I have no problem with full citizenship.

wheelrite wrote:

.The fallacy is that there is a Palestine.There's never been a Country called Palestine.Especially after the land was carved up by the BritsThose people were screwed over by Jordan and Egypt long ago. The "Palestinians" are considered as dirty people by all other Arabs.

It's really very simple...

wheelrite wrote:

OK, have it your way and let's play out the scenario. Israel owns the land now because they won it in war. It is occupied by a couple of million Palestinians and you do not want them as Israeli citizens.. What's your solution? Bataan Death March or Trail of Tears?

A) I'll take choice C...but it won't be something that either of us are asked to define. As a guess, ultimately the land ends up with the Palestinians, and Israel strong arms their own out of the area or concessions are made for them to stay. It would not be the first time Israel turned it's military and bulldozers on their own in the settlements.


2011 is the only significant year. Referencing past events in history only serves the purpose of trying to make the claim that people cannot change....Israeli or Palestinian.

A) if 2011 is the only significant year, why do you set the parameter for debate where I must answer since 1967 but you don't answer from before? OK, lets talk 2011. People are changing, you have correctly pointed out that some Israelis and some Jews around the world are pushing Israel to make changes in their policies. I want this resolved too. This takes x amount of time. So what are the significant/promising changes coming from the Arab world other than the moderate Abbas losing power daily to militant factions? Or voids opening up in Arab countries all around Israel as governments fall into the unknown? Where is the groundswell equal to the admittedly slow Jewish movement to resolve this...when does moderate Islam strap on a pair and stop the radical factions? The silence is deafening.

Japan 1941......they're about to attack the USA again. Maybe not.

A) no comparison. as dumb as the Canada Mexico analogy.


It is very simple..... you simply must defend a 44 year long military occupation and 500K Israeli Jews that have colonized the West Bank with the backing of the military occupation. It is not a very defensible position.

A) I suppose if you ignore the role of your "victims", sure.

You also cannot support a one state solution where Palestinians become Israeli citizens for the exact same reason you cannot support Palestinian refugees returning to their homes in what is now Israel. Israel needs ethnic cleansing to be a "Jewish State".

HockeyDad wrote:

Problem solved.

HockeyDad wrote:

I suppose you think Florida should be returned to the Seminoles too ??

Or California to Mexico ??

wheelrite wrote:

Sorry but it is true and there is clear leadership there. It is the same leadership marching to the UN in September for Palestinian statehood.

Israel has not strengthened any borders. Israel just simply maintains the occupation. Israel didn't see any unrest coming and there are inquiries within Israeli intelligence as to why that is the case.

Meanwhile Egypt has already said they will respect all treaties. You're still hunting for an enemy to justify a 44 year long occupation.

HockeyDad wrote:

Those were covered by peace treaties so it is not applicable.

HockeyDad wrote:

A) And we all know that the dirty little Palestinian secret is they are dying to BE Israelis, right? And just to reply to your bizarrely nasty ethnic posings, how many Arabs and Palestinians are Jewish citizens, travel in and out of Israel, work, go to school, vote etc...and why can't I put my filthy feet in many of their cities? Where's the OUTRAGE for Arab change?

I may be unresponsive after this. Topper is right, as futile as arguing abortion. We ain't changing who we back.

frankj1 wrote:

um,,,

To the Victor go the Spoils....

btw,,

why do you never address the treatment of the "Palestinians" by Egypt and especially Jordan ?

wheelrite wrote:

I have no problem with full citizenship.The fallacy is that there is no Palestine.There's never been a Country called Palestine.Especially after the land was carved up by the BritsThose people were screwed over by Jordan and Egypt long ago. The "Palestinians" are considered as dirty people by all other Arabs.

It's really very simple...

wheelrite wrote:

September 1970 is known as the Black September (Arabic: أيلول الأسود‎ aylūl al-aswad) in Arab history and sometimes is referred to as the "era of regrettable events." It was a month when Hashemite King Hussein of Jordan moved to quash the militancy of Palestinian organizations and restore his monarchy's rule over the country. The violence resulted in the deaths of thousands of people, the vast majority Palestinian. Armed conflict lasted until July 1971 with the expulsion of the Palestine Liberation Organisation and thousands of Palestinian fighters to Lebanon


rut roh....

wheel,

wheelrite wrote:

https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/csi-studies/studies/vol49no1/html_files/arab_israeli_war_1.html

Interesting read.

borndead1 wrote:

The Palestinian refugees didn't exactly behave in Jordan in 1970. Can you explain what bearing this has on 2011?

HockeyDad wrote:

Wheel,
I brought this up a few threads back, no Palestine existing to have been lost (the Romans or Ottomans liked the name Palestine for the territory), the "Palestinian Problem" is a creation of Jordan et al, they really are not an ethnic entity from history, they really are disdained by their own...and that's what made them so loveable to the Arab nations around Israel...let them be Israel's problem.

but that's pre 2011 and I am not allowed comment. you can run with it baby.

frankj1 wrote:

Well,,
You refer to a 44 yr old issue with Isarael to ad nauseuem . This issue was hoisted upon Isarael and made worse by Jordan.

wheelrite wrote:

The Palestinian refugees didn't exactly behave in Jordan in 1970. Can you explain what bearing this has on 2011?

HockeyDad wrote:

The Palestinian refugees didn't exactly behave in Jordan in 1970. Can you explain what bearing this has on 2011?

HockeyDad wrote:

As, much as I want to stay off this board, do you seriously believe this? (actualy based on your posts i guess you do) Last time I checked Hamas is the dominant power and they DO NOT accept Israel's right to exist. Until then there cannot be any real progress. The moderate Palestinisn's only "control" part of the territories and there hold is tenuous at best - And yes business and negotiations can be done with the Palestinian's But until the Hamas recognizes Israel's right to exist any negotiation is for the press only. From an Israeli point of view the status quo is preferable and safer. terror attacks are way down and that is what the average Israeli cares about. can you blame them? Israel I would assume is not going to give up territory that ends up being ccntroled by Hamas until they can reasonably feel it just won't be used as an armed base against them. Why that is unreasonable to anyone escapes me. Ad to the fact Israel's military feels it can handle anything thrown at them would seem to say that the status quo is better than the current proposed alternatives from the Israelies point of view, not "popular" world opinion that Israel must give back lands etc... When it benefits Israel to trade land for a true agreement it may happen, certainly not before that...

I guess you can spin the "occupation" any way you want and use the term "concentration" camps, which to a Jew is not the word i would ever chose, I would hope the meaning as I use the word to the way you throw the word out is different, last time I checked there were no crematoriums their...

topper7788 wrote: