Jews settle in Palestinian Jerusalem

Mmmmm, cheesy moon. *drool*

Face, maybe you should rather have said Israelis.

But this is yet another example of how immune Israel has become when it comes to international laws and conventions. What will be done about this. Probably nothing.

Ariel Sharon a "man of peace"

Arafat is no longer a terrorist.

What does anything in this thread have to do with Arafat? And by pointing out the hypocrisy of calling Sharon a man of peace does that in some way imply my views of Arafat?

What is with you guys? Somebody bashes bush you say something about Clinton somebody says Sharon you say Arafat. A conversation about the actions of one doesn't mean we have to automatically talk about the other.

Hypothetical example:

me: Sharon is a bad golfer
you: Ya well Arafat can't hit the green to save his life, he sucks!

Please.

Why?

Because a lot of what Sharon does, is related to the actions of Arafat.

Oh, and there is a difference between "non-binding" and "binding" resolutions

Hey, heeeey. C'mon you two! New Shimmer is a floor wax... AND a dessert topping!

-Mmmmm. Tastes great on ice cream!
-And just look at that shine!

First, because you will most likelly be called a anti-semite by some here.

Second, because it isn't correct IMHO to always bring up the religion of people. It isn't important to know that Jews did this and that, or that muslims did this and that. It is the nation and/or people who do this, not the religion. Understand what I mean?

ps. I saw that the article said that so it wasn't your fault, sorry.

Interesting possibility: If the U.S. gets a friendly regime going in Iraq, there's no longer a geostrategic reason to support Israel, so we can make credible threats of cutting off their foreign aid.

Then we let them live with the neighbors they have earned for themselves.

BlackGriffen

Damnit I was going to toy with you a bit longer.

Here is an interesting link for all of you.

Oh, how great it is that Sharon&co can hide behind the fact that they are "government" and not only military or civilian thugs, terrorists or massmurderers.

Flame on

Well now.

My take on this is,

This is about legacy-building for Bush and Blair, who would like to be remembered for things other than Iraq once they are out of office.

Bush and Blair are aiming to tackle Middle East Peace and Ireland-English peace after Iraq.

Now, the involvement in Iraq is ostensibly because Iraq has violated binding resolutions calling for disarmament and proof of disarmament, and in the absence of abiding by those resolutions, Iraq poses a threat to the world. Iraq also is a blatant violator of human rights by employing torture, rape, and chemical weapons upon it's own people.

Israel/Palestine and Ireland are very different from Iraq. None of them pose a threat to the rest of the world. None of them employ chemical weapons, rape, or torture.

(Sure, that's avoiding the issues of homes bulldozed, military checkpoints, suicide bombers, Catholic/Protestant violence and deaths - these are parts of this conflict, -- but let's agree that these things are not the same as a single government imposing them on his own citizens.)

FaceAche, you and I agreed in the past when Sharon didn't blindly follow Bush's 'advice.' We both agreed that Israel is its own country, free to not take orders from Bush.

Here, it seems to me that this is Sharon simply making sure that peace comes on terms agreeable to Israel, not because Bush and Blair want a legacy. We may not like the action taken by Sharon, but the reasoning is sound-

After all, a peace imposed by Bush or Blair, not reached by Israel and Palestinians will not be a sincere peace. If it isn't sincere, how can it be sustainable?

...And is this move NOT a sure fire guarantee that increased reprisals WILL take place? Is it not guaranteeing that the cycle will continue? And please... PLEASE do not answer with, "well, they'd be doing it anyway..."

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003...9567564039.html



Another DOA peace initiative.

It's almost as if they don't want it...

Well they do have an indirect impact on the rest of the world.. and it could be considered a danger... the tensions developed through these wars have created a threat worldwide, including instability in the middle east. Palestine it self is a rallying point for Al-Queda. That classifies as a worldwide threat.... just not as big as say Iraq, or N. Korea (though Korea won't dare do anything... they know they do they are wiped off the face of the planet)

Ireland looks like it will end within the next several years (formally) and in the next generation (reality). I just wish this was higher on the list of priorities. They keep it so low... and eventually, like other conflicts that are kept on the dl... eventually they errups into a huge problem.



Very true. Very true.

Now what's needed is to get both sides to agree that peace is needed.

They are both fighting over the Temple Mount.

That is what this is mainly about.

If you're going to say that, be careful what you mean by "this" -

The conflict is about far more than the Temple Mount.

Whether settling in East Jerusalem is only about the Temple Mount or about the whole conflict is your interpretation- I believe it is about the whole conflict.

Well, they want it. They don't want to give up everything in the process for it.

Peace without security is no peace. Peace without sincerity, peace made on terms that either side didn't want to compromise cannot be a sustainable peace.

An agreement has to be one that is acceptable both parties. Would you prefer that Sharon wasn't honest about this, and would say he'd compromise publicly and then refuse at the table? Better that he be open and public so that when the time comes to meet at the table for peace again, everyone knows what the score is.

Any thread with the words: Israel, Palestine, Jerusalem, Jews is a ligit place to mention Arafat.

After all, he is the leader of the Palestinians...

Sorry, let me rephrase that. I think to SOME of the Jewish people in Israel, it is about constructing a 3rd temple, on the Temple Mount.

I mean the red heffer is here, they are being impatient.

Not in this instance and I said nothing about resolutions.

Interesting that no one of the pro-Israeli crowd mentions that the settlements are illegal, break the Geneva convention and a couple of UN resolutions. Oh, yeah I forgot they are non-binding. Who ****ing cares?? UN resolutions is something we demand that is followed, even if the threat of using force isn't there. But nooooo, the might is right crowd always seem to forget that!

Your comments are anti-semetic, and immoral. You are a Nazi.




Good points, but remember Israel's leaders have stated at several times in the past they will not comply/enforce with UN Resolutions unless they are favorable....

Hence they are meaningless.

As the UN is meaningless.

Exactly, how is there going to be peace in the area when the stronger bully is never going to follow any resolutions put forth by an organization that their biggest supporter has already deamed meaningless........

I would be interested to see how the US media is covering this story.

.

I'll try

Read Icelandic?

Try http://news.google.com/ I can save you time, though: not many, and certainly no major ones. At least when I searched, anyway.

BlackGriffen

.

Not in this instance what? And I never said you said anything about resolutions. I was killing two birds with one stone.


Here is a neat article I found.


http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_1948to1967_un_194.php

I consider myself "pro-Israel", although I am becoming less so as time goes on. I completely agree with Logic's statements and would like to also add that these settlements are just plain wrong and will do nothing more than prolong the conflict and increase reprisals. Stupid policy.

I'm also somewhat pro-Israel. We created this state, and we have no right to take it away from them. But we must be able to force them to follow international laws and conventions. I never heard the "pro-Israel" crowd say this either: Why is Israel so ungrateful. They say it in every thread where France is mentioned.......

The settlements are one of the biggest problems in the peaceprocess. I think that Sharon knows that and the fact that he still today builds new settlements and moves Israelis into occupied areas make me very furious. He is willingly destroying the peaceprocess. How is that going to result in lasting peace?

In 1967, Egypt told the UN Peacekeeping forces to leave the Sinai so that Egypt could attack Israel. The UN complied, and Israel was left to defend herself.

After the war had ended and Israel emerged still intact despite Egypt and Syria's best efforts, Israeli Prime Minister Abba Eban went to the UN, and spoke, saying "What is the use of a United Nations presence if it is in effect an umbrella which is taken away as soon as it begins to rain?"

(quote from section 165 of http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/bd...525672700590136!OpenDocument )

That was only one of the first blows to UN credibility in Israeli eyes. Umpteen resolutions including one proclaiming that "Zionism is equal to racism" haven't helped either. Remember when the US and Israel walked out on the UN in Durban?

Also, Syria having such a strong role in the UN, pushing resolutions against Israel, while at the same time lobbing fire from the north into Israeli kibbutzes doesn't help the UN gain much respect with Israel.

You may not agree with the facts as I've expressed them, but you didn't ask for facts that agreed with your understanding, you asked why Israel isn't more of a cheerleader for the UN. Seen from the perspective I put forth in this post, I think you've got your answer now.

EDIT: found UN archives for Abba Eban's speech and corrected his quote for accuracy.

I think it comes down to you have to take a side:

1. Don't like UN... and will leave.

2. Tolerate UN, and accept it's decisions.

This goes for all countries.

Good point. Noone is forcing any nation to be a part of the UN.

file this under 'disturbing'. from the blog at the link shown.

http://www.grotto11.com/blog/

This is a circular argument.
If you don't risk your false security, you won't have any security at all.

There can be peace that quiets the riots. Just take a look at what happened to Rabin -- he was killed by an extremist (Jewish extremist, but as far as history goes (till now), it could've been a Palestinian, too). There will always be people of that kind on both sides. Do you want them to disrupt a permanent peaceful solution?

Israel is committing crimes against humanity, it has A weapons, they do have tortured people (even to death; my favorite is ?shaking the head': shake the head of the object until a) he speaks or b) he is whacko -- leave no traces of abuse), killed people without a fair trial, etc.

Oreo, we've covered this before, yet you repeat without introducing anything new, or clarifying your previous points any better.

Peace does not simply mean an absence of violence, peace is more than that. Peace is going to take the form of people living without fear of instigation or reprisal, of a complete absence of people threatening to push other people into the sea.

There is some sense of security now, and it is not false. It isn't peace, but it is security. You would have that given up first and then come to the table. It doesn't work that way, and any government who tried that wouldn't have the support of the voting public. Without the support of the voting public, any agreement made would not be sustainable.

As for your accusations of torture and weapons possession, they are cute: no proof offered for the weapons, a grisly description of torture, which you then say leaves no evidence. So there's an accusation that you can't back up, because there's no proof. You say it happens as a common practice, I say it doesn't.

People who have killed Israelis and not blown themselves up in the process, killed military and civilians alike, have stood trial and been sentenced in Israel. Israel holds trials, and they aren't for show to make you sitting in Germany feel good. They are a matter of
seeing that people who commit crimes are brought to justice. Some of the people who were sentenced are still in prison in Israel. Others were bargained with as a part of some prior talks, sent back to West Bank or Gaza territory, and meant to be imprisoned there. What happened instead? The Palestinian policemen released them, so they're out killing again.

I want to focus on this point, because I gotta go to class now.

We (as in the Germans) have experience with Walls (part of your ?new' security, not all, but an important part). Trust us, they don't work. You are caging yourself in, suffocating the Palestinians and -- in the end -- yourself.

The GDR has collapsed because the state was basically kept alive by Western Germany. Israel is very much dependent on funds from countries like the US and European Unioin (among others, Germany). If this support is withdrawn, there will be little money left to fund this insane machinery of military that Israel has. And there will be no money to build (or later to operate) the Walls.
Sooner or later Israel would collapse.

So it is necessary to negotiate for a peace even if there still is much violence in the streets.
Both sides have to learn peace, it won't fall from the sky by itself.

Which is way we should completely pull out of the Israel/Palestine conflict.

*there will never be peace*

no side wants it, no side craves it. No side needs it.

It will never happen. [book]mark my words.

I read that in a book once.

Must have been a good honest book.

Two sides, that love war...

Why/how would there be peace?

That's like Microsoft going open source.

Oh it was.


Not sure if BOTH sides love war. As in one side just want to KEEP their land.

I think it's similar to many elderly people...

They like having a bad hip or something... because it gets them attention. If they admit to feeling better... people stop serving them...

But as long as they keep the pain going... they get served.

the fact of the matter is that the only people that have a true claim to Israel (not Palestine, there is no Palestine on my world map), are the Jews. If you can find the word "jerusalem" in the koran... you can start your argument, but as far as i Know, it is not in there. so, pack up your bags, stop strapping dynamite to your chests and blowing people up... leave the land to the nurturers (the Jews), not the terrorists (Arabs).

There will be peace once the Arabs leave, or start behaving like people, not animals.

Do you support the annexation of Germany as part of reparation from WWII?