Radiant head Posted October 15, 2015 Share Posted October 15, 2015 (edited) For now, going back to the 1967 borders the UN agreed on would be great. Long term, I don't even know. A two state solution sounds okay as a goal, but I doubt that will put an end to this conflict. Edited October 15, 2015 by Radiant head Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blah the Prussian Posted October 15, 2015 Author Share Posted October 15, 2015 For now, going back to the 1967 borders the UN agreed on would be great. Long term, I don't even know. A two state solution sounds okay as a goal, but I doubt that will put an end to this conflict. To play devils advocate, what about the settlers? Not defending them in the slightest, but what should be done about them? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Life Posted October 15, 2015 Share Posted October 15, 2015 (edited) For now, going back to the 1967 borders the UN agreed on would be great. Long term, I don't even know. A two state solution sounds okay as a goal, but I doubt that will put an end to this conflict. Let me break down your answer for you because you don't realize what you're saying. "I'm pro-Palestinian. I don't think that there should be a two state solution because it won't put an end on the conflict even though I just contradicted myself by saying a sentence ago that the West Bank and East Jerusalem should be theirs. Therefore, to end the conflict, there should be one state: a Palestinian state." Congratulations. You officially agree with Hamas based on your own words. The only difference is that you're not publicly condoning attacks on the Israeli population even though your logical thought process doesn't include Israel existing. https://www.facebook.com/StandWithUs/videos/10153261494637689/ This video is even better than the last one because this is Israeli news. The woman who is talking is Lucy Aharish, an Israeli Muslim Arab. Process those words. George Deek may be Christian but this woman is Muslim and is very respected in the broadcasting community in Israel. She's incredibly critical towards the Palestinians even though she's proud to call herself Arab. Edited October 15, 2015 by Life Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blah the Prussian Posted October 15, 2015 Author Share Posted October 15, 2015 Let me break down your answer for you because you don't realize what you're saying. "I'm pro-Palestinian. I don't think that there should be a two state solution because it won't put an end on the conflict even though I just contradicted myself by saying a sentence ago that the West Bank and East Jerusalem should be theirs. Therefore, to end the conflict, there should be one state: a Palestinian state." Congratulations. You officially agree with Hamas based on your own words. The only difference is that you're not publicly condoning attacks on the Israeli population even though your logical thought process doesn't include Israel existing. https://www.facebook.com/StandWithUs/videos/10153261494637689/ This video is even better than the last one because this is Israeli news. The woman who is talking is Lucy Aharish, an Israeli Muslim Arab. Process those words. George Deek may be Christian but this woman is Muslim and is very respected in the broadcasting community in Israel. She's incredibly critical towards the Palestinians even though she's proud to call herself Arab. He did not say that. He said he didn't know and he didn't even imply that he wanted only a Palestinian state. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radiant head Posted October 15, 2015 Share Posted October 15, 2015 (edited) Let me break down your answer for you because you don't realize what you're saying. "I'm pro-Palestinian. I don't think that there should be a two state solution because... lol I stopped reading here. I can play this game too. "I'm going to put words in your mouth and crouch it under breaking down your answer because I prefer to make up my own arguments to respond to." I don't have an answer to the current crisis, beyond my belief in the UN borders as a short term goal. I'm not sure a two state solution will solve the conflict as opposed to just leading to another conflict between said two states, but nowhere did I say there shouldn't be one. Edited October 15, 2015 by Radiant head Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Life Posted October 15, 2015 Share Posted October 15, 2015 I don't have an answer to the current crisis, beyond my belief in the UN borders as a short term goal. I'm not sure a two state solution will solve the conflict as opposed to just leading to another conflict between said two states, but nowhere did I say there shouldn't be one. Thank you for clarifying your point. I really could only do it by putting words in your mouth because you were incredible unclear before. Sorry about that but it was needed. So now, I have a question. What's your reasoning to call yourself pro-Palestinian? Do you think that the PA should have accepted any of the land and peace offers to date or is it not enough? And if the Palestinians were to accept, declare sovereignty and then continue sending rockets or encouraging Arabs to stab Israelis, would you be for or against military action by the Israelis? Remember that the Palestinians have not accepted any peace offers that Israel has offered and do not recognize Israel's right to exist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Irysa Posted October 15, 2015 Share Posted October 15, 2015 (edited) Being in support of Palestine whilst supporting a two state solution does not make sense because Palestine does not want a two state solution. You do not have to support one of the two. Dissaproving of some of Israel's conduct does not mean you are automatically "Pro Palestine", and simulteanously dissaproving of Hamas does not mean you are "Pro Israel". Having a position that Israel has a right to exist and that there should be a two state solution but (critically) not supporting the current and historical actions of the Israeli government is a third position. Edited October 15, 2015 by Irysa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Life Posted October 15, 2015 Share Posted October 15, 2015 Being in support of Palestine whilst supporting a two state solution does not make sense because Palestine does not want a two state solution. You do not have to support one of the two. Dissaproving of some of Israel's conduct does not mean you are automatically "Pro Palestine", and simulteanously dissaproving of Hamas does not mean you are "Pro Israel". Having a position that Israel has a right to exist and that there should be a two state solution but (critically) not supporting the current and historical actions of the Israeli government is a third position. Thank you for saying exactly what I was trying to get at. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rapier Posted October 15, 2015 Share Posted October 15, 2015 Having a position that Israel has a right to exist and that there should be a two state solution but (critically) not supporting the current and historical actions of the Israeli government is a third position. How much of a "solution" is this if one side doesn't recognize the other's right to exist in the first place? If the Palestine group continues to be as radical as it is, this conflict will only end with one of both erased, and judging from the power differences, it's easy to tell which. There's no possible reasonable solution because no one wants to settle it peacefully and reasonably. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Irysa Posted October 15, 2015 Share Posted October 15, 2015 (edited) I agree, but having an position of "both sides should do x" is not the same as unabashedly supporting the one that is closest to that. That is the only thing I wanted to make clear in my post. If you want my personal opinion on the matter, it's that Israel is forced into making decisions between shit choices and shittier choices, and in many respects, the UK and France specifically created that situation. As a UK citizen, whilst I'd prefer they make the least shitty choices, I do not feel I have any right to be overtly critical of Israel's conduct as long as they are primarily acting in rational self interest. Edited October 15, 2015 by Irysa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radiant head Posted October 15, 2015 Share Posted October 15, 2015 Thank you for clarifying your point. I really could only do it by putting words in your mouth because you were incredible unclear before. Sorry about that but it was needed. So now, I have a question. What's your reasoning to call yourself pro-Palestinian? Do you think that the PA should have accepted any of the land and peace offers to date or is it not enough? And if the Palestinians were to accept, declare sovereignty and then continue sending rockets or encouraging Arabs to stab Israelis, would you be for or against military action by the Israelis? Remember that the Palestinians have not accepted any peace offers that Israel has offered and do not recognize Israel's right to exist. I think the first step towards any sort of long lasting peace in the region is to accept a free Palestine. As long as they're keeping an entire people captive, they're giving fuel to both Hamas and the muslim opposition to zionism. Any sort of truce that doesn't include letting the Palestinians free and the immediate withdrawal of Zionist settlers is gonna leave a bad taste in people's mouths. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blah the Prussian Posted October 15, 2015 Author Share Posted October 15, 2015 I agree, but having an position of "both sides should do x" is not the same as unabashedly supporting the one that is closest to that. That is the only thing I wanted to make clear in my post. If you want my personal opinion on the matter, it's that Israel is forced into making decisions between shit choices and shittier choices, and in many respects, the UK and France specifically created that situation. As a UK citizen, whilst I'd prefer they make the least shitty choices, I do not feel I have any right to be overtly critical of Israel's conduct as long as they are primarily acting in rational self interest. Good old Sykes and Picot, they really worked wonders for the region. Unfortunately the damage WWI did to peace in the Middle East cannot be repaired at this point, but really this whole clusterfuck started as the Ottoman Empire ended (though knowing the Young Turks, they probably would have given the Nazis a run for their money in terms of being shitty to Jews based on what they did to the Armenians. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Life Posted October 15, 2015 Share Posted October 15, 2015 I think the first step towards any sort of long lasting peace in the region is to accept a free Palestine. As long as they're keeping an entire people captive, they're giving fuel to both Hamas and the muslim opposition to zionism. Any sort of truce that doesn't include letting the Palestinians free and the immediate withdrawal of Zionist settlers is gonna leave a bad taste in people's mouths. There's an issue here. The PA will not accept any agreement that does not include Israel's immediate disbandment of the entire Middle East (that means that Israel ceases to exist). Here's my next question. Should there be a Palestinian state now (even though the PA are going to continue instigating attacks on Israel) or should the status quo remain the same until there is a PA leader who is willing to acknowledge Israel's right to existence? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tetragrammaton Posted October 16, 2015 Share Posted October 16, 2015 (edited) The PA will not accept any agreement that does not include Israel's immediate disbandment of the entire Middle East (that means that Israel ceases to exist). Here's my next question. Should there be a Palestinian state now (even though the PA are going to continue instigating attacks on Israel) or should the status quo remain the same until there is a PA leader who is willing to acknowledge Israel's right to existence? http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/mapstellstory.html Take a look at the maps and you can understand why the Palestinian cannot accept Israel's right to existence. Because it means their extinction. Israel keeps expanding and pushing the Palestinian out of their land. http://www.vox.com/2014/7/17/5902177/9-questions-about-the-israel-palestine-conflict-you-were-too Give an example of antisemitism in the west in the last, lets say, 20 years. This antisemitism needs to be both serious and either done by the government or, if not done by the government, approved by them. Finally, the antisemitism needs to be motivated by Christianity, not that they lost WWI or killed Alexander II or whatever. If you only count serious antisemitism or government antisemitism, and ignore everything else like the problem does not exist, it's okay for me, I understand. There is still a fact that's a lot of people hate Jews. http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/04/is-it-time-for-the-jews-to-leave-europe/386279/ http://www.timesofisrael.com/anti-semitism-now-fashionable-in-the-us-warn-experts/ http://www.adl.org/press-center/press-releases/anti-semitism-usa/adl-poll-anti-semitic-attitudes-america-decline-3-percent.html A surprisingly large number of Americans continue to believe that “Jews were responsible for the death of Christ.” Twenty-six percent (26%) of Americans agreed with that statement, down from 31 percent in 2011. http://chosenpeople.com/main/index.php/antisemitism-sp-1680285923 According to surveys completed in 2013-14 by the Anti-Defamation League and reported by the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, 9-12% of Americans have expressed antisemitic views. There is also an alarming amount of anti-Israeli and anti-Zionist activity on American campuses. In a recent video on YouTube, an experiment showed students responding better to a man flying the ISIS flag than to another individual holding an Israeli flag.3 Edited October 16, 2015 by hanhnn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Life Posted October 16, 2015 Share Posted October 16, 2015 (edited) Your map is wrong on one single historical fact. Palestine has never actually existed. In fact, the West Bank was never referred to as Palestinian territory until after 1967. Between the years of 1948 and 1967, it was Jordanian territory and there was no mention of wanting a Palestinian state. In fact, the people in that area were citizens of Jordan. But once Israel captured the area in 1967, suddenly the people wanted their own state. I know that you're going to argue this one to death so when you do so, answer these questions. - Was Palestine ever recognized as an entity by another country? - When was it founded and by whom? - What was its capital? - What was its form of government? - What was Palestine's religion? - What was the name of its currency? - Since there is no such country today, what caused her demise? - If the people were indigenous to the area and have always wanted their own state, then why were they at the bargaining table before 1947 but never requested the area from Jordan in the 19 years that followed? Edited October 16, 2015 by Life Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eclipse Posted October 16, 2015 Share Posted October 16, 2015 Things clipsey watches for in sources: - Really obvious bias - Dishonest graphs While bias might not outright invalidate a source (the Times of Israel site is very much pro-Israel, but other than some oddly confusing headlines, I think they're okay), I think it should be considered when listing it as part of an argument. For WhatReallyHappened and Chosen People's sites, I'd throw them out on principle - the former reads like one person's opinion, spread to everyone else (seriously, read the site FAQ), and the other has some of the worst graphical presentations I've ever seen (if they can't be bothered to plot numerical data honestly, I can't trust them fully). It feels like you did a quick search for "things that agree with my views", and threw them together in a post. Otherwise, I'd expect a link to this, which is both more recent and gives a much better view of people who'd admit to being racist. The guys behind it get props for putting a link to the questions they asked at the bottom of the page, even if I don't agree with all of them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blah the Prussian Posted October 16, 2015 Author Share Posted October 16, 2015 http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/mapstellstory.html Take a look at the maps and you can understand why the Palestinian cannot accept Israel's right to existence. Because it means their extinction. Israel keeps expanding and pushing the Palestinian out of their land. http://www.vox.com/2014/7/17/5902177/9-questions-about-the-israel-palestine-conflict-you-were-too If you only count serious antisemitism or government antisemitism, and ignore everything else like the problem does not exist, it's okay for me, I understand. There is still a fact that's a lot of people hate Jews. http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/04/is-it-time-for-the-jews-to-leave-europe/386279/ http://www.timesofisrael.com/anti-semitism-now-fashionable-in-the-us-warn-experts/ http://www.adl.org/press-center/press-releases/anti-semitism-usa/adl-poll-anti-semitic-attitudes-america-decline-3-percent.html http://chosenpeople.com/main/index.php/antisemitism-sp-1680285923 I didn't ask for what a bunch of morons who validate Churchills quote about the best argument against democracy is, I care,about what is actually happening and with the exception of the Middle East, no government except arguably that of Hungary is anti Semitic. Also, expressing anti Zionist views does not make one an anti Semite. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radiant head Posted October 16, 2015 Share Posted October 16, 2015 (edited) Here's my next question. Should there be a Palestinian state now (even though the PA are going to continue instigating attacks on Israel) or should the status quo remain the same until there is a PA leader who is willing to acknowledge Israel's right to existence? Like I said before, I believe a return to the 1968 borders and the full recognition of the Palestinian authority as the legal representative for the Palestinian peoples and their territories would be a good start. In the long run, I honestly don't know. Two state or not, I think anything less than shared land and equal rights isn't going to end this conflict. Edited October 16, 2015 by Radiant head Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flamma Posted October 17, 2015 Share Posted October 17, 2015 (edited) Alright then, I suppose I pissed a couple people off last time I posted here, so I suppose a simple apology will do. - Was Palestine ever recognized as an entity by another country? - When was it founded and by whom? - What was its capital? - What was its form of government? - What was Palestine's religion? - What was the name of its currency? - Since there is no such country today, what caused her demise? - If the people were indigenous to the area and have always wanted their own state, then why were they at the bargaining table before 1947 but never requested the area from Jordan in the 19 years that followed? 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_recognition_of_the_State_of_Palestine 2. November 15, 1988, by the PLO 3. Jerusalem ( Technically Gaza ) 4. Parliamentary Republic 5. Islam 6. Under the British Mandate, it used the Palestinian Pound. Right now it likes to use Egyptian Pound, but the Shekel is the most used ( Ironically ) 7. Bullshit. Being recognized by MOST of the world, pretty much makes them an Independent nation. There was no demise, it was diminished. 8. Because the plan was to make Trans-Jordan, and the Palestinians kept pushing for that. Until Jordan invaded, THEN they declared independence. ( My sources are a bit sketchy on this one ) Lets hope I don't get any warning points or a suspension for this. Anyone else think a 0 State Solution would solve the problem? btw, Life, what do your thoughts on this: http://www.ibtimes.com/israels-demographic-time-bomb-arab-majority-state-213933 Edited October 17, 2015 by Flamma Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Naughx Posted October 17, 2015 Share Posted October 17, 2015 (edited) ^ You should avoid linking Wikipedia as a source, link the United Nations instead. (The UN considers it to be a non-member observer state, but not an actual independent entity) Edited October 17, 2015 by Naughx Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Life Posted October 17, 2015 Share Posted October 17, 2015 Alright then, I suppose I pissed a couple people off last time I posted here, so I suppose a simple apology will do. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_recognition_of_the_State_of_Palestine 2. November 15, 1988, by the PLO 3. Jerusalem ( Technically Gaza ) 4. Parliamentary Republic 5. Islam 6. Under the British Mandate, it used the Palestinian Pound. Right now it likes to use Egyptian Pound, but the Shekel is the most used ( Ironically ) 7. Bullshit. Being recognized by MOST of the world, pretty much makes them an Independent nation. There was no demise, it was diminished. 8. Because the plan was to make Trans-Jordan, and the Palestinians kept pushing for that. Until Jordan invaded, THEN they declared independence. ( My sources are a bit sketchy on this one ) Lets hope I don't get any warning points or a suspension for this. Anyone else think a 0 State Solution would solve the problem? btw, Life, what do your thoughts on this: http://www.ibtimes.com/israels-demographic-time-bomb-arab-majority-state-213933 Let me correct your answers. 1. Up until 2012, there was no recognized State of Palestine. Which is the point I was trying to make. Before that, Palestine was never a country, not even before Israel existed. And it still hasn't exactly been recognized. 2. Oh, come on. I can go out and claim the entire world belongs to me and draft up a constitution saying so. It doesn't mean anything if you do it from another continent entirely. Take Israel for example. Israel drafted its constitution, declared independence (in Tel Aviv) and then won a war to actually keep the land. The PLO didn't own any of its own land. 3. Jerusalem is not their capitol because it is Israeli. 4. Technically, yes. Realistically, it's just a figurehead because they haven't actually done anything for the people. How do I know? Because I used to physically go out and speak to the people while on patrols. The vast majority of Palestinians don't want the PLO to run them. They just want to be left alone by everyone. 5. Mostly Islam but there's a lot of Christians and Druze mixed in. 6. Palestinian Pound was exactly the same as the British Pound, including fluctuations. Before that was the Ottoman Lira. After that was the Jordanian Lira and New Israeli Shekel. There has never been a separate currency in the area. 7. You can't diminish something that didn't exist. Besides, the Arabs refused every deal they were offered. 1947, 1993, 2000, 2005 (where we actually displaced our own people by yanking them out of Gaza), 2008 and now. Every single time, we offered more and we received war in return. 8. Wrong. Let me quote Wikipedia for you. Before the Six-Day War, the movement for an independent Palestine received a boost in 1964 when the Palestine Liberation Organization was established. Its goal, as stated in the Palestinian National Covenant was to create a Palestinian state in the whole British Mandate, a statement which nullified Israel's right to exist. Their goal, first and foremost, is for Israel to not exist. After that, comes a Palestinian state. The land was Jordanian owned in '64 but there was no request to King Hussein for a Palestinian state... because they wanted all of Israel. It's a farce. If the Palestinians really just wanted land, they could have accepted any number of deals in the past and the Israelis would help them grow their own economy. But since the deal also comes with recognizing Israel's right to exist, no deal will ever be struck. In 2011, the PA Ambassador to India, Adli Sadeq, wrote in the official PA daily: "They [israelis] have a common mistake or misconception by which they fool themselves, assuming that Fatah accepts them and recognizes the right of their state to exist, and that it is Hamas alone that loathes them and does not recognize the right of this state to exist. They ignore the fact that this state, based on a fabricated [Zionist] enterprise, never had any shred of a right to exist."[20] In a different part of the article the PA ambassador explained this explicitly: "There are no two Palestinians who disagree over the fact that Israel exists, and recognition of it is restating the obvious. But recognition of its right to exist is something else, different from recognition of its [physical] existence."[20] A 0 state solution doesn't work because A) Israel is already an established country and has been for almost 70 years and B) Jewish Israelis literally would have nowhere to go. You would be displacing now a good 3.5 million people (including myself) who could never live in the Middle East, Africa or even Europe ever again. Any area that is run by Muslims has this "no Jews policy". So nothing's been achieved aside from ruining the only real democracy in the Middle East. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dondon151 Posted October 17, 2015 Share Posted October 17, 2015 Also, expressing anti Zionist views does not make one an anti Semite. well, that is debatable. i agree with you, but according to some jews, anti-zionism is congruent with anti-semitism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Life Posted October 17, 2015 Share Posted October 17, 2015 well, that is debatable. i agree with you, but according to some jews, anti-zionism is congruent with anti-semitism.It really depends. BDS is anti-semetic despite claiming to be anti-zionist. The issue with Matisyahu proved it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eclipse Posted October 18, 2015 Share Posted October 18, 2015 I have my church on Saturday nights. Why? Because tee-hee. But the time isn't important. After the latest attacks in Israel, my pastor asked the entire congregation to pray for Israel. Unfortunately, I only caught the tail end of this, because I came a little late (so I can't give the full logic behind it). Knowing my pastor, I don't think it had to do with where the attacks were (Joseph's tomb). I'm only one person, and my church is one of many. . .but this is why I was quite confused when I heard that Christians hate Jews! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Cynthia- Posted October 18, 2015 Share Posted October 18, 2015 Overall, it seems like Christians(in America) tend to have favorable views of Jews particularly compared to how they view atheists or Muslims. http://www.pewforum.org/2014/07/16/how-americans-feel-about-religious-groups/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.