Israel agrees to negotiate pre 67 lines

Originally posted by SpeachM1litant
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

Why do you keep repeating the same thing. I have already agreed with it all I have added is that the Arab countries later accepted UNR 242. Read my post and stop pushing your propaganda. Has Israel actually facilitated land for peace? It is nice to see that you avoid adressing any of my points.

I repeat the same thing because you keep coming bacl at me with the UN vote, which is not what I was talking about at all. I keep bringin it up because the argument is for Israel to deal with and accept the 67 lines, which the Arab countries never wanted in the first place.

To reject UNR 242, and then come back to and bitch because Israel is in violation of it (feel free to show me btw where Israel formally accepted 242 after the arabs rejected it) is a joke.

Like I said before, the Arab countries wanted to wipe israel off the map, and when they lost, in addition to losing territory, they cried about it and now are attempting to use ulterior motives to pull a win from a defeat.

Secondly, who should ISrael negotiate with? Why should they negotiate with Hamas or the Palestinian people when the territory in question was captured from Egypt and Jordan (and syria)?

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

You keep ignoring the settlements issue..

When did they start and when will they end?

Do you think they are illegal?

Does it really matter when they started since any and all settlements Israel have in place are considered illegal by the Palestinians and the Arab governments?

Do I think the settlements are illegal?
I think based on all o fthe information to date, that Israel is within its right to create a protective area to secure its survival. I think if Arabs and the Palestinains are so concerned about losing land, then they should have thought about that before placing Israel into a position of a preemptive attack on Arab forces. I think Arab governments should have thought about that prior to the 67 war, as well as after the 67 war.

If you are going to attempt to conquer a country to wipe them off the map, and you violate UN laws to do that in the first place, then you dont have room to bitch when that country uses the same tactics and wins in the process.

With that being said, the more rockets launched at Israel, I think the more land they are going to claim in an effort to push the "front" far enough back to keep their major cities somewhat safe from those rocket attacks.

If Palestinians want real peace and security, they are going to need a group other than Hamas, who still demnds Israel complete and total removal from the face of the earth, running their affairs. So long as they are in power, then any type of deal with Israel is going to be close to impossible to make.

The Palestinian people voted Hamas in office. They must now live with that decision.

I think any country, whether it be Israel, Syria, Turkey, China, etc etc etc, who has another entity on their border who constantly attacks their civilians and who is bent on removing them from the earth, have a legitimate self defense argument under UN law, just like Israel does.

A DMZ / buffer zone is one option, as Israel did when Lebanon refused to deal with Hezbollah and their rocket attacks in NOrthern Israel.

You will notice that since Hezbullah is essentially in charge in Lebanon that the borderr with Israel is seeing an incereas in incidents, with the most recent exchnage of gunfire between Israeli and Lebanese forces.

Arabs have already discovered, numerous times now, that attacking Israel in order to get their way doesnt work. Yet here we are.... still running the same play...

Whats your answer to the issue?

reply to post by Xcathdra


Ok so we have this clear.
-You first stated that Israel has been working on the premise of "land for peace"
-I disputed this claim and suggested that "land for peace" is more so an Arab position and Israel has done little to faciliate this in regards to a resolution in the West Bank, to which you replied with your original statement
-Your original statement suggested there was a vote against UNR 242 in the SC. Although this is not your position that is the way in which I interpreted your statement.
-I showed this was wrong then you went on to state the Arabs rejected UNR 242. This is suppose to be your current position
-I agreed with that statement but highlighted that the Arabs have belatedly accepted UNR 242 and there is a regional consensus as well as an international consensus that a two-state solution resolved in accordance with UNR 242 and UNR 338 is the only solution.
-Now keep in mind your primary position was that Israel has facilitated land for peace in the West Bank and Syria, once I suggested otherwise your position swaped that Israel does not have to accept "land for peace" today as "the Arabs firstly rejected it, realised that Israel is here to stay and they can't win with force and are now crying little babies that don't deserve the land and Israel should not be forced to give land for bilateral peace arangments".

Firstly I would like to state that this consensus which you have came to is stupid. You seem to view international relations and diplomacy in overly simplistic terms (i.e you lost, get over it). This is just not the reality. Israel has asserted its military dominance and created an "Iron Wall" in the words of the realist Zionist Ze'ev Jabotinsky. The Arabs don't have to recognize Israel but they have accepted Israel is here to stay and Ze'ev Jabotinsky himself would use this oppurtunity to reach an agreement with the Palestinians. It is illegal to build settlements or annex any of the West Bank. The U.S, the 5 permanent members of the security council and the international community have reached this consensus and even condemned the illegal annexation of East Jerusalem. Israel is the only one which REJECTS this consensus.

Why should Israel negotiate with the Palestinians (I see you stated Hamas but not Fatah in order to progress you propagandized image of a fanatical Arab populace) and not Syria, Jordan or Egypt.

Firstly Israel has reached a peace agreement with Egypt (1973) and Jordan (1993). Israel still must negotiate with Syria and reach an accord with them. However why should Israel negotiate with a Palestinian entity? Firstly the international community passed a resolution (1397) saying that the solution lies between Israel and Palestine in accordance with UNR 242 and 338.

The Security Council,

Recalling all its previous relevant resolutions, in particular resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973),

Affirming a vision of a region where two States, Israel and Palestine, live side by side within secure and recognized borders,

Expressing its grave concern at the continuation of the tragic and violent events that have taken place since September 2000, especially the recent attacks and the increased number of casualties,

Stressing the need for all concerned to ensure the safety of civilians,

Stressing also the need to respect the universally accepted norms of international humanitarian law,

Welcoming and encouraging the diplomatic efforts of special envoys from the United States of America, the Russian Federation, the European Union and the United Nations Special Coordinator and others to bring about a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East,

Welcoming the contribution of Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah,

Demands immediate cessation of all acts of violence, including all acts of terror, provocation, incitement and destruction;

Calls upon the Israeli and Palestinian sides and their leaders to cooperate in the implementation of the Tenet work plan and Mitchell Report recommendations with the aim of resuming negotiations on a political settlement;

Expresses support for the efforts of the Secretary-General and others to assist the parties to halt the violence and to resume the peace process;

Decides to remain seized of the matter.

Why else? Currently we recognize the solution lies between Israel and Palestine in sorting out the future of a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza. In fact Israel itself has recognized after many years of hesitation and denial, that the solution to the territiorial "dispute" or illegality is between Israel and Palestine not Israel and Egypt or Israel and Jordan.

I recognize that Israel has to solve the problem with Palestine which would result in increased stability in the Middle East. You have changed your position on this many times in this thread so it is difficult to understand what you believe. Firstly you believed Israel facilitated land for peace which proved to be false, then you claim its the Arabs fault, they're little babies, the burden lies on the Arabs to accomodate Israel even if this is what some call in the world of international politics as "retarded". It seems to me that you may be a reincarnation of Golda Meir, believing that the Palestinians should be bypassed (even if any resolution has to accepted by them in order for it to be a just and lasting peace) and that negotiations should be between sovereign Arab states in the regards of the future of the occupied territories. That it pretty much like saying "there is a dispute between you in one house and me in the house next to yours, you have occupied my house and you are going to reach a resolution with my neighbours even if I will not accept this as it does not incoporate my interests". If you are serious about a just and lasting peace you would realise that that is a joke of a position to have.

Do I think the settlements are illegal?
I think based on all o fthe information to date, that Israel is within its right to create a protective area to secure its survival. I think if Arabs and the Palestinains are so concerned about losing land, then they should have thought about that before placing Israel into a position of a preemptive attack on Arab forces. I think Arab governments should have thought about that prior to the 67 war, as well as after the 67 war.

If you are going to attempt to conquer a country to wipe them off the map, and you violate UN laws to do that in the first place, then you dont have room to bitch when that country uses the same tactics and wins in the process.

With that being said, the more rockets launched at Israel, I think the more land they are going to claim in an effort to push the "front" far enough back to keep their major cities somewhat safe from those rocket attacks.

The settlements have NOTHING to do with defensive borders as they are nowhere near the Israeli border and in fact the Israelis are adding defensive borders to the settlements..

Your continued use of the 67 war as an excuse for more land grabs is ridiculous as you are well aware that Israel was the one that attacked..

The rocket fire could very well be deemed retaliation for Israeli actions and continued settlements which you know very well continue to this day..

We're getting nowhere and it's Israel with the biggest stick and no law but their own that will continue till someone stops them IMO..

reply to post by backinblack


Im not using the 67 war for anything... You guys are the one who bring it up.

I get you hate Israel, as it comes across loud and clear in every single post you make.

Defensive borders do have a lot to do with whats going on, and if you actually look at the maps I posted you will see how closey west bank settlements are to Israeli cities. You view this through rose tint glasses in terms of if Israel just withdraws everything will be normal.

We are telling you that is not going to happen. We say this based on the actions of Hamas, something you continue to completely ignore. Hamas hates Israel and wants it wiped off the map. Its bad enough having borders with a group who has that goal. Its even worse when that land will be within spitting distance of major Israeli cities, as well as holy sites.

Are you saying Hamas wont launch any more attacks if ISrael withdraws from all occupied territories? If you say yes, how do you reconcile the fact their charter, as well as continued statements, call for the destruction of Israel?

You say the Palestinians have a right to defend themselves. Are you saying ISrael does not?

Also, since we are seeing this from different perspectives, please explain how settlements are not part of a defensive boundry.

Instead of assuming that I either know, or that I am ignoring, assume I am having issues seeing this from your persepctive. Explain it to me and give it a little more detail please.

reply to post by Xcathdra


Sorry I don't see how settlements suit defensive purposes. If they really wanted to use that as an excuse for the illegal settlements they would have to take them down, return the Israeli to Israel and set up some form of militarized zones where the existing settlements are populated by the Israeli military.

As far as I see the settlements exacerbate the security situation. They promote terrorism and continue to radicalize the Palestinians and they put Israeli civilians (which is illegal) on the "front line". Palestinian rockets attacks are extremely uncommon from the Fatah governed West Bank but are rather predominant in the Hamas ruled Gaza strip. The settlements have no security purposes and Israel dosen't try to sell them as such rather that belief is of your own conclusion and a twisted one I might add. You claim we hate Israel- when I haven't said one anti-Israeli thing on this thread. Your argument here is rediculous. I wouldn't dream to call you a racist and say you hate Arabs. I choose to respect your opinion and disagree with it, however you choose to act childish and call me a racist for my rationalised strategic views while choosing to ignore and refusing to adress the bulk of my statements.

Instead of assuming that I either know, or that I am ignoring, assume I am having issues seeing this from your persepctive. Explain it to me and give it a little more detail please.

You say I hate Israel, I don't..
I hate many of the actions of the Israeli Government..

You say it's me talking about the 67 war..
Wrong, YOU brought it up in your last post as a reason for land grabs..

IMO you find it hard to say Israel have done any wrong unless you'd care to list them..

I see some wrong being done by Hamas but also agree with the Palestinians right to defend themselves against a clear aggressor/invader..

Here's your post prior where YOU again brought up 67, not me..

Do I think the settlements are illegal?
I think based on all o fthe information to date, that Israel is within its right to create a protective area to secure its survival. I think if Arabs and the Palestinains are so concerned about losing land, then they should have thought about that before placing Israel into a position of a preemptive attack on Arab forces. I think Arab governments should have thought about that prior to the 67 war, as well as after the 67 war.

If you are going to attempt to conquer a country to wipe them off the map, and you violate UN laws to do that in the first place, then you dont have room to bitch when that country uses the same

BTW, sorry my reply/quote feature isn't working.
Everything in the reply box disappears, I have asked admin for help but none has come that worked.

reply to post by backinblack


Right, I know your position. You never bothered to answer my questions though.

Does Israel have a right to defend themselves?
Please explain to me how settlements are not part of a defensive area?

The 67 war was brought up as a response to militantspeeches post a page or so back. The basis for this thread is the borders after the 67 war.The part you quoted for me goes beyond that war, calling into question the mindset of Arab governments prior to the 67 war, and the wars that came after 67.

Right, I know your position. You never bothered to answer my questions though.

And what exactly is "my position" according to you please?

Does Israel have a right to defend themselves?

Off course anyone has a right to self defense..
It's just getting to be a very grey area when attacks are happening daily..
What's an attack and what's retaliation for a previous attack by either side is hard to decide.

Please explain to me how settlements are not part of a defensive area?

Easy, if they are on Palestinian land and occupied by Israeli civilians then they are OBVIOUSLY NOT defensive borders,correct?

The 67 war was brought up as a response to militantspeeches post a page or so back

No mate, it was a reply to my post on this page..

reply to post by SpeachM1litant

Prior to Camp David both sided failed to live up to their commitments but theIsraeli breaches were both more numberous and more substantive in nature.

Oh, I clearly remember that. Just like after signing the Oslo agreements.
As soon as the negotiations failed, Israelis began strapping bombs to young men women and children, sent them to crowded Palestinians restaurants, buses and markets. At the same time they launched rockets into densely populated Palestinian cities, while other Israeli groups, in a more sporadic fashion, ambushed Palestinian cars, spraying them with assault rifles, or just entered Palestinian homes and cut the throats of their babies.

When is your next book coming? Are you going to title it as you did with your first one?
I.E :"I Am (a twister of reality) legend.”

reply to post by gravitational


And what will the title of your next book be?

'Israel, the country that does nothing wrong." ??

Originally posted by backinblack

Right, I know your position. You never bothered to answer my questions though.

And what exactly is "my position" according to you please?

That Israel is the sole party responsible for just about every single problem in the Middle East. In other threads, even when Hamas claims responsibility for the attack, you go down the road of Hamas being controlled by Mossad. So its pretty difficult to see your view point as anything other than total disdain for ISrael.

If im wrong on that then im wrong, but its how you come across. In other threads you have accused me of being in absolute support for Israel, which I am not and other threads bare that out. Your message has been consistent though towards Israel. You also remain silent when attacks on ISrael occur.

Thats why I say I know what your position is.

If its not then may i respectfully suggest before you post to at least check your response to see how it reads?

Originally posted by backinblack
Off course anyone has a right to self defense..
It's just getting to be a very grey area when attacks are happening daily..
What's an attack and what's retaliation for a previous attack by either side is hard to decide.

How is it a grey area when rockets are launched against civilian Israeli targets? How is it a grey area when Hamas uses restricted buildings to launch attacks from or to store munitions (schools / mosques).

Originally posted by backinblack
Easy, if they are on Palestinian land and occupied by Israeli civilians then they are OBVIOUSLY NOT defensive borders,correct?

Incorrect - A defensive buffer when taking into account rockets is going to mean distance. Israel pushes out into areas that are close to their key cities in an effort to keep Hamas at bay. In this case distance equals buffer, where the intent is to put distance between Hamas rockets and Israeli cities.

Originally posted by backinblack
No mate, it was a reply to my post on this page..

edit on 6-8-2011 by backinblack because: (no reason given)

No it was part of this thread since page 1, and from there its been discussed in various forms, with the chunk of my argument going to militantspeech who tried to change the facts while ignoring the post.. The argument went from ISrael being in violation of 242, to 242 being irrelevant because no party agreed to it, to using it as boundaries, back to defensive buffer zones.

reply to post by Xcathdra


You're back to BS and trying to put words in my mouth..

I thought we were doing well but I give up on you and your lies..

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

You're back to BS and trying to put words in my mouth..

I thought we were doing well but I give up on you and your lies..

Ah yes... typical...

You cant hold your own in a debate, so you pack up your marbles, and run home crying.

Just like Arab countries, you launch attacks and then cry when you lose the argument. Hell you went the whole 9 yards even by threatening me with T and C violations while completely ignoring the person who is on your side of the fence who called me a liar.

See the paralell there? You attack, he attacks, you both lose, cry about it then go and whine about T and C violations. On the off chance you dont get the paralell, you and militant would be the arab countries, you attack someone who beats you, and you run to the mods (inthis case the UN).

In the thread where Hamas targeted a school bus with a laser guided anti tank missle, you stated Hamas is controlled by Mossad. Do I need to go pull the quote for you to jog your memory?

When you and militant speech understand that in the west we are free to challenge any and all facts, unlike some Arab countries, the better off you both will be.

When you decide to grow up and act your age and partake in debate instead of personal attacks and temper tantrums, by all means, join back in. Until then though, please, for the sake of the threads, whine to yourself and keep you personal issues and bias out of the threads.

You do nothing but drag them off topic.

The West Bank and gaza belonged to Egypt and jordan prior to the 67 war. When Israel defended itself, those areas were captured. As I have stated before, if they cant back up their fight, then maybe they should have stayed home that day.

The settlements in the West bank, and you can see them on the maps that I posted because you are apparently incapable of finding them yourself, are in buffer zones. That is done to create distance between major cities and the rockets hamas likes to lob indiscriminately at Israeli civilians.

Do you really think that if Israel just turned everything back over to Palestinians that Hamas would just go away? They are bent on the destructionof Israel, and as you are so fond of lecturing people, Israel has a right as well to be safe and secure from outside attacks.

I fail to understand why you continue to attack Israel and scream international law violations while you ignore the exact same thing coming from Hamas.

That right there is your position, and its always been that. If you dont beleive me go read your posts in threads dealing with Israel.

Why should ISrael give up territory they captured because of Arab agression to a group of people whose elected government is calling for ISrael to be wiped off the map?

Try to answer that without the usual Israel is to blame argument you usually give in response.

reply to post by Xcathdra


Whatever crap you wanna lay mate and I'm over being interested in defending myself against your lies..

People can go back and see my past posts if they wish to see how you twist and lie but I truly don't care..

I know what I've said and what my MAIN points have been..

Originally posted by backinblack
I know what I've said and what my MAIN points have been..

Suuuure you do -

Originally posted by backinblack
Maybe Hamas is Israeli controlled at some level..

Originally posted by backinblack
Obviously it was decided by higher up Israeli officials that an accidental mortar strike did not suit their agenda..

Originally posted by backinblack
Why does Mossad training to be terrorists not shock me??

Originally posted by backinblack
Land stolen in 67 is yours??
Not by international law it isn't..

So yes, you said these things and no, im not distoring / twisting anything you are saying. You are all over the place depending on who is in the thread, and I think you forget what you say. The same thread these quotes were pulled also contain quotes of yours regarding the 67 war, which completely contradicts what you are saying in this thread.

Palestinians wont get their own sovereign land so long as Hamas wants to wipe Israel off the map. Hamas is the largest obstacle to peace and a Palestinian state, not Israel.

reply to post by backinblack


But we did go back to your past posts.
When ever you lose an argument, you either appeal for emotions and opinions based on nothing but lies, crying to the mods, or start a tedious circular argument.

One lie you keep repeating over and over again, is that Israel attacked first in 1967. I read it for about a hundred times by now. Yet, the preemptive attack got nothing to do with the west bank, Palestinians, settlements bla bla all your usual rhetoric.
Do you really believe that everyone in this board is an ignorant idiot that has never picked up a history book in his life, or saw first hand history unfolding, not as a bystander 10,000 miles away? When you stop approaching people with this attitude of arrogance, maybe, just maybe your arguments will be worth more than just a blurred pixel on my screen.

reply to post by gravitational

One lie you keep repeating over and over again, is that Israel attacked first in 1967. I read it for about a hundred times by now. Yet, the preemptive attack got nothing to do with the west bank,

A lie I keep repeating is that Israel attacked first in 1967 ?

And your answer is they didn't, it was a pre emptive strike by Israel?

Mate, pull a dictionary or go back to school..
The biggest joke is the fools that starred your post..

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Originally posted by backinblack
I know what I've said and what my MAIN points have been..

Suuuure you do -

Originally posted by backinblack
Maybe Hamas is Israeli controlled at some level..

Originally posted by backinblack
Obviously it was decided by higher up Israeli officials that an accidental mortar strike did not suit their agenda..

Originally posted by backinblack
Why does Mossad training to be terrorists not shock me??

Originally posted by backinblack
Land stolen in 67 is yours??
Not by international law it isn't..

So yes, you said these things and no, im not distoring / twisting anything you are saying. You are all over the place depending on who is in the thread, and I think you forget what you say. The same thread these quotes were pulled also contain quotes of yours regarding the 67 war, which completely contradicts what you are saying in this thread.

Palestinians wont get their own sovereign land so long as Hamas wants to wipe Israel off the map. Hamas is the largest obstacle to peace and a Palestinian state, not Israel.

Yes, I said all that and much more depending on the conversation..
The original articles regarding the bus attack clearly had pictures taken AT the scene with captions reading "mortar" attack..
The damage done to the bus does not resemble that of the missile latter claimed as used by Israel.
The excuse was it may not have fully detonated but oddly no evidence has been shown although you'd certainly expect it from a partially detonated missile.

As for Hamas, it's a FACT that they were at least initially supported by Israel.
I have said many times that there useless little rockets do more damage to Palestine through retaliations than they inflict on Israel and that I deplore any attacks on civilians by either side..
Therefore who's to say Hamas isn't still working with Israel in some way to continue the war that suits Israel?
Why does Mossad training to be terrorists not shock me?
Mate that's in their motto and MANY facts our out there relating to their false flag terrorists attacks.
Do I really need to list a few for such a good researcher like yourself?
Land stolen in 1967 Israel attack?
Yes, it's illegal and nearly everyone bar Israel agrees, what's your point??

Like I said, I'm over your tactics..
Mention me in ANY post again and it WILL be reported..
I am NOT the topic, got it??