A few questions so I will know who I'm dealing with...

[RoccoR]

Indofred, et al,

Sometime, claims such as these, are not obvious in the reality of today.

I condemn all violence against innocents.

Yes, that does include violence against someone because they believe in something different to the belief structure of the attacker.

(COMMENT)

While you may say this, does the actual evidence support this?

Does this actually comply with the tenants and edicts of the Hamas Charter?

I also condemn collective punishment against a whole people, as we see with Israeli government mass murder in Gaza, because some of their number are daft enough to fire ineffective rockets into Israel.

(COMMENT)

Obviously, you have never been in a firefight, or in a place subject to rocket and mortar fire.

When someone shoots at you, the assumption is that they mean to kill you. I've never heard of benevolent rocket and mortar fire.

Collective Punishment:​

No protected person may be punished for an offence he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited.

• Pillage is prohibited.
• Reprisals against protected persons and their property are prohibited.

SOURCE: </title> <link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="/xsp/.ibmxspres/.mini/css/@Da&@Ib&2Tfxsp.css&2TfxspLTR.css.css"> <script type="text/javascript" src="/xsp/.ibmxspres/dojoroot-1.6.1/dojo/dojo.js" djConfig="locale: 'fr-ch'"></script> <script type=

“The Security Council condemns terrorism in all its forms and manifestations, reaffirms that any terrorist acts are criminal and unjustifiable regardless of their motivations, whenever and by whomsoever committed, and reaffirms that terrorism cannot and should not be associated with any religion, nationality or ethnic group."

SOURCE: ODS HOME PAGE

Terrorism

Any act or threat of violence, whatever its motives or purposes, that occurs in the advancement of an individual or collective criminal agenda and seeking to sow panic among people, causing fear by harming them, or placing their lives, liberty or security in danger, or seeking to cause damage to the environment or to public or private installations or property or to occupying or seizing them, or seeking to jeopardize a national resources.​

a. All cases of struggle by whatever means, including armed struggle, against foreign occupation and aggression for liberation and self-determination, in accordance with the principles of international law (see Special Note below), shall not be regarded as an offence. This provision shall not apply to any act prejudicing the territorial integrity of any Arab State.

b. None of the terrorist offences indicated in the preceding Article shall be regarded as a political offence. In the application of this Convention, none of the following offences shall be regarded as a political offence, even if committed for political motives:

(i) Attacks on the kings, heads of State or rulers of the Contracting States or on their spouses and families;
(ii) Attacks on crown princes, vice-presidents, prime ministers or ministers in any of the Contracting States;
(iii) Attacks on persons enjoying diplomatic immunity, including ambassadors and diplomats serving in or accredited to the Contracting States;
(iv) Premeditated murder or theft accompanied by the use of force directed against individuals, the authorities or means of transport and communications;
(v) Acts of sabotage and destruction of public property and property assigned to a public service, even if owned by another Contracting State;
(vi) The manufacture, illicit trade in or possession of weapons, munitions or explosives, or other items that may be used to commit terrorist offences.​

Special Note: Under the Principles of International Law (Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States)

Every State has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate the existing international boundaries of another State or as a means of solving international disputes, including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States.

States have a duty to refrain from acts of reprisal involving the use of force.

Every State has the duty to refrain from any forcible action which deprives peoples referred to in the elaboration of the principle of equal rights and self-determination of their right to self-determination and freedom and independence.

Every State has the duty to refrain from organizing or encouraging the organization of irregular forces or armed bands including mercenaries, for incursion into the territory of another State.

Every State has the duty to refrain from organizing, instigating, assisting or participating in acts of civil strife or terrorist acts in another State or acquiescing in organized activities within its territory directed towards the commission of such acts, when the acts referred to in the present paragraph involve a threat or use of force.

SOURCE: http://www.unrol.org/files/3dda1f104.pdf

SOURCE: https://www.unodc.org/tldb/pdf/conv_arab_terrorism.en.pdf

I was going to say, this is as easy as 1, 2, 3; but then, the more I thought, the more confusing it got.

The idea behind the allegation of "collective punishment" is based on a couple premises that the Palestinian hold dear, but are in contention.

The premise that the entire State of Israel (under any border schema) is an Occupation. Or, as some Palestinians say, anything West of the Jordan River is Occupied Territory. The importance of this premise is that it makes any crime the Palestinians commit a "domestic" crime and not a violation of International Law. Their argument is that Israel has no international border and therefore, they don't cross international triggers or tripwires. But it also make every Israeli an illegal settler on Palestinian Land.

The premise that any an all means are legal for the Palestinian to pursue in the struggle for self-determination. There is no act that the Palestinians can perpetrate against the Israeli, since every Israeli is an illegal settler and fruit of a foreign invasion. This has the subtext of the concept that collectively, since they are all criminals, they have no right to resist. And that Israel, no having recognized borders, have no sovereign integrity they can legally defend.

This leads to the outcome that any and all security or means of military suppression of Palestinian activity that protects Israel is unlawful in itself.

The Double-Edged Sword:

Israel is a Member State of the United Nations.

Israel has established international boundaries or Armistice Arrangement with every adjacent Member State.

Israel is protected by Article 51, of the UN Charter, and the established inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations.

• If, as the Palestinians claim, there are no international boundaries (Israel is wholly and entirely inside Palestine), then it is a "domestic issue," and has a consequence: Israelis not subject to international law relative to the conflict with the Palestinians, and the Palestinians are not subject to the protections under international law. It becomes questionable if Israel (not being an Arab State), is subject to an offense; under the Arab Convention.

• If the Palestinians are going to claim that International Law applies, then it must make a case as to how it is not a domestic issue, but an international issue. Otherwise, it becomes a case that the Israelis attempting to develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of it's peoples, and to take, by whatever means necessary, measures to strengthen universal peace and its security. That would mean against those Hostile Arab/Palestinian opposed to the Israeli right to independence. Under the Arab Terrorism Convention, struggle by whatever means, for liberation of Israel and self-determination, in accordance with the principles of international law, shall not be regarded as an offence.

A really neat question, relative to the concept that Israel is a wholly subsidiary of Palestine, is whether or not Palestine is an Arab State?

I'm at it, I condemn Israel's illegal blockade of Gaza and their clear attempt to drive the people out by starvation.

(COMMENT)

Under Arab Convention, "all cases of struggle by whatever means, including armed struggle, against foreign occupation and aggression for liberation and self-determination, in accordance with the principles of international law, shall not be regarded as an offence." Thus, the quarantine of the Palestinian Aggressor in Gaza, trying to suppress the Israeli pursuit of Independence and its right to self-determination as an official policy of its government, it not only a "domestic matter" (outside the rule of international law), but entirely legal. It is not collective punishment, but an extension of the Arab approach of: "by any means."

(EPILOG)

Now, if the entire scenario is turned around, then Israel is recognized by the Palestinian as an independent state, outside of Palestine, the argument changes significantly.

(QUESTION)

Which is it?

• Is Israel an Independent State, outside any claim by the Palestinians that it is Occupied?
• Or is Israel a territorial subsidiary of Palestine, without borders, and occupies that land?

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Roudy]

Kiss the 67 orders goodbye Freddy, that will never happen. There's a lot of upheaval going on in the Middle East now. Maybe the Palestinians will get lucky and get shoved up the kazoo of one of these collapsed Muslim states. Short of that, its only a matter of time that Israel will be annexing the West Bank and calling it by its true name for thousands of years, Judeah and Samaria. Now repeat after me: praise to the Allah.

This is why there will eventually be another major war in the region.
Extremist hate speech will ensure death, destruction and misery for a long time to come.

Facts of life Freddy boy. Palestinians have not given any reason to believe that the compromises they are asking for, will actually bring peace and not put Israel's security in jeopardy. In fact they have proven the opposite. So on we go towards annexation.

 

[Roudy]

Indofred, et al,

Sometime, claims such as these, are not obvious in the reality of today.

I condemn all violence against innocents.

Yes, that does include violence against someone because they believe in something different to the belief structure of the attacker.

(COMMENT)

While you may say this, does the actual evidence support this?

Does this actually comply with the tenants and edicts of the Hamas Charter?

I also condemn collective punishment against a whole people, as we see with Israeli government mass murder in Gaza, because some of their number are daft enough to fire ineffective rockets into Israel.

(COMMENT)

Obviously, you have never been in a firefight, or in a place subject to rocket and mortar fire.

When someone shoots at you, the assumption is that they mean to kill you. I've never heard of benevolent rocket and mortar fire.

Collective Punishment:​

Terrorism

Any act or threat of violence, whatever its motives or purposes, that occurs in the advancement of an individual or collective criminal agenda and seeking to sow panic among people, causing fear by harming them, or placing their lives, liberty or security in danger, or seeking to cause damage to the environment or to public or private installations or property or to occupying or seizing them, or seeking to jeopardize a national resources.​

a. All cases of struggle by whatever means, including armed struggle, against foreign occupation and aggression for liberation and self-determination, in accordance with the principles of international law (see Special Note below), shall not be regarded as an offence. This provision shall not apply to any act prejudicing the territorial integrity of any Arab State.

b. None of the terrorist offences indicated in the preceding Article shall be regarded as a political offence. In the application of this Convention, none of the following offences shall be regarded as a political offence, even if committed for political motives:

(i) Attacks on the kings, heads of State or rulers of the Contracting States or on their spouses and families;
(ii) Attacks on crown princes, vice-presidents, prime ministers or ministers in any of the Contracting States;
(iii) Attacks on persons enjoying diplomatic immunity, including ambassadors and diplomats serving in or accredited to the Contracting States;
(iv) Premeditated murder or theft accompanied by the use of force directed against individuals, the authorities or means of transport and communications;
(v) Acts of sabotage and destruction of public property and property assigned to a public service, even if owned by another Contracting State;
(vi) The manufacture, illicit trade in or possession of weapons, munitions or explosives, or other items that may be used to commit terrorist offences.​

Special Note: Under the Principles of International Law (Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States)

​

SOURCE: https://www.unodc.org/tldb/pdf/conv_arab_terrorism.en.pdf

I was going to say, this is as easy as 1, 2, 3; but then, the more I thought, the more confusing it got.

The idea behind the allegation of "collective punishment" is based on a couple premises that the Palestinian hold dear, but are in contention.

The premise that the entire State of Israel (under any border schema) is an Occupation. Or, as some Palestinians say, anything West of the Jordan River is Occupied Territory. The importance of this premise is that it makes any crime the Palestinians commit a "domestic" crime and not a violation of International Law. Their argument is that Israel has no international border and therefore, they don't cross international triggers or tripwires. But it also make every Israeli an illegal settler on Palestinian Land.

The premise that any an all means are legal for the Palestinian to pursue in the struggle for self-determination. There is no act that the Palestinians can perpetrate against the Israeli, since every Israeli is an illegal settler and fruit of a foreign invasion. This has the subtext of the concept that collectively, since they are all criminals, they have no right to resist. And that Israel, no having recognized borders, have no sovereign integrity they can legally defend.

This leads to the outcome that any and all security or means of military suppression of Palestinian activity that protects Israel is unlawful in itself.

The Double-Edged Sword:

Israel is a Member State of the United Nations.

Israel has established international boundaries or Armistice Arrangement with every adjacent Member State.

Israel is protected by Article 51, of the UN Charter, and the established inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations.

• If, as the Palestinians claim, there are no international boundaries (Israel is wholly and entirely inside Palestine), then it is a "domestic issue," and has a consequence: Israelis not subject to international law relative to the conflict with the Palestinians, and the Palestinians are not subject to the protections under international law. It becomes questionable if Israel (not being an Arab State), is subject to an offense; under the Arab Convention.

• If the Palestinians are going to claim that International Law applies, then it must make a case as to how it is not a domestic issue, but an international issue. Otherwise, it becomes a case that the Israelis attempting to develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of it's peoples, and to take, by whatever means necessary, measures to strengthen universal peace and its security. That would mean against those Hostile Arab/Palestinian opposed to the Israeli right to independence. Under the Arab Terrorism Convention, struggle by whatever means, for liberation of Israel and self-determination, in accordance with the principles of international law, shall not be regarded as an offence.

A really neat question, relative to the concept that Israel is a wholly subsidiary of Palestine, is whether or not Palestine is an Arab State?

I'm at it, I condemn Israel's illegal blockade of Gaza and their clear attempt to drive the people out by starvation.

(COMMENT)

Under Arab Convention, "all cases of struggle by whatever means, including armed struggle, against foreign occupation and aggression for liberation and self-determination, in accordance with the principles of international law, shall not be regarded as an offence." Thus, the quarantine of the Palestinian Aggressor in Gaza, trying to suppress the Israeli pursuit of Independence and its right to self-determination as an official policy of its government, it not only a "domestic matter" (outside the rule of international law), but entirely legal. It is not collective punishment, but an extension of the Arab approach of: "by any means."

(EPILOG)

Now, if the entire scenario is turned around, then Israel is recognized by the Palestinian as an independent state, outside of Palestine, the argument changes significantly.

(QUESTION)

Which is it?

• Is Israel an Independent State, outside any claim by the Palestinians that it is Occupied?
• Or is Israel a territorial subsidiary of Palestine, without borders, and occupies that land?

Most Respectfully,
R

Exactly, they speak from both sides of the mouth. "Peace" is just a ploy to make Israel more vulnerable to a final assault and destruction. The Hamas charter clearly says: "no peace treaties or negotiations with the Zionist entity are to be honored except if such treaties are used as deception to make the enemy weaker and for susceptible".

I believe one should believe their own words, they say what they mean and mean what they say. What's so hard to understand.

Yes of course the Palestinians will "talk" of peace to keep getting money from the US and naive other countries. Talk is cheap.

 

[BecauseIKnow]

It's funny when the pro israel crowd brings up Hamas when Hamas has no say in the two state solution and are isolated in Gaza only. Israel refuses to allow their representatives into a negotiation and they deal with the PA whom they claim to always support and the PA is technically their own stooge government. Yet they still back away from a solution. They want israel to keep expanding and to stay that way. They want it to be all Jewish land. Just as Roudy even said in the other thread, he wants all of the West Bank to be occupied and wants rename it Judea and Samaria. He's accusing the other side of wanting all of Israel when in reality it's him and people like him who want all Palestine. Actions speak far louder than words, Israel is the country occupying land daily and trying to annex occupied land through brute force. Even the US has admitted this, and Europe is concerned of it. The Palestinians aren't going out trying to usurp land. So Rocco's whole waste of time was pointless, actions speak far louder than words Rocco, no matter how much bs you pull out of your ass to defend the occupation it's literally just not the reality. Enough of unrealistic methods of trying to deter a two state solution. The whole world is moving towards a two state solution.

 

[RoccoR]

BecauseIKnow, et al,

I haven't started a defense of the "Occupation."

It's funny when the pro israel crowd brings up Hamas when Hamas has no say in the two state solution and are isolated in Gaza only. Israel refuses to allow their representatives into a negotiation and they deal with the PA whom they claim to always support and the PA is technically their own stooge government. Yet they still back away from a solution. They want israel to keep expanding and to stay that way. They want it to be all Jewish land. Just as Roudy even said in the other thread, he wants all of the West Bank to be occupied and wants rename it Judea and Samaria. He's accusing the other side of wanting all of Israel when in reality it's him and people like him who want all Palestine. Actions speak far louder than words, Israel is the country occupying land daily and trying to annex occupied land through brute force. Even the US has admitted this, and Europe is concerned of it. The Palestinians aren't going out trying to usurp land. So Rocco's whole waste of time was pointless, actions speak far louder than words Rocco, no matter how much bs you pull out of your ass to defend the occupation it's literally just not the reality. Enough of unrealistic methods of trying to deter a two state solution. The whole world is moving towards a two state solution.

(COMMENT)

As a matter of fact, I have written a number of commentaries on the inappropriate administration and management of the "Occupied Territories" (Gaza Strip and West Bank) by the Israelis.

The question I raise is an even more basic question.

• If the Palestinians recognized Israel as a sovereign and independent state?
  ...................................................OR......................................................
• If the Palestinians claim that all of Israel is inside Palestine, that Israel is an illegitimate state with no recognizable borders?

It does make a difference.

• If it is one, then none of the International Laws apply because it becomes an internal domestic issue of Palestine.
• If it is the other, then the Palestinians already give recognition to the State of Israel and now it is just a matter of negotiating borders.

(FOOTNOTE)

When the Arabs Themselves Denied There Was a Palestine LINK ---> http://www.nysun.com/opinion/when-the-arabs-themselves-denied-there-was/87607/

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Roudy]

It's funny when the pro israel crowd brings up Hamas when Hamas has no say in the two state solution and are isolated in Gaza only. Israel refuses to allow their representatives into a negotiation and they deal with the PA whom they claim to always support and the PA is technically their own stooge government. Yet they still back away from a solution. They want israel to keep expanding and to stay that way. They want it to be all Jewish land. Just as Roudy even said in the other thread, he wants all of the West Bank to be occupied and wants rename it Judea and Samaria. He's accusing the other side of wanting all of Israel when in reality it's him and people like him who want all Palestine. Actions speak far louder than words, Israel is the country occupying land daily and trying to annex occupied land through brute force. Even the US has admitted this, and Europe is concerned of it. The Palestinians aren't going out trying to usurp land. So Rocco's whole waste of time was pointless, actions speak far louder than words Rocco, no matter how much bs you pull out of your ass to defend the occupation it's literally just not the reality. Enough of unrealistic methods of trying to deter a two state solution. The whole world is moving towards a two state solution.

You don't get it Habbibi, it's the Palestinians that want a Jew-free Muslim only shariah shithole. The Jews are currently host to almost 2 million Muslim Arabs who live as Israeli citizens with full rights. Its the Palestinians that keep saying nothing short of the destruction of ALL of Israel will bring about peace.

So what did the Arabs do when the Jews forced their own people to leave Gaza and handed over the keys to a Jew free Gaza to the Arabs? They elected a terrorist govt (as a sign that they want peace with the Jews <LOL>) named Hamas, started shooting rockets into Israeli cities, sent suicide bomber after suicide bomber, called for the destruction of Israel on a daily basis, and turned Gaza into an Islamist Shariah shitpile.

Now if that isn't incentive for Israelis to give MORE land to the Arabs, I don't know what is.

 

[BecauseIKnow]

It's funny when the pro israel crowd brings up Hamas when Hamas has no say in the two state solution and are isolated in Gaza only. Israel refuses to allow their representatives into a negotiation and they deal with the PA whom they claim to always support and the PA is technically their own stooge government. Yet they still back away from a solution. They want israel to keep expanding and to stay that way. They want it to be all Jewish land. Just as Roudy even said in the other thread, he wants all of the West Bank to be occupied and wants rename it Judea and Samaria. He's accusing the other side of wanting all of Israel when in reality it's him and people like him who want all Palestine. Actions speak far louder than words, Israel is the country occupying land daily and trying to annex occupied land through brute force. Even the US has admitted this, and Europe is concerned of it. The Palestinians aren't going out trying to usurp land. So Rocco's whole waste of time was pointless, actions speak far louder than words Rocco, no matter how much bs you pull out of your ass to defend the occupation it's literally just not the reality. Enough of unrealistic methods of trying to deter a two state solution. The whole world is moving towards a two state solution.

You don't get it Habbibi, it's the Palestinians that want a Jew-free Muslim only shariah shithole. The Jews are currently host to almost 2 million Muslim Arabs who live as Israeli citizens with full rights. Its the Palestinians that keep saying nothing short of the destruction of ALL of Israel will bring about peace.

So what did the Arabs do when the Jews forced their own people to leave Gaza and handed over the keys to a Jew free Gaza to the Arabs? They elected a terrorist govt (as a sign that they want peace with the Jews <LOL>) named Hamas, started shooting rockets into Israeli cities, sent suicide bomber after suicide bomber, called for the destruction of Israel on a daily basis, and turned Gaza into an Islamist Shariah shitpile.

Now if that isn't incentive for Israelis to give MORE land to the Arabs, I don't know what is.

Habibi, that's your presentation of line of events. Anyways, I don't have time right know so I gotta go.

 

[toastman]

BIK, you forgot to mention what Abbas recently mentioned regarding pre- conditions for a peace process:
The release of ALL - not some - but ALL Palestinian prisoners, which includes those convicted of murdering Israelis.

So , I ask you, do you agree with this pre - condition ?

 

[Roudy]

It's funny when the pro israel crowd brings up Hamas when Hamas has no say in the two state solution and are isolated in Gaza only. Israel refuses to allow their representatives into a negotiation and they deal with the PA whom they claim to always support and the PA is technically their own stooge government. Yet they still back away from a solution. They want israel to keep expanding and to stay that way. They want it to be all Jewish land. Just as Roudy even said in the other thread, he wants all of the West Bank to be occupied and wants rename it Judea and Samaria. He's accusing the other side of wanting all of Israel when in reality it's him and people like him who want all Palestine. Actions speak far louder than words, Israel is the country occupying land daily and trying to annex occupied land through brute force. Even the US has admitted this, and Europe is concerned of it. The Palestinians aren't going out trying to usurp land. So Rocco's whole waste of time was pointless, actions speak far louder than words Rocco, no matter how much bs you pull out of your ass to defend the occupation it's literally just not the reality. Enough of unrealistic methods of trying to deter a two state solution. The whole world is moving towards a two state solution.

You don't get it Habbibi, it's the Palestinians that want a Jew-free Muslim only shariah shithole. The Jews are currently host to almost 2 million Muslim Arabs who live as Israeli citizens with full rights. Its the Palestinians that keep saying nothing short of the destruction of ALL of Israel will bring about peace.

So what did the Arabs do when the Jews forced their own people to leave Gaza and handed over the keys to a Jew free Gaza to the Arabs? They elected a terrorist govt (as a sign that they want peace with the Jews <LOL>) named Hamas, started shooting rockets into Israeli cities, sent suicide bomber after suicide bomber, called for the destruction of Israel on a daily basis, and turned Gaza into an Islamist Shariah shitpile.

Now if that isn't incentive for Israelis to give MORE land to the Arabs, I don't know what is.

Habibi, that's your presentation of line of events. Anyways, I don't have time right know so I gotta go.

Keep my shwarma warm I'll join you in a minute. Grab me some extra tahini sauce.

 

[Indofred]

The extremism expressed by pro Israeli posters in this thread is exactly why Israel will be attacked.
That stupidity will be the cause of so much misery, regardless of who seems to win the war.

 

[Kondor3]

The extremism expressed by pro Israeli posters in this thread is exactly why Israel will be attacked. That stupidity will be the cause of so much misery, regardless of who seems to win the war.

You keep confusing 'extremism' with 'refusal to surrender'.

The Israelis have no doubt that they will be attacked again.

That's why the window of opportunity to negotiate-back the Golan and Jerusalem has evaporated forevermore.

And, if the Arabs ever get their $hit together again, to pose another genuine threat to Israel, the Israelis will win again - hugely - on a scale to make 1967 and 1973 look like gentle love-taps by comparison.

 

[toastman]

The extremism expressed by pro Israeli posters in this thread is exactly why Israel will be attacked.
That stupidity will be the cause of so much misery, regardless of who seems to win the war.

Extremism or no extremism, Israel will likely be attacked anyway. Even if their weren't settlements, even if Israel returned the Golan to Syria, even if Israel ended the Naval and aerial blockade of Gaza, their would still be a state of belligerency against Israel. Or in more simpler terms, regardless of what Israel does, the Palestinians, Syria, Lebanon will still find some sort of bullshit justification to attack Israel and blame them for their problems

 

[Coyote]

The extremism expressed by pro Israeli posters in this thread is exactly why Israel will be attacked.
That stupidity will be the cause of so much misery, regardless of who seems to win the war.

Extremism or no extremism, Israel will likely be attacked anyway. Even if their weren't settlements, even if Israel returned the Golan to Syria, even if Israel ended the Naval and aerial blockade of Gaza, their would still be a state of belligerency against Israel. Or in more simpler terms, regardless of what Israel does, the Palestinians, Syria, Lebanon will still find some sort of bullshit justification to attack Israel and blame them for their problems

I'm not sure. It might remove fuel from the fire and gain support for Israel.

Although at this point, I'm not sure Israel can realistically return Golan.

 

[Kondor3]

"...I'm not sure Israel can realistically return Golan."

That seems accurate. The Israelis need a Tactical Edge on their Syrian border and the Golan Heights gives them the command of the terrain that they need to keep the Syrians at-bay.

 

[Coyote]

"...I'm not sure Israel can realistically return Golan."

That seems accurate. The Israelis need a Tactical Edge on their Syrian border and the Golan Heights gives them the command of the terrain that they need to keep the Syrians at-bay.

I was thinking that with the uncertainty and civil war in Syria, it would be suicide to return Golan. At some point, they should, but not without stability and security.

 

[Kondor3]

"...I'm not sure Israel can realistically return Golan."

That seems accurate. The Israelis need a Tactical Edge on their Syrian border and the Golan Heights gives them the command of the terrain that they need to keep the Syrians at-bay.

I was thinking that with the uncertainty and civil war in Syria, it would be suicide to return Golan. At some point, they should, but not without stability and security.

Ah, the Civil War as a rationalization for temporarily not returning it? Makes sense.

As to return on some future date, I'm having a really hard time envisioning any scenario in which Israel could enjoy a measure of 'security' with Syria sufficient for Israel to surrender its present huge Tactical Advantage in possessing the Heights.

Consequently, I really don't think it's in-the-cards, regardless of whether it should happen or not. But that's just me.

 

[Coyote]

That seems accurate. The Israelis need a Tactical Edge on their Syrian border and the Golan Heights gives them the command of the terrain that they need to keep the Syrians at-bay.

I was thinking that with the uncertainty and civil war in Syria, it would be suicide to return Golan. At some point, they should, but not without stability and security.

Ah, the Civil War as a rationalization for temporarily not returning it? Makes sense.

As to return on some future date, I'm having a really hard time envisioning any scenario in which Israel could enjoy a measure of 'security' with Syria sufficient for Israel to surrender its present huge Tactical Advantage in possessing the Heights.

Consequently, I really don't think it's in-the-cards, regardless of whether it should happen or not. But that's just me.

I agree...it's impossible to guess what is going to happen with Syria and I can't see Israel returning Golan at this point.

 

[HistoryBefore67]

Or ever.

 

[Roudy]

The extremism expressed by pro Israeli posters in this thread is exactly why Israel will be attacked.
That stupidity will be the cause of so much misery, regardless of who seems to win the war.

Extremism or no extremism, Israel will likely be attacked anyway. Even if their weren't settlements, even if Israel returned the Golan to Syria, even if Israel ended the Naval and aerial blockade of Gaza, their would still be a state of belligerency against Israel. Or in more simpler terms, regardless of what Israel does, the Palestinians, Syria, Lebanon will still find some sort of bullshit justification to attack Israel and blame them for their problems

I totally agree. Anybody that is familiar with the mindset of the people in that region knows that nothing short of the total destruction of Israel is an acceptable result.

Sure, they will put up with a peace treaty here and negotiations there, but only to deceive Israel into a false sense of security and make her more vulnerable. And that's exactly what the Hamas Charter says.

 

[toastman]

It's funny when the pro israel crowd brings up Hamas when Hamas has no say in the two state solution and are isolated in Gaza only. Israel refuses to allow their representatives into a negotiation and they deal with the PA whom they claim to always support and the PA is technically their own stooge government. Yet they still back away from a solution. They want israel to keep expanding and to stay that way. They want it to be all Jewish land. Just as Roudy even said in the other thread, he wants all of the West Bank to be occupied and wants rename it Judea and Samaria. He's accusing the other side of wanting all of Israel when in reality it's him and people like him who want all Palestine. Actions speak far louder than words, Israel is the country occupying land daily and trying to annex occupied land through brute force. Even the US has admitted this, and Europe is concerned of it. The Palestinians aren't going out trying to usurp land. So Rocco's whole waste of time was pointless, actions speak far louder than words Rocco, no matter how much bs you pull out of your ass to defend the occupation it's literally just not the reality. Enough of unrealistic methods of trying to deter a two state solution. The whole world is moving towards a two state solution.

You're right, it is the PA that is involved in any peace treaty, right?
Here ya go:
Rajoub: All of Israel is 'Occupied' - Middle East - News - Israel National News

"All of Israel is Occupied"

Funny how you say it's Israel who doesn't want peace when it is in fact the Palestinians who have offered NOTHING for peace, except for ridiculous pre-conditions:

Abbas wants Israel to release Palestinian prisoners - UPI.com

"Abbas wants the release of all Palestinian prisoners before any peace talks"