Even if he doesn’t, to the rest of us it’s ‘clear as day’, so to speak…
-XT
I get what you’re saying, that if the Palestinian government can’t control what is going on in their borders then Israel cannot deal with them. That’s sensible, but is simplistic. Good thing I also suggested the Palestinians shoot mothers in the middle of the street for praising their terrorist sons. You see it all evens out
Post #207, eighth suggestion
Which ones? I thought I did
Uh, I did. In fact, to make up for all the shit they’ve been thinking about Jews over the past few decades, I think they should change their history to be biased in favor of Jews. Just to even things out a bit
Everybody says that, I don’t really believe it. The question can be rephrased. Something like “Are you willing to accept a peace settlement if it means the number of attacks would be reduced significantly, but not eliminated?” After all, we can’t completely eliminate attacks, not with such a volatile region and emotions running rampant.
Because the OP asked for suggestions on what people think should be done. My suggestion was that each side needs to make sacrifices of their own volition.
I disagree. As the more powerful party, Israel is more capable of making the first move and more capable of getting their more reasonable citizens to accept it. I consider the Palestinian terrorists and suicide bombers to be no smarter than dogs. They’re not self-starters. They have to be led around by their necks and shown how to behave before they will behave themselves.
Not to the extent that I think it should be tried.
According to U.N. Resolution #278176 Article B Section XXVII Subsection IV Addendum II, all threads on the Mideast conflict must produce a consensus on how to end strife* by the 10th page.
Y’all is running out of time.
*this only applies to the thread itself.
Then how about “kill them all and let God sort them out”?
Regards,
Shodan
Well the British government didn’t continue to throw Catholics out of their homes and take over Catholic land on an ongoing basis during the time they were supposedly trying for peace. They didn’t help the even more radical terrorist groups establish themselves to provide competition to the IRA to try and weaken their position, like Israel did with Hamas to weaken the PLO. They didn’t build separation barriers between Catholics and Protestants with 250 000 Catholics on the Protestant side of the wall, now living on Protestant land. Senior British officials have never admitted that they were never serious about the peace process and that they were a “pretext” not to have to enter into serious negotiations. They didn’t constantly move the goalposts, refuse to talk to the main Catholic representative on the basis that he was a former terrorist (even though until they elected war criminal Ariel Sharon the Palestinians had only ever had former Israeli terrorist leaders to talk to) and demand an elected representative to talk to, then when the elected representative was somebody they didn’t like refuse to talk to him.
The Clinton-Barak attempt is a good example. You have the Israeli line that they offered 97% which, at least in American media, was accepted as fact by pretty much everybody. But then you have former Clinton officials eventually admitting all three parties were to blame (and since the Clintons took office Israel have had a de facto veto on who gets appointed to any US government position that involved Israel, so any US official is automatically pro-Israel) and you have occasional pieces of journalism that make the same point using a variety of sources.
In reality, Palestinian officials and American sources – the latter wisely avoiding Israeli condemnation by talking anonymously – have pointed out that the figure of 96 per cent represented the percentage of the land over which Israel was prepared to negotiate – not 96 per cent of the entire West Bank and Gaza Strip.
Left out of the equation was Arab east Jerusalem – illegally annexed by Israel after the 1967 Arab-Israeli Six Day War – the huge belt of Jewish settlements, including Male Adumim, around the city and a 10-mile wide military buffer zone around the Palestinian territories.
Along with the obligation to lease back settlements – built illegally under international law on Arab land – to Israel for 25 years, the total Palestinian land from which Israel was prepared to withdraw came to only around 46 per cent – a far cry from the 96 per cent touted after Camp David.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/barak-shares-blame-for-camp-david-failure-says-clinton-aide-678667.html
It’s amazing that people can even ask this question. You have a country that’s continued the longest military occupation/ongoing land theft in contemporary history against the demands of the international community and international law and who continue to ratchet up the severity of it, including collective punishment, a country that continues to steal land and resources on an ongoing basis from the other side, and for a number of people in the United States these people are men of peace. The majority of the civilised world thinks otherwise. The majority of Europeans consider Israel to be the greatest threat to world peace because of the continued abomination of the occupation. America gave up any attempt at using military force in Iraq after a couple of years, realising it was self-defeating. The democratically-elected Iraqi government even accepted the right of the insurgency to resist the occupation and weren’t branded “terrorists” by their US partners for doing so. Yet Israel are given full diplomatic cover to avoid UN sanctions and carry on a brutal occupation for as long as they want, and because of they’re free of any consequences for their actions they’re regularly committing war crimes against the Palestinians. Yet there are still some people who see Israel as the good guy in this situation.
In your own mind I’m sure you really did factually refute something. But simply parroting the only thing you know about the various peace attempts doesn’t win you any arguments either.
So, are (or were) the Palestinians prepared to get what they could out of the deal, or was holding out for everything their only strategy? How’s that working out for them?
Ahhhhh, the “Nyeh nyeh I can’t heaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaar you!” gambit.
See, the fun thing is that the facts I used are, ya know, facts. And you’ve already admitted that you’re beaten because, just like the last time I eviscerated your caricature with facts, you are both unable and unwilling to address let alone refute my factual claims and instead try to change the subject with typical ad hominem crap.
Your cites’ bias is, of course, again evident. It vomits forth a claim that Israel was somehow wrong and “illegal” to not negotiate on East Jerusalem… while ignoring that the Palestinians never had any sovereign or private property rights to the whole area, and they only ever had a claim to it because of Jordan’s equally “illegal” occupation of Jerusalem. Evidently Israel must simply give up East Jerusalem to the Arabs because they want it, even though they have no property rights to it, or else it’s “illegal”. But it’s not “illegal” for Palestinians to own it, ya know, just cuz.
Of course, your argument’s stock in trade is fiction and misinformation.
[
](Clinton Bridging Proposals for Final Palestine-Israel Peace Settlement)
Of course, this echoes exactly what Dennis Ross said. You echo what Arafat said.
I know who I trust more.
Predictably, you are ignoring Taba and the Bridging Proposal. One which said, gee look,
Wow, so they did offer East Jerusalem to the Palestinians.
Don’t worry, ignore yet another set of factual refutations and sling some more ad homs. That’ll prove your case.
Of course, you pretend that Hamas is just a faction that Israel doesn’t like, rather than one that’s explicitly committed to genocide and opposed to keeping any and all agreements ever made by the PA. You claim that something is “Arab land”, a fictional claim based on ethnic sovereignty that you made up and that echoes Hamas’ bullshit, the claim that because Arabs conquered the land, it’s a Waqf. Of course, as I pointed out and you deliberately ignored, the actual facts of land ownership are wildly different than the fiction you’re trying to sell. Just like you’re deliberately ignoring that the 4th Geneva Convention specifically and clearly authorizes the Israeli occupation. Your response last time was to cite a rabidly bigoted Troofer’s opinion.
There is a clear implication in the quote. You say it means something else. The explanation is garbled and inclines the reader to disbelief.
It’s the media. US media is commercial and can be leant on commerically. It has been and now commonly makes editorial choices that
- embargo stories critical of Israel and
- promote favourable ones.
E.g. Americans cannot see stories like this one.
Similarly, political appointments to US / Israel positions are subject to a veto. The object of these practices is to stifle free and informed discussion. By and large it is has worked and publications have fallen into despair.
Well, unless they go to CNN.com but what are the wild and wacky odds that an American would ever do that?
And yet the CNN story omits the very content I chose to quote. Why is that, do you think?
Well, the CNN story is shorter, but Teitel sure isn’t painted as a good guy or anything. Any American who came across the CNN report would have enough details to do a google for as much additional info as they wanted, so what exactly do you think Americans “cannot” see?
Wow, I guess I’m one of the lucky few spared the Secret Embargo. I can readily find stories like this, this and this in major U.S. online news outlets, reporting the same story as the BBC.
Do not despair, Sevastopol. There are still a few Americans who can see the shining light of truth despite Their efforts. Wait, what’s that pounding at the door?
Hey, what’re
Your factual 97% turned out not to be the case, even according to Clinton officials who were actually part of the process. If I can’t echo Arafat you can’t quote Dennis Ross. And one half-hearted late twentieth century attempt by Israel (and the Palestinians) to make peace when pressured into it by a US administration should be put in context with Israel’s 40 years of doing everything they could to ndermine any peace plan, any kind of effective government or security for the Palestinians, etc.
The UN seems to think that the Israeli annexation of East Jerusalem is illegal, that it belongs to the Palestinians. They even passed a resolution confirming it which passed unanimously! I think that means America voted for it too.
And the Fourth Convention gives Israel specific legal obligations that they have to fulfil in territories that they’re occupying, I’m not sure what you mean by “auyhorizes”. After initially accepting that the Geneva Conventions applied to the occupied territories in 1967, Israel reversed course soon afterwards and as far as I’m aware are still claiming that they don’t as that position gives Israeli political and military leaders some kind of justification when other countries try and arrest them for war crimes. I quoted an emeritus professor of international law, one of the top authorities on the subject. What he believes outside his specialist subject is irrelevant.
I can remember reading an interview with an AIPAC official who was boasting that any time CNN ran something AIPAC didn’t like they just had to pick up the phone to get it taken off the air.
And so fellow readers, in the thread that won’t die we’ve reached the point where the Joos not only control the media:
The Joos control the government
I’m curious to know more about this secret veto power that Israel has over US government. Is this like the super double seckret ethnic cleansing that Israel was doing in the 50s and 60s, Dick? i.e. You haven’t got a shred of proof aside from wanting it to be true and therefore it must be true?
I’d vote for giving this tread a mercy killing before page 10. Or crap, do I only want to vote that way because of the secret Jooish mind control rays. It’s so hard to tell sometimes.
My ass it does. Damn, boy, you don’t know jack about the history of the middle east, do you? You don’t know anything about what you’re talking about.
This being a Jew, you should be prepared to accept the possibility of irony.
Or hyperbole.
I’m beginning to think the Joos really do control the media. I’ve been writing for the media all day long and all I hear as I type are endless choruses of sevi vot and oh dreidel, dreidel, dreidel.
Then again that may have something to do with my six year old daughter’s fondness for singing Hanakah songs a dozen times a day at the top of her lungs.
Happy Hanakah to all!