List of villages destroyed by Israel in 1948-1949

FiveB247x

Father driving a car. Two children in the back. One hits the other, other returns in kind. They begin hitting each other more frequently, father steps in and says... both of you cut it out. One child reponds, but he started it, the other child says - no he did. Father's response, both of you knock it off.

Case closed.

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

Just stop stealing land...perhaps even give some back.

voila.

What problems are you still having with that scenario?

RolandTD20Kdrummer

FiveB247x wrote:

Father driving a car. Two children in the back. One hits the other, other returns in kind. They begin hitting each other more frequently, father steps in and says... both of you cut it out. One child reponds, but he started it, the other child says - no he did. Father's response, both of you knock it off.

Case closed.

That's nice and all...but you see they are stealing land by violently displacing people.

as in STILL...to this very day.

You understand that right?

Do you think they are stealing land because the Palestinians aren't obeying their demands in the first place?

that would be pretty wild to put it politely

FiveB247x

You're very adament in your opinion but have yet to offer a solution except one that places sole responsibility on Israel. Whether you feel it is justified or not, doesn't matter. Both sides need to make adjustments inorder to create a peace.

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

That's nice and all...but you see they are stealing land by violently displacing people.

as in STILL...to this very day.

You understand that right?

Do you think they are stealing land because the Palestinians aren't obeying their demands in the first place?

that would be pretty wild to put it politely

RolandTD20Kdrummer

FiveB247x wrote:

You're very adament in your opinion but have yet to offer a solution except one that places sole responsibility on Israel. Whether you feel it is justified or not, doesn't matter. Both sides need to make adjustments inorder to create a peace.

Ok then tell me what land the Palestinians are stealing from the Israeli's. Without land...no place to live...no food...no life....no future.

I'm not seeing the 50/50 blame game picture you're trying to paint between these two peoples.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

Gas is $35 a gallon in Gaza. Already dirt poor and that's what it costs just for gas... $35 bucks....

(blog from a young mother in Gaza).
http://a-mother-from-gaza.blogspot.com/2008/06/pain-at-pump-think-of-gaza.html

rebornFixer

FiveB247x wrote:

Some of you just don't get this concept. You continue to expect demands of the other half, and that they should comply simply because you feel it to be just - which is secondary to realityand more arbitrary than anything. It doesn't matter who started anymore. We're in round 15 of a boxing fight and the more punches each boxer throws, the more they'll get in return. To create a peace, don't throw any more punches. Doesn't matter if your the victim or the antagonist in the situation. That's how you'll see results.

Bingo.

rebornFixer

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

Ok then tell me what land the Palestinians are stealing from the Israeli's. Without land...no place to live...no food...no life....no future.

I'm not seeing the 50/50 blame game picture you're trying to paint between these two peoples.

And no one sees why you persist in denying that both sides will need to make concessions in order to produce a lasting peace. The issue of who is right and who is wrong is now immaterial. What is more important, an end to the violence (not to mention a Palestinian state), or you being right?

fuck

FiveB247x wrote:

Some of you just don't get this concept. You continue to expect demands of the other half, and that they should comply simply because you feel it to be just - which is secondary to realityand more arbitrary than anything. It doesn't matter who started anymore. We're in round 15 of a boxing fight and the more punches each boxer throws, the more they'll get in return. To create a peace, don't throw any more punches. Doesn't matter if your the victim or the antagonist in the situation. That's how you'll see results.

Ok, let's use this ridiculous analogy.

Do you know what happens when one boxer stops punching? The other one continues to punch UNTIL THE PERSON IS KNOCKED OUT.

fuck

FiveB247x wrote:

Father driving a car. Two children in the back. One hits the other, other returns in kind. They begin hitting each other more frequently, father steps in and says... both of you cut it out. One child reponds, but he started it, the other child says - no he did. Father's response, both of you knock it off.

Case closed.

Let's compare one of the biggest world conflicts to two kids fighting in the back seat. That makes sense.

fuck

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

Gas is $35 a gallon in Gaza. Already dirt poor and that's what it costs just for gas... $35 bucks....

(blog from a young mother in Gaza).
http://a-mother-from-gaza.blogspot.com/2008/06/pain-at-pump-think-of-gaza.html

Nice blog. She's actually a family friend who I just spoke to the other day.

rebornFixer

_outlaw wrote:

Ok, let's use this ridiculous analogy.

Do you know what happens when one boxer stops punching? The other one continues to punch UNTIL THE PERSON IS KNOCKED OUT.

His or her analogy was of a specific instance of a boxing match in which no one side can win, one in which neither side CAN be knocked out. The two can basically just keep hitting each other, or they can both choose to stop. One side could stop unilaterally and take the first step, but neither is really willing to do so.
So no, the analogy wasn't stupid. Its a boxing match, if you want to call it that, that neither side can truly win via a KO. It is just needless violence going back and forth. At some point, someone or some group will have to decide to stop it, that enough is enough.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

reborncareerist wrote:

And no one sees why you persist in denying that both sides will need to make concessions in order to produce a lasting peace. The issue of who is right and who is wrong is now immaterial. What is more important, an end to the violence (not to mention a Palestinian state), or you being right?

I don't buy that...

This deck is already stacked in one direction, in the name of a fabricated, and media inflamed, enemy based on one definitely illegal war (Iraq) ...the other to be determined (Afghanistan). I still don't see Bin Laden wanted for 9/11 yet...but all the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia...but the guy who (after almost 7 years now) is still not wanted for 9/11 as per fbi.gov.

Something definitely wrong with this picture.

FiveB247x

Thank you for understanding my point. Apparently it's easier to just pick sides and clarify how you're correct regardless if it fails to bring forth a viable solution.

reborncareerist wrote:

His or her analogy was of a specific instance of a boxing match in which no one side can win, one in which neither side CAN be knocked out. The two can basically just keep hitting each other, or they can both choose to stop. One side could stop unilaterally and take the first step, but neither is really willing to do so.
So no, the analogy wasn't stupid. Its a boxing match, if you want to call it that, that neither side can truly win via a KO. It is just needless violence going back and forth. At some point, someone or some group will have to decide to stop it, that enough is enough.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

_outlaw wrote:

Nice blog. She's actually a family friend who I just spoke to the other day.

get out...are you serious?

if so, small world.

fuck

reborncareerist wrote:

His or her analogy was of a specific instance of a boxing match in which no one side can win, one in which neither side CAN be knocked out. The two can basically just keep hitting each other, or they can both choose to stop. One side could stop unilaterally and take the first step, but neither is really willing to do so.
So no, the analogy wasn't stupid. Its a boxing match, if you want to call it that, that neither side can truly win via a KO. It is just needless violence going back and forth. At some point, someone or some group will have to decide to stop it, that enough is enough.

Our ENTIRE point is that Israel is the one who has to step down first. Do you agree with this, or not?

fuck

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

get out...are you serious?

if so, small world.

yep.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

FiveB247x wrote:

Thank you for understanding my point. Apparently it's easier to just pick sides and clarify how you're correct regardless if it fails to bring forth a viable solution.

well...if you've ever solved a problem before...you need to identify the source of the problem before you can identify and offer a viable solution.

rebornFixer

_outlaw wrote:

Our ENTIRE point is that Israel is the one who has to step down first. Do you agree with this, or not?

Hmmm ... Yes, and no. Yes, I do think that Israel ought to engage in several unilateral actions, including withdrawing to pre-1967 borders and ceasing all further attempts to occupy new territory. If this means cracking down a bit on settlers, so be it.
I do not think that Israel can realistically commit to ending all military actions against Palestinians until they get some sort of commitment from Palestinians at large to also work towards peace. In other words, no more support for Hamas and other militant groups, no more bombings in civilian areas, and an explicit acknowledgment that Israelis are not going anywhere (once they withdraw to pre-1967 borders, that is) and have a right to live in peace as well.

fuck

reborncareerist wrote:

Hmmm ... Yes, and no. Yes, I do think that Israel ought to engage in several unilateral actions, including withdrawing to pre-1967 borders and ceasing all further attempts to occupy new territory. If this means cracking down a bit on settlers, so be it.
I do not think that Israel can realistically commit to ending all military actions against Palestinians until they get some sort of commitment from Palestinians at large to also work towards peace. In other words, no more support for Hamas and other militant groups, no more bombings in civilian areas, and an explicit acknowledgment that Israelis are not going anywhere (once they withdraw to pre-1967 borders, that is) and have a right to live in peace as well.

Both your paragraphs contradict eachother though. If Israel were to withdraw to the '67 borders, then Hamas would be willing to negotiate with them, which would least to an ACTUAL peace, not a "ceasefire."
The only people standing in the way of peace are the Israelis.

rebornFixer

_outlaw wrote:

Both your paragraphs contradict eachother though. If Israel were to withdraw to the '67 borders, then Hamas would be willing to negotiate with them, which would least to an ACTUAL peace, not a "ceasefire."
The only people standing in the way of peace are the Israelis.

But it is also true that Hamas provides Israel with a reason not to withdraw. If the Palestinians took unilateral action against violence, the Israelis wouldn't have a leg to stand on when it comes to expansion. Jimmy Carter on his recent trip actually presented this argument to Hamas leaders. I am pretty sure they patted him on the head like a puppy or a cute little retard and sent him on his way. Hamas has done precious little to convince anyone that they are interested in peace. If they took a few steps towards nonviolence and tolerance of other peoples, maybe they could shed the terrorist label, and begin to work against "Islamophobia" instead of being one of its posterchildren.