Wall a huge failure

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
No one had their land taken from them? You are entering the twilight zone here.

Land for the settlements is either rented government land (temporarily administered but not annexed by Israel, pending a peace treaty) or is purchased, not seized, from willing private owners.

Originally posted by a_unique_person
And you ignore the actual stress of having a military occupation and constant state of war. People have lived their whole lives like this.

I'm not ignoring it at all. The stress of fighting an Intifada must be tremendous. One of your own sources spoke about the huge numbers of children having post traumatic stress disorder and said the Gaza Strip had the highest proportion of bed-wetters in the world. Isn't it time to admit its failure, go back to Camp David and negotiate an end to it?

 

[a_unique_person]

Land for the settlements is either rented government land (temporarily administered but not annexed by Israel, pending a peace treaty) or is purchased, not seized, from willing private owners.

Yep, you have definitely entered the twilight zone.

I'm not ignoring it at all. The stress of fighting an Intifada must be tremendous. One of your own sources spoke about the huge numbers of children having post traumatic stress disorder and said the Gaza Strip had the highest proportion of bed-wetters in the world. Isn't it time to admit its failure, go back to Camp David and negotiate an end to it?

I think that the judgement of the Palestinians is that any compromise will doom their children to a future that is just as untenable as the present. Only IMHO as an observer, but Oslo clearly demonstrated that the settlemet process would never stop, that the main movers and shakers, such as Sharon, have nothing but contempt for them.

Oslo was in many ways, despite the obvious and, could we say, expected, failures, a success. There were still deaths (on both sides), but Northern Ireland is a good indicator that after such bitterness between geographically close but divided neighbours, these would be inevitable. Arafat was a total failure as a governor of his people, but their wealth was still growing, due to their jobs in Israel.

Economic interdependence meant that Israel and Palestine were growing closer to each other, a situation that was untenable to extremists on both sides. Hence Sharons trip to the Temple Mount to stir the possum, the growing number of settlements, the ongoing deaths (on both sides, I may point out).

 

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Yep, you have definitely entered the twilight zone.

Sorry to burst your bubble, buddy, but it's true. What, did you think that every square inch of land is owned by someone? That's not true in the States or Australia, why should it be there? Or did you think the buying and selling of land stopped with the six days war?

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Economic interdependence meant that Israel and Palestine were growing closer to each other, a situation that was untenable to extremists on both sides. Hence Sharons trip to the Temple Mount to stir the possum, the growing number of settlements, the ongoing deaths (on both sides, I may point out).

So you're saying Sharon visited the Temple Mount because he was afraid economic interdependence would lead to peace?

Evidence?

 

[The Fool]

Land for the settlements is either rented government land (temporarily administered but not annexed by Israel, pending a peace treaty) or is purchased, not seized, from willing private owners.

careful Mycroft, you say I lie about your denial that land is stolen....Looks like you are doing what I lie about...

Temporarily administered eh? Would you be happy to allow me to temporarily administer your house Mycroft? I'd allow you to freely use 97% of it, you would have to be completely unreasonable to complain about that...I'll only control a 2 inch wide band across the toilet door, you will have to apply in writing to cross that bit. Plus the tiny little insignificant light switches, I'll need to search you before you use those...... But that still leaves 99% of the walls in your control, can't say I'm not being reasonable..


Anyway, what do you care anyway....get back to surfing for your daily "quote a wacky muslim saying something wacky" thread.

 

[zenith-nadir]

Only IMHO as an observer, but Oslo clearly demonstrated that the settlemet process would never stop, that the main movers and shakers, such as Sharon, have nothing but contempt for them.

a_u_p continually uses this lie. Why he lies I dunno. But he lies never the less.

• Sharon had nothing to do with Oslo as he was elected 8 years after the Oslo accords were signed.
• The Oslo accords said nothing about a freeze on settlements

Anyone can Google the Oslo Accords, and if a_u_p had ever done so instead of relying on anti-zionist internet propoganda he would see in plain english, which hapens to be the first language in Australia, that;

Article IV: It is understood that: 1. Jurisdiction of the Council will cover West Bank and Gaza Strip territory, except for issues that will be negotiated in the permanent status negotiations: Jerusalem, settlements, military locations and Israelis.

Annex II:
It is understood that, subsequent to the Israeli withdrawal, Israel will continue to be responsible for external security, and for internal security and public order of settlements and Israelis. Israeli military forces and civilians may continue to use roads freely within the Gaza Strip and the Jericho area.

There is proof that a_u_p is blowing smoke out of his butt and really is not informed.

Hence Sharons trip to the Temple Mount to stir the possum, the growing number of settlements, the ongoing deaths (on both sides, I may point out).

So Sharon "stirred the possum" because he walked on the Temple Mount. But I'm not racist... ...nor is it racist in any way to start a war - the second intifada - because a jew walked on the Temple Mount...and Sharon's not only a jew, he is more Palestinian that Arafat is. Arafat is Egyptian...Sharon was born in Kfar Malal, Palestine.

How about the Palestinians "stirred the possum" by using Sharon's walk on the Temple Mount as an excuse to launch a war.

 

[a_unique_person]

Sorry to burst your bubble, buddy, but it's true. What, did you think that every square inch of land is owned by someone? That's not true in the States or Australia, why should it be there? Or did you think the buying and selling of land stopped with the six days war?

There are two issues. You are ignoring the initial loss of land that was owned by Palestinians. This 'right of return', that is, Palestinians who want to go back and get their land, that they had title for, is always rejected out of hand by Israel, as is compensation for the loss of land.

The land in the West Bank is not Israels to hand out, for a start. Israel only holds it by military force.

I have already included a link to how the theft works. Palestinians are intimidated, threatened, and beaten or killed. They retreat from what is an untenable situation, and then there is empty land that no one owns that can now be occupied. Theft by any other name.

So you're saying Sharon visited the Temple Mount because he was afraid economic interdependence would lead to peace?

Evidence?

I think the extremists in Israel were exactly worried about that. Israel needed manpower, Palestinians needed work. You can't have that mix of Israel and Palestinians.

http://www.medea.be/?page=2&lang=en&doc=284

 

[a_unique_person]

http://www.lrcj.org/

 

[zenith-nadir]

There are two issues. You are ignoring the initial loss of land that was owned by Palestinians.

He is ignoring? Plaeeeeeze.

The Palestinians lost land when they rejected UN Resolution 181 and the Arab armies of Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Lebanon invaded and lost in 1948. And the Palestinians also lost more land in the 1967 war when the Arab armies of Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Iraq lost a war again.

But the losers in war should have gained territory demands a_u_p!....why?... because the winner happened to be Israel....

 

[a_unique_person]

He is ignoring? Plaeeeeeze.

The Palestinians lost land when they rejected UN Resolution 181 and the Arab armies of Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Lebanon invaded and lost in 1948. And the Palestinians also lost more land in the 1967 war when the Arab armies of Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Iraq lost a war again. But the losers in the wars should have won territory as a reward demands a_u_p!....simply because the winner was Israel....

And all those people who die from suicide bombs, they are losers too, I take it?

As for the UN resolution you so fondly keep referring to, Israel rejected it too, as Israel's initial borders had nothing to do with what was proposed.

 

[zenith-nadir]

And all those people who die from suicide bombs, they are losers too, I take it?

Nope... the people who send women and children to suicide bomb are the losers. Morally and socially.

As for the UN resolution you so fondly keep referring to, Israel rejected it too, as Israel's initial borders had nothing to do with what was proposed.

This is what kills me The UN gave the Palestinians in 1948 a choice. Instead of negotiation or diplomacy the Arabs chose war and the Arab armies of Egypt, Syria, Transjordan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Lebanon invaded on May 15th 1948. But they went even one further when the leader of the Palestinians, Haj Amin al-Husseini, conspired with the Third Reich and Hitler to wipe out the jews in Palestine.

And you whitewash all over that well-documented history and jump right into your mantra...."blame Israel". Face it a_u_p the Palestinians and Arabs chose war and LOST. Deal with it. Maybe you'll gain some insight that you are in total denial of.... that is, the Arabs made their bed and now refuse to sleep in it.

 

[a_unique_person]

Nope... the people who send women and children to suicide bomb are the losers. Morally and socially.

This is what kills me The UN gave the Palestinians in 1948 a choice. Instead of negotiation or diplomacy the Arabs chose war and the Arab armies of Egypt, Syria, Transjordan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Lebanon invaded on May 15th 1948. But they went even one further when the leader of the Palestinians, Haj Amin al-Husseini, conspired with the Third Reich and Hitler to wipe out the jews in Palestine.

Did they invent time travel. I think Hitler was dead by '48. I could be wrong of course.

And you whitewash all over that well-documented history and jump right into your mantra...."blame Israel". Face it a_u_p the Palestinians and Arabs chose war and LOST. Deal with it. Maybe you'll gain some insight that you are in total denial of.... that is, the Arabs made their bed and now refuse to sleep in it.

If it is might that makes right, then why all the whinging about the Holocaust then.

 

[zenith-nadir]

Did they invent time travel. I think Hitler was dead by '48. I could be wrong of course. If it is might that makes right, then why all the whinging about the Holocaust then.

See your entire argument breaks down into flippant remarks because the truth is not on your side. Haj Amin al-Husseini did conspire with the Third Reich and Hitler to wipe out the jews in Palestine and the Arabs did lose a war they started in 1948. If the truth was on your side you could debate your point using factual evidence. Since the only evidence is in your mind and third party quotes and propoganda from anti-zionist websites you need to resort to flippancy when cornered.

Hitler didn't get to keep Europe when he lost, the Taliban didn't get to keep Afghanistan when they lost and Saddam didn't get to keep Kuwait when he lost. And sorry, the Arabs didn't get to keep Palestine, the West Bank or Gaza when they lost not one war in 1948, but one in 1956, one in 1967 and one in 1973....

 

[a_unique_person]

See your entire argument breaks down into flippant remarks because the truth is not on your side. Haj Amin al-Husseini did conspire with the Third Reich and Hitler to wipe out the jews in Palestine and the Arabs did lose a war they started in 1948. If the truth was on your side you could debate your point using factual evidence. Since the only evidence is in your mind and third party quotes and propoganda from anti-zionist websites you need to resort to flippancy when cornered.

Perhaps I was confused by your narrative.

Hitler didn't get to keep Europe when he lost, the Taliban didn't get to keep Afghanistan when they lost and Saddam didn't get to keep Kuwait when he lost. And sorry, the Arabs didn't get to keep Palestine, the West Bank or Gaza when they lost not one war in 1948, but one in 1956, one in 1967 and one in 1973....

His military might wasn't enough to win the war, but it was enough to kill millions of Jews.

Using your logic, the results were, allies, first, germans, second, jews, last.

 

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
There are two issues. You are ignoring the initial loss of land that was owned by Palestinians. This 'right of return', that is, Palestinians who want to go back and get their land, that they had title for, is always rejected out of hand by Israel, as is compensation for the loss of land.

I’m not ignoring it, it wasn’t the topic. The topic was settlements, not refugees from the war of Independence. Why is it that you can’t stay on topic?

For the record, I support compensation for the heirs of those who lost property in the war of independence. Such compensation should be negotiated in a climate of peace.

Originally posted by a_unique_person
The land in the West Bank is not Israels to hand out, for a start. Israel only holds it by military force.

Your opinion.

Israel has negotiated peace between Egypt and Jordan, who no longer claim those territories. Designating it as "Palestinian land" presumes both that a final peace settlement will be a two state solution with all lands outside the green line as part of the Palestinian state and that there will be no Jews in that new state. So far, all attempts to negotiate an independent Palestinian state have failed.

Possible alternatives include:

1) The territories exist as semi-autonomous provinces under Israeli adminstration.

2) A one-state solution where the rights of everyone are respected.

If a negotiated two-state solution requires Israeli homeowners in the territories to move, then they can move, leaving developed land for the Palestinian-Arabs to take over. Or perhaps these settlers may become citizens in the newly formed Palestinian state.

Originally posted by a_unique_person
I have already included a link to how the theft works. Palestinians are intimidated, threatened, and beaten or killed. They retreat from what is an untenable situation, and then there is empty land that no one owns that can now be occupied. Theft by any other name.

You posted one very questionable source reportedly showing one group of settlers and one group of Palestinian-Arabs. If as it was described, I certainly believe the right thing to do is to provide protection for the innocent and to prosecute the guilty, but it’s a logical fallacy to spotlight one event and portray it as common among all settlements. Just as not all Palestinian-Arabs are homicidal terrorists, not all settlers are thugs.

Originally posted by a_unique_person
I think the extremists in Israel were exactly worried about that. Israel needed manpower, Palestinians needed work. You can't have that mix of Israel and Palestinians.

http://www.medea.be/?page=2&lang=en&doc=284

Your link only shows that Palestinian-Arabs suffer from unemployment, it does nothing to show that Sharon’s visit to Temple Mount was some machevelian plot to sabotage economic interdependence.

 

[Mycroft]

Temporarily administered eh? Would you be happy to allow me to temporarily administer your house Mycroft? I'd allow you to freely use 97% of it, you would have to be completely unreasonable to complain about that...I'll only control a 2 inch wide band across the toilet door,

I could try to guess how you think your analogy fits, but I think it's best you describe it.

If I built a housing developement ten miles from your neighborhood, how is that like controlling the carpet across your bathroom door?

 

[a_unique_person]

I could try to guess how you think your analogy fits, but I think it's best you describe it.

If I built a housing developement ten miles from your neighborhood, how is that like controlling the carpet across your bathroom door?

One of the principles that was developed as a means to trying to get a better world was that of sovereignty. Not a panacea, not a total solution, but a step towards a legal framework for a world. By ignoring such a concept of Palestinians, you get the situation that exists now. The road to peace, IMHO, starts by recognising that up front. Build a wall, if there has to be one, between two sovereign nations. But start with that. You can't just hand out a piecemeal collection of land as a solution. That was what Israel rejected right from the start, which was what the UN had proposed.

 

[davefoc]

Mycroft,
Do I understand your view?

i.e. It is morally acceptable for the Israelis to build settlements on any piece of land throughout Palestine as long as that piece of land is not currently occupied by a non Israeli citizen.

If you respond to this at all please state yes or no to my question and if the answer was no could you state what your view actually is with regard to this?

 

[Atlas]

One of the principles that was developed as a means to trying to get a better world was that of sovereignty. Not a panacea, not a total solution, but a step towards a legal framework for a world. By ignoring such a concept of Palestinians, you get the situation that exists now. The road to peace, IMHO, starts by recognising that up front. Build a wall, if there has to be one, between two sovereign nations. But start with that. You can't just hand out a piecemeal collection of land as a solution. That was what Israel rejected right from the start, which was what the UN had proposed.

Israel has tried to negotiate boundaries but they have an unwilling partner in Arafat. Your first idea about sovreignty could be extended to war, despotism, famine... it's always been about a "better" world. Dictators and terrorists have a different subjective assessment of "better" than most of the rest of us.

You and I are in agreement that the wall may be necessary. After all, nothing so far has stopped the killing. But it is such an assault on our sensibilities that it cannot last. Hopefully the Palestinians will realize that they can beat their head against that wall or negotiate in good faith. It's doubtful now they will ever get a deal like what they rejected but whatever deal they make will benefit the lives of the Palestinian people.

All they want is what everyone wants, a chance to raise their children in a better world. They will never get that chance while Arafat lives.

 

[varwoche]

Hitler didn't get to keep Europe when he lost, the Taliban didn't get to keep Afghanistan when they lost and Saddam didn't get to keep Kuwait when he lost. And sorry, the Arabs didn't get to keep Palestine, the West Bank or Gaza when they lost not one war in 1948, but one in 1956, one in 1967 and one in 1973....

True. This is an argument that falls in favor of apartheid in greater Israel. Unfortunately, being "right", or partially so, isn't always what it's cracked up to be.

 

[Atlas]

Mycroft,
Do I understand your view?

i.e. It is morally acceptable for the Israelis to build settlements on any piece of land throughout Palestine as long as that piece of land is not currently occupied by a non Israeli citizen.

It's not morally acceptable to displace people who live on the Earth. Banks do it all the time calling it foreclosure. Allah does it naturally though the application of death.

Killing is not morally acceptable but sometimes it's the better thing to do.

The settlements are in "disputed" territories. Those territories house a people that are bent on destroying Israel. Their schools teach anti-Israeli lessons. The settlements provided an early warning mechanism in the heart of the "enemy". With the wall some of that won't be necessary.

I'm with Mycroft that financial reparations should be negotiated for the refugees and West Bank settlements. But I'm with AUP that until Palestine begins to act with sovreignty nothing can move forward. But Arafat wants to control things like Saddam did. He's not a leader anyone can trust. Nothing good will come while he lives. Both sides are jockeying for position in the negotiations that must come. Arafat will be remembered for removing the hope of the Palestinian people.