san4
The Mas
+311|7135|NYC, a place to live

CameronPoe wrote:

san4 wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

Similarly Israelis will never put aside their desire to annex/reclaim all land inhabited by the Palestinians and the dead zone between them and Syria. It seems at the moment as though state terrorism is alive and well and here to stay.
That is a surprising statement. Didn't Israel dismantle settlements in Gaza? And didn't Israel offer to dismantle settlements and evacuate more than 90% of the west bank at Taba? That was a real offer because it would have been a diplomatic disaster for Israel if they repudiated it after the Palestinians accepted it. Those are two examples of Israelis putting aside their desire to annex/reclaim all land inhabited by the Palestinians.
Erm... how about 'Jerusalem is the eternal indivisible capital of the state of Israel'...... that doesn't sound too 'withdrawal-tastic'. They also said that Ariel will never be vacated or Ma'ale Adumim. They're pretty serious fucking chunks of the West Bank. They only reason they vacated Gaza was because it was demographic suicide and believe you me the ultra-orthodox crew were livid.
The fact that the ultra-orthodox were livid shows that Israel is capable of evacuating settlements that are not easy to evacuate.

I agree that Israel almost certainly plans to retain portions of the west bank (I think the Taba offer explicitly included that). Perhaps I was being nitpicky but I was responding to your assertion that Israelis will never put aside their desire to annex/reclaim "all" land inhabited by the Palestinians. Your comment suggests Israel will never compromise but the two events I listed suggest otherwise.
san4
The Mas
+311|7135|NYC, a place to live

bogo24dk wrote:

san4 wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

Similarly Israelis will never put aside their desire to annex/reclaim all land inhabited by the Palestinians and the dead zone between them and Syria. It seems at the moment as though state terrorism is alive and well and here to stay.
That is a surprising statement. Didn't Israel dismantle settlements in Gaza? And didn't Israel offer to dismantle settlements and evacuate more than 90% of the west bank at Taba? That was a real offer because it would have been a diplomatic disaster for Israel if they repudiated it after the Palestinians accepted it. Those are two examples of Israelis putting aside their desire to annex/reclaim all land inhabited by the Palestinians.
http://gush-shalom.org/generous/generous.html

http://gush-shalom.org/generous/generous.html wrote:

At Taba, January 2001, Barak presented a much-improved map.
The Palestinians consider it a basis for negotiation.
bogo24dk
Member
+26|6953
This is no generous offer. It is a humiliating demand for surrender!

Barak's offer gives Israel control over all the border crossings of the Palestinian State.
No country in the world would accept that.
The words "territorial continuity" are deceptive -
No Israeli would agree to travel 50 miles from one town to another,
if the real distance between them is only 5 miles.

This impossible offer, Barak's imperious attitude,
the ongoing massive construction in the settlements,
Years of Israel's Delaying tactics and Sharon's provocation -
all these contributed to the inevitable explosion.
In December, no maps of the Gaza Strip were shown,
so we cannot illustrate Barak's intentions there.
At Taba, January 2001, Barak presented a much-improved map.
The Palestinians consider it a basis for negotiation
san4
The Mas
+311|7135|NYC, a place to live

bogo24dk wrote:

This is no generous offer. It is a humiliating demand for surrender!

Barak's offer gives Israel control over all the border crossings of the Palestinian State.
No country in the world would accept that.
The words "territorial continuity" are deceptive -
No Israeli would agree to travel 50 miles from one town to another,
if the real distance between them is only 5 miles.

This impossible offer, Barak's imperious attitude,
the ongoing massive construction in the settlements,
Years of Israel's Delaying tactics and Sharon's provocation -
all these contributed to the inevitable explosion.
In December, no maps of the Gaza Strip were shown,
so we cannot illustrate Barak's intentions there.
At Taba, January 2001, Barak presented a much-improved map.
The Palestinians consider it a basis for negotiation
ZOMG! Israel is willing to change its demands through negotiation!
Cerpin_Taxt
Member
+155|6649

konfusion wrote:

Cerpin_Taxt wrote:

You honestly thinking blowing yourself up in a cafe full of civilians is defending your country? You do your username justice.
I honestly think that - hmm, lemme find my own quote (written in response to your posts countless times)

konfusion wrote:

If you have nothing to lose, you will do whatever it takes
Now how many times do I have to repeat that quote? Are you just going to crap around the forums, or does something useful ever come out of that asshole? I'm getting quite fed up with you whining around. You're not contributing to the discussion at all.
On the contrary, it is you who epitomizes what you are "fed up" with. I simply called you out on it.

Observe:

You can still blow yourself up and defend your country, but not when you do it in a crowded civilian market, cafe, or bus. It's simply a waste of life. The bomber doesn't help his country at all because the people threatening it weren't his target. He did it just for the sake of killing people or some whacked-out religious reason. If a suicide bomber attacks a military target, then he could be said he is defending his country because that military target is what's threatening his country. You simply made a poorly thought-out troll comment, which unfortunately is becoming all too common here.

Last edited by Cerpin_Taxt (2007-06-02 11:20:02)

konfusion
mostly afk
+480|6996|CH/BR - in UK

Cerpin_Taxt wrote:

On the contrary, it is you who epitomizes what you are "fed up" with. I simply called you out on it.

Observe:

You can still blow yourself up and defend your country, but not when you do it in a crowded civilian market, cafe, or bus. It's simply a waste of life. The bomber doesn't help his country at all because the people threatening it weren't his target. He did it just for the sake of killing people or some whacked-out religious reason. If a suicide bomber attacks a military target, then he could be said he is defending his country because that military target is what's threatening his country. You simply made a poorly thought-out troll comment, which unfortunately is becoming all too common here.
Angry people do stupid things. Look at my post, and observe my stupidity. I have insulted someone I don't even know over an internet forum. Sorry about that, btw.
Please, bring more points, instead of simply stating that you disagree.
I agree that suicide bombers should not kill civilians, and I do not condone that at all. I can, however, see where it's coming from.

-konfusion
san4
The Mas
+311|7135|NYC, a place to live
I wonder how that number would move if Israel made major concessions. If Palestinians see Israeli moves as signs of weakness, support for eliminating Israel could increase.

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard