Muslim leaders call for international protection force for Palestinians

[Kiwiken]

The simplest solution would for there to be a referendum held one in Gaza and One in the West Bank on each respective side becoming part of either Egypt or Jordan respectively. For the Egyptians less of an issue. For the Jordanians who already have a sizable Palestinian population more so.

The reality is Israel pre 1967 borders plus the Golan Heights is an undeniable fact.

However like many I deny the right of Israel to settle any part of the West Bank or to annex all of Jerusalem.

The West Bank and Gaza are Palestinian and should be recognised as Palestine. And are for now occupied territory

Those believing that Israel and Palestine will be reunited as One are as naive as thinking Samoa will be one again or that Hawaii will be returned to the native people. History proves this.

Whatever Our views the existence of Israel is undeniable but denying the Palestinians recognition is reprehensible.

[Morch]

45 minutes ago, Kiwiken said:

The simplest solution would for there to be a referendum held one in Gaza and One in the West Bank on each respective side becoming part of either Egypt or Jordan respectively. For the Egyptians less of an issue. For the Jordanians who already have a sizable Palestinian population more so.

The reality is Israel pre 1967 borders plus the Golan Heights is an undeniable fact.

However like many I deny the right of Israel to settle any part of the West Bank or to annex all of Jerusalem.

The West Bank and Gaza are Palestinian and should be recognised as Palestine. And are for now occupied territory

Those believing that Israel and Palestine will be reunited as One are as naive as thinking Samoa will be one again or that Hawaii will be returned to the native people. History proves this.

Whatever Our views the existence of Israel is undeniable but denying the Palestinians recognition is reprehensible.

 

The Palestinians do not have a  political mechanism to conduct a referendum. They have also demonstrated some difficulty in settling their own differences via political means, or accept election results. To imagine that this would simply change is naive.

 

Generally speaking, the Palestinians are not all that much into being absorbed by other countries, or letting go of their self-determination efforts (not a judgement on ways, means or progress). Other than the two options offered, this also relates to the discussed one-state solution.

 

And really, this is not up to the Palestinians. No such hypothetical referendum could take place without being preceded by the consent of countries involved (Egypt, Jordan and Israel). People don't get to unilaterally decide on becoming citizens of another country. I should imagine that under democratic systems, the people of the supposed host countries would have a say as well - not that this applies much here.

 

While opining that this would be "less of an issue" for Egypt, reality is different. Ideas of Egypt taking control of the Gaza Strip or Palestinians being settled in Egypt were floated in the past. Egypt doesn't have much interest. If it's own troubled economy wasn't reason enough, then being saddled with a couple of millions poor Palestinians, complete with armed Islamic terrorist organizations doesn't carry much promise for anything good. That's without factoring bad blood (consider why Egypt aggressively maintains the blockade), or general standing negative bias toward Palestinians (pretty much a ME thing).

 

Jordan renounced it's claims in the West Bank and formerly granted citizenship was revoked. Considering Palestinians (naturalized and refugees) already make up anywhere between 2.5 to 4 million of Jordan's population of 10 million, hard to see much inclination to add a few millions more. Other than being an already poor country, Jordan also hosts millions of refugees from neighboring Arab countries.

 

A couple of extra points to consider - other than Jordan, no Arab country offered the Palestinians a clear path to naturalization. Even if one somehow assumes Egypt and Jordan will do so, issues pertaining to the Palestinian diaspora remain.

 

As for the rest of your post - yes.

 

[dexterm]

23 hours ago, Morch said:

 

 

That would be you doing the usual hatchet job on my post, then going for the spin by implying things which weren't part of it. And now to address the nonsense post itself....

 

Your Hypothetical  scenario does not apply. Some examples of major differences:

 

(1) - the hypothetical conquest scenario does not correspond to reality. By and large, the International community criticism applies to Israel's occupation of territories conquered post-1967 and activities carried therein, but not with regard to what is considered to be Israel proper. In your scenario suggested, there is no such differentiation.

 

(2) - Israel did not "kick out" all the Palestinians back in 1948 (if it did, the large Arab minority wouldn't be around) and it did not "kick out" the Palestinians from territories conquered in 1967. I fail to see how the distinction imagined in your hypothetical scenario applies. Additionally, doubtful the fate of Israelis under such condition would be "kicked out", more like butchered or subjugated. Unlike the Palestinians, Israelis would have no easily accessible escape (hence the "throw to the sea" boasts of old).

 

(3) - The hypothetical scenario references "one Palestinian state". There is no such equivalent. Israel did not annex all of the territories conquered. 

 

If Israel was to lose a war, which would see the West Bank and the Gaza Strip passing over to Palestinian hands, then I don't think I'd have a whole lot of issues with Israelis being "kicked out" from those territories. If this was applied to Israel proper? I wouldn't be "ok with that" as far as human tragedy goes. In terms of my political point of view, though - it would depend on whether an internationally acceptable resolution was at hand, and how sides react to it. Accordingly, I do not consider addressing the Palestinian grievances as unrelated to the decades which passed or to options rejected. Choices made (such as embracing staunch rejectionism) bear consequences, and accountability. 

 

People displaced by war may be called refugees. But as a rule, there is no passing over of refugee status from one generation to the next. The Palestinians represent the only case where such a paradigm is applied. And before expected nonsense, this is not a direct testimony of their plight, but the product of politics. While, under certain conditions, a solution could have been reached involving the original refugees, adding the next generations makes things nigh impossible.

 

The Palestinians are pretty much the only group of refugees having a dedicated UN agency (UNRWA). Most efforts regarding other groups of refugees deal with rehabilitation, placement, solving issues and improving conditions. In the Palestinians' case, due to both the "hereditary status" bit, and Arab countries mostly refusing residence/citizenship for political reasons - such efforts are largely futile or non-existent.

 

Your usual dishonest "are you saying" nonsense notwithstanding, there wasn't anything said implying the BS suggested regarding Syrian refugees in Europe. The bogus conditions and formulations you dream up do not even apply either to reality or your made up scenarios.

 

As to "of course..." and the rest - do tell. Other  than in your populist and simplistic statements how does it relate to existing conditions? Where exactly would the Palestinians of Gaza return to? Their villages are no longer there. Should Israelis be displaced to accommodate the returnees? Doubt this could be presented (never mind accepted) as just - other than if one holds extreme positions. Other than there not being an imperative to embrace multiculturalism, what would be the added value of increasing friction between hostile societies? And that you constantly conflate between the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, or lump separate issues to one is not indicative of an informed view.

An international for protection force for Palestinians would be unnecessary in an orderly repatriation addressing the issue of the Palestinians right of return. You'd have the IDF protecting them.

 

>>By and large, the International community criticism applies to Israel's occupation of territories conquered post-1967 and activities carried therein, but not with regard to what is considered to be Israel proper. In your scenario suggested, there is no such differentiation.
1. ... The fact that "by and large" ?? the international community wishes to focus upon the Israel's second round of ethnic cleansing in 67, conveniently disregarding its first round in 47-48, is no consolation to Palestinian refugees in the OP who have never stopped wanting to return to their land, despite Israel's stalling to make it a fait accompit. I disagree: it is not too late.

 

Perhaps that focus has shifted to 67, because the general consensus of Palestinians initiated in the Oslo Accords  was to recognize Israel in those 67 borders, although Israel has not reciprocated. Israel would get to keep the land it annexed in 48. But Israel now wants even more. There are laws pending in the Knesset that Israel wants to illegally annex more land it has occupied since 67. Some even propose annexing the lot.

The OP Great March of Return perhaps indicates that the focus is shifting back to where it never should have been sidetracked to with false hopes of two states. Most Israelis and Palestinians regard a just two state solution as more hopeless than ever. Add to that the brutal repression of the OP demonstrations for the right of return and Trump taking Jerusalem off the table. 

So if there is not going to be a just two states solution, maybe the younger generation will focus on the fact that there is already one state which Israel controls 100%, but where the minority Israeli Jews have power over the majority Palestinians. The campaigh will shift to address this stark reality:  an anti apartheid campaign for one man one vote.

 

2. Your focus on the word "all" masks the fact that around 80% of Palestinians were ethnically cleansed from what is now Israel proper. They had to be expelled to allow Israeli Jews to confiscate their homes and lands and give them an artificial majority. Without that removal there could never even have been a state of Israel. 

"The precise number of refugees, many of whom settled in refugee camps in neighboring states, is a matter of dispute but around 80 percent of the Arab inhabitants of what became Israel (half of the Arab total of Mandatory Palestine) left or were expelled from their homes"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Palestinian_exodus
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ethnic_Cleansing_of_Palestine
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jewish-and-non-jewish-population-of-israel-palestine-1517-present  [note the jump between 1946-48 of how Jews suddenly became 82% of the population from 30%]

 

and in 1967,

The 1967 Palestinian exodus refers to the flight of around 280,000 to 325,000 Palestinians out of the territories captured by Israel during and in the aftermath of the Six-Day War, including the demolition of the Palestinian villages of Imwas, Yalo, and Bayt Nuba, Surit, Beit Awwa, Beit Mirsem, Shuyukh, Al-Jiftlik, Agarith and Huseirat and the "emptying" of the refugee camps of Aqabat Jaber and ʿEin as-Sultan.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1967_Palestinian_exodus

 

There are now over 600,000 Israeli Jewish settlers living in illegally occupied East Jerusalem and the West Bank. Go figure who displaced whom.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_statistics_for_Israeli_settlements_in_the_West_Bank
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Jerusalem#Demographics

 

Interestingly the Palestinian "hereditary status" bit that is all within their living memory can be dismissed, and yet somehow the "hereditary status" bit for the right of return for Jews although more than 2,000 years old is somehow OK.

 

There is no reason in the world why a well managed, gradual transfer of Palestinians who want to return (or accept compensation) cannot happen. And that IMO would eventually morph into a single state when the majority in historic Palestine realize the benefits of peace and prosperity.

Israel has all the legislative and military power in a nascent new Israel. For starters, it would never allow the scaremongering "drive the Jews into the seas scenario to happen". A constitution ensuring equal numbers in the Knesset and equal treatment between Jews and non Jews could be enacted along with a guarantee that Israel would always be a safe haven for any persecuted Jews. Heavy security vetting of returning Palestinians to allow peace lovers first. Imprisonment, internal and external exile to punish fanatics on both sides who wish to destroy the peace. Social engineering to ensure the next generation do not inherit their parents' venom: citizenship earned through community service, and a secular public education system; anti hate speech and hate crime laws. Full employment in reconstruction would be a no brainer to occupy idle hands.

 

“It always seems impossible until it’s done.” - Nelson Mandela

Edited May 26, 2018 by dexterm

[dexterm]

4 hours ago, Kiwiken said:

The simplest solution would for there to be a referendum held one in Gaza and One in the West Bank on each respective side becoming part of either Egypt or Jordan respectively. For the Egyptians less of an issue. For the Jordanians who already have a sizable Palestinian population more so.

The reality is Israel pre 1967 borders plus the Golan Heights is an undeniable fact.

However like many I deny the right of Israel to settle any part of the West Bank or to annex all of Jerusalem.

The West Bank and Gaza are Palestinian and should be recognised as Palestine. And are for now occupied territory

Those believing that Israel and Palestine will be reunited as One are as naive as thinking Samoa will be one again or that Hawaii will be returned to the native people. History proves this.

Whatever Our views the existence of Israel is undeniable but denying the Palestinians recognition is reprehensible.

I disagree: the world cannot reward Israel for 70 years of ethnic cleansing, annexation and illegal occupation by helping it to make the Palestinian refugee problem they created to go away. I dare say the ones suffering at the center of the conflict the Palestinians may disagree with you also.

 

As I outlined above there is no reason in the world why a well managed, gradual and orderly (with appropriate security checks and balances) return of (some to begin with) Palestinians to live together in peace with Israeli Jews cannot happen (not the doom and gloom open the floodgates of hatred overnight scenario).  As geographic neighbors for eternity it will eventually happen anyway by natural transmigration once decades of peace have been established.

 

The hope for the last 3 decades of futile negotiations was for a just two state solution. That seems to have been kiboshed by Trump's taking Jerusalem off the table move and the seemingly irreversible problem of settlement expansion and division of resources.

 

The only thing left is recognizing the reality of a single state because that is actually what it is at the moment, except that Palestinians do not have equal civil and human rights.

Edited May 26, 2018 by dexterm

[CharlesSwann]

4 hours ago, Kiwiken said:

The simplest solution would for there to be a referendum held one in Gaza and One in the West Bank on each respective side becoming part of either Egypt or Jordan respectively. For the Egyptians less of an issue. For the Jordanians who already have a sizable Palestinian population more so.

The reality is Israel pre 1967 borders plus the Golan Heights is an undeniable fact.

However like many I deny the right of Israel to settle any part of the West Bank or to annex all of Jerusalem.

The West Bank and Gaza are Palestinian and should be recognised as Palestine. And are for now occupied territory

Those believing that Israel and Palestine will be reunited as One are as naive as thinking Samoa will be one again or that Hawaii will be returned to the native people. History proves this.

Whatever Our views the existence of Israel is undeniable but denying the Palestinians recognition is reprehensible.

Excellent proposal. Once under administration by Egypt and Jordan, of course, real preparations for an independent Palestine could begin.

But.

Presumably the reason the Arab world has not collaborated on such a process long ago is because they know Israel won't let it happen. Any solution at all (that is, any peace) thwarts Israel's long-term land-grab aims and Israel would declare any concerted international movement towards peace to be an outright act of hostility and respond with force.

I credit the Arabs at least of not underestimating Zionism's rabid and ruthless determination to steal their land.

[Morch]

 

@dexterm

 

There is no agreement that an international protection force for the Palestinians is necessary. That's something you try to sneak in on the first sentence. Of course your "take" on this assumes communities would live peacefully side by side, which is somewhat disengaged from reality.

 

And to address your "points" which disregard the context in which my post was made....

 

The fact stands that the international community generally accepts the 1967 lines as acceptable. The one-sided bit about "Israel's stalling", ignores decades of Palestinian (and Arab) rejectionism, and the right of return conditioned on being a peaceful one. There was never an obligation to allow the mass return of hostile population.

 

The fact stands that the general acceptance of the 1967 lines as basis for resolution preceded Palestinians entering negotiations. It directly relates to decades of Palestinian (and Arab) rejectionism, Egypt's previous occupation of the Gaza Strip and Jordan's previous annexation of the West Bank. All these contributed to shaping conditions and perceptions, yet are missing from your "accounts". To date, and despite there being such a push by right wing forces, there was no massive annexation of the West Bank or the Gaza Strip by Israel.

 

The fact also stands that your claims regarding prevailing trends on both sides is an intentionally misleading interpretation (thoroughly addressed and debunked on a recent topic). While positions regarding the two-state solution may by pessimistic, that is even more so with regard to the one-state solution advocated by yourself. The same applies to referencing the two-state solution as "false hope", while disregarding the prospects of  alternative pushed being worse. Ignoring the context of domestic Palestinian politics in relation to the protests is either plain ignorance, or intentional obtuseness. Implying that other than scale there was something original about it, does not stand to facts.

 

My focus is not on "all", nor does it "mask" anything. Try and pay attention to the post replied to and how arguments were presented, instead of constantly going for inane spins. That you choose to present historical events in a one-sided manner does not make such "accounts" correct. Many of the Palestinians left their homes in the expectation they'd return following an Arab victory, or ran away without being forcefully expelled. In some cases, this was due to calls by their own leadership.

 

Moving onward...

 

Whether you like to accept it or not, countries' immigration rules are a made at their discretion. Refugee status, on the other hand, is not (other than in the Palestinians' case) transferable. There is no equivalence.

 

That you decide that there is "no reason in the world" a Palestinian right of return could be implemented doesn't make this a fact. The rest of your nonsense assertions isn't supported by facts either, but simply gloss over issues:

 

- Still no answer which "homes" you imagine Palestinians will return to.

- Palestinians do not necessarily equate returning with accepting Israel or integrating within Israeli society.

- Sides having little interest in embracing an imported, utopian multicultural approach.

- No evidence to support that such an imported, utopian multicultural approach is viable in the ME.

- Israel does not have a constitution, nor are Palestinians adept at politically settling disputes (even internal ones).

- No support for viability and efficacy of social engineering. Nothing to suggest time-frame is realistic.

- Large tracts on both societies are religious. Just how a secular education system will be accepted is not clear.

- "Full employment" is not a necessarily clear outcome, nor will it address economic gaps between the two societies.

 

And to point out again - the post you replied to was meant to address false, faux points raised by another poster. That you would essentially ignore this and plow on regardless of context, is expected, if dishonest.

 

 

Edited May 26, 2018 by Morch

[SheungWan]

3 hours ago, CharlesSwann said:

Excellent proposal. Once under administration by Egypt and Jordan, of course, real preparations for an independent Palestine could begin.

But.

Presumably the reason the Arab world has not collaborated on such a process long ago is because they know Israel won't let it happen. Any solution at all (that is, any peace) thwarts Israel's long-term land-grab aims and Israel would declare any concerted international movement towards peace to be an outright act of hostility and respond with force.

I credit the Arabs at least of not underestimating Zionism's rabid and ruthless determination to steal their land.

Presumably this, presumably that...... Egypt's government would have a good laugh at the idea of linking up with Hamas with their historical links with the Islamic Brotherhood. Maybe the previous government, but that one is in prison right now and Egypt not too keen on giving Hamas a free pass. But, hey! Presumably.... As for Jordan, Jordan has a long memory of how Fatah behaved in the past. Have a look at Jordan's Black September and what was going on prior. But presumably this and presumably that.... ?

[Morch]

7 hours ago, dexterm said:

I disagree: the world cannot reward Israel for 70 years of ethnic cleansing, annexation and illegal occupation by helping it to make the Palestinian refugee problem they created to go away. I dare say the ones suffering at the center of the conflict the Palestinians may disagree with you also.

 

As I outlined above there is no reason in the world why a well managed, gradual and orderly (with appropriate security checks and balances) return of (some to begin with) Palestinians to live together in peace with Israeli Jews cannot happen (not the doom and gloom open the floodgates of hatred overnight scenario).  As geographic neighbors for eternity it will eventually happen anyway by natural transmigration once decades of peace have been established.

 

The hope for the last 3 decades of futile negotiations was for a just two state solution. That seems to have been kiboshed by Trump's taking Jerusalem off the table move and the seemingly irreversible problem of settlement expansion and division of resources.

 

The only thing left is recognizing the reality of a single state because that is actually what it is at the moment, except that Palestinians do not have equal civil and human rights.

 

Do tell - what both the Palestinians and Arab countries sponsoring were doing for most of them 70 years to promote a resolution?

 

The outlined above nonsense was addressed. It relies on false assumptions, uninformed statements and a misleading presentation. It also ignores reality on multiple levels.

 

Trump's Jerusalem move, while needlessly creating more friction, did not actually change much with regard to a two-state solution.

 

There is no imperative to accept a one-state solution, just because you support this nonsense. At the very least, it would require more informed basis than provided in your rants. That Palestinians aren't really into it, or at the very least, not from the supposedly peaceful, multicultural approach you advocate, is something routinely ignored.

[Morch]

7 hours ago, CharlesSwann said:

Excellent proposal. Once under administration by Egypt and Jordan, of course, real preparations for an independent Palestine could begin.

But.

Presumably the reason the Arab world has not collaborated on such a process long ago is because they know Israel won't let it happen. Any solution at all (that is, any peace) thwarts Israel's long-term land-grab aims and Israel would declare any concerted international movement towards peace to be an outright act of hostility and respond with force.

I credit the Arabs at least of not underestimating Zionism's rabid and ruthless determination to steal their land.

 

You either didn't understand the post replied to, or pretended not to.

The same goes for the apparent lack of relevant background knowledge and history.

But guess this was just a run of the mill trolling attempt, so eh.

[buick]

On 5/23/2018 at 5:54 PM, dexterm said:

>>do the Palestinians have a single card left to play in this game ?

...After 70 years, although the Palestinians don't have permanent peace, neither does Israel. Israel must constantly be looking over its shoulder, sending its teenagers for 3 of their best years to brutalizing military service risking their lives..no way to live, and good reason for a third of non religious Israeli Jews wishing to emigrate.
And of course Israel only has officially recognized borders with 2 out of its 5 neighboring states.

 

The only thing that will give Israel true full international recognition is a peace agreement with the Palestinians, and it must drive Israel mad that Palestinians won't give them that legitimacy until the injustice perpetrated against them is redressed.

this is meaningless drivel.  as i asked before, what card do the palestinians have left to play ?  they have no negotiating leverage at all.  the palestinian leadership should have taken a deal decades ago.   as i look around the world today, israel seems to be doing well and is relatively safe (probably safer than the USA, where people get shot and killed daily !!!).

 

[buick]

On 5/25/2018 at 7:02 PM, Kiwiken said:

Whatever Our views the existence of Israel is undeniable but denying the Palestinians recognition is reprehensible.

unfortunately, there are typically winners and losers in situations like this.  it isn't possible to negotiate something that is acceptable to both sides.  one side has to accept the loss, move on, and enjoy what they have left.

[dexterm]

52 minutes ago, buick said:

this is meaningless drivel.  as i asked before, what card do the palestinians have left to play ?  they have no negotiating leverage at all.  the palestinian leadership should have taken a deal decades ago.   as i look around the world today, israel seems to be doing well and is relatively safe (probably safer than the USA, where people get shot and killed daily !!!).

 

Do let me know when Israel has official internationally recognized borders with the remaining 3 of its 5 neighbors, including the Gaza fence where the international protection force is most needed. Israel unilaterally keeps moving it to create buffer zones and an opportunity to murder more Palestinian farmers who stray into Israel's invisible new boundary lines.

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/farmer-killed-israel-latest-gaza-strip-west-bank-hamas-protests-mass-sit-ins-benjamin-netanyahu-a8281116.html

[buick]

38 minutes ago, dexterm said:

Do let me know when Israel has official internationally recognized borders with the remaining 3 of its 5 neighbors, including the Gaza fence where the international protection force is most needed. Israel unilaterally keeps moving it to create buffer zones and an opportunity to murder more Palestinian farmers who stray into Israel's invisible new boundary lines.

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/farmer-killed-israel-latest-gaza-strip-west-bank-hamas-protests-mass-sit-ins-benjamin-netanyahu-a8281116.html

the palestinian leaders are responsbile for this action on the border.  they should have made peace a long time ago.  they send old men, women and children into a war zone as human shields.  i don't think israel is unhappy with their current borders nor do they care if they are recognized 'internationally'.  so providing israel with an internationally recognized border is not a 'card' that the palestinians hold.  their hand is empty.  i imagine the people are uneducated and have little choice but to follow their leadership (which only care about themselves, not the people).

[dexterm]

42 minutes ago, buick said:

the palestinian leaders are responsbile for this action on the border.  they should have made peace a long time ago.  they send old men, women and children into a war zone as human shields.  i don't think israel is unhappy with their current borders nor do they care if they are recognized 'internationally'.  so providing israel with an internationally recognized border is not a 'card' that the palestinians hold.  their hand is empty.  i imagine the people are uneducated and have little choice but to follow their leadership (which only care about themselves, not the people).

>>i [sic]imagine the people are uneducated

..ignorant racist baloney. Not feeding the trolls any more today.

[Morch]

2 hours ago, dexterm said:

Do let me know when Israel has official internationally recognized borders with the remaining 3 of its 5 neighbors, including the Gaza fence where the international protection force is most needed. Israel unilaterally keeps moving it to create buffer zones and an opportunity to murder more Palestinian farmers who stray into Israel's invisible new boundary lines.

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/farmer-killed-israel-latest-gaza-strip-west-bank-hamas-protests-mass-sit-ins-benjamin-netanyahu-a8281116.html

 

Same old nonsense posted over and over again.

 

You ignore that none of Israel's three remaining neighbors is capable or interested of negotiating, signing or maintaining such agreements, and that the situation been this way for a long time. No other parties are ever accountable for anything in your bizarro world.

 

And while you try to sneak it as agreed upon fact - there is no general acceptance that an "international protection force is needed". That just something you made up.

 

Not a word out of you when it comes to Egypt creating its own buffer zone and maintaining the blockade. Not a word out of you when it comes to Jordan's past annexation of the West Bank, or its bloody history with Palestinian organization. Not a word out of you when Palestinian refugees are killed in Syria. Not a word out of you on how most Arab countries treat Palestinians. And on and on and on....A torrent of totally one-sided, extreme vehemence.

[Morch]

1 hour ago, dexterm said:

>>i [sic]imagine the people are uneducated

..ignorant racist baloney. Not feeding the trolls any more today.

 

How is it racist?

Edited May 27, 2018 by Morch

[dexterm]

52 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

How is it racist?

Stereotyping Palestinians as uneducated. 

You're trolling.

[dexterm]

1 hour ago, Morch said:

 

Same old nonsense posted over and over again.

 

You ignore that none of Israel's three remaining neighbors is capable or interested of negotiating, signing or maintaining such agreements, and that the situation been this way for a long time. No other parties are ever accountable for anything in your bizarro world.

 

And while you try to sneak it as agreed upon fact - there is no general acceptance that an "international protection force is needed". That just something you made up.

 

Not a word out of you when it comes to Egypt creating its own buffer zone and maintaining the blockade. Not a word out of you when it comes to Jordan's past annexation of the West Bank, or its bloody history with Palestinian organization. Not a word out of you when Palestinian refugees are killed in Syria. Not a word out of you on how most Arab countries treat Palestinians. And on and on and on....A torrent of totally one-sided, extreme vehemence.

Same old rude preamble.

 

para 2. Are you claiming that Lebanon, Syria and the Palestinians are not interested in the return of their land stolen by Israel in return for recognition? And who says there's a statute of limitations on Israel's theft of land?
Bottom line...There is no way the international community will recognize Israel's remaining unofficial borders until it settles its disputes with its neighbors.

Israel has the most powerful army in the area and holds all the cards. Israel is the annexer and occupier, not the other way around. There is no moral equivalence, as though everyone must compromise. Syria and Lebanon want their stolen land back. The Palestinians have compromised enough already.

 

para 4 attempt at deflection. Not playing your troll game today. 

[Morch]

11 hours ago, dexterm said:

Stereotyping Palestinians as uneducated. 

You're trolling.

 

In your expert opinion, Palestinians (especially in the Gaza Strip) enjoy great education? Are aptly informed about other points of view? Not repressed and taken for a ride by their leadership? The one who's trolling is  yourself - there's no obligation or requirement to adopt your standing position of ignoring any negative aspects relating to the Palestinian side.

 

 

[Morch]

11 hours ago, dexterm said:

Same old rude preamble.

 

para 2. Are you claiming that Lebanon, Syria and the Palestinians are not interested in the return of their land stolen by Israel in return for recognition? And who says there's a statute of limitations on Israel's theft of land?
Bottom line...There is no way the international community will recognize Israel's remaining unofficial borders until it settles its disputes with its neighbors.

Israel has the most powerful army in the area and holds all the cards. Israel is the annexer and occupier, not the other way around. There is no moral equivalence, as though everyone must compromise. Syria and Lebanon want their stolen land back. The Palestinians have compromised enough already.

 

para 4 attempt at deflection. Not playing your troll game today. 

 

Those who live in glass houses....

The fact stands that you routinely twist words, and aim to present a misleading one-sided, extreme narrative.

 

Please don't put words in my mouth. Neither Lebanon, Syria or the Palestinians exhibit anything which resembles a stable central government. Meaningful permanent agreement cannot be signed with factions. Hence Israel got peace agreements with the two neighbors who were willing and able to commit. That you gloss over that, or imply that "land for recognition" is either a real construct or an acceptable one is just more of your usual misleading nonsense.

 

Bottom line is that all your decrees and pronouncements mean less than nothing for the Palestinian cause. That you decided what the international community will or will not do is not fact, even counterfactual if one follows the timeline.

 

The idea that the imperative to compromise lies with the stronger party may be applied to the schoolyard or to younger siblings. In international relations, things usually go the other way. Whether you like to acknowledge this or not, makes no difference.

 

As for pointing out to your constant extreme, one-sided framing of all related issues:

 

Quote

Not a word out of you when it comes to Egypt creating its own buffer zone and maintaining the blockade. Not a word out of you when it comes to Jordan's past annexation of the West Bank, or its bloody history with Palestinian organization. Not a word out of you when Palestinian refugees are killed in Syria. Not a word out of you on how most Arab countries treat Palestinians. And on and on and on....A torrent of totally one-sided, extreme vehemence.

 

This is not a deflection, but a relevant fact - unsurprisingly, inanely ignored and rejected as any fact not in line with your narrative.

 

[buick]

14 hours ago, dexterm said:

>>i [sic]imagine the people are uneducated

..ignorant racist baloney. Not feeding the trolls any more today.

the racist card gets pulled, so it is desperation time.  i really don't see how 'i imagine the people are uneducated' can be placed in the racist bucket.  if you want to call me ignorant, that would be fine.  what you keep putting out here in terms of describing the israeli's is really describing the palestinians.  they are the one's who are unhappy with their borders and need legitimacy from the rest of the world.  they are the one's who are unhappy with their current living conditions, etc...  can you post an article where israeli's are complaining about the stuff you bring up ?  that would help me understand things. 

Edited May 28, 2018 by buick

[thaibeachlovers]

On ‎5‎/‎25‎/‎2018 at 1:16 PM, Morch said:

Should Israelis be displaced to accommodate the returnees?

Well, the ones in illegal settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem should certainly have to vacate those properties and allow the rightful land owners to live there.

[thaibeachlovers]

17 hours ago, buick said:

unfortunately, there are typically winners and losers in situations like this.  it isn't possible to negotiate something that is acceptable to both sides.  one side has to accept the loss, move on, and enjoy what they have left.

I may be wrong, but you seem to be implying the Palestinians should enjoy being under occupation, and in the case of Gaza, being in the world's largest prison.

[buick]

4 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I may be wrong, but you seem to be implying the Palestinians should enjoy being under occupation, and in the case of Gaza, being in the world's largest prison.

what i'm suggesting is the palestinians need to admit defeat and stop the nonsense.  then, their prison doors will be opened and they can join the international community and enjoy the benefits that come with that.  not a perfect analogy but look at japan and germany after WWII.  totally destroyed, they took the 'loss', and are very successful today.  meanwhile, palestine, during the same time period, continues to suffer.

 

12 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Well, the ones in illegal settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem should certainly have to vacate those properties and allow the rightful land owners to live there. 

land that is taken is rarely 'given' back.  it has to be 'taken' back (by military action).  i'm sure there are a couple examples of 'given' in world history but the the vast majority require a 'take'.  what would israel receive if they were to give land back ?  a guaranty of peace ?  in the middle east ?  i wouldn't buy into that one.

 

 

[dexterm]

1 hour ago, Morch said:

 

In your expert opinion, Palestinians (especially in the Gaza Strip) enjoy great education? Are aptly informed about other points of view? Not repressed and taken for a ride by their leadership? The one who's trolling is  yourself - there's no obligation or requirement to adopt your standing position of ignoring any negative aspects relating to the Palestinian side.

 

 

Palestinians are some of the brightest and most avid learners in the Middle East despite all the obstacles thrown in their way. If they lack resources it is the fault of the occupying power Israel, who under the Geneva Convention has a duty of care to those it has displaced.
The poster was clearly a racist using stereotypes to denigrate Palestinians..look at the tone of the rest of his post.He was not questioning the quality of education in Gazan schools due to lack of resources. And you appear shamelessly to be supporting him.

Edited May 28, 2018 by dexterm

[dexterm]

51 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Well, the ones in illegal settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem should certainly have to vacate those properties and allow the rightful land owners to live there.

I agree to some extent. The process of ethnic cleansing and demolishing Palestinian homes to make way for illegal Israeli Jewish settlers should certainly stop immediately. No point in exacerbating tensions by evictions and demolitions of new Jewish homes. But illegal unrecognized outposts populated by religious nationalist fanatics could be cleared along with more recent settlements where illegal squatters knowingly built on Palestinian owned land and even forged ownership documents. Obviously full market value must be paid to the true Palestinian owners. Returning Palestinians could build on land that is still vacant. Israel seems to be able to find enough of it for newly arrived Jewish immigrants. 

[thaibeachlovers]

36 minutes ago, buick said:

it has to be 'taken' back (by military action). 

Just give it time.

By their actions, the Israelis are sowing the wind and will in due course reap the whirlwind. They should take more notice of the words in their book.

[dexterm]

1 hour ago, Morch said:

 

Those who live in glass houses....

The fact stands that you routinely twist words, and aim to present a misleading one-sided, extreme narrative.

 

Please don't put words in my mouth. Neither Lebanon, Syria or the Palestinians exhibit anything which resembles a stable central government. Meaningful permanent agreement cannot be signed with factions. Hence Israel got peace agreements with the two neighbors who were willing and able to commit. That you gloss over that, or imply that "land for recognition" is either a real construct or an acceptable one is just more of your usual misleading nonsense.

 

Bottom line is that all your decrees and pronouncements mean less than nothing for the Palestinian cause. That you decided what the international community will or will not do is not fact, even counterfactual if one follows the timeline.

 

The idea that the imperative to compromise lies with the stronger party may be applied to the schoolyard or to younger siblings. In international relations, things usually go the other way. Whether you like to acknowledge this or not, makes no difference.

 

As for pointing out to your constant extreme, one-sided framing of all related issues:

 

 

This is not a deflection, but a relevant fact - unsurprisingly, inanely ignored and rejected as any fact not in line with your narrative.

 

I am trying to adhere to the mods' demand that posters be respectful. Some appear not to have got that message.

 

I always quote your posts in their entirety so that readers can judge for themselves who is twisting and spinning.

 

Less than nothing for the Palestinian cause is when knowledge of the injustice done to them is censored, silenced, and ofuscated, which I know is the hope and deliberate aim of most Israeli apologists.

Edited May 28, 2018 by dexterm

[Morch]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Well, the ones in illegal settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem should certainly have to vacate those properties and allow the rightful land owners to live there.

 

Yes, thanks for quoting things out of context to make an obvious point. As you should be quite aware, I do not have fundamental issues with your statement. 

 

The comment, however, was more related to Israelis residing within the 1967 lines.

Edited May 28, 2018 by Morch

[Morch]

1 hour ago, buick said:

what i'm suggesting is the palestinians need to admit defeat and stop the nonsense.  then, their prison doors will be opened and they can join the international community and enjoy the benefits that come with that.  not a perfect analogy but look at japan and germany after WWII.  totally destroyed, they took the 'loss', and are very successful today.  meanwhile, palestine, during the same time period, continues to suffer.

 

land that is taken is rarely 'given' back.  it has to be 'taken' back (by military action).  i'm sure there are a couple examples of 'given' in world history but the the vast majority require a 'take'.  what would israel receive if they were to give land back ?  a guaranty of peace ?  in the middle east ?  i wouldn't buy into that one.

 

 

 

I agree that the Palestinians' interests would have been better served by accepting reality, and adjusting demands, hopes and dreams accordingly. They would have been better of if different choices would have been picked at nearly every historical junction. This doesn't have to be framed as conceding defeat, though.  

 

Some of this applies to Israel (or at least parts of the Israeli right) as well. Accepting the reality of the Palestinians not going anywhere, and ruling them not being a viable proposition would better serve Israel's interests. This too would necessitate a parting from certain illusions and dreams.

 

As for the second part - we'll have to disagree. Conquering territories and holding on to the land, making it "your own" isn't quite the accepted norm nowadays. And like it or not, maintaining the state of things is simply not viable. I don't think anyone imagines Israel handing back territory without proper assurances and the means to address its security concerns. So not quite the case of "land for paper".