"Palestinian" Authority to Collapse

[The Rabbi]

Wow that is rather harsh don't you think?

No, that's accurate. Go find yourself a non-Palestinian Arab and make friends and ask him about the Palestinians. I've talked to Hashemites, I've talked to Yemenites--everyone says the same. Why do you think Arafat ended up in Tripoli after he got expelled from Lebanon? No one in the ME wanted him.

All more reason the Palestinans need their own State, just like the Jews do! I am sure you are well aware of Black September! Where the Jordanians mascrued btween 10-20K Palestinians in 1 month and almost lead to war btw Jordan and Syria.

They have their own state. It's called "Jordan." THey just need to convince the Jordanians of this.
But look how they handled their one chance at it, electing a terrorist organization that has done nothing but commit terrorist acts. Why do you think next time it will be different?

 

[mystic]

You might have to ask Nathanial Hawthorne that question.

Next time I have a seance, I just might.

 

[Shogun]

No, that's accurate. Go find yourself a non-Palestinian Arab and make friends and ask him about the Palestinians. I've talked to Hashemites, I've talked to Yemenites--everyone says the same. Why do you think Arafat ended up in Tripoli after he got expelled from Lebanon? No one in the ME wanted him.

All more reason the Palestinans need their own State, just like the Jews do! I am sure you are well aware of Black September! Where the Jordanians mascrued btween 10-20K Palestinians in 1 month and almost lead to war btw Jordan and Syria.

They have their own state. It's called "Jordan." THey just need to convince the Jordanians of this.
But look how they handled their one chance at it, electing a terrorist organization that has done nothing but commit terrorist acts. Why do you think next time it will be different?

In that case then you, too, have a homeland to go back to. Go on. Git. GTFO of my WHITE America, jew.


oh wait.. THAT is considered racist... you know.. when a non-jew holds a zionist standard for America.

 

[GHook93]

No, that's accurate. Go find yourself a non-Palestinian Arab and make friends and ask him about the Palestinians. I've talked to Hashemites, I've talked to Yemenites--everyone says the same. Why do you think Arafat ended up in Tripoli after he got expelled from Lebanon? No one in the ME wanted him.

All more reason the Palestinans need their own State, just like the Jews do! I am sure you are well aware of Black September! Where the Jordanians mascrued btween 10-20K Palestinians in 1 month and almost lead to war btw Jordan and Syria.

They have their own state. It's called "Jordan." THey just need to convince the Jordanians of this.
But look how they handled their one chance at it, electing a terrorist organization that has done nothing but commit terrorist acts. Why do you think next time it will be different?

The time for Jordan being Palestine and Israel including the WB and Gaza have gone to the pages of history! Best you can hope for is Israel including Israel (possible all of Jerusalem and Palestine including the WB and Gaza!

 

[The Rabbi]

You havent answered why Hamas would want to negotiate, given the history.

 

[Shogun]

You havent answered why Hamas would want to negotiate, given the history.

probably for the same reason blacks stopped rioting and setting fires after their ethnicity was validated and their equality preserved..

..oh wait.. duh.. you were not talking about the same type of ethnic equality in israel that you enjoy here. MY BAD.

 

[Kalam]

What you are asserting is your hatred of Israel and your utter lack of concern for the welfare of the Palestinian people, which seems to be a common attitude among Arabs. Since 1947, people pretending to defend the best interests of the Palestinians

If you feel that you can prove that my support for the Palestinian people isn't genuine, please do so.

have prevented them from having a state by assuming uncompromising positions as you are doing. Land rights will be decided in negotiations so refusing to negotiate until land rights are defined precludes the possibility of a Palestinian state being formed on any land.

You are asking that negotiations begin with no guarantee that the future state will be viable. That's unreasonable, don't you think?

 

[The Rabbi]

What you are asserting is your hatred of Israel and your utter lack of concern for the welfare of the Palestinian people, which seems to be a common attitude among Arabs. Since 1947, people pretending to defend the best interests of the Palestinians

If you feel that you can prove that my support for the Palestinian people isn't genuine, please do so.

have prevented them from having a state by assuming uncompromising positions as you are doing. Land rights will be decided in negotiations so refusing to negotiate until land rights are defined precludes the possibility of a Palestinian state being formed on any land.

You are asking that negotiations begin with no guarantee that the future state will be viable. That's unreasonable, don't you think?

Given that viability depends on many factors, not all of them in anyone's control, insisting on guaranteed viability is tantamount to refusing to negotiate. Don't you agree?

 

[toomuchtime_]

What you are asserting is your hatred of Israel and your utter lack of concern for the welfare of the Palestinian people, which seems to be a common attitude among Arabs. Since 1947, people pretending to defend the best interests of the Palestinians

If you feel that you can prove that my support for the Palestinian people isn't genuine, please do so.

have prevented them from having a state by assuming uncompromising positions as you are doing. Land rights will be decided in negotiations so refusing to negotiate until land rights are defined precludes the possibility of a Palestinian state being formed on any land.

You are asking that negotiations begin with no guarantee that the future state will be viable. That's unreasonable, don't you think?

It would be unreasonable to do it any other way. If you know the outcome, negotiations are unnecessary. In any case, a Palestinian state without Jerusalem would be viable. A Palestinian state without the 5% or 6% of the WB the major settlements are on would be viable. If a Palestinian state in Gaza and the WB that was separated by Israel is viable, then a Palestinian state in which a large Israeli settlement not contiguous with pre 1967 Israel is viable. In other words, if the Palestinians and other Arabs who prattle on about a viable Palestinian state really wanted to see one living in peace next to the Jewish state of Israel, it would have happened in 2000, but for the Palestinians and most other Arabs the issue is not the creation of a Palestinian state next to Israel, it is about a Palestinian state that includes Israel, and that's why the Arab leaders continue to make demands they know Israel will never agree to.

As for your lack of concern for the welfare of the Palestinian people, you demonstrate it in every post. For example, the fact that most of the civilian deaths in Gaza could have been prevented if Hamas had attempted to implement an evacuation plan meant nothing to you. From your posts on the subject, it is clear those civilian deaths had meaning for you only to the extent they could be used to criticize Israel. In an earlier post in this thread, you advocated continued Palestinian attacks on WB Israeli civilians, knowing full well such attacks would result in Palestinian deaths as well as Israeli deaths and that they would mean more checkpoints and arrests and joblessness and poverty for the Palestinians and that they would be too puny, in any case, to change the course of events. Apparently your satisfaction in contemplating dead Israeli civilians is undiminished by the knowledge that what you advocate will bring more suffering and death to Palestinians as well. Clearly, what concerns you here is not the welfare of the Palestinians but only your hatred of Israel.

 

[Kalam]

What you are asserting is your hatred of Israel and your utter lack of concern for the welfare of the Palestinian people, which seems to be a common attitude among Arabs. Since 1947, people pretending to defend the best interests of the Palestinians

If you feel that you can prove that my support for the Palestinian people isn't genuine, please do so.

have prevented them from having a state by assuming uncompromising positions as you are doing. Land rights will be decided in negotiations so refusing to negotiate until land rights are defined precludes the possibility of a Palestinian state being formed on any land.

You are asking that negotiations begin with no guarantee that the future state will be viable. That's unreasonable, don't you think?

Given that viability depends on many factors, not all of them in anyone's control, insisting on guaranteed viability is tantamount to refusing to negotiate. Don't you agree?

No.

 

[Kalam]

It would be unreasonable to do it any other way. If you know the outcome, negotiations are unnecessary. In any case, a Palestinian state without Jerusalem would be viable. A Palestinian state without the 5% or 6% of the WB the major settlements are on would be viable. If a Palestinian state in Gaza and the WB that was separated by Israel is viable,

It wouldn't be.

As for your lack of concern for the welfare of the Palestinian people, you demonstrate it in every post. For example, the fact that most of the civilian deaths in Gaza could have been prevented if Hamas had attempted to implement an evacuation plan meant nothing to you.

Gosh, I'm sure circumventing the Israeli-Egyptian blockade on such a large scale would have been simple for them, eh? Nevermind that Israel used cluster munitions on densely populated civilian areas, it's the Palestinians' fault for being unable to get around the blockade that Israel imposed on them.

From your posts on the subject, it is clear those civilian deaths had meaning for you only to the extent they could be used to criticize Israel.

Fuck you. If you honestly believe that the death of my brothers and sisters means nothing to me unless I can use it in political arguments, there is no point in continuing this discussion.

In an earlier post in this thread, you advocated continued Palestinian attacks on WB Israeli civilians,

I have never advocated attacks on civilians. Put up or shut up, asshat.

 

[GHook93]

It wouldn't be.

And the circus goes round and round! Look Kalam the Jews are not the only ones that need to compromise, your Arabs brother and sisters need to also! Heck up to this point the Jews are the only ones that have compromised at all!

Gosh, I'm sure circumventing the Israeli-Egyptian blockade on such a large scale would have been simple for them, eh?

Yep! You ignore the reason for it!

Nevermind that Israel used cluster munitions on densely populated civilian areas, it's the Palestinians' fault for being unable to get around the blockade that Israel imposed on them.

WOW you like to play dumb sometimes! Who brought the fight to these civilian areas? Hint it wasn't the Jews!

Fuck you. If you honestly believe that the death of my brothers and sisters means nothing to me unless I can use it in political arguments, there is no point in continuing this discussion.

Just like your brother Hasan who killed Americans, which you cll yourself one of! I find it disturbing and eye-opening that you remain quiet on that subject other than to say Hasan wasn't motived by Islam (a twisted version of it), even though he obviously was!

I have never advocated attacks on civilians. Put up or shut up, asshat.

That is because you consider all Jews, in any parts of the world, legit military targets!

 

[toomuchtime_]

It would be unreasonable to do it any other way. If you know the outcome, negotiations are unnecessary. In any case, a Palestinian state without Jerusalem would be viable. A Palestinian state without the 5% or 6% of the WB the major settlements are on would be viable. If a Palestinian state in Gaza and the WB that was separated by Israel is viable,

It wouldn't be.

As for your lack of concern for the welfare of the Palestinian people, you demonstrate it in every post. For example, the fact that most of the civilian deaths in Gaza could have been prevented if Hamas had attempted to implement an evacuation plan meant nothing to you.

Gosh, I'm sure circumventing the Israeli-Egyptian blockade on such a large scale would have been simple for them, eh? Nevermind that Israel used cluster munitions on densely populated civilian areas, it's the Palestinians' fault for being unable to get around the blockade that Israel imposed on them.

From your posts on the subject, it is clear those civilian deaths had meaning for you only to the extent they could be used to criticize Israel.

Fuck you. If you honestly believe that the death of my brothers and sisters means nothing to me unless I can use it in political arguments, there is no point in continuing this discussion.

In an earlier post in this thread, you advocated continued Palestinian attacks on WB Israeli civilians,

I have never advocated attacks on civilians. Put up or shut up, asshat.

Obviously, a Palestinian state such as I described would be viable, but clearly, a viable Palestinians state that does not include Israel is not what you want, never mind what might best serve the needs of the Palestinian people.

As for your lack of concern for the needless Palestinian deaths caused by Hamas' failure to implement an evacuation plan, if you followed the battle, you know Israel left a large area between Gaza City and the Philadelphi Corridor unoccupied and with direct access to a gate through which humanitarian supplies could be delivered. If Hamas had wanted to save civilian lives, it would not have been difficult to move the people south of the city into this area. Since Hamas had ample warning of the invasion, their failure to try to implement an evacuation was obviously calculated to maximize civilian casualties for propaganda purposes, and your attempt to excuse this action once again demonstrates the fact that the lives of the Palestinians mean nothing to you and their deaths have are important to you only to the extent you are able to use them as a pretext to express your hatred of Israel.

I mistakenly recalled your earlier statement that "Israeli military and government installations will continue to be legitimate targets for attack" as the WB settlements - civilians - are legitimate targets for attacks, but my point remains the same, since these attacks also will result in more dead Palestinians and more security measures such as checkpoints that will limit freedom and subject the people you cynically and disingenuously call your brothers and sisters more poverty and suffering and yet be too puny to produce any changes in Israeli policy, no one who cared at all about the welfare of the Palestinian people would advocate these attacks.

 

[Polk]

Don't apologize to me. Apologize to the Palestinians. Your are stating what the Arab position has been ever since 1947, and that is the reason there is no Palestinian state today, and that's just fine with people who are more interested in hating Israel than in helping the Palestinians.

I don't think it would be appropriate to apologize to Palestinians for defending their right to what little land they have left. Asking that the West Bank and the Gaza strip be formed into a Palestinian state is not asking too much of Israel, particularly since a return to the 1947 borders is what should occur if a two-state solution is to be pursued. Squatters in the West Bank have no right to the land they've stolen, and until the Israeli government moves to dismantle their settlements and ends its oppression of the Palestinian people, Israeli military and government installations will continue to be legitimate targets for attack and the situation will only grow worse. I'm not toeing the Arab line; I'm asserting the rights of the Palestinian people.

What you are asserting is your hatred of Israel and your utter lack of concern for the welfare of the Palestinian people, which seems to be a common attitude among Arabs. Since 1947, people pretending to defend the best interests of the Palestinians have prevented them from having a state by assuming uncompromising positions as you are doing. Land rights will be decided in negotiations so refusing to negotiate until land rights are defined precludes the possibility of a Palestinian state being formed on any land.

Why should the Palestinians take the position of giving in to every Israeli demand as a precondition for negotiation?

 

[Polk]

Sorry. The Israelis are already in the West Bank illegally. The entire WB would need to be part of a Palestinian state; no negotiating. The loons who settled there could either live in the Palestinian state or march straight back to Israel. No more concessions will be made.

I agree with that! The settlers and the settlements do not need to be evacuated, but rather the setters will become Jewish Palestinians and part of the Palestinian state! I see nothing wrong with that!

Just as Palestinian settlers sit in Israel along the border.

HOWEVER, if the Jewish settlers get forced out, so should the Palestinian ones!

Out of curiosity, are the numbers even remotely comparable?

 

[toomuchtime_]

I don't think it would be appropriate to apologize to Palestinians for defending their right to what little land they have left. Asking that the West Bank and the Gaza strip be formed into a Palestinian state is not asking too much of Israel, particularly since a return to the 1947 borders is what should occur if a two-state solution is to be pursued. Squatters in the West Bank have no right to the land they've stolen, and until the Israeli government moves to dismantle their settlements and ends its oppression of the Palestinian people, Israeli military and government installations will continue to be legitimate targets for attack and the situation will only grow worse. I'm not toeing the Arab line; I'm asserting the rights of the Palestinian people.

What you are asserting is your hatred of Israel and your utter lack of concern for the welfare of the Palestinian people, which seems to be a common attitude among Arabs. Since 1947, people pretending to defend the best interests of the Palestinians have prevented them from having a state by assuming uncompromising positions as you are doing. Land rights will be decided in negotiations so refusing to negotiate until land rights are defined precludes the possibility of a Palestinian state being formed on any land.

Why should the Palestinians take the position of giving in to every Israeli demand as a precondition for negotiation?

The only Israeli pre condition for negotiations is that there be no pre conditions for negotiations. Only the Palestinians are setting pre conditions for negotiations, and imo this is more about internal Palestinian politics, Abbas not wanting to appear weak on Israel as compared to Hamas, than about the negotiations themselves.

 

[Polk]

What you are asserting is your hatred of Israel and your utter lack of concern for the welfare of the Palestinian people, which seems to be a common attitude among Arabs. Since 1947, people pretending to defend the best interests of the Palestinians have prevented them from having a state by assuming uncompromising positions as you are doing. Land rights will be decided in negotiations so refusing to negotiate until land rights are defined precludes the possibility of a Palestinian state being formed on any land.

Why should the Palestinians take the position of giving in to every Israeli demand as a precondition for negotiation?

The only Israeli pre condition for negotiations is that there be no pre conditions for negotiations. Only the Palestinians are setting pre conditions for negotiations, and imo this is more about internal Palestinian politics, Abbas not wanting to appear weak on Israel as compared to Hamas, than about the negotiations themselves.

Both sides have preconditions for negotiations. To claim otherwise is just dishonest.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Why should the Palestinians take the position of giving in to every Israeli demand as a precondition for negotiation?

The only Israeli pre condition for negotiations is that there be no pre conditions for negotiations. Only the Palestinians are setting pre conditions for negotiations, and imo this is more about internal Palestinian politics, Abbas not wanting to appear weak on Israel as compared to Hamas, than about the negotiations themselves.

Both sides have preconditions for negotiations. To claim otherwise is just dishonest.

You may assume so, but you would be incorrect. What do you imagine an Israeli pre condition for negotiations is?

 

[GHook93]

Sorry. The Israelis are already in the West Bank illegally. The entire WB would need to be part of a Palestinian state; no negotiating. The loons who settled there could either live in the Palestinian state or march straight back to Israel. No more concessions will be made.

I agree with that! The settlers and the settlements do not need to be evacuated, but rather the setters will become Jewish Palestinians and part of the Palestinian state! I see nothing wrong with that!

Just as Palestinian settlers sit in Israel along the border.

HOWEVER, if the Jewish settlers get forced out, so should the Palestinian ones!

Out of curiosity, are the numbers even remotely comparable?

The Arab triangle, which is located on the border of the West Bank and where no Jews can go, contains more Palestinians, than the large West Bank Jewish settlements. They are very comparable in numbers and geographical size!

 

[Polk]

The only Israeli pre condition for negotiations is that there be no pre conditions for negotiations. Only the Palestinians are setting pre conditions for negotiations, and imo this is more about internal Palestinian politics, Abbas not wanting to appear weak on Israel as compared to Hamas, than about the negotiations themselves.

Both sides have preconditions for negotiations. To claim otherwise is just dishonest.

You may assume so, but you would be incorrect. What do you imagine an Israeli pre condition for negotiations is?

No negotiation over right of return, for starters. I understand why Israel doesn't want to discuss the topic (I wouldn't want to either in their shoes), but without discussing it, there isn't going to be a way to come up an alternative arrangement. Also, that the Israel stance basically involves turning the West Bank into the holes in Swiss cheese, many small and divided units.