Yes - after 2,500 years of living at peace,

2,500 years of being chased around the planet and then almost wiped out completely. Turning the other cheek does not work.

So you assume. Gentile guilt over the Holocaust should have opened the doors to refuge outside Palestine. dam_n Gentiles....

You might be right, but most people think that they are there now and not going anywhere - that is what signing all the treaties is about.

If the Palestinians had any interest in peace, most Israelis are in favor.

Ok...so they are there now (which sentence implies a slight concession to the Palestinian stance that they should not have been there in the first place)..... so what of the Israeli expansion into East Jerusalem and the West Bank?

Most Israeli Jews are well aware that most Palestinians have no interest in peace until every Jew in Israel is dead. The Israelis have little interest in returning the land they have won until they have real guarantees of peace in return. I can't really blame them.

Most Israeli Jews are well aware that most Palestinians have no interest in peace until every Jew in Israel is dead. The Israelis have little interest in returning the land they have won until they have real guarantees of peace in return. I can't really blame them.

What you have just said implies Israel will return what they have stolen if peace is agreed upon. You are deluded, and I daresay that even your own hawks will disagree with you on this one.

Israel will give the Palestinians land for peace and they have been offering to share the land since before the first war. However, they have won the land with their blood in numerous wars, and they will not give it up lightly.

Israel will give the Palestinians land for peace and they have been offering to share the land since before the first war. However, they have won the land with their blood in numerous wars, and they will not give it up lightly.

There is a huge difference between giving back what was stolen, and curtailing further expansion.

Curtailing further expansion would be a good start.

Further expansion will not cease unless Israel is forced to stop.

I for one, do not think that Israel (political Israel) is interested in peace at all because the nation needs more space. The conflict suits their needs because it gives them the excuse to continue expanding...against international law regarding occupied lands.

Israel will give the Palestinians land for peace and they have been offering to share the land since before the first war. ...........

If you truly believe that, then you are a hopeless romantic and living in fantasy land.

I do not believe you are a hopeless romantic.

They have offered land for peace over and over again. The Palestinians keep turning them down.

The Jews bought lots and lots of land from the Arab owners who eventually tried to take it back. Just who is stealing?

I agree, before ww2. Soon after and largely for the years since then, no. UG, it's not 1945 any more.

That is because the Palestinians declared war on them and they kicked the holy heck out of them and in every war since.

It is the Israel's land now until the Palestinians are willing to make peace.

All Lennon asked, until killed by a warm gun, was to give peace a chance.

I am a big Beatle's fan. but Lennon was just following fashion. He was no peacenick - more of a

hypocrite.

They have offered land for peace over and over again. The Palestinians keep turning them down.

Do you mean, "Ok, we'll unoccupy some of the land we have stolen if you will stop hating us for killing so many of you?"

Besides being uncredible (the Israeli intent to continue to expand is obvious to everyone), why should the Palestinians accept a partial return of their lands?

Why should they not persue compensation on top of full return?

If someone stole, say 100 000 kg of gold from America and America started fighting to get it back....the fighting escalates to a point where the rest of the world says, "Guys, stop fighting, lets resolve this."

Do you think America will accept an offer of 100 kg of gold to stop the fight?

Of course not. They will want their 100 000 kg back, and a further 40 000 to compensate for their effort to fight.

If Israel gave back what it occupied in 1967 and since, with no conditions, and allowed a seperate Palestinian state, there would be a HUGE majority of Palestinians that would settle for that. Israel is the occupier...it is up to them to make the first unconditional and significant move.

But as it stands, Israel abuses the basic human rights of Arabs that reside in Israel and Palestine, and has an obvious agenda to expand. The conflict serves their purposes.

Most Israeli Jews are well aware that most Palestinians have no interest in peace until every Jew in Israel is dead. The Israelis have little interest in returning the land they have won until they have real guarantees of peace in return. I can't really blame them.

Evidence? The peace workers I worked with before and after they'd spent years in Hebron in West Bank, said quite the opposite. I can't blame Jews and Muslims for wanting to live in peace that is won non-violently. You do know that the huge majority of the First Intifada was non-violent but met by resistance and represssion by the Israelis? Nonetheless, I condemn all violent terrorism. Do you know about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baruch_Goldstein ? A violent American Jew, whose massacre of many noncombatant Muslims was condemned by Israel. The Muslims killed far more over the years, which I condemn.

There is a huge difference between giving back what was stolen, and curtailing further expansion.

Curtailing further expansion would be a good start.

Further expansion will not cease unless Israel is forced to stop.

I for one, do not think that Israel (political Israel) is interested in peace at all because the nation needs more space. The conflict suits their needs because it gives them the excuse to continue expanding...against international law regarding occupied lands.

When is New Zealand going to give the land back to the Maoris?

One big step towards peace would be if the Muslim countries, with limited exceptions, would admit that Israel has a right to exist. Even the Palestinians have not conceded the right to exist for the Israelis.

What say you anti-US types? Does Israel have the right to exist?

Do you know about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baruch_Goldstein ? A violent American Jew, whose massacre of many noncombatant Muslims was condemned by Israel. The Muslims killed far more over the years, which I condemn.

Don't hold your breath for a Palestinian to condemn the massacre of Jews.

There is a huge difference between giving back what was stolen, and curtailing further expansion.

Curtailing further expansion would be a good start.

Further expansion will not cease unless Israel is forced to stop.

I for one, do not think that Israel (political Israel) is interested in peace at all because the nation needs more space. The conflict suits their needs because it gives them the excuse to continue expanding...against international law regarding occupied lands.

When is New Zealand going to give the land back to the Maoris?

One big step towards peace would be if the Muslim countries, with limited exceptions, would admit that Israel has a right to exist. Even the Palestinians have not conceded the right to exist for the Israelis.

What say you anti-US types? Does Israel have the right to exist?

Define "Israel". Define it's borders pre 1967. Define Israel pre 1947. Define it now. Define Israel pre 1947 in the context of it's populace.

Define Israel, in it's manifestations I've mentioned above before I will answer.

Evidence? The peace workers I worked with before and after they'd spent years in Hebron in West Bank, said quite the opposite.

Why does Israel keep offering to trade land for peace and the Palestinians keep turning them down? The Israelis put their money where their mouth is.

Evidence? The peace workers I worked with before and after they'd spent years in Hebron in West Bank, said quite the opposite.

Why does Israel keep offering to trade land for peace and the Palestinians keep turning them down? The Israelis put their money where their mouth is.

I repeat:

Do you mean, "Ok, we'll unoccupy some of the land we have stolen if you will stop hating us for killing so many of you?"

Besides being uncredible (the Israeli intent to continue to expand is obvious to everyone), why should the Palestinians accept a partial return of their lands?

Why should they not persue compensation on top of full return?

If someone stole, say 100 000 kg of gold from America and America started fighting to get it back....the fighting escalates to a point where the rest of the world says, "Guys, stop fighting, lets resolve this."

Do you think America will accept an offer of 100 kg of gold to stop the fight?

Of course not. They will want their 100 000 kg back, and a further 40 000 to compensate for their effort to fight.

If Israel gave back what it occupied in 1967 and since, with no conditions, and allowed a seperate Palestinian state, there would be a HUGE majority of Palestinians that would settle for that. Israel is the occupier...it is up to them to make the first unconditional and significant move.

But as it stands, Israel abuses the basic human rights of Arabs that reside in Israel and Palestine, and has an obvious agenda to expand. The conflict serves their purposes.

Evidence? The peace workers I worked with before and after they'd spent years in Hebron in West Bank, said quite the opposite.

Why does Israel keep offering to trade land for peace and the Palestinians keep turning them down? The Israelis put their money where their mouth is.

My answer resembles conquests of Afghanistan, Iraq, Mexico, etc. The invaders need to leave.

Why should they not persue compensation on top of full return?

If someone stole, say 100 000 kg of gold from America and America started fighting to get it back....the fighting escalates to a point where the rest of the world says, "Guys, stop fighting, lets resolve this."

Do you think America will accept an offer of 100 kg of gold to stop the fight?

If they had been beaten over and over again in a series of wars over a number of years and were living in camps, they would take the 100 kgs of gold and start worrying about the future.

The Palestinians don't understand that 1/2 a country is better than none at all.

Evidence? The peace workers I worked with before and after they'd spent years in Hebron in West Bank, said quite the opposite.

Why does Israel keep offering to trade land for peace and the Palestinians keep turning them down? The Israelis put their money where their mouth is.

My answer resembles conquests of Afghanistan, Iraq, Mexico, etc. The invaders need to leave.

Pretty much the whole world agrees that they are not going anywhere and noone can make them anyway. You are not dealing with reality.

Why should they not persue compensation on top of full return?

If someone stole, say 100 000 kg of gold from America and America started fighting to get it back....the fighting escalates to a point where the rest of the world says, "Guys, stop fighting, lets resolve this."

Do you think America will accept an offer of 100 kg of gold to stop the fight?

If they had been beaten over and over again in a series of wars over a number of years and were living in camps, they would take the 100 kgs of gold and start worrying about the future.

The Palestinians don't understand that 1/2 a country is better than none at all.

So you admit that they could only get half of what is theirs (in a best case scenario, at that) and the thieves keep the other half?

Strange that you defend this.

It is not theirs. They attacked the Israelis and lost the war. Payback is a mother!

It is not theirs. They attacked the Israelis and lost the war. Payback is a mother!

So you subscribe to rule of conquest....something that I have mixed feelings about, but that is a long story.

I think if the rule of conquest is to be subscribed to honestly, then there should be no resentment to any form of conflict, including guerilla warfare and terrorism. As you say, payback is a mother.

Evidence? The peace workers I worked with before and after they'd spent years in Hebron in West Bank, said quite the opposite.

Why does Israel keep offering to trade land for peace and the Palestinians keep turning them down? The Israelis put their money where their mouth is.

My answer resembles conquests of Afghanistan, Iraq, Mexico, etc. The invaders need to leave.

Pretty much the whole world agrees that they are not going anywhere and noone can make them anyway. You are not dealing with reality.

That does't give them the right to remain. I know that reality is unjust.

Speaking of fighting fair - no such thing. Terrorism under any name (back to the OP).

When the Palestinians went to war with them and lost, the Jews earned the right to stay. If the Israelis were not so moral, they would have forced them off the land and pushed them into Jordan. They could have done it easily.

There is a huge difference between giving back what was stolen, and curtailing further expansion.

Curtailing further expansion would be a good start.

Further expansion will not cease unless Israel is forced to stop.

I for one, do not think that Israel (political Israel) is interested in peace at all because the nation needs more space. The conflict suits their needs because it gives them the excuse to continue expanding...against international law regarding occupied lands.

When is New Zealand going to give the land back to the Maoris?

One big step towards peace would be if the Muslim countries, with limited exceptions, would admit that Israel has a right to exist. Even the Palestinians have not conceded the right to exist for the Israelis.

What say you anti-US types? Does Israel have the right to exist?

Define "Israel". Define it's borders pre 1967. Define Israel pre 1947. Define it now. Define Israel pre 1947 in the context of it's populace.

Define Israel, in it's manifestations I've mentioned above before I will answer.

Thank you for actually proving you have no answers, only questions. You really can't seem to come to grips with even the simplest of questions.

This thread is turning into a joke as well.

So you subscribe to rule of conquest....something that I have mixed feelings about, but that is a long story.

I think if the rule of conquest is to be subscribed to honestly, then there should be no resentment to any form of conflict, including guerilla warfare and terrorism. As you say, payback is a mother.

How do the Maori feel about the rule of conquest?

There is a huge difference between giving back what was stolen, and curtailing further expansion.

Curtailing further expansion would be a good start.

Further expansion will not cease unless Israel is forced to stop.

I for one, do not think that Israel (political Israel) is interested in peace at all because the nation needs more space. The conflict suits their needs because it gives them the excuse to continue expanding...against international law regarding occupied lands.

When is New Zealand going to give the land back to the Maoris?

One big step towards peace would be if the Muslim countries, with limited exceptions, would admit that Israel has a right to exist. Even the Palestinians have not conceded the right to exist for the Israelis.

What say you anti-US types? Does Israel have the right to exist?

Define "Israel". Define it's borders pre 1967. Define Israel pre 1947. Define it now. Define Israel pre 1947 in the context of it's populace.

Define Israel, in it's manifestations I've mentioned above before I will answer.

Thank you for actually proving you have no answers, only questions. You really can't seem to come to grips with even the simplest of questions.

This thread is turning into a joke as well.

Your rationale is ludicrous. What proof do you have that I have no answers? Silly way of rebutting....but never mind.

My questions relate to refining YOUR question as the various answers you might provide will get varying answers.

Since you don't seem to know, "Israel" has changed shape since it's formation after WW11, certainly it has occupied more land and it's citizens have set up home in more places since then, so the question of it's right to exist relies heavily on "what is Israel?" in the context of it's borders and it's occupancy, with regard to chronology.

Actually all these threads are a joke. Everything is fine as long as the PC crowd can spew out a bunch of propoganda and no one challenges them, but when conservatives start doing the same thing sooner or later they will get shut down.

Everything is peaceful as long as only one side presents their views, but when both sides do, it turns into a war that will never be won.

There was good reason to forbid these kinds of threads, Both sides can come up with plenty of information to support their views and we all have taken sides and no one is going to change their mind. Why keep these angry types of threads going?