Indian Woman Strips in Defence Against Theft Claim

[dexterm]

1 hour ago, CharlieK said:

Any one state solution would not include Palestinians. The palestinians would in effect be stateless, not under Israeli control.   

And where would Israel's one state solution new border be in your common sense opinion....the Jordan River, the Wall, or a meandering line including every single exclusively Jewish illegal outpost currently under debate in the OP? How many buses are you going to need to herd 2.5 million Palestinians onto them at gunpoint, if they refuse to leave to obligingly make themselves stateless?

 

Most important of all, would this unilateral declaration of a one state solution making Palestinians stateless (either within or without the borders) of the new expanded Israel bring permanent peace, recognized by all the parties concerned and the world wide community...the only kind worth having!

 

If not, all you have is a continuing managed conflict with Israel more condemned than before.

 

The global community has just spoken via the UNSC 14-0 and that's even a non binding resolution to boot. Imagine the world's reaction if Israel pushes the boundaries even further than its current illegal occupation.

 

This is like watching a chess game where you can see the other player has not thought through even the next move, let alone the next 2  or 3.

 

Interesting times indeed.

[Morch]

19 minutes ago, dexterm said:

That doesn't mean that extremist Jewish nationalist settler violence does not exist in the context of this conflict either. The point is that both subjects don't get anything remotely like a mention in the OP. Therefore it's a deliberate attempt to deflect.

 

I'm not trying to wish anything away....wish all terrorism ended. Just trying to stay on topic.

 

Did anyone claim there was no violence originated by Israeli settlers? Straw man much?

Call for both sides to curb violence were included in the resolution, and as it is unlikely that either will pay it much heed, speculating on future effects may not be as off topic as you present. Further, from someone habitually engaged in rants including a whole lot of things not mentioned in OPs, the above complaint sounds ridiculous.

 

And it wouldn't be the first time you tried to minimize, ignore or deflect anything to do with Palestinian violence, that was already established on the first topic dealing with the resolution, if previous occasions were not evidence enough.

 

Carry on.

[Morch]

13 minutes ago, dexterm said:

And where would Israel's one state solution new border be in your common sense opinion....the Jordan River, the Wall, or a meandering line including every single exclusively Jewish illegal outpost currently under debate in the OP? How many buses are you going to need to herd 2.5 million Palestinians onto them at gunpoint, if they refuse to leave to obligingly make themselves stateless?

 

Most important of all, would this unilateral declaration of a one state solution making Palestinians stateless (either within or without the borders) of the new expanded Israel bring permanent peace, recognized by all the parties concerned and the world wide community...the only kind worth having!

 

If not, all you have is a continuing managed conflict with Israel more condemned than before.

 

The global community has just spoken via the UNSC 14-0 and that's even a non binding resolution to boot. Imagine the world's reaction if Israel pushes the boundaries even further than its current illegal occupation.

 

This is like watching a chess game where you can see the other player has not thought through even the next move, let alone the next 2  or 3.

 

Interesting times indeed.

 

Weren't you just going on about not drifting into things not mentioned in the OP? Like, say...one state solution?

[dexterm]

22 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Weren't you just going on about not drifting into things not mentioned in the OP? Like, say...one state solution?

This is getting very silly.

 

The original deflection that you are defending "The more Islamic terrorist attacks there - are all over the world - the more common people will identify with Israel" is clearly an attempt to conflate the present OP about a specific UN resolution with events in Europe and elsewhere. Blatantly off topic!

 

Back to the OP.

 

"Mahmoud Abbas has praised the UN’s historic condemnation of Israel’s building of settlements on land claimed by the Palestinians, saying he hopes it will quickly lead to a timetable for independence."  i.e. TWO state solution.

 

"But despite the UN saying that Israeli settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem represent a “flagrant violation” of international law, Israel is reportedly still going ahead with plans for further settlements." ....which US ambassador Powers said as a reason for the abstention was because the settlements were endangering a two state solution. And if you havent got a two state solution you have a ONE state solution, which is exactly what I am discussing with the poster I was responding to.

Edited December 28, 2016 by dexterm

[Morch]

25 minutes ago, dexterm said:

This is getting very silly.

 

The original deflection that you are defending "The more Islamic terrorist attacks there - are all over the world - the more common people will identify with Israel" is clearly an attempt to conflate the present OP about a specific UN resolution with events in Europe and elsewhere. Blatantly off topic!

 

Back to the OP.

 

"Mahmoud Abbas has praised the UN’s historic condemnation of Israel’s building of settlements on land claimed by the Palestinians, saying he hopes it will quickly lead to a timetable for independence."  i.e. TWO state solution.

 

"But despite the UN saying that Israeli settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem represent a “flagrant violation” of international law, Israel is reportedly still going ahead with plans for further settlements." ....which US ambassador Powers said as a reason for the abstention was because the settlements were endangering a two state solution. And if you havent got a two state solution you have a ONE state solution, which is exactly what I am discussing with the poster I was responding to.

 

May I refer you to a previous post I made?

 

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/960685-palestinian-president-hails-historic-un-condemnation-of-israel/#comment-11466401

 

This is not about defending a deflection, rather you trying to keep the topic from touching on anything which might reflect negatively on the Palestinians, however remotely.

 

Can't see much difference between UG's bringing up something not mentioned in the OP and you twisting the OP content to imply that things you want to discuss are mentioned - when they are not.

 

Carry on.

[Stargeezr]

I seen  a show  several  years  where  WW111  starts  in the ME

  I  sure  hope  that  fiction  does  not  become  fact  as  that

would  sure  ****  up  my  holiday  plans...

Edited December 29, 2016 by Scott