TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Hamas to keep on killin'....
Pages (5): « 1 2 3 [4] 5 »

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley a) seemingly justifies a policy of attack and conquere, something I'm sure you (and US/Israeli foreign policy) would disagree with (eg Saddam)

Right, so you are telling me that recongizing Jerusalem as Israel's capital will prove that:
When all the 5 Arab armies attacking a pathetic nation that is not even a day old and that when somehow that pathetic nation is able to pave a highway through to a beseiged Jerusalem, under which it was given partial jurisdiction by a UN Security Council Resolution - and liberate it and establish its capital there and then 20 years later when 3 of those very same nations decide to obliterate that pathetic nation and it triumphs over them all the while increase the borders of its capital to secure lines.

And then when later those very nations sign peace deals recongizing the borders of Israel where they lay, that this would in some perverted way allow someone to misconcieve this as ... justifiying a policy of aggressive expansionism?!

Not recongizing Jerusalem as Israel's capital is the very justificaiton of supporting a policy of "attack and conquer".

quote:

b) applies to the Palestinians as well

To this I retort:
1) Do they claim ALL of Jerusalem or just the East?
2) They don't project soverignty over Jerusalem.

quote:

c) is only by default until a Palestinian state is established

Right, but in any other circumstance a non-national entity claiming soverignty over a capital would be unimaginable and incomprehensible.
I can't think of another case where any group is claiming soverignty of any other capital in this world....

I mean if you were to say "Scottish people demand the control over West London" you'd laugh! Or "Kurds demand a capital in Northern Baghdad", you'd be like "yea right". "Taiwan asks China for a capital in South Beijing as part of a deal to bring peace between the two nations"... right...

Yet somehow "Pissed off Jordanians and Egyptians ask Israel for a capital in East Jerusalem" is acceptable. Messed up world we live in.

quote:

d) no-one said it does!

No, but someone was implying it

quote:

No, it doesn't! Thats my whole point!

Right, it doesn't give them the right to it. They aren't entitled to it. But it does give them a case/cause for that right. Israel has both the case and the right.

quote:

Well I think I have successfully avoided actually saying that

I noticed, you were just trying to rouse up the crowd... bad bad brit.

quote:

To cut a long story short - fuck knows what should happen with Jerusalem!

Here's an idea: Let the Jews keep it all. They really, really want it badly. They've had it for 50 years now almost. They let everybody of all faiths worship and don't interfere with religion. They've lost countless lives defending it. And they darn well earned it after the Arabs launched war after war after war agains them. At minimum, let them keep it as a trophy of victory to deter all those who believe you can be the aggressor and lose and not be worse off for it.



Oh Georegy and I don't know what you are babbling about but there were three Kings (Saul, David, Solomon) of a unified Israel before there was a civil war and it broke into two kingdoms which reunited about a 100 years or so later.

The archaelogical record can attest to this and it makes pretty good sense in the historical record too.

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus Right, so you are telling me that recongizing Jerusalem as Israel's capital will prove that: When all the 5 Arab armies attacking a pathetic nation that is not even a day old and that when somehow that pathetic nation is able to pave a highway through to a beseiged Jerusalem, under which it was given partial jurisdiction by a UN Security Council Resolution - and liberate it and establish its capital there and then 20 years later when 3 of those very same nations decide to obliterate that pathetic nation and it triumphs over them all the while increase the borders of its capital to secure lines. And then when later those very nations sign peace deals recongizing the borders of Israel where they lay, that this would in some perverted way allow someone to misconcieve this as ... justifiying a policy of aggressive expansionism?! Not recongizing Jerusalem as Israel's capital is the very justificaiton of supporting a policy of "attack and conquer".

Bloody hell have you considered stopping for breathe inbetween sentences?!?!

Israel had no right under international law to extend sovereignty over Jerusalem. Whatever the circumstances were that led to Israel's control over Jerusalem, it does not escape the fact that Israel invaded a sovereign nation and annexed it, whether that was justified or not. To say that Israel has a right to Jerusalem cos they occupy it is an invalid argument as that would mean that any country wishing to extend its borders can simply invade and annex

quote:

To this I retort: 1) Do they claim ALL of Jerusalem or just the East? 2) They don't project soverignty over Jerusalem.

They claim that Israel has no right in East Jerusalem (but are against partition) As for them not projecting sovereignty over East Jerusalem I'm not sure what that has got to do with anything as they dont project sovereignty over anywhere!

quote:

Right, but in any other circumstance a non-national entity claiming soverignty over a capital would be unimaginable and incomprehensible. I can't think of another case where any group is claiming soverignty of any other capital in this world.... I mean if you were to say "Scottish people demand the control over West London" you'd laugh! Or "Kurds demand a capital in Northern Baghdad", you'd be like "yea right". "Taiwan asks China for a capital in South Beijing as part of a deal to bring peace between the two nations"... right... Yet somehow "Pissed off Jordanians and Egyptians ask Israel for a capital in East Jerusalem" is acceptable. Messed up world we live in.

Try "pissed off Palestinians". And you analogy is completely irrelevant (and I suspect you know that)

quote:

Right, it doesn't give them the right to it. They aren't entitled to it. But it does give them a case/cause for that right. Israel has both the case and the right.

The Palestinians have as much right and arguably a much better case to claim Jerusalem as the Israelis.

quote:

Oh Georegy and I don't know what you are babbling about but there were three Kings (Saul, David, Solomon) of a unified Israel before there was a civil war and it broke into two kingdoms which reunited about a 100 years or so later. The archaelogical record can attest to this and it makes pretty good sense in the historical record too.

Israel Finklestein, Israel Finklestein! Ha!

Would you believe it he's actually a zionist! Not a "self-hating Jew"!

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley Bloody hell have you considered stopping for breathe inbetween sentences?!?!

It was made on emphasis.

quote:

Israel had no right under international law to extend sovereignty over Jerusalem.

quote:

Whatever the circumstances were that led to Israel's control over Jerusalem, it does not escape the fact

I see, so circumstances don't matter what so ever in any decission we make then huh? Interesting... You right! Who needs context. Context is just well too much stuff....

quote:

that Israel invaded a sovereign nation and annexed it,

Which sovereign nation did Israel invade and annex exactly? and when?

quote:

To say that Israel has a right to Jerusalem cos they occupy it is an invalid argument as that would mean that any country wishing to extend its borders can simply invade and annex

No its sorta like saying that the British had the "right" to Virgina in North America back in 1675 because they occupied and controled it whereas the Spanish did not... and guess what happen, several years later it became a colony of the empire with no dispute.

quote:

Try "pissed off Palestinians". And you analogy is completely irrelevant (and I suspect you know that)

Pissed off 1948 Jordanians and Egyptians = pissed off 2005 Palestinians

Analogy simply points to the fact that this really an oddity. There is no comperable situation to this not only in all the world, but dare I say even all the world's history...

quote:

The Palestinians have as much right and arguably a much better case to claim Jerusalem as the Israelis.

Wanna try making that case?


The Israeli case is pretty simple:
13 March 1948 Jerusalem under British soverignty through their mandate on Palestine.
14 March 1948 British Soverignty over Palestine ends.
14 March 1948 Palestine land has no soverignty.
14 March 1948 State of Israel declares soverignty over certain parts of Palestine.
15 March 1948 War between new State of Israel and Arab neighbors.
1 Apr 1948 (I believe) State of Israel controls western Jerusalem and road to Tel-Aviv.

11 August 1949 (end of fighting) - UN passed Security Council Resultion 73 which basically states that the cease fire lines will be the recongized status quo till the sides can come to a final peace settlement. Earlier and future resolutiosn echo the same thing.

i.e.: 1 Sep 1951 UNSC 93 states "Recalling further that in its resolution 89 (1950) of 17 November 1950 it reminded the States concerned that the Armistice Agreements to which they were parties contemplated "the return of permanent peace in Palestine", and, therefore, urged them and the other States in the area to take all such steps as would lead to the settlement of the issues between them" src: http://www.mideastweb.org/sc95.htm

sometime 1978 Israel signs peace with Egypt making those borders firm. Egypt does not mention the Jerusalem 'problem'
sometime 1992 Israel signs peace with Jordan.
Jordan does not mention the Jerusalem 'problem'
sometime 1993 Israel signs peace with Palestinians.
Palestians do not specifically mention the Jerusalem 'problem' but decide to work for a solution to outstanding problems in peaceful negotations.

quote:

Israel Finklestein, Israel Finklestein! Ha! Would you believe it he's actually a zionist! Not a "self-hating Jew"!

Ahh your new lover, of course.

How could I have forgotten?!

Re: Re: jerusalem

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley Why is Jerusalem special for the Jews? Why is Jerusalem special for the Christians? The answer to your question is the same answer for these two questions...

no its not the same answer....

Jerualem (zion) is mentioned hundredes of times in the Bible. Thousands of years jews who were scattered around the world prayed each day about jerusalem (jews pray from a book so there is no proof needed). Archeological avidance from 3000+ years cleraly shows that Jerusalem was the center of the ancient "Israeli Kingdom". Jerusalem was and always will be the one center for the jewish people - religoius or not.

however, jeruslam wasnt even mentioned in the Koran.

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus I see, so circumstances don't matter what so ever in any decission we make then huh? Interesting... You right! Who needs context. Context is just well too much stuff....

I was talking about the principle

quote:

Which sovereign nation did Israel invade and annex exactly? and when?

Ok no sovereign nation, but it was territory not given to Israel (Jerusalem) which was invaded and annexed (The Golan Heights were part of Syria but were talking about Jerusalem)

quote:

No its sorta like saying that the British had the "right" to Virgina in North America back in 1675 because they occupied and controled it whereas the Spanish did not... and guess what happen, several years later it became a colony of the empire with no dispute.

Its exactly like saying that and it is still worng (altho I'm not aware of UN international law stating so at the time!!) Actually, maybe you think that Britain should still be incharge of Israel? After all, we conquered it and made it part of our empire, so perhaps we should still be the rightful rulers?

quote:

Analogy simply points to the fact that this really an oddity. There is no comperable situation to this not only in all the world, but dare I say even all the world's history...

That was what I was thinking so why did you make the analogy?!

quote:

Wanna try making that case?

Nope! I'm not gonna make a case for either side to have sole sovereignty over the city cos I dont think one side should have sole sovereignty over the city. The Paletinians (or whatever you wanna call them pre-67) have lived there as long as the Jews have, and Jerusalem was never given to Israel by the UN (so if I were to make a case it'd be on those lines)

quote:

Ahh your new lover, of course. How could I have forgotten?!

Yea! I'm about to introduce him to floster in just a few minutes!!!

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley Its exactly like saying that and it is still worng (altho I'm not aware of UN international law stating so at the time!!) Actually, maybe you think that Britain should still be incharge of Israel? After all, we conquered it and made it part of our empire, so perhaps we should still be the rightful rulers?

actually it was Britain who wanted to get the hell out of there because of the terror acts from the palestinian's side. in '47 the british gave up, and in 14.5.48 they left Israel with the end of their mandate.
now stfu

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley Ok no sovereign nation, but it was territory not given to Israel (Jerusalem) which was invaded and annexed (The Golan Heights were part of Syria but were talking about Jerusalem)

HEY! hey! HEY! Don't you try and bring Syria into this



Now a note: none of the terrirotry that Israel "occupies"/"sits on" now today (or anytime for that matter since 1948) was "given to it". It was all "taken"/"claimed". What makes the fact that Tel-Aviv is recongized Israeli territory (afterall the bulk of embassies are there) whereas Jerusalem is not?

What is the case against Jerusalem that can not be made against Tel-Aviv?

There was a General Assembly Resolution indicated a possible boundary for a Jewish state in Palestine but it was a) never passed by the Security Council b) never came to fruitition because of civil/indepedence war.

quote:

Its exactly like saying that and it is still worng (altho I'm not aware of UN international law stating so at the time!!)

Who needed the UN back then when you have the pope?!

quote:

Actually, maybe you think that Britain should still be incharge of Israel? After all, we conquered it and made it part of our empire, so perhaps we should still be the rightful rulers?

Well I differ then you as I like to think in context:
Britian recieved soverignty over Israel from the League of Nations under the implicit condition that they would create a Jewish homeland in the mandate. The British then chose to give the bulk of Palestine away and eventually by leaving, create a Jewish homeland.

Had the British chose not to leave they still a) would of had to create a independent Jewish homeland. b) Could be in control of Jordan, Iraq, Saudia, etc. today. You still Brits you could of had all the oil in the world. No wonder you guys are so bitter

quote:

That was what I was thinking so why did you make the analogy?!

It points out that there seems to be an "exception" to the "Rule" here. I don't know what the "rule" is, but it gets a person to question why indeed is this case so special? Maybe it is just clear cut and obvious.

[quote[Nope! I'm not gonna make a case for either side to have sole sovereignty over the city cos I dont think one side should have sole sovereignty over the city.[/quote]

Pansy

quote:

Yea! I'm about to introduce him to floster in just a few minutes!!!

Can't wait to see the fireworks.

quote:

Originally posted by ronk actually it was Britain who wanted to get the hell out of there because of the terror acts from the palestinian's side.

Er...

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus HEY! hey! HEY! Don't you try and bring Syria into this Now a note: none of the terrirotry that Israel "occupies"/"sits on" now today (or anytime for that matter since 1948) was "given to it". It was all "taken"/"claimed". What makes the fact that Tel-Aviv is recongized Israeli territory (afterall the bulk of embassies are there) whereas Jerusalem is not? What is the case against Jerusalem that can not be made against Tel-Aviv? There was a General Assembly Resolution indicated a possible boundary for a Jewish state in Palestine but it was a) never passed by the Security Council b) never came to fruitition because of civil/indepedence war.

I'm talking about the UN Partition plan that was passed in 1947 (that gives Israel tel-Aviv but not Jerusalem)

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley Er...

er what? they've started all the wars, in '21, '29 and '36 til '39. we did nothing to them, we didn't attack them, we've only defended our settlements.
the policy of the jewish settlement leaders was DEFENCE and cooperation with the brits.
the policy of the palestinians, led by Haj Amin Al Hussein, was attacking the brits and the jewish people.

quote:

Originally posted by ronk er what? they've started all the wars, in '21, '29 and '36 til '39. we did nothing to them, we didn't attack them, we've only defended our settlements. the policy of the jewish settlement leaders was DEFENCE and cooperation with the brits. the policy of the palestinians, led by Haj Amin Al Hussein, was attacking the brits and the jewish people.

At least Yoepus gives me a bit of a challenge!!

Who bombed the King David Hotel? And even Begin said that some of the massacres carried out by the Haganah were necessary!

Just out of interest Yoepus, what are your views on Jerusalem? Do you think Israel should have all of it, just the West, some kind of duel sovereignty or would you welcome an "international city"?

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley Who bombed the King David Hotel? And even Begin said that some of the massacres carried out by the Haganah were necessary!

ok let's clarify some things:
'21 riot: palestinians attack jews - 47 jews were killed and many injured, jews do nothing, brits limit the jews homeland rights in Churchill's white paper (1922).
'29 riot: palestinians attack jews - 133 jews were killed and many injured, jews do nothing, brits limit the jews homeland rights in Passfield's white paper (1930).
'36-'39 uprising: palestininas attack the brits and jews. they burn jews homes and destroy roads and british military stations, and blow up the Haifa-Iraq oil pipe. approx 450 jews were killed and many injured. the brits and jews reaction: they cooperate and form the jewish auxiliary forces and special night squads, which attacked the palestinians and killed terrorists.
in '37, some people from the Hagana branched off and formed the IZL - Irgun Zvai Leumi, which was discontented from the defence (or, restrain) policy of the jewish settlement.
in '39, after McDonald's white paper, which limited the jews homeland rights to HELL, the jewish settlement stopped the cooperation with the brits, and started an illegal immigrations and demonstrations against the brits.
now, there are 3 sides who fight each other in Israel - jews, brits and pals.

then, after a looong time, in '46, IZL blows up King David hotel. now read:

quote:

The attack was initially ordered by David Ben Gurion, who was in the United States, but he later changed his mind and ordered the bombing to be cancelled. But Menachem Begin, the head of Irgun, went ahead anyway.

btw, yeah - I also think some of the Hagana attacks were necessary. you can't just defend you home while the enemy keeps attacking you.

quote:

Originally posted by ronk

You said that it was the Arabs that were committing terrorism against the British and we both know that the Jewish militias attacked the British as well

quote:

btw, yeah - I also think some of the Hagana attacks were necessary. you can't just defend you home while the enemy keeps attacking you.

I said massacres, not attacks...

btw I forgot to say, the jewish settlement policy was restrain/defence, but after the '36-'39 uprising the policy was changed. (read below)

quote:

You said that it was the Arabs that were committing terrorism against the British and we both know that the Jewish militias attacked the British as well

firstly, I didn't say the jewish forces did not attack the brits. I said it was the palestinian's terror that eventually made the brits get the hell outta here. it was the palestinian terrorism that dragged both jews and brits into a war.
after the '36-'39 uprising the third white paper was written and it limited the jews rights, contrary to the mandate form given to Britain by the UN (where there're no limitations) and to the balfour declaration.
then the jews cooperation with the brits stopped and the jews had to fight both pals and brits (who, after that third white paper, made the jews lives miserable) in order to win their homeland by rights in Israel.

quote:

I said massacres, not attacks...

you know, you're saying this like we're the bad guys. massacres, attacks...the same at a war. haven't you read what I wrote? the palestinians killed hundreds of jews for no reason!
if England is under heavy attack and 200 english people are killed, what would you do? sit quietly and do nothing?! well guess what? that's what the jewish settlement leaders have done in the beginning: nothing.
eventually, after the brits have betrayed the jews (in the third white paper), and started to support the palestinian terrorism (i.e. establishing a palestinian state in whole Israel), the Hagana started to act, on full power.

What's a leader to do when they're dealing with animals like this?

quote:

Sharon: No Restraint in Fighting Militants Sunday, July 17, 2005 JERUSALEM � Israel threatened Sunday to invade Gaza if Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas (search) does not control militants who have stepped up rocket and mortar attacks ahead of Israel's planned pullout from the coastal strip next month. Abbas pledged to do his utmost to stop the barrages but warned that an invasion of Gaza would "sabotage everything." Prime Minister Ariel Sharon (search) said all restraints are off and thousands of Israeli troops have massed along the Gaza border. The sudden escalation is the most serious threat yet to a 5-month-old truce that had drastically reduced Palestinian-Israeli violence after more than four years of bloodshed. More than 100 rockets and mortars have rained down on Gaza settlements and Israeli villages just outside the territory in the last four days. Hamas (search) leaders say they are retaliating for Israeli violations of the truce. But one leader said the main reason for the barrage was to show that Israeli settlers were fleeing Gaza under fire rather than in a planned evacuation. In violence Sunday, Israeli soldiers killed a Hamas leader and Palestinian infiltrator, and the air force fired on a car in northern Gaza, wounding a bystander. The military said it targeted militants on their way to firing rockets, but missed. Also, two Israelis were wounded seriously in a Palestinian mortar strike on a Gaza settlement. Soldiers and tanks were poised to cross the Gaza border fence. Large-scale raids often have followed rocket and mortar barrages but not since the truce took effect Feb. 8. Sharon told his ministers at the start of a weekly Cabinet meeting: "I spoke to the heads of the defense establishment ... and informed them that there are to be no restraints on our operations." Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz told the meeting Israel would launch a "massive, prolonged and intricate" military strike if the Palestinian Authority does not stop the attacks. Despite the tough talk, there were signs both sides want to maintain the truce. Abbas publicly called on militant groups like Hamas and Islamic Jihad to stop their attacks. Israeli officials said they are reluctant to launch a full-scale military strike for fear of being bogged down in Gaza before the evacuation. "We are going to do our utmost to stop these rockets," Abbas told a news conference in Gaza. "I cannot promise how much time it will take me." He said the United States warned him of Israel's intention to invade Gaza. "If this happens, this will sabotage everything," he said. The Palestinian leader blamed Israel for the tension. "Israel does not want peace or security, but we don't want to be dragged to their playground," he said. "Maybe they are looking for an excuse to delay the withdrawal." Egyptian mediators were meeting Sunday with Hamas in an attempt to reconstitute the truce, and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was planning a quick trip to the region to try to salvage the cease-fire. After meeting the Egyptians, Hamas official Said Siyam said differences among Palestinians can be resolved peacefully. "The internal conflict has passed, and all issues within the Palestinian internal society can be solved through dialogue," he said, repeating the Hamas position that it is committed to the truce but has the right to retaliate for Israeli violations. Another confrontation was developing on a separate front. Police refused to give a permit to settlers and their backers for a mass march toward Gaza on Monday. Settler leaders say tens of thousands of people are to converge on Gaza to try to block the pullout. Police and settlers negotiated through the day, but the talks broke down when settlers refused to declare a time when the protest would end. Defiant settler leaders said they plan to go ahead with the march, which could trigger violent clashes. There have been scuffles at the main crossing point into Gush Katif, the main bloc of settlements, every day since Israel declared Gaza off limits to nonresidents last week to prevent thousands from reinforcing the 9,000 settlers already living there. Many of them are planning to resist the removal of all 21 settlements from the territory. The planned evacuation also has touched off dissidence within army ranks. The army chief ordered a 40-member platoon of Orthodox Jewish soldiers disbanded Sunday after nine soldiers disobeyed orders to stop demonstrators from entering Gaza, the military said. Many Orthodox Jews reject the pullout because they consider Gaza part of the biblical Promised Land. Palestinian police, meanwhile, began removing Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Fatah flags from the streets of Gaza early Sunday, leaving only the Palestinian national flag. On Saturday, Abbas said he would brook no challenges to his government's authority, and he called on militants to stop their attacks. Rockets and mortar rounds continued hitting Israeli targets Sunday. Two Israelis were wounded seriously by a mortar that landed on a house in the Gaza settlement of Neve Dekalim. An Israeli sniper shot and killed a senior Hamas field commander in a targeted strike earlier in the day after another mortar round hit the same community, the army and Hamas officials said. Hamas, which opposes the existence of Israel and has killed hundreds of Israelis, claimed responsibility for both attacks.

>>Source<<

Yea read that article a couple days ago.

Amazing how Palestinian society is willing to allow Hamas to sacrafise so many over something so trivial.

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r What's a leader to do when they're dealing with animals like this? >>Source<<

The zionist entity is just as or even worse than hamas. Hamas is merely a mafia type group that disrupts Israeli life every say... 3 months???

Israel on the other hand has disrupted the palestinian way of life since its birth... well lets say since the occupation of 1967.

You do the math.. who has suffered more... Israeli's with their once in a while terrorist attacks that have killed 1/4 the amount of what the palestinians suffer from.. or the pals.. who have been subject to THEFT of their homes and collective punishment by these these thieves

quote:

Originally posted by Cyrus King ? Israel on the other hand has disrupted the palestinian way of life since its birth... well lets say since the occupation of 1967.

You are such an Idiot. You really are. Is it lonely bieng so fucking stupid???

quote:

Originally posted by LazFX You are such an Idiot. You really are. Is it lonely bieng so fucking stupid???

no i have discovered that the dumber you are the happier of a person you are.

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley Just out of interest Yoepus, what are your views on Jerusalem? Do you think Israel should have all of it, just the West, some kind of duel sovereignty or would you welcome an "international city"?

Sorry missed this question.

Short answer: I believe Israel should have all of it.
I didn't always feel this way, but I believe after the events of the past 5 years spliting or any other taking away of soverignty of Jerusalem will be a victory for terror.

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus Sorry missed this question. Short answer: I believe Israel should have all of it. I didn't always feel this way, but I believe after the events of the past 5 years spliting or any other taking away of soverignty of Jerusalem will be a victory for terror.

I've never been a fan of those kinds of principles (eg never negotiate with terrorists) cos it tends to ensure no discussion of why terrorism is occuring. I guess its the old debate about terrorist vs freedom fighter. You have to look at why they do this - sometimes it might be out of hatred, but more often than not it is a protest against something they have no power over. If you can work your way past the dogmatic principles, and understand why they are doing these acts, then your well on your way to finding a solution. Thats if its in your interests/aims to find a solution. If not, then you tell everyone the reason they are doing this is out of hatred and everyone agrees!

As for your view of Jerusalem, I think its unfair to blame everything that has happened on the Palestinians, and not only that use that as an excuse to get your own way over Jerusalem. Surely you can point to certain Israeli policies and think "ok, well that policy didn't help the peace and is likely to result in terrorist attacks"?? Settlements, the wall, house demolitions?

I wouldn't actually be opposed to a separation barrier if Israel just said, "we're withdrawing from the West Bank, have your state but dont come into our country for jobs" as long as there were commintments from the US, the EU and lets be fair, Israel to invest in infrastructures and the economy to lessen the reliance of Palestinians on Israel so they didn't need to cross the boarder...

...but thats not gonna happen cos Israel wants to annex large parts of the West Bank...

quote:

Originally posted by LazFX You are such an Idiot. You really are. Is it lonely bieng so fucking stupid???

perhaps you can do a research on your own on this issue first before coming here and talking trash like that.

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley I've never been a fan of those kinds of principles (eg never negotiate with terrorists) cos it tends to ensure no discussion of why terrorism is occuring. I guess its the old debate about terrorist vs freedom fighter. You have to look at why they do this - sometimes it might be out of hatred, but more often than not it is a protest against something they have no power over. If you can work your way past the dogmatic principles, and understand why they are doing these acts, then your well on your way to finding a solution. Thats if its in your interests/aims to find a solution. If not, then you tell everyone the reason they are doing this is out of hatred and everyone agrees! As for your view of Jerusalem, I think its unfair to blame everything that has happened on the Palestinians, and not only that use that as an excuse to get your own way over Jerusalem. Surely you can point to certain Israeli policies and think "ok, well that policy didn't help the peace and is likely to result in terrorist attacks"?? Settlements, the wall, house demolitions? ...

Its not the aims of the Palestinians (why they do what they do) that I am against. It is the methods they employ to reach those goals.

I don't think terrorism/suicide bombings in civilan populations should ever be employed - under any circumstances - and can never be justified.

Giving Jerusalem IMO proves that a war conducted by suicide bombings works - a precedent that should never be set.

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus Its not the aims of the Palestinians (why they do what they do) that I am against. It is the methods they employ to reach those goals. I don't think terrorism/suicide bombings in civilan populations should ever be employed - under any circumstances - and can never be justified. Giving Jerusalem IMO proves that a war conducted by suicide bombings works - a precedent that should never be set.

But at the same time as (rightly) criticising (some of) the methods of the Palestinians, surely you should also criticise (some of) the methods the Israelis use? I see both sides undertaking operations that in no way can be justified which is why I dont agree with your view that Israel should gets its way because of what the Palestinians have done, when exactly the same could be said about Israel...

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.