BF2S Forums Israel and Palestine

Dilbert_X wrote:

lowing wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

No, I'd go back to pre-1900 when the Zionists formed their plan to invade Palestine and expel the Palestinians at gun-point.

time to put this bullshit to rest Dilbert, we can go back to the beginning of time and still not determine who has claim to what land. Fact is Israel is a sliver of land compared to the entire ME. and still it is too much for the Arab and Islamic states to let them live in. Compromise and land partitions have been drawn up only to be rejected by the Arabs and Islamic nations, instead choosing to drive Israel into the sea, unsuccessfully.

Israel exists now, the answer is not going to be to nuke Israel or wipe Israel off the face of the earth, it is the Islamic nations that refuse co -existence for the Jews without being under the islamic thumb.

The compromises have been rejected by the Israelis also, they've reneged on every requirement which was part of the original partition plan.

You really should read up on current events as well as history, pretty well every nation has agreed an Israel based on pre-67 borders and subject to the original UN resolutions would be acceptable - ie they need to treat the Palestinians like human beings.

Last edited by lowing (2011-03-13 17:15:17)

Dilbert_X wrote:

lowing wrote:

Been through this Dilbert.

Everyone is fine with 67 borders except the Arabs and Islamic nations that went to war over them in the first place.

Do I really need to repost all of the quotes from the leaders involved that stated there would be no compromise, and if there were, it would temporary until Israel could be fully destroyed?

The Arab and Islamic nations have more than made their position clear regarding Israel, why is it, you refuse to acknowledge and accept those well documented facts?

You didn't post anything except a load of spam from irrelevant parties and outdated quotes which didn't say anything like what you wanted them to say.

Dilbert_X wrote:

lowing wrote:

If you go back you will see those quotes were from Palestinian leaders as well as other clerics and shit, and the dates were in the '90's and 2000's.

Both of which are irrelevant to neighbouring islamic nations in 2011, even Hamas has offered to recognise Israel on pre-67 borders.

Dilbert_X wrote:

As I said already, Israel has reneged on everything they've ever agreed to, which has brought about this situation, so why do you trust them?

They already signed up about a decade ago not to build new settlements or expand existing ones, and lo they do just that -> where we are now.

Dilbert_X wrote:

lowing wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

As I said already, Israel has reneged on everything they've ever agreed to, which has brought about this situation, so why do you trust them?

They already signed up about a decade ago not to build new settlements or expand existing ones, and lo they do just that -> where we are now.

Speaking of trust, how the fuck do you trust the Palestinians especially after their leaders have been quoted what they have, and how do you trust a people that voted in a terrorist organization.

Now, get back to the post. you claim everything that the Arab and Islamic nations have said and done is irrelevant. How can you stand by that, while argue everything Israel has said and done is in stone?

I didn't say it was irrelevant, simply that the situation has changed.

And you are aware presumably that many members of various Israeli govts were previously members of terrorist groups?
Ariel Sharon wasn't exactly a nice guy either.

lowing wrote:

Uhh Dilbert? were you going to answer how everything Israel has done is relevant and everything the Muslims have done is irrelevant, or not?

Then don't forget to address who is recognizing Israeli leaders as terrorists.

Israel has urged the United Nations to cancel the US premiere, at its New York headquarters, of a film about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Miral, directed by Jewish film-maker Julian Schnabel, traces the conflict after 1948, from a Palestinian angle.

In a statement, Israel accused the UN of making "a politicised decision" that showed "a lack of even-handedness".

A UN spokesman denied a "political link" to the film, saying the General Assembly hall was "just a venue".

"Several films have been shown at the UN," spokesman Jean-Victor Nkolo added.

But Israel's deputy ambassador to the UN, Haim Waxman, said: "We are not aware of any other films with such contentious political content that have received this kind of endorsement from the president of the General Assembly."

Miral, due to be shown at the General Assembly hall on Monday, is based on an autobiographical novel by Palestinian journalist Rula Jebreal and stars Slumdog Millionaire actress Freida Pinto.

It tells the story of an orphaned Palestinian girl who finds herself drawn into the conflict.

Schnabel, who directed Oscar-nominated film The Diving Bell and the Butterfly, said: "The whole point is because I'm an American Jew, and that's why it touched me because it's a big part of my life.

"It's important for Muslims to hear that, it's important for Jewish people to hear that, and for Israel and for people everywhere," he added.

The film is being distributed in the United States by Jewish-origin film mogul Harvey Weinstein.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2011-03-15 02:31:12)

Dilbert_X wrote:

Maybe the US will veto this next

Article 27 of the UN Charter wrote:

1) Each member of the Security Council shall have one vote.

    2) Decisions of the Security Council on procedural matters shall be made by an affirmative vote of nine members.

    3) Decisions of the Security Council on all other matters shall be made by an affirmative vote of nine members including the concurring votes of the permanent members; provided that, in decisions under Chapter VI, and under paragraph 3 of Article 52, a party to a dispute shall abstain from voting.

Although the 'power of veto' is not explicitly mentioned in the UN Charter, the fact that 'substantive' decisions by the UNSC require "the concurring votes of the permanent members", means that any of those permanent members can prevent the adoption, by the Council, of any draft resolutions on 'substantive' matters. For this reason, the 'power of veto' is also referred to as the principle of 'great Power unanimity'.

Dilbert_X wrote:

lowing wrote:

you didn't answer either question?

I answered both questions.

Dilbert_X wrote:

lowing wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

I answered both questions.

actually Dilbert, you really didn't

You are dismissing the Arabs and Islamic nations actions as "irrelevant" and claiming everything Israel has done is relevant because "it hasn't been undone".

then you did not tell me which who has officially recognized Israeli leaders as terrorists.

No, I dismissed your assorted quotes as irrelevant, not being recent or being from leaders of Arab countries outside Palestine.

Also:

Dilbert_X wrote:

The British government recognised many Israeli leaders as former terrorists, amongst others.

Dilbert_X wrote:

lowing wrote:

How can you dismiss quotes as irrelevant from relevant players in the conflict?

Easy, you said they proved no arab government would ever make peace with Israel when your quotes were either decades out of date or not quotes from people in arab governments.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Why don't you try doing some research, instead of spamming junk from religionofpeace ?

Last edited by lowing (2011-03-16 13:39:53)

Dilbert_X wrote:

Research is not copy-pasting irrelevant spam from a single Neo-Nazi website.