Peace Plan - "Accept it or face more violence."

Thomas1016 said:
What was United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 and what does it say?
Click to expand...


I'm with you in the argument, but it's traditional here that when you quote passages from outside sources that you link to them and give credit.



http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_1948to1967_un_242.php


Previous discussion of this topic at the JREF can be found here:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=475909#post475909

and here:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2046309#post2046309

And probably many other places.
 
webfusion said:
Tellingly, the Israeli PM has the support of virtually nobody in the country today.
He is trying to look "hardline" in these "Headliner" pre-Passover Interviews because nipping at his heels to the right are Netanyahu, Lieberman and Effie Eitam, all of whom would make chopped liver outta Olmert if he were to say anything even remotely conciliatory towards the palestinians or hint at implementing the convergence plan, or any other plan for that matter.

In polls, "None of the Above" is more popular than Olmert!



Also--
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6239499.stm
Barak is back.
Click to expand...

It seems to me peace is an option that the hardliners on both sides don't want, and can force the majority away from.
 
thinkingaboutit said:
Looking at the evidence, I've come to the same conclusion.
Click to expand...

The difference (if you are really thinking about it), and the evidence shows, is that the hardliners of the palestinians are in power, and run everything. The hardliners among the Israelis are marginalized, and certainly do not run the government or dictate policy.
 
a_unique_person said:
It seems to me peace is an option that the hardliners on both sides don't want, and can force the majority away from.
Click to expand...
It seems to me that the "hardliners" among the Palestinians enjoy broad popular support, while Israelis fail to act against their hardliners only because there is no feasible way to do so while the country is fighting for its life. If the Palestinians would stop killing Israelis, the Israeli hardliners would find that their cover has evaporated.
 
webfusion said:
The difference (if you are really thinking about it), and the evidence shows, is that the hardliners of the palestinians are in power, and run everything. The hardliners among the Israelis are marginalized, and certainly do not run the government or dictate policy.
Click to expand...

To a significant extent, on the Palestinian issue, they do, and Likud has been the government, at various times.
 
LIKUD is not a radical party.

Yisrael Beitenu is.
Tehiya/Tzomet is.
NRP is. (see: Effie Eitam) -- when Effie Eitam is elected as Prime Minister, then come and talk to me about radicals being in power, OK?
 
webfusion said:
LIKUD is not a radical party.
Click to expand...

The Likud party charter calls for the annexation and settlement of all Palestinian land.....all of it...gaza, west bank....if its land they want it.

Should that be regarded as a radical or mainstream position in Israel?
 
The Fool said:
The Likud party charter calls for the annexation and settlement of all Palestinian land.....all of it...gaza, west bank....if its land they want it.

Should that be regarded as a radical or mainstream position in Israel?
Click to expand...

Can you show us that party platform?
 
The Fool said:
Here is a list of the significant sites in Jerusalem...an impressive list.

Al-Aqsa Mosque
Church of Dominus Flevit
Church of St Peter in Gallicantu
Dome of the Rock
Gethsemane and church of all nations
Holy Sepulcher
Mt of Olives and Virgin Tonb Church
The Garden Tomb
Via Dolorosa
Chapel of the Ascention
Church of St. Anne & Pool of Bethesda
Coenaculum and King David Tomb
Gates and Walls of the Old City
Grotto of Gethsemane
Mount Zion and Dormition Abbey
The Citadel (Tower of David)
Valley of the Kidron
Western wall

Now in the division of Jerusalem you talk of how are these sites distributed? Which ones will not be in Israel?
Click to expand...


What difference does it make?

I mean, practically.

Both sides want "sovereignty". What does "sovereignty" mean? It means, "we can do whatever we want to do". Great. What do you want to do?
 
The Fool said:
yes I could, if I chose to spoonfeed you easily available information. Get it yourself.
Click to expand...

Given that Sharon and the Likud party led Israel in withdrawing from the Gaza Strip and was enacting a disengagement plan in the West Bank, this claim seems somewhat dubious. If you were able to find some policy statement that said what you claimed it would, then it's clear that they're capable of choosing pragmatism over dogma, which is a direct contradiction of your claim of radicalism.
 
Last edited:
Darat said:
Also see: http://www.knesset.gov.il/elections/knesset15/elikud_m.htm
Click to expand...

The Government of Israel flatly rejects the establishment of a Palestinian Arab state west of the Jordan river.

The Palestinians can run their lives freely in the framework of self-rule, but not as an independent and sovereign state. Thus, for example, in matters of foreign affairs, security, immigration and ecology, their activity shall be limited in accordance with imperatives of Israel's existence, security and national needs.
Click to expand...


Ok, I understand existence and security, more or less, but what kinds of national needs are they talking about? Ecology? What's that?

Again, practically speaking, what specific things do the Palestinians want to do, that the Israelis don't want to let them do?

And conversely, if the Palestinians got to be in charge of all of Israel, what would they prevent the Israelis from doing, that the Israelis want to do?

(No need to mention killing each other. We can all agree, I imagine, that that shouldn't be allowed, whoever's in charge.)

Why does each side want to be in charge, in other words? Just so that they'll be able to say, "yay, we're in charge"? I bet it's more than that!
 
Bob Klase said:
Although it's just about as likely that it would turn out to be, Israel goes back to 1967 borders and the arab world takes this as a sign that continued killing will eventually work to convince Israel to go back to pre-1948 borders and cease to exist.
Click to expand...

Now you're just being silly. They would be content with this, and go on with the business of getting on with life. What do you think these other countries are, dictatorships with vicious thugs in charge who would want to continue to use Israel to re-direct their own population's hatred away from themselves and onto Israel, so that they (the dictators) may continue to remain in power?

Sheesh! :mad:
 
a_unique_person said:
It only existed and was accepted to point it could be kept by force of arms, with the hope that after a few centuries or so, people would forget it ever happened.

I thought we were supposed to be over that line of thinking these days, in our more modern, civilised world.
Click to expand...

In other words, territory should be returned to those who attacked you, because those sitting safely in New York with fat expense accounts and diplomatic immunity, who didn't give a rat's ass when you were attacked, think you should.
 
a_unique_person said:
Sharon was not in Likud when he withdrew from Gaza. He had to quit Likud to implement that policy.
Click to expand...

Why do I even bother with you, a_u_p?
I must be a masochist.
(defined as: "A willingness or tendency to subject oneself to unpleasant or trying experiences."


December 2005, Sharon bolts the Likud.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4456242.stm


September 2005, Sharon completes the gaza withdrawal.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4235768.stm


also, Netanyahu, the leader of LIKUD, said this back in Dec 2005 as Sharon took his jacks and walked away:
The newly-elected Likud Chairman Binyamin Netanyahu told members of his faction at the parliament on Wednesday that their party is not radical, local newspaper Ha' aretz reported on its online edition.
 
Last edited:
My bad, I had thought it otherwise.

http://www.jcpa.org/brief/brief3-23.htm

As usual in Israeli politics, it's not that simple. Sharon was more of a leader of a party that didn't agree with it's leaders policies. Likud opposed the withdrawal from Gaza, even though Sharon was for it. Hence his need to jump ship for the new party soon after.

Hamas doesn't think it is radical either.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom