Why don’t we get real and call it like it is.
The Palestinians and the Jews LOVE to fight each other.
They are totally into it. If they really wanted peace, they would create it.
If just 51% of the mass conscienceness in the area wanted peace, they would have it.
Events would tip in favor of peace and increase in the direction of peace.
But, they LOVE to hate each other more than they LOVE the idea of peace.
Sorry, but it’s just that fucking simple.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Shipshape wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Shipshape wrote:
For centuries Christians and Jews lived in relative peace alongside Muslims under the realm of the Islamic empires.
*edit[/quote]
I’d suppose that someone that was just conquered would live “peacefully.”[/quote]
I know that sectarian violence has been pervasive in that region of thousands of years but I’m countering the argument that Palestinians were unilaterally violent to Jews before the inception of Israel. The British promised the Sheiks who fought the Ottomans in WWI their tribal lands only to go back on the deal and surrender the land to a European cause (Jewish Zionism) with the Balfour agreement. It was Christians and Muslims alike who were displaced.
And the Gaza and Westbank are occupied territories. The occupation is recognized and is illegal under a few UN security resolutions.
At the same time, much of the land in Israel was legitimately bought by Jewish immigrants so dissolving Israel is in no way right or justified. A logical solution would be a “two-state” partition that would return the land captured by Israelis in the Six Day War to Palestine (Which Hamas is willing to commit to). [/quote]
Let me ask a question, if someone steals something, and you exchange money for it, is it yours?[/quote]
In a perfect world, no. But that question is too simple for this conflict. What do you consider stolen land in this case?
[quote]Sweet Revenge wrote:
Why don’t we get real and call it like it is.
The Palestinians and the Jews LOVE to fight each other.
They are totally into it. If they really wanted peace, they would create it.
If just 51% of the mass conscienceness in the area wanted peace, they would have it.
Events would tip in favor of peace and increase in the direction of peace.
But, they LOVE to hate each other more than they LOVE the idea of peace.
Sorry, but it’s just that fucking simple.
[/quote]
Correcton - YOU’RE that fucking simple.
deleted
[quote]Shipshape wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Shipshape wrote:
For centuries Christians and Jews lived in relative peace alongside Muslims under the realm of the Islamic empires.
*edit[/quote]
I’d suppose that someone that was just conquered would live “peacefully.”[/quote]
I know that sectarian violence has been pervasive in that region of thousands of years but I’m countering the argument that Palestinians were unilaterally violent to Jews before the inception of Israel. The British promised the Sheiks who fought the Ottomans in WWI their tribal lands only to go back on the deal and surrender the land to a European cause (Jewish Zionism) with the Balfour agreement. It was Christians and Muslims alike who were displaced.
And the Gaza and Westbank are occupied territories. The occupation is recognized and is illegal under a few UN security resolutions.
At the same time, much of the land in Israel was legitimately bought by Jewish immigrants so dissolving Israel is in no way right or justified. A logical solution would be a “two-state” partition that would return the land captured by Israelis in the Six Day War to Palestine (Which Hamas is willing to commit to). [/quote]
Sorry, how are the territories ‘occupied’ in light of the fact that:
a) Gaza is Jew free
b) Article 49/6 of the Geneva convention refers to ‘forcible evictions/deportations’ of civilians and cites WWII as an example, clearly indicating the intent of the article. In what way are Israelis ‘forcibly evicting’ their own settlers into the West Bank?
c) Article 49/6 doesn’t apply anyway as Israel is not ‘exercising the powers of government’ having handed over authority to the PA.
d) The West Bank has never been part of any nation state.
e) Article 2 requires that the ‘occupiers’ and the ‘occupied’ are both ‘high contracting parties’ i.e. Sovereign nation states who have signed a treaty.
Please explain this one to the noob.
a) Legal bodies within the United Nations consider the Gaza, West Bank and Golan “Palestinian Occupied Territories”, although Gaza has been free of Jewish military occupation since 2005, not counting the occasional military escapade into Gaza in response to assorted bombings etc since that date.
b) I was not speaking of Israel evicting their own settlers into the West Bank. I was referring to the illegality of both Israeli settlements into West Bank as well as the annexation of Jerusalem in 1980 as a whole municipality. For Example:
United Nations Security resolution 252 which states that "administrative measure and action which tend to change the legal status of Jerusalem are invalid and cannot change that status and urgently called upon Israel to rescind all such measures already taken"
United Nations Security Resolution 446 which "Calls once more upon Israel, as the occupying Power, to abide scrupulously by the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention, to rescind its previous measures and to desist from taking any action which would result in changing the legal status and geographical nature and materially affecting the demographic composition of the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, and, in particular, not to transfer parts of its own civilian population into the occupied Arab territories;"
c) Authority was handed to the PA with the 1994 Oslo Accords, but it was seen by many Palestinians as a “shit end of the stick” deal and widely in favour of Israel. It did not address things such as the “right of return” (UNSC 129) that would permit Arabs the return of their land lost in 1948 and 1967. And it could be argued that it was a heavily moderated sovereignty ( i.e. a partially independent police force; Political figures had to be approved by Israel first, etc). This could be an explanation for the Hamas victory in 2006 because of the public dissatisfaction with the PA and the Oslo accords.
*Edit: I believe the PA has recently mentioned they are no longer bound to the conditions of the Oslo accords. Could anyone elaborate?
d) It was a province of Syria under Ottoman rule, then part of Trans-Jordan for a while.
e) West Bank has “sovereignty” and Jerusalem is considered by most of the International community as a part of West Bank. In effect, this is an occupation of a “sovereign” territory. Your arguing the semantics of “occupied territory” fails to address the reality of the situation.
[quote]Shipshape wrote:
a) Legal bodies within the United Nations consider the Gaza, West Bank and Golan “Palestinian Occupied Territories”, although Gaza has been free of Jewish military occupation since 2005, not counting the occasional military escapade into Gaza in response to assorted bombings etc since that date.
b) I was not speaking of Israel evicting their own settlers into the West Bank. I was referring to the illegality of both Israeli settlements into West Bank as well as the annexation of Jerusalem in 1980 as a whole municipality. For Example:
United Nations Security resolution 252 which states that "administrative measure and action which tend to change the legal status of Jerusalem are invalid and cannot change that status and urgently called upon Israel to rescind all such measures already taken"
United Nations Security Resolution 446 which "Calls once more upon Israel, as the occupying Power, to abide scrupulously by the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention, to rescind its previous measures and to desist from taking any action which would result in changing the legal status and geographical nature and materially affecting the demographic composition of the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, and, in particular, not to transfer parts of its own civilian population into the occupied Arab territories;"
c) Authority was handed to the PA with the 1994 Oslo Accords, but it was seen by many Palestinians as a “shit end of the stick” deal and widely in favour of Israel. It did not address things such as the “right of return” (UNSC 129) that would permit Arabs the return of their land lost in 1948 and 1967. And it could be argued that it was a heavily moderated sovereignty ( i.e. a partially independent police force; Political figures had to be approved by Israel first, etc). This could be an explanation for the Hamas victory in 2006 because of the public dissatisfaction with the PA and the Oslo accords.
*Edit: I believe the PA has recently mentioned they are no longer bound to the conditions of the Oslo accords. Could anyone elaborate?
d) It was a province of Syria under Ottoman rule, then part of Trans-Jordan for a while.
e) West Bank has “sovereignty” and Jerusalem is considered by most of the International community as a part of West Bank. In effect, this is an occupation of a “sovereign” territory. Your arguing the semantics of “occupied territory” fails to address the reality of the situation.
[/quote]
a) Legal bodies? WTF?
b) Security Council resolution 252? You mean the one that was passed by the Peoples Republic of China, Soviet Union, Algeria, Pakistan etc? That one? Also, both resolution 252 and 446 are based on the Fourth Geneva convention which allows for ‘military necessity’. Secondly, as I have already explained the disputed territories are not a ‘high contracting party’ thus resolutions 252 and 446 are bullshit.
c) The arabs who ‘lost land’(read left at the behest of the invading Arab armies) in 1948 would be too old to travel. Or are you suggesting that their children and childrens’ children etc are entitled to ‘right of return’(to a place they’ve never been to)? The arabs from the West Bank who were Jordanian citizens and fled to Jordan must be pretty old by now too.
In addition, planting some olive tree saplings on some Jew’s front lawn does not constitute having your land stolen.
‘Political figures’ do NOT have to be approved by Israel.
d) The fact that the Ottomans ‘occupied’ WB prior to WWI and that Jordan invaded, drove out the Jews and illegally ‘occupied’ it between 48 and 67 is neither here nor there.
e) The West bank is not a sovereign nation state. Jerusalem is NOT considered part of the West Bank by anyone.
To answer your question, the PA announced they are not going to honour their Oslo agreements. And if the PA is no longer bound by the accords then neither is Israel.