BF2S Forums Israel and Palestine

Kmar wrote:

No not just with wmd's. Try not to be so short sighted. Do you think yourself so informed that you know all of our nations security secrets?

You're making the case that Israel is America's most useful ally in the region and provides the US with useful intel.
You need to make that case.

It is unlikely that the US would pull out of israeli affairs but remain active in the region. It simply not possible.

Why not?

Peace between Israel and the other states is in the US's best economic intrest. That three billion dollars isn't shit compared to what would happen to the worlds economies if another war broke out in the ME. If you shift the current balance of power that is excactly what is going to happen. Israel is not going to just sit back while a consorted effort to attack mounts against them.

Who says Israel is going to face a concerted attack? The major players in the region have said they would make peace with an Israel based on the 1967 borders.

They have pressed the issue with a vocal denoucement. Isn't that the primary grievance with the US veto? As I said before, the US does not want the UN to apply pressure to any one side since the goal is to bring each party to the table.

Wow, a vocal denouncement with nothing whatsoever behind it - and Europeans are accused of being appeasers.

In this situation Israel is the aggressor - building towns in someone elses country and 'protecting' them with military force.
How could it be appropriate to apply pressure to the Palestinians exactly?

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2011-02-20 04:07:17)

lowing wrote:

mikkel wrote:

lowing wrote:

no I am arguing that the settlements do not matter and peace is not contingent on their status. The destruction of Israel is what the Islamic nations want, and will settle for nothing less. The fact that peace did not progress forward after the return of the West Bank and Gaza, kinda sorta proves that.

Of course the settlements matter. Even if you're correct in your cynicism, then halting the construction of settlements would both eliminate one of the ways in which Israel is at odds with international law, and hold the Palestinians to their word. I can't see how you can hold the opinions you express in your post, and simultaneously consider the settlements irrelevant to the peace process.

I can hold my opinion easily when history is on my side. Israel has met demands before to leave the west bank, gaza, it has given back the Sinai Peninsula and still nothing changes for Israel, they are still met with, not compromise in good faith, but banter of defeats, and the continuation of rocket attacks, from the very places they just left. Why do you refuse to acknowledge that the Islamic nations are not interested in peace WITH Israel.?

Where am I refusing to acknowledge anything? Where in my post did I say that Islamic nations are interested in peace?

lowing wrote:

I can hold my opinion in the same way you can hold your opinion that the Islamic nations will make peace with Israel if they would JUST stop building settlements.

What? You can hold your opinion in the same way that I can hold an opinion that I don't hold, and haven't expressed belief in? I outline a number of reasons for why the settlements are relevant to the peace process, and you ignore them completely and reply with this?

You know what? Let's just leave it here. Every time I engage in anything with you, I write dozens of posts like these that do nothing but point out your absurd and willful misinterpretations, your reluctance to answer questions that aren't easy for you to answer, your refusals to acknowledge gaps in your reasoning, and the littering of opinions that I don't hold, but you attribute to me anyway.

I need to stop giving this sub-forum more chances. This is ridiculous.

lowing wrote:

Israel has met demands before to leave the west bank, gaza, it has given back the Sinai Peninsula and still nothing changes for Israel, they are still met with, not compromise in good faith, but banter of defeats, and the continuation of rocket attacks, from the very places they just left.

No they haven't.

Israel, since being a state, has never left the West Bank. You sir, are chatting shit.

Hundreds of settlements, interconnecting roads, 'security buffers' and land simply swallowed up by the security wall - none of which the Palestinians are allowed to enter, not 'only several settlements'.

Then answer the question everyone else is avoiding. If Israel went back to say 1967 borders, do you honestly believe that will be the end of it and Israel will be left alone to exist in peace?

lowing wrote:

Then answer the question everyone else is avoiding. If Israel went back to say 1967 borders, do you honestly believe that will be the end of it and Israel will be left alone to exist in peace?

Compared to the alternative of wiping out Palestine?

AussieReaper wrote:

lowing wrote:

Then answer the question everyone else is avoiding. If Israel went back to say 1967 borders, do you honestly believe that will be the end of it and Israel will be left alone to exist in peace?

Compared to the alternative of wiping out Palestine?

answer the question then I will address your response

lowing wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

You keeps asking that, the answer is still yes.

and what do you have in history that leads you to believe that?

and what do you have in history that leads you to believe that Israel will eventually overcome the ever-building hostility of its neighbors with the US being its only ally?

oug wrote:

lowing wrote:

Then answer the question everyone else is avoiding. If Israel went back to say 1967 borders, do you honestly believe that will be the end of it and Israel will be left alone to exist in peace?

I'm sure it would be enough to calm everyone down, yes. Maybe not everyone straight away, but sure enough things would smooth over in time.

and yet the Arab and Islamic nations massed in force to attack Israel on the very borders you claim will "calm everyone down" now. How is it you believe that?

AussieReaper wrote:

lowing wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

Compared to the alternative of wiping out Palestine?

answer the question then I will address your response

Yes. If Israel went back to 1967 borders they would have a greater chance at peace.

Now, compare that to the current ethnic cleansing and systematic wiping out of Palestine.

Not sure that is what is going on, If Israel wanted to wipe out all the Palestinians, they would have done it by now. It only took them 6 days to have the Islamic nations begging for mercy to the UN. I think in comparison the Palestinians would be easy.

Same question to you. The Arab and Islamic nations massed in force along the very borders you claim will bring peace, how do you figure?

lowing wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

lowing wrote:

answer the question then I will address your response

Yes. If Israel went back to 1967 borders they would have a greater chance at peace.

Now, compare that to the current ethnic cleansing and systematic wiping out of Palestine.

Not sure that is what is going on,

Look at a map.

lowing wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

lowing wrote:

Not sure that is what is going on,

Look at a map.

Again stop cherry picking and address my entire post, then I will address your response.

All you did was say how easy it would be for Israel to wipe out Palestine, as if we're to be impressed.

Palestine has no army. It's a civilian population. Do you know anything?

lowing wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

lowing wrote:

Again stop cherry picking and address my entire post, then I will address your response.

All you did was say how easy it would be for Israel to wipe out Palestine, as if we're to be impressed.

Palestine has no army. It's a civilian population. Do you know anything?

yet you claim genocide...My point. If Israel wanted to truly commit genocide, it would have been long over with by now, based on how efficiently they dispatched multiple nations military forces at the same time. Now answer the question. how can 1967 borders be the magic solution to peace in the ME when these same borders were massed upon in force to destroy Israel?

Because the alternative, which you seem to be ignoring, is what is happening right now. Palestine is devided and the borders are shrinking.

It doesn't take a genius to work out what the current "progress" of settlement building is leading to. Unless you think having the Palestinians occupy concentration camps is going to bring about peace and stability.

As I said, look at a map. There won't be a Palestine if another decade of this occupation continues.

You're arguing it isn't genocide because of the time scale - as if that makes a difference.