By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics - Poll: Israel or Palestine?

 

Who do you support in the conflict and why?

Israel 124 34.35%
 
Palestine 235 65.10%
 
Total:359
Mr Khan said:
Kasz216 said:
Mr Khan said:
 

Nonstate actors. Specifically Hamas campaigning for support within the nonstate group by running violence against Israel.

Also the fact that, aside from the whole "Death to Israel" thing, Hamas seems like the more honest of the two Palestinian parties.


I still don't see what about any of that has changed.

If anything, Hamas looks even more like the more honest of the two currently... while the PA looks like bumbling traitors who can't even successfully negotiate a secret capitulation.

Just for an example, if Israel today were to say "We will accept the Palestinian proposal in the Palestine papers" do you actually think a deal would be made?

Even if they wanted too, the PA couldn't agree to their own proposal in public.

I hate to say it, but I don't see any meanigful negotiation happening until another failed intifada.

If Israel could prove that they could be trusted for their part in the Palestinian Papers, i believe they could own up to it.

That is the other issue in that Hamas has toyed with the expectations of the Palestinian people, and thus forced the PA to up the ante beyond what they as a negotiation partner could reasonably expect, and will bring harsh reality down upon the Palestinian people, but it is a reality they would grudgingly accept so long as they believed that Israel would stand by their word, and that certain minimum thresholds are met (but minimum thresholds lower than the conditions that Palestinian leaders have been publicly endorsing)

Why, when the lead negotiatior literally had to resign for even thinking of offering such a deal?

How many decades would it take and how many attacks would Israel just have to absorb after Israel pulls out again, Hamas calls them weak again and PA probably ends up losing more legitamicy, if not it's existance all together.

Truth is the West probably just has to let go of the PA as they act as nothing but an easy scapegoat.



Around the Network
Kasz216 said:
Mr Khan said:

If Israel could prove that they could be trusted for their part in the Palestinian Papers, i believe they could own up to it.

That is the other issue in that Hamas has toyed with the expectations of the Palestinian people, and thus forced the PA to up the ante beyond what they as a negotiation partner could reasonably expect, and will bring harsh reality down upon the Palestinian people, but it is a reality they would grudgingly accept so long as they believed that Israel would stand by their word, and that certain minimum thresholds are met (but minimum thresholds lower than the conditions that Palestinian leaders have been publicly endorsing)

Why, when the lead negotiatior literally had to resign for even thinking of offering such a deal?

How many decades would it take and how many attacks would Israel just have to absorb after Israel pulls out again, Hamas calls them weak again and PA probably ends up losing more legitamicy, if not it's existance all together.

Truth is the West probably just has to let go of the PA as they act as nothing but an easy scapegoat.

Then it would be a matter of lowering Palestinian expectations, or seeing a new movement in Palestine, one with the honesty of Hamas but without their intractable, violent extremism



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

badgenome said:
sapphi_snake said:
badgenome said:
sapphi_snake said:

Al-Andalus was an Utopia compared to the rest of Medieval Europe (it was better in pretty much every way). You gotta give credit where credit is due.

True, and the Jim Crow era was a "utopia" compared to the days of slavery (it was better in pretty much every way), but that doesn't mean there was anything laudable about it. But I guess you gotta give credit where credit is due.

Bad analogy, as my example was comparing contemporary countries, while you presented the same country in different historical periods. Criticising Al-Andalus is simply ridiculous, since the fact is that it was by far better than any other country in Europe at the time (it took the rest of Europe a long time to reach the same level). And it most likely would've been ahead constantly if it had a better army, wasn't torn by internal conflicts, and then destroyed by the Spanish. If you're gonna criticise Islam regarding Al-Andalus, then you should bash Christianity regarding the rest of Europe (which was in a miserable state at the time).

Uh... no. I did implicitly criticize Christianity by acknowledging that it managed to be even less tolerant at the time (though there were exceptions such as the Byzantine Empire which - much like Andalusia - vacillated between long periods of marked tolerance and fierce bouts of persecution). However, the Christians have made incredible progress in the intervening centuries. The Muslims have meanwhile been steadily eradicating pretty much every ancient Christian and Jewish community in their midst, so I'm not exactly inclined to heap praise on them because their forefathers were somewhat more tolerant than the wildly intolerant Christians about a millennium ago.

Well, one of the reasons Muslims are so backwards is that the conflicts Christians have caused them throughout time really didn't give them a chance to get their act together.



"I don't understand how someone could like Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky, but not like Twilight!!!"

"Last book I read was Brokeback Mountain, I just don't have the patience for them unless it's softcore porn."

                                                                               (The Voice of a Generation and Seece)

"If you cant stand the sound of your own voice than dont become a singer !!!!!"

                                                                               (pizzahut451)

sapphi_snake said:

Well, one of the reasons Muslims are so backwards is that the conflicts Christians have caused them throughout time really didn't give them a chance to get their act together.

Colonialism played a significant role by retarding the political culture, no doubt, but I wouldn't overstate it.



there is no conflict , there was a country call Palestine then some people came killing and stealing the land
this are just facts just watch old maps



Around the Network
Mr Khan said:
Kasz216 said:
Mr Khan said:
 

If Israel could prove that they could be trusted for their part in the Palestinian Papers, i believe they could own up to it.

That is the other issue in that Hamas has toyed with the expectations of the Palestinian people, and thus forced the PA to up the ante beyond what they as a negotiation partner could reasonably expect, and will bring harsh reality down upon the Palestinian people, but it is a reality they would grudgingly accept so long as they believed that Israel would stand by their word, and that certain minimum thresholds are met (but minimum thresholds lower than the conditions that Palestinian leaders have been publicly endorsing)

Why, when the lead negotiatior literally had to resign for even thinking of offering such a deal?

How many decades would it take and how many attacks would Israel just have to absorb after Israel pulls out again, Hamas calls them weak again and PA probably ends up losing more legitamicy, if not it's existance all together.

Truth is the West probably just has to let go of the PA as they act as nothing but an easy scapegoat.

Then it would be a matter of lowering Palestinian expectations, or seeing a new movement in Palestine, one with the honesty of Hamas but without their intractable, violent extremism

Or more likely... both.  Though it's not like Hamas is the bastion of honesty.  Just less corrupt.  They still go out of their way to steal foreign aid directly from families to fuel they war.

The best option currently (sadly) would probably be to let the PA fall apart, then just do without negotiations for a few years and wait for people to get sick of Hamas' ways only making things worse for the Palestinians.

It would either create a new non-corrupt government that actually speaks for the people.... or force hamas to give up it's terrorist ways.

However, such a strategy would involve the opposite of what your suggesting from the Israeli side.  Or at least a "Hold the line" type mentality until hamas steps up it's atacks.   Also it could take a while.



sapphi_snake said:
badgenome said:
sapphi_snake said:
badgenome said:
sapphi_snake said:

Al-Andalus was an Utopia compared to the rest of Medieval Europe (it was better in pretty much every way). You gotta give credit where credit is due.

True, and the Jim Crow era was a "utopia" compared to the days of slavery (it was better in pretty much every way), but that doesn't mean there was anything laudable about it. But I guess you gotta give credit where credit is due.

Bad analogy, as my example was comparing contemporary countries, while you presented the same country in different historical periods. Criticising Al-Andalus is simply ridiculous, since the fact is that it was by far better than any other country in Europe at the time (it took the rest of Europe a long time to reach the same level). And it most likely would've been ahead constantly if it had a better army, wasn't torn by internal conflicts, and then destroyed by the Spanish. If you're gonna criticise Islam regarding Al-Andalus, then you should bash Christianity regarding the rest of Europe (which was in a miserable state at the time).

Uh... no. I did implicitly criticize Christianity by acknowledging that it managed to be even less tolerant at the time (though there were exceptions such as the Byzantine Empire which - much like Andalusia - vacillated between long periods of marked tolerance and fierce bouts of persecution). However, the Christians have made incredible progress in the intervening centuries. The Muslims have meanwhile been steadily eradicating pretty much every ancient Christian and Jewish community in their midst, so I'm not exactly inclined to heap praise on them because their forefathers were somewhat more tolerant than the wildly intolerant Christians about a millennium ago.

Well, one of the reasons Muslims are so backwards is that the conflicts Christians have caused them throughout time really didn't give them a chance to get their act together.


They brought those conflicts on their own. In almost all wars between christians and muslims, muslims were always the ones to strike first. Christians were almost always defending or recapturing lands



Kasz216 said:
Mr Khan said:
Kasz216 said:
Mr Khan said:
 

If Israel could prove that they could be trusted for their part in the Palestinian Papers, i believe they could own up to it.

That is the other issue in that Hamas has toyed with the expectations of the Palestinian people, and thus forced the PA to up the ante beyond what they as a negotiation partner could reasonably expect, and will bring harsh reality down upon the Palestinian people, but it is a reality they would grudgingly accept so long as they believed that Israel would stand by their word, and that certain minimum thresholds are met (but minimum thresholds lower than the conditions that Palestinian leaders have been publicly endorsing)

Why, when the lead negotiatior literally had to resign for even thinking of offering such a deal?

How many decades would it take and how many attacks would Israel just have to absorb after Israel pulls out again, Hamas calls them weak again and PA probably ends up losing more legitamicy, if not it's existance all together.

Truth is the West probably just has to let go of the PA as they act as nothing but an easy scapegoat.

Then it would be a matter of lowering Palestinian expectations, or seeing a new movement in Palestine, one with the honesty of Hamas but without their intractable, violent extremism

Or more likely... both.  Though it's not like Hamas is the bastion of honesty.  Just less corrupt.  They still go out of their way to steal foreign aid directly from families to fuel they war.

The best option currently (sadly) would probably be to let the PA fall apart, then just do without negotiations for a few years and wait for people to get sick of Hamas' ways only making things worse for the Palestinians.

It would either create a new non-corrupt government that actually speaks for the people.... or force hamas to give up it's terrorist ways.

However, such a strategy would involve the opposite of what your suggesting from the Israeli side.  Or at least a "Hold the line" type mentality until hamas steps up it's atacks.   Also it could take a while.


Which speaking of, might just be on it's way to happenng with this prisoner exchange.  It definitly weakens the already shakey PA, takes the wind out of the whole UN thing and in general makes it look like Hamas is doing something and getting prisoners back while the PA is just playing with words.

And Now Israel doesn't have to worry about that Shalit guy being used as a hostage should things get out of hand.



narog said:
there is no conflict , there was a country call Palestine then some people came killing and stealing the land
this are just facts just watch old maps

What was the capital city of that country?

Or who was the prime minister?



Bet with Dr.A.Peter.Nintendo that Super Mario Galaxy 2 won't sell 15 million copies up to six months after it's release, the winner will get Avatar control for a week and signature control for a month.

Palestine.. Being next to it and having witnessed the monstrosities of Israel first hand, it's an easy decision..