Nice pic...you think this is the case or is it that peaple like you and Alex want to belive it.
As for the rest...try to put all the facts together.By the shalow rhetorics you use it seems you are quite happy with what you got.
It does not necessery put you in antisemite category...ignorant would be a good start , possibly.
Also it is well known that so called crticism of Israel is a work around for many antisemites...or ,anti zionists, or whatever...peaple with some issues.

Egypt's Mursi strengthens his democratic ruling:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-20451208

America hails him and pays him.

Don't complain. It is democracy, stupid!

That is right !
But you forgot to tell him all my victims indeed are americans :stare:. I don't know why, but these days my sole satisfaction is to see all the John Waynes being bled, and then to masturbate as I stare at their obese carcasses.
Don't know what to do, man. I told my doctor about that, who is also an exorcist. To break the spell, he said I should celebrate one black mass on a black moon night, cleaning my scalp with the mucus of a publicly chastised and emasculated Irish mule previously beheaded and quartered. :88)

:har: :har: :har: :har: :har: :har: :har: :har:
Well, let's get back to the facts, if you please.
@ you citizen of the united states of America : I just want you to be aware of the fact that I definitely make a difference between you good people who live there, and your institutions and government. Yet it's trendy to be anti-american these days, just be aware that you are brothers to me.
Let's bring this discussion to the next level.
When you ask anyone what he thinks about this conflict ?
Absolutely no one knows what to reply exactly.
"Should I stand up for or against Israel ? Do Palestinians really are these beasts portrayed in the american media ? What am I going to look like standing up for one or the other ?"
(@ Takeda :D : no more atlanticist nor occidental, but american for the time being )

Absolutely no one knows what to say.
On one side of the conflict : Israel, the state created after the 2nd world war, in order to protect the Jewish/Chosen People from any threat.
On the other side : the local people from Palestine, demons with a hooked nose who burst out laughing at every corner of Gaza streets while carrying rocket launchers, according to the north american media (@ Takeda :D : but you can say western, occidental, etc. if you like), who have one and only interest in mind : getting Israel wiped off the map.
@ Takeda :D : I'm going to let this vocabulary matter aside for now, I'm already tired about that, ya know. But don't hesitate to question my humble knowledge when it comes to your language, if that's got any importance in your opinion.

I think this ignorance from most people has been created by the western media. Western media are probably the best ones (according to themselves), and yet we realize most people don't know the important details. I think it's due to an israeli propaganda operation, which goal is to let all people think what they like about this conflict, in order for everyone to be free to stand up for the one he likes the most, without being aware of the real situation.

And in fact, regarding those who stand up for the rights of the Palestinian People to live, I would say many of them are afraid of having to face their local Tribesman who would start making stupidly insulting public utterances such as "Oh you dumb antisemitic neo nazi !", in a very sonorous way. Hahaha. While the good Tribesman is a very kind guy, there is also a good amount of manipulative people who would be able to trap you in their rhetoric, making you look like a antisomewhat or neo-something in a matter of minutes, if you don't know what you're speaking about.

Well, let's deconstruct a part of what you get to hear about those Jews you should respect whatever they do due to the fact that they suffered so much during world war 2 according to Tribesman and others, if you wish. :yeah:
The state of Israel was created in response to the jewish genocide that took place in Europe during the second world war.
That is completely wrong. In fact, it is indeed a colonial project that is older than that, since it was created at the Basel congress, in 1897, where the jewish nationalist movement stated it's going to colonize Palestine (at the time the "colonialism" word is indeed used, and is not considered at all as a shameful thing). At the time, zionists realise their little nationalist movement is a small thing, so they ask for help to many old colonialist strenght. They asked for help to the Turkish Empire. Not interested in bringing any help. But the British Empire was very interested, because the British Empire was willing to have settlers on that soil, in order to stay in the middle of the Arabic world, between the western and eastern part of it. The British Empire forces wanted to weaken Egypt that was a troubling power to them, they wanted to control the Suez channel that is the way towards the Indian colony through which they were making a lot of money. Then, the united states of America took over that role, what they were interested in at the time is oil, so they wanted to get an oil cop there.
And so, that colonial creation called Israel was definitely not created after the second world war, but it's a colonial project indeed. You've got to consider the fact that, at the time, european colonial strenght share Africa just like a big cake, following a Berlin conference in 1885 featuring England, France, Portugal, Belgium, Germany. Of course, no African people was invited to that conference, we were right in the colonial time. Israel is a colonial project, I've got to say it again.
Yes, but Jews, you know, in fact, they just want to get back to their homeland from which they were expelled by the Roman Empire in 70 after Jesus Christ.
A great myth once again. According to Shlomo Sand, historian, who's got to talk to Israeli historians and archaeologists, everyone says there never was any exodus of the Jews, so there just can't be a so-called "return" of the Jews on that soil. Of course there were invasions, migrations, and so there were ethnic mixes. But for the most part, the local population didn't move from the area. And so there are 2 ironic consequences to that : the first is that, after all, descendants of the Jews who lived in the area at the time of Christ indeed are Palestinians who live there today ; and the second consequence is that IF there ever were people who left the area, who are those people saying they "get back" ? In fact they are no more than converted people, people coming from western and eastern Europe, as well as North African people, who did convert to Judaism at some times throughout History, and like Shlomo Sand says, the Jewish People just doesn't exist : there is no common history, no common language, no common culture, only one faith, but one faith is not a sufficient parameter to consider people as one and the same ethnic group. We don't talk about the Catholic people, nor about the Muslim people, and so we can't talk about the Jewish people.
Yes, you know, but there is nothing seriously wrong with the fact that they chose to settle there, it was a land without people, an empty area.
A total lie once again.
In fact, those who were familiar with the area throughout the XIX century just said that Palestine literally is an ocean of wheat. There was cultivation, and quite some exportation to France in particular, oil, soap, the famous Jaffa oranges, and by the way, when the British settlers (and Jewish settlers) wanted to settle in the area from 1920 on, Palestinian farmers refused to give them their land, and so there were revolts, general strikes, protests with many deaths, at some time there even was a guerilla in Palestine, so Palestine was all BUT a desert, and it all has got to be shattered through very very ferocious repressions from the British occupying power, and from the zionists later.
And also, we are told that yes that's true, after all, there were Palestinians in the area, but they left the area as they wanted to.
That also is wrong.
For some time I've been thinking it really was the case, many people still think it was, and that's got to be the official version of the country. Until the day those who are considered as the new Israeli historians (Benny Morris, Pappe, and others) said no, Palestinians indeed have been forced off their land through violence, through terror, systematically getting expelled from their country, in order to empty that soil from its inhabitants.
That is for the historic part of it all.
There is also what you get to hear about the country nowadays.
Anyways, Israel is the only democracy in the Middle-East, and so we've got to defend it, since it is a legally constituted state.
Well. First and foremost, it's not a legally constituted state, it is the only state in the world which constitution doesn't specify boundaries of the national territory. In all countries in the world, there is a constitution saying well, our land starts there, it ends there, and that is our land. In all countries, BUT the one we're talking about, since Israel is an expansion project without boundaries. Furthermore - poor Tribesman :haha:-, that constitution is totally racist, since it says that Israel is the land of the Jews, which means that other people are underclass citizen. The concept of Untermenschen created by Friedrich Nietzsche is indeed an integral part of that constitution, haha. And so, such a constitution is the very-negation of democracy. So Israel is absolutely not a democracy, in fact this state is the definition of the "colonialism" word, the theft of a territory, the erasing of a people from his land, it just CAN'T be considered as a democracy.
Yet you'll hear that there is a parliament there, and media, as well as many university teachers criticising their state. That is true. But, since it's a state based on the theft of land, that means it's a democracy for thieves, of which the only reason for existence for them is to know how they'll be able to steal more and more land. That is no democracy. It's still colonialism, and it's still a dictature.
Also, when it comes to the united states of America, I've got to hear that they defend this little state in the Middle East as what they're interested in is to defend the concept of Democracy in the Middle-East. Every year, they bring something like 3 billion dollars on the table in terms of military armaments in order to help Israel bomb and attack its neighbours, fine, isn't it.
Well, if the united states of America really were interested in democracy, people would know about that. The united states of America are indeed the authority that put in place and protects those terrific dictatures from Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.
And so the real interest of the united states of America in the defense of Israel is not democracy at all. This state is their oil cop, it was admitted by Mr Chomsky and others. In fact, the united states of America want to keep absolute control over the oil, and so over the Middle East. They want to tear down any country that would not accept to give away its oil for free, we've got to see that through the Irak war and through other assaults. But, well, the united states of America just can't keep attacking all Middle East countries they don't like, and so they need to get what Chomsky calls their local cop in the area, and Israel is that local cop.
Decades ago, the united states of America had the Shah of Iran, an horrible dictature they imposed in the area, following the overthrowing of the elected Iranian prime minister in 1953, Mossadegh, and so they did establish that dictature in the area.
But they lost control over Iran, and now the only thing that remains is Israel. And that is why the united states of America protect Israel, while this little state violates international laws, violates the United Nations conventions, violates the equality between human beings. And so it is very clear that what gets to be achieved there is definitely an economic war.
When it comes to Europe, now. Europe pretends to be more neutral, seeking a solution to the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians.
That is absolutely wrong. Solana, who was the EU's minister of foreign affairs, recently told Israel "you are in fact the 28th country that is part of the European Union". The european armament industry is indeed financing and cooperating with the israeli armament industry.
In France we've got people like Lagardere and Dassault, who are very close to Sarkozy, collaborating with the israeli armament industry. And in addition to that, when Palestinians elected their own government, the european union refused to acknowledge it, the european union obviously gave the go-ahead to Israel to bomb Gaza, and thus, it is very obvious that when Netanyahu, Barak, Olmert, etc. bomb Palestinian territories, those who are responsible for that are our european governments. That is something I wanted to say.

So what ?
So when you start saying this kind of thing publicly, when you speak about the real History of this little state, when you just show the outrageous interests of the united states of America and of the european union in this conflict, there comes your local puppet trumpeting his own values, and starts insulting you saying you're an antisemite, a neo nazi, a racist, etc.
Hahaha.
One thing must be very clear to everyone.
When you criticize the israeli government, you're not an anti-jew racist, quite the contrary, in fact, you just criticize a government denying the equality between human beings, between Jews and Muslims. And so, you just want peace to appear in the Middle East between Jews, Catholics, Muslims and lay people. And that is the reason why the israeli government and its crimes must be brought to a halt, as the only thing it does is spreading the hate, and spreading the hate as well as tensions is indeed its strategy.
Yes, but you know, Palestinians are violent, they are terrorists, etc.
I'd like to say one thing. The real violence is colonialism, embodied by the israeli occupying army that stole their land and houses to Palestinians since 60 years. The real violence is the israeli army that prevents Palestinians from having a normal life - you've got checkpoints between your house and your workplace, sometimes you have to be patient and wait for quite some time at those checkpoints, many pregnant women died due to the fact that they were stuck at those checkpoints by the arbitrary authority of israeli soldiers, so the real violence is the occupation.
And one more thing. The United Nations, in its fundamental texts, legally recognizes the right of any colonized people to resist by all means who are acceptable in their opinion. So, the palestinian resistance is definitely legitimate, and the real violence is the occupation, period.
Also, in the opinion of many people, the problem is that this conflict will never be solved, due to the fact that there's too much hatred created by the deliberate spread of tensions by Israel and countries supporting that state.
There is a solution to this problem, definitely. Since the mid sixties, major palestinian organisations suggest a very simple and very democratic solution for this problem : one and only state, without any discrimination, where there would be a concept of equal rights between Jews, Muslims, Christians, and lay people. That would be the very-definition of democracy, "one person, one vote". But Israel has always refused to negotiate that solution, and what did it do, well recently it's got to put in jail and kill not only some Hamas leaders, but also leaders from the PFLP and Fatah, so this little state just refuses to negotiate an obvious solution, why ? Well I must say it again I guess : Israel is the oil cop of the united states of America in the Middle East, and so that war is an economic war, a war about oil, a war about multinationals, and the only thing that can bring it all to a stop is the pressure from all citizen in Europe, in Latin America, in Africa, in the Middle East and basically everywhere, a pressure on our political leaders who are willing participants to this miserable war, a pressure on media that just don't say the truth.
May everyone pass on the information in order to restore the truth, to unmask grotesque lies legitimizing the existence of this little state. If we all apply this idea, we're all kind of journalists, and we'll indeed come up to a solution pretty quickly, a possibility of negotiations in order to restore peace in the Middle East.

Wow, landmine much?
Aside from that one picture, show me where else Herr B has made 'shalow rhetorics'?
He has an opinion, just as you do, and personally I think you're both right. Israel has committed crimes against Palestinians and Palestinians have committed crimes against Israel. Where does that leave us? An eye for an eye making the whole world blind. Whoopee.
Both sides are in the wrong in this, the only difference is that one side has more advanced technology than the other, hence the lopsided death count, if Palestine had UCAVs, Iron Dome and F-16s then I'm sure that Israel would be receiving its own share of bombing. However they do not and so they resort to easy to set up and fire missiles, mortars and suicide bombs. Both sides are firmly entrenched in their opinions and quite honestly peace is a mere dream for the region.
There is no right in this conflict, both sides are wrong.

I dont have time to go into this right now.
To make it really simple look at the idology behind the guys who shoot the missiles.
Also all reall crap with palestinans started at the time Israel decided to go for practical solution of this conflict of which withdrawal from gaza was one of the steps.
So far palestinians make us doubt and regret every concession ever done.
It is also quite clear that they can not govern themselves in responsible way not from with in and not due to external influences.
They are not much diffrent from all the rest muslim brothers....as long as israel is here israel is going to be an idological enemy....a cancer to ME way of life.
Palestinians are simply populist joker in the game..with all the "democratization" of Me more than ever.
Actully i queston may stance on the whole issue of peace process and its worthiness for any other reasons besides propaganda...oh look we try again with those guys.

wow the dumb nazi really went into one there
I bet MH is pissing himself laughing at that nonsense:har:

When one side is led by groups and influences that state the other side should be wiped off the face of the earth, clearly both sides aren't wrong.
I don't think a solution exist because of this radical belief. For Hamas, Iran and other terror groups, each gain in land or political influence is just another step towards Jerusalem.

You've done your research, well done, Israel is indeed a British project, taken over by the Americans, and yes, there was a lot of fighting between Israeli and Palestinians from...well...the beginning of the settlement until now.
I can't say I know the history too well, but what you say in regards to colonialism certainly rings true for the time, and indeed our need for access to the Suez and a door wedge against Egypt. Of course, we negated that problem in 1882 when we took control of Egypt, but with the Ottomans sitting around Turkey and a great deal of the region, I can believe that we would want to put a favourable colonial state in the region to act as a base for potential operations against the Ottomans.
Of course, once WWI had finished so had our Empire and so I imagine the plans were put back on the back burner until a later date, and then revisited following the genocide of WWII. I do recall reading somewhere that Nazi Germany had a plan at one point to deport Jews to Madagascar, heck, we debated setting up a Jewish state in Uganda but the plan was rejected by the Zionist Congress (and before people jump on me, it was indeed a real entity and still exists, although it's now the World Zionist Organisation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Zionist_Organization [Organisation, not conspiracy :03:]).
Of course, what you have to remember is that even before the Holocaust, there was a great deal of anti-semitism in the western world, from America to the Soviet Union/Tsarist Russia. Therefore it is perhaps understandable that the British hoped that by creating the state of Israel as a refuge for the Jews from the western world they could end the problem of the 'Jewish question' and focus on gearing up against the Soviet threat. At the same time it would buy good favour with the Jewish populace of America and Britain (in particular America in which the anti-Semitism was lower than in Europe because of the way America was set up) and secure access in the area.

This is where things started to go wrong.
Nationalism rears its ugly head, wars begin and end, and both sides wind up in this bloody stalemate. Our partition plans for Israel in 1948 were a complete mess, I mean...honestly, how can anyone create a country out of this?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...stine_1947.png

Of course, now with hostile neighbours all around it, and its only allies some thousands of miles away, Israel had to get tough, stay tough and fight tough...and that's how it has been. We find it repugnant because we are not in the same situation ourselves, but quite honestly were the roles reversed and we found ourselves surrounded by hostile nations we would vow to fight to the death, and then if conquered we would continue to fight. This is true of many nations, mine and yours alike.
In the beginning the odds were against Israel, they had superior tactics but lacked the weaponry that the invading Arabs had (which was mostly British...) and only once supplied with crucial heavy equipment (by Czechoslovakia of all people) Israel was able to hold its own and the UN ceasefire and border redrawing came up with a slightly better map:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ia-is-map2.gif

Then came the Six Day war, the coming of which was not exactly kept a secret by the Arab coalition, thus enabling Israel to gain the upper hand by striking first.

At this point, with the signing of the Land For Peace agreement, it all went south, the agreement was vague enough to allow everyone to take something different from it, Israel wanted to be able to house all its settlers as well as have a defensive buffer against the likes of Syria and Egypt in case it didn't get the same warning it did before the Six Day war, and rightly so, because six years later Israel was bounced by Syria and Egypt in the Yom Kippur war. Saudi Arabia, whilst not that active a military participant, decided to use oil as its weapon against Israel and drove a wedge in between Israel and many of its allies that lasts until this day.

Since then Israel has maintained its dominance through pre-emptive strikes and heavy and hard actions against potential threats. It has become, as Moshe Dayan said "like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother" out of a need of self-survival. You cannot stop suicide bombers, or surprise attacks, but you can make the price of them so dear that the enemy will think twice before paying it.

In closing, let me come upon a fact, Jewish people have suffered deep discrimination throughout history, longer than the blacks, longer than the Muslims, longer than most discriminations. Whenever blame has to be appointed, it usually came down to being the fault of the Jews, and to many people today it still is. Israel knows this. Israel knows that it cannot trust anyone, because it will be let down. I can't say that I blame them, as they have been let down by those considered to be their friends again and again throughout history, and I'm pretty sure that before this century is out they will be let down again. Israel can only firmly count on one nation to help it, and that is Israel.

We put Israel where it was, and then Israel had to defend itself against the local populace without our help. Not once, but three times. Sure, the Zionist council would likely have rejected any attempts to put the Jewish settlers anywhere else, but we made the ultimate choice to listen to them and put them right on the doorstep of Palestine. Of course, to be honest, you were going to have that kind of problem no matter where they settled, just as the colonial powers had in the century before as they pushed through the indigenous population to settle themselves there. The Zulu war comes to mind. Israel has made the best of a bad situation, I can't say I blame them, and it has had its back against the wall for nearly a century and will do for centuries more.

That is not to say that there are not many Israelis who see the problems of the Gaza Strip and West Bank as being problems made by themselves, Moshe Dayan, a man who you could easily call a major Zionist, even he recognised the reason why there is so much resentment:

"Let us not today fling accusation at the murderers. What cause have we to complain about their fierce hatred to us? For eight years now, they sit in their refugee camps in Gaza, and before their eyes we turn into our homestead the land and villages in which they and their forefathers have lived.
We should demand his blood not from the Arabs of Gaza but from ourselves. . . . Let us make our reckoning today. We are a generation of settlers, and without the steel helmet and gun barrel, we shall not be able to plant a tree or build a house. . . . Let us not be afraid to see the hatred that accompanies and consumes the lives of hundreds of thousands of Arabs who sit all around us and wait for the moment when their hands will be able to reach our blood."

So, in closing (again...man, I'm bad at closing) I'd say that you are one part correct and one part wrong Alex. Certainly there is enough blame to go around to fill up both Israel and the entire Middle East, and affixing blame is certainly not going to do anything but serve to widen the divide. It is sad that we live in a world that is so bipolar that anything that could be interpreted as possibly being anti-Jewish immediately results in accusations of neo-Nazism, it is certainly a case of "If you're not with us, you're against us" and that is sad because to be honest I'm not for or against anyone, nor Palestine or Israel, I find the whole region to be a mess with both sides in the wrong. "Let he who is without sin" as the saying goes, well both sides have sinned, sinned in good nature, and for self-justifying reasons, but sinned nonetheless. However, certainly there is still neo-Nazism around, and there are still people with these ugly viewpoints, just as there are Zionists, as Gillard put it, "there are...nutjobs on the internet". There is no Jewish conspiracy, or Muslim conspiracy, just plain old human emotions, anger, fear and greed which fuel this war, on both sides. :yep:

The other side is lead by people with the Samson option, the possibility of taking the world down with Israel. Let's face it, if Israel had been beaten back so that it only possessed the land size of the Gaza strip and West Bank, it would be sorely tempted to remove Cairo, Damascus, Tehran, Mecca, Medina, Amman, Beirut, and Baghdad from the face of the planet, what else would it have to lose?

Did i hear one state solution...now that is a joke.
My guess is it would be also multicultural liberal state like egypt or iran or syria....or maybe france.
Or possibly like some other arab states where the good palestinians are second rate nuisance with their anger channeled toward da zionists.

Two points on the question of land and territories.

1.

Historically, a split of the land, one part for Arabs and the other for Israel, already has taken place. The mandate of the British for what for a short phase in history only (!) was called "Palestine", included the territory of today's Israel, the Golan heights, the Westbank, and today's Jordan. That territory was split in 1921, along the river Jordan, and the territory east of it became the emirate of Transjordan, which later turned into today's Jordan. This territory was meant for the Palestinian Arabs to be their home. And it was more than twice as large than the rest in the Western part of former "Palestine".

1923 did the Brits split off the Golan heights and added it to Syria, which back then was a mandate under French administration. So, the Golan originally is no Syrian territory at all.

A state of Palestine has never existed, nor was there ever an ethnicity of "Palestinians". The place for the overwhelming part of the past three thousand years was known as Judaea, Philistia, Gallilea, Israel or Kanaan, depending on era and current rulership over the place.

By the end of the day: the Palestinians already have gotten their own state: Jordan. But they refused to take that and find their place inside of it, instead tried to take it over and overthrow the meanwhile established government. The result was the Jordanian crackdown on the PLO. Since then at the latest, the PLO and the Palestinians are nowhere welcomed guests anymore, people in all Arab countries I ever were in had a very low opinion of them and said they cannot be trusted.

This did not stop Palestinians to become world's greatest masters of self-victimisation, and masters of lining up with the wrong allies time and again, and missing their chances for a modern two state solution also at least twice. In the end, the "Palestinians" do not want what is now called a two-state-solution: in fact they want it all for themselves, the two state is just a temporary, preparatory stage for the final pushing of the Jews back into the ocean. Hamas at least is honest enough to not lie about this goal. Fatah and Abbas however deceive the West over this, and the West is stupid enough to believe it.

Israel now uses Hamas to try to keep in check non-Hamas militias in Gaza. Their relations to Abbas however the Israelis have allowed to loosen. Call it Realpolitik, if you want.

2.

It often is said that Israel agreed to a declaration that it should/would give back the territories it seized in the war of 1967. The "Palestinians" until today demand the two state solution being realised in the borders of before the war.

Two things on that. Israel was attacked and defended itself, it won and survived, and seized some territories, amongst them the Sinai, and the Golan that arbitrarily had been split off the Palestine protectorate and added to the Syrian mandate territory by the Brits just 44 years earlier. Huge territories, even large ones, Israel meanwhile has given back. The Sinai. Gaza. Westbank. And after having given up Gaza and Westbank, these territories became attack platforms by terrorists firing rockets and missiles. Israel, as the victim of the attack of 1967, has won some prey of war, well-deserved, nevertheless has given back most of those territories. Imagine what the Poles would say if Germany demands after its attack on Poland in 1939 that now old former German territories should be given back to Germany! If the germans would be stupid enough to do that, there would be an outcry. But after the 1967 aggression, the aggressors demand their former lands been given back, completely - that is acceptable? Especially when considering that most militarily gained territories HAVE been given back by Israel already...?

But my main point is this, i had to look it up again to get it right and to find the correct quote, but here we go: the UN SC resolution 242, which says:

"Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict".

Back then, there was a very intense diplomatic battle between The Soviet Union and America over this formulation, because the Soviets wanted one single word being added, making the sentence like this:

"Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from the territories occupied in the recent conflict".

A small but decisive difference. Palestinian Arabs until today claim that Israel had agreed to withdraw from all territories they seized in that war. Fact is, the Soviets pressed hard to reach right that obligation for the Israelis, but they failed to get it through the SC, and so there is a resolution that only says that Israel should withdraw from some of the territories it occupied. Which it did. And it has given back most of these territories indeed.

Typical skybull.
No part of transjordan shall be incorporated into either the arab palestinian state or the jewish homeland.
Plain and simple isn't it

More skybull.
Israel is signatory to a declaration that in cannot sieze territory through conflict and also is signatory that it cannot tranfer any of its civilian population to occupied territory.

:har::har::har::har::har::har::har::har:
"Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war"
Pretty clear isn't it, inadmissible is inadmissible, it isn't inadmissible but only for some territory

I would imagine they would say "what year did everyone agree that countries couldn't sieze land anymore":know:

Gaza crisis: Palestinian 'shot dead near border'
 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-20461914

A thing like this can easily cause the truce is broken,:hmmm:

Note: Update,record 23 November 2012 Last updated at 12:19 GMT

If you want to be deliberately obtuse about the matter, that is fine. However, we all know that you are using these terms to try to mask your hatred for these people. We've seen this show before, and we remember how it ends. What is the most insulting is not that you believe yourself intellectually superior, but that you do not believe us smart enough to catch on to your wordplay.

I'd be really interested in reading any 'workable/realistic' solutions that people might have in relation to a lasting peace in the region.