|
Stay on topic. I cannot put it more clearly then that. Derailments will be met with consequences. ~Nyovne |
On December 03 2012 01:19 frontliner2 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. PLO gamer is ofcourse unbiased lol
That is a very hilariously and ironic co-incidence.
It's an homage to my Asian heritage. I suck at SC2, so I'm not a pro gamer. But no one can stop me from being a plo gamer!
|
On December 03 2012 05:45 m4inbrain wrote:Show nested quote +On December 03 2012 01:26 Bahamut1337 wrote: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
They are, which is incredibly funny.
|
On December 03 2012 04:45 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2012 19:30 Goozen wrote: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: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: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.htmlhttp://rt.com/news/palestine-status-un-churkin-935/
2 things:
1. Where did the Likud say they wont accept a Palestinian state? In fact Bibi publicly announced at the start of his term that he is willing to accept it and that will be the outcome of negotiations.
2. Had the palestinians wanted to, this vote could have passed in the GA 20 years ago, also, there is a reason he did it now and that is his slipping popularity, it really changes nothing in reality.
|
On December 03 2012 05:45 m4inbrain wrote:Show nested quote +On December 03 2012 01:26 Bahamut1337 wrote: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
Exept Israel is not led by the extremists, they have not used nukes even when wars went terrible ( in 1973 for instance) fact of the matter is most Palestinians are extremists, do not condemn suicide bombing civlians, and will continue to be violent thugs even if Israel was gone. They would pick a new target and go Allah Akbar apeshit on that.
|
On December 03 2012 06:55 Goozen wrote:Show nested quote +On December 03 2012 04:45 Ghostcom wrote:On December 02 2012 19:30 Goozen wrote: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: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:
[quote]
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.htmlhttp://rt.com/news/palestine-status-un-churkin-935/ 2 things: 1. Where did the Likud say they wont accept a Palestinian state? In fact Bibi publicly announced at the start of his term that he is willing to accept it and that will be the outcome of negotiations. 2. Had the palestinians wanted to, this vote could have passed in the GA 20 years ago, also, there is a reason he did it now and that is his slipping popularity, it really changes nothing in reality.
1) Likud said so in their own political charter. And you conveniently forget to mention the concessions Bibi required as absolute before he would be willing to accept a Palestinian state. Even a member of the opposition in Israel, Tzipi Livni, said that she did not believe Bibi actually wanted a 2-state solution.
2) I really do not know what you are trying to say here. Palestine could sure as hell not have been granted the non-member observer status 20 years ago. Yes there is a reason why he is doing it now - surprise, motivation gets the world turning.
|
On December 03 2012 07:02 Bahamut1337 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 03 2012 05:45 m4inbrain wrote:On December 03 2012 01:26 Bahamut1337 wrote: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:
[quote]
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 Exept Israel is not led by the extremists, they have not used nukes even when wars went terrible ( in 1973 for instance)
So they aren't extremists except they are arming themselves with WMDs right? You know what other states normally get for doing that? Right, US invasion.
fact of the matter is most Palestinians are extremists, do not condemn suicide bombing civlians, and will continue to be violent thugs even if Israel was gone. They would pick a new target and go Allah Akbar apeshit on that.
Those Palestinians... how do they even dare to exist on their own land. They are all extremists and would go apeshit on us if not for Israel. Do you seriously believe what you write?
|
funny funny funny. So lets start with some hirstoric motion first.
Israel was funded by a extreme right winged movement, that used terrorism itself not just only against palestinians but also against the britisch empire in order to gain control. (did this to b.e. when they were about to give own rights to the palestinians) This right wing movement is still the most powerfull force in israel and they are the source of all problems in this region.
Even Einstein warned the public of them.
Sure, hardcore judaeish nationalism arouse a lot of islamic nationalism. (But first is in every matter yours choice, the choice of israel and its inhabitants. Later is a west made problem, we have to make major accommodations, to get respect)
Racism and nationalism is a very big problem in israel, even Hitler would be proud about em, if they were his sheeps.
|
On December 03 2012 07:02 Bahamut1337 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 03 2012 05:45 m4inbrain wrote:On December 03 2012 01:26 Bahamut1337 wrote: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:
[quote]
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 Exept Israel is not led by the extremists, they have not used nukes even when wars went terrible ( in 1973 for instance) fact of the matter is most Palestinians are extremists, do not condemn suicide bombing civlians, and will continue to be violent thugs even if Israel was gone. They would pick a new target and go Allah Akbar apeshit on that.
It's debatable whether Israel is being led by extremists. What is not debatable is your notion that "most Palestinians are extremists". They aren't. Just because many of them don't condemn terrorist attacks doesn't mean that they're extremists. Nor does it mean that they would attack anyone or would otherwise be incapable of living in peace.
And if you truly think that most Palestinians are uncivilized thuggish savages, we have a solution to a problem like that. It's been done before. Why shouldn't Israel go ahead and get it over with if the Palestinians are so bad?
This is exactly the kind of rhetoric that the situation doesn't need, nor is it the kind of rhetoric that the situation merits. Once you decide that the enemy has no actual reason for their actions, once you decide that they are sub-human scum that is a blight on the human race, you justify any action against them.
|
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/12/03/obama-administration-chides-israel-over-settlement-construction-plans/
The Palestinians say construction in that territory would kill any hope for establishing a viable state of Palestine. Successive U.S. governments have agreed, and under intense American pressure, Israel has avoided building settlements in the area. It has, however, developed roads and infrastructure and built a police station.
if they are correct (and they probably are) than the Palestinian Arabs might have just flushed their dreams of statehood down the toilet. I wonder if Israel will go through with it...
|
Australia8532 Posts
On December 04 2012 07:01 sc2superfan101 wrote:http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/12/03/obama-administration-chides-israel-over-settlement-construction-plans/Show nested quote +The Palestinians say construction in that territory would kill any hope for establishing a viable state of Palestine. Successive U.S. governments have agreed, and under intense American pressure, Israel has avoided building settlements in the area. It has, however, developed roads and infrastructure and built a police station. if they are correct (and they probably are) than the Palestinian Arabs might have just flushed their dreams of statehood down the toilet. I wonder if Israel will go through with it...
Wow.. how dramatic.
Honestly - settlements don't bother me. They are annoying, and I see them as completely unnecessary and Israel's way of sending a message, but at the end of the day Israel has shown it is more than willing to uproot settlements in exchange for peace. Anyone that believes the settlement issue is the barrier to peace is a little misguided. All this huff and puff about extra settlements and not enough commitment to real efforts at negotiation. Why dance around each other (Palestine at the UN, Israel with their settlements)?
I guess offering peace treaties in the past has never worked...
|
those settlements are a problem because they take again land form the palestin.
with the wall build by israel it took another dimension, they didnt just build it, "between israel and palestin". They build it long way INTO palestin. Cutting palestin villages off and taking about 11% of the land, again ...
|
On December 04 2012 07:09 bkrow wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2012 07:01 sc2superfan101 wrote:http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/12/03/obama-administration-chides-israel-over-settlement-construction-plans/The Palestinians say construction in that territory would kill any hope for establishing a viable state of Palestine. Successive U.S. governments have agreed, and under intense American pressure, Israel has avoided building settlements in the area. It has, however, developed roads and infrastructure and built a police station. if they are correct (and they probably are) than the Palestinian Arabs might have just flushed their dreams of statehood down the toilet. I wonder if Israel will go through with it... Wow.. how dramatic. Honestly - settlements don't bother me. They are annoying, and I see them as completely unnecessary and Israel's way of sending a message, but at the end of the day Israel has shown it is more than willing to uproot settlements in exchange for peace. Anyone that believes the settlement issue is the barrier to peace is a little misguided. All this huff and puff about extra settlements and not enough commitment to real efforts at negotiation. Why dance around each other (Palestine at the UN, Israel with their settlements)? I guess offering peace treaties in the past has never worked...
Yes, ripping down peoples homes and building your own on top shouldn't bother anyone - a minor annoyance at best, right? The entire conflict in Israel is the "settlement issue," stating otherwise makes you sound uninformed and you'd be wise to keep your totally inapt comments to yourself.
|
Australia8532 Posts
On December 04 2012 11:04 blinken wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2012 07:09 bkrow wrote:On December 04 2012 07:01 sc2superfan101 wrote:http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/12/03/obama-administration-chides-israel-over-settlement-construction-plans/The Palestinians say construction in that territory would kill any hope for establishing a viable state of Palestine. Successive U.S. governments have agreed, and under intense American pressure, Israel has avoided building settlements in the area. It has, however, developed roads and infrastructure and built a police station. if they are correct (and they probably are) than the Palestinian Arabs might have just flushed their dreams of statehood down the toilet. I wonder if Israel will go through with it... Wow.. how dramatic. Honestly - settlements don't bother me. They are annoying, and I see them as completely unnecessary and Israel's way of sending a message, but at the end of the day Israel has shown it is more than willing to uproot settlements in exchange for peace. Anyone that believes the settlement issue is the barrier to peace is a little misguided. All this huff and puff about extra settlements and not enough commitment to real efforts at negotiation. Why dance around each other (Palestine at the UN, Israel with their settlements)? I guess offering peace treaties in the past has never worked... Yes, ripping down peoples homes and building your own on top shouldn't bother anyone - a minor annoyance at best, right? The entire conflict in Israel is the "settlement issue," stating otherwise makes you sound uninformed and you'd be wise to keep your totally inapt comments to yourself.
Whoa. Anyone else find it hilarious when you try call someone inept but get the spelling all wrong? Kind of ironic.
Please, please, please show me this whole, "ripping down peoples homes and building your own on top." The fact that you think the "entire conflict" in Israel is the settlement issue demonstrates how grossly uneducated you are. Do you know when the settlements came into existence? Do you know that there was a conflict before settlements existed and there will continue to be conflict afterwards? Do you know what happened in 2005? The settlements are a distraction that can be easily remedied when faced with REAL peace offerings. Israel has shown that they are willing to exchange land for peace, settlements or no settlements. That is the point I am trying to make. Everyone gets so pissed off over these settlements when all they are is an excuse to avoid negotiations. Do I think the settlements should be there? Absolutely not. Do I think this is a barrier to peace? Absolutely not.
edit: apologies for the first line 
|
On December 04 2012 11:04 blinken wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2012 07:09 bkrow wrote:On December 04 2012 07:01 sc2superfan101 wrote:http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/12/03/obama-administration-chides-israel-over-settlement-construction-plans/The Palestinians say construction in that territory would kill any hope for establishing a viable state of Palestine. Successive U.S. governments have agreed, and under intense American pressure, Israel has avoided building settlements in the area. It has, however, developed roads and infrastructure and built a police station. if they are correct (and they probably are) than the Palestinian Arabs might have just flushed their dreams of statehood down the toilet. I wonder if Israel will go through with it... Wow.. how dramatic. Honestly - settlements don't bother me. They are annoying, and I see them as completely unnecessary and Israel's way of sending a message, but at the end of the day Israel has shown it is more than willing to uproot settlements in exchange for peace. Anyone that believes the settlement issue is the barrier to peace is a little misguided. All this huff and puff about extra settlements and not enough commitment to real efforts at negotiation. Why dance around each other (Palestine at the UN, Israel with their settlements)? I guess offering peace treaties in the past has never worked... Yes, ripping down peoples homes and building your own on top shouldn't bother anyone - a minor annoyance at best, right? The entire conflict in Israel is the "settlement issue," stating otherwise makes you sound uninformed and you'd be wise to keep your totally inapt comments to yourself.
your post is irony at it's best
|
On December 04 2012 11:12 bkrow wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2012 11:04 blinken wrote:On December 04 2012 07:09 bkrow wrote:On December 04 2012 07:01 sc2superfan101 wrote:http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/12/03/obama-administration-chides-israel-over-settlement-construction-plans/The Palestinians say construction in that territory would kill any hope for establishing a viable state of Palestine. Successive U.S. governments have agreed, and under intense American pressure, Israel has avoided building settlements in the area. It has, however, developed roads and infrastructure and built a police station. if they are correct (and they probably are) than the Palestinian Arabs might have just flushed their dreams of statehood down the toilet. I wonder if Israel will go through with it... Wow.. how dramatic. Honestly - settlements don't bother me. They are annoying, and I see them as completely unnecessary and Israel's way of sending a message, but at the end of the day Israel has shown it is more than willing to uproot settlements in exchange for peace. Anyone that believes the settlement issue is the barrier to peace is a little misguided. All this huff and puff about extra settlements and not enough commitment to real efforts at negotiation. Why dance around each other (Palestine at the UN, Israel with their settlements)? I guess offering peace treaties in the past has never worked... Yes, ripping down peoples homes and building your own on top shouldn't bother anyone - a minor annoyance at best, right? The entire conflict in Israel is the "settlement issue," stating otherwise makes you sound uninformed and you'd be wise to keep your totally inapt comments to yourself. Whoa. Anyone else find it hilarious when you try call someone inept but get the spelling all wrong? Kind of ironic. Please, please, please show me this whole, "ripping down peoples homes and building your own on top." The fact that you think the "entire conflict" in Israel is the settlement issue demonstrates how grossly uneducated you are. Do you know when the settlements came into existence? Do you know that there was a conflict before settlements existed and there will continue to be conflict afterwards? Do you know what happened in 2005? The settlements are a distraction that can be easily remedied when faced with REAL peace offerings. Israel has shown that they are willing to exchange land for peace, settlements or no settlements. That is the point I am trying to make. Everyone gets so pissed off over these settlements when all they are is an excuse to avoid negotiations. Do I think the settlements should be there? Absolutely not. Do I think this is a barrier to peace? Absolutely not.
I find it more ironic when someone calls you out for misspelling a word you weren't trying to use.
This post is pretty much an attack on me. Do I know this, do I know that? Do you know? You haven't offered a shred of substance with this defamatory post. Instead of me backing up my posts, as I have several times in this thread, for once I'm going to ask you to backup yours. Good luck though, as I think we both know, you're going to have a hard time.
|
Australia8532 Posts
On December 04 2012 11:33 blinken wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2012 11:12 bkrow wrote:On December 04 2012 11:04 blinken wrote:On December 04 2012 07:09 bkrow wrote:On December 04 2012 07:01 sc2superfan101 wrote:http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/12/03/obama-administration-chides-israel-over-settlement-construction-plans/The Palestinians say construction in that territory would kill any hope for establishing a viable state of Palestine. Successive U.S. governments have agreed, and under intense American pressure, Israel has avoided building settlements in the area. It has, however, developed roads and infrastructure and built a police station. if they are correct (and they probably are) than the Palestinian Arabs might have just flushed their dreams of statehood down the toilet. I wonder if Israel will go through with it... Wow.. how dramatic. Honestly - settlements don't bother me. They are annoying, and I see them as completely unnecessary and Israel's way of sending a message, but at the end of the day Israel has shown it is more than willing to uproot settlements in exchange for peace. Anyone that believes the settlement issue is the barrier to peace is a little misguided. All this huff and puff about extra settlements and not enough commitment to real efforts at negotiation. Why dance around each other (Palestine at the UN, Israel with their settlements)? I guess offering peace treaties in the past has never worked... Yes, ripping down peoples homes and building your own on top shouldn't bother anyone - a minor annoyance at best, right? The entire conflict in Israel is the "settlement issue," stating otherwise makes you sound uninformed and you'd be wise to keep your totally inapt comments to yourself. Whoa. Anyone else find it hilarious when you try call someone inept but get the spelling all wrong? Kind of ironic. Please, please, please show me this whole, "ripping down peoples homes and building your own on top." The fact that you think the "entire conflict" in Israel is the settlement issue demonstrates how grossly uneducated you are. Do you know when the settlements came into existence? Do you know that there was a conflict before settlements existed and there will continue to be conflict afterwards? Do you know what happened in 2005? The settlements are a distraction that can be easily remedied when faced with REAL peace offerings. Israel has shown that they are willing to exchange land for peace, settlements or no settlements. That is the point I am trying to make. Everyone gets so pissed off over these settlements when all they are is an excuse to avoid negotiations. Do I think the settlements should be there? Absolutely not. Do I think this is a barrier to peace? Absolutely not. I find it more ironic when someone calls you out for misspelling a word you weren't trying to use. This post is pretty much an attack on me. Do I know this, do I know that? Do you know? You haven't offered a shred of substance with this defamatory post. Instead of me backing up my posts, as I have several times in this thread, for once I'm going to ask you to backup yours. Good luck though, as I think we both know, you're going to have a hard time.
Sorry about the first line; I misread your sentence
It's not an attack. I don't understand why people can't have a discussion about the issues without everyone believe their fundamental beliefs are being attacked. I'm sorry if it came across as aggressive, it was not intended to be that way, I just genuinely question how educated you are on the topic when you claim that the settlements are the entire issue in the conflict. I was trying to illustrate that the settlements have only been an issue since 1967. I am honestly curious if you understand that there was a deep conflict prior to the settlements, and there will continue to be a conflict even if the settlement issue is resolved. This was shown in a real life example in Gaza - no theorycrafting, no supposition, REAL LIFE. Israel DISMANTLED settlements unilaterally and gave back land - was the conflict resolved? No. Some may argue it got worse.
The settlements do not represent a barrier to peace, because I believe Israel would be MORE than willing to negotiate them away in a meaningful peace treaty. If Israeli immediately stopped building settlements, do you think there would be peace? If they dismantled them all even? I highly doubt it.
|
On December 04 2012 11:40 bkrow wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2012 11:33 blinken wrote:On December 04 2012 11:12 bkrow wrote:On December 04 2012 11:04 blinken wrote:On December 04 2012 07:09 bkrow wrote:On December 04 2012 07:01 sc2superfan101 wrote:http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/12/03/obama-administration-chides-israel-over-settlement-construction-plans/The Palestinians say construction in that territory would kill any hope for establishing a viable state of Palestine. Successive U.S. governments have agreed, and under intense American pressure, Israel has avoided building settlements in the area. It has, however, developed roads and infrastructure and built a police station. if they are correct (and they probably are) than the Palestinian Arabs might have just flushed their dreams of statehood down the toilet. I wonder if Israel will go through with it... Wow.. how dramatic. Honestly - settlements don't bother me. They are annoying, and I see them as completely unnecessary and Israel's way of sending a message, but at the end of the day Israel has shown it is more than willing to uproot settlements in exchange for peace. Anyone that believes the settlement issue is the barrier to peace is a little misguided. All this huff and puff about extra settlements and not enough commitment to real efforts at negotiation. Why dance around each other (Palestine at the UN, Israel with their settlements)? I guess offering peace treaties in the past has never worked... Yes, ripping down peoples homes and building your own on top shouldn't bother anyone - a minor annoyance at best, right? The entire conflict in Israel is the "settlement issue," stating otherwise makes you sound uninformed and you'd be wise to keep your totally inapt comments to yourself. Whoa. Anyone else find it hilarious when you try call someone inept but get the spelling all wrong? Kind of ironic. Please, please, please show me this whole, "ripping down peoples homes and building your own on top." The fact that you think the "entire conflict" in Israel is the settlement issue demonstrates how grossly uneducated you are. Do you know when the settlements came into existence? Do you know that there was a conflict before settlements existed and there will continue to be conflict afterwards? Do you know what happened in 2005? The settlements are a distraction that can be easily remedied when faced with REAL peace offerings. Israel has shown that they are willing to exchange land for peace, settlements or no settlements. That is the point I am trying to make. Everyone gets so pissed off over these settlements when all they are is an excuse to avoid negotiations. Do I think the settlements should be there? Absolutely not. Do I think this is a barrier to peace? Absolutely not. I find it more ironic when someone calls you out for misspelling a word you weren't trying to use. This post is pretty much an attack on me. Do I know this, do I know that? Do you know? You haven't offered a shred of substance with this defamatory post. Instead of me backing up my posts, as I have several times in this thread, for once I'm going to ask you to backup yours. Good luck though, as I think we both know, you're going to have a hard time. Sorry about the first line; I misread your sentence It's not an attack. I don't understand why people can't have a discussion about the issues without everyone believe their fundamental beliefs are being attacked. I'm sorry if it came across as aggressive, it was not intended to be that way, I just genuinely question how educated you are on the topic when you claim that the settlements are the entire issue in the conflict. I was trying to illustrate that the settlements have only been an issue since 1967. I am honestly curious if you understand that there was a deep conflict prior to the settlements, and there will continue to be a conflict even if the settlement issue is resolved. This was shown in a real life example in Gaza - no theorycrafting, no supposition, REAL LIFE. Israel DISMANTLED settlements unilaterally and gave back land - was the conflict resolved? No. Some may argue it got worse. The settlements do not represent a barrier to peace, because I believe Israel would be MORE than willing to negotiate them away in a meaningful peace treaty. If Israeli immediately stopped building settlements, do you think there would be peace? If they dismantled them all even? I highly doubt it.
When your post is merely to discredit character, rather than to genuinely educate, it is an attack.
Again, you come from a superior position, as if questioning my knowledge somehow proves that you have some? You haven't given me a smidgen of evidence towards anything you've stated, and I'm tired of debating character snipers.
|
He said he was highly doubtful that settlements are the main issue against peace, and used an example when Israel dismantled settlements and withdrew from Gaza.
Then you just went off on a tangent and repeatedly ranted about character sniping. What the hell is wrong with you.
TLDR; Ignore the inconsequential barbs, dammit. He already apologised, too.
|
On December 04 2012 11:40 bkrow wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2012 11:33 blinken wrote:On December 04 2012 11:12 bkrow wrote:On December 04 2012 11:04 blinken wrote:On December 04 2012 07:09 bkrow wrote:On December 04 2012 07:01 sc2superfan101 wrote:http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/12/03/obama-administration-chides-israel-over-settlement-construction-plans/The Palestinians say construction in that territory would kill any hope for establishing a viable state of Palestine. Successive U.S. governments have agreed, and under intense American pressure, Israel has avoided building settlements in the area. It has, however, developed roads and infrastructure and built a police station. if they are correct (and they probably are) than the Palestinian Arabs might have just flushed their dreams of statehood down the toilet. I wonder if Israel will go through with it... Wow.. how dramatic. Honestly - settlements don't bother me. They are annoying, and I see them as completely unnecessary and Israel's way of sending a message, but at the end of the day Israel has shown it is more than willing to uproot settlements in exchange for peace. Anyone that believes the settlement issue is the barrier to peace is a little misguided. All this huff and puff about extra settlements and not enough commitment to real efforts at negotiation. Why dance around each other (Palestine at the UN, Israel with their settlements)? I guess offering peace treaties in the past has never worked... Yes, ripping down peoples homes and building your own on top shouldn't bother anyone - a minor annoyance at best, right? The entire conflict in Israel is the "settlement issue," stating otherwise makes you sound uninformed and you'd be wise to keep your totally inapt comments to yourself. Whoa. Anyone else find it hilarious when you try call someone inept but get the spelling all wrong? Kind of ironic. Please, please, please show me this whole, "ripping down peoples homes and building your own on top." The fact that you think the "entire conflict" in Israel is the settlement issue demonstrates how grossly uneducated you are. Do you know when the settlements came into existence? Do you know that there was a conflict before settlements existed and there will continue to be conflict afterwards? Do you know what happened in 2005? The settlements are a distraction that can be easily remedied when faced with REAL peace offerings. Israel has shown that they are willing to exchange land for peace, settlements or no settlements. That is the point I am trying to make. Everyone gets so pissed off over these settlements when all they are is an excuse to avoid negotiations. Do I think the settlements should be there? Absolutely not. Do I think this is a barrier to peace? Absolutely not. I find it more ironic when someone calls you out for misspelling a word you weren't trying to use. This post is pretty much an attack on me. Do I know this, do I know that? Do you know? You haven't offered a shred of substance with this defamatory post. Instead of me backing up my posts, as I have several times in this thread, for once I'm going to ask you to backup yours. Good luck though, as I think we both know, you're going to have a hard time. Sorry about the first line; I misread your sentence It's not an attack. I don't understand why people can't have a discussion about the issues without everyone believe their fundamental beliefs are being attacked. I'm sorry if it came across as aggressive, it was not intended to be that way, I just genuinely question how educated you are on the topic when you claim that the settlements are the entire issue in the conflict. I was trying to illustrate that the settlements have only been an issue since 1967. I am honestly curious if you understand that there was a deep conflict prior to the settlements, and there will continue to be a conflict even if the settlement issue is resolved. This was shown in a real life example in Gaza - no theorycrafting, no supposition, REAL LIFE. Israel DISMANTLED settlements unilaterally and gave back land - was the conflict resolved? No. Some may argue it got worse. The settlements do not represent a barrier to peace, because I believe Israel would be MORE than willing to negotiate them away in a meaningful peace treaty. If Israeli immediately stopped building settlements, do you think there would be peace? If they dismantled them all even? I highly doubt it.
Yeah, I definitely agree with this sentiment, and I think that the pre-1967 history of the area, especially as it pertains to the British Mandate and Mandatory Palestine, pretty much proves the point. Foreign Arab influence over the Palestinian people can trace its roots back the founding of the Black Hand, and from as early on as the 1930s, the Arab League refused to even acknowledge the Jewish population in the area in the name of the Palestinians, setting the tone for the "wipe out all Jews from the Middle East" mentality that is so prominent amongst Hamas and other regional Arab collectives. And with this in mind, it becomes clear that the cohesion of representative authority amongst Palestinians is likely quite suspect; there exists a historical disconnect between the Arab people of Gaza and their respective "leadership", so much so that Hamas' place in relative charge of the Palestinian directive seems awfully spurious. What I'm getting at here is that the wishes and collective sensibilities of the Palestinian people and the motivations of Hamas are almost certainly at direct odds, and remedying that situation might provide the sort of lubrication needed for peace to gain a foothold.
|
Australia8532 Posts
On December 04 2012 11:54 blinken wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2012 11:40 bkrow wrote:On December 04 2012 11:33 blinken wrote:On December 04 2012 11:12 bkrow wrote:On December 04 2012 11:04 blinken wrote:On December 04 2012 07:09 bkrow wrote:On December 04 2012 07:01 sc2superfan101 wrote:http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/12/03/obama-administration-chides-israel-over-settlement-construction-plans/The Palestinians say construction in that territory would kill any hope for establishing a viable state of Palestine. Successive U.S. governments have agreed, and under intense American pressure, Israel has avoided building settlements in the area. It has, however, developed roads and infrastructure and built a police station. if they are correct (and they probably are) than the Palestinian Arabs might have just flushed their dreams of statehood down the toilet. I wonder if Israel will go through with it... Wow.. how dramatic. Honestly - settlements don't bother me. They are annoying, and I see them as completely unnecessary and Israel's way of sending a message, but at the end of the day Israel has shown it is more than willing to uproot settlements in exchange for peace. Anyone that believes the settlement issue is the barrier to peace is a little misguided. All this huff and puff about extra settlements and not enough commitment to real efforts at negotiation. Why dance around each other (Palestine at the UN, Israel with their settlements)? I guess offering peace treaties in the past has never worked... Yes, ripping down peoples homes and building your own on top shouldn't bother anyone - a minor annoyance at best, right? The entire conflict in Israel is the "settlement issue," stating otherwise makes you sound uninformed and you'd be wise to keep your totally inapt comments to yourself. Whoa. Anyone else find it hilarious when you try call someone inept but get the spelling all wrong? Kind of ironic. Please, please, please show me this whole, "ripping down peoples homes and building your own on top." The fact that you think the "entire conflict" in Israel is the settlement issue demonstrates how grossly uneducated you are. Do you know when the settlements came into existence? Do you know that there was a conflict before settlements existed and there will continue to be conflict afterwards? Do you know what happened in 2005? The settlements are a distraction that can be easily remedied when faced with REAL peace offerings. Israel has shown that they are willing to exchange land for peace, settlements or no settlements. That is the point I am trying to make. Everyone gets so pissed off over these settlements when all they are is an excuse to avoid negotiations. Do I think the settlements should be there? Absolutely not. Do I think this is a barrier to peace? Absolutely not. I find it more ironic when someone calls you out for misspelling a word you weren't trying to use. This post is pretty much an attack on me. Do I know this, do I know that? Do you know? You haven't offered a shred of substance with this defamatory post. Instead of me backing up my posts, as I have several times in this thread, for once I'm going to ask you to backup yours. Good luck though, as I think we both know, you're going to have a hard time. Sorry about the first line; I misread your sentence It's not an attack. I don't understand why people can't have a discussion about the issues without everyone believe their fundamental beliefs are being attacked. I'm sorry if it came across as aggressive, it was not intended to be that way, I just genuinely question how educated you are on the topic when you claim that the settlements are the entire issue in the conflict. I was trying to illustrate that the settlements have only been an issue since 1967. I am honestly curious if you understand that there was a deep conflict prior to the settlements, and there will continue to be a conflict even if the settlement issue is resolved. This was shown in a real life example in Gaza - no theorycrafting, no supposition, REAL LIFE. Israel DISMANTLED settlements unilaterally and gave back land - was the conflict resolved? No. Some may argue it got worse. The settlements do not represent a barrier to peace, because I believe Israel would be MORE than willing to negotiate them away in a meaningful peace treaty. If Israeli immediately stopped building settlements, do you think there would be peace? If they dismantled them all even? I highly doubt it. When your post is merely to discredit character, rather than to genuinely educate, it is an attack. Again, you come from a superior position, as if questioning my knowledge somehow proves that you have some? You haven't given me a smidgen of evidence towards anything you've stated, and I'm tired of debating character snipers.
Haha ok i tried twice now. Either you can't read or you have no idea what is going on because i pretty clearly stated evidence, facts - EVEN A DATE! Crazy I know.
More importantly though I asked you a series of questions, not because I want to appear superior, but because I want to hear your opinion on the issue beyond meaningless rhetoric? So I know you may not have an educated opinion on the issue, I understand that may be a consideration, but instead of avoiding the questions, why don't you try answer them?
Let's go back to the beginning: Why do you believe settlements are the "entire" conflict?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
