UK Commander Challenges Goldstone Report

[GabonX]

It does not fall upon Israel to unilaterally concede to all of Palestine's demands as many seem to imply that it does. The final proposal will have to be a true compromise for both sides. In recent times Israel has made unilateral gestures towards peace by pulling out of Gaza completely, the result of which has been a new front against Israeli civillians. Israeli presence in Gaza was eliminated so as to give the people there a chance at autonomy. The result has been that Hamas has killed all Palestinian political opposition in Gaza and turned it into a missile front directed against Israel. Israel cannot continue making these concessions if the result is to open up new fronts of war against their civilians, and this HAS been the case.

[GabonX]

Teletubby, much of what you said is outright wrong. All of it lacks sources, and in many cases what you have written is the exact opposite of the truth. A few examples with sources to refute them:

However, in February 7 with Israeli elections closing in, talks were suspended until afterwards. Unfortunately, Barak lost, and Ariel Sharon came to power, and of course Sharon refused to return to the negotiating table.

Contrary to what you have written, Sharon followed the road map to peace outlined by the international community. Once again this resulted in new front against Israeli civillians..

In May 2003, Sharon endorsed the Road Map for Peace put forth by the United States, European Union, and Russia, which opened a dialogue with Mahmud Abbas, and announced his commitment to the creation of a Palestinian state in the future.

He has embarked on a course of unilateral withdrawal from the Gaza Strip, while maintaining control of its coastline and airspace. Sharon's plan has been welcomed by both the Palestinian Authority and Israel's left wing as a step towards a final peace settlement.[citation needed] However, it has been greeted with opposition from within his own Likud party and from other right wing Israelis, on national security, military, and religious grounds.[27]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ariel_Shar ... engagement

This is a far cry from your portrayal of figures like Netanyahu and Sharon being "far right war mongers." Israel is in a position where they have to fight to protect there civilians. Peace is not a unilateral decision, and as of now the only option the nation has is to address those who would kill, or wait to be killed.

Right, but when you see the IDF targeting civilian food-producing centers, it makes one wonder... Not to mention their extremely restrictive siege preventing people from having good access to medicine, and any access at all in rebuilding their homes. But it's not necessarily the IDF's fault considering who's at the helm.

Right, but when you see the IDF targeting civilian food-producing centers, it makes one wonder... Not to mention their extremely restrictive siege preventing people from having good access to medicine, and any access at all in rebuilding their homes. But it's not necessarily the IDF's fault considering who's at the helm.

Quite the opposite, Israel is often behind the transfer of goods and resources into Palestine. Most of their infrastructure has been built by Israel. Also:

Israel's Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu agreed to French President Nikolas Sarkozy's request to rebuild a Gaza hospital damaged in Operation Cast Lead.

For the first time since the Israeli military offensive in Gaza ended early in 2009, Israel will allow the necessary building materials to be transferred to the Gaza Strip in order to build the hospital, the Yedioth Aharonoth newspaper said Wednesday.

Last week, Sarkozy asked Netanyahu to permit the rebuilding of the hospital in Gaza when the two met at the United Nations General Assembly, the newspaper said.

Sarkozy told Netanyahu, the nation of Qatar would fund the building costs, the report said.

Since the end of the offensive in Gaza, Israel has prevented the transfer of cement and building materials to the Gaza Strip fearing they will fall into the hands of Hamas, who will use it to rebuild positions damaged in the military operation.

In the coming days Amos Gilad, head of the Israeli Defense Ministry's security and diplomatic bureau will travel to France to coordinate the steps to rebuild the hospital, the newspaper said.

http://www.officialwire.com/main.php?ac ... &rid=27833

There are many more inaccuracies in what you have written which I can address if need be. This kind of thing is epidemic of coverage of the Israeli issue. Even the article that gottanked posted demonstrates this as it is based on the presumption (taken at the word of Hamas ) that Israel broke a truce by bombing a Palestinian family on the beach for some reason. It's truly ridiculous that these accusations are taken seriously, particularly due to the ill repute of Hamas, but for one reason or another they are.

The bottom line is this.. Peace is not a decision which one group can make for another while war on the other hand is. Israel has shown time and time again that the doors to peace are open. This does not mean that Israel will unilaterally concede all of it's positions, but should the Palestinians decide to engage in a peaceful an constructive manner, an agreement could be reached.

Unfortunately the Palestinian people have embarked on a path of war. It may not be all of them (though they did democratically elect Hamas at one point) but frankly this is irrelevant. Israel is more concerned with protecting their own citizens than those of Palestine. If Palestine pursues a course of peace it can be achieved. If they continue to fight, they will continue to lose.

[sexyflanders]

1) Israel will not bow down to international law-specifically on settlement building and annexing East Jerusalem as well as accepting UN Security Council resolution 242 and 338. If you took the time to read into every peace process since the 60s, you'd see a trend where Israel makes a ridiculous and illegal demand, the US won't force it to be reasonable, and then they both shift the blame on the Palestinians for not accepting the peace treaty. The United States is the main reasons behind that since it fails to force Israel to make acceptable and reasonable demands in every peace process. Also, there were attempts by the elements within the Israel government to negotiate for peace with the Palestinians help without US intervention, but these are cut short when the public hears of them and the US makes their move.
If you took the time to read into every peace process since the 60s, you'd see a trend where Israel makes a ridiculous and illegal demand, the US won't force it to be reasonable, and then they both shift the blame on the Palestinians for not accepting the peace treaty.
-------------------------------------/some asshole
ME:
You are right about their actions regarding the UN resolutions, to an extent.
Israel violated the cease-fire of the Yom Kippur War in 1973 immediately by attacking and encircling the Egyptian forces to obtain a better negotiating position, which they achieved. And the US had advance knowledge of this. However, Israel did come to the table and the war didn't continue.

If you took the time to read into every peace process since the 60s, you'd see a trend where Israel makes a ridiculous and illegal demand, the US won't force it to be reasonable, and then they both shift the blame on the Palestinians for not accepting the peace treaty.

Really?
Apparently you didn't take the time to read like you mentioned to Gabon.
Anwar Al Sadat, Egyptian successor to Abdul Nasser, signed a peace treaty with Israel in 1979 and said (courtesy of wikipedia):

“Let us put an end to wars, let us reshape life on the solid basis of equity and truth. And it is this call, which reflected the will of the Egyptian people, of the great majority of the Arab and Israeli peoples, and indeed of millions of men, women, and children around the world that you are today honoring. And these hundreds of millions will judge to what extent every responsible leader in the Middle East has responded to the hopes of mankind”

The conditions of the peace treaty were this:
Wikipedia:

The main features of the agreement were the mutual recognition of each country by the other, the cessation of the state of war that had existed since the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, and the complete withdrawal by Israel of its armed forces and civilians from the rest of the Sinai Peninsula which Israel had captured during the 1967 Six-Day War. The agreement also provided for the free passage of Israeli ships through the Suez Canal and recognition of the Strait of Tiran and the Gulf of Aqaba as international waterways. The agreement notably made Egypt the first Arab country to officially recognize Israel. The peace agreement between Egypt and Israel has remained in effect since the treaty was signed.

Sounds pretty nice and civil eh? Where are those ridiculous demands? Israel gave up territory they had held for 12 years. Al Egypt had to was recognize Israel and allow them to share waterways.
Damn, Egypt sure gave up a lot and got nothing huh?

The Arab League (about 22 members now) didn't like that. They don't want that. Egypt was then kicked out of the Arab League.
Lebanon and Palestine are members.
And they rejected Egypt for making peace.
Sadat became very unpopular, simply because of the treaty (he was a hero before the treaty, due to the Yom Kippur War) he eventually rounded up over 1,000 people planning to overthrow him because of the treaty.
He missed a few and they assassinated him.
Because he made peace
Egypt was let back into the league in 1989.

The majority of those who hate the Israelis do so on religious grounds, the Palestinians may have a legitimate reason for fighting considering that so many of them were kicked out of their home to make way for the Jews. But Kuwait, Pakistan, Saddam Hussein, Abdul Nasser (who formed the PLO, even though he is Egyptian), King Hussein and President Ahmadinejad hate(d) and act purely on religious grounds.
But if you think Yassir Arafat or any other leader or terrorist is even interested in peace, you are missing my point.
Anyone who believes in a Arab Nationalism and/or Pan-Arabism (both very popular) will never recognize or make peace with a Jewish state, no matter where in the world it is.
It is that simple.
The Islamic states, for the most part, will remain enemies of Israel as long as they are controlled by hard-liners or those who look to advance global Islamic/Arabic power.
The Israeli's will not back down from them, and they also understand that they cannot must make concessions judiciously. The ultimate goal of many Islamic nations, including those who started or fund/support groups like the PLO or Hezbollah is to wipe out Israel.
However, I do personally believe the Israel could have been more reasonable on a number of occasions, and have are guilty of provocation themselves
Peace won't come without a significant change to the equation that cannot be achieved through concessions. Something new has to happen.

I personally side with the Jews due to a single, irrefutable fact:

I can remember reading about this attack and that attack from Palestine and Lebanon. These rockets and those bombers. Nothing violent from Israel as an immediate response. I can remember few people giving a shit because: "the Israelis should not be there".

Well, they are and the combined might of many nations couldn't force them out. The fact that they are there to stay was established decades ago, they earned the right to be there from the very week that western forces pulled out and left Israel to defend themselves.
Several nations attacked at once, without any military provocation from Israel. The Jews laid the smackdown on the entire region with haste.
They earned that land with their blood and the blood of their enemies
But Palestine and Lebanon (at least their leaders and nationalists) will never be happy until they get all the land back, meaning Israel would be gone.
Would you have them leave?
Veterans from the 6 Day War, one of the greatest military (a defensive action at that) victories in history are still living there.
Who are we to say that people who earned the right to still be there when they were forced to shed blood and risk their lives?
They kicked ass before they ever, once, attacked any other nation. On the defensive, surrounded and massively outnumbered too.
None of us have any good reason to make decisions for them.
The UN, put them there and stirred up a shitstorm doing it. Israel survived despite the best a half-dozen well-established nations could throw at it.

For that I simply respect them, and I keep out of their business.

EDIT: Something to back up what I mean about the goal major Arabic powers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1967_Arab_League_summit :

The 1967 Arab League summit was held on August 29 in Khartoum as the fourth Arab League Summit. The summit came in the aftermath of the Arab defeat to Israel in the Six-Day War and is famous for its Khartoum Resolution known as "The Three No's"; No peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with Israel.[1] The summit also resolved that the "oil-rich Arab states" give financial aid to the states who lost the war and to "help them rebuild their military forces."[2] The final communique of the meeting "underscored the Palestinians' right to regain the whole of Palestine—that is, to destroy the State of Israel."[3] The outcome of this summit influenced Israeli foreign policy for decades.[4]

The final communique of the meeting "underscored the Palestinians' right to regain the whole of Palestine—that is, to destroy the State of Israel."
Hmmmmmmm
"NO PEACE WITH ISRAEL"
"NO RECOGNITION OF ISRAEL"
"NO NEGOTIATIONS WITH ISRAEL"


Yeah, I imagine it is a little hard to negotiate with someone who hates you that much and has been publicly encouraged by its peers to destroy you.

I remember the last head of state who gave an obvious enemy and warmonger what they wanted. Neville Chamberlain.
Pretty sure that reference isn't lost here.

[got tonkaed]

As long as your willing to bow down to our new lizards overlords when the time comes because they earned dominion over the land with their blood and the blood of your enemies.

[BigBallinStalin]

It does not fall upon Israel to unilaterally concede to all of Palestine's demands as many seem to imply that it does. The final proposal will have to be a true compromise for both sides. In recent times Israel has made unilateral gestures towards peace by pulling out of Gaza completely, the result of which has been a new front against Israeli civillians. Israeli presence in Gaza was eliminated so as to give the people there a chance at autonomy. The result has been that Hamas has killed all Palestinian political opposition in Gaza and turned it into a missile front directed against Israel. Israel cannot continue making these concessions if the result is to open up new fronts of war against their civilians, and this HAS been the case.

This isn't at all the issue, and you don't understand how the past peace processes work nor do you understand what goes on behind the scenes. You seriously need to read about this beyond mere news articles or postings by the Israeli Propaganda Center.

You ignored everything that I've said and you've completely ignored the core issues of all the peace negotiations. In fact, you've more or less ignored Israeli-Palestinian history all together.

This thread is just riddled with so many ignorant statements, that it is not worth addressing in detail.

You've just shown us that you have no idea what you're talking about.

Thank you, Gabon.

[BigBallinStalin]

ME:
You are right about their actions regarding the UN resolutions, to an extent.
Israel violated the cease-fire of the Yom Kippur War in 1973 immediately by attacking and encircling the Egyptian forces to obtain a better negotiating position, which they achieved. And the US had advance knowledge of this. However, Israel did come to the table and the war didn't continue.

If you took the time to read into every peace process since the 60s, you'd see a trend where Israel makes a ridiculous and illegal demand, the US won't force it to be reasonable, and then they both shift the blame on the Palestinians for not accepting the peace treaty.

Really?
Apparently you didn't take the time to read like you mentioned to Gabon.
Anwar Al Sadat, Egyptian successor to Abdul Nasser, signed a peace treaty with Israel in 1979 and said (courtesy of wikipedia):

“Let us put an end to wars, let us reshape life on the solid basis of equity and truth. And it is this call, which reflected the will of the Egyptian people, of the great majority of the Arab and Israeli peoples, and indeed of millions of men, women, and children around the world that you are today honoring. And these hundreds of millions will judge to what extent every responsible leader in the Middle East has responded to the hopes of mankind”

The conditions of the peace treaty were this:
Wikipedia:

The main features of the agreement were the mutual recognition of each country by the other, the cessation of the state of war that had existed since the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, and the complete withdrawal by Israel of its armed forces and civilians from the rest of the Sinai Peninsula which Israel had captured during the 1967 Six-Day War. The agreement also provided for the free passage of Israeli ships through the Suez Canal and recognition of the Strait of Tiran and the Gulf of Aqaba as international waterways. The agreement notably made Egypt the first Arab country to officially recognize Israel. The peace agreement between Egypt and Israel has remained in effect since the treaty was signed.

Sounds pretty nice and civil eh? Where are those ridiculous demands? Israel gave up territory they had held for 12 years. Al Egypt had to was recognize Israel and allow them to share waterways.
Damn, Egypt sure gave up a lot and got nothing huh?



The Arab League (about 22 members now) didn't like that. They don't want that. Egypt was then kicked out of the Arab League.
Lebanon and Palestine are members.
And they rejected Egypt for making peace.
Sadat became very unpopular, simply because of the treaty (he was a hero before the treaty, due to the Yom Kippur War) he eventually rounded up over 1,000 people planning to overthrow him because of the treaty.
He missed a few and they assassinated him.
Because he made peace
Egypt was let back into the league in 1989.

The majority of those who hate the Israelis do so on religious grounds, the Palestinians may have a legitimate reason for fighting considering that so many of them were kicked out of their home to make way for the Jews. But Kuwait, Pakistan, Saddam Hussein, Abdul Nasser (who formed the PLO, even though he is Egyptian), King Hussein and President Ahmadinejad hate(d) and act purely on religious grounds.
But if you think Yassir Arafat or any other leader or terrorist is even interested in peace, you are missing my point.
Anyone who believes in a Arab Nationalism and/or Pan-Arabism (both very popular) will never recognize or make peace with a Jewish state, no matter where in the world it is.
It is that simple.
The Islamic states, for the most part, will remain enemies of Israel as long as they are controlled by hard-liners or those who look to advance global Islamic/Arabic power.
The Israeli's will not back down from them, and they also understand that they cannot must make concessions judiciously. The ultimate goal of many Islamic nations, including those who started or fund/support groups like the PLO or Hezbollah is to wipe out Israel.
However, I do personally believe the Israel could have been more reasonable on a number of occasions, and have are guilty of provocation themselves
Peace won't come without a significant change to the equation that cannot be achieved through concessions. Something new has to happen.

I personally side with the Jews due to a single, irrefutable fact:

I can remember reading about this attack and that attack from Palestine and Lebanon. These rockets and those bombers. Nothing violent from Israel as an immediate response. I can remember few people giving a shit because: "the Israelis should not be there".

Well, they are and the combined might of many nations couldn't force them out. The fact that they are there to stay was established decades ago, they earned the right to be there from the very week that western forces pulled out and left Israel to defend themselves.
Several nations attacked at once, without any military provocation from Israel. The Jews laid the smackdown on the entire region with haste.
They earned that land with their blood and the blood of their enemies
But Palestine and Lebanon (at least their leaders and nationalists) will never be happy until they get all the land back, meaning Israel would be gone.
Would you have them leave?
Veterans from the 6 Day War, one of the greatest military (a defensive action at that) victories in history are still living there.
Who are we to say that people who earned the right to still be there when they were forced to shed blood and risk their lives?
They kicked ass before they ever, once, attacked any other nation. On the defensive, surrounded and massively outnumbered too.
None of us have any good reason to make decisions for them.
The UN, put them there and stirred up a shitstorm doing it. Israel survived despite the best a half-dozen well-established nations could throw at it.

For that I simply respect them, and I keep out of their business.

EDIT: Something to back up what I mean about the goal major Arabic powers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1967_Arab_League_summit :

The 1967 Arab League summit was held on August 29 in Khartoum as the fourth Arab League Summit. The summit came in the aftermath of the Arab defeat to Israel in the Six-Day War and is famous for its Khartoum Resolution known as "The Three No's"; No peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with Israel.[1] The summit also resolved that the "oil-rich Arab states" give financial aid to the states who lost the war and to "help them rebuild their military forces."[2] The final communique of the meeting "underscored the Palestinians' right to regain the whole of Palestine—that is, to destroy the State of Israel."[3] The outcome of this summit influenced Israeli foreign policy for decades.[4]

The final communique of the meeting "underscored the Palestinians' right to regain the whole of Palestine—that is, to destroy the State of Israel."
Hmmmmmmm
"NO PEACE WITH ISRAEL"
"NO RECOGNITION OF ISRAEL"
"NO NEGOTIATIONS WITH ISRAEL"


Yeah, I imagine it is a little hard to negotiate with someone who hates you that much and has been publicly encouraged by its peers to destroy you.

I remember the last head of state who gave an obvious enemy and warmonger what they wanted. Neville Chamberlain.
Pretty sure that reference isn't lost here.

OUCH, now I see why my 1st several posts were such a pain in the ass to read and reply to...

OK, you mentioned Egypt --->We're talking about israeli-Palestinian relations. Of course, the Israelis will negotiate on good terms with a powerful enemy. Oh and that's a nice quote from a dictator, I'd really take to heart what he said. Good intentions and all for everyone, yes yes.

As for everything else about Egypt, whatever, that's great, and I'm not going to waste time going back on forth about it because it's off-topic.
_________________

The immediate problem with this is that you're not really citing any key events or issues to what I'm talking about. That whole thing with Egypt is great, but you've missed my point entirely. You're also making erroneous over-generalizations about Arabs. You've turned what I've said into something about a certain group that hates Israel. This isn't at all related to what I've been going on about.

Pan-Arabism has yet to really come to light in the Middle East. Many of those countries have spent decades nationalizing the thought of their own peoples, which has severely ruined the chance of any Pan-Arabism from being achieved, since all those countries' Arabs are mainly split along national lines of thought. I mean, seriously, you're going at it again. You're just over-generalizing, and you have no facts to support what you claim. You're speaking for millions and millions of people. I can't really speak for millions of people like you do, because one simply can't. It isn't fact, and it won't hold up your argument.

You're also turning this issue into something else while I'm talking about how this peace process fails. You've haven't properly addressed anything I've said in good enough detail. You've just turned it into your own monster which you then vilify and beat down. (Pardon the repetition, but it seems necessary with you).

I personally side with the Jews due to a single, irrefutable fact:

I can remember reading about this attack and that attack from Palestine and Lebanon. These rockets and those bombers. Nothing violent from Israel as an immediate response. I can remember few people giving a shit because: "the Israelis should not be there".

You've treated this rocket attack as an isolated incident. The Israelis have done many terrible things to the Palestinians to warrant these kinds of actions. Obviously, continued military occupation and oppression will not bring about security or peace.

Well, they are and the combined might of many nations couldn't force them out. The fact that they are there to stay was established decades ago, they earned the right to be there from the very week that western forces pulled out and left Israel to defend themselves.

That's absolutely ridiculous. It isn't Israel versus the Middle East. It's Israel with US and Western militaristic, economic, and political backing versus the Middle East. Israel was never truly left one its own to defend itself; otherwise, it wouldn't been crushed long ago.

Several nations attacked at once, without any military provocation from Israel. The Jews laid the smackdown on the entire region with haste.

Actually the Israelis outnumbered those armies which were from recently made independent countries. And those opposing armies were not well-coordinated and therefore attacked at different times, so that the Israeli forces could largely deal with one at a time.

They earned that land with their blood and the blood of their enemies
But Palestine and Lebanon (at least their leaders and nationalists) will never be happy until they get all the land back, meaning Israel would be gone.
Would you have them leave?
Veterans from the 6 Day War, one of the greatest military (a defensive action at that) victories in history are still living there.
Who are we to say that people who earned the right to still be there when they were forced to shed blood and risk their lives?
They kicked ass before they ever, once, attacked any other nation. On the defensive, surrounded and massively outnumbered too.
None of us have any good reason to make decisions for them.
The UN, put them there and stirred up a shitstorm doing it. Israel survived despite the best a half-dozen well-established nations could throw at it.

Propaganda aside, Palestine and Lebanon and getting ALL their land back? That's not true. The Palestinians want those UN resolutions honored by the Israelis, and those UN resolutions which I mentioned earlier are not ALL of Israel. What are you talking about?

You really underestimate the United States's economic, military, and political help given to Israel. Without it, Israel would be forced to negotiate with the Palestinians.

For that I simply respect them, and I keep out of their business.

EDIT: Something to back up what I mean about the goal major Arabic powers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1967_Arab_League_summit :

The 1967 Arab League summit was held on August 29 in Khartoum as the fourth Arab League Summit. The summit came in the aftermath of the Arab defeat to Israel in the Six-Day War and is famous for its Khartoum Resolution known as "The Three No's"; No peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with Israel.[1] The summit also resolved that the "oil-rich Arab states" give financial aid to the states who lost the war and to "help them rebuild their military forces."[2] The final communique of the meeting "underscored the Palestinians' right to regain the whole of Palestine—that is, to destroy the State of Israel."[3] The outcome of this summit influenced Israeli foreign policy for decades.[4]

The final communique of the meeting "underscored the Palestinians' right to regain the whole of Palestine—that is, to destroy the State of Israel."
Hmmmmmmm
"NO PEACE WITH ISRAEL"
"NO RECOGNITION OF ISRAEL"
"NO NEGOTIATIONS WITH ISRAEL"


Yeah, I imagine it is a little hard to negotiate with someone who hates you that much and has been publicly encouraged by its peers to destroy you.

I remember the last head of state who gave an obvious enemy and warmonger what they wanted. Neville Chamberlain.
Pretty sure that reference isn't lost here.

[/quote]
WIKIPEDIA? Ooo, good one. That wiki-quote doesn't reflect what's been going on from both sides. You also don't undertsand how the Arab League has worked and you seem to think that something from the 1970s was actually upheld by most of those countries and for the entire time. And forget that nonsense about not recognizing Israel and what not because many Middle Eastern countries actually engage in trade with Israel. There isn't a unified boycott against them from the Middle East. All that you've just quoted is mere rhetoric, which is why I stated much earlier that the Arab League is completely useless on this issue. You've haven't read what I've typed, and you don't understand what you're talking about. And if you don't respond exactly to what I've said, then I'm not going to waste any more time with you. It's pointless. You need to educate yourself beyond wikipedia and whatever you've been using.

[sexyflanders]

Egypt was part of a larger point:
That the Arabic states as a group (including Lebanon and Palestine) excommunicated Egypt for making peace.
Not off-topic. Laying a foundation for the mindset of the Palestinian/Lebanon leadership.

You really underestimate the United States's economic, military, and political help given to Israel. Without it, Israel would be forced to negotiate with the Palestinians.

Hmmmm, I mentioned the US once in passing, so therefore, I'm ignoring that issue altogether.
When most of my point was about the hatred
Seems to me that you have a larger bone to pick.

WIKIPEDIA? Ooo, good one. That wiki-quote doesn't reflect what's been going on from both sides. You also don't undertsand how the Arab League has worked and you seem to think that something from the 1970s was actually upheld by most of those countries and for the entire time. And forget that nonsense about not recognizing Israel and what not because many Middle Eastern countries actually engage in trade with Israel. There isn't a unified boycott against them from the Middle East. All that you've just quoted is mere rhetoric, which is why I stated much earlier that the Arab League is completely useless on this issue. You've haven't read what I've typed, and you don't understand what you're talking about. And if you don't respond exactly to what I've said, then I'm not going to waste any more time with you. It's pointless. You need to educate yourself beyond wikipedia and whatever you've been using.

Yeah, because that policy regarding the destruction on the Jewish states has nothing to do with now.
Sure.

Wikipedia is among the most widely used sources on the planet and thus useful for directing others to source information.
And it does reflect what has been going on both sides:
It said clearly that the Arab states would not ever negotiate with or recognize Israel. Palestine and Lebanon were encouraged to destroy the state of Israel.
It said this summit has influenced Israeli policy for decades.
Sounds like how the leadership on both sides has been thinking for decades.

If you want to talk shit about wiki, make a point beyond assuming I learned from there first. If you say that information is no good, cite something.


Telling me that I didn't read your post because you took mine out of context is simply ironic.

Admittedly, I may have muddied the water a bit with the piece of my opinion sandwiched in between and after the factual foundation I laid.
I do that sometimes, but the point I made about both sides clearly playing for keeps remains.
There won't be a peace process as long as Jews and Muslims are the ones doing the negotiations unless all parties are led by particularly cool heads with control over their respective sides.

[BigBallinStalin]

Egypt was part of a larger point:
That the Arabic states as a group (including Lebanon and Palestine) excommunicated Egypt for making peace.
Not off-topic. Laying a foundation for the mindset of the Palestinian/Lebanon leadership.

You really underestimate the United States's economic, military, and political help given to Israel. Without it, Israel would be forced to negotiate with the Palestinians.

Hmmmm, I mentioned the US once in passing, so therefore, I'm ignoring that issue altogether.
When most of my point was about the hatred
Seems to me that you have a larger bone to pick.

Right, the hatred. The way you brought that up is a bit off topic from what I've saying.

WIKIPEDIA? Ooo, good one. That wiki-quote doesn't reflect what's been going on from both sides. You also don't undertsand how the Arab League has worked and you seem to think that something from the 1970s was actually upheld by most of those countries and for the entire time. And forget that nonsense about not recognizing Israel and what not because many Middle Eastern countries actually engage in trade with Israel. There isn't a unified boycott against them from the Middle East. All that you've just quoted is mere rhetoric, which is why I stated much earlier that the Arab League is completely useless on this issue. You've haven't read what I've typed, and you don't understand what you're talking about. And if you don't respond exactly to what I've said, then I'm not going to waste any more time with you. It's pointless. You need to educate yourself beyond wikipedia and whatever you've been using.

Yeah, because that policy regarding the destruction on the Jewish states has nothing to do with now.
Sure.

To beat the horse to death. The Arab League is merely a voice, which holds no power of its own. The member states get together, agree to have some message broadcast, and then go about their own business... They ignore it, and that statement was made in the 70s, so that message has been ignored for a very long time. For example, trading. I'm reiterating everything I just typed down. I don't need to cite anything because what I've just said regarding the Arab League is generally well-known fact.

Wikipedia is among the most widely used sources on the planet and thus useful for directing others to source information.
And it does reflect what has been going on both sides:
It said clearly that the Arab states would not ever negotiate with or recognize Israel. Palestine and Lebanon were encouraged to destroy the state of Israel.
It said this summit has influenced Israeli policy for decades.
Sounds like how the leadership on both sides has been thinking for decades.


If you want to talk shit about wiki, make a point beyond assuming I learned from there first. If you say that information is no good, cite something.

Simply because it's widely used doesn't lend it any credibility. I can type up some crap and have a few guys approve it, and then it sticks up there. I can even link it to some rubbish website; sometimes, I don't even have to. Also, it's easy to misconstrue things there since there's hardly any oversight with any authority on the particular matter at that website. It is not a credible source on nearly all issues--especially this one.

You're right, it has clearly said they'd never negotiate or recognize Israel, but many have already done so which helps me prove my point that the Arab League is pretty useless and a poor example to use in defense of your argument.
This summit isn't the only thing affecting Israeli policy. Even without it and its decrees, Israel would still go about doing what they felt they had to, because that summit really hasn't said anything new or different from what was going on at that time.

Telling me that I didn't read your post because you took mine out of context is simply ironic.

If you truly have read my posts and this thread, then I wouldn't have to keep repeating myself, would I?

Admittedly, I may have muddied the water a bit with the piece of my opinion sandwiched in between and after the factual foundation I laid.
I do that sometimes, but the point I made about both sides clearly playing for keeps remains.
There won't be a peace process as long as Jews and Muslims are the ones doing the negotiations unless all parties are led by particularly cool heads with control over their respective sides.

Most of the people want peace; to hell with keeps, they want peace. The way things have been going for over 50 years is not well. There's been no improvement of security, only constant bloodshed. People near and within the most-affected areas want it to end. Violence hasn't brought that about, it simply has enforced the status quo. The United States is the main influence that can stop this but constantly chooses not to do so.

No, it's not just having the two parties being lead by cool heads during a peace negotiation; it's mostly the United States bungling it up. Look at my response to got tonkaed's earlier. It almost happened, until the hard-right liners came to power, and also for the US not pressuring Israel to continue with a reasonable peace offer. Peace will not be obtained as long as the United States gives Israel the incentive not to do so, and that coupled with Israeli hard-right elements being at the helm.

[sexyflanders]

And Yassir Arafat having been a former member of Black September is just a coincidence.
Right?

[spurgistan]

And Yassir Arafat having been a former member of Black September is just a coincidence.
Right?

That having no relevance to this discussion means that it doesn't make a difference in whether the IDF committed war crimes against the Palestinians in the Gaza invasion what were Arafat's past affiliations.
Right?

[GabonX]

It does not fall upon Israel to unilaterally concede to all of Palestine's demands as many seem to imply that it does. The final proposal will have to be a true compromise for both sides. In recent times Israel has made unilateral gestures towards peace by pulling out of Gaza completely, the result of which has been a new front against Israeli civillians. Israeli presence in Gaza was eliminated so as to give the people there a chance at autonomy. The result has been that Hamas has killed all Palestinian political opposition in Gaza and turned it into a missile front directed against Israel. Israel cannot continue making these concessions if the result is to open up new fronts of war against their civilians, and this HAS been the case.

This isn't at all the issue, and you don't understand how the past peace processes work nor do you understand what goes on behind the scenes. You seriously need to read about this beyond mere news articles or postings by the Israeli Propaganda Center.

You ignored everything that I've said and you've completely ignored the core issues of all the peace negotiations. In fact, you've more or less ignored Israeli-Palestinian history all together.

This thread is just riddled with so many ignorant statements, that it is not worth addressing in detail.

You've just shown us that you have no idea what you're talking about.

Thank you, Gabon.

Actually it does warrant addressing in detail. There isn't a single thing in that post which isn't true and it's all common knowledge. I can find any number of sources which will verify anything said.

Yes, I do know what I'm talking about. I'm a historian with a focus on Middle Eastern history. I've also shown in previous posts in this thread that there are a number of claims which you've made which are the exact opposite of what actually happened.

You're good at writing things with a demeaning tone which would intimidate most people, but I'm not most people. If you want to talk about a given thing, you need to specify, because as of now all of your statements are vague (though demeaning) and lack any kind of support. Much of what you've said is outright false, and the rest is angry and ill informed rhetoric.

[sexyflanders]

^That would be why I'm leaving the subject alone.

[BigBallinStalin]

-----Answer these. You brought this reply up, so you're going to have to explain yourself properly.

It does not fall upon Israel to unilaterally concede to all of Palestine's demands as many seem to imply that it does. The final proposal will have to be a true compromise for both sides. In recent times Israel has made unilateral gestures towards peace by pulling out of Gaza completely, the result of which has been a new front against Israeli civillians. Israeli presence in Gaza was eliminated so as to give the people there a chance at autonomy. The result has been that Hamas has killed all Palestinian political opposition in Gaza and turned it into a missile front directed against Israel. Israel cannot continue making these concessions if the result is to open up new fronts of war against their civilians, and this HAS been the case.

First of all, do you think the United States is necessary in this peace process? Why, or why not?

Do you truly believe that Palestine expects Israel to concede to all of its demands? Do you truly believe that Palestine has in fact recently asked Israel to concede to all of its demands?

And what exactly are all these demands? If you answer that, you're going to have to provide years as well, since those demands have fluctuated.

In recent times Israel has made unilateral gestures towards peace by pulling out of Gaza completely, the result of which has been a new front against Israeli civillians.

First of all, this doesn't solve anything if they still maintain a siege on Gaza. Also, you're ignoring settlement expansion. You're ignoring many serious issues that Israel has yet to address and which I have mentioned in my earlier thread. This is exactly why it's important for you to address what I've written, so I don't have to keep repeating myself.

When has Israel done this? And does merely pulling out of Gaza while imposing a siege really be considered a gesture of peace with everything else that has yet to stop? And did they truly and completely withdraw from Gaza, and if so, for how long?

Do you truly believe that a "new" front against Israeli civilians is the direct result of Israeli pulling out of Gaza?

Israeli presence in Gaza was eliminated so as to give the people there a chance at autonomy. The result has been that Hamas has killed all Palestinian political opposition in Gaza and turned it into a missile front directed against Israel.

Autonomy? Israel has yet to give Palestinians any real autonomy. You truly think that Israel let Gaza run the whole show without any intervention at any level by Israel?

Sure, the Hamas are mostly not good people; I'm with ya there, but a "missile front?" You make it seem like they had a missile arsenal comparable to any somewhat-modern conventional army would have. How many people died from those missile attacks? Maybe, less than a 100 in the half year or so (if even that, I think that's a generous guess on my behalf) that led up to that invasion by Israel?


Ok, gabon, have fun answering all these questions. And be sure to address in detail my earlier posts. Otherwise, I'm not going to respond because you'll just ignore what I written earlier, so I'll have to repeat myself. I really don't like wasting my time with poor feedback, so please make it worthwhile.

[BigBallinStalin]

^That would be why I'm leaving the subject alone.

Sure, it has nothing to do with the weak arguments you brought up, most of which were off-topic.

[GabonX]

Flashback

Teletubby, much of what you said is outright wrong. All of it lacks sources, and in many cases what you have written is the exact opposite of the truth. A few examples with sources to refute them:

However, in February 7 with Israeli elections closing in, talks were suspended until afterwards. Unfortunately, Barak lost, and Ariel Sharon came to power, and of course Sharon refused to return to the negotiating table.

Contrary to what you have written, Sharon followed the road map to peace outlined by the international community. Once again this resulted in new front against Israeli civillians..

In May 2003, Sharon endorsed the Road Map for Peace put forth by the United States, European Union, and Russia, which opened a dialogue with Mahmud Abbas, and announced his commitment to the creation of a Palestinian state in the future.

He has embarked on a course of unilateral withdrawal from the Gaza Strip, while maintaining control of its coastline and airspace. Sharon's plan has been welcomed by both the Palestinian Authority and Israel's left wing as a step towards a final peace settlement.[citation needed] However, it has been greeted with opposition from within his own Likud party and from other right wing Israelis, on national security, military, and religious grounds.[27]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ariel_Shar ... engagement

This is a far cry from your portrayal of figures like Netanyahu and Sharon being "far right war mongers." Israel is in a position where they have to fight to protect there civilians. Peace is not a unilateral decision, and as of now the only option the nation has is to address those who would kill, or wait to be killed.

Right, but when you see the IDF targeting civilian food-producing centers, it makes one wonder... Not to mention their extremely restrictive siege preventing people from having good access to medicine, and any access at all in rebuilding their homes. But it's not necessarily the IDF's fault considering who's at the helm.

Right, but when you see the IDF targeting civilian food-producing centers, it makes one wonder... Not to mention their extremely restrictive siege preventing people from having good access to medicine, and any access at all in rebuilding their homes. But it's not necessarily the IDF's fault considering who's at the helm.

Quite the opposite, Israel is often behind the transfer of goods and resources into Palestine. Most of their infrastructure has been built by Israel. Also:

Israel's Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu agreed to French President Nikolas Sarkozy's request to rebuild a Gaza hospital damaged in Operation Cast Lead.

For the first time since the Israeli military offensive in Gaza ended early in 2009, Israel will allow the necessary building materials to be transferred to the Gaza Strip in order to build the hospital, the Yedioth Aharonoth newspaper said Wednesday.

Last week, Sarkozy asked Netanyahu to permit the rebuilding of the hospital in Gaza when the two met at the United Nations General Assembly, the newspaper said.

Sarkozy told Netanyahu, the nation of Qatar would fund the building costs, the report said.

Since the end of the offensive in Gaza, Israel has prevented the transfer of cement and building materials to the Gaza Strip fearing they will fall into the hands of Hamas, who will use it to rebuild positions damaged in the military operation.

In the coming days Amos Gilad, head of the Israeli Defense Ministry's security and diplomatic bureau will travel to France to coordinate the steps to rebuild the hospital, the newspaper said.

http://www.officialwire.com/main.php?ac ... &rid=27833

There are many more inaccuracies in what you have written which I can address if need be. This kind of thing is epidemic of coverage of the Israeli issue. Even the article that gottanked posted demonstrates this as it is based on the presumption (taken at the word of Hamas ) that Israel broke a truce by bombing a Palestinian family on the beach for some reason. It's truly ridiculous that these accusations are taken seriously, particularly due to the ill repute of Hamas, but for one reason or another they are.

The bottom line is this.. Peace is not a decision which one group can make for another while war on the other hand is. Israel has shown time and time again that the doors to peace are open. This does not mean that Israel will unilaterally concede all of it's positions, but should the Palestinians decide to engage in a peaceful an constructive manner, an agreement could be reached.

Unfortunately the Palestinian people have embarked on a path of war. It may not be all of them (though they did democratically elect Hamas at one point) but frankly this is irrelevant. Israel is more concerned with protecting their own citizens than those of Palestine. If Palestine pursues a course of peace it can be achieved. If they continue to fight, they will continue to lose.

[GabonX]

As a side note, the way you post is inhibiting to dialogue. It's not just your attitude, but also your writing style which is long winded and (perhaps purposely) convoluted. It makes it very difficult to address specific points in a reasonable amount of time.

If you really want to have an exchange of ideas you should write concisely so that things can be addressed in an organized fashion.

[BigBallinStalin]

As a side note, the way you post is inhibiting to dialogue. It's not just your attitude, but also your writing style which is long winded and (perhaps purposely) convoluted. It makes it very difficult to address specific points in a reasonable amount of time.

If you really want to have an exchange of ideas you should write concisely so that things can be addressed in an organized fashion.

So how bout you answer those concise questions that I posed to you earlier?

Long-winded? Just read it, GabonX. Too bad. There's a lot to cover in this issue, yes? If I jotted down a few sentences, then it goes of course from where I want it to go because I didn't properly explain myself.

If you don't want to read, then don't. No one's really forcing you to. Neither of us are going to convince each other on this issue. It's really a waste of time because you've bought your bullshit, and you could say I've bought mine.

[BigBallinStalin]

The main thing I don't understand on your position is one where you say the Israelis have been completely open to peace. That's ridiculous. They largely haven't. And I've already addressed that earlier.

[GabonX]

Oh I read it, there's just too much there to address in a reasonable amount of time..unless you want to pay me

How about you choose any one of those questions and I'll answer that one.. Choose any one you like and I'll answer it.

I'm not going to write a paragraph for each thing you asked all at once, and really you shouldn't be asking so much in a single post. The way a debate is generally supposed to work is one person makes a point, then another person responds with a point of their own. It's not supposed to be one person makes 20 "points" which may or may not be true and the other person has to spend hours addressing them by examining the merits of which ones are accurate and finding sources to show that those which are inaccurate are false (just so that those ones can be ignored).

So go ahead, make your point and I'll respond in time. I will so long as you can keep it logical and concise..

P.S. Nice job at dodging my post which points out the falseness of some of your claims for a second time while claiming that I ignore what you say

The main thing I don't understand on your position is one where you say the Israelis have been completely open to peace. That's ridiculous. They largely haven't. And I've already addressed that earlier.

Well, that's wrong as the Israelis are now and have always been completely open to peace. Where exactly have you addressed this and what have you supported it with?

[Snorri1234]

The main thing I don't understand on your position is one where you say the Israelis have been completely open to peace. That's ridiculous. They largely haven't. And I've already addressed that earlier.

Well, that's wrong as the Israelis are now and have always been completely open to peace. Where exactly have you addressed this and what have you supported it with?

What the f*ck???


You serious?

[BigBallinStalin]

Flashback

Teletubby, much of what you said is outright wrong. All of it lacks sources, and in many cases what you have written is the exact opposite of the truth. A few examples with sources to refute them:

However, in February 7 with Israeli elections closing in, talks were suspended until afterwards. Unfortunately, Barak lost, and Ariel Sharon came to power, and of course Sharon refused to return to the negotiating table.

Contrary to what you have written, Sharon followed the road map to peace outlined by the international community. Once again this resulted in new front against Israeli civillians..

In May 2003, Sharon endorsed the Road Map for Peace put forth by the United States, European Union, and Russia, which opened a dialogue with Mahmud Abbas, and announced his commitment to the creation of a Palestinian state in the future.

He has embarked on a course of unilateral withdrawal from the Gaza Strip, while maintaining control of its coastline and airspace. Sharon's plan has been welcomed by both the Palestinian Authority and Israel's left wing as a step towards a final peace settlement.[citation needed] However, it has been greeted with opposition from within his own Likud party and from other right wing Israelis, on national security, military, and religious grounds.[27]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ariel_Shar ... engagement

This is a far cry from your portrayal of figures like Netanyahu and Sharon being "far right war mongers." Israel is in a position where they have to fight to protect there civilians. Peace is not a unilateral decision, and as of now the only option the nation has is to address those who would kill, or wait to be killed.

[/quote][/quote]

" Sharon followed the road map to peace outlined by the international community." What exactly was outlined by the international community? Did he stop the construction and expansion of settlements? That's a road map to peace outlined by the international community via international laws regarding that matter.

Israel is in a position where they don't feel obliged to make peace with the Palestinians and give away its full access and control over its occupied territories. They should, but they don't. Maintaining control of its coastline and airspace? What kind of withdrawal was that? It's a siege. And that's wikipedia, please.

He followed the road to peace? So why does he choose to continue settlements expansion, why does he and Netannyahu continue to break many international laws? They don't care, there's no incentive for them to do otherwise--in his opinion. If they wanted peace reasonably, it could be achieved.

For sources, we can go with William Cleveland's History of the Modern Middle East and Stephen Zunes Tinderbox, which is a fun read.

Bottomline, Israel's government won't push for peace if the US doesn't pressure it. There's not too much incentive for the Israeli government to do so. They like maintaining the status quo, and with every decade, that means more settlement expansion and more justifications to demand occupied Palestinian territory and to further complicate the peace process. They know what they're doing. Peace isn't something beyond their control.

Right, but when you see the IDF targeting civilian food-producing centers, it makes one wonder... Not to mention their extremely restrictive siege preventing people from having good access to medicine, and any access at all in rebuilding their homes. But it's not necessarily the IDF's fault considering who's at the helm.

Right, but when you see the IDF targeting civilian food-producing centers, it makes one wonder... Not to mention their extremely restrictive siege preventing people from having good access to medicine, and any access at all in rebuilding their homes. But it's not necessarily the IDF's fault considering who's at the helm.

Quite the opposite, Israel is often behind the transfer of goods and resources into Palestine. Most of their infrastructure has been built by Israel.

[/quote]

Sure, you can ignore the Goldstone Report just as well as many with the Israeli government do. Nevermind reading it, you're completely right, Gabon because you choose to ignore how that war was waged.

.

Israel has maintained a siege of Gaza. They even disallow Palestinians from getting proper medical treatment elsewhere. That has happened before. Egypt is also behind the transfer of goods and resources to Palestine. And of course Israeli is behind the transfer of goods and resources; they're the very ones imposing the siege... That doesn't refute what I said earlier.

Also
Israel's Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu agreed to French President Nikolas Sarkozy's request to rebuild a Gaza hospital damaged in Operation Cast Lead.

For the first time since the Israeli military offensive in Gaza ended early in 2009, Israel will allow the necessary building materials to be transferred to the Gaza Strip in order to build the hospital, the Yedioth Aharonoth newspaper said Wednesday.

Last week, Sarkozy asked Netanyahu to permit the rebuilding of the hospital in Gaza when the two met at the United Nations General Assembly, the newspaper said.

Sarkozy told Netanyahu, the nation of Qatar would fund the building costs, the report said.

Since the end of the offensive in Gaza, Israel has prevented the transfer of cement and building materials to the Gaza Strip fearing they will fall into the hands of Hamas, who will use it to rebuild positions damaged in the military operation.

In the coming days Amos Gilad, head of the Israeli Defense Ministry's security and diplomatic bureau will travel to France to coordinate the steps to rebuild the hospital, the newspaper said.

http://www.officialwire.com/main.php?ac ... &rid=27833

There are many more inaccuracies in what you have written which I can address if need be. This kind of thing is epidemic of coverage of the Israeli issue. Even the article that gottanked posted demonstrates this as it is based on the presumption (taken at the word of Hamas ) that Israel broke a truce by bombing a Palestinian family on the beach for some reason. It's truly ridiculous that these accusations are taken seriously, particularly due to the ill repute of Hamas, but for one reason or another they are.

Aw, they're building a hospital? What a great display of humanitarian assistance! Never mind the fact that the army earlier rolled through and destroyed a lot them. One hospital? How generous! This one public show really isn't convincing given Israels past and current actions.

As for the bombing of food-producing facilities, I'm grabbing most of this from the Goldstone Report. There are no inaccuracies. You just refuse to educate yourself about the facts, or you at least refuse to read something other than wikipedia, your Israeli Propaganda center, some a mere newspaper article.

The word from Hamas on exactly what? And how does that relate to what I've said? I don't care about their propaganda about some family getting bombed by Israelis, and what you brought up is beside my point. Besides, the Israelis have done much worse. Do you recall the USS Liberty bombing as the Israelis tried to cover up their killing Egyptian prisoners of war at El-Arish? Body of Secrets by James Bamford.

The bottom line is this.. Peace is not a decision which one group can make for another while war on the other hand is. Israel has shown time and time again that the doors to peace are open. This does not mean that Israel will unilaterally concede all of it's positions, but should the Palestinians decide to engage in a peaceful an constructive manner, an agreement could be reached.

[/quote]

The Israelis have consistently opened the doors to peace while not seriously attempting to engage in it. They've only agitated the issue--as well as the Palestinians. Yes, the blame falls on both sides, and I've never said it hasn't. And no, Israel won't concede ALL of its positions as you ridiculously stated. This isn't only up to the Palestinians. The Israeli government has a lot of issues to address before it can seriously be seen as a country with true ambitions in achieving fair peace. It's past and current actions speak for itself. It has and continues to ignore international laws regarding the way it runs "business." Settlement building, annexation in East Jerusalem, kicking people out of their homes and transferring Israelis inside, and so on and so forth.

Unfortunately the Palestinian people have embarked on a path of war. It may not be all of them (though they did democratically elect Hamas at one point) but frankly this is irrelevant. Israel is more concerned with protecting their own citizens than those of Palestine. If Palestine pursues a course of peace it can be achieved. If they continue to fight, they will continue to lose.

[/quote]

And so have the Israelis. This isn't a one-sided issue even though you cast so much blame on the Palestinians. If Israel wanted to end this, they could, but they'd have to give up so much power and influence. This is not good enough incentive. If Israel seriously was concerned about the safety of all its citizens, it would stop its settlement expansion since that only causes more trouble and is completely illegal in the first place. Hell, they shouldn't allow those extremist Orthodox groups from inhabitating certain settlements and then going on night raids into nearby Palestinian towns. They run back, and then hey the Israeli army begrudgingly has to protect them. But that it only one small story.

How bout that infrastructure built by Israeli-use only? How does having Israeli owned (within occupied territory) and operated roads cutting through Palestinian territory really make feasible the reality of a Palestinian state coming into being? How does the annexation via settlements really make the peace process a smooth ordeal? Israel is, by and large, not truly interested in peace

You're ignoring what the Israeli government does and has been doing.

You still fail to address the necessity of the United States responsible role in brokering peace instead of indirectly and unfairly supporting the Israelis.

So you attacked some points that aren't truly crucial to why we think differently on the peace process, and then you label this as a job well done? Please.

Now go answer my questions from the earlier thread.

[BigBallinStalin]

The main thing I don't understand on your position is one where you say the Israelis have been completely open to peace. That's ridiculous. They largely haven't. And I've already addressed that earlier.

Well, that's wrong as the Israelis are now and have always been completely open to peace. Where exactly have you addressed this and what have you supported it with?[/quote]

You're wrong gabon. The Israelis haven't been completely open to peace. Explain settlements. Justify that for me.

[BigBallinStalin]

[1] Yes, I do know what I'm talking about. I'm a historian with a focus on Middle Eastern history.I've also shown in previous posts in this thread that there are a number of claims which you've made which are the exact opposite of what actually happened.

You're good at writing things with a demeaning tone which would intimidate most people, but I'm not most people. If you want to talk about a given thing, you need to specify, because as of now all of your statements are vague (though demeaning) and lack any kind of support. Much of what you've said is outright false, and the rest is angry and ill informed rhetoric.

[1]Oh a historian? Do you mean you're just like anybody else that reads history books? What have you written? And provide some links, so I can see how much of historian you really are.

As for the rest of your post, it's mere ad hominem attacks. You have yet to address anything that I've mentioned. Show me exactly what's false, so this can be more productive than you insulting me, Mr. Middle East Historian. And also, let's not forget that there are many sources, both credible and illegitimate, that support either side. It really doesn't matter what's fact or fiction because you can "reliably" believe whatever it is that you want and show others why you think that way. Right? That's exactly how something like this is going to turn out. Both sides have good and bad information, facts, and analysis. Therefore, you can convince yourself of whatever truth you wish to believe. But for fun and games, start taking at least something from my posts, and attack them.

By the way do you speak Arabic? Have you been anywhere in the Middle East? And if so, how long?


--Answer these.

[BigBallinStalin]

Oh I read it, there's just too much there to address in a reasonable amount of time..unless you want to pay me

How about you choose any one of those questions and I'll answer that one.. Choose any one you like and I'll answer it.

I'm not going to write a paragraph for each thing you asked all at once, and really you shouldn't be asking so much in a single post. The way a debate is generally supposed to work is one person makes a point, then another person responds with a point of their own. It's not supposed to be one person makes 20 "points" which may or may not be true and the other person has to spend hours addressing them by examining the merits of which ones are accurate and finding sources to show that those which are inaccurate are false (just so that those ones can be ignored).

So go ahead, make your point and I'll respond in time. I will so long as you can keep it logical and concise..

P.S. Nice job at dodging my post which points out the falseness of some of your claims for a second time while claiming that I ignore what you say

Answer the above.

Payment's not an option given your lack of credentials on the subject.

Also, this is different from a debate. We can write and proofread and have plenty of time to answer our questions. Quit crying and get at it.

You ignore many points, because you obviously can't answer them or disprove them well. For example, your previous reply to some of my points was pathetic. Honestly, if that's the best you've got, then you're only saying this crap above because you really can't properly defend your viewpoint.