Can Paris summit save two-state solution?

[Shusha]

It would be hard for me to imagine any other group, when any greater established claim, with a greater body of evidence to support that claim, than the Jews on Israel.

This.

 

[P F Tinmore]

The only problem is, they are still not Palestinians. According to the Ottoman census, (if I am remembering this right), more than half of non-jewish population of Palestine were recent immigrants.

The best illustration of this is an example of two men who immigrated into the territory (now part of Area C) in the late 1920's and early 1930's. They bought plots of land, essentially side-by-side, worked it and passed it down through their children to the present day.

One of these men, and all his descendants, is considered a foreign invader; a settler (now a dirty word); a thief and a liar; some have even called him and his descendants a cancer growing on the land.

The other man, and all his descendants, is considered a "Palestinian" with full and inalienable rights to the land.

Both immigrated from outside the territory, neither had parents or grandparents or great-grandparents living on that land, neither practiced Islam. The only difference between them is that one of these men is a Jew.

Has anyone said that the ROR only applies to Palestinian Muslims and Christians.

I think all people have a ROR.

 

[rhodescholar]

Israel is not a true democracy because 20% of its citizens are treated as 2nd class. You see, in a true democracy mob rule is countered by civil rights for minorities. Even the state of Israel calls itself a "Jewish" country, thereby discriminating against the 20% who are not Jews.

How many lies can one count in this garbage post?

Those fakestinians in the west bank/gaza are NOT Israeli citizens, retarded idiot assholel The 20% of Israels who ARE arab muslims get to vote and have the same rights as the jewish Israelis.

How come the non-muslims in muslim countries don't have those same rights? Answer us that, fucking idiot.

 

[Shusha]

Has anyone said that the ROR only applies to Palestinian Muslims and Christians.

I think all people have a ROR.

Please clarify. Do you believe the Jewish people, from anywhere in the world, have a right to return to their ancestral homeland in Israel/Palestine?

 

[rhodescholar]

It is one of the longest running conflicts.

Which means what exactly? That leftist dogshit like you allows the arab muslims to perpetuate their fake grievances instead of telling them the fucking game of BS is over?

It has been a source of fuel for terrorism.It's a contributing factor to the instability in the region.

Sure it has asshole, just like it was in 1534 when the arab muslims slaughtered a few hundred jews, and in Lebanon where the arab muslims slaughtered a few thousand christians.

No wonder you never address any of the points in my points - you're way the fuck too stupid. Weakest moderator on any political forum I've ever seen, did you have to pay them to give you the title, asshole? If scum like you ceased to exist, this world would be such a better place.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Has anyone said that the ROR only applies to Palestinian Muslims and Christians.

I think all people have a ROR.

Please clarify. Do you believe the Jewish people, from anywhere in the world, have a right to return to their ancestral homeland in Israel/Palestine?

The ROR applies to homes and properties from before the conflict.

I have no right as a Christian to "return" to the birthplace of Christianity just because I share a religion. The holy land would be pretty crowded if all of the Christians in the world made that claim. The Idea is ridiculous.

 

[Shusha]

The only problem is, they are still not Palestinians. According to the Ottoman census, (if I am remembering this right), more than half of non-jewish population of Palestine were recent immigrants.

The best illustration of this is an example of two men who immigrated into the territory (now part of Area C) in the late 1920's and early 1930's. They bought plots of land, essentially side-by-side, worked it and passed it down through their children to the present day.

One of these men, and all his descendants, is considered a foreign invader; a settler (now a dirty word); a thief and a liar; some have even called him and his descendants a cancer growing on the land.

The other man, and all his descendants, is considered a "Palestinian" with full and inalienable rights to the land.

Both immigrated from outside the territory, neither had parents or grandparents or great-grandparents living on that land, neither practiced Islam. The only difference between them is that one of these men is a Jew.

Has anyone said that the ROR only applies to Palestinian Muslims and Christians.

I think all people have a ROR.

We are not discussing the RoR in this case. We are discussing people being understood and treated differently based on their being Jewish or not. We are discussing a fundamental inequality, not only under the law but under the rules of society.

Address that.

 

[P F Tinmore]

The only problem is, they are still not Palestinians. According to the Ottoman census, (if I am remembering this right), more than half of non-jewish population of Palestine were recent immigrants.

The best illustration of this is an example of two men who immigrated into the territory (now part of Area C) in the late 1920's and early 1930's. They bought plots of land, essentially side-by-side, worked it and passed it down through their children to the present day.

One of these men, and all his descendants, is considered a foreign invader; a settler (now a dirty word); a thief and a liar; some have even called him and his descendants a cancer growing on the land.

The other man, and all his descendants, is considered a "Palestinian" with full and inalienable rights to the land.

Both immigrated from outside the territory, neither had parents or grandparents or great-grandparents living on that land, neither practiced Islam. The only difference between them is that one of these men is a Jew.

Has anyone said that the ROR only applies to Palestinian Muslims and Christians.

I think all people have a ROR.

We are not discussing the RoR in this case. We are discussing people being understood and treated differently based on their being Jewish or not. We are discussing a fundamental inequality, not only under the law but under the rules of society.

Address that.

So, who are treating Jews differently?

 

[Shusha]

So, who are treating Jews differently?

Are you trying to argue that no one discussing the Arab/Israel conflict treats Jews differently?

Are you trying to claim that "settlements" are differentiated based on criteria other than "Jewishness"? Why is a village built by Jews a "settlement" and a village built by immigrants from other places at the same time considered "Palestinian"? Name one non-Jewish village in Area C which is considered an illegal "settlement".

 

[Eloy]

It doesn't matter what they do. They will still get their houses bulldozed to make room for more illegal settlements.

And they should. It is rightfully Israeli land.

Plus, if you attack Israel, you should have your house bulldozed.

They do not need to attack so called Israel. The root of Israel's settler colonialism is to get rid of the Palestinians and move in illegal Israeli settlers. What the Palestinians do or do not do does not change Israel's standard policy.

I think that does happen sometimes.

I haven't seen nearly as much proof of this, as claimed, but I think it does happen now and then.

Israel hasn't been given much reason to work with the Palestinian authority, and Hamas is a terrorist organization at heart.

So naturally it's difficult to get building permits approved. Thus many buildings are built without permit or property right. Which then causes those buildings to be demolished.

However, this is the land of Israel. It is rightfully Israeli land.

The Bible has predicted this for thousands on thousands of years. You need to either be Israeli citizens, and live under Israeli law... or leave. You are not going to win this fight. I promise you.

Forget the Bible. Establishing a Jewish state in the middle of Arab land has caused all the bloodshed. The land is rightfully Arab regardless of the Biblical myths. By going one step further and occupying the West Bank and blockading Gaza, the Israelis went one step too far. The world has had its fill of the half century brutal occupation and if the two-state solution is not saved then neither will Israel even as a pretended democracy. It is probably too late for the Paris conference to day to do anything.

And yet everything written down for thousands of years, is coming true in explicit detail.

But ok, lets look beyond that.

By what logic is the land 'rightfully' Arab? They are new to the land. Newer than the Jews who have been in the land for over 3,000 years. In fact they are the only group of people who have been in the land consistently since 1,500 BC.

Moreover, the Arabs have tons of land.
View attachment 106779

If the Jews don't have a rightful claim to the land, then what exactly would give you a rightful claim?
If Israel isn't the right place for the Jews, then where would you suggest?

It would be hard for me to imagine any other group, when any greater established claim, with a greater body of evidence to support that claim, than the Jews on Israel.

The native American Indians have a far less established claim on America, than the Jews do on Israel, because the native Americans didn't have nearly the amount of recorded and examinable history.

Every time Jewish history says there is a city at X spot, they go and dig, and find a city. Every time the Bible or some other book, says there is a civilization or people group at such and such location, they dig there and find it.

Originally, in 1917 when the move towards a national homeland for the Jews was first pushed, many Arabs around the world agreed with this. After all, a brief history of 'Palestine' shows that barely 300,000 people lived there, the land was desolate and empty, with spare populations. Jerusalem itself was empty of people, comparable to China's now infamous ghost cities.

The Arabs at that time showed the same mentality that left-wingers today have. If it is worthless and ruined, they don't want it. Until someone shows up, and starts making money off it, then they want to control it, regulate it, and tax it.

When Israel was deserted, and turning into desert and swamp land, they didn't have a problem with the Jews coming back to Palestine.

Then when the Jews did start coming back, the economy started to grow, and the land became valuable, suddenly Arabs started migrating to Palestine, and suddenly maybe we don't want these Jews coming here.

There's a reason why the non-jewish population in Israel not only didn't increase, but fell between the 1500s, and the 1880s. The land was ruined (just as the Bible said it would be), and the non-Jews didn't want it.

The Jews on the other hand continued in the land forever.

Additionally, when the Jews started coming back in large numbers, they started working the land, and repairing the infrastructure. Suddenly the Arabs which had been neglecting the land, now that the Jews made it worth something, started flooding into Palestine.

Now after the Jews start making the land worth something again, magically all these Arabs show up, call themselves Palestinians, and claim they have a right to the land?

Sounds like opportunistic thievery to me.

Your post is too long to address every point but I can comment in two.
1) No one is arguing that there were no Jews in Palestine but the area was overwhelmingly Arab during the time of the great immigration of European Jews after the Second World War.
2) America took in Jews where they did very well and it seems to be a country that would welcome them away from all the history of the Final Solution.

The Paris Conference today was about getting Israel to accept Palestine as a state.

 

[Eloy]

So, who are treating Jews differently?

Are you trying to argue that no one discussing the Arab/Israel conflict treats Jews differently?

Are you trying to claim that "settlements" are differentiated based on criteria other than "Jewishness"? Why is a village built by Jews a "settlement" and a village built by immigrants from other places at the same time considered "Palestinian"? Name one non-Jewish village in Area C which is considered an illegal "settlement".

The problem with this thinking is that it is not how the Zionists who control the Israeli government view the settlements. For them and the settlers, they are not Jewish communities in Palestine but are thought of as part of Israel.

 

[RoccoR]

Eloy, et al,

I have to chuckle at this; but not in a humiliating way. Both sides have made commitments.

And they should. It is rightfully Israeli land.

Plus, if you attack Israel, you should have your house bulldozed.

They do not need to attack so called Israel. The root of Israel's settler colonialism is to get rid of the Palestinians and move in illegal Israeli settlers. What the Palestinians do or do not do does not change Israel's standard policy.

I think that does happen sometimes.

I haven't seen nearly as much proof of this, as claimed, but I think it does happen now and then.

Israel hasn't been given much reason to work with the Palestinian authority, and Hamas is a terrorist organization at heart.

So naturally it's difficult to get building permits approved. Thus many buildings are built without permit or property right. Which then causes those buildings to be demolished.

However, this is the land of Israel. It is rightfully Israeli land.

The Bible has predicted this for thousands on thousands of years. You need to either be Israeli citizens, and live under Israeli law... or leave. You are not going to win this fight. I promise you.

Forget the Bible. Establishing a Jewish state in the middle of Arab land has caused all the bloodshed. The land is rightfully Arab regardless of the Biblical myths. By going one step further and occupying the West Bank and blockading Gaza, the Israelis went one step too far. The world has had its fill of the half century brutal occupation and if the two-state solution is not saved then neither will Israel even as a pretended democracy. It is probably too late for the Paris conference to day to do anything.

And yet everything written down for thousands of years, is coming true in explicit detail.

But ok, lets look beyond that.

By what logic is the land 'rightfully' Arab? They are new to the land. Newer than the Jews who have been in the land for over 3,000 years. In fact they are the only group of people who have been in the land consistently since 1,500 BC.

Moreover, the Arabs have tons of land.
View attachment 106779

If the Jews don't have a rightful claim to the land, then what exactly would give you a rightful claim?
If Israel isn't the right place for the Jews, then where would you suggest?

It would be hard for me to imagine any other group, when any greater established claim, with a greater body of evidence to support that claim, than the Jews on Israel.

The native American Indians have a far less established claim on America, than the Jews do on Israel, because the native Americans didn't have nearly the amount of recorded and examinable history.

Every time Jewish history says there is a city at X spot, they go and dig, and find a city. Every time the Bible or some other book, says there is a civilization or people group at such and such location, they dig there and find it.

Originally, in 1917 when the move towards a national homeland for the Jews was first pushed, many Arabs around the world agreed with this. After all, a brief history of 'Palestine' shows that barely 300,000 people lived there, the land was desolate and empty, with spare populations. Jerusalem itself was empty of people, comparable to China's now infamous ghost cities.

The Arabs at that time showed the same mentality that left-wingers today have. If it is worthless and ruined, they don't want it. Until someone shows up, and starts making money off it, then they want to control it, regulate it, and tax it.

When Israel was deserted, and turning into desert and swamp land, they didn't have a problem with the Jews coming back to Palestine.

Then when the Jews did start coming back, the economy started to grow, and the land became valuable, suddenly Arabs started migrating to Palestine, and suddenly maybe we don't want these Jews coming here.

There's a reason why the non-jewish population in Israel not only didn't increase, but fell between the 1500s, and the 1880s. The land was ruined (just as the Bible said it would be), and the non-Jews didn't want it.

The Jews on the other hand continued in the land forever.

Additionally, when the Jews started coming back in large numbers, they started working the land, and repairing the infrastructure. Suddenly the Arabs which had been neglecting the land, now that the Jews made it worth something, started flooding into Palestine.

Now after the Jews start making the land worth something again, magically all these Arabs show up, call themselves Palestinians, and claim they have a right to the land?

Sounds like opportunistic thievery to me.

Your post is too long to address every point but I can comment in two.
1) No one is arguing that there were no Jews in Palestine but the area was overwhelmingly Arab during the time of the great immigration of European Jews after the Second World War.
2) America took in Jews where they did very well and it seems to be a country that would welcome them away from all the history of the Final Solution.

The Paris Conference today was about getting Israel to accept Palestine as a state.

(COMMENT)

​

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

Name one non-Jewish village in Area C which is considered an illegal "settlement".

Israel bulldozes them all the time.

 

[Shusha]

Name one non-Jewish village in Area C which is considered an illegal "settlement".

Israel bulldozes them all the time.

I gotta hand it to you, for one who complains about deflection, you are a master of it.

The question on the table is why two virtually identical immigrants to the territory are viewed so completely differently based on their ethnicity. They are viewed so by Palestinians, by Team Palestine and generally by the international community, including the UN.

Are you trying to argue that they are not, in fact, viewed differently? If so, provide evidence for your case.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Name one non-Jewish village in Area C which is considered an illegal "settlement".

Israel bulldozes them all the time.

I gotta hand it to you, for one who complains about deflection, you are a master of it.

The question on the table is why two virtually identical immigrants to the territory are viewed so completely differently based on their ethnicity. They are viewed so by Palestinians, by Team Palestine and generally by the international community, including the UN.

Are you trying to argue that they are not, in fact, viewed differently? If so, provide evidence for your case.

Palestinians build on their own land.

Israeli settlements are built on stolen land.

 

[Shusha]

The problem with this thinking is that it is not how the Zionists who control the Israeli government view the settlements. For them and the settlers, they are not Jewish communities in Palestine but are thought of as part of Israel.

Well, all demonization of "Zionists" aside -- you can just call them Israelis, you know, that's what they are -- yes, and no.

Yes, there are certain sections of Area C which are being spilled over from Israel and will likely become part of Israel in the event of a solution which divides Israel into at least two more parts. Israel makes no bones about this. There are also certain sections of Area C which are being spilled over from Area B (eventual Palestine). Why is no one calling those Arab "settlements" illegal?

But that does not apply to every outpost and settlement.

 

[Shusha]

Palestinians build on their own land.

Israeli settlements are built on stolen land.

Read the question. Try, at least, to comprehend. We are talking about immigrants. Why are some immigrants (the Jewish ones) considered foreign invaders and some considered legit Palestinians even when they immigrated to the same land at the same time?

 

[Hollie]

Name one non-Jewish village in Area C which is considered an illegal "settlement".

Israel bulldozes them all the time.

I gotta hand it to you, for one who complains about deflection, you are a master of it.

The question on the table is why two virtually identical immigrants to the territory are viewed so completely differently based on their ethnicity. They are viewed so by Palestinians, by Team Palestine and generally by the international community, including the UN.

Are you trying to argue that they are not, in fact, viewed differently? If so, provide evidence for your case.

Palestinians build on their own land.

Israeli settlements are built on stolen land.

Palestinians build on their own land."

Except when they don't.

"Israeli settlements are built on stolen land."

Except when they aren't.


Palestinians Are Building Illegal Settlements to Extend Their Claims to Jerusalem

Palestinians Are Building Illegal Settlements to Extend Their Claims to Jerusalem

DEC. 8 2016

Just about everything frequently alleged against Israeli settlements in the West Bank can be said, truthfully, about recent Palestinian construction on the outskirts of Jerusalem, writes Bassam Tawil. Such construction is illegal; it is intended to impede the possibility of a two-state solution; and it often takes place on land stolen from private Palestinian owners.

 

[rhodescholar]

1) No one is arguing that there were no Jews in Palestine but the area was overwhelmingly Arab during the time of the great immigration of European Jews after the Second World War.

Lying, worthless c-nt. The mass migration of jews from Europe came in the 1920s and 30s, you worthless fucking stupid turd. The largest migration of jews after WW2 was due to the ethnic cleansing of jews from arab muslim countries, which a piece of shit like you won't admit.

2) America took in Jews where they did very well and it seems to be a country that would welcome them away from all the history of the Final Solution.

Really idiot asshole, is that what your masters in teheran are telling you to write?

Fucking dogshit, the jews could not enter the very isolationist US. Scum like you really needs to be put to a most painful death, you lying fucking garbage.

 

[Eloy]

Britain dismisses Paris conference
The British refused to take part in the Paris conference and was present only as an observer. No reason was stated for this decision but it seems clear that Benjamin Netanyahu's opinion that the summit was "rigged" against Israel played a part.
Britain also stated that it was a mistake to have an international conference before Donald Trump becomes president.
Another criticism Britain had was that Benjamin Netanyahu was not present.
No one can doubt that Britain is a Friend of Israel and a partner of the incoming American administration.
USA promises Netanyahu to veto any further criticism of Israeli settlements at the UN
John Kerry, Secretary of State for the next four days has given his word that the USA will return to form and veto every proposal before the UN Security Council which criticizes Israel. Kerry also insisted that the document produced by the Paris summit should include a criticism of violence caused by Palestinians.
No one can doubt that the USA is a Friend of Israel.
Israel-Palestinian conflict: Summit warns against unilateral actions - BBC News

Verdict: The conference was a damp squib.