Israel opens dam to flood Palestinians out of their homes...

TriumphantAngel

yosi wrote:

I'm not sure that volunteering to be a human shield in the middle of a war zone (which I gather he did twice, in Iraq and then in Gaza) is the safest or most intelligent (at least in my opinion) way of advancing one's values, but it is certainly brave. .

if, in this instance, the IDF didn't shoot at unarmed, innocent people, including young children, people wouldn't feel that they needed to resort to such drastic measures. if the IDF sniper was not shooting at the children, chances are, Tom would still be alive.

yosi wrote:

I'm not sure if this has been mentioned but the soldier responsible for the shot that killed Mr. Hurndall was convicted of manslaughter along with a number of other crimes by an Israeli court, and is serving, I believe, an 11-year prison sentence in Israel.

for such a long time, Toms family requested to meet with the IDF to talk about what happened. all requests were denied. for 2 months, Tom lay in a coma in an Israeli hospital. the day that Toms parents had organized to fly Tom home, the IDF finally agreed to the numerous requests to meet with them. so cruel. as if they were not suffering enough. they waited until the day they knew he was being taken home to agree to meet with them and they then had to go through all the added trauma of changing all of their plans to get him home. i'm guessing the IDF were hoping they would just go home and forget about it and not change plans. they guessed wrong.

at the time of the meeting, the Israeli army denied any wrong doing and lied about the circumstances surrounding his death, but Tom's family fought tirelessly for justice.

Byrnzie

yosi wrote:

First, I can't believe this thread is still going.

Second, I see that Byrnzie still hasn't actually addressed the issue raised, which is how a report based entirely on the testimony of Palestinians, without any testimony taken from Israelis, can possibly be thought to be fair and unbiased? Even if Goldstone himself didn't bring a bias to his work (an issue which I don't think any of us could possibly address intelligently) the Palestinians who gave their testimony certainly did, and given that the report reflects only their testimony it is virtually by definition biased. This is not to say that the report could not also be true in part or in whole, only that it cannot be assumed to be so since the report is inherantly flawed, and therefore untrustworthy as an objective source. The report is analogous to a trial where only the prosecution is given a chance to present evidence. Clearly, no trial in which the defense was not given an opportunity to make its case would be considered a "fair" trial, even if every word spoken by the prosecution were entirely true, which it is not at all clear is even the case here.

I addressed the issue above. Feel free to read it.
The fact that the Israeli's declined to co=operate in any investigation is not evidence of their innocence. Quite the contrary.
The facts of what happened in Gaza were corroborated by about 5 or 6 independent investigations carried out by such organizations as the U.N, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International. All of their independent findings support each other.
Also, how do you explain that Hamas was also investigated by the U.N Goldstone team and accused of war crimes? How does that tally with your effort to portray the Goldstone report as biased?

Byrnzie

Mahmoud Darwish

Under Siege


Here on the slopes of hills, facing the dusk and the cannon of time
Close to the gardens of broken shadows,
We do what prisoners do,
And what the jobless do:
We cultivate hope.

***
A country preparing for dawn. We grow less intelligent
For we closely watch the hour of victory:
No night in our night lit up by the shelling
Our enemies are watchful and light the light for us
In the darkness of cellars.

***
Here there is no "I".
Here Adam remembers the dust of his clay.

***
On the verge of death, he says:
I have no trace left to lose:
Free I am so close to my liberty. My future lies in my own hand.
Soon I shall penetrate my life,
I shall be born free and parentless,
And as my name I shall choose azure letters...

***
You who stand in the doorway, come in,
Drink Arabic coffee with us
And you will sense that you are men like us
You who stand in the doorways of houses
Come out of our morningtimes,
We shall feel reassured to be
Men like you!

***
When the planes disappear, the white, white doves
Fly off and wash the cheeks of heaven
With unbound wings taking radiance back again, taking possession
Of the ether and of play. Higher, higher still, the white, white doves
Fly off. Ah, if only the sky
Were real [a man passing between two bombs said to me].

***
Cypresses behind the soldiers, minarets protecting
The sky from collapse. Behind the hedge of steel
Soldiers piss—under the watchful eye of a tank—
And the autumnal day ends its golden wandering in
A street as wide as a church after Sunday mass...

***
[To a killer] If you had contemplated the victim’s face
And thought it through, you would have remembered your mother in the
Gas chamber, you would have been freed from the reason for the rifle
And you would have changed your mind: this is not the way
to find one’s identity again.

***
The siege is a waiting period
Waiting on the tilted ladder in the middle of the storm.

***
Alone, we are alone as far down as the sediment
Were it not for the visits of the rainbows.

***
We have brothers behind this expanse.
Excellent brothers. They love us. They watch us and weep.
Then, in secret, they tell each other:
"Ah! if this siege had been declared..." They do not finish their sentence:
"Don’t abandon us, don’t leave us."

***
Our losses: between two and eight martyrs each day.
And ten wounded.
And twenty homes.
And fifty olive trees...
Added to this the structural flaw that
Will arrive at the poem, the play, and the unfinished canvas.

***
A woman told the cloud: cover my beloved
For my clothing is drenched with his blood.

***
If you are not rain, my love
Be tree
Sated with fertility, be tree
If you are not tree, my love
Be stone
Saturated with humidity, be stone
If you are not stone, my love
Be moon
In the dream of the beloved woman, be moon
[So spoke a woman
to her son at his funeral]

***
Oh watchmen! Are you not weary
Of lying in wait for the light in our salt
And of the incandescence of the rose in our wound
Are you not weary, oh watchmen?

***

A little of this absolute and blue infinity
Would be enough
To lighten the burden of these times
And to cleanse the mire of this place.

***
It is up to the soul to come down from its mount
And on its silken feet walk
By my side, hand in hand, like two longtime
Friends who share the ancient bread
And the antique glass of wine
May we walk this road together
And then our days will take different directions:
I, beyond nature, which in turn
Will choose to squat on a high-up rock.

***
On my rubble the shadow grows green,
And the wolf is dozing on the skin of my goat
He dreams as I do, as the angel does
That life is here...not over there.

***
In the state of siege, time becomes space
Transfixed in its eternity
In the state of siege, space becomes time
That has missed its yesterday and its tomorrow.

***
The martyr encircles me every time I live a new day
And questions me: Where were you? Take every word
You have given me back to the dictionaries
And relieve the sleepers from the echo’s buzz.

***
The martyr enlightens me: beyond the expanse
I did not look
For the virgins of immortality for I love life
On earth, amid fig trees and pines,
But I cannot reach it, and then, too, I took aim at it
With my last possession: the blood in the body of azure.

***
The martyr warned me: Do not believe their ululations
Believe my father when, weeping, he looks at my photograph
How did we trade roles, my son, how did you precede me.
I first, I the first one!

***
The martyr encircles me: my place and my crude furniture are all that I have changed.
I put a gazelle on my bed,
And a crescent of moon on my finger
To appease my sorrow.

***
The siege will last in order to convince us we must choose an enslavement that does no harm, in fullest liberty!

***
Resisting means assuring oneself of the heart’s health,
The health of the testicles and of your tenacious disease:
The disease of hope.

***
And in what remains of the dawn, I walk toward my exterior
And in what remains of the night, I hear the sound of footsteps inside me.

***
Greetings to the one who shares with me an attention to
The drunkenness of light, the light of the butterfly, in the
Blackness of this tunnel!

***
Greetings to the one who shares my glass with me
In the denseness of a night outflanking the two spaces:
Greetings to my apparition.

***
My friends are always preparing a farewell feast for me,
A soothing grave in the shade of oak trees
A marble epitaph of time
And always I anticipate them at the funeral:
Who then has died...who?

***
Writing is a puppy biting nothingness
Writing wounds without a trace of blood.

***
Our cups of coffee. Birds green trees
In the blue shade, the sun gambols from one wall
To another like a gazelle
The water in the clouds has the unlimited shape of what is left to us
Of the sky. And other things of suspended memories
Reveal that this morning is powerful and splendid,
And that we are the guests of eternity.


Translated by Marjolijn De Jager

Byrnzie

Every year in November the U.N General Assembly votes on a resolution entitled 'Peaceful settlement of the question of Palestine' and the terms of the resolution are the following:

1. A two-state settlement on the June 1967 border. Israel has to fully withdraw from the territories occupied in June 1967. Israel has to vacate the whole of the West Bank, the whole of East Jerusalem, and the whole of Gaza, because it conquered them during the 1967 war, and the basic principle of international law grounded in article 2 of the U.N charter is that it's inadmissible to acquire territory by war.
2. A resolution of the Palestinian refugee question in accordance with the basic principle of the right of return and compensation.

1997 - 155-2 [U.S & Israel]
2002 - 160-4 [U.S, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia]
2004 - 161-7 [U.S, Israel, Grenada, Micronesia, Australia, Palau, Marshall Islands
2007 - 161-7 [U.S, Israel, Australia, Micronesia, Palau, Nauru, Marshall Islands]


See if you can spot who the rejectionists of peace are.

catefrances

Byrnzie wrote:

Every year in November the U.N General Assembly votes on a resolution entitled 'Peaceful settlement of the question of Palestine' and the terms of the resolution are the following:

1. A two-state settlement on the June 1967 border. Israel has to fully withdraw from the territories occupied in June 1967. Israel has to vacate the whole of the West Bank, the whole of East Jerusalem, and the whole of Gaza, because it conquered them during the 1967 war, and the basic principle of international law grounded in article 2 of the U.N charter is that it's inadmissible to acquire territory by war.
2. A resolution of the Palestinian refugee question in accordance with the basic principle of the right of return and compensation.

1997 - 155-2 [U.S & Israel]
2002 - 160-4 [U.S, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia]
2004 - 161-7 [U.S, Israel, Grenada, Micronesia, Australia, Palau, Marshall Islands
2007 - 161-7 [U.S, Israel, Australia, Micronesia, Palau, Nauru, Marshall Islands]


See if you can spot who the rejectionists of peace are.

i feel so shamefull of my government.

Byrnzie

catefrances wrote:

Byrnzie wrote:

Every year in November the U.N General Assembly votes on a resolution entitled 'Peaceful settlement of the question of Palestine' and the terms of the resolution are the following:

1. A two-state settlement on the June 1967 border. Israel has to fully withdraw from the territories occupied in June 1967. Israel has to vacate the whole of the West Bank, the whole of East Jerusalem, and the whole of Gaza, because it conquered them during the 1967 war, and the basic principle of international law grounded in article 2 of the U.N charter is that it's inadmissible to acquire territory by war.
2. A resolution of the Palestinian refugee question in accordance with the basic principle of the right of return and compensation.

1997 - 155-2 [U.S & Israel]
2002 - 160-4 [U.S, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia]
2004 - 161-7 [U.S, Israel, Grenada, Micronesia, Australia, Palau, Marshall Islands
2007 - 161-7 [U.S, Israel, Australia, Micronesia, Palau, Nauru, Marshall Islands]


See if you can spot who the rejectionists of peace are.

i feel so shamefull of my government.

I'm sorry, but your response lacks any nuance whatsoever. If you were to remove yourself from your initial emotional response to these so-called 'facts' I posted above then you would possibly be able to grasp - with further consideration, all of the implications inherent in an objective, unemotional, and rational appreciation of the complexities and nuance which form a fundamental element of this complex issue. One can not possibly hope to arrive at any satisfactory conclusion with regard to the Israel Palestine issue if one merely resorts to a lazy re-hashing of so-called 'facts'. One has to have spent some time in Israel, drunk tea with his neighbours and hobnobbed with Jewish professors in America, in order to attain anything even remotely resembling a concise, reasonable, and realistic view of the almost impossible complications that are the fundamental basis of this subject.
Right Yosi? :?

catefrances

Byrnzie wrote:

catefrances wrote:

Byrnzie wrote:

Every year in November the U.N General Assembly votes on a resolution entitled 'Peaceful settlement of the question of Palestine' and the terms of the resolution are the following:

1. A two-state settlement on the June 1967 border. Israel has to fully withdraw from the territories occupied in June 1967. Israel has to vacate the whole of the West Bank, the whole of East Jerusalem, and the whole of Gaza, because it conquered them during the 1967 war, and the basic principle of international law grounded in article 2 of the U.N charter is that it's inadmissible to acquire territory by war.
2. A resolution of the Palestinian refugee question in accordance with the basic principle of the right of return and compensation.

1997 - 155-2 [U.S & Israel]
2002 - 160-4 [U.S, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia]
2004 - 161-7 [U.S, Israel, Grenada, Micronesia, Australia, Palau, Marshall Islands
2007 - 161-7 [U.S, Israel, Australia, Micronesia, Palau, Nauru, Marshall Islands]


See if you can spot who the rejectionists of peace are.

i feel so shamefull of my government.

I'm sorry, but your response lacks any nuance whatsoever. If you were to remove yourself from your initial emotional response to these so-called 'facts' I posted above then you would possibly be able to grasp - with further consideration, all of the implications inherent in an objective, unemotional, and rational appreciation of the complexities and nuance which form a fundamental element of this complex issue. One can not possibly hope to arrive at any satisfactory conclusion with regard to the Israel Palestine issue if one merely resorts to a lazy re-hashing of so-called 'facts'. One has to have spent some time in Israel, drunk tea with his neighbours and hobnobbed with Jewish professors in America, in order to attain anything even remotely resembling a concise, reasonable, and realistic view of the almost impossible complications involved in approaching this subject.
Right Yosi? :?

well that all may be true mr i-love-the-sex-pistols however it doesnt make me any less ashamed of my government. :wave:

and as i fail to see any nuance or complexities in oppression, i dont feel the need to express myself in kind.

yosi

Byrnzie wrote:

Every year in November the U.N General Assembly votes on a resolution entitled 'Peaceful settlement of the question of Palestine' and the terms of the resolution are the following:

1. A two-state settlement on the June 1967 border. Israel has to fully withdraw from the territories occupied in June 1967. Israel has to vacate the whole of the West Bank, the whole of East Jerusalem, and the whole of Gaza, because it conquered them during the 1967 war, and the basic principle of international law grounded in article 2 of the U.N charter is that it's inadmissible to acquire territory by war.
2. A resolution of the Palestinian refugee question in accordance with the basic principle of the right of return and compensation.

1997 - 155-2 [U.S & Israel]
2002 - 160-4 [U.S, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia]
2004 - 161-7 [U.S, Israel, Grenada, Micronesia, Australia, Palau, Marshall Islands
2007 - 161-7 [U.S, Israel, Australia, Micronesia, Palau, Nauru, Marshall Islands]


See if you can spot who the rejectionists of peace are.

Could you provide the link for this information? I ask because this information is pretty vague. What is "in accordance with the basic principle of the right of return and compensation" meant to imply in terms of practical outcomes?

Pepe Silvia

TriumphantAngel wrote:

he's a hero alright. unfortunately a dead one :(

try to watch the movie if you get a chance. it goes for about 90 minutes.

same with james miller, sad, it seems the israeli government has so little respect for human life. the officer that shot and killed james miller after waving a white flag, wearing a blue helmet and vest that said TV and shouting "hello, we are british journalists" ended up getting a promotion....

they imprison children for throwing rocks at a fucking tank for christ's sake!

Pepe Silvia

yosi wrote:

First, I can't believe this thread is still going.

Second, I see that Byrnzie still hasn't actually addressed the issue raised, which is how a report based entirely on the testimony of Palestinians, without any testimony taken from Israelis, can possibly be thought to be fair and unbiased? Even if Goldstone himself didn't bring a bias to his work (an issue which I don't think any of us could possibly address intelligently) the Palestinians who gave their testimony certainly did, and given that the report reflects only their testimony it is virtually by definition biased. This is not to say that the report could not also be true in part or in whole, only that it cannot be assumed to be so since the report is inherantly flawed, and therefore untrustworthy as an objective source. The report is analogous to a trial where only the prosecution is given a chance to present evidence. Clearly, no trial in which the defense was not given an opportunity to make its case would be considered a "fair" trial, even if every word spoken by the prosecution were entirely true, which it is not at all clear is even the case here.

if there wasn't any israeli testimony it was because they refused.

i still don't see how a report saying BOTH sides committed war crimes and BOTH sides should be tried for them is biased and one sided....

Pepe Silvia

yosi wrote:

It's an interesting and tragic story. If the information about the children is correct then he would certainly seem to have been a courageous individual. I'm not sure that volunteering to be a human shield in the middle of a war zone (which I gather he did twice, in Iraq and then in Gaza) is the safest or most intelligent (at least in my opinion) way of advancing one's values, but it is certainly brave. I'm not sure if this has been mentioned but the soldier responsible for the shot that killed Mr. Hurndall was convicted of manslaughter along with a number of other crimes by an Israeli court, and is serving, I believe, an 11-year prison sentence in Israel. I also found the identity of the soldier responsible for the shooting to be of interest. The soldier, Idier Wahid Taysir Hayb, is a Bedouin, which is interesting (to me at least) insofar as it complicates the over-simplification of the conflict as being exclusively about "European" Israelis/Jews vs Arabs.

he was found guilty of manslaughter and obstruction of justice, not really 'a number of other chargers'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taysir_Hayb
Initially Hayb claimed he had shot at a man in military fatigues who was firing at soldiers. However photographic evidence clearly showed Hurndall was wearing a bright orange jacket denoting he was a foreigner. Hayb was an award-winning marksman and his rifle had a telescopic sight. He claimed to have aimed four inches from Hurndall's head, 'but he moved'. Hayb said a policy of shooting at unarmed civilians existed at the time.[1][2][3][5]

btw, those 4 sources are the bbc, guardian and observer

also, he went to jail for 8 years

Pepe Silvia

TriumphantAngel wrote:

at the time of the meeting, the Israeli army denied any wrong doing and lied about the circumstances surrounding his death, but Tom's family fought tirelessly for justice.

yeah, that seems to be standard protocol with them

Pepe Silvia

yosi wrote:

First, I can't believe this thread is still going.

Second, I see that Byrnzie still hasn't actually addressed the issue raised, which is how a report based entirely on the testimony of Palestinians, without any testimony taken from Israelis, can possibly be thought to be fair and unbiased? Even if Goldstone himself didn't bring a bias to his work (an issue which I don't think any of us could possibly address intelligently) the Palestinians who gave their testimony certainly did, and given that the report reflects only their testimony it is virtually by definition biased. This is not to say that the report could not also be true in part or in whole, only that it cannot be assumed to be so since the report is inherantly flawed, and therefore untrustworthy as an objective source. The report is analogous to a trial where only the prosecution is given a chance to present evidence. Clearly, no trial in which the defense was not given an opportunity to make its case would be considered a "fair" trial, even if every word spoken by the prosecution were entirely true, which it is not at all clear is even the case here.

sorry but this is just pure bullshit. in your example it WOULD be fair because the defendant has waived his right to a defense

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldstone_ ... estigation

Israel refused to cooperate with the investigation, citing alleged anti-Israel bias in the UNHRC and the mission's one-sided founding resolution. Israel also stated that the mission would be unable to question Palestinian militants who fired rockets at Israel.[15][32][47] The team was deprived of access to military sources, and denied Gaza Strip entrance via Israel.[47]


Israel WAS given an opportunity to make its case but they declined, that is on them

yosi

That's beside the point. Regardless of the reasons why, the report reflects only one side's version of events. This is an inherant flaw. It means that the report does not deal with all the evidence. Feel free to criticize Israel for not wanting to cooperate with the UN (though given the UN's history on Israel I can't say that I blame them). The fact remains that the report is flawed. It would be like issuing a report on the causes of the First World War, but basing the findings only on German sources because the French wouldn't cooperate, or only on French sources because the Germans wouldn't cooperate, etc. In every case the result would still be an incomplete picture.

Pepe Silvia

yosi wrote:

That's beside the point. Regardless of the reasons why, the report reflects only one side's version of events. This is an inherant flaw. It means that the report does not deal with all the evidence. Feel free to criticize Israel for not wanting to cooperate with the UN (though given the UN's history on Israel I can't say that I blame them). The fact remains that the report is flawed. It would be like issuing a report on the causes of the First World War, but basing the findings only on German sources because the French wouldn't cooperate, or only on French sources because the Germans wouldn't cooperate, etc. In every case the result would still be an incomplete picture.

then what should happen? israel is against cooperating, they are against any sort of trial. they want to do simply nothing. just like when they admit 2 officers ordered white phosphorus rounds to bomb a UN building with over 700 refugees and destroying over a million dollars worth of aid and what did israel do about it? a fuckin post it note in their files :roll:

that's like me refusing to cooperate with a police investigation or at my grand jury hearing and then cry that they never got my side of the story when i had every chance to give it.

it's flawed because of who? who's actions created that flaw?

maybe they should man up and just go to the ICC and give their side. the reason they don't want to give their side is because they know they are guilty.

and you talk about the un's history on israel....how many sanctions or embargo's has the un placed on israel? 0

yosi

I get it. You believe that everything is Israel's fault. I'm not even going to try to convince you otherwise because I know it's pointless. And I won't offer answers to your questions. You wouldn't accept any of the answers I have to give. If you want to believe that Israel sends the IDF into Gaza from time to time with a blanket order to kill every living thing they see because the country is run by racist Nazis who just love killing Arabs...well it isn't fine, but I won't bother arguing with you. Just don't tell me that your position is "factual" because of a report that is patently incomplete, if not one-sided and biased.

Byrnzie

yosi wrote:

Could you provide the link for this information? I ask because this information is pretty vague. What is "in accordance with the basic principle of the right of return and compensation" meant to imply in terms of practical outcomes?

You can simply Google 'Peaceful settlement of the question of Palestine'.

As for the Palestinians right of return:

http://www.globalpolicy.org/component/c ... 38375.html
Their right of return is clearly and unambiguously guaranteed by international law under the Geneva Conventions, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The refugees have a claim to citizenship, financial settlement and, in some cases, return to former homes and property in what is today Israel. The government of Israel, however, opposes Palestinian immigration, in order to maintain the Jewish character of the state.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_General ... lution_194

United Nations General Assembly Resolution 194
Resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible; Instructs the Conciliation Commission to facilitate the repatriation, resettlement and economic and social rehabilitation of the refugees and the payment of compensation, and to maintain close relations with the Director of the United Nations Relief for Palestine Refugees and, through him, with the appropriate organs and agencies of the United Nations;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nat ... ution_3236

United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3236

Recalling its relevant resolutions which affirm the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination,

1. Reaffirms the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people in Palestine, including:
1. (a) The right to self-determination without external interference;
2. (b) The right to national independence and sovereignty;
2. Reaffirms also the inalienable right of the Palestinians to return to their homes and property from which they have been displaced and uprooted, and calls for their return;
3. Emphasizes that full respect for and the realization of these inalienable rights of the Palestinian people are indispensable for the solution of the question of Palestine;
4. Recognizes that the Palestinian people is a principal party in the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East;
5. Further recognizes the right of the Palestinian people to regain its rights by all means in accordance with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations;
6. Appeals to all States and international organizations to extend their support to the Palestinian people in its struggle to restore its rights, in accordance with the Charter;
7. Requests the Secretary-General to establish contacts with the Palestine Liberation Organization on all matters concerning the question of Palestine;
8. Requests the Secretary-General to report to the General Assembly at its thirtieth session on the implementation of the present resolution;
9. Decides to include the item entitled "Question of Palestine" in the provisional agenda of its thirtieth session.

Pepe Silvia

yosi wrote:

I get it. You believe that everything is Israel's fault. I'm not even going to try to convince you otherwise because I know it's pointless. And I won't offer answers to your questions. You wouldn't accept any of the answers I have to give. If you want to believe that Israel sends the IDF into Gaza from time to time with a blanket order to kill every living thing they see because the country is run by racist Nazis who just love killing Arabs...well it isn't fine, but I won't bother arguing with you. Just don't tell me that your position is "factual" because of a report that is patently incomplete, if not one-sided and biased.

hmmmm...yeah, not quite sure how you got that from my post.

you won't offer answers because i won't accept them, nice dodge.

yosi

Not a dodge, Pepe, a weary recognition. These arguments are cyclical. We've been through all of this before, and we always end up exactly where we began. Sometimes I enjoy the argument even though I know it's pointless. Right now I don't have the energy for it.

Byrnzie, I will make this as plain as possible. Israel will never, ever agree to recognize a Palestinian right of return, because to do so is tantamount to declaring the end to the State of Israel. Compensation, yes, certainly, I think Israel would be willing to admit to its fair share of guilt and pay reparations to the refugees as part of a peace accord. But accepting the right of return is out of the question. Whether or not in principle the Palestinians have this right is, in reality, beside the point, and no number of UN resolutions will change that. If there is ever going to be peace the Palestinians will have to give up the demand for the right of return. Again, Israel will never agree to the right of return, and so long as the Palestinians refuse to compromise on this issue there won't be peace, if for no other reason then that Israel will, I think correctly, perceive that the Palestinians, in insisting on the right of return, would be staking a claim not just to a state in the West Bank and Gaza, but to Israel's territory as well. Simply put, I understand that you are standing on principle, but in this situation principle and reality are antithetical to each other. Either you can support peace in the reality we live in, or you can insist on principles to the detriment of peace. You cannot meaningfully do both. If you really care about what is best for the Palestinians, if you would really like to see an end to the occupation, an end to the settlements, an end to violence, which will only ever happen if a peace deal is struck, then you should really start rethinking your position.

badbrains

I'm amazed at what the palestinians have to do for the Israelis to give them a state. So basically what you are saying is that the Palestinians have to do ABCDEF-Z, then the Israelis will allow them to have a state of there own...I think it's funny that it's still up to Israel if the Palestinians ever get a state of there own. Actually pretty SAD. Just shows that international law has ZERO power and ZERO meaning. Fucken dumbass Arab leaders. You know what, I agree with yosi. Arab leaders don't want peace. If they wanted peace they would spend there money as does Israel and buy congress, buy senators, buy fucken all of DC. Aipac does, why not rich Arabs???? Cuz Arab leaders are dumb fucken idiots. There IQ's are a combined -27 if that high. They'd rather watch a fat belly dancer than solve world problems. And that's the fucken truth...all brainless fucks!