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

Not if there is to be peace in Palestine.

We’re here this afternoon to change the course of history. After decades of division and conflict, we mark the dawn of a new Middle East. Thanks to the great courage of the leaders of these three countries, we take a major stride toward a future in which people of all faiths and backgrounds live together in peace and prosperity.

In a few moments, these visionary leaders will sign the first two peace deals between Israel and the Arab state in more than a quarter century. In Israel’s entire history, there have previously been only two such agreements. Now we have achieved two in a single month, and there are more to follow. (Applause.)

Israel, the United Arab Emirates, and Bahrain will establish embassies, exchange ambassadors, and begin to cooperate — and work together so strongly to cooperate as partners across the broad range of sectors, from tourism to trade, and healthcare to security. They’re going to work together. They are friends.

Israel is a necessarily oppressive state. For there to be peace in Palestine it must cease to exist.

It is unlikely that the Palestinians will ever be interested in democracy, pluralism, or egalitarianism.

However, the Palestinians will one day have a state that is based on the Gaza Strip alone.

InfraBlue wrote:

Israel is a necessarily oppressive state. For there to be peace in Palestine it must cease to exist.

As I said, you deny peace to Israel no matter what.

So your threats of "no peace if Israel keeps the West Bank" are rather hollow.

Israel will one day expel the Palestinians from the West Bank. The Palestinian state will be based on the Gaza Strip alone.

Not no matter what. Israel must cease to exist for there to be peace in Palestine.

I did not say that.

You're flailing at your own straw man.

Then there will never be peace in Palestine.

No. It's highly likely.

Then there will never be peace in Palestine.

InfraBlue wrote:

Not no matter what. Israel must cease to exist for there to be peace in Palestine.

Your word games are silly.

Saying that they will only have peace after they are destroyed is saying that they will never have peace.

InfraBlue wrote:

I did not say that.

Yes you did. In this post and the previous one (and many other posts before that) you said: "Then there will never be peace in Palestine."

InfraBlue wrote:

You're flailing at your own straw man.

That is incorrect. Addressing your actual words is not a straw man fallacy.

InfraBlue wrote:

Then there will never be peace in Palestine.

That's an empty threat when you deny peace to Israel no matter what they do.

InfraBlue wrote:

No. It's highly likely.

Are you interested in buying a bridge? Or investing in some prime swampland? It's a real bargain.

InfraBlue wrote:

Then there will never be peace in Palestine.

That's an empty threat when you deny peace to Israel no matter what they do.

Says you.

Not no matter what. Israel must cease to exist for there to be peace in Palestine.

They are not word games.

The silly word games are your straw man arguments.

That's not what I was referring to.

I was referring to your straw man argument.

Seeing as how they are not my actual words, yours is a straw man argument.

Not no matter what. Israel must cease to exist for there to be peace in Palestine.

InfraBlue wrote:

Says you.

Yes. I do say that that it's a real bargain. So how about it? Wanna invest in some prime swampland?

InfraBlue wrote:

Not no matter what. Israel must cease to exist for there to be peace in Palestine.

Your word games are silly. Saying that Israel will only have peace after they are destroyed is saying that Israel will never have peace.