Pro-"Palestinians"... is this what you want?

[ForeverYoung436]

Israel certainly does need the WB. If it was given away Israel is in shtook.
Israel would not be able to use nuclear weapons in such a tiny area anyway of just the WB. The WB and all of it is a safeguard from attack from the east.

Current military leaders don't think Israel needs the West Bank to defend itself.

Have you heard what happened when the Israelis left Gaza and Lebanon?

 

[Hyrcanus]

Have you heard what happened when the Israelis left Gaza and Lebanon?

Bad things happen when you don't negotiate security arrangements before you leave occupied territory.

 

[Kondor3]

Israel certainly does need the WB. If it was given away Israel is in shtook.
Israel would not be able to use nuclear weapons in such a tiny area anyway of just the WB. The WB and all of it is a safeguard from attack from the east.

Current military leaders don't think Israel needs the West Bank to defend itself.

Doesn't matter...

This is what the Jews of Israel want...

...and, frankly, they're almost there already.

It's only a matter of time now, and there's not much more of that left...

Tick, tick, tick...

 

[Hyrcanus]

Doesn't matter...

This is what the Jews of Israel want...

...and, frankly, they're almost there already.

It's only a matter of time now, and there's not much more of that left...

Tick, tick, tick...

Nice map, but its crap.

Jordan was part of Palestine for about 2 years. Most of that territory isn't part of historic Palestine.

Its dishonest to call Jordan "Arab Palestine".

 

[toastman]

Have you heard what happened when the Israelis left Gaza and Lebanon?

Bad things happen when you don't negotiate security arrangements before you leave occupied territory.

That's not an excuse to launch rockets at civilian population

 

[Hyrcanus]

That's not an excuse to launch rockets at civilian population

I fully agree.

Hamas is a terrorist group that should be brought before The Hague.

 

[Sweet_Caroline]

Israel certainly does need the WB. If it was given away Israel is in shtook.
Israel would not be able to use nuclear weapons in such a tiny area anyway of just the WB. The WB and all of it is a safeguard from attack from the east.

Current military leaders don't think Israel needs the West Bank to defend itself.

So tell me, is there any danger in Israel giving away the WB military-wise or is this video incorrect.

Please watch it as you will be able to give me your honest opinion.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jaNV5ZzSs9I]Israel's Indefensible 1967 Borders.flv - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Hyrcanus]

So tell me, is there any danger in Israel giving away the WB military-wise or is this video incorrect.

Please watch it as you will be able to give me your honest opinion.

Israel's Indefensible 1967 Borders.flv - YouTube

Sorry, but when it comes to issues of conventional wars and land invasions, I trust the views of professional military commanders only.

You find me some current Israeli generals or even American generals who say that Israel needs the West Bank in order to survive against invasion, and I'll accept that.

 

[Sweet_Caroline]

So tell me, is there any danger in Israel giving away the WB military-wise or is this video incorrect.

Please watch it as you will be able to give me your honest opinion.

Israel's Indefensible 1967 Borders.flv - YouTube

Sorry, but when it comes to issues of conventional wars and land invasions, I trust the views of professional military commanders only.

You find me some current Israeli generals or even American generals who say that Israel needs the West Bank in order to survive against invasion, and I'll accept that.

Watch the video and tell me if Israel would be safe if it gave away the WB. I would like to know your views.

 

[Hyrcanus]

Watch the video and tell me if Israel would be safe if it gave away the WB. I would like to know your views.

Does it include the views of current Israeli or American generals?

If so, Ill consider watching your little movie.

 

[ForeverYoung436]

Watch the video and tell me if Israel would be safe if it gave away the WB. I would like to know your views.

Does it include the views of current Israeli or American generals?

If so, Ill consider watching your little movie.

Yes it does.

 

[José]

The only thing 'undesirable' about Palestinians is their murdering Israeli civilians and claiming it's 'resistance'...... and that's apparently a fairly small minority.

The only thing undesirable about Palestinians is their armed struggle, according to you.

So I gather you'd accept their right to live in Israel = western Palestine, if they ended it and replaced it with a non-violent movement for equal rights in the entirety of their historical homeland?

You know... the proof of the pudding

 

[José]

"..."

By Jove, I think you've got it!

Keep nudging more and more of them to pack up and leave every year. Time is on the side of the Israelis in this respect, and the game-clock is winding down to total expulsion... tick, tick, tick...

Kondor, Kondor...

If you were my son... I would be a VERY busy daddy...

 

[José]

You are totally obsessed with the idea of ethnic cleasing, Kondor... you see it as a magic wand that will solve all of Israel's problems.

But let's stop for a moment and think about it... I know you have every reason in the world to take everything I say with a Dead Sea of salt. So let's forget about José, the poster, and look at the History of the state of Israel... pure, unadultered israeli history:

1948

The displacement of 650 k palestinians gives birth to THE WHOLE CONFLICT.

1967

A new displacement creates an additional 250 K palestinian refugees HAVING THE ONLY CONSEQUENCE OF MAKING THE PALESTINIAN REFUGEE PROBLEM EVEN WORSE.

Just like before, the only thing a new mass expulsion or a slow-paced one will do is create AN EVEN BIGGER PALESTINIAN REFUGEE PROBLEM.

They will reject assimilation into the surrounding arab societies in 2050 just like they did in 48 and 67.

The only difference will be the location of the new refugee camps. There will be no more camps in the West Bank but dozens of new camps will arise in Lebanon, Syria, Egypt, Jordan.

And the new refugees will join those already living in those countries and wage their armed struggle from there.

Kassams will be launched from Egypt and Lebannon instead of Gaza. Everything else will be business at usual...

What strikes me the most is the fact that you desperately cling to this idea as if it were a magic solution when in fact ethnic cleasing will continue to be the fuel of the whole conflict.

 

[MHunterB]

The only thing 'undesirable' about Palestinians is their murdering Israeli civilians and claiming it's 'resistance'...... and that's apparently a fairly small minority.

The only thing undesirable about Palestinians is their armed struggle, according to you.

So I gather you'd accept their right to live in Israel = western Palestine, if they ended it and replaced it with a non-violent movement for equal rights in the entirety of their historical homeland?

You know... the proof of the pudding

You 'gather' incorrectly. It's not 'armed struggle': it's murder. And Israel is Israel: it's not 'western Palestine'.

Whoever is willing to be a citizen of Israel *does* have full rights already de jure, more so than blacks had in the US until the '60's. The 'de facto' needs to be brought up to the 'de jure' ideal - as it still does in the US for many groups.

My impression is that the 20+ percent of Israeli citizens who are 'Palestinians' aren't given to murdering their Jewish neighbors at any greater rate than the average violent crime rate....... So there's no reason for WB Arab citizens to attack their neighbors.

 

[MHunterB]

You are totally obsessed with the idea of ethnic cleasing, Kondor... you see it as a magic wand that will solve all of Israel's problems.

But let's stop for a moment and think about it... I know you have every reason in the world to take everything I say with a Dead Sea of salt. So let's forget about José, the poster, and look at the History of the state of Israel... pure, unadultered israeli history:

1948

The displacement of 650 k palestinians gives birth to THE WHOLE CONFLICT.

1967

A new displacement creates an additional 250 K palestinian refugees HAVING THE ONLY CONSEQUENCE OF MAKING THE PALESTINIAN REFUGEE PROBLEM EVEN WORSE.

Just like before, the only thing a new mass expulsion or a slow-paced one will do is create AN EVEN BIGGER PALESTINIAN REFUGEE PROBLEM.

They will reject assimilation into the surrounding arab societies in 2050 just like they did in 48 and 67.

The only difference will be the location of the new refugee camps. There will be no more camps in the West Bank but dozens of new camps will arise in Lebanon, Syria, Egypt, Jordan.

And the new refugees will join those already living in those countries and wage their armed struggle from there.

Kassams will be launched from Egypt and Lebannon instead of Gaza. Everything else will be business at usual...

What strikes me the most is the fact that you desperately cling to this idea as if it were a magic solution when in fact ethnic cleasing will continue to be the fuel of the whole conflict.

Well, your cherry-picked one sided version of 'history' isn't any prize for accuracy, Jose.

I don't see any mention of the pogroms against the Jews of Hebron in 1929, for example.

Nor did you see fit to notice the 950,000 Arab Jews who were ethnically cleansed from various Arab nations.

Oh, and you 'forgot' to mention the ethnic cleansing of East Jerusalem in'49 when the Jewish families living in a number of neighborhoods were forced out at gunpoint.

What, do ONLY Palestinian refugees have rights? Does ONLY Israel have a duty to return what was taken?

I suppose that's a POV: but don't presume to claim that would be 'justice'.

 

[Hyrcanus]

Well, your cherry-picked one sided version of 'history' isn't any prize for accuracy, Jose.

I don't see any mention of the pogroms against the Jews of Hebron in 1929, for example.

Nor did you see fit to notice the 950,000 Arab Jews who were ethnically cleansed from various Arab nations.

Oh, and you 'forgot' to mention the ethnic cleansing of East Jerusalem in'49 when the Jewish families living in a number of neighborhoods were forced out at gunpoint.

What, do ONLY Palestinian refugees have rights? Does ONLY Israel have a duty to return what was taken?

I suppose that's a POV: but don't presume to claim that would be 'justice'.

I have a great idea!

Since we all respect the Right to Return to lands that were fled during armed conflict, all Jews who fled the Arabs states during the 1948 war should be allowed to return to their former lands.

And all Arabs who fled Israel during the same war will also have the right to return to Israel.

Does that satisfy you?

Your comparison between the 800,000 Arabs who fled/kicked out of Israel in 1948 to the 800,000 Jews who came to Israel during its first ten years, is absurd.

These 800,000 Jews don't want to go back to their former lands. If anything, all they want is their money back. While the Arabs DO want to return to their former lands, and many simply would not accept monetary compensation for their lost properties.

You see, unlike the Jewish refugees from the Muslim lands, the Arab refugees from Israel can't be bought and don't want to be bought.

 

[toastman]

Well, your cherry-picked one sided version of 'history' isn't any prize for accuracy, Jose.

I don't see any mention of the pogroms against the Jews of Hebron in 1929, for example.

Nor did you see fit to notice the 950,000 Arab Jews who were ethnically cleansed from various Arab nations.

Oh, and you 'forgot' to mention the ethnic cleansing of East Jerusalem in'49 when the Jewish families living in a number of neighborhoods were forced out at gunpoint.

What, do ONLY Palestinian refugees have rights? Does ONLY Israel have a duty to return what was taken?

I suppose that's a POV: but don't presume to claim that would be 'justice'.

I have a great idea!

Since we all respect the Right to Return to lands that were fled during armed conflict, all Jews who fled the Arabs states during the 1948 war should be allowed to return to their former lands.

And all Arabs who fled Israel during the same war will also have the right to return to Israel.

Does that satisfy you?

Your comparison between the 800,000 Arabs who fled/kicked out of Israel in 1948 to the 800,000 Jews who came to Israel during its first ten years, is absurd.

These 800,000 Jews don't want to go back to their former lands. If anything, all they want is their money back. While the Arabs DO want to return to their former lands, and many simply would not accept monetary compensation for their lost properties.

You see, unlike the Jewish refugees from the Muslim lands, the Arab refugees from Israel can't be bought and don't want to be bought.

Why would the Israeli government allow Israel to be flooded with thousands upon thousands of Palestinians, many of whom are likely hostile towards. Does that make sense to you?
'Right of Return' is NEVER going to happen. It's completely out of the question. Palestinians and their supporters need to completely get that thought out of their head.

 

[Hyrcanus]

Why would the Israeli government allow Israel to be flooded with thousands upon thousands of Palestinians, many of whom are likely hostile towards. Does that make sense to you?
'Right of Return' is NEVER going to happen. It's completely out of the question. Palestinians and their supporters need to completely get that thought out of their head.

Any refugees that are allowed to come back to Israel must swear to live at peace with their neighbors and being a contributing part of Israeli society.

Anyone who can't make that promise shouldn't be allowed in.

Israel should allow back say 100,000 refugees, mostly as family reunification.

 

[toastman]

Why would the Israeli government allow Israel to be flooded with thousands upon thousands of Palestinians, many of whom are likely hostile towards. Does that make sense to you?
'Right of Return' is NEVER going to happen. It's completely out of the question. Palestinians and their supporters need to completely get that thought out of their head.

Any refugees that are allowed to come back to Israel must swear to live at peace with their neighbors and being a contributing part of Israeli society.

Anyone who can't make that promise shouldn't be allowed in.

Israel should allow back say 100,000 refugees, mostly as family reunification.

What a load of crap. 'Swearing to live in peace' means nothing. If lets say a Palestinian is let back into Israel and his intentions are to commit terrorism against Israelis, do you think he is going to openly state his intention??
Right of return is just one of those things that you guys need to forget