Print from Airliners.net discussion forum
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/non_aviation/read.main/799445/

Topic: Developments In The West Bank
Username: RJpieces
Posted 2005-04-19 16:59:27 and read 1712 times.

http://nytimes.com/2005/04/19/intern...7e50cfabd&ei=5094&partner=homepage

Even including the three major Israeli settlement blocs of Maale Adumim, Ariel further north and Gush Etzion in the south, the land between the green line and the barrier is 8 percent of the West Bank - close to the 5 percent in the proposal that President Clinton was putting forward in 2000, at the end of his negotiations with the Palestinians and the Israelis.

And even that provisional, unilateral 8 percent, before final-status negotiations begin, means that 99.5 percent of Palestinians would live outside the barrier, in 92 percent of the West Bank, with 74 percent of Israeli settlers inside it.

"It has to be modified and agreed upon by the parties, but before our eyes we see the rough shape of a two-state solution."

Topic: RE: Developments In The West Bank
Username: QR332
Posted 2005-04-19 17:42:01 and read 1708 times.

RJ, these settlements are all areas around Jerusalem - they are being expanded and built just so that they can further surround East Jerusalem and isolate it from the rest of the West Bank. It is all inter-connected.

Whether its Maale Adumium, E-1, or whatever, they are still illegal settlements being built on Palestinian land, and even if 0% of Palestinians are affected, it is not their land.

And your talking about 8% of Palestinian land, not Israeli, they have no right whatsoever to go around building housing for Israelis to live in. You have 175,000 Israeli settlers around East Jerusalem, in the settlements that matter the most - these settlements need to be dismantled as a vital part of the peace process, but instead we are getting what, more settlements chocking of East Jerusalem and existing ones being expanded.

Topic: RE: Developments In The West Bank
Username: Tbar220
Posted 2005-04-19 18:09:32 and read 1699 times.

Well, I guess its the price the Palestinians pay for resorting to four years of terrorism. It must be hard to admit now that the deal that Barak offered four years ago, while not perfect, was clearly the best deal they could have ever gotten from Israel. Arafat rejected it, instead embracing terrorism.

Its now four years later. 3,000 Palestinians are dead, 1,000 Israelis are dead. Its been four years for more Israelis to settle in the West Bank. Israel will have a complete withdrawal from Gaza, but not from the West Bank. This is the consequence of resorting to suicide bombings, civilian gunnings, bus bombings, etc.

Israel was not angelic mind you, but this was a war, and this looks more like spoils of war to me than anything else.

Topic: RE: Developments In The West Bank
Username: QR332
Posted 2005-04-19 20:07:47 and read 1686 times.

Quoting Tbar220 (Reply 2):
Well, I guess its the price the Palestinians pay for resorting to four years of terrorism

And what price does Israel have to pay for 58 years of occupation? Tens of thousands of dead Arabs at the hand of Israel? What price did Israel pay for the massacres they were responsible for in South Lebanon? 1948? Anything? The answer is nothing. At the same time, the Palestinians have to keep paying for making no mistake other than being born.

This has nothing to do with the suicide bombings or the Palestinian resistance movements, this is about Israel further isolating Jerusalem so they can cut it off from the rest of the West Bank. Their goal is to deny the Palestinians East Jerusalem, to choke off the expansion of Arab neighbourhoods in East Jerusalem, and ultimatley keeping the area that Palestine's economy revolves around away from the people who have a right to it: the Palestinans.

Quoting Tbar220 (Reply 2):
It must be hard to admit now that the deal that Barak offered four years ago, while not perfect, was clearly the best deal they could have ever gotten from Israel. Arafat rejected it, instead embracing terrorism.

The best deal they have offered so far does not mean it is a good one. It means a state divided into three, with no control over infrastruture and a state that Israel can control as it wishes. I still say that Barak should go shove that offer where the sun don't shine. We want a fair offer, not one that only Israel benifits from. This is what we are trying to achieve now, but Israel isn't helping move forward, they are moving things backwards.

Quoting Tbar220 (Reply 2):
Its now four years later. 3,000 Palestinians are dead, 1,000 Israelis are dead. Its been four years for more Israelis to settle in the West Bank. Israel will have a complete withdrawal from Gaza, but not from the West Bank. This is the consequence of resorting to suicide bombings, civilian gunnings, bus bombings, etc.

Gaza is a tiny strip of land that Israel doesn't even benifit from anyway, and Gaza is not the main issue: the West Bank is a much more important, and they know it. This is the sort of thing that pushes the Palestinians into using the desperate measures they use, and this goes against what Israel is saying regarding peace. This is not the consequence of anything - Israelis have been illegally settling on Palestinian land since they first took the West Bank and the Gaza Strip in 1967.

Quoting Tbar220 (Reply 2):
Israel was not angelic mind you, but this was a war, and this looks more like spoils of war to me than anything else.

So "spoils of war" justifies everything, eh? Just like the ethnic cleansing of 800,000 Palestinians was "spoils of war"?

Topic: RE: Developments In The West Bank
Username: RJpieces
Posted 2005-04-20 00:17:24 and read 1675 times.

Nonetheless QR, how can you complain about a deal that gives 99.5% of Palestinians 92% of their country. Take it or leave it.

Topic: RE: Developments In The West Bank
Username: Tbar220
Posted 2005-04-20 00:17:27 and read 1675 times.

Quoting QR332 (Reply 3):
So "spoils of war" justifies everything, eh? Just like the ethnic cleansing of 800,000 Palestinians was "spoils of war"?

That's quite an accusation. Are you saying Israel killed 800,000 Palestinians as part of a program of ethnic cleansing?

Topic: RE: Developments In The West Bank
Username: QR332
Posted 2005-04-20 14:54:58 and read 1663 times.

Quoting RJpieces (Reply 4):
Nonetheless QR, how can you complain about a deal that gives 99.5% of Palestinians 92% of their country. Take it or leave it.

Of course I will complain! This isn't ANY 8%, and you know that. This is a vital 8% that cuts off the most important area of the West Bank from the rest of the WB. Also, it does not give 99.5% of Paelstinians their country, those are only the Palestinians in the West Bank. What about those refguees in Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt, etc?

Quoting Tbar220 (Reply 5):
That's quite an accusation. Are you saying Israel killed 800,000 Palestinians as part of a program of ethnic cleansing?

"Killed"? Did I even use the word killed? Thats the number for the amount of refugees in 1948. I am not naive enough to think Israel killed 800,000 Palestinians.

Topic: RE: Developments In The West Bank
Username: LY7E7
Posted 2005-04-20 16:08:06 and read 1661 times.

Quoting QR332 (Reply 3):
And what price does Israel have to pay for 58 years of occupation?

That would be 38 years. Israel occupied the GS and West bank in 1967. Before that they were occupied by Egypt and Jordan respectively.

Quoting QR332 (Reply 3):
but Israel isn't helping move forward, they are moving things backwards

By starting a first withdrawal ever from the Palestinian land?

Quoting QR332 (Reply 3):
Gaza is a tiny strip of land

Populated by 1/3rd of the Palestinians. (Or around that number)

Topic: RE: Developments In The West Bank
Username: Falcon84
Posted 2005-04-20 16:13:57 and read 1657 times.

Quoting Tbar220 (Reply 2):
Well, I guess its the price the Palestinians pay for resorting to four years of terrorism. It must be hard to admit now that the deal that Barak offered four years ago, while not perfect, was clearly the best deal they could have ever gotten from Israel. Arafat rejected it, instead embracing terrorism.

Amen, although I'd still like to see these damn settlements dismantled, as they're just another obstacle to moving forward.

Quoting QR332 (Reply 3):
And what price does Israel have to pay for 58 years of occupation?

58 years of unremitting war and hostility and terrorism? You act, my friend, as if they've paid no price. They have paid a great price as well. Both sides have.

Topic: RE: Developments In The West Bank
Username: LY7E7
Posted 2005-04-20 16:17:19 and read 1656 times.

I think it's very unwise to develop those settlements further. Just a waste of money. And it will damage Palestinian economy in the long run - and Israel will have to pay for that by subsidizing the future Palestinian state to a certain degree by selling them cheap electricity, commodities and such.

Quoting QR332 (Reply 6):
Also, it does not give 99.5% of Paelstinians their country, those are only the Palestinians in the West Bank. What about those refguees in Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt, etc?

Well , there are Jews outside of Israel, so what's the problem with Palestinians outside of Palestine?

Topic: RE: Developments In The West Bank
Username: NYCFlyer
Posted 2005-04-20 16:24:41 and read 1652 times.

I have a question for QR332 and LY7E7.

Is it necessary for Israeli settlers to leave the West Bank for the West Bank to be a Palestinian state? Is it feasible to have a Palestinian state with a Jewish settler minority population, who have citizenship in that state, and have full minority protections there?

QR, I agree that the new construction is horrible, and it is in the most important 8% of Palestinian land.

Quoting Tbar220 (Reply 2):
Well, I guess its the price the Palestinians pay for resorting to four years of terrorism.

That is an ignorant statement. The reality is so much more complex than saying "Palestinians are terrorists." You have no idea what the Palestinians live through. I condemn all terrorism, but the Palestinian terrorism didn't just come out of thin air. It's come after decades of occupation, humiliation, and death, by Israelis.

My dream is for the Moderates to win out. F*ck the Palestinian extremists like Hamas, who refuse to acknowlege Israel's right to exist, and who blow things up. F*ck the Israeli extremists who refuse to give up Gaza and think it's their religious right to live anywhere they want, and are threatening to assassinate Sharon, like they did Rabin.

This small minority - probably 10% of both groups - are what's ruining it for everyone.

Topic: RE: Developments In The West Bank
Username: LY7E7
Posted 2005-04-20 18:16:42 and read 1642 times.

Quoting NYCFlyer (Reply 10):
Is it necessary for Israeli settlers to leave the West Bank for the West Bank to be a Palestinian state? Is it feasible to have a Palestinian state with a Jewish settler minority population, who have citizenship in that state, and have full minority protections there?

Good question.

Theoretically speaking - no, it's not necessary. The point is that a great deal of the settlers are people who will gladly get back to Israel , upon receiving from the state proper compensations for their property. The problem lies with a lesser part of the settlers, who ,being religious messianic zealots, not only disregard the state of Israel itself (due to their messianic dogmas) but also claim that they are the "true" owners of the land in dispute. They will hardly settle for minority rights.

So , practically speaking, the answer to your question is yes, it is necessary to dismantle all of the settlements and vacate their dwellers.

Topic: RE: Developments In The West Bank
Username: RJpieces
Posted 2005-04-20 19:16:03 and read 1636 times.

Is it feasible to have a Palestinian state with a Jewish settler minority population, who have citizenship in that state, and have full minority protections there?

No. Israel must welcome millions of Arabs, but Palestine must be judenrein.

Of course I will complain! This isn't ANY 8%, and you know that. This is a vital 8% that cuts off the most important area of the West Bank from the rest of the WB. Also, it does not give 99.5% of Paelstinians their country, those are only the Palestinians in the West Bank. What about those refguees in Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt, etc?

That simply isn't true. The security fence path now runs practically on the 1967 border.

I fail to understand how anybody can argue that a plan that gives 92% of the West Bank to 99.5% of Palestinians is bad. You can't argue with those numbers. But somehow QR and Co find a way to....Please QR, please tell me seriously how you can be upset with a plan that in the longrun will ensure two separate countries, Israel and Palestine, living side by side. Please complain to me about 99.5% of Palestinians being given the state they supposedly want.

It is when you make statements like this that people on this site accuse you of being a supporter of terrorism. If you truly want peace, then you would be jumping at an opportunity to have 99.5% of your people living in 92% of the West Bank and 100% all of the Gaza Strip. But instead, as you've said many times, you would tell Barak to go shove his plan if you could. Yeah, you really do want peace my friend.

Topic: RE: Developments In The West Bank
Username: RJpieces
Posted 2005-04-20 19:21:21 and read 1630 times.

http://www.securityfence.mod.gov.il/Pages/ENG/route.htm

If you want to see a map, perhaps that will change your mind QR. 92% of Palestine sticks out quite well there.

Topic: RE: Developments In The West Bank
Username: Dtwclipper
Posted 2005-04-20 19:24:49 and read 1629 times.

Quoting RJpieces (Reply 12):
but Palestine must be judenrein.

Gee, where have I heard a phrase like that before? And you really want the world to respect your view? Give me a friggen break!

Topic: RE: Developments In The West Bank
Username: RJpieces
Posted 2005-04-20 19:36:05 and read 1622 times.

Gee, where have I heard a phrase like that before? And you really want the world to respect your view? Give me a friggen break!


I'm quite serious. It is taken for granted that all Jews living in the West Bank must leave, yet imagine what would happen if one were to suggest that Israeli Arabs go back to the West Bank.

Topic: RE: Developments In The West Bank
Username: Dtwclipper
Posted 2005-04-20 19:44:31 and read 1620 times.

Quoting Dtwclipper (Reply 14):
Quoting RJpieces (Reply 12):
but Palestine must be judenrein.

I am suggesting that you used poor judgment in your choice of words! Can you not accept that?

Topic: RE: Developments In The West Bank
Username: LY744
Posted 2005-04-20 19:46:30 and read 1614 times.

Quoting RJpieces (Reply 15):
yet imagine what would happen if one were to suggest that Israeli Arabs go back to the West Bank.

There is at least one obvious problem with that statement. Hint: it lies in your use of the word 'back'.


LY744.

Topic: RE: Developments In The West Bank
Username: QR332
Posted 2005-04-21 15:02:58 and read 1584 times.

Quoting LY7E7 (Reply 7):
That would be 38 years. Israel occupied the GS and West bank in 1967. Before that they were occupied by Egypt and Jordan respectively.

The Jordanian annextion of the West Bank did not cost thousands of Palestinian lives or even a fraction of the harm the Israelis caused, and Gaza was administered, not occupied by Egypt. And plus, the 20 years between 1948-1967 were a time of great suffering for the Palestinians.

Quoting LY7E7 (Reply 7):
By starting a first withdrawal ever from the Palestinian land?

So what? They are withdrawing but at the same time doing things that they know will ruin the peace process and possibly even provoke attacks against them. This is known as being two faced.

Quoting LY7E7 (Reply 7):
Populated by 1/3rd of the Palestinians. (Or around that number)

Geographically, it means nothing to Israel - thats what I mean. They have no important religious areas, nothing they can gain from. A huge number of Palestinians live there because of the huge amount of refugees as well as the poverty and thus the high rate of reproduction.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 8):
58 years of unremitting war and hostility and terrorism? You act, my friend, as if they've paid no price. They have paid a great price as well. Both sides have.

Settlements being built illegally on Palestinian land is not a sign of hostility, Falcon? Thousands of Palestinians massacred in 1948 isn't terrorism, Falcon? How about the bombing of Palestinian cities, assassinations in residental areas, supporting massacres that cost the lives of 2,000 Palestinians in Sabra and Shatila?

Let's be releastic here, the Israelis have been the least who have suffered in this conflict. 800,000 people were ethnically cleansed from Palestine in 1948, the rest of their land was taken from them in 1967. Some Arab countries, "our allies", have treated us worse than the Israelis have. In Lebanon, we suffered. In Jordan, we were suffered. In Palestine, we were suffered the most and still do today. Both sides have not equally suffered, that is far from the truth.

Quoting LY7E7 (Reply 9):
I think it's very unwise to develop those settlements further. Just a waste of money. And it will damage Palestinian economy in the long run - and Israel will have to pay for that by subsidizing the future Palestinian state to a certain degree by selling them cheap electricity, commodities and such.

What about how the Palestinians will suffer? Or does that not matter? It will also cut off our capital, it will mean more stolen land, and it will mean a lot more than Israel paying a couple of millions America will hand to them anyway.

Quoting LY7E7 (Reply 9):
Well , there are Jews outside of Israel, so what's the problem with Palestinians outside of Palestine?

You surely can't be serious? Judaism is a religion, not all Jews are automatically attached to Israel. Palestine is a country, with Palestinians its inhabitants, and when they are seperated from their country against their own will, that is ethnic cleansing, my friend. You cannot compare a religion with a nationality.

Quoting NYCFlyer (Reply 10):
Is it necessary for Israeli settlers to leave the West Bank for the West Bank to be a Palestinian state? Is it feasible to have a Palestinian state with a Jewish settler minority population, who have citizenship in that state, and have full minority protections there?

Yes, it is necessary for them to leave because firstly, the land is not theirs and all of it is illegal. Secondly, the settlements located around Jerusalem are stragetically placed to limit the growth of Arab Jerusalem and to cut off the city from the rest of the West Bank to a certain degree. Thirdly, the settlers have always been very violent and aggressive with the Palestinians, and they regularly attack Palestinian property.

As for them being a minority population with citizenship, not gonna happen. They are proud of being Israeli, and will not want to be part of the "inferior" Arab Palestinian state. Plus, the Palestinians would not have them, and if they did they would not accept and there would be a lot of tension between the two groups.

Quoting RJpieces (Reply 12):
No. Israel must welcome millions of Arabs, but Palestine must be judenrein.

You must be joking. The millions of Arabs are now refugees who have no proper lives, the settlers chose to settle in Palestine on illegal land which they have no ties to whatsoever.

Quoting RJpieces (Reply 12):
That simply isn't true. The security fence path now runs practically on the 1967 border.

Who are you kidding? The security fence steals away vital land from the Palestinians, especially around cities like Qalqilyah where it is completley blocked off and there is only one road allwoing access into the city. I would post pictures and maps but then everyone would bitch to me about posting the maps before. I just love Israel-propoganda machines like you, RJ, always full of shit.

Quoting RJpieces (Reply 12):
I fail to understand how anybody can argue that a plan that gives 92% of the West Bank to 99.5% of Palestinians is bad. You can't argue with those numbers. But somehow QR and Co find a way to....Please QR, please tell me seriously how you can be upset with a plan that in the longrun will ensure two separate countries, Israel and Palestine, living side by side. Please complain to me about 99.5% of Palestinians being given the state they supposedly want.

I asked you this question before, you never seemed to answer it. Do you ignore the stuff I write that you don't like or are you just plain thick? The 8% is not some insignificant desert, it is 8% of the most important Palestinian land that has far more costs than just 8% of the land. It will cost us a bad economy, and our capital. Plus, that 8% is simply not for Israel to decide what will happen to it. Two seperate countries? Maybe. Will it be fair? No chance in hell. It is yet another Israeli plan which screws the Palestinians out of a proper state.

Quoting RJpieces (Reply 12):
It is when you make statements like this that people on this site accuse you of being a supporter of terrorism. If you truly want peace, then you would be jumping at an opportunity to have 99.5% of your people living in 92% of the West Bank and 100% all of the Gaza Strip. But instead, as you've said many times, you would tell Barak to go shove his plan if you could. Yeah, you really do want peace my friend.

RJ, let you and all your ignorant buddies think whatever the hell I want, and see if I care. I will support a proper peace plan, not one which screws us out of a good economy and the most important city in our country.

Quoting RJpieces (Reply 13):
If you want to see a map, perhaps that will change your mind QR. 92% of Palestine sticks out quite well there.

92% of what? wilderness? Lets analyse the map then, RJ. First of all, the map is very smart in the sense that the colours it uses makes it look like the fence is not taking that much Palestinian land. But, that is far from the truth.

Look at the black and purple portion of the fence pushing deep into Palestinian territory. That divides Qalqilyah from Ramallah, and isolates the city even further. Secondly, look at how Qalqilyah is completley isolated and surrounded. Thirdly, look around Ramallah. Fourthly, look West of Bethlehem. Lastly, look East of Jerusalem. All of this is important Palestinian land, and it is being stolen from us. It is not any 8% RJ.

Quoting Dtwclipper (Reply 14):
Gee, where have I heard a phrase like that before? And you really want the world to respect your view? Give me a friggen break!

Not only that, the Palestinian refugees actually lived in Palestine and were kicked out. The settlers, on the other hand, are illegal land grabbers who stole our land. No comparison.

Quoting RJpieces (Reply 15):
I'm quite serious. It is taken for granted that all Jews living in the West Bank must leave, yet imagine what would happen if one were to suggest that Israeli Arabs go back to the West Bank.

Go back? Are you serious? "Go back?" Go back where, RJ? So now you are going to tell me those Palestinians in Israel today do not belong there? And of course they must all leave, they were illegally placed there, and they illagally robbed our land. They can all go screw themselves.

Topic: RE: Developments In The West Bank
Username: EDKA
Posted 2005-04-21 19:13:40 and read 1575 times.

QR332 - there is no point in comparing who suffered more, or who was where first, because that way you will never achieve anything. The most important thing is HOW DO YOU MOVE FORWARD from where you are? If you want to leave in peace, that is...

But you are missing one point - if only Mr Arafat did not announce the terror campain which has resulted in the intifada, who knows what would have been by now. Sometimes you only get one chance to have a go at something and he has certainly either failed to recognise the opportunity or did not want to recognise it. Either way, you cannot accuse Israel of not doing anything, when you have had four succesive Israeli governments, both Left and Right wing, who could not strike a deal with him. So the question is: did Arafat really wanted peace and did he really look after his own people (reports of millions of dollars in Swiss bank accounts come to mind, when most of his people living below poverty line)...

i would be interested to hear your opinion...

Topic: RE: Developments In The West Bank
Username: QR332
Posted 2005-04-21 22:34:06 and read 1561 times.

Quoting EDKA (Reply 19):
QR332 - there is no point in comparing who suffered more, or who was where first, because that way you will never achieve anything.

EDKA, I understand what you mean here, but the world has completley ignored the suffering of the Palestinians since 1948, and it is important for them to understand this suffering. The reason is because Palestinians still suffer a lot today - Israel is enjoying a good economy, lots of aid, etc, etc, while Palestinians are either living under occupation, in refugee camps with horrible conditions or as ex-patriates in other countries like me. The suffering of the Palestinians needs to end, and it is something that cannot be just put aside. Same with the who was there first - to forget that is an insult to all Palestinian refugees who after 57 years still have no future. These are two major issues that need to be delt with and if we ignore them nothing will be achieved.

Quoting EDKA (Reply 19):
The most important thing is HOW DO YOU MOVE FORWARD from where you are? If you want to leave in peace, that is...

All Palestinians want to move forward from where we are, but do you think it is fair for us to accept deals where only Israel benifit? If we accepted the 2000 Barak deal, we would end up with a country split in three "islands" with no proper control over our infrastructre and with no capital in Jerusalem. Is that fair to us? To move forward Israel has to put forward a good deal, and obviously they aren't interested in that.

Quoting EDKA (Reply 19):
if only Mr Arafat did not announce the terror campain which has resulted in the intifada, who knows what would have been by now.

It is easy to point the finger at Arafat and say he started it, but what about the visit by Sharon to Al Aqsa which he knew would provoke anger with all Palestinians. Arafat announced an intifada (uprising) against the Israeli occupation, and it is the right of every human being to resist occupation, especially when its as horrible as the Israeli one.

Quoting EDKA (Reply 19):
Sometimes you only get one chance to have a go at something and he has certainly either failed to recognise the opportunity or did not want to recognise it.

Again, why take a deal which would screw us over? We want something fair and something which has both sides in mind, not just the Israelis. is that too much to ask for?

Quoting EDKA (Reply 19):
ither way, you cannot accuse Israel of not doing anything, when you have had four succesive Israeli governments, both Left and Right wing, who could not strike a deal with him.

Netenyahu, Barak and Sharon all offered bad deals. None of them were good. Rabin gave the foundations of a fair deal to the Palestinians which started with the Oslo process and which Arafat accepted, but the Israeli right wing assassinated him for it. When we get a fair deal, we will accept. Do you think that Arafat rejected the deals simply for the sake of seeing his people to continue their suffering?

Quoting EDKA (Reply 19):
So the question is: did Arafat really wanted peace and did he really look after his own people (reports of millions of dollars in Swiss bank accounts come to mind, when most of his people living below poverty line)...

I never supported Arafat anyway, and this is not about Arafat - this is about Israel giving a fair deal, something they have failed to do.

Topic: RE: Developments In The West Bank
Username: LY7E7
Posted 2005-04-22 10:32:55 and read 1548 times.

Quoting QR332 (Reply 18):
You surely can't be serious? Judaism is a religion, not all Jews are automatically attached to Israel.

Mistake. 99.9% are. As I'm sure you ll easily find a tiny percentage of palestinians who are more conncted to their diaspora than to Palestine.

Topic: RE: Developments In The West Bank
Username: Gkirk
Posted 2005-04-22 11:53:56 and read 1545 times.

Anyone else sick of this conflict? Someone just go in and nuke the whole damn area  stirthepot 












I was being sarcastic by the way

Topic: RE: Developments In The West Bank
Username: Myt332
Posted 2005-04-22 12:00:18 and read 1544 times.

Quoting Gkirk (Reply 22):
I was being sarcastic by the way

That's what you said before you drowned Carlisle!  Wink

Topic: RE: Developments In The West Bank
Username: LY7E7
Posted 2005-04-22 12:08:03 and read 1538 times.

Quoting QR332 (Reply 18):
You cannot compare a religion with a nationality.

When it comes to Jews and Judaism, to a certain extent , you can. The religion and history of Jews are very interconnected. Take me as an example: I'm an atheist, I was born in diaspora, yet I do accept the entire system of Jewish traditions which all originate in Judaism. A Jew cannot be Christian or Moslem - for his new congregation he stops being a Jew, while according to Judaism he remains a Jew despite the sin of conversion. Jews and Judaism are interconnected and in this case the comparison is just.

Topic: RE: Developments In The West Bank
Username: EDKA
Posted 2005-04-22 12:46:42 and read 1534 times.

Quoting Gkirk (Reply 22):
Anyone else sick of this conflict? Someone just go in and nuke the whole damn area
I was being sarcastic by the way

Gkirk - you don't have to open the thread, if you don't want to read what's in it...
 Confused

Topic: RE: Developments In The West Bank
Username: Gkirk
Posted 2005-04-22 13:02:50 and read 1532 times.

It's not the thread Im bothered about. My opinion is that both sides should find a solution for peace quickly, or as I jokingly said, prepare to be nuked  Wink

Topic: RE: Developments In The West Bank
Username: EDKA
Posted 2005-04-22 13:15:26 and read 1530 times.

Quoting Gkirk (Reply 26):
My opinion is that both sides should find a solution for peace

100% agreed...

Topic: RE: Developments In The West Bank
Username: QR332
Posted 2005-04-22 14:21:26 and read 1523 times.

Quoting LY7E7 (Reply 21):
Mistake. 99.9% are. As I'm sure you ll easily find a tiny percentage of palestinians who are more conncted to their diaspora than to Palestine.



Quoting LY7E7 (Reply 24):
When it comes to Jews and Judaism, to a certain extent , you can. The religion and history of Jews are very interconnected. Take me as an example: I'm an atheist, I was born in diaspora, yet I do accept the entire system of Jewish traditions which all originate in Judaism. A Jew cannot be Christian or Moslem - for his new congregation he stops being a Jew, while according to Judaism he remains a Jew despite the sin of conversion. Jews and Judaism are interconnected and in this case the comparison is just.

You don't get it: Being Palestinian means you are ethnically from Palestine, and that you are Palestinian. You are attached to Palestine. Being Jewish means you are part of a religion, and it is a faith, not something based on a country. They are two very different things. I agree it is different because Israel is the only Jewish country in the world, but saying "Whats wrong with Palestinians being outside of Palestine" when they are not outside of Palestine by choice is something very different.

Topic: RE: Developments In The West Bank
Username: LY7E7
Posted 2005-04-22 15:58:17 and read 1518 times.

Quoting QR332 (Reply 28):
not something based on a country

Judaism and ,thus, Jews ARE based on a country. The same country upon which your and our people fight.

Topic: RE: Developments In The West Bank
Username: QR332
Posted 2005-04-22 17:14:46 and read 1514 times.

Quoting LY7E7 (Reply 29):
Judaism and ,thus, Jews ARE based on a country. The same country upon which your and our people fight.

There are American Jews, but no say Jordanian Americans unless they have a dual citizenship. Get my drift?

Topic: RE: Developments In The West Bank
Username: LY7E7
Posted 2005-04-22 17:47:33 and read 1509 times.

Quoting QR332 (Reply 30):
There are American Jews, but no say Jordanian Americans unless they have a dual citizenship. Get my drift?

You're still wrong. Jews wouldn't be Jews without Israel in the historical sense of the country.

Topic: RE: Developments In The West Bank
Username: Rjpieces
Posted 2005-04-23 06:52:28 and read 1495 times.

You don't get it: Being Palestinian means you are ethnically from Palestine, and that you are Palestinian. You are attached to Palestine. Being Jewish means you are part of a religion, and it is a faith, not something based on a country. They are two very different things.

You are correct that there is a difference between religion and nationality. Nonetheless, and perhaps Judaism is unique here, but Israel is a central part of Judaism, even before the modern country was founded in 1948. Israel has been in Jew's hearts and minds for centuries and centuries way before Israel existed. With the establishment of the state of Israel, every Jew is connected to it one way or the other. Many Jews have never visited Israel yet they still feel a special connection with it because of religion. In the case of Israel, religion and nationalism is very much intertwined.

Topic: RE: Developments In The West Bank
Username: Tbar220
Posted 2005-04-26 08:04:11 and read 1472 times.

Quoting NYCFlyer (Reply 10):
That is an ignorant statement. The reality is so much more complex than saying "Palestinians are terrorists." You have no idea what the Palestinians live through. I condemn all terrorism, but the Palestinian terrorism didn't just come out of thin air. It's come after decades of occupation, humiliation, and death, by Israelis.

Let me clarify my statement: "Well, I guess its the price the Palestinians pay for resorting to four years of terrorism". The context I meant it to be in was as follows.

1. Barak offers the Palestinians a historic deal.
2. Arafat rejects it, four years of terrorism and violence ensue.
3. Arafat dies, the new plan is clearly not as good as the Barak plan.

So ultimately, when the intefada started the Palestinian populace accepted it. After four years, they are tired of it, but the result is that they won't get anything near the deal that Barak offered them. That is what I mean by my statement. The Palestinians resorted to violence and all they got was 3,000 dead and lost land.

I clearly don't know what they are living through. I'm not saying all Palestinians are terrorists, clearly it is just the extremists who are. Yet when the intefada started, they embraced it and that included the terrorism that Hamas, Al-Aqsa, Fatah, etc. carried out. So after four years, this is the result. Militarily, they lost. Politically, it has been a complete disaster. I'm not pointing out who is right or wrong, that's not the point I'm making. I'm just pointing out what seems to appear to be the result of this whole conflict.

Topic: RE: Developments In The West Bank
Username: QR332
Posted 2005-04-26 16:21:43 and read 1460 times.

Quoting Tbar220 (Reply 33):
1. Barak offers the Palestinians a historic deal.

Which, as I have stated on several occasions, was pathetic and the fact that it was the best offered to the Palestinians to date makes it even more pathetic.

Quoting Tbar220 (Reply 33):
Arafat rejects it, four years of terrorism and violence ensue.

The four years of violence were not as a direct result of Arafat's rejection of Barak's deal. There were a number of causes, including building tensions for some time & Sharon's provokative visit to the Haram El-Sharif.

Quoting Tbar220 (Reply 33):
So ultimately, when the intefada started the Palestinian populace accepted it. After four years, they are tired of it, but the result is that they won't get anything near the deal that Barak offered them. That is what I mean by my statement. The Palestinians resorted to violence and all they got was 3,000 dead and lost land.

The Israelis have been resorting to violence since 1948, thus the escalations which have occured so many times since then. They are an occupied people who can't be free in their own land, do you expect them to sit by and watch?

Quoting Tbar220 (Reply 33):
I clearly don't know what they are living through. I'm not saying all Palestinians are terrorists, clearly it is just the extremists who are. Yet when the intefada started, they embraced it and that included the terrorism that Hamas, Al-Aqsa, Fatah, etc. carried out. So after four years, this is the result

They embraced it because the different organisations where the only ones who stood up to all the Israeli oppression. As I said on many occasions, when you are oppressed and you are desperate, you will do anything to free youreself, including hurting the occupier in any way possible. This isn't right, but the Palestinians have had enough.

Quoting Tbar220 (Reply 33):
I'm not pointing out who is right or wrong, that's not the point I'm making. I'm just pointing out what seems to appear to be the result of this whole conflict.

The results have been disastrous, but you all seem to think the better alternative was to accept a bad deal and shut up. Well, I am sorry but if I want to see my country actually become independant, I don't want to see it done with it seperated into three different large parts and with settlements all around it. I want to see a fair deal where we get what we deserve.

Topic: RE: Developments In The West Bank
Username: EDKA
Posted 2005-04-26 17:26:03 and read 1454 times.

Quoting QR332 (Reply 34):
The four years of violence were not as a direct result of Arafat's rejection of Barak's deal. There were a number of causes, including building tensions for some time & Sharon's provokative visit to the Haram El-Sharif.

QR332 - whether you accept this or not, Arafat was mainly responcible for starting the violence. Yes, Sharon's visit was controversial... But what do you expect? He was trying to get into the office and from his position that one one of the things that helped... Infact, if the peace deal in Camp David would have been signed, Sharon would not be a Prime minister now... But ultimately Arafat had the power to start the violence (which he did) and to stop it (which he didn't)...

If you not happy with something you don't go along with it only to decline it in the last minute - you state your position strait away. He made Barak and Clinton look foolish when it all broke down last minute, and this why Barak has lost his elections...

Like i said, the lost opportunity to make a REAL peace...

Topic: RE: Developments In The West Bank
Username: EDKA
Posted 2005-04-26 17:29:28 and read 1452 times.

Quoting EDKA (Reply 35):
I want to see a fair deal where we get what we deserve.

Can you also elaborate what does "fair deal" mean to you?

Topic: RE: Developments In The West Bank
Username: Tbar220
Posted 2005-04-26 22:17:18 and read 1445 times.

I'm not debating whether or not it was a good deal. And if you want to debate that, then you will notice that many Arab leaders around the world urged Arafat to accept Barak's deal. The leader of Jordan called Arafat's rejection of the proposal a crime on the Palesitnian people.

What my point is, Arafat rejected the deal (good or bad). Correct?

Then, he lead the people in four years of violence. Correct?

After four years, the Palestinians are getting a worse deal than before. Correct?

Now do you expect them to get a deal even close to what Barak offered? If you think that the Barak deal wasn't good, well what you're getting now is worse. Would you have rather accepted the Barak deal, or have four years of death and violence and get a worse deal? Seems pretty straightforward to me.

Topic: RE: Developments In The West Bank
Username: QR332
Posted 2005-04-28 13:12:53 and read 1431 times.

Quoting EDKA (Reply 35):
QR332 - whether you accept this or not, Arafat was mainly responcible for starting the violence. Yes, Sharon's visit was controversial... But what do you expect?

Arafat was not mainly responsible for the violence. Sharon provoked the Palestinians with his visit, the Palestinian people reacted themselves. Arafat did of course help with getting the Palestinians "hyped up", but at the same time Sharon holds much more responsibility than Arafat.

Quoting EDKA (Reply 35):
He was trying to get into the office and from his position that one one of the things that helped...

Very diplomatic move... do something that you know will cause riots to get votes!

Quoting EDKA (Reply 35):
... Infact, if the peace deal in Camp David would have been signed, Sharon would not be a Prime minister now... But ultimately Arafat had the power to start the violence (which he did) and to stop it (which he didn't)...

Sharon had the power to not visit and avoid anything from happening (which he didn't) but he still chose to while he knew what the consequences are (which he did).

Quoting EDKA (Reply 35):
If you not happy with something you don't go along with it only to decline it in the last minute - you state your position strait away. He made Barak and Clinton look foolish when it all broke down last minute, and this why Barak has lost his elections...

This is why they are called discussions, EDKA, to see if you can come to a conclusion. When Arafat saw the deal was bullshit, he didn't go through with it. They made themselves look foolish - if they did what the promised things would be different today.

Quoting EDKA (Reply 36):
Can you also elaborate what does "fair deal" mean to you?

A fair deal is one where we get Jerusalem as our capital, where all settlements are dismantled, the security fence is either dismantled or moved back to Israeli land, we get control over our own infrastructure (something that we did not have with the 2000 deal) and finally, a deal which allows us to have all of the Gaza Strip and the West Bank.

Quoting Tbar220 (Reply 37):
I'm not debating whether or not it was a good deal. And if you want to debate that, then you will notice that many Arab leaders around the world urged Arafat to accept Barak's deal. The leader of Jordan called Arafat's rejection of the proposal a crime on the Palesitnian people.

Well I disagree with the king of Jordan then - the deal was unfair. You cannot ignore that when talking about this topic, because it is what led to the chain of events that took place.

Quoting Tbar220 (Reply 37):
What my point is, Arafat rejected the deal (good or bad). Correct?

Correct.

Quoting Tbar220 (Reply 37):
Then, he lead the people in four years of violence. Correct?

Sharon was responsible for starting the violence with his visit.

Quoting Tbar220 (Reply 37):
After four years, the Palestinians are getting a worse deal than before. Correct?

Correct.

Quoting Tbar220 (Reply 37):
Now do you expect them to get a deal even close to what Barak offered? If you think that the Barak deal wasn't good, well what you're getting now is worse. Would you have rather accepted the Barak deal, or have four years of death and violence and get a worse deal? Seems pretty straightforward to me.

I still think that not accepting the Barak deal was the right thing to do, it is a bad deal and that will not change. The Barak deal would have screwed us over, and yes, we are getting it worse now, but we still sent Israel a message with the initifada that they won't forget anytime soon.

Topic: RE: Developments In The West Bank
Username: LAS757300
Posted 2005-04-28 14:23:05 and read 1427 times.

Sharon is responsible for the recent violence? I'm pretty sure he's never constructed and used a belt bomb.

Topic: RE: Developments In The West Bank
Username: RJpieces
Posted 2005-04-28 14:57:00 and read 1423 times.

The Barak deal would have screwed us over, and yes, we are getting it worse now, but we still sent Israel a message with the initifada that they won't forget anytime soon.

LOOOOOOOOOOOOOL. Where's Falcon for this one? You claim not to be a terrorists supporter with statements like this?

Topic: RE: Developments In The West Bank
Username: RJpieces
Posted 2005-04-28 14:59:21 and read 1420 times.

but we still sent Israel a message with the initifada that they won't forget anytime soon.

If by this, you mean that the only hope of ever co-existing with the Palestinians means physically separating Israel from them, then yes, Israel will never forget that message.

Topic: RE: Developments In The West Bank
Username: EDKA
Posted 2005-04-28 15:10:46 and read 1419 times.

Quoting QR332 (Reply 38):
The Barak deal would have screwed us over, and yes, we are getting it worse now, but we still sent Israel a message with the initifada that they won't forget anytime soon.

This sounds very intelligent...

Quoting RJpieces (Reply 41):
If by this, you mean that the only hope of ever co-existing with the Palestinians means physically separating Israel from them, then yes, Israel will never forget that message.

This is exaclty what i was going to say.

If i remember correctly, there was NO WALL before the intifada...

Topic: RE: Developments In The West Bank
Username: RJpieces
Posted 2005-04-28 15:14:46 and read 1416 times.

If i remember correctly, there was NO WALL before the intifada...

And there isn't a wall now, exactly. 90% of it is a fence, 10% is some of the most heavily photographed wall in the world.

Topic: RE: Developments In The West Bank
Username: EDKA
Posted 2005-04-28 15:24:53 and read 1415 times.

QR332
you really can't see my point, can you - violence will not result in anything, since the Camp David situation has got worse and you still telling me that "we still sent Israel a message with the initifada that they won't forget anytime soon."
I not sure i understand what you mean by this???

Topic: RE: Developments In The West Bank
Username: QR332
Posted 2005-04-29 23:28:21 and read 1392 times.

Quoting LAS757300 (Reply 39):
Sharon is responsible for the recent violence? I'm pretty sure he's never constructed and used a belt bomb.

He doesn't need a belt bomb - the tanks and aircraft from your country do him just fine  Smile

Quoting RJpieces (Reply 40):
LOOOOOOOOOOOOOL. Where's Falcon for this one? You claim not to be a terrorists supporter with statements like this?

Glad I entertained you, RJ, so what did you interpret what I said as? This should be good...

Quoting EDKA (Reply 42):
This is exaclty what i was going to say.

If i remember correctly, there was NO WALL before the intifada...

But there is one now, right there on illegally stolen Palestinian land, so it can stop suicide bombers from reacting to the suffering Israel has caused to them and their people for decades.

Quoting EDKA (Reply 44):
you really can't see my point, can you - violence will not result in anything, since the Camp David situation has got worse and you still telling me that "we still sent Israel a message with the initifada that they won't forget anytime soon."
I not sure i understand what you mean by this???

What I mean is that Israel got the message pretty clearly and right in their face - we won't stay quiet while they push as around as they like. The message was that the Palestinian people were sick of Israel's oppression towards them, that they had enough, and that they just weren't going to take Israel's crap anymore.

And as for the violence part, that is very easy to say while you are living in a nice, democratic country with nothing to worry about at all. Unfortunatley, us Palestinians don't have that luxury - we have this thing called occupation stopping us from making any progress. Do you seriously think it is easy for the Palestinians to live the way they are living? They have no freedom whatsoever, they are having their land stolen from them so Jewish settlers can live on it, they are seeing friends and relatives dying around them all the time, and you expect them to react peacefully? Especially after the world ignores every peaceful plea for help we have made? That is a very naive thing to think.

EDKA, you never said whether you think my idea of a fair deal is reasonable or not.

Topic: RE: Developments In The West Bank
Username: RJpieces
Posted 2005-04-29 23:34:12 and read 1390 times.

Quoting QR332 (Reply 45):
What I mean is that Israel got the message pretty clearly and right in their face - we won't stay quiet while they push as around as they like. The message was that the Palestinian people were sick of Israel's oppression towards them, that they had enough, and that they just weren't going to take Israel's crap anymore.

Oh well, the Palestinains lost their best chance for a state. They were offered 98% of the West Bank and East Jerusalem; Now at best they will get 92% with a nice large fence separating them from Israel. GOOD.

Topic: RE: Developments In The West Bank
Username: EDKA
Posted 2005-04-30 11:03:18 and read 1368 times.

Quoting QR332 (Reply 45):
What I mean is that Israel got the message pretty clearly and right in their face - we won't stay quiet while they push as around as they like. The message was that the Palestinian people were sick of Israel's oppression towards them, that they had enough, and that they just weren't going to take Israel's crap anymore.

Maybe, but I think Palestinians are also getting a message now – that by using violence you will not achieve anything. So you are back to square one now, only four years and thousands of lives on both sides have been waisted.
If you think that rejecting Barak’s deal was best for your people then that’s what you think. I disagree, but then, I’m not a Palestinian. I just can’t see any logic in this…

Quoting QR332 (Reply 45):
Do you seriously think it is easy for the Palestinians to live the way they are living?



I never said it is easy for the Palestinians to live the way they are living. That’s why I don’t see any logic in rejecting Barak’s offer. Surely the conditions would have improved and things would have started to get better…

Quoting QR332 (Reply 45):
EDKA, you never said whether you think my idea of a fair deal is reasonable or not.



Quoting QR332 (Reply 38):

A fair deal is one where we get Jerusalem as our capital, where all settlements are dismantled, the security fence is either dismantled or moved back to Israeli land, we get control over our own infrastructure (something that we did not have with the 2000 deal) and finally, a deal which allows us to have all of the Gaza Strip and the West Bank.



Do you mean East Jerusalem as your capital? Then yes.
Settlements are dismantled – yes
West Bank and Gaza – yes, with maybe couple of strategic point being under Israeli control.
Same goes for the security fence and infrastructure. You calling me naïve in your previous message. What I think is naïve is for you to think that Israel would offer all these things for Palestinians without having ANY guarantee from PA that they can stop terrorism. Well, the world does not work like that…

Until the likes of Hamas, Islamic Jihad and other terrorist groups who freely operate within the Palestinian territories have been removed/exterminated, I don’t think that PA should have full control of infrastructure, because they DO NOT CONTROL what’s going on…

The simple fact is that terrorist groups I mentioned above will not even accept the conditions you specified and their ultimate aim to destruction of State of Israel.
Can Palestinian authority deliver in stopping this? If they can them I’m sure that Israel will agree to remove the fence and hand over infrastructure – and hopefully we can have a peace, for everybody’s sake.

Topic: RE: Developments In The West Bank
Username: QR332
Posted 2005-04-30 13:56:59 and read 1363 times.

Quoting EDKA (Reply 47):
Maybe, but I think Palestinians are also getting a message now – that by using violence you will not achieve anything. So you are back to square one now, only four years and thousands of lives on both sides have been waisted.

You just don't get it, do you? The Palestinians have been occupied and opressed by Israel since 1967, that is a whole 38 years of occupation & oppression, with nothing being done to help the Palestinians.

Quoting EDKA (Reply 47):
If you think that rejecting Barak’s deal was best for your people then that’s what you think. I disagree, but then, I’m not a Palestinian. I just can’t see any logic in this…

I think the Barak deal and the Sharon deal are both very bad deals, but as I have said above, I do agree that the Barak deal would have gotten us further than where we are now.

Quoting EDKA (Reply 47):
I never said it is easy for the Palestinians to live the way they are living. That’s why I don’t see any logic in rejecting Barak’s offer. Surely the conditions would have improved and things would have started to get better…

Their conditions would not have gotten much better. Yes, the occupation would end and they would have a state, but at the same time, the economy would be a joke as the country would be split in three and they would not have good transportation, they would have hardly any infrastructure as most of it would be controlled by Israel, their capital, Jerusalem, where 40% of Palestine's economy is centered, would not be under their control. The towns & cities of Palestine would not be able to properly expand and grow thanks to the settlements as well. Do you see what i'm getting at?

Quoting EDKA (Reply 47):
Do you mean East Jerusalem as your capital? Then yes.
Settlements are dismantled – yes
West Bank and Gaza – yes, with maybe couple of strategic point being under Israeli control.
Same goes for the security fence and infrastructure. You calling me naïve in your previous message. What I think is naïve is for you to think that Israel would offer all these things for Palestinians without having ANY guarantee from PA that they can stop terrorism. Well, the world does not work like that…

I never said that the PA shouldn't offer Israel assurances in return - this is something that must be done, and I agree with you on that.

Quoting EDKA (Reply 47):
Until the likes of Hamas, Islamic Jihad and other terrorist groups who freely operate within the Palestinian territories have been removed/exterminated, I don’t think that PA should have full control of infrastructure, because they DO NOT CONTROL what’s going on…

And until the occupation is gone, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, etc will not go anywhere. They are the only thing that is resisting the occupation now, and even if they go, new groups will come up.

Quoting EDKA (Reply 47):
The simple fact is that terrorist groups I mentioned above will not even accept the conditions you specified and their ultimate aim to destruction of State of Israel.

Considering many of the members of these groups are refugees who are being rejected the right of return to their homes in Israel, I undetstand why they would want the destruction of Israel. They are living in appaling conditions in refugee camps while Israelis are living in thier ancestoral homes, is this fair? They have accepted peace conditions in the past BTW, but in many cases, Israel has not complied with the terms that they agreed to and that had led to more violence arising.


The messages in this discussion express the views of the author of the message, not necessarily the views of Airliners.net or any entity associated with Airliners.net.

Copyright © Lundgren Aerospace. All rights reserved.
http://www.airliners.net/