Israel Crimes-Israeli Apartheid. From an Israelis point of view.

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

Quote

And I do like talking to Falxori because of his location but your assertion that somehow his point of view is irrefutable because of his proximity is severely flawed.

Irrefutable - of course not. But while your posts continue to talk about how bad Israel is and about all those poor Palestinians (quite one sided despite your protests otherwise)
Mine appear one sided because I'm trying to balance the one sided news that you typically get through the US media. AIPAC and CAMERA are very strong influences on our media and our government. Fortunately the internet is helping to balance that bias.

while he can see multiple viewpoints and address your claims with actual details, I tend to find his writing more believable. and when you choose to attack his writing as angry propoganda devoid of fact, rather than showing how it was so, it was clear who has a leg to stand on.
Did you read the post that I wrote? It had specifics, names, dates, numbers. You seem to be focusing on my frustrated reply to his reply. I was frustrated because I thought I had provided a reasonable list of issues and points. I got the impression that he ignored much of it and went back to stating half truths. The Gaza point is a good example. He keeps mentioning that Israel pulled out of Gaza and all they got was missiles in return. But he, and others are ignoring that they pulled their people and property out of Gaza, but turned it into a prison camp, oppressing and abusing the occupants. And while yes, the Palestinians did indeed continue to lob rockets towards Israeli towns, the Israeli military never quit firing 5000 missiles into Gaza. All we hear about are the Palestinian rockets, rarely the missiles, unless they happen to kill a bunch of kids on a beach and someone gets some pictures. The debate needs to be honest and open if we're ever going to solve this.

[falxori 0]

Quote

Mine appear one sided because I'm trying to balance the one sided news that you typically get through the US media. AIPAC and CAMERA are very strong influences on our media and our government. Fortunately the internet is helping to balance that bias.

I have to tell you that from my point of view, often CNN, BBC etc are biased, but to the other side. "victims" and poor civilians look better on screen. I guess the truth is somewhere in the middle but it is definitely not one sided towards Israel.

Quote

The Gaza point is a good example. He keeps mentioning that Israel pulled out of Gaza and all they got was missiles in return. But he, and others are ignoring that they pulled their people and property out of Gaza, but turned it into a prison camp

your claim MIGHT have been acceptable had there been even one day of silence since the pull out. I completely stand by my claim that if no rockets/terror attacks come out of Gaza, there will be no Israeli activity there. we simply don't want to be there.
and as for it being a "prison camp", first of all, the border with Gaza is open for supplies (unless they try to blow up the crossing which happens quite a lot). but if we take it to the extreme, why should it be open ? the PA led by Hamas has sworn to destroy Israel, why should it get supplies through it? they have a border with egypt, let them use it (again, this is not happening for humanitarian reasons)

O

"Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero."

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

I have to tell you that from my point of view, often CNN, BBC etc are biased, but to the other side. "victims" and poor civilians look better on screen. I guess the truth is somewhere in the middle but it is definitely not one sided towards Israel.

We never see or hear about the conditions in Gaza or the West Bank. I'd have no statistics for this but I'd bet that less than 3% of Americans have any idea what the conditions are like in those areas. And another thing that the US media missed was that the Roadmap that was presented in 2003 was accepted by the Palestinians at face value. Israel said they would only accept it if fourteen additional, and somewhat unreasonable, conditions were met. Sharon never accepted the Roadmap as it was presented. He stated that "The government and the people of Israel welcome the opportunity to renew direct negotiations according to the steps of the Roadmap as adopted by the Israeli government...". He killed it before it even had a chance. It's amazing how a few well placed words can completely change intent.

your claim MIGHT have been acceptable had there been even one day of silence since the pull out. I completely stand by my claim that if no rockets/terror attacks come out of Gaza, there will be no Israeli activity there.
And I reply with "and if there was no oppression.......". There's no way to end the "who shot first" exchange.

we simply don't want to be there.
and as for it being a "prison camp", first of all, the border with Gaza is open for supplies (unless they try to blow up the crossing which happens quite a lot). but if we take it to the extreme, why should it be open ? the PA led by Hamas has sworn to destroy Israel,
And I believe that Skyrad and I have presented some info that they have also stated that they were willing to change that stance. Another omission here in the US media.
why should it get supplies through it? they have a border with egypt, let them use it (again, this is not happening for humanitarian reasons)

I'm on dial up right now so it's hard to check. Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the Rafah crossing small and for personnel only, and wasn't the one that was opened over the last couple of days simply for a conveyor belt to send in supplies?

O

[juanesky 0]

He has corrected you before, but then again you hide your response under a mantra of "anger" from anyone disagreeing with you. You need to check other facts not just the arab nations point of view.

"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon

[falxori 0]

Quote

We never see or hear about the conditions in Gaza or the West Bank.

oh please...

Quote

I'd bet that less than 3% of Americans have any idea what the conditions are like in those areas.

most Americans don't know/care what's going on beyond their back yards and American networks dont deal with international news too much.
I was talking about the more international networks like BBC, CNN international (very different from what you see in the US, etc.

Quote

the Roadmap that was presented in 2003 was accepted by the Palestinians at face value.

maybe accepted by words. the FIRST thing that had to be done according to the roadmap is to completely dismantle the militias and cease all terror activities, they didnt even try to do that.

Quote

And I reply with "and if there was no oppression.......". There's no way to end the "who shot first" exchange.

i am not talking about who shot first. i'm talking about who kept shooting when one side stopped, huge difference.

Quote

And I believe that Skyrad and I have presented some info that they have also stated that they were willing to change that stance. Another omission here in the US media.

less talking, more actions.
anyway, the only "good" thing about Hamas as opposed to arafat in his days is that Hamas is at least not pretending, they state exactly where they stand, and accepting peaceful ways is simply not it.

Quote

I'm on dial up right now so it's hard to check. Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the Rafah crossing small and for personnel only, and wasn't the one that was opened over the last couple of days simply for a conveyor belt to send in supplies?

I'm not sure but it doesnt matter since the whole border is open (if they can carry across missiles, i'm sure they can carry food as well.
anyway, i don't have a problem for goods to be supplied through israel (as they run freely at quiet times) but i do have a problem with maintaining an open border with an enemy who is trying to kill you.
if they chose the way of war, they will have to find a different way to supply with their people.

O

"Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero."

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

most Americans don't know/care what's going on beyond their back yards and American networks dont deal with international news too much.
I was talking about the more international networks like BBC, CNN international (very different from what you see in the US, etc.

I certainly can't disagree with you here. Many Americans probably don't even know that Paris is a place.

Quote

the Roadmap that was presented in 2003 was accepted by the Palestinians at face value.

maybe accepted by words. the FIRST thing that had to be done according to the roadmap is to completely dismantle the militias and cease all terror activities, they didnt even try to do that.
You're mixing up the actual Roadmap with the fourteen caveats that Sharon demanded. Phase I of the Roadmap requires that:
# Palestinian leadership issues unequivocal statement reiterating Israel's right to exist in peace and security and calling for an immediate and unconditional ceasefire to end armed activity and all acts of violence against Israelis anywhere. All official Palestinian institutions end incitement against Israel.

# Israeli leadership issues unequivocal statement affirming its commitment to the two-state vision of an independent, viable, sovereign Palestinian state living in peace and security alongside Israel, as expressed by President Bush, and calling for an immediate end to violence against Palestinians everywhere. All official Israeli institutions end incitement against Palestinians.

Sharon's response to the Roadmap, the fourteen caveats, killed any chance of success. It made unrealistic demands from the Palestinians, good faith efforts towards peace count for nothing. And even if the Palestinians were somehow able to collect every gun and transfer it to a third party, a requirement to even proceed to caveat #2, his proposal for the created Palestinian state would still be under Israeli control.
Sharon caveat #5:
The character of the provisional Palestinian state will be determined through negotiations between the Palestinian Authority and Israel. The provisional state will have provisional borders and certain aspects of sovereignty, be fully demilitarized with no military forces, but only with police and internal security forces of limited scope and armaments, be without the authority to undertake defense alliances or military cooperation, and Israeli control over the entry and exit of all persons and cargo, as well as of its air space and electromagnetic spectrum.
Sharon also stripped UNSCR 1397 from the Roadmap and wanted to limit UNSCR 242 and 338 to "outlines for conduct". 242 and 338 are the backbone to each and every peace agreement accepted or proposed since 1967, with the exception of Clinton's proposal in 2000.
Sharon and Olmert are the ones who have blocked the Roadmap. And the US won't even call them on it. It's sad to see how blatantly we tout official mantra yet are so lousy at backing it up.

Quote

And I reply with "and if there was no oppression.......". There's no way to end the "who shot first" exchange.

i am not talking about who shot first. i'm talking about who kept shooting when one side stopped, huge difference.
I don't see much difference. They kept firing rockets and Israel kept firing missiles. Some left small craters and killed a few people. Others leveled buildings with people in them. Innocents died on both sides and the shooting never stopped.

Quote

And I believe that Skyrad and I have presented some info that they have also stated that they were willing to change that stance. Another omission here in the US media.

less talking, more actions.
anyway, the only "good" thing about Hamas as opposed to arafat in his days is that Hamas is at least not pretending, they state exactly where they stand, and accepting peaceful ways is simply not it.

They have said that they will if the PA makes a peace agreement. And they have also stated in the past that they would limit their attacks to the occupied territories. Which makes me wonder, how many Palestinian attacks have been in pre-1967 Israel and how may have been in the occupied territories? That would be interesting to know.


I'm not sure but it doesnt matter since the whole border is open (if they can carry across missiles, i'm sure they can carry food as well.
anyway, i don't have a problem for goods to be supplied through israel (as they run freely at quiet times) but i do have a problem with maintaining an open border with an enemy who is trying to kill you.
if they chose the way of war, they will have to find a different way to supply with their people.

I understand that years of this conflict can harden people so I don't expect you to be too concerned with Gaza's suffering. But I would hope that you might understand that when you put a population under that much stress that it's shouldn't be surprising when anger and violence arises.

O

[falxori 0]

Quote

I don't see much difference.

oh, but there is a huge difference. I can promise you that there will be no shooting what so ever on Gaza if there was no rockets and/or terror attacks coming out of there. can you say the same on the other side?
when Israel pulled out of Gaza, and rockets kept flying across the border (more than they used to actually) Israel didnt respond for awhile, but there is so much you can take.

Quote

They have said that they will if the PA makes a peace agreement. And they have also stated in the past that they would limit their attacks to the occupied territories.

indeed, how nice of them to "limit" their attacks... you dont negotiate with a gun to your head.

Quote

Which makes me wonder, how many Palestinian attacks have been in pre-1967 Israel and how may have been in the occupied territories? That would be interesting to know

I don't have any statistics but i can say "a lot and a lot". both are wrong and both are unacceptable.

Quote

I understand that years of this conflict can harden people so I don't expect you to be too concerned with Gaza's suffering. But I would hope that you might understand that when you put a population under that much stress that it's shouldn't be surprising when anger and violence arises.

quite the opposite actually, i feel their suffering all too well. but their anger should be pointed towards their (elected) government since it is the cause for their suffering. Israel puts no pressure on Gaza now (there is no Israeli presence there at all) and the border crossings will (as they have been) open as long as things are quiet.
sadly, Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the rest of the nice people there, often try to blow up the exact same border crossing that is used to transfer supplies to Gaza.

"Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero."

[juanesky 0]

You should not bother him with fact, you know how hard is to keep that chairborne rating uptodate nowadays?

Good post, but I trust that there is enough antisemitic as well as just pure jewish hatred that will perpetuate the myth of the struggle for peace by the jewish people.

"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon

[Darius11 12]

Quote

I think if IDRANKWHAT was sitting under the daily missles from Hamasistan he MIGHT have a little different perspective on the situation.

I am sure if you had to deal with what Palestinians go through daily you would change your tune as well as would most.

I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain

[juanesky 0]

Quote

Quote

I think if IDRANKWHAT was sitting under the daily missles from Hamasistan he MIGHT have a little different perspective on the situation.

I am sure if you had to deal with what Palestinians go through daily you would change your tune as well as would most.

So have you haven't you? Where is your protest when they where not helped by the arab world, and given refugee status in Jordan, Syria, egypt, Lebanon? and in instances killed by those that were supposed to help them?''

Where is your outrage of them institutionalizing suicide bombers as part of the social fabric? Is that a way you want to raise your kid? Where is your repulsion at the exploitation they get from the arab world, while they screw them totally, without any offering of education, health, but only that of arms and weapons?

"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon

[idrankwhat 0]

No comments on Israel's sabotage of the peace process? You speak about directing anger at the elected officials who hinder the peace process. Any anger at your own officials? Seems to me that the bottom line is that Israel isn't interested because they haven't finished with the land grab yet, or "realignment" as they prefer to call it. Yes, the suicide bombers need to quit. But Israel needs to quit continuing to expand the illegal occupation. And our leadership needs stop enabling policies that run counter to our official stated policy.

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

You should not bother him with fact, you know how hard is to keep that chairborne rating uptodate nowadays?

I see, nothing to add? Ad hominem.

[falxori 0]

Quote

No comments on Israel's sabotage of the peace process?

no, simply lack of time and too long of a post.

again, even if your claims are true, they are not relevant because the very first (and mandatory) step of stopping the violence didn't take place. all the other conditions may be a starting point for negotiation, but you have to stop shoot first.

Quote

Seems to me that the bottom line is that Israel isn't interested because they haven't finished with the land grab yet

well your bottom line is simply wrong.
Israel has stated (and backed it up with actions) that it is willing for a huge compromise on the land.
I wish the palestinians would take a break from violence and terror and see what happens, if when there is quiet, Israel will avoid peace, THEN i will have anger at my own officials.

O

"Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero."

[juanesky 0]

Quote

Quote

No comments on Israel's sabotage of the peace process?

no, simply lack of time and too long of a post.

again, even if your claims are true, they are not relevant because the very first (and mandatory) step of stopping the violence didn't take place. all the other conditions may be a starting point for negotiation, but you have to stop shoot first.

Quote

Seems to me that the bottom line is that Israel isn't interested because they haven't finished with the land grab yet

well your bottom line is simply wrong.
Israel has stated (and backed it up with actions) that it is willing for a huge compromise on the land.
I wish the palestinians would take a break from violence and terror and see what happens, if when there is quiet, Israel will avoid peace, THEN i will have anger at my own officials.

O

Some people have extreme difficulty accepting the facts that land has been given back by Israel, to either former enemies, or Palestinians, yet insist that it is not the case, that is always your fault for everything.

"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

Quote

No comments on Israel's sabotage of the peace process?

no, simply lack of time and too long of a post.

I'd be happy to hear it

again, even if your claims are true, they are not relevant because the very first (and mandatory) step of stopping the violence didn't take place. all the other conditions may be a starting point for negotiation, but you have to stop shoot first.

My claims are extremely relevant. The Palestinians said they would give it a try. Israel said they wouldn't unless the 14 caveats were included. Actually, that' not accurate. They responded to the roadmap by adding the 14 conditions, then Israel adopted the changed agreement with no one else recognizing the altered plan. I'll write them all down for you if you're interested in reading them. And I'll also provide the text of the roadmap if that will help to clarify things. Everything I wrote earlier is accurate and verifiable. If you have something that disproves it then I'd be more than happy to read it.


well your bottom line is simply wrong.
Israel has stated (and backed it up with actions) that it is willing for a huge compromise on the land. ...

Then why is Israel continuing to take land? Walls, occupation, oppression, missiles, blockades,......all that stuff aside, why is Israel continuing to take and build on land that is not theirs? It violates all previous agreements. It violates the UN resolutions that Israel and even you admit (indirectly). are applicable. It violates the Roadmap, US official policy and runs counter to what Olmert had promised when he was elected. Yet Israel is still expanding the occupation. Why, if Israel wants peace, is it doing everything it can to provoke the Palestinians and keep it from happening?

O

[falxori 0]

Quote

The Palestinians said they would give it a try

said, but did not do. as always.

Quote

I wrote earlier is accurate and verifiable. If you have something that disproves it then I'd be more than happy to read it.

the fact that there were 14 conditions is not on dispute, your interpetation of their meaning is.
once again, the problem is not these conditions, its the lack of will (and later on lack of ability) to control their own extremists that go wild whenever there is some progress in negotiations (remember the exploding busses of 95/96, the riots of 2000 and others?)

Quote

Then why is Israel continuing to take land? Walls, occupation, oppression, missiles, blockades

again, its a point of view. I don't see Israel as "taking land", Israel has the same rights as the Palestinians (if not more). from my point of view , we are willing to make a huge sacrifice in order to get peace.

Quote

Walls, occupation, oppression, missiles, blockades

to be very specific:
Walls - purely a security measure that has proven itself completely. when they stop blowing up things, there will be no need for a wall (and it will be taken apart or moved when the final borders are set)
Occupation - the result of jordan losing the lands to Israel in 1967. believe it or not, most Israeli have no desire to be a foreign ruller over the palestinians, but it seems they can't handle themselves (take Gaza as an example)
oppression when terrorists hide themselves within the civilian population the result is civilians suffering.
missiles - you say this as if Israel is just firing randomly into towns, and you know that's not true.
blockades - once again, i'm very sad to see people waiting at roadblocks, but what would you do when they use every mean possible to smuggle explosives and suicide bombers (including children, ambulances, and recently 2 pregnant women).
and yes, i'd rather 100% of them checked than the 1% of them blowing up busses. and even more sad is the fact that the other 99% don't show any desire to stop those 1% (same goes for electing Hamas for government)

Quote

if Israel wants peace, is it doing everything it can to provoke the Palestinians and keep it from happening?

are you serious? "provoke" the palestinians?
you pull out of Gaza and they come after you, then fight among themselves (while still firing at you) dragging themselves into a civil war, or is that Israel's fault too?
how about Lebanon, did Israel "Provoke" Hizbollah into crossing the border, killing and kidnaping soldiers and launching thousands of missiles targeting INTENTIONALLY civilian towns?
give me a break....

O

"Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero."

[juanesky 0]

Ori, it is a sad thing watching how many are willing to forgo the constant fight Israel had to put up with since the creation of your nation. Most talk of occupation, of territories that were won on wars not even started by you, or the fact that ISrael has made lots of concessions to make peace with Egypt, Jordan, and somewhat syria.

It will always be your fault, no matter what, and those who see otherwise, believe that Hizbolah and Hamas are really willing to give peace a chance...while disregarding historic facts. It is a sad affair.

Long live all those chairborne rangers...

"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon

[crozby 0]

This discussion between falxori and idrankwhat is actually very interesting and really doesn't benefit much from your input.

If you've got something to add to the debate then chuck it in, otherwise just shut up and read like the rest of us.

[juanesky 0]

Quote

This discussion between falxori and idrankwhat is actually very interesting and really doesn't benefit much from your input.

If you've got something to add to the debate then chuck it in, otherwise just shut up and read like the rest of us.

you are funny, nothing to respond to my post regarding set tendencies by the palestinians-arab backing, but rather attack the poster. If you don't like it, why don't you just follow your own advice?

"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon

[Darius11 12]

Quote

This discussion between falxori and idrankwhat is actually very interesting and really doesn't benefit much from your input.

If you've got something to add to the debate then chuck it in, otherwise just shut up and read like the rest of us.

Yea I agree with you. We are actually having two well-informed people discussing the subject and staying civil. Lets keep it that way, and way the go to both idrankwaht and flexori for keeping it on subject, polite, and non-inflammatory.

I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain

[idrankwhat 0]

The first of my replies to your last post.

Quote

I wrote earlier is accurate and verifiable. If you have something that disproves it then I'd be more than happy to read it.

the fact that there were 14 conditions is not on dispute, your interpetation of their meaning is.
once again, the problem is not these conditions, its the lack of will (and later on lack of ability) to control their own extremists that go wild whenever there is some progress in negotiations (remember the exploding busses of 95/96, the riots of 2000 and others?)

I don't see how interpretation can be called into question. I provided the direct quote. There's nothing ambiguous about:
1).....In the first phase of the plan and as a condition for progress to the second phase, the Palestinians will complete the dismantling of terrorist organizations (Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front, the Democratic Front Al-Aqsa Brigades and other apparatuses) and their infrastructure, collection of all illegal weapons and their transfer to a third party for the sake of being removed from the area and destroyed, cessation of weapons smuggling and weapons production inside the Palestinian Authority, activation of the full prevention apparatus and cessation of incitement. There will be no progress to the second phase without the fulfillment of all above-mentioned conditions relating to the war against terror. The security plans to be implemented are the Tenet and Zinni plans. [As in the other mutual frameworks, the Roadmap will not state that Israel must cease violence and incitement against the Palestinians.

5)The provisional state will have provisional borders and certain aspects of sovereignty, be fully demilitarized with no military forces, but only with police and internal security forces of limited scope and armaments, be without the authority to undertake defense alliances or military cooperation, and Israeli control over the entry and exit of all persons and cargo, as well as of its air space and electromagnetic spectrum.
6)...and to the waiver of any right of return for Palestinian refugees to the State of Israel.
9)There will be no involvement with issues pertaining to the final settlement. Among issues not to be discussed: settlement in Judea, Samaria and Gaza (excluding a settlement freeze and illegal outposts), the status of the Palestinian Authority and its institutions in Jerusalem, and all other matters whose substance relates to the final settlement.
10)The removal of references other than 242 and 338 (1397, the Saudi Initiative and the Arab Initiative adopted in Beirut). A settlement based upon the Roadmap will be an autonomous settlement that derives its validity therefrom. The only possible reference should be to Resolutions 242 and 338, and then only as an outline for the conduct of future negotiations on a permanent settlement.
http://www.knesset.gov.il/process/docs/roadmap_response_eng.htm

Like I said, dead on arrival.

And yes, I do remember 95/96 and 2000. If Arafat had taken the Clinton proposal he probably would have been assassinated. It was a lousy proposition, as is the path that Israel is currently choosing. No lasting peace can be made if apartheid and imprisonment are the solutions.
As for 95/96, what was Sharon's public statement to Oslo? He declared it "national suicide" and that “Everybody has to move; run and grab as many hilltops as they can to enlarge the settlements, because everything we take now will stay ours. Everything we don't grab will go to them.”
I don't know about you but I can't think of any other way to interpret that one either.

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

Quote

Then why is Israel continuing to take land? .....

again, its a point of view. I don't see Israel as "taking land", Israel has the same rights as the Palestinians (if not more). ........

Your statement above makes my argument for me. This sentiment is why Israel has been blocking peace negotiations.
Thank you for your honesty.

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

to be very specific:
Walls - purely a security measure that has proven itself completely. when they stop blowing up things, there will be no need for a wall (and it will be taken apart or moved when the final borders are set)

If it's simply a security barrier then why isn't it being built on Israel's legal border? The wall represents two things, a land grab and a barricade for detaining Palestinians. The land grab is obvious and the 370,000 Palestinians that live on the west side of the barrier will be considered aliens, not having the rights of the Israelis living in the same area. The detention aspect isn't as obvious unless you understand that Israel, as I showed previously, intends to have a barricade on the western, northern and southern sides of the Palestinian "state" and an Israeli militarized zone, with potential Israeli settlements, in the Jordan River valley. There will even be a corridor running from east to west through the Palestinian "state" that will allow Israelis to travel back and forth between Israel and the Jordan River valley but will not allow any Palestinians to even cross. At that point the Palestinians will be sequestered in a non-contiguous "state" that is completely surrounded by a wall and Israeli military, with their food, water, airspace, EM spectrum, ingress/egress and cargo shipments controlled by the Israeli military.
I don't know what to call that scenario, detention center, reservation, prison? I do know that it's unfair. And I do know that it will not lead to peace. Quite to the contrary I'm afraid.

[sundevil777 102]

Shouldn't the side that loses a war expect to lose territory?

The only way that the losers of a war should expect something different is if they have a true change of heart away from their previous ways. Japan and Germany after WWII did that, the Palestinians have not. I guess if you think the previous ways were not bad, then you would think differently.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

Shouldn't the side that loses a war expect to lose territory?

The only way that the losers of a war should expect something different is if they have a true change of heart away from their previous ways. Japan and Germany after WWII did that, the Palestinians have not. I guess if you think the previous ways were not bad, then you would think differently.

No. Resolutions 242 and 338 have been the keystones of every peace initiative since 1967. They prohibit the acquisition of land by force. Some key provisions in 242:
"The inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in which every state in the area can live in security, and the withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict; and the termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every state in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force."
The above was accepted by all parties in Camp David in 1978 and in Oslo in 1993. More recently Powell stated:
"The Palestinian leadership must end violence, stop incitement, and prepare their people for the hard compromises ahead. All in the Arab world must make unmistakably clear, through their own actions, their acceptance of Israel and their commitment to a negotiated settlement. Israel must be willing to end its occupation, consistent with the principles embodied in Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338, and accept a viable Palestinian state in which Palestinians can determine their own future on their own land and live in dignity and security."
UNSCR 242 and 338 are also part of the Roadmap as it was presented by G W Bush. Sharon stripped it from the Roadmap and Olmert is following his lead.