 |
| |
|
|
CyberGnu
|
 |
of the Virtual Serengeti
Apr 1999
time: 05:26
|
|
quote:
How can I prove a nazi that he's a nazi? It's a lost cause.
|
Yeah, pretty much what I expected. Name calling is fine, as long as you don't have to support your claims.
quote:
Israeli, American and European media who have bothered to talk to simple people, instead of relying on the words of israeli or palestinian mediators.
|
Source, please
quote:
you talk about palestinian death tolls without any reference to the incidents sorrounding their death, or thier possible alliance with combatants (ie terrorists)
|
Source, please. Or quotation, if you will.
quote:
this is bullshit.
those things are uncomparable. |
Yes, but not in the way you imply.
quote:
this assumes that one side is completely and absolutely right and the other is completely and absolutely wrong. And you expect both to behave absolutely objectively.
The world doesn't work that way. |
No, it assumes that Israel is occupying palestine. Not much of an assumption, really, more of an observation.
quote:
I'm sure anyone reading this thread can remember accusations of stealing land.
|
Be specific
quote:
I use numerous sources: Israeli, Arab, American, Brittish, German. |
Be specific
quote:
You have so far quoted one or two articles by the guardian or washington post.
|
That's odd, I haven't quoted ANYTHING in this thread. You could, of course, require me to quote my source on Kashmir, but that is, as far as I know, the only quotable post.
quote:
Every pro-israeli article, be it israeli, arab, german or anything else, you claim to be false and utter lies, since you personally can't verify the claims. then you decide it's probably a jewish owned media source and therefore vehemently zionistic.
sounds familiar? |
Not even remotely. I doesn;t matter how many times you are told, you still never understand this simple principle, but the whole idea of an unbiased view is that one accepts the articles from an unbiased source, even if they present facts that puts the opposing side in a good light.
It doesn't in any way require, or even encourage, one to accept information from biased media. The only possible use one could have for such information would be to use it as a stepping stone to find information from reliable sources.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MRT144
|
|
Seattle Washington
Oct 2002
time: 21:26
|
|
siro, i think terrorsim would have increased with or without occupation.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MRT144
|
|
Seattle Washington
Oct 2002
time: 21:26
|
|
let god sort this out, and get america out.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
CyberGnu
|
|
of the Virtual Serengeti
Apr 1999
time: 05:26
|
|
[quote]Perhaps it would have been if people hadn't been running around blowing up buses? [/quote[
Actually, I quite doubt that. The occupation of palestine is not about stopping terrorism, one must be incredibly naive to buy that line.
It's about grabbing more land. Why do you think the settlements are steadily increasing? Why do you think the palestinian infrastructure was systematically destroyed?
Stopping bus bombing might have a positive effect on the palestinian quest for statehood, but only thought international opinion. and can you really fault the palestinians for not holding out any hope for that, when the international opinion didn't give a rat's ass about them for over 40 years?
It took an intifada to make the world realize the palestinians plight. Many, if not most, palestinians believe only a second intifada has any chance of realizing a palstinian homeland.
You know, I'm not telling them to keep using bombs. In the current climate, it is most likely counter productive. But I also can't morally condemn them for taking extreme measures in order to stop an oppressive occupation.
Hey, you should know this: just look at your country men during world war 2, for example.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Firelad
|
|
Haifa, Israel.
May 2002
time: 07:26
|
|
Well, there's nae a Gandhi on either side over here. Just a lot of suffering people and a bunch of evil, evil beasts cynically exploiting them. People trying to follow Gandhi's ways get shot or imprisoned around here, or at least very effectively silenced in less obvious ways....
|
|
| |
|
|
|
CyberGnu
|
|
of the Virtual Serengeti
Apr 1999
time: 05:26
|
|
quote:
Yes, but they're not giving the land back, which is what you're asking Israel to do. |
Actually, they ARE giving land back. There are currently several law suits regarding who owns what parcels of land... But that is beside the point.
At some point, you have to be pragmatic. We can't change history. Might gave right 150 years ago, and there is nothing we can do about that, we can only try to lessen the effect. But we CAN make sure that might does not give right today. Sure, Israel is there to stay. I don't think there is anything we can do about that either. (I'm glad that you accept the assumption that Israel has as much right to Palestine as England had to America, though - which is none at all. It makes it easier when one party doesn't use a 2000 year old book to support their claim.)
But we can make sure that the palestinians have at least the same standard of living as Israelis. Anything less can not, in any way, be considered moral.
I've outlined what I think is the minimum "path to peace" several times before.
Israel must leave the occupied territories completely. That includes all settlements. If Israel feels the need to retain one particular area, they can barter for it: exchanging it for land elsewhere, but only in a fair trade, as accepted by impartial negotiators. The trade proposed in the Camp David, for example, is not satisfactory: you can't suggest trading pieces of jerusalem for pieces of desert and hope your opponent will accept that...
Second, there must be an ironclad agreement that Israel cannot enter palestinian land FOR ANY REASON. This must be physically safeguarded by an international force, as well as politically accepted by the US. If this isn't in force, we will see the exact same thing in palestine as in lebanon : It will take the IDF roughly six seconds to come up with some excuse to invade again. We all know how this works...
Grievances has to be taken up with the international force, who must have law enforcing power in the new palestine. It would be even better if they had power in Israel as well, but I'm guessing that would never work.
Finally, the "right of return" must be settled. Israelis usually claim that they can't allow 4 million refugees to immigrate into Israel, since that would make arabs and jews roughly equal in numbers. Well, there is a simple solution to that: Partition off half the land inside the green line and give that land to the refugees. Not only it is practical (although expensive), but it also has several historical qualities: The remaining land of ISrael would be roughly the same size as proposed in 1946, before Israel seized the land inside the green line. It also reflects a fairly decent population/area ration, as the "New Israel" would have about 40% of the original palestine, with ~5 million inhabitants, and the "new palestine" would have 60% with ~8 million inhabitants.
As you probably see, the main problem with this solution is that Israel would never agree. Givning up so much land would never be aceptable, which is my this solution would have to be imposed on it...
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:26.
Apolyton Time is 00:26. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
06-03-2003 16:40
|