[Closed] Israel's Netanyahu sparks uproar by suggesting WWII-era Palestinian leader inspi

I wonder if chewy's gibberish makes sense in his own head.

Israel, and is zionist supporters, need to understand you cannot win lands in war then claim them as your own and that giving up what they stole is the only road to peace

Haven't Israel proven repeatedly that they are willing to do this? Return of the Sinai as part of the Israeli-Egypt peace treaty, return of lands in the wadi araba in the Jordanian peace deal - longstanding discussions regards return of the loan heights in return for a peace deal with Syria etc. It's also clear that these peace deals, once struck, have been long lasting and supported by cooperation on both sides.

Haven't Israel proven repeatedly that they are willing to do this?

No. HTH.

Right, so what about the examples above?

Figments of imagination I presume, rather than well documented examples of them returning lands won in conflict with their former enemies, in return for peace?

[quote=DrJ opined]I wonder if chewy's gibberish makes sense in his own head.

I assume its a persona or he needs medication

I dont know ninfan look at a legal map of Israel and an actual map of Israel and explain in relation to the Palestinians- you really want to claim the Israel position is we will give back all the land and remove all the illegal settlements in return for peace. TBH I doubt they could deliver on that even if they tried. Its clearly not their position in Israel/Palestine so your point is wrong.

DO you really think Israel would even go back to the 1967 line? Let alone the 1948?
TBH the map looks like there is only one side trying to wipe the other of the face of the map as zionists tell u show peaceful they really are as they continue to expand illegally

[img] [/img]

😆 -> Junkyard land loss ...^^^

What? Are you going ape shite over others affairs? What a trouble maker this person is ...

Oh no you don't!

DrJ - Member
I wonder if chewy's gibberish makes sense in his own head.

[b]Oi! I thought you have blocked yourself from reading my comments? No?[/b]

Are you attempting to be funny? You know that's poor don't you. 😀

What Dr are you by the way? Medical? Engineer? Social? What?

[u]the map looks like there is only one side trying to wipe the other of the face of the map[/u] as zionists tell u show peaceful they really are as [u]they continue to expand illegally[/u]

The bigger picture:

[img] http://s.hswstatic.com/gif/willow/history-of-israel2.gi f" target="_blank">http://s.hswstatic.com/gif/willow/history-of-israel2.gi f"/> [/img]

Now, if we look at the 'bigger picture' and ask your question again:

DO you really think Israel would even go back to the 1967 line?

doesn't the [u]evidence[/u], rather than Palestinian hyperbole show that the Israelis have been more than willing to do exactly that in return for peace?

Now, do you think that they would have done that if the Egyptians had kept firing rockets at them?

Perhaps I did not say Israel enough for you to grasp where i was discussing.

Do you think they would have handed it back if the Egyptians had not maintained a state of war against Israel?

Respectfully some issue are not worth discussing with you and this is one. There will be no more from me to you on this as you are , at best, being a devils advocate.
[Shall I save time and say nice goad 😛 ]

No, you started off by saying

Israel, and is zionist supporters, need to understand you cannot win lands in war then claim them as your own and that giving up what they stole is the only road to peace

Inconveniently for you, the maps above quite clearly show Israel returning lands they won in war on the road to peace 😳

Do you think they would have handed it back if the Egyptians had not maintained a state of war against Israel?

The state of war ended in 1979:
[img] [/img]

The maps clearly show Israel handing land back to Israel both [i]before[/i] the end of the state of war, in 1975 and [i]after[/i] it in 1982, which I'm afraid somewhat undermines your argument 😳

you are , at best, being a devils advocate.

Now don't you go getting upset at me for pointing to inconvenient truths that weaken your arguments 😉

Israel, and is zionist supporters, need to understand you cannot win lands in war then claim them as your own and that giving up what they stole is the only road to peace

That was what I said and they gave back land to gain peace - that was what was signed in 1979 - they agreed to withdraw fully.
The first withdrawal boeing after signing the Interim agreement on Sinai- go on look at the map you posted and see if you can guess the year

Your right i feel dead foolish now and clearly they can have peace and keep the land and that is what that map shows. Clearly they dont have to give back land to get peace. that map shows that and no mistake

Thanks for the correction

This is why its pointless debating with you
You are an intelligent fellow - unlike some on here - but you try so hard to be contrary your points often become gibberish and actually supports my point.
The fail is strong today etc

Seriously no more replies but that was such a fail i had to .

Now don't you go getting upset at me for pointing to inconvenient truths that weaken your arguments

Inconveniently for you, the maps above quite clearly show Israel returning lands they won in war on the road to peace

Although Begin wasn't exactly keen to let go of Palestinian lands....

[i]During his tenure as prime minister, Begin forbade the negotiation agenda to include the West Bank and those portions of Jerusalem that the Israeli government annexed after the 1967 Six-Day war. This refusal to negotiate became Carter's core disagreement with Begin. Carter realized that with Begin adamant against further concessions, he had no tangible item to offer to the Palestinians or other Arab leaders to reach a broader peace agreement. With Begin not offering a fallback position, Carter could not initiate a conclusive Israeli-Palestinian negotiating process. He never forgave Begin.

Intertwined in the dispute over the West Bank was the issue of Israeli settlements. Samuel Lewis, U.S. ambassador to Israel at the time, explained, "Begin would never consider admitting that the [Israeli] right to settle wasn't a right, and Carter, basically, was asking him [Begin] to agree that settlements were illegal. ," Begin refused. The subsequent expansion of settlements has further embittered Carter's relations with Israeli leaders and with Israel's supporters in the United States, whom he believes are willfully silent on the subject.[/i]

Right, so what about the examples above?

Figments of imagination I presume, rather than well documented examples of them returning lands won in conflict with their former enemies, in return for peace?

Israel does not have peace. It does have land that does not belong to it.

It's pretty clear that you're not prepared to argue in good faith, so I shall leave it there.

Inconveniently for you, the maps above quite clearly show Israel returning lands they won in war on the road to peace

East Jerusalem, the Golan Heights (both of which were annexed) and the West Bank (which Israel asserts is disputed territory) are different.

Also, the Sinai wasn't only traded for peace - it was also traded for Egyptian oil and access to the Suez Canal. The Palestinians don't have much to trade apart from peace - hence the lack of real interest from anyone influential enough to help solve the conflict. If only they had had the luck to be born on top of oil reserves - they would have been [s]invaded[/s] liberated by U.S./UK ages ago!

@Junky:

Your right i feel dead foolish now and clearly they can have peace and keep the land and that is what that map shows. Clearly they dont have to give back land to get peace. that map shows that and no mistake

You must have missed this bit where I said: "Haven't Israel proven repeatedly that they are willing to do this?"

I think you and me were in broad agreement up till the point where you said that Palestine disproved this (as to me the two things, peace and land return, have to go hand in hand, as they have with the successful peace deals that have been struck) yet the Palestinians appear to be unwilling to agree to the longer term peace outcomes, and continue to deny the right of Israel to exist, until which point case there can never realistically be a deal.

@Konabunny: As above, the two things need to go hand in hand for there to be a deal, there will be no outcome on the Golan unless it is traded as part of a secure and assured peace deal that assures Israel peace, regards the Sinai, I would argue that the return of the lands and all the other factors you mention were parts of the overall multifaceted deal between Egypt and Israel. Regards the Palestinians, the same goes, the Israelis' don't have a lot to gain from the deal either, other than peace, but history tells them that peace is a big enough deal to them to hand over much, much bigger areas of land (and resources) than the Palestinians can offer them.

@Ransos: The fact that you perhaps don't understand the complexity of the argument being made doesn't mean that its being done in bad faith.

I think you and me were in broad agreement

My Point is Israel continues to land grab in the "disputed areas" so its hard to claim they will give it up when they continue to illegally settle- In all honesty I am not sure they could deliver this even if they wanted to and I imagine the settlers would take up armed resistance.

the Palestinians appear to be unwilling to agree to the longer term peace outcomes, and continue to deny the right of Israel to exist, until which point case there can never realistically be a deal.

so its hard to claim they will give it up when they continue to illegally settle

In all honesty I am not sure they could deliver this even if they wanted to and I imagine the settlers would take up armed resistance.

Hmm, they certainly did with the 2005 withdrawal from the Gaza strip, despite real resistance for them domestically - unfortunatley history tells us that this (at the time quite remarkable) unilateral step arguably only strengthened the more radical opponents within the Palestinian community (and again this refers back to the political acceptability of stopping the settlement as above, the Israelis clearly have a duty to do more to stop the settlement, but the Palestinian Authorities also have a duty to do more to stop the rockets etc)

[i]I would maintain that if they thought it would actually end the violence, settlement would end tomorrow.[/i]

edited
that view is frankly laughable given Israel's actual behaviour though

that view is frankly laughable given Israel's actual behaviour though

Again, we are back to that thing about the evidence (maps and discussion above) rather than the hyperbole - you can't just deny dismiss longstanding peace deals and proven land return deals with a wave of the hand and pretend that they never happened, you need to form a cogent argument that supports your belief, otherwise we get nowhere:

[i]yeah, well that would never happen[/i]

but look, its actually happened

[i]yeah, but that would never happen[/i]

but look, its actually happened

... and round in circles we go!

Handing back land in the Sinai when you need to have a peace agreement with the biggest army on the block whilst at the same time explicitly demanding that land grabbed in Gaza and the West Bank is excluded from those peace negotiations is evidence that Israel have no intention of withdrawing from those areas.

When Begin handed back the Sinai he also appointed Sharon (then the agriculture minister) to expand settler activity, thereby making sure that handing back any land was effectively off the agenda for ever.

You can't argue that Israel wants peace, because it handed back land when threatened by effectively the forces of the USSR, and then explicitly refused to discuss Israeli withdrawal from Palestinian land at the same time, and indeed increased the likelihood that it never would.

That map.

[url= http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2010/03/israel_and_palestine_0 ]Map[/url]

" that the problem with this map is that it represents the territory in 1946 under the name "Palestine", implying that there had been a Palestinian state which was then taken over by Israel. But that's not quite the point. The point is that the map fails to distinguish between land that is owned by Jews or Palestinians, and land that is controlled by Jewish or Palestinian political entities.

Take the vast triangular tract of land at the south of the map. That's the Negev desert. Apart from a few small oases, kibbutzes and towns, it's empty wasteland; it isn't owned by anyone. It represents almost half of the territory of Israel/Palestine. In 1946, the map represents it as "Palestinian land". That's silly. In 1949, it has somehow become "Jewish land". That's almost as silly, though Jewish irrigation projects did gradually, over a period of decades, turn an increasing (if still-small) portion of the desert into arable agricultural land claimed by Jewish owners. But the impression the map gives is that in 1947-8, Jews seized that land from Palestinian owners, which is absurd. What happened was that a piece of empty desert which had been under the control of the British Mandate (who got it after the Ottoman Empire fell apart) was awarded to the Jewish state. This is a question of political control, not land ownership."

The questions need asking:

Question 1: British people do you want to get involve in others affairs that have no significant value to you?

Question 2: British people are your lefties causing trouble in other region(s)?

Question 3: British people if you do not believe in others/theirs/your God, what makes you the right person to solve their problems?

Question 4: If you support a religion that oppresses women aren't you guilty of hypocrisy by defending those that treat women as second class human?

Women know your place! 😆

British people don't let the lefties drag you into troubles ... tell them to mind their own business and look after their own people first rather than trying to cause trouble to other nations.

[b]"You Shall Not Pass!"[/b] said Gandalf the grey to the beast (think it's a demon).

😆

Regards the Palestinians, the same goes, the Israelis' don't have a lot to gain from the deal either, other than peace, but history tells them that peace is a big enough deal to them to hand over much, much bigger areas of land (and resources) than the Palestinians can offer them.

Nim - you are rehashing the myth of "a land without a people for a people without a land".

An analysis of the utility of the land (and not just its square footage) is instructive, but just not in the way you think. Where did all the fertile coastal real estate end up? Who got the hilly and dry inland area?

Oh no you don't!

That piece of land does not concern the British people.

Move on ... 🙄

Where did all the fertile coastal real estate end up?

Largely bought and paid for by Jews (i.e. bought off palestinians in the late 19th and early 20thC while still under Ottoman rule by groups such as the Palestine Jewish Colonization Association and the Jewish National Fund) No?

NIm the problem with that map is that it show Israel to be what it is so that even Zionist cannot really counter. Honestly when your only defence is what you offered then you know your argument is weak

Has Israel been expansionist since its creation - there is only one answer

Has this expansionism helped create peace?
Has it been legal - Much of it is not even legal under your law never mind international ones

Please dont try and deny reality with an argument so weak only Jamby will appreciate it.

FWIW I do admire your contribution to these threads and I see you and Gony as opposite sides of the issue. Essentially rational but also irrationally clinging to your sides views and largely ignoring the counter view. That was meant to sound like priase but i think I just failed massively.

If Israel were to return land, would they also ensure an abundant and healthy water supply to the land they returned?

How significant is the issue of the water supply to the occupied territories in the conflict?

What about nutrition of Palestinians within the occupied territories?

I believe the phrase used was put them on a diet but not let them die of hunger. A cynic would think this was probably due to the negative press and the UN and western forces would have to intervene to stop this than out of genuine humanitarian concern

Essentially they maintain an illegal blockade including the sea. IIRC they have killed folk on humanitarian ships to the area though of course Israel will say it was an accident, regrettable and probably the victims fault.

Essentially they maintain an illegal blockade including the sea

Careful, we are straying into opinion rather than fact there,

Largely bought and paid for by Jews (i.e. bought off palestinians in the late 19th and early 20thC while still under Ottoman rule by groups such as the Palestine Jewish Colonization Association and the Jewish National Fund) No?

I can't paste across the stats but this page has an excerpt from a book with stats on land ownership running up to and after 1947: http://www.thejerusalemfund.org/ht/d/ContentDetails/i/2963

[quote=ninfan opined]Essentially they maintain an illegal blockade including the sea
Careful, we are straying into opinion rather than fact there,

Not really - though i fcourse evidence exists to support either side but the overwhelming view and evidence is pretty clear but there are enough friends of Israel to muddy the waters

Ok, konabunny, let's look at my claim:

[i]Q: Where did all the fertile coastal real estate end up?

A: Largely bought and paid for by Jews (i.e. bought off palestinians in the late [u]19th and early 20thC while still under Ottoman rule[/u] by groups such as the Palestine Jewish Colonization Association and the Jewish National Fund) No?
[/i]
As per underlined words, that would include the first and second alliyah

Map of land in Jewish ownership 31st March 1945:

[IMG] [/IMG]

Greater detail here:

Now, according to that map, who [u]owns[/u] (ie. Registered title in full or in part) most of the fertile coastal land?

In the words of the 1937 Peel commission:
[i]he Arab population shows a remarkable increase since 1920, and it has had some share in the increased prosperity of Palestine. Many Arab landowners have benefited from the sale of land and the profitable investment of the purchase money. The fellaheen are better off on the whole than they were in 1920. This Arab progress has been partly due to the import of Jewish capital into Palestine and other factors associated with the growth of the National Home. In particular, the Arabs have benefited from social services which could not have been provided on the existing scale without the revenue obtained from the Jews.[/i]

No way, dude.

Way!

muddy the waters

UN Palmer report is pretty unequivocal on the legality of the maritime blockade see para. 69-82:

[i]82: The fundamental principle of the freedom of navigation on the high seas is subject to only certain limited exceptions under international law. Israel faces a real threat to its security from militant groups in Gaza. The naval blockade was imposed as a legitimate security measure in order to prevent weapons from entering Gaza by sea and its implementation complied with the requirements of international law.[/i]

Still, I suppose that's just part of that pesky worldwide Jewish conpiracy again, isn't it?

I would maintain that if they thought it would actually end the violence, settlement would stop tomorrow.

GIven the balance of forces, maybe the Israeli side should try it out - what do they have to lose? If it doesn't work they can just send in their tanks and bombers again. In fact they have never been serious about making peace with the Palestinians and have just used peace talks as a pretext to solidify their gains while preparing new land grabs. The facts on the ground are clear as day - settlement continues unabated.

http://www.un.org/News/dh/infocus/middle_east/Gaza_Flotilla_Panel_Report.pdf

Is that the report that says:

Israel’s decision to board the vessels with such substantial force at a great distance from the blockade zone and with no final warning immediately prior to the boarding was excessive and unreasonable:
a. Non-violent options should have been used in the first instance. In particular, clear prior warning that the vessels were to be boarded and a demonstration of dissuading force should have been given to avoid the type of confrontation that occurred;
b. The operation should have reassessed its options when the resistance to the initial boarding attempt became apparent.
vii. Israeli Defense Forces personnel faced significant, organized and violent resistance from a group of passengers when they boarded the Mavi Marmara requiring them to use force for their own protection. Three soldiers were captured, mistreated, and placed at risk by those passengers. Several others were wounded.
viii. The loss of life and injuries resulting from the use of force by Israeli forces during the take-over of the Mavi Marmara was unacceptable. Nine passengers were killed and many others seriously wounded by Israeli forces. No satisfactory explanation has been provided to the Panel by Israel for any
4
of the nine deaths. Forensic evidence showing that most of the deceased were shot multiple times, including in the back, or at close range has not been adequately accounted for in the material presented by Israel.
ix. There was significant mistreatment of passengers by Israeli authorities after the take-over of the vessels had been completed through until their deportation. This included physical mistreatment, harassment and intimidation, unjustified confiscation of belongings and the denial of timely consular assistance.

GIven the balance of forces, maybe the Israeli side should try it out - what do they have to lose? If it doesn't work they can just send in their tanks and bombers again.

I refer you to the aforementioned [url= http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/4235768.stm ]unilateral withdrawal of settlements and troops from the gaza strip in 2005[/url]

Is that the report that says:

What's your point caller? It also criticises the flotilla for proceeding against clear instructions. However [u]none of those points have anything to do with the legality of the naval blockade[/u] which it clearly ruled to be legal, as pointed out in response to the allegation made that it wasn't. (One would suggest you are simply trying to find anything you can to throw at the Joos, because you don't like the fact that the UN report is not [u]wholly[/u] critical of them, boo hoo hoo)

Oh ya ... all you unemployed do you know that your chosen political party, with plenty of lefties, has decided they would spend their time showing more concern for people in a foreign land than you here? 😯

You are not important, British unemployed, enough to be shown sympathy coz your condition is not dire enough ... or you have not started to wave your AK47 around or start to launch your home made rocket yet.

Your lefties need a lot of "drama" to feed and to forward their agenda of "making the world better" ... ya, please share what you have. 😯

the aforementioned unilateral withdrawal of settlements and troops from the Gaza Strip

That might have been a legitimate example if it had not been accompanied by a blockade and formed part of Sharon's greater aim to avoid a Palestinian state.

UN Palmer report is pretty unequivocal on the legality of the maritime blockade see para. 69-82

* in fact the report was limited due to this

"The Panel is not a court. It was not asked to make determinations of the legal issues or to adjudicate on liability ... The Panel was required to obtain its information from the two nations primarily involved in its inquiry, Turkey and Israel, and other affected States ... the limitation is important. It means that the Panel cannot make definitive findings either of fact or law.

Still, I suppose that's just part of that pesky worldwide Jewish conpiracy again, isn't it?

The full facts which can lead to debate are as follows

The blockade has been criticized by UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC )[21] and other human rights organizations, a criticism that has been officially supported by United States administrations.[22] In June 2010 Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the humanitarian needs in the Hamas-controlled area must be met along with legitimate Israeli security concerns.[23]
In September 2011, a UN Panel of Inquiry, assigned by UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, concluded in the Palmer Report that the naval blockade was legal, based on the right of self-defense during a period of war, and had to be judged isolated from the restrictions on goods reaching Gaza via the land crossings.[24][25] Concerning the restrictions on goods reaching Gaza via the land crossings the Palmer report stated that they were "a significant cause" of Gaza's unsustainable and unacceptable humanitarian situation.[25][26][27] A Fact-Finding Mission for the UN Human Rights Council (2009) chaired by Richard Goldstone, a former judge of the International Criminal Court, as well as a group of five independent U.N. rights experts concluded that the blockade constituted collective punishment of the population of Gaza and was therefore unlawful.[28][29][30] UN envoy Desmond Tutu, United Nations Human Rights Council head Navi Pillay, the International Committee of the Red Cross and most experts on international law[31][32] consider the blockade illegal

So you're agreeing that I was right when I said:

Careful, we are straying into opinion rather than fact there,

Parfait, thanks 8)

Not really - though i fcourse evidence exists to support either side but the overwhelming view and evidence is pretty clear but there are enough friends of Israel to muddy the waters

Ernie is correct here forgive me and go the way of the chewkw as this is futile

A: Largely bought and paid for by Jews (i.e. bought off palestinians in the late 19th and early 20thC while still under Ottoman rule by groups such as the Palestine Jewish Colonization Association and the Jewish National Fund) No?

Well, you go and find a map from 1918 then - since the argument was about the ownership of the coastal/fertile lands (which cannot be extracted from the stats you linked to) and as said earlier:

An analysis of the utility of the land (and not just its square footage) is instructive, but just not in the way you think. Where did all the fertile coastal real estate end up? Who got the hilly and dry inland area?

I take it you accept they were, as i said, largely bought and paid for ([i]largely[/i] being a word that does not mean all or exclusively), and that your only argument is the hair splitting point of whether the coastal lands were [i]largely[/i] purchased by jews under Ottoman rule or [i]predominantly[/i] under pre-war British mandate, although the stats you earlier linked to leave us none the wiser?

If you buy and pay for guns and bulldozers, does that give you the right to use them for whatever purpose you see fit?

I take it you accept they were, as i said, largely bought and paid for, and that your only argument is the hair splitting point of whether this happened under ottoman rule or British mandate?

I agree what whatshisname that merely looking at percentages of mandatory Palestine that ended up constituting Israeli territory and PA territory doesn't tell the whole story. In fact, if you look at the utility and value split of the land, it's an even more dramatic story.