Israel Pulls out of Gaza, Whats next?

sceptre

rsynnott wrote:

You seem to be trying to imply that "The Palestinians" founded the PLO in 1948. First, where'd you get this from? Official date of foundation seems to be 1960.

I believe she explicitly said it was founded in 1964. Which is true. 2 June 1964 to be precise.

Added an 's'. Sorry:)

rsynnott

sceptre wrote:

I believe he explicitly said it was founded in 1964. Which is true. 2 June 1964 to be precise.

Ah, eek, yes, must read more carefully next time :P

Slainte70

sceptre wrote:

I believe he explicitly said it was founded in 1964. Which is true. 2 June 1964 to be precise.

Thank you for that Sceptre...By the way, it is "she" and not "he"..

fly_agaric

Slainte70 wrote:

The Aftermath - Whoever rules the Gaza strip after the IDF leaves, it is put up or shut up time for the Palestinians. Whether it be the PA or Hamas or some other entity, the onus is on them to produce a Gaza strip that is peaceful and does not threaten Israel.

Yep. > 1 million people living in a slum with a prison style ecnomy based on smuggling. No jobs except over the border in Israel. People surviving on UN aid. Religious fanatics (Hamas) and corrupt bloodsuckers (PA) fighting over who runs the show. Israel locking down the place every now and again so no one can get in or out. I'm sure the Gaza strip will be like a Med beach resort in a few years!

Anyway, it should be less of a threat to Israel since it will be easier to air-police the place with the settlers gone.

Slainte70 wrote:

Israel has taken a huge, I MEAN HUGE, step towards jump starting peace in the Middle East. My greatest admiration goes to Ariel Sharon who in spite of his personal feelings, let the Gaza strip go. If this leads to a lasting peace, you have just witnessed the greatest act toward peace since Ghandi`s non-violent revolution.

Israel has made a pragmatic move. IMO, the status quo could not have been kept in the long term without killing or expelling alot of Palestinians.
Does Sharon deserve praise because he decided not to go down this path?
Also, did you just compare Sharon to Gandhi?? :mad:

Slainte70

Israel returned Sinai to Egypt in return for a peace treaty and history proved that land for peace works. Israel has proved that she wants and is committed to lasting peace e.g. Eygpt and Jordan, and may there be no doubt that her intentions are not sincere and genuine…All Israel asks is that her citizens are secure. It is her right to defend her people.

We wasted too many lives on both sides trying to negotiate peace with that terrorist Arafat,disguised as a peace-making politician. Ah yes, the only political skill he possessed was he knew how to woo the European countries (And to think he was given the Nobel Peace Prize)….

Now is the time for the Palestinians to do their part. Abu Mazen needs to be brave and dismantle the terrorist infrastructure to prove that Israel has a peace partner. Let’s hope the Palestinians support their leader and not resort to violence and terrorism. Enough is enough!

Slainte70

fly_agaric wrote:

Israel has made a pragmatic move. IMO, the status quo could not have been kept in the long term without killing or expelling alot of Palestinians.
Does Sharon deserve praise because he decided not to go down this path?
Also, did you just compare Sharon to Gandhi?? :mad:

It just amazes me how people can get a dig in at Israel, regardless of what steps are taken to achieve some calm in this part of the world.
No, I did not compare Sharon to Gandhi...please reread...

If this leads to a lasting peace, you have just witnessed the greatest act toward peace since Ghandi`s non-violent revolution.

catholicireland

The other thing thats ridiculous is that when the last Israeli has left,they are going to bulldose all those fine houses before the palestinians come.
What a shame.

There are thousands of palestinians going to be living there and they need more space. They are going to build high-rise flats in thier place. So im told anyway.

the Jewish people deserve this land after the brutal teatment in the death camps.

So you invade another counrty and give it to them. Thats very nice. Why do you put the jews over the palestinians?

rsynnott

Slainte70 wrote:

If this leads to a lasting peace, you have just witnessed the greatest act toward peace sinceGhandi`s non-violent revolution.

I would have said the end of apartheid in SA was a more important one, but yes, ASSUMING IT WORKS OUT, this is a great thing. I have my doubts about how well it will actually go, though.

rsynnott

lisaloo wrote:

]
i do think this country was given to the Israelis in an agreement so no matter what any of you say this is Israels (Jewish peoples country) and we all know that no matter what we say its where the israelis are entitled to live. how can you say to send Israelis back to Europe or wherever they all came from, it just doesn't make sense. if you want to blame anyone for this whole mess blame the Americans and the English who told them to go to this sacred land as it belongs to them.

Sorry, what? Israel was given to the Israelis. The Gaza strip and so on were occupied during the six day war in 1967.

billy the squid

http://www.israelnn.com/map/

I'm no expert on israel history, but most of the settlements in the Gaza straight are only new. they were not there before World War II, they cannot exactly call themselves the indiginous peoples of that area.

Slainte70

rsynnott wrote:

Sorry, what? Israel was given to the Israelis. The Gaza strip and so on were occupied during the six day war in 1967.

Yes, this is true but I think many of you are overlooking the real reason to this occupation. After the Six Day War the UN Security Council finally came to an agreement, calling for peace and recognition of the right of every nation to live free from threat within secure and recognized boundaries.

However, the Arab League came to a different conclusion...i.e. no peace, no negotiations and no recognition of Israel.

Do any of you honestly think that Israel's response after hearing this should have been, "Ah okidoki lovely neighbourly Palestinians Eygptians, Syrians and Jordanians, here's your land back, to hell with our security and see you in Round 3" :eek:

As I have stated earlier, Israelis are more than willing to live in peace and harmony with all her neighbours but trust me, History will never allow her to be so naive and wait for another attempted annihilation of her people, while the rest of the world watch passively.. It just isn't going to happen and Abu Mazen realizes that for his people to finally have a recognized State, there is no two ways about it...he just has to reign in the terrorists and educate his people that Israel is here to stay...live with it.

fly_agaric

Slainte70 wrote:

It just amazes me how people can get a dig in at Israel, regardless of what steps are taken to achieve some calm in this part of the world.
No, I did not compare Sharon to Gandhi...please reread...

If this leads to a lasting peace, you have just witnessed the greatest act toward peace since Ghandi`s non-violent revolution.

Fair enough. It's not a direct comparison. The juxtaposition just gave me a shock!

Slainte70

If it's any consolation Fly_agaric, your signature shocks the living daylights out of me too :eek:

mycroft

Slainte70 wrote:

Yes, this is true but I think many of you are overlooking the real reason to this occupation. After the Six Day War the UN Security Council finally came to an agreement, calling for peace and recognition of the right of every nation to live free from threat within secure and recognized boundaries.

As below I mention that Israeli is happy to see a palestinian state provided they have control over it. The best example in history of Palestine's status is West Berlin during the cold war. Or Kalipeda between WW1 and WW2. A stunted deformed, half state.

However, the Arab League came to a different conclusion...i.e. no peace, no negotiations and no recognition of Israel.

Do any of you honestly think that Israel's response after hearing this should have been, "Ah okidoki lovely neighbourly Palestinians Eygptians, Syrians and Jordanians, here's your land back, to hell with our security and see you in Round 3" :eek:

I do so love the double standard, Pro Israeli supporters wax lyrcicaly about Palestinians moving forward towards peace, while at the same time citing 30 year old conflicts, to justify their current foreign policy. Does Israeli really believe that Eygpt or Jordan is going to invade? No. But they'll cite conflicts from decades ago to justify being the only nation on the planet with a first strike nuclear arms policy. Me I don't think a premier of a country with and willing to use nuclear weapons should be mentioned in the same breath as Ghandi. Never forget the 2nd Infandati, started as a direct result of Sharon's visit to a contenious site. He has a massive amount of blood on his hands, and can't waddle away from that.

As I have stated earlier, Israelis are more than willing to live in peace and harmony with all her neighbours but trust me, History will never allow her to be so naive and wait for another attempted annihilation of her people, while the rest of the world watch passively.. It just isn't going to happen and Abu Mazen realizes that for his people to finally have a recognized State, there is no two ways about it...he just has to reign in the terrorists and educate his people that Israel is here to stay...live with it.

And how about the charmingly vicious land grabs during the building of the wall, fertile palestinian land with a massive security fence, with sporadic or non existant entrances, between palestinians land. Not to mention annexing water rights.

And the fact that Israeli controls the borders, power, and much of the water rights, the palestinian "state" is crippled before it can even start, and we've seen how consistently petty and vindictive the Israeli's can be over the provison of basic human rights.

lisaloo wrote:

go to this sacred land as it belongs to them.

Yeah anyone who's position starts with, "god says I have the right to live here" loses the argument then and there.

fly_agaric

Slainte70 wrote:

If it's any consolation Fly_agaric, your signature shocks the living daylights out of me too :eek:

/offtopic Please, don't let it shock you. I just had too much cheese last night. /bugs out of thread.

Slainte70

mycroft wrote:

As below I mention that Israeli is happy to see a palestinian state provided they have control over it. The best example in history of Palestine's status is West Berlin during the cold war. Or Kalipeda between WW1 and WW2. A stunted deformed, half state.

Israel is happy to see a Palestinian State provided it is not run by LAWLESS GANG JUSTICE and used as a means to finance and incite PA TERROR INC.

mycroft wrote:

I do so love the double standard, Pro Israeli supporters wax lyrcicaly about Palestinians moving forward towards peace, while at the same time citing 30 year old conflicts, to justify their current foreign policy. Does Israeli really believe that Eygpt or Jordan is going to invade? No.

Had you read my post correctly, you would have seen that I had explained why occupation was implemented in the first place. Had Israel's neighbouring countries not conspired to invade Israel, they would not have been occupied. You seem to imply that Israel's sole purpose for occupation was to grab more land. That was and is not the case at all. It was and is strictly self defence and self preservation.

mycroft wrote:

Never forget the 2nd Infandati, started as a direct result of Sharon's visit to a contenious site. He has a massive amount of blood on his hands, and can't waddle away from that. .

I presume you are referring to the Intifada of Aug. 2000, which occured after talks at Camp David had broken down due to Yasser Arafat's refusal to accept 96% of what he had negotiated during the Oslo talks. Ehud Barak was willing to meet almost all of his demands yet instead, Arafat returned to Ramallah and rallied his people with the following "Shahida, Shahida". It is he my dear friend who started the Intifada.

You may rest assured that the second Intifada shall remain clearly in my mind, as my neighbour's five month old daughter, Sarah, was one of the innocent victims blown up by these despicable shahideem

mycroft wrote:

And how about the charmingly vicious land grabs during the building of the wall, fertile palestinian land with a massive security fence, with sporadic or non existant entrances, between palestinians land. Not to mention annexing water rights. .

Mycroft, my previous posts state clearly my personal view regarding the wall. You may see it as land grabs, I see the wall as a means to my survival.I just feel safer knowing that there is a wall stopping a shahida from reaching me and my family..And please keep in mind for every suicide bomber who has succeeded, there have been fifty foiled attempts... so it is difficult to believe that the extremists are few and far between...

rsynnott

Slainte70 wrote:

Mycroft, my previous posts state clearly my personal view regarding the wall. You may see it as land grabs, I see the wall as a means to my survival.I just feel safer knowing that there is a wall stopping a shahida from reaching me and my family..And please keep in mind for every suicide bomber who has succeeded, there have been fifty foiled attempts... so it is difficult to believe that the extremists are few and far between...

The cost, of course, of building that nice wall, is that it provides the Palestinians with additional reasons to be against Israel. And drives peace, once more, further away.

mycroft

Slainte70 wrote:

Israel is happy to see a Palestinian State provided it is not run by LAWLESS GANG JUSTICE and used as a means to finance and incite PA TERROR INC.

Seeing as Israeli gets 1.7 billion dollars in military aid every year from the US, and has killed more than three times as many palestinians as Jihadists during the current uprising you've some never claiming which side is causing more damage.

Had you read my post correctly, you would have seen that I had explained why occupation was implemented in the first place. Had Israel's neighbouring countries not conspired to invade Israel, they would not have been occupied. You seem to imply that Israel's sole purpose for occupation was to grab more land. That was and is not the case at all. It was and is strictly self defence and self preservation.

Gosh yes you're right, and this of course explains the Israeli non miltary settlements in the Gaza strip. Ah those aren't swimming pools, they're moats. Tiny badly designed moats.

I presume you are referring to the Intifada of Aug. 2000, which occured after talks at Camp David had broken down due to Yasser Arafat's refusal to accept 96% of what he had negotiated during the Oslo talks. Ehud Barak was willing to meet almost all of his demands yet instead, Arafat returned to Ramallah and rallied his people with the following "Shahida, Shahida". It is he my dear friend who started the Intifada.

And er no. Claiming that Palestinians walk away from a fair argeement, it's nifty that you use the 96% stastistic, it ignores the speed bump that is the final 4%, the rights and ability for a palestinian state to exist independently, the terms of the Camp David accord, would have made a palestinian state an unviable independent state.

You may rest assured that the second Intifada shall remain clearly in my mind, as my neighbour's five month old daughter, Sarah, was one of the innocent victims blown up by these despicable shahideem

And you have my sincere and profound sympathises towards your neighbour. I wonder if you have the same sympathises for the 1,000 palestinian children killed over the past few years, by the Israelis. They're the primary victims of this conflict, killed by the Israeli army by snipers, gunships, and missles, I've a friend missing a chunk of her leg shielding palestinian children, the calibre of the bullet pulled out the remains of her left thigh, proves she was shot by an israeli bullet, as she was shielding children.

Mycroft, my previous posts state clearly my personal view regarding the wall. You may see it as land grabs, I see the wall as a means to my survival.I just feel safer knowing that there is a wall stopping a shahida from reaching me and my family..And please keep in mind for every suicide bomber who has succeeded, there have been fifty foiled attempts... so it is difficult to believe that the extremists are few and far between...

And the fact that you've got a couple of extra olive groves(as in on your side of the wall, and couple I mean a few thousand acres) as well just makes it all the sweeter........

Ping Chow Chi

lisaloo wrote:

the Jewish people deserve this land after the brutal teatment in the death camps.

..maybe they should have been given a piece of Germany then?

Slainte70

mycroft wrote:

Gosh yes you're right, and this of course explains the Israeli non miltary settlements in the Gaza strip. Ah those aren't swimming pools, they're moats. Tiny badly designed moats.

I have always been against the settlements as I believe that it is neither in the interest of Palestinians nor Israelis. But as I stated earlier, this was not the purpose of occupying that land in the first place but you have seemed to overlook that once again.

mycroft wrote:

And er no. Claiming that Palestinians walk away from a fair argeement, it's nifty that you use the 96% stastistic, it ignores the speed bump that is the final 4%, the rights and ability for a palestinian state to exist independently, the terms of the Camp David accord, would have made a palestinian state an unviable independent state.

Quite to the contrary Mycroft, the last 4% had to do with the Temple Mount, the right of return and territory. Barak’s proposal was that both Palestine and Israel would have custodianship over the Temple Mount. Arafat refused. Arafat’s terms for the right of return for refugees were unrealistic for both Palestine and Israel as there would be an influx of people that could jeopardize both states. As for the terrirtory, the realistic offer by Barak (giving part of the Negev Desert in return for large settlements to remain in tact) meant that the Palestinian territory would be left in one piece and not dotted all over the map. So by saying that these terms would have made a Palestinian state an unviable independent state is a fastly inaccurate statement.

mycroft wrote:

I wonder if you have the same sympathises for the 1,000 palestinian children killed over the past few years, by the Israelis. They're the primary victims of this conflict, killed by the Israeli army by snipers, gunships, and missles, I've a friend missing a chunk of her leg shielding palestinian children, the calibre of the bullet pulled out the remains of her left thigh, proves she was shot by an israeli bullet, as she was shielding children.

I absolutely do Mycroft. I believe the Palestinians were let down by Arafat, who did not have their best interests at heart. When push came to shove, Arafat just couldn’t hang up his terrorist boots and as a result his people and the Israelis suffered tremendously. Many of his own ministers Nabil Amr, Saeb Erekat, accused Arafat of intentionally scuttling the talks. But hopefully now, the Palestinians have found themselves a true leader of peace in Abu Mazen, (which I honestly believe they have) and that they will achieve their goal of a Palestinian State through peaceful means. Is that too much to ask for?

mycroft wrote:

And the fact that you've got a couple of extra olive groves(as in on your side of the wall, and couple I mean a few thousand acres) as well just makes it all the sweeter........

Neither I nor the Palestinian mother at the other side of the fence, have the same luxury as you do to add such thoughtful comments, while you sit in comfort at the other side of the world. I have no doubt that she wants the same peace as I do, but until there is an end to terrorist activity, the wall remains.

mycroft

Slainte70 wrote:

I have always been against the settlements as I believe that it is neither in the interest of Palestinians nor Israelis. But as I stated earlier, this was not the purpose of occupying that land in the first place but you have seemed to overlook that once again.

Oh no I haven't, I've heard the excuses used to justify the occupation, and then the reality, which is the settlements, It was a land grab, claiming it was a defensive move and "not the purpose" ignores the reality of what exactly happened.

Quite to the contrary Mycroft, the last 4% had to do with the Temple Mount, the right of return and territory. Barak’s proposal was that both Palestine and Israel would have custodianship over the Temple Mount. Arafat refused. Arafat’s terms for the right of return for refugees were unrealistic for both Palestine and Israel as there would be an influx of people that could jeopardize both states. As for the terrirtory, the realistic offer by Barak (giving part of the Negev Desert in return for large settlements to remain in tact) meant that the Palestinian territory would be left in one piece and not dotted all over the map. So by saying that these terms would have made a Palestinian state an unviable independent state is a fastly inaccurate statement.

No it's not, the size and resources of the state offered could not be sustained.

I absolutely do Mycroft. I believe the Palestinians were let down by Arafat, who did not have their best interests at heart. When push came to shove, Arafat just couldn’t hang up his terrorist boots and as a result his people and the Israelis suffered tremendously. Many of his own ministers Nabil Amr, Saeb Erekat, accused Arafat of intentionally scuttling the talks. But hopefully now, the Palestinians have found themselves a true leader of peace in Abu Mazen, (which I honestly believe they have) and that they will achieve their goal of a Palestinian State through peaceful means. Is that too much to ask for?

I do love this, it's the equvilent of saying you condemn terrorism, which is why you had to commit terrorist acts.

Neither I nor the Palestinian mother at the other side of the fence, have the same luxury as you do to add such thoughtful comments, while you sit in comfort at the other side of the world. I have no doubt that she wants the same peace as I do, but until there is an end to terrorist activity, the wall remains.

The wall is a terrorist act.

Slainte70

mycroft wrote:

Oh no I haven't, I've heard the excuses used to justify the occupation, and then the reality, which is the settlements, It was a land grab, claiming it was a defensive move and "not the purpose" ignores the reality of what exactly happened .

We choose to disagree on this matter.

mycroft wrote:

No it's not, the size and resources of the state offered could not be sustained.

Please provide back-up to your argument, otherwise you’re beginning to sound like Arafat.

mycroft wrote:

I do love this, it's the equvilent of saying you condemn terrorism, which is why you had to commit terrorist acts.

I honestly don’t know how you arrived to that conclusion after reading my post.

mycroft wrote:

The wall is a terrorist act.

Just imagine if you had a neighbour, (Palestine) whose crazy kids (Palestinian extremists) were trying to kill you and your family (Israeli citizens).. I honestly don’t think making cakes and giving them money (charity) would stop them from trying to kill you. Instead you would probably appeal to their parents (Palestinan authority) to discipline them and educate them on what it is to be a good neighbour and explain to them the benefits of being on good terms with your neighbours. In the meantime, the least you and your family would do is to build a wall high enough, which would hopefully stop the neighbours' crazy kids from climbing into your garden and secure your safety…Once your neighbours have reigned in their unruly kids, then I am sure cakes etc..would lead to good auld neighbourly love and respect…

Padraig Mor

Slainte70 wrote:

Quite to the contrary Mycroft, the last 4% had to do with the Temple Mount, the right of return and territory. Barak’s proposal was that both Palestine and Israel would have custodianship over the Temple Mount. Arafat refused. Arafat’s terms for the right of return for refugees were unrealistic for both Palestine and Israel as there would be an influx of people that could jeopardize both states. As for the terrirtory, the realistic offer by Barak (giving part of the Negev Desert in return for large settlements to remain in tact) meant that the Palestinian territory would be left in one piece and not dotted all over the map. So by saying that these terms would have made a Palestinian state an unviable independent state is a fastly inaccurate statement.
s.

Do you get your information from Likud party press releases? Because the above is completely wrong. What the Palestinians were being offered was approx. 75% of the West Bank (forget the rubbish you hear about 95, 96, 98% etc.), essentially divided into three separate, non contiguous cantons, with Israeli territory in between. Oh and the Israelis would still control the water supplies. Hardly a just settlement is it? How the breakdown of talks has been spun as Arafat rejecting a 'great' deal is one of the most blatant examples of news management in our time. I don't have references to hand but will provide them if asked. (Do you really want me to *prove* how wrong you are?)

Furthermore, why should the Palestinians accept anything less than 100% of their territory? Scores of UN resolutions have all said that the Occupied Territories are NOT Israel's and called on them to hand them back.

Regarding your earlier point (waffle about holding the Territories to prevent invasion etc.) You do know that all the Arab countries in the region, and most Palestinian groups have for decades said that they will leave Israel in peace if they hand back the West Bank and Gaza? No compensation for those ethnically cleansed in the formation of Israel, no right of return - just hand back those bits of land and be on your way. Israel has of course spurned all these approaches (which the media seem to ignore). Also, Israel has invaded Egypt, Lebanon, Syria - who's the bully here? I don't recall Israel 'proper' ever being invaded by Arab countries (sorry I forgot the whole "They're going to invade us so we'd better better invade them first" Israel-instigated wars).

Slainte70

Padraig Mor wrote:

Also, Israel has invaded Egypt, Lebanon, Syria - who's the bully here? I don't recall Israel 'proper' ever being invaded by Arab countries (sorry I forgot the whole "They're going to invade us so we'd better better invade them first" Israel-instigated wars).

I guess the Yom Kippur War just happened to slip your mind. :rolleyes:

bonkey

Slainte70 wrote:

Just imagine if you had a neighbour, (Palestine) whose crazy kids (Palestinian extremists) were trying to kill you and your family (Israeli citizens)..

Lets assume I did.

What I wouldn't do is go and build a wall in my neighbours back yard that just happened to leave his prize rose-beds on my side of my wall that I built on his land. I would build the wall on the border between our lands, or - if said border was in dispute - I would build it on lands that were least contentiously mine.

In short, I would build the wall in such a way as to serve its purpose - that of the protection I claim it is needed for - whilst ensuring that it served no other purpose that would be to my advantage and my neighbours disadvantage to ensure that there could be no claim that I had ulterior motives....like stealing his rose beds.

You want your wall? YOu feel you need your wall for your protection? Other than those posters who insist that the Israeli state has no right to exist whatsoever, I don't think you'll find a single person who has a problem with you having your wall. What they have a problem with is your wall being built on Palestinian land, and just happening to annex more land, and then be managed in such a way as to bear all the hallmarks of a landgrab...even if it isn't one.

See...if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and goes great with plum sauce....no-one's really gonna care if technically it could be classed as anything other than a duck, because its always gonna be a duck as well.

And incidentally....before you refer us to the claims that the wall is needed in the location it has been built because that offers the best security....I would ask you how such claims can be reconciled with the reality that the wall has in some situations been relocated and no-one has shown yet how such relocations have critically weakened the offered security.

Providing sought-after security doesn't prevent your wall from also serving as a land-grab. Arguing that its purpose can't be for one because its for the other is a logical non-sequitor

jc

Slainte70

bonkey wrote:

Providing sought-after security doesn't prevent your wall from also serving as a land-grab. Arguing that its purpose can't be for one because its for the other is a logical non-sequitor

jc

The reason for building the fence is we have experience in other borders, Lebanon, Gaza, since 1996 if I'm not mistaken, no suicide bombers went out of the Gaza because we have fenced it.

If we had built this fence on the '67 borders, it would have been a political fence. Where we are building it now on this route it is a security fence. And I would like you to know, the fence is moveable. We're already experienced with a fence-- we moved a fence in Egypt after we signed the peace treaty with them.

mycroft

Slainte70 wrote:

We choose to disagree on this matter.

Not really, theres impressive footage of lovely israeli himes and communties in the area you claim was

It was and is strictly self defence and self preservation.

How you can claim pleasant homesteads with pools and air conditioning are strictly defence and self presevation instillations.

Please provide back-up to your argument, otherwise you’re beginning to sound like Arafat.

You've not sustaniated a single one of your points. Exactly where does your very specific 96% stat come from (hey you started it)

I honestly don’t know how you arrived to that conclusion after reading my post.

Because I understand what you suggest, you're "appalled" by these actions by Israeli but instantly turn around and justificate these acts because they're regretable but forced because of the palestinian actions, they're all the palestinian fault, negating Israeli's religious dogma and eagerness to use overwhelming force, as a massive factor in causing this bloody mess. You'll make some harmless platitute about regrettable israeli behaviour and then repeat a list of palestinian actions which justify Israeli's vile behaviour. Hey care to remind us why Sharon can't set foot in belgium? He's wanted for war crimes. Aganist Palestinians. And this is a man you draw parrallels with ganhdi.

Just imagine if you had a neighbour, (Palestine) whose crazy kids (Palestinian extremists) were trying to kill you and your family (Israeli citizens).. I honestly don’t think making cakes and giving them money (charity) would stop them from trying to kill you. Instead you would probably appeal to their parents (Palestinan authority) to discipline them and educate them on what it is to be a good neighbour and explain to them the benefits of being on good terms with your neighbours. In the meantime, the least you and your family would do is to build a wall high enough, which would hopefully stop the neighbours' crazy kids from climbing into your garden and secure your safety…Once your neighbours have reigned in their unruly kids, then I am sure cakes etc..would lead to good auld neighbourly love and respect…

Nice metaphor, esp like the way you imply the palestinians are unruly children. A metaphor that reinforces your low opinion of the Palestinian people. Of course the fact that Israeli three times more than the Palestinians did during the infatida. And they seem to have little interest in punishing your unruly children, over "eager" soldiers who kill people like Tom Huffnal, not to mentioned those wacky characters in your right wing settlers who shoot random palestinians. Hell they were up to that last week.

Padraig Mor

Slainte70 wrote:

I guess the Yom Kippur War just happened to slip your mind. :rolleyes:

Nope. Please re-read my post. Egypt and Syria attacked at Yom Kippur to reclaim Sinai and the Golan Heights......neither part of Israel's recognised territory.

By the way, did you know that prior to Yom Kippur (1970 or 1971) the Egyptians offered certain concessions to the Israelis in return for handing back Sinai and war if they didn't? Israel (as ever) refused these peace moves and Egypt dutifully gave them their war (i.e. Yom Kippur). The resultant Camp David accords, lauded worldwide as a historical step for peace, actually gave Israel less than the Egyptians had previously offered!

Slainte70

mycroft wrote:

Nice metaphor, esp like the way you imply the palestinians are unruly children. A metaphor that reinforces your low opinion of the Palestinian people. Of course the fact that Israeli three times more than the Palestinians did during the infatida. And they seem to have little interest in punishing your unruly children, over "eager" soldiers who kill people like Tom Huffnal, not to mentioned those wacky characters in your right wing settlers who shoot random palestinians. Hell they were up to that last week.

Correction. My metaphor depicts Palestinian extremists i.e. terrorists as unruly children, which I think is actually being kind really, considering I view all terrorists, whether they be Palestinian, Jewish, Iraqi, Irish etc… as the scum of the earth. If you wish to hold them in high opinion, then that is your prerogative
.
Mycroft, we could hash this out until the cows come home and still not see eye to eye on past events in this region.

The bottom line is that most Israelis agree to a Palestinian State and thankfully it is a democratic country, where majority rules. Israelis are willing to make difficult compromises, as is witnessed as we speak It is not a matter of if but rather when the Gaza Strip and West Bank are turned over to Palestinian Rule, this in turn will lead to the creation of a Palestinian State, provided of course, that the PA hold up to the end of the bargain (the cessation of and incitement of terrorism).

However, I believe sovereignty over Jerusalem will cause the greatest problem. Shimone Peres proposed that there will have to be two capitals side by side without dividing Jerusalem.
I wouldn't have a problem giving away part of Jerusalem, but then again I’m not Jewish. I strongly doubt Israelis would be too keen on the idea, as for thousands of years Jerusalem has been the heart and soul of the Jewish people, even in the furthest of exiles, just as Mecca is to Muslims. But if it actually meant a lasting peace with a democratic nation that respected their ways, then who knows, perhaps a common ground could be reached for both Palestinians and Israelis.

Slainte70

Padraig Mor wrote:

Nope. Please re-read my post. Egypt and Syria attacked at Yom Kippur to reclaim Sinai and the Golan Heights......neither part of Israel's recognised territory.

By the way, did you know that prior to Yom Kippur (1970 or 1971) the Egyptians offered certain concessions to the Israelis in return for handing back Sinai and war if they didn't? Israel (as ever) refused these peace moves and Egypt dutifully gave them their war (i.e. Yom Kippur). The resultant Camp David accords, lauded worldwide as a historical step for peace, actually gave Israel less than the Egyptians had previously offered!

What amazes me, is the fact that you choose to completely ignore Palestinians and neighbouring Arab countries’ vow to destroy the State of Israel. Had they agreed to the State of Israel in the first place, they would have had their independence and state.

Less than 24 hours after the State of Israel was proclaimed in 1948, seven neighboring Arab armies of Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Yemen invaded the new state. Yet you consider Israel to be the bully.

In 1967, the Egyptian, Jordanian, and Syrian armies began to mobilize along the borders of Israel ( approx. 250,000 soldiers if I’m not mistaken). Israel called for a pre-emptive strike and attacked these countries in order to defend her country. Had she not, then I’m sure both you and I would have learned of the annihilation of Israel in our history books. Yet, you consider Israel to be the bully.

As for the years leading up to Yom Kippur War in 1973, let us not forget the War of Attrition, after which you state Egyptians offered certain concessions to the Israelis in return for handing back Sinai, yet you must realize, the Israelis were extremely wary of such concessions and rightly so to be honest, considering Eygyt and co. were plotting to wipe her off the face of the Earth three years prior.

So Padraig, you may look upon Israel as the bully. However, I see it as defending her country, which every country has the right to do.