Discussion
Mermaid said:
That sounds a plan. No fear, confidence & then share. Easy, for all the hot air that is being spouted achieves nothing.
You convince your mates, and I will convince mine.
Well, some of my mates are thinking of setting up an embassy in Tel Aviv (once Israel stops calling them terrorists). The rest are pretty busy bashing ISIS right now!You convince your mates, and I will convince mine.
Strange -- and rather wonderful -- thing is that peace always seems to break out in the end!
Edited by TheRealFingers99 on Sunday 30th November 19:05
Edited by TheRealFingers99 on Sunday 30th November 19:06
TheRealFingers99 said:
You mean you'd sooner we rely on censored sources? Who are you, Goebells? Here's a quote for you [emphasis mine]:
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”
Why do you have to be so conceited? Did I say censored???? No I didn't! “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”
Try history books written by experts rather than Wikipedia, try talking to the locals rather than listening to Chinese whispers and try 1st hand experience rather than 4th hand hearsay!
I also have a couple of quotes for you: "If it is on the internet then it must be true!" and "Don't believe everything you read in the press".
I am going to ignore this now for a bit because you just seem hell bent on dragging this back down to the lower gutter levels, as per usual. You have no interest in open debate and are unable to even consider any other point of view or option than your own!
TheRealFingers99 said:
On the positive side, a land of milk and honey, managed by confederations of Jews, Arabs and Kurds, with cheerful, peaceful, co-operative and optimistic relationships with their neighbours.
As already discussed. the Jews will never share power with the Arabs anymore than the Arabs will share it with the Jews! You may as well ask for Iran to turn Catholic!Grumfutock said:
As already discussed. the Jews will never share power with the Arabs anymore than the Arabs will share it with the Jews! You may as well ask for Iran to turn Catholic!
Catholics never seem to have had much impact in that part of the world. However, there is a fairly successful Jewish community. But I would ask what the hell Arabs have to do with Iran? Grumfutock said:
Why do you have to be so conceited? Did I say censored???? No I didn't!
Ah, I thought you were talking about the Israeli media! Where conceit comes into it, I really don't know.Grumfutock said:
Try history books written by experts rather than Wikipedia, try talking to the locals rather than listening to Chinese whispers and try 1st hand experience rather than 4th hand hearsay!
You mean Israeli history books which ignore Arab and Israeli sources released after the 50 year rule?
Grumfutock said:
I also have a couple of quotes for you: "If it is on the internet then it must be true!" and "Don't believe everything you read in the press".
Cliche, cliche. But I think I'm old enough to have a fair chance of distinguishing propaganda from reality. I'm not, after all, the one who posted the image of giggling kids laying out the "moving" dead as an example of anti Israeli propaganda, am I?
[
Grumfutock] said:
I am going to ignore this now for a bit because you just seem hell bent on dragging this back down to the lower gutter levels, as per usual. You have no interest in open debate and are unable to even consider any other point of view or option than your own!
Go crawl into your foxhole. You keep making your promises, keep breaking them. If you post rubbish, I'll take the piss out of it. And I'll remind you, again, that I'm not the one who silenced an opposing voice by calling him a kiddie fiddler. A man would apologise. TheRealFingers99 said:
Grumfutock said:
As already discussed. the Jews will never share power with the Arabs anymore than the Arabs will share it with the Jews! You may as well ask for Iran to turn Catholic!
Catholics never seem to have had much impact in that part of the world. However, there is a fairly successful Jewish community. But I would ask what the hell Arabs have to do with Iran? FYI there are around 250,000 Christians in Iraq and somewhere in the region of 600 churches. Since 2000 there has been a massive increase, somewhere in the region of 40%! The Jewish population is around 10,000-20,000 (less than 9,000 according to Iran).
Well done.
Grumfutock said:
And once again do believe everything you read on the internet!
FYI there are around 250,000 Christians in Iraq and somewhere in the region of 600 churches. Since 2000 there has been a massive increase, somewhere in the region of 40%! The Jewish population is around 10,000-20,000 (less than 9,000 according to Iran).
Well done.
Well done yourself. There is, indeed, a small Catholic community in Iraq: about about 7,000 (Assyrian/Syriac). FYI there are around 250,000 Christians in Iraq and somewhere in the region of 600 churches. Since 2000 there has been a massive increase, somewhere in the region of 40%! The Jewish population is around 10,000-20,000 (less than 9,000 according to Iran).
Well done.
Christian does not = Catholic any more than Muslim = Shiite or Jew = Zionist. Catholics are one of the smaller Christian groups in (non Arab!) Iran.
TheRealFingers99 said:
Grumfutock said:
And once again do believe everything you read on the internet!
FYI there are around 250,000 Christians in Iraq and somewhere in the region of 600 churches. Since 2000 there has been a massive increase, somewhere in the region of 40%! The Jewish population is around 10,000-20,000 (less than 9,000 according to Iran).
Well done.
Well done yourself. There is, indeed, a small Catholic community in Iraq: about about 7,000 (Assyrian/Syriac). FYI there are around 250,000 Christians in Iraq and somewhere in the region of 600 churches. Since 2000 there has been a massive increase, somewhere in the region of 40%! The Jewish population is around 10,000-20,000 (less than 9,000 according to Iran).
Well done.
Christian does not = Catholic any more than Muslim = Shiite or Jew = Zionist. Catholics are one of the smaller Christian groups in (non Arab!) Iran.
Holy See = Vatican. Vatican = Pope. Pope = CATHOLIC.
Pope = Catholic = propoganda! 
I use a non-sectarian source. But, on the face of it, it'd be very difficult to do truly accurate research and first we'd have to agree as to what "really" constitutes a church member. A bit like, I suspect, counting the Iraqi army: do you count the heads in the barracks, or the heads on the payroll?
I use a non-sectarian source. But, on the face of it, it'd be very difficult to do truly accurate research and first we'd have to agree as to what "really" constitutes a church member. A bit like, I suspect, counting the Iraqi army: do you count the heads in the barracks, or the heads on the payroll?
Edited by TheRealFingers99 on Sunday 30th November 21:50
Edited by TheRealFingers99 on Sunday 30th November 22:15
Grumfutock said:
Slaav
As I have repeatedly said, I make no judgement on the rights or wrongs of any of it. I try to put the 'other sides' point of view, that is all.
The Israeli's can never and will never accept a 1 state solution with equal rights and votes for all unless they out number everyone else by a very large margin. Simple fact.
A 2 state solution is most likely the right answer but look what happened the last time they tried that route. Rabin murdered, troops withdrawn only to be for the 2nd Intifada to occur and the PLO replaced by Hamas. I would be very surprised if they went down this route quickly again.
I hope that addressed your questions.
Thanks for the succinct reply.As I have repeatedly said, I make no judgement on the rights or wrongs of any of it. I try to put the 'other sides' point of view, that is all.
The Israeli's can never and will never accept a 1 state solution with equal rights and votes for all unless they out number everyone else by a very large margin. Simple fact.
A 2 state solution is most likely the right answer but look what happened the last time they tried that route. Rabin murdered, troops withdrawn only to be for the 2nd Intifada to occur and the PLO replaced by Hamas. I would be very surprised if they went down this route quickly again.
I hope that addressed your questions.
Paraphrasing ever so slightly, it is as I and many others fear:
Israel will only accept or countenance a true peace on its own terms; those terms being to flood the area with Jews (ideally) so that any 1 state solution guarantees them a majority. This can be achieved either by mass (further) immigration which will inevitably lead to the 'requirement' for further housing/settlements or alternatively, simply chuck out the indigenous people?
The second route to peace is similarly achieved by expansion to the point that the Palestinians are a mere inconvenience and no real threat?
Either way, peace will only be achieved by more of the same and 100% on Israel's terms?
I cannot help feel that this will win the war short term against the Palestinians but guarantee a full on and long term war against the whole of the Arab world, including those currently classed as neutral or even friendly to Israel? This will be to the extent that the 'war' in Palestine will be reclassified as a mere 'battle' if that makes sense?
Does Israel and more importantly do the Jews of the world really want this? REALLY?
Slaav said:
Grumfutock said:
Slaav
As I have repeatedly said, I make no judgement on the rights or wrongs of any of it. I try to put the 'other sides' point of view, that is all.
The Israeli's can never and will never accept a 1 state solution with equal rights and votes for all unless they out number everyone else by a very large margin. Simple fact.
A 2 state solution is most likely the right answer but look what happened the last time they tried that route. Rabin murdered, troops withdrawn only to be for the 2nd Intifada to occur and the PLO replaced by Hamas. I would be very surprised if they went down this route quickly again.
I hope that addressed your questions.
Thanks for the succinct reply.As I have repeatedly said, I make no judgement on the rights or wrongs of any of it. I try to put the 'other sides' point of view, that is all.
The Israeli's can never and will never accept a 1 state solution with equal rights and votes for all unless they out number everyone else by a very large margin. Simple fact.
A 2 state solution is most likely the right answer but look what happened the last time they tried that route. Rabin murdered, troops withdrawn only to be for the 2nd Intifada to occur and the PLO replaced by Hamas. I would be very surprised if they went down this route quickly again.
I hope that addressed your questions.
Paraphrasing ever so slightly, it is as I and many others fear:
Israel will only accept or countenance a true peace on its own terms; those terms being to flood the area with Jews (ideally) so that any 1 state solution guarantees them a majority. This can be achieved either by mass (further) immigration which will inevitably lead to the 'requirement' for further housing/settlements or alternatively, simply chuck out the indigenous people?
The second route to peace is similarly achieved by expansion to the point that the Palestinians are a mere inconvenience and no real threat?
Either way, peace will only be achieved by more of the same and 100% on Israel's terms?
I cannot help feel that this will win the war short term against the Palestinians but guarantee a full on and long term war against the whole of the Arab world, including those currently classed as neutral or even friendly to Israel? This will be to the extent that the 'war' in Palestine will be reclassified as a mere 'battle' if that makes sense?
Does Israel and more importantly do the Jews of the world really want this? REALLY?
Glumfotock can I suggest you juts let the thread die while I agree with much you say. The attitude of most of the anti Israeli posters makes it impossible to have any intelligent discussion.
Mrr T said:
Slaav your comment is totally disingenuous. Glumfotock said why its highly unlikely Israel will accept a 1 state solution without a majority of Jews. You then started off about how Israel can only achieve a 1 state solution by wiping out the existing Arab populations of Gaza and the West Bank, completely ignored Glumfotock' s comment about a 2 state solution.
Glumfotock can I suggest you juts let the thread die while I agree with much you say. The attitude of most of the anti Israeli posters makes it impossible to have any intelligent discussion.
A minor point - Glum's comments about the 2-state solution are either deliberately misleading or he doesn't know the background.Glumfotock can I suggest you juts let the thread die while I agree with much you say. The attitude of most of the anti Israeli posters makes it impossible to have any intelligent discussion.
Rabin's assasination wasn't anything to do with the disenagagement from Gaza. It was because Israeli extremists weren't happy with what Rabin was trying to achieve. Grum seems to be suggesting that it's ok / acceptable for Israel not to make peace because it upsets Israeli terrorists.
The 2nd Intifada also had nothing to do with Gaza. It started because of Sharon's visit to the Al Aqsa Mosque / Temple Mount. he did this for political purposes and he achieved what he wanted. He became PM thereby creating yet another barrier towards peace.
So, based on the above two examples, it's almost like saying Israel can't make peace with the Palestinians because the Right and Extreme Right find it unacceptable. The phrase that springs to mind is "No 5hit sherlock".
Can you maybe see a pattern here?
With regards to the disengagement of Gaza again this wasn't some planned withdrawal or agreement as part of a wider peace process. Israel left because it was militarily impossible to protect its Settlements. It simply moved the Settlers to the WB. So what sort of message does this send to some Palestinians? Armed resistance is the only thing that Israel will respond to - not exactly conducive to a lasting peace solution and playing straight into the hands of Hamas.
As has been stated ad infinitum Israel (at least the current Govt.) doesnt want a 2 state solution which, logically leaves a 1-state solution. Which means that either the Palestinians will be bombed and shot until they decide to leave or they will need to accept 2nd class status.
Countdown said:
As has been stated ad infinitum Israel (at least the current Govt.) doesnt want a 2 state solution which, logically leaves a 1-state solution. Which means that either the Palestinians will be bombed and shot until they decide to leave or they will need to accept 2nd class status.
You the Israeli government policy as has defined by the rabid anti Israeli brigade on here.I doubt you or I am briefed on the policies of the current Israeli government.
Do keep posting your one sided and one dimensional views so I can continue to ignore them.
Countdown said:
A minor point - Glum's comments about the 2-state solution are either deliberately misleading or he doesn't know the background.
Really? Don't think they are!Countdown said:
Rabin's assasination wasn't anything to do with the disenagagement from Gaza. It was because Israeli extremists weren't happy with what Rabin was trying to achieve. Grum seems to be suggesting that it's ok / acceptable for Israel not to make peace because it upsets Israeli terrorists.
Rubbish! Rabin was assassinated because he signed the Oslo accord. Part of that accord was the disengagement and withdrawal from the West Bank (OK not Gaza but the same principle). Amir (the assassin) believed that an Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank would deny Jews their “biblical heritage which they had reclaimed by establishing settlements.”Countdown said:
The 2nd Intifada also had nothing to do with Gaza. It started because of Sharon's visit to the Al Aqsa Mosque / Temple Mount. he did this for political purposes and he achieved what he wanted. He became PM thereby creating yet another barrier towards peace.
The point I was making was that once the troops were removed the PLO were free to start it and thereby causing Israel to have to reoccupy land that it had already won and then given up. A pull out runs the risk of fighting for the same land all over again. Now this isnt "deliberately misleading" and I would suggest that you have no idea of the wider causes and results of events other than looking them up on Wikipedia.Countdown said:
So, based on the above two examples, it's almost like saying Israel can't make peace with the Palestinians because the Right and Extreme Right find it unacceptable. The phrase that springs to mind is "No 5hit sherlock".
Can you maybe see a pattern here?
With regards to the disengagement of Gaza again this wasn't some planned withdrawal or agreement as part of a wider peace process. Israel left because it was militarily impossible to protect its Settlements. It simply moved the Settlers to the WB. So what sort of message does this send to some Palestinians? Armed resistance is the only thing that Israel will respond to - not exactly conducive to a lasting peace solution and playing straight into the hands of Hamas.
As has been stated ad infinitum Israel (at least the current Govt.) doesnt want a 2 state solution which, logically leaves a 1-state solution. Which means that either the Palestinians will be bombed and shot until they decide to leave or they will need to accept 2nd class status.
And, once again, I ask the question: Can you maybe see a pattern here?
With regards to the disengagement of Gaza again this wasn't some planned withdrawal or agreement as part of a wider peace process. Israel left because it was militarily impossible to protect its Settlements. It simply moved the Settlers to the WB. So what sort of message does this send to some Palestinians? Armed resistance is the only thing that Israel will respond to - not exactly conducive to a lasting peace solution and playing straight into the hands of Hamas.
As has been stated ad infinitum Israel (at least the current Govt.) doesnt want a 2 state solution which, logically leaves a 1-state solution. Which means that either the Palestinians will be bombed and shot until they decide to leave or they will need to accept 2nd class status.
"Countdown, have you ever been to the Middle East? Do you have any grounding or experience of the people involved?"
2nd time of asking!
TheRealFingers99 said:
Go crawl into your foxhole. You keep making your promises, keep breaking them. If you post rubbish, I'll take the piss out of it. And I'll remind you, again, that I'm not the one who silenced an opposing voice by calling him a kiddie fiddler. A man would apologise.
And a MAN wouldn't keep make s
t up. I never called him that now did I???? Hmmmm DID I? Did I write "you are a kiddie fiddler"????? DID I?????????MORON!
Mrr T said:
Glumfotock can I suggest you juts let the thread die while I agree with much you say. The attitude of most of the anti Israeli posters makes it impossible to have any intelligent discussion.
Sadly I feel you are right. The Anti Israel junta on here are so blind and lacking in a basic knowledge of the region and it's problems that it is laughable. Getting your education from Wikipedia is never to be recommended.Mrr T said:
You the Israeli government policy as has defined by the rabid anti Israeli brigade on here.
I doubt you or I am briefed on the policies of the current Israeli government.
Do keep posting your one sided and one dimensional views so I can continue to ignore them.
Ummm... not as "defined on here". As defined by Netanyahu openly admitting it. Feel free to comment or ignore my posts as you see fit (as I am doing with others), I would just suggest that you do some research before commenting.I doubt you or I am briefed on the policies of the current Israeli government.
Do keep posting your one sided and one dimensional views so I can continue to ignore them.
Edited by Countdown on Monday 1st December 13:08
Mrr T said:
You the Israeli government policy as has defined by the rabid anti Israeli brigade on here.
I doubt you or I am briefed on the policies of the current Israeli government.
Do keep posting your one sided and one dimensional views so I can continue to ignore them.
The Israeli policy as defined, in the Israeli press, by members of the Israeli government. It really is that cut and dried. Bibi, Livni, Bennett are all opposed to what the West regards as a two state solution. I doubt you or I am briefed on the policies of the current Israeli government.
Do keep posting your one sided and one dimensional views so I can continue to ignore them.
netanyahu stated in an interview a while back (about july ,in hebrew in one of the papers,as usual not reported in the guardian/independant etc) ,he is not opposed to a 2 state solution,he just thinks it is impossible as to allow the palestinians sovereignty over the west bank as it is impossible for israel from a security viewpoint.History and the geography of the area means that he is unfortunately probably right.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff