|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
bigverne
Joined: 12 May 2004
|
 Posted: Tue Oct 04, 2005 3:29 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Quote: |
| Hmm how ironic -- you are one of the people who loves bibi netanyahu for saying a Palestianian state should never come into existance in the first place |
You're clearly an imbecile who hasn't been paying attention. I haven't once even mentioned Netanyahu and I support a Palestinian state, if they agree to recognise Israel
| Quote: |
| More than half of the over 3000 palestanians killed in the recent intifida were under the age of 18, and the majority were unarmed. |
The fact that they were involved in an 'intifada' reveals that they were not innocent civilians indiscrimantely targetted by the Israelis.
| Quote: |
| anybody can rationalise facts to suit themselves... its quite sad really you just make up things are you go along... |
Like what?
| Quote: |
| I met many jewish people who are otherwise liberal but endlessly make up excuses for the israeli regime |
Why should they need to make up excuses for their regime? Are the only Jews worthy of respect those that criticise their nation?
| Quote: |
| the middle easts only ethnocracy --- yes sorry to burst your bubble : its not a democracy). |
People in Israel are allowed to vote for the government of their choice. Hence, it is a democracy. So, what if it is an 'ethnocracy'? (we usually call these nation states, but I guess that doesn't fit into your anti-Israel agenda). It is Jewish state, a homeland for the Jewish people who were almost wiped out, and who are surrounded by hostile Arabs.
| Quote: |
Psycholgists would say this is a defence mechanism, that makes human rationalise various facts to fit into something when one is in denial about something one has spent so much energy trying to believe in.
|
You idiots you usually resort to psychobabble in substitute for proper argument.
| Quote: |
| Zionism was born out of the colonalist 19th century. its core ideals and philsophy are an anethma to modern 21st century liberal democratic thought. |
Israel is here to stay. Deal with it.
| Quote: |
| The dream of a zionist paradise died in 1967... |
Yes, that was when the Arab states ganged up on Israel only to get their arse handed to them, and they lost some land as a result. But it's all Israel's fault. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
bignate
Joined: 30 Apr 2003
Location: Hell's Ditch
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 04, 2005 4:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bigverne wrote: |
The fact that they were involved in an 'intifada' reveals that they were not innocent civilians indiscrimantely targetted by the Israelis. |
The IDF's own rules of engagement state they are not allowed to use deadly force, unless they are under a direct threat, how does an unarmed child constitute a direct threat...
| Quote: |
| You idiots you usually resort to psychobabble in substitute for proper argument. |
That was an excellent argument, an insult and a deflective statement. Sound. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
My 2 Cent
Joined: 03 Jun 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 04, 2005 4:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
sorry summer wine but i found it would take up too much of my time already... but okay... here goes.
BIGVERNE
| Quote: |
The fact that they were involved in an 'intifada' reveals that they were not innocent civilians indiscrimantely targetted by the Israelis. |
so those who protest an illegal occupation are 'guilty civilians'? according to the Vienna convention, it is ones basic human right to resist foreign occupation to assert one's right to self determination.
Israel is probably the world's only 'ethnocracy'... it's not a democracy. there are 6.8 million israelis and nearly 20% are 'Israeli Arabs' -- they are not equal citizens of the israeli state --- jobs, educucation, public sector etc, they face latent discrimation and always have done. Add the million and a half in a large prison in Gaza and the other 2.5 million plus in the West Bank, and you might start to see the big picture.
Explains why i mentioned 1967 before, when Israel launched a pre-emptive war and captured all this territory and people who lived in it...
now like the right wing fringe in Israel, you are willing to defend state-sponsored terrorism to the hilt, and are completly unwilling to see why making refugees out of refugess is morally repugnant, and political suicide for Israels political future and moral base to exist.
This is not 1948. Times have changed and things have moved on. The Arab world has many voices and debates, just like all socities in the world. The Arab League under the Saudi initiative have recognised Israel and as recently as 2002 offered full recognition of Israel as long as Israel would finally recognize international law.
Thats what this dispute is all about... respecting internatioal law.
The arab states have made clear that going back to the 67' borders and complyin with UNSC 242 would give Israel recognition. so in effect they have already given defacto recognition of israels exsitance. Jordan, Egypt, Morrocco, and last month Bahrain. Nearly all the other states are ready to sign on the dotted line -- some already reaped great financial dividends during the Oslo years but politcal forces unleashed since the intifida cant let them take advantage of Israel's tech advanced labor and industry, etc, as much as they would like to.
As you maybe aware most Arab regimes are autocractic in nature and sponsored by US Western interests so getting behind a palestainin banner keeps things ticking over, and stability for the status quo.... every tinpot regime in the middle east fears the 'arab street' so let them protest israel if it keeps them in power. T
| Quote: |
| You're clearly an imbecile who hasn't been paying attention. I haven't once even mentioned Netanyahu and I support a Palestinian state, if they agree to recognise Israel |
i not sure you have been paying attention acutally... i belive the palestinians recognised Israel in 1988, which lead to Oslo, while i already mentioned the Arab League iniative by the Saudis. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 04, 2005 6:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| so those who protest an illegal occupation are 'guilty civilians'? according to the Vienna convention, it is ones basic human right to resist foreign occupation to assert one's right to self determination. |
It depends. IF they are fighting to get Israel to end the occupation is one thing. if they are fighting to destory Israel it is another.
but lets not forget the occupation would be over if Arafat hadn't turned down Bill Clintons' peace offer.
| Quote: |
| Israel is probably the world's only 'ethnocracy'... it's not a democracy. there are 6.8 million israelis and nearly 20% are 'Israeli Arabs' -- they are not equal citizens of the israeli state --- jobs, educucation, public sector etc, they face latent discrimation and always have done. Add the million and a half in a large prison in Gaza and the other 2.5 million plus in the West Bank, and you might start to see the big picture. |
How do Israels' enemies treat their minorities? How did they treat Arab Jews?
There would be no occupation if Araft had said Yes.
| Quote: |
| Explains why i mentioned 1967 before, when Israel launched a pre-emptive war and captured all this territory and people who lived in it... |
| Quote: |
| On May 17, Nasser demanded that the U.N.E.F. evacuate the Sinai, a request with which UN Secretary-General U Thant complied, thus removing the international buffer which had existed along the Egyptian-Israeli border since 1957. [8]. The UN asked to move its force to Israel, but Israel refused to allow UN peacekeepers to deploy on its territory on their belief that it was a breach of the cease-fire agreement. Nasser then began the re-militarization of the Sinai, and concentrated tanks and troops on the border with Israel. On May 23, Egypt closured the Straits of Tiran to all shipments bound for Israel, thus blockading the Israeli port of Eilat at the northern end of the Gulf of Aqaba. Also, Nasser stated, "Under no circumstances can we permit the Israeli flag to pass through the Gulf of Aqaba." While most of Israel's commerce used Mediterranean ports, and, according to John Quigley, no Israeli-flag vessel had used the port of Eilat for the two years preceding June 1967, oil carried on non-Israeli flag vessels to Eilat was a very significant import.[9] [10] There were ambiguities, however, about how rigorous the blockade would be, particularly whether it would apply to non-Israeli flag vessels. Citing international law [11] Israel considered the closure of the straits to be illegal, and it had stated it would consider the blockade a casus belli in 1957 when it withdrew from the Sinai and Gaza.[12] The Arab States disputed Israel's right of passage through the Straits, noting that they had not signed the Territorial Sea Convention specifically because of article 16(4) which provided Israel with that right. [13] In the UN General Assembly debates immediately after the war, many nations argued that even if international law gave Israel the right of passage, Israel was not entitled to attack Egypt to assert it because the closure was not an "armed attack" as defined by article 51 of the UN Charter. Similarly, international law professor John Quigley argues that under the doctrine of proportionality, Israel would only be entitled to use such force as would be necessary to secure its right of passage. [14] |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_War
| Quote: |
| This is not 1948. Times have changed and things have moved on. The Arab world has many voices and debates, just like all socities in the world. The Arab League under the Saudi initiative have recognised Israel and as recently as 2002 offered full recognition of Israel as long as Israel would finally recognize international law. |
accept that Saudi Arabia demanded right of return for Palestinians who have never been to Israel.
| Quote: |
Saudi Crown prince Abdullah floated an Arab peace plan that was discussed and modified at am Arab League summit conference in Beirut in March of 2002. The plan calls for Israeli withdrawal from all territories occupied since 1967 and return of the Palestine refugees to Israel in return for recognition of Israel and normal relations. A similar plan was offered by Arab states at the armistice negotiations in 1949. The number of refugees to be returned is not specified. A section included at the insistence of Lebanon reads, " Assures the rejection of all forms of Palestinian patriation which conflict with the special circumstances of the Arab host countries" assuaging Lebanese fears of permanent settlement of Palestinians in Lebanon. Inclusion of this clause may indicate that something less than full return of the refugees is contemplated. UN General Assembly Resolution 194, mentioned in the plan, asserts the right of Palestinian refugees who are willing to live in peace with their neighbors to return to Israel. As there are currently over three million such refugees with an exceedingly high birthrate, literal implementation of return would eventually mean the end of the Jewish state of Israel. UN Security Council Resolution 242, passed in 1967, calls for Israeli withdrawal from territories occupied in the war of June 1967, but does not specify "all territories"
The King of Jordan and President of Egypt did not attend the summit. Palestinian Chairman Yasser Arafat was prevented from attending by the Israeli government. (translation by Reuters). Israeli reaction to the plan is lukewarm. |
http://www.mideastweb.org/saudipeace.htm
As Sari Nusseibeh former PLO head of Jeruselem said right of return is incompatable with accepting Israels right to exist.
| Quote: |
| Thats what this dispute is all about... respecting internatioal law. |
Doesn't 242 have a principle of land for peace, Not unilateral withdrawal for nothing.
| Quote: |
| The arab states have made clear that going back to the 67' borders and complyin with UNSC 242 would give Israel recognition. so in effect they have already given defacto recognition of israels exsitance. Jordan, Egypt, Morrocco, and last month Bahrain. Nearly all the other states are ready to sign on the dotted line -- some already reaped great financial dividends during the Oslo years but politcal forces unleashed since the intifida cant let them take advantage of Israel's tech advanced labor and industry, etc, as much as they would like to. |
they want right of return.
| Quote: |
| As you maybe aware most Arab regimes are autocractic in nature and sponsored by US Western interests so getting behind a palestainin banner keeps things ticking over, and stability for the status quo.... every tinpot regime in the middle east fears the 'arab street' so let them protest israel if it keeps them in power. T |
Sponsered by western interests? what are you talking about?
| Quote: |
| i not sure you have been paying attention acutally... i belive the palestinians recognised Israel in 1988, which lead to Oslo, while i already mentioned the Arab League iniative by the Saudis. |
Not if they demanded right of return they didn't. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
My 2 Cent
Joined: 03 Jun 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 06, 2005 2:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
| Quote: |
It depends. IF they are fighting to get Israel to end the occupation is one thing. if they are fighting to destory Israel it is another.
but lets not forget the occupation would be over if Arafat hadn't turned down Bill Clintons' peace offer. |
What offer? The discreditied '99%/89%/95%' and other outstanding issues at Camp David in 2000? Arafat couldn't accept that offer, but Baraks administation expired by the time many issues were resolved at Taba 5 months later.
| Quote: |
| Israel is probably the world's only 'ethnocracy'... it's not a democracy. there are 6.8 million israelis and nearly 20% are 'Israeli Arabs' -- they are not equal citizens of the israeli state --- jobs, educucation, public sector etc, they face latent discrimation and always have done. Add the million and a half in a large prison in Gaza and the other 2.5 million plus in the West Bank, and you might start to see the big picture. |
Joo:
| Quote: |
How do Israels' enemies treat their minorities? How did they treat Arab Jews?
There would be no occupation if Araft had said Yes. |
Many Arab states treat their minorities quite badly actually, but the arabs dont propagate an image contary to this sorry fact.
Joo
| Quote: |
| On May 17, Nasser demanded that the U.N.E.F. evacuate the Sinai, a request with which UN Secretary-General U Thant complied, thus removing the international buffer which had existed along the Egyptian-Israeli border since 1957. [8]. The UN asked to move its force to Israel, but Israel refused to allow UN peacekeepers to deploy on its territory on their belief that it was a breach of the cease-fire agreement. Nasser then began the re-militarization of the Sinai, and concentrated tanks and troops on the border with Israel. On May 23, Egypt closured the Straits of Tiran to all shipments bound for Israel, thus blockading the Israeli port of Eilat at the northern end of the Gulf of Aqaba. Also, Nasser stated, "Under no circumstances can we permit the Israeli flag to pass through the Gulf of Aqaba." While most of Israel's commerce used Mediterranean ports, and, according to John Quigley, no Israeli-flag vessel had used the port of Eilat for the two years preceding June 1967, oil carried on non-Israeli flag vessels to Eilat was a very significant import.[9] [10] There were ambiguities, however, about how rigorous the blockade would be, particularly whether it would apply to non-Israeli flag vessels. Citing international law [11] Israel considered the closure of the straits to be illegal, and it had stated it would consider the blockade a casus belli in 1957 when it withdrew from the Sinai and Gaza.[12] The Arab States disputed Israel's right of passage through the Straits, noting that they had not signed the Territorial Sea Convention specifically because of article 16(4) which provided Israel with that right. [13] In the UN General Assembly debates immediately after the war, many nations argued that even if international law gave Israel the right of passage, Israel was not entitled to attack Egypt to assert it because the closure was not an "armed attack" as defined by article 51 of the UN Charter. Similarly, international law professor John Quigley argues that under the doctrine of proportionality, Israel would only be entitled to use such force as would be necessary to secure its right of passage. [14] |
On April 7, 1967, a minor border incident escalated into a full-scale aerial battle over the Golan Heights, resulting in the loss of six Syrian MiG-21s to Israeli Air Force (IAF) aircraft, and the latter's flight over Damascus. [3] Drysdale and Hinnebusch report that Israeli tanks were concentrated on Syria's border and in a radio address Yitzhak Rabin threatened to march on Damascus to overthrow the Syrian government. [4] In early May the Israeli cabinet authorized a limited strike against Syria and Rabin's renewed demand for a large-scale strike to discredit or topple the Ba'ath regime was opposed by Eshkol. [5] Border incidents multiplied and numerous Arab leaders, both political and military, called for an end to Israeli reprisals. Egypt, then already trying to seize a central position in the Arab world under Nasser, accompanied these declarations with plans to re-militarize the Sinai. Syria shared these views, although it did not prepare for an immediate invasion. The Soviet Union actively backed the military needs of the Arab states. It was later revealed that on 13 May a Soviet intelligence report given by Nikolai Podgorny to Anwar Sadat falsely claimed that Israeli troops were massing along the Syrian border. [6] [7]
Above, was the preamble to the same source you used! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_War
So the background is the six day war was inevitable for over 2 years prior, as tensions rose step by step, day by day. Israel called a bluff by saying this was a war for its very existance.
Begin himself later admitted Israel started the war, Rabin later admitted that the 2 Egyptian army divisions Nasser sent to Sinai were not enough to lauch a war, and that both Israel and Eqypt knew this. The US state dept. also has recordeed in its archives that Israel has been looking for an excuse to attack, and that WHEN a war starts, Israel will win it in a week.
| Quote: |
| This is not 1948. Times have changed and things have moved on. The Arab world has many voices and debates, just like all socities in the world. The Arab League under the Saudi initiative have recognised Israel and as recently as 2002 offered full recognition of Israel as long as Israel would finally recognize international law. |
Joo
| Quote: |
| accept that Saudi Arabia demanded right of return for Palestinians who have never been to Israel. |
The right of return issue was ironed almost to full agreement in Taba (look through harretzdaily archives for articles relating to it). The saudi plan had nothing to do with right of return. It mentioned that the refugee issue should be dealt with but no specifics - it did mention that full Arab recognition and diplomatic relations with Israel would follow a land for peace settlement with the palestanians.
Wikepiedia: Saudi Peace:
A just solution to the Palestinian Refugee problem, to be agreed upon in accordance with section 11 of UN General Assembly Resolution 194.
194 called for right of return.
Here is article 11:
11. Resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible.
Israel already had a compensation deal worked out and the palestianians had agreed to this (Taba). Furthermore a small number of refugees would be allowed to return as a humanitarian gesture by Israel.
Joo
| Quote: |
As Sari Nusseibeh former PLO head of Jeruselem said right of return is incompatable with accepting Israels right to exist. |
Sure, but so is illegal occupation of another people.
| Quote: |
| Thats what this dispute is all about... respecting internatioal law. |
Joo
| Quote: |
Doesn't 242 have a principle of land for peace, Not unilateral withdrawal for nothing. |
No 242 is not a peace treaty. it a conclusion under international law that calls for Israel to leave all occupied land.
| Quote: |
| The arab states have made clear that going back to the 67' borders and complyin with UNSC 242 would give Israel recognition. so in effect they have already given defacto recognition of israels exsitance. Jordan, Egypt, Morrocco, and last month Bahrain. Nearly all the other states are ready to sign on the dotted line -- some already reaped great financial dividends during the Oslo years but politcal forces unleashed since the intifida cant let them take advantage of Israel's tech advanced labor and industry, etc, as much as they would like to. |
| Quote: |
| they want right of return. |
They want the Palestanian issue resolved. They are tired or hearing about it, and want to get on with making money and becoming rich. Possible Trade with Israel, and regional stability is a much better option for most Arabs these days.
| Quote: |
| As you maybe aware most Arab regimes are autocractic in nature and sponsored by US Western interests so getting behind a palestainin banner keeps things ticking over, and stability for the status quo.... every tinpot regime in the middle east fears the 'arab street' so let them protest israel if it keeps them in power. |
Joo
| Quote: |
| Sponsered by western interests? what are you talking about? |
Many in fact most nasty Arab regimes are backed by Western powers - if the people protest --- make sure they vent against foreigners and imperialism, and not aganist the ruling regime themselves (same China/ Japan protests this year). In respect of stability and keeping a lid on revolutionary tendencies, this ultimately serves Western interests. Regardless the Arabs in the broader sence don't really care about the Palestanians as much as you might think.
| Quote: |
| i not sure you have been paying attention acutally... i belive the palestinians recognised Israel in 1988, which lead to Oslo, while i already mentioned the Arab League iniative by the Saudis. |
Joo
| Quote: |
| Not if they demanded right of return they didn't. |
The Saudi arab initiative didnt demand anything. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bigverne
Joined: 12 May 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 06, 2005 2:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Israel is probably the world's only 'ethnocracy'... it's not a democracy. there are 6.8 million israelis and nearly 20% are 'Israeli Arabs' -- they are not equal citizens of the israeli state |
Stop all this nonsense about 'ethnocracy'. In Holland, 90% of the people are Dutch. Does that make Holland an 'ethnocracy'? In fact, your silly buzzword could be extended to most of the nations in Europe and Asia, so it has little meaning.
Israel is a nation state, where Arab citizens have the same freedoms as their Israeli counterparts. Their treatment is far better than the treatment of religious minorities in most muslim countries. I'm sure they face discrimination, as minorities do everywhere, but this does not invalidate Israel's claim to being a democracy? No.
Israel is not perfect, and certainly has a hand in the ongoing strife. But absolving the Palestinians from any blame, excusing the deliberate targetting of civilians and demonising Israel as an 'ethnocracy' (as if this was anything new in world politics) is a highly biased viewpoint to take.
I think you are also highly naive if you think the Arab/muslim world is really ready to recognise Israel. Arafat himself was a great advocate of 'hudna', the Mohammedan concept of making peace with your enemy until your forces have grown strong enough to overwhelm them.
However, the USA needs to get involved, and put pressure on the Israelis to dismantle the settlements, while at the same time forcing Hamas to give up their terror campaign. It is obvious that the two sides, by themselves will never achieve peace. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
My 2 Cent
Joined: 03 Jun 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 06, 2005 3:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Stop all this nonsense about 'ethnocracy'. In Holland, 90% of the people are Dutch. Does that make Holland an 'ethnocracy'? In fact, your silly buzzword could be extended to most of the nations in Europe and Asia, so it has little meaning. |
Just because you haven't heard the term, and didn't care to think about it doesn't make it silly.
Considering that Israel portrays itself to be a democracy, unlike say, Saudi Arabia, it's odd that in the Jewish state (like in places like Saudi and north Africa) ones tribal or religious grouping direct citizenship, and political participation.
Behind Israels facade of democracy (independent courts, free press) the population are statified in a two tier system by ethnicity. Those who are unlucky to be non-jewish are excluded and marginilised.
Are ethic slavs barred from joining the Dutch mililairy or even say, civil service?
Israels 'democracy' is unique in this respect. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bigverne
Joined: 12 May 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 06, 2005 3:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
I'm sure ethnic slavs are allowed to join the military. But, then again, if Slavs had a penchant for blowing up people in cafes that might not be the case. Of course, Israel has to consider its security.
Also, Arab Israelis have the vote and there are Arab parties in the Knesset. It is the only democracy in the Middle East, and yet the most vilified by those on the Left. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
My 2 Cent
Joined: 03 Jun 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 06, 2005 4:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
since when were arab-israelis blowing up cafes? Thats news to me.
sounds like more pathtic apologising for Israel. You are stuggling to defend their wholly undemocratic polices, and desprately searching in vain for justifications. Again you spent much energy supporting israel unconditionallly already so this is not too surprising...
so you established that all arab citizens of israel (not talking bout palestanians here) undermine the state and really should not have equal rights in this democracy.
Maybe they should be 'tranferred' to palestanian areas so this Jewish democratic uptopia can be saved for all eternity?
thanks for clearing that up for me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bigverne
Joined: 12 May 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 06, 2005 4:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Are ethic slavs barred from joining the Dutch mililairy or even say, civil service? |
Now I'll admit that I don't have a great knowledge of Israel's military, but I'm pretty sure that Israeli Arabs are not 'barred' from the military, but are exempted from military service, due to their cultural ties to the Palestinians in the West Bank. I also believe that they can volunteer, if they wish. So, why then, did you say they were 'barred'? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 06, 2005 6:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
[
| Quote: |
What offer? The discreditied '99%/89%/95%' and other outstanding issues at Camp David in 2000? Arafat couldn't accept that offer, but Baraks administation expired by the time many issues were resolved at Taba 5 months later. |
I will take Clintons word over Arafat. anyday
| Quote: |
By ANDY GELLER and RICHARD JOHNSON
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
....
Clinton, who tried but failed to make peace in the Middle East the legacy of his presidency, decried the current cycle of violence in Israel.
"I don't think there is a military solution to this," he said. "But I know there's not a terrorist solution to it."
Clinton also said he disagreed with President Bush that peace can be achieved only when Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat is gone from power.
Nevertheless, he said it is important for the United States to remain involved because "Israelis believe that America is the only big country that cares if they live or die."
The ex-president said the best solution to the Middle East conflict is an interim settlement that would "establish a Palestinian state now."
But he stressed that the creation of such a state must be preceded by security assurances for Israel and a timetable to resolve other issues.
Clinton said Arafat made a "disastrous mistake" by turning down past peace proposals that would have given the Palestinian leader control of 97 percent of the West Bank.
Yet, Clinton said, "There is reason for hope.
"I think this will be resolved on the terms the Palestinians walked away from."
Turning his attention to another conflict, Clinton cited India and Pakistan as countries that must move forward with peace.
"They are a classic example of the tragedy that can result when people become obsessed with holding on to yesterday's grievances," he said. |
| Quote: |
Many Arab states treat their minorities quite badly actually, but the arabs dont propagate an image contary to this sorry fact. |
whatever Israel does a lot better than they do.
| Quote: |
| So the background is the six day war was inevitable for over 2 years prior, as tensions rose step by step, day by day. Israel called a bluff by saying this was a war for its very existance. |
Well Israel could not remain on altert forever they have much less people.
And if there is any doubt that its enemies would not attack just remember the 1973 war.
| Quote: |
| Begin himself later admitted Israel started the war, Rabin later admitted that the 2 Egyptian army divisions Nasser sent to Sinai were not enough to lauch a war, and that both Israel and Eqypt knew this. The US state dept. also has recordeed in its archives that Israel has been looking for an excuse to attack, and that WHEN a war starts, Israel will win it in a week. |
Well Israel could not remain on altert forever they have much less people.
And if there is any doubt that its enemies would not attack just remember the 1973 war.
Just remember that Israel suffered big time cause they didn't have their forces on altert.
| Quote: |
| The right of return issue was ironed almost to full agreement in Taba (look through harretzdaily archives for articles relating to it). The saudi plan had nothing to do with right of return. It mentioned that the refugee issue should be dealt with but no specifics - it did mention that full Arab recognition and diplomatic relations with Israel would follow a land for peace settlement with the palestanians. |
that is not what it said.
Wikepiedia: Saudi Peace:
A just solution to the Palestinian Refugee problem, to be agreed upon in accordance with section 11 of UN General Assembly Resolution 194.
194 called for right of return.
Here is article 11:
11. Resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible.
Israel already had a compensation deal worked out and the palestianians had agreed to this (Taba). Furthermore a small number of refugees would be allowed to return as a humanitarian gesture by Israel.
Yeah and it is in the UN General assembly which has no legal authority.
UN security council resolutions have legal authority . UN General Assembly resloutions have none. Zero.
Besides 194 has been superceded by UNSC resolution 242
| Quote: |
Sure, but so is illegal occupation of another people. |
It is only illegal if the Palestinian side isn't fighting to destroy Israel.
Resolution 242 says something close to land for peace not unilateral withdrawal for nothing.
| Quote: |
| No 242 is not a peace treaty. it a conclusion under international law that calls for Israel to leave all occupied land. |
in exchange for peace.
| Quote: |
| They want the Palestanian issue resolved. They are tired or hearing about it, and want to get on with making money and becoming rich. Possible Trade with Israel, and regional stability is a much better option for most Arabs these days. |
maybe , they have also not really budged on Right of return.
| Quote: |
| Many in fact most nasty Arab regimes are backed by Western powers - if the people protest --- make sure they vent against foreigners and imperialism, and not aganist the ruling regime themselves (same China/ Japan protests this year). In respect of stability and keeping a lid on revolutionary tendencies, this ultimately serves Western interests. Regardless the Arabs in the broader sence don't really care about the Palestanians as much as you might think. |
How are they backed by western powers? the US gives 2b to Egypt defends Kuwait and buys oil from Saudi.
| Quote: |
| The Saudi arab initiative didnt demand anything. |
what about 194?
| Quote: |
Saudi Crown prince Abdullah floated an Arab peace plan that was discussed and modified at am Arab League summit conference in Beirut in March of 2002. The plan calls for Israeli withdrawal from all territories occupied since 1967 and return of the Palestine refugees to Israel in return for recognition of Israel and normal relations. A similar plan was offered by Arab states at the armistice negotiations in 1949. The number of refugees to be returned is not specified. A section included at the insistence of Lebanon reads, " Assures the rejection of all forms of Palestinian patriation which conflict with the special circumstances of the Arab host countries" assuaging Lebanese fears of permanent settlement of Palestinians in Lebanon. Inclusion of this clause may indicate that something less than full return of the refugees is contemplated. UN General Assembly Resolution 194, mentioned in the plan, asserts the right of Palestinian refugees who are willing to live in peace with their neighbors to return to Israel. As there are currently over three million such refugees with an exceedingly high birthrate, literal implementation of return would eventually mean the end of the Jewish state of Israel. UN Security Council Resolution 242, passed in 1967, calls for Israeli withdrawal from territories occupied in the war of June 1967, but does not specify "all territories"
The King of Jordan and President of Egypt did not attend the summit. Palestinian Chairman Yasser Arafat was prevented from attending by the Israeli government. (translation by Reuters). Israeli reaction to the plan is lukewarm. |
http://www.mideastweb.org/saudipeace.htm
Look I think Abbas is ok I support a 2 state solution. However much of this mess that you have now is cause of Arafat and cause he could not accept peace with Israel.
and the reason that Israel occupied Gaza and the West Bank is cause of the threats and acts of war by Syria and Egypt in 1967. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
My 2 Cent
Joined: 03 Jun 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 06, 2005 8:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee"]
| Quote: |
What offer? The discreditied '99%/89%/95%' and other outstanding issues at Camp David in 2000? Arafat couldn't accept that offer, but Baraks administation expired by the time many issues were resolved at Taba 5 months later. |
| Quote: |
| I will take Clintons word over Arafat. anyday |
Frankly, they are both politicians and I wouldn't trust either of them.
| Quote: |
Many Arab states treat their minorities quite badly actually, but the arabs dont propagate an image contary to this sorry fact. |
| Quote: |
| whatever Israel does a lot better than they do. |
BETTER THAN YOU!!!
This is childish arguement.
| Quote: |
| So the background is the six day war was inevitable for over 2 years prior, as tensions rose step by step, day by day. Israel called a bluff by saying this was a war for its very existance. |
| Quote: |
Well Israel could not remain on altert forever they have much less people.
And if there is any doubt that its enemies would not attack just remember the 1973 war. |
You taking about a war that was in the making for 3 years before? Israel thought itself invincible after '67 and rejected peace offer after peace offer from Egypt until Sadat made empty threats, and a surprise attack.
Notice how peace came quickly after that. Nixon's administation were even glad that Israel was left to bleed a little, and directly intervened in the armitice afterwards on golan and sinai - kissinger shuttles etc - this was a grand gesture was really just a cold war power play.
| Quote: |
Well Israel could not remain on altert forever they have much less people.
And if there is any doubt that its enemies would not attack just remember the 1973 war.
Just remember that Israel suffered big time cause they didn't have their forces on altert. |
Israel was by now a regional superpower... had moved fully into the US sphere after '67, high on its own feelings of invincibility and arrogance. Also a nuclear power if that was to be forgotten.
Regardless, they did indeed get a bloody nose and learned valueable lessons from the October war 73, and finally had to change their rejectionist polices vis a vis the egyptions-- which brought Camp David.
Wikipedia: In 1971, Sadat, in response to an initiative by UN intermediary Gunnar Jarring, declared that if Israel committed itself to "withdrawal of its armed forces from Sinai and the Gaza Strip" and to implementation of other provisions of UN Security Council Resolution 242 as requested by Jarring, Egypt would then "be ready to enter into a peace agreement with Israel." Israel responded that it would not withdraw to the pre-June 5, 1967, lines.[1]
Anyways, let's leave this episode for another arguement.
| Quote: |
Sure, but so is illegal occupation of another people. |
| Quote: |
It is only illegal if the Palestinian side isn't fighting to destroy Israel.
Resolution 242 says something close to land for peace not unilateral withdrawal for nothing. |
It says leave occupied land.
There was no intifida back in '67 remember?
So 242 did mention ceasefire and quiet....
from all participants... egypt (peace treaty'79), Jordan (peace treaty '94) and syria (no peace treaty).
So are you saying for the Palestanians to enjoy a life without occupation by foreign forces of Isreal - the resolution is dependent on Syria? That was the orginal idea behind the draft of 242?
Today here is no threat of aggression from these nations, so Israel should follow international law and withdraw from occupied land. There is no debate on this one... its the law.
242 has noting to do with Palestanian militiants, uprisings etc.
nothing.
| Quote: |
| No 242 is not a peace treaty. it a conclusion under international law that calls for Israel to leave all occupied land. |
| Quote: |
in exchange for peace. |
yes as explained already. There was no Palestian campaign when 242 was written, so this arguement does not hold water.
| Quote: |
| They want the Palestanian issue resolved. They are tired or hearing about it, and want to get on with making money and becoming rich. Possible Trade with Israel, and regional stability is a much better option for most Arabs these days. |
| Quote: |
maybe , they have also not really budged on Right of return. |
We are going in circles here.
| Quote: |
| Many in fact most nasty Arab regimes are backed by Western powers - if the people protest --- make sure they vent against foreigners and imperialism, and not aganist the ruling regime themselves (same China/ Japan protests this year). In respect of stability and keeping a lid on revolutionary tendencies, this ultimately serves Western interests. Regardless the Arabs in the broader sence don't really care about the Palestanians as much as you might think. |
| Quote: |
| How are they backed by western powers? the US gives 2b to Egypt defends Kuwait and buys oil from Saudi. |
every regime has been, was, or is backed by the West. Every country was created by the West, and installed, or proped up by the West. Explains why Arabs think the US/UK are liars who say their 'values' are superior yet have and continue to support regional thugs and scumbags... jordan, egypt, libya (they are 'goodies' again!) etc.
Again lets debate the key points... and not go around the houses quoting op-ed pieces and ignoring key facts.
| Quote: |
| The Saudi arab initiative didnt demand anything. |
It was a proposal or offer for regional peace. an idea. No demands were made... language is important here.
The arab iniatiave mearly said this is an issue that must be dealt in the spirit of 194 (compensation which Israel have already agreed to in principal so there is not much of a problem for Israel here) ... you think its possible just to avoid all references to the refueggee issue? What kind of plan would that be? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bigverne
Joined: 12 May 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 06, 2005 9:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Today here is no threat of aggression from these nations, so Israel should follow international law and withdraw from occupied land. |
Did you write this with a straight face?
Also, why did you say that Israeli Arabs are barred from the military when that is not the case? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
My 2 Cent
Joined: 03 Jun 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 06, 2005 10:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| bigverne wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Today here is no threat of aggression from these nations, so Israel should follow international law and withdraw from occupied land. |
Did you write this with a straight face?
Also, why did you say that Israeli Arabs are barred from the military when that is not the case? |
i already explained the regional peace treaties and iniatives... read back as im getting tired typing and retying the same things again and again. you just continue to ignore and debate stagnates.
you have failed to address any of my arguements and are now nitpicking over semantics...
Well the arabs can do miliary service it seems http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_Defense_Forces
but it is not mandatory.
fair enough. But they are barred from certain positions within the military so their participation is limited even if they choose to join.
but this still doesnt make a differnece to my main agruement that they are not even close to bieng equal in israel, and are in a two-tiered ethnic state... israel cannot be both a jewish state and a democratic state.
Since the creation of the state, arab-israelis have had their property violently seized by the state, were còllectivally paced under martial law till 1966, and been subject to harrasement and violence whenever they try to highlight their grievensess -- this most notably happened when several demonstators were killed in the Galilleie area in 1976, and 14 shot dead in 2001.
Many Israelis will try to convince you that full democratic rights are given to all her citizens but this is patently untrue.
Israeli arabs have never been, nor will be equal in the Jewish state.
im sure you can hone in on some other factoid and argue the toss but basically the big picture remains the same. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Summer Wine
Joined: 20 Mar 2005
Location: Next to a River
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 06, 2005 11:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
Fine, what solution do you offer? Hypothetical of course!
Unless you happen to be the President of Israel, incognito.
I am interested in hearing some peoples solutions, not just their disputes to cultural events. We can't change anything in the Middle East from here, maybe we can learn from it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
