Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Your position say's that it was okay for Hitler to annex Poland.Negotiations can't even begin, until Israel ends their aggression against the Palestinian's. The first step is Israel's. They need to end the occupation, the blockade, dismantle those illegal settlements and hawl those psycho-jewish insurgents back to Israel. They also need to get rid of all those checkpoints and roadblocks in the West Bank. Then, and only then, can they negotiate peace that would be beneficial for both sides.There is a third option. If the Palestinian Arabs continue to stonewall negotiations Israel can unilaterally annex those portions of the West Bank it wants to keep and leave it up to the Palestinian Arabs what they want to do with what is left. Proposals along these lines have been coming up over the last few months with the amount of land Israel would keep ranging from Barak's recent suggestion of the major blocs of West Bank Israeli communities as well as all of Jerusalem and land along the border with Jordan to annexing most or all of Area C and making the 50,000 or so Palestinian Arabs there Israeli citizens.
And no, there isn't a "3rd option". Your "option" is illegal. You cannot acquire land by force. And an occupational authority, is only a caretaker, that will never become an owner. Israel has it's land and needs to allow the Palestinian's inherent right for self-determination. And they also need to stop treating the Palestinian's like they're sub-human.
Negotiations can begin at any time both sides decide it is better to talk about differences than fight about them or pout and whine about them. Israel is ready to talk about differences but the West Bank Palestinian Arab government prefers to pout and whine about them and the Gaza government prefers to (mostly talk) about fighting.
There would be nothing illegal about Israel annexing parts of the West Bank. What international law theres is comes from treaties and conventions concerning conflicts among states and these do not apply to the West Bank. Technically, the West Bank is an unincorporated remnant of the former League of Nations Protectorate and while various nations, groups and individuals may have opinions and preferences about what should be done with it, none of these have the force of law.
The disposition of the West Bank is a decision to be made by Israel alone according to what it believes is in its own best national interests. These interests, of course, include how it deals with the Palestinian Arab population in the West Bank, its relations with its neighbors, its allies and with other nations it has relations with, and while inputs from all these sources and others may be important, no other nation, organization or individual has a legal or even legitimate right to try to force an outcome.
Actually, you got that backwards.The first step would be for Israel to turn off the cameras and do what any other country would do to assure the safety of its citizens.
The first step would be for Israel to turn off the cameras and do what any other country would do to assure the safety of its citizens.
Most people would be more coy when calling for mass extermination.
Who's calling for anything like that?
If Mexico contained a bunch of people who believed the US stole their land, and lobbed rockets into Texas and blew up buses and pizza shops in NY, what do you think the reaction would be? Negotiate a 2 state solution or clean the bastards out?
Actually, you got that backwards.The first step would be for Israel to turn off the cameras and do what any other country would do to assure the safety of its citizens.
A population under occupation, is the victim.
Actually, you got that backwards.The first step would be for Israel to turn off the cameras and do what any other country would do to assure the safety of its citizens.
A population under occupation, is the victim.
Actually, you got that backwards.The first step would be for Israel to turn off the cameras and do what any other country would do to assure the safety of its citizens.
A population under occupation, is the victim.
Not really. Innocent civilians getting blown up are victims.
Actually, you got that backwards.The first step would be for Israel to turn off the cameras and do what any other country would do to assure the safety of its citizens.
A population under occupation, is the victim.
Not really. Innocent civilians getting blown up are victims.
Actually, you got that backwards.
A population under occupation, is the victim.
Not really. Innocent civilians getting blown up are victims.
They are, as are the innocent Palestinians who are having their land stolen by settlers.
It isn't their land. And israel has given back a good part of the west bank and gaza. Remind me what that's gotten them. Oh yeah, demands for giving back more.
One side controls almost every facet of daily life for the other, yet neither one is a victim?Neither side is really a "victim" here.
One side controls almost every facet of daily life for the other, yet neither one is a victim?Neither side is really a "victim" here.
When Palestinian farmers and fishermen get hit by Israeli sniper fire, they're not victims? They just picked the wrong day to farm and fish?
When Hamas puts in street lights along a Gaza road and the IDF comes in a little later and shoots out all the lamps at the top, there's no victim there? They should've known, street improvements are considered a terrorist act and a threat to Israel's national security?
Saying neither side is a victim, is like saying the Holocaust wasn't that big of a deal.
Negotiations can't even begin, until Israel ends their aggression against the Palestinian's. The first step is Israel's. They need to end the occupation, the blockade, dismantle those illegal settlements and hawl those psycho-jewish insurgents back to Israel. They also need to get rid of all those checkpoints and roadblocks in the West Bank. Then, and only then, can they negotiate peace that would be beneficial for both sides.There is a third option. If the Palestinian Arabs continue to stonewall negotiations Israel can unilaterally annex those portions of the West Bank it wants to keep and leave it up to the Palestinian Arabs what they want to do with what is left. Proposals along these lines have been coming up over the last few months with the amount of land Israel would keep ranging from Barak's recent suggestion of the major blocs of West Bank Israeli communities as well as all of Jerusalem and land along the border with Jordan to annexing most or all of Area C and making the 50,000 or so Palestinian Arabs there Israeli citizens.
.
the first step is palestinians giving up terrorNegotiations can't even begin, until Israel ends their aggression against the Palestinian's. The first step is Israel's. They need to end the occupation, the blockade, dismantle those illegal settlements and hawl those psycho-jewish insurgents back to Israel. They also need to get rid of all those checkpoints and roadblocks in the West Bank. Then, and only then, can they negotiate peace that would be beneficial for both sides.
And no, there isn't a "3rd option". Your "option" is illegal. You cannot acquire land by force. And an occupational authority, is only a caretaker, that will never become an owner. Israel has it's land and needs to allow the Palestinian's inherent right for self-determination. And they also need to stop treating the Palestinian's like they're sub-human.
the first step is that both sides agree to a cease fire and for israel to put in end to settlement building and to begin dismantling at least the settlements that they have deemed illegal
Resisting an occupation is not terror, it's self defense.the first step is palestinians giving up terror
One side controls almost every facet of daily life for the other, yet neither one is a victim?Neither side is really a "victim" here.
When Palestinian farmers and fishermen get hit by Israeli sniper fire, they're not victims? They just picked the wrong day to farm and fish?
When Hamas puts in street lights along a Gaza road and the IDF comes in a little later and shoots out all the lamps at the top, there's no victim there? They should've known, street improvements are considered a terrorist act and a threat to Israel's national security?
Saying neither side is a victim, is like saying the Holocaust wasn't that big of a deal.
Those acts have victims, but so do the acts of Palestinians who blow up buses and pizzerias. Neither side though, as a whole, is a victim. As you've noted, the Israelis inflict a large amount of cruelty on the Palestinians. At the same time, many Palestinians would commit the same sorts of acts if they had the chance, their culture glorifies acts of terrorism, and one of their largest political movement sees the elimination of Israel as it's highest goal.
Resisting an occupation is not terror, it's self defense.the first step is palestinians giving up terror
the first step is palestinians giving up terror
the first step is that both sides agree to a cease fire and for israel to put in end to settlement building and to begin dismantling at least the settlements that they have deemed illegal
That's fair as long as the Palestinians agree to stop rocket missiles and terror attacks against civilians, as well.
They already did that a couple of years ago."the first step is that both sides agree to a cease fire."
i think that is plain and needs no elaboration.
