Israel Palestinian conflict: Swingers Discussion 200102

SwingLifeStyle Swingers Personal Ads. | SwingLifeStyle Swingers Clubs

Busy Swingers Forum

Everything you always wanted to know about swingers.

TOPIC: Israel Palestinian conflict

Created by: Seduction4Two Original Starting post for this thread:
Kashmir, is “disputed territory” contested by India, Pakistan and China. The West Bank, on the other hand, is “occupied” by Israel or “the occupied Palestinian territory.”..."But following Israel’s conquest of the West Bank during the 1967 Six-Day War the area has been, 'journalistically' speaking, “occupied.” This despite the fact that no state has exercised sovereignty over it since the end of Ottoman rule and even though U.N. Security Council Resolution 242 (1967) and subsequent measures anticipate negotiations to resolve its disputed status. So the question is, why the double standard?

Created by: Seduction4Two
Original Starting post for this thread:

Kashmir, is “disputed territory” contested by India, Pakistan and China. The West Bank, on the other hand, is “occupied” by Israel or “the occupied Palestinian territory.”..."But following Israel’s conquest of the West Bank during the 1967 Six-Day War the area has been, 'journalistically' speaking, “occupied.” This despite the fact that no state has exercised sovereignty over it since the end of Ottoman rule and even though U.N. Security Council Resolution 242 (1967) and subsequent measures anticipate negotiations to resolve its disputed status.

So the question is, why the double standard?

GoTo Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... More

1 to 10 of 1355

End

User Details are only visible to members.	maritimers ....right, because history shows oppressed occupied people are rewarded by their oppressors for accepting their occupation and oppression....you're joking right? Can you name a SINGLE time in history, when a nation which was occupied and oppressed was granted Independence because they were rewarded for being cooperative and complicit with their oppression? That was rhetorical...don't think too hard, because it has NEVER happened. Armed resistance is the ONLY reason Palestinian rights are even on the table. The Jews have had homelands for 6000 years, they are called Ethiopia and the Central Asian Steppe. One was the home of the Jews of the OT, the other the origin of the modern day jews. There was NEVER a nation called Israel in the middle east until 1948, but we are where we are, so for better or worse it has a right to exist, but ONLY by the standards of every other nation, and only under a 2 state solution. BTW...Israel ONLY EXISTS becuse it engaged in armed resistance and acts of terror of it's own
Elk Grove Village IL			Username hidden (2957 post)

User Details are only visible to members.	I chose to block tha virulent antisemite. He contributes zero substance to any topic, ditto for his new BFF gusher.
Colts Neck NJ			Username hidden (12723 post)

User Details are only visible to members.	PP turns logic on its head contending that nobody would be talking about Pal statehood if not for their armed struggle. Forgets that the Pals were given a state in the partition and lost it when they chose to attack the nascent Jewish state. Had the Pals accepted the partition, they would be three generations into nationhood, instead they have languished as an occupation victim with a large refugee diaspora, living under a corrupt regime in the West Bank and a totalitarian regime in Gaza. Yeah, armed struggle has worked out real well....
Amherst Canada			Username hidden (1836 post)

User Details are only visible to members.	Robert Robert Robert...you are so misguided on this issue Newsflash son, had the Palestinians not taken up arms against their occupiers, Palestinian statehood would never have been discussed. Just ask the Irish catholic provos who beat the Brits and the Proddys into coming to the table. Nothing ever changes to someone gets a bloody nose...sad but true
Elk Grove Village IL			Username hidden (2957 post)

User Details are only visible to members.	Boy-oh-Boy is this irritating to Israel's detractors. "So what was the point of Obama’s Jerusalem speech encouraging young Israelis to make peace, a speech the media drooled over? It was mere rhetoric, a sideshow meant to soften the impact on the Arab side of the really important event of Obama’s trip: the major recalibration of his position on the peace process. Obama knows that peace talks are going nowhere. First, because there is no way that Israel can sanely make concessions while its neighborhood is roiling and unstable — the Muslim Brotherhood taking over Egypt, rockets being fired from Gaza, Hezbollah brandishing 50,000 missiles aimed at Israel, civil war raging in Syria with its chemical weapons and rising jihadists, and Iran threatening openly to raze Tel Aviv and Haifa. Second, peace is going nowhere because Abbas has shown Obama over the past four years that he has no interest in negotiating. Obama’s message to Abbas was blunt: Come to the table without preconditions, i.e., without the excuse of demanding a settlement freeze first. Obama himself had contributed to this impasse when he imposed that precondition — for the first time ever in the history of Arab-Israeli negotiations — four years ago. And when Israel responded with an equally unprecedented 10-month settlement freeze, Abbas didn’t show up to talk until more than nine months in — then walked out, never to return. In Ramallah last week, Obama didn’t just address this perennial Palestinian dodge. He demolished the very claim that settlements are the obstacle to peace. Palestinian sovereignty and Israeli security are “the core issue,” he told Abbas. “If we solve those two problems, the settlement problem will be solved.” Finally. Presidential validation of the screamingly obvious truism: Any peace agreement will produce a Palestinian state with not a single Israeli settlement remaining on its territory. Any settlement on the Palestinian side of whatever border is agreed upon will be demolished. Thus, any peace that reconciles Palestinian statehood with Israeli security automatically resolves the settlement issue. It disappears. Yes, Obama offered the ritual incantations about settlements being unhelpful. Nothing new here. He could have called them illegal or illegitimate. It wouldn’t have mattered — because Obama officially declared them irrelevant. Exposing settlements as a mere excuse for the Palestinian refusal to negotiate — that was the news, widely overlooked, coming out of Obama’s trip. It was a breakthrough. Will it endure? Who knows. But when an American president so sympathetic to the Palestinian cause tells Abbas to stop obstructing peace with that phony settlement excuse, something important has happened. " articles.washingtonpost.c om/2013-03-28/opinions/38099330_1_peace-offer-peace-process-final-peace
Colts Neck NJ			Username hidden (12723 post)

User Details are only visible to members.	Sedu: They choose not to thrive, because they choose to hate. Isreal doesn't hate them, if Isreal did, then Isreal would wipe them out. Sadly they are arrogant, they taught their kids to be arrogant. You don't start a war, lose it and expect not to lose autonomy. Sense WWI, most every nation which started a war and then was actually defeated, lost autonomy for some length of time. This loss of self governance is the period in which you are accepting that yiur ways lead the war and your society beginning to accept this fact. Further, it gives the new government time to instatute the institutionalized changes to the society which would prevent further war.
Hazle Township PA			Username hidden (5114 post)

User Details are only visible to members.	Makes sense. A shame, truly is. The palestinians can thrive, just like Israel. Why they choose not to, is beyond me. Thanks!
Colts Neck NJ			Username hidden (12723 post)

User Details are only visible to members.	I would not link the question of Palestinian aid to other spending choices. Our aid to Israel and Egypt, as well as our military budgets, are at levels that are orders of magnitude greater than our aid to the Palestinians. If there were a good national security rationale for the aid, I could support it even while other budget items were being slashed. In the world of realpolitik, our government often spends money against its national interest in order to avoid something that would be even worse for the national interest. Thus, the relevant question in play, as I see it, is whether it is worth spending $700 million to support a fucked-up entity like Fatah in order to check the power of its even more fucked-up rival, Hamas? But make no mistake about it, any money funneled through the PA will be wasted and do nothing to improve the lives of ordinary Palestinians. Their cycle of dependency and victimhood will persist.
Amherst Canada			Username hidden (1836 post)

User Details are only visible to members.	Sed, with Obama Muslims come first and Christians and Jews can go to Hell.
Denver CO			Username hidden (1312 post)

User Details are only visible to members.	MT, If you don't mind, I would be very interested to hear your thoughts on, why we'd cut the jobs of 20,000 marines, reduce aid to an ally (Israel, Egypt, etc...), yet ask for aid for the palestinians. I've been thinking about it since I read about it, but cannot come up with any logical reason.
Colts Neck NJ			Username hidden (12723 post)

GoTo Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... More

1 to 10 of 1355

End

TOPIC: Israel Palestinian conflict

		HELP
FORUMS: General Discussions: Politics: Israel Palestinian conflict