Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

CNN: Israel Easing Blockade of Gaza 'Except For Military Items'


AsburySkinsFan

Recommended Posts

I said that the Palestinians should respond positively and offer a concession of their own.

That's how negotiations work.

If Hamas stops firing rockets, is your reaction:

1) "Now Israel should give up their claim to Jerusalem."

2) "Well, about time. They shouldn't have been doing it in the first place."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kilmer gave us the over under on how long it will be until the first rocket rains down on Israeli cities from Gaza now that they have stated they will ease the blockade... I agree with Kilmer that there will be a rocket fired and it will probably happen sooner than later, but I believe it will be one fired into Israel by members of the IDF or Mossad to provide pretext to tighten the blockade once again.

You would have been a lot more credible if you'd left this out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Hamas stops firing rockets, is your reaction:

1) "Now Israel should give up their claim to Jerusalem."

2) "Well, about time. They shouldn't have been doing it in the first place."

Seems to me:

IF the rockets stopped. Statehood would ensue.

With Statehood other rights are then transferred by default.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems to me:

IF the rockets stopped. Statehood would ensue.

Wondering where in the world you're getting that impression from.

(I'd agree that their odds would be better if they stopped. That might well be one step down the path. But I sure wouldn't assert that that one thing would be sufficient, in and of itself, to cause Peace to break out all over.)

Edit: Clarification:

Stopping the rockets is a prerequisite for peace. (Duh.) There absolutely cannot be peace without it.

I just don't think it's as simple as "Rockets stop, therefore peace".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You would have been a lot more credible if you'd left this out.

I understand what you mean since there are a lot of loons out there that blame mossad for this and that, but I just want to make sure people are aware that Israel has acted like this before when things were not going the way they wanted it to. In reponse to a question of why Israel broke the cease fire (which many here think is Arab Propaganda), the response was that a cease fire is not a part of the long term strategic goals. According to this point of view, if Israel were to abide by the cease fire, it would imply that they accept Hamas as a political entity. It would also put pressure on the Israeli government to settle the outstanding matters.

As I stated before in my first post, the goal of the current government in Israel is to settle all the land of the West Bank and Gaza and incorporate it into a Jewish only state. That's not my opinion, that is what they have come right out and said themselves.

To accomplish this goal, the government has instilled legislation and regulation to slowly make life miserable for Palestinians and acquire more of their territory. In East Jerusalem for example, laws are on the books prohibiting any Arab from purchasing land and prohibiting any Jew from selling their land to an Arab.

Getting back to Gaza though, the way that they are accomplishing there goals is to constantly portray the people as being irrational militants that cannot be reasoned with. This justifies to the international community (and many ES members here) the military responses by Israel. If Hamas hypothetically one day decided to just say screw it we are going to stop fighting back, that would lead to pressure to identify national boundaries and end the conflict with Israel and Palestine being two states. (Also take into consideration that if they did stop fighting all at once, how would we here in America even know since all the information coming out of Gaza is controlled by the Israeli military.)

Why would it be irrational to conceive that if Hamas stopped all their activities and just sat on the floor with their hands behind their backs, the Israelis would do something to instigate more fighting? The current government has made it clear that it will never stand for a Palestinian state. My originial statement that you commented on concerning my credibility would be a logical action for the Israelis to carry out their stated goals...

-J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
Wondering where in the world you're getting that impression from.

(I'd agree that their odds would be better if they stopped. That might well be one step down the path. But I sure wouldn't assert that that one thing would be sufficient, in and of itself, to cause Peace to break out all over.)

Edit: Clarification:

Stopping the rockets is a prerequisite for peace. (Duh.) There absolutely cannot be peace without it.

I just don't think it's as simple as "Rockets stop, therefore peace".

The World (including the evil Republican Bush Admin) was dying to give the Palestinians Statehood. Then they elected Hamas due to all kinds of reasons and the rockets increased ending that.

End the Rockets = Statehood.. Plain and simple...

Statehood = your own forces in your checkpoints.

Statehood = Representatives....

Israel ceased to act in cooperation with the PNA and later on would occupy some Palestinian cities anew. In the shadow of the rising death toll from the violence, the United States initiated the Road Map for Peace (published on June 24, 2002), which is intended to end the Intifada by disarming the Palestinian terror groups and creating an independent Palestinian state. The Road Map has stalled awaiting the implementation of the step required by the first phase of that plan. It remains stalled due to the civil war between Hamas and Fatah.

In 2005, Israel unilaterally withdrew from the Gaza Strip as part of the Disengagement Plan, which was seen as a move toward creating an independent Palestinian state.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing that did come out of this.... We have futher "clarified" our position of what a terrorist is......

Israel placed the flotilla organizers on their terririst watch list... And yesterday the supreme court of the United States concurred....

Today a terrorist is not just somebody who blows people up and engages in terrorism. Terrorists are also Lawyers who advise recognized terrorist groups in how to state their goals, negotiate grevences, or pressent their greviences before international bodies....

Terrorists are also folks who give humanitarian aid to anybody who belongs to a terrorist group...

By Israel's and America's new definition on terrorism, the flotilla organizers are terrorists.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/21/AR2010062104267.html

So you think the flotilla was about bringing aid. Huh.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am always amused when people misrepresent the Likud party, go read thier charter, its pretty clear that they only dispute THE UNILATERAL declaration of a Palestinian country. but its way better to argue that they dont anything, that way the liberals can ignore the fact that when the Palestinians had the shot at a homeland they crapped the bed.

I alos notice that nobody notices that Jordan comprised the majority of the original mandate yet nobody is screaming that the the land was stolen from the jews to do so. INteresting stuff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am always amused when people misrepresent the Likud party, go read thier charter, its pretty clear that they only dispute THE UNILATERAL declaration of a Palestinian country. but its way better to argue that they dont anything, that way the liberals can ignore the fact that when the Palestinians had the shot at a homeland they crapped the bed.

Guess it would be silly to ask you for links to any of the things you're claiming, huh?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I alos notice that nobody notices that Jordan comprised the majority of the original mandate yet nobody is screaming that the the land was stolen from the jews to do so. INteresting stuff.

Maybe thats because Jews owned a vast minority of the land and were the vast minority of the population in any part of Palestine. The partition plan greatly over represented the Jewish population by any measure. So the reason no one is talking about it in those terms is because it would make absolutely no sense to talk about it in those terms. The only reason to bring up an argument along those lines is to try to make a disingenuous point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the flotillas were never about bringing aid, the organisers were very cleasr that was ancillary to the stated goal of making Israel look bad.

It worked. Propaganda can be as powerful as a nuclear bomb.

~Bang

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guess it would be silly to ask you for links to any of the things you're claiming, huh?

TBH the main reason I would rather people did their own research is that when they do they read the ENTIRE page.

here was a 10 second google of likud party charter you end up opn the knesset webpage

in regards to the palestinian question.... " The Palestinians

Declaration of a State

A unilateral Palestinian declaration of the establishment of a Palestinian state will constitute a fundamental and substantive violation of the agreements with the State of Israel and the scuttling of the Oslo and Wye accords. The government will adopt immediate stringent measures in the event of such a declaration."

Note the word unilateral. this has always been a sticking point.

http://www.knesset.gov.il/elections/knesset15/elikud_m.htm

In regards to the mandate, the entire jordanian state came from land promised to the jews, google when it came into existence, why do you think the jews bombed the king david hotel and suddenly stopped supporting britain? again google is your friend.

I would vastly prefer people to start reading things and researching on their own, as the large part of "links" that get posted are from pretty lame sites and wikipedia.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe thats because Jews owned a vast minority of the land and were the vast minority of the population in any part of Palestine. The partition plan greatly over represented the Jewish population by any measure. So the reason no one is talking about it in those terms is because it would make absolutely no sense to talk about it in those terms. The only reason to bring up an argument along those lines is to try to make a disingenuous point.

The mandate was very clear, if you are trying to use legalities as an argument against israel which is something you and your ilk do constantly then you cant ignore that LEGALLY the land was given to the jews. so going by that over 75% was taken away from the jews and given to the arabs, but that doesnt jive with your whole " israel is unfair to the arabs " schtick.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The mandate was very clear, if you are trying to use legalities as an argument against israel which is something you and your ilk do constantly then you cant ignore that LEGALLY the land was given to the jews. so going by that over 75% was taken away from the jews and given to the arabs, but that doesnt jive with your whole " israel is unfair to the arabs " schtick.

Show me where in the mandate the Jewish population was given 100 percent of Trans-Jordan, the entire thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

True to some extent, but most intelligent people werent affected by some propoganda created by a terrorist organisation, some of us actually read and watch something other than CNN.

It's a good thing that whole drama played out on every other channel too, huh?

~Bang

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dont like wikipedia but its late and im lazy

llok carefully at the map

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Mandate_for_Palestine

and yeah John, the whole gongshow was all over tv but the BBC did the best follow up on it.

This is a pretty ****ing big part of that mandate

it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country

Jews were promised that Britain would attempt to build a Jewish home in Palestine, but they were pretty clear that they also recognized the rights of non-Jews in the area and creating a Jewish national home over the whole of Trans-Jordan and the Palestine Mandate would infringe on those rights. So they weren't promised the entire Trans-Jordan mandate, they were promised that they would get a home in Palestine not the entirety of Palestine which was also stated here

made it clear that in the eyes of the mandatory Power, the Jewish National Home was to be founded in Palestine and not that Palestine as a whole was to be converted into a Jewish National Home

So where exactly are you getting that Jews were promised the entire mandate?

EDIT: I will make it easy for you...they weren't.

To continue

In March of 1930 Lord Passfield, the Secretary of State for the Colonies, had authored a Cabinet Paper[54] which said:

In the Balfour Declaration there is no suggestion that the Jews should be accorded a special or favoured position in Palestine as compared with the Arab inhabitants of the country, or that the claims of Palestinians to enjoy self-government (subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory as foreshadowed in Article XXII of the Covenant) should be curtailed in order to facilitate the establishment in Palestine of a National Home for the Jewish people."

The British were very clear that the Arab's rights were to respected and that the Jewish home was not to be the entire mandate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, trying to decipher things from Ryman's link, I've wound up on this page, covering the "Faisal–Weizmann Agreement".

The Faisal-Weizmann Agreement was signed on January 3, 1919, by Emir Feisal (son of the King of Hejaz) and Chaim Weizmann (later President of the World Zionist Organization) as part of the Paris Peace Conference, 1919 settling disputes stemming from World War I. It was a short-lived agreement for Arab-Jewish cooperation on the development of a Jewish homeland in Palestine and an Arab nation in a large part of the Middle East.

1) Observing that the words "a Jewish homeland in Palestine" can mean two different things.

The link contains a picture:

250px-Faisal-Weizmann_map.png

With the caption: Map showing the boundaries of the Jewish state proposed by Zionists at the Paris Conference, superimposed on modern boundaries.

Supposedly, the main points of this treaty were:

* The agreement committed both parties to conducting all relations between the groups by the most cordial goodwill and understanding, to work together to encourage immigration of Jews into Palestine on a large scale while protecting the rights of the Arab peasants and tenant farmers, and to safeguard the free practice of religious observances. The Muslim Holy Places were to be under Muslim control.

* The Zionist movement undertook to assist the Arab residents of Palestine and the future Arab state to develop their natural resources and establish a growing economy.

* The boundaries between an Arab State and Palestine should be determined by a Commission after the Paris Peace Conference.

* The parties committed to carrying into effect the Balfour Declaration of 1917, calling for a Jewish national home in Palestine.

* Disputes were to be submitted to the British Government for arbitration.

The "Balfour declaration" which is referred to is:

The Balfour Declaration of 1917 (dated 2 November 1917) was a formal statement of policy by the British government stating that

"His Majesty's government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, trying to decipher things from Ryman's link, I've wound up on this page, covering the "Faisal–Weizmann Agreement".

1) Observing that the words "a Jewish homeland in Palestine" can mean two different things.

The link contains a picture:

250px-Faisal-Weizmann_map.png

With the caption: Map showing the boundaries of the Jewish state proposed by Zionists at the Paris Conference, superimposed on modern boundaries.

Supposedly, the main points of this treaty were:

The "Balfour declaration" which is referred to is:

See the problem here is that Faisal really didn't have any authority to speak for the the Arabs. He was only a smallish player in the situation. Its a pretty complex situation because numerous Arab leaders were trying to move into a position where they could take over as soon as the war ended. This resulted in numerous agreements, correspondences, and treaties made between various British officials and various Arab leaders most of which are contradictory in some manner. The one thing every other one agreed on is that Palestine was to be Arab and the rights of Palestinians were to be respected, this was the only one that went against that. On top of that the British didn't come through with the independent Arab state which voided that agreement right after it was agreed upon. So to point out a single agreement out that was significantly out of what with the numerous other agreements by someone who really didn't have the power to make that agreement doesn't really paint a true picture of the situation.

EDIT: Regarding the map: The Zionists proposed all sorts of boundaries that encompassed quite a lot more land than they ended up receiving but the problem was that they by no measure of population, land owned, or any other measure were going to be able to get anywhere near that amount of land. As it stands the boundaries that they got in 1947 still was tilted in the Zionists favor as they received more land than their land ownership or population suggests that they should have received.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...