[karajorma]

That argument came after I said Palestine should exist as a separate and independent country!

And it doesn't contradict that in any way.

You were trying to claim that the solution to the problem was for the UN to declare Palestine as a separate and independent country and I simply pointed out all the reasons why Israel wouldn't go for that right now.

1) They're still in control of the West Bank and aren't likely to give up control immediately just cause the UN say so.
2) They are blockading Gaza because they say they want to prevent Hamas arming themselves. Something that would be illegal for them to do if Palestine was an independent state.

How on Earth you're twisting that into me claiming that there shouldn't be a Palestinian state is beyond me but next time you think you've found a case of me contradicting myself perhaps you should ask for a clarification before going off, foaming at the mouth about how I'm saying something different to an earlier post.

Cause this is the second or third time you've done it on this thread alone and you haven't been right about it yet.

What it comes to Hamas, I'm still seeing major warcrimes being committed by them. The evidence is available in YouTube for everybody who read Splinter's posts. This fact makes it relatively difficult to believe they would be happy with the original Palestinian land area with Jewish people in it. Thus I don't see the fusion of West Bank and current Israeli state as any kind of solution to the conflict.

I have serious doubts about that working too. But then I had serious doubts about any chance of a lasting peace settlement in Northern Ireland.

 Either way I brought up the subject to counter the claim that Hamas have said they want the Jews out of Israel. That doesn't appear to be their official policy, although I don't doubt that several of their more radical members have said just that.

 Bear in mind that this entire thread started over accusations of the Israelis committing war crimes so it's not like they're whiter than white either.

[Mika]

It is crazy, the most difficult people to understand are the Englishmen when we are talking in English - as if they didn't understand their own language! I have never had same kind of problems with Americans. But don't worry, you are really not the first Englishman that appears as really vague. In fact I asked for a clarification because the contradiction did not make any sense to me.

Yes, it seems to be a misunderstanding, the following quote confused me even further:

In case you're misinterpreting the weapons thing. Israel has constantly used the claim that Hamas are smuggling in weapons as a reason to blockade and periodically invade Gaza. But if the state of Palestine exists then that entire argument becomes moot. As an independent state they have the right to buy as many weapons as they can afford.

The source of confusion is the bolded part. It is not clear to me where it refers to. I read it as in nullifying my argument one post ago, not as in nullifying the Israeli argument of blockading Gaza (in this case I was expecting "the reason" instead of "that entire argument").

You were trying to claim that the solution to the problem was for the UN to declare Palestine as a separate and independent country and I simply pointed out all the reasons why Israel wouldn't go for that right now.

Back to the quote from page 16:

How the hell would you enforce that with one country currently occupying the other though? Not to mention that it would make Israel's blockade of Gaza from the sea illegal. As well as making attempts by Gaza to buy weapons perfectly legal.

Ah, now it works. Funny that I needed the above quote to complement the quote from page 16 to understand it correctly. It has something to do with how sentences are constructed at the quote of page 16. The trail of thought breaks somehow when the second sentence starts with "Not to mention..." The point is I read them back then as separate entities.

What it comes to your argument number 1), I think I already wrote a concept how it could be done before you posted your question.

But then I had serious doubts about any chance of a lasting peace settlement in Northern Ireland.

AARGH! You are doing it again! I can read the above sentence in two different ways.

It might be interesting to start a new thread and post a little bit more complex English text for non-native English people to read and then ask how they understood it. Maybe this could give an idea what gives. And I don't mean slang, that would be just an example of bad taste.

Mika

[karajorma]

To be frank, the reason why I tend to be unclear is cause when I write longer responses I get accused of being patronising. If someone misunderstands me I can quite clearly prove what I was saying. But if someone claims I'm patronising them it's much harder to prove my innocence.

However I'll be more than happy to write longer responses to you from now on as long as you keep the above in mind.

In case you're misinterpreting the weapons thing. Israel has constantly used the claim that Hamas are smuggling in weapons as a reason to blockade and periodically invade Gaza. But if the state of Palestine exists then that entire argument becomes moot. As an independent state they have the right to buy as many weapons as they can afford.

The source of confusion is the bolded part. It is not clear to me where it refers to. I read it as in nullifying my argument one post ago, not as in nullifying the Israeli argument of blockading Gaza (in this case I was expecting "the reason" instead of "that entire argument").

I'm referring to Israel's rational for blockading Palestine. Israel constantly makes the argument that the blockade is needed due to Hamas smuggling in weapons.  As an independent nation Palestine would buy whatever (legal) weapons they wanted to and there wouldn't be a damn thing Israel could do about it without declaring war. Which is one of the major reasons I suspect that they don't ever want to give Palestine independence.

What it comes to your argument number 1), I think I already wrote a concept how it could be done before you posted your question.

I know. But I simply don't believe it is workable. I tend to think the method that the IRA and ANC used for peace in their countries is a much more workable plan for Palestine.

But then I had serious doubts about any chance of a lasting peace settlement in Northern Ireland.

AARGH! You are doing it again! I can read the above sentence in two different ways.

I'm simply saying that it is possible that Hamas might surprise us by being more reasonable than we both seem to expect them to be. The IRA after all have proved surprisingly reasonable since the Good Friday Agreement and the fear of the Afrikaans that they would be set upon the second the blacks were in charge also proved unfounded in the end.

Right now the situation in Northern Ireland is such that even if the IRA did want to go back to violence their entire support base for it  is gone. The people like having peace. It could be that something similar might happen in Palestine.

I would rate the chance of Fatah doing it much higher than Hamas but right now Hamas are in charge. They are the only game in town. Israel can either talk to them, or they can carry on this **** for another 40 years.