Solutions to Israel/Palestine

[SAYIT]

I presume you are referring to Israeli operations in Gaza and Lebanon.

I disagree with you. They were necessary and achioeved their aims.

Sorry, my error - I meant Israel's incursions into Lebanon, as in Operation Peace for Galilee.

Any operation which military commanders suggest might take 3 weeks and which then involve military involvement for 18 years is not a success.

Yet when Israel occupies Palestine for over 60 years, Israel claims it won.

You are such a pathetic weasel. The Israelis occupy Israel and consider what would have resulted had your "peaceful" Arab comrades had won any of the wars. As they are so fond of saying: "the desert would run red with Jewish blood" and: "we would push them into the sea." Clearly you and your boyz never win anything but the booby prize.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Sorry, my error - I meant Israel's incursions into Lebanon, as in Operation Peace for Galilee.

Any operation which military commanders suggest might take 3 weeks and which then involve military involvement for 18 years is not a success.

Yet when Israel occupies Palestine for over 60 years, Israel claims it won.

You are such a pathetic weasel. The Israelis occupy Israel and consider what would have resulted had your "peaceful" Arab comrades had won any of the wars. As they are so fond of saying: "the desert would run red with Jewish blood" and: "we would push them into the sea." Clearly you and your boyz never win anything but the booby prize.

Israel claims that it won the 1948 was. It didn't.

 

[georgephillip]

"The fact that the Israel-Palestine conflict grinds on without resolution might appear to be rather strange. For many of the world's conflicts, it is difficult even to conjure up a feasible settlement.

"In this case, it is not only possible, but there is near universal agreement on its basic contours: a two-state settlement along the internationally recognized (pre-June 1967) borders -- with 'minor and mutual modifications,' to adopt official U.S. terminology before Washington departed from the international community in the mid-1970s.

"The basic principles have been accepted by virtually the entire world, including the Arab states (who go on to call for full normalization of relations), the Organization of Islamic States (including Iran), and relevant non-state actors (including Hamas).

"A settlement along these lines was first proposed at the U.N. Security Council in January 1976 by the major Arab states. Israel refused to attend the session. The U.S. vetoed the resolution, and did so again in 1980. The record at the General Assembly since is similar."

A Middle East Peace That Could Happen (But Won't): In Washington-Speak, "Palestinian State" Means "Fried Chicken"

 

[SAYIT]

Yet when Israel occupies Palestine for over 60 years, Israel claims it won.

You are such a pathetic weasel. The Israelis occupy Israel and consider what would have resulted had your "peaceful" Arab comrades had won any of the wars. As they are so fond of saying: "the desert would run red with Jewish blood" and: "we would push them into the sea." Clearly you and your boyz never win anything but the booby prize.

Israel claims that it won the 1948 was. It didn't.

Yeah, ok. The Arabs won and as a result:
Israel - 23,000 days of statehood and still winning!
"Palestine" - 0 days of statehood and still WHINING!

 

[P F Tinmore]

You are such a pathetic weasel. The Israelis occupy Israel and consider what would have resulted had your "peaceful" Arab comrades had won any of the wars. As they are so fond of saying: "the desert would run red with Jewish blood" and: "we would push them into the sea." Clearly you and your boyz never win anything but the booby prize.

Israel claims that it won the 1948 was. It didn't.

Yeah, ok. The Arabs won and as a result:
Israel - 23,000 days of statehood and still winning!
"Palestine" - 0 days of statehood and still WHINING!

All third grade snickering aside, the "Arabs" did not lose the 1948 war.

 

[Hossfly]

Israel claims that it won the 1948 was. It didn't.

Yeah, ok. The Arabs won and as a result:
Israel - 23,000 days of statehood and still winning!
"Palestine" - 0 days of statehood and still WHINING!

All third grade snickering aside, the "Arabs" did not lose the 1948 war.

Righto! The Boston Braves lost in '48.

 

[jack113]

"The fact that the Israel-Palestine conflict grinds on without resolution might appear to be rather strange. For many of the world's conflicts, it is difficult even to conjure up a feasible settlement.

"In this case, it is not only possible, but there is near universal agreement on its basic contours: a two-state settlement along the internationally recognized (pre-June 1967) borders -- with 'minor and mutual modifications,' to adopt official U.S. terminology before Washington departed from the international community in the mid-1970s.

"The basic principles have been accepted by virtually the entire world, including the Arab states (who go on to call for full normalization of relations), the Organization of Islamic States (including Iran), and relevant non-state actors (including Hamas).

"A settlement along these lines was first proposed at the U.N. Security Council in January 1976 by the major Arab states. Israel refused to attend the session. The U.S. vetoed the resolution, and did so again in 1980. The record at the General Assembly since is similar."

A Middle East Peace That Could Happen (But Won't): In Washington-Speak, "Palestinian State" Means "Fried Chicken"

America showed it's hypocrisy for a two state solution when is used it's veto power in the UN last year against the two state solution. Their will not be any peace or end to Jewish terrorism as long as America and the West continues to play the war profiteering game and keeps fueling the fires.

 

[Hossfly]

"The fact that the Israel-Palestine conflict grinds on without resolution might appear to be rather strange. For many of the world's conflicts, it is difficult even to conjure up a feasible settlement.

"In this case, it is not only possible, but there is near universal agreement on its basic contours: a two-state settlement along the internationally recognized (pre-June 1967) borders -- with 'minor and mutual modifications,' to adopt official U.S. terminology before Washington departed from the international community in the mid-1970s.

"The basic principles have been accepted by virtually the entire world, including the Arab states (who go on to call for full normalization of relations), the Organization of Islamic States (including Iran), and relevant non-state actors (including Hamas).

"A settlement along these lines was first proposed at the U.N. Security Council in January 1976 by the major Arab states. Israel refused to attend the session. The U.S. vetoed the resolution, and did so again in 1980. The record at the General Assembly since is similar."

A Middle East Peace That Could Happen (But Won't): In Washington-Speak, "Palestinian State" Means "Fried Chicken"

America showed it's hypocrisy for a two state solution when is used it's veto power in the UN last year against the two state solution. Their will not be any peace or end to Jewish terrorism as long as America and the West continues to play the war profiteering game and keeps fueling the fires.

Well said, Mister America/Israel supporter. Bravo!

 

[P F Tinmore]

Yeah, ok. The Arabs won and as a result:
Israel - 23,000 days of statehood and still winning!
"Palestine" - 0 days of statehood and still WHINING!

All third grade snickering aside, the "Arabs" did not lose the 1948 war.

Righto! The Boston Braves lost in '48.

Show some proof that you are correct.

 

[Saigon]

America showed it's hypocrisy for a two state solution when is used it's veto power in the UN last year against the two state solution. Their will not be any peace or end to Jewish terrorism as long as America and the West continues to play the war profiteering game and keeps fueling the fires.

I don't think the US is fueling the fires or profiting as much as protecting its ally, but I do agree that the US needs to pressure Israel to do more. In tems of money, the US would be better off financially if they were out of the game entirely, but we don't see them pulling out.

There really hasn't been a peace process for 5-10 years, and it is clear Israel isn't wildly interested in starting one. They have no need to.

Palestinians also need to accept that they need a settlement more than Israel does, and negotiate accordingly.

 

[P F Tinmore]

America showed it's hypocrisy for a two state solution when is used it's veto power in the UN last year against the two state solution. Their will not be any peace or end to Jewish terrorism as long as America and the West continues to play the war profiteering game and keeps fueling the fires.

I don't think the US is fueling the fires or profiting as much as protecting its ally, but I do agree that the US needs to pressure Israel to do more. In tems of money, the US would be better off financially if they were out of the game entirely, but we don't see them pulling out.

There really hasn't been a peace process for 5-10 years, and it is clear Israel isn't wildly interested in starting one. They have no need to.

Palestinians also need to accept that they need a settlement more than Israel does, and negotiate accordingly.

There has never been a real peace process and I don't see one coming.

There are two things that are never ever mentioned in these fake peace talks: Justice and international law.

 

[Saigon]

Tinmore -

I think there was a genuine peace process, but not since Rabin. But I do believe that he was sincere in wanting peace, and that is probably the closest we came to seeing a complete settlement.

But since then...Peres, Sharon, Netanyahu...not much chance of peace there.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Tinmore -

I think there was a genuine peace process, but not since Rabin. But I do believe that he was sincere in wanting peace, and that is probably the closest we came to seeing a complete settlement.

But since then...Peres, Sharon, Netanyahu...not much chance of peace there.

I am not that familiar with what was on the table with Rabin. I just never really looked into it.

What were some of the major points?

 

[Saigon]

I'm trying to remember, but I am not sure he ever got as far as presenting a plan, as such.

But his speeches indicated a genuine desire to achieve peace, and a willingness to compromise. If they were anything to go by, any plan would have offered more than was on the table with Barak, Clinton and Arafat. (the details of which are still bitterly contested, anyway)

 

[P F Tinmore]

I'm trying to remember, but I am not sure he ever got as far as presenting a plan, as such.

But his speeches indicated a genuine desire to achieve peace, and a willingness to compromise. If they were anything to go by, any plan would have offered more than was on the table with Barak, Clinton and Arafat. (the details of which are still bitterly contested, anyway)

Maybe that is why I have not heard that much about it.

To me the Peace process has been very consistent. The Palestinians must surrender, disarm, and hold their hand out for whatever few crumbs Israel might want to give them. That has always been the starting point. The talks are only to agree on the amount of crumbs.

Do you have a different assessment?

 

[Artevelde]

I presume you are referring to Israeli operations in Gaza and Lebanon.

I disagree with you. They were necessary and achioeved their aims.

In Gaza maybe. Lenanon, absolutely not.

I totally agree about Lebanon....and I hope Israel has learned something about sending in land troops as a result.

Gaza I struggle to see as a success...I think action was justified, but too many innocent civilians were killed and buildings destroyed for my taste.

So I guess you don't really see the Allied war against Nazi- Germany as a success either?

 

[Artevelde]

I totally agree about Lebanon....and I hope Israel has learned something about sending in land troops as a result.

Gaza I struggle to see as a success...I think action was justified, but too many innocent civilians were killed and buildings destroyed for my taste.

Success in Gaza would have been under one of the two.

1. hurting Hamas in a way that will shock the terrorist organization to its core

2. Freeding Gilad Shalit from captivity without releasing any terrorists from jail.

The second was not accomplished, but the first sure did. Hamas never saw it coming, and suffered great loses.

The Cast Lead operation was much more successful because we have learned from past mistakes (2006) and knew what our main goal was and how we plan to make it happen.

After Cast Lead, we have long days of quiet (compared to previous to the operation when the south suffered rockets non stop).

It would have been alot better, though, if the IDF would have succeded doing so without harming civilians. But sadly, civilians were hurt there, as well.

It is true that Israel flopped consistently in freeing Shalit without paying the price.

The truce before cast lead was holding up quite well even though Israel reneged constantly. Another truce was offered to Israel days before cast lead but Israel refused it.

That said, Israel killed about 1400 Palestinians and only a few hundred were militants. Israel destroyed massive amounts of infrastructure and almost all of it was civilian.

Israel barely made a dent in the militant's capabilities. They can still fire all the rockets they want but it is not in their strategic interest to do so. Just like they stopped suicide bombing years ago because it was not in their strategic interest to do so.

Israel has never been serious about a truce. That is why you people get rockets. You should push Israel for a truce.

It's of course easy for the Palestinian terrorists to hide behind civilians.

 

[Lipush]

Tinmore -

I think there was a genuine peace process, but not since Rabin. But I do believe that he was sincere in wanting peace, and that is probably the closest we came to seeing a complete settlement.

But since then...Peres, Sharon, Netanyahu...not much chance of peace there.

I am not that familiar with what was on the table with Rabin. I just never really looked into it.

What were some of the major points?

Giving giving giving. Pretty much sums it up.

 

[Lipush]

It is true that Israel flopped consistently in freeing Shalit without paying the price.

The truce before cast lead was holding up quite well even though Israel reneged constantly. Another truce was offered to Israel days before cast lead but Israel refused it.

That said, Israel killed about 1400 Palestinians and only a few hundred were militants. Israel destroyed massive amounts of infrastructure and almost all of it was civilian.

Israel barely made a dent in the militant's capabilities. They can still fire all the rockets they want but it is not in their strategic interest to do so. Just like they stopped suicide bombing years ago because it was not in their strategic interest to do so.

Israel has never been serious about a truce. That is why you people get rockets. You should push Israel for a truce.

"It's not their statistic interest to shoot rockets"

Different prespective I happen to hold here, from where I stand.

I will stick to mine, if you don't mind

What do you know of the different Palestinian strategies?

I know what's going on in field. Every time a strategy changes, I feel it at home.

Can you say the same thing for yourself?



DIDN'T THINK SO

 

[Lipush]

I'm trying to remember, but I am not sure he ever got as far as presenting a plan, as such.

But his speeches indicated a genuine desire to achieve peace, and a willingness to compromise. If they were anything to go by, any plan would have offered more than was on the table with Barak, Clinton and Arafat. (the details of which are still bitterly contested, anyway)

With all respect to his good will and open thinking, he was also the one that said, and I quote, "They have tried to scare us with sayings about Katyushas from Gaza. That is recidulous. There are no Katyushas or rockets being fired from Gaza, and there never will be...."

We southerners know this quote by heart.

I am sure it doesn't suprise you, to know why.