Was: Israel is at War; Now: Scoopers diagnose your anti-Semitism

[Not all scoop users are created equal apparently]

Woof!

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/house/house-republican-proposes-bill-expel-palestinians-from-us

[4everwarriors]

Get your own bit aina?

O, da irony, aina?

[Goose]

I think there are about 15 people on here that could have the handle Not a Serious Person. 

[ATL MU Warrior]

I think there are about 15 people on here that could have the handle Not a Serious Person.

I think your count is way too low

[Not all scoop users are created equal apparently]

O, da irony, aina?

That's the joke

[forgetful]

Thank you lawdog. This is a perfect example of why it is a waste of time to try to have a legitimate discussion with douchey.

Ignore list is your friend, everyone.

The thing is, there was reasonable discussion here before H20 came back.

My guess would be that H20 and Muggsy are fairly uninformed of the history, complex politics, and causes, both long-term, and more recent of all the troubles.

Some more recent examples of good topics that could be discussed would be, Why did Israel leave Gaza back in 2005? Why did the PLA fail, and Hamas rise to power to get us to where we are now?

What is Israel's goal political goal for Gaza right now?

There are so many more important questions, that get drowned out by hateful dribble.

[forgetful]

Some other thoughts.

The thread could also have been an opportunity for people to learn some of the nuances of some of the issues that get viewed as hate, and provide an opportunity for people to learn why things are viewed as hateful, instead of doxxing them and trying to cancel them.

For instance, I asked Muggsy and H20 to define what "From the river to the sea means." The reason, is because like most political issues, there is a continuum.

Hamas and other extremists have hijacked the saying and to them it means the elimination of Israel. Because of this, and the barbaric terrorist actions of Hamas, most Israelis view this saying as terrifying and anti-semitic. This is a valid viewpoint, and because of that, the saying should not be used and is why I would never use the phrase (it is hateful/harmful to Israelis).

However, the majority of kids on campus with signs saying it, or protestors in the US (as well as many many muslims worldwide) actually view it as meaning that all Palestinians should have equal rights, and want a 2-state solution. From their perspective, it is just asking for respect for the Palestinian people, and most don't realize why it is perceived as hateful by others. Instead of calling them anti-semites, and cancelling them, it could have been used as a way to teach them about the different viewpoints of the saying and how to be respectful of other concerns, while still advocating for ones own beliefs.

Similarly, the phrase anti-Zionist (or related Zionism/Zionist). Zionism as a political/religious movement is also a continuum of beliefs.

Most Arabs, and others that say they are anti-Zionist, are referring to the more far-right beliefs (including the Likud party) that since their founding have viewed the idea of Zionism as meaning all of Palestine belongs to them, i.e. Palestinians have no rights and should be expelled. Early Zionists went further and had popular songs saying "There are two sides to the Jordan River and both of them are ours." But again, that is a fringe more extremist view within Zionism.

Most Zionists really just believe that Jews have a right of return to their homeland, and at least up until the recent Hamas led violence have believed in a two-state solution. Indeed, the song that had the line regarding the two sides of the Jordan river, also included an additional line "From the wealth of our land there shall prosper the Arab, the Christian, and the Jew," welcoming them all equally. Most of those that say they are anti-Zionist actually agree with all of this, they just don't understand the differing views within the political spectrum.

Informing people of the complexities of these words, belief structures, and history, and communicating instead of canceling, doxxing, or immediately using strong loaded language condemning the people, could actually lead to more compassion, understanding and growth. This thread could have been a place for that.

Instead, we get more and more name calling, and assigning the fringe extremists views of Hamas to an entire people, and then some saying they all deserve what they get.

As long as everyone allows the extremists to control the narrative we will continue to see a lot of hate, and no progress, and no meaningful discussions here, or more globally.

[Heisenberg]

Some other thoughts.

The thread could also have been an opportunity for people to learn some of the nuances of some of the issues that get viewed as hate, and provide an opportunity for people to learn why things are viewed as hateful, instead of doxxing them and trying to cancel them.

For instance, I asked Muggsy and H20 to define what "From the river to the sea means." The reason, is because like most political issues, there is a continuum.

Hamas and other extremists have hijacked the saying and to them it means the elimination of Israel. Because of this, and the barbaric terrorist actions of Hamas, most Israelis view this saying as terrifying and anti-semitic. This is a valid viewpoint, and because of that, the saying should not be used and is why I would never use the phrase (it is hateful/harmful to Israelis).

However, the majority of kids on campus with signs saying it, or protestors in the US (as well as many many muslims worldwide) actually view it as meaning that all Palestinians should have equal rights, and want a 2-state solution. From their perspective, it is just asking for respect for the Palestinian people, and most don't realize why it is perceived as hateful by others. Instead of calling them anti-semites, and cancelling them, it could have been used as a way to teach them about the different viewpoints of the saying and how to be respectful of other concerns, while still advocating for ones own beliefs.

Similarly, the phrase anti-Zionist (or related Zionism/Zionist). Zionism as a political/religious movement is also a continuum of beliefs.

Most Arabs, and others that say they are anti-Zionist, are referring to the more far-right beliefs (including the Likud party) that since their founding have viewed the idea of Zionism as meaning all of Palestine belongs to them, i.e. Palestinians have no rights and should be expelled. Early Zionists went further and had popular songs saying "There are two sides to the Jordan River and both of them are ours." But again, that is a fringe more extremist view within Zionism.

Most Zionists really just believe that Jews have a right of return to their homeland, and at least up until the recent Hamas led violence have believed in a two-state solution. Indeed, the song that had the line regarding the two sides of the Jordan river, also included an additional line "From the wealth of our land there shall prosper the Arab, the Christian, and the Jew," welcoming them all equally. Most of those that say they are anti-Zionist actually agree with all of this, they just don't understand the differing views within the political spectrum.

Informing people of the complexities of these words, belief structures, and history, and communicating instead of canceling, doxxing, or immediately using strong loaded language condemning the people, could actually lead to more compassion, understanding and growth. This thread could have been a place for that.

Instead, we get more and more name calling, and assigning the fringe extremists views of Hamas to an entire people, and then some saying they all deserve what they get.

As long as every one allows the extremists to control the narrative, we will continue to see a lot of hate no progress, and no meaningful discussions here or globally.

Simple question: what do the Palestinians want? What Palestinian leadership or group is articulating what they want?  Please send me a link.

I've given you many, many posts of Palestinian leaders from the PA to Hamas. The latest is below. They want the genocide of the Jews. They want a one-state solution called Palestine, and it includes zero Jews. Hamad said it last week (also below).

You say they want a two-state solution. Please send me a map proposed by the Palestinians that details their two-state solution. The Israelis have proposed many of them, also below.

You talk about hate and extremists controlling the narrative. That is only happening on one side. 

You are desperate for moral equivalence; you have made that abundantly clear. One does not exist.

------------------


The UN did offer a two-state solution. In 1948. The Arabs (not called Palestinians back then) rejected it, and the day after, the UN recognized Israel, five Arab countries attacked Israel. Israel prevailed after losing 1% of its population.

In fact, almost every Israeli Prime Minister since 1995 was committed to the Two-State Solution either all the time or at one point or another. Here is the list of Israeli Prime Ministers who officially supported the Two-State Solution:

Shimon Peres (1995–1996) - PM during the Oslo peace process, firm supporter for the Two-State Solution.
Ehud Barak (1999–2001) - held talks in 2000 and 2001
Ariel Sharon (2001–2006) - after the Second Intifada he withdrew from the Gaza Strip in order to revive the peace process
Ehud Olmert (2006–20009) - held talks in 2008
Benjamin Netanyahu (2009-present) - negotiations in 2010, 2013–14, and the Trump plan in 2020.

The Palestinians have rejected every single plan. Why? Because they don't want a two-state solution. They want a one-state solution, the want to genocide the Jews out of existence.

---

This gets me to #2; you claim we need to stop using "highly charged language." This is not a highly charged language; this is what the leadership of Gaza wane, Hamas. As said I posted yesterday.


What part of this don't you understand?

Hamas Official Ghazi Hamad's interview on Lebanese TV last week, as translated by Lebanese TV
https://www.memri.org/tv/hamas-official-ghazi-hamad-we-will-repeat-october-seven-until-israel-annihilated-victims-everything-we-do-justified

"Israel is a country that has no place on our land. We must remove that country, because it constitutes a security, military, and political catastrophe to the Arab and Islamic nation, and must be finished. We are not ashamed to say this, with full force.

"We must teach Israel a lesson, and we will do this again and again. The Al-Aqsa Flood is just the first time, and there will be a second, a third, a fourth, because we have the determination, the resolve, and the capabilities to fight. Will we have to pay a price? Yes, and we are ready to pay it. We are called a nation of martyrs, and we are proud to sacrifice martyrs.

"The occupation must come to an end."

News anchor: "Occupation where? In the Gaza Strip?"

Hamad: "No, I am talking about all the Palestinian lands."

"The existence of Israel is illogical. The existence of Israel is what causes all that pain, blood, and tears. It is Israel, not us. We are the victims of the occupation. Period. Therefore, nobody should blame us for the things we do. On October 7, October 10, October 1,000,000 – everything we do is justified."

[Heisenberg]

Woof!

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/house/house-republican-proposes-bill-expel-palestinians-from-us

What part of this do you have a problem with?

----

The Safeguarding Americans from Extremism Act on Thursday, seeking to prevent "Palestinian terrorists" from entering the country by halting the Department of Homeland Security from issuing visas or granting asylum to individuals seeking to enter the country with a Palestinian Authority passport. The bill would also expel any immigrants who were granted visas or entered the country on or after Oct. 1.

[forgetful]

H20, if you want to know examples of why people say you are not a serious person. Most of your post is an example. You fail to actually know the whole histories. I'm not going to deal with everyone of your examples.

But I will address one of them to highlight your misunderstandings.

You say Ariel Sharon withdrew from the Gaza Strip in order to revive the peace process.

Here is what Ariel Sharon's advisor actually said about that move:

"the disengagement plan is the freezing of the peace process, and when you freeze that process, you prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state, and you prevent a discussion on the refugees, the borders and Jerusalem. Effectively, this whole package called the Palestinian state, with all that it entails, has been removed indefinitely from our agenda"

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/oct/07/israel

According to their own words. This was not a movement towards peace, or movement towards a 2-state solution. It was to avoid both and end them as a possibility forever.

And for the 1-millionth time. Hamas is evil, everyone agrees. The Palestinian people are not Hamas.

[Heisenberg]

H20, if you want to know examples of why people say you are not a serious person. Most of your post is an example. You fail to actually know the whole histories. I'm not going to deal with everyone of your examples.

But I will address one of them to highlight your misunderstandings.

You say Ariel Sharon withdrew from the Gaza Strip in order to revive the peace process.

Here is what Ariel Sharon's advisor actually said about that move:

"the disengagement plan is the freezing of the peace process, and when you freeze that process, you prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state, and you prevent a discussion on the refugees, the borders and Jerusalem. Effectively, this whole package called the Palestinian state, with all that it entails, has been removed indefinitely from our agenda"

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/oct/07/israel


According to their own words. This was not a movement towards peace, or movement towards a 2-state solution. It was to avoid both and end them as a possibility forever.

And for the 1-millionth time. Hamas is evil, everyone agrees. The Palestinian people are not Hamas.

For the second time, what do the Palestinian people want? Who speaks from them? Where is their two-state solution?

[forgetful]

For the second time, what do the Palestinian people want? Who speaks from them? Where is their two-state solution?

What the majority of Palestinian people have wanted for a long time. Is their own state. Their own right to self-determination. They have had people who have spoke for them over time, and have proposed numerous 2-state solutions, but these moderate leaders were destined for failure (see below for an example). Other UN led 2-state solutions since 1970 have been vetoed by the US.

Let's look at the complexities of the 2005 Gaza disengagement and original leadership by the PA. They made efforts to maintain agreements that they thought could proceed to a 2-state solution. But it was destined to failure for a number of reasons.

1. They did not have military/police organizations to deal with extremist entities like Hamas, which were better armed and organized. Which means they had no capacity to deal with internal threats to a peace process, and to stop Hamas from continuing attacks.

2. Israel continued with illegal settlements, and there was continued aggression against Palestinians in the West Bank. The PA had no capacity to deal with these settlements or aggression.

3. Israel maintained a blockade of Gaza (for very good reasons), handcuffing any possibilities for economic growth, or development. Again, making the PA look weak and useless.

(note: The above problems did not start in 2005, but were ongoing problems aiding the rise of Hamas' violent vision)

As a result, they looked weak and incapable of advocating for Palestinians, who were suffering and growing increasingly angry. The only group doing anything was the barbaric and extremists Hamas, who was able to then take leadership in part by faking a more moderate tone (including supporting/proposing a 2-state solution in 2017). This moderate tone was a political ploy, designed to gain more moderate supporters and buy time to build a stronger military arm to attack Israel.

Which places us in one of the messiest times in Middle East history, where barbaric terrorist attacks by Hamas, have all but ended moderate Israeli support for a 2-state solution, and the indifference of Israel for civilian lives in the resulting war, has eroded almost all Palestinian support for a 2-state solution.

What is your solution to this problem?

[Not all scoop users are created equal apparently]

Some other thoughts.

The thread could also have been an opportunity for people to learn some of the nuances of some of the issues that get viewed as hate, and provide an opportunity for people to learn why things are viewed as hateful, instead of doxxing them and trying to cancel them.

For instance, I asked Muggsy and H20 to define what "From the river to the sea means." The reason, is because like most political issues, there is a continuum.

Hamas and other extremists have hijacked the saying and to them it means the elimination of Israel. Because of this, and the barbaric terrorist actions of Hamas, most Israelis view this saying as terrifying and anti-semitic. This is a valid viewpoint, and because of that, the saying should not be used and is why I would never use the phrase (it is hateful/harmful to Israelis).

However, the majority of kids on campus with signs saying it, or protestors in the US (as well as many many muslims worldwide) actually view it as meaning that all Palestinians should have equal rights, and want a 2-state solution. From their perspective, it is just asking for respect for the Palestinian people, and most don't realize why it is perceived as hateful by others. Instead of calling them anti-semites, and cancelling them, it could have been used as a way to teach them about the different viewpoints of the saying and how to be respectful of other concerns, while still advocating for ones own beliefs.

Similarly, the phrase anti-Zionist (or related Zionism/Zionist). Zionism as a political/religious movement is also a continuum of beliefs.

Most Arabs, and others that say they are anti-Zionist, are referring to the more far-right beliefs (including the Likud party) that since their founding have viewed the idea of Zionism as meaning all of Palestine belongs to them, i.e. Palestinians have no rights and should be expelled. Early Zionists went further and had popular songs saying "There are two sides to the Jordan River and both of them are ours." But again, that is a fringe more extremist view within Zionism.

Most Zionists really just believe that Jews have a right of return to their homeland, and at least up until the recent Hamas led violence have believed in a two-state solution. Indeed, the song that had the line regarding the two sides of the Jordan river, also included an additional line "From the wealth of our land there shall prosper the Arab, the Christian, and the Jew," welcoming them all equally. Most of those that say they are anti-Zionist actually agree with all of this, they just don't understand the differing views within the political spectrum.

Informing people of the complexities of these words, belief structures, and history, and communicating instead of canceling, doxxing, or immediately using strong loaded language condemning the people, could actually lead to more compassion, understanding and growth. This thread could have been a place for that.

Instead, we get more and more name calling, and assigning the fringe extremists views of Hamas to an entire people, and then some saying they all deserve what they get.

As long as everyone allows the extremists to control the narrative we will continue to see a lot of hate, and no progress, and no meaningful discussions here, or more globally.

A lot of thoughtful and well researched posts. Thank you for  putting in the effort and trying to bridge the understanding. I'm not sure you're gonna get a certain someone past Palestinian = terrorist no matter how hard you try though.

[Heisenberg]

What the majority of Palestinian

A lot of thoughtful and well researched posts. Thank you for  putting in the effort and trying to bridge the understanding. I'm not sure you're gonna get a certain someone past Palestinian = terrorist no matter how hard you try though.

have wanted for a long time. Is their own state. Their own right to self-determination. They have had people who have spoke for them over time, and have proposed numerous 2-state solutions, but these moderate leaders were destined for failure (see below for an example). Other UN led 2-state solutions since 1970 have been vetoed by the US.

Let's look at the complexities of the 2005 Gaza disengagement and original leadership by the PA. They made efforts to maintain agreements that they thought could proceed to a 2-state solution. But it was destined to failure for a number of reasons.

1. They did not have military/police organizations to deal with extremist entities like Hamas, which were better armed and organized. Which means they had no capacity to deal with internal threats to a peace process, and to stop Hamas from continuing attacks.

2. Israel continued with illegal settlements, and there was continued aggression against Palestinians in the West Bank. The PA had no capacity to deal with these settlements or aggression.

3. Israel maintained a blockade of Gaza (for very good reasons), handcuffing any possibilities for economic growth, or development. Again, making the PA look weak and useless.

(note: The above problems did not start in 2005, but were ongoing problems aiding the rise of Hamas' violent vision)

As a result, they looked weak and incapable of advocating for Palestinians, who were suffering and growing increasingly angry. The only group doing anything was the barbaric and extremists Hamas, who was able to then take leadership in part by faking a more moderate tone (including supporting/proposing a 2-state solution in 2017). This moderate tone was a political ploy, designed to gain more moderate supporters and buy time to build a stronger military arm to attack Israel.

Which places us in one of the messiest times in Middle East history, where barbaric terrorist attacks by Hamas, have all but ended moderate Israeli support for a 2-state solution, and the indifference of Israel for civilian lives in the resulting war, has eroded almost all Palestinian support for a 2-state solution.

What is your solution to this problem?

You did not give an example of a palestinian two-state solution (date and map), instead you gave a bunch of excuses and justifications for why they don't have a two-state solution.

How about facing reality, in the last 75 years, they've never proposed one because they don't want one. They want a one state solution called Palestine with no Jews. And to accomplish this they want to exterminate all the Jews "from the river to the sea."

What you did was give us the western progressive worldview, because that's what you believe, not what the Palestinians have said. And you have been lauded by others here that have the conceit to believe everyone agrees with the Western progressive worldview, and its "thoughtful and well researched" rationalization and dissembling of the facts.

——

I have given my solution about 15 times.

It starts with the Palestinians have an incompatible worldview with the West. Such situations are hardly new in history. In fact they are the basis for all wars throughout history. A fight for the existence of one worldview over the other.

And the way you frame it, by saying Hamas is terrible, but the Palestinian people are not Hamas, is to suggest this is merely a police action against a bunch of rogue criminals and nothing more.

It is a fight for the existence of Israel. Because the October 7 attack was an attack on the existence of Israel, the largest progrom, since the holocaust.

Hamas has promised more such attacks. And we have seen virtually no one from the Palestinian or Arab world denounce with Hamas did.  Instead, we see giant rallies in favor of what they did chanting "from the river to the sea."

So if you want peace, one side has the win. that needs to be Israel.

The example is World War II. It doesn't mean a genocide. We didn't genocide the German or Japanese people. But we did inflict tremendous pain on them until they gave up on their worldview of Nazism. The same needs to be done with the Palestinians until they give up on a "River to sea" one state solution, accept the existence of Isreal, and truly want peace with them.

So yes, I see the world as black and white, because it is when two incompatible worldviews clash. Nuance, complexities and dissembling is incredibly naïve and dangerous.

The uncomfortable reality you cannot accept is their will never be compatibility between these two cultures as they are currently constituted. To pretend otherwise is to sentence more and more people to death. Letting one side prevail so the cultures merge into one capitible version minimizes death in the long run.

Fire bombing Dresden and nuking Nagasaki and Hiroshima saved more lives in the long run. Because it inflicted so much short term pain, they surrendered, and gave up on their incapitible worldview, and have lived in peace and harmony with the West for the last 80 years.

[MuggsyB]

What the majority of Palestinian people have wanted for a long time. Is their own state. Their own right to self-determination. They have had people who have spoke for them over time, and have proposed numerous 2-state solutions, but these moderate leaders were destined for failure (see below for an example). Other UN led 2-state solutions since 1970 have been vetoed by the US.

Let's look at the complexities of the 2005 Gaza disengagement and original leadership by the PA. They made efforts to maintain agreements that they thought could proceed to a 2-state solution. But it was destined to failure for a number of reasons.

1. They did not have military/police organizations to deal with extremist entities like Hamas, which were better armed and organized. Which means they had no capacity to deal with internal threats to a peace process, and to stop Hamas from continuing attacks.

2. Israel continued with illegal settlements, and there was continued aggression against Palestinians in the West Bank. The PA had no capacity to deal with these settlements or aggression.

3. Israel maintained a blockade of Gaza (for very good reasons), handcuffing any possibilities for economic growth, or development. Again, making the PA look weak and useless.

(note: The above problems did not start in 2005, but were ongoing problems aiding the rise of Hamas' violent vision)

As a result, they looked weak and incapable of advocating for Palestinians, who were suffering and growing increasingly angry. The only group doing anything was the barbaric and extremists Hamas, who was able to then take leadership in part by faking a more moderate tone (including supporting/proposing a 2-state solution in 2017). This moderate tone was a political ploy, designed to gain more moderate supporters and buy time to build a stronger military arm to attack Israel.

Which places us in one of the messiest times in Middle East history, where barbaric terrorist attacks by Hamas, have all but ended moderate Israeli support for a 2-state solution, and the indifference of Israel for civilian lives in the resulting war, has eroded almost all Palestinian support for a 2-state solution.

What is your solution to this problem?

Uh-huh....so Israel is responsible for the rise of Hamas.  Thx for clarifying that.  Are you saying Abbas wants a two-state solution?  Who amongst Palestinian leadership wants a two-state solution and what would that entail exactly?  What percentage of Palestinians have denounced the despicable massacre on Oct 7?  What percentage of Arabs have?  Of Muslims  have?

Meanwhile, let's say every Jew left present day Israel and told the Palestinians they could have the entire piece of land.  That they've had enough of this garbage so here, take it.  What do you think would happen?  What happened when other Arab states controlled parts of Israel?  Did they treat the Palestinian people like besties? 

[forgetful]

You did not give an example of a palestinian two-state solution (date and map), instead you gave a bunch of excuses and justifications for why they don't have a two-state solution.

How about facing reality, in the last 75 years, they've never proposed one because they don't want one. They want a one state solution called Palestine with no Jews. And to accomplish this they want to exterminate all the Jews "from the river to the sea."

What you did was give us the western progressive worldview, because that's what you believe, not what the Palestinians have said. And you have been lauded by others here that have the conceit to believe everyone agrees with the Western progressive worldview, and its "thoughtful and well researched" rationalization and dissembling of the facts.

Let's just go with recent history. But everything dates back to UN security resolution 242 that was vetoed. Pretty much every peace deal since then goes back to that resolutions language. A two-state solution along the borders of 1967.

Arafat, with the 1988 Declaration of Independence, included recognition of Israel, and called for borders consistent with resolution 242.

Abbas acknowledged Israel as a state, and called for a 2-state solution along the pre-1967 borders (consistent with resolution 242) back in at least 2012, and has continued calling for it since. Their negotiating partners, Egypt, Jordan and others have done the same dating back to the 70's.

Even Hamas, which I mentioned was a hollow offer as they didn't intend on remaining peaceful, offered a 2-state solution based on pre-1967 borders. It is in their 2017 charter.

There is room for reasonable debate that none of these were serious offers, because they knew that Israel would not accept them, but no one has put up any offer that would be deemed reasonable to either party. That is why the UN needs to impose a 2-state solution.

---------

Separate, your solution to the problem calls for the elimination of Palestine. Which either now, or in the near future would result in WWIII, not peace.

Uh-huh....so Israel is responsible for the rise of Hamas.  Thx for clarifying that. 

If that is what you got out of my post, then it is an example of why we can't have honest meaningful conversations on here.

We will give you a shot though. Identify any inaccuracies in my 3 points, and explain how Hamas rose to power and why? That's an important point of discussion, because if one goes with your and H20's plan of introducing all of Palestine to darkness, there needs to be a plan to stop history from repeating itself.

[MuggsyB]

Let's just go with recent history. But everything dates back to UN security resolution 242 that was vetoed. Pretty much every peace deal since then goes back to that resolutions language. A two-state solution along the borders of 1967.

Arafat, with the 1988 Declaration of Independence, included recognition of Israel, and called for borders consistent with resolution 242.

Abbas acknowledged Israel as a state, and called for a 2-state solution along the pre-1967 borders (consistent with resolution 242) back in at least 2012, and has continued calling for it since. Their negotiating partners, Egypt, Jordan and others have done the same dating back to the 70's.

Even Hamas, which I mentioned was a hollow offer as they didn't intend on remaining peaceful, offered a 2-state solution based on pre-1967 borders. It is in their 2017 charter.

There is room for reasonable debate that none of these were serious offers, because they knew that Israel would not accept them, but no one has put up any offer that would be deemed reasonable to either party. That is why the UN needs to impose a 2-state solution.

---------

Separate, your solution to the problem calls for the elimination of Palestine. Which either now, or in the near future would result in WWIII, not peace.

If that is what you got out of my post, then it is an example of why we can't have honest meaningful conversations on here.

We will give you a shot though. Identify any inaccuracies in my 3 points, and explain how Hamas rose to power and why? That's an important point of discussion, because if one goes with your and H20's plan of introducing all of Palestine to darkness, there needs to be a plan to stop history from repeating itself.

Where did I write "Introduce all of Palestine to darkness"?  And what exactly are the borders of Palestine? 

[forgetful]

Where did I write "Introduce all of Palestine to darkness"?  And what exactly are the borders of Palestine?

The best I can gauge from your plan is to forcefully remove all Palestinians from Gaza and the West Bank. I'm open to you proposing something more specific.

There currently is no Palestinian state, so they have no formal borders. Legally Gaza and the West Bank are supposed to be under their authority, but ~700,000 settlers have occupied areas of the West Bank.

[MuggsyB]

The best I can gauge from your plan is to forcefully remove all Palestinians from Gaza and the West Bank. I'm open to you proposing something more specific.

There currently is no Palestinian state, so they have no formal borders. Legally Gaza and the West Bank are supposed to be under their authority, but ~700,000 settlers have occupied areas of the West Bank.

Exacty.  There is no Palestine and the surrounding Arab states refuse to take any Palestinians.  That has to change.  Israel is like a quarter on a football field in size.compared to the vastness of the Middle East.   There has to be something worked out AFTER you drop the hammer on Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, AND the Mullahs.    .       

[Babybluejeans]

Boy am I glad I haven't been in this thread. Reading just the 93rd page demonstrates why younger, educated people can't wait for one-dimensional thinkers like Muggsy and H20 to "age out" of the voting populace.

[Heisenberg]

Let's just go with recent history. But everything dates back to UN security resolution 242 that was vetoed. Pretty much every peace deal since then goes back to that resolutions language. A two-state solution along the borders of 1967.

Arafat, with the 1988 Declaration of Independence, included recognition of Israel, and called for borders consistent with resolution 242.

Abbas acknowledged Israel as a state, and called for a 2-state solution along the pre-1967 borders (consistent with resolution 242) back in at least 2012, and has continued calling for it since. Their negotiating partners, Egypt, Jordan and others have done the same dating back to the 70's.

Even Hamas, which I mentioned was a hollow offer as they didn't intend on remaining peaceful, offered a 2-state solution based on pre-1967 borders. It is in their 2017 charter.

There is room for reasonable debate that none of these were serious offers, because they knew that Israel would not accept them, but no one has put up any offer that would be deemed reasonable to either party. That is why the UN needs to impose a 2-state solution.

---------

Separate, your solution to the problem calls for the elimination of Palestine. Which either now, or in the near future would result in WWIII, not peace.

If that is what you got out of my post, then it is an example of why we can't have honest meaningful conversations on here.

We will give you a shot though. Identify any inaccuracies in my 3 points, and explain how Hamas rose to power and why? That's an important point of discussion, because if one goes with your and H20's plan of introducing all of Palestine to darkness, there needs to be a plan to stop history from repeating itself.

First, UN Resolution 242 was not vetoed, it was unanimously adopted in November 1967.  (Is this part where I get to condescend the "thoughtful and well researched" post you did? Do I get to call you "not a serious person?")

242 led to the 1979 peace agreement with Egypt and the 1993 peace agreements (both of which were awarded Nobel Peace Prizes). So 242 did pass, and it lead to big changes. But things have changed since 1967 (56 years ago) that it no longer applies. Things especially changed in the last month that makes two-state currently impossible.

Second, as far as the the PLO and PA calls for a two-state solution, you yourself acknowledge they were not serious. They were made for western audiences, mouthing the words to placate western progressives. Around here, we would say the Palestinians are "not serious people."

Second, the "return to the 1967 borders" are things Western Progressives say to sound sophisticated, without understanding why this is never possible, nor should it be possible.

Israel was attacked in the 1967 six day war (like they were last month). They responded by defeating the Jordanian and Egyptian armies.

Sorry, the Arab armies attacked Israel to wipe them off the face of the earth and they got their a$$ kicked badly and they lost the West Bank and Gaza as a consequence of their actions. No country attacked and takes land as a buffer against hostile neighbors has ever been asked to return that land to those hostile neighbors without anything in return.

Just like the US maintains army bases in Germany, Japan and Korea to this day. Our presence of those "occupied lands" was needed for decades to ensure they would not move aggressively against us again. Even now, that Germany, Japan and Korea are no longer a military threat to the West, we still don't give back these "occupied lands" and never will. Their are consequences to attacking and losing. Sorry for the slap of reality.

So Israel will not, and should not ever give back those lands (aka "return to the 1967 borders") WITHOUT assurances of peace. These assurances have never been made.

You could argue that Gaza was actually a "return to a 1967 border," when Israel withdrew in 2005. Since 2005 Gaza has had a zero Jews. Did the Palestinians turn it into Singapore or Hong Kong? No, they converted it into an open air prison to stage terrorist attack against Israel.

Given this example, it would be suicidal for Israel to return the 1967 borders without assurances that no one ever ever fire another rocket, or say anti-Zionist slogans ever again.  This Palestinians will never give these assureances so they will never get these lands back.

Finally, the West Bank settlers. 2020 census puts them at 460,000, not 700,000 another fact you got wrong (is this the part where I say no one here takes you seriously?) Of them about 20,000 are probably illegal.

The West Bank is where Jerseuleum, Bethlehem, Nazareth, Hebron and many other holy Jewish sites are found (the Jews call the West Bank Judea and Samaria) Jews have lived on these lands for thousands of years. Many have lived there since before 1948 and have legal deeds to this land (they bought it from the Arabs).

So to demand that the West Bank Settlers are the problem is to acknowledge that the Palestinians cannot stand even one Jew on their land. All Jews must be eliminated from existence and calling for West Bank Settlers to leave is to agree with this position.

If the Palestinians really want a two-state solution, they can start by finding a way to live with the West Bank Settlers that have existed on these lands for longer than Islam has been a Religion.

[Heisenberg]

Boy am I glad I haven't been in this thread. Reading just the 93rd page demonstrates why younger, educated people can't wait for one-dimensional thinkers like Muggsy and H20 to "age out" of the voting populace.

Yes, because "Queers for Palestine" is the enlightened thinking we can look forward to from the next generation.

[MuggsyB]

First, UN Resolution 242 was not vetoed, it was unanimously adopted in November 1967.  (Is this part where I get to condescend the "thoughtful and well researched" post you did? Do I get to call you "not a serious person?")

242 led to the 1979 peace agreement with Egypt and the 1993 peace agreements (both of which were awarded Nobel Peace Prizes). So 242 did pass, and it lead to big changes. But things have changed since 1967 (56 years ago) that it no longer applies. Things especially changed in the last month that makes two-state currently impossible.

Second, as far as the the PLO and PA calls for a two-state solution, you yourself acknowledge they were not serious. They were made for western audiences, mouthing the words to placate western progressives. Around here, we would say the Palestinians are "not serious people."

Second, the "return to the 1967 borders" are things Western Progressives say to sound sophisticated, without understanding why this is never possible, nor should it be possible.

Israel was attacked in the 1967 six day war (like they were last month). They responded by defeating the Jordanian and Egyptian armies.

Sorry, the Arab armies attacked Israel to wipe them off the face of the earth and they got their a$$ kicked badly and they lost the West Bank and Gaza as a consequence of their actions. No country attacked and takes land as a buffer against hostile neighbors has ever been asked to return that land to those hostile neighbors without anything in return.

Just like the US maintains army bases in Germany, Japan and Korea to this day. Our presence of those "occupied lands" was needed for decades to ensure they would not move aggressively against us again. Even now, that Germany, Japan and Korea are no longer a military threat to the West, we still don't give back these "occupied lands" and never will. Their are consequences to attacking and losing. Sorry for the slap of reality.

So Israel will not, and should not ever give back those lands (aka "return to the 1967 borders") WITHOUT assurances of peace. These assurances have never been made.

You could argue that Gaza was actually a "return to a 1967 border," when Israel withdrew in 2005. Since 2005 Gaza has had a zero Jews. Did the Palestinians turn it into Singapore or Hong Kong? No, they converted it into an open air prison to stage terrorist attack against Israel.

Given this example, it would be suicidal for Israel to return the 1967 borders without assurances that no one ever ever fire another rocket, or say anti-Zionist slogans ever again.  This Palestinians will never give these assureances so they will never get these lands back.

Finally, the West Bank settlers. 2020 census puts them at 460,000, not 700,000 another fact you got wrong (is this the part where I say no one here takes you seriously?) Of them about 20,000 are probably illegal.

The West Bank is where Jerseuleum, Bethlehem, Nazareth, Hebron and many other holy Jewish sites are found (the Jews call the West Bank Judea and Samaria) Jews have lived on these lands for thousands of years. Many have lived there since before 1948 and have legal deeds to this land (they bought it from the Arabs).

So to demand that the West Bank Settlers are the problem is to acknowledge that the Palestinians cannot stand even one Jew on their land. All Jews must be eliminated from existence and calling for West Bank Settlers to leave is to agree with this position.

If the Palestinians really want a two-state solution, they can start by finding a way to live with the West Bank Settlers that have existed on these lands for longer than Islam has been a Religion.

Wasn't the naming of Judea "Palestine"  arguably anti-Jewish?  I don't think Palestinians were technically an ethnicity until just after WWI.  They're Arabs, and yet the other Arabs use them as pawns and  literally have no other interest in them as far as I can tell. 

[Not all scoop users are created equal apparently]

Yes, because "Queers for Palestine" is the enlightened thinking we can look forward to from the next generation.

Both groups people you think of as subhuman?

[21Jumpstreet]

Yes, because "Queers for Palestine" is the enlightened thinking we can look forward to from the next generation.

I wish you wouldn't have said this H2O. Honestly, I've been reading your recent posts, and your wording has been welcome, at least by me. You aren't changing your commitment to your belief, respect, and you are acknowledging there is complication and nuance. You are open to peace, you are open to Palestine as a state free from terrorist governance, with assurances and guidelines, of course. Then, you say this. So close, H2O, so close.