and you very much sound like a hamas apologist? no? as for me, I support a two state solution. I have no idea where theres borders should be, thats not for me or you to decide.
Maybe the borders should be where the U.N says they should be - re: 1967.
Maybe the borders should be where the U.N says they should be - re: 1967.
so I guess you've never been to Israel? I have, and those exact 1967 borders simply aren't possible. compromises and concessions will need to be made on both sides.. I don't support or not support that. I'm just stating what is fact and the reality of the situation.
so I guess you've never been to Israel? I have, and those exact 1967 borders simply aren't possible. compromises and concessions will need to be made on both sides.. I don't support or not support that. I'm just stating what is fact and the reality of the situation.
Other people that have 'been there' say it is possible. So let's try to realize what are our opinions and what are actual facts.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Other people that have 'been there' say it is possible. So let's try to realize what are our opinions and what are actual facts.
really? who? I'd love to hear someone say its possible. I was in a settlement in east Jerusalem that has been there for 30+ years and has more 30,000 Jews living there. to go back to the 67 borders would mean they would all leave. this happens in many areas. possible? ok. likely? no.
really? who? I'd love to hear someone say its possible. I was in a settlement in east Jerusalem that has been there for 30+ years and has more 30,000 Jews living there. to go back to the 67 borders would mean they would all leave. this happens in many areas. possible? ok. likely? no.
Plenty of people share this opinion, Noam Chomsky for one. But I suppose you view your opinion as more valid than his. And guess what, he probably views his as more valid than yours. See how that works?
All I'm saying is (and this is a huge pet peeve of mine on this board) don't pass your opinion off as 'fact' or 'reality' when it's not. If I had a dime for every time I read a post here with this same problem.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
so I guess you've never been to Israel? I have, and those exact 1967 borders simply aren't possible. compromises and concessions will need to be made on both sides.. I don't support or not support that. I'm just stating what is fact and the reality of the situation.
So the fact that you've supposedly 'been there' makes you an expert on where the borders can or cannot be drawn?
As far as concessions needing to be made on both sides; what concessions need to be made by the Palestinians exactly?
As mentioned in the article I posted above: 'The Palestinians, he repeats, are without options. Israel has all the options, principally that of unilateral withdrawal from the Occupied Territories, but refuses to use them. Hence he refuses "to pronounce judgment on Palestinian terrorism."'
As mentioned in the article I posted above: 'The Palestinians, he repeats, are without options. Israel has all the options, principally that of unilateral withdrawal from the Occupied Territories, but refuses to use them. Hence he refuses "to pronounce judgment on Palestinian terrorism."'
reconginze Israel's right to exist and denounce violence.
How about recognizing the Palestinians right to exist on their own land, free of Israeli incursions, illegal settlement building, and terror? Or is that concept too far off the scale for you to fathom?
http://www.ifamericansknew.org/media/rte.html
'In order to earn its own recognition, Israel would have to simultaneously recognize the state of Palestine. This it steadfastly refuses to do (and for some reason, there are no high-minded newspaper editorials demanding that it do so).
Second, which Israel, precisely, are the Palestinians being asked to "recognize?" Israel has stubbornly refused to declare its own borders. So, territorially speaking, "Israel" is an open-ended concept..
..why should the Palestinians recognize an Israel that refuses to accept international law, submit to U.N. resolutions or readmit the Palestinians wrongfully expelled from their homes in 1948 and barred from returning ever since?
Israel wants the Palestinians, half of whom were driven from their homeland so that a Jewish state could be created in 1948, to recognize not merely that it exists (which is undeniable) but that it is "right" that it exists – that it was right for them to have been dispossessed of their homes, their property and their livelihoods so that a Jewish state could be created on their land. The Palestinians are not the world's first dispossessed people, but they are the first to be asked to legitimize what happened to them'.
How about recognizing the Palestinians right to exist on their own land, free of Israeli incursions, illegal settlement building, and terror? Or is that concept too far off the scale for you to fathom?
you asked me what concessions needed to be made by the Palestinians. I answered.
lol debunked? there is no conspiracy here. if you do not think Palestine has to make concession as well, then you are part of the problem, not solution.
Because only those who are suffering under the illegal occupation need to 'renounce violence', right?
George Orwell wasn't wrong was he...
http://www.ifamericansknew.org/media/rte.html
'As soon as certain topics are raised," George Orwell once wrote, "the concrete melts into the abstract and no one seems able to think of turns of speech that are not hackneyed: Prose consists less and less of words chosen for the sake of their meaning, and more and more of phrases tacked together like the sections of a prefabricated henhouse." Such a combination of vagueness and sheer incompetence in language, Orwell warned, leads to political conformity.
No issue better illustrates Orwell's point than coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the United States'.
Because only those who are suffering under the illegal occupation need to 'renounce violence', right?
both sides need to renounce violence. and for the second time, you asked me what concessions Palestinians need to make. you seem to think violence is the answer, which again, means you are part of the problem.
http://www.ifamericansknew.org/media/rte.html
'..the formal diplomatic language of "recognition" is traditionally used by one state with respect to another state. It is literally meaningless for a non-state to "recognize" a state. Moreover, in diplomacy, such recognition is supposed to be mutual. In order to earn its own recognition, Israel would have to simultaneously recognize the state of Palestine. This it steadfastly refuses to do (and for some reason, there are no high-minded newspaper editorials demanding that it do so).
Second, which Israel, precisely, are the Palestinians being asked to "recognize?" Israel has stubbornly refused to declare its own borders. So, territorially speaking, "Israel" is an open-ended concept. Are the Palestinians to recognize the Israel that ends at the lines proposed by the 1947 U.N. Partition Plan? Or the one that extends to the 1949 Armistice Line (the de facto border that resulted from the 1948 war)? Or does Israel include the West Bank and East Jerusalem, which it has occupied in violation of international law for 40 years – and which maps in its school textbooks show as part of "Israel"?
And as regards the ongoing Israeli settlement expansion...
“The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.”
- Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949
'International humanitarian law prohibits [an] occupying power [from transferring] citizens from its own territory to the occupied territory (Fourth Geneva Convention, article 49). The Hague Regulations prohibit the occupying power [from undertaking] permanent changes in the occupied area, unless these are due to military needs in the narrow sense of the term, or unless they are undertaken for the benefit of the local population.
The establishment of the settlements leads to the violation of the rights of the Palestinians as enshrined in international human rights law. Among other violations, the settlements infringe on the rights to self-determination, equality, property, an adequate standard of living, and freedom of movement'.
So, how about the subject of Israel recognising Palestine and abiding by international law by withdrawing from the occupied territories?
how many times do we have to go over this? you asked me a very specific question. (what do Palestinians have to concede?) I gave you a very specific answer. ask me what I think the Israelis should concede and you will get a different answer. (although not really)
your response to everything is Israel this Israel that. you want to have a fair discussion, you need to start recognizing the wrongs on both sides.
'119 Israeli children have been killed by Palestinians and 982 Palestinian children have been killed by Israelis since September 29, 2000.
1,033 Israelis and at least 4,604 Palestinians have been killed since September 29, 2000.
6,845 Israelis and 32,213 Palestinians have been injured since September 29, 2000'.
according to your facts, both sides are wrong. when did I say otherwise? looks like you are the one who isn't interested in facts. you are only interested who has done more killing. you seem to think its ok to kill 2 Israel civilians because 10 Palestinians civilians died.
like arguing over dead center, or zero as a number apparently
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
according to your facts, both sides are wrong. when did I say otherwise? looks like you are the one who isn't interested in facts. you are only interested who has done more killing. you seem to think its ok to kill 2 Israel civilians because 10 Palestinians civilians died.
No, not really. As far as I'm concerned, It all comes down to the occupation.
No, not really. As far as I'm concerned, It all comes down to the occupation.
as far as I'm concerned it all comes down to the use of violence. ghandi and martin luther king come to mind. there are peaceful ways of going about bringing change and ending oppression. what also comes to mind is Jerusalem. This place is the spiritual headquarters of 2 maybe 3 of the largest religions in the world. neither side is going to lay down.
as far as I'm concerned it all comes down to the use of violence. ghandi and martin luther king come to mind. there are peaceful ways of going about bringing change and ending oppression.
I thought the article I posted above was interesting regarding the Palestinians use of violence.
http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article4690.shtml
When he comes to the options available to Palestinians for countering Israel's race-war, Neumann is brutally consistent: there are none, save violence. This part of his argument will be unacceptable to the fainthearted, but it is up to them to refute it. He does not content himself with dismissing passive resistance as an option in the Palestinian context, but denies that it has worked in any context where the powerless faced the unscrupulously powerful. Gandhi "cannot be said to have won independence for India", Martin Luther King's civil rights movement had the backing of the US establishment, indeed "was practically a federal government project", and South Africa's ANC "was never a nonviolent movement but a movement that decided, on occasion, to use nonviolent tactics".'
tear down the wall, acknowledge wrongdoings and take responsibility for the violence from both sides. split it down the middle and make jerusalem an international zone.
holy shit.... i love to dream. though some call it delusion.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
you asked me a very specific question. (what do Palestinians have to concede?) I gave you a very specific answer. ask me what I think the Israelis should concede and you will get a different answer. (although not really)
O.k, so in your opinion, what concessions, if any, should Israel make?
.....they can start by tearing down a gigantic wall of oppression...both literally and figuratively. Perhaps even halt the blatant genocide that some are blind to.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
O.k, so in your opinion, what concessions, if any, should Israel make?
stop building settlements in disputed areas, show restraint when attacked by rockets, be ready to give up some areas of land, open up more border crossings, provide aid...
Comments
Maybe the borders should be where the U.N says they should be - re: 1967.
Other people that have 'been there' say it is possible. So let's try to realize what are our opinions and what are actual facts.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
really? who? I'd love to hear someone say its possible. I was in a settlement in east Jerusalem that has been there for 30+ years and has more 30,000 Jews living there. to go back to the 67 borders would mean they would all leave. this happens in many areas. possible? ok. likely? no.
Plenty of people share this opinion, Noam Chomsky for one. But I suppose you view your opinion as more valid than his. And guess what, he probably views his as more valid than yours. See how that works?
All I'm saying is (and this is a huge pet peeve of mine on this board) don't pass your opinion off as 'fact' or 'reality' when it's not. If I had a dime for every time I read a post here with this same problem.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
So the fact that you've supposedly 'been there' makes you an expert on where the borders can or cannot be drawn?
As far as concessions needing to be made on both sides; what concessions need to be made by the Palestinians exactly?
As mentioned in the article I posted above: 'The Palestinians, he repeats, are without options. Israel has all the options, principally that of unilateral withdrawal from the Occupied Territories, but refuses to use them. Hence he refuses "to pronounce judgment on Palestinian terrorism."'
reconginze Israel's right to exist and denounce violence.
think for yourself much?
How about recognizing the Palestinians right to exist on their own land, free of Israeli incursions, illegal settlement building, and terror? Or is that concept too far off the scale for you to fathom?
http://www.ifamericansknew.org/media/rte.html
'In order to earn its own recognition, Israel would have to simultaneously recognize the state of Palestine. This it steadfastly refuses to do (and for some reason, there are no high-minded newspaper editorials demanding that it do so).
Second, which Israel, precisely, are the Palestinians being asked to "recognize?" Israel has stubbornly refused to declare its own borders. So, territorially speaking, "Israel" is an open-ended concept..
..why should the Palestinians recognize an Israel that refuses to accept international law, submit to U.N. resolutions or readmit the Palestinians wrongfully expelled from their homes in 1948 and barred from returning ever since?
Israel wants the Palestinians, half of whom were driven from their homeland so that a Jewish state could be created in 1948, to recognize not merely that it exists (which is undeniable) but that it is "right" that it exists – that it was right for them to have been dispossessed of their homes, their property and their livelihoods so that a Jewish state could be created on their land. The Palestinians are not the world's first dispossessed people, but they are the first to be asked to legitimize what happened to them'.
Yes, thanks. I also back up what I say with credible sources.
Right. And I debunked both of them.
lol debunked? there is no conspiracy here. if you do not think Palestine has to make concession as well, then you are part of the problem, not solution.
http://www.ifamericansknew.org/media/rte.html
Because only those who are suffering under the illegal occupation need to 'renounce violence', right?
George Orwell wasn't wrong was he...
http://www.ifamericansknew.org/media/rte.html
'As soon as certain topics are raised," George Orwell once wrote, "the concrete melts into the abstract and no one seems able to think of turns of speech that are not hackneyed: Prose consists less and less of words chosen for the sake of their meaning, and more and more of phrases tacked together like the sections of a prefabricated henhouse." Such a combination of vagueness and sheer incompetence in language, Orwell warned, leads to political conformity.
No issue better illustrates Orwell's point than coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the United States'.
both sides need to renounce violence. and for the second time, you asked me what concessions Palestinians need to make. you seem to think violence is the answer, which again, means you are part of the problem.
Now we're getting somewhere.
So, how about the subject of Israel recognising Palestine and abiding by international law by withdrawing from the occupied territories?
Oh, and just in case you're interested in the facts...
http://www.ifamericansknew.org/
'119 Israeli children have been killed by Palestinians and 982 Palestinian children have been killed by Israelis since September 29, 2000.
1,033 Israelis and at least 4,604 Palestinians have been killed since September 29, 2000.
6,845 Israelis and 32,213 Palestinians have been injured since September 29, 2000'.
Which Israel?
http://www.ifamericansknew.org/media/rte.html
'..the formal diplomatic language of "recognition" is traditionally used by one state with respect to another state. It is literally meaningless for a non-state to "recognize" a state. Moreover, in diplomacy, such recognition is supposed to be mutual. In order to earn its own recognition, Israel would have to simultaneously recognize the state of Palestine. This it steadfastly refuses to do (and for some reason, there are no high-minded newspaper editorials demanding that it do so).
Second, which Israel, precisely, are the Palestinians being asked to "recognize?" Israel has stubbornly refused to declare its own borders. So, territorially speaking, "Israel" is an open-ended concept. Are the Palestinians to recognize the Israel that ends at the lines proposed by the 1947 U.N. Partition Plan? Or the one that extends to the 1949 Armistice Line (the de facto border that resulted from the 1948 war)? Or does Israel include the West Bank and East Jerusalem, which it has occupied in violation of international law for 40 years – and which maps in its school textbooks show as part of "Israel"?
And as regards the ongoing Israeli settlement expansion...
“The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.”
- Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949
'International humanitarian law prohibits [an] occupying power [from transferring] citizens from its own territory to the occupied territory (Fourth Geneva Convention, article 49). The Hague Regulations prohibit the occupying power [from undertaking] permanent changes in the occupied area, unless these are due to military needs in the narrow sense of the term, or unless they are undertaken for the benefit of the local population.
The establishment of the settlements leads to the violation of the rights of the Palestinians as enshrined in international human rights law. Among other violations, the settlements infringe on the rights to self-determination, equality, property, an adequate standard of living, and freedom of movement'.
how many times do we have to go over this? you asked me a very specific question. (what do Palestinians have to concede?) I gave you a very specific answer. ask me what I think the Israelis should concede and you will get a different answer. (although not really)
your response to everything is Israel this Israel that. you want to have a fair discussion, you need to start recognizing the wrongs on both sides.
according to your facts, both sides are wrong. when did I say otherwise? looks like you are the one who isn't interested in facts. you are only interested who has done more killing. you seem to think its ok to kill 2 Israel civilians because 10 Palestinians civilians died.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
No, not really. As far as I'm concerned, It all comes down to the occupation.
as far as I'm concerned it all comes down to the use of violence. ghandi and martin luther king come to mind. there are peaceful ways of going about bringing change and ending oppression. what also comes to mind is Jerusalem. This place is the spiritual headquarters of 2 maybe 3 of the largest religions in the world. neither side is going to lay down.
I thought the article I posted above was interesting regarding the Palestinians use of violence.
http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article4690.shtml
When he comes to the options available to Palestinians for countering Israel's race-war, Neumann is brutally consistent: there are none, save violence. This part of his argument will be unacceptable to the fainthearted, but it is up to them to refute it. He does not content himself with dismissing passive resistance as an option in the Palestinian context, but denies that it has worked in any context where the powerless faced the unscrupulously powerful. Gandhi "cannot be said to have won independence for India", Martin Luther King's civil rights movement had the backing of the US establishment, indeed "was practically a federal government project", and South Africa's ANC "was never a nonviolent movement but a movement that decided, on occasion, to use nonviolent tactics".'
holy shit.... i love to dream. though some call it delusion.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
O.k, so in your opinion, what concessions, if any, should Israel make?
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")