Israel vs Palestine

[Range_This11]

I don't claim to know much on the issue, but I highly doubt it's as simple as you're making it.

[ISREAL63]

I don't claim to know much on the issue, but I highly doubt it's as simple as you're making it.

it actually is pretty simple once you understand it I will explain in short Israel gave up the Gaza Strip to the Palestinians 2005 for the sake of peace but the Palestinians instead used it as a base for their terrorist attacks against Israel and then pretend like they hasn't fired 12,000 at Israel then they turn around and say "Would you kind enough to give us more land" just in a tone that sounds better

[Range_This11]

I'm glad someone was here to explain a centuries-old conflict in one sentence with no punctuation.

[1_man_army]

The Palestinian position on negotiation is quite correct - how can you sit and negotiate borders when one side is constantly expanding? Israel has encouraged settlers to build settlement after settlement in areas where they violate international law, taking the most useful and arable land and then the Palestinians are expected to sit at the negotiating table and concede even more land that is internationally recognised as theirs. Israel's problem is that a few months back they had Abbas by the short and curlies and Fatah were prepared to make huge concessions (as shown by the Wikileaks revelations) as long as the settlement expansion stopped but Netanyahu wanted to keep the expansion going and made Fatah's position untennable. Now with the Arab revolutions, Israel has a much less friendly Egypt who will be far less favourable in helping Israel in regards to the Palestinians and the Palestinian unity deal between Hamas & Fatah means that the huge concessions Fatah might have made are now a thing of the past.

 

Netanyahu definately overplayed his hand although I have a sneaking suspicion that Bibi is doing to these negotiations what he did to the Oslo accords during the 1990's. These negotiations are dead until at least the next Israeli election as I don't have faith in Bibi or a Knesset that has Avigdor Leiberman in it.

[ISREAL63]

I'm glad someone was here to explain a centuries-old conflict in one sentence with no punctuation.

 

i am sorry next time will spend more time on the punctuation then the facts

 

The Palestinian position on negotiation is quite correct - how can you sit and negotiate borders when one side is constantly expanding? Israel has encouraged settlers to build settlement after settlement in areas where they violate international law, taking the most useful and arable land and then the Palestinians are expected to sit at the negotiating table and concede even more land that is internationally recognised as theirs. Israel's problem is that a few months back they had Abbas by the short and curlies and Fatah were prepared to make huge concessions (as shown by the Wikileaks revelations) as long as the settlement expansion stopped but Netanyahu wanted to keep the expansion going and made Fatah's position untennable. Now with the Arab revolutions, Israel has a much less friendly Egypt who will be far less favourable in helping Israel in regards to the Palestinians and the Palestinian unity deal between Hamas & Fatah means that the huge concessions Fatah might have made are now a thing of the past.

 

Netanyahu definately overplayed his hand although I have a sneaking suspicion that Bibi is doing to these negotiations what he did to the Oslo accords during the 1990's. These negotiations are dead until at least the next Israeli election as I don't have faith in Bibi or a Knesset that has Avigdor Leiberman in it.

 

It isn't against international law for Israel to build on its own land not sure where you got that idea. It is Abbas's fault not Netanyahu that the last round of peace talks broke down there was a 10 month freeze set by Netanyahu to create talks when the freeze was coming to the end ( in the 10th month) Abbas said make it longer and i will talk how nice of him to remember last minute very convenient for him why could he talk at the beginning of the freeze?

 

Whats you problem with Avigdor Leiberman?

[Range_This11]

I didn't ask for your version anyways. I was just stating that saying the problem is that Palestine doesn't want to recognize a Jewish state is a gross oversimplification.

[das]

Great speech. I can't play devils advocate anymore!

[Jaffy1]

I read in an article once,that while Iran wants Israel to be wiped off the map,they still have a large amount of Jews living in Iran

 

i could be remembering it wrong but anyway....

 

I think it's worth noting that being a non-islamic person in countries like Iran means being treated like a second-class citizen.

Things like jizya tax come to mind... :thumbdown:

 

Anyway..

 

As Range_This11 implied, the lack of punctuation and continuous production one-sentence-posts by a certain individual here make for an annoying read.

 

As far as the Israel-Palestine issue is concerned, I believe that both sides are at fault in their violence. The killing of innocents is never acceptable.

Both have legit claims for the land, so it should be shared as such.

[ISREAL63]

I read in an article once,that while Iran wants Israel to be wiped off the map,they still have a large amount of Jews living in Iran

 

i could be remembering it wrong but anyway....

 

I think it's worth noting that being a non-islamic person in countries like Iran means being treated like a second-class citizen.

Things like jizya tax come to mind... :thumbdown:

 

Anyway..

 

As Range_This11 implied, the lack of punctuation and continuous production one-sentence-posts by a certain individual here make for an annoying read.

 

As far as the Israel-Palestine issue is concerned, I believe that both sides are at fault in their violence. The killing of innocents is never acceptable.

Both have legit claims for the land, so it should be shared as such.

 

Thanks for the advice i will try to keep it in mind

[1_man_army]

I'm glad someone was here to explain a centuries-old conflict in one sentence with no punctuation.

 

i am sorry next time will spend more time on the punctuation then the facts

 

The Palestinian position on negotiation is quite correct - how can you sit and negotiate borders when one side is constantly expanding? Israel has encouraged settlers to build settlement after settlement in areas where they violate international law, taking the most useful and arable land and then the Palestinians are expected to sit at the negotiating table and concede even more land that is internationally recognised as theirs. Israel's problem is that a few months back they had Abbas by the short and curlies and Fatah were prepared to make huge concessions (as shown by the Wikileaks revelations) as long as the settlement expansion stopped but Netanyahu wanted to keep the expansion going and made Fatah's position untennable. Now with the Arab revolutions, Israel has a much less friendly Egypt who will be far less favourable in helping Israel in regards to the Palestinians and the Palestinian unity deal between Hamas & Fatah means that the huge concessions Fatah might have made are now a thing of the past.

 

Netanyahu definately overplayed his hand although I have a sneaking suspicion that Bibi is doing to these negotiations what he did to the Oslo accords during the 1990's. These negotiations are dead until at least the next Israeli election as I don't have faith in Bibi or a Knesset that has Avigdor Leiberman in it.

 

 

It isn't against international law for Israel to build on its own land not sure where you got that idea. It is Abbas's fault not Netanyahu that the last round of peace talks broke down there was a 10 month freeze set by Netanyahu to create talks when the freeze was coming to the end ( in the 10th month) Abbas said make it longer and i will talk how nice of him to remember last minute very convenient for him why could he talk at the beginning of the freeze?

 

Whats you problem with Avigdor Leiberman?

 

Netanyahu would have got a much more favourable settlement (from Israel's point of view) if he had kept the settlement freeze going until negotiations were finished. However, he knew Fatah couldn't keep Palestinian public behind him (which is essential in any deal) if settling continued. Abbas knew he couldn't make any deal without the support of his own public so he sensibly backed off, the only other option was to make a hollow agreement that he knew would not have Palestinian public back which ultimately could have pushed the Palestinians even further towards Hamas and/or a third Intifada.

 

Israel's definition of its borders and the definations of it's land under international law differ radically as I'm sure you know. And if I need to go into why Lieberman is a clown then I think this conversation is over:

 

Try this as a vague starting point - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avigdor_Lieberman#Controversies

[ISREAL63]

 

Netanyahu would have got a much more favourable settlement (from Israel's point of view) if he had kept the settlement freeze going until negotiations were finished. However, he knew Fatah couldn't keep Palestinian public behind him (which is essential in any deal) if settling continued. Abbas knew he couldn't make any deal without the support of his own public so he sensibly backed off, the only other option was to make a hollow agreement that he knew would not have Palestinian public back which ultimately could have pushed the Palestinians even further towards Hamas and/or a third Intifada.

 

Israel's definition of its borders and the definations of it's land under international law differ radically as I'm sure you know. And if I need to go into why Lieberman is a clown then I think this conversation is over:

 

Try this as a vague starting point - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avigdor_Lieberman#Controversies

 

Why did Abbas wait for the end of the freeze he should of tried in the beginning to talk not at the end, he asked for another freeze in which he would consider talking. Israel's definition is the one that count when it comes to its borders see it that is theirs not Obamas

 

I am sorry you problem with Lieberman, is that he called Arab members of the Knesset that meet with Hamas as "terror collaborators", they are why are they talking to a terror organization sworn to Israels destruction. Or that he threatened the Palestinian Authority to halt all terrorist activity or face wide-ranging attacks he is right Israel has a right to defend itself

[1_man_army]

I am sorry you problem with Lieberman, is that he called Arab members of the Knesset that meet with Hamas as "terror collaborators", they are why are they talking to a terror organization sworn to Israels destruction. Or that he threatened the Palestinian Authority to halt all terrorist activity or face wide-ranging attacks he is right Israel has a right to defend itself

 

What about his threat to flatten every single business in Ramallah or his allusions to Hiroshima & Nagasaki or his statements regarding drowning prisoners in the Dead Sea? Is this how a major political figure in a democratic country is supposed to behave? No, the man is almost the Israeli equivalent of Ismail Haniyeh (another screw-loose so-called politician who is a barrier to peace).

[Nomrombom]

I don't even... What is "ISREAL63" (lol isreal) saying? I cannot begin to decipher such gibberish...

[The_Gabe]

I don't even... What is "ISREAL63" (lol isreal) saying? I cannot begin to decipher such gibberish...

 

Cut the crap. Half the stuff you say doesn't make any sense.

[ISREAL63]

 

What about his threat to flatten every single business in Ramallah or his allusions to Hiroshima & Nagasaki or his statements regarding drowning prisoners in the Dead Sea? Is this how a major political figure in a democratic country is supposed to behave? No, the man is almost the Israeli equivalent of Ismail Haniyeh (another screw-loose so-called politician who is a barrier to peace).

 

Last i check he was one of 120 members of the Israeli government. Hamas the terrorist organization that has one sole purpose and that is to destroy Israel at all cost meaning sending their children as suicide bombers to blow them selves up, is half of the Palestinian government. You can't even compare Lieberman to Ismail Haniyeh, Ismail Haniyeh is a terrorist head of the hamas terror organization. Lieberman is a member of the Israeli government voted in by democracy not like Ismail Haniyeh who took control by force. Murdering anyone who stood in his way. So if you are claiming that Lieberman is a terrorist instead of a member of a democratic government then that is wrong. Also you are saying that the barrier for peace is Lieberman? He isn't part of a terrorist organization. The Palestinian Authority is part of a government with a terrorist organization, that sounds like the true barrier here.

 

I don't even... What is "ISREAL63" (lol isreal) saying? I cannot begin to decipher such gibberish...

 

So you can't accept the truth? if you read before my user name and Israel have nothing to do with one another. So why don't you bring proof instead of attacking me.

[Zierro]

We can bring up stories about groups that wronged other groups all day long, but the bottom line is it's just two religions going at it. How is the issue to be resolved without a mutual religious understanding?

 

I saw a stupid bumper sticker one day. It said "Coexistence" and the letters were made up of religious icons (t was a cross). Just one question. How are you supposed to accomplish that when the doctrines of religion X say to destroy religion Y and take religion Z's land? Personally you can believe in whatever god you want, but given the huge differentiation of mankind's interpretations of religion, you're pretty much just a self-centered ethnocentric bigot if you don't make secular-based political decisions with mankind as a whole in mind.

[ISREAL63]

We can bring up stories about groups that wronged other groups all day long, but the bottom line is it's just two religions going at it. How is the issue to be resolved without a mutual religious understanding?

 

I saw a stupid bumper sticker one day. It said "Coexistence" and the letters were made up of religious icons (t was a cross). Just one question. How are you supposed to accomplish that when the doctrines of religion X say to destroy religion Y and take religion Z's land? Personally you can believe in whatever god you want, but given the huge differentiation of mankind's interpretations of religion, you're pretty much just a self-centered ethnocentric bigot if you don't make secular-based political decisions with mankind as a whole in mind.

 

 

You are right there is 2 different beliefs, but one has tried to make peace and tried to Coexist. While the other one took the land that was given to them as a homeland and turned that land into a massive terrorist base with one goal to destroy Israel. So my question for you is what do you do when Israel wants peace and Hamas takes all it can get and then goes around and fires 12,000 rockets at its peace partner the one who is trying to Coexist with them? So what do you do when one wants peace and the other doesn't?

[Flodder450]

I will no longer post in this thread

[ISREAL63]

I will no longer post in this thread

 

and why is that?

[The_Gabe]

I will no longer post in this thread

 

I think we will live.

[1_man_army]

 

What about his threat to flatten every single business in Ramallah or his allusions to Hiroshima & Nagasaki or his statements regarding drowning prisoners in the Dead Sea? Is this how a major political figure in a democratic country is supposed to behave? No, the man is almost the Israeli equivalent of Ismail Haniyeh (another screw-loose so-called politician who is a barrier to peace).

 

Last i check he was one of 120 members of the Israeli government. Hamas the terrorist organization that has one sole purpose and that is to destroy Israel at all cost meaning sending their children as suicide bombers to blow them selves up, is half of the Palestinian government. You can't even compare Lieberman to Ismail Haniyeh, Ismail Haniyeh is a terrorist head of the hamas terror organization. Lieberman is a member of the Israeli government voted in by democracy not like Ismail Haniyeh who took control by force. Murdering anyone who stood in his way. So if you are claiming that Lieberman is a terrorist instead of a member of a democratic government then that is wrong. Also you are saying that the barrier for peace is Lieberman? He isn't part of a terrorist organization. The Palestinian Authority is part of a government with a terrorist organization, that sounds like the true barrier here.

 

To say that Lieberman is just 1 of 120 members of government is factually correct but somewhat misleading. He is the Israeli foreign minister which gives him a key policy making role in that area and his party props up the current Israeli government which means he has a huge sway over all areas of policy making (not just in his personal ministerial remit of foreign policy). He effectively has a big veto over major government policy since pulling his party out of the coalition would lead to its collapse.

 

I agree that Haniyeh is a deplorable individual and I disagree with his actions and extreme views however, his party was the largest after the 2006 Palestinian legislative which obviously lead to the Battle of Gaza in 2007 where they forcibly took Gaza. So to say they have no democratic mandate is somewhat insincere regardless of how terrible that thought is. They are comparible in some of their equivalent opinions on the other side. Some of Lieberman's utterances cannot help remind me of Haniyeh at times. This doesn't mean I'm calling Lieberman a terrorist or accusing him of shooting rockets into Gaza - that is why I deliberately used the word almost in my original post. I consider both men as huge barriers to peace.

[TrueBeaver]

Didn't read the whole topic, but I don't think it's any question that Israel is the more peace-receptive of the pair. If I recall correctly, Israel and Jordon were called Transjordan under the British Empire, then were split along the Jordan River - Israel to be Jewish, Jordan to be Muslim. But since that strip of land has been fought over for thousands of years [cabbage] didn't go according to plan. Israel gave up the Sinai in order to secure "peace" with Egypt - meaning instead of a conventional war they get bomb and rocket attacks from weapons smuggled through the Sinai. In 2000 they left Lebanon, only to get mortared and rocketed by Hezbollah. More recently, they've left Gaza, frozen settlement building, etc in the hope the Palestinians will come to the table which of course hasn't happened. They were the first side (to my knowledge) to concede that a two-state system would be acceptable. I'm sure I'm leaving out quite a bit, it's been awhile since I brushed up on this.

 

That said, the land has always been fought over and likely will always be fought over. There are atrocities on both sides and neither side is innocent. (obvious statement of the century?)

[ISREAL63]

To say that Lieberman is just 1 of 120 members of government is factually correct but somewhat misleading. He is the Israeli foreign minister which gives him a key policy making role in that area and his party props up the current Israeli government which means he has a huge sway over all areas of policy making (not just in his personal ministerial remit of foreign policy). He effectively has a big veto over major government policy since pulling his party out of the coalition would lead to its collapse.

 

I agree that Haniyeh is a deplorable individual and I disagree with his actions and extreme views however, his party was the largest after the 2006 Palestinian legislative which obviously lead to the Battle of Gaza in 2007 where they forcibly took Gaza. So to say they have no democratic mandate is somewhat insincere regardless of how terrible that thought is. They are comparible in some of their equivalent opinions on the other side. Some of Lieberman's utterances cannot help remind me of Haniyeh at times. This doesn't mean I'm calling Lieberman a terrorist or accusing him of shooting rockets into Gaza - that is why I deliberately used the word almost in my original post. I consider both men as huge barriers to peace.

 

Now i see what you are saying, basically they both believe in their ideas and stand by them. One more radical then the other but other then that they have a similar goal to succeed in what the believe in. Am i correct? if yes i agree but Lieberman hasn't harmed the peace proses like the leader of the terrorist organization run by Haniyeh.

 

Didn't read the whole topic, but I don't think it's any question that Israel is the more peace-receptive of the pair. If I recall correctly, Israel and Jordon were called Transjordan under the British Empire, then were split along the Jordan River - Israel to be Jewish, Jordan to be Muslim. But since that strip of land has been fought over for thousands of years [cabbage] didn't go according to plan. Israel gave up the Sinai in order to secure "peace" with Egypt - meaning instead of a conventional war they get bomb and rocket attacks from weapons smuggled through the Sinai. In 2000 they left Lebanon, only to get mortared and rocketed by Hezbollah. More recently, they've left Gaza, frozen settlement building, etc in the hope the Palestinians will come to the table which of course hasn't happened. They were the first side (to my knowledge) to concede that a two-state system would be acceptable. I'm sure I'm leaving out quite a bit, it's been awhile since I brushed up on this.

 

That said, the land has always been fought over and likely will always be fought over. There are atrocities on both sides and neither side is innocent. (obvious statement of the century?)

 

You basically got it. Israel gave up the Sinai for peace and so far has for the most part Egypt has kept its word to make peace with israel. Israel also signed a peace treaty with Jordan with is also kept till this day. Israel then gave up the Gaza strip to promote peace with the Palestinians but has not received peace instead it has been bombarded with 12,000 rockets and has had a solider kidnapped it is a long list of terror attacks. Even though the Palestinians failed to keep peace with israel in the Gaza strip Israel went along anyways and tried to create peace in the west bank, so it had a settlement freeze for 10 months in hope to renew the peace talks, Abbas head of the PLO decide after 9 months of the freeze that if israel would continue the freeze he would consider talking peace. What happen the first 9 months of the freeze? Why was he stalling?

 

Israel has tried many ways to create peace only to have it shot down. I don't believe Israel is at fault here can you give me a example why israel would be at fault?

[Nomrombom]

I don't even... What is "ISREAL63" (lol isreal) saying? I cannot begin to decipher such gibberish...

 

Cut the crap. Half the stuff you say doesn't make any sense.

 

>Has a different opinion and attempts to explain said opinion

>Obviously makes no sense

 

And anyway, I can't read what he's saying. It makes no sense because he has no grasp of basic punctuation or grammar, whereas I do.

[Nifflin]

First, I would like to give some background about me personally. I've lived in Jordan for the past three years. Most of the people living in Jordan currently are Palestinian. I used to support the state of Israel, but after living here I do not anymore. I have no hatred towards Jews or the Jewish faith, just the concept of Zionism disgusts me.

 

Here is why. I've met many, many Palestinians. They are a peaceful people, they are the kindest I have ever met and extremely welcoming to me, an American. What is important to keep in mind is that Palestinians are also extremely emotional. It upsets them very much to have been abused by the Israelis like they have. Or to know that their families who did not leave do not have basic human freedoms.

 

I've visited the refugee camps where people have the keys to their former homes on necklaces. Homes that their grandparents were evicted from by gunpoint. The stories I heard of persecution troubled me. It's not a Jewish versus Muslim thing either. What people don't realize is that there are many Christian Palestinians as well. The Zionists have murdered many Christians as well as Muslims. They aren't welcoming to anyone else in their state. They can't be, the way birthrates are if Israel allowed Christians and Muslims to be citizens then the Jews would be outnumbered within a century. Democratic? Bah, they are only democratic as long as they do not accept other religions in their country. That kind of defeats the purpose of a democracy.

 

As for the terrorist methods of the Palestinians, it is important to note that the original Zionists used extremely similar methods. In order to persuade the British to support the formation of Israel the Zionists killed many British civilians. The most notable time this happened was the King David Hotel bombing. Desperate people resort to desperate methods.

 

I can't predict what a solution to the situation would entail. However I can say that I feel what has happened to the Palestinians is very unjust and even reminiscent of the persecution that Jews have faced in the past. Just as the child who is beaten at home becomes a sadistic bully when he enters the schoolyard, so have the Israelis reenacted their own abuse on the Palestinians.

 

Edit: I've also had many experiences when visiting Israel of people being rude after seeing my dad, who has darker skin like an Arab (he is Italian) or being rude after finding out I live in Jordan. These contrast with visiting a Palestinian refugee camp and having people invite me into their makeshift hovels for tea.

 

Edit2: Also, in Jordan, which is majority Palestinian there are Jews. One close friend of mine is one. Jordanian Jews who live here without encountering too many problems. I know there are significant amounts of Jews in Yemen and Egypt too. They coexist peacefully because most Arabs make the distinction between Jews, who they tolerate and Zionists, who commit crimes against humanity.

 

Edit3: I'm interested to see what Gabe and Isreal have to say about my post. I look forward to their replies.