So Bibi Wants To Begin The "Final Solution."

[Jarhyn]

Ethnostates are garbage racist shitholes.

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

Neither of those are ethnostates. People can and do move to Japan all the time, who are not native born. They can have children, buy things, own property.

You apparently dont understand the concept of an ethnostate: a state where by law, certain ethnicities, generally the ones in charge of government, are legally given protection and rights over others. Examples incluse KSA, Iran, South Africa (again, somehow, but now against white people), palestine, Israel.

Thanks for playing, but you didnt even do well enough to win a crappy version of our home game.

 

[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?

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.

Those are the kind of things someone would post if they were arguing the reasonableness of the Palestinian position.

They want their human rights respected. They want their rights as the indigenous people of Palestine upheld. They want UN resolutions regarding the rights of refugees to be enforced. They want to move about freely, open businesses, and participate in their government. Those are all very reasonable.

The same rights Israelis don't have anywhere else outside of Israel in the Middle east. Now who's the racists?

People who use race as a determining factor in how they treat their fellow human beings.

The religious bigots are the ones who use religious affiliation as the determining factor.

Some people are both, and some countries are run by them.

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.

This looks like an appeal to emotion but I don't see the relevance. I asked if you could make an argument critiquing the Palestinians proposals that doesn't rely on racism and religious bias/bigotry. None of your comments does that.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

You think either of these things are reasonable demands in a peace agreement??

 

[Arctish]

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.

You think either of these things are reasonable demands in a peace agreement??

Yes..

It is reasonable for the Palestinians to demand that their human rights, their rights as indigenous peoples, and their rights as refugees as outlined by UN resolutions must be respected and upheld in any peace deal.

It is reasonable for Hamas to pledge to honor any deal to which it is a party, and to not pledge itself to fight on behalf of Israel against any other party. It is reasonable for Fatah to do the same. It is also reasonable for Fatah and Hamas to pledge to work out their problems through separate negotiations that don't involve Israel.

 

[Ford]

You think either of these things are reasonable demands in a peace agreement??

Yes..

It is reasonable for the Palestinians to demand that their human rights,

You have to understand that Loren believes in order to have human rights, the Palestinians have to be human. He does not.

 

[Arctish]

You think either of these things are reasonable demands in a peace agreement??

Yes..

It is reasonable for the Palestinians to demand that their human rights,

You have to understand that Loren believes in order to have human rights, the Palestinians have to be human. He does not.

One time when I was arguing for upholding the human rights of Palestinians, he actually accused me of denying the humanity of Jews. In the view he was expressing at that time, human rights can only be held by one side or the other, so if I was saying Palestinians have human rights I must be saying that Jews don't.

That was some weird sh*t.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You think either of these things are reasonable demands in a peace agreement??

Yes..

It is reasonable for the Palestinians to demand that their human rights, their rights as indigenous peoples, and their rights as refugees as outlined by UN resolutions must be respected and upheld in any peace deal.

Right of return is suicide for the Jews. You think it's reasonable to expect your enemy to agree to their death?

It is reasonable for Hamas to pledge to honor any deal to which it is a party, and to not pledge itself to fight on behalf of Israel against any other party. It is reasonable for Fatah to do the same. It is also reasonable for Fatah and Hamas to pledge to work out their problems through separate negotiations that don't involve Israel.

When you protect the groups you accept responsibility for what they do. That's why you got to jail for helping a criminal avoid justice.

- - - Updated - - -

You think either of these things are reasonable demands in a peace agreement??

Yes..

It is reasonable for the Palestinians to demand that their human rights,

You have to understand that Loren believes in order to have human rights, the Palestinians have to be human. He does not.

Look at the two things I listed. Acceptable or not?

- - - Updated - - -

You have to understand that Loren believes in order to have human rights, the Palestinians have to be human. He does not.

One time when I was arguing for upholding the human rights of Palestinians, he actually accused me of denying the humanity of Jews. In the view he was expressing at that time, human rights can only be held by one side or the other, so if I was saying Palestinians have human rights I must be saying that Jews don't.

That was some weird sh*t.

You said they should simply accept being killed and not do anything about it. That's denying their humanity.

 

[Arctish]

Right of return is suicide for the Jews. You think it's reasonable to expect your enemy to agree to their death?

I already know you can't formulate a critique of the Palestinian proposal that doesn't rely on racism and religious bias/bigotry. You don't need to keep proving it.

You have to understand that Loren believes in order to have human rights, the Palestinians have to be human. He does not.

One time when I was arguing for upholding the human rights of Palestinians, he actually accused me of denying the humanity of Jews. In the view he was expressing at that time, human rights can only be held by one side or the other, so if I was saying Palestinians have human rights I must be saying that Jews don't.

That was some weird sh*t.

You said they should simply accept being killed and not do anything about it. That's denying their humanity.

False.

I said "The important thing is to respect and uphold the human rights of everyone within [Israel's] borders", to which you replied "So Jews aren't people?" . It was weird. But I think I understand now.

I think Ford is on to something. Saying everyone has the same human rights is equating them, and equating Jews with Palestinians is, in your view, the same as saying Jews aren't people because you see Palestinians as being less than fully human.

 

[angelo]

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.

The Arab, or so called 'Palestinian' proposals has always been to push the Jews into the sea! From the river to the sea has been a constant cry of the Arab Muslims.

 

[Arctish]

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.

The Arab, or so called 'Palestinian' proposals has always been to push the Jews into the sea! From the river to the sea has been a constant cry of the Arab Muslims.

Their renunciation of territorial claims to the land inside Israel's 1967 borders and willingness to negotiate limited land swaps in the West Bank indicates otherwise, as does the PLOs formal recognition of Israel's right to exist in peace and security. But if you feel you have solid evidence of this 'constant cry', please post it.

 

[angelo]

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.

Those are the kind of things someone would post if they were arguing the reasonableness of the Palestinian position.

They want their human rights respected. They want their rights as the indigenous people of Palestine upheld. They want UN resolutions regarding the rights of refugees to be enforced. They want to move about freely, open businesses, and participate in their government. Those are all very reasonable.

The same rights Israelis don't have anywhere else outside of Israel in the Middle east. Now who's the racists?

People who use race as a determining factor in how they treat their fellow human beings.

The religious bigots are the ones who use religious affiliation as the determining factor.

Some people are both, and some countries are run by them.

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.

This looks like an appeal to emotion but I don't see the relevance. I asked if you could make an argument critiquing the Palestinians proposals that doesn't rely on racism and religious bias/bigotry. None of your comments does that.

The Jews can also claim to be the " indigenous" people of that location. The Wailing wall is proof of that among the many other archeology finds.

Can you name the " Palestinian" form of government these Arabs had before the Ottoman Empire conquered the whole region? What sort of currency did they use? What archaeological finds can be attributed to these ancient Palestinians? Stealing others history is easy if telling it to your apologists and naive sheeple! But a true history of a people leaves behind many archeological artifacts as the Jews have in abundance.

There's no such proof of an ancient, in fact, before the 19th century, of a Palestinian nation anywhere in what today constitutes the Land Of Israel!

 

[angelo]

The Arab, or so called 'Palestinian' proposals has always been to push the Jews into the sea! From the river to the sea has been a constant cry of the Arab Muslims.

Their renunciation of territorial claims to the land inside Israel's 1967 borders and willingness to negotiate limited land swaps in the West Bank indicates otherwise, as does the PLOs formal recognition of Israel's right to exist in peace and security. But if you feel you have solid evidence of this 'constant cry', please post it.

Fuck me! Do you even have any idea what PLO stands for? I'm sure you do, but are choosing to ignore it. It stands for Palestine Liberation Organization. In other words, a genocide of all Jews from the river to the sea!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine_Liberation_Organization

 

[Arctish]

Those are the kind of things someone would post if they were arguing the reasonableness of the Palestinian position.

They want their human rights respected. They want their rights as the indigenous people of Palestine upheld. They want UN resolutions regarding the rights of refugees to be enforced. They want to move about freely, open businesses, and participate in their government. Those are all very reasonable.



People who use race as a determining factor in how they treat their fellow human beings.

The religious bigots are the ones who use religious affiliation as the determining factor.

Some people are both, and some countries are run by them.

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.

This looks like an appeal to emotion but I don't see the relevance. I asked if you could make an argument critiquing the Palestinians proposals that doesn't rely on racism and religious bias/bigotry. None of your comments does that.

The Jews can also claim to be the " indigenous" people of that location. The Wailing wall is proof of that among the many other archeology finds.

As I have pointed out on numerous occasions, the Jews whose ancestors never left the area certainly can. The Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jews, the Jews of Ethiopia, and the Jews of Asia, not so much. DNA analysis shows those populations have mixed ancestry, and the further away from Jerusalem they lived, the greater the mix. The people of Palestine have almost no mixed ancestry, therefore they have the strongest ancestral claim.

Anyway, the religious beliefs of people don't define them in any sort of ethnic way, so you can't use religion as the basis for a claim to an ancestral homeland.

Can you name the " Palestinian" form of government these Arabs had before the Ottoman Empire conquered the whole region?

Tribal

What sort of currency did they use?

Mostly coins, both locally produced and imported. Apparently they also used tokens during coin shortages or when the currency was fluctuating in value.

What archaeological finds can be attributed to these ancient Palestinians?

Every single one that was built by the indigenous people of Palestine. You might prefer to focus on the ones built by Jehovah worshippers, but worshippers of Ba'al built temples, too. There are archeological finds dating back to 3000 BCE that don't appear to be associated with Judaism at all, although the descendants of the people who built them most likely include a lot of modern Jews.

Stealing others history is easy if telling it to your apologists and naive sheeple! But a true history of a people leaves behind many archeological artifacts as the Jews have in abundance.

There's no such proof of an ancient, in fact, before the 19th century, of a Palestinian nation anywhere in what today constitutes the Land Of Israel!

There is abundant proof of a succession of distinct, historically significant tribal lands, kingdoms, and nations in Palestine from ancient times to the present, only some of which were Hebrew or Judean or Israelite. All you have to do is look for it.

The cities of Nablus, Ramallah, Jerusalem, and Jenin have been continuously inhabited by the indigenous Semitic people for the past 3,000 - 4,000 years. Jericho has been continuously inhabited for at least 6,000 years. There is no question who built those cities or who lived in them. If you think the locals all left when Christianity and Islam arrived, you're completely mistaken. They never left, they just adopted new forms of religious worship and go on with the business of living their ordinary, everyday lives.

 

[angelo]

As I said before. The jews have just as much right if not more to the land than the Arabs. And you also fail to address that prior and latter to Ottomans there were no Palestinians as such!

https://www.quora.com/Where-did-the-Palestinians-come-from

 

[ZiprHead]

The Jews can also claim to be the " indigenous" people of that location. The Wailing wall is proof of that among the many other archeology finds.

As I have pointed out on numerous occasions, the Jews whose ancestors never left the area certainly can. The Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jews, the Jews of Ethiopia, and the Jews of Asia, not so much. DNA analysis shows those populations have mixed ancestry, and the further away from Jerusalem they lived, the greater the mix. The people of Palestine have almost no mixed ancestry, therefore they have the strongest ancestral claim.

Anyway, the religious beliefs of people don't define them in any sort of ethnic way, so you can't use religion as the basis for a claim to an ancestral homeland.

Can you name the " Palestinian" form of government these Arabs had before the Ottoman Empire conquered the whole region?

Tribal

What sort of currency did they use?

Mostly coins, both locally produced and imported. Apparently they also used tokens during coin shortages or when the currency was fluctuating in value.

What archaeological finds can be attributed to these ancient Palestinians?

Every single one that was built by the indigenous people of Palestine. You might prefer to focus on the ones built by Jehovah worshippers, but worshippers of Ba'al built temples, too. There are archeological finds dating back to 3000 BCE that don't appear to be associated with Judaism at all, although the descendants of the people who built them most likely include a lot of modern Jews.

Stealing others history is easy if telling it to your apologists and naive sheeple! But a true history of a people leaves behind many archeological artifacts as the Jews have in abundance.

There's no such proof of an ancient, in fact, before the 19th century, of a Palestinian nation anywhere in what today constitutes the Land Of Israel!

There is abundant proof of a succession of distinct, historically significant tribal lands, kingdoms, and nations in Palestine from ancient times to the present, only some of which were Hebrew or Judean or Israelite. All you have to do is look for it.

The cities of Nablus, Ramallah, Jerusalem, and Jenin have been continuously inhabited by the indigenous Semitic people for the past 3,000 - 4,000 years. Jericho has been continuously inhabited for at least 6,000 years. There is no question who built those cities or who lived in them. If you think the locals all left when Christianity and Islam arrived, you're completely mistaken. They never left, they just adopted new forms of religious worship and go on with the business of living their ordinary, everyday lives.

Angelo asks good questions. Will he pay attention to the answers?

- - - Updated - - -

As I said before. The jews have just as much right if not more to the land than the Arabs. And you also fail to address that prior and latter to Ottomans there were no Palestinians as such!

https://www.quora.com/Where-did-the-Palestinians-come-from

Will he pay attention to the answers?

Nope.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I already know you can't formulate a critique of the Palestinian proposal that doesn't rely on racism and religious bias/bigotry. You don't need to keep proving it.

Yeah, we know you think 2 + 2 = cheese. You're still not addressing the point. Right of return = Palestinian majority at the ballot box = Palestinian government. Those are governments that have vowed to at a minimum extirpate the Jews, preferably kill them. That's what you are asking the Jews to accept.

You have to understand that Loren believes in order to have human rights, the Palestinians have to be human. He does not.

One time when I was arguing for upholding the human rights of Palestinians, he actually accused me of denying the humanity of Jews. In the view he was expressing at that time, human rights can only be held by one side or the other, so if I was saying Palestinians have human rights I must be saying that Jews don't.

That was some weird sh*t.

You said they should simply accept being killed and not do anything about it. That's denying their humanity.

False.

I said "The important thing is to respect and uphold the human rights of everyone within [Israel's] borders", to which you replied "So Jews aren't people?" . It was weird. But I think I understand now.

I think Ford is on to something. Saying everyone has the same human rights is equating them, and equating Jews with Palestinians is, in your view, the same as saying Jews aren't people because you see Palestinians as being less than fully human.

Your link is off target, there is no relevant message there. The post you are looking for, quoted in it's entirety to show the context:

So what? The name isn't important. They can call it Bob for all I care. The important thing is to respect and uphold the human rights of everyone within its borders.

So Jews aren't people?

Because your plan calls for their death, not their human rights.

You ask to respect the human rights of everyone in the borders of Israel--but your plan most certainly doesn't respect the human rights of the Jews. Thus the only conclusion I can reach is you do not consider Jews to be covered by "everyone"--that they are not people.

 

[Arctish]

As I said before. The jews have just as much right if not more to the land than the Arabs. And you also fail to address that prior and latter to Ottomans there were no Palestinians as such!

https://www.quora.com/Where-did-the-Palestinians-come-from

And you failed to address the fact that the area has been called Palestine since at least the 5th century BCE.

No one cares if each and every state, district, county, and borough between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River was called Palestine at all times throughout all recorded history. The area was generally referred to as Palestine from antiquity through the Crusades and the Byzantine Empire. The three Ottoman sanjaks in the region were collectively called Palestine. The British were given a Mandate to govern Palestine. Even Theodor Herzl, the founder of modern Zionism, called it Palestine, so enough with the silly word games.

Palestinian Jews have as much right to live in Palestine as Palestinian Christians, Muslims, Druze, Buddhists, Pagans, Taoists, and Raelians. It's a matter of ancestry. They are members of the indigenous population and therefore have an internationally recognized right to live in their homeland. Their religious beliefs don't factor into it.

European Jews want to claim that same right based on the part of their ancestry that comes from the Middle East. That's not an insurmountable problem, but the Zionist insistence that Jews have an exclusive claim is. That's really what all this fuss is about, and that, I believe, is what you're aiming at. You want to deny non-Jews the right to live in their ancestral homeland because they worship a different version of the god of Abraham, or some other god, or no god, but you want to claim you're upholding the rights of the indigenous peoples. You aren't.

ETA: I really like this site: 41 Maps Covering 5,000 Years of History. You can see the rise and fall of kingdoms, tribal alliances, empires, city-states, and other governmental/social arrangements as recorded in the history of the region. I think it's interesting to see how a long inhabited city like Jerusalem changed hands and governments.

 

[Arctish]

Yeah, we know you think 2 + 2 = cheese. You're still not addressing the point. Right of return = Palestinian majority at the ballot box = Palestinian government. Those are governments that have vowed to at a minimum extirpate the Jews, preferably kill them. That's what you are asking the Jews to accept.

You have to understand that Loren believes in order to have human rights, the Palestinians have to be human. He does not.

One time when I was arguing for upholding the human rights of Palestinians, he actually accused me of denying the humanity of Jews. In the view he was expressing at that time, human rights can only be held by one side or the other, so if I was saying Palestinians have human rights I must be saying that Jews don't.

That was some weird sh*t.

You said they should simply accept being killed and not do anything about it. That's denying their humanity.

False.

I said "The important thing is to respect and uphold the human rights of everyone within [Israel's] borders", to which you replied "So Jews aren't people?" . It was weird. But I think I understand now.

I think Ford is on to something. Saying everyone has the same human rights is equating them, and equating Jews with Palestinians is, in your view, the same as saying Jews aren't people because you see Palestinians as being less than fully human.

Your link is off target, there is no relevant message there. The post you are looking for, quoted in it's entirety to show the context:

So what? The name isn't important. They can call it Bob for all I care. The important thing is to respect and uphold the human rights of everyone within its borders.

So Jews aren't people?

Because your plan calls for their death, not their human rights.

You ask to respect the human rights of everyone in the borders of Israel--but your plan most certainly doesn't respect the human rights of the Jews. Thus the only conclusion I can reach is you do not consider Jews to be covered by "everyone"--that they are not people.

I already know you can't formulate a critique of the Palestinian proposal that doesn't rely on racism and religious bias/bigotry. You don't need to keep proving it.

And I already said that in the view you were expressing at the time, human rights can only be held by one side or the other, so if I was saying Palestinians have human rights I must be saying that Jews don't. You don't have to keep demonstrating your either/or, all-or-nothing mindset.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

As I said before. The jews have just as much right if not more to the land than the Arabs. And you also fail to address that prior and latter to Ottomans there were no Palestinians as such!

https://www.quora.com/Where-did-the-Palestinians-come-from

And you failed to address the fact that the area has been called Palestine since at least the 5th century BCE.

No one cares if each and every state, district, county, and borough between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River was called Palestine at all times throughout all recorded history. The area was generally referred to as Palestine from antiquity through the Crusades and the Byzantine Empire. The three Ottoman sanjaks in the region were collectively called Palestine. The British were given a Mandate to govern Palestine. Even Theodor Herzl, the founder of modern Zionism, called it Palestine, so enough with the silly word games.

So? What you are not establishing is how the Arabs living there get the unique ownership of "Palestinian".

If you're going to base it on ancestry--note that most of them are also immigrants.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Yeah, we know you think 2 + 2 = cheese. You're still not addressing the point. Right of return = Palestinian majority at the ballot box = Palestinian government. Those are governments that have vowed to at a minimum extirpate the Jews, preferably kill them. That's what you are asking the Jews to accept.

You have to understand that Loren believes in order to have human rights, the Palestinians have to be human. He does not.

One time when I was arguing for upholding the human rights of Palestinians, he actually accused me of denying the humanity of Jews. In the view he was expressing at that time, human rights can only be held by one side or the other, so if I was saying Palestinians have human rights I must be saying that Jews don't.

That was some weird sh*t.

You said they should simply accept being killed and not do anything about it. That's denying their humanity.

False.

I said "The important thing is to respect and uphold the human rights of everyone within [Israel's] borders", to which you replied "So Jews aren't people?" . It was weird. But I think I understand now.

I think Ford is on to something. Saying everyone has the same human rights is equating them, and equating Jews with Palestinians is, in your view, the same as saying Jews aren't people because you see Palestinians as being less than fully human.

Your link is off target, there is no relevant message there. The post you are looking for, quoted in it's entirety to show the context:

So what? The name isn't important. They can call it Bob for all I care. The important thing is to respect and uphold the human rights of everyone within its borders.

So Jews aren't people?

Because your plan calls for their death, not their human rights.

You ask to respect the human rights of everyone in the borders of Israel--but your plan most certainly doesn't respect the human rights of the Jews. Thus the only conclusion I can reach is you do not consider Jews to be covered by "everyone"--that they are not people.

I already know you can't formulate a critique of the Palestinian proposal that doesn't rely on racism and religious bias/bigotry. You don't need to keep proving it.

And I already said that in the view you were expressing at the time, human rights can only be held by one side or the other, so if I was saying Palestinians have human rights I must be saying that Jews don't. You don't have to keep demonstrating your either/or, all-or-nothing mindset.

I gave you two examples of unreasonable proposals (and note that the first one is part of every Palestinian or Arab "peace" proposal), how about addressing them? Neither involves racism or religious bias.