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.
That's the bottom line. At the root of it. Has been, since time immemorial:
The Jew.
It's only the " bottom line " for those who are struggling with the argument imo
For sure there will be those who are anti Israel because they are Jew haters and there will be those that are pro Israel because they are Arab or Muslim haters.
To use it as a blanket smear of those that disagree with you and can argue their points is disingenuous but to be expected for the reason given in the first sentence
Thanks for nothing.
Irrelevant.
]
I read an article awhile back that said there are more Palestinians in Israel than Israeli's, and therefore, Israel would cease to exist if Palestinians were allowed to vote.
Uh...no.Resolutions are “Binding”?These are no more legally binding than the UN Declaration of Human Rights which IRONICALLY has a "rights kill switch" embedded in it for the benefit of those many DICTATORSHIPS that SIT in the UNGA or UNSC.... Besides, many of those resolutions applied to JORDAN as well in that Israel had to negotiate with Jordan (and Egypt) for land acquired from the 1967 war..
UNSC resolutions are legally binding and if it were not for the US veto standing in the way of the international consensus there would most likely have been a resolution of the conflict already.
I have stated that there are definitely frustrating weaknesses/contradictions with the UN , namely the UNSC veto power of the big 5, which are incidentally most of the biggest arms dealer nations around, how's that for a conflict of interests ? But support for international laws that are there to aim to keep the peace should be supported by all decent people of the world imo
The UN Charter doesn't start off with " we the governments of the world " , it starts off with " we the peoples of the world " and we , each of us in our own nations , need to stop our governments from flouting international laws and conventions.
Progress is slow with obvious periods of regression but people need to stick with it imo
An opinion is Binding?!
Really?
UNSC resolutions are legally binding. The opinion was given by experts in international law with access to all of the relevant treaties/conventions/charters etc etc
Really
I read an article awhile back that said there are more Palestinians in Israel than Israeli's, and therefore, Israel would cease to exist if Palestinians were allowed to vote.Why not?
A two state solution, as originally envisioned, is in a zombie state of perpetual propping up by diplomats. It's support has drastically waned among both Palestinians and Israelis.
With a one state solution (Israel + West Bank) - assuming a scenario where ALL residents are offered the opportunity of citizenship up front, the plus side for Palestinians would be the potential of better representation, political stability, assumption of rights guaranteed by citizenship and funding for infrastructure, education, etc. that is in perpetual shortage with their Palestinian leadership.
Here's what happens if Israel annexes the West Bank and lets Palestinians vote
And yet most Arabs vote for Jews because Arab leaders have left them in the Stone Age.I read an article awhile back that said there are more Palestinians in Israel than Israeli's, and therefore, Israel would cease to exist if Palestinians were allowed to vote.Why not?
A two state solution, as originally envisioned, is in a zombie state of perpetual propping up by diplomats. It's support has drastically waned among both Palestinians and Israelis.
With a one state solution (Israel + West Bank) - assuming a scenario where ALL residents are offered the opportunity of citizenship up front, the plus side for Palestinians would be the potential of better representation, political stability, assumption of rights guaranteed by citizenship and funding for infrastructure, education, etc. that is in perpetual shortage with their Palestinian leadership.
Here's what happens if Israel annexes the West Bank and lets Palestinians vote
I guess you missed the part where Syria initiated an attack and lost.]
I read an article awhile back that said there are more Palestinians in Israel than Israeli's, and therefore, Israel would cease to exist if Palestinians were allowed to vote.
I think out of the territory under Israeli control , which is all of the partition plan former Palestine( Israel , the West Bank and Gaza ) , the numbers are pretty similar. IIRC there are around 20% of Isrealis that are of Palestinian origin , around 1.8 million in Gaza and around 2.7 million in the WB.
The illegal settlements in the Golan are obviously an aside
78%, to be exact.
It is difficult to tell whether your ignorance is the result of your bigotry or your bigotry is the result of your ignorance. Egypt's claim to Sinai is at best dubious since it was never a part of Egypt in modern times until the British attached it to their Egyptian colony. Nevertheless, Egypt was powerless to take Sinai back from Israel, and it was only Israel's desire for peace that led it to trade Sinai for peace with Egypt.The fact is that in every negotiation, with Arab nations or with the so called Palestinians, Israel has offered to give up land for peace, and have followed through in good faith when It found a credible partner for peace.
Egypt
Sadat was a better politician than he was a general, and when he did attack in 1973, he was soundly defeated. Israel broke through the anti aircraft barrier the Russians had constructed for Egypt, captured 500 Soviet tanks and tons of ammunition and Israeli tanks were rolling toward Alexandria and Cairo and were only stopped by pressure from the US. The few Egyptian troops left in Sinai could have been destroyed at any time, but under pressure from the US Israel allowed them to remain while occupying significant Egyptian territory across the Canal in order to leave the door open for peace talks. Was Sinai sovereign Egyptian territory? In modern times Sinai was not a part of Egypt until the British attached it their Egyptian colony in 1906 to better secure the Canal. That being the case, it is not at all clear that Egypt had a better right to it than Israel. Nevertheless, Israel was always serious about peace and security and gave up Sinai despite all the pain it caused to secure peace.
Jordan
Before 1948, Jordan was known as Trans Jordan, meaning across the Jordan River, and held no land west of the river, however, in a war of aggression in 1948 Jordan captured Judea and Samaria and held it from 1948 to 1967 despite having no legal right to it. Only Pakistan and the UK recognized Jordan's right to the land, so Jordan had no legitimate claim on the land when negotiating peace with Israel, but again, Israel was so determined to make peace with the Arabs that it agreed to allow Jordan to keep title to some of the land adjacent to the river that it had developed during its illegal occupation of the land. That's how serious Israel was about making peace.
Oslo
While it is true that both Israelis and Palestinians supported Oslo at first, at the end, when Barak offered all of Gaza, 93% of Judea and Samaria, PA jurisdiction over Arab neighborhoods in Jerusalem and Arafat said, no, Israelis still supported the peace process, but the Palestinians turned to violence and launched the second intifada, and it was the intifada that convinced Israelis that it as impossible to negotiate peace with people who turned to violence whenever they don't get everything they want. Israel was very serious about peace with the Palestinians and was willing to make great sacrifices to secure it, but the Palestinians were clearly not serious about peace since they were unwilling to make any compromises to secure it.
Gaza
Sharon gave Gaza to the PA with the understanding that Abbas would maintain peace there, but despite the PA forces outnumbering Hamas and the other terrorists, the PA quickly lost Gaza to Hamas and there was no peace. This was the final nail in the coffin of a negotiated peace between Israel and the Palestinians since it showed that there was no political entity among the Palestinians that could credibly offer peace to Israel.
Chest thumping about how the Israelis defeated the Egyptians in 1973 acknowledged but it didn't alter the fact that Israel " gave back " only sovereign Egyptian territory , like I said.
Same with Jordan. Like I said
Oslo never even offered the Palestinians an end to illegal Israeli settlement building , that's how " serious " it was. It saw the PA being subcontracted in to assist in the subjugation of their own people. I could offer you 80% of Algeria and it would be entirely desert. Percentages should be viewed in terms of value . The percentage Israel allowed istelf to keep was virtually all of the illegal settlement/settlers and control over the water supply.
If Gaza was "given" to the Palestinians you would think that that would mean they could vote into power any one of their political parties ? I mean without the Israelis , US UK etc etc instigating an attempted coup ? That alone is indicative that Gaza was never " given " to the Palestnians
Could control their airspace , economy , borders , coast etc etc
The Gaza disengagement was a pragmatic decision to remove the illegal settlers from there and release the thousands of IDF troops guarding them and move them to illegal settlements in the WB and Golan and, if we are to believe the likes of Dov Weisglass , to " freeze " the peace process
Either way nothing of what you wrote above undermines what it is attempting to do
Too bad the UN disagrees with you.78%, to be exact.
So that's 22% less than what they are entitled to under international law
]
I guess you missed the part where Syria initiated an attack and lost.
Of course the border skirmishes were initiated by Israel...Arabs hate Jews.]
I guess you missed the part where Syria initiated an attack and lost.
It was relevant to the illegality of the settlements in the Golan so I didn't " miss " anything.
Moshe Dayan conceded years later that around 80% of the border skirmishes that led up to the 1967 war were initiated by Israel
The Syrian, and Jordanian, responses were because they were signed up to a mutual defence pact with Egypt . Israel attacked Egypt first and so triggered the pact
There is no question but that the early Israelis wanted more land than they were given, but that does not mean they were less than sincere in their acceptance of the land they could have. Ben Gurion is arguing in favor of a pragmatic approach against ideologues who wanted to turn down everything less than all they wanted. There is no suggestion of trickery or scheming in this statement but only an expression of faith in very difficult times that Israel would prosper.Again, you are full of shit. There is no documentation that shows israelis were not entirely sincere in every agreement they signed on to and every offer of land they made. Your argument is, you just can't trust a Jew.
Ben Gurion in reaction to the Zionist leaderships acceptance of the Peel Commisions plan to partition
"Does the establishment of a Jewish state [in only part of Palestine] advance or retard the conversion of this country into a Jewish country? My assumption (which is why I am a fervent proponent of a state, even though it is now linked to partition) is that a Jewish state on only part of the land is not the end but the beginning.... This is because this increase in possession is of consequence not only in itself, but because through it we increase our strength, and every increase in strength helps in the possession of the land as a whole. The establishment of a state, even if only on a portion of the land, is the maximal reinforcement of our strength at the present time and a powerful boost to our historical endeavors to liberate the entire country"
1937 Ben-Gurion letter - Wikipedia
There are others that anyone can access if they have the will
]
I guess you missed the part where Syria initiated an attack and lost.
It was relevant to the illegality of the settlements in the Golan so I didn't " miss " anything.
Moshe Dayan conceded years later that around 80% of the border skirmishes that led up to the 1967 war were initiated by Israel
The Syrian, and Jordanian, responses were because they were signed up to a mutual defence pact with Egypt . Israel attacked Egypt first and so triggered the pact
78%, to be exact.
So that's 22% less than what they are entitled to under international law
That's the bottom line. At the root of it. Has been, since time immemorial:
The Jew.
It's only the " bottom line " for those who are struggling with the argument imo
For sure there will be those who are anti Israel because they are Jew haters and there will be those that are pro Israel because they are Arab or Muslim haters.
To use it as a blanket smear of those that disagree with you and can argue their points is disingenuous but to be expected for the reason given in the first sentence
Thanks for nothing.
Irrelevant.
I am just finding my feet here and getting to know the members. I have encountered you before elsewhere and have noticed the same trait, you cannot seem to argue your points so it doesn't come as a surprise that you resort to evidence free blanket smears of those that hold a different view than yourself
]
I guess you missed the part where Syria initiated an attack and lost.
It was relevant to the illegality of the settlements in the Golan so I didn't " miss " anything.
Moshe Dayan conceded years later that around 80% of the border skirmishes that led up to the 1967 war were initiated by Israel
The Syrian, and Jordanian, responses were because they were signed up to a mutual defence pact with Egypt . Israel attacked Egypt first and so triggered the pact
Link to that Moshe Dayan quote?
I always heard that the Syrians used to shoot down on Israeli kibbutzim (farms). Since the Syrians held the high ground, that seems to make the most sense.
These are no more legally binding than the UN Declaration of Human Rights which IRONICALLY has a "rights kill switch" embedded in it for the benefit of those many DICTATORSHIPS that SIT in the UNGA or UNSC.... Besides, many of those resolutions applied to JORDAN as well in that Israel had to negotiate with Jordan (and Egypt) for land acquired from the 1967 war..
UNSC resolutions are legally binding and if it were not for the US veto standing in the way of the international consensus there would most likely have been a resolution of the conflict already.
I have stated that there are definitely frustrating weaknesses/contradictions with the UN , namely the UNSC veto power of the big 5, which are incidentally most of the biggest arms dealer nations around, how's that for a conflict of interests ? But support for international laws that are there to aim to keep the peace should be supported by all decent people of the world imo
The UN Charter doesn't start off with " we the governments of the world " , it starts off with " we the peoples of the world " and we , each of us in our own nations , need to stop our governments from flouting international laws and conventions.
Progress is slow with obvious periods of regression but people need to stick with it imo
The I/P discussions follow a circular direction, always the same old, same old. Personal bias. And no interest in facts, historical and otherwise.
Why let The Trojan Horse in to your gates, when the gates are already locked?It is a terrible idea for Israel. They would just end up being the next Lebanon.
Lebanon was formed as the Christian country of the Middle east, and despite the precautions set into place to try to protect that, Muslims simply bred themselves into a position of dominance and the country has suffered. Beirut was called the Paris of the middle east when I was young, but now it is just another Islamic shit hole.
Jewish Israelis are fooling themselves if they don't understand the same thing will happen to them as happened to the Lebanese Christians. Within a generation or two they would be a persecuted minority.
Yep.Why let The Trojan Horse in to your gates, when the gates are already locked?It is a terrible idea for Israel. They would just end up being the next Lebanon.
Lebanon was formed as the Christian country of the Middle east, and despite the precautions set into place to try to protect that, Muslims simply bred themselves into a position of dominance and the country has suffered. Beirut was called the Paris of the middle east when I was young, but now it is just another Islamic shit hole.
Jewish Israelis are fooling themselves if they don't understand the same thing will happen to them as happened to the Lebanese Christians. Within a generation or two they would be a persecuted minority.
