[rockwool]

pulling out from 90% of the west bank was offered in camp david in 2000.
arafat flat out rejected the offer without making any counter-offer.

any expectative of israel pulling out from the entire west bank and jerusalem is flat out dellusional. it was a heck of a war for them to keep that land. is naive to believe israel will concede jerusalem specially to the palestinian authority.
plus anyways, it was taken from jordan (who in turn took it after 48), and could be rightly argued a form of war reparation.

Yo Alexis, in the documentary Kevin posted they take up the issues that the Palestinians had with the Camp David solution. Watch it if you want the full story.

 

[rockwool]

this gets funny... What country are you taking about??
syria??? the one who started a war and have to
what about the other side accepting the fact they lost a war they started, with all the implications (war reparations) it encompasses??? kinda like the japanese or germans after wwii?? you dont get germans blowing up themselves in paris, dont you???



"upcomming war with syria"???
syria and israel, technically speaking, are still at war my friend....

Yeh, but now it seems like it's going to be physical as well..

I don't belive you actually expect people to stay put while they are suffering an occupation.
It's Israel that is the equivalent of the "germans" today. they are the occupying force and the Palestinians "la resistance".

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

If you're stipulating a binary solution set, then I'll take choice 2. You wouldn't be gaining the "label" of war criminal, you'd be one. Morally equal to a Hutu with a machete hacking up a Tutsi.

sending your own to a certain dead is morally superior than converting yourself into a criminal?????

morally equating every war criminals is not accurate.
morally equating the women from the gitmo pictures to mengele or eichmann based on both sharing the label "war criminal" is just not right, no matter how bad the gitmo pictures are.

Speaking from a strictly numbers point of view, Israel has killed many more people than they have lost. How many Lebanese equal one Israeli?

what about %?? israelis vs arab population???
c´mon, you know better, the US in wwii is not less legitimate then germany for loosing less civilians than germany....

 

[Changleen]

Speaking from a strictly numbers point of view, Israel has killed many more people than they have lost. How many Lebanese equal one Israeli?

I believe the statistics over the last few years tell us that 1 Israeli equals between 4 and 20 non-Israelis, dependant on the particular timeframe you pick.

If we go back to last week and the start of this specifically, we're currently at 1 Israeli = 14.9 Lebanese.

 

[Silver]

Sending your own soldiers on a mission where they may die is morally superior to killing civilians.

That's a pretty clear line to me. Keep in mind, I'm not the one arguing that the only solution is one or the other...

 

[Secret Squirrel]

I believe the statistics over the last few years tell us that 1 Israeli equals between 4 and 20 non-Israelis, dependant on the particular timeframe you pick.

If we go back to last week and the start of this specifically, we're currently at 1 Israeli = 14.9 Lebanese.

After today, the ratio should favor Israel a little more...like say 17:1......

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

I don't belive you actually expect people to stay put while they are suffering an occupation.
It's Israel that is the equivalent of the "germans" today. they are the occupying force and the Palestinians "la resistance".

damn kid, seems i need to put up a puppet show to explain the point.
did france invaded germany?? did charles de gaulle start a war against the nazis?? you analogy is all wrong on every level...

do you know who started the 67 war??? are you familiar with the concept of "war reparations" and who pays them, and rights are given up when that happens????

when the allies took sovereignity over germany (and poland was given pomerania, etc, etc), german patents were seized by the US, and indutrial assets were taken..........
do you believe it would be fair for germans to compare themselves to the resistance against vichy france or the nazis???

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

Sending your own soldiers on a mission where they may die is morally superior to killing civilians.

"may" being a key word here.
you are not sending them "on a mission where they may die", as in sending 10 of them to a coal mine...
in this case (sending troops to lebanon), you are sending a few hundred within the thousands you´d certainly need, to a certain death.

similarly, i could argue i´m shelling targets where "civilians may die". and better yet, i could cleanse my responsability by ordering evacuation beforehand.....

 

[Silver]

similarly, i could argue i´m shelling targets where "civilians may die". and better yet, i could cleanse my responsability by ordering evacuation beforehand.....

You just let Osama off the hook. He said that if we didn't stop supporting Israel and the House of Saud, there would be reprecussions. By your logic above, he warned us, and is therefore blameless for the 9/11 attacks.

You also just let a bunch of perpetrators of ethnic cleansing off scot free...

 

[Secret Squirrel]

You just let Osama off the hook. He said that if we didn't stop supporting Israel and the House of Saud, there would be reprecussions. By your logic above, he warned us, and is therefore blameless for the 9/11 attacks.

You also just let a bunch of perpetrators of ethnic cleansing off scot free...

What's a few million dead between militaristic dictators?.....

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

You just let Osama off the hook. He said that if we didn't stop supporting Israel and the House of Saud, there would be reprecussions. By your logic above, he warned us, and is therefore blameless for the 9/11 attacks.

You also just let a bunch of perpetrators of ethnic cleansing off scot free...

nope, wasnt mine, that was a continuation of your logic in "Sending your own soldiers on a mission where they may die is morally superior to killing civilians.".
thats why i said "may" being the key word.

on the other hand, i think you can agree that saying "there would be repercussions against america" is not equal as saying "get out of 33°54′″N, 35°31′″E because bombs will rain".
otherwise (by you assesment that evacuating an area would equal acquiting osama based on "repercusions against america") fema could just get away or any liability with saying "a hurricane will hit". and that isnt the case.

 

[rockwool]

damn kid, seems i need to put up a puppet show to explain the point.
did france invaded germany?? did charles de gaulle start a war against the nazis?? you analogy is all wrong on every level...

do you know who started the 67 war??? are you familiar with the concept of "war reparations" and who pays them, and rights are given up when that happens????

when the allies took sovereignity over germany (and poland was given pomerania, etc, etc), german patents were seized by the US, and indutrial assets were taken..........
do you believe it would be fair for germans to compare themselves to the resistance against vichy france or the nazis???

67 was 40 years ago! The allies didn't occupy Germany for some 40 years, nor did they continue to mash down their infrastructure or constrain german kids from going to school, visiting relatives in other cities, tearing down their houses and stealing their olive trees, shipping them home and selling them.
It wasn't Palestine who attacked Israel in the 6day war, it was Syria, Jordan and Egypt.
40 years of occupation is worth some reparations too dont you think? It has cost far more Palestinian lives than Jewish, and their infrastructure is non existent..

 

[Silver]

nope, wasnt mine, that was a continuation of your logic in "Sending your own soldiers on a mission where they may die is morally superior to killing civilians.".
thats why i said "may" being the key word.

on the other hand, i think you can agree that saying "there would be repercussions against israel" is not equal as saying "get out of 33°54′″N, 35°31′″E because bombs will rain".
otherwise (by you assesment that evacuating an area would acquit a bunch of perpetrators of ethnic cleansing) fema could just get away or any liability with saying "a hurricane will hit". and that isnt the case.

Actually, that was exactly the FOX news argument after Katrina. "They were warned, and they didn't get out. Let them drown."

And I'll clarify my earlier statement: Sending your soldiers on a mission where some of them will die is morally better than killing civilians on the other side.

 

[Changleen]

Great article, y'all will probably like it:

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HG18Ak04.html

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

67 was 40 years ago! The allies didn't occupy Germany for some 40 years, nor did they continue to mash down their infrastructure or constrain german kids from going to school, visiting relatives in other cities, tearing down their houses and stealing their olive trees, shipping them home and selling them.

hmm.. pomerania was still part of poland last time i checked...

It wasn't Palestine who attacked Israel in the 6day war, it was Syria, Jordan and Egypt.
40 years of occupation is worth some reparations too dont you think? It has cost far more Palestinian lives than Jewish, and their infrastructure is non existent..

hmm, palestine (if by that you mean the west bank) was de facto parto of jordan pre-67.
gaza on the other hand, was also de-facto part of egypt. but that is moot, since israel left, until hamas did the whole abduction thing.

 

[rockwool]

similarly, i could argue i´m shelling targets where "civilians may die". and better yet, i could cleanse my responsability by ordering evacuation beforehand.....

I don't know if its a law in the Geneva Convention against that but its sounds too dodgy for it not to be. Targeting civilian areas...that's terror.

And I'll clarify my earlier statement: Sending your soldiers on a mission where some of them will die is morally better than killing civilians on the other side.

Mos Def.

 

[rockwool]

hmm.. pomerania was still part of poland last time i checked...




hmm, palestine (if by that you mean the west bank) was de facto parto of jordan pre-67.
gaza on the other hand, was also de-facto part of egypt. but that is moot, since israel left, until hamas did the whole abduction thing.

Man, we treat animals better than Israelis have treated the Palestinians for all those years. If they hadn't gone totally barbarossa on them you would have a point.

You're right about W/bank and Gaza.

 

[Changleen]

I note that Iran are now calling for a ceasefire, whilst George has refused to do so and has backed Israel's right to 'defend' itself (by invading another country and killing mostly civilians).

 

[blue]

Only the short flush though. It won't get rid of all the crap, and it'll float back to the surface and start festering again.

It's one of those newfangled water-conserving toileys...

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

Actually, that was exactly the FOX news argument after Katrina. "They were warned, and they didn't get out. Let them drown."

well, as far as i remember, there werent many katrina supporters in new orleans, nor elected katrina to congress, nor katrina had a military wing.....

And I'll clarify my earlier statement: Sending your soldiers on a mission where some of them will die is morally better than killing civilians on the other side.

wwii could have ended with less german civilian casualities, if instead of bombing, the allies would have send troops into cities without any previous bombarding....

it would have been moral for roosevelt to send more americans???
and anecdotically, would the american families of the soldiers believe it was the moral thing to do?

 

[Silver]

Hang on. I can't make war crimes equivalencies, but you're comparing Israel's actions to the US in WW2? I don't know how many more troops Roosevelt could have sent, but I'd probably classify the firebombing of Dresden and the bombing of Nagasaki as war crimes. That's certainly more debatable, especially considering the state of technology and the capabilities of the respective forces at the time.

You brought up Katrina, btw...

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

Hang on. I can't make war crimes equivalencies, but you're comparing Israel's actions to the US in WW2? I don't know how many more troops Roosevelt could have sent, but I'd probably classify the firebombing of Dresden and the bombing of Nagasaki as war crimes. That's certainly more debatable, especially considering the state of technology and the capabilities of the respective forces at the time.

am not talking dresden, am talking bombardments in general, but specially those in wwii, since back civilian deaths were more likely in bombarments...

You brought up Katrina, btw...

i said, otherwise (by you assesment that evacuating an area would acquit a bunch of perpetrators of ethnic cleansing) fema could just get away or any liability with saying "a hurricane will hit". and that isnt the case.

 

[Silver]

am not talking dresden, am talking bombardments in general, but specially those in wwii, since back civilian deaths were more likely in bombarments...



i said, otherwise (by you assesment that evacuating an area would acquit a bunch of perpetrators of ethnic cleansing) fema could just get away or any liability with saying "a hurricane will hit". and that isnt the case.

Once again, that was the argument put forward by Bush supporters (among others.) How exactly did FEMA get sanctioned for failing to respond timely? Brownie got canned?

As far as WW2 bombardments, that's a hard question. It's also not really relevant, because precision bombing wasn't an option. The US was also NOT fighting an insurgency. How did carpet bombing work against the NVA?

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

Once again, that was the argument put forward by Bush supporters (among others.) How exactly did FEMA get sanctioned for failing to respond timely? Brownie got canned?

in the case of fema, it was established to PROTECT the american people. their liability was not limited to say "the wolf is coming".

israel liability in lebanon is to kill the least amount of people without jeopardizing military operation.
their liability, given the current scenario and well honored tradition of hezbollah taking civilian form, could be perfectly argued to be "get out of X,Y coordinates, or X city, bombs will rain". besides that, only sending their own soldiers to death could get significant results...
much more "humane" than your average wwii bombardment...

As far as WW2 bombardments, that's a hard question. It's also not really relevant, because precision bombing wasn't an option. The US was also NOT fighting an insurgency. How did carpet bombing work against the NVA?

its somewhat relevant.
precision bombing wasnt an option back then, but back then, targets were pretty much labeled as such..
now you have precision bombing, but targets take civilian form....

in a way, vision (more precisely accuracy) gets better, but the chamalon learns new colors.... overall, you are not really much better of....

 

[Silver]

Jesus, hell is freezing over again. I'm agreeing with Pat Buchanan...

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

Jesus, hell is freezing over again. I'm agreeing with Pat Buchanan...

c´mon dude, am not denying human life is valuable...

just saying that sometimes, in spite of best intention, an ideal can lead to scenarios worse than without...

not denying the basic intention behind it all, of minimizing dead people (specially for each side), but getting things done, which i agree....

 

[Silver]

c´mon dude, am not denying human life is valuable...

just saying that sometimes, in spite of best intention, an ideal can lead to scenarios worse than without...

not denying the basic intention behind it all, of minimizing dead people (specially for each side), but getting things done, which i agree....

No, no

I'm actually agreeing with Pat Buchanan. He was on TV when I was making dinner...So was Lawrence Kudlow, who sounds like an absolute madman.

 

[fluff]

damn kid, seems i need to put up a puppet show to explain the point.
did france invaded germany?? did charles de gaulle start a war against the nazis?? you analogy is all wrong on every level...

do you know who started the 67 war??? are you familiar with the concept of "war reparations" and who pays them, and rights are given up when that happens????

when the allies took sovereignity over germany (and poland was given pomerania, etc, etc), german patents were seized by the US, and indutrial assets were taken..........
do you believe it would be fair for germans to compare themselves to the resistance against vichy france or the nazis???

In case your calendar is faulty it is 2006, not 1967. That's a grand total of 39 years.

Which, incidentally, is more than the time elapsed between WWI and WWII, a mere 21 years during which France claimed the territory of Alsace-Lorraine as part of her reparations, occupying what many Germans saw as their land.

So, rather more parallels than you thought, eh?

But still irrelevant, this is not Europe circa 1939. If Israel continue their present course their nation will probably cease to exist within the next 100 (if not 50) years. They need to seek peace while they have the better armoury, once they lose that edge they will never be able to negotiate a decent solution. Their current solution is unworkable and simply perpetuates a conflict that they cannot win and if you cannot win you are bound to lose.

 

[fluff]

"may" being a key word here.
you are not sending them "on a mission where they may die", as in sending 10 of them to a coal mine...
in this case (sending troops to lebanon), you are sending a few hundred within the thousands you´d certainly need, to a certain death.

similarly, i could argue i´m shelling targets where "civilians may die". and better yet, i could cleanse my responsability by ordering evacuation beforehand.....

You think you should be able to send troops into conflict without casualties?

Why not just give them orders to kill anything that moves, regardless of whether it constitutes a threat? You'd have the same effect.

Silver is right, you would be a war criminal. You would also be a mass murderer by proxy.

And actually you are effectively saying that Lebanese lives are worthless.

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

You think you should be able to send troops into conflict without casualties?

i think you should be able to send troops into a conflict where targets are reasonable identified, with reasonably chance of success (so far so good with the just war theory) and where the enemy is not covered in such a way that allows him to exploit civilian surroundings.

Why not just give them orders to kill anything that moves, regardless of whether it constitutes a threat? You'd have the same effect.

would still risk soldiers, and would still be riskier than sending a few missiles.

Silver is right, you would be a war criminal. You would also be a mass murderer by proxy.

strictly speaking, given the dichotomy, i´d have to decide the death a few people either way.
but where would my hypothetical liability end?.
i´d personally call for evacuation (although after the rockets already sent i´d guess very few would still stay)... if not, would sending humvees to pick up woman, children and those obviously not combatant suffice?

thats the problem with guerilla warfare. its virtually impossible to discern, and according to present conventions, the side exploiting that is covered by the inability of the other side to take action. take away the legal protection (assuming minimally rational actors), guerilla warfare looses one of its biggests benefits....

would manking be better off IF guerrilla warfare wasnt so convinient, and its very same existance could be detrimental to any side using it?
is mankind better off allowing guerrilla warfare to be so powerful based on an abuse of well meaning conventions????

And actually you are effectively saying that Lebanese lives are worthless.

i never said, established nor suggest a judgement of absolute value. i dont think lebanese lives are worthless.
i established the relative value of a life to its respective side.
i´d think everybody would agree a life of those "from your side" is worth more (relatively to you) than a life from one "from the other side", specially in a war.

In case your calendar is faulty it is 2006, not 1967. That's a grand total of 39 years.

Which, incidentally, is more than the time elapsed between WWI and WWII, a mere 21 years during which France claimed the territory of Alsace-Lorraine as part of her reparations, occupying what many Germans saw as their land.

So, rather more parallels than you thought, eh?

39 or 21 years, doesnt matter for the sake of the argument.
international law is customary for the most part, with a few bits encoded in laws and conventions. but legal precedents are still one of the biggest sources of international law when it comes to settling litigations. precedents dating back 50, 100 or more years have been widely used and accepted, specially in border treaties.....
the age is not the most relevant criteria, specially those from less than 50 years ago....

But still irrelevant, this is not Europe circa 1939. If Israel continue their present course their nation will probably cease to exist within the next 100 (if not 50) years. They need to seek peace while they have the better armoury, once they lose that edge they will never be able to negotiate a decent solution. Their current solution is unworkable and simply perpetuates a conflict that they cannot win and if you cannot win you are bound to lose.

peace with egypt proved the invasion of the sinai was, in the long run, in the best of israel´s and peace interest. had israel not invaded the sinai, it would have not had a bargaining with egypt, the most powerful foe back then.
the sinai shifted the negotiation for egypt from "destroying israel" to "getting back the sinai".
the fact israel returned the sinai is a show, i believe, that israel wants primarily peace over anything else.
you see, gaza was a first step towards what could have been another camp david.

am pretty sure israel will leave most of the west bank (probably not much less than what was offered to arafat)if the conditions to do so ever come up, and there is no need for further military intervention to keep the people inside from bombing israel.
really, the long lasting peace solution (if ever achieved) will not be much different from what was offered in camp david 2000. realistically, since then the ball has been in palestinian court.
just think about this, incorporing the west bank, would necesarilly mean a couple more million arab citizens in the state of israel.. that´d be worse than the problem in many ways.
i believe decision makers in israel are well aware of that, thus a permanent solution is likely in those terms, but only if palestinian compromise for peace exists.
expecting israel to give up the west bank, to then have it split turned into a suicide bombers factory in a couple years, is not really a rational expectation from israel.

 

[Changleen]

I just realised I missed a lot of posts in this thread so sorry to people who might have been expecting answers.

I will say I think that neither side is the 'good' side in this situation. However, once again Israel with the support of the western (mostly American) media is playing itself as the victim taking righteous vengeance when in reality they are unprincipaled murderers, just the same as Hesbollah, except with way more money, better guns and more resources. This makes them hypocrital liars to a greater extent in my book. And how does kidnapping 2 soldiers warrant killing 160+ innocents who had nothing to do with the situation? It is Hezbollah alone Israel claims to have a grievance with, yet 95%+ of the dead are just regular civilians.

Both sides have proven multiple times they don't really want peace.

Both sides have commited horrible anti-human acts.

I wish both sides would just fvck off and die. The world doesn't need this cr@p.

 

[rockwool]

am not talking dresden, am talking bombardments in general, but specially those in wwii, since back civilian deaths were more likely in bombarments...[/I][/B]

We should allways look back at history to see how things were done then. But if it shows that we haven't progressed in our humanity...we need a kick in the dingding.

in the case of fema, it was established to PROTECT the american people. their liability was not limited to say "the wolf is coming".

israel liability in lebanon is to kill the least amount of people without jeopardizing military operation.
their liability, given the current scenario and well honored tradition of hezbollah taking civilian form, could be perfectly argued to be "get out of X,Y coordinates, or X city, bombs will rain". besides that, only sending their own soldiers to death could get significant results...
much more "humane" than your average wwii bombardment...



its somewhat relevant.
precision bombing wasnt an option back then, but back then, targets were pretty much labeled as such..
now you have precision bombing, but targets take civilian form....

in a way, vision (more precisely accuracy) gets better, but the chamalon learns new colors.... overall, you are not really much better of....

FEMA protect the american people? There is allot of dodgy things about them, like the several hundred consentration caps in "sleeping mode" around the US.
http://www.freedomfiles.org/war/fema.htm

Targets take civillian form? What like when they go home to sleep and visit their families every now and then? So when Israeli soldiers go home on leave they are legitimate targets and the others on the bus colateral damage?

Spoke to a former Swedish Marines Leutenant I know today. Asked him if he was taught in OCS, that the civilians targets that have been hit in Lebanon was legitimate targets or acceptable colateral damage... If you're not positive they are combatants, don't fire.

Jesus, hell is freezing over again. I'm agreeing with Pat Buchanan...

What, he's a nice, clean, healthy white guy?
My storngest memory from his show on CNN in the early 90's was how he every now and then used to go bezerk on his assosiate, who was a liberal; -are you a communist, are you a communist?!! Spit flying and all..

They need to seek peace while they have the better armoury, once they lose that edge they will never be able to negotiate a decent solution. Their current solution is unworkable and simply perpetuates a conflict that they cannot win and if you cannot win you are bound to lose.

Goliath need to smoke some humbleness before the year is 2016 and the world has a nuclear war between Israel and Iran on its ass. He's gotta stop horrasing David some time. Better sooner.

i think you should be able to send troops into a conflict where targets are reasonable identified, with reasonably chance of success (so far so good with the just war theory) and where the enemy is not covered in such a way that allows him to exploit civilian surroundings.

would still risk soldiers, and would still be riskier than sending a few missiles.

That is non acceptable. If you know you are going to hit civilians and still fire you are committing a war crime!
When the ball is on the green, use a putter. The drive is for other occations.

thats the problem with guerilla warfare. its virtually impossible to discern, and according to present conventions, the side exploiting that is covered by the inability of the other side to take action. take away the legal protection (assuming minimally rational actors), guerilla warfare looses one of its biggests benefits....

would manking be better off IF guerrilla warfare wasnt so convinient, and its very same existance could be detrimental to any side using it?
is mankind better off allowing guerrilla warfare to be so powerful based on an abuse of well meaning conventions????

You're joking right? You go out bear hunting looking like the terminator and claim that the bears have the upper hand, complain that thay stay in the forrest instead of comming down to the malls parking lot "to fight".

If guerilla warfare was such an advatage Israel would be fighting the same way. Anybody would..
In urban warefare you go knocking, door by door.
Israel has no problem with beeing hindered by legality. 39yrs of bloody occupation has prooven they can't be touched by the UN.

Convenient lazy bastards they are going out on foot when they can take their equally as big war machine (4th in the world) and fight the Israelis "mano a mano"...
I'm going to petition the UN tho forbit any type of uprising until the weinies get a propper defence. Sweden can sell it to them too (we need the income to spend on more roundabouts).

i never said, established nor suggest a judgement of absolute value. i dont think lebanese lives are worthless.
i established the relative value of a life to its respective side.
i´d think everybody would agree a life of those "from your side" is worth more (relatively to you) than a life from one "from the other side", specially in a war.

Let me clarify that; we're all worth the same. To the nickle.
(that accounts for US citizens too. :eviltongu )

39 or 21 years, doesnt matter for the sake of the argument.
international law is customary for the most part, with a few bits encoded in laws and conventions. but legal precedents are still one of the biggest sources of international law when it comes to settling litigations. precedents dating back 50, 100 or more years have been widely used and accepted, specially in border treaties.....
the age is not the most relevant criteria, specially those from less than 50 years ago....

I've noted that you are very acustomed to the law. I'm not, nor do I know what it says in this specific thing. Although, judging from several posts, it seems you would be a lost human beeing without it. There is a right and wrong even if there is no law. Or for that matter someone who can impose it.
There are so many apparent wrongful/uneven/atrocious things going on in this conflict, there should be an alarm ringing in your head.

 

[rockwool]

peace with egypt proved the invasion of the sinai was, in the long run, in the best of israel´s and peace interest. had israel not invaded the sinai, it would have not had a bargaining with egypt, the most powerful foe back then.
the sinai shifted the negotiation for egypt from "destroying israel" to "getting back the sinai".
the fact israel returned the sinai is a show, i believe, that israel wants primarily peace over anything else.
you see, gaza was a first step towards what could have been another camp david.

am pretty sure israel will leave most of the west bank (probably not much less than what was offered to arafat)if the conditions to do so ever come up, and there is no need for further military intervention to keep the people inside from bombing israel.
really, the long lasting peace solution (if ever achieved) will not be much different from what was offered in camp david 2000. realistically, since then the ball has been in palestinian court.
just think about this, incorporing the west bank, would necesarilly mean a couple more million arab citizens in the state of israel.. that´d be worse than the problem in many ways.
i believe decision makers in israel are well aware of that, thus a permanent solution is likely in those terms, but only if palestinian compromise for peace exists.
expecting israel to give up the west bank, to then have it split turned into a suicide bombers factory in a couple years, is not really a rational expectation from israel.

The US bought that peace with tax money. Egypt is the largest beneficiary of US aid bar Israel.

Actions show different. The apartheid wall is permanent boarders of the future. Settlements stay.
Camp David showed this. It is better explained in thet documentary i've been naging about every body to watch, than I could do with a Minion words.
Please watch it. Its full of facts presented by Jews!

 

[Kevin]

Yes people watch the documentary.
It will take more then an hour of your precious RM time but its worth it.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7828123714384920696&q=Peace,+Propaganda+&+The+Promised+Land

 

[Changleen]

The documentary is good. I watched it last night.

 

[N8 v2.0]

Come on you 'tards... it isn't like Armageddon in the middle east is some kind of a surprise... it's been predicted for roughly 2000 years now.

 

[Transcend]

...and to think, no one figured it would be instigated by the USA.

 

[N8 v2.0]

...and to think, no one figured it would be instigated by the USA.

not intelligent at all.

 

[Transcend]

Gotcha. The US never invaded Iraq illegally and pissed off the entire middle east. You should probably pull your head outta dubya's tighty whities long enough to see what is really goign on in the world.

 

[Secret Squirrel]

Gotcha. The US never invaded Iraq illegally and pissed off the entire middle east. You should probably pull your head outta dubya's tighty whities long enough to see what is really goign on in the world.

It's much better when you look on the brighter side of life....