• 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!

Israel warns of unilateral steps if PA seeks UN statehood

Hopefully as with everyone else on here, there is absolutely no time limit on responding to my posts, I don't consider a lack of response to indicate anything. We are all on different time zones and different schedules and... I'm just saying that your apology is completely unecessary but I appreciate the thought behind it.

We may be on opposite "sides" whatever that means but we are perhaps only in opposite cities in the same country whereas I often feel like I am on a different planet with some people but I guess that's how it is.

Just one thing to add to what you said, London was carrying out covert talks with the IRA while the official Government line was "We don't talk to terrorists". At some stage a dialogue has to be opened up that includes the extremists, otherwise the extremists on both sides will win. It was de rigeur for the IRA to talk only in terms of outright surrender of the northern Counties to a united Ireland and look at where we are now. Considering the partition of Ireland occurred in the 1920s, it took the best part of 70 years for the real process to start and it hasn't ended yet. This could have been avoided if the British had not become drowned in the dogma of the extreme Protestants during the 1950s leading into the 1970s. The IRA was nothing but a Marxist talking shop before the British decided to deal violently with genuine civil rights concerns voiced by the "Catholic" population.

Do the parallels not jump out at you?

It is unfortunate that on here you have to be extremely bullish to counteract those that are in denial about what is happening. As on many others forums I have participated in, being moderate gets you nowehere fast in the face of a revisionist machine that is preprogrammed to deny, deny and then deny some more just to be sure. Speaking for myself, I am far more moderate on this issue than my posting might suggest but I think that demonstrates how destructive dogma is to any dialogue whether it is our self indulgent ramblings on an internet forum or serious international talks that effect millions of lives.

I am not optimistic. The human condition seems to be condemned to keep repeating the mistakes of history. I will be genuinely amazed if anything comes from the current talks but everything tells me that we will still be talking about this at the end of 2030 but we will probably be disussing what happens to the diplaced West Bank Palestinians. I say this because the West has procrastinated on this issue for so long that it has taken on a life of its own. This is no longer just about a just settlement for Palestinians and Israelis, it is a point of focus for EVERY faction in the Middle East theatre, the moderate and the extreme ones alike.

Your comments are self-explanatory. Just to respond to one specific point. I do concede that to get the IRA to the table secret dialogue had to take place first to get them ti disarm. That is only logical. when I say Hamas must come to the table disarmed I think it goes without saying to get to that point, there would need to be unofficial dialogue as there is now between Israel and Hamas through intermediaries and who knows actual direct contact.

None of us knows whether Israel has direct or indirect contact with Hamas. If they did obviously both sides would never disclose it.

As well the other issue you draw parallels to I would respectfully disagree with and say is not similiar.

I believe Israel has demonstrated good will by pulling out of Gaza and Lebanon only to be burned badly. I also believe Israel was openly mocked and made a fool of by Arafat when he indicated Oslo was just a joke and he never had any intentions of engaging in any peace. I believe people are selective with their memory on how many times Israel has reached out for peace only to get it slapped.

The same people who focus on alleged IDF incursions onto the West Bank or in Gaza against Palestinians do not in my opinion fairly acknowledge the failures of the Arab world to reach out in a cohesive way to Israel and show they are willing to condone terrorism.
 
Your comments are self-explanatory. Just to respond to one specific point. I do concede that to get the IRA to the table secret dialogue had to take place first to get them ti disarm. That is only logical. when I say Hamas must come to the table disarmed I think it goes without saying to get to that point, there would need to be unofficial dialogue as there is now between Israel and Hamas through intermediaries and who knows actual direct contact.

None of us knows whether Israel has direct or indirect contact with Hamas. If they did obviously both sides would never disclose it.

As well the other issue you draw parallels to I would respectfully disagree with and say is not similiar.

I believe Israel has demonstrated good will by pulling out of Gaza and Lebanon only to be burned badly. I also believe Israel was openly mocked and made a fool of by Arafat when he indicated Oslo was just a joke and he never had any intentions of engaging in any peace. I believe people are selective with their memory on how many times Israel has reached out for peace only to get it slapped.

The same people who focus on alleged IDF incursions onto the West Bank or in Gaza against Palestinians do not in my opinion fairly acknowledge the failures of the Arab world to reach out in a cohesive way to Israel and show they are willing to condone terrorism.

The IRA was not disarmed when "official" talks started but, it was a major part of the talks that the IRA should disarm as a condition for the process to continue beyond certain points. Sinn Fein which was billed as the political wing of the IRA entered talks before decommissioning had begun. The decommissioning of arms by "Protestant" and "Catholic" groups was a very gradual process.
 
Last edited:
The IRA was not disarmed when "official" talks started but, it was a major part of the talks that the IRA should disarm as a condition for the process to continue beyond certain points. Sinn Fein which was billed as the political wing of the IRA entered talks before decommissioning had begun. The decommissioning of arms by "Protestant" and "Catholic" groups was a very gradual process.

Agreed. It did not happen over night. It happened in a series of very intense and time consuming word by word negotiations that went back and forth and from what I have read for every step forward took a couple back and so on and painstakingly moved towards where it did, a testament to the patience and perserverance of the negotiators.

Yes I concur. I do not want to mislead on that point. It was a gradual step by step process. Indeed.
 
I wonder if the hamas would trade gilad shalit for land...that..would work...
 
Agreed. It did not happen over night. It happened in a series of very intense and time consuming word by word negotiations that went back and forth and from what I have read for every step forward took a couple back and so on and painstakingly moved towards where it did, a testament to the patience and perserverance of the negotiators.

Yes I concur. I do not want to mislead on that point. It was a gradual step by step process. Indeed.

It was painfully slow but sometimes that is what it takes. The British Government took a lot of snubs but they remained adult and rational and we got there.

You know what, I caught a report from NI the other day that was talking about reducing the amount of funding that they get from the British Government so that they actually operate like similar regions of the mainland. That is normalisation. I really hope that the Northern Irish now finish off the rest of the splinter groups, who are not popular, by strangling their funding from gangsterism through cooperating with the new NI Police Force.
 
I wonder if the hamas would trade gilad shalit for land...that..would work...

Which land are you proposing to give Hamas really? We already evacuated all of the strip, you want to give them Yad-Mordehay? Nahal Oz? Kerem Shalom?
 
Which land are you proposing to give Hamas really? We already evacuated all of the strip, you want to give them Yad-Mordehay? Nahal Oz? Kerem Shalom?

Well you have 2 options actually:

1-allow anyone who claims to be Palestinian to enter Israel and then they are to be given them land they claim they are entitled to and any Israeli who now owns the land will be removed and just go poof and vanish;

or

2-create one state in Gaza, Israel, the West Bank, remove any reference to it being a Jewish state; then since it would now become a majority Muslim state, its democratic citizens could then vote in a Muslim political party that believes in sharia law and one party rule just like in Iran or what the Muslim Brotherhood of Egypt wants, which then would impose dhimmitude on the Jews and tell them they can't own land (they will of course pay rent to Arab land owners), testify in court (and so will need a Muslim to be their witness and of course pay the Muslim witness a fee for that), do business with a Muslim unless they use a Muslim broker to speak on their behalf, and of course all those synagogues or churches higher then Mosques would have to be altered to lower their height and then of course we would need to have the women start wearing more modest clothing.

Seems perfectly reasonable to me what the choices are.

I don't see what your problem is.

I sat in graduate school (completed it years later part-time, finished in 2008) getting a Master's in Law in Canada and my law professor tell me there should just be one democratic non religious state and there should no reference to Jewish religion.

Oh said I, to this constitutional law professor and sudden expert on Israel. Pray tell what Muslim nation of the Middle East exemplified and would be the recent for this non religious democracy?

Would it be Morrocco, Libya, Tunisia, Sudan, Algeria, Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia,Yemen Gulf Arab states?

Would the majority population because it was a democratic now be able to repeal a multi-party state and have only one party and reinstitute sharia law across the board?

Well why would I think that asked the professor suggesting it was absurd to suggest such a thing would happen. Well said I, do you notice the states of Morrocco, Libya, Tunisia, Sudan, Algeria, Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Iraw, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Yemen and the Gulf Arab states?

Care to explain where in the world of Muslim nations let alone Arab League nations there is democratic non religious rule where the constitution seperates sharia law from the state and does not practice dhimmitude?

Dhimmitude I was asked? Oh no it doesn't exist. Jews, Christians, Assyrians, Zoroastreans, Bahaiis, Kurds, Berbers, Sieks, Hindus, Druze, for that matter certain sects of Islam such as the Amidyah, atheists, communists, gays, trade unionists, feminists, I mean they all are treated with love and respect in sharia nations. Everyone is loved and accepted.

There I was in graduate school lectured to by alleged expert constitutional law professor and fellow students as to how wonderful the constitutions of the Arab League nations were and how sharia law preaches tolerance and equality. Of couse in between lectures from the professor other graduate students told me how unreasonable a notion it was Jews think they can have a state. When I asked why not Jews when Muslims have Muslim states I was told its not the same thing.

Of course not one student lecturing me has ever been to an Arab state or Israel and the law professor travelled to Israel once for a seminar on a one state solution, stayed just long enough to give his speech then left. No tour of a kibbutz for him.

When I reminded my fellow students of the Church of England and its constitutional tie to the nation and how the United Kingdom is defined as an Anglican nation or when I raised the point that the Vatican City was in fact an independent sovereign nation I was told oh no its not the same and Jews have this unrealistic belief they should have a nation when they should just realize they are a minority and stay that way.

So there you have it. I was told I did not know my place on this planet. I must remain a minority and not be a majority. Oh fine said I. Then where would you suggest the Jews go in Israel who were expelled from the Arab League nations and were forced to move to Israel? Where would they go since Palestinians would want to return and take back land they now live on?

Well I was told by my learned colleagues and professor, that is not our concern. Its not an issue we need worry about.

Why of course, those Jews can go poof.

Excuse me but I now must go poof. That is of course the conclusion one must make when we hear such suggestions-that jews simply go poof because after all, does anyone really want us in their neighbourhoods once they are replaced by Palestinians?

You ever met an Israeli? Very aggressive people. They drive cars like mad men. Worse then the Italians and French and almost as bad as Indians or Vietnamese. Ooops I shouldn't generalize.
 
Last edited:
Netanyahu and Abbas represent the two groups.

Don't forget those who have been elected by the Palestinians

Final results show that Hamas won the election

Palestinian_legislative_election_2006.png

(green = hamas)

Palestinian legislative election, 2006 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Don't forget those who have been elected by the Palestinians


What I find interesting is how their election of a terrorist organization to lead them does not diminish the support they receive here in the west AT ALL. In fact, the slavish devotion to their cause has only increased since the election, and this with the full knowledge that they chose terrorism of their own volition.
 
So in your opinion, Obama doesn't represent the USA today because his party lost the elections to the House of Representatives?

These were midterm elections, not legislative elections.

A more accurate comparison would be to negociate with Bush or Clinton and not with Obama.
 
What I find interesting is how their election of a terrorist organization to lead them does not diminish the support they receive here in the west AT ALL. In fact, the slavish devotion to their cause has only increased since the election, and this with the full knowledge that they chose terrorism of their own volition.

They use terrorism for a reason, and yes they're more isolated since then, because many countries choose not to negociate with "terrorist organizations" (under " " because what we call "terrorism" is what the others do; when we do the same it is justified) (though now we're starting to negociate with the talibans in afghanistan)
 
Bush pressed the Palestinian Authority to hold legislative elections in 2006, but when Hamas won, he simply refused to accept the results. For Bush, it seemed, democracy only made sense when the candidates that he liked won. The White House subsequently tried to foment a Fatah-led coup, a ploy that backfired and left Hamas in charge of Gaza and the Palestinians badly divided.

Delusion Points - By Stephen M. Walt | Foreign Policy
 
They use terrorism for a reason, and yes they're more isolated since then, because many countries choose not to negociate with "terrorist organizations" (under " " because what we call "terrorism" is what the others do; when we do the same it is justified) (though now we're starting to negociate with the talibans in afghanistan)

The only reason for the use of terrorism is the lack of humanity.
 
The only reason for the use of terrorism is the lack of humanity.

Or the lack of modern weapons on par with the enemy.

I doubt someone would seriously choose to blow themselves up if there was the option of using a modern weapon that does the job just as well. Just saying :shrug:
 
Or the lack of modern weapons on par with the enemy.

I doubt someone would seriously choose to blow themselves up if there was the option of using a modern weapon that does the job just as well. Just saying :shrug:

Suicide bombing is not the only form of terrorism, the Mumbai attacks for example have not involved any suicide bombing in them at all.
 
Last edited:
Suicide bombing is not the only form of terrorism, the Mumbai attacks for example have not involved any suicide bomb

thank you mr obvious
there are certainly other methods of terrorism, such as using women and children as human shields, and raining white phosphorus on a civilian population
surprised you were not the one to mention them seeing how the side you defend employs those terroristic methods
 
thank you mr obvious
there are certainly other methods of terrorism, such as using women and children as human shields, and raining white phosphorus on a civilian population
surprised you were not the one to mention them seeing how the side you defend employs those terroristic methods

"The side I defend" does not employ any terrorist methods, as it does not target civilians.
Civilians die in wars, but for an action to be that of terrorism civilians need to be deliberately targeted and attacked, while knowing that they are civilians.
Hence when the British army kills civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan, it does not engage in terrorism.
Was Israel to engage in terrorism, it would deliberately drop bombs on civilians in Gaza, killing hundreds of thousands of them.
However that would go against the values of Israel as a nation and as a democracy, as opposed to the Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip.

As to the "thank you mr obvious" remark, it should be pointed at Laila for referring to terrorism as suicide bombing and nothing more.
 
Last edited:
These were midterm elections, not legislative elections.

A more accurate comparison would be to negociate with Bush or Clinton and not with Obama.

No, its not more accurate, its less accurate.
Abbas won the elections for presidency, Fatah lost elections for the Parlament.
Obama won elections for presidency, the Democrats lost the elections to the Parlament.

Clinton and Bush are on the same status as Arafat (and I ask the fellow americans for forgivnace in advance) because Arafat is a former president as Clinton and Bush are.

If Abbas lost presidency elections to a Hamas cannidate than by all means your analogy would be "more accurate", the elections Hamas won are not for the head of state.
 
Or the lack of modern weapons on par with the enemy.

I doubt someone would seriously choose to blow themselves up if there was the option of using a modern weapon that does the job just as well. Just saying :shrug:

And having those modern weapons means that them targeting civilians is not terrorisem anymore? when you blow up a bus in Tel Aviv you do not aim to fight the Israeli army, you aim to terrorize civilian population. When you fire rockets to Sderot you aim to terrorize the civilian population in Sderot, If you use Scud missiles instead of Qassam rockets you'd still be terrorizing civilian population. Modern weaponary would just mean their terrorisem would cause more casualties.
 
No, its not more accurate, its less accurate.
Abbas won the elections for presidency, Fatah lost elections for the Parlament.
Obama won elections for presidency, the Democrats lost the elections to the Parlament.

Clinton and Bush are on the same status as Arafat (and I ask the fellow americans for forgivnace in advance) because Arafat is a former president as Clinton and Bush are.

If Abbas lost presidency elections to a Hamas cannidate than by all means your analogy would be "more accurate", the elections Hamas won are not for the head of state.

Sorry, I misunderstood something, you were right.

However Abbas' term finished over one year ago. And is it really legitimate to ignore the party who was plebiscited by the Palestinians during their last election?
 
And having those modern weapons means that them targeting civilians is not terrorisem anymore? when you blow up a bus in Tel Aviv you do not aim to fight the Israeli army, you aim to terrorize civilian population. When you fire rockets to Sderot you aim to terrorize the civilian population in Sderot, If you use Scud missiles instead of Qassam rockets you'd still be terrorizing civilian population. Modern weaponary would just mean their terrorisem would cause more casualties.

who should be terrorised?

Israelis_killed_by_Palestinians_in_Israel_and_Palestinians_killed_by_Israelis_in_Gaza_-_2008.png
 
Last edited:
Civilians die in wars, but for an action to be that of terrorism civilians need to be deliberately targeted and attacked, while knowing that they are civilians.

No.

There are many definitions of terrorism, yours is just one. Other definitions do not make the difference between military/civilians, others say that it is merely to "freighten" a population, or to "intimidate a population" for a political objective...if we take the latter definition, various sanctions/retaliations (destruction of houses of terrorist families, retaliation raids...) made against Palestinians so that they stop using terrorism against Israel could also be labelled as "terrorist".

Furthermore, "terrorism" is a tactic, not a value or an ideology.

Concerning the "democratic values of Israel", it is strange that these values disappear when those who are not supported by Israel win elections.
 
Back
Top Bottom