Abbas: I know that its not a Jewish state

[oneworld2]

How many places in the world have not changed hands throughout history? To argue whose land this is or isn't is pretty difficult if you are going to go back into history. Where do you start and where do you stop? It mostly is what it is right now, somebody gained control and it is theirs.

You "start" by holding states to account for treaties they have agreed to be bound by imo

 

[oneworld2]

Also not a fact. We are having some trouble with facts and objectivity today, aren’t we?

And no, you don’t need to justify your obsessive concern about the Jews and how they manage their internal affairs. But that of course allows for inference based on various other statements, positions, and inconsistencies.

Cause if you don’t have a rational objective reason for it, what’s left is what we’ve come to expect with the various sorts obsessed with the Jews instead of countless more material conflicts elsewhere (and this little diversion not even concerning a conflict but actually thinking that others still have the right to tell the Jews how to organize their own country).

Seems pretty colonialist, doesn’t it. We can add that to the support for mass deportation on the “justice” spectrum of your positions.

Of course the rise of the Israeli ethnonationalists is a fact and can be seen in every poll taken about Israeli Jews views on Arabs and in the support for the periodic massares of Palestinians.

The only person having " trouble " with facts is yourself. Objectivity went out of the window when you stated that all Arabs are dishonest so it isn't an issue for you today , it's a issue for you full stop everyday.

Please note that accusations/inferences of antisemitism , which is your default position , will be an ackowledgement that you have not real counter arguments.

I have a few reasons why I have a strong interest in this conflict and it has nothing to do with hating Jewish people

 

[Fledermaus]

Blacks in the USA know a thing or two about being a minority.

U haz point?

 

[Jean-s]

Well fortunately no one with a valid claim has controlled Judea and Samaria since the Ottomans lost it, and those who international law set aside the territory for are now in control of it.

Your reply is incoherent.

 

[Fledermaus]

Your reply is incoherent.

Incorrect.

 

[CJ 2.0]

How would you know what is objective or not ? lol. You once told me all Arabs are dishonest and yet bemoaned someone ( rightly btw ) for referring to Jews as " greedy Jews ". Please , don't see yourself as somehow more objective than the person you brought to book for their broad brush smear when you expound them yourself.

East Jerusalem is OPT and is the preferred capital for the future Palestinian state and they are entitled to that under international law. The cutting off of it from the rest of the WB along with the snaking annexation wall and the arrested development for Palestinians only in area C have ensured the arrested development of the territory's economy and potential and impact dramatically on its ability to create a viable state economy.

You appear to believe and promote a situation where as long as people believe the Palestinians have an " independent state " ( that is anything but ) everything else , like the right to develop economically and prosper don't really feature.

It isn’t that difficult to know what is objective. And objectively speaking, what you said is trash. Israel does not need to force half a million people out of their homes for a Palestinian state to be viable (which includes economic viability)

And since that is obviously true you just push a weak personal attack and then frame shift back to your own magical conception of “justice” and that the Palestinians are entitled to cleanse vast areas of territory of Jews.

 

[CJ 2.0]

Of course the rise of the Israeli ethnonationalists is a fact and can be seen in every poll taken about Israeli Jews views on Arabs and in the support for the periodic massares of Palestinians.

The only person having " trouble " with facts is yourself. Objectivity went out of the window when you stated that all Arabs are dishonest so it isn't an issue for you today , it's a issue for you full stop everyday.

Please note that accusations/inferences of antisemitism , which is your default position , will be an ackowledgement that you have not real counter arguments.

I have a few reasons why I have a strong interest in this conflict and it has nothing to do with hating Jewish people

I see we have entered the straw man phase of discussions. Good to see it, cause I think that means you are out of “arguments”, such as they are, but don’t mind if you try to actually double back to some of your indefensible positions if you want to give it another go.

 

[CJ 2.0]

Your reply is incoherent.

- No nation but Israel has a valid claim to Judea and Samaria

- Jordan illegally occupied them contrary to the laws you pretend to care about but that did not extinguish Israeli rights

- Jordan then attacked Israel, over extended, and fled from the territory they were illegally occupying, restoring sovereignty over the territory to the only nation that had legal authority to exercise sovereignty there under the Mandate, which was the law for any and all territory of mandatory palestine that had not been legally transferred to another sovereign country.

- The Palestinians deserve to have some of that territory for self-determination, but not while the core purpose of Palestinian nationalism is the destruction of Israel and not while it risks the security of the State of Israel

- Europe has no moral or other authority to weigh in with their nonsense anti-Israeli and frankly anti-Jewish sentiment. Go figure out Cyprus and Ukraine and then go get independence for the Basques and the Kurds (who are both more of a distinct people than the Palestinians ever were), then you can think about sticking your noses in the Jews’ business.

The moral bankruptcy of the anti-Israel position has been a constant for decades, since you guys were blaming the Jews for the Palestinians murdering people in Europe and continue as you see more and more Jews forced out of your countries because you are culturally hostile to them. But unlike the last time they have other places to go, including a Jewish sovereign nation which will take them in no matter what and has the strength to stand up to your bullying and bankrupt moral preening.

 

[Jean-s]

- No nation but Israel has a valid claim to Judea and Samaria

- Jordan illegally occupied them contrary to the laws you pretend to care about but that did not extinguish Israeli rights

- Jordan then attacked Israel, over extended, and fled from the territory they were illegally occupying, restoring sovereignty over the territory to the only nation that had legal authority to exercise sovereignty there under the Mandate, which was the law for any and all territory of mandatory palestine that had not been legally transferred to another sovereign country.

- The Palestinians deserve to have some of that territory for self-determination, but not while the core purpose of Palestinian nationalism is the destruction of Israel and not while it risks the security of the State of Israel

- Europe has no moral or other authority to weigh in with their nonsense anti-Israeli and frankly anti-Jewish sentiment. Go figure out Cyprus and Ukraine and then go get independence for the Basques and the Kurds (who are both more of a distinct people than the Palestinians ever were), then you can think about sticking your noses in the Jews’ business.

The moral bankruptcy of the anti-Israel position has been a constant for decades, since you guys were blaming the Jews for the Palestinians murdering people in Europe and continue as you see more and more Jews forced out of your countries because you are culturally hostile to them. But unlike the last time they have other places to go, including a Jewish sovereign nation which will take them in no matter what and has the strength to stand up to your bullying and bankrupt moral preening.

The recognized nation of Israel is a member state of the United Nations and its border has been recognized which conforms to its existence in 1967. The border of Jordan was recognized by the United Nations as including the West Bank, including East Jerusalem. The state of Syria includes the Golan Heights, and Egypt included Gaza. After the 1967 War, Jordan ceded the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, to the Palestinians corresponding to the League of Nations British Mandate protectorate of Palestine (excluding Israel) and the Egyptians did the same with Gaza. Syria never relinquished its sovereignty over Golan. Since Israel occupied this land after the 1967 War it cannot annex any part of it because the acquisition of land by means of conquest has been illegal since the end of World War II. The Israelis have no legal right to rename part of the West Bank, nor allow their citizens to settle there. It is not complicated.

 

[CJ 2.0]

The recognized nation of Israel is a member state of the United Nations and its border has been recognized which conforms to its existence in 1967. The border of Jordan was recognized by the United Nations as including the West Bank, including East Jerusalem. The state of Syria includes the Golan Heights, and Egypt included Gaza. After the 1967 War, Jordan ceded the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, to the Palestinians corresponding to the League of Nations British Mandate protectorate of Palestine (excluding Israel) and the Egyptians did the same with Gaza. Syria never relinquished its sovereignty over Golan. Since Israel occupied this land after the 1967 War it cannot annex any part of it because the acquisition of land by means of conquest has been illegal since the end of World War II. The Israelis have no legal right to rename part of the West Bank, nor allow their citizens to settle there. It is not complicated.

The UN never recognized Jordanian control over Judea and Samaria. They never had the legal possession to cede it to anyone.

As for naming, it was Judea and Samaria before Jordan’s illegal occupation.

Your post is fundamentally unserious.

 

[Jean-s]

The UN never recognized Jordanian control over Judea and Samaria. They never had the legal possession to cede it to anyone.

You are mistaken. The United Nations recognized agreements signed during 1949 between Israel and neighboring Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan, and Syria to formally end the official hostilities of the 1948 Arab–Israeli War, and establish armistice lines between Israeli forces and Jordanian-Iraqi forces, also known as the Green Line. The United Nations established supervising and reporting agencies to monitor the established armistice lines. In addition, discussions related to the armistice enforcement, led to the signing of the separate Tripartite Declaration of 1950 between the United States, Britain, and France. In it, they pledged to take action within and outside the United Nations to prevent violations of the frontiers or armistice lines. It also outlined their commitment to peace and stability in the area.
1949 Armistice Agreements - Wikipedia

As for naming, it was Judea and Samaria before Jordan’s illegal occupation.

The United Nations does not recognize the Israeli names for the West Bank or occupied territories. Changing Arabic place names is a brazen attempt at obliterating the identity and legitimacy of the Palestinian people.

Your post is fundamentally unserious.

I am not only quite serious; I am correct.

 

[CJ 2.0]

You are mistaken. The United Nations recognized agreements signed during 1949 between Israel and neighboring Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan, and Syria to formally end the official hostilities of the 1948 Arab–Israeli War, and establish armistice lines between Israeli forces and Jordanian-Iraqi forces, also known as the Green Line. The United Nations established supervising and reporting agencies to monitor the established armistice lines. In addition, discussions related to the armistice enforcement, led to the signing of the separate Tripartite Declaration of 1950 between the United States, Britain, and France. In it, they pledged to take action within and outside the United Nations to prevent violations of the frontiers or armistice lines. It also outlined their commitment to peace and stability in the area.
1949 Armistice Agreements - Wikipedia


The United Nations does not recognize the Israeli names for the West Bank or occupied territories. Changing Arabic place names is a brazen attempt at obliterating the identity and legitimacy of the Palestinian people.


I am not only quite serious; I am correct.

Again, the armistice lines were not borders. That was actually an explicit demand by the Arab countries. And no country recognized Egyptian ownership of Gaza while only the British recognized Jordanian annexation of the West Bank. Again, none of this is that hard. It would also be illegal for the UN to have acted any differently, on account of the Mandate which was never changed.

And “west bank” don’t sound very “Arabic”, now does it? Weird eh? Yet in the 20s the territory was commonly referred to as Judea and Samaria. Hmmm. Seems like calling those areas the “west bank” was just a brazen attempt at obliterating the identity and legitimacy of the Jews who lived there before. Sort of like how the wailing wall has taken on a whole new “religious” significance for the Palestinians as the place where Mohammed’s flying camel horse was hitched. And how the Temple Mount was a minor religious site for the Arab world for hundreds of years before it became super duper important again when the Jews claimed their country back. Weird how that works, and how you guys seem to be totally supportive of that.

Almost like you are rank partisans actively working against the Jews. Strange coming from Europeans. So hard to put a finger on why that is. Clearly with your concern for Catalonian independence, your radical action against Turkish occupation in Cyprus, and your support of human rights in Syria and China, you CLEARLY are being totally consistent with your animosity to the tiny Jewish state where 6 million Jews have managed to grow a prosperous state in the face of violent opposition by violent dictatorships with 10+x the population.

You should read Catch the Jew. Written by a German journalist. Excellent book, and a good read. Entertaining. And will teach you a little something about how things work in an area you don’t understand but seem to think you have a right to colonially dictate to.

 

[CJ 2.0]

You are mistaken. The United Nations recognized agreements signed during 1949 between Israel and neighboring Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan, and Syria to formally end the official hostilities of the 1948 Arab–Israeli War, and establish armistice lines between Israeli forces and Jordanian-Iraqi forces, also known as the Green Line. The United Nations established supervising and reporting agencies to monitor the established armistice lines. In addition, discussions related to the armistice enforcement, led to the signing of the separate Tripartite Declaration of 1950 between the United States, Britain, and France. In it, they pledged to take action within and outside the United Nations to prevent violations of the frontiers or armistice lines. It also outlined their commitment to peace and stability in the area.
1949 Armistice Agreements - Wikipedia


The United Nations does not recognize the Israeli names for the West Bank or occupied territories. Changing Arabic place names is a brazen attempt at obliterating the identity and legitimacy of the Palestinian people.


I am not only quite serious; I am correct.

And it is fascinating. Your wiki is very straightforward.

Snip:

The agreement with Jordan was signed on 3 April 1949.[3] The main points:

No provision of this Agreement shall in any way prejudice the rights, claims and positions of either Party hereto in the ultimate peaceful settlement of the Palestine question, the provisions of this Agreement being dictated exclusively by military considerations.

It does not make me feel particularly good about Europe’s future that our european socialist educator can turn this into “the parties agreed to borders and the Jordanians gained all rights over the west bank.

Your posts seem to all be fundamentally unserious, but very in line with our European socialist friends who deign to tell the Jews their place.

 

[Jean-s]

Again, the armistice lines were not borders. That was actually an explicit demand by the Arab countries. And no country recognized Egyptian ownership of Gaza while only the British recognized Jordanian annexation of the West Bank. Again, none of this is that hard. It would also be illegal for the UN to have acted any differently, on account of the Mandate which was never changed.

The armistice lines are indeed the border of Israel as a United Nations member state. It is all spelled out for you in the Wikipedia summary.

And “west bank” don’t sound very “Arabic”, now does it? Weird eh? Yet in the 20s the territory was commonly referred to as Judea and Samaria. Hmmm. Seems like calling those areas the “west bank” was just a brazen attempt at obliterating the identity and legitimacy of the Jews who lived there before. Sort of like how the wailing wall has taken on a whole new “religious” significance for the Palestinians as the place where Mohammed’s flying camel horse was hitched. And how the Temple Mount was a minor religious site for the Arab world for hundreds of years before it became super duper important again when the Jews claimed their country back. Weird how that works, and how you guys seem to be totally supportive of that.

I am writing in English, not Arabic. The Occupied Territories will be referred to by Palestinians in their own language.

Almost like you are rank partisans actively working against the Jews. Strange coming from Europeans. So hard to put a finger on why that is. Clearly with your concern for Catalonian independence, your radical action against Turkish occupation in Cyprus, and your support of human rights in Syria and China, you CLEARLY are being totally consistent with your animosity to the tiny Jewish state where 6 million Jews have managed to grow a prosperous state in the face of violent opposition by violent dictatorships with 10+x the population.

Forgive me but you are rambling into incoherence again, referring to all parts of the globe and changing the subject in your fixation to defend bellicose Israeli guilt.

You should read Catch the Jew. Written by a German journalist. Excellent book, and a good read. Entertaining. And will teach you a little something about how things work in an area you don’t understand but seem to think you have a right to colonially dictate to.

I prefer to stick to facts.

 

[Jean-s]

And it is fascinating. Your wiki is very straightforward.

Snip:

The agreement with Jordan was signed on 3 April 1949.[3] The main points:

No provision of this Agreement shall in any way prejudice the rights, claims and positions of either Party hereto in the ultimate peaceful settlement of the Palestine question, the provisions of this Agreement being dictated exclusively by military considerations.

It does not make me feel particularly good about Europe’s future that our european socialist educator can turn this into “the parties agreed to borders and the Jordanians gained all rights over the west bank.

Your posts seem to all be fundamentally unserious, but very in line with our European socialist friends who deign to tell the Jews their place.

It was of course hoped that the Israelis would come to an equatable agreement to live in peace with their neighbors. Such hope has been dashed as the Israelis have since invaded the rest of Palestine and the indigenous Arabs have gained nothing by talking to their Israeli counterparts who have not conducted themselves in good faith. Although I am, like many of the immigrant European Jews who moved to Palestine after WWII, a socialist, there is nothing exclusively socialist in wanting to see the Palestinians enjoy the right of self determination in their own state.

 

[oneworld2]

It isn’t that difficult to know what is objective. And objectively speaking, what you said is trash. Israel does not need to force half a million people out of their homes for a Palestinian state to be viable (which includes economic viability)

And since that is obviously true you just push a weak personal attack and then frame shift back to your own magical conception of “justice” and that the Palestinians are entitled to cleanse vast areas of territory of Jews.

Some issues with your alleged objectivity on this subject and the pragmatic but difficult decisions that have to be made

All of the settlers are illegal. Israel built these settlements in the full knowledge that they would be illegal from the very start. At that time between 2-3 hundred thousand Palestinians including many children ( we can all play on emotions ) were forced out of their homes due to the Israeli attack of 67 and have NEVER been allowed to return by the state of Israel. ( a common feature of the conflict )

You seem to support this forced removal of people AND support the illegal transfer of Israelis to the OPTs. A double whammy whereby the forced removal of Palestinians and their replacement with illegal settlers appears to present nothing of a moral issue for you. Strike one.

Fifty years go by which see mass Israeli illlegal settlement building and mass HRs violations of the Palestinian people because of them. Still no issue for people like yourself necause every action in the above is legitimate presumeably because Jews are superior to Arabs and thus the needs of the Jews trump the rights of the Arabs. Strike two

Then we come to the present where it is acknowledged that the right of return for Palestinians is supported by numerous parts of international laws and conventions. They have that right but are prevented by Israel from acting on it. Contrast that to the status of the settlers who have no right to be residing in the territory of another people, as has already been discussed above was always known to the Israeli governments , left and right , that continued the illegal construction regardless.

My position is based on pragmatism as I have said before because if it was based on moral argument I would fully support and demand the right of return to the descendents of both the 49 conflict and the 67 conflict because they have that right. But that would basically spell the end for Israel as a Jewish state so I support the other option , that of financial compensation. Thus denying the Palestinians a right they are acknowledged to have because of the consequences it would have for the state of Israel.

The settlers you support have no such right to reside where they are and are serving as human shields for a land acquisition plan. The two main issues are...

If they are allowed to be successful in the bid to acquire territory through warfare we may as well accept that the gains made by the conventions and laws passed and agreed to by states are finished and the return of the right of conquest has re-emerged. The moral argument for that has been rejected for decades and was nearly always based on racism when you strip out the veneer. That's what you support

Contrary to you claims their continued illegal presence and the security issue they pose to any future Palestinian state shoud they become part of the state of Israel through an agreement foisted on the Palestinians in essence renders a viable and independent Palestinian state dead at birth and would lock in forever some of the worst aspects of life under military occupation they have been forced to suffer for over 50 years already with the added problem that they would have nowhere to take any future complaints as they wuold have signed them away in the process thus consigning their state lite status iinto eternity

Your moral compass only extends to the treatment of Jewish people and actually shows a callous disregard for the treatment of other people , most noticeably WRT the treatment of Palestinians who you believe have no rights and should accept what it forced to them down the barrel of a gun. The morals of might is right is the least moral position to hold imo

 

[CJ 2.0]

It was of course hoped that the Israelis would come to an equatable agreement to live in peace with their neighbors. Such hope has been dashed as the Israelis have since invaded the rest of Palestine and the indigenous Arabs have gained nothing by talking to their Israeli counterparts who have not conducted themselves in good faith. Although I am, like many of the immigrant European Jews who moved to Palestine after WWII, a socialist, there is nothing exclusively socialist in wanting to see the Palestinians enjoy the right of self determination in their own state.

This is ahistorical nonsense. The blatant rewriting of history to make it "we hoped the Jews would behave" is exactly what we have come to expect from Europeans but has no connection with reality. The reality is that the Arabs refused to accept Jewish sovereignty in any territories and THEY pushed to prevent any actual borders from being established in the armistice agreement. And THEY are the ones who rejected recognizing Israel in exchange for undoing the consequences of their failed attempt to destroy Israel in 1967.

Incidentally, sure there is nothing particularly socialist about being an anti-Israel propagandist, but the correlation between the two is staggering. Seems to be some root cause that leads to a willingness to buy into a common element of propaganda and bad arguments.

 

[CJ 2.0]

The armistice lines are indeed the border of Israel as a United Nations member state. It is all spelled out for you in the Wikipedia summary.


I am writing in English, not Arabic. The Occupied Territories will be referred to by Palestinians in their own language.


Forgive me but you are rambling into incoherence again, referring to all parts of the globe and changing the subject in your fixation to defend bellicose Israeli guilt.



I prefer to stick to facts.

1. You keep on using that word ("incoherence") .... I do no think it means what you think it means...

2. Re your "preference" for facts, Obviously you don't. You should read that book. It is fully of facts that you are undoubtedly not aware of because your media (both European and socialist) don't want to share with you. It's also entertaining and well written.

 

[CJ 2.0]

Some issues with your alleged objectivity on this subject and the pragmatic but difficult decisions that have to be made

All of the settlers are illegal. Israel built these settlements in the full knowledge that they would be illegal from the very start. At that time between 2-3 hundred thousand Palestinians including many children ( we can all play on emotions ) were forced out of their homes due to the Israeli attack of 67 and have NEVER been allowed to return by the state of Israel. ( a common feature of the conflict )

You seem to support this forced removal of people AND support the illegal transfer of Israelis to the OPTs. A double whammy whereby the forced removal of Palestinians and their replacement with illegal settlers appears to present nothing of a moral issue for you. Strike one.

Fifty years go by which see mass Israeli illlegal settlement building and mass HRs violations of the Palestinian people because of them. Still no issue for people like yourself necause every action in the above is legitimate presumeably because Jews are superior to Arabs and thus the needs of the Jews trump the rights of the Arabs. Strike two

Then we come to the present where it is acknowledged that the right of return for Palestinians is supported by numerous parts of international laws and conventions. They have that right but are prevented by Israel from acting on it. Contrast that to the status of the settlers who have no right to be residing in the territory of another people, as has already been discussed above was always known to the Israeli governments , left and right , that continued the illegal construction regardless.

My position is based on pragmatism as I have said before because if it was based on moral argument I would fully support and demand the right of return to the descendents of both the 49 conflict and the 67 conflict because they have that right. But that would basically spell the end for Israel as a Jewish state so I support the other option , that of financial compensation. Thus denying the Palestinians a right they are acknowledged to have because of the consequences it would have for the state of Israel.

The settlers you support have no such right to reside where they are and are serving as human shields for a land acquisition plan. The two main issues are...

If they are allowed to be successful in the bid to acquire territory through warfare we may as well accept that the gains made by the conventions and laws passed and agreed to by states are finished and the return of the right of conquest has re-emerged. The moral argument for that has been rejected for decades and was nearly always based on racism when you strip out the veneer. That's what you support

Contrary to you claims their continued illegal presence and the security issue they pose to any future Palestinian state shoud they become part of the state of Israel through an agreement foisted on the Palestinians in essence renders a viable and independent Palestinian state dead at birth and would lock in forever some of the worst aspects of life under military occupation they have been forced to suffer for over 50 years already with the added problem that they would have nowhere to take any future complaints as they wuold have signed them away in the process thus consigning their state lite status iinto eternity

Your moral compass only extends to the treatment of Jewish people and actually shows a callous disregard for the treatment of other people , most noticeably WRT the treatment of Palestinians who you believe have no rights and should accept what it forced to them down the barrel of a gun. The morals of might is right is the least moral position to hold imo

It doesn't matter what is "legal" or not, both because you are wrong and because the law is not justification for ethnic cleansing.

Your position is not based on pragmatism. It is purely ideological and in lockstep with various socialists who align themselves against Israel. Practically let's get the Palestinians to fix their society and then work out a negotiated deal that gets them enough for a viable state. Anything more than that is what you want, not what is needed, and is an ideological choice.

And someone who advocates the forced removal of half a million people to make room for those of a different ethnic background is really not in the position to lecture anyone on morality.

 

[Apocalypse]

I enjoy seeing this kind of declaration argument with no support from the usual suspects. It seems that they think if they simply say something that counts as proof of it. I'm not sure what this fallacy is called but it is a common one.

"The usual suspects"? Who are you again?

Anyway, it is certainly a fallacy to treat something as the undeniable truth just because you said so. Hence why the claim my comment was replying to is idiotic.
It seems you enjoy being ironic more than anything else.

 

[digitusmedius]

Wut?

You also have terrible obesity issues and some major geography challenges among your broader population. And lots of gun violence.

But none of those have anything to do with what we were talking about.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Deflection like that isn't really a sound debate strategy. It's more of an escape route.

 

[digitusmedius]

"The usual suspects"? Who are you again?

Anyway, it is certainly a fallacy to treat something as the undeniable truth just because you said so. Hence why the claim my comment was replying to is idiotic.
It seems you enjoy being ironic more than anything else.

Using the "uh-un YOU are" comeback might have worked in first grade for you but now it's a way of running away.

 

[digitusmedius]

The reality is that the Arabs refused to accept Jewish sovereignty in any territories and THEY pushed to prevent any actual borders from being established in the armistice agreement.

Oh, YES. How dare those ungrateful Palestinians object to Israel's illegal settlements in disputed territory, which they promised their staunchest ally, the United State, NOT to do.

Incidentally, sure there is nothing particularly socialist about being an anti-Israel propagandist, but the correlation between the two is staggering. Seems to be some root cause that leads to a willingness to buy into a common element of propaganda and bad arguments.

I do enjoy watching people with no knowledge of Israeli politics and Jews in general both here and there (fundamentalist christians here in NA being the best example) make fools of themselves when they pontificate like this. There are a number of socialist political parties in Israel as well as many Jews in Europe and NA who wouldn't take kindly to your false categorization of their alleged "anti-Israel." Your view matches Donnie Dirtbag's claim that, basically, the only "good for Israel Jews" are "his" Jews. Jews really love to hear gentiles "school" them like that.

 

[CJ 2.0]

Deflection like that isn't really a sound debate strategy. It's more of an escape route.

Or having genuinely no idea what you were talking about with your own non-sequitur and riffing on it.

Happy to do over if you want to tie your point into the argument somehow.

 

[CJ 2.0]

Oh, YES. How dare those ungrateful Palestinians object to Israel's illegal settlements in disputed territory, which they promised their staunchest ally, the United State, NOT to do.


I do enjoy watching people with no knowledge of Israeli politics and Jews in general both here and there (fundamentalist christians here in NA being the best example) make fools of themselves when they pontificate like this. There are a number of socialist political parties in Israel as well as many Jews in Europe and NA who wouldn't take kindly to your false categorization of their alleged "anti-Israel." Your view matches Donnie Dirtbag's claim that, basically, the only "good for Israel Jews" are "his" Jews. Jews really love to hear gentiles "school" them like that.

I'm very amused by both of these. Both because of the mischaracterization in the first and the "pot to kettle" irony in the second. The Palestinians should have been willing to make peace with the Jews decades ago. They didn't, they started a terror war against Israel's civilians instead, and these are the consequences.

And what is fascinating by all of this is how you guys are doing the same thing all over again. The Trump plan wasn't meant to be an actual end game unless the Palestinians continue to refuse to come to the table in good faith. It is the backstop to continued Palestinian rejectionism. By again refusing to even try to come to terms because of a refusal to give up the pretext of the phony right of return or having to recognize that widespread ethnic cleansing of territory is not a reasonable pre-requisite to a peace agreement, the Palestinians and their western enablers (which includes a bunch of leftists in Israel, yes) are once again missing an opportunity.

If the Palestinians wanted a state more than they wanted to destroy Israel, they had their shots in 2000 and 2008. Now they have another shot which may not be as good as the last opportunity but is still a real shot at something better.

Your advice to them, as always, is to reject it, because they "deserve" more. Well they shouldn't. And they don't.