pallywood

[dub]

In general, Israel's.

that's the problem.

If the Palestinians commenced sincere negotiations, starting with recognizing Israel as a Jewish state, I'd probably switch to Canada's position, however. I am not married to the idea of Jewish settlements existing in the midst of hostile, difficult to defend regions.

palestinians (arafat and the PLO) recognized israel in 1988 and again during oslo.

i'm glad that you're against the settlements. that's a start. it's too bad the israeli government is controlled by ultra right wing people who rather see the continuing of bloodshed rather than following international law and reducing problems just so they can achieve their goal of 'greater israel'.

the videos in this thread about the settlements are a small indication of what these settlements are doing. these settlements cost israel billions of dollars every year. they are one of the biggest problems, no matter from which side you look at them.

Edited July 2, 2009 by dub

[Bonam]

these settlements cost israel billions of dollars every year. they are one of the biggest problems, no matter from which side you look at them.

I would contend that the settlements improve the security situation of Israel proper, since they create a buffer zone around it. Continued expansion of settlements also creates a sense urgency for Palestinians, as they realize that the longer it takes for them to come to a peace deal, the less land they will have left to establish their state.

And yes, they do stall. They have had multiple opportunities to accept a separate Palestinian state alongside a Jewish state, all of which they failed to capitalize on. These opportunities started in 1948, when they could have chosen to live in peace alongside Israel instead of invading, and continued through until at least the 2000 Camp David Summit, when Arafat rejected a state that would have included Gaza, almost all of the West Bank, and east Jerusalem.

Now, if a Palestinian state is ever created, it will likely not include east Jerusalem and a few % less of the West Bank than they could have had in 2000. The longer they wait, the more times they reject an offer of their own state, the more they lose. Sooner or later (most likely later), the Palestinians will get a leader who realizes this, accepts whatever is still on the table, and makes the best of it. Just like the Jews made the best of the tiny state in the midst of hostile nations that they started with in 1948.

Edited July 2, 2009 by Bonam

[jbg]

in 1988, palestinians officially recognized israel and the UN's resolution and israel did nothing in return. what steps has israel taken? before you say 'gaza', i will have to tell you that despite the expensive settlements that left gaza, the illegal settlements have actually annexed more land in the west bank during that time.

Did they ever communicate that message, to their own people, in Arabic?

Statements in English mean nothing to the actual militants.

[dub]

I would contend that the settlements improve the security situation of Israel proper, since they create a buffer zone around it.

the settlements are not situated along the border. they're situated in sporadic locations in the west bank and achieve no such thing as a buffer zone.

Continued expansion of settlements also creates a sense urgency for Palestinians, as they realize that the longer it takes for them to come to a peace deal, the less land they will have left to establish their state.

sense of urgency? it's been like this for the past 60+ years. coming to a peace deal is something majority of palestinians want. again, they've accepted the 1967 border in the past and israel has done nothing.

not sure why you continue to make excuses for these illegal settlements. no matter how you look at it, they're illegal.

And yes, they do stall. They have had multiple opportunities to accept a separate Palestinian state alongside a Jewish state, all of which they failed to capitalize on.

not true. the only offer that they've had was a proposal by barak, which was never in writing and the proposal was for the palestinians to live in cantons. meaning that they would have to live in 4 areas with israeli controlled highways separating the cantons. not to mention no control of the airspace, borders and waters. yes, this is the best offer israel has given. sad, isn't it?

now you have the current government whose stance is even more ridiculous than sharon's.

These opportunities started in 1948, when they could have chosen to live in peace alongside Israel instead of invading, and continued through until at least the 2000 Camp David Summit, when Arafat rejected a state that would have included Gaza, almost all of the West Bank, and east Jerusalem.

see above about this proposal.

israel never accepted the 1948 border. in fact, israel has never accepted any border line. even if you look at their textbooks, the country of israel includes the west bank and gaza and all of jerusalem.

Now, if a Palestinian state is ever created, it will likely not include east Jerusalem and a few % less of the West Bank than they could have had in 2000. The longer they wait, the more times they reject an offer of their own state, the more they lose. Sooner or later (most likely later), the Palestinians will get a leader who realizes this, accepts whatever is still on the table, and makes the best of it. Just like the Jews made the best of the tiny state in the midst of hostile nations that they started with in 1948.

just because israel is not willing to give a lawful and reasonable offer, it doesn't mean that the palestinians should accept shit.

bullying is not going to win anyone over.

[dub]

Did they ever communicate that message, to their own people, in Arabic?

Statements in English mean nothing to the actual militants.

?

of course they did.

arafat was considered by the palestinians as their leader. the PLO was recognized as the government of the palestinians.

majority of the palestinians, then and now will accept the UN mandated 1967 border. last i heard, hamas was in favour of negotiating based on the 1967 border.

[Bonam]

the settlements are not situated along the border. they're situated in sporadic locations in the west bank and achieve no such thing as a buffer zone.

Just because they don't form a continuous band of settlements does not mean they don't serve to keep potential violence away from the Israeli borders.

coming to a peace deal is something majority of palestinians want.

What evidence do you have of this?

not true. the only offer that they've had was a proposal by barak, which was never in writing and the proposal was for the palestinians to live in cantons. meaning that they would have to live in 4 areas with israeli controlled highways separating the cantons. not to mention no control of the airspace, borders and waters. yes, this is the best offer israel has given. sad, isn't it?

What would you propose? There is no reasonable method to link the territories of Gaza and the West Bank other than with a highway that goes through Israel. I suppose they could build a highway through Jordan to the Red Sea, a ferry across the Red Sea to Egypt, and a highway through Egypt to Gaza, if you prefer, though the route through Israel is much more direct.

now you have the current government whose stance is even more ridiculous than sharon's.

Like I said, the longer the Palestinians wait, the less they will get.

israel never accepted the 1948 border. in fact, israel has never accepted any border line. even if you look at their textbooks, the country of israel includes the west bank and gaza and all of jerusalem.

You've already been through this particular debate with another poster here, who I believe trounced you quite handily. I'm not gonna repeat that discussion.

just because israel is not willing to give a lawful and reasonable offer, it doesn't mean that the palestinians should accept shit.

You may not find it reasonable, but others do. A realist accepts the best they can get and works from there.

[DogOnPorch]

?

of course they did.

arafat was considered by the palestinians as their leader. the PLO was recognized as the government of the palestinians.

majority of the palestinians, then and now will accept the UN mandated 1967 border. last i heard, hamas was in favour of negotiating based on the 1967 border.

They want to be part of Jordan and Egypt then. In 1967 that is who owned these areas.

Edited July 2, 2009 by DogOnPorch

[dub]

Just because they don't form a continuous band of settlements does not mean they don't serve to keep potential violence away from the Israeli borders.

the settlements are 'not' near the borders so i'm not sure why you keep going back to this. tell me why you keep repeating this. go look at a map of the settlements before you respond with the same thing.

What evidence do you have of this?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/apr/2...-palestine-poll

What would you propose? There is no reasonable method to link the territories of Gaza and the West Bank other than with a highway that goes through Israel. I suppose they could build a highway through Jordan to the Red Sea, a ferry across the Red Sea to Egypt, and a highway through Egypt to Gaza, if you prefer, though the route through Israel is much more direct.

the cantons i talked about was in the west bank. barak's proposal meant that the west bank would be cut into 4 cantons with israeli controlled highways separating them.

Like I said, the longer the Palestinians wait, the less they will get.

wait for what? you think the palestinians would accept what natanyahu has said? or even barak had offered?

they're not going to accept it.

i'm optimistic that this pace will not continue. especially not with the growing opposition by jews and israelis and the rest of the world against israel's treatment of palestinians. it remains to be seen how obama will handle this situation, but so far, he's said the right words. but like always, actions speak louder than words.

You've already been through this particular debate with another poster here, who I believe trounced you quite handily. I'm not gonna repeat that discussion.

trounced me how? no one has shown me that israel has accepted any UN mandated borders. not the 1948 border and not the 1967 border. if you can show me that they've accepted the border, then please, by all means, surprise me.

You may not find it reasonable, but others do. A realist accepts the best they can get and works from there.

it took a while, but apartheid south africa was finally defeated. it won't be much longer until it happens.

as mentioned before, with the growing discontent of jews and israelis, the world and the shifting of power around the world, things will change for the best.

[dub]

more pallywood:

check out those child actors.

yeah, that's right! no school for you!

[Bonam]

the settlements are 'not' near the borders so i'm not sure why you keep going back to this. tell me why you keep repeating this. go look at a map of the settlements before you respond with the same thing.

I see plenty of settlements close to the border, and plenty of settlements on routes between the border and Palestinian populated areas. The settlements are closer to Palestinian populations than most of the rest of Israel is, and more encounters between Israelies and Palestinians happen in and around the settlements than elsewhere. Yes they do create a buffer. There are also settlements in areas which do not serve as a buffer, but that does not negate the fact that some of them do. Look especially at the area north of Jerusalem along the border, up to Kalkilya. See the map:

http://www.mideastweb.org/map_israel_settlements.htm

the cantons i talked about was in the west bank. barak's proposal meant that the west bank would be cut into 4 cantons with israeli controlled highways separating them.

Wrong:

http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/mapImag...db110b8ca1f.jpg

Check out the map and read the captions. You buy into the misrepresentation on the left, while the reality of what was rejected is the map on the right.

wait for what? you think the palestinians would accept what natanyahu has said? or even barak had offered?

they're not going to accept it.

If I was a Palestinian (and for some reason hadn't yet emigrated) I would accept it, yes. I'd rather have my own state now, even if it's borders were smaller than I thought they should be. They could always be modified later through more negotiation. Sovereignty over airspace and waterways would come in time, as would our own military force. Meanwhile I'd get to enjoy a life of relative peace and stability. I wouldn't give a damn about some dusty old mosque in Jerusalem or a patch of desert with an Israeli greenhouse on it, certainly not enough to risk my life to keep alive some claim to it.

[KrustyKidd]

more pallywood:

check out those child actors.

yeah, that's right! no school for you!

Cut the crap Dub, you said;

Dub

i'm not interested in wasting my time chit chatting with extremists like you who aren't here to have a debate based on facts but to spread selective information, half-truths and even lies.

Show the board the lies I have put forth.

[dub]

Cut the crap Dub, you said;

Dub

Show the board the lies I have put forth.

lols

meaning that you acknowledge spreading half-truths and misinformation?

touche, krusty.

[dub]

I see plenty of settlements close to the border, and plenty of settlements on routes between the border and Palestinian populated areas. The settlements are closer to Palestinian populations than most of the rest of Israel is, and more encounters between Israelies and Palestinians happen in and around the settlements than elsewhere. Yes they do create a buffer. There are also settlements in areas which do not serve as a buffer, but that does not negate the fact that some of them do. Look especially at the area north of Jerusalem along the border, up to Kalkilya. See the map:

http://www.mideastweb.org/map_israel_settlements.htm

listen man.

look at the settlements. they're spread all over the place like cancer. the point of the settlements is not to create a buffer zone between the border. please, you're not convincing anybody. i'm sure even you don't believe this.

Wrong:

http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/mapImag...db110b8ca1f.jpg

Check out the map and read the captions. You buy into the misrepresentation on the left, while the reality of what was rejected is the map on the right.

there was never a map released by any party. washington institute for near peace blah blah is in the same league as CAMERA.

lets look at what the jewish virtual library has to say. check out the 'israel only' highways the west bank into pieces.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsourc.../cd2000map.html

If I was a Palestinian (and for some reason hadn't yet emigrated) I would accept it, yes.

i don't believe you. no sane person would accept living in cantons with its border, air and water controlled.

I'd rather have my own state now, even if it's borders were smaller than I thought they should be.

it's not a state. it's an open air prison.

They could always be modified later through more negotiation. Sovereignty over airspace and waterways would come in time, as would our own military force.

sure it would. because israel has been so giving so far.

Meanwhile I'd get to enjoy a life of relative peace and stability. I wouldn't give a damn about some dusty old mosque in Jerusalem or a patch of desert with an Israeli greenhouse on it, certainly not enough to risk my life to keep alive some claim to it.

it seems like majority of palestinians refuse to roll over and die as you suggest they should.

you're advocating for the palestinians to accept the bullying and whatever israel is willing to give.

[KrustyKidd]

lols

meaning that you acknowledge spreading half-truths and misinformation?

touche, krusty.

Show the lies Dub. You called me a liar and now prove it by showing us all what they were.

[dub]

Show the lies Dub. You called me a liar and now prove it by showing us all what they were.

i usually post them when you do.

for one, israel never accepted the 1947 partition plan. they have never accepted it because a partition plan has set borders and israeli has never accepted any of the UN border lines. not the 1947 border and not the 1967 border.

there. i showed you.

[dub]

what open air prison?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1GDQYafAV8

MORE pallywood!

[KrustyKidd]

i usually post them when you do.

for one, israel never accepted the 1947 partition plan. they have never accepted it because a partition plan has set borders and israeli has never accepted any of the UN border lines. not the 1947 border and not the 1967 border.

there. i showed you.

Why is it they were within those same partition borders from November 1947 to May 15 1948? Seems like they accepted it to me. Until of course, they were attacked.

[KrustyKidd]

what open air prison?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1GDQYafAV8

MORE pallywood!

Save us all the trouble Dub and just call all who disagree with you liars. That way we don't have to go to any of your silly links.

[dub]

Save us all the trouble Dub and just call all who disagree with you liars. That way we don't have to go to any of your silly links.

are you saying the video posted about the palestinians and the settlers, a lie?

i don't get your statement.

[KrustyKidd]

are you saying the video posted about the palestinians and the settlers, a lie?

i don't get your statement.

No sense in even discussing anything with you as when you cannot pony up with proof, instead of saying you have none or, using logic to pontificate why there is none you attack the poster. In this case calling me an extremist and a liar for askng you to provide some peace orientated Palestinian web sites.

IOWs, no sense discussing anything with you as you are incapable of anything other than your own closed minded viewpoint. Proof being the constant barrage of anti Israel hubris without one shred of condemnation of Hamas.

[dub]

Why is it they were within those same partition borders from November 1947 to May 15 1948? Seems like they accepted it to me. Until of course, they were attacked.

reality:

When Pinhas Rozen (Israel's first Justice Minister) demanded that Israel's Declaration of Independence should cite the country's borders. Ben-Gurion objected, and both exchanged the following points:

ROZEN: "There's the question of the borders, and it cannot be ignored."

BEN-GURION: "Anything is possible. If we decide here that there's to be no mention of borders, then we won't mention them. Nothing is a priori [imperative]."

ROZEN: "It's not a priori, but it is a legal issue."

BEN-GURION: "The law is whatever people determine it to be." (1949, The First Israelis, p. xviii)

Ben-Gurion clearly never believed in static borders, but dynamic ones as described in the Bible. He stated during a discussion with his aides:

"Before the founding of the state, on the eve of its creation, our main interests was self-defense. To a large extent, the creation of the state was an act of self-defense. . . . Many think that we're still at the same stage. But now the issue at hand is conquest, not self-defense. As for setting the borders--- it's an open-ended matter. In the Bible as well as in our history, there all kinds of definitions of the country's borders, so there's no real limit. Bo border is absolute. If it's a desert--- it could just as well be the other side. If it's sea, it could also be across the sea. The world has always been this way. Only the terms have changed. If they should find a way of reaching other stars, well then, perhaps the whole earth will no longer suffice." (1949, The First Israelis, p. 6)

[KrustyKidd]

reality:

When Pinhas Rozen (Israel's first Justice Minister) demanded that Israel's Declaration of Independence should cite the country's borders. Ben-Gurion objected, and both exchanged the following points:

ROZEN: "There's the question of the borders, and it cannot be ignored."

BEN-GURION: "Anything is possible. If we decide here that there's to be no mention of borders, then we won't mention them. Nothing is a priori [imperative]."

ROZEN: "It's not a priori, but it is a legal issue."

BEN-GURION: "The law is whatever people determine it to be." (1949, The First Israelis, p. xviii)

Ben-Gurion clearly never believed in static borders, but dynamic ones as described in the Bible. He stated during a discussion with his aides:

"Before the founding of the state, on the eve of its creation, our main interests was self-defense. To a large extent, the creation of the state was an act of self-defense. . . . Many think that we're still at the same stage. But now the issue at hand is conquest, not self-defense. As for setting the borders--- it's an open-ended matter. In the Bible as well as in our history, there all kinds of definitions of the country's borders, so there's no real limit. Bo border is absolute. If it's a desert--- it could just as well be the other side. If it's sea, it could also be across the sea. The world has always been this way. Only the terms have changed. If they should find a way of reaching other stars, well then, perhaps the whole earth will no longer suffice." (1949, The First Israelis, p. 6)

Whatever. Here is the official declaration of Israeli Independence;

ACCORDINGLY WE, MEMBERS OF THE PEOPLE'S COUNCIL, REPRESENTATIVES OF THE JEWISH COMMUNITY OF ERETZ-ISRAEL AND OF THE ZIONIST MOVEMENT, ARE HERE ASSEMBLED ON THE DAY OF THE TERMINATION OF THE BRITISH MANDATE OVER ERETZ-ISRAEL AND, BY VIRTUE OF OUR NATURAL AND HISTORIC RIGHT AND ON THE STRENGTH OF THE RESOLUTION OF THE UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY, HEREBY DECLARE THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A JEWISH STATE IN ERETZ-ISRAEL, TO BE KNOWN AS THE STATE OF ISRAEL.

Seems like they accepted it to me. Then again, I'm just a liar right?

Edited July 3, 2009 by KrustyKidd

[DogOnPorch]

Pallywood cartoon.

[DogOnPorch]

Another giggler...

[Bonam]

look at the settlements. they're spread all over the place like cancer. the point of the settlements is not to create a buffer zone between the border. please, you're not convincing anybody. i'm sure even you don't believe this.

So wherever Jews happen to settle is "cancer" now? Thanks for making your views clear though.

there was never a map released by any party. washington institute for near peace blah blah is in the same league as CAMERA.

lets look at what the jewish virtual library has to say. check out the 'israel only' highways the west bank into pieces.

Nice, no actual argument, just "I don't like your source, must not be true!".

i don't believe you. no sane person would accept living in cantons with its border, air and water controlled.

So living in a constant state of terrorism and reprisal attacks is better? I'm guessing you've never actually lived in a war zone. Some of us have. Peace is better than war, even if it means you have to drive along a freaking highway. Oh my god, not a highway to get from one part of the country to another.

sure it would. because israel has been so giving so far.

Israel has voluntarily given up many territories over the years, including the Sinai, southern Lebanon, and Gaza. They also continue to provide food, electricity, fuel, and medical services, among other things, to the Palestinians. Yes, they have been giving, and will continue to be so, regardless of how much you try to demonize them.

it seems like majority of palestinians refuse to roll over and die as you suggest they should.

I suggested that the Palestinians should "die" where exactly? Yes another one of your failed debating tactics, stuffing idiotic words in the mouths of those you disagree with.