Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
It is the Jews who cannot tolerate living with the Arabs.The question is - is a nation required to maintain a hostile population.
If the answer were to be "no" - wouldn't that then justify the Palestinians driving Jews out of what they consider their state occupied by a hostile population?
And wouldn't it also justify the Israelis justifying driving out the Arab Palestinians? Works both ways.
Yes. Israel is testing whether or not Palestinians can tolerate living next to Jews. So far, not so much. The failure is not with the Jews, but with the Arab Muslim Palestinians.The problem is human lives are involved in both choices. And in increasing settlement building, Israel is forcing what will eventually be a choice - abandon the settlements or annex the territory.
BTW, the Palestinians are not all Arab and they are not all Muslims. Why do you keep using the term Arab Muslims? That is incorrect.
It is the Jews who cannot tolerate living with the Arabs.The question is - is a nation required to maintain a hostile population.
If the answer were to be "no" - wouldn't that then justify the Palestinians driving Jews out of what they consider their state occupied by a hostile population?
And wouldn't it also justify the Israelis justifying driving out the Arab Palestinians? Works both ways.
Yes. Israel is testing whether or not Palestinians can tolerate living next to Jews. So far, not so much. The failure is not with the Jews, but with the Arab Muslim Palestinians.The problem is human lives are involved in both choices. And in increasing settlement building, Israel is forcing what will eventually be a choice - abandon the settlements or annex the territory.
BTW, the Palestinians are not all Arab and they are not all Muslims. Why do you keep using the term Arab Muslims? That is incorrect.
It is the Jews who cannot tolerate living with the Arabs.The question is - is a nation required to maintain a hostile population.
If the answer were to be "no" - wouldn't that then justify the Palestinians driving Jews out of what they consider their state occupied by a hostile population?
And wouldn't it also justify the Israelis justifying driving out the Arab Palestinians? Works both ways.
Yes. Israel is testing whether or not Palestinians can tolerate living next to Jews. So far, not so much. The failure is not with the Jews, but with the Arab Muslim Palestinians.The problem is human lives are involved in both choices. And in increasing settlement building, Israel is forcing what will eventually be a choice - abandon the settlements or annex the territory.
BTW, the Palestinians are not all Arab and they are not all Muslims. Why do you keep using the term Arab Muslims? That is incorrect.
In the very first paragraph of their Charter, the Palestinians make sure to assert that they are part of the larger Arab Nation. Since this is the first thing they write about, it's obviously very important to their identity. So when you say the Palestinians aren't Arab, who are you talking about? The 350 Samaritans out of millions? I know why you are so desperate to claim the Palestinians aren't Arabs. Because the Arabs already have 22 independent states while the Jews only have one in the whole world. As for your Muslim claim, Wikipedia says that Muslims constitute 94% of the Palestinians in the territories, and the Christians only 6%.
The Arab-Moslem welfare cheats can rent a room from Mahmoud "laughing all the way to the bank" Abbas who is building a 13 million dollar presidential palace.When israel finds it has to pull out of Palestinian Land I hope the Palestinian families that move in to these nice Apartments write thank-you notes
That's why you think it's complicated. You don't know what evil is.For those that understand evil the answer is simple.Wrong yet again. Palestinians reject a two State solution and their Charter calls for the extermination of all Jews.Honestly, I don't have an answer - not yet anyway.
Two positions:
1. People who lived there prior to the establishment of a state, and who did not agree with the establishment of that state and fought it and lost. They have not been able to move from fighting to governance.
2. People who established a state, won their fights, and have been able to move from fighting to governance to develop a peaceful and viable state.
In the middle of these two is a no-man's land and a citizenless people, and unequal rights. The no-man's land is the land that some called "occupied territory" (per international law) and "disputed territory" (per Israel).
The Palestinians regard that territory as their future state in a two-state solution.
The question is - is a nation required to maintain a hostile population.
If the answer were to be "no" - wouldn't that then justify the Palestinians driving Jews out of what they consider their state occupied by a hostile population?
But if the answer were "yes" - then what is the state to do maintain the peace and security of it's citizens? What examples of this have occurred in history?
The problem is human lives are involved in both choices. And in increasing settlement building, Israel is forcing what will eventually be a choice - abandon the settlements or annex the territory.
Perhaps Israel should annex the portion it intends to keep, provide citizenship opportunities to all the residents, and give them a choice of FULL citizenship, not residency - or they can move to what will eventually become Palestine.
Edited to add - I'm throwing ideas out because this is an ethical question I see no solution for.
The answer is simple. They can leave or die.
Both the issues and the answers are not so simple.
Fortunately, Shusha recognizes this and is a delight to debate with - Shusha rocks in civility and content!
The Palestinians aren't evil. They are people - and as complex as any people anywhere. To broadbrush them as evil....is...well...evil don't you think?
It is the Jews who cannot tolerate living with the Arabs.The question is - is a nation required to maintain a hostile population.
If the answer were to be "no" - wouldn't that then justify the Palestinians driving Jews out of what they consider their state occupied by a hostile population?
And wouldn't it also justify the Israelis justifying driving out the Arab Palestinians? Works both ways.
Yes. Israel is testing whether or not Palestinians can tolerate living next to Jews. So far, not so much. The failure is not with the Jews, but with the Arab Muslim Palestinians.The problem is human lives are involved in both choices. And in increasing settlement building, Israel is forcing what will eventually be a choice - abandon the settlements or annex the territory.
BTW, the Palestinians are not all Arab and they are not all Muslims. Why do you keep using the term Arab Muslims? That is incorrect.
The question is - is a nation required to maintain a hostile population.
If the answer were to be "no" - wouldn't that then justify the Palestinians driving Jews out of what they consider their state occupied by a hostile population?
And wouldn't it also justify the Israelis justifying driving out the Arab Palestinians? Works both ways.
Yes. Israel is testing whether or not Palestinians can tolerate living next to Jews. So far, not so much. The failure is not with the Jews, but with the Arab Muslim Palestinians.The problem is human lives are involved in both choices. And in increasing settlement building, Israel is forcing what will eventually be a choice - abandon the settlements or annex the territory.
Like I said, those that do not understand evil believe the issue to be complicated.That's why you think it's complicated. You don't know what evil is.For those that understand evil the answer is simple.Wrong yet again. Palestinians reject a two State solution and their Charter calls for the extermination of all Jews.
The answer is simple. They can leave or die.
Both the issues and the answers are not so simple.
Fortunately, Shusha recognizes this and is a delight to debate with - Shusha rocks in civility and content!
The Palestinians aren't evil. They are people - and as complex as any people anywhere. To broadbrush them as evil....is...well...evil don't you think?
Yes. I think I know what evil is. It's the broadbrush demonizing of entire groups of people so it's easier to justify exterminating them later on. That's evil, wouldn't you agree?
Are the settlement communities mixed?
Are the settlement communities mixed?
Some are. Some aren't.
How about in "Palestine"? Are the communities there mixed?
Are the settlement communities mixed?
Some are. Some aren't.
How about in "Palestine"? Are the communities there mixed?
Most Israeli settlements aren't mixed, such as Ma'alei Adumim or Ariel. In fact, they can be called cities. Hebron, with both Jews and Arabs living therein, is very volatile. Only in Israel proper, such as in Haifa, is there successful mixing of Jews and Arabs.
The populations were separated by the British and the Zionists during the Mandate period.Are the settlement communities mixed?
Some are. Some aren't.
How about in "Palestine"? Are the communities there mixed?
Do Arab citizens of Israel live in Israeli settlements in the West Bank, or are the settlements open only to Jews?The question is - is a nation required to maintain a hostile population.
If the answer were to be "no" - wouldn't that then justify the Palestinians driving Jews out of what they consider their state occupied by a hostile population?
And wouldn't it also justify the Israelis justifying driving out the Arab Palestinians? Works both ways.
Exactly - that's why I made that point.
Yes. Israel is testing whether or not Palestinians can tolerate living next to Jews. So far, not so much. The failure is not with the Jews, but with the Arab Muslim Palestinians.The problem is human lives are involved in both choices. And in increasing settlement building, Israel is forcing what will eventually be a choice - abandon the settlements or annex the territory.
Are the settlement communities mixed?
The populations were separated by the British and the Zionists during the Mandate period.Are the settlement communities mixed?
Some are. Some aren't.
How about in "Palestine"? Are the communities there mixed?
Criminal Gangs in From Their Desert HideoutYou mean from the land currently designated as Occupied Territory? Removed to where? Someone has to be willing to take them since you are advocating forced expulsions.
I don't think it is useful at this level of discussion and at this extent of the conflict to label any territory as "occupied". There is Israel self-governed land. There is Palestinian self-governed land. There is disputed territory bordering these. It would be much more useful to be more specific when designating particular territory.
I'm not so sure because you are talking about native populations residing within those areas.
Revealing the True Motivation of MulticulturalistsIf you are talking about maintaining a hostile population within it's state - I think that is tricky because the hostile population was already there when the state was formed.
So what is ethical here?
Yep. That's the question I want you to try to answer.
Honestly, I don't have an answer - not yet anyway.
Two positions:
1. People who lived there prior to the establishment of a state, and who did not agree with the establishment of that state and fought it and lost. They have not been able to move from fighting to governance.
2. People who established a state, won their fights, and have been able to move from fighting to governance to develop a peaceful and viable state.
In the middle of these two is a no-man's land and a citizenless people, and unequal rights. The no-man's land is the land that some called "occupied territory" (per international law) and "disputed territory" (per Israel).
The Palestinians regard that territory as their future state in a two-state solution.
The question is - is a nation required to maintain a hostile population.
If the answer were to be "no" - wouldn't that then justify the Palestinians driving Jews out of what they consider their state occupied by a hostile population?
But if the answer were "yes" - then what is the state to do maintain the peace and security of it's citizens? What examples of this have occurred in history?
The problem is human lives are involved in both choices. And in increasing settlement building, Israel is forcing what will eventually be a choice - abandon the settlements or annex the territory.
Perhaps Israel should annex the portion it intends to keep, provide citizenship opportunities to all the residents, and give them a choice of FULL citizenship, not residency - or they can move to what will eventually become Palestine.
Edited to add - I'm throwing ideas out because this is an ethical question I see no solution for.
BO in a BubbleMore bullshit. Obama has been anti Israel from his first day in office and it was the strong bipartisan support Israel has in Congress that held him in check. Obama stood up for nothing but his own ego.No, the increase in aid to Israel was demanded by Democrats in Congress as a condition of supporting his Iran deal and Congress, including Democrats was pushing to have Obama increase the amount when Netanyahu surprisingly accepted it.Obama gave Israel only what Congress forced him to give and even objected to the US guaranteeing Israel would have a qualitative edge over it enemies in the region.No president has given them more. When did Obama threaten Israeli Aid?
BUSH URGES DELAY ON AID FOR ISRAEL; THREATENS A VETO
Congress had nothing to do with it - Congress was left out of the deal he signed with Bibi. Obama has been very pro-Israel without being unreasonable.
And Obama is a democrat. And, throughout his administration - he has given Israel a considerable amount of aid, more so then a number of other presidents. He vetoed the Palestinian's attempt to declare a state through the UN. People saying he is anti-semitic/anti-Israel is bullcrap. Sometimes Israel is WRONG, and someone needs to stand up to them when that happens - not unconditionally support every single thing.
