How Would You Solve the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict?

[RayManKiller3]

No, I'm not assuming anything. It might pay you to do some research before you go making wild assumptions of your own.

That was literally a question, not an assumption. I added POWs not to derail the thread, but because that is who they were executing in mass numbers as well.

You should think before jumping to assumptions. I didn't bother to read the rest of your post from there on.

 

[senojekips]

That was literally a question, not an assumption. I added POWs not to derail the thread, but because that is who they were executing in mass numbers as well.

You should think before jumping to assumptions. I didn't bother to read the rest of your post from there on.

Thats a relief, as it further reinforces my belief that people like yourself will never learn, it would force you to face the truth and move out of your comfort zone occasionally.

Why did you ask me, you never believe anything else I say?

 

[RayManKiller3]

Thats a relief, as it further reinforces my belief that people like yourself will never learn, it would force you to face the truth and move out of your comfort zone occasionally.

Why did you ask me, you never believe anything else I say?

No, I told you, I agree with almost everything you said. I just disagree on the solution you seem to be putting out. I stated why I disagree on it as well and stated what they need to get public opinion to favor such a resolution.

I was also stating to you how the average western citizens think (most U.S). I know Israel isn't such a innocent country, lots of people know it. They just will not agree to a 1 state solution, with it being Palestinian controlled. I don't agree that we should repeat Britain's mistake of setting up Israel and Palestinian states (taking land from the one to give to the other). They did it in an incorrect way and it has been like this for many years, so therefore I think it is silly to try reversing it.

Seeing how Arabs display such violence when it comes to a Jewish state that is extremely small, shows how venging they can be. I don't like vengeance, never have been able to understand it completely and completely disagree with it.

This is thanks to Arab relations with Western countries.Specifically; Libya, World Terrorism, Iraq, Afganistan, Egypt (to a lesser extent), and Pakistan. This is why majority of people will not support your solution whether it is legally backed or not.

I also disagree to a certain extent of the U.N/U.S being such a world police. Both should not force a country on anything unless it involves government sponsored deaths. Why haven't China been put on the list of Government to overthrow, they have more crackdowns than Libya and many deaths too; this shows how U.N will only pick on those they know they can handle.


That is why I kind of take U.N resolutions with a grain of salt except the ones Israel and/or Palestine accept.

 

[senojekips]

You continually put the cart before the horse.

It has already been shown here (several times) that it was the Zionists who started with terrorist acts against the Palestinians and sources have been supplied. Now that the Palis and their supporters have realised that it's an effective weapon and taken the lead in this type of warfare the Israelis and their supporters are crying foul.
So enough of the fallacy that the Arabs are somehow the "terrorists". The fact is, that the Palestinians have adopted it from the Israelis and just proved that they are, just far better at it, and now the Arab supporters of Palestine have found that it is one of the few effective ways a highly disadvantaged group can get attention of their oppressors.

It's too late, you have let the Genie out of the bottle.

The other point upon which the whole solution relies is that. It will not work unless justice is seen to be done, and anything that requires the Palestinians to give up their country to the Israelis is not just. As for whether the Israelis will accept this, is completely null and void just as the the acceptance of the Palestinians was, in 1947. No one really cares that their god supposedly told them it was theirs 2000 years ago. If there is no Justice there will be no solution, just more of the same aggravation that started the whole issue.

If the US is so supportive of Israel's right to a country of their own,... you give them some of your country. No,... you're just not quite that convinced are you?, but you will support their illegal occupation of someone else's country. Don't bother arguing that Israel is not illegal, as it has already been admitted by David Ben Gurion and others, that this is so, and Sources have been supplied.

You wonder why I want to ignore you, and that I refuse to take you seriously. Well, why do you constantly come back with arguments based on premises that have been proven to be false and provided sources to back my reasoning? You just go around in circles without a single valid point to support your argument.
This line of reasoning seems to be peculiarly popular with the Zionists, they seem to think that if they repeat a lie or distortion often enough it gradually becomes more valid, and that lies can be used to validate other lies.

It does not work. Come back with some points that have not already been disproved and you might have an argument worth debating.

 

[VDKMS]

It has already been shown here (several times) that it was the Zionists who started with terrorist acts against the Palestinians and sources have been supplied. Now that the Palis and their supporters have realised that it's an effective weapon and taken the lead in this type of warfare the Israelis and their supporters are crying foul.
So enough of the fallacy that the Arabs are somehow the "terrorists". The fact is, that the Palestinians have adopted it from the Israelis and just proved that they are, just far better at it, and now the Arab supporters of Palestine have found that it is one of the few effective ways a highly disadvantaged group can get attention of their oppressors.

Show me a date and what happend.

If the US is so supportive of Israel's right to a country of their own,... you give them some of your country. No,... you're just not quite that convinced are you?, but you will support their illegal occupation of someone else's country. Don't bother arguing that Israel is not illegal, as it has already been admitted by David Ben Gurion and others, that this is so, and Sources have been supplied.

You want the jews to live in another country, but when that country (because of the many jews?) supports Israel it isn't good either. You have a bird and cut of his wings and now you are complaining it can't fly!

It does not work. Come back with some points that have not already been disproved and you might have an argument worth debating.

So far you haven't proved much either. You're always talking about Un resolutions but you disregard the United Nations Security Council Resolution 69 of March 4, 1949. Almost all UN resolutions against Israel are non-binding. Those that were binding (demands) were fulfilled.

 

[MontyB]

Holy crap batman is this argument still going, how many times do you guys plan to repeat yourselves before it sinks in that you are both shouting but neither of you are listening?

I say screw the no genocide clause just nuke the damn region and move on and if you need a benefit from a nuclear exchange well the resulting ash cloud will help reduce global warming so we can all go back to polluting with reckless abandon.

 

[senojekips]

Holy crap batman is this argument still going, how many times do you guys plan to repeat yourselves before it sinks in that you are both shouting but neither of you are listening?

There's no limit MontyB. I just wish some new players would take the time to read the past posts and save us all some effort. I've given up on one because he can't remember what was posted more than two posts ago, and I'm just about to ignore the other. Yes, it's all fondly reminiscent of the old master of the "Circular argument" where one lie or distortion is thought to support another.

I say screw the no genocide clause just nuke the damn region and move on and if you need a benefit from a nuclear exchange well the resulting ash cloud will help reduce global warming so we can all go back to polluting with reckless abandon.

It would certainly save the world from a lot of misery. Perhaps we could make it into a Nuclear Theme park for the kids.

 

[VDKMS]

Holy crap batman is this argument still going, how many times do you guys plan to repeat yourselves before it sinks in that you are both shouting but neither of you are listening?

I say screw the no genocide clause just nuke the damn region and move on and if you need a benefit from a nuclear exchange well the resulting ash cloud will help reduce global warming so we can all go back to polluting with reckless abandon.

In real life it is still going after approx 100 years. I learned a lot though. Some arguments were very difficult to counter. When I joined this tread I was in favor of Israel, now I am pro, thanks to one poster.
The results are also the same like in real life.

 

[MontyB]

In real life it is still going after approx 100 years. I learned a lot though. Some arguments were very difficult to counter. When I joined this tread I was in favor of Israel, now I am pro, thanks to one poster.
The results are also the same like in real life.

I am going to be honest with you I don't think you know what you are "pro" as you are both carrying on an argument independent of the other guys argument it is absolutely bizarre to try and follow.

I tend to identify more with Senojekips argument than yours for one simple reason:
I do not believe the Jews that "immigrated" from Europe have any claim to the region other than a religious one (and as I am a borderline atheist I find that a very weak argument).
You have already accepted that Palestinians have a genetic claim to the region and as there have also been Jews living in the region side by side with the Arabs/Palestinians there are also Jews with just as strong a claim to the area but the ones that have "immigrated" are nothing more than colonists who have replaced the locals by force and now they seem to believe that being the majority justifies expansion under the guise of religious mumbo jumbo.

To me it is like the worlds Catholics being invited to come and live in the Vatican and then the Vatican using that as a pretext to start taking over parts of Rome because after all it was part of the Papal States in history or if you want it is a very similar strategy to that of Germany's take over of the Sudatenland and then the subsequent take over of the rest of Czechoslovakia.

Where I separate from Spike is that I do not believe a one state solution will ever be reached in one sitting short of Israel being bombed into submission they will never come to that agreement therefore in my opinion the only answer is one more along the post WW2 German partitioning with Israel being pushed back to its original borders and two Palestinian States being created to accommodate the Hamas/PLO split with a view to uniting these two states in the near future and a single state being made from all 3 after a couple of hundred years of peace.

Anyway that will be my post for the next 5 or so pages I will let you and Spike get back to posting...

 

[VDKMS]

I do not believe the Jews that "immigrated" from Europe have any claim to the region other than a religious one (and as I am a borderline atheist I find that a very weak argument).

But you can't deny that they came to Palestine legally. The first settlers didn't push the local population out. They bought uninhabited land and cultivated it. The British introduced personal landownership, wich the Palestinians refused, and by doing so the Jews were able to buy land from the absentee landowners.

You have already accepted that Palestinians have a genetic claim to the region and as there have also been Jews living in the region side by side with the Arabs/Palestinians there are also Jews with just as strong a claim to the area but the ones that have "immigrated" are nothing more than colonists who have replaced the locals by force and now they seem to believe that being the majority justifies expansion under the guise of religious mumbo jumbo.

I've said from in the beginning that the best solution was the 1967 borders. Illegal settlements must be removed. And they have shown that it is possible with a good peace accord (Egypt and Jordan never had fights with Israel after the accord).

To me it is like the worlds Catholics being invited to come and live in the Vatican and then the Vatican using that as a pretext to start taking over parts of Rome because after all it was part of the Papal States in history or if you want it is a very similar strategy to that of Germany's take over of the Sudatenland and then the subsequent take over of the rest of Czechoslovakia.

It's different. The land where the Palestinans lived was ruled by the British and the UN split it up. This was conquered land from the Turks, not the liberation of a state called Palestine. Both side lobbied very heavy. The Jews ended up getting less than they wanted and the Palestinians wanted it all and refused what was offered, hereby creating a piece of land that belonged to whom? Morally you could say the Palestinians but legally? If the Palestinans had accepted the UN offer and the Arabs didn't attack Israel then there wouldn't be illegal settlements (or it was an act of war by the Israelis). Then there wouldn't be so many refugees. By refusing they destroyed the lives of two generations! For what? For a piece of land? We live in a global economy. Me and Sepo both don't live in the land where we were born.

Where I separate from Spike is that I do not believe a one state solution will ever be reached in one sitting short of Israel being bombed into submission they will never come to that agreement therefore in my opinion the only answer is one more along the post WW2 German partitioning with Israel being pushed back to its original borders and two Palestinian States being created to accommodate the Hamas/PLO split with a view to uniting these two states in the near future and a single state being made from all 3 after a couple of hundred years of peace.

Well, if that was possible I fully agree with you. But then comes religion, and we can start all over again. The world would be a much better of without religions.

Anyway that will be my post for the next 5 or so pages I will let you and Spike get back to posting...

Thanks :salute:

 

[MontyB]

Well, if that was possible I fully agree with you. But then comes religion, and we can start all over again. The world would be a much better of without religions.

Hence the nuking option, not only do we solve some of the global warming issue we also solve a large chunk of the terrorism issue and then to top it all off we remove the birthplace of the 3 biggest killers of mankind in the last 2000 years Judaism, Christianity and Islam, hell with a good wind we can park a cloud over Somalia and make a sizeable dent in famine, pestilence and piracy as well.

 

[BritinBritain]

Hence the nuking option, not only do we solve some of the global warming issue we also solve a large chunk of the terrorism issue and then to top it all off we remove the birthplace of the 3 biggest killers of mankind in the last 2000 years Judaism, Christianity and Islam, hell with a good wind we can park a cloud over Somalia and make a sizeable dent in famine, pestilence and piracy as well.

Sounds like a plan.

 

[RayManKiller3]

Hence the nuking option, not only do we solve some of the global warming issue we also solve a large chunk of the terrorism issue and then to top it all off we remove the birthplace of the 3 biggest killers of mankind in the last 2000 years Judaism, Christianity and Islam, hell with a good wind we can park a cloud over Somalia and make a sizeable dent in famine, pestilence and piracy as well.

I fully disagree with you all on blaming religion. It isn't religion that is the cause, it is people and their interpretation of it.

I can say the same thing about guns being legal for public use and other such things. Guns aren't the cause for people killing one another, it is just what they use to do it.

I know a great deal of you are athiest and I respect that, but don't go trying to attack things that isn't the cause of it. It is people itself, if it wasn't religion then it would be something else that would be the banner for it.

People who kill over religion aren't truely religious or following what is being taught in it (not one of the 3 major religons; Christrianity, Judaism, and Islam anyways). It is human nature that is at fault here.

All assumptions that if there was no religion, then there will be less killing is based merely on no true evidence. Who is to actually say this with actual fact?

Whether you want to believe it or not, there is technically a "God" going by the dictionary meaning; Whether it was the Big Bang or some weird Microscopic organism. Something started life and whatever it was is "God"

Sorry for going off-topic, but those statements needed correcting.

I already spoke what I believe needed to be done to resolve the conflict, but some people contest it. Surely we must agree that one of them need to take the real first step to fixing this problem.

Considering Israel have stepped up and showed the world it "tried" to resolve the conflict, Palestine needs to show that it is "trying" to al well. Whether you all like it or not, people who actually research all of this with such passion is in the minority. The ones that need to be satified are the majority, so they need to appeal to them by showing some hints of trying to do anything about it.

Anyone new person who decides to read up on the situation will find much more problems with Palestine than Israel. Most people DO NOT like Israel's harsh "relalitory" actions, but they see it as a lesser evil; you can NOT dispute this, otherwise Palestine would be a state at this very moment.

This is why I state that it is Palestine's turn to try to better themselves, unfortunately (for them) in order to do this, they must appeal to those who have the power to do something about it. This being, U.S, UK, and France with other European nations backing it.

In order to appeal to the U.S they must condemn anyone who threatens peace even if its their own people. At least when Israeli terrorists were doing what they did, it did not (they claim) aim at civillians. They aimed at Arab militants and British forces. This is in comparison to the Palestinian terrorism.

I also agree that Israel should not be forced or be responsible to take back all the refugees that left when the Arab armies were coming in. Why? Because there is no true record of why they left, all we know is they left. It is not too late to try such a record because they can easily lie. They left of their own free will.

 

[MontyB]

I fully disagree with you all on blaming religion. It isn't religion that is the cause, it is people and their interpretation of it.

I can say the same thing about guns being legal for public use and other such things. Guns aren't the cause for people killing one another, it is just what they use to do it.

I know a great deal of you are athiest and I respect that, but don't go trying to attack things that isn't the cause of it. It is people itself, if it wasn't religion then it would be something else that would be the banner for it.

People who kill over religion aren't truely religious or following what is being taught in it (not one of the 3 major religons; Christrianity, Judaism, and Islam anyways). It is human nature that is at fault here.

All assumptions that if there was no religion, then there will be less killing is based merely on no true evidence. Who is to actually say this with actual fact?

Whether you want to believe it or not, there is technically a "God" going by the dictionary meaning; Whether it was the Big Bang or some weird Microscopic organism. Something started life and whatever it was is "God"

Sorry for going off-topic, but those statements needed correcting.

Bollocks, Religion is nothing more than an institutionalised explanation of the things man can not understand and it is institution that has caused nothing but misery in this world to argue that it is man's interpretation that is wrong belies the fact that religion has no physical means of validation so it has nothing to offer but interpretation.

 

[RayManKiller3]

Bollocks, Religion is nothing more than an institutionalised explanation of the things man can not understand and it is institution that has caused nothing but misery in this world to argue that it is man's interpretation that is wrong belies the fact that religion has no physical means of validation so it has nothing to offer but interpretation.

I didn't say religion was true or not, that is essentially one's belief. All I am saying is that saying religion is responsible for mankinds problems is a false belief itself. Humans are responsible for human's problem. Lots of things have no physical means of validation, but that do not mean it isn't true. You can read a book right now and come up with opinion about it then give it to another and he/she will read it and draw up something opposite, this would make you wonder if you read the same book. This happens even if the book was clear in its intentions, so it is fact that it is man's interpretation that is at fault.

Sticks, stones, the earth, guns, and other forms of material can be said the same thing about. If you believe what you said up there, then it should also be same for these things.

Anyway, I spoke more in my post so it wouldn't derail the thread. I knew one of you would say something like that.

 

[senojekips]

“Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing bad things,
but for good people to do bad things, it needs religion.”

Steven Weinberg

 

[BritinBritain]

I always found it mind boggling that the Mafia and Northern Irish terrorist groups would think nothing of murdering someone, then go to church on Sunday.

 

[VDKMS]

I fully disagree with you all on blaming religion. It isn't religion that is the cause, it is people and their interpretation of it.

I can say the same thing about guns being legal for public use and other such things. Guns aren't the cause for people killing one another, it is just what they use to do it.

I know a great deal of you are athiest and I respect that, but don't go trying to attack things that isn't the cause of it. It is people itself, if it wasn't religion then it would be something else that would be the banner for it.

People who kill over religion aren't truely religious or following what is being taught in it (not one of the 3 major religons; Christrianity, Judaism, and Islam anyways). It is human nature that is at fault here.

All assumptions that if there was no religion, then there will be less killing is based merely on no true evidence. Who is to actually say this with actual fact?

Whether you want to believe it or not, there is technically a "God" going by the dictionary meaning; Whether it was the Big Bang or some weird Microscopic organism. Something started life and whatever it was is "God"

Sorry for going off-topic, but those statements needed correcting.

Both guns and religion are manmade. Guns are harmless as long as you do not pull the trigger, but they are not made for decoration. Same for religion. They claim to be peacefull but most people died because of it. Let's face it, both are ment to gain power. Why do you think that catholics must go to the priest for confession? To be cured? No. So that the priest knows everything, and knowledge is power. Same for the Muslims. Why do they have to pray so many times? Brainwashing so they do what the clerics tell them to do. I don't know about Judaism but it'll propably be the same.
If you use religion for your personal enhancement of your live, it's Ok, it can even give you more strenght to overcome problems but don't listen to the guy that preaches it.

I already spoke what I believe needed to be done to resolve the conflict, but some people contest it. Surely we must agree that one of them need to take the real first step to fixing this problem.

Considering Israel have stepped up and showed the world it "tried" to resolve the conflict, Palestine needs to show that it is "trying" to al well. Whether you all like it or not, people who actually research all of this with such passion is in the minority. The ones that need to be satified are the majority, so they need to appeal to them by showing some hints of trying to do anything about it.

Anyone new person who decides to read up on the situation will find much more problems with Palestine than Israel. Most people DO NOT like Israel's harsh "relalitory" actions, but they see it as a lesser evil; you can NOT dispute this, otherwise Palestine would be a state at this very moment.

This is why I state that it is Palestine's turn to try to better themselves, unfortunately (for them) in order to do this, they must appeal to those who have the power to do something about it. This being, U.S, UK, and France with other European nations backing it.

In order to appeal to the U.S they must condemn anyone who threatens peace even if its their own people. At least when Israeli terrorists were doing what they did, it did not (they claim) aim at civillians. They aimed at Arab militants and British forces. This is in comparison to the Palestinian terrorism.

I also agree that Israel should not be forced or be responsible to take back all the refugees that left when the Arab armies were coming in. Why? Because there is no true record of why they left, all we know is they left. It is not too late to try such a record because they can easily lie. They left of their own free will.

I fully agree.

 

[senojekips]

Let's face it, both are ment to gain power. Why do you think that catholics must go to the priest for confession? To be cured? No. So that the priest knows everything, and knowledge is power. Same for the Muslims. Why do they have to pray so many times? Brainwashing so they do what the clerics tell them to do. I don't know about Judaism but it'll propably be the same.

Well,... it appears that we are both reading off the same page on this subject anyway. However, if the average follower of religion is said to have used it to improve himself, all I can say is that I would have hated to see him had he not.

I can honestly say I've never met a man of religion whose lifestyle I would emulate.

 

[MontyB]

I already spoke what I believe needed to be done to resolve the conflict, but some people contest it. Surely we must agree that one of them need to take the real first step to fixing this problem.

Considering Israel have stepped up and showed the world it "tried" to resolve the conflict, Palestine needs to show that it is "trying" to al well. Whether you all like it or not, people who actually research all of this with such passion is in the minority. The ones that need to be satified are the majority, so they need to appeal to them by showing some hints of trying to do anything about it.

I will make it easy on you:
What has Israel offered to make peace?
How have they tried to resolve the conflict?

Here is the only "offer" I have seen in the last yew years...

'Netanyahu offers PA state within temporary borders'
By JPOST.COM STAFF
10/30/2010 18:00

'Al-Hayat': PM offered deal by which state would be formed within security fence for 10 year period with Israeli presence in 40% of W. Bank.

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu is making efforts to convince the Obama administration to accept a plan by which a Palestinian state would be established within temporary borders for a period of ten years, leaving difficult issues such as refugees and Jerusalem to be decided in future negotiations, London-based Arabic language daily Al-Hayat reported on Saturday.

According to Palestinian sources quoted by Al-Hayat, the temporary borders of the Palestinian State would coincide with the current security fence.

Under the proposed plan Israel would be allowed to maintain control over the Palestinian state's eastern border, on the western border with Israel, on Jerusalem and on water sources.

According to the Palestinian source "what Netanyahu proposed to us is a gradual solution which will continue for more than 10 years, that will leave Jerusalem and the big settlements under Israeli control, that will lease Israel the Jordan Valley for 40 years and will leave Israeli army bases at the entrances of Palestinian cities."

The plan would leave some 40% of the West Bank under Israeli control during the ten year interim period.

According to the report Netanyahu offered the plan to Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and was discussing the plan with the US.

I am sorry but this is not a peace agreement it is asking the Palestinians to surrender and as a reward they will get to pick over the carcass of the West Bank for the bits that Israel doesn't want , to deliberately offer unacceptable terms is never going to bring peace nor should it ever be considered genuine.

So other than this sham of an offer what is Israel doing for peace?