A short introduction about occupied Palestine in a 5 min. video

originally posted by: combatmaster
a reply to: voyger2

Ok... assuming for a second that Israel do all of the above... what would prevent another similar situation to the 6 day war?

bear in mind: if the 6 days war would NOT have occured.... this problem of occupation would be non existent!

So if Israel hadn't started the six day war then this problem wouldn't exist? So how to prevent another six day war? Remove all the warmongering Nazis that currently infest the Israeli government.

a reply to: buster2010

Oh please... im trying to have a mature discussion here and you show up again and spout this nonsense... how old are you?

Yes Israel hit first but get real man, it called a 'pre-emtive' strike and any retard knows that egypt jordan and syria were preparing to wage war any day...

if you are not prepared to have a proper discussion in the true context of events that occurred and would rather indulge in semantics of terminology then... at least dont intervene in our discussion!

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: voyger2

I don't bother answering your queries as you have ignored most of the points in mine.

As far as the U.N. creating a Palestine goes, Israel's response is identical as the 'Palestinian' response was the day Israel was created..."go forth and multiply".

What goes around, comes around. Deal with it..

I agree. "palestinian supporters" have consistently showed disregard for anything(even verified facts and links to said facts) As nothing more than lies. The PLO ans Arafatt have admitted this is a ploy to destroy Israels claims due to their in ability to win in a shooting war against them. As to claims the european jews are not related to the area have also been tested before and more than most do have a genetic marker. the only ones who do not are converts and according to jewish law are to be accepted as if they are and have always been jews. I can already hear the i want verification post coming but you know what? Theres no point because even if i give it to them they will automatically disregard it.

Why do people jump to conclusions when certain memebers dont like how israel is threating palestinians, nobody on ats im sure wants the terrorist to win.

Sad fact is another generaion on both sides will be raised with hatred in there heart.

a reply to: dashen

No argument from me on that score....

Here's a solution, Egypt had that whole region for a good period of time before the Romans as well. Give Israel and Palestine back to the Egyptians.....

One can argue who held what a long ways back. Does that really hold any weight with the current situation beyond talking points? I think not.

Personally, I'd never give the west bank back. Too tempting a location to attack from again.

Perhaps it's simplistic, however, Israel runs it's own affairs. The Palestinians seems infested with outside vested interests all the way to Iran. That does more damage to a potential agreement than anything else, that I can see.

originally posted by: combatmaster
a reply to: voyger2

Ok... assuming for a second that Israel do all of the above... what would prevent another similar situation to the 6 day war?

bear in mind: if the 6 days war would NOT have occured.... this problem of occupation would be non existent!

Let's assume for a second that Israel didn't occupy in the first place, this problem of occupation would be non existent!

If Israel continues to illegally occupy Palestine, regardless of International law and current events, what prevent's Israel of continuing the stealing land, opress, arrest, torture and killing Palestinians?

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: dashen

No argument from me on that score....

Here's a solution, Egypt had that whole region for a good period of time before the Romans as well. Give Israel and Palestine back to the Egyptians.....

One can argue who held what a long ways back. Does that really hold any weight with the current situation beyond talking points? I think not.

Personally, I'd never give the west bank back. Too tempting a location to attack from again.

Perhaps it's simplistic, however, Israel runs it's own affairs. The Palestinians seems infested with outside vested interests all the way to Iran. That does more damage to a potential agreement than anything else, that I can see.

The biggest stop to any negotiations or agreements is Israel. The instigate chaos with settlements. You must ask yourself why. They block all diplomatic avenues by the Palestinians. You must ask yourself why. They won't start any peace talks or negotiations unless pressed by the US. You must ask yourself why.

originally posted by: dukeofjive696969
Why do people jump to conclusions when certain memebers dont like how israel is threating palestinians, nobody on ats im sure wants the terrorist to win.

Sad fact is another generaion on both sides will be raised with hatred in there heart.

Why do people jump to conclusions when certain members don't like how outsiders threaten Israel?

As far as nobody on ATS wants the terrorist to win....I'm not so sure about that, at all!

Destroy it all. Flatten it all to a plain of radioactive molten glass.

originally posted by: Blue Shift
Destroy it all. Flatten it all to a plain of radioactive molten glass.

I see so bomb all the men, women and children and cute little puppies and kittens they have as pets. Taken a step further, anyone who gets in a fight or has an argument must be killed even if it doesn't affect/effect you. Taken a step further, those that argue with US must be killed as well. Global Genocide for all except those approved by Blue Shift. Got it. We'll probably want to keep a few slaves though to build shelter, cook for us and make our clothes.

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: voyger2
Ah, yet another avoidance.
Not very forthright on your part now, is it.
Imply cowardice in others and manifest the same when confronted by a valid point.
Discuss it later....

wrong! 3 questions here that you didn't reply. And here remember you again about those questions. Now, here is another question.. and the rest you already know.

a reply to: combatmaster

Yes Israel hit first but get real man, it called a 'pre-emtive' strike and any retard knows that egypt jordan and syria were preparing to wage war any day...

Apparently I'm older than you to know if you strike first then you started the war.

Israel Military Intelligence: Intelligence During the Six-Day War (1967)

According to Service estimates, the Arab armies would not be ready for war until 1969-70. The Egyptians had large numbers of forces tied down in Yemen backing the anti-Saudi, anti-royalist forces there.
On June 2 the Israeli Cabinet decided in principle on war. The military realized the dangers of waiting any longer: more Egyptian troops would arrive from Yemen, and the Soviet Union would continue with its supply of weapons to Egypt. Moreover, it was understood that the United States and Washington would do nothing to break Nasser's blockade of the Gulf of Aqaba.

So it looks like you know even less than a retard when even Jewish sources admit it would be at least another two years before Egypt would be ready for war. So go spout your nonsense to people stupid enough to actually believe it.

a reply to: voyger2

You didnt answer my question... please answer my question and not with another question!

a reply to: buster2010
Are you implying that there wouldn't have been a war waged against israel in 1967 if israel wouldnt have attacked?
if so, this is delusional! Maybe you should read the rest of the article you linked. it goes on to explain why the 2 year wait was not the case... but you would've had to read the entire article to find the paragraph you did and quote it out of context... which leads me to wonder why you would intentionally try to misinform on ATS.

if this is not what you are implying, then plz explain as i misunderstood!

originally posted by: combatmaster
a reply to: voyger2

You didnt answer my question...

Yes I did! I replied with another answer... care to reply?

a reply to: combatmaster

Are you implying that there wouldn't have been a war waged against israel in 1967 if israel wouldnt have attacked?

Would they have been attacked in 67? According to the article no they would not have been attacked.

if so, this is delusional! Maybe you should read the rest of the article you linked. it goes on to explain why the 2 year wait was not the case... but you would've had to read the entire article to find the paragraph you did and quote it out of context... which leads me to wonder why you would intentionally try to misinform on ATS.

Israel didn't wait because they didn't want the Egyptians to get fully armed and organized. The person misinforming ATS is the person crying Israel didn't start a war in 67 when facts clearly show they did start that war.

originally posted by: combatmaster
a reply to: voyger2
You didnt answer my question... please answer my question and not with another question!

Oh, this new!! So you edited your post just to add: «please answer my question and not with another question!»
after I replied to your last post! amazing technic i must say

The point is: I did replied your question with another question.I din't ignore it! Now, If you please, reply to my question you will receive your answer.

a reply to: voyger2

seriously? you mean you replied with another question... you cant even get that right?

look... i thought you were capable of having a civilized discussion here on ATS... but you are obviously incapable of either answering without a question or simply achieving anything resembling a proper discussion.

lets try one last time...

UN says: Israel has to withdraw to 67 borders...

I asked you: is there anything that can guarantee there wont be a repeat of the 67 war or a way to prevent this situation from occuring again e.g. un peacekeeping force, un backed peace agreement etc etc

your answer: Let's assume for a second that Israel didn't occupy in the first place, this problem of occupation would be non existent!

...this thread would also be non existent!

im not asking about the assumptions in the past, we cannot change the past. But we can change the future, so im asking about assuming something can be done in the future!

care to answer my question now?

originally posted by: combatmaster
seriously? you mean you replied with another question... you cant even get that right?

It's a normal thing we can do in a debate. Take this very known example given from Jesus:

«And when he was come into the temple, the chief priests and the elders of the people came unto him as he was teaching , and said , By what authority doest thou these things? and who gave thee this authority?
And Jesus answered and said unto them, I also will ask you one thing, which if ye tell me, I in like wise will tell you by what authority I do these things. »

Matthew 21, 23-24

originally posted by: combatmaster
look... i thought you were capable of having a civilized discussion here on ATS... but you are obviously incapable of either answering without a question or simply achieving anything resembling a proper discussion.

time for you to blush on this one...

paraphrasing you now: "lets try one last time..."

originally posted by: combatmaster
your answer: Let's assume for a second that Israel didn't occupy in the first place, this problem of occupation would be non existent!

Wrong! that wasn't my answer in the form of question, care to notice my interrogation (?) mark on the post above.
My answer/question was:
«If Israel continues to illegally occupy Palestine, regardless of International law and current events, what prevent's Israel of continuing the stealing land, opress, arrest, torture and killing Palestinians?»

Care to answer it?

Latest from Zeid Ra'ad Al Hussein - UN High Commissioner for Human Rights at the Special Meeting of the UN Human Rights Council - 28 October 2015

vídeo