19
   

Is religion responsible for the opposition to peace in the Israel-Palestine conflict?

 
 
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Thu 1 Sep, 2016 03:44 am
@InfraBlue,
InfraBlue wrote:
The two state solution ignores the Palestinians' Right of Return.

And rightly so. The right of return would destroy Israel.

A two state solution requires allowing *both* a Jewish and a Palestinian state.


InfraBlue wrote:
Israel's continued arrogation of West Bank land negates their pretext of a two state solution regardless.

Land for peace means that Israel only gives up land when they get peace in return.

Palestinian refusal to peacefully accept a two-state solution means that Israel is not required to give up any land.


InfraBlue wrote:
Sure, and it would be irrelevant to the Zionist claim that they own Palestine.

There are plenty of Zionists who are content with a two-state solution based on 1967 borders.


InfraBlue wrote:
Justice for the Palestinians would involve the Zionists complying with international law and implementing the Palestinians' Right of Return.

International law does not require a right of return. International law requires a two-state solution. The Palestinians are the ones who are refusing to accept a two-state solution.
revelette2
 
  2  
Reply Thu 1 Sep, 2016 06:27 am
Quote:
Do Palestinians have a right to return to the places from which they or their ancestors were displaced?

Palestinian refugees’ right to return to the homes from which they were displaced is well established in international law. The first source of support for Palestinian refugees’ claims to a right of return is U.N. General Assembly Resolution 194 (III) Of December 1948, paragraph 11, in which the U.N. General Assembly,


“Resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbors should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the governments or authorities responsible;

Instructs the Conciliation Commission to facilitate the repatriation, resettlement and economic and social rehabilitation of the refugees and the payment of compensation…”

Since 1949, this resolution together with UNSC Res. 242 and 338 have been regularly reaffirmed by the U.N. General Assembly.

The rights outlined in this resolution are firmly grounded in international humanitarian, human rights, and refugee law. According to the United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) Executive Conclusion No. 40, “…the basic rights of persons to return voluntarily to their country of origin is reaffirmed and it is urged that international cooperation be aimed at achieving this solution.”[xi] UNHCR’s support for the right of return is based on the idea that the right of return is a recognized customary norm of international law which is included in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, and the Fourth Geneva Convention.[xii]


source
InfraBlue
 
  4  
Reply Thu 1 Sep, 2016 01:41 pm
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
The two state solution ignores the Palestinians' Right of Return.

And rightly so. The right of return would destroy Israel.

Israel's existence is based on its oppression of the Palestinian peoples. Israel must be destroyed.

oralloy wrote:
InfraBlue wrote:
Israel's continued arrogation of West Bank land negates their pretext of a two state solution regardless.

Land for peace means that Israel only gives up land when they get peace in return.

Palestinian refusal to peacefully accept a two-state solution means that Israel is not required to give up any land.

Like I said, it merely negates the Zionists' pretext of a two state solution.

oralloy wrote:
InfraBlue wrote:
Sure, and it would be irrelevant to the Zionist claim that they own Palestine.

There are plenty of Zionists who are content with a two-state solution based on 1967 borders.

Sure, and too this is irrelevant to the Zionist claim that they own Palestine because of archaeology.

oralloy wrote:
InfraBlue wrote:
Justice for the Palestinians would involve the Zionists complying with international law and implementing the Palestinians' Right of Return.

International law does not require a right of return. International law requires a two-state solution. The Palestinians are the ones who are refusing to accept a two-state solution.


You are mistaken. International law does require a right of return. See Revelette2's above post.
RABEL222
 
  3  
Reply Thu 1 Sep, 2016 01:47 pm
@InfraBlue,
Posting facts to Orlyboy is a massive waste of time. Only his opinion is important to him/her.
InfraBlue
 
  2  
Reply Thu 1 Sep, 2016 03:21 pm
@RABEL222,
RABEL222 wrote:

Posting facts to Orlyboy is a massive waste of time. Only his opinion is important to him/her.

Well, I do it more for the readers following the threads than for oralloy himself. He tends to close discussions when he starts to repeat himself with replies that amount to "nuh-uh" and "uh-huh."
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Fri 2 Sep, 2016 05:34 pm
@revelette2,
Quote:
Palestinian refugees’ right to return to the homes from which they were displaced is well established in international law. The first source of support for Palestinian refugees’ claims to a right of return is U.N. General Assembly Resolution 194 (III) Of December 1948, paragraph 11, in which the U.N. General Assembly,

The General Assembly has no legal authority.

They are also an anti-Semitic organization and are rightfully ignored by the rest of the world.


Quote:
The rights outlined in this resolution are firmly grounded in international humanitarian, human rights, and refugee law. According to the United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) Executive Conclusion No. 40, “…the basic rights of persons to return voluntarily to their country of origin is reaffirmed and it is urged that international cooperation be aimed at achieving this solution.”[xi] UNHCR’s support for the right of return is based on the idea that the right of return is a recognized customary norm of international law which is included in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, and the Fourth Geneva Convention.[xii]

The UNHCR isn't exactly an ideal source, but I'll assume for now that they are accurately quoting customary norms. The text of their quote raises no red flags with me.

If a Palestinian state is ever created, that will become the Palestinians' country of origin. Any right of return that Palestinians possess will be a right to return to that Palestinian state. This will not give the Palestinians any right to enter the state of Israel.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 2 Sep, 2016 05:35 pm
@InfraBlue,
InfraBlue wrote:
Israel's existence is based on its oppression of the Palestinian peoples. Israel must be destroyed.

Refusal to make peace with Israel means that Israel gets to keep all the land and keep building settlements.

Land for peace only means that Israel gives up land when they get peace in return.


InfraBlue wrote:
Like I said, it merely negates the Zionists' pretext of a two state solution.

Your denials of Israel's willingness to accept a two-state solution legitimizes all the settlements. Thanks for the help.


InfraBlue wrote:
Sure, and too this is irrelevant to the Zionist claim that they own Palestine because of archaeology.

"Zionist references to history and archaeology to establish that they are indigenous to the region" and "Zionist willingness to accept a two-state solution" are indeed two independent things.


InfraBlue wrote:
You are mistaken. International law does require a right of return. See Revelette2's above post.

A right to return to a Palestinian state does not give the Palestinians any right to enter the Israeli state.

The General Assembly is an anti-Semitic institution with no power in international law.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 2 Sep, 2016 05:37 pm
@InfraBlue,
InfraBlue wrote:
Well, I do it more for the readers following the threads than for oralloy himself. He tends to close discussions when he starts to repeat himself with replies that amount to "nuh-uh" and "uh-huh."

Please don't quote stupid people. When too much stupidity is concentrated into one space it collapses into a singularity that sucks IQ points out of people who read the thread.
RABEL222
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Sep, 2016 12:29 am
@InfraBlue,
TRUE!!!
0 Replies
 
RABEL222
 
  4  
Reply Sat 3 Sep, 2016 12:31 am
@oralloy,
What could you post about I Q except your lack of it. Oh and by the way you are a blatant liar.
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Sep, 2016 12:52 am
@RABEL222,
He heard someone else use it in the playground a long time ago. In the intervening years he hasn't been able to think of a better put down.
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Sep, 2016 01:32 am
@izzythepush,
izzythepush wrote:
He heard someone else use it in the playground a long time ago. In the intervening years he hasn't been able to think of a better put down.

Typical that you'd think in terms of put downs. My post was not about putting the stupid person in his place. I expect that would be futile. It was a request that I not be subjected to the stupid person's gibberish.
0 Replies
 
Thomas33
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Feb, 2017 10:08 am
No. Greed for territory and power is the ulterior reason. But then that's why the Israel-Palestine conflict is defunct, because to actually address the root cause is to just address why all nations and status exists.
0 Replies
 
bulmabriefs144
 
  1  
Reply Mon 8 Mar, 2021 12:12 am
@maxdancona,
You are incorrect in this assumption.

It's the "gun don't kill people" argument. Religion by itself cannot support or oppose anything. It is people who make decisions.

Also, you are blaming the Jews for wanting to retain their own country, and fawning over the Muslims who have no right to it, but have decided to take it anyway by giving a reason that they were supposedly here first.

Quote:
1Then the LORD sent Nathan to David, and when he arrived, he said, “There were two men in a certain city, one rich and the other poor. 2The rich man had a great number of sheep and cattle, 3but the poor man had nothing except one small ewe lamb that he had bought. He raised it, and it grew up with him and his children. It shared his food and drank from his cup; it slept in his arms and was like a daughter to him.
4Now a traveler came to the rich man, who refrained from taking one of his own sheep or cattle to prepare for the traveler who had come to him. Instead, he took the poor man’s lamb and prepared it for his guest.”

5David burned with anger against the man and said to Nathan: “As surely as the LORD lives, the man who did this deserves to die! 6Because he has done this thing and has shown no pity, he must pay for the lamb four times over.”


Muslim countries are that rich guy! Israel only has one homeland, they are guests in the rest of them. Muslims have many many lands that they actually control. Yet they want to take and slaughter Israel.
0 Replies
 
bulmabriefs144
 
  1  
Reply Mon 8 Mar, 2021 12:21 am
@RABEL222,
Quote:
If Israel would agree to give that part of Palestine back to the people it who originally owned it their might be some slight chance that peace might come to the region. As long as the settlers keep stealing Palistianian land it will never happen. And bible thumping christians have much to do with encouraging the conflict.


You haven't seen a Muslim map of Palestine, have you?

http://the405media.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Palestinian-map.jpg

Find Israel on that map. Right. As far as Muslims are concerned, they talk about "their part of Palestine" but won't actually tell which part that is. Because it doesn't exist!

Also, hate to break it to you, but the Muslims first claimed this land after A.D. They are the settlers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_Palestine#Early_Islamization

Quote:
Islam was brought to the region of Palestine during the Early Muslim conquests of the 7th century, when armies of the Rashidun Caliphate under the leadership of ʿUmar ibn al-Khattāb defeated the armies of Persia and the armies of the Byzantine Empire and conquered Persia, Mesopotamia, Shaam,[a] Egypt, North Africa and Spain.


Jews, by contrast, were exiled from their own land since about 70 A.D. They have waited patiently to reclaim it, only to be given the same sort of deals that American Indians got. Broken treaty after broken treaty, while things like the Holocaust happened.

There's an easy solution to this problem. So-called "Palestinians" are Muslim invaders. They should go to Saudi Arabia. The Muslim homeland is Saudi Arabia. There would be no Muslims fighting Jews if each people went to the source of their religion. Mecca for Arabs, Jerusalem for Jews.
hightor
 
  1  
Reply Mon 8 Mar, 2021 05:46 am
@bulmabriefs144,
Quote:

There's an easy solution to this problem.


Yeah that's a really good idea. Really practical. The world would be a lot better off if Europeans hadn't colonized the Americas, too.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 04/20/2021 at 01:41:06