A just peace may be something hard for you to visualize, but I think you really do grasp basic math.
Very mature.
What was under debate was the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem. Israel was prepared to offer slightly less of this total. Compare that to a map of Palestine.
A suggestion that all of Israel belongs to the Palestinians is just silly. I see no point in debating it.
It never belonged to Israel either, before it decided it wanted it.
Neither did any country belong to any people before they wanted it, what's your point?
And if you are going to give me that "Palestine was never actually a sovereign state" stuff , then you need to go splash some cold water in your face, look at at calendar, and then come back to your keyboard. It's 2014, and one thing we can be sure of is that Palestinians, yes, those folks that have lived their for centuries in some cases, don't want you as their overlords. States evolve and change, that's the nature of history. Israel was just a concept before 1948, and indeed much of the world then was quite different from today.
I'm sorry, but I must have missed the part in your faux outrage rant in which you actually argued that Palestinians actually
had a sovereign state in Israel. Could you point it out to me?
The yes, but.....argument. If you have young kids, you are familiar with that one. Yes, but...he hit me first, after I hit him, after he hit me, after....
You are never going to realize peace until you can rise above tit for tat, take a long and sober look at history, and say, let's start again, because this isn't working.
Hang on a minute, in reply to my telling you that your whining about the Palestinians' qualms is childish and a real peace requires people to behave maturely and set aside their grievances, you're telling me that to realize peace you need to act maturely? Are you even reading the posts you're replying to?!
The salient history in this case is that some Jews, at the apex of historical persecution, decided they were going to have their own country. Fair enough, except that the consent of the then inhabitants of this prospective country was never sought nor received.
...and after that whooping miss you're actually going back to whining about past grievances?!? What the heck??
Yes, look to the future, but any just settlement must be honest about the past, or it is just a house of cards. There is a considerable lack of honesty in this conflict.
... aaaand sure enough, we're back to the childish "it's all your fault" arguments again...
Your arguments are about as consistent as they are logically sound.
The Israeli proposal envisaged a demilitarized state, with the West Bank essentially cut in two by Israeli settlements around Jerusalem, Israeli military control of the Jordan River area, over Palestinian airspace, authority over water supplies, and the right to intervene militarily in the country if deemed necessary. One can only guess what sort of quasi-independent economy might arise, or not.
:shrug:
What of it? The Palestinians wanted us to give 4 million Palestinians the right to come and live in Israel, which would have, virtually overnight, granted the Palestinians their nation state while destroying Israel as a Jewish nation state. Talk about two birds in one stone.
That's the point of negotiations though, you start off high and work your way down to something you can both agree to. Araffat walked away without presenting a counter-offer to the Israeli proposal, which is why he is widely held as responsible for the failure of the summit.
Do you have a better name than Bantustan?
Finding "suitable" names is something your side seems very eager to do, as virtually every single totalitarian, despotic, tyrannical, genocidal and racist regime\political entity has been likened to Israel for dramatic effect (
as recently as two days ago). I see no need for dramatic effect - if you think the offer was racist, just call it that without the drama.
Yes they're all devils who only want to kill.......except to them you're all devils who just want to kill.....do you see a slight problem here? You've both attacked each other, with varying degrees of provocation.
Wow, talk about pulling a strawman out of your ass.
Look at my post, I was arguing that:
A) Your claim that "Israel has rejected any sort of rational and morally acceptable peace proposal" is bullcrap and I challenged you to provide evidence of these proposals (still waiting).
B) That the Saudi peace plan was far from "generous" as you called it.
Now, how did you get from this to "they're all devils who only want to kill" and your smugness in saying "you're just as bad a boy as he is"?
Endless vilification and hyperbole only keeps the wheel of violence spinning. You've both committed enough outrages to "get even" more than enough.
Up and down we go on the roller coaster of "set aside your childish arguments" and "it's all your fault".
:2sick1:
I'm getting sick.
The plan is, as you know, normalization of relations, trade and diplomatic representation, a right of past wrongs, to the extent possible today, and a winding down of violence. That's what has been on the plate since 2002, but it has been rejected by Israel, because when on top, it sees no need to compromise. There is an assurance of peace, a call for outside monitoring, and a clause that addresses the refugee problem. In my opinion, it is probably the best deal Israel will get, counter intuitive as that may seem at the moment.
Yeah yeah, Israel is bad. We've heard it all before, the question is if you can argue this point convincingly, not if you can say it.
Eventually, the proliferation of nuclear weapons will reach the point were they are used in this conflict. Then it will end, but under much more horrific circumstances than today.
What makes you think the proliferation of nuclear weapons will start and end with Israel? Such a proliferation (which, I agree will probably happen eventually) will spell the end of all non-radical, democratic life as we know it.
eace
