Can Paris summit save two-state solution?

[rhodescholar]

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?

The garbage you are speaking to will never give you honest answers to your questions; that scum will deflect and change the topic repeatedly.

Their programmed lying answer is that few if any, arab muslims immigrated - "they were there first, and the vast majority of their population growth was due to births".... Its like you are trying to get a mongoloid to build a space rocket, they are physically, mentally and totally incapable of doing so.

 

[fncceo]

It affects the rest of the world

How ... precisely ... does it affect the rest of the world? Any more than any other regional dispute? Why not have 75 nation summits over Ukraine or Kashmir or the Chagos Archipelago?

It is one of the longest running conflicts.
It has been a source of fuel for terrorism.
It's a contributing factor to the instability in the region.

It is one of the longest running conflicts. --- the dispute over Kashmir by India and Pakistan is older

It has been a source of fuel for terrorism. -- also has generated significant terrorist activities -- including recent attacks on the Indian national parliament building itself

It's a contributing factor to the instability in the region -- is a major source of regional instability and has led directly to Pakistan and India both acquiring nuclear weapons.

Yet ... where is the international outrage? Where are the condemnations, UN resolutions, and 70 nation circle jerks decrying this most heinous of all human catastrophes?

They don't exist ... do they? Most people in the world have never heard of Kashmir. And Kashmir is just one of dozens of regional conflicts with the potential to erupt into world conflict ... why only concentrate on the single conflict where Jews are involved? Motives?

 

[fncceo]

Palestinians build on their own land

Let's see their deed. I can show you mine.

 

[Coyote]

It affects the rest of the world

How ... precisely ... does it affect the rest of the world? Any more than any other regional dispute? Why not have 75 nation summits over Ukraine or Kashmir or the Chagos Archipelago?

It is one of the longest running conflicts.
It has been a source of fuel for terrorism.
It's a contributing factor to the instability in the region.

It is one of the longest running conflicts. --- the dispute over Kashmir by India and Pakistan is older

It has been a source of fuel for terrorism. -- also has generated significant terrorist activities -- including recent attacks on the Indian national parliament building itself

It's a contributing factor to the instability in the region -- is a major source of regional instability and has led directly to Pakistan and India both acquiring nuclear weapons.

Yet ... where is the international outrage? Where are the condemnations, UN resolutions, and 70 nation circle jerks decrying this most heinous of all human catastrophes?

They don't exist ... do they? Most people in the world have never heard of Kashmir. And Kashmir is just one of dozens of regional conflicts with the potential to erupt into world conflict ... why only concentrate on the single conflict where Jews are involved? Motives?

I think there are some differences here. The Kashmir dispute involves two nations fighting over a piece of land.

The Israeli Palestinian conflict involves one nation, and a people without a nation. It's more complex.

The Kashmir conflict also, is limited in effect to just those two countries. It is not the cause of instability beyond the participants.

There are also no refugees involved and no major human rights issues to resolve.

Now I'll agree that there are other conflicts that deserve more attention but are sadly ignored for some reason: the long ongoing conflict in the Congo, which has resulted in horrific brutality. The treatment of the Rohinga by the Burmese. But just because there are other conflicts doesn't mean this one should be ignored.

I think it would be good to remove one major source of anti-semitic fuel in the Middle East...don't you?

 

[P F Tinmore]

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?

Palestinian immigration is an Israeli propaganda thing.

 

[fncceo]

I think there are some differences here. The Kashmir dispute involves two nations fighting over a piece of land.

The Israeli Palestinian conflict involves one nation, and a people without a nation. It's more complex.

The Kashmir conflict also, is limited in effect to just those two countries. It is not the cause of instability beyond the participants.

There are also no refugees involved and no major human rights issues to resolve.

Now I'll agree that there are other conflicts that deserve more attention but are sadly ignored for some reason: the long ongoing conflict in the Congo, which has resulted in horrific brutality. The treatment of the Rohinga by the Burmese. But just because there are other conflicts doesn't mean this one should be ignored.

I think it would be good to remove one major source of anti-semitic fuel in the Middle East...don't you?

Actually, not -- the "people without a nation" have always been the Jews. The term Palestinians (the Greek word for Israel a thousand years before Arabs even came to the region) originally meant Jews exclusively. Then for many centuries until 1967 meant anyone living in the region of Palestine (Franks, Byzantines, Turks, Jews, Arabs, Buddhist, Coptics, Druze ...). Those who NOW refer to themselves as Palestinians are in fact Arabs who currently have 22 sovereign nations in which they are the ruling majority.

Wrong -- The contested area of Kashmir borders with China and Afghanistan ... China has already fought a war with India over the Aksai Chin region of Kashmir and lays claim to that territory. Any escalation of tensions in that area would undoubtedly bring China (a major nuclear power) into the conflict as they hope to make territorial gains.

Also wrong .. Indian partition ... the genesis of the conflict created MILLIONS of refugees as well as the deaths of hundreds of thousands. More specifically, thousands have been displaced from Kashmir since 1947 and thousands more have died in that conflict. I would consider that a MAJOR human rights issue to resolve, wouldn't you?

Couldn't be more wrong on this ... if you believe antisemitism in the Middle East (or anywhere else in the world) is in any way caused by the current conflict between Palestinians and Israel that it's hard to tell if your statement is based on gross ignorance of the conflict or a perfidious attempt to bury the facts. Either way, that statement alone negates anyone taking you seriously on the topic.

 

[P F Tinmore]

It affects the rest of the world

How ... precisely ... does it affect the rest of the world? Any more than any other regional dispute? Why not have 75 nation summits over Ukraine or Kashmir or the Chagos Archipelago?

It is one of the longest running conflicts.
It has been a source of fuel for terrorism.
It's a contributing factor to the instability in the region.

It is one of the longest running conflicts. --- the dispute over Kashmir by India and Pakistan is older

It has been a source of fuel for terrorism. -- also has generated significant terrorist activities -- including recent attacks on the Indian national parliament building itself

It's a contributing factor to the instability in the region -- is a major source of regional instability and has led directly to Pakistan and India both acquiring nuclear weapons.

Yet ... where is the international outrage? Where are the condemnations, UN resolutions, and 70 nation circle jerks decrying this most heinous of all human catastrophes?

They don't exist ... do they? Most people in the world have never heard of Kashmir. And Kashmir is just one of dozens of regional conflicts with the potential to erupt into world conflict ... why only concentrate on the single conflict where Jews are involved? Motives?

I think there are some differences here. The Kashmir dispute involves two nations fighting over a piece of land.

The Israeli Palestinian conflict involves one nation, and a people without a nation. It's more complex.

The Kashmir conflict also, is limited in effect to just those two countries. It is not the cause of instability beyond the participants.

There are also no refugees involved and no major human rights issues to resolve.

Now I'll agree that there are other conflicts that deserve more attention but are sadly ignored for some reason: the long ongoing conflict in the Congo, which has resulted in horrific brutality. The treatment of the Rohinga by the Burmese. But just because there are other conflicts doesn't mean this one should be ignored.

I think it would be good to remove one major source of anti-semitic fuel in the Middle East...don't you?

I believe that Palestine is the only remaining settler colonial project. This involves a large, unresolved refugee population. I don't see any resolution to the problem other than decolonization. The resolution is already laid out in international law and UN resolutions. Sadly, these will not be mentioned in Paris. They will only push for what has failed for the last 80 years and it will fail again.

 

[fncceo]

only remaining settler colonial project

Nearly every nation on Earth is a 'settler colonial project'.

Ever hear of Canada, United States, Australia, England, India, Tibet ... shall I go on?

 

[P F Tinmore]

only remaining settler colonial project

Nearly every nation on Earth is a 'settler colonial project'.

Ever hear of Canada, United States, Australia, England, India, Tibet ... shall I go on?

OK, but it was not until around the early 20th century that it became illegal and those had mostly internally displaced rather than refugees.

 

[Shusha]

I don't see any resolution to the problem other than decolonization.

Am I the only one who sees a sanitary code word for "the Jewish people must be ethnically cleansed from 'Palestine'"?

 

[skye]

Nope

no two state

no way

never!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

send palestinians back to Jordan or any other place....

trouble makers that they are

 

[P F Tinmore]

I don't see any resolution to the problem other than decolonization.

Am I the only one who sees a sanitary code word for "the Jewish people must be ethnically cleansed from 'Palestine'"?

Probably and you would be incorrect.

 

[fncceo]

but it was not until around the early 20th century

Australia as officially annexed at the beginning of the 20th century

India and Pakistan were partitioned in 1947

United States annexed the territories of Oklahoma, New Mexico, Arizona, Alaska and Hawaii in the 20th century

Tibet was annexed by China in 1951

When ... precisely ... is this imaginary cutoff date of which you speak?

 

[Shusha]

I don't see any resolution to the problem other than decolonization.

Am I the only one who sees a sanitary code word for "the Jewish people must be ethnically cleansed from 'Palestine'"?

Probably and you would be incorrect.

I started a thread. Please feel free to "correct" me.

 

[rhodescholar]

but it was not until around the early 20th century

Australia as officially annexed at the beginning of the 20th century

India and Pakistan were partitioned in 1947

United States annexed the territories of Oklahoma, New Mexico, Arizona, Alaska and Hawaii in the 20th century

Tibet was annexed by China in 1951

When ... precisely ... is this imaginary cutoff date of which you speak?

Don't forget cyprus, ukraine, that lebanon, syria and iraq were artificial creations, in some cases with minority rule over much larger majority populations, then we have various areas that russia has annexed/claimed like sakhalin island, etc. The list is endless, but the jew-hating c-nts will always try to twist and adjust the timeline when things like international law should or shouldn't apply, that this or that situation is more "complex", etc so as to ensure the target is always focused on Israel. These people are pathetic, bottom feeding scum whose deaths cannot come soon enough, several of whom are in this very thread.

 

[Andylusion]

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.

On the map: Where is Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia, Somalia, Bahrain, etc.

Depending on exactly which qualifications you use, and which exceptions you run with, depends on what countries you would include in the list.

Different scholarly work, comes to different conclusions, based on their perspective of what is, and what isn't, part of the Arab world, or the Islamic World, or the Islamophere.

For example, do you include countries where the majority self-identify as Islamic, while the culture is not Arabian, or they speak Arabic? Do you include countries where there is little to no people of Arab decent, but is Islamic culturally?

Do you consider country which are merely influenced by Arabian culture, but otherwise have nothing common?

So depending on what sources you look at, will determine how many, or how few of the dozens of countries are included as being part of the Arab-world.

However the point is, and remains that no matter what standards you use, how strict, or lenient they may be, in the end there are literally over 5 million square miles of land ruled by, owned by, and lived on by Arab/Muslim peoples.

At the very least, they have as much land as the entire United States, to live in. While Israel has 8,000 square miles, are barely more than New Jersey.

Additionally, Israel has few natural resources, other than lots of sun, where as the Islamic Muslim lands combined have more natural resources, than any other country on the face of the Earth.

Lastly, Israel prior to the 1900s (referring to the land not the nation obviously), was a barren wasteland, the Islamic Muslim countries had developed economies and growing standards of living.

The only reason the Arabs want the land of Israel, has nothing to do with needing land. It has to do with hating Jews, and wanting to destroy the nation of Israel.

If the Arabs truly had their way, they would kill the jews, and desert the land of Israel, letting it rot away to a barren wasteland again, just like they did in the 1700s to 1800s. If the Arabs had really wanted the land itself, they could have had a booming metropolis across Palestine. Instead, they had barely 200,000 people in the land, and most were impoverished subsistence farmers.

Remember until the Jews started coming back to Israel, the population levels were falling. It was only when the Jews started coming back, that suddenly the Arabs thought they needed that land.

 

[Andylusion]

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 was a Jew.

Exactly. And one of them came from a linage that owned the land, and the other did not.

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?

Palestinian immigration is an Israeli propaganda thing.

There you go. Call all counter information "propaganda", and ignore it.

Ok. I can play that too, right? The Arabs claiming they are not immigrants, is just propaganda by the PA.

Hey, works for you, so it works for me. Right? That's the rules of this discussion according to you, so here we go.

 

[P F Tinmore]

but it was not until around the early 20th century

Australia as officially annexed at the beginning of the 20th century

India and Pakistan were partitioned in 1947

United States annexed the territories of Oklahoma, New Mexico, Arizona, Alaska and Hawaii in the 20th century

Tibet was annexed by China in 1951

When ... precisely ... is this imaginary cutoff date of which you speak?

There is a big difference between colonialism and settler colonialism.

Israel is a settler colonial project. The result is a large stateless refugee population.

 

[fncceo]

he result is a large stateless refugee population

Au contraire. Palestinian Arabs aren't stateless because of Israelis. They are stateless because their leadership have turned down every offer of statehood the multiple times it has been offered.

Palestinian leadership don't want a recognition of statehood, they want the state of Israel.

 

[P F Tinmore]

he result is a large stateless refugee population

Au contraire. Palestinian Arabs aren't stateless because of Israelis. They are stateless because their leadership have turned down every offer of statehood the multiple times it has been offered.

Palestinian leadership don't want a recognition of statehood, they want the state of Israel.

Oh, jeese.