sergeriver
Cowboy from Hell
+1,928|7178|Argentina
Israeli PM Ehud Olmert has said he does not believe a peace settlement, including Jerusalem, can be reached with the Palestinians this year.

BBC wrote:

The deadline was set at a US-sponsored summit at Annapolis in November 2007.

US officials still say they hope a deal can be reached by the time President George W Bush leaves office in January.

Mr Olmert told an Israeli parliamentary committee that there was no practical chance of reaching a deal that would include an understanding on Jerusalem.

Palestinian officials blame Israel for what they say is a lack of progress in peace talks. Specifically, they say that the continued building of settlements has undermined Palestinians who back talks with Israel.

Palestinians want to establish a capital for their future state in East Jerusalem.

A senior Palestinian spokesman, Nabil Abu Rudeina, said:

"Olmert's statements [on East Jerusalem] are an attempt to run away from the commitments of the Annapolis conference and the vision of President Bush.

"The American administration must work to push Israel to enter into serious negotiations and stop wasting time."
Peace can't be achieved without Israel giving away East Jerusalem and stopping the settlements in West Bank.  The settlements will eventually end, but do you think Israel will give East Jerusalem away?
lowing
Banned
+1,662|7072|USA

sergeriver wrote:

Israeli PM Ehud Olmert has said he does not believe a peace settlement, including Jerusalem, can be reached with the Palestinians this year.

BBC wrote:

The deadline was set at a US-sponsored summit at Annapolis in November 2007.

US officials still say they hope a deal can be reached by the time President George W Bush leaves office in January.

Mr Olmert told an Israeli parliamentary committee that there was no practical chance of reaching a deal that would include an understanding on Jerusalem.

Palestinian officials blame Israel for what they say is a lack of progress in peace talks. Specifically, they say that the continued building of settlements has undermined Palestinians who back talks with Israel.

Palestinians want to establish a capital for their future state in East Jerusalem.

A senior Palestinian spokesman, Nabil Abu Rudeina, said:

"Olmert's statements [on East Jerusalem] are an attempt to run away from the commitments of the Annapolis conference and the vision of President Bush.

"The American administration must work to push Israel to enter into serious negotiations and stop wasting time."
Peace can't be achieved without Israel giving away East Jerusalem and stopping the settlements in West Bank.  The settlements will eventually end, but do you think Israel will give East Jerusalem away?
Are these settlements sitting on the same land that Israel's neighbors massed in preparation for an imminent attack into Israel?
AutralianChainsaw
Member
+65|6619

lowing wrote:

Are these settlements sitting on the same land that Israel's neighbors massed in preparation for an imminent attack into Israel?
The Palestinians are not responsible for that.
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6976
Well if he ain't willing to play ball then Fatah and Hamas should start targetting Israeli military installations with renewed vigour. Perhaps detaining a few more Israeli prisoners of war might sway things. Neither will ever surrender so Israel need to play ball or be content to suffer a perpetual war of attrition until some lunatic gets his hands on a WMD, which would be the horror eventuality of all this.
M.O.A.B
'Light 'em up!'
+1,220|6643|Escea

CameronPoe wrote:

Well if he ain't willing to play ball then Fatah and Hamas should start targetting Israeli military installations with renewed vigour. Perhaps detaining a few more Israeli prisoners of war might sway things. Neither will ever surrender so Israel need to play ball or be content to suffer a perpetual war of attrition until some lunatic gets his hands on a WMD, which would be the horror eventuality of all this.
It's happened for 60 years, Israel ain't going to back down now.
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6976

M.O.A.B wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

Well if he ain't willing to play ball then Fatah and Hamas should start targetting Israeli military installations with renewed vigour. Perhaps detaining a few more Israeli prisoners of war might sway things. Neither will ever surrender so Israel need to play ball or be content to suffer a perpetual war of attrition until some lunatic gets his hands on a WMD, which would be the horror eventuality of all this.
It's happened for 60 years, Israel ain't going to back down now.
They didn't back down in the recent Lebanon conflict??
M.O.A.B
'Light 'em up!'
+1,220|6643|Escea

CameronPoe wrote:

M.O.A.B wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

Well if he ain't willing to play ball then Fatah and Hamas should start targetting Israeli military installations with renewed vigour. Perhaps detaining a few more Israeli prisoners of war might sway things. Neither will ever surrender so Israel need to play ball or be content to suffer a perpetual war of attrition until some lunatic gets his hands on a WMD, which would be the horror eventuality of all this.
It's happened for 60 years, Israel ain't going to back down now.
They didn't back down in the recent Lebanon conflict??
That's a different area to what we're talking about, they've yet to back down over Hamas or Fatah. Then again if they hadn't backed down there would be more ocmplaints about how much of Beirut was destroyed.
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6976

M.O.A.B wrote:

That's a different area to what we're talking about, they've yet to back down over Hamas or Fatah. Then again if they hadn't backed down there would be more ocmplaints about how much of Beirut was destroyed.
There were more rockets fired on the last day of hostilities than had been fired on any previous day. The Israeli tactics failed and that was highlighted in the Israelis' own post-conflict analysis of the situation. They weren't successful in their original occupation of Lebanon either. They don't have the tools to end the conflict for good - it's just not possible through warfare without a Hitlerian/Stalinian/Maoist approach. Did the Israelis not vacate Gaza a couple of years ago too? Relocating several thousand illegal Zionist settlers back to Israel proper? I'd call that backing down...
M.O.A.B
'Light 'em up!'
+1,220|6643|Escea

CameronPoe wrote:

M.O.A.B wrote:

That's a different area to what we're talking about, they've yet to back down over Hamas or Fatah. Then again if they hadn't backed down there would be more ocmplaints about how much of Beirut was destroyed.
There were more rockets fired on the last day of hostilities than had been fired on any previous day. The Israeli tactics failed and that was highlighted in the Israelis' own post-conflict analysis of the situation. They weren't successful in their original occupation of Lebanon either. They don't have the tools to end the conflict for good - it's just not possible through warfare without a Hitlerian/Stalinian/Maoist approach. Did the Israelis not vacate Gaza a couple of years ago too? Relocating several thousand illegal Zionist settlers back to Israel proper? I'd call that backing down...
Whoa whoa wait a second, I thought you disregard the idea of backing down, yet also despise the idea of them being in Gaza? Thats a double negative there ain't it?
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6976

M.O.A.B wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

M.O.A.B wrote:

That's a different area to what we're talking about, they've yet to back down over Hamas or Fatah. Then again if they hadn't backed down there would be more ocmplaints about how much of Beirut was destroyed.
There were more rockets fired on the last day of hostilities than had been fired on any previous day. The Israeli tactics failed and that was highlighted in the Israelis' own post-conflict analysis of the situation. They weren't successful in their original occupation of Lebanon either. They don't have the tools to end the conflict for good - it's just not possible through warfare without a Hitlerian/Stalinian/Maoist approach. Did the Israelis not vacate Gaza a couple of years ago too? Relocating several thousand illegal Zionist settlers back to Israel proper? I'd call that backing down...
Whoa whoa wait a second, I thought you disregard the idea of backing down, yet also despise the idea of them being in Gaza? Thats a double negative there ain't it?
Israel necessarily have to back down for anything meaningful to happen. I recognise that that would have to be in conjunction with a Palestinian back down. I wouldn't advocate Palestinians backing down unless something workable was on the table though.
God Save the Queen
Banned
+628|6764|tropical regions of london
Israel is not letting go of east jeru

thats one thing they wont compromise on.
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6976

God Save the Queen wrote:

Israel is not letting go of east jeru

thats one thing they wont compromise on.
Well then I guess it's perpetual warfare and eventual WMD fun and games.
God Save the Queen
Banned
+628|6764|tropical regions of london
Im sure the palestinians have a few issues they wont compromise on either.
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6831|'Murka

CameronPoe wrote:

Well if he ain't willing to play ball then Fatah and Hamas should start targetting Israeli military installations with renewed vigour for the first time. Perhaps detaining a few more Israeli prisoners of war might sway things. Neither will ever surrender so Israel need to play ball or be content to suffer a perpetual war of attrition until some lunatic gets his hands on a WMD, which would be the horror eventuality of all this.
Fixed.

What exactly has Hamas or Fatah conceded in any of the talks?
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein

Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6976

FEOS wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

Well if he ain't willing to play ball then Fatah and Hamas should start targetting Israeli military installations with renewed vigour for the first time. Perhaps detaining a few more Israeli prisoners of war might sway things. Neither will ever surrender so Israel need to play ball or be content to suffer a perpetual war of attrition until some lunatic gets his hands on a WMD, which would be the horror eventuality of all this.
Fixed.

What exactly has Hamas or Fatah conceded in any of the talks?
Fatah have agreed to the existence and recognition of an Israeli state. Hamas not so much.
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6976

God Save the Queen wrote:

Im sure the palestinians have a few issues they wont compromise on either.
Yep, East Jerusalem or Al Quds as they refer to it round their parts.
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,822|6526|eXtreme to the maX
What exactly has Hamas or Fatah conceded in any of the talks?
Why should they concede anything to regain what is rightfully theirs?

If you and your family were thrown out of your home at gunpoint what would you be prepared to concede to be allowed to live on the pavement?
Fuck Israel
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,822|6526|eXtreme to the maX
Well if he ain't willing to play ball then Fatah and Hamas should start targetting Israeli military installations for the first time.
If they had an army to match Israel's I bet they would.
Give them $100bn in backdated military aid, 200 nukes and we'll see how they go.
Fuck Israel
M.O.A.B
'Light 'em up!'
+1,220|6643|Escea

Dilbert_X wrote:

Well if he ain't willing to play ball then Fatah and Hamas should start targetting Israeli military installations for the first time.
If they had an army to match Israel's I bet they would.
Give them $100bn in backdated military aid, 200 nukes and we'll see how they go.
Israel has 200 nukes? lawdy

Also they'd still get owned by Israel even if they had the same tech.
AutralianChainsaw
Member
+65|6619

M.O.A.B wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Well if he ain't willing to play ball then Fatah and Hamas should start targetting Israeli military installations for the first time.
If they had an army to match Israel's I bet they would.
Give them $100bn in backdated military aid, 200 nukes and we'll see how they go.
Israel has 200 nukes? lawdy

Also they'd still get owned by Israel even if they had the same tech.
Israel got owned by Hezbollah so i think you are wrong.
M.O.A.B
'Light 'em up!'
+1,220|6643|Escea

AutralianChainsaw wrote:

M.O.A.B wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:


If they had an army to match Israel's I bet they would.
Give them $100bn in backdated military aid, 200 nukes and we'll see how they go.
Israel has 200 nukes? lawdy

Also they'd still get owned by Israel even if they had the same tech.
Israel got owned by Hezbollah so i think you are wrong.
Nah. If you really think Hezbollah is as powerful as oh Syria, Iraq, Egypt and Jordan combined, all of which got their asses handed to them by Israel in six days then well, I laugh.

Israel pulling out of Lebanon doesn't equate to them 'getting owned' as far as I see it. If Israel wanted to own someone, they wouldn't know what hit them.
AutralianChainsaw
Member
+65|6619

M.O.A.B wrote:

AutralianChainsaw wrote:

M.O.A.B wrote:


Israel has 200 nukes? lawdy

Also they'd still get owned by Israel even if they had the same tech.
Israel got owned by Hezbollah so i think you are wrong.
Nah. If you really think Hezbollah is as powerful as oh Syria, Iraq, Egypt and Jordan combined, all of which got their asses handed to them by Israel in six days then well, I laugh.

Israel pulling out of Lebanon doesn't equate to them 'getting owned' as far as I see it. If Israel wanted to own someone, they wouldn't know what hit them.
Those countries were no match to israel because of the help israel received. The point is, give them the same technology and military assistance and israel would be gone in 3 days.

And Helbollah kicked israel ass, it's  a fact.. the rockets didnt stop until the cease fire.  They failed.  They are only good at bombing civilian infrastructure.
M.O.A.B
'Light 'em up!'
+1,220|6643|Escea

AutralianChainsaw wrote:

M.O.A.B wrote:

AutralianChainsaw wrote:


Israel got owned by Hezbollah so i think you are wrong.
Nah. If you really think Hezbollah is as powerful as oh Syria, Iraq, Egypt and Jordan combined, all of which got their asses handed to them by Israel in six days then well, I laugh.

Israel pulling out of Lebanon doesn't equate to them 'getting owned' as far as I see it. If Israel wanted to own someone, they wouldn't know what hit them.
Those countries were no match to israel because of the help israel received. The point is, give them the same technology and military assistance and israel would be gone in 3 days.

And Helbollah kicked israel ass, it's  a fact.. the rockets didnt stop until the cease fire.  They failed.  They are only good at bombing civilian infrastructure.
Right, Israel supplied by the US, Egypt, Syria, Iraq and Jordan just magically spawned weapons did they? *Cough*Russia*Cough*China*Cough*

At the time US and Russian technologies were of similar capabilities.

BTW what is Hezbollah good at? Oh yes, targeting civilian infrastructure, well done.
sergeriver
Cowboy from Hell
+1,928|7178|Argentina

M.O.A.B wrote:

BTW what is Hezbollah good at? Oh yes, targeting civilian infrastructure, well done.
The same as Israel.

*cough* 2006 Lebanon War *cough*

Last edited by sergeriver (2008-07-29 11:37:04)

FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6831|'Murka

Dilbert_X wrote:

Why should they concede anything to regain what is rightfully theirs?
And I'd bet some Israelis would have the same argument for their side. "Rightfully theirs" is debatable...hence the conflict.

Dilbert_X wrote:

If you and your family were thrown out of your home at gunpoint what would you be prepared to concede to be allowed to live on the pavement?
You've gone to an extreme here. If conceding living elsewhere on the street or driving a different car would mean my family gets its home back, then yes, I'd be prepared to concede something. It's a matter of whether you're going to fight for the sake of fighting with no chance of getting what you want by doing that, or taking a more strategic approach and concede what's not as important in order to get what is important.

sergeriver wrote:

The same as Israel.

*cough* 2006 Lebanon War *cough*
*cough*dual-use infrastructure is a legal target, shopping malls aren't*cough*

AC: Hezbollah didn't kick anyone's ass...they just had a better PR machine.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein

Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard