Israel land grab law 'ends hope of two-state solution'

[ethnhunt]

Ah, so Israel isn't at fault for only accepting peace on terms that are massively inequal in its favour, but the Palestinians are for demanding a peace that includes some measure of justice, rather than submit to vae victis?

Did you read my post? You know, - the one just before yours? I told you that the situation is not about Israel accepting or not accepting the peace. There is NOTHING to accept. There is no PEACE proposal worth looking at from Palestinian Authority.

I enumerated the problems that are outstanding and those problems have NO solution that Palestinians are willing accept or Israelis are willing to offer or vice versa. Both sides are so far apart, that the problem is irreconcilable at the moment.

I also described a bit, how the negotiating process is conducted. I did that so that you understand that Palestinians have a lot to lose and Israelis have little to gain if the irreconcilable problem magically becomes solvable. That means that Palestinians must compromise and Israelis must show a good will.

Stop thinking in terms of 'equal or 'unequal' negotiating terms! If you really want to advocate for an eventual Israel-Palestinian reconciliation, as I do, you must understand the reality of the situation at hand. Otherwise, one can make noise, but one will accomplish nothing.

It's interesting how nearly all debates on the topic sooner or later end up with the debater taking Israel's side assuming some variant of "might makes right", even if the debater started from a position of asserting that Israel has the moral high ground.

Look, - let's try to have a sophisticated discussion here, can we? I do not take Israeli side. It only seems that way to you, because I do not view Israel as necessarily evil nor do I view Israel as different from any other legitimate and sovereign country.

You, on the other hand, are not used to seeing Israel doing something right! But Israel does do a lot of things right. Not everything, but a lot, - certainly Israel has done more right then Palestinians ever did.

You are used to seeing Palestinians as people who are simply victims and have done NOTHING wrong. But they have done nearly everything wrong, which WHY they find themselves in this terrible predicament. It was not done to them! They did most of it themselves. Their leadership has always been incompetent. Nearly all decisions that they made in their short history, from when Arafat came from Egypt in late 1960 to start PLO until present day.

All wars they fought, they lost. All political initiatives they tried, they failed. Show me anything successful that PLO and PA has done? Even in Gaza with Hamas in power since 2005, - what do Palestinians do? They spend all their money to fight Israel and they are upset when Israel closes the border in institutes a blockade. Go figure...

Why fight Israel, Why not spend the money on building the infrastructure and be prosperous instead? Then there will be no blockade and the World, including Israel, would help. Instead they go to war. The war they can NEVER win. Try to get your head around that. If you do, then you'll understand the real motives of Palestinian Arabs. Try that for a change!

I do not advocate that 'might makes it right', - I said that all countries in the history of the planet do that, but not Israel. I hope you have a capacity to see that. If Israel were to adopt 'might makes right' principle, then there would be NO discussion about ANY Palestinian State EVER.

How can you explain the repeated offers of Palestinian statehood in 2000 with PA getting 96.7% of EVERYTHING they asked for? How do you explain another offer in 2007, with similar agenda? How do you explain an Oslo meeting in 1993 that set PA on the path of possible statehood? Israel wants an accommodation. Palestinian Authority is clearly playing games here with an agenda of displacing Israel in favor of Palestine in due time. This is clear as day. But it is not clear to you, because you used to a paradigm that says Israelis are bad and Palestinians are good. Do think about it...

Can we thus agree and let it be established that Israel is evil and doing the Palestinians injustice?

No, we can't agree on that.
Please see my comments above, and please read, if you have not yet read, my post number 59 in this thread.

 

[Futuwwa]

Did you read my post? You know, - the one just before yours? I told you that the situation is not about Israel accepting or not accepting the peace. There is NOTHING to accept. There is no PEACE proposal worth looking at from Palestinian Authority.

I already enumerated to you the severely inequal terms which the Palestinian Authority has accepted to make peace on. Accepted, as in, been ready to make peace on those terms. That no peace treaty materialized is because those terms were not inequal enough in Israel's favour for the deal to be acceptable for Israel. That that's what I meant should be obvious. You don't win an argument by grasping at semantical straws to create a straw man, you only

Stop thinking in terms of 'equal or 'unequal' negotiating terms! If you really want to advocate for an eventual Israel-Palestinian reconciliation, as I do, you must understand the reality of the situation at hand. Otherwise, one can make noise, but one will accomplish nothing.

You were the one asserting that the Palestinians are the ones guilty of the lack of peace due to not compromising. I rebutted that by listing how much they've been ready to concede in peace negotiations, far more than Israel ever has.

If the "reality of the situation at hand" is that the Palestinians want peace with justice, and Israel wants a peace that serves its interests and Zionist ideological aims (which would be severely compromised by providing the Palestinians justice), then that is indeed an impasse. One side is "guilty" of demanding justice, the other of denying it, how can the former be the one guilty of the impasse and not the latter?

No, we can't agree on that.

Why not? Imposing injustices on others and refusing to redress them is, generally speaking, considered evil. Tautologically, even, following from the definition.

Either you can maintain that Israel's cause and actions are just, or that might makes right and that it's just an unfortunate reality of life that the Palestinians must accept an inequal treaty due to Israel's superior bargaining power, despite the injustice in it. You can't have it both ways, though many apologists for Israel indeed try to.

Please see my comments above, and please read, if you have not yet read, my post number 59 in this thread.

I read every bit of it and decided not to take the bait and be derailed by the bag of red herrings and outlandish assertions. You're making assertions that could only be made by one who is either willfully ignorant or a liar. All the while you're accusing me of bias, something you've been unable to provide any substantiation of. Which is far from the case with you, but as I said, I chose not to take the bait. I try to stick to what's essential.

If any of what you refer back to is actually relevant for answering me, feel free to repost that specific part.

 

[Simple_Person]

[MENTION=39296]aaj[/MENTION] you know what I noticed following this topic. I said something that by my definition cornered him and he did not replied to my comment. I assumed he forgot to reply. However he did the same with your comment when first saying you are biased and then suddenly you gave him links from different kind of media. I was waiting him to also reply to that...yet he suddenly drops you too and picks up a discussion only with another brother...!!..I am not sure what is going on but I smell dishonesty based on this small observation.

 

[Khanali12]

Meanwhile muslims are too busy slaughtering each other.

 

[Simple_Person]

Meanwhile muslims are too busy slaughtering each other.

In a match one could say there are three participants. Team X, Team Y and the observers (ie fans, refuree, camera's..). Who does have a better view of what is going on?

A: The ones actively playing on the field on the side of team X
B: The ones actively playing on the field on the side of team Y
C: The observers (ie fans, refurees, canera's) watching the game.

Choose one of those answers AND give a objective argument why you choose what you choose.

That answer if is the right answer will also be the answer to what you just said here.

 

[ethnhunt]

@aaj you know what I noticed following this topic. I said something that by my definition cornered him and he did not replied to my comment. I assumed he forgot to reply. However he did the same with your comment when first saying you are biased and then suddenly you gave him links from different kind of media. I was waiting him to also reply to that...yet he suddenly drops you too and picks up a discussion only with another brother...!!..I am not sure what is going on but I smell dishonesty based on this small observation.

I guess, I must apologize to you for not replying in a reasonable time. I got carried away by another discussion. Please do not think that I "... suddenly drop (you) and pick up a discussion with another brother...". Believe me there is no "... smell (of) dishonesty ..." here.

I did read your post and I felt that I already, although indirectly, replied to your points in my posts to another member here. However, if you would please re-post the points you feel I did not respond to and I'll be happy to do it.

You know, I never planned to get so engaged in a discussion on this topic. I feel no particular affinity to Israel or Palestinians. I see both of these ethnic groups as people of equal rights and responsibilities. I actually wanted to get involved in Comparative Religion discussions, as it interests me more. But, regardless , - let's carry on!

 

[aaj]

Israel is an apartheid state, not a superpower.

Do you even know what “…apartheid state…” is? I bet you do not! Why don’t you look it up, ok? .

I think we've established the fact here that isreal IS an Apartheid state.

And it needs to end as well as any support for that regime. All those who support it and speak in its defense support Apartheid.

 

[Scimitar]

Meanwhile muslims are too busy slaughtering each other.

Enjoy your ban

Scimi

 

[ethnhunt]

I already enumerated to you the severely inequal terms which the Palestinian Authority has accepted to make peace on. Accepted, as in, been ready to make peace on those terms. That no peace treaty materialized is because those terms were not inequal enough in Israel's favour for the deal to be acceptable for Israel. That that's what I meant should be obvious. You don't win an argument by grasping at semantical straws to create a straw man, you only

No, you did not enumerate anything. All you said was, and still is, that in your view the terms are "unequal". You never did "enumerate" any specifics of that 'inequality'.
I would like to challenge you to look at the Palestinians Peace proposal, that is if you can find one! I certainly am unable to find any PA-originated proposals.

What I did find was a 2002 Saudi Peace proposal, - a 10-line statements, to which PA signed off on. Is that the proposal you are referring too? I'll be happy to look at it with you and 'dissect' it, so that you, and everybody else here, get a chance to see and understand exactly what the Arabs are offering and what the Arabs are expecting in return. It is definitely "unequal", but not in a way you'd want to see it. Still...have you seen that proposal? I would not mind to read your take on it.

I, on the other hand, DID enumerate the issues in my post (#59). Those issues are real and present today. You never took the time to address those issues nor did you attemt to refute them. Again, I welcome your attempt at it.

It is self-evident that no Israeli-Palestinian peace treaty ever materialized, because Palestinians explicitly refused to have one. You see, - it is a problem, when one side in a negotiating process openly refuses to agree to a lasting peace, - that is to sign a peace deal that “ends all claims” against Israel. PA also refuses to agree to Israel’s basic demand for recognition as the Jewish state, yet PA has no problem with seeing Saudi Arabia as an official Islamic State. Those are just a few issues among many, but I feel they are important to mention here.

You were the one asserting that the Palestinians are the ones guilty of the lack of peace due to not compromising. I rebutted that by listing how much they've been ready to concede in peace negotiations, far more than Israel ever has.

Again, I saw no rebuttal. Please repost if I missed any and I'll be happy to address it. As for Palestinian compromises, which one are those? In 2000, Mr. Arafat did not offer any modifications to PA basic demands, - he did not give 'one inch', even though nearly 97% of what he asked land-wise was offered to him by Israel. The 3% broke the deal here. In 2007, Mr. Abbas met Israelis 36 times and let go of a few MINOR demands that Israel actually could leave with, which is why the meetings went to number 36.

The major demands that had to do with refugees, Jerusalem issue and lasting peace and recognition clause, he NEVER backed down on. And, - guess what?...He never showed up for the meeting number 37! He just stopped. And with that, - the entire endeavourer collapsed.

Those are the historic facts and nothing we can do about them. Still, - I welcome your input on Palestinian compromises and I'll be happy to look at what you can find.

If the "reality of the situation at hand" is that the Palestinians want peace with justice, and Israel wants a peace that serves its interests and Zionist ideological aims (which would be severely compromised by providing the Palestinians justice), then that is indeed an impasse. One side is "guilty" of demanding justice, the other of denying it, how can the former be the one guilty of the impasse and not the latter?

"Justice, justice shall you pursue...", - says Jewish Book of Old Testament. (Deuteronomy 16:20.) Believe me, the Jews know what justice is. You are confusing fairness with bargaining. What justice are you talking about? Each side has an agenda and those agendas stand in a glaring opposition. You cannot argue that Palestinian cause is ANY MORE JUST then Israeli cause. it depends which side your are on.

This is why a negotiating process is not about justice. It is about what each side is prepared to agree too. Justice you can get in Court from the judge, but a negotiation has no judge and no court.

Yes, absolutely, as you state, - "... Israel wants a peace that serves its interests and Zionist ideological aims..." This is not wrong. This IS expected. This is what ANY country would want. The problem is that PA is obsessed with getting back what they lost. But as old adage goes, - there is a price to pay for errors you make. PA does not want to pay ANY price at all. I am not even talking here about the real PA agenda, but that is another story...

Why not? Imposing injustices on others and refusing to redress them is, generally speaking, considered evil. Tautologically, even, following from the definition.

Either you can maintain that Israel's cause and actions are just, or that might makes right and that it's just an unfortunate reality of life that the Palestinians must accept an inequal treaty due to Israel's superior bargaining power, despite the injustice in it. You can't have it both ways, though many apologists for Israel indeed try to.

Indeed, you can't have it both ways. However, this is not about justice at all. This is about an agreement that both sides may find agreeable. To understand that process, you must understand what drives both sides. I do not see that you understand this at all.

Do you see how the average Israeli reasons this conflict out? I guarantee you that an average Israeli completely understand how average Palestinians thinks. I certainly understand both sides on reasonably sophisticated level, which is why I have no illusions about what PA is willing to live with and why PA did not want to sign the deal in 2000 or 2007. Do you? Do you understand the issues?

I read every bit of it and decided not to take the bait and be derailed by the bag of red herrings and outlandish assertions. You're making assertions that could only be made by one who is either willfully ignorant or a liar. All the while you're accusing me of bias, something you've been unable to provide any substantiation of. Which is far from the case with you, but as I said, I chose not to take the bait. I try to stick to what's essential.

I never had any desire to bait you. I am sorry if you feel that way. Please know that I am being very sincere. I welcome your views on Saudi-PA proposed peace. Let's discuss it. It is extremely relevant, because just 2 days ago, there was an Arab summit, where Mr. Abbas, re-affirmed PA commitment to that Plan. So, - it stands to reason, that this is THE Peace Plan that PA is going with. Please look at and let's talk about it. You'll see that the enumeration of the issues as seen in y post (#59) are still with us.

 

[ethnhunt]

I think we've established the fact here that isreal IS an Apartheid state.

And it needs to end as well as any support for that regime. All those who support it and speak in its defense support Apartheid.

No, - YOU DID NOT ESTABLISH ANYTHING. What you did do in your post (#57) is to quote from several newspapars and news networks and UN on this topic. In order to establish what you set out to do, you must conform Israeli legal practicies to the definitin of apartheid. You did not do that. The UN link you provided does claim apartheid in Israel, but that declaration was voted on by the majority of Arab States and voted against or abstained by the rest of the World. So nobody in Israel or in the West are worried about it. Here is what I think on this topic:

"The treatment of Arabs by the State of Israel cannot be compared in any way to the treatment of the black majority in South Africa under apartheid. There is no Israeli ideology, policy or plan to segregate, persecute or mistreat the Arab population.


Apartheid was a uniquely repressive system, through which South Africa’s white minority enforced its domination over the black and other non-white racial groups who made up more than 90 percent of the population. Apartheid – which means “separate development” in the Afrikaans language – was put into effect through a systematic framework of racist legislation imposing strict segregation, including laws which banned blacks from “white areas,” prevented blacks and whites from marrying or even having sexual relations with each other, and which regulated the education of black children in accordance with their “subservient” social position. The regime imposed “Bantustans,” impoverished autonomous homelands whose borders were designed to exclude economically viable land, upon 12 million black South Africans.


No such laws exist in Israel, which in its Declaration of Independence pledges to safeguard the equal rights of all citizens. Arab citizens of Israel enjoy the full range of civil and political rights, including the right to organize politically, the right to vote and the right to speak and publish freely. Israeli Arabs and other non-Jewish Israelis serve as members of Israel’s security forces, are elected to parliament and appointed to the country’s highest courts. They are afforded equal educational opportunities, and there are ongoing initiatives to further improve the economic standing of all of Israel’s minorities. These facts serve as a counter to the apartheid argument, and demonstrate that Israel is committed to democratic principles and equal rights for all its citizens.


To be sure, Palestinians in the West Bank and in the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip do encounter hardships as a result of Israeli policies, including checkpoints, access into Israel, the security barrier and other issues. However, these procedures and structures have been developed to promote security and thwart potential terrorist action, not to persecute or segregate.


Finally, divestment and boycott campaigns singularly demonize Israel and designate Israel for pariah status, while ignoring other states, including many in the Middle East, which systematically abuse human rights. If anti-Israel divestment and boycott activists were truly interested in aiding Palestinians and promoting Israeli-Palestinian reconciliation, they would advocate constructive initiatives between Israelis, Palestinians and others. Unfortunately, most of these activists ignore such initiatives, and focus solely on bashing Israel and promoting punitive actions against the state. Indeed, former South African Constitutional Court Justice Richard Goldstone wrote in a New York Times op-ed that accusing Israel of apartheid “is an unfair and inaccurate slander against Israel, calculated to retard rather than advance peace negotiations.”"

 

[aaj]

No, - YOU DID NOT ESTABLISH ANYTHING. What you did do in your post (#57) is to quote from several newspapars and news networks and UN on this topic. In order to establish what you set out to do, you must conform Israeli legal practicies to the definitin of apartheid. You did not do that. The UN link you provided does claim apartheid in Israel, but that declaration was voted on by the majority of Arab States and voted against or abstained by the rest of the World. So nobody in Israel or in the West are worried about it. Here is what I think on this topic:
"

You are in denial and delusional, attempting to defend a terrorist regime and an apartheid state by your feeble logic. You are welcome to support such regimes and defend them all you like, you are among the minorities that we don't care for. Inshallah this regime will come down one day, that is a promise.

Actual UN Report: https://www.scribd.com/document/342220531/UN-ESCWA-report-on-Israeli-apartheid#

 

[ethnhunt]

You are in denial and delusional, attempting to defend a terrorist regime and an apartheid state by your feeble logic. You are welcome to support such regimes and defend them all you like, you are among the minorities that we don't care for. Inshallah this regime will come down one day, that is a promise.

Actual UN Report: https://www.scribd.com/document/342220531/UN-ESCWA-report-on-Israeli-apartheid#

All I can say to is this, - ARE YOU EVEN REMOTELY SERIOUS? I am amazed you chose the report from Social Council for Western Asia (ESCWA) to show how bad Israel is. This report was compiled by Richard Falk. Have you even read this report? I did. But I am sure you did not. It sounds like something from Monty Python comics with its unending accusations without merit.

Are you even aware that this report was commissioned by the UN Economic and Social Council for Western Asia (ESCWA) consisting of eighteen Arab states: Bahrain, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Morocco, Mauritania, Oman, Palestine, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, The Sudan, The Syrian Arab Republic, Tunisia, The United Arab Emirates and Yemen? How many of these despotic regimes are committed to negotiating peace with justice?

In fact, ESCWA, itself, imposes apartheid on Israel, which is a UN member state located in western Asia, but excluded from ESCWA membership (which includes Sudan, Libya, and Tunisia which are African.). LOL!

It’s impossible to take Mr. Falk seriously. The sad reality is that Falk has no interest in real peace nor does he have any concern for the Palestinian people who suffer either under the brutal Hamas military theocracy in Gaza or inept and incompetent Mr. Abbas and friends. It is so much easier to take the easy way out and ignore the massive meltdown in the Arab world by pinning all blame on Israel.

Mr. Falk is a die-hard throwback to the days of Marxism-Leninism and he would never bother trying to solve the Palestinian’s problems when he can simply blame everything on the Zionists. In his worldview, it doesn’t matter if Palestine is yet another brutal Arab dictatorship that abuses its citizens – his goal is to get rid of Israel.

Let me say a few words about the so-called Palestinian land that is so dear to Mr. Falk. The reality is that Jews purchased private land in a country ruled by the Ottoman Turks and then the British, without displacing a single Arab, and where Arabs were living without the remotest thought of exercising sovereignty. Do you understand what that means? That is right, nobody had identity papers at the time. The Turks did not care, so the Arabs and the Jews lived wherever they wanted!

The reality is that both the Arabs and the Jews subsequently claimed sovereignty over the same land. The UN proposed a compromise in 1948. The Jews accepted it, the Arabs rejected it and invaded Israel with the declared aim of destroying it and massacring its population. The reality is that 20 years later Jordan initiated a war against Israel and, as a consequence, Israel occupied the West Bank and remained there because the Arabs refused to end the conflict.

The word ‘apartheid’ was specifically defined to describe a specific situation. No one has given Mr. Falk the license to redefine it. You and Mr. Falk will have to find another word, as hard as it is to let go of it. The word you would probably use, if “apartheid” hadn’t become one of the dirtiest words in the language and therefore irresistibly tempting to apply to loathsome Israel, is “discrimination.”

When you think of Israeli ‘discrimination’ against Palestinians, do understand that it doesn’t even reach the proportions of the discrimination against the Kurds wherever they have lived, or the Copts in Egypt, for example, or the Jews in Muslim countries.

Do understand that in Israel, the Arabs eat in the same restaurants as Jews, travel on the same buses and trains, use the same public spaces, are treated in the same hospitals as Jews, treat Jews in these hospitals as doctors and nurses, serve as lawyers and judges in Israel’s legal system, teach and study in the universities, serve in the Parliament.

With regard to the occupation of the West Bank, it is a military occupation and nothing else, oppressive in proportion to terrorist activity, which would be dealt with in precisely the same way whether the settlements existed or not.

Here is my legal take on the report by Mr. Falk, - under International Law, Israel as the victorious belligerent of the 1967 “Six Day War,” may retain captured land until possession is modified by peace treaty. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uti_possidetis
(Latin: As you possess, you may continue to possess)

The Post World War II occupations of the Axis powers ended with peace treaties. When, and if, Palestinians want this “occupation” to end, they will negotiate for it!

Resolving the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, as with all conflicts, requires that each participant examine its role in perpetuating the discord with an eye toward introducing moderation while, at the same time, seeking points of commonality with its adversary on which to build cooperation and mutual understanding. The report that Mr. Falk wrote, which is utterly one-sided and escalates the verbal warfare to an unprecedented toxicity, runs contrary to virtually everything known and written about conflict resolution.

The report is seeking to de-legitimize Israel and making it a pariah state, which clearly is the report’s objective. Indeed, implementing its recommendations, explicit and implied, would drown Israel in a floodtide of refugees, cripple its economy, and add more tumult to an already dangerously tumultuous Middle East. Implementation of this report will end Isarel as a country! Do you get that? You would, if you read the report!

It’s axiomatic among experts who do conflict resolution that the process applied to the task has a large impact on the results. It’s virtually impossible that peaceful co-existence between Jews and Palestinians under any structural format could emerge from the destabilization, dislocation and hostile chaos that are the inevitable consequence of the approach the report urges.

This report ignores or dismisses Israeli peace proposals over the years, as well as the substantial forces inside Israel and in Jewish communities throughout the world, and especially the United States, where many strongly oppose how IDF deals with Palestinians.

Regardless, - Palestinians must overcome the ideological and political schism that divides their body politic into mutually hostile camps, and build a consensus that will enable them to come to the negotiating table with a single, united voice able to make commitments that will be honored by all Palestinian factions. The report, which puts the total blame on Israel, militates against this and therefore blatantly unfair and cannot be taken seriously by anybody who wants to solve this conflict.

All I can say to you, - please think before you post.

 

[Futuwwa]

No, you did not enumerate anything. All you said was, and still is, that in your view the terms are "unequal". You never did "enumerate" any specifics of that 'inequality'.
I would like to challenge you to look at the Palestinians Peace proposal, that is if you can find one! I certainly am unable to find any PA-originated proposals.

What I did find was a 2002 Saudi Peace proposal, - a 10-line statements, to which PA signed off on. Is that the proposal you are referring too? I'll be happy to look at it with you and 'dissect' it, so that you, and everybody else here, get a chance to see and understand exactly what the Arabs are offering and what the Arabs are expecting in return. It is definitely "unequal", but not in a way you'd want to see it. Still...have you seen that proposal? I would not mind to read your take on it.

I, on the other hand, DID enumerate the issues in my post (#59). Those issues are real and present today. You never took the time to address those issues nor did you attemt to refute them. Again, I welcome your attempt at it.

It is self-evident that no Israeli-Palestinian peace treaty ever materialized, because Palestinians explicitly refused to have one. You see, - it is a problem, when one side in a negotiating process openly refuses to agree to a lasting peace, - that is to sign a peace deal that “ends all claims” against Israel. PA also refuses to agree to Israel’s basic demand for recognition as the Jewish state, yet PA has no problem with seeing Saudi Arabia as an official Islamic State. Those are just a few issues among many, but I feel they are important to mention here.



Again, I saw no rebuttal. Please repost if I missed any and I'll be happy to address it. As for Palestinian compromises, which one are those? In 2000, Mr. Arafat did not offer any modifications to PA basic demands, - he did not give 'one inch', even though nearly 97% of what he asked land-wise was offered to him by Israel. The 3% broke the deal here. In 2007, Mr. Abbas met Israelis 36 times and let go of a few MINOR demands that Israel actually could leave with, which is why the meetings went to number 36.

The major demands that had to do with refugees, Jerusalem issue and lasting peace and recognition clause, he NEVER backed down on. And, - guess what?...He never showed up for the meeting number 37! He just stopped. And with that, - the entire endeavourer collapsed.

Those are the historic facts and nothing we can do about them. Still, - I welcome your input on Palestinian compromises and I'll be happy to look at what you can find.

You ask me to refute the assertions you make about what the facts of the Arab-Israeli conflict are, talking about them as if they were indisputable historical facts. Meanwhile, when I make assertions, you simply wave them away as untrue.

I will not consent to discuss the matter based on the premise that you get to dictate anything you say as fact, and that anyone who disagrees with what the facts are has the burden of proof. Nor should anyone else.

Also, if you actually want the discussion to lead somewhere, I suggest you start treating the other participants as equals and operate on a premise of mutual rationality and good faith. Not on the premise that we are brainwashed and that you should educate us.

"Justice, justice shall you pursue...", - says Jewish Book of Old Testament. (Deuteronomy 16:20.) Believe me, the Jews know what justice is. You are confusing fairness with bargaining. What justice are you talking about? Each side has an agenda and those agendas stand in a glaring opposition. You cannot argue that Palestinian cause is ANY MORE JUST then Israeli cause. it depends which side your are on.

Red herring. There is neither a singular "Palestinian cause" nor "Israeli cause", nor agenda. Both populations are agglomerations of people with varying and layered wants, which is why any faction within either side trying to engage in a peace process is constrained by the internal politics and internal disagreements within that side.

As for what constitutes justice, here are your words:

You know, I never planned to get so engaged in a discussion on this topic. I feel no particular affinity to Israel or Palestinians. I see both of these ethnic groups as people of equal rights and responsibilities. I actually wanted to get involved in Comparative Religion discussions, as it interests me more. But, regardless , - let's carry on!

If both groups are of equal rights, it would follow that a just peace is one based on the premise that both groups have an equal right to the land, that neither should get more than the other, or get anything the other doesn't get in equal measure. From that, it would follow that if either side attempts to force an inequal outcome on the other, it is guilty of committing injustice, no?

 

[سيف الله]

Salaam

Another update. Interesting perspective.

Ken O'Keefe Exposes the Zionist Plan for the Middle East

 

[سيف الله]

Salaam

Another update

Lecture by Norman Finkelstein: 50 years of occupation – What now?

Noam Chomsky: Why Trump Is Likely to Care Less About Palestinians Than Any Other President to Precede Him

 

[سيف الله]

Salaam

A look into the origins of the Israeli Palestinian conflict. Well done.

 

[ethnhunt]

Salaam

Another update

Lecture by Norman Finkelstein: 50 years of occupation – What now?


I viewd the lecture by Finkelstein with interest. Still, - he says that Israel had no reason to attack Egypt, unless its been a diversion to simply capture Jerusalem, Golan and West Bank. In other words it was an expansionist move by Israel. Everybody knew that in any war Israel would win in a few days, so...sure...Isarel is a bad guy here. Finkelstein is being a demagogue, as he conveniently forgets or simply decides not to mention the issue of the Straits of Tiran! Egypt closed Straits of Tiran!

In May 1967, Israeli Prime Minister Mr. Eshkol repeated declarations that Israel had made in 1957, saying that closure of the Straits of Tiran would be an act of war. Egypt then blockaded the straits on May 22, 1967, and oil tankers that were due to pass through the straits were required to submit documents ensuring their cargo was not destined for an Israeli port.At that time, Israel viewed the Straits of Tiran as a vital interest as it is where Israel received vital imports, mainly oil from Iran, and a blockade threatened Israel's ability to develop the Negev and it cut the oil from being delivered to Israel, threatening its economy and its very existence. It was an existential threat to Israel. This is WHY Israel went to war, not because it could win, not becase it wanted West Bank or Golam or Jerusalem. Finkelstein knows this, but he does not say it, becase his agenda is to de-legitimize Israeli existence. He speaks of occupation. But it was the Arabs that brought about the need for occupation. It was not due to Israeli belligerence. It was due to Egyptian and Syrian and later Jordanian aggressive posture that forced Israel to act. The capture of land was the price that the Arabs had to pay. For many years Israel offered to return the land in exchange for peace.. It did so in 1979 returning Sinai to Egypt. Jordan washed its hands off West Bank as King Husein declared. And Palestinian Arabs under PLO and now PA have no desire to negotiate with Israel, as history records. Palestinian Arabs say NO to ALL offers that Israel made in the past 20 years.

Finkelstein know all this all too well, but he chooses not to look at hard facts. Occupation has been around for 50 years now and the longer we wait the more it becomes permanent. Do understand that Israel has claims to that land, - very good and substantive claims. Palestinian Arabs already have a country, - its Jordan. So, - in the absents of any negotiation posture from PA, Israel may annex Area C and put an end any dream of independent Palestine. I think that is exactly how it will go down, if Palestinians do not act in their best interest and negotiate with Israel instead of demanding what they can never have, - the East Jerusalem, the return of refugees and Israeli retreat to the boundaries of 1948. Negotiations presume a compromise, - and the Arabs have yet to show an understanding of what that realty means.

 

[سيف الله]

Salaam

Oh more Israeli hasbra, thats what this forum really needs.

Its interesting how the hasbra operations have developed over the decades, first Palestinians never existed, then the fake peace process. to mask Israeli true goals.

Now that the propoganda and rhetoric has been exposed they've thrown off the mask and accellerating with the end game.

 

[ethnhunt]

Salaam

Oh more Israeli hasbra, thats what this forum really needs.

Its interesting how the hasbra operations have developed over the decades, first Palestinians never existed, then the fake peace process. to mask Israeli true goals.

Now that the propoganda and rhetoric has been exposed they've thrown off the mask and accellerating with the end game.

What are you talking about? The videos you posted clearly show how bankrupt the Palestinian political position really is. Mr. Dershowitz does have a point!

To wit, the term 'Palestinian' came into existence in the early 1960s with arrival of Yasir Arafat from Egypt. Before that the Arabs of British Palestine called themselves Jordanians, as they had Jordanian passports and many still do.

The peace process is not dead. But peace on whose terms? What do the Palestinians want? I know and we all know that they want to replace Israel with a new country - Palestine. So, - as along as they want this, and they do not hide this by the way, no peace is possible. OK?

 

[AbdurRahman.]

What are you talking about? The videos you posted clearly show how bankrupt the Palestinian political position really is. Mr. Dershowitz does have a point!

To wit, the term 'Palestinian' came into existence in the early 1960s with arrival of Yasir Arafat from Egypt. Before that the Arabs of British Palestine called themselves Jordanians, as they had Jordanian passports and many still do.

The peace process is not dead. But peace on whose terms? What do the Palestinians want? I know and we all know that they want to replace Israel with a new country - Palestine. So, - as along as they want this, and they do not hide this by the way, no peace is possible. OK?

no probs mate the Mahdi is coming to sort you lot out![FONT=&quot]:

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Abu Sa'id al-Khudari[/FONT][SUP](RA) [/SUP][FONT=&quot]narrated that the Prophet[/FONT][SUP](SAW)[/SUP][FONT=&quot] said:[/FONT][FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]Our Mahdi will have a broad forehead and a pointed (prominent) nose. He will fill the earth with justice as it is filled with injustice and tyranny. He will rule for seven years.
(Abu Dawud, Sahih, Vol. 2, p. 208; Fusul al-muhimma, p. 275)[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]