NationStates Jolt Archive

as you may know (if you give a damn about the middle east) in less than 35 hours israel will give the setllers in gaza strip 48 hours period to leave peacefully or endangre themselves in evacuation by force. the act supposed to end between 20 to 30 days after it start, and then the palastinians will get free area for country (including seaport, free movement between the west bank and the strip, border with eygpt, industrial area and the setllers past-glasshouses).

however, there are still many questions without answers and everybody had is on truth:
did sharon changed or was afraid from trial?
was the plan gift for the palastinians or distraction from the occuping of west bank?
will gaza strip become the start of palastinian country or terror-state?
is it historical moment or israeli internal issue?

PS- I hope this subject didn't debated to death already, but I almost wasn't here so forgive me if I wrong.

is it historical moment or israeli internal issue?

If this marks the beginning of peace between Israel and Palestine, then yes. But, if it's like a thousand other acts in the past and falls apart in six months, then no.

What I'd like to know is how the settlers are being compensated for having to uproot like this.

Not to be treading on anyone's shoes, but I find it praiseworthy that the settlements (which are illegal) are being disbanded. I think that the same needs to be done with the settlements in the West Bank, but I can understand that doing that immediatly after vacating the Gaza strip would be impossible to get done.

What I'd like to know is how the settlers are being compensated for having to uproot like this.they will get houses on worthy area with many benefits and great damages money (some claim it is double than the appropriate amount). the goverment gave them almost everything, although they hardly satisfied.

they will get houses on worthy area with many benefits and great damages money (some claim it is double than the appropriate amount). the goverment gave them almost everything, although they hardly satisfied.

Well that is to be expected. Money cannot buy the sense of satisfaction of building your own town and developing your own land. They are not just losing their physical property, they are losing all the time that they invested in the area that they are now being expelled from.

Well that is to be expected. Money cannot buy the sense of satisfaction of building your own town and developing your own land. They are not just losing their physical property, they are losing all the time that they invested in the area that they are now being expelled from.
true, but they expelled for good reasons.

israel will give the setllers in gaza strip 48 hours period to leave
At last! It should have been done, like, two centuries ago :D !

If this marks the beginning of peace between Israel and Palestine, then yes. But, if it's like a thousand other acts in the past and falls apart in six months, then no.

What I'd like to know is how the settlers are being compensated for having to uproot like this.

Illegal settlers in a what is supposed to be sovereign foreign land have no right to be compensated.

I think the idiots who are organizing marches to Gaza to preserve an illegal presence should go drown in the sea. I'm sure someone's going to mention the Palestinian suicide bombers. But that isn't the topic.

It is good start, but nothing more.

I hope all goes well but nothing has gone well in that area in 60 years.

Who will decide which Palestinians will get the vacated housing?

I will pray for a peaceful transition.

I think this has little to do with peace or striving for a peaceful solution. You know, when all the Israeli's are gone, and Gaza is 100% Palenstinian territory and the shit hits the fan ie a civil war happens, what will Israel say? "See, they can't even government their own territory when they're all alone, so it's in their best interest that we own Gaza." Think about it.

Illegal settlers in a what is supposed to be sovereign foreign land have no right to be compensated.probably they were illegal by the universal law, but by the israeli law they are legal until few more days. their right for property is harmed by the pullout and that worth damages money and/or other place to live in at most of the democracies, just as people who the goverment take their property to build on a military base.

I think the idiots who are organizing marches to Gaza to preserve an illegal presence should go drown in the sea. I'm sure someone's going to mention the Palestinian suicide bombers. But that isn't the topic.they are just ideological people who see their ideology collapsed. although I disagree with them it sad a bit.
in the present situation they can't prevent the withraw to happen, and most of them wouldn't be violent. anyway they know that many of them will be jailed if they try to do something.

It is good start, but nothing more.

I hope all goes well but nothing has gone well in that area in 60 years.I know, but we must hope.

Who will decide which Palestinians will get the vacated housing?the houses will destroyed by the Israelis, will remove by the Palstinians, and will be gave to Egypt. the palastinians will build on the vacated area some industrial and agrictural areas, and many big buildings for the refugees.

Illegal settlers in a what is supposed to be sovereign foreign land have no right to be compensated.It's more that the state of Israel was doing wrong for not preventing (encouraging, actually) settlement of the occupied territories. I don't think Israel is doing wrong by compensating those it allowed to break international law. Doing a full 180° turn and blaming the settlements solely on the settlers and expecting them to make up for it out of their own pocket would be wrong in my eyes.

I think the idiots who are organizing marches to Gaza to preserve an illegal presence should go drown in the sea. I'm sure someone's going to mention the Palestinian suicide bombers. But that isn't the topic.
They're only voicing their opinion, which is what democracies should allow (and limit, when necessary). I think the people that are barricading themselves and preparing for a siege deserve to be dragged off by government forces and denied compensation, but not drowned in the sea...

I think this has little to do with peace or striving for a peaceful solution. You know, when all the Israeli's are gone, and Gaza is 100% Palenstinian territory and the shit hits the fan ie a civil war happens, what will Israel say? "See, they can't even government their own territory when they're all alone, so it's in their best interest that we own Gaza." Think about it.
for now, israel prefer the policy that will remove the responsibility for the gaza strip popoulace from us. therefore it more likely that if they get civil war, the israeli comment will be either "let them kill themselves", "it isn't our fault" or "it prove they can't manage country on 67's borders".
we really can't get much benefits by invading gaza strip, just after we withraw it.

Frankly, I don't see how Israelies who oppose the withdrawel can hope it will make things better. Israel has occupied Gaza for almost 40 years and in that time how many Israelies and Palisteneans have gotten killed?

The pull out is a risk. If it is not taken, things will go back to the way they were before Arafat died: soldiers and civilians dying with no end in site. However, if the pull out suceeds peace might finilly come. If it fails well, Israel can at least look at the international community that are always critizing it and say "We tried. We did everything we could, but it didn't work. Now you see why we kept Gaza for so long?"

I hope it works. Things can't get much worse.

What I'd like to know is how the settlers are being compensated for having to uproot like this.

Why should they be compensated? They have taken others land against the will of the original inhabitants and most of thier country men. If you ask me the settlers have a lot to answer for. They arent just pissing of the Palestians they are attacking fellow Israelis.

I fully support the withdrawal (forced or not) and hope that it allows the region some peace.

Frankly, I don't see how Israelies who oppose the withdrawel can hope it will make things better. Israel has occupied Gaza for almost 40 years and in that time how many Israelies and Palisteneans have gotten killed?
The pull out is a risk. If it is not taken, things will go back to the way they were before Arafat died: soldiers and civilians dying with no end in site. However, if the pull out suceeds peace might finilly come. If it fails well, Israel can at least look at the international community that are always critizing it and say "We tried. We did everything we could, but it didn't work. Now you see why we kept Gaza for so long?"as most of those who had religious reasons, fact and logic aren't convincing enough.
however, the reason you said is my main reason for the plan. if we stuck, we should try different directions.


I hope it works. Things can't get much worse.rule no. 1 in the middle east: "things always can get much worse".

Why should they be compensated? They have taken others land against the will of the original inhabitants and most of thier country men. If you ask me the settlers have a lot to answer for. They arent just pissing of the Palestians they are attacking fellow Israelis.at least at first they were at almost deserted area, encouraged by most of the israeli public and all the israeli goverments. the situation changed and now the goverment and most of the israelis want to withraw from gaza strip, but most of them aren't the one to blame.
most of them going to leave peacefully and never act violently on either fellow israelis or palastinians, but the minority damaged their view by the public.
I fully support the withdrawal (forced or not) and hope that it allows the region some peace.[/QUOTE]
me too.

When eventually the Israelis pull out of the West Bank, how will the two parts of New Palestine be connected? Or will it be like Germany and East Prussia after WWI?

When eventually the Israelis pull out of the West Bank, how will the two parts of New Palestine be connected? Or will it be like Germany and East Prussia after WWI?
You've got a point, but you can't expect Israel to split in two and secede a corridor right through it's territory to a nation who's policy is to exterminate the Jewish population and take over all of Israel. The only other option is to forcibly move all Gaza Palestinians to the west bank. That's not going to happen, so the Palestinian territories will remain geographically separated. If they learn to behave themselves then eventually Israel may allow free travel through it's territory for Palestinian citizens and products.

as most of those who had religious reasons, fact and logic aren't convincing enough.
however, the reason you said is my main reason for the plan. if we stuck, we should try different directions.".

Actully, if the religious Settlers used our logic, they would find Judaism would allow it.

"I have put before you life and death, blessing and curse. Choose life - if you and your offspring would live - by loving the Lord your God" (Deuteronomy 30:19). This is where the concept of pikuach nefesh, the preservation of life comes from. Pikuach nefesh overrides all Biblical commandments in order to save a life or lives. If withdrawing from Gaza would save lives, it is allowed even if it costs Jews a holy site. To me, it looks like withdrawing will save many lives and thus pikuach nefesh orders us to withdraw. However, if withdrawing will change nothing, we should stay until someone comes along who will change things for the better. The new Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas looks like that person.

I'm typing this reply right now in Israel (the northernmost Jewish settlement of Metulla to be exact) and the public of israel is split 50/50 on the issue. The people against are trying to rally everybody to their cause and a lot of cars have orange wrist bands around them as well as a lot of people are waring shirts that say that the plan in bad. I thought it was a good back drop to tell you how the israeli public is looking at it.

As to my opinions on the plan it is not that good because all we do is say hey terrorists have Gaza. Your terror tactics have been working maybe you can bomb us out of israel good job so far. What Israel should of done is said sure we'll go out of Gaza but there is no way we are giving up any West Bank settlements (like the one where my cousins live) and compromise with the world but instead it seems like they are just giving in to the Palestinians which can only be bad.

Also there is no "occupation" of Gaza or the West Bank. Israel legitimately won them in the Six Day War of 1967. Israel also has tried to give back both the West Bank and Gaza to the Egyptians and Jordanians and both countries have refused (in other words the Arab countries don't want them) so Israel becomes stuck with them. Finally Israel will never give the entire west bank to the palestinians because it would be much to little of a border for them to defend. (Pre 67 war they had about 5 miles in between the west bank and gaza).

I will give more clarifications along the way from this forum.

Actully, if the religious Settlers used our logic, they would find Judaism would allow it.

"I have put before you life and death, blessing and curse. Choose life - if you and your offspring would live - by loving the Lord your God" (Deuteronomy 30:19). This is where the concept of pikuach nefesh, the preservation of life comes from. Pikuach nefesh overrides all Biblical commandments in order to save a life or lives. If withdrawing from Gaza would save lives, it is allowed even if it costs Jews a holy site. To me, it looks like withdrawing will save many lives and thus pikuach nefesh orders us to withdraw. However, if withdrawing will change nothing, we should stay until someone comes along who will change things for the better. The new Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas looks like that person.

Hamas annouced today that the pullout will change nothing, that they will continue the armed conflict after Israel's pullout from the Gaza Strip. Big surprise to the appeasers I am sure. None what so ever to those who do nothing more than parrot the fools with "International Opinion" as their guiding light.

If this marks the beginning of peace between Israel and Palestine, then yes. But, if it's like a thousand other acts in the past and falls apart in six months, then no.

What I'd like to know is how the settlers are being compensated for having to uproot like this.

Listen to this no compensation what so ever for the settlers they get nice little trailers without plumbing or any other basic amenities. Isn't the Israeli government wonderful? the answer is of course no its horrible but I like israel to much to critisize the israeli government in black

Liverbreath']Hamas annouced today that the pullout will change nothing, that they will continue the armed conflict after Israel's pullout from the Gaza Strip. Big surprise to the appeasers I am sure. None what so ever to those who do nothing more than parrot the fools with "International Opinion" as their guiding light.
Yeah, but Hamas has representatives elected to Palestinian government offices. If the Palestinians form a state and Hamas continues terrorism, couldn't Israel declare war against Palestine and basically bomb them back to the stone age, invade their territory, and impose martial law with summary execution for any Palestinian who is caught with weapons or bombs and isn't in an official PA uniform? That might solve the problem once and for all.

Liverbreath']Hamas annouced today that the pullout will change nothing, that they will continue the armed conflict after Israel's pullout from the Gaza Strip. Big surprise to the appeasers I am sure. None what so ever to those who do nothing more than parrot the fools with "International Opinion" as their guiding light.

Hamas won't ever stop, thats a sad truth. But what about other Palestinian factions? If they give up on violence or try to stop Hamas, Israel will have less to worry about, especially if they help.

They are not just losing their physical property, they are losing all the time that they invested in the area that they are now being expelled from.
It was never their physical property to begin with. Tough taters.

Actully, if the religious Settlers used our logic, they would find Judaism would allow it.

"I have put before you life and death, blessing and curse. Choose life - if you and your offspring would live - by loving the Lord your God" (Deuteronomy 30:19). This is where the concept of pikuach nefesh, the preservation of life comes from. Pikuach nefesh overrides all Biblical commandments in order to save a life or lives. If withdrawing from Gaza would save lives, it is allowed even if it costs Jews a holy site. To me, it looks like withdrawing will save many lives and thus pikuach nefesh orders us to withdraw. However, if withdrawing will change nothing, we should stay until someone comes along who will change things for the better. The new Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas looks like that person.
as I said before religious people mostly can't be conviced by fact and logic, even if this logic include argument from their religion. that way they ignore the things in the holy book that don't get well with their ideology. for example, some hate arabs although "you should love your fellow as much as you love yourself" and "respect the gentile, because you was gentile in egypt". ignore the fact the abraham leave israel with is family because of the femine, in act of pikuah nefesh.

that what make the bible such great book: you can find there every thing and his opposite, and if you religious you can dissmiss the un-comfortable parts.

I'm typing this reply right now in Israel (the northernmost Jewish settlement of Metulla to be exact) and the public of israel is split 50/50 on the issue. The people against are trying to rally everybody to their cause and a lot of cars have orange wrist bands around them as well as a lot of people are waring shirts that say that the plan in bad. I thought it was a good back drop to tell you how the israeli public is looking at it.actually the surveys mostly split it to 58 for and 35 against, but the setllers had really good campaign with the orange wrists.
As to my opinions on the plan it is not that good because all we do is say hey terrorists have Gaza. Your terror tactics have been working maybe you can bomb us out of israel good job so far. What Israel should of done is said sure we'll go out of Gaza but there is no way we are giving up any West Bank settlements (like the one where my cousins live) and compromise with the world but instead it seems like they are just giving in to the Palestinians which can only be bad.unfortunally, we are going to withraw from most of the west bank. just as we said we will stay in Sinai, Lebanon and Gaza strip.
the problem of the setllers is they had no different plans, and they only oppose every plan of the left. in the end, we couldn't stay in the west bank without lose the jewish democratic state. the world wouldn't let us, and the terrorists neither. there nothing to do about it.
Also there is no "occupation" of Gaza or the West Bank. Israel legitimately won them in the Six Day War of 1967. Israel also has tried to give back both the West Bank and Gaza to the Egyptians and Jordanians and both countries have refused (in other words the Arab countries don't want them) so Israel becomes stuck with them.
and we must deal with this problem somehow, either by cive them israeli citizenship and lose the jewish identity, or by give them a country and lose the setllements.

Listen to this no compensation what so ever for the settlers they get nice little trailers without plumbing or any other basic amenities. Isn't the Israeli government wonderful? the answer is of course no its horrible but I like israel to much to critisize the israeli government in black
the goverment shouldn't babysit them on the first place. all they need to do is give the settlers nice amount of money, and let them find houses by their own.

Yeah, but Hamas has representatives elected to Palestinian government offices. If the Palestinians form a state and Hamas continues terrorism, couldn't Israel declare war against Palestine and basically bomb them back to the stone age, invade their territory, and impose martial law with summary execution for any Palestinian who is caught with weapons or bombs and isn't in an official PA uniform? That might solve the problem once and for all.I think we firstly blame the palastinians, egypt and the UN for let it happen. probably we made some little mission against the terrorists, and use the terror as reason for stuck the nagotations.
I doubt we start war with the palastinians and take over again gaza strip, because it will bring us back to worse situation.

It was never their physical property to begin with. Tough taters.
you can argue about the land if you want, but the houses and the glasshouses are fully their physical property (although the goverments help them to build it).

I think we firstly blame the palastinians, egypt and the UN for let it happen. probably we made some little mission against the terrorists, and use the terror as reason for stuck the nagotations.
I doubt we start war with the palastinians and take over again gaza strip, because it will bring us back to worse situation.
Maybe, maybe not. After the brutal bombing of Germany and Japan in WWII, and the ground invasion of Germany the people of those two countries lost all will to fight. The allies didn't face an insurgency in Germany, the Americans didn't face an insurgency in Japan. Maybe if you really hit the Palestinians hard you can make their people see that their continued existance isn't ensured by terrorism, but by peace.

I think Hamas should disarm within a month. If they don't, maybe 3 Palestinians should be beheaded every day they don't disarm.

At last! It should have been done, like, two centuries ago :D !
...

you can argue about the land if you want, but the houses and the glasshouses are fully their physical property (although the goverments help them to build it).
Which have no more legal standing then a shack built in the middle of times square.

I agree with the pullout. I know that many unfortunate sacrifices must be made, but it's wrong that a few thousand settlers should have 20% of Gaza's land, when the rest of the strip has 4300 people per km2.

Why should they be compensated?
Many of them only settled in the Gaza Strip because that was the only option given to them by the government.

You've got a point, but you can't expect Israel to split in two and secede a corridor right through it's territory to a nation who's policy is to exterminate the Jewish population and take over all of Israel. The only other option is to forcibly move all Gaza Palestinians to the west bank. That's not going to happen, so the Palestinian territories will remain geographically separated. If they learn to behave themselves then eventually Israel may allow free travel through it's territory for Palestinian citizens and products.

Well, Yasser Arafat certainly wanted what he called "kissing points" when the process was moving quite quickly in the '90s. Couldn't they make a quite large U.N. zone between the 2 pieces of land?

Well, Yasser Arafat certainly wanted what he called "kissing points" when the process was moving quite quickly in the '90s. Couldn't they make a quite large U.N. zone between the 2 pieces of land?
UN zone? What do you mean?

UN zone? What do you mean?
A DMZ, patroled by a multinational blue helmet force.

Maybe, maybe not. After the brutal bombing of Germany and Japan in WWII, and the ground invasion of Germany the people of those two countries lost all will to fight. The allies didn't face an insurgency in Germany, the Americans didn't face an insurgency in Japan. Maybe if you really hit the Palestinians hard you can make their people see that their continued existance isn't ensured by terrorism, but by peace.

Hit the Palestinians hard??? That's outrageous. Peaceful protests tend to work better if they have always been so; the Arabs and Israelis have been shooting eachother since the creation of the state so...

A DMZ, patroled by a multinational blue helmet force.
Why would Israel want to allow the UN to control part of it's territory? What happens when a bunch of terrorists get throgh UN patrols and blow up a few score Israelis? Would the UN allow Israel to close the area to Palestinian traffic or would the UN "peacekeepers" end up fighting Israel to keep the area open?

I don't think that plan will work.

A DMZ, patroled by a multinational blue helmet force.

Like they were suggesting for Jerusalem.

Why would Israel want to allow the UN to control part of it's territory? What happens when a bunch of terrorists get throgh UN patrols and blow up a few score Israelis? Would the UN allow Israel to close the area to Palestinian traffic or would the UN "peacekeepers" end up fighting Israel to keep the area open?

I don't think that plan will work.

Maybe if the U.S. stopped screwing up what the every other country in the U.N. has agreed on, maybe Israël would be forced to comply.

Hit the Palestinians hard??? That's outrageous. Peaceful protests tend to work better if they have always been so; the Arabs and Israelis have been shooting eachother since the creation of the state so...
How do you make a peacefull protest work against someone who wants your people exterminated? Sometimes war is the answer, and in those times you can't try to do it half-assed or you end up with insurgencies like in Iraq or in the Israel/Palestine situation.

Anyway, I'm just discussing the idea. I'm not sure it's the right course of action, and I'm certainly in no position to implement it.

If the other countries thought this was a good idea aswell*

Maybe if the U.S. stopped screwing up what the every other country in the U.N. has agreed on, maybe Israël would be forced to comply.
The UN is rigged against Israel and is being used by Arab states to try to bring about Israel's destruction. Many European nations go along with the Arabs because they uses Arab oil, sells products in Arab markets, and want to keep their Arab and N. African immigrant population happy.

How do you make a peacefull protest work against someone who wants your people exterminated? Sometimes war is the answer, and in those times you can't try to do it half-assed or you end up with insurgencies like in Iraq or in the Israel/Palestine situation.

Anyway, I'm just discussing the idea. I'm not sure it's the right course of action, and I'm certainly in no position to implement it.

I'm sorry, what poll exactly discovered that all Palestinians want to exterminate the Israeli people? Certainly they think that the Israelis should get the hell out of Palestine - extermination? Only Americans have those sort of disgusting ideas.

One of the things I admire about the pullout is the innitiative to save the agricultural greenhouses for future use by Palestinians. Most of the houses themselves will be demolished for fear of a mad rush of movement, and/or only agressive Palestinian military factions taking control of them, but the greenhouses will be left so that production can carry on with new, Palestinian owners. Kudos to the settlers that are mature enough to leave their greenhouses up and functional for someone else.

To all those who are saying that "the land wasn't theirs in the first place" or "their arn't giving up anything they rightfully owned", you're quite wrong. These settlements were legal by Israeli law, and will be untill tomorrow. People were encouraged to establish communities and farms on these lands, (which were, by the way, legitimately captured in wars) and establish themselves. In my opinion, this was an unfortunate policy to begin with, but the settlers are not criminals to be blamed.

Anyway, here's to hoping that Israel's borders will be a little more rational, and that the former settler's lives will be a little less dangerous. To new beginings!

Why would Israel want to allow the UN to control part of it's territory? What happens when a bunch of terrorists get throgh UN patrols and blow up a few score Israelis? Would the UN allow Israel to close the area to Palestinian traffic or would the UN "peacekeepers" end up fighting Israel to keep the area open?

I don't think that plan will work.
I would put the line in the Gaza area, seperate from the boarders of the two countries...

The UN is rigged against Israel and is being used by Arab states to try to bring about Israel's destruction. Many European nations go along with the Arabs because they uses Arab oil, sells products in Arab markets, and want to keep their Arab and N. African immigrant population happy.

The U.N. created Israel, hardly rigged against it. Just happens that Israel has stabbed the U.N. in the back.

I'm sorry, what poll exactly discovered that all Palestinians want to exterminate the Israeli people? Certainly they think that the Israelis should get the hell out of Palestine - extermination? Only Americans have those sort of disgusting ideas.
Not all of them do, but Hamas and PIJ have stated that the destruction of Israel and Israelis is their goal. Many Palestinians have voted for Hamas in elections. They seem to support that genocidal organization.

One of the things I admire about the pullout is the innitiative to save the agricultural greenhouses for future use by Palestinians. Most of the houses themselves will be demolished for fear of a mad rush of movement, and/or only agressive Palestinian military factions taking control of them, but the greenhouses will be left so that production can carry on with new, Palestinian owners. Kudos to the settlers that are mature enough to leave their greenhouses up and functional for someone else.

To all those who are saying that "the land wasn't theirs in the first place" or "their arn't giving up anything they rightfully owned", you're quite wrong. These settlements were legal by Israeli law, and will be untill tomorrow. People were encouraged to establish communities and farms on these lands, (which were, by the way, legitimately captured in wars) and establish themselves. In my opinion, this was an unfortunate policy to begin with, but the settlers are not criminals to be blamed.

Anyway, here's to hoping that Israel's borders will be a little more rational, and that the former settler's lives will be a little less dangerous. To new beginings!
No they weren't. Settlement in occupied lands is illegal by international law, and more to the point, illegal by national law as well. Those settlements were illegal, and have been illegal, at least until the settlers bribed enough officials to present the Israeli government with a fiat accompli.

I would put the line in the Gaza area, seperate from the boarders of the two countries...

Couldn't you put some giant, raised highway, running between WB and Gaza?
The Palestinian terrorists would hardly blow that up...

The U.N. created Israel, hardly rigged against it. Just happens that Israel has stabbed the U.N. in the back.
The UN, since Israel's creation, and motivated by Arab states that seek to destroy Israel, has consistently tried to denounce Israel's efforts at self defense and anti-terrorism.

Not all of them do, but Hamas and PIJ have stated that the destruction of Israel and Israelis is their goal. Many Palestinians have voted for Hamas in elections. They seem to support that genocidal organization.

I very much doubt that when push came to shove, the Palestinians would start up another Holocaust and still dispute your logic.
If Hamas is the one which seems most likely to get them their country back, of course they'll vote for it.

The UN, since Israel's creation, and motivated by Arab states that seek to destroy Israel, has consistently tried to denounce Israel's efforts at self defense and anti-terrorism.
And any attempts to deal with the blatantly oppresive things that Israel has done has been blocked by the US. Claiming that the UN is some arab controlled boogyman while the US has veto power is just wrong.

No they weren't. Settlement in occupied lands is illegal by international law, and more to the point, illegal by national law as well. Those settlements were illegal, and have been illegal, at least until the settlers bribed enough officials to present the Israeli government with a fiat accompli.Um, no. Exuse me if I don't take your consopiracy thoery seriously.

Notwithstanding corruption that may or may not exist in a govenmental system, most settlements were created with the government's permission, and indeed, encouragement. To me, that spells (national) legality.

If you're looking for breeches of international laws, you don't need to look far to find it in any country.

Um, no. Exuse me if I don't take your consopiracy thoery seriously.

Notwithstanding corruption that may or may not exist in a govenmental system, most settlements were created with the government's permission, and indeed, encouragement. To me, that spells (national) legality.

If you're looking for breeches of international laws, you don't need to look far to find it in any country.
"But to avoid international criticism that settlement in occupied territory is illegal, it was often done in roundabout ways. Young zealots would start, for instance, by taking on construction work at an army base in the territories. At first they would commute. Then they would try to set up a camp. Often they would be thrown out, and try again. Eventually, thanks to a sympathetic or neglectful official, they would be allowed to stay “temporarily”. A generator would follow, then families, permanent homes—“facts on the ground”, in the phrase that has become a bitter national joke—and only then, official permission."

Economist, Aug 12 2005.

I very much doubt that when push came to shove, the Palestinians would start up another Holocaust and still dispute your logic.
If Hamas is the one which seems most likely to get them their country back, of course they'll vote for it.
Ok, I'm going to godwin this thread. Sorry.

Let's say that most Germans in the thirtys weren't willing to exterminate the Jews. Still, most of them supported the Nazis, who's official policy was the eradication of the Jews. When the Nazis took power, what did they do?

Hamas wants to destroy Israel and Israleis. Maybe most Palestinians don't want this, but if they vote Hamas into power what's Hamas going to try to do?

And any attempts to deal with the blatantly oppresive things that Israel has done has been blocked by the US. Claiming that the UN is some arab controlled boogyman while the US has veto power is just wrong.
Ok, I guess the truth lies somewhere in the middle. The UN isn't entirely Arab controlled when it comes to Israel. Only the nations who's initials aren't USA are Arab controlled. :D

Ok, I guess the truth lies somewhere in the middle. The UN isn't entirely Arab controlled when it comes to Israel. Only the nations who's initials aren't USA are Arab controlled. :D
Even if that's true, which it really isn't, it doesn't matter as the UN is thrown into deadlock because both sides have veto powers over the other.

Ok, I'm going to godwin this thread. Sorry.

Let's say that most Germans in the thirtys weren't willing to exterminate the Jews. Still, most of them supported the Nazis, who's official policy was the eradication of the Jews. When the Nazis took power, what did they do?

Hamas wants to destroy Israel and Israleis. Maybe most Palestinians don't want this, but if they vote Hamas into power what's Hamas going to try to do?

But the people the Palestinians vote into power don't actually hold any authority in Jewish occupied Palestine and it is doubtful Hamas would because fresh elections would almost certainly be called if an Arab state was created.

And I hardly think that if Hamas came into power in some new, much reduced Palestine, Israel would send all of its people there to be eradicated.

The Palestinians would hardly have a chance of invading U.S. and U.N. backed Israel.

I'm glad Israel is finally doing the right thing by giving the Palestinians part of their land back. Hopefully it will finally end the decades of violence that plagued the land because of the israeli's greed and the palestinian's anger.

This should have been done decades ago, here in Ireland we have been waiting for more than three quarters of a century to get our lands back in the North which Britain stole off us and I can understand the anger and frustration that the settlements caused for the Palestinians.

I'm glad Israel is finally doing the right thing by giving the Palestinians part of their land back. Hopefully it will finally end the decades of violence that plagued the land because of the israeli's greed and the palestinian's anger.

This should have been done decades ago, here in Ireland we have been waiting for more than three quarters of a century to get our lands back in the North which Britain stole off us and I can understand the anger and frustration that the settlements caused for the Palestinians.

Shut up whisky drinker, that there is our land.

You were revolting, so we sent in troops to control you, you're lucky you've got even the south.

The U.N. created Israel, hardly rigged against it. Just happens that Israel has stabbed the U.N. in the back.
Exactly when did Israel stab the U.N. in the back?

Also the U.N. is rigged against Israel there is no denying it. Israel is the only country who is a member of the U.N. that is not able to serve on the U.N.'s commities. It is also the only member which is not even a member of a region of countries. And most importantly the "U.N. Human Rights Commision" who's membership includes Sudan and a few other countries (not exactly sure who) who have a dubious record when it comes to human rights always comdemns Israel for some trying to protect itself from terrorists. So yes the U.N. is against Israel there can be no denying it.

Exactly when did Israel stab the U.N. in the back?

Also the U.N. is rigged against Israel there is no denying it. Israel is the only country who is a member of the U.N. that is not able to serve on the U.N.'s commities. It is also the only member which is not even a member of a region of countries. And most importantly the "U.N. Human Rights Commision" who's membership includes Sudan and a few other countries (not exactly sure who) who have a dubious record when it comes to human rights always comdemns Israel for some trying to protect itself from terrorists. So yes the U.N. is against Israel there can be no denying it.
You know it and I know it, but many nations try to spin the facts so their people won't realize that the Arab nations have blackmailed much of the world into abandoning Israel.

No they weren't. Settlement in occupied lands is illegal by international law, and more to the point, illegal by national law as well. Those settlements were illegal, and have been illegal, at least until the settlers bribed enough officials to present the Israeli government with a fiat accompli.

I'm not trying to hijack this forum but this might just do it.
How come if it is against international law to have settlements in occupied territories nobody is beating up on China for trying to get settlers into Tibet. Yet everybody beats up Israel for doing the exact same thing. Why the double standard by the world? Just another way the U.N. and the world is against Israel.

Let me see, stabbing U.N. in back...? Oh yeah, when they started building settlements contrary to international law in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank.

I'm not trying to hijack this forum but this might just do it.
How come if it is against international law to have settlements in occupied territories nobody is beating up on China for trying to get settlers into Tibet. Yet everybody beats up Israel for doing the exact same thing. Why the double standard by the world? Just another way the U.N. and the world is against Israel.

Maybe!!! Because if what China was doing, was actually contrary to international law, people would be shouting about it. I'm sure the stupid U.S. government would be calling for complete shutdown of all Chinese industry.

I'm not trying to hijack this forum but this might just do it.
How come if it is against international law to have settlements in occupied territories nobody is beating up on China for trying to get settlers into Tibet. Yet everybody beats up Israel for doing the exact same thing. Why the double standard by the world? Just another way the U.N. and the world is against Israel.
Who says I don't beat up the Chinese for trying that. I suppose the main difference is China has a veto in the UN, and is a superpower, while Israel has none of those advantages.

Maybe!!! Because if what China was doing, was actually contrary to international law, people would be shouting about it. I'm sure the stupid U.S. government would be calling for complete shutdown of all Chinese industry.
Tibet was a sovereign country before the Chinese invaded it. That's more than you can say for Palestine.

Tibet was a sovereign country before the Chinese invaded it. That's more than you can say for Palestine.

Tibet was a bloody opressed country before China invaded.

I still agree with both the free Tibet and free Palestine ideologies

you can argue about the land if you want, but the houses and the glasshouses are fully their physical property (although the goverments help them to build it).
It's the same reason I don't pay for renovations on my rented apartment. The apartment is mine so long as I'm living there and paying rent, but some day I'll move.

Why would I waste a whack o' cash installing a hot tub? I'm not stupid. What'd these people think, the Palestinians were going to go extinct or something? It was moronic to build settlements on someone elses' property.

Like I said before, tough taters. Suck it up, settlers.

well said

I think that there will be no peace in palestine till the state of israel no longer exists (this isn't an attack a the jews i'm in an organisation set up by a palistinian jew and i'm jewish enough to claim israeli citezenship)

Palestine was a protectarate of Britain before the attacks of israeli terroists and preasure from places such as america and also from groups within britain and its government forced our troops out.

now up till that point zionist settlements were limited in number by the british administration after this they just flooded in evicting the native palestinians from their homes in what can only be described as an orgy of violence

This was seen as preferable to a left wing western stable arab state

we all know the horrors of the wars with the surrounding arab countries who were trying to more or less annex the area for themselves

well things have not got much better

people I know have been shot

their homes have been buldosed with no warning

and this is just the tip of the iceburg

israel is a zionist state and to me zionism is as hurtfull to the world as the nazi's were

I'm not saying the palestinian authorities are shining stars but if you compare them to the israeli authorities they are

only when zionism is dead an buried will the people of this region be able to live in peace and I doubt it will be soon

What a refreshing opinion to hear from a Jew.

What a refreshing opinion to hear from a Jew.

That comment could be considered racist I guess. Not intended to be so.

That comment could be considered racist I guess. Not intended to be so.
Well, that's good. I try very hard to discuss Israel and not Judaism, personally. Anyway, further to what I was saying earlier, if this was some other pair of conflicted peoples - say, the British and the Irish - and British nationals were annexing Irish towns, bulldozing Irish homes, and building swank homes for themselves, I'd be all over 'em. So would most people.

This is why I try to make it abundantly clear that I'm talking about Israel, and not Jews. If you can't be clear in your statements, you can't be clearly understood, even though for all my attempts at clarity, I've been mistakenly labelled 'anti-semitic' by certain NSers on more than one occasion.

Well, that's good. I try very hard to discuss Israel and not Judaism, personally. Anyway, further to what I was saying earlier, if this was some other pair of conflicted peoples - say, the British and the Irish - and British nationals were annexing Irish towns, bulldozing Irish homes, and building swank homes for themselves, I'd be all over 'em. So would most people.

This is why I try to make it abundantly clear that I'm talking about Israel, and not Jews. If you can't be clear in your statements, you can't be clearly understood, even though for all my attempts at clarity, I've been mistakenly labelled 'anti-semitic' by certain NSers on more than one occasion.

It's difficult not to discuss them both. The Israeli flag bieng the Magen David intertwines them rather irrevocably.

It's difficult not to discuss them both. The Israeli flag bieng the Magen David intertwines them rather irrevocably.
Nonetheless, I do, have and will continue to make the effort. A political solution is hard enough to find without things like ethnicity, language, or religious outlook to add to the mix. Discussing any of these other aspects of the Israeli-Palestinian dynamic is counter-productive to conflict resolution and is, ultimately, a fruitless endeavour.

People will call you a racist anyway.

People will call you a racist anyway.
Yep, I've heard that one before. Hell, I've had people try to roast me on a spit in Moderation - even when I've gone well out of my way to explain my difficulties lie not with the religion of Judaism, but instead with the policies of Israel.

There damn well is separation of church and state, and I refuse to be told that I am racist or anti-semitic because I believe the State of Israel is wrong on a number of scores. The one does not follow the other.

It's the same reason I don't pay for renovations on my rented apartment. The apartment is mine so long as I'm living there and paying rent, but some day I'll move.

Why would I waste a whack o' cash installing a hot tub? I'm not stupid. What'd these people think, the Palestinians were going to go extinct or something? It was moronic to build settlements on someone elses' property.

Like I said before, tough taters. Suck it up, settlers.
as I said before, this is the religious ignorance. many of this setllers still sure the massiah will came in the next few days, and they will stay in their homes.

israel is a zionist state and to me zionism is as hurtfull to the world as the nazi's were

I'm not saying the palestinian authorities are shining stars but if you compare them to the israeli authorities they are

only when zionism is dead an buried will the people of this region be able to live in peace and I doubt it will be soonthe main and basic idea of the zionism is the wish to establish and take care of jewish democratic state. if you replace the "jewish" in other nationality as "french" it didn't much different from the other western countries.
comare it to the nazis is something I never get used to.
israel policies maybe wrong sometimes, and I am not agree with all of them, but still israel shouldn't get most of the blaming. at least it should be equal.
the zionism will die when israel will either stop to be democracy, stop to be jewish, or ceased to exist. the lastest options will be the defeat of israel and I don't think that can named as "peace". the first when can't bring peace, because mostly dictatorships bring only war.
the day when the zionism will die, will be sad day. the demography bring it closer every day, we failed to bring peace.

the main and basic idea of the zionism is the wish to establish and take care of jewish democratic state. if you replace the "jewish" in other nationality as "french" it didn't much different from the other western countries.
comare it to the nazis is something I never get used to.
israel policies maybe wrong sometimes, and I am not agree with all of them, but still israel shouldn't get most of the blaming. at least it should be equal.
the zionism will die when israel will either stop to be democracy, stop to be jewish, or ceased to exist. the lastest options will be the defeat of israel and I don't think that can named as "peace". the first when can't bring peace, because mostly dictatorships bring only war.
the day when the zionism will die, will be sad day. the demography bring it closer every day, we failed to bring peace.

You can't put Jewish in the same context as French. The French aren't all supposedly descended from the same (recorded) man. Obviously all the people of the world are a member of a race to some extent. This racial purity is peculiar. And if you use Judaism as a religion, then...

The French flag isn't the Christian cross, is it?

You can't put Jewish in the same context as French. The French aren't all supposedly descended from the same (recorded) man. Obviously all the people of the world are a member of a race to some extent. This racial purity is peculiar. And if you use Judaism as a religion, then...the french people are race just as the jewish people are race (and I talk here about the majority of the countrey). the circumances which made them races are un-relevant. both had unique culture and history and they qualified to the definition of "race".
moreover, the basic zionism don't connected to racial purity. it talked about jewish majority in the state that will build is own "Israeli" culture and tradition by his will. just as the english the germans and the french. if you interested in racial purity you better look at japan and portugal- both state which the race is neccesry to get citizenship.
for your last argument, the basic zionism aren't based on religion. the zionism had many types and some of them are religious, but blame the zionism for all of them is like blame all the muslims for the fundementalism.
The French flag isn't the Christian cross, is it?no, but GB had, just as sweden and finland, and turkey had muslim symbol and their flag. why is that important?

I Don't Know!!!

I'm losing this argument, it's annoying. If I actually knew something about it I could probably win relatively easily. Basically, I disagree with the Jewish settlements in Gaza and the West Bank and on a greater scale in historical Palestine itself. I think the creation of the State of Israel was a mistake; but I would not seek to destroy it now due to the complications of reverting the Jews into a homeless people again.

Shut up whisky drinker, that there is our land.

Actually he's a whiskey drinker not a whisky drinker. Sorry couldnt resist :p

Its a start towards a potential peace . What happens now with the Palestinians and their relations with Israel will determine whats next .
Its also a big risk for Israel ...they may have only opened up a new area to practice invasions in .

Actually he's a whiskey drinker not a whisky drinker. Sorry couldnt resist :p

Whisky includes whiskey!

I'm losing this argument, it's annoying. If I actually knew something about it I could probably win relatively easily.maybe, maybe not. anyway, it's annoying.
Basically, I disagree with the Jewish settlements in Gaza and the West Bank and on a greater scale in historical Palestine itself.I don't agree with the setllements in gaza strip and most of those in the west bank neither, but what you mean by historical palastine? the palastinians never had a state, and before the establishment of israel, they were nothing more then agrictural tribes. there isn't area that even can called palastine, but the historical control area of the british mandat in israel. his borders mean nothing in the present days.
I think the creation of the State of Israel was a mistakeas zionist I must disagree with that.
I would not seek to destroy it now due to the complications of reverting the Jews into a homeless people again.that will be un-practical and un-logical action anyway.

Whisky includes whiskey!

Whisky is scottish and if you're trying to use a stereotype at least use the right one

whisky: a strong alcoholic drink made by distilling fermented cereals, esp. in Scotland.
whiskey: Irish or American whisky

Palestine, i.e. British mandate of Palestine, just after Britain pulled out.

Maybe excluding Jordan, maybe not.

Maybe excluding Jordan, maybe not.
Green Israel's point exactly. The area dubbed 'Palestine' under the British mandate has little to do with the now-coagulated nation known as the Palestinians. You can't really take a historical prsident from it, therefore.

Thanks to Green Israel for explaining things much more level-headedly than I could.

Thanks to Green Israel for explaining things much more level-headedly than I could.thanks for the thanks.

It should really go back to the proposed U.N. state.

It should really go back to the proposed U.N. state.
you mean the divideness borders proposal that passed in the U.N. with great majority at 29/11/1947?
say that to the palastinians. the refused to take it although it give them most of the area, and start civil war against the jewish. later, the jewish established countrey named israel and the arab states join to the palastinians and declare war on israel. after the war was end israel conquered most of the area and the palastinians who refused to get israeli citizenship become refugees. maybe it isn't "fair", but they were taken some bad decisions and they can't change now the history.

Yes I do mean that. They'd accept it now. I wouldn't accept it if some Celts who had been exiled from the U.K. for rioting a few centuries ago came and were being given half of MY country either. I hope my allies would help us out.

Yes I do mean that. They'd accept it now. I am certain they will accept it now. they got nothing after they "didn't miss opportiunity to miss opportunity" (Israeli statement).
sometimes "now" is too late. they can't come now and ask for something that they give in before some decades.
I wouldn't accept it if some Celts who had been exiled from the U.K. for rioting a few centuries ago came and were being given half of MY country either. I hope my allies would help us out.
what you mean by that "MY" thing? any point you tried to make?
the palastinians deserved a state just like us, but they can't get better proposal than 67's borders. this may be base for nagotaions that majorities at both sides can accept. claim for more will only prove that they don't want peace.

It was their country, well, it certainly wasn't the Israelites' and I'm sorry, but your people stole it. Obviously Britain stole people's country's all around the world, but they have them back now, their whole country's.

Yes I do mean that. They'd accept it now. I wouldn't accept it if some Celts who had been exiled from the U.K. for rioting a few centuries ago came and were being given half of MY country either. I hope my allies would help us out.
Speaking of which, my family are dispossessed Hebrideans who've been living in Canada for 200+ years.

Don't count on my coming to the rescue of those who turfed us out of our ancestral islands.

Speaking of which, my family are dispossessed Hebrideans who've been living in Canada for 200+ years.

Don't count on my coming to the rescue of those who turfed us out of our ancestral islands.

:eek: I hope you're joking. Or have no U.N. and/or U.S. weapons/support

It was their countryfirst mistake. the palastinians never had country has I said you before, and before israel established they barely had a nation. they lived there and worked in agricultural areas that belong to riches arab mostly from the area of syria. best compared to the farmer in the medivel, that worked for some nobleman land, give him some pecents from the things they grow up, and eat the rest. they had no rights on the castle, although they worked their.
well, it certainly wasn't the Israelites', and I'm sorry, but your people stole it.there are historical and archiological proves that it was israelites land, but I can't see why this point is important. many jewish see it as important, and that was one of the reason for the zionism leaders to try and establish Israel there. one of the others was the desertetion of israel (relatively).
the practical zionism bring from europe zionist teenagers and establish settelements (mostly agricultural), and buy from the syrian riches lands in israel (with money who donated by jewish from western europe and USA). they develope the area and made many areas which the arabs didn't want (swamps, desert, stoned land) good for living in, and good for agriculture. they give jobs to the palastinians, made economical growing, and spread in the country. and whole the time the diplomatic zionism, try to get universal approvement for establishment of Israel. they give to the country much more than the arabs and they earned the right to claim part of the land, by their work, their money and their international actions (and yes, they earned better borders by military conqurence in war they didn't want). all those reasons are much important to me, than some sentences in the bible and arhelogical objects, and more important than the work through some centuries on land that isn't yours while you stay far from most of the country (as the arabs did).
Obviously Britain stole people's country's all around the world, but they have them back now, their whole country's.yes, but they did all that stealing far from their first country while they already had one country. the jewish people had no other country. if we give the palastinians "their whole country" (which they didn't even know it theirs), we stay without nothing.
in addition, it isn't like the british had their full country from the first days of history. they conquered it only by brutal force and wars against othe natives who lived in the island. also, aren't the scotish and the irish wanted independence, which the british refused to give them?

they conquered it only by brutal force and wars against othe natives who lived in the island.

Actually the Scottish king was the heir to the English throne, we didn't conquer Scotland.

And yes, the Irish did want independence, which they have, except Northern Ireland, which, as I recall wanted to remain British.

there are historical and archiological proves that it was israelites land,
Maybe it was the Israelites' land before they rioted and were kicked out by the Romans.

Actually the Scottish king was the heir to the English throne, we didn't conquer Scotland.

And yes, the Irish did want independence, which they have, except Northern Ireland, which, as I recall wanted to remain British.I didn't talked only on them. didn't britain was divided to some areas of control by some noblemen and conquered to be united below one king (as it said in the british mithology on king arthur rule- it based on history facts aren't it?). didn't the scotish try to revolt many years ago?

Maybe it was the Israelites' land before they rioted and were kicked out by the Romans.
as I said I don't give much importance to that, and neither should you. I already gave other reason which seem much important to me.

Everything has to start somewhere. Its a step towards progress in the right direction. From listening to reports this morning there are going to be some problems-hopefully not enough for the Israelis to have to put the withdrawl plan on indefinite 'hold'.

Yeah, I just think the whole thing should have been handled much better since day 1. As it is I doubt there's going to be peace for generations.

Everything has to start somewhere. Its a step towards progress in the right direction. From listening to reports this morning there are going to be some problems-hopefully not enough for the Israelis to have to put the withdrawl plan on indefinite 'hold'.
the withdrawl plan already passed the un-reversable point, from which the plan can't be stop without we lose everything. put it on "hold" ceased to be option before months. we may had some diffuclties, but none of them will make us stop it.

As it is I doubt there's going to be peace for generations.
maybe, but that little thing wouldn't make us give up the chances to get peace.

My biggest fear is that this is a BOMB waiting to get set off. You got two people and both want the same Holy Land. I am glad I am not there.

:mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5:

My biggest fear is that this is a BOMB waiting to get set off. You got two people and both want the same Holy Land. I am glad I am not there.

:mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5:

I wish there was something which could bring about the inevitable decline of religion...

[QUOTE=Green israel] however, there are still many questions without answers and everybody had is on truth:
did sharon changed or was afraid from trial?
was the plan gift for the palastinians or distraction from the occuping of west bank?
will gaza strip become the start of palastinian country or terror-state?
is it historical moment or israeli internal issue? [QUOTE]

I think Sharon was looking ahead and knew that the "occupation" of the Gaza Strip and the West Bank couldn't continue. I don't see this as a withdrawl due to terrorist activities, though groups are trying to make it that way. Israel would continue to ride out terrorism for another 50 years, it's more of a thorn in its side. This was a move based on demographics and might have a thing or two with the overall atmosphere of the Middle East right now, history will show that.

This was a gesture to the Palestinians. This move will change the political landscape greatly if succesful.

I think it will become a Palestinian country, however, the terrorist groups in the region will probably try their best to seize power and gain some momentum for their cause to rid the region of Israel.

I think it is a historical moment. Israel has withdrawn its forces from other occupied territories before, so this is a move in the right direction. It isn't what everyone would like to see, but it's a start.

Overall, this shows the continued changing face of the Middle East and hopefully this is giving the region the opportunity to go from a stagnant region to one of their more prosporous days.

Overall, this shows the continued changing face of the Middle East and hopefully this is giving the region the opportunity to go from a stagnant region to one of their more prosporous days.
I hope you right.

Everyone seems to be offline, are you sleeping or are you at work?

I'm on holiday :) :p

I'm on holiday :) :p
good for you. I am in the summer vacation.

It may sound nieve but if israelis dipanded israel, then terrorists would groups would disband. thats all they want, palastein (or however you spell it) then the west would be none of their buisness (tho we wouldnt have an excuse to nab their oil)

If palastein had a state it and could afford an army then it could send soldiers into israel and not terrorists and the rest of the world should have to accept that building a wall(smaller than palesteine) around palestine is an act of war, and that the war would be fair.
do you think it would be reasonable? if it hade a democracy and war is what the people wanted? im not sure but its an idea, what you think?

It may sound nieve but if israelis dipanded israel, then terrorists would groups would disband. thats all they want, palastein (or however you spell it) then the west would be none of their buisness (tho we wouldnt have an excuse to nab their oil)

You wouldn't happen to mean naïve?

If palastein had a state it and could afford an army then it could send soldiers into israel and not terrorists and the rest of the world should have to accept that building a wall(smaller than palesteine) around palestine is an act of war, and that the war would be fair.
do you think it would be reasonable? if it hade a democracy and war is what the people wanted? im not sure but its an idea, what you think?

What the hell are you talking about it? I think that invading a country contrary to international law could quite easily be considered terrorism.

And wall? What wall? The Great Walls of Jericho?

It may sound nieve but if israelis dipanded israel, then terrorists would groups would disband. thats all they want, palastein (or however you spell it) then the west would be none of their buisness (tho we wouldnt have an excuse to nab their oil)
you think bin-ladin let you live peacefully if you sacrafice israel? what next? levae iraq and afganistan? and then, stop the western affects on turkey and other muslim countries? maybe let iran build nuclear weapon? what they going to claim next? european countries?
the terrorists are fundementalists and this is cultures war. bin-ladin wouldn't stop until the west will stop him or give in to him and made all the western countries become radical muslim states. there aren't possibilities to nagotiate with the terrorists, as there wasn't possibility to nagotiate with Hitler.

If palastein had a state it and could afford an army then it could send soldiers into israel and not terrorists and the rest of the world should have to accept that building a wall(smaller than palesteine) around palestine is an act of war, and that the war would be fair.
do you think it would be reasonable? if it hade a democracy and war is what the people wanted? im not sure but its an idea, what you think?
if palastine just try to declare war on us, we will clear their terror country from the earth with any other middle-eastren country that stupiditly try to help them. they can't give us better excuse than that for ultimate war.

the fence that israel build is maybe not on the right place (that I personally see as 67's boreders), but he far from "act of war". in addition, palastinian state may only be established by peace agreement, which surely move the fence to the border line. the palastinians will be idiots if they used it as excuse for war, despite put it in the peace agreement, and more idiots if they start a war at all. at least in their first year they will be depended on money from the world (mostly europe and USA), help from israel, and weaponary from USA (as jordan and egypt get in their peace agreements). they will need years to recover their area and build base for country, and more time to build little (peace agreement limits) army and police forces which halp them take care to the crime, the terror group, and the anarchy. in the best situation they will get stable state, 10 years after they will sign the peace agreement. war will made them lose all that things after few days. I don't know who in the world is such fundementalist, militaristic and dumb to try such a thing.

you think bin-ladin let you live peacefully if you sacrafice israel? what next? levae iraq and afganistan? and then, stop the western affects on turkey and other muslim countries? maybe let iran build nuclear weapon? what they going to claim next? european countries?
the terrorists are fundementalists and this is cultures war. bin-ladin wouldn't stop until the west will stop him or give in to him and made all the western countries become radical muslim states. there aren't possibilities to nagotiate with the terrorists, as there wasn't possibility to nagotiate with Hitler.

Iran has just as much right as Israel to build a nuclear weapon.

Iran has just as much right as Israel to build a nuclear weapon.
[sarcasm]yeah right. israel trethen his enemies to use this weapon against them and destruct them. israel is fundementalist dictatorship. israel help to the global terror.[end of sarcasm]

nuclear weapons in Iran endangre the world, and there is no reason to let them get it.

[sarcasm]yeah right. israel trethen his enemies to use this weapon against them and destruct them. israel is fundementalist dictatorship. israel help to the global terror.[end of sarcasm]

nuclear weapons in Iran endangre the world, and there is no reason to let them get it.

I'm sorry, please remind me when Iran invaded Pakistan, Afghanistan, Turkmenistan, Azerbaij, Armenia, Turkey, Kuwait and Iraq (as Israel has invaded all of its neighbours)...?

Israel is a major threat to peace in the Middle East and ultimately the world as a result. Iran, I must say, is not.

I'm sorry, please remind me when Iran invaded Pakistan, Afghanistan, Turkmenistan, Azerbaij, Armenia, Turkey, Kuwait and Iraq (as Israel has invaded all of its neighbours)...?
first, Iran was invaded iraq at the 80's. USA supply to iraq weapons. they also threaten turkey sometimes because turkey had friendly realiotionship with the west.
second, israel invaded only lebanon at 82, in propuse to deal with the terror camps of yassir araffat. we made some mistakes and it become war which last after 18 years and created the terror organization of Hizbulla (founded, trained, and funded by syria and Iran). anyway, we didn't try to conquer lebanon but some security area which meant to defend the citizens of north israel.
in all the other times we were invaded by our neighbours, and luckily win and conquered their areas.

I'm sorry, please remind me when Iran invaded Pakistan, Afghanistan, Turkmenistan, Azerbaij, Armenia, Turkey, Kuwait and Iraq (as Israel has invaded all of its neighbours)...?Iarael did not willfully invade its neigbors by innitiating wars as a nation-building measure. It was repeatedly attacked, and fought back for all it was worth. The resulting occupied territories were legitimately, though not intentionally gained by israel. That they were intentionally retained is clear, and also necessary for security reasons. However, Israel has proved capable of returning captured territories (see sinai) if reasonable peace agreements are reached.

Your desire for Israel to spontaneously go back to 1967, or even 1947 borders without a fair guarantee is utterly unreasonable, and simly cannot happen. The land is not a lego set that can be re-arranged to how you think it "should" be- areas have been built up, settled, cultivated, and established. That is why THIS disengagement is important, nad difficult,

By your statement about Israel being a danger to world peace, you are showing that you don't understand the nature of its governance and general dynamic. Israel is a modern democracy, with political parties of various 9and mostly secular) stripes, not a demonic dictatorship run by religious zelots.

Israel is a major threat to peace in the Middle East and ultimately the world as a result. Iran, I must say, is not.
[sarcasm]right, because israel declare war on the west, and support terror actions wholeover the world.[end of sarcasm]

the terrorists who blame israel for their act, are fully hypocrits liars. all the arab states together didn't give the palastinians while they control their area (48-67),half from what israel gave to them. they even refuse to give place in their countries for the palastinians refugees. they will blame israel until her destruction, and then will pass to the next blaming target (iraq?, afganistan?, turkey?).
in addition, I will say it again it dosen't "peace" if one side get it all, and the other side lose all or destruct.

the withdrawl plan already passed the un-reversable point, from which the plan can't be stop without we lose everything. put it on "hold" ceased to be option before months. we may had some diffuclties, but none of them will make us stop it.

That is definitely not true it is past the point where sharon could not reverse it but if he were to die or get killed, assisanated, have the angel of death come (which some rabbis actually prayed for by the way) the plan might just get postponed.

first, Iran was invaded iraq at the 80's. USA supply to iraq weapons. they also threaten turkey sometimes because turkey had friendly realiotionship with the west.
second, israel invaded only lebanon at 82, in propuse to deal with the terror camps of yassir araffat. we made some mistakes and it become war which last after 18 years and created the terror organization of Hizbulla (founded, trained, and funded by syria and Iran). anyway, we didn't try to conquer lebanon but some security area which meant to defend the citizens of north israel.
in all the other times we were invaded by our neighbours, and luckily win and conquered their areas.

You have invaded all of your neighbours, Iran has invaded one and "threatens" another.

You have invaded all of your neighbours, Iran has invaded one and "threatens" another.
.....just doesn't get it.

in addition, I will say it again it dosen't "peace" if one side get it all, and the other side lose all or destruct.

Peace: 1)absence of open armed conflict between two or more countries or groups.

.....just doesn't get it.

I do get it, Israel has caused more difficulties in the world than Iran. Iran has just as much right as Israel to possess or build nuclear weapons.

That may be absolutely no right at all, but it is an equal right.

That is definitely not true it is past the point where sharon could not reverse it but if he were to die or get killed, assisanated, have the angel of death come (which some rabbis actually prayed for by the way) the plan might just get postponed.as I said, if the plan will be stopped (in the worse case by civili war or sharon death), the results will be catastrophical.
the un-reversable point is definition from planes area, and it mean the point after that the plane must get his target airport or he will be crushed. considering the international, political, social and economical affects which may resulted by dropping the withrawal plan, I think that will be the case.

not a demonic dictatorship run by religious zelots.

It is amusing that you chose Zealot as your description. A word which has strong connotations with the Jewish struggle against the Romans.

I do get it, Israel has caused more difficulties in the world than Iran. Iran has just as much right as Israel to possess or build nuclear weapons.
In the plainest language possible:
You find nuclear weapons in the hands of democratically elected government, which is responsible to the (internationally respected) supreme court, and citizens of a country to be more dangerous than nuclear weapons in the hands of a religious dictatorship that is known to sponsor terrorism, and isn't responsible to any instituation other than an extreme brand of Islam.

It is amusing that you chose Zealot as your description. A word which has strong connotations with the Jewish struggle against the Romans.
If you're referring to Mesada, they were reffered to as Zelots as well - so? Any religious fundamentalist can be so described, regardless of their religion.

In the plainest language possible:
You find nuclear weapons in the hands of democratically elected government, which is responsible to the (internationally respected) supreme court, and citizens of a country to be more dangerous than nuclear weapons in the hands of a religious dictatorship that is known to sponsor terrorism, and isn't responsible to any instituation other than an extreme brand of Islam.

Israel is not accountable to international law. International law deems the West Bank and Gaza settlements illegal, yet Israel maintains them (West Bank in a large way 48 hours+).

Peace: 1)absence of open armed conflict between two or more countries or groups.
wrong, "peace" including agreement of both sides. otherwise it is destruction of one side or both of the sides, or maybe surrender.

No, right, peace is an absence of war.

You have invaded all of your neighbours, Iran has invaded one and "threatens" another.
threaten also israel, if you mind. how many time I need to tell you that we were the ones who invaded by our neighbours?

No, right, peace is an absence of war.only if you are 5 years old, and you can't get ideas which aren't simple as opposites.

threaten also israel, if you mind. how many time I need to tell you that we were the ones who invaded by our neighbours?

That doesn't actually alter the fact that you invaded your neighbours.
If somebody hits me, so I chop off their hand, I have still chopped off their hand.

only if you are 5 years old, and you can't get ideas which aren't simple as opposites.

I haven't personally insulted you yet, I take offence and regard that as a poor step in an argument.

I haven't personally insulted you yet, I take offence and regard that as a poor step in an argument.He's pointing out that reductionist definitions aren't necessarily the most constructive ways to understand a topic like "peace in the middle east".

Plus, "you" in English can be second person singular, or a more general second person plural. Seeing as How GI has been squeekily polite throughout this entire frustrating depbate, you should give him/her the benfit of the doubt.

He's pointing out that reductionist definitions aren't necessarily the most constructive ways to understand a topic like "peace in the middle east".

Plus, "you" in English can be second person singular, or a more general second person plural. Seeing as How GI has been squeekily polite throughout this entire frustrating depbate, you should give him/her the benfit of the doubt.

It can, but you* should really use "one" if you* want a more general sense.

*"deliberate mistake"

That doesn't actually alter the fact that you invaded your neighbours.
If somebody hits me, so I chop off their hand, I have still chopped off their hand.
invading is start war. you don't invade countrey who start to invade you, if you fight back and as result conquered areas.

It can, but you* should really use "one" if you* want a more general sense.

*"deliberate mistake"
I will try to remember it next time. I think the tiredness start to affect me.

invading is start war. you don't invade countrey who start to invade you, if you fight back and as result conquered areas.

If military forces enter foreign soil without the foreign country's permission, it is invasion.

If military forces enter foreign soil without the foreign country's permission, it is invasion.maybe, what when you say sentences like: "You have invaded all of your neighbours, Iran has invaded one and "threatens anothers", there seem too much as un-fair comparation. the fact show it in other way: all the israeli wars (but lebanon), were act of self defence. iran threatens and invasion were acts of war without legitmate reason. in addition, iran send terrorists outside her border, and that much worse than sending soldiers (for self defence).

You can prove I presume, that the Iranian government trains terrorists and then sends them to blow people up?

Besides, this has really got off the point what do you think of the Israeli withdraw plan

By that I mean it has turned too much into an argument, into less of a debate.

You can prove I presume, that the Iranian government trains terrorists and then sends them to blow people up?all the information agency in israel as facts that prove connection between hizbulla terror organization (that now aiming in help to the palastinians terror organizations) to syria and Iran. it is known information that proven to the anerican and the european information agencies. there are records of talks between iranian officers and hizbulla leaders, as well as meeting between leaders. there are plenty of stuff that prove it all without any dubt.

but do I can prove you all that? no, I, personally can't prove you Iran develope neuclear weapons, and even not that israel have ones. this is all secret information, which I couldn't tell you even if I know. it isn't like those things are free in the internet.

Besides, this has really got off the point what do you think of the Israeli withdraw planyeah, I noticed. I think there isn't much to debate here after all the sides give there argument, mainly because we both agree on the particular issue of the pullout.

anyway, I start this thread so I don't think it could seen as hy-jaking.

Israel is a major threat to peace in the Middle East and ultimately the world as a result. Iran, I must say, is not.
How do you come up with that crazy statement? Israel uses force to defend it's land and people. Iran trains, arms and funds Hezbollah, a terrorist organization that's currently blowing up christian neighborhoods in Lebanon in order to destabilize the country and bring back Syrian occupation.

How do you come up with that crazy statement? Israel uses force to defend it's land and people. Iran trains, arms and funds Hezbollah, a terrorist organization that's currently blowing up christian neighborhoods in Lebanon in order to destabilize the country and bring back Syrian occupation.

Yup, Israel is the only Nation in the middle east to have a STABLE goverment. Iran has a violent Anti-AMERICAN history and a host of other things, including supplying HAMAS with weapons and a place to hide.

Besides, this has really got off the point what do you think of the Israeli withdraw plan
Back on topic, I was reading Ha'Aretz, and talking about the pullout with my mum, and apparently, much of the resistance that is being experienced is purposeful to make the point to the world, and the Palestinians, that this is not an 'easy' move for Israel. The activists that have infiltrated Gaza don't really believe that they will win this tiff with the army, but want to make a clear point that Israel is not backing out weakly, or surrendering to terrorism, etc. Perhaps a valuable statement.

Back on topic, I was reading Ha'Aretz, and talking about the pullout with my mum, and apparently, much of the resistance that is being experienced is purposeful to make the point to the world, and the Palestinians, that this is not an 'easy' move for Israel. The activists that have infiltrated Gaza don't really believe that they will win this tiff with the army, but want to make a clear point that Israel is not backing out weakly, or surrendering to terrorism, etc. Perhaps a valuable statement.they try to show this point to the israeli public and politicians as well, if not more. after all the effect of the world and the terror are limited and israel could stand them easily for some decades, as most of us did until recently. the decision will have to be in the israeli political system.
btw, when israel withraw from lebanon at 2000, the army leader decided to bomb some areas in lebanon for similar reason: make a clear point that Israel is not backing out weakly, or surrendering to terrorism. luckily, now we were more reasonable.