What benefit should Israel get from any kind of a deal with Palestinians?

[NO1]

Not before the advent of Zionism they didn't.

And some Jewish people themselves engaged in terrorism in their bid to get their state

His point is a valid one and you have yet to refute it

Wrong. You keep trying to argue about the facts, which in this case there was no Israeli govrenment in 1929 and still terror attacks against Jews happened - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1929_Hebron_massacre
I gave counterexample, this argumnet crashed.

 

[Evilroddy]

Oh look, here you are equating Israel with Hamas again just with a little more of an attempt at subtly. Oh wait, you’re not equating them. In that you barely mention the obstacle Hamas is to peace and reserve the large majority of your judgment for the Jewish state, it’s pretty clear which of the two is preferable to you.

One thing I believe this thread has conclusively proven is that many who say they want a “reasonable” peace agreement are being disingenuous and really just want Israel to capitulate to everything and couldn’t care less if Israel sees a benefit or not.

X-Factor:

Your thread is about what benefits Israel should get from a peace settlement with the Palestinians. That is why I only mentioned Hamas' resolute opposition to such a peace in passing. Hamas' opposition is by the terms of your own topic off the table as it is not a benefit which Israel can enjoy as a result of a settlement.

My subsequent point was that Israel's present-day, right-wing-led state interests are better served by avoiding a peace settlement in order to use the threat of further Palestinian/Arab violence in order to justify Israel's very expensive military dominance in the Levant. Palestinian/Arab violent opposition and violence also serves Israel's policy of extra-national destabilisation and its desire to fracture potentially hostile Arab states surrounding it into smaller sub-state players sundered by sectarian violence and made impotent by internal strife. Finally, Palestinian insurgency allows for justifying the tightening of the Israeli security-state's surveillance and control on both domestic Israeli and Palestinian political opposition to its agenda and fosters the growing authoritarianism which has been blossoming in Israel in the last decade or so.

Off topic bit: (Now Israel is expanding its vision and is bent on destabilising and fracturing non-Arab states on the periphery of Arab Mesopotamia. Thus it is turning its gaze towards Iran (bolstered by the collapse of the Sunni-dominated Iraqi regime as a result of the US-led Coalition in 2003 and possibly Turkey if it moves closer to Russia too.)

Then I answered your question from the point of view of the war-hawks in the Likud Party and other ultra-Zionist parties. That is that the only benefit these militarist and ultra-Zionist Israelis will accept is the complete and total surrender of the Palestinian people to the loss of their traditional homeland, the loss of their national identity and their eventual emigration from the region due to continued military and economic oppression imposed on them by their own resistance and by the will of the Israeli state.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

 

[X Factor]

X-Factor:

Your thread is about what benefits Israel should get from a peace settlement with the Palestinians. That is why I only mentioned Hamas' resolute opposition to such a peace in passing. Hamas' opposition is by the terms of your own topic off the table as it is not a benefit which Israel can enjoy as a result of a settlement.

My subsequent point was that Israel's present-day, right-wing-led state interests are better served by avoiding a peace settlement in order to use the threat of further Palestinian/Arab violence in order to justify Israel's very expensive military dominance in the Levant. Palestinian/Arab violent opposition and violence also serves Israel's policy of extra-national destabilisation and its desire to fracture potentially hostile Arab states surrounding it into smaller sub-state players sundered by sectarian violence and made impotent by internal strife. Finally, Palestinian insurgency allows for justifying the tightening of the Israeli security-state's surveillance and control on both domestic Israeli and Palestinian political opposition to its agenda and fosters the growing authoritarianism which has been blossoming in Israel in the last decade or so.

Off topic bit: (Now Israel is expanding its vision and is bent on destabilising and fracturing non-Arab states on the periphery of Arab Mesopotamia. Thus it is turning its gaze towards Iran (bolstered by the collapse of the Sunni-dominated Iraqi regime as a result of the US-led Coalition in 2003 and possibly Turkey if it moves closer to Russia too.)

Then I answered your question from the point of view of the war-hawks in the Likud Party and other ultra-Zionist parties. That is that the only benefit these militarist and ultra-Zionist Israelis will accept is the complete and total surrender of the Palestinian people to the loss of their traditional homeland, the loss of their national identity and their eventual emigration from the region due to continued military and economic oppression imposed on them by their own resistance and by the will of the Israeli state.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

You always have an excuse why you’re only interested in bashing Israel. This thread is about the benefit Israel should receive from any kind of “reasonable” peace deal and it’s notable, though not surprising, that you opt to attack and fault Israel again, which is actually off topic, but I understand. Haters gotta hate.

 

[Evilroddy]

You always have an excuse why you’re only interested in bashing Israel. This thread is about the benefit Israel should receive from any kind of “reasonable” peace deal and it’s notable, though not surprising, that you opt to attack and fault Israel again, which is actually off topic, but I understand. Haters gotta hate.

X-Factor:

No, it's not off-topic if you argue that the present Israeli government does not want a peace deal with the Palestinians. It attacks the assumption built into your question that peace is a desired goal for the present government of Israel. If it is not, then your question becomes a moot point. Thus my answer goes to the core of your question and is thus very much on-topic.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

 

[X Factor]

X-Factor:

No, it's not off-topic if you argue that the present Israeli government does not want a peace deal with the Palestinians. It attacks the assumption built into your question that peace is a desired goal for the present government of Israel. If it is not, then your question becomes a moot point. Thus my answer goes to the core of your question and is thus very much on-topic.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

I know what your entire purpose here is. I could start a thread called “How does Hamas harm the possibility of peace with Israel” and any contribution you’d make to the thread would still be to fault and blame Israel. I’d respect it more if you were, at least, honest about it.

 

[CJ 2.0]

X-Factor:

Your thread is about what benefits Israel should get from a peace settlement with the Palestinians. That is why I only mentioned Hamas' resolute opposition to such a peace in passing. Hamas' opposition is by the terms of your own topic off the table as it is not a benefit which Israel can enjoy as a result of a settlement.

My subsequent point was that Israel's present-day, right-wing-led state interests are better served by avoiding a peace settlement in order to use the threat of further Palestinian/Arab violence in order to justify Israel's very expensive military dominance in the Levant. Palestinian/Arab violent opposition and violence also serves Israel's policy of extra-national destabilisation and its desire to fracture potentially hostile Arab states surrounding it into smaller sub-state players sundered by sectarian violence and made impotent by internal strife. Finally, Palestinian insurgency allows for justifying the tightening of the Israeli security-state's surveillance and control on both domestic Israeli and Palestinian political opposition to its agenda and fosters the growing authoritarianism which has been blossoming in Israel in the last decade or so.

Off topic bit: (Now Israel is expanding its vision and is bent on destabilising and fracturing non-Arab states on the periphery of Arab Mesopotamia. Thus it is turning its gaze towards Iran (bolstered by the collapse of the Sunni-dominated Iraqi regime as a result of the US-led Coalition in 2003 and possibly Turkey if it moves closer to Russia too.)

Then I answered your question from the point of view of the war-hawks in the Likud Party and other ultra-Zionist parties. That is that the only benefit these militarist and ultra-Zionist Israelis will accept is the complete and total surrender of the Palestinian people to the loss of their traditional homeland, the loss of their national identity and their eventual emigration from the region due to continued military and economic oppression imposed on them by their own resistance and by the will of the Israeli state.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

Holy crap. So your “off topic” is condemning Israel for trying to “destabilize” the IRANIAN government? The one which is the lead global sponsor of terrorism? The one that openly declares its intention to destroy Israel? The corrupt oppressive theocracy which subjugates and oppresses its own people?

There is something so fundamentally wrong with so many anti-Israel westerners it truly boggles the mind.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[oneworld2]

What amazes me is how easy it is for him to simply completely deny history and invent his own.

Preferring to attack by proxy now ? lol

Says the man that invents his own claims and then goes missing when called out on them. You really do have a penchant for completely embarrassing yourself

What history have I "denied" and what did I " invent "?

 

[Evilroddy]

I know what your entire purpose here is. I could start a thread called “How does Hamas harm the possibility of peace with Israel” and any contribution you’d make to the thread would still be to fault and blame Israel. I’d respect it more if you were, at least, honest about it.

X-Factor:

Another off-topic bit: (It seems you can't or won't limit yourself to debating an issue based on its merits or demerits of the case and thus that you elect to turn to ad hominem attacks and invoking your mystical and possibly ersatz mind-reading skills to tell others what is going on in their heads. You are certainly passionate in your unwavering and unconditional advocacy for the State of Israel, but in my opinion you are not yet persuasive in your debate methodology or argumentation. Why not take a break from the personal attacks and have a go at making a well structured and documented argument rather than just viscerally reacting to things with which you disagree by lashing out at others who post such thoughts for the forum membership to consider and weigh? It is possible to disagree strongly with someone else and still remain civil in your discourse.)

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

 

[oneworld2]

They OCCUPIED THE TERRITORY...

And what ?

Had they not then there would most likely have been no Palestinian territory to talk about for a Palestinian state

They DID NOT recognize either Territory as Palestine.

So Jordan tried to annex it and got almost completely bombed out by the world over the legitimacy of that attempt

My God you are dense on this point.

If you say so

It is like America saved Texas for the Mexicans by occupation...

No it's not at all the same. What country does Texas belong to ? Mexico ? And you call me dense lol

 

[oneworld2]

He's been excellently proving just how much you don't know about this conflict and its history by calling you out on each of your claims and you're asking him if he has a point to make? Hysterical.

No he hasn't.

What claims have I been called out on ?

In fact this is now just more of your classic projection because it was I that called you out for the string of baseless claims you have made of late. That you hid from that post outlining them so definitively but continue to make your own false claims is the only thing that's truly " hysterical " :roll:

 

[X Factor]

X-Factor:

Another off-topic bit: (It seems you can't or won't limit yourself to debating an issue based on its merits or demerits of the case and thus that you elect to turn to ad hominem attacks and invoking your mystical and possibly ersatz mind-reading skills to tell others what is going on in their heads. You are certainly passionate in your unwavering and unconditional advocacy for the State of Israel, but in my opinion you are not yet persuasive in your debate methodology or argumentation. Why not take a break from the personal attacks and have a go at making a well structured and documented argument rather than just viscerally reacting to things with which you disagree by lashing out at others who post such thoughts for the forum membership to consider and weigh? It is possible to disagree strongly with someone else and still remain civil in your discourse.)

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

I don’t need to be any kind of mind reader. If you ever managed an argument against Hamas that wasn’t primarily an attack on Israel, I’d be surprised. Speaking of reading minds, you often claim you know what’s in the hearts and minds of Israelis, what they’re really thinking, like they really want to be attacked and want terrorism. Maybe that’s your way of saying terrorism isn’t that bad and Israelis actually like it. I mean you can argue this tripe but I’m sure not obligated to accept or believe it just because you say it.

 

[oneworld2]

Wrong. You keep trying to argue about the facts, which in this case there was no Israeli govrenment in 1929 and still terror attacks against Jews happened - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1929_Hebron_massacre
I gave counterexample, this argumnet crashed.

Not " wrong " at all , it's your own knowledge and chronological understanding that is what's flawed. European Jews emigrating to Palestine, dreaming of and working towards the building of an Israeli state/Jewish state ( Zionism ) there predates the event you are referring to.

So the point remains unrefuted , try again

 

[What if...?]

Because Israel has a professional and trained military. When attacked, any military is going to respond with greater force if they can. At some point you’d think Palestinians would learn that what they’re doing is not working.

Might makes right?

Relax and try to enjoy it?

 

[oneworld2]

And yet Jordan owned the land until........

Nope they occupied it and that's why virtually nobody supported their bid to annex it.

 

[NO1]

Not " wrong " at all , it's your own knowledge and chronological understanding that is what's flawed. European Jews emigrating to Palestine, dreaming of and working towards the building of an Israeli state/Jewish state ( Zionism ) there predates the event you are referring to.

So the point remains unrefuted , try again

Wrong again. You should read the post which your reapling to, it's beyond ridiculous.
Israel established in 1948 and there were terror attacks against Jews in 1929 and even before that, so the argument which suggest terror attacks are due to the Isreali government is indeed refuted.

Anyway, try to find antoher reason to sickening terror attacks, but not one will justify these horrible actions. Be carful, you are in the right track to support terror.

 

[What if...?]

It really is amazing. People who pretend to care about the Palestinians clearly don't.

If you had a choice right now between accepting Palestinian independence outside the security barrier and in Gaza or continuing the "fight" under occupation to secure those additional territories, which one would you pick?

You know, for the good of the Palestinians

They definitely should lie back and try to enjoy it.

Accept their bantustans and then leave those to the Israelis when they prove unviable (as planned).

 

[oneworld2]

Might makes right?

Relax and try to enjoy it?

Interesting how these people that think that might is right can run for the cover of the law as and when they need to but see nothing hypocritical in doing so

 

[oneworld2]

Wrong again. You should read the post which your reapling to, it's beyond ridiculous.
Israel established in 1948 and there were terror attacks against Jews in 1929 and even before that, so the argument which suggest terror attacks are due to the Isreali government is indeed refuted.

You should take your own advice . I said that Palestinian terrorism against Jewish people in Palestine came after the advent of Zionism , read European Zionist immigration to the territory. That's correct

Nothing you can say refutes it because it's a known fact

Anyway, try to find antoher reason to sickening terror attacks, but not one will justify these horrible actions. Be carful, you are in the right track to support terror.

Understanding cause and effect has nothing to do with justifications imo

 

[Fledermaus]

Nope they occupied it and that's why virtually nobody supported their bid to annex it.

Nope. They owned it.

Annexed it.

Twas theirs.

They extended JORDANIAN citizenship to the dwellers.

 

[Fledermaus]

And what ?

Had they not then there would most likely have been no Palestinian territory to talk about for a Palestinian state



So Jordan tried to annex it and got almost completely bombed out by the world over the legitimacy of that attempt


If you say so


No it's not at all the same. What country does Texas belong to ? Mexico ? And you call me dense lol

Jordan owned the territory.

Period.

Whether they got blowback on the decision is irrelevant.

They had Annexed the territory.

The idea they were holding it for safe keeping is revisionist Bull****.

Ditto Gaza.

Both were desirable lands. Both taken. Both given up only due to Israeli occupation.

WHEN DID JORDAN OFFICIALLY GIVE UP OWNERSHIP OF THE WEST BANK?

 

[NO1]

You should take your own advice . I said that Palestinian terrorism against Jewish people in Palestine came after the advent of Zionism , read European Zionist immigration to the territory. That's correct

Nothing you can say refutes it because it's a known fact

Once again, read the comment which I replied too, twice. :lol:

Understanding cause and effect has nothing to do with justifications imo

Unlike you, I'm refuse to make any connection between the two when it comes to terror. I can't see any reason for terror attacks like Hebron massacre. Do you?

 

[X Factor]

Might makes right?

Relax and try to enjoy it?

Might is what protects Israel so I'm sure glad they have it. I could only imagine what it would be like for Israel's if things were as you wanted them to be and Palestinians had better fire power.

 

[What if...?]

Ah, the lands owned by the OTTOMANS, administered temporarily by the BRITISH and then when things went south because the "Palestinians" decided on war not peace became JORDAN and EGYPTIAN territory... That "Occupied Palestinian Territory"? You do know that Egypt and Jordan took over the "Palestinian" lands... Right?

You do know the OTTOMANS ruled prior to the British. Right? It was OTTOMAN EMPIRE territory.

The whole original fight was over the land granted the Palestinians.

Both sides wanted it. Israel got it.

And the refugees got screwed.

 

[What if...?]

Ah, the lands owned by the OTTOMANS, administered temporarily by the BRITISH and then when things went south because the "Palestinians" decided on war not peace became JORDAN and EGYPTIAN territory... That "Occupied Palestinian Territory"? You do know that Egypt and Jordan took over the "Palestinian" lands... Right?

You do know the OTTOMANS ruled prior to the British. Right? It was OTTOMAN EMPIRE territory.

And is the pricing of the idea that the Israelis "took" Palestinian land.

They didn't.

Nobody owned the land they lived on.

But the DID own the developmants. Had legal right to them as long as they paid tribute to whoever owned it.

The Israelis bought the land from its nominal Somerset and then applied western land rules to their new property and evicted the current residents and took the developments along with it, without compensation.

 

[Apocalypse]

Preferring to attack by proxy now ? lol

Says the man that invents his own claims and then goes missing when called out on them. You really do have a penchant for completely embarrassing yourself

What history have I "denied" and what did I " invent "?

The delusional claims about me disappearing or embarrassing myself aside, there is no piece of history of this conflict that you haven't denied by now.

Gems like this one:

Your " mistake " is to ignore/deny the Zionist wish to transfer the Palestinian Arabs prior to the events of 1947=48. The Arabs were acutely aware that the realisation of Zionism would lead to their dispossession (of their property ) and their displacement ( from the land ). In that context their actions and reactions to an enforced partition plan don't seem that strange and their fears , previously noted , proved to be well founded.

And this false analogy:

My guess is that if Australia decided to " expand its borders " to include New Zealand you would cry and holler about the injustice and illegality of it all and of course resign yourself to the fact that if the Australians claimed the action was justified on " defence " grounds they would be justified too