Israeli

[Countdown]

Scuffers said:

Countdown said:

Re: "attack, lose, and bhing about wanting your land back" - most occupiers either give the land back or absorb the land and the people as their own citizens. So Israel should annexe the whole of the WB and give Palestinians full rights. :scratcchin: Israel wants the land but not the people so the only solution AFAICS is ethnic cleansing.

sorry, will you give up on this bullst?

it's nothing like ethnic cleansing

I think you've misread. If Israel doesn't agree to a two-state solution OR absorb the whole of the West Bank and accept the Palestinians as Israeli citizens what other options do you think it has?

Scuffers said:

Countdown said:

The buffer argument is ridiculous. Firstly Israel has borders with Egypt, Jordan, and the Lebanon, there is no buffer there. So exactly how the WB would act as a buffer I'm not sure (or even who against). Secondly if Israel occupies a land, then fills it with jewish people, it is no longer a buffer. It would become Israel proper (or part of the "Eretz" Israel that many Zionists are trying to achieve). Perhaps Israel should ask the Egyptians and Jordanians to create a 12 mile wide buffer inside their own borders.

Egypt, Jordan, and the Lebanon are not sending suicide bombers and launching attacks on Israel.

please try and remember why they created the buffer in the first place and why the blockade, it's not for fun.

If the buffer is not supposed to be between Jordan and Israel who exactly is it supposed be between?

[Countdown]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Because if the sole aim of France was to wipe Britain off the face of the Earth, and France in the past had had control of Kent, I wouldn't want to give if back to them. Regardless of how I got it.

If you had signed a peace treaty with France and France had acknowledged your "inalienable right to exist" , but you still occupied Kent, restricting the people's access to roads, water, demolishing houses and making random arrests etc, would you expect the people of Kent to just accept it?

[Scuffers]

Countdown said:

Scuffers said:

Countdown said:

Re: "attack, lose, and bhing about wanting your land back" - most occupiers either give the land back or absorb the land and the people as their own citizens. So Israel should annexe the whole of the WB and give Palestinians full rights. :scratcchin: Israel wants the land but not the people so the only solution AFAICS is ethnic cleansing.

sorry, will you give up on this bullst?

it's nothing like ethnic cleansing

I think you've misread. If Israel doesn't agree to a two-state solution OR absorb the whole of the West Bank and accept the Palestinians as Israeli citizens what other options do you think it has?

I think you will find that Israel accept palestinians as citizens?

Countdown said:

Scuffers said:

Countdown said:

The buffer argument is ridiculous. Firstly Israel has borders with Egypt, Jordan, and the Lebanon, there is no buffer there. So exactly how the WB would act as a buffer I'm not sure (or even who against). Secondly if Israel occupies a land, then fills it with jewish people, it is no longer a buffer. It would become Israel proper (or part of the "Eretz" Israel that many Zionists are trying to achieve). Perhaps Israel should ask the Egyptians and Jordanians to create a 12 mile wide buffer inside their own borders.

Egypt, Jordan, and the Lebanon are not sending suicide bombers and launching attacks on Israel.

please try and remember why they created the buffer in the first place and why the blockade, it's not for fun.

If the buffer is not supposed to be between Jordan and Israel who exactly is it supposed be between?

you not the only one? WTF are you on about?

the buffer zone is between Gaza and israel:

[Countdown]

Scuffers said:

I think you will find that Israel accept palestinians as citizens?

Not the millions living in the West bank or Gaza, it doesn't.

The buffer zone I was referring to is Israel's claim that it HAS to occupy the West Bank as a buffer zone against any incursion from Jordan.

[FredClogs]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Countdown said:

Negotiate a viable two-state solution based on the 1967 borders.

Any reason why this wouldn't be fair, in your opinion?

Because if the sole aim of France was to wipe Britain off the face of the Earth, and France in the past had had control of Kent, I wouldn't want to give if back to them. Regardless of how I got it.

Again, complete nonsense straw man bs. There is no country or government in the world who's "sole aim" is or ever has been to destroy Israel. Yes some people have said somethings, but no one has ever invaded Israel, never, ever... The 1973 war was a failed attempt ( a pretty half hearted one) to get back land Israel was occupying and has continued to occupy, illegally since they invaded Egypt and Syrian in '67

[Scuffers]

FredClogs said:

Again, complete nonsense straw man bs. There is no country or government in the world who's "sole aim" is or ever has been to destroy Israel. Yes some people have said somethings, but no one has ever invaded Israel, never, ever... The 1973 war was a failed attempt ( a pretty half hearted one) to get back land Israel was occupying and has continued to occupy, illegally since they invaded Egypt and Syrian in '67

Apart from some weasel wording, that's patently not true.

Just for starters, hamas are committee to the eradication of Israel.

[NoNeed]

Scuffers said:

FredClogs said:

Again, complete nonsense straw man bs. There is no country or government in the world who's "sole aim" is or ever has been to destroy Israel. Yes some people have said somethings, but no one has ever invaded Israel, never, ever... The 1973 war was a failed attempt ( a pretty half hearted one) to get back land Israel was occupying and has continued to occupy, illegally since they invaded Egypt and Syrian in '67

Apart from some weasel wording, that's patently not true.

Just for starters, hamas are committee to the eradication of Israel.

Are Hamas a recognised government of a recognised nation?

[Scuffers]

NoNeed said:

Are Hamas a recognised government of a recognised nation?

they are recognised as the government of Gaza..

(they won the election as we keep getting told)

[FredClogs]

Scuffers said:

FredClogs said:

Again, complete nonsense straw man bs. There is no country or government in the world who's "sole aim" is or ever has been to destroy Israel. Yes some people have said somethings, but no one has ever invaded Israel, never, ever... The 1973 war was a failed attempt ( a pretty half hearted one) to get back land Israel was occupying and has continued to occupy, illegally since they invaded Egypt and Syrian in '67

Apart from some weasel wording, that's patently not true.

Just for starters, hamas are committee to the eradication of Israel.

Eh?

Apart from the fact that Hamas aren't a government and Gaza is not a state and the fact there is at least a dozen links in this thread alone to articles reporting Hamas are willing to recognise Israel within the correct negotiated framework (Israel living within her legal boundaries would probably be a good start). This whole "wipe Israel of the map" nonsense is hysterical ranting - who ever says it. Saying it puts you on a similar intellectual plane as Ahmadinejad himself - well done! Anyone taking this crap seriously is either very stupid or just repeating propaganda for strategic reasons.

[Jimbeaux]

Mermaid said:

Jimbeaux said:

Countdown said:

Scuffers said:

what would you have them do then?

ignore the rockets and tunnels?

Stop Settlement building for a start. Negotiate a viable two-state solution based on the 1967 borders.

Any reason why this wouldn't be fair, in your opinion?

The 1967 borders might be a problem. You see, five nations attacked with the intent of wiping them off the grid; therefore, the desire for a "buffer" might be a stubborn one. Again, don't attack, lose, then bh about wanting your land back. The rest of your post seems reasonable to me.

OK, but if you want solid peace in the future, sometimes you have to compromise. Magnanimity & all that

True. However, you do realize that pre 1967 borders, Palestinian State, and zero settlements will not stop the likes of Hamas from attacking, don"t you??

[Mermaid]

FredClogs said:

This whole "wipe Israel of the map" nonsense is hysterical ranting - who ever says it. Saying it puts you on a similar intellectual plane as Ahmadinejad himself - well done! Anyone taking this crap seriously is either very stupid or just repeating propaganda for strategic reasons.

This ^ - its just the way they talk & to please their aggrieved locals. Hamas & its military capability is an irritant that could be wiped out at will.

Hamas want to be treated fairly and with respect. And want some land back. Do not want the blockade. Want some money - a deal to be done. me thinks.

Boy cries for sweets, lock him up in a room. Boy cries to be let out of the room, you let him out - he has forgotten about the sweets. It's all a game but but will need a compromise where both are equally unhappy, but fatigued and just want to get on with their lives. Just my simple take on this.

[Jimbeaux]

Countdown said:

Jimbeaux said:

The 1967 borders might be a problem. You see, five nations attacked with the intent of wiping them off the grid; therefore, the desire for a "buffer" might be a stubborn one. Again, don't attack, lose, then bh about wanting your land back. The rest of your post seems reasonable to me.

Re: "attack, lose, and bhing about wanting your land back" - most occupiers either give the land back or absorb the land and the people as their own citizens. So Israel should annexe the whole of the WB and give Palestinians full rights. :scratcchin: Israel wants the land but not the people so the only solution AFAICS is ethnic cleansing.

The buffer argument is ridiculous. Firstly Israel has borders with Egypt, Jordan, and the Lebanon, there is no buffer there. So exactly how the WB would act as a buffer I'm not sure (or even who against). Secondly if Israel occupies a land, then fills it with jewish people, it is no longer a buffer. It would become Israel proper (or part of the "Eretz" Israel that many Zionists are trying to achieve). Perhaps Israel should ask the Egyptians and Jordanians to create a 12 mile wide buffer inside their own borders.

Egyptians have shown reasonableness in the last decades is perhaps why they feel no need for a buffer that direction. Egypt just got through brokering a ceasefire that Hamas turned down.....but you go on believeing.

[Jimbeaux]

FredClogs said:

Jimbeaux said:

The 1967 borders might be a problem. You see, five nations attacked with the intent of wiping them off the grid;

Complete nonsense, ridiculous, strawman, revisionist nonsense, ill informed, propagandist and worst of all designed to not only propagate the "war" but also aggravate the nations who Israel pre emptively struck and STARTED a war with. A war to capture land that has effectively continued for nearly 50 years.

Israel was never and has never been invaded/attacked or anywhere near threatened by any other than daft rhetoric and a few harsh words.

Sure thing Freddy, whatever you say.

[Mermaid]

Jimbeaux said:

True. However, you do realize that pre 1967 borders, Palestinian State, and zero settlements will not stop the likes of Hamas from attacking, don"t you??

You get Israel to agree, and I will speak to the other side to agree a permanent ceasefire

[S 8 GRN]

FredClogs said:

Scuffers said:

FredClogs said:

Again, complete nonsense straw man bs. There is no country or government in the world who's "sole aim" is or ever has been to destroy Israel. Yes some people have said somethings, but no one has ever invaded Israel, never, ever... The 1973 war was a failed attempt ( a pretty half hearted one) to get back land Israel was occupying and has continued to occupy, illegally since they invaded Egypt and Syrian in '67

Apart from some weasel wording, that's patently not true.

Just for starters, hamas are committee to the eradication of Israel.

Eh?

Apart from the fact that Hamas aren't a government and Gaza is not a state and the fact there is at least a dozen links in this thread alone to articles reporting Hamas are willing to recognise Israel within the correct negotiated framework (Israel living within her legal boundaries would probably be a good start). This whole "wipe Israel of the map" nonsense is hysterical ranting - who ever says it. Saying it puts you on a similar intellectual plane as Ahmadinejad himself - well done! Anyone taking this crap seriously is either very stupid or just repeating propaganda for strategic reasons.

I really need some of whatever you've been smoking.

Hamas subtly changed their charter to reflect a more reasoned approach in their manifesto as they were going to win jack all popularity with the destruction line. Now it's worded as "the establishment of an independent state whose capital is Jerusalem". There is no doubt in my mind what that means. ( maybe I should have written "most of the world knows this" which seems to be the current forum fashion for justifying bullst)

[Jimbeaux]

Mermaid said:

Jimbeaux said:

True. However, you do realize that pre 1967 borders, Palestinian State, and zero settlements will not stop the likes of Hamas from attacking, don"t you??

You get Israel to agree, and I will speak to the other side to agree a permanent ceasefire

I would, but you and I are not on either's "important meeting today" list.

[Funkycoldribena]

Mermaid said:

Hamas want to be treated fairly and with respect. And want some land back. Do not want the blockade. Want some money - a deal to be done. me thinks.

You really are worrying...I really dont know what to say.

[Mermaid]

Funkycoldribena said:

Mermaid said:

Hamas want to be treated fairly and with respect. And want some land back. Do not want the blockade. Want some money - a deal to be done. me thinks.

You really are worrying...I really dont know what to say.

As Jimbeaux says, what either of us thinks matters not, so don't worry. When, and not if, a final outcome is reached we can do a post-mortem of who thought what

I am optimistic.

[Jimbeaux]

Mermaid said:

Funkycoldribena said:

Mermaid said:

Hamas want to be treated fairly and with respect. And want some land back. Do not want the blockade. Want some money - a deal to be done. me thinks.

You really are worrying...I really dont know what to say.

As Jimbeaux says, what either of us thinks matters not, so don't worry. When, and not if, a final outcome is reached we can do a post-mortem of who thought what

I am optimistic.

I am not as optimistic that it will be in our lifetimes, unless some 3rd party extremists get a nuke, then the sand will be glass. That reminds me; the Israelis have nukes and have not used them. If Hamas had nukes, do you feel they would refrain?

Edited by Jimbeaux on Monday 28th July 17:52

[JensenA]

Pappa Lurve said:

JensenA said:

It's quite ironic that the Israelis are adopting the same tactics that the Nazi's used against the French resistance movement in WW2. The Nazis destroyed whole towns and villages to retaliate against the deaths of German soldiers killed by the resistance, in an attempt to turn the French people against the resistance movement. It didn't work then, and it won't work now. The only way the Israelis can win over the Palestinian people i- which is the only way to beat Hammas - is to stop building settlements and forcibly evicting Palestinians from the homes they have lived in for hundreds of years. If they begin to treat the ordinary Palestinians with respect, then the ordinary Palestine people would turn against Hammas. The ordinary people may not agree with Hammas, but supporting, or having some sympathy to them, is the only way that have of retaliating against a nation that treats them with contempt.

Edited by JensenA on Monday 28th July 11:11

Come back when you have something of value to add. Lets be clear here, should Israel wish to destroy the Plaestinians wholesale it is not exactly hard to do. And for those who comp`re it to camps - I have physically been there over a period of many years. It is not exactly Monaco but II do find it curious how people who have nbever been, never seen it and largely know littlle aabout it can feel they are qualified to say what it is like there.

I did add something of value, it's called an opinion, and you are perfectly entitled to oppose it. However in all your all you do is repeat yourself by criticising anyone who has not been to the area in person, does not share your opinion and dares to criticise Israel.


Edited : ipad induced spelling and grammatical errors.

Edited by JensenA on Monday 28th July 20:02