Can you look at this map and say Israel does not systemically appropriate land?

Below viewing threshold (view)
Reply Fri 19 Jun, 2020 10:23 pm
To all the people here who I admire: please understand that this COVID virus is making us all crazy, it also means we are bored almost into a coma....and we are so bored some of us are engaging with a dopy doppity dope. It's not the 3 or 2 dopes fault, they have been ignored for a very long time. All I'm asking is to dial back the responses because if this epidemic spares us, there will be a few sad-sacks dependent on attention....they will not be able to handle it....

But, what the hell........why engage with dopes if you don't have to..hahahahahahhahahahahah
Below viewing threshold (view)
bobsal u1553115
Reply Fri 19 Jun, 2020 10:57 pm
What I love is how if you ignore them, they can't ignore you!!!

ehBeth had it right, cut off their oxygen. Don't respond to them.
Below viewing threshold (view)
Reply Fri 19 Jun, 2020 11:29 pm

Archaeology and DNA show decisively that Palestinianss are directly descended from the original human settlers in the West Bank area.
Below viewing threshold (view)
Reply Fri 19 Jun, 2020 11:37 pm
Actually Neanderthals were the original human (yes, human) settlers in Palestine, and since we all have a few percent of Neanderthal genes in our genomes, we all are directly descended from the original settlers in the area of the west bank. It's my land and I want it back, kick the Johnny-come-lately Jews and Palestinians out. Tell them to STFU. It's mine.
Below viewing threshold (view)
bobsal u1553115
Reply Sat 20 Jun, 2020 07:34 am
Some day little man you'll have to explain how I abuse your ratings.
Reply Sat 20 Jun, 2020 07:53 pm
@bobsal u1553115,
Good luck with getting him to explain anything sensibly.
0 Replies
Reply Tue 14 Jul, 2020 09:35 am
The two-state solution is a political fiction liberal Zionists still cling to
Joshua Leifer

Political fictions take a long time to die, if they ever fully do. The two-state solution is one of them.

Israel’s impending annexation of the West Bank has put the fate of the two-state solution – or, perhaps more accurately its death – back in the headlines. Yet neither Benjamin Netanyahu’s announcement of his annexation intentions, nor the Trump “peace plan”, killed the chances of two states, which ceased to be realistic long ago. What the great drama of annexation playing out in the Anglo-American press is really about – in no small part due to the exclusion of Palestinian voices – is whether liberal Zionists will reconcile themselves to this reality or continue to deny it.

While some liberal Zionists, like the Jewish Currents editor-at-large Peter Beinart, now recognize that, as he wrote last week, “the traditional two-state solution no longer offers a compelling alternative to Israel’s path,” most seem likely to choose the path of continued denial. For many liberal Zionists – as well as those further to the right – a two-state solution has for decades been less a practical policy proposal than an article of faith, a constitutive political fiction that has enabled them to reconcile their contradictory commitments to both ethnonationalism and liberal democracy.

The abstract idea of two states has also served a valuable strategic purpose for the Israeli government and professional Israel advocates. References to Israel’s putative commitment to two states in theory have become a way to shield Israel from criticism, and consequences, for actions that in practice rendered a two-state solution impossible.

More at the Guardian
Reply Tue 14 Jul, 2020 01:43 pm
The two state solution is hardly dead.

What is dead is a two state solution based on 1967 borders.

What we're going to instead have is a two state solution where the Palestinian state is composed of the Gaza Strip alone.

The article is factually incorrect regarding its untrue claim that Israeli actions are what made 1967 borders impossible.

What made 1967 borders impossible is the Palestinians' refusal to ever make peace with Israel, and their European backers' willingness to accept this aggression.
0 Replies
Reply Tue 14 Jul, 2020 04:02 pm
On i24NEWS there was a segment where they featured an AI, AnnA, that gave it's take on the Israel/Palestine conflict. It proposed a three state solution. The first would be in Jerusalem and its surroundings for the religious fanatics on both sides who would then fight to the death over whose god is more compassionate; winner take all. The second would be in the north and south for the religious Jews and Muslims who want to coexist. The third would be on the coast for non-religious Jews and Muslims who want to coexist.

What stands out is that AnnA recognizes those who don't want to coexist as fanatics. I would include the nationalist zealots with the religious fanatics, and consolidate the second and third states.
0 Replies
Reply Tue 14 Jul, 2020 04:21 pm
Here's an article that explains the farce of US mediatorship in the peace process.

The US blind spot in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process

. . . U.S. officials have long had a “blind spot” in two critical areas of diplomacy: power and politics. As most diplomats or negotiators understand, the success of any peace process depends as much as on the dynamics outside the negotiating room as what happens inside.

For one, the stronger party clearly has more leverage and greater options at its disposal than the weaker side. At the same time, most also understand that negotiations aren’t just between two leaders or delegations sitting across the table; each side also brings its own national narratives, public opinion, political opposition, and other internal constraints to the table. An effective mediator, therefore, must grapple with all of these factors in deciding how to create incentives and disincentives for the opposing parties. But this is not how U.S. mediation has operated in the Israeli-Palestinian context.

. . .

First and foremost was the belief that Israeli leaders would be more willing to “take risks for peace” if they felt secure politically and militarily. At the same time, for many policymakers on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue peace would also require transforming aspects of Palestinian politics to turn them into a suitable peace partner. Both of these, in turn, were byproducts of the extraordinarily close bonds between the United States and Israel and the inordinate influence of the pro-Israel lobby. In short, it was easier and less politically costly for U.S. officials to focus on things like reforming Palestinian politics and improving Israeli security than it was to pressure Israeli leaders on issues like Israeli settlements or respect for Palestinian rights.

. . .

The Trump administration in many ways represents the blind spot in its purest form. On the one hand, it espouses a total identification not only with Israel, but with the most extreme and maximalist elements of Israeli politics. On the other, it displays a total disregard not just for Palestinian politics or history but even for Palestinian agency. In fact, one might argue that under Trump, the U.S. role has gone from that of an ineffective peace broker to one of an all-out spoiler.

more. . .
Reply Tue 14 Jul, 2020 06:21 pm
I only read what you quoted from the article. I didn't click the link to read the whole thing. But I did not notice anything in what you quoted that would make US mediation a farce.

I see no problems regarding Palestinian rights that Israel would need to be pressured about.

The settlements of course are just a red herring.
0 Replies

Related Topics

Eye On Israel/Palestine - Discussion by IronLionZion
"Progressives(TM)" and Israel - Discussion by gungasnake
Israel's Reality - Discussion by Miller
Israel's Shame - Discussion by BigEgo
Abbas Embraces the Islamists - Discussion by Advocate
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 08/10/2020 at 05:47:50