Israel/Palestine thread

one more for you Victor before you post your evasion replay.

if we are concern so much about the right of the Palestinians to vote and choose, why are we not protesting against egypt, syria, jodan and such?
there are Palestinians in all those countries, and they are not allowed to vote.

explain to me the difference please

no wait "palestinians" refugees don't want other citizenship or they would lose refugee status (with the accompanying $$).

It's not jordan refusing to make them citizens if they are born in a camp from refugee parents, it's the parents.

King Hussain refused to give citizenships to many Palestinians and even butchered many on black october.

King Abdallah did correct many of his father's actions, but did refuse citizenships to many, on different grounds.

there are also many who refused citizenship, but many more that were not granted one.

serial rapist Bill Clinton seems like a real honest broker

again, what Palestinians do in Palestine is up to them and not up to the Israelis. I understand why that is hard for a Western propagandized person to understand. I used to think like you when I was in high school.

as expected, total evasion.

just so I understand your stance- Israel is not allowed to intervene in Palestinian politics, but Hamas or Fatah are allowed to rule with no elections and by enforcing their rule by any means necessary?

Is that the "grown up" stance?

Then the Israeli military has the right to occupy it forever for their own safety

The second and 3rd generation thing in Jordan is disgusting. It's sole purpose is to continue the cause

Now that Israel has banned Unrwa (effective a few months from now) maybe this farce will end

Don't forget that many were given and accepted Jordanian citizenship in the 1950s, only to have Jordan take it away from them in 1967

when palestine continues to fight and doesn’t surrender they probably extend the timeline of their occupation more and more if international law was being applied correctly.

their “international rights” are hindering their development and ability to normalize relations.

why do i presume this "unimaginable" scenario?

well, maybe based on 30 years of history...

is this even a real conversation? did I just enter bizzarro-land?

The offers did not include an end to the occupation. They were not serious offers, and for all his mistakes, Arafat was no traitor.

define occupation please and please explain how the offer did not include an end to it

first of all the answer is yes. Palestinians can organize society however they see fit.

secondly, the last 30 years (and longer) were under brutal apartheid occupation blockade and mass murder.

there are so many fallacies in this, i cant even start.

but it is an appalling unhuman stance.

just to understand, did the communist in USSR had the right to organize society however they see fit, including murdering 60 millions +- to insure their ruling? and if not, please explain the difference?

and isnt the idea of democracy, among other things, is to make sure it is what most people see fit, and not only a minority with guns?

this is really a distorted world view man.

Area C is militarized settler country and will stay that way. Area C winds in and around 165 West Bank cantons. So you have to go through a checkpoint to cross the street to the bakery.

right I would not have supported invading and occupying USSR. and in fact I disagree with the world view of the people who did support it and actually do it.

false and Ill give you the same advice I gave Victor - learn history first.

the offer was to grant the Palestinians 94-96% of the West Bank, to keep the two major settled areas (around 4%) but to give 4% in another part (The Judean desert). most of area C was going to be a part of the Palestinian state.

allegedly, the offer was not rejected because of area C, but on the grounds of the two other main point of the conflict- Jerusalem and the right of return.

I stated allegedly, as although that was the formal reason given by Arafat, all the american and israeli negotiators claimed it was rejected as Arafat had no intent to sign a final peace agreement with Israel.

and guess what -it was proven to be true. when we entered and seized the Mukatah, we found formal orders from Arafat and others, claiming every agreement with Israel will only be a Hudna and never a peace agreement

Do I need to explain what is a Hudna?

so you would just stand by as 60 million people are being murdered?

and you believe this is somehow moral?

I am a bit shocked that Starbucks seems to be the hangout after school now. Loads of kids drinking frappes, can't be over 13yo. Back in my day we were lucky to get otter pops.

Soviets didnt murder 60m.

Israel is not invading to save lives. they are invading to steal land and do genocide.

try to find applicable hypotheticals.

No where do you deny that Area C divides the West Bank into contained cantons. The 6% Israel was to keep was all spread out like a snake.

And what happened after the ridiculous offers? The Oslo process was still underway, it just hadn't reached a final status agreement. What happened then? Likud ended Oslo. So it's a mendacious like to say the PLO torpedoed Oslo.

By the way Bill, if you want to put the blame on Israel for missing opportunities for peace, you do have many.

Let me help you:

1971-1973 - the Suleimani - Kissinger ordeal.
1986- the London initiative
2002- the arab league Initiative

you are welcome