No 'Deals' With Israel, Unless We Get Everything We Want

[JakeStarkey]

Two-state solution unilaterally imposed by Israel.

No right of return.

Jerusalem Jewish, no division, and capital of Israel.

No negotiation.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, Kondor3, et al,

This may be true. But then, you cannot say that the State of Israel did not try to negotiate a peaceful settlement.

Was there ever any possibility that Hamas would come to the table and ask for a realistic set of achievable goals, rather than the impossible?

I think not.

No, our dumbass Administration just had to try its hand at Israeli-Palestinian Diplomacy, just like every other dumbass Administration before it.

So, the Israelis - having long-since mastered this 'wait-out the dumbass American rookies' game - played along.

The Israelis turned-loose a bunch of Palestinian prisoners, and came to the table, and waited for the dumbass Hamas negotiators to go all Intransigent on them again.

This way, when Hamas walks away, the Israelis can say to the dumbass Americans...

"See? We told you this was going to happen. But, did you believe us? No. We've been down this road before. You're new at this, and haven't got a ******* clue. Now, get off our backs, eh? We tried it your way. Your way doesn't work. Now grow up and grow a pair and shut the **** up already."

Excuse the street-vernacular, but it adds a little spice to the point being made, in this case...

I don't think anyone in the world is expecting any progress in these fake peace talks.

(COMMENT)

But then, given the solemn declaration policy of "ethnic cleansing," and a strategy of Jihad and armed struggle by the Fedayeen, under Article 6, GCIV, the Palestinian holds the key to the closure of military operations. With no negotiated settlement, failed peace talks, the Palestinians are the force behind a continuation of the Occupation.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I was not aware that the strategies for negotiation had been released to the public (open domain). I was unaware that the demands for each side had been made know?

John Kerry is a dumbfuck.

The Palestinians are not asking for any more than they are legally entitled to get.

(COMMENT)

• How do you know what the Palestinians are asking for in the negotiations?
  
• What are these terms you are claiming as an entitlement?
  
• Who guaranteed the entitlement?

The Palestinians are always claiming that they have some right or entitlement for which they use to justify the armed struggle against the UN Recommendation for the establishment of the Jewish State.

Most Respectfully,
R

All of the peace talks have been using the same flawed structure for 20 years.

They keep trying a different shade of lipstick on that pig but it still won't fly.

 

[Lipush]

Israel should sterilize Gaza. That's the only way this can end.

End the occupation and blockade, that will end the violence.

Because before the blockade and 'occupation', we were BFF?

 

[Billo_Really]

Because before the blockade and 'occupation', we were BFF?

That was funny!

Good comeback!

 

[RoccoR]

JakeStarkey, et al,

Hummm. I think there are a couple of mistakes here.

Two-state solution unilaterally imposed by Israel.

No right of return.

Jerusalem Jewish, no division, and capital of Israel.

No negotiation.

(COMMENT)

• Two-state solution unilaterally imposed by Israel.
  
  • ANSWER: The Two-State solution was a recommendation by the UN General Assembly, and implemented thought the UNPC via the UN Security Council. It was not unilaterally imposed by the Jewish Agency.
• No right of return.
  
  • ANSWER: UN General Assembly Resolution 194 stipulates that the "right of return" is predicated on the refugees agree to (and demonstrate they can) live in peace with their neighbors (the Israelis). Since the Arab Palestinians have never closed hostilities with the State of Israel, and continue the pursuit of the 1948 Solemn Declaration of "ethnic cleansing" and the 1988 continuation of Jihad and armed struggle by the Fedayeen, the "right of return" does not have the Palestinian component of refugees living at peace with their neighbors (the Israelis). So, it is the Palestinians that stall on the right of return.
• Jerusalem Jewish, no division, and capital of Israel.
  
  • ANSWER: It should be noted that the Capital of the State of Palestine was also declared to be Jerusalem (see the Palestinian Declaration of Independence).
• No negotiation.
  
  • ANSWER: It is my understanding that negotiations are in progress. I further understand that the Oslo Accords are still in play as the interim agreement.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Lipush]

Niether do we.

They need to change their leadership.

So does Israel and you agree with that.

You don't like the Likud Party any more than I do.

That's very much correct.

But the people said their word. I respect what the people chose, even though I don't like the choise itself.

And sadly, I don't see any better solution than the Likud. Ya'ir Lapid swept voters with his silky words, but those words were empty.

So we are not better off anyway.

 

[Kondor3]

Two-state solution unilaterally imposed by Israel.

No right of return.

Jerusalem Jewish, no division, and capital of Israel.

No negotiation.

Then die.

Or be forced off your land and into permanent exile.

Your choice.

You don't have the muscle to stop it, if the Israelis decide to move into the End-Game.

And neither do your neighbor states, nowadays.

The UN won't do anything either, in the event that a Sweep-and-Clear gets underway, and they shove you all across the borders into Jordan and Lebanon.

After 65 years, the world is tired of this, and just wants it over, in the quickest and least bloody manner possible, regardless of who wins.

Negotiation is your very last sliver of hope.

 

[Lipush]

No negotiation is not a solution.

But no negotiation which is phony is a great one.

Sadly, those negotiations taking place up until now were useless and pointless.

Niether Netanyahu nor Abbas seem serious about this.

And Israel is tired of empty slogan, the people wants something permanent.

 

[Sweet_Caroline]

Israel does not occupy Gaza. Israel left Gaza in August 2005.

It maintains "effective control" over the area, which satisfies the definition of an "occupation".

The blockade is legal because Israel and Gaza are at war.

An occupation, is not a war.

Israel was never at war with the Palestinian's, so why would there be a peace treaty?

Wrong. Israeli tanks rolled into Egypt. That's not a defensive act. That's an offensive act.

And conquer by conquest, has been illegal since the end of WWII.

How many ******* times do I have to correct you on this, before you have the ethical integrity to accept the truth?

Repeating the same garbage lies, will not make this go away.

Alright, fine.

Not all of it. And that's according to the Mandate as well.

Actually, I was referring to your bullshit response.

This isn't about jews.

Israel has occupied the West Bank, Gaza, East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, for the last 47 years.

The indigenous arabs jewish terrorists drove out of the area in 1948.

After a half-century, no one on the planet recognizes Israel's right to that land.

Catch the ******* clue!

BTW, Israel's apartheid, is worse than South Africa's was.

The Facebook page? Probably in another name although you can search for it.

Your post. Your claim. You provide the evidence.

Hamas are a terrorist group recognized by the world as such. We do not negotiate with terrorists!

And in light of all the laws Israel has broken, no one should negotiate with criminals.

Israel and Gaza are at war. The blockade is legal. Israel does not occupy Gaza!
The Palestinian controlled areas and Gaza get all they need through legitimate crossings.
You know full well that had Israel waited for Egypt to get into Israel territory, along with waiting for the other arab countries to get into Israeli territory then Israel would not be able to defend herself, therefore Israel won the war and seeing as it was a defensive war Israel can hold on to the territory captured until negotiations come to a conclusion.
And you would think that especially with media coverage of South Africa you would realize by now that Israel is nowhere near committing apartheid.

The Facebook page in question is Dr.Mousa Abumarzook د.موسى أبو مرزوق
See the rantings of that madman on there.

https://www.facebook.com/mousa.abumarzook





No matter how much you try and twist and turn your arguments do not stand up.

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

John Kerry is a dumbfuck.

The Palestinians are not asking for any more than they are legally entitled to get.

They are not legally entitled to anything, George. Their behavior at the Temple Mount is totally shocking and I think it is past time for a solution. I'm expecting an outcome now. Not a solution. Outcomes are usually a radical change and the way it happens is not pleasant to say the least. In the end they will have only themselves to blame for that. My 2 cents. - Jeri

 

[JakeStarkey]

RoccoR and Kondor3 have not the muscle nor the will to force an End Game.

If the US-supported Israel decides to end this, it is over. Period. No Arab response can change it in the least.

 

[Kondor3]

RoccoR and Kondor3 have not the muscle nor the will to force an End Game.

If the US-supported Israel decides to end this, it is over. Period. No Arab response can change it in the least.

That's a mighty big "IF" there, Jake.

Wake me up when we get close.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, Kondor3, et al,

This may be true. But then, you cannot say that the State of Israel did not try to negotiate a peaceful settlement.

Was there ever any possibility that Hamas would come to the table and ask for a realistic set of achievable goals, rather than the impossible?

I think not.

No, our dumbass Administration just had to try its hand at Israeli-Palestinian Diplomacy, just like every other dumbass Administration before it.

So, the Israelis - having long-since mastered this 'wait-out the dumbass American rookies' game - played along.

The Israelis turned-loose a bunch of Palestinian prisoners, and came to the table, and waited for the dumbass Hamas negotiators to go all Intransigent on them again.

This way, when Hamas walks away, the Israelis can say to the dumbass Americans...

"See? We told you this was going to happen. But, did you believe us? No. We've been down this road before. You're new at this, and haven't got a ******* clue. Now, get off our backs, eh? We tried it your way. Your way doesn't work. Now grow up and grow a pair and shut the **** up already."

Excuse the street-vernacular, but it adds a little spice to the point being made, in this case...

I don't think anyone in the world is expecting any progress in these fake peace talks.

(COMMENT)

But then, given the solemn declaration policy of "ethnic cleansing," and a strategy of Jihad and armed struggle by the Fedayeen, under Article 6, GCIV, the Palestinian holds the key to the closure of military operations. With no negotiated settlement, failed peace talks, the Palestinians are the force behind a continuation of the Occupation.

Most Respectfully,
R

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lw89UDZay4M]Erakat caught on tape - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Lipush]

Oh great, another video to be posted 1,000,000 times.

wonderful

 

[Billo_Really]

Israel and Gaza are at war.

A war is between two army's or military groups, not between the most militarized country on the planet and a population that isn't even allowed to have weapons to defend themselves.

Definition of war:
In international armed conflict, combatants are entitled to directly participate in hostilities. In other words, they are permitted to commit lawful acts of war intended to achieve a military goal in the most effective way. The principle of distinction, however, requires that such acts of war be directed only against enemy combatants and military objectives, while preventing unnecessary and excessive damage to civilians.

Israel is not engaged in hostilities with the entire population of Gaza, therefore, it cannot possibly be considered a war.

It is an occupation...

Definition of an occupation:
Under IHL, there is occupation when a State exercises an unconsented-to effective control over a territory on which it has no sovereign title. Article 42 of The Hague Regulations of 1907 defines occupation as follows: “Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.”

Did you catch those two words in "red"?

"Effective control" does not require a physical presence to satisfy the definition of an occupation.

The blockade is legal.

I've already ripped your precious Palmer Commission to shreds, so why re-live your ass-kicking?

How is the blockade "not" collective punishment?

Collective punishment is a war crime, which is way more than merely illegal.

Israel does not occupy Gaza!

See "effective control" above.

The Palestinian controlled areas and Gaza get all they need through legitimate crossings.

I've already provided two WHO reports on the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, why do you act like I didn't?

Here's what the ICRC has to say about the condition in Gaza...

According to the ICRC:
drastic restrictions on the movement of people and goods imposed by the Israeli authorities, particularly since October 2007, had led to worsening poverty, rising unemployment and deteriorating public services such as health care, water and sanitation.

...restrictions on imports are making it impossible for Gazans to rebuild their lives. The quantities of goods now entering Gaza fall well short of what is required to meet the population's needs. In May 2009, only 2,662 truckloads of goods entered Gaza from Israel, a decrease of almost 80 per cent compared to the 11,392 truckloads allowed in during April 2007, before Hamas took over the territory.

A decrease of 80% and you say they get all they need?

You know full well that had Israel waited for Egypt to get into Israel territory, along with waiting for the other arab countries to get into Israeli territory then Israel would not be able to defend herself, therefore Israel won the war and seeing as it was a defensive war Israel can hold on to the territory captured until negotiations come to a conclusion.

Israel attacked. Period. That started the war.

And you would think that especially with media coverage of South Africa you would realize by now that Israel is nowhere near committing apartheid.

Bullshit!

Israel/West Bank: Separate and Unequal

Israeli policies in the West Bank harshly discriminate against Palestinian residents, depriving them of basic necessities while providing lavish amenities for Jewish settlements, Human Rights Watch said in a report released today. The report identifies discriminatory practices that have no legitimate security or other justification and calls on Israel, in addition to abiding by its international legal obligation to withdraw the settlements, to end these violations of Palestinians' rights.

That's definitely apartheid!

The Facebook page in question is Dr.Mousa Abumarzook د.موسى أبو مرزوق
See the rantings of that madman on there.

https://www.facebook.com/mousa.abumarzook

I'll take your word for it, on this issue.

No matter how much you try and twist and turn your arguments do not stand up.

Stand up to what?

All you're doing is repeating the same mantra over and over and over...

That's not an argument, it's a recital!

 

[Sweet_Caroline]

Israel and Gaza are at war.

A war is between two army's or military groups, not between the most militarized country on the planet and a population that isn't even allowed to have weapons to defend themselves.

Definition of war:
In international armed conflict, combatants are entitled to directly participate in hostilities. In other words, they are permitted to commit lawful acts of war intended to achieve a military goal in the most effective way. The principle of distinction, however, requires that such acts of war be directed only against enemy combatants and military objectives, while preventing unnecessary and excessive damage to civilians.

Israel is not engaged in hostilities with the entire population of Gaza, therefore, it cannot possibly be considered a war.

It is an occupation...
Did you catch those two words in "red"?

"Effective control" does not require a physical presence to satisfy the definition of an occupation.

I've already ripped your precious Palmer Commission to shreds, so why re-live your ass-kicking?

How is the blockade "not" collective punishment?

Collective punishment is a war crime, which is way more than merely illegal.

See "effective control" above.

I've already provided two WHO reports on the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, why do you act like I didn't?

Here's what the ICRC has to say about the condition in Gaza...
A decrease of 80% and you say they get all they need?

Israel attacked. Period. That started the war.

Bullshit!

That's definitely apartheid!

The Facebook page in question is Dr.Mousa Abumarzook د.موسى أبو مرزوق
See the rantings of that madman on there.

https://www.facebook.com/mousa.abumarzook

I'll take your word for it, on this issue.

No matter how much you try and twist and turn your arguments do not stand up.

Stand up to what?

All you're doing is repeating the same mantra over and over and over...

That's not an argument, it's a recital!

And you are repeating the same mantra. I am right and you are wrong so we will have to agree to disagree.

 

[Billo_Really]

And you are repeating the same mantra. I am right and you are wrong so we will have to agree to disagree.

You didn't even read what I just posted!

Why are you here? Your mind is made up, so you're not here to debate anything.

All you want to do, is get on a soap box and pontificate.

 

[Sweet_Caroline]

And you are repeating the same mantra. I am right and you are wrong so we will have to agree to disagree.

You didn't even read what I just posted!

Why are you here? Your mind is made up, so you're not here to debate anything.

All you want to do, is get on a soap box and pontificate.

I addressed your points. You don't agree with them? Tough.

 

[Billo_Really]

I addressed your points. You don't agree with them? Tough.

How could you address them, when you didn't even read them?