IF tommorow the Palestinian people peacably protested in the street+did so for month

[CyberGnu]

Assuming that is correct, I simply wouldn't have had anything more to say to him, as arguing with someone who thinks that way is impossible (see numerous threads involving Cybergnu that deal with that subject).

Feeling uncomfortable because you can't justify your views?

[Panag]

Re: IF tommorow the Palestinian people peacably protested in the street+did so for month

Originally posted by Vesayen
What do you think would happen?

They'd get the state they want much faster then by killing scores of civilians....

Discuss

hi ,

nothing , why , simple , they dont want to demonstrate "peacefully" , ......

have a nice day

[CyberGnu]

?

[gsmoove23]

Originally posted by Azazel
The settlement blocks ARE in continuity with Israel. get your facts straight. I didn't say that all settlements were, but the blocks, where most of the Israeli population lives are. As to everything else, in a settlement they would be annexed, IF that's what to be agreed.

I'm sorry, what does blocks mean exactly? Not the settlements on the Jordan/West Bank border I guess or those long thin tendrils, of course you're right I guess, they are in continuity. What the hell does that mean? Continuity, does that make it better?

'fled'? do I feel irony in your post? do you claim that they were forcefully removed? Why then there is a non-jewish population in that region? Remind, you the article was written in the mid 90s, and the possible solutions to the crisis were considered. but I guess you don't care much for that.

AFAIK there are 30,000 Syrians or former Syrians in the Golan today. I don't really know if the Syrians fled or were forced to leave but in my estimation if an individual leaves his home during a war and then is not allowed back he is expelled. There is no excuse for not allowing someone to go back to their home. I read the whole damn article, what do you want from me. I'm just saying I found it a difficult read. I would give you articles to read except most of my knowledge comes from books and I can't seem to find anything that isn't so heavily skewed in the other direction that I wouldn't even wish it upon you.

The only reason Syria wants the golan is because "it's theirs". Like a big "up yours, Israel". Not as actually they care what is going on there, as much as their leadership doesn't care for the rest of their country. But heck, If I'd think there would be the possiblity of a stable peace with Syria, without any confrontation from Lebanon as well, I'd give it away. But guess what? That just ain't going to happen.

This is the best part of the article, though I failed to mention it. He says how valuable the Golan is to Israel, defense, agriculture, water and then he gives only that reason for Syria wanting it completely discounting the fact that they might want it for the same reasons! Why were 100,000 Syrians(a conservative estimate from Israeli sources) living on the Golan before the war? Could they have possibly thought it was valuable?!?!?

Edit - oh yeah, and it is theirs after all.

[gsmoove23]

Another gorilla attack from Panag

[GePap]

I have never seen ery good evidence that Israel ever planned, from the outset of 1967, give back Gaza or the west bank. The Sinai and Golan are somewhat different.

Israel did start building settlements in the west bank rater quickly, and Gaza was aways though of as seperate from the Sinai, which is why it was never givn abck to Egypt. As for the West bank, given Israel stance that there was no such thing as Palestians until the late 70's and early 80's, all plans to "give th land back" were plans were Jordan got some civil control of it. After all, The West bank is historic Judea. The coats were almost never in the hands of the Israelites, so if the notion is that the Jewish people are returning to the land, why give up those lands that were most closely associated with Israel of old?

As for the Golan, I don't think Israel is really in any hurry to give it back: they have a simple stalemate with Syria (Israel knows a war with Syria is not desireable but easily winnable) and the water situation is such that control of the Sea of Galilee is crucial.

[Panag]

Originally posted by CyberGnu
?

hi ,

yes anti-semite you forget that huh , people like you shall make sure that whatever peacefull demonstration there is , becomes filled with violence , .........

since you dont know a thing about the situation , the country or its people the only thing you can post is "?" , .......

have a nice , even to you anti-semite

[Panag]

Originally posted by GePap
I have never seen ery good evidence that Israel ever planned, from the outset of 1967, give back Gaza or the west bank. The Sinai and Golan are somewhat different.

Israel did start building settlements in the west bank rater quickly, and Gaza was aways though of as seperate from the Sinai, which is why it was never givn abck to Egypt. As for the West bank, given Israel stance that there was no such thing as Palestians until the late 70's and early 80's, all plans to "give th land back" were plans were Jordan got some civil control of it. After all, The West bank is historic Judea. The coats were almost never in the hands of the Israelites, so if the notion is that the Jewish people are returning to the land, why give up those lands that were most closely associated with Israel of old?

As for the Golan, I don't think Israel is really in any hurry to give it back: they have a simple stalemate with Syria (Israel knows a war with Syria is not desireable but easily winnable) and the water situation is such that control of the Sea of Galilee is crucial.

hi ,

ever heard the jordan or egypt talk about giving back the land they had under control , ..........

more BS with capital letters from people who know zip about the situation , .......

then again , you cant blaim them , its not there families who get blown up , .......

its not them who welcomed us with flowers when we liberated gaza , ........

have a nice day

[Ned]

Originally posted by gsmoove23

The only reason Syria wants the golan is because "it's theirs". Like a big "up yours, Israel". Not as actually they care what is going on there, as much as their leadership doesn't care for the rest of their country. But heck, If I'd think there would be the possiblity of a stable peace with Syria, without any confrontation from Lebanon as well, I'd give it away. But guess what? That just ain't going to happen.

This is the best part of the article, though I failed to mention it. He says how valuable the Golan is to Israel, defense, agriculture, water and then he gives only that reason for Syria wanting it completely discounting the fact that they might want it for the same reasons! Why were 100,000 Syrians(a conservative estimate from Israeli sources) living on the Golan before the war? Could they have possibly thought it was valuable?!?!?

Edit - oh yeah, and it is theirs after all.

GS, You are right, of course. The Golan has critical water sources that Israel needs to survive. When Syria began to divert the water for its own uses, Israel was forced into a war situation almost as critical as when Nasser blockaded the Straights of Tiran.

What the Israeli's faced with both Syrian water diversion and the closing of the Straights was almost as bad as what the Japanese faced when we, the Brits and the Dutch cut it off from access to oil. They had to capitulate or attack. Israel in '67 had the same choice, but their capitulation probably meant mass slaughter if its citizens.

So, knowing this, the only way Israel could give back the Golan today is if there was some guarantee on continued access to the Golan water resources. If Syria were willing to make the commitment, I think they may have a real possibility of getting it back.

[Az]

Israel did start building settlements in the west bank rater quickly,

I am not sure if that was governmental authority actually pushing in that direction. There were lots of private initiative in that sense, certainly. ( Seen that historically... well , what you said. )

and Gaza was aways though of as seperate from the Sinai, which is why it was never givn abck to Egypt.

Yes, well, it had all those palestinians egypt didn't want. I wouldn't even be surprised if Begin insisted on giving it to Egypt, but Saddat went all "uh-uh. No way we're taking them"..

As for the West bank, given Israel stance that there was no such thing as Palestians until the late 70's and early 80's, all plans to "give th land back" were plans were Jordan got some civil control of it. After all, The West bank is historic Judea. The coats were almost never in the hands of the Israelites, so if the notion is that the Jewish people are returning to the land, why give up those lands that were most closely associated with Israel of old?

Well, of course the only plans imaginable were to give it back to Jordan, after all, just leaving it as it is would be nuts. All that would happen is that the west bank would become a platform to attacks, any advantage gained against the arabs would be lost, and no peace on the eastern border would be ensured.

As for the Golan, I don't think Israel is really in any hurry to give it back: they have a simple stalemate with Syria (Israel knows a war with Syria is not desireable but easily winnable) and the water situation is such that control of the Sea of Galilee is crucial.

I agree fully with your analysis. IMO from a distanced pov the situation is rather interesting with Hizbollah losing all aledged moral ground on being a "resistance to occupation" group with the continuing attacks on Israeli soldiers along the border, even that Israel has retreated from all the territory, taunting Israel to counter-attack, though Israel has obligations to the US, to keep a lid on the conflicts here. On a personal view, this is dangerous. a total war, in the hands of the fanatics here.

[gsmoove23]

The water crisis was in the context of Israel planning water diversions in its own territory which would effect neighbouring countries. All diversions or allocations of water should be carried out with the agreement of all effected countries. Syria would have to make assurances that any allocations were done with certain guidelines in mind but their is no reason to assume that all the water should be Israel's and their is no reason to assume that Syria and Jordan don't also have a vital need for water.

[Az]

The water crisis was in the context of Israel planning water diversions in its own territory which would effect neighbouring countries. All diversions or allocations of water should be carried out with the agreement of all effected countries. Syria would have to make assurances that any allocations were done with certain guidelines in mind but their is no reason to assume that all the water should be Israel's and their is no reason to assume that Syria and Jordan don't also have a vital need for water.

you realize that Israel is DOWNSTREAM,right?

[HAND]

Sounds like Israel will have to talk to the Palestinian authorities at some point in the future.
I'm drawing a parellel with Northern Ireland here...The British Government started secretly talking to the IRA(Irish Republican Army- Terrorst group? To me? Yes) in 1992, enough though the IRA were still shooting and blowing up British civilians and soldiers for the next to two years until they agreed to a ceasefire as a result of those secret talks. It was shocking in '94 to hear that the British Government had been talking to the IRA for two years, but now 10 years after i'm glad they did.

There will always be those splitter groups who try and break the peace. The fire from which the fanatics come from, needs to be deprived of fuel. Give those fanatics less reasons to do what they do and over time there will be less and less fanatics.

[Az]

Sounds like Israel will have to talk to the Palestinian authorities at some point in the future.
I'm drawing a parellel with Northern Ireland here...The British Government started secretly talking to the IRA(Irish Republican Army- Terrorst group? To me? Yes) in 1992, enough though the IRA were still shooting and blowing up British civilians and soldiers for the next to two years until they agreed to a ceasefire as a result of those secret talks. It was shocking in '94 to hear that the British Government had been talking to the IRA for two years, but now 10 years after i'm glad they did.

There will always be those splitter groups who try and break the peace. The fire from which the fanatics come from, needs to be deprived of fuel. Give those fanatics less reasons to do what they do and over time there will be less and less fanatics.

The intensity of the conflict was much lower with the IRA. here, you had hundreds of dead (more than a thousand on the palestinian side) on both sides, with both sides sustaining massive civilian casualties. (although, ones are intentional and the others are not. However, it doesn't matter to the palestinians. )

[Arrian]

Originally posted by CyberGnu

Feeling uncomfortable because you can't justify your views?

I almost missed this little shot amongst the longer posts.

No, I am not at all uncomfortable, and I certainly can justify my view that there is such a thing as an innocent civilian. It's not difficult to do. Having argued with you about the concept several times, however, I have come to the conclusion that one either sees civilians are legit targets or they don't, and debating it is pointless.

-Arrian