General Israel/Palestine discussion thread

[Mycroft]

no one has yet proven that iran is building a bomb, but they are certasinly within their sovereign rights to do so.

I'm sure I will not be the first to inform you, but Iran signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in which they gave up their "sovereign rights" to build nuclear weapons.

Some nations, such as India, Pakistan and Israel did not sign that treaty.

 

[Matt Giwer]

what do I have to give a try? If you think you can justify nuclear weapons as a responce to an attack on a single ship go ahead....knock yourself out....I would love to read the justification.

Proportionality is never an issue. A few thousand in property damage in Sderot justified the last rampage in Gaza with (splitting the difference) a thousand Gazans murdered while attempting to repel invaders. The entire purpose of a response is to instil fear of the consequences of doing it again.

As an example of Israeli attacks on ships, it was 34 dead on the USS Liberty with tens of millions in damages. Even if one were to invoke proportionality a nuke on Askelon would be about right. Ignoring proportionality as Israel does and obliterate Tel Aviv.

The only thing they understand is violence. With enough violence there will be enough fear.

 

[The Fool]

Proportionality is never an issue. A few thousand in property damage in Sderot justified the last rampage in Gaza with (splitting the difference) a thousand Gazans murdered while attempting to repel invaders. The entire purpose of a response is to instil fear of the consequences of doing it again.

As an example of Israeli attacks on ships, it was 34 on the USS Liberty with tens of millions in damages. Even if one were to invoke proportionality a nuke on Askelon would be about right. Ignoring proportionality as Israel does and obliterate Tel Aviv.

The only thing they understand is violence. With enough violence there will be enough fear.

OK...so its not your opinion....but you claim that Israel feels justified to use Nuclear weapons in response to the list of actions you gave....Is this a mind reading claim or can you make a case in support of this rather extreme Idea?

 

[angrysoba]

Anyone who can read with comprehension does not have to guess.

Anyone who has to guess is illiterate.

This is invalid reasoning. Someone can have the ability to read but the good sense to ignore most of what you write.

From what little (albeit way too much) that I have read of yours it's clear you are a fully-fledged Jew hater. It's just sad for you that nuclear weapons won't be used against Israel no matter how much you beg them to be.

 

[bigjelmapro]

i guess that means, you think its a good idea to build this abrrier on disputed land.

Building a security barrier that goes along a voided armistice line, along terrain best suited for its purpose, is a temporary solution, and a long-proven effective one.

Unless you don't think its a 'good idea' to protect ones citizens from terrorists?

what is your problem with me linking the quote AUP brought up?
i think what was quoted made sense. I wish it would be different, and Palestinains and Israelis could be living in peace next to eachother. But that is not the case atm.

Go back to where the full quote was given. Then come back and rephrase your question, if there still is one, to the issue that exists with the 'revised' version AUP provided.

And no, 'but but its a Wiki source' doesn't suffice.

but with things like building a barrier on disputed land you do not work towards long lasting peace, its more like giving ammunition to others.

The security barrier has its intended purpose with a proven track record. Preventing suicide bombers, etc. from entering Israel does prevent more violence and in turn does prevent the IDF from conducting operations like Operation Defensive Shield, which were a direct result from suicide bombers entering Israel.

You are now 2 for 2 for generic statements that amount to nothing.

and no i am not neutral, i am biased towards peace and a solution for both Nations, Israel and Palestina.

Hilarious. you're biased towards peace, but with inherent prejudices and assessments made on false premises. Is this some underhanded statement to present myself as not being pro-peace because I support temporary solutions such as a security barrier?

You are now 3 for 3.

 

[bigjelmapro]

Alleged spying.

Wouldn't be surprised. But why wouldn't one be spying and gaining intel on a country that's selling weapons to your enemies for decades already?

Most recently: 'Russia blocks UN report on Iran arms sales to Syria'

And not too long ago: US slaps sanctions on Russian groups for selling arms to Iran

Is this all that surprising?

Parky is intentionally acting like a simpleton I would assume to whinge about anti-semitism and missing the bigger, and more obvious, picture here.

Am I right?

 

[DC]

Building a security barrier that goes along a voided armistice line, along terrain best suited for its purpose, is a temporary solution, and a long-proven effective one.

Unless you don't think its a 'good idea' to protect ones citizens from terrorists?


Go back to where the full quote was given. Then come back and rephrase your question, if there still is one, to the issue that exists with the 'revised' version AUP provided.

And no, 'but but its a Wiki source' doesn't suffice.


The security barrier has its intended purpose with a proven track record. Preventing suicide bombers, etc. from entering Israel does prevent more violence and in turn does prevent the IDF from conducting operations like Operation Defensive Shield, which were a direct result from suicide bombers entering Israel.

You are now 2 for 2 for generic statements that amount to nothing.


Hilarious. I'm biased towards peace, but with inherent prejudices and assessments made on false premises. Is this some underhanded statement to present myself as not being pro-peace because I support temporary solutions such as a security barrier?

You are now 3 for 3.

a security barrier is ok, but i think it should not have been built on disputed land. that's a couterproductive provocation.
but sure, try to make it look as if i am just pissed that those brave suicide bombers cannot come to Israel anymore. After all you know exactly that the only thing i love to see are blown up Israeli school children.

ETA: and i don't really think your quote changes anything compared to AUP's quote. you said that changes the argument a bit, how exactly?

 

[applecorped]

Depends who starts the fighting.

Should Israel invade Lebanon again there is no problem nuking Israel.
Should Israel invade Gaza again there is no problem nuking Israel.
Should Israel invade Jordan again there is no problem nuking Israel.
Should Israel invade Egypt again there is no problem nuking Israel.
Should Israel attack Iraq again there is no problem nuking Israel.
Should Israel attack Iran there is no problem nuking Israel.
Should Israel attack a US ship again there is no problem nuking Israel.
Should Israel attack a Turkish ship again there is no problem nuking Israel.

I presume you have no problem with those reasons.

So no, nuking Israel is okay with you, thanks. Plonk.

 

[WildCat]

Now now, The Fool says he wants a serious discussion this time, so I'm sure he'll clarify that remark next time he logs in here.

I guess not.

 

[a_unique_person]

Proportionality is never an issue. A few thousand in property damage in Sderot justified the last rampage in Gaza with (splitting the difference) a thousand Gazans murdered while attempting to repel invaders. The entire purpose of a response is to instil fear of the consequences of doing it again.

As an example of Israeli attacks on ships, it was 34 dead on the USS Liberty with tens of millions in damages. Even if one were to invoke proportionality a nuke on Askelon would be about right. Ignoring proportionality as Israel does and obliterate Tel Aviv.

The only thing they understand is violence. With enough violence there will be enough fear.

 

[Skeptic]

a security barrier is ok, but i think it should not have been built on disputed land. that's a couterproductive provocation.

I see your point -- but it seems rather pointless to not provoke folks who send suicide bombers at you and declare their unending desire to destroy you in their constitution.

I mean, how much more can they be provoked?

 

[Eddie Dane]

So no, nuking Israel is okay with you, thanks. Plonk.

The great thing about nuking Israel is that you can give the land back to the Palestinians.

The ones that haven't been killed by the shockwave will be easily recognised as they are wandering around blind and you can also find them by following the trail of hair they lost.

Depending on where the explosion was, you might also have a pretty cool wailing wall at the site where the Dome of the Rock once was.
With the shadows of the some Muslim worshippers burned into the wall for dramatic effect.

Brilliant idea there Matt, have you mailed the Arab league yet?

 

[Mycroft]

Proportionality is never an issue. A few thousand in property damage in Sderot justified the last rampage in Gaza with (splitting the difference) a thousand Gazans murdered while attempting to repel invaders. The entire purpose of a response is to instil fear of the consequences of doing it again.

As an example of Israeli attacks on ships, it was 34 dead on the USS Liberty with tens of millions in damages. Even if one were to invoke proportionality a nuke on Askelon would be about right. Ignoring proportionality as Israel does and obliterate Tel Aviv.

The only thing they understand is violence. With enough violence there will be enough fear.

Oh come on, the only difference between this and the established anti-Israel orthodoxy is a matter of degree. From establishing a port where Hamas could smuggle in weapons, to supporting smuggling through tunnels from Egypt, from claiming Palestinians should not be responsible for anything before achieving statehood, from claiming Israel will just have to put up with continued violence even after coming to a peace agreement, to condemning each and every measure Israel takes to defend itself from violence...the message is clear. Any and all violence against Israel is okay, and any measure Israel takes to mitigate it is not.

 

[Mycroft]

a security barrier is ok, but i think it should not have been built on disputed land. that's a couterproductive provocation.
but sure, try to make it look as if i am just pissed that those brave suicide bombers cannot come to Israel anymore. After all you know exactly that the only thing i love to see are blown up Israeli school children.

ETA: and i don't really think your quote changes anything compared to AUP's quote. you said that changes the argument a bit, how exactly?

Here is an actual map with changes made it back in 2005 so you can judge for yourself how much of its planning was due to security and how much was intended as a "land grab".

http://www.mideastweb.org/thefence_05.htm

 

[bigjelmapro]

a security barrier is ok, but i think it should not have been built on disputed land. that's a couterproductive provocation.

No. The provocation would be the PA's indoctrination of its people as to the illegitimacy of Israel of its entirety, calling for jihad (and often supporting those involved in terrorist activities with compensation, ie PLO, stipends to the families of the suicide bombers, etc.), and having the result be suicide bombers entering Israel and killing civilians. In addition to not reigning in the proxy terrorist groups residing in the WB.

In the PA's eyes, and according to the ongoing PLO charter, Israel proper even along the green line is illegitimate.

Perhaps at some point you would like to make an effort to constructing a well-thought out rebuttal against the security barrier.

but sure, try to make it look as if i am just pissed that those brave suicide bombers cannot come to Israel anymore. After all you know exactly that the only thing i love to see are blown up Israeli school children.

No. My issue with you is that this has been the ongoing and unrelenting position of yours in the argument against the security barrier. That somehow because a small portion of Palestinians are inconvenienced by the barrier that was constructed due to their leaderships support and ongoing incompetence in reigning in terrorist organizations/activities in the WB, that somehow Israel should still be forgiving and not build a security barrier along the most defensible lines.

But I guess you would like to continue with this victimology drivel since your position doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

ETA: and i don't really think your quote changes anything compared to AUP's quote. you said that changes the argument a bit, how exactly?

Re-read it and perhaps get someone to help you with the wording, what AUP provided and what the full quote states. Pretty straight-forward.

But then again, if you make such a half-baked attempt at formulating arguments as such that you provided above, then there really is no point in continuing with this.

This hasn't been a new development either...

EDIT: Mycroft pretty much negated the argument of the security barrier being an attempt at land-grabs as well.

 

[A'isha]

Okay, WTF?

In the wake of Obama's speech on the Middle East, the AP reports the following:

President Barack Obama is endorsing the Palestinians' demand for their future state to be based on the borders that existed before the 1967 Middle East war, in a move that will likely infuriate Israel. Israel says the borders of a Palestinian state have to be determined through negotiations.

In a speech outlining U.S. policy in the Middle East and North Africa, Obama on Thursday sided with the Palestinians' opening position a day ahead of a visit to Washington by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Netanyahu is vehemently opposed to referring to the 1967 borders.

Until Thursday, the U.S. position had been that the Palestinian goal of a state based on the 1967 borders, with agreed land swaps, should be reconciled with Israel's desire for a secure Jewish state through negotiations.

Note especially the last sentence, which flat-out states Obama dramatically changed US policy towards Israel's border.

They reiterate that here:

Obama's urging that a Palestinian state be based on 1967 borders — before the Six Day War in which Israel occupied East Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza — was a significant shift in the U.S. approach and seemed certain to anger Israel.

Except that's not what Obama said in his speech. What he said, in fact, was exactly what the AP said was the previous, long-standing US policy:

The United States believes that negotiations should result in two states, with permanent Palestinian borders with Israel, Jordan, and Egypt, and permanent Israeli borders with Palestine. The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states.

Obama's words, in fact (in addition to being pretty much a word-for-word repeat of what the AP said was US policy before today's speech), are pretty much a verbatim reiteration of what Hillary Clinton said in 2009:

We believe that through good-faith negotiations the parties can mutually agree on an outcome which ends the conflict and reconciles the Palestinian goal of an independent and viable state based on the 1967 lines, with agreed swaps, and the Israeli goal of a Jewish state with secure and recognized borders that reflect subsequent developments and meet Israeli security requirements

So where's this "Obama changes US policy towards Israel, says they must return to pre-1967 borders!" crap coming from?

 

[Thunder]

Obama wants a Palestinian state mostly based on the 1967 border.

This will mean land swaps between the West Bank and Israel. Maybe 5%-10% of the West Bank will be given to Israel, and Israel will give the Palestinians an equal amount of land to them.

Um...how is this news?

 

[NWO Sentryman]

never mind.

 

[A'isha]

Obama wants a Palestinian state mostly based on the 1967 border.

This will mean land swaps between the West Bank and Israel. Maybe 5%-10% of the West Bank will be given to Israel, and Israel will give the Palestinians an equal amount of land to them.

Um...how is this news?

Because news outlets aren't reporting "Obama wants a Palestinian state mostly based on the 1967 border" (ie, the border after the Six-Day War), but "Obama wants a Palestinian state mostly based on the pre-1967 border" (the border before the war).

 

[BeAChooser]

Obama's words, in fact (in addition to being pretty much a word-for-word repeat of what the AP said was US policy before today's speech)

So, in other words, Obama *important* Middle East speech was pretty much the same old same old?

He doesn't really expect Israel to agree to giving back West Jerusalum and abandon all the settlements outside that 67 border.

He doesn't really expect Palestinians to give back the West Bank to Jordan and Gaza to the Egyptians.

At least not without real assurances of peace ...

Not with so much past negotiation in bad faith by arabs ...

Not with Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran, still calling for the destruction of Israel ...

Not with such a large fraction of the Arab "springers" calling for Israel's destruction ...

Not with people like this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2oFkmcZt4OQ&feature=player_embedded ) in Obama's administration ...