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

Open

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.

Israel was CREATED in 1948, great misinformation buddy.

LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun

good points.

_FiveAgainstOne_ wrote:

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.

I didn't bring up US comparisons, Open did, but i don't see many differences, regardless. [edit: I did mention the american civil war a few pages ago. forgot.]

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.

fine would the US getting over the British burning down Washington be a more apt comparison for you? My point is not really "getting over it" but moving on and doing whats best for the people.

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.

My point is this: How long do you use violence when it isn't benificial to anyone, especially your own people? when you have no hope of ever succeeding in accomplishing your goal (which was and still is the elimination of Israel as a state, the right of return, and establishing a palestinian state)?
Do you fight on forever, sacrificing everything, secure in your self righteousness, or do whats best for your people?

I'm basically ignoring for the moment who is right or wrong, and instead dealing with the reality of the situation.

Fighting the Israelis is not going to get palestinians their land in Israel back or ressurecting the original 2 state plan. Only peace talks will ever result in compromise and a possible 2 state solution. Hamas does not have a leg to stand on (mostly due to violence it and the greater arab world instigated) and has not shown much interest at all in peace with Israel. It is completely incapable of becoming an existential threat to Israel. Rocket attacks only serve to quench a thirst for revenge and to solidify Israel's hold on the region, nothing more. Is 60 years of continued strife for your people worth the cause? This is the part where they should seek preferrable terms of surrender. Actually, that time was decades ago.

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.

I don't understand this. How does higher death count relate to who instigated violence? If someone instigates violence, and it results in there own death, they still instigated it. Hamas (or the PLO or the greater Arab world) has, in fact instigated most of the violence. Not all but most. Israel has been attacked in three wars out of four (and in the fourth invasion was imminent) in its short 60 year existence. There would be a Palestinian state today if the Arabs had not invaded Israel the exact moment it came into existence. Frankly, I think Israel has been downright saintly in the way they have returned land to nations that have attacked them repeatedly and obsessively in its short history. If I were an Israeli I'd be pretty wary about giving anything back, honestly, regardless of what the UN says, whether its the right thing to do or not.

LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun

Open wrote:

Israel was CREATED in 1948, great misinformation buddy.

you're mostly right, but the initial plans for Israel began after WW1.

wiki:

After World War I, the League of Nations approved the British Mandate for Palestine with the intent of creating a "national home for the Jewish people".[8] In 1947, the United Nations approved the partition of the Mandate of Palestine into two states, one Jewish and one Arab.[9] The Arab League rejected the plan, but on May 14, 1948, Israel declared its independence.

jlew24asu

_FiveAgainstOne_ wrote:

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

do you see how counter productive this is? you people need to accept the fact that Israel is not going anywhere. It's a sovereign country. there are two choices.

both sides talk. (which fatah and Israel are ready to do)

or

continue fighting. (this option will only make the people of Gaza suffer)

Byrnzie

jlew24asu wrote:

do you see how counter productive this is? you people need to accept the fact that Israel is not going anywhere. It's a sovereign country. there are two choices.

It's a sovereign country which is currently in breach of over 60 U.N resolutions. It needs to end the illegal occupation.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

I beginning to feel there's a rather massive conflict coming down the pipes.

Big booms.

Kann

jlew24asu wrote:

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.

I think the main problem is the "Israel says what they want, Palestine says what they want". This has already been done, for 50 years, there are dozens of UN resolutions resolving the problems, maps have been made, plans are ready etc. Palestine already said what they want and the UN agreed : that's the major problem, going back on what was given to them.
As for the Fatah representing Palestine it really isn't right. It would be like the Dems representing the US today instead of the republicans : arguably much better for everyone but not representative of the choice of the american people.

Byrnzie

Kann wrote:

for 50 years, there are dozens of UN resolutions resolving the problems, maps have been made, plans are ready etc. Palestine already said what they want and the UN agreed : that's the major problem, going back on what was given to them.

The U.N have tried implementing the will of the International community by insisting on Israel's withdrawal to the 1967 borders and creating a Palestinian state, but every resolution calling for these things over the past 36 years has been singularly vetoed by the U.S.

Open

Byrnzie wrote:

The U.N have tried implementing the will of the International community by insisting on Israel's withdrawal to the 1967 borders and creating a Palestinian state, but every resolution calling for these things over the past 36 years has been singularly vetoed by the U.S.

Which is explained by this:

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/mear01_.html

macgyver06

i think its funny israel is saying it wants peace


explain that to the dead citizens of lebanon.

jlew24asu

macgyver06 wrote:

i think its funny israel is saying it wants peace

explain that to the dead citizens of lebanon.

hezbolla would be happy to explain that they kidnapped Israeli soldiers.

macgyver06

jlew24asu wrote:

hezbolla would be happy to explain that they kidnapped Israeli soldiers.

and i repeat... explain that to the dead citizens of lebanon.

jlew24asu

macgyver06 wrote:

and i repeat... explain that to the dead citizens of lebanon.

ok, there are dead citizens because hezbolla decided to go over the border and kidnap Israeli soliders.

macgyver06

imagine....the montana freeman kidnap 2 canadian mounties... canada is justified to roll into detroit and decimate the place?

jlew24asu

macgyver06 wrote:

imagine....the montana freeman kidnap 2 canadian mounties... canada is justified to roll into detroit and decimate the place?

no, but they are justified to go into montana to get their soldiers back.

comparing montana freeman (whoever the fuck they are) to hezbolla terrorists and canadian mounties to the Israeli army, nice.

we can sit here all day with childish comparisons. bottom line is that no one is justified in going over any border and kidnapping anyone without expecting consequences.

macgyver06

jlew24asu wrote:

no, but they are justified to go into montana to get their soldiers back.

comparing montana freeman (whoever the fuck they are) to hezbolla terrorists and canadian mounties to the Israeli army, nice.

we can sit here all day with childish comparisons. bottom line is that no one is justified in going over any border and kidnapping anyone without expecting consequences.

dude..they didnt go over the border to get there soldiers back...they flattened beirut.. lol


??? why are you pledging allegiance to israel?

jlew24asu

macgyver06 wrote:

dude..they didnt go over the border to get there soldiers back...they flattened beirut.. lol

should have been no consequences? Israel didn't start that fight. hezbolla rolled the dice and got the shit handed to them. you dont go all in during a poker game and ask for your money back if you lose.

macgyver06 wrote:

??? why are you pledging allegiance to israel?

I'm not.

macgyver06

jlew24asu wrote:

should have been no consequences? Israel didn't start that fight. hezbolla rolled the dice and got the shit handed to them. you dont go all in during a poker game and ask for your money back if you lose.



I'm not.

hezbollah still exists jlew24asu

LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun

macgyver06 wrote:

dude..they didnt go over the border to get there soldiers back...they flattened beirut.. lol


??? why are you pledging allegiance to israel?

heh the lesson there would be "dont take israeli soldiers or you will get your shit ruined". 1 for 1 retaliation doesn't work nearly as well to get that message across.

macgyver06

MrSmith wrote:

heh the lesson there would be "dont take israeli soldiers or you will get your shit ruined". 1 for 1 retaliation doesn't work nearly as well to get that message across.

ok..than who is that message going to?