News Stories

[yoropa]

Originally Posted by Agito Akiyama

I won't even bother responding to this BS.

If you keep ignoring a problem, the problem will persist.

[bladeofdarkness]

Originally Posted by yoropa

With that, if you don't mind, I'd like to propose my peace plan:

UN stops funding the entire region for a while.
The US takes over the entire region, and stops all insurgents from both sides.
The US enforces the borders and stays there to ensure they remain the same.

It's not a popular idea because it involves US intervention, but that's the only way peace would happen. Because none of us want these news stories to keep popping up.

how does that solve ANYTHING ?
putting aside the fact that stopping the UN aid means the palestinians starve within a week, and that the israeli's dont actually GET UN aid at all
how would having the US take over solve anything
they are in iraq right now ... did that solve anything ?

Originally Posted by yoropa

Keep putting words in people's mouths.

so you DO agree with israel's right to exist then ?
yes or no please

You weren't there either. XD

yep
but the soldiers we're, and they deemed it necessary

[Ledgem]

Originally Posted by yoropa

With that, if you don't mind, I'd like to propose my peace plan:

UN stops funding the entire region for a while.
The US takes over the entire region, and stops all insurgents from both sides.
The US enforces the borders and stays there to ensure they remain the same.

I don't really think it would work.

1. UN stops funding the region - what good would that do? It would just create a humanitarian crisis in Gaza, wouldn't it? I don't claim to know too much about what it's like over there, but the feeling I get is that it's something of a welfare state.

2. US takes over the region and stops insurgents on both sides - Hamas hates America just about as much as they hate Israel. If you want to give them a reason to escalate their conflict, putting America ("foreign invaders" "puppets of Israel") into the region is a great way to do it.

That aside, can the US really stop insurgents from both sides? We can barely control the Taliban in Afghanistan (which is arguably an international effort, even), and we struggled with Iraq for a good long while. I'd hesitate to say that we really achieved victory there, either.

3. US enforces the borders... we can barely enforce our own border Bad joke.

I understand that you mean to ensure that territorial lines are not altered. Having an international arbiter to verify this may do some good. The US is already working with Israel to cut their expansion. The trouble is, the Palestinians are not upset because the borders are encroached upon here and there, they're upset because they perceive all of Israel as rightfully being theirs. It is sadly unrealistic to expect that Israel could get up and move.

[yoropa]

Originally Posted by bladeofdarkness

how does that solve ANYTHING ?
putting aside the fact that stopping the UN aid means the palestinians starve within a week, and that the israeli's dont actually GET UN aid at all
how would having the US take over solve anything
they are in iraq right now ... did that solve anything ?

The US right now needs to recognize Palestine, alongside Israel, it's a powerful member of the Security Council.
Mere recognition isn't enough, though, it needs to take action to end the conflict.
Majority of Palestinians would be fine with this.
Abbas has said time and time again the US is necessary for the peace plan.

This can't happen without the US. It's a sad truth.

[yoropa]

Originally Posted by Ledgem

I understand that you mean to ensure that territorial lines are not altered. Having an international arbiter to verify this may do some good. The US is already working with Israel to cut their expansion. The trouble is, the Palestinians are not upset because the borders are encroached upon here and there, they're upset because they perceive all of Israel as rightfully being theirs. It is sadly unrealistic to expect that Israel could get up and move.

That's not true though. Abbas and Netanyahu these past weeks have been holding US-mediated peace talks about this very subject. They're willing to talk, but then these incidents keep popping up, and their people demand ends to these talks, and then they end, and then eventually they come back up, only to be crushed again.

The entire Arab League voted to support Abbas during these peace talks with Israel.

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by yoropa

If you keep ignoring a problem, the problem will persist.

I don't think he has a choice. He is probably struggling with his sense of nationalism and his humantarian views (primarily his conscience), but both sides want him to take theirs.

Originally Posted by Agito Akiyama

I won't even bother responding to this BS.
What IDF did was right, this ship was provocative and was warned before entering the territory and they can't let them in, which was the way they were heading.

Just a few clips about what happened:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z2duPV9MQIc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0LulDJh4fWI

HA. I knew those people at freegaza are hypocrites. They had every intention resist the boarding through violent means rather than just letting the soldiers search their ship and leave.

If they had no weapons to hide, or no violent intent, why would they attack the boarding party? And in one of the scenes, a soldier was shown using a PAINTBALL GUN instead of a live rifle.

Another thing is, these commandos are trained in Krav Maga, one of the most scientific, pragmatic and concise self-defence art in the world. Fighting against 5-6 mobsters shouldn't be a problem to him, but he risks injuring or even killing these people if he does. So he doesn't have the right to try and push/shove them away to prevent injuries to both sides?

True it may be propaganda on the IDF's part, but freegaza's "peace activism" is clearly a hypocritical organisation, and probably anti-semite, to make the Israelis look bad.

[yoropa]

Originally Posted by bladeofdarkness

so you DO agree with israel's right to exist then ?
yes or no please

See latest post of mine.

[Upscaled]

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

Please note that in their wars, they eat their enemies. Since when does the Civil War people do that?

The vast majority of native peoples did not practice cannibalism.

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

Rome's human sacrifice was abolished by Pliny. Most Western civilisation's practice of human sacrifice are abolished by their leaders.

During the age of exploration, the Natives are still practicing it and their leaders still encourage it. See the difference?

Sacrifices continued thoughout the old world for thousands of years. Yes, the Romans eventually grew to see human sacrifice with distaste, and eventually outlawed it. Civilizations change. Practices go in and out of fashion, in the old world and the new. As civilizations evolve, they sometimes even gain some wisdom. I was pointing out that, although western civilization eventually became more civilized, over time, they too practiced cruel, violent rituals for a long time. Given time, perhaps native Americans would have evolved in the same way.

But we'll never know, because they were given no opportunity to do so, since their way of life was decimated by a foreign invasion using superior technology. The comparative morality of the natives vs. the Europeans had nothing to do with who won, and frankly, I don't see much evidence of the Europeans at that time having substantially superior morals to the natives.

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

I think you are inferring too much into it. Back down.

No, I'm simply pointing out how justinstrife is not thinking things through. Ideas need to be extrapolated to see if they fit under various circumstances. If they begin to show inconsistencies and self-contradictions, then they need to be re-examined. I'm just suggesting that justinstrife needs to reassess his beliefs.

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

Are you arguing for the sake of arguing?

We all do that to a certain extent, to scratch an itch, if you will. I found his wholesale condemnation of native American (and Islamic) cultures to be distasteful, perhaps more in the manner in which it was written than in the content of the beliefs expressed. So I felt compelled to respond.

Let me repeat: Native American culture was defeated by European immigrants because of the latters' superior technology. As I wrote above, the relative moralities of the two sides had next to nothing to do with this. In the same way, Israel succeeds against its Arab neighbours due to Israel's superior military strength. Again, the relative moralities of the two sides have next to nothing to do with who is winning. Sure, Israelis have far more basic human rights than do the people in neighbouring Arab countries. But does this justify giving one set of rights for Jews and another set of rights for Arab Israelis, and a third set of rights for Palestinians? Does this justify the Israeli blockade of Gaza?

Personally, I'm an agnostic. I find most religions to be silly, but some religions are more harmful than others. I even hold the view that Islam is more harmful than the other major world religions. I actually agree with much of what justinstrife seems to believe. Like him, I disagree that native Americans had some great spiritual bond with the land that was intrinsically superior to that of the European immigrants. The only reason why the native Americans did not destroy natural habitat in the way that the later Europeans did, was because they lacked the numbers and the technology. They would have done something similar if they could have. They are just as prone to avarice as the Europeans were, i.e. they were just as human, with human failings.

Where I disagree with justinstrife is in his description of either native Americans or Mid-East Islamic cultures as being something subhuman. He used the term "monkeys." That's just wrong. They're human, just like you and me. Humans can act foolishly at times, both individually and in groups. In many ways, Europeans in the past and Jews in ancient Israel acted just as badly, but they eventually changed. The sad thing is that the Jews of present-day Israel seems to be reverting somewhat to the bad, old, tribal ways.

[bladeofdarkness]

Originally Posted by yoropa

The US right now needs to recognize Palestine, alongside Israel, it's a powerful member of the Security Council.
Mere recognition isn't enough, though, it needs to take action to end the conflict.
Majority of Palestinians would be fine with this.
Abbas has said time and time again the US is necessary for the peace plan.

This can't happen without the US. It's a sad truth.

not in a MILITARY capacity
the US is needed to aid as a mediator and to help with funds
but its not meant to take over the area

and recognizing "palestine" is pointless, because there IS no palestine at this point
who leads it exactly ?
what is its territory ?
what happens with the jews living in the west bank ?
what happens with the palestinians living in israel ?
unless these, and other, issues are solved, you can't HAVE a palestinian state, because it wouldn't be a state

[yoropa]

Originally Posted by bladeofdarkness

and recognizing "palestine" is pointless, because there IS no palestine at this point
who leads it exactly ?
what is its territory ?
what happens with the jews living in the west bank ?
what happens with the palestinians living in israel ?
unless these, and other, issues are solved, you can't HAVE a palestinian state, because it wouldn't be a state

Abbas, not Hamas
West Bank, Gaza, East Jerusalem
They choose to continue living there, or they peacefully move to the Israeli areas
They choose to continue living there, or they peacefully move to the Palestinian areas

[Ledgem]

Originally Posted by yoropa

That's not true though. Abbas and Netanyahu these past weeks have been holding US-mediated peace talks about this very subject. They're willing to talk, but then these incidents keep popping up, and their people demand ends to these talks, and then they end, and then eventually they come back up, only to be crushed again.

The entire Arab League voted to support Abbas during these peace talks with Israel.

Abbas is a relative moderate. Correct me if I'm wrong, but part of the reason he's even in power was due to support from Israel and/or the US. Isn't there still a nasty divide between Hamas and Abbas' coalition, or have they combined again? Either way, Hamas certainly would not like that sort of arrangement.

[Zu Ra]

Church plans to picket rocker Dio's memorial service

[Hage-bai]

Originally Posted by yoropa

With that, if you don't mind, I'd like to propose my peace plan:

UN stops funding the entire region for a while.
The US takes over the entire region, and stops all insurgents from both sides.
The US enforces the borders and stays there to ensure they remain the same.

It's not a popular idea because it involves US intervention, but that's the only way peace would happen. Because none of us want these news stories to keep popping up.

Shit, the federal US government doesn't want to even enforce our own borders. What makes you think they would do a good job in Israel? Lets leave it to the real men over there and not the bend over and take it in the ass types running Washington or Europe.

Besides, it would just be another thing for the islamists to squeal about. So maybe it is a good idea.

[Agito Akiyama]

Originally Posted by yoropa

The US right now needs to recognize Palestine, alongside Israel, it's a powerful member of the Security Council.
Mere recognition isn't enough, though, it needs to take action to end the conflict.
Majority of Palestinians would be fine with this.
Abbas has said time and time again the US is necessary for the peace plan.

This can't happen without the US. It's a sad truth.

Read what I wrote over and over again until you bleed from your eyes, please.
BTW, funny fact, all the people that call to boycott Israel are failing hard, a lot of today's technology was invented here.

[bladeofdarkness]

Originally Posted by yoropa

Abbas, not Hamas

i can think of quite a few people who object to that idea
namely Hamas

West Bank, Gaza, East Jerusalem

which parts of east jerusalem, what about the holy sites, who controls them, etc

They choose to continue living there, or they peacefully move to the Israeli areas

not according to the palestinians they don't (the "settelments are the number one complaint)

They choose to continue living there, or they peacefully move to the Palestinian areas

i don't
but i can think of quite a few people in israel who would object to that
praticularly if the palestinians object to the third paragrath (which they do)

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by Agito Akiyama

Read what I wrote over and over again until you bleed from your eyes, please.
BTW, funny fact, all the people that call to boycott Israel are failing hard, a lot of today's technology was invented here.

Palestine wants to take back the entire of Israel, true to the fact of that, but they can still live on the Gaza and call it their own land of Palestine. It is a matter of choice.

Cmon, my country is a whole lot smaller than that place and had 3 times the population of 1.5 million. It is just that these people have sucky leaders and bad influence.

[yoropa]

Originally Posted by bladeofdarkness

i can think of quite a few people who object to that idea
namely Hamas

People voted for Hamas because they got tired of no progress in peace. A major progress, led by Abbas, would sway the people away from Hamas.

Originally Posted by bladeofdarkness

which parts of east jerusalem, what about the holy sites, who controls them, etc

This has been defined multiple times by the Arab League and Abbas.

Originally Posted by bladeofdarkness

not according to the palestinians they don't (the "settelments are the number one complaint)

The settlements are an external force entering Palestine to annex the land. Those would need to end. I'm talking about the Jews in the non-settlement areas of Palestine, and they do exist.

Originally Posted by bladeofdarkness

i don't
but i can think of quite a few people in israel who would object to that
praticularly if the palestinians object to the third paragrath (which they do)

As you know there are a lot of Arabs still in Israel. Some have said they'd like to stay in Israel. Others have said they'd want to be in a Palestine.

At the end of the day, a lot of people will need to move, but you can do this peacefully and if there's the US to help support these people in this transition, you can solve problems. Not everybody is going to be happy, it's impossible, but peace is possible.

[bladeofdarkness]

Originally Posted by yoropa

People voted for Hamas because they got tired of no progress in peace. A major progress, led by Abbas, would sway the people away from Hamas.

and Hamas would just give up their control of Gaza because ... ?

This has been defined multiple times by the Arab League and Abbas.

it was also define multiple times by israel
the problem is that the definitions don't match
so who's definition do we go by, and why ?

The settlements are an external force entering Palestine to annex the land. Those would need to end. I'm talking about the Jews in the non-settlement areas of Palestine, and they do exist.

i'm talking about the jews living in the settlements
if the area containing the settlemets becomes part of the new palestinan state, would the people who live there at present be allowed to stay if they so choose ?
i'd warn you that you'll raise hell by claiming that jews have to leave palestine but arabs are allowed to stay in israel

As you know there are a lot of Arabs still in Israel. Some have said they'd like to stay in Israel. Others have said they'd want to be in a Palestine.

At the end of the day, a lot of people will need to move, but you can do this peacefully and if there's the US to help support these people in this transition, you can solve problems. Not everybody is going to be happy, it's impossible, but peace is possible.

thats the problem
SOMEONE would have to be unhappy, and no one would be willing to it being him

[Ledgem]

Originally Posted by yoropa

People voted for Hamas because they got tired of no progress in peace. A major progress, led by Abbas, would sway the people away from Hamas.

I thought that Hamas didn't really win too much in terms of elections, and then decided to take control by force. That resulted in Gaza being divided roughly into two divisions. Hamas represents extremist desires and views.

[bladeofdarkness]

Originally Posted by Ledgem

I thought that Hamas didn't really win too much in terms of elections, and then decided to take control by force. That resulted in Gaza being divided roughly into two divisions. Hamas represents extremist desires and views.

no
Gaza is under Hamas control completely (or as complete as it can be)
the PA is in control of the OTHER palestinian territory, the west bank