• 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

American said:
The Arabs attacked Israel first, and lost.
Click to expand...

I'm acutely aware of the history of the region. Your statement has no bearing on whether or not they own the land. They launched a counter offensive, invaded those territories and occupied them.

That is not Israeli land, it's Israeli occupied land. There is no sacrifice in returning it to the nation that actually has state claim in it.

Look, I'm a big fan of Israel, I respect them greatly as a nation. I do not always agree with their politics and policy, it is what it is. But I don't have to be PRO-ISRAELI or PRO PALESTINIAN here to realize a very simple fact. There is no "sacrifice" in returning that which does not rightfully belong to you. Israel occupied the land out of military convenience. Not because it was theirs and they were taking it back.

This is about "what it takes to bring peace to the region." I don't view this condition as a sacrifice or unreasonable.
 
Someone have a link to the details of the peace plan? The article doesn't mention them. I have a hard time believing it is as simple as it seems. Few things are.
 
Nevermind...I found a link. I have a problem with the initiative. The Arab demands are pretty well defined. What Israel gets in return is fine but has no fine points to it, leading to the possibility for "misinterpretation". Forgive me for being suspicious, but remember. Back in 2002, one day before this peace plan was, initially, going to be made public, the Passover Massacre occurred, a suicide bombing that killed 30 Israeli citizens. I'd like to see some of the details hashed out. And this is the problem. The initiative from the Arabs calls for the Israelis to agree to this before any fine points are negotiated.

You don't enter a contract without reading, discussing, and agreeing to the fine print. In it's current form, I say veto.
 
Last edited:
Laila said:
I disagree.
Peace can be done without a war. All is needed is sacrifices to be made on both parties.

I think this time it'll be the Israelis that will be unwilling for peace with the crazies in Government.

How ironic, the Arabs are finally making concessions on key issues with the promise of recognition and the normalization of relations with the support of the Arab league and US/EU and i bet you alot Israel will reject it ...
Click to expand...

As if Hamas would accept the peace deal anyways.
 
Lerxst said:
So what is Israel "sacrificing" if it returns the territories it occupied in 1967? What is Israel "sacrificing" if it allows Palestinians to return to Israel? Are Palestinians such a blight on the land that their presence will somehow harm Israel?
Click to expand...

The so called right of return is Islamo-fascist newspeak for the destruction of Israel through a demographic shift. And considering that the "Palestinians" elected an organization which calls for the extermination of world Jewry right in their charter it would be a bit idiotic to expect Israel to ever give them a majority within a country which is home to more than half of the worlds Jews.
 
Lerxst said:
I've thought about this myself. Hamas stands to lose power and influence among Palestinians if an actual peace plan begins to emerge. I don't think they want that. Hamas has no interest in peace, but I think most Palestinians really do.
Click to expand...

Then why in the hell did they elect Hamas which explicitly rejects any peace initiative right in their charter? And don't give me that shpeel about Fatah being corrupt, because the disputed territories has a multiparty electoral system.
 
Lerxst said:
It "won the land in a war." Just like Saddam "won the land in Kuwait" when he invaded.
Click to expand...

No it is nothing like that as this was a war of self defense against yet another Arab extermination campaign. Furthermore; Egypt and Jordan have renounced sovereignty claims over Gaza and the West Bank respectively thus the assertion that they should "give it back" is erroneous as the Arabs who have since taken to calling themselves "Palestinians" have no more territorial claim to that land than the Israelis. Moreover, after the war of 1967 Israel did in fact offer to give Jordan and Egypt back the land in return for a recognition of Israel, however, they were rebuffed with the famous "three no's" by the Arab league: "no recognition of Israel, no negotiation with Israel, and no peace with Israel".
 
kaya'08 said:
I tell of this story because it depicts a race of people having to struggle against a rising tide of perposterous evil. There very existence threatened. There bravery and courage charmes me everytime i think about this wonderful story, and it also reminds each time, that for such a thing to ever happen again, against the Jewish people, would be a travesty and a failure on the part of all mankind. Therefore, to avoid a repeat of the future, we must ensure that both Arabs and Jews find a peaceful, well thought out deal, and a home in the Middle East, together. In otherwords, it must be known to the Jewish people that supporting the unpeaceful ideologies of Netanyahu's party will never bring peace to them in a homeland where for once in there history, they can remain undisturbed. :2wave:
Click to expand...

At least Likud recognizes and has pledged commitment to all peace agreements made by previous administrations, whereas, Hamas flatly rejects them all.
 
bub said:
Polls show that 72% of the Palestinian want the 2-states solution
Click to expand...

Then why did they elect Hamas?

Furthermore; the polls actually depict the opposite of your claims:


Most Palestinians Reject Two-State Solution
October 10, 2008

(Angus Reid Global Monitor) - The majority of people in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip are against the creation of a Palestinian state neighbouring Israel, according to a poll by An-Najah National University. 54.3 per cent of respondents oppose the so-called two-state solution, while 42.5 per cent support it.

Most Palestinians Reject Two-State Solution: Angus Reid Global Monitor
Click to expand...
 
American said:
The Arabs attacked Israel first, and lost.
Click to expand...

This kind of argument is rather silly because it simply reduces to looking over the history and seeing who attacked first, Israel will not win that argument but the past is gone. Why drag it up here?

Let's think about the future rather than who were the aggressors in 67, 48 or before.
 
Wessexman said:
This kind of argument is rather silly because it simply reduces to looking over the history and seeing who attacked first, Israel will not win that argument but the past is gone. Why drag it up here?
Click to expand...

You just did what you said others shouldn't. And you did so incorrectly: Israel would easily win that argument. Now if you want to debate solutions, stick to the solutions without adding any "parting shots", especially inaccurate ones.

Let's think about the future rather than who were the aggressors in 67, 48 or before.
Click to expand...
OK, so what do you think should happen? What do you think, in simple terms, should be parameters of peace for both Arab countries and Israel?
 
Wessexman said:
This kind of argument is rather silly because it simply reduces to looking over the history and seeing who attacked first, Israel will not win that argument but the past is gone. Why drag it up here?

Let's think about the future rather than who were the aggressors in 67, 48 or before.
Click to expand...

Israel will in fact win this argument on who attacked first in that the Arabs were allowing their territories to used as bases from which to launch fedayeen terrorist attacks against Israel, they had encircled Israel with hundreds of thousands of troops, tanks, and aircraft, and they had once again illegally closed the Straights of Tiran, all the while Arab leaders and state owned media outlets were threatening Israel with destruction.

Furthermore; who was on the defensive is quite relevant to the discussion regarding the fate of the disputed territories.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
You just did what you said others shouldn't. And you did so incorrectly: Israel would easily win that argument. Now if you want to debate solutions, stick to the solutions without adding any "parting shots", especially inaccurate ones.
Click to expand...
What's wrong with a parting shot? There is no need to let American think I'm letting him get away with his attack and trying to simply change the subject. Israel cannot win, they took the land of someone else and started a country on it with mass immigration, by any reasonable standards that is aggression, last time we had this argument you had to resort to nihilism and ex post justification, to defend it which of course means that no one is right or wrong including Hamas today. When provoked I have no hesitation in arguing about the past while maintaining it is not pertinent to the present.

In 1918 Israel had no right to set up. I mean if we admit it did then we might as well through all ideas of borders and property away.
OK, so what do you think should happen? What do you think, in simple terms, should be parameters of peace for both Arab countries and Israel?
Click to expand...
Israel should leave the West bank and gaza including all settlements, a Palestinian state should be set up and the Pals should recognise Israel and stop any attacks on it.
 
Last edited:
Agent Ferris said:
Israel will in fact win this argument on who attacked first in that the Arabs were allowing their territories to used as bases from which to launch fedayeen terrorist attacks against Israel, they had encircled Israel with hundreds of thousands of troops, tanks, and aircraft, and they had once again illegally closed the Straights of Tiran, all the while Arab leaders and state owned media outlets were threatening Israel with destruction.

Furthermore; who was on the defensive is quite relevant to the discussion regarding the fate of the disputed territories.
Click to expand...

And Israel was set up on land stolen from the individual and collective property of the Palestinians by massive, unwanted immigration and then given the seal of allowance by the international community.

But that is gone. It happened, the Israeli's today are not responsbile even if they often far too arrogant over this aspect of their past and the Pals will need to recognise Israel to get anywhere.
 
Last edited:
Wessexman said:
What's wrong with a parting shot? There is no need to let American think I'm letting him get away with his attack and trying to simply change the subject. Israel cannot win, they took the land of someone else and started a country on it with mass immigration,
Click to expand...

Um no they were ceded the land by the British government who won the land from the Ottomans, 70% of the land partitioned to become the Jewish state was no owned by "Palestinians" it was owned by the mandate government, 9% was owned by Jews, and only 3% was owned by Arabs.
 
Wessexman said:
And Israel was set up on land stolen from the individual and collective property of the Palestinians by massive, unwanted immigration and then given the seal of allowance by the international community.
Click to expand...

That is a blatant lie, 70% of the land was owned by the mandate government, 9% by Jews, and only 3% by Arabs. Try again.
 
Agent Ferris said:
That is a blatant lie, 70% of the land was owned by the mandate government, 9% by Jews, and only 3% by Arabs. Try again.
Click to expand...

You mean the Jews who made up less than 8% of the population in 1918? That is completely incorrect. The mandate gov't was a colonial power who had double crossed its allies, not a great support for your argument. In fact even if there is some truth to your strange assertion about the mandate ownership that helps my argument.

Where do people get these fanstasies from? We'll here Palestine being called uninhabited next.

This seems to diagree with you btw.

British Mandate of Palestine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Last edited:
Wessexman said:
What's wrong with a parting shot?
Click to expand...

It shows you to be hypocritical based on what you said.

Israel cannot win, they took the land of someone else and started a country on it with mass immigration, by any reasonable standards that is aggression, last time we had this argument you had to resort to nihilism and ex post justification, to defend it which of course means that no one is right or wrong including Hamas today. When provoked I have no hesitation in arguing about the past while maintaining it is not pertinent to the present.
In 1918 Israel had no right to set up. I mean if we admit it did then we might as well through all ideas of borders and property away.
Click to expand...
I destroyed you in this argument before, and I can do it again. Now, we're having such a nice conversation in a couple of threads. Do you really want to ruin it? Or shall we just move on and discuss solutions? This is precisely why I left the ME Forum and, generally, only mod there, other than correcting a few definitions.


Israel should leave the West bank and gaza including all settlements, a Palestinian state should be set up and the Pals should recognise Israel and stop any attacks on it.
Click to expand...
OK, I agree with this. How do you see this happening? What would be some of the finer points, such as how should it be administered? How do you see the geographic set up?

One thing that I have always felt: a split Palestinian State is doomed. What do you think of this and do you see any solutions to it that would be viable to both sides?
 
Wessexman said:
And Israel was set up on land stolen from the individual and collective property of the Palestinians by massive, unwanted immigration and then given the seal of allowance by the international community.

But that is gone. It happened, the Israeli's today are not responsbile even if they often far too arrogant over this aspect of their past and the Pals will need to recognise Israel to get anywhere.
Click to expand...

Agent Ferris said:
Um no they were ceded the land by the British government who won the land from the Ottomans, 70% of the land partitioned to become the Jewish state was no owned by "Palestinians" it was owned by the mandate government, 9% was owned by Jews, and only 3% was owned by Arabs.
Click to expand...

Agent Ferris said:
That is a blatant lie, 70% of the land was owned by the mandate government, 9% by Jews, and only 3% by Arabs. Try again.
Click to expand...

Wessexman said:
You mean the Jews who made up less than 8% of the population in 1918? That is completely incorrect. The mandate gov't was a colonial power who had double crossed its allies, not a great support for your argument. In fact even if there is some truth to your strange assertion about the mandate ownership that helps my argument.

Where do people get these fanstasies from? We'll here Palestine being called uninhabited next.
Click to expand...

I can see where this is heading already. When you guys decide what history really says and realize that arguing about who did what only mires us more in a lack of solution, let me know. I don't see it occurring, but one never knows. Until then, I will not participate in this thread. Time to log off for the night anyway.
 
Wessexman said:
You mean the Jews who made up less than 8% of the population in 1918? That is completely incorrect. The mandate gov't was a colonial power who had double crossed its allies, not a great support for your argument.
Click to expand...

The mandate government won the land that it owned from the Ottoman imperialists then ceded 90% of the land to the Arabs and only 10% to the Jews. Furthermore; in '48 the Jews had a higher population than the Arabs in the land partitioned to the Jewish state, but that is neither here nor there with regards to your blatant lie regarding stealing land. This land was not stolen from the "Palestinians" because the "Palestinians" didn't bloody own it, it was owned by the Ottoman empire and then by the British crown.

In fact even if there is some truth to your strange assertion about the mandate ownership that helps my argument.
Click to expand...

Just how in the hell does it help your argument? It totally refutes your position regarding stealing land, because in reality the land was given to the Jews not stolen by them. And how can one steal something from someone if they don't own it?

Where do people get these fanstasies from? We'll here Palestine being called uninhabited next.
Click to expand...

70% of the land was owned by the mandate government, 9% by Jews, and only 3% by Arabs, how hard of a concept is that for you to grasp? It really is quite a simple matter really.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
It shows you to be hypocritical based on what you said.
Click to expand...
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.

I destroyed you in this argument before, and I can do it again.
Click to expand...
You resorted to nihilism and ex post justification. I destroyed your argument. and as you know I never turn down a good argument.:2razz:

Now, we're having such a nice conversation in a couple of threads. Do you really want to ruin it? Or shall we just move on and discuss solutions? This is precisely why I left the ME Forum and, generally, only mod there, other than correcting a few definitions.
Click to expand...
We don't but I still maintain that in 1918 Israel had no right to exist and that you did not prove it did last time, saying that it was set up by the UN in 1948 hardly proves that in my mind and thefore classing the later Arabs and pals as simply random and evil aggressors, as American suggested, doesn't quite hold up.

OK, I agree with this. How do you see this happening? What would be some of the finer points, such as how should it be administered? How do you see the geographic set up?

One thing that I have always felt: a split Palestinian State is doomed. What do you think of this and do you see any solutions to it that would be viable to both sides?
Click to expand...
That is a hard question of which I could not give an answer off the top of my head. I don't think it necessarily means a state in the West bank can't be set up, it is only Gaza and its situation which is the problem and needs to be decided.
 
Agent Ferris said:
The mandate government won the land that it owned from the Ottoman imperialists then ceded 90% of the land to the Arabs and only 10% to the Jews. Furthermore; in '48 the Jews had a higher population than the Arabs in the land partitioned to the Jewish state, but that is neither here nor there with regards to your blatant lie regarding stealing land. This land was not stolen from the "Palestinians" because the "Palestinians" didn't bloody own it, it was owned by the Ottoman empire and then by the British crown.
Click to expand...
Even if this is true, and the only figures provided don;t back you up, it simply shows how a colonial power helped to rob the Palestinians.



Just how in the hell does it help your argument? It totally refutes your position regarding stealing land, because in reality the land was given to the Jews not stolen by them. And how can one steal something from someone if they don't own it?
Click to expand...
Leaving aside the only actual evidence refutes your position it helps me because it shows the British seized this land and then either willing or not gave a lot to the Israelis.

70% of the land was owned by the mandate government, 9% by Jews, and only 3% by Arabs, how hard of a concept is that for you to grasp? It really is quite a simple matter really.
Click to expand...

The evidence disagrees.

British Mandate of Palestine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Wessexman said:
This seems to disagree with you btw:

British Mandate of Palestine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

According to British statistics, more than 70% of the land in what would become Israel was not owned by Arab farmers, it belonged to the mandatory government. Those lands reverted to Israeli control after the departure of the British. Nearly 9% of the land was owned by Jews and about 3% by Arabs who became citizens of Israel. That means only about 18% belonged to Arabs who left the country before and after the Arab invasion of Israel.6

6 Moshe Aumann, "Land Ownership in Palestine, 1880-1948," in Michael Curtis, et al., The Palestinians, (NJ: Transaction Books, 1975), p. 29, quoting p. 257 of the Government of Palestine, Survey of Palestine.

Myths & Facts - Partition
Click to expand...

..........................................
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom