Wayne Stollings wrote:
The security environment continues to deteriorate. In 2012, the Israeli security service reports, there were 578 terrorist attacks in the West Bank
That's what happens when you occupy other people's land.
So you only have a circular logic with which to work? If that is what happens when you occupy other people's land how far back do you go to determine who owns the land? The Jordanians? The British? The Ottomans? The tribes of Israel?
It was "intransigent" Israel that pulled out of Gaza, dismantled every settlement there, withdrew every soldier, gave the land to the Gazans—and got no peace.
At least I can deal with facts rather than beliefs.
They control the borders,
Because the governing body will not guarantee peace, therefore the border must be controlled to prevent shipments of weapons. It is called security.
bomb at will,
In response to attacks made upon Israel. Odd that attacks from one side is acceptable in your mind as a path to peace, but a response form the other is not.
starve them at will
Yet they smuggle in arms rather than food?
and as far as withdrawing Settlements, Arial Sharon made it very clear why he withdrew the Settlements. It had become too expensive to protect them and he wanted to concentrate Settlement building on the West Bank and Jerusalem where security was easier to impose.
Really? All it would require is to remove the Palestinians, which you seem to believe is the goal, so why not just remove them and be done with it?
It was "intransigent" Israel that pulled out of Lebanon, only to see Hezbollah, a puppet of Iran, gain power with the help of the murderous Syrian occupiers.
You did read the article mentioning Israel's role in the rise of Hezbollah as well as Hamas didn't you?
The opinion piece?
A little Karma here I'd say.
And the Karma in response to attacks on Israel is not applicable? Your hypocritical position must be difficult to maintain.
As for withdrawing from Lebanon I guess they should get the Santa Claus award for exiting another country. Unlike Palestine there was some real effective resistance. I guess they didn't like getting their butts shot off.
Like the Arabs who took the lands from the people of Palestine? No, you don't count that do you? Maybe because it was them who lost the lands due to the contiual war footing?
Checked my links out again and they all worked fine. Didn't even have to try twice on any of them. As far as my characterization of the links all were accurate although not complete. The fact that you think otherwise is your problem. Anyway folks can read them and decide for themselves.
I am sure they can and they should have a better comprehension of how not being able to recognize the right of Israel to exist would make that a problem for any peace plan and would be a cause directly attributed to the Palestinians.
One thing I'll say for your clueless insistence on a before negotiation requirement that Palestinians recognize Israel as a Jewish state; that is the position of every hardline apologist for Israel I've come across.
If you cannot see where such a point would have to be in place in order for anyone to begin to believe the negoiations are going to be made in good faith, there is nothing which can be done to remove your ignorance. Given the stated goals of destruction, why would lying not be used in the process?
You're all in lockstep on that mindless mantra. And this is despite the fact that no borders have been agreed on and no reciprocal acceptance of a Palestine state is part of this deal.
Nor should there be. If I repeatedly say I am going to kill you over an extended period and then wish to negotiate an agreement to partially disarm you, would you trust me to negoiate in good faith?
But you folks still play this ridiculous game of demanding something that belongs in the realm of a negotiated settlement.
Not in the real world, but then again that seems to be unrelated to where you are getting your information.
I don't expect you to change your views Wayne.
Good, because it would be stupidity to follow your views.
Ideologues seldom change their views in my experience.
That is probably why you ignore history and logic in yuor beliefs.
My concluding perspective is you are not minimally serious or rational on this matter.
Given the level of rationality you have provided, I believe I can take that as a compliment considering the source.
You're simply not anchored to reality.
Actually, I am. You on the other hand seem to be anchored to a cloud.
But ideologies, religious or otherwise, seem to operate that way.
Go ahead and take your best shot. I'm done.
No, you never were able to start a rational defense of your position.