NationStates Jolt Archive

Yep...That'll make it all better. "Only interested in peace" etc and so on.

"Israel has approved the construction of a new settlement in the occupied West Bank, Israeli officials have said."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6210721.stm

Let me be the first to say that this is a stupid move on Israel's part.

Is that why Olmert suddenly endorses "talks"? To inform the Palestinians of further humiliation?

Nice:rolleyes: Their stealing even MORE Muslim land. Haven't they had enough land?

Is that why Olmert suddenly endorses "talks"? To inform the Palestinians of further humiliation?

You'd think his last field trip to Lebanon would have wiped that smirk off his face.

Is that why Olmert suddenly endorses "talks"? To inform the Palestinians of further humiliation?

The fact that hes now talking (essentially) to the Fatah party while doing this is the kind of thing that led to the growth of the IJ, Hamas etc in the first place. Occassionally you wonder just what the fuck they are at.

The fact that hes now talking (essentially) to the Fatah party while doing this is the kind of thing that led to the growth of the IJ, Hamas etc in the first place. Occassionally you wonder just what the fuck they are at.

Undermining Abbas perchance?

Undermining Abbas perchance?

Undermining Abbas and convincing the average Palestinian that Fatah is an Israeli patsy on top of being still corrupt. Which of course makes Hamas look that much better of an alternative.

Which kills the whole notion of peace.

Then again by doing this in the first place, is Israel really serious about wanting peace with its neighbors? Or just wanting a piece of its neighbors?

The fact that hes now talking (essentially) to the Fatah party while doing this is the kind of thing that led to the growth of the IJ, Hamas etc in the first place. Occassionally you wonder just what the fuck they are at.Wonder? No.

Yep...That'll make it all better. "Only interested in peace" etc and so on.

"Israel has approved the construction of a new settlement in the occupied West Bank, Israeli officials have said."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6210721.stm

See? They don't care about peace, they just want to murder Palestinians. I predict (and I hope I am wrong about this prediction): Palestinians get mad, start defending their country > Israel uses this "murder" of their troops to "justify" a full-scale attack against the whole of Palestine.

Undermining Abbas and convincing the average Palestinian that Fatah is an Israeli patsy on top of being still corrupt. Which of course makes Hamas look that much better of an alternative.

Which kills the whole notion of peace.

Then again by doing this in the first place, is Israel really serious about wanting peace with its neighbors? Or just wanting a piece of its neighbors?

Well, yeah. On top of that- if you keep undermining the official leader and his party, you stir up animosity and distrust in the people (read: more clashes between Fatah/Hamas) and thusly never allowing your enemy to become united under a singular purpose or vision.

Meanwhile, you stand back and admire your handiwork while continuing to expand your territory by proxy. First go the temp. outposts, then the settlers, then the military outposts, then the barracks, then the connecting infrastructure etc etc

See? They don't care about peace, they just want to murder Palestinians. I predict (and I hope I am wrong about this prediction): Palestinians get mad, start defending their country > Israel uses this "murder" of their troops to "justify" a full-scale attack against the whole of Palestine.At least nobody is really surprised by this. It's just as it's always been. Olmert, Sharon, Netanyahu. All the same.

At least nobody is really surprised by this. It's just as it's always been. Olmert, Sharon, Netanyahu. All the same.

There was Rabin, but we all know what happened.

At least nobody is really surprised by this. It's just as it's always been. Olmert, Sharon, Netanyahu. All the same.

That's not fair or accurate. There have been Israeli leaders who reach out for peace.

on the other hand Isreal may soon offer a new border plan (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f1/Greater_Israels.jpg)

:p

on the other hand Isreal may soon offer a new border plan (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f1/Greater_Israels.jpg)

:p

And yet the Kahane Chai's banned from Israeli politics. Irony or hypocrisy, take a pick.

That's not fair or accurate. There have been Israeli leaders who reach out for peace.One. He got assassinated for it. And after that they elected Netanyahu as to confirm the deed. Everything went downhill from then, just as I predicted on the day he got elected.

The West Bank is occupied, but by Arab squatters some lovingly call Palestinians.

This is the opposite of hostile! He wants to show that they can live with each other!


:rolleyes: :p

The West Bank is occupied, but by Arab squatters some lovingly call Palestinians.

Would you care to explain that bizarre remark, or are you doing something more pressing under your bridge at the moment?

This is the opposite of hostile! He wants to show that they can live with each other!
:rolleyes: :pYou surely know what kind of people these settlers are. How many of these vote Shas?

I think this is reaction to the fact that, even though part of the ceasefire deal was that terrorists would stop launching their ****ing Rockets from Gaza, over 60 rockets have been fired since the ceasefire.

Again this is Israel saying,
"If you'll continue to be assholes, we'll be assholes as well."

Bad move on Israels part, but whats new. I don't think either side is willing to pull their heads out of their asses because change is scary (Besides all of the perks that come to the power brokers with the use of fear mongering).

I think this is reaction to the fact that, even though part of the ceasefire deal was that terrorists would stop launching their ****ing Rockets from Gaza, over 60 rockets have been fired since the ceasefire.

Again this is Israel saying,
"If you'll continue to be assholes, we'll be assholes as well."

If Israel wants to retaliate it should kill Palestinian militants, not build settlements that just fuck up negotiations in the future. Settlements are counterproductive. Killing Palestinian terrorists is fine. It's a good thing.

Pretty bad idea.

I think this is reaction to the fact that, even though part of the ceasefire deal was that terrorists would stop launching their ****ing Rockets from Gaza, over 60 rockets have been fired since the ceasefire.

Again this is Israel saying,
"If you'll continue to be assholes, we'll be assholes as well."

One of them is going to have to be the bigger man. One would hope it would be Israel.

These terrorists need to be marginalised. The Palistinians need to be shown that it isn't in there best interest to support them.

Someone should tell the Israeli government that.

Yes, I'm looking at you Nodinia.

If Israel wants to retaliate it should kill Palestinian militants, not build settlements that just fuck up negotiations in the future. Settlements are counterproductive. Killing Palestinian terrorists is fine. It's a good thing.

Right, so responding non vilonetly is better than responding viloently. The Isralies are keeping to the cease fire by not killing anyone. This is peacable retailation.

I think its not the best situation, no retaliation at all would be good, using Satyagraha against the Arabs, but thats more ideal than actual.

Right, so responding non vilonetly is better than responding viloently. The Isralies are keeping to the cease fire by not killing anyone. This is peacable retailation.

I think its not the best situation, no retaliation at all would be good, using Satyagraha against the Arabs, but thats more ideal than actual.

Eh, no. Expanding settlements is in breach of the US backed 'Road-Map' (or whatever is left of that)

For once on this topic I actually agree with what DCD has said.

I think this is reaction to the fact that, even though part of the ceasefire deal was that terrorists would stop launching their ****ing Rockets from Gaza, over 60 rockets have been fired since the ceasefire.

Again this is Israel saying,
"If you'll continue to be assholes, we'll be assholes as well."

And nothing at all to do with the continued securing of land, in an ongoing colonial enterprise.

Its spelt "fucking" (btw).


Right, so responding non vilonetly is better than responding viloently. ."

....in PR terms. And the violent response of the Palestinians (because all legal recourse has been blocked by the US) will be used against them.


The Isralies are keeping to the cease fire by not killing anyone. ."

Just beatings, intimidation and humiliation - the day today grind of a military occupation.

Trilby63;12134804']One of them is going to have to be the bigger man. One would hope it would be Israel. What's the point?
When Israel actually does the right thing they get attacked anyway.

Maybe Israel has realized that it doesn't matter what they do they'll still be hated. Even if they withdrew they would still have people trying to kill them, perhaps this is Israel not caring anymore.

And nothing at all to do with the continued securing of land, in an ongoing colonial enterprise.
Then why did they wait so long huh? :rolleyes:


Its spelt "fucking" (btw). Unlike some people I don't swear unless I'm angry.


....in PR terms. And the violent response of the Palestinians (because all legal recourse has been blocked by the US) will be used against them. Which just proves how idiotic the Southern Syrians are.


Just beatings, intimidation and humiliation - the day today grind of a military occupation.
What beatings? I looked through the whole article, no where did it say 'beatings'.

What's the point?
When Israel actually does the right thing they get attacked anyway..

Well, when they do the "right thing" we'll see.

Maybe Israel has realized that it doesn't matter what they do they'll still be hated. Even if they withdrew they would still have people trying to kill them, perhaps this is Israel not caring anymore...

They haven't had to care since the US started protecting them with the Veto.


Then why did they wait so long huh? :rolleyes: ...

"ongoing"...Such as the way the settlements have been expanded and the illegal ouposts recognised....as in "continous".


Unlike some people I don't swear unless I'm angry....

Nope, you just bash the A-rabs instead.


Which just proves how idiotic the Southern Syrians are.....

See above. Thanks for the confirmation.

Btw - Why are they "idiotic" when its the US that has blocked all other avenues?


What beatings? I looked through the whole article, no where did it say 'beatings'.

Obviously your reading comprehension skills are a bit lacking.....

And do you think that some Palestinian getting the shit kicked out of him at a checkpoint makes the news on a regular basis? Its a daily occurence.

Unlike some people I don't swear unless I'm angry.

No, you're just not Irish, that's all. Nobody's perfect I guess.

Which just proves how idiotic the Southern Syrians are.


Don't know of them. Are they like the Southern Mexicans or Southern Canadians? Oh wait...

See? They don't care about peace, they just want to murder Palestinians.

This is certainly a bad move on Israel's part part. You, however, are talking complete rubbish which bears no relation whatsoever to the article.

...and while the Palestinians are only one assassination away from breaking into a full-scale civil war, the Israelis unwittingly remind them that they have someone else to hate.

YARRR! DEATH TO THE ZIONISTS!! DEM EBIL JOOS R TEH CAUSE OF ALL BADNESS!! DEATH TO AMERICA! THEY'RE INVOLVED SOMEHOW!!! *shoots off an AK-47 into the air*

Given that neither side has a majority wanting peace, it's hardly surprising that peace is failing to appear.

No, you're just not Irish, that's all.
Only half, that's why I swear but leave censor bars up.


Don't know of them. Are they like the Southern Mexicans or Southern Canadians? Oh wait... It's what they called themselves in the 40s and 50s.

Building yet more settlements (already declared illegal in international law many times over) simply feeds the view that Israel is just making a land grab because they have no intention of ever having peace, simply in expanding the Zionist vision of a Greater Israel.

Since the US protects Israel from any consequences of its behavior, the Palestinians have no recourse whatsoever. The one and only outlet is armed resistance. If no outside force can restrain the behavior of a country which continually shows its intentions to take your land, which you feel happened in the very creation of the country to begin with, brutally oppress your people, and generally make your life shit, the only option is to do something yourself.

If Israel just left things alone for a while, they wouldn’t have to worry about it so much. Fata and Hamas would be fighting it out, and Israel would no longer have such problems. As Napoleon said, never interrupt an enemy when he is making a mistake – and the same goes for when they are fighting amongst themselves.

Of course I have said several times that the best thing for the Palestinians would be to simply push for Israel to completely take over the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Then the brutal occupation would have to end, lest the taint of apartheid erode the remaining US support. Thus Israel would have to cease being a Jewish state, and the whole conflict would end – though not to a Zionist’s satisfaction of course, so then they would start with the terrorist attacks.

It's what they called themselves in the 40s and 50s.

Odd that the Brits called anybody from the Palestinian mandate "Palistinean" then, isn't it? And not to mention that Arab Palistinean newspapers refer to its readers as "Palistineans" from at least before the first world war. The only ones who rejected the notion of "Palistinean" were Pan-arabists or those funded by Syria.

I say we take all of the Jews, all of the Palestinians, and any other groups living in Israel/Gaza/WB that I'm forgetting, and ship them all HERE (http://members.ozemail.com.au/~slacey/images/antarctica_map.gif)

As far as I'm concerned, they're welcome to kill each other to their hearts content down there.

Then we'll let the Dalai Lama and any Tibetans that feel like coming along settle in the newly emptied land...that might keep the area peaceful for a decade or two. :rolleyes:

Of course I have said several times that the best thing for the Palestinians would be to simply push for Israel to completely take over the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Then the brutal occupation would have to end, lest the taint of apartheid erode the remaining US support. Thus Israel would have to cease being a Jewish state, and the whole conflict would end – though not to a Zionist’s satisfaction of course, so then they would start with the terrorist attacks.Agreed. I also support the final annexation of the West Bank as well as Gaza and letting the remaining Palestinians in the refugee camps return, with giving all the Palestinian Arabs full citizenship and of course voting rights.

Agreed. I also support the final annexation of the West Bank as well as Gaza and letting the remaining Palestinians in the refugee camps return, with giving all the Palestinian Arabs full citizenship and of course voting rights.
Easier said than done. Neither Hamas nor Fatah would have any interest in giving up their smug palaces, tax revenue and privileged status. They quite like the idea of an independent Palestine, because they'd be the bosses of it.

Agreed. I also support the final annexation of the West Bank as well as Gaza and letting the remaining Palestinians in the refugee camps return, with giving all the Palestinian Arabs full citizenship and of course voting rights.
The Israelis and Palestinians aren't going to really want be be buddy-buddy after 50 years of war, occupation or terrorism. Usually all three. The Israelis certainly don't want more Arabs - the demographics are already putting pressure on the Isrseli government, and the Palestinians on the whole support the two state solution too. (http://www.jmcc.org/publicpoll/results/2006/no60.pdf) (Notice that two state and one bi national state solutions cover over 75% of the population)

Not really workable in practice, I think, although noble.

Easier said than done. Neither Hamas nor Fatah would have any interest in giving up their smug palaces, tax revenue and privileged status. They quite like the idea of an independent Palestine, because they'd be the bosses of it.

And nobody minds an Arab majority Israel?

Why does Israel want this land anyway? Obviously, they don't appear to care a lot about their citizens, since taking Palestinian land always results in violent retaliation. Surely the best solution would be to remove all the people within the borders of Israel where they would be protected? Then maybe, the Palestinians would have little left to complain about.

And nobody minds an Arab majority Israel?
The Israeli government probably would, yeah.

As always, politicians on both sides are doing well for themselves, to the detriment of civilians everywhere.

Why does Israel want this land anyway? Obviously, they don't appear to care a lot about their citizens, since taking Palestinian land always results in violent retaliation. Surely the best solution would be to remove all the people within the borders of Israel where they would be protected?Then the question would be which borders.

And nobody minds an Arab majority Israel?I wouldn't, and if Israelis were indeed true democrats, they wouldn't either.

The Israeli government probably would, yeah.

"Probably"?

This "one-state solution" idea has been attacked savagely by supporters of Israeli policy every time it has been proposed. Indeed, a major reason for the current Israeli support for an "independent" Palestinian state is the "demographic problem" of having a majority Arab population in Israel and the Occupied Territories.

Actually, I believe Hamas has voiced support for the idea - on their terms, of course. Israel ceases to exist, and a state for everyone (well, an Islamic one) replaces it.

Then the question would be which borders.

True, true. There is some debate on the matter. But then, most people agree at least somewhat on the '67 borders as a tolerable compromise, don't they? They're the ones always brought up...

True, true. There is some debate on the matter. But then, most people agree at least somewhat on the '67 borders as a tolerable compromise, don't they? ...Israelis don't. That's why they are building their Wall far inside the West Bank.

The Israeli government probably would, yeah.

As always, politicians on both sides are doing well for themselves, to the detriment of civilians everywhere.
And therein lies the real problem... As usual.

And therein lies the real problem... As usual.As if civilians weren't responsible for which politicians they have... :rolleyes:

As if civilians weren't responsible for which politicians they have... :rolleyes:
Read my sig. People will believe and elect based on what politicians want them to believe. Which is why the middle east is so full of Dictatorships.

Read my sig. People will believe and elect based on what politicians want them to believe. Which is why the middle east is so full of Dictatorships.:eek: Wouldn't your sig apply to what the Bush government did in recent years?
On the other hand: if folks are too stupid to vote the right people into office, the probably deserve what they get.
- Of course the Palestinians didn't elect Olmert into office.

I wouldn't, and if Israelis were indeed true democrats, they wouldn't either.

The whole point of the Israeli State was to be a final life boat in case the whole world decided to repeat the Shoah. If Israel had a Jewish minority than that soul purpose could not be definately be assured.

To live up to its purpose Israeli has to be majority Jewish, it has to be secure, but most of all, it has to not piss off all its neighbours.

Easier said than done. Neither Hamas nor Fatah would have any interest in giving up their smug palaces, tax revenue and privileged status. They quite like the idea of an independent Palestine, because they'd be the bosses of it.

According to the source New Burmesia cited, most Palestinians want an independant Palestine. Elected officials wanting the same thing as their electorate, surely not. And the palaces, revenue, and privileged status apply as much to the UK/USA/etc as Palestine.

Yep...That'll make it all better. "Only interested in peace" etc and so on.

"Israel has approved the construction of a new settlement in the occupied West Bank, Israeli officials have said."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6210721.stm
This kinda says it all?

Settlements in the West Bank are illegal under international law, although Israel rejects this.
I don't believe that Israel has any intention of negotiating a peace settlement with the Palestinians. The US should end all funding for Israel.

Baaaad move their. As DCD has said, I'd rather a military assault on militants than a civilian assault on disputed land. There are more important things, such as Isreal's right to exist, Judaism's right to exist, and my right to be athiest (or Jewish or Christian or the wrong type of Muslim) and not be shot for it, than what a bunch of pacifists who like to bash Isreal because it's easy and seldom back up their statements think.

Baaaad move their. As DCD has said, I'd rather a military assault on militants than a civilian assault on disputed land. There are more important things, such as Isreal's right to exist, Judaism's right to exist, and my right to be athiest (or Jewish or Christian or the wrong type of Muslim) and not be shot for it, than what a bunch of pacifists who like to bash Isreal because it's easy and seldom back up their statements think.

Whose a pacifist?

I suppose the Palestinians shooting at Israeli territory is alright but Israelis building a home it's terrorism.

Whose a pacifist?
Who knows. You don't normally get posts criticising Israel and criticising people who criticise Israel.

Whose a pacifist?

The type I'm refering to are people who denounce all violence as inherently evil, even when it is violence against the evil for the good, and are too sqeemish to face up to the fact that it is human nature for good to shoot civilians because of radio failure of human malice on the part of it's soldiers and for good to end up fighting for evil and vice-versa.

Who knows. You don't normally get posts criticising Israel and criticising people who criticise Israel.

Indeed, you don't. Perhaps most people are unwilling to denounce the mistakes of the side they generally consider in the right.

If that was intended as criticism, please explain what's wrong with it.

Another israeli crime, shame on that country.

The type I'm refering to are people who denounce all violence as inherently evil, even when it is violence against the evil for the good, and are too sqeemish to face up to the fact that it is human nature for good to shoot good because of radio failure and for good to end up fighting for evil and vice-versa.

There are no good Israelis in Nodinia's eyes.

Indeed, you don't. Perhaps most people are unwilling to denounce the mistakes of the side they generally consider in the right.

If that was intended as criticism, please explain what's wrong with it.

Are you kidding? Topics criticizing Israel pop up almost every other day!

Are you kidding? Topics criticizing Israel pop up almost every other day!

But not topics which criticise both aspects of Isreal and aspects of anti-Isrealism.

Another israeli crime, shame on that country.

How come the Palestinians are continuing to shoot at Israel even though both sides declared ceasefire, noone cares, and people are criticizing Israel for building a home? Palestinians violated the ceasefire repeatedly yet Israel continues to be the only side criticized. That's hypocricy for you.

But not topics which criticise both aspects of Isreal and aspects of anti-Isrealism.

OK, I thought you meant something else.

How come the Palestinians are continuing to shoot at Israel even though both sides declared ceasefire, noone cares, and people are criticizing Israel for building a home? Palestinians violated the ceasefire repeatedly yet Israel continues to be the only side criticized. That's hypocricy for you.

End the illegal israeli occupation.

End the illegal israeli occupation.

End the unsubstantiated arguments!

To do this, give me a recognised, applicable legal system declaring this occupation illegal.

Then and only then can we work on ending the occupation.

End the unsubstantiated arguments!

To do this, give me a recognised, applicable legal system declaring this occupation illegal.

Then and only then can we work on ending the occupation.
'Cause they whine and bitch about it? Supposedly that's a good enough reason.

Of course we should some of New Mexico and most of Texas back to Mexico since we seized that land in a war.

END THE ILLEGAL OCCUIPATION OF MEXICO!!! DESTROY ALL ILLEGAL TEXAN SETTLEMENTS!

I'd like to see them defend that reasoning.

:eek: Wouldn't your sig apply to what the Bush government did in recent years?
On the other hand: if folks are too stupid to vote the right people into office, the probably deserve what they get.
- Of course the Palestinians didn't elect Olmert into office.
Of course it describes what Bush did. But after all he's not the only one who does it.

Actually it describes many governments\groups in the middle east as well.
Hezbollah, Iran, Hamas.

Give them an enemy: Israel
Ignore anyone who disagrees (Or blow them up, arrest them, whichever you like)
Bribe the populace.
Profit by having people blindly follow you.

Yep...That'll make it all better. "Only interested in peace" etc and so on.

"Israel has approved the construction of a new settlement in the occupied West Bank, Israeli officials have said."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6210721.stm

What are these stupid shits thinking?

No. Let me rephrase that.

Are these stupid shits thinking?

How come the Palestinians are continuing to shoot at Israel even though both sides declared ceasefire, noone cares, and people are criticizing Israel for building a home? Palestinians violated the ceasefire repeatedly yet Israel continues to be the only side criticized. That's hypocricy for you.

So bomb the shit out of the Palestinians. You can always negotiate a cease fire later. It's a lot harder to pull people out of a settlement and demolish it later. You want to retaliate, go ahead, but don't do shit that will hamper the hypothetical peace negotiations in the future.

I suppose the Palestinians shooting at Israeli territory is alright but Israelis building a home it's terrorism.

Shooting at Israeli territory? Dubious, unless its targeted closely at military. Building a home in Palistinean territory outside of the 1967 borders? Not on at all.


The type I'm refering to are people who denounce all violence as inherently evil, even when it is violence against the evil for the good, and are too sqeemish to face up to the fact that it is human nature for good to shoot civilians because of radio failure of human malice on the part of it's soldiers and for good to end up fighting for evil and vice-versa..

I believe in violence as a last resort in certain circumstances.


There are no good Israelis in Nodinia's eyes...

You have me confused with somebody else.


Are these stupid shits thinking?...

Yes, its just they don't have to care. If (eg) Libya fucks up, its years in the wilderness, sanctions, lack of investment etc. This lot are allies of a superpower. They can do what they want and there's nothing anyone outside the US can do about it.


It's a lot harder to pull people out of a settlement and demolish it later.

Thats presuming that theres some intention of withdrawal. Gaza took 30,000 plus troops to Guard 8,000 settlers. Leaving there was the first move in a plan to concentrate consolidating hold on as much of the West Bank as feasible, annexing Arab East Jerusalem in the process.

This is from 2004.
"Israel is planning to pull all its settlers out of Gaza and the troops that protect them as part of its plan but it will maintain control of Gaza's borders, coastline and airspace. Four West Bank settlements are also to be evacuated.

Mr Weisglass boasted that he had in effect secured US approval "that part of the settlements would not be dealt with at all". "
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3720176.stm

End the unsubstantiated arguments!

To do this, give me a recognised, applicable legal system declaring this occupation illegal.

Then and only then can we work on ending the occupation.The UN has declared this occupation illegal several times. And don't dare to put in question UN decisions, Israel owes its vicious existence to one.

The UN has declared this occupation illegal several times. And don't dare to put in question UN decisions, Israel owes its vicious existence to one. Spoils of war. Just like Texas. Just like East Prussia.
The war that resulted in that land being seized was illeagal to begin with.

At the end of the six day war, Israel could have easily destroyed Cairo, Damascus, and Amman because of their control of the air and the destruction of the enemy's Tank units. They didn't. Instead the resolution ended it, the deal was that Israel would give back the land if everyone else stopped bothering them...
The Khartoum Resolution voided it from the very beginning.

You can't order Israel to follow what others refuse too. As long as there was an Arab force attacking Israel. Resolution 242 was moot. When Egypt agreed they got their land back as they were supposed too. Gaza would have kept their land... But guess what? They decided to keep fighting as long as Hamas orders attacks on Israel, there will never be any state.

Yeah you heard me, they have only themselves to blame for Resolution 242 never coming to pass.

As well as this:
http://www.mideastweb.org/lastmaps.htm

Spoils of war. Just like Texas. Just like East Prussia.
The war that resulted in that land being seized was illeagal to begin with.

They deserved losing that land for invading.The Jews invaded that land. The Arabs have been there already.

The Jews invaded that land. The Arabs have been there already.

Funny, in the seventh century it was the other way round.

The Jews were there, the Arabs were there. Two states are here needed, not one.

Also, it was the Arabs who started the war, by refusing to engage diplomatically. Had they accepted on the partition they would have got a much bigger state of their own.

The UN has declared this occupation illegal several times. And don't dare to put in question UN decisions, Israel owes its vicious existence to one.

Erm, Israel accepted the UN descisions, which is one of the reasons why the 2000 negotiations went ahead.

Its the fault of Arafat that that didnt happen.

Since the US protects Israel from any consequences of its behavior, the Palestinians have no recourse whatsoever. The one and only outlet is armed resistance.

If the Palestians have gripe with the Isralie government policy, attack the Isralie government and the Isralie armed forces who enact said governments wishes. Don't target civilians.

Spoils of war. Just like Texas. Just like East Prussia.
The war that resulted in that land being seized was illeagal to begin with.

They deserved losing that land for invading.

But it wasnt the Palistineans who invaded. Nor does the whole "spoils of war" crap have any legal foundation whatsoever. Otherwise it would have been impossible to form an alliance to remove Saddam from Kuwait. The fact is that theres slow-drip colonisation going in the West Bank, from a country thats held up as some paragon of virtue.


Erm, Israel accepted the UN descisions, which is one of the reasons why the 2000 negotiations went ahead..

And Israel left the table in 2002.

Would you care to explain why the 'peace crazed' Israelis are extending their building in the West Bank?

Erm, Israel accepted the UN descisions, which is one of the reasons why the 2000 negotiations went ahead.
Its the fault of Arafat that that didnt happen.No, it's the fault of the Israelis who offered nothing.
And if Israel accepted the UN decisions, why do they still occupy the West Bank?

Eh, no. Expanding settlements is in breach of the US backed 'Road-Map' (or whatever is left of that)


In a ceasce fire situation, it is better to respond like this than it would be to attack militants, situations where civilans may die

In a ceasce fire situation, it is better to respond like this than it would be to attack militants, situations where civilans may die

Hmmm....Building houses in occupied territory over decades causes increasingly extreme militant groups to arise...combat this by expanding settlements and building yet more housing...when ceasefire is on (eg Oslo) build even more. When Palistineans are provoked into violence, refuse to negotiate and slowly expand still.

See a pattern?

No, it's the fault of the Israelis who offered nothing.
And if Israel accepted the UN decisions, why do they still occupy the West Bank?

I don't think you understand the UN. The UN make decisions which are then attempted to be enacted by the governments. It is not the UN itself that enacts the decisions. Currently, any withdrawl from the west bank needs to be part of a conditioning for peace, something which currently is not certain. Which is why negotiations take place. Israel can't be expected to withdraw the forces currently as there are no guarntees on what the Palestians will then do. The UN accepts and understands this.

Hmmm....Building houses in occupied territory over decades causes increasingly extreme militant groups to arise...combat this by expanding settlements and building yet more housing...when ceasefire is on (eg Oslo) build even more. When Palistineans are provoked into violence, refuse to negotiate and slowly expand still.

See a pattern?

Actually, settlements have been demonstrated to have very little effect on the viloence

From 1949-67, when Jews were forbidden to live on the West Bank, the Arabs refused to make peace with Israel.

From 1967-77, the Labor Party established only a few strategic settlements in the territories, yet the Arabs were unwilling to negotiate peace with Israel.

In 1977, months after a Likud government committed to greater settlement activity took power, Egyptian President Sadat went to Jerusalem and later signed a peace treaty with Israel. Incidentally, Israeli settlements existed in the Sinai and those were removed as part of the agreement with Egypt.

One year later, Israel froze settlement building for three months, hoping the gesture would entice other Arabs to join the Camp David peace process. But none would.

In 1994, Jordan signed a peace agreement with Israel and settlements were not an issue. If anything, the number of Jews living in the territories was growing.

Between June 1992 and June 1996, under Labor-led governments, the Jewish population in the territories grew by approximately 50 percent. This rapid growth did not prevent the Palestinians from signing the Oslo accords in September 1993 or the Oslo 2 agreement in September 1995.

In 2000, Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered to dismantle dozens of settlement, but the Palestinians still would not agree to end the conflict.

End the illegal israeli occupation.

End the suicide bombings and Qassam missiles shootings on Israel.

Spoils of war. Just like Texas. Just like East Prussia.
The war that resulted in that land being seized was illeagal to begin with.

At the end of the six day war, Israel could have easily destroyed Cairo, Damascus, and Amman because of their control of the air and the destruction of the enemy's Tank units. They didn't. Instead the resolution ended it, the deal was that Israel would give back the land if everyone else stopped bothering them...
The Khartoum Resolution voided it from the very beginning.

You can't order Israel to follow what others refuse too. As long as there is an Arab force attacking Israel. Resolution 242 is moot.

Yeah you heard me, Hamas, PLA, PLO, Hezbollah, they are to blame for Resolution 242 never coming to pass.

Firstly, Hamas, PLA and Hezbollah didn't then exist. Israel now has peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan.

Secondly, lets presume that your interpretation is correct, and Israel is allowed to militarily secure that area until such time as all Arabs stop hostilities. This would still not permit Israel to build civillian housing to move its own population into territory confiscated by war. Thats annexation.

End the suicide bombings and Qassam missiles shootings on Israel.
And hence the argument becomes entirely circular.

And hence the argument becomes entirely circular.

That's the point, many posters here seem to see Israel is the cause of everything that is wrong in the MidEast, they forget there are 2 sides to this argument.

Actually, settlements have been demonstrated to have very little effect on the viloence

From 1949-67, when Jews were forbidden to live on the West Bank, the Arabs refused to make peace with Israel.

From 1967-77, the Labor Party established only a few strategic settlements in the territories, yet the Arabs were unwilling to negotiate peace with Israel.

In 1977, months after a Likud government committed to greater settlement activity took power, Egyptian President Sadat went to Jerusalem and later signed a peace treaty with Israel. Incidentally, Israeli settlements existed in the Sinai and those were removed as part of the agreement with Egypt.

One year later, Israel froze settlement building for three months, hoping the gesture would entice other Arabs to join the Camp David peace process. But none would.

In 1994, Jordan signed a peace agreement with Israel and settlements were not an issue. If anything, the number of Jews living in the territories was growing.

Between June 1992 and June 1996, under Labor-led governments, the Jewish population in the territories grew by approximately 50 percent. This rapid growth did not prevent the Palestinians from signing the Oslo accords in September 1993 or the Oslo 2 agreement in September 1995.

In 2000, Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered to dismantle dozens of settlement, but the Palestinians still would not agree to end the conflict.

You left out the annexation of Arab East Jerusalem by the Knesset. You omit the fact that unrest in the territories grew along with the settlements leading to the breakdown of Oslo, and the undermining of Arafat. The settlements would not be an issue with Jordan, as Jordan has ceded all rights to the West Bank and Arab East Jerusalem to the Palestinians.


From 1949-67, when Jews were forbidden to live on the West Bank, the Arabs refused to make peace with Israel. .


"Abba Eban [Israeli Foreign Ministry official] came. He sees no point in chasing after peace. The armistice agreement is sufficient for us. If we chase after peace the Arabs will demand a price: either territory, return of refugees, or both. It's best to wait a few years." The Prime Minister noted these words without making any comments of his own." (Ben Gurion, 1949)

Firstly, Hamas, PLA and Hezbollah didn't then exist. Israel now has peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan.

Secondly, lets presume that your interpretation is correct, and Israel is allowed to militarily secure that area until such time as all Arabs stop hostilities. This would still not permit Israel to build civillian housing to move its own population into territory confiscated by war. Thats annexation.
Maybe they're building because they KNOW that peace is impossible?

Funny, in the seventh century it was the other way round.

The Jews were there, the Arabs were there. Two states are here needed, not one.

Also, it was the Arabs who started the war, by refusing to engage diplomatically. Had they accepted on the partition they would have got a much bigger state of their own.
Of course they didn't engage diplomatically. What part of "we're now going to hand over this much of your country (in the non-statehood definition) to an Israeli state" could they really have engaged with, regardless of one's stance on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Furthermore, what relevance does this or 7th century geopolitics have on finding a mutually beneficial solution, rather than blaming people for what happened XYZ years ago?

Of course they didn't engage diplomatically. What part of "we're now going to hand over this much of your country (in the non-statehood definition) to an Israeli state" could they really have engaged with, regardless of one's stance on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Furthermore, what relevance does this or 7th century geopolitics have on finding a mutually beneficial solution, rather than blaming people for what happened XYZ years ago?

Once again, the land wasn't the Palestinians to begin with. No one owed them anything.

Maybe they're building because they KNOW that peace is impossible?

Yet every thread that comes up we're told that Israel only wants peace...Now you're saying they're building on land not theirs because they think its impossible.

Once again, the land wasn't the Palestinians to begin with. No one owed them anything.
Then whose was it, bar the people that lived there?
http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/historical/israel_hist_1973.jpg

Yet every thread that comes up we're told that Israel only wants peace...Now you're saying they're building on land not theirs because they think its impossible.

The ones that don't want peace are the Palestinians. We had a ceasefire for the last month and in every single day of this month they shot Qassams on Israeli territory (civilian), by that, violating the ceasefire. Israel didn't react to any of this, but they are continuing to shoot at us. They are ruining the chance for peace. They are the ones who don't want peace with Israel, not the other way around.

Then whose was it, bar the people that lived there?
http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/historical/israel_hist_1973.jpg

:headbang: People living there has nothing to do with owning the land. The Brits owned it but there weren't any British civilians to occupy the land.

:headbang: People living there has nothing to do with owning the land. The Brits owned it but there weren't any British civilians to occupy the land.
Now we're playing semantics with 'owned' aren't we.

Now we're playing semantics with 'owned' aren't we.

:rolleyes: Well it is important, extremly important for this debate so, yes.

:rolleyes: Well it is important, extremly important for this debate so, yes.
How so? Playing technicalities with a situation 50 years ago merely distracts us from the present and the real situation around us. No matter how much we want it to, bickering constantly about it will not change the past nor improve the present.

How so? Playing technicalities with a situation 50 years ago merely distracts us from the present and the real situation around us. No matter how much we want it to, bickering constantly about it will not change the past nor improve the present.

It's not a technicality and you used this: "What part of "we're now going to hand over this much of your country (in the non-statehood definition) to an Israeli state" could they really have engaged with, "

So my point is very relevent in this argument.

It's not a technicality and you used this: "What part of "we're now going to hand over this much of your country (in the non-statehood definition) to an Israeli state" could they really have engaged with, "

So my point is very relevent in this argument.
Which they did, and no, it is irrelevant.

Which they did, and no, it is irrelevant.

um no, they didn't own the land and it's very relevent.

um no, they didn't own the land and it's very relevent.
http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/histo..._hist_1973.jpg
I'll repeat what I said earlier: Playing technicalities with a situation 50 years ago merely distracts us from the present and the real situation around us. No matter how much we want it to, bickering constantly about it will not change the past nor improve the present.

What will result from a decision on land ownership in the 1940s that will create peace in Israel?

I'll repeat, it's no technicality. Debating with you is hopless. You deny anything relevent to this issue.

I'll repeat, it's no technicality. Debating with you is hopless. You deny anything relevent to this issue.
Because arguing about that serves no purpose. Israel is there to stay, arguing on why it's there hasn't gone anywhere since day one.

Israel isn't going to go away, now you can keep bringing up how 'you think it shouldn't have been there to begin with' but what purpose does it serve?

So seeing how Israel is NOT going to disappear, it is a non issue.

Here's a link to another article on this "new" settlement. It's from the NY Times so it's not very friendly towards Israel but it has some interesting facts inside.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/27/world/middleeast/27mideast.html?_r=1&ei=5094&en=4f7c6ccba006c895&hp=&ex=1167195600&partner=homepage&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin

From the article:

"Another Israeli official, however, insisted that the settlement was not “new,” exactly, but a revival of a settlement approved in 1981, which had become a military training site by the mid-1990s."

So the settlement isn't new, it was approved 25 years ago but was never used as a settlement only as a military outpost.

"The housing will be used by the 20 families of the hawkish Gaza settlement Shirat Hayam, which resisted evacuation. To get them to leave Gaza peacefully, the army promised to keep them together."

These people were taken from their homes over a year ago as a sign of good faith to the Palestinians who have only responded with rocket attacks, terrorism, and gun battles amongst themselves. Moreover, the settlement is in the Jordan Valley which was never on the table to be given to the Palestinians because it is on the border with Jordan which Israel has allows maintained is necessary in order to secure Israels safety.

Finally, for all the Palestinian supporters on NS General, how do you defend the mockery that is being called a "cease-fire?" Israel has not only agreed to transfer 100 million dollars in tax revenues to the Palestinian Authority as a sign of good faith, but they have agreed to release prisoners without a guarantee that Gilad Shalit will be released. On top of that they have halted military operations in Gaza all the while the cease-fire is being broken by the Palestinians as more than 70 rockets have been fired into Israel leaving one 14 year old in critical condition. Wake up people.

And all this nonsense about settlements being an obstacle to peace...it's funny that Hamas' stated goal is the destruction of all Israel, not the dismantling and "liberation" of the West Bank and Gaza. It's laughable. They are a murderous breed who know nothing but death.

The ones that don't want peace are the Palestinians. We had a ceasefire for the last month and in every single day of this month they shot Qassams on Israeli territory (civilian), by that, violating the ceasefire. Israel didn't react to any of this, but they are continuing to shoot at us. They are ruining the chance for peace. They are the ones who don't want peace with Israel, not the other way around.

They shoot at you, you shoot at them. Logical. But they shoot at you, you shoot at them and continue to build civillian housing amongst them outside your own borders?


The Brits owned it but there weren't any British civilians to occupy the land.
.

The British were granted administrative control of the area under the terms of the mandate, not ownership of the land. You may look it up. You can also explain what this has to do with builing outside the 1967 borders now.


"Another Israeli official, however, insisted that the settlement was not “new,” exactly, but a revival of a settlement approved in 1981, which had become a military training site by the mid-1990s.".

So converting a post from military use to Civillian housing is ok? I think not.


These people were taken from their homes over a year ago as a sign of good faith to the Palestinians who have only responded with rocket attacks, terrorism, and gun battles amongst themselves...

Taken from illegal settlements built on stolen land, in the course of which some 20,000 Palestinians were displaced. Pardon my dry eyes.


Moreover, the settlement is in the Jordan Valley which was never on the table to be given to the Palestinians because it is on the border with Jordan which Israel has allows maintained is necessary in order to secure Israels safety....

...You mean according to Israel its not on the agenda.


Israel has not only agreed to transfer 100 million dollars in tax revenues to the Palestinian Authority as a sign of good faith, but they have agreed to release prisoners without a guarantee that Gilad Shalit will be released. ....


The money belongs to the PA in the first place, and it shouldnt have taken the kidnap of a soldier to get those prisoners released - many of whom should never have been locked up in the first place.


They are a murderous breed who know nothing but death.

Sounds like racism there to me. Care to explain yourself?

oh joy another israel/palestine thread....

Under the road map, Israel committed to freezing all settlement expansion in the occupied territories, while the Palestinians pledged to crack down on militants.

does not seem like either side is living up to the agreement.

The money belongs to the PA in the first place, and it shouldnt have taken the kidnap of a soldier to get those prisoners released - many of whom should never have been locked up in the first place.

Israeli tax dollars belongs to the Palestinians in the first place? I don't see how that makes sense. Not to mention the Palestinians don't deserve any foregin aid when they elect a terrorist group to run their government.

Sounds like racism there to me. Care to explain yourself?

I forget how sensitive you get Nod, but I'll be more specific. Hamas and it's supporters, along with the supporters of Fatah who are just as bad (need I go into the details of Arafats spectacular record on murder and mayhem?) are a murderous breed. Your every day Joe who is suffering because of their murderous and failed leadership, they are just poor innocents being taken advantage of by their leaders in order for the leaders to continue attempting to wipe Israel off the map and take advantage of their peoples suffering.

I hope that sums it up for you nicely.

Israeli tax dollars belongs to the Palestinians in the first place? ..

"December 24, 2006 -- JERUSALEM - A long-awaited summit between Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas revived hope for peace and produced immediate results yesterday - including a pledge by Israel to release $100 million in frozen funds.

The landmark deal on the frozen Palestinian assets came with help from British authorities, who said they found a way to transfer the money to the Palestinian people while keeping it away from terrorist groups such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad. " (Bold, where highlighting what selective reading obviously skipped)
http://portal.tds.net/news.php?story=20733


Not to mention the Palestinians don't deserve any foregin aid when they elect a terrorist group to run their government..

"Terrorist" is very much a matter of opinion.


I forget how sensitive you get Nod, but I'll be more specific..

Sock puppets make Jesus cry, amongst other things....


.Hamas and it's supporters, along with the supporters of Fatah who are just as bad (need I go into the details of Arafats spectacular record on murder and mayhem?) are a murderous breed. Your every day Joe who is suffering because of their murderous and failed leadership, they are just poor innocents being taken advantage of by their leaders in order for the leaders to continue attempting to wipe Israel off the map and take advantage of their peoples suffering.

I hope that sums it up for you nicely.

The "people are sheep" argument. Strangely enough, as a non-muslim cynic, I know I'd feel compelled to shoot people building a colony in my backyard, without being led to the conclusion. And it wouldnt matter who they were either, for that matter.

"December 24, 2006 -- JERUSALEM - A long-awaited summit between Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas revived hope for peace and produced immediate results yesterday - including a pledge by Israel to release $100 million in frozen funds.

The landmark deal on the frozen Palestinian assets came with help from British authorities, who said they found a way to transfer the money to the Palestinian people while keeping it away from terrorist groups such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad. " (Bold, where highlighting what selective reading obviously skipped)
http://portal.tds.net/news.php?story=20733 [/QUOTE]

The money was supposed to go to the Pals because Israel is nice enough to give them hard earned Israeli tax dollars along with providing water and electricity. The fact is that the money would be going to the Pals if Hamas wasn't in power, however, the fact that they are getting Israeli tax money to begin with is a gift.



"Terrorist" is very much a matter of opinion.

Spare me your moral relativism argument, Hamas' stated goal is the complete destruction of a sovereign nation and openly states in its covenant that it is at war with the Jews.


The "people are sheep" argument. Strangely enough, as a non-muslim cynic, I know I'd feel compelled to shoot people building a colony in my backyard, without being led to the conclusion. And it wouldnt matter who they were either, for that matter.

So you're admitting that the every day Palestinian is contributing to the "shooting" of Israelis? You take a more cynical look on things than I do.

"December 24, 2006 -- JERUSALEM - A long-awaited summit between Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas revived hope for peace and produced immediate results yesterday - including a pledge by Israel to release $100 million in frozen funds.

The landmark deal on the frozen Palestinian assets came with help from British authorities, who said they found a way to transfer the money to the Palestinian people while keeping it away from terrorist groups such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad. " (Bold, where highlighting what selective reading obviously skipped)
http://portal.tds.net/news.php?story=20733 [/QUOTE]

The money was supposed to go to the Pals because Israel is nice enough to give them hard earned Israeli tax dollars along with providing water and electricity. The fact is that the money would be going to the Pals if Hamas wasn't in power, however, the fact that they are getting Israeli tax money to begin with is a gift.



"Terrorist" is very much a matter of opinion.

Spare me your moral relativism argument, Hamas' stated goal is the complete destruction of a sovereign nation and openly states in its covenant that it is at war with the Jews.


The "people are sheep" argument. Strangely enough, as a non-muslim cynic, I know I'd feel compelled to shoot people building a colony in my backyard, without being led to the conclusion. And it wouldnt matter who they were either, for that matter.

So you're admitting that the every day Palestinian is contributing to the "shooting" of Israelis? You take a more cynical look on things than I do.

I see the effort to get off-topic continues......


The money was supposed to go to the Pals because Israel is nice enough to give them hard earned Israeli tax dollars along with providing water and electricity. The fact is that the money would be going to the Pals if Hamas wasn't in power, however, the fact that they are getting Israeli tax money to begin with is a gift..

And, as was mentioned quite clearly in the article, which you still refuse to acknowledge, it isn't Israeli money.

Even more clearly here -
"In order to release $100 million of the Palestinian taxpayer's money,"
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=805013

On the face of it, this is a microcosm of many debates on the question. Topic arises which portrays Israel in bad light. Apologist for Israel seeks to divert away from topic and highlights supposed act of 'generosity; which is actually Israel taking from Palestinians, then offering crumbs from the table. Apologist for Israel then applauds 'generosity 'of theif returning some of stolen goods, whilst all the time getting the facts entirely wrong.



Spare me your moral relativism argument, Hamas' stated goal is the complete destruction of a sovereign nation and openly states in its covenant that it is at war with the Jews...

While Israel is building a de facto Apartheid colonial province while denying a people their right to self determination....And unlike Hamas, we know that its not rhetoric, but fact.


So you're admitting that the every day Palestinian is contributing to the "shooting" of Israelis? You take a more cynical look on things than I do.

I have no problem whatsoever with legitamate struggle against occupation. And shooting the IDF is perfectly legitamate towards that end.

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/DB2AEF36-7A2F-4829-9A94-11A093D090D2.htm

Eh, no. Expanding settlements is in breach of the US backed 'Road-Map' (or whatever is left of that)

For once on this topic I actually agree with what DCD has said.

And the fucking assholes firing rockets into Israel isn't?

Israel has shown great restraint by not responding and blowing away Gaza. This is Israel's form of retaliation.

I think this is being done since Hamas claimed a military victory after Sharon's pull-out of Gaza. They are showing Hamas the consequences of their actions.

BTW, the current coalition was planning to dismantle the settlements by 2009. The capture of Gilad Shalit sent that plan to hell though.

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/DB2AEF36-7A2F-4829-9A94-11A093D090D2.htm

Yes a little thing happened over the summer. It was called a war. Perhaps if Hamas just turned Gilad Shalit over, it wouldn't have happened.

As for the number of deaths, I suggest you go watch this. It might go put some actual facts inside your otherwise empty head.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zTX3CZqDyOA

Am I the only person who thought this was an onion article when I first read the title?

I'm like "Nah, no way"

.

BTW, the current coalition was planning to dismantle the settlements by 2009. The capture of Gilad Shalit sent that plan to hell though.

Could you please show me a link to their statement?

I'll repeat, it's no technicality. Debating with you is hopless. You deny anything relevent to this issue.
Well then, enlighten me. What bearing should land ownership 50 years ago have on formulating a lasting and sustainable peace settlement between Israel/Palestine today?

Well then, enlighten me. What bearing should land ownership 50 years ago have on formulating a lasting and sustainable peace settlement between Israel/Palestine today?There can be no lasting and sustainable peace without returning the land to their former owners or appropriate compensation.

There can be no lasting and sustainable peace without returning the land to their former owners or appropriate compensation.
For what, exactly, and who to?

they have agreed to release prisoners without a guarantee that Gilad Shalit will be released. .

"JERUSALEM, Dec. 29 -- Israel rejected Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas's request for a quick release of prisoners to bolster nascent peace moves, saying Friday that Palestinian fighters first must free a captured Israeli soldier."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/29/AR2006122901447.html

Wrong again.....

There can be no lasting and sustainable peace without returning the land to their former owners or appropriate compensation.

400,000 Palestinian refugees were created by the war. 900,000 Jews were made refugees after the war when they were forced out by Arabs under threat of death. I think that issue is more than a wash.

Could you please show me a link to their statement?

http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2006/03/10/with_lead_in_israels_polls_kadima_lays_out_plans/

Kadima was planning to and ran on a platform or withdrawal. That was actually why Sharon founded the party. The disaster that occured in Gaza following Israeli withdrawal shot that plan to hell.

http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2006/03/10/with_lead_in_israels_polls_kadima_lays_out_plans/

Kadima was planning to and ran on a platform or withdrawal. That was actually why Sharon founded the party. The disaster that occured in Gaza following Israeli withdrawal shot that plan to hell.

Why thank you. Now.....my bold where it appears....
"...sketching out a bold plan to withdraw from most of the West Bank"

"Olmert also said he would seek to keep three large blocs of Jewish settlements in central areas of the West Bank"

"...he vowed to build Jewish housing in a West Bank area east of Jerusalem known as E-1, a longstanding Israeli plan to consolidate control of the area that is on hold because US officials say it violates a settlement-building freeze that is part of the ''road map" peace plan."

You said
BTW, the current coalition was planning to dismantle the settlements by 2009.

You see the problem?

Why thank you. Now.....my bold where it appears....
"...sketching out a bold plan to withdraw from most of the West Bank"

"Olmert also said he would seek to keep three large blocs of Jewish settlements in central areas of the West Bank"

"...he vowed to build Jewish housing in a West Bank area east of Jerusalem known as E-1, a longstanding Israeli plan to consolidate control of the area that is on hold because US officials say it violates a settlement-building freeze that is part of the ''road map" peace plan."

You said


You see the problem?
Given the fact that a complete withdrawal from Gaza led to more problems, don't you see the Israeli's line of thinking here?

They need to keep a foothold in there just in case the terrorist anarchy that took over Gaza takes place. A foothold there will prevent a situation similar to the Qassam problem in Gaza.

Heck, there has been a ceasefire in place for 2 weeks. Israel hasn't done anything in response despite 2 straight weeks of being fired upon.

Given the fact that a complete withdrawal from Gaza led to more problems, don't you see the Israeli's line of thinking here?

They need to keep a foothold in there just in case the terrorist anarchy that took over Gaza takes place. A foothold there will prevent a situation similar to the Qassam problem in Gaza.

Heck, there has been a ceasefire in place for 2 weeks. Israel hasn't done anything in response despite 2 straight weeks of being fired upon.

Israels line of thinking isn't what I'm questioning. The fact is that theres no plan - nor has there been a plan - to withdraw entirely.

Israels line of thinking isn't what I'm questioning. The fact is that theres no plan - nor has there been a plan - to withdraw entirely.

Because it is irrelevent for now as IDF proved.

Israels line of thinking isn't what I'm questioning. The fact is that theres no plan - nor has there been a plan - to withdraw entirely.

If the first stage of the withdrawals were successful, then it is likely that later ones would be undertaken. Gaza has shown us that a complete withdrawal is more disasterous than Israel being there.

As bad as things are in the West Bank, they are far worse where there are no Israeli troops (Gaza Strip). The Palestinians are killing eachother in Gaza, not the West Bank. The attacks on Israelis are coming from Gaza, not the West Bank. Notice a little trend here?


The real kicker here is that it looks like that if events in Gaza continue as they have, Israel might be forced to make moves back into Gaza.

If the first stage of the withdrawals were successful, then it is likely that later ones would be undertaken. Gaza has shown us that a complete withdrawal is more disasterous than Israel being there.

As bad as things are in the West Bank, they are far worse where there are no Israeli troops (Gaza Strip). The Palestinians are killing eachother in Gaza, not the West Bank. The attacks on Israelis are coming from Gaza, not the West Bank. Notice a little trend here?


The real kicker here is that it looks like that if events in Gaza continue as they have, Israel might be forced to make moves back into Gaza.

You are completely right IDF. And BTW I claimed Israel first in the other thread :p

If the first stage of the withdrawals were successful, then it is likely that later ones would be undertaken. Gaza has shown us that a complete withdrawal is more disasterous than Israel being there.

As bad as things are in the West Bank, they are far worse where there are no Israeli troops (Gaza Strip). The Palestinians are killing eachother in Gaza, not the West Bank. The attacks on Israelis are coming from Gaza, not the West Bank. Notice a little trend here?

The real kicker here is that it looks like that if events in Gaza continue as they have, Israel might be forced to make moves back into Gaza.

Thats not what that article says. In fact it states that they are "....sketching out a bold plan to withdraw from most of the West Bank and unilaterally draw Israel's permanent borders within four years."
"Permanent borders". I suggest you reread the piece.

Thats not what that article says. In fact it states that they are "....sketching out a bold plan to withdraw from most of the West Bank and unilaterally draw Israel's permanent borders within four years."
"Permanent borders". I suggest you reread the piece.

There were similar things said during 2000 about drawing permanent borders. The fact remained though that in the end the Israeli government would've likely withdrawn to the Green Line. Regardless, the Palestinians should take whatever Israel offers them. Israel won't offer 100% right off the bat. The only way the Palestinians could ever expect to get 100% is if they take less then that and then cooperate once they get a state. Once that is done, Israel would likely give back more.

That is what would've happened if Arafat wasn't a fucking douchebag who screwed his people and chose war over peace.

They shoot at you, you shoot at them. Logical. But they shoot at you, you shoot at them and continue to build civillian housing amongst them outside your own borders?


The Israelies are not shooting, unlike the Palestains, they are honouring the ceace fire.

The Israelies are not shooting, unlike the Palestains, they are honouring the ceace fire.

And Israel has every right to shoot into Gaza right now since the Palestinian rocket attacks make the cease-fire null and void.

There were similar things said during 2000 about drawing permanent borders. The fact remained though that in the end the Israeli government would've likely withdrawn to the Green Line. Regardless, the Palestinians should take whatever Israel offers them. Israel won't offer 100% right off the bat. The only way the Palestinians could ever expect to get 100% is if they take less then that and then cooperate once they get a state. Once that is done, Israel would likely give back more.

That is what would've happened if Arafat wasn't a fucking douchebag who screwed his people and chose war over peace.

They are quite specific that they are not withdrawing to the 1967 borders, on what they are keeping, and where they intend to build. That simple. You can't say you're hanging on to settlements and mean going to the green line, because they are contradictatory things.


The Israelies are not shooting, unlike the Palestains, they are honouring the ceace fire..

Settlement building is as aggressive an act, and more telling in the long term. Its warfare by other means.

Settlement building is as aggressive an act, and more telling in the long term. Its warfare by other means.

You can't compare building homes to shooting at civilians. Just admit that the Palestinians are not honoring the ceasefire and the Israelis are. What would you or anyone else say if the Israelis were shooting on the Palestinians and the Palestinians wouldn't have reacted? Would the UN condemn the Israelis? Yes. Has the UN condemned the Palestinians for violating the ceasefire repeatedly in the last month? No.

You can't compare building homes to shooting at civilians.Indeed. Building "homes" is worse.

You can't compare building homes to shooting at civilians. Just admit that the Palestinians are not honoring the ceasefire and the Israelis are. What would you or anyone else say if the Israelis were shooting on the Palestinians and the Palestinians wouldn't have reacted? Would the UN condemn the Israelis? Yes. Has the UN condemned the Palestinians for violating the ceasefire repeatedly in the last month? No.

Its part of a creeping colonisation which further outlines Israels intention to hold onto as much of the West Bank as possible. Yes it is worse.

Indeed. Building "homes" is worse.
:rolleyes:
No, shooting civialns is much worse.

more stolen land.....only confirms what most of the world already knows and the USA can't understand, Israel never has and never will have any intention looking for a fair solution, Zionists want all the land.......

more stolen land.....only confirms what most of the world already knows and the USA can't understand, Israel never has and never will have any intention looking for a fair solution, Zionists want all the land.......

Only far right wingers want the entire land. Other Zionists just support Israel's exitance with the land it has now.

:rolleyes:
No, shooting civialns is much worse.Not in the long term.

Just admit that the Palestinians are not honoring the ceasefire and the Israelis are.

Both sides have broken it. Take the blinkers off.

Shooting and killing from Hamas has broken it.
Extension of the settlements (recognised to be illegal by every international state) breaks the U.S. backed 'Road Map for Peace' that Israel signed up to.

Only far right wingers want the entire land. Other Zionists just support Israel's exitance with the land it has now.

the far right Zionists run Israel and have been in charge from the beginning....

Why am I not surprised, Israel always says one thing but its actions are another. The Israeli government is no different then the militias they see as a threat to Israel.

the far right Zionists run Israel and have been in charge from the beginning....

I suppose that's why Israel bounces back every 3 or 4 years from socialist Labor to conservative Likud.

You're lack of knowledge on this subject makes every post you make on this subject null and void.

Indeed. Building "homes" is worse.

You're a racist who proudly supports the targetting of night clubs by terrorists so of course you feel that way.

Both sides have broken it. Take the blinkers off.

Shooting and killing from Hamas has broken it.
Extension of the settlements (recognised to be illegal by every international state) breaks the U.S. backed 'Road Map for Peace' that Israel signed up to.

The cease-fire was null and void on the first night when Hamas fired Qassams.

The cease-fire was null and void on the first night when Hamas fired Qassams.

"but Maaaa, Billy did it too".

"but Maaaa, Billy did it too".
Israel sat on its ass for 2 weeks and bore the brunt of Hamas attacks. Israel just decided to say "fuck it, enough is enough." It isn't like Israel was impatient here. The Palestinians have been doing this shit for 2 weeks without reprocussions. Now they are being shown there are consequences for what they did.

The days when Jews sit back and let people kill them ended in 1945. Now we fight.

Israel sat on its ass for 2 weeks and bore the brunt of Hamas attacks. Israel just decided to say "fuck it, enough is enough." It isn't like Israel was impatient here. The Palestinians have been doing this shit for 2 weeks without reprocussions. Now they are being shown there are consequences for what they did.

Israel decided to say "fuck it, enough is enough...... so we're going to build more settlements....." Doesn't exactly sound like a reciprocated response?


The days when Jews sit back and let people kill them ended in 1945. Now we fight.

:rolleyes: Ugh. Not everything has to do with the Holocaust you know.

"but Maaaa, Billy did it too".

But Maaaaa, Israel didn't try to kill people. That's the difference between the 2 violations of the cease fire. That Israel actually didn't fire.

But Maaaaa, Israel didn't try to kill people. That's the difference between the 2 violations of the cease fire. That Israel actually didn't fire.

'Israel didn't kill people'

Are you sure you want to stick by that concrete statement?

On the other point, break it one way, break it another way. Doesn't matter. The law only sees it broken.

'Israel didn't kill people'

Are you sure you want to stick by that concrete statement?

On the other point, break it one way, break it another way. Doesn't matter. The law only sees it broken.

Of course Israel killed people concidering how many wars it had. But if you'll bother to read my whole response you'll clearly see I was refering to the violation of the cease fire.

Of course Israel killed people concidering how many wars it had. But if you'll bother to read my whole response you'll clearly see I was refering to the violation of the cease fire.

Right. So in the very narrow confines of your point, all they have done is set the groundwork for future deaths on both sides.

Oh well, out of sight, out of mind - right?

Right. So in the very narrow confines of your point, all they have done is set the groundwork for future deaths on both sides.


How the hell did they do that? Israel never started a war.

How the hell did they do that? Israel never started a war.

*sigh* (Really, I mean sometimes I feel like I'm hitting my head on a wall)

How are they laying the groundwork for future deaths?

By extending the settlements beyond their borders. That will cause deaths.

Take it like this. I lay a landmine on a path and walk away. When someone walks on it - I am the one responsible.

You're a racist who proudly supports the targetting of night clubs by terrorists so of course you feel that way.

Given what you were saying about needing Israel to prevent "assimilation", I'd say you were in a glass house there....


Israel sat on its ass for 2 weeks and bore the brunt of Hamas attacks. .

"200 new trailers placed in West Bank settlements since June."
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/807108.html

Nice:rolleyes: Their stealing even MORE Muslim land. Haven't they had enough land?

http://img323.imageshack.us/img323/6434/pwsign22ac5.gif (http://imageshack.us)

I suppose that's why Israel bounces back every 3 or 4 years from socialist Labor to conservative Likud.

You're lack of knowledge on this subject makes every post you make on this subject null and void.

it's all relative......Americans consider their democrats as leftists, where I live we consider US Democrats right of center conservatives(Republicans on the lunatic fringe).....N Koreans call themselves democrats....Nazi's called themselves socialistsYou're lack of knowledge on this subject makes every post you make on this subject null and void

http://img323.imageshack.us/img323/6434/pwsign22ac5.gif (http://imageshack.us)Well, first of all this is not about Muslims, but about Palestinian Arabs. And then it is of no relevance in what territory Muslims live. The matter at issue is the fate of every single individual Palestinian Arab who cannot now live in the homeland of his/her fathers because of the Jewish immigration and subsequent declaration of statehood.
If the Jews had been going to New Jersey and made efforts to supplant the local population there, would you also hint at what territory the locals could have removed to throughout North America?

Israel sat on its ass for 2 weeks and bore the brunt of Hamas attacks. Israel just decided to say "fuck it, enough is enough." It isn't like Israel was impatient here.

A two whole weeks huh? I guess two months is a lifetime.

it's all relative......Americans consider their democrats as leftists, where I live we consider US Democrats right of center conservatives(Republicans on the lunatic fringe).....N Koreans call themselves democrats....Nazi's called themselves socialistsYou're lack of knowledge on this subject makes every post you make on this subject null and void

Actually, it is you who have no knowledge here. Israel's Labor Party is considered leftist by just about everyone. After all, they do proudly proclaim themselves as Socialists.

Of course you don't have the ability to learn anything on this subject since you just regurgitate the shit your parents have told you about it and take it as holy gospel.

A two whole weeks huh? I guess two months is a lifetime.

It shows that Israel tried to keep the peace. You can't just sit by and let someone attack you. Israel is a democracy. The government's responsibility is to protect its people. Thus, Israel has to take action in order to fulfill that responsibility.

Of course it appears that you have problems whenever Jews protect themselves.

It is very important in this topic to remember the Jewish experiences during the Diaspara. Not because they are parallels to today, but because it is those experiences that have shaped the minds of today's Jews and thus Israel's policy makers. Losing 1/3 of your people within recent memory will have a major impact on how you think. Ignoring the impact of the Holocaust and other disasters during the Diaspara on how Israelis think makes it impossible to analyze how they make their decisions.

Not in the long term.

So people choosing to live somewhere is worse than killing people who are not involved in a conflict.

So people choosing to live somewhere is worse than killing people who are not involved in a conflict.


Its colonisation, which is an act of aggression guaranteed to lead to more direct violence in the long run.

Its colonisation, which is an act of aggression guaranteed to lead to more direct violence in the long run.

I've already demonstrated that it isnt colonisation.

MYTH

“Israel is provocatively settling Jews in predominantly Arab towns, and has established so many facts on the ground territorial compromise is no longer possible.”

FACT

Altogether, built-up settlement area is less than two percent of the disputed territories. An estimated 80 percent of the settlers live in what are in effect suburbs of major Israeli cities such as Jerusalem and Tel Aviv. These are areas that virtually the entire Jewish population believes Israel must retain to ensure its security, and even President Clinton indicated in December 2000 should remain under permanent Israeli sovereignty.

Strategic concerns have led both Labor and Likud governments to establish settlements. The objective is to secure a Jewish majority in key strategic regions of the West Bank, such as the Tel Aviv-Jerusalem corridor, the scene of heavy fighting in several Arab-Israeli wars. Still, when Arab-Israeli peace talks began in late 1991, more than 80 percent of the West Bank contained no settlements or only sparsely populated ones.

Today, approximately 225,000 Jews live in roughly 150 communities in the West Bank. The overwhelming majority of these settlements have fewer than 1,000 citizens and several have only a few dozen residents. Analysts have noted that 80 percent of the Jews could be brought within Israel's borders with minor modifications of the "Green Line."

I've already demonstrated that it isnt colonisation.The text you posted very clearly describes colonization, especially "The objective is to secure a Jewish majority in key strategic regions of the West Bank", which in fact denotes a very ideologically charged and ultimately racist form of colonization.

The text you posted very clearly describes colonization, especially "The objective is to secure a Jewish majority in key strategic regions of the West Bank", which in fact denotes a very ideologically charged and ultimately racist form of colonization.

Note "Key straticgic reasons" not "imperial ambition". Israel doesnt want to Colonise the whole west bank. What it wants is the regions that, if it doesn't have, the Palesitans will use to continiue attacking civilians. This has been demonstrated as the Gaza withdrawl created more and more attacks. Had Israel held onto it, there would have been less

Israel has offered to deconstruct settlements many times as part of peace offerings, but these offers have been rejected.

Note "Key straticgic reasons" not "imperial ambition". Israel doesnt want to Colonise the whole west bank. What it wants is the regions that, if it doesn't have, the Palesitans will use to continiue attacking civilians. This has been demonstrated as the Gaza withdrawl created more and more attacks. Had Israel held onto it, there would have been less

Israel has offered to deconstruct settlements many times as part of peace offerings, but these offers have been rejected."Key strategic reasons" and "imperial ambition" is more or less the same. You ask the British.

Note "Key straticgic reasons" not "imperial ambition". Israel doesnt want to Colonise the whole west bank. What it wants is the regions that, if it doesn't have, the Palesitans will use to continiue attacking civilians. This has been demonstrated as the Gaza withdrawl created more and more attacks. Had Israel held onto it, there would have been less

Israel has offered to deconstruct settlements many times as part of peace offerings, but these offers have been rejected.

The UNSC has ruled that these settlements are "illegal and invalid" on at least 4 occassions. After that, You might as well post a legal opinion from Osama saying the NYC attacks were valid.

By the way, if those areas are nessecary for Israeli safety, why are they putting civillian housing in them? Or did you just get all excited when you thought you had a point and not think it through?