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

Beerina said:
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.
Click to expand...

That territory just happens to contain millions of stateless people. With each passing year, they seem to get angrier at that state of affairs.
 
a_unique_person said:
That territory just happens to contain millions of stateless people. With each passing year, they seem to get angrier at that state of affairs.
Click to expand...

And the only reason the people still stateless is thanks to their inept, corrupt or bloodlusty "government" Maybe they should try getting angry at the right people for a change.
 
I think its time for the world to just impose a peace settlemant. I don't think either side is willing to go beyond their own pathetic "red lines".

Jerusalem should be shared. The 1st generation of refugees should be allowed to return. The Muslems get the Temple Mount, the Jews get the Western wall. Some settlemants bordering Israel can be annexed in exchange for an equal size of land. The rest of the settlers go home.

The Palestinians will have to accept the West Bank and Gaza as Palestine....and give up this nonsense of "liberating all the land". The Israelis will have to give up this nonsense of "Greater Israel" and accept the totally defensable borders of June 4, 1967.
 
a_unique_person said:
"the only reason"? You seriously believe that?
Click to expand...

The Palestinian authority has never taken any action to prevent or stop terror attacks against Israelis, even when it is required from them by negotiated treaties. It means that they're either unable or unwilling to actually abide by the resolutions, which would make them one of the three options listed.

For example the Quassams fired from Gaza after the Israeli withdrawal.. How many arrests has the Palestinian security force made, if any? They sure don't seem to try very hard.
 
Blank said:
The Palestinian authority has never taken any action to prevent or stop terror attacks against Israelis, even when it is required from them by negotiated treaties. It means that they're either unable or unwilling to actually abide by the resolutions, which would make them one of the three options listed.

For example the Quassams fired from Gaza after the Israeli withdrawal.. How many arrests has the Palestinian security force made, if any? They sure don't seem to try very hard.
Click to expand...

No, I asked you is it all their own fault. That is "all".
 
Yes.. Had the Palestinian authority taken atleast some action to abide by the Oslo accords of ceasing the attacks on Israel, they would have their state.
 
a_unique_person said:
They did.
Click to expand...

Sorry, nope.. Saying things and doing things are two different issues. All the PLO did back then was shrug and say they have no control over Hamas, etc. How can you expect a state with it's foreign policy dictated by "renegade" groups to be a viable state.

They should have outlawed and taken every measure possible to disarm the terrorist organizations. Sure it could have lead to a civil war, but thats an entirely different matter... Civil war in some scale is pretty much inevitable for the creation of a viable Palestinian state (Apart from the unlikely event of ALL terrorist organizations voluntarily disarming or ceasing attacks)

a_unique_person said:
Besides that, why did it have to wait for the Oslo accords for anything to happen? Was it all the Palestinians fault prior to that.
Click to expand...

Oslo accords were the first treaties signed by a group performing as the government of the state of Palestine. Before that there was no such such state.
 
Blank said:
Sorry, nope.. Saying things and doing things are two different issues. All the PLO did back then was shrug and say they have no control over Hamas, etc. How can you expect a state with it's foreign policy dictated by "renegade" groups to be a viable state.

They should have outlawed and taken every measure possible to disarm the terrorist organizations. Sure it could have lead to a civil war, but thats an entirely different matter... Civil war in some scale is pretty much inevitable for the creation of a viable Palestinian state (Apart from the unlikely event of ALL terrorist organizations voluntarily disarming or ceasing attacks)
Click to expand...

It wasn't all they did. Attacks rose for some time, then dropped. There was a period of time when there were very few attacks. If the Northern Ireland peace process had waited for all attacks to stop before proceeding, there wouldn't be a peace process.

Oslo accords were the first treaties signed by a group performing as the government of the state of Palestine. Before that there was no such such state.
Click to expand...


Israel still made no move then to act in those years to remedy a situation that was under it's complete control. It just sat there, and waited while the backlash built up. When the backlash happened, it was as if it was a big surprise.
 
a_unique_person said:
They did.
Click to expand...

We've been over this dozens of times through the years and you still perpetuate this lie.

a_unique_person said:
It wasn't all they did. Attacks rose for some time, then dropped.
Click to expand...

That "some time" was a period of four years, and when they "dropped" it was off that four-year high, never to pre-Oslo levels.

By no rational standard can it be claimed that Arafat made any attempt to abide by Oslo, yet you still claim he did.
 
For the record, I am not a "native" Israeli. I accepted citizenship in the 1980's under the "Law of Return" -- My birthplace was the USA. Also, I am not at present physically residing in Tel aviv, although I maintain a residence there and pay Israeli taxes.

Parky76, your contribution here is fascinating. You say --
I don't think either side is willing to go beyond their own pathetic "red lines".

What are those? Can you show us, on a map? You started a thread about the Arab Plan, but that plan is talking about Israel returning to the 1949 Rhodes Armistice Lines, and I would say to you and anyone else who thinks that is reasonable -- "fuggeddaboudit"

Yes, you proposed -- The Muslems get the Temple Mount, the Jews get the Western wall.
Why? How come the jews need to relinquish their holiest site on earth? What about the Tomb of the Patriarchs in Hebron?
 
Last edited:
webfusion said:
Yes, you proposed -- The Muslems get the Temple Mount, the Jews get the Western wall.
Why? How come the jews need to relinquish their holiest site on earth? What about the Tomb of the Patriarchs in Hebron?
Click to expand...


What does it mean to "get" these places? What do people want to do with them? Visit them? Prevent others from visiting them? Is there any reason why everyone who wants to visit them shouldn't be able to?
 
Let me expand on my thoughts so as to clarify. I believe that Jerusalem should be shared. Israel controls the jewish and armenian quarter, Palestine controls the Christian and Muslem quarter. But anyone from both countries can move freely. Israel does not need control of the Temple Mount, for religous reasons. Anyone who knows anything about Rabbinic discussions regarding the Temple Mount knows that since we cannot specify where the Holy of Holies stood, it is forbidden for a Jew to walk on the mount. So if the Rabbis say we can't walk there..what do we need it for? But I think Jews should have the right to walk there.

The Tomb of the Patriarchs is complicated. If i saw evidence that the Jews and Arabs of the city could get along well, Id say let them stay. But all Ive seen is antagonism between both groups and 200,000 Arabs over 300 Jews is quite an unbalanced number.
 
parky76 said:
Let me expand on my thoughts so as to clarify. I believe that Jerusalem should be shared.
Click to expand...

Jerusalem is already shared.


Israel controls the jewish and armenian quarter, Palestine controls the Christian and Muslem quarter.
Click to expand...

Jerusalem consists of much more than the old walled city. What about the gates? The streets outside the gates? Whose police would patrol the hodge-podge of alleys? Have you ever visited Jerusalem?

Israel does not need control of the Temple Mount, for religous reasons.
Click to expand...

The WAQF (Islamic Trust) has control today of the Temple Mount.


The Tomb of the Patriarchs is complicated. If i saw evidence that the Jews and Arabs of the city could get along well, I'd say let them stay.
Click to expand...

You want to evict the Arabs if they don't behave better? Well, that's certainly a unique solution, albeit one that the jews of the West Bank/Hebron have seriously thought about.
See: Effie Eitam


But all I've seen is antagonism between both groups and 200,000 Arabs over 300 Jews is quite an unbalanced number.
Click to expand...

Israel itself has an unbalanced number of jews in proportion to the surrounding arab nations. So what?
 
webfusion said:
For the record, I am not a "native" Israeli. I accepted citizenship in the 1980's under the "Law of Return" -- My birthplace was the USA. Also, I am not at present physically residing in Tel aviv, although I maintain a residence there and pay Israeli taxes.
Click to expand...

Don't you find that ironic though? You have never lived there, but were able to move their under a law of return, but someone who did live there, isn't allowed to return?
 
Forget the rationalizations and history and religion...this is about might makes right.

Israel won the war and therefore makes the decisions. But ofcourse the Arabs have every right to attack Israel and win..and then they will make the decisions.
 
That may be ironic, but it is not unusual. For instance, there was the case of the Rebel Biker who was only allowed to return to Australia yesterday.

It also isn't a very apt comparison as many (most?) of today's Palestinians have never lived actually lived there. Australians, Americans and Canadians don't have an automatic right of return to the UK even if our ancestors lived in the UK; I believe our parents have to have been British citizens.
 
Ironic? No. All nations have laws regulating and defining who may enter, as immigrants. It's normal.

A-U-P : I posed a question to you in another thread, and it seems appropriate to repeat it here ----- can you point to any single refugee palestinian (by name) who has come out publicly and said that he/she wants to return to Israel and become an Israeli citizen?
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2491999&postcount=14

I'm not exactly sure why you are avoiding this simple challenge.
 
Last edited:
parky76 said:
Forget the rationalizations and history and religion...this is about might makes right.
Click to expand...

It is impossible to dismiss the religious undertones and history so easily and glibly, parky.

And to be perfectly honest, this is about right makes right.
Israel is not perfect, but it sure beats most of the neighborhood in virtually every measure of "right"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom