Trump Deal - details, reactions and development on the ground

[rylah]

RE: Trump Deal - details, reactions and development on the ground
⁜→ Coyote, rylah, et al,

Leadership: That is a tough quality about people. It is hard to explain. But at the end of the day, it is not what a person exhibits that defines a leader (or not) but that of people that follow him/her. One thing that all leaders have in common; a significant group that follows them. No matters what book you read about "how to be a Leader," it all boils down to whether or not there is a following.

There is a world of difference between President (D) Franklin D Roosevelt • and that of • Chancellor Adolf Hitler (NSDAP). Yet both of them had a large following and power behind them. History portrays them very differently; one as being the embodiment of "good" the other an expression of absolute "evil." But there is no question in history that they each brought their nation under their control and influence.

And on the side note, the "what Netanyahu wanted all along",
well frankly, I'm an Israeli and have no idea what he actually wants,
and to even assume a leader of his caliber would reveal his strategy, is naive at best.

A leader of his caliber?
He's a politician - like any other, with an eye towards re-election, and a base to pander to.
He's never done anything to indicate a support for a two state solution - never.
So what do you think his aims are?

(COMMENT)

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu (Likud) has been in power for more than a decade over what is today the most successful and developing nation in the entire Middle East and North Africa (MENA). The PM's effective organizational performance and political results have taken a multi-cultural nation (ethnically, nationally, and whose religious identity is unambiguous) to new heights. He has kept Israel out of major confrontations with the Arab World, and yet maintained a position of strength in one of the more contentious areas of the world. And the people of Israel know this. You simply cannot be in such a position, for such a time, with such outcomes → and not be a leader; whether you agree (on any stance or political agenda) with him or not.

As to the two-state solution: When I was a paperboy (more than a half-century ago), on this one particular route I had this mean, ferocious-looking, and growling dog that would follow me, stocking me → as if at any moment - if I was to drop my awareness of him - he would pounce. Even today, when I think about him, I cannot recall a dog with bigger teeth than his. But I would rollup a paper and periodically turn towards him and slap my leg and yell at him to get him to back off. He never did attack me, but for two years(+) we have this adversarial relationship → with me frightened at every confrontation. Then, one day, the dog was gone. I don't know where and never knew why, but he was gone. The two-state solution is like that mad dog of my youth. The two-state solution is always there, frighteningly close, yet in reality, → a threat never realized. Maybe because the Israelis growl at it - or maybe because it is just not a good idea for now. We just don't know. The current US proposal is just one more trip around the block with the dog trailing behind.

The only difference is that I can't imagine anyone that could have possibly been more scared of something, as I was of the damn dog; least of all, the Israelis afraid of something.


Most Respectfully,
R

It's strange how times circulate,
once leaders like like Ben-Gurion and Golda Meir opposed any notion about distinct Palestinian people, and they were revered leftist-socialists.

Today a center-right wing leader disengages from Gaza, further accepts autonomy in Judea Samaria as acceptable starting point and basis for negotiations, for granted, but THAT today is judged not enough and too biased in favor of Israel, by the left.

As with the dog, once You grow up strong and evolve, drive a car instead of a bike,
the chase loses its potential meaning.as perceived initially.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Trump Deal - details, reactions and development on the ground
⁜→ Coyote, et al,

BLUF: The issue of granting citizenship (the domestic decision) is NOT directly related to the form of government. The 1954 Convention relating to the Status of Stateless Persons is the covenant that covers stateless persons. Israel is unlikely to deprive a person of acquiring nationality if such deprivation would render him stateless; except where compelling reasons of national security [Article 13, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR)].

I don't think that granting citizenship on the basis of Prescription (continued occupation over a long period of time), using the authority of the extended governance over new territory, is going to be a problem. But that is a domestic issue. The most probable path to success is that the Question of Palestine should be settled, in some manner, by those that will live with the decisions.

They should be granted citizenship if they want it. Otherwise Israel can not call itself a Democracy and you will have a nation with two distinct and not equal populations. That certainly give fodder to those who call it apartheid, and will just continue the violence and unrest. People dont like inequality of rights.

(COMMENT)

The decision has nothing to do with Israel being a democracy (or not). The generalized democratic position on the matter says that:

Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll.

Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defense shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.

And there is nothing to say that a "democracy" is the best form of government possible for the people of the Middle East and North Africa (MENA). Israel is currently considered a "parliamentary democracy;" the only democracy of any type in the MENA Region, making it unique among its neighbors. Walking across the south shore of the Mediterranean Sea:

• Western Sahara: "Legal status" of territory and issue of sovereignty unresolved.
• Morocco: parliamentary constitutional monarchy
• Algeria: presidential republic
• Tunisia: parliamentary republic
• Libya: in transition (or Provisional Government) from a dictatorship to chaos to the unknown
• Egypt: presidential republic
• Saudi Arabia: absolute monarchy
• Jordan: parliamentary constitutional monarchy
• Syria: presidential republic; highly authoritarian regime
• Lebanon: parliamentary republic​

Near-regionally — Iraq, Syria, Libya, and Yemen are troubled nations, all with armed conflicts of one intensity or another. And none of the Arab nations of the Persian Gulf or the Arabian Sea are anywhere close to a democracy.

• Kuwait: constitutional monarchy
• Bahrain: constitutional monarchy
• Qatar: absolute monarchy
• UAE: federation of monarchies
• Oman: absolute monarchy
• Yemen: in transition​

Even, by comparison, the United States is NOT a democracy (although many believe it so), but rather a "constitutional federal republic."

Most Respectfully,
R​

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Trump Deal - details, reactions and development on the ground
⁜→ Coyote, rylah, et al,

So really...the only plausable outcome is some form of a single state?

(CONSIDER)

(5) Prescription: It means continued occupation over a long period of time by one state of territory actually and originally belonging to another state. Requirements of prescription

(i) the possession must be peaceful
(ii) the possession must be public
(iii) the possession must be for a long period of time.​

Prescription is the acquisition of territory which belonged to another state, where as occupation is acquisition of terra nullius. However, international law does not prescribe any fixed period for prescription.

The acquisition of territory by force was historically recognized as a lawful method for acquiring sovereignty, but has been illegal in international law since the U.N charter came into force.


Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Coyote]

RE: Trump Deal - details, reactions and development on the ground
⁜→ Coyote, et al,

BLUF: The issue of granting citizenship (the domestic decision) is NOT directly related to the form of government. The 1954 Convention relating to the Status of Stateless Persons is the covenant that covers stateless persons. Israel is unlikely to deprive a person of acquiring nationality if such deprivation would render him stateless; except where compelling reasons of national security [Article 13, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR)].

I don't think that granting citizenship on the basis of Prescription (continued occupation over a long period of time), using the authority of the extended governance over new territory, is going to be a problem. But that is a domestic issue. The most probable path to success is that the Question of Palestine should be settled, in some manner, by those that will live with the decisions.

They should be granted citizenship if they want it. Otherwise Israel can not call itself a Democracy and you will have a nation with two distinct and not equal populations. That certainly give fodder to those who call it apartheid, and will just continue the violence and unrest. People dont like inequality of rights.

(COMMENT)

The decision has nothing to do with Israel being a democracy (or not). The generalized democratic position on the matter says that:

Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll.

Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defense shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.

And there is nothing to say that a "democracy" is the best form of government possible for the people of the Middle East and North Africa (MENA). Israel is currently considered a "parliamentary democracy;" the only democracy of any type in the MENA Region, making it unique among its neighbors. Walking across the south shore of the Mediterranean Sea:

• Western Sahara: "Legal status" of territory and issue of sovereignty unresolved.
• Morocco: parliamentary constitutional monarchy
• Algeria: presidential republic
• Tunisia: parliamentary republic
• Libya: in transition (or Provisional Government) from a dictatorship to chaos to the unknown
• Egypt: presidential republic
• Saudi Arabia: absolute monarchy
• Jordan: parliamentary constitutional monarchy
• Syria: presidential republic; highly authoritarian regime
• Lebanon: parliamentary republic​

Near-regionally — Iraq, Syria, Libya, and Yemen are troubled nations, all with armed conflicts of one intensity or another. And none of the Arab nations of the Persian Gulf or the Arabian Sea are anywhere close to a democracy.

• Kuwait: constitutional monarchy
• Bahrain: constitutional monarchy
• Qatar: absolute monarchy
• UAE: federation of monarchies
• Oman: absolute monarchy
• Yemen: in transition​

Even, by comparison, the United States is NOT a democracy (although many believe it so), but rather a "constitutional federal republic."

Most Respectfully,
R​

Yet how can Israel even be a parliamentary democracy of a significant group of people have no rights or representation? I don't see how that is laudable.

 

[Shusha]

RE: Trump Deal - details, reactions and development on the ground
⁜→ Coyote, et al,

BLUF: The issue of granting citizenship (the domestic decision) is NOT directly related to the form of government. The 1954 Convention relating to the Status of Stateless Persons is the covenant that covers stateless persons. Israel is unlikely to deprive a person of acquiring nationality if such deprivation would render him stateless; except where compelling reasons of national security [Article 13, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR)].

I don't think that granting citizenship on the basis of Prescription (continued occupation over a long period of time), using the authority of the extended governance over new territory, is going to be a problem. But that is a domestic issue. The most probable path to success is that the Question of Palestine should be settled, in some manner, by those that will live with the decisions.

They should be granted citizenship if they want it. Otherwise Israel can not call itself a Democracy and you will have a nation with two distinct and not equal populations. That certainly give fodder to those who call it apartheid, and will just continue the violence and unrest. People dont like inequality of rights.

(COMMENT)

The decision has nothing to do with Israel being a democracy (or not). The generalized democratic position on the matter says that:

Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll.

Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defense shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.

And there is nothing to say that a "democracy" is the best form of government possible for the people of the Middle East and North Africa (MENA). Israel is currently considered a "parliamentary democracy;" the only democracy of any type in the MENA Region, making it unique among its neighbors. Walking across the south shore of the Mediterranean Sea:

• Western Sahara: "Legal status" of territory and issue of sovereignty unresolved.
• Morocco: parliamentary constitutional monarchy
• Algeria: presidential republic
• Tunisia: parliamentary republic
• Libya: in transition (or Provisional Government) from a dictatorship to chaos to the unknown
• Egypt: presidential republic
• Saudi Arabia: absolute monarchy
• Jordan: parliamentary constitutional monarchy
• Syria: presidential republic; highly authoritarian regime
• Lebanon: parliamentary republic​

Near-regionally — Iraq, Syria, Libya, and Yemen are troubled nations, all with armed conflicts of one intensity or another. And none of the Arab nations of the Persian Gulf or the Arabian Sea are anywhere close to a democracy.

• Kuwait: constitutional monarchy
• Bahrain: constitutional monarchy
• Qatar: absolute monarchy
• UAE: federation of monarchies
• Oman: absolute monarchy
• Yemen: in transition​

Even, by comparison, the United States is NOT a democracy (although many believe it so), but rather a "constitutional federal republic."

Most Respectfully,
R​

Yet how can Israel even be a parliamentary democracy of a significant group of people have no rights or representation? I don't see how that is laudable.

What significant group of people have no rights or representation?

 

[Coyote]

RE: Trump Deal - details, reactions and development on the ground
⁜→ Coyote, et al,

BLUF: The issue of granting citizenship (the domestic decision) is NOT directly related to the form of government. The 1954 Convention relating to the Status of Stateless Persons is the covenant that covers stateless persons. Israel is unlikely to deprive a person of acquiring nationality if such deprivation would render him stateless; except where compelling reasons of national security [Article 13, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR)].

I don't think that granting citizenship on the basis of Prescription (continued occupation over a long period of time), using the authority of the extended governance over new territory, is going to be a problem. But that is a domestic issue. The most probable path to success is that the Question of Palestine should be settled, in some manner, by those that will live with the decisions.

They should be granted citizenship if they want it. Otherwise Israel can not call itself a Democracy and you will have a nation with two distinct and not equal populations. That certainly give fodder to those who call it apartheid, and will just continue the violence and unrest. People dont like inequality of rights.

(COMMENT)

The decision has nothing to do with Israel being a democracy (or not). The generalized democratic position on the matter says that:

Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll.

Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defense shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.

And there is nothing to say that a "democracy" is the best form of government possible for the people of the Middle East and North Africa (MENA). Israel is currently considered a "parliamentary democracy;" the only democracy of any type in the MENA Region, making it unique among its neighbors. Walking across the south shore of the Mediterranean Sea:

• Western Sahara: "Legal status" of territory and issue of sovereignty unresolved.
• Morocco: parliamentary constitutional monarchy
• Algeria: presidential republic
• Tunisia: parliamentary republic
• Libya: in transition (or Provisional Government) from a dictatorship to chaos to the unknown
• Egypt: presidential republic
• Saudi Arabia: absolute monarchy
• Jordan: parliamentary constitutional monarchy
• Syria: presidential republic; highly authoritarian regime
• Lebanon: parliamentary republic​

Near-regionally — Iraq, Syria, Libya, and Yemen are troubled nations, all with armed conflicts of one intensity or another. And none of the Arab nations of the Persian Gulf or the Arabian Sea are anywhere close to a democracy.

• Kuwait: constitutional monarchy
• Bahrain: constitutional monarchy
• Qatar: absolute monarchy
• UAE: federation of monarchies
• Oman: absolute monarchy
• Yemen: in transition​

Even, by comparison, the United States is NOT a democracy (although many believe it so), but rather a "constitutional federal republic."

Most Respectfully,
R​

Yet how can Israel even be a parliamentary democracy of a significant group of people have no rights or representation? I don't see how that is laudable.

What significant group of people have no rights or representation?

Currently none. This is just speculation coming from a discussion from post 692.

 

[toomuchtime_]

RE: Trump Deal - details, reactions and development on the ground
⁜→ Coyote, et al,

BLUF: The issue of granting citizenship (the domestic decision) is NOT directly related to the form of government. The 1954 Convention relating to the Status of Stateless Persons is the covenant that covers stateless persons. Israel is unlikely to deprive a person of acquiring nationality if such deprivation would render him stateless; except where compelling reasons of national security [Article 13, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR)].

I don't think that granting citizenship on the basis of Prescription (continued occupation over a long period of time), using the authority of the extended governance over new territory, is going to be a problem. But that is a domestic issue. The most probable path to success is that the Question of Palestine should be settled, in some manner, by those that will live with the decisions.

They should be granted citizenship if they want it. Otherwise Israel can not call itself a Democracy and you will have a nation with two distinct and not equal populations. That certainly give fodder to those who call it apartheid, and will just continue the violence and unrest. People dont like inequality of rights.

(COMMENT)

The decision has nothing to do with Israel being a democracy (or not). The generalized democratic position on the matter says that:

Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll.

Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defense shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.

And there is nothing to say that a "democracy" is the best form of government possible for the people of the Middle East and North Africa (MENA). Israel is currently considered a "parliamentary democracy;" the only democracy of any type in the MENA Region, making it unique among its neighbors. Walking across the south shore of the Mediterranean Sea:

• Western Sahara: "Legal status" of territory and issue of sovereignty unresolved.
• Morocco: parliamentary constitutional monarchy
• Algeria: presidential republic
• Tunisia: parliamentary republic
• Libya: in transition (or Provisional Government) from a dictatorship to chaos to the unknown
• Egypt: presidential republic
• Saudi Arabia: absolute monarchy
• Jordan: parliamentary constitutional monarchy
• Syria: presidential republic; highly authoritarian regime
• Lebanon: parliamentary republic​

Near-regionally — Iraq, Syria, Libya, and Yemen are troubled nations, all with armed conflicts of one intensity or another. And none of the Arab nations of the Persian Gulf or the Arabian Sea are anywhere close to a democracy.

• Kuwait: constitutional monarchy
• Bahrain: constitutional monarchy
• Qatar: absolute monarchy
• UAE: federation of monarchies
• Oman: absolute monarchy
• Yemen: in transition​

Even, by comparison, the United States is NOT a democracy (although many believe it so), but rather a "constitutional federal republic."

Most Respectfully,
R​

Yet how can Israel even be a parliamentary democracy of a significant group of people have no rights or representation? I don't see how that is laudable.

What significant group of people have no rights or representation?

Currently none. This is just speculation coming from a discussion from post 692.

That's not true. The land Israel is going to annex has very few Palestinians in it so it's not speculation from post 692, but just an expression of your enduring anti semitism.

 

[Coyote]

RE: Trump Deal - details, reactions and development on the ground
⁜→ Coyote, et al,

BLUF: The issue of granting citizenship (the domestic decision) is NOT directly related to the form of government. The 1954 Convention relating to the Status of Stateless Persons is the covenant that covers stateless persons. Israel is unlikely to deprive a person of acquiring nationality if such deprivation would render him stateless; except where compelling reasons of national security [Article 13, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR)].

I don't think that granting citizenship on the basis of Prescription (continued occupation over a long period of time), using the authority of the extended governance over new territory, is going to be a problem. But that is a domestic issue. The most probable path to success is that the Question of Palestine should be settled, in some manner, by those that will live with the decisions.

They should be granted citizenship if they want it. Otherwise Israel can not call itself a Democracy and you will have a nation with two distinct and not equal populations. That certainly give fodder to those who call it apartheid, and will just continue the violence and unrest. People dont like inequality of rights.

(COMMENT)

The decision has nothing to do with Israel being a democracy (or not). The generalized democratic position on the matter says that:

Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll.

Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defense shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.

And there is nothing to say that a "democracy" is the best form of government possible for the people of the Middle East and North Africa (MENA). Israel is currently considered a "parliamentary democracy;" the only democracy of any type in the MENA Region, making it unique among its neighbors. Walking across the south shore of the Mediterranean Sea:

• Western Sahara: "Legal status" of territory and issue of sovereignty unresolved.
• Morocco: parliamentary constitutional monarchy
• Algeria: presidential republic
• Tunisia: parliamentary republic
• Libya: in transition (or Provisional Government) from a dictatorship to chaos to the unknown
• Egypt: presidential republic
• Saudi Arabia: absolute monarchy
• Jordan: parliamentary constitutional monarchy
• Syria: presidential republic; highly authoritarian regime
• Lebanon: parliamentary republic​

Near-regionally — Iraq, Syria, Libya, and Yemen are troubled nations, all with armed conflicts of one intensity or another. And none of the Arab nations of the Persian Gulf or the Arabian Sea are anywhere close to a democracy.

• Kuwait: constitutional monarchy
• Bahrain: constitutional monarchy
• Qatar: absolute monarchy
• UAE: federation of monarchies
• Oman: absolute monarchy
• Yemen: in transition​

Even, by comparison, the United States is NOT a democracy (although many believe it so), but rather a "constitutional federal republic."

Most Respectfully,
R​

Yet how can Israel even be a parliamentary democracy of a significant group of people have no rights or representation? I don't see how that is laudable.

What significant group of people have no rights or representation?

Currently none. This is just speculation coming from a discussion from post 692.

That's not true. The land Israel is going to annex has very few Palestinians in it so it's not speculation from post 692, but just an expression of your enduring anti semitism.

That's your knee-jerk response isn't it? Screetch anti-semitism?

300,000 Palestinians in Area C. Very few indeed.

 

[toomuchtime_]

RE: Trump Deal - details, reactions and development on the ground
⁜→ Coyote, et al,

BLUF: The issue of granting citizenship (the domestic decision) is NOT directly related to the form of government. The 1954 Convention relating to the Status of Stateless Persons is the covenant that covers stateless persons. Israel is unlikely to deprive a person of acquiring nationality if such deprivation would render him stateless; except where compelling reasons of national security [Article 13, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR)].

I don't think that granting citizenship on the basis of Prescription (continued occupation over a long period of time), using the authority of the extended governance over new territory, is going to be a problem. But that is a domestic issue. The most probable path to success is that the Question of Palestine should be settled, in some manner, by those that will live with the decisions.

(COMMENT)

The decision has nothing to do with Israel being a democracy (or not). The generalized democratic position on the matter says that:

And there is nothing to say that a "democracy" is the best form of government possible for the people of the Middle East and North Africa (MENA). Israel is currently considered a "parliamentary democracy;" the only democracy of any type in the MENA Region, making it unique among its neighbors. Walking across the south shore of the Mediterranean Sea:

• Western Sahara: "Legal status" of territory and issue of sovereignty unresolved.
• Morocco: parliamentary constitutional monarchy
• Algeria: presidential republic
• Tunisia: parliamentary republic
• Libya: in transition (or Provisional Government) from a dictatorship to chaos to the unknown
• Egypt: presidential republic
• Saudi Arabia: absolute monarchy
• Jordan: parliamentary constitutional monarchy
• Syria: presidential republic; highly authoritarian regime
• Lebanon: parliamentary republic​

Near-regionally — Iraq, Syria, Libya, and Yemen are troubled nations, all with armed conflicts of one intensity or another. And none of the Arab nations of the Persian Gulf or the Arabian Sea are anywhere close to a democracy.

• Kuwait: constitutional monarchy
• Bahrain: constitutional monarchy
• Qatar: absolute monarchy
• UAE: federation of monarchies
• Oman: absolute monarchy
• Yemen: in transition​

Even, by comparison, the United States is NOT a democracy (although many believe it so), but rather a "constitutional federal republic."

Most Respectfully,
R​

Yet how can Israel even be a parliamentary democracy of a significant group of people have no rights or representation? I don't see how that is laudable.

What significant group of people have no rights or representation?

Currently none. This is just speculation coming from a discussion from post 692.

That's not true. The land Israel is going to annex has very few Palestinians in it so it's not speculation from post 692, but just an expression of your enduring anti semitism.

That's your knee-jerk response isn't it? Screetch anti-semitism?

300,000 Palestinians in Area C. Very few indeed.

You told a stupid lie and got called for it. Israel will be annexing approximately half of area C and there are very few Palestinians in that half. The fact that you work so hard to try to justify your irrational hatred of Israel is proof of your anti semitism.

 

[Coyote]

Yet how can Israel even be a parliamentary democracy of a significant group of people have no rights or representation? I don't see how that is laudable.

What significant group of people have no rights or representation?

Currently none. This is just speculation coming from a discussion from post 692.

That's not true. The land Israel is going to annex has very few Palestinians in it so it's not speculation from post 692, but just an expression of your enduring anti semitism.

That's your knee-jerk response isn't it? Screetch anti-semitism?

300,000 Palestinians in Area C. Very few indeed.

You told a stupid lie and got called for it. Israel will be annexing approximately half of area C and there are very few Palestinians in that half. The fact that you work so hard to try to justify your irrational hatred of Israel is proof of your anti semitism.

Oh brother. Come up with some fresh material please.

I didn't see where it was specified what portion of Area C - only Area C.

I'm sure, though, given you are such a stellar and unbigoted person, you will agree that those Palestinians in the annexed area should be given citizenship and voting rights, if they wish it. Correct?

 

[toomuchtime_]

What significant group of people have no rights or representation?

Currently none. This is just speculation coming from a discussion from post 692.

That's not true. The land Israel is going to annex has very few Palestinians in it so it's not speculation from post 692, but just an expression of your enduring anti semitism.

That's your knee-jerk response isn't it? Screetch anti-semitism?

300,000 Palestinians in Area C. Very few indeed.

You told a stupid lie and got called for it. Israel will be annexing approximately half of area C and there are very few Palestinians in that half. The fact that you work so hard to try to justify your irrational hatred of Israel is proof of your anti semitism.

Oh brother. Come up with some fresh material please.

I didn't see where it was specified what portion of Area C - only Area C.

I'm sure, though, given you are such a stellar and unbigoted person, you will agree that those Palestinians in the annexed area should be given citizenship and voting rights, if they wish it. Correct?

Well, the area to be annexed is specified in the Trump plan so if you don't know which area it is then you don't know don't know what is in the Trump plan, which is what this discussion is about. Holding strong opinions, as you do, that are not based on facts, as yours aren't, is a definition of bigotry: hence with every post you identify yourself as an anti semite.

 

[Coyote]

Currently none. This is just speculation coming from a discussion from post 692.

That's not true. The land Israel is going to annex has very few Palestinians in it so it's not speculation from post 692, but just an expression of your enduring anti semitism.

That's your knee-jerk response isn't it? Screetch anti-semitism?

300,000 Palestinians in Area C. Very few indeed.

You told a stupid lie and got called for it. Israel will be annexing approximately half of area C and there are very few Palestinians in that half. The fact that you work so hard to try to justify your irrational hatred of Israel is proof of your anti semitism.

Oh brother. Come up with some fresh material please.

I didn't see where it was specified what portion of Area C - only Area C.

I'm sure, though, given you are such a stellar and unbigoted person, you will agree that those Palestinians in the annexed area should be given citizenship and voting rights, if they wish it. Correct?

Well, the area to be annexed is specified in the Trump plan so if you don't know which area it is then you don't know don't know what is in the Trump plan, which is what this discussion is about. Holding strong opinions, as you do, that are not based on facts, as yours aren't, is a definition of bigotry: hence with every post you identify yourself as an anti semite.

Again, you and your constant claims of anti-semitism are tiresome, like the person continuously pulling the race card at every perceived slight.

Since the Trump plan hasn't been agreed to by anyone or acted on as a plan - how do you know exactly what is being annexed? I'll take your word for it.

I noticed you neatly avoid my question.

So I'll repeat it: I'm sure, though, given you are such a stellar and unbigoted person, you will agree that those Palestinians in the annexed area should be given citizenship and voting rights, if they wish it. Correct?

 

[toomuchtime_]

That's not true. The land Israel is going to annex has very few Palestinians in it so it's not speculation from post 692, but just an expression of your enduring anti semitism.

That's your knee-jerk response isn't it? Screetch anti-semitism?

300,000 Palestinians in Area C. Very few indeed.

You told a stupid lie and got called for it. Israel will be annexing approximately half of area C and there are very few Palestinians in that half. The fact that you work so hard to try to justify your irrational hatred of Israel is proof of your anti semitism.

Oh brother. Come up with some fresh material please.

I didn't see where it was specified what portion of Area C - only Area C.

I'm sure, though, given you are such a stellar and unbigoted person, you will agree that those Palestinians in the annexed area should be given citizenship and voting rights, if they wish it. Correct?

Well, the area to be annexed is specified in the Trump plan so if you don't know which area it is then you don't know don't know what is in the Trump plan, which is what this discussion is about. Holding strong opinions, as you do, that are not based on facts, as yours aren't, is a definition of bigotry: hence with every post you identify yourself as an anti semite.

Again, you and your constant claims of anti-semitism are tiresome, like the person continuously pulling the race card at every perceived slight.

Since the Trump plan hasn't been agreed to by anyone or acted on as a plan - how do you know exactly what is being annexed? I'll take your word for it.

I noticed you neatly avoid my question.

So I'll repeat it: I'm sure, though, given you are such a stellar and unbigoted person, you will agree that those Palestinians in the annexed area should be given citizenship and voting rights, if they wish it. Correct?

The fact that you don't know what Israel is going to annex is another confession of ignorance on your part since the government has been very clear it is going to annex those parts of area C specified in the Trump plan. Again, you identify yourself as a bigot by holding strong opinions that are not based on facts.

Since you are also ignorant of the fact I had previously answered your question, I will repeat my answer. The very few Palestinians who may be living on the land to be annexed, who are as per Oslo citizens of the PA, will be given resident status and the opportunity to apply for Israeli citizenship just as the Arabs in Jerusalem were. Only a rabid anti semite like yourself would think it was a good idea to grant Israelis citizenship to an unrepentant supporter of terrorism against Jews.

 

[Natural Citizen]

It's not a Trump plan. It's a Jared Kushner plan. He's a Jewish real estate developer/investor who just happens to be Trump's advisor. He's Israel's guy on the inside. But I'm sure everyone already knew that.

 

[toomuchtime_]

It's not a Trump plan. It's a Jared Kushner plan. He's a Jewish real estate developer who just happens to be Trump's advisor. But I'm sure everyone already knew that.

Of course it's Trump's plan. Trump sent Kushner, Greenblatt and Friedman to develop the plan and they he approved it. They spent two years researching the situation and consulting with both Israel and the Arab states and trying to consult with the PA, which refused, and it is the most widely and deeply researched and detailed plan ever presented.

 

[Coyote]

That's your knee-jerk response isn't it? Screetch anti-semitism?

300,000 Palestinians in Area C. Very few indeed.

You told a stupid lie and got called for it. Israel will be annexing approximately half of area C and there are very few Palestinians in that half. The fact that you work so hard to try to justify your irrational hatred of Israel is proof of your anti semitism.

Oh brother. Come up with some fresh material please.

I didn't see where it was specified what portion of Area C - only Area C.

I'm sure, though, given you are such a stellar and unbigoted person, you will agree that those Palestinians in the annexed area should be given citizenship and voting rights, if they wish it. Correct?

Well, the area to be annexed is specified in the Trump plan so if you don't know which area it is then you don't know don't know what is in the Trump plan, which is what this discussion is about. Holding strong opinions, as you do, that are not based on facts, as yours aren't, is a definition of bigotry: hence with every post you identify yourself as an anti semite.

Again, you and your constant claims of anti-semitism are tiresome, like the person continuously pulling the race card at every perceived slight.

Since the Trump plan hasn't been agreed to by anyone or acted on as a plan - how do you know exactly what is being annexed? I'll take your word for it.

I noticed you neatly avoid my question.

So I'll repeat it: I'm sure, though, given you are such a stellar and unbigoted person, you will agree that those Palestinians in the annexed area should be given citizenship and voting rights, if they wish it. Correct?

The fact that you don't know what Israel is going to annex is another confession of ignorance on your part since the government has been very clear it is going to annex those parts of area C specified in the Trump plan. Again, you identify yourself as a bigot by holding strong opinions that are not based on facts.

Since you are also ignorant of the fact I had previously answered your question, I will repeat my answer. The very few Palestinians who may be living on the land to be annexed, who are as per Oslo citizens of the PA, will be given resident status and the opportunity to apply for Israeli citizenship just as the Arabs in Jerusalem were. Only a rabid anti semite like yourself would think it was a good idea to grant Israelis citizenship to an unrepentant supporter of terrorism against Jews.

Ah. So they will be granted "residency" status...which, presumably can be revoked at any time for any reason...and they can be given the opportunity to "apply" for citizenship...which is extremely difficult for them to get. They will be unable to vote either. So they have no say in being annexed and...no guarantee of citizenship once their land is taken over. Nice! And you are the one that isn't supposed to be a bigot! Well done

Netanyahu proposed annexing a portion of Area C in September...presumably it's what he is talking about now. According to this article there 65,000 Palestinians (and 11,000 settlers) as of 2016. That's not "very few". So why did you lie?

 

[Indeependent]

You told a stupid lie and got called for it. Israel will be annexing approximately half of area C and there are very few Palestinians in that half. The fact that you work so hard to try to justify your irrational hatred of Israel is proof of your anti semitism.

Oh brother. Come up with some fresh material please.

I didn't see where it was specified what portion of Area C - only Area C.

I'm sure, though, given you are such a stellar and unbigoted person, you will agree that those Palestinians in the annexed area should be given citizenship and voting rights, if they wish it. Correct?

Well, the area to be annexed is specified in the Trump plan so if you don't know which area it is then you don't know don't know what is in the Trump plan, which is what this discussion is about. Holding strong opinions, as you do, that are not based on facts, as yours aren't, is a definition of bigotry: hence with every post you identify yourself as an anti semite.

Again, you and your constant claims of anti-semitism are tiresome, like the person continuously pulling the race card at every perceived slight.

Since the Trump plan hasn't been agreed to by anyone or acted on as a plan - how do you know exactly what is being annexed? I'll take your word for it.

I noticed you neatly avoid my question.

So I'll repeat it: I'm sure, though, given you are such a stellar and unbigoted person, you will agree that those Palestinians in the annexed area should be given citizenship and voting rights, if they wish it. Correct?

The fact that you don't know what Israel is going to annex is another confession of ignorance on your part since the government has been very clear it is going to annex those parts of area C specified in the Trump plan. Again, you identify yourself as a bigot by holding strong opinions that are not based on facts.

Since you are also ignorant of the fact I had previously answered your question, I will repeat my answer. The very few Palestinians who may be living on the land to be annexed, who are as per Oslo citizens of the PA, will be given resident status and the opportunity to apply for Israeli citizenship just as the Arabs in Jerusalem were. Only a rabid anti semite like yourself would think it was a good idea to grant Israelis citizenship to an unrepentant supporter of terrorism against Jews.

Ah. So they will be granted "residency" status...which, presumably can be revoked at any time for any reason...and they can be given the opportunity to "apply" for citizenship...which is extremely difficult for them to get. They will be unable to vote either. So they have no say in being annexed and...no guarantee of citizenship once their land is taken over. Nice! And you are the one that isn't supposed to be a bigot! Well done

Netanyahu proposed annexing a portion of Area C in September...presumably it's what he is talking about now. According to this article there 65,000 Palestinians (and 11,000 settlers) as of 2016. That's not "very few". So why did you lie?

They will be welcomed by Jordan...not.
More than half of the nations in the UN that pan Israel have business dealings with Israel.
So feel free to cry.

 

[Picaro]

Oh brother. Come up with some fresh material please.

I didn't see where it was specified what portion of Area C - only Area C.

I'm sure, though, given you are such a stellar and unbigoted person, you will agree that those Palestinians in the annexed area should be given citizenship and voting rights, if they wish it. Correct?

Well, the area to be annexed is specified in the Trump plan so if you don't know which area it is then you don't know don't know what is in the Trump plan, which is what this discussion is about. Holding strong opinions, as you do, that are not based on facts, as yours aren't, is a definition of bigotry: hence with every post you identify yourself as an anti semite.

Again, you and your constant claims of anti-semitism are tiresome, like the person continuously pulling the race card at every perceived slight.

Since the Trump plan hasn't been agreed to by anyone or acted on as a plan - how do you know exactly what is being annexed? I'll take your word for it.

I noticed you neatly avoid my question.

So I'll repeat it: I'm sure, though, given you are such a stellar and unbigoted person, you will agree that those Palestinians in the annexed area should be given citizenship and voting rights, if they wish it. Correct?

The fact that you don't know what Israel is going to annex is another confession of ignorance on your part since the government has been very clear it is going to annex those parts of area C specified in the Trump plan. Again, you identify yourself as a bigot by holding strong opinions that are not based on facts.

Since you are also ignorant of the fact I had previously answered your question, I will repeat my answer. The very few Palestinians who may be living on the land to be annexed, who are as per Oslo citizens of the PA, will be given resident status and the opportunity to apply for Israeli citizenship just as the Arabs in Jerusalem were. Only a rabid anti semite like yourself would think it was a good idea to grant Israelis citizenship to an unrepentant supporter of terrorism against Jews.

Ah. So they will be granted "residency" status...which, presumably can be revoked at any time for any reason...and they can be given the opportunity to "apply" for citizenship...which is extremely difficult for them to get. They will be unable to vote either. So they have no say in being annexed and...no guarantee of citizenship once their land is taken over. Nice! And you are the one that isn't supposed to be a bigot! Well done

Netanyahu proposed annexing a portion of Area C in September...presumably it's what he is talking about now. According to this article there 65,000 Palestinians (and 11,000 settlers) as of 2016. That's not "very few". So why did you lie?

They will be welcomed by Jordan...not.
More than half of the nations in the UN that pan Israel have business dealings with Israel.
So feel free to cry.

There will be no deal; the Arab squatters and their gangster 'leaders' always sabotage talks after a while, or break the agreements almost immediately. As for 'representation' they will sabotage that, too; I'm old to remember when being an Arab Mayor who didn't toe Arafat's line was an automatic death sentence, so forget that silly idea as well. One or more were assassinated almost every week in the late 1950's and throughout the 1960/s.

 

[ForeverYoung436]

It's not a Trump plan. It's a Jared Kushner plan. He's a Jewish real estate developer who just happens to be Trump's advisor. But I'm sure everyone already knew that.

Of course it's Trump's plan. Trump sent Kushner, Greenblatt and Friedman to develop the plan and they he approved it. They spent two years researching the situation and consulting with both Israel and the Arab states and trying to consult with the PA, which refused, and it is the most widely and deeply researched and detailed plan ever presented.

If you approve of the Trump plan, then you are for a Palestinian state in some form, with some extra land being given to them in the South of Israel, that has always been part of Israel proper. Then why did you say previously that you are for the present status quo? It seems that you do have a vision for the future after all.

 

[ForeverYoung436]

It's not a Trump plan. It's a Jared Kushner plan. He's a Jewish real estate developer/investor who just happens to be Trump's advisor. He's Israel's guy on the inside. But I'm sure everyone already knew that.

Jared is also Trump's son-in-law. Yes, Trump appointed him to craft the plan, since Trump has a few other responsibilities to deal with. But if Trump rubber-stamped the plan and presented it as American policy, then it can rightfully be called Trump's plan.