umm why not? i haz evidence
Well that’s OK then 
CAN I ASK YOUR OPINION ON THIS SUBJECT, HANDSOME GENTLEMENS AND… UMM GENTLEMEN
maybe if it had subtitles (yes I realize there’s a transcript, but it’s annoying because it can’t be on the screen at the same time as the video)
This is probably going to be the stupidest thing I’ll ever say, but I say if there will be a full-scale conflict, then there should be. There’s too many people in the world and natural selection has been being held back too far for too long, and war is a possible solution to overpopulation and the stagnation of the gene pool (although there’s not really any way to develop a mutation counter-acting bullets).
Fuck off you ignorant cunt.
jesus fuck your racism is at a level of ten on the Hitler scale, Ghandi being 0 and Hitler being 10
actually that video is somewhat interesting, it’s the Israeli PM directly saying he intends to sabotage the peace process so Israel can take more land. He didn’t know he was being recorded.
So rather than focus on developing sustainable population growth, we should just kill everyone? You are correct that that’s pretty much the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard. Just above the guy who suggested castrating everyone to prevent overpopulation.
Aside from the fact that I’m immediate skeptical of any Youtube video’s authenticity and accuracy (in other words, pics or it didn’t happen), I don’t think there’s much of a peace process to sabotage. Oslo was sabotaged without him (by the PLO itself, effectively) and since then there hasn’t been anything worth noting to sabotage. Since Hamas’s election and the beginning of the second intifada, Israel and the US have refused to budge on their position of non-negotiation.
Come ON, man, RTFA! We’re talking about Oslo - Netenyahu says in the video that he never intended to follow the Oslo accords, and that he would declare any Palestinian land that he didn’t want to give up a “security zone” and continue to occupy it. He directly says “I stopped the Oslo accords” by insisting that he could define any place he wanted as a “security zone.” The PLO sabotaged Oslo? What is it with you and making up “facts” that support your ideology?
Errrr, okay. The Oslo Accords finished AGES ago with the final status talks in 2000 at the Camp David Summit. There, Israel offered pretty much the largest concession they’d ever given, offering a ton of stuff. It included pretty much everything except for the right of return. Without that last right, Arafat refused to sign the accord; he claimed that nobody would buy it back in Palestine, so he refused to agree to Israel’s concession. Israel refused the right of return because, well, giving up most of the country to the Palestinians would be bad for the Israelis, so they couldn’t do it (because the Israelis wouldn’t buy it). So, the conference ended in stalemate.
See? Netenyanu had nothing to do with that. Ehud Barak was the Israeli Prime Minister at the time who headed negotiations.
But let’s assume you mean the expansion of Israeli settlements beyond the Green Line (being the lines drawn after the 1967 War). Israel actually made it clear that they would withdraw the settlements if they got what they wanted. When they gave the Sinai Peninsula back to Egypt they did just that. They’ve already withdrawn all the settlements from Gaza (presumably to stop Israelis dying in the military incursions), and most of the settlements now exist in the West Bank and other Palestinian areas.
The main questions that exists around settlements are a) Whether Israel will build more and b) How many they will give up in exchange for a tenable peace settlement. To the former, they’ve already stopped building them (except for the ‘pre-approved’ ones). And to the latter, well, therein lies a difficult question. The whole idea of settlements is to give Israel more bargaining power when it comes to negotiating with the PA, which it isn’t really doing at the moment because of the election of Hamas. If Hamas was to be voted out or Israel was to commence negotiations, then we would see an interesting resolution.
As to whether Netenyahu will sabotage any peace process. I think most people forget that Israel is actually a relatively well functioning democracy. I don’t think Netenyahu has anywhere near the popular mandate required to do anything like what he ‘says’ in that video. If there was to be a serious move towards peace from both sides (i.e. the PA and Israel), then there is no way Netenyahu could resist the pressure from both within and outside Israel to reach a peaceful settlement. Israel are seen as the bad guys now. People were pushed towards the right in Israel because they were afraid for their safety; hopes of peace push them back to the left. The chances of him achiving what he purports are his aims in that video are nil.
Dude. Nobody said Netenyahu had anything to do with negotiating the Oslo accords. In fact it would be surprising if he had, since he is opposed to them. What we’re talking about is Netenyahu admitting his intent to sabotage the Oslo accords after the fact, during his first term as Prime Minister.
Israel may have “made it clear” in peace treaties that they plan on withdrawing from settlements to the 67 borders, but Netenyahu made it clear that it was his intention to “put an end to this galloping forward to the '67 borders.” THAT is what this conversation is about.
…
…you still haven’t figured out that I fact check? At this point your “facts” are so consistently wrong that I don’t think there’s any possible interpretation other than that you are simply blatantly lying to support some kind of twisted alternate view of reality.
Right, and what I said is that there is nothing to sabotage. The only time there was anything to sabotage was during the Oslo process itself, and the PLO did that for him.
Right, and what I said was that there’s no way he’d have the popular mandate to bring an end to any negotiations that had a hope of success. At the moment nobody is really looking for a long-term solution because of Hamas’s presence in the Gaza strip, making negotiations next to impossible (mostly because of the principled stance against negotiating with terrorists but also because of the untenable demands made by Hamas in regards to Israel and the right of return). If, however, things changed, and there was an Oslo Mark 2 or something similar, then I doubt Netenyahu would have very much say in the matter.
Furthermore, if you look at the entirety of what he said, he said that the Jordan Valley was a security zone. Not only is this consistent with remarks from other Israeli PMs, like Rabin who took part in Oslo, the Jordan Valley is actually an area of contentious security importance for Israel. Having it as part of a secure border with Jordan isn’t entirely unreasonable, and nowhere in that entire video did he say that he would expand Israel’s borders to encompass the entire of the Palestinian territories, nor, can I imagine, he would have any vested interest in doing so, given that would involve absorbing a huge amount of Palestinian refugees into Israel’s territory.
I like how constructive debate has turned into an ad hominem buffet. Nothing I have said is particularly untrue; perhaps I could’ve outlined some of my points more explicitly for the nit-picky inclined, but there’s nothing I’ve said that’s untrue, and I don’t think that I’m particularly trying to support any kind of twisted view of reality other than more truth and less mindless conjecture.
Iif you’d actually fact checked even a teeny tiny bit beyond the first sentence of the Wikipedia article, you would’ve found that the initial Oslo Accords were more or less an administrative agreement over control of the Palestinian territories. The Palestinian Authority was given ‘control’ over some areas of the West Bank and Gaza. I’m not denying that it did good things, but the final status talks were where all the fun was to be had.
Those final status talks were done at the Camp David. They were ultimately unsuccessful (because of the reasons I previously outlined) and the only thing that was agreed upon was a framework for future negotiations. Those future negotiations were cut short because of Barak’s election campaign and the increased violence from the second intifada.
Lets examine what you’re doing here more closely. when you say “arafat never signed the Oslo accords” it’s not untrue - his foreign minister signed them, as did the foreign ministers of the other signatories. But then you say this means “the conference ended in stalemate” when in fact the conference ended with an agreement signed to by all parties. So you’ve taken a fact which is “true” in a narrow sense, and then used it as “proof” of something which it doesn’t remotely prove in context. How is that not twisting the facts to support an ideological viewpoint?
If you want to continue to make the totally non-factual arguement that the Israeli government has no power to build permanent settlements beyond the 67 border because of public opinion, that’s fine. So why is Netenyahu on camera lying about his intentions to do just that?
another case of the way you’re twisting facts without outright lying… he was using the Jordan Valley as an example of his intention to declare any post-67 occupied territory he didn’t want to give up as a “security zone” in order to keep it under Israeli control and therefore available for settlement.
I’m really sorry for being late to the party, but I gotta say: Don’t be closed-minded
It’s so easy to criticize if you don’t have the full picture. Please try to be open minded and try to fully understand the situation.
Israel’s IDF boarded 7 ships that day. When IDF boarded one of them, they were attacked by the ship’s passengers, who were equipped with knifes, pipes, and bats.
After few minutes, the soldiers got the aprroval to use their personal pistols in order to defend themselfs.
And please, let’s not forget the audio transmission between the IDF and the “Mavi Marmara”. Very peacful.
And above all that, after Israel took the humanitarian aid from the ship and tried to send it to Gaza, they refused to recive it.
You can argue with the decision to board the ships, but you can’t argue with this: they were defending themselfs. What would you do? let them kill you?
6 of the ships tried to send humanitarian aid into Gaza, and one of them, the Mavi Marmara, only tried to create a provocation.
I hope you will try to look into this again, and try to undersand that in this kind of conflicts there is no “evil” side - there is always two sides to the story. Try to listen to both sides, and try to understand both sides.
Have a nice day, and sorry for my english.
If someone breaks into your house, and you try to get them out by poking him with a stick, is it self-defence for the burglar to shoot you?
And Israel sending aid to Gaza is a highly selective and discriminative process.
If your house is on wheels and is moving closer and closer to the burglar’s property, and the house owner refuses to stop moving, then yes, it is self-defense.
deja vu
also you guys are both terrible at analogies
I LOL’d
Reckon them Jews can hurry up and get biblical on them damn A-rabs… once we kick them A-rabs outta Jew-land then aint it’s safe for Jesus to come back?