Boycott Israel

[Shusha]

Simply put, the occupation which denies the Palestinians the right to self-determination in their own land justifies resistance. You cannot expect true peace that is maintained by the barrel of an occupier's gun.

Sure. Let's go with that.

The occupation which denies the Palestinians the right to self-determination in their own land justifies resistance. You can not expect true peace that is maintained by the barrel of an occupier's gun.

The other side of that coin is this: The occupation which denies the Jewish people the right to self-determination in their own land justifies resistance. You can not have true peace that is maintained by the barrel of an occupier's gun (in this case the occupier's suicide bombers, rockets, knives and cars)

Any "solution" which entails sovereignty for the one over the entire territory, by definition, is UNJUST for the other party. Therefore the only JUST solution is to divide the land into two parts -- one for the Arab Palestinians and one for the Jewish people.**

So again, I ask you: How is a self-determining, self-governing State for each of these peoples NOT just?





** In fact, this has already been done -- when Jordan was removed from Palestine and given to the Arab Palestinians, leaving the remaining portion as the Homeland for the Jewish people. Unfortunately, while the Arab countries ethnically cleansed themselves of all their Jewish people, Israel chose (justly) to retain its Arab population and include them in their State as equals.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Who said that life is fair. Many a fair people, innocent people, honest people were killed by Hostile Arab Palestinians. Stop whining!

It is a mistaken and simplistic view that the absence of "conflict" is "peace."

Indeed, peace is not the absence of conflict, it is the presence of justice.

You will never hear rights, justice, or international law cross the lips of any of those phonies in the so called peace process.

(COMMENT)

No matter what you believe is true, a century ago, the Balfour Declaration was published. That set the stage for the land mark decision made by the Allied Powers at the end of the Great War. As the Allied Powers looked at the potential problem, they came to recognize the historic connection.

They made their decision. Some would say that the Allied Powers did not act quick enough. And it possible, if they had acted quicker, hundred of thousands --- even --- millions might have been saved. (We'll never know.) What does seem likely is that the attitude and behaviors of the Hostile Arab Palestinian, the poster-board likeness of a terrorist, have made it very unlikely that the regional peace would be established. Not unlike the Kurds, still fighting for a nation promised them in 1920, the status quo of the Palestinian experience will probably never come. As the rest of the world, including Israel, moves forward, leaving the development of the Arab Palestinians behind.

Most Respectfully,
R

That side steps my post. Why is it that rights, justice, and international law are never mentioned in any of the fake peace talks. You would think that those principles would be the pillars of any peace agreement.

Could it be that applying those principle would lead the talks in the "wrong" direction?

 

[Hollie]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Who said that life is fair. Many a fair people, innocent people, honest people were killed by Hostile Arab Palestinians. Stop whining!

It is a mistaken and simplistic view that the absence of "conflict" is "peace."

Indeed, peace is not the absence of conflict, it is the presence of justice.

You will never hear rights, justice, or international law cross the lips of any of those phonies in the so called peace process.

(COMMENT)

No matter what you believe is true, a century ago, the Balfour Declaration was published. That set the stage for the land mark decision made by the Allied Powers at the end of the Great War. As the Allied Powers looked at the potential problem, they came to recognize the historic connection.

They made their decision. Some would say that the Allied Powers did not act quick enough. And it possible, if they had acted quicker, hundred of thousands --- even --- millions might have been saved. (We'll never know.) What does seem likely is that the attitude and behaviors of the Hostile Arab Palestinian, the poster-board likeness of a terrorist, have made it very unlikely that the regional peace would be established. Not unlike the Kurds, still fighting for a nation promised them in 1920, the status quo of the Palestinian experience will probably never come. As the rest of the world, including Israel, moves forward, leaving the development of the Arab Palestinians behind.

Most Respectfully,
R

That side steps my post. Why is it that rights, justice, and international law are never mentioned in any of the fake peace talks. You would think that those principles would be the pillars of any peace agreement.

Could it be that applying those principle would lead the talks in the "wrong" direction?

It's a bit of a stretch to suggest the Hamas Charter groupies would have any interest in rights, justice, and international law.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Who said that life is fair. Many a fair people, innocent people, honest people were killed by Hostile Arab Palestinians. Stop whining!

It is a mistaken and simplistic view that the absence of "conflict" is "peace."

Indeed, peace is not the absence of conflict, it is the presence of justice.

You will never hear rights, justice, or international law cross the lips of any of those phonies in the so called peace process.

(COMMENT)

No matter what you believe is true, a century ago, the Balfour Declaration was published. That set the stage for the land mark decision made by the Allied Powers at the end of the Great War. As the Allied Powers looked at the potential problem, they came to recognize the historic connection.

They made their decision. Some would say that the Allied Powers did not act quick enough. And it possible, if they had acted quicker, hundred of thousands --- even --- millions might have been saved. (We'll never know.) What does seem likely is that the attitude and behaviors of the Hostile Arab Palestinian, the poster-board likeness of a terrorist, have made it very unlikely that the regional peace would be established. Not unlike the Kurds, still fighting for a nation promised them in 1920, the status quo of the Palestinian experience will probably never come. As the rest of the world, including Israel, moves forward, leaving the development of the Arab Palestinians behind.

Most Respectfully,
R

That side steps my post. Why is it that rights, justice, and international law are never mentioned in any of the fake peace talks. You would think that those principles would be the pillars of any peace agreement.

Could it be that applying those principle would lead the talks in the "wrong" direction?

It's a bit of a stretch to suggest the Hamas Charter groupies would have any interest in rights, justice, and international law.

Who was Israel's boogyman before Hamas?

 

[Hollie]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Who said that life is fair. Many a fair people, innocent people, honest people were killed by Hostile Arab Palestinians. Stop whining!

It is a mistaken and simplistic view that the absence of "conflict" is "peace."

Indeed, peace is not the absence of conflict, it is the presence of justice.

You will never hear rights, justice, or international law cross the lips of any of those phonies in the so called peace process.

(COMMENT)

No matter what you believe is true, a century ago, the Balfour Declaration was published. That set the stage for the land mark decision made by the Allied Powers at the end of the Great War. As the Allied Powers looked at the potential problem, they came to recognize the historic connection.

They made their decision. Some would say that the Allied Powers did not act quick enough. And it possible, if they had acted quicker, hundred of thousands --- even --- millions might have been saved. (We'll never know.) What does seem likely is that the attitude and behaviors of the Hostile Arab Palestinian, the poster-board likeness of a terrorist, have made it very unlikely that the regional peace would be established. Not unlike the Kurds, still fighting for a nation promised them in 1920, the status quo of the Palestinian experience will probably never come. As the rest of the world, including Israel, moves forward, leaving the development of the Arab Palestinians behind.

Most Respectfully,
R

That side steps my post. Why is it that rights, justice, and international law are never mentioned in any of the fake peace talks. You would think that those principles would be the pillars of any peace agreement.

Could it be that applying those principle would lead the talks in the "wrong" direction?

It's a bit of a stretch to suggest the Hamas Charter groupies would have any interest in rights, justice, and international law.

Who was Israel's boogyman before Hamas?

Nice dodge™

When have rights, justice, and international law been a priority for Islamic terrorists?

 

[Eloy]

Simply put, the occupation which denies the Palestinians the right to self-determination in their own land justifies resistance. You cannot expect true peace that is maintained by the barrel of an occupier's gun.

Sure. Let's go with that.

The occupation which denies the Palestinians the right to self-determination in their own land justifies resistance. You can not expect true peace that is maintained by the barrel of an occupier's gun.

The other side of that coin is this: The occupation which denies the Jewish people the right to self-determination in their own land justifies resistance. You can not have true peace that is maintained by the barrel of an occupier's gun (in this case the occupier's suicide bombers, rockets, knives and cars)

Any "solution" which entails sovereignty for the one over the entire territory, by definition, is UNJUST for the other party. Therefore the only JUST solution is to divide the land into two parts -- one for the Arab Palestinians and one for the Jewish people.**

So again, I ask you: How is a self-determining, self-governing State for each of these peoples NOT just?





** In fact, this has already been done -- when Jordan was removed from Palestine and given to the Arab Palestinians, leaving the remaining portion as the Homeland for the Jewish people. Unfortunately, while the Arab countries ethnically cleansed themselves of all their Jewish people, Israel chose (justly) to retain its Arab population and include them in their State as equals.

I agree that a two-state solution seems best but, given the determination of the Israelis to continue their occupation of the Palestinian Territories, this will not happen.

 

[Shusha]

I agree that a two-state solution seems best but, given the determination of the Israelis to continue their occupation of the Palestinian Territories, this will not happen.

Okay, so we agree, conceptually, that a two (probably three) State solution is the JUST solution.

The Israelis, of course, have demonstrated time and time again that they are willing to accept Palestinian self-government on part of the territory (examples: withdrawal from Gaza and the Oslo Accords).

The next step is to determine the permanent borders between Israel and the nascent Palestinian State. This step has to be completed BEFORE the "occupation" can end since without permanent borders we won't know what land is "occupied" and by whom. You can't end the occupation until it is determined which land will ultimately belong to Palestine.

So. Do you think that the permanent borders should be negotiated as part of a peace treaty? Do you think they should be based on the respective needs of both parties? Do you think the same rules should apply equally to both parties?

Or do you think the borders can ONLY be set in one particular place. If you go with this option -- why do you believe that?

 

[Shusha]

Also, what steps do you think each party should take unilaterally immediately to demonstrate its desire and commitment to an end of conflict agreement?

 

[Eloy]

I agree that a two-state solution seems best but, given the determination of the Israelis to continue their occupation of the Palestinian Territories, this will not happen.

Okay, so we agree, conceptually, that a two (probably three) State solution is the JUST solution.

The Israelis, of course, have demonstrated time and time again that they are willing to accept Palestinian self-government on part of the territory (examples: withdrawal from Gaza and the Oslo Accords).

What you say is not so; the Israelis did not withdraw from Gaza as they have massacred the civilian population there more than once, the latest being in 2014. Also, Gaza remains under effective occupation as there is a blockade of the border and military control of the Gaza air and sea.

The next step is to determine the permanent borders between Israel and the nascent Palestinian State. This step has to be completed BEFORE the "occupation" can end since without permanent borders we won't know what land is "occupied" and by whom. You can't end the occupation until it is determined which land will ultimately belong to Palestine.

The world sees it differently since the state of Israel which is a member of the United Nations has the border of 1967. Even Israel's only dependable ally, the USA, accepts that the Israelis are occupying Palestine.

So. Do you think that the permanent borders should be negotiated as part of a peace treaty? Do you think they should be based on the respective needs of both parties? Do you think the same rules should apply equally to both parties?

Or do you think the borders can ONLY be set in one particular place. If you go with this option -- why do you believe that?

I think the Israelis should return their military and settlers to Israel, where they belong.

 

[Andylusion]

I agree that a two-state solution seems best but, given the determination of the Israelis to continue their occupation of the Palestinian Territories, this will not happen.

Okay, so we agree, conceptually, that a two (probably three) State solution is the JUST solution.

The Israelis, of course, have demonstrated time and time again that they are willing to accept Palestinian self-government on part of the territory (examples: withdrawal from Gaza and the Oslo Accords).

What you say is not so; the Israelis did not withdraw from Gaza as they have massacred the civilian population there more than once, the latest being in 2014. Also, Gaza remains under effective occupation as there is a blockade of the border and military control of the Gaza air and sea.

The next step is to determine the permanent borders between Israel and the nascent Palestinian State. This step has to be completed BEFORE the "occupation" can end since without permanent borders we won't know what land is "occupied" and by whom. You can't end the occupation until it is determined which land will ultimately belong to Palestine.

The world sees it differently since the state of Israel which is a member of the United Nations has the border of 1967. Even Israel's only dependable ally accepts that the Israelis are occupying Palestine.

So. Do you think that the permanent borders should be negotiated as part of a peace treaty? Do you think they should be based on the respective needs of both parties? Do you think the same rules should apply equally to both parties?

Or do you think the borders can ONLY be set in one particular place. If you go with this option -- why do you believe that?

I think the Israelis should return their military and settlers to Israel, where they belong.

Israel should not withdraw from Gaza, or the West Bank.

The population of those areas earned what they got, and Israel was right to do it. If any group of people did to the USA, what those people have done to Israel, we would wipe them out. Russia would wipe them out. Most of the Middle east would torture the crap out of them, and kill them off one by one.

Israel has been far far too lenient.

I don't care how the world sees it. I don't care about the UN. I don't care if even the US government thinks they should leave Gaza. They should not. They will not. And honestly, they should kick out the Arabs, and Annex Gaza.

I think Israel has their Settlers and military exactly where they should be. Me, and most of Israel, don't really give a crap what you think, and we never will.

 

[Eloy]

I agree that a two-state solution seems best but, given the determination of the Israelis to continue their occupation of the Palestinian Territories, this will not happen.

Okay, so we agree, conceptually, that a two (probably three) State solution is the JUST solution.

The Israelis, of course, have demonstrated time and time again that they are willing to accept Palestinian self-government on part of the territory (examples: withdrawal from Gaza and the Oslo Accords).

What you say is not so; the Israelis did not withdraw from Gaza as they have massacred the civilian population there more than once, the latest being in 2014. Also, Gaza remains under effective occupation as there is a blockade of the border and military control of the Gaza air and sea.

The next step is to determine the permanent borders between Israel and the nascent Palestinian State. This step has to be completed BEFORE the "occupation" can end since without permanent borders we won't know what land is "occupied" and by whom. You can't end the occupation until it is determined which land will ultimately belong to Palestine.

The world sees it differently since the state of Israel which is a member of the United Nations has the border of 1967. Even Israel's only dependable ally accepts that the Israelis are occupying Palestine.

So. Do you think that the permanent borders should be negotiated as part of a peace treaty? Do you think they should be based on the respective needs of both parties? Do you think the same rules should apply equally to both parties?

Or do you think the borders can ONLY be set in one particular place. If you go with this option -- why do you believe that?

I think the Israelis should return their military and settlers to Israel, where they belong.

Israel should not withdraw from Gaza, or the West Bank.

The population of those areas earned what they got, and Israel was right to do it. If any group of people did to the USA, what those people have done to Israel, we would wipe them out. Russia would wipe them out. Most of the Middle east would torture the crap out of them, and kill them off one by one.

Israel has been far far too lenient.

I don't care how the world sees it. I don't care about the UN. I don't care if even the US government thinks they should leave Gaza. They should not. They will not. And honestly, they should kick out the Arabs, and Annex Gaza.

I think Israel has their Settlers and military exactly where they should be. Me, and most of Israel, don't really give a crap what you think, and we never will.

Zionists agree with you.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

The answer to this question is probably the same reason that "justice" is not mentioned in court.

That side steps my post. Why is it that rights, justice, and international law are never mentioned in any of the fake peace talks. You would think that those principles would be the pillars of any peace agreement.

Could it be that applying those principle would lead the talks in the "wrong" direction?

(COMMENT)

You maybe going into peace talks thing that the end result is come from seeking a just settlement international claim for restitution. I believe that the Hostile Arab Palestinian has inflicted harm through criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or any other nature that may be invoked to justify them. The Hostile Arab Palestinian, unable to achieve their political goals and objective, act to coerce the citizenry; to apply criminal pressure intended to influence the policy and conduct of government.

But I believe the participation in peace negotiations (dispute resolution, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement) or other peaceful methodologies to achieve equity and fairness that prevents the "Unjust Enrichment" of one party or the other; including compensation for the war, restitution for deliberate attacks on civilians in public places, or government facility, a public transportation system or an infrastructure facility, with the intent to cause death or serious bodily injury, or extensive destruction likely to result or actually resulting in major economic loss.

The HoAP has violate every one of the 16 separate anti-terrorist conventions since the establishment of the Palestinian State in 1988 (not the 100's of non-binding resolutions the Radicalized Islamic World has push through targeted specifically against the Israelis).

I think your notion of peace process is something that doesn't exist. In most negotiations for peace, it is not about rights, justice, and international law. It is an agreement between the parties to a set of conditions. Don't get caught-up the the political rhetoric. The objective of the agreement is "peace;" --- "not rights, justice, and international law."

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Oh, don't be foolish. This list is just ridiculously long.

Who was Israel's boogyman before Hamas?

(COMMENT)

Hostile Arab Palestinians have been around since the time of the Treaty of Sevres (and even before).

• Haj Amin al Husseini, the Mufti of Jerusalem
• Izz ad-Din al-Qassam and the Palestinian Black Hand
• Husseini-controlled Arab Higher Committee
• Arab Liberation Army
• Holy War Army
• etc etc etc
​

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

The answer to this question is probably the same reason that "justice" is not mentioned in court.

That side steps my post. Why is it that rights, justice, and international law are never mentioned in any of the fake peace talks. You would think that those principles would be the pillars of any peace agreement.

Could it be that applying those principle would lead the talks in the "wrong" direction?

(COMMENT)

You maybe going into peace talks thing that the end result is come from seeking a just settlement international claim for restitution. I believe that the Hostile Arab Palestinian has inflicted harm through criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or any other nature that may be invoked to justify them. The Hostile Arab Palestinian, unable to achieve their political goals and objective, act to coerce the citizenry; to apply criminal pressure intended to influence the policy and conduct of government.

But I believe the participation in peace negotiations (dispute resolution, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement) or other peaceful methodologies to achieve equity and fairness that prevents the "Unjust Enrichment" of one party or the other; including compensation for the war, restitution for deliberate attacks on civilians in public places, or government facility, a public transportation system or an infrastructure facility, with the intent to cause death or serious bodily injury, or extensive destruction likely to result or actually resulting in major economic loss.

The HoAP has violate every one of the 16 separate anti-terrorist conventions since the establishment of the Palestinian State in 1988 (not the 100's of non-binding resolutions the Radicalized Islamic World has push through targeted specifically against the Israelis).

I think your notion of peace process is something that doesn't exist. In most negotiations for peace, it is not about rights, justice, and international law. It is an agreement between the parties to a set of conditions. Don't get caught-up the the political rhetoric. The objective of the agreement is "peace;" --- "not rights, justice, and international law."

Most Respectfully,
R

Where do you get this crap, Rocco?

BTW, no justice no peace.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Oh, don't be foolish. This list is just ridiculously long.

Who was Israel's boogyman before Hamas?

(COMMENT)

Hostile Arab Palestinians have been around since the time of the Treaty of Sevres (and even before).

• Haj Amin al Husseini, the Mufti of Jerusalem
• Izz ad-Din al-Qassam and the Palestinian Black Hand
• Husseini-controlled Arab Higher Committee
• Arab Liberation Army
• Holy War Army
• etc etc etc
​

Most Respectfully,
R

And all of those were a response to the Zionist colonial project.

None of them would have existed otherwise.

 

[Hollie]

P F Tinmore, et al,

The answer to this question is probably the same reason that "justice" is not mentioned in court.

That side steps my post. Why is it that rights, justice, and international law are never mentioned in any of the fake peace talks. You would think that those principles would be the pillars of any peace agreement.

Could it be that applying those principle would lead the talks in the "wrong" direction?

(COMMENT)

You maybe going into peace talks thing that the end result is come from seeking a just settlement international claim for restitution. I believe that the Hostile Arab Palestinian has inflicted harm through criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or any other nature that may be invoked to justify them. The Hostile Arab Palestinian, unable to achieve their political goals and objective, act to coerce the citizenry; to apply criminal pressure intended to influence the policy and conduct of government.

But I believe the participation in peace negotiations (dispute resolution, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement) or other peaceful methodologies to achieve equity and fairness that prevents the "Unjust Enrichment" of one party or the other; including compensation for the war, restitution for deliberate attacks on civilians in public places, or government facility, a public transportation system or an infrastructure facility, with the intent to cause death or serious bodily injury, or extensive destruction likely to result or actually resulting in major economic loss.

The HoAP has violate every one of the 16 separate anti-terrorist conventions since the establishment of the Palestinian State in 1988 (not the 100's of non-binding resolutions the Radicalized Islamic World has push through targeted specifically against the Israelis).

I think your notion of peace process is something that doesn't exist. In most negotiations for peace, it is not about rights, justice, and international law. It is an agreement between the parties to a set of conditions. Don't get caught-up the the political rhetoric. The objective of the agreement is "peace;" --- "not rights, justice, and international law."

Most Respectfully,
R

Where do you get this crap, Rocco?

BTW, no justice no peace.

no justice no peace™

Stealing silly slogans?

Justice for islamic terrorists in Gaza'istan has already been served. Nearly seventy years of failure resulting from politico-religious fascism.

Seventy years from now, the Arab-Moslem terrorists in Hamas will be largely forgotten.

 

[Hollie]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Oh, don't be foolish. This list is just ridiculously long.

Who was Israel's boogyman before Hamas?

(COMMENT)

Hostile Arab Palestinians have been around since the time of the Treaty of Sevres (and even before).

• Haj Amin al Husseini, the Mufti of Jerusalem
• Izz ad-Din al-Qassam and the Palestinian Black Hand
• Husseini-controlled Arab Higher Committee
• Arab Liberation Army
• Holy War Army
• etc etc etc
​

Most Respectfully,
R

And all of those were a response to the Zionist colonial project.

None of them would have existed otherwise.

The islamist colonial project that was begun in the 7th century has always manufactured external enemies. One of the key elements to maintaining politico-religious fascism/totalitarianism of the islamist kind is to create external enemies.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Justice is a matter of perception! There is no Book of Justice. Just as it is acceptable behavior for the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) to conduct operations contrary to the International Convention on the Suppression of Terrorist Bombing --- (Binding) --- many in the west world find it to be unacceptable. Just as the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Civil Aviation (Hijacking or Destruction) acceptable behaviors; the western world again finds it unacceptable. Just as the HoAP cannot understand The San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea (relative to the Blockade).

Where do you get this crap, Rocco?

BTW, no justice no peace.

(COMMENT)

Justice and Peace are NOT mutually exclusive. It is the case: peace is conditional for the possibility IF and only IF justice is present. (Of course we know that not to be true.)

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Who said that life is fair. Many a fair people, innocent people, honest people were killed by Hostile Arab Palestinians. Stop whining!

It is a mistaken and simplistic view that the absence of "conflict" is "peace."

Indeed, peace is not the absence of conflict, it is the presence of justice.

You will never hear rights, justice, or international law cross the lips of any of those phonies in the so called peace process.

(COMMENT)

No matter what you believe is true, a century ago, the Balfour Declaration was published. That set the stage for the land mark decision made by the Allied Powers at the end of the Great War. As the Allied Powers looked at the potential problem, they came to recognize the historic connection.

They made their decision. Some would say that the Allied Powers did not act quick enough. And it possible, if they had acted quicker, hundred of thousands --- even --- millions might have been saved. (We'll never know.) What does seem likely is that the attitude and behaviors of the Hostile Arab Palestinian, the poster-board likeness of a terrorist, have made it very unlikely that the regional peace would be established. Not unlike the Kurds, still fighting for a nation promised them in 1920, the status quo of the Palestinian experience will probably never come. As the rest of the world, including Israel, moves forward, leaving the development of the Arab Palestinians behind.

Most Respectfully,
R

That side steps my post. Why is it that rights, justice, and international law are never mentioned in any of the fake peace talks. You would think that those principles would be the pillars of any peace agreement.

Could it be that applying those principle would lead the talks in the "wrong" direction?

They are, it is just that you dont see them because they are not the ones you want to see that dont actually exist.



So what international laws would you like to see enforced by the next peace treaty, how about the one that partioned palestine and gave 78% to the arab muslims and 22% to the Jews to build their respective national homes.

What rights do you want to see enforced by the next treaty, how about the rights of the Jews to self determination that you always want to deny them ?

What justice would you like to see played out at the next peace treaty, the justice to bring the arab muslim murderers to court and face charges for their attacks on the Jews that resulted in responses that killed innocents

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Who said that life is fair. Many a fair people, innocent people, honest people were killed by Hostile Arab Palestinians. Stop whining!

It is a mistaken and simplistic view that the absence of "conflict" is "peace."

Indeed, peace is not the absence of conflict, it is the presence of justice.

You will never hear rights, justice, or international law cross the lips of any of those phonies in the so called peace process.

(COMMENT)

No matter what you believe is true, a century ago, the Balfour Declaration was published. That set the stage for the land mark decision made by the Allied Powers at the end of the Great War. As the Allied Powers looked at the potential problem, they came to recognize the historic connection.

They made their decision. Some would say that the Allied Powers did not act quick enough. And it possible, if they had acted quicker, hundred of thousands --- even --- millions might have been saved. (We'll never know.) What does seem likely is that the attitude and behaviors of the Hostile Arab Palestinian, the poster-board likeness of a terrorist, have made it very unlikely that the regional peace would be established. Not unlike the Kurds, still fighting for a nation promised them in 1920, the status quo of the Palestinian experience will probably never come. As the rest of the world, including Israel, moves forward, leaving the development of the Arab Palestinians behind.

Most Respectfully,
R

That side steps my post. Why is it that rights, justice, and international law are never mentioned in any of the fake peace talks. You would think that those principles would be the pillars of any peace agreement.

Could it be that applying those principle would lead the talks in the "wrong" direction?

It's a bit of a stretch to suggest the Hamas Charter groupies would have any interest in rights, justice, and international law.

Who was Israel's boogyman before Hamas?

Islam and Catholicism that together has tried to wipe them out for the last 2,000 years.