Israel Pulls out of Gaza, Whats next?

Padraig Mor

Slainte70 wrote:

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.

.

I notice that you completely ignore my point (i.e. the Occupied Territories are the cause of, not a defence against, agression. Re your post above: please re-read my first post. All of Israel's neighbours and most Palestinian groups have for decades said that they will leave Israel alone if they hand back the West Bank and Gaza. It really is that simple Slainte, if Israel lives up to its international obligations and leaves the Territories, 99% of terrorism/aggression will disappear. It would also remove the main recruiting call for Al Qaeda etc.

BTW if the Israelis were serious about improving Palestinians' lives, wouldn't it have been easy to just leave the settlers' homes for some of the regions legitimate residents, instead of mean spiritedly destroying them?

Blub2k4

Slainte70 wrote:

The Wall – Well, I can only speak for myself and my family….since this wall has been built, we can sleep safely at night knowing that some crazy terrorist is not going to try and murder us in our sleep… So yes, I look at this wall, (which many of you object to), as a life-saver. There was a time (2 years ago when bombings and threats were a daily routine )when I really dreaded dropping my kids off at school and kindergarten...blowing up a bunch of kids is a suicide bomber's dream.. just writing this down brings tears of rage to my eyes...

Might I suggest that you could always fcuk off home?

bonkey

Slainte70 wrote:

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.

I didn't question the building of the fence. I questioned the placement of it.

If we had built this fence on the '67 borders, it would have been a political fence.

I didn't suggest you build this fence on the '67 borders. I suggested you build it on land that was least contentiously yours. That could be miles inland from the 67 border.

As a matter of interest, though, given that the wall doesn't recognise the 67 border....can you tell me how much land ceded to Israel in '67 is outside teh wall, vs. how much land ceded to Palestine is inside it. I hope that the wall doesn't run its entirely on just one side of the 67 borders, or it would seem that you most certainly are taking the border into account....if only in the "give nothing up, but take more where you can" way. Land-grabbing, I believe they call it.

So? Care to give the ratio of Israel-67 land lost to Palestine-67 land gained by the placement of this wall?

Where we are building it now on this route it is a security fence.

Hang on a sec....ket me see if I understand your logic correctly.

If you built it on Israeli land, it would be political.
By building it on Palestinian land, it is defensive.

Hence, one can assume that you would not see a wall on Israeli land as defensive, nor a wall on Palestinian land as having political ramifications. You must see these as exclusive conditions (placement being political or being defensive) or else the distinction that you have made in response to my post is either meaningless or irrelevant.

I don't understand how you can actually believe that these issues are exclusive, let alone suggest to others that they believe it as well, when it is abundantly and overridingly clear that the placement of the current wall is a political issue. In fact, it is an issue that is so political that the basic Israeli response to all of the political criticism and pressure over its placement has been a politely-worded "sod off, its none of your business".

Telling other people that the placement is none of their business doesn't make it non-political. Even if it did, however, then placement on Israeli land would also be non-political...which would undermine your basic argument.

And I would like you to know, the fence is moveable.

Given that I've already pointed out that the fence is not only moveable but has already been moved, I'm at a loss to understand exactly what you're trying to point out to me here.

The fence being moveable has nothing to do with the "rightousness" of its current placement.

As for the fence not being permanent...I'm sorry, but thats like arguing that if you arrest, torture and unjustly incarcerate an innocent man, its fine as long as you intend to eventually release him. Intending to stop mistreating others sooner or later is not a justification for said mistreatment.

gandalf

Blub2k4 wrote:

Might I suggest that you could always fcuk off home?

May I suggest that you are banned for a week!!!

por

Padraig Mor wrote:

BTW if the Israelis were serious about improving Palestinians' lives, wouldn't it have been easy to just leave the settlers' homes for some of the regions legitimate residents, instead of mean spiritedly destroying them?

From the BBC

When the settlers have been removed from Gaza, the Israeli army will demolish their mainly suburban-style homes and Palestinian and Egyptian contractors will help clear up the rubble.

This is at the request of the Palestinian Authority, which needs multi-storey buildings to deal with densely populated Gaza's housing crisis

So much for that ant-Isreeli dig Padraig Mor !!!!


Thank you Slainte70 for adding a little balance to this debate.
I am sick to the back teeth of listening to people attack Israel for protecting their own people.

Slainte70

bonkey wrote:

As a matter of interest, though, given that the wall doesn't recognise the 67 border....can you tell me how much land ceded to Israel in '67 is outside teh wall, vs. how much land ceded to Palestine is inside it. I hope that the wall doesn't run its entirely on just one side of the 67 borders, or it would seem that you most certainly are taking the border into account....if only in the "give nothing up, but take more where you can" way. Land-grabbing, I believe they call it.

So? Care to give the ratio of Israel-67 land lost to Palestine-67 land gained by the placement of this wall?

Bonkey, I hope the following site will assist in answering some of your questions:

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Peace/fence.html

tallus

ziggy67 wrote:

Why would the end of Israel be catastrophic?
The Israeli state is hardly a stabilising force in the middle east is it?

Amen to that ziggy, they have a deplorable human rights record too, ohh i could go on and on and on ....

tallus

Thank you Slainte70 for adding a little balance to this debate.
I am sick to the back teeth of listening to people attack Israel for protecting their own people.
were they protecting their own people when they assisted in the murder of innocent refugees in sabra and chatila?...

bonkey

Slainte70 wrote:

Bonkey, I hope the following site will assist in answering some of your questions:

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Peace/fence.html

Unfortunately, it doesn't really, but thanks anyway.

From the article :

Most of the fence runs roughly along the Green Line. The fence is about a mile to the east in three places that allows the incorporation of the settlements of Henanit, Shaked, Rehan, Salit, and Zofim. The most significant deviation from the 1967 line is a bulge of less than four miles around the towns of Alfei Menashe and Elkanah where about 8,000 Jews live. In some places, the fence is actually inside the “Green Line.”

This is the most information I could find about the actual positioning of the fence.

jc

Slainte70

por wrote:

From the BBC


So much for that ant-Isreeli dig Padraig Mor !!!!


Thank you Slainte70 for adding a little balance to this debate.
I am sick to the back teeth of listening to people attack Israel for protecting their own people.

I think probably another reason Abu Mazen asked the Israelis to demolish the homes is that he feared the Gazan power thugs would set up shop there and would refuse to budge. His interests has always been for the entire Palestinian people. Just last week, he ordered the demolition of a villa in Gaza belonging to one of heads in the PA, as it was built without planning permission.

Slainte70

Padraig Mor wrote:

I notice that you completely ignore my point (i.e. the Occupied Territories are the cause of, not a defence against, agression.

I have not ignored your point. I have stated my views on the occupied/disputed territories. You see it as aggression, I see it as defence. I have stated my stance on the settlements, I am against them, as are many Israelis. It becomes a little bit repetitive after a while though.

Padraig Mor

por wrote:

So much for that ant-Isreeli dig Padraig Mor !!!!


Thank you Slainte70 for adding a little balance to this debate.
I am sick to the back teeth of listening to people attack Israel for protecting their own people.

Fair enough. We all make mistakes. Such as thinking that Israel is "protecting their own people" by attacking innocent civilians.

Flukey

If the current Israelis want to live in that part of the world, they can, but maybe it should be under the governance of the people that were there already. We have lots of immigrants coming into Ireland, but they live under our laws and don't try and set up their own country here and kick us out. That is basically how the current Israel came about. People from other parts of the world came together in and existing area claiming rights to it and wanting to set up their country and kick out the residents. If they want to live there let them, with others who want to too and have a country ruled by whatever government is chosen by the citizens. That is how most countries work.