Political Crossfire Forums

[Bonobo]

Ameriman wrote: Bonobo wrote: superskippy wrote:
Of course in those cases I would have to condemn it, it's breaking a near universal law. Not to mention my belief in the stupidity of expanding our presence in the West Bank. While I beleive we shouldnt withdraw yet, I think it is insane to expand deeper into the West Bank. After all we arent going to keep all of that, and we cannot possibly hope to pacify that Arab population nor would we want to, and with more tendrals of settlements we create a harder atmosphere to withdraw from due to the spread out nature of the settlements.

But I firmly beleive that we should remain there, they serve as vital bulwarks and outposts against Palestinian attacks and are a major negotiating tool for any peace deal. Also the Palestinians have given us no reason to withdraw and have only ever proved how useful they are at preventing attacks as well as local pacification.

So you will simply 'condemn' your country and government intentionally breaking the law and provking Palistinians for no apparent reason when plenty of land is available elsewhere, and ignore it and go on saying 'But some Palistinian terrorists are evil so it doesn't matter if we act evil too and provoke them and eliminate any chance of peace'

No apparent reason? :lol:


"Provoking Palistinians for no apparent reason" Read the thread and u'll see this is with regards to building on Palistinian land as oppose to the acres of land available legally to them, when they are apparently pro peace.

Do not quote out of context please.

[superskippy]

Quote: What angers me is that you can simply ignore such government instigated provocation and compare it to Palistinian mercenaries often fighting due to personal loss.

I'm not ignoring it, it's a major issue in the resolution of the conflict. But I hate far more the conflict we deal with than the land disputes of the West Bank.

Quote: While your government acts this way you cannot expect Palistinian orphans made homeless to want anything other than to blow themsleves up.

I cannot even remember the last time a Palestinian orphan became a suicide bomber, the vast bulk of these bombers are not orphaned, they have homes, they have families and friends, and are in the prime of life. It is fanaticism that drives them.

Quote: It is in my nind clear who the responsibility for the continuing conflict lies with and how you can read evidence like this and simply dismiss it with

And thus we come to a head, you deign that this type of thing is the root cause for conflict. Whereas I look at the whole slew of attacks and problams for decades that have plagued us, we have given them the chance more than once to get everything and still they desire to fight. Hamas is a group that has stated openly that peace is not an option with Israel, the most they can offer is a "10 year truce but no longer than 10 years". This is was aspect of the conflict, and if it is all true we are in the wrong and should stop that expansion in those areas and provide recompense for the amounts of land we took. And that which we paid for we should simply withdraw from.

"But one or two terrorists are evil so my government's actions don't matter' I don't know.

[Ameriman]

Bonobo wrote: Ameriman wrote: Bonobo wrote: superskippy wrote:
Of course in those cases I would have to condemn it, it's breaking a near universal law. Not to mention my belief in the stupidity of expanding our presence in the West Bank. While I beleive we shouldnt withdraw yet, I think it is insane to expand deeper into the West Bank. After all we arent going to keep all of that, and we cannot possibly hope to pacify that Arab population nor would we want to, and with more tendrals of settlements we create a harder atmosphere to withdraw from due to the spread out nature of the settlements.

But I firmly beleive that we should remain there, they serve as vital bulwarks and outposts against Palestinian attacks and are a major negotiating tool for any peace deal. Also the Palestinians have given us no reason to withdraw and have only ever proved how useful they are at preventing attacks as well as local pacification.

So you will simply 'condemn' your country and government intentionally breaking the law and provking Palistinians for no apparent reason when plenty of land is available elsewhere, and ignore it and go on saying 'But some Palistinian terrorists are evil so it doesn't matter if we act evil too and provoke them and eliminate any chance of peace'

No apparent reason? :lol:


"Provoking Palistinians for no apparent reason" Read the thread and u'll see this is with regards to building on Palistinian land as oppose to the acres of land available legally to them, when they are apparently pro peace.

Do not quote out of context please.

Quick question. Do you realize they settle those areas because they are tired of getting attacked from them?

[Ameriman]

By the way...are we ignoring the fact that a Palestinian State isn't even recognized by the UN among others?

[Revenant]

Ameriman wrote: By the way...are we ignoring the fact that a Palestinian State isn't even recognized by the UN among others?

The U.N. isn't exactly the beacon of light to the world.

[Plato & Socrates]

Ah this old chesnut. The secret of many of Israels land purchases is this. Israel decides on some real estate they wish to build another exclusively Jewish only settlement on Arab land,(not inside Israel proper as we know it).
If this land happens to be privately owned or owned by the Palestinian authority, it does'nt matter. Israel will then through Jewish laws from Tel-Aviv annex/appropriate the land. The Palestinians will be up in arms. Sometimes Israel compensates them, irrespective if they want to sell or not. (which they never want to do)

The Palestinians are completely helpless. If they dont want there land annexed/appropriated, the state of Israel will mobilize the required number of IDF personnel, to enforce the land theft. Sometimes the Israeli's dont compensate at all. When these things happen, every single country in the world condemns this kind of Israeli behaviour except? cough cough, the USA. All she will say is "building illegal settlements is'nt helpful" a understatement if ever I've heard one. Oh yeah I forgot, if you pick up arm to prevent your land from being annexed by the state of Israel implemented by her soldiers. You are a terrorist and a militant and they will hunt you down. :lol: I wonder who's really the terrorist sometimes. I also forgot in doing all this, the state of israel says she does nothing to provoke the Palestinains, and just wants to live in peace.

[Ameriman]

Revenant wrote: Ameriman wrote: By the way...are we ignoring the fact that a Palestinian State isn't even recognized by the UN among others?

The U.N. isn't exactly the beacon of light to the world.

Fair enough. What is a good example of a beacon of light to the world?

[Bonobo]

Ameriman wrote: Quick question. Do you realize they settle those areas because they are tired of getting attacked from them?

Ah yes of course - stealing an area that was used by militants to fire at you will stop them using the land 5 metres away and won't in fact give more incentives to more people to want to attack you.

Imprssive logic as ever.

[Plato & Socrates]

Bonobo wrote: Ameriman wrote: Quick question. Do you realize they settle those areas because they are tired of getting attacked from them?

Ah yes of course - stealing an area that was used by militants to fire at you will stop them using the land 5 metres away and won't in fact give more incentives to more people to want to attack you.

Imprssive logic as ever.

Ameriman that kind of logic is absurd. It belongs in the same realm as once believing the world is flat. In 2006 with all the facts available to you, you should know better.

[superskippy]

Quote: Sometimes Israel compensates them, irrespective if they want to sell or not. (which they never want to do)

I have vehemently agreed that the expansion is a bad idea, and the methods appear to be clearly illegal and wrong. However to say they never want to sell is wrong. They make very little money and most of the time with their resources the land is useless. So they get the chance to pick up a few thousand shekels equal to probably all the money they would have ever made in their life perhaps a bit more. Forget the conflict, do you really think a lot of these people wouldnt take it?

[US Retard]

Ameriman wrote: By the way...are we ignoring the fact that a Palestinian State isn't even recognized by the UN among others?
False. The UN's GA RE-affirmed (affirmed again) Palestine's rights to "independence and sovereignty" over 32 years ago in 1974.

UN.org wrote: In the 1967 war, Israel occupied the remaining territory of Palestine, until then under Jordanian and Egyptian control (the West Bank and Gaza Strip). This included the remaining part of Jerusalem, which was subsequently annexed by Israel. The war brought about a second exodus of Palestinians, estimated at half a million. Security Council resolution 242 (1967) of 22 November 1967 called on Israel to withdraw from territories it had occupied in the 1967 conflict.

In 1974, the General Assembly reaffirmed the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people to self-determination, national independence and sovereignty, and to return. The following year, the General Assembly established the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People. The General Assembly conferred on the PLO the status of observer in the Assembly and in other international conferences held under United Nations auspices.
If the UN didn't recognize Palestine, as you claim, then why did they re-affirm Palestine's right to independence and sovereignty?

[thefranzkafkafront]

US Retard wrote: Ameriman wrote: By the way...are we ignoring the fact that a Palestinian State isn't even recognized by the UN among others?
False. The UN's GA RE-affirmed (affirmed again) Palestine's rights to "independence and sovereignty" over 32 years ago in 1974.

UN.org wrote: In the 1967 war, Israel occupied the remaining territory of Palestine, until then under Jordanian and Egyptian control (the West Bank and Gaza Strip). This included the remaining part of Jerusalem, which was subsequently annexed by Israel. The war brought about a second exodus of Palestinians, estimated at half a million. Security Council resolution 242 (1967) of 22 November 1967 called on Israel to withdraw from territories it had occupied in the 1967 conflict.

In 1974, the General Assembly reaffirmed the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people to self-determination, national independence and sovereignty, and to return. The following year, the General Assembly established the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People. The General Assembly conferred on the PLO the status of observer in the Assembly and in other international conferences held under United Nations auspices.
If the UN didn't recognize Palestine, as you claim, then why did they re-affirm Palestine's right to independence and sovereignty?

Thats a bit moot, the U.N dosent reconise either Tibet or Taiwan amugst many other occupied nations.

Essentially its just the ww2 victors club, I woulnt give it much stock if I were you.

[US Retard]

^^^ The UN did and does recognize Palestine and it has been doing so for over 30 years.

superskippy wrote: Do you have information on how much was purchased private property?
I don't. Do you?

superskippy wrote: There is little if any public land available to us thus we always go to the individual Palestinians to purchase land.
If the settled Israeli land were purchased from the Palestinians it would no longer be "private Palestinian land". So the 40% of private Palestinian land mentioned above could not have been purchased. It was stolen. It was illegal. It is a historical trend among powerful states.

Quote: States are violent to the extent that they're powerful. That's roughly accurate.
--Noam Chomsky

[superskippy]

Quote: False. The UN's GA RE-affirmed (affirmed again) Palestine's rights to "independence and sovereignty" over 32 years ago in 1974.

But the UN doesnt recognize a state called Palestine. Nor did it recognize the attempt in 1988 to declare indepence. The closest it has come is giving the PLO the ability to observe but not speak or vote at the UN.

Quote: don't. Do you?

No sorry, but your a wealth of statistics, always good to tap the source eh?

Quote: If the settled Israeli land were purchased from the Palestinians it would no longer be "private Palestinian land". So the 40% of private Palestinian land mentioned above could not have been purchased. It was stolen. It was illegal. It is a historical trend among powerful states.

Well that isnt legally true, there is unclaimed land which no Palestinians have deeds to which we have claimed often as grounds for settlements. The private lands are everything else and we commonly pay for the territory, but that in itself at the moment shouldnt be going on.

[Nico]

moved

[Saracen]

Israel should dismantle all settlements, including Ma'ale Adumim, if it wants a serious two-state solution. If not, then all settlements will be forbidden from expanding and incorporated into the new Palestinian state. There will also be a pact of no hostility between the Palestinians and the settlers should the settlers be incorporated into the new Palestinian state should they refuse to dismantle.

[superskippy]

Ma'ale Adumim is a special case as part of the suburb of Jerusalem it is unclear where we would cut that off. So long as it is inside the Jerusalem suburbs and district we arent going to dismantle it for obvious reasons. The question is when does it stop being part of the Jerusalem district?

[Saracen]

superskippy wrote: Ma'ale Adumim is a special case as part of the suburb of Jerusalem it is unclear where we would cut that off. So long as it is inside the Jerusalem suburbs and district we arent going to dismantle it for obvious reasons. The question is when does it stop being part of the Jerusalem district?



^^
This is why I believe it should be dismantled: it effectively cuts the West Bank in two and makes travelling between cities like Bethlehem and Ramallah especially difficult. Also, the annexation of East Jerusalem is internationally recognized as an illegal annexation. It has to be cut off, regardless of how big a part of Jerusalem it is. There are also Palestinian sectors between Ma'ale Adumim and East Jerusalem.

[superskippy]

Quote: This is why I believe it should be dismantled: it effectively cuts the West Bank in two and makes travelling between cities like Bethlehem and Ramallah especially difficult. Also, the annexation of East Jerusalem is internationally recognized as an illegal annexation. It has to be cut off, regardless of how big a part of Jerusalem it is. There are also Palestinian sectors between Ma'ale Adumim and East Jerusalem.

Parts of it should certaintly be shaved off but the basic parts of the suburbs should remain. We arent going to hand over East Jerusalem, the UN can honestly say what it wants but we arent going to divide our capital especially when we are the majority and have been for over a century in that city.

With the population running very close to even in East Jerusalem with a Jewish majority being an inevitability. And in the city itself not the suburbs and outlying villages we are the clear majority. By the city itself I mean the the Old City, Sultan Suleiman, Wadi al-Joz, eastern Abu Tor, Ramot Alon, Ramat Eshkol, Talpiot Mizrach, Armon ha-Netziv, Homat Shmuel, Gilo, Giv'at Shapira, Giv'at Hamivtar, Ramat Shefet etc. In essence the real city. Why should we hand over a city where we clearly are the majority in both the disputed and non disputed parts?

You can argue that it is in violation of international law etc, etc but the fact remains that we arent going to hand it over. It is our capital and we intend to stay there.

[Saracen]

superskippy wrote: Quote: This is why I believe it should be dismantled: it effectively cuts the West Bank in two and makes travelling between cities like Bethlehem and Ramallah especially difficult. Also, the annexation of East Jerusalem is internationally recognized as an illegal annexation. It has to be cut off, regardless of how big a part of Jerusalem it is. There are also Palestinian sectors between Ma'ale Adumim and East Jerusalem.

Parts of it should certaintly be shaved off but the basic parts of the suburbs should remain. We arent going to hand over East Jerusalem, the UN can honestly say what it wants but we arent going to divide our capital especially when we are the majority and have been for over a century in that city.

Please, skippy, save the emotional rhetoric regarding "our" capital. Giving up a small portion of East Jerusalem, with access to Temple Mount, would be a preferred solution in my opinion. Jerusalem doesn't have to be divided entirely in half.

Also, Jerusalem does not necessarily have defined borders. It can be expanded westwards as well.

Quote: With the population running very close to even in East Jerusalem with a Jewish majority being an inevitability. And in the city itself not the suburbs and outlying villages we are the clear majority. By the city itself I mean the the Old City, Sultan Suleiman, Wadi al-Joz, eastern Abu Tor, Ramot Alon, Ramat Eshkol, Talpiot Mizrach, Armon ha-Netziv, Homat Shmuel, Gilo, Giv'at Shapira, Giv'at Hamivtar, Ramat Shefet etc. In essence the real city. Why should we hand over a city where we clearly are the majority in both the disputed and non disputed parts?

Because Jerusalem itself is important to Muslims and Christians, and many Palestinians I know of, including my aunt's husband, friends at school, former school teachers, family friends, etc. all come from there, as do many of the Palestinians who have been displaced in 1967 into areas east of Jerusalem.

Quote: You can argue that it is in violation of international law etc, etc but the fact remains that we arent going to hand it over. It is our capital and we intend to stay there.

I did not deny that. I said the Jews can live wherever they want in Jerusalem, but East Jerusalem, or a part of it, should go to the Palestinians because Jerusalem is part of the deal. It is Jewish, but it is also Christian and Muslim.