Israel, US, and Abbas want peace...Hamas doesn't

RolandTD20Kdrummer

Byrnzie wrote:

Yes, they should. It's the only logical thing to do. Just like the Algerians should have continued their resistance against the French occupation after they were defeated in 1957. Their continued resistance eventually led to their independence.
The same can be said for India. Should they have continued their resistance after the 1857 mutiny was crushed? Yes, they should have. Their continued resistance eventually led to their independence.
The Palestinians have every right to fight for the return of their land from Israeli occupation.
Obviously you think they should just surrender their land to Israel and allow themselves to be destroyed as a nation. Fox news has clearly done a good job on you.

There it is.

LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun

Byrnzie wrote:

Yes, they should. It's the only logical thing to do. Just like the Algerians should have continued their resistance against the French occupation after they were defeated in 1957. Their continued resistance eventually led to their independence.
The same can be said for India. Should they have continued their resistance after the 1857 mutiny was crushed? Yes, they should have. Their continued resistance eventually led to their independence.
The Palestinians have every right to fight for the return of their land from Israeli occupation.
Obviously you think they should just surrender their land to Israel and allow themselves to be destroyed as a nation. Fox news has clearly done a good job on you.

thats not even remotely logical and your examples don't hold water. Neither example you stated would have resulted in the destruction of the controlling nation, the Algerian War of Independence took about 8 years, not generations, and Indian independence was from a power who was in no position geographically or financially to keep them. And don't forget the India didn't succeed until a man named Mahatma Gandhi took over, who if i remember correctly, wasn't a fan of violence.

LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun

And how is a palestinian state any more legal than an Israeli one? The land in question has been ruled by jewish kingdoms, Assyria, Babylonia, Persia, Greece, the Roman Empire, Byzantine Empire, Muslim Sultanates, the Ottoman Empire, the British Empire, and others. At no point was there ever a palestinian state. I dont see how Israel's right to exist is any more illegal than any other nation's.

The area didnt even come to be known by Palestine until the Roman Empire crushed the Jewish kingdoms in the area and erased all jewish claims by renaming it.

A Palestinian state has never existed, not even before the founding of Israel. It was a part of the Ottoman Empire.

Byrnzie

MrSmith wrote:

thats not even remotely logical and your examples don't hold water. Neither example you stated would have resulted in the destruction of the controlling nation, the Algerian War of Independence took about 8 years, not generations, and Indian independence was from a power who was in no position geographically or financially to keep them. And don't forget the India didn't succeed until a man named Mahatma Gandhi took over, who if i remember correctly, wasn't a fan of violence.

And the current Intifda has only been going for the last 6 years.
And Israel would be in no position geographically or financially to maintain it's occupation if it wasn't supported 100% by the worlds only superpower.

Byrnzie

MrSmith wrote:

At no point was there ever a palestinian state. I dont see how Israel's right to exist is any more illegal than any other nation's.

This is simply a lie. Pure and simple. Israel has a right to exist. But according to International law - which the U.S doesn't care about - Israel needs to return to the 1967 borders. The only country which disagrees is the U.S, which is why it has thwarted every effort at a two-state solution.

beachdweller

jlew24asu wrote:

It's really sad to see. they are soo close. Hamas is clearly part of the problem and far from being part of the solution.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071012/ap_on_re_mi_ea/israel_palestinians

GAZA CITY, Gaza Strip - Hamas' top leaders in Gaza and Syria warned the moderate Palestinian president Friday not to "fall into the trap" of an upcoming U.S.-sponsored peace conference with Israel.
ADVERTISEMENT

Ismail Haniyeh, who was deposed as Palestinian prime minister after Hamas violently seized Gaza in June, urged President Mahmoud Abbas to mend his rift with the Islamic militant group and criticized him for planning to attend the peace conference next month.

"Don't fall into the trap of the coming conference. Don't make new compromises on Jerusalem, on our sovereignty," Haniyeh said, speaking to thousands of cheering supporters for the Muslim Eid al-Fitr holiday.

Hamas' Syria-based supreme leader, Khaled Mashaal, echoed the warning in his own holiday message, accusing Israel and the U.S. of taking advantage of the Palestinian rift to try to wrest concessions in peace negotiations.

Abbas retaliated for Hamas' takeover of the Gaza Strip by expelling the group from his government and setting up his own administration in the West Bank. Mashaal urged Abbas to accept the Islamists' invitations for dialogue.

Abbas and his allies "will find out that they are pursuing nothing but a mirage," Mashaal said on Hamas radio.

Israel and the Palestinians hope to present the contours of a final peace accord at the conference, tentatively set for Annapolis, Md., at the end of November.

If Israel was complete for peace, they would withdrawal for the occupied teritories, but the expansion of settlements continues. As for Hamas, I don't think they'll accept true peace anytime soon.

LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun

Byrnzie wrote:

This is simply a lie. Pure and simple. Israel has a right to exist. But according to International law - which the U.S doesn't care about - Israel needs to return to the 1967 borders. The only country which disagrees is the U.S, which is why it has thwarted every effort at a two-state solution.

How is it a lie? There has never been an arab nation known as Palestine.

At least you recognize Israel has a right to exist ,now if you can convince Hamas hardliners the same maybe some progress can be made.

beachdweller wrote:

If Israel was complete for peace, they would withdrawal for the occupied teritories, but the expansion of settlements continues. As for Hamas, I don't think they'll accept true peace anytime soon.

and for the record I'm not a fan of these idiots expanding beyond their borders with settlements either.

Byrnzie

MrSmith wrote:

How is it a lie? There has never been an arab nation known as Palestine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine#British_Mandate_.281920.E2.80.931948.29
'1920 - Formal use of the English word "Palestine" returned with the British Mandate, which enacted English, Hebrew and Arabic as its three official languages.

'Even before the Mandate came into legal effect in 1923 (text), British terminology sometimes used '"Palestine" for the part west of the Jordan River and "Trans-Jordan" (or Transjordania) for the part east of the Jordan River.'

jlew24asu

spiral out wrote:

And you know that is not true.

look a few posts down from yours. he fully supports hamas's resistance against Israel. thats the difference between he and I. I do not support violence.

jlew24asu

Byrnzie wrote:

Yes, they should. It's the only logical thing to do.

no I do not think using violence is the most logical thing to do.

Byrnzie wrote:

Obviously you think they should just surrender their land to Israel and allow themselves to be destroyed as a nation. Fox news has clearly done a good job on you.

there was a war. borders change. land changes hand. its been happening since the beginning of time. neither side is going away. I believe they should both sit down in a room. Israel say what they want, Palastine say what they want, and they begin to negotiate. sadly, you believe in the same cycle of violence.

and what is the fascination with fox news around here? I dont watch fox news, I barely watch TV. if you want to insult me, you'll have to come up with new material.

Open

MrSmith wrote:

Are you talking about Israel itslef as occupied territory? If so, they gotta let it fucking go. Israel isn't going anywhere. People are moved in for good. Even if Israel's existence is illegal, There has to be a statute of limitations on that type of thing. To continue sacrificing your people's lives for a bit of land after its become clear you have no outside support and will never win is just ridiculous, and ultimately selfish. It becomes a crusade.

Hahaha...yeah just like we should let 9/11 go. Statue of limitations has to be up.

LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun

Open wrote:

Hahaha...yeah just like we should let 9/11 go. Statue of limitations has to be up.

If it happened 60 years ago, then yes. we got over the japanese attack on Pearl Harbor didnt we? But it happened 6 years ago.

Your logic is severely flawed.

Byrnzie wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine#British_Mandate_.281920.E2.80.931948.29
'1920 - Formal use of the English word "Palestine" returned with the British Mandate, which enacted English, Hebrew and Arabic as its three official languages.

'Even before the Mandate came into legal effect in 1923 (text), British terminology sometimes used '"Palestine" for the part west of the Jordan River and "Trans-Jordan" (or Transjordania) for the part east of the Jordan River.'

That describes a region (and its not even a very accurate description of what's historically called Palestine.), not a nation. Sorry, try again. The closest you could come to a Palestinian nation is to go back over 2000 years ago to when Philistines made up a tiny area of about 5 city-states in modern Gaza. Even then i don't know if you could describe that as a nation.

LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun

dp

Open

MrSmith wrote:

If it happened 60 years ago, then yes. we got over the japanese attack on Pearl Harbor didnt we? But it happened 6 years ago.

Your logic is severely flawed.

.

If out of nowhere, California was given to Mexico, i dont think we would forget about it 60 years later

LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun

Open wrote:

If out of nowhere, California was given to Mexico, i dont think we would forget about it 60 years later

Mexico seemed to have gotten over losing California. At least to the point that they don't fire rockets over the border. Do you think they should still be fighting the Mexican-American war? And it wasn't out of nowhere, it resulted from a war the Ottomans lost. Shit happens when you lose a world war and your empire disentigrates.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

Ever hear of the saying the little guy gets screwed every time?

I've never understood those who cheer for the bully in a fight.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

jlew24asu wrote:

look a few posts down from yours. he fully supports hamas's resistance against Israel. thats the difference between he and I. I do not support violence.

I'm not so sure about that.

jlew24asu

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

Ever hear of the saying the little guy gets screwed every time?

I've never understood those who cheer for the bully in a fight.

probably because you were picked on too much in grade school.

fuck

MrSmith wrote:

Mexico seemed to have gotten over losing California. At least to the point that they don't fire rockets over the border. Do you think they should still be fighting the Mexican-American war? And it wasn't out of nowhere, it resulted from a war the Ottomans lost. Shit happens when you lose a world war and your empire disentigrates.

Uh huh, except, you know, the Mexicans still have a place to live. Also, comparing someone attacking the US to Israel is a very big difference.

And of course we got over Pearl Harbor. We kinda nuked em. Twice. I think that's enough to get them over it. If Israel was nuked and left in shambles, I'm sure lots of people would 'get over it', only it would also destroy Palestine since it's the same land.

Your logic is pretty weird. Honestly, I don't see how poeple can get over losing their homes, their lives, their way of life, and just... everything. Also, people keep talking about violence as though the Palestinians, specifically Hamas, are responsible for instigating it and causing it, while the Israelis are the ones with higher death counts, etc. And even though Hamas are not attending this meeting, they also weren't even invited, as far as I know. That shows that Israel is reeeeeeally trying to solve this, right?

Also, Iran's ayatollah has something to say: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7043174.stm

RolandTD20Kdrummer

jlew24asu wrote:

probably because you were picked on too much in grade school.

It's called basic human nature. Sounds like you like imagining yourself as the bully.

That's cute.