Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 53

Thread: Why there's no hope of peace in Israel

  1. Top | #11
    Veteran Member Arctish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    4,288
    Archived
    4,540
    Total Posts
    8,828
    Rep Power
    66
    Quote Originally Posted by Loren Pechtel View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Arctish View Post
    Maybe if the Israelis went back to their side of the 1967 borders and stopped interfering with Palestinians going about their everyday business, there'd be a similar moderation of opinion in the West Bank.
    Maybe if they pulled back to the 67 borders they would get what they got back then--continual attacks. Why should it be different this time around?
    The evidence provided in your link indicates otherwise. Not that it matters.

    Netanyahu is hell bent on expanding Israeli sovereignty to the Jordan River. Evidence that withdrawing from the West Bank and limiting the daily contact between Palestinians and Israelis would decrease the militancy of the younger generation is irrelevant because he doesn't care about that. He wants the land and resources, and figures Israel will eventually beat the Palestinians into submission.

  2. Top | #12
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    24,393
    Archived
    96,752
    Total Posts
    121,145
    Rep Power
    95
    Quote Originally Posted by Arctish View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Loren Pechtel View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Arctish View Post
    Maybe if the Israelis went back to their side of the 1967 borders and stopped interfering with Palestinians going about their everyday business, there'd be a similar moderation of opinion in the West Bank.
    Maybe if they pulled back to the 67 borders they would get what they got back then--continual attacks. Why should it be different this time around?
    The evidence provided in your link indicates otherwise. Not that it matters.

    Netanyahu is hell bent on expanding Israeli sovereignty to the Jordan River. Evidence that withdrawing from the West Bank and limiting the daily contact between Palestinians and Israelis would decrease the militancy of the younger generation is irrelevant because he doesn't care about that. He wants the land and resources, and figures Israel will eventually beat the Palestinians into submission.
    What in the link gives you that idea?

    As for the younger generation--they've been brainwashed to militancy for their entire life. Why should things get better??

  3. Top | #13
    Veteran Member Arctish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    4,288
    Archived
    4,540
    Total Posts
    8,828
    Rep Power
    66
    Quote Originally Posted by Loren Pechtel View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Arctish View Post

    The evidence provided in your link indicates otherwise. Not that it matters.

    Netanyahu is hell bent on expanding Israeli sovereignty to the Jordan River. Evidence that withdrawing from the West Bank and limiting the daily contact between Palestinians and Israelis would decrease the militancy of the younger generation is irrelevant because he doesn't care about that. He wants the land and resources, and figures Israel will eventually beat the Palestinians into submission.
    What in the link gives you that idea?
    The part I quoted and commented on.

    As for the younger generation--they've been brainwashed to militancy for their entire life. Why should things get better??
    You didn't read the article in your OP all the way through, did you?

  4. Top | #14
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    14,900
    Archived
    41,943
    Total Posts
    56,843
    Rep Power
    73
    At this time, there is little hope for true peace in that region. But to place the responsibility or blame for that one party is to ignore the perfidy on the part of all the parties that drives the fundamental lack of trust. It is a vicious circle that will only stop under two scenarios: utter destruction of one side or the fortitude and courage of longstanding leadership on the part of all parties that encourages and engenders the necessary trust to deliver and maintain true peace. It is clear that none of the current leaders of the gov't of Israel, the West Bank and Gaza are willing or fit to do the latter.

  5. Top | #15
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,332
    Archived
    3,672
    Total Posts
    5,004
    Rep Power
    54
    Quote Originally Posted by laughing dog View Post
    At this time, there is little hope for true peace in that region. But to place the responsibility or blame for that one party is to ignore the perfidy on the part of all the parties that drives the fundamental lack of trust. It is a vicious circle that will only stop under two scenarios: utter destruction of one side or the fortitude and courage of longstanding leadership on the part of all parties that encourages and engenders the necessary trust to deliver and maintain true peace. It is clear that none of the current leaders of the gov't of Israel, the West Bank and Gaza are willing or fit to do the latter.
    Agree with this.

    Throughout history, war is the rule and not the exception. And it usually takes an absolute destruction of one of the sides, such as was the case when the US settlers conquered the indigenous indians for their nation.

    In the case of Israel/Palestine you would like to think this could go a little better since both cultures are very similar in race and appearance.

    But it just won't because we are all living in the human condition.

  6. Top | #16
    Veteran Member PyramidHead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    RI
    Posts
    4,167
    Archived
    4,389
    Total Posts
    8,556
    Rep Power
    57
    Quote Originally Posted by Jarhyn View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by PyramidHead View Post

    Why should the Palestinians honor it? There should be one state: Palestine. Before Israeli Zionists teamed up with British military power to invade and settle there, it was Palestine. They didn't ask the inhabitants of Palestine if they were okay with somebody setting up a nation in their backyard, they just decided in 1917 that Zionist settlers were entitled to it. Thirty years later, they handed a politically neutered Palestine over to the UN, after Israel had established a firm presence there and the prior denizens were brutalized into submission. What possible justification is there for anything other than a solution of precisely one state, Palestine? What reason could there be for Palestine to honor any terms that include the legitimacy of an invading and occupying aggressor as equal to the victims of their aggression?
    The justification is that the people of Israel are there now. Whether there should be one state or two, everyone deserves a right to go where they please, access quality education and medical care, seek employment without discrimination, and import/export as is economically useful for the nation(s); that they are expected to buy and pay for land in a way common to all persons in their nation(s), and that they have representation in their government consummate to their existence rather than ethnic or religious background.
    Wow. So if I move into your house without your consent, you should be willing to entertain a two-occupant solution for your dwelling? I would just have to say "Well, I'm here now, and I deserve a place to live, so..."

  7. Top | #17
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    1,444
    Rep Power
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by PyramidHead View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Jarhyn View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by PyramidHead View Post

    Why should the Palestinians honor it? There should be one state: Palestine. Before Israeli Zionists teamed up with British military power to invade and settle there, it was Palestine. They didn't ask the inhabitants of Palestine if they were okay with somebody setting up a nation in their backyard, they just decided in 1917 that Zionist settlers were entitled to it. Thirty years later, they handed a politically neutered Palestine over to the UN, after Israel had established a firm presence there and the prior denizens were brutalized into submission. What possible justification is there for anything other than a solution of precisely one state, Palestine? What reason could there be for Palestine to honor any terms that include the legitimacy of an invading and occupying aggressor as equal to the victims of their aggression?
    The justification is that the people of Israel are there now. Whether there should be one state or two, everyone deserves a right to go where they please, access quality education and medical care, seek employment without discrimination, and import/export as is economically useful for the nation(s); that they are expected to buy and pay for land in a way common to all persons in their nation(s), and that they have representation in their government consummate to their existence rather than ethnic or religious background.
    Wow. So if I move into your house without your consent, you should be willing to entertain a two-occupant solution for your dwelling? I would just have to say "Well, I'm here now, and I deserve a place to live, so..."
    You have Visa application processes to visit your property? May I review them for alignment with international law? I suppose if a visitor to your house does not violate any documented laws then you are powerless to evict them from your property too? Does your household uphold all OSHA standards for chores being performed? Are you prepared with a budget to payout fines for violations of NATO regulations?
    Your house would be quite the shithole of a country, me thinks. Someone should file a formal declaration of war on it and just take it from you, perfectly legally, in order to bring it up to snuff of what a nation actually is.

  8. Top | #18
    Veteran Member PyramidHead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    RI
    Posts
    4,167
    Archived
    4,389
    Total Posts
    8,556
    Rep Power
    57
    Quote Originally Posted by Gun Nut View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by PyramidHead View Post

    Wow. So if I move into your house without your consent, you should be willing to entertain a two-occupant solution for your dwelling? I would just have to say "Well, I'm here now, and I deserve a place to live, so..."
    You have Visa application processes to visit your property? May I review them for alignment with international law? I suppose if a visitor to your house does not violate any documented laws then you are powerless to evict them from your property too? Does your household uphold all OSHA standards for chores being performed? Are you prepared with a budget to payout fines for violations of NATO regulations?
    Your house would be quite the shithole of a country, me thinks. Someone should file a formal declaration of war on it and just take it from you, perfectly legally, in order to bring it up to snuff of what a nation actually is.
    Are you having a stroke?

  9. Top | #19
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    1,444
    Rep Power
    5
    My pen is (having a "stroke") get it? haha.

    While it is true that an analogy can go only as far as it was intended to be used, I am trying to find in what way it parallels the discussion in ANY way.

    But thank you for asking about my health.

  10. Top | #20
    Veteran Member PyramidHead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    RI
    Posts
    4,167
    Archived
    4,389
    Total Posts
    8,556
    Rep Power
    57
    Quote Originally Posted by Gun Nut View Post
    My pen is (having a "stroke") get it? haha.

    While it is true that an analogy can go only as far as it was intended to be used, I am trying to find in what way it parallels the discussion in ANY way.

    But thank you for asking about my health.
    The question is about whether it's permissible to displace people who are living somewhere, declare it yours, and then expect them to honor a "two state" solution on the grounds of you being able to say "we are here now". I couldn't decipher anything relevant in your word salad regarding that question.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •