OK. Suppose Israel Strikes iranian Nuclear Facilities...

He's a "Mentalist"... I am surprised you two are not peas and carrots.

 

I'm surprised you shill for Saudi Arabia and Al-Qaeda

 

I have old ties to Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Libya..

I also have the utmost regard for 70 years of Al Saud leadership.

So I rarely fall victim to the talking heads like Baer, Spenser, Unger or Emerson.. Its very easy for me to get the facts.

 

Zionism was a movement in the 19th centuary that aimed to create a jewish state, it didnt speak of borders because it was uncertain what country the jews could get, it not a political ideology - if you think it is please supply a link to this ideology so we can read what it says,

There are political groups that say they protect or continue the zionist enterprise (the state) with their "I belive" - but since there are Left wing Zionist and Right wing Zionost that stand for two opposite things - dont you agree that its not "zionism" but the ppl?, Zionism doesnt mean setteling in the west bank or taking over Sinai or whatever, some think they are being Zionist by doing so but one can say just the opposite for the sake of the Zionist enterprise,

By condeming "Zionism" in general you play to hands of the anti Israel lobby because they have an interst to mix the creation of the state as an occupation by itself with the west bank occupation, anyone that follows that line discredit my country and I for one will not want to make peace under these circumstances, I wonder if you can understand my point here.

Never heard him saying such a thing, if you can prove it I will agree with you he is being an idiot for demanding the Palestinians that, but do you agree that the Pakestinians needs to accest Israel right to exist on their land to avoid any more conflicts?

Well the Golan has nothing to do with the Palestinians, they should get the land back in general, there should an arrangement around Jerusalem, but I agree with most of the above,

When where did Hamas say that?

Untill we have peace we have conflict so ofc Israel will not withdraw before that, to say Israel avoids peace because it does not withdraw is very one sided, where is the commitment of the other side? what about all the open issues we dont agree on? just withdraw and god's willing all will be fine? we didnt sacrefice so much in lives for that, how about Hamas and Hiz disarm themselves and break ties with Iran first then we withdarw? think that will pass?

It must be resolved or the peace will not really be peace,

You see the victor as responsible, I say the victor was lucky and should not be blamed for winning, the aggressor is to blame, the late Jordan king and the Mufti, still Israel gain some land and can comensate some for it, ill go along as long as Jordan recognize its own side of it.

 

The pathway to peace is clear and has been since 1967 when UNSC 242 was unanimously adopted. It is clear that the following must be accepted and adopted by Israel and the Palestinians.

Israel and the Palestinians must agree to this and no other conditions can be imposed. Israel, for example, cannot demand that the Palestinians be disarmed (demilitarized) as every nation has both the right and the responsibility to defend the citizens and residents under the authority of the government from foreign attacks and invasions. Israel cannot deny the Palestinians the Right of Self-Defense.

This proposition must be the only thing on the table for discussion for agreement. If both the Palestinians and the Israelis agree to this then the second condition of UNSC 242 which addresses Israel specifically is mandatory.

Israel cannot impose any conditions on this and must withdraw from all of the territories occupied which include the West Bank, Golan Heights and E Jerusalem. It has allowed illegal immigration to these territories and Israel needs to address that problem, not the Palestinians. My opinion, based upon the Rights of the Individual, would be that those that have immigrated to the Golan Heights, West Bank, and E Jerusalem should be given the option of staying under a Palestinian government or relocate back to Israel if they want to be under the authority of the Israeli government. If Israeli Jews illegally living in the occupied territories decide to leave then they should be allowed to sell their property, if legally acquired by purchase from the prior owners, on the open market and should not be expected to give up their property without compensation. If the land was acquired from the Israeli government which took control by fiat then the Israeli government should compensate them for their loss. They still have a Right of Property which must be respected as the Rights of the Individual supersede the authority of the government.

Yes, there are two outstanding issues that are not resolved and that is the violations of the Right of Citizenship of non-Jews that fled as refugees in 1948 and the Right of Property for those who had their property confiscated from them by the Israeli government without compensation. This issue also relates to their decendents and it needs to be resolved. Those are civil matters and there should be a means for any individual to address any violation of their inalienable Rights in an unbiased court of law. If Israelis believe in law and justice they should welcome the opportunity to show that by addressing this issue by reaching a supplemental agreement with the Palestinians on these two issues. I'm sure that other nations would be willing to establish an international court to address these issues to the satisfaction of both the Israelis and Palestinians.

Israel, as an existing nation, needs to agree to the conditions of UNSC 242 though and it refuses to do that. It seeks to impose additional requirements such as denial of the Right of Self Defense to a Palestinian state and the acquisition of territory that it is occupying in violation of the provisions of UNSC 242. Peace must be based upon diplomacy and not force of arms and UNSC Resolution 242 contains the elements of peace through diplomacy and has always contained those provisions.

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/un/un242.htm

 

A quick question, why do you say Golan should "return" to the Palestinians?

 

I thought the Golan belonged to Syria.. I know the Israelis destroyed dozens of Druze villages in 1967.

 

Which villages are those? I worked there for a 1.5 years and had some good friends in Massade, life quality is very good, I would live there.

 

How do you think the Russians might react to plumes of radioactive fallout floating over their cities? What about your allies, the Turks? A nuclear attack would be beyond idiotic.

 

I am sure there are other sources re: the villages..

http://www.jawlan.org/english/openions/read_article.asp?catigory=19&source=5&link=14

 

UNSC Resolution 242 expressly prohibits the acquisition of territory by war. Technically the Golan Heights belong the the residents of the Golan Heights and their decendents from 1967 which was under Syrian control. Syria, if memory serves me correctly, has forfeit authority over these individuals so they would logically either be included in a new Palestinian state or allowed to establish their own independent country or choose to be a part of Israel. Pragmatically it makes more sense for them to be a part of a Palestinian state but I would concede that it would be logical to allow the legal residents to vote on their future. This would exclude any Israelis that are illegally residing in the Golan Heights today as illegal immigrants should not be allowed to vote. Let those that were adversely affected by the 1967 invasion by Israel, and/or their decendents, decide their political future. They could vote for an independent country, to be a part of a Palestinian State, or to be a part of Israel but the illegal Israeli immigrants should not be allowed to vote in making this decision because they are there in violation of international law.

 

http://www.zionism-israel.com/dic/Political_Zionism.htm

 

The ones marching the Jews into the gas chambers were Jews look up Sondercommando. Jews were pulling the gold teeth out other Jews skulls and removing their hair and wealth lets not forget that

 

Palestine isnt a "state" in my view, and wasnt a state in 1967 in anyones view. You simply want to be given to the Palestinians, what Jordan was able to capture by force of arms, even though the Israelis have taken it back by force of arms

 

It says most were evacuated by the Syrian military, the rest fled after Israel won, still 5 Muslim villages remained and many other Druze villages, I dont follow the "Israeli program to expel those who remained", fact is many remained, seems to me those that weren't afraid remained and those that were fled,

deserted villages turned to farm lands...., we should have left it as "sacred ground" in honor of Syria?, if Syria got the upper hand they would turn the whole land into a parking lot.

 

It says most were evacuated by the Syrian military, the rest fled after Israel won, still 5 Muslim villages remained and many other Druze villages, I dont follow the "Israeli program to expel those who remained", fact is many remained, seems to me those that weren't afraid remained and those that were fled,

deserted villages turned to farm lands...., we should have left it as "sacred ground" in honor of Syria?, if Syria got the upper hand they would turn the whole land into a parking lot.

 

And what's wrong with that? what's Nazi -racist in the link you posted?

 

I doubt that.. The Golan was there a long, long time before 1967.

 

It may be clear but it doesnt happen, in what borders will Hamas accept Israel? show me where they said they accept 67, I never heard it.



Israel and the Palestinians must agree to this and no other conditions can be imposed. Israel, for example, cannot demand that the Palestinians be disarmed (demilitarized) as every nation has both the right and the responsibility to defend the citizens and residents under the authority of the government from foreign attacks and invasions. Israel cannot deny the Palestinians the Right of Self-Defense.

This proposition must be the only thing on the table for discussion for agreement. If both the Palestinians and the Israelis agree to this then the second condition of UNSC 242 which addresses Israel specifically is mandatory.

OFC we can, we hold the land, dont assume international law is a steel shield, we obviously dealing with ppl that broke the law when they attacked in 48, we know that since then the UN didnt supply protection to the weak around the world aside for very late condemnations...., sorry but sometimes when lives are at stake and mainly when you got the upper hand - you do not submit to thin air and hope for best, you get some guarantees for peace.

I am for that

That's just not true, Israel created the Palestinian police, we gave them weapons and money, we object the Hamas and the gangs, we support order not chaos as a state should maintain.

Once we withdarw we will not return so as I said we will not follow the resolution until conditions for peace are met - show me what Hamas stands for before you say they are all for peace and living aside Israel please.

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/un/un242.htm[/QUOTE]

 

I meant central Israel

 

You guys just cannot stay on topic.

What does central Israel and Hamas have to do with Iran?

 

I think that things have changed since the 1950s and 1960s...... To me it seems that the Palestinians and the Arabs in general are more accepting of Israel.. and in the present are more concerned about the Golan, the West Bank snd Shaaba Farms..

Its actually do-able.. even though I know that 700,000 settlers won't give ny ground.

I sure would like to see it happen. I know the GCC has plans to invest in infrastructure and job creation.

 

Right.....sorry, got carried away...

 

You're calling Jews 'Nazis' now? Here's the site I linked to; ooh, look, it's a Jewish website! http://www.zionism-israel.com/about.htm

 

To bad that the government of Palestine cant bring itself to accept Israels right to continue to exist.