Netanyahu calls for Immediate peace talks (withOUT precondition)

[Tashah]

Oh you aren't satisfied with Jenin's response?

In my world, Jenin's response isn't worth a sheckel.

Usually Hamas claims/denies responsibility when a rocket is fired, don't they?

No... they don't. Especially now with the whole world watching.

 

[L0neW0lf]

In my world, Jenin's response isn't worth a sheckel.

No... they don't. Especially now with the whole world watching.

Don't you consider colonization a hostile activity?

Anyway;

Four wounded by Qassam rockets in Sderot; Hamas claims responsibility

Hamas condemns Gaza rocket strikes on Israel

 

[mbig]

Don't you consider colonization a hostile activity?

"Colonization" of.....?
The Disputed territory itself the unintended result of 'Hostile arab activity'.

Anyway;

Hamas condemns Gaza rocket strikes on Israel

Ah yes. But this was a specific case, Not the rule, if one reads the article quoted, not just the link presented.
Hamas [temporarily] didn't want to rock the boat while negotiations were going on in Egypt.
-

 

[L0neW0lf]

"Colonization" of.....?
The Disputed territory itself the unintended result of 'Hostile arab activity'.

Unintended? that has got to be the funniest thing I've heard all week .

what is the isolated incidence by the way them claiming responsibility or denying it or both -.-

 

[mbig]

Unintended? that has got to be the funniest thing I've heard all week .

If you don't know anything... The truth would sound "funny"
But this isn't Ummah Wolfy!

Laugh on:

".....WHAT, THEN, of the period after 1967, when these territories passed into the hands of Israel? Is it the case that Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza have been the victims of the most "varied, diverse, and comprehensive means of wholesale brutalization and persecution" ever devised by the human mind?
[........]
Such crude comparisons aside, to present the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza as "systematic oppression" is itself the inverse of the truth. It should be recalled, first of all, that this occupation did not come about as a consequence of some grand expansionist design, but rather was Incidental to Israel's success against a pan-Arab attempt to destroy it. Upon the outbreak of Israeli Egyptian hostilities on June 5, 1967, the Israeli government secretly pleaded with King Hussein of Jordan, the de-facto ruler of the West Bank, to forgo any military action; the plea was rebuffed by the Jordanian monarch, who was loathe to lose the anticipated spoils of what was to be the Arabs' "final round" with Israel.

Thus it happened that, at the end of the conflict, Israel unexpectedly found itself in control of some one million Palestinians, with no definite idea about their future status and lacking any concrete policy for their administration.
In the wake of the war, the only objective adopted by then-Minister of Defense Moshe Dayan was to preserve normalcy in the territories through a mixture of economic inducements and a minimum of Israeli intervention.
The idea was that the local populace would be given the freedom to administer itself as it wished, and would be able to maintain regular contact with the Arab world via the Jordan River bridges. In sharp contrast with, for example, the U.S. occupation of postwar Japan, which saw a general censorship of all Japanese media and a comprehensive revision of school curricula, Israel made no attempt to reshape Palestinian culture. It limited its oversight of the Arabic press in the territories to military and security matters, and allowed the continued use in local schools of Jordanian textbooks filled with vile anti-Semitic and anti-Israel propaganda.

Israel's restraint in this sphere-which turned out to be desperately misguided-is only part of the story. The larger part, still untold in all its detail, is of the astounding social and economic progress made by the Palestinian Arabs under Israeli "oppression."..."

What Occupation?

You'll also note, consistently, Israel, Unlike Jordan, Never Annexed the West Bank.. which is who they won it from, NOT 'Palestine'.

If they'd intended such they would have transferred the population and annexed it...
Leaving a better situation today, if more unfairness then.

what is the isolated incidence by the way them claiming responsibility or denying it or both

YOUR Link, As I said.

Hamas condemns Gaza rocket strikes on Israel

Gaza's Hamas rulers issued RARE criticism Thursday of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel from the strip, saying now is the wrong time for such attacks.

The Islamic militant group has fired Thousands of rockets at southern Israel in recent years. But Hamas said Thursday that it was not behind recent attacks and that it was investigating who was responsible.

It apparently fears that new rocket fire could disrupt the reconciliation talks currently underway in Cairo...

THAT "isolated incidence", reconcilaition talks in Cairo. Read your own links.

English as a second language isn't the problem here.

 

[L0neW0lf]

If you don't know anything... The truth would sound "funny"
But this isn't Ummah Wolfy!

what do you mean mbig? how is ummah related to our discussion here in any way mbig?

I know enough, thank you.

And yes the whole world is deluded it seems, Israel is not occupying anything and settlments came to existence unintentionally :roll:

BTW, considering they had already "transfered" the majority of the indigenous population, they couldn't have gotten away with booting out the rest

YOUR Link, As I said.
THAT "isolated incidence", reconcilaition talks in Cairo. Read your own links.

English as a second language isn't the problem here.

The two links I provided were to show that Hamas claims/denies responsibility for attacks. Not Hamas' motives for launching or not launching attacks or their reasoning behind criticizing the attacks

The second link is them effectively denying responsibility for a certain rocket attack while the first which you casually omit with you selective reading shows them claiming responsibility for it.

 

[mbig]

Here's how it went:

The Disputed territory itself the unintended result of 'Hostile arab activity'.

Unintended? that has got to be the funniest thing I've heard all week ...

Which I back with:

".....WHAT, THEN, of the period after 1967, when these territories passed into the hands of Israel? Is it the case that Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza have been the victims of the most "varied, diverse, and comprehensive means of wholesale brutalization and persecution" ever devised by the human mind?
[........]
Such crude comparisons aside, to present the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza as "systematic oppression" is itself the inverse of the truth. It should be recalled, first of all, that this occupation did Not come about as a consequence of some grand expansionist design, but rather was Incidental to Israel's success against a pan-Arab attempt to destroy it. Upon the outbreak of Israeli Egyptian hostilities on June 5, 1967, the Israeli government secretly pleaded with King Hussein of Jordan, the de-facto ruler of the West Bank, to forgo any military action; the plea was rebuffed by the Jordanian monarch, who was loathe to lose the anticipated spoils of what was to be the Arabs' "final round" with Israel.

Thus it happened that, at the end of the conflict, Israel unexpectedly found itself in control of some one million Palestinians, with no definite idea about their future status and lacking any concrete policy for their administration.
In the wake of the war, the only objective adopted by then-Minister of Defense Moshe Dayan was to preserve normalcy in the territories through a mixture of economic inducements and a minimum of Israeli intervention.
The idea was that the local populace would be given the freedom to administer itself as it wished, and would be able to maintain regular contact with the Arab world via the Jordan River bridges. In sharp contrast with, for example, the U.S. occupation of postwar Japan, which saw a general censorship of all Japanese media and a comprehensive revision of school curricula, Israel made no attempt to reshape Palestinian culture. It limited its oversight of the Arabic press in the territories to military and security matters, and allowed the continued use in local schools of Jordanian textbooks filled with vile anti-Semitic and anti-Israel propaganda.

Israel's restraint in this sphere-which turned out to be desperately misguided-is only part of the story. The larger part, still untold in all its detail, is of the astounding social and economic progress made by the Palestinian Arabs under Israeli "oppression."..."

What Occupation?

To which you have No answer .. still.
Just BS and Sheep-faced emoticons.

 

[Jenin]

Here's how it went:





Which I back with:


To which you have No answer .. still.
Just BS and Sheep-faced emoticons.

Documentary evidence and eywhitness accounts prove your argument to be false. Forced expulsions and premeditated massacres were the causes belli for the ALA entering palestine and they were part of the Israeli plan to ethnically cleanse and occupy as much as fast as possible.


Illan Pappe: The ethnic cleansing of palestine...
backed by real israeli documents, this book shreds all your arguments to pieces.

 

[mbig]

Documentary evidence and eywhitness accounts prove your argument to be false. Forced expulsions and premeditated massacres were the causes belli for the ALA entering palestine and they were part of the Israeli plan to ethnically cleanse and occupy as much as fast as possible.

Illan Pappe: The ethnic cleansing of palestine...
backed by real israeli documents, this book shreds all your arguments to pieces.

Yes. I provied that evidence- and rebuttal of Your Revisionist trash/obsolete Sig: (Shlaim quoting his anti-sermite mentor Pappe and Outdated Morris)

http://www.debatepolitics.com/middl...-group-insurgent-group-14.html#post1058361107

To which you had NO reply... just like the Fraudulent 'massacre'/slander 'Jenin'.

Anti-Israel/semite Jews have always made the best case for palestinians- who are not only incapable of governance and statehood.. but debate too.
-

 

[L0neW0lf]

Here's how it went:


Which I back with:


To which you have No answer .. still.
Just BS and Sheep-faced emoticons.

Actually, the existence of settlements and continued expansion of them during the terms of consequent Israeli governments, contradicts your whole argument.

Unless you're going to claim there are no places left to live in Israel.

 

[mbig]

Actually, the existence of settlements and continued expansion of them during the terms of consequent Israeli governments, contradicts your whole argument.

It doesn't at all.
Your conclusion completely fallacious.

Israel's acquisition of the territory, as I showed, was Incidental to it's 1967 War.

(additionally) Israel in fact, offered back the territory conquered immediately after that War in return for mere recognition.

The Arabs refused this offer with the famous/infamous "Three Nos" at the Khartoum conference.
(google and learn)

 

[gree0232]

what do you mean mbig? how is ummah related to our discussion here in any way mbig?

Hmmm, interesting. And it gets better!

In a thread about CURRENT Peace talks, we have .... 1967 introduced to the debate? The geopolitical situation from ... 52 years ago is somehow relevant to this discussion?

Well, lets take a stroll down memory lane.

1. The Cold War was in its hay day. That war is over.

2. The Vietnam War was raging. That war is over.

3. The 1972 Yom Kippur War, Israeli acquisition of nuclear weapons, the Camp David Accords, the Arab military assault on Palestinian refugees within neighboring states of Israel, The invasion of Lebanon, The 2006 Hezbollah War, The Gaza War, The Iraq War, 2001 Terror attacks, have all happened since then and profoundly shaped the region.

Somehow though, 1967 is relevant to the current situation regarding the status of negotiations? Because clearly the Syrians, Jordians, Egypt, and Iraq are lining up and preparing to attack as they were in 1967? That is clearly THE issue that is effecting the current impasse. :rofl

I think the current problem would be about the status of settlement activity.

 

[mbig]

Hmmm, interesting. And it gets better!

So much better You're not gonna believe it!
Probably the best for me, and worst for you.. ever.
(and that's a long list!)

In a thread about CURRENT Peace talks, we have .... 1967 introduced to the debate? The geopolitical situation from ... 52 years ago is somehow Relevant to this discussion?

Your math is Terrible (it's 42 years).... But not nearly as Pathetic as your history or logic.

Somehow though, 1967 is Relevant to the current situation regarding the status of negotiations?
Because clearly the Syrians, Jordians, Egypt, and Iraq are lining up and preparing to attack as they were in 1967?
That is clearly THE issue that is effecting the current impasse. :rofl

The Ultimate 'Duh'/most Ironic post of all time in this section.

While trying to mock me in words and an childish emoticon... you are 100% wrong to boot.

1967 and it's borders are indeed not only AN issue/"relevant"... but THEE issue!

'abbas 1967 borders'
[ame=http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rlz=1T4GGLJ_enUS351US352&q=abbas+1967+borders&aq=f&oq=&aqi=]abbas 1967 borders - Google Search[/ame]

and
'hamas 1967 borders'

[ame=http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rlz=1T4GGLJ_enUS351US352&q=hamas++1967+borders&aq=f&oq=&aqi=]hamas 1967 borders - Google Search[/ame]



So thanks once again for the chance to not only rebut, but [sweeeeetly] Reverse with simple fact your inane attempt at mockery.

 

[Vader]

I doubt Hamas will keep its word.

 

[creation]

Yes. I provied that evidence- and rebuttal of Your Revisionist trash/obsolete Sig: (Shlaim quoting his anti-sermite mentor Pappe and Outdated Morris)

http://www.debatepolitics.com/middl...-group-insurgent-group-14.html#post1058361107

To which you had NO reply... just like the Fraudulent 'massacre'/slander 'Jenin'.

Anti-Israel/semite Jews have always made the best case for palestinians- who are not only incapable of governance and statehood.. but debate too.
-

Racist nonsense. Denigrating an entire people as incapable of governance, statehood or debate? How is this justified on this forum?

If you argument were so good it really wouldnt even need that sort of comment.


Granted Benny Morris has changed his tune in recent times, but he's not the only player in town. Whats more it does you no good to make charges of anti-semitism against Israeli scholars you dont agree with.

 

[creation]

It doesn't at all.
Your conclusion completely fallacious.

Israel's acquisition of the territory, as I showed, was Incidental to it's 1967 War.

(additionally) Israel in fact, offered back the territory conquered immediately after that War in return for mere recognition.

The Arabs refused this offer with the famous/infamous "Three Nos" at the Khartoum conference.
(google and learn)

The acquisition was not incidental. The 67 war was planned fror some time adnthere were demands in Israeli politics for that aquisition.

 

[creation]

what do you mean mbig? how is ummah related to our discussion here in any way mbig?

I know enough, thank you.

And yes the whole world is deluded it seems, Israel is not occupying anything and settlments came to existence unintentionally :roll:

BTW, considering they had already "transfered" the majority of the indigenous population, they couldn't have gotten away with booting out the rest




The two links I provided were to show that Hamas claims/denies responsibility for attacks. Not Hamas' motives for launching or not launching attacks or their reasoning behind criticizing the attacks

The second link is them effectively denying responsibility for a certain rocket attack while the first which you casually omit with you selective reading shows them claiming responsibility for it.

This 'ummah' comment is a clear sign that the argument here is lost. No poster making a decent argument should require to revert to such crude implications.

 

[Tashah]

Moderator's Warning:

I don't mind a bit of drift, but this is getting far afield. Return to the OP topic and focus on it. Anyone who continue's to veer will be excused.

 

[mbig]

Hmmm, interesting. And it gets better!

So much better You're not gonna believe it!
Probably the best for me, and worst for you.. ever.
(and that's a long list!)

In a thread about CURRENT Peace talks, we have .... 1967 introduced to the debate?
The Geopolitical situation from ... 52 years ago is somehow Relevant to this discussion?

Your math is Terrible (it's 42 years).... But not nearly as Pathetic as your history or logic.

Somehow though, 1967 is Relevant to the current situation regarding the status of negotiations?
Because clearly the Syrians, Jordians, Egypt, and Iraq are lining up and preparing to attack as they were in 1967?
That is clearly THE issue that is effecting the current impasse.

The Ultimate 'Duh'/most Ironic post of all time in this section.

While trying to mock me in words and an childish emoticon... you are 100% wrong to boot.

1967 and it's borders are indeed not only AN issue/"relevant"... but THEE issue!

'abbas 1967 borders'
[ame=http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rlz=1T4GGLJ_enUS351US352&q=abbas+1967+borders&aq=f&oq=&aqi=]abbas 1967 borders - Google Search[/ame]

and
'hamas 1967 borders'

[ame=http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rlz=1T4GGLJ_enUS351US352&q=hamas++1967+borders&aq=f&oq=&aqi=]hamas 1967 borders - Google Search[/ame]



So thanks once again for the chance to not only rebut, but [sweeeeetly] Reverse with simple fact your inane attempt at mockery.

Additionally.. just TODAY....
What a Debacle for the Astonishing (and twice reiterated) claim of "irrelevant" 1967!

Nov 14, 2009

Erekat: We seek state on '67 borders
By JPOST.COM STAFF

The Palestinian Authority is considering asking the UN Security Council to recognize the existence of a Palestinian state along the 1967 lines with its capital in east Jerusalem, top PA negotiator Saeb Erekat told the Palestinian Al-Ayyam newspaper in an interview published Saturday.

Erekat said that, in light of the long-stalled negotiations with Israel, the PA was currently busy enlisting the support of various countries for such a move. The Palestinians have already received the backing of Arab nations, and Erekat said he believed that Russia and UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon would also support the call....

Erekat: PA may ask UN to recognize state on '67 borders | Middle East Conflict

UNbelievable.

 

[gree0232]

Additionally.. just TODAY....
What a Debacle for the Astonishing (and twice reiterated) claim of "irrelevant" 1967!



UNbelievable.

:rofl

Really, the 1967 geo-political situation is relevant because EVERYONE thinks that those borders represent the basis of an equitable settlement. Not quite sure what that has to do with 1967 conditions however?

So let's take a brief look again, as you pirouette around logic, at the conditions facing Israel in 1967. Israel's Arab enemies are united against it, building huge conventional armies to attack Israel. This block includes Egypt, Jordan, Syria, and Iraq. Iran, under the Shah was actually on quite friendly terms.

Israel's "Arab" enemies today, at least at the nation state level are ... Syria. Iran, Persian, is now Israel enemy #1. Huh, that seems different.

Egypt and Saudi Arabia are actually spear heading regional reconcilliation efforts rather than stoking the fires against Israel. WOW, that is really different!

Then we have Hamas and Hezbollah, non-state actors that have risen against Israel as well.

Interestingly enough, neither Hamas nor Hezbollah are employing conventional tactics against Israel. In fact, Hezbollah in particular has become the poster boy for hybrid warfare combining low end aspects of conventional war with classic insurgent tactics.

In 1967. there was also no Palestinian government to negotiate a settlement with, and Jordan has since relinquished any and all claim upon Palestinian territory as Egypt did with Gaza.

The Arabs, the monolithic neh sayers that you continually present them as, are neither monolithic nor are they uniformly massing forces to destroy Israel anymore. In fact, most scholars of the conflict now refer to it as the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict (post Camp David) rather than the Arab-Israel Conflict.

So what condition from 1967 remains relevant? Are the big bad Arabs going to rise up like they ... er, haven't done since 1973?

Then there are those pesky borders. They represent, not just geographical lines, but, by in large also represent ethnic lines as well. There has obviously been some pushing about, creating a desire to restore that balance. However, pretty much EVERYONE who looks at the issues sees these borders, and their rough ethnic and religious make up, as the basis for equitable settlement.

The '1967' portion of this is incidental. Simply put, just dropping the date in referrence to a geographical line does not mean that the 1967 War is somehow relevant or that the conditions of 1967 are identical to today's conditions. It would be something of a logic bomb to claim otherwise. :blowup: In fact, it is basically that the entire world views these borders as the basis of equitable settlement, with equitable adjustment to include ethnic and religious populations, that makes it relevant. It is the desire to equitably separate the two populations that makes that line on the ground, not the date, relevant.

Agh, but you say 1967 is relevant, that the march of history stopped then and there? And why? Because you say so? And you say it bolded with a lot of exclamation points.

Perhaps, instead of bolding your statements and putting a single exclamation point at the end, you should try using bolding, underlining, and multiple exclamation points? Perhaps then we will understand that referring to a geographic line by date indicates that the overall desire is to return to that condition set ... even though it is markedly different and requires a wholly different solution set?

Even though that condition set was alterned significantly by the Camp David Accord?

Let me also throw one last thing at you Big.

"18. Hate Messages
Hate messages delivered via threads, posts, signatures, or PM's are forbidden at Debate Politics. The Moderator Team defines a hate message as any willful wording intended to ridicule, debase, degrade, intimidate, or incite violence and/or prejudicial actions against a group of people based on their race, gender, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, or disability. Determined violations of this rule will be subject to incur an immediate revocation of membership."

If you are continually bringing up non-contextual 'evidence' with the sole intention of bashing the Arabs (all of them, because they clearly march in jack booted, monolithic, lock step), then you are clearly in violation of rule #18.

Other than the geographic lines drawn on a map and referrenced by the date Israel invaded and effectively changed them, there is no reason to dredge up bits of history in a blatant attempt to make the current situation the "Arabs" fault. There has been plenty of blame to go around since 1967.

If you want to make a case that Israel is the victim of nefarious Arab intent and action, then start a thread about that subject rather than jumping into a discussion about current conditions by selectively applying bits and pieces from entirely different situations into the debate.

The current situation has clearly evolved since 1967. You do understand that people will disagree with you on a debate forum?

If you honestly think that situation from 1967 is relevant, make your case. Tell us what we should do to restore negotiations based on the 1967 conditions set ... if you can.

Here is an example of respectful, informed, discussion about the region for you.

http://www.mei.edu/

 

[mbig]

It doesn't at all.
Your conclusion completely fallacious.

Israel's acquisition of the territory, as I showed, was Incidental to it's 1967 War.

(additionally) Israel in fact, offered back the territory conquered immediately after that War in return for mere recognition.

The Arabs refused this offer with the famous/infamous "Three Nos" at the Khartoum conference.
(google and learn)

The acquisition was not incidental. The 67 war was planned fror some time adnthere were demands in Israeli politics for that aquisition.

Here we are Again.
Saying "NO" without backing or any previous demonstrable knowledge here is Not DEBATEPolitics.

I backed my claim: http://www.debatepolitics.com/middl...ks-without-precondition-4.html#post1058361956

So it'll be back to some last-minute Googling once again for you who feels the need to answer contrarily if with no substance.

But as I and my link said-- Israel didn't (and demonstrably Hasn't for 40 years, Unlike Jordan's annexation) even known what to do with these people, and has given back 99% of the land originally occupied and had Offered All of it back for recognition (AGAIN 'Khartoum!') AT THE TIME.
Which Would Trump anything you would find in the realm of political/individual or 'war room' speculation ("oooh a Dayan quote", etc) which exists on the net. Which will no doubt follow if you even get that far.

 

[creation]

Here we are Again.
Saying "NO" without backing or any previous demonstrable knowledge here is Not DEBATEPolitics.

I backed my claim: http://www.debatepolitics.com/middl...ks-without-precondition-4.html#post1058361956

So it'll be back to some last-minute Googling once again for you who feels the need to answer contrarily if with no substance.

But as I and my link said-- Israel didn't (and demonstrably Hasn't for 40 years, Unlike Jordan's annexation) even known what to do with these people, and has given back 99% of the land originally occupied and had Offered All of it back for recognition (AGAIN 'Khartoum!') AT THE TIME.
Which Would Trump anything you would find in the realm of political/individual or 'war room' speculation ("oooh a Dayan quote", etc) which exists on the net. Which will no doubt follow if you even get that far.

Well firstly, Israel did plan its war in 1967, and it did have a choice as to its actions.

Then shortly after its victory, it began settlement.

Regarding the Khartoum No's the Israeli offer of peace was offered to Egypt and Syria, not Jordan or Palestinians in the West Bank.

Indeed the Israeli cabinet's formal resolution to return the Sinai and the Golan in June 1967 didnt mention the West Bank, and referred to Gaza as ‘fully within the territory of the state of Israel’.

Incidental? No.

But hey you were right, it only took a little bit of googling;

LRB · Henry Siegman · Grab more hills, expand the territory

 

[Vader]

Until the ****bags who took Gilad Shilat return him to Isreal; the Palestinians deserve no peace.

 

[Voluntary]

Settlement population expansion undermines the very basis of negotiation.

That about sums it up. Preconditions or not, it is one of the current main barriers to peace. If Israel was interested at all in peace, they would recognize this as necessary condition to improve peace.

 

[creation]

Until the ****bags who took Gilad Shilat return him to Isreal; the Palestinians deserve no peace.

why do you say that?