Jordan did some nasty things. What is Jordan doing now? What is Israel doing now? Not really comparable.
I'm not talking about what Jordan is doing right now. I'm talking about what the Palestinians are not doing right now. Why is Israel's sole resposibility to give back lands? Why not Jordan also? Why aren't the Palestinians crying out against the Jordanians?
After how many hundreds of years? Part of the problem is that those striving to make the Israelis and Palestinians play nice don't realize it make take a couple hundred years. Time enough for both sides to forget what they are fighting about, or at least have the signigicance of the cause to die a little.
Well, the "troubles" in Northern Ireland date back probably to the early sixties, although it wasnt until the late nineties that peace was given a real chance under Tony Blair. Funny enough, this followed a really disasterous period under the Tories. Change when it comes can be really quick. Just look at South Africa. The important thing is that those who purport to support it do not take sides like Bush is doing with Sharon - but rather work tirelessly towards a peace. The big problem with have in the middle east lately is that it is all posturing a point scoring, with the Americans as reluctant participants. Bush is no Clinton - he would rather start a war than end one.
But how long has it been that England and the Irish been taking tit for tat. Northern Ireland wasn't always Northern Ireland. Weren't there Picque (sp?) invasions of Britain a few hundred years ago.
I'm not talking about what Jordan is doing right now. I'm talking about what the Palestinians are not doing right now. Why is Israel's sole resposibility to give back lands? Why not Jordan also? Why aren't the Palestinians crying out against the Jordanians?
No problem, figured you were typing while I was posting the second. My fault for not pulling all the links together at once. I did know the first link was propaganda, but felt that the facts were true enough with what I'd read in the past.
Boy, for all the talk about Fox leaning to the right, and CNN leaning to the left, a lot of these links are far more outrageous than either of those. I don't know why people would get excited over those networks when we have really silly stuff being passed around like this.
From that link: I would wonder if documents like the Quran and of course the Torah really qualify as justification for Israel's legitimacy any more or less than British mandates. Mandates which, it seems to me, are ambiguous at best, but that's another story. Muddled political decisions from 90 years ago vs. religious testaments from at least 1400 years ago -- which carries more clout? I really don't know if history has any answers for the region either way. It's always been sort of effed up around there, but that doesn't mean that's the way things should be.
OK. All of the evidence you've given is for prior to the creation of the U.N. That's the crucial difference.
We could go back to the beginning of time, but this is a problem that's being mediated by the U.N. We have to start with what's happening since then. If we want to go back in time we could arbitrarily pick a time period when Israel didn't exist and just say Israel doesn't have any right to exist.
Instead, we look at the time period from (I think) 1948 until present day.
The past is to what the Palestinians are looking to for their arguments. What UN moderation does has no bearing on the feelings of the Palestinian people. They want Palestine, to Hell with Israelis. (Not all of them but the ones running the PA, and mucking it up.)
The past is to what the Palestinians are looking to for their arguments. What UN moderation does has no bearing on the feelings of the Palestinian people. They want Palestine, to Hell with Israelis. (Not all of them but the ones running the PA, and mucking it up.)
See, this is just not right. The same could be said of Israel. Sharon wants to push the Palestinians under the sands of the desert. Sharon isn't Israel.
I thought the point was that Palestinians want an autonomous Palestine. Also I did make it a point to say that it was the head of the PA mucking it up. Most Palestinians trying to raise their family probably wouldn't mind a joint state where their children went to school with Jewish and Christian children. Personally, I welcome the day Arafat passes peacefully in his sleep, that way perhaps the Palestinians can get a true leader and the fanatics can't make a martyr out of Arafat. As for Israel, hopefully by that point the leadership is willing to work with the Palestinians. But I also can sympathize with some of the hardline tactics being that the Arab world is definitely gunning to oust Israel altogether.
(edit)
PS. We do need to look further back than we have been, that is where the roots of the conflict lay.
PPS. We also need to look at the culpability of the rest of the Arab world along with Israel and Palestine. Jordan needs to give a little too.
You obviously don't understand. I'm not saying Israel should dismantle all settlements. I'm saying they shouldn't add new ones. That's what they're doing. You can't seem to admit that.
I never denied it. You can't admit they started to remove atleast some settlements. Prior to that step, there were existing settlements and new ones going up. Then Israel, in accordance with the roadmap began removing some of the settlements. So, the situation was, even thouh new settlements were sill going up, as before, a step had been taken, that being the removal of some settlements.
I never denied it. You can't admit they started to remove atleast some settlements. Prior to that step, there were existing settlements and new ones going up. Then Israel, in accordance with the roadmap began removing some of the settlements. So, the situation was, even thouh new settlements were sill going up, as before, a step had been taken, that being the removal of some settlements.
Comments
originally posted by bunge
Jordan did some nasty things. What is Jordan doing now? What is Israel doing now? Not really comparable.
I'm not talking about what Jordan is doing right now. I'm talking about what the Palestinians are not doing right now. Why is Israel's sole resposibility to give back lands? Why not Jordan also? Why aren't the Palestinians crying out against the Jordanians?
Originally posted by LiquidR
After how many hundreds of years? Part of the problem is that those striving to make the Israelis and Palestinians play nice don't realize it make take a couple hundred years. Time enough for both sides to forget what they are fighting about, or at least have the signigicance of the cause to die a little.
Well, the "troubles" in Northern Ireland date back probably to the early sixties, although it wasnt until the late nineties that peace was given a real chance under Tony Blair. Funny enough, this followed a really disasterous period under the Tories. Change when it comes can be really quick. Just look at South Africa. The important thing is that those who purport to support it do not take sides like Bush is doing with Sharon - but rather work tirelessly towards a peace. The big problem with have in the middle east lately is that it is all posturing a point scoring, with the Americans as reluctant participants. Bush is no Clinton - he would rather start a war than end one.
Originally posted by LiquidR
I'm not talking about what Jordan is doing right now. I'm talking about what the Palestinians are not doing right now. Why is Israel's sole resposibility to give back lands? Why not Jordan also? Why aren't the Palestinians crying out against the Jordanians?
Give us a breakdown of what's happened and when.
Originally posted by LiquidR
Jordan was a part of the Palestine Mandate. The point of Jordan's illegitimacy was one the PLO held on to until recently. Link
How about a link that's not blatant propaganda? How about a historical review rather than an editorial?
Originally posted by LiquidR
Check out the map in the 2nd post.
Sorry 'bout that. Will get back to you.
From that link: I would wonder if documents like the Quran and of course the Torah really qualify as justification for Israel's legitimacy any more or less than British mandates. Mandates which, it seems to me, are ambiguous at best, but that's another story. Muddled political decisions from 90 years ago vs. religious testaments from at least 1400 years ago -- which carries more clout? I really don't know if history has any answers for the region either way. It's always been sort of effed up around there, but that doesn't mean that's the way things should be.
We could go back to the beginning of time, but this is a problem that's being mediated by the U.N. We have to start with what's happening since then. If we want to go back in time we could arbitrarily pick a time period when Israel didn't exist and just say Israel doesn't have any right to exist.
Instead, we look at the time period from (I think) 1948 until present day.
Originally posted by LiquidR
The past is to what the Palestinians are looking to for their arguments. What UN moderation does has no bearing on the feelings of the Palestinian people. They want Palestine, to Hell with Israelis. (Not all of them but the ones running the PA, and mucking it up.)
See, this is just not right. The same could be said of Israel. Sharon wants to push the Palestinians under the sands of the desert. Sharon isn't Israel.
The Palestinians don't want what you say.
(edit)
PS. We do need to look further back than we have been, that is where the roots of the conflict lay.
PPS. We also need to look at the culpability of the rest of the Arab world along with Israel and Palestine. Jordan needs to give a little too.
Originally posted by bunge
You obviously don't understand. I'm not saying Israel should dismantle all settlements. I'm saying they shouldn't add new ones. That's what they're doing. You can't seem to admit that.
I never denied it. You can't admit they started to remove atleast some settlements. Prior to that step, there were existing settlements and new ones going up. Then Israel, in accordance with the roadmap began removing some of the settlements. So, the situation was, even thouh new settlements were sill going up, as before, a step had been taken, that being the removal of some settlements.
You are the only one denying anything.
Originally posted by Anders
Tulkas: How far do you come if you take one step forwards and two backwards?
Furthen than the guy who only takes backward steps.
Originally posted by Tulkas
I never denied it. You can't admit they started to remove atleast some settlements. Prior to that step, there were existing settlements and new ones going up. Then Israel, in accordance with the roadmap began removing some of the settlements. So, the situation was, even thouh new settlements were sill going up, as before, a step had been taken, that being the removal of some settlements.
You are the only one denying anything.
Your argument is embarrassing.