even george bush refused to accept jerusalem as the capital of israel

[Guest American Woman]

they accept israel's right to exist. period.

Which isn't what I said, is it? A bright boy such as yourself should be able to see that.

that's all that was needed to do. accept israel's right to exist. this 'jewish state' crap is new and it's not required of them.

I didn't realize you got to set the terms for settling the conflict.

what now sherlock? more excuses for israel's refusal to follow international?

What now? Now I laugh heartily, same as I always do after reading your responses to my posts.

[GostHacked]

I'll say it again, the settlements have nothing to do with the conflict. They're a deflection, and a dishonest one, which many folks on the left have bought into. Moreover, they don't even know what the term means.

The settlements issue has been covered in great lengths in many threads on this forum. People on both sides of this spectrum do believe that these Israeli settlements in the occupied territories are a roadblock to peace.

But sure, since you think it is a deflection, I would love to hear the explanation of why it is a deflection.

[bleeding heart]

The settlements issue has been covered in great lengths in many threads on this forum. People on both sides of this spectrum do believe that these Israeli settlements in the occupied territories are a roadblock to peace.

But sure, since you think it is a deflection, I would love to hear the explanation of why it is a deflection.

For crying out loud, more than half the Knesset thinks they're a serious obstacle., as do both major parties of their Superpower patron.

But kraychik knows better than the Israelis themselves!

Sort of like the End-Times Evangelicals, who "love" Israel for...rather unpleasant reasons. (Hell, maybe ol' kraychik is one of these lunatics?)

Edited September 26, 2012 by bleeding heart

[Shady]

they accept israel's right to exist. period.

No they don't. Either does their government in Gaza.

[Shady]

For crying out loud, more than half the Knesset thinks they're a serious obstacle., as do both major parties of their Superpower patron.

But kraychik knows better than the Israelis themselves!

Sort of like the End-Times Evangelicals, who "love" Israel for...rtather unpleasant reasons. (Hell, maybe ol' kraychik is one of these lunatics?)

What was the excuse in 2000? What was the excuse before any settlements existed?

[bud]

No they don't.

here is a chance to get educated:

, in 1988 Yasser Arafat declared that the Palestinians had accepted Israel's right to exist.[20] In 1993, there was an official exchange of letters between Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and Chairman Arafat, in which Arafat declared that "the PLO affirms that those articles of the Palestinian Covenant which deny Israel's right to exist, and the provisions of the Covenant which are inconsistent with the commitments of this letter are now inoperative and no longer valid."

link

[Shady]

here is a chance to get educated:

, in 1988 Yasser Arafat declared that the Palestinians had accepted Israel's right to exist.[20] In 1993, there was an official exchange of letters between Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and Chairman Arafat, in which Arafat declared that "the PLO affirms that those articles of the Palestinian Covenant which deny Israel's right to exist, and the provisions of the Covenant which are inconsistent with the commitments of this letter are now inoperative and no longer valid."

link

Unfortunately, Arafat doesn't speak for the current government in Gaza, nor does he speak for most Palestinians when polled.

[bleeding heart]

What was the excuse in 2000? What was the excuse before any settlements existed?

I never said (nor vaguely hinted) that it is even close to the only issue.

But it's definitely a part of the problem, as everyone but kraychik understands.

Edited September 26, 2012 by bleeding heart

[GostHacked]

Unfortunately, Arafat doesn't speak for the current government in Gaza, nor does he speak for most Palestinians when polled.

Does the current Israeli government speak for all Israelis past and present?

[Shady]

Does the current Israeli government speak for all Israelis past and present?

Yes, the current goverment represents the current Israelis. And if they had a policy position of the destruction of Palestinians, the way the current government of Gaza does, then I'd be saying the same thing. And when Israelis are polled, they recognize the right for a Palestinian state. Not the same when Palestinians are polled.

[Shady]

I never said (nor vaguely hinted) that it is even close to the only issue.

But it's definitely a part of the problem, as everyone but kraychik understands.

Possibly. Although I would contend that there could be no Israeli settlements, and peace would still be as far away.

[kraychik]

For crying out loud, more than half the Knesset thinks they're a serious obstacle., as do both major parties of their Superpower patron.

But kraychik knows better than the Israelis themselves!

How many Israeli political parties can you list without running to an internet search? It doesn't matter what you think the consensus is. What matters are the facts. If the settlements are a core cause of the conflict, what was the problem in 1967? 1956? 1948? Or the decades of pogroms murdering Jews in Hebron, Haifa, and Jerusalem before 1948? I guess this was all a consequence of events that hadn't yet occurred? Interesting.

Sort of like the End-Times Evangelicals, who "love" Israel for...rather unpleasant reasons. (Hell, maybe ol' kraychik is one of these lunatics?)

So you revel in the stupidity of your position that the War of Independence in 1948-1949 was a result of post-1967 settlements. Interesting.

Edited September 26, 2012 by kraychik

[bud]

Unfortunately, Arafat doesn't speak for the current government in Gaza, nor does he speak for most Palestinians when polled.

both palestinians (as according to polls) and the president of palestinians, mahmoud abbas and FATAH accept the state of israel, based on the 1967 border. this is in line with what the rest of the world, including u.s. and canada accept.

[kraychik]

they accept israel's right to exist. period.

So the 1500 murdered Israelis of the second Intifada were a declaration of the "Palestinians" recognition of Israel?

that's all that was needed to do. accept israel's right to exist. this 'jewish state' crap is new and it's not required of them.

Actually no, the Oslo Accords obligated the "Palestinians" to do much more than just that. Moreover, you can't recognise Israel in one breath and then deny it in your next hundred breaths. The "Palestinians" have broken their obligations under both the Oslo Accords many times over.

[bleeding heart]

So you revel in the stupidity of your position that the War of Independence in 1948-1949 was a result of post-1967 settlements. Interesting.

If by "interesting" you mean your continual strawmen and bad habit of inventing positions for other posters, I strenuously disagree.

I understand that being part of the effete, shivering far-right demands a lack of basic literacy.

But I contend that this is not at all my fault.

Edited September 26, 2012 by bleeding heart

[kraychik]

I never said (nor vaguely hinted) that it is even close to the only issue.

But it's definitely a part of the problem, as everyone but kraychik understands.

No, they're not. They're a red herring, and now that it's been thrown in your face you're embarrassed. You didn't even know what a settlement was before I had to explain it to you. The settlements didn't exist in the first half of 1967, 1956, 1948, or decades before. I suppose the pogrom of 1929 in Hebron was a reaction to the settlements of post-1967?

Tangentially, it's funny that you describe the USA as Israel's patron, when the "Palestinians" are among the highest per capita recipients of foreign aid, with American being their biggest single-state donor. Of course, America is never described by dishonest and ignorant people as the benefactor of the "Palestinians", right? After all, you're informed. You read the dust jacket of "The Israel Lobby"!

Edited September 26, 2012 by kraychik

[kraychik]

If by "interesting" you mean your continual strawmen and bad habit of inventing positions for other posters, I strenuously disagree.

I understand that being part of the effete, shivering far-right demands a lack of basic literacy.

But I contend that this is not at all my fault.

Translation - You can't address what's being said.

If the settlements are indeed a primary cause of conflict, as is your contention, what was the cause of conflict before June of 1967? Did the causes of the conflict change after June of 1967?

Edited September 26, 2012 by kraychik

[kraychik]

Let's have some fun here....

Our dear user bleeding heart is contending that the 1929 Hebron Massacre was caused by the settlements of post-1967, events that were about forty years into the future. Or, perhaps he's telling us that the murder of most of the Fogel family was caused by the settlements, while the mass murdering Arabs in Hebron in 1929 had different reasons. Interesting.

[bud]

So the 1500 murdered Israelis of the second Intifada were a declaration of the "Palestinians" recognition of Israel?

the 1500 murders were a response to the occupation and the thousands more murder of palestinians. as of today, besides the current palestinian government, the palestinian people, as a majority, accept israel as a state within the 1967 border.

not accepting the illegal jewish settlements and the confiscation of palestinian land does not mean that they don't accept israel within the 1967 border.

you need to focus a little bit here and try not to mix different issues into one.

Actually no, the Oslo Accords obligated the "Palestinians" to do much more than just that. Moreover, you can't recognise Israel in one breath and then deny it in your next hundred breaths. The "Palestinians" have broken their obligations under both the Oslo Accords many times over.

tell me, what did the oslo accords say about what israel is obliged to do? forget the oslo accords, what does international law say about israel's obligation?

it's kind of cute how whenever one is faced with a hasbara bot, zionist bot, whatever you're called, all obligations by israel is thrown out the window.

[bleeding heart]

Translation - You can't address what's being said.

No, no translation needed...as I said, you keep inventing positions for me that I do not hold.

Further, you actually agree with this point...you just don't care.

This makes intelligent debate extremely difficult...which of course is by your design.

Edited September 26, 2012 by bleeding heart

[kraychik]

No, no translation needed...as I said, you keep inventing positions for me that I do not hold.

Further, you actually agree with this point...you just don't care.

This makes intelligent debate extremely difficult...which of course is by your design.

Your position is clear. You believe that the settlements are a cause of conflict. You were incredulous that a contrary position could be advanced. When pressed to explain how the conflict began before the year the settlements came into existence, you retreat. Might as well admit you're wrong, rather than continue deflecting.

[kraychik]

Bleeding heart, ANSWER THE QUESTION - what caused the violence and wars and terrorism BEFORE 1967?

[bleeding heart]

Bleeding heart, ANSWER THE QUESTION - what caused the violence and wars and terrorism BEFORE 1967?

As you well know: Arab violence and intransigence, and Israeli violence and intransigence.

But kraychik, you aren't even seriously asking a question. you're trolling, itching for fights, dishonestly inventing other people's positions for them, all in between bouts of wishing you could join your boy Nugent on one of his teenie girl escapades....

[kraychik]

As you well know: Arab violence and intransigence, and Israeli violence and intransigence.

But kraychik, you aren't even seriously asking a question. you're trolling, itching for fights, dishonestly inventing other people's positions for them, all in between bouts of wishing you could join your boy Nugent on one of his teenie girl escapades....

No, that is not "what I well know". That is your imaginary narrative in order to play the moral relativity game. If you fear having your fantasies challenged, why do you come to this board? Hiding behind false accusations of "trolling" when you are called out for your indefensible positions doesn't make for a compelling argument. If the settlements are a primary cause of conflict (and they are not), then explain how the mass murder and terrorism against Jews began almost a century earlier in the pre-Israel Palestine Mandate.

It's actually quite revealing, and sick, that you're trying to tell us that the 1929 Hebron massacre was a result of "Israeli intransigence". I suppose you think Ambassador Stevens was murdered because an obscure YouTube film trailer, as well?

[punked]

No, that is not "what I well know". That is your imaginary narrative in order to play the moral relativity game. If you fear having your fantasies challenged, why do you come to this board? Hiding behind false accusations of "trolling" when you are called out for your indefensible positions doesn't make for a compelling argument. If the settlements are a primary cause of conflict (and they are not), then explain how the mass murder and terrorism against Jews began almost a century earlier in the pre-Israel Palestine Mandate.

It's actually quite revealing, and sick, that you're trying to tell us that the 1929 Hebron massacre was a result of "Israeli intransigence". I suppose you think Ambassador Stevens was murdered because an obscure YouTube film trailer, as well?

A mass murder of the Jews in the early 1900s happened in Germany, Russia, as well as persecution in Spain, France etc. Must mean all those places are Islamic terrorist.

The Jewish peoples have had problems through out History which often lead back to their Religion being one of the only ones at a time in which they were able to lend money. All we have to do is look to Shakespeare to understand that even the most tolerant of peoples had horrible attitudes toward the Jews. These things however can not be used as evidence for anything other then horrible intolerance of all peoples for the Jews historically.