Israel backs draft bill to legalise settlements

[Ulysses G.]

8 hours ago, yardrunner said:

i see you like to blame the victim for the crime

 

I blame the side that started the violence, started the conflict, turned down an offer for peace and their own country and declared war over and over again instead. That is not Israel.

[Scott]

Off-topic posts and reply removed.   Continuing to make inflammatory remarks will result in suspensions.  

[RuamRudy]

16 hours ago, Morch said:

 

Quick reminder: You are the one who made a definitive claim to begin with. Moving the goal posts and calling it "subjective" is a cop out. Again, nothing new here.

 

No cop out at all - I am simply stating that without a measurable scale against which to quantify the degree of rogue or otherwise, the issue is subjective.  

 

You dismiss the claim I made, which you are entitled to do, but it is our relative differences in our feelings and emotions towards the subject that make us see things differently, not that I am wrong in my claim and you are right in your rejection of it. 

[yardrunner]

13 hours ago, Ulysses G. said:

 

I blame the side that started the violence, started the conflict, turned down an offer for peace and their own country and declared war over and over again instead. That is not Israel.

that was then, this is now, you have to move on as happened in Northern Ireland

[dexterm]

This legalized government sanctioned theft is another nail in the coffin of a 2 state solution, which leaves of course a one state solution. The sooner Israel annexes the lot the better, and have done with this charade of pretending to negotiate peace.

 

Israel will then have the problem of what to do with 4.5 million non Jewish residents who have lived in Palestine far longer than their European colonizers and occupiers.

They will either have to grant Palestinians equal citizenship, run an overt apartheid system, or ethnically cleanse them.

 

None of which is a healthy prospect for Zionism.

Edited November 18, 2016 by dexterm

[Morch]

2 hours ago, RuamRudy said:

 

No cop out at all - I am simply stating that without a measurable scale against which to quantify the degree of rogue or otherwise, the issue is subjective.  

 

You dismiss the claim I made, which you are entitled to do, but it is our relative differences in our feelings and emotions towards the subject that make us see things differently, not that I am wrong in my claim and you are right in your rejection of it. 

 

As pointed out earlier, you are the one who introduced the claim to the topic, and not in a manner presenting it as a subjective view, but as fact. You have since tried, and failed, to back up the factual nature of the claim, and further retreated to asserting it's subjectivity. If you wish to call it an opinion - by all means, go ahead. Other than showing it to be an ill defined term, which can be applied according to the subjective take and bias of the one using it, there's not much point to the argument. The manner in which it is used in this context serves little more purpose than being a propaganda construct. 

[Morch]

34 minutes ago, yardrunner said:

that was then, this is now, you have to move on as happened in Northern Ireland

 

Takes two to tango, and both sides (discounting respective fragmentation) are unwilling.

[Morch]

19 minutes ago, dexterm said:

This legalized government sanctioned theft is another nail in the coffin of a 2 state solution, which leaves of course a one state solution. The sooner Israel annexes the lot the better, and have done with this charade of pretending to negotiate peace.

 

Israel will then have the problem of what to do with 4.5 million non Jewish residents who have lived in Palestine far longer than their European colonizers and occupiers.

They will either have to grant Palestinians equal citizenship, run an overt apartheid system, or ethnically cleanse them.

 

None of which is a healthy prospect for Zionism.

 

Better only for those who stand nothing to lose, and pretend to be supportive of the Palestinian right for self-determination, but are in fact more invested in anti-Israel views. The above does not suggest a solution for the plight of the Palestinians, but promotes an even more complicated state of things and further hardship. The only apparent benefit touted is that somewhere down the line, it might spell the downfall of the state of Israel.

[dexterm]

16 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Better only for those who stand nothing to lose, and pretend to be supportive of the Palestinian right for self-determination, but are in fact more invested in anti-Israel views. The above does not suggest a solution for the plight of the Palestinians, but promotes an even more complicated state of things and further hardship. The only apparent benefit touted is that somewhere down the line, it might spell the downfall of the state of Israel.

Zionist Israel has not provided a solution to the plight of the Palestinians in over 100 years. Completely the opposite: it has been the cause of their suffering.

 

Equal citizenship in a one state solution would allow future generations of Jews and non Jews to live in peace. Sounds like a pretty admirable solution to me.

 

Not the downfall of Israel, but it would spell the downfall of the hateful racist/religionist supremacist ideology of Zionism. The sooner Israel becomes a secular modern democracy, where all peoples and faiths are treated with respect, the better.

[RuamRudy]

44 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

As pointed out earlier, you are the one who introduced the claim to the topic, and not in a manner presenting it as a subjective view, but as fact. You have since tried, and failed, to back up the factual nature of the claim, and further retreated to asserting it's subjectivity. If you wish to call it an opinion - by all means, go ahead. Other than showing it to be an ill defined term, which can be applied according to the subjective take and bias of the one using it, there's not much point to the argument. The manner in which it is used in this context serves little more purpose than being a propaganda construct. 

 

Of course I did - it was and is my belief and I stand by it. I was relying upon yours and every other contributor's intelligence to realise that such claims are wholly subjective. 

 

If you want facts about the Israeli government's unethical (both subjective and objective, granted) and illegal actions across decades, they are very easy to find - but it is down the individual's value judgement as to whether these constitute a rogue state. 

 

But that is a smokescreen to deviate from my main belief - the principles of the BDS movement are a worthy cause, and that movement should be advanced around the world (caveat - a subjective viewpoint). 

[thaibeachlovers]

While I rejoiced that she did not win the US election, I despaired when Trump came out with his "Hey hey hey, Israel all the way" messaging.

While this new "law" is clearly trying to ligitimise the illegal settlements on illegally occupied land, as long as the US administration does not oppose it, the Palestinians will obviously have no recourse other than to resist by whatever means they have. It's not looking good, at all.

While I opposed Obama for everything he did, I would have respected him had he stood up to the Israelis, instead of folding like a rag doll. When he refused to greet Bibi and made him enter by a side door I had hopes, but they were proven to be false, like his promise on Guantanamo.

[Ulysses G.]

22 hours ago, dexterm said:

Zionist Israel has not provided a solution to the plight of the Palestinians in over 100 years. 

 

Israel was probably more concerned about protecting itself from their attacks for much of that time. Not too many people are concerned about the "plight" of an avowed enemy who wants to destroy them completely.

Edited November 19, 2016 by Ulysses G.

[Morch]

On 11/18/2016 at 0:21 PM, dexterm said:

Zionist Israel has not provided a solution to the plight of the Palestinians in over 100 years. Completely the opposite: it has been the cause of their suffering.

 

Equal citizenship in a one state solution would allow future generations of Jews and non Jews to live in peace. Sounds like a pretty admirable solution to me.

 

Not the downfall of Israel, but it would spell the downfall of the hateful racist/religionist supremacist ideology of Zionism. The sooner Israel becomes a secular modern democracy, where all peoples and faiths are treated with respect, the better.

 

There are no Palestinian leaders of consequence advocating a one-state solution, and the concept is not very popular among the Palestinian public in general. That is sounds like an "admirable solution" to Westerners is irrelevant. Pushing this notion forward at any opportunity, while disregarding how involved parties views and the likelihood of actions leading this "solution" bringing about mayhem and further suffering, is just another indication of how far removed your views are from the reality of the conflict.

 

Israel was founded less than a 100 years ago, as you are surely aware. Shouldn't stand in the way of a nice round figure. Israel, of course, played and plays, a major part with regard to the sorry state the Palestinians are in. The Palestinians, however, did little on their part to change this predicament. Pretty sure these corrections will result in yet another off-topic, tedious and hate filled diatribe.
 

As stated many times in the past, Israel is Israel. Twist it all you like, what you call for is not Israel, but a new construct replacing it. While this is a dishonest presentation is recurrent theme in your posts, it is not directly relevant to the topic at hand.

[Morch]

On 11/18/2016 at 0:43 PM, RuamRudy said:

 

Of course I did - it was and is my belief and I stand by it. I was relying upon yours and every other contributor's intelligence to realise that such claims are wholly subjective. 

 

If you want facts about the Israeli government's unethical (both subjective and objective, granted) and illegal actions across decades, they are very easy to find - but it is down the individual's value judgement as to whether these constitute a rogue state. 

 

But that is a smokescreen to deviate from my main belief - the principles of the BDS movement are a worthy cause, and that movement should be advanced around the world (caveat - a subjective viewpoint). 

 

I don't think so, still sounds like disorderly retreat from a poorly marshaled argument, or if one feels charitable, poor wording.

 

Unethical and illegal actions are rather common globally, and are carried out by many governments and with regard to many different issues and situations. Got to wonder if your subjective take of the "rouge state" moniker, is liberally applied or simply used to designate those states and issues you feel more strongly about. The former may lead to the concept being hollow, while the latter amounts to "dislike".

 

Not that this topic is about the BDS nonsense, but lets go back to my initial comment - the ineffectual BDS is not a real threat to Israel. It succeeds mainly on two fronts: being used by Netanyahu to generate domestic support, and promoting a culture rejecting dialogue.

In economic terms, the BDS actual effect is negligent, disregarding hype from deluded BDS advocates and Netanyahu alike. While, the often cited cultural boycotts do not effect much that the political right wing in Israel cares about - those effected are morel likely to effect liberal, secular, pro-peace groups.

[stevenl]

 
I don't think so, still sounds like disorderly retreat from a poorly marshaled argument, or if one feels charitable, poor wording.
 
Unethical and illegal actions are rather common globally, and are carried out by many governments and with regard to many different issues and situations. Got to wonder if your subjective take of the "rouge state" moniker, is liberally applied or simply used to designate those states and issues you feel more strongly about. The former may lead to the concept being hollow, while the latter amounts to "dislike".
 
Not that this topic is about the BDS nonsense, but lets go back to my initial comment - the ineffectual BDS is not a real threat to Israel. It succeeds mainly on two fronts: being used by Netanyahu to generate domestic support, and promoting a culture rejecting dialogue.
In economic terms, the BDS actual effect is negligent, disregarding hype from deluded BDS advocates and Netanyahu alike. While, the often cited cultural boycotts do not effect much that the political right wing in Israel cares about - those effected are morel likely to effect liberal, secular, pro-peace groups.

The BDS is successful in promoting a culture rejecting dialogue? The main organisation successful at that is the Israeli government.

Sent from my ROBBY using Thaivisa Connect mobile app

[dexterm]

43 minutes ago, Ulysses G. said:

 

And Australia and New Zealand and Canada and so on. The Jews were not the ones who started the conflict, but for some strange reason Israel is held to a different standard.

When European Jews colonize land where other people are already living with the intention of establishing their own Jewish State by dispossessing the resident non Jewish population, whether as you have claimed by buying land (6% is the max Zionists ever achieved http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandatory_Palestine#British_censuses_and_estimations) and the rest which has been stolen, as they are still doing in the OP.

 

That's what I call starting the conflict!

 

Yes, same goes for Europeans colonizing Australia, New Zealand and Canada. They too got away with murder and theft. Zionists have simply left their run at colonization about 100 years too late. The whole world is watching this time.

 

Those modern nations have admitted their guilt, made formal apologies and attempted to make amends. Zionist Israel is still in a state of denial.

[Ulysses G.]

27 minutes ago, dexterm said:

 

That's what I call starting the conflict.

 

Attacking and murdering innocent settlers who were buying land for their own state is what started the conflict. Every attack for almost 20 years was initiated by the Arabs.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_killings_and_massacres_in_Mandatory_Palestine

[dexterm]

23 minutes ago, Ulysses G. said:

 

Attacking and murdering innocent settlers who were buying land for their own state is what started the conflict. Every attack for almost 20 years was initiated by the Arabs.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_killings_and_massacres_in_Mandatory_Palestine

The settlers weren't innocent and are still not innocent...read the OP again..squatting on someone else's land then have the government legalize that theft. The Zionist intention was to colonize and ethnically cleanse the resident Palestinian population in order to establish a racist Jewish only state. That's aggression.

 

The local people quite rightly fought back against this colonization as every other peoples have ever done when they are being invaded and occupied.

Edited November 20, 2016 by dexterm

[dexterm]

13 hours ago, Morch said:

 

There are no Palestinian leaders of consequence advocating a one-state solution, and the concept is not very popular among the Palestinian public in general. That is sounds like an "admirable solution" to Westerners is irrelevant. Pushing this notion forward at any opportunity, while disregarding how involved parties views and the likelihood of actions leading this "solution" bringing about mayhem and further suffering, is just another indication of how far removed your views are from the reality of the conflict.

 

Israel was founded less than a 100 years ago, as you are surely aware. Shouldn't stand in the way of a nice round figure. Israel, of course, played and plays, a major part with regard to the sorry state the Palestinians are in. The Palestinians, however, did little on their part to change this predicament. Pretty sure these corrections will result in yet another off-topic, tedious and hate filled diatribe.
 

As stated many times in the past, Israel is Israel. Twist it all you like, what you call for is not Israel, but a new construct replacing it. While this is a dishonest presentation is recurrent theme in your posts, it is not directly relevant to the topic at hand.

Better read the OP again if you need to know how far removed your views are from the reality of the conflict and the topic at hand. The reality is that the Israeli parliament just moved to legalize the theft of more land owned by Palestinians, leaving even less available for any future Palestinian state.

 

Israel makes it irrelevant what Palestinian leaders or people [or least of all I, a mere observer] may want. Israel has all the guns and power. They are themselves intentionally making a one state solution inevitable, as you yourself admit above "Considerations of long term policy, effect on the security situation and the prospects for the resolution of the conflict are not paramount."

 

>>Israel was founded less than a 100 years ago, as you are surely aware. Shouldn't stand in the way of a nice round figure.
...the usual sophistry and pedantry. As you are well aware, Zionism was founded in 1897 (110 years ago!) with the intention of establishing a Jewish state where a majority of non Jews were already living, which is exactly what the Zionists have done, and are still doing in the OP.

 

Edited November 20, 2016 by dexterm

[Scott]

Off-topic posts and replies removed.  

[Ulysses G.]

50 minutes ago, dexterm said:

The Zionist intention was to colonize and ethnically cleanse the resident Palestinian population in order to establish a racist Jewish only state. That's aggression.

 

 

That is a falsehood. The Jews intended to buy their own land and start their own state. In fact, at one point early in the conflict, they agreed to be governed by the Arabs if they were left in peace. As usual, the Arabs refused.

If the Jews intended to "ethnically cleanse" the Arabs, they would be long gone. The settlements are a way to pressure the Palestinians into - at long last - accepting the inevitable and signing a peace treaty.

 

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths3/MFmandate.html#5

Edited November 20, 2016 by Ulysses G.

[dexterm]

56 minutes ago, Ulysses G. said:

 

That is a falsehood. The Jews intended to buy their own land and start their own state. In fact, at one point early in the conflict, they agreed to be governed by the Arabs if they were left in peace. As usual, the Arabs refused.

If the Jews intended to "ethnically cleanse" the Arabs, they would be long gone. The settlements are a way to pressure the Palestinians into - at long last - accepting the inevitable and signing a peace treaty.

How could Zionists have their own Jewish state yet be governed by non Jews..that's a contradiction and clearly spurious!

 

The most Jews ever legitimately achieved in 1945 was 6% land ownership. But once they had their foot in the door, they did achieve far more organizational skills, greater weaponry, and far more international friends in high places which has enabled them to steal the rest. Just because the bully wins, doesn't make it right.

 

>>If the Jews intended to "ethnically cleanse" the Arabs, they would be long gone.
...but they are long gone! Google "Palestinian REFUGEES" and while you are there, Google the long long list of Palestinian villages which have been confiscated and built upon by Jewish colonizers.

 

The point I am making is that the present descendants of many of the ethnically cleansed Palestinians from 1948 and 1967 are yet there today in the West Bank and Gaza although they still have the keys to their confiscated homes in Israel. Many also have gone into the 10 million Palestinian diaspora living in the USA, Australia, Canada and the Middle Eastern refugee camps.

 

The other point relevant to the OP is that the land theft and ethnic cleansing process is still continuing. The OP Jewish only colony Amona is built on Palestinian land. Where are the actual Palestinian owners now?..refugees!

 

The final relevant point I am making is: if the OP proposal is legitimized, then there will be nothing left for a viable Palestinian state. So if the current right wing Israeli government prevails as it looks like it will, especially with a sympathetic Trump in the White House, who has already stated he will recognize the annexation of Jerusalem, the whole of the West Bank too will eventually be formally annexed.

 

Hence a one state solution...which will be your "at long last accepting the inevitable." And then as I stated above, what does Israel do about the 4.5 million non Jews who live in their newly expanded state and have done so for generations? ...equal citizenship, apartheid, or further ethnic cleansing..or perhaps some sort of confederation?

Edited November 20, 2016 by dexterm

[ddavidovsky]

On 11/17/2016 at 0:14 PM, Ulysses G. said:

 

All disinformation. The Palestimians started the conflict and have refused to end it. If they are "repressed", it is their own responsibility.

 

Reprehensible distortion of history. The Jews pushed their way in by terrorism.

 

There's no going back, of course. The solution is for those with the bigger store of pride to offer an olive branch - that is Israel. Unfortunately Israel is not mensch enough to do so. Or rather, they are simply  intent on annexing the whole territory for themselves.

Edited November 20, 2016 by Sheryl
Nazi terminology removed.

[dick dasterdly]

3 hours ago, dexterm said:

The settlers weren't innocent and are still not innocent...read the OP again..squatting on someone else's land then have the government legalize that theft. The Zionist intention was to colonize and ethnically cleanse the resident Palestinian population in order to establish a racist Jewish only state. That's aggression.

 

The local people quite rightly fought back against this colonization as every other peoples have ever done when they are being invaded and occupied.

If you'd missed out " The Zionist intention was to colonize and ethnically cleanse the resident Palestinian population in order to establish a racist Jewish only state." - I'd have agreed with you.

 

Edit - legalising illegal settlements is about the worst possible way to go about achieving peace.

 

Yes, both sides are to blame - but Israel holds all the power and this latest development is far from a 'looking for peace' move.

Edited November 20, 2016 by dick dasterdly

[Morch]

6 hours ago, stevenl said:

The BDS is successful in promoting a culture rejecting dialogue? The main organisation successful at that is the Israeli government.

Sent from my ROBBY using Thaivisa Connect mobile app
 

 

It is not an either/or situation. That the Israeli government is not in favor of meaningful dialogue is true. That the Palestinians aren't all that into it, is true as well. The BDS promotes  rejection of one side, until he accepts the demands of the other. That's not dialogue, and that's not a great way of bringing people to the desired point of view.

 

If BDS was concentrating on the activities of specific Israeli government agencies directly related to the occupation, or on companies who's lion share of business involved providing support for the occupation,  it would make sense. As it is, the BDS shoots itself in the foot by in fact advocating a much broader scope of rejection.

[Morch]

4 hours ago, dexterm said:

When European Jews colonize land where other people are already living with the intention of establishing their own Jewish State by dispossessing the resident non Jewish population, whether as you have claimed by buying land (6% is the max Zionists ever achieved http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandatory_Palestine#British_censuses_and_estimations) and the rest which has been stolen, as they are still doing in the OP.

 

That's what I call starting the conflict!

 

Yes, same goes for Europeans colonizing Australia, New Zealand and Canada. They too got away with murder and theft. Zionists have simply left their run at colonization about 100 years too late. The whole world is watching this time.

 

Those modern nations have admitted their guilt, made formal apologies and attempted to make amends. Zionist Israel is still in a state of denial.

 

The whole world is watching the US elections aftermath, the Brexit aftermath, the migrant/refugee crisis in Europe, the civil war in Syria, the offensive against ISIS in Iraq, and the tensions between NATO and Russia. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict does not currently stand high on the agenda of most countries and leaders. And that is, if the "whole world" stands for "mostly Western countries". With regard to the actual "whole world", the level of interest is even lower. IMO, your "whole world" really refers to "Me and people who share my opinions".

 

I doubt that there were "modern nations" which "admitted their guilt, made formal apologies and attempted to make amends" while still engaged in active conflict with the relevant group. Most such sentiments were expressed, if at all, way after the issues were relevant.

 

 

[Morch]

4 hours ago, dexterm said:

Better read the OP again if you need to know how far removed your views are from the reality of the conflict and the topic at hand. The reality is that the Israeli parliament just moved to legalize the theft of more land owned by Palestinians, leaving even less available for any future Palestinian state.

 

Israel makes it irrelevant what Palestinian leaders or people [or least of all I, a mere observer] may want. Israel has all the guns and power. They are themselves intentionally making a one state solution inevitable, as you yourself admit above "Considerations of long term policy, effect on the security situation and the prospects for the resolution of the conflict are not paramount."

 

>>Israel was founded less than a 100 years ago, as you are surely aware. Shouldn't stand in the way of a nice round figure.
...the usual sophistry and pedantry. As you are well aware, Zionism was founded in 1897 (110 years ago!) with the intention of establishing a Jewish state where a majority of non Jews were already living, which is exactly what the Zionists have done, and are still doing in the OP.

 

 

The usual faux outrage evident whenever your lack of actual familiarity with Palestinian positions is exposed. Let's try again - you were advocating a supposedly utopian one-state solution, which is neither desired by both sides, nor practical to implement given conditions. The only explanation of how this will come about suggested further conflict, after which, somehow, everything will be sorted according to your fantasy.

 

The balance of power does not imply that the Palestinians do not have views on their future state and independence. Most Palestinian formulations relate to either a separate state of their own, or one-state solutions sans your happily-ever-after fantasies. The nonsense advocated is not an integral part of the Palestinian position. 

 

The bit you quoted from an earlier post of mine is out of context - it actually related to how domestic political struggles among Israel's right wing parties effect the situation. The same can be asserted with regard to similar political struggle within the Palestinian side. These issues were pointed out and discussed on numerous posts. The 100 year correction stands - I favor accuracy, not demagoguery.

 

Indeed, your opinions and views are irrelevant. On that we agree. Mostly because you are entrenched in ideological positions which are not necessarily applicable.

[dexterm]

1 hour ago, Morch said:

 

The usual faux outrage evident whenever your lack of actual familiarity with Palestinian positions is exposed. Let's try again - you were advocating a supposedly utopian one-state solution, which is neither desired by both sides, nor practical to implement given conditions. The only explanation of how this will come about suggested further conflict, after which, somehow, everything will be sorted according to your fantasy.

 

The balance of power does not imply that the Palestinians do not have views on their future state and independence. Most Palestinian formulations relate to either a separate state of their own, or one-state solutions sans your happily-ever-after fantasies. The nonsense advocated is not an integral part of the Palestinian position. 

 

The bit you quoted from an earlier post of mine is out of context - it actually related to how domestic political struggles among Israel's right wing parties effect the situation. The same can be asserted with regard to similar political struggle within the Palestinian side. These issues were pointed out and discussed on numerous posts. The 100 year correction stands - I favor accuracy, not demagoguery.

 

Indeed, your opinions and views are irrelevant. On that we agree. Mostly because you are entrenched in ideological positions which are not necessarily applicable.

Nothing faux about my outrage at all. I only need to Google images: Palestinian children killed   to know there is something seriously rotten in the state of Israel.

 

I am saying that a One State solution whether "desired by both sides" or not is rapidly becoming the only solution, due to the actions of right wing Zionists in the OP, and perhaps Trump in the White House for at least 4 years.

 

Unless there is some quantum leap to the left in Israeli politics, a one state solution is the reality that you choose to ignore, possibly deliberately, while using a two state solution as a smokescreen behind which to manage the conflict as the Obama and previous US administrations have done. I agree with RuamRudy that the only impetus for change in Israel now is outside pressure such as BDS.

I have never hidden my desire for an end to the hateful racist/religionist supremacist ideology of Zionism. One way or another it will end eventually. Peoples who are geographic neighbors for eternity have a way of ultimately melding together.

 

I believe that the two state solution is dead in the water, and the actions of the Israel right wing in the OP are hastening the burial process. It will ultimately prove to be a Zionist own goal.

Edited November 20, 2016 by dexterm

[Morch]

4 hours ago, dexterm said:

How could Zionists have their own Jewish state yet be governed by non Jews..that's a contradiction and clearly spurious!

 

The most Jews ever legitimately achieved in 1945 was 6% land ownership. But once they had their foot in the door, they did achieve far more organizational skills, greater weaponry, and far more international friends in high places which has enabled them to steal the rest. Just because the bully wins, doesn't make it right.

 

>>If the Jews intended to "ethnically cleanse" the Arabs, they would be long gone.
...but they are long gone! Google "Palestinian REFUGEES" and while you are there, Google the long long list of Palestinian villages which have been confiscated and built upon by Jewish colonizers.

 

The point I am making is that the present descendants of many of the ethnically cleansed Palestinians from 1948 and 1967 are yet there today in the West Bank and Gaza although they still have the keys to their confiscated homes in Israel. Many also have gone into the 10 million Palestinian diaspora living in the USA, Australia, Canada and the Middle Eastern refugee camps.

 

The other point relevant to the OP is that the land theft and ethnic cleansing process is still continuing. The OP Jewish only colony Amona is built on Palestinian land. Where are the actual Palestinian owners now?..refugees!

 

The final relevant point I am making is: if the OP proposal is legitimized, then there will be nothing left for a viable Palestinian state. So if the current right wing Israeli government prevails as it looks like it will, especially with a sympathetic Trump in the White House, who has already stated he will recognize the annexation of Jerusalem, the whole of the West Bank too will eventually be formally annexed.

 

Hence a one state solution...which will be your "at long last accepting the inevitable." And then as I stated above, what does Israel do about the 4.5 million non Jews who live in their newly expanded state and have done so for generations? ...equal citizenship, apartheid, or further ethnic cleansing..or perhaps some sort of confederation?

 

Some the earlier notions regarding settlement of Jews in the Holy Land did refer to the sovereignty being held by Arab ruler, albeit not what nowadays is referred to as Palestinian. This was even discussed, like almost any issue you repeatedly deny, on previous topics. Pushing forward the impression that Zionism expressed (and expresses) unified goals and visions is yet another one of them myths you habitually attempt to present as fact.

 

The Jews clearly bought the land, as detailed in the link provided and as discussed on many occasions. The bogus "stealing" added, is something asserted without referencing any circumstances pertaining to Arab & Palestinian roles. The Palestinians are pretty much present, both within Israel, and the areas which will hopefully constitute their own state in the future. Harping on a seemingly literal interpretation of the so-called Palestinian Right of Return is a propaganda construct, ignoring realistic thoughts on solution and the similar plight experienced by an equal number of Jews originating from Arab countries.

 

If you wish to discuss the OP, or the current situation, it would be advisable to leave aside some of the lengthy pseudo-history dabbled with. The Palestinians owning the lands on which Amona was illegally built are obviously living in the West Bank, hence they could lay their petition before Israeli courts (which ruled in their favor). For clarity sake, to the best of my knowledge, while the land is owned by Palestinians, there was no previous Palestinian village situated directly on these lands.

 

The proposed bill, does represent a huge hurdle for the prospect of peace, if it indeed becomes law. As seen even from the current vote results and margin, this may or may not happen. And even if it does, could still be thrown away by the Supreme Court. The bill does not mean lands will be annexed, but that their designation will change - the purpose being to block (or delay) future legal battles similar to the Amona case. As long as the lands are not annexed, there are precedents to Israel relinquishing control in the interest of achieving peace or security goals.

[Morch]

9 minutes ago, dexterm said:

Nothing faux about my outrage at all. I only need to Google images: Palestinian children killed   to know there is something seriously rotten in the state of Israel.

 

I am saying that a One State solution whether "desired by both sides" or not is rapidly becoming the only solution, due to the actions of right wing Zionists in the OP, and perhaps Trump in the White House for at least 4 years.

 

Unless there is some quantum leap to the left in Israeli politics, a one state solution is the reality that you choose to ignore, possibly deliberately, while using a two state solution as a smokescreen behind which to manage the conflict as the Obama and previous US administrations have done. I agree with RuamRudy that the only impetus for change in Israel now is outside pressure such as BDS.

I have never hidden my desire for an end to the hateful racist/religionist supremacist ideology of Zionism. One way or another it will end eventually. Peoples who are geographic neighbors for eternity have a way of ultimately melding together.

 

I believe that the two state solution is dead in the water, and the actions of the Israel right wing in the OP are hastening this process. It will ultimately prove to be a Zionist own goal.

 

Faux is as faux does. Anyone actually caring about kids lives, other than for the purposes of point scoring would note that innocent casualties exist on both sides. Somehow, your vehement criticism does not seem to touch on the Palestinians role in prolonging the conflict or on  the responsibility of their leaderships to minimize the suffering of their own people. 

 

Twist it all you like, what you actually posted was that it would be better for things to come to a head, by Israel annexing the West Bank and then having to face the consequences. This position expresses a disconnect with prevalent political views on both sides, disregard for actual consequences, and real human suffering just as long as it makes a political case.

 

Unlike yourself, I refuse to despair or give in to the rhetoric of doom and hate. This is all the more so in the face of such views being offered while exhibiting an obvious lack of of any in-depth knowledge with the actual positions of both sides. Hateful, vehement and inflammatory posts are neither a substitute. The BDS nonsense was addressed, yet again, on this topic - if anyone is deluded enough to see it as having a major effect on the conflict, that's their own business. Not that I expect much coherence, but if the BDS is effective then it somewhat contradicts the previous advocacy for swift Israeli annexation.

 

As posted many times in the past, there is a difference between long term demographic, historical and social process occurring on their own, and hastening their supposed outcome by sociopolitical engineering as suggested by your posts. Most those advocating the latter, are those less likely to be effected when things go pear shaped.