Fack me...this thread got stupidly over burdened
For someone claiming to study Islamic studies, it's amusing to find someone who cherry picks certai things to give a certain slant. For instance, there is another version of this hadith given in Al-Tirmidhy which says the Jews will fight you and you will gain victory over them, with stones betraying them.
There is another linked to that regarding the anti Christ and it's followers. There is a reason why many of those who actually study the Hadiths and it's sciences don't just cherry pick and taken something in isolation. Many Qur'an verses have the same treatment yet whe. Read with the passages around it and in its historical context you find that partial quotes or not the whole gives a different perspective of what is happening.
comment by CurrentlyInPoland (U11181)
posted 0 seconds ago
For someone claiming to study Islamic studies, it's amusing to find someone who cherry picks certai things to give a certain slant. For instance, there is another version of this hadith given in Al-Tirmidhy which says the Jews will fight you and you will gain victory over them, with stones betraying them.
There is another linked to that regarding the anti Christ and it's followers. There is a reason why many of those who actually study the Hadiths and it's sciences don't just cherry pick and taken something in isolation. Many Qur'an verses have the same treatment yet whe. Read with the passages around it and in its historical context you find that partial quotes or not the whole gives a different perspective of what is happening.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'll add that even myself am a novice in this but one can tell that if you have some understanding of Hadiths and how they work, you won't be saying things as easily as this and then coming to conclusions as you do.
1. Referring to 1947 bears no relevance to whether there is a possibility of a settlement with Hamas, who did not exist in 1947. Remember that my original post that you responded to was contesting the idea that Hamas only wanted violence, and that negotiations were not possible.
2. Religious extremist is obviously a problem and certainly one of the driver's of the conflict, yes.
3. A copy and paste quite literally & directly from the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs... Excellent. These "ceasefires" were basically a joke and radically different in nature from the major ceasefire agreements I was referring to. Israel was in the midst of slaughtering over 2,000 people at the time of the ones you've pasted. There was no realistic way for these brief and on-the-fly "agreements" to even be properly transmitted throughout Gaza, as Israel well knew, which provided a perfect pretext to continue their assault and then produce disgraceful justifications for the slaughter, which you've chosen to dutifully reproduce here. Quite staggering really.
4. Huh? UN resolution 242 is not an "offer from Israel", but the implementation of that resolution has indeed been blocked by the US & Israel. You're muddling all sorts of things up - I never mentioned either of UN resolutions (which happen to be suitably vague in key areas, but nevertheless provide a good framework), let alone described them as 'farcical'. Stop flailing about.
Interesting that Israel are targeting and killing Journalists. Especially for outlets that are not western.
Al Jazeera again or a different new channel?
comment by BerbaKing11 (U6256)
posted 18 minutes ago
1. Referring to 1947 bears no relevance to whether there is a possibility of a settlement with Hamas, who did not exist in 1947. Remember that my original post that you responded to was contesting the idea that Hamas only wanted violence, and that negotiations were not possible.
2. Religious extremist is obviously a problem and certainly one of the driver's of the conflict, yes.
3. A copy and paste quite literally & directly from the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs... Excellent. These "ceasefires" were basically a joke and radically different in nature from the major ceasefire agreements I was referring to. Israel was in the midst of slaughtering over 2,000 people at the time of the ones you've pasted. There was no realistic way for these brief and on-the-fly "agreements" to even be properly transmitted throughout Gaza, as Israel well knew, which provided a perfect pretext to continue their assault and then produce disgraceful justifications for the slaughter, which you've chosen to dutifully reproduce here. Quite staggering really.
4. Huh? UN resolution 242 is not an "offer from Israel", but the implementation of that resolution has indeed been blocked by the US & Israel. You're muddling all sorts of things up - I never mentioned either of UN resolutions (which happen to be suitably vague in key areas, but nevertheless provide a good framework), let alone described them as 'farcical'. Stop flailing about.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Yes I’m well-aware Hamas didn’t exist until 40 years later but the point is that you’re clearly portraying this whole conflict as Hamas wanting peace but the US & Israel just blocking it time and time again which is it isn’t true. Just as the post you replied to wasn’t true either which was saying the opposite. The reality lies in the middle.
2. Yup
3. You haven’t read them all then, have you? Again, regardless of the source and regardless of your analysis, you’re portraying Hamas as overwhelmingly honouring ceasefires and Israel repeatedly breaching them. This is clearly not the case. Feel free to provide a Hama provided list if you want. But overwhelmingly Vs repeatedly is implying that Hamas honours the agreements the vast, vast majority of the time and repeatedly implies that Israel time and time again breach them. You and I can sit here all day coughing each breach if you want, but I bet it’s much more like 50/50 as opposed to overwhelming Vs repeated
4. Apologies you did specifically say offers from Israel were farcical. My point is that there have been offers made based heavily on 242 & 238 to which Arafat just outright kept saying no. These weren’t farcical offers by any means. Yet again your original statements are incorrect by stating that:
“I very much doubt any kind of settlement with Hamas could ever be negotiated at this point, but we have to remember that those are choices Israel & the US made repeatedly, for decades“
Which simply isn’t true.
I’m not flailing about anything. You’re being just as bad (overly biased) as the poster you were originally replying to who said Hamas only want violence done went peace etc.
comment by BerbaKing11 (U6256)
posted 46 minutes ago
1. Referring to 1947 bears no relevance to whether there is a possibility of a settlement with Hamas, who did not exist in 1947. Remember that my original post that you responded to was contesting the idea that Hamas only wanted violence, and that negotiations were not possible.
2. Religious extremist is obviously a problem and certainly one of the driver's of the conflict, yes.
3. A copy and paste quite literally & directly from the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs... Excellent. These "ceasefires" were basically a joke and radically different in nature from the major ceasefire agreements I was referring to. Israel was in the midst of slaughtering over 2,000 people at the time of the ones you've pasted. There was no realistic way for these brief and on-the-fly "agreements" to even be properly transmitted throughout Gaza, as Israel well knew, which provided a perfect pretext to continue their assault and then produce disgraceful justifications for the slaughter, which you've chosen to dutifully reproduce here. Quite staggering really.
4. Huh? UN resolution 242 is not an "offer from Israel", but the implementation of that resolution has indeed been blocked by the US & Israel. You're muddling all sorts of things up - I never mentioned either of UN resolutions (which happen to be suitably vague in key areas, but nevertheless provide a good framework), let alone described them as 'farcical'. Stop flailing about.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sat Nav,
1. The diplomatic records on peace negotiations is very clear and very consistent. All efforts (which are mostly prior to Hamas being elected in 2006) at a settlement, including ones that have gotten quite far (such as Taba), have been called off by Israel. There's other cases, where Israel placed conditions upon the agreements that effectively sabotaged them. This literally isn't up for debate.
2. Groovy
3. I'm not "portraying" it, I'm outright stating it matter of factly, because it's exactly correct. The cluster of cases you regurgitated from the Israeli Ministry of Defence uncritically are not only anomalies on the record of ceasefires, but not even remotely comparable given the circumstances. That list was and remains a PR effort aimed at ameliorating the international outcry at Israel's all out assault on Gaza. Even if we afford any weight to that PR effort, I'm curious to know how and where you've been able to validate the claims of the Israeli government, who have a lovely track record of presenting dubious and misleading conflict statistics to media organisations for publication.
4. Offers that Palestinians of any self-respect could not accept, partly through the imposition is conditions from Israel that simply wouldn't have changed much on the ground in real terms, and partly because key aspects of those UN resolutions are suitably vague and created pragmatic obstacles.
I've nothing else to add really. You can keep saying things like "which simply isn't true" if you like. But the facts are the facts. Israel are the occupying military power, supported massively in every which way by the world's leading super military power. They have the ability, if they want (which they don't), to end the conflict.
Of course the USA and Israel don't want this or any other middle eastern conflict to end. Let's not even get into that.
comment by BerbaKing11 (U6256)
posted 4 minutes ago
Sat Nav,
1. The diplomatic records on peace negotiations is very clear and very consistent. All efforts (which are mostly prior to Hamas being elected in 2006) at a settlement, including ones that have gotten quite far (such as Taba), have been called off by Israel. There's other cases, where Israel placed conditions upon the agreements that effectively sabotaged them. This literally isn't up for debate.
2. Groovy
3. I'm not "portraying" it, I'm outright stating it matter of factly, because it's exactly correct. The cluster of cases you regurgitated from the Israeli Ministry of Defence uncritically are not only anomalies on the record of ceasefires, but not even remotely comparable given the circumstances. That list was and remains a PR effort aimed at ameliorating the international outcry at Israel's all out assault on Gaza. Even if we afford any weight to that PR effort, I'm curious to know how and where you've been able to validate the claims of the Israeli government, who have a lovely track record of presenting dubious and misleading conflict statistics to media organisations for publication.
4. Offers that Palestinians of any self-respect could not accept, partly through the imposition is conditions from Israel that simply wouldn't have changed much on the ground in real terms, and partly because key aspects of those UN resolutions are suitably vague and created pragmatic obstacles.
I've nothing else to add really. You can keep saying things like "which simply isn't true" if you like. But the facts are the facts. Israel are the occupying military power, supported massively in every which way by the world's leading super military power. They have the ability, if they want (which they don't), to end the conflict.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Unlike the proposal from the UN in 1947? So it’s not all efforts, is it? Nor with Arafat refusing to negotiate. So it is up for debate.
2. Extremely groovy
3. How about 2003?
The word ceasefire is not in our dictionary,' said Rantissi, the target of last week's attempted assassination by Israeli helicopters. 'Resistance will continue until we uproot [the Israelis] from our homeland.'
Rantissi's comments come at the end of a week in which Hamas broke off ceasefire negotiations with Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas and in which senior US officials rushed to Israel to save the peace process.
Another anomaly?
4. Could you get specific please? From what I have read:
The proposals included the establishment of a demilitarised Palestinian state on some 92% of the West Bank and 100% of the Gaza Strip, with some territorial compensation for the Palestinians from pre-1967 Israeli territory; the dismantling of most of the settlements and the concentration of the bulk of the settlers inside the 8% of the West Bank to be annexed by Israel; the establishment of the Palestinian capital in east Jerusalem, in which some Arab neighborhoods would become sovereign Palestinian territory and others would enjoy "functional autonomy"; Palestinian sovereignty over half the Old City of Jerusalem (the Muslim and Christian quarters) and "custodianship," though not sovereignty, over the Temple Mount; a return of refugees to the prospective Palestinian state though with no "right of return" to Israel proper; and the organisation by the international community of a massive aid programme to facilitate the refugees' rehabilitation.
Was the lack of the right to return the problem for any Palestinians with self-respect or living under ‘functional autonomy’
Either way I don’t think this is a farcical offer.
Similar proposals have been made and been accepted by Palestinians.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/two-state-solution
Who ruined the 1995 Yasser Arafat peace deal, the closest we've ever come to peace?
"In 1993 Israel, led by Rabin’s foreign minister Shimon Peres, held a series of negotiations with the PLO in Oslo, Norway. In early September Yasser Arafat sent a letter to Rabin saying that the PLO recognized Israel’s right to exist, accepted UN Resolutions 242 and 338 (which called for lasting peace with Israel in exchange for Israel’s withdrawal to its pre-1967 borders), and renounced terrorism and violence."
comment by K7-0ptimus Primal (U1282)
posted 29 minutes ago
Who ruined the 1995 Yasser Arafat peace deal, the closest we've ever come to peace?
"In 1993 Israel, led by Rabin’s foreign minister Shimon Peres, held a series of negotiations with the PLO in Oslo, Norway. In early September Yasser Arafat sent a letter to Rabin saying that the PLO recognized Israel’s right to exist, accepted UN Resolutions 242 and 338 (which called for lasting peace with Israel in exchange for Israel’s withdrawal to its pre-1967 borders), and renounced terrorism and violence."
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wasn't rabin murdered or was that someone else.
3. How about 2003?
The word ceasefire is not in our dictionary,' said Rantissi, the target of last week's attempted assassination by Israeli helicopters. 'Resistance will continue until we uproot [the Israelis] from our homeland.'
Rantissi's comments come at the end of a week in which Hamas broke off ceasefire negotiations with Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas and in which senior US officials rushed to Israel to save the peace process.
------------------------------
Look at you scrambling about desperately on Google. You'll note (well, you won't otherwise you wouldn't have embarked on another copy & paste job), that this isn't *breaching an agreed ceasefire that is already in place*, but refusing to accept one, which are obviously different. And those remarks by Rantissi were made just after Israel had attempted to assassinate him.
Not so much an anomaly but rather a completely unrelated and distinct issue altogether.
comment by spyro-12 (U21947)
posted 37 seconds ago
comment by K7-0ptimus Primal (U1282)
posted 29 minutes ago
Who ruined the 1995 Yasser Arafat peace deal, the closest we've ever come to peace?
"In 1993 Israel, led by Rabin’s foreign minister Shimon Peres, held a series of negotiations with the PLO in Oslo, Norway. In early September Yasser Arafat sent a letter to Rabin saying that the PLO recognized Israel’s right to exist, accepted UN Resolutions 242 and 338 (which called for lasting peace with Israel in exchange for Israel’s withdrawal to its pre-1967 borders), and renounced terrorism and violence."
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wasn't rabin murdered or was that someone else.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, he was murdered by a rogue Jewish shooter.
PS. They're called rogue shooters if they're Israeli and terrorists if they're Palestinian.
comment by BerbaKing11 (U6256)
posted 57 seconds ago
3. How about 2003?
The word ceasefire is not in our dictionary,' said Rantissi, the target of last week's attempted assassination by Israeli helicopters. 'Resistance will continue until we uproot [the Israelis] from our homeland.'
Rantissi's comments come at the end of a week in which Hamas broke off ceasefire negotiations with Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas and in which senior US officials rushed to Israel to save the peace process.
------------------------------
Look at you scrambling about desperately on Google. You'll note (well, you won't otherwise you wouldn't have embarked on another copy & paste job), that this isn't *breaching an agreed ceasefire that is already in place*, but refusing to accept one, which are obviously different. And those remarks by Rantissi were made just after Israel had attempted to assassinate him.
Not so much an anomaly but rather a completely unrelated and distinct issue altogether.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's strange he deemed this a good point to make when it all centers around Israel trying to assassinate a Palestinian leader.
comment by BerbaKing11 (U6256)
posted 17 minutes ago
3. How about 2003?
The word ceasefire is not in our dictionary,' said Rantissi, the target of last week's attempted assassination by Israeli helicopters. 'Resistance will continue until we uproot [the Israelis] from our homeland.'
Rantissi's comments come at the end of a week in which Hamas broke off ceasefire negotiations with Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas and in which senior US officials rushed to Israel to save the peace process.
------------------------------
Look at you scrambling about desperately on Google. You'll note (well, you won't otherwise you wouldn't have embarked on another copy & paste job), that this isn't *breaching an agreed ceasefire that is already in place*, but refusing to accept one, which are obviously different. And those remarks by Rantissi were made just after Israel had attempted to assassinate him.
Not so much an anomaly but rather a completely unrelated and distinct issue altogether.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There’s nothing desperate about it mate.
What date did Israel attempt to assassinate him? Were there any acts of violence preceding that? (This is rhetorical you don’t have to answer unless you really want to)
Debate teeet for tat all day long but your portrayal is so one-sided.
Given that Israel repeatedly broke ceasefires, perhaps you can provide a list? Again, you don’t have to. But you’re rejecting all of my examples whereby Hamas haven’t honoured ceasefires and haven’t provided any of your own.
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 0 seconds ago
comment by BerbaKing11 (U6256)
posted 17 minutes ago
3. How about 2003?
The word ceasefire is not in our dictionary,' said Rantissi, the target of last week's attempted assassination by Israeli helicopters. 'Resistance will continue until we uproot [the Israelis] from our homeland.'
Rantissi's comments come at the end of a week in which Hamas broke off ceasefire negotiations with Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas and in which senior US officials rushed to Israel to save the peace process.
------------------------------
Look at you scrambling about desperately on Google. You'll note (well, you won't otherwise you wouldn't have embarked on another copy & paste job), that this isn't *breaching an agreed ceasefire that is already in place*, but refusing to accept one, which are obviously different. And those remarks by Rantissi were made just after Israel had attempted to assassinate him.
Not so much an anomaly but rather a completely unrelated and distinct issue altogether.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There’s nothing desperate about it mate.
What date did Israel attempt to assassinate him? Were there any acts of violence preceding that? (This is rhetorical you don’t have to answer unless you really want to)
Debate teeet for tat all day long but your portrayal is so one-sided.
Given that Israel repeatedly broke ceasefires, perhaps you can provide a list? Again, you don’t have to. But you’re rejecting all of my examples whereby Hamas haven’t honoured ceasefires and haven’t provided any of your own.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Noted that you ignored points 1 and 4 mate. My query about the terms of offer were genuine.
What date did Israel attempt to assassinate him? Were there any acts of violence preceding that? (This is rhetorical you don’t have to answer unless you really want to)
=====
I want to answer. We should go back all the way in this teet for tat and see who threw the first punch.
comment by K7-0ptimus Primal (U1282)
posted 4 minutes ago
What date did Israel attempt to assassinate him? Were there any acts of violence preceding that? (This is rhetorical you don’t have to answer unless you really want to)
=====
I want to answer. We should go back all the way in this teet for tat and see who threw the first punch.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well exactly, it’s pointless.
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by K7-0ptimus Primal (U1282)
posted 4 minutes ago
What date did Israel attempt to assassinate him? Were there any acts of violence preceding that? (This is rhetorical you don’t have to answer unless you really want to)
=====
I want to answer. We should go back all the way in this teet for tat and see who threw the first punch.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well exactly, it’s pointless.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No it's not. Whoever threw the first punch to withdraw that punch and there will be a chance at peace.
So...it's not who's got the biggest Dad then....
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
Noted that you ignored points 1 and 4 mate. My query about the terms of offer were genuine.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There's nothing to answer as I've done so already. The maps (and other details) of the supposedly "grand" offer to Arafat show the reality, and you could have sought them out at any time. They have been detailed and critiqued many times. It's also a common misconception that no counter offers were made. The fact you don't seem to know this is particularly interesting given you accuse me of being 'one sided'.
Clinton revised the "parameters" of the offer later, recognising that sectioning off the West Bank into separated and unviable cantons was unacceptable. Then there was a broad framework of agreement (Taba), then Israel called it off.
Apologists for Israel love to point out the generous sounding, PR soundbites ("all of Gaza", "90+% of the West Bank)... without actually looking at a map and understanding what the implications were.
It's also recognised that the "Palestinian narrative of the 2000-01 peace talks is significantly more accurate than the Israeli narrative”: analysis by Harvard/MIT Journal on International Security: https://scholar.harvard.edu/hckelman/files/Vicissitudes.pdf (page 22)
Israel waaay out of line here
Page 8 of 11
7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11
posted on 10/10/23
Fack me...this thread got stupidly over burdened
posted on 10/10/23
For someone claiming to study Islamic studies, it's amusing to find someone who cherry picks certai things to give a certain slant. For instance, there is another version of this hadith given in Al-Tirmidhy which says the Jews will fight you and you will gain victory over them, with stones betraying them.
There is another linked to that regarding the anti Christ and it's followers. There is a reason why many of those who actually study the Hadiths and it's sciences don't just cherry pick and taken something in isolation. Many Qur'an verses have the same treatment yet whe. Read with the passages around it and in its historical context you find that partial quotes or not the whole gives a different perspective of what is happening.
posted on 10/10/23
comment by CurrentlyInPoland (U11181)
posted 0 seconds ago
For someone claiming to study Islamic studies, it's amusing to find someone who cherry picks certai things to give a certain slant. For instance, there is another version of this hadith given in Al-Tirmidhy which says the Jews will fight you and you will gain victory over them, with stones betraying them.
There is another linked to that regarding the anti Christ and it's followers. There is a reason why many of those who actually study the Hadiths and it's sciences don't just cherry pick and taken something in isolation. Many Qur'an verses have the same treatment yet whe. Read with the passages around it and in its historical context you find that partial quotes or not the whole gives a different perspective of what is happening.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'll add that even myself am a novice in this but one can tell that if you have some understanding of Hadiths and how they work, you won't be saying things as easily as this and then coming to conclusions as you do.
posted on 10/10/23
1. Referring to 1947 bears no relevance to whether there is a possibility of a settlement with Hamas, who did not exist in 1947. Remember that my original post that you responded to was contesting the idea that Hamas only wanted violence, and that negotiations were not possible.
2. Religious extremist is obviously a problem and certainly one of the driver's of the conflict, yes.
3. A copy and paste quite literally & directly from the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs... Excellent. These "ceasefires" were basically a joke and radically different in nature from the major ceasefire agreements I was referring to. Israel was in the midst of slaughtering over 2,000 people at the time of the ones you've pasted. There was no realistic way for these brief and on-the-fly "agreements" to even be properly transmitted throughout Gaza, as Israel well knew, which provided a perfect pretext to continue their assault and then produce disgraceful justifications for the slaughter, which you've chosen to dutifully reproduce here. Quite staggering really.
4. Huh? UN resolution 242 is not an "offer from Israel", but the implementation of that resolution has indeed been blocked by the US & Israel. You're muddling all sorts of things up - I never mentioned either of UN resolutions (which happen to be suitably vague in key areas, but nevertheless provide a good framework), let alone described them as 'farcical'. Stop flailing about.
posted on 10/10/23
Interesting that Israel are targeting and killing Journalists. Especially for outlets that are not western.
posted on 10/10/23
Al Jazeera again or a different new channel?
posted on 10/10/23
comment by BerbaKing11 (U6256)
posted 18 minutes ago
1. Referring to 1947 bears no relevance to whether there is a possibility of a settlement with Hamas, who did not exist in 1947. Remember that my original post that you responded to was contesting the idea that Hamas only wanted violence, and that negotiations were not possible.
2. Religious extremist is obviously a problem and certainly one of the driver's of the conflict, yes.
3. A copy and paste quite literally & directly from the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs... Excellent. These "ceasefires" were basically a joke and radically different in nature from the major ceasefire agreements I was referring to. Israel was in the midst of slaughtering over 2,000 people at the time of the ones you've pasted. There was no realistic way for these brief and on-the-fly "agreements" to even be properly transmitted throughout Gaza, as Israel well knew, which provided a perfect pretext to continue their assault and then produce disgraceful justifications for the slaughter, which you've chosen to dutifully reproduce here. Quite staggering really.
4. Huh? UN resolution 242 is not an "offer from Israel", but the implementation of that resolution has indeed been blocked by the US & Israel. You're muddling all sorts of things up - I never mentioned either of UN resolutions (which happen to be suitably vague in key areas, but nevertheless provide a good framework), let alone described them as 'farcical'. Stop flailing about.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Yes I’m well-aware Hamas didn’t exist until 40 years later but the point is that you’re clearly portraying this whole conflict as Hamas wanting peace but the US & Israel just blocking it time and time again which is it isn’t true. Just as the post you replied to wasn’t true either which was saying the opposite. The reality lies in the middle.
2. Yup
3. You haven’t read them all then, have you? Again, regardless of the source and regardless of your analysis, you’re portraying Hamas as overwhelmingly honouring ceasefires and Israel repeatedly breaching them. This is clearly not the case. Feel free to provide a Hama provided list if you want. But overwhelmingly Vs repeatedly is implying that Hamas honours the agreements the vast, vast majority of the time and repeatedly implies that Israel time and time again breach them. You and I can sit here all day coughing each breach if you want, but I bet it’s much more like 50/50 as opposed to overwhelming Vs repeated
4. Apologies you did specifically say offers from Israel were farcical. My point is that there have been offers made based heavily on 242 & 238 to which Arafat just outright kept saying no. These weren’t farcical offers by any means. Yet again your original statements are incorrect by stating that:
“I very much doubt any kind of settlement with Hamas could ever be negotiated at this point, but we have to remember that those are choices Israel & the US made repeatedly, for decades“
Which simply isn’t true.
I’m not flailing about anything. You’re being just as bad (overly biased) as the poster you were originally replying to who said Hamas only want violence done went peace etc.
posted on 10/10/23
*Don’t want
posted on 10/10/23
comment by BerbaKing11 (U6256)
posted 46 minutes ago
1. Referring to 1947 bears no relevance to whether there is a possibility of a settlement with Hamas, who did not exist in 1947. Remember that my original post that you responded to was contesting the idea that Hamas only wanted violence, and that negotiations were not possible.
2. Religious extremist is obviously a problem and certainly one of the driver's of the conflict, yes.
3. A copy and paste quite literally & directly from the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs... Excellent. These "ceasefires" were basically a joke and radically different in nature from the major ceasefire agreements I was referring to. Israel was in the midst of slaughtering over 2,000 people at the time of the ones you've pasted. There was no realistic way for these brief and on-the-fly "agreements" to even be properly transmitted throughout Gaza, as Israel well knew, which provided a perfect pretext to continue their assault and then produce disgraceful justifications for the slaughter, which you've chosen to dutifully reproduce here. Quite staggering really.
4. Huh? UN resolution 242 is not an "offer from Israel", but the implementation of that resolution has indeed been blocked by the US & Israel. You're muddling all sorts of things up - I never mentioned either of UN resolutions (which happen to be suitably vague in key areas, but nevertheless provide a good framework), let alone described them as 'farcical'. Stop flailing about.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
posted on 10/10/23
Sat Nav,
1. The diplomatic records on peace negotiations is very clear and very consistent. All efforts (which are mostly prior to Hamas being elected in 2006) at a settlement, including ones that have gotten quite far (such as Taba), have been called off by Israel. There's other cases, where Israel placed conditions upon the agreements that effectively sabotaged them. This literally isn't up for debate.
2. Groovy
3. I'm not "portraying" it, I'm outright stating it matter of factly, because it's exactly correct. The cluster of cases you regurgitated from the Israeli Ministry of Defence uncritically are not only anomalies on the record of ceasefires, but not even remotely comparable given the circumstances. That list was and remains a PR effort aimed at ameliorating the international outcry at Israel's all out assault on Gaza. Even if we afford any weight to that PR effort, I'm curious to know how and where you've been able to validate the claims of the Israeli government, who have a lovely track record of presenting dubious and misleading conflict statistics to media organisations for publication.
4. Offers that Palestinians of any self-respect could not accept, partly through the imposition is conditions from Israel that simply wouldn't have changed much on the ground in real terms, and partly because key aspects of those UN resolutions are suitably vague and created pragmatic obstacles.
I've nothing else to add really. You can keep saying things like "which simply isn't true" if you like. But the facts are the facts. Israel are the occupying military power, supported massively in every which way by the world's leading super military power. They have the ability, if they want (which they don't), to end the conflict.
posted on 10/10/23
Of course the USA and Israel don't want this or any other middle eastern conflict to end. Let's not even get into that.
posted on 10/10/23
comment by BerbaKing11 (U6256)
posted 4 minutes ago
Sat Nav,
1. The diplomatic records on peace negotiations is very clear and very consistent. All efforts (which are mostly prior to Hamas being elected in 2006) at a settlement, including ones that have gotten quite far (such as Taba), have been called off by Israel. There's other cases, where Israel placed conditions upon the agreements that effectively sabotaged them. This literally isn't up for debate.
2. Groovy
3. I'm not "portraying" it, I'm outright stating it matter of factly, because it's exactly correct. The cluster of cases you regurgitated from the Israeli Ministry of Defence uncritically are not only anomalies on the record of ceasefires, but not even remotely comparable given the circumstances. That list was and remains a PR effort aimed at ameliorating the international outcry at Israel's all out assault on Gaza. Even if we afford any weight to that PR effort, I'm curious to know how and where you've been able to validate the claims of the Israeli government, who have a lovely track record of presenting dubious and misleading conflict statistics to media organisations for publication.
4. Offers that Palestinians of any self-respect could not accept, partly through the imposition is conditions from Israel that simply wouldn't have changed much on the ground in real terms, and partly because key aspects of those UN resolutions are suitably vague and created pragmatic obstacles.
I've nothing else to add really. You can keep saying things like "which simply isn't true" if you like. But the facts are the facts. Israel are the occupying military power, supported massively in every which way by the world's leading super military power. They have the ability, if they want (which they don't), to end the conflict.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Unlike the proposal from the UN in 1947? So it’s not all efforts, is it? Nor with Arafat refusing to negotiate. So it is up for debate.
2. Extremely groovy
3. How about 2003?
The word ceasefire is not in our dictionary,' said Rantissi, the target of last week's attempted assassination by Israeli helicopters. 'Resistance will continue until we uproot [the Israelis] from our homeland.'
Rantissi's comments come at the end of a week in which Hamas broke off ceasefire negotiations with Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas and in which senior US officials rushed to Israel to save the peace process.
Another anomaly?
4. Could you get specific please? From what I have read:
The proposals included the establishment of a demilitarised Palestinian state on some 92% of the West Bank and 100% of the Gaza Strip, with some territorial compensation for the Palestinians from pre-1967 Israeli territory; the dismantling of most of the settlements and the concentration of the bulk of the settlers inside the 8% of the West Bank to be annexed by Israel; the establishment of the Palestinian capital in east Jerusalem, in which some Arab neighborhoods would become sovereign Palestinian territory and others would enjoy "functional autonomy"; Palestinian sovereignty over half the Old City of Jerusalem (the Muslim and Christian quarters) and "custodianship," though not sovereignty, over the Temple Mount; a return of refugees to the prospective Palestinian state though with no "right of return" to Israel proper; and the organisation by the international community of a massive aid programme to facilitate the refugees' rehabilitation.
Was the lack of the right to return the problem for any Palestinians with self-respect or living under ‘functional autonomy’
Either way I don’t think this is a farcical offer.
posted on 10/10/23
Similar proposals have been made and been accepted by Palestinians.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/two-state-solution
posted on 10/10/23
Who ruined the 1995 Yasser Arafat peace deal, the closest we've ever come to peace?
"In 1993 Israel, led by Rabin’s foreign minister Shimon Peres, held a series of negotiations with the PLO in Oslo, Norway. In early September Yasser Arafat sent a letter to Rabin saying that the PLO recognized Israel’s right to exist, accepted UN Resolutions 242 and 338 (which called for lasting peace with Israel in exchange for Israel’s withdrawal to its pre-1967 borders), and renounced terrorism and violence."
posted on 10/10/23
comment by K7-0ptimus Primal (U1282)
posted 29 minutes ago
Who ruined the 1995 Yasser Arafat peace deal, the closest we've ever come to peace?
"In 1993 Israel, led by Rabin’s foreign minister Shimon Peres, held a series of negotiations with the PLO in Oslo, Norway. In early September Yasser Arafat sent a letter to Rabin saying that the PLO recognized Israel’s right to exist, accepted UN Resolutions 242 and 338 (which called for lasting peace with Israel in exchange for Israel’s withdrawal to its pre-1967 borders), and renounced terrorism and violence."
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wasn't rabin murdered or was that someone else.
posted on 10/10/23
3. How about 2003?
The word ceasefire is not in our dictionary,' said Rantissi, the target of last week's attempted assassination by Israeli helicopters. 'Resistance will continue until we uproot [the Israelis] from our homeland.'
Rantissi's comments come at the end of a week in which Hamas broke off ceasefire negotiations with Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas and in which senior US officials rushed to Israel to save the peace process.
------------------------------
Look at you scrambling about desperately on Google. You'll note (well, you won't otherwise you wouldn't have embarked on another copy & paste job), that this isn't *breaching an agreed ceasefire that is already in place*, but refusing to accept one, which are obviously different. And those remarks by Rantissi were made just after Israel had attempted to assassinate him.
Not so much an anomaly but rather a completely unrelated and distinct issue altogether.
posted on 10/10/23
comment by spyro-12 (U21947)
posted 37 seconds ago
comment by K7-0ptimus Primal (U1282)
posted 29 minutes ago
Who ruined the 1995 Yasser Arafat peace deal, the closest we've ever come to peace?
"In 1993 Israel, led by Rabin’s foreign minister Shimon Peres, held a series of negotiations with the PLO in Oslo, Norway. In early September Yasser Arafat sent a letter to Rabin saying that the PLO recognized Israel’s right to exist, accepted UN Resolutions 242 and 338 (which called for lasting peace with Israel in exchange for Israel’s withdrawal to its pre-1967 borders), and renounced terrorism and violence."
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wasn't rabin murdered or was that someone else.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, he was murdered by a rogue Jewish shooter.
PS. They're called rogue shooters if they're Israeli and terrorists if they're Palestinian.
posted on 10/10/23
comment by BerbaKing11 (U6256)
posted 57 seconds ago
3. How about 2003?
The word ceasefire is not in our dictionary,' said Rantissi, the target of last week's attempted assassination by Israeli helicopters. 'Resistance will continue until we uproot [the Israelis] from our homeland.'
Rantissi's comments come at the end of a week in which Hamas broke off ceasefire negotiations with Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas and in which senior US officials rushed to Israel to save the peace process.
------------------------------
Look at you scrambling about desperately on Google. You'll note (well, you won't otherwise you wouldn't have embarked on another copy & paste job), that this isn't *breaching an agreed ceasefire that is already in place*, but refusing to accept one, which are obviously different. And those remarks by Rantissi were made just after Israel had attempted to assassinate him.
Not so much an anomaly but rather a completely unrelated and distinct issue altogether.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's strange he deemed this a good point to make when it all centers around Israel trying to assassinate a Palestinian leader.
posted on 10/10/23
comment by BerbaKing11 (U6256)
posted 17 minutes ago
3. How about 2003?
The word ceasefire is not in our dictionary,' said Rantissi, the target of last week's attempted assassination by Israeli helicopters. 'Resistance will continue until we uproot [the Israelis] from our homeland.'
Rantissi's comments come at the end of a week in which Hamas broke off ceasefire negotiations with Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas and in which senior US officials rushed to Israel to save the peace process.
------------------------------
Look at you scrambling about desperately on Google. You'll note (well, you won't otherwise you wouldn't have embarked on another copy & paste job), that this isn't *breaching an agreed ceasefire that is already in place*, but refusing to accept one, which are obviously different. And those remarks by Rantissi were made just after Israel had attempted to assassinate him.
Not so much an anomaly but rather a completely unrelated and distinct issue altogether.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There’s nothing desperate about it mate.
What date did Israel attempt to assassinate him? Were there any acts of violence preceding that? (This is rhetorical you don’t have to answer unless you really want to)
Debate teeet for tat all day long but your portrayal is so one-sided.
Given that Israel repeatedly broke ceasefires, perhaps you can provide a list? Again, you don’t have to. But you’re rejecting all of my examples whereby Hamas haven’t honoured ceasefires and haven’t provided any of your own.
posted on 10/10/23
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 0 seconds ago
comment by BerbaKing11 (U6256)
posted 17 minutes ago
3. How about 2003?
The word ceasefire is not in our dictionary,' said Rantissi, the target of last week's attempted assassination by Israeli helicopters. 'Resistance will continue until we uproot [the Israelis] from our homeland.'
Rantissi's comments come at the end of a week in which Hamas broke off ceasefire negotiations with Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas and in which senior US officials rushed to Israel to save the peace process.
------------------------------
Look at you scrambling about desperately on Google. You'll note (well, you won't otherwise you wouldn't have embarked on another copy & paste job), that this isn't *breaching an agreed ceasefire that is already in place*, but refusing to accept one, which are obviously different. And those remarks by Rantissi were made just after Israel had attempted to assassinate him.
Not so much an anomaly but rather a completely unrelated and distinct issue altogether.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There’s nothing desperate about it mate.
What date did Israel attempt to assassinate him? Were there any acts of violence preceding that? (This is rhetorical you don’t have to answer unless you really want to)
Debate teeet for tat all day long but your portrayal is so one-sided.
Given that Israel repeatedly broke ceasefires, perhaps you can provide a list? Again, you don’t have to. But you’re rejecting all of my examples whereby Hamas haven’t honoured ceasefires and haven’t provided any of your own.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Noted that you ignored points 1 and 4 mate. My query about the terms of offer were genuine.
posted on 10/10/23
What date did Israel attempt to assassinate him? Were there any acts of violence preceding that? (This is rhetorical you don’t have to answer unless you really want to)
=====
I want to answer. We should go back all the way in this teet for tat and see who threw the first punch.
posted on 10/10/23
comment by K7-0ptimus Primal (U1282)
posted 4 minutes ago
What date did Israel attempt to assassinate him? Were there any acts of violence preceding that? (This is rhetorical you don’t have to answer unless you really want to)
=====
I want to answer. We should go back all the way in this teet for tat and see who threw the first punch.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well exactly, it’s pointless.
posted on 10/10/23
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by K7-0ptimus Primal (U1282)
posted 4 minutes ago
What date did Israel attempt to assassinate him? Were there any acts of violence preceding that? (This is rhetorical you don’t have to answer unless you really want to)
=====
I want to answer. We should go back all the way in this teet for tat and see who threw the first punch.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well exactly, it’s pointless.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No it's not. Whoever threw the first punch to withdraw that punch and there will be a chance at peace.
posted on 10/10/23
So...it's not who's got the biggest Dad then....
posted on 10/10/23
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
Noted that you ignored points 1 and 4 mate. My query about the terms of offer were genuine.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There's nothing to answer as I've done so already. The maps (and other details) of the supposedly "grand" offer to Arafat show the reality, and you could have sought them out at any time. They have been detailed and critiqued many times. It's also a common misconception that no counter offers were made. The fact you don't seem to know this is particularly interesting given you accuse me of being 'one sided'.
Clinton revised the "parameters" of the offer later, recognising that sectioning off the West Bank into separated and unviable cantons was unacceptable. Then there was a broad framework of agreement (Taba), then Israel called it off.
Apologists for Israel love to point out the generous sounding, PR soundbites ("all of Gaza", "90+% of the West Bank)... without actually looking at a map and understanding what the implications were.
It's also recognised that the "Palestinian narrative of the 2000-01 peace talks is significantly more accurate than the Israeli narrative”: analysis by Harvard/MIT Journal on International Security: https://scholar.harvard.edu/hckelman/files/Vicissitudes.pdf (page 22)
Page 8 of 11
7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11