# Palestinians Seek Non-Member Observer UN status/aftermath Thread



## Ichi Sagato (Nov 29, 2012)

> Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and the Palestinian people are enjoying sweeping support in the lead up to Thursday night's vote at the UN General Assembly over whether to upgrade the Palestinians' standing to non-member observer status. By Thursday morning Israel time, that support had turned into a full-on landslide, as more European nations decided to alter their positions, essentially leaving Israel to fend for itself.
> 
> Early Thursday morning, just hours before the vote -- scheduled to take place around 11:00 P.M. (Israel time) -- Germany changed its mind, deciding to abstain from voting rather than opposing the Palestinian initiative, as Israel had assumed it would.
> 
> ...


----------



## butcher50 (Nov 29, 2012)

lol at Russia supporting the exact same type of scum that bites it from time to time, having plenty of their own local equivalents of Palestinia/Hamas and Bin Ladens.

but i guess the 90s are lost on the current generation of rich oligarch kids.

but then again the Bratva mafia politicans will never get tired selling guns, tech and explosives to these animals regardless of consequences later for their friends and family.


----------



## Coteaz (Nov 29, 2012)

Does this only affect the West Bank? The PA has no authority in Gaza as far as I know. 

Hamas is the problem anyways.


----------



## dr_shadow (Nov 29, 2012)

Foreign minister Carl Bildt reports that Sweden will be voting "yes" to admitting Palestine.


----------



## makeoutparadise (Nov 29, 2012)

come on US vote yes!!!!


----------



## Ƶero (Nov 29, 2012)

Faith in majority of humanity restored.


----------



## Shinigami Perv (Nov 29, 2012)

> UN set for recognition of Palestinian state, despite threats from US and Israel
> The United States, Israel's closest ally, mounted an aggressive campaign to head off the General Assembly vote


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...spite-threats-from-us-and-israel-8368788.html



> In a last-ditch move, US Deputy Secretary of State William Burns made a personal appeal to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas promising that President Barack Obama would re-engage as a mediator in 2013 if Abbas abandoned the effort to seek statehood. The Palestinian leader refused, said Abbas aide Saeb Erekat.





> The US Congress has threatened financial sanctions if the Palestinians improve their status at the United Nations.



Pathetic.


----------



## navy (Nov 29, 2012)

The US Congress has threatened financial sanctions if the Palestinians improve their status at the United Nations.


Why?


----------



## Chelydra (Nov 29, 2012)

Hope the US vetos, 1967 borders are not feasible.


----------



## Megaharrison (Nov 29, 2012)

It won't advance the "peace process", this silly little stunt does not address root issues of the conflict such as the sectarianism, Jihadism, cult of death, and lack of seriousness about peace that all exist in Palestinian society. Hamas and Gaza are not even addressed. Iranian sabotaging of peace efforts (such as the aftermath of Gaza through the rocket terror) are not addressed. This is just a pathetic attempt for them to seem relevant and mess with us. Frankly I don't care who recognizes this wretched little thugtocracy, just another one in the pile. Hell we should vote yes just to take the wind out of the Pali's sails.


----------



## navy (Nov 29, 2012)

This is clearly symbolic...but seriously who gives a fuck? It doesnt change any borders.


----------



## baconbits (Nov 29, 2012)

navy said:


> This is clearly symbolic...but seriously who gives a fuck? It doesnt change any borders.



Because symbols have power in politics, and the realm of politics includes armed conflict.  This might be a symbol but it does speak to a support for the worse over the better.


----------



## navy (Nov 29, 2012)

baconbits said:


> Because symbols have power in politics, and the realm of politics includes armed conflict.  This might be a symbol but it does speak to a support for the worse over the better.



Maybe the support the US is for is on the wrong side of history. Clearly the US and Israel are the only ones against this "symbol".


----------



## Shinigami Perv (Nov 29, 2012)

There is the issue of Israel's conduct in the occupied territories which could be brought up at the International Criminal Court. The major issue isn't that, it's the recognition of '67 borders. The Palestinians mainly want an international consensus of those borders, which conflict with Israel's illegal settlements. Israel and the US have been frantic in their desire to stop this vote because of the implications regarding borders and settlements.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Nov 29, 2012)

The US will veto it hopefully, Palestine hasn't done anything to earn this support except for be the underdog in a fight they keep stirring up.

If Scotland did this to England do you think anyone would support them? What about if the Ukraine suddenly started poking and prodding Russia? 

You people are delusional and pathetic, you think you're being moral by supporting the barbarians against the Romans.


----------



## navy (Nov 29, 2012)

I could be mistaken but it doesnt look like the US has veto power here.


----------



## Al-Yasa (Nov 29, 2012)




----------



## Shinigami Perv (Nov 29, 2012)

They don't have veto power. This is the General Assembly, not the Security Council.

It's happening live now if you want to watch:


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Nov 29, 2012)

Shinigami Perv said:


> They don't have veto power. This is the General Assembly, not the Security Council.


Then this means nothing other than Israel gets to attack a separate state instead of bombing part of itself. 

I like how losing the six day war and every fight since then counts for nothing against them.


----------



## Megaharrison (Nov 29, 2012)

Shinigami Perv said:


> There is the issue of Israel's conduct in the occupied territories which could be brought up at the International Criminal Court. The major issue isn't that, it's the recognition of '67 borders. The Palestinians mainly want an international consensus of those borders, which conflict with Israel's illegal settlements. Israel and the US have been frantic in their desire to stop this vote because of the implications regarding borders and settlements.



And the dominant Palestinian factions reject any borders that include the state of Israel. "The Palestinian Authority" is a joke term and really are a powerless minority in the face of Hamas and Iranian proxy's. Exact 1967 borders are no longer feasible, but using them as a broad consensus (as was attempted in the Israeli peace plan of 2008 which the Palestinians rejected despite getting 100% of land equaling 1967 lines) is a good idea. 

The settlements are irrelevant to the greater peace process besides the fact that about 80% of them directly along the Green Line aren't going anywhere (but we can exchange land for them elsewhere, as we've proposed and the Pali's gloat about rejecting), removing them would only make the current conflict worse (see: Gaza), and an IDF withdrawal from the area would also infest the West Bank with civil war and Jihadists (again, see Gaza).

Of course obsolete narratives on the conflict love this kind of symbolic nonsense so they'll just charge into this with the blinders on pretending the above problems don't exist, as they're too complicated for such simplistic absolutist viewpoints to apparently comprehend or accept.


----------



## Shinigami Perv (Nov 29, 2012)

Yes yes, we know your Israeli/IDF perspective. Now the world will give theirs.


----------



## Megaharrison (Nov 29, 2012)

Shinigami Perv said:


> Yes yes, we know your Israeli/IDF perspective. Now the world will give theirs.



That totally addresses the greater complexities of the conflict! Global hysterics by a bunch of third world dictators and uninformed politicians surely will prove that simplicity and ignorance prevails.

Key questions to ask however beyond this circus nonsense is:
A.) Would 1967 lines result in peace? Keep in mind the Gaza example, the rocket terror, and the platforms of Palestinian parties.
B.) Would the Palestinians be able to enforce or govern a state in a way that doesn't damage them any everyone around them? Keep in mind sectarianism, Jihadists, and their own ineptitudes that have all been demonstrated in the past.
C.) Palestinian past rejections of any serious peace plans, most notably in 2008 but also in 1999.


----------



## Shinigami Perv (Nov 29, 2012)

We've already discussed the conflict ad nauseam in other threads. People have been discussing it for decades. Not even sure why "dictators" matter since the world's people are overwhelmingly for Palestinian recognition, so it seems even these dictators and their oppressed people can agree on this. 

Now the world votes.


----------



## WT (Nov 29, 2012)

Megaharrison said:


> And the dominant Palestinian factions reject any borders that include the state of Israel. "The Palestinian Authority" is a joke term and really are a powerless minority in the face of Hamas and Iranian proxy's. Exact 1967 borders are no longer feasible, but using them as a broad consensus (as was attempted in the Israeli peace plan of 2008 which the Palestinians rejected despite getting 100% of land equaling 1967 lines) is a good idea.
> 
> The settlements are irrelevant to the greater peace process besides the fact that about 80% of them directly along the Green Line aren't going anywhere (but we can exchange land for them elsewhere, as we've proposed and the Pali's gloat about rejecting), removing them would only make the current conflict worse (see: Gaza), and an IDF withdrawal from the area would also infest the West Bank with civil war and Jihadists (again, see Gaza).
> 
> Of course obsolete narratives on the conflict love this kind of symbolic nonsense so they'll just charge into this with the blinders on pretending the above problems don't exist, as they're too complicated for such simplistic absolutist viewpoints to apparently comprehend or accept.



The land you offer them, is it joint together or broken up with random Israeli spots all over the place


----------



## Ryan (Nov 29, 2012)

> At the prospect of a veto from the United States, Palestinian leaders signalled they might opt instead for a more limited upgrade to "non-member state" status, which requires only a simple majority in the General Assembly but provides the Palestinians with the recognition they desire.


Looks like this is a done deal.


----------



## Megaharrison (Nov 29, 2012)

Shinigami Perv said:


> We've already discussed the conflict ad nauseam in other threads. People have been discussing it for decades. Not even sure why "dictators" matter since the world's people are overwhelmingly for Palestinian recognition, so it seems even these dictators and their oppressed people can agree on this.
> 
> Now the world votes.



Cool, so basically "lets do what we want damn it actually advancing or resolving anything" then. The "who cares about reality...THE WORLD VOTES!" attitude you're promoting is indeed the narrative you have to use to think this is meaningful or some wonderful accomplishment that will advance peace. The conflict is too complicated beyond the simplicities you and your ilk is frothing at the mouth over.



White Tiger said:


> The land you offer them, is it joint together or broken up with random Israeli spots all over the place



The 2008 plan we proposed and they rejected would have *cut Israel in half* while creating continuous borders/not doing so for the Palestinians. Oh yes, clearly the poor Pali borders were the ones turned to swiss cheese.

Try again.


----------



## Yachiru (Nov 29, 2012)

Give them the north pole.


----------



## Ryan (Nov 29, 2012)

Yachiru said:


> Give them the north pole.


They already have the west bank. I'm curious if they gonna claim something else later.


----------



## Yachiru (Nov 29, 2012)

Ryan said:


> They already have the west bank. I'm curious if they gonna claim something else later.



If they want a state so badly, they should accept any land given to them  The north pole ain't occupied.


----------



## Shinigami Perv (Nov 29, 2012)

Yes, dictatorships like Sweden clearly are stupid and don't understand the realities. If only they could be as smart and reasonable as Avigdor Lieberman. Damn Swedes are probably antisemitic, pro-terrorist anyway. 

Dude, just save your fingers and watch.


----------



## Mansali (Nov 29, 2012)

Perhaps statehood for Palestine is just what's needed to stabilize this fractured region.

FYI: For the people wondering, the bid will include Gaza and East Jerusalem.

@ MegaHarrison: The PA has said they are still open to negotiations with Israel. But they want Israel to remove all the settlements.

Britian will vote yes as long as the PA removes that precondition. And if the PA doesnt rush to the ICC because of the illegal settlements.


----------



## WT (Nov 29, 2012)

Megaharrison said:


> The 2008 plan we proposed and they rejected would have *cut Israel in half* while creating continuous borders/not doing so for the Palestinians. Oh yes, clearly the poor Pali borders were the ones turned to swiss cheese.
> 
> Try again.



I won't understand until you show me on a map. Which part of Israel will be cut in half.

Please draw a black line on the map I've linked:


----------



## Ryan (Nov 29, 2012)

Yachiru said:


> If they want a state so badly, they should accept any land given to them  The north pole ain't occupied.


it's also supposedly full of oil, and russia and some other states have claims on it


----------



## Megaharrison (Nov 29, 2012)

Shinigami Perv said:


> Yes, countries like Sweden clearly are stupid and don't understand the realities. If only they could be as smart and reasonable as Avigdor Lieberman. Damn Swedes are probably antisemitic, pro-terrorist anyway.
> 
> Dude, just save your fingers and watch.



You're really not debunking anything I've said beyond absurd appeals to authority and flat-out stating you don't care about complexities. I know facts and rational thought interfere with your fantasy but go to presstv comment sections if you want a circlejerk.



> I won't understand until you show me on a map. Which part of Israel will be cut in half.


----------



## Syed (Nov 29, 2012)

Awesome news.


----------



## Mansali (Nov 29, 2012)

Ehud Olmert, Former Israeli Prime Minister, Supports Palestinians' U.N. Bid 



> As the members of the United Nations vote to upgrade the status of the Palestinian representation at the world body to that of "observer-state," the Palestinian motion has won one surprising supporter.
> 
> According to the Daily Beast, former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert now supports the Palestinian's U.N. bid, as it is "congruent with the basic concept of the two-state solution."
> 
> ...


----------



## iander (Nov 29, 2012)

Every year the occupation continues, the world is turning more against Israel and rightly so.  Mega's fruitless attempt to blame the Palestinians for their own oppression is just a pathetic example of Israel's self-destructive policies.  This may be only symbolic in nature but it could put Palestinians in a better position to negotiate.


----------



## Toby (Nov 29, 2012)

... Anyway, these are important criteria



> Membership in the United Nations is open to all other peace-loving states which accept the obligations contained in the present Charter and, in the judgment of the Organization, are able and willing to carry out these obligations.
> 
> The admission of any such state to membership in the United Nations will be effected by a decision of the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council.



1. Implication: By joining the UN, Palestine must commit itself to peace with Israel. (The UN has already said this before.)

2. Implication: The UNSC can still fuck everything up. As usual. But will they? Russia vetoed Kosovo independence, thus setting a very bad norm. Will the US do the same? 

I think it is very telling that the US and Israel are the only ones opposed, and that they went from promising financial boycott to going mum yesterday. 

If anything, this status should be more constricting on both Israel and Palestine. I welcome it. I want the world community to treat both governments with the criticism they deserve. 



> I could be mistaken but it doesnt look like the US has veto power here.



The process is very ambiguous. Some issues can be resolved in the UN GA if the UNSC says "this is a clusterfuck, lets do it in the GA", but they havent. Still, the PLO has 9 supporters in the UNSC, so it has the formal requirements to submit an application.


----------



## Dionysus (Nov 29, 2012)

Toby said:


> I think it is very telling that the US and Israel are the only ones opposed, and that they went from promising financial boycott to going mum yesterday.


And Canada and Germany, at the least.


----------



## Mansali (Nov 29, 2012)

Dionysus said:


> And Canada and Germany, at the least.



Germany will abstain. So the only Major countries left are Canada and the US.

I live in Canada and I know that our governments position does not reflect the majority position.


----------



## Megaharrison (Nov 29, 2012)

iander said:


> Every year the occupation continues, the world is turning more against Israel and rightly so.  Mega's fruitless attempt to blame the Palestinians for their own oppression is just a pathetic example of Israel's self-destructive policies.  This may be only symbolic in nature but it could put Palestinians in a better position to negotiate.



Self-destructive policies eh? Lets talk about Israel's self-destructive policies. Like unconditionally and unilaterally withdrawing from Gaza in 2005 to advance the peace process and getting 10,000 rockets and a territory overrun with Jihadists on our doorstep for it. That is fairly self-destructive, no? 

If the key were Israel simply moving 1967 borders, why did reverting to them result in more violence? Why do the Palestinians consistently reject any viable peace plan? If Israel were to leave the West Bank, would that end the violence we experience? What about the dominant and more powerful forces in "Palestine" that flat-out reject any peace? Given the state of Palestinian society, are they actually ready for a viable state?

Oh yes I forgot, let us not discuss these unpleasant things. They make our heads hurt. Instead, THE WORLD VOTES. If Sweden supports it, it must be good. Who really cares anyway this seems nice. And so on.

There's a lot of "proud to be ignorant" sentiment here that is certainly worrying.


----------



## Syed (Nov 29, 2012)

SonVegeta said:


> Germany will abstain. So the only Major countries left are Canada and the US.
> 
> I live in Canada and I know that our governments position does not reflect the majority position.



True. Harper doesn't represent us.


----------



## neodragzero (Nov 29, 2012)

Megaharrison said:


> Self-destructive policies eh? Lets talk about Israel's self-destructive policies. Like unconditionally and unilaterally withdrawing from Gaza in 2005 to advance the peace process



Uh, I have to comment that right there. You're suggesting that the withdrawal was only for the sake of advancing the peace press rather than the reality of Israel's government pretty much using the withdrawal to put Gaza out of sight, out of mind save that of the blockade?

Leaving Gaza alone isn't enough when, besides the complete lack of any actual agreement between both parties as to what follows with the withdrawal, the ongoing restrictions on imports among other facets of the blockade still leave Gaza on economic decline as the Israeli government still shows indifference, and even support, for West Bank settlement expansion.


> According to a survey conducted by Peace Now in 2002 (the last year for which data is available), some 77 percent of West Bank settlers are non-ideological -- that is, they chose the West Bank for economic, not political or religious reasons (many members of this group are recent immigrants from Russia who couldn't afford homes in Israel proper). Settlers enjoy generous government benefits, including higher wages for some state jobs and large subsidies for education, transportation, mortgages, and land purchases. Those who take advantage of these handouts are generally secular or ultra-orthodox, but not necessarily ultra-nationalist. That may explain why, according to a poll taken last year, at least 100,000 Israeli settlers say they would be willing to move back within the pre-1967 borders today if they were offered enough financial assistance.
> 
> *All of this suggests that the vast majority of Israeli settlers could be peacefully returned to Israel, either by incorporating slivers of land along the Green Line into Israel proper or by offering them economic inducements to move. This wouldn't be easy or uncontroversial in Israel, much less in the West Bank. But the point is that it's doable -- and a step Israel could take on its own.*
> 
> ...




And also:




So, basically, pretending that the variables and reasoning for a withdrawal from the West Bank equates as much as you're suggesting is somewhat a limited, fallacious argument.


----------



## iander (Nov 29, 2012)

Megaharrison said:


> Self-destructive policies eh? Lets talk about Israel's self-destructive policies. Like unconditionally and unilaterally withdrawing from Gaza in 2005 to advance the peace process and getting 10,000 rockets and a territory overrun with Jihadists on our doorstep for it. That is fairly self-destructive, no?
> 
> If the key were Israel simply moving 1967 borders, why did reverting to them result in more violence? If Israel were to leave the West Bank, would that end the violence we experience? What about the dominant and more powerful forces in "Palestine" that flat-out reject any peace? Is the state of Palestinian society actually ready for a viable state?
> 
> Oh yes I forgot, let us not discuss these unpleasant things. They make our heads hurt. Instead, THE WORLD VOTES. If Sweden supports it, it must be good. Who cares you're Israeli. And so on.



The reason you don't understand why Palestinians continued to resist after the withdrawal from Gaza explains a lot of your confusion. The problem wasn't leaving Gaza.  The problem was taking settlements away from Gaza and increasing them in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. You moved out of Gaza, turned it into an open air prison and then continued settlement expansion elsewhere while building a wall that creeped more over the border. The occupation didn't change at all.  The conflict will continue killing people on both sides until you and people like you learn that the occupation needs to end for any meaningful reconciliation is to start.


----------



## Megaharrison (Nov 29, 2012)

neodragzero said:


> Uh, I have to comment that right there. You're suggesting that the withdrawal was only for the sake of advancing the peace press rather than the reality of Israel's government pretty much using the withdrawal to put Gaza out of sight, out of mind save that of the blockade?



Of course it was to advance the peace process. It created tensions in Israeli society, forced us to displace our own citizens, opened up Gaza to Iranian/Syrian arms smuggling to strengthen our foes (which surprise surprise, it did), massively increased rocket attacks that were just a mild nuisance before, and so on. If we had nefarious plans for Gaza it would have been far more beneficial to stay, unless you're suggesting we actually wanted those 10,000 rockets, kidnapped citizen, and far stronger enemies.

Not to mention that if we actually wanted to blockade Gaza, it was only physically possible to retain control of the Philadelphi Corridor. Which we did not. Thus rendering any nefarious blockade plans moot/physically impossible.

If you think we didn't predict any of this you simply are not informed, everyone from Netanyahu to IDF Deputy Chief Dan Harel also consistently prophecized everything that has since played out from Gaza.



> Leaving Gaza alone isn't enough when, besides the complete lack of any actual agreement between both parties as to what follows with the withdrawal, the ongoing restrictions on imports among other facets of the blockade still leave Gaza on economic decline as the Israeli government still shows indifference, or even support, for West Bank settlement expansion.



Exactly, there was a lack of agreement with the Gaza withdrawal. We advanced the peace process unilaterally hoping the Palestinians would reciprocate, they didn't. They just got more violence (not only towards us, but also each other). This it demonstrated unilateralism and one-sided Israeli concessions will not lead to peace, and that there are greater and more complex problems to the conflict other then parroting "settlements". The rise of Jihadism, the cult of death, Iran, Hamas and its ilk, all need to be addressed and people here are apparently proudly ignorant of refusing that. 

But now that we admit unilteralism/lack of agreements is bad, one has to wonder why this whole UN circus is good.

As for Gaza withdrawal not leading to negotiations, obviously it was meant to. Indeed just 2 years after Olmert offered a comprehensive peace plan based on 1967 lines with land equaling 100% of what the Pali's wanted. Abbas immediately rejected it. Thus Israel indeed used the withdrawal as a first step to negotiations.



			
				iander said:
			
		

> The reason you don't understand why Palestinians continued to resist after the withdrawal from Gaza explains a lot of your confusion. The problem wasn't leaving Gaza. The problem was taking settlements away from Gaza and increasing them in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. You moved out of Gaza, turned it into an open air prison and then continued settlement expansion elsewhere while building a wall that creeped more over the border. The occupation didn't change at all. The conflict will continue killing people on both sides until you and people like you learn that the occupation needs to end for any meaningful reconciliation is to start.



Incorrect, the conflict existed before settlements as it was so settlements are not the root cause. Moreover to the dominant factions of Gaza view all of Israel as "settlements" and reject a 2 state solution. Add on top that that the "moderate" Pali's rejected a peace plan that would have ended settlement expansion permanently and established a Palestinian state with 100% the land they want. Thus, settlements or no settlements in the West Bank their platform remained the same and they would have continued their attacks.

Are you really suggesting we wouldn't have gotten 10,000 rockets if we froze settlement expansion in the West Bank? Okay then. Let us say Israel completely leaves the West Bank tomorrow. Is that it? No more rockets? Yes or no. I don't want any tired slogans from George Galloway and the Assad fanclub. I want a straight answer.

Oh, and I love your use of the word "resist". That's a great way to describe tormenting civilians with rockets. Warcrimes aren't as fun unless you dress it up in hyperbole I suppose.


----------



## Yami Munesanzun (Nov 29, 2012)

So the world's gonna give one of it's tantrum-ing brats something that it doesn't deserve.

Because this goes over so well with _real_ kicking and screaming children.


----------



## Dionysus (Nov 29, 2012)

SonVegeta said:


> Germany will abstain. So the only Major countries left are Canada and the US.
> 
> I live in Canada and I know that our governments position does not reflect the majority position.



Germany must have recently changed its mind.

I think the majority opinion in Canada is "I don't give a shit about Israel or Palestine", if you really press someone to answer.


----------



## Shinigami Perv (Nov 29, 2012)

The Turkish and Canadian speeches were so long and boring...


----------



## Shinigami Perv (Nov 29, 2012)

The world has spoken overwhelmingly! 

138 for

9 against

41 abstentions

Well done!!! Only 9 against in the entire world, all of them seemingly US pawns like Palau and Panama.


----------



## neodragzero (Nov 29, 2012)

Megaharrison said:


> Of course it was to advance the peace process. It created tensions in Israeli society, forced us to displace our own citizens, opened up Gaza to Iranian/Syrian arms smuggling to strengthen our foes (which surprise surprise, it did), massively increased rocket attacks that were just a mild nuisance before, and so on. If we had nefarious plans for Gaza it would have been far more beneficial to stay, unless you're suggesting we actually wanted those 10,000 rockets, kidnapped citizen, and far stronger enemies.



Again, you seem to talk about it supposedly advancing the peace process but haven't specified any deal that was made to follow said movement. Add in the issues with the blockade that practically make Gaza an open air prison and West Bank settlement expansion, it looks more like an action to save Israeli government energy and resources while still basically oppress the Palestinian civilian population.

It's all the more interesting that you're pretending as if the West Bank is exactly the same as Gaza in political and military structure much less the blatant timing and situational difference in general.


> Not to mention that if we actually wanted to blockade Gaza, it was only physically possible to retain control of the Philadelphi Corridor. Which we did not. Thus rendering any nefarious blockade plans moot/physically impossible.


This is either ignorance or intellectual dishonesty. The air, sea, and ground blockade factors are pretty obvious in their economic ramifications. Pretending otherwise is not gonna get you anywhere like the last time we spoke of this.


> If you think we didn't predict any of this you simply are not informed, everyone from Netanyahu to IDF Deputy Chief Dan Harel also consistently prophecized everything that has since played out from Gaza.


Pointless strawman where I'm supposed to be arguing that certain politicians somehow didn't expect expect things to turn out a certain way by maintaining an open air prison territory situation.


> Exactly, there was a lack of agreement with the Gaza withdrawal. We advanced the peace process unilaterally hoping the Palestinians would reciprocate, they didn't.


And I will have to say the fault is upon the Israeli government administration at the time then where you're suggesting that simply leaving is enough rather than the obvious ongoing issue of the multiple point blockade. Thanks for the strawman where you're suggesting as if the argument is to simply do the same exact thing that was done with Gaza for the West Bank. None of the articles I provide nor I have suggested rote repetition while the increasing danger of staying remains that out-scales the danger of leaving. Your rhetoric is not enough of a viable argument as fallacies go.


> As for Gaza withdrawal not leading to negotiations, obviously it was meant to. Indeed just 2 years after Olmert offered a comprehensive peace plan based on 1967 lines with land equaling 100% of what the Pali's wanted. *Abbas immediately rejected it.* Thus Israel indeed used the withdrawal as a first step to negotiations.



Immediately rejected?


> Olmert himself addressed the matter at The Jerusalem Post Conference in New York in April. Speaking during a panel discussion at the event, *Olmert said “the Palestinians did not say no to my peace plan,” *adding that Israeli ministers advised the PA president not to accept the plan.


----------



## Kanali (Nov 29, 2012)

The resolution was just passed.

138 voted yes

9 voted no

41 abstained


----------



## iander (Nov 29, 2012)

Megaharrison said:


> Incorrect, the conflict existed before settlements as it was so settlements are not the root cause. Moreover to the dominant factions of Gaza view all of Israel as "settlements" and reject a 2 state solution. Add on top that that the "moderate" Pali's rejected a peace plan that would have ended settlement expansion permanently and established a Palestinian state with 100% the land they want. Thus, settlements or no settlements in the West Bank their platform remained the same and they would have continued their attacks.
> 
> Are you really suggesting we wouldn't have gotten 10,000 rockets if we froze settlement expansion in the West Bank? Okay then. Let us say Israel completely leaves the West Bank tomorrow. Is that it? No more rockets? Yes or no. I don't want any tired slogans from George Galloway and the Assad fanclub. I want a straight answer.
> 
> Oh, and I love your use of the word "resist". That's a great way to describe tormenting civilians with rockets. Warcrimes aren't as fun unless you dress it up in hyperbole I suppose.



Settlement and land is not an important cause of the conflict? Its not the only part but don't give me bullshit about it predating the conflict. Even before the state of Israel was created, settlement was an issue.  Its just another reality of the overarching occupation that has continued for decades. Settlement, arrests, blockade, walls, and all the rest.  Oh and now lets move over to one of your other favorite talking points.  The 2008 peace offer.  You claim the Palestinians got %100 of what they wanted? I claim that is untrue. The released Palestinian Papers shed a lot on that.  



Israel continued to stray from accepting the 1967 line and never offered a 1:1 swap. Continued to support keeping a majority of the settlement blocs (that is 90% of settlers in place) and annexing 10% of the West Bank while only offering 5% land of Israeli territory. What was left? Dissecting the West Bank into non-contiguous areas, appropriating key water and agricultural resources, and cutting Palestinians off from East Jerusalem.  If you are wondering, the Palestinians also made an offer:



The difference was that the land swaps were roughly equivalent and Israel would only get to annex 1.6% of Palestinian land keeping 60% of settlers instead. 

I think that if Israel agreed to end the occupation, remove the settlements and go by 1967 lines in return for official recognition and peace treaty from the Arab World, it would go a long way toward starting a peace process. You can continue violence all you want but its only strengthening hardliners on both sides.

Resistance can be a war crime or not but it is still resistance. Its the same for resistance against any occupation. It runs the gamut from non-violent protest to deliberate targeting of civilians.  Your attempt to strawman me into a supporter of killing civilians is pathetic.


----------



## butcher50 (Nov 29, 2012)

and now the harmonic peace and co-existence between the nations shall commence..........................................................................


----------



## Yachiru (Nov 29, 2012)

butcher50 said:


> and now the harmonic peace and co-existence between the nations shall commence..........................................................................



The Palis will learn the meaning of the term "Pyrrhic victory" soon enough


----------



## stream (Nov 29, 2012)

Don't the US have a law which forbids them from giving any funding to an organization that recognizes Palestine? They stopped funding the UNESCO last year because of that IIRC…

From my point of view, the vote makes sense. A state is not defined by its government, it is defined by a land and the people who live in it. It seems to me that the main reason Israel was opposed to it is that it makes it slightly more embarrassing to act as if the land belongs to them, and the people belong elsewhere.


----------



## Shinigami Perv (Nov 29, 2012)

This was a bit of a body blow for Israel's legitimacy. 

Expanding settlements in Palestine now, as Netanyahu has done, is an act of aggression against a UN recognized entity, on land that the UN has recognized belongs to Palestine.


----------



## Yachiru (Nov 29, 2012)

As I said, this is a Pyrrhic victory. If Hamas now launch attacks on Israel, it can be seen as an act of war


----------



## baconbits (Nov 29, 2012)

Syed said:


> True. Harper doesn't represent us.



How can he not? - he was elected.  Obama represents the US - it doesn't matter that I didn't vote for him.


----------



## neodragzero (Nov 29, 2012)

baconbits said:


> How can he not? - he was elected.  Obama represents the US - it doesn't matter that I didn't vote for him.



On certain key issues, yes, it's apt to say that Harper doesn't represent them. Just like how me voting for Obama doesn't equate to him representing my opinion on drones or not doing anything about marijuana still being federally illegal. Baconbits, you do know that there's a lot of particular issues that can have the president for or against what a majority of the population wants, right?


----------



## very bored (Nov 29, 2012)

Yachiru said:


> As I said, this is a Pyrrhic victory. If Hamas now launch attacks on Israel, it can be seen as an act of war



I'm going to go out on a limb and say it's worse than that: Palestine is now bound by


----------



## TheCupOfBrew (Nov 29, 2012)

Not sure if this is a good idea.


----------



## Yami Munesanzun (Nov 29, 2012)

Erio Touwa said:


> Not sure if this is a good idea.



This is basically a perfect example of giving a screaming child the piece of candy it was having a tantrum over.

It may shut them up for now, but they'll be back because they'll get the idea that they can get away with more. 

oh, and neg away MbS, doesn't mean you're right.


----------



## Megaharrison (Nov 29, 2012)

neodragzero said:


> Again, you seem to talk about it supposedly advancing the peace process but haven't specified any deal that was made to follow said movement. Add in the issues with the blockade that practically make Gaza an open air prison and West Bank settlement expansion, it looks more like an action to save Israeli government energy and resources while still basically oppress the Palestinian civilian population.



I've made a proposal in the past I'll post it if you want. It's comprehensive and realistic. Unfortunately, peace is impossible until Jihadist groups in Palestinian society are reigned in from within. We can only defend ourselves so far, it's up to them.



> It's all the more interesting that you're pretending as if the West Bank is exactly the same as Gaza in political and military structure much less the blatant timing and situational difference in general.



There's not a substantial political difference besides the fact that the population is slightly less religiously conservative. If we left we'd encounter the same problems. Probably on a much larger scale given the larger population.



> This is either ignorance or intellectual dishonesty. The air, sea, and ground blockade factors are pretty obvious in their economic ramifications. Pretending otherwise is not gonna get you anywhere like the last time we spoke of this.



We can't blockade Gaza if we want though. It is physically impossible given the Egyptian border. Inconvinent export ramifications that you seem to suggest really aren't especially relevant.



> Pointless strawman where I'm supposed to be arguing that certain politicians somehow didn't expect expect things to turn out a certain way by maintaining an open air prison territory situation.



I didn't know if you were going to say "well maybe Israel didn't know it was going to get 10,000 rockets when it enacted nefarious gaza plan". I like to try and deal with things ahead of time. It seems you weren't going to say that though.



> And I will have to say the fault is upon the Israeli government administration at the time then where you're suggesting that simply leaving is enough rather than the obvious ongoing issue of the multiple point blockade. Thanks for the strawman where you're suggesting as if the argument is to simply do the same exact thing that was done with Gaza for the West Bank. None of the articles I provide nor I have suggested rote repetition while the increasing danger of staying remains that out-scales the danger of leaving. Your rhetoric is not enough of a viable argument as fallacies go.



The danger of staying out-scales the danger of leaving? Lol wut? That is insanity right now given the prevalence of powerful and heavily armed Jihadist groups in Palestinian society not interested in any lasting peace.

Again, do you really think if we leave the West Bank entirely there'd be peace and no more rockets? Don't just say "it's different from Gaza", explain why there wouldn't be another rocket terror.




> Immediately rejected?



Abbas admits flat-out rejecting the offer





			
				iander said:
			
		

> Settlement and land is not an important cause of the conflict? Its not the only part but don't give me bullshit about it predating the conflict. Even before the state of Israel was created, settlement was an issue. Its just another reality of the overarching occupation that has continued for decades. Settlement, arrests, blockade, walls, and all the rest. Oh and now lets move over to one of your other favorite talking points. The 2008 peace offer. You claim the Palestinians got %100 of what they wanted? I claim that is untrue. The released Palestinian Papers shed a lot on that.



They got land equaling 100% of what they wanted. True, it's not 100% of what they wanted but it's still land equaling 100% based upon the borders they supposedly propose. Palestinians can not get absolutely everything they want, when we are giving up so much such as our territorial integrity to our national security. That's what negotiations are. Neither side is going to get what it wants completely, but the Palestinians don't seem to get that. Indeed, the world doesn't seem to understand that.



> Israel continued to stray from accepting the 1967 line and never offered a 1:1 swap. Continued to support keeping a majority of the settlement blocs (that is 90% of settlers in place) and annexing 10% of the West Bank while only offering 5% land of Israeli territory. What was left? Dissecting the West Bank into non-contiguous areas, appropriating key water and agricultural resources, and cutting Palestinians off from East Jerusalem. If you are wondering, the Palestinians also made an offer:
> 
> The difference was that the land swaps were roughly equivalent and Israel would only get to annex 1.6% of Palestinian land keeping 60% of settlers instead.




We're "dissected" far worse then they are under the agreement. Considering we're bisected and the Palestinians are not in the deal, they get the better land deal out of it. At least they have territorial integrity. What would be left you ask? Land equaling 100% of 1967 lines. Israel gives up territory, Palestinians give up territory. The territory we give us is far more valuable, particularly areas directly along the fertile Jordan river as opposed to the immediate Jerusalem periphery. Are you really saying that an agreement that sees Israel bisected but the Palestinians not is worse for the Palestinians? 

And how exactly are strict 1967 lines not "dissecting" either? There is still no connection between the West Bank and Gaza, making the "dissection" agreement viable even here. Is a 3% difference really the difference between "unacceptable dissection" and a wonderful solution?

As for Jerusalem, a  of Arabs would apparently prefer to stay Israeli. I say we leave it up to referendum after a state is established. We can not abandon our citizens to a doomed, sectarian-ridden, Jihadist dominated, anti-progressive shitstain of a "country" that will fail miserably without at least giving them a chance to voice their objections (or support) for it.

Plus at the end of the day this is all irrelevant. Let the PA offer what it wants but what can the PA do? They have no control over their own people in the face of rampant Jihadist militias. And how can they be trusted to uphold a peace treaty? Just look at the warmongering coming from Egypt, whose land we no longer "occupy". We've barely had peace with them in the first place.

I mean lets say we accepted the Palestinian proposal, did exactly what they want. Islamic Jihad and Hamas and the Army of Islam are happy dandy and lay down their rockets? Lol, really? How does Fatah enforce the peace agreement given these massive Jihadist armies? Are we supposed to enforce it? That would involve reoccupying them.




> I think that if Israel agreed to end the occupation, remove the settlements and go by 1967 lines in return for official recognition and peace treaty from the Arab World, it would go a long way toward starting a peace process. You can continue violence all you want but its only strengthening hardliners on both sides.



Is that a yes or a no then? Would withdrawing from the West Bank result in peace? You seem to say that unilaterally conceding everything the Palestinians want would not result in the end to war, only that it would "start a peace process" and "gain recognition" from implosion-doomed shitholes that I could give 2 shits about anyway. However given that these concessions would endanger us greatly, it's simply not worth going through with these risks unless there's a guarantee it will bring actual, permanent peace and not "the beginning of a process" that may or may not even succeed.

And What about the Palestinian militias that will never accept Israel? The huge ones with the heavy weapons? Keep in mind that after we left Lebanon completely, the Jihadist militias only got stronger.

As for "Recognition from the Arab world", the irrelevancy of it and the fact I consider it a badge of honor we do not have relations with the Saudi's and Syrians aside, that's never coming. They will hate us eternally no matter what we do and I don't care if these disgusting regimes ever like us anyway. Just look at Egypt, and if you claim Gypos hate us because of the Palestinians/Muslim "persecution" I will debunk it immediately with precedence so don't bother.



> Resistance can be a war crime or not but it is still resistance. Its the same for resistance against any occupation. It runs the gamut from non-violent protest to deliberate targeting of civilians. Your attempt to strawman me into a supporter of killing civilians is pathetic.



Do you support Palestinian "resistance" from Gaza then? Another yes or no you must answer. You'll insist no I imagine but who knows you may surprise me.

Also something I want to add: how will this UN circus result in peace? Lets say Israel is forced to concede everything. Mission accomplished, peace time?


----------



## Mintaka (Nov 29, 2012)

Yami Munesanzun said:


> This is basically a perfect example of giving a screaming child the piece of candy it was having a tantrum over.
> 
> It may shut them up for now, but they'll be back because they'll get the idea that they can get away with more.
> 
> oh, and neg away MbS, doesn't mean you're right.


Isn't it a bit more like giving them a piece of candy and adult legal rights?


That way when they hit you next time you can sue them for assault.  ((go to war))


----------



## TheCupOfBrew (Nov 29, 2012)

Like we need more war.


----------



## Yami Munesanzun (Nov 29, 2012)

Mintaka said:


> Isn't it a bit more like giving them a piece of candy and *adult legal rights?
> 
> 
> That way when they hit you next time you can sue them for assault.  ((go to war))*



Even so, regardless.

You don't reward temper-tantrums. 

@Erio:

Nah man. We'll just carpet bomb the crap out of them.


----------



## TheCupOfBrew (Nov 29, 2012)

Everytime I hear Carpet bomb I can't help but smirk a bit.


----------



## Yachiru (Nov 29, 2012)

Palestine has violated a treaty with Israel that forbids them to go to the UN too.


----------



## hcheng02 (Nov 29, 2012)

very bored said:


> I'm going to go out on a limb and say it's worse than that: Palestine is now bound by



Hardly. Laws only matter if they are enforced. Its ridiculous that people think that the UN will actually hold Hamas and the PLO to the Geneva Conventions. More likely it will continue the current practice of selective enforcement - throw the book at Israel and look the other way with the Palestinians. Israel will get the worse of both worlds - they will be charged with wars of aggression against a foreign state when they fight back and Palestinians will be able to rely on the apparatus of international law to supplement terrorism.


----------



## Yachiru (Nov 29, 2012)

hcheng02 said:


> Hardly. Laws only matter if they are enforced. Its ridiculous that people think that the UN will actually hold Hamas and the PLO to the Geneva Conventions. More likely it will continue the current practice of selective enforcement - throw the book at Israel and look the other way with the Palestinians. Israel will get the worse of both worlds - they will be charged with wars of aggression against a foreign state when they fight back and Palestinians will be able to rely on the apparatus of international law to supplement terrorism.



As long as the US vetoes those resolutions, all is fine and dandy.


----------



## hcheng02 (Nov 29, 2012)

Yachiru said:


> As long as the US vetoes those resolutions, all is fine and dandy.



Hopefully thats true.


----------



## Mansali (Nov 29, 2012)

hcheng02 said:


> Hardly. Laws only matter if they are enforced. Its ridiculous that people think that the UN will actually hold Hamas and the PLO to the Geneva Conventions. More likely it will continue the current practice of selective enforcement - throw the book at Israel and look the other way with the Palestinians. Israel will get the worse of both worlds - they will be charged with wars of aggression against a foreign state when they fight back and Palestinians will be able to rely on the apparatus of international law to supplement terrorism.





When the Palestinians use violance you attack them and when they use peaceful methods you attack them. 

Why dont you just come out and say that you dont think Palestinians have a right to a state.


----------



## @lk3mizt (Nov 29, 2012)

Yachiru said:


> Palestine has violated a treaty with Israel that forbids them to go to the UN too.



Oh? I didn't know that.

well, fuck Israel.


Why does such a treaty exist in the first place? forbidding them to go the UN? wtf?

Why is this upgrade to non-member status have Israel (and the US) all bothered and shit? Is it because they know that if Palestine goes to the ICC, Israel will be denounced as the invader scum they are?

cuz all that "sticking to the peace process" bullshit is just that. bullshit.


I wish Obama had the balls to really press the reset button on US' relationship with Israel. He tried to once. Didn't go well for him politically.


----------



## butcher50 (Nov 29, 2012)

@lk3mizt said:


> Israel will be denounced as the invader scum they are?.



technically, you are the "Invader Scum" too.


----------



## Mansali (Nov 29, 2012)

butcher50 said:


> technically, you are the "Invader Scum" too.



What do you think about Olmert's position on this? He thinks that what the PA are doing is reasonable.


----------



## @lk3mizt (Nov 29, 2012)

butcher50 said:


> technically, you are the "Invader Scum" too.



how so?


----------



## butcher50 (Nov 29, 2012)

@lk3mizt said:


> how so?



i seriously doubt that the soil you live on today always belonged to your parents, was always originally and rightfully owned by your grandparents and always originally and rightfully owned by your other direct bloodline ancestors.

i'm a russian immigrant in israel, i have been as such for over 20 fucking years now, does that makes me an "Invader Scum" too ?

worked my ass off and purchased a house with the piece of land that it's standing you, yet i'm the invading scum ?

fuck your court, you liberal bleeding heart carlos latuff cunt.



SonVegeta said:


> What do you think about Olmert's position on  this? He thinks that what the PA are doing is reasonable.



like i give a shit about what that dirty old rapist has to say when he's not even involved in the political handles to bear responsibility and consequences for it anymore.


----------



## Toby (Nov 29, 2012)

Dionysus said:


> Germany must have recently changed its mind.
> 
> I think the majority opinion in Canada is "I don't give a shit about Israel or Palestine", if you really press someone to answer.



I dont think that is the case. Liberals and NDP supported the current system in which 300 million dollars are given to Palestine in the form of aid. Yet today they go out and vote against their potential statehood.

What exactly was that money for, if not to build a society, and a nation? Canada explicitly says it supports the two state solution.



hcheng02 said:


> Hardly. Laws only matter if they are enforced. Its ridiculous that people think that the UN will actually hold Hamas and the PLO to the Geneva Conventions. More likely it will continue the current practice of selective enforcement - throw the book at Israel and look the other way with the Palestinians. Israel will get the worse of both worlds - they will be charged with wars of aggression against a foreign state when they fight back and Palestinians will be able to rely on the apparatus of international law to supplement terrorism.



I disagree. Prior to this vote, there was no reason to hold Hamas and the Palestinians to the same standards as Israel. Now they are both, on paper (legal terms), equally obliged to engage in proportional warfare.

It is definitely the case that Israel will still get the book thrown at them, and that has nothing to do with perceived fairness. It has to do with them holding all the cards in this war. Hamas has almost nothing to use as leverage against Israel. This vote wont force an end to the conflict. It will come through whatever force can bring Hamas to the negotiating table. This has, if anything, the potential to open up a dialogue with Hamas and the outside world. That dialogue was closed off by the Bush government when they stamped them as terrorists. As of today, it will be easier to approach Hamas and "get away with it" so to speak, but it requires that the international community stop cutting them off.

Of course I am not advocating selling Hamas weapons. What I am talking about is offering them aid in condition for peace talks with Israel. That route was never really given a proper try. It would be an acceptable solution IMO since Israel would not be required to give anything up. Obviously in the long term Israel must contribute to build down the walls, settlements, etc. but that is at least one decade off into the future.


----------



## neodragzero (Nov 29, 2012)

Megaharrison said:


> I've made a proposal in the past I'll post it if you want. It's comprehensive and realistic. Unfortunately, peace is impossible until Jihadist groups in Palestinian society are reigned in from within. We can only defend ourselves so far, it's up to them.



Post it if you want. It will have to be more comprehensive than what several experts have suggested while not ignoring numerous factors that you have pretty much ignored.


> There's not a substantial political difference besides the fact that the population is slightly less religiously conservative. If we left we'd encounter the same problems. Probably on a much larger scale given the larger population.


Again, strawman. You'r pretending that I'm, along with the exports I provided, suggesting that the West Bank settlements should be closed out the same way that it was done with Gaza. Also, I'm pretty sure the difference isn't simply a matter of conservationism or lack thereof.


> We can't blockade Gaza if we want though. It is physically impossible given the Egyptian border. Inconvinent export ramifications that you seem to suggest really aren't especially relevant.


Again, yes, it's obvious that Israel can as far as the air, sea, and land blockading that includes severe restrictions on exports that make no sense with keeping weapons out of Gaza. A rhetoric that basically amounts to "we didn't literally build a wall the entire thing" is inadequate.


> I didn't know if you were going to say "well maybe Israel didn't know it was going to get 10,000 rockets when it enacted nefarious gaza plan". *I like to try and deal with things ahead of time. *It seems you weren't going to say that though.


I could of sworn that's called putting words in someone else's mouth. At least ask a question for clarification rather than pushy assumptions.


> The danger of staying out-scales the danger of leaving? Lol wut? That is insanity right now given the prevalence of powerful and heavily armed Jihadist groups in Palestinian society not interested in any lasting peace.


Yeah, an insanity that numerous experts with more experience than you on the subject with less bias incentives. Are you suggesting that the intellectual Jeffrey Goldberg, pro-Israeli IDF veteran, is nuts?


> Again, do you really think if we leave the West Bank entirely there'd be peace and no more rockets? Don't just say "it's different from Gaza", explain why there wouldn't be another rocket terror.


I already provided sources to explain the matter of how a withdrawal will be done. Continuing to ignore them isn't an argument.


> Abbas admits flat-out rejecting the offer



Nice try. I will need a quote from said individual, Abbas, not Condoleezza Rice.


----------



## @lk3mizt (Nov 29, 2012)

butcher50 said:


> i seriously doubt that the soil you live on today always belonged to your parents, always originally owned to your grandparents and always originally owned to your other direct bloodline ancestors.
> 
> fuck your court, you liberal bleeding heart carlos latuff cunt.
> 
> ...



hahaha

You would be right. Were i not from THE MOTHERLAND 

Scientifically speaking, everybody else are invader scum except us 



> i'm a russian immigrant in israel, i have been as such for over 20 fucking years now, does that makes me an "Invader Scum" too ?



Well, good for you. If your house is on what the rest of the world considers illegal, them i'm afraid you're invader scum. Rules are rules. You cant conveniently chose which ones you're going to follow. Well, you can. You just have to live with the consequences.


----------



## butcher50 (Nov 29, 2012)

@lk3mizt said:


> hahaha
> 
> You would be right. Were i not from THE MOTHERLAND
> 
> ...



just wait for the chechens and the degestanis to get recognition from the rest of the world of being "Palestinians" of russia and you as the invader scum that must driven off into the sea and let the chechens/degestans to take over.

if the rest of the world considers something to be truth then it must be true, after all the "rest of the world" tends to favor the underdog rather then the Goliath regardless of any complex details and technicalities that will make the underdog completely undesirable and unbearable in practice.

("palestine" an artificial invention made by combined collective of various arabic nationals after they were abandoned by their original masters in the land of israel to be proxies against jews) 

same shit they can pull on you.


----------



## @lk3mizt (Nov 29, 2012)

butcher50 said:


> just wait for the chechens and the degestanis to get recognition from the rest of the world of being "Palestinians" of russia and you as the invader scum that must driven off into the sea and let the chechens/degestans to take over.
> 
> if the rest of the world considers something to be truth then it must be true ?
> 
> same shit they can pull on you.



I think its safe to assume that if the rest of world says something is true, chances are, it IS true. The whole world can't be retardedly wrong at once? Not in this age of interconnectivity? 

As for the Chechens and Dagestanis, I'm afraid I cant comment much on that since I know next to nothing about their deal with Russia. I do know they've been causing some trouble over there.


----------



## butcher50 (Nov 29, 2012)

@lk3mizt said:


> I think its safe to assume that if the rest of world says something is true, chances are, it IS true. The whole world can't be retardedly wrong at once? Not in this age of interconnectivity?
> 
> As for the Chechens and Dagestanis, I'm afraid I cant comment much on that since I know next to nothing about their deal with Russia. I do know they've been causing some trouble over there.



theory vs. practice.

actual direct experience vs. rumors, news, hearsay and telephone games.

the "palestinian" bullshit will set a very destructive precedent for everyone across the world in time.

oh wait, it's already happening all over Europe and Australia.

the whites over there are occupying a muslim territory.


----------



## @lk3mizt (Nov 29, 2012)

I think you're losing the plot a little.

The UN wasn't around when the Europeans moved in and killed the American Indians. The UN wasn't around when slavery was the norm. Not much anybody can do about that. 

However, the UN WAS around when Israel occupied Palestinian territory. That, it must do something about. All this "chosen people" bullshit the Israelis like to spout is nonsense in the face of hard facts. Look at Netanyahu in this article. Talking about 4000 year relationship with the Israeli state. Nobody is arguing against an Israeli state.(well, not the PA) The PA aren't arguing against there being an Israeli state. What the Palestinians want is their land back. The land that international law has decreed that Israel stole. That is all.


----------



## Ben Tennyson (Nov 29, 2012)

Israel should pwn the palestinian now.


----------



## hcheng02 (Nov 29, 2012)

SonVegeta said:


> When the Palestinians use violance you attack them and when they use peaceful methods you attack them.
> 
> Why dont you just come out and say that you dont think Palestinians have a right to a state.



The Palestinians as I recall never used peaceful means. They had either used foreign Arab armies or their own militant groups to attack Israel from literally its first day of existence. And frankly, nothing I have seen from the Palestinians shows that they have earned the right to their own state either. 



Toby said:


> I disagree. Prior to this vote, there was no reason to hold Hamas and the Palestinians to the same standards as Israel. Now they are both, on paper (legal terms), equally obliged to engage in proportional warfare.
> 
> It is definitely the case that Israel will still get the book thrown at them, and that has nothing to do with perceived fairness. It has to do with them holding all the cards in this war. Hamas has almost nothing to use as leverage against Israel. This vote wont force an end to the conflict. It will come through whatever force can bring Hamas to the negotiating table. This has, if anything, the potential to open up a dialogue with Hamas and the outside world. That dialogue was closed off by the Bush government when they stamped them as terrorists. As of today, it will be easier to approach Hamas and "get away with it" so to speak, but it requires that the international community stop cutting them off.
> 
> Of course I am not advocating selling Hamas weapons. What I am talking about is offering them aid in condition for peace talks with Israel. That route was never really given a proper try. It would be an acceptable solution IMO since Israel would not be required to give anything up. Obviously in the long term Israel must contribute to build down the walls, settlements, etc. but that is at least one decade off into the future.



What a law is on paper is a completely different thing to what a law is on practice. On paper, Hamas and the Palestinians are on equal terms in the UN. In practice, the Palestinians are the favored side and Israel by all intents and purposes has lost any UN recognition of its right to defend itself with force. 

Proportional warfare means endless warfare. It negates the very idea of one side being able to defeat another. I mean, any attack that defeats an enemy would by definition be disproportionate since the other guy can not respond proportionally to the attack. As it is widely understood, proportional warfare demands that if one side tosses one rocket, the only proportional attack allowed would be to toss one rocket in return. It means that the weaker party dictates the rules, which completely goes against the very idea of warfare. And since Hamas is the weaker party here, it essentially means that the UN has sided with them openly.



@lk3mizt said:


> I think you're losing the plot a little.
> 
> The UN wasn't around when the Europeans moved in and killed the American Indians. The UN wasn't around when slavery was the norm. Not much anybody can do about that.
> 
> However, the UN WAS around when Israel occupied Palestinian territory. That, it must do something about. All this "chosen people" bullshit the Israelis like to spout is nonsense in the face of hard facts. Look at Netanyahu in this article. Talking about 4000 year relationship with the Israeli state. Nobody is arguing against an Israeli state.(well, not the PA) The PA aren't arguing against there being an Israeli state. What the Palestinians want is their land back. The land that international law has decreed that Israel stole. That is all.



Problem is that the Palestinians consider all of Israel's land to be stolen. To take it back means to wipe out Israel's very existence.


----------



## Megaharrison (Nov 29, 2012)

neodragzero said:


> Post it if you want. It will have to be more comprehensive than what several experts have suggested while not ignoring numerous factors that you have pretty much ignored.




*Spoiler*: __ 





> Two states. Israel and Palestine. Israel consists of pre-1967 borders and the few largest settlements along the West Bank Border (which are essentially small cities). In exchange, Israel gives a predominately Arab area of north-central Israel known as the Wadi for the Palestinians to settle (which is much larger in territory and natural resources than the selected settlement areas).
> 
> West Jerusalem is Israeli, East Jerusalem holds a Referendum for its status with all of its inhabitants participating. Regardless of who wins, a permanent Israeli Jewish religious delegation remains in East Jerusalem to manage Jewish holy sites there (along with Christian and Muslim delegations for their respective sites). In addition, Israeli's have full and complete right to visit and pray at all East Jerusalem religious sites any time they wish. Religious sites are managed and monitored by International authorities and will contain no symbols of any individual nation.
> 
> ...






Of course not even this plan can be implemented, it would fall apart due to Palestinian Jihadists.



> Again, yes, it's obvious that Israel can as far as the air, sea, and land blockading that includes severe restrictions on exports that make no sense with keeping weapons out of Gaza. A rhetoric that basically amounts to "we didn't literally build a wall the entire thing" is inadequate.



Because you need to have territorial control over an entity to effectively besiege/blockade it. Israel does not have that with Gaza. We had no way of stopping what went into the strip, as demonstrated with the massive amount of arms that are brought in there right under the nose of the Gypos who know it's there and have never done a thing about it.



> I could of sworn that's called putting words in someone else's mouth. At least ask a question for clarification rather than pushy assumptions.



Meh, Pali parade arguments are very simplistic and predictable so I try to save the energy/bandwith/time by answering them in advance before they're addressed. Course you can't always predict them 



> Yeah, an insanity that numerous experts with more experience than you on the subject with less bias incentives. Are you suggesting that the intellectual Jeffrey Goldberg, pro-Israeli IDF veteran, is nuts?



Differences in opinions, Lofty idealism and the realities of the ground are very different things. Appeals to authority doesn't validate your point though.

Fact is, the status quo is much more beneficial to Tel Aviv as the new Sderot and Al Qaeda-esque fanatics running around the West Bank.



> I already provided sources to explain the matter of how a withdrawal will be done. Continuing to ignore them isn't an argument.



So no real explanation then. Why would there be no rockets from the West Bank? Why wouldn't Hamas and Jihadists overrun the place? Why wouldn't Iran massively smuggle arms in there? 




> Nice try. I will need a quote from said individual, Abbas, not Condoleezza Rice.






Otherwise, have fun in denial land then I guess

And ROFL is #ikz3mizt a Russian guy talking about "invader scum" countries? Hilarious. Russia was formed entirely through the conquest and displacements of other people and was committed genocides less then a century ago.


----------



## @lk3mizt (Nov 29, 2012)

> Problem is that the Palestinians consider all of Israel's land to be stolen. To take it back means to wipe out Israel's very existence.



^ No. They consider East Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza as stolen. That's all they want back.

@Megaharrison: nah, man. I'm Nigerian. Living in Nigeria. You, know, Africa? The _real_ motherland?? Russia co-opted our title


----------



## butcher50 (Nov 29, 2012)

@lk3mizt said:


> I think you're losing the plot a little.
> 
> The UN wasn't around when the Europeans moved in and killed the American Indians. The UN wasn't around when slavery was the norm. Not much anybody can do about that.
> 
> However, the UN WAS around when Israel occupied Palestinian territory. That, it must do something about. All this "chosen people" bullshit the Israelis like to spout is nonsense in the face of hard facts. Look at Netanyahu in this article. Talking about 4000 year relationship with the Israeli state. Nobody is arguing against an Israeli state.(well, not the PA) The PA aren't arguing against there being an Israeli state. What the Palestinians want is their land back. The land that international law has decreed that Israel stole. That is all.



the exact same UN that created the Jewish Israel in the first place.


----------



## hcheng02 (Nov 29, 2012)

@lk3mizt said:


> ^ No. They consider East Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza as stolen. That's all they want back.



That might be the case for the PLO. For Hamas? Read their charter, they consider all of Israel land theirs.


----------



## Mansali (Nov 29, 2012)

butcher50 said:


> i seriously doubt that the soil you live on today always belonged to your parents, was always originally and rightfully owned by your grandparents and always originally and rightfully owned by your other direct bloodline ancestors.
> 
> i'm a russian immigrant in israel, i have been as such for over 20 fucking years now, does that makes me an "Invader Scum" too ?
> 
> ...



why the hell is my name on your list lol.


----------



## Ichi Sagato (Nov 29, 2012)

Good, the only way the peace process can ever move forward is if both parties can negotiate on equal footing. Palestinian state-hood is a necessary step towards that goal. Israel continues its occupation of the West Bank, and a military imposition of an open air prison system in the Gaza strip. Gaza continues to fire rockets into Israel and major jihadist groups still hold power in the West Bank.

The only way to tackle any of these problems is to empower the Palestinian authority to take control in the west bank and to have access to the Gaza strip. Also, Israel must be pressured to curb its illegal settlement expansion in the West Bank that quietly displaces Palestinians from their land. Israel also needs to show the propensity to remove the military blockades around the Gaza strip.


----------



## Megaharrison (Nov 29, 2012)

@lk3mizt said:


> ^ No. They consider East Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza as stolen. That's all they want back.
> 
> @Megaharrison: nah, man. I'm Nigerian. Living in Nigeria. You, know, Africa? The _real_ motherland?? Russia co-opted our title



Nigeria then. Even the pre-colonial entities were formed through conquest.


----------



## @lk3mizt (Nov 29, 2012)

hcheng02 said:


> That might be the case for the PLO. For Hamas? Read their charter, they consider all of Israel land theirs.



Hamas are a different beast entirely. I believe that they will fall into irrelevancy when a viable Palestinian state is created, living side by side with a thriving Israel. That is the surest way to defeat Hamas. Actually, the status quo suits Hamas quite well. Bastards.



butcher50 said:


> the exact same UN that created the Jewish Israel in the first place.



lol, touche.

edit:



> Nigeria then. Even the pre-colonial entities were formed through conquest.



By that logic, EVERY nation on Earth was formed through conquest.

which suits your argument just fine, i guess


----------



## butcher50 (Nov 29, 2012)

i would like to locate one single instance of Jerusalem being mentioned in the Quran.


----------



## hcheng02 (Nov 29, 2012)

@lk3mizt said:


> Hamas are a different beast entirely. I believe that they will fall into irrelevancy when a viable Palestinian state is created, living side by side with a thriving Israel. That is the surest way to defeat Hamas. Actually, the status quo suits Hamas quite well. Bastards.



And is this viable Palestinian state going to include Gaza or not? Because if it does include Gaza, either the PLO is going to have to retake it by force or Hamas is going to be legitimized. And Israel is not going to be making sacrifices to a group that wants to wipe it out no matter what the UN says.



> By that logic, EVERY nation on Earth was formed through conquest.
> 
> which suits your argument just fine, i guess



Pretty much yeah. And frankly thats the way it still works right now beneath all the UN bluster and paperwork.


----------



## Mansali (Nov 29, 2012)

hcheng02 said:


> And is this viable Palestinian state going to include Gaza or not? Because if it does include Gaza, either the PLO is going to have to retake it by force or Hamas is going to be legitimized. And Israel is not going to be making sacrifices to a group that wants to wipe it out no matter what the UN says.
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty much yeah. And frankly thats the way it still works right now beneath all the UN bluster and paperwork.



Its going to include all of the Palestinian territories and East Jerusalem. 

Hamas will lose its power when there is peace as its the "war" party. 

I see Israel going to the left after there is peace also as Likud is another "war" party. 

When the Palestinians have peace they will start to look at other things such as education, the economy etc. Hamas sucks at that and they will be defeated or changed. But as of now war is the thing that keeps Hamas in power. 

Hamas cannot destroy Israel. This thing is more of a symbolic gesture that Hamas really should just do it.

@ butcher: Why is my name on your "cunt" list. What have I done that led you to flame me?


----------



## @lk3mizt (Nov 29, 2012)

butcher50 said:


> i would like to locate one single instance of Jerusalem being mentioned in the Quran.



my Quranic knowledge is shoddy so i cant answer you categorically, but I do know this:

1. before the Kaaba in Mecca, Jerusalem was the location muslims faced when they prayed.

2. One of Islam's holiest sites is in Jerusalem

3. Islam holds Jesus in the highest regard. 

I think this shows you how much regard/respect Islam has for Jerusalem.



hcheng02 said:


> And is this viable Palestinian state going to include Gaza or not? Because if it does include Gaza, either the PLO is going to have to retake it by force or Hamas is going to be legitimized. And Israel is not going to be making sacrifices to a group that wants to wipe it out no matter what the UN says.
> 
> 
> .



It will include Gaza. And if the Palestinian people see that Hamas is what is keeping them from having a state, I bet my bottom dollar, they will happily team up with Israel to destroy Hamas. Right now, the Palestinian people aren't comfortable with Hamas. They only just warming up to Hamas because it seems like it's only them that are actively fighting for their rights. Misguided, but can you blame them?


----------



## butcher50 (Nov 29, 2012)

@lk3mizt said:


> By that logic, EVERY nation on Earth was formed through conquest.
> 
> which suits your argument just fine, i guess



nations (countries) are at their barest essentials are nothing more then a  gigantic mafia territories, cartels, thug protection rackets  legalized/officialized by the concept of shared history, culture and other  collective notions, (including superior firepower) people don't bother really questioning it  anymore because it's been so long that it doesn't matters anyway.

you can either adapt and integrate or you can self-destruct all over it.



SonVegeta said:


> @ butcher: Why is my name on your "cunt" list. What have I done that led you to flame me?



1#: dupe account suspect of another jihadist that will go to any lengths to stay connected to this forum.
2#: your support for pisslam in general.
3#: i don't like you.

how about THAT for a motive ?


----------



## Mansali (Nov 29, 2012)

butcher50 said:


> nations (countries) are at their barest essentials are nothing more then a  gigantic mafia territories, cartels, thug protection rackets  legalized/officialized by the concept of shared history, culture and other  collective notions, (including superior firepower) people don't bother really questioning it  anymore because it's been so long that it doesn't matters anyway.
> 
> you can either adapt and integrate or you can self-destruct all over it.
> 
> ...



1) This is not a duplicate account. You can ask the mods to do a check on me and they will prove that I never had another account.
2) my support for Pislam? Last time I checked I said that I am a liberal who supports gay marriage, equal right for women, and religious tolerance. Being in favour of a Palestinian state makes me an extremist? 
3) lol I haven't even done anything to warrant such hate.

Your the extremist here... How dare you accuse me of being an extremist just because I am taking a balanced approach that you don't like. 

It's people with your attitude which is the reason why peace is not being achieved. 

The PA use a peaceful method and all I here is bitching and moaning from you people. Why don't you just come out and say that you don't want them to get a state?

And just to be clear I want all countries to be secular states. If I had my way, all the states in the world will be secular.


----------



## Blue_Panter_Ninja (Nov 30, 2012)

And it's passed


----------



## drache (Nov 30, 2012)

so not sure this is a good idea.....


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Nov 30, 2012)

drache said:


> so not sure this is a good idea.....


That's because you're not a bleeding heart liberal tool.


----------



## drache (Nov 30, 2012)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> That's because you're not a bleeding heart liberal tool.


 
actually I don't have any problem being called a bleeding heart liberal, frankly if more people actually cared more the world would be a better place. That said I don't think the UN should be acknowledging a nation that has never existed and one that supports large scale terrorist action against an UN member


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Nov 30, 2012)

drache said:


> actually I don't have any problem being called a bleeding heart liberal, frankly if more people actually cared more the world would be a better place. That said I don't think the UN should be acknowledging a nation that has never existed and one that supports large scale terrorist action against an UN member


The thing is that you're stating exactly what I am talking about, people care so much that they think we need to give special treatment just for the getting their asses kicked even when they refuse to stop being aggressors.


----------



## Petes12 (Nov 30, 2012)

I don't really see the harm in recognizing that they exist


----------



## drache (Nov 30, 2012)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> The thing is that you're stating exactly what I am talking about, people care so much that they think we need to give special treatment just for the getting their asses kicked even when they refuse to stop being aggressors.


 
touche, I'll have to concede that point but generaly it's better to care then to not though in this case you're right it's the opposite problem, people are caring too much


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Nov 30, 2012)

Petes12 said:


> I don't really see the harm in recognizing that they exist





drache said:


> touche, I'll have to concede that point but generaly it's better to care then to not though in this case you're right it's the opposite problem, people are caring too much


Not even that they're caring too much...if they cared too much they would have a problem with the Muslim world...they'd focus on Syria for one. They care because the Jews are an easy enemy and because the world makes a big deal of it. If Egypt was fucking up Palestine no one would bat an eye because "that's their way".


----------



## drache (Nov 30, 2012)

I don't really think the situation is that simple though I also think there is truth to what you say too


----------



## Mansali (Nov 30, 2012)

drache said:


> I don't really think the situation is that simple though I also think there is truth to what you say too



So should the PA have not taken the peaceful method by asking the UN for this?

Israel also got their state in a similar fashion. 

What this does is put more pressure on Israel to stop the settlement building. That's probably why Israel was so worried about this going through....now that the PA has access to the ICC.

And the PA has said that they will still use negotiations with Israel to reach a peace agreement. 

Even the former Israeli leader Ehud Olmert thinks its a reasonable action by the PA

Remember that the PA is the more moderate faction and they are the key to peace. 

Hamas and the Likud party are part of the problem and they will not lead to peace. 

That's why the moderate voices on both sides are the way to peace.


----------



## hcheng02 (Nov 30, 2012)

SonVegeta said:


> So should the PA have not taken the peaceful method by asking the UN for this?
> 
> Israel also got their state in a similar fashion.
> 
> ...



Last time I checked the UN proposal in 1948 fell through and Israel had to fight off its Arab neighbors in order to get its state. I predict that the ICC will go the way of the UN Human Rights Council in being an international joke. When the ICC throws the book on Israel and allows Hamas to kill with impunity people will see just what international law is worth.


----------



## Mansali (Nov 30, 2012)

hcheng02 said:


> Last time I checked the UN proposal in 1948 fell through and Israel had to fight off its Arab neighbors in order to get its state. I predict that the ICC will go the way of the UN Human Rights Council in being an international joke. When the ICC throws the book on Israel and allows Hamas to kill with impunity people will see just what international law is worth.





The message I'm getting from you is that you don't want the ICC or the UN to ever blame Israel but to always blame the Palestinians. 
Or are you saying that both sides should be put to blame when they kill civilians? 

What's your position on the settlements?

Just curious..are you from that region?


----------



## drache (Nov 30, 2012)

SonVegeta said:


> So should the PA have not taken the peaceful method by asking the UN for this?
> 
> Israel also got their state in a similar fashion.
> 
> ...


 
Last I checked the PLA is STILL throwing rockets indisriminately at the Isreali people so you don't get to play the 'they only want peace card'

If that was the case then stop the terrorism and recognize Isreali's right to exist.

And Isreali got it's statehood by surviving being ganged up on by it's neighbors and by the Palestinian people. I hold no great love for Isreali and I don't care for it's tacitcs but at least they didn't start this mess and frankly to their credit they have never been the aggressor.


----------



## Jin-E (Nov 30, 2012)

No surprise there i guess. What is worrying for Israel though is the fact that among the European nations, only the Czech republic voted against the resolution. Looks like Netanyahu hasn't exactly endeared many of Israel's historical allies. 

Let's hope something meaningful comes out of this.


----------



## Mansali (Nov 30, 2012)

drache said:


> Last I checked the PLA is STILL throwing rockets indisriminately at the Isreali people so you don't get to play the 'they only want peace card'
> 
> If that was the case then stop the terrorism and recognize Isreali's right to exist.
> 
> And Isreali got it's statehood by surviving being ganged up on by it's neighbors and by the Palestinian people. I hold no great love for Isreali and I don't care for it's tacitcs but at least they didn't start this mess and frankly to their credit they have never been the aggressor.



Those are two different groups. Hamas is the one throwing the rockets. 

The PA are the ones who are the moderate faction...the ones who have decided to negotiate instead of using violence,


----------



## drache (Nov 30, 2012)

I wouldn't conclude too much out of that Jin as many people might have voted yes simply because they didn't think it too big a deal



SonVegeta said:


> Those are two different groups. Hamas is the one throwing the rockets.
> 
> The PA are the ones who are the moderate faction...the ones who have decided to negotiate instead of using violence,


 
I hold them both responsible, if the PLA/PA want to wash their hands of that then they could for example start cooperating with Isreali or a neutral party to stop said terrorist actions.

Till then their hands are just as bloody


----------



## Mansali (Nov 30, 2012)

Jin-E said:


> No surprise there i guess. What is worrying for Israel though is the fact that among the European nations, only the Czech republic voted against the resolution. Looks like Netanyahu hasn't exactly endeared many of Israel's historical allies.
> 
> Let's hope something meaningful comes out of this.



What if the people in Gaza suddenly realize that the PA in one day has done more for them than Hamas has done in 10 years. Perhaps that will change their minds.


----------



## Mansali (Nov 30, 2012)

drache said:


> I wouldn't conclude too much out of that Jin as many people might have voted yes simply because they didn't think it too big a deal
> 
> 
> 
> ...



They say they want to negotiate with Israel as long as Israel stops building settlements. 

But don't you give them credit for taking the peaceful route?

The PA and Hamas aren't one entity. Blaming the PA equally is unfair I think.


----------



## drache (Nov 30, 2012)

SonVegeta said:


> They say they want to negotiate with Israel as long as Israel stops building settlements.
> 
> But don't you give them credit for taking the peaceful route?


 
In this situation I believe only in actions and by action they have not proved their sincerity. I have already mentioned one way they could change that I am sure there are others.

And least you misunderstand, I don't particularly think Isreali is that sincere either but of the two I think Isreali is slightly more moved to peace and certainly more the victim here then the PA


----------



## Mansali (Nov 30, 2012)

I personally believe that Israel could make a deal with the PA in which Israel gives the Palestinians all of the West Bank , East Jerusalem, Gaza for a state in exchange for the PA getting rid of Hamas and the rockets by any means possible.


----------



## drache (Nov 30, 2012)

Except Hamas would have to go first but yeah that could maybe work


----------



## Jin-E (Nov 30, 2012)

drache said:


> I wouldn't conclude too much out of that Jin as many people might have voted yes simply because they didn't think it too big a deal



Perhaps.

France in particular i suspect supported it to brownnose the arabs.

But it's still worrying for Israel to be seen as so diplomatically isolated as they are in this case. Large support for previous pro-Palestinian resolutions in the GA could be explained due to cold war politics or third world countries having knee jerk reactions to anything smacking of "colonialism". This time however, practically all of Europe and other well established democracies either voted for or abstained. 

To be frank...not really sure what i think of this personally. I guess i'll postpone judgement until i see what it leads too.




SonVegeta said:


> What if the people in Gaza suddenly realize that the PA in one day has done more for them than Hamas has done in 10 years. Perhaps that will change their minds.



Let's just say i'm not entirely optimistic on that part.

After all, Fatah corruption and incompetence was the main reason as to why Hamas was elected in the first place.


----------



## drache (Nov 30, 2012)

^

honestly so long as Isreal has America's support it's rather meaningless because the world as a whole (but especially europe) leans on America to act as the policeman of the world. Consquently Europe really doesn't have much in the way of support or leverage here.


----------



## Darth (Nov 30, 2012)

butcher50 said:


> i would like to locate one single instance of Jerusalem being mentioned in the Quran.


Jersualem as a city? Or the land itself? "The Children of Israel" were mentioned multiple times in the Quran as was "The Holy Land" mentioned as well. 

I'm fairly certain you could just google it if you weren't so lazy. 


@lk3mizt said:


> my Quranic knowledge is shoddy so i cant answer you categorically, but I do know this:
> 
> 1. before the Kaaba in Mecca, Jerusalem was the location muslims faced when they prayed.


This is actually false. The Ka'ba actually existed before the introduction of Islam. 



drache said:


> actually I don't have any problem being called a bleeding heart liberal, frankly if more people actually cared more the world would be a better place.* That said I don't think the UN should be acknowledging a nation that has never existed *and one that supports large scale terrorist action against an UN member



I'm sorry but seriously?


----------



## drache (Nov 30, 2012)

I'm sorry do you not know the history of the area?


----------



## Darth (Nov 30, 2012)

drache said:


> I'm sorry do you not know the history of the area?



Not even going to discuss this with you Drache. 

If you believe that Palestine never existed then there's nothing more to be said.


----------



## drache (Nov 30, 2012)

Darth said:


> Not even going to discuss this with you Drache.
> 
> If you believe that Palestine never existed then there's nothing more to be said.


 
If you don't want to discuss it then don't bring it up Darth


----------



## Ichi Sagato (Nov 30, 2012)

drache said:


> *That said I don't think the UN should be acknowledging a nation that has never existed* and one that supports large scale terrorist action against an UN member



If you were a politician drache, your career would have been over right there.



drache said:


> Last I checked the PLA is STILL throwing rockets indisriminately at the Isreali people so you don't get to play the 'they only want peace card'



The PLA are not responsible for the terrorism committed by the Jihadists in the West Bank and Gaza. With this mandate for state hood by the UN GA, hopefully they can establish authority and take responsibility against terrorist cells in their territory.



drache said:


> If that was the case then stop the terrorism and recognize Isreali's right to exist.



Stop the terrorism, absolutely. acknowledge right to exist? The same right that the now state of Palestine has, to be recognized, is being contested by Israel and I shamefully regret to say the US as well?



drache said:


> at least they didn't start this mess and frankly to their credit they have never been the aggressor.



Do we start with pre 1948 war Haganah? Or the recent nov 18 2012 Gaza bombing that killed three generations of a single family?


----------



## Coteaz (Nov 30, 2012)

Ichi Sagato said:


> If you were a politician drache, your career would have been over right there.


He's right, though. :ho

Say what you will about the current Palestine, but historically "Palestine" was invented by the British in the early 20th century.


----------



## Gaawa-chan (Nov 30, 2012)

Ichi Sagato said:


> Stop the terrorism, absolutely. acknowledge right to exist? The same right that the now state of Palestine has, to be recognized, is being contested by Israel and I shamefully regret to say the US as well?



This.  Israel (not collectively but in general, you get it whatevermovingon) is being a big, fat hypocrite as far as this 'right to exist' stuff goes.


----------



## Kanali (Nov 30, 2012)

Coteaz said:


> He's right, though. :ho
> 
> Say what you will about the current Palestine, but historically "Palestine" was invented by the British in the early 20th century.



No it wasn't. Early versions of the name "Palestine" referring to what today is called Palestine has been around since 1150 B.C. 

The first clear use of the name Palestine is 50 B.C. 

The British didn't just sit down and say "Hey, lets call this place Palestine. That sounds neat huh? From now on, this is Palestine".


----------



## Sasuke_Bateman (Nov 30, 2012)

Hate Palestine  and everything to do with it, there are people suffering all over the world and who have it a lot worse yet they get all the attention. It's disgusing. However, I do love Jewish tears....it's so sweet


----------



## GaaraoftheDesert1 (Nov 30, 2012)

wHERE IZMAEL TO BITCH..


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Nov 30, 2012)

Gaawa-chan said:


> This.  Israel (not collectively but in general, you get it whatevermovingon) is being a big, fat hypocrite as far as this 'right to exist' stuff goes.


Except for one of these two is a government that employs a known terrorist organization.


----------



## wibisana (Nov 30, 2012)

Darth said:


> Jersualem as a city? Or the land itself? "The Children of Israel" were mentioned multiple times in the Quran as was "The Holy Land" mentioned as well.
> 
> I'm fairly certain you could just google it if you weren't so lazy.
> 
> ...



just wanna add, this is true. before Isra Miraj (when Muhamad go to heaven and be given task 5 time prayer) prayer/salah is directed to Masjidil Aqsa (Jerusalem).
and actually Muhamad said was riding Buraq from Mecca to Jerusalem and then go up to heaven.


----------



## Black Wraith (Nov 30, 2012)

*Israel to build 3,000 settler homes after UN vote*



> Israel has authorised the construction of 3,000 more housing units in occupied East Jerusalem and the West Bank, according to Israeli officials.
> 
> It is also speeding up the processing of 1,000 planning permissions.
> 
> ...


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-20552391

There you go. The fat Israel bully is lashing out. Fucking twats.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Nov 30, 2012)

Really Palestine just doesn't know it's place. You can't really demand things like this when you've lost every battle since all of this started. And that's the thing I don't really understand. The North didn't give into the South's demands after the war. No one gave two shits what Germany wanted after WWII. Palestine is a loser treating itself like it has equal footing. In an outright battle Israel would crush them, they better accept the terms of Israel's willingness to acknowledge them and stop trying to demand shit.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Nov 30, 2012)

The UN is a joke.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Nov 30, 2012)

Israel is the lesser of two evils here.


----------



## baconbits (Nov 30, 2012)

Black Wraith said:


> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-20552391
> 
> There you go. The fat Israel bully is lashing out. Fucking twats.



Please qualify what you mean by "bully".


----------



## Mansali (Nov 30, 2012)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Really Palestine just doesn't know it's place. You can't really demand things like this when you've lost every battle since all of this started. And that's the thing I don't really understand. The North didn't give into the South's demands after the war. No one gave two shits what Germany wanted after WWII. Palestine is a loser treating itself like it has equal footing. In an outright battle Israel would crush them, they better accept the terms of Israel's willingness to acknowledge them and stop trying to demand shit.



Not to be rude or anything but I don't think you understand how international law works. 

I know you support Israel strongly but don't you see anything wrong with the settlements?


----------



## Mansali (Nov 30, 2012)

Seto Kaiba said:


> The UN is a joke.



Because obviously the worlds opinion doesn't matter. 

This vote isn't exactly a vote for Hamas or the PA. Analysts says it more of a support by the majority of the world for a two state solution in the 1967 borders.


----------



## Shinigami Perv (Nov 30, 2012)

Yes the entire world is a joke. Only visionaries like the US, Israel, Micronesia and Palau have the wisdom to see the truth. The simpleminded folk of France, Sweden and Japan must be stupid. 

On a more serious note, a blog by a University of Michigan professor:



> *Palestinian Legal strategy against Israel: The Real Prize is Europe*
> 
> Posted on 11/30/2012 by Juan
> 
> ...


----------



## stream (Nov 30, 2012)

Frankly, I don't think it matters whether it has been a country before or not. Any land with people living in it should be part of a country. If the country does not exist, and no other country wants the land — and the people living on it — you create a new country.


----------



## butcher50 (Nov 30, 2012)

SonVegeta said:


> Not to be rude or anything but I don't think you understand how international law works.
> 
> I know you support Israel strongly but don't you see anything wrong with the settlements?



Israelis need to live somewhere.

so fuck you.


----------



## Sunuvmann (Nov 30, 2012)

I support Israel on most things but with the settlement stuff, I think it kinda doucehy.


----------



## Mathias124 (Nov 30, 2012)

SonVegeta said:


> Because obviously the worlds opinion doesn't matter.
> 
> This vote isn't exactly a vote for Hamas or the PA. Analysts says it more of a support by the majority of the world for a two state solution in the 1967 borders.



Most of the world is ruled by dictators.

I dont care what dictators say.


----------



## The Pink Ninja (Nov 30, 2012)

I remember the good old days when in an Israel/Palestine thread it'd be the pro-Palestine side that held the disgusting positions that made me question their humanity


----------



## Jin-E (Nov 30, 2012)

Shinigami Perv said:


> Yes the entire world is a joke. Only visionaries like the US, Israel, Micronesia and Palau have the wisdom to see the truth. The simpleminded folk of France, Sweden and Japan must be stupid.
> 
> On a more serious note, a blog by a Michigan professor who is a pretty outspoken critic of Israel:



"Pretty ouspoken critic of Israel". That's putting it gently, Perv. This is the man who all but claimed that Jews have no legal, moral or historical right towards Jerusalem at all. 

Sure, i did like his blog during the Iraq war, where he covered it extensively and he deserves cred for actually supporting the intervention in Libya for humanitarian reasons. But lately, his blog has consisted of nothing but rants against republicans and demonization of Israel(particulary the Likud party, which he seems to have some sort of paranoid obsession with). 

And speaking of youth parties advocating boicot of Israel. In Norway, two major youth parties, the SU(Socialist Youth) and RU(Red Youth)+ a Pro Palestinian umbrella group urged a boicot of Israeli goods. The result was the exact opposite, the import increased due to pro-Israeli activists who did a "buy cott", buying israeli products en masse. It illustrates the fact that Europe is divided on Israel and that there isn't a universal revulsion against it as was the case with South Africa.

As for European courts opening cases against Israel, that might be happening, but it will all but certainly not effect government policy towards Israel. Several high-level israeli officers and politicians were sought by spanish and british courts on the basis of complaints by pro-Palestinian groups, without it affecting Israeli ties with both of these countries.

An important part that Cole glosses over is also the fact that the Europeans set an implicit demand for this recognition, namely that the palestinians should pick up negotiations with Israel again and get the peace process back on track. If the palestinians back away or cough up more excuses, they might squander away the good will they have gathered.


----------



## Megaharrison (Nov 30, 2012)

Meh silly move I maintain we should have supported the non membership bid to take the wind of the palis sails.


Also exacerbates ZOmG SETTLEMENT hysterics from people which distracts towards addressing real core issues of the conflict.


----------



## Megaharrison (Nov 30, 2012)

It seems appeal to authority logical fallacies are the only thug perv can use to justify the inconvienient realities that are seen when actually examining the issues. Simple conflicts are ones that are easier for blanket statements/slogans I suppose. You can't even say why this is so swell beyond simplistic slogans and "THE WORLD VOTES"


Sweden and japan and france also sold arms to Mubarak, I guess that was a great thing too.


----------



## MunchKing (Nov 30, 2012)

This is the best option for the palestinians to take.



Mathias124 said:


> Most of the world is ruled by dictators.
> 
> I dont care what dictators say.



That's ok.

Chances are they don't care about you either.


----------



## Mathias124 (Nov 30, 2012)

The Pink Ninja said:


> I remember the good old days when in an Israel/Palestine thread it'd be the pro-Palestine side that held the disgusting positions that made me question their humanity



All the pro palestine people ran out arguments that hadnt been shot down.

trust me they are still the worst


----------



## Jin-E (Nov 30, 2012)

I kinda doubt the approval of 3000 housing units were meant as a big middle finger towards the UN. Could have been a coincidence that they were approved today. 

However, the "speeding up the processing of 1000 planning permissions" bit is suspicious to say the least


----------



## makeoutparadise (Nov 30, 2012)

Megaharrison said:


> Meh silly move I maintain we should have supported the non membership bid to take the wind of the palis sails.
> 
> 
> Also exacerbates ZOmG SETTLEMENT hysterics from people which distracts towards addressing real core issues of the conflict.



But the less land the Palestinians own the more insignificant as a state it will be!


----------



## WT (Nov 30, 2012)

If a Palestinian farmer accidentally wanders into Israeli land, they are threatened with violence/death and people defend that shit.

If Israel builds home in Palestinian land ... nothing happens.

It would be fully justified for Palestine to destroy these homes, nothing immoral about it. The only fundamental reason why they shouldn't would be from a strategic pov. Israel will attack back creating more chaos. 

Had that not been the case, yeah fucking burn them to the ground.


----------



## stream (Nov 30, 2012)

Megaharrison said:


> Also exacerbates ZOmG SETTLEMENT hysterics from people which distracts towards addressing real core issues of the conflict.


I know you don't think it, but I do think that settlements are a core issue of the conflict. Israel should decide once for all either to annex Palestine and accept Palestinians as Israeli citizens, or to stop grabbing land from Palestine. The Palestinians need the land as much as Israelis do, if not more.

In fact, the fact that the Israeli government has taken this decision in retaliation for the UN vote shows that they also think this is what will hurt the Palestinians the most.


----------



## vampiredude (Nov 30, 2012)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Really Palestine just doesn't know it's place. You can't really demand things like this when you've lost every battle since all of this started. And that's the thing I don't really understand. The North didn't give into the South's demands after the war. No one gave two shits what Germany wanted after WWII. Palestine is a loser treating itself like it has equal footing. In an outright battle Israel would crush them, they better accept the terms of Israel's willingness to acknowledge them and stop trying to demand shit.



Yes that's right. After all Isreal has always been there until those damn arabs came and claimed property rights(with the help of the british of course because who else). Damn dirty sand ^ (use bro) got what they had coming, they should be happy that Isreal acknowledges their wishes for a home at all. We all know that nobody cares about the losers of the war since darwinism is all that matters so to hell with morality. I mean do you see any indians walking around the US senate? Damn straight you don't cause America kicked their weak ass. Damn redskins should have invented guns faster.


----------



## Mathias124 (Nov 30, 2012)

MunchKing said:


> This is the best option for the palestinians to take.
> 
> That's ok.
> 
> Chances are they don't care about you either.



Poor attempt at being smart.


----------



## Mansali (Nov 30, 2012)

Mathias124 said:


> Poor attempt at being smart.



The majority of the worlds democracies voted in favour for this.


----------



## Mathias124 (Nov 30, 2012)

White Tiger said:


> If a palistinian farmer accidentally wanders into Israely land, they are threatened with violence/death and people defend that shit.



I dare you to walk through Gaza wearing Jew curls and a hat.

Until you've done so all you say on this issue is bullshit worth discarding.

Thank you very much, hope you'll survive the ordeal, not just threatened


----------



## Mathias124 (Nov 30, 2012)

SonVegeta said:


> The majority of the worlds democracies voted in favour for this.



The majority of the worlds democracies arent democracies at all.

Remember, china is a democracy


----------



## Mansali (Nov 30, 2012)

Mathias124 said:


> I dare you to walk through Gaza wearing Jew curls and a hat.
> 
> Until you've done so all you say on this issue is bullshit worth discarding.
> 
> Thank you very much, hope you'll survive the ordeal, not just threatened



What's your point? 

Are you commenting on this thread to say you support the settlements.


----------



## Mansali (Nov 30, 2012)

Mathias124 said:


> The majority of the worlds democracies arent democracies at all.
> 
> Remember, china is a democracy



The majority of the worlds real democracies voted in favour, what is it that you don't get?


----------



## Mathias124 (Nov 30, 2012)

SonVegeta said:


> The majority of the worlds real democracies voted in favour, what is it that you don't get?



I dont view most of the real democracies as anything but children's dictatorships.

Italy and Greece are a prime example


----------



## Spock (Nov 30, 2012)

How fucking childish.

And biased member are biased. It's lovely really, you'd agree with any fucking criminal move Israel would make. At least some of the biased members refrain from posting, that makes them look less idiotic.


----------



## Mansali (Nov 30, 2012)

Mathias124 said:


> I dont view most of the real democracies as anything but children's dictatorships.
> 
> Italy and Greece are a prime example



Why are you against this?  have you not done any research and are just randomly giving your opinion? or is it that you reject a Palestinian state?


----------



## αce (Nov 30, 2012)

These settlements need to stop.


----------



## αce (Nov 30, 2012)

> Really Palestine just doesn't know it's place. You can't really demand  things like this when you've lost every battle since all of this  started. And that's the thing I don't really understand. The North  didn't give into the South's demands after the war. No one gave two  shits what Germany wanted after WWII. Palestine is a loser treating  itself like it has equal footing. In an outright battle Israel would  crush them, they better accept the terms of Israel's willingness to  acknowledge them and stop trying to demand shit.



You see no problem with settlements?


----------



## Mathias124 (Nov 30, 2012)

SonVegeta said:


> Why are you against this?  have you not done any research and are just randomly giving your opinion? or is it that you reject a Palestinian state?



I reject a palestinian state and its a fact that most of the UN are dictatorships.

why do i need research?


----------



## Spock (Nov 30, 2012)

Mathias124 said:


> The majority of the worlds democracies arent democracies at all.
> 
> Remember, china is a democracy
> 
> ...



Wtf is this conspiracy bullshit? This is all in spite of a Palestinian state? Denouncing worlds democracies? Amusing.


----------



## Mathias124 (Nov 30, 2012)

Rarity said:


> Wtf is this conspiracy bullshit? This is all in spite of a Palestinian state? Denouncing worlds democracies? Amusing.



I have always denounced the southern europeans right to democracy as everybody here knows.

Nothing new under the sun


----------



## αce (Nov 30, 2012)

Well I like to think that Mega uses as much objectivity as he can - and there's no denying that this is just unnecessary.


----------



## Spock (Nov 30, 2012)

Mathias124 said:


> I have always denounced the southern europeans right to democracy as everybody here knows.
> 
> Nothing new under the sun



You are not as important as you'd like to think, I don't memorize your political views.

South European democracies are not the center issue, you generalized worlds democracies which include Sweden as not democratic at all.

Well...as for denouncing democracies, if European and worlds democracies are nothing but dictatorship play, is Israel a real democracy then?


----------



## Mathias124 (Nov 30, 2012)

Rarity said:


> *You are not as important as you'd like to think,* I don't memorize your political views.
> 
> South European democracies are not the center issue, you generalized worlds democracies which include Sweden as not democratic at all.
> 
> Well...as for denouncing democracies, if European and worlds democracies are nothing but dictatorship play, is Israel a real democracy then?



I usually get negged like this when i bring up southern europe " oh its you again" and when i post shit about southern europe people usually say "there he is a again", i think its safe to assume people recognize me when i flame the south.

Sweden voted for? no surprise, i acknowledge their opinion.


----------



## vampiredude (Nov 30, 2012)

Okey and now for a more calm statement. Both Isrealis and Palestinians have a right to live there, but right now Hamas needs stop shooting rockets at isreali civilians and Isreal needs to stop the settlement building on palestinian territory. Both parties need to acknowledge each others right to live.


----------



## Spock (Nov 30, 2012)

Ok              .


----------



## Mansali (Nov 30, 2012)

Mathias124 said:


> I reject a palestinian state and its a fact that most of the UN are dictatorships.
> 
> why do i need research?



If you reject a two state solution, what's the best solution in your opinion. Where are from? I'm just trying to understand where your coming from. 

I don't neg people because of differing views.


----------



## Mathias124 (Nov 30, 2012)

SonVegeta said:


> If you reject a two state solution, what's the best solution in your opinion. Where are from? I'm just trying to understand where your coming from.
> 
> I don't neg people because of differing views.



I do not accept a two state solution because it would be no solution.

The palestinians would start sending missiles within 2-3 years of pure millitary buildup.

The solution is already there, palestinians need to integrate and understand that being part of the most modern state in the ME beats being the poorest.


----------



## Mansali (Nov 30, 2012)

Mathias124 said:


> I do not accept a two state solution because it would be no solution.
> 
> The palestinians would start sending missiles within 2-3 years of pure millitary buildup.
> 
> The solution is already there, palestinians need to integrate and understand that being part of the most modern state in the ME beats being the poorest.



But if they integrate wouldn't the arabs become a majority in Israel?

I though the point of the two state solution is to prevent that scenario from happening.

And isnt the reason why they support attacks on Israel because they dont have a state yet?


----------



## Mathias124 (Nov 30, 2012)

SonVegeta said:


> But if they integrate wouldn't the arabs become a majority in Israel?
> 
> I though the point of the two state solution is to prevent that scenario from happening.



If they integrated they wouldnt be arabs but Israeli's.

Thats what integration means, embracing the society you live it and call it your own.


----------



## Mansali (Nov 30, 2012)

Mathias124 said:


> If they integrated they wouldnt be arabs but Israeli's.
> 
> Thats what integration means, embracing the society you live it and call it your own.



But that would make the Jew's a minority in Israel. I thought they want to remain a Jewish state?


----------



## Mathias124 (Nov 30, 2012)

SonVegeta said:


> But that would make the Jew's a minority in Israel. I thought they want to remain a Jewish state?



A state built on jewish beliefs would be the correct wording IMO.
A safe haven for jews doesnt neccesarily mean it has to be a jewish majority.

I live in Denmark where most people are atheist, still a christian state


----------



## Ben Tennyson (Nov 30, 2012)

i support israel decision.


----------



## Mathias124 (Nov 30, 2012)

SonVegeta said:


> What's your point?
> 
> Are you commenting on this thread to say you support the settlements.



My point? that palestinians would do far worse to a jew than vice versa.

Which we both know is true, seeing as you said a palestinian would be threatened and we both know a jew walking alone through gaza would most likely be picked up


----------



## Spock (Nov 30, 2012)

Safe haven for Jews. People still buy that bullshit?


----------



## Mansali (Nov 30, 2012)

Mathias124 said:


> A state built on jewish beliefs would be the correct wording IMO.
> A safe haven for jews doesnt neccesarily mean it has to be a jewish majority.
> 
> I live in Denmark where most people are atheist, still a christian state



Yeah you make good points but I know for a fact that Israeli's want to remain a Jewish Majority. After suffering so much for hundreds of years they want a state where they are the ones who are the majority. 

If the Arab's become a majoriy they fear that then they will be the ones who decide the elections, and thats something they dont want to deal with. 

That is why a majority of Israeli's support a two state solution. 

There are Arabs who want the "right of return" in which they should be allowed to come back to their old homes in Israel, but Israel doesnt want that happening.

I know where your coming from but I dont think Israel will ever let that happen. Now from my perspective I wouldnt mind a one state solution where there is integration of all races and nationalities....but it doesnt seem like that will happen.

I see where Israel is coming from and their opinion is justified.


----------



## Ƶero (Nov 30, 2012)

Scumbag Israel being scumbags. Nothing surprising here.


----------



## Akatora (Nov 30, 2012)

Bad timing.

Should have waited at least 3 months after the ceasefire, or better yet done it a month ago before the Gaza conflict escalated. 

You may want to help fatah but it's Hamas that'll get the main attention -_-


----------



## Mathias124 (Nov 30, 2012)

SonVegeta said:


> Yeah you make good points but I know for a fact that Israeli's want to remain a Jewish Majority. After suffering so much for hundreds of years they want a state where they are the ones who are the majority.
> 
> *If the Arab's become a majoriy they fear that then they will be the ones who decide the elections, and thats something they dont want to deal with.
> *
> ...



to the bolded: i thought i had already explained integration to you? if they succesfully integrated it wouldn't even be something you'd think about. Like the Irish nowadays in New York, havent heard of problems with Irish gangs for a while 

To the "right of return" The sheer volume of arabs who'd make use of that in order to get into Israel would be enormous.
Then add in the fact that the palestinian culture has been invented since they were forced out, and i doubt documentation of birth in the british mandate is something families have kept for years.
Its easy to tell if a person is jewish or not, but palestinian? impossible.


----------



## hadou (Nov 30, 2012)

After the UN declaration, this seems to be Israel's way of giving the middle finger.


----------



## Spock (Nov 30, 2012)

Ben Tennyson said:


> i support israel decision.



Why              ?


----------



## Megaharrison (Nov 30, 2012)

stream said:


> I know you don't think it, but I do think that settlements are a core issue of the conflict. Israel should decide once for all either to annex Palestine and accept Palestinians as Israeli citizens, or to stop grabbing land from Palestine. The Palestinians need the land as much as Israelis do, if not more.



The conflict would still take place with or without settlements, more or less in its current form. Thus the settlements are a hindrance to peace but not a root problem of the conflict.


----------



## Savior (Nov 30, 2012)

Israel is a bully. The world sees who is right in this conflict even if the media and a few vociferous people try their best to convince otherwise.


----------



## @lk3mizt (Nov 30, 2012)

on topic though, since I really do feel strongly about this topic:


Israel isn't winning any friends with this move. It comes off as childish and  petulant. It hardens the stances of everybody who voted for Palestine's UN bid. Alienating the rest of the world isn't in Israel's best interests...If anything, they are winning the PA some new friends.


----------



## hadou (Nov 30, 2012)

@lk3mizt said:


> on topic though, since I really do feel strongly about this topic:
> 
> 
> Israel isn't winning any friends with this move. It comes off as childish and  petulant. It hardens the stances of everybody who voted for Palestine's UN bid. Alienating the rest of the world isn't in Israel's best interests...If anything, they are winning the PA some new friends.



The problem with Israel has always been its self-righteousness; too much of anything is bad.


----------



## Outlandish (Nov 30, 2012)

I wonder what they are thinking by doing this, was this a calculated move or just the crazy hard-liners who are in power in Israel.


----------



## stream (Nov 30, 2012)

Megaharrison said:


> The conflict would still take place with or without settlements, more or less in its current form. Thus the settlements are a hindrance to peace but not a root problem of the conflict.


How does that excuse anything? My neighbors are already unhappy anyway because I am playing music loudly, so it makes no difference if I also dump all my garbage on their lawn?


----------



## Megaharrison (Nov 30, 2012)

stream said:


> How does that excuse anything? My neighbors are already unhappy anyway because I am playing music loudly, so it makes no difference if I also dump all my garbage on their lawn?



It isn't an excuse, you said the settlements were a root cause of the conflict and I explained they were not because the conflict would take place (and has taken place) with or without settlements. So it isn't a root cause, just the worst thing on the Israeli side and an obstacle as opposed to a cause.


----------



## WT (Nov 30, 2012)

Mathias124 said:


> I dare you to walk through Gaza wearing Jew curls and a hat.
> 
> Until you've done so all you say on this issue is bullshit worth discarding.
> 
> Thank you very much, hope you'll survive the ordeal, not just threatened



I wasn't talking about that.

I was speaking of IDF members shooting dead Palestinians for wandering on their land.

Regardless, the Jews and Muslims have lived together in peace for hundreds of years before this conflict.

In the general scheme of things, it was the Arabs and Muslims who have been most kind towards the Jews taking the past millennium into consideration.


----------



## Megaharrison (Nov 30, 2012)

White Tiger said:


> I wasn't talking about that.
> 
> I was speaking of IDF members shooting dead Palestinians for wandering on their land.
> 
> ...



Oh yes, like displacing 700,000 Jews from their land. How kind of them!

And since previously in this thread you've advocating destroying people living on "their land" and burning down their homes, I guess Jews now can go waltz into Iraq and do the same to Iraqi civilians on "their land"?


----------



## WT (Nov 30, 2012)

Megaharrison said:


> Oh yes, like displacing 700,000 Jews from their land. How kind of them!



That was after the whole conflict began. Besides that, compared to what the Europeans did to you guys, I'd call that a minor incident. Jewish economy thrived in the Islamic civilization. Now, I'm not saying there weren't incidences where Jews were discriminated against, all I was doing was comparing Jewish treatment in the past thousands of years or so to different types of groups, and Muslims certainly treated them the best, by a long shot.



> And since previously in this thread you've advocating destroying people living on "their land" and burning down their homes, I guess Jews now can go waltz into Iraq and do the same to Iraqi civilians on "their land"?



Sure. Why not. If that's the case, then the Pali's should be more than welcome to waltz into Israel and take back their land. 

And then ... the cycle continues, but oh wait, I'm sure many of the original Jews in Palestine have descendants who are now "arabs" living in Palestine.


----------



## Coteaz (Nov 30, 2012)

Kanali said:


> No it wasn't. Early versions of the name "Palestine" referring to what today is called Palestine has been around since 1150 B.C.
> 
> The first clear use of the name Palestine is 50 B.C.
> 
> The British didn't just sit down and say "Hey, lets call this place Palestine. That sounds neat huh? From now on, this is Palestine".


Ah, but "Palestine" did not exist as a political entity until the British created it.

We can assign general names to random plots of land, but that doesn't give them any legitimacy.


----------



## wibisana (Nov 30, 2012)

Rarity said:


> *You are not as important as you'd like to think*, I don't memorize your political views.
> 
> South European democracies are not the center issue, you generalized worlds democracies which include Sweden as not democratic at all.
> 
> Well...as for denouncing democracies, if European and worlds democracies are nothing but dictatorship play, is Israel a real democracy then?



what a prick
I dont agree with him/her but when you talk to someone you can't attack him directly, you have to talk about his point.

I can just say, your face ugly, therefore your opinion doesn't matter


----------



## Dralavant (Nov 30, 2012)

Rarity said:


> Safe haven for Jews. People still buy that bullshit?



Yeah....... Remarkable isn't it? 



Akatora said:


> Bad timing.
> 
> Should have waited at least 3 months after the ceasefire, or better yet done it a month ago before the Gaza conflict escalated.
> 
> You may want to help fatah but it's Hamas that'll get the main attention -_-



Well, I think Fatah will gain a leg up as well in this, simply because of the fact that it was their idea to seek higher UN status. Hamas gets a leg up because they decided to band together with Fatah after the latest siege on Gaza. While Hamas would like to use this new authority to gain back the stolen lands, Fatah could also use their new authority as leverage in their negotiations with Israel. Both political entities however, could band together once again and use the new authority to take Israel to the International Criminal Court for war crimes. This is of coarse what Israel fears the most. But hey, if you didn't do anything wrong, than you don't have to worry about it.


----------



## Megaharrison (Nov 30, 2012)

White Tiger said:


> That was after the whole conflict began. Besides that, compared to what the Europeans did to you guys, I'd call that a minor incident. Jewish economy thrived in the Islamic civilization. Now, I'm not saying there weren't incidences where Jews were discriminated against, all I was doing was comparing Jewish treatment in the past thousands of years or so to different types of groups, and Muslims certainly treated them the best, by a long shot.



I don't care that it "only" began in the 1940's or that it wasn't as bad as the Holocaust. It was an ethnic cleansing and there's no rationalizing/justifying it.



> Sure. Why not. If that's the case, then the Pali's should be more than welcome to waltz into Israel and take back their land.



So basically,m you support Jews going into Arab countries and firebombing houses. Okay I was just checking.



> And then ... the cycle continues, but oh wait, I'm sure many of the original Jews in Palestine have descendants who are now "arabs" living in Palestine.



Considering Jewish families were ethnically cleansed and driven out of the country, not likely to be very prevalent.


----------



## WT (Nov 30, 2012)

Megaharrison said:


> I don't care that it "only" began in the 1940's or that it wasn't as bad as the Holocaust. It was an ethnic cleansing and there's no rationalizing/justifying it.



Than you should be disgusted by the creation of Israel as well.



> So basically,m you support Jews going into Arab countries and firebombing houses. Okay I was just checking.



I wouldn't really call them Arab countries.

The world is quite a mixed one right now. I've told you this before, the Prophet's own wife was Jewish. There have been Jews who are Muslims since the inception of Islam.

You conveniently classify them as Arabs.


----------



## Dralavant (Nov 30, 2012)

vampiredude said:


> Yes that's right. After all Isreal has always been there until those damn arabs came and claimed property rights(with the help of the british of course because who else). Damn dirty sand ^ (use bro) got what they had coming, they should be happy that Isreal acknowledges their wishes for a home at all. We all know that nobody cares about the losers of the war since darwinism is all that matters so to hell with morality. I mean do you see any indians walking around the US senate? Damn straigt you don't cause America kicked their weak ass. Damn redskins should have invented guns faster.



Oh that was clever! Reps :ho 



♠Ace♠ said:


> These settlements need to stop.



Amen sweetheart. 



vampiredude said:


> Okey and now for a more calm statement. Both Isrealis and Palestinians have a right to live there, but right now Hamas need stop shooting rockets at isreali civilians and Isreal needs to stop the settlement building on palestinian territory. Both parties need to acknowledge each others right to live.



I couldn't agree more. You're absolutely correct, because peace can only come about if the Palestinians are allowed to share half the land along with Israel. And Israel needs to embrace the fact that the age of Zionism has passed, and the world is ready to move on.


----------



## Megaharrison (Nov 30, 2012)

White Tiger said:


> Than you should be disgusted by the creation of Israel as well.



Many countries that achieved independence from colonialism post-WW2 experienced tumultuous and violent foundations, the ramifications of which are still felt today. You think we're unique in having incidents of violence in our past? We've had bad shit in our history just like any country, and I'm not going to hate my country for it, especially when the "benevolent" countries of the world have done such worse things then we ever have more recently.





> I wouldn't really call them Arab countries.
> 
> The world is quite a mixed one right now. I've told you this before, the Prophet's own wife was Jewish. There have been Jews who are Muslims since the inception of Islam.
> 
> You conveniently classify them as Arabs.



You wouldn't call Iraq, Tunisia, etc. Arab countries? Okay then I don't really care.


----------



## Sōsuke Aizen (Nov 30, 2012)

I don't care. I'm done caring about these idiots. Let them do whatever the fuck they like. They are crazy and will kill each other forever. I have better things to do with my life.


----------



## Yami Munesanzun (Nov 30, 2012)

♚Sōsuke Aizen♚ said:


> I don't care. I'm done caring about these idiots. Let them do whatever the fuck they like. They are crazy and will kill each other forever. I have better things to do with my life.



this is probably the only time i'm going to agree with you.

on another note, it warms my heart to see people supporting the side that essentially affiliates itself with terrorist groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah.


----------



## hcheng02 (Nov 30, 2012)

SonVegeta said:


> The message I'm getting from you is that you don't want the ICC or the UN to ever blame Israel but to always blame the Palestinians.
> Or are you saying that both sides should be put to blame when they kill civilians?
> 
> What's your position on the settlements?
> ...



No, the problem is that right now the UN is hopelessly biased against Israel, to the point where I believe Israelis are very justified in not giving a damn about their opinion anymore. Just look at the Human Rights Council, which goes up in arms whenever Israel fights back but actually congratulated the Sri Lankan government for winning against the Tamil Tigers by actively assassinating journalists and human rights activists. The Palestinians are given their own refugee committee whereas other peoples like the Tibetans, Kurds, Chechyns are shrugged off. Well run places with decent governments like Somaliland are ignored despite asking for recognition for years while Hamas and the PLO are showered with UN money and attention for stealing from their people and using them as meat shields. If nothing Israel does will ever get the UN to like you then you should honestly not bother at all.

I'm a US citizen and an athiest. I'm as pro-Israel as they come without being a crazy Christian fundamentalist or actually being a Jew and joining the IDF. So I'll tell you my opinion and reasoning about the settlements. Warning: this will be a long post.

I think the settlements are definitely a bad thing for Israel. It provokes international condemnation and it makes the peace process much harder to achieve fruition. I definitely think that it would help Israel more than hurt it to stop settlement building, if for no reason than to give its enemies less material to bitch about. 

However, for all that I also believe that the real problem lies not on Israel's side with their settlements, but on the Arab/Palestinian side with their refusal to acknowledge Israel's existence. Arab hatred and desire to destroy Israel is the true fundamental obstacle to achieving peace. Frankly, I believe that if Israel was to dismantle every settlement and drag every settler kicking and screaming into Israel within the pre-1967 war lines, there would still be no peace. Israel would still be threatened by hostile militia and would still face international condemnation. Which is why I ultimately do not push Israel very hard to stop settlements, because I think that without a binding treaty and a lessening of Arab hatred than getting rid of the settlements a futile gesture. I cite Gaza as supporting evidence. 

I also have a very cynical view - bordering on contempt I would say - of these anti-Israel activists which I can divide into 2 groups: The Arab + Muslim portion and the Western portion. 

The Arab portion is easily understandable. They hate Israel because it rankles their pride that a Jewish state is living amongst them. One that vastly outstrips in its political, economic, and military achievements. Israel can easily defeat the entire Arab world in military warfare; its government is democratic and holds onto Western liberal values better; and it has a strong economy that has many scientific and business achievements. I don't buy any of the stuff about the Jews being a "chosen race" or a "light among the nations." I just take a look at their achievements and admire them for their competency and tenacity against adversity. Despite great handicaps in their founding - like a UN weapons blockade - they still managed to win against the Arabs and develop a wealthy democratic country. You only need to look at Libya and the rest of the countries liberated by the Arab Spring to realize how hard that is - and keep in mind that in places like Libya the UN was not trying to screw over the "democrats." Also note that I do not think the Arabs really care about the well-being of the Palestinians. I can tell this based on the generally horrid treatment that many Palestinians get in Arab countries: even those who profess to care about the Palestinian cause. 

The Western anti-Israel critics irritate me more, and to a degree I don't really understand how they can hate Israel so much. However, here are my impressions. Personally, I believe that these anti-Israel activists are for the large part deluded ignorant fools who have a pathetically skewed perspective of the world. I do not think that they are really sincere in their so-called thirst for justice. Rather it is a selfish desire to wallow in their moral self-righteousness and follow a fashionable trend. Objectively speaking Israel's human rights issues are not as bad as countries like Russia, Sri Lanka, China, Congo, Somalia and such. However, its not about human rights, but about sticking it to the MAN. Its hip and fashionable among the liberal in crowd to do so and because it reinforces their little ideological POV. Ranting against Israel is fundamentally no more revolutionary than buying a Che Gueva T-shirt. Countries like the USA and Israel are democracies that allow freedom of speech, and protesting against them allows them the joy of thumping their chests and proclaim "Fuck, yeah! We made a difference!" and stroke their moral egos without any real risk or danger involved. 

You see the flip side of making the USA and Israel to be just as bad, if not worse than those other countries is that by extension it makes the far left protesters who bitch about them seem and feel more hardcore, at least in their own minds. It makes them feel big and think they've accomplished something real special when in reality its not all that impressive. The real problems in the world can't be solved or addressed by their ilk, and if they pull the kind of stunts they do in countries like Russia or China they would be dismissed at best and shot at worst. Real work to stop issues like poverty and real political oppression involves intense drudgery, actual life threatening danger or both.

The worst most of these Western liberal activists who protest against Israel and the US can expect is a few burns, bruises, a bad scare, and a few nights in a detention center. They know that the US and Israel won't really harm them - whether from self interest to avoid bad PR or because they actually hold principles like freedom of speech. The problem is that they seem to think that it really makes them hardcore revolutionaries. And that's what pisses me off because it really cheapens the sacrifices of the real heroes out there, people who actually risk life and limb for their beliefs. Some fancy-lad liberal European protester who spent a few days of his summer sitting in an Israeli detention center isn't nearly as impressive as the missionaries who help North Korean refugees escape or a Russian journalist who risks torture and a point-blank bullet in the head for acting on their beliefs.

As for the storm of international condemnation that Israel gets every time it so much as looks as Palestinians funny? Its due to the unholy alliance between the Muslim bloc gunning after Israel and the Europeans wanting to look big. The latter deserves special mention because honestly I think the Europeans focus so much on Israel because its probably the only issue where they can feel powerful, morally superior and relevant. White Colonial Guilt won't allow them to really criticize third world countries in Africa and the Middle East. Superpowers like the US, China, and Russia are too powerful to really give a damn. Globalization is forcing the Europeans to cut social benefits to stay competitive, and the EU is paralyzed by the Euro crisis. The European armies are a joke. The combined might of the two strongest European armies - Britain and France - can barely trade blows with third world tinpot dictators like Gaddafi and thats with the US military giving logistical support. Remove US logistics and the Europeans can't even do that. That makes Israel the perfect target, since its small, harmless to them, cares about their opinion, and just Western enough for them to criticize without people crying about whitey. 

Furthermore, Israel has two things that Europeans hate most: nationalism and a strong military. Europe has this post-nationalist ideology that frowns upon patriotism. Everything must be resolved by diplomacy and rests on international law and human rights. The military has no place. So you can imagine how a Western country like Israel that relies on its military and patriotism for safety would rankle them. Israel is in a sense a heretic. Just like how the medieval European Christians hated the Jews for not abandoning their old ways, so do the old cultural and mental constructs come into play with European post-nationalists despising the Israelis for proudly and patriotically fighting for their country. At this point in history, I frankly doubt Europeans believe in something like fighting to defend their country. The existence of Israel is in a sense a direct challenge to the mental construct of Western progress.


----------



## Sarry (Nov 30, 2012)

A typical Israeli response. Business as sadly usual, I see.


----------



## Jeαnne (Nov 30, 2012)

uh, bunch of asses


sometimes i imagine if the only way to stop their conflict over this piece of shit is to throw an atomic bomb over there... i would like to see they fight for radioactive territory.


Fucking sad.


----------



## drache (Nov 30, 2012)

Ichi Sagato said:


> If you were a politician drache, your career would have been over right there.


 
meh the truth is not always nice



Ichi Sagato said:


> The PLA are not responsible for the terrorism committed by the Jihadists in the West Bank and Gaza. With this mandate for state hood by the UN GA, hopefully they can establish authority and take responsibility against terrorist cells in their territory.


 
As I have said before if the PLA wanted to they could cooperate to shut down Hamas just like the IRA finally did in Ireland. That they haven't shows that they're not sincere and till they do thier hands are just as bloody



Ichi Sagato said:


> If
> Stop the terrorism, absolutely. acknowledge right to exist? The same right that the now state of Palestine has, to be recognized, is being contested by Israel and I shamefully regret to say the US as well?


 
Seriously? You want to compare the situation of an actual nation that has been threaten with annilation since rebirth to the situation of a group of terrorists? Sorry not just no, but hell no. Isreal isn't perfect and I don't like a lot of what they have done but I understand it. When you back someone up against the wall you don't get to complain about what happens next Ichi.



Ichi Sagato said:


> If
> Do we start with pre 1948 war Haganah? Or the recent nov 18 2012 Gaza bombing that killed three generations of a single family?


 
You want to actually be honest? Because  we both know Isreal just didn't randomly decide to bomb Gaza, Hamas and the PLA brought that on themselves with the repeated rocket attacks. I don't like what Isreal did but I'm enough of a pragmatist to understand it was the best option to Isreal

And the Haganah? First that was not the Isreal government, second you got a point there? 



Gaawa-chan said:


> This. Israel (not collectively but in general, you get it whatevermovingon) is being a big, fat hypocrite as far as this 'right to exist' stuff goes.


 
Maybe but I can't say I don't understand thier logic



Kanali said:


> No it wasn't. Early versions of the name "Palestine" referring to what today is called Palestine has been around since 1150 B.C.
> 
> The first clear use of the name Palestine is 50 B.C.
> 
> The British didn't just sit down and say "Hey, lets call this place Palestine. That sounds neat huh? From now on, this is Palestine".


 
While it's true that the name 'Palestine' has existed for quite some time the actual people that have lived in 'Palestine' have never been a nation. The name refers to the *region* and even what *region* we are talking about has never been consistent. Sometimes it included the  Kingdom of Isreal, sometimes not, sometimes it has refered to the entire middle east, sometimes not.

Further the actual people today that call themselves 'Palestinian' are not even by and large of middle east decent. Most show Jewish or Christian ancestory.

Thus you're still wrong.


----------



## SuperSaiyaMan12 (Nov 30, 2012)

Palestine shouldn't even be considered to be a state until Hamas and the other terrorist organizations are dealt with.


----------



## drache (Nov 30, 2012)

not a huge surprise really


----------



## heavy_rasengan (Nov 30, 2012)

I am usually a supporter of Israel but this is balls and there is no way around it.


----------



## navy (Nov 30, 2012)

Regression.


----------



## Dralavant (Nov 30, 2012)

SuperSaiyaMan12 said:


> Palestine shouldn't even be considered to be a state until Hamas and the other terrorist organizations are dealt with.



In order to deal with a "terrorist organization" such as Hamas, one must understand .


----------



## drache (Nov 30, 2012)

^

it exists because even the PLA hasn't publically acknowledged that Isreal has a right to exist as a state and so it's the PLA's dirty little not so secret helper


----------



## Doge (Nov 30, 2012)

Cool stuff, now hopefully Arab countries will treat their own Palestinians better.


----------



## Shinigami Perv (Dec 1, 2012)

drache said:


> ^
> 
> it exists because even the PLA hasn't publically acknowledged that Isreal has a right to exist as a state and so it's the PLA's dirty little not so secret helper



Here are statements from the last two chairmen of the PLO: 




> 1. LETTER FROM YASSER ARAFAT TO PRIME MINISTER RABIN:
> *
> September 9, 1993*
> 
> ...




Abbas stated yesterday: 



> We did not come here seeking to delegitimize a State established years ago, and that is Israel; rather we came to affirm the legitimacy of the State that must now achieve its independence, and that is Palestine.





> We will accept no less than the independence of the State of Palestine, with East Jerusalem as its capital, on all the Palestinian territory occupied in 1967, *to live in peace and security alongside the State of Israel,* and a solution for the refugee issue on the basis of resolution 194 (III), as per the operative part of the Arab Peace Initiative.




Over the years he has repeated this



> *Sep 23, 2011*
> 
> Abbas told the United Nations he had no intention of denying Israel's right to exist, but said he did want to delegitimize the settler movement, with Jewish settlements rapidly eating up land that the Palestinians claim as theirs.


http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/23/us-un-assembly-israelis-reaction-idUSTRE78M5NR20110923



> *Jun.10, 2010 *
> 
> "I would never deny [the] Jewish right to the land of Israel," Abbas then declared.






The Boston Globe more or less sums it up:



> It would be a travesty to treat Abbas, who has accepted Israel?s right to exist and cooperated with Israeli defense forces, the same as Hamas.




The issue really is Hamas' denial of Israel's right to exist, not the PLO.


----------



## drache (Dec 1, 2012)

^

point to you but to me action is still what's important here and while I'll concede that they have said it given they've done nothing to reign in Hamas the sincerity seems to be lacking


----------



## Cromer (Dec 1, 2012)

drache said:


> ^ point to you but to me action is still what's important here and while I'll concede that they have said it given they've done nothing to reign in Hamas the sincerity seems to be lacking


 And how would you propose they 'reign in' Hamas? The only way to marginalize them is to actually deal in good faith with Abbass. Since that isn't happening anytime soon, the feeling of persecution only increases, and conflict continues to be ignited on both sides. Which benefits the warmongers on both sides, and no one else.


----------



## Megaharrison (Dec 1, 2012)

Shinigami Perv said:


> The issue really is Hamas' denial of Israel's right to exist, not the PLO.



And Islamic Jihad. And PRC. And PFLP. And Army of Islam. And PAF. And Al Quds Brigades. And the Holy Jihad Brigade. And the Al-Nasser Brigade. And Jund Ansar Allah. And the list goes on and on. It's a big fucking issue. Especially when one realizes they're all far more powerful and numerous then Fatah.

Not to mention Fatah affiliated groups also deny Israel's right to exist (Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade comes to mind).


----------



## drache (Dec 1, 2012)

Cromer said:


> And how would you propose they 'reign in' Hamas? The only way to marginalize them is to actually deal in good faith with Abbass. Since that isn't happening anytime soon, the feeling of persecution only increases, and conflict continues to be ignited on both sides. Which benefits the warmongers on both sides, and no one else.


 
Do exactly the IRA did and cooperate against Hamas and any other organization carrying out terrorist attacks


----------



## Syed (Dec 1, 2012)

Bad move by Israel. But with Bibi as PM I wouldn't expect less.


----------



## mcdave (Dec 1, 2012)

Peace is only possible if Israel has the Borders they want. Honestly if your Arm is full of shit already why not swim to the other Side too.

Smart move of Israel as long as they are the Military Superpower in the Region they can do whatever the fuck they like.

Iran with Atomic Weapons very well could bring ironically stability  into the Situation but the Try is actually leading to a full out War.

Playing the Victim card is honestly cheap but effective and i would do the same.
The other Side deserves it too much for me to be more than apathic about the whole near East thing.

We are talking Hizzbollah and Hamas and not Ghandi.


----------



## NanoHaxial (Dec 1, 2012)

Interesting to see Israelis on both sides of the political spectrum criticizing this move to one degree or another. Wonder how it will play into the upcoming elections.


----------



## Deleted member 198194 (Dec 1, 2012)

heavy_rasengan said:


> I am usually a supporter of Israel but this is balls and there is no way around it.



Basically this.  It's almost disturbing to see the sense of obligation for people here to defend the side they support no matter what issue is brought up.  Israel is the lesser of the two evils, but as I've said many times before, that doesn't excuse every single thing they do.  When they do something dickish they should be held accountable, just like Hamas should be held accountable for doing no-no's.  You don't have to support them through every single issue to defend them in the bigger picture.

This is a violation of international law.  Israel doesn't give a shit about what the world thinks, and this has always been a double edged sword for them.


----------



## butcher50 (Dec 1, 2012)

hcheng02 said:


> At this point in history, I frankly doubt Europeans believe in something like fighting to defend their country. The existence of Israel is in a sense a direct challenge to the mental construct of Western progress.



which probably explains why Europe will become an Islamic Republic within the next 20-40 years.

they are too neutered to self-preserve themselves.


----------



## Ichi Sagato (Dec 1, 2012)

drache said:


> meh the truth is not always nice



Its not true. Why doesn't it exist? Is it because its a community of subjugated people under an occupying force that dismantles and interdicts every effort at producing a nation worthy infrastructure? Politically and on the ground as well as with basic needs?



drache said:


> As I have said before if the PLA wanted to they could cooperate to shut down Hamas just like the IRA finally did in Ireland. That they haven't shows that they're not sincere and till they do thier hands are just as bloody



Different organization, different circumstances all together. The PLA needs help to reign in the terrorist groups in their territory. Attempting to preclude a national Palestinian political presence in the international community is how you prevent that from happening. Its like you want them to fail.




drache said:


> Seriously? You want to compare the situation of an actual nation that has been threaten with annilation since rebirth to the situation of a group of terrorists? Sorry not just no, but hell no. Isreal isn't perfect and I don't like a lot of what they have done but I understand it. When you back someone up against the wall you don't get to complain about what happens next Ichi.


 
Being occupied for a half century in virtual prison system where you are constantly displaced into homelessness and occasionally murdered by missiles and bombs is not being backed into a corner either? I sympathize with Israeli's who's concern for security in a hostile world must be their most pressing issue. But your lack of sympathy for the Palestinian people is very telling.

I think when it comes down to support for Israel, it often has nothing to do with the substance of any of the issues(ie settlements, rocket attacks, acknowledgement of existence). I think its just an image problem. I think its about disliking Palestinians because of their refugee status and mode of living. Disorganized, decentralized savages living on the fringes of life. But celebrating Israel's accomplishments as an economically stable democracy. It's easier for a western middle class, well to do citizen to like Israel and therefor excuse the negativity coming from their side.

If that's the case then I think some people should just come out and say it. There isn't any need to debate any of the substantive points. People in our society like stable governments. We would also like a militaristic nation over some non uniformed gun totting fighters any day of the week. It doesn't matter who's committing what. Just As long as one of them resembles our own political identity.



drache said:


> You want to actually be honest? Because we both know Isreal just didn't randomly decide to bomb Gaza, Hamas and the PLA brought that on themselves with the repeated rocket attacks. I don't like what Isreal did but I'm enough of a pragmatist to understand it was the best option to Isreal



Justifying unnecessary civilian deaths? Israel's actions, based on the past, is not merely about retaliation but is often vindictive and at times aims to punish the Palestinians.



drache said:


> And the Haganah? First that was not the Isreal government, second you got a point there?



You said they didn't start this mess and are not aggressors. I pointed out an x to y timeline showing this conflict has had Israel and its prototypes equally mired in aggression. Not that their enemies are at all innocent. The Jewish community in that region has been threatened since its conception.

as well as Irgun were paramilitary Zionist groups that were trained and equipped by the British army. They had access to the latest military hardware and numbered over some 100,000. They were later labeled terrorist organizations by Britain. They terrorized Arabs and Muslims living in the country side and practiced the same form of displacement of Palestinians that is going on today. This was before the 1948 war.


----------



## drache (Dec 1, 2012)

Ichi Sagato said:


> Its not true. Why doesn't it exist? Is it because its a community of subjugated people under an occupying force that dismantles and interdicts every effort at producing a nation worthy infrastructure? Politically and on the ground as well as with basic needs?



you're so right it's not like those 'subjugated people' are constantly attacking them with rockets, suicide bombers and other terrorist actions..... 



Ichi Sagato said:


> Different organization, different circumstances all together. The PLA needs help to reign in the terrorist groups in their territory. Attempting to preclude a national Palestinian political presence in the international community is how you prevent that from happening. Its like you want them to fail.



Bullshit, the 'modren' conflict in Ireland was over a hundred years old and the full conflict was several times that. The palestinian people need to grow up  and be serious about peace before anything moves forward and the first step on that is dealing with Hamas and all like it.




Ichi Sagato said:


> Being occupied for a half century in virtual prison system where you are constantly displaced into homelessness and occasionally murdered by missiles and bombs is not being backed into a corner either? I sympathize with Israeli's who's concern for security in a hostile world must be their most pressing issue. But your lack of sympathy for the Palestinian people is very telling.



see above and educate yourself, England did FAR worse to Ireland for *centuries* and I have sympathy for those that help themselves. So far the Palestinian people don't seem interested in that.

Your desperate and unyielding defense of indefendable actions is also telling



Ichi Sagato said:


> I think when it comes down to support for Israel, it often has nothing to do with the substance of any of the issues(ie settlements, rocket attacks, acknowledgement of existence). I think its just an image problem. I think its about disliking Palestinians because of their refugee status and mode of living. Disorganized, decentralized savages living on the fringes of life. But celebrating Israel's accomplishments as an economically stable democracy. It's easier for a western middle class, well to do citizen to like Israel and therefor excuse the negativity coming from their side.



ha! I really care for neither side but for now any further progress is on the Palestinian people right now



Ichi Sagato said:


> If that's the case then I think some people should just come out and say it. There isn't any need to debate any of the substantive points. People in our society like stable governments. We would also like a militaristic nation over some non uniformed gun totting fighters any day of the week. It doesn't matter who's committing what. Just As long as one of them resembles our own political identity.



huh? not even close



Ichi Sagato said:


> Justifying unnecessary civilian deaths? Israel's actions, based on the past, is not merely about retaliation but is often vindictive and at times aims to punish the Palestinians.



sorry you don't get to play that card given that the Palestinian people started this fucked up mess



Ichi Sagato said:


> You said they didn't start this mess and are not aggressors. I pointed out an x to y timeline showing this conflict has had Israel and its prototypes mired in aggression. Not that their enemies are at all innocent.



no you threw out some buzz words 



Ichi Sagato said:


> as well as Irgun were paramilitary Zionist groups that were trained and equipped by the British army. They had access to the latest military hardware and numbered over some 100,000. They were later labeled terrorist organizations by Britain. They terrorized Arabs and Muslims living in the country side and practiced the same form of displacement of Palestinians that is going on today. This was before the 1948 war.



we both know that link shows a situation far more complex then you are portraying, are you even trying any more?


----------



## Ichi Sagato (Dec 1, 2012)

I'm going to keep this short since it seems like you're not even serious about making any sense of your own arguments.

There won't be any serious peace talks while Hamas is still firing rockets and while illegal settlements are still taking up half of the West Bank. Settlement activity has to be halted and dismantled and Hamas and other violent anti-Israeli organizations must be disbanded. Those are the preconditions. If you want the PLA to recognize Israel while Israel challenges they're right to exist as a political body in the international community then not only are you being unreasonable but you are asking one party to give up a reasonable bargaining ship as a precondition before negotiating. This is stupid for obvious reasons. 

The PLA as representatives of the Palestinian people in the West Bank have a lot to lose and should seek the ideal conditions for negotiations before entering them. The Settlements are illegal and Israel should not be allowed to enter the negotiations with them as bargaining chips when the future of a Palestinian state and the fate of Palestinians is at stake. Likewise, violence from terrorists should not become the leverage that the PLA uses when negotiating with Israel.


----------



## drache (Dec 1, 2012)

oh I am serious you just can't accept it or apparently my argument because of your personal bias


----------



## Oil Can (Dec 1, 2012)

Probably a dumb question, but why can't Israel just stop building settlements? I feel like it would at least give them the ability to say "Look, we stopped. Ball is in your court, bitches." Clearly, building them hasn't really helped anything at all. Unless I am missing a key detail, which I might be.


----------



## horsdhaleine (Dec 1, 2012)

I'm glad they are now a recognized state. 



Ichi Sagato said:


> Being occupied for a half century in virtual prison system where you are constantly displaced into homelessness and occasionally murdered by missiles and bombs is not being backed into a corner either? I sympathize with Israeli's who's concern for security in a hostile world must be their most pressing issue. But your lack of sympathy for the Palestinian people is very telling.
> 
> I think when it comes down to support for Israel, it often has nothing to do with the substance of any of the issues(ie settlements, rocket attacks, acknowledgement of existence). I think its just an image problem. I think its about disliking Palestinians because of their refugee status and mode of living. Disorganized, decentralized savages living on the fringes of life. But celebrating Israel's accomplishments as an economically stable democracy. It's easier for a western middle class, well to do citizen to like Israel and therefor excuse the negativity coming from their side.
> 
> If that's the case then I think some people should just come out and say it. There isn't any need to debate any of the substantive points. People in our society like stable governments. We would also like a militaristic nation over some non uniformed gun totting fighters any day of the week. It doesn't matter who's committing what. Just As long as one of them resembles our own political identity.



I agree.


----------



## Roydez (Dec 1, 2012)

Well, Palestine requested to be acknowledged as a state to prevent some of the injustice Israel did for her, such as this.

See, to report a state you have to be a state yourself. Israel as a country used many illegal weapons to attack Palestine, Gaza, but Palestine wasn't an acknowledged country so it couldn't really report Israel. Now, if Israel does crazy shit like killing and enjuring 100 person. Palestine could report her and ask for some sort of compensation and Israel can be punished heavily.

That's why Palestine demanded to be a state.

Just because a country has a stronger military doesn't mean it could do all kinds of shit to weaker countries.

It's not right if say Germany wants to expand its country over Poland. Same shit here.


----------



## NanoHaxial (Dec 1, 2012)

> Ironic considering it was the UN that gave Israel its state.


While the Partition Plan passed in the General Assembly, it was never actually implemented. Rather, the Israelis formed their own state and declared independence. They didn't become a member of the UN until roughly a year after that following recognition by a number of individual nations (the Soviet Union being the first to do so officially).

The thing about the announcement/approval for these settlements is that they're very vague. There's no real plan in place or effort underway. The reality is that these settlements will likely never actually come to be. At the very least, it'd be quite a number of years before any construction would begin or be completed.


----------



## butcher50 (Dec 1, 2012)

NanoHaxial said:


> While the Partition Plan passed in the General Assembly, it was never actually implemented. Rather, the Israelis formed their own state and declared independence. They didn't become a member of the UN until roughly a year after that following recognition by a number of individual nations (the Soviet Union being the first to do so officially).



the russians initially thought that Israel will follow their Communist model (basically their new RED-state ally) but when it become clear that Israelies are increasingly leaning on USA's westernization and more accepting of their support, the russians switched to Israel's surrounding neighbors.

today it's a split mix of pro-arab camp (fueled mostly out of mercantile reasoning), pro-israel camp and a pro-moderation group for both sides in the Russian Fed.

as for the illegal settlers, i will smash their fucking settlements with a sledgehammer and drag their kicking and screaming asses back to the agreed upon borders MYSELF if it meant a 100% guarantee for permanent peace overnight.


----------



## Savior (Dec 1, 2012)

Seto Kaiba said:


> The UN is a joke.



The 8 countries that voted against the resolution are a joke.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Dec 1, 2012)

Pretty funny that all these people are bawing about Israel in this thread. Palestine does all kind of terrible shit and it's completely over lookable for you (like hiding behind their own civilians to fight). Israel builds on some land and you get all up in arms though.


----------



## Mansali (Dec 1, 2012)

Oil Can said:


> Probably a dumb question, but why can't Israel just stop building settlements? I feel like it would at least give them the ability to say "Look, we stopped. Ball is in your court, bitches." Clearly, building them hasn't really helped anything at all. Unless I am missing a key detail, which I might be.



One could argue that the right wing government doesn't exactly want peace either. But its probably just short sightedness on the part of the Likid party for political gains.

Remember that the current Likud government is a very Conservative party which has approved lots of settlements. 

Now if there was a moderate government back in power in Israel, they may be more objective about this.

Same goes for Hamas. Both Likud and Hamas claim they want peace but do really stupid things to show it. Building settlements and throwing rockets are obviously not going to bring peace yet they keep stupidly doing it.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Dec 1, 2012)

Oil Can said:


> Probably a dumb question, but why can't Israel just stop building settlements? I feel like it would at least give them the ability to say "Look, we stopped. Ball is in your court, bitches." Clearly, building them hasn't really helped anything at all. Unless I am missing a key detail, which I might be.



Well, as long as the Palestinians make no effort to add to the peace process, Israel has to work with the status quo and the right-wing parties probably figure that the more they extend the settlements, the better their position will be if it ever comes to serious peace talks.


----------



## Blue (Dec 1, 2012)

SonVegeta said:


> Same goes for Hamas. Both Likud and Hamas claim they want peace but do really stupid things to show it. Building settlements and throwing rockets are obviously not going to bring peace yet they keep stupidly doing it.



It seems to me that building settlements is a bit silly, doesn't Israel have enough land? - something I'd hear Megaharry's opinion on - but you're equating building houses with killing innocent people with rocket launchers. 

They are not comparable.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Dec 1, 2012)

Savior said:


> The 8 countries that voted against the resolution are a joke.



More like the ones that voted for it.


----------



## Raiden (Dec 1, 2012)

Probably the most serious thing the UN has done since 1945.


----------



## First Tsurugi (Dec 1, 2012)

Seto Kaiba said:


> More like the ones that voted for it.



So most of the world including much of Western Europe are jokes then.

Sounds like a rather right wing perspective.


----------



## Oil Can (Dec 1, 2012)

SonVegeta said:


> One could argue that the right wing government doesn't exactly want peace either. But its probably just short sightedness on the part of the Likid party for political gains.
> 
> Remember that the current Likud government is a very Conservative party which has approved lots of settlements.
> 
> ...



I see your point, though I do think there's a noticeable difference between building settlements and trying to kill random people. Israel isn't exactly guilt-free in a lot of things but I really can't ever get behind any group that will execute their own people without a trial and parade their bodies around the streets. Hamas is awful.

I'm really not a big Abbas fan and I think like a lot of Palestinian leaders in the past (seriously, they have been terrible at picking people to represent them) he's mostly interested in boasting his own power. That being said, I'd take him over Hamas any day and this gives him the appearance of effectiveness. He doesn't promote violence. He at least says he's cool with a 2-state solution. I like both of these things. Hopefully, Hamas takes a hit in popularity as a result.



> So most of the world including much of Western Europe are jokes then.



Dude, I could've told you that without this happening. Canada is where its at.


----------



## First Tsurugi (Dec 1, 2012)

Oil Can said:


> Dude, I could've told you that without this happening. Canada is where its at.



Most opposition parties in Canada favored recognition, as did much of the population, so I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.


----------



## Oil Can (Dec 1, 2012)

First Tsurugi said:


> Most opposition parties in Canada favored recognition, as did much of the population, so I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.



It has nothing to do with the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. They're just a laughing stock. The world sees them and thinks to themselves "Hahaha. Hahahahahaha. Hahahahahahahahahaha."


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Dec 1, 2012)

First Tsurugi said:


> So most of the world including much of Western Europe are jokes then.
> 
> Sounds like a rather right wing perspective.



Maybe they are. Whatever, Palestine would implode on itself it were a physical state anyways. They can't maintain themselves with that pathological hatred of Israelis. Just start another attack, and have that land lost to them again.


----------



## butcher50 (Dec 1, 2012)

Savior said:


> The 8 countries that voted against the resolution are a joke.



one of the countries that voted in favor, (the largest one) did completely for mercantile reasons.



First Tsurugi said:


> So most of the world including much of Western Europe are jokes then.



the majority of europeans seem quite castrated lately.


----------



## Blue (Dec 1, 2012)

First Tsurugi said:


> So most of the world including much of Western Europe are jokes then.
> 
> Sounds like a rather right wing perspective.



Most countries that don't suck that didn't vote against it abstained. There were quite a few more of those.

Which isn't unwise, there's no point in antagonizing the Middle East if you're not America and don't give a darn.


----------



## First Tsurugi (Dec 1, 2012)

Seto Kaiba said:


> Maybe they are. Whatever, Palestine would implode on itself it were a physical state anyways. They can't maintain themselves with that pathological hatred of Israelis. Just start another attack, and have that land lost to them again.



There are a number of nations that exist at the mercy of others. Palestine is not unique in that regard.



butcher50 said:


> the majority of europeans seem quite castrated lately.



And Israel is looking rather impotent on the international stage.



Kunoichi no Kiri said:


> Most countries that don't suck that didn't vote against it abstained. There were quite a few more of those.



That's an oddly specific filter, and it seems like the only ones it applies to are the UK and Germany.

France voted in favor, as did Italy, Spain, Portugal, and every nordic nation.

You can nitpick which of these are jokes but subjective standards like that don't really matter much.



> Which isn't unwise, there's no point in antagonizing the Middle East if you're not America and don't give a darn.



How is voting in favor of recognition antagonistic? If anything some might be hoping to win brownie points with certain Middle Eastern nations by siding with them.


----------



## hcheng02 (Dec 1, 2012)

Raiden said:


> Probably the most serious thing the UN has done since 1945.



That sounds like an indictment on the UN considering the sheer number of wars and atrocities since 1945 that the UN did jack shit on: everything from the USSR Ukraine's Famine, to China's Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution, to Cambodia's Khmer Rouge Killing Fields, tot he Irish Troubles, to the Baltic Wars, to the Rwandan Massacre are all not worthy of the UN General Assembly's time. But put Israel on...


----------



## ExoSkel (Dec 1, 2012)

Even Japan voted in favor of Palestine statehood this time which is surprising, unlike previously when they constantly voted for abstention.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Dec 1, 2012)

First Tsurugi said:


> So most of the world including much of Western Europe are jokes then.
> 
> Sounds like a rather right wing perspective.


And that sounds like a stupid fucking argument. The same way liberal isn't a bad word, neither is right wing. 

In fact the person you're quoting here is about as far from right wing as possible. 

No one here actually makes an argument for why Palestine deserves statehood. Sounds like the UN just created another problematic Arabic State for us to deal with in another 20+ years.


----------



## Darth (Dec 1, 2012)

Yes CTK. 139 countries voted yes to the Palestinian effort only to aggravate Israeli citizens. 

139 spite votes. 

The bastards.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Dec 1, 2012)

Darth said:


> Yes CTK. 139 countries voted yes to the Palestinian effort only to aggravate Israeli citizens.
> 
> 139 spite votes.
> 
> The bastards.



Where did I say they did it to aggravate the Israelis? 

The UN did it because they're retarded bleeding heart dipshits who think they can fix a problematic culture and religion who take their cues from a warlord who wanted to start his own religion.


----------



## Megaharrison (Dec 1, 2012)

First Tsurugi said:


> How is voting in favor of recognition antagonistic? If anything some might be hoping to win brownie points with certain Middle Eastern nations by siding with them.



You mean the imploding dictatorships or Sharia states? Oh how wonderful!

People in this thread have been unable to explain why this is specifically a good thing that advances the peace process in any meaningful way. The main argument "lots of countries voted for it", doesn't answer it and is just a logical fallacy.



			
				Cardboard Tube Knight said:
			
		

> No one here actually makes an argument for why Palestine deserves statehood. Sounds like the UN just created another problematic Arabic State for us to deal with in another 20+ years.



Given the overwhelming dominance of Jihadists in Palestinian society, this is quite an accurate assessment.


----------



## Mansali (Dec 1, 2012)

Send Uzumaki Naruto to that region. He will TNJ Hamas into stop throwing Rockets and Israel into not making settlements.


----------



## Chelydra (Dec 1, 2012)

This is a dick move on Israels part thats for sure, it does not help anything, but at the same time UN reconition won't help anything either. Since the governments in Palestine generally don't want to work legitimatly with Israel. That said the government in the west bank is not as bad as Hamas.


----------



## Mansali (Dec 1, 2012)

Chelydra said:


> This is a dick move on Israels part thats for sure, it does not help anything, but at the same time UN reconition won't help anything either. Since the governments in Palestine generally don't want to work legitimatly with Israel. That said the government in the west bank is not as bad as Hamas.



As much as they may like to down play it...the West and Israel are pretty worried about the UN vote. I was watching today John Baird from Canada bringing up the ICC over and over again in the interview. The British wanted the PA to make their intentions clear when it came to the ICC. The US media keeps talking about the ICC. 

The PA can take Israel for court for their settlements......and thats where everyone is freaking out about. 

Thats why Obama even offered to do more for the peace agreement if the PA decided to not do it. 

But Olmert says its a good idea for the Palestinians to get the recognition and that he thinks it would make peace happen faster.

Susan Rice thought quite the opposite.....


----------



## First Tsurugi (Dec 1, 2012)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> And that sounds like a stupid fucking argument. The same way liberal isn't a bad word, neither is right wing.



Yes I probably should have said Republican instead of right wing. Oh well. vOv 



> In fact the person you're quoting here is about as far from right wing as possible.



Yes, that was the point. No surprise that went over your head.



> No one here actually makes an argument for why Palestine deserves statehood. Sounds like the UN just created another problematic Arabic State for us to deal with in another 20+ years.



What makes something "deserving" of statehood in the first place? It is fairly arbitrarily given.



Megaharrison said:


> You mean the imploding dictatorships or Sharia states? Oh how wonderful!



You don't need to like or approve of a country to want influence over it.


----------



## Megaharrison (Dec 1, 2012)

First Tsurugi said:


> What makes something "deserving" of statehood in the first place? It is fairly arbitrarily given.



The abstract concept of "fairness" aside, I've presented arguments here how unilateralism with regards to the peace process only creates more problems. Thus this isn't helpful to the peace process.

That being said, I don't think a state overrun with violent Jihadists and no semblance of civil society or rule of law should be given independence no.


----------



## Mansali (Dec 1, 2012)

Megaharrison said:


> The abstract concept of "fairness" aside, I've presented arguments here how unilateralism with regards to the peace process only creates more problems. Thus this isn't helpful to the peace process.
> 
> That being said, I don't think a state overrun with violent Jihadists and no semblance of civil society or rule of law should be given independence no.



The Palestinians have said that they are still going to negotiate (given that Israel stoop building settlements.

I know that politicians keep saying that the Palestinians should talk instead of this.....but they have said that this UN vote is not a substitute for negotiations.


----------



## First Tsurugi (Dec 1, 2012)

Megaharrison said:


> The abstract concept of "fairness" aside, I've presented arguments here how unilateralism with regards to the peace process only creates more problems. Thus this isn't helpful to the peace process.



Maintaining the status quo is also harmful to the peace process. Perhaps less so for Israel, but that's also part of the problem.


----------



## Revolution (Dec 2, 2012)

always has up to the minute info on whats going on.


----------



## butcher50 (Dec 2, 2012)

First Tsurugi said:


> And Israel is looking rather impotent on the international stage.



weak europe = weakening israel

strong israel = stronger europe

problem is that europeans don't want to take risks anymore (that should be obvious) they will rather keep appeasing the alligator until he eats them last.

good luck appeasing the gator, maybe he will eat you last.


----------



## hadou (Dec 2, 2012)

*Israel withholds Palestinian funds after U.N. vote*



> JERUSALEM (Reuters) - Israel said on Sunday it was withholding this month's transfer of tax revenues to the Palestinian Authority, after the United Nations' de facto recognition of a Palestinian state.
> Under interim peace deals, which Israel says the Palestinians violated by unilaterally seeking an upgrade of their status at the United Nations, it collects about $100 million a month in duties on behalf of the authority.
> But, Israeli officials said, the authority owes about $200 million to the Israel Electric Corporation, and that money will now be deducted from the tax transfers.
> The cash-strapped authority, which exercises limited self-rule in the occupied West Bank, largely depends on the tax money to pay civil servants' salaries. Yasser Abed Rabbo, a senior Palestinian official, said Israel was guilty of "piracy and theft" by refusing to hand over the funds.
> ...



http://news.yahoo.com/israel-withholds-palestinian-funds-u-n-vote-113933165.html

Is this another butthurt move by Israel?


----------



## Oil Can (Dec 2, 2012)

^
Rhetorical question?


----------



## hadou (Dec 2, 2012)

Oil Can said:


> ^
> Rhetorical question?



That's for me to know and you to find out


----------



## Oil Can (Dec 2, 2012)

Its totally a rhetorical question. Now give me a victory horse or whatever people get for being right these days...


----------



## hadou (Dec 2, 2012)

Oil Can said:


> Its totally a rhetorical question. Now give me a victory horse or whatever people get for being right these days...



It was an honest question. The article seems to link the motive behind this move by Israel (the UN declaration) to the decision by Israel to build 3000 settlements. I'm far from being an expert in this matter, so all opinions are greatly welcome


----------



## Ichi Sagato (Dec 2, 2012)

This is definitely not the way for Israel to continue dealing with the UN move. The Palestinians have an internationally recognized state now. If Israel wants to play the vindictive card then its only going to accomplish building up the case against itself more and more when the PLA eventually goes to the UN courts to file they're claims against Israel. If Israel's goal is to become a world recognized pariah then they're government is on the right course with these destructive policy actions.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Dec 2, 2012)

Ichi Sagato said:


> This is definitely not the way for Israel to continue responding to the UN move. The Palestinians have an internationally recognized state now. If Israel wants to play the vindictive card then its only going to accomplish building up the case against itself more and more when the PLA eventually goes to the UN courts to file they're claims against Israel. If Israel's goal is to become a world recognized pariah then they're government is on the right course with these destructive policy actions.



Firstly, Palestine violated a treaty, so this is pretty much their fault.

Secondly, what claims?


----------



## Ichi Sagato (Dec 2, 2012)

Saufsoldat said:


> Firstly, Palestine violated a treaty, so this is pretty much their fault.
> 
> Secondly, what claims?



Israel violates treaties everyday that illegal settlements are built and maintained. Not to mention The International Fourth Geneva Convention.

But I've had enough of your Palestinian hate mongering and general Islamophobic hysteria from previous threads. Kick rocks.


----------



## very bored (Dec 2, 2012)

Why was israel collecting taxes for Palestine in the first place?


----------



## Saufsoldat (Dec 2, 2012)

Ichi Sagato said:


> Israel violates treaties everyday that illegal settlements are built and maintained.



Where does the interim agreement say that Israel can't have settlements?



> Not to mention The International Fourth Geneva Convention.



Elaborate.



> But I've had enough of your Palestinian hate mongering and general Islamophobic hysteria from previous threads. Kick rocks.



>using the word "islamophobia"

Have a neg.


----------



## Oil Can (Dec 2, 2012)

Ichi Sagato said:


> But I've had enough of your Palestinian hate mongering and general Islamophobic hysteria from previous threads. Kick rocks.



Please don't go down that road, man. You're too smart for that.


----------



## Megaharrison (Dec 2, 2012)

I agree we shouldn't be doing work for the Pali's. Have their own tax collectors go around and do this shit.

That being said my original point that we should have voted for this UN thing to screw with the Pali's and shouldn't be overreacting to it still stands.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Dec 2, 2012)

Voting for them to screw themselves over doesn't help matters either, because when they're screwed over they're just going to be more hostile and guarded.


----------



## Dralavant (Dec 2, 2012)

Saufsoldat said:


> Where does the interim agreement say that Israel can't have settlements?




[sp=magic num 465]





> The United Nations resolved in the Mar. 1, 1980 Security Council Resolution 465:
> 
> "Determines that all measures taken by Israel to change the physical character, demographic composition, institutional structure or status of the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, or any part thereof, have no legal validity and that Israel's policy and practices of settling parts of its population and new immigrants in those territories constitute a flagrant violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War and also constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East."


[/sp]

 Are we taking notes children? You'll be quizzed later.


----------



## Detective (Dec 2, 2012)

baconbits said:


> Because symbols have power in politics, and the realm of politics includes armed conflict.  This might be a symbol but it does speak to a support for the worse over the better.



Some could say that the whole becoming a symbol that represents or stands for something argument only applies to the Batman Filmverse, Bro.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Dec 2, 2012)

Dralavant said:


> [sp=magic num 465][/sp]
> 
> Are we taking notes children? You'll be quizzed later.



Reading comprehension fail. Read my post again and then come back to apologize.


----------



## Penumbra (Dec 2, 2012)

Hamas and IDF, two faces of the same coin.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Dec 2, 2012)

Penumbra said:


> Hamas and IDF, two faces of the same coin.


----------



## Dralavant (Dec 2, 2012)

Saufsoldat said:


> Reading comprehension fail. Read my post again and then come back to apologize.



That is correct, of the interim agreement between Palestine and Israel in '95 it favors the IDF to secure the Israeli settlements. Nevertheless, I was referring to the legal implications concerning the very existence of the Israeli Settlements. But yes, you were correct and I apologize. I'm ready for the paddle now. :spwank


----------



## Saufsoldat (Dec 2, 2012)

Dralavant said:


> That is correct, of the interim agreement between Palestine and Israel in '95 it favors the IDF to secure the Israeli settlements. Nevertheless, I was referring to the legal implications concerning the very existence of the Israeli Settlements. But yes, you were correct and I apologize. I'm ready for the paddle now. :spwank



I agree that the settlements shouldn't be there, but that hardly changes existing treaties between Israel and the Palestinians. International treaties between entities and international law are two entirely different matters.


----------



## Megaharrison (Dec 2, 2012)

Penumbra said:


> Hamas and IDF, two faces of the same coin.



Considering one is a Jihadist militia which deliberately targets children and the other is a secular democracy which goes out of its way to not deliberately target civilians (challenge any of these and it will just get debunked, don't try) that doesn't make any sense.


----------



## Mael (Dec 2, 2012)

I put some thought into this given the news and how people have responded.

If anything, despite the skepticism, I think the statehood will eventually be a good thing.  Why?

It puts actual, legit responsibility on Palestinians to behave.  If they're a state, that rocket attack bullshit is now available to put ALL Palestinians accountable.  I don't buy into the fantasy they'll listen to the UN despite the naivete of the world thinking they will (unless you're Russia who just sees this as an opportunity to troll) but at the least the response from the world might just stop with this "OMG ISRAEL HOW COULD YOU ON THOSE DEFENSELESS PALESTINIANS?!?" cry.

And on that note, I should also say I have started to develop a significant distaste for both of them.  I get the attitude from Israel and many of its supporters that the United States owes them something.  Lolno.  If anything I'm still waiting to hear an apology and some accountability in sincerity over the USS Liberty.  The last thing I felt was necessary was how Israel was apparently so much of a necessity to address in any presidential election.  This mentality that MY fellow Americans have to go with them lockstep bothers me.  I'm America first, then everyone else, so if Washington has to get the finger pointed at it for the independent actions of Bibi or anyone else, that's a fucking tragedy.  I would only hope Israel would deal with those petulant settlers because they're a menace more than anything else.  Oh boo hoo, no more land for you in Israel's cities.  Move to fucking Florida instead you dingbats.

Palestine?  I could only place an iota of faith in the PA since Hamas is nothing but a cancer.  Religious extremism funded by Syria and Iran has no place in any form of statehood.

I don't trust the world, frankly.  OMG ZA WARUDO VOTED FOR DE FACTO!  75%-90% of those voters are either shitholes or nations who have zero geopolitical clout, contribution, or responsibility.

Frankly if there was a way to tabula rasa the whole land I think it'd be swell, because fools would believe the Arab peoples actually care about Palestinians who treat them more like Middle Eastern Roma and I'd not have to be so exposed to obnoxious Judaic zeal toward Israel where I want no part in it.  Yes living in my neck of the woods has me see this on a weekly basis, my time at BU even worse with a roommate so fervently Israeli (to where his parents give me the evil eye when they see my name as German) I think he made me anti-Semitic for a year.



Penumbra said:


> Hamas and IDF, two faces of the same coin.



To cap it off, a very, very ignorant statement.


----------



## Oil Can (Dec 2, 2012)

Mael said:


> Yes living in my neck of the woods has me see this on a weekly basis, my time at BU even worse with a roommate so fervently Israeli (to where his parents give me the evil eye when they see my name as German) I think he made me anti-Semitic for a year.




First of all, I had a suite my sophomore year with an Israeli and a Pakistani (also, a chinese guy, but we never saw him. It was kind of like a really bad sitcom where no one got laid.) They got along great for the most part but for some reason we'd be playing Mario Kart and depending on who was winning, you'd suddenly start hearing the most vile, anti-semitic/islamaphobic statements imaginable. Like not joking around either. They were legit pissed. And then maybe a half hour later, it would be as if nothing happened, but while it was going on it was like this tension dam bursting over. This would happen maybe once every two weeks. While I didn't become anti-whatever, I did grow to hate Mario Kart.

Also, I feel kind of silly now; I always took you for Northeastern... >_>


----------



## makeoutparadise (Dec 2, 2012)

Megaharrison said:


> Considering one is a Jihadist militia which deliberately targets children and the other is a secular democracy which goes out of its way to not deliberately target civilians (challenge any of these and it will just get debunked, don't try) that doesn't make any sense.



Very true very true!! what was it your Prime minter said
*
"We can forgive you for killing our sons. But we will never forgive you for making us kill yours."
    Golda Meir,*


anyway  Currently taking international law class and disusing the Israeli Palestinian conflict

 For those who want to argue the case for Palestine and these new settlements I'll just leave these links here;
*Planned Israeli settlements in West Bank violate international law, says UN envoy*


----------



## sadated_peon (Dec 2, 2012)

it seems to me that Israelis see Palestinian statehood as a reward for Palestinians stopping aggression. 

it seem most of the world doesn't agree, and instead sees Palestinian statehood as a separate issue to peace.

but I have to ask against isreal... 
if Israel removes all the settlements, removes military from west bank, and gives Palestinians full control over the land/water.... and they still fire rockets into Israel, still blow up busses full of children, and still call for end to Israel. what would you do?
what measures would you take against the Palestinian state?

what is the plan for peace then?


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Dec 2, 2012)

sadated_peon said:


> it seems to me that Israelis see Palestinian statehood as a reward for Palestinians stopping aggression.
> 
> it seem most of the world doesn't agree, and instead sees Palestinian statehood as a separate issue to peace.
> 
> ...



Exactly, which is why I think Palestine will fail because of that. Whatever land they acquire will be lost when in a fit of anti-Semitic rage, they start attacking Israel again, which correct me if I'm wrong, would be an official declaration of war since it would now be a physical state, correct? If they lose land that way, then that's it.


----------



## Megaharrison (Dec 2, 2012)

sadated_peon said:


> but I have to ask against isreal...
> if Israel removes all the settlements, removes military from west bank, and gives Palestinians full control over the land/water.... and they still fire rockets into Israel, still blow up busses full of children, and still call for end to Israel. what would you do?
> what measures would you take against the Palestinian state?
> 
> what is the plan for peace then?



The problem with this is once this happens, there's no options for retaliation for us except for the back-and-forth we see with Gaza right now. For instance, the only way for us to solve rocket fire from Gaza is to reoccupy the Strip but global hysterics/obsessions with the Palestinians means we can never do that. Thus our Southern communities will always continue to take rocket fire regardless of what we do. Ceasefire or no ceasefire, blockade or no blockade, settlements or no settlements. Given the larger population of the West Bank and its proximity to Israel's heartland, such a scenario (complete withdrawal/total concessions from Israel but still no peace) would be bad indeed. And given that this is exactly what has played out in our relationships with Lebanon and Egypt, it isn't outrageous to say it will happen here. Once we leave the West Bank we're never going back in, so any withdrawal can only be with a guarantee of permanent peace.

The common thing we hear in response to this, is if we simply give the Palestinians what they want the world still stop hating us and would finally hold the Palestinians to the same high standards of Israel, thus forcing them to halt rocket fire as the international community comes together to finally condemn the attacks. However, I really can't see any of this happening and it's just at best foolish idealism and at worse a deliberate excuse to dismiss the issue.

The main issue with this UN bid is it's treated separately from the rocket issue (and indeed the rocket terror is never mentioned in current PA platforms or discussions), when until said issue is addressed we will never accept anything to give them a meaningful state. I know that's harsh and that's sad, but the world needs to solve that issue if they want any peace. We will never allow this to move forward until the rockets are resolved.

Thus the world is treating this issue in reverse. There needs to be the mechanisms in place for a viable, stable, and peaceful Palestinian state before said state is created, otherwise the result will be abject failure. Instead they seem content to just declare a failed state and never addressed greater issues preventing peace. Indeed, the way the world is spoiling the Palestinians is unhelpful to them, as if they fail to address their greater issues such as the rocket terror, Jihadism prevalence, sectarianism, the cult of death, a lack of civil society, and so on their dreamed of state will only crumble.

Unfortunately the response from both the UN and indeed the Pali parade in this thread then has almost literally been "I can't hear you, lalalalalala". Above all else, this is a disservice for the future of the Palestinians. You're not showing me or Israel who's boss by ignoring complex issues, you're just ensuring the status quo will continue to exist. If you want to really get at Israel, have the Palestinians commit completely to non-violence and social progressiveness and still have the settlements in place. Their statehood is a guarantee in such scenario.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Dec 2, 2012)

No one remembers the past when dealing with this


----------



## Ichi Sagato (Dec 3, 2012)

> Israel's decision to approve 3,000 new homes on occupied territory drew sharp condemnation from European allies on Monday, with at least three governments summoning ambassadors to express their disapproval of an action they say undermines an already troubled peace process.
> 
> The Israeli envoy to Paris was called to a meeting late Monday morning, according to a statement from the French foreign ministry spokesman, Philippe Lalliot. France, which was the first major European country to announce support for the Palestinian effort to win recognition at the U.N., also sent a letter to the Israeli government, calling the settlement decision "a considerable obstacle to the two-state solution."
> 
> ...





Hardly what I would call pressure. But its something.


----------



## sadated_peon (Dec 3, 2012)

I find the European reaction fucking hilarious in it's double standard. 

Supports Palestinian statehood even though it is specifically stated by Israel as a negative action in "negotiate a long-term peace agreement". 

Attacks Israel for settlements BECAUSE it is specifically stated by Palestinians as a negative action in "negotiate a long-term peace agreement".


----------



## Dralavant (Dec 3, 2012)

sadated_peon said:


> it seems to me that Israelis see Palestinian statehood as a reward for Palestinians stopping aggression.
> 
> it seem most of the world doesn't agree, and instead sees Palestinian statehood as a separate issue to peace.
> 
> ...



Good question, and the outcome is based upon the fact that Palestine is now a state. If Israel was to withdraw all it's settlers and return the landscape to the Palestinians as laid in 1967's percentage of land (essentially 52-48 with Israel having the bigger piece of the pie) it would then be left to Palestine to begin to reconcile with the rival parties of both Hamas and Fatah, agree to stop firing at Israel because they ended the settlements, and have both the Israeli PM and the PA Pres. agree to a permanent cease fire. May seem like a lot, but it's possible. And it's a start. Israel may be halting taxes due to Palestinians, but that is fine considering neighboring countries are now starting to provide money to Palestine. 

That's another thing I can't understand. As an American, why the fuck are we giving Israel 14 billion dollars annually anyway? We got homeless veterans and children here at home!!


----------



## neodragzero (Dec 3, 2012)

sadated_peon said:


> I find the European reaction fucking hilarious in it's double standard.
> 
> Supports Palestinian statehood even though it is specifically stated by Israel as a negative action in "negotiate a long-term peace agreement".
> 
> *Attacks Israel for settlements BECAUSE it is specifically stated by Palestinians as a negative action in "negotiate a long-term peace agreement".*



...No, that's not the because. The because is the mater of such an expansion being quite illegal as it takes up more land from Palestine but the fact that it would cause an area cut off that will make a viable Palestine impossible.


----------



## Mansali (Dec 3, 2012)

sadated_peon said:


> I find the European reaction fucking hilarious in it's double standard.
> 
> Supports Palestinian statehood even though it is specifically stated by Israel as a negative action in "negotiate a long-term peace agreement".
> 
> Attacks Israel for settlements BECAUSE it is specifically stated by Palestinians as a negative action in "negotiate a long-term peace agreement".



You clearly have no idea what your talking about. 

I would normally not comment on this page because its become redundant but I had to reply to this stupid comment. 

First of all the Europeans are supporting peace. 

The reason they voted for Palestine is because they think it will lead to peace. 
The reason they criticized Israel because the settlements do not lead to peace. 
The reason they denounce Hamas's actions is because it doesn't lead to peace.

That's not a double standard. Your the double standard who doesn't criticize Israel when they make settlements but criticize the Palestinians when they use violence.

A double standard has to have an intention, your being intellectually dishonest by saying that the Europeans are basing their decisions based on what the Palestinians and Israelis are telling them.


----------



## sadated_peon (Dec 3, 2012)

Dralavant said:


> Good question, and the outcome is based upon the fact that Palestine is now a state. If Israel was to withdraw all it's settlers and return the landscape to the Palestinians as laid in 1967's percentage of land (essentially 52-48 with Israel having the bigger piece of the pie) it would then be left to Palestine to begin to reconcile with the rival parties of both Hamas and Fatah, agree to stop firing at Israel because they ended the settlements, and have both the Israeli PM and the PA Pres. agree to a permanent cease fire. May seem like a lot, but it's possible. And it's a start. Israel may be halting taxes due to Palestinians, but that is fine considering neighboring countries are now starting to provide money to Palestine.



You didn't really answer the question... 
What would you do if Palestinians continued to attack Israel with rockets, bombs, etc even after Israeli withdraw. 

What actions would you see needed to be taken against Palestine. 



neodragzero said:


> ...No, that's not the because. The because is the mater of such an expansion being quite illegal as it takes up more land from Palestine but the fact that it would cause an area cut off that will make a viable Palestine impossible.


From the article
"Britain and Sweden also summoned the Israeli ambassadors, and Germany said the decision would hurt Israel's ability to negotiate a long-term peace agreement."

I quoted the specific phrase from the article. How can you say it's not the reason, when it is a direct quote from the article!
Did you bother to actually read the article?



			
				SonVegeta said:
			
		

> You clearly have no idea what your talking about.
> 
> I would normally not comment on this page because its become redundant but I had to reply to this stupid comment.
> 
> ...



What? Do you not understand that peace is achieved through the agreement of both parties? The only possible way you can take your position is you believe that peace is independent of the will of the Israel people, and instead is a response to FORCE upon Israel. 

If EU believes that supporting policies that Israel directly states are a hindrance to a peace deal is going to "lead to peace" it's delusional. 

Here is the double standard, when the palestinans say something does not lead to peace, the EU takes notice and attacks israel. When the Israeli say something does not lead to peace, the EU take no notice and supports palestine. 

When you hold the grievances of ONE party in a negotiation as a obstacle to the resolution, while ignoring the grievances of the other party you hold a double standard!

It's funny to me that you don't see this. So ingrained in you is your bias, that you are unable to see that is a position OTHER THAN YOUR OWN that needs to be address for a resolution to this problem.


----------



## Megaharrison (Dec 3, 2012)

France, Sweden, and Britain aren't allies. Two of them have arms embargoes on us despite being arms sellers to the Saudi's, Gypos, Bahraini's, UAE, and so on. Don't know what the author meant by that. I'd consider our "allies" in Europe (at least the closest thing we have to it) to be Germany, Italy, Czech Republic, Poland, Serbia, Netherlands, Hungary, Romania, Cyprus, Greece, and Bulgaria.

Just more hypocritical faux crocodile tears from Europeans in any regard. If only they summoned their ambassadors when one of their Arab butt buddies did the latest warcrime or human rights violation. Maybe those rape victims wouldn't get stoned then, but instead lets sell their killers fighter jets. So excuse us if I don't take their tut-tutting that far to heart.


----------



## Mael (Dec 3, 2012)

Yeah I'll just divorce my mindset with Europeans thank you very much.  They create the mess and then lecture on it to anyone else who touches it.


----------



## Mansali (Dec 3, 2012)

Atleast give the Palestinians a chance for a state. If they do attack afterwards then Israel has a right to defend itself. But I doubt that will happen. The Palestinians themselves would denounce those terrorists.
I'm pretty sure the civilians just want peace now...this conflict has been going on for too long.


----------



## Mael (Dec 3, 2012)

SonVegeta said:


> Atleast give the Palestiniansa chance for a state. If they do attack afterwards then Israel has a right to defend itself. But I doubt that will happen. *The Palestinians themselves would denounce those terrorists.*
> 
> I'm pretty sure the civilians just want peace now...this conflict has been going on for too long.



Regarding the bold, let's postulate what the PA would actually DO and not SAY to address the issue.

I mean, Hamas is partially funded by Hezbollah and Iran.  Divorcing isn't as easy as a celebrity marriage.


----------



## Mansali (Dec 3, 2012)

Mael said:


> Regarding the bold, let's postulate what the PA would actually DO and not SAY to address the issue.
> 
> I mean, Hamas is partially funded by Hezbollah and Iran.  Divorcing isn't as easy as a celebrity marriage.



I'm talking about the civilians. They wouldn't want Hamas ruining the peace. If Hamas loses support they end up disintegrating. Doesn't mean they will go away completely but they would lose most of their support. They will be pretty much marginalized.

But you have a point. I think it's for political purposes that the PA hasn't said anything. They have a bad relationship with Hamas as it is.

They have to denounce Hamas soon.

And when they get a state the PA should personally take the responsibility of taking out Hamas.


----------



## Mael (Dec 3, 2012)

SonVegeta said:


> I'm talking about the civilians. They wouldn't want Hamas ruining the peace. If Hamas loses support they end up disintegrating. Doesn't mean they will go away completely but they would lose most of their support. They will be pretty much marginalized.
> 
> But you have a point. I think it's for political purposes that the PA hasn't said anything. They have a bad relationship with Hamas as it is.
> 
> ...



It's going to be a bloodbath.  I guarantee it.  Hamas is a fundamentalist organization dedicated to the utter destruction of Israel in their very own charter.  It's supported and funded by Iran, Hezbollah, and many other interested Arab parties.  The civilians unless they can execute some sort of flawless precision strike against Hamas, al-Aqsa, and the IJ, they are screwed.


----------



## Mansali (Dec 3, 2012)

Mael said:


> It's going to be a bloodbath.  I guarantee it.  Hamas is a fundamentalist organization dedicated to the utter destruction of Israel in their very own charter.  It's supported and funded by Iran, Hezbollah, and many other interested Arab parties.  The civilians unless they can execute some sort of flawless precision strike against Hamas, al-Aqsa, and the IJ, they are screwed.



Yeah 

Unless the Palestinians (excluding Gaza) become a state and then the Palestinians in Gaza are told to choose between Hamas and joining the state.


----------



## Jin-E (Dec 3, 2012)

SonVegeta said:


> I'm talking about the civilians. They wouldn't want Hamas ruining the peace. If Hamas loses support they end up disintegrating. Doesn't mean they will go away completely but they would lose most of their support. They will be pretty much marginalized.
> 
> But you have a point. I think it's for political purposes that the PA hasn't said anything. They have a bad relationship with Hamas as it is.
> 
> ...





Mael said:


> It's going to be a bloodbath.  I guarantee it.  Hamas is a fundamentalist organization dedicated to the utter destruction of Israel in their very own charter.  It's supported and funded by Iran, Hezbollah, and many other interested Arab parties.  The civilians unless they can execute some sort of flawless precision strike against Hamas, al-Aqsa, and the IJ, they are screwed.



In other words....kinda like Iraq spring 2008, where Maliki finally cracked down on the Mahdi Army and it's sectarian killings...except he had substansial American assistance.

And Fatah clearly lost the 2007 battle of Gaza.


----------



## Megaharrison (Dec 3, 2012)

SonVegeta said:


> I'm talking about the civilians. They wouldn't want Hamas ruining the peace. If Hamas loses support they end up disintegrating. Doesn't mean they will go away completely but they would lose most of their support. They will be pretty much marginalized.
> 
> But you have a point. I think it's for political purposes that the PA hasn't said anything. They have a bad relationship with Hamas as it is.
> 
> ...



We got this BS argument that if we left Gaza it would embolden Fatah (it didn't, it emboldened the Jihadists) and that if we left Lebanon Hezbollah would also fizzle out (It didn't, they just got stronger). Or that if we made peace with Egypt, they would leave us alone (They only did because of Mubarak). Westerners don't really understand the Arab zeitgeist with regards to Israel, so concepts that make sense to you don't fit their mindset. There's too much Western-centrism in this thread with regards to psychology.

I guarantee you that if we left the West Bank, the place would be a Hamas stronghold within 2-3 years.


----------



## Kotoamatsukami (Dec 3, 2012)

Megaharrison said:


> We got this BS argument that if we left Gaza it would embolden Fatah (it didn't, it emboldened the Jihadists) and *that if we left Lebanon Hezbollah would also fizzle out (It didn't, they just got stronger). *Or that if we made peace with Egypt, they would leave us alone (They only did because of Mubarak). Westerners don't really understand the Arab zeitgeist with regards to Israel, so concepts that make sense to you don't fit their mindset. There's too much Western-centrism in this thread with regards to psychology.
> 
> I guarantee you that if we left the West Bank, the place would be a Hamas stronghold within 2-3 years.



Why did they become so popular in the Arab World?


----------



## Megaharrison (Dec 3, 2012)

Kotoamatsukami said:


> Why did they become so popular in the Arab World?



Because they were perceived of "defeating Israel". Just as Hamas is viewed as having defeated Israel when it left Gaza (despite a lack of any relevant military casualties). They view concessions as victory in a greater war. Not as steps towards peace. Israel does not occupy Lebanon, and yet Hezbollah is as powerful as ever and now apparently is committed to Israel's destruction (not "resistance") and spreading into other Arab countries to massacre people who dare stand up to their sponsors. 

And yes I know what point you're trying to lead me into with this. You can say "HERP DERP IT'S ISRAEL'S FAULT HEZBOLLAH'S EXISTS AND IS POPULAR", and that's highly debatable issue that relates to Iranian imperialism in the Shia world post-Shah that I don't feel like getting into. But even if it was true, it's irrelevant because we can't turn back time and the only way forward is peace. Yet past examples have indicated Israeli concessions will lead to stronger enemies who view said concession as a weakness/victory, not as a peace step.


----------



## Agmaster (Dec 3, 2012)

It seems that everyone in the ME hates Israel.  No matter what Israel does, something will happen.  Why does it appear that Israel has no peaceful stronghold with their regional counterparts?  Why is defeating Israel such a big deal?


----------



## butcher50 (Dec 3, 2012)

Agmaster said:


> It seems that everyone in the ME hates Israel.  No matter what Israel does, something will happen.  Why does it appear that Israel has no peaceful stronghold with their regional counterparts?  Why is defeating Israel such a big deal?



to ERASE the stain on Arab's honor for losing to israel in 1948.


----------



## Megaharrison (Dec 3, 2012)

Agmaster said:


> It seems that everyone in the ME hates Israel.  No matter what Israel does, something will happen.  Why does it appear that Israel has no peaceful stronghold with their regional counterparts?  Why is defeating Israel such a big deal?



It's an interesting and psychological issue. I think it can be summed up as:

A.) Arab government scapegoating and obsessive propaganda of Israel to distract from their own social issues had led to a current generation blinded by hate. On top of the propaganda they get, Israel is often blamed for social woes and the Arab governments only encourage this (i.e. see my AIDS thread).
B.) Israel is a lot better off then any of its neighbors, jealously plays into this. Just look at how Egyptians live vs. Israel and it's no wonder Egyptians are so angry at them.
C.) Xenophobia/hatred of the other. Israel is diametrically different from any of its neighbors culturally, socially, psychologically, and so on.
D.) Butthurt over past defeats and an obsession to restore "honor". The Arab world values military might/martial strength greatly and Israel has been a constant stain on that.
E.) Israel is an infidel entity in the land of Islam. It's no coincidence all of its worse enemies but Syria (whose secular regime is crumbling) are religious/Jihadist entities.
F.) Global enabling. The international community has never seriously confronted the Arab world with regards to its Israel hatemongering and obsession, and has been so complicit to it to the point of enabling. It's basically comforting a child for throwing a tantrum.

Obviously not about human rights/Palestinians. That claim can be debunked in a second so nobody bother.


----------



## Darth (Dec 3, 2012)

Megaharrison said:


> It's an interesting and psychological issue. I think it can be summed up as:
> 
> A.) Arab government scapegoating and obsessive propaganda of Israel to distract from their own social issues had led to a current generation blinded by hate. On top of the propaganda they get, Israel is often blamed for social woes and the Arab governments only encourage this (i.e. see my AIDS thread).
> *B.) Israel is a lot better off then any of its neighbors, jealously plays into this. Just look at how Egyptians live vs. Israel and it's no wonder Egyptians are so angry at them.*
> ...



Oh my. 

Clearly Arabs are lesser human beings compared to the rest of the world.


----------



## Mael (Dec 3, 2012)

Actually Darth that's not what he's implying at all so props for jumping the gun.  He's implying that Arab leaders cannot be accountable for their own failures so Israel, a non-Muslim ME state, compensates.


----------



## urca (Dec 3, 2012)

Agmaster said:


> It seems that everyone in the ME hates Israel.  No matter what Israel does, something will happen.  Why does it appear that Israel has no peaceful stronghold with their regional counterparts?  Why is defeating Israel such a big deal?





I think this pretty much sums up the reason for the tension with Israel in the middle east (Including myself).

As for me hating Israel, it doesn't really extends to Israeli citizens (since I have/had a couple of Israeli friends, weren't bad people), it's pretty much hate  on the Israeli government.


----------



## Darth (Dec 3, 2012)

Mael said:


> Actually Darth that's not what he's implying at all so props for jumping the gun.  He's implying that Arab leaders cannot be accountable for their own failures so Israel, a non-Muslim ME state, compensates.



Yeah I don't buy that.


----------



## Kotoamatsukami (Dec 3, 2012)

Megaharrison said:


> Because they were perceived of "defeating Israel". Just as Hamas is viewed as having defeated Israel when it left Gaza (despite a lack of any relevant military casualties). They view concessions as victory in a greater war. Not as steps towards peace. Israel does not occupy Lebanon, and yet Hezbollah is as powerful as ever and now apparently is committed to Israel's destruction (not "resistance") and spreading into other Arab countries to massacre people who dare stand up to their sponsors.
> 
> And yes I know what point you're trying to lead me into with this. You can say "HERP DERP IT'S ISRAEL'S FAULT HEZBOLLAH'S EXISTS AND IS POPULAR", and that's highly debatable issue that relates to Iranian imperialism in the Shia world post-Shah that I don't feel like getting into. But even if it was true, it's irrelevant because we can't turn back time and the only way forward is peace. Yet past examples have indicated Israeli concessions will lead to stronger enemies who view said concession as a weakness/victory, not as a peace step.



I have to admit I already knew your answer to my question so it was rather rhetorical  The reason Hezbollah is in power today or stronger than ever is certainly a follow-up of the Lebanon war in 2006. I am not going to argue with you of who started it because we wont come to a conclusion anyway. And it doesnt even matter if they really won the war (which they obviously didnt). But it is a fact that Israel planned the war long before it actually happened and without this war (that in fact hit the country hard) Hezbollah would neither be as strong as they are right now nor in the government. The war against Israel gave them a reason more to stick to their weapons and made them more popular than ever. Just a year before the war, the Lebanese themselves took care of the Syrians so you probably have very little room to make all of them terrorists or sucking warmongers.

Hezbollah was hated amongst most Lebanese sans the Shiites for years (and in fact is now more than ever). If you ever have been in Lebanon, and I know that you werent/wont/dont want to/cant, the reason for the hate is easy to observe, its day-to-day living. They dont pay their bills, they will never get in jail for a minor charge or fraud and watch police men in Lebanon put a Hezbollah member into jail for something they have done. You wont. Currently, the opposition in Lebanon for once unitedly cut ties in any regards with the government because they oppose their policy. So the Lebanese people actually were healing themselves from the Syrians and Iranians, but the war threw them back for years or even decades and just try to come back as good as they can. And that is certainly the fault of Israel. Its nothing less but childish to hit someone hard, close the eyes and mumble that they dont have anything to do with the aftermath and in the case of Israel, more or less a self-fullfilling prophecy. Hit someone, see how they react and then tell everyone that you know what they were going to do and that what you did was right.


----------



## Mael (Dec 3, 2012)

Darth said:


> Yeah I don't buy that.



Then you are indeed the Queen of De Nile.


----------



## Sasuke_Bateman (Dec 3, 2012)

Now the Jews are blaming Europeans for everything


----------



## Megaharrison (Dec 3, 2012)

Kotoamatsukami said:


> I have to admit I already knew your answer to my question so it was rather rhetorical  The reason Hezbollah is in power today or stronger than ever is certainly a follow-up of the Lebanon war in 2006.



It existed, was running much of Lebanon, and was powerful 6 years before that when there were no Israeli's in Lebanon.



> I am not going to argue with you of who started it because we wont come to a conclusion anyway. And it doesnt even matter if they really won the war (which they obviously didnt). But it is a fact that Israel planned the war long before it actually happened and without this war (that in fact hit the country hard) Hezbollah would neither be as strong as they are right now nor in the government.



Too bad. The UN investigation into the conflict has officially stated Hezbollah started the war.





Israel did not plan the war. You can live in la-la land all you want however:



> The war against Israel gave them a reason more to stick to their weapons and made them more popular than ever. Just a year before the war, the Lebanese themselves took care of the Syrians so you probably have very little room to make all of them terrorists or sucking warmongers.



No, war was just another attack in a long history of Hezbollah attacks after Israel left Lebanon. Hezbollah had no legitimate reason to launch the attack that started the war but did anyway.




> Hezbollah was hated amongst most Lebanese sans the Shiites for years (and in fact is now more than ever). If you ever have been in Lebanon, and I know that you werent/wont/dont want to/cant, the reason for the hate is easy to observe, its day-to-day living. They dont pay their bills, they will never get in jail for a minor charge or fraud and watch police men in Lebanon put a Hezbollah member into jail for something they have done. You wont. Currently, the opposition in Lebanon for once unitedly cut ties in any regards with the government because they oppose their policy. So the Lebanese people actually were healing themselves from the Syrians and Iranians, but the war threw them back for years or even decades and just try to come back as good as they can. And that is certainly the fault of Israel. Its nothing less but childish to hit someone hard, close the eyes and mumble that they dont have anything to do with the aftermath and in the case of Israel, more or less a self-fullfilling prophecy. Hit someone, see how they react and then tell everyone that you know what they were going to do and that what you did was right.



Blame Hezbollah for starting the war then, not Israel for striking back. The Lebanese seem to not be able or just unwilling to understand concepts of cause and effect. Hezbollah dominates the country at every level when there hasn't been Israeli's in Lebanon for 12 years or a war with Israel for 6 years. I think it's about time Lebanon took responsibility for its own failures and domination by Jihadists. Blaming Israel only works for so long.

The Lebanese love affair with the Hezbo's is doubly pathetic when you consider they kill democratically elected Lebanese leaders for speaking out against Syria and are massacring fellow Arabs for Assad right now. Some great "resistance" indeed. Hezbollah is a tool for Iranian-Syrian imperialism.

And yes yes Darth I'm just a racist. Brilliant rebuttal as always.


----------



## Mael (Dec 3, 2012)

Sasuke_Bateman said:


> Now the Jews are blaming Europeans for everything



Sykes-Picot...some of you Euros certainly are to blame.


----------



## Kotoamatsukami (Dec 3, 2012)

Megaharrison said:


> It existed, was running much of Lebanon, and was powerful 6 years before that when there were no Israeli's in Lebanon.



"Was running much of Lebanon". Where exactly? Hezbollah cannot exactly occupy land like Israel, they have had they strongholds in the South, but thats about it. After the war, they had enough popularity to flock out into regions they never would have gone before (North-East/ East).





> Too bad. The UN investigation into the conflict has officially stated Hezbollah started the war.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




In the same la-la land like your PM?  

Wait, he is corrupt anyway, right....what does he know 




> No, war was just another attack in a long history of Hezbollah attacks after Israel left Lebanon. Hezbollah had no legitimate reason to launch the attack that started the war but did anyway.



see above.




> Blame Hezbollah for starting the war then, not Israel for striking back. The Lebanese seem to not be able or just unwilling to understand concepts of cause and effect. Hezbollah dominates the country at every level when there hasn't been Israeli's in Lebanon for 12 years or a war with Israel for 6 years. I think it's about time Lebanon took responsibility for its own failures and domination by Jihadists. Blaming Israel only works for so long.
> 
> And yes yes Darth I'm just a racist. Brilliant rebuttal as always.



Wow, I was going to say the exact same thing about Israel. You guys certainly dont understand the concepts of cause and effect, otherwise you would by now know why it?s not exactly peaceful in that region. But dont worry, you?re not the only ones really believing in what you say while reality tells a different story.


----------



## Megaharrison (Dec 3, 2012)

Kotoamatsukami said:


> "Was running much of Lebanon". Where exactly? Hezbollah cannot exactly occupy land like Israel, they have had they strongholds in the South, but thats about it. After the war, they had enough popularity to flock out into regions they never would have gone before (North-East/ East).



Areas south of the Litani have always been a no-go zone for the Lebanese government post-2000 as were Hezbollah bases as far north as Baalbek. Interesting if Hezbollah didnt have any power until 2006!




> In the same la-la land like your PM?
> 
> Wait, he is corrupt anyway, right....what does he know



Huge difference for preparing for the possibility of war vs. actually carrying out plans for an aggressive attack To directly quote the article you yourself posted: "the prime minister chose a plan featuring air attacks on Lebanon and a limited ground operation *that would be implemented following a Hizbullah abduction"*. 

And are you saying the UN and Hezbollah itself are lying? 



> see above.



Except you're horrifically and embarrassingly wrong.



> Wow, I was going to say the exact same thing about Israel. You guys certainly dont understand the concepts of cause and effect, otherwise you would by now know why it?s not exactly peaceful in that region. But dont worry, you?re not the only ones really believing in what you say while reality tells a different story.



Except we're not in Lebanon yet still get attacked by Lebanon. Yes clearly we're to blame. Until you find a justified reason for Hezbollah launching the attack that started the war (you are wrong, they did, it has been flatly proven) this argument for you will go nowhere.


----------



## Kotoamatsukami (Dec 3, 2012)

Megaharrison said:


> Areas south of the Litani have always been a no-go zone for the Lebanese government post-2000 as were Hezbollah bases as far north as Baalbek. Interesting if Hezbollah didnt have any power until 2006!



They didnt have any political power until after the war.


> Huge difference for preparing for the possibility of war vs. actually carrying out plans for an aggressive attack To directly quote the article you yourself posted: "the prime minister chose a plan featuring air attacks on Lebanon and a limited ground operation *that would be implemented following a Hizbullah abduction"*. And are you saying the UN and Hezbollah itself are lying?



Yeah, we could search in detail what Olmert talked about with Ashkenazi and the US-ambassador, but I guess you wouldn?t want to discuss Wikileaks info because they are all against Israel anyway .




> Except you're horrifically and embarrassingly wrong.



Concession accepted.



> Except we're not in Lebanon yet still get attacked by Lebanon. Yes clearly we're to blame. Until you find a justified reason for Hezbollah launching the attack that started the war (you are wrong, they did, it has been flatly proven) this argument for you will go nowhere.



Again, I wont discuss with you who started it and who didnt. You know, compared to the Americans who admitted that it was a mistake to invade Iraq, you wont admit doing anything wrong at all. Because you are the chosen guys, there isn?t anything that Israel ever could have done wrong. Massacres? Self-Defence. Apartheid? Security. Racism? There cannot be any racism in a country that considers itself as the beacon of light around dark countries living in hell.


----------



## Megaharrison (Dec 3, 2012)

Kotoamatsukami said:


> They didnt have any political power until after the war.



Yet controlled whole swaths of the country before the war.



> Yeah, we could search in detail what Olmert talked about with Ashkenazi and the US-ambassador, but I guess you wouldn?t want to discuss Wikileaks info because they are all against Israel anyway .



Uh huh. You posted an article that was meant to prove your point and yet it specifically says said preparations for war were for "the event of a Hezbollah abduction". That isn't starting a war.

And are you suggesting the UN investigation and Hezbollah itself are both lying but Olmert isn't? You must address this, you can not ignore it.



> Concession accepted.



This is just more denial that Hezbollah started the war on your part so there's nothing to concede. You yourself said "see above", thus connecting it to the argument and I in turn responded by mentioning the above argument to your see above. But given how badly you're embarrassing yourself here I can see why you'd be so desperate for any source of "concession". 



> Again, I wont discuss with you who started it and who didnt.



Too bad, you just want to make it sound like there's a possibility we started the war when we didn't. No, either you admit you were wrong or you won't be able to continue. You will not be able to get away with lying and/or stupidity.



> You know, compared to the Americans who admitted that it was a mistake to invade Iraq, you wont admit doing anything wrong at all. Because you are the chosen guys, there isn?t anything that Israel ever could have done wrong. Massacres? Self-Defence. Apartheid? Security. Racism? There cannot be any racism in a country that considers itself as the beacon of light around dark countries living in hell.



All irrelevant and doesn't' address, debunk, or disprove anything I've said. I don't care about your silly little inferiority complex rants. Try again.


----------



## Kotoamatsukami (Dec 3, 2012)

> Megaharrison said:
> 
> 
> > Yet controlled whole swaths of the country before the war.
> ...


----------



## Mael (Dec 3, 2012)

It's going to be a glorious day when Asia becomes far more relevant than the Middle East in American politics.


----------



## Megaharrison (Dec 3, 2012)

Kotoamatsukami said:


> > Doesnt change the fact that they didnt have anything to say in Lebanon and came out stronger after the war.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Blah blah more baseless accusations. Your guardian "evidence" was debunked instantly so now it's this. Nothing you've shown demonstrates Israel started the war. Not to mention you're apparently ignoring that you've failed to address how the UN and Hezbollah itself must be lying if your scenario is to be believed.



> Makes me somehow glad to see you getting emotional. At least that indicates that there is some truth in my words. You know it, I know it.



Emotional? No I just find this funny look back to any previous debates and I act the same way. If you think there's "truth" with what you say then you've failed to show it anywhere.





> Irrelevant? Rather proves that you dont understand the concept of cause and effect? And further indicates that the beforehand notion of believing in being the chosen folks and therefore never being able to do anything wrong and justify anything you do or say. You know, the Nazis said and did the same.



It's irrelevant. A lot of speculative/strawmen accusations. Not connected to the original fact of Arab countries attacking us even if we do not occupy them being a hindrance to peace. Lebanon attacks us when we do not attack/occupy them, for instance. You've yet to disprove this and stupid rants about Nazi's won't change that.


----------



## Kotoamatsukami (Dec 3, 2012)

You know, I really have nothing against you MegaHarrison. In fact, I even can understand you position. I assume that you were born and raised in Israel and therefore will be preoccupied in your mindset anyway. As you sometimes state, you seem to work in the IDF. So the chance that you have blood on your hands or at least raided a house in the occupied areas of the Palestinian State is pretty high. I wouldnt give a darn about the people I am supposed to kill either.
So as I said in the beginning, I am sure that we wont agree on any level and it?s kind of tiresome to always repeat the same shit, so lets agree to disagree ;-)


----------



## Shinigami Perv (Dec 3, 2012)

> *US hammers Israel over new settlement construction plans*
> 
> By Associated Press, Updated: Monday, December 3, 10:05 AM
> 
> ...




To which Israel basically tells us to fuck off (they'll give us the finger but they won't turn down our aid, unsurprisingly)



> *Israel settlements: Netanyahu defies outcry over E-1*
> 
> 
> Israel says it will not give in to international pressure to halt plans for 3,000 new settler homes in East Jerusalem and the West Bank.
> ...


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-20585706

Netanyahu seems intent on isolating himself with laughable claims of vital security interests. 



> *Israel Building Plan Prompts Diplomatic Protest by 5 Nations*
> 
> JERUSALEM — Britain, France, Spain, Sweden and Denmark summoned the Israeli ambassadors to their countries on Monday to protest Israel’s plans for increased settlement construction, an unusually sharp diplomatic step that reflected the growing frustration abroad with Israel’s policies on the Palestinian issue.





The mainstream media is figuring him out



> *Is Netanyahu Trying to Make the Two-State Option an Impossibility?*
> 
> Unless you’re actually driving around the West Bank – sailing down the freeways Israel has built atop Palestinian land, or steering down the two-lane roads etched into the hillsides topped with more than 200 subdivisions,  little bits of California atop stone hills straight from Bible story books  – it’s difficult to appreciate the reality of what Israel calls its “settlement project.” But a geography specialist named Danny Seidemann found a vivid point of reference for the new part of it Israel announced over the weekend:  “The doomsday settlement.”
> 
> ...




He is effectively ending the two-state solution. Netanyahu is becoming a dangerous idiot.


----------



## hadou (Dec 3, 2012)

Mael said:


> It's going to be a glorious day when Asia becomes far more relevant than the Middle East in American politics.



Change of scenery...?


----------



## neodragzero (Dec 3, 2012)

sadated_peon said:


> From the article
> "Britain and Sweden also summoned the Israeli ambassadors, and Germany said the decision would hurt Israel's ability to negotiate a long-term peace agreement."
> 
> *I quoted the specific phrase from the article.* How can you say it's not the reason, when it is a direct quote from the article!
> Did you bother to actually read the article?



Your post was only this:


sadated_peon said:


> I find the European reaction fucking hilarious in it's double standard.
> 
> Supports Palestinian statehood even though it is specifically stated by Israel as a negative action in "negotiate a long-term peace agreement".
> 
> Attacks Israel for settlements BECAUSE *it is specifically stated by Palestinians as a negative action in "negotiate a long-term peace agreement".*



You posted no quote.

Where exactly in that article does it mention them only mentioning issues in long-term peace agreement on the basis of what Palestinians have SAID? Because you posted a comment, as you can see yourself there, about how certain nations are somehow practicing a standard of listening to Palestinians but not to Israelis but it's obvious how you made up that context for those nations reps.

It's still a strawman where you completely ignore the context. A UN bid isn't comparable to what a settlement expansion will do when the latter will pretty much take up a section of land that will make it impossible to have a viable Palestinian state. One has room for furthering progress as far as what the bid entails while the latter only, and I do mean only, has a negative effect entirely.


----------



## Megaharrison (Dec 3, 2012)

Shinigami Perv said:


> He is effectively ending the two-state solution. Netanyahu is becoming a dangerous idiot.



I don't agree with Netenyahu's response to the Pali parade, but a 2 state solution would not be possible even if no settlements existed, for reasons I've already listed (most notably that the dominant Palestinian factions refuse such a thing). How could a 2 state solution exist when violent Jihadists dominate Gaza and would come to dominate the West Bank if Israel left? I'm sorry, you can't have a circlejerk.

As for an "idiot", his period has seen the largest economic growth and best period of calm (for our standards) in Israeli history. Foreigners just obsess over his handling of Palestinian problems, which most of us are less concerned about.



			
				Kotoamatsukami said:
			
		

> You know, I really have nothing against you MegaHarrison. In fact, I even can understand you position. I assume that you were born and raised in Israel and therefore will be preoccupied in your mindset anyway. As you sometimes state, you seem to work in the IDF. So the chance that you have blood on your hands or at least raided a house in the occupied areas of the Palestinian State is pretty high. I wouldnt give a darn about the people I am supposed to kill either.
> So as I said in the beginning, I am sure that we wont agree on any level and it?s kind of tiresome to always repeat the same shit, so lets agree to disagree ;-)



I don't care. None of this debunks or is relevant to anything I've said. Concession accepted.


----------



## Kotoamatsukami (Dec 3, 2012)

It is because you will never ever feel sorry for any Palestinian and at the same time shoot at them. Making any concession or change your mind would mean that what you are doing may be wrong. And who I am to tell you that your whole life is based under a wrong premise?


----------



## sadated_peon (Dec 3, 2012)

neodragzero said:


> Your post was only this:
> 
> 
> You posted no quote.


Wow really? you can't see the phrase I quoted. 
Here let me bold 


> Supports Palestinian statehood even though it is specifically stated by Israel as a negative action in "*negotiate a long-term peace agreement*".
> 
> Attacks Israel for settlements BECAUSE it is specifically stated by Palestinians as a negative action in "*negotiate a long-term peace agreement*".



article
"Britain and Sweden also summoned the Israeli ambassadors, and Germany said the decision would hurt Israel's ability to negotiate a long-term peace agreement."

reading is fundamental to actually being able to argument with people on a text based forum. I would work on that if I were you.


----------



## Megaharrison (Dec 3, 2012)

Kotoamatsukami said:


> It is because you will never ever feel sorry for any Palestinian and at the same time shoot at them. Making any concession or change your mind would mean that what you are doing may be wrong. And who I am to tell you that your whole life is based under a wrong premise?



I don't care about whatever this is supposed to be. None of this debunks or is relevant to anything I've said. You've conceded. Either post something relevant or get out.


----------



## butcher50 (Dec 3, 2012)

lol typical emotional blackmail exploit tactics by naive activists, i never seen this shit spammed to such degrees on any other perceived "Oppressor/Occupier" nationals except Israelis.

but then again selective hypocrisy and double-standards are the oil that keeps the gears of this this world running.

(picking like this on Israelis is easy, try picking on another _"oppressor/occupier"_ target that doesn't adheres to any officially set standards and we will see what happens)


----------



## neodragzero (Dec 3, 2012)

sadated_peon said:


> Wow really? you can't see the phrase I quoted.
> Here let me bold
> 
> 
> ...



Once again, you didn't quote anything in the post to support your statement about Palestinian statements being listened to as the basis of the Israel expansion criticism.

You don't seem to get it. Where exactly are you getting the:


> Attacks Israel for settlements *BECAUSE it is specifically stated by Palestinians as a negative action* in "negotiate a long-term peace agreement".



There's no mention of *Palestinian statements being the basis* of what the reps are saying. Either provide where exactly you got that context or, as I already explained nicely enough, you're making a strawman. Especially when you somehow equate the ramifications of the U.N. bid with an illegal expansion that would make a viable Palestinian state physically impossible.


----------



## Kotoamatsukami (Dec 3, 2012)

Megaharrison said:


> I don't care about whatever this is supposed to be. None of this debunks or is relevant to anything I've said. You've conceded. Either post something relevant or get out.



It is absolutely relevant to what you said. I just condeded that I am not going to be able to convince you by any means because you are biased. Therefore it was my mistake because a discussion about two states seems to be obsolete. 

But let?s do it another way to keep this going: What do you think the Israeli government (and society) will have to do to bring a two-states-solution closer? Is there anything that could push it, except using force ?


----------



## butcher50 (Dec 3, 2012)

Kotoamatsukami said:


> But let?s do it another way to keep this going: What do you think the Israeli government (and society) will have to do to bring a two-states-solution closer? Is there anything that could push it, except using force ?



Convert to Islam and start teaching everyone Arabic, accept Prophet Muhammad in their hearts.


(i'm serious)


----------



## Megaharrison (Dec 3, 2012)

Kotoamatsukami said:


> It is absolutely relevant to what you said. I just condeded that I am not going to be able to convince you by any means because you are biased. Therefore it was my mistake because a discussion about two states seems to be obsolete.



No, it's not relevant. Just personal attacks/strawmen/meaningless rhetoric. It doesn't prove that Hezbollah didn't start the 2006 war or that Israeli concessions will lead to peace despite past examples (Gaza, Lebanon, Egypt) showing the contrary.



> But let?s do it another way to keep this going: What do you think the Israeli government (and society) will have to do to bring a two-states-solution closer? Is there anything that could push it, except using force ?



Currently, there is actually nothing we can do to seriously advance the peace process. There's halting settlement expansion to symbolically show the Palestinians are the reason for the conflicts continuation, but it wouldn't lead to anything concrete or advance the peace process because the conflict isn't about settlements as I've demonstrated countless times in this thread by now. We're not doing that and it's silly, but it's not holding back peace. Anymore concessions until the rocket terror/Jihadism in Palestinian society/refusal by Palestinian groups to accept Israel are all solved would just be Gaza/Lebanon repeats.


----------



## Kotoamatsukami (Dec 3, 2012)

Megaharrison said:


> No, it's not relevant. Just *personal attacks*/strawmen/meaningless rhetoric. It doesn't prove that Hezbollah didn't start the 2006 war or that Israeli concessions will lead to peace despite past examples (Gaza, Lebanon, Egypt) showing the contrary.



Wait, excuse me. When did I personally attack you? As far as I remember, I wasnt the one saying: 





> Except you're horrifically and embarrassingly wrong.





> I don't care about your silly little inferiority complex rants





> You will not be able to get away with lying and/or stupidity.



Unless you take attacks against Israel personal, I never attacked you in person. Unless you did with me, but I dont really care about that.



> Currently, there is actually nothing we can do to seriously advance the peace process. There's halting settlement expansion to symbolically show the Palestinians are the reason for the conflicts continuation, but it wouldn't lead to anything concrete or advance the peace process because the conflict isn't about settlements as I've demonstrated countless times in this thread by now. We're not doing that and it's silly, but it's not holding back peace. Anymore concessions until the rocket terror/Jihadism in Palestinian society/refusal by Palestinian groups to accept Israel are all solved would just be Gaza/Lebanon repeats.



Okay, thank you for your answer. Then I?d like to ask you another thing if you?d like. As far as I remember, the wasnt any rocket launch for years coming from the Westbank and the Fatah accepts Israel as well as general terms on peace. Yet, there wasn?t any progress in the peace talks, at least with the Fatah and/or Abbas since he has no control over Gaza. Why is that? Following your premise, there should be talks by now, no? The situation in the West Bank doesnt seem much different than in Gaza, except that Israeli doesnt strike Westbank anymore. Netanyahu wanted to talk about peace without any preconditions, Abbas only after settlement expansion froze. If the settlements are not the hindrance for talks, what is it then? (again i am only talking about the Fatah and not Hamas).


----------



## Yachiru (Dec 3, 2012)

The two-state solution is a farce. And besides, PA got observer status but is not a sovereign state; the UN cannot declare any state by International law.

Neither party truly wants to coexist with one another. The Hamas' ultimate goal is the destruction of Israel. As long as the Arab world doesn't recognize Israel's right to exist, so long Israel will effectively end the two-state solution - it was dead from the beginning.

It's just that it becomes obvious now. Either that, or the whole world was in denial - there can be only one state.


----------



## butcher50 (Dec 3, 2012)

Yitzhak Rabin was trying to cut a deal with Yaser Arafat back in 90s, unfortunately he was assassinated before he could accomplish that.


----------



## Mael (Dec 3, 2012)

GDI Mega...I was trying to calm your ass down.


----------



## Megaharrison (Dec 3, 2012)

Kotoamatsukami said:


> Wait, excuse me. When did I personally attack you? As far as I remember, I wasnt the one saying:



Uh huh.

"It is because *you* will never ever feel sorry for any Palestinian and at the same time shoot at them. Making any concession or change *your* mind would mean that what *you* are doing may be wrong. And who I am to tell you that *your whole life* is based under a wrong premise?"




> Okay, thank you for your answer. Then I?d like to ask you another thing if you?d like. As far as I remember, the wasnt any rocket launch for years coming from the Westbank and the Fatah accepts Israel as well as general terms on peace. Yet, there wasn?t any progress in the peace talks, at least with the Fatah and/or Abbas since he has no control over Gaza. Why is that? Following your premise, there should be talks by now, no? The situation in the West Bank doesnt seem much different than in Gaza, except that Israeli doesnt strike Westbank anymore. Netanyahu wanted to talk about peace without any preconditions, Abbas only after settlement expansion froze. If the settlements are not the hindrance for talks, what is it then? (again i am only talking about the Fatah and not Hamas).



The situation in Gaza is entirely different then the West Bank, The IDF have no troops in Gaza to control the situation and stop rocket attacks. The only reason there are no rockets coming from the West Bank is because the IDF are there in force.

As for what is a hindrance to talks, you yourself just said it. You can't "only" talk about Fatah, they are weak and the Palestinians are dominated by Hamas and its allies, Islamic Jihad, PRC, PFLP, Al Aqsa, and so on. So no, there is no way to discuss this issue of peace while "leaving out" Hamas. They must be mentioned in any discussion as any conclusion to the conflict is impossible until they're dealt with.

Settlements or not Hamas will exist with its violent Jihadist platform and will continue to attack Israel regardless of what it does. Thus settlements are not preventing peace.


----------



## Revolution (Dec 3, 2012)

*Countries oppose ?country-specific? resolutions -- and then adopt 21 (on Israel)*




> In an astonishing display of hypocrisy, numerous U.N. country delegates gave impassioned speeches last Tuesday objecting to resolutions criticizing the murderous regimes of Iran, North Korea and Syria, saying they rejected the very notion of singling out countries; and then they proceeded, mere moments later, to adopt a resolution ? which many of them also co-sponsored ? singling out democratic Israel.
> According to a UN Watch report, featured on Canadian TV and now going viral on Facebook, there will be a total of 21 one-sided resolutions targeting the Jewish state in this session of the U.N. General Assembly -- and only 4 on the rest of the world combined.
> 
> Here were the objections supposedly made in the name of high principle, from the U.N.'s Nov. 27 debate:
> ...


----------



## Coteaz (Dec 3, 2012)

Hilarious and pathetic in equal measures. 



> Belarus said the draft resolution on Iran failed to “promote dialogue on support for human rights.” The draft resolution was “not objective,” and “ignored official sources of information” and “specific actions.”


Europe's last dictatorship talking about human rights. 

edit: Responding to Sarahmint's merged thread...


----------



## Ichi Sagato (Dec 3, 2012)

> *In an astonishing display of hypocrisy*, numerous U.N. country delegates gave impassioned speeches last Tues



Sorry Sarah, but I stopped reading the article there.


----------



## Mael (Dec 3, 2012)

The apologism for North Korea is simply trolling.


----------



## Sarry (Dec 3, 2012)

Since when was the UNwatch.org a legit source for news?


----------



## makeoutparadise (Dec 5, 2012)

*8-Year-Old Palestinian Boy Pleasantly Surprised He Hasn't Been Killed Yet*


> GAZA CITY?As civilian casualties continue to mount amid the escalating conflict along the Gaza Strip, 8-year-old Palestinian boy Walid Suleiman expressed both joy and astonishment Monday that he has yet to be killed in an Israeli military attack. ?Boy, I thought I?d be dead by this past Saturday for sure, but amazingly enough, here I am,? said Suleiman, adding that he is ?pleased, but pretty shocked? not to be among the estimated 100 Palestinians left dead by widespread Israeli airstrikes in the region over the past six days. ?I?d have bet you anything that by today they?d have already dug my corpse out from underneath a giant pile of rubble and buried me alongside the rest of my family. Guess I won the lottery, eh?? At press time, incoming Israeli aircraft could be heard swiftly approaching as Suleiman limped back to his home.



ck


----------



## Penumbra (Dec 5, 2012)

Bahahaha! Oh I love Onion. So, I guess that kid wasn't nominated to act as an injured Pali kid.


----------



## makeoutparadise (Dec 5, 2012)

Penumbra said:


> Bahahaha! Oh I love Onion. So, I guess that kid wasn't nominated to act as an injured Pali kid.



he wasn't photogenic enough


----------



## Shinigami Perv (Dec 5, 2012)

> Britain to Israel: Reverse settlement expansion or Europe will consider further steps






> Merkel to warn Netanyahu: Promote peace process or face world seclusion






> Australia calls in Israeli ambassador to protest settlements plan


http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/12/04/us-palestinians-israel-australia-idUSBRE8B306X20121204



> Sources: US behind European protest measures




It's becoming a shitstorm because the new illegal settlements would effectively be the end of the peace process. Talk about overplaying your hand.


----------



## First Tsurugi (Dec 5, 2012)

Good. I hope this blows up in Bibi's face.


----------



## sadated_peon (Dec 5, 2012)

neodragzero said:
			
		

> Once again, you didn't quote anything in the post to support your statement about Palestinian statements being listened to as the basis of the Israel expansion criticism.


What? Of course I quoted something, did you still not see the quote! How can you be this fucking blind. The statement of intention included a direct quoted phrase. 



			
				neodragzero said:
			
		

> There's no mention of Palestinian statements being the basis of what the reps are saying. Either provide where exactly you got that context or, as I already explained nicely enough, you're making a strawman. Especially when you somehow equate the ramifications of the U.N. bid with an illegal expansion that would make a viable Palestinian state physically impossible.


What? Are you mental? The article doesn?t quote every statement every made by the Palestinians about their position, it quotes their position which is based on statements they have previously made. 
Your complete and total lack of contextual knowledge is not my problem.

Really I don?t see this as anything but lame attempt to get away from a failed argument where you didn?t realized I had directly quoted from the article.


----------



## neodragzero (Dec 5, 2012)

sadated_peon said:


> What? Of course I quoted something, did you still not see the quote! How can you be this fucking blind. The statement of intention included a direct quoted phrase.



I'm still waiting for this quote about them simply responding on the basis of what Palestinians said rather than the obvious physical problems of said settlement expansion.


> What? Are you mental? *The article doesn’t quote every statement every made by the Palestinians about their position*, it quotes their position which is based on statements they have previously made.
> Your complete and total lack of contextual knowledge is not my problem.



That's not what I'm talking about. You claimed that the Europeans are making statements strictly on the basis of listening to Palestinians while not listening to Israelis. You have provided nothing to support that assumption. It's obvious you're making up a context as you continue to ignore the fact that said expansion would make a viable Palestine physically impossible. You basically tried to make the UN bid comparable to settlement expansion as if they equate rather than the fact that the latter actually is a complete block to the peace process.

You stated: 


> *Attacks Israel for settlements BECAUSE it is specifically stated by Palestinians as a negative action* in "negotiate a long-term peace agreement".





> Attacks Israel for settlements BECAUSE it is specifically stated by Palestinians as





> Attacks Israel for settlements BECAUSE it is specifically stated by Palestinians as





> Attacks Israel for settlements BECAUSE it is specifically stated by Palestinians as



So, I will ask this again, where are getting this idea that European rep criticisms of the Israeli settlements expansion are BECAUSE it is specifically stated by the Palestinians as a negative?


----------



## sadated_peon (Dec 5, 2012)

neodragzero said:
			
		

> I'm still waiting for this quote about them simply responding on the basis of what Palestinians said rather than the obvious physical problems of said settlement expansion.


I have no clue how to respond to this blatant idiocy. I directly showed you the quote, there is nothing more I can do. This mental limitation of your is beyond me ability to overcome. 



			
				neodragzero said:
			
		

> That's not what I'm talking about. You claimed that the Europeans are making statements strictly on the basis of listening to Palestinians while not listening to Israelis. You have provided nothing to support that assumption. It's obvious you're making up a context as you continue to ignore the fact that said expansion would make a viable Palestine physically impossible. You basically tried to make the UN bid comparable to settlement expansion as if they equate rather than the fact that the latter actually is a complete block to the peace process.


I quoted the direct line from the EU countries about how the settlements are an obstacle to peace. If you can?t grasp that the Palestinians in the past have *SPECIFICALLY* stated that settlements are obstacle to peace that is NOT my fault. You lack of knowledge about this conflict IS NOT MY PROBLEM!

This ludicrous BS has gone on way too long.


----------



## neodragzero (Dec 5, 2012)

sadated_peon said:


> I quoted the direct line from the EU countries about how the settlements are an obstacle to peace.


You have provided nothing to support you accusation of why they are saying that. That's the problem. Your suggested hypocrisy has no logical sense when it pretends that two things, the UN bid and settlement expansion, are comparable when it's obvious that they're not.


> If you can’t grasp that the Palestinians in the past have *SPECIFICALLY* stated that settlements are obstacle to peace that is NOT my fault.


You still don't get it? There's saying what the Palestinians said IN THE PAST, which is not what I'm obviously worried about, and there's trying to accuse the Europeans of simply criticizing said settlement expansion *BECAUSE of what Palestinians have strictly said. * It's blatantly ignoring the good reasoning behind why they have a problem with the settlement expansion rather than having a problem with the UN bid. Just because Palestinians have negative comments about the expansions in the past doesn't define the European criticism of NEW SETTLEMENT EXPANSION. They don't connect as you suggested.

In other words, you're attempting to or mistakenly have added in a context that the Europeans are making a critique on the basis of Palestinian statements rather than the obvious matter of how the expansion will make a viable Palestinian state physically impossible and thus be a real barrier to a peace process. You equated a UN bid to the settlement expansion even though the latter actually has no positive ramifications whatsoever.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Dec 5, 2012)

Shinigami Perv said:


> http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/12/04/us-palestinians-israel-australia-idUSBRE8B306X20121204
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Funny no one is this tough on Syria.


----------



## Mael (Dec 5, 2012)

Birds of a feather...


----------



## Megaharrison (Dec 5, 2012)

SP is just spamming articles by this point ignoring any rebuttals/debunkings because that screws with his narrative. Hell he did the same thing a few days back. The peace process isn't connected to the settlements as demonstrated countless times in this threads and he has flat-out admitted he doesn't care.  He wants to live in a fantasy land where his simplistic concept on this whole issue isn't challenged. Leave him be basically.


----------



## Mael (Dec 5, 2012)

Megaharrison said:


> SP is just spamming articles by this point ignoring any rebuttals/debunkings because that screws with his narrative. Hell he did the same thing a few days back. The peace process isn't connected to the settlements as demonstrated countless times in this threads and he has flat-out admitted he doesn't care.  He wants to live in a fantasy land where his simplistic concept on this whole issue isn't challenged. Leave him be basically.



Remember, Mega.  Za Warudo voted for this so I guess he can spam as he pleases.


----------



## neodragzero (Dec 5, 2012)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Funny no one is this tough on Syria.



Because we all know that the U.S. and certain allies are arming Hamas.


Megaharrison said:


> The peace process isn't connected to the settlements as demonstrated countless times in this threads



So, you're saying that this settlement expansion wouldn't have any effect on the peace process?


----------



## Shinigami Perv (Dec 5, 2012)

Megaharrison said:


> SP is just spamming articles by this point ignoring any rebuttals/debunkings because that screws with his narrative. Hell he did the same thing a few days back.* The peace process isn't connected to the settlements as demonstrated countless times* in this threads and he has flat-out admitted he doesn't care.  He wants to live in a fantasy land where his simplistic concept on this whole issue isn't challenged. Leave him be basically.



Except that everyone from your strongest backers (the US, Germany) down to your lowliest detractor says that they are. I share their opinion. 

I think you are confusing your arguments with something worthy of consideration. Your rebuttals aren't convincing, they aren't persuasive in the least, which is maybe why they can't persuade a single country in the entire world to agree with your position. If your perspective is going to be so divorced from reality, then it's best to ignore you. When you want to talk seriously, I'm up for it, but not if you sit in the corner and cry that I'm not paying attention to your arguments when everyone else in the world sees that such a notion is obviously false.


----------



## Mael (Dec 5, 2012)

The continued petulance of the settlers is an undeniable pain in the ass.  I mean, fuck those guys.  Maybe since I'm not such a religious tard I can't sympathize with them pushing into land that isn't designated as theirs in unanimous decision.

Just fucking move to the Midwest or Florida...there's plenty of land you whiners.


----------



## Shinigami Perv (Dec 5, 2012)

You know, I'm fine with them staying in Israel, or in Palestine if such a thing were possible. The ones who have been there a long time probably deserve to stay. To me the roads and restricted territories are as huge an issue as the settlers. If you take those away from the Palestinians, Palestine looks like a bizarre chain of islands with rather large distances between them. It is physically impossible for a viable state to look this way.

That is why every country in the world is pissed off. E1 chops Palestine into such an impossibly disconnected state that it couldn't possibly be viable. Hillary and Obama are pissed and rightfully so.


----------



## Mael (Dec 5, 2012)

Shinigami Perv said:


> You know, I'm fine with them staying in Israel, or in Palestine if such a thing were possible. The ones who have been there a long time probably deserve to stay. To me the roads and restricted territories are as huge an issue as the settlers. If you take those away from the Palestinians, Palestine looks like a bizarre chain of islands with rather large distances between them. It is physically impossible for a viable state to look this way.



IDGAF.  They frequently ignore the government of the people trying to help/protect them.  I say give them one chance and if they fuck up, send them to Mississippi.

Really, as both an American and a non-Jew, I have zero fucking sympathy for these people.  And anyone using the argument that Americans were originally settlers doesn't get the concept that national lines weren't in much existence in North American lands so the analogy is null and void.


----------



## Shinigami Perv (Dec 5, 2012)

Mael said:


> IDGAF.  They frequently ignore the government of the people trying to help/protect them.  I say give them one chance and if they fuck up, send them to Mississippi.
> 
> Really, as both an American and a non-Jew, I have zero fucking sympathy for these people.  And anyone using the argument that Americans were originally settlers doesn't get the concept that national lines weren't in much existence in North American lands so the analogy is null and void.



I find it funny that anyone should bring up Native Americans. Do they have any idea how many of us are descended from Native Americans? Just because we look European doesn't mean we don't have a shit ton of native ancestry. This came up during the Elizabeth Warren debates, so I have to bring it up.

Anyway, if someone had forced us to do the right thing, Native Americans would have been treated humanely. It's a good example of why a party in the conflict can't mediate the conflict.

In any event there are now people talking about one-state due to the impossibility of two-state if E1 goes through:



> Palestinians: Settlement Expansion Means 1 State






> If Not Two States, Then One




Is this really what Israel wants? To be put in a position where they have to decide between a majority Jewish state + ethnic cleansing or a majority Arab state? Seems to me a two-state solution would be preferable for them.


----------



## Megaharrison (Dec 5, 2012)

Neodragzero said:
			
		

> So, you're saying that this settlement expansion wouldn't have any effect on the peace process?



The war existed before settlements, it existed even worse after we dismantled settlements, it will exist if there are no settlements. You have to be drinking a pretty big glass of denial to think everything is solved if we simply dismantle West Bank settlements, it doesn't address the Jihadists, rocket terror, Arab world obsessive hatred/incitement/warmongering, and so on.

Settlements hinder the peace process I agree, but there is a very big difference between the peace process and peace. The Peace Process is the diplomatic/political circus that revolves around making a symbolic deal/treaty with Fatah/PA that would also allow Western politicians to feel good about themselves. Peace is actual peace, i.e. no more conflict. The two things exist in their own bubbles and one rarely effects the other. For instance, if the peace process was achieved with the PA in the West Bank, it would not lead to peace due to the situation in Gaza/Lebanon/Iran/Egypt/and so on. Israel is concerned about peace, the international community (and yourself) is concerned about the peace process.



Shinigami Perv said:


> Except that everyone from your strongest backers (the US, Germany) down to your lowliest detractor says that they are. I share their opinion.



More appeals to authority. I wonder how many times you'll do this, it's a logical fallacy for a reason. Some lessons in critical thinking might do wonders to stop your habit of parroting.




> I think you are confusing your arguments with something worthy of consideration. Your rebuttals aren't convincing, they aren't persuasive in the least, which is maybe why they can't persuade a single country in the entire world to agree with your position. If your perspective is going to be so divorced from reality, then it's best to ignore you. When you want to talk seriously, I'm up for it, but not if you sit in the corner and cry that I'm not paying attention to your arguments



Okay then if it's so unconvincing, it's time for you to explain:

A.) how settlements are the primary obstacle to peace
B.) If Israel dismantled every settlement, how it would lead to peace and end the rocket terror
C.) How Israel dismantling settlements would satisfy the many Jihadist and other such groups dedicated to Israel's destruction, not caring about 67 lines.
D.) How all of Israel's non-Palestinian enemies (Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, inevitably Jordan/Gulf States/Turkey, and so on) would leave it alone if it got rid of settlements. 
E.) How the PA could actually be a viable state even if no settlements (or even Israel) existed and not just another Somalia/Lebanon/Syria that's a threat to themselves and everyone around it.
F.) How if Israel dismantled the settlements, it would lead to Israel's global acceptance.
G.) How Israel dismantling the settlements would end the continuing rise of Jihadism in the region which invariably threatens Israel and is not concerned about the peace process or even the Palestinians, having a globalist ideological mindset.

You must explain these things if your argument has any ground to stand on. No, I don't care what the UN General Assembly says. No, I don't care what some Al Jazeera guy or the Assad fanclub has to say. It's time for you to explain how there would be peace if Israel dismantled the settlements.



> when everyone else in the world sees that such a notion is obviously false.



Another appeal to authority, not valid.


----------



## sadated_peon (Dec 5, 2012)

neodragzero said:


> You have provided nothing to support you accusation of why they are saying that. That's the problem. Your suggested hypocrisy has no logical sense when it pretends that two things, the UN bid and settlement expansion, are comparable when it's obvious that they're not.


I quoted the phrase, there is the evidence. You can keep reply with this gibberish is you like but it's not going to move away from this undeniable point.


neodragzero said:


> You still don't get it? There's saying what the Palestinians said IN THE PAST, which is not what I'm obviously worried about, and there's trying to accuse the Europeans of simply criticizing said settlement expansion *BECAUSE of what Palestinians have strictly said. * It's blatantly ignoring the good reasoning behind why they have a problem with the settlement expansion rather than having a problem with the UN bid. Just because Palestinians have negative comments about the expansions in the past doesn't define the European criticism of NEW SETTLEMENT EXPANSION. They don't connect as you suggested.
> 
> In other words, you're attempting to or mistakenly have added in a context that the Europeans are making a critique on the basis of Palestinian statements rather than the obvious matter of how the expansion will make a viable Palestinian state physically impossible and thus be a real barrier to a peace process. You equated a UN bid to the settlement expansion even though the latter actually has no positive ramifications whatsoever.


What don't you grasp here, we are talking about a lasting peace agreement, not the overall morals of the situation which you constantly try and equate the situation to. 
The peace agreement is what we are talking about, and is specifically what I quoted in the phrase. This agreement is based on the the agreement between two parties the Israelis and the Palestinians. It is not IN ANY WAY based on the European critics. 
Obstacles to the peace are the conflicting grievances between the Palestinians and the Israelis, this is what I am referring to.


----------



## neodragzero (Dec 5, 2012)

sadated_peon said:


> I quoted the phrase, there is the evidence.


You quoted a statement that mentions nothing about the European reps saying what they did simply because of what Palestinians say. You still committed a poison the well fallacy to support your claim of hypocrisy.


> What don't you grasp here, we are talking about a lasting peace agreement, not the overall morals of the situation which you constantly try and equate the situation to.



I said nothing about morals. I simply responded to your attempt to claim hypocrisy by suggesting that the European rep criticism of settlement expansion is based simply on what Palestinians said rather than mentioning the fact that said expansion is problematic, as physical land goes, well beyond the UN bid.


> This agreement is based on the the agreement between two parties the Israelis and the Palestinians. It is not IN ANY WAY based on the European critics.


What agreement are you talking about? The article and the conversation is focused upon the matter of settlement expansions. There was no agreement to allow said expansion. Of course the Europeans are within their rights to criticize a settlement expansion that would make a viable Palestine physically impossible. Do you actually understand any of this? Because you've have failed to respond to that at all while constantly repeating that you quoted a section of a statement as if I'm just referring to what the Europeans called it when you went out of your way to assume why they said that on the basis of simply what Palestinians say.


> Obstacles to the peace are the conflicting grievances between the Palestinians and the Israelis, this is what I am referring to.



There's conflicting and there's doing something that will make the existence of a nation physically impossible. The UN bid and a settlement expansion are not comparable.


Megaharrison said:


> The war existed before settlements, it existed even worse after we dismantled settlements, it will exist if there are no settlements.


So, again, are you suggesting that an expansion that cuts up the West Bank won't have any effect on the peace process? Settlements not being the first is irrelevant. There are still settlements in the West Bank. That hypothetical is useless when confronted with the issue that exists in reality.


> You have to be drinking a pretty big glass of denial to think everything is solved if we simply dismantle West Bank settlements,


It's a good thing I have no interest your strawman.


> *For instance, if the peace process was achieved with the PA in the West Bank, it would not lead to peace due to the situation in Gaza/Lebanon/Iran/Egypt/and so on.* Israel is concerned about peace, the international community (and yourself) is concerned about the peace process.



On the bold, that's a sad and quite odd statement on your part when the point is the matter of peace between Israel and Palestine where the matter of Lebanon, Iran, and Egypt are not only outside of that particular main point but also the fact that Egypt has brokered a cease fire while Iran is threatened with bombings while Netanyahu asked Jordan for permission to bomb parts of Syria. Come back to me when the Israeli prime minister isn't an obvious warhawk. Good luck with trying to convince people that these expansions are simply in the interest of peace.


----------



## butcher50 (Dec 5, 2012)

if the UN wants Israel to shut down the unauthorized settlements.....permanently then it needs to get serious about ENFORCING peace over Israel via both NO-ROCKET ZONE and NO-SUICIDE BOMBING ZONE.

anyone sees the UN ever getting this seriously authoritative and tough on the Palestinian block to maintain peace deals ? 

nah.


----------



## Megaharrison (Dec 5, 2012)

neodragzero said:


> So, again, are you suggesting that an expansion that cuts up the West Bank won't have any effect on the peace process? Settlements being the first is irrelevant. There are still settlements in the West Bank. That hypothetical is useless when confronted with the issue that exist in reality.
> 
> It's a good thing I have no interest your strawman.



It doesn't effect the peace or the peace process, both will continue on as they have with or without settlements. Settlement expansion does nothing but hurt our image which is why I don't support it, but it doesn't hinder or prevent peace.


----------



## neodragzero (Dec 5, 2012)

Megaharrison said:


> It doesn't effect the peace or the peace process, both will continue on as they have with or without settlements. Settlement expansion does nothing but hurt our image which is why I don't support it, but it doesn't hinder or prevent peace.



So, again, you're saying that an expansion that cuts up the West Bank has no effect on things? No change on how long issues between the groups will continue? No change on any of the factors on this matter at all? You're pretty much suggesting zero effect on a topic even though its something quite physical an issue.


----------



## Megaharrison (Dec 5, 2012)

neodragzero said:


> So, again, you're saying that an expansion that cuts up the West Bank has no effect on things? No change on how long issues between the groups will continue? No change on any of the factors on this matter at all? You're pretty much suggesting zero effect on a topic even though its something quite physical an issue.



It changes the peace process but not peace, as I've explained already. There could be settlement freeze, settlement expansion, or no settlements, the current situation would largely more or less exist and there would be no peace. Still would be rockets from Gaza, Jihadists dominating Palestinian society and pledging to destroy Israel, no acceptance/peace from the greater Islamic world, and so on.


----------



## butcher50 (Dec 5, 2012)

not without the UN getting tough and serious on both sides of the conflict. ^

and if the UN will get tough and serious on the Palestinian side of things, the Arab/Islamist govs will squeal.


----------



## Shinigami Perv (Dec 5, 2012)

> *Israel And Germany's Not-So-Special Relationship*
> 
> The diplomatic speak being used to describe the nature of the gathering that will take place this evening, when Benjamin Netanyahu arrives in Berlin for talks with German chancellor Angela Merkel, is ?open talks between friends.? But in reality, the discussions?which are expected to start with dinner tonight and lead to more detailed talks tomorrow?are likely to be harsh rather than hearty.
> 
> ...


----------



## neodragzero (Dec 5, 2012)

Megaharrison said:


> It changes the peace process but not peace, as I've explained already.


A faulty explanation that changes the topic when the point isn't simply whether or not automatic peace will occur. What you're presenting is an odd all or nothing fallacy suggesting that an increase or decrease in progress is meaningless because you aren't given a radical, automatic endpoint. It makes about as much sense as someone complaining about legislation that's gradually building in a direction rather than a revolutionary end point right now. I'm not suggesting radical change nor suggesting that things are magically ended the moment the last Israeli leaves the West Bank. That's not the argument. I'd appreciate it if you didn't pretend otherwise.


----------



## Megaharrison (Dec 5, 2012)

neodragzero said:


> A faulty explanation that changes the topic when the point isn't simply whether or not automatic peace will occur. What you're presenting is an odd all or nothing fallacy suggesting that an increase or decrease in progress is meaningless because you aren't given a radical, automatic endpoint. It makes about as much sense as someone complaining about legislation that's gradually building in a direction rather than a revolutionary end point right now. I'm not suggesting radical change nor suggesting that things are magically ended the moment the last Israeli leaves the West Bank. That's not the argument. I'd appreciate it if you didn't pretend otherwise.



Changes the topic? How is hell the issue of what would lead to peace off topic? 

And don't give me that "gradual" BS. We're done with that now. A gradual end to rocket fire, a gradual end to suicide bombings, gradually "disenfranchising" the Jihadists who only get stronger from our multitude of unilateral concessions. These are unacceptable demands. Moreover the situation with Gaza has gotten worse over time, not better. 

So explain to me why there would be "gradual" peace then? Why it wouldn't simply be a repeat of Gaza. Tell me, why would the Palestinians fire 9,000 rockets at Israel today even if it left the West Bank but not a year from now?

I want to know why no settlements would lead to peace for Israel. Lets even pretend that it's "gradual" and we're expected to sustain years of Arab warcrimes even after a withdrawal.




			
				Shinigami Perv said:
			
		

> Some op-ed



Aaaand we're back to this eh. Such a clear reality that I'm simply divorced from that nonetheless he seems unable to even explain. Ignorance is bliss 

You can't explain a single thing even though apparently it's so simple. Just parrot and post op-eds. You're officially full of shit.


----------



## Shinigami Perv (Dec 5, 2012)

I will no more engage with you than the 9/11 truthers. Your argument that settlements have no impact on the peace process isn't based in reality, anymore than their arguments that 9/11 was a conspiracy. 

When you want to make a serious argument that the entire world hasn't dismissed as fantasy, I'll read it. Frankly you're boring. If you don't like the articles I post, don't read them.


----------



## Megaharrison (Dec 5, 2012)

Shinigami Perv said:


> I will no more engage with you than the 9/11 truthers. Your argument that settlements have no impact on the peace process isn't based in reality, anymore than their arguments that 9/11 was a conspiracy.



This is a fairly hilarious way of avoidance. I gave you a list of questions and you didn't even answer a single one. I wasn't even pointing out or arguing anything. You wouldn't even answer the questions. All I want to know is how Israel dismantling settlements would lead to peace. A central question to the peace process. Apparently, that makes me a conspiracy nut.

But yes yes, lets call me crazy, because *THE WORLD VOTED!*. Such a simple world you live in.



> When you want to make a serious argument that the entire world hasn't dismissed as fantasy, I'll read it. Frankly you're boring.



Appeal to authority, logical fallacy. I'm going to start keeping score of this 

Since you seem so unable to contemplate greater issues how about I give you your own thread to post your little op-eds in? They're annoying to scroll down through in here.


----------



## Shinigami Perv (Dec 5, 2012)

Megaharrison said:


> I'm going to start keeping score of this



This is where you're going wrong. We aren't engaged in a debate, there's no score. You should be concerned with ideas rather than mashing out unconvincing and nonsensical TL;DRs. 

Something you're (hopefully) going to realize as an adult is that irreconcilable differences cannot be resolved with debate. I take solace in that the entire world outside Israel supports a two-state solution and condemns settlements. It's not an appeal to authority, rather it's an assurance of rationality.


----------



## Oil Can (Dec 5, 2012)

^
Man, I usually enjoy reading you two going at it... This is just condescending and sad  Can you guys please restart your bromance somehow? Prease?


----------



## neodragzero (Dec 5, 2012)

Megaharrison said:


> Changes the topic? How is hell the issue of what would lead to peace off topic?



I asked you a question on a process and a certain action that will affect it. Your response was a fallacy of "not dealing with this won't change things today" to suggest no effect at all.


> And don't give me that "gradual" BS. We're done with that now. A gradual end to rocket fire, a gradual end to suicide bombings, gradually "disenfranchising" the Jihadists who only get stronger from our multitude of unilateral concessions. These are unacceptable demands. Moreover the situation with Gaza has gotten worse over time, not better.



West Bank settlements still exist and are clearly not shrinking. Israel has an ongoing blockade upon Gaza that makes it an open air prison. Lazy attempts to suggest that Israel has only been making concessions for all that just and right in the world while Palestinians are just jerks is not sufficient. An argument based on a lazy black and white narrative isn't helping anyone.


> So explain to me why there would be "gradual" peace then? Why it wouldn't simply be a repeat of Gaza.


First of all, it's not just simply a matter of "gradual" peace but the matter that your argument is based on a fallacy where right now is somehow only acceptable with anything longer than that simply being an unacceptable gradual. It's a general matter of the world that lasting change comes with a gradual process rather than a ridiculous demand that pretends that something that doesn't change the now to be considered meaningless. I already commented on numerous experts on the subject on what should be done differently with the West Bank, besides the fact that the West Bank isn't run by Hamas among the other differences where you continue to ignore how the West Bank and Gaza differ.


> Tell me, why would the Palestinians fire 9,000 rockets at Israel today even if it left the West Bank but not a year from now?


A loaded, confused question with little to no logic behind it.


> I want to know why no settlements would lead to peace for Israel.


I'm not interested in this strawman. You're the one who has to prove how exactly there's no effect on the process, not the automatic peace fallacy you're attempting to slip towards, by cutting up the West Bank. Are you suggesting that expansion will not have an effect that's not noticeable in comparison to how it is today? Do you really think that this expansion will simply result in only what we see today? All you're giving me is still an all or nothing where Israel committing to something that will slice up the West Bank isn't an issue but whatever the Palestinians do will only be as such. All the more so when this announcement of such an expansion is pushing it as far as smacks to the face of the U.S. government go.


----------



## Megaharrison (Dec 5, 2012)

Shinigami Perv said:


> This is where you're going wrong. We aren't engaged in a debate, there's no score. You should be concerned with ideas rather than mashing out unconvincing and nonsensical TL;DRs.



Sure I'm concerned with ideas. I'm concerned why you think no settlements will lead to peace. All you have to do is answer the questions above. You can not do that. You can say "I don't want to!", but the amount you've posted here shows you're committed to demonstrating something here in a consistent fashion and when confronted with opposition to this whip out the logical fallacies/strawmen/irrelevant insults. It's clear you do care and do want to, regardless of how high a horse you sit upon.



> Something you're (hopefully) going to realize as an adult is that irreconcilable differences cannot be resolved with debate. I take solace in that the entire world outside Israel supports a two-state solution and condemns settlements. It's not an appeal to authority, rather it's an assurance of rationality.



Sure it can't be resolved, you've so proudly wrapped yourself in a bubble you will never emerge from. That's not the point. However this is a discussion thread and you're going to have to defend your position, which you are unable to do (not unwilling, you're more then willing when you're clearly confident about your opinions and still post here constantly trying to prove a point). You can not do that and seem proud of your ignorance, parroting UN decisions or op-eds being on your side as vindication. That's the scariest part here, the proud ignorance.


----------



## Ichi Sagato (Dec 5, 2012)

Shinigami Perv said:


> This is where you're going wrong. We aren't engaged in a debate, there's no score. You should be concerned with ideas rather than mashing out unconvincing and nonsensical TL;DRs.
> 
> Something you're (hopefully) going to realize as an adult is that irreconcilable differences cannot be resolved with debate. I take solace in that the entire world outside Israel supports a two-state solution and condemns settlements. It's not an appeal to authority, rather it's an assurance of rationality.



Very good. The sole reason I've been keeping out of this. Spending a bit to much time on the net will put you out of touch with the reality on earth. The same people that attempt today to discredit international opinion, for the sole purpose of defending Israel, will be the same ones who'll jump on the chance to use it as a mandate for tomorrow's problems.


----------



## Roman (Dec 5, 2012)

Shinigami Perv said:


> This is where you're going wrong. We aren't engaged in a debate, there's no score. You should be concerned with ideas rather than mashing out unconvincing and nonsensical TL;DRs.
> 
> *Something you're (hopefully) going to realize as an adult is that irreconcilable differences cannot be resolved with debate*. I take solace in that the entire world outside Israel supports a two-state solution and condemns settlements. It's not an appeal to authority, rather it's an assurance of rationality.



That right there is the reason I've avoided this thread thus far. For as much as I can post in here, some people will not change their minds regardless of whatever is presented to them. Personally, I feel that if there was to be more co-operation between the two states, both would enjoy a much greater degree of prosperity. As things are now, both countries are headed on a collision course because like people in this thread, people there are hard to change their minds. It's this struggle which has gone for decades which caused suffering on both sides. I really think it's in the best interest of both nations to unite their strengths and tackle the real threat Iran is posing against the M.E. right now.


----------



## Hinataeye (Dec 5, 2012)

The Zionist regime will not back down without war. The United States will probably step in in a possible war.


----------



## Megaharrison (Dec 5, 2012)

neodragzero said:


> I asked you a question on a process and a certain action that will affect it. Your response was a fallacy of "not dealing with this won't change things today" to suggest no effect at all.



I already said settlements will effect the peace process but not peace (see my explanation of how both differ). I'm much more interested in peace and resolution rather then the diplomatic hoop-jumping of the peace process though. So yeah.




> West Bank settlements still exist and are clearly not shrinking. Israel has an ongoing blockade upon Gaza that makes it an open air prison. Lazy attempts to suggest that Israel has only been making concessions for all that just and right in the world while Palestinians are just jerks is not sufficient. An argument based on a lazy black and white narrative isn't helping anyone.



Leaving Gaza was clearly a concession. No, it wasn't a nefarious plan to relocate thousands of our citizens, suffer a Jihadist state on our doorstep, and constantly fight them just so we could blockade them in a *more difficult and less effective fashion*. That makes no sense that we had some evil intent going through all the pain and horror we've experienced with the Gaza withdrawal just to do a blockade and evil plans we could have done far better/more easily if we were still there. 

So we withdrew, and we got 9,000 rockets for it. This is an irrefutable fact. You can say "it was just about the blockade and settlements!", but that's an absurdity. The groups firing the rockets are Jihadist and don't care about settlements or 67 lines, they do not want Israel as a whole to exist and are committed to their destruction. Thus rocket fire would have continued without settlement expansion because to them all of Israel is a settlement. To also assume they're doing all this over a "blockade" is silly as well, because it doesn't matter if there's no blockade and indeed Gaza isn't even blockaded by Israel due to basic geography. Moreover it was about a blockade they could have attacked Egypt at any time as well. 




> First of all, it's not just simply a matter of "gradual" peace but the matter that your argument is based on a fallacy where right now is somehow only acceptable with anything longer than that simply being an unacceptable gradual. It's a general matter of the world that lasting change comes with a gradual process rather than a ridiculous demand that pretends that something that doesn't change the now to be considered meaningless.
> 
> I already commented on numerous experts on the subject on what should be done differently with the West Bank,



What should be differently besides Israel dismantling every settlement and completely leaving in a unilateral fashion? A negotiated peace you say? Gee, that sounds like a good idea! All Palestinian parties, both secular and Jihadists, would disagree with you though on that one. 



> besides the fact that the West Bank isn't run by Hamas among the other differences where you continue to ignore how the West Bank and Gaza differ.



Gaza wasn't run by Hamas initially either. It is now and overrun with Jihadists. There is not a single shred of evidence that the process wouldn't repeat in the West Bank. Fatah is still weak and corrupt and Hamas is far stronger militarily today then they were in 2007, all because we left Gaza and opened it up to Iranian/Syrian arms smuggling. Moreover other Jihadist groups like Islamic Jihad and Army of Islam are also far stronger then 2007. So yes, the likelihood of the WB being taken over is actually greater due to an increase in strength of Jihadist elements as opposed to 2007.



> A loaded, confused question with little to no logic behind it.



No answer then? Why the hell can't you people answer these very simple questions if it's all apparently so clear that the whole world understands it :rofl

Why would Hamas/and co. fire rockets at us now even if we left the West Bank, but not a year from now?



> I'm not interested in this strawman. You're the one who has to prove how exactly there's no effect on the process, not the automatic peace fallacy you're attempting to slip towards, by cutting up the West Bank. Are you suggesting that expansion will not have an effect that's not noticeable in comparison to how it is today? Do you really think that this expansion will simply result in only what we see today? All you're giving me is still an all or nothing where Israel committing to something that will slice up the West Bank isn't an issue but whatever the Palestinians do will only be as such.



I have proven a lot of times now how it has no effect on the process. Because the current situation (i.e. violence between Israel and Gaza) would continue to exist even if settlements weren't in the West Bank. Because the most powerful/influential Palestinian groups do not care about the settlement issue or 1967 lines and are committed to Israel's destruction. They would use the lack of Israeli presence in the WB to attack Israel as well as continuing to do so from Gaza. Thus no settlements, but no peace. 

Now what continued settlement expansion does is hurt our international image and increases the likelihood of violence in the West Bank, true, but all of that can be contained easily as long as the IDF is there and thus while unpleasant is not especially relevant. The only reason we saw the massive attacks and violence spewing from the West Bank 2000-2004 was because the IDF had withdrawn from large segments of it following the Oslo Accords and had to re-occupy much of it in Operation Defensive Shield. 

It's sad and unfortunate I know, but I wouldn't worry about a major clash between both sides in the West Bank along as the IDF is there in force. At the same time, Fatah is engaged in its own power struggle with the Jihadists and has tyrannically kept these popular groups down in the WB (with IDF assistance). Thus, the likelihood of settlements leading to a major escalation of violence is unlikely due to this reality. Gaza is the main source of violence, and has been since 2005. 

An important fact about to remember though is that while keeping settlements won't lead to peace, removing them won't lead to peace either. This is the most important thing to keep in mind and makes the obsession over settlements (undoubtedly the worst thing Israel does but not the root cause of the conflict) so curious and strange.


----------



## drache (Dec 5, 2012)

Shinigami Perv said:


> This is where you're going wrong. We aren't engaged in a debate, there's no score. You should be concerned with ideas rather than mashing out unconvincing and nonsensical TL;DRs.
> 
> Something you're (hopefully) going to realize as an adult is that irreconcilable differences cannot be resolved with debate. I take solace in that the entire world outside Israel supports a two-state solution and condemns settlements. It's not an appeal to authority, rather it's an assurance of rationality.


 
actually I am not sure a 2 state solution can work as it was tried once and what happened? Oh yeah that's right the Palestinian government with assistance from the region tried to destroy Isreal.

The Middle East has issues and frankly a unified government has not only never been tried but like in Ireland it's probably the only real long term solution.


----------



## Son of Goku (Dec 5, 2012)

Megaharrison said:


> And don't give me that "gradual" BS. We're done with that now. A gradual end to rocket fire, a gradual end to suicide bombings, gradually "disenfranchising" *the Jihadists* who only *get stronger from our multitude of unilateral concessions.* These are unacceptable demands. Moreover the situation with Gaza has gotten worse over time, not better.



So if I understand you correctly you somehow convinced yourself that the enemy consists mostly of irrational, hating brutes who will use every freedom you give them to harm you? Even if you started giving them what they asked for, an own state (on terms "the world" would regard as fair and not just you)!? Well, this kind of mindset is poison to any kind of reasonable attempt to peace.


"Giving up" on Gaza to focus on West Bank settlements doesn't even come close to a serious concession. BUT it gives Israel a great yet inherently stupid excuse to hang on to the ILLEGAL settlements in the West Bank, by pointing at Gaza and saying: We don't want more rockets raining on us so we gotta stay.

How does this make any sense though? Why would the Palestinians in the West Bank turn to the radicals, when it would be Abbas who got rid of the settlers?



drache said:


> actually I am not sure a 2 state solution can work as it was tried once and what happened? Oh yeah that's right the Palestinian government with assistance from the region tried to destroy Isreal.
> 
> The Middle East has issues and frankly a unified government has not only never been tried but like in Ireland it's probably the only real long term solution.



So you agree with Ahmadinejad then?


----------



## drache (Dec 5, 2012)

^

on what? Ahmadinjad wants to destroy Isreal


----------



## Megaharrison (Dec 5, 2012)

Son of Goku said:


> So if I understand you correctly you somehow convinced yourself that the enemy consists mostly of irrational, hating brutes who will use every freedom you give them to harm you?



Lets see, our enemies in the Pali territories have such names as "The Islamic Resistance", "Islamic Jihad", "Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade", and "Army of Islam".

Woah, what an outrageous statements to call them violent Jihadists!



> Even if you started giving them what they asked for, an own state (on terms "the world" would regard as fair and not just you)!? Well, this kind of mindset is poison to any kind of reasonable attempt to peace.



These groups don't want Israel to give them "their own state". They want to destroy Israel and replace it with an Islamic Emirate. Read the charters/platforms of any said groups. If you deny it I'll just have to get the quotes so don't waste both our time.




> by pointing at Gaza and saying: We don't want more rockets raining on us so we gotta stay.



So if we left the West Bank, this wouldn't happen? Explain.



> How does this make any sense though? Why would the Palestinians in the West Bank turn to the radicals, when it would be Abbas who got rid of the settlers?



Because the issue aren't settlers. All of these groups are religious based and want to destroy Israel entirely. They don't care about 1967 borders. Again, look at their platforms.

Moreover, why did Jihadists in Lebanon become so popular/stronger even though Israel left? Why are Jihadists so popular in Egypt/Tunisia/Libya/Iraq/Syria right now? Why did Hamas get elected in Gaza after Israel withdrew? (P.S.: Don't say "the blockade", that didn't exist yet).

You're ignoring greater Arab world regional trends, which is embracing Islamist groups. The Palestinians aren't different from the greater Arab cultural trends, especially since they're more or less just Jordanians/Egyptians depending on which part you're talking about.

Now you may ask why Arabs are embracing Islamists, but that's a separate issue. Read a book or something. Fact of the matter is they clearly are by examining the "Arab Spring".


----------



## butcher50 (Dec 5, 2012)

anyone who believed for even a moment that the Arab Spring will bring something of a half-decent democracy and liberty to the countries swept by it were either:

1# ignoring history on purpose.

2# hoping and praying that this time.

face it, the harsh radicals always win in the middle east.


----------



## First Tsurugi (Dec 5, 2012)

butcher50 said:


> anyone who believed for even a moment that the Arab Spring will bring something of a half-decent democracy and liberty to the countries swept by it were either:
> 
> 1# ignoring history on purpose.
> 
> ...



And the alternative being supporting the dictators who create the conditions that caused these revolutions?


----------



## Mansali (Dec 6, 2012)

butcher50 said:


> anyone who believed for even a moment that the Arab Spring will bring something of a half-decent democracy and liberty to the countries swept by it were either:
> 
> 1# ignoring history on purpose.
> 
> ...



Theres something called self determination. The Arab Spring is a good thing. It will take time but it will be good in the end.


----------



## Mansali (Dec 6, 2012)

drache said:


> ^
> 
> on what? Ahmadinjad wants to destroy Isreal



He doesnt want to destroy Israel. He never made a threat that he "wants" to destroy Israel. 

And there is something called self-preservation. Iran will never attack Israel if you follow the principle of self-preservation.

Let me guess? You watch the mainstream media and their constant war mongering and distortion of facts.

Watch some real news..watch the young turks.


----------



## drache (Dec 6, 2012)

First Tsurugi said:


> And the alternative being supporting the dictators who create the conditions that caused these revolutions?


 
personally I am not sure which is better given that many of them are choosing governments just as bad



SonVegeta said:


> Theres something called self determination. The Arab Spring is a good thing. It will take time but it will be good in the end.


 
in theory sure but I am not sure we'll any real 'good' out of it any time in teh next couple decades



SonVegeta said:


> He doesnt want to destroy Israel. He never made a threat that he "wants" to destroy Israel.
> 
> And there is something called self-preservation. Iran will never attack Israel if you follow the principle of self-preservation.
> 
> ...


 


Iran wants Isreal gone as does most of the dictatorships there and Iran is unlikely to attack Isreal because of geography but if it ever did it likely would lose to the Isreali army and if it actually seriously threaten Isreali then I'm sure the US would willing show Iran what a couple carrier groups can do to a nation's infrastructure with a personal demonstration

PS I hate the young turks, Cenk especially


----------



## First Tsurugi (Dec 6, 2012)

drache said:


> personally I am not sure which is better given that many of them are choosing governments just as bad



And where is that happening?

Tunisia and Libya both elected governments that are reasonably secular.

Egypt is currently in turmoil but Morsi himself has been moderate.

Syria is too early to tell.

It is better to work with democratically elected governments, period. Supporting dictatorships in an attempt to keep the population suppressed is an unsustainable model, and will only worsen things in the long term.


----------



## Mansali (Dec 6, 2012)

Iran has never said they will destroy Israel by attacking them. 

And if you watched something other than the mainstream media you would know that numerous scholars in farsi have contested the claim that Amadinajad said he wants to wipe Israel from the map.

First of all he was quoting someone....secondly he believes that the regime will vanish from the pages of time. He was referring to regime change. But no where did he make a threat. No where did he say that he will be the one to send his army to do it.

Secondly he is in his last term anyways and will leave office soon.

WHy do you hate the young turks? I dont agree with all of what they say but they are much much better than the mainstream media. A much better pick than them.


----------



## First Tsurugi (Dec 6, 2012)

SonVegeta said:


> Secondly he is in his last term anyways and will leave office soon.



Going to miss that flamboyant fuck.


----------



## Mansali (Dec 6, 2012)

First Tsurugi said:


> Going to miss that flamboyant fuck.



I heard that some people think Iran may become better after he leaves...but I dont think so because thats not where the real power lies.


----------



## First Tsurugi (Dec 6, 2012)

SonVegeta said:


> I heard that some people think Iran may become better after he leaves...but I dont think so because thats not where the real power lies.



As long as his replacement isn't as belligerent it should be an improvement.


----------



## Mansali (Dec 6, 2012)

First Tsurugi said:


> As long as his replacement isn't as belligerent it should be an improvement.



Yeah I know right!  He says some of the dumbest things ever. If he ever runs for any office again he needs to stop saying BS that ends up actually hurting him in the world stage. 

And his UN speeches suck... so much rambling and BS


----------



## drache (Dec 6, 2012)

First Tsurugi said:


> And where is that happening?
> 
> Tunisia and Libya both elected governments that are reasonably secular.
> 
> ...


 
you realize that eygpt is democratically 'electing' a dictatorship currently?

let's just say that as far as I am concerned the burden is on the middle east to prove they're not going to screw this up



SonVegeta said:


> Iran has never said they will destroy Israel by attacking them.
> 
> And if you watched something other than the mainstream media you would know that numerous scholars in farsi have contested the claim that Amadinajad said he wants to wipe Israel from the map.
> 
> ...


 
I see like Cenk you enjoy semantical games.

We were talking about a specific man not the state of Iran, I'd appreciate it if you stuck to the topic.

And if the best you got is 'he's leaving soon' I accept your concession

And why do I hate the young turks? Because they are lead by a pompous, egotisitical asshat who no matter how wrong he ends up being will never apologize for the over the top hyperpartisan 'my way or the highway' approach he *always* takes


----------



## First Tsurugi (Dec 6, 2012)

SonVegeta said:


> Yeah I know right!  He says some of the dumbest things ever. If he ever runs for any office again he needs to stop saying BS that ends up actually hurting him in the world stage.
> 
> And his UN speeches suck... so much rambling and BS



Indeed, it says a lot when a single person losing power would relieve a ton of tension.



drache said:


> you realize that eygpt is democratically 'electing' a dictatorship currently?


 
You realize there's currently rioting going on in response to Morsi amassing power?


----------



## Roman (Dec 6, 2012)

butcher50 said:


> anyone who believed for even a moment that the Arab Spring will bring something of a half-decent democracy and liberty to the countries swept by it were either:
> 
> 1# ignoring history on purpose.
> 
> ...



Change in any country, especially countries like those in the M.E. isn't going to happen overnight. They've had nothing but religious leaders and dictators, some of whom were even placed in power by the US, for decades and so it is difficult for them to become accustomed to someone with a more moderate nature. Granted, I don't think the Arab Spring was completely effective given the lack of a solid leadership and a foundation of ideals within the revolutionaries, but it can happen if people actually start getting together and decide what it is they want. This time, they'd limited themselves to "we want our current dictator out" without thinking about who they wanted him replaced with.



SonVegeta said:


> Iran has never said they will destroy Israel by attacking them.
> 
> And if you watched something other than the mainstream media you would know that numerous scholars in farsi have contested the claim that Amadinajad said he wants to wipe Israel from the map.
> 
> First of all he was quoting someone....secondly he believes that the regime will vanish from the pages of time. He was referring to regime change. But no where did he make a threat. No where did he say that he will be the one to send his army to do it.



Do you have a source for this?


----------



## drache (Dec 6, 2012)

First Tsurugi said:


> You realize there's currently rioting going on in response to Morsi amassing power?


 
I'll repeat, it is on the middle east as a whole to prove they're not going to screw this up


----------



## First Tsurugi (Dec 6, 2012)

drache said:


> I'll repeat, it is on the middle east as a whole to prove they're not going to screw this up



Yes and I think the fact that Egyptians are still willing to rail against moves toward totalitarianism, whether real or perceived, bodes well.


----------



## Mansali (Dec 6, 2012)

Freedan said:


> Change in any country, especially countries like those in the M.E. isn't going to happen overnight. They've had nothing but religious leaders and dictators, some of whom were even placed in power by the US, for decades and so it is difficult for them to become accustomed to someone with a more moderate nature. Granted, I don't think the Arab Spring was completely effective given the lack of a solid leadership and a foundation of ideals within the revolutionaries, but it can happen if people actually start getting together and decide what it is they want. This time, they'd limited themselves to "we want our current dictator out" without thinking about who they wanted him replaced with.
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have a source for this?







here are some sources for starters. I'll see if I can find that scholars piece again.



 - this is what Im talking about


----------



## drache (Dec 6, 2012)

First Tsurugi said:


> Yes and I think the fact that Egyptians are still willing to rail against moves toward totalitarianism, whether real or perceived, bodes well.


 
should I repeat myself again? because this grows tiresome. I get it you are choosing to be optimistic, that's nice but I've seen this song and dance too many times from the middle east 



SonVegeta said:


> heres is a source for starters. I'll see if I can find that scholars piece again.


 
all of which likey ignore the sum *history* of his commnets, I'm aware of the *one* comment you've chosen to defend it doesn't change the man's history or extreme anti semtisim


----------



## Mansali (Dec 6, 2012)

Its not a matter of defending him, its a matter of getting the facts out there.

No one likes the guy.....heck not even the clerics like him......they think he is too liberal.......we think he is too fundamentalist.

Now he may personally want to see Israel gone but he has made no threat of an attack.

The Iranian clerics knows that if they attack Isreal it will be crazy. 

They wont attack Israel......thats pretty much the whole point of why I was writting all this.


----------



## drache (Dec 6, 2012)

SonVegeta said:


> Its not a matter of defending him, its a matter of getting the facts out there.
> 
> No one likes the guy.....heck not even the clerics like him......they think he is too liberal.......we think he is too fundamentalist.
> 
> ...


 

and given that my point was about him and that he HAS made statements to that effect even if you accept he was a 'victim of mistranslation' in that one statement, my point stands


----------



## Mansali (Dec 6, 2012)

drache said:


> and given that my point was about him and that he HAS made statements to that effect even if you accept he was a 'victim of mistranslation' in that one statement, my point stands



Yes it stands.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Dec 6, 2012)

SonVegeta said:


> Iran has never said they will destroy Israel by attacking them.



Moving the goal posts here, are we? Iran has called for the destruction of Israel numerous times.



> And if you watched something other than the mainstream media you would know that numerous scholars in farsi have contested the claim that Amadinajad said he wants to wipe Israel from the map.
> 
> First of all he was quoting someone....secondly he believes that the regime will vanish from the pages of time. He was referring to regime change. But no where did he make a threat. No where did he say that he will be the one to send his army to do it.



He was quoting "someone", was he now? Let me refresh your memory at to who this "someone" was: Khomeini, former leader of Iran.

Also, he misquoted him a little, that's the reason everyone is shitting their pants over this "false translation", even though Iranian state media was actually the first to translate Ahmadinejad's speech as "wipe off the map" and Khomeini definitely meant to say "wipe off the map".





> Secondly he is in his last term anyways and will leave office soon.
> 
> WHy do you hate the young turks? I dont agree with all of what they say but they are much much better than the mainstream media. A much better pick than them.



And then the regime gets to pick a new president, wow, that will change so much. Only problem is that the head of state will remain the same guy and that one's just as anti-Israel as Ahmadinejad, calling it a "tumour that must be cut out of the region".


----------



## sadated_peon (Dec 6, 2012)

neodragzero said:
			
		

> You quoted a statement that mentions nothing about the European reps saying what they did simply because of what Palestinians say. You still committed a poison the well fallacy to support your claim of hypocrisy.


I quoted European reps talking about an agreement between two parties, which resolution is based off the two parties involved positions. 



			
				neodragzero said:
			
		

> I said nothing about morals. I simply responded to your attempt to claim hypocrisy by suggesting that the European rep criticism of settlement expansion is based simply on what Palestinians said rather than mentioning the fact that said expansion is problematic, as physical land goes, well beyond the UN bid.


It was a criticism based off of the fact that it hurt a peace agreement, the peace agreement is based on the grievances of the two parties involved. The point here is that the grievances of one of the parties is ignored by the Europeans which is the double standard. 



			
				neodragzero said:
			
		

> What agreement are you talking about? The article and the conversation is focused upon the matter of settlement expansions. There was no agreement to allow said expansion. Of course the Europeans are within their rights to criticize a settlement expansion that would make a viable Palestine physically impossible. Do you actually understand any of this? Because you've have failed to respond to that at all while constantly repeating that you quoted a section of a statement as if I'm just referring to what the Europeans called it when you went out of your way to assume why they said that on the basis of simply what Palestinians say.


What agreement!
Really have you still not bother to read what I quoted!
"Britain and Sweden also summoned the Israeli ambassadors, and Germany said the decision would hurt Israel's ability to negotiate a long-term peace *agreement*."

How can you still not grasp the concept?

The peace agreement between two parties the Israelis and the Palestinians, both sides have taken positions and made statements about what is required for peace. 
The quote directly relates to how the Europeans accept grievances of the Palestinians as obstacles to that peace. Yet reject the grievances of the Israel as obstacles. 

I am floored that still, STILL, have not bothered to read the first thing I quoted. 



			
				neodragzero said:
			
		

> There's conflicting and there's doing something that will make the existence of a nation physically impossible. The UN bid and a settlement expansion are not comparable.


What? First the quoted statement is PEACE not a nation. But even with nation you are wrong as you basically just assuming the Palestinian position of where the borders of both nations lie. 

But why should I be surprised that you still have no bothered to read the quote.


----------



## neodragzero (Dec 6, 2012)

sadated_peon said:


> I quoted European reps talking about an agreement between two parties, which resolution is based off the two parties involved positions.



And again, it's clear that the comment is in reaction to the announced settlement expansion. Your claim of hypocrisy has no ground to stand on.


> It was a criticism based off of the fact that it hurt a peace agreement, the peace agreement is based on the grievances of the two parties involved. The point here is that the grievances of one of the parties is ignored by the Europeans which is the double standard.


And again, no, it's not a double standard. The UN bid isn't comparable to a settlement expansion. It doesn't violate international law. It doesn't cut up Israel into non-viable chunks. The latter, settlement expansion, makes peace talks in general unlikely when it makes a viable Palestinian state physically impossible. It's not simply a matter of hearing about grievances of one side but noticing what's blatantly obvious as to what is going to be a real obstacle.


> Really have you still not bother to read what I quoted!
> "Britain and Sweden also summoned the Israeli ambassadors, and Germany said the decision would hurt Israel's ability to negotiate a long-term peace *agreement*."
> 
> How can you still not grasp the concept?


Again, you're still ignoring the fact that you went further to suggest a context that completely ignores the reason why people are criticizing the settlement expansion. You're trying to equate two things that don't.


> The peace agreement between two parties the Israelis and the Palestinians, both sides have taken positions and made statements about what is required for peace.
> The quote *directly relates to how the Europeans accept grievances of the Palestinians as obstacles to that peace.* Yet reject the grievances of the Israel as obstacles.


And again, no, that's an extra context you yourself just pulled out of nowhere. The UN bid and settlement expansions don't equate.


> What? First the quoted statement is PEACE not a nation.


You really don't understand what the settlement expansion will do? Because, once again, an expansion that cuts up the West Bank obviously isn't going to help with peace talks. Keep up already.


> But even with nation you are wrong as you basically just assuming the Palestinian position of where the borders of both nations lie.



The thing is that slicing up the West Bank isn't simply a matter of the Palestinian position but pretty much violating international law where said area clearly isn't meant to be cut in half by Israel. There's no suggestion whatsoever in the article that the criticism is simply because on what Palestinians said rather than the blatantly obvious issue of cutting up the West Bank. So, again, you're continuing with a a poison the well fallacy. Any more repetitive responses of "look at the quote" that has nothing to support your assumption will simply be called as such from now on. I will snip said repetition and only respond with "Poison the well fallacy."


----------



## sadated_peon (Dec 6, 2012)

neodragzero said:
			
		

> And again, it's clear that the comment is in reaction to the announced settlement expansion. Your claim of hypocrisy has no ground to stand on.


Yes, it is in response to the settlement expansion, a grievance of the Palestinians side of the peace agreement.


			
				neodragzero said:
			
		

> And again, no, it's not a double standard. The UN bid isn't comparable to a settlement expansion. It doesn't violate international law. It doesn't cut up Israel into non-viable chunks. The latter, settlement expansion, makes peace talks in general unlikely when it makes a viable Palestinian state physically impossible. It's not simply a matter of hearing about grievances of one side but noticing what's blatantly obvious as to what is going to be a real obstacle.


Once again you seem to be unable to grasp the difference between taking a moral stance and the working toward a peace agreement. 
You conflate a stance on the issue with what is necessary for a two sides of a negotiation to reach a deal. 


			
				neodragzero said:
			
		

> Again, you're still ignoring the fact that you went further to suggest a context that completely ignores the reason why people are criticizing the settlement expansion. You're trying to equate two things that don't.


and again you are still ignoring the peace agreement; you seem to think that the statement was a general criticism and not a direct statement about this being bad because of directly implications of being an obstacle to the peace agreement. Of which grievance of both parties must be heard and not using the double standard of only using the grievances of one. 


			
				neodragzero said:
			
		

> And again, no, that's an extra context you yourself just pulled out of nowhere. The UN bid and settlement expansions don't equate.


There is no extra context, you are trying to remove the statement from the reference of it being about coming together for a peace deal. It is directly mentioned in the quote, if you could ever actually be bothered to read it. 


			
				neodragzero said:
			
		

> You really don't understand what the settlement expansion will do? Because, once again, an expansion that cuts up the West Bank obviously isn't going to help with peace talks. Keep up already.


Wtf? You switch peace agreement with a two state solution on 1967 lines, which is only 1 of many possible solutions for a peace deal. That you try and pawn your fuckup as some higher wisdom is pathetic, and indicative of this entire discussion. 



			
				neodragzero said:
			
		

> The thing is that slicing up the West Bank isn't simply a matter of the Palestinian position but pretty much violating international law where said area clearly isn't meant to be cut in half by Israel. There's no suggestion whatsoever in the article that the criticism is simply because on what Palestinians said rather than the blatantly obvious issue of cutting up the West Bank. So, again, you're continuing with a a poison the well fallacy. Any more repetitive responses of "look at the quote" that has nothing to support your assumption will simply be called as such from now on. I will snip said repetition and only respond with "Poison the well fallacy."


I quoted the exactly line which states the criticism was because it ?would hurt Israel's ability to negotiate a long-term peace agreement?. A criticism NOT levied at the Palestinians when they declared statehood. 
But is absolutely true that U.N. declare state hood on the 1967 lines is a decision which would hurt Palestinian?s ability to negotiate a long-term peace agreement.


----------



## Son of Goku (Dec 6, 2012)

drache said:


> ^
> 
> on what?


A one state solution through democracy. Though he is a bit vague on the details.

[YOUTUBE]onNzrNEFs1E[/YOUTUBE]



> *Report: ’60 Minutes’ Cut Ahmadinejad’s Statement, ‘Solution Is Democracy’ in Israel/Palestine*
> by Philip Weiss on September 7, 2008
> 
> 
> ...






> *Ahmadinejad once again fails to call for the annihilation of Israel, despite what you heard on CNN
> *
> Posted on 02/27/2010 by Juan
> 
> ...






> Ahmadinjad wants to destroy Isreal


I don't know where that is, as for ISRAEL: see above.


----------



## Son of Goku (Dec 6, 2012)

Megaharrison said:


> Lets see, our enemies in the Pali territories have such names as "The Islamic Resistance", "Islamic Jihad", "Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade", and "Army of Islam".
> 
> Woah, what an outrageous statements to call them violent Jihadists!



By enemy I meant the Palestinian people in general. Who may turn to violent Jihadist one by one if the settlements continue and the hope of a Palestinian state dies. If you don't see them all as enemies, good. Your state however treats them as such.




> These groups don't want Israel to give them "their own state". They want to destroy Israel and replace it with an Islamic Emirate. Read the charters/platforms of any said groups. If you deny it I'll just have to get the quotes so don't waste both our time.



These groups don't see a future with Israel as a neighbour, but most Palestinians do given the choice. But Israel's right wingers are the best recruiters these radical groups could hope for.




> So if we left the West Bank, this wouldn't happen? Explain.



If you turn the West Bank into an open air prison like Gaza, with no end in sight... than yes, it will probably happen. But if you don't? If you spend some of your dollars building some Palestinian homes instead of bulldozing them. If you start winning minds and hearts of those who aren't yet hell bent on destroying you, than the West Bank won't have to become a rocket launching site.



> Because the issue aren't settlers. All of these groups are religious based and want to destroy Israel entirely. They don't care about 1967 borders. Again, look at their platforms.


Yes I get it. But what you don't realize is that those groups become more popular the harsher you act and the longer the occupation continues.

If the conditions improve for them, if all boys could grow up without losing any member of their families due to Israeli actions, without losing any of the land their families live on by the hands of Israel, if they could just grow up, visit the university and mak plans for the future, than why would they join any of those groups? It's the conditions you created for them that lead to the radicalization. 
And when I say "you" I don't mean you personally of course or Isael in general even, I mean those who could be called "Neo-Zionists". Those who aren't satisfied with Israel's 1967 borders and like to expand them as much as possible. Those who feel threatened by every serious attempt to peace and do everything to sabotage it (-> Rabbin Assassintion). These are the radicals you should be worried about, cause it's them who actually wield some power and use it to block the road to peace and not those pathetic spintergroups the Palestinians have to deal with.




> Moreover, why did Jihadists in Lebanon become so popular/stronger even though Israel left? Why are Jihadists so popular in Egypt/Tunisia/Libya/Iraq/Syria right now? Why did Hamas get elected in Gaza after Israel withdrew? (P.S.: Don't say "the blockade", that didn't exist yet).
> 
> You're ignoring greater Arab world regional trends, which is embracing Islamist groups. The Palestinians aren't different from the greater Arab cultural trends, especially since they're more or less just Jordanians/Egyptians depending on which part you're talking about.


So are the Palestinians in the West Bank more moderate towards Israel then Gazans, yes or no? Does Abbas have the support of the people there, yes or no? Honest questions. 
But either way: prolonging the occupation will make matters worse, that's a given.


----------



## neodragzero (Dec 6, 2012)

sadated_peon said:


> and again you are still ignoring the peace agreement; you seem to think that the statement was a general criticism and not a direct statement about this being bad because of directly implications of being an obstacle to the peace agreement.* Of which grievance of both parties must be heard and not using the double standard of only using the grievances of one.*


And again, false equivalence when the UN bid and settlement expansion are not equivalent. One actually cuts in half and violates the boundaries of a territory in defiance of international law. Joining the UN doesn't do that.


> There is no extra context, you are trying to remove the statement from the reference of it being about coming together for a peace deal. It is directly mentioned in the quote, if you could ever actually be bothered to read it.


And again, how exactly can there be a peace deal when one country cuts the other's land in half along with the resources there? Your attempt to suggest that the UN is simply only reacting to what Palestinians say while ignoring Israeli blatantly ignores how two things aren't alike.


> SNIP



Again, false equivalence and poison the well fallacy. The UN bid and settlement expansion are not the same. The former is allowed as international law goes while the latter is criticized for violating international law as it makes a viable Palestinian state physically impossible. Bidding for UN status is obviously not comparable to cutting another person's territory in half. If you really think they are equivalent as intent and results go, I'm afraid your argument only works in a biased vacuum with no connection with reality.


----------



## Megaharrison (Dec 6, 2012)

Son of Goku said:


> By enemy I meant the Palestinian people in general. Who may turn to violent Jihadist one by one if the settlements continue and the hope of a Palestinian state dies. If you don't see them all as enemies, good. Your state however treats them as such.



Jihadists aren't just a rogue small element in Palestinian society. They are the dominant political and popular force. There are countless Jihadist groups and the only thing preventing their domination in the West Bank (as they've done in Gaza) are IDF troops.




> These groups don't see a future with Israel as a neighbour, but most Palestinians do given the choice. But Israel's right wingers are the best recruiters these radical groups could hope for.



"Given the choice" eh. They sure chose well in that election after we left Gaza then.



> If you turn the West Bank into an open air prison like Gaza, with no end in sight... than yes, it will probably happen. But if you don't? If you spend some of your dollars building some Palestinian homes instead of bulldozing them. If you start winning minds and hearts of those who aren't yet hell bent on destroying you, than the West Bank won't have to become a rocket launching site.



Gaza isn't a "prison", we can't blockade it due to basic geography. It'd be a square prison with 3 walls if you tried to make an analogy as to what Israel can do to Gaza. 

Anyway the Pali's get the most aid by far then anyone in the world. They live better then their neighbors. They're building and expanding new cities. I would say building them more houses aren't an issue.

Moreover this is a fallacy, even after we completely left Lebanon and left the place alone the Jihadists only got stronger/more powerful/continued to aggressively attack us. 



> Yes I get it. But what you don't realize is that those groups become more popular the harsher you act and the longer the occupation continues.



They're already popular/powerful enough and the Arabs due to a variety of reasons I've listed in this thread will eternally hate us forever anyway. Not especially relevant.

They view concessions as victories (see: Arab reactions to any Israel concessions ever), not as peaceful acts. So this is a fallacy.



> If the conditions improve for them, if all boys could grow up without losing any member of their families due to Israeli actions, without losing any of the land their families live on by the hands of Israel, if they could just grow up, visit the university and mak plans for the future, than why would they join any of those groups? It's the conditions you created for them that lead to the radicalization.



Uh huh. That's why Lebanon, which is probably the best Arab country to live in in the world (unless you'er Palestinian, then it's apartheid, lol), Jihadists aren't a problem for us or the general population at all.

Jihadism is on the rise across the whole Arab world, the Pali's don't exist in a bubble. Do you really think Hamas will stop firing rockets and simply collapse if we leave the West Bank? Can you say that with a straight face?



> And when I say "you" I don't mean you personally of course or Isael in general even, I mean those who could be called "Neo-Zionists". Those who aren't satisfied with Israel's 1967 borders and like to expand them as much as possible. Those who feel threatened by every serious attempt to peace and do everything to sabotage it (-> Rabbin Assassintion). These are the radicals you should be worried about, cause it's them who actually wield some power and use it to block the road to peace and not those pathetic spintergroups the Palestinians have to deal with.



XD!@calling the most powerful Palestinian factions which are electorally voted into power and dominate the entire Gaza strip "splinter groups".




> So are the Palestinians in the West Bank more moderate towards Israel then Gazans, yes or no? Does Abbas have the support of the people there, yes or no? Honest questions.



He doesn't have the support of the people, no. He has secret police which keeps the violent Jihadist elements down, and the IDF is there as well. At the same time the Pali's aren't interested in a new terror campaign after their defeat in the 2nd Intifada when suicide bombings stopped being so much fun when consequences showed up at home. The West Bank enjoys better living standards then any of their Arab neighbors and they don't want to risk that. These are the main reasons there's calm.



> But either way: prolonging the occupation will make matters worse, that's a given.



Ending it will make it more worse. Unless you think 10,000 rockets at Tel Aviv would end well for either side.


----------



## sadated_peon (Dec 6, 2012)

neodragzero said:


> And again, false equivalence when the UN bid and settlement expansion are not equivalent. One actually cuts in half and violates the boundaries of a territory in defiance of international law. Joining the UN doesn't do that.


The fact that you claim that it is false equivalence proves the double standard. You admit that you consider one parties grievance and discount the other. A double standard. 

You do this based on your stance on the issue, and not instead based on the parties position. Your stance on the defiance of international law has no bearing on a peace deal actually being reached.


neodragzero said:


> And again, how exactly can there be a peace deal when one country cuts the other's land in half along with the resources there? Your attempt to suggest that the UN is simply only reacting to what Palestinians say while ignoring Israeli blatantly ignores how two things aren't alike.



There can't be peace unless both parties agree to it. The fact that the settlements is a obstacle to peace is not in doubt. The grievances of the Palestinians here is not in doubt. 

The problem here is that you discount the objects the Israeli's have to the Palestinian UN recognition. The grievance of the Israelis here is being ignored. 

As this is about the peace deal, and not simply who holds the high moral ground (which I am not letting you try and drag me into a discussion about) your both grievances are valid, as they are valid in the eyes of the parties involved. 


neodragzero said:


> Again, false equivalence and poison the well fallacy. The UN bid and settlement expansion are not the same. The former is allowed as international law goes while the latter is criticized for violating international law as it makes a viable Palestinian state physically impossible. Bidding for UN status is obviously not comparable to cutting another person's territory in half. If you really think they are equivalent as intent and results go, I'm afraid your argument only works in a biased vacuum with no connection with reality.


Both items are equivalent in the process toward a peace agreement as they have both been declared as obstacles by the parties. 

The act of building settlements moved that peace further away, just as the UN bid moved them further away. 

Your stance on these issues which you wrong thinks means anything is irrelevant to the stated goal A PEACE AGREEMENT. 

The agreement you consistently have ignored and tried to remove from this discussion, but is the very heart of the matter.


----------



## neodragzero (Dec 6, 2012)

sadated_peon said:


> The fact that you claim that it is false equivalence proves the double standard. You admit that you consider one parties grievance and discount the other. A double standard.



Except that it's not a double standard when reacting to thing completely difference things where one makes the physical existence of the other impossible. The UN bid doesn't make the existence of Israel physically impossible. It's called being able to see the contrast. It's not a matter of what one party is saying but using one's brain as they look upon a map to see what will result. 


> The problem here is that you discount the objects the Israeli's have to the Palestinian UN recognition. The grievance of the Israelis here is being ignored.


Here's the thing though. Does the UN bid do what a settlement expansion would do? No. Thus, we call that a contrast rather than pretending that both are equivalent. Seriously, what seems more paramount, a UN bid that doesn't change a territory's boundaries at all or an expansion that cuts up neighboring territory? False equivalence is quite clear with your attempt to claim hypocrisy. It's a disconnect in logic.


> Both items are equivalent in the process toward a peace agreement *as they have both been declared as obstacles by the parties.*



And once again, what both parties say isn't the main point here. The point is that one thing actually does something the other doesn't. In a world of thinking, intelligent people, we don't weigh things simply on the barometer of "what they said" but the obvious fact of what will result from an action. The UN bid isn't doing what the expansion would. Thus, we have a barometer that gives a better idea of what's going on rather than play "he said, she said" fallacy.

So, overall, you're forcefully claiming that the Europeans are only thinking of terms of what the Palestinians say rather than being intelligent people who can figure out what happens when you change a map. You're pretending that only one thing, as your assuming, is the only applicable, worth mentioning intent. You're going far enough to suggest that a physical change of borders has the same weight as getting the UN bid. Poison the well fallacy.


----------



## drache (Dec 6, 2012)

Son of Goku said:


> A one state solution through democracy. Though he is a bit vague on the details.


----------



## Son of Goku (Dec 7, 2012)

drache said:


> supposing that this isn't some trick becuase he has repeatedly called for Isreal to be destroyed then yes tentatively I do agree but at the same time I have little faith or trust in the man



He hasn't called for Isreal's nor Israel's annihilation, as the second article says "only committed Zionists would see a one-state solution as the ‘annihilation’ of Israel."

It's a common trick of the media to take things out of context or even cut entire sections of an interview (see first article and video) to demonize political opponents. If he had a problem with New Zealand instead of Israel, no one in the general public of the west would even find out about it.


----------



## sadated_peon (Dec 7, 2012)

neodragzero said:
			
		

> Except that it's not a double standard when reacting to thing completely difference things where one makes the physical existence of the other impossible. The UN bid doesn't make the existence of Israel physically impossible. It's called being able to see the contrast. It's not a matter of what one party is saying but using one's brain as they look upon a map to see what will result.


This is pathetic, once again you switch from a peace deal to your specific version of the two state solution. You are so firmly entrenched in your own bias that you can?t understand this simple concept.  

It?s this bias which is at the heart of your double standard.



			
				neodragzero said:
			
		

> Here's the thing though. Does the UN bid do what a settlement expansion would do? No. Thus, we call that a contrast rather than pretending that both are equivalent. Seriously, what seems more paramount, a UN bid that doesn't change a territory's boundaries at all or an expansion that cuts up neighboring territory? False equivalence is quite clear with your attempt to claim hypocrisy. It's a disconnect in logic.


Yes, the UN bid and the settlement expansion do the SAME THING of putting a peace agreement further away because both parties the Israeli and the Palestinians have declared that both these things are obstacles to coming to an agreement. 
The territorial boundaries for a 2 state solution have not been set, most of the Israeli proposals for a 2 state solution involve trading land, given up equal or greater land that they control in the from the 1967 borders and gaining land that Palestinians control. 
This is why the object to it, and why they consider it such an obstacle for peace, you can?t seem to grasp any opinion other than your own. 



			
				neodragzero said:
			
		

> And once again, what both parties say isn't the main point here. The point is that one thing actually does something the other doesn't. In a world of thinking, intelligent people, we don't weigh things simply on the barometer of "what they said" but the obvious fact of what will result from an action. The UN bid isn't doing what the expansion would. Thus, we have a barometer that gives a better idea of what's going on rather than play "he said, she said" fallacy.
> 
> So, overall, you're forcefully claiming that the Europeans are only thinking of terms of what the Palestinians say rather than being intelligent people who can figure out what happens when you change a map. You're pretending that only one thing, as your assuming, is the only applicable, worth mentioning intent. You're going far enough to suggest that a physical change of borders has the same weight as getting the UN bid. Poison the well fallacy.


What both parties say IS THE MAIN THING HERE. How is this so hard for you to grasp. The most important thing for a peace agreement is what the both parties say NOT your opinion on a 2 state solution!
Negotiation between two parties is not based on what you believe should be the solution to the problem, it is what the two parties agree to.


----------



## neodragzero (Dec 7, 2012)

sadated_peon said:


> This is pathetic, once again you switch from a peace deal to your specific version of the two state solution.


Again, how can there be a two state solution successfully committed to when one of said states is made physically impossible to be viable. The UN bid doesn't do any of that.


> Yes, the UN bid and the settlement expansion do the SAME THING of putting a peace agreement further away because both parties the Israeli and the Palestinians have declared that both these things are obstacles to coming to an agreement.


And again, no, you're attempting to pretend as if the barometer is simply a matter of opinion rather than the fact that the settlement expansion will cut up Palestine. If you're really ignorant or being intellectually dishonest on how one obviously does well more than the other to be an obstacle, it's still just an argument in a biased vacuum with no interest in reality.


> The territorial boundaries for a 2 state solution have not been set, most of the Israeli proposals for a 2 state solution involve trading land, given up equal or greater land that they control in the from the 1967 borders and gaining land that Palestinians control.


Which again is still irrelevant when it's not even a simple matter of trading land with this expansion but the point of cutting up the West Bank in a fashion that isn't viable for a Palestinian state. It's physically impossible with such a cut up. We're talking about a removal of the edge but a bisection that makes no sense for peace talks.


> What both parties say IS THE MAIN THING HERE.


And again, that's what you say. There's no mention of that being the only barometer for why the Europeans are criticizing the settlement expansion. I'm not going to pretend that words trump action and result in reality. Claiming that the UN bid and the announced settlement expansion are simply the same on the basis of "someone complains about" is a gross show of a equivalence fallacy. You still did a poison the well fallacy where the criticism doesn't have to be simply be based on reacting to what one or the other side said but the matter of what will be done that will violate international law.


----------



## sadated_peon (Dec 7, 2012)

neodragzero said:


> Again, how can there be a two state solution successfully committed to when one of said states is made physically impossible to be viable. The UN bid doesn't do any of that.


This is pathetic, once again you switch from a peace deal to your specific version of the two state solution. You are so firmly entrenched in your own bias that you can’t understand this simple concept. 

 It’s this bias which is at the heart of your double standard.


neodragzero said:


> And again, no, you're attempting to pretend as if the barometer is simply a matter of opinion rather than the fact that the settlement expansion will cut up Palestine. If you're really ignorant or being intellectually dishonest on how one obviously does well more than the other to be an obstacle, it's still just an argument in a biased vacuum with no interest in reality.


It is very much a matter of the opinion of the two parties brokering the peace deal. Peace deals are not reached by the two parties conforming to your personal stance on an issue. 


neodragzero said:


> Which again is still irrelevant when it's not even a simple matter of trading land with this expansion but the point of cutting up the West Bank in a fashion that isn't viable for a Palestinian state. It's physically impossible with such a cut up. We're talking about a removal of the edge but a bisection that makes no sense for peace talks.


I really can't see anyway to get anything through your bias. You are beyond the point of reason when you are unable to even read what I write anymore.



neodragzero said:


> And again, that's what you say. There's no mention of that being the only barometer for why the Europeans are criticizing the settlement expansion. I'm not going to pretend that words trump action and result in reality. Claiming that the UN bid and the announced settlement expansion are simply the same on the basis of "someone complains about" is a gross show of a equivalence fallacy. You still did a poison the well fallacy where the criticism doesn't have to be simply be based on reacting to what one or the other side said but the matter of what will be done that will violate international law.


It's what I say because it the truth of the matter. The peace deal which I specifically quoted from the article deals with the simple truth. 
Your avoidance of it this is based on your own bias against the Israeli position, and has nothing to do with my comment and is just indicative of the double standard in this issue.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Dec 7, 2012)

The whole Middle East is at War and I'm over here like "Is Supernatural new this week?"


----------



## Mansali (Dec 7, 2012)

sadated_peon said:


> This is pathetic, once again you switch from a peace deal to your specific version of the two state solution. You are so firmly entrenched in your own bias that you can’t understand this simple concept.
> 
> It’s this bias which is at the heart of your double standard.
> 
> ...



I get the idea you dont even know what your talking about. His argument against yours is just so simple yet your complicating it so much.

The Europeans are not being bias as you say they are. And he explains it really well.

Supporting a Palestinian state at the UN does not hinder peace....any objective person can see that.

Also building settlements does hinder peace. You dont have to look at any sides opinion on that matter. Just have to use your brain. 

Europeans are not taking sides in this conflict......all they are saying is that they support a two state settlement. But you make it look like they are just focussed on the Palestinians wants


----------



## neodragzero (Dec 7, 2012)

sadated_peon said:


> SNIP



Still making a repetitive argument based on a poison the well fallacy where the Europeans' only barometer used for criticizing the settlement expansion is the matter of what is said by both sides rather than the blatantly obvious issue that's noticed by looking at a map. An expansion that cuts up the West Bank endangers the two state settlement on an actual physical level rather than a UN bid that clearly isn't chopping up Israel.


----------



## drache (Dec 7, 2012)

Son of Goku said:


> He hasn't called for Isreal's nor Israel's annihilation, as the second article says "only committed Zionists would see a one-state solution as the ?annihilation? of Israel."
> 
> It's a common trick of the media to take things out of context or even cut entire sections of an interview (see first article and video) to demonize political opponents. If he had a problem with New Zealand instead of Israel, no one in the general public of the west would even find out about it.


 
Iran and he in particular have called Isreal a blight, a cancer and much worse but as I said _if_ he really meant that then sure I agree. But as I also said I don't trust him one bit so yeah and the by the by if he called for any nation to be destroyed yeah I'd have a problem with it


----------



## sadated_peon (Dec 8, 2012)

SonVegeta said:


> I get the idea you dont even know what your talking about. His argument against yours is just so simple yet your complicating it so much.
> 
> The Europeans are not being bias as you say they are. And he explains it really well.
> 
> ...


Supporting the Palestinian unilaterally declaration of a state does hinder peace as it specifically stated by the Israelis as obstacle to a peace agreement. 

As the Israelis are a party in the negotiation this directly means that it now becomes an obstacle to peace. 

The only way you can claim that a peace agreement does not rely on Israeli agreement.




neodragzero said:


> Still making a repetitive argument based on a poison the well fallacy where the Europeans' only barometer used for criticizing the settlement expansion is the matter of what is said by both sides rather than the blatantly obvious issue that's noticed by looking at a map. An expansion that cuts up the West Bank endangers the two state settlement on an actual physical level rather than a UN bid that clearly isn't chopping up Israel.


I am repeating the argument because seem to have a problem with being able to read it. You can't seem to grasp that peace deal doesn't mean two state solution, and two state solution doesn't mean 1967 borders.

You also can't seem to read a direct quote which reflect there criticism based on it effect on a the peace plan. There is just some sort of mental block for you that you can't read these words I have quoted. 

But lets have a fun experiment get out a map of the west bank, show me where the new settlements are. First show me how it "cuts up the west bank".
Then show me the same map again with all the settlement land conceded in a pull out like was done with gaza and how it is now impossible for there to be a palestinian state.

Because otherwise your argument that this has ended all hope of a 2 state solution is more of you fucking bullshit


----------



## neodragzero (Dec 8, 2012)

sadated_peon said:


> I am repeating the argument because seem to have a problem with being able to read it. You can't seem to grasp that peace deal doesn't mean two state solution, and two state solution doesn't mean 1967 borders.


It's not enough of an argument when cutting up the West Bank still isn't helpful to a viable Palestinian state. Whether or not you particularly want a one-state solution is a different story. Are you suggesting a one state solution? Because a two state solution isn't likely if Israel cuts the West Bank in half. A one state solution is potential apartheid where the mass majority of Israelis are against the peoples of the West Bank and Gaza to having the vote, with such an additional vote populace basically making Israel no longer a primarily Jewish state. So, what are you talking about?

Because the fact of the matter is that the European criticism is about an action that endangers a two state solution that the PLO and the Israeli government rather have than the one state solution. No way of avoiding that part of reality. Especially when the issue of E-1 has always been a red line for even the Bush administration for a decade along with Europe for quite some time well before this announcement ever came up.


> But lets have a fun experiment get out a map of the west bank, show me where the new settlements are. First show me how it "cuts up the west
> bank".






> Then show me the same map again with all the settlement land conceded in a pull out like was done with gaza and how it is now impossible for there to be a palestinian state.


I didn't say anything about a pull out in this conversation. But the map above does show the current Israeli sections.


> Because otherwise your argument that this has ended all hope of a 2 state solution is more of you *fucking bullshit*



Lay off the language. If you can't do this on the merits of your argument alone, don't even bother.


----------



## sadated_peon (Dec 8, 2012)

neodragzero said:


> It's not enough of an argument when cutting up the West Bank still isn't helpful to a viable Palestinian state. Whether or not you particularly want a one-state solution is a different story. Are you suggesting a one state solution? Because a two state solution isn't likely if Israel cuts the West Bank in half. A one state solution is potential apartheid where the mass majority of Israelis are against the peoples of the West Bank and Gaza to having the vote, with such an additional vote populace basically making Israel no longer a primarily Jewish state. So, what are you talking about?
> 
> Because the fact of the matter is that the European criticism is about an action that endangers a two state solution that the PLO and the Israeli government rather have than the one state solution. No way of avoiding that part of reality. Especially when the issue of E-1 has always been a red line for even the Bush administration for a decade along with Europe for quite some time well before this announcement ever came up.


How do you still not get what I am talking about. Please go back read I have as you said repeated over and over again.

I AM TALKING ABOUT A PEACE DEAL!

The criticism is that I quoted was not about a 2 state solution it was about a peace deal. 
How many times do I have to repeat this until you finally bother to read it?

What I think they should do doesn't matter, just as what you think they should do doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is what the two parties are willing to put on the table and negoctiation 


			
				neodragzero said:
			
		

>


lol wut? how is that cutting the west bank in half? The settlement doesn't even exist outside of the barrier wall? 

Thank you for proving your own argument invalid.



			
				neodragzero said:
			
		

> I didn't say anything about a pull out in this conversation. But the map above does show the current Israeli sections.


hahahahahahhaha of I know you haven't said anything about a pull out because you are so blinded by your own bias that you can't think of anything beyond it.

The reference is to a "Peace Agreement" not to your version of a 2 state solution as I have been saying over and over again. 
A peace agreement can include a 1 state solution, 2 state solution, 3 state solution, etc. It could be anything and could include anything number of actions and border changes by either sides.
It could involve making the settlers citizens of palestine for all we know.

But you can't understand this no matter how many time I repeat it because of how biased you are, and this causes your double standard.



			
				neodragzero said:
			
		

> Lay off the language. If you can't do this on the merits of your argument alone, don't even bother.


No, sorry, I call it as I see it. Your arguments are week, and biased. Until you bother actually reading what I write and stop trying to derail this into a different conversation I will call you on your fucking bullshit.


----------

