debosky:

Netanyahu's proposal is nonsense - he simply said what he did out of American pressure. If Palestine is a state, leave it to them to decide whether to be militarised or not.

Then treat them the same way Lebanon is treated - bomb any aggressors using their territory. That doesn't mean the new state should not have the right to arm itself should it decide to do so. If Shahab missiles are the threat, why isn't Israel asking for a demilitarized Lebanon as well? You cannot decide for another country - that is not sovereignty.

PS - This discussion on 'bringing to her knees' or otherwise is redundant. At best, it is a case of hyperbole/wrong usage of expression. Let's be less pedantic and discuss substance.

We all saw how "successful" that was in 2007 no? Was it not the same you people crying that Israel was assaulting "innocent citizens"? When America enforced a no-fly zone over Iraq after the gulf war you all kept quiet.

Bibi doesn't want a Palestinian state, hence his set of pre-conditions that will never be agreed to.

There's no way there can be a two state solution, so the issue here is not recognising Israel, but the Israeli insistence on having things their way.

davidylan:

We all saw how "successful" that was in 2007 no? Was it not the same you people crying that Israel was assaulting "innocent citizens"? When America enforced a no-fly zone over Iraq after the gulf war you all kept quiet.

Whether it was successful or not, it is not for Israel to dictate to ANY sovereign state as to whether it can arm itself or not. The no fly zone was to protect Iraqis from a despotic Iraqi government - how is that related to a demand for a demilitarised Palestinian state? The Palestinians should be able to decide if they want their country to have a military or not, that is not for the Israelis to do.

debosky:

Bibi doesn't want a Palestinian state, hence his set of pre-conditions that will never be agreed to.

neither do the "palestinians" . . . Bibi understands that better than you. He simply has to pretend that they do.
They had Gaza . . . what did they turn it into?

debosky:

There's no way there can be a two state solution, so the issue here is not recognising Israel, but the Israeli insistence on having things their way.

that's rubbish bro, sorry to say. THAT is the main bottleneck to all this nonsense about the "occupation" . . . can you tell me why "palestinians" born in Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, Egypt have NO RIGHTS to vote, jobs, social safety nets, citizenship? Can you honestly tell me you dont understand what is implicitly implied by the arab insistence on "rights of return" even though the jews are denied such and are not allowed to settle in the west bank or Gaza under the "palestinian" terms for "peace"?

Have you EVER read the HAMAS or Hezbollah charters? There is NO reference there about fighting for a state . . . even the PLO charter of 1964 RENOUNCED sovereignity of the Westbank to Jordan . . . pls read it folks and stop making flippant comments.

debosky:

Whether it was successful or not, it is not for Israel to dictate to ANY sovereign state as to whether it can arm itself or not. The no fly zone was to protect Iraqis from a despotic Iraqi government - how is that related to a demand for a demilitarised Palestinian state? The Palestinians should be able to decide if they want their country to have a military or not, that is not for the Israelis to do.

Pathetic . . . considering Israel has had to fight for its very survival for the last 60yrs of its independence i think its laughable that Londoners just sit iin their armchairs trying to dictate to Israel what it can and cannot demand from its neighbours. Georgia is not a NATO member because Russia absolutely forbids it to . . . i dont hear any of you complaining of dictatorship.

As usual one rule for others another for Israel.

davidylan:

Have you EVER read the HAMAS or Hezbollah charters? There is NO reference there about fighting for a state . . . even the PLO charter of 1964 RENOUNCED sovereignity of the Westbank to Jordan . . . pls read it folks and stop making flippant comments.

That must be the only thing u've read in your whole entire life. Honestly. Always 1964.

Ikomi:

That must be the only thing u've read in your whole entire life. Honestly. Always 1964.

at least its one thing you've never read. Its incredibly important to read the history of an issue before bleating about it.

If a nation is belligerent, its neighbors can rightfully insist on limitations to its military capabilities. History offers examples of this.

Prime examples, Germany and Japan had limitations on their military. If Palestinians' intentions are entirely peaceful, it would be more welcoming of this proposal. Palestinians would rather acquire weapons than acquire books or medicine

4 Play:

If a nation is belligerent, its neighbors can rightfully insist on limitations to its military capabilities. History offers examples of this.

Prime examples, Germany and Japan had limitations on their military. If Palestinians' intentions are entirely peaceful, it would be more welcoming of this proposal. Palestinians would rather acquire weapons than acquire books or medicine

How am I going to get some of that thing you're smoking? Seriously!

4 Play:

If a nation is belligerent, its neighbors can rightfully insist on limitations to its military capabilities. History offers examples of this.

Prime examples, Germany and Japan had limitations on their military. If Palestinians' intentions are entirely peaceful, it would be more welcoming of this proposal. Palestinians would rather acquire weapons than acquire books or medicine

Limitations yes, non-existent is another thing. Iran must not have a Nuclear weapon, is a limitation, but not non-existent of a military force.

RichyBlacK:

How am I going to get some of that thing you're smoking? Seriously!

If that question was posed to that 1964 Zombie, it would have been effective. I think he grows it in his backyard.

Ikomi:

Limitations yes, non-existent is another thing. Iran must not have a Nuclear weapon, is a limitation, but not non-existent of a military force.

Germany and Japan had their constitution effectively written by US military commanders in addition to hosting hundreds of thousands of foreign troops. Bibi's proposals are nothing in comparison.

RichyBlacK:

How am I going to get some of that thing you're smoking? Seriously!

It's not as potent as the one that leads you to declare Iran a democracy.

Bibi's recent demands have vindicated my position all these years that the obstacle to peace in the Middle-East is Israel. Israel's repressive Apartheid policies against the Palestinian people has given rise to freedom fighting groups like Hamas.

Just like the ANC fought Apartheid South Africa, Hamas is now fighting Apartheid Israel. All peace-loving and freedom-loving people support the Palestinian people and political institutions like Hamas fighting the good fight against an obstinate bully - Israel.

Ikomi:

If that question was posed to that 1964 Zombie, it would have been effective. I think he grows it in his backyard.

I swear my head can't take the brand Davidylan smokes, mbanuuuu! It will knock me dead one time! Its potency is off the chart.

4 Play:

It's not as potent as the one that leads you to declare Iran a democracy.

You can't be too sure. I really need some stronger stuff.

Question: Who chooses those to run for party primaries in America?

RichyBlacK:

You can't be too sure. I really need some stronger stuff.

Question: Who chooses those to run for party primaries in America?

You are free to run for office in the US without being subjected to the pre-approval of a body of unelected apparatchiks.

Are you comparing the US's democratic process with Iran's?

Notice how Ikomi and Richie sidestep EVERY rational example they are giving only to cling ever tighter to their emotional drivel.

davidylan:

Notice how Ikomi and Richie sidestep EVERY rational example they are giving only to cling ever tighter to their emotional drivel.

The example 4play gave was after world war II Japan and Germany have been reduced to rubbles, and we all know he who plays the piper dictates the tune, rebuilding Germany and Japan was left to the Americans, and still after all Hitler did there was nothing said about a demilitarized Germany, they still had an army.

@Richy and Ikomi,

Is having an Army more important than having a State?

They've had an army all along (militants some will say), but no State. If the sole aim is a State, why is the existing of an Army necessary?

Ikomi:

The example 4play gave was after world war II Japan and Germany have been reduced to rubbles, and we all know he who plays the piper dictates the tune, rebuilding Germany and Japan was left to the Americans, and still after all Hitler did there was nothing said about a demilitarized Germany, they still had an army.

What are you on about? The Germans and the Japanese were more than capable of rebuilding themselves without American help. West Germany had an army that was subordinated to the occupying powers, this is to say nothing about East Germany. If you are alright with that scenario, the new Palestinian state could have an army provided they are run by the IDF with tens of thousands of occupying Israeli troops.

Tayo-D:

@Richy and Ikomi,

Is having an Army more important than having a State?

They've had an army all along (militants some will say), but no State. If the sole aim is a State, why is the existing of an Army necessary?

You have never made sense to me and with the way your going no matter how hard you try it does not seem you ever will.

Show me one state without its own army, and define sovereignty. Then you would have answered yourself.

Tayo-D:

@Richy and Ikomi,

Is having an Army more important than having a State?

They've had an army all along (militants some will say), but no State. If the sole aim is a State, why is the existing of an Army necessary?

Do you really need to ask that question? The debate is conducted under a false pre-supposition; that all the Palestinians want is an independent state living side by side with Israel. The fact is that they would rather be at war with Israel than have a state.

That a people facing a neighbor whose Govt includes a group sworn to its annihilation should not insist on de-militarisation is the height of folly

Comparing the defeated Axis powers of WWII with a future Palestinian State is a shameless attempt at derailing this debate!

4 Play:

What are you on about? The Germans and the Japanese were more than capable of rebuilding themselves without American help. West Germany had an army that was subordinated to the occupying powers, this is to say nothing about East Germany. If you are alright with that scenario, the new Palestinian state could have an army provided they are run by the IDF with tens of thousands of occupying Israeli troops.  

There you go it had an army the surbodinate or the overseer should then be left for Palestianians to choose, but give it that fundamental sence of capability of self defence. Then we all know we have a state in terms of a state.

davidylan:

neither do the "palestinians" . . . Bibi understands that better than you. He simply has to pretend that they do.
They had Gaza . . . what did they turn it into?

That is a half truth - Gaza's issue was based on two things, the political issue between Fatah and Hamas leading to the blockade. The violence is inextricably linked to the blockade of Gaza - virtually turning it into a human prison.

that's rubbish bro, sorry to say. THAT is the main bottleneck to all this nonsense about the "occupation" . . . can you tell me why "palestinians" born in Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, Egypt have NO RIGHTS to vote, jobs, social safety nets, citizenship? Can you honestly tell me you dont understand what is implicitly implied by the arab insistence on "rights of return" even though the jews are denied such and are not allowed to settle in the west bank or Gaza under the "palestinian" terms for "peace"?

The issue here is not Jordan, Syria and Egypt - give the West Bank and Gaza their independence. Insistence of 'right of return' hasn't been the sticking point so far has it? You can bring up a hundred things that have been said in the past as an excuse for Israel to continue it's intransigent behaviour. I could also point to the comments by Ben Gurion and others about eliminating Palestinians or the right wingers in Israel as well.

Have you EVER read the HAMAS or Hezbollah charters? There is NO reference there about fighting for a state . . . even the PLO charter of 1964 RENOUNCED sovereignity of the Westbank to Jordan . . . pls read it folks and stop making flippant comments.

This is not about the charters of the individual organisations - they are pieces of paper that can be re-written.

Pathetic . . . considering Israel has had to fight for its very survival for the last 60yrs of its independence i think its laughable that Londoners just sit iin their armchairs trying to dictate to Israel what it can and cannot demand from its neighbours. Georgia is not a NATO member because Russia absolutely forbids it to . . . i dont hear any of you complaining of dictatorship.

Is Palestine a satellite state of Israel or were they formerly united in the same USSR?  

Israel can demand a reduced arms level, but they can't dictate and say you will not have a state unless the Palestinian are de-militarized. The Israelis are armed to the teeth and cannot expect Palestine to have no means of defence and be dependent on Israel for everything. That is unacceptable.

These references to the Palestinians as the vanquished (comparing to WWII) is wrong - they have not lost any war and deserve to be given their own inalienable rights to self governance.

RichyBlacK:

Comparing the defeated Axis powers of WWII with a future Palestinian State is a shameless attempt at derailing this debate!

I think its an intelligent attempt, at least he brought up a realistic oppossing example which I quite appreciate

Ikomi:

There you go it had an army the surbodinate or the overseer should then be left for Palestianians to choose, but give it that fundamental sence of capability of self defence. Then we all know we have a state in terms of a state.

. . . . . because Germany and Japan chose to have the US run their military?  

Sense of self-defense? Their military was a mere adjunct of the occupying forces.

The comparison is very apt because like the Arabs, the Axis powers waged a war of annihilation which they lost. The victorious nations imposed a peace borne out of pragmatism. They were not wedded to naive notions of preserving the losing nations' sovereignty at all cost. That peace involved severely emasculating the former Axis powers' military capabilities for decades and counting.

@Ikomi,

You have never made sense to and with the way your going no matter how hard you try it does not seem you ever will.

Oh you are making so much sense naa? That others prod your mind to explore issues beyond the area you are willing to consider sure always invite insult from you. Should all nations be giving nuclear weapons because the US possess them?

Show me one state without its own army, and define sovereignty. Then you would have answered yourself.

The Vatican City is a sovereign State by itself without a standing Army.  A Palestinian State will have to prove itself to be a peaceful neighbour beofre Isreal can allow a standing Army. This is a unique situation that requires a unique solution. It's time to think outside the box.

4 Play:

. . . . . because Germany and Japan chose to have the US run their military?  

Sense of self-defense? Their military was a mere adjunct of the occupying forces.

The comparison is very apt because like the Arabs, the Axis powers waged a war of annihilation which they lost. The victorious nations imposed a peace borne out of pragmatism. They were not wedded to naive notions of preserving the losing nations' sovereignty at all cost. That peace involved severely emasculating the former Axis powers' military capabilities for decades and counting.

But look again at your own comparison, the Americans had the foresight to still allow Germany an army, the overseer was mainly planted so that they would not have to do Normandy all over again.

Now why not Isreal use the same foresight, leave west bank, let Palestinians have an army and let the nation that brokered the peace oversee the area, what is wrong with that?

But they have not even agreed to leave west bank, and they have placed a condition even an individual living anywhere in the world would not agree to.

A typical example every state has a police, but every individual still has the right to a door, for his own privacy or security whichever matters most to him.

Tayo-D:

@Ikomi,
Oh you are making so much sense naa? That others prod your mind to explore issues beyond the area you are willing to consider sure always invite insult from you. Should all nations be giving nuclear weapons because the US possess them?
The Vatican City is a sovereign State by itself without a standing Army. A Palestinian State will have to prove itself to be a peaceful neighbour beofre Isreal can allow a standing Army. This is a unique situation that requires a unique solution. It's time to think outside the box.

This is the problem I always have with you, you see where you have gone now how in the world does that relate. When I talk you say its an insult.

@Ikomi

For your suggestion to be accurate, Israel will have to occupy this Palestnian state and run its military. Which begs the question, why have a military if it's a mere offshoot of the Israeli military?

America did not ''broker'' peace with Germany so I don't see why have introduced the idea of a broker.

@Ikomi,

This is the problem I always have with you, you see where you have gone now how in the world does that relate. When I talk you say its an insult.

Maybe you should learn to think outside the box. What is the purpose of an Army and a nuclear weapon? Is it not supposedly to protect a State's territorial integrity? Isn't that what you guys have declared all along in saying Iran has a right to nuclear weapons? Can you relate now or do we have to break everythin down for you?

Show me one state without its own army, and define sovereignty. Then you would have answered yourself.

Costa Rica is not a sovereign state because it has no army.

4 Play:

@Ikomi

For your suggestion to be accurate, Israel will have to occupy this Palestnian state and run its military. Which begs the question, why have a military if it's a mere offshoot of the Israeli military?

America did not ''broker'' peace with Germany so I don't see why have introduced the idea of a broker.  

Isreal does not have to occupy Palestine and run its military that is what the people have been against, there could be some neutral forces that would help train and equip Palestinian army, and ensure no Isreali army is within the relinquished territory. Otherwise this is exactly what disrupted the first peace agreement, an Isreali soldier took it upon himself to walk into a mosque and massacre 48 Palestinians, it was later revealed there was no immediate other to stop Isreali soldiers from such attempt.