BF2S Forums Israel and Palestine

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

You should tell the UN and major NGO's your reasoning.  Maybe they'll change their mind.  You and lowing can double-team them.

Just going with the definition used everywhere else in the world. Iraq was no longer considered occupied once the GoI took over sovereignty and the US troops were there under agreement with the GoI. That's per the UN and major NGO's definition--why the difference? Gaza has no Israeli troops in its boundaries and is governed independently by a sovereign government. Meets the same criteria.

Double standard if they do not recognize Gaza as no longer occupied by Israel.

11 Bravo wrote:

israel is useless.   the people are useless.  give israel land....on mars.

I've become ambivalent on the issue. Both sides practice douchebaggery.

But I hate double standards and lack of objective, critical thought on an issue.

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

You should tell the UN and major NGO's your reasoning.  Maybe they'll change their mind.  You and lowing can double-team them.

Just going with the definition used everywhere else in the world. Iraq was no longer considered occupied once the GoI took over sovereignty and the US troops were there under agreement with the GoI. That's per the UN and major NGO's definition--why the difference? Gaza has no Israeli troops in its boundaries and is governed independently by a sovereign government. Meets the same criteria.

Double standard if they do not recognize Gaza as no longer occupied by Israel.

Maybe its the wrong definition, its more a fenced-in ghetto than 'occupied', but the difference doesn't matter.

Of course it matters. An occupying force has legal requirements under international law. If a force isn't occupying a country, they can't be expected to meet those requirements.

Dilbert_X wrote:

lowing wrote:

a country controlling its borders!! OUTRAGEOUS!!! and why do the Palestinians need airspace? Do they have to file a flight plan to launch a rocket now?

The border between Gaza and Egypt, and Gaza and the sea, are not 'Israel's borders'.

Egypt controls the border between Gaza and Egypt, Dilbert.

Cordoning actions are not occupying actions. They are separate and distinct.

FEOS wrote:

11 Bravo wrote:

israel is useless.   the people are useless.  give israel land....on mars.

I've become ambivalent on the issue. Both sides practice douchebaggery.

But I hate double standards and lack of objective, critical thought on an issue.

+1

Dilbert_X wrote:

Spark wrote:

FEOS wrote:

I've become ambivalent on the issue. Both sides practice douchebaggery.

But I hate double standards and lack of objective, critical thought on an issue.

+1

The problem I have with this view is that it sees the two sides as equal, having equal claims to the region and practicing equal douchebaggery against each other.
Whereas the Israelis started this, have done far worse to the Palestinians than vice versa and are continuing to escalate it, all the while claiming to be victims.
Its not a 'dispute' which began 2,000 years ago, it really began around 1900.

That's the way the UN--and most countries of the world--see(s) it...

Your perspective of who's worse is yours to have. Doesn't mean it's correct. The bottomline is that any side that makes peace overtures, then backs off from those without good reason is thwarting the peace process--and both sides are equally guilty of that.

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

You should tell the UN and major NGO's your reasoning.  Maybe they'll change their mind.  You and lowing can double-team them.

Just going with the definition used everywhere else in the world. Iraq was no longer considered occupied once the GoI took over sovereignty and the US troops were there under agreement with the GoI. That's per the UN and major NGO's definition--why the difference? Gaza has no Israeli troops in its boundaries and is governed independently by a sovereign government. Meets the same criteria.

Double standard if they do not recognize Gaza as no longer occupied by Israel.

Maybe its the wrong definition, its more a fenced-in ghetto than 'occupied', but the difference doesn't matter.

lowing wrote:

a country controlling its borders!! OUTRAGEOUS!!! and why do the Palestinians need airspace? Do they have to file a flight plan to launch a rocket now?

The border between Gaza and Egypt, and Gaza and the sea, are not 'Israel's borders'.

Well if no IDF are in Gaza that must mean the IDF are controlling the borders from within Egypt...Please link me to a source that shows the IDF is controlling the borders between Gaza and Egypt. PErsonally I don't see how that can be.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Spark wrote:

FEOS wrote:

I've become ambivalent on the issue. Both sides practice douchebaggery.

But I hate double standards and lack of objective, critical thought on an issue.

+1

The problem I have with this view is that it sees the two sides as equal, having equal claims to the region and practicing equal douchebaggery against each other.
Whereas the Israelis started this, have done far worse to the Palestinians than vice versa and are continuing to escalate it, all the while claiming to be victims.
Its not a 'dispute' which began 2,000 years ago, it really began around 1900.

I disagree. The Jews have roots there that date back farther than anyone else involved.

  ANY proposed partition plans were flatly refused and the Arabs and Islamists chose war INSTANTLY against Israel instead, with a zero tolerance for Israeli. presence in the region. THAT is what started it. Negotiation only became an option when the Arabs and Muslims, engaged in battle with Israel and got their asses kicked. In my mind the Arabs and Muslims chose a path of destruction over a path of peace with Israel from the very beginning. It was their call, and they lost. So now they want the UN and the world to do for them what they themselves could not achieve in the war they chose. Fuck that. Especially since it has been openly stated that any negotiation would be used to buy time until the total destruction of Israel could be achieve.

lowing wrote:

Especially since it has been openly stated that any negotiation would be used to buy time until the total destruction of Israel could be achieve.

Yeah.

I reckon a couple of billion mortar rockets later and Palestinians might actually achieve that.

lowing wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

lowing wrote:

Especially since it has been openly stated that any negotiation would be used to buy time until the total destruction of Israel could be achieve.

Yeah.

I reckon a couple of billion mortar rockets later and Palestinians might actually achieve that.

Nice cherry pick. anyway, if you do not like consistently getting your ass kicked in a war YOU started, surrender.

What do you think a surrender will achieve?

What do you think would happen?

I'm curious as to what you think surrender is.

lowing wrote:

I mean since what the IDF does is retaliatory in nature.

How is bulldozing Palestinian homes and building Israeli settlements over the rubble "retaliatory" ?

AussieReaper wrote:

lowing wrote:

I mean since what the IDF does is retaliatory in nature.

How is bulldozing Palestinian homes and building Israeli settlements over the rubble "retaliatory" ?

Didn't realize Israel was building settlements in Gaza. That is where the rockets are coming from, you know.

What the hell is with Dilbert and Aussie? WIll you please stop cherry picking the posts, and address whatt is posted, instead of picking a single sentence and act like that was the bulk of what was said.

Last edited by lowing (2011-04-09 15:35:46)

I think you need to read a bit more. A two-state solution is the generally agreed upon long-term solution by nearly everyone who isn't of the "Israel has no right to exist" party, which is quite small. They are a recognized member of the UN, even recognized by those who don't think they should exist. Get over it.