World War II was unnecessary

fuck

FiveB247x wrote:

If you characterize the Israel/Palestine conflict as genocide is nothing but biased, bogus garbage. There are different degress of things in life. Albeit, this is bad, its certainly no-where near the level you claim it to be. And the only reason you do so, is because you try and push some biased opinion. You're rational is like that of a person who calls someone an alchoholic, when they just got drunk one night. Gimme a break man.

other than the fact that I've stated this was just 1 example of many, there's really not much to say to that.

just because I support the palestinians doesn't mean I have some secret agenda. my solution is the same as the rest of the world's. you just seem to ignore that.

JordyWordy

_outlaw wrote:

On December 16, 1982, the United Nations General Assembly condemned the [Sabra and Shatila] massacre and declared it to be an act of genocide. Paragraph 2, which "resolved that the massacre was an act of genocide", was adopted by ninety-eight votes to nineteen, with twenty-three abstentions: All Western democracies abstained from voting.

http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/37/a37r123.htm

Thanks for playing.

Yeah, and if you read further down the Wiki article you just quoted many governments and UN members said later that they were wrong to call it a genocide.

Well done with the research though, that out-of-context sentence almost prooved your ridiculous point

FiveB247x

You can designate anything you please, but it doesn't make it true. The fact remains, Israel is not systematically exterminating Palestinians - this is the definition of genocide. You point to loosely fitting examples, things like homelessness or attacks or even some massacres.... but none of them collectively amount to such a designation in a realistic manner.

Also, we've all heard your "resolution" several times already. It doesn't amount to much of a help when in a conflict between two groups, when both sides say to the other half - ok, you do x and then we'll do y. Not a very practical solution. It only forces the problem to continue.

JordyWordy

Meme, Five: pleasure meeting you people with rational minds.

also, i recently read a poem on the boards that was about a Medeira bun. it makes reference to the buns mental capacity.

Thats a thinly veiled reference to a poster on here.....ah, it all comes full circle

fuck

JordyWordy wrote:

Yeah, and if you read further down the Wiki article you just quoted many governments and UN members said later that they were wrong to call it a genocide.

Well done with the research though, that out-of-context sentence almost prooved your ridiculous point

Those governments were the ones who abstained from voting, most didn't even vote 'no'. The resolution passed by a majority, and just because the wiki article quotes a c ouple countries who disagree does not mean the majority did, as outlined by the resolution that I posted, and the fact that it passed. although do you think there's a connection with the fact that most countries who give political/financial support to israel didn't agree with the resolution?

and it wasn't taken out of context.

fuck

JordyWordy wrote:

Meme, Five: pleasure meeting you people with rational minds.

also, i recently read a poem on the boards that was about a Medeira bun. it makes reference to the buns mental capacity.

Thats a thinly veiled reference to a poster on here.....ah, it all comes full circle

haha, cheap insults do nothing to make you look any better.

and I like how most people here ignore coming up any solution to the conflict other than "drop all weapons."

fuck

FiveB247x wrote:

You can designate anything you please, but it doesn't make it true. The fact remains, Israel is not systematically exterminating Palestinians - this is the definition of genocide. You point to loosely fitting examples, things like homelessness or attacks or even some massacres.... but none of them collectively amount to such a designation in a realistic manner.

It's not me who labels these terms, it's scholars such as Ilan Pappe, and Norman Finkelstein, and even the UN as I posted the example.
The other examples like ghettos and homeless weren't used as examples of genocide... they were used as comparisons to what the Jews went through in WWII.

Also, we've all heard your "resolution" several times already. It doesn't amount to much of a help when in a conflict between two groups, when both sides say to the other half - ok, you do x and then we'll do y. Not a very practical solution. It only forces the problem to continue.

The problem can't stop until Israel withdraws from the occupied territories. And you have given no solution yourself.

FiveB247x

Some of the nations that either didn't vote or voted against such terms were Canada, Ireland, Signapore amongst others. Certainly not anti-Israel crowds as you claim.



Genocide label
On December 16, 1982, the United Nations General Assembly condemned the massacre and declared it to be an act of genocide.[22] Paragraph 2, which "resolved that the massacre was an act of genocide", was adopted by ninety-eight votes to nineteen, with twenty-three abstentions: All Western democracies abstained from voting.[23][24]

According to William Schabas, director of the Irish Centre for Human Rights at the National University of Ireland,[25] "the term genocide (…) had obviously been chosen to embarrass Israel rather than out of any concern with legal precision”.[24] This opinion is a reflection of the comments made by some of the delegates who took part in the debate. While all acknowledged that it was a massacre, the claim that it was a genocide was disputed, for example the delegate for Canada stated "The term genocide cannot, in our view, be applied to this particular inhuman act".[24] The delegate of Singapore added that "My delegation regrets the use of the term "an act of genocide" (…). [as] , the term 'genocide' is used to mean acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group".[24] and that "We also question whether the General Assembly has the competence to make such determination",[24] and the United States commented that "While the criminality of the massacre was beyond question, it was a serious and reckless misuse of language to label this tragedy genocide as defined in the 1948 Convention (…)".[24]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabra_and_Shatila_Massacre



Also, if it bears some small similarities, doesn't mean they are the same. A cow and a horse both have 4 legs - but I doubt anyone would claim they are comparible in specifc and rational terms.


Lastly, it is of your opinion that the conflict can't stop until Israel does action x. There are just as many people on the other side of the spectrum who say the reverse. So obviously stating such doesn't produce a realistic solution to the problem.

fuck

FiveB247x wrote:

Some of the nations that either didn't vote or voted against such terms were Canada, Ireland, Signapore amongst others. Certainly not anti-Israel crowds as you claim.

I think you meant to say "pro-Israel" in that sentence.
This passage does refer to Canada and Singapore, but not to Ireland specifically. It's a director in a University who mentioned this; not the delegate from Ireland.

And you still ignore the fact that 98 other countries voted that it was a genocide.

Also, if it bears some small similarities, doesn't mean they are the same. A cow and a horse both have 4 legs - but I doubt anyone would claim they are comparible in specifc and rational terms.

Oh, please. The inhumane treatment of Palestinians extends much farther than comparing two animals. Don't even joke about that.

Lastly, it is of your opinion that the conflict can't stop until Israel does action x. There are just as many people on the other side of the spectrum who say the reverse. So obviously stating such doesn't produce a realistic solution to the problem.

Oh really? what are their opinions?

More importantly, what's yours? I've asked several times about what your solution is, but I haven't heard anything other than "drop all weapons."

bigdvs

agree five,

outlaw, your solution X (withdraw from I assume, West Bank and Gaza) is a great sound bite for al-jazerra but it is not truly the desire of the palestinian street. Which is why any such agreement from Israel will come with the caveat that all para military orginizations cease operation, all criminals are remanded to israeli prisons and that israel will retain the right to return to any community from which Israeli civilians are being fired upon. And muslims are not allowed to live like that according to the koran. (dhimmitude sucks when its the other way around huh)

so as others have tried to tell you this is like a dumb dog chasing its tail we can go around and around and around. You and some others believe one way and others the other. Thats fine.

Can we please have one or two more threads about this because it matters so much!!!!!!

fuck

bigdvs wrote:

outlaw, your solution X (withdraw from I assume, West Bank and Gaza) is a great sound bite for al-jazerra but it is not truly the desire of the palestinian street.

what the hell are you talking about?

Which is why any such agreement from Israel will come with the caveat that all para military orginizations cease operation, all criminals are remanded to israeli prisons and that israel will retain the right to return to any community from which Israeli civilians are being fired upon. And muslims are not allowed to live like that according to the koran. (dhimmitude sucks when its the other way around huh)

um... no, really, what are you talking about?

so as others have tried to tell you this is like a dumb dog chasing its tail we can go around and around and around. You and some others believe one way and others the other. Thats fine.

I honestly understood nothing from your post. do you mind explaining what you were even saying?

Can we please have one or two more threads about this because it matters so much!!!!!!

I don't know, I'd consider an issue like this important. If you don't then that's fine, feel free to stay out of the threads, and make your own.

fuck

...for anyone to offer a solution. am I really expecting too much?

FiveB247x

Firstly, I wasn't compared Palestinians to animals in any way. You misunderstood. I simply made the point, just because two things have something in common, doesn't mean it's justified to compare them. In my example, I said a horse and cow.

Secondly, I've stated many times, that both sides need to step up and take the proper measures, actions and enact policies to create a peace policy. It doesn't matter who takes the first step. Either side can, but neither will - they'd both rather just blame the other half and say - they should do x first and then we'll do y. Gets us no where. I've pointed to the Oslo accords in many posts as the generic scenario in which both sides commit to making a peace. You don't acknowledge it though. For 50+ yrs this conflict has gone on because each side in more concerned about designating blame than to realistically come to a long-term solution which would benefit both groups. The closest we've seen to such a solution was Oslo and they did so by both, pro-actively meeting the other half in the middle and enabling the process to work. It wasn't about blame, it wasn't about saying group x has to this first, and then group y will then do something. It was about collaboration to make a peaceful solution and let the process work. This is where you're "solution" is inherintly flawed.

Lastly, we're repeating ourselves outlaw. No need to continuing post the same comments over and over or in different posts and threads. I think this topic has been beaten into the ground and unless new posters write something not touched upon or in a different perspective, there's no need to beat a dead horse.

fuck

FiveB247x wrote:

Firstly, I wasn't compared Palestinians to animals in any way. You misunderstood. I simply made the point, just because two things have something in common, doesn't mean it's justified to compare them. In my example, I said a horse and cow.

I know you weren't calling them animals, but comparing animals that have the same number of legs as if it's the same as comparing this issue with a much greater issue is plain ridiculous. There are MANY similarities with this issue as to how the Jews were treated in WWII that you just seem to want to deny for no apparent reason. You ignore the fact that there are ghettos in Palestine/Israel where Arabs are subjected to curfews, many times 24-hour curfews, and many, many more things.

Secondly, I've stated many times, that both sides need to step up and take the proper measures, actions and enact policies to create a peace policy. It doesn't matter who takes the first step. Either side can, but neither will - they'd both rather just blame the other half and say - they should do x first and then we'll do y. Gets us no where. I've pointed to the Oslo accords in many posts as the generic scenario in which both sides commit to making a peace. You don't acknowledge it though. For 50+ yrs this conflict has gone on because each side in more concerned about designating blame than to realistically come to a long-term solution which would benefit both groups. The closest we've seen to such a solution was Oslo and they did so by both, pro-actively meeting the other half in the middle and enabling the process to work. It wasn't about blame, it wasn't about saying group x has to this first, and then group y will then do something. It was about collaboration to make a peaceful solution and let the process work. This is where you're "solution" is inherintly flawed.

Yeah, and that's a real cute response and all, but I've stated before - to which you ignored like many of my posts - how can you expect the Palestinians, such as Hamas, the democratically elected govt, to talk to Israel, when Israel is maintaining an occupation over them and refuses to even acknowledge them as the dem. elected govt?? Israel won't even talk to Hamas due to terms such as recognizing the right to exist, and renouncing violence. Both these terms Hamas won't do until Israel withdraws.

yes, you're right. we can keep going back and forth on this, but you must understand that this always leads to Israel withdrawing, and in the end, that's what must happen. Israel knows hamas would stop using violence if they withdrew, but again, they refuse to do so. so why don't you agree that Israel should do that? that's all I'm wondering:

why do you not agree that the peace process should start with Israel withdrawing from the occupied territories?

Lastly, we're repeating ourselves outlaw. No need to continuing post the same comments over and over or in different posts and threads. I think this topic has been beaten into the ground and unless new posters write something not touched upon or in a different perspective, there's no need to beat a dead horse.

I've yet to hear a solution from you other than "both parties need to step forward and talk" which is unrealistic considering the fact that this situation is much bigger and goes much deeper than you think.

FiveB247x

We are 50 yrs into this conflict and if anything is going to change in a positive manner, it will be the result of both groups moving away from all the problems and issues which enable the conflict to continue. It is irrelevant who takes the first step towards this process. Waiting for the other half to do something first doesn't fix anything..... but being pro-active to get such a good solution does. And if you're not trying to do such, you're just as guilty of sealing your own fate as the other half you blame for such terrible actions.

Since we are on a PJ message board, here's a relevant song lyric:

That what you fear the most could meet you halfway.

JordyWordy

_outlaw wrote:

haha, cheap insults do nothing to make you look any better.

and I like how most people here ignore coming up any solution to the conflict other than "drop all weapons."

Hmmmm, historically peace & ceasefires are best reached by dropping weapons. Is there a violent alternative that leads to peace of which none of us are aware?

Seriously, i really think you need to research other instances in recent history where people have been displaced and victimised, and also cases of racial/religious conflict within small regions. There is NO simple solution in places where 2 groups of people clash over one piece of land that they both have a claim to.

Northern Ireland, Yugoslavia, Congo, Rwanda, Kosovo.

Absolutely nothing about this is as one-sided or as simple as you seem to think this is. And like has already been said, there are clearly people who would disagree with your solution, so obviously its not a solution!! Thats politics mate.

Abookamongstthemany

_outlaw wrote:

If you really want to be specific about it, the other thread was intended to discuss a Palestinian being shot by an Israeli. This thread is to discuss actual solutions to the conflict.

Exactly.

This topic deserves a thread of it's own.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

FiveB247x wrote:

If you characterize the Israel/Palestine conflict as genocide is nothing but biased, bogus garbage. There are different degress of things in life. Albeit, this is bad, its certainly no-where near the level you claim it to be. And the only reason you do so, is because you try and push some biased opinion. You're rational is like that of a person who calls someone an alchoholic, when they just got drunk one night. Gimme a break man.

Take away food (bulldoze) and land (bulldoze) for hundreds of thosands of people...then add in prevention to basic health standards

Guess what?! people start dying!

who knew??

(bogus my ass...)

FiveB247x

Please post a specific number of deaths that resulted specifically from this alleged Israeli genocide. Only include casualties from direct and specific action directed at the extermination of the said group, not secondhand actions (which is really what you're refering too).

fuck

FiveB247x wrote:

Please post a specific number of deaths that resulted specifically from this alleged Israeli genocide. Only include casualties from direct and specific action directed at the extermination of the said group, not secondhand actions (which is really what you're refering too).

secondhand action? If you really believe Israel can "accidentally" kill thousands of innocent people, then you really are lost. not to mention them preventing necessary things to be allowed in gaza such as food, medical supplies, and many times cutting off power supplies, etc... all resulting in more deaths.

it's funny that some people can be so ignorant...