US slams Israel's decision to expand settlements - Page 22

Leanworks · #**211** (**permalink**) 12-11-2012, 07:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mikeyy

The problem with discussing this matter with some folks is that they have already decided who is innocent, who is at fault , and they won't get out of that mold. Nothing will ever change and people will continue to die, But hey, you'll be able to say. "Well it was Palestinians fault" and that will solve it. You people are stuck in this one idea and you can't seem to think outside the box you have built.

Nope. Just saying that the policy of exterminating another nation is not a viable peace initiative. You on the other hand see nothing wrong with it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mikeyy

Your story is

There are no Palestinians.

Israel offered these non existant people some desert that they have no authority to give to anyone because it isn't theirs.

The Palestinians were offered all the Israelis were going to offer and Arafat turned it down

And they hate Israelis so screw them.

The injustice of this religipous land grab never seems to enter the discusion. Israel "Given" land after using terror taught a lesson to people and now you want to forget the King David hotel and pretend Israelis were a non violent and just asked for the land they built their nation on.

Nope. Just saying that the policy of exterminating another nation is not a viable peace initiative. You on the other hand see nothing wrong with it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mikeyy

GOD did not give the Jews this land. the UN did. The UN should have done it right the first time.

That is the reality Mikey.

I'm just saying that the policy of exterminating another nation is not a viable peace initiative. You on the other hand see nothing wrong with it.

Mikeyy · #**212** (**permalink**) 12-11-2012, 07:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leanworks

Nope. Just saying that the policy of exterminating another nation is not a viable peace initiative. You on the other hand see nothing wrong with it.

Nope. Just saying that the policy of exterminating another nation is not a viable peace initiative. You on the other hand see nothing wrong with it.

That is the reality Mikey.

I'm just saying that the policy of exterminating another nation is not a viable peace initiative. You on the other hand see nothing wrong with it.

The policy of resistance is honorable to a point. Jews used terror to gain the land they now occupy. Do we look at Jews as terrorists? No. Did they murder innocent people to get what they wanted? Yes. Did they get what they wanted. Well, not exactly. But I understand resistance. I understand the diffuculty in negotiating with people you don't believe have the authority over your home to cut you deals. That ain't that hard to grasp for me.

Pretty Flamingo · #**213** (**permalink**) 12-11-2012, 08:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mikeyy

The problem with discussing this matter with some folks is that they have already decided who is innocent, who is at fault , and they won't get out of that mold. Nothing will ever change and people will continue to die, But hey, you'll be able to say. "Well it was Palestinians fault" and that will solve it. You people are stuck in this one idea and you can't seem to think outside the box you have built. Your story is

There are no Palestinians.

Israel offered these non existant people some desert that they have no authority to give to anyone because it isn't theirs.

The Palestinians were offered all the Israelis were going to offer and Arafat turned it down

And they hate Israelis so screw them.

The injustice of this religipous land grab never seems to enter the discusion. Israel "Given" land after using terror taught a lesson to people and now you want to forget the King David hotel and pretend Israelis were a non violent and just asked for the land they built their nation on. GOD did not give the Jews this land. the UN did. The UN should have done it right the first time.

Mikeyy, how many times have I shown you this, but I will do so again.

In particular watch take note from 6 minutes 30 seconds onwards although of course the whole video is important. Watch, listen and learn.

Howard Grief - EC4I middle east conflict documentary: Give Peace A Chance - YouTube

Here Abbas even admits they were wrong to accept the land.

Palestinian Mistakes - YouTube

UN Hosts 'One-Palestine State' Art Exhibit
The UN delivers a “One Arab State Solution” through art that shows all of Israel as Palestine, mirroring Abbas’ “peace process map.”

By Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu
First Publish: 12/11/2012, 2:54 PM

Abbas holding model of area he wants for state

The UN delivers a “One Arab State Solution” through an art exhibit that shows all of Israel as Palestine,
mirroring Mahmoud Abbas’ “peace process map.”

The exhibit is displayed at the public entrance of the United Nations, where the Palestinian Authority chairman two weeks ago delivered a speech before the General Assembly vote that granted the PA Non-Member Observer status.

The Breitbart website noted that the top of the cover page of his speech featured a logo that promotes all of Israel as a future state of Arab Palestine.

Publicly, Abbas has stated he wants “negotiations” with Israel that would recognize the Palestinian Authority based on the United Nations Temporary Armistice Lines drawn up in 1949 and erased with the Six-Day War in 1967.

He also insists on Israel’s accepting approximately 5 million foreign Arabs into the country, which would render an Israel a de facto Arab country.

Although the Palestinian Authority officially promotes a “two-state solution,” the Palestinian Authority’s UN representative Riyadh Mansour followed the vote by opening the art exhibit entitled “Palestine – Memories Dreams Perseverance.”

The titles of the art bear titles such as, “Homeless, “Delirious in Exile” and “to Jerusalem We Travel.” At worst, it eliminates Israel; at best, it is an attempt to claim that Israel was given Palestinian land even if there is a settlement, despite the fact that there was no such nation when Israel was formed..

One display shows all of the names of Arab terrorist organizations in the shape of the Land of Israel.

Source:
UN Hosts 'One-Palestine State' Art Exhibit - Global Agenda - News - Israel National News

_________________

Mikeyy and Coyotoe, we know you are frustrated at all this but as people on here tell you over and over and over again, as soon as Hammas and Fatah who are now apparently united again begin to recognise Israel's right to exist in peace then the talks can start. Until then, they won't. So you can churn out thread after thread but it changes nothing and basically it comes down to one side recognising the other's right to be there and exist in peace without threats of annihilation.

Mikeyy · #**214** (**permalink**) 12-11-2012, 08:05 AM

I don't watch your propoganda. It does not move the ball forward. You are stuck on showing Israelis as pure and the Palestinians as evil. I get your view and it does nothing but keep the status quo in place.

Pretty Flamingo · #**215** (**permalink**) 12-11-2012, 08:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mikeyy

I don't watch your propoganda. It does not move the ball forward. You are stuck on showing Israelis as pure and the Palestinians as evil. I get your view and it does nothing but keep the status quo in place.

You just don't get it do you.

It is simple. The arabs have had plenty of chances to have a State and they have refused them. I even proved to you where they were offered 97% of the West Bank negotiated with Bill Clinton, and they refused that 97% of land.

Leanworks has told you time and time again that all the arabs need to do for peace to come is to recognise Israel which they won't do and in fact are even upping their tactics against Israel.

And yet, after all the above and all you are being shown and told you still think the ball could be moved forward. The ball is stalled Mikeyy, and you know precisely whose court the ball is in.

Mikeyy · #**216** (**permalink**) 12-11-2012, 09:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pretty Flamingo

You just don't get it do you.

It is simple. The arabs have had plenty of chances to have a State and they have refused them. I even proved to you where they were offered 97% of the West Bank negotiated with Bill Clinton, and they refused that 97% of land.

Leanworks has told you time and time again that all the arabs need to do for peace to come is to recognise Israel which they won't do and in fact are even upping their tactics against Israel.

And yet, after all the above and all you are being shown and told you still think the ball could be moved forward. The ball is stalled Mikeyy, and you know precisely whose court the ball is in.

You want to tell me that "Arabs" not Palestinians were offerd 97% of their own land by people who don't own it? Really?

Ridiculous. I will take your house and then negotiate with you where you get to go in your house. How do you get from the bedroom to the bathroom when you don't want me to have the hallway. It isn't even your house and here you are telling me you might give me 97% of my own home. Some of this won't even happen for 99 years according to this agreement but Ishould accept it because Israel has the worlds biggest military backing their play. No. I think the resistance will and should continue. Israel has no more rights to the land than anyone else who was living there at the time. Case closed.

Coyote · #**217** (**permalink**) 12-11-2012, 02:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leanworks

I would hardly consider the FBI definition of terrorism, which is widely accepted as the definition worldwide, grasping at straws but, this would not be the first time you have been woefully informed.

Irgun fits the FBI definition. It’s your attempt to exonerate Irgun and it's related groups that is grasping at straws.

Quote:

"terrorism definition

Acts of violence committed by groups that view themselves as victimized by some notable historical wrong. Although these groups have no formal connection with governments, they usually have the financial and moral backing of sympathetic governments. Typically, they stage unexpected attacks on civilian targets, including embassies and airliners, with the aim of sowing fear and confusion. Israel has been a frequent target of terrorism, but the United States has increasingly become its main target. ( See also September 11 attacks, Osama bin Laden, Hezbollah, and Basque region.) ""

And your point is…..?

Quote:

Irgun does not exist anymore so, you may continue making your argument while Hamas in the here and now continues to be a terrorist organization which make Palestinians a terrorist nation.

Hamas is a terrorist organization.
That does not make the Palestinians a terrorist nation since there is NO independent Palestinian nation and, what's more, Hamas does not run the West Bank.

Quote:

And so the purpose of that particular attack was to terrorize civilians in the street or to harm the British?

Which particular attack? The list is lengthy and most seem to be directed only at civilians.

Quote:

Not much to demand of anybody to recognize the others right to exist. Palestinians government will not do that.

Too bad that is not the only demand. Nicely disengenius statement.

Quote:

At the same time Palestinians vowed to destroy Israel and said they had no right to exist. That was the time when they had an equal opportunity to the land and, were handed a nation on a silver platter.

They were never handed anything on a silver platter – the land was not Israel’s to give, much less to give only a portion. At any rate what happened 50 years ago is not relevant. What's relevant is what is happening now and what can be done now to remedy the situation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coyote

Ever been to Israel? I think not. People holding their kids hands while pushing a shopping cart with a machine gun slung across their shoulder. That's the reality when your enemy is intent on killing you and yours. That's the reason why they can't be fifty miles from where their military station is because attacks can come at any moment and, they frequently do.

Reality: and what do you suppose the reality is in the West Bank and Gaza? I doubt it’s much different and certainly far grimmer.

None of what you say justifies settlements.

The purpose of the settlements IS NOT a military purpose and never has been. Why do you keep perpetrating that lie?

Israel Settlements: Netanyahu Defends Construction In East Jerusalem

Quote:

Israel captured east Jerusalem along with the West Bank from Jordan in the 1967 Mideast war. Israel subsequently annexed east Jerusalem, home to sensitive Jewish, Muslim and Christian holy sites, in a move that has not been international recognized. Palestinians claim that section of the city as their future capital.
Speaking at a special parliamentary session, Netanyahu pledged to keep building in Jerusalem and said the city has never been a capital to any other people.
"We are building in Jerusalem because it is our right and our duty to this generation and future generations, not as punishment but as the basic right of our people to build in its eternal city," he said. "Jerusalem will never return to the state it was in on the eve of the (1967) Six-Day War, that I promise you."

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/07/wo...nt-policy.html

Quote:

Israel announced the next day that the government had approved 3,000 more units of housing in contested areas of East Jerusalem and the West Bank and was resuming planning and zoning work in an area east of Jerusalem known as E1. The announcement was viewed as a reaction to the United Nations vote, and critics said future construction in E1, which lies between East Jerusalem and the Israeli settlement of Maale Adumim, could irreparably harm the chances for a viable, contiguous Palestinian state there

.

No evidence that the rationale for settlement building in occupied territory is for military housing – none what-so-ever. It’s little more than a strategic land grab.

Quote:

If I were required to be ready to man a post in time of national emergency I certainly wouldn't want to live in a cardboard shack with my wife and kids. Given Palestinians are not even close to fulfilling the key provision to even begin to actually negotiate why build a clap board shack when that day will more than likely never come? If you state that it pisses them off I'll laugh as they've been pissed off for over sixty years so nothing is going to change that attitude except some soul searching and ridding themselves of their governments.

Your wife and kids do not belong there. Military members stationed in combat zones or occupied territories do not need their families with them and they are typically on rotations. This is an incredibly weak excuse.
It’s totally irrelevant whether or not the Palestinians are “close” to fulfilling “key provisions” – it doesn’t change the status of the territory in question.
The issue is not whether it “pisses them off” – it’s an issue of international law regarding occupied territory, and it’s an issue of whether a two state solution will become impossible to negotiate given Israel’s settlement activities.

Coyote · #**218** (**permalink**) 12-11-2012, 02:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pretty Flamingo

You just don't get it do you.

It is simple. The arabs have had plenty of chances to have a State and they have refused them. I even proved to you where they were offered 97% of the West Bank negotiated with Bill Clinton, and they refused that 97% of land.

Leanworks has told you time and time again that all the arabs need to do for peace to come is to recognise Israel which they won't do and in fact are even upping their tactics against Israel.

And yet, after all the above and all you are being shown and told you still think the ball could be moved forward. The ball is stalled Mikeyy, and you know precisely whose court the ball is in.

I think Mikeyy gets it. And so do I. And for that matter Saltwyn.

She posted this link that is largely ignored, about this "generous" offer from Israel. Here's part of it: The Myth of the Generous Offer ? FAIR: Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting

Quote:

Locking in occupation

To understand what actually happened at Camp David, it's necessary to know that for many years the PLO has officially called for a two-state solution in which Israel would keep the 78 percent of the Palestine Mandate (as Britain's protectorate was called) that it has controlled since 1948, and a Palestinian state would be formed on the remaining 22 percent that Israel has occupied since the 1967 war (the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem). Israel would withdraw completely from those lands, return to the pre-1967 borders and a resolution to the problem of the Palestinian refugees who were forced to flee their homes in 1948 would be negotiated between the two sides. Then, in exchange, the Palestinians would agree to recognize Israel (PLO Declaration, 12/7/88; PLO Negotiations Department).

Although some people describe Israel's Camp David proposal as practically a return to the 1967 borders, it was far from that. Under the plan, Israel would have withdrawn completely from the small Gaza Strip. But it would annex strategically important and highly valuable sections of the West Bank--while retaining "security control" over other parts--that would have made it impossible for the Palestinians to travel or trade freely within their own state without the permission of the Israeli government (Political Science Quarterly, 6/22/01; New York Times, 7/26/01; Report on Israeli Settlement in the Occupied Territories, 9-10/00; Robert Malley, New York Review of Books, 8/9/01).

The annexations and security arrangements would divide the West Bank into three disconnected cantons. In exchange for taking fertile West Bank lands that happen to contain most of the region's scarce water aquifers, Israel offered to give up a piece of its own territory in the Negev Desert--about one-tenth the size of the land it would annex--including a former toxic waste dump.

Because of the geographic placement of Israel’s proposed West Bank annexations, Palestinians living in their new "independent state" would be forced to cross Israeli territory every time they traveled or shipped goods from one section of the West Bank to another, and Israel could close those routes at will. Israel would also retain a network of so-called "bypass roads" that would crisscross the Palestinian state while remaining sovereign Israeli territory, further dividing the West Bank.

Israel was also to have kept "security control" for an indefinite period of time over the Jordan Valley, the strip of territory that forms the border between the West Bank and neighboring Jordan. Palestine would not have free access to its own international borders with Jordan and Egypt--putting Palestinian trade, and therefore its economy, at the mercy of the Israeli military.

Had Arafat agreed to these arrangements, the Palestinians would have permanently locked in place many of the worst aspects of the very occupation they were trying to bring to an end. For at Camp David, Israel also demanded that Arafat sign an "end-of-conflict" agreement stating that the decades-old war between Israel and the Palestinians was over and waiving all further claims against Israel.

Seriously - is this generous???? Why should the Palestinians have accepted this?

Pretty Flamingo · #**219** (**permalink**) 12-11-2012, 02:45 PM

Funny how the land wasn't considered 'occupied' when Jordan had it, but when Israel has it is considered occupied. Occupied from who exactly?

Mikeyy · #**220** (**permalink**) 12-11-2012, 02:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pretty Flamingo

Funny how the land wasn't considered 'occupied' when Jordan had it, but when Israel has it is considered occupied. Occupied from who exactly?

You sort of skipped over the last question

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

The Following User Says Thank You to Leanworks For This Useful Post:
Pretty Flamingo

The Following User Says Thank You to Mikeyy For This Useful Post:
Coyote

The Following User Says Thank You to Coyote For This Useful Post:
Mikeyy