(Mostly) Open call for discussion
Thread Closed 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
27-03-2016, 01:47 AM
RE: (Mostly) Open call for discussion
(26-03-2016 11:03 PM)Aliza Wrote:  
(26-03-2016 08:01 PM)Reltzik Wrote:  I'd guess the primary theological objection is Jihad, (the lesser version of) which requires Muslims to unite in defense of Muslim lands against infidel invaders. If Muslims regard the current state of Israel as not part of the end times but a premature invasion and seizure of land by infidels (even if they're "people of the Book"), that would explain the opposition.

I have also been taught this, and I believe it's a big part of the problem. But keep in mind that the Arabs accepted British rule for 28 years. They declared war on Israel days after the state was founded. Non-Muslim rule was not exclusively the root of the problem.

I believe Israel is a peace-seeking, productive nation that strives to cooperate with their neighbors and with the rest of the world. For that reason, I think Israel has a right to exist and to defend themselves against those who wish to destroy them. I would agree that their biblical claim to the land is moot, but they’re there now and they received the land fair and square.

The Arabs who lived in this region prior to the 1967 war regarded themselves as Syrian or even Jordanian. The term “Palestinian” was concocted in a single day following the six-day war to try to preempt and delegitimize the Jewish claim to the land. The Arab population currently calling themselves Palestinians are claiming ancient heritage to the land, but they are in fact immigrants themselves, just as the Jews are. A population boom in the late 1800's and early 1900's saw Arab refugees settling in Palestine from surrounding Muslim countries. The Arab's heritage, language, culture and religion are all identical to the other Arab countries from where they originally hail. While this does not reverse the fact that they are currently in Israel, trying to destroy the Jewish state, they do so under false pretenses. They have no connection to the Philistines from the bible and they have no historical connection to the land.

"There is no such country as Palestine. 'Palestine' is a term the Zionists invented. There is no Palestine in the Bible. Our country was for centuries part of Syria. 'Palestine' is alien to us. It is the Zionists who introduced it".
- Auni Bey Abdul-Hadi, Syrian Arab leader to British Peel Commission, 1937

"There is no such thing as Palestine in history, absolutely not".

- Professor Philip Hitti, Arab historian, 1946

"It is common knowledge that Palestine is nothing but Southern Syria".

- Representant of Saudi Arabia at the United Nations, 1956

"As I lived in Palestine, everyone I knew could trace their heritage back to the original country their great grandparents came from. Everyone knew their origin was not from the Canaanites, but ironically, this is the kind of stuff our education in the Middle East included. The fact is that today's Palestinians are immigrants from the surrounding nations! I grew up well knowing the history and origins of today's Palestinians as being from Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Morocco, Christians from Greece, muslim Sherkas from Russia, muslims from Bosnia, and the Jordanians next door. My grandfather, who was a dignitary in Bethlehem, almost lost his life by Abdul Qader Al-Husseni (the leader of the Palestinian revolution) after being accused of selling land to Jews. He used to tell us that his village Beit Sahur (The Shepherds Fields) in Bethlehem County was empty before his father settled in the area with six other families. The town has now grown to 30,000 inhabitants".
- Walid Shoebat, an "ex-Palestinian" Arab

Certainly it's not just about jihad. I named it as the principle theological motivation, but there are quite a few non-theological motivations at work as well.

I'd also disagree with several of your points.

First, Palestine was the name given to the territory by Britain, which governed it from 1920 through 1948. Much of this territory eventually became what we know of as Israel (as opposed to the later-occupied territories such as the Gaza Strip). While the citizenry did not have a heritage dating back to the Palestinians of Biblical times, they were certainly called Palestinian in their own day.

Second, they did revolt against British rule, in 1936. The revolt lasted until '39. Though, to be fair, this was partially in response to Zionist migration, supporting your position that it was an angry response to Jewish presence.

The civil war of '47-'48 was complicated by many factors. First, the expectation when the British assumed governance of the territory in the wake of the collapse of the Ottomans was that the territory would eventually be brought to a state of self-governance, a self-governance that was expected to be principally Arab in flavor. Zionist migration and insurrection, despite the best efforts of the British to prevent it, threatened that policy of an Arab identity. The civil war began, in large part, because of the British were no longer backing that policy, and the UN was thinking in terms of an official Jewish state, and the native Palestinian Arabs realized that they would possibly be under the governance of the Zionists, rather than their own. In essence, the Palestinian Arabs had been cheated out of their expectation of self-governance.

I retract what I said earlier about the British having relocated the Palestinians -- I was getting my history mixed up and thinking about Pakistan. The Palestinian exodus is a much more complicated story. But suffice it to say that they do have a historical tie to the territory -- not necessarily dating back to Biblical times, but certainly dating back to before the creation of Israel. 80% of the Arab population of what became Israel were exiled, forced to flee, or otherwise left for a variety of hotly-disputed reasons. Many of them resettled in what would later become occupied territory of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip... and many of them had the hope of returning to family property that they left in '48.

I don't think that Israel, as a nation, had a legitimate claim to that territory at its foundation.

That said, I don't think a bad beginning is a reason to uproot what is now, as you describe, a (largely) peaceful and prosperous nation. Whatever the evils of past generations, punishing or disturbing the present generation does not undo them. Instead, doing so would create more evils. Displacing a large Jewish population in place today would not cure the displacement of a large Palestinian population two thirds of a century ago. It would create problems rather than right them.

Israel is certainly justified in self-defense. The problem I have is that it seems to be going overly far in the name of self-defense... and continuing on beyond that into naked aggression. The newest wave of settlements in the occupied territories, for example, are not a matter of self-defense. Nor were the excesses of the last military incursions into Palestinian territory, even if the incursions themselves were justified by rocket attacks. The problem is not that Israel has a right to defend itself, or exercises that right. It's that (as a whole, even if individuals protest this) it commits unnecessary excesses under the pretext of self defense and does much that goes beyond self-defense.
Find all posts by this user
27-03-2016, 02:23 PM
RE: (Mostly) Open call for discussion
(27-03-2016 01:47 AM)Reltzik Wrote:  The civil war of '47-'48 was complicated by many factors. First, the expectation when the British assumed governance of the territory in the wake of the collapse of the Ottomans was that the territory would eventually be brought to a state of self-governance, a self-governance that was expected to be principally Arab in flavor. Zionist migration and insurrection, despite the best efforts of the British to prevent it, threatened that policy of an Arab identity. The civil war began, in large part, because of the British were no longer backing that policy, and the UN was thinking in terms of an official Jewish state, and the native Palestinian Arabs realized that they would possibly be under the governance of the Zionists, rather than their own. In essence, the Palestinian Arabs had been cheated out of their expectation of self-governance.

Yes, that’s a good point. I am aware that the Arabs believed that they would gain control of the region eventually, but the creation of a Jewish state was discussed as far back at 1915, so it’s not like the rug was pulled out from under their feet. This discussion began years in advance. The Arabs were promised an Arab state, and the Jews were promised a Jewish state. Originally, the entire British Mandate, including the area now known as Jordan was to be a part of Israel.

Okay, so we do know that the exact same piece of land was promised to the Arabs and the Jews. That sucks, but that was what happened. The compromise was that 75% of the British Mandate was to be given to the Arabs, and the Jews were to be given 25%. This could have been viewed as a very reasonable compromise, quite in the favor of the Arabs, but they were still upset and to further quell their complaints, the 25% of the land promised to the Jews was further cut in half, giving west bank and Gaza strip to the Arabs. Of course, all of Syria and the rest of the mandated lands were still given to Arabs as well.

I could make the complaint that the Arabs were being completely unreasonable in their willingness to compromise. Especially given that the Jewish community did go along with their much smaller portion of the land being cut into. –And I will make that complaint, especially given that the land allocated to the Jews was a desolate, barren wasteland which had not settled by anyone prior to the arrival of the Jews in the last 1800's.

According to Christian and British travelers and historians, the population in Palestine had remained at a constant 225,000 people since the time of the crusades. The Arabs dwelling in the land lived in tents, mud homes, and they migrated around the entire Middle East, having never cultivated or developed Palestine. They did not put any roots down to claim it as their homeland. According to British reports, it wasn’t until the Jews migrated there from Russia starting in the 1880's that suddenly the Muslims immigrated to the area to benefit from the cultivation and development that the Jews had put into the land. Censuses conducted over the years do reflect a population boom for both Muslim and Jewish people after 1880.

"The area was underpopulated and remained economically stagnant until the arrival of the first Zionist pioneers in the 1880's, who came to rebuild the Jewish land. The country had remained "The Holy Land" in the religious and historic consciousness of mankind, which associated it with the Bible and the history of the Jewish people. Jewish development of the country also attracted large numbers of other immigrants - both Jewish and Arab. The road leading from Gaza to the north was only a summer track suitable for transport by camels and carts... Houses were all of mud. No windows were anywhere to be seen... The plows used were of wood... The yields were very poor... The sanitary conditions in the village [Yabna] were horrible... Schools did not exist... The rate of infant mortality was very high... The western part, toward the sea, was almost a desert... The villages in this area were few and thinly populated. Many ruins of villages were scattered over the area, as owing to the prevalence of malaria, many villages were deserted by their inhabitants". - The report of the British Royal Commission, 1913

(The link that I'm using for the quotes that I've provided over my last two post can be accessed here.)

I’ve attempted to show that the land certainly was not a homeland to the Arabs, and the Arabs who lived there denied any connection to the Palestinian people who they now claim are their ancestors and make up their basis for attempting to wipe Israel off the map.

But I’d like to be clear about one thing – the Jews DO have a historical connection to the land. Bible or not, it can be demonstrated that the Jews are from this area, that they were forced out, and that the land has never been settled by another group of people. Additionally, during their exile, the Jews have maintained the same culture, religion, language and heritage of their ancestors and have never assimilated into other populations. They remained a displaced people for 2,000 years, primarily living throughout Europe. The Europeans controlled the region of Palestine, and the Europeans chose to return the Jews to their homeland. It was a legal, above-the-board transaction which did not threaten to displace a single Arab from their home.

The land given to the Jews had been barren and desolate; there was nothing there and no other group of people had developed roots in this area. What was there in the 1900’s was developed by Jews, according to the British report mentioned above. We are not talking about a rich farmland that had been the ancestral homeland of a distinct group of people. We are talking about a barren strip of land that bore no significance –either cultural, religious, or economic, to the Arab people. No one was being uprooted from their homes, and Arabs who were uncomfortable living in a Jewish state were welcome to go to the other side of the river, into Arab territory.
Find all posts by this user
[+] 1 user Likes Aliza's post
28-03-2016, 11:40 AM
RE: (Mostly) Open call for discussion
(27-03-2016 02:23 PM)Aliza Wrote:  
(27-03-2016 01:47 AM)Reltzik Wrote:  The civil war of '47-'48 was complicated by many factors. First, the expectation when the British assumed governance of the territory in the wake of the collapse of the Ottomans was that the territory would eventually be brought to a state of self-governance, a self-governance that was expected to be principally Arab in flavor. Zionist migration and insurrection, despite the best efforts of the British to prevent it, threatened that policy of an Arab identity. The civil war began, in large part, because of the British were no longer backing that policy, and the UN was thinking in terms of an official Jewish state, and the native Palestinian Arabs realized that they would possibly be under the governance of the Zionists, rather than their own. In essence, the Palestinian Arabs had been cheated out of their expectation of self-governance.

Yes, that’s a good point. I am aware that the Arabs believed that they would gain control of the region eventually, but the creation of a Jewish state was discussed as far back at 1915, so it’s not like the rug was pulled out from under their feet. This discussion began years in advance. The Arabs were promised an Arab state, and the Jews were promised a Jewish state. Originally, the entire British Mandate, including the area now known as Jordan was to be a part of Israel.

Okay, so we do know that the exact same piece of land was promised to the Arabs and the Jews. That sucks, but that was what happened. The compromise was that 75% of the British Mandate was to be given to the Arabs, and the Jews were to be given 25%. This could have been viewed as a very reasonable compromise, quite in the favor of the Arabs, but they were still upset and to further quell their complaints, the 25% of the land promised to the Jews was further cut in half, giving west bank and Gaza strip to the Arabs. Of course, all of Syria and the rest of the mandated lands were still given to Arabs as well.

I could make the complaint that the Arabs were being completely unreasonable in their willingness to compromise. Especially given that the Jewish community did go along with their much smaller portion of the land being cut into. –And I will make that complaint, especially given that the land allocated to the Jews was a desolate, barren wasteland which had not settled by anyone prior to the arrival of the Jews in the last 1800's.

According to Christian and British travelers and historians, the population in Palestine had remained at a constant 225,000 people since the time of the crusades. The Arabs dwelling in the land lived in tents, mud homes, and they migrated around the entire Middle East, having never cultivated or developed Palestine. They did not put any roots down to claim it as their homeland. According to British reports, it wasn’t until the Jews migrated there from Russia starting in the 1880's that suddenly the Muslims immigrated to the area to benefit from the cultivation and development that the Jews had put into the land. Censuses conducted over the years do reflect a population boom for both Muslim and Jewish people after 1880.

"The area was underpopulated and remained economically stagnant until the arrival of the first Zionist pioneers in the 1880's, who came to rebuild the Jewish land. The country had remained "The Holy Land" in the religious and historic consciousness of mankind, which associated it with the Bible and the history of the Jewish people. Jewish development of the country also attracted large numbers of other immigrants - both Jewish and Arab. The road leading from Gaza to the north was only a summer track suitable for transport by camels and carts... Houses were all of mud. No windows were anywhere to be seen... The plows used were of wood... The yields were very poor... The sanitary conditions in the village [Yabna] were horrible... Schools did not exist... The rate of infant mortality was very high... The western part, toward the sea, was almost a desert... The villages in this area were few and thinly populated. Many ruins of villages were scattered over the area, as owing to the prevalence of malaria, many villages were deserted by their inhabitants". - The report of the British Royal Commission, 1913

(The link that I'm using for the quotes that I've provided over my last two post can be accessed here.)

I’ve attempted to show that the land certainly was not a homeland to the Arabs, and the Arabs who lived there denied any connection to the Palestinian people who they now claim are their ancestors and make up their basis for attempting to wipe Israel off the map.

But I’d like to be clear about one thing – the Jews DO have a historical connection to the land. Bible or not, it can be demonstrated that the Jews are from this area, that they were forced out, and that the land has never been settled by another group of people. Additionally, during their exile, the Jews have maintained the same culture, religion, language and heritage of their ancestors and have never assimilated into other populations. They remained a displaced people for 2,000 years, primarily living throughout Europe. The Europeans controlled the region of Palestine, and the Europeans chose to return the Jews to their homeland. It was a legal, above-the-board transaction which did not threaten to displace a single Arab from their home.

The land given to the Jews had been barren and desolate; there was nothing there and no other group of people had developed roots in this area. What was there in the 1900’s was developed by Jews, according to the British report mentioned above. We are not talking about a rich farmland that had been the ancestral homeland of a distinct group of people. We are talking about a barren strip of land that bore no significance –either cultural, religious, or economic, to the Arab people. No one was being uprooted from their homes, and Arabs who were uncomfortable living in a Jewish state were welcome to go to the other side of the river, into Arab territory.

Again, the situation in 1913 was very different than that in 1948. That's an entire generation in between the two. More than enough time for people to develop ties to the land in which they were born.

Also, the exodus was far from entirely voluntary. Many Arabs found their villages shelled by Haganah and Irgun. Ostensibly this was in retaliation for attacks against Jews, but the counterattacks were indiscriminate, with no effort to target the guilty individuals and spare their neighbors, and it was part of a larger campaign to drive the Arabs out of the borders in what would today be considered acts of ethnic cleansing. Under Plan Gimmel, many Palestinians were forcibly expelled by what would become Israeli authorities. There were, indeed, also voluntary migrations to avoid the violence or just to avoid living under Israeli rule. The entire process was very complicated.

It should also be noted that just because Arabs left, voluntarily in some cases, does not mean they gave up their property rights. Just because I take a two year vacation from my home does not mean I have sold my home.

But I'm willing to leave that aside. As I said before, what happened two generations ago does not greatly affect my view of Israel today, and my greater concern is what Israel is doing in the present era, and specifically it's management (or mismanagement) of its occupied territories. In particular, it has:

* Repeatedly denied, delayed, and interfered with the establishment of democratic and self-determining government in these regions, while also denying these regions any representation in Israeli governance. This sort of denial of a say in one's own government reeks of oppression.

* Conducted reprisals against terrorist attacks with little demonstrated concern for the well-being of bystanders. The reprisals, as I've said before, are justified, but the excess of force is not.

* Expanded Israeli settlement of the occupied territories, in a manner that is unlikely to be reversed by any peace settlement and which suggests that those territories will not be allowed independence.

This raises the question of what, exactly, is the endgame for the occupied territories. Ostensibly there is a two-state solution, halfway-implemented, that the current Israeli government is backing away from. In this model, the occupied territories are granted independence and become their own nation... but Israel as a nation is currently not willing to embrace this future. There is also a possibility of a one-state solution, in which these territories become a permanent part of Israel. I would be okay with this in theory, provided human rights are respected in the occupied territories. However, to avoid any massive human rights violation, the residents of those territories would need representation in Israeli government, equal status under the law as full Israeli citizens, and freedom from racial or religious discrimination (meaning no second-class treatment stemming from them not being ethnically or religiously Jewish). This is also not something that Israel is prepared to embrace. The current in-between status -- what I call the "state-and-a-half solution" -- is my primary concern regarding Israel.

((Heads up: My internet's going to be unreliable for a while, so there might be a long delay before I can reply again.))
Find all posts by this user
[+] 2 users Like Reltzik's post
02-04-2016, 06:19 PM
RE: (Mostly) Open call for discussion
And I'm back, at least for another couple of days.
Find all posts by this user
02-04-2016, 06:23 PM
RE: (Mostly) Open call for discussion
(02-04-2016 06:19 PM)Reltzik Wrote:  And I'm back, at least for another couple of days.

I've been researching. Big Grin

... and doing stupid homework.

I'll be posting soon.
Find all posts by this user
14-04-2016, 03:40 PM
RE: (Mostly) Open call for discussion
Are we calling this topic closed? It's been almost two weeks. I think unless Aliza replies on-topic soon soon it's over.
Find all posts by this user
15-04-2016, 07:29 PM
RE: (Mostly) Open call for discussion
No, no…. I’m just forgetful sometimes. Not usually *this* forgetful, but… well… Blush sorry.

Yes, Israel!

I was bringing up the history of Israel in my earlier posts because I think the history not only plays into the dynamics of today, but the history is the entire makeup, the foundation, frame, drywall and window dressings of the problem that’s going on today. Yes, the situation is what it is, and it does have to be dealt with *as is*, but only one of the parties wants a two-state solution. If the Arabs could respect that the Jews live there now as well –for better or for worse- then we wouldn’t be having this discussion at all.

We know that the Arabs got all of Syria, all of Jordan, and half of the region now known as Israel. The Jews only got a very tiny part of the mandate. In spite of the small percentage of land that went to the Jews (all of which was under developed, the battles began immediately to kick the Jews out of the area. History shows that the Arabs just didn’t want the Jews there and current attitudes have not changed.

The “Palestinian” Arabs voted in a government that supports the destruction of Israel, and Jews. The majority of individuals do not want peace and do not seek a two-state solution.

The destruction of Israel is a part of Hamas's government charter. We’re talking about institutionalized hate, and an institutionalized call for genocide. How can Israel talk about leaving the West Bank when leaving Gaza has only resulted in rockets being launched into Israel and Palestinians tunneling into the country to blow themselves up in public places? Backing out of Gaza gave rise to a credible national threat to Israel and her citizens, and all data suggests that backing out of the West Bank will result in the same.

Attitudes of Hezbollah:
Never before or since in world history has a tyrannical regime sought to murder all of the members of a particular racial, religious, ethnic or cultural group, regardless of where they live—not until now. Hezbollah’s aim is not to “end the occupation of Palestine,” or even to “liberate all of Palestine.” Its goal is to kill the world’s Jews. Listen to the words of its leader Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah: “If Jews all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide.Huffington Post commenting on (NY Times, May 23, 2004, p. 15, section 2, column 1.)

They don’t just want to destroy Israel. They want to murder the Jews. –ALL of the Jews across the globe. This is what we're dealing with over there.

Hamas Charter:
"...fear God and raise the banner of Jihad in the face of the oppressors." The charter states that "our struggle against the Jews is very great and very serious" and calls for the eventual creation of an Islamic state in Palestine, in place of Israel and the Palestinian Territories, and the obliteration or dissolution of Israel. It emphasizes the importance of jihad, stating in article 13, "There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors." The charter also states that Hamas is humanistic, and tolerant of other religions as long as they "stop disputing the sovereignty of Islam in this region". The Charter adds that "renouncing any part of Palestine means renouncing part of the religion" of Islam

Civilian attitudes toward Israel:
Washington Institute reported that 22 - 31% of Palestinians support a two state solution, 8 - 11% support a one state (Islamic) solution in which Jews may continue to live in the land under Palestinian rule, and 55 – 68% support a one state solution in which Jews would be removed (killed or deported) from the land. The discrepancy in numbers is based on whether the people live in Gaza or the west bank, with the Gazans supporting more extreme views.

[Image: Palestinian%20Poll_zps50pbypcs.jpg]

[Image: long-term-views-on-israel-palestinians-f...1441301707]
Find all posts by this user
16-04-2016, 01:19 PM
RE: (Mostly) Open call for discussion
I do want to address the points you raised in your post, but I’m going to break up my replies over more than one post so I can keep the conversation going while I continue to work on my responses.

(28-03-2016 11:40 AM)Reltzik Wrote:  Again, the situation in 1913 was very different than that in 1948. That's an entire generation in between the two. More than enough time for people to develop ties to the land in which they were born.

I understand the Palestinian desire for their own land, but the problem in the Middle East right now is more than just a problem about land. The 1947 land division proposal gave the Arabs all of Jordan, and part of the land now known as Israel. The Syrians, the Jordanians and the “Palestinians” are a single population, culturally, religiously and genetically homogeneous. This single group of people was given the vast majority of the mandate including the land surrounding Jerusalem. (I believe Jerusalem remained an “international” zone in the initial land division.)

Why wasn’t this good enough? Why did the Jews agree to this arrangement, and the Arabs rejected it? Because land wasn’t and still isn’t the root cause of the problem. Racism is.

(28-03-2016 11:40 AM)Reltzik Wrote:  Also, the exodus was far from entirely voluntary. Many Arabs found their villages shelled by Haganah and Irgun. Ostensibly this was in retaliation for attacks against Jews, but the counterattacks were indiscriminate, with no effort to target the guilty individuals and spare their neighbors, and it was part of a larger campaign to drive the Arabs out of the borders in what would today be considered acts of ethnic cleansing.

The Haganah and Irgun… I think the Haganah was a proper militia, and the Irgun was a terrorist organization. I will condemn ALL acts of terrorism. Period. The Irgun (and I think there was at least one more Jewish terrorist group) did not have the support of the Jewish authority, and their actions were condemned. Members of these groups were arrested by the British and executed or sent to detention camps for their atrocious acts against humanity.

They were not glorified. I'm not aware of any Jews putting up posters of their likeness on public walls to praise their bravery for their acts of martyrdom as the Arabs do for suicide bombers today. Their behavior was not excused, and their actions were not representative of goals being worked toward by Jewish political authorities and the majority of Jewish civilians. These people were criminals and they were treated as such.

But let’s talk about terrorist attacks. Terrorists should not exist at all of course, but if they do exist, their actions should never be government sanctioned, and should absolutely never be initiated by the government. Why then, were there 170 suicide bombers from 1989 – 2008 who blew themselves up in public areas in Israel killing 807 civilians? Hamas, the current governing power in Gaza, claimed responsibility for many (most of) of these attacks. I thought Israel was nuts to give Gaza to a group of terrorists who were actively attacking civilians in Israel. Enabling a Palestinian state has not resulted in peace because peace with a two-state solution is not the Arab's end-goal.
Find all posts by this user
18-04-2016, 09:17 PM
RE: (Mostly) Open call for discussion
Okay, so the Palestinians don't want a two-state solution. I think it would be viable enough for Israel to impose it without them agreeing, and if they go to war against Israel it would be as a separate state, with a much clearer demarcation of whether and how the laws of war apply.

I could add a few abuses by Israelis to the list of atrocities here (there's more than enough to go around), but instead I'll ask, how does anything you brought up -- the desire of a majority of Palestinian Arabs for a one-state solution (with them in charge), their election of a terrorist organization, or many of them embracing terrorist tactics (which I too condemn, no matter who employs them) -- make a one-state solution or a one-and-a-half state solution any more viable than a two-state solution?

You've listed problems, but not solutions, and what Israel is doing right now does not seem to be moving towards a larger solution. What's the endgame in the occupation here? Because it appears there's no viable path forward that doesn't involve massive human rights violations.
Find all posts by this user
[+] 1 user Likes Reltzik's post
Thread Closed 
Forum Jump: