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.
No, full sovereignty is not the only acceptable meaning of self-determination and you can find dozens of appropriate examples.
And yes, I can accept something less for Arab Palestine. Seriously.
I don't see any reason why Israel should make any dramatic decision today.Which means that real peace is impossible.
Well. I believe real peace is fundamentally impossible in the foreseeable future. But knowing that, what do we DO about it?
Today there is a peace agreement between Israel and Palestinians and there is a Palestinian government, which incites, glorifies and supports terrorists. That's why. Because Palestinian entity was created and exists with the only one goal: to destroy the Jewish state. That's why. Because the Palestinians hate Israel and Jews and deny their rights to the land. That's why.Immediately after its creation? May be. But destruction is not necessary a one-time action. Creation of a terrorist state on absolutely defenseless borders of a tiny state is tantamount to suicide. It will never happen.
Why do you assume terrorist state? There will be terrorist elements -- but there will also be a peace treaty (which implies that there is someone, or some government to treat with).
There are no other borders in this case. Feel free to ask any military or security expert.Why do you assume defenseless borders? This thought experiment in no way requires defenseless borders.
Tanks? Planes? Missiles? Great things - against a classical army. No value against mass terror. You can use Winchester the model 1873 to terrorize a whole city.Suicide? Do you really think that the Arab Palestinian state would be able to destroy Israel? We are a hundred years ahead of them in terms of state development. Where will they get the military capacity to destroy Israel?
There are different forms of self-determination and all of them are "true". Apparently your opinion didn't convince Scots.No, full sovereignty is not the only acceptable meaning of self-determination and you can find dozens of appropriate examples.
And yes, I can accept something less for Arab Palestine. Seriously.
I disagree. There can be no true self-determination without full sovereignty. Everything else is just feeding people bullshit.
There are no general objective criterias. Almost every case is unique. Generally the right to full self-determination conflicts with the right of a country to sovereignty and integrity. But I don't know even one case when a people demand their own state and at the same time deny the right of the rest of population to the land. In my opinion, the Palestinian Arabs don't deserve even what they already have. And they have much more than Basks, Kurds or Chechens have.But, going along with your premise.....how would you decide, objectively, that a peoples is "deserving" of full self-determination or only of partial self-determination? What would be your criteria?
Anti-Semitism Always Leaves a Yellow StainLike Gypo's you wandered from town to town throughout the known world but incidentally it was the Islamic nations that gave you safety and scantury...THE CHRISTIANS TRIED TO ELIMINATE YOUAren't the converts from Europe?EVER HEARD OF CAIN AND ABLE.....anyway you fool,WHO ARE YOU TO SAY ANYTHING,CONSIDERING YOU ARE A CONVERT GYPO FROM ASIA,YOU ARE A FAKE<A SYNTHETIC WHO CALLS HERSELF A JEW>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<YOU HAVE NO AUTHORITY TO SPEAK ON THESE MATTERS,YOU SLOTH ON THE MORAL LOW GROUND,YOU NON SEMITIC.....ANTI-SEMITEYou do not miss one opportunity to falsify history.AND ZIONISTS COLLABORATED WITH HITLER,SENDING DECENT INNOCENT JEWS TO THEIR DEATHS...YOU AHOLENo: I correct you. There was Anti Hate long before 1948. Hebron is only ONE small example! They were from Central Asia? Palestinians do not have the right to be on JEWISH LAND !!!!
Annual 4 Chapter 17 - Simon Wiesenthal Center Multimedia Learning Center
And NO. For the thousandth time......Jews and Arabs are not cousins.
Arabs do not get to suddenly become cousins to the Jewish people.
Islam and this idea of being cousins only came about when Islam was founded in order to borrow Abraham as their Patriarch.
It took 2400 years for any Arab to assume a relation to Abraham and the Jewish People?
What were they doing during all of those 2400 years?
Just when these did these Arab cousins come to help their relatives during any of those 2400 years, or get in touch at all with them....even to say " Hi, we are cousins.....how are you?"
You falsify Jewish history and who the Jewish people are as much as the "cousins" of the Jews do.
ROTFLOL
There is no Peace Treaty between Israel and the Palestinians. You may be confusing the Oslo Accords, which created the PA, with an actual Peace Treaty like the ones Israel has with Egypt and Jordan.Today there is a peace agreement between Israel and Palestinians and there is a Palestinian government, which incites, glorifies and supports terrorists. That's why. Because Palestinian entity was created and exists with the only one goal: to destroy the Jewish state. That's why. Because the Palestinians hate Israel and Jews and deny their rights to the land. That's why.Immediately after its creation? May be. But destruction is not necessary a one-time action. Creation of a terrorist state on absolutely defenseless borders of a tiny state is tantamount to suicide. It will never happen.
Why do you assume terrorist state? There will be terrorist elements -- but there will also be a peace treaty (which implies that there is someone, or some government to treat with).
There are no other borders in this case. Feel free to ask any military or security expert.Why do you assume defenseless borders? This thought experiment in no way requires defenseless borders.
Tanks? Planes? Missiles? Great things - against a classical army. No value against mass terror. You can use Winchester the model 1873 to terrorize a whole city.Suicide? Do you really think that the Arab Palestinian state would be able to destroy Israel? We are a hundred years ahead of them in terms of state development. Where will they get the military capacity to destroy Israel?
It's really weird question. Lebanon is considered as a serious threat to Israel and you advice to create the second one right in the center of the country?
The Oslo Accords was not a peace treaty, but it included a set of agreements in which Palestinians undertook to stop any violence against Israel.There is no Peace Treaty between Israel and the Palestinians. You may be confusing the Oslo Accords, which created the PA, with an actual Peace Treaty like the ones Israel has with Egypt and Jordan.Today there is a peace agreement between Israel and Palestinians and there is a Palestinian government, which incites, glorifies and supports terrorists. That's why. Because Palestinian entity was created and exists with the only one goal: to destroy the Jewish state. That's why. Because the Palestinians hate Israel and Jews and deny their rights to the land. That's why.Immediately after its creation? May be. But destruction is not necessary a one-time action. Creation of a terrorist state on absolutely defenseless borders of a tiny state is tantamount to suicide. It will never happen.
Why do you assume terrorist state? There will be terrorist elements -- but there will also be a peace treaty (which implies that there is someone, or some government to treat with).
There are no other borders in this case. Feel free to ask any military or security expert.Why do you assume defenseless borders? This thought experiment in no way requires defenseless borders.
Tanks? Planes? Missiles? Great things - against a classical army. No value against mass terror. You can use Winchester the model 1873 to terrorize a whole city.Suicide? Do you really think that the Arab Palestinian state would be able to destroy Israel? We are a hundred years ahead of them in terms of state development. Where will they get the military capacity to destroy Israel?
It's really weird question. Lebanon is considered as a serious threat to Israel and you advice to create the second one right in the center of the country?
Perhaps you misspoke and meant that there is NO peace agreement between them?
Correct, thank you.The Oslo Accords was not a peace treaty, but it included a set of agreements in which Palestinians undertook to stop any violence against Israel.There is no Peace Treaty between Israel and the Palestinians. You may be confusing the Oslo Accords, which created the PA, with an actual Peace Treaty like the ones Israel has with Egypt and Jordan.Today there is a peace agreement between Israel and Palestinians and there is a Palestinian government, which incites, glorifies and supports terrorists. That's why. Because Palestinian entity was created and exists with the only one goal: to destroy the Jewish state. That's why. Because the Palestinians hate Israel and Jews and deny their rights to the land. That's why.Immediately after its creation? May be. But destruction is not necessary a one-time action. Creation of a terrorist state on absolutely defenseless borders of a tiny state is tantamount to suicide. It will never happen.
Why do you assume terrorist state? There will be terrorist elements -- but there will also be a peace treaty (which implies that there is someone, or some government to treat with).
There are no other borders in this case. Feel free to ask any military or security expert.Why do you assume defenseless borders? This thought experiment in no way requires defenseless borders.
Tanks? Planes? Missiles? Great things - against a classical army. No value against mass terror. You can use Winchester the model 1873 to terrorize a whole city.Suicide? Do you really think that the Arab Palestinian state would be able to destroy Israel? We are a hundred years ahead of them in terms of state development. Where will they get the military capacity to destroy Israel?
It's really weird question. Lebanon is considered as a serious threat to Israel and you advice to create the second one right in the center of the country?
Perhaps you misspoke and meant that there is NO peace agreement between them?
We agree on all those points. That is why I say there is no hope for peace in the near future. Exactly because of these things. But the hope in a two state solution is that not all Arab Palestinians feel this way. And a new and radically different leader may begin the process of change.Today there is a peace agreement between Israel and Palestinians and there is a Palestinian government, which incites, glorifies and supports terrorists. That's why. Because Palestinian entity was created and exists with the only one goal: to destroy the Jewish state. That's why. Because the Palestinians hate Israel and Jews and deny their rights to the land. That's why.
Are you claiming it is impossible to create a State of Israel with defensible borders? Please elaborate.There are no other borders in this case. Feel free to ask any military or security expert.
Which is exactly why having a hostile population in your midst will never accomplish anything positive.Tanks? Planes? Missiles? Great things - against a classical army. No value against mass terror.
Zion and Zionists seem to be doing just fine, have you checked how the Palestinians are the other Muslim shitholes are doing?Zionists weren't too smart but as I keep telling you Rouds...You reap what you sow...so stop Whinging...steveThat is three decades old news. Israel preferred Hamas over Arafat, now, Hamas is behaving far worse than Arafat and his goons did.Haha, funny. Israel created Hamas to get Egypt out.The Israelis will eventually annex most of the West Bank and let the Jordanians handle the rest, while Egypt and Israel can invade Gaza, then Egypt will reoccupy Gaza, overthrow Hamas, and impose an Egyptian run govt. (with Israel giving financial concessions to Egypt for it)This is an excellent article on israellycool. I think this is accurate.
The reasons (paraphrased):
1. Security. There is no safety in incorporating hostile populations into a single State.
2. Exposing the Arab narrative. An Arab Palestinian State should get the world off Israel's back. If they continue to try to disrupt or eliminate the State of Israel, their intent will be revealed for what it is. (Which should have been obvious with Gaza, but the world seems to have missed the message).
3. Resistance against annihilation. Two states, theoretically at least, will remove any legitimate reason for destruction of Israel (not that the destruction of a sovereign nation is in any way legitimate -- again the world seems to have missed the message.)
4. Right to self-determination. The entire point of the State of Israel was to ensure Jewish self-preservation and self-government. A one state solution denies this. (It also denies self-determination for the Arab Palestinians).
5. Prevention of collective punishment. A one state solution may have elements of collective punishment due to the incorporation of a hostile population -- either a demand for loyalty, a removal of anyone even remotely related to terrorism or the establishment of permanent residency for some people based on their culture.
6. Saving the lives of soldiers. Most terror attacks occur where soldiers are protecting Jewish people in disputed areas. A two state solution should end this.
7. We need a divorce. Arab and Jewish cultures are fundamentally incompatible (at least at this point in time).
Thoughts?
"Israel Should Annex The West Bank and The Gaza Strip"
So says Moshe Feiglin is chairman of Israel’s Zehut Party and a former Likud Knesset Member.
Probably would be a whole lot better than the phony Two-State Plan that will go nowhere.
As for the Palestinians, Feiglin’s plan would grant them three options:
Palestinians can remain as permanent residents of Israel “and not be afraid” of PA reprisal. The Palestinians would need to declare that they are loyal to the Jewish state before becoming permanent residents. They will be fully protected by the Israel Defense Forces and Israeli police.
Offer Palestinians wishing to leave a generous emigration package that would include the purchase of their homes, money to start a new life, and assistance with expediting the immigration process to new countries.
Palestinians willing to serve in the Israeli military, pass Hebrew language and Israeli history proficiency tests and pledge their loyalty would eventually be granted full Israeli citizenship.
It appears they would be a whole lot better as a part of Israel than they are now.
More of this @ Moshe Feiglin: Time for Israel to Annex West Bank, Gaza Strip
Case closed.
Do you want any cheese with your whing?IT IS WHINGING.....ACTUALLYIndeed, stop whining, steve.so stop Whinging...steveThat is three decades old news. Israel preferred Hamas over Arafat, now, Hamas is behaving far worse than Arafat and his goons did.Haha, funny. Israel created Hamas to get Egypt out.The Israelis will eventually annex most of the West Bank and let the Jordanians handle the rest, while Egypt and Israel can invade Gaza, then Egypt will reoccupy Gaza, overthrow Hamas, and impose an Egyptian run govt. (with Israel giving financial concessions to Egypt for it)
Case closed.
It is very difficult until you understand how small Israel is and that Jews and Arabs actually live together on the same land. Let's consider this analogy:We agree on all those points. That is why I say there is no hope for peace in the near future. Exactly because of these things. But the hope in a two state solution is that not all Arab Palestinians feel this way. And a new and radically different leader may begin the process of change.Today there is a peace agreement between Israel and Palestinians and there is a Palestinian government, which incites, glorifies and supports terrorists. That's why. Because Palestinian entity was created and exists with the only one goal: to destroy the Jewish state. That's why. Because the Palestinians hate Israel and Jews and deny their rights to the land. That's why.
Are you claiming it is impossible to create a State of Israel with defensible borders? Please elaborate.There are no other borders in this case. Feel free to ask any military or security expert.
Having a controlled hostile population is much more secure than letting them create a hostile state.Which is exactly why having a hostile population in your midst will never accomplish anything positive.
Who said that most Israelis, or at least Israeli Jews, support two state solution? And what means "two state solution"? "International community" considers "two state solution" as pre-1967 borders and a fully independent Palestinian state. Yes, many Israelis, actually there is a consensus, support separation from Palestinians but not in form of fully independent Palestinian state and not giving them everything they want, including Jerusalem. Initially it was "two state for two peoples" formula, which has different meaning. The Palestinians deny such solution. They want a national state for Palestinians but deny the right of Jews to have their national state.The short version of why most Israelis support a two state solution is that peace depends on a change in Arab Palestinian thinking. Changes in thinking like the one required are monstrously difficult to achieve. We haven't yet hit on the right combination of carrots and sticks. (Clearly "land for peace" is not it). But a peace treaty is a recognition that the change in thinking has occurred, or at least the process has begun. We can't just take that off the table. If we took that option off the table then where is the hope for Arab Palestinians NOT to continue to be hostile?
It is very difficult until you understand how small Israel is and that Jews and Arabs actually live together on the same land. Let's consider this analogy:We agree on all those points. That is why I say there is no hope for peace in the near future. Exactly because of these things. But the hope in a two state solution is that not all Arab Palestinians feel this way. And a new and radically different leader may begin the process of change.Today there is a peace agreement between Israel and Palestinians and there is a Palestinian government, which incites, glorifies and supports terrorists. That's why. Because Palestinian entity was created and exists with the only one goal: to destroy the Jewish state. That's why. Because the Palestinians hate Israel and Jews and deny their rights to the land. That's why.
Are you claiming it is impossible to create a State of Israel with defensible borders? Please elaborate.There are no other borders in this case. Feel free to ask any military or security expert.
Let's assume that New-York city is an independent state. And in some districts of this state Muslim extremists, ISIS, want to create their independent state ISIS-city. Now, the citizens of New-York city ask: what about our security? And you explain them: don't worry. They have only rifles, machine guns, bombs and other primitive military equipment. And you have modern planes, tanks and missiles. The security problem is solved.
Is it?
Having a controlled hostile population is much more secure than letting them create a hostile state.Which is exactly why having a hostile population in your midst will never accomplish anything positive.
Who said that most Israelis, or at least Israeli Jews, support two state solution? And what means "two state solution"? "International community" considers "two state solution" as pre-1967 borders and a fully independent Palestinian state. Yes, many Israelis, actually there is a consensus, support separation from Palestinians but not in form of fully independent Palestinian state and not giving them everything they want, including Jerusalem. Initially it was "two state for two peoples" formula, which has different meaning. The Palestinians deny such solution. They want a national state for Palestinians but deny the right of Jews to have their national state.The short version of why most Israelis support a two state solution is that peace depends on a change in Arab Palestinian thinking. Changes in thinking like the one required are monstrously difficult to achieve. We haven't yet hit on the right combination of carrots and sticks. (Clearly "land for peace" is not it). But a peace treaty is a recognition that the change in thinking has occurred, or at least the process has begun. We can't just take that off the table. If we took that option off the table then where is the hope for Arab Palestinians NOT to continue to be hostile?
Change in Arab Palestinian thinking? If they change their thinking they will stop being Palestinians. Can you imagine Muslims change their thinking regarding Islam?
Palestinian violence is a form of blackmail and shouldn't impact decisions of Israel. If Palestinians want peace, they should stop violence.
