This discussion is now closed.
Check out other Related discussions
- I think i'm losing a friendship because of the Israel-Palestine conflict
- Epq on Palestine
- I am an Israeli - AMA
- Anyone else not get boycotting brands or even countries trend?
- how could anyone be pro-israel?
- Writing about personal politics in Personal Statement
- I am half russian, half israeli, ask me anything.
- Will World War 3 happen soon?
- [Official thread] Hamas-Israel Conflict
- Is SOAS good for IR?
- Is Israel winning
- 50,000 women in Gaza are pregnant.
- USA bombing Syria
- Study BA Politics or BA International Relations at SOAS?
- Friend harassing me over my Palestine views
- Soas vs Queen Mary for International relations and politics
- MA International Relations
- Opinions on geopolitical?
- MyTutor is anti-Palestinian?
- applying for uni
The Israel-Palestine Conflict Mk.III
Scroll to see replies
Original post by B-Man.
How is settlement expansion a reaction to Hamas' actions?
How is settlement expansion a reaction to Hamas' actions?edited. Its been a long day
Original post by Aj12
edited. Its been a long day
Ah fair enough, I need sleep too.
Original post by thisisnew
Original post by thisisnew
^ I like how you get negged for a well thought out and factual post where as posts along the lines of "Israel eat Palestine baby and murder all civilians!!!!" receive tons of up votes. This forum really is a joke when it comes to discussing this conflict.
I have been bombarded with negs. I can only see the latest 30 on my homepage and they're all from today with 26 negs.
But, I couldn't care less. The rep system is a bit like a democratic vote. I have no interest in demagoguery or populism. I’m here to argue and debate, and I think it’s self-evident that this forum is overflowing with soppy sixth-form virgins who aren’t mature enough to understand how a debate.
I just made a blog post for another moron on this site (Democratically Elected Terrorists Are Still Terrorists). I find it worth my time to make one blog post and just copy-and-paste it all over the forum when this topic arises, instead of talking about it endlessly.
I think I’m going to have a glass of wine in a moment.
Original post by Lord Hysteria
I have been bombarded with negs. I can only see the latest 30 on my homepage and they're all from today with 26 negs.
But, I couldn't care less. The rep system is a bit like a democratic vote. I have no interest in demagoguery or populism. I’m here to argue and debate, and I think it’s self-evident that this forum is overflowing with soppy sixth-form virgins who aren’t mature enough to understand how a debate.
I just made a blog post for another moron on this site (Democratically Elected Terrorists Are Still Terrorists). I find it worth my time to make one blog post and just copy-and-paste it all over the forum when this topic arises, instead of talking about it endlessly.
I think I’m going to have a glass of wine in a moment.
But, I couldn't care less. The rep system is a bit like a democratic vote. I have no interest in demagoguery or populism. I’m here to argue and debate, and I think it’s self-evident that this forum is overflowing with soppy sixth-form virgins who aren’t mature enough to understand how a debate.
I just made a blog post for another moron on this site (Democratically Elected Terrorists Are Still Terrorists). I find it worth my time to make one blog post and just copy-and-paste it all over the forum when this topic arises, instead of talking about it endlessly.
I think I’m going to have a glass of wine in a moment.
Is this a blog post about Israel?
Charles Krauthammer's piece on Obama's '67 borders' comments is so perceptive:
[INDENT]Obama didn’t just move the goal posts on borders. He also did so on the so-called right of return. Flooding Israel with millions of Arabs would destroy the world’s only Jewish state while creating a 23rd Arab state and a second Palestinian state — not exactly what we mean when we speak of a “two-state solution.” That’s why it has been the policy of the United States to adamantly oppose this “right.”
Yet in his State Department speech, Obama refused to simply restate this position — and refused again in a supposedly corrective speech three days later. Instead, he told Israel it must negotiate the right of return with the Palestinians after having given every inch of territory. Bargaining with what, pray tell?
No matter. “The status quo is unsustainable,” declared Obama, “and Israel too must act boldly to advance a lasting peace.”
Israel too ? Exactly what bold steps for peace have the Palestinians taken? Israel made three radically conciliatory offers to establish a Palestinian state, withdrew from Gaza and has been trying to renew negotiations for more than two years. Meanwhile, the Gaza Palestinians have been firing rockets at Israeli towns and villages. And on the West Bank, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas turns down then-Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert’s offer, walks out of negotiations with Binyamin Netanyahu and now defies the United States by seeking not peace talks but instant statehood — without peace, without recognizing Israel — at the United Nations. And to make unmistakable this spurning of any peace process, Abbas agrees to join the openly genocidal Hamas in a unity government, which even Obama acknowledges makes negotiations impossible.
Obama’s response to this relentless Palestinian intransigence? To reward it — by abandoning the Bush assurances, legitimizing the ’67 borders and refusing to reaffirm America’s rejection of the right of return.
The only remaining question is whether this perverse and ultimately self-defeating policy is born of genuine antipathy toward Israel or of the arrogance of a blundering amateur who refuses to see that he is undermining not just peace but the very possibility of negotiations.[/INDENT]
[INDENT]Obama didn’t just move the goal posts on borders. He also did so on the so-called right of return. Flooding Israel with millions of Arabs would destroy the world’s only Jewish state while creating a 23rd Arab state and a second Palestinian state — not exactly what we mean when we speak of a “two-state solution.” That’s why it has been the policy of the United States to adamantly oppose this “right.”
Yet in his State Department speech, Obama refused to simply restate this position — and refused again in a supposedly corrective speech three days later. Instead, he told Israel it must negotiate the right of return with the Palestinians after having given every inch of territory. Bargaining with what, pray tell?
No matter. “The status quo is unsustainable,” declared Obama, “and Israel too must act boldly to advance a lasting peace.”
Israel too ? Exactly what bold steps for peace have the Palestinians taken? Israel made three radically conciliatory offers to establish a Palestinian state, withdrew from Gaza and has been trying to renew negotiations for more than two years. Meanwhile, the Gaza Palestinians have been firing rockets at Israeli towns and villages. And on the West Bank, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas turns down then-Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert’s offer, walks out of negotiations with Binyamin Netanyahu and now defies the United States by seeking not peace talks but instant statehood — without peace, without recognizing Israel — at the United Nations. And to make unmistakable this spurning of any peace process, Abbas agrees to join the openly genocidal Hamas in a unity government, which even Obama acknowledges makes negotiations impossible.
Obama’s response to this relentless Palestinian intransigence? To reward it — by abandoning the Bush assurances, legitimizing the ’67 borders and refusing to reaffirm America’s rejection of the right of return.
The only remaining question is whether this perverse and ultimately self-defeating policy is born of genuine antipathy toward Israel or of the arrogance of a blundering amateur who refuses to see that he is undermining not just peace but the very possibility of negotiations.[/INDENT]
A mortar was fired from Gaza into Israel on Friday, no injuries or damage reported.
Original post by thisisnew
A mortar was fired from Gaza into Israel on Friday, no injuries or damage reported.
hamas is the result of of israels aggresive and illegal settlement construction on palestinian lands, the settlements came first, the world watched and stood still, the usa vetoed action agfainst israel which would have forced israel to remove all settlements from the west bank very early on, this didnt happen becuase of us vetoes, at that point hamas was created.
one thing is now for certain and that is that the palestine will never be an independent state via 'negotiations' or should i call them the israeli status quo games. the west bank and east jerusalem will have to be taken by force like israel was created by force.
israel says no refugees, no 1967 lines, yes to israeli presence on jordanian border and israeli control of any future palestinian states airspace, what the **** is there left to negotiate, maybe what else israeli can get its mucky hands on i suppose??? israel wants to dictate and abbas is in no mood for dictatoriship games, the UNGA will pass a binding resolution under the UNFR in september and at that point if israel continues to occupy the west bank they will be violating the soverignity of the state of palestine, and then the GA can and will sanction military action on israel if they have to in order to enforce the statehood of palestine upon them, and befor you mention the failed declration in 88, well this is completely different as that was a self declaration supported by a handful of nations, this will be a binding resoultion supported by more than 90% of the general assembly so is it any wonder that benjaminge went to washington to plot another status quo gameplan, becuas ethis time he knows israels game is over, even their foreign chief has gave benjaminge an ultamatum that accett the 67 lines with swaps here and there or expect a tsunami upon israel come september
on another note glad ot report that egypt has defied the israeli games and will open the rafah crossing to gaza today and it will remain open fully so israel can get irked and pissed off all it likes, becuase this egypt will not lick americas and israels arse like bribable mubaraks egypt did.
(edited 12 years ago)
Original post by Lord Hysteria
Charles Krauthammer's piece on Obama's '67 borders' comments is so perceptive:
[INDENT]Obama didn’t just move the goal posts on borders. He also did so on the so-called right of return. Flooding Israel with millions of Arabs would destroy the world’s only Jewish state while creating a 23rd Arab state and a second Palestinian state — not exactly what we mean when we speak of a “two-state solution.” That’s why it has been the policy of the United States to adamantly oppose this “right.”
Yet in his State Department speech, Obama refused to simply restate this position — and refused again in a supposedly corrective speech three days later. Instead, he told Israel it must negotiate the right of return with the Palestinians after having given every inch of territory. Bargaining with what, pray tell?
No matter. “The status quo is unsustainable,” declared Obama, “and Israel too must act boldly to advance a lasting peace.”
Israel too ? Exactly what bold steps for peace have the Palestinians taken? Israel made three radically conciliatory offers to establish a Palestinian state, withdrew from Gaza and has been trying to renew negotiations for more than two years. Meanwhile, the Gaza Palestinians have been firing rockets at Israeli towns and villages. And on the West Bank, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas turns down then-Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert’s offer, walks out of negotiations with Binyamin Netanyahu and now defies the United States by seeking not peace talks but instant statehood — without peace, without recognizing Israel — at the United Nations. And to make unmistakable this spurning of any peace process, Abbas agrees to join the openly genocidal Hamas in a unity government, which even Obama acknowledges makes negotiations impossible.
Obama’s response to this relentless Palestinian intransigence? To reward it — by abandoning the Bush assurances, legitimizing the ’67 borders and refusing to reaffirm America’s rejection of the right of return.
The only remaining question is whether this perverse and ultimately self-defeating policy is born of genuine antipathy toward Israel or of the arrogance of a blundering amateur who refuses to see that he is undermining not just peace but the very possibility of negotiations.[/INDENT]
[INDENT]Obama didn’t just move the goal posts on borders. He also did so on the so-called right of return. Flooding Israel with millions of Arabs would destroy the world’s only Jewish state while creating a 23rd Arab state and a second Palestinian state — not exactly what we mean when we speak of a “two-state solution.” That’s why it has been the policy of the United States to adamantly oppose this “right.”
Yet in his State Department speech, Obama refused to simply restate this position — and refused again in a supposedly corrective speech three days later. Instead, he told Israel it must negotiate the right of return with the Palestinians after having given every inch of territory. Bargaining with what, pray tell?
No matter. “The status quo is unsustainable,” declared Obama, “and Israel too must act boldly to advance a lasting peace.”
Israel too ? Exactly what bold steps for peace have the Palestinians taken? Israel made three radically conciliatory offers to establish a Palestinian state, withdrew from Gaza and has been trying to renew negotiations for more than two years. Meanwhile, the Gaza Palestinians have been firing rockets at Israeli towns and villages. And on the West Bank, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas turns down then-Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert’s offer, walks out of negotiations with Binyamin Netanyahu and now defies the United States by seeking not peace talks but instant statehood — without peace, without recognizing Israel — at the United Nations. And to make unmistakable this spurning of any peace process, Abbas agrees to join the openly genocidal Hamas in a unity government, which even Obama acknowledges makes negotiations impossible.
Obama’s response to this relentless Palestinian intransigence? To reward it — by abandoning the Bush assurances, legitimizing the ’67 borders and refusing to reaffirm America’s rejection of the right of return.
The only remaining question is whether this perverse and ultimately self-defeating policy is born of genuine antipathy toward Israel or of the arrogance of a blundering amateur who refuses to see that he is undermining not just peace but the very possibility of negotiations.[/INDENT]
lts get one thing straight israels settlements and i mean ALL have been ruled illegal by ICJ in a 2004 ruling, what palestinians said is stop construction so we can talk, israel kept on building, why should palestine negotiate whilst israel defies the ICJ rulings, second of all the olmert plan was rejected because east jerusalem wasnt included, all the swaps were great but economically if east jerusalem isnt the capital then palestine will not have much of an economic future as an independent state
obama said start at the 67 borders, and agree mutually agreed swaps ie nogotiations, isarel says statrt at todays lines where isarels settlements adjoining and in the west bank end, why should we start at a point which the ICJ have rendered illegal?????
Original post by Lord Hysteria
Charles Krauthammer's piece on Obama's '67 borders' comments is so perceptive:
[INDENT]Obama didn’t just move the goal posts on borders. He also did so on the so-called right of return. Flooding Israel with millions of Arabs would destroy the world’s only Jewish state while creating a 23rd Arab state and a second Palestinian state — not exactly what we mean when we speak of a “two-state solution.” That’s why it has been the policy of the United States to adamantly oppose this “right.”
Yet in his State Department speech, Obama refused to simply restate this position — and refused again in a supposedly corrective speech three days later. Instead, he told Israel it must negotiate the right of return with the Palestinians after having given every inch of territory. Bargaining with what, pray tell?
No matter. “The status quo is unsustainable,” declared Obama, “and Israel too must act boldly to advance a lasting peace.”
Israel too ? Exactly what bold steps for peace have the Palestinians taken? Israel made three radically conciliatory offers to establish a Palestinian state, withdrew from Gaza and has been trying to renew negotiations for more than two years. Meanwhile, the Gaza Palestinians have been firing rockets at Israeli towns and villages. And on the West Bank, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas turns down then-Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert’s offer, walks out of negotiations with Binyamin Netanyahu and now defies the United States by seeking not peace talks but instant statehood — without peace, without recognizing Israel — at the United Nations. And to make unmistakable this spurning of any peace process, Abbas agrees to join the openly genocidal Hamas in a unity government, which even Obama acknowledges makes negotiations impossible.
Obama’s response to this relentless Palestinian intransigence? To reward it — by abandoning the Bush assurances, legitimizing the ’67 borders and refusing to reaffirm America’s rejection of the right of return.
The only remaining question is whether this perverse and ultimately self-defeating policy is born of genuine antipathy toward Israel or of the arrogance of a blundering amateur who refuses to see that he is undermining not just peace but the very possibility of negotiations.[/INDENT]
[INDENT]Obama didn’t just move the goal posts on borders. He also did so on the so-called right of return. Flooding Israel with millions of Arabs would destroy the world’s only Jewish state while creating a 23rd Arab state and a second Palestinian state — not exactly what we mean when we speak of a “two-state solution.” That’s why it has been the policy of the United States to adamantly oppose this “right.”
Yet in his State Department speech, Obama refused to simply restate this position — and refused again in a supposedly corrective speech three days later. Instead, he told Israel it must negotiate the right of return with the Palestinians after having given every inch of territory. Bargaining with what, pray tell?
No matter. “The status quo is unsustainable,” declared Obama, “and Israel too must act boldly to advance a lasting peace.”
Israel too ? Exactly what bold steps for peace have the Palestinians taken? Israel made three radically conciliatory offers to establish a Palestinian state, withdrew from Gaza and has been trying to renew negotiations for more than two years. Meanwhile, the Gaza Palestinians have been firing rockets at Israeli towns and villages. And on the West Bank, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas turns down then-Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert’s offer, walks out of negotiations with Binyamin Netanyahu and now defies the United States by seeking not peace talks but instant statehood — without peace, without recognizing Israel — at the United Nations. And to make unmistakable this spurning of any peace process, Abbas agrees to join the openly genocidal Hamas in a unity government, which even Obama acknowledges makes negotiations impossible.
Obama’s response to this relentless Palestinian intransigence? To reward it — by abandoning the Bush assurances, legitimizing the ’67 borders and refusing to reaffirm America’s rejection of the right of return.
The only remaining question is whether this perverse and ultimately self-defeating policy is born of genuine antipathy toward Israel or of the arrogance of a blundering amateur who refuses to see that he is undermining not just peace but the very possibility of negotiations.[/INDENT]
the only legitamate point israel has is the right of return on top of that i think all palestinians in israel should be be transferred to the state of palestine, that way no right of return exile of arab israelis can be equalled by east jeruslam being the capital of palestine, israel keeping some illegal settlemets can be equalled by no israeli presence in the jordan valley, if israel is worried about security im sure america can provide military presence israel doesnt need to be in the jprdan valley playing more games, as if they ahvent played enough yet, and the usa can deduct the appropriate military aid amount it gives to israel for manning the jordan valley, now there you go comprimises on bith sides, not only on teh palestinian side, something which benjaminge practically demanded in his slurred speach the other day
Welcome back Zohaib!
Original post by thisisnew
Welcome back Zohaib!
the only legitamate point israel has is the right of return on top of that i think all palestinians in israel should be be transferred to the state of palestine, that way no right of return and exile of arab israelis can be equalled by east jeruslam being the capital of palestine, israel keeping some illegal settlemets can be equalled by no israeli presence in the jordan valley, if israel is really worried about security im sure america can provide military presence along the jordan valley so israel doesnt need to be in the jordan valley playing more games with the residents of jericho and teh surrounding areas, as if they havent played enough yet, and the usa can deduct the appropriate military aid amount it gives to israel for manning the jordan valley, now there you go comprimises on both sides, not only on the palestinian side, something which benjaminge practically demanded in his slurred speach the other day.
i ask again israel says no refugess yes settlements, yes israeli military in jordan valley ,yes israeli control of palestinain airspace and complete demilitarisation of palestine, well what does israel exactly want to negotiate the, its seems all dictated to me, so israel can stuff its isarel will have to accpet the binding resolution in september and obey it or face the consequences, and thats what isarel is ****ting it off hence the trip to washington to plot another gameplan by benjaminge
Original post by thisisnew
A mortar was fired from Gaza into Israel on Friday, no injuries or damage reported.
an airstrike on gaza reported today, 4 civilians killed.
so your point??????? jews kill palestinian kill, the universal balance is therefore restored.
Original post by forthright
an airstrike on gaza reported today, 4 civilians killed.
so your point???????
jews kill palestinian kill, the universal balance is therefore restored.
so your point???????
jews kill palestinian kill, the universal balance is therefore restored.
Explain.
Original post by Lord Hysteria
I have been bombarded with negs. I can only see the latest 30 on my homepage and they're all from today with 26 negs.
But, I couldn't care less. The rep system is a bit like a democratic vote. I have no interest in demagoguery or populism. I’m here to argue and debate, and I think it’s self-evident that this forum is overflowing with soppy sixth-form virgins who aren’t mature enough to understand how a debate.
I just made a blog post for another moron on this site (Democratically Elected Terrorists Are Still Terrorists). I find it worth my time to make one blog post and just copy-and-paste it all over the forum when this topic arises, instead of talking about it endlessly.
I think I’m going to have a glass of wine in a moment.
But, I couldn't care less. The rep system is a bit like a democratic vote. I have no interest in demagoguery or populism. I’m here to argue and debate, and I think it’s self-evident that this forum is overflowing with soppy sixth-form virgins who aren’t mature enough to understand how a debate.
I just made a blog post for another moron on this site (Democratically Elected Terrorists Are Still Terrorists). I find it worth my time to make one blog post and just copy-and-paste it all over the forum when this topic arises, instead of talking about it endlessly.
I think I’m going to have a glass of wine in a moment.
Gosh we're lucky to have you on here at all I suppose?
Just remember, a sharp tongue is no indication of a keen mind.
Original post by thisisnew
^ I like how you get negged for a well thought out and factual post where as posts along the lines of "Israel eat Palestine baby and murder all civilians!!!!" receive tons of up votes. This forum really is a joke when it comes to discussing this conflict.
What do you think of the poll then?
Of course the voters have no idea what they're doing, what with all the baby eating and murdering of civilians.
Original post by CODKING
What do you think of the poll then?
Of course the voters have no idea what they're doing, what with all the baby eating and murdering of civilians.
Of course the voters have no idea what they're doing, what with all the baby eating and murdering of civilians.
Baby eating? You're really pushing the boat out.
I was quoting one of your lot chaver. You really must keep up you know. I'll produce a presidential briefing paper for you old man! 
Original post by CODKING
I was quoting one of your lot chaver. You really must keep up you know. I'll produce a presidential briefing paper for you old man!
Just address it to 'Dame Shirley Porter, Very Big House, Tel Aviv'.
Original post by CODKING
I was quoting one of your lot chaver. You really must keep up you know. I'll produce a presidential briefing paper for you old man!
What do I think of the poll? Nothing because it means exactly that, nothing. If you want to believe that its indicative of anything [meaningful] then that's up to you. It's about as pointless as opening a poll on the Stormfront forums asking whether you side with white people or black people. "Chaver".
Original post by thisisnew
What do I think of the poll? Nothing because it means exactly that, nothing. If you want to believe that its indicative of anything [meaningful] then that's up to you. It's about as pointless as opening a poll on the Stormfront forums asking whether you side with white people or black people. "Chaver".
What do I think of the poll? Nothing because it means exactly that, nothing. If you want to believe that its indicative of anything [meaningful] then that's up to you. It's about as pointless as opening a poll on the Stormfront forums asking whether you side with white people or black people. "Chaver".
Are you comparing TSR to Nazis?
Related discussions
- I think i'm losing a friendship because of the Israel-Palestine conflict
- Epq on Palestine
- I am an Israeli - AMA
- Anyone else not get boycotting brands or even countries trend?
- how could anyone be pro-israel?
- Writing about personal politics in Personal Statement
- I am half russian, half israeli, ask me anything.
- Will World War 3 happen soon?
- [Official thread] Hamas-Israel Conflict
- Is SOAS good for IR?
- Is Israel winning
- 50,000 women in Gaza are pregnant.
- USA bombing Syria
- Study BA Politics or BA International Relations at SOAS?
- Friend harassing me over my Palestine views
- Soas vs Queen Mary for International relations and politics
- MA International Relations
- Opinions on geopolitical?
- MyTutor is anti-Palestinian?
- applying for uni
Latest
Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
