NationStates Jolt Archive

Israel has nearly doubled the number of homes under construction in Jewish settlements in the West Bank this year, according to a new report published today.

The report, by Peace Now, an Israeli organisation, said the housing ministry had begun work on 433 new settlement housing units between January and May this year compared with 240 in the same period last year, despite continuing negotiations with the Palestinians for a peace agreement.

The organisation said its findings were based on figures from Israel's Central Bureau of Statistics.

It said a total of more than 1,000 new buildings, representing 2,600 housing units, were now under construction in settlements.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/aug/26/israelandthepalestinians

Isn't it time the US started penalising this kind of thing, rather than pretending to be critical?

Hey how about just making Israel GTFO of Palestine. The have no right to settle in the West Bank or Gaza.

In a page or so, someone is going to say the Israeli's have total rights to the area, and the Palestinians can stuff it because they launch rockets, nevermind that the displaced people didn't do it or anything like that.

Things would be much simpler if the UN copied East Germany and built a great big honking wall between Israel proper and Palestine, cutting off the OT from Israel, mined it, put up missile batteries and shooting anyone who crosses it without a permit.

In a page or so, someone is going to say the Israeli's have total rights to the area, and the Palestinians can stuff it because they launch rockets, nevermind that the displaced people didn't do it or anything like that.

Things would be much simpler if the UN copied East Germany and built a great big honking wall between Israel proper and Palestine, cutting off the OT from Israel, mined it, put up missile batteries and shooting anyone who crosses it without a permit.

Travel restrictions already make life hard enough for the Palestinians. This represents a step backwards.

In a page or so, someone is going to say the Israeli's have total rights to the area, and the Palestinians can stuff it because they launch rockets, nevermind that the displaced people didn't do it or anything like that.

Things would be much simpler if the UN copied East Germany and built a great big honking wall between Israel proper and Palestine, cutting off the OT from Israel, mined it, put up missile batteries and shooting anyone who crosses it without a permit.
The Israelis are already building a wall.

Sigh... Well, there's going to be an election relatively soon from what I understand (I guess I could be wrong, I don't follow the news closely). I was thinking of voting for the most anti-theocratic party I could find, but maybe I'll see if I can find an anti-settlements party instead. They're probably likely to be secular anyway.

Travel restrictions already make life hard enough for the Palestinians. This represents a step backwards.

The Israelis are already building a wall.

The difference being Israeli's would get shot too if they tried crossing the wall without a permit. This particular wall would starve the OTs from Israeli support and bring illicit development there to a grinding halt.

It's a lot easier to implement than the other idea I had, a grand baby kidnap/swap. Every single Israeli child under 1 year old gets sent to a Palestinian family and vice versa, with the practice kept up for a generation or two. By then the idiots on both sides will have been long dead.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/aug/26/israelandthepalestinians

Isn't it time the US started penalising this kind of thing, rather than pretending to be critical?
The Israeli government states that they want a lasting peace with the Palestinians, but actions such as these suggest otherwise.

Yes.....the US really needs to take the bull by the horn.....but they won't.

Israel should by rights control that land, ergo they can do what the hell they want with it.

Israel should by rights control that land, ergo they can do what the hell they want with it.

By what right?

By what right?

Because after millenia of continued persecution the jewish people deserved a home.

They have a home. Why do they need more homes that are being built on places that others already call home?

Feck, it's hard being a left-winger.

I passionately believe that, after eons of being treated as the arseholes of the earth, the Jewish people deserve justice and peace and security. But they do things like this.

I passionately believe that the Palestinians deserve justice and peace and security. But they send in missiles and suicide bombers.

Sometimes I'm tempted to wish a plague on both their houses.

Because after millenia of continued persecution the jewish people deserved a home.So if we start a thread for the Kurds, you'll argue that Turkey, Iran, Syria, and Iraq should be carved up because after the millenia of persecution, the Kurdish people deserve a home? Or are you a hypocrite?

They have a home. Why do they need more homes that are being built on places that others already call home?

Because originally the whole of israel was to be owned by the jewish, they now legitimately claim control of the westbank and the gaza strip.

So if we start a thread for the Kurds, you'll argue that Turkey, Iran, Syria, and Iraq should be carved up because after the millenia of persecution, the Kurdish people deserve a home? Or are you a hypocrite?

No i agree with you, the northern kurdish region of iraq is one of the most peaceful, it would probably be a very sucessful independant nation.

There are people who currently reside in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. They have a legitimate claim as well - they were born there, their ancestors were born there and their homes are there. Why do the settlers who were not born there need to invade? Why can't they make their homes on land that is claimed by the state of Israel?

There are people who currently reside in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. They have a legitimate claim as well - they were born there, their ancestors were born there and their homes are there. Why do the settlers who were not born there need to invade? Why can't they make their homes on land that is claimed by the state of Israel?

I fail to see how israels actions make it impossible for palestinians to live there, they are simply building new houses.

The Arabs have been there a lot longer than the Jews.

The Arabs have been there a lot longer than the Jews.

not if you go far enough back they havnt.

I fail to see how israels actions make it impossible for palestinians to live there, they are simply building new houses.

But it's sovereign Plasestinian land, the Israelis shouldn't be there. The government made the settlers leave a few years back, but now they're building them houses.

not if you go far enough back they havnt.

Yes they have.

I fail to see how israels actions make it impossible for palestinians to live there, they are simply building new houses.

On land which already belongs to people. If I build a house on your land you can't use it for grazing animals any more. Property rights are a cornerstone of any functioning nation; you seem to have a wilful disregard for them.

But it's sovereign Plasestinian land, the Israelis shouldn't be there. The government made the settlers leave a few years back, but now they're building them houses.

Doesn't israel still claim sovereignity of the westbank and gaza? If im wrong you may scrap everything i've said.

Doesn't israel still claim sovereignity of the westbank and gaza? If im wrong you may scrap everything i've said.

As far as I know it doesn't, which is why they pulled most of their settlers out.

Doesn't israel still claim sovereignity of the westbank and gaza? If im wrong you may scrap everything i've said.

Then we can scrap everything you have said - they do not claim sovereignty over it.

So if we start a thread for the Kurds, you'll argue that Turkey, Iran, Syria, and Iraq should be carved up because after the millenia of persecution, the Kurdish people deserve a home? Or are you a hypocrite?
Same with the American Indians, the Celts, the Scots, the Welsh, The Irish, and so on and so forth.......

Same with the American Indians, the Celts, the Scots, the Welsh, The Irish, and so on and so forth.......

Irish, Welsh, and Scots are all Celts, and all have their own country.

No i agree with you, the northern kurdish region of iraq is one of the most peaceful, it would probably be a very sucessful independant nation.You agree with me? I'm not arguing in favor of a Kurdish state, merely pointing out the fallacy of your argument. Indeed, the shithole that is the Kurdish region of Iraq is arguable "better off" than the rest.

Irish, Welsh, and Scots are all Celts, and all have their own country.
They all have their own country? News to me.

Ireland, Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland.

Then we can scrap everything you have said - they do not claim sovereignty over it.

haha o dear, i should check this sort of thing before i type, my apologies for wasting your time.

Ireland, Norhtern Ireland, Wales and Scotland.

The latter three are not sovereign states, they are part of the UK

The latter three are not sovereign states, they are part of the UK

Yeah, but they're still countries. And the Scots have their own parliament and the Northern Irish have an assembly, so they're pretty much semi-autonomous.

Yeah, but they're still countries. And the Scots have their own parliament and the Northern Irish have an assembly, so they're pretty much semi-autonomous.

As do the Welsh.

Yeah, but they're still countries. And the Scots have their own parliament and the Northern Irish have an assembly, so they're pretty much semi-autonomous.

So do the welsh, but strictly speaking Wesminster could repeal devolution and remove their parliaments. Any nation that can have its government taken away is hardly a sovereign state.

I didn't say they were sovereign, I said they were pretty much semi-autonomous.

I didn't say they were sovereign, I said they were pretty much semi-autonomous.

the Semi being the important word, they are not countries if they don't have the ability to indefinately govern themselves.

Because originally the whole of israel was to be owned by the jewish,.

"Originally" refers to when, might I ask?


I fail to see how israels actions make it impossible for palestinians to live there, they are simply building new houses.

Well thats something we can clear up fairly simply. First, Israeli settlers are treated under Israeli civil law, while the Arab population is dealt with under a form of martial law, and are denied the protections of the Geneva convention. Secondly, there is the constant violence of the settlers towards the Arab population, examples of which you may read and see here.
http://www.btselem.org/english/Testimonies/index.asp?TF=01

Then theres the seizure of land for settlement expansion, and the control and distribution of the resources of the area (water being the obvious one) to the advantage of the illegal colonies.

Theres also the constant violence and threat of violence by the IDF against the Arab population, at checkpoints, on patrol and on raids. Prisoners are routinely beaten/tortured.


Doesn't israel still claim sovereignity of the westbank and gaza?

Its kept in almost a "limbo" status, as were they to annex the West Bank entire, they'd have to absorb the Arab population, who they don't want. They have annexed Arab East Jerusalem by act of the knesset, and are slowly driving out the Arab population, by making life extremely difficult for the Arab residents and revoking permits etc.

It's time the Israelis stopped with the settlements. They are an obstacle to peace.

Unfortunately, we cannot expect any action right now. The Israeli government is in a degree of turmoil, with Olmert about to resign. Hopefully the next Prime Minister (go Livni!) will do something about this.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/aug/26/israelandthepalestinians

Isn't it time the US started penalising this kind of thing, rather than pretending to be critical?

Yeah, they really want peace if they do that. [/sarcasm]

the Semi being the important word, they are not countries if they don't have the ability to indefinately govern themselves.So Georgia isn't a country?

You're confusing "sovereign nation" and "country". "Country" doesn't mean what you think it does.

the Semi being the important word, they are not countries if they don't have the ability to indefinately govern themselves.

They are still countries, though. Whether or not they are sovereign has nothing to do with it.

They are still countries, though. Whether or not they are sovereign has nothing to do with it.

By what measure do you determine a country then?

So Georgia isn't a country?

You're confusing "sovereign nation" and "country". "Country" doesn't mean what you think it does.

How is Georgia not a country?

Ireland, Norhtern Ireland, Wales and Scotland.
Those are all constituents of the United Kingdom.

How is Georgia not a country?Georgia isn't currently able to "indefinately govern itself". I don't consider that a valid definition of a country, though.

By what measure do you determine a country then?

Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are constituent countries: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constituent_country

"The word country does not necessarily connote political independence, so it may, according to context, be used to refer either to the UK or one of its constituents. Thus, for example, the British Prime Minister's website refers to "countries within a country", stating "The United Kingdom is made up of four countries: England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Its full name is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland."

It's time the Israelis stopped with the settlements. They are an obstacle to peace.

Unfortunately, we cannot expect any action right now. The Israeli government is in a degree of turmoil, with Olmert about to resign. Hopefully the next Prime Minister (go Livni!) will do something about this.


Tzipi Livni, the Israeli foreign minister, said the process would "not be affected" by settlement activity. "The role of the leaders is to try to find a way to live in peace in the future and not to let any kind of noises that relate to the situation on the ground these days to enter the negotiation room," she said.

"But at the end of the day the Israeli government's policy is not to expand settlements, not to build new settlements and not to confiscate Palestinian land."

Livni said settlement activity had "reduced in the most dramatic way", particularly east of the barrier. But the figures from Peace Now appeard to challenge that argument.

...doesnt give one room for optimism.

Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are constituent countries: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constituent_country

"The word country does not necessarily connote political independence, so it may, according to context, be used to refer either to the UK or one of its constituents. Thus, for example, the British Prime Minister's website refers to "countries within a country", stating "The United Kingdom is made up of four countries: England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Its full name is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland."

So you can quote wiki, congrats. You still havnt answered my question though.

They are still countries, though. Whether or not they are sovereign has nothing to do with it.
If that were true, then the Scots would not be pushing for independence.

Do you believe that Scotland should be totally independent of the UK?

Those are all constituents of the United Kingdom.

No they're not. Ireland isn't, and the others are still countries, sovereign or not.

Those are all constituents of the United Kingdom.

emmmm...no, they are not all constituents of the UK. 1919-21 and all that.

If that were true, then the Scots would not be pushing for independence.

Do you believe that Scotland should be totally independent of the UK?

Yes. And Wales, and, if they want it, Northern Ireland.

emmmm...no, they are not all constituents of the UK. 1919-21 and all that.
Not Ireland but Northern Ireland is a constituent.

EDIT (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constituent_country#United_Kingdom):

The constituent countries of the United Kingdom are:[4]

England
Northern Ireland
Scotland
Wales

We know, but you said all of those are constituents, which they're not, and being contsituent doesn't prevent them from being countries.

Because originally the whole of israel was to be owned by the jewish, they now legitimately claim control of the westbank and the gaza strip.
The Israelis already control ALL of Israel. The Israelis have illegitimate control of the West Bank and Gaza.

EDIT: United Nations Security Council Resolution 446 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_446)

United Nations Security Council Resolution 446 concerned the issue of Israeli settlements in the "Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem".[1] This refers to the Palestinian territories of the West Bank including East Jerusalem, Gaza Strip and the Golan Heights.

In the Resolution, the Security Council determined: "that the policy and practices of Israel in establishing settlements in the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967 have no legal validity and constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East"



Note: sorry for the earlier partial threadjack....

Because after millenia of continued persecution the jewish people deserved a home.

I have a home right here. Why would I need to go to some ethnically-oriented hellhole in the desert?

I fail to see how israels actions make it impossible for palestinians to live there

http://www.worldproutassembly.org/bulldozing-in-palestine.jpg

See it yet?

I love Israel with all my heart, but sometimes it makes me sick :(
Every time I read about the settlements, and the west bank and gaza, I get upset. Grrrr.

And just to clarify, Israel never removed its settlements from the West Bank. It was Gaza that it pulled out of, and so far as I know, it has not resettled that region (thank god).

And for the record, while I think Israel should leave the west bank and gaza, I maintain they have a right to hold onto the Golan.

Feck, it's hard being a left-winger.

I passionately believe that, after eons of being treated as the arseholes of the earth, the Jewish people deserve justice and peace and security. But they do things like this.

I passionately believe that the Palestinians deserve justice and peace and security. But they send in missiles and suicide bombers.

Sometimes I'm tempted to wish a plague on both their houses.

Currently the Palestinians have a head start with a plague on their houses.

I'm surprised nobody has yet tried to justify this with the usual right wing wankery about Israelis being meek and helpless lambs being constantly oppressed and terrorized by the Palestinian Horde- of whom every man, woman and child are of course insectoid hiveminds under the telepathic control of Osama Bin Ladin as can be seen in the Aliens and Starship Troopers documentaries.

I'm surprised nobody has yet tried to justify this with the usual right wing wankery about Israelis being meek and helpless lambs being constantly oppressed and terrorized by the Palestinian Horde- of whom every man, woman and child are of course insectoid hiveminds under the telepathic control of Osama Bin Ladin as can be seen in the Aliens and Starship Troopers documentaries.

I think Israel has proved time and again they are not meek as lambs. See 1948, 1956, 1967, and 1973.

Likewise, the palestinians have proved they are not meek as lambs. See the intifada, fedayeen, and lebanon.

It's more like a wolf and a lion squaring off.

I think Israel has proved time and again they are not meek as lambs. See 1948, 1956, 1967, and 1973.

Likewise, the palestinians have proved they are not meek as lambs. See the intifada, fedayeen, and lebanon.

It's more like a wolf and a lion squaring off.

Except one has the financial, military and propaganda support of a superpower, and the other is up Shit Creek without a paddle. Or a canoe.

Except one has the financial, military and propaganda support of a superpower, and the other is up Shit Creek without a paddle. Or a canoe.

Except that the palestinians do have support? Syria, Iran, etc.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying they have near as much support as Israel does. But they are hardly up shit creek without a paddle.

I'm surprised nobody has yet tried to justify this with the usual right wing wankery about Israelis being meek and helpless lambs being constantly oppressed and terrorized by the Palestinian Horde- of whom every man, woman and child are of course insectoid hiveminds under the telepathic control of Osama Bin Ladin as can be seen in the Aliens and Starship Troopers documentaries.

Are you suggesting that Aliens was anything less than 100% nonfiction? I had family what died on the Nostromo, man. Don't be an Aliens Denier.

Anyway, I'm just glad that the annoying "Palestinians don't really exist!" 'argument' hasn't popped up yet. Or the "There's no such thing as Palestine" nonsense.

Except that the palestinians do have support? Syria, Iran, etc.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying they have near as much support as Israel does. But they are hardly up shit creek without a paddle.

If you call just enough supplies just to continue being a comparatively miniscule insurgency as opposed to a capable standing armed forces like the IDF "support," then yeah.

If you call just enough supplies just to continue being a comparatively miniscule insurgency as opposed to a capable standing armed forces like the IDF "support," then yeah.

A miniscule insurgency that stopped the IDF dead in Lebanon.
Only a total fool would try to stand up to the IDF in a knock-out battle. It has been tried, and it has failed every time. Instead, that "miniscule insurgency" has caused headaches throughout IDF high command for decades, refuses to die, and continues to exist instead of being crushed.

If they didn't kill civilians, I would actually rather admire hezbollah and hamas. Not gonna lie.

A miniscule insurgency that stopped the IDF dead in Lebanon.
Only a total fool would try to stand up to the IDF in a knock-out battle. It has been tried, and it has failed every time. Instead, that "miniscule insurgency" has caused headaches throughout IDF high command for decades, refuses to die, and continues to exist instead of being crushed.

If they didn't kill civilians, I would actually rather admire hezbollah and hamas. Not gonna lie.

The only true way to efficiently destroy an insurgency is to completely wipe out its base of support. In other words if the life of the Palestinians significantly improve and they can go through their daily lives without being stopped at a checkpoint or being gunned down or blown up as "collateral damage," the populace would find their reasons for sympathizing or supporting the insurgency fade.

But we all know the Israelis would rather suck on bacon, ham and sausage before they go out of their way to improve the lives of Palestinians instead of blasting the shit out of them as "terrorists" en masse.

Feck, it's hard being a left-winger.

I passionately believe that, after eons of being treated as the arseholes of the earth, the Jewish people deserve justice and peace and security. But they do things like this.

I passionately believe that the Palestinians deserve justice and peace and security. But they send in missiles and suicide bombers.

Sometimes I'm tempted to wish a plague on both their houses.

^^What they said. :hail:

The major players on both sides have acted indefensibly: I used to be pro-Palestinian until I realised that I couldn't justify the deliberate targeting of innocent civilians, regardless of circumstances. So I became pro-Israeli until I realised that I couldn't justify the settlement building which was so clearly incompatible with a peaceful resolution to the conflict.

We need to move beyond partisanship and support the majority of people on both sides of the conflict who want to live in peace.

The only true way to efficiently destroy an insurgency is to completely wipe out its base of support. In other words if the life of the Palestinians significantly improve and they can go through their daily lives without being stopped at a checkpoint or being gunned down or blown up as "collateral damage," the populace would find their reasons for sympathizing or supporting the insurgency fade.

Please dont tell me you are one of those people who blames the israelis entirely for the problems and thinks that the arab governments shouldn't have helped the refugees.

But we all know the Israelis would rather suck on bacon, ham and sausage before they go out of their way to improve the lives of Palestinians instead of blasting the shit out of them as "terrorists" en masse.

I am mildly offended by your remarks, given that I keep kosher, and I wish you wouldn't make generalizations like that about the jewish population in israel. (The kosher thing, that is.)
You are generalizing. I think you'll find that the majority of the Israeli population wants peace just as much as the palestinians.

The only true way to efficiently destroy an insurgency is to completely wipe out its base of support. In other words if the life of the Palestinians significantly improve and they can go through their daily lives without being stopped at a checkpoint or being gunned down or blown up as "collateral damage," the populace would find their reasons for sympathizing or supporting the insurgency fade.

But we all know the Israelis would rather suck on bacon, ham and sausage before they go out of their way to improve the lives of Palestinians instead of blasting the shit out of them as "terrorists" en masse.

I agree, but the opposite is also true: if it wasn't for the suicide bombers and missiles then how many Israelis would accept the significant cost in lives, resources and PR that results from the imposition of sanctions, checkpoints and walls? Putting all of the blame onto either side is unhelpful.

I'm not surprised at this. It's business as usual in the Israel-Palestine situation, and in the end it'll be the civilians on both sides that will suffer.

Putting all of the blame onto either side is unhelpful.
I agree. As is the backwards-looking perspective these threads usually get (who did what when!) instead of people trying to find viable solutions...

Please dont tell me you are one of those people who blames the israelis entirely for the problems and thinks that the arab governments shouldn't have helped the refugees.

The assholes in Hamas and their ilk thrive on the oppression of Palestinians, regardless of the actual degree to which exists. As long as the Palestinians are in a de facto ghetto, they'll continue to seize power and hold onto it by proclaiming themselves as Champions of the People. If they were well off as the average Israeli or American, then the need for Hamas and their ilk would erode and eventually disappear.

The Arab nations for the most part really couldn't give a shit about the Palestinians and aside from lip service and the occasional breadcrumb tossed (mostly towards the insurgency) they've left the Palestinians to hang out and dry as convenient patsies and propaganda material. Just like PETA gassing pets instead of finding homes for them, if they really wanted to help the Palestinians they would have done it all ready.


I am mildly offended by your remarks, given that I keep kosher, and I wish you wouldn't make generalizations like that about the jewish population in israel. (The kosher thing, that is.)
You are generalizing. I think you'll find that the majority of the Israeli population wants peace just as much as the palestinians.

Given that the Jewish Homeland argument is one of the most frequent arguments made for justification the expansion of settlements and the military actions associated with them I was emphasizing that those most directly involved in the mess would rather violate Kosher tenets before going out of their way to give the Palestinians- the ones who aren't in bed with Hamas- a helping hand.

I agree. As is the backwards-looking perspective these threads usually get (who did what when!) instead of people trying to find viable solutions...
I remember Kryozerkia's 'progressive discussion' thread on Israel/Palestine didn't last long.

If that were true, then the Scots would not be pushing for independence.

Do you believe that Scotland should be totally independent of the UK?

Some Scots are pushing for independence: the majority are still in favour of union as far as I know. They should certainly have the right to leave if they want to.

They're not in favour of union in general, and haven't been for ages.

The assholes in Hamas and their ilk thrive on the oppression of Palestinians, regardless of the actual degree to which exists. As long as the Palestinians are in a de facto ghetto, they'll continue to seize power and hold onto it by proclaiming themselves as Champions of the People. If they were well off as the average Israeli or American, then the need for Hamas and their ilk would erode and eventually disappear.

No argument there.

The Arab nations for the most part really couldn't give a shit about the Palestinians and aside from lip service and the occasional breadcrumb tossed (mostly towards the insurgency) they've left the Palestinians to hang out and dry as convenient patsies and propaganda material. Just like PETA gassing pets instead of finding homes for them, if they really wanted to help the Palestinians they would have done it all ready.

Just making sure. You know how it is on these forums...




Given that the Jewish Homeland argument is one of the most frequent arguments made for justification the expansion of settlements and the military actions associated with them I was emphasizing that those most directly involved in the mess would rather violate Kosher tenets before going out of their way to give the Palestinians- the ones who aren't in bed with Hamas- a helping hand.

Most likely true. I really can't stand the Israeli government.

I agree. As is the backwards-looking perspective these threads usually get (who did what when!) instead of people trying to find viable solutions...

True, although in fairness I don't think anyone's expecting to find a solution on NS. :D

Except one has the financial, military and propaganda support of a superpower, and the other is up Shit Creek without a paddle. Or a canoe.

Largely because they lost all of the discussed wars, no? I can't imagine Israel being in a better state if they lost even one. To extend the analogy: it's more like a wolf and a lion squaring off after the wolf's lost all four previous rounds and been deserted by its coach. :p

The Israelis were certainly at a disadvantage in the 1948 war, and this state of affairs arguably continued until after the Six Day War in 1967 when US military aid began in earnest. All the wars up to that point were mainly won by better morale (regardless of whether it would really have happened, the soldiers believed their families would be butchered if they lost) and better tactics: the Independence war was fought with Stalin's military cast-offs.

I agree. As is the backwards-looking perspective these threads usually get (who did what when!) instead of people trying to find viable solutions...
The only "viable solution" is for the US to take these warring factions by the hand....lock them in a room, and only allow them out when they have negotiated a peaceful resolution that both sides can live with.

Bottom line.....don't hold your breath!!

i have a home right here. Why would i need to go to some ethnically-oriented hellhole in the desert?



http://www.worldproutassembly.org/bulldozing-in-palestine.jpg

see it yet?

qft......................

If that were true, then the Scots would not be pushing for independence.
It's quite proper to describe Scotland as a country, but a country that is part of a union, forming the United Kingdom.

Some Scots are pushing for independence: the majority are still in favour of union as far as I know. They should certainly have the right to leave if they want to.They're not in favour of union in general, and haven't been for ages.
I believe Agenda07 is closer to the mark; most Scots IIRC don't want a complete break from the union, but most want a change in the current terms of devolution that would grant the Scottish Government more power. Though, IMO, we'll see that change if/when the Tories get into government. Scots and Conservatives don't mix.

2010 is going to be a very interesting year for the UK.

Speaking as a Scot, however, I want to make it abundantly clear that the Scottish situation is nothing like the mess in Gaza/the West Bank, and comparing the two only detracts from the seriousness of the situation there.

I remember Kryozerkia's 'progressive discussion' thread on Israel/Palestine didn't last long.
Any constructive debate never does.

True, although in fairness I don't think anyone's expecting to find a solution on NS. :D
Why not? It should be possible. And it should be doable.

All people do on here is argue and spam, so we're just like the Israelis and the Palestinians are :tongue:
The only "viable solution" is for the US to take these warring factions by the hand....lock them in a room, and only allow them out when they have negotiated a peaceful resolution that both sides can live with.

Bottom line.....don't hold your breath!!
But what kind of resolution could both sides live with? There's the rub.

And I'm not holding my breath, I know better ;)

Burn Jerusalem to the ground, destroy every relic in there.


That should make an agreement more likely.

Make Jerusalem a sovereign state, controlled by Wiccans.

But what kind of resolution could both sides live with? There's the rub.

And I'm not holding my breath, I know better ;)
Clinton almost got it done (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_Camp_David_Summit).

I think the basis for a deal is there. Now that Arafat is gone, the two sides should pick up where they left off. Actually, part of any proposed settlement has already begun with the Israelis withdrawing from the Gaza strip settlements.

Further to the Camp David Summit was the Taba Summit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taba_summit).

The Taba Summit officially ended with a joint statement [7], that included some of the following points:

The Israeli and Palestinian delegations conducted...deep and practical talks with the aim of reaching a permanent and stable agreement between the two parties...it proved impossible to reach understandings on all issues, despite the substantial progress that was achieved in each of the issues discussed...The two sides take upon themselves to return to normalcy and to establish [a] security situation on the ground through the observation of their mutual commitments in the spirit of the Sharm e-Sheikh memorandum. The negotiation teams discussed four main themes: refugees, security, borders and Jerusalem, with a goal to reach a permanent agreement that will bring an end to the conflict between them and provide peace to both people...The Taba talks conclude an extensive phase in the Israeli-Palestinian permanent status negotiations with a sense of having succeeded in rebuilding trust between the sides...The two sides express their gratitude to President Hosni Mubarak...They also express their thanks to the European Union...

Clinton almost got it done (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_Camp_David_Summit).

I think the basis for a deal is there. Now that Arafat is gone, the two sides should pick up where they left off. Actually, part of any proposed settlement has already begun with the Israelis withdrawing from the Gaza strip settlements.

Further to the Camp David Summit was the Taba Summit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taba_summit).

I think they were further away than most people think... And the question still remains of whether or not the people would have accepted it.

I think they were further away than most people think... And the question still remains of whether or not the people would have accepted it.
And obviously those questions will remain unanswered.

They're not in favour of union in general, and haven't been for ages.

Source?

Hey how about just making Israel GTFO of Palestine. The have no right to settle in the West Bank or Gaza.

Oh, please.

The right of conquest.

As just compensation for many wars caused by their Arab neighbors.

Take your pick. Both are acceptable.

Oh, please.

The right of conquest.

As just compensation for many wars caused by their Arab neighbors.

Take your pick. Both are acceptable.

Aaaaand the first Blank Check for the Israeli Government and the Kahanists has been written.

Oh, please.

The right of conquest.

As just compensation for many wars caused by their Arab neighbors.

Take your pick. Both are acceptable.

We executed people at Nuremberg for believing that by conquering a nation it gives them the right to force people off their land and replace them with their own settlers. Most of the civilised world found the concept of creating Lebensraum somewhat distasteful after this - apparently you and the settlers didn't get the memo.

Oh, please.

The right of conquest.

As just compensation for many wars caused by their Arab neighbors.

Take your pick. Both are acceptable.

Yes, of course, right of conquest! I mean if a country is just going to go in and use military force to secure peace, they should get to keep that territory, just like with Russia and Georgia, right? I mean, if you support the bolded, then in this thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=562614&page=58) you should agree that Russia was in the right, correct?

Just what is wrong with the Georgian government trying to defeat the rebels and reclaim their land?

Oh, I'm sorry, but it looks like you LOSE! Thanks for playing and now GTFO of this thread, kthnxbai.

Oh, please.

The right of conquest.

As just compensation for many wars caused by their Arab neighbors.

Take your pick. Both are acceptable.

Hmmm, by that right, you shouldn't be making any noises about the likes of say, Ossetia kicking out Georgia with Russian help now would you?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13912727&postcount=865

Oh look! You did! Two face much?

The fact is that it is a religous war. Peace isnt an option. why not support the stabalization of a democratic country that dosnt go around killing its own people?

The fact is that it is a religous war. Peace isnt an option. why not support the stabalization of a democratic country that dosnt go around killing its own people?

How does Israeli settlement support stabilisation? If anything it destabilises the region.

Right thats because in a religous war it will only be over when the Israelis are dead. The fact is that Israel contains about 16% muslim people. Palestine contains no Jews.

One country accepts the other religion to a much greater extent. I challenge you to find me a Jewish temple in Palestine and state the percentage of Jews in Palestine.

Palestine dosnt have any Jews because it kills them all. Israel contains Muslims.

Right thats because in a religous war it will only be over when the Israelis are dead. The fact is that Israel contains about 16% muslim people. Palestine contains no Jews.

One country accepts the other religion to a much greater extent. I challenge you to find me a Jewish temple in Palestine and state the percentage of Jews in Palestine.

Palestine dosnt have any Jews because it kills them all. Israel contains Muslims.

Palestine contains almost 500,000 Jews. Which means that about 16% of the population of the West Bank and East Jerusalem is Jewish. Any other completely false remarks that you wish to make, or have I already sufficiently demonstrated that you don't know what you are talking about?

Palestine dosnt have any Jews because it kills them all. Israel contains Muslims.
Israeli does not equal Jew.

Palestinian does not equal Muslim.

Try and educate yourself before you come off any more foolish; talking nonsense about Palestine 'killing all the Jews'. In such a complicated situation which is so prone to stereotyping, shorthand and outright misrepresentation, your comments help not one jot.

yes, of course, right of conquest! I mean if a country is just going to go in and use military force to secure peace, they should get to keep that territory, just like with russia and georgia, right? I mean, if you support the bolded, then in this thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=562614&page=58) you should agree that russia was in the right, correct?



Oh, i'm sorry, but it looks like you lose! Thanks for playing and now gtfo of this thread, kthnxbai.
zing!!! :D

The right of conquest.


Is that like the "She was wearing suggestive clothing" right?

Is that like the "She was wearing suggestive clothing" right?
I think it's more the "Billy hit me first" argument.

Is that like the "She was wearing suggestive clothing" right?

"Hey, that slutty country was totally flaunting its strategic depth and sites of cultural significance. I'll bet it was drunk off its arse on religious zealotry and nationalism too, what did it expect? It was practically begging to be occupied by a foreign power!"

Israel should stay out of the West Bank and Gaza. They need to stop building settlements there and if they dont they should be forced out. Not by killing them anyway...

Oh, please.

The right of conquest.

Might makes right. Oh look, it's Hitler.

As just compensation for many wars caused by their Arab neighbors.

Take your pick. Both are acceptable.

Because all Arabs are responsible for the actions of everything Arabs have done. Nice racism there.

Palestine contains almost 500,000 Jews. Which means that about 16% of the population of the West Bank and East Jerusalem is Jewish. Any other completely false remarks that you wish to make, or have I already sufficiently demonstrated that you don't know what you are talking about?

And which laws are those Jews governed by. Ill give you a hint. its not Palestinian.

And which laws are those Jews governed by. Ill give you a hint. its not Palestinian.

So you're fine with waltzing into somebody else's homeland, building illegal settlements, and following the laws of their home country rather than the land they're on? You'd better not have anything bad to say about illegal immigrants then.

We executed people at Nuremberg for believing that by conquering a nation it gives them the right to force people off their land and replace them with their own settlers. Most of the civilised world found the concept of creating Lebensraum somewhat distasteful after this - apparently you and the settlers didn't get the memo.

Nuremberg was more about 11 million people being killed. 6 million of them for being Jewish.

Israel should stay out of the West Bank and Gaza. They need to stop building settlements there and if they dont they should be forced out. Not by killing them anyway...

Russia should stay out of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. They need to stop bombing people there and if they dont they should be forced out. Not by killing them anyway...

And which laws are those Jews governed by. Ill give you a hint. its not Palestinian.

How is that relevant? You said there were no Jews in Palestine - I have shown you that there are half a million of them. Just because they don't respect the laws of the country they are in doesn't mean they aren't in that country. If I move to the US but decide I am going to live under British law doesn't change the fact that I am living in the US.

How is that relevant? You said there were no Jews in Palestine - I have shown you that there are half a million of them. Just because they don't respect the laws of the country they are in doesn't mean they aren't in that country. If I move to the US but decide I am going to live under British law doesn't change the fact that I am living in the US.His point was that if the Palestinians controlled, all those Jews would be dead.

His point was that if the Palestinians controlled, all those Jews would be dead.

The Samaritans (who are Jewish) have lived in Palestinian controlled territory without dying.

EDIT:I should calrify that I mean without dying from violence caused by the Palestinians. The Samaritans are perfectly capable of dying from disease and other causes.

We executed people at Nuremberg for believing that by conquering a nation it gives them the right to force people off their land and replace them with their own settlers. Most of the civilised world found the concept of creating Lebensraum somewhat distasteful after this - apparently you and the settlers didn't get the memo.

Funny, I thought the main point of Nuremberg was to punish the people for the holocaust. Funny how you totally forgot to mention that part of it.

Yes, of course, right of conquest! I mean if a country is just going to go in and use military force to secure peace, they should get to keep that territory, just like with Russia and Georgia, right? I mean, if you support the bolded, then in this thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=562614&page=58) you should agree that Russia was in the right, correct?



Oh, I'm sorry, but it looks like you LOSE! Thanks for playing and now GTFO of this thread, kthnxbai.


Hmmm, by that right, you shouldn't be making any noises about the likes of say, Ossetia kicking out Georgia with Russian help now would you?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13912727&postcount=865

Oh look! You did! Two face much?


The hell? All I asked was why Georgia trying to unify its borders was bad. I made no judgement on the Russian involvement, or of the Georgia's failure.

You people see what you want to see.

The only problem I have with Russia attacking Georgia is that Georgia is an ally of the USA, and as far as I know, about to be a member of NATO- I just don't want shit to escalate.

Anyways, Israel can do whatever the hell wants, short of genocide, on its land.

And despite what many of you say, the fact is Israel has the power to do what it pleases (for the most part), and the Palestinians don't. Israel has the might to back up its actions on land it acquired after conflict with its neighbors. I find no fault with that.

Israel won the war, and gained some land in compensation. Not that hard to figure out and understand.

Anyways, Israel can do whatever the hell wants, short of genocide, on its land.

And despite what many of you say, the fact is Israel has the power to do what it pleases (for the most part), and the Palestinians don't. Israel has the might to back up its actions on land it acquired after conflict with its neighbors. I find no fault with that.

Israel won the war, and gained some land in compensation. Not that hard to figure out and understand.

Except for the fact that there's a green line saying what is and isn't Israel. All these settlements aren't on Israel soil. Hence, the dispute and outcry, y'know.

The Samaritans (who are Jewish) have lived in Palestinian controlled territory without dying.
??? The Samaritan aren't Jewish, they're Samaritan. That sentence reads like "The Muslims (who are Christian) ... " or "The Buddhists (who are Hindu) ... "
Except for the fact that there's a green line saying what is and isn't Israel.
The point is that that's uniquely imposed on Israel. There is no green line running through Poland marking off the territory that used to be Germany (until Germany lost the war), no green line marking off Manchuria from China (because Japan lost the war), etc. The usual standard that is applied is that when the side that starts a war loses it, it forfeits territory as a result.

??? The Samaritan aren't Jewish, they're Samaritan. That sentence reads like "The Muslims (who are Christian) ... " or "The Buddhists (who are Hindu) ... "

The point is that that's uniquely imposed on Israel. There is no green line running through Poland marking off the territory that used to be Germany (until Germany lost the war), no green line marking off Manchuria from China (because Japan lost the war), etc. The usual standard that is applied is that when the side that starts a war loses it, it forfeits territory as a result.

The current consensus as far as the world is concerned is the green line. As such, they are not in Israeli land. If enough of the rest of the world sees the West Bank as legally belonging to Israel, that would be another discussion althogether but it's not.

Besides, ever since the creation of the UN, territory gain has NOT been the norm.

??? The Samaritan aren't Jewish, they're Samaritan. That sentence reads like "The Muslims (who are Christian) ... " or "The Buddhists (who are Hindu) ... "

The Samaritans practice a form of Judaism, just as Protestants and Catholics practice different forms of Christianity. So yeah, they are Jewish.

Anyways, Israel can do whatever the hell wants, short of genocide, on its land.


Yeah, but this isn't its land.

The Samaritans practice a form of Judaism, just as Protestants and Catholics practice different forms of Christianity. So yeah, they are Jewish.Neither they, nor the Jews, nor anybody else (except you) sees it that way. Jews are from the tribe of Judah; Samaritans claim to be from the other tribes of Israel (the Jews say they are not Israelites at all). No Palestinian leaders have ever spoken of wiping out the Samaritans.
ever since the creation of the UN, territory gain has NOT been the norm.
Well, war between states itself has not been the norm. More usually there are conflicts internal to one state, often with outside intervenors who claim to have been "invited" in to help, but without any border changes contemplated by any side. Wars between states are most often between newly-created states arising from debatable partitions of failed states or former colonies: the two Koreas, the two Vietnams, the many Yugoslavias, the SSR's, Ethiopia-Eritrea. And in such cases, territorial shifts HAVE been the norm: North Korea was plainly the aggressor, and forfeited territory to the extent the South and its allies could hold it; South Vietnam can't really be called an aggressor (never tried to invade the North) but was the loser, and forfeited 100% of its territory; the perception that Serbia was the aggressor in the Yugoslav wars contributed to the general (if not universal) consensus that it should forfeit Kosovo; and Russia is spinning Georgia as the aggressor in hopes of a consensus that this means Georgia should forfeit Ossetia and Abkhazia.

Inter-state wars not fitting one of the above patterns? There aren't too many to go by. Britain-Argentina, like the first Iraq war (the invasion of Kuwait and aftermath), ended with a return to status quo ante, no further forfeiture of territory. India has had border-dispute wars with both Pakistan and China; hard to say who started it in any of those, and there is no consensus about resolving them; Pakistan did forfeit East Pakistan after the 1971 war, but it became an independent Bangladesh and I would agree that the international community would not have been likely to legitimize India's annexation of it if India had dared to try it that way (this could also be lumped into the "debatable partition" category, as delayed fallout from 1948; so could the 1967 Arab-Israeli war, for that matter).

The point is that that's uniquely imposed on Israel.

And Iraq. And Indonesia. And brought up against Russia, China, Sudan......

Or maybe you're right, and its a conspiracy!!!!!

Neither (............)that matter).

Them days is over.....
Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_242

And Iraq. And Indonesia. And brought up against Russia, China, Sudan......
Which of these countries were attacked? By whom? When? What are you talking about?

Nuremberg was more about 11 million people being killed. 6 million of them for being Jewish.

6 million, "experts" say 5.1 million people died in the holocaust, revisionists say much less than even that.

Russia should stay out of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. They need to stop bombing people there and if they dont they should be forced out. Not by killing them anyway...

The Russian's helped stop the mass murders being committed by the Georgians, is that not a reason for them to stay?

Which of these countries were attacked? By whom? When? What are you talking about?

These people attacked Israel? Did they subsistence farm in an aggressive manner? What did the Donkey do?
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1009375.html

The only problem I have with Russia attacking Georgia is that Georgia is an ally of the USA, and as far as I know, about to be a member of NATO- I just don't want shit to escalate.

Unbelievable. Two facing in the same post. That's got to be a record. See below.


Anyways, Israel can do whatever the hell wants, short of genocide, on its land.

And despite what many of you say, the fact is Israel has the power to do what it pleases (for the most part), and the Palestinians don't.

Russia has the power to do what it pleases in Ossetia and Georgia, and the Georgians don't have the power to do squat about it. And here you are saying you don't want stuff like that to happen because of risk of escalation? What happened to the whole "nothing wrong" with doing what they want on territory that doesn't belong to them as long as they have the might to enforce it?


Israel won the war, and gained some land in compensation. Not that hard to figure out and understand.

The OT isn't theirs, was never officially claimed or recognized either.

So you're fine with waltzing into somebody else's homeland, building illegal settlements, and following the laws of their home country rather than the land they're on? You'd better not have anything bad to say about illegal immigrants then.

What it does is proves my point. One country kills every member of the opposite religion. By the sound of it you support another holocaust.

There is not one Jew living under palestinian law. Because anyone living under palestinian law really lives under Hamas and Fatah law (which kill each other) and have a goal of removing every Jew from the middle east.

Israel has tried to make peace offerings. Israel can hold itself to a cease fire. That isnt the case for Palestine. Israel has given land for a peace offering. The result was determined to be a victory of violence by Hamas and Fatah.

I support the country that is a democracy and can tollerate the other religion which surrounds and attacks it continously. For some reason you dont.

What it does is proves my point. One country kills every member of the opposite religion. By the sound of it you support another holocaust.

Oh no, not that tired old "OMG Holocaust!" saw. Seems like it justifies anything these days, including a slow drip ethnic cleansing, even by those who aren't direct victims.

Given the conditions that you agreed upon, you seem perfectly fine with Nazi Germany rounding up non German Jews, Roma, Russian Slavs and everyone outside of Germany that they put into death camps. I mean, after all, you're fine with somebody going to somebody else's land and doing whatever the hell they like just because their parents or grandparents suffered at the hand of a third party.

By the way, me and my friends will be evicting you from your house, tearing it down and building an apartment block on it. We outnumber you a hundred to one, and have a lot more firepower, and if you don't get out of the way, we'll just bulldoze the house on top of you, so it's perfectly fine right? I mean, might makes right these days, according to you, and we've got the might. But I'll bet you'll complain anyway.


Israel has tried to make peace offerings.

An Israeli assassinated (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Yitzhak_Rabin) the Israeli prime minister who made peace offerings. An Israeli also decided to shoot up a mosque and the people inside (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cave_of_the_Patriarchs_massacre) it to foment even more hate.

Israel isn't interested in peace. And don't bother even trying to claim "It's only a small percentage". You don't have any grounds for doing so after your broad brush tactics.


I support the country that is a democracy and can tollerate the other religion which surrounds and attacks it continously. For some reason you dont.

Yeah, this is how Israel shows its tolerance. By cold blooded murder (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cave_of_the_Patriarchs_massacre)

Unbelievable. Two facing in the same post. That's got to be a record. See below.



Russia has the power to do what it pleases in Ossetia and Georgia, and the Georgians don't have the power to do squat about it. And here you are saying you don't want stuff like that to happen because of risk of escalation? What happened to the whole "nothing wrong" with doing what they want on territory that doesn't belong to them as long as they have the might to enforce it?



The OT isn't theirs, was never officially claimed or recognized either.

Dude, you need to stop.

Russia can do whatever it likes. I said I worried about the shit over there escalating.

I'm not too worried about stuff escalating between Israel and Palestine, as there problems generally only affect each other.

With the Georgia thing the US might get dragged in, and I don't think that's be a good thing.

Who do they need the land recognized from in order for it to be legitimate?

Nobody but themselves. And don't bring the UN into this mess- as the UN is joke.

Yeah, but this isn't its land.

Yes, it is.

Given the conditions that you agreed upon, you seem perfectly fine with Nazi Germany rounding up non German Jews, Roma, Russian Slavs and everyone outside of Germany that they put into death camps. I mean, after all, you're fine with somebody going to somebody else's land and doing whatever the hell they like just because their parents or grandparents suffered at the hand of a third party.

By the way, me and my friends will be evicting you from your house, tearing it down and building an apartment block on it. We outnumber you a hundred to one, and have a lot more firepower, and if you don't get out of the way, we'll just bulldoze the house on top of you, so it's perfectly fine right? I mean, might makes right these days, according to you, and we've got the might. But I'll bet you'll complain anyway.

I support a democracy above all other forms of government. Palestine is somewhere between anarchy and religous dictatorship. Palestinians have fled to Israel for protection. It has never been the other way around.

However on a previous thread it became clear that you cant tell the difference between these styles of governance. I want a democracy to exist in the region. Israel established itself within the UN sanctioned boundaries, protected itself against attacks from all the bordering nations and has even given land back as a peace offering.

An Israeli assassinated the Israeli prime minister who made peace offerings. An Israeli also decided to shoot up a mosque and the people inside it to foment even more hate.

Israel isn't interested in peace. And don't bother even trying to claim "It's only a small percentage". You don't have any grounds for doing so after your broad brush tactics

One Israeli. Hmm one out of millions. Im sure thats representive somehow..

Well 16% is alot more than 0%. Israels population consists of 16% Muslim. Palestine consists of 0% Jewish.

As for peace, offerings of giving back land of the west bank was considered a victory of violence by the same people that celebrate the death of any Israeli. The different reactions are clear.

Has there ever been a Palestinian peace offering? The cease fires are only ever suggested to restock arms. Hamas and Fatah want Israel removed completely. they say so openly. I can only assume you support them as they run Palestine

I'm not too worried about stuff escalating between Israel and Palestine, as there problems generally only affect each other.



With the Georgia thing the US might get dragged in, and I don't think that's be a good thing.

And what makes you think the US is more likely to get dragged in with Georgia than with the Israel/Palestine issue? Georgia certainly wasn't in NATO, is strategically not as significant to NATO than say, the Ukraine, and neither the Soviet Union or NATO came to open blows during the cold war when they decided to wreck countries in a retarded game of oneupmanship.


Who do they need the land recognized from in order for it to be legitimate?


Because if nobody recognizes it, no one will honor any agreement regarding the territory. It's as legitimate as Nazi Germany's claim over East Russia was. Or rather, Russia's claim over Ossettia and bits of Georgia now.

I support a democracy above all other forms of government. Palestine is somewhere between anarchy and religous dictatorship.

Then you support Robert Mugabe? Calling it a democracy doesn't make it one. And when your own citizens who are among an ethnic minority are treated as 2nd class citizens, you've got no right to call yourself a democracy.


Palestinians have fled to Israel for protection. It has never been the other way around.

And your proof of this is...? Aside from your nether regions that is, which is apparently where you get all your facts, since you always run away when proof is required.


However on a previous thread it became clear that you cant tell the difference between these styles of governance.

You're talking about yourself aren't you? But then, lies and ignorance are your forte aren't they? Always have been, always will be. Hamas was elected by the Palestinian people and won by a majority.

But I bet you'll say it doesn't count for some bullshit reason. After all, you fling it so liberally.


Israel established itself within the UN sanctioned boundaries, protected itself against attacks from all the bordering nations and has even given land back as a peace offering.

The only land Israel gave back was land it didn't have the manpower to hold. And while they were doing that, they built up even more illegal settlements in land outside of UN sanctioned boundaries.

Ah, but you'll ignore this fact, as per your modus operandi.



One Israeli. Hmm one out of millions. Im sure thats representive somehow..

As representative of your "Palestinians are evil and all want the Jews dead!" rant. Oh, and let's not forget the unrestricted murder and arson by the OT settlers, all with complicit police agreement it seems. But they don't count right? I don't expect you to make that distinction. Being a blinkered racist seems to be a part of your makeup.


Has there ever been a Palestinian peace offering? The cease fires are only ever suggested to restock arms. Hamas and Fatah want Israel removed completely. they say so openly. I can only assume you support them as they run Palestine

But you don't support Hamas, even though they did come to legitimate power democratically. Oh wait, I forgot, you don't count those you don't like.

I'm quite done with you. Just another two faced statement from a two faced person with not a shred of credibility or honesty. Not very surprising, coming from SS.

Then you support Robert Mugabe? Calling it a democracy doesn't make it one. And when your own citizens who are among an ethnic minority are treated as 2nd class citizens, you've got no right to call yourself a democracy.

Are you talking about Palestine there has Hamas and Fatah which uses guns like Robert Mugabe to convince people to vote in cetain ways.
As Im guessing you mean Israel well 2nd class citizens with food and water and employment are much better than the non existant Jewish class in Palestine.

sorry I should have put examples. Well heres one for gays
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3211772.stm
Heres one for fatah
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/08/02/palestinian.infighting/index.html
And heres one for the general populace
http://www.asharq-e.com/news.asp?section=2&id=13640

That gives a nice round covereage of groups that need Israeli protection. Gays, Fatah and the normal citizens.

You're talking about yourself aren't you? But then, lies and ignorance are your forte aren't they? Always have been, always will be. Hamas was elected by the Palestinian people and won by a majority.


Im sure guns firing in the street on a regular basis help the people feel safe. After all sadam got 100% of the vote. Im sure that was just because he was a great leader and liked by the public

The only land Israel gave back was land it didn't have the manpower to hold. And while they were doing that, they built up even more illegal settlements in land outside of UN sanctioned boundaries.

And proof of these illegal establishments outside the UN boundaries are..

As representative of your "Palestinians are evil and all want the Jews dead!" rant. But then I don't expect you to make that distinction. Being a racist seems to be a part of your personality make up.

Funny i thought you were the racist. Supporting a country consisting of no jews. Or is that just a random coincidence?

But you don't support Hamas, even though they did come to legitimate power democratically. Oh wait, I forgot, you don't count those you don't like.

I'm quite done with you. Just another two faced statement from a two faced person with not a shred of credibility or honesty. Not very surprising, coming from SS.

Yes guns are legitimate power arnt they. Thats how a democracy works. with guns.

And what are the SS? Is that southers states of the USA? Well i dont live in the US. I also dont live in the south of my country. I live in the east. But lets not use facts to ruin this.

Are you talking about Palestine there has Hamas and Fatah which uses guns like Robert Mugabe to convince people to vote in cetain ways.

You said democracy, without qualifications. And of course, you're not really proving your case, as usual.


As Im guessing you mean Israel well 2nd class citizens with food and water and employment are much better than the non existant Jewish class in Palestine.

There is a large portion of Israeli's living in Palestine, making their own rules, and getting away with crimes that the Israeli police are supposed to stop, but don't. A fact that was sourced in this very form, yet you are constantly ignoring.

As for your examples, so what? Being a 2nd class citizen is a lot better than being dead in the civil war between Fatah and Hamas. It doesn't disprove the fact that Israeli treatment of non-Jews is heavily biased on racial lines.


Im sure guns firing in the street on a regular basis help the people feel safe. After all sadam got 100% of the vote. Im sure that was just because he was a great leader and liked by the public

Let's forget that Hamas also went around distributing aid, schools and shelters and promising a better life for those who supported it now shan't we? The very same aid, schools and shelters that Israel made so necessary with their liberal use of collective punishments and demolitions of Palestinian homes who had nothing to do with any attack.

More SS lies. No surprise.


And proof of these illegal establishments outside the UN boundaries are..


You've been living under a rock haven't you? Or rather, willfully closing your eyes. A common tactic it seems. But since you asked (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli-occupied_territories).


Funny i thought you were the racist. Supporting a country consisting of no jews. Or is that just a random coincidence?

Are you being sarcastic, or just playing up your Jewish supremacy card? Supporting a country that doesn't have Jews, not law, is racist? WTF?


Yes guns are legitimate power arnt they. Thats how a democracy works. with guns.

When you can prove that Hamas only used guns and force to get voted, you might have a point. Until then, you don't.


And what are the SS? Is that southers states of the USA? Well i dont live in the US. I also dont live in the south of my country. I live in the east. But lets not use facts to ruin this.

SS is an acronym of your forum handle. No surprise that you ran with it and made a bunch of baseless assertions. Doesn't really matter I suppose. You have no credibility, are a proven liar, and thereby, are not worth even talking to.

You said democracy, without qualifications. And of course, you're not really proving your case, as usual.

There is a large portion of Israeli's living in Palestine, making their own rules, and getting away with crimes that the Israeli police are supposed to stop, but don't. A fact that was sourced in this very form, yet you are constantly ignoring.

As for your examples, so what? Being a 2nd class citizen is a lot better than being dead in the civil war between Fatah and Hamas. It doesn't disprove the fact that Israeli treatment of non-Jews is heavily biased on racial lines.

Let's forget that Hamas also went around distributing aid, schools and shelters and promising a better life for those who supported it now shan't we? The very same aid, schools and shelters that Israel made so necessary with their liberal use of collective punishments and demolitions of Palestinian homes who had nothing to do with any attack.

More SS lies. No surprise.

You've been living under a rock haven't you? Or rather, willfully closing your eyes. A common tactic it seems. But since you asked (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli-occupied_territories).

Are you being sarcastic, or just playing up your Jewish supremacy card? Supporting a country that doesn't have Jews, not law, is racist? WTF?

When you can prove that Hamas only used guns and force to get voted, you might have a point. Until then, you don't.

SS is an acronym of your forum handle. No surprise that you ran with it and made a bunch of baseless assertions. Doesn't really matter I suppose. You have no credibility, are a proven liar, and thereby, are not worth even talking to.

An exercise in futility is trying to convince the shittiness of both political sides in the Israel/Palestine conflict to someone who thinks the Israeli government can never do wrong and Aliens and Starship Troopers are factually accurate documentaries on Islam and Muslims.

And proof of these illegal establishments outside the UN boundaries are..


Well, they what the OP was referring to....Are you saying settlements don't exist?

Israel is still within the UN sanctioned boundaries. If you dont agree check the latitude and longitude for the establishments.

Israel is still within the UN sanctioned boundaries. If you dont agree check the latitude and longitude for the establishments.
I really don't think so:

http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13957150&postcount=57

United Nations Security Council Resolution 446 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_446)

So if we start a thread for the Kurds, you'll argue that Turkey, Iran, Syria, and Iraq should be carved up because after the millenia of persecution, the Kurdish people deserve a home? Or are you a hypocrite?
When it comes to the Kurds, all sides are hypocrites. The very nations condemning Israel's "Illegal Occupiation" are the people who forbid the Kurds from having their own nation.

your link is meaningless for saying that Israel built outside of the UN sanctioned areas. There is nothing to say that Israel built outside the designated area. All it says is that the areas were occupied at the time

Secondly even if it did (which it donst) by diplaying GIS coordinates or something else significant to prove that it is still from wikipedia. I could alter that page if I wanted to say that adolph hitler raised chickens in Mexico. Wikipedia is a horrible source.

your link is meaningless for saying that Israel built outside of the UN sanctioned areas. There is nothing to say that Israel built outside the designated area. All it says is that the areas were occupied at the time

Secondly even if it did (which it donst) by diplaying GIS coordinates or something else significant to prove that it is still from wikipedia. I could alter that page if I wanted to say that adolph hitler raised chickens in Mexico. Wikipedia is a horrible source.
My link is meaningless?

Then try the real deal:

http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/370/60/IMG/NR037060.pdf?OpenElement

Failing that, the onus is on you to support your statement with factual documentation.

EDIT: the above link to the UN document is broken, but here is the text of the Resolution 446:

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_446

Subsequent to Resolution 446, is Resolution 452 (http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/un/un452.htm):

Considering that the policy of Israel in establishing settlements in the occupied Arab territories has no legal validity and constitutes a violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 12 August 1949, ......

Drawing attention to the grave consequences which the settlements policy is bound to have on any attempt to reach a peaceful solution in the Middle East, .......

3. Calls upon the Government and people of Israel to cease, on an urgent basis, the establishment, construction and planning of settlements in the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem;

By what right?

If I very vaguely remember, Israel got the West Bank from Jordan, and the Gaza Strip from Egypt by conquest in the 1967 Six Day War; or am I wrong?

If I very vaguely remember, Israel got the West Bank from Jordan, and the Gaza Strip from Egypt by conquest in the 1967 Six Day War; or am I wrong?

Israel recognised PA control of most (ie the non-Jewish parts) of the West Bank in 1993. So any claims to be able to do what they like because of the Six Day War are rubbish.

Israel is still within the UN sanctioned boundaries. If you dont agree check the latitude and longitude for the establishments.
Then why is it building in the West Bank?