Peace in the Middle East my ass

[lapslf]

Good ol' Dubya has just told Israël they can ceep the territory's they annexed from the Palestines. He also said he was totally cool with them building that new Iron Curtain.

Needless to say, by doing this he totally pissed off all the extremist muslims all over the globe. Peace in the Middle East and a Palestinian State are now further away then ever.

Way to go, Mr. Bush. Where would you like your next plane to crash into?

[bumcheekcity]

At 4/16/04 07:49 AM, Veggiemeal wrote: Way to go, Mr. Bush. Where would you like your next plane to crash into?

Well said. He says he's protecting his country from terrorism, but he's making the terrosrists want to shoot Americans more...

[Grim]

No no no.

There is a plan to this action; really.

**** begins search under Oval Office desk for plan, WMD, intern knee pads... *****

[lapslf]

Hm, perhaps anybody would like a news source. Here's one:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3462461.stm

[Slizor]

It's just the usual American stance, rejectionist. Israel, backed by the US, has never offered a proper peace plan. With Sharon as their head and Bush behind him, why now?

[shitt0r]

I think we should talk with Bin Laden, ask him who he wants killed then we all round these people up (it's likely that Bush and other western leaders would be in there so we round them up too), give them all to him so he can torture and kill them in the most painful manner then we can hopefully finally live in peace with the Arabs.

[BeFell]

You forgot to mention how Bush also supported Israel unilaterally pulling it's settlements out of the Gaza strips. The setlements in the west bank are too highly developed to be demolished and some actually include High rise buildings. The iron curtian wall or whatever someone was talking about are walls around the highly established settlements so Israel can take down their checkpoints all over the West Bank and allow Palestinians to move about more freely.

[TheShrike]

I can't remember who... I thinkit was a Palestinian...

Anyway, he said something like this:

"It's like Palestine telling Canada they can have California. And people wonder why the U.S. has little respect in the middle east"

Simple. And to the point.

Kind of.

[RedSkunk]

At 4/16/04 07:49 AM, Veggiemeal wrote: Needless to say, by doing this he totally pissed off all the extremist muslims all over the globe. Peace in the Middle East and a Palestinian State are now further away then ever.

It's not just pissing off extremists. All Palestinians are rightly P.O'd.

I like it when Sharon says that there is 'no one to bargain with' on the Palestinian side:
"In the unilateral plan, there is no Palestinian state. This situation could continue for many years," Mr Sharon said.

The prime minister told Maariv that his plan "will bring their [the Palestinians'] dreams to an end".

"When you fence areas and communities in the West Bank, you end a lot of their dreams," Mr Sharon said, referring to the controversial security barrier Israel is building.

"My plan is tough on the Palestinians. A mortal blow."
[BBC article]

Who is refusing to barter again?

At 4/16/04 01:28 PM, shitt0r wrote: I think we should talk with Bin Laden, ask him who he wants killed

You're an idiot.

At 4/16/04 01:49 PM, BeSkvnk wrote: You forgot to mention how Bush also supported Israel unilaterally pulling it's settlements out of the Gaza strips.

It's not unilateral. Palestinians will have no control over any of the ports. No control over a patrol road, and the settlements of more than 7000 settlers are not being destroyed.

The setlements in the west bank are too highly developed to be demolished and some actually include High rise buildings.

They aren't destroying the settlements in the Gaza strip either, so..?

The iron curtian wall or whatever someone was talking about are walls around the highly established settlements so Israel can take down their checkpoints all over the West Bank and allow Palestinians to move about more freely.

They are not taking down checkpoints - they are creating more checkpoints. The walls are encircling Palestinian towns and villages. The walls are cutting off Palestinian movement throughout the West Bank. The walls are collectively punishing all of the Palestinians in the West Bank.

[IllustriousPotentate]

At 4/16/04 02:01 PM, TheShrike wrote: "It's like Palestine telling Canada they can have California. "

I don't have a problem with that.

I think the best course for the U.S. to pursue is total neutrality in the matter. We're upholding Israel like a saint, and treating Palestine as a red-headed stepchild. Really, neither one has moral highground over the other.

[Jimsween]

Did you just space out when reading the article? It's about Bush telling Israel to give back the land. If you are actually claiming that the Jews should move entirely out of thier homes, even the ones that have spent thier entire life there, you are a moron.

Wait... I already called you a moron, I guess that makes you some sort of double moron.

[bumcheekcity]

At 4/16/04 02:01 PM, TheShrike wrote: "It's like Palestine telling Canada they can have California. And people wonder why the U.S. has little respect in the middle east"

That is a really good way of putting it, Shrike.

[Slizor]

Did you just space out when reading the article? It's about Bush telling Israel to give back the land.

No it's not....
"How exactly has US policy shifted?

Because of "new realties on the ground, including already existing major Israeli populations centres", the president said a full withdrawal from land captured by Israeli in 1967 was now "unrealistic".

"Past US administrations have said Israeli settlement activity which led to establishing these population centres - illegal under international law - was incompatible with peacemaking."

What Bush is actually saying is don't dismantle the settlements and don't give back the land.

If you are actually claiming that the Jews should move entirely out of thier homes, even the ones that have spent thier entire life there

They were settled there illegally and if they remain under Israeli control effectively destroy the chance of a viable Palestinian state. A compromise has to be reached and one where there is not a viable state which responds to the Palestinian people is not one.

[Jimsween]

At 4/16/04 06:49 PM, Slizor wrote:

Did you just space out when reading the article? It's about Bush telling Israel to give back the land.

No it's not....
"How exactly has US policy shifted?

Because of "new realties on the ground, including already existing major Israeli populations centres", the president said a full withdrawal from land captured by Israeli in 1967 was now "unrealistic".

"Past US administrations have said Israeli settlement activity which led to establishing these population centres - illegal under international law - was incompatible with peacemaking."

What Bush is actually saying is don't dismantle the settlements and don't give back the land.

No, "Mr Bush has welcomed the essence of the Sharon plan which intends to pull out of the Gaza Strip and parts of the West Bank." and then he goes to talk about a Palestinian state, how exactly is that not giving land back?

If you are actually claiming that the Jews should move entirely out of thier homes, even the ones that have spent thier entire life there

They were settled there illegally and if they remain under Israeli control effectively destroy the chance of a viable Palestinian state. A compromise has to be reached and one where there is not a viable state which responds to the Palestinian people is not one.

There is all together like 100,000 people in those settelments, and those are all that are left there. If the Palestinians can't live with those few people there, they are just being whiny.

[EvilGovernmentAgents]

You know, public opinion on this matter is much like a cartoon featuring Bugs and Daffy, arguing over which hunting season it is.

"Palestine season!"
"Israel season!"
"Palestine season!"
"Israel season!"
"Palestine season!"
"Israel season!"
"Palestine season!"
"Israel season!"
ect ect.

Basically, one side does something offensive. The other side responds, (responsibly of course) by doing something even more offensive. The opposing sides responds (with the full right to do so!) by doing something even more offensive.

The world needs to drop a couple million tanks, small arms, and weapons on the region, and let people duke it out, if they really want long term peace. Otherwise, the conflict will just keep going, and going, and going, and going, and going and....

*Shoots a pink buenneh*

[Jimsween]

Life is all about conflict, why not let it continue?

People die, people are born, thats life. Peace is impossible, and if it was possible, why would you want it? Is it somehow supposed to be better than conflict, just because less people die?

[deathtuna]

I THINK THE BEST PLAN TO TAKE IS NEUTRALITY. oops, capslock. anyways us should end its influence in the middle eats and only particpate when neccesary. if israel would just let palestine have its own state, things would calm down somewhat. but also, remember that the isrealis wouldnt like that one bit. evryone is trapped. its a tricky position for anyone to be in. and the isreali and us heads of state are doing a decent job at trying not to start a third world war.

[Slizor]

No, "Mr Bush has welcomed the essence of the Sharon plan which intends to pull out of the Gaza Strip and parts of the West Bank." and then he goes to talk about a Palestinian state, how exactly is that not giving land back?

I knew this would be your response. It is not giving land back because every US President (in recent times) has said that they must give the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. However, Bush has said that he would support Israel getting more of the West Bank.
Removal from the West Bank and the Gaza Strip had already previously been established as the terms for any agreement, now Bush is expanding Israel.

If you are actually claiming that the Jews should move entirely out of thier homes, even the ones that have spent thier entire life there

They were settled there illegally and if they remain under Israeli control effectively destroy the chance of a viable Palestinian state. A compromise has to be reached and one where there is not a viable state which responds to the Palestinian people is not one.

There is all together like 100,000 people in those settelments, and those are all that are left there. If the Palestinians can't live with those few people there, they are just being whiny.

Red herring, the issue is that it splits up the West Bank into 5 seperate areas. That is not a viable state. If you were really to think about it then you would have suggested that the 100'000 people join this new Palestinian state.

[Jimsween]

At 4/17/04 08:48 AM, Slizor wrote:

No, "Mr Bush has welcomed the essence of the Sharon plan which intends to pull out of the Gaza Strip and parts of the West Bank." and then he goes to talk about a Palestinian state, how exactly is that not giving land back?

I knew this would be your response. It is not giving land back because every US President (in recent times) has said that they must give the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. However, Bush has said that he would support Israel getting more of the West Bank.
Removal from the West Bank and the Gaza Strip had already previously been established as the terms for any agreement, now Bush is expanding Israel.

There was no agreement before. Did any of those presidents give the West Bank to palestinians? No, so you can't claim that somehow whats happening here is worse. As long as land is being given, it's good.

There is all together like 100,000 people in those settelments, and those are all that are left there. If the Palestinians can't live with those few people there, they are just being whiny.

Red herring, the issue is that it splits up the West Bank into 5 seperate areas. That is not a viable state. If you were really to think about it then you would have suggested that the 100'000 people join this new Palestinian state.

It depends, they could keep that small amount of land those palestinians live on, or they could all join the palestinian state. I don't see whats so bad, unless of course the palestinians can't be around other people.

[Slizor]

There was no agreement before. Did any of those presidents give the West Bank to palestinians? No, so you can't claim that somehow whats happening here is worse. As long as land is being given, it's good.

But he hasn't given it, he said he would support the land being given, which is what previous Presidents have said (except that he has said they don't have to give all of it.)

It depends, they could keep that small amount of land those palestinians live on, or they could all join the palestinian state. I don't see whats so bad

The proposals are that Israel keeps the settlements and keeps the roads going in to the settlements and the area around the settlements. Do you not think that a continuous area of land is needed for a viable state? Especially when the Palestinians will not be allowed to cross those roads (as is the current case.)

[bumcheekcity]

At 4/16/04 11:15 PM, Jimsween wrote: Is it somehow supposed to be better than conflict, just because less people die?

I suppose less people dying would be one of the things why peace is better than war. The ability to go outside and not fear for being blown up would be another. Hey! We could start a game... 100 Reasons Why peace is better than war!

[RedSkunk]

At 4/18/04 05:55 AM, bumcheekcity wrote: Hey! We could start a game... 100 Reasons Why peace is better than war!

It's easier to raise children in an environment where tanks aren't a daily occurence.

[imgone]

At 4/18/04 05:55 AM, bumcheekcity wrote:

Hey! We could start a game... 100 Reasons Why peace is better than war!

I suppose you can go grocery shopping without having to say "the horror...the horror"

[Jimsween]

At 4/17/04 07:08 PM, Slizor wrote:

There was no agreement before. Did any of those presidents give the West Bank to palestinians? No, so you can't claim that somehow whats happening here is worse. As long as land is being given, it's good.

But he hasn't given it, he said he would support the land being given, which is what previous Presidents have said (except that he has said they don't have to give all of it.)

No, he set up a plan that said the Isreali's should give the land back. And none of those presidents got them to give the west bank back, so they didn't really do a thing. Until one gives land, you can't claimthe others were somehow worse in the situation

It depends, they could keep that small amount of land those palestinians live on, or they could all join the palestinian state. I don't see whats so bad

The proposals are that Israel keeps the settlements and keeps the roads going in to the settlements and the area around the settlements. Do you not think that a continuous area of land is needed for a viable state? Especially when the Palestinians will not be allowed to cross those roads (as is the current case.)

The only thing that makes it seem bad is not being able to cross the roads, other than that, it's all fine. People live there already, you can't take them out just to make it more convieneint for another group of people.

[bumcheekcity]

At 4/18/04 02:59 PM, RedSkvnk wrote:

At 4/18/04 05:55 AM, bumcheekcity wrote: Hey! We could start a game... 100 Reasons Why peace is better than war!

It's easier to raise children in an environment where tanks aren't a daily occurence.

Yeah, some good reasons here. Anyway, I think we're probably in agreement that peace is better than war.

[Jimsween]

At 4/18/04 05:55 AM, bumcheekcity wrote: I suppose less people dying would be one of the things why peace is better than war. The ability to go outside and not fear for being blown up would be another. Hey! We could start a game... 100 Reasons Why peace is better than war!

You're just used to being spoiled by peace, if your relatives die all the time, you wont think nearly as much of it as someone who never has thier relatives die. Do you think those poor kids in Africa are sad all the time? No, of course not, that would just be stupid. They are happy, because they don't know what its like to have a better life.

[bumcheekcity]

At 4/18/04 03:12 PM, Jimsween wrote: You're just used to being spoiled by peace, if your relatives die all the time, you wont think nearly as much of it as someone who never has thier relatives die. Do you think those poor kids in Africa are sad all the time? No, of course not, that would just be stupid. They are happy, because they don't know what its like to have a better life.

They aren't happy, Jim, they're starving. But that isn't the point. If i'm correct, your argument goes something laong the lines of: "We should be in wartimes, because then we wouldn't know anything better, and then wouldn't get used to peace"?

You'll be flying out into Iraq anytime now, then, yes?

[Jimsween]

At 4/18/04 03:22 PM, bumcheekcity wrote:

They aren't happy, Jim, they're starving. But that isn't the point. If i'm correct, your argument goes something laong the lines of: "We should be in wartimes, because then we wouldn't know anything better, and then wouldn't get used to peace"?

You'll be flying out into Iraq anytime now, then, yes?

First of all, they are happy bum, not everyone needs a pentium processor and has to be shoveling grease into thier mouth to be happy. Second, I'm not saying we should all go out of our way to make conflict, I'm saying we shouldnt go way out of our way to stop it.

[RedSkunk]

At 4/18/04 03:38 PM, Jimsween wrote:

At 4/18/04 03:22 PM, bumcheekcity wrote: They aren't happy, Jim, they're starving. But that isn't the point.

First of all, they are happy bum, not everyone needs a pentium processor and has to be shoveling grease into thier mouth to be happy.

Happiness and sadness are relative Bum. That's why the whole argument about 'the poor in the west are 1000x better off than the poor in the 3rd world' is a poor one.

To be sure - they're better off than those starving. But not many people are truly starving (malnutrition - sure, but regardless).

[TheShrike]

So you're saying we should let this situation sort itself out, Jim?