DogOnPorch Posted July 17, 2009 Report Share Posted July 17, 2009 They decided they wanted a US settlement there. We have two...one in Maui and the other in Florida. I hear we're working on Arizona. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted July 18, 2009 Report Share Posted July 18, 2009 You see...what happened is some Arab nations made peace with Israel...tired of war. This left really (at the time) only Syria and the Palestinian Arabs with a hate-on towards Israel (on an official level). Too weak to go it alone using the old ways (tank vs tank)...it was better to support Arafat and his gang of troublemakers re: bringing war to Israel. Then the Soviet Union fell. Weapons were no longer free. This really put a dent in the plans. No more sugardaddy while Israel continued to enjoy the what is it? Three billion a year (yawn)? Which is always brought up by dub & crew. There's an old Aesop fable called the fox and the grapes...the Arabs should take a look. Plus the one about sleeping in the bed you make... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tango Posted July 18, 2009 Report Share Posted July 18, 2009 (edited) Really now? Tell me, what happened when the Israelis pulled out of Gaza? tit-for-tat, we could go on forever, and have. Call it a stalemate, which is what we have I think, Who has the power to withdraw to provide a zone of safety for all? Who has the power to defame? Edited July 18, 2009 by tango Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tango Posted July 18, 2009 Report Share Posted July 18, 2009 (edited) QUOTE (DogOnPorch @ Jul 17 2009, 07:31 PM) * If you're going to use an improbable analogy, tell me how it got to this state in the first place...the US besieging Canada. QUOTE (tango @ Jul 17 2009, 04:37 PM) * They decided they wanted a US settlement there. Ok nevermind, I thought you were a bit more sane than dub and kuzadd but I guess not. They want to control the St Lawrence and the Northwest Passage, wall off James Bay, reroute the rivers from Hudsons Bay to James, and pump the water south, claim international waters (and oil), among other things, say. Edited July 18, 2009 by tango Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted July 18, 2009 Report Share Posted July 18, 2009 You're missing the point, tango. Your analogy is flawed from the get-go. What would the US do if Canada and the rest of the Commonwealth (UK et al) had launched a sneak attack on a national holiday...July 4th, say...or perhaps Yom Kippur. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted July 18, 2009 Report Share Posted July 18, 2009 (edited) Click back your ignore bottom (Freudian slip: with this button, you reach your bottom), using defamation to silence bright persons is obviously not working! Edited July 18, 2009 by benny Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tango Posted July 18, 2009 Report Share Posted July 18, 2009 You're missing the point, tango. Your analogy is flawed from the get-go. What would the US do if Canada and the rest of the Commonwealth (UK et al) had launched a sneak attack on a national holiday...July 4th, say...or perhaps Yom Kippur. Point being ... if besieged, maritimers might be lobbing a few projectiles into US territory. When they are not besieged, they won't be. Stop the siege of Gaza, Israel's problem projectiles are solved. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KrustyKidd Posted July 18, 2009 Report Share Posted July 18, 2009 Point being ... if besieged, maritimers might be lobbing a few projectiles into US territory.When they are not besieged, they won't be. Stop the siege of Gaza, Israel's problem projectiles are solved. Is there any precedent that proves this? I mean, Israel is certainly not going to risk their civilians lives on a hunch from Tango. As far as I know, Israel has been under constant attack, threatening rhetoric and hate mongering since it accepted Resolution 181 and partition. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted July 18, 2009 Report Share Posted July 18, 2009 Is there any precedent that proves this? I mean, Israel is certainly not going to risk their civilians lives on a hunch from Tango. As far as I know, Israel has been under constant attack, threatening rhetoric and hate mongering since it accepted Resolution 181 and partition. Since long before that really, only it wasn't yet called "Israel". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tango Posted July 18, 2009 Report Share Posted July 18, 2009 Is there any precedent that proves this? I mean, Israel is certainly not going to risk their civilians lives on a hunch from Tango. As far as I know, Israel has been under constant attack, threatening rhetoric and hate mongering since it accepted Resolution 181 and partition. Is there any other way to peace? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted July 18, 2009 Report Share Posted July 18, 2009 Is there any other way to peace? Yes. The Arab-Israeli conflict is not the only conflict in history. Feel free to learn about how peace was achieved in hundreds of other situations. How was peace achieved in Germany after WWII, for example? How was peace achieved in Japan? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KrustyKidd Posted July 18, 2009 Report Share Posted July 18, 2009 Is there any other way to peace? Ya. Stop attacking in all it's forms. Both sides. What we can do here is to stop justifying attacks in all their forms and deny either side their propaganda victories leaving them with no other discourse but to talk. Talk doesn't occur until violence stops or, one side cannot conduct violence. I can assure you that that side won't be Israel as they have plenty of options left. This, by the way, is the one tactic that a unified Palestinian entity has never tried. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kuzadd Posted July 18, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 18, 2009 How many generations does a land claim last? If Israel "steals" all the land it is currently occupying and maintains its "occupation" for a hundred years, so that all the original displaced persons are long dead and their descendants are several generations removed, would you then accept the Palestinian claims to that land as being over and done with? How long dub, and who is it that gets to pick the timescale? Bonam I will ask again, how many generations does a land claim last for Israel???? Please answer? YOu have ignored it, I would like to see you answer. How many generations does a land claim last for Israel????? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kuzadd Posted July 18, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 18, 2009 (edited) Really now? Tell me, what happened when the Israelis pulled out of Gaza? That should have been a moment of a considerable increase in the freedom of Gazans. No more Jewish settlements, no more Israeli control of internal matters. You'd think they could have paused to celebrate for a few years, enjoyed their newfound increased level of autonomy (even if not yet fully state-like). Perhaps they could have negotiated with Israel over the course of a few years to slowly allow increased self-determination for the territory of Gaza, after such a significant step and gesture on behalf of Israel.But nope. They just started with the rocket barrages, as the Palestinians always do. Sounds like you might want to read up on your history some more. what a crock, Israel pulled the settlers out of Gaza because they were planning to control Gaza in the most miserable way possible. As they still are. Also quite likely they intended to launch an attack. Israel never relinquished control of Gaza, that is an obvious fact to this very day. Good god man read your own words "Perhaps they could have negotiated with Israel over the course of a few years to slowly allow increased self-determination for the territory of Gaza" perhaps? If Israel wanted to be nice enough just maybe???Palestinians could have negotiated with Israel why should they have to, it is their land!?? YOu don't grasp that do you? You have such a colonialist mind-set, such a sense of entitlement, you actually said that?? Your words Palestinians could have negotiated with Israel, perhaps?? To allow increased self-determination. Wow isn't that swell of Israel to maybe, perhaps, allow the Palestinians in their own land to the right of self-determination. Spoken in your own words better get over and read the propaganda dictionary, that is a word that does not work. Edited July 18, 2009 by kuzadd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KrustyKidd Posted July 18, 2009 Report Share Posted July 18, 2009 what a crock, Israel pulled the settlers out of Gaza because they were planning to control Gaza in the most miserable way possible. As they still are. Also quite likely they intended to launch an attack. Even if this were to be true, how would the Palestinians know this and, why would they not celebrate the removal of troops and then explain to the world that Israel is going to attack in the near fuure without justification rather than providing unarguable justification for the attack? why should they have to, it is their land!?? YOu don't grasp that do you? It is Israel's security that Israel is primarily concerned with and, since Israel is the one who can provide what the Palestinians desire would it not make sense to address their concerns? better get over and read the propaganda dictionary, that is a word that does not work. Try 'trade in return for stable guaranteed peace' instead. Work any better? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted July 18, 2009 Report Share Posted July 18, 2009 You have such a colonialist mind-set, such a sense of entitlement, you actually said that?? Breaking the illusion that Jews are colonizers (with a strong sense of entitlement) is precisely what (Canadian) politicians have to do to win elections and solve Middle East problems. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tango Posted July 18, 2009 Report Share Posted July 18, 2009 Even if this were to be true, how would the Palestinians know this and, why would they not celebrate the removal of troops and then explain to the world that Israel is going to attack in the near fuure without justification rather than providing unarguable justification for the attack?It is Israel's security that Israel is primarily concerned with and, since Israel is the one who can provide what the Palestinians desire would it not make sense to address their concerns? Try 'trade in return for stable guaranteed peace' instead. Work any better? Israel has to withdraw from the borders to allow an international safe zone. Then they can talk. They cannot talk while Gaza is under aggressive siege by Israel. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted July 18, 2009 Report Share Posted July 18, 2009 Israel has to withdraw from the borders to allow an international safe zone. Then they can talk. They cannot talk while Gaza is under aggressive siege by Israel. Page 3... Since Israel was the victor in three wars started by the Arabs that moved these borders, anywhere they say it is. The only way the Arabs should have any say about this matter is via negotiation rather than continous warfare on their part. I think another reasonable stipulation would be that they (the Israelis) deal with a sincere government that recognizes Israel's existence rather than the modern continuation of the Grand Mufti's fascist movement (ie Fatah (PLO), Hamas, Hezbollah + numerous others carrying AK-47s, wearing hoods and giving the Nazi salute). In other words...Israel doesn't HAVE to do anything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kuzadd Posted July 18, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 18, 2009 (edited) Even if this were to be true, how would the Palestinians know this and, why would they not celebrate the removal of troops and then explain to the world that Israel is going to attack in the near fuure without justification rather than providing unarguable justification for the attack?It is Israel's security that Israel is primarily concerned with and, since Israel is the one who can provide what the Palestinians desire would it not make sense to address their concerns? Try 'trade in return for stable guaranteed peace' instead. Work any better? How would the Palestianisn know this? Common Sense. Israel with it's long term expansionist agenda, suddenly pulls the settlers out?? come on, how obvious did it have to be? They got their people somewhat out of harms way, they can't cut off food and medicine and all manners of life necessities strangling and starving the population and leave some illegal settlers there, I mean what would this look like??? Well it would be obvious that not only do they not care about the Palestinians a few settlers are also expendable. But that would be to obvious. Security is not their concern, expansionism is. The facts speak for themselves, no rhetoric is necessary. Edited July 18, 2009 by kuzadd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted July 18, 2009 Report Share Posted July 18, 2009 Israel has to withdraw from the borders to allow an international safe zone. Then they can talk. They cannot talk while Gaza is under aggressive siege by Israel. No, since talking is a symbolic death, Israel should go on talking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KrustyKidd Posted July 18, 2009 Report Share Posted July 18, 2009 How would the Palestianisn know this? Common Sense. Israel with it's long term expansionist agenda, suddenly pulls the settlers out??come on, how obvious did it have to be? They got their people somewhat out of harms way, they can't cut off food and medicine and all manners of life necessities strangling and starving the population and leave some illegal settlers there, I mean what would this look like??? Well it would be obvious that not only do they not care about the Palestinians a few settlers are also expendable. But that would be to obvious. Security is not their concern, expansionism is. The facts speak for themselves, no rhetoric is necessary. If you truly believe this claptrap then I suppose there is no point in discussing it then is there? Israel wins. End of story. I suppose you will remain here complaining needlessly and, we will know that you are just ranting as nothing can change. I, on the other hand know that if this is what Israel intends, they would simply finish the wall and live large. They haven't though have they? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted July 18, 2009 Report Share Posted July 18, 2009 How many generations does a land claim last for Israel????? Israel is there now. It's claim to the land is the fact that 7 million Israelis presently live on it. You still haven't answered my question though, about how long the Palestinian land claim should last. Wow isn't that swell of Israel to maybe, perhaps, allow the Palestinians in their own land to the right of self-determination.Spoken in your own words better get over and read the propaganda dictionary, that is a word that does not work. Since my goal is not to spread propaganda, but rather to state my opinion on the issue, I can use any word I like. Israel has to withdraw from the borders to allow an international safe zone. Then they can talk. They cannot talk while Gaza is under aggressive siege by Israel. Why is it Israel that should withdraw, sacrificing some of its territory for an international safe zone? Perhaps the innocent, peace-loving Palestinians, out of their deep desire for peace, should take this step? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted July 18, 2009 Report Share Posted July 18, 2009 Israel is there now. It's claim to the land is the fact that 7 million Israelis presently live on it. You still haven't answered my question though, about how long the Palestinian land claim should last. Ask the First Nations to see if there is out there one Canadian with expertise on land claim. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kuzadd Posted July 18, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 18, 2009 Israel is there now. It's claim to the land is the fact that 7 million Israelis presently live on it. Bonam, that is not the question and you know it. How long does Israel's land claim last? How much time Bonam? The Palestinians land claim, should last as long as Israel's right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kuzadd Posted July 18, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 18, 2009 (edited) If you truly believe this claptrap then I suppose there is no point in discussing it then is there? Israel wins. End of story. I suppose you will remain here complaining needlessly and, we will know that you are just ranting as nothing can change.I, on the other hand know that if this is what Israel intends, they would simply finish the wall and live large. They haven't though have they? Wether you or I 'believe' is irrelevant, I am not talking nosensical "beliefs" I am talking actions, actions speak louder then words and the actions of Israel speak clearly for themselves. Edited July 18, 2009 by kuzadd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.