Sharon says Israel will remove settlements... [Archive]

Jocko

5th January 2004, 04:17 PM

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Some settlements are not enough I am afraid. The settlements should go otherwise there is no hope for serious negotiations.

Funny, since they are expected to accept "some" reductions in terror bombings as "progress." Not that I feel Israel shouldn't dismantle any illegal outposts, but it keeps coming back to the double standard in my opinion.

That being said, I hope those who really pull the strings in the PA will be gracious enough to accept the token of good faith and encourage further such removals by not rewarding the Israelis with more dead civilians. A real reduction in violence will help bolster public opinion in Israel to continue to live up to their obligations, regardless of what Netanyahu says.

svero

5th January 2004, 08:34 PM

It means *nothing* and I'm not at all encouraged. There won't be any serious moves towards a peaceful solution with Sharon in office because IMHO he doesn't want peace. He likes the status quo and all evidence points to him encouraging it whenever he can. One condition that has to be met before a move towards peace can occur, is that both parties have to actually want peace. Currently Sharon wants things the way they are, and the "terrorists" are playing right into his hands like the stupid chump suckers they are. Those idiot suicide bombers could go a long way towards helping their people out by stopping attacks against Israeli civilians. It only hurts them. Of course... pretty hard to say what should be done to apply pressure... Still the violence only gives the Israeli government a continued justification for their policies.

dsm

5th January 2004, 09:53 PM

Originally posted by svero
There won't be any serious moves towards a peaceful solution with Sharon in office because IMHO he doesn't want peace.

In the same way that Arafat doesn't want peace?

svero

5th January 2004, 10:11 PM

Originally posted by dsm

In the same way that Arafat doesn't want peace?

I'm not sure what you mean by that. Obviously what Arafat wants and what Sharon wants are different.

I suppose you could make an argument that they both prefer the status quo over peace for thier own reasons so perhaps in that sense yes, in the same was as Arafat.

I find it harder to judge Arafat and I don't really have strong feelings about him one way or another because he's not as obvious as Sharon is. He's on the side that has significantly less power so you don't really see clearly what his actions are. Most of what you hear about him is Israeli propaganda. The Israeli govt use him as a scapegoat for everything (less so lately.. a lot more focus on hamas) so my view of him is blurred. I don't really have any illusions that that he's a morally superior man of peace or anything like that. But I have serious doubts that he's as much the ringleader of terrorism in the occupied territories as the Israeli govt would have us believe. To some extent I think it's in Sharon's best interest to keep him right where he is. It's good to have an obvious highly visible enemy for political purposes. I never really took too seriously threats to have him assasinated. That would be surprising.

Mr Manifesto

5th January 2004, 10:34 PM

Originally posted by hgc
... as part of final peace deal. Haaretz (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/379645.html)

Now that's progress. Optimistic, anyone? Sharon will now have to surive a challenge to his party leadership from Netanyahu.

I have heard this tune before, and while I'm am cautiously optomistic and will always applaud any gesture towards peace; I have to say, I'll believe it when I see it.

Cleopatra

6th January 2004, 01:44 AM

I reply to Grammatron and Jocko mostly.

The settlements were a big mistake from the beginning. Israel thought that it could keep West Bank because back then they haven't realized why they were sent in Middle East. Jews were not sent in Middle East by the Europeans to find peace but they were sent in order to keep the Arabs "busy". After 1967, Palestinians provided the same distraction to their people and this is how the tragedy started.

According to the plans of the Geneva initiative that are supported by fair negotiators from both sides, Israel will dismantle every settlement that has built after 1967 and Palestinians will deny the right to return.

I consider that the Palestianians are making a huge sacrifice. I wouldn't want to be in the place of somebody that wouldn't see his house again in his life. So, I belong to those that believe that a complete removal of the settlements and a real support to the future Palestinian State is essential.

I don't have illusions. The Arab leadership will always want to destroy Israel BUT fanatic religious Israelis would always want to occupy the territories of the West Bank.

Peace with Arafat and Sharon is not possible because those two men cannot function in a state of Peace. They are soldiers and they have the military mentality. As long as they are in charge and their mentality prevails do not expect too much.

My suggestion to those that they are interested in the Peace process is to have a look at the Geneva Initiative (http://www.heskem.org.il/Heskem_en.asp) and if they think that there is a spec of reason in it to lobby for it in USA ,Europe and Australia.

Grammatron

6th January 2004, 09:06 AM

Originally posted by Cleopatra
I reply to Grammatron and Jocko mostly.

The settlements were a big mistake from the beginning. Israel thought that it could keep West Bank because back then they haven't realized why they were sent in Middle East. Jews were not sent in Middle East by the Europeans to find peace but they were sent in order to keep the Arabs "busy". After 1967, Palestinians provided the same distraction to their people and this is how the tragedy started.

According to the plans of the Geneva initiative that are supported by fair negotiators from both sides, Israel will dismantle every settlement that has built after 1967 and Palestinians will deny the right to return.

I consider that the Palestianians are making a huge sacrifice. I wouldn't want to be in the place of somebody that wouldn't see his house again in his life. So, I belong to those that believe that a complete removal of the settlements and a real support to the future Palestinian State is essential.

I don't have illusions. The Arab leadership will always want to destroy Israel BUT fanatic religious Israelis would always want to occupy the territories of the West Bank.

Peace with Arafat and Sharon is not possible because those two men cannot function in a state of Peace. They are soldiers and they have the military mentality. As long as they are in charge and their mentality prevails do not expect too much.

My suggestion to those that they are interested in the Peace process is to have a look at the Geneva Initiative (http://www.heskem.org.il/Heskem_en.asp) and if they think that there is a spec of reason in it to lobby for it in USA ,Europe and Australia.

Hey, don't get me wrong, I'm all for anything that brings peace. However, lets say all the illegal -- and let's not forget that each faction views illegal in a different manner than others -- are removed and suicide attacks still happen. What should be the course of action then?

a_unique_person

6th January 2004, 02:57 PM

Originally posted by svero
It means *nothing* and I'm not at all encouraged. There won't be any serious moves towards a peaceful solution with Sharon in office because IMHO he doesn't want peace. He likes the status quo and all evidence points to him encouraging it whenever he can. One condition that has to be met before a move towards peace can occur, is that both parties have to actually want peace. Currently Sharon wants things the way they are, and the "terrorists" are playing right into his hands like the stupid chump suckers they are. Those idiot suicide bombers could go a long way towards helping their people out by stopping attacks against Israeli civilians. It only hurts them. Of course... pretty hard to say what should be done to apply pressure... Still the violence only gives the Israeli government a continued justification for their policies.

Not quite true, Sharon has never shied away from violence to get his ends, but his end is now in sight. Once he achieves it, I believe he will back off to a large extent, as long as the Palestinians peacefully aquiesce to whatever it is he has planned for them.

dsm

6th January 2004, 03:23 PM

Originally posted by svero
I'm not sure what you mean by that. Obviously what Arafat wants and what Sharon wants are different.

I suppose you could make an argument that they both prefer the status quo over peace for thier own reasons so perhaps in that sense yes, in the same was as Arafat.

I find it harder to judge Arafat and I don't really have strong feelings about him one way or another because he's not as obvious as Sharon is. He's on the side that has significantly less power so you don't really see clearly what his actions are. Most of what you hear about him is Israeli propaganda. The Israeli govt use him as a scapegoat for everything (less so lately.. a lot more focus on hamas) so my view of him is blurred. I don't really have any illusions that that he's a morally superior man of peace or anything like that. But I have serious doubts that he's as much the ringleader of terrorism in the occupied territories as the Israeli govt would have us believe. To some extent I think it's in Sharon's best interest to keep him right where he is. It's good to have an obvious highly visible enemy for political purposes. I never really took too seriously threats to have him assasinated. That would be surprising.

So what you're saying is that Arafat (and really all Palestinians) are puppets to Israel and, in particular, Sharon? That, even if it was in the Palestinians best interest, Arafat (et.al.) could not accept a good peace offer and do everything possible to ensure that no Palestinian breaks the peace? That Arafat has no understanding of world opinion and the devastating effect it could have on Israel if Israel were absolutely shown to be breaking a peace agreement? That Sharon (and Israel) have so much to gain by keeping the suicide bombers coming that peace is not worth exploring?

What's wrong with this picture??

:rolleyes:

a_unique_person

6th January 2004, 03:56 PM

Jocko

6th January 2004, 04:00 PM

Originally posted by a_unique_person

The same as now, diplomatic efforts towards peace. What other solution is there? The settlements are not there as part of a peace process and are know to be inflammatory.

You must be one boring guy in a barfight. I mean, you advocate diplomacy no matter how many times you get punched in the mouth. You're going to dimplomasize your way into an early grave at that rate.

Perhaps Arafat could actually put a muzzle on Hamas for a change, and let the Israelis not be rewarded with more murderous bombings? Not to mention he'd be saving Palestinian lives at the same time.

a_unique_person

6th January 2004, 04:08 PM

Originally posted by Jocko

You must be one boring guy in a barfight. I mean, you advocate diplomacy no matter how many times you get punched in the mouth. You're going to dimplomasize your way into an early grave at that rate.

Perhaps Arafat could actually put a muzzle on Hamas for a change, and let the Israelis not be rewarded with more murderous bombings? Not to mention he'd be saving Palestinian lives at the same time.

Yet you can conveniently ignore the attacks on Palestinians. Eg, a 30 year military occupation, people alive who have had their property taken from them with no compensation. How would you react to a military occupation, which is an act of war? Try to get on with your new masters as obediently as they require, or resist? If you had grown up your whole life under a military occupation, how long would you hold a grudge against those responsible for the occupation?

Norther Ireland is better off now than it was, but it still suffers from intermittent violence and much hatred. So it will into the future.

Israel, even if it gives the Palestinians everything they want, will still be subject to attacks. Get used to it. They asked themselves over there. The Palestinians didn't invite them in. Over time, with some luck and goodwill, there will be peace.

Grammatron

6th January 2004, 04:22 PM

Originally posted by a_unique_person

*snip*
Israel, even if it gives the Palestinians everything they want, will still be subject to attacks. Get used to it. They asked themselves over there. The Palestinians didn't invite them in. Over time, with some luck and goodwill, there will be peace.

This is THE -- and I can't emphasize THE enough -- dumbest thing you have ever said on this forum. In fact, you make Huzzington look smart with this statement. To give you an analogy in regards to what you just said..."There's no need for police to stop criminals, people should just get use to them. They move to the area with criminal themselves; criminals did not invite them. Over time, with some luck and goodwill the crime will stop." You see how dumb that statement you made is yet?

P.S. No I'm not equating all Palestinians to criminals, so you can STFU on that point right there.

Jocko

6th January 2004, 04:26 PM

Originally posted by a_unique_person

Israel, even if it gives the Palestinians everything they want, will still be subject to attacks. Get used to it.

So what's the point in granting them anything? If what you say is true, Israel will exterminate the Palestinians when they push hard enough. Get used to that.

There's more to being anti-semitic than just using ethnic slurs, AUP, and you're a living example of that.

a_unique_person

6th January 2004, 04:42 PM

Originally posted by Jocko

So what's the point in granting them anything? If what you say is true, Israel will exterminate the Palestinians when they push hard enough. Get used to that.

There's more to being anti-semitic than just using ethnic slurs, AUP, and you're a living example of that.

And I hope both sides will retain their humanity and it doesn't come to either side trying to obliterate the other. The point in granting them anything is that Israel is morally obliged to do so.

If you want to see what your attitude is, try the Rev Ian Paisley. Logically, he is right, the IRA has been guilty of murder, and other crimes. In the land of reality, we all have to learn to get along.

Jocko

6th January 2004, 06:02 PM

Originally posted by a_unique_person

And I hope both sides will retain their humanity and it doesn't come to either side trying to obliterate the other. The point in granting them anything is that Israel is morally obliged to do so.

You are a hypocrite and a liar. First you say Israel has no right to exist ("no one invited them there, so they should get used to being killed at random until they take the hint), and then you blithely claim to hope both sides keep their humanity in the dispute.

That's ironic as hell, considering you just labeled one side as animals who will attack no matter what, and the other side as sub-human since they have no right to exist. No humanity to be found in that dichotomy at all, is there?

I'd really love to know whose mailing list you're on, AUP.

If you want to see what your attitude is, try the Rev Ian Paisley. Logically, he is right, the IRA has been guilty of murder, and other crimes. In the land of reality, we all have to learn to get along.

Even the IRA was able to maintain a freakin' cease-fire when it mattered, unlike Hamas, and both parties bargained in good faith. So I fail to see what your point in this is, except as a transparently pathetic attempt to find another group of humans on this planet as reprehensible as Hamas and the other groups Arafat allows to run around "his" territory.

It will take a very long time for you to find such people, AUP. Please, don't bother on my account - I've seen what counts as "evidence" on your planet, and I'm not impressed.

dsm

6th January 2004, 08:13 PM

Originally posted by Grammatron

This is THE -- and I can't emphasize THE enough -- dumbest thing you have ever said on this forum. In fact, you make Huzzington look smart with this statement. To give you an analogy in regards to what you just said..."There's no need for police to stop criminals, people should just get use to them. They move to the area with criminal themselves; criminals did not invite them. Over time, with some luck and goodwill the crime will stop." You see how dumb that statement you made is yet?

P.S. No I'm not equating all Palestinians to criminals, so you can STFU on that point right there.

The BIG -- and I can't emphasize BIG enough -- problem with your analogy is that you didn't provide a scorecard on who is the "police" and who is the "criminals".

:p

Grammatron

6th January 2004, 10:07 PM

Originally posted by dsm

The BIG -- and I can't emphasize BIG enough -- problem with your analogy is that you didn't provide a scorecard on who is the "police" and who is the "criminals".

:p

The criminals are people who blow up markets and café shops. The police? Well that's the question I was hoping to ask AUP. He seems to think that somehow everything will fix itself magically.

a_unique_person

6th January 2004, 10:08 PM

Originally posted by Jocko

You are a hypocrite and a liar. First you say Israel has no right to exist ("no one invited them there, so they should get used to being killed at random until they take the hint), and then you blithely claim to hope both sides keep their humanity in the dispute.

How many times do I have to say this? I think the creation of modern Israel was a mistake. Ever heard of the saying "You can't go home again".

Given that it does now exist, both sides will now have to get along.

Given that they did choose to turn up there, there is a lot of resentment that has built up after 30 years at teh wrong end of a tank gun barrel. Many of those at the other end don't like being asked to subject the Palestinians to this treatment. I have said it before and I'll say it again, it will be many years before all the firing in this low level war has died down. Expect nothing less, or you will only be disappointed when it does happen.

That's ironic as hell, considering you just labeled one side as animals who will attack no matter what, and the other side as sub-human since they have no right to exist. No humanity to be found in that dichotomy at all, is there?

I'd really love to know whose mailing list you're on, AUP.

I think it is called the human condition. Man has been at war with himself for countless years. It won't end overnight. The slow achievement of a civilised global society is still being slowly achieved.

Even the IRA was able to maintain a freakin' cease-fire when it mattered, unlike Hamas, and both parties bargained in good faith. So I fail to see what your point in this is, except as a transparently pathetic attempt to find another group of humans on this planet as reprehensible as Hamas and the other groups Arafat allows to run around "his" territory.

It will take a very long time for you to find such people, AUP. Please, don't bother on my account - I've seen what counts as "evidence" on your planet, and I'm not impressed. [/QUOTE]

The IRA could do no such thing. Splinter factions on both sides of the conflict have continued hostilities when cease fires were declared. Which planet have you been living on?

a_unique_person

6th January 2004, 10:09 PM

Originally posted by Grammatron

The criminals are people who blow up markets and café shops. The police? Well that's the question I was hoping to ask AUP. He seems to think that somehow everything will fix itself magically.

The criminals are just as much those who subject civilians to 30 years of military occupation.

Jocko

6th January 2004, 10:24 PM

Originally posted by a_unique_person

The criminals are just as much those who subject civilians to 30 years of military occupation.

Blame the UN then!

Or is this a game of "how many feet can AUP stick in his mouth at the same time"?

Grammatron

6th January 2004, 10:38 PM

Originally posted by a_unique_person

The criminals are just as much those who subject civilians to 30 years of military occupation.

Yes, you said that already in practically every post.

Now address how its ok IF Israel gives into to all that they were suppose to do under UN ruling for Hamas to blow everything up and get away with it.

Jocko

6th January 2004, 11:18 PM

Originally posted by a_unique_person

I think it is called the human condition. Man has been at war with himself for countless years. It won't end overnight. The slow achievement of a civilised global society is still being slowly achieved.

Some places more slowly than others, it would seem.

The Fool

6th January 2004, 11:52 PM

Originally posted by Grammatron

This is THE -- and I can't emphasize THE enough -- dumbest thing you have ever said on this forum. In fact, you make Huzzington look smart with this statement. To give you an analogy in regards to what you just said..."There's no need for police to stop criminals, people should just get use to them. They move to the area with criminal themselves; criminals did not invite them. Over time, with some luck and goodwill the crime will stop." You see how dumb that statement you made is yet?

P.S. No I'm not equating all Palestinians to criminals, so you can STFU on that point right there.

Sorry to not STFU but who are you equating with criminals if not the palestinians?....I would have thought that stealing land was a crime, is it not a crime where you come from? Can I have a bit of Texas please? oooops, bad example, you already took that off the mexicans...

Grammatron

6th January 2004, 11:58 PM

Originally posted by The Fool

Sorry to not STFU but who are you equating with criminals if not the palestinians?....I would have thought that stealing land was a crime, is it not a crime where you come from? Can I have a bit of Texas please? oooops, bad example, you already took that off the mexicans...

HAMAS, Al-asqa brigate and other "soldiers" like that.

I know you want a confrontation here but I am afraid I won't oblige other than comment on your poor reading skills about missing the point.

You see, the topic here is if after Israel has done all it suppose to and they are still attacked AUP claims that nothing can be done about this. Do you support this?

a_unique_person

7th January 2004, 12:51 AM

The Fool

7th January 2004, 05:35 AM

Originally posted by Grammatron

HAMAS, Al-asqa brigate and other "soldiers" like that.

I know you want a confrontation here but I am afraid I won't oblige other than comment on your poor reading skills about missing the point.

You see, the topic here is if after Israel has done all it suppose to and they are still attacked AUP claims that nothing can be done about this. Do you support this?
I don't think nothing can be done about it... I don't know if A_U_P thinks the same because, as usual, they are your words not his.

I agree with him that this is not going to end if and when the IDF and the settlers say "goodbye and thanks for all the target practice" I also cannot see it ending if the Palestinian terrorists stop attacking. Thats been tried before but the settlements just rolled on regardless and the terrorists went back to bombing civilians and the IDF went back to shooting terrorists and bystanders...situation normal.
Personally, I don't mind the roadmap of GWB...pity neither side is interested in it. How about the USA and the "willing" just impose the damn thing. Israel would have no choice, they would collapse without US aid, Palestinians would last even less time than Iraq...why not pull the plug on both Idiots in this brawl?

And talking about looking for confrontation....

"This is THE -- and I can't emphasize THE enough -- dumbest thing you have ever said on this forum. In fact, you make Huzzington look smart with this statement."

Was that little gem supposed to be an attempt to calm the debate...Lol. Oh well, The pot doesn't think its as black as the Kettle as usual.

The Fool

7th January 2004, 05:52 AM

Originally posted by Grammatron

HAMAS, Al-asqa brigate and other "soldiers" like that.

Sorry...I'm still a bit confused about this...

A_U_P says
"The Palestinians didn't invite them in."
You substitute the analogy
"criminals didn't invite them in"

but you swear you are not equating Palestinians with criminals??

Actually I think the problem is you find it difficult to separate the words Palestinian and terrorist. I may be able to help here...Think of it like Israeli and Zionist extremist. You can see the clear difference there can't you? Just apply the same reasoning to both examples.

Grammatron

7th January 2004, 10:08 AM

Originally posted by a_unique_person

Let's face it, no one knows what will happen if Israel does everything it is supposed to do. I don't know why you are asking me. Either way, it cannot just stay in the West Bank.

Nice way to backpedal there, you said, "Israel, even if it gives the Palestinians everything they want, will still be subject to attacks. Get used to it." This is an implication that you know if Israel does everything it suppose to it won't make a bit of difference. Hence, I and to a bigger extend Jocko, replied asking you what is then the incentive for Israel to do that if they will still be subject to homicide bombers?

Grammatron

7th January 2004, 10:12 AM

Originally posted by The Fool

Sorry...I'm still a bit confused about this...

A_U_P says
"The Palestinians didn't invite them in."
You substitute the analogy
"criminals didn't invite them in"

but you swear you are not equating Palestinians with criminals??

Actually I think the problem is you find it difficult to separate the words Palestinian and terrorist. I may be able to help here...Think of it like Israeli and Zionist extremist. You can see the clear difference there can't you? Just apply the same reasoning to both examples.

I know it's hard to believe, but I'm going to let you in on a little secret. Somebody can be a Palestinian AND a terrorist at the same time somebody can be a Palestinian AND NOT a terrorist. It's shocking, and it might take you some time to figure out, but I will be here to help you comprehend this "difficult" concept.

Grammatron

7th January 2004, 10:17 AM

Originally posted by The Fool

I don't think nothing can be done about it... I don't know if A_U_P thinks the same because, as usual, they are your words not his.

I agree with him that this is not going to end if and when the IDF and the settlers say "goodbye and thanks for all the target practice" I also cannot see it ending if the Palestinian terrorists stop attacking. Thats been tried before but the settlements just rolled on regardless and the terrorists went back to bombing civilians and the IDF went back to shooting terrorists and bystanders...situation normal.
Personally, I don't mind the roadmap of GWB...pity neither side is interested in it. How about the USA and the "willing" just impose the damn thing. Israel would have no choice, they would collapse without US aid, Palestinians would last even less time than Iraq...why not pull the plug on both Idiots in this brawl?

This is, quite frankly, stupid. You are, just like your buddy AUP, saying that terrorist groups in Palestine can attack Israel and kill all the civilians they want and get away with it even after Israel does all it is suppose to do under UN resolution, however, Israel can't attack those terrorist in Palestine because some innocent bystandards might get hurt, sheer lunacy.

Jocko

7th January 2004, 12:04 PM

Originally posted by Grammatron

This is, quite frankly, stupid. You are, just like your buddy AUP, saying that terrorist groups in Palestine can attack Israel and kill all the civilians they want and get away with it even after Israel does all it is suppose to do under UN resolution, however, Israel can't attack those terrorist in Palestine because some innocent bystandards might get hurt, sheer lunacy.

The funniest thing of all is the way AUP and Fool equate Israel to an aggressor nation that just dropped out of the sky and invaded Palestine. "Wouldn't YOU fight against oppressive occupiers of YOUR land?!" they cry.

I've explained this to them before, as have many others, but that isn't how it happened. It was conceptualized by the League of Nations and enacted by the United Nations, the same body they think is the best route to dealing with everything from foreign policy to sovereignty to a case of the crabs. I've even posted the freakin' declarations on this forum to clarify.

And yet, they still act as if the Israelis just appeared over a hill one day and decided to make camp. Utterly obtuse thinking. And if they think it's unprecedented and can't work, I would invite them to investigate the creation of Liberia (hint: it has something to do with the capital's name).

The UN offered the Palestinians a deal and they didn't take it. So they wound up with nothing, making their leadership stupid as well as barbaric. The stupidest thing of all is their decendants are going to get themselves wiped out by this conduct - so how about a little discussion about that? Given the realities - yes, REALITIES - of today, is it in the best interests of the Palestinians to continue allowing attacks on civilians?

The Fool

7th January 2004, 03:28 PM

Originally posted by Grammatron

I know it's hard to believe, but I'm going to let you in on a little secret. Somebody can be a Palestinian AND a terrorist at the same time somebody can be a Palestinian AND NOT a terrorist. It's shocking, and it might take you some time to figure out, but I will be here to help you comprehend this "difficult" concept.
Thats better Grammatron, you are now on the road to recovery.

The Fool

7th January 2004, 03:56 PM

Originally posted by Jocko

The funniest thing of all is the way AUP and Fool equate Israel to an aggressor nation that just dropped out of the sky and invaded Palestine. "Wouldn't YOU fight against oppressive occupiers of YOUR land?!" they cry.

I've explained this to them before, as have many others, but that isn't how it happened. It was conceptualized by the League of Nations and enacted by the United Nations, the same body they think is the best route to dealing with everything from foreign policy to sovereignty to a case of the crabs. I've even posted the freakin' declarations on this forum to clarify.

"His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."

Please explain what happened to the civil rights of the existing non jewish communities? When you are run off your land by a foreign army it matters little what bits of paper they are waving.

And yet, they still act as if the Israelis just appeared over a hill one day and decided to make camp.

well My old Uncle must have imagined the Zionist terrorist bomb that filled his arse with bits of metal. He was in the british army attempting to control terrorism in Palestine, In the early days, before the terrorists were supplied with tanks and Jets and therefore able to shed the terrorist name and become the IDF.

Utterly obtuse thinking. And if they think it's unprecedented and can't work, I would invite them to investigate the creation of Liberia (hint: it has something to do with the capital's name).

Lol...you are siting Liberia as a model for the middle east?

The UN offered the Palestinians a deal and they didn't take it.

The deal being the splitting of palestinian land into small unworkable chunks separated by Israeli barbed wire, of course they couldn't have the land with water, thats under the settlements....what a deal.

So they wound up with nothing

Thats ok, they are getting used to it

Making their leadership stupid as well as barbaric. The stupidest thing of all is their decendants are going to get themselves wiped out by this conduct - so how about a little discussion about that?

Fine, I'd like to kick off the discussion by suggesting that this statement if a pretty good description of both the Palestinian terrorist extreme and Sharon.

Given the realities - yes, REALITIES - of today, is it in the best interests of the Palestinians to continue allowing attacks on civilians?

Absolutely correct. You are preaching to the converted. I think killing civilians is criminal, do you also think this? or do you only think this if the killers are Arabs? Is it also in the best interests of Israel to set up a new apartheid state based on racist legislation?

The Fool

7th January 2004, 04:10 PM

Originally posted by Grammatron

This is, quite frankly, stupid. You are, just like your buddy AUP, saying that terrorist groups in Palestine can attack Israel and kill all the civilians they want and get away with it even after Israel does all it is suppose to do under UN resolution, however, Israel can't attack those terrorist in Palestine because some innocent bystandards might get hurt, sheer lunacy.

I was tossing up if this is a strawman or a lie. As you are not stupid and can read I conclude its a lie. I agree that this statement is sheer lunacy. I suppose you can show where I have said that?
You seem to enjoy making things up as you go along, I would encourage you to check what I actually post before you invent my opinions.
I'll help you out...here is the statement you are currently misrepresenting.

"I also cannot see it ending if the Palestinian terrorists stop attacking. Thats been tried before but the settlements just rolled on regardless and the terrorists went back to bombing civilians and the IDF went back to shooting terrorists and bystanders...situation normal."

please show me where I said that palestinian terrorist groups can attack israel and kill all the civilians they want. That is a clear statement that I offer concent and support to that activity...That is a lie and typical of you.

a_unique_person

7th January 2004, 05:25 PM

Originally posted by Grammatron

Nice way to backpedal there, you said, "Israel, even if it gives the Palestinians everything they want, will still be subject to attacks. Get used to it." This is an implication that you know if Israel does everything it suppose to it won't make a bit of difference. Hence, I and to a bigger extend Jocko, replied asking you what is then the incentive for Israel to do that if they will still be subject to homicide bombers?

Back Pedal? All I am doing is going on what has happened in similar circumstances. You build up enough ill will and it won't be going away in day, or a week.

What is the incentive for Israel to pull out? The incentive is to stop occupying land that is not theirs and comply with international law. There are many Israelis who see no point in it, even David Ben Gurion thought it was a mistake. The longer they stay, the worse it gets, is that incentive enough?

Grammatron

7th January 2004, 06:50 PM

Originally posted by a_unique_person

Back Pedal? All I am doing is going on what has happened in similar circumstances. You build up enough ill will and it won't be going away in day, or a week.

What is the incentive for Israel to pull out? The incentive is to stop occupying land that is not theirs and comply with international law. There are many Israelis who see no point in it, even David Ben Gurion thought it was a mistake. The longer they stay, the worse it gets, is that incentive enough?

It's not only an incentive but what Israel should do and I agree with you on this point. What I don't agree is that after they concede everything they are suppose to they will have to just sit there and keep getting attacked.

I only have one question for you, so please answer it.

If Palestinian leadership has no interest in stopping groups like Hamas, who should and how?

Grammatron

7th January 2004, 06:57 PM

Originally posted by The Fool

I was tossing up if this is a strawman or a lie. As you are not stupid and can read I conclude its a lie. I agree that this statement is sheer lunacy. I suppose you can show where I have said that?
You seem to enjoy making things up as you go along, I would encourage you to check what I actually post before you invent my opinions.
I'll help you out...here is the statement you are currently misrepresenting.

"I also cannot see it ending if the Palestinian terrorists stop attacking. Thats been tried before but the settlements just rolled on regardless and the terrorists went back to bombing civilians and the IDF went back to shooting terrorists and bystanders...situation normal."

please show me where I said that palestinian terrorist groups can attack israel and kill all the civilians they want. That is a clear statement that I offer concent and support to that activity...That is a lie and typical of you.

Ok, I will show you and any other time you need help with reading please do not hesitate to ask.

AUP said "Israel, even if it gives the Palestinians everything they want, will still be subject to attacks. Get used to it" and then you said in regards to that "I agree with him that this is not going to end if and when the IDF and the settlers say "goodbye and thanks for all the target practice" I also cannot see it ending if the Palestinian terrorists stop attacking." adding to that the fact based on your previous posts that you believe Israel should not attack anyone in Palestinian territory I do not see any repercussions for groups like Hamas when it comes to attacks on Israel.

Please tell me who will peruse and punish these groups who carry out attacks on the hypothetical Israel who conceded to all UN demands.

Mycroft

7th January 2004, 07:18 PM

Originally posted by Grammatron

Hey, don't get me wrong, I'm all for anything that brings peace. However, lets say all the illegal -- and let's not forget that each faction views illegal in a different manner than others -- are removed and suicide attacks still happen. What should be the course of action then?

My opinion:

If every reasonable demand is met and they still want war, then the only option left is to give them war until they don't want it anymore.

What drives me bonkers is that these discussions happen and everyone moans and cries over how Israel isn't doing enough for peace, how the efforts of Sharon (or whoever) are not enough or is misrepresented, yet nobody mentions that the other side of the equation, the Palestinian-Arabs, have done exactly nothing to promote peace. Who is making the first step here?

Originally posted by a_unique_person

Israel, even if it gives the Palestinians everything they want, will still be subject to attacks. Get used to it. They asked themselves over there. The Palestinians didn't invite them in. Over time, with some luck and goodwill, there will be peace.

This has to be the absolute sickest thing I’ve ever read. You’re the same fellow who moans over the “humiliation” Palestinian-Arabs suffer from being stopped at checkpoints, who wants to talk about ethnic slurs while people are dying, and then you turn around and say Israel will just have to “get used to” its citizens dying.

I don’t think people dying is something to “get used to.” We can and should expect civilized behavior from the Palestinian-Arabs just as we do from the Israelis. Murder is not excusable. Recognizing that there will be radicals who will sabotage peace does not excuse the Palestinian-Arabs as a whole from the responsibility of acting like a civilized society and doing their best to root out these radicals who will continue to promote terror and sabotage peace.

Mycroft

7th January 2004, 07:31 PM

The Fool

7th January 2004, 07:31 PM

Originally posted by Grammatron

Ok, I will show you and any other time you need help with reading please do not hesitate to ask.

AUP said "Israel, even if it gives the Palestinians everything they want, will still be subject to attacks. Get used to it" and then you said in regards to that "I agree with him that this is not going to end if and when the IDF and the settlers say "goodbye and thanks for all the target practice" I also cannot see it ending if the Palestinian terrorists stop attacking." adding to that the fact based on your previous posts that you believe Israel should not attack anyone in Palestinian territory I do not see any repercussions for groups like Hamas when it comes to attacks on Israel.

Please tell me who will peruse and punish these groups who carry out attacks on the hypothetical Israel who conceded to all UN demands.
so?....what do you think you have demonstrated? I said I didn't think the violence would end if Israel suddenly up and left the palestinians alone and I couldn't see it ending if the Palestinian terrorists suddenly stopped the bombings....do you disagree?

so once more, and I am patient...take your time but please show me where I said that palestinian terrorist groups can attack israel and kill all the civilians they want. That is a clear statement that I offer concent and support to that activity...That is a lie and typical of you.

The Fool

7th January 2004, 07:41 PM

Originally posted by Mycroft

And it's the double-standard that equates to racism.

I fully agree, that statement is riddled with double-standard. They are Grammatrons words.Please show me where I have made such a statement

Lol...hey, maybe you could help Grammatron out with his little credability problem? He can't find where I have said this, maybe you could?

Grammatron

7th January 2004, 08:03 PM

Originally posted by The Fool

so?....what do you think you have demonstrated? I said I didn't think the violence would end if Israel suddenly up and left the palestinians alone and I couldn't see it ending if the Palestinian terrorists suddenly stopped the bombings....do you disagree?

so once more, and I am patient...take your time but please show me where I said that palestinian terrorist groups can attack israel and kill all the civilians they want. That is a clear statement that I offer concent and support to that activity...That is a lie and typical of you.

I clearly demonstrated that you don't care about Peace you just care that evil Israel doesn't attack the poor defenseless Palestinian Terrorist who only want to kill babies in with out being targeted in return. You can go ahead and continue to be ignorant though.

The Fool

7th January 2004, 08:22 PM

Originally posted by Grammatron

I clearly demonstrated that you don't care about Peace you just care that evil Israel doesn't attack the poor defenseless Palestinian Terrorist who only want to kill babies in with out being targeted in return. You can go ahead and continue to be ignorant though.
Whats this, a new tactic? If you can't substantiate the first lie just add another one.... How about we just form a queue of your lies and you can get to this latest one after you have shown some evidence to support the first lie....

So still on the original lie.... please show me where I said that palestinian terrorist groups can attack israel and kill all the civilians they want. That is a clear statement that I offer concent and support to that activity...That is a lie and typical of you.

The Fool

7th January 2004, 08:30 PM

Its just dawned on me why all you Sharon apologists wet yourselves with glee when that Sheikh whatshisname arrived and started being an apologist for hamas terrorists....You finally had someone who supports terrorism! No need to fabricate statements and attribute them to people who critisize sharon and his lickspittles. I feel sad for the ordinary people of Israel being led down a one way dead end by Idiots and clowns.

a_unique_person

8th January 2004, 12:11 AM

Originally posted by Mycroft

My opinion:

If every reasonable demand is met and they still want war, then the only option left is to give them war until they don't want it anymore.

What drives me bonkers is that these discussions happen and everyone moans and cries over how Israel isn't doing enough for peace, how the efforts of Sharon (or whoever) are not enough or is misrepresented, yet nobody mentions that the other side of the equation, the Palestinian-Arabs, have done exactly nothing to promote peace. Who is making the first step here?

This has to be the absolute sickest thing I’ve ever read. You’re the same fellow who moans over the “humiliation” Palestinian-Arabs suffer from being stopped at checkpoints, who wants to talk about ethnic slurs while people are dying, and then you turn around and say Israel will just have to “get used to” its citizens dying.

I don’t think people dying is something to “get used to.” We can and should expect civilized behavior from the Palestinian-Arabs just as we do from the Israelis. Murder is not excusable. Recognizing that there will be radicals who will sabotage peace does not excuse the Palestinian-Arabs as a whole from the responsibility of acting like a civilized society and doing their best to root out these radicals who will continue to promote terror and sabotage peace.

You had better get used to it, because, as I said, it won't be stopping for many years to come, no matter what they outcome. Of course, I could be wrong, and both sides will come to their senses and put forward what is, is the circumstances, as just a solution as can be found for both sides. Given the history, of the place, however, I can't see it happening. As soon as Sharon even hints at a withdrawel from even a few of the settlements he has been so busy helping to set up, his own party degenerates into scuffles and abuse. There are enough madmen on both sides to ensure that the only result will be a miserable one.

PS, I heard an aphorism once that I think applies in this case. The expert is the person who says it will take the longest and cost the most.