Would it matter? Do you think usmarine would honour a peace treat if I killed his grandmother?Pug wrote:
Was there a peace treaty after you did so?Bubbalo wrote:
If I walked into the US with an army, shot a whole heap of people to force the refugees into Canada, then called for peace, d'ya think it'd happen?san4 wrote:
Your argument doesn't work unless you can show me some Arab efforts to make peace on the condition that the Zionists be less violent and aggressive.
Pages: 1 2
- Index »
- Community »
- Debate and Serious Talk »
- The Israeli SOLUTION to the Palestinian Problem
Depends if you accept the peace.Bubbalo wrote:
Would it matter? Do you think usmarine would honour a peace treat if I killed his grandmother?Pug wrote:
Was there a peace treaty after you did so?Bubbalo wrote:
If I walked into the US with an army, shot a whole heap of people to force the refugees into Canada, then called for peace, d'ya think it'd happen?
You honestly believed that if I and President Bush in exile signed a treaty which gave me the bulk of the US mainland, usmarine would just sit idly by twiddling his thumbs over his grandmothers grave?Pug wrote:
Depends if you accept the peace.Bubbalo wrote:
Would it matter? Do you think usmarine would honour a peace treat if I killed his grandmother?Pug wrote:
Was there a peace treaty after you did so?
Off to bed now, I'll respond tomorrow, so take your time.
So should I write the same thing as I did before just like you?Bubbalo wrote:
You honestly believed that if I and President Bush in exile signed a treaty which gave me the bulk of the US mainland, usmarine would just sit idly by twiddling his thumbs over his grandmothers grave?Pug wrote:
Depends if you accept the peace.Bubbalo wrote:
Would it matter? Do you think usmarine would honour a peace treat if I killed his grandmother?
Off to bed now, I'll respond tomorrow, so take your time.
I didn't write the same thing, I assumed the treaty were accepted by both sides, which was the response to your question/statement.Pug wrote:
So should I write the same thing as I did before just like you?Bubbalo wrote:
You honestly believed that if I and President Bush in exile signed a treaty which gave me the bulk of the US mainland, usmarine would just sit idly by twiddling his thumbs over his grandmothers grave?Pug wrote:
Depends if you accept the peace.
Off to bed now, I'll respond tomorrow, so take your time.
So if both sides accept the peace...
Does that mean more violence?
Does that mean more violence?
Last edited by Pug (2007-05-08 07:13:36)
I'm not sure I understand what you are saying. Are you talking about the founding of Israel?Bubbalo wrote:
If I walked into the US with an army, shot a whole heap of people to force the refugees into Canada, then called for peace, d'ya think it'd happen?san4 wrote:
Your argument doesn't work unless you can show me some Arab efforts to make peace on the condition that the Zionists be less violent and aggressive.
Edit: Because if you are, your analogy is obviously flawed. If you were fleeing from industrialized mass murder and had a reasonable concern based on centuries of history that you would not be safe in any country other than your own, and you had some historical ties to the land, and the U.N. proposed a two-state solution, yeah, I'd engage in some serious peace discussions. Wouldn't you?
Last edited by san4 (2007-05-08 10:26:39)
Agreed... To fight over a small strip of land for eternity is surely insane.theelviscerator wrote:
All I have to say is an athiest, cannot nor ever will not understand the Israeli Situation.
Well not in their lifetime anyways.
Maybe they are fighting for a home.Turquoise wrote:
Agreed... To fight over a small strip of land for eternity is surely insane.theelviscerator wrote:
All I have to say is an athiest, cannot nor ever will not understand the Israeli Situation.
Well not in their lifetime anyways.
If that's the case, we've got plenty of land in Wyoming for either the Palestinians or the Israelis.sergeriver wrote:
Maybe they are fighting for a home.Turquoise wrote:
Agreed... To fight over a small strip of land for eternity is surely insane.theelviscerator wrote:
All I have to say is an athiest, cannot nor ever will not understand the Israeli Situation.
Well not in their lifetime anyways.
Would you give away Wyoming?Turquoise wrote:
If that's the case, we've got plenty of land in Wyoming for either the Palestinians or the Israelis.sergeriver wrote:
Maybe they are fighting for a home.Turquoise wrote:
Agreed... To fight over a small strip of land for eternity is surely insane.
I would, and since most of it is federally owned land, the government could partition areas for Israeli or Palestinian communities.sergeriver wrote:
Would you give away Wyoming?Turquoise wrote:
If that's the case, we've got plenty of land in Wyoming for either the Palestinians or the Israelis.sergeriver wrote:
Maybe they are fighting for a home.
There's plenty of land for all of us to live on, but past grievances, nationalism, and religious dogma cause people to act like animals over something so abundant.
I don't know. It seems to me that most people would not like the idea. Specially in Wyoming, lol.Turquoise wrote:
I would, and since most of it is federally owned land, the government could partition areas for Israeli or Palestinian communities.sergeriver wrote:
Would you give away Wyoming?Turquoise wrote:
If that's the case, we've got plenty of land in Wyoming for either the Palestinians or the Israelis.
There's plenty of land for all of us to live on, but past grievances, nationalism, and religious dogma cause people to act like animals over something so abundant.
I'm sure they wouldn't, but if we did do that, we could convince them of its merit by pointing out how much more peaceful the Middle East would be as a result. Wyoming would have a rough time adjusting at first, but I think it would work.sergeriver wrote:
I don't know. It seems to me that most people would not like the idea. Specially in Wyoming, lol.Turquoise wrote:
I would, and since most of it is federally owned land, the government could partition areas for Israeli or Palestinian communities.sergeriver wrote:
Would you give away Wyoming?
There's plenty of land for all of us to live on, but past grievances, nationalism, and religious dogma cause people to act like animals over something so abundant.
Last edited by Turquoise (2007-05-08 14:11:53)
What about NC or Dallas? j/kTurquoise wrote:
I'm sure they wouldn't, but if we did do that, we could convince them of its merit by pointing out how much more peaceful the region would be as a result. Wyoming would have a rough time adjusting at first, but I think it would work.sergeriver wrote:
I don't know. It seems to me that most people would not like the idea. Specially in Wyoming, lol.Turquoise wrote:
I would, and since most of it is federally owned land, the government could partition areas for Israeli or Palestinian communities.
There's plenty of land for all of us to live on, but past grievances, nationalism, and religious dogma cause people to act like animals over something so abundant.
NC could work, but it would have to be somewhere in the eastern regions where not many people live.sergeriver wrote:
What about NC or Dallas? j/kTurquoise wrote:
I'm sure they wouldn't, but if we did do that, we could convince them of its merit by pointing out how much more peaceful the region would be as a result. Wyoming would have a rough time adjusting at first, but I think it would work.sergeriver wrote:
I don't know. It seems to me that most people would not like the idea. Specially in Wyoming, lol.
North Texas could work... maybe South of Dallas...
No, the views of those in the US, Israel's muscle, are more important. The US is the only nation with the power to force Israel into submission.san4 wrote:
I understand. But the views of people in the middle east are more important for peace. And it has been the official policy of one of the "partners for peace" that the other partner should be wiped off the map. I would not defend Israel's human rights record, but Israel's human rights record is not the reason there is no two state solution.sergeriver wrote:
By nobody I mean here in this thread, not in the Middle East.san4 wrote:
Nobody is advocating that? There would be a two-state solution today if that were the case.
The Israelis wouldn't be interested though. They've been offered other lands before and rejected those proposals. The US would never allow a Palestinian settlement anywhere in the US. Therefore the whole issue of mass relocation outside of the Middle East is never going to provide a viable solution.Turquoise wrote:
I would, and since most of it is federally owned land, the government could partition areas for Israeli or Palestinian communities.sergeriver wrote:
Would you give away Wyoming?Turquoise wrote:
If that's the case, we've got plenty of land in Wyoming for either the Palestinians or the Israelis.
There's plenty of land for all of us to live on, but past grievances, nationalism, and religious dogma cause people to act like animals over something so abundant.
There are 3 issues that really need to be addressed.
1. The issue of Palestinian refugees forced from their homes and lands. Something must be done for them, either be allowed to return to their homes, be compensated by the Israeli government and given citizenship of the countries they are residing as refugees in, or be integrated into an expanded Palestinian state. As things stand, and have stood for the past 60 years, with the refugee crisis there can be no peace - it simply will not happen.
2. The borders of Israel must be redefined. To what extent this must happen is unclear, but it MUST happen to some degree, whether it be '67 borders or '48 borders or something else entirely, it must be done. Preferably with Arab control of East Jerusalem and some Palestinian controlled connection (even if it is just a big road) between the Gaza Strip and the West Bank.
3. All occupation of and incursions into returned territories must cease, as must all suicide bombings targeted at Israelis. Any peace package would rely heavily on there being no terror attacks by either side, Israeli troops on Palestinian soil has a similarly negative effect as any attacks and so any military presence should be withdrawn.
The primary aim of all of these steps would be to create a climate in which the Palestinian people believe that they are free from oppression and can see their nation as a proper state on the world stage. With a successful Palestine free from any Israeli occupation, we may see peace. Unfortunately Palestine may not succeed, if this happens then the failure could be blamed on the Israelis and the cycle of violence could continue - but let's hope that doesn't happen.
That makes little sense. Even if Israel were "forced into submission," how could there be a deal when the only acceptable deal is that Israel not exist?jonsimon wrote:
No, the views of those in the US, Israel's muscle, are more important. The US is the only nation with the power to force Israel into submission.san4 wrote:
I understand. But the views of people in the middle east are more important for peace. And it has been the official policy of one of the "partners for peace" that the other partner should be wiped off the map. I would not defend Israel's human rights record, but Israel's human rights record is not the reason there is no two state solution.sergeriver wrote:
By nobody I mean here in this thread, not in the Middle East.
Uh.......what?Pug wrote:
So if both sides accept the peace...
Does that mean more violence?
Again, what? I'm talking about the Palestinians murdered by Zionists.san4 wrote:
I'm not sure I understand what you are saying. Are you talking about the founding of Israel?Bubbalo wrote:
If I walked into the US with an army, shot a whole heap of people to force the refugees into Canada, then called for peace, d'ya think it'd happen?san4 wrote:
Your argument doesn't work unless you can show me some Arab efforts to make peace on the condition that the Zionists be less violent and aggressive.
Edit: Because if you are, your analogy is obviously flawed. If you were fleeing from industrialized mass murder and had a reasonable concern based on centuries of history that you would not be safe in any country other than your own, and you had some historical ties to the land, and the U.N. proposed a two-state solution, yeah, I'd engage in some serious peace discussions. Wouldn't you?
When?Bubbalo wrote:
Again, what? I'm talking about the Palestinians murdered by Zionists.san4 wrote:
I'm not sure I understand what you are saying. Are you talking about the founding of Israel?Bubbalo wrote:
If I walked into the US with an army, shot a whole heap of people to force the refugees into Canada, then called for peace, d'ya think it'd happen?
Edit: Because if you are, your analogy is obviously flawed. If you were fleeing from industrialized mass murder and had a reasonable concern based on centuries of history that you would not be safe in any country other than your own, and you had some historical ties to the land, and the U.N. proposed a two-state solution, yeah, I'd engage in some serious peace discussions. Wouldn't you?
Pages: 1 2
- Index »
- Community »
- Debate and Serious Talk »
- The Israeli SOLUTION to the Palestinian Problem