Bibi Wins, Two State Solution Dies?

[Moviefan-2]

Let's be candid: It's unlikely the Palestinians will accept the existence of a Jewish state in the Middle East any time in the foreseeable future.

Netanyahu's 11th-hour comments in the election may have rubbed Obama and others the wrong way.

But the reality is the Palestinians were offered the chance to have their own state and the offers were rejected. The offers were rejected because they required the Palestinians to accept the existence of a Jewish state alongside a Palestinian state.

As disappointing as it might be, the Palestinians have no interest in any solution that allows the Jews to have their own state. The Palestinians are their own worst enemies.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Let's summarize
Israel doesn't support a state for Palestinians but doesn't support one egalitarian state that gives equal civil rights ( voting) for Palestinians neither. Therefore Israel supports one single apartheid state where 4 million people under Israeli control are denied citizenship and rights to vote.

It's funny how quickly you keep forgetting the Palestinians were offered their own state on three different occasions and rejected those offers. It's almost like you want your posts to be as factually inaccurate as possible.

As for your assertion that Israel supports a single "apartheid" state, perhaps you could provide a source for that assertion other than your imagination.

 

[basketcase]

Let's summarize....

Sorry but the word you are looking for isn't "summarize". Based on your posts, you mean "Let's fantasize".

 

[basketcase]

What I find quite enlightening about this thread is how willing some people are to criticize Israel for Netanyahu's conflicting statements yet have little to say by 100% clear statements from Palestinian leadership against peace.

 

[fuji]

To say that he won't allow a two state solution to happen under his watch but that he still supports it?

Correct. Are you just not smart enough to understand the concept that the conditions today are not right for a Palestinian state? Not being right today doesn't mean they won't ever be right.

And he was extraordinarily clear that this is his view in the extended quote you cut your sentence from and in the full quote I posted, so what is your problem? Dishonest?

 

[fuji]

Let's summarize
Israel doesn't support a state for Palestinians

False.

but doesn't support one egalitarian state that gives equal civil rights ( voting) for Palestinians neither.

Not possible due to Palestinian racist aggression.

Therefore Israel supports one single apartheid state where 4 million people under Israeli control are denied citizenship and rights to vote.

It is not one state and it won't be no matter how many times you lie.

 

[Moviefan-2]

The status quo is already an apartheid state.

It's fascinating that so many Palestinians can be said to be living in the state of Israel and yet be completely unaware of that fact.

I mean, I can understand why Mike Duffy struggled to identify his primary residence. But even he knew what nation he was living in.

 

[fuji]

The status quo is already an apartheid state.

This is just blatant hate speech, a lie told to incite race hated. Inside the wall everyone is a citizen, Jew and Arab alike. Outside the wall the territory is occupied, not part is Israel, not integrated.

 

[fuji]

In Apartheid South Africa there was also a special status for a minority of blacks who are given permission to live in white lands wile the majority was forced to live in Bantustans or other designated areas

Whereas in Israel it is totally different, no special statuses at all, every Israeli Arab is a full citizen, while the whole world recognizes that the West Bank is not part is Israel.

What does look and and smell like apartheid is the status of Palestinians in Lebanon and Syria, but I have not heard a peep from you about that because it doesn't help you hate Jews. Multiple generations born in those countries denied citizenship, forced into a second class system. Do you even care?

 

[fuji]

Apartheid south African government also argued that bantustans weren't part of South Africa.

Yet they were because all those people were laborers integrated into the South African economy which is totally different. The West Bank is occupied, the way Iraq, Afghanistan, Japan, etc, were occupied. The world recognizes it as occupied, there is even a UN resolution, clearly recognizing the west bank as Palestine unlike the bantustans.

If the west bank has nothing to do with Israel as you claim , why is it under control of Israel then?

Israel occupied it in the 1967 war.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Apartheid south African government also argued that bantustans weren't part of South Africa. If the west bank has nothing to do with Israel as you claim , why is it under control of Israel then?

Remind me: When the Palestinians took their complaints about war crimes to the International Criminal Court, did they identify themselves as citizens of the state of Israel?

 

[basketcase]

In Apartheid South Africa there was also a special status for a minority of blacks who are given permission to live in white lands ...

In Israel, Arab citizens have no special status. They are citizens. End of story.

 

[Moviefan-2]

UN security council rejects Palestinian statehood
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/dec/30/un-security-council-rejects-palestinian-statehood-bid

You must have accidentally missed my question so I'll ask it again.

When the Palestinians took their complaints about war crimes to the International Criminal Court, did they identify themselves as citizens of the state of Israel?

 

[fuji]

UN security council rejects Palestinian statehood
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/dec/30/un-security-council-rejects-palestinian-statehood-bid

Is your entire worldview based on misrepresentation? The UN Security Council failed to pass a resolution. You can't claim failure to pass a resolution is rejecting anything other than the resolution itself, and the resolution itself contained a lot of entirely unacceptable specific demands that have little to do with whether or not Palestine is a state.

You are so fucking dishonest.

Meanwhile the UN has indeed enacted an resolution declaring Palestine to be a non-member observer state, and Palestine has used its status as a state to join many international organizations. It is widely recognized as a state. Yes, everybody knows it is an OCCUPIED state, but it is still a STATE.

 

[Moviefan-2]

The security council that has more power than General assembly rejected a full statehood. So they either have a full state or it cannot be called a state. There is no such thing as half a state.

Oops. It looks like you accidentally missed my question yet again.

I know you wouldn't want to miss an opportunity to post a reply so I'll provide the question to you again.

When the Palestinians took their complaints about war crimes to the International Criminal Court, did they identify themselves as citizens of the state of Israel?

 

[Frankfooter]

When the Palestinians took their complaints about war crimes to the International Criminal Court, did they identify themselves as citizens of the state of Israel?

Palestinians and the rest of the world identify the land as Palestinian.
However, when Palestine went to the ICC Israel claimed they didn't have jurisdiction because there is no Palestinian state.
So obviously Israel doesn't believe there is a Palestinian state and given that their leader has stated he won't allow one and he won't move any settlers out of the occupied lands there can only be one conclusion.

 

[fuji]

The security council that has more power than General assembly rejected a full statehood. So they either have a full state or it cannot be called a state. There is no such thing as half a state.

Wrong.

The security council did no such thing. The security council rejected a resolution, it did NOT reject Palestinian statehood. Nor did the council rescind or alter Palestine's status as a non member observer state.

You lie and misrepresent constantly, it is increasingly clear that your worldview is incompatible with truthful statements.

 

[fuji]

Palestinians and the rest of the world identify the land as Palestinian.
However, when Palestine went to the ICC Israel claimed they didn't have jurisdiction because there is no Palestinian state.
So obviously Israel doesn't believe there is a Palestinian state and given that their leader has stated he won't allow one and he won't move any settlers out of the occupied lands there can only be one conclusion.

Do you agree with Israel that the territory is occupied Palestinian territory but that the PLO/PA doesn't have the authority to claim to be a state?

If you do not agree with Israel then why would you cite the Israeli position as an objection to the UN's declaration that Palestine is a state?

It seems you are hypocritically trying to have it both ways....

their leader has stated he won't allow one and he won't move any settlers out of the occupied lands there can only be one conclusion.

Again you are blatantly lying about what Netanyahu said. You are also illogical. Even if a two state solution is impossible there are many conclusions.

The land could remain under UN control, it could remain occupied indefinitely, it could be transferred to Jordan, it could be partitioned and different things could happen to different parts, Hamas could take it over. Lots of possibilities.

You are guilty of the fallacy of the excluded middle in asserting that the only alternatives are the extremes of a two state solution or a single Arab majority state.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Palestinians and the rest of the world identify the land as Palestinian.
However, when Palestine went to the ICC Israel claimed they didn't have jurisdiction because there is no Palestinian state.
So obviously Israel doesn't believe there is a Palestinian state and given that their leader has stated he won't allow one and he won't move any settlers out of the occupied lands there can only be one conclusion.

Yes, that the lands continue to be occupied lands.

The key point here -- the one that GoWest was trying to avoid -- is that the Palestinians themselves don't accept the premise that the lands are part of the state of Israel.

Furthermore, Israel hasn't done anything to suggest the lands are part of the state of Israel. As GoWest points out, the Palestinians in the area can't vote in Israel's national elections.

The assertion that the lands are part of the state of Israel is completely baseless. Neither the Israelis nor the Palestinians -- nor the UN or anyone else, for that matter -- believes that is the case.

 

[fuji]

1- Jordan and Egypt don't want those territories, why do you think that Israel is able to force them to take territories they don't want.

Israel doesn't want the territory either, why do you think Israel should be forced to take territory Israel doesn't want?

And how do you know Jordan and Egypt wouldn't agree to that? Their current position is they prefer a two state solution, but if that dies then it is a whole new situation.

2-UN control means after few years UN would withdraw and declare it an independent state

You don't know that.

but Israel said they won't allow a palestinian state

Israel has not said that you blatant fucking liar.

, therefore they won't allow UN to take control to create a plaestinian state

You don't know that. You really don't.