Anabolic Member
Does anyone else find it funny that both sides say Obama cowered to the other? The man can't win for losing!!!
I find it funny that anyone would refer to him as a "liberal scum bag" or a "coward" because he doesn't see their point of view.
I enjoy these debates and have been waiting with baited breath for the upcoming barrages. Please keep it clean fellas. Reminds me of the debates I used to have with Logan about race. Those got heated and very personal. I miss those days! LOL!!!
I feel accomplished
Iran does not recognise Israel, and Khamenei has repeatedly rejected a two-state solution to solve the Israel-Palestinian issue. Clinton reiterated support for the two-state answer this week. Khamenei said any negotiations to solve the issue were fruitless, adding that the United States and Britain committed the "crime of creation and supporting this cancerous tumour (Israel).
http://www.kuwaittimes.net/read_news...d=MzExMjQ4MDc1
I feel accomplished
He's tried to help muslims already, closing gitmo, providing money to relocate refugees to the United States. They aren't moves that made him popular but he's trying and still called a coward.Originally Posted by BgMc31
Blame the black guy lol
I feel accomplished
“Palestine is Arab Islamic land, from the river to the sea, including Jerusalem.There is no room in it for the Jews.” Group statement from Hamas on the anniversary of the UN Partition Plan vote (November 29, 2007)
I feel accomplished
"We [aim to liberate] all our lands. If we have the option, we will establish a state on every inch of land within the 1967 [borders], but this does not by any means imply that we will relinquish our right to all the Palestinian lands. We want all of Palestine from [Ras] Naqura to Rafah, and from the [Mediterranean] sea to the [Jordan] river." Mahmoud Al-Zahar Al-Ayyam (October 21, 2006)
I feel accomplished
"By God, we will not leave one Jew in Palestine. We will fight them with all the strength we have. This is our land, not the Jews."
- Abd al-Aziz Rantisi
I feel accomplished
Israel is a vile entity that has been planted on our soil, and has no historical, religious or cultural legitimacy...."
- Mahmoud Al-Zahar, Hamas leader and former Palestinian foreign minister, October 2006, quoted in Al-Ayyam, Palestinian newspaper.
I feel accomplished
"We will not betray promises we made to God to continue the path of Jihad and resistance until the liberation of Palestine, all of Palestine," Hamas statement (March 12, 2007)
I feel accomplished
So Buff, where is the middle ground?
as you can see Iran, Hamas and radicals are not willing to accept any. 2 state soloution would only be used as a stepping stone, that has been made quite clear in no uncertain terms.
Member
They (Hamas) may have made all those statements, or their advocates have made those statements, but they have also said that they are willing to observe a a total ceasefire with Israel, permanently, if Israel withdraws to it's 1967 borders.
They have also said that [Palestinian President] Abbas can negotiate a final settlement with Israel and they will put any agreement signed up for referendum for The Palestinian people to vote on it, and that they will respect their wishes {this they told Jimmy Carter when he visited the Gaza strip.}
They are currently in negotiations to form a unity government with Abbas.
These statements you posted made by different people at different times reflect extreme political ideals,(and their accuracy or legitimacy is very much in question!) but they are in no way official, what your doing with those statements is akin to quoting some right wing settler's comments or ideas as official Israeli policy since one of their guys is in the ruling coalition. It simply does not work that way, the Palestinians are approached in an official and diplomatic way, like everyone else.. and those comments you posted ARE NOT official policy of Hamas or Fatah-the 2 ruling parties of the Palestinains.
I feel accomplished
You must be joking right?
Both the United States and European Union concider Hamas to be a terrorist organization who use political activities and violence in pursuit of its goals.
do you even know who the people I quoted are?
for example: Mahmoud Al-Zahar is a co-founder of Hamas and has long pushed the possibility of accepting a temporary two-state solution.
Abdel Aziz al-Rantissi also a co-founder
both dead but they haven't been for long, the goals of Hamas have not changed.
You want to negotiate with terrorists, and put them in a position to attain their goal.
I guess next you'll tell me Ali Khamenei is not a person of any importance in Iran. If Iran is unwilling to accept a 2 state condition neither will Hamas. The majority of funds for military activities, around $3 million annually, comes from Iran and that's what's on paper.
I'm speachless, I mean you want me to give credit to the official position of a terrorist organization. Their official goal is one Palestinian state.
Member
* During the Byzantine empire, Byzanties expell Jews from Palestine and they take refuge in Arab controled parts of middle east, Arab Empire (Islamic Caliphate) conquers Palestine and Jews are allowed to live wherever they want in the Empire.
* The Crusaders arrived in Jerusalem and exterminated the indegenous Jews and Muslims that are there (who were living together in peace), the rest flee to Arab controlled areas, Muslims march back in, do not exterminate Crusaders instead they are given safe passage out, eventually some crusaders stay and others go back to Europe after the crusaders collapsed, Jews are allowed back in to Palestine or are allowed to live where they want.
* The Zionists arrive and massacre and expel Muslims and Christians from Palestine, 1948, 1967. The ones that remain are forced to live in bantustans.
Seems like the conflict always breaks down along racial lines, considering those Jews in the Byzantine and Crusader era were middle eastern, the Byzantine Empire was the eastern part of the old Roman Empire and christian, the Crusaders were mostly from western Europe and Britain, the Zionists were predominantly western or caucasian in ethnicity and the zionist movement was started in western Europe..
Where were the "Judeo-Christians" back then?
Last edited by eliteforce; 03-27-2009 at 12:50 AM.
I feel accomplished
So you're saying it's a white thing?
Member
Israel and the United States are also "terrorist organizations" , or they are "a fascist imperialist organization", or they are "crusader enities with no legitimate claims" so there, anyone can name call and make labels.
The only thing that matters is if they will respect a cease fire so that Israel can withdraw from the territory and dismantle apartheid settlements, if Hamas and other militant groups blow up a bus in telaviv as soon as they are gone, well it takes Israel about 2 days and a few casualties to re invade those areas .. Israel has 2 options, apartheid which makes it an illegitimate regime or simply getting out of these areas=giving the Palestinians room and incentive to turn toward more moderate political figures like Marwan Barguoti and other Fatah leaders.. Occupation, aphartied and oppression boosts equally extreme politics on the other side of the fence.
Member
Not totally but it's more of this western desire to control this "precious" religious area.. or maybe they think it's a strategic thing.. but the consistency is clearly there to observe and the current conflict needs to be put in perspective.
I feel accomplished
Sure, what's in a name I guess.
Do you really think they would ever be so short sited as to blow up a bus? No, the peace will last for years and as I stated before Israel will be made indefensable. Exteme politics are too deep rooted to expect a culural shift.
Give up your ability to defend yourself in hopes that your enemy won't destroy you? Is that how the "elite forces" operate?
I feel accomplished
Well then maybe than the consistancy is equally clear that Jews were all well and good with Arabs as long as they were brown right?
Member
They're "not giving up the ability to defend themselves" this is a transparent excuse for continued apartheid and occupation. On one side of the WB is Jordan, a country that has been most cooperative on security obligations since it signed a peace treaty with Israel in the 1990's and even before that. The WB itself will not have an army with tanks, artillery, or warplanes (demilitarized) and Israels military remains more than capable and they have nuclear weapons, the notion of a conventional Arab invasion, after a deal is made is fanciful. In fact a comprehensive deal will likely move Syrian artillery and military forces further away from Israel than they are now, Syria is the only remaining conventional military threat to Israel, with the Egyptian Army removed from the Sinai ..and none of this was a problem in 1967? so just what the hell are you talking about?
What you people are talking about is a demographic threat, that if Israel is gives Palestinians freedom of movement, and freedom in general the jewish state thing will eventually collapse as the result of Palestinians flooding in thru east Jerusalem or something like that, but that's a police issue to make sure day laborers go home, and that never happened in the 1970s 80s or 90s when infiltration into Israel was relatively easy.. the "extreme politics" in Palestinian society clearly increased as Israel increased repression, particularly jewish only colonies and roads and military checkpoints and all kinds of restrictions on who and why someone can travel just to another town in the west bank or Jerusalem . and Gaza-where there is the most anger, has been cut off from both israel and the west bank for 60 years.
Member
There was not a conflict between Jews and Muslims in the middle east, yes they are both predominantly dark skinned. There was a conflict between predominantly caucasian (ashkanazi) Jews in Europe with other Europeans, so those Jews with alot of western support invented this idea of a Jewish 'safe-haven' in Palestine, "and then we'll just sweep these arabs under the rug and no one will notice.." this was all during S.Africa, Rhodesia, British India, and French Indochina days where it was thought that you wouldn't get that much resistance from the developing world.. it was a miscalculation in the late 1940s.
I feel accomplished
Clearly this is not a real soloution for long term peace in the region. It serves only serves one side and will not satisfy the other.On one side of the WB is Jordan, a country that has been most cooperative on security obligations since it signed a peace treaty with Israel in the 1990's and even before that.
So, the Israel's should count on Jordan for it's national security...forever? A nation they have only had a peace agreement with since 1994. The peace agreement with Jordan can end up being broken for any reasons that come up down the line. If for any reason tensions heat up or the political climate in Jordan changes, what happens to Israel?
http://www.voanews.com/english/archi...2-28-voa26.cfm
The WB itself will not have an army with tanks, artillery, or warplanes (demilitarized)
That's not to say it won't become filled with guns, militants and terrorists under a weak gvmt of Palistine. Israel would loose all rights to use military force in this region without being attacked first.
and Israels military remains more than capable and they have nuclear weapons,
The Israel's remain more than capable and they have nuclear weapons? That passes for an intelligent statement from someone who's name imply's military service (although I'm guessing I don't want to know what country you could have served for)? And what use are nuclear weapons within a county's own borders? For that matter what use are they at except as a mutually assured destruction deterent given a nulear threat from another contry? The world does not tollerate the use of nuclear weapons, and any detonation resulting is casualties would mean the dismantle of Israel. I guess if conventional destruction is imminent they can go out in a blaze of glory.
the notion of a conventional Arab invasion, after a deal is made is fanciful. In fact a comprehensive deal will likely move Syrian artillery and military forces further away from Israel than they are now, Syria is the only remaining conventional military threat to Israel
Any movement back by the Syrian Army is going to have to be met with equal retreat by Israel's forces. In addition Syria won't agree to long term peace without return of the Golan Heights (only another 460 sq mi with 38,900 Israeli citizens). In fact peace with Syria is no more an option than peace with Iran. The two are so joined at the hip financially and their allience is so strong Israel offered up the Golan Heights on a silver platter for peace and desolation of the Iran-Syrian allience...It didn't happen. Don't pretend Syria is going to walk away from conflict as a result of this two state bull.,
with the Egyptian Army removed from the Sinai ..and none of this was a problem in 1967? so just what the hell are you talking about?
What the hell are you talking about?
What you people are talking about is a demographic threat, that if Israel is gives Palestinians freedom of movement, and freedom in general the jewish state thing will eventually collapse as the result of Palestinians flooding in thru east Jerusalem or something like that, but that's a police issue to make sure day laborers go home,
I never mentioned the demographic threat, but yes it is a problem.
So police make sure Muslims go home every night...that's your soloution? Police forcing Muslims and cattle herding them back to their side of the wall isn't going to create any tensions. Is this to be a lasting peace?
and that never happened in the 1970s 80s or 90s when infiltration into Israel was relatively easy..
because the system you are proposing is exactly what they had under that time period.
the "extreme politics" in Palestinian society clearly increased as Israel increased repression, particularly jewish only colonies and roads and military checkpoints
So, part of Israel should be turned over to Palestinian society with what you admit to be extreme politics allowd to rise under Israeli opression?
Did black people forgive white people for slavery the day they were granted civil rights? or does it take time for these attitudes of oppression to diminish? Meanwhile as long as Hamas is in control of Palistine the Iranan gvmt will sponsor the contry to destroy Israel.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/789026.html
As stated above how are the borders to be defined in the future between the two states if not throught he use of military, and checkpoints? Further extreme politics will countine.
and all kinds of restrictions on who and why someone can travel just to another town in the west bank or Jerusalem .
You're imposing more borders, not less.
and Gaza-where there is the most anger, has been cut off from both israel and the west bank for 60 years.
How can militarized Gaza become not cut off from Israel under a two state soloution and not undermine the National security of Israel?
Last edited by Kratos; 03-28-2009 at 02:48 AM.
I feel accomplished
Wow, I'm amazed you managed to quote me on something completly change the subject. A simple you can't have it both ways statement, and you somehow managed to fabricate a point that ends in blaming white people.
Should I even bother to answer your posts as having anything of value? So far they have not been too profound.
Member
OK so basically your against peace, any peace deal, against a Palestinian state and pro aphartied, you support a system where Palestinians are second and third calss citizens based on trumped up security threats.. there no difference between you and your settlers friends and the KUKluxKlan(extreme elements of it anyways, as most KKK groups only wanted segregation, not aphartied), the white-only governments in S Africa or Rhodesia-both of which referred to their indigenous oppositions as security threats or as a communist threat, tying them into a web of global conquest like the 'reds'. You do that with the Islamic thing.
Your basically saying that Israel is inherently oppressive and that it can never be based on equal rights in a 1 state solution (because then it would become a bi national state or a 'greater' Palestine, OR in a 2 state solution, you think you are making an argument for it's existence but in reality you making an argument for it's abolition, since most people in the world would come to the conclusion that it should faze in the bi-national plan given your "security-reality".
You also said:
"Israel would loose all rights to use military force in this region without being attacked first."
in response to me saying that if Israel withdrew to the 1967 borders and Hamas blew up a bus in telaviv anyways-then they could always easily re-invade the territory..what you said is hubris--Israel would face limited int outcry for marching back in and the Palestinians would KNOW that is the consequence and they would have a big incentive not to push their luck.. I believe they are capable of 100% cessation of violence in the event of the 1967 border pullback and they say they're ready to deliver so they should atleast be given a chance considering all that they have suffered.
If Israel invades another country without being attacked first then they will face pressure to resolve whatever issue they are complaining about peacefully, like water or whatever..same like every other country.
You also appear to say that in the 60's 70's 80's and 90s the occupation didn't exist
more nonsense or acting like you don't know what the occupation is, or that occupation is a meta-physical thing..it's not really there.. The Palestinians had everything they needed back then..so what if they're banned from using roads, or that their farm land is taken away to build a settlement or that their house is demolished or that they have no representation or rights.
There is no reason to think that the daily permit system, will cause violence because daily workers have to go home to where they live at night after they finish their day trip to work, shop, or do business..they have this system all over the world in neighboring countries...thats what you said near thatyou posted.
hmm what else..oh black people in america may not have forgiven and forgotten everything, but once treaty as equal citizens they did not pursue a MalcomeX or black panther strategy for their remaining issues.. had the US responded to their civil rights movement with apartheid and KKK attacks then it would have radicalized them and they would have responded with more rioting and terrorist attacks-- believe, if pushed, anyone will do it, not just arabs ..
ok and the last thing..
I am proposing the 1967 border, the internationally recognized border, the border that israel is supposed to withdraw to according to binding security council resolution 242,338.. that is " 'more' borders not 'less' ".. you are trying to cloud the issue.. Israel existed fine from 1948-1967 with that border and NEVER was it's existence threatened..yet you claim it just so dangerous..
last item, per the Egyptian peace treaty, Egypts forces are moved back, israel's are allowed anywhere near the border(because israel is the smaller country)..for the Syrian track, a similar arrangement can be negotiated leaving the Syrian army away from the border.
Last edited by eliteforce; 03-28-2009 at 05:12 AM.
I feel accomplished
You are minimizing any Muslim agression on Israel...they do not accept this state in any form.OK so basically your against peace, any peace deal, against a Palestinian state and pro aphartied
The concept of calling Israel an apartheid has been controversal to begin with...but I guess if you want to go with the technical definition of apartheid one does exsist. To compare Israel to South Africa is a radical standpoint, not that I don't know where you stand. I'm saying a 2 state soloution doesn't end an apartheid by your definition, hate for Israel will continue to perpetuate in the Arab world. Races will be divided among borders and those borders will eventually be breached.
, you support a system where Palestinians are second and third calss citizens based on trumped up security threats..
Maybe you could define palestinians for me.
there no difference between you and your settlers friends and the KUKluxKlan(extreme elements of it anyways, as most KKK groups only wanted segregation, not aphartied),
Of course, call me names when I don't feel like joining you in oversimplifing a soloution to Israel that is a non-soloution and only serves the Muslim world.
the white-only governments in S Africa or Rhodesia-both of which referred to their indigenous oppositions as security threats or as a communist threat,
More anti white people talk, big suprize.
Your basically saying that Israel is inherently oppressive and that it can never be based on equal rights in a 1 state solution (because then it would become a bi national state or a 'greater' Palestine
No, I think you're saying Israel is inherently oppressive and can never be based on equal rights. I'm saying the state of Israel is in constant threat of becoming a Muslim controled Palistine from multiple fronts and political means.
You also said:
"Israel would loose all rights to use military force in this region without being attacked first."
in response to me saying that if Israel withdrew to the 1967 borders and Hamas blew up a bus in telaviv anyways-then they could always easily re-invade the territory..what you said is hubris--Israel would face limited int outcry for marching back in and the Palestinians would KNOW that is the consequence and they would have a big incentive not to push their luck..
Based on what history would Palestininas support a bloody take over of their borders given something so small as a bus blowing up? As I said before they would not likely be so short sighted. Do Palestinians support Israel's invasion of Gaza if a cese fire is broken with Hamas cause they knew they had it comming? Ridiculous, there is outcry for the Muslim world for every dead citizen. Everytime Israel kills a Muslim it threatens peace with all it's borders. This creates a situation for potential martyrs used for the justification from entire countries.
They will accept retake of the West bank because they know they deserve it after a bus blows up. How stupid is that!
I believe they are capable of 100% cessation of violence in the event of the 1967 border pullback and they say they're ready to deliver so they should atleast be given a chance considering all that they have suffered.
If Israel invades another country without being attacked first then they will face pressure to resolve whatever issue they are complaining about peacefully, like water or whatever..same like every other country.
Because Muslim nations respect the 1967 borders as the correct borders as they respect Israel's right to exist. That's totally ludicris. They resent all borders and don't recognize the state of Israel and neither do you.
You also appear to say that in the 60's 70's 80's and 90s the occupation didn't exist
more nonsense or acting like you don't know what the occupation is, or that occupation is a meta-physical thing..it's not really there.. The Palestinians had everything they needed back then..so what if they're banned from using roads, or that their farm land is taken away to build a settlement or that their house is demolished or that they have no representation or rights.
The Palestinians had everything they needed and were happy? This is such bull crap I don't want to take time to respond. You act like none of there rights were lost as a result of security.
"1970 onward
Popular Palestinian guerilla movements came to the fore in this time. Aircraft hijackings and bombings took place, the 1972 Israeli Olympic team was attacked and eleven athletes were killed. This led Israel to launch reprisal assassinations in Operation Wrath of God. Palestinian groups later on adopted suicide bombings. These actions were operated by a large number of groups and individuals, which made detection and prevention difficult, and were targeted not only at Israelis, but also at the nationals of other countries felt to be aiding them, principally America. Many of these actions were supported at State level, with countries such as Syria, Libya and others openly sponsoring attacks of this kind."
Posted from wikipedia to save effort in responding to your dribble. But of course by your logic, you know these measures were deserved so the people accepted them and didn't resent the moves to secure Israel.
There is no reason to think that the daily permit system, will cause violence because daily workers have to go home to where they live at night after they finish their day trip to work, shop, or do business..they have this system all over the world in neighboring countries...thats what you said near that
This would be a border along racial lines, racial profiling would be common in permit checks. There is already much resentment of borders in this region.
hmm what else..oh black people in america may not have forgiven and forgotten everything, but once treaty as equal citizens they did not pursue a MalcomeX or black panther strategy for their remaining issues.. had the US responded to their civil rights movement with apartheid and KKK attacks then it would have radicalized them and they would have responded with more rioting and terrorist attacks-- believe, if pushed, anyone will do it, not just arabs ..
Current feeling of opression combined with future inequality will never grant full equal rights. A major difference in this case.
ok and the last thing
I am proposing the 1967 border, the internationally recognized border, the border that israel is supposed to withdraw to according to binding security council resolution 242,338.. that is " 'more' borders not 'less' ".. you are trying to cloud the issue.. Israel existed fine from 1948-1967 with that border and NEVER was it's existence threatened..yet you claim it just so dangerous..
Israel did not exist just fine between 1948 to 1967...you know that's false. Israel was attacked in 1948 with the Arab-Israeli War. The invasion of the West bank was a pre-emptive strike, and not a will of the Israel people. Arabs at that time did not recognize 1967 borders which is why the boders changed in the first place.
last item, per the Egyptian peace treaty, Egypts forces are moved back, israel's are allowed anywhere near the border(because israel is the smaller country)..for the Syrian track, a similar arrangement can be negotiated leaving the Syrian army away from the border.
Is the acceptance of any state of Israel acceptable to Iran? Answer: no, so how could it be to Syria?
http://www.usip.org/pubs/usipeace_br...yria_iran.html
Arab tensions did not begin post 1967
http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_man...ts_1920-21.php
PLO and Fateh were founded prior in 1964 with the aim of "liberating" "Palestine" - that is, destroying Israel
Fatah's first major guerrilla attack came on January 3, 1965, when they attempted to sabotage the Israeli National Water Carrier, which had recently started operation.
Don't tell me Muslims were happy with 1967 borders.
Last edited by Kratos; 03-28-2009 at 01:49 PM.
I feel accomplished
I'm sorry for being worse than a member of the KKK
for knowing this won't work
I feel accomplished
What are the consequenses for Jordan should the West bank be under Palestinian control?
Jordan wishs to remain quarantined from playing any future role in the West Bank.
In the 1970s several peace plans for Israel and the Palestinians were proposed that would have put Jordan in control of the West Bank, but these were rejected by Yasser Arafat who wanted an independent state.
Hamas could be a major threat to Jordan should they rise in the West bank.
http://www.jesuslives.co.za/2008/06/...-hamas-threat/
"Since Israel's unilateral withdrawal, Gaza has degenerated into chaos, and unemployment rates have exceeded 50 percent. Many West Bank Palestinians worry that if the current chaos and lawlessness continue there, and if the Israelis withdraw from the West Bank, Gaza may be their future.
"The breakdown of law-and-order in Gaza and Palestinian areas of the West Bank compounds the problem. While Gaza cannot pose an immediate security threat to Jordan, the West Bank can. Jordanian assessments oppose any Gaza-style Israeli unilateral disengagement from the West Bank for fear that warlords, jihadists, and armed militias would fill the resulting security vacuum."
http://www.meforum.org/923/re-energi...ordan-********
http://www.pinr.com/report.php?ac=vi...&report_id=525
The breakdown of law-and-order in Gaza and Palestinian areas of the West Bank compounds the problem. While Gaza cannot pose an immediate security threat to Jordan, the West Bank can. Jordanian assessments oppose any Gaza-style Israeli unilateral disengagement from the West Bank for fear that warlords, jihadists, and armed militias would fill the resulting security vacuum.[
How do you contend with millions of former Arab residents and their descendants calling to be allowed to settle in Israel? Isn't this what caused President Clinton's Camp David negotiations crashing to the ground in 2000.
I don't see how you can even try to argue Israel could survive the Arab anger, condemnation and retribution that would inevitably follow should they not be allowd to return.
Member
well in 1948 Israel drove out 800,000 Palestinians in order to create their jewish state, I didn't say there weren't tensions or that Israel had been accepted in the middle east at that time; but in that period, if there was a cross border attack from the Palestinian side, Israel would kill many more Palestinians, so it wasn't a huge problem for them and Israel had much less terrorist attacks at that time, then in the period post 1967..
and we're not talking about getting a deal then, we're talking about getting one now, the situation then was 50 years ago .. most people weren't even born yet so attitudes and the politics of then is history.
Jordan supports the 2002 arab peace initiative, they have given up claims to the west bank and would like to see a Palestinian state there with gaza, they have done everything they can to prod the 2 sides into final status talks.
The reason the 2000 talks failed was because of final borders, not refugees-Israel wanted too many restrictions and settlements to remain creating something that wasn't a real state or continuous territory. That was the opinion of Israels lead negotiator at the time Yossi Beilen (that the talks broke down because of borders, and that they were working to get to an aggreeable border at taba when Israeli PM Barak terminated the negotiation) but even if that is disputed-Israel and the US broke off those talks at camp david and taba and Israel refuses to get back to them, to work out the issues they have to put them on the table.
Also Israeli(opposition parties) and Palestinian negotiators came back and made mock negotiations - the Geneva Accords, just to show that it could be done and the Palestinian fatah negotiators are capable of negotiating realistically.
Last edited by eliteforce; 03-28-2009 at 03:48 PM.
I feel accomplished
The idea I can't bring intelligent opposition to the viability of a two state system, because I'm white, is in fact racist.
I have answered every one of your points in detail as stupid as most of them were for the simple reason that if I don't I grant you credibility, and any lack of ability for me to justify myself makes me look racist. Only thing is mulims can spew absoloute garbage with their only justification being their opression has created this situation and attitudes will change after compermise.
You say yourself Jews have been in the Middle East for a long time.
They can't exist in any country other than Israel in the middle east at this time.
The dead sea scrolls found in Israel pre-date your entire religion by at least 700 years...so clearly Jews have been in the middle east LONGER than Muslims.
What I support is not Muslim persecution but the rights of a people to continue to exist, a right not supported by a large part of the Muslim world.
I feel accomplished
more responses to what you post what seems out of thin air, but that's ok because you aren't white.
Member
I ever said you ..... because your white...
I'm not a muslim..did i say I was a muslim.. most of the people that are involved in the Palestine solidarity movement outside the middle east - Annie Lennox, Venessa Redgrave, etc. are white people, there are liberal jewish groups that support it, they are white people .. your trying to make it sound like all activists are muslim and all white people support netanyahoo.
Jews have been in the ME a long time, there were Palestinian Jews there before the first zionists showed up from europe, back then they called themselves "Palestinians" , Muslims, Jews, and Christians were all living there and calling themselves palestinains, and they never killed each other..
..BUT the majority of Israelis are [relatively] recent immigrants and a Palestinian was born there and his parents were born in Palestine, and their parents were and theirs and theirs..they don't trace their roots all over the place, you can't deny that the Palestinians are indigenous-that means equal claims.
And Alan Dershowitz is wrong, he was never at those negotiations.. and if clinton said that, then he is wrong because Yossi Beilen said otherwise and he was directly involved.. ofcource everyone would like to blame the other guy for the failure......they can get back to the table to see where the problems are..
Last edited by eliteforce; 03-28-2009 at 04:27 PM.
I feel accomplished
You made a big deal about skin color vs western support and I took offense to that. I understand there are many feelings of descrimination among people of color but I see that as a position of non intelligence that military action of the US is based on skin color.
Dershowitz was quoting Clinton. I'd say Clinton is a better source than anyone else prepared to comment on the subject.
I feel accomplished
The current stance of the Fateh is that they are honestly negotiating for a Palestinian state alongside Israel, but that that state is a springboard for the secular democratic state:
"To us, the refugees issue is the winning card which means the end of the Israeli state....
...The transitory solution of the refugees issue in the future is through confederation with Jordan. I visualize the future in establishing a democratic state by peaceful means. This will come true when the Zionist illusion comes to an end, the thing that has begun to occur in the Labor Party and Merits."
The leader of Fatah, Farouk Kaddoumi, said not long ago that a Palestinian state in 1967 borders is only the first stage to liberating all of historical Palestine.
I feel accomplished
1967 borders include jews giving up
The Old city of Jerusalem, including the Wailing Wall and the Jewish Quarter, as well as the Hebrew University.
Member
My original comment about 'western people' was just to put the conflict in perspective- that this conflict is similar to other religious claims placed on the levant by western powers throughout history.. so lets not keep calling them 'religious fanatics' when we're also planting our religious flag on this old pile of rocks .. i wasn't trying to say that white people are racists ..and i'll say again, most of the Palestinian activism outside the middle east is done by white people (western europeans and americans), not chinese,japanese, south koreans or south Africans or south americans.. but the governments in those non-european,american countries generally have a more pro-palestinian position.
in the taba negotiations, geneva mock negotiations, israel keeps control of the jewish quarter and wailing wall.. and that area is only a few meters away from the 1967 borders, i'm not sure of the location of hebrew university but it can fall under P. control and the israeli students can take a day pass to go there..and sure something like central hebron is a jewish religious site, but it has to be in the Palestinian state, talking about religious fanaticism...
and again your quoting a bunch of people that may have said something bad....i'm not gonna sit here and quote all the things that natanyahoo or lieberman said, if they're ready to get to final negotiations-thats what matters ..the problem is they are not, that they are against ending the occupation.
Member
Eliteforce, In all honestly do you belive that the
Palis really want to live in peace with the Jews?
Dont you think if they had the same equal power
or even greater, that they would wipe out the jews
in 1 week?
The problem here is that the Palis main goal is to
KILL and ELIMINATE the jews from israel. Only reason
they have not done so yet is because they are not in
a position to do so (YET).
I mean how could the Palis wanna live side by side
with the jew when there is MASSIVE brainwashing
of the palestinian children to HATE and KILL all jews.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1mav...eature=related
Obviously from the video that is not the path
of peace, rather the path of destruction.
I feel accomplished
How about we really put the conflict into perspective.
Your idea of history has little to do with reality, and only suits your needs.
The Western world had little to do with the creation of Israel.
I'm going to go into great deatil for you and we'll see if you can understand it.
Zionism began in 200AD
Throughout the Amoraic period, many Babylonian Jews immigrated to Israel.
In the 10th century, leaders of the Karaite Jewish community, mostly living under Persian rule, urged their followers to settle in Eretz Yisrael.
Thousands of Jews from countries as widely spaced as Persia and Morocco, Yemen and Russia, who moved to Israel beginning in the first decade of the nineteenth century all drawn by the expectation of the arrivval of the Messiah in the Jewish year 5600, English year 1840.
Between 1882 and 1***, approximately 35,000 Jews immigrated to Palestine. The majority came from the Russian Empire with a smaller number arriving from Yemen.
Between 1904 and 1914, 40,000 Jews immigrated mainly from Russia to Palestine.
The new arrivals faced extremely harsh condition.
The attitude of the Ottoman administration was hostile and oppressive anyone who says otherwise has no unbias perspective.
Communications and transportation were rudimentary and insecure; swamps bred deadly malaria; and the soil had suffered from centuries of neglect.
In 1909 they began to form self defense organizations to counter increasing Arab hostility and to help Jews to protect their communities from Arab bandits. It was prior to 1914 that Jews came up with the idea on there own of creating an idependant Jewish state.
It was only after this point the western world had any involvment in Israel.
1919 and 1923, 40,000 Jews, mainly from the Russian Empire arrived in the wake of World War I.
The Ottoman Empire, at the urging of their German ally, chose to attack British and Egyptian forces in Egypt and shut the Suez Canal.
Britian was forced into war with the Ottoman empire. The empire had to be broken up post WWI.
British forces were in Palistine as a result of a world war, not conquest of world domination. Despite Britians efforts to establish immigration quotas of Jews many Jews escaped Nazi Germany to Israel. The second world war ended, the Arab nations were wanting to be independent and Britian desired to leave the region free from conflict.
The British tried to work out an agreement acceptable to both Arabs and Jews but failed, so they turned the issue over to the UN.
"The Jews of Palestine were not satisfied with the small territory allotted to them by the Commission, nor were they happy that Jerusalem was severed from the Jewish State; nevertheless, they welcomed the compromise. The Arabs rejected the UNSCOP's recommendations.
Further complicating the situation was the UN majority's insistence that Jerusalem remain apart from both states and be administered as an international zone. This arrangement left more than 100,000 Jews in Jerusalem isolated from their country and circumscribed by the Arab state.
Critics claim the UN gave the Jews fertile land while the Arabs were allotted hilly, arid land. This is untrue. Approximately 60 percent of the Jewish state was to be the arid desert in the Negev.
The UN majority insisted that Jerusalem remain apart from both states and be administered as an international zone.
(map in case you want to see what the UN was calling for)
After the UN announcement the Arabs declared a protest strike and instigated riots.
The chairman of the Arab Higher Committee said the Arabs would "fight for every inch of their country."
The first large-scale assaults began on January 9, 1948, when approximately 1,000 Arabs attacked Jewish communities in northern Palestine.
In the first phase of the war, lasting from November 29, 1947 until April 1, 1948, the Palestinian Arabs took the offensive, with help from volunteers from neighboring countries. The Jews suffered severe casualties.
On February 16, 1948, the Commission reported to the Security Council:
Powerful Arab interests, both inside and outside Palestine, are defying the resolution of the General Assembly and are engaged in a deliberate effort to alter by force the settlement envisaged therein.8
"On May 4, 1948, the Arab Legion attacked Kfar Etzion. The defenders drove them back, but the Legion returned a week later. After two days, the ill-equipped and outnumbered settlers were overwhelmed. Many defenders were massacred after they had surrendered."
The Arabs were blunt in taking responsibility for starting the war. Jamal Husseini told the Security Council on April 16, 1948:
"The representative of the Jewish Agency told us yesterday that they were not the attackers, that the Arabs had begun the fighting. We did not deny this. We told the whole world that we were going to fight."
The United States, the Soviet Union and most other states immediately recognized Israel and indicted the Arabs. A cese fire was brokered but that was about the only assistance they received.
The State Department did not want to provide the Jews with the means to defend themselves. The Jews, on the other hand, were forced to smuggle weapons, principally from Czechoslovakia. When Israel declared its independence in May 1948, the army did not have a single cannon or tank. Its air force consisted of nine obsolete planes.
The Arab war to destroy Israel failed. Indeed, because of their aggression, the Arabs wound up with less territory than they would have had if they had accepted partition.
Arab agression post 1948 continued and is the only reason for yet still increased borders, not the west.
Israel was created out of a race war between Arabs and immigrants.
Get a clue of history, the west only was involved to create peace in a race war and if you can find another evidence of motive I'd love for you to try and present facts.
I'm sorry Muslims and Immigrants couldn't live together in peace and blaming the west is easy for this culture, but that isn't our fault.
Prior to 1948 the Arab resentment of Jews erupted in periods of intense violence (1920, 1921, 1929, 1936-39), when unprovoked attacks were launched against the Jewish population, including the Hebron Massacre of 1929, as well as the harassment of Jewish transport, and the burning of fields and forests. There were no refugees at this time, no Arabs displaced, and no Jewish state. The British Mandate authorities granted the Jewish and Arab communities the right to run their own internal affairs and had no influence on this conflict.
I'm amazed how history is twisted, people can be brainwashed, and their inability to seak the truth. Racism created Israel not the west.
Last edited by Kratos; 03-29-2009 at 02:07 PM.
I feel accomplished
I'm quoting a bunch of people who are saying something bad, because they are the people who assume control. I don't see how it isn't critical.
How I have not raised enough doubts by now for you to see flaws is amazing to me. Clearly any reasonable person can see problems down the road, and that's probably why at this point you are the only one left speaking up.
I feel accomplished
Historically when the Arabs have controlled Jewish religious sites they have been desicrated as I went into that regarding Israel earlier in this thread. Muslim sites have been completely respected by the Jews thus far.
I feel accomplished
Now that I told you what happend do you still think this is an intelligent statement?
I feel accomplished
what has the United States ever done except try to find a soloution that doesn't result in massacre? They pledge aid to Israel because that is the side at a gross disadvantage, not skin color. Millions would die the instant we step aside and is there even an arguement to the contrary? If a peace deal can't be made, that's why that statue quo has continued so long.
I feel accomplished
I'd hate to see what happens if the US forces Israel into a peace deal that can not be respected through threat of aid withdraw. As terrorism and our current position of unpopularity in the muslim wold decreaces popularity for our position in Israel, politicians are putting increasing pressure on Israel make a deal with a proverbal gun to their head. The politicans want to end conflict for public approval. Israel is forced to rest some hope on the US military stabilizing any deal they broker. It could provoke a major war resulting in massive Arab casualties, as the US will have a sense of obligation and guilt to Israel if a deal doesn't work.
Can you see down the line at the fallout potential...I doubt it since you can't see past the propaganda in the first place. But, this is a major reason why I care... American lifes, disruption of world peace, further justification for terrorism against the United States.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote