Slaughter in Gaza

[tha]

Originally Posted by cheesehead

tha, garo,

May I have, from each of you, practical, non-cynical ideas on how to stop or greatly reduce rocket attacks from Gaza into Israel?

I started another thread in this forum with a fully neutral title. That thread was merged with this one for a while, but later split again when garo changed the thread title back to it's original without my consent. It gave me the feeling most US and European negotiators have when dealing with the powers opposing Israel. They make promises, but stab you in the back when you hand them a concession. My thread with the neutral title 'Gaza situation' on the forum has been altered despite the fact that it was fully within the rules of the forum thanks to the help of one of the moderators. Since I can no longer rely on my postings here being kept mine I have chosen not to participate any further. If you want to we can continue this debate elsewhere. Notice that my first posting on this topic called for the constructive thinking in the same way.

[garo]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...eace_proposals

Specifically:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Accord
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Peace_Initiative

This paragraph from the Geneva Accord sums up my position:

The Draft Permanent Status Agreement, better known as the Geneva Accord or Geneva Initiative, is an extra-governmental and therefore unofficial peace proposal meant to solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It would give Palestinians almost all of the West Bank and Gaza Strip and part of Jerusalem, drawing Israel's borders close to what existed before the 1967 war. In return for removing most of the Israeli settlements in those areas, the Palestinians would limit their "right of return" to Israel to a number specified by Israel and will drop all other claims and demands from Israel.

[garo]

tha: I do not wish to get side-tracked into renewed bickering about the thread title. The threads were merged when cheesehead suggested it and you seemed to agree. I reverted the title when cheesehead expressed his regret and at the same time asked both you and cheesehead to let me know which posts of yours should I separate out. You either did not read that post or chose to ignore it and got rather annoyed. I resent the accusation of back-stabbing and I think you should apologise for it given that I acted in good faith and gave both you and cheesehead a chance to select the posts to revert back to your thread at the time I reverted the title. I had nothing to do with the subsequent change of your thread title and I have not at any point edited any of your posts.

[garo]

Evidence that Israeli claims of self-defence and Palestinian militants firing should be taken at best with a pinch of salt.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009...an-gaza-victim

[tha]

Originally Posted by garo

tha: I do not wish to get side-tracked into renewed bickering about the thread title. The threads were merged when cheesehead suggested it and you seemed to agree. I reverted the title when cheesehead expressed his regret and at the same time asked both you and cheesehead to let me know which posts of yours should I separate out. You either did not read that post or chose to ignore it and got rather annoyed. I resent the accusation of back-stabbing and I think you should apologise for it given that I acted in good faith and gave both you and cheesehead a chance to select the posts to revert back to your thread at the time I reverted the title. I had nothing to do with the subsequent change of your thread title and I have not at any point edited any of your posts.

Preposterous, when cheesehead expressed his regret, (posting #34) that was formulated exactly so that it expresses an apology to me for having thought changing this thread to a more neutral title would make the participants that had posted non constructive accusations more willing to work towards understanding the issues or helping to formulate an answer to it. His posting was after another one rant that called for obstruction of a western country and to help inflict dictatorship over the poor people in Gaza by a terrorist group that lacks enough support from the local people in Gaza but instead thrives on the support from the rulers in Tehran. Post #34 was certainly not a call to revert to the one sided title. But of course, you thought that your biased articles had more impact than the Stratfor analysis. I think you are wrong.

Your 'offer' to separate the threads again was acted upon, that is how the tread became active again.

If you had nothing to do with changing the title of that thread and omitting the word 'Gaza' from it, than you still have the supermod priviliges to undo that or call upon your colleague to undo that.

[garo]

You can post in forum feedback about changing the title of your thread. I am not going to bicker.

[tha]

Originally Posted by garo

You can post in forum feedback about changing the title of your thread. I am not going to bicker.

You mean, you do want to bicker, but just on the topic of Gaza, you do not want to participate in creating a solution for Gaza. And no, I don't think there is a need for forum feedback section to have fundamentals of forum posting being enforced.

[garo]

I posted my preferred solution to Gaza a few posts up.

[Uncwilly]

Originally Posted by garo

It would give Palestinians ... part of Jerusalem

Jerusalem is a "burdensome stone." Many that attempt to deal with it will be "hurt" thereby. Other territory and settlements aside, Jersusalem will continue to be _the_ ultimate sticking point in future negotiations.

[garo]

Originally Posted by Uncwilly

Jerusalem is a "burdensome stone." Many that attempt to deal with it will be "hurt" thereby. Other territory and settlements aside, Jersusalem will continue to be _the_ ultimate sticking point in future negotiations.

I agree but I don't see any solution in which a part of Jerusalem is not given to Palestinians.

[__HRB__]

Why does anyone care?

Unless the Israelis & Palestinians actually come up with something that would make anybody vote with his feet and move there, this should be treated as the UFC/Wrestling on a national level.

Hopefully someone throws a nuke soon or I'll start watching re-runs of WWII on the History Channel.

The Israelis aren't planning on giving themselves a constitution. (The "Chosen People" and "Holy Land"? Gimme a break, man!) Tragically their current rules & regulations based on the importance of whether electicity is fire or not and when Sabbath begins when you're in orbit, is better than what the towelhead-intellectuals can come up with for a 'Constitution of Palestine':

ARTICLE 4
1. Islam is the official religion in Palestine. Respect and sanctity of all other heavenly religions shall be maintained.
2. The principles of Islamic Shari’a shall be the main source of legislation.
3. Arabic shall be the official language.

As an apatheist with strong tendencies towards full-blown atheism, I'm concerned that those dunces this will make this take precedence over everything else.

The US constitution doesn't even mention Christianity, but the police will happily send a S.W.A.T team to break into your house and throw you into jail if you're married to a guy and a girl at the same time.

Fat chance that the Palestinians will let you live in peace.

ARTICLE 9
All Palestinians are equal under the law and judiciary without discrimination because of race, sex, color, religion, political views, or disability.

Yeah, right. All abortions are illegal - especially for men.

ARTICLE 21
1. The economic system in Palestine shall be based on the principle of free market economy. The Executive Authority may establish companies which shall be organized in accordance with law.
2. The freedom of economic activity is guaranteed. The law shall organize its supervision rules and limitations.
3. Private property shall be protected and, shall not be expropriated except in the public interest, and for a fair compensation in accordance with the law, or pursuant to a judicial orders.
4. Confiscation shall be in accordance with a judicial order.

This I'd be funny if it weren't for real. 21.1, 21.2, 21.3 contain functional contradictions. 21.2 demonstrates that the authors have no idea what they are talking about.

If you look at the way the US is treating it's own constitution, it's really important to be a little more explicit, maybe with examples and graphs. I'm completely amazed that stuff like the PATRIOT act the FCC exist.