• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Arabs revising peace plan to gain Israel backing

Wessexman said:
How so? I maintain this kind of argument is not helpful to the debate, I didn't say I wouldn't take part in it.
Click to expand...

So, you are OK with participating in things that are not helpful to debate, Either this is true or you are hypocritical.

You resorted to nihilism and ex post justification. I destroyed your argument. and as you know I never turn down a good argument.:2razz:
Click to expand...

You lost. Easily. Everyone saw it.

And now look at how this thread is progressing. It's a lot of work to get an ME thread back on point, once the usual suspects decide to go after the "it's their fault, no, it's their fault" argument. As I said in the other post, I'll let you guys rewrite history, or do whatever it is you do. Let me know when you are done.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
So, you are OK with participating in things that are not helpful to debate, Either this is true or you are hypocritical.
Click to expand...
It is true.



You lost. Easily. Everyone saw it.
Click to expand...
Who saw it? Sir Loin and Tashah the oh so unbiased posters who thanked you.:2razz:

The events of 19487/8 hardly provide justification when looking at it from the 1918 or 19309 point of view. Nor does pretending morals and normative elements aren't allowed into it even when talking of aggressors and then randomly eempting the actions of the UN from this requirement.

And now look at how this thread is progressing. It's a lot of work to get an ME thread back on point, once the usual suspects decide to go after the "it's their fault, no, it's their fault" argument. As I said in the other post, I'll let you guys rewrite history, or do whatever it is you do. Let me know when you are done.
Click to expand...
Okay, I agree, I have made my point, I have shown Agentferris's silly data is wrong I will pull out for you CC.
 
Last edited:
Wessexman said:
Which British statistics?

What I quoted came from the Anglo-American committee on Palestine in 1946.
Click to expand...

p. 257 of the Government of Palestine, Survey of Palestine.


Institute for Palestine Studies - Home
Click to expand...

What you quoted doesn't take into account the partition lines which for example would have put nearly 60% of the Jewish state in the Negev desert of which according to your link 85% was "public or other"
 
Agent Ferris said:
p. 257 of the Government of Palestine, Survey of Palestine.




What you quoted doesn't take into account the partition lines which for example would have put nearly 60% of the Jewish state in the Negev desert of which according to your link 85% was "public or other"
Click to expand...

This is neither relevant to what I said nor makes much sense but I have agreed to what CC said and I will discuss this no longer.

Let's get back to the discussion in hand.
 
Lerxst said:
So what is Israel "sacrificing" if it returns the territories it occupied in 1967?
Click to expand...

Territorial integrity won by righteous conquest and the strategic advantage thereof. Golan is Israel forever.

Lerxst said:
What is Israel "sacrificing" if it allows Palestinians to return to Israel?
Click to expand...

Their voting majority. They have decided, no.

Looks like someone needs to learn to take No for an answer.
 
Lerxst said:
It "won the land in a war." Just like Saddam "won the land in Kuwait" when he invaded.
Click to expand...

No, nothing at all like it, since Kuwait had not been shelling Iraq with mortars from the border.

You are just so full of it here it is laughable.
 
Tashah said:
I've thought about this. Why is Netanyahu the Israeli PM today?

The Livni block did indeed garner the most votes in the election, but not enough to form a working government without embracing the various minority blocks and thus diluting the Kadima platform.

Remember that the election was held in the midst of conflict with Hamas. Olmert and Kadima had previously adopted a very moderate postion in regards to negotiations with Abbas. It was Livni's intent to continue this moderate stance after the election.

Olmert asked, cajoled, pleaded, and warned Hamas to stop the incessant rocket attacks. Hamas refused. Due to the great internal pressures from Israelis fed up with the Hamas attacks, Olmert had virtually no viable alternative except to initiate blunt force.

I personally believe that if Hamas had stopped with the attacks (even temporarily), Livni would have garnered the plurality necessary to claim uncontested victory and form a majority moderate government. But Hamas didn't stop. It instead increased the tempo and violence of the attacks. Many Israeli voters who had intended to vote for Livni considered the situation and came to the conclusion that Hamas had no intention whatsoever of meeting a moderate Kadima government even halfway. Continued warfare was unavoidable. In such a war environment, many people understandably prefer a hawkish government. This preference sucked precious votes away from Livni and the moderates.

One could easily speculate that the increased Hamas attacks were calculated to almost ensure that post-election, Abbas would have to deal with the implacable Netanyahu rather than the more moderate and flexible Livni.

The calculated Hamas rocket attacks were political arrows rather than resistence weaponry. The implications are clear. The result is before your eyes. One could venture to say that Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu is the love child of Hamas rockets and intransigence.
Click to expand...
Awesome analysis, what do you think the effects of Iran's big mouth had on this situation behind the scenes?
 
bub said:
Polls show that 72% of the Palestinian want the 2-states solution
Click to expand...

Oh really ?

VOTES show they want Hamas in control by 70%. (75 of 118 seats )

and I think we all know what the Hamas Charter says by now right ?

I think that poll, combined with that vote, shows conclusively that palestinians are talking out both sides of their mouth, or simply lying to your pollster.
 
Voidwar said:
Oh really ?

VOTES show they want Hamas in control by 70%. (75 of 118 seats )

and I think we all know what the Hamas Charter says by now right ?

I think that poll, combined with that vote, shows conclusively that palestinians are talking out both sides of their mouth, or simply lying to your pollster.
Click to expand...
Surprise!!! All the Palestinians supporters now have to ask themselves who's causing gridlock over peace.
 
Voidwar said:
Territorial integrity won by righteous conquest and the strategic advantage thereof. Golan is Israel forever.
Click to expand...

Bull****. So by your logic Iraq now belongs to the U.S. Righteous conquest? You're delusional.

Their voting majority. They have decided, no.

Looks like someone needs to learn to take No for an answer.
Click to expand...

I don't buy that for a minute.
 
Lerxst said:
Bull****. So by your logic Iraq now belongs to the U.S. Righteous conquest? You're delusional.



I don't buy that for a minute.
Click to expand...
A bit overthetop, even for you. I don't think the US in Iraq is the same thing. Israel was attacked by Arabs, who lost the war. Israel felt the buffer was necessary for security. They'd been attacked a number of times since 1948.
 
Lerxst said:
Bull****. So by your logic Iraq now belongs to the U.S. Righteous conquest? You're delusional.
Click to expand...

No, but the West sure does , doesn't it ?

What you attempt here is a strawman, but I'll play along for a bit.

How far do YOUR "givebacks" go ? Do you want the beads back and the Native Americans get Manhattan ?

Let's spin the hyperbole play back onto you.

Is it your contention that nothing a nation state can do makes it ok to invade them ? If the fight is over a geographic feature, and the ability to lob mortars from that location, is it your contention that Syria can do anything it likes and it is never ok for their neighbor to deny this ground to their enemy ?

Lerxst said:
I don't buy that for a minute.
Click to expand...

I hope you don't call that a refutation.
 
American said:
A bit overthetop, even for you. I don't think the US in Iraq is the same thing. Israel was attacked by Arabs, who lost the war. Israel felt the buffer was necessary for security. They'd been attacked a number of times since 1948.
Click to expand...

How does that change or render Lexrst's original point wrong, or "not the same thing"? Its exactly the same thing, your just trying to defy the logic. American if you wasnt such a hardliner, pro-everything American and its allies dispite who is wrong, unrational, redneck republican, you'd be alright. Also, i recommend joining storm front. Your brothers would welcome you with open arms.
 
No, but the West sure does , doesn't it ?
Click to expand...

Sure does what?

How far do YOUR "givebacks" go ? Do you want the beads back and the Native Americans get Manhattan?
Click to expand...

Your ancestors essentially annexed America to themselves. Israel occupies regions that they took from the Arabs. Its a different story altogether. Not to mention that was a long time ago before people got a sense of what a nation can and cant do, before the UN, before Political correctness was on the international agenda, NATO and human rights we're properly formed, and before we where a globalized economy, before "terrortorial integrety" had any substance to it. Countries could expand and pillage and colonize all they want. What happened then can be percieved differently if it occured today. Imagine if the British empire was reformed and they invaded and occupied India. The world would be forming allied powers and fighting the British like they did with the last empire in Europe. Back then, it wasnt such a big thing.
 
Last edited:
kaya'08 said:
American if you wasnt such a hardliner, pro-everything American and its allies dispite who is wrong, unrational, redneck republican, you'd be alright. Also, i recommend joining storm front. Your brothers would welcome you with open arms.
Click to expand...

Ad Hominem smear attempt.

Syria lost Golan, forever, via repeated misbehavior.
 
Forgive me being cynical about the israel palastine situation it just seems broken to me i think the best we can hope for is a slow push towards peace over decades.I feel as though in 20 years time we are still gonna be talking about new talks on the possibility of a 2 state solution.People compare it to northern ireland but the magnitude seems ten fold if even comparable.
 
kaya'08 said:
How does that change or render Lexrst's original point wrong, or "not the same thing"? Its exactly the same thing, your just trying to defy the logic. American if you wasnt such a hardliner, pro-everything American and its allies dispite who is wrong, unrational, redneck republican, you'd be alright. Also, i recommend joining storm front. Your brothers would welcome you with open arms.
Click to expand...
Unrational redneck? Why the insults? Sure I'm pro-American, shouldn't I be? I'll bet you there are more anti-American than pro-American comments on this website. I don't support European opinions most of the time because they don't step up to the plate like they should. Europeans are good at complaining and second-guessing, but hardly take the initiative to lead anything. Frankly I'm tired of it. If Europe wants to play with the big boys as the EU, then they need to grow a pair and take the lead, and stop bitching about what we're doing.
 
kaya'08 said:
Your ancestors essentially annexed America to themselves. Israel occupies regions that they took from the Arabs.
Click to expand...

Oh, so its different because you chose a different synonym ??

Please.

kaya'08 said:
Not to mention that was a long time ago before people got a sense of what a nation can and cant do, before the UN,
Click to expand...

Lol the UN. Again, please.

What can nations do and not do again ?

Can Russia invade Afghanistan ? Yes or no ?

How bout Chechnya ?

Give the Naivete a Rest, please.
 
American said:
Unrational redneck? Why the insults? Sure I'm pro-American, shouldn't I be? I'll bet you there are more anti-American than pro-American comments on this website. I don't support European opinions most of the time because they don't step up to the plate like they should. Europeans are good at complaining and second-guessing, but hardly take the initiative to lead anything. Frankly I'm tired of it. If Europe wants to play with the big boys as the EU, then they need to grow a pair and take the lead, and stop bitching about what we're doing.
Click to expand...


Its good to be pro-american. But not "pro-everything American and its allies dispite who is wrong". Read.

I don't support European opinions most of the time because they don't step up to the plate like they should. European are good at complaining and second-guessing, but hardly take the initiative to lead anything. Frankly I'm tired of it. If Europe wants to play with the big boys as the EU, then they need to grow a pair and take the lead, and stop bitching about what we're doing.
Click to expand...

You think most British people wouldnt agree with you on this one? Why do you think we want out? Ever since the union was formed Europes balls have been shrinking like a guy on steroids. We're now practically forming a vagina. But im butting my nose in because i have a right to my opinion, i have the right to debate, i have the right to involve myself with American affairs because:

A) Your actions affect all of Europe and much of the world and therefore me.

B) Any conflict you get involved with will most likely see Europe in NATO fighting beside you.
 
Oh, so its different because you chose a different synonym ??
Click to expand...

Or maybe its a completely different definition. Im sure your not having any troubles finding a dictionary in America of all places.


Lol the UN. Again, please.

What can nations do and not do again ?

Can Russia invade Afghanistan ? Yes or no ?

How bout Chechnya ?

Give the Naivete a Rest, please.
Click to expand...

Dont tell me, NATO is useless too?
 
kaya'08 said:
Or maybe its a completely different definition.
Click to expand...

Yawn, its your point, you prove it.
Here was your original posting . . .

kaya'08 said:
Your ancestors essentially annexed America to themselves. Israel occupies regions that they took from the Arabs. Its a different story altogether.
Click to expand...

Prove to me that Isreal didn't "annex Golan to themselves".

Prove to me that the U.S. doesn't "occupy regions they took from the Native Americans".

Rotsa Ruck.
 
Voidwar said:
Yawn, its your point, you prove it.
Here was your original posting . . .



Prove to me that Isreal didn't "annex Golan to themselves".

Prove to me that the U.S. doesn't "occupy regions they took from the Native Americans".

Rotsa Ruck.
Click to expand...


first rule of debate......DONT try to proove a negative.....

.....by your logic....every human should be shot ....since somewhere in time we Invaded and now OCCUPY regions taken from dinasourars and wild tulips....:roll::roll::roll:
 
EulyssElvisCaustic said:
first rule of debate......DONT try to proove a negative.....

.....by your logic....every human should be shot ....since somewhere in time we Invaded and now OCCUPY regions taken from dinasourars and wild tulips....:roll::roll::roll:
Click to expand...

Thats not MY logic, its Kaya's. I was lampooning it.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom