Be clear

[Phoenall]

Actually I'm more aligning to a "three(or two and a half)" states solution.

I don't think a half state is doable - it isn't working now is it? Are you thinking states of Gaza and Israel and WB half state?

It's little bit more complex than that, but the basics of the land are WB along with the Palestinians to be fully recognized part of Israel, Gaza a state of Palestine along with parts of the Negev(Kerem Shalom areas) - Terror linked Palestinians can only resident in Palestine or either surrender and stand for trial, while the rest would be granted with Israel ID and resettling support from Israel, those unwilling to accept would simply be deported to demilitarized Gaza, this is probably the only thing that can ever work out and be accepted for both parties but not in the current state and not with the current diplomatic chao, its Israel's responsibility to ensure the Palestinians would have their opinion in it rather than Fatah/Hamas IMHO.

Interesting. Something to think about as a possible solution.

However: Terror linked Palestinians can only resident in Palestine or either surrender and stand for trial...

Why not a "truth and reconciliation" effort as South Africa went through?

Because unlike SA we are talking about freed murderers that are being motivated by an ideology that causes them to wrap themselves with explosives, run high on drugs and go explode themselves nearby people - there is not much we can do about it and I think it actually makes sense not to want them anywhere nearby.
There is however something we can do for their families if they'd agree to stand for trial, that way it would be possible to filter all the rational minds and give them a fair offer. but those motivated by radical Islam have no place among us since they will never accept to live in peace in the first place.

The ANC was far more brutal and violent inside South Africa than the Palestinians have ever been. They also had an organized guerrilla army operating in neighboring states with the approval of the neighboring states which attacked across the border into South Africa frequently.

And mass murdered tens of thousands of black South Africans. In fact the ANC have murdered more black south Africans that the white killed. Now the blacks want a return to white rule because they were safer.

 

[Daniyel]

It's little bit more complex than that, but the basics of the land are WB along with the Palestinians to be fully recognized part of Israel, Gaza a state of Palestine along with parts of the Negev(Kerem Shalom areas) - Terror linked Palestinians can only resident in Palestine or either surrender and stand for trial, while the rest would be granted with Israel ID and resettling support from Israel, those unwilling to accept would simply be deported to demilitarized Gaza, this is probably the only thing that can ever work out and be accepted for both parties but not in the current state and not with the current diplomatic chao, its Israel's responsibility to ensure the Palestinians would have their opinion in it rather than Fatah/Hamas IMHO.

Interesting. Something to think about as a possible solution.

However: Terror linked Palestinians can only resident in Palestine or either surrender and stand for trial...

Why not a "truth and reconciliation" effort as South Africa went through?

Because unlike SA we are talking about freed murderers that are being motivated by an ideology that causes them to wrap themselves with explosives, run high on drugs and go explode themselves nearby people - there is not much we can do about it and I think it actually makes sense not to want them anywhere nearby.
There is however something we can do for their families if they'd agree to stand for trial, that way it would be possible to filter all the rational minds and give them a fair offer. but those motivated by radical Islam have no place among us since they will never accept to live in peace in the first place.

It really isn't any different than SA. You are talking about terrorists who killed people -ever heard of necklacing? You are also talking about a justice system that is very likely biased on it's application of the law. I don't think you can have a successful out come without a real "truth and reconciliation" where both sides acknowledge and forgive.

At some point you right but again you are unable to see the real issue here.
Making peace with the radical ideologies is simply impossible since its based on never "surrendering" - even at the cost of life and never accepting peace.
Terrorism is a pure act of forcing the ideology on everyone else, not just a grief over certain points and not a strategic decision, land, properties, mistrust, all can be solved, but an ideology of eradicating others belief is not something you would want to live with and neither do we.
In other words radical Islam and Jews simply won't be able to live under the same roof.
I'm not going to elaborate much about Supreme Court but if it matters it could be Arab Muslim judges as well(I think it's actually mandatory state law) - point is very simple - there must be a process of separating the rotten apples out of the rational minds.

I disagree with your assessment here and that is the conflating of the Palestinians with "radical Islam". They have radical factions but so do you - you have the settler movement that espouses violence and has no desire to share land with non-Jews. However there is little evidence to support the idea that many Palestinians support a radical religious ideology any more than most Jews do. Most of the terrorism has been aimed at a fight for land and statehood and recognition. It's not forcing a religious ideology but rather nationalism. How is it any different than the terrorism of Irgun during the formation of Israel? Many of those who were guilty of terrorism aimed at civilian targets went on to become public figures or private citizens with no penalty and no further violence.

Alright so let's get some proportions here.
I Don't know if you heard the news of the last two days, there was a two "lone wolf" terror attacks, in which two were severely injured and one was murdered, one was a twentish boy stabbing a border policeman in the chest, the second incident was a gunfire on two people in the car, so you probably assume there is a tragic difference, what do you think?
There you can learn more about the incidents;
Israeli killed in West Bank terror attack - Israel News Ynetnews
Border Policeman stabbed in Jerusalem shoots Palestinian assailant - Israel News Ynetnews

 

[danielpalos]

I don't think a half state is doable - it isn't working now is it? Are you thinking states of Gaza and Israel and WB half state?

It's little bit more complex than that, but the basics of the land are WB along with the Palestinians to be fully recognized part of Israel, Gaza a state of Palestine along with parts of the Negev(Kerem Shalom areas) - Terror linked Palestinians can only resident in Palestine or either surrender and stand for trial, while the rest would be granted with Israel ID and resettling support from Israel, those unwilling to accept would simply be deported to demilitarized Gaza, this is probably the only thing that can ever work out and be accepted for both parties but not in the current state and not with the current diplomatic chao, its Israel's responsibility to ensure the Palestinians would have their opinion in it rather than Fatah/Hamas IMHO.

Interesting. Something to think about as a possible solution.

However: Terror linked Palestinians can only resident in Palestine or either surrender and stand for trial...

Why not a "truth and reconciliation" effort as South Africa went through?

Because unlike SA we are talking about freed murderers that are being motivated by an ideology that causes them to wrap themselves with explosives, run high on drugs and go explode themselves nearby people - there is not much we can do about it and I think it actually makes sense not to want them anywhere nearby.
There is however something we can do for their families if they'd agree to stand for trial, that way it would be possible to filter all the rational minds and give them a fair offer. but those motivated by radical Islam have no place among us since they will never accept to live in peace in the first place.

It really isn't any different than SA. You are talking about terrorists who killed people -ever heard of necklacing? You are also talking about a justice system that is very likely biased on it's application of the law. I don't think you can have a successful out come without a real "truth and reconciliation" where both sides acknowledge and forgive.

At some point you right but again you are unable to see the real issue here.
Making peace with the radical ideologies is simply impossible since its based on never "surrendering" - even at the cost of life and never accepting peace.
Terrorism is a pure act of forcing the ideology on everyone else, not just a grief over certain points and not a strategic decision, land, properties, mistrust, all can be solved, but an ideology of eradicating others belief is not something you would want to live with and neither do we.
In other words radical Islam and Jews simply won't be able to live under the same roof.
I'm not going to elaborate much about Supreme Court but if it matters it could be Arab Muslim judges as well(I think it's actually mandatory state law) - point is very simple - there must be a process of separating the rotten apples out of the rational minds.

Since when has a State been tried?

 

[Daniyel]

It's little bit more complex than that, but the basics of the land are WB along with the Palestinians to be fully recognized part of Israel, Gaza a state of Palestine along with parts of the Negev(Kerem Shalom areas) - Terror linked Palestinians can only resident in Palestine or either surrender and stand for trial, while the rest would be granted with Israel ID and resettling support from Israel, those unwilling to accept would simply be deported to demilitarized Gaza, this is probably the only thing that can ever work out and be accepted for both parties but not in the current state and not with the current diplomatic chao, its Israel's responsibility to ensure the Palestinians would have their opinion in it rather than Fatah/Hamas IMHO.

Interesting. Something to think about as a possible solution.

However: Terror linked Palestinians can only resident in Palestine or either surrender and stand for trial...

Why not a "truth and reconciliation" effort as South Africa went through?

Because unlike SA we are talking about freed murderers that are being motivated by an ideology that causes them to wrap themselves with explosives, run high on drugs and go explode themselves nearby people - there is not much we can do about it and I think it actually makes sense not to want them anywhere nearby.
There is however something we can do for their families if they'd agree to stand for trial, that way it would be possible to filter all the rational minds and give them a fair offer. but those motivated by radical Islam have no place among us since they will never accept to live in peace in the first place.

It really isn't any different than SA. You are talking about terrorists who killed people -ever heard of necklacing? You are also talking about a justice system that is very likely biased on it's application of the law. I don't think you can have a successful out come without a real "truth and reconciliation" where both sides acknowledge and forgive.

At some point you right but again you are unable to see the real issue here.
Making peace with the radical ideologies is simply impossible since its based on never "surrendering" - even at the cost of life and never accepting peace.
Terrorism is a pure act of forcing the ideology on everyone else, not just a grief over certain points and not a strategic decision, land, properties, mistrust, all can be solved, but an ideology of eradicating others belief is not something you would want to live with and neither do we.
In other words radical Islam and Jews simply won't be able to live under the same roof.
I'm not going to elaborate much about Supreme Court but if it matters it could be Arab Muslim judges as well(I think it's actually mandatory state law) - point is very simple - there must be a process of separating the rotten apples out of the rational minds.

Since when has a State been tried?

Offered and yet denied couple of times in the past, Revealed Olmert apos s 2008 peace offer to Palestinians - Diplomacy Politics - Jerusalem Post this is probably one of the best deals the Palestinians could ever think of-
This clown Olmert... pff..

 

[Coyote]

Interesting. Something to think about as a possible solution.

However: Terror linked Palestinians can only resident in Palestine or either surrender and stand for trial...

Why not a "truth and reconciliation" effort as South Africa went through?

Because unlike SA we are talking about freed murderers that are being motivated by an ideology that causes them to wrap themselves with explosives, run high on drugs and go explode themselves nearby people - there is not much we can do about it and I think it actually makes sense not to want them anywhere nearby.
There is however something we can do for their families if they'd agree to stand for trial, that way it would be possible to filter all the rational minds and give them a fair offer. but those motivated by radical Islam have no place among us since they will never accept to live in peace in the first place.

It really isn't any different than SA. You are talking about terrorists who killed people -ever heard of necklacing? You are also talking about a justice system that is very likely biased on it's application of the law. I don't think you can have a successful out come without a real "truth and reconciliation" where both sides acknowledge and forgive.

At some point you right but again you are unable to see the real issue here.
Making peace with the radical ideologies is simply impossible since its based on never "surrendering" - even at the cost of life and never accepting peace.
Terrorism is a pure act of forcing the ideology on everyone else, not just a grief over certain points and not a strategic decision, land, properties, mistrust, all can be solved, but an ideology of eradicating others belief is not something you would want to live with and neither do we.
In other words radical Islam and Jews simply won't be able to live under the same roof.
I'm not going to elaborate much about Supreme Court but if it matters it could be Arab Muslim judges as well(I think it's actually mandatory state law) - point is very simple - there must be a process of separating the rotten apples out of the rational minds.

I disagree with your assessment here and that is the conflating of the Palestinians with "radical Islam". They have radical factions but so do you - you have the settler movement that espouses violence and has no desire to share land with non-Jews. However there is little evidence to support the idea that many Palestinians support a radical religious ideology any more than most Jews do. Most of the terrorism has been aimed at a fight for land and statehood and recognition. It's not forcing a religious ideology but rather nationalism. How is it any different than the terrorism of Irgun during the formation of Israel? Many of those who were guilty of terrorism aimed at civilian targets went on to become public figures or private citizens with no penalty and no further violence.

Alright so let's get some proportions here.
I Don't know if you heard the news of the last two days, there was a two "lone wolf" terror attacks, in which two were severely injured and one was murdered, one was a twentish boy stabbing a border policeman in the chest, the second incident was a gunfire on two people in the car, so you probably assume there is a tragic difference, what do you think?
There you can learn more about the incidents;
Israeli killed in West Bank terror attack - Israel News Ynetnews
Border Policeman stabbed in Jerusalem shoots Palestinian assailant - Israel News Ynetnews

I read the two articles but I'm not sure I'm understanding what you are asking me. A difference in the reactions between Hamas and Israeli officials? And what does this have to do with ideological extremism?

 

[Coyote]

Interesting. Something to think about as a possible solution.

However: Terror linked Palestinians can only resident in Palestine or either surrender and stand for trial...

Why not a "truth and reconciliation" effort as South Africa went through?

Because unlike SA we are talking about freed murderers that are being motivated by an ideology that causes them to wrap themselves with explosives, run high on drugs and go explode themselves nearby people - there is not much we can do about it and I think it actually makes sense not to want them anywhere nearby.
There is however something we can do for their families if they'd agree to stand for trial, that way it would be possible to filter all the rational minds and give them a fair offer. but those motivated by radical Islam have no place among us since they will never accept to live in peace in the first place.

It really isn't any different than SA. You are talking about terrorists who killed people -ever heard of necklacing? You are also talking about a justice system that is very likely biased on it's application of the law. I don't think you can have a successful out come without a real "truth and reconciliation" where both sides acknowledge and forgive.

At some point you right but again you are unable to see the real issue here.
Making peace with the radical ideologies is simply impossible since its based on never "surrendering" - even at the cost of life and never accepting peace.
Terrorism is a pure act of forcing the ideology on everyone else, not just a grief over certain points and not a strategic decision, land, properties, mistrust, all can be solved, but an ideology of eradicating others belief is not something you would want to live with and neither do we.
In other words radical Islam and Jews simply won't be able to live under the same roof.
I'm not going to elaborate much about Supreme Court but if it matters it could be Arab Muslim judges as well(I think it's actually mandatory state law) - point is very simple - there must be a process of separating the rotten apples out of the rational minds.

Since when has a State been tried?

Offered and yet denied couple of times in the past, Revealed Olmert apos s 2008 peace offer to Palestinians - Diplomacy Politics - Jerusalem Post this is probably one of the best deals the Palestinians could ever think of-
This clown Olmert... pff..

I don't think Olmert could have delivered it and they probably knew that.

 

[Daniyel]

Because unlike SA we are talking about freed murderers that are being motivated by an ideology that causes them to wrap themselves with explosives, run high on drugs and go explode themselves nearby people - there is not much we can do about it and I think it actually makes sense not to want them anywhere nearby.
There is however something we can do for their families if they'd agree to stand for trial, that way it would be possible to filter all the rational minds and give them a fair offer. but those motivated by radical Islam have no place among us since they will never accept to live in peace in the first place.

It really isn't any different than SA. You are talking about terrorists who killed people -ever heard of necklacing? You are also talking about a justice system that is very likely biased on it's application of the law. I don't think you can have a successful out come without a real "truth and reconciliation" where both sides acknowledge and forgive.

At some point you right but again you are unable to see the real issue here.
Making peace with the radical ideologies is simply impossible since its based on never "surrendering" - even at the cost of life and never accepting peace.
Terrorism is a pure act of forcing the ideology on everyone else, not just a grief over certain points and not a strategic decision, land, properties, mistrust, all can be solved, but an ideology of eradicating others belief is not something you would want to live with and neither do we.
In other words radical Islam and Jews simply won't be able to live under the same roof.
I'm not going to elaborate much about Supreme Court but if it matters it could be Arab Muslim judges as well(I think it's actually mandatory state law) - point is very simple - there must be a process of separating the rotten apples out of the rational minds.

Since when has a State been tried?

Offered and yet denied couple of times in the past, Revealed Olmert apos s 2008 peace offer to Palestinians - Diplomacy Politics - Jerusalem Post this is probably one of the best deals the Palestinians could ever think of-
This clown Olmert... pff..

I don't think Olmert could have delivered it and they probably knew that.

Maybe, but the point is the Palestinians would simply demanding the same deal if they were signing it, I don't believe Israel could deny that since it was already signed.

 

[Daniyel]

Because unlike SA we are talking about freed murderers that are being motivated by an ideology that causes them to wrap themselves with explosives, run high on drugs and go explode themselves nearby people - there is not much we can do about it and I think it actually makes sense not to want them anywhere nearby.
There is however something we can do for their families if they'd agree to stand for trial, that way it would be possible to filter all the rational minds and give them a fair offer. but those motivated by radical Islam have no place among us since they will never accept to live in peace in the first place.

It really isn't any different than SA. You are talking about terrorists who killed people -ever heard of necklacing? You are also talking about a justice system that is very likely biased on it's application of the law. I don't think you can have a successful out come without a real "truth and reconciliation" where both sides acknowledge and forgive.

At some point you right but again you are unable to see the real issue here.
Making peace with the radical ideologies is simply impossible since its based on never "surrendering" - even at the cost of life and never accepting peace.
Terrorism is a pure act of forcing the ideology on everyone else, not just a grief over certain points and not a strategic decision, land, properties, mistrust, all can be solved, but an ideology of eradicating others belief is not something you would want to live with and neither do we.
In other words radical Islam and Jews simply won't be able to live under the same roof.
I'm not going to elaborate much about Supreme Court but if it matters it could be Arab Muslim judges as well(I think it's actually mandatory state law) - point is very simple - there must be a process of separating the rotten apples out of the rational minds.

I disagree with your assessment here and that is the conflating of the Palestinians with "radical Islam". They have radical factions but so do you - you have the settler movement that espouses violence and has no desire to share land with non-Jews. However there is little evidence to support the idea that many Palestinians support a radical religious ideology any more than most Jews do. Most of the terrorism has been aimed at a fight for land and statehood and recognition. It's not forcing a religious ideology but rather nationalism. How is it any different than the terrorism of Irgun during the formation of Israel? Many of those who were guilty of terrorism aimed at civilian targets went on to become public figures or private citizens with no penalty and no further violence.

Alright so let's get some proportions here.
I Don't know if you heard the news of the last two days, there was a two "lone wolf" terror attacks, in which two were severely injured and one was murdered, one was a twentish boy stabbing a border policeman in the chest, the second incident was a gunfire on two people in the car, so you probably assume there is a tragic difference, what do you think?
There you can learn more about the incidents;
Israeli killed in West Bank terror attack - Israel News Ynetnews
Border Policeman stabbed in Jerusalem shoots Palestinian assailant - Israel News Ynetnews

I read the two articles but I'm not sure I'm understanding what you are asking me. A difference in the reactions between Hamas and Israeli officials? And what does this have to do with ideological extremism?

We were discussing the necessity of separating between rational minds and radicalized minds (in my opinion). this side-debate is about the motive of Palestinians terrorism (by majority) since I believe you are uninformed about this issue.
You say nationalism I say religion, so I pointed out two recent incidents in order see if you'd be able to tell me which is motivated by nationalism or by religion and if you can - also explain your position.

 

[montelatici]

It really isn't any different than SA. You are talking about terrorists who killed people -ever heard of necklacing? You are also talking about a justice system that is very likely biased on it's application of the law. I don't think you can have a successful out come without a real "truth and reconciliation" where both sides acknowledge and forgive.

At some point you right but again you are unable to see the real issue here.
Making peace with the radical ideologies is simply impossible since its based on never "surrendering" - even at the cost of life and never accepting peace.
Terrorism is a pure act of forcing the ideology on everyone else, not just a grief over certain points and not a strategic decision, land, properties, mistrust, all can be solved, but an ideology of eradicating others belief is not something you would want to live with and neither do we.
In other words radical Islam and Jews simply won't be able to live under the same roof.
I'm not going to elaborate much about Supreme Court but if it matters it could be Arab Muslim judges as well(I think it's actually mandatory state law) - point is very simple - there must be a process of separating the rotten apples out of the rational minds.

I disagree with your assessment here and that is the conflating of the Palestinians with "radical Islam". They have radical factions but so do you - you have the settler movement that espouses violence and has no desire to share land with non-Jews. However there is little evidence to support the idea that many Palestinians support a radical religious ideology any more than most Jews do. Most of the terrorism has been aimed at a fight for land and statehood and recognition. It's not forcing a religious ideology but rather nationalism. How is it any different than the terrorism of Irgun during the formation of Israel? Many of those who were guilty of terrorism aimed at civilian targets went on to become public figures or private citizens with no penalty and no further violence.

Alright so let's get some proportions here.
I Don't know if you heard the news of the last two days, there was a two "lone wolf" terror attacks, in which two were severely injured and one was murdered, one was a twentish boy stabbing a border policeman in the chest, the second incident was a gunfire on two people in the car, so you probably assume there is a tragic difference, what do you think?
There you can learn more about the incidents;
Israeli killed in West Bank terror attack - Israel News Ynetnews
Border Policeman stabbed in Jerusalem shoots Palestinian assailant - Israel News Ynetnews

I read the two articles but I'm not sure I'm understanding what you are asking me. A difference in the reactions between Hamas and Israeli officials? And what does this have to do with ideological extremism?

We were discussing the necessity of separating between rational minds and radicalized minds (in my opinion). this side-debate is about the motive of Palestinians terrorism (by majority) since I believe you are uninformed about this issue.
You say nationalism I say religion, so I pointed out two recent incidents in order see if you'd be able to tell me which is motivated by nationalism or by religion and if you can - also explain your position.

What do you think motivated the non-Whites in South Africa to turn to terrorism/freedom fighting?

 

[Coyote]

It really isn't any different than SA. You are talking about terrorists who killed people -ever heard of necklacing? You are also talking about a justice system that is very likely biased on it's application of the law. I don't think you can have a successful out come without a real "truth and reconciliation" where both sides acknowledge and forgive.

At some point you right but again you are unable to see the real issue here.
Making peace with the radical ideologies is simply impossible since its based on never "surrendering" - even at the cost of life and never accepting peace.
Terrorism is a pure act of forcing the ideology on everyone else, not just a grief over certain points and not a strategic decision, land, properties, mistrust, all can be solved, but an ideology of eradicating others belief is not something you would want to live with and neither do we.
In other words radical Islam and Jews simply won't be able to live under the same roof.
I'm not going to elaborate much about Supreme Court but if it matters it could be Arab Muslim judges as well(I think it's actually mandatory state law) - point is very simple - there must be a process of separating the rotten apples out of the rational minds.

I disagree with your assessment here and that is the conflating of the Palestinians with "radical Islam". They have radical factions but so do you - you have the settler movement that espouses violence and has no desire to share land with non-Jews. However there is little evidence to support the idea that many Palestinians support a radical religious ideology any more than most Jews do. Most of the terrorism has been aimed at a fight for land and statehood and recognition. It's not forcing a religious ideology but rather nationalism. How is it any different than the terrorism of Irgun during the formation of Israel? Many of those who were guilty of terrorism aimed at civilian targets went on to become public figures or private citizens with no penalty and no further violence.

Alright so let's get some proportions here.
I Don't know if you heard the news of the last two days, there was a two "lone wolf" terror attacks, in which two were severely injured and one was murdered, one was a twentish boy stabbing a border policeman in the chest, the second incident was a gunfire on two people in the car, so you probably assume there is a tragic difference, what do you think?
There you can learn more about the incidents;
Israeli killed in West Bank terror attack - Israel News Ynetnews
Border Policeman stabbed in Jerusalem shoots Palestinian assailant - Israel News Ynetnews

I read the two articles but I'm not sure I'm understanding what you are asking me. A difference in the reactions between Hamas and Israeli officials? And what does this have to do with ideological extremism?

We were discussing the necessity of separating between rational minds and radicalized minds (in my opinion). this side-debate is about the motive of Palestinians terrorism (by majority) since I believe you are uninformed about this issue.
You say nationalism I say religion, so I pointed out two recent incidents in order see if you'd be able to tell me which is motivated by nationalism or by religion and if you can - also explain your position.

I read the articles and I don't see enough information to say what is the motivation. I know there is frequent friction between settlers and Palestinians - with violence coming from both sides. IMO - much of that is caused by the settlement process itself and the widespread perception that it's a deliberate effort to prevent them from ever having a state. The second one, where the policeman was stabbed - there simply is no information on a motive.

I'm going to add Daniyel, that you keep saying I'm "misinformed" but don't you think it is just as likely you might have your own bias here?

 

[P F Tinmore]

Few questions maybe you'd be able to answer;
1.How does Zionism stopped the Palestinians in the past to establish a state of their own, or even today?

2.Addressing the "Palestinian Problem" as he mentioned is a very misleading term, the real Palestinian Problem is the continuing aggressions in the past and today to violently override the right for self determination of Jews - Judaism is all about Zionism, and there was a room for Palestinians which they didn't accept neither in Israel and Trans Jordan - irrationaly - with the later regrets that comes every few years of why NOT accepting any sort of land to imply they simply want it all, same applies for the term "refugees" which is no longer valid yet accepted even by the UN emphasizing the need of the Palestinians to back to Israel and establish instead a state of Palestine, so apparently Jews are the problem for them, can you disprove that?

3.The claim "one group" is ruling is nonsense, it's all lovely to hear once in a while the laughable claims for apartheid and such but since the Palestinians are refugees it means they're not in Israel, so bang goes the whole claim, unless you'd be able to disprove that either?

4.Yet again he repeat that Jews are the problem for the Palestinians - that suddenly expect us to forget all what they did to us, now that he said it's all because they're not Jews they can't cone back, care to relate to the other one quarter of non Jews that Zionism didn't stopped from living peacefully along with all civil rights?

5.Zionism is an ideology of racism - some very specific term of racism, the one that decide to - quotting "throw Jews into the sea" - Care to relate to that?

Stopped at 5:38.
We can continue after satisfying these questions of which Abunimah defined to construct the entire speech about, so let's observe them first, now I know you are not one of the brightest debaters around here so I will also invite every one that is interested in sharing their opinions, please feel free to elaborate.

P F Tinmore

1.How does Zionism stopped the Palestinians in the past to establish a state of their own, or even today?​

Excellent question.

In 1948 over 80 Palestinian leaders got together, formed a government, and declared independence inside their own defined territory. They did not need permission from anyone to do so. Their declaration was in complete compliance with international law and the UN charter. Even though recognition by other states is not required, Palestine was recognized by five other states. Nobody has the authority to rescind this declaration nor has anyone attempted to do so.

External interference is the only thing preventing the Palestinians from exercising their rights.

 

[aris2chat]

A single state, either Israeli or palestinian is highly unlikely. Two state is not possible yet, the palestinians are too divided. Israeli control over the WB is a possibility if the PA cannot form a new government. Until gaza ends hamas domination there will be no real peace with the PA, egypt or Israel.
Jordan does not want the WB or it's population. They would rather see Israel control the valley.
The only future is with palestinian cooperation, one state, two state, no state, what ever.
Israel has already shown it's willingness for a palestinian state under the right circumstances.

 

[Phoenall]

It really isn't any different than SA. You are talking about terrorists who killed people -ever heard of necklacing? You are also talking about a justice system that is very likely biased on it's application of the law. I don't think you can have a successful out come without a real "truth and reconciliation" where both sides acknowledge and forgive.

At some point you right but again you are unable to see the real issue here.
Making peace with the radical ideologies is simply impossible since its based on never "surrendering" - even at the cost of life and never accepting peace.
Terrorism is a pure act of forcing the ideology on everyone else, not just a grief over certain points and not a strategic decision, land, properties, mistrust, all can be solved, but an ideology of eradicating others belief is not something you would want to live with and neither do we.
In other words radical Islam and Jews simply won't be able to live under the same roof.
I'm not going to elaborate much about Supreme Court but if it matters it could be Arab Muslim judges as well(I think it's actually mandatory state law) - point is very simple - there must be a process of separating the rotten apples out of the rational minds.

Since when has a State been tried?

Offered and yet denied couple of times in the past, Revealed Olmert apos s 2008 peace offer to Palestinians - Diplomacy Politics - Jerusalem Post this is probably one of the best deals the Palestinians could ever think of-
This clown Olmert... pff..

I don't think Olmert could have delivered it and they probably knew that.

Maybe, but the point is the Palestinians would simply demanding the same deal if they were signing it, I don't believe Israel could deny that since it was already signed.

Since the refusal by Arafat to even negotiate at Camp David the Palestinians have demanded that the negotiations start where the ones at camp david finished. The Israelis constantly say that these are new talks so we start at the beginning as nothing was agreed. That is how idiotic the Palestinians are when it comes to negotiating anything

 

[Phoenall]

At some point you right but again you are unable to see the real issue here.
Making peace with the radical ideologies is simply impossible since its based on never "surrendering" - even at the cost of life and never accepting peace.
Terrorism is a pure act of forcing the ideology on everyone else, not just a grief over certain points and not a strategic decision, land, properties, mistrust, all can be solved, but an ideology of eradicating others belief is not something you would want to live with and neither do we.
In other words radical Islam and Jews simply won't be able to live under the same roof.
I'm not going to elaborate much about Supreme Court but if it matters it could be Arab Muslim judges as well(I think it's actually mandatory state law) - point is very simple - there must be a process of separating the rotten apples out of the rational minds.

I disagree with your assessment here and that is the conflating of the Palestinians with "radical Islam". They have radical factions but so do you - you have the settler movement that espouses violence and has no desire to share land with non-Jews. However there is little evidence to support the idea that many Palestinians support a radical religious ideology any more than most Jews do. Most of the terrorism has been aimed at a fight for land and statehood and recognition. It's not forcing a religious ideology but rather nationalism. How is it any different than the terrorism of Irgun during the formation of Israel? Many of those who were guilty of terrorism aimed at civilian targets went on to become public figures or private citizens with no penalty and no further violence.

Alright so let's get some proportions here.
I Don't know if you heard the news of the last two days, there was a two "lone wolf" terror attacks, in which two were severely injured and one was murdered, one was a twentish boy stabbing a border policeman in the chest, the second incident was a gunfire on two people in the car, so you probably assume there is a tragic difference, what do you think?
There you can learn more about the incidents;
Israeli killed in West Bank terror attack - Israel News Ynetnews
Border Policeman stabbed in Jerusalem shoots Palestinian assailant - Israel News Ynetnews

I read the two articles but I'm not sure I'm understanding what you are asking me. A difference in the reactions between Hamas and Israeli officials? And what does this have to do with ideological extremism?

We were discussing the necessity of separating between rational minds and radicalized minds (in my opinion). this side-debate is about the motive of Palestinians terrorism (by majority) since I believe you are uninformed about this issue.
You say nationalism I say religion, so I pointed out two recent incidents in order see if you'd be able to tell me which is motivated by nationalism or by religion and if you can - also explain your position.

What do you think motivated the non-Whites in South Africa to turn to terrorism/freedom fighting?

Neo Marxism as their god was a member of the communist party.

 

[Phoenall]

Few questions maybe you'd be able to answer;
1.How does Zionism stopped the Palestinians in the past to establish a state of their own, or even today?

2.Addressing the "Palestinian Problem" as he mentioned is a very misleading term, the real Palestinian Problem is the continuing aggressions in the past and today to violently override the right for self determination of Jews - Judaism is all about Zionism, and there was a room for Palestinians which they didn't accept neither in Israel and Trans Jordan - irrationaly - with the later regrets that comes every few years of why NOT accepting any sort of land to imply they simply want it all, same applies for the term "refugees" which is no longer valid yet accepted even by the UN emphasizing the need of the Palestinians to back to Israel and establish instead a state of Palestine, so apparently Jews are the problem for them, can you disprove that?

3.The claim "one group" is ruling is nonsense, it's all lovely to hear once in a while the laughable claims for apartheid and such but since the Palestinians are refugees it means they're not in Israel, so bang goes the whole claim, unless you'd be able to disprove that either?

4.Yet again he repeat that Jews are the problem for the Palestinians - that suddenly expect us to forget all what they did to us, now that he said it's all because they're not Jews they can't cone back, care to relate to the other one quarter of non Jews that Zionism didn't stopped from living peacefully along with all civil rights?

5.Zionism is an ideology of racism - some very specific term of racism, the one that decide to - quotting "throw Jews into the sea" - Care to relate to that?

Stopped at 5:38.
We can continue after satisfying these questions of which Abunimah defined to construct the entire speech about, so let's observe them first, now I know you are not one of the brightest debaters around here so I will also invite every one that is interested in sharing their opinions, please feel free to elaborate.

P F Tinmore

1.How does Zionism stopped the Palestinians in the past to establish a state of their own, or even today?​

Excellent question.

In 1948 over 80 Palestinian leaders got together, formed a government, and declared independence inside their own defined territory. They did not need permission from anyone to do so. Their declaration was in complete compliance with international law and the UN charter. Even though recognition by other states is not required, Palestine was recognized by five other states. Nobody has the authority to rescind this declaration nor has anyone attempted to do so.

External interference is the only thing preventing the Palestinians from exercising their rights.

So why are you missing out that these 80arab muslims where all from arab league nations like Egypt and Syria and not one was from Palestine. Their declaration was against international law and the UN charter as part of the land had already been declared by Israel. The same 5 states that the 80 leaders came from ?
The UN had the authority to ignore the request and turn it down flat, which they did as it broke the spirit and the word on the UN charter. As well as being too late to hit the deadline

 

[P F Tinmore]

Few questions maybe you'd be able to answer;
1.How does Zionism stopped the Palestinians in the past to establish a state of their own, or even today?

2.Addressing the "Palestinian Problem" as he mentioned is a very misleading term, the real Palestinian Problem is the continuing aggressions in the past and today to violently override the right for self determination of Jews - Judaism is all about Zionism, and there was a room for Palestinians which they didn't accept neither in Israel and Trans Jordan - irrationaly - with the later regrets that comes every few years of why NOT accepting any sort of land to imply they simply want it all, same applies for the term "refugees" which is no longer valid yet accepted even by the UN emphasizing the need of the Palestinians to back to Israel and establish instead a state of Palestine, so apparently Jews are the problem for them, can you disprove that?

3.The claim "one group" is ruling is nonsense, it's all lovely to hear once in a while the laughable claims for apartheid and such but since the Palestinians are refugees it means they're not in Israel, so bang goes the whole claim, unless you'd be able to disprove that either?

4.Yet again he repeat that Jews are the problem for the Palestinians - that suddenly expect us to forget all what they did to us, now that he said it's all because they're not Jews they can't cone back, care to relate to the other one quarter of non Jews that Zionism didn't stopped from living peacefully along with all civil rights?

5.Zionism is an ideology of racism - some very specific term of racism, the one that decide to - quotting "throw Jews into the sea" - Care to relate to that?

Stopped at 5:38.
We can continue after satisfying these questions of which Abunimah defined to construct the entire speech about, so let's observe them first, now I know you are not one of the brightest debaters around here so I will also invite every one that is interested in sharing their opinions, please feel free to elaborate.

P F Tinmore

1.How does Zionism stopped the Palestinians in the past to establish a state of their own, or even today?​

Excellent question.

In 1948 over 80 Palestinian leaders got together, formed a government, and declared independence inside their own defined territory. They did not need permission from anyone to do so. Their declaration was in complete compliance with international law and the UN charter. Even though recognition by other states is not required, Palestine was recognized by five other states. Nobody has the authority to rescind this declaration nor has anyone attempted to do so.

External interference is the only thing preventing the Palestinians from exercising their rights.

So why are you missing out that these 80arab muslims where all from arab league nations like Egypt and Syria and not one was from Palestine.

1) Link?
2) Israel's declaration was by people from Europe so what is your point?

Their declaration was against international law and the UN charter as part of the land had already been declared by Israel.

Oh really? What land did Israel define in its declaration?

The same 5 states that the 80 leaders came from ?

What does it matter?

The UN had the authority to ignore the request and turn it down flat, which they did as it broke the spirit and the word on the UN charter.

How so? Link?

As well as being too late to hit the deadline

What deadline? Link?

Why was 1948 too late and 1988 was not?

 

[Daniyel]

At some point you right but again you are unable to see the real issue here.
Making peace with the radical ideologies is simply impossible since its based on never "surrendering" - even at the cost of life and never accepting peace.
Terrorism is a pure act of forcing the ideology on everyone else, not just a grief over certain points and not a strategic decision, land, properties, mistrust, all can be solved, but an ideology of eradicating others belief is not something you would want to live with and neither do we.
In other words radical Islam and Jews simply won't be able to live under the same roof.
I'm not going to elaborate much about Supreme Court but if it matters it could be Arab Muslim judges as well(I think it's actually mandatory state law) - point is very simple - there must be a process of separating the rotten apples out of the rational minds.

I disagree with your assessment here and that is the conflating of the Palestinians with "radical Islam". They have radical factions but so do you - you have the settler movement that espouses violence and has no desire to share land with non-Jews. However there is little evidence to support the idea that many Palestinians support a radical religious ideology any more than most Jews do. Most of the terrorism has been aimed at a fight for land and statehood and recognition. It's not forcing a religious ideology but rather nationalism. How is it any different than the terrorism of Irgun during the formation of Israel? Many of those who were guilty of terrorism aimed at civilian targets went on to become public figures or private citizens with no penalty and no further violence.

Alright so let's get some proportions here.
I Don't know if you heard the news of the last two days, there was a two "lone wolf" terror attacks, in which two were severely injured and one was murdered, one was a twentish boy stabbing a border policeman in the chest, the second incident was a gunfire on two people in the car, so you probably assume there is a tragic difference, what do you think?
There you can learn more about the incidents;
Israeli killed in West Bank terror attack - Israel News Ynetnews
Border Policeman stabbed in Jerusalem shoots Palestinian assailant - Israel News Ynetnews

I read the two articles but I'm not sure I'm understanding what you are asking me. A difference in the reactions between Hamas and Israeli officials? And what does this have to do with ideological extremism?

We were discussing the necessity of separating between rational minds and radicalized minds (in my opinion). this side-debate is about the motive of Palestinians terrorism (by majority) since I believe you are uninformed about this issue.
You say nationalism I say religion, so I pointed out two recent incidents in order see if you'd be able to tell me which is motivated by nationalism or by religion and if you can - also explain your position.

I read the articles and I don't see enough information to say what is the motivation. I know there is frequent friction between settlers and Palestinians - with violence coming from both sides. IMO - much of that is caused by the settlement process itself and the widespread perception that it's a deliberate effort to prevent them from ever having a state. The second one, where the policeman was stabbed - there simply is no information on a motive.

I'm going to add Daniyel, that you keep saying I'm "misinformed" but don't you think it is just as likely you might have your own bias here?

Well I think you just said it yourself that you are (somewhat?) misinformed so that would be fair and besides that because of my personal bias I was asking for your analysis, I also believe it is crucial for you to understand the situation in order to see possible outcomes before making up your opinion.
So to spare you the confusion, both attacks were completely irrational by terms of benefiting the attacker (including self defense) - only thing seems to motive the perpetrator is an ideological achievement in both incidents - the thing in common is the time of which both occured - Ramadan - and therefore we see the increased incidents of Palestinian terror attacks in these times..so that makes it a religious motive.
However, you are probably not convinced because you exclude irrational motives by default - you consider majority of the Palestinian terror attacks to be a result of nationalism despite in both incidents there was absolutely zero provocation from the victims, so let new tell you that nationalism is equal to racism - not some rational that we can satisfy.
Those strengthen my position on the need of separating the radical minds even if they're influence by nationalism (religion IMO) and seek to work with reasonable and rational minds.
Maybe in wrong about standing for trial or the procedures but there must be a process for that.

 

[Phoenall]

Few questions maybe you'd be able to answer;
1.How does Zionism stopped the Palestinians in the past to establish a state of their own, or even today?

2.Addressing the "Palestinian Problem" as he mentioned is a very misleading term, the real Palestinian Problem is the continuing aggressions in the past and today to violently override the right for self determination of Jews - Judaism is all about Zionism, and there was a room for Palestinians which they didn't accept neither in Israel and Trans Jordan - irrationaly - with the later regrets that comes every few years of why NOT accepting any sort of land to imply they simply want it all, same applies for the term "refugees" which is no longer valid yet accepted even by the UN emphasizing the need of the Palestinians to back to Israel and establish instead a state of Palestine, so apparently Jews are the problem for them, can you disprove that?

3.The claim "one group" is ruling is nonsense, it's all lovely to hear once in a while the laughable claims for apartheid and such but since the Palestinians are refugees it means they're not in Israel, so bang goes the whole claim, unless you'd be able to disprove that either?

4.Yet again he repeat that Jews are the problem for the Palestinians - that suddenly expect us to forget all what they did to us, now that he said it's all because they're not Jews they can't cone back, care to relate to the other one quarter of non Jews that Zionism didn't stopped from living peacefully along with all civil rights?

5.Zionism is an ideology of racism - some very specific term of racism, the one that decide to - quotting "throw Jews into the sea" - Care to relate to that?

Stopped at 5:38.
We can continue after satisfying these questions of which Abunimah defined to construct the entire speech about, so let's observe them first, now I know you are not one of the brightest debaters around here so I will also invite every one that is interested in sharing their opinions, please feel free to elaborate.

P F Tinmore

1.How does Zionism stopped the Palestinians in the past to establish a state of their own, or even today?​

Excellent question.

In 1948 over 80 Palestinian leaders got together, formed a government, and declared independence inside their own defined territory. They did not need permission from anyone to do so. Their declaration was in complete compliance with international law and the UN charter. Even though recognition by other states is not required, Palestine was recognized by five other states. Nobody has the authority to rescind this declaration nor has anyone attempted to do so.

External interference is the only thing preventing the Palestinians from exercising their rights.

So why are you missing out that these 80arab muslims where all from arab league nations like Egypt and Syria and not one was from Palestine.

1) Link?
2) Israel's declaration was by people from Europe so what is your point?

Their declaration was against international law and the UN charter as part of the land had already been declared by Israel.

Oh really? What land did Israel define in its declaration?

The same 5 states that the 80 leaders came from ?

What does it matter?

The UN had the authority to ignore the request and turn it down flat, which they did as it broke the spirit and the word on the UN charter.

How so? Link?

As well as being too late to hit the deadline

What deadline? Link?

Why was 1948 too late and 1988 was not?

1) All-Palestine Government - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Though jurisdiction of the Government was declared to cover the whole of the former Mandatory Palestine, its effective jurisdiction was limited to the Gaza Strip.[2] The Prime Minister of the Gaza-seated administration was Ahmed Hilmi Pasha, and the President was Hajj Amin al-Husseini, former chairman of the Arab Higher Committee.

2) They were the ones accepted to represent the Jewish people by the UN and the LoN

3) the land granted to them under the LoN mandate for Palestine and the UN partition plan

4) See No 1

5) See No 1

 

[P F Tinmore]

Few questions maybe you'd be able to answer;
1.How does Zionism stopped the Palestinians in the past to establish a state of their own, or even today?

2.Addressing the "Palestinian Problem" as he mentioned is a very misleading term, the real Palestinian Problem is the continuing aggressions in the past and today to violently override the right for self determination of Jews - Judaism is all about Zionism, and there was a room for Palestinians which they didn't accept neither in Israel and Trans Jordan - irrationaly - with the later regrets that comes every few years of why NOT accepting any sort of land to imply they simply want it all, same applies for the term "refugees" which is no longer valid yet accepted even by the UN emphasizing the need of the Palestinians to back to Israel and establish instead a state of Palestine, so apparently Jews are the problem for them, can you disprove that?

3.The claim "one group" is ruling is nonsense, it's all lovely to hear once in a while the laughable claims for apartheid and such but since the Palestinians are refugees it means they're not in Israel, so bang goes the whole claim, unless you'd be able to disprove that either?

4.Yet again he repeat that Jews are the problem for the Palestinians - that suddenly expect us to forget all what they did to us, now that he said it's all because they're not Jews they can't cone back, care to relate to the other one quarter of non Jews that Zionism didn't stopped from living peacefully along with all civil rights?

5.Zionism is an ideology of racism - some very specific term of racism, the one that decide to - quotting "throw Jews into the sea" - Care to relate to that?

Stopped at 5:38.
We can continue after satisfying these questions of which Abunimah defined to construct the entire speech about, so let's observe them first, now I know you are not one of the brightest debaters around here so I will also invite every one that is interested in sharing their opinions, please feel free to elaborate.

P F Tinmore

1.How does Zionism stopped the Palestinians in the past to establish a state of their own, or even today?​

Excellent question.

In 1948 over 80 Palestinian leaders got together, formed a government, and declared independence inside their own defined territory. They did not need permission from anyone to do so. Their declaration was in complete compliance with international law and the UN charter. Even though recognition by other states is not required, Palestine was recognized by five other states. Nobody has the authority to rescind this declaration nor has anyone attempted to do so.

External interference is the only thing preventing the Palestinians from exercising their rights.

So why are you missing out that these 80arab muslims where all from arab league nations like Egypt and Syria and not one was from Palestine.

1) Link?
2) Israel's declaration was by people from Europe so what is your point?

Their declaration was against international law and the UN charter as part of the land had already been declared by Israel.

Oh really? What land did Israel define in its declaration?

The same 5 states that the 80 leaders came from ?

What does it matter?

The UN had the authority to ignore the request and turn it down flat, which they did as it broke the spirit and the word on the UN charter.

How so? Link?

As well as being too late to hit the deadline

What deadline? Link?

Why was 1948 too late and 1988 was not?

1) All-Palestine Government - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Though jurisdiction of the Government was declared to cover the whole of the former Mandatory Palestine, its effective jurisdiction was limited to the Gaza Strip.[2] The Prime Minister of the Gaza-seated administration was Ahmed Hilmi Pasha, and the President was Hajj Amin al-Husseini, former chairman of the Arab Higher Committee.

2) They were the ones accepted to represent the Jewish people by the UN and the LoN

3) the land granted to them under the LoN mandate for Palestine and the UN partition plan

4) See No 1

5) See No 1

The partition plan flopped. It did not give any land to anyone. Other than that I don't see anything addressing my post.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore

1.How does Zionism stopped the Palestinians in the past to establish a state of their own, or even today?​

Excellent question.

In 1948 over 80 Palestinian leaders got together, formed a government, and declared independence inside their own defined territory. They did not need permission from anyone to do so. Their declaration was in complete compliance with international law and the UN charter. Even though recognition by other states is not required, Palestine was recognized by five other states. Nobody has the authority to rescind this declaration nor has anyone attempted to do so.

External interference is the only thing preventing the Palestinians from exercising their rights.

So why are you missing out that these 80arab muslims where all from arab league nations like Egypt and Syria and not one was from Palestine.

1) Link?
2) Israel's declaration was by people from Europe so what is your point?

Their declaration was against international law and the UN charter as part of the land had already been declared by Israel.

Oh really? What land did Israel define in its declaration?

The same 5 states that the 80 leaders came from ?

What does it matter?

The UN had the authority to ignore the request and turn it down flat, which they did as it broke the spirit and the word on the UN charter.

How so? Link?

As well as being too late to hit the deadline

What deadline? Link?

Why was 1948 too late and 1988 was not?

1) All-Palestine Government - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Though jurisdiction of the Government was declared to cover the whole of the former Mandatory Palestine, its effective jurisdiction was limited to the Gaza Strip.[2] The Prime Minister of the Gaza-seated administration was Ahmed Hilmi Pasha, and the President was Hajj Amin al-Husseini, former chairman of the Arab Higher Committee.

2) They were the ones accepted to represent the Jewish people by the UN and the LoN

3) the land granted to them under the LoN mandate for Palestine and the UN partition plan

4) See No 1

5) See No 1

The partition plan flopped. It did not give any land to anyone. Other than that I don't see anything addressing my post.

Then put some glasses on and you will, or do you want me to post it in farsi, Urdu or Arabic for you.

The partition plan worked, it was the arab muslims that failed