• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

about damned time[W:31:36]

Re: about damned time

having one's fate determined by another is NOT having one's fate in one's own hands
i'll quote you:

But it's not determined by another, it's determined by themselves.
 
Re: about damned time

once the Palestinian have their own sovereign country, free from israeli interference, any military action taken by that nation against israel deserves to be responded to by the israeli military
no holds barred
israel is entitled to defend its people
just as is the Palestinian nation
the difference will be that israel will have a MUCH superior military capacity to do so. at least for a generation

I remember the international community said the same thing about Gaza strip before the disengagement. Since then we have the terrorist entity Hamastan in Gaza and delegitimization of Israel's response for Hamastan's agression
 
Re: about damned time

I remember the international community said the same thing about Gaza strip before the disengagement. Since then we have the terrorist entity Hamastan in Gaza and delegitimization of Israel's response for Hamastan's agression

you ignored a portion of my post
is gaza FREE of israeli interference?
 
Re: about damned time

This needs to go to the israel/palestine subsection
 
Re: about damned time

Quite right. The Israelis have made concession after concession after concession stopping short of giving the terrorists easy access to terrify, maim, and murder their citizens, but the Palestinians so far have agreed to none. It's pretty difficult to negotiate with people who expect to make no compromises and who expect the other side to make all the concessions and meet all their demands no matter how unreasonable.

The goal of those controlling the Palestinians has never been to help the Palestinians or achieve peace in the Middle East. The goal is to annihilate the Israelis..

Exactly. It's difficult to negotiate with someone who's goal is your total annihilation.
 
Re: about damned time

Moderator's Warning:
Relocated to the I/P forum.

Please keep in mind the more narrow rule set of Martial Law.
 
Re: about damned time

harmony could be expected to prevail when the Palestinian people are no longer being oppressed
The Palestinians are not being oppressed. The only reason why they don't already have their own state is because the Palestinian government chooses not to make peace when a two-state solution is offered.


if fate were truly in their own hands, they could tell the israelis within their borders to leave
they could establish a sovereign nation of Palestine, IF their fate was truly within their own hands
It is in their hands. The Palestinian government just has to agree to peace with Israel before the Palestinians get their state.


is gaza FREE of israeli interference?
After Ariel Sharon's unilateral withdrawal, Gaza was turned into a battery for shelling Israeli civilians. Israel has the right to defend themselves from that.

Were Gaza not being used as a platform for attacking Israel, Israel would indeed leave it alone.


justabubba said:
please share with us the evidence that causes you to state "The Israelis have repeatedly demonstrated their desire for a peaceful two-state solution."
Israel offered a two-state solution in exchange for peace under Ehud Barak in 2000-2001.

Israel offered a two-state solution in exchange for peace under Ehud Olmert in 2006-2009.

Benjamin Netanyahu's offer has not been made public, but it seems likely that he as well offers a two-state solution in exchange for peace.

Ariel Sharon's unilateral withdrawal plan could be seen as an attempt at a two-state solution as well. The Palestinians would have ended up with much less land than under a negotiated outcome, but they still would have ended up with a viable state.
 
Re: about damned time

Good. Its one of the major barriers to peace.
Settlement construction is no barrier to peace. The Palestinian government is just using it as a cheap excuse for their refusal to accept a two-state solution in exchange for peace.


Settlement expansion isnt connected with terror?
No. Not really.
 
Re: about damned time

Settlement construction is no barrier to peace. The Palestinian government is just using it as a cheap excuse for their refusal to accept a two-state solution in exchange for peace.
Taking away land from a future Palestinian state isnt a barrier to peace?


No. Not really.
Its one of the reasons given by many terrorist organizations for attacks....
 
Re: about damned time

Taking away land from a future Palestinian state isnt a barrier to peace?
If the Palestinian government were ever to make peace, settlements could simply be withdrawn if they were on land that was destined for the Palestinians, just as settlements were withdrawn from the Gaza Strip and Sinai Peninsula when Israel pulled out of those areas.

It is the failure of the Palestinian government to make peace in the first place that prevents the Palestinians from having this land.


Its one of the reasons given by many terrorist organizations for attacks....
Terrorist organizations spout all sorts of nonsense to justify their crimes.
 
Re: about damned time

Moderator's Warning:
Please be mindful of the topic of this thread. It's in relation to this:

The United States will endorse a tougher tone with Israel in an upcoming international report that takes the Jewish state to task over settlements, demolitions and property seizures on land the Palestinians claim for a future state, diplomats told The Associated Press.


If it drifts significantly from the OP, infractions will be forth coming.
 
https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...703a5a7191_story.html?tid=hybrid_content_3_na



finally putting israel on notice that the the settlements are a barrier to conflict resolution

Were settlements a barrier for peace with Egypt?
Were they a barrier for the disengagement from Gaza Strip?

According to peace now, since the Oslo accords there are 8 new settlements if you go one by one you see that 2 were founded as military outposts before the treaty, 2 are not really settlements, it depends on how you interpret the green line, 3 are actually expansions of existing settlements before the treaty and 1 is not a settlement at all its an illegal outpost.

According to the treaty Israel is allowed to expend existing settlement, Palestinians on the other hand are not allowed to murder Jews

Settlements are not a barrier for the conflict resolution, lack of willingness on the Palestinian side to resolve the conflict is.
 
Were settlements a barrier for peace with Egypt?

Not after the 1973 Egyptian attempt to liberate its territory from illegal Israeli occupation. After that close call ( initially ) Israeli leaders decided it would be beneficial to Israel to strike a peace agreement with Egypt and take them , the most powerful enemy of the group , out of the equation for good.

Were they a barrier for the disengagement from Gaza Strip?

Once again the Israeli leaders decided the move would be beneficial to Israel but for the completely opposite reason than has been running through this thread, namely to strike a peace deal/two state solution to the problem with the Palestinians. Well if you are to believe the words of one of the senior advisors to Sharon , Dov Weissglass

Dov Weissglass said:
The significance of the disengagement plan is the freezing of the peace process, and when you freeze that process, you prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state, and you prevent a discussion on the refugees, the borders and Jerusalem. Effectively, this whole package called the Palestinian state, with all that it entails, has been removed indefinitely from our agenda. And all this with authority and permission. All with a presidential blessing and the ratification of both houses of Congress. That is exactly what happened. You know, the term `peace process' is a bundle of concepts and commitments. The peace process is the establishment of a Palestinian state with all the security risks that entails. The peace process is the evacuation of settlements, it's the return of refugees, it's the partition of Jerusalem. And all that has now been frozen.... what I effectively agreed to with the Americans was that part of the settlements would not be dealt with at all, and the rest will not be dealt with until the Palestinians turn into Finns. That is the significance of what we did."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_disengagement_from_Gaza



Settlements are not a barrier for the conflict resolution, lack of willingness on the Palestinian side to resolve the conflict is.

I don't buy the line above. The candid speech of Mr Weissglass clearly shows that both sides have people that are determined to keep the status quo and all the death and misery that accompanies it.

Do you even believe that the settlements are illegal under International Law ? ( I know you made a reference to an " illegal outpost " earlier )

In my opinion , which is supported by many well known International organisations , all of the settlements built on territory acquired after the 1967 war are illegal and thus if even one is allowed to remain after any wouldbe agreement it would in fact be a concession by the Palestinian side.
 
Not after the 1973 Egyptian attempt to liberate its territory from illegal Israeli occupation. After that close call ( initially ) Israeli leaders decided it would be beneficial to Israel to strike a peace agreement with Egypt and take them , the most powerful enemy of the group , out of the equation for good.



Once again the Israeli leaders decided the move would be beneficial to Israel but for the completely opposite reason than has been running through this thread, namely to strike a peace deal/two state solution to the problem with the Palestinians. Well if you are to believe the words of one of the senior advisors to Sharon , Dov Weissglass



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_disengagement_from_Gaza





I don't buy the line above. The candid speech of Mr Weissglass clearly shows that both sides have people that are determined to keep the status quo and all the death and misery that accompanies it.

Do you even believe that the settlements are illegal under International Law ? ( I know you made a reference to an " illegal outpost " earlier )

In my opinion , which is supported by many well known International organisations , all of the settlements built on territory acquired after the 1967 war are illegal and thus if even one is allowed to remain after any wouldbe agreement it would in fact be a concession by the Palestinian side.

Of course Israel does whats beneficial to Israel, are you suggesting that Peace between Israelis and Palestinians is not beneficial to Israel? I'm not sure what was your point here.

regarding your question, I'm dont have a clue on international law. I do understand that expanding area of settlements and building new settlements is angrying Palestinians. I also think its a waste of money and resources to develop a territory that will be Palestinian state one day. I think those idealists can find lots of places to settle in Israel rather than the west bank.

I do differentiate two areas, the jewish quarter of the old city and the Gush Etzyon block, I consider those areas as Israeli territory liberated from Jordanian occupation

Illegal outposts are settlements which have no legal standing in Israel, they do not have permits and the government should demolish them regardless of peace or negotiations with Palestinians and the supreme court often twists the government's arm to do so.
 
Of course Israel does whats beneficial to Israel, are you suggesting that Peace between Israelis and Palestinians is not beneficial to Israel? I'm not sure what was your point here.

regarding your question, I'm dont have a clue on international law. I do understand that expanding area of settlements and building new settlements is angrying Palestinians. I also think its a waste of money and resources to develop a territory that will be Palestinian state one day. I think those idealists can find lots of places to settle in Israel rather than the west bank.

I do differentiate two areas, the jewish quarter of the old city and the Gush Etzyon block, I consider those areas as Israeli territory liberated from Jordanian occupation

Illegal outposts are settlements which have no legal standing in Israel, they do not have permits and the government should demolish them regardless of peace or negotiations with Palestinians and the supreme court often twists the government's arm to do so.

I'm suggesting that Israeli leaderships, past and present , have with regards to the Palestinians chosen land acquisition over any prospect of peace with them. Finkelstein , for me , encapsulates the situation accurately when he states .......... " There never has been a peace process, but rather an annexation process that used the “peace process” as a facade ". They have , with the illegal building and populating of " settlements ", changed the facts on the ground so as to ensure that there is little chance of a viable Palestinian state coming into existence .

According to most of the well known human rights organisations , advisory judicial committees to the UN as well as numerous UNSC resolutions , they all consider the Israeli settlements and occupation of Palestinian territories to be illegal under international law and a direct violation of the 4th Geneva Convention. I think people should art least be aware of this in any talk on the "settlements " in Occupied Palestinian Territories.
 
I'm suggesting that Israeli leaderships, past and present , have with regards to the Palestinians chosen land acquisition over any prospect of peace with them. Finkelstein , for me , encapsulates the situation accurately when he states .......... " There never has been a peace process, but rather an annexation process that used the “peace process” as a facade ". They have , with the illegal building and populating of " settlements ", changed the facts on the ground so as to ensure that there is little chance of a viable Palestinian state coming into existence .

According to most of the well known human rights organisations , advisory judicial committees to the UN as well as numerous UNSC resolutions , they all consider the Israeli settlements and occupation of Palestinian territories to be illegal under international law and a direct violation of the 4th Geneva Convention. I think people should art least be aware of this in any talk on the "settlements " in Occupied Palestinian Territories.

Well history proved you wrong, Israel also populated Sinai and the Gaza strip and finally gave up these areas for peace (or a chance of peace). I do not disagree with you that Israel did it because it is beneficial to Israel but for some reason you think it doesn't apply for west bank, more so when Israel didn't build any new settlements for 16 years and when the current government doesn't even approve building a ramp for handicaps in the west bank.
 
Well history proved you wrong, Israel also populated Sinai and the Gaza strip and finally gave up these areas for peace (or a chance of peace). I do not disagree with you that Israel did it because it is beneficial to Israel but for some reason you think it doesn't apply for west bank, more so when Israel didn't build any new settlements for 16 years and when the current government doesn't even approve building a ramp for handicaps in the west bank.

I don't think history has proven me wrong at all, quite the contrary infact . Maybe you just chose to ignore the information I have given.

Israel gave up the Sinai because the 1973 war shook them up and they made a decision to take Egypt out of the equation and broker for peace. Had Egypt accepted the loss of its territory and not made clear it would fight to get it back there would most likely still be illegal Israeli settlements on it today.

Ive already given you the rationale from the Israeli leadership concerning the disengagement from Gaza and it had little to do with swapping land for peace. Did you read it ? You certainly didn't comment on it.

Do you accept that all the settlements are illegal under international law ?

If you broke into my house and occupied the ground floor for 6 months would I be unreasonable for not viewing your decision to leave as an early Christmas present from a reasonable person ? What I'm saying is that you don't have to be well versed with international law to think that invading someone elses country and relocating your own population there is just wrong and bound to bring with it long term hostility and violence
 
I don't think history has proven me wrong at all, quite the contrary infact . Maybe you just chose to ignore the information I have given.

Israel gave up the Sinai because the 1973 war shook them up and they made a decision to take Egypt out of the equation and broker for peace. Had Egypt accepted the loss of its territory and not made clear it would fight to get it back there would most likely still be illegal Israeli settlements on it today.

Ive already given you the rationale from the Israeli leadership concerning the disengagement from Gaza and it had little to do with swapping land for peace. Did you read it ? You certainly didn't comment on it.

Do you accept that all the settlements are illegal under international law ?

If you broke into my house and occupied the ground floor for 6 months would I be unreasonable for not viewing your decision to leave as an early Christmas present from a reasonable person ? What I'm saying is that you don't have to be well versed with international law to think that invading someone elses country and relocating your own population there is just wrong and bound to bring with it long term hostility and violence

you are repeating yourself, disregarding my answer.
it seems you believe it is beneficial to Israel to have Palestinians stabbing Israelis in the street, or blow up buses or lob rockets and mortars on Israeli towns.
 
you are repeating yourself, disregarding my answer.
it seems you believe it is beneficial to Israel to have Palestinians stabbing Israelis in the street, or blow up buses or lob rockets and mortars on Israeli towns.

I'm repeating myself because you have failed to answer most of the questions I have asked and failed to comment on the information I have put up.

For the second line of the above post you made.................... is it so difficult to understand that while some Palestinians are attacking Israelis it gives the Israeli leadership the excuse it needs not to negotiate a peace deal that would usher in a Palestinain state ? And obviously some Israelis are brutalizing some Palestinians whilst all of this illegal occupation and illegal settlement building is going on. I take it you aren't that bothered about this seeing as you hold the view that it is all down to the Palestinians anyway.

It seems you think they should just accept their fate as the vanquished. Accept being brutalized , colonized , illegally settled , humiliated in their everyday lives
 
For the second line of the above post you made.................... is it so difficult to understand that while some Palestinians are attacking Israelis it gives the Israeli leadership the excuse it needs not to negotiate a peace deal that would usher in a Palestinain state ?

Two points on that statement of yours;
A) Israel has negotiated and always does negotiate during, after, and before Palestinian monstrous terror attacks target innocent Jewish civilians for murder.
B) Israel is actually calling as it's always been for direct negotiations without preconditions to be held. The Palestinians openly refuse, that's their stated position, so it's weird you seem unaware of it.

It seems you think they should just accept their fate as the vanquished. Accept being brutalized , colonized , illegally settled , humiliated in their everyday lives

I'm afraid you're wrong here as well, it is you who fail to recognize Israeli security needs and grant any meaning to Israeli lives at all.
This statement is a silly one, too, because if the Palestinians have desired it by tomorrow's morning they will have a state of their own. Presenting the situation as if the Palestinians' fate is not in their hands is misleading, they've rejected two proposals from Israeli left-leaning PMs that strongly favored their side in the agreement, they constantly refuse to enter negotiations and if they did and were willing to accept even agreements that are slightly in their favor the conflict would end that moment. That would be all.
 
Two points on that statement of yours;
A) Israel has negotiated and always does negotiate during, after, and before Palestinian monstrous terror attacks target innocent Jewish civilians for murder.

The above comment concerning negotiations only endorses what I have been saying and what Finkelstein accurately states when he says............"There never has been a peace process, but rather an annexation process that used the “peace process” as a facade". IE we can talk all the time so long as the Palestinians don't receive what the law provides them. Which is......... self determination , a capital city made from East Jerusalem , no illegal settlements on their territory and the return or compensation of refugees.


B) Israel is actually calling as it's always been for direct negotiations without preconditions to be held. The Palestinians openly refuse, that's their stated position, so it's weird you seem unaware of it.

Speaking in riddles isn't the answer imo. Would you care to comment on Dov Weissglass' statement concerning the " disengagement " from Gaza for instance ? Same with Netanyahu, intimates that he might accept a Palestinian state then is caught off camera stating the opposite etc etc but all the time the facts on the ground are changing IE more illegal settlements.

Same question to you.......................... do you accept that international law renders the settlements illegal ?

I'm afraid you're wrong here as well, it is you who fail to recognize Israeli security needs and grant any meaning to Israeli lives at all.

Many of the worst crimes in history have been carried out under the guise of security.

This statement is a silly one, too, because if the Palestinians have desired it by tomorrow's morning they will have a state of their own. Presenting the situation as if the Palestinians' fate is not in their hands is misleading, they've rejected two proposals from Israeli left-leaning PMs that strongly favored their side in the agreement, they constantly refuse to enter negotiations and if they did and were willing to accept even agreements that are slightly in their favor the conflict would end that moment. That would be all.

People need to understand what is considered a " favourable agreement " for the Palestinians by Israel and then check out what international law states.

Shlomo Ben Ami , one of the chief Israeli negotiators during Oslo is on record as stating that had he been negotiating for the Palestinian side he would not have accepted the terms of the agreement. I respect that kind of honesty .This was , and still is , sited as a great deal that the Palestinians missed out on. But one of the chief Israeli negotiators was honest enough to tell us why he wouldn't have accepted it. Says it all really.


When people apply international law to the conflict . which they should imo , whose is making concessions and who is not looks very very different.

Do you think international law should be applied to resolve the conflict ?
 
The above comment concerning negotiations only endorses what I have been saying and what Finkelstein accurately states when he says............"There never has been a peace process, but rather an annexation process that used the “peace process” as a facade". IE we can talk all the time so long as the Palestinians don't receive what the law provides them. Which is......... self determination , a capital city made from East Jerusalem , no illegal settlements on their territory and the return or compensation of refugees.

Nothing in my comment even comes close to point towards that direction, you're clearly mistaken, that's out of the question really.

Speaking in riddles isn't the answer imo. Would you care to comment on Dov Weissglass' statement concerning the " disengagement " from Gaza for instance ? Same with Netanyahu, intimates that he might accept a Palestinian state then is caught off camera stating the opposite etc etc but all the time the facts on the ground are changing IE more illegal settlements.

I don't clinge to the remarks of former "advisors" so to attempt to manipulate and change reality. The fact you need people like Dov Weissglass or whatever that meaningless person's name is to promote your position says everything I could say about it and more. There were in the past enough former "advisors" to many men who used that position to promote their own political opinions, this one truly is no different and I refuse to waste my time on ridiculous claims regarding opinions claimed by such individuals.

Do notice that just like with the last sentence of mine you've quoted here too you've ignored the content of the quote. Had I been in your shoes I'd ask myself why I'm ignoring it, and had I been in your shoes I would be correct in doing so.

Same question to you.......................... do you accept that international law renders the settlements illegal ?

I don't think any new setttlements should be formed and I'm strongly against it, but my position is my own. It is illegal to settle civilians on grounds that are under the sovereignity of another nation, if the Palestinians are sovereign in the West Bank no I don't think they are but I do hope they would be at one point because I'm a promoter of the two states solution as I hope you do as well.

People need to understand what is considered a " favourable agreement " for the Palestinians by Israel and then check out what international law states.

Shlomo Ben Ami , one of the chief Israeli negotiators during Oslo is on record as stating that had he been negotiating for the Palestinian side he would not have accepted the terms of the agreement. I respect that kind of honesty .This was , and still is , sited as a great deal that the Palestinians missed out on. But one of the chief Israeli negotiators was honest enough to tell us why he wouldn't have accepted it. Says it all really.

He is free to hold his own opinion but as in the case of that Dov Weisglass guy you are wrong to believe I grant legitimacy to arguments relying on opinions of individuals regardless of what job they held at one point or another. Individuals are free to hold their own opinions.

When people apply international law to the conflict . which they should imo , whose is making concessions and who is not looks very very different.

Do you think international law should be applied to resolve the conflict ?

I think the two sides should first enter negotiations and not cease said negotiations until the conflict ends, that's what I think, and I truly find it to be the only logical way to go about it, do you seriously not?
 
Not after the 1973 Egyptian attempt to liberate its territory from illegal Israeli occupation. After that close call ( initially ) Israeli leaders decided it would be beneficial to Israel to strike a peace agreement with Egypt and take them , the most powerful enemy of the group , out of the equation for good.
That goes both ways. Egyptian leaders finally decided that it would be beneficial to Egypt to make peace with Israel.

But regardless, the settlements were no barrier to peace. When Israel reached a decision to give up land, they removed their settlements from the land.


Once again the Israeli leaders decided the move would be beneficial to Israel but for the completely opposite reason than has been running through this thread, namely to strike a peace deal/two state solution to the problem with the Palestinians. Well if you are to believe the words of one of the senior advisors to Sharon , Dov Weissglass
Not opposite at all. It is true that it was an attempt to resolve the issue without negotiating with the Palestinians, and that Israel hoped to get a better outcome for themselves by deciding the issue unilaterally. But Israel was still trying to make peace with the Palestinians by providing the Palestinians with land of their own.

And Israel still withdrew settlements from land that they handed over, which shows that settlements are no impediment to handing over land.


In my opinion , which is supported by many well known International organisations , all of the settlements built on territory acquired after the 1967 war are illegal and thus if even one is allowed to remain after any would be agreement it would in fact be a concession by the Palestinian side.
The settlements are no more illegal than the Palestinians' refusal to make peace with Israel.

As for keeping settlements after an agreement, there would be land swaps involved. Israel and the Palestinians would essentially trade land.


I'm suggesting that Israeli leaderships, past and present , have with regards to the Palestinians chosen land acquisition over any prospect of peace with them.
Israel's repeated offers to return to 1967 borders show that that is untrue.


Finkelstein , for me , encapsulates the situation accurately when he states .......... " There never has been a peace process, but rather an annexation process that used the “peace process” as a facade ".
By denying Israel's past peace offers, he makes peace more unlikely. Why would Israel bother to try making peace one more time when they know that the only thing they will get for their trouble is Finkelstein telling the world that they didn't actually try to make peace?

Kind of like Lucy asking Charlie Brown to kick the football one more time. Why bother?


People need to understand what is considered a " favourable agreement " for the Palestinians by Israel and then check out what international law states.

Shlomo Ben Ami , one of the chief Israeli negotiators during Oslo is on record as stating that had he been negotiating for the Palestinian side he would not have accepted the terms of the agreement. I respect that kind of honesty .This was , and still is , sited as a great deal that the Palestinians missed out on. But one of the chief Israeli negotiators was honest enough to tell us why he wouldn't have accepted it. Says it all really.
The agreement wasn't too bad.

But if the Palestinians had wanted to negotiate for an even better deal, that would have been fine.

But instead of negotiating, Arafat had terrorists start making horrendous attacks on Israel until Ehud Barak's government fell and that was the end of negotiations for a good long time.

Years later, instead of continuing to negotiate, Abbas simply stopped negotiating and started playing mind games with the peace process. Mind games that continue to this day.

Mind games that include this report condemning Israel, although I remain confident that the criticism will be confined to empty words and not offer any meaningful harm to Israel.
 
Back
Top Bottom