Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Israeli E1 Settlement Plan

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • astralis
    replied
    enough.

    my god, can we have ONE israel-palestine thread that doesn't get locked?

    Leave a comment:


  • zraver
    replied
    Originally posted by Parihaka View Post
    As I recall it you justified not just the killing of the parents but also the children, aged 11, 4 and 3 months. Ispecifically queried you about the children and your answer was the same as for the parents.

    As with that mentioned thread and every subsequent thread addressing the Israel/Arab conflict, immediately upon your entry you hijack it into a flame war about evil Israel. Every action by the Palestinians and surrounding countries you justify by your belief that Israel and Israelis are evil, just as you do above.
    Once again you resort to personal attacks. I very clearly stated that I understood, not that I justified. If you want to look for justification, look at your own cosigning of settler violence against Palestinians. Like I said you blame the dog for being kicked. You are completely kosher with dead and wounded Palestinian kids. Take your false outrage and go pleasure yourself with it.

    Leave a comment:


  • zraver
    replied
    Originally posted by Minskaya View Post
    I also call a spade a spade. To be blunt, you wear your obsession with Israel as a whore would her paint.
    I didn't start this thread, I rarely start any such threads and as often as not I only enter the thread after I have been specific named. Got any more ad hominems?
    Last edited by zraver; 19 Jan 13,, 14:11.

    Leave a comment:


  • Minskaya
    replied
    Originally posted by zraver View Post
    What vitriol against Israel? I've simply called a spade a spade.
    I also call a spade a spade. To be blunt, you wear your obsession with Israel as a whore would her paint.

    Leave a comment:


  • Parihaka
    replied
    Originally posted by zraver View Post
    Lets...

    As I recall I called it an act of vengeance against a group of religious zealot settlers famed for its violence against Palestinians. A settlement originally named after someone who took part in the killing of arabs as part of the Irgun and sponsored by a group that even right wing Israelis say is extreme right wing. The settlers here treated the Palestinians as less than human, engaging in arson, assault, attempted murder, murder, ethnic cleansing all for religious-political reasons ie terrorism. I did not condone the killings, I simply said the violence was an understandable out growth of the situation and the brutality the local Palestinians had been subjected to long term. Kick a dog long enough and he will bite.
    As I recall it you justified not just the killing of the parents but also the children, aged 11, 4 and 3 months. Ispecifically queried you about the children and your answer was the same as for the parents.
    Originally posted by zraver View Post
    You seem to be of the persuasion that the dog getting tired of being kicked is at fault. That the kicker has no fault and no reason to expect that what they do unto others will be done unto them. I am of the impression that if you don't kick the dog you wont get bit.

    Pari you might want to familiarize yourself with Yehoshua Elitzur. He is a great example of why I am so critical of Israel in the territories. He wa s a resident of Itamar, feeling he was justified by God, he shot and killed a Palestinian taxi driver in what we in the US would call a car jacking or an ambush. His punishment- house arrest. This is the type of biased legal system the Palestinian residents near Itamar live with every day- would you stand for it?

    The right to live in peace is prefaced on the idea that you yourself be peaceful. The residents of Itamar are most definitely not interested in being peaceful neighbors. They can't, for being peaceful would prevent them from reclaiming the Holy Land so that the Messiah could appear. They feel they answer to a higher calling and things like murder and terrorism are justified if it brings the Messiah.
    As with that mentioned thread and every subsequent thread addressing the Israel/Arab conflict, immediately upon your entry you hijack it into a flame war about evil Israel. Every action by the Palestinians and surrounding countries you justify by your belief that Israel and Israelis are evil, just as you do above.

    Leave a comment:


  • zraver
    replied
    Originally posted by Parihaka View Post
    Since everyone is airing their laundry perhaps we could have the thread currently in the trash restored where Z airs his views on the killing of the Fogel family in Itimar?
    So everyone knows where it is he actually stands on the limits of what are "rabid" positions when it comes to Palestinians.
    Lets...

    As I recall I called it an act of vengeance against a group of religious zealot settlers famed for its violence against Palestinians. A settlement originally named after someone who took part in the killing of arabs as part of the Irgun and sponsored by a group that even right wing Israelis say is extreme right wing. The settlers here treated the Palestinians as less than human, engaging in arson, assault, attempted murder, murder, ethnic cleansing all for religious-political reasons ie terrorism. I did not condone the killings, I simply said the violence was an understandable out growth of the situation and the brutality the local Palestinians had been subjected to long term. Kick a dog long enough and he will bite.

    You seem to be of the persuasion that the dog getting tired of being kicked is at fault. That the kicker has no fault and no reason to expect that what they do unto others will be done unto them. I am of the impression that if you don't kick the dog you wont get bit.

    Pari you might want to familiarize yourself with Yehoshua Elitzur. He is a great example of why I am so critical of Israel in the territories. He wa s a resident of Itamar, feeling he was justified by God, he shot and killed a Palestinian taxi driver in what we in the US would call a car jacking or an ambush. His punishment- house arrest. This is the type of biased legal system the Palestinian residents near Itamar live with every day- would you stand for it?

    The right to live in peace is prefaced on the idea that you yourself be peaceful. The residents of Itamar are most definitely not interested in being peaceful neighbors. They can't, for being peaceful would prevent them from reclaiming the Holy Land so that the Messiah could appear. They feel they answer to a higher calling and things like murder and terrorism are justified if it brings the Messiah.

    Leave a comment:


  • Parihaka
    replied
    Since everyone is airing their laundry perhaps we could have the thread currently in the trash restored where Z airs his views on the killing of the Fogel family in Itimar?
    So everyone knows where it is he actually stands on the limits of what are "rabid" positions when it comes to Palestinians.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mihais
    replied
    Originally posted by TopHatter View Post
    For the last time: Enough of the accusations of anti-Semitism.
    You know I'm anti-romanian.All the people I absolutely hate are my own.Me thinks that's for a good reason,but should I repent before being allowed among civilized men?

    Leave a comment:


  • TopHatter
    replied
    Originally posted by bigross86 View Post
    d) the usual, standard vitriol against Israel, your absolute despisal of all things Israel and though I hate using this term, your extremely thinly-veiled anti-Semitism guised under your holier-than-thou veneer and claiming that you are merely anti-Israel.
    For the last time: Enough of the accusations of anti-Semitism.

    Leave a comment:


  • zraver
    replied
    Originally posted by bigross86 View Post
    Fine. The UN agrees that Israel should gave back some of the land it won in order to bring about peace that will include safe and secure borders for Israel.

    Doesn't make a difference what order you read it in, there is no proviso for Israel giving back ALL the land it won in 1967, without (ii) being null and void. It is a physical impossibility for Israel to give back every single inch of land and still have safe and secure borders. Can't happen, and therefore it won't happen.
    It doesn't say some, most, little etc it says territories et al. Now I am willing to and have conceded that giving back the Golan would be foolish and dangerous. However with the PA demilitarized and a peace treaty with Jordan, Israel has those secure defensible borders since there is no one to defend against.

    And is also highly biased against in both UN General Assembly and UN Security Council Resolutions. Until the UN actually wants to back up its talking with an actual armed force that will take East Jerusalem and the West Bank away from Israel militarily, UN and UNSC resolutions are merely so many words written on so many pieces of paper. As I recall, Saddam Hussein and Mahmoud Ahmadenijad are also members of the UN and party to its resolutions and actions, to name but two. How did that go for the UN, I wonder? Have the Iranians stopped making nukes? Did Saddam stop his tyrannical rule before someone came in and threw him out?
    Funny that you link Israel policy on the level of Saddam, Ajad and Tyranny. Surprisingly, it looks like there is something you and Palestinians can agree on. As for why the UNGA votes against Israel, have you ever considered that maybe its due in part to Israeli policies that are openly racist?

    The UN is nice, in a perfect world. In reality, they are pretty much less than worthless.
    Israel is a member, if you don't like the UN pullout, otherwise obey the friggen law.

    There was no consensus and is no consensus, seeing as there is still at least one country (that's right, the US) that refuses to acknowledge East Jerusalem as "under occupation", rather is characterizes the sovereignity over East Jerusalem as "Undefined". To that end, they have abstained from any and all resolutions calling for anything otherwise. This goes all the way back to the Clinton Administration. Moreover, both the US Senate and Congress have passed bills calling for an undevided Jerusalem that is Israel's capital. There goes your consensus right there.
    Straight out lie there

    Senator Paul Sarbanes: "Is it the present position of our Government that East Jerusalem is occupied territory?

    Secretary Cyrus Vance: "That is the position, yes."

    Secretary of State Cyrus Vance, before Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, March 20, 1980

    US policy on weather or not Jerusalem has not changed.

    As for consensus, there is not a single foreign embassy in Jerusalem, they are all in Tel Aviv- that is consensus. However, there is US a consulate in Jerusalem, it works with the PA not Israel.

    I don't, but I fail to see how suicide bombers and indiscriminately shooting rockets from residential areas at civilian population centers by armed personnel not wearing uniforms can be considered defending one's self. Once again, allow me to repeat: Israeli DEFENSE forces. The IDF only attacks when it must, and then only to defend Israeli civilians. We don't take joy or happiness in a higher body count, and we don't intentionally target civilians.
    Ask the surviving members of the Irgun, or read their memoirs. Oh, and the IDF does intentionally target civilians either through malice or incompetence. Every single "war" has examples of precision weapons hitting non-military targets. Most recently pasting an underground garage being used as a civilian bomb shelter.

    How is it extortion if we won it fair and square? We're willing to give it back, or at least a large part of it, in return for a guarantee that they won't keep attacking us.
    When was the last time the PA in the West Bank attacked you inside Israel? No attacks, yet nothign given back and more and more acres forever sealed off by expanding settlements.

    Not only that, like I said before, I'm willing to give back 100% of the land they had, just a different 100%. They still will have the same exact amount of land they had before, just slightly different land, that will lead to less problems.
    You know that is a BS argument. Would you accept it? Of course not. Would you trade for land and leave the land of your birth, as long as you got 100% in area of what you once had...

    How is it a refusal to be an honest partner for peace when A) We've had honest partners for peace in Egypt and Jordan and hey! Waddaya know, we have peace treaties! and B) 3 times since the year 2000 we've offered the Palestinians amazing deals offering them over 90% of what they wanted, and have still been turned down.
    You are not dealing with them honestly, We've been over this before.

    You're now going to say that why should they settle for anything less than 100%. I'm going to say that because any rational person realizes that in NEGOTIATIONS both sides need to COMPROMISE so that both sides end up getting what they want. Whether in marriage/divorce proceedings, business negotations, settling arguments with your kids or deciding who gets the bigger half of the piece of cake. Everyone, everywhere, (except for you, apparently) realizes that when 2 people are arguing over the same thing, compromise is the way to go.
    What is Israel willing to give up that is equally painful to them as what they demand the Palestinians give up? You demand the Palestinians give up East Jerusalem, what Jewish city are you willing to evacuate in trade? You won't even pull out the settlements.

    A) Ad-hominem B) How do you know it's "false" moderations. C) Considering the face that in this thread I've laid out concrete moves towards what I believe is the best way towards achieving a lasting peace in the West Bank, I can only conclude that as the lovely lady said, you are flame-baiting merely for the sake of arguing. You are either incapable of or merely uninterested in reading what it is I have to say, just so you can keep repeating your same talking points over and over and over.
    Because all of your conditions are premised on the Palestinians cosigning the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and annexation of Jerusalem.

    I also notice that you have not really actually responded to the core of the discussion, at least as I see it:

    A) Settlements are bad and new settlements should not be built, neither should new Palestinian villages.
    Great example of false moderation, you want to limit the Palestinians building in thier land since the world community wants you to stop building in their land. You might have a leg to stand on if the Palestinians were throwing up settlements in Israel. They are not doing so, the only one building on some one elses land is Israel.

    B) The only building that should be allowed at all is for natural growth, and even that should be kept to as much of a minimum as possible.
    Its an excuse to continue building. The who natural growth argument falls on its face since Israel denies Palestinians the same rights.

    C) I've laid out a plan that will result in Palestinians getting the equivalent of everything they had on June 5, 1967, just in a different location, and in one contguous block of land.
    Where the middle of the Negev? That is no better than Arab calls for Israel to evac to the middle of the US. Because equivalent means equal in kind. You want them to give up East Jerusalem, what city are you going to give them in trade.

    As far as I see it, you've declared that
    a) Settlements are bad, but Palestinian building is fine
    Its their land, they should be able to build when and where they want. It is not Jewish land. But I'll meet you half way, lets tear down and remove all settlements and block all new ones. No Palestinians settlements in Israel, no Israeli settlements in Palestine.

    b) There should be no natural growth building on Israeli side, but the Palestinians can keep on building
    c) you've ignored that entirely
    See above.

    and there's also
    d) the usual, standard vitriol against Israel, your absolute despisal of all things Israel and though I hate using this term, your extremely thinly-veiled anti-Semitism guised under your holier-than-thou veneer and claiming that you are merely anti-Israel.
    What vitriol against Israel? I've simply called a spade a spade. I've not called for any pogroms, not called for the destruction of Israel etc. Accusations of antisemitism is all you have, I've even seen you post articles from your right wing idols that say the same against those on the Left inside Israel. You have no valid legal, ethical or moral arguments, just firepower and obstinacy. In your world view no one can be for peace unless they give you every piece of Palestine you want. I have not declared myself to be anti-Israel, I've defended Israel multiple times. I am for both peoples having their own state and enjoying peace.
    Last edited by zraver; 18 Jan 13,, 21:30.

    Leave a comment:


  • Parihaka
    replied
    Originally posted by Sparking Neuron View Post
    Btw, Israeli prime minister just pledged not to make any settlers leave occupied West Bank if he wins Tuesday's general election.

    Netanyahu vows to not dismantle settlements - Middle East - Al Jazeera English
    And Abbas along with the PA is regularly on record that Jerusalem is not Jewish, that it is and always has been an Arab/Islamic/Christian capital of Palestine.

    Moderate Mahmoud Abbas: Israel's "Judaization" is stealing Jerusalem's "cultural, human, and Islamic-Christian religious history" - Jihad Watch

    The statements of politicians of any ilk are nothing to do with BR's views on how peace can be attained.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sparking Neuron
    replied
    Originally posted by bigross86 View Post
    Sure!

    Israel is willing to give land back: Israel gave back the entire Sinai for peace with Egypt, including some very advanced military and naval bases, uprooted settlements and gave back the oil discoveries that were finally making Israel energy independent from the Arab countries.

    We also gave back the Gaza Strip in 2005, but Z will argue that wasn't for peaceful purposes, so I'll leave that up to you.

    land swaps between Israel and the Palestinians, cm^2 for cm^2: Have you looked at a map of the West Bank recently? It's a hodgepodge of Israeli settlements and Arab villages. The plan is twofold: 1) Find out what are the safest borders Israel can live with that takes the absolute least amount of land possible. 2) swap tracts of land between the Israelis and Palestinians, creating two contiguous blocks of land, one for the Israelis and one for the Palestinians. The Israeli one should connect to Israel proper, and the Palestinian one should include land that was traded for the secure borders that Israel now enjoys. Cm for cm, the Palestinians still have the same exact amount of land they had on June 5, 1967, just in slightly different areas.

    Of course, this is only the cure for the West Bank. There is no real cure for Gaza, and there is no real hope for a two-state solution, since there is no real and valid way to connect Gaza and the West Bank without bisecting Israeli in two.
    err, I thought you were talking about the west bank jewish settlements in the topic, like E-1. Is there a plan/map or something for the land swaps you are talking about?

    Btw, Israeli prime minister just pledged not to make any settlers leave occupied West Bank if he wins Tuesday's general election.
    Netanyahu vows to not dismantle settlements
    Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel's prime minister, has said no settlements in the occupied West Bank will be dismantled if he wins next week's general election.

    In an interview with Israelís Maariv newspaper published on Friday, Netanyahu was asked: "Can you promise that during the next four years, no settlement will be dismantled?"

    "Yes," Netanyahu answered. "The days when bulldozers uprooted Jews are behind us, not in front of us. Our record proves it."

    "We haven't uprooted any settlements, we have expanded them," he said, recalling that his government had established the first university in a settlement, in Ariel deep in the West Bank.

    "Nobody has any lessons to give me about love for the Land of Israel or commitment to Zionism and the settlements."

    Netanyahu was alluding to the strong opinion poll showing of the pro-settler Jewish Home party which has been championing accelerated settlement expansion and looks set to take seats from the prime minister's right-wing list in Tuesday's election.

    Hanan Cristal, an Israeli public radio commentator, said Netanyahu, the leader of the Likud party, had "in the final stretch of the election campaign, steered to the right on the question of settlements to try to woo Likud supporters tempted to vote for Jewish Home".

    Opinion polls on Friday, the last day they are allowed be published before the election, showed the Likud-Yisrael Beitenu list winning 32-35 seats in the 120-member Knesset, down from 42 in the outgoing parliament.

    Jewish Home was credited with 13-14, and the ultra-Orthodox Shas party 11-12.

    The centre-left Labour party would win 16-17 seats and the centrist Yesh Atid and HaTnuah, 10-13 and 7-8, respectively.
    Netanyahu vows to not dismantle settlements - Middle East - Al Jazeera English

    Leave a comment:


  • bigross86
    replied
    Not at all. The first comment is there to make sure that he actually understand what it is we're debating, so he knows what to insult me about. The second comment is the exact opposite. We all know that Z can be a smart person, I'm wondering why he's trying to be the opposite.

    Never once did I insult his intelligence or claim that he is something he is not

    Leave a comment:


  • Doktor
    replied
    So, Ben...

    You lost the argument, too?

    (you know, just in case you didn't quite get it yet)
    purposefully want to make yourself more dense than we all know you really are

    Leave a comment:


  • bigross86
    replied
    Originally posted by Minskaya View Post
    Flaming intended to denigrate. A typical exemplar of why I avoid participating in I/P discussions here at the WAB.
    Of course it is. Zraver is entirely incapable of getting into a debate without getting personal. Yes, before Z gets all high and righteous (which seems to be his natural outlook, doesn't it?), I have also lost my cool and my temper sometimes, but not half as much as Z does (nor is it my opening position and strategy to attack the person instead of the argument), and usually after events here in Israel, such as the Fogel family murder in Itamar.

    By the way, it's not just the Israeli/Palestinian stuff, either. Look up the Dojo fights between him and Dale, or more recently, the posts where Zraver calls Dale a pedophile with a slightly more than passing interest in bestiality.

    It's not his fault, I guess that's just the way he knows how to debate. It's a shame, really. I was always taught as a kid that when you start calling someone names, you've lost the argument because you've run out of good points to make....

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X