The fairest deal they’d ever received gave Israel 56% of the land to Palestines 43% even though Jews made up only under a third of the population and they were all recent immigrants from the about 50 years before the partition. Do you really think its fair that they were getting most of the land even though they were by far the minority and had only recently immigrated? The 67 border gives Israel 88% of the land and would force them to give up the overwhelming majority of their land and the right to return. Now Israels leadership wants it all.
If you think Israel will get away with this forever, you need to wake up. More and more progressives are being born in the western world. They see the injustice of Israeli apartheid and are highly critical of it. The world is watching.
@ibn waraq Of couse there can be Palestinian Jews. The Jews that were there before zionism were Arabic jews. Not all Arabs are muslim. The Ottoman Census before the british mandate listed it as 87% muslim, 10% christian and 3% jewish.
I am certain that the ever-growing army of progressives will field the armies necessary to force Israel off of all the land it has unjustly taken. Any day now!
The sad part is that a goodly percentage of the Palestinian diaspora actually believes this sort of fantasy (though they tend to pin their hopes on Arab opinion, rather than Western). This goes a long way towards explaining why they are willing to eke out an existence in refugee camps: they are waiting, because they have been successfully sold the line that time is on their side.
Actually, the majority are from … the Middle East. They used to live in what are now Muslim-majority countries, from whence they fled or were expelled.
A reasonable one. You seem to be claiming that there is a principle of international law which says that under all circumstances, it is illegal for a state to occupy and annex land. I’m skeptical that such a principle exists – so I am asking you for a cite and quote.
And since you claim that it’s a principle of general application, please cite and quote the general principle and not anything special to Israel.
Also, please answer my question: What would a fair deal be in your view?
Also, please answer my other question: Does the “right to defend themselves” include include the rocket attacks on civilians; the stabbings; and the use of their own people as human shields?
Whether they “get away with this” or not, it does not change the underlying facts. The most important of which is that the Palestinian Arabs as a group want to end Jewish Israel and will not be satisfied with anything less.
Again my question: What would a “fair deal” be in your view?
i don’t really hve to. The UN has repeatedly and roundly condemned Israels occupation. This isn’t a dispute. The land is illegally held under international law.
Only if you’re counting North Africa and Western Asia, and even then the leadership are generally Ashkenazi. The unity of Israel is questionable given their treatment of Ethiopian jews.
You know what, I’ll answer your question if you answer mine. Do you think it’s fair that the minority as getting the majority of the land in the Partition. In 47 the Israelis weren’t even the majority in their 56% of Israel. That’s why they had to ethnically cleanse the Palestinians.
You’re so ignorant. The Arab league offered Israel peace terms and gave up Palestines claim to most of te land for the 67 borders, Israel rejected it. Israel doesn’t want peace. The PLO cooperated for years. Even Hamas has recognized Israel. Name a single Israeli politician who’s recognized Palestine wthin it’s borders as defined by international law.
Who said that was ok? Certainly not me. Hamas is evil and wrong to want to wipe out Israel. However, that is in no way an excuse for Israel to oppress all Palestinians to the extent that they are.
Let me repeat my basic tenant: there is no excuse for Israel not to extend a viable justice to Palestinians. This includes setting up a reasonable court system (that actually works) and the cessation of stealing land for settlements.
Nobody wants to answer this question in the concrete: what would you do if you were a Migron Palestinian? Your land was taken from you 15+ years ago and you still don’t have it back. You don’t think that’s oppression?
I again urge anyone who wants to learn about what’s going on in the West Bank to read Fast Times in Palestine. It doesn’t paint a complete picture but it will give you a view of Palestinians we rarely see in the news.
Ahh, so you are able only to cite something specific which applies only to Israel. Thought so.
The fact is that there is no general principle of international law which would make it illegal for Israel to annex J & S. To be sure, you can find many ad hoc pronouncements, aimed and applied at Israel and Israel alone. But please stop pretending that there is some general principle involved.
Absolutely, since in reality, the majority of Palestine had already been given to Arabs, and Arabs only primarily in the form of Jordan. Besides which, much more of the proposed Jewish state was desert than the proposed Arab State.
Now please keep your promise and answer my questions:
What, in your view, would be a fair deal?
Does the “right to defend themselves” include include the rocket attacks on civilians; the stabbings; and the use of their own people as human shields?
So if a group rejects a peace proposal, it means the group does not want peace. Is that your position?
I’m not sure I understand your question. Can you cite the international law you are referring to?
I would ask you to show me proof that this order has not been complied with, but there’s no point because the time for compliance has not even run out yet.
In short, your claim does not stand up to even mild scrutiny.
Now please answer my questions from before:
What are some of the “many concessions” required of the Palestinian Arabs?
Also, do you agree that the Palestinian Arabs must unilaterally stop their illegal actions, e.g. the rocketing attacks against civilians, the use of human shields, attempting to steal Jewish land, etc.?
You are profoundly ignorant. Under International law, conquering land is illegal. That’s why everyone including the United States condemns Israel for expanding and settling Palestinian land. Can you give an example of a country that expanded through military force after WW2 and where the international community acknowledged and accepted it?
What do you mean when you say Palestinians were “given” to arabs? They’re people, not suit cases.
A one state solution where Christians, Jews and Palestinians live together with the right of return for the exiled Palestinians.
Israel uses human shields to for starters, but with far less justification given the disparity in their military power.
Israel doesn’t want peace. It wants all of Palestine. That’s why they’re building settlements and ethnically cleansing the land. Christ. if they wanted peace they wouldn’t build settlements because settlements are an impediment to peace.
Then please fight my ignorance. Please quote and cite the principle of international law which supports your position. It should be a general statement, not something specifically directed at Israel.
In other words, put up or shut up. Although somehow I expect you will do neither.
No offense, but that’s such a stupid comment. The Soviet Union was the last country to get away with conquering land and having that conquest accepted by the international community.