Pleae feel free to comment.
Debate here.
Pleae feel free to comment.
Debate here.
Last edited by Vince Noir; March 20, 2009 at 09:27 AM.
I approve of your first post. It's well done, well organized and clean.
I think that Gaza should be bigger and there should be internation zone of some sort to connect the Gaza and West Bank
Sometimes both sides are wrong. Unfortunately most people do not understand this and argue endlessly.
By law, ethics, and justice, Israel should recognize the right of return, as well as returning all personal homes, farms, and businesses taken.
Since there are over 10 million Palestinians, and only 5 million Jews, the problem is that Israel then would likely cease to exist as a political entity.
However, as a counter offer, Israel could offer monetary compensation and real estate trades, that the Palestinians may find acceptible.
But it would cost a great deal.
There are over a million illegally confiscated properties, each worth at least $10,000 or so.
That is over $10 billion.
I think Israel would prefer war.
Not only are they unwilling to pay that much, but they want more instead of less.
I think they want to drive the Palestinians off their homes as well eventually.
And the US would no longer be giving Israel $5 billion a year if there was peace.
The maps are comparing Palestinian owned lands and Jewish owned lands at 1946, and then compares soppusedly Palestinian owned land (private land) to Israeli lands (lands where Israel have sovereignity upon). Then it compares Israel's sovereignity areas with Palestinian administration areas. Therefore, one can understand that the map is confusing different things, and mispresent the past.However, what is undeniable is the clear expansion of land shown on the map.
Sigh...
Valentin II posted this.Your argument falls right of the bat when you consider the territories Israel took during the war of independence as "occupied". When Israel captured these territories from a nation that didn't even have the chance to exist, from an entity without any authority or representation. It has, for all intents and purposes, annexed them. This was part of the peace deal
The modern world doesn't function like this. Countries don't go on technicalities, break international agreements and then conquer and ethnically cleanse territories. This is a political as well as a moral issue. It stems from the severely anti-Arab theory that "there's no such thing as a Palestinian".
Death be not proud, though some have called thee
Mighty and dreadful, for, thou art not so.
Well, luckily enough, Israel has conquered a territory belonged to nobody, and it is preferctly legal to do so by the self-claimed international law.
Sigh...
Except under international law, that territory was mandated for a Palestinian state which is why all the countries of the world, including the USA and UK, consider the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem as "occupied territories".
As a side note, it's important to mention that the Arabs as well as Hamas and Iran have decided to recognize Israel and establish peaceful relations with it if it withdraws from the Palestinian territories that it captured in 1967 - meaning that it can keep its "spoils of war" of 1948.
Death be not proud, though some have called thee
Mighty and dreadful, for, thou art not so.
A Palestinian state has a vastly different meaning then the meaning 'Palestinian' had at the time of the mandate. The mandate, of course, was not for a Palestinian state in the manner of which we understand it today - and in fact, was not for anything. The existance of the mandate was to administrate the region until there will be a time local powers will be able to control and administrate the region themselves, it was not restricted to a Palestinian state frame whatsoever.Except under international law, that territory was mandated for a Palestinian state which is why all the countries of the world, including the USA and UK, consider the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem as "occupied territories".
You are misleading everyone on this forum. Hamas, as well as Iran, have never expresesd any will to recognize Israel in any form at any time.As a side note, it's important to mention that the Arabs as well as Hamas and Iran have decided to recognize Israel and establish peaceful relations with it if it withdraws from the Palestinian territories that it captured in 1967 - meaning that it can keep its "spoils of war" of 1948.
Sigh...
Valentin's map is too damn big.
Yeas, osry for that. If you find me a smaller one please post it here.
Notice that I was refering to the lands gained in the war of independance (1948), not the contravercial gains of 67.
Ok, I'll stop posting here now. Just wanted to make things clear.
Born to be wild - live to outgrow it (Lao Tzu)
Someday you will die and somehow something's going to steal your carbon
In contrast to the efforts of tiny Israel to make contributions to the world so as to better mankind, one has to ask what have those who have strived to eliminate Israel from the face of the earth done other than to create hate and bloodshed.
You are misleading the board. In November, 2008 Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh, 'Prime Minister' of the Palestinian Territories and de facto prime minister in Gaza, stated that the group, Hamas, was willing to accept a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders and has offered Israel a long-term truce. Which was of course was rejected by Israel. Gotta keep bringing those settlers in!
Excatly, and the debate is about these "controversial" gains. That of which you seem to have completely ignore in my post. I can see this already getting off-topic. I'll quote myself from the debate:
You didn't really answer my points in the debate. I am not here to dispute the founding of Israel, shady as it may be. The legal presentation can not be refuted. It is fact. You ignored almost every point I made on the grounds that:Now, discussing Israel's right to exist is another matter alltogether. One that I do not refute. However, what is undeniable is the clear expansion of land shown on the map.
Says who? You?...The chance to exist? An entity without any authroity? where are you gettting this nonsense from, the Jerusalem Post? I'll respond to the debate later, I am occupied right now. I will tear your argument apart like the illogical, unsupported, outstandingly subjective, legally and mathmatically incorrect tripe it is.Valentin:
Israel captured these territories from a nation that didn't even have the chance to exist, from an entity without any authority or representation
Dude, stick to the debate.
Born to be wild - live to outgrow it (Lao Tzu)
Someday you will die and somehow something's going to steal your carbon
In contrast to the efforts of tiny Israel to make contributions to the world so as to better mankind, one has to ask what have those who have strived to eliminate Israel from the face of the earth done other than to create hate and bloodshed.
Even if true, Hamas have never expressed any will to recognize Israel, which was my original point.You are misleading the board. In November, 2008 Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh, 'Prime Minister' of the Palestinian Territories and de facto prime minister in Gaza, stated that the group, Hamas, was willing to accept a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders and has offered Israel a long-term truce. Which was of course was rejected by Israel. Gotta keep bringing those settlers in!
Sigh...
I did read. Again, Hamas have never expressed any will to recognize Israel.
Sigh...
Only one i can find atm.
http://www.ynet.co.il/english/articl...249568,00.html
Dunno how reliable that site is but, oh well.
@Aziel
They said they would consider it. In the past they accepted the Arab League plan which included recognising Israel. At various numerous times they said they would recognise Israel. But you see they want Israel to concede before recognising them, and Israel wants them to recognise them before they concede, QED. Circle of death.