Deep down, we all know that peace is best

[Kondor3]

"...I was thinking about the US coup in Palestine..."

Why did the US (and the UK, Israel, Egypt, Jordan, etc.) decide to back Fatah rather than Hamas, despite the vote in 2006 going in favor of Hamas?

 

[Phoenall]

What does Jordan have to do with Palestine?

Nice attempt at deflection though.

" International Law" is supposed to apply to everybody.

Before 1967 the W.Bank and Gaza were part of Jordan and Egypt. Clearly those two Countries had no interest in " International Law"
If anything the U.N. Cooperated with them and went away.

Nice attempt at Your Double Standard though.

Oh...... In answer to your question...... Israel's most religious Sites are in E. Jerusalem and the Jewish People will never be deprived of them again.





Is the Arab Peace Plan Really About Peace? « Commentary Magazine















Secretary of State John Kerry hailed the idea of reviving the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative put forward yesterday in Washington by a delegation from the Arab League. Kerry, who reportedly is hoping to host a multi-party peace conference this spring, was pleased that Qatar’s foreign minister had suggested that the proposal might be modified from its original take-it-or-leave-it demand that Israel return to the 1967 lines to one that allowed for a mutually-agreed “minor swap of land” that would modify the border.

This is progress of a sort, and should not be entirely dismissed. But before those advocating for more Israeli concessions in response to the proposal get too excited, it’s important to remember why this initiative flopped the first time around: it’s not really a peace proposal.

While the Arab Peace Initiative continues to be cited by Israel’s critics as proof that the Jewish state really does have partners, this idea has always been more about polishing the image of the Arab world in the United States than anything else. Conceived in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks when the Arab states, and in particular Saudi Arabia, were viewed with disgust by most Americans, the initiative was part of an effort to rehabilitate their image. But despite the fact that New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman (who claimed it stemmed from a conversation he had with Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah) and others in the foreign policy community promoted the idea, it fizzled. Why? Because it was not an invitation to negotiate, but a diktat. Even worse, it contained a vital poison pill: the return of Palestinian refugees to Israel that would, in effect, mean the end of the Jewish state, not peace with it.



While the initiative does not specifically mention the so-called “right of return” by which the descendants of the Arab refugees of 1948 would be allowed to enter Israel, Prince Abdullah made this clear when he said this on the day the Arab League adopted the proposal:


I propose that the Arab summit put forward a clear and unanimous initiative addressed to the United Nations security council based on two basic issues: normal relations and security for Israel in exchange for full withdrawal from all occupied Arab territories, recognition of an independent Palestinian state with al-Quds al-Sharif as its capital, and the return of refugees.

It should be conceded that this is better than the famous “three no’s” enforced throughout the Arab world in the aftermath of the 1967 Six-Day War, when Muslim countries said they would not make peace, recognize or negotiate with Israel. But the effect is not all that different. The Arab League proposal envisions normal relations with an Israel that has been forced to retreat from all territories it won in a defensive war in 1967. But the Israel they want to make peace with is one that would be forced to accept millions of Arabs who would change it from a Jewish nation into yet another Arab one.


This will not happen either. The " palestinian state" is DOA !

Before 1967 the W.Bank and Gaza were part of Jordan and Egypt.

No they weren't.

WANT TO BET.

Jordanian occupation of the West Bank - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Occupation of the Gaza Strip by Egypt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Phoenall]

That may be psychotic opinion, but millions of Israelis see it as fact.

See what as a fact?

All of us are not stupid, especially when we hear Palestinians say it directly that they want to throw us into the sea.

All they want, is for you to get out (and off) their land.

This "into the sea" bullshit, is just your lame excuse to keep breaking the law.

So the only one in need for some serious thinking, here, is you, Billy-boy.

Why is that?

DEfine "their land"

 

[P F Tinmore]

The edited and parsed one. Yeah, that one.

Pffft, where is your proof?

Try the actual video

OK, where is it? Got a link?

 

[P F Tinmore]

" International Law" is supposed to apply to everybody.

Before 1967 the W.Bank and Gaza were part of Jordan and Egypt. Clearly those two Countries had no interest in " International Law"
If anything the U.N. Cooperated with them and went away.

Nice attempt at Your Double Standard though.

Oh...... In answer to your question...... Israel's most religious Sites are in E. Jerusalem and the Jewish People will never be deprived of them again.





Is the Arab Peace Plan Really About Peace? « Commentary Magazine















Secretary of State John Kerry hailed the idea of reviving the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative put forward yesterday in Washington by a delegation from the Arab League. Kerry, who reportedly is hoping to host a multi-party peace conference this spring, was pleased that Qatar’s foreign minister had suggested that the proposal might be modified from its original take-it-or-leave-it demand that Israel return to the 1967 lines to one that allowed for a mutually-agreed “minor swap of land” that would modify the border.

This is progress of a sort, and should not be entirely dismissed. But before those advocating for more Israeli concessions in response to the proposal get too excited, it’s important to remember why this initiative flopped the first time around: it’s not really a peace proposal.

While the Arab Peace Initiative continues to be cited by Israel’s critics as proof that the Jewish state really does have partners, this idea has always been more about polishing the image of the Arab world in the United States than anything else. Conceived in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks when the Arab states, and in particular Saudi Arabia, were viewed with disgust by most Americans, the initiative was part of an effort to rehabilitate their image. But despite the fact that New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman (who claimed it stemmed from a conversation he had with Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah) and others in the foreign policy community promoted the idea, it fizzled. Why? Because it was not an invitation to negotiate, but a diktat. Even worse, it contained a vital poison pill: the return of Palestinian refugees to Israel that would, in effect, mean the end of the Jewish state, not peace with it.



While the initiative does not specifically mention the so-called “right of return” by which the descendants of the Arab refugees of 1948 would be allowed to enter Israel, Prince Abdullah made this clear when he said this on the day the Arab League adopted the proposal:


I propose that the Arab summit put forward a clear and unanimous initiative addressed to the United Nations security council based on two basic issues: normal relations and security for Israel in exchange for full withdrawal from all occupied Arab territories, recognition of an independent Palestinian state with al-Quds al-Sharif as its capital, and the return of refugees.

It should be conceded that this is better than the famous “three no’s” enforced throughout the Arab world in the aftermath of the 1967 Six-Day War, when Muslim countries said they would not make peace, recognize or negotiate with Israel. But the effect is not all that different. The Arab League proposal envisions normal relations with an Israel that has been forced to retreat from all territories it won in a defensive war in 1967. But the Israel they want to make peace with is one that would be forced to accept millions of Arabs who would change it from a Jewish nation into yet another Arab one.


This will not happen either. The " palestinian state" is DOA !

Before 1967 the W.Bank and Gaza were part of Jordan and Egypt.

No they weren't.

WANT TO BET.

Jordanian occupation of the West Bank - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Occupation of the Gaza Strip by Egypt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Occupied territory is not part of the occupying country.

 

[P F Tinmore]

"...I was thinking about the US coup in Palestine..."

Why did the US (and the UK, Israel, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, etc.) decide to back Fatah rather than Hamas, despite the vote in 2006 going in favor of Hamas?

It doesn't matter. Foreign coups are illegal.

 

[Kondor3]

"...I was thinking about the US coup in Palestine..."

Why did the US (and the UK, Israel, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, etc.) decide to back Fatah rather than Hamas, despite the vote in 2006 going in favor of Hamas?

It doesn't matter. Foreign coups are illegal.

Incorrect, Tinny.

First, there was no 'foreign coup'.

It was a coup backed by foreigners, but, first to last, it was an internal matter.

It's simply that most of the sane stakeholder and interested powers backed a different faction than the one that you would have preferred, and had been doing so, long before the 2006 vote.

Second, motives always matter.

What do you think motivated the US, the UK, Israel, Egypt, Jordan, et al, to set aside the Palestinian popular vote of 2006 (in Gaza, anyway) and continue to back Fatah?

Why did those powers back Fatah, Tinny?

Why?

 

[P F Tinmore]

Why did the US (and the UK, Israel, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, etc.) decide to back Fatah rather than Hamas, despite the vote in 2006 going in favor of Hamas?

It doesn't matter. Foreign coups are illegal.

Incorrect, Tinny.

First, there was no 'foreign coup'.

It was a coup backed by foreigners, but, first to last, it was an internal matter.

It's simply that most of the sane stakeholder and interested powers backed a different faction than the one that you would have preferred, and had been doing so, long before the 2006 vote.

Second, motives always matter.

What do you think motivated the US, the UK, Israel, Egypt, Jordan, et al, to set aside the Palestinian popular vote of 2006 (in Gaza, anyway) and continue to back Fatah?

Why did those powers back Fatah, Tinny?

Why?

Because Fatah will violate the constitutional rights of the Palestinians.

 

[Billo_Really]

DEfine "their land"

What kind of a dumbass question is that?

If you don't know what land we are referring to, then you don't know enough about this subject to even participate in a conversation about it.

So why don't you just go to some other thread where you know something about the topic, like maybe "bounce ball" or "four square" or "kickball"?

This one appears to be way above your pay grade.

 

[Billo_Really]

It's an opinion thread. People have the right to express their opinion. Much more ridiculous threats were created here, anyway.

His opinion was disingenuous.

People who want peace will do what it takes to get it. People who don't, will keep playing these bullshit little word games designed to cleanse any blame on the Israeli's.

 

[Kondor3]

"...Because Fatah will violate the constitutional rights of the Palestinians."

Why would the US, the UK, Israel, Egypt, Jordan, et al, be interested in violating the constitutional rights of the Palestinians?

By itself, and out of context, that answer makes no sense.

I think you need to dig a little deeper than that.

I can certainly serve-up a direct answer, insofar as my own poor lights allow me to perceive the situation, but the audience deserves better from you, before I have a crack at it.

Once does not back a faction simply to violate somebody's rights.

One backs a faction for much more important and strategic reasons.

Let's stop beating about the bush, Tinny, and get down to the real reason(s) why the US, UK, Israel, Egypt, Jordan, etc., decided to back Fatah rather than Hamas.

You quite probably know the real reason(s) just as well as I do, Tinny, but it would be best if you were given the chance to outline those, yourself, rather than have someone else do it for you.

Care to take a second crack at that, and serve-up a better answer, or is that last your final word on the subject, before I have a go at it?

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

The edited and parsed one. Yeah, that one.

Pffft, where is your proof?

Try the actual video

HE did.

Why don't you?

 

[P F Tinmore]

"...Because Fatah will violate the constitutional rights of the Palestinians."

Why would the US, the UK, Israel, Egypt, Jordan, et al, be interested in violating the constitutional rights of the Palestinians?

By itself, and out of context, that answer makes no sense.

I think you need to dig a little deeper than that.

I can certainly serve-up a direct answer, insofar as my own poor lights allow me to perceive the situation, but the audience deserves better from you, before I have a crack at it.

Once does not back a faction simply to violate somebody's rights.

One backs a faction for much more important and strategic reasons.

Let's stop beating about the bush, Tinny, and get down to the real reason(s) why the US, UK, Israel, Egypt, Jordan, etc., decided to back Fatah rather than Hamas.

You quite probably know the real reason(s) just as well as I do, Tinny, but it would be best if you were given the chance to outline those, yourself, rather than have someone else do it for you.

Care to take a second crack at that, and serve-up a better answer, or is that last your final word on the subject, before I have a go at it?

In the West Bank neither the prime minister nor his cabinet have been approved by parliament as the constitution requires. The government spies on people without court issued warrants. It arrests people who have violated no law and without court issued warrants. I detains people indefinitely without charge, trial, or legal council. It fires and fails to hire people based on political affiliation.

These are all constitutional violations.

 

[Kondor3]

"...Because Fatah will violate the constitutional rights of the Palestinians."

Why would the US, the UK, Israel, Egypt, Jordan, et al, be interested in violating the constitutional rights of the Palestinians?

By itself, and out of context, that answer makes no sense.

I think you need to dig a little deeper than that.

I can certainly serve-up a direct answer, insofar as my own poor lights allow me to perceive the situation, but the audience deserves better from you, before I have a crack at it.

Once does not back a faction simply to violate somebody's rights.

One backs a faction for much more important and strategic reasons.

Let's stop beating about the bush, Tinny, and get down to the real reason(s) why the US, UK, Israel, Egypt, Jordan, etc., decided to back Fatah rather than Hamas.

You quite probably know the real reason(s) just as well as I do, Tinny, but it would be best if you were given the chance to outline those, yourself, rather than have someone else do it for you.

Care to take a second crack at that, and serve-up a better answer, or is that last your final word on the subject, before I have a go at it?

In the West Bank neither the prime minister nor his cabinet have been approved by parliament as the constitution requires. The government spies on people without court issued warrants. It arrests people who have violated no law and without court issued warrants. I detains people indefinitely without charge, trial, or legal council. It fires and fails to hire people based on political affiliation.

These are all constitutional violations.

I didn't ask you for a recital of violations of the Palestinian constitution, nor related political and legal 'symptomology'.

I asked you about motives for backing one side in the coup rather than the other.

I asked you why the US, UK, Israel, Egypt, Jordan, et al, would choose to back Fatah rather than Hamas.

Focus, Tinny.

Why would the US, UK, Israel, Egypt, Jordan, et al, choose to back Fatah rather than Hamas?

 

[P F Tinmore]

Why would the US, the UK, Israel, Egypt, Jordan, et al, be interested in violating the constitutional rights of the Palestinians?

By itself, and out of context, that answer makes no sense.

I think you need to dig a little deeper than that.

I can certainly serve-up a direct answer, insofar as my own poor lights allow me to perceive the situation, but the audience deserves better from you, before I have a crack at it.

Once does not back a faction simply to violate somebody's rights.

One backs a faction for much more important and strategic reasons.

Let's stop beating about the bush, Tinny, and get down to the real reason(s) why the US, UK, Israel, Egypt, Jordan, etc., decided to back Fatah rather than Hamas.

You quite probably know the real reason(s) just as well as I do, Tinny, but it would be best if you were given the chance to outline those, yourself, rather than have someone else do it for you.

Care to take a second crack at that, and serve-up a better answer, or is that last your final word on the subject, before I have a go at it?

In the West Bank neither the prime minister nor his cabinet have been approved by parliament as the constitution requires. The government spies on people without court issued warrants. It arrests people who have violated no law and without court issued warrants. I detains people indefinitely without charge, trial, or legal council. It fires and fails to hire people based on political affiliation.

These are all constitutional violations.

I didn't ask you for a recital of violations of the Palestinian constitution.

I asked you why the US, UK, Israel, Egypt, Jordan, et al, would choose to back Fatah rather than Hamas.

Focus, Tinny.

Why would the US, UK, Israel, Egypt, Jordan, et al, choose to back Fatah rather than Hamas?

Besides the criminal class supporting the criminal class what do you have?

 

[Kondor3]

In the West Bank neither the prime minister nor his cabinet have been approved by parliament as the constitution requires. The government spies on people without court issued warrants. It arrests people who have violated no law and without court issued warrants. I detains people indefinitely without charge, trial, or legal council. It fires and fails to hire people based on political affiliation.

These are all constitutional violations.

I didn't ask you for a recital of violations of the Palestinian constitution.

I asked you why the US, UK, Israel, Egypt, Jordan, et al, would choose to back Fatah rather than Hamas.

Focus, Tinny.

Why would the US, UK, Israel, Egypt, Jordan, et al, choose to back Fatah rather than Hamas?

Besides the criminal class supporting the criminal class what do you have?

I will be very happy to answer the question myself, Tinny.

But I expect reciprocity.

And I asked first.

What is their motive or rationale for backing one side in the coup rather than the other?

Please give us your insight into why the US, UK, Israel, Egypt, Jordan, etc., choose to back Fatah rather than Hamas?

Why, Tinny?

 

[P F Tinmore]

I didn't ask you for a recital of violations of the Palestinian constitution.

I asked you why the US, UK, Israel, Egypt, Jordan, et al, would choose to back Fatah rather than Hamas.

Focus, Tinny.

Why would the US, UK, Israel, Egypt, Jordan, et al, choose to back Fatah rather than Hamas?

Besides the criminal class supporting the criminal class what do you have?

I will be very happy to answer the question myself, Tinny.

But I expect reciprocity.

And I asked first.

What is their motive or rationale for backing one side in the coup rather than the other?

Please give us your insight into why the US, UK, Israel, Egypt, Jordan, etc., choose to back Fatah rather than Hamas?

Why, Tinny?

Because illegal is the only way they can fly.

 

[Kondor3]

Besides the criminal class supporting the criminal class what do you have?

I will be very happy to answer the question myself, Tinny.

But I expect reciprocity.

And I asked first.

What is their motive or rationale for backing one side in the coup rather than the other?

Please give us your insight into why the US, UK, Israel, Egypt, Jordan, etc., choose to back Fatah rather than Hamas?

Why, Tinny?

Because illegal is the only way they can fly.

I apologize for being so 'dense'.

I do not understand that answer.

Can you elaborate upon that?

 

[P F Tinmore]

I will be very happy to answer the question myself, Tinny.

But I expect reciprocity.

And I asked first.

What is their motive or rationale for backing one side in the coup rather than the other?

Please give us your insight into why the US, UK, Israel, Egypt, Jordan, etc., choose to back Fatah rather than Hamas?

Why, Tinny?

Because illegal is the only way they can fly.

I apologize for being so 'dense'.

I do not understand that answer.

Can you elaborate upon that?

 

[Kondor3]

Because illegal is the only way they can fly.

I apologize for being so 'dense'.

I do not understand that answer.

Can you elaborate upon that?

Never mind the 'duh' emoticons, Tinny.

What the heck does 'because illegal is the only way they can fly' mean in this context?

Why did the US, the UK, Israel, Egypt, Jordan, et al, decide to back Fatah rather than Hamas?

Plain speech would be best here, Tinny.

Not metaphors from left field.

Plain speech.