So Bibi Wants To Begin The "Final Solution."

[Arctish]

The list is referring to the Camp David Talks in 2000, but the claim that the Israelis offered the Palestinians 97% of the land they wanted is incorrect. The Palestinians wanted Israel to withdraw its citizens to its side of the 1967 Green Line. They were willing to negotiate land swaps but their goal was to have the settlers back inside Israel and the IDF out of Palestinian communities.

Try Taba rather than Camp David.

The list referred to talks in 2000 and 2008. The Taba Summit did not take place in either or those years.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Israel invaded it in the Six-Day war--and then Egypt and Jordan renounced their claims to it. That gave Israel sole ownership of the land.

So if Israel takes land by force, they own it and nobody can say otherwise?

Pay attention to what I actually said.

Egypt and Jordan renounced their claims after the 67 war. They never actually wanted the land, they just didn't want a Palestinian state on it. Since the Palestinians have never been willing to declare a state they have no claim. That leaves only one claimant, Israel.

If the Palestinians want the rights of a state they need to declare one--but that either means admitting they want to take over Israel (thus angering many leftists who have supported them), or it means not claiming Israel (and thus angering the Muslims that demand the conquest of Israel.) Thus they would be screwed no matter what borders they declare, so they don't.

 

[Arctish]

Israel invaded it in the Six-Day war--and then Egypt and Jordan renounced their claims to it. That gave Israel sole ownership of the land.

So if Israel takes land by force, they own it and nobody can say otherwise?

Pay attention to what I actually said.

Egypt and Jordan renounced their claims after the 67 war. They never actually wanted the land, they just didn't want a Palestinian state on it. Since the Palestinians have never been willing to declare a state they have no claim. That leaves only one claimant, Israel.

If the Palestinians want the rights of a state they need to declare one--but that either means admitting they want to take over Israel (thus angering many leftists who have supported them), or it means not claiming Israel (and thus angering the Muslims that demand the conquest of Israel.) Thus they would be screwed no matter what borders they declare, so they don't.

State of Palestinee

On 15 November 1988, Yasser Arafat, Chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), in Algiers proclaimed the establishment of the State of Palestine. A year after the signing of the Oslo Accords in 1993, the Palestinian National Authority was formed to govern the areas A and B in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Gaza would later be ruled by Hamas in 2007, two years after the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza.

The State of Palestine is recognized by 136 UN members and since 2012 has a status of a non-member observer state in the United Nations – which implies recognition of statehood.[26][27][28] It is a member of the Arab League, Organisation of Islamic Cooperation, G77, and the International Olympic Committee and other international bodies.

 

[angelo]

History of peace initiatives between the Arabs and Israelis. In this dosier it can be plainly seen by any rational person the unreasonableness of the Arabs. For example, the right of return could only mean the end of a Jewish state.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-11103745

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Pay attention to what I actually said.

Egypt and Jordan renounced their claims after the 67 war. They never actually wanted the land, they just didn't want a Palestinian state on it. Since the Palestinians have never been willing to declare a state they have no claim. That leaves only one claimant, Israel.

If the Palestinians want the rights of a state they need to declare one--but that either means admitting they want to take over Israel (thus angering many leftists who have supported them), or it means not claiming Israel (and thus angering the Muslims that demand the conquest of Israel.) Thus they would be screwed no matter what borders they declare, so they don't.

State of Palestinee

On 15 November 1988, Yasser Arafat, Chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), in Algiers proclaimed the establishment of the State of Palestine. A year after the signing of the Oslo Accords in 1993, the Palestinian National Authority was formed to govern the areas A and B in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Gaza would later be ruled by Hamas in 2007, two years after the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza.

The State of Palestine is recognized by 136 UN members and since 2012 has a status of a non-member observer state in the United Nations – which implies recognition of statehood.[26][27][28] It is a member of the Arab League, Organisation of Islamic Cooperation, G77, and the International Olympic Committee and other international bodies.

Non-member observer state--in other words, not a state.

 

[Ford]

Israel invaded it in the Six-Day war--and then Egypt and Jordan renounced their claims to it. That gave Israel sole ownership of the land.

So if Israel takes land by force, they own it and nobody can say otherwise?

Pay attention to what I actually said..

I have been. You think Palestinians are sub-humans with no rights. Whatever land Israel wants, they can take, because...

What was it that you base this upon, again? Because God gave them the land?

You think any Palestinian claims are illegitimate because they're Palestinians. You think they're less than human.

 

[Ford]

Pay attention to what I actually said.

Egypt and Jordan renounced their claims after the 67 war. They never actually wanted the land, they just didn't want a Palestinian state on it. Since the Palestinians have never been willing to declare a state they have no claim. That leaves only one claimant, Israel.

If the Palestinians want the rights of a state they need to declare one--but that either means admitting they want to take over Israel (thus angering many leftists who have supported them), or it means not claiming Israel (and thus angering the Muslims that demand the conquest of Israel.) Thus they would be screwed no matter what borders they declare, so they don't.

State of Palestinee

On 15 November 1988, Yasser Arafat, Chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), in Algiers proclaimed the establishment of the State of Palestine. A year after the signing of the Oslo Accords in 1993, the Palestinian National Authority was formed to govern the areas A and B in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Gaza would later be ruled by Hamas in 2007, two years after the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza.

The State of Palestine is recognized by 136 UN members and since 2012 has a status of a non-member observer state in the United Nations – which implies recognition of statehood.[26][27][28] It is a member of the Arab League, Organisation of Islamic Cooperation, G77, and the International Olympic Committee and other international bodies.

No, see...according to Loren, no Palestinians ever lived on that land. It was just barren desert before Israel showed up and began building settlements. For thousands of years, the West Bank in particular was a giant vacant lot with a "for sale" sign on it that nobody but modern day Israel ever heeded. Sure, a couple "dirty Ay-rabs" might have squatted on the land, but it was pretty much Israel's to take. Because...you know...god.

 

[Arctish]

History of peace initiatives between the Arabs and Israelis. In this dosier it can be plainly seen by any rational person the unreasonableness of the Arabs. For example, the right of return could only mean the end of a Jewish state.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-11103745

"... it can be plainly seen by any rational person the unreasonableness of the Arabs" - poisoning the well + assuming your conclusion.

What is unreasonable about the proposals the Palestinians offered? They look pretty reasonable to me. And they're in keeping with the international community's ideas regarding human rights and the rights of refugees.

Can you make an argument critiquing them that doesn't rely on racism and religious bias/bigotry?

 

[repoman]

I can make a might makes right - if public image can still be maintained through use of the antisemitism card - argument.



Go to the 4 minute mark.

I hope that they enjoy their nation after they supplant the arabs. In the same way that white people in the US were beginning to enjoy America before the Jewish influenced 1965 immigration law.

 

[Arctish]

State of Palestinee

No, see...according to Loren, no Palestinians ever lived on that land. It was just barren desert before Israel showed up and began building settlements. For thousands of years, the West Bank in particular was a giant vacant lot with a "for sale" sign on it that nobody but modern day Israel ever heeded. Sure, a couple "dirty Ay-rabs" might have squatted on the land, but it was pretty much Israel's to take. Because...you know...god.

I thought his argument was that all those Arabs rushed into Palestine when they heard Jews wanted it because in Arab culture, Jews aren't allowed to have nice things.

Also, Jews are the final authority on what is a State and what isn't, but don't suggest that Jews run the world because that's anti-Semitic unless Loren is claiming it.

 

[Ford]

I thought his argument was that all those Arabs rushed into Palestine

Ah, but there is no such country as Palestine.

Only bits of Israel that were not occupied yet.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Pay attention to what I actually said..

I have been. You think Palestinians are sub-humans with no rights. Whatever land Israel wants, they can take, because...

What was it that you base this upon, again? Because God gave them the land?

You think any Palestinian claims are illegitimate because they're Palestinians. You think they're less than human.

Once again, pay attention to what I actually wrote.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

No, see...according to Loren, no Palestinians ever lived on that land. It was just barren desert before Israel showed up and began building settlements. For thousands of years, the West Bank in particular was a giant vacant lot with a "for sale" sign on it that nobody but modern day Israel ever heeded. Sure, a couple "dirty Ay-rabs" might have squatted on the land, but it was pretty much Israel's to take. Because...you know...god.

Once again, you attribute to me things I never said.

I never said there was nobody there. I said there were no "Palestinians" there--they were simply Arabs! "Palestinian" as an identity didn't exist until there was a political reason for it.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

History of peace initiatives between the Arabs and Israelis. In this dosier it can be plainly seen by any rational person the unreasonableness of the Arabs. For example, the right of return could only mean the end of a Jewish state.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-11103745

"... it can be plainly seen by any rational person the unreasonableness of the Arabs" - poisoning the well + assuming your conclusion.

What is unreasonable about the proposals the Palestinians offered? They look pretty reasonable to me. And they're in keeping with the international community's ideas regarding human rights and the rights of refugees.

Can you make an argument critiquing them that doesn't rely on racism and religious bias/bigotry?

Then you need to make a trip to the optometrist.

I don't recall all of the proposals, but a couple of doozies they have made:

1) Palestinians proposals always include the "right of return"--which is death for Israel. Note that this is often disguised but it's always there. Look for any mention of UN resolution 194.

2) Hamas offered "peace" in which they wouldn't shoot--but would do nothing to stop others from shooting from their territory and would consider Israel shooting back at those others to be breaking the agreement.

 

[Arctish]

History of peace initiatives between the Arabs and Israelis. In this dosier it can be plainly seen by any rational person the unreasonableness of the Arabs. For example, the right of return could only mean the end of a Jewish state.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-11103745

"... it can be plainly seen by any rational person the unreasonableness of the Arabs" - poisoning the well + assuming your conclusion.

What is unreasonable about the proposals the Palestinians offered? They look pretty reasonable to me. And they're in keeping with the international community's ideas regarding human rights and the rights of refugees.

Can you make an argument critiquing them that doesn't rely on racism and religious bias/bigotry?

Then you need to make a trip to the optometrist.

I don't recall all of the proposals, but a couple of doozies they have made:

1) Palestinians proposals always include the "right of return"--which is death for Israel. Note that this is often disguised but it's always there. Look for any mention of UN resolution 194.

2) Hamas offered "peace" in which they wouldn't shoot--but would do nothing to stop others from shooting from their territory and would consider Israel shooting back at those others to be breaking the agreement.

I asked angelo if he could offer up a critique of the Palestinian proposals that doesn't rely on racism and religious bias/bigotry. I already know you can't.

 

[Jarhyn]

Then you need to make a trip to the optometrist.

I don't recall all of the proposals, but a couple of doozies they have made:

1) Palestinians proposals always include the "right of return"--which is death for Israel. Note that this is often disguised but it's always there. Look for any mention of UN resolution 194.

2) Hamas offered "peace" in which they wouldn't shoot--but would do nothing to stop others from shooting from their territory and would consider Israel shooting back at those others to be breaking the agreement.

I asked angelo if he could offer up a critique of the Palestinian proposals that doesn't rely on racism and religious bias/bigotry. I already know you can't.

Not to mention, the right to go back to where you and your family ostensibly always lived isnt a death knell for Israel, just a death knell to Israel as an ethnostate.

I dont support an ethnostate in South Africa.
I dont support an ethnostate in China.
I dont support an ethnostate in the US.
I dont support pursuit of a European ethnostate.
I dont support an ethnostate in the middle east.

I dont support Hamas in their pursuit of palestine as an ethnostate, either.

Ethnostates are garbage racist shitholes.

 

[Trausti]

Ethnostates are garbage racist shitholes.

Yeah, total garbage. Just look at Japan and South Korea. The horror.

 

[Derec]

Ah, but there is no such country as Palestine.

And the way Palestinian Arabs are acting (shooting rockets, throwing bombs at soldiers guarding the border, sending balloons with explosives to burn Israeli fields and forests), there never will be one.

 

[repoman]

Then you need to make a trip to the optometrist.

I don't recall all of the proposals, but a couple of doozies they have made:

1) Palestinians proposals always include the "right of return"--which is death for Israel. Note that this is often disguised but it's always there. Look for any mention of UN resolution 194.

2) Hamas offered "peace" in which they wouldn't shoot--but would do nothing to stop others from shooting from their territory and would consider Israel shooting back at those others to be breaking the agreement.

I asked angelo if he could offer up a critique of the Palestinian proposals that doesn't rely on racism and religious bias/bigotry. I already know you can't.

Not to mention, the right to go back to where you and your family ostensibly always lived isnt a death knell for Israel, just a death knell to Israel as an ethnostate.

I dont support an ethnostate in South Africa.
I dont support an ethnostate in China.
I dont support an ethnostate in the US.
I dont support pursuit of a European ethnostate.
I dont support an ethnostate in the middle east.

I dont support Hamas in their pursuit of palestine as an ethnostate, either.

Ethnostates are garbage racist shitholes.

 

[angelo]

History of peace initiatives between the Arabs and Israelis. In this dosier it can be plainly seen by any rational person the unreasonableness of the Arabs. For example, the right of return could only mean the end of a Jewish state.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-11103745

"... it can be plainly seen by any rational person the unreasonableness of the Arabs" - poisoning the well + assuming your conclusion.

What is unreasonable about the proposals the Palestinians offered? They look pretty reasonable to me. And they're in keeping with the international community's ideas regarding human rights and the rights of refugees.

Can you make an argument critiquing them that doesn't rely on racism and religious bias/bigotry?

Arabs have more human rights in Israel than anywhere else in the Middle East. I've said before. There are Arab members of the Knesset, Israeli Arabs can freely vote for said Knesset. There are many businesses owned and run by Arabs in Israel. The same rights Israelis don't have anywhere else outside of Israel in the Middle east. Now who's the racists? The Jews have been the scapegoats of every failed regime since it was claimed it was they who crucified someone who most probably never even historically existed. The Arabs are no exception, in fact much more so as Islam teaches that Jews are the most cursed of people by Allah. All because the jews refused to accept the butcher Mohammed as a prophet.