Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Wrong again, or you have really got to be kidding!
I am an American who wants to live in peace. I have advocated nothing of any buffalo sort!
Enough of that nonsense already!
I have paid plenty of taxes in my day, and Israel has been the beneficiary of a great deal of American financial and military support. AIPAC continues to heavily influence American government representatives to that end. Netanyaho addressed congress without invitation by our POTUS. Though I really don't want any connection with any of this Middle East beef between the Israelis and the Palestinians, there is more connection to me as an American citizen than I ever asked for...
Every time Iran or any other Arab group views America as the "great Satan" as a result of these connections, I am further involved, regardless whether I like it or not.
You have got some nerve to suggest any American be quiet on this subject.
AIPAC does not have anymore or less influence than the other 17,000 lobby groups. Your tax money falls in the pocket pursue of Arab rejectionism of Israel.
Quote:
Your description of Israel getting "buffaloed" into a bad deal in light of what has happened to the Palestinians since the 1930s is laughable. SupBro may not understand or accept these connections, but to expect any objective observer to be so blind to these facts is simply not realistic.
Forcing Israel into conceding land in exchange for false peace is jepordizing Israeli national secruity. When the Palestinian government officially stated that they will not make peace with Israel, yet you support Israel to make concessions for a false peace is considered being a bully. I.E, Israel Agreeing to the 1967 borders would cause Palestine to demand Israel for the 1948 borders.
Quote:
Again (and as posted before), is the following not well documented fact?
"... the rise of Nazism and the increasing persecution of Jews in 1930s Europe led to the Fifth Aliyah, with an influx of a quarter of a million Jews. This was a major cause of the Arab revolt of 1936–39 during which the British Mandate authorities alongside the Zionist militias of Haganah and Irgun killed 5,032 Arabs and wounded 14,760, resulting in over ten percent of the adult male Palestinian Arab population killed, wounded, imprisoned or exiled. The British introduced restrictions on Jewish immigration to Palestine with the White Paper of 1939. With countries around the world turning away Jewish refugees fleeing the Holocaust, a clandestine movement known as Aliyah Bet was organized to bring Jews to Palestine. By the end of World War II, the Jewish population of Palestine had increased to 33% of the total population. On July 22, 1946, Irgun attacked the British administrative headquarters for Palestine, which was housed in the southern wing of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem. 91 people of various nationalities were killed and 46 were injured. The hotel was the site of the central offices of the British Mandatory authorities of Palestine, principally the Secretariat of the Government of Palestine and the Headquarters of the British Armed Forces in Palestine and Transjordan. The attack initially had the approval of the Haganah (the principal Jewish paramilitary group in Palestine). It was conceived as a response to Operation Agatha (a series of widespread raids, including one on the Jewish Agency, conducted by the British authorities) and was the deadliest directed at the British during the Mandate era (1920–1948)."
Again regarding the bias that prevents objectivity, I am not drawn toward one side or the other as a result of my religion or ethnic background or citizenry like Jews and Palestinians tend to be for obvious reasons.
Not really sure what you are trying to accomplish here. All this proves is that the Jews faught the British due to their un ethical violations of their juristricted duty. It's not your bias that is the question, its that you do not know your history.
Quote:
If you don't think those sorts of connections are the cause for bias (subjective opinion, not objective), think again, because you should know better...
Its a very complicated time period. However, pretending Hezzbollah is somehow compared to Hagnah is laughable.
Learnme Post #2: "For starters, whenever you have one group of people -- for whatever reason -- taking the land by force from another, no right or wrong that follows justifies that invasion.
In this case, however, we also have a wrong that follows. The Zionist's absolute insistence on continued settlements in defiance of countless U.N. resolutions condemning those acts of aggression, plus the repeated refusal to broker a peace, because Israel doesn't like what the Palestinians think or say in protest of those same acts of aggression."
Remember where you came from, backpeddling.
Anyhow, The French proposal is note effective. If the French government will recognize Palestine as is today, what incentive will the Palestinians have to negotiate?
As I have stated more than a few times already..., I stand by every word I have posted in this thread, from the beginning. Why keep suggesting otherwise? I haven't "back-peddled" a one bit. I have simply balanced the perspective here from which a negotiated peace going forward is more realistic and appropriate, necessary for negotiations to have any chance for success going forward.
Any proposal is rife with challenges, but at least the French are entirely correct to suggest the negotiations need to be broadened beyond the U.S., Israel and the Palestinians, and no doubt most of the rest of the world leans the same way -- again for obvious reasons.
"Price for starting a war?" Just when, exactly, did this war start, by whom and why?
The war started in 1947 by the local Arabs, and at May 1948 the surrounding Arab countries invaded Israel.
Arabs were defeated in 1949 and lost territories.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LearnMe
"22%?"
I didn't ask for what percent of the land. I asked for the assessed VALUE between what Palestinians might consider was theirs in 1946 vs what they are being asked to accept now. Given the value of coastal access (as your own landlocked link emphasized as important), remembering that real estate value is all "location, location, location," what does 22% of land matter as compared to commercial/economic value?
They demanded and considered 100% of the land to be their. They started a war to get it. They lost.
Now they are offered 22%. I think it's a very good deal. If I was a Palestinian, I would accept it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LearnMe
A tunnel? Through Israel? You are to depend on a tunnel or road through the land of your enemy?
An enemy? But there will be a peace, no? No enemies anymore.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LearnMe
Is there an Israeli on the planet that would consider this an acceptable level of security for the future?
Actually, more than a half of Israelis will accept it as part of a final agreement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LearnMe
Why not stop wasting everyone's time and simply confess that no terms for peace that Israel is willing to offer are reasonable?
What else Israel should give to the Palestinians except the WB and Gaza?
For the children losing limbs, siblings, uncles, aunts and parents it's a problem.
For those who just want to co-exist in peace rather than under the constant threat of another terrorist attack -- anywhere in the world -- it's a problem.
For those who respect civil rights and secular government rather than a "might makes right" manner of occupation, it's a problem.
A very serious problem...
Great, so the Palestinians need to accept the deal and finish the war. They will never get anything better.
As I have stated more than a few times already..., I stand by every word I have posted in this thread, from the beginning. Why keep suggesting otherwise? I haven't "back-peddled" a one bit. I have simply balanced the perspective here from which a negotiated peace going forward is more realistic and appropriate, necessary for negotiations to have any chance for success going forward.
Any proposal is rife with challenges, but at least the French are entirely correct to suggest the negotiations need to be broadened beyond the U.S., Israel and the Palestinians, and no doubt most of the rest of the world leans the same way -- again for obvious reasons.
Exactly you stand by it but have had difficulties with proof.
Okay, let them broaded the horizons and create another proposal for Palestine to reject.
AIPAC does not have anymore or less influence than the other 17,000 lobby groups. Your tax money falls in the pocket pursue of Arab rejectionism of Israel.
I ask you, is your statement here opinion or fact?
And more with regard to your M.O., do you not see how you dodge and weave from one point to another without any reflection whatsoever?
First you complained about expressing my opinion when I have no connection to the region as far as you are concerned.
I address that ridiculous notion only to have you ignore my answer and instead move on to the equally ridiculous claim that AIPAC is no different than any other lobby.
To you and all the rest who seem to have this very interesting perspective (supposedly free of bias), is there any sense of purpose or progress when it comes to this effort of exchanging these opinions?
I am at a loss to justify my time or effort.
I might as well be trying to change the spots on a dog...
Exactly you stand by it but have had difficulties with proof.
Difficulty only with certain people who are not able to view this problem from an objective standpoint, but that is not for lack of proof. I leave it to you to pass judgement as to whether you can qualify as objective or not...
Actually, more than a half of Israelis will accept it as part of a final agreement.
Please have mercy! I meant if the Palestinians were in the shoes of the Israelis and asked Israel to be content with two discontiguous regions connected by a tunnel under Palestine, just how "secure" would the Israelis consider such a proposal or arrangement?
If the situation were somehow reversed (and putting ourselves in the other's shoes is half the battle toward objectivity), how would the Israelis respond? Not much different than the Palestinians I don't think, though perhaps with more firepower...
From where does this confusion come that perhaps someone is not aware Jews co-existed with Arabs in Palestine back in the "good old days?"
You have to go further back when the region was under the Ottoman Empire to have any truth to your statement. The foundation for problems in the Middle East was laid by the British who stated one thing and did something else.
Please have mercy! I meant if the Palestinians were in the shoes of the Israelis and asked Israel to be content with two discontiguous regions connected by a tunnel under Palestine, just how "secure" would the Israelis consider such a proposal or arrangement?
If the situation were somehow reversed (and putting ourselves in the other's shoes is half the battle toward objectivity), how would the Israelis respond? Not much different than the Palestinians I don't think, though perhaps with more firepower...
There would have no reverse. The Arabs had the firepower of multiple countries to back themselves up with. The Jews were evicted with only what they could carry out of the Gaza Strip and the West Bank after 1949 Armistice - No choice. Yet the same thing was not done to the Arabs who ended up on the Israeli side as they were given the opposite - Choice.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
