Bibi Wins, Two State Solution Dies?

[fuji]

I don't share your beliefs about the possibilities of peace, but do agree it is now very, very unlikely the two state solution will ever happen.

Of course you don't, you don't see Jews being slaughtered as an obstacle at all and you think Netanyahu is totally unreasonable in demanding that Jew slaughtering terrorists be disarmed.

 

[Frankfooter]

Of course you don't, you don't see Jews being slaughtered as an obstacle at all and you think Netanyahu is totally unreasonable in demanding that Jew slaughtering terrorists be disarmed.

Do you have issues with acid reflux?

Just wondering, because coming up with statements like that, which are so ridiculously false I shouldn't even bother responding must make the bile rise enormously.
But that is your very weird opinion, its not mine and bears no relation to the opinions I've stated here.
Both sides should stop the violence, killing on either side is wrong, both sides should respect international law, human rights and come to a mutually acceptable political solution that gives full rights to all parties.

Now, where is that apology for accusing me of lying?
Your arguments have only shown that I didn't lie, you need to apologize.

 

[fuji]

Both sides should stop the violence, killing on either side is wrong, both sides should respect international law, human rights and come to a mutually acceptable political solution that gives full rights to all parties.

That sounds nice, until we look at the ridiculously extremist things you believe should be part of a "mutually acceptable political solution".

You said Netanyahu is unreasonable to insist that such a solution include disarming terrorist groups, and having the Palestinians renounce violence and recognize Israel as a Jewish state.

There isn't going to be any mutually acceptable solution without those things. Any proposal that leaves terrorists armed to the teeth and pledged to the destruction of Israel and the expulsion of Jews is never, ever going to be acceptable.

Hence the observation that it will be years before the Palestinians develop into a real partner in peace talks. So far they are miles away from any proposal with a reasonable chance of being mutually acceptable.

 

[Moviefan-2]

I believe that asking for only one side, or Hamas to disarm as a precondition to negotiations is unreasonable and impossible.

Bill Clinton clearly disagreed with you. He called for the Palestinians to be "non-militarized" and for international security forces to ensure the Palestinians are protected:

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Peace/ClintonMyLife.html

The Palestinians have been willing to spend decades as "refugees" -- essentially living as wards of the UN. If they are truly committed to peace, they could certainly accept having their terrorists disarmed and allowing the military presence of international forces.

There is nothing "impossible" or unreasonable about such a condition.

I agree Palestinians should be disarmed.
But Why not disarm both Palestinians and Israelis and put the region under UN protection ? Israelis should also be disarmed for the same reasons you mentioned to stop massacres against civilian Palestinians.

Wow. Knowing everything we know about the Middle East today, you think Israel should be disarmed?

Never mind a one-state solution or a two-state solution. What you're proposing could only be described as a Final Solution.

 

[basketcase]

You and Netanyahu want an end to resistance before they will even negotiate for peace?
Does that include peaceful resistance, like protests, the BDS movement and moves towards international law?
Do you believe those have to end before negotiations can start?

Sorry but yes, agreeing to the possibility of peace is absolutely a condition for a peace deal. Both Hamas and Fatah's armed wing have repeatedly stated that they will not accept any peace deal with Israel. That means until they change their opinion, there will be no Palestinian state.

the fact that you think a peace deal includes continued Palestinian attacks on Israel is a sign of insanity or a deep felt racial hatred. Which is it?

 

[basketcase]

My statement is correct, you can call his beliefs whatever you like, as long as they are labelled Netanyahu's personal belief.....

Strange that you keep going on about Netanyahu's personal beliefs but refuse to address the OFFICIAL policy of the last elected Palestinian legislature.

 

[basketcase]

No, you are wrong.

I believe that asking for only one side, or Hamas to disarm as a precondition to negotiations is unreasonable and impossible.....

Actually under international law it is perfectly reasonable. The only ones allowed the use of military force is the legitimate representatives of the people. The last I checked, the PLO/PA is the official representatives of the Palestinian people so Hamas has absolutely no legal right to keep their own personal army. And considering that they officially refuse the concept of peace, it is quite clear they are the biggest obstacle to a peace deal.

 

[basketcase]

Do you have issues with acid reflux?

Just wondering, because coming up with statements like that, which are so ridiculously false I shouldn't even bother responding must make the bile rise enormously. ....

Sorry but another lie from you.

You outright said that Hamas giving up on their genocidal policy to agree to peace is an impossible demand.

 

[basketcase]

I agree Palestinians should be disarmed.
But Why not disarm both Palestinians and Israelis and put the region under UN protection ? Israelis should also be disarmed for the same reasons you mentioned to stop massacres against civilian Palestinians.

You think the UN should be able to disarm legitimately recognized countries? Maybe the UN should disarm Iran as well.

As I said before, Hamas has no legal international authority as the voice of the Palestinians and no legal right to have their own private army.

 

[Frankfooter]

That sounds nice, until we look at the ridiculously extremist things you believe should be part of a "mutually acceptable political solution".

You said Netanyahu is unreasonable to insist that such a solution include disarming terrorist groups, and having the Palestinians renounce violence and recognize Israel as a Jewish state.

There isn't going to be any mutually acceptable solution without those things. Any proposal that leaves terrorists armed to the teeth and pledged to the destruction of Israel and the expulsion of Jews is never, ever going to be acceptable.

Hence the observation that it will be years before the Palestinians develop into a real partner in peace talks. So far they are miles away from any proposal with a reasonable chance of being mutually acceptable.

You are wrong and mischaracterizing comments again.
You and Netanyahu talk of disarming Palestinians as a pre-condition to peace, which means disarming even before peace talks occur.
I spoke of both sides ending all violence, as has successfully worked in other similar situations, and working towards mutual disarmament.
And lets be clear, your demand that only one side disarm before peace talks is not a negotiation to peace, its a demand for total capitulation.
If your 'belief' is that Palestinians must subjugate themselves fully to Israel before any peace can happen, then clearly you are only interested in conquest, not peace.

Is that what you really believe?

And where is that apology, your claims that I lied have been shown to be nonsense.
You need to apologize.

 

[Frankfooter]

Sorry but another lie from you.

You outright said that Hamas giving up on their genocidal policy to agree to peace is an impossible demand.

That accusation of lying is just one more thing you need to apologize for.
I never said any such thing.

Apologize for such outright lying and learn to debate honestly.

 

[Frankfooter]

agree. I support a middle east without nuclear weapons, what about you ?

I understand that Iran is making a push for a nuclear free middle east.
Surely all those who claim to support peace would support such a call.

http://rt.com/news/253549-israel-iran-nuclear-weapons/

 

[Moviefan-2]

You and Netanyahu talk of disarming Palestinians as a pre-condition to peace, which means disarming even before peace talks occur.

I think you're reaching again. When did Netanyahu say the Palestinians must disarm even before peace talks occur?

 

[Frankfooter]

I think you're reaching again. When did Netanyahu say the Palestinians must disarm even before peace talks occur?

fuji, apparent Netanyahu spokesman here, said:

This would be accurate:

"Netanyahu's personal beliefs are that Hamas are too violent or full of hatred and as a result of those beliefs has promised to never allow a Palestinian state to be created while he is PM."

And asked about his 'no Palestinian state for 20-30 years' stance, fuji said:

How long do you think it will take the Palestinians to rid themselves of violent, antisemitic militias? Do you disagree with the observation that it will likely take at least that long?
Clearly given the length of time the Palestinians will need to create the conditions for a state it will be another PM working with them by the time they are ready.

I'm just repeating fuji's claims towards Netanyahu's beliefs.
If you think those are wrong, take it up with him.

 

[Moviefan-2]

If you think those are wrong, take it up with him.

I suppose we can check with Fuji but I don't see anything in the quotes you cited that support the claim that Netanyahu said the Palestinians must disarm before talks can even begin.

Certainly, it would appear there is no source supporting such a claim. So it is reaching, as I said.

 

[Frankfooter]

I suppose we can check with Fuji but I don't see anything in the quotes you cited that support the claim that Netanyahu said the Palestinians must disarm before talks can even begin.

Certainly, it would appear there is no source supporting such a claim. So it is reaching, as I said.

If there is no need for any disarming then there is no reason to wait 20 or 30 years or until Netanyahu is out of power, to negotiate a peaceful settlement.
Then we both agree, both sides need to refrain from violence then there is no reason a peaceful settlement couldn't be reached?

 

[fuji]

I agree Palestinians should be disarmed.
But Why not disarm both Palestinians and Israelis and put the region under UN protection ?

1. The UN has betrayed Israel before, the Israelis do not and should not trust their survival to an organization that has betrayed them and collaborated with their enemies

2. The UN is controlled by dictatorships and no democracy should EVER be subject to dictatorships

3. Israel is a western democracy, and is morally and ethically superior in every conceivable way to the forces of tyranny that it opposes

4. Hamas is a terrorist group that is pledged to atrocity and ethnic cleansing

5. Israel actually won the 47 war, the Palestinian aggressors lost, and the defeat of the Arabs in 47 isn't going to be reversed by some deal, the peace process is the continuation of their surrender

6. There is no outside force to impose your fantasy on Israel, and Israel isn't going to agree.

 

[Frankfooter]

3. Israel is a western democracy, and is morally and ethnically superior in every conceivable way to the forces of tyranny that it opposes

Whoops.
You let your racism show.
Claiming anybody 'ethnically superior' is really quite a bit racist, you know.
That is related to your repeated calls that Israel be recognized as 'the Jewish State', isn't it?

 

[Moviefan-2]

If there is no need for any disarming then there is no reason to wait 20 or 30 years or until Netanyahu is out of power, to negotiate a peaceful settlement.
Then we both agree, both sides need to refrain from violence then there is no reason a peaceful settlement couldn't be reached?

I didn't say the Jew-hating terrorists don't need to be disarmed. They most certainly will need to be disarmed before a Palestinian state can be established.

However, I have challenged your statement that Netanyahu said peace talks couldn't even begin until the terrorists are disarmed. There's no evidence he said any such thing.

 

[fuji]

Palestinians as a pre-condition to peace, which means disarming even before peace talks occur.

More of your pathological lying. No one ever said that, you literally made it up. Israel is open to talks right now.

I spoke of both sides ending all violence

Israel does not target civilians, only the Palestinians do that. I do not agree that Israel should stop violence against Hamas. On the contrary, eliminating Hamas through direct military action may be the best path to peace, given that the Palestinians are not willing to discuss the elimination of Hamas through diplomacy.

And lets be clear, your demand that only one side disarm before peace talks is not a negotiation to peace, its a demand for total capitulation.

Absolutely. The total capitulation of Hamas is required. They are terrorists who attack civilians and they have no place in the world. They are totally incompatible with peace.

Israel on the other hand is a modern Western democracy, infinitely ethically and morally superior to the terrorists they defeated in 47 and the tyrants they defeated in 67.

It is a good thing when a democracy defeats an evil enemy. It was good when the allies won the second world war. It was good when Israel defeated the forces of atrocity who tried to destroy it.

If your 'belief' is that Palestinians must subjugate themselves fully to Israel before any peace can happen, then clearly you are only interested in conquest, not peace.

No one said talks. No one said all Palestinians. What was said was that the continued existence of Hamas as an armed force is incompatible with a two state solution.

You are asking us to equate a democracy with a terrorist organization and they are not equal. Democracy is good. Terrorism is evil. It is a fight between civilization and barbarism.