so as a person who jumps out of a building. he might be stupid but thats another thing. he overcame his fear of hights/death etc. just like them. the other things what you can talk about but not his bravery because they werent more brave then him
a surrender is a surrender and bra\\\\very is bravery.A kamakazee is as brave as a russian who gives his life for his country.
So? That doesn't mean that a surrender is as disregarded in one culture than another. Israelite culture placed more value on living, and the Japanese on honor.
so as a person who jumps out of a building. he might be stupid but thats another thing. he overcame his fear of hights/death etc. just like them. the other things what you can talk about but not his bravery because they werent more brave then him
being brave means to overcome your fears. you can be stupid and be brave at the same time. he overcame his fear from diying just like the others did. he is brave weather you like it or not. the reasons are something that you can judge subjectively since every person can have a different opinion.
still the reason did not change the fact that he overcame his fears
Are you kidding me? By saying this, you practically justify every Arab attack on Israel. Pray tell, if they did not seize the land, what would prevent the Arabs from coming back time after time to destroy Israel!? That would be akin to watching your puppy pee on your rug, and then giving it a treat. Without scolding the dog (taking land), it doesn't learn. What sanctions would Israel have been able to place on the Arab countries? What possible punishments could have been levied? None whatsoever. So they took the only commodity they could have. Land.
No. Do not take my words and twist them. I didn't JUSTIFY any Arab attack. What I did say was that any land taken should not be kept. Perhaps there is a subtle difference for you, but bear with it, and perhaps try to make out the differences between the two.
That is all, instead of twisting my words into something that I didn't say.
Just like numerous other wars, a UN backed peace treaty + peacekeepers + perhaps financial compensation would be enough. As I already have said, if the UN peacekeepers were attacked, then Israel would have full right to attack back.
Also, a point about your land argument. Did it stop the Arabs from attacking in 1967 and 1973? NO. In fact, it SPARKED those wars, not let Israel better defend itself. Apparently, by punishing your ''uppy'' it has just grown into a resentful beast which keeps biting. Way to go for strategic thinking IDF chiefs!
O.K. how about this. The origin of this thread was about supporting Israel. Personally, I do, as my user name suggests. But not everybody does. So I have a different suggestion as to land arrangements. What if Jerusalem was an international territory, run by the U.N. or other organization. Afterwards, the land around it could be divided between the palestinians and the Israelis. Sort of like the Vatican but for Jews and Muslims alike.
Obviously, there are numerous kinks that have to be worked out but I was just wondering what other people think of this idea. It does not really apply to those who want to "kick Israel into the sea," but to the reasonable, everyday Palestinian. Everybody is always arguing about which former plan is better. However, we can't keep arguing in the past, but we should start working together for a better future.
So I have a different suggestion as to land arrangements. What if Jerusalem was an international territory, run by the U.N. or other organization.Afterwards, the land around it could be divided between the palestinians and the Israelis
...that is probably the best, if not the most interesting, idea put forth for "solving" the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The only issue that I find in this is how the land immediately surrounding the International Zone would be divvied up. I think that for this plan to actually work, a to-be-decided radius around the city would have to be a sort of DMZ, no-man's-land territory, like what is between North and South Korea. Or at least something like that.
Are you kidding me? By saying this, you practically justify every Arab attack on Israel. Pray tell, if they did not seize the land, what would prevent the Arabs from coming back time after time to destroy Israel!? That would be akin to watching your puppy pee on your rug, and then giving it a treat. Without scolding the dog (taking land), it doesn't learn. What sanctions would Israel have been able to place on the Arab countries? What possible punishments could have been levied? None whatsoever. So they took the only commodity they could have. Land.
This is not only offensive to pals, but to whole arab world.
This is not only offensive to pals, but to whole arab world.
Explain to me how this is offensive? I simply condemned the attacks on Israel, and said that the only way that Israel could really be re-payed was by receiving compensation in the form of territory.
The problem with the plan is that Israel has refused to allow peacekeepers in, as demonstrated pre-1967 when Nasser did, but Israel didn't.
...that is probably the best, if not the most interesting, idea put forth for "solving" the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The only issue that I find in this is how the land immediately surrounding the International Zone would be divvied up. I think that for this plan to actually work, a to-be-decided radius around the city would have to be a sort of DMZ, no-man's-land territory, like what is between North and South Korea. Or at least something like that.
Plan is absurd because it still does not take into account land apart from Jerusalem. The question of Jerusalem is a tricky one ever since the Partition, but the West Bank and the Gaza Strip are not - they outright belong to the Palestinian people.
O.K. whatever. I am not going to argue that. No, i don't think it is absurd. Yes, it is different and a very difficult decision to make. Thats it.
It is absurd in that it makes concessions only on Jerusalem, yet doesn't budge on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, equally important areas. It doesn't cover the right of return, nor does it cover the settlement issue. It hence isn't very far reaching, and is very biased towards the Israeli end.
um...actually, i never said i was "only making concessions to Jerusalem." I said that the entire city would be "no man's land" and the land around it could be divided between the jews and the palestinians. And i don't see how it is biased. The idea is that anybody could go to jerusalem and pray. Anybody...thats no biased, I don't think.
um...actually, i never said i was "only making concessions to Jerusalem." I said that the entire city would be "no man's land" and the land around it could be divided between the jews and the palestinians. And i don't see how it is biased. The idea is that anybody could go to jerusalem and pray. Anybody...thats no biased, I don't think.
Because the issue at hand is NOT just about Jerusalem. There are other important things at stake here, such as the existence of a Palestinian state, which your plan does not cover. Sure, if it's a no man's land and the surrounding area is fenced off like the DMZ in Korea, but what about the rest of the West Bank and Gaza Strip?
It is biased because it let's Israel exist as a nation, but doesn't state anything about the Palestinians right to form a nation state.
It is absurd in that it makes concessions only on Jerusalem, yet doesn't budge on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, equally important areas.
He never said that this is his end all, be all plan for the entire partition. He is merely laying out his plan to divide Jerusalem-or rather, not divide it.
It doesn't cover the right of return, nor does it cover the settlement issue
Again, he wasn't trying to solve those issues with his plan. He was merely suggesting a part of the whole.
It hence isn't very far reaching, and is very biased towards the Israeli end.
Just because it isn't far reaching doesn't mean that it is biased. In which ways is it biased in favor of the Israelis? Please, shed some light on us ignorant folk.
