Discussion in 'World Events' started by BenTheMan, Feb 19, 2009.
No, no, only some of you. I tend to find it's the extremists that drive politics.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
That is certainly not an objective statement.
How about this? Is this objective enough?
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
For conflict pauses of different durations (i.e., periods of time when no one is killed on either side), we show here the percentage of times from the Second Intifada in which Israelis ended the period of nonviolence by killing one or more Palestinians (black), the percentage of times that Palestinians ended the period of nonviolence by killing Israelis (grey), and the percentage of times that both sides killed on the same day (white). Virtually all periods of nonviolence lasting more than a week were ended when the Israelis killed Palestinians first. We include here the data from all pause durations that actually occurred.
Actions beat words, every time.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Unfortunately it is, and it`s the truth. Please refute.
Frankly, no. Palestinian violence is so commonplace and continuous that few media sources even bother to notice it.
As far as who is to blame for peace talks failing, each side blames the other. It's a matter of opinion.
Why should I accept this as factual? and not some piece of propaganda?
Can you vet the numbers, and show the veracity of reporting?
We have already seen that at least half of the reported civilian deaths were Hamas fighters, and another significant percentage were Palestinians executed by Hamas for supposed collaboration with Israel.
Typical Muslim, can't whip a Jew, so take out you brused man hood on any defenseless person in your reach, like those from Fatah.
Even if the facts are posted in black and white, clear as day, you will deny the reality. Its called .... THE TWILIGHT ZONE... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I am sure with some help from a Dictionary you can understand this publication? Its not THAT hard.
Radical fanaticist Israeli Jew: "I don't have to believe anything you say, because being Jewish means I and my kind will rule the world."
Ordinary Jew: "You don't believe anything anyway, except that Jews will rule the world. This is not something Judaism expects you to do. This is something you expect Judaism to do for you."
Non-Jew: "these radical fanatics will probably end up looking like the clowns they are one day. Or it's already arrived, they're all imagining they're in a circus, and the elephant didn't leave a big pile of shit everywhere, and they aren't standing in it."
The figures of people killed are from Btselem and the study was done by Tel Aviv University, with the lead PI, one of the board members of Btselem and a professor in Tel Aviv University, Anat Biletski.
Its a very simple measure of intent. Who breaks the truces, especially long ones? Who kills the other side to continue the violence?
Who makes truces while continuing terrorism related activities, such as importing weapons?
People with some experience dealing with Israel.
You know Israel will fail its end of any treaty or agreement that make demands on its own behavior, so best be prepared.
That's a load of BS that is only meant to justify war against Israel forever.
Until Israel steps up to the plate in a SINCERE effort at dialogue for peace, there will be war.
With who? How do you know they weren't sincere? From what I have read, Palestinians themselves held unreasonable demands, such as the right of return.
Sincere? Have you looked at the graph above? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
How can a demand to return to your place of birth, from which you were forcibly, and illegally removed less than 60 years ago, by foreigners, be an unreasonable demand?
Especially when the foreigners justify their OWN right of return on a (alleged) forced removal 2000 years ago. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Can you not see the irony in this?
It is a left wing liberal rag.
Arianna Huffington is the quintessential blond.
Your entire argument rests on the fact that there were more Arabs than Jews in the land that would become Israel. It ignores the mutual violence that occurred in what amounted to a civil war. It certainly ignores all the warfare that followed. In a perfect world it would be nice to be able to live where you were born, but it's not an unalienable right and it certainly doesn't rise above the basic human right to life. I think you could make a case for Israel not being sincere (although I do not agree), but that is a subjective judgement.
There is nothing mutual about occupation
This is where the inevitable breaking point arrives.
For those with no real stake in Israel - or more usually with a bias against it - this "answer" seems perfectly justifiable. What could be simpler? The return of all those who left, or were ejected (for there were certainly both) by "foreigners". Yet, of course, it is completely absurd, ignoring the fact that well prior to the point of Partition, there was no end of poor relations between the Arabs and the Jewish minority. This "modest proposal" blithely ignores the fact that such return would kick off the latest round of Arab-Israeli war. So: no. One-state is not a viable solution, and it's clear that everyone really knows this, quietly, quietly. The present relationship might or might not be unfair, but two-state is the only solution.
Separate names with a comma.