I’m pretty tired of these threads but this “logic”, the crass vulgarity and ignorance implied in this statement is really borderline insanity.
Reminds me of another tribe called Serbs who had a motto of “wherever there’s a grave of a Serb - that is Serbia”.
Rock on dude :rolleyes:
You think referring to Jerusalem as the capital of Israel shows ignorance?
Why?
It is.
You might as well complain that it’s ignorant to refer to “Istanbul” and that we should only refer to it as "Constantinople.
Jerusalem has been around for thousands of years and the only time it was ever divided was between 1948 and 1967.
Yes when the status of that capital is going to be part of what gets negotiated.
Absolutely. If Fatah starts a suicide bombing campaign or started shooting rockets at Israel in the middle of negotiations then Israel would be entirely justified in halting negotiations.
Making peace with hamas is not quite the same. Israel will have to deal with hamas sooner or later. They aren’t going anywhere unless they get replaced by something even more virulent.
As has already been pointed out to you you were originally arguing over whether there had been a settlment freeze or not. Are you still claiming that Israel froze all settlemt building or do you now agree with me that they didn’t?
And as has also been pointed out to you Israel temporaily halting illegal construction on illegally occupied land is really difficult to describe as “giving away the store.”
You don’t read very closely, do you?
Regards,
Shodan
Exactly! The Far Right misses that point, and only wants to bash Obama.
Here’s another one. Just piling more irreverent stuff down everyone’s throats.
I don’t know what’s worse – pretending that you don’t understand the gist of my remark or that you don’t care and then continue drumming same line of irrelevant “logical thinking”.
But then again, I’m all for clarity (even though I find it insulting that I have to explain this) so let me be clear - building a settlement on a yet to be negotiated or on a (as is case with East Jerusalem) clearly illegally acquired land - the activity is provocative for that reason alone. It has nothing to do with a city being capital or not (even though insisting on making it capital city makes ethnic cleansing all that more understandable).
The obvious counter-point is that pretty well everyone knows what a final peace settlement is going to look like, and it will not include a divided Jerusalem - even Obama has publicly said as much. Insisting on that point remaining open, or no negotiations, is a non-starter - one may as well insist that the issue of the Israelis returning to the UN Partition Plan borders is ‘up for negotiation’, and so everything the Israelis are doing in the part the UN originally assigned to the Palestinians is a ‘provocation’.
It is barking at the moon to insist that the Israelis hand over part of their capital city as part of a peace deal over a war that they won. It is simply contrary to reality.
Obvious? Where do I get THOSE glasses?
So, you’re saying that while these settlements in E.J. may be illegal today one day when final deal is reached they will no longer be. Because, it’s obvious.
Yeah, that’s generally how borders move after a war, if they move.
The unusual aspect of this case is that there has been no deal since '67, for which we can directly thank the “Three Nos” policy pursued by the Arab nations.
If so, then Israel is simply not interested in peace. I knew that all along but it’s just nice that we got to that in a normal course of debate.
What motive Israel has to negotitate when with every new “war” more settlements grow and more land is grabbed?
Why bother, newcomer, really?
Israel’s not interested in a peace that involves giving up Jerusalem, no. That much has been pretty clear from the beginning. The West Bank settlements are up for negotiation. Jerusalem isn’t.
I dunno why you are using scare quotes around the word “war”. The 1967 “war” was a bonna fide war, as was that in '73.
Israel has, in point of fact, given up considerable land taken in war - for example, all of the Sinai, to Egypt. For which it received a peace deal.
It has also unilaterally abandoned the Gaza Strip.
What it will not do, and everyone who is seriously interested in the subject knows as much, is give away part of its capital city. That isn’t up for grabs (though pretty well everything else is).
Israel has every motive to negotiate - a continual state of non-peace isn’t doing it any good - and it has, in point of historical fact, attempted repeatedly to do so, in face of some pretty serious lack of interest on the part of the Arab nations (see for example the “3 Nos” policy, referenced previously). That at least some Arab nations are also interested is proved by the peace deal with Egypt, frequent loser in arab-israeli conflicts …
The recent Palestinian platform appears to be, basically, the “3 Nos” lite: claim to be interested in negotiation, but assume preconditions that make actual negotiation futile, and reject every compromise. Failing to recognize that the winner of the wars is not going to hand over part of its capital city to the losers is exactly the sort of lack-of-reality tactic that one would expect from this.
Newcomer since you’re insisting that Israel “illegally” obtained East Jerusalem from Jordan when Jordan invaded them, do you think that Jordan was “illegally occupying” East Jerusalem and the West Bank prior to the Six Day War?
If you don’t think Jordan had “illegally obtained” that land, please explain your reasoning.
But they will only agree to a peace that gives them almost everything they want and gives the Palestinians almost nothing they want? Do you expect that sort of peace to last longer than it takes for Palestinians to get powerful enough to extract a better deal?
And when the fuck was that? Back when the Democratic party was still the party of the KKK?
Have you heard of this?
I know I’ve mentioned it a few times.
So you think the answer is to keep kicking their ass until they accept the deal you are willing to give? What’s your point?
Wait. What?!? Stopping settlement activity in East Jerusalem is a precondition that makes negotiations futile? No, that’s ISRAEL making preconditions when it takes East Jeruslaem off the table. Lack of reality or not, expecting a lasting peace with the sort of conditions that Israel is insisting on is perhaps just as much of a lack of reality tactic.
Name 5 countries that recognize all of Jerusalem as part of Israel. Heck, name 3. There is a reason why all the embassies are in Tel Aviv.
And yet no one recognized East Jerusalem as part of Jordan, either. 
I didn’t realize you were newcomer.
That said, you completely ignored the question so I’ll ask again.
When Jordan had control of the West Bank and East Jerusalem had those territories been “illegally obtained”?
No. The deal that gave the Palestinians 95+% of what they wanted, that Arafat rejected, has already been mentioned. Similarly, Israel freezes settlements everywhere except in Jerusalem, and the Palestinians reject the deal.
The Palestinians are the ones expecting to get everything they want before negotiations begin. That’s not going to happen.
That seems to be how the Palestinians expect things to happen.
“Give us almost everything. Once we are strong enough, we will kill you and take the rest.” As mentioned - not gonna happen.
Regards,
Shodan