So Bibi Wants To Begin The "Final Solution."

[angelo]

The PLO explicitly stated it's support for a Two State solution based on the 1967 borders and Hamas is very pointedly hinting at it with their recent proposals. But IMO that ship sailed when Yitzhak Rabin was assassinated by a Zionist from the faction that wants it all, and that faction gained control of the country.

The PLO demanded 67 borders and the Right of Return. In other words, all of Israel.

^This^ is bullshit. How unsurprising.

The PLO conceded the 1967 borders in order to get a Palestinian State. They didn't have to. Israel's seizure of land was illegal under international law and the UN Conventions. The Palestinian have the Right to claim all of Palestine as their ancestral homeland, but they were willing to accept less than 1/3 in order to secure recognition of their own State.

Refugees have the Right to return to the places from which they were driven by war, terrorism, institutional oppression and malice, etc. But the Palestinians made concessions there, too. They have agreed to a plan that would bring just a few thousand refugees back to their homes in Israel, not the ravening hoard you describe in your pulp fiction stories.

So, no, the PLO didn't demand all of Eretz Israel. That was Netanyahu's faction, and it looks like they will get what they want.

Who is it exactly that pays salaries to families of terrorists martyrs who murder innocent Israeli citizens?

 

[Arctish]

Israel successfully defended them on multiple occasions, remember?

There's no such thing as a country so large it won't be attacked so if that's where you're going with this, don't bother. Adding what remains of Palestinian land to Israel won't make a difference wrt outside threats.



The area outside Israel's 1967 borders is not part of Israel, need not be part of Israel, and would not be part of Israel in a Two State solution.

The PLO explicitly stated it's support for a Two State solution based on the 1967 borders and Hamas is very pointedly hinting at it with their recent proposals. But IMO that ship sailed when Yitzhak Rabin was assassinated by a Zionist from the faction that wants it all, and that faction gained control of the country.

If you're saying the only likely solution at this point is the One State solution, I agree with you.

The PLO? You mean their leader Abbas who was elected for a four year term 14 years ago?

Why are you finding it so hard to address the point of my posts, and so tempting to quibble over minutiae that doesn't matter?

Israel recognized the PLO as the authority representing the Palestinian people as part of the process laid out in the Oslo Accords. The PLO then ceded its claim to the area inside Israel's 1967 borders to Israel with the expectation that the area outside them would become the Palestinian State.

The Palestinian Authority formed after that happened. The PLO's top diplomat, Abbas, the guy who actually led the negotiating team in Oslo and who signed the Accords on behalf of the Palestinian people, is currently its President.

The PLO explicitly stated it's support for a Two State solution based on the 1967 borders when the Oslo Accords were in effect, and the PA under Abbas has not changed that position. Hamas is very pointedly hinting at accepting the 1967 borders in their recent proposals. The international community also recognizes the 1967 Green Line as Israel's borders. The only ones who don't are the Israelis. So if you're going to whinge about people not accepting the 1967 borders, you can aim your barbs at the Israelis, especially Netanyahui and his faction.

And when Israel suddenly has millions upon millions of Palestinian Muslims living inside its newly and illegally expanded borders, don't blame the Palestinians. They wanted to remain separate but Bibi wouldn't let them.

 

[Arctish]

^This^ is bullshit. How unsurprising.

The PLO conceded the 1967 borders in order to get a Palestinian State. They didn't have to. Israel's seizure of land was illegal under international law and the UN Conventions. The Palestinian have the Right to claim all of Palestine as their ancestral homeland, but they were willing to accept less than 1/3 in order to secure recognition of their own State.

Refugees have the Right to return to the places from which they were driven by war, terrorism, institutional oppression and malice, etc. But the Palestinians made concessions there, too. They have agreed to a plan that would bring just a few thousand refugees back to their homes in Israel, not the ravening hoard you describe in your pulp fiction stories.

So, no, the PLO didn't demand all of Eretz Israel. That was Netanyahu's faction, and it looks like they will get what they want.

Who is it exactly that pays salaries to families of terrorists martyrs who murder innocent Israeli citizens?

Do you just keep changing the subject because you agree with me but can't admit it? Or are you and Loren taking turns posting bullshit and non-sequiturs out of habit?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The PLO explicitly stated it's support for a Two State solution based on the 1967 borders and Hamas is very pointedly hinting at it with their recent proposals. But IMO that ship sailed when Yitzhak Rabin was assassinated by a Zionist from the faction that wants it all, and that faction gained control of the country.

The PLO demanded 67 borders and the Right of Return. In other words, all of Israel.

^This^ is bullshit. How unsurprising.

The PLO conceded the 1967 borders in order to get a Palestinian State. They didn't have to. Israel's seizure of land was illegal under international law and the UN Conventions. The Palestinian have the Right to claim all of Palestine as their ancestral homeland, but they were willing to accept less than 1/3 in order to secure recognition of their own State.

Refugees have the Right to return to the places from which they were driven by war, terrorism, institutional oppression and malice, etc. But the Palestinians made concessions there, too. They have agreed to a plan that would bring just a few thousand refugees back to their homes in Israel, not the ravening hoard you describe in your pulp fiction stories.

So, no, the PLO didn't demand all of Eretz Israel. That was Netanyahu's faction, and it looks like they will get what they want.

You say "bullshit" but then basically agree with what I said. Your justification for the Right of Return isn't a refutation of them demanding it!

And both sides know that the Right of Return means the demographic destruction of Israel. When both sides agree on something it's probably true.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The PLO explicitly stated it's support for a Two State solution based on the 1967 borders and Hamas is very pointedly hinting at it with their recent proposals. But IMO that ship sailed when Yitzhak Rabin was assassinated by a Zionist from the faction that wants it all, and that faction gained control of the country.

The PLO demanded 67 borders and the Right of Return. In other words, all of Israel.

Help me out here...can you point out on a map where the '67 borders = "all of Israel?"

I'll wait.

Strawman. It's the Right of Return that amounts to all of Israel.

 

[Arctish]

^This^ is bullshit. How unsurprising.

The PLO conceded the 1967 borders in order to get a Palestinian State. They didn't have to. Israel's seizure of land was illegal under international law and the UN Conventions. The Palestinian have the Right to claim all of Palestine as their ancestral homeland, but they were willing to accept less than 1/3 in order to secure recognition of their own State.

Refugees have the Right to return to the places from which they were driven by war, terrorism, institutional oppression and malice, etc. But the Palestinians made concessions there, too. They have agreed to a plan that would bring just a few thousand refugees back to their homes in Israel, not the ravening hoard you describe in your pulp fiction stories.

So, no, the PLO didn't demand all of Eretz Israel. That was Netanyahu's faction, and it looks like they will get what they want.

You say "bullshit" but then basically agree with what I said. Your justification for the Right of Return isn't a refutation of them demanding it!

And both sides know that the Right of Return means the demographic destruction of Israel. When both sides agree on something it's probably true.

I call your posts bullshit because they fit the definition of the concept.

The Palestinians conceded territory to which they had a rightful claim when they accepted the 1967 borders, and the territory they conceded amounted to the lion's share of Palestine. Your phrasing it as them demanding the 1967 borders misrepresents what the offer really was.

Also, the return of the refugees would not destroy Israel. The country would remain and Jews would remain the majority. But their majority would be greatly diminished and they'd have to share the land with non-Jews, which is your real objection.

It's too bad you never threw your support behind Yitzhak Rabin's attempt to preserve Israel's Jewish character by ensuring the non-Jews had their own separate State. It's too late now, of course. All those millions of Christians and Muslims are going to be living inside Israel. What do you think Netanyahu plans to do with them, or to them?

 

[Ford]

Help me out here...can you point out on a map where the '67 borders = "all of Israel?"

I'll wait.

Strawman. It's the Right of Return that amounts to all of Israel.

No, it doesn't. Granted, you think "all of Israel" means present day Israel, the occupied territories, and any other land Bibi wants to take, so there's that. Even if Palestinians came back and stayed in Gaza or what little land they have left in the West Bank, you'd complain that they were destroying Israel. Then Bibi would continue the slow ethnic cleansing unabated, and you'd think it justified.

 

[ruby sparks]

^This^ is bullshit. How unsurprising.

The PLO conceded the 1967 borders in order to get a Palestinian State. They didn't have to. Israel's seizure of land was illegal under international law and the UN Conventions. The Palestinian have the Right to claim all of Palestine as their ancestral homeland, but they were willing to accept less than 1/3 in order to secure recognition of their own State.

Refugees have the Right to return to the places from which they were driven by war, terrorism, institutional oppression and malice, etc. But the Palestinians made concessions there, too. They have agreed to a plan that would bring just a few thousand refugees back to their homes in Israel, not the ravening hoard you describe in your pulp fiction stories.

So, no, the PLO didn't demand all of Eretz Israel. That was Netanyahu's faction, and it looks like they will get what they want.

Who is it exactly that pays salaries to families of terrorists martyrs who murder innocent Israeli citizens?

Do you just keep changing the subject because you agree with me but can't admit it? Or are you and Loren taking turns posting bullshit and non-sequiturs out of habit?

Just ask them both a simple question. 'Do you agree that the large influx of Jewish (and perhaps especially the component that were zionist) immigrants and settlers in the 20th Century (essentially amounting to a plantation and to some extent an ethnic cleansing) and the related events leading up to the creation of modern Israel, made an early and significant negative, formative contribution to many of the subsequent issues in the region'? Or words to that effect in a shorter question than that.

If they can't at least say 'yes', or even 'yes but...', that might tell you something.

 

[repoman]

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The Palestinians conceded territory to which they had a rightful claim when they accepted the 1967 borders, and the territory they conceded amounted to the lion's share of Palestine. Your phrasing it as them demanding the 1967 borders misrepresents what the offer really was.

So you're saying the Palestinians had a right to all of Israel?

Also, the return of the refugees would not destroy Israel. The country would remain and Jews would remain the majority. But their majority would be greatly diminished and they'd have to share the land with non-Jews, which is your real objection.

UNHCR claims there are 5,149,742 Palestinian refugees as of 2015. As of 2013 there were 1,658,000 Arabs in Israel, 21% of the population. That means about 6,632,000 Jews. 5,149,742 + 1,658,000 = 6,807,742. The Jews would be a minority. And there would be no sharing, they would be ethnically cleansed, just like they were from "East Jerusalem".

It's too bad you never threw your support behind Yitzhak Rabin's attempt to preserve Israel's Jewish character by ensuring the non-Jews had their own separate State. It's too late now, of course. All those millions of Christians and Muslims are going to be living inside Israel. What do you think Netanyahu plans to do with them, or to them?

Yeah, that's your problem--them having a Jewish character. That's been the heart of the problem all along--they threw off their oppressors. And whatever Netanyahu does it won't be nearly as bad as what they would do to the Jews if they got their way.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

View attachment 22621

At the time Trans-Jordan existed the portrayed division of Israel did not exist.

 

[Arctish]

So you're saying the Palestinians had a right to all of Israel?

Sometimes it's like you never read my posts at all.***

UNHCR claims there are 5,149,742 Palestinian refugees as of 2015. As of 2013 there were 1,658,000 Arabs in Israel, 21% of the population. That means about 6,632,000 Jews. 5,149,742 + 1,658,000 = 6,807,742. The Jews would be a minority. And there would be no sharing, they would be ethnically cleansed, just like they were from "East Jerusalem".

So Jews would be outnumbered by a grand total of 175,000 non-Jews if the refugees all returned at once. All the more reason for racists and religious bigots in Israel to accept the plan sponsored by Arab nations to allow a token number of refugees to return and have the rest resettled in the West Bank, and then not annex the West Bank.

Dog knows you can't expect the Jews to join with Christians and secular Palestinians in forging a State where religious bigotry isn't allowed to dictate how people are treated, amiright?

It's too bad you never threw your support behind Yitzhak Rabin's attempt to preserve Israel's Jewish character by ensuring the non-Jews had their own separate State. It's too late now, of course. All those millions of Christians and Muslims are going to be living inside Israel. What do you think Netanyahu plans to do with them, or to them?

Yeah, that's your problem--them having a Jewish character. That's been the heart of the problem all along--they threw off their oppressors. And whatever Netanyahu does it won't be nearly as bad as what they would do to the Jews if they got their way.

So you won't even address the question honestly, you're just going to throw out a few ad hominems and pretend Netanyahu's plan to annex the West Bank isn't going to move the human rights issue to the front burner?

Israel is about to officially become an apartheid state, or one openly engaged in ethnic cleansing, or one carrying out genocide, or one with millions of non-citizen Muslims and Christians in limbo, who by their very existence inside Israel will usher in a period of political turmoil. And all those folks in the refugees camps will still have the right to return to the places from which they were displaced.

What do you think Bibi plans to do with all those Palestinians? What do you think he plans to do _to_ them when Israel annexes their land? Has it never even crossed your mind that there might be a problem with that plan?


***Correction: it's like that all the time.

 

[Ford]

What do you think Bibi plans to do with all those Palestinians? What do you think he plans to do _to_ them when Israel annexes their land? Has it never even crossed your mind that there might be a problem with that plan?

psst: He doesn't care. In order for one to be concerned about the fate of all those Palestinians, one would have to first consider them to be human. Do you think their lives mean anything to someone who thinks the "Jewish character" of that piece of real estate is the most important thing?

 

[Arctish]

What do you think Bibi plans to do with all those Palestinians? What do you think he plans to do _to_ them when Israel annexes their land? Has it never even crossed your mind that there might be a problem with that plan?

psst: He doesn't care. In order for one to be concerned about the fate of all those Palestinians, one would have to first consider them to be human. Do you think their lives mean anything to someone who thinks the "Jewish character" of that piece of real estate is the most important thing?

Yeah, I noticed he set the bar on how they might be treated awful low, too.

"[W]hatever Netanyahu does it won't be nearly as bad as what they would do to the Jews if they got their way" coupled with his insistence that Palestinians all want to murder every single Jew in Israel means that if Netanyahu plans to brand Palestinians like cattle, imprison them in forced labor camps, and sell their kidneys on the black market, that's okay because it's not as bad as being murdered.

 

[ruby sparks]

View attachment 22621

At the time Trans-Jordan existed the portrayed division of Israel did not exist.

True. The cartoon is not very good in that respect, or for the stereotypical portrayal of the immigrants.

But the substantive point is that mostly in the 20th C, immigrant Jews effectively 'planted' the territory now called Israel after forcing out about 80% of the local arab inhabitants, including by burning many of their towns and villages and in several cases massacring many of the inhabitants. But the subsequent Israeli administration covered it up and destroyed as much documentation as they could.


"Ben-Gurion was right. If he had not done what he did, a state would not have come into being. That has to be clear. It is impossible to evade it. Without the uprooting of the Palestinians, a Jewish state would not have arisen here."

Survival of the Fittest
(an interview with Jewish historian Benny Morris)
https://www.haaretz.com/1.5262454

I can almost hear already what you're going to say next. Some sort of pro-Israeli apologetics or some counter about arabs or Palestinians. If that's all you're going to say, don't bother. You either accept that there are at least two sides to this, and that it's complicated, and that both 'sides' can be condemned for different reasons, or you don't. And if you don't, you don't have much of a leg to stand on, imo.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Sometimes it's like you never read my posts at all.***

Reading them doesn't mean I agree with what you say.

So Jews would be outnumbered by a grand total of 175,000 non-Jews if the refugees all returned at once. All the more reason for racists and religious bigots in Israel to accept the plan sponsored by Arab nations to allow a token number of refugees to return and have the rest resettled in the West Bank, and then not annex the West Bank.

A token number of refugees wouldn't be a big problem--but it's only in leftist fantasy that that would be acceptable. The Right of Return for all Palestinians is a non-negotiable point for them. (And written into their legal system--to agree to anything less would be treason.)

Also, note the year--that data was 6 years old, the number of "refugees" will have increased substantially since then. (They are counting anyone with even one ancestor who was one of the original refugees as being a refugee, thus the number roughly doubles per generation as most of them live in other Arab lands and marry locals.)

Dog knows you can't expect the Jews to join with Christians and secular Palestinians in forging a State where religious bigotry isn't allowed to dictate how people are treated, amiright?

There aren't enough of those other groups. The Islamists would carry the ballot box and start another Holocaust.

So you won't even address the question honestly, you're just going to throw out a few ad hominems and pretend Netanyahu's plan to annex the West Bank isn't going to move the human rights issue to the front burner?

He's not going to annex the West Bank. The plan is to annex some areas that already have large Jewish populations--areas that would no doubt be retained in a 67 + land swap deal.

Israel is about to officially become an apartheid state, or one openly engaged in ethnic cleansing, or one carrying out genocide, or one with millions of non-citizen Muslims and Christians in limbo, who by their very existence inside Israel will usher in a period of political turmoil. And all those folks in the refugees camps will still have the right to return to the places from which they were displaced.

Israel isn't engaging in ethnic cleansing--that's what the Palestinians did and want to continue.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

View attachment 22621

At the time Trans-Jordan existed the portrayed division of Israel did not exist.

True. The cartoon is not very good in that respect, or for the stereotypical portrayal of the immigrants.

But the substantive point is that mostly in the 20th C, immigrant Jews effectively 'planted' the territory now called Israel after forcing out about 80% of the local arab inhabitants, including by burning many of their towns and villages and in several cases massacring many of the inhabitants. But the subsequent Israeli administration covered it up and destroyed as much documentation as they could.

Except there weren't many massacres and the ones that did happen were because the Palestinians fought while in civilian attire. That's the classic way to provoke a massacre and in my book the blame goes to the side who fought out of uniform.

Survival of the Fittest
(an interview with Jewish historian Benny Morris)
https://www.haaretz.com/1.5262454

If Haaretz said it it's likely false.

 

[angelo]

Israel successfully defended them on multiple occasions, remember?

There's no such thing as a country so large it won't be attacked so if that's where you're going with this, don't bother. Adding what remains of Palestinian land to Israel won't make a difference wrt outside threats.



The area outside Israel's 1967 borders is not part of Israel, need not be part of Israel, and would not be part of Israel in a Two State solution.

The PLO explicitly stated it's support for a Two State solution based on the 1967 borders and Hamas is very pointedly hinting at it with their recent proposals. But IMO that ship sailed when Yitzhak Rabin was assassinated by a Zionist from the faction that wants it all, and that faction gained control of the country.

If you're saying the only likely solution at this point is the One State solution, I agree with you.

The PLO? You mean their leader Abbas who was elected for a four year term 14 years ago?

Why are you finding it so hard to address the point of my posts, and so tempting to quibble over minutiae that doesn't matter?

Israel recognized the PLO as the authority representing the Palestinian people as part of the process laid out in the Oslo Accords. The PLO then ceded its claim to the area inside Israel's 1967 borders to Israel with the expectation that the area outside them would become the Palestinian State.

The Palestinian Authority formed after that happened. The PLO's top diplomat, Abbas, the guy who actually led the negotiating team in Oslo and who signed the Accords on behalf of the Palestinian people, is currently its President.

The PLO explicitly stated it's support for a Two State solution based on the 1967 borders when the Oslo Accords were in effect, and the PA under Abbas has not changed that position. Hamas is very pointedly hinting at accepting the 1967 borders in their recent proposals. The international community also recognizes the 1967 Green Line as Israel's borders. The only ones who don't are the Israelis. So if you're going to whinge about people not accepting the 1967 borders, you can aim your barbs at the Israelis, especially Netanyahui and his faction.

And when Israel suddenly has millions upon millions of Palestinian Muslims living inside its newly and illegally expanded borders, don't blame the Palestinians. They wanted to remain separate but Bibi wouldn't let them.

Your dodging the statement that Abbas was elected for a 4 year term 14 years ago and there hasn't been an election there since then is noted.

 

[angelo]

What do you think Bibi plans to do with all those Palestinians? What do you think he plans to do _to_ them when Israel annexes their land? Has it never even crossed your mind that there might be a problem with that plan?

psst: He doesn't care. In order for one to be concerned about the fate of all those Palestinians, one would have to first consider them to be human. Do you think their lives mean anything to someone who thinks the "Jewish character" of that piece of real estate is the most important thing?

Were that " piece of real estate to lose it's Jewish character, the whole piece of real estate would become a shithole just like the rest of the non democratic Middle East!

 

[Arctish]

Sometimes it's like you never read my posts at all.***

Reading them doesn't mean I agree with what you say.

Well, of course not. Who ever said otherwise?

This is just a bullshit excuse for a bullshit post. Either you're pretending to be ignorant of my beliefs regarding the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the Rights of Refugees, or you haven't been reading my posts with comprehension. Either way, I'm not going to keep explaining things to you like you're a little kid who doesn't understand what the adults are talking about.

A token number of refugees wouldn't be a big problem--but it's only in leftist fantasy that that would be acceptable.

You may be right. Abbas and the PA have indicated they would accept it but Netanyahu and Likud have indicated they won't. That doesn't mean it isn't a viable plan that would solve a huge problem for Israel. It just means racism and religious bigotry are driving decisions in the Knesset.

The Right of Return for all Palestinians is a non-negotiable point for them. (And written into their legal system--to agree to anything less would be treason.)

Also, note the year--that data was 6 years old, the number of "refugees" will have increased substantially since then. (They are counting anyone with even one ancestor who was one of the original refugees as being a refugee, thus the number roughly doubles per generation as most of them live in other Arab lands and marry locals.)

Dog knows you can't expect the Jews to join with Christians and secular Palestinians in forging a State where religious bigotry isn't allowed to dictate how people are treated, amiright?

There aren't enough of those other groups. The Islamists would carry the ballot box and start another Holocaust.

All the more reason for Israel to be pro-active and resettle the refugees into the West Bank, and then stop annexing the West Bank.

The issue isn't going to go away on its own. But since the One State solution is the only one likely at this point, there isn't going to be an easy way out going forward. Israel is going to have to deal with millions upon millions of non-Jews within its borders and in nearby refugee camps building support for their return.

So you won't even address the question honestly, you're just going to throw out a few ad hominems and pretend Netanyahu's plan to annex the West Bank isn't going to move the human rights issue to the front burner?

He's not going to annex the West Bank. The plan is to annex some areas that already have large Jewish populations--areas that would no doubt be retained in a 67 + land swap deal.

And the places with medium-small Jewish populations. And the illegal outposts built without permits but in no danger of being bulldozed.

"I will not uproot a single settlement, and I will ensure that we’ll control all the area West of the Jordan river. Will we move to the next stage? The answer is yes, we will move to the next stage—to the gradual extension of Israeli sovereignty in the areas of Judea and Samaria. I also do not distinguish between the settlement blocs and the lone settlements, every settlement like that is for me Israeli." --- Benjamin Netanyahu, speaking in April of this year, linked here

His plan is for Israel to possess all of the West Bank of the Jordan River, which is why he insists on calling it Judea and Samaria. It's why he denounced Rabin as a traitor to Zionism, and why Rabin was murdered. There is no part of the land west of the Jordan River Valley that the Netanyahu-led faction will allow to be under another people's control or part of another nation's State. Ffs, don't you understand even that much about the conflict?

Israel is about to officially become an apartheid state, or one openly engaged in ethnic cleansing, or one carrying out genocide, or one with millions of non-citizen Muslims and Christians in limbo, who by their very existence inside Israel will usher in a period of political turmoil. And all those folks in the refugees camps will still have the right to return to the places from which they were displaced.

Israel isn't engaging in ethnic cleansing--that's what the Palestinians did and want to continue.

Either you're bullshitting again, or you're ignoring all of the information that has been posted here over the years that clearly show Palestinians being displaced and their land being seized, even information you posted about an attempt to force 'Arab' Israelis out of Israel.

Personally, I think you're doing both.