Bibi Wins, Two State Solution Dies?
- Thread starter onthebottom
- Start date
Israel recognizes that the West Bank is occupied territory, just as the US does. So not a single nation or international organization agrees with you.Take Israel and the US out of those lists.
The US and Israel have both argued that Palestine is not a state, including Netanyahu.
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middl...reject-palestinian-bid-20151117815257173.html
And the US.
http://www.jpost.com/Arab-Israeli-C...te-does-not-qualify-for-ICC-membership-387031
I'm glad you at least admit that the world recognizes Palestine as a state, however since Israel doesn't and Israel controls all of the occupied lands then as far as Israel is concerned there is only one state.
The conditions that prevent a two state solution prevent a one state solution as well.Netanyahu has confirmed the two state solution is dead in the water and Israel is now only left with one state.
You cannot have one state with an armed Palestinian terrorist group intent on killing Jews, no serious person even considers that.
I agree that no international organization and almost no nation agree with the Israeli claim that there is no Palestine.Israel recognizes that the West Bank is occupied territory, just as the US does. So not a single nation or international organization agrees with you.
But the fact remains that Israel has declared there is no state of Palestine, which means they are no longer considering it occupied land
I've given you the most recent statements from Israel.
Or are you also accusing Netanyahu of lying?
You don't know what the word occupied means, and it is a false dichotomy to say that the only alternatives are a two state or a one state solution.But the fact remains that Israel has declared there is no state of Palestine, which means they are no longer considering it occupied land
Whether there is a Palestinian state currently there has NOTHING to do with whether it is occupied. If there is a Palestinian state there now it is new, and the territory was occupied from 1967 until quite recently without any Palestinian state.
You have two logical positions you can take:so now your argument that the west bank isn't part of Israel because the Knesset and International community doesn't recognize it is void because both of them haven't recognized area C part of Israel .
1. The settlements are part of Israel and the West Bank outside the security wall is part of Palestine
2. The settlements are illegally constructed on Palestinian territory and no part of the West Bank is part of Israel, Israel should withdraw from them as it has no right to be there
Which position are you taking?
Likud takes position 1, the UN takes position 2. Those are the only two positions that have any meaningful support or reasonable basis.
The occupation is in fact temporary, and Israel has never reached agreement on where the final borders are, Israel clearly thinks the security wall should be the border, but that is to be resolved through final status negotiations once the Palestinians meet the conditions for that.A military occupation is temporary and not permanent and the military occupier isn't allowed to settle its own civilians in occupied territory.
So why do you accept the Palestinian leadership wanting just that?Building states on racial or 'ethnic' superiority is so 1930's.
Hamas statements routinely say Jews are inferior; sons of apes and pigs is an expression they commonly use. If you really think it belongs to a world past then you should really call out Hamas for for their open racism.
Borders aren't settled until peace agreements are in place. Israel's borders with Jordan and Egypt are well defined. The border with Syria and Lebanon are still vague since their governments refuse to make peace with Israel. Until those peace treaty are made, the armistice lines are used.You didn't answer my question
1-Where are Israel's borders ? The green line, the wall or Jordan river ?
And everyone (with the exception of Hamas and some in Fatah) see the 1949 armistice line (Green Line) as the basis to start a negotiated border but that would involve Hamas agreeing to discuss peace in the first place (which Fraudfruiter sees as an impossible condition).
I would expect you to apologize for lying first. I notice that you claimed I lied about your 'impossible conditions' statement yet when I quoted you you quietly ran away from the topic.... I now expect you to apologize for accusing me of lying.
There never has been an independent Palestinian state but their should be. All it will take is the Palestinian leadership giving up on their genocidal goals....
But the fact remains that Israel has declared there is no state of Palestine, which means they are no longer considering it occupied land
...
I have to say that as far as debating skills go, you schooled fuji on the discussion of borders.so now your argument that the west bank isn't part of Israel because the Knesset and International community doesn't recognize it is void because both of them haven't recognized area C part of Israel .....
Of course in a factual level, fuji is not a spokesperson or official of Israel or anywhere else so his opinion is irrelevant.
Until negotiations happen, there will be no official border between Israel and the Palestinians. I think many of us see the Palestinians as a people and based on self determination (if that has any legal merit) have a claim to a peaceful state. The biggest obstacle in their way is their leadership isn't interested in a peaceful state if that means making peace with Israel (actually they don't seem to want a peaceful state unless they get to be the party running it).
Since you have insisted on resurrecting this foolishness, let me express my discomfort with the whole idea.A military occupation is temporary and not permanent and the military occupier isn't allowed to settle its own civilians in occupied territory.
Two conditions that don't apply to West Bank, so it looks more like a defacto annexation than a temporary military occupation.
To do the math, as you like to say, let's summarize the situation.
The Palestinians have been offered their own state. The offers were rejected because their leaders couldn't accept the co-existence of a Jewish state.
The Palestinians were offered a chance at economic growth and prosperity when Israel withdrew from Gaza. The Palestinians used that new-found freedom to escalate their terrorist attacks on Israel.
The Palestinians support terrorist organizations such as Hamas and its goals of killing as many Jews as possible and destroying the state of Israel.
As a result, the Palestinians have remained under military occupation much longer than necessary. And you now argue that the Palestinians' fixation on killing Jews should be rewarded by essentially granting them the "right of return" without any negotiations.
Whether it's your intention or not, your proposal means the Palestinians would be rewarded for their fixation on killing Jews.
That line of argument must be rejected.
That was my opinion.I would expect you to apologize for lying first. I notice that you claimed I lied about your 'impossible conditions' statement yet when I quoted you you quietly ran away from the topic.
Are you saying my opinion is a lie?
Ridiculous.
You can't claim to be occupying a country that you claim doesn't exist.You don't know what the word occupied means, and it is a false dichotomy to say that the only alternatives are a two state or a one state solution.
Whether there is a Palestinian state currently there has NOTHING to do with whether it is occupied. If there is a Palestinian state there now it is new, and the territory was occupied from 1967 until quite recently without any Palestinian state.
Netanyahu's declaration that there is no Palestine means he's claiming it all.
So you are also agreeing that the one state solution is already in effect?There never has been an independent Palestinian state but their should be. All it will take is the Palestinian leadership giving up on their genocidal goals.
You lied when you claimed you didn't say 'your opinion'. and now you lie about it again. Beautiful.That was my opinion.
Are you saying my opinion is a lie?
Ridiculous.
Are you once again lying about what people said?So you are also agreeing that the one state solution is already in effect?
Sure you can. You aren't the world government, you don't get to make some stupid rule that annexing an inch of Palestine requires annexing all of it.This doesn't make sense, you cannot argue that some parts of the west bank( which is under total control of Israel) are part of Israel and some other parts aren't.
Also the border between Israel and Palestine has never been agreed, the Palestinians refuse to agree on it, why wouldn't Israel unilaterally assert that the security wall is the border?
That isn't why it is the border. It is the border because they agreed it was the border. The border between Canada and the US is agreed in most places and disputed in some places.The wall between Mexico and the US is an international border because the US controls the american side and Mexico controls the Mexican side, which isn't the case of west bank wall.
You are trying to make up rules that suit your interest but aren't actually based in any international law or precedent.
You also demonstrate repeatedly that you haven't a fucking clue what "occupied" means. There is no rule that a border can't have occupied territory on one side and sovereign territory of the occupier on the other. In fact, that is the usual case with an occupation.
You need to stop trying to enact new world government laws.
