PDA

View Full Version : General Politics Israel approves Jewish settlements in east Jerusalem, strikes blow to peace process.


Direckshun
11-17-2009, 09:19 PM
Sigh.

http://english.people.com.cn/90001/90777/90854/6816085.html

Israel approves east Jerusalem housing plan
08:03, November 18, 2009

An expansion plan for a Jewish neighborhood in the eastern part of Jerusalem has been approved by a local committee on Tuesday, Israeli media reported.

Local Israeli municipal planning committee gave green light for building some 900 new housing units in the Jerusalem neighborhood of Gilo, located beyond the Green Line, according to local news service the Ynet.

The plan is still open for the public to raise reservations in the following 60 days, the report said.

The approval comes in the wake of a demand from the United States on Israel to totally freeze its settlement construction activities in the West Bank as well as in east Jerusalem.

Local daily Yedioth Ahronoth reported earlier Tuesday that the U.S. special envoy to the Middle East George Mitchell made clear America's objection to the construction in Gilo neighborhood during a meeting with the delegates of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Nesttanyahu.

Jewish neighborhoods in east Jerusalem, captured by Israel in 1967 and later annexed, are considered by international community as Israeli settlements and one of the main obstacles to Israeli-Palestinian peace process.

Netanyahu has insisted that his government will not halt construction in Jerusalem, while the Palestinians want the east section of the holy city as capital of their future state.

Saul Good
11-17-2009, 09:26 PM
What assholes would build houses in their own country?

BucEyedPea
11-17-2009, 09:27 PM
The settlements are part of their own country now? Oi Vey!
Creating their own reality. That's just being part of the problem.

Jenson71
11-17-2009, 09:34 PM
The approval comes in the wake of a demand from the United States on Israel to totally freeze its settlement construction activities in the West Bank as well as in east Jerusalem.

Watch, I bet we freeze our defense funding to them.

Just wait.

Any second now.

It's coming...

Saul Good
11-17-2009, 09:37 PM
The settlements are part of their own country now? Oi Vey!
Creating their own reality. That's just being part of the problem.

What country would you consider Jerusalem to be?

BucEyedPea
11-17-2009, 09:53 PM
I don't consider the settlements officially their country is all.
Jerusalem was supposed to be an International City.

Direckshun
11-17-2009, 11:38 PM
What assholes would build houses in their own country?

1. Do you want peace between Israel and Palestine?

2. Do you not think this greatly impedes progress towards that more than anything?

Pioli Zombie
11-18-2009, 06:24 AM
Those dirty rotten Jews
-TFG
Posted via Mobile Device

BigRedChief
11-18-2009, 07:50 AM
1. Do you want peace between Israel and Palestine?

2. Do you not think this greatly impedes progress towards that more than anything?
There will never be a true peace between Israel and the Palenstinians. The extremes on both sides will never allow it to happen. See the assination of Yitzak Rabin, this current completely transparent attempt to poison the peace process.

But, I've traveled the world and seen quite a bit and the old city of Jerusalem is the most beautiful city in the world. At dusk and dawn when the sun is reflecting off the golden colored buildings and the sofars are being blown...takes you to another place and time.

HonestChieffan
11-18-2009, 07:56 AM
For the liberals, peace is defined as Israel gives up. Or so it seems.

patteeu
11-18-2009, 08:15 AM
For the liberals, peace is defined as Israel gives up. Or so it seems.

Yep.

BucEyedPea
11-18-2009, 09:28 AM
For the liberals, peace is defined as Israel gives up. Or so it seems.

It takes two to have a conflict, sometimes even more. Israel is just as responsible for the conflict as her enemies. Sorry but it's true.
Until the blind support stops America cannot be an honest mediator between the two sides. There are elements on both sides that want
the whole of Palestine to be theirs with the other side defeated.

This will incite more violence toward Israel, then that will serve as a justifier to take more land —exactly what the Likudnik or extremists in Israel want.
The only way for a resolution is to squeeze out the extremists on both sides and work with those in-between.
That's the only chance.Likudnik is equivalent to our Neo Cons here at home.

Not all Jews support this move or all Israelis. Those who formed J Street are adamantly opposed to this move.

tooge
11-18-2009, 09:30 AM
Israel is evil. Will cause armaggedon

BigRedChief
11-18-2009, 09:49 AM
Israel is evil. Will cause armaggedonActually the hard core religious Jews(the hasidic's) would like nothing better than to blow up the mosque on the temple mount and rebuild the jewish temple because that means the messiah has come to save us. Some religious christians here in the USA also support this because they think it means Jesus Christ will return.

BucEyedPea
11-18-2009, 10:44 AM
Actually the hard core religious Jews(the hasidic's) would like nothing better than to blow up the mosque on the temple mount and rebuild the jewish temple because that means the messiah has come to save us. Some religious christians here in the USA also support this because they think it means Jesus Christ will return.

Not all Hasidics. There's a branch that is pro-Palestinian because they consider Zionism a political and military ideology whereas true Zionism is religious in nature.


http://www.urielheilman.com/nkarta.html

BigRedChief
11-18-2009, 10:55 AM
Not all Hasidics. There's a branch that is pro-Palestinian because they consider Zionism a political and military ideology whereas true Zionism is religious in nature.


http://www.urielheilman.com/nkarta.html
I was generalizing for those less infomed of strict religious othodox jews and how they believe.

KCWolfman
11-18-2009, 11:04 AM
I was generalizing for those less infomed of strict religious othodox jews and how they believe.

Extremists exist in every religion - The nutjob Physician killing Christian, Muslims who believe killing non-Muslims is a ticket to heaven, Hindi who follow Kali, etc etc etc.

Extremists however, are not the norm.

tooge
11-18-2009, 11:07 AM
Where exactly is the Zion Mainframe and who has the codes? Are these the zionist you speak of?

Donger
11-18-2009, 11:07 AM
Was this territory not acquired during the 1967 war?

NewChief
11-18-2009, 11:10 AM
Actually the hard core religious Jews(the hasidic's) would like nothing better than to blow up the mosque on the temple mount and rebuild the jewish temple because that means the messiah has come to save us. Some religious christians here in the USA also support this because they think it means Jesus Christ will return.

Michael Chabon's book The Yiddish Policeman's Union has just such a plot at its center. Of course, the book works with the presupposition that Jews were settled in Alaska instead of Israel after WWII, which makes for a hilarious setting.

HonestChieffan
11-18-2009, 11:11 AM
I was generalizing for those less infomed of strict religious othodox jews and how they believe.

you put an orthodox jew in the same category as a muslim extremist?

BigRedChief
11-18-2009, 11:20 AM
you put an orthodox jew in the same category as a muslim extremist?huh? where do you get that idea?

Garcia Bronco
11-18-2009, 11:23 AM
1. Do you want peace between Israel and Palestine?

2. Do you not think this greatly impedes progress towards that more than anything?

1: I don't care...in fact I am for either one of them destroying the other. That way the problem goes away

2: Who cares? The land belongs to Isreal.

patteeu
11-18-2009, 12:15 PM
It takes two to have a conflict, sometimes even more. Israel is just as responsible for the conflict as her enemies. Sorry but it's true.
Until the blind support stops America cannot be an honest mediator between the two sides. There are elements on both sides that want
the whole of Palestine to be theirs with the other side defeated.

This will incite more violence toward Israel, then that will serve as a justifier to take more land —exactly what the Likudnik or extremists in Israel want.
The only way for a resolution is to squeeze out the extremists on both sides and work with those in-between.
That's the only chance.Likudnik is equivalent to our Neo Cons here at home.

Not all Jews support this move or all Israelis. Those who formed J Street are adamantly opposed to this move.

This is ridiculous if it's supposed to mean that at least 2 always share the blame for any conflict. When a mugger or a rapist jumps out from behind a bush and attacks, which 2 are to blame? Israel isn't "just as responsible" for the conflict as the palestinians. Israel has bent over backward trying to achieve peace and at every turn, the palestinians turn their backs on peace and choose an extension of the violence.

Jenson71
11-18-2009, 12:24 PM
This is ridiculous if it's supposed to mean that at least 2 always share the blame for any conflict. When a mugger or a rapist jumps out from behind a bush and attacks, which 2 are to blame? Israel isn't "just as responsible" for the conflict as the palestinians. Israel has bent over backward trying to achieve peace and at every turn, the palestinians turn their backs on peace and choose an extension of the violence.

If someone invaded your home, and you shot them, who would you blame for their death? The invader or you?

BucEyedPea
11-18-2009, 12:30 PM
Of course pat, I knew you'd say that. Keep drinkin' the NeoCon/Likudnik Kool-Aid!

BucEyedPea
11-18-2009, 12:31 PM
I was generalizing for those less infomed of strict religious othodox jews and how they believe.

Fair enough. I'd add liberal Jews ( many who are agnostic/atheistis) don't support this either. It's destructive to the peace process.

Brock
11-18-2009, 12:31 PM
If someone invaded your home, and you shot them, who would you blame for their death? The invader or you?

It depends on whether it's really your home, or if it's just a piece of land you're squatting on.

Donger
11-18-2009, 12:32 PM
If someone invaded your home, and you shot them, who would you blame for their death? The invader or you?

You do realize that Israel acted pre-emptively in 1967 in response to an immediate threat from her enemies, right?

Pants
11-18-2009, 12:32 PM
1. Do you want peace between Israel and Palestine?


I want world peace too, but we all know that shit is not happening.

patteeu
11-18-2009, 12:33 PM
If someone invaded your home, and you shot them, who would you blame for their death? The invader or you?

The invader. If it happened in 1967, it would be a near perfect parallel to the Arab/Israeli situation.

BucEyedPea
11-18-2009, 12:33 PM
I want world peace too, but we all know that shit is not happening.

It isn't called the Thousand Year War for nothing.

Jenson71
11-18-2009, 12:33 PM
It depends on whether it's really your home, or if it's just a piece of land you're squatting on.

What if it's the piece of land that you built your home on?

Brock
11-18-2009, 12:36 PM
What if it's the piece of land that you built your home on?

Can I come up to your folk's land and build a shack in their back yard? If they tell me to leave, can I shoot at them?

Jenson71
11-18-2009, 12:37 PM
You do realize that Israel acted pre-emptively in 1967 in response to an immediate threat from her enemies, right?

The invader. If it happened in 1967, it would be a near perfect parallel to the Arab/Israeli situation.

What about the war before that?

Donger
11-18-2009, 12:38 PM
What about the war before that?

The one in 1948?

Jenson71
11-18-2009, 12:40 PM
Can I come up to your folk's land and build a shack in their back yard? If they tell me to leave, can I shoot at them?

No, they shoot first. You could build a shack on the farm, but you'd have to make a deal first. We'd need agreeable compensation.

Jenson71
11-18-2009, 12:40 PM
The one in 1948?

Yeah, that one. Was that one alright with you?

Brock
11-18-2009, 12:41 PM
No, they shoot first. You could build a shack on the farm, but you'd have to make a deal first. We'd need agreeable compensation.

What if my shack was there before they moved in?

Direckshun
11-18-2009, 12:41 PM
For the liberals, peace is defined as Israel gives up. Or so it seems.

Swing and a miss.

Donger
11-18-2009, 12:41 PM
Yeah, that one. Was that one alright with you?

Alright?

Direckshun
11-18-2009, 12:42 PM
I can't help but notice that very few people in this thread have kept their eye on the ball:

Do these establishments help or impede any meaningful peace resolution between Israelis and Palestinians?

A few of the conservatives want to turn this thread into a "libs hate Jews" thread to detract from the fact that it's Israel in this development, not Palestine, that's impeding the progress of peace.

Jenson71
11-18-2009, 12:45 PM
What if my shack was there before they moved in?

And it was torn down 2000 years ago and you were kicked out by an ancient government? Too fucking bad for you. You can't just run back in with your little book about how God gave you a shack there and expect everyone to bow down to your demands. We'll still shoot.

Donger
11-18-2009, 12:46 PM
I can't help but notice that very few people in this thread have kept their eye on the ball:

Do these establishments help or impede any meaningful peace resolution between Israelis and Palestinians?

A few of the conservatives want to turn this thread into a "libs hate Jews" thread to detract from the fact that it's Israel in this development, not Palestine, that's impeding the progress of peace.

Impede, of course. Then again, peace could be had in Korea if the ROK would just submit to the demands of the North.

Would you like to see that happen, too, in order for "peace"?

Jenson71
11-18-2009, 12:46 PM
Alright?

Yes, alright. Like "okay" - was that one "okay" with you?

Donger
11-18-2009, 12:47 PM
Yes, alright. Like "okay" - was that one "okay" with you?

Was it okay that Israel defending herself against Arab attack? Sure, it was peachy.

Direckshun
11-18-2009, 12:48 PM
Impede, of course. Then again, peace could be had in Korea if the ROK would just submit to the demands of the North.

Would you like to see that happen, too, in order for "peace"?

So not building establishments on territory that Palestinians wish to be their capital is considered completely submitting to the will of Palestine?

Is that the reach of a thought you're trying to convey here?

Brock
11-18-2009, 12:49 PM
And it was torn down 2000 years ago and you were kicked out by an ancient government? Too fucking bad for you. You can't just run back in with your little book about how God gave you a shack there and expect everyone to bow down to your demands. We'll still shoot.

You missed it. My shack, which I built with my own two hands is already there. Then your parents buy the property, move in and build a house on the land. Am I justified in plinking at them?

patteeu
11-18-2009, 12:49 PM
What about the war before that?

WWII?

Edit: I see your answer to Donger. What do you want to know about the 1948 conflict?

Edit2: No, it's not OK with me. The Arabs shouldn't have attacked Israel.

Donger
11-18-2009, 12:50 PM
So not building establishments on territory that Palestinians wish to be their capital is considered completely submitting to the will of Palestine?

Is that the reach of a thought you're trying to convey here?

I fail to see why Israel should submit to any demands of the "Palestinians."

patteeu
11-18-2009, 12:51 PM
I can't help but notice that very few people in this thread have kept their eye on the ball:

Do these establishments help or impede any meaningful peace resolution between Israelis and Palestinians?

A few of the conservatives want to turn this thread into a "libs hate Jews" thread to detract from the fact that it's Israel in this development, not Palestine, that's impeding the progress of peace.

They help it by putting a time limit on palestinian intransigence. I'm not a subscriber to the school of peace through one-sided concession.

Jenson71
11-18-2009, 12:52 PM
Was it okay that Israel defending herself against Arab attack? Sure, it was peachy.

Was it okay that Arabs were defending Palestinian land?

Direckshun
11-18-2009, 12:54 PM
I fail to see why Israel should submit to any demands of the "Palestinians."

Because some of the demands are legal and reasonable. And because it would produce the first very real chance at meaningful peace since, honestly, Israel's birth decades ago.

But you obviously don't grasp the importance of establishments. We had an entire conversation about Iran where you clearly demonstrated zero knowledge while freely offering baseless opinions.

I'll stick with conservatives like patteeu who actually give a flip about foreign policy, rather than posers like yourself.

Donger
11-18-2009, 12:55 PM
Was it okay that Arabs were defending Palestinian land?

Not according to the UN.

Jenson71
11-18-2009, 12:55 PM
You missed it. My shack, which I built with my own two hands is already there. Then your parents buy the property, move in and build a house on the land. Am I justified in plinking at them?

You received money from when they bought the property?

Brock
11-18-2009, 12:55 PM
You received money from when they bought the property?

No, it was just vacant land where I chose to erect my shack. It looked like a good place.

Direckshun
11-18-2009, 12:55 PM
They help it by putting a time limit on palestinian intransigence. I'm not a subscriber to the school of peace through one-sided concession.

Whoa -- Isreali resistance to building establishments on what would be Palestinian land is a one-sided concession?

Want to rethink that one?

Jenson71
11-18-2009, 12:55 PM
Not according to the UN.

So should the UN be our guide for determining what is right and wrong?

Donger
11-18-2009, 12:56 PM
Because some of the demands are legal and reasonable. And because it would produce the first very real chance at meaningful peace since, honestly, Israel's birth decades ago.

But you obviously don't grasp the importance of establishments. We had an entire conversation about Iran where you clearly demonstrated zero knowledge while freely offering baseless opinions.

I'll stick with conservatives like patteeu who actually give a flip about foreign policy, rather than posers like yourself.

My, you do hold yourself in high regard. Anyway, what concessions do you think the Palestinians should make in return for Israeli cessation of new settlements? Surely you don't think that all the concessions should be made by the Israelis, do you?

Donger
11-18-2009, 12:57 PM
Whoa -- Isreali resistance to building establishments on what would be Palestinian land is a one-sided concession?

Want to rethink that one?

Would be Palestinian land? According to whom?

Direckshun
11-18-2009, 12:57 PM
My, you do hold yourself in high regard. Anyway, what concessions do you think the Palestinians should make in return for Israeli cessation of new settlements? Surely you don't think that all the concessions should be made by the Israelis, do you?

Good freakin' lord.

Jenson71
11-18-2009, 12:58 PM
No, it was just vacant land where I chose to erect my shack. It looked like a good place.

Okay, so you erected your shack. Then the parents come in. Do you they give you money for the property and you accept it? If so, things are good, you have no moral right to shoot. If they don't give you money and kick you off? Then you have been wronged.

Donger
11-18-2009, 12:58 PM
So should the UN be our guide for determining what is right and wrong?

In the case of the UN mandate that created Israel, sure.

Direckshun
11-18-2009, 12:58 PM
Would be Palestinian land? According to whom?

I'm not walking you through YET ANOTHER 101 on a subject you clearly know nothing about.

patteeu
11-18-2009, 12:58 PM
Whoa -- Isreali resistance to building establishments on what would be Palestinian land is a one-sided concession?

Want to rethink that one?

No. What concession is Israel getting for agreeing to stop expanding their settlements?

Donger
11-18-2009, 12:59 PM
Good freakin' lord.

What? You do or do not think the Palestinians should make concessions, too?

Jenson71
11-18-2009, 12:59 PM
In the case of the UN mandate that created Israel, sure.

Why that case?

wild1
11-18-2009, 12:59 PM
Where is TFG to agree wholeheartedly with everything some of you are posting?

It's a shame he's missing this.

Donger
11-18-2009, 01:00 PM
I'm not walking you through YET ANOTHER 101 on a subject you clearly know nothing about.

LMAO

Brock
11-18-2009, 01:00 PM
Okay, so you erected your shack. Then the parents come in. Do you they give you money for the property and you accept it? If so, things are good, you have no moral right to shoot. If they don't give you money and kick you off? Then you have been wronged.

Why would they give me money? I don't own it. I just happened by and there was material to build my shack out of, there didn't seem to be anybody who cared at the time.

Donger
11-18-2009, 01:02 PM
Why that case?

Because the UN created the border of Israel. The Arabs didn't like it and decided to invade. You knew this, right?

Jenson71
11-18-2009, 01:04 PM
Why would they give me money? I don't own it. I just happened by and there was material to build my shack out of, there didn't seem to be anybody who cared at the time.

You own the shack that you built. Plus your shack, and the land the shack was built on, was all under an empire that recognized that shack and that land as your own. So if some outsider comes in and takes your shack and the surrounding land, you have a right to demand both a.) your agreement to the taking and b.) just compensation as determined by you or a union representative for the people who also own shacks around the land. If you don't get both, you have a right to fight back. If you don't get either, you should be really pissed.

BucEyedPea
11-18-2009, 01:05 PM
Because the UN created the border of Israel. The Arabs didn't like it and decided to invade. You knew this, right?

Boy that leaves out a lot of chicanery by an imperial/colonial power named Great Britain, that preceded things up to that point—not to exclude the French either. You might want to rent the documentary on Lawrence of Arabia by PBS, as well as the old epic Hollywood movie to round out a fairer point-of-view. Using the UN is rather late on the chain of events and tells us nothing really.

And since when do conservatives back the UN? Oh I know when it backs up their side.

Jenson71
11-18-2009, 01:06 PM
Because the UN created the border of Israel. The Arabs didn't like it and decided to invade. You knew this, right?

That doesn't mean what the UN did was right. You can disagree with the UN. They're not infallible.

BucEyedPea
11-18-2009, 01:09 PM
To really understand the modern ME one needs to go back to WWI.
To have an even deeper understanding go back a thousand years, perhaps more.
Too many Americans see this place through a European-colonial lens provided by shallow pop media and punditry.

Donger
11-18-2009, 01:09 PM
That doesn't mean what the UN did was right. You can disagree with the UN. They're not infallible.

My point is that Israel didn't invade. The creation of Israel was granted and approved by international law. I was under the impression that liberals were big on that.

I guess not when it comes to Israel.

The Arabs then attacked Israel more than once during which Israel took these lands to act as a buffer against obviously hostile forces surrounding her. Can you really blame Israel for that?

patteeu
11-18-2009, 01:10 PM
That doesn't mean what the UN did was right. You can disagree with the UN. They're not infallible.

You've raised a pretty fundamental issue here. Do you agree that Israel has a right to exist? If so, whether it's because the UN established them originally or not, the state's boundaries have to be somewhere.

BucEyedPea
11-18-2009, 01:10 PM
Would be Palestinian land? According to whom?

Didn't the Roman's call it Palestine? If you object, that area was actually once part of greater Syria. It really doesn't matter what one calls it though, so long as we're referring to the correct stretch of land with semitic peoples on that descended from Noah and Abraham.

Donger
11-18-2009, 01:11 PM
Boy that leaves out a lot of chicanery by an imperial/colonial power named Great Britain, that preceded things up to that point—not to exclude the French either. You might want to rent the documentary on Lawrence of Arabia by PBS, as well as the old epic Hollywood movie to round out a fairer point-of-view. Using the UN is rather late on the chain of events and tells us nothing really.

And since when do conservatives back the UN? Oh I know when it backs up their side.

No doubt. The entire region would be better off today if the Brits were still in control.

Jenson71
11-18-2009, 01:16 PM
My point is that Israel didn't invade. The creation of Israel was granted and approved by international law. I was under the impression that liberals were big on that.

An unjust law is no law at all. Whether it be international or not.

The Arabs then attacked Israel more than once during which Israel took these lands to act as a buffer against obviously hostile forces surrounding her. Can you really blame Israel for that?

Uh, yeah. I can. Soviet Union took Eastern Europe to act as a buffer against obviously hostile forces surrounding her. Er, that's what they said.

Donger
11-18-2009, 01:19 PM
An unjust law is no law at all. Whether it be international or not.

What do you think was unjust about the creation of Israel? Did the Israelis not deserve a homeland?

Uh, yeah. I can. Soviet Union took Eastern Europe to act as a buffer against obviously hostile forces surrounding her. Er, that's what they said.

The Soviet Union wasn't invaded by those countries before deciding to take them. Israel was, repeatedly. So, your analogy is grotesquely inaccurate.

BucEyedPea
11-18-2009, 01:19 PM
My point is that Israel didn't invade. The creation of Israel was granted and approved by international law. I was under the impression that liberals were big on that.
What a crock!

It's infancy began under the British Mandate which controlled the area via brute force with the help of the local Arabs in WWI under the promise ( lie really) they'd be independent on their own land. This was what they were promised in order to gain their help in defeating the Ottomons. The Ottoman Turks were ruthless and they didn't like being under their control.

International Law? At the Paris Peace Treaty of WWI? That's laughable! Faisel and TE Lawrence made their case there but were rebuffed. Sorry, it was nothing but the victors of that war, carving up the ME to suit Britain and France per the secret Sykes-Picot agreement which the Arabs found out about during the Arab Revolt that was fighting on Britain's side to take the area referred to as Palestine/Syria/Jordon. That and Lord Balfour being Baron de Rothschild's man in Parliament who helped fund the war for England. He was owed and he was a supporter of Theodor Hertzl's idea of a Jewish state.


The Arabs then attacked Israel more than once during which Israel took these lands to act as a buffer against obviously hostile forces surrounding her. Can you really blame Israel for that?

Yes and no. Some is legitimate like the Golan Heights, but part of the modis operandi of Likudnik is to incite attacks so they can justify taking more land. Example: Ariel Sharon setting off the Intifada with a provocative act at the Temple on the Mount. Deliberate!

Donger
11-18-2009, 01:22 PM
What a crock!

It's infancy began under the British Mandate which controlled the area via brute force with the help of the local Arabs in WWI under the promise ( lie really) they'd be independent on their own land. This was what they were promised in order to gain their help in defeating the Ottomons. The Ottoman Turks were ruthless and they didn't like being under their control.

International Law? At the Paris Peace Treaty of WWI? That's laughable! Faisel and TE Lawrence made their case there but were rebuffed. Sorry, it was nothing but the victors of that war, carving up the ME to suit Britain and France per the secret Sykes-Picot agreement which the Arabs found out about during the Arab Revolt that was fighting on Britain's side to take the area referred to as Palestine/Syria/Jordon. That and Lord Balfour being Baron de Rothschild's man in Parliament who helped fund the war for England. He was owed and he was a supporter of Theodor Hertzl's idea of a Jewish state.




Yes and no. Some is legitimate like the Golan Heights, but part of the modis operandi of Likudnik is to incite attacks so they can justify taking more land. Example: Ariel Sharon setting off the Intifada with a provocative act at the Temple on the Mount. Deliberate!

I was, of course, referring to the UN partition plan in 1947.

Jenson71
11-18-2009, 01:25 PM
What do you think was unjust about the creation of Israel? Did the Israelis not deserve a homeland?

If the occupants of the land did not agree through representation or a majority vote and/or they were not paid just compensation as determined by themselves for the land that they would lose, then I don't see it as being just. So unjust. Now, if both of these conditions were fulfilled, then I'm willing to amend my position.

The Soviet Union wasn't invaded by those countries before deciding to take them. Israel was, repeatedly. So, your analogy is grotesquely inaccurate.

No one ever remembers the Polar Bear Expedition.

Okay, the USSR was just acting preemptively. They could see what was going to happen.

Donger
11-18-2009, 01:29 PM
If the occupants of the land did not agree through representation or a majority vote and/or they were not paid just compensation as determined by themselves for the land that they would lose, then I don't see it as being just. So unjust. Now, if both of these conditions were fulfilled, then I'm willing to amend my position.

So, the partition of "Palestine" was unjust and Israel's existence is unjust?

No one ever remembers the Polar Bear Expedition.

Okay, the USSR was just acting preemptively. They could see what was going to happen.

Wasn't that in 1918? If so, I fail to see why it is relevant to your failed analogy, which happened after WWII.

BucEyedPea
11-18-2009, 01:29 PM
What do you think was unjust about the creation of Israel? Did the Israelis not deserve a homeland?
No one deserves anything...unless they can defend and hold it. That's part of the definition of sovereignty. But I'd argue that it should have been carved out of Germany instead of making another group pay for the gross anti-semitic history of Christian Europe. That being said it is there now and built so the best thing now is for a two-state solution or one state that's pluralistic like most other countries.

The Jews had been emigrating back to Israel since the 1200's. Including when Isabella and Ferdinand had them herded them on ships to expulse them, while Columbus sailed off to the New World. They lived with the Arab Muslims peacefully—until European empires got their hands on the area for their own purposes: (1) a valuable land route to India for trade (2) a valuable sea route for trade to India for Britain (3) resource of oil. Britain is famous for divide and conquer methods in foreign areas for mercantilist interests. So they need to maintain a presence or footprint in the area somehow. ( The way patteeu thinks we need to for oil) This was no different than what they did in India keeping the Muslims and Hindus at each other throats so they could stay and administer the area.

The early Jewish migrations were the indigenous semite Jews called Sephardic— not the white European Ashkenazi who were European converts. The immigration of the latter is seen more like a white European occupation on their land. Occupation is the CAUSE of terrorism.

Your characterization of the dispute and it's origins is not only grossly inaccurate but filled with British notions of imperialism.

Donger
11-18-2009, 01:30 PM
No one deserves anything...unless they can defend and hold it. That's part of the definition of soveignty. But I'd argue that it should have been carved out of Germany instead of making another group pay for the gross anti-semitic history of Christian Europe. That being said it is there now and built so the best thing now is for a two-state solution or one state that's pluralistic like most other countries.

The Jews had been emigrating back to Israel since the 1200's. Including when Isabella and Ferdinand had them herded them on ships to expulse them, while Columbus sailed off to the New World. They lived with the Arab Muslims peacefully—until European empires got their hands on the area for their own purposes: (1) a valuable land route to India for trade (2) a valuable sea route for trade to India for Britain (3) resource of oil. Britain is famous for divide and conquer methods in foreign areas for mercantilist interests. So they need to maintain a presence or footprint in the area somehow. ( The way patteeu thinks we need to for oil) This was no different than what they did in India keeping the Muslims and Hindus at each other throats so they could stay and administer the area.


You characterization of the dispute and it's origins is not only grossly inaccurate but filled with British notions of imperialism.

Cool. So the Palestinians don't deserve a homeland either. If that's the case, I don't see what all the arguing is about.

BucEyedPea
11-18-2009, 01:32 PM
I was, of course, referring to the UN partition plan in 1947.

Yes I know that. But that's just one incident in a string of events. You cannot lay the blame there alone.

Stinger
11-18-2009, 01:33 PM
You own the shack that you built. Plus your shack, and the land the shack was built on, was all under an empire that recognized that shack and that land as your own. So if some outsider comes in and takes your shack and the surrounding land, you have a right to demand both a.) your agreement to the taking and b.) just compensation as determined by you or a union representative for the people who also own shacks around the land. If you don't get both, you have a right to fight back. If you don't get either, you should be really pissed.

o hi there ........

http://www.cleanmpg.com/photos/data/500/crying-indian_fullhead80p.jpg

FishingRod
11-18-2009, 01:33 PM
I fully recognize that the Israelis have not always been super duper nice and all but, can someone, anyone, tell me what the Israelis could do that would be acceptable to the Palestinians as well as their surrounding Arab neighbors? Oh and you can't say dissolving the state of Israel or making the Muslim religion the law of the land.

BucEyedPea
11-18-2009, 01:33 PM
Cool. So the Palestinians don't deserve a homeland either. If that's the case, I don't see what all the arguing is about.

That's a strawman since I mentioned two solutions— one being two separate states. We certainly can't go back in time but can only move forward.

Donger
11-18-2009, 01:37 PM
Yes I know that. But that's just one incident in a string of events. You cannot lay the blame there alone.

You are the one attempting to lay blame. Israel was created by virtue of international law. That's a simple and obvious fact.

Jenson71
11-18-2009, 01:37 PM
So, the partition of "Palestine" was unjust and Israel's existence is unjust?

Yeah, I guess so.

Wasn't that in 1918? If so, I fail to see why it is relevant to your failed analogy, which happened after WWII.

Because the Polar Bear Expedition had substantial influence in how the USSR saw the anti-Communist West. Remembering that, it would make more sense to want buffer zones.

You're right it's a weak analogy. But Israel's annexing more Arab land to provide a buffer zone to keep them safe was a pretty weak reason itself.

BucEyedPea
11-18-2009, 01:38 PM
I fully recognize that the Israelis have not always been super duper nice and all but, can someone, anyone, tell me what the Israelis could do that would be acceptable to the Palestinians as well as their surrounding Arab neighbors? Oh and you can't say dissolving the state of Israel or making the Muslim religion the law of the land.

Well Egypt and Jordan eventually came on board after years of fighting.

As I posted earlier, the best hope and certainly there's no gaurantee, but the best hope is to keep the extremists on both sides marginalized so work can be done with those in the middle. That would be AIPAC's influence over our govt with the NeoCons and Likudniks in Israel, as well as those on the Muslim side. Over time hopefully the extremists will die out.
Or have one pluralistic state as a real democracy.

The thing is our govt funds both sides and that keeps it going too.
The baloney as to Israel being the only democracy is nonsense. Israel is rigidly socialist, just as Iraq was and Iran is.

BucEyedPea
11-18-2009, 01:40 PM
You are the one attempting to lay blame. Israel was created by virtue of international law. That's a simple and obvious fact.

That's right because there is a cause which had an effect—the ME conflict. International law my arse. Look who established it.
The blame accurately goes to England mainly, secondly France. America took over England's role after WWII because she was eventually bankrupted from being an empire. So now we're in her former position. Let's not forget what powers were behind setting up the UN and giving the final control of votes in order to control the world.

Donger
11-18-2009, 01:40 PM
Yeah, I guess so.

Thank you.

Because the Polar Bear Expedition had substantial influence in how the USSR saw the anti-Communist West. Remembering that, it would make more sense to want buffer zones.

You're right it's a weak analogy. But Israel's annexing more Arab land to provide a buffer zone to keep them safe was a pretty weak reason itself.

Why is it weak? Again, Israel HAS been attacked more than once in her history. It's not like it's speculation that her enemies "might" attack.

wild1
11-18-2009, 01:40 PM
I personally do not see why this is a great concern of ours. There is relative peace there, more often than not, even though there is usually not any kind of "process" in place at the moment. I don't believe any future incarnation of this "process" will ever get anywhere, in any case. This is a matter for Israel and its neighbors to deal with. Our role would be limited to that of a sleeping giant. This conflict at this point does not threaten our interests and should not be an agenda item for us.

Perhaps we should focus on our own conflicts in the middle east? (as soon as they aren't too politically risky, of course)

Donger
11-18-2009, 01:42 PM
That's right because there is a cause which had an effect—the ME conflict. International law my arse. Look who established it.
The blame accurately goes to England mainly, secondly France. America took over England's role after WWII because she was eventually bankrupted from being an empire. So now we're in her former position. Let's not forget what powers were behind setting up the UN and giving the final control of votes in order to control the world.

BEP, let's review:

You took issue with my statement of fact here; "The creation of Israel was granted and approved by international law."

To which you replied, "What a crock!"

Do you know acknowledge that my assertion was and is correct now?

BucEyedPea
11-18-2009, 01:43 PM
BEP, let's review:

You took issue with my statement of fact here; "The creation of Israel was granted and approved by international law."

To which you replied, "What a crock!"

Do you know acknowledge that my assertion was and is correct now?

Go back and re-read what I posted. Your answer is there. You just want to tie me up with a thousand rhetorical questions.

Donger
11-18-2009, 01:45 PM
Go back and re-read what I posted. Your answer is there. You just want to tie me up with a thousand rhetorical questions.

No, I really don't. Do I acknowledge that there was quite a bit of history preceding the partition? Of course I do. Regardless of the history, the UN did agree to the partition. Sorry if that historical fact flies in the face of your (and others') agendas.

Direckshun
11-18-2009, 01:46 PM
No. What concession is Israel getting for agreeing to stop expanding their settlements?

Expanding their settlements is a dick move, and completely unnecessary.

I'm all for everybody conceding dick moves that are unnecessary that impede peace.

BucEyedPea
11-18-2009, 01:46 PM
Donger,
What I essentially said was there was an intention by Britain and Baron de Rothschild all along to do as they wished in that area. That was establish a Jewish state despite the fact that it was eventually partitioned by the UN. That's just the final culmination of the same plan. The Brits couldn't resolve the conflict so it was turned over to the UN which was established by western powers.The entire Zionist movement was about that which began in the late 1800's.

The same goes for France when they took Syria and deposed King Faisal.

Donger
11-18-2009, 01:48 PM
Expanding their settlements is a dick move, and completely unnecessary.

I'm all for everybody conceding dick moves that are unnecessary that impede peace.

So, what concessions should the Palestinians make in order to achieve peace with Israel, IYO?

BucEyedPea
11-18-2009, 01:48 PM
Expanding their settlements is a dick move, and completely unnecessary.

Exactly!

Jenson71
11-18-2009, 01:49 PM
Thank you.

Why is it weak? Again, Israel HAS been attacked more than once in her history. It's not like it's speculation that her enemies "might" attack.

How does expanding your state and moving more of your people to those areas make it a buffer zone? It just means there's more of you to attack.

patteeu
11-18-2009, 01:50 PM
Expanding their settlements is a dick move, and completely unnecessary.

I'm all for everybody conceding dick moves that are unnecessary that impede peace.

Unnecessary? I already said that I don't think it impedes peace.

Direckshun
11-18-2009, 01:51 PM
I don't think it impedes peace.

Explain yourself. Because that smacks of "up is down" logic.

patteeu
11-18-2009, 01:51 PM
Donger,
What I essentially said was there was an intention by Britain and Baron de Rothschild all along to do as they wished in that area. That was establish a Jewish state despite the fact that it was eventually partitioned by the UN. That's just the final culmination of the same plan. The Brits couldn't resolve the conflict so it was turned over to the UN which was established by western powers.The entire Zionist movement was about that which began in the late 1800's.

The same goes for France when they took Syria and deposed King Faisal.

Do you believe Israel has a right to exist, today?

Donger
11-18-2009, 01:51 PM
How does expanding your state and moving more of your people to those areas make it a buffer zone? It just means there's more of you to attack.

I didn't say that. I said that Israel originally took those lands as buffer zones. I would agree that populating them with Israelis is risky.

BucEyedPea
11-18-2009, 01:52 PM
No doubt. The entire region would be better off today if the Brits were still in control.

Typical British imperial arrogance. I'm sure some think the same about America too. ROFL

BucEyedPea
11-18-2009, 01:52 PM
Your question was already answered pat.

BucEyedPea
11-18-2009, 01:53 PM
I didn't say that. I said that Israel originally took those lands as buffer zones. I would agree that populating them with Israelis is risky.

That's really the point. Not buffer zones during a war per se.

Donger
11-18-2009, 01:54 PM
I though that this thread is an apropos place to post this. Here's the reaction of the "Palestinians" to 9/11:

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/mV_eN4YEEI0&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/mV_eN4YEEI0&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Yes, by all means, let's support these people getting a state.

Garcia Bronco
11-18-2009, 01:54 PM
I fully recognize that the Israelis have not always been super duper nice and all but, can someone, anyone, tell me what the Israelis could do that would be acceptable to the Palestinians as well as their surrounding Arab neighbors? Oh and you can't say dissolving the state of Israel or making the Muslim religion the law of the land.

there isn't. That's why we should stay out of it and then Isreal can do what it wants to defend itself. Every Arab state over there is in fear of Isreal.

patteeu
11-18-2009, 01:55 PM
Explain yourself. Because that smacks of "up is down" logic.

I don't consider capitulation to be a worthy peace. Israel has offered concession after concession in an effort to achieve peace and has been consistently rebuffed. It's never enough. They withdrew from Gaza and what did that get them? Answer: more rocket attacks.

Donger
11-18-2009, 01:55 PM
Typical British imperial arrogance. I'm sure some think the same about America too. ROFL

Nope. I would have fully supported the abandonment of the Colonies and permitted them home rule, which is what happened.

patteeu
11-18-2009, 01:56 PM
Your question was already answered pat.

Instead of typing those 6 words, it would have taken you 1 word to repeat the answer. I didn't see it earlier. Could you either answer it again or give me a post number?

Direckshun
11-18-2009, 01:56 PM
I don't consider capitulation to be a worthy peace. Israel has offered concession after concession in an effort to achieve peace and has been consistently rebuffed. It's never enough. They withdrew from Gaza and what did that get them? Answer: more rocket attacks.

You're very clearly not answering my question.

How do these settlements help the peace process, rather than impede?

BucEyedPea
11-18-2009, 01:56 PM
Nope. I would have fully supported the abandonment of the Colonies and permitted them home rule, which is what happened.

Doesn't sound it. I go by what you say in current similar situations.

BTW who side did you take on the recent Georgian incident?
( that would provide even more of a clue)

Donger
11-18-2009, 01:57 PM
You're very clearly not answering my question.

How do these settlements help the peace process, rather than impede?

Watch out, Patty. Direckshun's attempting to be clever again!

BucEyedPea
11-18-2009, 01:57 PM
Instead of typing those 6 words, it would have taken you 1 word to repeat the answer. I didn't see it earlier. Could you either answer it again or give me a post number?

You can't see the trees for the forest or the forest for the trees. Sorry it's there, specifically too.
Not only that I posted it specifically before too.

My, my and you tell me my reading comprehension is lacking.

Donger
11-18-2009, 01:57 PM
Doesn't sound it. I go by what you say in current similar situations.

BTW who side did you take on the recent Georgian incident?
( that would provide even more of a clue)

The Georgians, of course.

BucEyedPea
11-18-2009, 01:58 PM
The Georgians, of course.

Just as I thought. They invaded a land that wanted to be with Russia. So much for self rule decisions.

Donger
11-18-2009, 02:00 PM
Just as I thought. They invaded a land that wanted to be with Russia. So much for self rule decisions.

Wait, so you supported those imperialist Russians?

BucEyedPea
11-18-2009, 02:02 PM
Wait, so you supported those imperialist Russians?

No I supported Ossetia who wanted to be with the Russians.
Kinda like Kuwait wanting to be with the British; and wanted the Americans to save them from Iraq.

patteeu
11-18-2009, 02:16 PM
You're very clearly not answering my question.

How do these settlements help the peace process, rather than impede?

I don't know how helpful they are, I just don't think they impede anything any more than our unwillingness to submit to Sharia law impedes our ability to make peace with al Qaeda.

The settlements might help the peace process by creating a sense of urgency on the part of the palestinians, though. If they continue to resist peace long enough, they'll lose even more of what they could have had than they've already lost.

Edit: BTW, If I actually missed the post where you clearly answered this question it's a result of skipping through a lot of your posts because I know they're filled with nonsense and lewspeak BS.

patteeu
11-18-2009, 02:19 PM
You can't see the trees for the forest or the forest for the trees. Sorry it's there, specifically too.
Not only that I posted it specifically before too.

My, my and you tell me my reading comprehension is lacking.

I can only assume that your reluctance to be forthcoming means that you're embarrassed by your answer or fearful of the impression it will create. It's a shame TFG isn't here to swoon over your rejection of Israel's legitimacy.

Direckshun
11-18-2009, 02:24 PM
I don't know how helpful they are, I just don't think they impede anything any more than our unwillingness to submit to Sharia law impedes our ability to make peace with al Qaeda.

The settlements might help the peace process by creating a sense of urgency on the part of the palestinians, though. If they continue to resist peace long enough, they'll lose even more of what they could have had than they've already lost.

See, you're admitting right there what I've been saying.

This is a dick move by Israel because, should the two-state agreement that has the biggest chance to produce a meaningful peace that Israel has never seen with Palestinians, Israel has essentially decided to preemptively stake out entire parts of what would be Palestine's capital.

To use your language, they are taking from the Palestinians.

It's a dick move, and will agitate more than it will help. Palestine does not respond to this so-called "urgency" in ways you consider productive -- they do not see it like we do. They don't see it as Israel trying to motivate them, they see it as Israel trying to roll over them. It's an inferiority complex x's a million. That's why these moves impede our best chance at peace. And this time, Israel's responsible for this particular move.

Preventing Israel from doing this isn't forcing Israel to concede anything significant, other than their will to be unaccountable dicks from time to time. And I think everybody should be willing to concede that.

Direckshun
11-18-2009, 02:25 PM
Edit: BTW, If I actually missed the post where you clearly answered this question it's a result of skipping through a lot of your posts because I know they're filled with nonsense and lewspeak BS.

"I don't really bother reading your posts when we talk because I don't like processing information I disagree with."

FishingRod
11-18-2009, 02:27 PM
Well Egypt and Jordan eventually came on board after years of fighting.

As I posted earlier, the best hope and certainly there's no gaurantee, but the best hope is to keep the extremists on both sides marginalized so work can be done with those in the middle. That would be AIPAC's influence over our govt with the NeoCons and Likudniks in Israel, as well as those on the Muslim side. Over time hopefully the extremists will die out.
Or have one pluralistic state as a real democracy.

The thing is our govt funds both sides and that keeps it going too.
The baloney as to Israel being the only democracy is nonsense. Israel is rigidly socialist, just as Iraq was and Iran is.

I think Egypt and Jordan recognize that they really can't wipe Israel off the face of the Earth and attempting to do so directly would be very costly. Jordan really never wanted much to do with the previous wars but got sucked into them. What is often overlooked in my opinion is that the Palestinians are not wanted in any of the other Arab countries. While great lip service is given to their plight the reality is they are but pawns of their Arab brothers. Likewise the Jews of Israel were not really any more welcome in the various countries they fled after WWII. Geographically Israel is a tiny country that has already "returned" lands greater than the whole of their country so they really are about out of things to give. I drive 30 miles to and from Work Each day if one left the beach on the Mediterranean and drove towards Jordan it really isn't all that much further. I really don't know what the answer is but I have often thought that had the UN simply purchased some place like the California Baja Peninsula and Gave it to the displaced Jews of the world that they would have grudgingly accepted and would have probably been much better off in the long run. Now with over half a century of fighting for their lives and for their land a solution such as that is impossible. It is pretty Sad for both sides but if the Berlin wall could fall in my lifetime perhaps the Arabs and Jews can learn to tolerate one another.

Donger
11-18-2009, 02:29 PM
See, you're admitting right there what I've been saying.

This is a dick move by Israel because, should the two-state agreement that has the biggest chance to produce a meaningful peace that Israel has never seen with Palestinians, Israel has essentially decided to preemptively stake out entire parts of what would be Palestine's capital.

To use your language, they are taking from the Palestinians.

It's a dick move, and will agitate more than it will help. Palestine does not respond to this so-called "urgency" in ways you consider productive -- they do not see it like we do. They don't see it as Israel trying to motivate them, they see it as Israel trying to roll over them. It's an inferiority complex x's a million. That's why these moves impede our best chance at peace. And this time, Israel's responsible for this particular move.

Preventing Israel from doing this isn't forcing Israel to concede anything significant, other than their will to be unaccountable dicks from time to time. And I think everybody should be willing to concede that.

There's that "would be" again. Have you considered that East Jerusalem might be the capital of Palestine today if the Arabs hadn't planned the attacks to which Israel responded in 1967?

ClevelandBronco
11-18-2009, 02:29 PM
Q. What could be a more hopeless and pointless endeavor than peace discussions in the Middle East?

A. Trying to get a straight answer from BEP.

Fuck it.

Donger
11-18-2009, 02:33 PM
For the Palestinian supporters:

Would you support a Palestinian proclamation of the existence of Israel and her right to exist in exchange for an Israeli proclamation that East Jerusalem would be the capital of Palestine, which similar recognitions by Israel?

patteeu
11-18-2009, 02:36 PM
See, you're admitting right there what I've been saying.

This is a dick move by Israel because, should the two-state agreement that has the biggest chance to produce a meaningful peace that Israel has never seen with Palestinians, Israel has essentially decided to preemptively stake out entire parts of what would be Palestine's capital.

To use your language, they are taking from the Palestinians.

It's a dick move, and will agitate more than it will help. Palestine does not respond to this so-called "urgency" in ways you consider productive -- they do not see it like we do. They don't see it as Israel trying to motivate them, they see it as Israel trying to roll over them. It's an inferiority complex x's a million. That's why these moves impede our best chance at peace. And this time, Israel's responsible for this particular move.

Preventing Israel from doing this isn't forcing Israel to concede anything significant, other than their will to be unaccountable dicks from time to time. And I think everybody should be willing to concede that.

It forces Israel to concede the ability to continue to expand their settlements. As far as I'm concerned, Israel owns the west bank and giving any of it to the palestinians is a concession. They've been more than willing to make these concessions in exchange for peace (the whole "land for peace" deal), but the palestinians resist. The longer they resist, the less land that they can potentially gain.

The best chance for the palestinians to achieve peace happened in the 1990s when Israel made an unprecedented offer of land for peace. The palestinians, following Yasser Arafat, responded with the intifada. That was the high water mark. The water is receding now. Since then, Israel unilaterally withdrew from Gaza. The palestinians, following Hamas, launched rockets. Don't tell me that Israel is an impediment to peace.

patteeu
11-18-2009, 02:38 PM
"I don't really bother reading your posts when we talk because I don't like processing information I disagree with."

That's not the case at all. I read your posts even though you say some pretty ridiculous things. She and I weren't talking. When we are, I generally read her posts in their entirety, drivel and all.

Donger
11-18-2009, 02:40 PM
Don't tell me that Israel is an impediment to peace.

I disagree. They are clearly an impediment. If they'd just go away, there'd be peace.

patteeu
11-18-2009, 02:43 PM
I disagree. They are clearly an impediment. If they'd just go away, there'd be peace.

LMAO Good point.

memyselfI
11-18-2009, 02:47 PM
For all of the love of Lite allegedly around the world, he sure ain't getting much as far as policy going his way. :rolleyes:

Direckshun
11-18-2009, 03:06 PM
It forces Israel to concede the ability to continue to expand their settlements. As far as I'm concerned, Israel owns the west bank and giving any of it to the palestinians is a concession. They've been more than willing to make these concessions in exchange for peace (the whole "land for peace" deal), but the palestinians resist. The longer they resist, the less land that they can potentially gain.

The best chance for the palestinians to achieve peace happened in the 1990s when Israel made an unprecedented offer of land for peace. The palestinians, following Yasser Arafat, responded with the intifada. That was the high water mark. The water is receding now. Since then, Israel unilaterally withdrew from Gaza. The palestinians, following Hamas, launched rockets. Don't tell me that Israel is an impediment to peace.

Expand theirs beyond what would be a peaceful two-state solution, yes. The same exact restriction would apply to the Palestinians.

Why is that so hard to understand? Why is preventing a really dumb, pointless, confrontational action always equated with believing Israel should surrender, along with a laundry list of the dumb things Palestinians have also done to restrict peace?

Let's keep it basic: this was a really bad move by Israel, and it will impede peace. It may be justified (it's not), it may be legal (questionable), but in the end, Israel knows it should cede east Jerusalem for a chance at a peaceful two-state solution. This is a gigantic roadblock.

Donger
11-18-2009, 03:19 PM
Expand theirs beyond what would be a peaceful two-state solution, yes. The same exact restriction would apply to the Palestinians.

Why is that so hard to understand? Why is preventing a really dumb, pointless, confrontational action always equated with believing Israel should surrender, along with a laundry list of the dumb things Palestinians have also done to restrict peace?

Let's keep it basic: this was a really bad move by Israel, and it will impede peace. It may be justified (it's not), it may be legal (questionable), but in the end, Israel knows it should cede east Jerusalem for a chance at a peaceful two-state solution. This is a gigantic roadblock.

It should be just as easy to understand that the Palestinians should give some concessions, too, no?

BucEyedPea
11-18-2009, 03:22 PM
Israel does not own the the West Bank. There's a policy shift in Washington.
Obama won 78 percent of the Jewish vote and represents the American Jewish community better than the Israel lobby who represent the views of the Neo Cons who patteeu and Donger support. Lets hope the days of wine and roses are over for these belligerent arrogant folks.

patteeu
11-18-2009, 03:44 PM
Expand theirs beyond what would be a peaceful two-state solution, yes. The same exact restriction would apply to the Palestinians.

Why is that so hard to understand? Why is preventing a really dumb, pointless, confrontational action always equated with believing Israel should surrender, along with a laundry list of the dumb things Palestinians have also done to restrict peace?

Let's keep it basic: this was a really bad move by Israel, and it will impede peace. It may be justified (it's not), it may be legal (questionable), but in the end, Israel knows it should cede east Jerusalem for a chance at a peaceful two-state solution. This is a gigantic roadblock.

You're getting the cart before the horse here. A two state solution is something that has to be negotiated, not a starting point. The Israelis tried to agree to a two state solution that was very generous to the palestinians in the 1990's but it was rejected.

patteeu
11-18-2009, 03:46 PM
Israel does not own the the West Bank.

Israel doesn't even have a right to exist, do they BEP?

Direckshun
11-18-2009, 03:51 PM
You're getting the cart before the horse here. A two state solution is something that has to be negotiated, not a starting point.

A two state solution is the goal. Palestinians, whatever their actions, want it. Israelis, whatever their actions, want it. Both sides tentatively agree (and have received bipartisan agreement in the United States) that this is what we want. Both sides also largely understand that Palestine will want to use east Jerusalem as their capital, as it is a very important holy city to them as well.

Jewish settlements in east Jerusalem are absolutely pointless when both sides agree as to what they're going to want to do -- the only purpose they serve is to agitate and impede peace.

patteeu
11-18-2009, 04:05 PM
A two state solution is the goal. Palestinians, whatever their actions, want it. Israelis, whatever their actions, want it. Both sides tentatively agree (and have received bipartisan agreement in the United States) that this is what we want. Both sides also largely understand that Palestine will want to use east Jerusalem as their capital, as it is a very important holy city to them as well.

Jewish settlements in east Jerusalem are absolutely pointless when both sides agree as to what they're going to want to do -- the only purpose they serve is to agitate and impede peace.

The two sides haven't agreed yet. Not on the details at least. Israel has demonstrated a willingness to abandon settlements in some cases (see Gaza). If and when the palestinians make appropriate concessions (e.g. abandon the demand for a right of return), the Israelis may be willing to give up these settlements that you find so troublesome in return. Up until now, the "give" has all been on the Israeli side.

BucEyedPea
11-18-2009, 04:25 PM
Heel boy, heel.
Down boy, down.

BucEyedPea
11-18-2009, 04:25 PM
Israel doesn't even have a right to exist, do they BEP?

strawman

Oh, and you have some foam dripping down the left side of your mouth.

BucEyedPea
11-18-2009, 04:27 PM
The two sides haven't agreed yet. Not on the details at least. Israel has demonstrated a willingness to abandon settlements in some cases (see Gaza).

That was just a tactical move.

Donger
11-18-2009, 04:30 PM
It seems clear that the Palestinian supporters do not think that they should make any concessions. That's pretty amazing and monumentally stupid.

BucEyedPea
11-18-2009, 04:33 PM
I can only assume that your reluctance to be forthcoming means that you're embarrassed by your answer or fearful of the impression it will create. It's a shame TFG isn't here to swoon over your rejection of Israel's legitimacy.

I can only assume it's your inability to read an earlier post in this thread and many other earlier posts that stated the same. Or it's selective perception to mock up strawman to whip yourself into a warlike frenzy over to satisfy some emotional need to be antagonistic so you can argue for the sake of it. There's been no lack of forthcoming by me. Your putting it there is a delusion.

Jenson71
11-18-2009, 04:41 PM
It seems clear that the Palestinian supporters do not think that they should make any concessions. That's pretty amazing and monumentally stupid.

What more is there for the Palestinians to concede?

Donger
11-18-2009, 04:43 PM
What more is there for the Palestinians to concede?

How about acknowledging Israel's right to exist? How'd that be for a good start?

Jenson71
11-18-2009, 04:46 PM
How about acknowledging Israel's right to exist? How'd that be for a good start?

I agree

Arafat > Hamas

What else?

stevieray
11-18-2009, 04:49 PM
Israel doesn't even have a right to exist, do they BEP?
It's interesting that this question is even being asked...

Donger
11-18-2009, 04:50 PM
I agree

Arafat > Hamas

What else?

Nothing else until that is accomplished. How can you have peace when you don't even recognize the other side? It makes people like Direckshun feel good to talk about peace this and peace that, but you have to have some basic acknowledgments in place before that can even begin to happen.

Direckshun
11-18-2009, 04:57 PM
The two sides haven't agreed yet. Not on the details at least. Israel has demonstrated a willingness to abandon settlements in some cases (see Gaza). If and when the palestinians make appropriate concessions (e.g. abandon the demand for a right of return), the Israelis may be willing to give up these settlements that you find so troublesome in return. Up until now, the "give" has all been on the Israeli side.

I think this is a reasonable take. But you can't do bad things and demand something in return for not doing them anymore. That's not bargaining, that's ransom.

It is telling that you will not even admit that these settlements impede progress towards peace, or even more basic, that this was a gigantic dick move by Israel. The country really is infallible to neoconservatives.

Jenson71
11-18-2009, 04:58 PM
Nothing else until that is accomplished. How can you have peace when you don't even recognize the other side? It makes people like Direckshun feel good to talk about peace this and peace that, but you have to have some basic acknowledgments in place before that can even begin to happen.

It was accomplished and still nothing helped. Israel backed down from any talks as soon as a skirmish flew up, using that as an excuse.

Donger
11-18-2009, 05:05 PM
It was accomplished and still nothing helped. Israel backed down from any talks as soon as a skirmish flew up, using that as an excuse.

It wasn't accomplished. Didn't Hamas and a few other groups reject it?

Jenson71
11-18-2009, 05:11 PM
It wasn't accomplished. Didn't Hamas and a few other groups reject it?

That was accomplished before and during Oslo. A lot of Palestinians were pissed off about it. But their leaders conceded. The only thing Israel did was smile, shake hands, and wait til one or some of those pissed off Palestinians were going to blow up a bus. And then -- there's our chance! See, you're the bad guys! We can just take more land from you, thanks.

irishjayhawk
11-18-2009, 05:15 PM
I though that this thread is an apropos place to post this. Here's the reaction of the "Palestinians" to 9/11:

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/mV_eN4YEEI0&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/mV_eN4YEEI0&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Yes, by all means, let's support these people getting a state.

I guess I'll ignore the tidbit about how the US funds Israel's military and operations. So, there's no justified reason for being happy for your enemy's backer to be attacked. It's like if Russia was bankrolling Canada to attack us for 40 years. Then one day Russia got attacked by Belgium and US citizens were cheering that they got "what was coming to them" or "their due".




I just don't understand the whole "let's defend Israel at every turn". I could careless if they ever get peace mostly because it's pretty much unattainable. But I don't see why the US needs to back one side over the other. Why not pull out and then let them defend themselves. It's not our dispute.

Donger
11-18-2009, 05:15 PM
That was accomplished before and during Oslo. A lot of Palestinians were pissed off about it. But their leaders conceded. The only thing Israel did was smile, shake hands, and wait til one or some of those pissed off Palestinians were going to blow up a bus. And then -- there's our chance! See, you're the bad guys! We can just take more land from you, thanks.

I thought that the Knesset voted in favor of the resolution. Is that incorrect?

And, what do you think Israel should have done when pissed of Palestinians were killing Israelis? Keep pressing forward with peace while Palestinians are doing that?

Donger
11-18-2009, 05:17 PM
I guess I'll ignore the tidbit about how the US funds Israel's military and operations. So, there's no justified reason for being happy for your enemy's backer to be attacked. It's like if Russia was bankrolling Canada to attack us for 40 years. Then one day Russia got attacked by Belgium and US citizens were cheering that they got "what was coming to them" or "their due".




I just don't understand the whole "let's defend Israel at every turn". I could careless if they ever get peace mostly because it's pretty much unattainable. But I don't see why the US needs to back one side over the other. Why not pull out and then let them defend themselves. It's not our dispute.

Oh, sure, the Palestinians have a right to not like us and, clearly, vice versa. I just find the hand-wringing by people like Direckshun amusing. He wants to help them, and apparently find them celebrating the deaths of thousand of Americans acceptable.

irishjayhawk
11-18-2009, 05:18 PM
Oh, sure, the Palestinians have a right to not like us and, clearly, vice versa.

I just don't see how reacting to 9/11 means they shouldn't have their own state. Nor why their hatred of the US would be unjustified.

Donger
11-18-2009, 05:21 PM
I just don't see how reacting to 9/11 means they shouldn't have their own state. Nor why their hatred of the US would be unjustified.

I added.

They already do have their own state, of course.

Jenson71
11-18-2009, 05:23 PM
I thought that the Knesset voted in favor of the resolution. Is that incorrect?

No, as far as I know, both sides agreed to the resolutions and Accords all throughout the 1990s. But agreeing isn't as hard as keeping the agreement. And Israel has never shown any determination to do that. They just wait for some extremist to go off.

And, what do you think Israel should have done when pissed of Palestinians were killing Israelis? Keep pressing forward with peace while Palestinians are doing that?

Absolutely. If they seriously want peace, then extremists are not going to deter future peace prospects. Yes, they keep pressing forward. At the very least, they don't keep grabbing more land.

patteeu
11-18-2009, 05:26 PM
What more is there for the Palestinians to concede?

One of the biggest obstacles to peace, is the palestinian insistence on a right of return. That is, the right of decendents of palestinians who once owned property in pre-1967 Israel territory to return and reclaim the land or some equivalent. To grant that is for Israel to commit national suicide through demographics, not to mention the fact that current Israelis would have to give up property they now own.

Jenson71
11-18-2009, 05:28 PM
I added.

They already do have their own state, of course.

Then we should recognize it.

patteeu
11-18-2009, 05:29 PM
That was accomplished before and during Oslo. A lot of Palestinians were pissed off about it. But their leaders conceded. The only thing Israel did was smile, shake hands, and wait til one or some of those pissed off Palestinians were going to blow up a bus. And then -- there's our chance! See, you're the bad guys! We can just take more land from you, thanks.

Please. The Oslo agreement was torpedoed by Yasser Arafat, not by some lone palestinian radical or an Israeli response to him. Yasser Arafat was behind the intifada.

Jenson71
11-18-2009, 05:30 PM
One of the biggest obstacles to peace, is the palestinian insistence on a right of return. That is, the right of decendents of palestinians who once owned property in pre-1967 Israel territory to return and reclaim the land or some equivalent. To grant that is for Israel to commit national suicide through demographics, not to mention the fact that current Israelis would have to give up property they now own.

Israel should have to pay reparations. Palestinians, imo, should accept that to move the process forward.

Donger
11-18-2009, 05:31 PM
No, as far as I know, both sides agreed to the resolutions and Accords all throughout the 1990s. But agreeing isn't as hard as keeping the agreement. And Israel has never shown any determination to do that. They just wait for some extremist to go off.



Absolutely. If they seriously want peace, then extremists are not going to deter future peace prospects. Yes, they keep pressing forward. At the very least, they don't keep grabbing more land.

Well, perhaps extremist Palestinians should have stopped. You seem to place all the blame at the feet of the Israelis.

Donger
11-18-2009, 05:32 PM
Then we should recognize it.

Sure, as soon as they acknowledge Israel's right to exist.

stevieray
11-18-2009, 05:32 PM
Please. The Oslo agreement was torpedoed by Yasser Arafat, not by some lone palestinian radical or an Israeli response to him. Yasser Arafat was behind the intifada.
..anything negative from the Palestinians will be marginialized, meanwhile, this action will be demonized.

Jenson71
11-18-2009, 05:39 PM
Well, perhaps extremist Palestinians should have stopped. You seem to place all the blame at the feet of the Israelis.

The whole history of the conflict is one of should haves. Israel is in the drivers position. They can rely on should haves to excuse their actions, or they can work for peace.

Jenson71
11-18-2009, 05:40 PM
Sure, as soon as they acknowledge Israel's right to exist.

Recognize them now.

Donger
11-18-2009, 05:41 PM
The whole history of the conflict is one of should haves. Israel is in the drivers position. They can rely on should haves to excuse their actions, or they can work for peace.

Yeah, and when Palestinians continue to elect terrorists like Hamas to re[resent them? The onus is still on Israel?

Donger
11-18-2009, 05:42 PM
Recognize them now.

You think that Hamas should recognize Israel's right to exist?

Jenson71
11-18-2009, 06:07 PM
Yeah, and when Palestinians continue to elect terrorists like Hamas to re[resent them? The onus is still on Israel?

Yeah. The onus is on both.

You think that Hamas should recognize Israel's right to exist?

Yeah. And we should recognize Palestine and Hamas.

Donger
11-18-2009, 06:08 PM
Yeah. The onus is on both.



Yeah. And we should recognize Palestine and Hamas.

We have recognized Hamas. As a terrorist organization.

Jenson71
11-18-2009, 06:12 PM
We have recognized Hamas. As a terrorist organization.

Recognize them as the unfortunately legitimate representatives of the Palestinian people.

patteeu
11-18-2009, 06:14 PM
The whole history of the conflict is one of should haves. Israel is in the drivers position. They can rely on should haves to excuse their actions, or they can work for peace.

No, the palestinians are in the drivers position. Israel handed them the keys and they proceeded to drive the peace process into the ditch.

Donger
11-18-2009, 06:14 PM
Recognize them as the unfortunately legitimate representatives of the Palestinian people.

Tell me: why should we recognize such a people who would elect terrorists to represent them in the first place? For most people, that's a pretty good clue that that "state" isn't ready for or capable of peace.

patteeu
11-18-2009, 06:15 PM
Recognize them as the unfortunately legitimate representatives of the Palestinian people.

We recognized Fatah as the legitimate representatives of the palestinians and that didn't do any good. Why would recognition of Hamas do anything other than provide validation for Hamas' anti-peace activities?

Jenson71
11-18-2009, 06:19 PM
Tell me: why should we recognize such a people who would elect terrorists to represent them in the first place? For most people, that's a pretty good clue that that "state" isn't ready for or capable of peace.

Because they also elect Fatah. We shouldn't be non-recognized just because we elected George W. Bush.

Donger
11-18-2009, 06:21 PM
Because they also elect Fatah. We shouldn't be non-recognized just because we elected George W. Bush.

You are attempting to equate Hamas and George Bush?

Jenson71
11-18-2009, 06:22 PM
We recognized Fatah as the legitimate representatives of the palestinians and that didn't do any good. Why would recognition of Hamas do anything other than provide validation for Hamas' anti-peace activities?

What do you mean it didn't do any good?

Jenson71
11-18-2009, 06:23 PM
You are attempting to equate Hamas and George Bush?

It appears they have some similarities.

Donger
11-18-2009, 06:23 PM
It appears they have some similarities.

Shame, I was actually enjoying our discussion.

Jenson71
11-18-2009, 06:26 PM
Shame, I was actually enjoying our discussion.

They're both elected representatives. They're both extremists. They're both polarizing. Hitler was the leader of Germany, Bush was the leader of the United States, and Hamas was the leading party of the Palestinians and control Gaza. Let's accept reality and deal with it.

patteeu
11-18-2009, 06:28 PM
What do you mean it didn't do any good?

Fatah wasn't able to (or perhaps willing to) deliver in terms of being an effective partner for peace. Hamas doesn't even want peace.

patteeu
11-18-2009, 06:29 PM
They're both elected representatives. They're both extremists. They're both polarizing. Hitler was the leader of Germany, Bush was the leader of the United States, and Hamas was the leading party of the Palestinians and control Gaza. Let's accept reality and deal with it.

:rolleyes:

Donger
11-18-2009, 06:34 PM
They're both elected representatives. They're both extremists. They're both polarizing. Hitler was the leader of Germany, Bush was the leader of the United States, and Hamas was the leading party of the Palestinians and control Gaza. Let's accept reality and deal with it.

That's simply idiotic. They're all human, too, right?

Jenson71
11-18-2009, 06:35 PM
Fatah wasn't able to (or perhaps willing to) deliver in terms of being an effective partner for peace. Hamas doesn't even want peace.

Neither was Israel not able to (or perhaps willing to) deliver in terms of being an effective partner for peace!

Jenson71
11-18-2009, 06:37 PM
That's simply idiotic. They're all human, too, right?

I didn't say Bush was as bad as Hamas. That was you putting that on me. The main similarity is that they are the elected representatives of the people, and we should deal with that, just like other states should deal with our representatives, even if they don't like them. For good reason, people didn't like Bush. But we weren't kicked out of the UN for it.

Donger
11-18-2009, 06:38 PM
Neither was Israel not able to (or perhaps willing to) deliver in terms of being an effective partner for peace!

Did you look up whether or not the Knesset voted to accept Oslo?

Jenson71
11-18-2009, 06:40 PM
Did you look up whether or not the Knesset voted to accept Oslo?

Is that your measurement for whether Israel is delivering?

Donger
11-18-2009, 06:40 PM
I didn't say Bush was as bad as Hamas. That was you putting that on me. The main similarity is that they are the elected representatives of the people, and we should deal with that, just like other states should deal with our representatives, even if they don't like them. For good reason, people didn't like Bush. But we weren't kicked out of the UN for it.

Yeah, I get it. Peace at any price.

Donger
11-18-2009, 06:41 PM
Is that your measurement for whether Israel is delivering?

No. It's my measure of the Israeli people versus the Palestinian people.

So, did you look it up? If so, what did you learn?

Jenson71
11-18-2009, 06:44 PM
No. It's my measure of the Israeli people versus the Palestinian people.

So, did you look it up? If so, what did you learn?

I didn't. As I said, I think each side was in favor of the Oslo accords. What can you teach me?

BucEyedPea
11-18-2009, 06:46 PM
Both sides had people against the Oslo Accords. Pluhease!

Donger
11-18-2009, 06:50 PM
I didn't. As I said, I think each side was in favor of the Oslo accords. What can you teach me?

The Knesset approved the accords.

Donger
11-18-2009, 06:53 PM
Both sides had people against the Oslo Accords. Pluhease!

Yes, but Israel actually passed. I seem to recall that they even stopped all new settlements, until those wacky Palestinians started blowing themselves (and innocent Israelis) up.

Jenson71
11-18-2009, 06:54 PM
The Knesset approved the accords.

Okay, now what?

Donger
11-18-2009, 06:56 PM
Okay, now what?

I'm merely pointing out that Israel agreed to and passed the declarations. The Palestinians did not.

Jenson71
11-18-2009, 07:00 PM
I'm merely pointing out that Israel agreed to and passed the declarations. The Palestinians did not.

Arafat and Fatah agreed to the Oslo Accord as well.

mlyonsd
11-18-2009, 07:03 PM
Been away from the news all day.

Can someone give me the cliff notes on how this is Bush's fault? Oh wait, I remember now he ignored the Palestinian/Isreali conflict so long Obama just inherited another one of his problems.

Carry on.

Donger
11-18-2009, 07:06 PM
Arafat and Fatah agreed to the Oslo Accord as well.

I see. So, Hamas did not, right? And then, a few years later, the Palestinians decided to have Hamas represent them.

Doesn't sound like the Palestinian people nor their elected representatives are serious about peace with Israel, unless of course that peace is achieved by the dissolution of the Jewish state.

Jenson71
11-18-2009, 07:18 PM
I see. So, Hamas did not, right? And then, a few years later, the Palestinians decided to have Hamas represent them.

Yeah. All correct.

Doesn't sound like the Palestinian people nor their elected representatives are serious about peace with Israel, unless of course that peace is achieved by the dissolution of the Jewish state.

Fatah is still a representative of the Palestinian people, and they are serious about peace with Israel. Some of them want the dissolution of the Jewish state, just like I'm sure some Jewish people want to see the dissolution of Palestinians in Gaza and West Bank.

I would expect after so many years of having nothing but still being expected to make concessions! make concessions! you're going to have some backlash. You're going to have a more militant people go "WHAT THE **** CONCESSIONS COULD YOU POSSIBLY WANT?!" If China took over this country, I wouldn't be in a rush to give concessions! give concessions! especially when we're stateless and have nothing. Can you imagine China speaking "I'll be nice to you if you say something nice to me" Why? Why the fuck would I believe you?

You see that in almost every long term conflict, whether it be Civil Rights in the US (Malcolm X) or the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. Just because Malcolm X was more militant doesn't mean we abandon the goal of Civil Rights until someone finally kills him or every single one of his followers have left. It means you better start becoming closer friends with King Jr.

BucEyedPea
11-18-2009, 07:32 PM
Yes, but Israel actually passed. I seem to recall that they even stopped all new settlements, until those wacky Palestinians started blowing themselves (and innocent Israelis) up.

Not quite the whole story Donger.

Both sides signed it officially in Washington DC On Sept 13, 1993. Abbas signed for the PLO and Peres for Israel with a 61 Knesset members voting for the decision and 50 voting against with 8 abstained. The left supported it but not the right. Fatah supported it but Hamas didn't. So it did not enjoy homogenous support on both sides.
Expansion of the settlements led to more loss of support too.

Sorry, but both sides have their pigheaded wings. Neither side is completely innocent.


http://en.allexperts.com/e/o/os/oslo_accords.htm

Donger
11-18-2009, 07:34 PM
Yeah. All correct.



Fatah is still a representative of the Palestinian people, and they are serious about peace with Israel. Some of them want the dissolution of the Jewish state, just like I'm sure some Jewish people want to see the dissolution of Palestinians in Gaza and West Bank.

I would expect after so many years of having nothing but still being expected to make concessions! make concessions! you're going to have some backlash. You're going to have a more militant people go "WHAT THE **** CONCESSIONS COULD YOU POSSIBLY WANT?!" If China took over this country, I wouldn't be in a rush to give concessions! give concessions! especially when we're stateless and have nothing. Can you imagine China speaking "I'll be nice to you if you say something nice to me" Why? Why the **** would I believe you?

You see that in almost every long term conflict, whether it be Civil Rights in the US (Malcolm X) or the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. Just because Malcolm X was more militant doesn't mean we abandon the goal of Civil Rights until someone finally kills him or every single one of his followers have left. It means you better start becoming closer friends with King Jr.

Hasn't Israel given back substantial territory in the past when enemy states show real desire to recognize them, their right to exist and cessation of hostility?

Jenson71
11-18-2009, 07:49 PM
Hasn't Israel given back substantial territory in the past when enemy states show real desire to recognize them, their right to exist and cessation of hostility?

Like what?

Donger
11-18-2009, 07:57 PM
Like what?

I seem to remember Israel having control of the entire Sinai and the west bank of the Nile after those naughty Egyptians attacked in 1973. Last I checked, Israel doesn't occupy the Sinai nor the west bank of the Nile now.

patteeu
11-18-2009, 08:06 PM
Neither was Israel not able to (or perhaps willing to) deliver in terms of being an effective partner for peace!

Don't be absurd. Israel bent over backward and the palestinians walked away, grabbed a rock (or in some cases a rocket launcher or a suicide vest), and threw it.

Donger
11-18-2009, 08:11 PM
Don't be absurd. Israel bent over backward and the palestinians walked away, grabbed a rock (or in some cases a rocket launcher or a suicide vest), and threw it.

Honestly, I hope that Jenson is being intentionally obtuse. I was under the impression that he was a serious student of history.

googlegoogle
11-18-2009, 09:44 PM
Actually the hard core religious Jews(the hasidic's) would like nothing better than to blow up the mosque on the temple mount and rebuild the jewish temple because that means the messiah has come to save us. Some religious christians here in the USA also support this because they think it means Jesus Christ will return.

I believe the mosque should be removed and the historic temple should be rebuilt.

I also think the settlements need to stop.

We are accomplices.

Jenson71
11-19-2009, 12:42 AM
Don't be absurd. Israel bent over backward and the palestinians walked away, grabbed a rock (or in some cases a rocket launcher or a suicide vest), and threw it.

It'd be nice to have a superpower backed state supporting your ideas, that way you don't need to resort to rocks and suicides. But alas, the Palestinians have little but rocks, vests, and garage rockets.

Israel bent over backward? Not really. I mean, they did what looked nice and everything, at least until that rock flew!

Jenson71
11-19-2009, 12:55 AM
I seem to remember Israel having control of the entire Sinai and the west bank of the Nile after those naughty Egyptians attacked in 1973. Last I checked, Israel doesn't occupy the Sinai nor the west bank of the Nile now.

Yeah, you know, Carter doesn't get enough credit for what he did there. We made that peace. It wasn't Israel. And Israel hated giving up the Sinai. If that's a sign of their graciousness, then it explains everything.

stevieray
11-19-2009, 01:59 AM
I believe the mosque should be removed and the historic temple should be rebuilt.

I also think the settlements need to stop.

We are accomplices.
...both of you are going down ar abbit hole...The Temple will be rebuilt side by side with the Dome of the Rock.

BigRedChief
11-19-2009, 07:24 AM
...both of you are going down ar abbit hole...The Temple will be rebuilt side by side with the Dome of the Rock.There is a growing list of respectable scientific people that say the temple mount wasn't exactly where the dome of the rock is now but where there are some trees now. They are for their own various reasons stating that we could rebuild the temple, hasten the return of the messiah and not cause WWIII.

Over on the lefthnd side of this picture.
http://lonelymanofcake.files.wordpress.com/2007/02/temple-mountpdf2007_02_08_17_13_19.jpg

BucEyedPea
11-19-2009, 07:51 AM
There is a growing list of respectable scientific people that say the temple mount wasn't exactly where the dome of the rock is now but where there are some trees now. They are for their own various reasons stating that we could rebuild the temple, hasten the return of the messiah and not cause WWIII.


May I ask who is "we" in your post?

BigRedChief
11-19-2009, 07:56 AM
May I ask who is "we" in your post?The people who believe that. I'm not one of them if thats your real question.

Any attempt to remove anything muslim or add anything Jewish or christian will result in a war with a billion muslims.

BucEyedPea
11-19-2009, 08:07 AM
The people who believe that. I'm not one of them if thats your real question.
I was just wondering if you were an Israeli or Jewish because you also lived on a kibbutz there. Only cause you said "we could rebuild."

Any attempt to remove anything muslim or add anything Jewish or christian will result in a war with a billion muslims.
You bet!