If you can find anyone here who said that, please identify them. :rolleyes:
It is highly im"polite", and is merely a rephrasing of the basic question anyway. Care to try again?
Screaming at Israel and the PLO like they are children isn’t going accomplish much. 
But seriously - consider what a UN declaration would do:
1.) Increase violence. For sure. No question about it.
2.) **Give legitimacy to terror and Hamas, al-Asqa, etc. **Suicide bombers are frequently cited as soldiers or insurgents or ‘alleged’ terrorists in European newspapers. Watch what happens over a few years. The terrorists have already shown us that terrorism works.
3.) Completely retard progress. There will be no division of Jerusalem and there will be no Right of Return. There isn’t much going back after this. Whatever happens next will be largely Israel’s call and Abbas will just have to eat it or fight. If Abbas can go unilateral, so can Israel.
It doesn’t really matter. J’lem is the capital of Israel. It has been for sixty-three years. It’s not just some idea or pipe dream; it’s the functioning capital.
Furthrmore, the US used to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital before 1980. I think it’s safe to say that Jerusalem is the capital. Do you see the UN running things? No. The Brits left and let the kids to fight it out. The Jews won. A few times.
Palestine is not a country. This is the chief complaint.
The last three sitting governments of Israel have supported a two-state solution. I do, too. I do not, however, think that telling a couple million Palestinians that they’ve won statehood and giving the impression that Ariel, Hebron, and east Jerusalem are up for grabs is the right way to go about it.
If you look at the poll I linked to earlier, you’ll find that their opinions of Jews are at an average of 4 on a scale of 1 to 100 and many feel that Israel is temporary.
But hey, if the Palestinians want their state, then I suppose Israel has the legal right to revoke citizenship (or residency, depending on what they chose when offered) of its Muslim Arab population. Such a thing would be rather unfortunate, but…this means Israel is no longer responsible for those who say they want to be part of the Palestinian state but would like to keep their Israeli health care and pensions.**
** There are Arab residents who have citizenship and there are some (eg Jerusalemites) who have permanent residency status.
Absolutely. Do you have an opinion on the issue? Do you think it might be legitimate or reasonable that the United Nations Human Rights Commission regularly condemns Israel as much as all other countries combined?
I disagree, but you are of course entitled to your opinion.
No it is not. You asked why any state would demand to be recognized recognized as explicitly ethnically or denominationally based. The answer is that Israel wants such recognition as a concession on the “refugee” issue. Both sides to the dispute understand that this is what is at issue. That’s the answer to your question. You may not like it; you may think it’s not a reasonable justification; but it’s the answer.
I agree and I think this is an important point. There was never a country called “Palestine”; there was never a Palestinian language or a Palestinian currency; there is no distinct Palestinian culture, religion, or ethnicity.
Before 1948, the people known as “Palestinians” considered themselves to be Arabs.
Now, it may seem obvious to some that any group which claims to be a distinct people is entitled to self determination. But if that is so, do you support Kurdish separatists? Do you support Basque separatists? If not, why not?
Gosh, I can’t imagine what your reaction might have been had you disagreed with me.
“One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter”. How do you propose we distinguish them?
What progress is there now? There can’t be any without shaking up the situation.
You’re overlooking the basic problem of a large part of it not even being in Israel. :dubious:
The stubbornness and, oh, let’s call it ethnocentrism at the heart of that statement is perhaps the chief obstacle to progress. Palestine is not (yet) a formal state, but it meets most any other human definition of a country.
Yes, it *might *be, based on the factual assessment you refuse to get into. And, again, you seem to be confused about quantitative vs. qualitative measures.
If you could support your own, you no doubt would do so, being the articulate fellow you are.
Then they can fucking say so outright, can’t they? But it’s still an assertion that only members of a particular group can be first-class citizens there. It represents not just an embrace but a glorification of formal, legal bigotry, indistinguishable in its basics from apartheid or Jim Crow. Does jingoism really carry one that far?
I’m not refusing at all. Please feel free to lay out whatever facts you feel support the claim that it’s reasonable and legitimate for the UN Human Rights Counsel to condemn Israel as much as all other countries combined.
Sure, but as noted before it’s more polite to leave the underlying issue unstated. Being the articulate fellow you are, perhaps you can explain why you feel it’s impolite to state the issue in these terms.
Not exactly, since the descendants or Arabs who did not flee in 1948 were granted citizenship.
But ultimately, I agree that Israel formally, legally discriminates in favor of Jewish people in terms of who can get citizenship.
Well who gets to decide where Israel’s borders are?
Given that Israel acquired Jerusalem in a defensive war against Jordan; that Jordan has since withdrawn any claims to Jerusalem; and Israel has formally annexed Jerusalem, it seems pretty reasonable to me to consider Jerusalem as falling within Israel.
I realize that many perhaps most nations in the world take a different view, but why should those views be conclusive?
Seems to me pretty clear that some of the attitudes permeating thoughts and claims of pro-Israelis and/or Israelis on this thread are, how should I say, way out there. From denying or recognizing the idea of Palestine and Palestinians to overly gambling on the idea of keeping territory acquired through previous wars and most definitely counting on preventing country of Palestine from ever establishing itself through offensive action including wars and taking away more land. The promise of more bloodshed is as clear as a day.
I really don’t see any nuance or opening that any rational observer can point to and say “still there is a chance of not going into an all out war in ME”.
It seems that the sky will fall. Who’s going to be around to see the next day, remains to be seen.
I agree, but the question is whether creating a Palestinian State would make such bloodshed less likely. If you believe that all the Arabs want is their own (23rd) state just like the Jews wanted Israel, then it might make sense to work towards setting up such a state.
But based on their actions, both past and present, this does not seem to be the main goal.
A related question: does the UN charter grant the United Nations the right to establish borders?
I don’t know, but I would guess not.
So giving them all rights and privileges, and freedom of movement of full Israeli citizenship. However I’m guessing that has obvious problems for you. If so, how do you feel Palestinians should be given their due human rights?
Okay, what does this have to do with anything? I hope it sticks around, but stops acting like an evil jackass.
If their existing government gives them full citizenship equal to other groups, then no. Suck it up and learn to co-exist. If however the government forces them into refugee camps, or otherwise denies them basic human rights, then yes.
Holy shit! I just realized that the supposed declaration is a couple days away! (its still scheduled for Sep. 20th right?)
Posting to see the aftermath and fireworks…
Yeah. I can’t wait.
The Partition Plan was never implemented because the Arab states rejected it. The UN does not create states.
Gee, I donno. :smack:
Maybe stop hurling rockets at population centers? Hamas’ version of ‘freedom fighting’ is ‘no more Jews’.
So when Jordan controlled east J’lem and the Jews fled the West Bank and parts of Jerusalem, it was the West Bank, right? Under Jordan control? And Arabs who were settled in former Jewish homes and businesses in the Old City by the UN still have a right to live there. Right? RIGHT? So why can’t Jews stay in Hebron? Or do your rules change based on who the players are?
You do understand that the Arabs rejected the Partition plan, right? And that the British left the Muslims, Christians and Jews to fight it out for themselves?! There was no law, no treaty, no rules of war in 48. But since the Jews had been well-prepared to fight, they had a standing military, air force, post office, etc. The “Palestinian” cause was small and didn’t have widespread support. Most just wanted to be swallowed up by Jordan or Syria or Egypt. In fact, Gazans have BEGGED Egypt to take the territory.
What is the human definition of a country? 
You may as well tell me that Tejas is part of Mexico.
Huh? Are you talking about Muslims in Israel or Palestinians in the West Bank or Gaza? Because right now, the ‘rights’ of Palestinians in the WB and Gaza are largely restricted. You know, gay people getting shot, making it illegal to work for or sell property to a Jew, restriction of movement by Hamas and the PLO, cronyism, thugs in office, women’s rights…things that Muslim Israelis don’t have to worry about.
So Jordan and Syria and Lebanon all deny citizenship (Jordan’s being a more recent thing) and rights. Does this mean they can carve out part of their state in these lands, since many came from them originally? Or…?
Also, I’m glad to see you support a Kurdish State. Good thing you’re not a major political figure in the region. Erdoğan would throw another temper tantrum.
Where are you located?