quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley I have never claimed to be an expert but when somebody accuses me of knowing fuck all about the subject I think I am quite within my rights to inform them that I have spent a hell of a lot of time and hard work researching this topic, so u can understand why I may get pissed off when people come out with shit like I dont know what Im on about cos u disagree with what I say

I do not recall "accusing you of knowing fuck all." That was someone else on this board. I accused you of making a moronic and insensitive post with regards to the topic at hand, which is exactly what you did with your first post in this thread. The thread was about terrorists planning to kidnap more Israelis to serve their motives, and the literary tone of your remark suggested that you thought it was okay. I suppose I may have interpreted it the wrong way, but seeing as how you still have yet to concede that the notion of them abducting more Israelis is morally wrong, I remain unconvinced that your post had any other meaning behind it.

Yes, you have indeed presented some valid (albeit misleading) arguments after that statement, and there is no doubt that you've done some research; I stopped attacking YOU a long time ago. However, I stand by my criticism of your original retort.

quote:

If I were a hostage, I would want my country to do this for me. However, it does incourage Hamas etc to try to capture Israelis (but maybe they have always done this, just not for "trades"?)

Yes, but if you were an Israeli soldier, you would not want them to do it. Let's avoid speculation here, because you still haven't answered my question: from YOUR point of view, as a total outsider to this conflict, do YOU support their actions?

We are not even talking about encouragement anyway - they have already stated that they now plan to capture more Israelis to secure more of these "trades". We are past the encouragement stage and onto the conspiring stage.

As for your summary of the Camp David proposal, I assume you got it from this source, since your statement seems to match it word-for-word (I hope you were more dilligent with crediting your references in your dissertation). Assuming you therefore consider it a credible source, it is thus worth noting that Palestine accepted that part of the proposal but rejected the parts relating to Jerusalem and the Refugees, which (quoting from the same source) were as follows:

quote:

2. Refugees The Palestine refugee problem would be solved in the following way: Israel would not accept any legal or civilian responsibility for their displacement. Israel would allow the return of around 100,000 refugees under “humanitarian” grounds in the form of family reunions and considers such a step as compliance with UN Resolution 194. According to one source, the Palestinian State would be limited in the number of refugees it could absorb to half a million refugees according to a fixed timetable. This is not confirmed by other sources and is problematic, since a much larger number of refugees, well over a million, already live in camps in Gaza and the West Bank. An international fund would compensate refugees. Israel, the U.S. and Europe are to contribute. According to one source, this fund would also provide compensation to Jews who were forced to leave their possessions in Arab countries when they fled to Israel. 3. Jerusalem Palestine would obtain sovereignty over suburbs in the north and the south of Jerusalem that would be annexed to the West Bank, including Abu Dees, Alezariye and eastern Sawahre. Within East Jerusalem, in (Beit Hanina-Shuafat), there would be a civilian administration affiliated with the Palestinian Authority with the possibility of linking it to West Jerusalem through a municipality covering both sectors. The Palestinians would run a branch municipality within the framework of the Israeli higher municipal council while depriving them from planning and construction jurisdictions. The proposals allowed for Palestinian, Arab, Islamic and Christian administration of holy sites in the old city of Jerusalem. The Palestinians would be allowed to hoist the Palestinian flag over the Islamic and Christian shrines along with a safe passage linking northern Jerusalem, which would be annexed to the West Bank, to those areas so that Palestinians and Muslims would not pass through lands under Israeli sovereignty.

So...

quote:

Tell me diginut...do you think this is a "generous offer"? Would you have accepted this?! (And I have done you the decency of answering your question so please make sure you remember to answer this one, altho as nobody in their right mind would say they would have accepted this offer, I expect you to try and wriggle your way out of it somehow...)

Personally, I think it was a very "generous" offer. Funny how when I disagree with you by present a coherent argument, I'm "wriggling" or "weaseling" out or "ignoring your main point", but when you disagree with me by presenting an ad hominem attack, that's perfectly acceptable.

Yoepus put the rest very elegantly - I've got nothing more to say on this issue.

___________________
My party schedule:
2009-02-21 - DJ Attention @ I'm So Popular
2009-06-18 - DJ Annoying @ People Need To Know Where I'll Be
2012-11-32 - DJ Insufferable ɸ Or At Least the Stalkers I Complain About
2048-06-66 - Spastic & Whocares ¶ Although I'm Actually Flattered
9999-45-81 - Tweaker Gimp ☼ I Probably Won't Even Go To This But I Have To Make Sure I Fill Up All The Available Space Here

The failure of the Oslo peace process, the colonization of the West Bank and the building of the Wall has rendered a two-state solution unacheivable. Unless the process of colonization is reversed, there can be no room for two states between the Jordan river and the Mediteranean.

The Arab minority in Israel is on its way to becoming the majority in less than 50 years. Some studies put it at 20.

Therefore, various Palestinian, international, and a few Israeli scholars and intellectuals, including many NGOs have declared that the time has come to announce the only available solution left:

ONE SECULAR DEMOCRATIC STATE

The Intellecutal's Proposal:

One state for all its citizens, Arabs and Jews.
Implementation of UN resolution 194- Right of Return to refugees, including Arab states' acceptance of Jews to return to the Arab countries they were expelled or left from if they wish.
One person, One Vote.
A system of ensuring minority rights (this is one provision I've included to this list that I'm sure will be an issue no doubt)
This state will automatically obtain peaceful relations with all its neighbours, guaranteed.
Jews will also be permitted to live anywhere in the West Bank and Gaza with this solution.

Might as well do this now and save lives than wait till it happens naturally in 20-50 years.

___________________
*** Sig will be edited -> see rule #5 regarding political/religious content
Theodore Herzl, founder of the World Zionist Organization: "Spirit the penniless population across the frontier by denying it employment... Both the process of expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried out discreetly and circumspectly."

quote:

from YOUR point of view, as a total outsider to this conflict, do YOU support their actions?

You mean do I support Hamas saying they are going to capture soldiers to trade for terrorists? From Hamas point of view yes! From the soldiers point of view, depends what they would have done to them otherwise (ie. I'd rather be used as a trade than shot in the head) From my point of view as a total outsider, I think Israel has dropped a bollock as they have given Hamas the green light to do this more.



Diginut, in what way were the Camp David proposals generous?! Sod whether parts were accepted or not (remember, you must make any proposal acceptable not to the PA, but to the Palestinian people who Israel oppresses everyday)......you cannot tell me if you were a Palestinian you would accept these proposals (not being able to move round your own country, not being a sovereign state at all, effectively putting in legitimate place all the things you are fighting to get rid of)

Diginut, if you were a Palestinian would you have accepted them (and dont take the piss)

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley You mean do I support Hamas saying they are going to capture soldiers to trade for terrorists? From Hamas point of view yes!

there you go. this is why camp david was geneorous. we agreed to give you land althiough most of you support terroristic actions to achieve your goals.

in my opinion. no matter what will happened the crisis could not be solved until the palestinians will raise a leader that will represent them all. becouse arafat mainly represents himself and his accounts on swiss banks, and hamas represents a terroristic agenda that doesnt eben recognizes israel. and the palestinian people are held chained by their own "leaders".

___________________
*** WeLCoMe To ThE FuNKy PLaNeT ***

You?! Who's "you"?! I aint Palestinian! I'm not Muslim or Arab either! Just interested in the subject! I'm English and nothin else!

On whether Camp David was generous...

It is easy to say it was generous when you simplify it. Israel offered 95% of the land (now that sounds pretty generous no?) But when you look at the small print you see there are a fair few strings attached. A new Palestinian state MUST be just the same as any ther country, it must be able to conduct foreign affairs, make alliances if it wishes, etc. The offer at Camp David allowed no such thing. In fact it was worse than that...

That 5% of land Israel sought to annex included settlements in the middle of the West Bank. Had the Palestinians accepted that offer, the West Bank would have been cut up into 3 segments (which means that Israel would still control movement of Palestinians around the OWN country!) Add that to the other "offers" that would have made PAlestine in now way sovereign, then you can see why this generous offer was a complete joke...

quote:

in my opinion. no matter what will happened the crisis could not be solved until the palestinians will raise a leader that will represent them all

Agree 100%

Unfortunately, what leader that would represent all Palestinians would Israel accept?

In my opinion, only America or the EU can resolve this conflict as Israel and the Palestinians have constantly proved to everyone that they are utterly useless at coming anywhere near to a peace initiative that would appeal to both sides...

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley You mean do I support Hamas saying they are going to capture soldiers to trade for terrorists? From Hamas point of view yes! From the soldiers point of view, depends what they would have done to them otherwise (ie. I'd rather be used as a trade than shot in the head) From my point of view as a total outsider, I think Israel has dropped a bollock as they have given Hamas the green light to do this more. Diginut, in what way were the Camp David proposals generous?! Sod whether parts were accepted or not (remember, you must make any proposal acceptable not to the PA, but to the Palestinian people who Israel oppresses everyday)......you cannot tell me if you were a Palestinian you would accept these proposals (not being able to move round your own country, not being a sovereign state at all, effectively putting in legitimate place all the things you are fighting to get rid of) Diginut, if you were a Palestinian would you have accepted them (and dont take the piss)

Ha ha, once again you tell me not to "take the piss" after refusing to answer any of my questions directly. You'd be ripped to shreds as a witness on the stand.

It's a simple question. Do you or do you not condone the actions of Hamas with respect to this topic? Of course Israel made a dumb strategic move, that's not the issue in question; forget about any sides, forget about any external points of view, DO YOU or DO YOU NOT think that what they are planning is morally justified? It's a simple YES or NO question.

The Camp David II proposals were generous in that they attempted to give the Palestinians as much as they possibly could without risking the loss of the Jewish state, and even attempted to find very complicated solutions to the refugee/Jerusalem problems. With regards to whether or not I "would" accept them as a Palestinian, that is something I honestly can't answer, and yet it's completely irrelevant because these proposals WERE "accepted by the Palestinian people" - they were rejected flat-out by none other than Arafat, who rejected them (as pointed out earlier) for want of an absolutely universal right of return and requiring to share certain areas of Jerusalem.

Of course, many will go on to say that Arafat rejected the proposals because peace is not his ultimate aim, because only war and terror allows him to embezzle massive amounts of money and still somehow keep him in the world's good graces; however, for the sake of this argument I am being far more conservative and simply saying that he rejected the proposal on the two bases above WITHOUT A COUNTER OFFER. Your implications that the first part of the deal was lop-sided are not relevant to the issue because that part of the deal had already been accepted by both sides.

I will once again say that your description of the West Bank being cut up into 3 segments with Israeli control of Palestinian movement was the Camp David I proposal, not the Camp David II proposal, and I urge you to READ YOUR OWN SOURCE to locate that information.

I am beginning to wonder if you actually read your sources, since it is already apparent that you don't credit them. Obviously you have sources, and yet it would appear to me that you just skim through them and pick up any facts which suit your argument, no matter how ambiguous or out-of-context they may be. To think that I even went so far as to track down your unnamed source, and this is the response I get from you! It's obviously worthless for me to post any further responses to your ravings.

Good luck convincing the other debaters.

___________________
My party schedule:
2009-02-21 - DJ Attention @ I'm So Popular
2009-06-18 - DJ Annoying @ People Need To Know Where I'll Be
2012-11-32 - DJ Insufferable ɸ Or At Least the Stalkers I Complain About
2048-06-66 - Spastic & Whocares ¶ Although I'm Actually Flattered
9999-45-81 - Tweaker Gimp ☼ I Probably Won't Even Go To This But I Have To Make Sure I Fill Up All The Available Space Here

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley You?! Who's "you"?! I aint Palestinian! I'm not Muslim or Arab either! Just interested in the subject! I'm English and nothin else!

hehe i've just noticed that. the flag of 'palestinian's post over your's got me confused... sorry m8...

___________________
*** WeLCoMe To ThE FuNKy PLaNeT ***

No probs, tho I am quite specific in my location where I'm from!!!

quote:

diginut: "I will once again say that your description of the West Bank being cut up into 3 segments with Israeli control of Palestinian movement was the Camp David I proposal, not the Camp David II proposal"

Quite right...

Here is the camp david 1 map

Here is the camp david 2 map (which also divides the West Bank up, altho I cannot tell if it is joined at Shilo?)

Here is the final map proposed by Israel in Dec 2000, but has numerous cut off enclaves around the edges of the Palestinian state, and also shows where Israel would hav control over for 20 years

Funnily enough, I would not have accpted the first part of the proposals (that the PA accepted) and would have accepted the others as I think the 'right of return' is quite rediculous and they could easily be housed in Palestine.

The state proposed in the last proposal still had the conditions attached to it as mentioned earlier, quite unaccpetable.

quote:

It's a simple question. Do you or do you not condone the actions of Hamas with respect to this topic? Of course Israel made a dumb strategic move, that's not the issue in question; forget about any sides, forget about any external points of view, DO YOU or DO YOU NOT think that what they are planning is morally justified? It's a simple YES or NO question.

What? You thought I'd forgot?!

No I do not think it is right to take people hostage to ensure the release of criminals/murderers

Was that ok?

Yes, that's better.

As for the "conditions" - I'd like to go through each of them and find out the exact nature of your objections to each.

1. The state would not have an army with heavy weapons
Pretty reasonable request I think... any desire to build heavy weapons would seem to be a desire to pursue further violence.

2. The state would not make alliances with foreign countries without Israeli approval and would not allow introduction of foreign forces west of the River Jordan.
The 2nd part of this condition is obvious, Israel needs to protect its own territory. The first part... perhaps it is not optimal, but if you read the summary of the Camp David meetings you'll see that the two sides had agreed to discuss the issue in further detail.

3. Israel would be allowed to deploy troops in the Jordan Valley if Israel were to be threatened by invasion from the east.
Again, this poses no threat to Palestine unless they were to attack Israel; what is your objection to this? It also follows that this condition would be phased out after Israeli's final withdrawal from that area as set out in (8).

4. Israeli aircraft could fly over Palestinian airspace.
Well, this is a no-brainer; since Palestine has virtually no aircraft to speak of, and Israel would be giving up most of its occupied land, it sounds pretty fair to me. It's not like Palestine needs that airspace exclusively, and several other countries have airspace-sharing agreements. This makes perfect sense when you assume that the two neighbouring states are supposed to have peaceful relations.

5. Israel would install early warning stations in the mountains overlooking the Jordan Valley and other areas.
Paranoid, maybe, but it's hard to judge exactly how "threatening" or "imposing" such an arrangement would be without much more specific detail on what these "stations" are. To me it sounds like they are merely outposts, probably unarmed or very lightly armed, Israel just wants the right to set up a few watch towers. They're not asking for any kind of "control" over the area. And again, it would seem to me that this would be phased out as with (3) after Israel's eventual full withdrawal from the area.

6. Palestinians would control border crossings with Jordan and Egypt along with Israeli security observations.
Palestinian control, Israel observation. It's obvious who comes out ahead on that one. And *once again*, I'm sure this is based on the "phasing out" period, because Israel would have no reason to retain control over that border once they've disbanded all their settlements in the area.

7. The Israelis would retain management over water sources in the West Bank while approving a limited quota to the Palestinians.
Now this is the only one I might have a problem with. However, you have to consider the possibility that Israel built a great deal of the water management systems in the area, and giving those up would mean giving up personal property in addition to land.

There's also no info on what exactly a "limited quota" is, and I'm not sure how many other places the Palestinians can get water from. I'll be the first to say that this issue is open to discussion, but without further information, I can't say I would have rejected it flat out.

8. Israel would lease areas in the Jordan Valley or maintain temporary sovereignty over them for up to 25 years.
You can see on the map where this area is; it holds little strategic value with the proposed borders and I'm sure Israel does not really want it. The problem is that (according to the map) Israel has a ton of people and settlements there that would take a long time to evacuate. Israel would be giving this land to Palestine unconditionally after a period of time, presumably for as long as it takes to SAFELY get its people out of there, so again, I really don't see what the problem is.

The way I interpret the proposal, it does not seem at all like Israel is trying to make Palestine some sort of "sub-region" of itself. They want to separate! They just needed to actually have some sense of SECURITY in all of this, i.e. the safety of knowing that they can actually fight back if Hamas decided that they wanted to get rid of Israel too.

Almost all of the provisions scream safety, not power. The PA (except for Arafat) understood this, for the most part, and that was why they agreed upon the conditions.

You're right, I think rejecting the proposal based on the ROR/Jerusalem issues was ridiculous too, but that's exactly what they did.

___________________
My party schedule:
2009-02-21 - DJ Attention @ I'm So Popular
2009-06-18 - DJ Annoying @ People Need To Know Where I'll Be
2012-11-32 - DJ Insufferable ɸ Or At Least the Stalkers I Complain About
2048-06-66 - Spastic & Whocares ¶ Although I'm Actually Flattered
9999-45-81 - Tweaker Gimp ☼ I Probably Won't Even Go To This But I Have To Make Sure I Fill Up All The Available Space Here

Ok, I cant be arsed to go thru each of the points and give my two penneth worth, but I notice a theme thru your points which is Israeli security (from theats from other countries). What country in their right mind would attack Israel today?! Now I know Israel has been invaded/attacked in the past, but that was when the opposition thought they might win. Today, every country in the Middle East is shit scared of America after the Iraq war (see Libya). Anyone attacking Israel would face the US...nobody is that stupid!!! (Add to that that Israel probably has one of the most powerful armies in the world behind Britain, China and Russia, and maybe the US) So I dont buy the argument that these demands were neccessary to protect Israeli security. They look to me, more like a contingency plan to quickly reoccupy the West Bank and Gaza if they wished to. This is also why not allowing the Palestinian state to have an army or conduct foreign relations is unacceptable, as every country must have the right to defend itself (which Im sure you can relate to) And yes, the water demand is unaceptable, end of (as is what Israel is currently doing re. water which is a huge source of Palestinian discontent with Israel)

As for ROR, I think we both agree

On Jerusalem, I have no fucking idea whatsoever!!! (the only option I have seen that looks like a fairly decent idea is making Jerusalem an 'international city' under the control of the UN)

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley Ok, I cant be arsed to go thru each of the points and give my two penneth worth, but I notice a theme thru your points which is Israeli security (from theats from other countries). What country in their right mind would attack Israel today?! Now I know Israel has been invaded/attacked in the past, but that was when the opposition thought they might win. Today, every country in the Middle East is shit scared of America after the Iraq war (see Libya). Anyone attacking Israel would face the US...nobody is that stupid!!! (Add to that that Israel probably has one of the most powerful armies in the world behind Britain, China and Russia, and maybe the US) So I dont buy the argument that these demands were neccessary to protect Israeli security. They look to me, more like a contingency plan to quickly reoccupy the West Bank and Gaza if they wished to. This is also why not allowing the Palestinian state to have an army or conduct foreign relations is unacceptable, as every country must have the right to defend itself (which Im sure you can relate to) And yes, the water demand is unaceptable, end of (as is what Israel is currently doing re. water which is a huge source of Palestinian discontent with Israel) As for ROR, I think we both agree On Jerusalem, I have no fucking idea whatsoever!!! (the only option I have seen that looks like a fairly decent idea is making Jerusalem an 'international city' under the control of the UN)

hey I'm still waiting for your dissertation

___________________
SAVE ZIONIST MUSTARD: BUY ZIONIST KETCHUP!


Click here to support the free mustard alliance.