• 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

My Case

Jenin said:
You are wrong. Autonomous and self governing for the greater period of 1,400 years. Autonomous under ottoman rule, under mamluk rule under arab caliphate rule.
Click to expand...

But not autonomous under PALESTINIAN rule.
 
autonomy as you defined it is self-government
they self governed themselves, the people of palestine, my people..or maybe you want to call them something else...but they have been freer during those years than the palestinians under israeli occupation in the west bank and gaza are who cannot even travel outside their own towns these days.
 
Jenin said:
autonomy as you defined it is self-government
they self governed themselves, the people of palestine, my people..or maybe you want to call them something else...but they have been freer during those years than the palestinians under israeli occupation in the west bank and gaza are who cannot even travel outside their own towns these days.
Click to expand...

We are going round and round with this. Palestine has always been governed by another nation, be it the Romans, Byzantines, or Ottomans. There has never been a country, autonomously governed by themselves, called Palestine. Please show evidence contrary to this, or let it go.
 
whats your aim in making this point?
what do you want to get to?
through out the years i would say the worst situation for palestinians was the crusades
the second worse situation is this occupation, which prefers taking their land a bit better than taking their lives.
 
Jenin said:
whats your aim in making this point?
what do you want to get to?
through out the years i would say the worst situation for palestinians was the crusades
the second worse situation is this occupation, which prefers taking their land a bit better than taking their lives.
Click to expand...

My point is refuting an inaccurate claim, that Palestinians use to claim legitimacy to the region. They have other claims to this area, but this is not one of them.
 
The overall features of the Separation Barrier and the considerations that led to determination of the route give the impression that Israel is once again relying on security arguments to unilaterally establish facts on the ground that will affect any future agreement between Israel and the Palestinians. In the past, Israel used "imperative military needs" to justify expropriation of land to establish settlements and argued that the action was temporary. The settlements have for some time been facts on the ground. It is reasonable to assume that, as in the case of the settlements, the Separation Barrier will become a permanent fact to support Israel 's future claim to annex additional land

B'Tselem - The Seperation Barrier
 
Jenin said:
The overall features of the Separation Barrier and the considerations that led to determination of the route give the impression that Israel is once again relying on security arguments to unilaterally establish facts on the ground that will affect any future agreement between Israel and the Palestinians. In the past, Israel used "imperative military needs" to justify expropriation of land to establish settlements and argued that the action was temporary. The settlements have for some time been facts on the ground. It is reasonable to assume that, as in the case of the settlements, the Separation Barrier will become a permanent fact to support Israel 's future claim to annex additional land

B'Tselem - The Seperation Barrier
Click to expand...

In bold. Pleae offer some proof. Also, perhaps the barrier wouldn't need to exist if Palestinians didn't continue to threaten Israel's existance.
 
the proof are the maps of settlements being build and expanded daily. the resitrictions on palestinian home construction. the demolition of over 4,000 in the last couple years the imposition of jewish only settlements and roads in the west bank.
 
Jenin said:
the proof are the maps of settlements being build and expanded daily. the resitrictions on palestinian home construction. the demolition of over 4,000 in the last couple years the imposition of jewish only settlements and roads in the west bank.
Click to expand...

So let's see the maps, and links to this information. ASFAIK, there have also been Israeli settlements, dismantled, in recognition of appropriate borders, but I will have to check sources on this, later.
 
sure, there never existed a sovern native american kingdom or state or whatever. does that deny them their ancestry to the land or their rights to atleast be equal citizens on it or be given a part of it to form their own state..does that negate the attrocities and the numerous times they were branded as savages and systematically wiped off the map?
 
Jenin said:
sure, there never existed a sovern native american kingdom or state or whatever. does that deny them their ancestry to the land or their rights to atleast be equal citizens on it or be given a part of it to form their own state..does that negate the attrocities and the numerous times they were branded as savages and systematically wiped off the map?
Click to expand...

So do you agree that there was never a soveriegn nation of Palestine?
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
So do you agree that there was never a soveriegn nation of Palestine?
Click to expand...
So how many countries in a world map of today have not been souvereign countries before lets say 1950? Is it 10, 20, 50 or 100?

It is irrevelant, if there was a souvereign state with this name before.
 
Volker said:
So how many countries in a world map of today have not been souvereign countries before lets say 1950? Is it 10, 20, 50 or 100?

It is irrevelant, if there was a souvereign state with this name before.
Click to expand...

It is only relevant when some use it as justification for claiming that this is Palestinian land. In a way, though, I agree with you, Volker. Personally, and maybe I'll get attacked from both sides of this issue for this, I think it's irrelevant to consider whoever occupied this land in the past as far as claims go. UN resolutions. about the region, from the Partition Plan foward, are what needs to be considered.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
It is only relevant when some use it as justification for claiming that this is Palestinian land. In a way, though, I agree with you, Volker. Personally, and maybe I'll get attacked from both sides of this issue for this, I think it's irrelevant to consider whoever occupied this land in the past as far as claims go. UN resolutions. about the region, from the Partition Plan foward, are what needs to be considered.
Click to expand...
We care about UN resolutions, does it make us a minority :mrgreen:
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
It is only relevant when some use it as justification for claiming that this is Palestinian land. In a way, though, I agree with you, Volker. Personally, and maybe I'll get attacked from both sides of this issue for this, I think it's irrelevant to consider whoever occupied this land in the past as far as claims go. UN resolutions. about the region, from the Partition Plan foward, are what needs to be considered.
Click to expand...

It is irrelevant to consider who ever occupied the land in the past, but thats what Zionists and settlers do. They claim a god given right to the land, based on some 2000 year plus historical fact and some book they worship. It even happens constantly on these boards.

It is not however irrelivant to consider land grabs over the last say 30 or 40 years or even since the 6 day war. Yes the arabs lost, and spoils of war, but to secure peace on the long term said spoils of war have to be looked at and maybe given up.

We have to look at it in a pragmatic way. Both sides have to give something up to make peace and peace is a possible, dispite the extremists on both sides not wanting it.

The Palestinians have to accept some jewish settlements, but far from all. They also have to accept Isreals right to exist, which most do. They also have to stop their attacks, which is slightly harder because of the fragmentation of the Palestinians. They also have to accept that chances are that they will never see the old arab areas of Isreal again.

On the other hand Isreal has to accept that they cant keep East Jeruselem or all the settlements. They also have to curb the violence of the IDF and settlers against Palestinians and stop the open discrimination against non jews in the region. They have to face up to the fact that people are finally seeing them saying one thing to the international community, but a totaly different thing to the locals.. (seems to be regional thing, as most Arab goverments and leaders do this too).

Both sides have to fight thier own extremists and at this time non do so, and in fact the extremists are gaining power.

I am hopefull that peace one day will come to the area, although I am extremely pessimistic, as the forces of continued violence are very powerfull in the region.
 
Jenin said:
B'Tselem - Maps
Click to expand...
B' Tselem is a group of liars self hatred Jews!

B´Tselem Accused of Deception in Annual Report

The B’Tselem human rights group is accused by CAMERA, a media watchdog group, of using deceptive terms and selective omissions to slant the perspective of its annual report on Arab casualties.

In its December 28 press release, B'Tselem announced the main findings of its generally anti-Israel annual report: “This past year, we witnessed a deterioration in the human rights situation in the Occupied Territories, particularly in the increase in civilians killed and the destruction of the houses and infrastructure in the Gaza Strip.”

The report itself does not classify those killed as civilians or terrorists, though. It chooses instead to classify Arab casualties as either “Killed when participating in hostilities” or “Did not participate in hostilities when killed.”

CAMERA (The Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America) contacted B’Tselem and was told by spokesperson Sarit Michaeli that this is indeed the group’s policy.

According to CAMERA, until 2002, B’Tselem actually did provide separate lists of those it classified as Palestinian civilians. “In 2003, B’Tselem’s loose definition of the term ‘civilian’ included countless Palestinians who were killed while they were in the process of attacking Israelis, including opening fire at a Bat Mitzvah celebration in Hadera, killing six and injuring 35; setting off bombs; infiltrating Israeli communities and killing or injuring residents; and fighting with Israeli troops,” the CAMERA report states. “B’Tselem has since abandoned that policy – perhaps in face of CAMERA’s criticism – but is the current practice any more credible?” Full article inside
Click to expand...
 
PeteEU said:
It is irrelevant to consider who ever occupied the land in the past, but thats what Zionists and settlers do. They claim a god given right to the land, based on some 2000 year plus historical fact and some book they worship. It even happens constantly on these boards.

It is not however irrelivant to consider land grabs over the last say 30 or 40 years or even since the 6 day war. Yes the arabs lost, and spoils of war, but to secure peace on the long term said spoils of war have to be looked at and maybe given up.

We have to look at it in a pragmatic way. Both sides have to give something up to make peace and peace is a possible, dispite the extremists on both sides not wanting it.

The Palestinians have to accept some jewish settlements, but far from all. They also have to accept Isreals right to exist, which most do. They also have to stop their attacks, which is slightly harder because of the fragmentation of the Palestinians. They also have to accept that chances are that they will never see the old arab areas of Isreal again.

On the other hand Isreal has to accept that they cant keep East Jeruselem or all the settlements. They also have to curb the violence of the IDF and settlers against Palestinians and stop the open discrimination against non jews in the region. They have to face up to the fact that people are finally seeing them saying one thing to the international community, but a totaly different thing to the locals.. (seems to be regional thing, as most Arab goverments and leaders do this too).

Both sides have to fight thier own extremists and at this time non do so, and in fact the extremists are gaining power.

I am hopefull that peace one day will come to the area, although I am extremely pessimistic, as the forces of continued violence are very powerfull in the region.
Click to expand...

In essence, if what you are saying here is that more moderate heads on both sides must prevail over extremists, and that each side needs to give up something to ensure peace, then I agree with your position.

Here is my proposal for peace in the region.

The Palestinians must:
1. Eliminate the destruction of Israel from any official documents
2. Officially recognize Israel
3. Publically condemn violence against Israel
4. Arrest all militants, enacting or that have enacted violence towards Israel; extradite them to Israel for procescution.

Israel must:
1. Eliminate all Israeli settlements in Palestinian territory
2. Publically condemn violence towards Palestinians; arrest and procescute those that enact violence towards Palestinians
3. Assist the Palestinians in establishing their new nation

I'm sure there are more to both of these lists, but this is just off the top of my head.

As far as Jeruselum goes, I have a different idea. As this city is sacred to so many diverse peoples, make it an international city, administered by both Israel and the Palestinians, with access to ALL.
 
Jenin said:
sure, there never existed a sovern native american kingdom or state or whatever. does that deny them their ancestry to the land or their rights to atleast be equal citizens on it or be given a part of it to form their own state..does that negate the attrocities and the numerous times they were branded as savages and systematically wiped off the map?
Click to expand...

Nope. But like history, Native Americans and us immigrants moved on into the future. When is "Palestine" going to move on?
 
GySgt said:
Nope. But like history, Native Americans and us immigrants moved on into the future. When is "Palestine" going to move on?
Click to expand...
Hmmm, if there are no roadblocks stopping them?
 
Volker said:
Hmmm, if there are no roadblocks stopping them?
Click to expand...

Some "road blocks" are by design. Some "road blocks" exist because of other "road blocks."

Captain Courtesy summed up a few of those roadblocks. In such scenarios, the question is which side is more likely to to bend. We have seen a will from the Israeli side to cede territory only to be matched with rocket launches from the Palestinian side.
 
GySgt said:
Some "road blocks" are by design. Some "road blocks" exist because of other "road blocks."
Click to expand...
I meant these road blocks in real life, but this is not what you mean.

In my opinion the roadmap is history. There is no roadmap anymore. The politicians and diplomats on both side don't want to say it loud, but there is a new situation and the roadmap simply did not work.

This unilateral politics like Israel did with Gaza withdrawal is not a good solution, too.

I don't think, the Israeli settlements in the Palestinian territory should be eliminated. I can agree with the other points.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom