|
On July 30 2014 05:52 EtherealBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2014 05:45 BlueSpace wrote:On July 30 2014 05:40 WhiteDog wrote:On July 30 2014 05:39 BlueSpace wrote:On July 30 2014 05:36 WhiteDog wrote:On July 30 2014 05:35 BlueSpace wrote:On July 30 2014 05:33 WhiteDog wrote:On July 30 2014 05:31 Wombat_NI wrote:
Probably been answered or theorised upon already, but what is Hamas' end game here with their continued belligerence? Evidently it's not military victory over Israel as that would be ridiculous, but then what? Engaging international pressure or shoring up their support among the denizens of the West Bank?
To me it seems grossly irresponsible to fire rockets at a nation that has shown willingness to respond with exponentially more effective weaponry. I'm not disputing their grievance, but what does this do towards accomplishing their goals? Hamas are ready for peace more or less, it's Israel who does not want because they want to expand their territory to Eretz Israel. And that has been said by president jimmy carter, and more or less by US high officials who were there during the last peace negociations. Hamas has no interest in peace with Israel. They are an extremist group that garner support by fueling a conflict that neither side can truly win. And please provide an independent source for such a claim. That's the type of view Israeli propaganda share, the truth is there are statements - I gave two exemple in this thread, one with an interview of a high Hamas officials, who clearly state that they will accept anything that will be accepted by the majority of palestinians. And I provided a link with an interview from this year, where a senior Hamas leader clearly states, that they will never accept Israel. So where are your sources? This I also already responded to : Hamas will never accept Israel's legitimacy. That's it, but they acknowledge the two state solution : it is a word play because they refuse to lose face. Sorry but that is pure speculation. They might also plot to continue to support terror campaigns in Israel and use the Palestinian state as a staging ground. In order for the two state solution to work, both sides need to recognize each other and their respective borders. Israel has not been willing to offer any acceptable borders to the prospected state of Palestine, that's why every peace talks broke down so far.
That is factually false. For example the Road map of 2000 reached a dead end around 2003 because the Israelis refused to withdraw from the territories they occupied since 28 September 2000 AND at the same time the Palestinian authority couldn't prevent Palestinian terrorism. They actually never got to the point to discuss borders or the fate of Jerusalem.
|
The West Bank is an apartheid state, with road specific for jewish israeli and not for arabs, that arabs can't use nor pass through, effectively spliting the arabic lands into pieces with very difficult way to pass from one piece to another.
That is a problem, Gaza is not the only problem.
|
On July 30 2014 06:09 WhiteDog wrote:
The West Bank is an apartheid state, with road specific for jewish israeli and not for arabs, that arabs can't use nor pass through, effectively spliting the arabic lands into pieces with very difficult way to pass from one piece to another.
That is a problem, Gaza is not the only problem.
I haven't commented on this so far because the thread is supposed to be about the Gaza conflict, but it's true.
Hamas won't stop shooting rockets because even in peace time, the way Israel treats Palestinians in the West Bank is deplorable. There is nothing to look forward to.
|
On July 30 2014 06:02 BlueSpace wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2014 05:52 EtherealBlade wrote:On July 30 2014 05:45 BlueSpace wrote:On July 30 2014 05:40 WhiteDog wrote:On July 30 2014 05:39 BlueSpace wrote:On July 30 2014 05:36 WhiteDog wrote:On July 30 2014 05:35 BlueSpace wrote:On July 30 2014 05:33 WhiteDog wrote:On July 30 2014 05:31 Wombat_NI wrote:
Probably been answered or theorised upon already, but what is Hamas' end game here with their continued belligerence? Evidently it's not military victory over Israel as that would be ridiculous, but then what? Engaging international pressure or shoring up their support among the denizens of the West Bank?
To me it seems grossly irresponsible to fire rockets at a nation that has shown willingness to respond with exponentially more effective weaponry. I'm not disputing their grievance, but what does this do towards accomplishing their goals? Hamas are ready for peace more or less, it's Israel who does not want because they want to expand their territory to Eretz Israel. And that has been said by president jimmy carter, and more or less by US high officials who were there during the last peace negociations. Hamas has no interest in peace with Israel. They are an extremist group that garner support by fueling a conflict that neither side can truly win. And please provide an independent source for such a claim. That's the type of view Israeli propaganda share, the truth is there are statements - I gave two exemple in this thread, one with an interview of a high Hamas officials, who clearly state that they will accept anything that will be accepted by the majority of palestinians. And I provided a link with an interview from this year, where a senior Hamas leader clearly states, that they will never accept Israel. So where are your sources? This I also already responded to : Hamas will never accept Israel's legitimacy. That's it, but they acknowledge the two state solution : it is a word play because they refuse to lose face. Sorry but that is pure speculation. They might also plot to continue to support terror campaigns in Israel and use the Palestinian state as a staging ground. In order for the two state solution to work, both sides need to recognize each other and their respective borders. Israel has not been willing to offer any acceptable borders to the prospected state of Palestine, that's why every peace talks broke down so far. That is factually false. For example the Road map of 2000 reached a dead end around 2003 because the Israelis refused to withdraw from the territories they occupied since 28 September 2000 AND at the same time the Palestinian authority couldn't prevent Palestinian terrorism. They actually never got to the point to discuss borders or the fate of Jerusalem.
It is not factually false at all. Israel refuses, to this day, to outline the borders it would wish a two-state solution to be based on. This was one of the requests of Abbas in the recent negotiations - simply having Israel outline the border it wants. Israel refused.
edit: see my post below.
|
On July 30 2014 06:19 DinoMight wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2014 06:09 WhiteDog wrote:
The West Bank is an apartheid state, with road specific for jewish israeli and not for arabs, that arabs can't use nor pass through, effectively spliting the arabic lands into pieces with very difficult way to pass from one piece to another.
That is a problem, Gaza is not the only problem. I haven't commented on this so far because the thread is supposed to be about the Gaza conflict, but it's true. Hamas won't stop shooting rockets because even in peace time, the way Israel treats Palestinians in the West Bank is deplorable. There is nothing to look forward to.
How about a 3-state solution? A solution for Gaza and the West Bank separately. In that way Hamas in Gaza and Israel can get to fight, while Fatah in the West Bank can get a far more reasonable treatment for their people and even a cooperation with Israel in creating a working state, like Israel claims to want. In that way Gaza vs Israel becomes a much more narrow conflict and far easier to look through for who is rejecting reasonable deals. Ie. the blame will be easier to place and therefore a negotiated deal becomes much easier to get through.
|
On July 30 2014 06:25 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2014 06:02 BlueSpace wrote:On July 30 2014 05:52 EtherealBlade wrote:On July 30 2014 05:45 BlueSpace wrote:On July 30 2014 05:40 WhiteDog wrote:On July 30 2014 05:39 BlueSpace wrote:On July 30 2014 05:36 WhiteDog wrote:On July 30 2014 05:35 BlueSpace wrote:On July 30 2014 05:33 WhiteDog wrote:On July 30 2014 05:31 Wombat_NI wrote:
Probably been answered or theorised upon already, but what is Hamas' end game here with their continued belligerence? Evidently it's not military victory over Israel as that would be ridiculous, but then what? Engaging international pressure or shoring up their support among the denizens of the West Bank?
To me it seems grossly irresponsible to fire rockets at a nation that has shown willingness to respond with exponentially more effective weaponry. I'm not disputing their grievance, but what does this do towards accomplishing their goals? Hamas are ready for peace more or less, it's Israel who does not want because they want to expand their territory to Eretz Israel. And that has been said by president jimmy carter, and more or less by US high officials who were there during the last peace negociations. Hamas has no interest in peace with Israel. They are an extremist group that garner support by fueling a conflict that neither side can truly win. And please provide an independent source for such a claim. That's the type of view Israeli propaganda share, the truth is there are statements - I gave two exemple in this thread, one with an interview of a high Hamas officials, who clearly state that they will accept anything that will be accepted by the majority of palestinians. And I provided a link with an interview from this year, where a senior Hamas leader clearly states, that they will never accept Israel. So where are your sources? This I also already responded to : Hamas will never accept Israel's legitimacy. That's it, but they acknowledge the two state solution : it is a word play because they refuse to lose face. Sorry but that is pure speculation. They might also plot to continue to support terror campaigns in Israel and use the Palestinian state as a staging ground. In order for the two state solution to work, both sides need to recognize each other and their respective borders. Israel has not been willing to offer any acceptable borders to the prospected state of Palestine, that's why every peace talks broke down so far. That is factually false. For example the Road map of 2000 reached a dead end around 2003 because the Israelis refused to withdraw from the territories they occupied since 28 September 2000 AND at the same time the Palestinian authority couldn't prevent Palestinian terrorism. They actually never got to the point to discuss borders or the fate of Jerusalem. It is not factually false at all. Israel refuses, to this day, to outline the borders it would wish a two-state solution to be based on. This was one of the requests of Abbas in the recent negotiations - simply having Israel outline the border it wants. Israel refused.
So you're changing every peace talk to the most recent peace talk? The definition of the borders is clearly an issue, but it is not the sole reason why every peace talk has broken down so far as was claimed. That is the reason why this blanket statement is false.
EDIT: Didn't realize someone jumped in.
|
On July 30 2014 06:30 radiatoren wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2014 06:19 DinoMight wrote:On July 30 2014 06:09 WhiteDog wrote:
The West Bank is an apartheid state, with road specific for jewish israeli and not for arabs, that arabs can't use nor pass through, effectively spliting the arabic lands into pieces with very difficult way to pass from one piece to another.
That is a problem, Gaza is not the only problem. I haven't commented on this so far because the thread is supposed to be about the Gaza conflict, but it's true. Hamas won't stop shooting rockets because even in peace time, the way Israel treats Palestinians in the West Bank is deplorable. There is nothing to look forward to. How about a 3-state solution? A solution for Gaza and the West Bank separately. In that way Hamas in Gaza and Israel can get to fight, while Fatah in the West Bank can get a far more reasonable treatment for their people and even a cooperation with Israel in creating a working state, like Israel claims to want. In that way Gaza vs Israel becomes a much more narrow conflict and far easier to look through for who is rejecting reasonable deals. Ie. the blame will be easier to place and therefore a negotiated deal becomes much easier to get through.
Gaza is too small for a 3 state solution.. keep in mind it's only roughly 2x the size of Washington DC.
There would be too much redundant infrastructure necessary etc, besides the fact that the Gazans and West Bank residents are comon people separated only by a strip of Israel.
|
On July 30 2014 06:33 BlueSpace wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2014 06:25 kwizach wrote:On July 30 2014 06:02 BlueSpace wrote:On July 30 2014 05:52 EtherealBlade wrote:On July 30 2014 05:45 BlueSpace wrote:On July 30 2014 05:40 WhiteDog wrote:On July 30 2014 05:39 BlueSpace wrote:On July 30 2014 05:36 WhiteDog wrote:On July 30 2014 05:35 BlueSpace wrote:On July 30 2014 05:33 WhiteDog wrote:
[quote]
Hamas are ready for peace more or less, it's Israel who does not want because they want to expand their territory to Eretz Israel. And that has been said by president jimmy carter, and more or less by US high officials who were there during the last peace negociations. Hamas has no interest in peace with Israel. They are an extremist group that garner support by fueling a conflict that neither side can truly win. And please provide an independent source for such a claim. That's the type of view Israeli propaganda share, the truth is there are statements - I gave two exemple in this thread, one with an interview of a high Hamas officials, who clearly state that they will accept anything that will be accepted by the majority of palestinians. And I provided a link with an interview from this year, where a senior Hamas leader clearly states, that they will never accept Israel. So where are your sources? This I also already responded to : Hamas will never accept Israel's legitimacy. That's it, but they acknowledge the two state solution : it is a word play because they refuse to lose face. Sorry but that is pure speculation. They might also plot to continue to support terror campaigns in Israel and use the Palestinian state as a staging ground. In order for the two state solution to work, both sides need to recognize each other and their respective borders. Israel has not been willing to offer any acceptable borders to the prospected state of Palestine, that's why every peace talks broke down so far. That is factually false. For example the Road map of 2000 reached a dead end around 2003 because the Israelis refused to withdraw from the territories they occupied since 28 September 2000 AND at the same time the Palestinian authority couldn't prevent Palestinian terrorism. They actually never got to the point to discuss borders or the fate of Jerusalem. It is not factually false at all. Israel refuses, to this day, to outline the borders it would wish a two-state solution to be based on. This was one of the requests of Abbas in the recent negotiations - simply having Israel outline the border it wants. Israel refused. So you're changing every peace talk to the most recent peace talk? The definition of the borders is clearly an issue, but it is not the sole reason why every peace talk has broken down so far as was claimed. That is the reason why this blanket statement is false. EDIT: Didn't realize someone jumped in.
Yeah, I'm not the poster you were replying to. I thought your "that is factually false" statement referred to what he said about Israel not being willing to outline borders, which is entirely true.
|
On July 30 2014 06:36 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2014 06:33 BlueSpace wrote:On July 30 2014 06:25 kwizach wrote:On July 30 2014 06:02 BlueSpace wrote:On July 30 2014 05:52 EtherealBlade wrote:On July 30 2014 05:45 BlueSpace wrote:On July 30 2014 05:40 WhiteDog wrote:On July 30 2014 05:39 BlueSpace wrote:On July 30 2014 05:36 WhiteDog wrote:On July 30 2014 05:35 BlueSpace wrote:
[quote]
Hamas has no interest in peace with Israel. They are an extremist group that garner support by fueling a conflict that neither side can truly win. And please provide an independent source for such a claim. That's the type of view Israeli propaganda share, the truth is there are statements - I gave two exemple in this thread, one with an interview of a high Hamas officials, who clearly state that they will accept anything that will be accepted by the majority of palestinians. And I provided a link with an interview from this year, where a senior Hamas leader clearly states, that they will never accept Israel. So where are your sources? This I also already responded to : Hamas will never accept Israel's legitimacy. That's it, but they acknowledge the two state solution : it is a word play because they refuse to lose face. Sorry but that is pure speculation. They might also plot to continue to support terror campaigns in Israel and use the Palestinian state as a staging ground. In order for the two state solution to work, both sides need to recognize each other and their respective borders. Israel has not been willing to offer any acceptable borders to the prospected state of Palestine, that's why every peace talks broke down so far. That is factually false. For example the Road map of 2000 reached a dead end around 2003 because the Israelis refused to withdraw from the territories they occupied since 28 September 2000 AND at the same time the Palestinian authority couldn't prevent Palestinian terrorism. They actually never got to the point to discuss borders or the fate of Jerusalem. It is not factually false at all. Israel refuses, to this day, to outline the borders it would wish a two-state solution to be based on. This was one of the requests of Abbas in the recent negotiations - simply having Israel outline the border it wants. Israel refused. So you're changing every peace talk to the most recent peace talk? The definition of the borders is clearly an issue, but it is not the sole reason why every peace talk has broken down so far as was claimed. That is the reason why this blanket statement is false. EDIT: Didn't realize someone jumped in. Yeah, I'm not the poster you were replying to. I thought your "that is factually false" statement referred to what he said about Israel not being willing to outline borders, which is entirely true.
They are clearly trying to grab as much as they can. But still this is just one of many issues, that hamper the peace talks, although it is one of the big ones. The Palestinian terrorism being the other one. In the end the entire conflict sometimes seems like a giant chicken and egg problem. What has to come first in order for peace to work? And nobody can really answer that I think. Pro-Palestinian will always claim, that all terrorism will cease once the territory question is settled while Pro-Israelis will claim that once the terror stops, a solution for the territory problem can be found. In the end I believe that the current leadership on both sides are not really interested in peace.
|
On July 30 2014 06:36 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2014 06:33 BlueSpace wrote:On July 30 2014 06:25 kwizach wrote:On July 30 2014 06:02 BlueSpace wrote:On July 30 2014 05:52 EtherealBlade wrote:On July 30 2014 05:45 BlueSpace wrote:On July 30 2014 05:40 WhiteDog wrote:On July 30 2014 05:39 BlueSpace wrote:On July 30 2014 05:36 WhiteDog wrote:On July 30 2014 05:35 BlueSpace wrote:
[quote]
Hamas has no interest in peace with Israel. They are an extremist group that garner support by fueling a conflict that neither side can truly win. And please provide an independent source for such a claim. That's the type of view Israeli propaganda share, the truth is there are statements - I gave two exemple in this thread, one with an interview of a high Hamas officials, who clearly state that they will accept anything that will be accepted by the majority of palestinians. And I provided a link with an interview from this year, where a senior Hamas leader clearly states, that they will never accept Israel. So where are your sources? This I also already responded to : Hamas will never accept Israel's legitimacy. That's it, but they acknowledge the two state solution : it is a word play because they refuse to lose face. Sorry but that is pure speculation. They might also plot to continue to support terror campaigns in Israel and use the Palestinian state as a staging ground. In order for the two state solution to work, both sides need to recognize each other and their respective borders. Israel has not been willing to offer any acceptable borders to the prospected state of Palestine, that's why every peace talks broke down so far. That is factually false. For example the Road map of 2000 reached a dead end around 2003 because the Israelis refused to withdraw from the territories they occupied since 28 September 2000 AND at the same time the Palestinian authority couldn't prevent Palestinian terrorism. They actually never got to the point to discuss borders or the fate of Jerusalem. It is not factually false at all. Israel refuses, to this day, to outline the borders it would wish a two-state solution to be based on. This was one of the requests of Abbas in the recent negotiations - simply having Israel outline the border it wants. Israel refused. So you're changing every peace talk to the most recent peace talk? The definition of the borders is clearly an issue, but it is not the sole reason why every peace talk has broken down so far as was claimed. That is the reason why this blanket statement is false. EDIT: Didn't realize someone jumped in. Yeah, I'm not the poster you were replying to. I thought your "that is factually false" statement referred to what he said about Israel not being willing to outline borders, which is entirely true.
It is. They've repeatedly refrained from outlining borders until there is peace. How they expect peace without outlining borders I'm not sure, but it has worked conveniently in their favor. Hamas can be quite stubborn.
|
On July 30 2014 06:43 DinoMight wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2014 06:36 kwizach wrote:On July 30 2014 06:33 BlueSpace wrote:On July 30 2014 06:25 kwizach wrote:On July 30 2014 06:02 BlueSpace wrote:On July 30 2014 05:52 EtherealBlade wrote:On July 30 2014 05:45 BlueSpace wrote:On July 30 2014 05:40 WhiteDog wrote:On July 30 2014 05:39 BlueSpace wrote:On July 30 2014 05:36 WhiteDog wrote:
[quote]
That's the type of view Israeli propaganda share, the truth is there are statements - I gave two exemple in this thread, one with an interview of a high Hamas officials, who clearly state that they will accept anything that will be accepted by the majority of palestinians. And I provided a link with an interview from this year, where a senior Hamas leader clearly states, that they will never accept Israel. So where are your sources? This I also already responded to : Hamas will never accept Israel's legitimacy. That's it, but they acknowledge the two state solution : it is a word play because they refuse to lose face. Sorry but that is pure speculation. They might also plot to continue to support terror campaigns in Israel and use the Palestinian state as a staging ground. In order for the two state solution to work, both sides need to recognize each other and their respective borders. Israel has not been willing to offer any acceptable borders to the prospected state of Palestine, that's why every peace talks broke down so far. That is factually false. For example the Road map of 2000 reached a dead end around 2003 because the Israelis refused to withdraw from the territories they occupied since 28 September 2000 AND at the same time the Palestinian authority couldn't prevent Palestinian terrorism. They actually never got to the point to discuss borders or the fate of Jerusalem. It is not factually false at all. Israel refuses, to this day, to outline the borders it would wish a two-state solution to be based on. This was one of the requests of Abbas in the recent negotiations - simply having Israel outline the border it wants. Israel refused. So you're changing every peace talk to the most recent peace talk? The definition of the borders is clearly an issue, but it is not the sole reason why every peace talk has broken down so far as was claimed. That is the reason why this blanket statement is false. EDIT: Didn't realize someone jumped in. Yeah, I'm not the poster you were replying to. I thought your "that is factually false" statement referred to what he said about Israel not being willing to outline borders, which is entirely true. It is. They've repeatedly refrained from outlining borders until there is peace. How they expect peace without outlining borders I'm not sure, but it has worked conveniently in their favor. Hamas can be quite stubborn.
Case in point of my previous post 
|
On July 30 2014 06:42 BlueSpace wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2014 06:36 kwizach wrote:On July 30 2014 06:33 BlueSpace wrote:On July 30 2014 06:25 kwizach wrote:On July 30 2014 06:02 BlueSpace wrote:On July 30 2014 05:52 EtherealBlade wrote:On July 30 2014 05:45 BlueSpace wrote:On July 30 2014 05:40 WhiteDog wrote:On July 30 2014 05:39 BlueSpace wrote:On July 30 2014 05:36 WhiteDog wrote:
[quote]
That's the type of view Israeli propaganda share, the truth is there are statements - I gave two exemple in this thread, one with an interview of a high Hamas officials, who clearly state that they will accept anything that will be accepted by the majority of palestinians. And I provided a link with an interview from this year, where a senior Hamas leader clearly states, that they will never accept Israel. So where are your sources? This I also already responded to : Hamas will never accept Israel's legitimacy. That's it, but they acknowledge the two state solution : it is a word play because they refuse to lose face. Sorry but that is pure speculation. They might also plot to continue to support terror campaigns in Israel and use the Palestinian state as a staging ground. In order for the two state solution to work, both sides need to recognize each other and their respective borders. Israel has not been willing to offer any acceptable borders to the prospected state of Palestine, that's why every peace talks broke down so far. That is factually false. For example the Road map of 2000 reached a dead end around 2003 because the Israelis refused to withdraw from the territories they occupied since 28 September 2000 AND at the same time the Palestinian authority couldn't prevent Palestinian terrorism. They actually never got to the point to discuss borders or the fate of Jerusalem. It is not factually false at all. Israel refuses, to this day, to outline the borders it would wish a two-state solution to be based on. This was one of the requests of Abbas in the recent negotiations - simply having Israel outline the border it wants. Israel refused. So you're changing every peace talk to the most recent peace talk? The definition of the borders is clearly an issue, but it is not the sole reason why every peace talk has broken down so far as was claimed. That is the reason why this blanket statement is false. EDIT: Didn't realize someone jumped in. Yeah, I'm not the poster you were replying to. I thought your "that is factually false" statement referred to what he said about Israel not being willing to outline borders, which is entirely true. In the end I believe that the current leadership on both sides are not really interested in peace.
This. This x10000.
EDIT - YUP. It's an unfortunate situation. As the status quo favors Israel, I think the Palestinians will have to make the first move.
EDIT2 - I do think however that Israel needs to make a better effort to negotiate with Fatah/Hamas coalition. Keep in mind that only around 40% voted for Hamas and support for them may have dropped since the elections, given how there has been no improvement. Abas/Fatah can be a lot more reasonable and a coalition could bring much more moderate words to the negotiating table.
|
On July 30 2014 06:42 BlueSpace wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2014 06:36 kwizach wrote:On July 30 2014 06:33 BlueSpace wrote:On July 30 2014 06:25 kwizach wrote:On July 30 2014 06:02 BlueSpace wrote:On July 30 2014 05:52 EtherealBlade wrote:On July 30 2014 05:45 BlueSpace wrote:On July 30 2014 05:40 WhiteDog wrote:On July 30 2014 05:39 BlueSpace wrote:On July 30 2014 05:36 WhiteDog wrote:
[quote]
That's the type of view Israeli propaganda share, the truth is there are statements - I gave two exemple in this thread, one with an interview of a high Hamas officials, who clearly state that they will accept anything that will be accepted by the majority of palestinians. And I provided a link with an interview from this year, where a senior Hamas leader clearly states, that they will never accept Israel. So where are your sources? This I also already responded to : Hamas will never accept Israel's legitimacy. That's it, but they acknowledge the two state solution : it is a word play because they refuse to lose face. Sorry but that is pure speculation. They might also plot to continue to support terror campaigns in Israel and use the Palestinian state as a staging ground. In order for the two state solution to work, both sides need to recognize each other and their respective borders. Israel has not been willing to offer any acceptable borders to the prospected state of Palestine, that's why every peace talks broke down so far. That is factually false. For example the Road map of 2000 reached a dead end around 2003 because the Israelis refused to withdraw from the territories they occupied since 28 September 2000 AND at the same time the Palestinian authority couldn't prevent Palestinian terrorism. They actually never got to the point to discuss borders or the fate of Jerusalem. It is not factually false at all. Israel refuses, to this day, to outline the borders it would wish a two-state solution to be based on. This was one of the requests of Abbas in the recent negotiations - simply having Israel outline the border it wants. Israel refused. So you're changing every peace talk to the most recent peace talk? The definition of the borders is clearly an issue, but it is not the sole reason why every peace talk has broken down so far as was claimed. That is the reason why this blanket statement is false. EDIT: Didn't realize someone jumped in. Yeah, I'm not the poster you were replying to. I thought your "that is factually false" statement referred to what he said about Israel not being willing to outline borders, which is entirely true. They are clearly trying to grab as much as they can. But still this is just one of many issues, that hamper the peace talks, although it is one of the big ones. The Palestinian terrorism being the other one. In the end the entire conflict sometimes seems like a giant chicken and egg problem. What has to come first in order for peace to work? And nobody can really answer that I think. Pro-Palestinian will always claim, that all terrorism will cease once the territory question is settled while Pro-Israelis will claim that once the terror stops, a solution for the territory problem can be found. In the end I believe that the current leadership on both sides are not really interested in peace.
Your last sentence is a false equivalence - Abbas and the Fatah have repeatedly proven themselves to be much more willing to compromise and meet the Israeli government half way than the latter. The latest talks are only one more example of this. See here, in particular the answer after "what concessions?". (these are American officials involved in the negotiations talking)
"He [Abbas] agreed to a demilitarized state; he agreed to the border outline so 80 percent of settlers would continue living in Israeli territory; he agreed for Israel to keep security sensitive areas (mostly in the Jordan Valley - NB) for five years, and then the United States would take over. He accepted the fact that in the Israeli perception, the Palestinians would never be trustworthy.
"He also agreed that the Jewish neighborhoods in East Jerusalem would remain under Israeli sovereignty, and agreed that the return of Palestinians to Israel would depend on Israeli willingness. 'Israel won't be flooded with refugees,' he promised.
"He told us: 'Tell me if there's another Arab leader that would have agreed to what I agreed to. I won't make any more concessions until Israel agrees to the three following terms:
- Outlining the borders would be the first topic under discussion. It would be agreed upon within three months.
- A timeframe would be set for the evacuation of Israelis from sovereign Palestinian territories (Israel had agreed to complete the evacuation of Sinai within three years).
- Israel will agree to have East Jerusalem as the capital of Palestine.
The Israelis would not agree to any of the three demands."
|
On July 30 2014 06:48 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2014 06:42 BlueSpace wrote:On July 30 2014 06:36 kwizach wrote:On July 30 2014 06:33 BlueSpace wrote:On July 30 2014 06:25 kwizach wrote:On July 30 2014 06:02 BlueSpace wrote:On July 30 2014 05:52 EtherealBlade wrote:On July 30 2014 05:45 BlueSpace wrote:On July 30 2014 05:40 WhiteDog wrote:On July 30 2014 05:39 BlueSpace wrote:[quote] And I provided a link with an interview from this year, where a senior Hamas leader clearly states, that they will never accept Israel. So where are your sources? This I also already responded to : Hamas will never accept Israel's legitimacy. That's it, but they acknowledge the two state solution : it is a word play because they refuse to lose face. Sorry but that is pure speculation. They might also plot to continue to support terror campaigns in Israel and use the Palestinian state as a staging ground. In order for the two state solution to work, both sides need to recognize each other and their respective borders. Israel has not been willing to offer any acceptable borders to the prospected state of Palestine, that's why every peace talks broke down so far. That is factually false. For example the Road map of 2000 reached a dead end around 2003 because the Israelis refused to withdraw from the territories they occupied since 28 September 2000 AND at the same time the Palestinian authority couldn't prevent Palestinian terrorism. They actually never got to the point to discuss borders or the fate of Jerusalem. It is not factually false at all. Israel refuses, to this day, to outline the borders it would wish a two-state solution to be based on. This was one of the requests of Abbas in the recent negotiations - simply having Israel outline the border it wants. Israel refused. So you're changing every peace talk to the most recent peace talk? The definition of the borders is clearly an issue, but it is not the sole reason why every peace talk has broken down so far as was claimed. That is the reason why this blanket statement is false. EDIT: Didn't realize someone jumped in. Yeah, I'm not the poster you were replying to. I thought your "that is factually false" statement referred to what he said about Israel not being willing to outline borders, which is entirely true. They are clearly trying to grab as much as they can. But still this is just one of many issues, that hamper the peace talks, although it is one of the big ones. The Palestinian terrorism being the other one. In the end the entire conflict sometimes seems like a giant chicken and egg problem. What has to come first in order for peace to work? And nobody can really answer that I think. Pro-Palestinian will always claim, that all terrorism will cease once the territory question is settled while Pro-Israelis will claim that once the terror stops, a solution for the territory problem can be found. In the end I believe that the current leadership on both sides are not really interested in peace. Your last sentence is a false equivalence - Abbas and the Fatah have repeatedly proven themselves to be much more willing to compromise and meet the Israeli government half way than the latter. The latest talks are only one more example of this. See here, in particular the answer after "what concessions?". (these are American officials involved in the negotiations talking) Show nested quote +"He [Abbas] agreed to a demilitarized state; he agreed to the border outline so 80 percent of settlers would continue living in Israeli territory; he agreed for Israel to keep security sensitive areas (mostly in the Jordan Valley - NB) for five years, and then the United States would take over. He accepted the fact that in the Israeli perception, the Palestinians would never be trustworthy.
"He also agreed that the Jewish neighborhoods in East Jerusalem would remain under Israeli sovereignty, and agreed that the return of Palestinians to Israel would depend on Israeli willingness. 'Israel won't be flooded with refugees,' he promised.
"He told us: 'Tell me if there's another Arab leader that would have agreed to what I agreed to. I won't make any more concessions until Israel agrees to the three following terms:
- Outlining the borders would be the first topic under discussion. It would be agreed upon within three months.
- A timeframe would be set for the evacuation of Israelis from sovereign Palestinian territories (Israel had agreed to complete the evacuation of Sinai within three years).
- Israel will agree to have East Jerusalem as the capital of Palestine.
The Israelis would not agree to any of the three demands."
Gah, see my edit above.
I think Israel can definitely be blamed for not trying hard enough to negotiate with those Palestinians that are willing to negotiate. Since the status quo favors them, they take any opportunity to shut down negotiations because Hamas is the current ruling party, technically, despite only having 40% support at the time of the elections, and probably less now.
Abas/Fatah are much more reasonable in their rhetoric.
|
Israel has always talked to Abbas and the Fatah. "Only 40% support for the Hamas"? "So only every second person supports the group that officially wants to tear your throat out? What's your problem buddy!" It's amazing to what standards Israel is held. Every other country wouldn't even have entered the room given the political climate of the Palestinian authorities. If the US were in Israel's shoes they would have brought the Palestinians some glorious freedom quite a while ago.
|
On July 30 2014 06:48 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2014 06:42 BlueSpace wrote:On July 30 2014 06:36 kwizach wrote:On July 30 2014 06:33 BlueSpace wrote:On July 30 2014 06:25 kwizach wrote:On July 30 2014 06:02 BlueSpace wrote:On July 30 2014 05:52 EtherealBlade wrote:On July 30 2014 05:45 BlueSpace wrote:On July 30 2014 05:40 WhiteDog wrote:On July 30 2014 05:39 BlueSpace wrote:[quote] And I provided a link with an interview from this year, where a senior Hamas leader clearly states, that they will never accept Israel. So where are your sources? This I also already responded to : Hamas will never accept Israel's legitimacy. That's it, but they acknowledge the two state solution : it is a word play because they refuse to lose face. Sorry but that is pure speculation. They might also plot to continue to support terror campaigns in Israel and use the Palestinian state as a staging ground. In order for the two state solution to work, both sides need to recognize each other and their respective borders. Israel has not been willing to offer any acceptable borders to the prospected state of Palestine, that's why every peace talks broke down so far. That is factually false. For example the Road map of 2000 reached a dead end around 2003 because the Israelis refused to withdraw from the territories they occupied since 28 September 2000 AND at the same time the Palestinian authority couldn't prevent Palestinian terrorism. They actually never got to the point to discuss borders or the fate of Jerusalem. It is not factually false at all. Israel refuses, to this day, to outline the borders it would wish a two-state solution to be based on. This was one of the requests of Abbas in the recent negotiations - simply having Israel outline the border it wants. Israel refused. So you're changing every peace talk to the most recent peace talk? The definition of the borders is clearly an issue, but it is not the sole reason why every peace talk has broken down so far as was claimed. That is the reason why this blanket statement is false. EDIT: Didn't realize someone jumped in. Yeah, I'm not the poster you were replying to. I thought your "that is factually false" statement referred to what he said about Israel not being willing to outline borders, which is entirely true. They are clearly trying to grab as much as they can. But still this is just one of many issues, that hamper the peace talks, although it is one of the big ones. The Palestinian terrorism being the other one. In the end the entire conflict sometimes seems like a giant chicken and egg problem. What has to come first in order for peace to work? And nobody can really answer that I think. Pro-Palestinian will always claim, that all terrorism will cease once the territory question is settled while Pro-Israelis will claim that once the terror stops, a solution for the territory problem can be found. In the end I believe that the current leadership on both sides are not really interested in peace. Your last sentence is a false equivalence - Abbas and the Fatah have repeatedly proven themselves to be much more willing to compromise and meet the Israeli government half way than the latter. The latest talks are only one more example of this. See here, in particular the answer after "what concessions?". (these are American officials involved in the negotiations talking) Show nested quote +"He [Abbas] agreed to a demilitarized state; he agreed to the border outline so 80 percent of settlers would continue living in Israeli territory; he agreed for Israel to keep security sensitive areas (mostly in the Jordan Valley - NB) for five years, and then the United States would take over. He accepted the fact that in the Israeli perception, the Palestinians would never be trustworthy.
"He also agreed that the Jewish neighborhoods in East Jerusalem would remain under Israeli sovereignty, and agreed that the return of Palestinians to Israel would depend on Israeli willingness. 'Israel won't be flooded with refugees,' he promised.
"He told us: 'Tell me if there's another Arab leader that would have agreed to what I agreed to. I won't make any more concessions until Israel agrees to the three following terms:
- Outlining the borders would be the first topic under discussion. It would be agreed upon within three months.
- A timeframe would be set for the evacuation of Israelis from sovereign Palestinian territories (Israel had agreed to complete the evacuation of Sinai within three years).
- Israel will agree to have East Jerusalem as the capital of Palestine.
The Israelis would not agree to any of the three demands."
And we are ignoring the fact, that there is an organization called Hamas, that won the last elections in 2006 and that are currently in a unity government with Fatah. I don't want to link again the interview, but people should start reading it. Demilitarization is not happening. So Abbas can talk all he wants. As long as Hamas is not on board, it doesn't mean anything for the moment. I didn't drew false equivalence. You just picked a specific representative of the Palestinian leadership that wants to compromise in order to fit your narrative. Which is actually the entire problem with this thread. People just conveniently ignore whatever doesn't fit their specific story in order to white wash "their" side.
|
The Gazans need to restrict themselves to mass peaceful protests as Gandhi did. Of course it's frustrating the situation they are in but the rocket attacks and infiltration tunnels are worse than useless for their cause. If they could stop completely and march en masse with no rock throwing or violence of any kind eventually the world and the Israeli public would turn in their favor. Israelis are not heartless monsters, there are a lot of liberal, peaceful people there but they are scared by Hamas's actions into voting for thugs like Netanyahu. Of course such a course requires a huge amount of patience and forbearance- I'm not saying it would be easy but it's the only way. The cycle of anger and hatred has to stop sometime no matter how great the hurt. You can't claim the moral high ground while targeting civilians with rockets and building attack tunnels under another country's borders.
|
On July 30 2014 07:10 BlueSpace wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2014 06:48 kwizach wrote:On July 30 2014 06:42 BlueSpace wrote:On July 30 2014 06:36 kwizach wrote:On July 30 2014 06:33 BlueSpace wrote:On July 30 2014 06:25 kwizach wrote:On July 30 2014 06:02 BlueSpace wrote:On July 30 2014 05:52 EtherealBlade wrote:On July 30 2014 05:45 BlueSpace wrote:On July 30 2014 05:40 WhiteDog wrote:
[quote]
This I also already responded to : Hamas will never accept Israel's legitimacy. That's it, but they acknowledge the two state solution : it is a word play because they refuse to lose face. Sorry but that is pure speculation. They might also plot to continue to support terror campaigns in Israel and use the Palestinian state as a staging ground. In order for the two state solution to work, both sides need to recognize each other and their respective borders. Israel has not been willing to offer any acceptable borders to the prospected state of Palestine, that's why every peace talks broke down so far. That is factually false. For example the Road map of 2000 reached a dead end around 2003 because the Israelis refused to withdraw from the territories they occupied since 28 September 2000 AND at the same time the Palestinian authority couldn't prevent Palestinian terrorism. They actually never got to the point to discuss borders or the fate of Jerusalem. It is not factually false at all. Israel refuses, to this day, to outline the borders it would wish a two-state solution to be based on. This was one of the requests of Abbas in the recent negotiations - simply having Israel outline the border it wants. Israel refused. So you're changing every peace talk to the most recent peace talk? The definition of the borders is clearly an issue, but it is not the sole reason why every peace talk has broken down so far as was claimed. That is the reason why this blanket statement is false. EDIT: Didn't realize someone jumped in. Yeah, I'm not the poster you were replying to. I thought your "that is factually false" statement referred to what he said about Israel not being willing to outline borders, which is entirely true. They are clearly trying to grab as much as they can. But still this is just one of many issues, that hamper the peace talks, although it is one of the big ones. The Palestinian terrorism being the other one. In the end the entire conflict sometimes seems like a giant chicken and egg problem. What has to come first in order for peace to work? And nobody can really answer that I think. Pro-Palestinian will always claim, that all terrorism will cease once the territory question is settled while Pro-Israelis will claim that once the terror stops, a solution for the territory problem can be found. In the end I believe that the current leadership on both sides are not really interested in peace. Your last sentence is a false equivalence - Abbas and the Fatah have repeatedly proven themselves to be much more willing to compromise and meet the Israeli government half way than the latter. The latest talks are only one more example of this. See here, in particular the answer after "what concessions?". (these are American officials involved in the negotiations talking) "He [Abbas] agreed to a demilitarized state; he agreed to the border outline so 80 percent of settlers would continue living in Israeli territory; he agreed for Israel to keep security sensitive areas (mostly in the Jordan Valley - NB) for five years, and then the United States would take over. He accepted the fact that in the Israeli perception, the Palestinians would never be trustworthy.
"He also agreed that the Jewish neighborhoods in East Jerusalem would remain under Israeli sovereignty, and agreed that the return of Palestinians to Israel would depend on Israeli willingness. 'Israel won't be flooded with refugees,' he promised.
"He told us: 'Tell me if there's another Arab leader that would have agreed to what I agreed to. I won't make any more concessions until Israel agrees to the three following terms:
- Outlining the borders would be the first topic under discussion. It would be agreed upon within three months.
- A timeframe would be set for the evacuation of Israelis from sovereign Palestinian territories (Israel had agreed to complete the evacuation of Sinai within three years).
- Israel will agree to have East Jerusalem as the capital of Palestine.
The Israelis would not agree to any of the three demands." And we are ignoring the fact, that there is an organization called Hamas, that won the last elections in 2006 and that are currently in a unity government with Fatah. I don't want to link again the interview, but people should start reading it. Demilitarization is not happening. So Abbas can talk all he wants. As long as Hamas is not on board, it doesn't mean anything for the moment. I didn't drew false equivalence. You just picked a specific representative of the Palestinian leadership that wants to compromise in order to fit your narrative. Which is actually the entire problem with this thread. People just conveniently ignore whatever doesn't fit their specific story in order to white wash "their" side.
I picked "a specific representative of the Palestinian leadership"? Abbas is the president of the Palestinian National Authority and the leader of the PLO, which Israel recognizes as the representative of the Palestinian people as a whole. I'm not sure what "Abbas can talk all he wants" is supposed to mean - that's what you're supposed to do during negotiations, put propositions on the table and try reach an agreement on a set of elements. Why would the Palestinians per-emptively do whatever Israel asks of them in the negotiations before any deal is reached between the two parties and Israel agrees to the basic terms of the Palestinians as well?
I'm not sure what your point with regards to Hamas is either. Do you think that they should be included in the negotiations, or at least that they should be willing to put into effect the content of an agreement? If so, you should be happy that an agreement for a unity government was reached. In any case, even not being in a unity government with Abbas doesn't change the fact that the negotiations are supposed to lead to compromise and concessions on both sides, that have to later be put into effect. If you can't reach a compromise in the first place, you have to look at what's blocking an agreement, and the fact is that Israel has clearly been less willing than Abbas to compromise. Not even being willing to outline borders is simply mind-blowing when you think about it.
On July 30 2014 07:09 Nyxisto wrote:
Israel has always talked to Abbas and the Fatah. "Only 40% support for the Hamas"? "So only every second person supports the group that officially wants to tear your throat out? What's your problem buddy!" It's amazing to what standards Israel is held. Every other country wouldn't even have entered the room given the political climate of the Palestinian authorities. If the US were in Israel's shoes they would have brought the Palestinians some glorious freedom quite a while ago.
And you're complaining about the people accusing you of strawmen and hyperbole? Do you see the kind of rubbish that you post? If you're not willing to engage in serious discussion, which you don't seem to be considering you carefully ignored every single one of the arguments I presented to you in my last posts, please abstain from intervening altogether in my exchanges with other people.
|
On July 30 2014 07:13 tomatriedes wrote:
The Gazans need to restrict themselves to mass peaceful protests as Gandhi did. Of course it's frustrating the situation they are in but the rocket attacks and infiltration tunnels are worse than useless for their cause. If they could stop completely and march en masse with no rock throwing or violence of any kind eventually the world and the Israeli public would turn in their favor. Israelis are not heartless monsters, there are a lot of liberal, peaceful people there but they are scared by Hamas's actions into voting for thugs like Netanyahu. Of course such a course requires a huge amount of patience and forbearance- I'm not saying it would be easy but it's the only way. The cycle of anger and hatred has to stop sometime no matter how great the hurt. You can't claim the moral high ground while targeting civilians with rockets and building attack tunnels under another country's borders.
The Gazans have no leverage for civil disobedience. What are they going to do? They don't live among the Israelis and are blocked from entering Israel.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
