition and acceptance - something Israel is not in a position to get with Jerusalem. I find the fact that you think israel "requires" any sort of approval regarding it's capital city amusing. If all states would move their embassies away from Copenhagen and claim it is swedish city, will that make it any less of your captial? will you be willing to give it to sweden?? I find your lack of understanding of international law amusing. And if you ever happen to drop by San Francisco I will be happy to present you with a trophy for the worst analogy of the thread - which is an impressive feat considering the previous candidates. It wasn't an analogy - it was not supposed to reflect the current situation of Jerusalem, what I did mean to do was to make you feel that the idea I proposed was completely absurd, which I think I managed to do. The way you felt? -people in israel feel exactly the same way about the idea of saying that Jerusalem is not their capital ^^
There is a major difference here though. Israel really does not own Jerusalem, whatever the Israeli might say, and has only been in Israeli control for just over half a century.
Meanwhile Copenhagen has never been Swedish, and the last time Copenhagen was even remotely related to Sweden was during the Kalmar union, which ended in 1523. And even then it wasn't controlling Copenhagen, but rather it was three countries ruled by the same monarch, who for the entirety of the union was majorly Denmark-affiliated.
So while his example had a basis in history and logic, yours did not.
|
On December 02 2012 15:24 Ranizin wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2012 15:11 Ghostcom wrote:On December 02 2012 14:42 Ranizin wrote:On December 02 2012 14:18 Ghostcom wrote:
Furthermore Israel already claims to have annexed Jerusalem, but have you ever wondered why there are no embassies in Jerusalem? There is this little issue with legally annexing something which require international recognition and acceptance - something Israel is not in a position to get with Jerusalem. I find the fact that you think israel "requires" any sort of approval regarding it's capital city amusing. If all states would move their embassies away from Copenhagen and claim it is swedish city, will that make it any less of your captial? will you be willing to give it to sweden?? I find your lack of understanding of international law amusing. And if you ever happen to drop by San Francisco I will be happy to present you with a trophy for the worst analogy of the thread - which is an impressive feat considering the previous candidates. It wasn't an analogy - it was not supposed to reflect the current situation of Jerusalem, what I did mean to do was to make you feel that the idea I proposed was completely absurd, which I think I managed to do. The way you felt? -people in israel feel exactly the same way about the idea of saying that Jerusalem is not their capital ^^
The only thing you managed to do was to sound like a complete idiot. You stated in your previous post that Israel should just legally annex East Jerusalem - something which I pointed out can not be done without international recognition and acceptance, which is not possible for Israel to obtain and hence the lack of embassies (even Israels biggest ally, USA, does not have an embassy in Jerusalem!)
|
On December 02 2012 15:42 plogamer wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2012 15:37 sc2superfan101 wrote:On December 02 2012 15:28 plogamer wrote:On December 02 2012 15:26 sc2superfan101 wrote:
how can anyone, with a straight face, condemn Israel for pushing people out of their lands, and then suggest that the only appropriate solution is to push the Israeli's out of their land (settlements)?
it's mind boggling the back-flips that will occur when you ask these questions. Because of this weird idea that Palestinians were pushed off their lands for those settlements. And that it might be wrong. I don't know, it's all so very confusing. ahhh, I see. so your solution is to continue pushing people off their land? great idea. one small problem I see with it is that you're talking about people who are backed up by one of the most powerful military's in the world, in a nation composed primarily of a people who have proven to be pretty militant about survival, and who have armed themselves with nuclear weapons and the capabilities of dropping them. oh, and this country you're talking about bullying is also supported by the majority of the most powerful, and wealthy, country on earth (US). considering the fact that there's maybe... 4-5 nations on this earth that could bully Israel into doing anything at all, I don't know, maybe we should hesitate before we call bullying them our only solution. and we should make no mistake that telling people to leave the homes they were born in to right some prior wrong that may or may not have occurred, is bullying. Last I checked, might does not make right. I guess that's your morality but I don't care how powerful and rich Israel and it's allies are. Oh, and how exactly is it bullying to state that taking people's lands is wrong? Bullying is to take people's lands because you're bigger and stronger. Remember this? Show nested quote +
it's mind boggling the back-flips that will occur when you ask these questions.
Now look in a mirror.. figuratively. Really.
Might does not make right... yes. But no one is saying that it's right. It's just the sad reality of the situation. Your naivety does nothing to contributing for the continued survival of the Palestine population.
|
On December 02 2012 15:47 fluidin wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2012 15:42 plogamer wrote:On December 02 2012 15:37 sc2superfan101 wrote:On December 02 2012 15:28 plogamer wrote:On December 02 2012 15:26 sc2superfan101 wrote:
how can anyone, with a straight face, condemn Israel for pushing people out of their lands, and then suggest that the only appropriate solution is to push the Israeli's out of their land (settlements)?
it's mind boggling the back-flips that will occur when you ask these questions. Because of this weird idea that Palestinians were pushed off their lands for those settlements. And that it might be wrong. I don't know, it's all so very confusing. ahhh, I see. so your solution is to continue pushing people off their land? great idea. one small problem I see with it is that you're talking about people who are backed up by one of the most powerful military's in the world, in a nation composed primarily of a people who have proven to be pretty militant about survival, and who have armed themselves with nuclear weapons and the capabilities of dropping them. oh, and this country you're talking about bullying is also supported by the majority of the most powerful, and wealthy, country on earth (US). considering the fact that there's maybe... 4-5 nations on this earth that could bully Israel into doing anything at all, I don't know, maybe we should hesitate before we call bullying them our only solution. and we should make no mistake that telling people to leave the homes they were born in to right some prior wrong that may or may not have occurred, is bullying. Last I checked, might does not make right. I guess that's your morality but I don't care how powerful and rich Israel and it's allies are. Oh, and how exactly is it bullying to state that taking people's lands is wrong? Bullying is to take people's lands because you're bigger and stronger. Remember this?
it's mind boggling the back-flips that will occur when you ask these questions.
Now look in a mirror.. figuratively. Really. Might does not make right... yes. But no one is saying that it's right. It's just the sad reality of the situation. Your naivety does nothing to contributing for the continued survival of the Palestine population.
Now now, don't get me wrong. I'm practical. Palestine has to learn to live with Israel.
But we were discussing the moral condemnation of Israel. Just wanted to get facts straight. The survival of Palestine isn't really a priority for me, so perhaps its naive on your part to make that assumption.
|
On December 02 2012 15:51 plogamer wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2012 15:47 fluidin wrote:On December 02 2012 15:42 plogamer wrote:On December 02 2012 15:37 sc2superfan101 wrote:On December 02 2012 15:28 plogamer wrote:On December 02 2012 15:26 sc2superfan101 wrote:
how can anyone, with a straight face, condemn Israel for pushing people out of their lands, and then suggest that the only appropriate solution is to push the Israeli's out of their land (settlements)?
it's mind boggling the back-flips that will occur when you ask these questions. Because of this weird idea that Palestinians were pushed off their lands for those settlements. And that it might be wrong. I don't know, it's all so very confusing. ahhh, I see. so your solution is to continue pushing people off their land? great idea. one small problem I see with it is that you're talking about people who are backed up by one of the most powerful military's in the world, in a nation composed primarily of a people who have proven to be pretty militant about survival, and who have armed themselves with nuclear weapons and the capabilities of dropping them. oh, and this country you're talking about bullying is also supported by the majority of the most powerful, and wealthy, country on earth (US). considering the fact that there's maybe... 4-5 nations on this earth that could bully Israel into doing anything at all, I don't know, maybe we should hesitate before we call bullying them our only solution. and we should make no mistake that telling people to leave the homes they were born in to right some prior wrong that may or may not have occurred, is bullying. Last I checked, might does not make right. I guess that's your morality but I don't care how powerful and rich Israel and it's allies are. Oh, and how exactly is it bullying to state that taking people's lands is wrong? Bullying is to take people's lands because you're bigger and stronger. Remember this?
it's mind boggling the back-flips that will occur when you ask these questions.
Now look in a mirror.. figuratively. Really. Might does not make right... yes. But no one is saying that it's right. It's just the sad reality of the situation. Your naivety does nothing to contributing for the continued survival of the Palestine population. Now now, don't get me wrong. I'm practical. Palestine has to learn to live with Israel. But we were discussing the moral condemnation of Israel. Just wanted to get facts straight. The survival of Palestine isn't really a priority for me, so perhaps its naive on your part to make that assumption.
Hmm... maybe. However if you were partaking in this discussion just for the sake of it, perhaps you possess a trait worse than my naivety?
Ah, sorry. Wouldn't presume to know.
|
On December 02 2012 15:22 fluidin wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2012 08:39 Art.FeeL wrote:On December 02 2012 08:31 Goozen wrote:On December 02 2012 08:24 Art.FeeL wrote:On December 02 2012 08:22 Goozen wrote:On December 02 2012 08:19 Art.FeeL wrote:On December 02 2012 08:16 SupLilSon wrote:On December 02 2012 08:13 Jormundr wrote:On December 02 2012 08:01 Art.FeeL wrote:On December 02 2012 07:59 SupLilSon wrote:
[quote]
Yea, because Mexico knows that'd be a ridiculous request... Doesn't mean it's not an appropriate analogy. Completely different eras, mentalities, situations, cultures and everything else. Do not mix apples and pears. I wonder if you would have this attitude if the situation was reversed. Guess not. Which is exactly why the Israel of today has no interest in becoming the Israel of 1967. It was a completely different era, with different mentalities, and a different situation. But you're right, lets rewind time back to 1967. Give the west bank back to Jordan, give the Gaza strip back to Egypt. Haha, just kidding. We all know Egypt and Jordan don't want any Palestinians crossing their borders freely. My question to you is why it makes logical sense for Israel to propose open borders under increased Hamas terrorism when Egypt and Jordan oppose the same thing without even having to deal with the added threat of terrorist attacks. Prolly has to do with the fact that Palestinians don't fire rockets on Egypt or Jordan. Seems that the more rockets that get fired at you, the bigger of a douche you are. So much for the world wide media being controlled by Jews. And again let's play the blame game. The did it, right? No wonder there is not peace down there if the majority of you think that way. And different times in the same place and same players, is much more acceptable than comparing it to different, time and place and players involved. Its not so easy as to say "water under the bridge" out of 50 people in my high school grade, 3 lost a parent to suicide bombings in the city. You cant expect people to just say for things like this "let bygones be bygones". Aha. I completely agree. Neither Palestinians who have lost far more can say it. They have suffered much more than Israelis. What should we do now? Thats why im saying negotiations need to be held. There are 3 sticking points as of the Olmert offer: 1. 3% pf the contested land (this includes east Jerusalem and a few towns, all the rest was agreed on 2. The Refugees, the PA want to allow several hundred thousand the right to return in to Israel, effectively ending it as a Jewish state in several years. 3. The jordan valley and demilitarization. Israel want to keep the valley to prevent weapon smuggling and not allow the PA to have more then light arms. 4. Recognizing Israel as a jewish state. (the irony here is that they said their future state must be free of jews). The thing is while 30 years ago only the Israeli left wanted a 2 sate solution now its pretty much a consensus. And 30 years ago the PA wanted Hebron as the Capital, now they want Jerusalem. The PA, due to the massive international support act as if they have the upper hand and have shown no flexibility over the past years. Most Israelis hope that the PA lower their expectations if peace is to be met, That's irrelevant, because we have bibi now and as far as i know he doesnt accept a 2 state solution. By the way it's always Palestinians who have to lower their standards and submit to the Israeli will. That's pretty unfair you know. And again you are pointing fingers as if it was all Palestinian fault. The same mentality among all of pro-israeli posters: ''It's them!'' It's always them. No progress will be made like that. Ofc Palestinians are the ones who have to lower their standards. No, this isn't about being unfair. Of course it's unfair. But in fact it's about being realistic. Do you honestly expect the stronger party to lower theirs, especially in this context, when they are satisfied with the status-quo? Look, it would be great if Israel would do that, of course it will. I would laud and praise them if they did it. But do you honestly believe they would, especially with the right gaining power? Right now the most probable and feasible course of action is if Palestine actually accedes to agreeable terms. See, one side is alright with their gains and losses, while the other side isn't gaining anything while losing much. I would expect the latter side to take the initiative and try to stem their losses. We already understand what wrongs Israel have done, and no one really wants to argue that, so it becomes an argument about what Palestine has done wrong since it seems like the bulk of your ilk tries to gloss over it. It would be better if everyone looks at the situation objectively, although the future seems bleak, especially if Op's scenario just got shot by Goozen's assumptions.
Funny because I have the exact opposite feeling for what is going on in this thread. It seems like people like Goozen and his "ilk" refuses to acknowledge anything bad Israel has done and simply responds by closing his ears and then keep on yelling, upping the volume a little bit for every page that goes by... In fact I have yet to see a single person claiming that the Palestinians have not committed their fair share of wrongs.
If you could get Goozen and his "ilk" to recognize that neither side really holds a superior moral position over the other - that is they have both committed plenty of atrocities towards each other - I think you would find a lot of people leaving this thread (I would at least, but until that happens I feel compelled to call out the BS).
|
On December 02 2012 15:58 fluidin wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2012 15:51 plogamer wrote:On December 02 2012 15:47 fluidin wrote:On December 02 2012 15:42 plogamer wrote:On December 02 2012 15:37 sc2superfan101 wrote:On December 02 2012 15:28 plogamer wrote:On December 02 2012 15:26 sc2superfan101 wrote:
how can anyone, with a straight face, condemn Israel for pushing people out of their lands, and then suggest that the only appropriate solution is to push the Israeli's out of their land (settlements)?
it's mind boggling the back-flips that will occur when you ask these questions. Because of this weird idea that Palestinians were pushed off their lands for those settlements. And that it might be wrong. I don't know, it's all so very confusing. ahhh, I see. so your solution is to continue pushing people off their land? great idea. one small problem I see with it is that you're talking about people who are backed up by one of the most powerful military's in the world, in a nation composed primarily of a people who have proven to be pretty militant about survival, and who have armed themselves with nuclear weapons and the capabilities of dropping them. oh, and this country you're talking about bullying is also supported by the majority of the most powerful, and wealthy, country on earth (US). considering the fact that there's maybe... 4-5 nations on this earth that could bully Israel into doing anything at all, I don't know, maybe we should hesitate before we call bullying them our only solution. and we should make no mistake that telling people to leave the homes they were born in to right some prior wrong that may or may not have occurred, is bullying. Last I checked, might does not make right. I guess that's your morality but I don't care how powerful and rich Israel and it's allies are. Oh, and how exactly is it bullying to state that taking people's lands is wrong? Bullying is to take people's lands because you're bigger and stronger. Remember this?
it's mind boggling the back-flips that will occur when you ask these questions.
Now look in a mirror.. figuratively. Really. Might does not make right... yes. But no one is saying that it's right. It's just the sad reality of the situation. Your naivety does nothing to contributing for the continued survival of the Palestine population. Now now, don't get me wrong. I'm practical. Palestine has to learn to live with Israel. But we were discussing the moral condemnation of Israel. Just wanted to get facts straight. The survival of Palestine isn't really a priority for me, so perhaps its naive on your part to make that assumption. Hmm... maybe. However if you were partaking in this discussion just for the sake of it, perhaps you possess a trait worse than my naivety? Ah, sorry. Wouldn't presume to know.
Please tell me more about how you're saving the Middle East.
|
On December 02 2012 15:46 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2012 15:24 Ranizin wrote:On December 02 2012 15:11 Ghostcom wrote:On December 02 2012 14:42 Ranizin wrote:On December 02 2012 14:18 Ghostcom wrote:
Furthermore Israel already claims to have annexed Jerusalem, but have you ever wondered why there are no embassies in Jerusalem? There is this little issue with legally annexing something which require international recognition and acceptance - something Israel is not in a position to get with Jerusalem. I find the fact that you think israel "requires" any sort of approval regarding it's capital city amusing. If all states would move their embassies away from Copenhagen and claim it is swedish city, will that make it any less of your captial? will you be willing to give it to sweden?? I find your lack of understanding of international law amusing. And if you ever happen to drop by San Francisco I will be happy to present you with a trophy for the worst analogy of the thread - which is an impressive feat considering the previous candidates. It wasn't an analogy - it was not supposed to reflect the current situation of Jerusalem, what I did mean to do was to make you feel that the idea I proposed was completely absurd, which I think I managed to do. The way you felt? -people in israel feel exactly the same way about the idea of saying that Jerusalem is not their capital ^^ The only thing you managed to do was to sound like a complete idiot. You stated in your previous post that Israel should just legally annex East Jerusalem - something which I pointed out can not be done without international recognition and acceptance, which is not possible for Israel to obtain and hence the lack of embassies (even Israels biggest ally, USA, does not have an embassy in Jerusalem!)
I never said israel or the palestinians should make anything. I said annexing territories is a possible course of action, never said if I support it or not, and I absolutely never said that israel should annex east Jerusalem.
You can bring the embassy thing as much as you want, but in the end each state decides on it's own capital, Jerusalem is Israel's capital - it has the Knesset, the high-court and all the state offices.
Thinking that any other state can change that is absurd just like saying that Copenhagen will cease to be Denmark's capital because israel (and/or other states for that matter) doesn't recognize it as such.
It's really not that hard to understand ^^
@zz_ - you put too much emphasis on the absurd example I gave, and not on the idea I tried to present with it. i refer you to my previous posts to make things more clear, also I don't claim Copenhagen belongs to Sweden, I know pretty much nothing about your history nor do I care. Unlike many many others in this thread, I try not to jump into discussion about topics I know nothing about and doesn't affect me
|
On December 02 2012 16:12 Ranizin wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2012 15:46 Ghostcom wrote:On December 02 2012 15:24 Ranizin wrote:On December 02 2012 15:11 Ghostcom wrote:On December 02 2012 14:42 Ranizin wrote:On December 02 2012 14:18 Ghostcom wrote:
Furthermore Israel already claims to have annexed Jerusalem, but have you ever wondered why there are no embassies in Jerusalem? There is this little issue with legally annexing something which require international recognition and acceptance - something Israel is not in a position to get with Jerusalem. I find the fact that you think israel "requires" any sort of approval regarding it's capital city amusing. If all states would move their embassies away from Copenhagen and claim it is swedish city, will that make it any less of your captial? will you be willing to give it to sweden?? I find your lack of understanding of international law amusing. And if you ever happen to drop by San Francisco I will be happy to present you with a trophy for the worst analogy of the thread - which is an impressive feat considering the previous candidates. It wasn't an analogy - it was not supposed to reflect the current situation of Jerusalem, what I did mean to do was to make you feel that the idea I proposed was completely absurd, which I think I managed to do. The way you felt? -people in israel feel exactly the same way about the idea of saying that Jerusalem is not their capital ^^ The only thing you managed to do was to sound like a complete idiot. You stated in your previous post that Israel should just legally annex East Jerusalem - something which I pointed out can not be done without international recognition and acceptance, which is not possible for Israel to obtain and hence the lack of embassies (even Israels biggest ally, USA, does not have an embassy in Jerusalem!) I never said israel or the palestinians should make anything. I said annexing territories is a possible course of action, never said if I support it or not, and I absolutely never said that israel should annex east Jerusalem. You can bring the embassy thing as much as you want, but in the end each state decides on it's own capital, Jerusalem is Israel's capital - it has the Knesset, the high-court and all the state offices. Thinking that any other state can change that is absurd just like saying that Copenhagen will cease to be Denmark's capital because israel (and/or other states for that matter) doesn't recognize it as such. It's really not that hard to understand ^^
I will spell this out as clearly as possible:
ISRAEL. CAN'T. ANNEX. EAST. JERUSALEM. LEGALLY.
Now, when you stated:
On December 02 2012 Ranizin wrote:
Don't be too happy with the palestinian move about "making the negotiations more equal" - if they do one-sided moves then israel can as well, such as legally annexing territories (like they did with the Golan). It's a double-edged sword.
You were posting bullshit. Once again, because I really do not want you to miss this point for the 4.th time:
ISRAEL. CAN'T. ANNEX. EAST. JERUSALEM. LEGALLY.
EDIT:
On December 02 2012 Ranizin wrote:Unlike many many others in this thread, I try to jump into discussion about topics I know nothing about and doesn't affect me.
Yes, this much has become apparent.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
