|
Palestinian Mother Turns Suicide Bomber for Hamas (pg. 9)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| DrUg_Tit0 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Yoepus
Well I know! They could just build a big wall and physically seperate the two sides, now wouldn't that be swell?!:happy2:
|
Yes, especially if that fence wouldn't protrude much into Palestinian territory like it does now. ;) |
|
|
| nic01445 |
i say we just eradicate both the iraelis and the palestinains.
problem solved. |
|
|
| Izzy |
| quote: | Originally posted by Palestinian
Israel was never 'more than willing' to give back the territories. You should read into the details of the negotiations. Check this Israeli source: http://www.gush-shalom.org/media/barak_eng.swf
|
"
To this day, Arafat has never honestly admitted what was offered to the Palestinians a deal that would have resulted in a Palestinian state, with territory in over 97 percent of the West Bank, Gaza, and Jerusalem; with Arab East Jerusalem as the capital of that state (including the holy place of the Haram al-Sharif, the Noble Sanctuary); with an international presence in place of the Israeli Defense Force in the Jordan Valley; and with the unlimited right of return for Palestinian refugees to their state but not to Israel. Nonetheless, Arafat continues to hide behind the canard that he was offered "
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=179
this quote by dennis ross, the lead american negotiator at the time, is way more factual then some nifty internat flash webpage. palestinain, i am sorry you were not fully aware of exaclty what was offered to the palestinian people and rejected by arafat. i belive that the proposed solution by barak at that time was the most fair offer ever given and i would still back it to this day. |
|
|
| Palestinian |
| quote: | Originally posted by Izzy
"
To this day, Arafat has never honestly admitted what was offered to the Palestinians a deal that would have resulted in a Palestinian state, with territory in over 97 percent of the West Bank, Gaza, and Jerusalem; with Arab East Jerusalem as the capital of that state (including the holy place of the Haram al-Sharif, the Noble Sanctuary); with an international presence in place of the Israeli Defense Force in the Jordan Valley; and with the unlimited right of return for Palestinian refugees to their state but not to Israel. Nonetheless, Arafat continues to hide behind the canard that he was offered "
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=179
this quote by dennis ross, the lead american negotiator at the time, is way more factual then some nifty internat flash webpage. palestinain, i am sorry you were not fully aware of exaclty what was offered to the palestinian people and rejected by arafat. i belive that the proposed solution by barak at that time was the most fair offer ever given and i would still back it to this day. |
The quote by Dennis Ross tells part of the story. Israel was offered Arafat a state on 97 percent of the territories. But you have to ask yourself "what kind of state?".
What Barak offered at Camp David was a formula for continued Israeli military occupation under the name of a "state."
The proposal would have meant:
no territorial contiguity for the Palestinian state,
no control of its external borders,
limited control of its own water resources, and
no full Israeli withdrawal from occupied territory as required by international law.
In addition, the Barak plan would have :
included continued Israeli military control over large segments of the West Bank, including almost all of the Jordan Valley;
codified the right of Israeli forces to be deployed in the Palestinian state at short notice;
meant the continued presence of fortified Israeli settlements and Jewish-only roads in the heart of the Palestinian state; and
required nearly 4 million Palestinian refugees to relinquish their fundamental human rights in exchange for compensation to be paid not by Israel but by the "international community."
At best, Palestinians could expect a kind of super-autonomy within a "Greater Israel", rather than independence, and the devolution of some municipal functions in the parts of Jerusalem inhabited by Palestinians, under continued overall Israeli control.
See maps showing what the Israeli proposals would have looked like in reality on this site: http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article518.shtml
John Mearsheimer, professor in the department of political science at the University of Chicago, recognized the limitations of what Palestinians were being asked to accept as a final settlement, concluding that "it is hard to imagine the Palestinians accepting such a state. Certainly no other nation in the world has such curtailed sovereignty."
[Source: "The Impossible Partition," New York Times, January 11, 2001] |
|
|
| Heinz |
Palistinean always DOES back his stuff up with creditable sources and all. most of diginuts info is not back up. but they both make a good point on things. just, why is their the personal insults. shouldnt this be about the conflict, not the way each other debates?? if u disagree with something, put up a response backed up by sources, not personal insults.
| quote: | Palestinian
Heinz, in the Old Testament, God made a covenant with His people. In the New Testament, Jesus makes a NEW covenant. And the old one becomes obsolete. This is what Christian Zionists fail to see.
read this carefully:
http://www.al-bushra.org/promisedland/labibkobti1.html
|
your right, jesus changed the entire story. which is why we have jews, and christians. christians follow jesus, jews follow moses, because christians believe jesus was the messiah, which is what i believe, and jews believe moses, as they always have. i have to find more passages..
many of u have already repeated many times, what ive had already and firstly said. its outlines on page 3. my first post is the way i think peace can be obtained. ill post it again. |
|
|
| Heinz |
I happen to sympathize on the Israeli side of things, but I also understand the Palistinean side too. But, there is one thing that both sides actually come into agreeance to! and that is, they both want peace! of course thats easy to understand, and come to, but neither side can come into any agreement of how to attain this peace. It is understood that Palistine wants their own government formed, and all their territory restored. My question goes to the Israeli side. Why not restore the pre-196(?) borders. before the arab war happened.....and help the Palistineans by withdrawing from that land, jewish settlements and all, and letting the palistineans take care of their own issues. and letting the jews take care of theirs.
I say, make a deadline for withdrawal, such as a year. restore the original borders...even though there might be land you want to keep, so what, you want peace or more bloodshed is my response. israel might even be able to help the palistineans by helping them achieve stability as they themselves are trying to achieve. official apologies should be made by both sides, and a treaty of goodwill signed. thereafter, both sides should show their goodwill, through whatever means is necessary to sustain their peace.
i dont believe this will ever be achieved during my lifetime, and im only 16.....
but aa. the attitudes being shown by both sides is untolerable. palistineans keep suicide bombing, isrealis keep launching incursions into the palistinean territory. both sides add into this conflict. each suicide bombing adds more conflict. each israeli incursion adds to the conflict. nothing can be made out of these actions. there is no excuse for suicide bombings, no matter what the situation is. think about, what if the palistineans took the initiative, and began showing signs, real signs i mean, that they really want peace. ceasing of suicide bombings, the distruction of the islamic terrorist groups, which are sorry excuses for anything but conflict. israel would most likely get the message, especially from international pressure, borders, might be restored, new gov't formed. thats one way of putting it.
but in conclusion. its really isreal who should take the initiative in that they are the strongest nation of the two by far.
1. Withdraw from Palistinean territory
2. Help to form new gov't of palistine
3. Stay out of Palistinean politics
4. Restore pre-arab war borders
5. Isreal stick to Isreal, Palistine stick to Palistine
6. Goodwill treaties signed.
Then the islamic terrorist groups would therefore be useless, for isreal would no longer be "oppressing the Palistinean people". therefore, they would lose public support, b/c the conflict is over. both sides have peace, abd they would be viewed as nothing more than trouble-makers trying to thwart the peace, as they do now, with every peace attempt. they try to thwart it before it starts. |
|
|
| Heinz |
| i just got to tell u guys. im using this thread on a project i have. a 5-7 minute presentation on the israeli-palistinean conflict. thanks to u guys, i have all points of view, and all the sources i could ever ask for for. THANKS:D :D ;) ;) |
|
|
| Yoepus |
| quote: | Originally posted by Heinz
i just got to tell u guys. im using this thread on a project i have. a 5-7 minute presentation on the israeli-palistinean conflict. thanks to u guys, i have all points of view, and all the sources i could ever ask for for. THANKS:D :D ;) ;) |
too bad.. there have been much better and more informative Israeli-Palestinian fights.. err debates on this forum
I believe I liked the 27th one the best ;) |
|
|
| Palestinian |
| no problem heinz. yoepus is right though. there were much better and more informative debates before this thread. especially when i first signed up in this forum in spring. Back then it was me against Izzy and Viber and then Yoepus. And now it's mostly Illan and Diginut. But my early debates with Izzy were probably the best. |
|
|
| Yoepus |
| quote: | Originally posted by Palestinian
no problem heinz. yoepus is right though. there were much better and more informative debates before this thread. especially when i first signed up in this forum in spring. Back then it was me against Izzy and Viber and then Yoepus. And now it's mostly Illan and Diginut. But my early debates with Izzy were probably the best. |
Ya its true, I don't argue that much in the Palestinian-Israeli threads anymore, because we've basically argued every point, these arguments are simple reiterations. I mean I could swear we were arguing about Camp David at least twice before, and neither party deciedes to budge from its position. Regarding Camp David, both Clinton, Barak, and David Ross (even Madilin Albright I think if I recall her speech correctly) both basically said Arafat was the loser of the whole incident, the one who wouldn't budge, and wouldn't bring a counter proposal. But even on such an issue when is basically 4vs1 we can't come to any agreement.
Anyway.. Palestinian, if you are ever interested in reading some literature that should steam your nerves, Alan Dershowitz has wrote a new book, The Case For Israel (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...=books&n=507846). I highly recommend it to you, or anyone else who takes interest in this matter. He categorial goes through issues and claims typically your side of the debate goes through and with the thoroughness of a lawyers goes through them one by one. Although I've read several anti-Israeli books, I tend to favor the read pro-Israeli books at least on a 2-1 ratio (I just find them more rational), I'm sure you prefer anti-Israeli books the same, but I encourage the read.
Anyway all are welcome to buy it and read it, if I was rich I'd mail it all to you guys .. unfortunately I'm still quiet a ways away from taking over the world, and the mustard fields are preforming really poorly this year :) |
|
|
| Izzy |
| quote: | Originally posted by Palestinian
no problem heinz. yoepus is right though. there were much better and more informative debates before this thread. especially when i first signed up in this forum in spring. Back then it was me against Izzy and Viber and then Yoepus. And now it's mostly Illan and Diginut. But my early debates with Izzy were probably the best. |
ya those were some good times... i guess after a while it just gets old arguing debating but then agian you cant refrain yourself sometimes, like now:
| quote: |
What Barak offered at Camp David was a formula for continued Israeli military occupation under the name of a "state."
The proposal would have meant:
no territorial contiguity for the Palestinian state,
|
excuse me, but the maps in your links do show a contigious state in the westbank, and it was proposed that a tunnel highway be built from the westbank to gaza
| quote: |
no control of its external borders,
|
how does having a soverign airport and naval port (both in gaza) support not having external borders?
sorry had to throw that in :p |
|
|
| Palestinian |
| quote: | Originally posted by Yoepus
Ya its true, I don't argue that much in the Palestinian-Israeli threads anymore, because we've basically argued every point, these arguments are simple reiterations. I mean I could swear we were arguing about Camp David at least twice before, and neither party deciedes to budge from its position. Regarding Camp David, both Clinton, Barak, and David Ross (even Madilin Albright I think if I recall her speech correctly) both basically said Arafat was the loser of the whole incident, the one who wouldn't budge, and wouldn't bring a counter proposal. But even on such an issue when is basically 4vs1 we can't come to any agreement.
Anyway.. Palestinian, if you are ever interested in reading some literature that should steam your nerves, Alan Dershowitz has wrote a new book, The Case For Israel (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...=books&n=507846). I highly recommend it to you, or anyone else who takes interest in this matter. He categorial goes through issues and claims typically your side of the debate goes through and with the thoroughness of a lawyers goes through them one by one. Although I've read several anti-Israeli books, I tend to favor the read pro-Israeli books at least on a 2-1 ratio (I just find them more rational), I'm sure you prefer anti-Israeli books the same, but I encourage the read.
Anyway all are welcome to buy it and read it, if I was rich I'd mail it all to you guys .. unfortunately I'm still quiet a ways away from taking over the world, and the mustard fields are preforming really poorly this year :) |
Thanks, Yoepus. I am fully aware of the book as Israeli supporters in my university have been promoting it and selling it for two dollars at their table. But my friend nailed it when he called the author "Alan Fraudowitz". But I may still read the book someday.
http://www.democracynow.org/static/dershowitzFin.shtml |
|
|
|
|
