[Public_Domain]

[commanderkai]

Curtman Curtman:

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?

You're right, they were already engaged in hostile activity. The fucking subheading states 420 rockets were fired before the ones that landed near Jerusalem. Seriously, are you trying to squirm out of it? Let me repeat the questions, in case you missed it. Answer my questions to you.

Me, for the second time Me, for the second time:

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?

Me, for for the second time with the exact wording Me, for for the second time with the exact wording:

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If the Palestinians get the best case scenario (they won't, but it's a hypothetical scenario) in which settlements are withdrawn and disbanded, Israel gives up East Jerusalem, and disengages any military forces in the West Bank, and yet, rocket attacks continue against Israel proper, is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?

[Curtman]

commanderkai commanderkai:

Me, for the second time Me, for the second time:

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?

What's fair for Israel is to gobble up Palestine piece by piece, and divide whats left up with checkpoints? It's fair for Palestine to resist that I think. As long as the cards are stacked against them and the rules are set up for them to lose there's no point in playing the game.

If there was a Palestine, and it attacked Israel, it would be an act of war in my opinion, deserving of a response. I hope that is direct enough of an answer.

commanderkai commanderkai:

Me, for for the second time with the exact wording Me, for for the second time with the exact wording:

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?

There cant be an act of war if there's no state to do it. Why oppose that?

What's fair for Israel is Israel's business. What's fair for Palestine? There is no Palestine if John Baird has his way. Sure it's an act of war in your scenario unless Israel fires first. But your scenario is fantasy without a Palestine.

Why should Canada oppose that, and why shouldn't I be pissed that Canada supports settlement expansion in what the U.N. recognizes as Palestine?

Nevermind the argument for justice,

Why is Canada beholden to Israel?

[commanderkai]

Curtman Curtman:

commanderkai commanderkai:

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?

What's fair for Israel is to gobble up Palestine piece by piece, and divide whats left up with checkpoints? It's fair for Palestine to resist that I think. As long as the cards are stacked against them and the rules are set up for them to lose there's no point in playing the game.

If there was a Palestine, and it attacked Israel, it would be an act of war in my opinion, deserving of a response. I hope that is direct enough of an answer.

So you accept the premise that it would be difficult for a state of Palestine to exist if Hamas/Islamic Jihad/etc. aren't dealt with first? If any terrorist group continues to strike Israel after Palestine is formed as a state, and the Palestinian government does not combat said groups, we'll just wind up in the same situation as we are today.

Curtman Curtman:

commanderkai commanderkai:

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?

There cant be an act of war if there's no state to do it. Why oppose that?

First, the Palestinian territories getting non-member observer status does not create a state of Palestine. This really doesn't change anything strategically. The Palestinians can now chirp and squawk for themselves, instead of getting the rest of the Arab world to do it for them.

Secondly, and the one Baird quite succinctly addressed in his speech to the UN, how exactly would a unilateral Palestinian decision like this somehow make Israel decide "Oh, well shit, they went to the U.N., they're now a state! Let's completely withdrawal to 1967 borders, end the settlements, end the checkpoints, and whatever else we do in the West Bank!" Oh, it won't? This might even piss off Israel's government even more, and unilaterally decide a few more checkpoints might be needed, the Israel border wall must be moved a few inches into the West Bank, or that suddenly the water and electricity that Israel provides to the West Bank might have some delivery issues?

You see how unilateral decisions by the Palestinians might just fuck their position even more, instead of just having a few bilateral talks?

$1:

What's fair for Israel is Israel's business. What's fair for Palestine? There is no Palestine if John Baird has his way. Sure it's an act of war in your scenario unless Israel fires first. But your scenario is fantasy without a Palestine.

Pray tell, when Israel made peace with Jordan, and Egypt, did Israel break the peace agreements with either state? No? So why should I worry about Israel breaking a peace agreement with a sovereign country now? If a state of Palestine existed, I don't see Israel firing first, due to their history of keeping peace agreements with its neighbors.

$1:

Why should Canada oppose that, and why shouldn't I be pissed that Canada supports settlement expansion in what the U.N. recognizes as Palestine?

What is Canada opposing? It states quite clearly that a two-state solution is necessary, but unilateral action by either side is unjustified. I don't see how Canada "supports" settlement expansion, either.

Canada condemns Israeli settlement expansion From August 2012

As referred to in UN Security Council Resolutions 446 and 465, Israeli settlements in the occupied territories are a violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention. The settlements also constitute a serious obstacle to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace. Last modified November 2012.

Well, shit. There's your argument torpedoed.

$1:

Nevermind the argument for justice,

Why is Canada beholden to Israel?

It's not? Just because Canada supports Israel more than it has in the past, does not make us somehow duty bound to. If we were in lockstep with Israel, we would not care about settlements. We would not give aid to the Palestinians. So on So forth.

[Curtman]

$1:

Saturday 1 December 2012 13.34 GMT
Britain and the US have warned that Israel's plans to build new housing settlements in the West Bank would damage the prospect of creating a two-state solution to its conflict with the Palestinians.
...
"I am extremely concerned by reports that the Israeli cabinet plans to approve the building of 3,000 new housing units in illegal settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem," Hague said. "Israeli settlements are illegal under international law and undermine trust between the parties. If implemented, these plans would alter the situation on the ground on a scale that makes the two-state solution, with Jerusalem as a shared capital, increasingly difficult to achieve.
...
Meanwhile, one of six Palestinians who were shot by Israeli troops on Friday, while protesting at the Gaza Strip boundary fence died this morning, according to hospital officials. The 21-year-old man had been demonstrating near the southern town of Rafah.

It's nice that the Israelis want to build homes for the Palestinians 'eh?

You don't consider the unilateral action by Israel to build a 3000 home settlement in Palestine, an affront to a two state solution?

If you oppose recognition of Palestine, you oppose a two state solution. There is no spin you can manufacture to make that less true.

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Palest ... z2DoSGuiVg

$1:

Sitting behind a nameplate saying "State of Palestine" for the first time, Mansour called Thursday's overwhelming vote in the assembly to raise the Palestinians' status to a nonmember observer state historic for his people and the United Nations.

Mansour said Israeli settlement building, attacks like the recent bombings in Gaza and violations of international law and Palestinian rights must be stopped immediately.

In pressing for the statehood resolution, Mansour said the Palestinians were contributing to saving the two-state solution where Israel and Palestine can live side by side in peace, and to opening doors for the possibility of creating an atmosphere conducive to negotiations with Israel that would end the occupation that started in 1967 and "allow for the independence of our state."

He said the choice is up to Israel.

"If they want to move in the direction of peace, the message of our president was crystal clear yesterday," Mansour said. "Again, our hand is extended in peace but we need the other side to reciprocate in the same spirit."

[desertdude]

I can hear the knickers knotting all the way from here

[ShepherdsDog]

Curtman Curtman:

commanderkai commanderkai:

Me, for the second time Me, for the second time:

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?

What's fair for Israel is to gobble up Palestine piece by piece, and divide whats left up with checkpoints? It's fair for Palestine to resist that I think. As long as the cards are stacked against them and the rules are set up for them to lose there's no point in playing the game.

If there was a Palestine, and it attacked Israel, it would be an act of war in my opinion, deserving of a response. I hope that is direct enough of an answer.

commanderkai commanderkai:

Me, for for the second time with the exact wording Me, for for the second time with the exact wording:

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?

There cant be an act of war if there's no state to do it. Why oppose that?

What's fair for Israel is Israel's business. What's fair for Palestine? There is no Palestine if John Baird has his way. Sure it's an act of war in your scenario unless Israel fires first. But your scenario is fantasy without a Palestine.

Why should Canada oppose that, and why shouldn't I be pissed that Canada supports settlement expansion in what the U.N. recognizes as Palestine?

Nevermind the argument for justice,

Why is Canada beholden to Israel?

So you support the Reconquista/Aztlán movement too? California all the way to Texas should be returned to Mexico?

[desertdude]

And what does Israel do in response. But of course steal even more land

http://news.yahoo.com/israel-moves-buil ... 18394.html

[EyeBrock]

"There is no other course open to us but to fight it out. Every position must be held to the last man: there must be no retirement. With our backs to the wall and believing in the justice of our cause each one of us must fight on to the end. The safety of our homes and the Freedom of mankind alike depend upon the conduct of each one of us at this critical moment."

I think the Israelis might do one of these. They don't have any choice in the only country in the Middle East where a choice is an option for their people. Choice and freedom vs rule by thugs on motorbikes dragging mulitlated bodies through 'Free Gaza'.

No surprise to see the same cheerleaders who probably danced in the streets with the Palestinians as aircraft flew into the twin towers killing thousands, supporting this UN proposal.

[Curtman]

ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:

So you support the Reconquista/Aztlán movement too? California all the way to Texas should be returned to Mexico?

Once the Americans stop building settlements in Mexico, there can be peace. Imagine the nerve of those Mexicans for wanting someone to recognize their country as their own.

Idiot.

[martin14]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

"There is no other course open to us but to fight it out. Every position must be held to the last man: there must be no retirement. With our backs to the wall and believing in the justice of our cause each one of us must fight on to the end. The safety of our homes and the Freedom of mankind alike depend upon the conduct of each one of us at this critical moment."

I think the Israelis might do one of these. They don't have any choice in the only country in the Middle East where a choice is an option for their people. Choice and freedom vs rule by thugs on motorbikes dragging mulitlated bodies through 'Free Gaza'.

No surprise to see the same cheerleaders who probably danced in the streets with the Palestinians as aircraft flew into the twin towers killing thousands, supporting this UN proposal.

You might be right, it seems no one in Israel really gives a hoot about the peace process anymore.

So they will do what they want, Barry will be gone in 3 years anyway, the IDF
will get some live fire exercise from time to time, and if the Egyptians
start getting too noisy, well the Israelis have good maps of the Sinai.

The Iranians will get ONE nuke in, and then they will be the ones wiped off
the map, ass to glass.

Next election in January, we'll see what's up then.

[ShepherdsDog]

Curtman Curtman:

ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:

So you support the Reconquista/Aztlán movement too? California all the way to Texas should be returned to Mexico?

Once the Americans stop building settlements in Mexico, there can be peace. Imagine the nerve of those Mexicans for wanting someone to recognize their country as their own.

Idiot.

Awwww, I'm so hurt. It's not too late for you to go back to high school and learn some real history, and maybe even get your diploma.

$1:

You might be right, it seems no one in Israel really gives a hoot about the peace process anymore.

No they're interested in peace, but they want to discuss it with people who are serious about it. A large segment of Israeli society would like to see the settlers repatriated, or just set free to fend for themselves. The Dove movement has taken a serious beating over the past 20 years. Many are resigned to the fact that they will lose Judea and Samaria to the Jordanians, however, they aren't the ones in power right now. Likud and their ulta religious allies are calling the shots...literally

[commanderkai]

ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:

No they're interested in peace, but they want to discuss it with people who are serious about it. A large segment of Israeli society would like to see the settlers repatriated, or just set free to fend for themselves. The Dove movement has taken a serious beating over the past 20 years. Many are resigned to the fact that they will lose Judea and Samaria to the Jordanians, however, they aren't the ones in power right now. Likud and their ulta religious allies are calling the shots...literally

Depends on the settlers. The ones deep within the West Bank, Israel will probably pull a Gaza pullout on them when the time comes. The "settlers" within East Jerusalem or hugging the "1967" line (something that always pissed me off. I really don't see why Israel should pull back to the pre-67 borders. They won't. Any negotiation with that in mind will fail) will be annexed into Israel proper, and no, the international community/the U.N. won't change that.

Seriously, once Israel completes its border wall in the West Bank, it won't be moving, ever. The Palestinians fucked their chances after the Second Intifada, and even moreso after the 2005 Gaza pullout. I can't blame the Israelis for being hugely cynical anymore.

[FieryVulpine]

desertdude desertdude:

And what does Israel do in response. But of course steal even more land

http://news.yahoo.com/israel-moves-buil ... 18394.html

Considering that the Arabs stole the land in the 7th century, turnabout is fair play.

[Gunnair]

FieryVulpine FieryVulpine:

desertdude desertdude:

And what does Israel do in response. But of course steal even more land

http://news.yahoo.com/israel-moves-buil ... 18394.html

Considering that the Arabs stole the land in the 7th century, turnabout is fair play.

Oh come on. Did you support the Mohawks in Caledonia too?