Debates
21 Apr 08
22 Apr 08
Originally posted by PalynkaIsrael isn't even meeting their Oslo commitments on settlements, so this can't be counted as a concession a second time.
Perhaps. Israel's forced withdrawal of settlements can also be seen as a concession. In a way that's more of a concession than decreasing how much you demand the other side to do. But it's obviously not enough, I agree with you there. However, I think that there are two primordial concessions that seem simply conceptual but are very important.
Israeli aut ...[text shortened]... ment have a real (unfortunately, perhaps small) chance of happening. Is that too much to ask?
I think things can get bogged down in semantics - Hamas is now saying it no longer aspires to regain all of Palestine, just to the 1967 borders. This is a huge concession. To expect them to swallow recognition of israel, for absolutely nothing in return, isn't all that realistic, IMO.
22 Apr 08
Originally posted by zeeblebotErmm. Why would they demand something they already had?
their modified demands still demand something they don't have.
what are they offering in exchange?
what did they offer in exchange for the experimental palestinian quasi-state already granted?
(not a rhetorical question ....)
The Palestinians are making the concession - it is israel who should be offering something in exchange.
The 'quaisi-state' was already in existence, it wasn't 'granted' by israel.
23 Apr 08
Originally posted by SMSBear716Maybe they'll cut his head off and televise it on Al Jazeera.
If Hamas really wanted peace, they'd stop the firing of missles from Gaza, now wouldn't they. Maybe they could fire one last one and aim for Carter's ass ... a near miss would deflate the commie's ego.
23 Apr 08
Originally posted by SMSBear716His presidency is marked by the one and only peace accord between Arabs and Israel which is still holding.
Well, since Hamas, being a terrorist organization, isn't sincere in its offer we don't have to worry about peace in the region just yet. The only people they seem to have fooled is Jimmy 'Peanut Farmer' Carter. But as Joe Lieberman said regarding Carter's meetings with Hamas leaders... he is naive at best. Truth is being anti-Semetic as he is, Carter is n ...[text shortened]... r than Hamas itself Just another accomplishment for the worst US President of this century.
If he had not inherited double digit inflation from the Nixon/Ford administrations things might have been different.
Maybe you are thinking of his successor, Ronald Reagan.
On his first day in office Reagan was told about an looming Savings and Loan Crisis and dismissed it as "unimportant". He also said AIDS was not a serious problem and cut funding for research.
Or perhaps it was when he balanced the budget as governor of California by cutting the mental health budget 75 per cent. Thousands of the mentally ill were tossed out on the streets. Many of the mentally ill died but many more began filling the jails.
It is ironic justice that he died from a disease which his own opposition to stem cell research might have helped.
And he was the king of deficit spending, only surpassed by the incompetent Bush administration.
After Reagan left office he did little for his fellow man while Carter probably did more than any other president.
The religious right reveres Reagan as a great man which makes one wonder which god they really worship.
23 Apr 08
Originally posted by caissad4I know you were laughing as you typed that asinine letter. Carter was a pretty good Governor in Georgia. Like Bush he surrounded himself with some dumbass advisors. Like they say the Buck stops here.
His presidency is marked by the one and only peace accord between Arabs and Israel which is still holding.
If he had not inherited double digit inflation from the Nixon/Ford administrations things might have been different.
Maybe you are thinking of his successor, Ronald Reagan.
On his first day in office Reagan was told about an looming Savings and Loan ...[text shortened]... ious right reveres Reagan as a great man which makes one wonder which god they really worship.
23 Apr 08
Originally posted by Redmikehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_Authority
Ermm. Why would they demand something they already had?
The Palestinians are making the concession - it is israel who should be offering something in exchange.
The 'quaisi-state' was already in existence, it wasn't 'granted' by israel.
Basis
The Palestinian National Authority was formed in 1994, pursuant to the Oslo Accords between the Palestinian Liberation Organisation (PLO) and the government of Israel, as a 5-year interim body during which final status negotiations between the two parties were to take place. According to the Accords, the Palestinian Authority was designated to have control over both security-related and civilian issues in Palestinian urban areas (referred to as "Area A"😉, and only civilian control over Palestinian rural areas ("Area B"😉. The remainder of the territories, including Israeli settlements, the Jordan Valley region, and bypass roads between Palestinian communities, were to remain under exclusive Israeli control ("Area C"😉. East Jerusalem was excluded from the Accords.
24 Apr 08
Originally posted by Palynkawhat withdrawal? they're still building more!
Perhaps. Israel's forced withdrawal of settlements can also be seen as a concession. In a way that's more of a concession than decreasing how much you demand the other side to do. But it's obviously not enough, I agree with you there. However, I think that there are two primordial concessions that seem simply conceptual but are very important.
Israeli aut ...[text shortened]... ment have a real (unfortunately, perhaps small) chance of happening. Is that too much to ask?
25 Apr 08
Originally posted by Palynkamy comment is that your argument is false. forced withdrawal of a few settlements, while at the same time building more and expanding others, is NOT a concession! i am actually quite informed.
If you don't know, then perhaps you should inform yourself. But we all know you're just being facetious anyway.
If you have a real comment regarding my argument, then by all means put it forward.
25 Apr 08
Originally posted by Palynkawhat is your point? four of the settlements were in the west bank. the settlements in gaza has not increased, but in the west bank they have. is not the west bank supposed to be a part of the palestinian state?
Are you unaware that the core of the disengagement plan was for Gaza? Or do you wish to affirm that the number of settlements in Gaza has increased?
25 Apr 08
Originally posted by mbakuninDisengagement from Gaza IS a concession. You might think that's not enough (I certainly affirmed so), but it remains nevertheless undeniable that it's false to affirm that concessions are only from one side.
what is your point? four of the settlements were in the west bank. the settlements in gaza has not increased, but in the west bank they have. is not the west bank supposed to be a part of the palestinian state?
Besides, increases in the population and number of settlements is nothing new. It has been going on for years at quite a fast rate.
25 Apr 08
Originally posted by Palynkai disagree. giving with one hand while taking with the other is not conceding.
Disengagement from Gaza IS a concession. You might think that's not enough (I certainly affirmed so), but it remains nevertheless undeniable that it's false to affirm that concessions are only from one side.
Besides, increases in the population and number of settlements is nothing new. It has been going on for years at quite a fast rate.