Story Comments
Posted by: kobzikov 6 months, 1 week ago
This page is a permanent archive of the comment below and its replies.
To view this comment in the context of the full discussion for the story, use this link.
-
100%
kobzikov6 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I doubt that Israel will change policy, or that Obama will withdraw US support or even threaten to do so when Israel refuses to freeze settlements.
Reply
Though how I wish Obama wasn't a friend of Israel, but a truly true friend of Israel,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EcGm-gxmxHw-
-
-
60%
Thinker226 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
> I doubt that Israel will change policy...
Reply
You may recall how in 1978 the then Prime Minister of Israel Menachem Begin changed the policy when Egyptian President Sadat made a peace offer. You may recall how Israel removed ALL settlements and returned every square inch of land to Egypt in accordance with the peace agreement the two countries signed. You may recall that this peace agreement holds for 30 years already.
On the other hand, you may ignore the facts that do not fit your beliefs. It's up to you.
Still, I'd like you to answer the two simple YES or NO questions below:
If tomorrow Israel will remove ALL settlements, ALL military bases, ALL checkposts and will withdraw to the 1949 cease fire lines - WILL THERE BE PEACE (YES/NO)?
If tomorrow the Palestinian leadership will announce their willingness to recognize Israel, stop violence and negotiate a peace agreement - WILL THERE BE PEACE (YES/NO)?-
83%
kobzikov6 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"You may recall how in 1978 the then Prime Minister of Israel Menachem Begin changed the policy when Egyptian President Sadat made a peace offer."
Reply
The change of policy for some reason didn't come until Yom Kipur War, despite that Sadat offered peace in 1971 and despite that Israel has accepted the same peace offer 7 years after the fact. But I suppose if Palestinians living in Gaza and West Bank had 800,000 troops, 1,700 tanks, 2,400 armored carriers, 1,120 artillery units, 400 combat aircraft, 140 helicopters, 104 Navy vessels, weren't occupied and surrounded the way they are, and caused as much damage to Israeli war machine as Egypt's forces did, as well as had other countries in the region willing to support them with their military armies in their campaigns against Israel then Israel might change its policy against Palestinians as well.
"On the other hand, you may ignore the facts that do not fit your beliefs. It's up to you."
I ignore all false analogies, whether they are based on selective reading of history like the one you presented or not.
What concerns your questions, then other then not being based on anything realistic, they don't seem to follow any kind of historic precedent for any peace agreements that I'm aware of. Peace is not established on unilateral basis.-
0%
most_reasonable6 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
By your words we know you.
Reply
Just more rewriting of history with your 9/11 deniers and anti-semitic hate.
There is plenty of land in Gaza to build a first class hotel industry, why haven't they? Must it always be about guns and bombs? Israel and its people would much rather pursue technological advancement and a civil discourse with it arab neighbors, but you can't clap with one hand.
A demonstration of muslim preferences is easily seen with the relationship between India and Pakistan. At the time of the separation, about the time of the creation of the State of Israel, Pakistan was about 50% Hindu. By final treaty the number was down to 25%, largely due to intimidation and murder. Today the Hindu population is less than 1%. The attacks onto India soil is still heralded by the Islamic communities of the world.
The constant murder between Sunnis and Shiites is just a common face of Islam.-
100%
AnteUp6 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Surely you jest!
Reply
Your question: There is plenty of land in Gaza to build a first class hotel industry, why haven't they?
Are you kidding? I'd LOVE to stay in a first class hotel in Gaza - where
helicopter gunships can swoop in in the middle of the night and pancake
the whole structure with no more explanation than there were militants
inside..................."We NEVER target civilians" LOL!
And the food offerings for a first class hotel in an area where the
Israelis control every single scrap that is allowed in? No dried pasta?
No dates? Forget about dependable sources of clean water and electrical power!
Oh yeah - a vacation get away paradise!.........Get real.
Hah! If you like Gaza? I've got a deal on vacations in Darfur you'll LOVE.
-
-
0%
Thinker226 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
>The change of policy for some reason didn't come until Yom Kipur War, despite that Sadat offered peace in 1971 and despite that Israel has accepted the same peace offer 7 years after the fact.
Reply
This is not true. If Sadat made a peace offer back in 1971 then it would be published by at least one of many Egyptian, Israeli and intermediate sources that were interested to make some progress in this direction. It was not... but somehow Chomski wrote about it at the same page he wrote about destroyed Bedouin towns in Sinai.
>I suppose if Palestinians living in Gaza and West Bank had 800,000 troops, 1,700 tanks, 2,400 armored carriers, 1,120 artillery units, 400 combat aircraft, 140 helicopters, 104 Navy vessels...
Palestinians already caused thousands of deaths and tens of billions in damage to Israel if this is what you consider to be a necessary part for peace negotiations.
> ..then Israel might change its policy against Palestinians as well.
And what would Israel do in your opinion? Israel already offered the Palestinians partial sovereignty over East Jerusalem, 100% of Gaza, 98% of the West Bank, additional lands to compensate the remaining 2% and all kinds of financial, technological, diplomatic and any other aid imaginable. Palestinians refused...
>What concerns your questions, then other then not being based...
The fact is that you're unable to answer them, Kobzikov, and the ONLY reason for your inability to answer these questions is your lack of honesty and integrity necessary to do it.
>Peace is not established on unilateral basis.
This is true (for a change) and this is the reason I'm arguing that Israel should offer PEACE AND NOTHING ELSE to the Palestinians in return for peace. Only when PEACE is established everything else will be negotiated as well.-
100%
kobzikov6 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"This is not true. If Sadat made a peace offer back in 1971 then it would be published by at least one of many Egyptian, Israeli and intermediate sources that were interested to make some progress in this direction. It was not..."
Reply
Really? Then who is lying you or Israel's Ministry of Foreign Affairs when it stated, "The Government of Israel believes that now that the UAR has through Ambassador Jarring expressed its willingness to enter into a peace agreement with Israel"?
http://tinyurl.com/qplw5v
"Palestinians already caused thousands of deaths and tens of billions in damage to Israel if this is what you consider to be a necessary part for peace negotiations."
That's not what I said. I've listed a number of significant differences between Palestinians and State of Egypt under Sadat, which invalidate your analogy. And in any case, did you forget that Sadat's approach was your idea not mine?
"And what would Israel do in your opinion?"
Did you forget why you brought up Sadat in the first place? Wasn't it in the context of a discussion about getting Israel to change its policy in regard to settlements?
"The fact is that you're unable to answer them, Kobzikov, and the ONLY reason for your inability to answer these questions is your lack of honesty and integrity necessary to do it."
Consider me dishonest if you like, but where is "the only reason for not answering questions is dishonesty " standard coming from? And does it also apply to you, when you don't answer questions?-
0%
Thinker226 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
> ...who is lying you or Israel's Ministry of Foreign Affairs when it stated, "The Government of Israel believes that now that the UAR has through Ambassador Jarring expressed its willingness to enter into a peace agreement with Israel"?
Reply
Neither. The liar is Professor Chomski (and you with him) who declared that in 1971 Egypt "offered a full peace agreement to Israel" while according to Ambassador Jarring it WAS NOT EVEN ASKED to sign such agreement.
> I've listed a number of significant differences between Palestinians and State of Egypt under Sadat, which invalidate your analogy.
Yes, you did. According to you, the most significant difference between the two were the massive amounts of military equipment in Egypt's possession which would allow Egypt to cause a lot of damage to Israel in case Israel would refuse a peace agreement. I've said that the Palestinians were able to cause no less damage to Israel using terrorism.
> And in any case, did you forget that Sadat's approach was your idea not mine?
Yes, it was. I'm still waiting for you to explain the reasons it makes sense for the Palestinians to NOT follow Sadat's approach.
> Wasn't it in the context of a discussion about getting Israel to change its policy in regard to settlements?
this brings us to my original question you've refused to answer: If tomorrow Israel will remove ALL settlements, ALL military bases, ALL checkposts and will withdraw to the 1949 cease fire lines - WILL THERE BE PEACE?
> ...where is "the only reason for not answering questions is dishonesty " standard coming from?
It comes from years of experience in various debates and discussions. I've found that those who believe in their own words are always willing to support their claims, to PROVE that they're right by answring questions relevant to these claims. On the other hand, those who DO NOT believe in their own words usually refuse or run away from questions becasue they KNOW that their claims are false and than answering questions will expose them.
> And does it also apply to you, when you don't answer questions?
Absolutely! Which question did I miss?-
100%
kobzikov6 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Neither. The liar is Professor Chomski (and you with him) who declared that in 1971 Egypt "offered a full peace agreement to Israel" while according to Ambassador Jarring it WAS NOT EVEN ASKED to sign such agreement."
Reply
For a proposal to be considered a peace offer or treaty it does not require a demand for signature. There have been a number of treaties that haven't gotten to signing stage, which is when a demand for signature is made.
"According to you, the most significant difference between the two were the massive amounts of military equipment in Egypt's possession which would allow Egypt to cause a lot of damage to Israel"
False, I've never suggested that to be the most significant difference, nor was I talking about damage to Israel, I was talking about damage to Israeli military.
"I've said that the Palestinians were able to cause no less damage to Israel using terrorism."
Another false analogy, Palestinians have not caused as much damage to Israeli military in a period comparable to duration of Yom Kippur War.
"I'm still waiting for you to explain the reasons it makes sense for the Palestinians to NOT follow Sadat's approach."
Sadat's approach included Yom Kippur War. I'm against such approach.
"Absolutely! Which question did I miss?"
I've asked you to show that I subscribe to the "100 percent objectively correct" standard that you ascribed to me. So far you have not.-
0%
Thinker226 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
>For a proposal to be considered a peace offer or treaty it does not require a demand for signature.
Reply
Of course not. It goes like that: "I'm offering you peace but I'm not going to sign any peace agreements"...
>I've never suggested that to be the most significant difference, nor was I talking about damage to Israel, I was talking about damage to Israeli military.
Sure, damage to Israeli military has nothing to do with any possible damage to Israel... You continue to amaze me, Kobzikov. Keep the good work!
>Palestinians have not caused as much damage to Israeli military in a period comparable to duration of Yom Kippur War.
Still another gem: not only damage to a military has nothing to do with damage to the country this military belongs to but if this damage is caused during a longer time it does not count. In the adult world, however, people realize that damage Palestinians cause to Israel is not only comparable but it, probably, exceeds the damage caused to Israel by all Arab armies combined in the period comparable to the duration of Israeli independence.
"I'm still waiting for you to explain the reasons it makes sense for the Palestinians to NOT follow Sadat's approach."
> Sadat's approach included Yom Kippur War. I'm against such approach.
It's pretty interesting. Did not you just tell me that Sadat offered peace to Israel IN 1971? How did this correlate with the Yom Kippur War of October, 1973 which his approach, apparently, included? Further, if you're against approach that "incuded" a war in the future what kind of alternative approach are you FOR?
"Which question did I miss?"
> I've asked you to show that I subscribe to the "100 percent objectively correct" standard that you ascribed to me. So far you have not.
I'm afraid that I've lost you. First, it's YOUR job to show what you subscrbe to. Second, I do not recall ascribing a "100 percent objectively correct" standard to you or anyone else. Maybe, after you'll show the statement where I've made such claim and will ask a question about that statement I'll be able to answer it.-
100%
kobzikov6 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I'm not gonna address all your straw men and outright falsehoods, which are the reasons why any dialogue with you is ultimately fruitless, and why it is impossible for me to "prove" anything to you, but you did ask me several questions. Here are your answers,
Reply
"Did not you just tell me that Sadat offered peace to Israel IN 1971?"
He did.
"How did this correlate with the Yom Kippur War of October, 1973 which his approach, apparently, included?"
"Sadat likely perceived that Israel's desire to negotiate was directly correlated to how much of a military threat they perceived from Egypt, which, after the Six-Day War of 1967, was at an all time low. Israel also viewed the most substantial part of the Egyptian threat as the presence of Soviet equipment and personnel (in the thousands at this time). It was for those reasons that Sadat expelled the Soviet military advisers from Egypt and proceeded to whip his army into shape for a renewed confrontation with Israel.During this time, Egypt was suffering greatly from economic problems caused by the Six Days War and the Soviet relationship also declined due to their unreliability and refusal of Sadat’s requests for more military support.
On 6 October 1973, in conjunction with Hafez al-Assad of Syria, Sadat launched the October War, also known as the Yom Kippur War, a surprise attack to recapture occupied Sinai."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_El_Sadat
"Further, if you're against approach that "incuded" a war in the future what kind of alternative approach are you FOR?"
Mainly satyagraha.
"Second, I do not recall ascribing a "100 percent objectively correct" standard to you or anyone else."
Let me help you out with that. You said,
"According to your interpretation, ANY statement which is not 100 percent objectively correct and precise is a lie and a person making such statement is dishonest."
This straw man of yours comes from about 3 months and 3 weeks ago.
By the way, is using straw men fallacies a sign of honesty and integrity on your part? Because that was not the only time you've done so.-
Neutral
Thinker226 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Did not you just tell me that Sadat offered peace to Israel IN 1971?"
Reply
> He did....
...and launched a surprise attack against Israel two years later. Tells volumes about Sadat's honesty, integrity and real intentions, does not it?
>Mainly satyagraha.
Here I'm in agreement with you. "Satyagraha" means non-violent resistance and if the Palestinians chose to stop violence there would be no need for resistance. They would have a sovereign independent and, most importantly, PEACEFUL state long ago... but was not end of violence the main idea of Sadat's approach in 1978?
> You said, "According to your interpretation, ANY statement which is not 100 percent objectively correct and precise is a lie and a person making such statement is dishonest."
Let me help you with that. "According to YOUR interpretation" has not the same meaning "according to MY interpretation" has. To the contrary, in most cases, it means just the opposite. In this particular case, it meant that I DID NOT AGREE with the interpretation you're trying to assign to me.
> By the way, is using straw men fallacies a sign of honesty and integrity on your part?
No, it does not. The straw man above where you've tried to put someone else's opinion in my mouth is a perfect proof of LACK of honesty and integrity on YOUR part.
-
-
-
-
100%
kobzikov6 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"this brings us to my original question you've refused to answer: If tomorrow Israel will remove ALL settlements, ALL military bases, ALL checkposts and will withdraw to the 1949 cease fire lines - WILL THERE BE PEACE?"
Reply
I don't know, for reasons that I specified, such as "your questions, other then not being based on anything realistic, don't seem to follow any kind of historic precedent for any peace agreements that I'm aware of."-
0%
Thinker226 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
>I don't know, for reasons that I specified, such as "your questions, other then not being based on anything realistic, don't seem to follow any kind of historic precedent for any peace agreements that I'm aware of.
Reply
You don't know... Fair enough. Apparently, you know nothing about the continued demands of Palestinians, their Arab sponsors, the UN etc. to remove Israeli settlements. You know nothing about the so-called "Saudi initiative" declaring that the Arab world will make peace with Israel after withdrawal to the "borders of 1967". You've never heard about the "historic precedent" of Israeli withdrawal from Sinai and the following peace agreement with Egypt (no wonder)... You've no idea about Israeli withdrawal from Gaza and even a suggestion of such withdrawal sounds "unrealistic" to you.
Which planet do you live, Kobzikov?
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
25%
most_reasonable6 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The tears of waiting on line was the result of suicide bombers murdering women and children upon gaining access. Plenty of celebrating, handing out candies and general happiness upon announcements of the murders. Much of the jobs that were lost due to the forced closing (again celebrating).
Reply-
Neutral
AnteUp6 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
So inhumane - eh? Such animals!!
Reply
Very similar to little Israeli girls KISSING the bombs and writing
hate messages to the Lebanese - or the leaflets distributed to
the IDF from Rabbis attached to the military to show NO MERCY
to the people of Gaza, wouldn't you say?
Don't act so self-righteous - the concept of Do Unto Others has
been missing from much of the so-called civilized world
for a very long time.
-
-
loading ...
People Who Liked This Comment (16)
Ciera-Marie
Ratskii
Eagle_Eye
tehranchik
Bacalao
gamahuche
alakazam
Spadecaller
fsev41
Candida
dunkirk
blowback
dissent
AnteUp
Francisca
ProgressivePeople Who Didn't Like This Comment (0)
No one voted this comment negatively.
Post Reply
You are not signed in to Propeller.com. Please sign in to post a reply.