Israel has repeatedly offered to make peace with the arabs, and it is in Israels best interests to do so, but for some odd reason, the arabs would rather blow themselves up than have a jewish man for a neighbor. The jews have a right to live on the land, and if the arabs can't accept that, then they will pay the consequences (6 days war anyone?).Ty wrote:
Since it is unrealistic that Palestinians will be able to use their right of return as it would more or less mean the merging of Palestine and Israel which simply would not happen, compensation is the better way of resolving this issue. This compensation would also help ensure the economic survival of a Palestinian state. However remember that 87.5% of Palestinians clearly do not want peace until Israel is destroyed, it is unlikely that compensation would be widely accepted or if it was, whether it would pacify the Palestinian people.
That’s the thing isn’t it, whether or not Israel crashes completely to pressure there will be no secure peace. One can also look into the connotations of what giving in to the terrorism of Palestinians will mean – if terrorism can succeed in giving Palestinians a free state and compensation why should it not continue to be used to ensure what the majority of Palestinians are after?
No, they'd rather have their land back than leave it in the hands of thieves.
Give Australia back to the aboriginies, then we'll talk.
They aren't waging a war to get it back. They are taking steps to get a solution from our government, which I support.ATG wrote:
Give Australia back to the aboriginies, then we'll talk.
Palestinians need to stop living in the past anyway. Israel is not going anywhere, even if it was on the brink of annihilation it could at very least achieve MAD. What Palestine should concern itself with is how to ensure they survive at all, and they have been offered methods of this quite a few times now. The only groups who deny them the methods to ensure their survival are their buddies the Arab states, who insist that they can have their homes back once Israel is destroyed and to not accept anything less than everything.
Palestine won't get everything it wants. It just won't. They've got to compromise to ensure their survival but they are insistant to refuse every bit of help they recieve. It's frustraiting to say the least.
Palestine won't get everything it wants. It just won't. They've got to compromise to ensure their survival but they are insistant to refuse every bit of help they recieve. It's frustraiting to say the least.
[Blinking eyes thing]
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon
French people who took that view in WWII were viewed as traitors and hunted down mercilessly after the war.
It's a completely different situation though. You can't argue an issue based upon the facts of another.
[Blinking eyes thing]
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon
How is it different? Both deal with an invasion by a vastly superior force, which cannot be beaten by the armies available.Ty wrote:
It's a completely different situation though. You can't argue an issue based upon the facts of another.
It is a completely different situation. I completely agree with Ty, compromise is the only way for a solution to be reached. But there must be significant compromise by both sides. At present Israel haven't compromised enough.Bubbalo wrote:
How is it different? Both deal with an invasion by a vastly superior force, which cannot be beaten by the armies available.Ty wrote:
It's a completely different situation though. You can't argue an issue based upon the facts of another.
With regards to the 87.5% of Palestinians not wanting peace figure, I don't haave much faith in it. That figure was obtained from a poll conducted by the An Najah university and was populaurised by the New York Times article by Serge Schemann. If you look at the more recent polls by An Najah University (or Tel Aviv University), they tell quite a different story.
http://www.najah.edu/english/Centers/polls/poll26.asp
There are lots of these polls. Just change the poll number on the url.
http://www.jmcc.org/polls/2000/no39b.htm
If you look at these polls, both of which are at least as comprehensive as the one that gave the figure of "87.5 percent were in favor of 'liberating all of Palestine'", you will see that the polls from the 2 separate universities give rather similar results and yet the 87.5% figure, does not fit in with that. I therefore view this figure with a high degree of suspicion. Whilst the figures are still not good, they are significantly lower than the 87.5% figure. There are also many hopeful looking points.
For example:
So the majority don't support shooting rockets at the Israelis. Other figures support this level of acceptance for violence towards Israelis by Palestinians. It's not great, but it's not as bad as 87.5%.47.1% of respondents said that firing rockets against Israeli targets from the Gaza Strip hurts the Palestinian cause; 30.1% said it serves the Palestinian cause positively.
One of those vastly superior forces was being chased by a murderous horde, the other was part of the murderous horde.Bubbalo wrote:
How is it different? Both deal with an invasion by a vastly superior force, which cannot be beaten by the armies available.Ty wrote:
It's a completely different situation though. You can't argue an issue based upon the facts of another.
I don't disagree with that, I'm just saying that it isn't necessarily reasonable to expect the Palestinians to back down.Bertster7 wrote:
I completely agree with Ty, compromise is the only way for a solution to be reached.
The Germans were chased into France?san4 wrote:
One of those vastly superior forces was being chased by a murderous horde, the other was part of the murderous horde.
I believe Israel has tried to take steps many times. I agree with S.Lythberg, the Israelis have a right to live there, everyone has a right to their own piece of land, and the Israelis orginally came from that region. People don't just materialise from nothing.Bubbalo wrote:
They aren't waging a war to get it back. They are taking steps to get a solution from our government, which I support.ATG wrote:
Give Australia back to the aboriginies, then we'll talk.
I understand why you would find that fact inconvenient.Bubbalo wrote:
The Germans were chased into France?san4 wrote:
One of those vastly superior forces was being chased by a murderous horde, the other was part of the murderous horde.
Do you know the history of the region? The Israelis and the Palestinians arrived in Israel (Canaan) at about the same time. Neither really has any greater historical claim to the land. The Palestinians have at least remained there for the duration instead of scattering across the world.M.O.A.B wrote:
I believe Israel has tried to take steps many times. I agree with S.Lythberg, the Israelis have a right to live there, everyone has a right to their own piece of land, and the Israelis orginally came from that region. People don't just materialise from nothing.Bubbalo wrote:
They aren't waging a war to get it back. They are taking steps to get a solution from our government, which I support.ATG wrote:
Give Australia back to the aboriginies, then we'll talk.
The Israelis do have a right to live there. So do the Palestinians. Ideally in a single state, which is all that was ever proposed by any of the states who played any role in the creation of Israel, bar the US. I blame the Zionist organisation and Truman for the way things turned out - for a multitude of reasons.
That's what compromise is. But I know what you mean, the Israelis are not offering enough for the Palestinians to be able to accept a deal with them, if they did, things might get resolved - gradually. Any peace process is bound to have its opponents on both sides, who will do all they can to disrupt the peace process, for example isolated terror attacks by the Palestinians or assassinations by Israeli radicals (like what happened to Rabin). Any peace deal must be designed to be tolerant of isolated breaches by either side - not to be tolerant of government sanctioned breaches though.Bubbalo wrote:
I don't disagree with that, I'm just saying that it isn't necessarily reasonable to expect the Palestinians to back down.Bertster7 wrote:
I completely agree with Ty, compromise is the only way for a solution to be reached.
Last edited by Bertster7 (2007-05-15 09:35:35)
The 1949 Armistice Agreements are a set of agreements signed during 1949 between Israel and its neighbors Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria.
The agreements ended the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, and established the armistice lines between Israel and the West Bank, also known as the Green Line, until the 1967 Six-Day War.
This could have been it and maybe still is the best way to divide up the area into two separate nations with Jerusalem as city with joint control by both (the tan and pink)
The agreements ended the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, and established the armistice lines between Israel and the West Bank, also known as the Green Line, until the 1967 Six-Day War.
This could have been it and maybe still is the best way to divide up the area into two separate nations with Jerusalem as city with joint control by both (the tan and pink)
Last edited by Varegg (2007-05-15 09:30:18)
Wait behind the line ..............................................................