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

[Grandad]

I think Israelis is a better term than the ambiguous “Jews”. Most religious Jews I know are pacifists or shun violence. Not every Jew is a Zionist invader bent on killing innocents. We should be better than the people that lump an entire religion into a bunch of evil dowers because of the action of a few.

Exactly!!!

 

[Scimitar]

I think Israelis is a better term than the ambiguous “Jews”. Most religious Jews I know are pacifists or shun violence. Not every Jew is a Zionist invader bent on killing innocents. We should be better than the people that lump an entire religion into a bunch of evil dowers because of the action of a few.

Have you ever watched any of Corey Gill Shuster's vids on youtube?

Check this out:

...Now here is the thing. The video was shot entirely in Jerusalem, Israel. The interviewer is asking Jews what they think about Jesus, Mary and Christianity.


But you'll notice something else - most of these Israeli Jews - are actually secular and don't follow religion at all.


So let me get this straight - the interviewed were Jewish, but not following their faith - that's what I take away from the video.


So why the need to return to their promised land if they don't believe?

I mean, isn't this what the Israeli Occupier claims: God gave this land to me, it's my birth right - however, I don't believe in God -but he gave me the land anyway.


I'd like to hear your thoughts.


Scimi

 

[M.I.A.]

amazing. seems like they are a difficult people to move.

...very expressive through the hands.

i cant fault them. they seem to have an integrity.

nothing untowards in the language.

as it stands, very difficult to hold any bias.
..
..
...but the test of men is character under hardship.

i would say that wouldn't i?

lol at the two old men at the beginning..

we dont even think about it, we just do... fantastic.

you must understand that the mind is an extremely important thing.. the thought processes even more so.

 

[ethnhunt]

Here is the error made by many. When talked about UN, suddenly here the full stop is drawn. However, if we still use "the logic" of UN, we talk about for example international law. By whom is this guarded countries don't go over the line? As far as i know again UN or institution under UN. So UN has with the decision to make Israel, which again by NORMAL logic is contradictory to taking land from other people and giving it to them, while we would rather say give them a piece of Germany instead

.

I am sorry, - but you are not making any sense. What "NORMAL logic" are you talking about? Whose logic is that? Please be clear...

You are wrong, when you say that UN took "... land from other people...". This is a figment of your imagination. It never happened. If you insist, however, please provide evidence of your assertion and I'd happy to comment and show to you and all here, just how wrong you are.

But never mind this, we know of the 6 day war with Israel and the Arabs in 1967. The borders before that event were acknowledged by UN.

No, that never happen. No borders were ever in existence in 1968. What did exist are the lines of separation of forces, - an armistices lines, not borders. It was never a border recognized by anybody, certainly not by UN. And certainly not by Arab countries. In 1968 the state of war exited between Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and also Kuwait as far as I recall, on one side and Israel on the other.

Now 1967-2017 it's gonna be 50 years soon. UN does not recognize those new borders that Israel keeps making, yet as far as i know and do correct me NOTHING is done against these illegal events that go against this so called international law. Every time something has been done, US veto's on behalf of Israel..so again UN is kind of useless.

Today there is a border with Jordan, along the river Jordan and the border with Egypt in Sinai. There is no border with Syria or Lebanon. Israel had self-defined a boundary with Syria and Lebanon and Israel, as well as Syria and Lebanon, may change this boundary at any time. The point is that Syria and Lebanon are not capable to do that even though they want to do that. Israel is comfortable with the boundary in the Golan and has no plans to change it.

UN does not acknowledge the boundary in the Golan Heights. International law has no provisions to say anything on this topic, so Israeli annexation of Golan Heights in 1980 is not in contradiction with any International treaties of legal provisions.

Please look up International Law statues on the topic of armistices lines and annexation.

So would you say UN is a reliable party that guards treaties? For me personally i see them as a mafia group. They make the rules and who every does not abide by THEIR rules, is wrong..!!. Who said we agreed to play according to your rules? In the past i did not know that this criminal organization aka mafia group had also other institutions under them. However when i looked i was shocked..IMF being one of those.
This reminds me of i believe 16 century in the times of pirates. The British had all kind of laws, pirates however wanted to be free and not abide by those laws. They were branded as criminals just because they did not want to abide by those laws

.

I see...you do not like UN. I do not like UN also. The point is that you do not have to like UN, you just have to abide by UN's binding decisions. I must remind you that you are not living alone on this planet. Majority of nations instituted UN on your behalf. Nobody asked you, I understand that, but nobody HAD to ask you.

Furthermore, - may I remind you that UN created many countries, - among them many Muslim countries. Are you OK with countries like Pakistan or Jordan benefiting from UN's decisions?

Perhaps it is a good idea for you to think about things first...

 

[ethnhunt]

Israel never wanted to two states. They were fooling anyone who believes that. What they want is the creation of greater israel, which consists of all whole of palestine, lebanon, syria, jordan and parts of north africa (egypt). they are awaiting for their messiah to come and he won't come until they build the king solomon temple on top of masjid aqsa and establish greater israel. Anyone believe in any two state resolutions or israel making peace is only deluding themselves of the reality of what is and what is planned.

I for one am not saddened by this end hope of two-state solution. If you know your deen then you know it's not going to happen. 60 years of occupation and oppression isn't magically going away with 2 states. Palestine has to be taken over so the mahdi can liberate it once again.

I do respect your convictions. I, however, hope that you re-examine how your convictions inform your political views. To wit, - if Israel wanted to do what you are saying, then Israel would have done it a long time ago. There is no country in Middle east that can withstand IDF. That was true in 1970s and it is even more true today. Israel is a reginal superpower, yet it does not behave in a manner that you suggest.

Furthermore, why would Isarel repeadetely tries to find an acomodation with Palestinian Arabs? Why Israel signed peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan?

I hope you see, that your points do not have any basis in reality.

 

[ethnhunt]

UN is nothing but a USA tool my friend; it is run by and ruled by the USA so to say the UN decides is really not considering the reality of the UN being a zionist opressive organisation; a 'tool' for USA and UK to implement their evil in this world


us humans really have to have a sense of justice and not use UN to justify our prejudices, hate, evil etc etc.


Bottom line is the poor Palestinians have had their land taken from them and their being severely oppressed ever since and we need to rectify that as humans otherwise we will just be another oppressor supporting oppression

I understand your frastration. But...what do "...poor Palestinians..." have to do with UN?

UN's Security Consul is there so that we do not have another global war. The issue of Israel and Palestine are 'small potatoes'. The World has problems taht are more important then Arab-Israeli conflict.

Further, - you do not have to like UN. But UN is there by agreement by the majority of the people of this planet. Please start an advocacy group to replace UN with something you may like better and convince the majority of your point of view. However, those countries that UN created in the middle 20th century, might disagree with you. Those countries are thankful to UN for their existence. You know, - countries like Jordan, Pakistan, Lebanon, Syria and, yes, Israel, etc. etc.

 

[aaj]

I do respect your convictions. I, however, hope that you re-examine how your convictions inform your political views. To wit, - if Israel wanted to do what you are saying, then Israel would have done it a long time ago. There is no country in Middle east that can withstand IDF. That was true in 1970s and it is even more true today. Israel is a reginal superpower, yet it does not behave in a manner that you suggest.

Furthermore, why would Isarel repeadetely tries to find an acomodation with Palestinian Arabs? Why Israel signed peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan?

I hope you see, that your points do not have any basis in reality.

Israel is an apartheid state, not a superpower
It signs treaties only to break them (with Palestine), treaties with egypt and jordon are a joke, they are just puppets
it's friendly to states like jordan only till their time comes to step down
It cannot go all out and do what it wants which is why it's taking gradually steps
Compare the 1967 borders to now, you only find Israel on the map and Palestine as occupied territories
had Israel done all that from day one, it wouldn't have worked. same goes for rest of its plan

Only reason it doesn't not go any further then it already has is because it fears repercussions from the world. A supper aggressive move like that will lead to worldwide boycott and call for jihad from the Muslim world. The US and UK won't be able to protect it and the UN will be just as useless as it is now.

Further, - you do not have to like UN. But UN is there by agreement by the majority of the people of this planet. Please start an advocacy group to replace UN with something you may like better and convince the majority of your point of view. However, those countries that UN created in the middle 20th century, might disagree with you. Those countries are thankful to UN for their existence. You know, - countries like Jordan, Pakistan, Lebanon, Syria and, yes, Israel, etc. etc

UN is there by the force of the western powers. It serves only as a means for proxy wars and sanctions against non-western nations. The African nations are talking about pulling out because according to them the UN seems to go only after African leaders as "dictators" while the west continues its dictatorship and war crimes in the world.

I hope you read some alternative news to what they teaching you in history class and mainstream media.

 

[Simple_Person]

I am sorry, - but you are not making any sense. What "NORMAL logic" are you talking about? Whose logic is that? Please be clear...

What i mean by this is the logic of UN dictating things for people. You point out that i am not living alone on this plant in the lower part of your comment, however that doesn't mean that what they say suddenly is "oke" because is a body of countries that have come to unite with the "intention" of peace. To give you an example, countries were made and countries would fall. I am myself a Kurd and Kurds have been separated in 4 countries, if i have to choose between oppression or having a separate state, my choice is very clear to have a separate state. However i myself do NOT acknowledge those countries, while UN does. So this is what i am trying to point at, forgive me for not being more clearly about it.

You are wrong, when you say that UN took "... land from other people...". This is a figment of your imagination. It never happened. If you insist, however, please provide evidence of your assertion and I'd happy to comment and show to you and all here, just how wrong you are.

Back in 1939 there was a white paper that restricted the amount of Jews immigrating to modern day Israel.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Paper_of_1939

So through out the years the amount of Jews that had immigrated to Israel were rising tremendously. Because of that a certain restriction was put on. From very few Jewish people living there suddenly a lot of Jewish people living there and UN acknowledging the statehood of Israel. So what i mean by this "land grab", if in certain land lives for example 1000 people of race X compared to 2 million people of race Y that already have been living there for very long tong already. The amount of people of race X immigrating to that land suddenly let's say exceeding 5 million after a time, would you agree with me that STILL this race X doesn't have the rights to declare their own country? Although back in history this place was their homeland so to say.

No, that never happen. No borders were ever in existence in 1968. What did exist are the lines of separation of forces, - an armistices lines, not borders. It was never a border recognized by anybody, certainly not by UN. And certainly not by Arab countries. In 1968 the state of war exited between Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and also Kuwait as far as I recall, on one side and Israel on the other.

But why do you still hear that the settlements are not recognized by UN? I mean clearly those settlements are build on ground that are not acknowledged by UN, so UN is clearly "objecting"(with words) to it.

Today there is a border with Jordan, along the river Jordan and the border with Egypt in Sinai. There is no border with Syria or Lebanon. Israel had self-defined a boundary with Syria and Lebanon and Israel, as well as Syria and Lebanon, may change this boundary at any time. The point is that Syria and Lebanon are not capable to do that even though they want to do that. Israel is comfortable with the boundary in the Golan and has no plans to change it.

UN does not acknowledge the boundary in the Golan Heights. International law has no provisions to say anything on this topic, so Israeli annexation of Golan Heights in 1980 is not in contradiction with any International treaties of legal provisions.

Please look up International Law statues on the topic of armistices lines and annexation.

For somebody who does "not agree" with many things Israel does, you do defend them very strongly . I am not saying you shouldn't defend certain party although you may not like them, however finding excuses while truth is truth. Anyways, to my knowledge is that Golan heights as well as Sinai peninsula are being used as "buffer" zones one could say. To keep a gap between those countries and them. So off course Israel is fine having those "gaps" as a sort "save keeping" between them and other countries. As it is much easier to keep a mostly abandoned area monitored than when a lot of people are living there.

I see...you do not like UN. I do not like UN also. The point is that you do not have to like UN, you just have to abide by UN's binding decisions. I must remind you that you are not living alone on this planet. Majority of nations instituted UN on your behalf. Nobody asked you, I understand that, but nobody HAD to ask you.

Furthermore, - may I remind you that UN created many countries, - among them many Muslim countries. Are you OK with countries like Pakistan or Jordan benefiting from UN's decisions?

Perhaps it is a good idea for you to think about things first...

Liking them is one thing, but not liking a group or somebody doesn't mean you should not agree with them. So it is not because i do not like them. Their whole way of handling things is corrupt. So i do not like them because who they are, but because what they do. So abiding by UN's decisions, is the reason that i am saying this is not oke. As THEIR decisions are corrupt. As i said it i think earlier, every time something negative was brought up towards Israel, US using their veto-vote to dismiss it because of AIPAC and US government full of Zionists or people influenced by AIPAC. Besides that, i do not like international law to begin with. To give you another example, as far as i know Turkey invaded Cyprus back in i believe 1974. Till this day by international law it is occupation. However i have not found actions taken against them. Also just because a country is made, doesn't mean it should remain like that and should not be invaded. So as far as i have seen is that UN is trying to uphold countries that may not abide by justice.

While in the past empires would rise and they would fall. Based mostly you could say peoples struggles against oppressors, however now a days take a look at Turkey even. The Kurds are being oppressed and till this day to MY knowledge i haven't heard anything from UN towards Turkey...just recently i believe with what Turkey was doing to the Kurds. This country named Turkey is ONLY in the benefit of the Turks, while i would argue it should better fall as they are doing nothing but oppression.

I do not like one country made in the Middle East. That is mostly my argument. I want all of them (In the Middle East) to fall and unite under Islam. So UN's decision to create Pakistan or Jordan or you name it is even oppressive against the Muslims by creating those countries so to say. This divides them by creating nationalism, while this thing called nationalism is forbidden in Islam.

So, i do not have to think about that, as i have already pondered a lot about it.

 

[AbdurRahman.]

And yet in the USA, the U.N. is seen as a Muslim controlled organization that uses Russia Veto power to prevent the “peaceful” countries from installing democracy everywhere.

lol well there you go!!! :Emoji46::Emoji46::Emoji46:the worlds full of crazy conspiracy theories! :Emoji46::Emoji46::Emoji46:

 

[AbdurRahman.]

I understand your frastration. But...what do "...poor Palestinians..." have to do with UN?

UN's Security Consul is there so that we do not have another global war. The issue of Israel and Palestine are 'small potatoes'. The World has problems taht are more important then Arab-Israeli conflict.

Further, - you do not have to like UN. But UN is there by agreement by the majority of the people of this planet. Please start an advocacy group to replace UN with something you may like better and convince the majority of your point of view. However, those countries that UN created in the middle 20th century, might disagree with you. Those countries are thankful to UN for their existence. You know, - countries like Jordan, Pakistan, Lebanon, Syria and, yes, Israel, etc. etc.

what??? whats the palesitinians got to do with it????

lolol!!! i thought this topic was about them!!!! :Emoji46::Emoji46::Emoji46:

if they weren't being oppressed, then there's no problem is there? :Emoji46:

 

[سيف الله]

Salaam

The peace process was always a joke, plenty people in the know exposed it in the early 1990s. Israel wants to go for full annexation and put the Palestinians in reservations. Same thing that happened to the native Americans.

What Israel is doing is much worse than apartheid Africa.

 

[ethnhunt]

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?

Please understand that Israel cannot be called an apartheid state because unlike South Africa, which enshrined its racial segregation policies in law, Israeli law is the same for Jewish citizens and other Israeli citizens, with no explicit distinction between race, creed or sex. 1.8 Mostly Muslim Arabs vote in Israel.

There is an Arab Supreme Court judge in Israel, there are senior Army officers in general rank who are Arabs in Israel, there are thousands highly educated doctors, lawyers and engineers who are Muslims in Israel. So…what apartheid are you talking about? Please note that Palestinian Arabs are NOT citizens of Israel and Israeli common law does not apply to them. They live under Israeli military administration. This is a temporary matter until such time that the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is resolved. Hopefully soon!

As for Israel being a superpower, - it is a fact simply because Israeli qualifies as such. This is not ‘good’ or a ‘bad’ thing. It is simply a fact. Israel can project power anywhere in the Middle East with impunity. It does that occasionally in Syria and Lebanon these days and nothing or nobody can stop them. This little fact makes them a regional superpower by definition.

I hope you understand…

It signs treaties only to break them (with Palestine), treaties with egypt and jordon are a joke, they are just puppets

No ‘treaties’ have ever been signed with Palestinian Authority. Some agreements were signed, but no treaties.

Peace treaties with Jordan and Egypt endured for decades now and they are not a joke. They are first and foremost in the interest of Arabs states, as they need those treaties A LOT more than Israel does. To wit, - Egypt gets 2.4 billion in foreign aid dollars from US for signing the treaty and Jordan gets a billion. Without that money Egypt will literary starve and Jordan will dissolve as a country. Israel gets.3.1 billion that it does not need and often says so to US. But Israel takes the money because it is a part of the deal involving Egypt and Jordan. Israel does not get the cash, - it gets cooperation and American hardware that is worth that much.

So, - please do not be so quick with your judgments. Look into the substance of the matter first!

it's friendly to states like jordan only till their time comes to step down
It cannot go all out and do what it wants which is why it's taking gradually steps
Compare the 1967 borders to now, you only find Israel on the map and Palestine as occupied territories
had Israel done all that from day one, it wouldn't have worked. same goes for rest of its plan

Are you implying that Israel wants to take over Jordan? If so, - this is not true. No such intention has EVER been pronounced by ANY Israeli leader. West Bank is a disputed territory and its status needs to be negotiate out.

May I remind you that it was Jordan that kept West Bank for itself from 1948 till 1968? Jordanian Army overrun West bank in 1948. It was Jordan that never turned West Bank into a state for Palestinian Arabs. Do you know why Jordan did that? The reason is simple, - Jordan IS a Palestinian State. So, those Arabs who lived in the West Bank from 1948 till 1968 never complained and never asked for independence. They actually lived in the Palestinian State at the time.

Had it not been for the desire on the part of Jordan to “…push the Jews into the sea…”, to quote Mr. Nasser, back in 1968, Palestinian Arabs would have been happy today as citizens of Jordan. At least Jordan gave them passports. But, - Jordan with Egypt and Syria, attacked Israel in 1968 and LOST the war. With that they lost territory.

Palestinian Arabs are seen as a hostile population in Israel. They cannot have a country without agreeing to conditions. In fact, please understand, that Jordan has a lot more to lose then Israel if Palestine becomes a country. Israel does not want to govern the Arabs in the West Bank and the resolution of this crisis is in Israel interest, so the Israelis are looking to fix the problem. I am certain that the Arabs of Palestine have other views on that, ok?

Only reason it doesn't not go any further then it already has is because it fears repercussions from the world. A supper aggressive move like that will lead to worldwide boycott and call for jihad from the Muslim world. The US and UK won't be able to protect it and the UN will be just as useless as it is now.

Again….you are completely wrong here. Israeli economy is so integrated with the European and American economy that no fears of any boycott or any condemnation have ever been expressed by Israeli leaders.

Naturally world’s opinion is very important, but UN habitually condemns Israeli nearly on a monthly basis and nobody in Israel really cares for that. So, - why would Israel be afraid to do what you are implying it can do? If it were in the national interest of Israel to attack Lebanon for instance, Israeli would do it without any hesitation. To put it simply, - such an action is NOT in the interest of Israel and so it does not happen.
Further, - there is no fear of “…jihad from the Muslim world…”. It is so, for two fundamental reasons. First, - the Muslim world so fragmented, and it has always been fragmented for the past 1400 years, that the Muslims can’t even agree of the meaning of jihad. Those who happen to agree represent small group and are easily handled as events in Syria and Iraq began to demonstrate.

Second, even if Muslim countries unite under a single banner, which not simply unlikely, but an impossibility now and in any foreseeable future, still Israel is demonstrably stronger.

Please understand that Islamic unity may be more pragmatic and less fundamentalist if such unity has any chance of succeeding in the context of modern world’s economy. With pragmatism comes an accommodation. So, - really… Israel has nothing to fear here. Conversely those who want a conflict may just get one. It is a conflict that can only have one outcome. We both know how it will go down…

UN is there by the force of the western powers. It serves only as a means for proxy wars and sanctions against non-western nations. The African nations are talking about pulling out because according to them the UN seems to go only after African leaders as "dictators" while the west continues its dictatorship and war crimes in the world.

African nations will starve without UN and will fight each other to the bitter end without UN. Please try to see the big picture here. African nations cannot survive without UN. Whatever your gripes are with UN, please understand that it is the Western nations can do without UN these days, but the 3[SUP]rd[/SUP] world countries cannot.

I hope you read some alternative news to what they teaching you in history class and mainstream media.

I read ALL news. My point to YOU is that I can defend my arguments in a logical and factual manner. Can you?

I can also criticize the West and Israel a lot better than you can. Believe there is a lot to criticize there. West is not perfect. However, relative to Muslim-dominated countries, the West is doing well. Methinks, it is a good idea to fix your own ‘backyard’ first, before you attempt to ‘fix’ the rest of the planet. Don’t you think?

Also, please do not misinterpret my comments as a blind defense of Israel. I have no such intention. I am not an Israeli or Jewish for that matter. I have no such agenda.

But I would not blindly accuse any country for the ‘sins’ or problems it is NOT responsible for creating. It is clear to me that you accuse Israel because you do not like the idea of a Jewish State in the Middle East, even though such a state is not a violation of any laws international or otherwise. Your position is therefore wrong in my view.

 

[ethnhunt]

Salaam

The peace process was always a joke, plenty people in the know exposed it in the early 1990s. Israel wants to go for full annexation and put the Palestinians in reservations. Same thing that happened to the native Americans.

What Israel is doing is much worse than apartheid Africa.

You know, - in a way, I do agree with you in, at least partially. It seems that you are right about Israeli desire to annex West Bank. But you are definitely wrong about “…puting the Palestinians in reservations…”.

Certainly since 1968 Israel has toyed with an idea of annexing West bank in a kind of 'on and off' fashion. Strategically, I think, it has always been a long term plan to extend Israel into what Israel calls Judea and Samaria or West Bank. Although Labor Party in Israel tried to deal with Palestinian Authority in a bid for two-state solution, it never worked because Mr. Arafat and after him Mr. Abbas, never had any desire to compromise with Israel.

Simply put, Palestinian Arab leadership either never seriously negotiated, or, asked for terms that Israel can never agree. That’s not how you negotiate! I place blame for the failure of two-state solution squarely on PA door step. Palestinians could have had their country in 2000, but they decided on Intifada instead…and lost.

After 2008 the possibility of two-state solution is pretty much doomed. Palestinians had time since 1993 to fix it up with Israeli Labor Governments and they wasted their time. Today, Israeli Government is in no mood to negotiate on the same terms, particularly with Hamas and Hisbolla around. The only way the State of Palestine can come into existence today if PA were to accept Israeli terms of non-belligerence, demilitarization, education reform, no return of refugees and Israeli security control of Jordan Valley. Anything short of that is a non-starter. Israel’s part in this deal is a total economic rehabilitation of Arab areas, reparation payments, free market set-up and defense alliance.

However, at this time and foreseeable future, PA will not accept Israeli terms. So, - the history is moving all of us into what appears to be Plan B. In the next 50 years or so, Israel may annex either the entire West Bank or Area C only. Some Palestinians will get Israeli citizenship and some will get a chance to reside elsewhere. Extremists will be deported. Demographically, this doable for Israel, since there are about 2.5 million Arabs in the West Bank and about 500,000 Jews. It may work, once all the extremists are gone. If only Area C is annexed then Area A and B will become Palestine or a confederated Palestine with Jordan. THis is the most likely outcome in the next 50-100 years.

Although sometimes I think that Israelis are playing this way smarter then most of us can see. They threaten to annex West Bank, but they do not do it in return for US political favors and its own long term strategic objectives. For example, Egypt’s President’s Al-Sisi plan for Arab NATO was enthusiastically endorsed by Netanyahu and may proceed. In return there was a recent declaration by Mr. Lieberman (defense minister) that Israel has no plans to annex West Bank.

Arab NATO will cement legitimacy of Israeli in the Middle East, since Israel and US will be an integral part of it. This way Sunni Arabs States may deter Iran, which is a much bigger problem than Palestinian issue. By playing Palestinian issue as a secondary, less serious issue, relative to Iranian aspirations to control Middle East, Israel is becoming a partner with states like Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia and Jordan. For the Arab World, Israel and US are now two country that just may ensure their long term survival. As strange as it may sound to you, the sad truth is that all Arab States do not really care for Palestinian Arabs. They say that the care, but they do not do anything to help. Israel helps Palestinians way more than any Arabs State EVER helped them. Go figure…

Israel is playing its cards in a smart way. One can only wish that the Arabs do the same.

 

[aaj]

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

Please understand that Israel cannot be called an apartheid state .

This is as far as I read and stopped. I don't need to read your posts any more, as you are either zionist troll yourself or a pro-zionist stooge. I do not converse with terrorists or their sympathizers.


New UN Report Confirms Israel is an “Apartheid” State, Calls for BDS
https://bdsmovement.net/news/new-un-report-confirms-israel-“apartheid”-state-calls-bds
http://imemc.org/article/new-un-report-confirms-israel-is-an-apartheid-state-calls-for-bds/
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/fe...blished-apartheid-regime-170315054053798.html

 

[ethnhunt]

This is as far as I read and stopped. I don't need to read your posts any more, as you are either zionist troll yourself or a pro-zionist stooge. I do not converse with terrorists or their sympathizers.


New UN Report Confirms Israel is an “Apartheid” State, Calls for BDS
https://bdsmovement.net/news/new-un-report-confirms-israel-“apartheid”-state-calls-bds
http://imemc.org/article/new-un-report-confirms-israel-is-an-apartheid-state-calls-for-bds/
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/fe...blished-apartheid-regime-170315054053798.html

very well. I am sorry if I upset you. I am not a zionist nor am I a sympathizer of Israel. I just want the truth, even if it is hard to look at it. I would gladly support your couse, or any right couse, if you show me the reason. So far you have not.

Look at your links! They are from an extremely biased sourses.

 

[Futuwwa]

Certainly since 1968 Israel has toyed with an idea of annexing West bank in a kind of 'on and off' fashion. Strategically, I think, it has always been a long term plan to extend Israel into what Israel calls Judea and Samaria or West Bank. Although Labor Party in Israel tried to deal with Palestinian Authority in a bid for two-state solution, it never worked because Mr. Arafat and after him Mr. Abbas, never had any desire to compromise with Israel.

Simply put, Palestinian Arab leadership either never seriously negotiated, or, asked for terms that Israel can never agree. That’s not how you negotiate! I place blame for the failure of two-state solution squarely on PA door step. Palestinians could have had their country in 2000, but they decided on Intifada instead…and lost.

How exactly is Palestinian leadership not compromising, considering the terms they're ready to make peace on? By accepting the two-state paradigm as it's currently understood, they're already agreeing to make peace on severely inequal terms.

Even if they got the entirety of the West Bank and Gaza, that'd be 22% of the Mandate of Palestine, while Israel gets 78%, almost four times as much land. They'd agree to limitations on their sovereignty such as limits on the size of military forces, Israeli control of airspace and the outer border, Israeli military access to select areas, Israeli right to cut the West Bank in two or cut it off from Gaza at its discretion, etc, while Israel would be under no such reciprocal limits to its sovereignty, but would instead get to retain the ability to wipe the Palestinians off the face of the Earth. Finally, the Palestinian leadership has agreed to compromise on the Palestinian refugee question, being ready to accept a cap on the number who would get to return, even though it's a fundamental human right, and thus something Israel is obliged to let them do fully and without reciprocation and in the absence of any peace treaty. Israel, naturally, isn't offering the Palestinians to waive a fundamental human right of millions of its citizens as part of a peace treaty.

So considering how the Palestinian leadership is still ready to make peace on such inequal terms, but Israel won't have it but wants terms that are even more inequal in its favour, how exactly is the Palestinian leadership guilty of not being ready to compromise?

 

[aaj]

Look at your links! They are from an extremely biased sourses.

you are in denial after denial. i'm surprised you consider al jazeera 'extremely bias', well at least its not fake media like the western media. Anyways, all media covered it. Google yourself before it disappears of the web so people like you can say there's no proof and it's only found on "bias" and "alternative news outlets". Then again it doesn't matter what you believe, the world knows that terrorist regime is an Apartheid state, even if some of them deny it as well.


NY Times: U.N. Diplomat Behind Report Accusing Israel of Apartheid Quits

CNN :UN report on Israeli 'apartheid' - CNNPolitics.com - CNN.com

Reuters : Israel imposes 'apartheid regime' on Palestinians: U.N. report | Reuters

RT: 'Israeli apartheid' report scandal - RT.com

Independent: Israel is imposing 'apartheid regime' on Palestinians, UN agency says ...

times of Israel :Arabs protest to UN chief about withdrawal of Israel 'apartheid' report ...

Fox :Arabs protest UN's withdrawal of Israel 'apartheid' report | Fox News

Washington Post : U.N. agency head quits over report calling Israel an 'apartheid regime ...

EuroeNews :UN buries report accusing Israel of 'apartheid' | Euronews

PressTV :PressTV-Debate: Israel 'apartheid' report


"It is not the eyes that are blind, but the hearts." (Qur'an 22:46)

 

[Simple_Person]

you are in denial after denial. i'm surprised you consider al jazeera 'extremely bias', well at least its not fake media like the western media. Anyways, all media covered it. Google yourself before it disappears of the web so people like you can say there's no proof and it's only found on "bias" and "alternative news outlets". Then again it doesn't matter what you believe, the world knows that terrorist regime is an Apartheid state, even if some of them deny it as well.


NY Times: U.N. Diplomat Behind Report Accusing Israel of Apartheid Quits

CNN :UN report on Israeli 'apartheid' - CNNPolitics.com - CNN.com

Reuters : Israel imposes 'apartheid regime' on Palestinians: U.N. report | Reuters

RT: 'Israeli apartheid' report scandal - RT.com

Independent: Israel is imposing 'apartheid regime' on Palestinians, UN agency says ...

times of Israel :Arabs protest to UN chief about withdrawal of Israel 'apartheid' report ...

Fox :Arabs protest UN's withdrawal of Israel 'apartheid' report | Fox News

Washington Post : U.N. agency head quits over report calling Israel an 'apartheid regime ...

EuroeNews :UN buries report accusing Israel of 'apartheid' | Euronews

PressTV :PressTV-Debate: Israel 'apartheid' report


"It is not the eyes that are blind, but the hearts." (Qur'an 22:46)

You are wasting your time. Among human beings there are those that say something that is indeed based on logic, rationality and reason with legit resources and are right based on the amount of knowledge and understanding they have. However still a human being cannot be right in everything, as there are always on some subjects or even the same subject that you think you are a expert people who are more knowledgeable. People who often think they know it all but suddenly see contradictory information towards their observation or knowledge will split in to two types. One type will acknowledge and thank you for correcting and educating him/her, the other type is the one that will try to discredit you, as the discussion is not about the truth, although they might say they are pursuing that. It is rather wanting to win the discussion and feel superior. :facepalm:

This second type is the aya that you gave.

 

[ethnhunt]

How exactly is Palestinian leadership not compromising, considering the terms they're ready to make peace on? By accepting the two-state paradigm as it's currently understood, they're already agreeing to make peace on severely inequal terms.

Well…ok...I’ll bite! “…inequal terms…” you say, - no, this is not how this game is played. There are NO equal terms here, because the starting point in this negotiating process is not between equal partners. Israelis have a state and a prosperous state. Palestinian Arabs have nothing. This is not 1948 either, when both parties were on equal terms. You point applies to 1948. Israel has an opportunity to negotiate from the position of strength, while PA-led Palestinians have very little if anything to offer here. What Palestinians do have is the right to exist in secure environment. They cannot however dictate the terms of that environment.

You probably are not aware that under the same circumstances no country would negotiate anything. The stronger country would simply dictate the terms to a weaker opponent with an attitude “take it or leave it’. This is how the human history has developed so far. I do not like it anymore then you do, and I am not supporting that view, but this is a hard reality of life.

For example, - look at the reality of half of Cyprus held by Turkey, Sahara Desert held by Morocco, US natives controlled by US administration, Mexico with a loss of Texas, Crimea taken by Russian Federation, China with Tibet and Taiwan, etc. etc. There are over a hundred conflicts in the world today with unresolved land issues. In all cases, 100 percent of the time, NO negotiation is possible unless both partners have something to offer to each other. Nothing has ever been done from the ‘goodness of the heart’, as it were. It is sad and I do not like it, but that IS the way things are.

Now, - look at Israel with Palestinians. This is very different. Israelis are trying find a usable accommodation. Must they? NO! Should they? Yes!

Israelis have many options here. They can continue the status-quo. They can annex the territory. They can re-shape West Bank into reservations. There is no fear of UN or International Community, there is no fear of another war. Israel has virtually nothing to fear these days, its strategic reality is very secure. What do the Palestinians offer Israel?

You know, as funny as it sounds, Palestinians offer the end to terrorism or any form of hostilities. Does Israel need that? Not really. They can get that without any input from Palestinians. We both know how it is done. And this is EXACTLY how all other countries have done it, - direct application of military force. Israel does not do that. Israel fight small wars without decisive end. WHY? Because they want an accommodation, a deal, not a military victory. That can have military victory at any time today or 30 years ago or virtually any time in the foreseeable future.

I hope you understand now how negotiations are done from realpolitik perspective. One more thing, - please notice that no Arabs country really has any interest in Palestinian problems. Jordan will be happier with Palestinians remain exactly as they are now. Jordan does not want to absorb them. Egypt fears Palestinian based instability. Syria seas Jordan, Israel and Lebanon as apart of greater Syria, so no Palestinian State is envisioned from Syrian perspective. If Palestine were never to materialize, no Arabs country will ever lose any sleep over it.

So, - tell me, - do you understand the context of Palestinian-Israeli conflict? Bottom line is this, - from the ancient times, in order for any ethnic group to get a country, that group had always had to fight for it AND WIN! Palestinians fought and lost.

Another thing, do you really believe that the end objective for PA is to get a country next to Israel? That would be great if it were true. But it is not. All PA leaders say that it is only a first step towards an ultimate displacement of Israel by Palestine. They say it openly and in public! Arab countries do not want Israel there either, but they also do not want Palestine as a country. I hope you see the problems here…

So, - tell me, - how can Israeli negotiate in this atmosphere. And yet they want to do it!

Even if they got the entirety of the West Bankand Gaza, that'd be 22% of the Mandate of Palestine, while Israel gets 78%,almost four times as much land.

No, - you got your math all wrong. In 2000 it was proposed that both states would roughly have the same real state as it were envisioned in 1948, - that is nearly 50-50, - not exactly, but very close with a minor advantage towards Israel.

They'd agree to limitations on their sovereignty such as limits on the size of military forces, Israeli control of airspace and the outer border, Israeli military access to select areas, Israeli right to cut the West Bank in two or cut it off from Gaza at its discretion, etc, while Israel would be under no such reciprocal limits to its sovereignty, but would instead get to retain the ability to wipe the Palestinians off the face of the Earth.
Finally, the Palestinian leadership has agreed to compromise on the Palestinian refugee question, being ready to accept a cap on the number who would get to return, even though it's a fundamental human right, and thus something Israel is obliged to let them do fully and without reciprocation and in the absence of any peace treaty. Israel, naturally, isn't offering the Palestinians to waive a fundamental human right of millions of its citizens as part of a peace treaty

No, - they never agreed on anything! If they did, we’d have peace today and Palestinian State on the ground. I have no idea where you get your information. PA never agreed to sovereignty limitations, nor PA ever agreed to Israeli control of border with Jordan. PA never accepted a number of refugees proposed by Israel that may return to Israel. Let me summarize for you how impossible this conflict really is. The following is on record and in public domain:

Here are the PA and Israeli opening positions:

1) PA demands control, at a minimum, of all of East Jerusalem – while Israel requires that the entire city remain united under Israeli sovereignty.
Interestingly, - Jerusalem is not even that holy to Muslims. It is never mentioned in the Quran; it is mentioned 700 times in the Jewish holy books. No Arab leader, except Jordan’s King Hussein, ever visited Jerusalem when Arabs controlled it from 1948-67. Jerusalem has never been the capital of any country except Israel.

2) The PA demands that every Jew must be ejected from their future state, meaning the 800,000 Jews in east Jerusalem-West Bank. That will never happen.

3) PA insists that millions of descendants of Palestinian “refugees,” created by the 1948 Arab aggression against Israel, be allowed to move to Israel. Every Israeli government, from Left to Right, unequivocally rejects this, because it means overwhelming Israel with a hostile population and ending Israel as a Jewish state.

4) PA also demands a “contiguous” state that connects Gaza to West Bank, thereby cutting Israel into two separate pieces. Israel obviously cannot agree to this demand either, if Israel wishes to remain in existence.

5) PA refuses to agree to Israel’s basic demand for recognition as the Jewish state.

6) PA refuses to sign a peace deal that “ends all claims” against Israel. Israel cannot agree to any agreement that does not include such a clause.

7) PA demands that Israel must free all Palestinian-Arab prisoners in Israeli jails, regardless of offences. Of course, Israel won’t release thousands of unrepentant convicted murderers and attempted murderers.

8) With respect to security, Israel, at a minimum, must maintain control over the major Jewish communities in West Bank, and, as Netanyahu said, Israel needs “overriding security control over the entire area west of the Jordan River,” because “otherwise we’ll get another radical Islamic terrorist state in the Palestinian areas exploding the peace, exploding the Middle East.”
9) Israel requires that it continue the Gaza weapons blockade, but, the PA says it will never accept this.

10) Netanyahu explained in 2009 during his speech at Bar-Ilan University, any Palestinian-Arab state needs to be “demilitarized” – meaning that it cannot have an army, control its airspace, forge military pacts with the likes of Hezbollah and Iran, and import weapons, and must be subject to strong measures to prevent weapons smuggling. The PA opposes all of these Israeli security requirements.

Palestinian state asks Israel to give up irreversible tangibles (i.e., land) for intangible peace promises, Israel needs partners who keep their promises. But the PA broke its repeated Oslo and other agreements to combat and stop inciting terror, collect illegal weapons, outlaw terrorist groups and preserve and provide Jews access to Jewish holy sites in PA territory.

So considering how the Palestinian leadershipis still ready to make peace on such inequal terms, but Israel won't have itbut wants terms that are even more inequal in its favour, how exactly is thePalestinian leadership guilty of not being ready to compromise?

It is rather stunning that you think that PA is ready to make peace. You do know that PA walked away from peace in 2000? I would really like to see this problem solved.

If you look at what PA does, not what PA says, you plainly see that PA’s goal is to destroy and replace all of Israel with a Palestinian-Arab state that no Jews can step foot in. This goal is clearly laid out in the PA ruling party Fatah Charter and in PA President Abbas’ speeches condemning the Israeli “occupation” since 1948 – and in the PA maps, stationery, official emblems, stamps, media and atlases showing all of Israel as Palestine.

The PA leadership assures its people that any concessions it obtains are “stages” towards their final goal of destroying the Jewish state. Additionally, the PA is politically aligned with Hamas, whose charter calls for Israel’s destruction and the murder of every Jew.

I know that what I say is difficult to process. But all of what I say is on record. I do not like it any more then you do and I wish the Arabs of Palestine can have a country. Question is, - how can it happen? Please stop looking at Israel as the ONLY problem here. If you truly want two-state solution then you must recognize that Palestinians are ultimately responsible for their own actions and their goals cannot be the ONLY thing that matter.

 

[Futuwwa]

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?

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.

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