To back you up, the land that they are begging Israel to withdraw from actually belonged to Jordan and Egypt once. You could argue that Jordan and Egypt were occupying Palestinian land. Question is why didn't Palestinians call on Jordan and Egypt to withdraw from West Bank, Jerusalem and Gaza when they had it to make room for Palestine? There were no Israelis there back then. The answer is clear. They wanted the WHOLE thing. At that time they figured they already have the land but obviously wasn't enough. Kaz calls the West Bank and Gaza as occupied territories whereas Hamas calls the entire state of Israel as occupied territories. Hamas is more intellectually consistent in this regard. If you are going to go down the road of occupation you can't stop at the edge of West Bank.
این جور ترد ها با حالن . طرف جفنگ میگه چون اطلاعات کافی نداره, ولی این ترد حد اقل این بابا رو وادار میکنه که بره یواش یواش تاریخ اسرائیل و منطقه رو گوگل کنه...البته این آدمی که من میشناسم بعید میدونم بیاد و از این جفنگیات به تور کل بگذره, ولی لا اقل یه درس تاریخ میشه واسه خودش و شاید در صحبت های آینده این درس به دردش بخوره.
As for the 1967 borders, when it was first drawn up and suggested, mainly by the British I belive, the Jews accepted it while the Arabs rejected it. And I use Arabs intentionally here. It wasn't just the palestinians who said no to the division
Now they want the 1967 borders as though that's what they had. But in reality because they rejected it, they never had it.
Now they want the 1967 borders as though that's what they had. But in reality because they rejected it, they never had it.
I don't think the problem many people have with Israel is about the territory and occupation. Those issues may never be settled.
The issue here is the number of lives being taken by Israel's response to Hamas' micky-mouse rockets. It's just not digestible.
Sure if Hamas had the power, they would kill as many Israelis as they could, but they don't have shit so why respond as if they do?
If a few separatist Texas cow-boys had an aircraft career, there would be lots of dead people and a new country called Republic of Texas. I don't see the US military doing air-raids on Texan neighborhoods, hospitals and schools?
The Iron-Dome has done a fine job of stopping the rockets. I don't even mind if IDF goes in to Gaza and attempts to assassinate Hamas members one by one. I just don't agree with bombing entire buildings and neighborhoods. That's not how you protect yourself against a cult. What the fuck has that little 6 year old Arab girl done to deserve dying by an Israeli bomb? NOTHING. There has been thousands of them.
The issue here is the number of lives being taken by Israel's response to Hamas' micky-mouse rockets. It's just not digestible.
Sure if Hamas had the power, they would kill as many Israelis as they could, but they don't have shit so why respond as if they do?
If a few separatist Texas cow-boys had an aircraft career, there would be lots of dead people and a new country called Republic of Texas. I don't see the US military doing air-raids on Texan neighborhoods, hospitals and schools?
The Iron-Dome has done a fine job of stopping the rockets. I don't even mind if IDF goes in to Gaza and attempts to assassinate Hamas members one by one. I just don't agree with bombing entire buildings and neighborhoods. That's not how you protect yourself against a cult. What the fuck has that little 6 year old Arab girl done to deserve dying by an Israeli bomb? NOTHING. There has been thousands of them.
Issues will eventually be all settled, but not in our lifetime, maybe in the next few centuries.
Thats what i also tried to tell Chinaski, with all of its modern and state of the art weapons the ratio of civilians to Hamas members killed by Israel is very high and this is unacceptable. Any sane person can see what Israel is doing is generation killing.
Now if our friends are blinded by IR's alliance with Hamas (damaged now due to Syrian issue) then they should atleast take a look at Mahmoud Abbas which is also saying the same thing.
Thats what i also tried to tell Chinaski, with all of its modern and state of the art weapons the ratio of civilians to Hamas members killed by Israel is very high and this is unacceptable. Any sane person can see what Israel is doing is generation killing.
Now if our friends are blinded by IR's alliance with Hamas (damaged now due to Syrian issue) then they should atleast take a look at Mahmoud Abbas which is also saying the same thing.
With all due respect the above doesn't make any sense. The definition of a country, legally or otherwise, extends to Palestine.
Moreover, you don't have to occupy a country, you occupy people on their land - regardless of whether they've formed a country. It's already widely established by the international courts: they are occupying the Palestinians and are also blocking their right to self-determination. This is not a point of debate, whereas your post above seems to suggest you don't know this very fact.
Notwithstanding that digression, it has nothing to do with my original point which was to extend your consideration as if it was your own people.
Personally, I mind it all. The only reason the issue of occupation may not be settled is because Israel are wilfully breaking the law and - as you've pointed out - are pretending as if the Palestinians are really a threat.
They have no right or reason to be there. Anyone pretending as if they do, or as if the threat is legitimate, is just kidding themselves or simply looking to point score on childish arguments. Unfortunately, that seems to be the case with many members clearly just posting false scripts they've read elsewhere.
And it all boils down to one simple thing: trust. If the Israelis don't trust the Palestinians by getting off their land, then how can the Palestinians trust the Israelis? The very first, and least, thing that has to happen is that they let the Palestinians form their country and get on with their lives. I am yet to hear a legitimate point against this.
Moreover, you don't have to occupy a country, you occupy people on their land - regardless of whether they've formed a country. It's already widely established by the international courts: they are occupying the Palestinians and are also blocking their right to self-determination. This is not a point of debate, whereas your post above seems to suggest you don't know this very fact.
Notwithstanding that digression, it has nothing to do with my original point which was to extend your consideration as if it was your own people.
Personally, I mind it all. The only reason the issue of occupation may not be settled is because Israel are wilfully breaking the law and - as you've pointed out - are pretending as if the Palestinians are really a threat.
They have no right or reason to be there. Anyone pretending as if they do, or as if the threat is legitimate, is just kidding themselves or simply looking to point score on childish arguments. Unfortunately, that seems to be the case with many members clearly just posting false scripts they've read elsewhere.
And it all boils down to one simple thing: trust. If the Israelis don't trust the Palestinians by getting off their land, then how can the Palestinians trust the Israelis? The very first, and least, thing that has to happen is that they let the Palestinians form their country and get on with their lives. I am yet to hear a legitimate point against this.
Last edited:
Am I the only one who doesn't see any point in a two state solution and thinks the people of Palestine and Israel should just vote for one central government that respects everyone's human rights equally with smaller local governments to take care of local issues? I mean if it was up to me I would abolish all borders anyway but this one seems like the best Candidate for the first to go!
Okay you're kidding right? I give Israel every right to not trust Palestinians. You need to acknowledge what it means to be born a Palestinian these days. It means to hate Israel and harm them at the first possible opportunity. Trust is the last thing Israel can afford to give Palestinians.
As for leaving the occupied territories and giving Palestine the 'self-determination' right, again it boils down to the extremist view of the majority in Palestine that prevents this from being a viable option. We've seen this happen in Lebanon, Afghanistan, Egypt and Syria. The extremist views tend to win most elections in that region. An extremist Palestinian government with full authority would spell disaster for Israel. You could pretty much picture Hamas on steroids ruling the entire Palestine.
The 2-state solution cannot work for this region. It would be a lot better if Israel just annexed the entire area and established a government that would give a fair representation to Palestinians.
As for leaving the occupied territories and giving Palestine the 'self-determination' right, again it boils down to the extremist view of the majority in Palestine that prevents this from being a viable option. We've seen this happen in Lebanon, Afghanistan, Egypt and Syria. The extremist views tend to win most elections in that region. An extremist Palestinian government with full authority would spell disaster for Israel. You could pretty much picture Hamas on steroids ruling the entire Palestine.
The 2-state solution cannot work for this region. It would be a lot better if Israel just annexed the entire area and established a government that would give a fair representation to Palestinians.
The bolded is simply wrong. The Palestinians have the right to those territories and there is almost unanimous consensus around the world, as well as in international law, about it.
The Palestinians and the Arab countries pre-67 rejected the divisions and went to war with the Israelis. What happened? They got obliterated in 6 days. Now the other Arabs do not claim the land bar the displaced Palestinians. But now, basically every peace talk revolves around a two-state settlement based on the pre-67 borders.
They've basically said "ma goh khordim". Israel is not going anywhere. At the same time, for 5 decades, the Israelis have been occupying them, their territories and blocking them from self-determination. In the 80s, they actually tried to illegally annex the whole of Jerusalem. This is where the international condemnation comes from. They have a right to defend themselves, however ludicrous that fear may be, but on their own land.
The Palestinians and the Arab countries pre-67 rejected the divisions and went to war with the Israelis. What happened? They got obliterated in 6 days. Now the other Arabs do not claim the land bar the displaced Palestinians. But now, basically every peace talk revolves around a two-state settlement based on the pre-67 borders.
They've basically said "ma goh khordim". Israel is not going anywhere. At the same time, for 5 decades, the Israelis have been occupying them, their territories and blocking them from self-determination. In the 80s, they actually tried to illegally annex the whole of Jerusalem. This is where the international condemnation comes from. They have a right to defend themselves, however ludicrous that fear may be, but on their own land.
I don't understand what any of this means, and I think you've misunderstood what I've said. Essentially, how can there be any peace as long as Israel occupies the Palestinian territories?
That's where the issue of trust comes from: get off their land and see what happens.
If the Palestinians continue, then Israel are simply doing what they're doing now: using advanced military equipment to shield themselves while blasting them from afar. You've already agreed; the Palestinians really can't do shit.
But what if the Palestinians don't attack, they build their state and they learn to coincide? Then that concession, that giving of trust, is worth the world and more. As for your other point: the Israelis really have no right to dictate what kind of government the Palestinians have - whether it is a secular democracy or a theocratic dictatorship. These kinds of conditions are just bound to aggrieve the other party to the extent where there will be no compromise.
I find this statement pretty ridiculous mate, and I guess it illuminates your first para - I was under the belief that you wanted peace between them. What would you say if Israel did this to Iran? Who says Israelis are concerned with being fair? They're killing Palestinian civilians and blocking any unity movements in the region. This is like the call to democracy the Americans had when they were invading Iraq and Afghanistan, going there to help them out. There will never, ever, be peace if one country's solution towards it is by obliterating the opposition, taking over their homes, and then claiming to give them rights. Maybe I've misunderstood you but this is incredibly naive. Outside of these two, you can bet your bottom dollar the entire world would get on Israel's back for annexing land that is not theirs - they already did it in the 80s.
That's where the issue of trust comes from: get off their land and see what happens.
If the Palestinians continue, then Israel are simply doing what they're doing now: using advanced military equipment to shield themselves while blasting them from afar. You've already agreed; the Palestinians really can't do shit.
But what if the Palestinians don't attack, they build their state and they learn to coincide? Then that concession, that giving of trust, is worth the world and more. As for your other point: the Israelis really have no right to dictate what kind of government the Palestinians have - whether it is a secular democracy or a theocratic dictatorship. These kinds of conditions are just bound to aggrieve the other party to the extent where there will be no compromise.
I find this statement pretty ridiculous mate, and I guess it illuminates your first para - I was under the belief that you wanted peace between them. What would you say if Israel did this to Iran? Who says Israelis are concerned with being fair? They're killing Palestinian civilians and blocking any unity movements in the region. This is like the call to democracy the Americans had when they were invading Iraq and Afghanistan, going there to help them out. There will never, ever, be peace if one country's solution towards it is by obliterating the opposition, taking over their homes, and then claiming to give them rights. Maybe I've misunderstood you but this is incredibly naive. Outside of these two, you can bet your bottom dollar the entire world would get on Israel's back for annexing land that is not theirs - they already did it in the 80s.
Last edited:
The worst thing is the ignoring or wilful blindness to how extremism is bred. If you keep killing civilians, you're keeping the breeding ground for terrorists fertile.
Wouldn't that be grand? But the politics will never let it happen. Both the Israelis and Palestinian governments or political leaders are warmongers. Netanyahu is basically talking genocide and he has a 90%+ approval rating in his country. The fervour in the area is so high that these talking points have such support. Maybe it is fortunate for the world that only one side has any real military might because it could get nuclear; but, unfortunately, the party with the power are looking a lot like the Nazis at this moment.
Wouldn't that be grand? But the politics will never let it happen. Both the Israelis and Palestinian governments or political leaders are warmongers. Netanyahu is basically talking genocide and he has a 90%+ approval rating in his country. The fervour in the area is so high that these talking points have such support. Maybe it is fortunate for the world that only one side has any real military might because it could get nuclear; but, unfortunately, the party with the power are looking a lot like the Nazis at this moment.
You're going by the assumption that Palestinians and extremist Jews actually want peace which is not true at all.
You can't be serious.
The only reason Palestinians can't do shit is indeed Israel's tight (and totally dominant) grip. "Get off their land and see what happens?" You know what will happen, Israelis know what will happen, the entire world knows. The extremist cult will arm themselves to the teeth and attack Israel without hesitation while Israel will have lost the advantage they hold right now. Dude, you need to admit that the majority of Palestinians (and Muslims) want Israel gone for good. This ideology is what they're born into. Hatred for Israel is a pillar of their existence.
Won't happen. Can't happen. Never has there been the slightest hint for your suggestion. You don't invite a hungry bear into your bedroom and hope he won't attack.
I do, but they don't as evident by the actions of both sides in the past 60 years.
Israel couldn't do this to Iran because Iran has been a sovereign nation recognized by the entire world for thousands of years. Palestine has never been a country.
I'm not claiming Israelis are concerned with being fair. I'm saying there's no escaping the dominance of the superior side (Israel). With a one-state solution, both people would have an incentive in maintaining peace, fairness and diversity as it would bring economical prosperity and over centuries, it would create harmony.
You can't be serious.
The only reason Palestinians can't do shit is indeed Israel's tight (and totally dominant) grip. "Get off their land and see what happens?" You know what will happen, Israelis know what will happen, the entire world knows. The extremist cult will arm themselves to the teeth and attack Israel without hesitation while Israel will have lost the advantage they hold right now. Dude, you need to admit that the majority of Palestinians (and Muslims) want Israel gone for good. This ideology is what they're born into. Hatred for Israel is a pillar of their existence.
Won't happen. Can't happen. Never has there been the slightest hint for your suggestion. You don't invite a hungry bear into your bedroom and hope he won't attack.
I do, but they don't as evident by the actions of both sides in the past 60 years.
Israel couldn't do this to Iran because Iran has been a sovereign nation recognized by the entire world for thousands of years. Palestine has never been a country.
I'm not claiming Israelis are concerned with being fair. I'm saying there's no escaping the dominance of the superior side (Israel). With a one-state solution, both people would have an incentive in maintaining peace, fairness and diversity as it would bring economical prosperity and over centuries, it would create harmony.
No, I'm not under that assumption. I am arguing that as a neutral to the fight; IF any peace is to be had between then, it has to begin by Israel ceding the occupied land. My actual argument is that the Israelis are looking for any excuse to keep it and the extremists on the Palestinians side only get more powerful because of these wars. It's the Palestinian civilians that ultimately lose out. When the Unity movement was happening and the more amenable PLO was influencing Hamas - whose rhetoric also softened a lot - that hope was scuppered because the Israelis do not want it to occur.
But this is irrelevant - and also conjecture. It's conjecture because we do not know what will happen. It's irrelevant because a fear of Palestinians fighting back does not justify occupation. Whatever 'advantage' they hold is illegal and immoral. But for their powerful allies, Israel would be called a terrorist state loudly. Even as it is, no country has been condemned even close to as much as Israel by the UN.
This is wrong, in the last few years PLO and Hamas have begrudgingly talked about two-state settlements and the fact that Israel will exist. At the end of the day, you can't expect them to invite them over for tea and biscuits on day 1. Ironically, if Israel cedes the territories and the Palestinians attack...they can defend themselves and absolutely obliterate the Palestinians. You seem to suggest as if they give up the land they can never get it back. If any war occurs, it's the equivalent of an ant taking on a dog. Israel can take over all of the area even now if they wish - it's just international condemnation, even by their allies, that they fear (for now, who knows how psychotic Netanyahu might get).
If your position is that peace can't happen, then it won't ever happen. This for me is untenable; every conflict can be solved no matter how dire.
Again, irrelevant. The reason Iran hasn't been attacked has nothing to do with whether it is a country, but because it is strong enough to defend itself. Let's not talk about legality; the whole occupation is illegal (for the 100th time). The point of the hypothetical is that one party's ridiculous fears of another is not a justification for human rights violations - or basically genocide. People here keep mentioning Israel's 'fear' as a counter to arguments without first questioning: is it a legitimate fear and does it justify their acts. The answer is 'no' to both questions. Morally, and legally, they have no leg to stand on and in reality they have no reason to fear the Palestinian army. It's just deranged politicking masquerading as an excuse.
If Israel feared Iran and used the rhetoric IR has used as justification (which is much like Hamas') then would that be justification for them to enter our land, takeover, and give us 'rights'?
The answer is obvious, but the courtesy is not extended to the Palestinians.
BTW, the State of Palestine is recognised by the majority of countries in the world - over 100. Simply stating that they're not a country is incorrect. You seem to be forgetting that the reason they're not a fully fledged country is because they're being impeded by their occupiers. In essence, your justification for Israel going in and turning them over is because you don't consider them a country, which is due to the fact that Israel is illegally occupying them. With all due respect this doesn't even begin to make sense.
You're saying one country invading and taking over another country - historical enemies - will bring peace to the country? As I said, this is Bush-like rhetoric. I'm surprised someone who is an advocate for the underdog or the party whose rights is being infringed in almost every other discussion can take such a tyrannical stance.
But this is irrelevant - and also conjecture. It's conjecture because we do not know what will happen. It's irrelevant because a fear of Palestinians fighting back does not justify occupation. Whatever 'advantage' they hold is illegal and immoral. But for their powerful allies, Israel would be called a terrorist state loudly. Even as it is, no country has been condemned even close to as much as Israel by the UN.
This is wrong, in the last few years PLO and Hamas have begrudgingly talked about two-state settlements and the fact that Israel will exist. At the end of the day, you can't expect them to invite them over for tea and biscuits on day 1. Ironically, if Israel cedes the territories and the Palestinians attack...they can defend themselves and absolutely obliterate the Palestinians. You seem to suggest as if they give up the land they can never get it back. If any war occurs, it's the equivalent of an ant taking on a dog. Israel can take over all of the area even now if they wish - it's just international condemnation, even by their allies, that they fear (for now, who knows how psychotic Netanyahu might get).
If your position is that peace can't happen, then it won't ever happen. This for me is untenable; every conflict can be solved no matter how dire.
Again, irrelevant. The reason Iran hasn't been attacked has nothing to do with whether it is a country, but because it is strong enough to defend itself. Let's not talk about legality; the whole occupation is illegal (for the 100th time). The point of the hypothetical is that one party's ridiculous fears of another is not a justification for human rights violations - or basically genocide. People here keep mentioning Israel's 'fear' as a counter to arguments without first questioning: is it a legitimate fear and does it justify their acts. The answer is 'no' to both questions. Morally, and legally, they have no leg to stand on and in reality they have no reason to fear the Palestinian army. It's just deranged politicking masquerading as an excuse.
If Israel feared Iran and used the rhetoric IR has used as justification (which is much like Hamas') then would that be justification for them to enter our land, takeover, and give us 'rights'?
The answer is obvious, but the courtesy is not extended to the Palestinians.
BTW, the State of Palestine is recognised by the majority of countries in the world - over 100. Simply stating that they're not a country is incorrect. You seem to be forgetting that the reason they're not a fully fledged country is because they're being impeded by their occupiers. In essence, your justification for Israel going in and turning them over is because you don't consider them a country, which is due to the fact that Israel is illegally occupying them. With all due respect this doesn't even begin to make sense.
You're saying one country invading and taking over another country - historical enemies - will bring peace to the country? As I said, this is Bush-like rhetoric. I'm surprised someone who is an advocate for the underdog or the party whose rights is being infringed in almost every other discussion can take such a tyrannical stance.
Last edited:
Case in point of why working with Israel, on a diplomatic front achieves very little. This is after Abbas/ West Bank fully demilitarized, worked with Israel on every issue and took it in the ass and became their slaves - Israel goes and does something like this. I mean someone actually said that this is not about land or territory lol - I guess discussion forums are channels where people can anonymously be so blatantly ignorant. They offer the perfect cover.
Some of these comments on here are absolutely wrong, from a factual and moral standpoint, but don't have time or patience to deal with it. Kudos to you Kaz for dealing with it.
Some of these comments on here are absolutely wrong, from a factual and moral standpoint, but don't have time or patience to deal with it. Kudos to you Kaz for dealing with it.
Lets see why Palestinians hate Israel. Taken their lands. Genocide against them. Hardships. Humiliating them. Killing their children, etc.
How come you don't question why Jews hated Natzis? Or why people of Iran hated Iraq regime and Iraqis during the war?
You expect the Palestinians to love Israel that has been occupying them for decades? Has done so much destruction? Has build settlements and continue to build more and steal their lands.
Do you say the same thing about every oppressor? Surprised you don't question why Iranians hate the Iranian regime and support the regime since Iranians hate them.
How come you don't question why Jews hated Natzis? Or why people of Iran hated Iraq regime and Iraqis during the war?
You expect the Palestinians to love Israel that has been occupying them for decades? Has done so much destruction? Has build settlements and continue to build more and steal their lands.
Do you say the same thing about every oppressor? Surprised you don't question why Iranians hate the Iranian regime and support the regime since Iranians hate them.
No wonder this thing has been going on for 70 years. People keep repeating what they have said. In the mean time Palestinian leverage keeps getting smaller and smaller. They thought they got Israel by the throat when they got hold of Iranian rockets. Well, those went poof. Their tunnels are blown up. They can't go above ground, they can't go underground, and they sure can't walk on the ground to push Israel out to see. Let's see who wins.
For months we were lectured by the likes of Kaz that Hamas was the innocent party. It was Israel who was responsible for the bloodshed and more importantly Hamas and PA are one and the same and speak with one voice. I am sure he missed this report, so I oblige.
Abbas told Palestine TV in remarks broadcast Friday that 'it was possible for us to avoid all of that, 2,000 martyrs, 10,000 injured, 50,000 houses (damaged or destroyed).'
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...Hamas-caused-prolonged-war.html#ixzz3CJNXt3Ii
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...Hamas-caused-prolonged-war.html#ixzz3CJM3N5S9
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
Palestinian president says Hamas are to blame for loss of 2,000 lives
Abbas told Palestine TV in remarks broadcast Friday that 'it was possible for us to avoid all of that, 2,000 martyrs, 10,000 injured, 50,000 houses (damaged or destroyed).'
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...Hamas-caused-prolonged-war.html#ixzz3CJNXt3Ii
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...Hamas-caused-prolonged-war.html#ixzz3CJM3N5S9
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
You are a fool if you dont think this would have happend and much faster if Palestinians had not put up any kind of fighting back. You are also a fool to think Israel does not create the situations and environment so they can use it to take lands away.
You are a fool to think Israel will leave the occupied territories without being forced out. Just like many felt for the Nazi public retaliations, you are falling for the Israeli's public relations.
If Israel were the angels and the god's preferred send people that you scream, they would not have built settlements and take occupied lands away at every turn. Then they would have shown they want peace. But their actions and treatments of Palastinians under occupation screams something else.
That is what separates an intellectual from a sheep. As sheep cannot put themselves out of the box around them and see the situation for what it is.
You are a fool to think Israel will leave the occupied territories without being forced out. Just like many felt for the Nazi public retaliations, you are falling for the Israeli's public relations.
If Israel were the angels and the god's preferred send people that you scream, they would not have built settlements and take occupied lands away at every turn. Then they would have shown they want peace. But their actions and treatments of Palastinians under occupation screams something else.
That is what separates an intellectual from a sheep. As sheep cannot put themselves out of the box around them and see the situation for what it is.