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

yosi

It's a peace process brother. Both sides need to compromise. This isn't about one side meeting the criteria of the other. It's about both sides making compromises so that they can meet in the middle. Anyways, you can't make a deal that establishes your own state and then say "that's great, this state is now mine, and your state is mine as well." If the Palestinians are going to come to a peace deal with Israel and establish a state for themselves they are going to have to stop making a claim to Israel as well, otherwise, overlooking the fact that no deal would be reached to begin with under such circumstances, peace would most likely be short lived.

Byrnzie

yosi wrote:

It's a peace process brother. Both sides need to compromise. This isn't about one side meeting the criteria of the other. It's about both sides making compromises so that they can meet in the middle. Anyways, you can't make a deal that establishes your own state and then say "that's great, this state is now mine, and your state is mine as well." If the Palestinians are going to come to a peace deal with Israel and establish a state for themselves they are going to have to stop making a claim to Israel as well, otherwise, overlooking the fact that no deal would be reached to begin with under such circumstances, peace would most likely be short lived.

Except this is all just more bullshit.

As I've shown above, international law is perfectly unambiguous. And Israel's rejection of the international consensus and of international law make Israel a dangerous, rogue state.

Byrnzie

yosi wrote:

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.

Israel should therefore be subjected to strict sanctions and boycotts such as those that toppled racist South Africa in the 1980's.

TriumphantAngel

yosi wrote:

It's a peace process brother. Both sides need to compromise.

there is only one side occupying the other.

Israel is the only one with the power to bring about the two state solution. Hamas and the whole of the entire world has called for a two state solution on the 1967 borders which will halt all violence. Israel has so far refused, and they continually block all efforts of any hope of peace by not withdrawing to the 1967 borders.

perhaps if Israel stopped refusing to abide by international law, and recognize the rights of the Palestinians, we wouldn't be having this conversation right now.

TriumphantAngel

Byrnzie wrote:

yosi wrote:

It's a peace process brother. Both sides need to compromise. This isn't about one side meeting the criteria of the other. It's about both sides making compromises so that they can meet in the middle. Anyways, you can't make a deal that establishes your own state and then say "that's great, this state is now mine, and your state is mine as well." If the Palestinians are going to come to a peace deal with Israel and establish a state for themselves they are going to have to stop making a claim to Israel as well, otherwise, overlooking the fact that no deal would be reached to begin with under such circumstances, peace would most likely be short lived.

Except this is all just more bullshit.

As I've shown above, international law is perfectly unambiguous. And Israel's rejection of the international consensus and of international law make Israel a dangerous, rogue state.

international law is perfectly unambiguous, to those that actually give a damn. yosi is not one of those.

yosi wrote:

As for international law, to speak crudely for a second, I don't give a damn.

yosi

I love it when you quote me out of context, Triumph. It warms my heart.

Byrnzie, thank you for finally giving an honest answer. You don't believe Israel has a right to exist, and your solution to the conflict is politicide. You are truly a caring person, and a realistic thinker.

Byrnzie

yosi wrote:

I love it when you quote me out of context, Triumph. It warms my heart.

Byrnzie, thank you for finally giving an honest answer. You don't believe Israel has a right to exist, and your solution to the conflict is politicide. You are truly a caring person, and a realistic thinker.

I've never said that Israel doesn't have a right to exist. Israel can still exist without having to be a racist, exclusivist state.

TriumphantAngel

yosi wrote:

I love it when you quote me out of context, Triumph. It warms my heart.

i didn't realize you had one.

redrock

yosi wrote:

Both sides need to compromise....

...Again, Israel will never agree to the right of return, and so long as the Palestinians refuse to compromise ...

Both sides? That does mean Israel also, doesn't it?

yosi wrote:

This isn't about one side meeting the criteria of the other..

.....If there is ever going to be peace the Palestinians will have to give up the demand for the right of return.

Not about one side meeting the criteria of the other? It seems you are saying the palestinians MUST do so.



Your contradictions never cease to amaze me.

yosi wrote:

... 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.

Now we wouldn't want Palestinians claiming any jewish land would we? Or building on jewish land, would we? After all, that is just not a done thing. Hmmmmm... tables would be turned then, wouldn't they.

Yet again, you have shown that israel is a racist state!

TriumphantAngel

Byrnzie wrote:

rebornFixer wrote:

Rachel Corrie chose to stand in front of a moving bulldozer, presumably to make her point. However valid her point was, there was probably a better way to make it. Sorry, but that's not the same thing as Israel bombing Lebanese or Palestinian civilians, who do not have a choice in the matter (unless maybe they choose to shelter militants). It may sound pretty crass, but I'll say it anyhow: If there is a heaven for principled but unintelligent activists, Rachel Corrie is there.

Actually, she stood in front of a bulldozer in order to try and prevent a families home from being destroyed illegally by an illegal occupying army. She was wearing a bright orange jacket and was clearly visible to the driver of the U.S supplied Caterpillar bulldozer. I don't see anything unintelligent about her actions. Do you also think that Tom Hurndall was a moron for trying to save the lives of some Palestinian children under Israeli gunfire? He was shot in the head and killed by an Israeli sniper.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Hurndall
'His father told a British inquest that, according to ISM and Palestinian witnesses, Hurndall had seen a group of children playing and had noticed that bullets were hitt'ng the ground between them. Several children had run away but some were "paralysed with fear"[6] and Hurndall went to help them. Hurndall's father told the inquest: “Tom went to take one girl out of the line of fire, which he did successfully, but when he went back, as he knelt down [to collect another], he was shot.”[2]'


http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/ja ... ment/print

What price a life?

Jocelyn Hurndall - The Guardian, Saturday 10 January 2004

The Israeli army shot my son, and the toll continues to rise




In the pensive hours of the night, I am struck by the varying values that mankind chooses to allot to life - as was my son Tom.

Earlier this month, I read with mixed feelings the news that local Palestinian militia had dynamited an Israeli defence force watchtower in the town of Rafah, in the Gaza Strip. It was from this watchtower, which has been responsible for untold misery to many innocent families in Rafah, that Tom was shot in the head last April. At the time he was trying to help Palestinian children to safety. He now lies in a vegetative state in a hospital in London with no hope of recovery.

This week we learned that the Israeli soldier who has been arrested for the shooting is alleged to have smoked cannabis with his battalion. As last year was drawing to a close, a phone call from the British Foreign Office informed me that, under interrogation, this soldier has confessed to shooting my son, knowing he was an unarmed civilian. He claimed that the shot was meant as a "deterrent". From what? From rescuing children? Had he been so conditioned that an act of humanity could only inspire in him such a violent reaction?

I felt no sense of relief then but, for the first time, allowed myself to feel increasing anger. The IDF's inability to differentiate between friend and foe, truth and untruth, and to see themselves as they are seen, is clear to all.

I read the observations recorded in Tom's Middle-East journals. They show a young man determined to be open-minded, to understand and, above all, to make a difference. He had come to understand, as we do now, the customary illegal, inhuman retribution exacted by the IDF from this particular watchtower on the local community, little realising how it was to leave him a thread away from death.

It seems that life is cheap in the occupied territories. Different value attached to life depends on whether the victim happens to be Israeli, international or Palestinian. This has been exemplified recently by the reaction of the Israeli public to the shooting of an Israeli peace activist, fresh out of his three-year military police service, demonstrating against the illegal "security" fence. Two days later an announcement was made that a military police inquiry was to be held into the shooting. Questions were raised in the Knesset. This is in stark contrast to the six months of campaigning that it took for an inquiry to be launched into the shooting of Tom.

There have been thousands of killings in Palestine since the intifada, with only a handful having the benefit of an investigation. Now, a three-week occupation of Nablus (the largest city in Palestine) has left a further 19 people dead and dozens of homes and buildings destroyed, leaving scores of innocent people homeless, all on a pretext of searching for a terror suspect.

When will those responsible accept that it is illegal to collectively and obsessively punish a whole community? Has the hard-nosed Sharon government made connections between the horror of the Holocaust and the current brutal incursions? Countless insightful Israelis, Palestinians and people the world over have done so. Is it surprising that Israel was voted the most dangerous threat to world peace in a recent European Union poll?

It hurts me to hear the deafening silence of our own government. How can there have been no statement of condemnation or condolence for the innocent victims of Israel's mindless violence from our own prime minister, Tony Blair? The silence was only broken when on Christmas day the United States president "strongly condemned" the actions of the suicide bombers responsible for killing four Israeli soldiers at a bus stop just outside Tel Aviv. Does this double standard not underline the lack of regard in which both the British and US governments hold Palestinian life?

So I have questions to ask of Tony Blair. Does he regard the children of Palestine as children of a lesser god? Does he accept that such inaction is tantamount to complicity in the process of destroying any peace initiative in the Middle East? Mr Blair, you know now that an Israeli soldier has confessed to shooting in cold blood an unarmed British citizen who was trying to shepherd children away to safety. When will you be ready to openly condemn these actions?

· Jocelyn Hurndall is on the committee of the Thomas Hurndall Foundation, which campaigns for justice for the Palestinian people

Tom Hurndall's murderer was released last week. his sentence was reduced.

Speaking to the UK Guardian's Rachel Shabi, Hurndall's mother, Jocelyn, said, "From the moment that Tom was shot, we said it wasn't about the soldier, who is a small part of the machinery, but about the responsibility of the Israeli army and its lack of accountability over civilian killings. To say that the soldier has reformed is to miss the point -- the British government needs to hold Israel accountable for its actions."

http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article11525.shtml

EZ3455

Here's the problem, I think.

Both sides have done things wrong in the past. LOTS wrong, to each other. To polarize this and say one side is "100% right" is 100% wrong...

With the reports on either side, it is hard to know what's really going on on the ground...

:ugeek:

Byrnzie

EZ3455 wrote:

Here's the problem, I think.

Both sides have done things wrong in the past. LOTS wrong, to each other. To polarize this and say one side is "100% right" is 100% wrong...

With the reports on either side, it is hard to know what's really going on on the ground...

:ugeek:

Here's what's going on on the ground:

Idris

EZ3455 wrote:

Here's the problem, I think.

Both sides have done things wrong in the past. LOTS wrong, to each other. To polarize this and say one side is "100% right" is 100% wrong...

With the reports on either side, it is hard to know what's really going on on the ground...

:ugeek:

No it's not hard at all my friend, not hard at all! Perhaps the only difficult thing to explain would be the Zionist Agenda. Which can get complex.

But This idea that both sides are = to blame is wrong. We have one of the most brutal occupations, funded by America. Full blame goes to the USA and Israel.

I'm not going to blame an oppressed people for fighting back,

EZ3455

I guess you can't agree not to polarize or see both sides of the issue.

OK. *shrug*

:ugeek:

Byrnzie wrote:

EZ3455 wrote:

Here's the problem, I think.

Both sides have done things wrong in the past. LOTS wrong, to each other. To polarize this and say one side is "100% right" is 100% wrong...

With the reports on either side, it is hard to know what's really going on on the ground...

:ugeek:

Here's what's going on on the ground: