Hello from Israel

1789101113»

Comments

  • ByrnzieByrnzie Posts: 21,037
    dayan wrote:
    let me say that I am truly glad the world is not run by people who think with as little moral and political clarity as you, because if it was I shudder to think what kind of world we would live in.

    Thanks. Keep em coming big boy!
  • dayandayan Posts: 475
    You're right about one thing. Firstly is grammatically correct, though I was always taught to say first, I guess because it sounds more grown up. I don't know. Anyways, I thought you might like to know that you are at least right about grammar.
  • ByrnzieByrnzie Posts: 21,037
    dayan wrote:
    What I don't understand is why you can't get yourself out of the reality of the 80's and into the reality of today.

    That makes no sense to me. Are you saying that I look like Vanilla Ice? :confused:
  • shirazshiraz Posts: 528
    dayan wrote:
    Please tell me who you are, and where you are coming from because I honestly cannot comprehend how you can hold the views you hold and avoid every serious issue thrown your way. Who are you? And don't say that I'll do anything to support my government. I've already said I thought the occupation was wrong. What I don't understand is why you can't get yourself out of the reality of the 80's and into the reality of today.

    forget it, he doesn't really want to debate, he just want to be right all the time and that's why he is not really gonna listen to you, just keep on finding reasons to attack no matter what. Let it go.
  • dayandayan Posts: 475
    Byrnzie wrote:
    That makes no sense to me. Are you saying that I look like Vanilla Ice? :confused:

    No, I'm saying you think like Vanilla Ice. Seriously though, I'm saying that the first Intifada was a popular uprising against an immoral occupation. That came at the end of the eighties. It led to the peace process which in turn led to Israel putting on the table an offer that would have ended the occupation. That offer was rejected and met instead with terrorism. I'm saying that to talk about the occupation as if there was never any peace process is to willfully live in the past because the reality of the present doesn't fit with your political beliefs. It is the mark of a true demagogue when one fits the evidence to one's theory, rather than fitting ones theory to the evidence.
  • ByrnzieByrnzie Posts: 21,037
    dayan wrote:
    Please tell me who you are, and where you are coming from because I honestly cannot comprehend how you can hold the views you hold and avoid every serious issue thrown your way. Who are you? And don't say that I'll do anything to support my government. I've already said I thought the occupation was wrong. What I don't understand is why you can't get yourself out of the reality of the 80's and into the reality of today.

    Who am I? My names Steve. Nice to make your aquaintance.
  • dayandayan Posts: 475
    shiraz wrote:
    forget it, he doesn't really want to debate, he just want to be right all the time and that's why he is not really gonna listen to you, just keep on finding reasons to attack no matter what. Let it go.

    You're right, I know. I just have a short fuse when it comes to this sort of thing.
  • ByrnzieByrnzie Posts: 21,037
    dayan wrote:
    No, I'm saying you think like Vanilla Ice. Seriously though, I'm saying that the first Intifada was a popular uprising against an immoral occupation. That came at the end of the eighties. It led to the peace process which in turn led to Israel putting on the table an offer that would have ended the occupation. That offer was rejected and met instead with terrorism. I'm saying that to talk about the occupation as if there was never any peace process is to willfully live in the past because the reality of the present doesn't fit with your political beliefs. It is the mark of a true demagogue when one fits the evidence to one's theory, rather than fitting ones theory to the evidence.

    O.k. We are now communicating. Good.
    I think that we both need to take a look at this so-called 'peace process' - as in, what was on offer? Was it viable for both parties? Was it sustainable? I am currently reading a book by Edward Said entitled 'The end of the peace process', which is a collection of 65 articles describing the events leading up to the current Palestinian intifada. It seems plainly apparent that what was offered was totally unrealistic and unworkable, and that the corruption of Arafats circle and his agreeing to the offers at Oslo surprised even the Israelis for his sheer acquiescence and absence of regard for his people on the ground, not mention enraging the majority of Palestinians and the military wings. I will look further into the details of these various agreements - Oslo 1 & 2, Hebron, e.t.c as I am interested in this, and I will get back to you. In the meantime, if you can also base your comments around the facts of such issues and provide examples of evidence, instead of making 'blanket statements' with no references or links, I will be grateful.
  • ByrnzieByrnzie Posts: 21,037
    shiraz wrote:
    forget it, he doesn't really want to debate, he just want to be right all the time and that's why he is not really gonna listen to you, just keep on finding reasons to attack no matter what. Let it go.

    Unlike yourself, right? I have seen very little constructive debate coming from your end Shiraz. Just defending Israeli aggression, dismissing all criticism of your government, and making personal comments about those you don't agree with. Do yourself a favour and get down of your high horse.
  • ByrnzieByrnzie Posts: 21,037
    shiraz wrote:
    forget it, he doesn't really want to debate, he just want to be right all the time.

    So are you saying that I'm right all the time? Well, thanks! :D
  • Puck78Puck78 Posts: 737
    shiraz, dayan, now that the topic of oslo came out I have a curiosity to ask you, or, better, i'd like to hear your opinion: do you think that before his death arafat was really unable to keep quiet the violent groups (hamas, al aqsa...) or that he was just saying that he was unable to keep them quiet while in the reality he was in accordance with their activities?
    www.amnesty.org
    www.amnesty.org.uk
  • dayandayan Posts: 475
    Here is a letter from Nabil Amr to Yasser Arafat written after the failure of camp david. It's self-explanatory.

    http://www.amin.org/eng/uncat/2002/sept/sept02.html

    Here is Dennis Ross on the talks

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,50830,00.html
    http://www.motherjones.com/news/qa/2004/10/09_404.html

    and here is the map of what was offered.

    http://www.mideastweb.org/lastmaps.htm

    As you can see this is more than 90% of the West Bank and there are no "Bantustans." This is contiguous territory. Furthermore, Ehud Barak has stated publicly that Israel offered to build a connecting road across its territory to connect the West Bank and Gaza. If this offer didn't deserve even a counter offer I don't know what does.
  • dayandayan Posts: 475
    Puck78 wrote:
    shiraz, dayan, now that the topic of oslo came out I have a curiosity to ask you, or, better, i'd like to hear your opinion: do you think that before his death arafat was really unable to keep quiet the violent groups (hamas, al aqsa...) or that he was just saying that he was unable to keep them quiet while in the reality he was in accordance with their activities?

    I believe the latter. Arafat showed that he could keep them quiet during the 90's when he actually did keep them quiet for the most part. In 96' there were three days of armed rioting which ended when Arafat put a stop to it. I firmly believe that Arafat could have kept the peace if he had wanted to, but that he couldn't detach himself from his revolutionary persona and make himself into a diplomat capable of making peace.
  • shirazshiraz Posts: 528
    dayan wrote:
    I believe the latter. Arafat showed that he could keep them quiet during the 90's when he actually did keep them quiet for the most part. In 96' there were three days of armed rioting which ended when Arafat put a stop to it. I firmly believe that Arafat could have kept the peace if he had wanted to, but that he couldn't detach himself from his revolutionary persona and make himself into a diplomat capable of making peace.

    well said, I agree.
  • Puck78Puck78 Posts: 737
    thank you!
    www.amnesty.org
    www.amnesty.org.uk
  • ByrnzieByrnzie Posts: 21,037
    dayan wrote:
    No, I'm saying you think like Vanilla Ice.

    I don't know what you mean. All I'll say for now is...

    All right stop collaborate and listen
    Ice is back with my brand new invention
    Something grabs a hold of me tightly
    Flow like a harpoon daily and nightly
    Will it ever stop yo I don't know
    Turn off the lights and I'll glow
    To the extreme I rock a mic like a vandal
    Light up a stage and wax a chump like a candle
    Dance go rush to the speaker that booms
    I'm killing your brain like a poisonous mushroom
    Deadly when I play a dope melody
    Anything less than the best is a felony
    Love it or leave it you better gain weight
    You better hit bull's eye the kid don't play
    If there was a problem yo I'll solve it
    Check out the hook while my DJ revolves it

    Ice ice baby

    Now that the party is jumping
    With the bass kicked in and the vegas are pumpin'
    Quick to the point to the point no faking
    I'm cooking MC's like a pound of bacon
    Burning them if you ain't quick and nimble
    I go crazy when I hear a cymbal
    And a hi-hat with a souped up tempo
    I'm on a roll and it's time to go solo
    Rollin' in my 5.0
    With my rag-top down so my hair can blow
    The girlies on standby waving just to say hi
    Did you stop no I just drove by
    Kept on pursuing to the next stop
    I busted a left and I'm heading to the next block
    The block was dead
    Yo so I continued to A1A Beachfront Avenue
    Girls were hot wearing less than bikinis
    Rockman lovers driving Lamborghinis
    Jealous 'cause I'm out getting mine
    Shay with a guage and Vanilla with a nine
    Reading for the chumps on the wall
    The chumps acting ill because they're so full of eight balls
    Gunshots rang out like a bell
    I grabbed my nine all I heard were shells
    Falling on the concrete real fast
    Jumped in my car slammed on the gas
    Bumpet to bumper the avenue's packed
    I'm trying to get away before the jackers jack
    Police on the scene you know what I mean
    They passed me up confronted all the dope fiends
    If there was a problem yo I'll solve it
    Check out the hook while my DJ revolves it

    ice ice baby
  • ByrnzieByrnzie Posts: 21,037
    dayan wrote:
    As you can see this is more than 90% of the West Bank and there are no "Bantustans." This is contiguous territory. Furthermore, Ehud Barak has stated publicly that Israel offered to build a connecting road across its territory to connect the West Bank and Gaza. If this offer didn't deserve even a counter offer I don't know what does.

    Permanent issues such as Jerusalem, refugees, Israeli settlements in the area, security and borders were deliberately excluded from the Accords and left to be decided. This is central to their failure.

    "Palestinians are no strangers to compromise. In the 1993 Oslo Accords, we agreed to recognize Israeli sovereignty over 78 percent of historic Palestine and to establish a Palestinian state on only 22 percent." -- Saeb Erekat, Chief Palestinian negotiator, August 5, 2000.
  • dayandayan Posts: 475
    Byrnzie wrote:
    Permanent issues such as Jerusalem, refugees, Israeli settlements in the area, security and borders were deliberately excluded from the Accords and left to be decided. This is central to their failure.

    "Palestinians are no strangers to compromise. In the 1993 Oslo Accords, we agreed to recognize Israeli sovereignty over 78 percent of historic Palestine and to establish a Palestinian state on only 22 percent." -- Saeb Erekat, Chief Palestinian negotiator, August 5, 2000.

    This is a ridiculous statement. It is saying that accepting Israel is itself a Palestinian concession. By this logic Israel has already made a concession in accepting the existence of Jordan which was carved out of the Palestine mandate designated to be a national home for the Jews. Israel doesn't make this argument and neither should the Palestinians. It is baseless.
  • ByrnzieByrnzie Posts: 21,037
    dayan wrote:
    This is a ridiculous statement. It is saying that accepting Israel is itself a Palestinian concession. By this logic Israel has already made a concession in accepting the existence of Jordan which was carved out of the Palestine mandate designated to be a national home for the Jews. Israel doesn't make this argument and neither should the Palestinians. It is baseless.

    So the Palestinians made no concessions to Israel with the establishment of Israel and in the years following 1948?
    That's a very skewered statement to make. I suppose you believe that Israeli withdrawal from the occupied territories is a concession to the Palestinains?
Sign In or Register to comment.