Peace Possible?

[pbel]

Two questions for you Pbel:

1) Who's fault is that

and

2) If America broke ties with Israel, do you think that America will no longer have enemies in the ME ?

It was America's fault for arming thje Israeli State to the teeth, which then in 67 invaded the West Bank and other Arab Countries in a land grab that continues today thanks to an AIPAC influence that is second to none in our Federal Government.

That's when America lost the ME and out fuel costs reflect that reality.

Again you are making Israel to be the aggressor during the 6 day war. Typical, typical typical Arab bullshit propaganda.
You always ignore the facts of the events that led to the war. You ignore the many extermination threats made to Israel by several Arab leaders (Understanding the Arab-Israeli Conflict), the fact that Israel was vastly outnumbered in troops AND in military equipment. You ignore the fact that Israel was attacked on not one, not two but THREE fronts. You ignore the fact that Syria, Jordan and Egypt massed their troops by Israels borders. You ignore the fact that besides those three armies, there were ten, that's right, TEN other countries that were Expeditionary Forces (Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Morocco, Algeria, Libya, Kuwait, Sudan, Tunisia and the PLO) who supported them with weapons and in some cases troops.
The Arabs were by far the aggressors in the 6 day war. The thing is, they were humiliated, so of course they say: "Israel started the war! We want our land back !"

Once again Pbel, the Arabs were the aggressors and this is a fact, not an opinion.
"Your are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts"Oh , did I mention that Israel offered to return ALL of the land they conquered back to whom they captured it from in return for peace treaties, but they all refused?

Well then provide an un-biased link.


Six-Day War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Coup plan

Shortly before the outbreak of war, elements within the IDF considered a military coup[disputed – discuss] against the Israeli government, which would have been followed by the new military government ordering a unilateral attack against the Arab nations. The idea was that of Major-General Ariel Sharon, who discussed it with other senior officers. While no definitive plans were ever drawn up, the idea was given serious consideration.

In the days before the war, the Israeli cabinet was indecisive over whether to follow through with the planned preemptive attack or pursue diplomacy, with military advisers pressing for an attack. Many pro-war officials felt that an Arab invasion of Israel was imminent, and that to delay a paralyzing first strike would be a serious threat to Israel. Sharon and other military officials felt that the civilian government would be unable to reach a necessary decision. On May 28, 1967, eight days before the war began, Sharon met with IDF Chief of Staff Yitzhak Rabin and other senior officials. He advised them that the cabinet could be detained, a coup declared, and the planned unilateral strike against the Arab nations to be implemented. Rabin showed no opposition to the idea.[99][100]

 

[Indofred]

Israel, rightly, wants everything on the table (except the bits Israel doesn't want on the table).

There's no wonder there can be no peace and never will be whist Israel insists on breaking international law and refusing to even consider falling in line with the rest of the world (Except for their American bitches).

Just curious.

What's in it for Israel in this so called negotiation?

You seem like a reasonable person, so lets talk about it.

I couldn't get back to sleep so I'll make a start.

Before I attempt to answer the question; I'll detail some background as I see it and take a historical snapshot.

Israel (Judea, Galilee and Samaria, as was) looked like this at the time of Jesus.

Modern Israel, like this.

As you can see, the modern Israel (including illegally occupied lands) closely resembles ancient 'Israel'.

It is my belief, the Israeli government (and Zionists in general) want modern Israel to be based on the Israel of around two thousand years ago.
That in mind, I don't believe they have the slightest intention of returning the land captured and illegally occupied since 1967.

To define, "Illegally", I refer to standard Laws and Customs of War as laid down by international law.

</title> <link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="/xsp/.ibmxspres/.mini/css/@Da&@Ib&2Tfxsp.css&2TfxspLTR.css.css"> <script type="text/javascript" src="/xsp/.ibmxspres/dojoroot-1.6.1/dojo/dojo.js" djConfig="locale: 'fr-ch'"></script> <script type=

SECTION III
MILITARY AUTHORITY OVER THE TERRITORY OF THE HOSTILE STATE
Art. 42. Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army.

The settlement on these occupied lands are illegal
United Nations Security Council Resolution 446 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Sorry it's wiki but the external links are fine)

The whole world agrees with this except America and Israel; even North Korea sticks to internationally accepted law.

The Israeli government makes quite plain, they have no intention of returning the captured lands.

Israel reportedly OKs prisoner release, but not settlement freeze - latimes.com

Senior Israeli negotiator: Everything is on the table in new talks | The Times of Israel

Everything is on the table but.

&#8220;Everything is on the table,&#8221; said Livni, the Hatnua party leader and a former foreign minister. &#8220;But there is a difference between Israel&#8217;s position before entering the room for talks and the positions we will present when seated around the table. Alongside my great satisfaction over the understandings we reached yesterday, I realize it is a great responsibility. Things will be on the table and we will have to act responsibly to protect Israel&#8217;s interests. I have done it before and I think that it is now understood that I had maintained those interests last time around.&#8221;

Or, to translate, "We'll say it but we won't do it".

Israel reportedly OKs prisoner release, but not settlement freeze - latimes.com

But he said Israel refused to commit to a freeze on Jewish settlements in East Jerusalem and the West Bank, another key demand of Abbas. Nor would Israel agree to negotiate on the basis of the Green Line, the border that existed before Israel seized the West Bank and East Jerusalem during the 1967 Middle East War, he said.

It is my firm belief, Israel wants the talks to keep it's propaganda campaign moving in funding countries but has absolutely no intention of doing anything that would mean giving up an inch of land.
They know the Palestinians will end up walking out of the talks so can claim the Arabs ended the negotiations and the US press will back up the pretence.
Israel is seen to have tried so continues to get funding.

Easy.

Now, do you have any harder questions?

 

[Indofred]

As a note.
This isn't about Muslim Vs. Jew or Israel Vs. Palestine - this is about right Vs. wrong.

Israel is in breach of International law and should fall into line without delay.

 

[Indofred]

And Israel is very wrong

BBC News - Israel's Netanyahu says talks with Palestinians 'vital'

"There is no chance that we will agree to enter any negotiations that begin with defining territorial borders or concessions by Israel, nor a construction freeze."

Again, Israel is making it very clear, there is no chance of them talking about the main thing that holds back peace.

 

[Hossfly]

It was America's fault for arming thje Israeli State to the teeth, which then in 67 invaded the West Bank and other Arab Countries in a land grab that continues today thanks to an AIPAC influence that is second to none in our Federal Government.

That's when America lost the ME and out fuel costs reflect that reality.

Again you are making Israel to be the aggressor during the 6 day war. Typical, typical typical Arab bullshit propaganda.
You always ignore the facts of the events that led to the war. You ignore the many extermination threats made to Israel by several Arab leaders (Understanding the Arab-Israeli Conflict), the fact that Israel was vastly outnumbered in troops AND in military equipment. You ignore the fact that Israel was attacked on not one, not two but THREE fronts. You ignore the fact that Syria, Jordan and Egypt massed their troops by Israels borders. You ignore the fact that besides those three armies, there were ten, that's right, TEN other countries that were Expeditionary Forces (Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Morocco, Algeria, Libya, Kuwait, Sudan, Tunisia and the PLO) who supported them with weapons and in some cases troops.
The Arabs were by far the aggressors in the 6 day war. The thing is, they were humiliated, so of course they say: "Israel started the war! We want our land back !"

Once again Pbel, the Arabs were the aggressors and this is a fact, not an opinion.
"Your are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts"Oh , did I mention that Israel offered to return ALL of the land they conquered back to whom they captured it from in return for peace treaties, but they all refused?

Well then provide an un-biased link.


Six-Day War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Coup plan

Shortly before the outbreak of war, elements within the IDF considered a military coup[disputed – discuss] against the Israeli government, which would have been followed by the new military government ordering a unilateral attack against the Arab nations. The idea was that of Major-General Ariel Sharon, who discussed it with other senior officers. While no definitive plans were ever drawn up, the idea was given serious consideration.

In the days before the war, the Israeli cabinet was indecisive over whether to follow through with the planned preemptive attack or pursue diplomacy, with military advisers pressing for an attack. Many pro-war officials felt that an Arab invasion of Israel was imminent, and that to delay a paralyzing first strike would be a serious threat to Israel. Sharon and other military officials felt that the civilian government would be unable to reach a necessary decision. On May 28, 1967, eight days before the war began, Sharon met with IDF Chief of Staff Yitzhak Rabin and other senior officials. He advised them that the cabinet could be detained, a coup declared, and the planned unilateral strike against the Arab nations to be implemented. Rabin showed no opposition to the idea.[99][100]

We all know that people can put anything they want to in Wikipedia. Perhaps Phillip should do a little searching and find a New York Times article written at the time with actual observers comments telling all about what happened before and during the Six-day War.

 

[Lipush]

As a note.
This isn't about Muslim Vs. Jew or Israel Vs. Palestine - this is about right Vs. wrong.

Israel is in breach of International law and should fall into line without delay.

I see you've gone through the trouble of making it a very informative debate.

And since I am beyond exhausted I don't think i should get into it at eh.....4AM in here.

So to the serious issues I will respond as soon as I wake up tomorrow, my word.

Just let me say that by "serious informative argument", the last thing I intend on doing is go through Muslim Vs. Jew.

I believe this argument has no "winners" and is stupid, and at most of the cases I'll rather not go into it since in 99% of the times, it doesn't cross the 3 pages without being kicked into the Flame Zone.

I totally get it.

I will try to respond to the point at hand soon.

 

[pbel]

Again you are making Israel to be the aggressor during the 6 day war. Typical, typical typical Arab bullshit propaganda.
You always ignore the facts of the events that led to the war. You ignore the many extermination threats made to Israel by several Arab leaders (Understanding the Arab-Israeli Conflict), the fact that Israel was vastly outnumbered in troops AND in military equipment. You ignore the fact that Israel was attacked on not one, not two but THREE fronts. You ignore the fact that Syria, Jordan and Egypt massed their troops by Israels borders. You ignore the fact that besides those three armies, there were ten, that's right, TEN other countries that were Expeditionary Forces (Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Morocco, Algeria, Libya, Kuwait, Sudan, Tunisia and the PLO) who supported them with weapons and in some cases troops.
The Arabs were by far the aggressors in the 6 day war. The thing is, they were humiliated, so of course they say: "Israel started the war! We want our land back !"

Once again Pbel, the Arabs were the aggressors and this is a fact, not an opinion.
"Your are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts"Oh , did I mention that Israel offered to return ALL of the land they conquered back to whom they captured it from in return for peace treaties, but they all refused?

Well then provide an un-biased link.


Six-Day War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Coup plan

Shortly before the outbreak of war, elements within the IDF considered a military coup[disputed – discuss] against the Israeli government, which would have been followed by the new military government ordering a unilateral attack against the Arab nations. The idea was that of Major-General Ariel Sharon, who discussed it with other senior officers. While no definitive plans were ever drawn up, the idea was given serious consideration.

In the days before the war, the Israeli cabinet was indecisive over whether to follow through with the planned preemptive attack or pursue diplomacy, with military advisers pressing for an attack. Many pro-war officials felt that an Arab invasion of Israel was imminent, and that to delay a paralyzing first strike would be a serious threat to Israel. Sharon and other military officials felt that the civilian government would be unable to reach a necessary decision. On May 28, 1967, eight days before the war began, Sharon met with IDF Chief of Staff Yitzhak Rabin and other senior officials. He advised them that the cabinet could be detained, a coup declared, and the planned unilateral strike against the Arab nations to be implemented. Rabin showed no opposition to the idea.[99][100]

We all know that people can put anything they want to in Wikipedia. Perhaps Phillip should do a little searching and find a New York Times article written at the time with actual observers comments telling all about what happened before and during the Six-day War.

Wikipedia is open to challenges with facts, but you won't challenge because Hossfly is full of Horseshit.

 

[Lipush]

And Israel is very wrong

BBC News - Israel's Netanyahu says talks with Palestinians 'vital'

"There is no chance that we will agree to enter any negotiations that begin with defining territorial borders or concessions by Israel, nor a construction freeze."

Again, Israel is making it very clear, there is no chance of them talking about the main thing that holds back peace.

Most of us have no problem with negotiation that wishes to right away define borders (although it is beyond sensitive issue to Israelis) like the problem of prisoners release.

Last time we agreed because a brothers of ours was held in captivity, and even that agreement was with a very very thin line, if you get what I am saying.

Hundreds of thousands of Israeli signed up petitions to "postpone the madness", and right now the official webs of the political parties calling the ministers of Likud to reject and object the steps of Netanyahu. an inside rebellion started in the right-wing today very much because of it.

THAT Is the major issue.

 

[Hossfly]

Well then provide an un-biased link.


Six-Day War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Coup plan

Shortly before the outbreak of war, elements within the IDF considered a military coup[disputed – discuss] against the Israeli government, which would have been followed by the new military government ordering a unilateral attack against the Arab nations. The idea was that of Major-General Ariel Sharon, who discussed it with other senior officers. While no definitive plans were ever drawn up, the idea was given serious consideration.

In the days before the war, the Israeli cabinet was indecisive over whether to follow through with the planned preemptive attack or pursue diplomacy, with military advisers pressing for an attack. Many pro-war officials felt that an Arab invasion of Israel was imminent, and that to delay a paralyzing first strike would be a serious threat to Israel. Sharon and other military officials felt that the civilian government would be unable to reach a necessary decision. On May 28, 1967, eight days before the war began, Sharon met with IDF Chief of Staff Yitzhak Rabin and other senior officials. He advised them that the cabinet could be detained, a coup declared, and the planned unilateral strike against the Arab nations to be implemented. Rabin showed no opposition to the idea.[99][100]

We all know that people can put anything they want to in Wikipedia. Perhaps Phillip should do a little searching and find a New York Times article written at the time with actual observers comments telling all about what happened before and during the Six-day War.

Wikipedia is open to challenges with facts, but you won't challenge because Hossfly is full of Horseshit.

Yeah, that is why I read a teacher's comment once that she never lets her students use that as a source. They have to go to regular encyclopedias. You can take Wikipedia, but I think I prefer to take the world of those who were around at the time reporting on what actually happened.

 

[Indofred]

As a note.
This isn't about Muslim Vs. Jew or Israel Vs. Palestine - this is about right Vs. wrong.

Israel is in breach of International law and should fall into line without delay.

How come, Freddie, you are not on the Africa forum of the USMessageBoard ranting and raving about Muslim Sudan and international law. You have no problem with millions of Christians being wiped out and still being wiped out in addition to those of Black tribes? In fact, you could be on several forums there and talking about how your brethren are busyily killing innocent people, but you are very, very silent about this and only seem consumed with what is happening in Israel. I wonder why.

There are many Muslim actions I consider abhorrent but time is short and I have to write 150 homework question sheets before the end of next week.
As for not caring about mass murder of any sort, please quote any post where I say that or admit you lied again and apologise.

Now you know why.

 

[Indofred]

I believe this argument has no "winners" and is stupid, and at most of the cases I'll rather not go into it since in 99% of the times, it doesn't cross the 3 pages without being kicked into the Flame Zone..

It isn't just the argument that has no winner; it's the whole conflict.
I firmly believe Israel should, after serious negotiation, open it's borders to the residents who were there before it's creation and welcome them as equals.

The whole cause of this is Zionist, bigoted, 'Israel for the Jews' stuff that encouraged and created terrorism from the other groups.

What the hell is wrong with people living n peace without the need to define everyone by their religion?
We have a bunch of serious extremist idiots here we know as the FPI (Muslim defenders front).
Their latest tricks are raiding hotels and businesses they consider shouldn't open in Ramadan (or at all).
Their efforts so far have managed to cause a few riots and the idiots managed to kill a woman they knocked off her motorbike with their car.
They're the utter bastards that killed the Ahmadiyah people and try to close churches.

These daft pillocks know they're so right, the rest of the world must be wrong and punished for being so.
In fact, just as with the Israeli government's extremism, they're the ones out of line.

I'm not anti Israeli or anti Jewish; I'm anti daft bastard and that covers extremists of all types including the Israel government, anyone who fires rockets at civilians or tries to close a church.
Makes no difference - they're all wrong to do as they do.

 

[Lipush]

Israel, rightly, wants everything on the table (except the bits Israel doesn't want on the table).

There's no wonder there can be no peace and never will be whist Israel insists on breaking international law and refusing to even consider falling in line with the rest of the world (Except for their American bitches).

Just curious.

What's in it for Israel in this so called negotiation?

You seem like a reasonable person, so lets talk about it.

I couldn't get back to sleep so I'll make a start.

Before I attempt to answer the question; I'll detail some background as I see it and take a historical snapshot.

Israel (Judea, Galilee and Samaria, as was) looked like this at the time of Jesus.

Modern Israel, like this.

As you can see, the modern Israel (including illegally occupied lands) closely resembles ancient 'Israel'.

It is my belief, the Israeli government (and Zionists in general) want modern Israel to be based on the Israel of around two thousand years ago.
That in mind, I don't believe they have the slightest intention of returning the land captured and illegally occupied since 1967.

To define, "Illegally", I refer to standard Laws and Customs of War as laid down by international law.

</title> <link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="/xsp/.ibmxspres/.mini/css/@Da&@Ib&2Tfxsp.css&2TfxspLTR.css.css"> <script type="text/javascript" src="/xsp/.ibmxspres/dojoroot-1.6.1/dojo/dojo.js" djConfig="locale: 'fr-ch'"></script> <script type=



The settlement on these occupied lands are illegal
United Nations Security Council Resolution 446 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Sorry it's wiki but the external links are fine)

The whole world agrees with this except America and Israel; even North Korea sticks to internationally accepted law.

The Israeli government makes quite plain, they have no intention of returning the captured lands.

Israel reportedly OKs prisoner release, but not settlement freeze - latimes.com

Senior Israeli negotiator: Everything is on the table in new talks | The Times of Israel

Everything is on the table but.

“Everything is on the table,” said Livni, the Hatnua party leader and a former foreign minister. “But there is a difference between Israel’s position before entering the room for talks and the positions we will present when seated around the table. Alongside my great satisfaction over the understandings we reached yesterday, I realize it is a great responsibility. Things will be on the table and we will have to act responsibly to protect Israel’s interests. I have done it before and I think that it is now understood that I had maintained those interests last time around.”

Or, to translate, "We'll say it but we won't do it".

Israel reportedly OKs prisoner release, but not settlement freeze - latimes.com

But he said Israel refused to commit to a freeze on Jewish settlements in East Jerusalem and the West Bank, another key demand of Abbas. Nor would Israel agree to negotiate on the basis of the Green Line, the border that existed before Israel seized the West Bank and East Jerusalem during the 1967 Middle East War, he said.

It is my firm belief, Israel wants the talks to keep it's propaganda campaign moving in funding countries but has absolutely no intention of doing anything that would mean giving up an inch of land.
They know the Palestinians will end up walking out of the talks so can claim the Arabs ended the negotiations and the US press will back up the pretence.
Israel is seen to have tried so continues to get funding.

Easy.

Now, do you have any harder questions?

Reading this, I have few comments.

First, you're views of ancient israel are wrong.

When people say Eretz Israel Hashleima, they not all all mean that map, but they mean the territory of the old kingdom of Israel.

Which is that-

Huge territory which includes Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, parts of Saudi Arabia, and Sinai.

THAT is the complete land of Israel which and the way it appears the the Bible.

There are those who see the complete territory as one unit, on which Jews are giving up on in favor of somewhat uncertain peace.

When people say "painful sacrifices" they talk about each time "removing" the rights of Jews (by religious views of course) of more and more territory.

So when you tell them "lets pack and roll" you basically ignite a never ending battle.

Try to think of it as an owner of an apartment, who believes he is worthy of his apartment and sits in it legally (because by heritage, it did belong to him at a certain point) and you tell them to leave a room up until all he has is his small one. I guess that is how the settlers feel.

If you look at the map, and the map of current Israel, you are left with less than a 1/3 of what some people believe should be ours, in Biblical sense.

Of course nobody really believes that Jordan will be Jewish one day, but to many religious-Zionist people in Israel, each time you tell them "disengage" or "leave", you're 'taking another room out' which brings out the outrage.

Why do you think so many here are against this thing?

Second point to be brought up is the settlements. We all know what the world says and we all know that for the reasons I just gave, some wish to see the settlements out and some do believe that they must stay intact.

Personally, if you ask me, I don't think expelling 300,000 Jews will change anything, more than it did 2005. If people can promise us that the Palestinians recognize Israel and will stop immediately their ways of terror and disarm, I believe that will be a sure step in the right way, and if the price is taking the settlements out and giving the Palestinians more needed freedom, then I will be all for it.

But in the current state? No, that will surely not change anything for the better, but for the worse.

I see it happening and I see Tel Aviv becoming the next Sderot. And that is a fear that million boycotts won't change, which is what the Europeans don't get.

Another problem is that lack of concenzus (sp?) when it comes to the settlements. It is not clear by law in Israel what is their status. some leaders saw them part of Israel, and some didn't, but it was never cleared by law on paper, and when THAT is the situation, we're nothing but leaving ourselves, and the world, uncertain.

(I am taking about Judea and Samaria, and not East Jerusalem)

Third point, there are many who don't take the words of Livni seriously, that is nothing new, and has many things to do with inside political issues between her and everybody else.

As I said before, I believe that this negotiation is doomed to fail.

And it's not about promosing to the Palestinians now things that we are not intended to keep just to "gain time" as you said. It is about promising things to the Palestinians that our people will not be able to stand.

If anything concerning the 67 borders is discussed, it must, and I repeat, it must, be done in referendum. this is way to sensitive issue to be done in a wave of a hand, since most of the Israeli public believes its pure lunacy to do such a gesture without being promised anything in return.

And THAT is the issue.

And last, of course there are more questions, which was the first question I asked to begin with.

What does Israel gain from this phoney negotiation?

 

[Lipush]

I believe this argument has no "winners" and is stupid, and at most of the cases I'll rather not go into it since in 99% of the times, it doesn't cross the 3 pages without being kicked into the Flame Zone..

It isn't just the argument that has no winner; it's the whole conflict.
I firmly believe Israel should, after serious negotiation, open it's borders to the residents who were there before it's creation and welcome them as equals.

The whole cause of this is Zionist, bigoted, 'Israel for the Jews' stuff that encouraged and created terrorism from the other groups.

What the hell is wrong with people living n peace without the need to define everyone by their religion?
We have a bunch of serious extremist idiots here we know as the FPI (Muslim defenders front).
Their latest tricks are raiding hotels and businesses they consider shouldn't open in Ramadan (or at all).
Their efforts so far have managed to cause a few riots and the idiots managed to kill a woman they knocked off her motorbike with their car.
They're the utter bastards that killed the Ahmadiyah people and try to close churches.

These daft pillocks know they're so right, the rest of the world must be wrong and punished for being so.
In fact, just as with the Israeli government's extremism, they're the ones out of line.

I'm not anti Israeli or anti Jewish; I'm anti daft bastard and that covers extremists of all types including the Israel government, anyone who fires rockets at civilians or tries to close a church.
Makes no difference - they're all wrong to do as they do.

It isn't just the argument that has no winner; it's the whole conflict.

That is also true.

I firmly believe Israel should, after serious negotiation, open it's borders to the residents who were there before it's creation and welcome them as equals.

Wait, WHAT?!

Hold your horses right there.

THAT is something we never discussed! What we do discuss here is the whole "two states for two nations" thing.

Nowhere we agreed or EVER agree to the Palestinian 'right' or 'return'.

Or what is that you think, that at one side there will be a Palestine which has no Jews, and on the other an Israel which is filled with Palestinian refugees?

Just how fools are you trying to make us to be, people??

NOT GONNA HAPPEN!

The whole cause of this is Zionist, bigoted, 'Israel for the Jews' stuff that encouraged and created terrorism from the other groups.





Of course it is nonsense. 22 Muslim countries, dozens of Christian countries, but US willing to have 1 Jewish country in which we won't be persecuted for our ethnic religious differences (a country smaller than the city of New York), THAT is what bothers people so much.??

What a joke!

And since when to radical Islamists need "excuses" to go against what they believe is wrong in the world? seriously.

 

[eots]

Its Important to remember the so called zionist posting in this forum hardly express the views of all Israelis there a many dissenting voices in Israel and And In There Lies The Hope

 

[Lipush]

Of couse.

I only lived here for the past 24 years.

So what the hell do I even know about the conflict, or media, or public opinion.

Don't mind me.

I'll just sit here, making stuff up.

 

[eots]

of couse.

I only lived here for the past 24 years.

So what the hell do i even know about the conflict, or media, or public opinion.

Don't mind me.

I'll just sit here, making stuff up.

ya thats right you are the voice of Isreal...like the borg queen and all jews are of one mind...lol

 

[Lipush]

I didn't say I speak for all Jews in Israel.

I said I know the people's reactions because I am well involved in the politic issues and news.

And on that ground, yeah, I will allow myself to respond accordingly.

Mostly, I do speak for southerners, though.

 

[Indofred]

It's nice to see quality posts here.
On the phone atm and those deserve a full, considered and researched answer so reply later.

 

[Indofred]

Apology first - time is short so I have to take a few editing shortcuts. Sorry abouth the red text

First, you're views of ancient israel are wrong.

Could be so I'll bow to your better judgement.

When people say Eretz Israel Hashleima, they not all all mean that map, but they mean the territory of the old kingdom of Israel.

Which is that-

Huge territory which includes Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, parts of Saudi Arabia, and Sinai.

THAT is the complete land of Israel which and the way it appears the the Bible.

There are those who see the complete territory as one unit, on which Jews are giving up on in favor of somewhat uncertain peace.

"Jews" are giving up nothing - Israelis might do.

When people say "painful sacrifices" they talk about each time "removing" the rights of Jews (by religious views of course) of more and more territory.

So when you tell them "lets pack and roll" you basically ignite a never ending battle.

Unless Israeli moves on the illegal occupation issue; there's no chance of peace.

Try to think of it as an owner of an apartment, who believes he is worthy of his apartment and sits in it legally (because by heritage, it did belong to him at a certain point) and you tell them to leave a room up until all he has is his small one. I guess that is how the settlers feel.

But they don't own the apartment - they broke in and live there because they kicked the owners out

Second point to be brought up is the settlements. We all know what the world says and we all know that for the reasons I just gave, some wish to see the settlements out and some do believe that they must stay intact.

The settlements have to go. International law and, more importantly, the right thing to do, dictates this.
You can' expect to invade a land and occupy it without resentment and probable violence.
Imagine if I wandered over to your house, kicked in the door and booted you out so I could live there. I suspect you'd be a bit miffed.

Personally, if you ask me, I don't think expelling 300,000 Jews will change anything, more than it did 2005. If people can promise us that the Palestinians recognize Israel and will stop immediately their ways of terror and disarm, I believe that will be a sure step in the right way, and if the price is taking the settlements out and giving the Palestinians more needed freedom, then I will be all for it.

But in the current state? No, that will surely not change anything for the better, but for the worse.

The situation needs to be defused. Israeli settlements are a major problem and Israeli actions, in an attempt to stop actions by the few, have injured the many and created yet more enemies.
A man who is pissed off at you will become a warrior if you kill his family.
As for the 3,000 (I haven't checked the number), they're the reason you'll always be at war.

I see it happening and I see Tel Aviv becoming the next Sderot. And that is a fear that million boycotts won't change, which is what the Europeans don't get.

Whilst I totally disagree with rocket attacks, I do understand them and it wouldn't send my heart into a shock related arrest if I heard a new, longer range missile was aimed at Tel Aviv.

Another problem is that lack of concenzus (sp?) when it comes to the settlements. It is not clear by law in Israel what is their status. some leaders saw them part of Israel, and some didn't, but it was never cleared by law on paper, and when THAT is the situation, we're nothing but leaving ourselves, and the world, uncertain.

International law is very clear - They're illegal as my earlier link shows.
Israel disputes international law applies to it and that is pretty disgusting.

Third point, there are many who don't take the words of Livni seriously, that is nothing new, and has many things to do with inside political issues between her and everybody else.

As I said before, I believe that this negotiation is doomed to fail.

It really makes no difference how she's seen in Israel - outside, she's could well be seen as an honest broker. She's stuck her neck out, especially on terrorism issues, and that may be very helpful to the peace process.

And it's not about promosing to the Palestinians now things that we are not intended to keep just to "gain time" as you said. It is about promising things to the Palestinians that our people will not be able to stand.

Imagine for a moment - The lands are returned and all but the sickest extremists return to normal life; would that be worth a risk?
Northern Ireland of the 1970s saw the same thoughts as Israel today but they managed to stop most of the shit because the people got sick of war and made that clear to the politicians.
OK, Ireland still has problems but nothing like the scale of only a short time ago.


If anything concerning the 67 borders is discussed, it must, and I repeat, it must, be done in referendum. this is way to sensitive issue to be done in a wave of a hand, since most of the Israeli public believes its pure lunacy to do such a gesture without being promised anything in return.

And THAT is the issue.

I absolutely disagree unless the referendum includes only the settlers and Palestinians who lived there before the '67 war.

And last, of course there are more questions, which was the first question I asked to begin with.

What does Israel gain from this phoney negotiation?

I answered.
An attempt to justify Israel's continued illegal occupation.
Your politicians know, if they refuse to move on the illegal land grab, the Palestinians will walk out.

"We tried but you can't deal with terrorists", will be the headline in the Israeli and American press.

 

[ForeverYoung436]

Just curious.

What's in it for Israel in this so called negotiation?

You seem like a reasonable person, so lets talk about it.

I couldn't get back to sleep so I'll make a start.

Before I attempt to answer the question; I'll detail some background as I see it and take a historical snapshot.

Israel (Judea, Galilee and Samaria, as was) looked like this at the time of Jesus.

Modern Israel, like this.

As you can see, the modern Israel (including illegally occupied lands) closely resembles ancient 'Israel'.

It is my belief, the Israeli government (and Zionists in general) want modern Israel to be based on the Israel of around two thousand years ago.
That in mind, I don't believe they have the slightest intention of returning the land captured and illegally occupied since 1967.

To define, "Illegally", I refer to standard Laws and Customs of War as laid down by international law.

</title> <link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="/xsp/.ibmxspres/.mini/css/@Da&@Ib&2Tfxsp.css&2TfxspLTR.css.css"> <script type="text/javascript" src="/xsp/.ibmxspres/dojoroot-1.6.1/dojo/dojo.js" djConfig="locale: 'fr-ch'"></script> <script type=



The settlement on these occupied lands are illegal
United Nations Security Council Resolution 446 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Sorry it's wiki but the external links are fine)

The whole world agrees with this except America and Israel; even North Korea sticks to internationally accepted law.

The Israeli government makes quite plain, they have no intention of returning the captured lands.

Israel reportedly OKs prisoner release, but not settlement freeze - latimes.com

Senior Israeli negotiator: Everything is on the table in new talks | The Times of Israel

Everything is on the table but.



Or, to translate, "We'll say it but we won't do it".

Israel reportedly OKs prisoner release, but not settlement freeze - latimes.com

But he said Israel refused to commit to a freeze on Jewish settlements in East Jerusalem and the West Bank, another key demand of Abbas. Nor would Israel agree to negotiate on the basis of the Green Line, the border that existed before Israel seized the West Bank and East Jerusalem during the 1967 Middle East War, he said.

It is my firm belief, Israel wants the talks to keep it's propaganda campaign moving in funding countries but has absolutely no intention of doing anything that would mean giving up an inch of land.
They know the Palestinians will end up walking out of the talks so can claim the Arabs ended the negotiations and the US press will back up the pretence.
Israel is seen to have tried so continues to get funding.

Easy.

Now, do you have any harder questions?

Reading this, I have few comments.

First, you're views of ancient israel are wrong.

When people say Eretz Israel Hashleima, they not all all mean that map, but they mean the territory of the old kingdom of Israel.

Which is that-

Huge territory which includes Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, parts of Saudi Arabia, and Sinai.

THAT is the complete land of Israel which and the way it appears the the Bible.

There are those who see the complete territory as one unit, on which Jews are giving up on in favor of somewhat uncertain peace.

When people say "painful sacrifices" they talk about each time "removing" the rights of Jews (by religious views of course) of more and more territory.

So when you tell them "lets pack and roll" you basically ignite a never ending battle.

Try to think of it as an owner of an apartment, who believes he is worthy of his apartment and sits in it legally (because by heritage, it did belong to him at a certain point) and you tell them to leave a room up until all he has is his small one. I guess that is how the settlers feel.

If you look at the map, and the map of current Israel, you are left with less than a 1/3 of what some people believe should be ours, in Biblical sense.

Of course nobody really believes that Jordan will be Jewish one day, but to many religious-Zionist people in Israel, each time you tell them "disengage" or "leave", you're 'taking another room out' which brings out the outrage.

Why do you think so many here are against this thing?

Second point to be brought up is the settlements. We all know what the world says and we all know that for the reasons I just gave, some wish to see the settlements out and some do believe that they must stay intact.

Personally, if you ask me, I don't think expelling 300,000 Jews will change anything, more than it did 2005. If people can promise us that the Palestinians recognize Israel and will stop immediately their ways of terror and disarm, I believe that will be a sure step in the right way, and if the price is taking the settlements out and giving the Palestinians more needed freedom, then I will be all for it.

But in the current state? No, that will surely not change anything for the better, but for the worse.

I see it happening and I see Tel Aviv becoming the next Sderot. And that is a fear that million boycotts won't change, which is what the Europeans don't get.

Another problem is that lack of concenzus (sp?) when it comes to the settlements. It is not clear by law in Israel what is their status. some leaders saw them part of Israel, and some didn't, but it was never cleared by law on paper, and when THAT is the situation, we're nothing but leaving ourselves, and the world, uncertain.

(I am taking about Judea and Samaria, and not East Jerusalem)

Third point, there are many who don't take the words of Livni seriously, that is nothing new, and has many things to do with inside political issues between her and everybody else.

As I said before, I believe that this negotiation is doomed to fail.

And it's not about promosing to the Palestinians now things that we are not intended to keep just to "gain time" as you said. It is about promising things to the Palestinians that our people will not be able to stand.

If anything concerning the 67 borders is discussed, it must, and I repeat, it must, be done in referendum. this is way to sensitive issue to be done in a wave of a hand, since most of the Israeli public believes its pure lunacy to do such a gesture without being promised anything in return.

And THAT is the issue.

And last, of course there are more questions, which was the first question I asked to begin with.

What does Israel gain from this phoney negotiation?

Lipush, this is the first time I disagree with you. The ancient Land of Israel did not include that vast amount of territory. Although the Hebrews received the Ten Commandments at Mount Sinai, that wilderness was not part of ancient Israel. The Hebrews wandered in the Sinai wilderness for 40 years, before reaching the Promised Land. Also, parts of Jordan included the ancient lands of Moab, Ammon and Edom. Lebanon was the ancient Kingdom of Phoenicia in the Bible whose king, Hiram, helped Solomon to build the Temple. Syria was the Kingdom of Aram in the Bible, and Iraq was Babylon. It's out of the city of Ur in Babylon that Father Abraham went forth, to go on a journey to the Promised Land. While it's true that David expanded the Kingdom, "Greater Israel" mainly just included the West Bank, the Golan and, of course, Jerusalem.