The 77 year old flop

[Roudy]

I have learned that rule in my brief time on this forum. Believe whatever you agree with, truth be damned. It certainly is an entertaining forum for that reason.

It is entertaining because nitwit lying Islamic propagandists like you are on it.

Can you point to any "lying Islamic propaganda" I have written? I only write facts.

Islamic / Neo Nazi "facts" for sure. 99% of your posts are bullshit propaganda.

 

[proudveteran06]

Look at Israel's pre-conditions.

1)The Palestinians must surrender.
2) They must disarm.
3) No refugees.
4) No Jerusalem.
5) Settlements will stay.
6) Israel will control all imports and exports.
7) Israel will control all travel and tourism.
8) Israel recognized as a Jewish state.​

OK, so who isn't serious?

The Palestinian is lying again;

Israel has offered to give up most of the settlements in the W. Bank


Israel said willing to give up 90% of West Bank | The Times of Israel


Israel said willing to give up 90% of West Bank

Palestinians reportedly insisting on land swaps for no more than 3% of territory; either way, most Jewish settlements would remain in place

By Gavriel Fiske February 6, 2014, 10:55 am 99




The closed-door negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority over the future contours of a Palestinian state, and how much land and settlements Israel will retain, have reportedly come down to a matter of a few percentage points, with both sides agreeing in principle that the majority of Jewish West Bank settlements would be transferred to Israeli sovereignty in a final status deal.

Get The Times of Israel's Daily Edition by email
and never miss our top stories Free Sign up!

Citing anonymous Israeli, Palestinian and American sources close to the negotiations, Walla News reported on Thursday that Israel is seeking to annex about 10 percent of the West Bank’s land area in a final deal. Meanwhile, the Palestinians are seeking to have Israel annex only around 3% of the West Bank, the report said.




Some 70-80% of Jewish West Bank settlements will be transferred to Israel whether Israel retains 10% or 3% of West Bank land, the report noted. According to a source on the American side, “it is clear” that Israel is “willing in principle to give up” control of 90% of the West Bank.


Israel has also offered to share E. Jerusalem. Israel will not control all tourism etc. etc. It does demand that " Palestine" remain unmilitarized for obvious reasons such as Japan was after WW 11. What the Palestinan doesn't mention is that they are demanding some land within the 67 Borders. If they got everything they wanted Israel will eventually be annex to " Palestine". Why should there be a " Palestinian State" but not a " Jewish State?"



The closed-door negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority over the future contours of a Palestinian state, and how much land and settlements Israel will retain, have reportedly come down to a matter of a few percentage points, with both sides agreeing in principle that the majority of Jewish West Bank settlements would be transferred to Israeli sovereignty in a final status deal.

Citing anonymous Israeli, Palestinian and American sources close to the negotiations, Walla News reported on Thursday that Israel is seeking to annex about 10 percent of the West Bank’s land area in a final deal. Meanwhile, the Palestinians are seeking to have Israel annex only around 3% of the West Bank, the report said.







Abbas Shuts Down the Peace Process « Commentary Magazine


Abbas Shuts Down the Peace Process


Tom Wilson | [MENTION=30056]Tom[/MENTION]JamesWilson 02.12.2014 - 2:20 PM





Last week, Jonathan Tobin wrote here of how we were on the eve of a fourth Palestinian “no” to a peace agreement. It would appear that has now arrived, albeit slightly sooner than anyone had expected. Many observers assumed that once Secretary of State John Kerry got around to submitting his framework for a negotiated peace, Palestinian Authority head Mahmoud Abbas would then set about finding an excuse for rejecting it. What few could have predicted was that Abbas would find a way to reject the proposal before it was even submitted. Yet, this is precisely the impressive feat that Abbas has now accomplished.

Earlier today, Abbas’s spokespeople in Ramallah announced the PA’s new set of red lines in any negotiated peace settlement. Each and every one of these red lines blows to pieces anything Kerry was about to propose, as it does to the prospects for an agreement between the two sides in general. These red lines which Abbas details in a letter being sent to the U.S. and the Quartet seamlessly preempts whatever Kerry was likely to outline in his own peace parameters. In this way Abbas artfully dodges a scenario in which the Israelis would agree to a peace plan and the Palestinians would come under pressure not to derail yet another effort to resolve the conflict.



Abbas’s new red lines block just about every concession that the Israelis, and even the U.S., have requested. Abbas demands: a total Israeli withdrawal from all territories that went to Israel in 1967; that Israel complete that withdrawal within three to four years; that the Palestinians not be required to recognize the Jewish state; that east Jerusalem be specified as the capital of a Palestinian state; the release of all Palestinian prisoners; and resolving the refugee issue along the lines of UN General Assembly resolution 194, which in essence means sending those Palestinians claiming to be refugees, not to a Palestinian state, but to Israel, thus terminating the existence of the Jewish state Abbas refuses to recognize.




So, Who isn't serious???

There are some things that Abbas can't negotiate governed by law.

The legal rights of the inhabitants of occupied territory cannot be curtailed
by any agreement or other arrangement between the occupying power
and the authorities of the occupied territory. This is intended to prevent
national authorities from being put under pressure to make conces-
sions which might not be in the population’s best interests or weaken
its legal rights.

Similarly, the inhabitants of the occupied territory cannot renounce their
rights under the Fourth Geneva Convention. This again is a safeguard.
It prevents the occupying power from exploiting the vulnerability of the
occupied territory by exerting undue pressure to undermine and weaken
the protection which the law affords.

Another Pro Palestinian lie . If those " borders" were to be accepted by " law" the Arab World should have accepted them in the first place . Gaza and the W. Bank were part of Egypt and Jordan, not " Palestine" . When speaking about " Right of Return" they also speak about the Palestinians " willing to live in peace with their neighbors" ; Something they have not demonstrated . . Even the Arab League has urged Abbas to " negotiate " So. Please tell us; What exactly is Abbas " allowed" to do ? Israel will never be annexed to the Palestinian State .

 

[Phoenall]

You people never fail to make me laugh.

You are so addicted to debate you even defy the very definition of this activity:

DEBATE:

a discussion between people in which they express different opinions about something

Debate - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

A formal contest of argumentation in which two opposing teams defend and attack a given proposition.

debate - definition of debate by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

You love debating so much you engage in this activity even when there's nothing to debate, even when everybody is in perfect agreement.

Everybody here is perfectly aware that the palestinian people will never sanction the ethnic
cleansing of western palestine, that they will never accept only the WB and Gaza as their historical homeland.

Everybody knows this conflict is not about a few inches of land here, a few inches there... it is about the right of the palestinian people to live in the western half of their homeland.

If you don't believe me just read the small selection I compiled below including quotes by almost all posters who contributed to this thread.

Only one problem the western part of Palestine was never their homeland was it,. Their homeland in many cases were the other nations in the M.E. Plus the real owners of the land had reached agreement with the inhabitants to partition the land into nations for arab muslims and Jews.

 

[Phoenall]

You and Paul Francis Tinmore are in perfect aggreement, veteran:

You have both finally realized that the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is about the right to live in western Palestine and not about settlements, occupation, no matter how many times the western press and even palestinian leaders refer to them as the real obstacles.

As you said so many times:

"That's why the palestinian state is DOA!!"

The only thing that's still unanswered is why on Earth you have the strange idea that there is any disagreement between you two.

If you cant see it then you should be posting on the ore school board

 

[Phoenall]

There will never be peace in the ME.

It just seems to good to be true.

Not while Israel keeps stealing land against all international norms...In our lifetime we will see the ME Nuke up.

Care to show proof that Israel is stealing land, and were are they hiding it when it has been stolen.
remember that Oslo granted Isreal rights over parts of the west bank, and UN 242 grants them even more rights over other parts of the West bank.

 

[Phoenall]

Originally posted by proudveteran
[Definition of NEGOTIATE

b: to arrange for or bring about through conference, discussion, and compromise <negotiate a treaty>

Why is there " disagreement?" Try to read the above definition SLOWLY if capable. Israel has shown compromise in many aspects starting with Gaza. Tell us exactly what the Palestinians have been doing to " negotiate?" The Palestinian, on the other hand claims the Palestinians are willing to find a way to end the " Two State Solution" conflict but claims the Israelis are unwilling to " negotiate" Understand now? Doubt it

You say:

The palestinian state (ie, the partition of Palestine) is DOA.

Tinmore says:

The two-state solution is nothing but the partition plan palestinians have been unequivocally, constantly rejecting since the first decades of the last century.

Whether or not Palestinians are being reasonable, "serious" by demanding their right to live in western Palestine is a secondary, unimportant question that's totally open to subjective interpretation.

What's really important here is that both of you agree on the crucial, fundamental issue:

The right of the palestinian people to live in an undivided Palestine has always been, is and will always be a non-negotiable point.

Again:

Where's the (important) disagreement?

Because it is not a right under any treaties or UN resolutions, nor is it entrenched in International Law. The treaties all say that the land was to be for a Jewish National Home, and the arab muslim leaders agreed as long as they got the lions share of the most productive land.

You should really check your subject before making an absolute fool of yourself

 

[Phoenall]

The Zionist bloggers/sites blame the Palestinians for the breakdown in negotiations. Kerry blames the Israeli decision to build more settlements. I wonder which source is more reliable.

Settlements built on Jewish owned land are not illegal, nor are settlements built on land ceded to the Israeli government by Palestinian negotiators. ( see Oslo 2 ) The constant demands of pre conditions do not lead to peace talks, and Israel has unilaterally withdrawn all of its pre conditions as a good will gesture to kick start the talks. It is the Palestinians refusal to talk that is causing the breakdown in the talks

 

[Phoenall]

Far right Zionists have no honor...remember the Irgun, USS Liberty, Lavon Affair, Jonathan Pollard...

It goes on, remember that!

ISLAMONAZIS have less honour than a thief in the night remember Medina, Hebron 3 times, Jerusalem 4 times, Munich, WTC, London Transport, Glasgow airport, Kris Donald and the Rochdale grooming gangs. Then there was the Banker who stole billions from other muslims , or Arafat who creamed of the top of the iNTERNATIONAL aID GIVEN TO THE PALESTINIANS

 

[Phoenall]

Jewish honor is better than Palestinian.

By a long shot, their is a saying in the UK if you do business with a muslim get the money up front

 

[jillian]

There will never be peace in the ME.

It just seems to good to be true.

let me modify that a bit for you.

there will never be peace in the middle east until the pals accept that they started wars which that they lost... and to make a deal they need to recognize israel's right to exist. without that, it certainly won't happen.

 

[Phoenall]

I have learned that rule in my brief time on this forum. Believe whatever you agree with, truth be damned. It certainly is an entertaining forum for that reason.

It is entertaining because nitwit lying Islamic propagandists like you are on it.

Can you point to any "lying Islamic propaganda" I have written? I only write facts.

Haven't I done that many times, and with the proof that your sources are not what you claim. The last one you claimed was an Israeli source when it was an American source written by ANTI SEMITIC JEW HATERS.

 

[Phoenall]

" the palestinian people will never accept neither the partition of their homeland nor the exile imposed on them by the jewish racial dictatorship."

Yeah, they will. They have no other choice. If they fight, they will be squashed as they always have been already.

Jake, don't you read (or believe) your own posts?

Here's what you typed a few hours ago:

Greater Israel is becoming the only acceptable solution, with the Palestinians who can't accept it be cleansed to other countries involuntarily.

Why do you think "Greater Israel" (a one-state solution) "is becoming the only acceptable solution"?

Because you have a (correct) gut feeling that palestinians will never compromise their birthright to live in western Palestine, because you share Rocco's gut feeling that Palestinians have always been and will always be "bad faith partners" in the peace talks with Israel.

What treaty, International law or UN resolution says that the arab muslims birthright is in western Palestine ?
They are not indigenous to the area and they have admitted this themselves. Many arrived in the period between 1949 and 1967 as the demographics show.

 

[Phoenall]

the irony behind my exchanges with hossfly, proudveteran and jake is that i didn't even have to use my own arguments...

I used their own words to prove my point...

How devastating is that? :d

dream on dreamer

 

[Phoenall]

"You people".

Anti Semites have a very limited vocabulary.

Anti-semite or Jewphile... you totally agree with Tinmore and me when we say the two-state delusion was never seriously considered by the palestinian people when you say:

Originally posted by Roudy:
If you believe that (that arabs are even remotely considering the possibility of giving up their right to live in western Palestine) I have a used car to sell you.

Because it was taken of the cards after wW2 when the grand mufti preached arab
muslim conquest and colonialism. The treaties signed were torn up and scattered to the winds, as a gesture of faith the UN divided the land left after arab muslim land grabs into a two state solution giving Israel the worst land in the process.
The original intention was to give the Jews all of the land from the sea to the river as their National Home. So why should the Jews give up their land by legal right to Johnny come lately's who had no legal right to the land.

 

[Phoenall]

Jose, can you show me a map of this so called 'western Palestine' ?

Toastman,

Western (and Eastern) Palestine were never a country (or part of a country) because Ottoman and then british rule didn't allowed it to be.

But western Palestine was the HISTORICAL HOMELAND of the arab people who lived there.

First it was the homeland of ARABS.

Then when those arabs developed the palestinian national identity in the first half of the last century it became (and continues to be) the homeland of palestinian arabs.

So you will be able to find a treaty that gave the land to the arab muslims, either by the Ottomans or by the LoN . The land was Arabic for a total of 22 years in the last 2000 so how is it HISTORICALLY their homeland. The Jews had lived there for over 4,000 years uninterrupted and it is their HISTORIC HOMELAND. The arab's never developed a Palestinian national identity until 1964, before that time it was a profanity laid on the Jews as an insult.

 

[Phoenall]

Look at Israel's pre-conditions.

1)The Palestinians must surrender.
2) They must disarm.
3) No refugees.
4) No Jerusalem.
5) Settlements will stay.
6) Israel will control all imports and exports.
7) Israel will control all travel and tourism.
8) Israel recognized as a Jewish state.​

OK, so who isn't serious?

The Palestinian is lying again;

Israel has offered to give up most of the settlements in the W. Bank


Israel said willing to give up 90% of West Bank | The Times of Israel


Israel said willing to give up 90% of West Bank

Palestinians reportedly insisting on land swaps for no more than 3% of territory; either way, most Jewish settlements would remain in place

By Gavriel Fiske February 6, 2014, 10:55 am 99




The closed-door negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority over the future contours of a Palestinian state, and how much land and settlements Israel will retain, have reportedly come down to a matter of a few percentage points, with both sides agreeing in principle that the majority of Jewish West Bank settlements would be transferred to Israeli sovereignty in a final status deal.

Get The Times of Israel's Daily Edition by email
and never miss our top stories Free Sign up!

Citing anonymous Israeli, Palestinian and American sources close to the negotiations, Walla News reported on Thursday that Israel is seeking to annex about 10 percent of the West Bank’s land area in a final deal. Meanwhile, the Palestinians are seeking to have Israel annex only around 3% of the West Bank, the report said.




Some 70-80% of Jewish West Bank settlements will be transferred to Israel whether Israel retains 10% or 3% of West Bank land, the report noted. According to a source on the American side, “it is clear” that Israel is “willing in principle to give up” control of 90% of the West Bank.


Israel has also offered to share E. Jerusalem. Israel will not control all tourism etc. etc. It does demand that " Palestine" remain unmilitarized for obvious reasons such as Japan was after WW 11. What the Palestinan doesn't mention is that they are demanding some land within the 67 Borders. If they got everything they wanted Israel will eventually be annex to " Palestine". Why should there be a " Palestinian State" but not a " Jewish State?"



The closed-door negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority over the future contours of a Palestinian state, and how much land and settlements Israel will retain, have reportedly come down to a matter of a few percentage points, with both sides agreeing in principle that the majority of Jewish West Bank settlements would be transferred to Israeli sovereignty in a final status deal.

Citing anonymous Israeli, Palestinian and American sources close to the negotiations, Walla News reported on Thursday that Israel is seeking to annex about 10 percent of the West Bank’s land area in a final deal. Meanwhile, the Palestinians are seeking to have Israel annex only around 3% of the West Bank, the report said.







Abbas Shuts Down the Peace Process « Commentary Magazine


Abbas Shuts Down the Peace Process


Tom Wilson | [MENTION=30056]Tom[/MENTION]JamesWilson 02.12.2014 - 2:20 PM





Last week, Jonathan Tobin wrote here of how we were on the eve of a fourth Palestinian “no” to a peace agreement. It would appear that has now arrived, albeit slightly sooner than anyone had expected. Many observers assumed that once Secretary of State John Kerry got around to submitting his framework for a negotiated peace, Palestinian Authority head Mahmoud Abbas would then set about finding an excuse for rejecting it. What few could have predicted was that Abbas would find a way to reject the proposal before it was even submitted. Yet, this is precisely the impressive feat that Abbas has now accomplished.

Earlier today, Abbas’s spokespeople in Ramallah announced the PA’s new set of red lines in any negotiated peace settlement. Each and every one of these red lines blows to pieces anything Kerry was about to propose, as it does to the prospects for an agreement between the two sides in general. These red lines which Abbas details in a letter being sent to the U.S. and the Quartet seamlessly preempts whatever Kerry was likely to outline in his own peace parameters. In this way Abbas artfully dodges a scenario in which the Israelis would agree to a peace plan and the Palestinians would come under pressure not to derail yet another effort to resolve the conflict.



Abbas’s new red lines block just about every concession that the Israelis, and even the U.S., have requested. Abbas demands: a total Israeli withdrawal from all territories that went to Israel in 1967; that Israel complete that withdrawal within three to four years; that the Palestinians not be required to recognize the Jewish state; that east Jerusalem be specified as the capital of a Palestinian state; the release of all Palestinian prisoners; and resolving the refugee issue along the lines of UN General Assembly resolution 194, which in essence means sending those Palestinians claiming to be refugees, not to a Palestinian state, but to Israel, thus terminating the existence of the Jewish state Abbas refuses to recognize.




So, Who isn't serious???

There are some things that Abbas can't negotiate governed by law.

The legal rights of the inhabitants of occupied territory cannot be curtailed
by any agreement or other arrangement between the occupying power
and the authorities of the occupied territory. This is intended to prevent
national authorities from being put under pressure to make conces-
sions which might not be in the population’s best interests or weaken
its legal rights.

Similarly, the inhabitants of the occupied territory cannot renounce their
rights under the Fourth Geneva Convention. This again is a safeguard.
It prevents the occupying power from exploiting the vulnerability of the
occupied territory by exerting undue pressure to undermine and weaken
the protection which the law affords.

http://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/other/law9_final.pdf

Irrelevant as this applies to treaties signed by the occupying power and another power.

The Palestinian elected negotiator can negotiate peace, borders, movement, imports/exports, surrender of weapons and land swaps as none of these affect the inhabitants legal rights.

 

[P F Tinmore]

There will never be peace in the ME.

It just seems to good to be true.

Not while Israel keeps stealing land against all international norms...In our lifetime we will see the ME Nuke up.

Care to show proof that Israel is stealing land, and were are they hiding it when it has been stolen.
remember that Oslo granted Isreal rights over parts of the west bank, and UN 242 grants them even more rights over other parts of the West bank.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8Aq54YTyb0]Canadian Jews oppose the Jewish National Fund (JNF) - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1XgbGR43QZc]81 Sleepless Gaza Jerusalem.divx - YouTube[/ame]

 

[P F Tinmore]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ZKyrhJxoO8]Demonstration exposing the Jewish National Fund ~ May 31,2012 ... Vancouver, Canada - YouTube[/ame]

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I'm not sure where you got this information. But, the current talks, which started last year, had something different.




(COMMENT)

These are not pre-conditions to the continuation of talks. I'm not sure where you get that from! All the Israeli pre-conditions were dropped last July.

The downward spiral on the talks was initiated when the last of the agreed upon prisoner releases was held-up because the Palestinians were planning to discontinue further negotiations. Israel wanted assurances that if the release was carried-out, the Palestinian would then terminate the talks. The Palestinians have been the "bad faith" partners in the talks from the beginning.

(SIDEBAR)

I (personally) agree that Justice Minister Tzipi Livni has been handicapped by the limitations and directions placed on her negotiating team by some of the decisions coming from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. But this is a domestic matter for the Israelis to consider and evaluate.

Time is on the side of the Israelis. The longer it takes for each side to enter into "good faith" negotiations with a willingness to compromise, the worse the situation becomes for the Palestinians. Neither Fatah or HAMAS are acting in the best interest of the Palestinian People. But, then one can say (similarly) that Likud Party (Chairman Netanyahu) is really not acting in the best interest of Israel and the establishment of peace.

The Israelis will have to decide whether they want to continue along this same path, or if they want to break the mold and try something different.

In any event, unlike Secretary of State John Kerry, I don't blame Israel for the breakdown in the talks. I don't believe that either side really wanted to make the hard choices in compromises that would be necessary for a peace settlement in the disputes.

Most Respectfully,
R

All the Israeli pre-conditions were dropped last July.

Is Israel going to allow Palestinians to have personal weapons and an army?
Is Israel going to allow return of the refugees?
Is Israel going to give up the Jordan valley?
Will East Jerusalem be the capital of Palestine?

Israel gave up those preconditions?
Got a link?

1) They already do

HEAVILY ARMED MILITIAS WREST CONTROL OF WEST BANK PALESTINIAN REFUGEE CAMPS FROM PALESTINIAN AUTHORITY | sreaves32

The situation today is such that the Palestinian security forces don’t dare set foot in those areas, especially the big refugee camps of Nablus (Balata), Tulkarm, Dehaisha – between the Jewish Gush Etzion settlement bloc and Hebron – Askar - east of Nablus, and Jenin. Another no-go area is the Shoafat camp in the municipal area of Jerusalem.

Palestinian security units are afraid of being greeted in the same way as the Israeli military forces, which have cut down on entry to those camps after coming under a hail of automatic fire, firebombs and grenades wielded by gangs of armed thugs. There were also attempts to seize soldiers as hostages.



2) They already have in some cases

https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths3/MFrefugees.html#8

The Arabs rejected all the Israeli compromises. They were unwilling to take any action that might be construed as recognition of Israel. They made repatriation a precondition for negotiations, something Israel rejected. The result was the confinement of the refugees in camps.

Despite the position taken by the Arab states, Israel did release the Arab refugees’ blocked bank accounts, which totaled more than $10 million, paid thousands of claimants cash compensation and granted thousands of acres as alternative holdings.


If Jordan asks them yes, but while Jordan wants them to patrol there NO!

Covered in another thread


Isn't it already.

See the Palestinian declaration of independence.

Palestinian security units are afraid of being greeted in the same way as the Israeli military forces, which have cut down on entry to those camps after coming under a hail of automatic fire, firebombs and grenades wielded by gangs of armed thugs. There were also attempts to seize soldiers as hostages.

Dayton's forces got the boot?

Cool!