• 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!

Why Settlers ? [W:60]

oneworld2 said:
The comment about how some Jews are being used as a buffer to protect other Jews



Nope , see above. You would never accept your own land being turned into a " buffer zone " by a foreign power. You people seriously lack the ability to empathise




And I am the one you allege is " biased " lol

The latest attempt by Obama/Kerry was met by the approval by Israel of thousands of new and illegal settlement homes and was the reason , if we are to believe the US side , why the talks was poisoned. That's just one example of why your statement is completely biased



They have their own history of attacks, it's just that you have been conditioned or self conditioned yourself to believe every Israeli act is defensive . Every land grab is defensive. Every slaughter of Arabs is justified etc etc



My comment cover 40 years of support for the two state solution which is correct. That they have realised that the " peace process " is the facade for an annexation programme hardly comes as a surprise

Having been a long time supporter of it myself , the facts on the ground have changed so much that I am having more and more misgivings about it.



Yes they do. The Israelis have a programme that allows Jewish building but denies Arab building on Arab territories. The bulldoze homes and community buildings. The enclose grazing areas surrounding settlements. They use the water to fill their swimming pools whilst the Arabs gather buckets from standpipes etc etc

You would never accept any of this but you expect the Palestinians to not only accept it but to do it without complaint.

acquaint yourself to the realities that at least some decent Jewish people are cataloguing and remember how Rachel Corrie died

Planning & building in Area C | B'Tselem
Click to expand...

Israel committing an offensive operation is not just "an attack". To view it as offensive is seriously to be missing the broader scope of the situation.

...and I have not distanced myself from any of my comments. Anything else?
 
Ganesh said:
Sometimes the most straightforward answer is also the most accurate: they want the land. "They" meaning a segment of the Israeli population, for which expansion suits their desires and goals. The problem is- and always has been- that the people that live there do not want to leave. And so we have seen the myth presented of a legitimate homeland, still a moral, if not legal right even after a couple of millennia absence.

This was addressed early on by Israeli leaders, who recognized that Israel would not be a viable state unless the demographic balance could be shifted rather dramatically. And there was plenty of drama, with evictions and intimidation during the 48-49 war, the refusal to allow return of refugees after that conflict, and then the final seizure of the rest of Palestine in 1967. After that, there was no going back, only some to and fro to keep the Americans happy, and world opinion down to a dull roar. The only "deal" offered the Palestinians was a quasi independence, a tiny semi-sovereign state on a minuscule fraction of their original land, something closer to an Indian reservation in N America than a true state. Even that is off the table now.

The two state solution is virtually dead now, as settler expansion does not allow enough viable land for a true state. Israel will never allow citizenship for all Palestinians, as they would soon be demographically overwhelmed. So the default is the present situation, ongoing occupation, and a sort of S African style apartheid.
Click to expand...

I agree with you Ganesh, the thing that gets to me is the complete dishonesty of it all. A dishonesty that has relied on the demonisation of Palestinians/Arabs for not accepting that which their sternest critics would never have accepted themselves.

There's nothing much worse than to hear/read the same old and tired Zionist propaganda being rolled out at every opportunity to hide , in a web of deceit , the very real and obvious land grabbing that's been going on by Israel since 1948.

I have been a supporter of the two state solution for decades but , as you pointed out , and agree wholeheartedly with the analysis above btw , the two state solution is all but finished and with it the chance of an end to the conflict.

That Arabs have had to pay the price for European antisemitism is a complete travesty
 
Bodhisattva said:
Israel committing an offensive operation is not just "an attack". To view it as offensive is seriously to be missing the broader scope of the situation.
Click to expand...

Some of the worst crimes in history have been cloaked in the self defence shroud by their prosecutors. The Holocaust is just one you might relate to. The " broader scope " is that Israeli leaderships have sacrificed the chance of peace with the Palestinians for territorial expansion and have framed that expansion as self defence. You seem to have missed that

...and I have not distanced myself from any of my comments. Anything else?
Click to expand...

Yep, would you accept that which you condemn the Palestinians for not accepting ?
 
oneworld2 said:
Some of the worst crimes in history have been cloaked in the self defence shroud by their prosecutors. The Holocaust is just one you might relate to. The " broader scope " is that Israeli leaderships have sacrificed the chance of peace with the Palestinians for territorial expansion and have framed that expansion as self defence. You seem to have missed that
Click to expand...

Comparing the Holocaust to the Israeli's? :roll:

Wow... if that isn't just about the worst thing I have ever heard...

... accusing Jews of committing Holocaust atrocities that were done against the Jews themselves.

Yep, would you accept that which you condemn the Palestinians for not accepting ?
Click to expand...

So I didn't distance myself from my comment... got it. It was obvious which makes your accusation all the more bizarre.
 
Toggle Almendro said:
There are no Palestinians living in Area C.
Click to expand...

Some 300,000 Palestinians live in Area C, the part of the West Bank under full Israeli control, according to new data published Tuesday by a UN body. That figure is considerably higher than 150,000 to 180,000 Palestinians said to live in the area, according to a 2008 estimate by the Israeli NGO, Bimkom, Planners for Planning Rights.
Click to expand...

UN report: 300,000 Palestinians live in Area C of West Bank - Diplomacy and Defense - Haaretz.com
 
Bodhisattva said:
Comparing the Holocaust to the Israeli's? :roll:

Wow... if that isn't just about the worst thing I have ever heard...

... accusing Jews of committing Holocaust atrocities that were done against the Jews themselves.
Click to expand...

:roll::roll:

How predictable was that lol


So I didn't distance myself from my comment... got it. It was obvious which makes your accusation all the more bizarre.
Click to expand...

Yes you did and now we can throw question avoidance in................ not doing too well are you ?
 
oneworld2 said:
:roll::roll:

How predictable was that lol




Yes you did and now we can throw question avoidance in................ not doing too well are you ?
Click to expand...

What are you on about? I completely dominated you and am now getting bored...
 
Just for you Bodhistattva.................. let me take you by the hand

post 2

Bodhistattva said:
It may not be the best option but it is better to put some in risk in order to create a buffer for millions in Jerusalem.
Click to expand...

my reply

oneworld2 said:
So it's like some are more expendable than others ?

Would it be fair to say then , in the light of the above , that the defence argument is a bit of a lottery. IE When the Israeli leaderships and their apologists say they are " defending Jews " what they mean is they are sacrificing some and protecting others ?
Click to expand...

Then came the distancing

HTH
 
Apocalypse said:
What would you consider to be the "original land" of the Palestinian Arabs?

As to the two states solution, it's still quite possible, after all not much has changed since the 2008 Olmert proposal.
Click to expand...

Mere minutes elapse before we hear the roar of the Lion of Judea, ever alert at his station. I'm not too surprised.

I am a little surprised at the quality of your spin. Your first sentence hints at the no distinct people, no national aspiration, no sovereign state, so it was up for grabs argument. Please. That one is beyond tatty, it is getting downright tedious.

Change since 2008 has been of a familiar sort. More settlers, more restrictions on Palestinians, more facts on the ground. It is a creeping process of colonization, the end product intended to be an untenable situation for remaining Palestinian Arabs, meaning hopefully they will not remain. If they do, then there will be no place for them in the future of Israel.

A two state solution today with Israeli development in place would be ludicrous, two, or more likely three separated tiny Arab enclaves, with no resources to speak of, air space, road nets, water supply, and economic opportunities mostly or entirely outside of their control. Would you accept that Mr A, if the shoe was on the other foot, and you were negotiating for Israel? No need to answer, it's a rhetorical question.
 
Ganesh said:
A two state solution today with Israeli development in place would be ludicrous, two, or more likely three separated tiny Arab enclaves, with no resources to speak of, air space, road nets, water supply, and economic opportunities mostly or entirely outside of their control. Would you accept that Mr A, if the shoe was on the other foot, and you were negotiating for Israel? No need to answer, it's a rhetorical question.
Click to expand...

I think you are giving him/her too much respect here Ganesh................... try he/she doesn't give a flying about the Palestinians so yes it is acceptable and you won't be far wrong ;)
 
duplicate post
 
Ganesh said:
Mere minutes elapse before we hear the roar of the Lion of Judea, ever alert at his station. I'm not too surprised.
Click to expand...

We can do without the charming intros.

I am a little surprised at the quality of your spin. Your first sentence hints at the no distinct people, no national aspiration, no sovereign state, so it was up for grabs argument. Please. That one is beyond tatty, it is getting downright tedious.
Click to expand...

No idea what you're even talking about, I asked you a very simple question(What do you refer to as the 'original land' of the Palestinian Arabs), if you wished to dodge it you could just do so without all the mumbo jumbo, spare me that nonsense.

Change since 2008 has been of a familiar sort. More settlers, more restrictions on Palestinians, more facts on the ground. It is a creeping process of colonization, the end product intended to be an untenable situation for remaining Palestinian Arabs, meaning hopefully they will not remain. If they do, then there will be no place for them in the future of Israel.
Click to expand...

No, not much has really changed in relation to what is possible and what is not. The deal rejected in 2008 by the Palestinians when they decided that it doesn't suit them to have their own nation on nearly the entire of the 1967 Jordanian & Egyptian occupied territories is a deal that could just as well have been made today.

A two state solution today with Israeli development in place would be ludicrous, two, or more likely three separated tiny Arab enclaves, with no resources to speak of, air space, road nets, water supply, and economic opportunities mostly or entirely outside of their control. Would you accept that Mr A, if the shoe was on the other foot, and you were negotiating for Israel? No need to answer, it's a rhetorical question.
Click to expand...

The Palestinian state as you were already accurately informed will have to be demilitarized but it will be sovereign, with air space and water supply and whatever resources there are in the land.
 
Toggle Almendro said:
I agree that a segment of the population does. But they are a minority. The Israeli majority would choose 1967 borders (with land swaps of course) if they saw that they would truly get peace in return.

The problem is, the Israeli majority doesn't see any peace being offered to them in exchange for this land.



History and archaeology are not a myth.



The Palestinian state would have been demilitarized, but it would have been fully sovereign and fully independent.




Well, yes and no.

The peace process has been wrecked so badly that it is impossible to see how it can be repaired.

But the majority of Israelis would still prefer a peaceful two-state solution if it were truly peaceful.



Settlements are no barrier to a Palestinian state. Israel has given up land that had settlements on it twice now in the course of their history (the Sinai Peninsula and the Gaza Strip).



Correct.



Most Palestinians live in Area A. Area A is not occupied in any way.
Click to expand...

Good Lord man, do you really believe this stuff, or are you just enthralled by the spin, and the tales of daring do by the plucky state of Israel?

"History and archaeology are not a myth". Indeed, they are not. Meaning what? If you are saying that if some today can trace their DNA back to a people who lived in a certain area of the world two thousand years ago, they now have the right to go there, and evict whoever lives there now, and set up their own state? Hey, that's good news for me, because that would likely mean some Norwegian fiord, and Norway is at the top of the heap these days, in a number of indicators. Can't wait for some of that oil money.

Or are you going to come up with the lame answer (I can already hear a lion-like ruminating) that there were always Jews in Palestine, and others around the world never stopped their yearning for return? Well, there have always been some Jews in Iran, for example, and many other places. There have been some Romans, Germanic tribesmen, Vikings, Normans, their descendants, and others present in Britain for centuries. Which of those now have a claim on expensive London real estate?

Many people yearn for where the grass is greener, and that is fair enough, but the point is, they are not entitled to take it by force.

As for the rest, do some Googling, and try to come up with something coherent, if you want to continue a discussion here.
 
Ganesh said:
Good Lord man, do you really believe this stuff, or are you just enthralled by the spin, and the tales of daring do by the plucky state of Israel?

"History and archaeology are not a myth". Indeed, they are not. Meaning what? If you are saying that if some today can trace their DNA back to a people who lived in a certain area of the world two thousand years ago, they now have the right to go there, and evict whoever lives there now, and set up their own state? Hey, that's good news for me, because that would likely mean some Norwegian fiord, and Norway is at the top of the heap these days, in a number of indicators. Can't wait for some of that oil money.

Or are you going to come up with the lame answer (I can already hear a lion-like ruminating) that there were always Jews in Palestine, and others around the world never stopped their yearning for return? Well, there have always been some Jews in Iran, for example, and many other places. There have been some Romans, Germanic tribesmen, Vikings, Normans, their descendants, and others present in Britain for centuries. Which of those now have a claim on expensive London real estate?

Many people yearn for where the grass is greener, and that is fair enough, but the point is, they are not entitled to take it by force.

As for the rest, do some Googling, and try to come up with something coherent, if you want to continue a discussion here.
Click to expand...

It's a big problem that you don't understand the concept of nations, how they work.
Meaning; what are homelands, what are people, what is the right to self-determination, etc.
This comment really leaves no room for doubt about that.

Instead of getting angry and attacking Almendo for pointing out a concept you do not understand you should really engage this logically and see that you educate yourself on that concept, seriously. A Jew who lived in Iran in 1942 didn't just come out of nowhere, his ancestors came from the land of Israel. It's not just "tracing your DNA" thing, it's called a nation. The roots of the Jewish nation is in the land of the Jewish people, not in Iran or Germany. This is the very thing that grants a people the right to self-determination - a homeland, a place where they became a nation to begin with. Instead of reacting with distrust and anger at facts that contradict the point of view you came to believe in you should just try and understand reality for once.
 
oneworld2 said:
Just for you Bodhistattva.................. let me take you by the hand

post 2



my reply



Then came the distancing

HTH
Click to expand...

What the heck is wrong with you? I never backtracked. I said:

"It may not be the best option but it is better to put some in risk in order to create a buffer for millions in Jerusalem. "

And I meant:

"It may not be the best option but it is better to put some in risk in order to create a buffer for millions in Jerusalem. "

I have not changed what I said and the fact that you think that I have is bizarre in the extreme.
 
Ganesh said:
A two state solution today with Israeli development in place would be ludicrous, two, or more likely three separated tiny Arab enclaves, with no resources to speak of, air space, road nets, water supply, and economic opportunities mostly or entirely outside of their control. Would you accept that Mr A, if the shoe was on the other foot, and you were negotiating for Israel? No need to answer, it's a rhetorical question.
Click to expand...

In cases like this you have to be honest.

Who's fault is it that the Palestinians don't have any infrastructure?

Correct. It is almost 100% their fault...
 
Toggle Almendro said:
That's odd. What are they doing in Area C and why isn't Israel expelling them?
Click to expand...

The figures are exaggerated (It's the UN after all). Aside of that, they also refer to East Jerusalem.
 
Ganesh said:
Good Lord man, do you really believe this stuff,
Click to expand...
Well it's true. Why wouldn't I believe the truth?


Ganesh said:
"History and archaeology are not a myth". Indeed, they are not. Meaning what?
Click to expand...
Meaning your use of the term "myth" was incorrect.


Ganesh said:
If you are saying that if some today can trace their DNA back to a people who lived in a certain area of the world two thousand years ago, they now have the right to go there, and evict whoever lives there now, and set up their own state? Hey, that's good news for me, because that would likely mean some Norwegian fiord, and Norway is at the top of the heap these days, in a number of indicators. Can't wait for some of that oil money.
Click to expand...
Get a lawyer and give it a try. You never know, you might just succeed.


Ganesh said:
Or are you going to come up with the lame answer (I can already hear a lion-like ruminating) that there were always Jews in Palestine, and others around the world never stopped their yearning for return?
Click to expand...
While that wasn't my answer, it seems factual enough.


Ganesh said:
Well, there have always been some Jews in Iran, for example, and many other places.
Click to expand...
They have the right to return to their ancient homeland in Israel if they choose.


Ganesh said:
There have been some Romans, Germanic tribesmen, Vikings, Normans, their descendants, and others present in Britain for centuries. Which of those now have a claim on expensive London real estate?
Click to expand...
I believe that every group that you listed was a non-indigenous invader of Britain.


Ganesh said:
As for the rest, do some Googling, and try to come up with something coherent, if you want to continue a discussion here.
Click to expand...
My facts are already in order. And I am already coherent. That is why you failed to point out any facts that I am wrong about.
 
oneworld2 said:
I agree with you Ganesh, the thing that gets to me is the complete dishonesty of it all. A dishonesty that has relied on the demonisation of Palestinians/Arabs for not accepting that which their sternest critics would never have accepted themselves.
Click to expand...
Hold on here. There was nothing wrong with Israel's offers, and the notion that their sternest critics would not have accepted the offers is preposterous.

As I noted before, by misconstruing Israel's past peace offers, you legitimize the settlements.

Also, the Palestinians are not being criticized for merely not accepting Israel's offers. If Arafat had said "I don't like that proposal, but how about this proposal instead?" that would have been just fine.

What Arafat did, and what he was condemned for doing, was deliberately allow a wave of terrorist attacks to decimate Israeli civilians until Ehud Barak's government collapsed and the negotiations ended.


oneworld2 said:
That Arabs have had to pay the price for European antisemitism is a complete travesty
Click to expand...
It has nothing to do with Europe. The trouble is because they are living in a spot that was reclaimed by its indigenous population.
 
Ganesh said:
A two state solution today with Israeli development in place would be ludicrous, two, or more likely three separated tiny Arab enclaves, with no resources to speak of, air space, road nets, water supply, and economic opportunities mostly or entirely outside of their control.
Click to expand...
Nonsense. A two-state solution today would mirror the same generous offers that Israel made in the past.
 
Toggle Almendro said:
Oh. That makes sense. So it isn't really the same as Area C out in the West Bank.
Click to expand...

There are supposed to be around 75,000 Palestinians living in actual Area C, a great portion of them work in the Jewish settlements.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom