| We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| The Israel/Palestine Troubles | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jan 16 2005, 12:12 AM (1,191 Views) | |
| somerled | Jan 17 2005, 02:11 AM Post #16 |
|
Admiral MacDonald RN
|
Why does any one group have to have dominion over the city, why not make it an international city whose city council is a coalition of all interested groups (religous and ethnic) ? |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Wichita | Jan 17 2005, 06:38 AM Post #17 |
|
The Adminstrator wRench
|
Personal Response Somerled, the Arabs REJECTED that idea, NOT the Israelis. Jerusalem was supposed to be handled that way in the original UN resolution that you object to, but the Arab nations refused to accept it. Five different Arab nations - in violation of the UN Resolution - were massed on the borders of the new state of Israel and invaded before the ink dried on that resolution. (Remember back then we didn't hear anything about Palestinians .... ) At least four more times, Arab nations - in violation of the United Nations resolutions and international law - attacked Israel unprovoked. Since they were not particularly good at it, the Israelis won new territory in each of the wars in which they had been attacked, including control of Jerusalem. In fact, the Palestinian Authority still refuse to accept the solution you propose - because they will not accept the right of Israel to exist. End of Personal Response |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| 24thcenstfan | Jan 17 2005, 08:25 AM Post #18 |
|
Something Wicked This Fae Comes
|
Somerled, As much of a stink as you caused to when you thought this thread was going to be gagged or closed, I expected more response from you on the very same issues that I and a couple of others have already elaborated on. That is, it is only fair that you list your position/opinion of the main issues that the rest of us have already touched on. If you need to know where to start just look at my list. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| somerled | Jan 17 2005, 08:59 AM Post #19 |
|
Admiral MacDonald RN
|
24: I am not interested seeing this thread degenerate into yet another flaming match , there are some who chaffing at the bit to engage in their usual tactics. I have purposefully stayed quiet, because I don't to become a distraction from the issue. (I'm going to be a spoil sport - by not playing their little game.) I started this thread to allow anyone who wanted to discuss the issues involved in this intractible conflict a venue to do so and because I was interesting seeing others opinions on it. When I am ready I will perhaps add some more, until then I will decline to contribute much for now. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| somerled | Jan 17 2005, 09:00 AM Post #20 |
|
Admiral MacDonald RN
|
Do they , or are using it as bargaining chip ? |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Minuet | Jan 17 2005, 09:15 AM Post #21 |
|
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
|
Somerled - I know I said I didn't want to discuss the issue with you specifically but I couldn't let such a stupid response go by without comment. The last time I looked ISRAEL had control of Jerusalem. How the heck can the Palestinians be using the idea of an internationally controlled city as a bargaining chip. By your reckoning Palestinian hardliners are holding everything as a bargaining chip. This is sheer stupidity. If they want to bargain they need to face reality. They hold nothing - Israel holds all of the land. If Palestinians showed a willingness to share Israel would. And frankly, as the occupiers of the land they don't have to. Who is being generous here and who is being greedy? Palestinians are taking an all or nothing stance and ending up with nothing through thier own folly. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Wichita | Jan 17 2005, 09:35 AM Post #22 |
|
The Adminstrator wRench
|
Personal Response Still can't bring yourself to say the Palestinians are wrong about anything - even their killing of Israeli children - I see. :rolleyes: As to flaming - the only one who has engaged in such tactics is you in your earlier response to me and in this post. I've responded to 24's list as has Minuet. End of Personal Response |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Admiralbill_gomec | Jan 17 2005, 09:50 AM Post #23 |
|
UberAdmiral
|
Is this a new way of saying, "Gone fishing?" |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| 24thcenstfan | Jan 17 2005, 10:19 AM Post #24 |
|
Something Wicked This Fae Comes
|
All right. I am going to take you at your word that you want people to be able to express their opinion/discuss the issues without you personally becoming a distraction. However, I think it is only fair that you eventually state your position as some of us have already done. When you feel inclined, here is a list of topics that I would like you to state your position/opinion on: 1) A Palestinian state. 2) Israeli withdrawal from occupied/contested areas such as the West Bank. 3) Jerusalem (status, future, control of the city). 4) Separation from Holy Sites (e.g. what should happen if a Jewish Holy site were to fall within the boundaries of an established Palestinian state). And vise versa, with Muslim Holy sites that fall within the boundaries of Israel. 5) Terrorism perpetrated against the Israelis (e.g. Do you support, condemn, deny or find it justifiable in some cases?) 6) Israeli defense against terrorism (including the issue of the wall being built around the West Bank). 7) Palestinian’s right to defense (what do you think the average Palestinian’s rights should be in regards to defense?). 8) Sharon’s decision to cut ties with Abbas. 9) The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict in general. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| somerled | Jan 17 2005, 11:50 AM Post #25 |
|
Admiral MacDonald RN
|
Whch makes it disputed territory does it not ? And a bone of contention . Eventually the city will have be shared . It was for centuries, it can be again . OK : Briefly - Absolutely necessary . See (1), once out they must stay out unless invited in for economic reasons. Already addressed. Unimpeded access granted to all who wish to visit, worship at these sites. Curly one for the Palestinian authorities. Getting the Road Map going absolutely necessary to making progress on this. Becomes redundant if Road Map gets given a chance. The wall must go eventually. Same civil rights and rights to live unmolested in their homes and to work in any trade or profession that they have the skills for as anyone one of us. Counterproductive at least. Unnecessary , and must end . Might require international military and economic intervention to force a change in attitudes on both sides and enforce peace initially, it's worked elsewhere it can work here too. That is all I will say for now. I might have more to say later , will continue reading comments . |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Wichita | Jan 17 2005, 12:01 PM Post #26 |
|
The Adminstrator wRench
|
Personal Response Interesting ... When asked about terrrorism (and your response to it) against Israelis, you say "Curly one for the Palestinian Authrorities" - whatever that means. When asked about Palestinian rights, you clearly and concisely state what their rights are - including the right to live unmolested. I'm curious .... Why can't you say the same thing about Israelis' rights that you said about Palestinians' rights? Should they not be the same? End of Personal Response |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Minuet | Jan 17 2005, 12:43 PM Post #27 |
|
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
|
^^^ Interesting - I thought the exact same thing. He just couldn't find it in himself to give a straight answer on the question. In addition I found these comments somewhat confusing and also an outright twist of what I said.
My question - which has typically gone unanswered is how do the Palestinians figure on using a piece of land that they do not contol as a bargaining chip? As for the Road Map comments - Don't you think that the first responsiblity the Palestinians have to the Road Map is to end the terrorism????? Without ending the attacks they make it virtually impossible for Israelies to live without the need for the wall. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Hoss | Jan 17 2005, 12:54 PM Post #28 |
![]()
Don't make me use my bare hands on you.
|
I don't see a solution to Jerusalem that doesn't involve external intervention. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| somerled | Jan 17 2005, 09:45 PM Post #29 |
|
Admiral MacDonald RN
|
Well, setting up fortified settlements on land that is disputed , and attempting to annex it in the doing is provocative and incites attacks . How would you respond if someone decided to annex your backyard and build their home there and to exclude you from accessing your own property and destroying it's utility to you ? Otherwise No brainer - see substitute Israeli where you see Palestinian. Road map - I am not convinced Israel want it proceed. Not talking to Palestinian PM is indicative of that stance. Who has the most to loose from the success of the Road Map ? That is the case. The same applies to the Israeli/Palestinian problem as well otherwise the same tid-for-tat bullshit will just keep on happening. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| doctortobe | Jan 17 2005, 09:53 PM Post #30 |
|
Speak softly, and carry a 57 megaton stick!
|
Sigh, do we really need any more evidence? |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic » |



9:47 AM Jul 11