|
Author |
Topic Options
|
Posted: Fri Nov 30, 2012 5:54 pm
2Cdo 2Cdo: Gunnair Gunnair: What does a link to Palestinians charging and convicting their own have to do with the example countered to your statement? I guess you missed the part about me NOT being happy with the "punishment". But it is revealing that the Israelis DID charge them and the PA would never even go that far. Plus, Curt being a cheerleader for groups like I mentioned just bothers me. I'm curious as to YOUR thoughts on this, or are you just being an argumentive ass?  You're saying that the Palestinians are forcing Israeli children to search suspected explosives? What bothers me is that you accuse me of cheerleading for Palestinians. I wish Palestinians and Israelis all the peace and prosperity they can get. I am outraged at what the Harper government is doing to Canada's reputation as a peaceful moderate on the world stage. We should stand with the world and say no to settlements in Palestine. Go Palestine! Go Israel!
Last edited by Curtman on Fri Nov 30, 2012 6:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.
|
Posts: 23565
Posted: Fri Nov 30, 2012 5:56 pm
2Cdo 2Cdo: Gunnair Gunnair: 2Cdo 2Cdo: Pissy? Methinks you're reading way to much into my reply. And who am I supposedly "cheerleading" here? You really need to either go get laid or drunk, maybe both. The only pissy one I see here is yourself.  Yeah, your missive is the epitome of grace. Whatever, man. Seriously, go get drunk and laid. You're wound up too tight and just looking for a fight where there is none. Or you're suffering from that inherent ability of yours to pick one without even trying. 
|
Posted: Fri Nov 30, 2012 6:14 pm
commanderkai commanderkai: desertdude desertdude: The world has spoken. The squirming from the anti palestinians is amusing to watch. Pray tell, since "Palestine" is now a state, does that mean the next rocket attack from Hamas means they're declaring war on Israel? States must actively suppress such war provoking activity, after all. No, it means when the next rocket attack hits a settlement, Palestine will be attacking itself.
|
Posts: 7835
Posted: Fri Nov 30, 2012 6:28 pm
Curtman Curtman: No, it means when the next rocket attack hits a settlement, Palestine will be attacking itself. Except...the rocket attacks made by Hamas were hitting as far as Tel Aviv. So, once again, if the Palestinians do not actively suppress Hamas/Islamic Jihad from continuing their wars with Israel (and it's highly unlikely that they will), is Palestine now officially declaring war against Israel? Seriously, what do you think is going to happen? Even if, hypothetically, Israel pulls out of the West Bank settlements like they did with Gaza in 2005, and basically cuts the Palestinians off, are you accepting that any aggressive action, be it a terrorist bombing, rocket attack, or whatever else, be a cassus belli by Israel against Palestine?
|
Posts: 11907
Posted: Fri Nov 30, 2012 6:32 pm
Gunnair Gunnair: Or you're suffering from that inherent ability of yours to pick one without even trying.  Good night Gunny. 
|
Posted: Fri Nov 30, 2012 6:37 pm
commanderkai commanderkai: Curtman Curtman: No, it means when the next rocket attack hits a settlement, Palestine will be attacking itself. Except...the rocket attacks made by Hamas were hitting as far as Tel Aviv. So, once again, if the Palestinians do not actively suppress Hamas/Islamic Jihad from continuing their wars with Israel (and it's highly unlikely that they will), is Palestine now officially declaring war against Israel? Seriously, what do you think is going to happen? Even if, hypothetically, Israel pulls out of the West Bank settlements like they did with Gaza in 2005, and basically cuts the Palestinians off, are you accepting that any aggressive action, be it a terrorist bombing, rocket attack, or whatever else, be a cassus belli by Israel against Palestine? The Germans asked for a commitment about settlement expansion, and they didn't even respond. I dont think anyone asked for even removal of checkpoints let alone full withdrawal, or removing the blockade. Why is it in Canada's best interest to oppose recognition of Palestine and the two state solution, but claim to support the latter? Especially if you believe it makes them liable for rocket attacks.
|
Posts: 7835
Posted: Fri Nov 30, 2012 6:48 pm
Curtman Curtman: The Germans asked for a commitment about settlement expansion, and they didn't even respond. I dont think anyone asked for even removal of checkpoints let alone full withdrawal, or removing the blockade.
Why is it in Canada's best interest to oppose recognition of Palestine and the two state solution, but claim to support the latter? Especially if you believe it makes them liable for rocket attacks. And, in 2005, Israel unilaterally withdrew from Gaza, without any sort of peace agreement or accord in place. It has happened before, so the hypothetical scenario is possible. Not likely, especially how well Gaza worked out, but it's certainly possible. Interestingly enough, you didn't answer my question. Tel Aviv, an undisputed Israeli city, was hit by rockets from Gaza, that were launched by Hamas. If Palestine is recognized as an independent state by both the international community, and hell, even by Israel. If the Palestinians get the best case scenario (they won't, but it's a hypothetical scenario) in which settlements are withdrawn and disbanded, Israel gives up East Jerusalem, and disengages any military forces in the West Bank, and yet, rocket attacks continue against Israel proper, is that a cassus belli for Israel to go to war? Answer the question. Edit: Oh and to answer the question. No two state solution will ever be viable if the Palestinians allow Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and other groups to attack Israel. No sovereign state has any justification to tolerate such acts against its military or its civilian population.
|
Posts: 42160
Posted: Fri Nov 30, 2012 6:55 pm
and who do we recognize as the legitimate ruling party, Fatah or Hamas?
|
Posts: 7835
Posted: Fri Nov 30, 2012 7:02 pm
ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog: and who do we recognize as the legitimate ruling party, Fatah or Hamas? Oh oh! I know! Whoever can better oppress their religious and ethnic minorities, women, gays, and those who culturally consume anything non-Islamic? That seemingly is the trend these days in the Arab world. God the Middle East depresses me.
|
Posted: Fri Nov 30, 2012 7:08 pm
I vote against rocket attacks. $1: Tel Aviv, an undisputed Israeli city, was hit by rockets from Gaza, that were launched by Hamas. Gaza terrorists fire two rockets at Tel Aviv$1: 11/16/2012 The attacks mark the first time the center of the country was hit in the renewed violence from the Gaza Strip and the first time that a real siren was sounded in Tel Aviv since the Gulf War in the early 1990s. Palestinian Islamic Jihad took responsibility for the rocket on Tel Aviv. Are you sure about that? Palestine has to have a fair chance for a two state solution to work.
|
Posts: 42160
Posted: Fri Nov 30, 2012 7:23 pm
The Two state solution was implemented. Jordan and Israel. The Arabs were given 85% of of the land, or the lion's share of the territory.
|
Posts: 11907
Posted: Fri Nov 30, 2012 7:26 pm
ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog: The Two state solution was implemented. Jordan and Israel. The Arabs were given 85% of of the land, or the lion's share of the territory. It's also quite revealing that not a single "Islamic" nation ever accepted their Palestinian brothers for citizenship in their countries. 
|
Posted: Fri Nov 30, 2012 7:41 pm
ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog: The Two state solution was implemented. Jordan and Israel. The Arabs were given 85% of of the land, or the lion's share of the territory. Be sure and update the wiki page for us, will you? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-state_solution$1: History
The first proposal for the creation of Jewish and Arab states in the British Mandate of Palestine was made in the Peel Commission report of 1937, with the Mandate continuing to cover only a small area containing Jerusalem. The proposal was rejected by the Arab community of Palestine;[5][6] was accepted by most of the Jewish leadership; and the British government rejected partition as impracticable.[7] Partition was again proposed by the 1947 UN Partition plan for the division of Palestine. It proposed a three-way division, again with Jerusalem held separately, under international control. The partition plan was accepted by the Jewish leadership. However, the plan was rejected by the leadership of Arab nations and the Palestinian leadership at the time, which opposed any partition of Palestine and any Jewish presence in the area. The 1948 Arab-Israeli War for control of the disputed land broke out soon afterwards. The first indication that the PLO would be willing to accept a two-state solution, on at least an interim basis, was articulated by Said Hammami in the mid-1970s.[8][9] Security Council resolutions dating back to June 1976 supporting the two-state solution based on the pre-1967 lines were vetoed by the United States,[10] which argued that the borders must be negotiated directly by the parties. The idea has had overwhelming support in the UN General Assembly since the mid 1970s.[11] The Palestinian Declaration of Independence of 15 November 1988, which referenced the UN Partition Plan of 1947 and "UN resolutions since 1947" in general, was interpreted as an indirect recognition of the State of Israel, and support for a two-state solution. The Partition Plan was invoked to provide legitimacy to Palestinian statehood. Subsequent clarifications were taken to amount to the first explicit Palestinian recognition of Israel.[citation needed] Many Palestinians and Israelis, as well as the Arab League,[12] have stated that they would accept a 2-state solution based on 1949 Armistice Agreements. In a 2002 poll conducted by PIPA, 72% of both Palestinians and Israelis supported at that time a peace settlement based on the 1967 borders so long as each group could be reassured that the other side would be cooperative in making the necessary concessions for such a settlement.[13] However, a strong view is that neither side would be able to agree to a division that yielded the Temple Mount to the other side. As an attempt to break the stalemate, U.S. President Bill Clinton proposed dividing sovereignty of the site vertically - the ground and area below coming under Israeli sovereignty, while that above the ground (i.e. the Haram al-Sharif containing the Dome of the Rock and al-Aqsa Mosque) would be under Palestinian sovereignty. A similar idea was suggested for tunnels and elevated roads connecting communities. In the end neither side accepted the concept.[14]
Map of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, 2007. Agreeing on acceptable borders is a major difficulty with the two-state solution. In the late 1990s, considerable diplomatic work went into negotiating a two-state solution between the parties, beginning with the failed Madrid Conference in 1991. The most significant of these negotiations was the Oslo Accords, which officially divided Palestinian land into three administrative divisions and created the framework for how much of Israel's political borders with the Palestinian territories function today. The Accords culminated in the Camp David 2000 Summit, and follow-up negotiations at Taba in January 2001, but no final agreement was ever reached. The violent outbreak of the Second Intifada in 2000 had demonstrated the Palestinian public's disillusionment with the Oslo Accords and convinced many Israelis that the negotiations were in vain. Possible two-state solutions have been discussed by Saudi and US leaders.[15] In 2002, Crown Prince (now King) Abdullah of Saudi Arabia proposed the Arab Peace Initiative, which garnered the unanimous support of the Arab League. President Bush announced his support for a Palestinian state, opening the way for United Nations Security Council Resolution 1397,[16] supporting a two-state solution. Christian communities[who?] in Israel also back the solution. In a 2007 poll in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank by the Jerusalem Media & Communication Centre, 46.7% of respondents favored a two-state solution, followed by 26.5% for a binational state.[17] However support is lower among younger Palestinians; U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice noted: "Increasingly, the Palestinians who talk about a two-state solution are my age."[18] At the Annapolis Conference in November 2007, three major parties — The PLO, Israel, and The USA — agreed on a two-state solution as the outline for negotiations. Since entering office, Obama has halted the sale of advanced weapons to Israel while demanding that they withdraw from the entire West Bank so that a Palestinian state could be set up.[19] On June 4, 2009, US President Barack Obama delivered a major address to the Muslim world in Cairo, Egypt. In the speech, he reiterated US support for the two-state solution:[20] "For decades, there has been a stalemate: two peoples with legitimate aspirations, each with a painful history that makes compromise elusive. It is easy to point fingers – for Palestinians to point to the displacement brought by Israel’s founding, and for Israelis to point to the constant hostility and attacks throughout its history from within its borders as well as beyond. But if we see this conflict only from one side or the other, then we will be blind to the truth: the only resolution is for the aspirations of both sides to be met through two states, where Israelis and Palestinians each live in peace and security."
On June 14, 2009, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu gave a speech at Bar Ilan University endorsing the establishment of a Palestinian state west of the Jordan River, a first in his career. He proposed that the state have limited to no control of its own borders, military, airspace, or foreign relations, and that no Palestinians be allowed right of return to property in Israeli territory. Netanyahu also repeatedly called on the Palestinians to recognize Israel as a Jewish state.[21] In response to American and British criticism of a plan to demolish the Shepherd Hotel in East Jerusalem, Netanyahu publicly stated that "United Jerusalem is the capital of the Jewish people and the State of Israel," and "Israeli sovereignty in the city is indisputable." Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat countered that "[Netanyahu] knows very much that there will never be peace between Palestinians and Israelis without East Jerusalem being the capital of the Palestinian state."[22] In January 2011, Al-Jazeera began publishing several classified documents revealing that Abbas' government had offered unprecedented concessions of Palestinian land in secret negotiations with Israel. This shook public confidence in the Abbas government and prompted a ransacking of Al-Jazeera's Ramallah offices by pro-Fatah demonstrators.[23] Facing internal pressure over the Arab Spring and Al-Jazeera's publication of the "Palestine Papers", Abbas announced his intention to approach the United Nations and formally request statehood via a vote in the United Nations General Assembly — a vote he likely could have won due to 129 out of 192 UN Member Nations already partially or fully recognizing the State of Palestine.[24] However the Obama administration openly threatened to veto any attempts at Palestinian statehood brought before the Security Council.[25] Abbas' plan was ultimately scuttled when it became apparent that Palestine would not get the nine Security Council votes needed to bring the matter to a General Assembly vote.[26] These pressures have also prompted both Fatah and Hamas to try negotiating a reconciliation agreement that would allow for the formation of a unity government. Israel has repeatedly stated that it will not negotiate statehood with a Palestinian government that includes Hamas. On 19 May 2011, Obama stated that the 1967 borders with mutually agreed upon swaps should be the basis of the final agreement.[27] The EU said that they would back the United States position.[28] American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) Executive Director Howard Kohr replied that an even-handed approach would put Israel at a disadvantage and that it must be the Palestinians who make a positive step forward.[29] $1: In 2011 Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad said that if Israel did not cede all the 1967 territories, then the Palestinians would have no alternative to seeking Israeli citizenship.
|
Posts: 7835
Posted: Fri Nov 30, 2012 7:42 pm
Curtman Curtman: I vote against rocket attacks. $1: Tel Aviv, an undisputed Israeli city, was hit by rockets from Gaza, that were launched by Hamas. Gaza terrorists fire two rockets at Tel Aviv$1: 11/16/2012 The attacks mark the first time the center of the country was hit in the renewed violence from the Gaza Strip and the first time that a real siren was sounded in Tel Aviv since the Gulf War in the early 1990s. Palestinian Islamic Jihad took responsibility for the rocket on Tel Aviv. Are you sure about that? Oh no, I got the wrong terrorist group. I made a mistake, it was Islamic Jihad, and not Hamas that fired those two rockets into Tel Aviv. Wow, that certainly changes things.  I mean, it's highly unlikely Hamas would condone firing rockets into major cities... Two rockets land outside J'lem; two fired at TA$1: Hamas took credit for the attack, claiming to have shot "an improved Kassam," which it called an M-75, towards Jerusalem. The launch represents the first Hamas rocket attack aimed at Jerusalem. So let's go back to an earlier quote of yours, shall we? Curtman Curtman: No, it means when the next rocket attack hits a settlement, Palestine will be attacking itself. So, how again will Hamas rocket attacks would be stopped, in your view? Certainly they aren't firing into Israeli Gazan settlements that don't exist anymore and haven't since 2005. Considering the issue of Hamas/Islamic Jihad/Gaza Martyr Social Club (this one is a joke) will be rather important to Israel in any two-state solution, how do you solve this rather pressing issue? Curtman Curtman: Palestine has to have a fair chance for a two state solution to work. I can see you're not answering the damn question about the cassus belli, or is this attempt at an answer. So, what's "fair" for Israel? How many rocket attacks, terrorist bombings, and other aggressive action should Israel tolerate before it is allowed to protect it's people?
|
Posted: Fri Nov 30, 2012 7:55 pm
commanderkai commanderkai: Curtman Curtman: I vote against rocket attacks. $1: Tel Aviv, an undisputed Israeli city, was hit by rockets from Gaza, that were launched by Hamas. Gaza terrorists fire two rockets at Tel Aviv$1: 11/16/2012 The attacks mark the first time the center of the country was hit in the renewed violence from the Gaza Strip and the first time that a real siren was sounded in Tel Aviv since the Gulf War in the early 1990s. Palestinian Islamic Jihad took responsibility for the rocket on Tel Aviv. Are you sure about that? Oh no, I got the wrong terrorist group. I made a mistake, it was Islamic Jihad, and not Hamas that fired those two rockets into Tel Aviv. Wow, that certainly changes things.  I mean, it's highly unlikely Hamas would condone firing rockets into major cities... Two rockets land outside J'lem; two fired at TA$1: Hamas took credit for the attack, claiming to have shot "an improved Kassam," which it called an M-75, towards Jerusalem. The launch represents the first Hamas rocket attack aimed at Jerusalem. So let's go back to an earlier quote of yours, shall we? Curtman Curtman: No, it means when the next rocket attack hits a settlement, Palestine will be attacking itself. So, how again will Hamas rocket attacks would be stopped, in your view? Certainly they aren't firing into Israeli Gazan settlements that don't exist anymore and haven't since 2005. Considering the issue of Hamas/Islamic Jihad/Gaza Martyr Social Club (this one is a joke) will be rather important to Israel in any two-state solution, how do you solve this rather pressing issue? Curtman Curtman: Palestine has to have a fair chance for a two state solution to work. I can see you're not answering the damn question about the cassus belli, or is this attempt at an answer. So, what's "fair" for Israel? How many rocket attacks, terrorist bombings, and other aggressive action should Israel tolerate before it is allowed to protect it's people? From your article: $1: despite the IDF's continued air strikes on Gaza Is it an act of war, if war has already been declared? There has to be a Palestine first. If you are against that, you are against a two state solution.
Last edited by Curtman on Fri Nov 30, 2012 8:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.
|
|
Page 4 of 10
|
[ 146 posts ] |
Who is online |
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests |
|
|