"The Palestinians will not recognize Israel's right to exist"

[Auteur]

When Haniyeh talks about "Palestine" he talks about Tel-Aviv.

Why do the Palestinians have right for a state but we don't?

Is that fair?

Should the Palestinians have the right to have a state in Palestine?

Should Israel have the right to have a state in Palestine?

The second question is irrelevant in case of peace talks.

And peace talks won't be a possibility if they don't recognize Israel's right of self definition, when they demand one themselves.

Your thread is based on a complete falsehood. The PA, the Arab League, and the general concensus of the world community (outside the US- surprise) is that the peace initiative put forward by the Saudi's in 2002 is a reasonable one, and would be accepted. Except that Israel won't accept it. The plan recognizes Israel's right to exist, sees a settlement based on the '67 boundaries, give or take, and a normalization of relations. It goes far beyond recognition, and talks of trade and other exchanges.

Anyone can find extremists and fools who talk rubbish. There are plenty in Israel, where the religious right is gaining in power. There are plenty in the west too; one does not need to look very hard.

 

[toastman]

Should the Palestinians have the right to have a state in Palestine?

Should Israel have the right to have a state in Palestine?

The second question is irrelevant in case of peace talks.

And peace talks won't be a possibility if they don't recognize Israel's right of self definition, when they demand one themselves.

Your thread is based on a complete falsehood. The PA, the Arab League, and the general concensus of the world community (outside the US- surprise) is that the peace initiative put forward by the Saudi's in 2002 is a reasonable one, and would be accepted. Except that Israel won't accept it. The plan recognizes Israel's right to exist, sees a settlement based on the '67 boundaries, give or take, and a normalization of relations. It goes far beyond recognition, and talks of trade and other exchanges.

Anyone can find extremists and fools who talk rubbish. There are plenty in Israel, where the religious right is gaining in power. There are plenty in the west too; one does not need to look very hard.

The '67 borders ship has sailed a long time ago. It's not going to happen.

 

[Hyrcanus]

The '67 borders ship has sailed a long time ago. It's not going to happen.

the 1976 borders with minor land swaps will be the basis of any final borders.

 

[Auteur]

Yeah.

Right.

Lets blame the Israelis for global Islamic terror

we might have bought that if the core of terrorism wasn't the hurting of Muslims by Muslims themselves.

Seriously?!

Israeli policies and America's acceptance of them, is part of the reason why Islamists target us with terrorism.

Yeah.

about 10%.

The other 90% is that they hate your idelogy of Liberalism.

Open your eyes.

Terrorists such as the 9/11 hijackers, Bin Ladan, and others have been explicit in rationale, twisted though it might be. They listed the Israeli occupation of Palestine, western forces in Saudi Arabia, and political meddling in the Mid-East in general as their reasons for violence. Completely absent were any references to short skirts on women, independent newspapers, or parliamentary democracy, or other liberal notions.

It was George Bush who put out the idea of them "hating us for our freedoms". This is complete nonsense. Why would they give a damn? They probably disagree with buddhists in Myanmar, and athiests in Beijing, but they're not meddling and propagating conflict in the Mid-East, so I doubt they care about them either.

 

[Hyrcanus]

Terrorists such as the 9/11 hijackers, Bin Ladan, and others have been explicit in rationale, twisted though it might be. They listed the Israeli occupation of Palestine, western forces in Saudi Arabia, and political meddling in the Mid-East in general as their reasons for violence. Completely absent were any references to short skirts on women, independent newspapers, or parliamentary democracy, or other liberal notions.

It was George Bush who put out the idea of them "hating us for our freedoms". This is complete nonsense. Why would they give a damn? They probably disagree with buddhists in Myanmar, and athiests in Beijing, but they're not meddling and propagating conflict in the Mid-East, so I doubt they care about them either.

"terrorists hate us for our freedom" is the stupidest lie ever uttered.


if they hated countries just based on their freedom, they would be attacking Ireland, Norway, Switzerland, Canada, Denmark, New Zeland, Australia...

 

[Lipush]

Oh they will.

what makes you think they don't have those countries on their lists?

 

[Hyrcanus]

Oh they will.

what makes you think they don't have those countries on their lists?

yeah, right.

let me know when Islamists attack Ireland because they "hate their freedom".

 

[Lipush]

You guys didn't believe something like 9-11 was possible until it happened.

The "It's not gonna happen to us" is not an issue in the 21st century anymore. Thought you learned that by now.

 

[Hyrcanus]

You guys didn't believe something like 9-11 was possible until it happened....

and we can partially thank our Israeli "friends" for that.

 

[Lipush]

No, you thank Bin-Laden.

It wasn't Israel sending jets into buildings.

 

[Auteur]

The second question is irrelevant in case of peace talks.

And peace talks won't be a possibility if they don't recognize Israel's right of self definition, when they demand one themselves.

Your thread is based on a complete falsehood. The PA, the Arab League, and the general concensus of the world community (outside the US- surprise) is that the peace initiative put forward by the Saudi's in 2002 is a reasonable one, and would be accepted. Except that Israel won't accept it. The plan recognizes Israel's right to exist, sees a settlement based on the '67 boundaries, give or take, and a normalization of relations. It goes far beyond recognition, and talks of trade and other exchanges.

Anyone can find extremists and fools who talk rubbish. There are plenty in Israel, where the religious right is gaining in power. There are plenty in the west too; one does not need to look very hard.

The '67 borders ship has sailed a long time ago. It's not going to happen.

That may be your opinion, but it differs from much of the world. Virtually no one outside of Israel and the US recognize as legal the post '67 occupation. Even allowing for the '67 boundary is a large concession to Israel, as that contains land seized in warfare, illegal by present international law. Where are Israel's concessions?

The sad fat is that there no doubt will be a future settlement, probably after the proliferation of nuclear weapons through the Middle East by way of Iran, which will tip the military balance. The longer the wait though, the tougher the reckoning, if history is any guide.

 

[Hyrcanus]

No, you thank Bin-Laden.

It wasn't Israel sending jets into buildings.

Benjamen Netanyahu said it best on 9-11:

"these attacks are good for Israel"

 

[Hyrcanus]

That may be your opinion, but it differs from much of the world. Virtually no one outside of Israel and the US recognize as legal the post '67 occupation. Even allowing for the '67 boundary is a large concession to Israel, as that contains land seized in warfare, illegal by present international law. Where are Israel's concessions?...

sorry bro, but in 1949 the United Nations General Assembly accepted Israel within the Green Line, as a member state.

Those borders are legal and legit.

 

[Lipush]

No, you thank Bin-Laden.

It wasn't Israel sending jets into buildings.

Benjamen Netanyahu said it best on 9-11:

"these attacks are good for Israel"

Source?

 

[Hyrcanus]

No, you thank Bin-Laden.

It wasn't Israel sending jets into buildings.

Benjamen Netanyahu said it best on 9-11:

"these attacks are good for Israel"

Source?

funny how you never heard about this.

Report: Netanyahu says 9/11 terror attacks good for Israel - Israel News | Haaretz Daily Newspaper

 

[toastman]

Your thread is based on a complete falsehood. The PA, the Arab League, and the general concensus of the world community (outside the US- surprise) is that the peace initiative put forward by the Saudi's in 2002 is a reasonable one, and would be accepted. Except that Israel won't accept it. The plan recognizes Israel's right to exist, sees a settlement based on the '67 boundaries, give or take, and a normalization of relations. It goes far beyond recognition, and talks of trade and other exchanges.

Anyone can find extremists and fools who talk rubbish. There are plenty in Israel, where the religious right is gaining in power. There are plenty in the west too; one does not need to look very hard.

The '67 borders ship has sailed a long time ago. It's not going to happen.

That may be your opinion, but it differs from much of the world. Virtually no one outside of Israel and the US recognize as legal the post '67 occupation. Even allowing for the '67 boundary is a large concession to Israel, as that contains land seized in warfare, illegal by present international law. Where are Israel's concessions?

The sad fat is that there no doubt will be a future settlement, probably after the proliferation of nuclear weapons through the Middle East by way of Iran, which will tip the military balance. The longer the wait though, the tougher the reckoning, if history is any guide.

I am just saying what you already know. The 6 day war was a war of defense. The Israelis didn't just go and take the land for no reason.
It's just another classic example of Arabs losing a war, and then crying when they lose.
Lesson learned: Don't attack Israel !!

 

[Lipush]

Benjamen Netanyahu said it best on 9-11:

"these attacks are good for Israel"

Source?

funny how you never heard about this.

Report: Netanyahu says 9/11 terror attacks good for Israel - Israel News | Haaretz Daily Newspaper

You kinda lost me with "Ha'aretz"

 

[RoccoR]

Hyrcanus, Auteur, et al,

I've read this over and over again.

That may be your opinion, but it differs from much of the world. Virtually no one outside of Israel and the US recognize as legal the post '67 occupation. Even allowing for the '67 boundary is a large concession to Israel, as that contains land seized in warfare, illegal by present international law. Where are Israel's concessions?...

sorry bro, but in 1949 the United Nations General Assembly accepted Israel within the Green Line, as a member state.

Those borders are legal and legit.

(COMMENT)

For the most part, you guys are in agreement.

The "Green Line" is the generally accepted limit to Israeli Sovereignty. And that is sometimes referred to by the common name for the 1967 borders.

10. There is no doubt that the Green Line was initially no more than an armistice line in an agreement that expressly stipulated that its provisions would not be “interpreted as prejudicing, in any sense, an ultimate political settlement between the Parties” and that “the Armistice Demarcation Lines defined in articles V and VI of [the] Agreement [were] agreed upon by the Parties without prejudice to future territorial settlements or boundary lines or to claims of either Party relating thereto” (Advisory Opinion, para. 72).

11. It is not without irony that prominent Israeli jurists were arguing before the 1967 war that the General Armistice agreements were sui generis, were in fact more than mere armistice agreements, could not be changed except with the acceptance of the Security Council. Whatever the true significance of that line today, two facts are indisputable:

(1) The Green line, to quote Sir Arthur Watts, “is the starting line from which is measured the extent of Israel’s occupation of non-Israeli territory” (CR 2004/3, p. 64). There is no implication that the Green Line is to be a permanent frontier.

(2) Attempts at denigrating the significance of the Green Line would in the nature of things work both ways. Israel cannot shed doubts upon the title of others without expecting its own title and the territorial expanse of that title beyond the partition resolution not to be called into question. Ultimately it is through stabilizing its legal relationship with the Palestinians and not through constructing walls that its security would be assured.​

- See more at: ICJ Advisory Opinion on the Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the OPT - Separate opinion of Judge Al-Khasawneh - ICJ document (9 July 2004)

Also notice that: "There is no implication that the Green Line is to be a permanent frontier." (This was the discussion I had with P F Tinmore and Sherrymunnilyn. A permanent frontier has more legitimacy than other international boundaries.)

This means the Green Line can move.

Almost everyone calls the territory, west of the Green Line, occupied territory; that includes the US. But, that has not been litigated.

Common to most arguments on the matter, there is no restriction on the length (or duration) of an occupation. A determination on whether the occupation is legal or not must be based on some principle. On the Israeli side of the equation, the territory was over run in hot pursuit of hostile conventional forces and occupied as a rear area protection measure. That being, that the Arab Palestinian had in the past and continues to threaten national security concerns. The Arab Palestinian does not deny this or demonstrate peaceful recognition of Israeli sovereignty in any meaningful way. Thus, they are considered a hostile population.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[georgephillip]

GAZA CITY (Ma'an) -- Hamas Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh said Tuesday that Palestinians would not recognize Israel, despite the siege on Gaza and two wars.

"We had two wars in which hundreds of people died, and thousands of acres of land were destroyed, but Palestinians did not and will not recognize Israel," the Gaza premier said as he welcomed international activists to the enclave.

Haniyeh: Palestinians will not recognize Israel | Maan News Agency

Have you noticed how (rich?) extremists among Arab and Jew alike invoke (the same?) "God" to sanctify their bigotry and greed?

"Haniyeh said aid groups who visited Gaza in solidarity had a political and a humanitarian message, showing that Gaza did not stand alone.

"These groups, along with the help of God and the Palestinian steadfastness, eased the siege," he added.

"The Hamas leader highlighted his government's efforts to generate support for Jerusalem.

"'The (Israeli) occupation built a hundred synagogues around al-Aqsa to deceive the world and falsify facts,' he added."

Is the bolded claim directly above accurate, in your opinion?

Haniyeh: Palestinians will not recognize Israel | Maan News Agency

Al Aqsa was built over the ruins of the holiest place of Judaism.

On the ruins of the Temple.

If anything is a "foreign root", it's not our places of prayers.

Would you say there is more or less religious violence between Arab and Jew in Palestine today than there was exactly 100 years ago, before the "foreign root" of Zionism arrived?

 

[toastman]

Have you noticed how (rich?) extremists among Arab and Jew alike invoke (the same?) "God" to sanctify their bigotry and greed?

"Haniyeh said aid groups who visited Gaza in solidarity had a political and a humanitarian message, showing that Gaza did not stand alone.

"These groups, along with the help of God and the Palestinian steadfastness, eased the siege," he added.

"The Hamas leader highlighted his government's efforts to generate support for Jerusalem.

"'The (Israeli) occupation built a hundred synagogues around al-Aqsa to deceive the world and falsify facts,' he added."

Is the bolded claim directly above accurate, in your opinion?

Haniyeh: Palestinians will not recognize Israel | Maan News Agency

Al Aqsa was built over the ruins of the holiest place of Judaism.

On the ruins of the Temple.

If anything is a "foreign root", it's not our places of prayers.

Would you say there is more or less religious violence between Arab and Jew in Palestine today than there was exactly 100 years ago, before the "foreign root" of Zionism arrived?

More