Why Settlers ? [W:60]

oneworld2 · Nov 14, 2016

We are told that the Israeli military occupation of Palestinian Territories is founded on the need to "defend Israeli Jews from harm by the Palestinians."

So how does transferring/enticing nearly half a million Jewish Israelis into Palestinian territories serve to "defend" them ?

Surely putting them in the midsts of the repressed Palestinian population, who are suffering a military occupation and overwhelming human rights abuses as a result of it , is madness if your claim is to seek to defend those citizens.

I might be able to believe the " defence " argument if it were just a military occupation without a vast settlement programme. However, the wholesale transfer of Israeli Jews into hostile Palestinian territories , imo , completely undermines the notion

To me they are little more than human shields that are being used to protect illegal Israeli land grabs and that the " defence " argument is just a cynical ruse.

Thought and/or explanations

Bodi · Nov 14, 2016

It may not be the best option but it is better to put some in risk in order to create a buffer for millions in Jerusalem.

CJ 2.0 · Nov 14, 2016

oneworld2 said:
We are told that the Israeli military occupation of Palestinian Territories is founded on the need to "defend Israeli Jews from harm by the Palestinians."

So how does transferring/enticing nearly half a million Jewish Israelis into Palestinian territories serve to "defend" them ?

Surely putting them in the midsts of the repressed Palestinian population, who are suffering a military occupation and overwhelming human rights abuses as a result of it , is madness if your claim is to seek to defend those citizens.

I might be able to believe the " defence " argument if it were just a military occupation without a vast settlement programme. However, the wholesale transfer of Israeli Jews into hostile Palestinian territories , imo , completely undermines the notion

To me they are little more than human shields that are being used to protect illegal Israeli land grabs and that the " defence " argument is just a cynical ruse.

Thought and/or explanations

Sorry, you seem to fail to distinguish between Israelis living in Jerusalem vs other parts of the WB.

Jerusalem was never part of territories to be allocated to the Palestinians and has been annexed by Israel. there is also nothing wrong with Jews living in their capital city.

As for the rest, some are ideological, some are pragmatic. If you look at a distribution of those folks, most are along the seam line, in positions designed to make Israel's borders more defensible than the artmistace lines that were explicitly declared not to be borders by the Arabs after they failed to destroy Israel the first time.

Incidentally, let's turn your little logic game around on its head.

The "occupation" would never have started if the Arabs accepted Israel and did not engage in decades of terrorism prior to 1967 and the Jordanians did not launch a war against Israel in 1967.

After decades of terrorism and acts of war against Israel, with the express and explicit aim of that terrorism being to conquer and destroy Israel, Israel took over territories that allowed it to be able to better protect itself.

Israel offered those territories back, but only in exchange for the Arabs acknowledging Israel's sovereignty and abandonment of their efforts to destroy Israel.

While the Arabs rejected those overtures, according to you, they now seem to have magically gained the right to engage in the exact same conduct they were engaging in before - that is to continue their efforts to massacre Jews with the aim of destroying Israel.

So how should we believe the "defence" that the Palestinians are "resisting occupation" when the occupation only started in the first place because of exactly the same "resistance" and the Israelis repeatedly offered the territories to the Arabs in exchange for ending their fight against the Jews.

The Palestinians' "resistance" in a nutshell: It's like you keep trying to stab me in an alleyway and as soon as I restrain you that magically gives you the right to try to stab me until I stop restraining you, even though you have openly declared as soon as I let go you will just try to stab me again and won't stop until I'm dead.

CJ 2.0 · Nov 14, 2016

oneworld2 [COLOR=#000000 said:
To me they are little more than human shields that are being used to protect illegal Israeli land grabs and that the " defence " argument is just a cynical ruse. [/COLOR].

Incidentally, you don't seem to get the whole "human shield" thing.

To be a "shield", something has to protect you from something. So a regular shield may protect the bearer from an arrow, for example, or from a thrown ham sandwich.

Similarly, a "human shield" is used by a group (e.g., Hamas) to shield itself from attacks from moral opponents (e.g., Israel). This works as a strategy because Israel will refrain from taking actions that it would otherwise take because of the presence of the "shield". In other words, the civilian human shields act to protect and insulate the Palestinians' terrorist scumbags from being killed by the army of those who are protecting the scumbags' targets.

By contrast, an Israeli civilian could never be a human shield when it comes to the Palestinians because the Israeli civilian is the TARGET of such attacks. An Israeli child dloes not make attacks by Palestinian terrorists less likely, it makes them more likely, because the Palestinians ACTIVELY TRY TO MURDER JEWISH CIVILIANS.

None of this should be hard.

Bodi · Nov 14, 2016

CJ 2.0 said:
Incidentally, you don't seem to get the whole "human shield" thing.

To be a "shield", something has to protect you from something. So a regular shield may protect the bearer from an arrow, for example, or from a thrown ham sandwich.

Similarly, a "human shield" is used by a group (e.g., Hamas) to shield itself from attacks from moral opponents (e.g., Israel). This works as a strategy because Israel will refrain from taking actions that it would otherwise take because of the presence of the "shield". In other words, the civilian human shields act to protect and insulate the Palestinians' terrorist scumbags from being killed by the army of those who are protecting the scumbags' targets.

By contrast, an Israeli civilian could never be a human shield when it comes to the Palestinians because the Israeli civilian is the TARGET of such attacks. An Israeli child dloes not make attacks by Palestinian terrorists less likely, it makes them more likely, because the Palestinians ACTIVELY TRY TO MURDER JEWISH CIVILIANS.

None of this should be hard.

The Israelis are playing the law of averages. You are right. This should not be hard to understand.

Toggle Almendro · Nov 14, 2016

oneworld2 said:
Thought and/or explanations

So long as Israel controls the land, they might as well put it to good use. If they later decide to hand the land over to someone else, the settlements can be withdrawn at that time.

oneworld2 · Nov 15, 2016

Bodhisattva said:
It may not be the best option but it is better to put some in risk in order to create a buffer for millions in Jerusalem.

So it's like some are more expendable than others ?

Would it be fair to say then , in the light of the above , that the defence argument is a bit of a lottery. IE When the Israeli leaderships and their apologists say they are " defending Jews " what they mean is they are sacrificing some and protecting others ?

Bodi · Nov 15, 2016

oneworld2 said:
So it's like some are more expendable than others ?

Would it be fair to say then , in the light of the above , that the defence argument is a bit of a lottery. IE When the Israeli leaderships and their apologists say they are " defending Jews " what they mean is they are sacrificing some and protecting others ?

No. Not fair. They don't want any of their people attacked.

Any Jews that are attacked by Palestinians... you can 100% blame the Palestinians.

oneworld2 · Nov 15, 2016

CJ 2.0 said:
Sorry, you seem to fail to distinguish between Israelis living in Jerusalem vs other parts of the WB.

I really don't. I consider them all to be illegal , be it illegal settler in East Jerusalem or illegal settler in Hebron

Jerusalem was never part of territories to be allocated to the Palestinians and has been annexed by Israel. there is also nothing wrong with Jews living in their capital city.

Very true , but neither was it a territory ever given to the Israeli state was it ? Be honest , you don't think people know this

I actually think the international status given to Jerusalem was the only sensible part of the UN partition plan
The annexation is illegal and nobody really recognizes it. You know this too

As for the rest, some are ideological, some are pragmatic. If you look at a distribution of those folks, most are along the seam line, in positions designed to make Israel's borders more defensible than the artmistace lines that were explicitly declared not to be borders by the Arabs after they failed to destroy Israel the first time.

It's not just the Arab side that has failed to recognize where the borders are or should be. The fact you can glibly refer to " folks living on the seam line " as though its a legal and uncontroversial event tells me that you don't really care about borders much yourself.

And , let's turn your observation around a little.

It could just as easily be referred to as the time when the Israelis failed to grab all the land in Palestine that they wanted.

oneworld2 · Nov 15, 2016

Incidentally, let's turn your little logic game around on its head.

No probs

The "occupation" would never have started if the Arabs accepted Israel and did not engage in decades of terrorism prior to 1967 and the Jordanians did not launch a war against Israel in 1967.

What's not logical about the Palestinian/Arab rejection of Israel.

I know for a fact that were you in the same position as the Palestinians found themselves in you wouldn't have agreed to it either. Anyone with the least bit of empathy or objectivity wouldn't have to have this explained to them

After decades of terrorism and acts of war against Israel, with the express and explicit aim of that terrorism being to conquer and destroy Israel, Israel took over territories that allowed it to be able to better protect itself.

And it's been a huge success hasn't it ? I mean like terrorist attacks don't happen any more do they ?

No, it took over the territories it failed to capture 20 years earlier and seeks to incorporate the parts it wants into the Israeli state , as you yourself have already commented on

Israel offered those territories back, but only in exchange for the Arabs acknowledging Israel's sovereignty and abandonment of their efforts to destroy Israel.

That the Arabs have been unwilling to abandon their fight against Israel will get no argument from me but the Arab position , since the 1970s , has been to accept the reality of the Israeli state. That's 40 years ago and still no peace , repressive occupation and terrorism from both sides

While the Arabs rejected those overtures, according to you, they now seem to have magically gained the right to engage in the exact same conduct they were engaging in before - that is to continue their efforts to massacre Jews with the aim of destroying Israel.

If you want to live in 1967 be my guest but some of us have moved on since then and wish to see a just resolution to the conflict.

A people have a right to resist foreign occupation , who knew. If your cosy little home in Canada suddenly became occupied by a foreign power you would be shouting from the bell towers how legitimate the struggle would be to free yourselves.

But hey , don't let universality cramp your style

So how should we believe the "defence" that the Palestinians are "resisting occupation" when the occupation only started in the first place because of exactly the same "resistance" and the Israelis repeatedly offered the territories to the Arabs in exchange for ending their fight against the Jews.

No, the Israelis , like I said earlier , have occupied Palestinian territories since 1948. They ethnically cleansed around 80% of the former British mandate area given up for the partition plan that is now what is referred to as the Israeli state proper. If you think that there was never going to be a reaction to those events you are fooling yourself only imo

The Palestinians' "resistance" in a nutshell: It's like you keep trying to stab me in an alleyway and as soon as I restrain you that magically gives you the right to try to stab me until I stop restraining you, even though you have openly declared as soon as I let go you will just try to stab me again and won't stop until I'm dead.

See above about the chronology and understand that the simplification above just doesn't work. Why ? Because it starts with you stealing my house and forcing me and my family to live in another country as refugee outcasts in poverty , not just you innocently walking down an alley

oneworld2 · Nov 15, 2016

Bodhisattva said:
No. Not fair. They don't want any of their people attacked.

So why do they encourage and assist them to illegally live in the midsts of the very population their government is brutally repressing ? Does that obviously hostile environment seem like the kind of place you would move your citizens to if you were concerned about their safety ?

Bodi · Nov 15, 2016

oneworld2 said:
So why do they encourage and assist them to illegally live in the midsts of the very population their government is brutally repressing ? Does that obviously hostile environment seem like the kind of place you would move your citizens to if you were concerned about their safety ?

I already addressed this...

...and I can see your bias more clearly now. The Israelis were attacked first. They were attacked repeatedly and are pretty much always under attack. They are doing their best to create more room because they are surrounded by enemies intent on killing them. The enemies even live among them... what are they supposed to do?

oneworld2 · Nov 15, 2016

CJ 2.0 said:
Incidentally, you don't seem to get the whole "human shield" thing.

Really ?

To be a "shield", something has to protect you from something. So a regular shield may protect the bearer from an arrow, for example, or from a thrown ham sandwich.

A shield just protects something from something else. And in this case the Israeli settler is acting as the shield protecting the land theft. Maybe it's you that doesn't get the shield thingy ?

And if a Palestinian ever dared to throw a ham sandwich at an Israeli civilian , it would be a terrorist attack

Similarly, a "human shield" is used by a group (e.g., Hamas) to shield itself from attacks from moral opponents (e.g., Israel). This works as a strategy because Israel will refrain from taking actions that it would otherwise take because of the presence of the "shield". In other words, the civilian human shields act to protect and insulate the Palestinians' terrorist scumbags from being killed by the army of those who are protecting the scumbags' targets.

Right , I get it now.

When a member of Hamas fires a rocket at Israel and there are civilians in the vicinity he is using them as a shield but when a member of the IDF handcuffs a Palestinian kid to the front of his jeep he isn't. Sounds fair to me.

Maybe you think the use of Palestinians by Israelis as human shields is justified because you have designated the Palestinians as unpeople

By contrast, an Israeli civilian could never be a human shield when it comes to the Palestinians because the Israeli civilian is the TARGET of such attacks. An Israeli child dloes not make attacks by Palestinian terrorists less likely, it makes them more likely, because the Palestinians ACTIVELY TRY TO MURDER JEWISH CIVILIANS.

I never thought my argument inferred the use of Israeli citizens as human shields against Palestinian attacks, I thought that it evidently stated that the human shield is a defence against land theft

None of this should be hard.

When the world is as black and white as you make out probably not

oneworld2 · Nov 15, 2016

Bodhisattva said:
I already addressed this...

Yeah , I know , you commented that some Israelis were a buffer for other Israelis living in Jerusalem.

...and I can see your bias more clearly now. The Israelis were attacked first. They were attacked repeatedly and are pretty much always under attack. They are doing their best to create more room because they are surrounded by enemies intent on killing them. The enemies even live among them... what are they supposed to do?

My " bias " seems to be linked to your wish to distance yourself from your own comments.

Whooda thunk it.

I don't think the story , as described above , is accurate but it's a lot of stuff to go through so I'll skip it for now

What should they do ?

Engage the Palestinians with a just offer bring about a resolution to the conflict. In short , stop trying to expand into other peoples lands and make peace with them. There are only the Palestinians left to make peace with , all the other Arabs states support the two state solution.

But it has to be a just peace and the self determination for the Palestinians has to be real and authentic self determination like the Israeli state has. Anything less will not resolve it

oneworld2 · Nov 15, 2016

Toggle Almendro said:
So long as Israel controls the land, they might as well put it to good use. If they later decide to hand the land over to someone else, the settlements can be withdrawn at that time.

Listen to yourself. You would think that nobody lived there. Like it's a patch of waste ground behind the shed you could be utilizing . I know you too think that the Palestinians are lesser people than Jewish people but they do exist and the live , or try to live , on that patch of land you think is a wasteland

Apocalypse · Nov 15, 2016

oneworld2 said:
No, the Israelis , like I said earlier , have occupied Palestinian territories since 1948. They ethnically cleansed around 80% of the former British mandate area given up for the partition plan that is now what is referred to as the Israeli state proper. If you think that there was never going to be a reaction to those events you are fooling yourself only imo

I still don't understand how you expect any actual discussion to take place when your default positions such as the one in the quotation above reveal either great immorality that goes against the basic moral codes of civilized society like the first sentence in the above quotation or great ignorance like what comes after it. This in addition to your already stated position about the murder of civilians who are Israeli citizens being "Palestinians resisting to the occupation" and "self-defense", it's ridiculous and cannot be taken seriously, no matter how many times you will insist that "every objective person" will agree with you this couldn't be further from reality.

Apocalypse · Nov 15, 2016

oneworld2 said:
Listen to yourself. You would think that nobody lived there. Like it's a patch of waste ground behind the shed you could be utilizing . I know you too think that the Palestinians are lesser people than Jewish people but they do exist and the live , or try to live , on that patch of land you think is a wasteland

Settlements weren't built on someone's home, people weren't kicked out of their homes so settlements could be established and settlers don't come live in someone else's home after they kick him out of it if that's the image you have created for yourself. Settlements were built on unused lands in the West Bank. (And Gaza prior to the withdrawal) You just keep showing how much ignorance you're holding in relation to this conflict and it's embarrassing. Absurd really that you chose to focus on such subject as the I/P conflict without knowing the basic details as you demonstrate time after time.

Bodi · Nov 15, 2016

oneworld2 said:
My " bias " seems to be linked to your wish to distance yourself from your own comments.

Whooda thunk it.

Distance myself from what comments? That part of the reason for expansion is for a buffer zone?

What should they do ?

Engage the Palestinians with a just offer bring about a resolution to the conflict. In short , stop trying to expand into other peoples lands and make peace with them.

Engage with the Palestinians who break every agreement and peace effort? Are you joking?

Also, why should Israel be the one to start the peace process now after they have been the victims of attack after attack after attack? Not realistic at all.

There are only the Palestinians left to make peace with ,

But it has to be a just peace and the self determination for the Palestinians has to be real and authentic self determination like the Israeli state has. Anything less will not resolve it

Most Palestinians no longer support two-state solution | Reuters

Listen to yourself. You would think that nobody lived there. Like it's a patch of waste ground behind the shed you could be utilizing . I know you too think that the Palestinians are lesser people than Jewish people but they do exist and the live , or try to live , on that patch of land you think is a wasteland

No Palestinian lost their home with these settlements. Israeli goes to unoccupied land and builds them.

oneworld2 · Nov 16, 2016

Apocalypse said:
I still don't understand how you expect any actual discussion to take place when your default positions such as the one in the quotation above reveal either great immorality that goes against the basic moral codes of civilized society like the first sentence in the above quotation or great ignorance like what comes after it. This in addition to your already stated position about the murder of civilians who are Israeli citizens being "Palestinians resisting to the occupation" and "self-defense", it's ridiculous and cannot be taken seriously, no matter how many times you will insist that "every objective person" will agree with you this couldn't be further from reality.

There's nothing " immoral " about condemning an ethnic cleansing. That you think there is , as a Jewish person of all people , just shows your own moral bankruptcy and a callous indifference to the suffering of others.

There's nothing "immoral" about thinking people who are suffering a brutal and repressive foreign occupation have the right to resist it. By your standards the Warsaw Ghetto uprising was an illegitimate event as was the French resistance to Vichy France and so on. Once again your own moral compass is clearly laid bare as malfunctioning/under developed.

There is no " great ignorance " in those comments either. That's why your comments/content here are just based around personal attacks and deliberate misrepresentations of peoples positions. It's your Hasbara training and employment of these tactics that stifles any chance of real debate , which is exactly what your intentions are imho

oneworld2 · Nov 16, 2016

Bodhisattva said:
Distance myself from what comments?

The comment about how some Jews are being used as a buffer to protect other Jews

That part of the reason for expansion is for a buffer zone?

Nope , see above. You would never accept your own land being turned into a " buffer zone " by a foreign power. You people seriously lack the ability to empathise

Engage with the Palestinians who break every agreement and peace effort? Are you joking?

And I am the one you allege is " biased " lol

The latest attempt by Obama/Kerry was met by the approval by Israel of thousands of new and illegal settlement homes and was the reason , if we are to believe the US side , why the talks was poisoned. That's just one example of why your statement is completely biased

Also, why should Israel be the one to start the peace process now after they have been the victims of attack after attack after attack? Not realistic at all.

They have their own history of attacks, it's just that you have been conditioned or self conditioned yourself to believe every Israeli act is defensive . Every land grab is defensive. Every slaughter of Arabs is justified etc etc

Most Palestinians no longer support two-state solution | Reuters

My comment cover 40 years of support for the two state solution which is correct. That they have realised that the " peace process " is the facade for an annexation programme hardly comes as a surprise

Having been a long time supporter of it myself , the facts on the ground have changed so much that I am having more and more misgivings about it.

No Palestinian lost their home with these settlements. Israeli goes to unoccupied land and builds them.

Yes they do. The Israelis have a programme that allows Jewish building but denies Arab building on Arab territories. The bulldoze homes and community buildings. The enclose grazing areas surrounding settlements. They use the water to fill their swimming pools whilst the Arabs gather buckets from standpipes etc etc

You would never accept any of this but you expect the Palestinians to not only accept it but to do it without complaint.

acquaint yourself to the realities that at least some decent Jewish people are cataloguing and remember how Rachel Corrie died

Planning & building in Area C | B'Tselem

Apocalypse · Nov 16, 2016

oneworld2 said:
There's nothing " immoral " about condemning an ethnic cleansing. That you think there is , as a Jewish person of all people , just shows your own moral bankruptcy and a callous indifference to the suffering of others.

There's nothing "immoral" about thinking people who are suffering a brutal and repressive foreign occupation have the right to resist it. By your standards the Warsaw Ghetto uprising was an illegitimate event as was the French resistance to Vichy France and so on. Once again your own moral compass is clearly laid bare as malfunctioning/under developed.

It's a shame you have to resort to such obvious strawman arguments to justify your words, it's just as clear that nowhere in my previous post was I even referring to let alone promoting an ethnic cleansing as it is clear that your comment mentions nothing about queen Victoria, yet you choose to lie and deceive on purpose. It's shameful, it's embarrassing.
That's the biggest problem with your point of view, that you recognize you're embracing the immoral position and arguing against the moral one and it's so obvious that you recognize it because you need to actually lie to yourself to maintain that position as done above in your claim about me promoting an ethnic cleansing, in addition to you needing to actually make up the claim that ethnic cleansing took place, an accusation shown to be completely removed from reality and one you insisted to not provide any supporting argument for since no legitimate one exists and since you recognize it.

I also don't understand the racism promoted in your post here, why is being Jewish something that should make one more appalled by arguments such as this? The fact you are not Jewish yourself doesn't make it any less asinine that you yearn for the murder of civilians - of regular and ordinary people be them children or adults, men or women - of Israeli background, it's just as bad and just as immoral that you do so while not being Jewish in case you were wondering.

Finally the Warsaw Ghetto uprising had civilians oppose those who were attempting to exterminate them, they weren't under a legitimate occupation due to acts of terrorism they weren't handled humanely and they weren't murdering innocent civilians, the very comparison you were making here is why everything I said about the significant difference between the moral compass that guides your default positions here from the one promoted by civilized society is deadly accurate, it's absurd you believe a discussion can take place when you come holding this set of values, when you promote such kind of thinking, hence as I said from our very first exchange of words here there's clearly something wrong.

There is no " great ignorance " in those comments either. That's why your comments/content here are just based around personal attacks and deliberate misrepresentations of peoples positions. It's your Hasbara training and employment of these tactics that stifles any chance of real debate , which is exactly what your intentions are imho

The post above you refused to respond to shows exactly this great ignorance, and I've been confronting pretty much all of your assertions and shown them to be ignorant and false so far by using actual facts to contradict them, so by now it's really undeniable.
The moment you started going on about "Hasbara training" and the accusations we're all familiar with here you revealed what you're all about, what is the source of the behavior and the kind of influence responsible.

Ganesh · Nov 16, 2016

oneworld2 said:
We are told that the Israeli military occupation of Palestinian Territories is founded on the need to "defend Israeli Jews from harm by the Palestinians."

So how does transferring/enticing nearly half a million Jewish Israelis into Palestinian territories serve to "defend" them ?

Surely putting them in the midsts of the repressed Palestinian population, who are suffering a military occupation and overwhelming human rights abuses as a result of it , is madness if your claim is to seek to defend those citizens.

I might be able to believe the " defence " argument if it were just a military occupation without a vast settlement programme. However, the wholesale transfer of Israeli Jews into hostile Palestinian territories , imo , completely undermines the notion

To me they are little more than human shields that are being used to protect illegal Israeli land grabs and that the " defence " argument is just a cynical ruse.

Thought and/or explanations

Sometimes the most straightforward answer is also the most accurate: they want the land. "They" meaning a segment of the Israeli population, for which expansion suits their desires and goals. The problem is- and always has been- that the people that live there do not want to leave. And so we have seen the myth presented of a legitimate homeland, still a moral, if not legal right even after a couple of millennia absence.

This was addressed early on by Israeli leaders, who recognized that Israel would not be a viable state unless the demographic balance could be shifted rather dramatically. And there was plenty of drama, with evictions and intimidation during the 48-49 war, the refusal to allow return of refugees after that conflict, and then the final seizure of the rest of Palestine in 1967. After that, there was no going back, only some to and fro to keep the Americans happy, and world opinion down to a dull roar. The only "deal" offered the Palestinians was a quasi independence, a tiny semi-sovereign state on a minuscule fraction of their original land, something closer to an Indian reservation in N America than a true state. Even that is off the table now.

The two state solution is virtually dead now, as settler expansion does not allow enough viable land for a true state. Israel will never allow citizenship for all Palestinians, as they would soon be demographically overwhelmed. So the default is the present situation, ongoing occupation, and a sort of S African style apartheid.

Apocalypse · Nov 16, 2016

Ganesh said:
Sometimes the most straightforward answer is also the most accurate: they want the land. "They" meaning a segment of the Israeli population, for which expansion suits their desires and goals. The problem is- and always has been- that the people that live there do not want to leave. And so we have seen the myth presented of a legitimate homeland, still a moral, if not legal right even after a couple of millennia absence.

This was addressed early on by Israeli leaders, who recognized that Israel would not be a viable state unless the demographic balance could be shifted rather dramatically. And there was plenty of drama, with evictions and intimidation during the 48-49 war, the refusal to allow return of refugees after that conflict, and then the final seizure of the rest of Palestine in 1967. After that, there was no going back, only some to and fro to keep the Americans happy, and world opinion down to a dull roar. The only "deal" offered the Palestinians was a quasi independence, a tiny semi-sovereign state on a minuscule fraction of their original land, something closer to an Indian reservation in N America than a true state. Even that is off the table now.

The two state solution is virtually dead now, as settler expansion does not allow enough viable land for a true state. Israel will never allow citizenship for all Palestinians, as they would soon be demographically overwhelmed. So the default is the present situation, ongoing occupation, and a sort of S African style apartheid.

What would you consider to be the "original land" of the Palestinian Arabs?

As to the two states solution, it's still quite possible, after all not much has changed since the 2008 Olmert proposal.

Toggle Almendro · Nov 16, 2016

oneworld2 said:
Listen to yourself. You would think that nobody lived there. Like it's a patch of waste ground behind the shed you could be utilizing.

There are no Palestinians living in Area C.

oneworld2 said:
I know you too think that the Palestinians are lesser people than Jewish people

I don't think that. I just think the Palestinian leadership has rejected peace, and that makes them the bad guys in this conflict.

oneworld2 said:
but they do exist and the live , or try to live , on that patch of land you think is a wasteland

Most Palestinians live in Area A.

Toggle Almendro · Nov 16, 2016

Ganesh said:
Sometimes the most straightforward answer is also the most accurate: they want the land. "They" meaning a segment of the Israeli population, for which expansion suits their desires and goals.

I agree that a segment of the population does. But they are a minority. The Israeli majority would choose 1967 borders (with land swaps of course) if they saw that they would truly get peace in return.

The problem is, the Israeli majority doesn't see any peace being offered to them in exchange for this land.

Ganesh said:
And so we have seen the myth presented of a legitimate homeland, still a moral, if not legal right even after a couple of millennia absence.

History and archaeology are not a myth.

Ganesh said:
The only "deal" offered the Palestinians was a quasi independence, a tiny semi-sovereign state on a minuscule fraction of their original land, something closer to an Indian reservation in N America than a true state.

The Palestinian state would have been demilitarized, but it would have been fully sovereign and fully independent.

Ganesh said:
Even that is off the table now.

Ganesh said:
The two state solution is virtually dead now,

Well, yes and no.

The peace process has been wrecked so badly that it is impossible to see how it can be repaired.

But the majority of Israelis would still prefer a peaceful two-state solution if it were truly peaceful.

Ganesh said:
as settler expansion does not allow enough viable land for a true state.

Settlements are no barrier to a Palestinian state. Israel has given up land that had settlements on it twice now in the course of their history (the Sinai Peninsula and the Gaza Strip).

Ganesh said:
Israel will never allow citizenship for all Palestinians, as they would soon be demographically overwhelmed.

Correct.

Ganesh said:
So the default is the present situation, ongoing occupation, and a sort of S African style apartheid.

Most Palestinians live in Area A. Area A is not occupied in any way.

Why Settlers ? [W:60]

Handsome Pitbull

Just waiting for my set...

Just waiting for my set...

Handsome Pitbull

Just waiting for my set...

Handsome Pitbull

Handsome Pitbull

Handsome Pitbull

Just waiting for my set...

Handsome Pitbull

Handsome Pitbull

Handsome Pitbull

DEATH TO ANTARCTICA!!!

DEATH TO ANTARCTICA!!!

Just waiting for my set...

Handsome Pitbull

Handsome Pitbull

DEATH TO ANTARCTICA!!!

DEATH TO ANTARCTICA!!!