Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Trump: Middle East peace plan announced

Options
12346»

Comments

  • Options
    #152
    fly_agaric
    Registered Users Posts: 4,935 ✭✭✭fly_agaric


    silverharp wrote: »
    Per your analogy there isn't a native American state and I don't think the Palestinians are being offered reservation status

    I don't think situations have to be identical to make an analogy but okay.
    It's not much of state on offer in that "Peace Plan" (as far as I can see they might get some sort of state-like entity with all key aspects still controlled by Israel existing on territory to be decided later by Israel if Israel and the US conclude that Palestinians have been on good behaviour & pending the requirements of politics in Israel/US. There's alot of caveats there!


  • Options
    #153
    Snickers Man
    Registered Users Posts: 5,301 ✭✭✭Snickers Man


    "Hey Pop!

    I'm a-gonna make 'em an offer they can't accept!"


  • Options
    #154
    Snickers Man
    Registered Users Posts: 5,301 ✭✭✭Snickers Man


    Gretas Gonna Get Ya! wrote: »
    But I do think this could work potentially.

    Why?


  • Options
    #155
    Snickers Man
    Registered Users Posts: 5,301 ✭✭✭Snickers Man


    Edgware wrote: »
    Israel was established under international law whether you agree or disagree.

    Not with anything like its current borders, though. It has NO right to them except right of conquest. Which can always be overturned by reconquest. (how many times in history has Jerusalem been captured "once and for all"?)
    Edgware wrote: »
    The world powers will not abandon Israel.

    Won't they?

    If history teaches you anything it is that "world powers" do what the hell they like and if the situation ever arises that Israel can be profitably dumped, it will be.


  • Options
    #156
    joseywhales
    Registered Users Posts: 4,072 ✭✭✭joseywhales


    Title should be "annexation plan"


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #157
    joseywhales
    Registered Users Posts: 4,072 ✭✭✭joseywhales


    Is there any way the palestinians can poison their own land near the new border with nuclear waste in advance of future peace plans?


  • Options
    #158
    silverharp
    Registered Users Posts: 18,483 ✭✭✭✭silverharp


    fly_agaric wrote: »
    I don't think situations have to be identical to make an analogy but okay.
    It's not much of state on offer in that "Peace Plan" (as far as I can see they might get some sort of state-like entity with all key aspects still controlled by Israel existing on territory to be decided later by Israel if Israel and the US conclude that Palestinians have been on good behaviour & pending the requirements of politics in Israel/US. There's alot of caveats there!

    The analogy shouldn't make it worse though

    Israel donest need agreement , they could push ahead and implement it and let the Palestinians decide what they want to make of it. It doesn’t necessarily make the plan unfair but if you were Israel I don’t see why you would want to unnecessarily damage your interests. The Palestinians probably ought to have taken the deals that were going back in the 90’s , each subsequent one has offered them less.

    A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer



  • Options
    #159
    end of the road
    Registered Users Posts: 29,101 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    silverharp wrote: »
    The analogy shouldn't make it worse though

    Israel donest need agreement , they could push ahead and implement it and let the Palestinians decide what they want to make of it. It doesn’t necessarily make the plan unfair but if you were Israel I don’t see why you would want to unnecessarily damage your interests. The Palestinians probably ought to have taken the deals that were going back in the 90’s , each subsequent one has offered them less.


    there would have been no point in them taking any deal as israel would in all likely hood not stick to it.

    ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.



  • Options
    #160
    Odhinn
    Registered Users Posts: 8,124 ✭✭✭Odhinn


    silverharp wrote: »
    The analogy shouldn't make it worse though

    Israel donest need agreement , they could push ahead and implement it and let the Palestinians decide what they want to make of it. It doesn’t necessarily make the plan unfair but if you were Israel I don’t see why you would want to unnecessarily damage your interests. The Palestinians probably ought to have taken the deals that were going back in the 90’s , each subsequent one has offered them less.




    ...that's what they've been doing though. It's a policy of land theft and slow drip ethnic cleansing.


  • Options
    #161
    James Brown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,013 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    silverharp wrote: »
    The analogy shouldn't make it worse though

    Israel donest need agreement , they could push ahead and implement it and let the Palestinians decide what they want to make of it. It doesn’t necessarily make the plan unfair but if you were Israel I don’t see why you would want to unnecessarily damage your interests. The Palestinians probably ought to have taken the deals that were going back in the 90’s , each subsequent one has offered them less.

    'We're invading and killing your people. These are our terms...'
    No, they shouldn't.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #162
    silverharp
    Registered Users Posts: 18,483 ✭✭✭✭silverharp


    Odhinn wrote: »
    ...that's what they've been doing though. It's a policy of land theft and slow drip ethnic cleansing.

    I don't know what "slow drip ethnic cleansing" means but any general solution will require people to stay where they are now and not require much in the way of new "ethnic cleansing". Surely its best for everyone to agree formal borders, or I assume Israel will draw its own border, build walls around them and call an end to it

    A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer



  • Options
    #163
    FreeThePants
    Registered Users Posts: 94 ✭✭FreeThePants


    It really is amazing to think that is Boris ordered British troops tgo cross the border tomorrow, kicking people in the likes of Ardee, Letterkenny and northern Monaghan off their lands at gunpoint while trying to now declare these areas as British lands, that there are Irish people out there who would support it.


  • Options
    #164
    fly_agaric
    Registered Users Posts: 4,935 ✭✭✭fly_agaric


    silverharp wrote: »
    Israel donest need agreement , they could push ahead and implement it and let the Palestinians decide what they want to make of it. It doesn’t necessarily make the plan unfair but if you were Israel I don’t see why you would want to unnecessarily damage your interests.

    The plan is unfair. It is wrong (other than in a might makes right to the victor go the spoils moral universe).
    Israel is militarily powerful, but it needs the full support of the US before it can just "push ahead" with anything as radical as this "peace" plan.
    There's a lot of actions Israel could take in pursuit of its interests that it has refrained from because its' leaders know the US would not approve.
    Now it has sanction (again) from Trump to go much further than before (Netanyahu was glowing during that press conference).


  • Options
    #165
    Odhinn
    Registered Users Posts: 8,124 ✭✭✭Odhinn


    silverharp wrote: »
    I don't know what "slow drip ethnic cleansing" means .................
    Fair enough


    Immediately after occupying the area in 1967, Israel unlawfully annexed thousands of hectares in and around Jerusalem. Ever since, it has instituted policies designed to drive Palestinians out of the city and to create a demographic and geographic reality that would frustrate any challenge to Israeli sovereignty there. The policies, which disrupt every aspect of life, include isolating East Jerusalem from the rest of the West Bank and deliberate underdevelopment and underservicing that result in overcrowding, poverty and substandard infrastructure.
    https://www.btselem.org/topic/jerusalem


    https://www.yesh-din.org/en/tag/land-theft/


  • Options
    #166
    silverharp
    Registered Users Posts: 18,483 ✭✭✭✭silverharp


    FreeThePants wrote: »
    It really is amazing to think that is Boris ordered British troops tgo cross the border tomorrow, kicking people in the likes of Ardee, Letterkenny and northern Monaghan off their lands at gunpoint while trying to now declare these areas as British lands, that there are Irish people out there who would support it.

    Im not sure that analogy holds , surely a settlement would mean and end to incursions from both sides. To make your analogy work in an alternate history ,If Ireland was a hodge podge of terrorists groups supported by the local authorities , regularly launching rocket attacks into the North, I would have to agree that they had a point.

    A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer



  • Options
    #167
    end of the road
    Registered Users Posts: 29,101 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    silverharp wrote: »
    Im not sure that analogy holds , surely a settlement would mean and end to incursions from both sides. To make your analogy work in an alternate history ,If Ireland was a hodge podge of terrorists groups supported by the local authorities , regularly launching rocket attacks into the North, I would have to agree that they had a point.

    if they just dealt with the rockets and went back home, perhapse the point might work. however israel doesn't do that, instead they engage in their actions when no rockets are fired, and when there is no actual threat to them.
    which would suggest to me at least that this is nothing to do with ineffective rockets, and a group who if it suited america and other super powers wouldn't be a terrorist group at all, but to do with an expansionist ideal and an ability to do what it likes because america is currently afraid to tell them to grow up.

    ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.



  • Options
    #168
    Odhinn
    Registered Users Posts: 8,124 ✭✭✭Odhinn


    silverharp wrote: »
    Im not sure that analogy holds , surely a settlement would mean and end to incursions from both sides. ............




    You'll find no Palestinian colony building program, nor do you see rockets fired out of the West Bank. Israel is the aggressor here.


  • Options
    #169
    James Brown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,013 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    silverharp wrote: »
    Im not sure that analogy holds , surely a settlement would mean and end to incursions from both sides. To make your analogy work in an alternate history ,If Ireland was a hodge podge of terrorists groups supported by the local authorities , regularly launching rocket attacks into the North, I would have to agree that they had a point.

    How on earth can you carry out incursions on your own land?
    Israel created this and exacerbate this with their criminality.


  • Options
    #170
    FreeThePants
    Registered Users Posts: 94 ✭✭FreeThePants


    silverharp wrote: »
    Im not sure that analogy holds , surely a settlement would mean and end to incursions from both sides. To make your analogy work in an alternate history ,If Ireland was a hodge podge of terrorists groups supported by the local authorities , regularly launching rocket attacks into the North, I would have to agree that they had a point.

    INLA, RIRA, CIRA, IRA, and on and on. Thankfully support for then has fallen because what I am about to say never happened, but you are saying that we should have had our lands taken in the 70s and 80s by the British, and that you would have been supportive of them doing it.


Advertisement