Israeli wall must fall documentary

lazymoon13

Byrnzie wrote:

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.

Byrnzie

lazymoon13 wrote:

if you do not think Palestine has to make concession as well, then you are part of the problem, not solution.

lazymoon13 wrote:

reconginze Israel's right to exist

http://www.ifamericansknew.org/media/rte.html

lazymoon13 wrote:

and denounce violence.

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'.

lazymoon13

Byrnzie wrote:

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.

Byrnzie

lazymoon13 wrote:

both sides need to renounce violence.

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?

Byrnzie

lazymoon13 wrote:

denounce violence.

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'.

Byrnzie

lazymoon13 wrote:

reconginze Israel's right to exist

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'.

lazymoon13

Byrnzie wrote:

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?

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.

lazymoon13

Byrnzie wrote:

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'.

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.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

like arguing over dead center, or zero as a number apparently

Byrnzie

lazymoon13 wrote:

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.

lazymoon13

Byrnzie wrote:

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.

Byrnzie

lazymoon13 wrote:

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".'

catefrances

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.

Byrnzie

lazymoon13 wrote:

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?

RolandTD20Kdrummer

.....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.

lazymoon13

Byrnzie wrote:

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...