|
Stay on topic. I cannot put it more clearly then that. Derailments will be met with consequences. ~Nyovne |
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.
without might you would never get people to leave their land. now if all you're doing is condemning settlements, then that's fine. I guess we could have the argument over whether they are even condemnable, or should be discussed as one homogenous group; but if you're saying that using might (international military and/or economic sanctions) to push Jews out of their homes is okay as long as it's in response to Jews pushing Palestinians out half a century before... well then I would call that hypocritical.
I said that pushing the Israeli people out of their homes was a bad idea, and indefensible morally. do you disagree? on what grounds?
edit: (i'm not saying that pushing Palestinians out of their homes is right.)
|
crazy, that the "only democratic state" in the near east, started these actions ...
all in all, the conclusion is easy, israel as a jewish-only state cant work! The hole area needs a out of the box solution
|
On December 02 2012 19:29 Cillas wrote:
crazy, that the "only democratic state" in the near east, started these actions ...
all in all, the conclusion is easy, israel as a jewish-only state cant work! The hole area needs a out of the box solution
Its not a jew only state, its a jewish state. 25% of the population isnt Jewish, all this dose is reaffirm what i said before about people posting without knowing. Also the whol "started these actions" is rubbish making it look one sided so please dont post things as fact if you clearly dont know the situation.
On December 02 2012 19:08 bkrow wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2012 19:02 Intact wrote:On December 02 2012 17:20 Goozen wrote:On December 02 2012 17:16 Ghostcom wrote:On December 02 2012 17:05 Ranizin wrote:On December 02 2012 16:49 Ghostcom wrote:On December 02 2012 16:39 Ranizin wrote:On December 02 2012 16:25 Ghostcom wrote:On December 02 2012 16:20 Ranizin wrote:On December 02 2012 16:17 Ghostcom wrote:
[quote]
I will spell this out as clearly as possible:
ISRAEL. CAN'T. ANNEX. EAST. JERUSALEM. LEGALLY.
Now, when you stated:
[quote]
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. I am convinced. ............ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AnnexationRead the part about Jerusalem and Golan Heights. I think I figured your problem - it is that I said "legally annex" and not just "annex"? My bad then, I was translating a term from hebrew which might have dual meaning. What I meant was that annexation will put israeli law in effect in the annexed territory. I understand you might understood it as annexing the territory in accordance to the international law - if that is the case then I'm sorry for the misunderstanding. East Jerusalem already has Israeli law in effect and has had so since 1967 when Israel tried to annex East Jerusalem the first time which was declared null and void by UNSC. Your initial statement about Israel "annexing" anything still does not make any sense. That's because you seem to think that the only territory that can be annexed is east jerusalem (which is already annexed^^). Judea & Samaria currently are not annexed, the law in effect regarding those territories is ottomanian - but that's not very interesting, the practical effect is that once an area is annexed, it won't be torn from israel for future palestinian state. That is the case with the Golan, East Jerusalem and so it will be with future annexed areas in Judea & Samaria (which is where the future palestinian state is supposed to be). EDIT: seeing your edit, I would like to say you give the international law way too much emphasis. In reality, it affects nothing. If international law affected nothing then Israel would have no cause for acting like it is doing now. And international law matters when it is an unanimous decision in which even the major ally says "hey, what you did there was illegal". And no, just because you annex something it will not mean Israel gets to keep that land should a 2-state solution be made. There is a reason why the settlements are such a huge headache whenever there are negotiations. As said, in practice international law has little effect, also if you ream my post you will see why Palestinian control of east Jerusalem wont happen. As to the settlements in general, for every settlement that has in it over 500+ people (or possible 1000, i cant recall) wont be returned instead, the equivalent land was offered in other areas. I think it hilarious that you went from using international law to claim the naval blockade is legal to saying it doesn't matter. You change your opinion and your "facts" to fit whatever you are trying to argue, and several times you posted stuff to back you up but it really countered your argument. It's a good thing you're not a professional debater. I guess we are wasting our time talking about this with anyone from Israel, they all seem extremely stubborn and refuse to listen to reason. Rofl - nothing against Israelis and Israeli in general and but stubborness is a defining factor of a typical Israeli. Don't take that as me saying anything about their ability to debate effectively, but your statement is pretty funny due to the typical Israeli personality. It would be great if we could redirect this discussion to what the PLO actually gets out of the new vote, and how it effects the peace process.
It has little effect in practice but harms the peace process as its a violation of Oslo accords and send a message that if Israel dosnt give in to their demands they will find other ways of doing it.
|
The situation between Israel and Palestine is one of the saddest things on this planet because both sides are evil. Its not just that there is no good or bad, it is that there is only bad. Large sections of the Middle East are in the dark ages and do not trust the ways of reason or logic at all. It seems like the only way to solve this problem is to try to keep either side from nuking the other for another 400 years and hope they will just be idiots instead of violent idiots, like what happened to western Christianity since 1500.
|
On December 02 2012 19:50 ZackAttack wrote:
The situation between Israel and Palestine is one of the saddest things on this planet because both sides are evil.
and you've reached this amazing conclusion how
|
On December 02 2012 20:24 hooahah wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2012 19:50 ZackAttack wrote:
The situation between Israel and Palestine is one of the saddest things on this planet because both sides are evil. and you've reached this amazing conclusion how
It's not that the people are evil, but they are both fighting under the pretense of their own bullshit holy book without a second thought.
|
On December 02 2012 19:08 bkrow wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2012 19:02 Intact wrote:On December 02 2012 17:20 Goozen wrote:On December 02 2012 17:16 Ghostcom wrote:On December 02 2012 17:05 Ranizin wrote:On December 02 2012 16:49 Ghostcom wrote:On December 02 2012 16:39 Ranizin wrote:On December 02 2012 16:25 Ghostcom wrote:On December 02 2012 16:20 Ranizin wrote:On December 02 2012 16:17 Ghostcom wrote:
[quote]
I will spell this out as clearly as possible:
ISRAEL. CAN'T. ANNEX. EAST. JERUSALEM. LEGALLY.
Now, when you stated:
[quote]
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. I am convinced. ............ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AnnexationRead the part about Jerusalem and Golan Heights. I think I figured your problem - it is that I said "legally annex" and not just "annex"? My bad then, I was translating a term from hebrew which might have dual meaning. What I meant was that annexation will put israeli law in effect in the annexed territory. I understand you might understood it as annexing the territory in accordance to the international law - if that is the case then I'm sorry for the misunderstanding. East Jerusalem already has Israeli law in effect and has had so since 1967 when Israel tried to annex East Jerusalem the first time which was declared null and void by UNSC. Your initial statement about Israel "annexing" anything still does not make any sense. That's because you seem to think that the only territory that can be annexed is east jerusalem (which is already annexed^^). Judea & Samaria currently are not annexed, the law in effect regarding those territories is ottomanian - but that's not very interesting, the practical effect is that once an area is annexed, it won't be torn from israel for future palestinian state. That is the case with the Golan, East Jerusalem and so it will be with future annexed areas in Judea & Samaria (which is where the future palestinian state is supposed to be). EDIT: seeing your edit, I would like to say you give the international law way too much emphasis. In reality, it affects nothing. If international law affected nothing then Israel would have no cause for acting like it is doing now. And international law matters when it is an unanimous decision in which even the major ally says "hey, what you did there was illegal". And no, just because you annex something it will not mean Israel gets to keep that land should a 2-state solution be made. There is a reason why the settlements are such a huge headache whenever there are negotiations. As said, in practice international law has little effect, also if you ream my post you will see why Palestinian control of east Jerusalem wont happen. As to the settlements in general, for every settlement that has in it over 500+ people (or possible 1000, i cant recall) wont be returned instead, the equivalent land was offered in other areas. I think it hilarious that you went from using international law to claim the naval blockade is legal to saying it doesn't matter. You change your opinion and your "facts" to fit whatever you are trying to argue, and several times you posted stuff to back you up but it really countered your argument. It's a good thing you're not a professional debater. I guess we are wasting our time talking about this with anyone from Israel, they all seem extremely stubborn and refuse to listen to reason. Rofl - nothing against Israelis and Israeli in general and but stubborness is a defining factor of a typical Israeli. Don't take that as me saying anything about their ability to debate effectively, but your statement is pretty funny due to the typical Israeli personality. It would be great if we could redirect this discussion to what the PLO actually gets out of the new vote, and how it effects the peace process.
The peace process is a rethoric, it didn't move since the Taba summit in 2001.
|
On December 02 2012 08:22 Goozen wrote:Show nested quote +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:On December 02 2012 07:23 Jormundr wrote:On December 02 2012 07:15 Art.FeeL wrote:On December 02 2012 07:03 Goozen wrote:
[quote]
Because its unidentifiable and Israel won it in the war. Not to mention this still wont solve the Refugee issue. You like to boast about Israel winning the war. You know, by talking to you and other Israeli posters here and in other threads, i got the impression that all of you think the only solution is a military one. Netanyahu thinks too as do 70% of your population ( http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/162449#.ULqAJ4ey54M) I'd appreciate you to be honest and say it in full light. Netanyahu is a warmonger, there is no denying, and when you have a warmonger leading a country with nuclear weapons, things don't tend to end well. With '67 borders the majority of the problems would be solved and it would be a great step toward more stability. Even Hamas accepts 67 borders. Obama too. Guess who doesn't. That sole fact explains how Netanyahu doesn't want peace. http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/netanyahu-proved-israel-doesn-t-want-peace-1.386558 This is akin to the world saying that the United States should give Texas back to Mexico to solve its immigration problems. 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".
You seem to think those suicide bombers did what they did just for fun? If you want to come to a mutual understanding you need to see that the problem is not only on the opposing side. Also, demonizing the entire palestinian population the way you do is just plain wrong. You can not hold any other palestinian responsible for what a few of them do.
|
What if the US wanted Palestine to become a state so that when Hamas fucks up and declares war with a rocket attack on Israel, it can legally be dealt with in an extremely swift manner... What if.
|
On December 02 2012 19:50 ZackAttack wrote:
The situation between Israel and Palestine is one of the saddest things on this planet because both sides are evil. Its not just that there is no good or bad, it is that there is only bad. Large sections of the Middle East are in the dark ages and do not trust the ways of reason or logic at all. It seems like the only way to solve this problem is to try to keep either side from nuking the other for another 400 years and hope they will just be idiots instead of violent idiots, like what happened to western Christianity since 1500.
Ever noticed how people who experienced war through battle for territories, murders, expulsions, and rapes tend to be more evil and extreme than the typical middle/high class first world citizen having no serious affinities with anyone in the region and experiencing the war through websites ?
|
Ever noticed how people who experienced war through battle for territories, murders, expulsions, and rapes tend to be more evil and extreme than the typical middle/high class first world citizen having no serious affinities with anyone in the region and experiencing the war through websites ?
I don't think anyone tries to argue that violence doesn't lead to more violence.
|
On December 02 2012 19:10 sc2superfan101 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. without might you would never get people to leave their land. now if all you're doing is condemning settlements, then that's fine. I guess we could have the argument over whether they are even condemnable, or should be discussed as one homogenous group; but if you're saying that using might (international military and/or economic sanctions) to push Jews out of their homes is okay as long as it's in response to Jews pushing Palestinians out half a century before... well then I would call that hypocritical. I said that pushing the Israeli people out of their homes was a bad idea, and indefensible morally. do you disagree? on what grounds? edit: (i'm not saying that pushing Palestinians out of their homes is right.)
Your premise infringes on the Palestinians' right to return to the homes they were pushed out of themselves.
If I take your money, is it wrong for you to take it back?
|
|
|
On December 02 2012 23:27 plogamer wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2012 19:10 sc2superfan101 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. without might you would never get people to leave their land. now if all you're doing is condemning settlements, then that's fine. I guess we could have the argument over whether they are even condemnable, or should be discussed as one homogenous group; but if you're saying that using might (international military and/or economic sanctions) to push Jews out of their homes is okay as long as it's in response to Jews pushing Palestinians out half a century before... well then I would call that hypocritical. I said that pushing the Israeli people out of their homes was a bad idea, and indefensible morally. do you disagree? on what grounds? edit: (i'm not saying that pushing Palestinians out of their homes is right.) Your premise infringes on the Palestinians' right to return to the homes they were pushed out of themselves. If I take your money, is it wrong for you to take it back?
The arabs REJECTED their own state, they went to WAR, LOST.
Israel has made plenty of concessions but they cannot give the land the Arabs refused in 48, such a state would not be viable and would mean the death of 6 million jews.the Arabs have shown in the past 60 years to be incapable of living in peace next to a non islamic neighbor.
|
On December 03 2012 01:11 Bahamut1337 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2012 23:27 plogamer wrote:On December 02 2012 19:10 sc2superfan101 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. without might you would never get people to leave their land. now if all you're doing is condemning settlements, then that's fine. I guess we could have the argument over whether they are even condemnable, or should be discussed as one homogenous group; but if you're saying that using might (international military and/or economic sanctions) to push Jews out of their homes is okay as long as it's in response to Jews pushing Palestinians out half a century before... well then I would call that hypocritical. I said that pushing the Israeli people out of their homes was a bad idea, and indefensible morally. do you disagree? on what grounds? edit: (i'm not saying that pushing Palestinians out of their homes is right.) Your premise infringes on the Palestinians' right to return to the homes they were pushed out of themselves. If I take your money, is it wrong for you to take it back? The arabs REJECTED their own state, they went to WAR, LOST. Israel has made plenty of concessions but they cannot give the land the Arabs refused in 48, such a state would not be viable and would mean the death of 6 million jews.the Arabs have shown in the past 60 years to be incapable of living in peace next to a non islamic neighbor.
The arabs rejected a state that was not acceptable to them. You know, since they were being forced into giving up their lands by colonial powers.
I'm not saying that we can turn back the clock. But I just find it sad when people do mental "back-flips" to make their position seem reasonable.
|
Netherlands844 Posts
On December 03 2012 01:14 plogamer wrote:Show nested quote +On December 03 2012 01:11 Bahamut1337 wrote:On December 02 2012 23:27 plogamer wrote:On December 02 2012 19:10 sc2superfan101 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. without might you would never get people to leave their land. now if all you're doing is condemning settlements, then that's fine. I guess we could have the argument over whether they are even condemnable, or should be discussed as one homogenous group; but if you're saying that using might (international military and/or economic sanctions) to push Jews out of their homes is okay as long as it's in response to Jews pushing Palestinians out half a century before... well then I would call that hypocritical. I said that pushing the Israeli people out of their homes was a bad idea, and indefensible morally. do you disagree? on what grounds? edit: (i'm not saying that pushing Palestinians out of their homes is right.) Your premise infringes on the Palestinians' right to return to the homes they were pushed out of themselves. If I take your money, is it wrong for you to take it back? The arabs REJECTED their own state, they went to WAR, LOST. Israel has made plenty of concessions but they cannot give the land the Arabs refused in 48, such a state would not be viable and would mean the death of 6 million jews.the Arabs have shown in the past 60 years to be incapable of living in peace next to a non islamic neighbor. The arabs rejected a state that was not acceptable to them. You know, since they were being forced into giving up their lands by colonial powers. I'm not saying that we can turn back the clock. But I just find it sad when people do mental "back-flips" to make their position seem reasonable.
PLO gamer is ofcourse unbiased lol
|
On December 03 2012 01:14 plogamer wrote:Show nested quote +On December 03 2012 01:11 Bahamut1337 wrote:On December 02 2012 23:27 plogamer wrote:On December 02 2012 19:10 sc2superfan101 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. without might you would never get people to leave their land. now if all you're doing is condemning settlements, then that's fine. I guess we could have the argument over whether they are even condemnable, or should be discussed as one homogenous group; but if you're saying that using might (international military and/or economic sanctions) to push Jews out of their homes is okay as long as it's in response to Jews pushing Palestinians out half a century before... well then I would call that hypocritical. I said that pushing the Israeli people out of their homes was a bad idea, and indefensible morally. do you disagree? on what grounds? edit: (i'm not saying that pushing Palestinians out of their homes is right.) Your premise infringes on the Palestinians' right to return to the homes they were pushed out of themselves. If I take your money, is it wrong for you to take it back? The arabs REJECTED their own state, they went to WAR, LOST. Israel has made plenty of concessions but they cannot give the land the Arabs refused in 48, such a state would not be viable and would mean the death of 6 million jews.the Arabs have shown in the past 60 years to be incapable of living in peace next to a non islamic neighbor. The arabs rejected a state that was not acceptable to them. You know, since they were being forced into giving up their lands by colonial powers. I'm not saying that we can turn back the clock. But I just find it sad when people do mental "back-flips" to make their position seem reasonable.
Their own fault then. Nobody execpted the Jews to live in an arab Apartheid state as 2nd rate citizens as has always been the case in the Arab World with miniorities / infidels.
Israels position is reasonable. No shared Jerusalem, no violence and negotiations. the Palestinian position is the utter and complete destruction of Israel and the jewish people ( killing Jews being one of the best things you can do in Islam anyway)
![[image loading]](http://vkb.isvg.org/@api/deki/files/688/=hamas11.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTPyF2jilD3X2XfOLiK6x2fCl0xxj_uS4AU_YwOWy-u27h1nAUaYsOGxe6fWg)
![[image loading]](http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-zzMMqqKxNUc/TeL3TVGEqWI/AAAAAAAAEzs/IJCNCqMOImM/s320/nazisislam6.jpg)
How do you negotiate with above people while you are a Jew / Infidel?
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On December 02 2012 23:10 DigiGnar wrote:
What if the US wanted Palestine to become a state so that when Hamas fucks up and declares war with a rocket attack on Israel, it can legally be dealt with in an extremely swift manner... What if.
They effectively have declared independence, but here comes the issue of the Hamas/PLO split. Besides, Israel won the territory in wars and its still not recognized, if we were to fight and beat a Palestinian state, why would that be recognized?
|
On December 02 2012 19:30 Goozen wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2012 19:29 Cillas wrote:
crazy, that the "only democratic state" in the near east, started these actions ...
all in all, the conclusion is easy, israel as a jewish-only state cant work! The hole area needs a out of the box solution Its not a jew only state, its a jewish state. 25% of the population isnt Jewish, all this dose is reaffirm what i said before about people posting without knowing. Also the whol "started these actions" is rubbish making it look one sided so please dont post things as fact if you clearly dont know the situation. Show nested quote +On December 02 2012 19:08 bkrow wrote:On December 02 2012 19:02 Intact wrote:On December 02 2012 17:20 Goozen wrote:On December 02 2012 17:16 Ghostcom wrote:On December 02 2012 17:05 Ranizin wrote:On December 02 2012 16:49 Ghostcom wrote:On December 02 2012 16:39 Ranizin wrote:On December 02 2012 16:25 Ghostcom wrote:On December 02 2012 16:20 Ranizin wrote:
[quote]
I am convinced.
............ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AnnexationRead the part about Jerusalem and Golan Heights. I think I figured your problem - it is that I said "legally annex" and not just "annex"? My bad then, I was translating a term from hebrew which might have dual meaning. What I meant was that annexation will put israeli law in effect in the annexed territory. I understand you might understood it as annexing the territory in accordance to the international law - if that is the case then I'm sorry for the misunderstanding. East Jerusalem already has Israeli law in effect and has had so since 1967 when Israel tried to annex East Jerusalem the first time which was declared null and void by UNSC. Your initial statement about Israel "annexing" anything still does not make any sense. That's because you seem to think that the only territory that can be annexed is east jerusalem (which is already annexed^^). Judea & Samaria currently are not annexed, the law in effect regarding those territories is ottomanian - but that's not very interesting, the practical effect is that once an area is annexed, it won't be torn from israel for future palestinian state. That is the case with the Golan, East Jerusalem and so it will be with future annexed areas in Judea & Samaria (which is where the future palestinian state is supposed to be). EDIT: seeing your edit, I would like to say you give the international law way too much emphasis. In reality, it affects nothing. If international law affected nothing then Israel would have no cause for acting like it is doing now. And international law matters when it is an unanimous decision in which even the major ally says "hey, what you did there was illegal". And no, just because you annex something it will not mean Israel gets to keep that land should a 2-state solution be made. There is a reason why the settlements are such a huge headache whenever there are negotiations. As said, in practice international law has little effect, also if you ream my post you will see why Palestinian control of east Jerusalem wont happen. As to the settlements in general, for every settlement that has in it over 500+ people (or possible 1000, i cant recall) wont be returned instead, the equivalent land was offered in other areas. I think it hilarious that you went from using international law to claim the naval blockade is legal to saying it doesn't matter. You change your opinion and your "facts" to fit whatever you are trying to argue, and several times you posted stuff to back you up but it really countered your argument. It's a good thing you're not a professional debater. I guess we are wasting our time talking about this with anyone from Israel, they all seem extremely stubborn and refuse to listen to reason. Rofl - nothing against Israelis and Israeli in general and but stubborness is a defining factor of a typical Israeli. Don't take that as me saying anything about their ability to debate effectively, but your statement is pretty funny due to the typical Israeli personality. It would be great if we could redirect this discussion to what the PLO actually gets out of the new vote, and how it effects the peace process. It has little effect in practice but harms the peace process as its a violation of Oslo accords and send a message that if Israel dosnt give in to their demands they will find other ways of doing it.
Because Likud stating that they will not ever accept a Palestinian state furthers the peace process how? You can keep bringing up Oslo as much as you like, but the fact that the intention of those negotiations (a lasting peace) has not been met and that these negotiations did not lead to an agreement on the formation of a Palestinian state. The negotiations was basically meant as a preamble to much more key negotiations which never took place because of the unwillingness on both sides.
The message that this upgrade of status sends is that the rest of the world is getting really tired of hearing about this conflict in which both sides are unwilling to reach any sort of agreement and that they better fucking get to it and a lot more seriously than what the world has seen from them since the signing in Oslo 2 decades ago in which there has been made almost zero progress!
http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/29/world/meast/palestinian-united-nations/index.html
http://rt.com/news/palestine-status-un-churkin-935/
|
On December 03 2012 01:26 Bahamut1337 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 03 2012 01:14 plogamer wrote:On December 03 2012 01:11 Bahamut1337 wrote:On December 02 2012 23:27 plogamer wrote:On December 02 2012 19:10 sc2superfan101 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. without might you would never get people to leave their land. now if all you're doing is condemning settlements, then that's fine. I guess we could have the argument over whether they are even condemnable, or should be discussed as one homogenous group; but if you're saying that using might (international military and/or economic sanctions) to push Jews out of their homes is okay as long as it's in response to Jews pushing Palestinians out half a century before... well then I would call that hypocritical. I said that pushing the Israeli people out of their homes was a bad idea, and indefensible morally. do you disagree? on what grounds? edit: (i'm not saying that pushing Palestinians out of their homes is right.) Your premise infringes on the Palestinians' right to return to the homes they were pushed out of themselves. If I take your money, is it wrong for you to take it back? The arabs REJECTED their own state, they went to WAR, LOST. Israel has made plenty of concessions but they cannot give the land the Arabs refused in 48, such a state would not be viable and would mean the death of 6 million jews.the Arabs have shown in the past 60 years to be incapable of living in peace next to a non islamic neighbor. The arabs rejected a state that was not acceptable to them. You know, since they were being forced into giving up their lands by colonial powers. I'm not saying that we can turn back the clock. But I just find it sad when people do mental "back-flips" to make their position seem reasonable. How do you negotiate with above people while you are a Jew / Infidel?
Same argument could be made the other way around. Jewish extremists threatening to nuke every important capital in the world if shit goes down the toilet, stuff like that. Read the quotes regarding Option Samson.
If you want to judge both countries/religions based on their religious extremists, i guess we all would be better off to nuke palestine AND israel into oblivion, and the world would be a better place.
Lucky enough, it's just you being stupid, so let's try again.
Edit: just recognized it now, are they doing the hitler-greeting on the last picture? Õo
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
