240,000 dollars awarded to man forced to cover Arab T-shirt

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by epchick

Seriously? Since when can we only discuss Greek-related things on here? That isn't even worth discussing.

Seeing has how the Palestinians don't have an army, every area is a civilian area.

So Israel tells Gaza residents they have 10 minutes to leave their house or else it's gonna get bombed. Where are these residents suppose to go? The neighbor's house? A UN school? Make a run for the border?



Israel can't live in peace with their neighbors, because Israel refuses to try and negotiate. Hamas wants Israel to recognize the rights of Palestinians. Hamas wants to gain land back from the 1949 Armistice agreements (which Israel agreed to). Hamas wants those two things for there to be peace.

Do I think that if that stuff were to happen that there would be peace? Who knows, but if that were to happen and Hamas turns around and reneges on the agreements, then at least Israel could say they tried. Then maybe the views of the "International Community" would change, and Israel would gain more favor.

I'm quoting again to address the last part.

I don't think that what's happening is because of a failure of Israel to negotiate; it's a failure to completely give in.

You may hold out more hope that I do, but the cost of "being able to say they tried" is unacceptably high.

Basically, I think that if you fight a war and win that negates having to honor a previous negotiated treaty. If the war you fought can also be cast as being defensive out your part, that's all the more reason why the previous treaty can be null. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1967_Six_Day_War

ETA: To offer another half baked analogy, mentioning the 1949 Armistice and expecting Israel to honor it in regard to Gaza, makes about as much sense to me as if Russia sought to enforce the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact today. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ribbentrop-Molotov_Pact.

[epchick]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

You may hold out more hope that I do, but the cost of "being able to say they tried" is unacceptably high.

Basically, I think that if you fight a war and win that negates having to honor a previous negotiated treaty. If the war you fought can also be cast as being defensive out your part, that's all the more reason why the previous treaty can be null. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1967_Six_Day_War

ETA: To offer another half baked analogy, mentioning the 1949 Armistice and expecting Israel to honor it in regard to Gaza, makes about as much sense to me as if Russia sought to enforce the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact today. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ribbentrop-Molotov_Pact.

Neither side is every gonna win this war. It's just going to be constant fighting over and over.

I maybe do hold out more hope, but there are gonna be high costs of negotiating and high costs of not negotiating. If Hamas is saying, "hey let's go back to the way it was in from 1949-1967, so that we can get more land for our people and everything will be cool" then why not try it? Israel got the land in 1967, and they undoubtly could regain the land back if this treaty failed.


I don't understand why it doesn't make much sense (as you mentioned in your ETA).