When are the Pals going to get their own state?

[boochi]

Everybody should care about this issue. If the whole Israel/Palestinian/Arab thing was settled decades ago there would never have been an Al Qaeda to attack us on 911.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Everybody should care about this issue. If the whole Israel/Palestinian/Arab thing was settled decades ago there would never have been an Al Qaeda to attack us on 911.

Please connect those dots logically with facts.

 

[boochi]

Al Qaeda attacked us because of our strong, steadfast support of Israel. That is pretty much common sense. Why don't you read Bin Laden's "Letter to America". Maybe you missed that back in 2002? It bases attacks primarily on Israel and our support of them. Common sense does not require connecting the dots with facts, but here you go.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/nov/24/theobserver

"The creation and continuation of Israel is one of the greatest crimes, and you are the leaders of its criminals. And of course there is no need to explain and prove the degree of American support for Israel. The creation of Israel is a crime which must be erased. Each and every person whose hands have become polluted in the contribution towards this crime must pay its*price, and pay for it heavily"

 

[Nebor]

How many people here actually, honestly care about this? I know it's a divisive issue and so good fodder for those who like to argue, but really?

Virtually no one. The average American (or Westerner, or anyone that's not a muslim) doesn't care about the issue. Muslims only care because they hate Israel, not because they want to improve the Palestinian's standing in life.

There are probably 5 people on this forum that care to see the status quo change.

 

[Sinsear]

When they stop being terrorists and actually act like productive members of the human race.


So pretty much never.

 

[Whiskey16]

Everybody should care about this issue. If the whole Israel/Palestinian/Arab thing was settled decades ago there would never have been an Al Qaeda to attack us on 911.

No.

Boochi, your ignorance is strong. Such ignorance invites poor analysis, intelligence , and strategic failures that the USA so incomptently displays.

In brief -- the leadership and foundation of al Qaeda was of Sunni fundamentalists from Egypt and Saudi Arabia who opposed the authorative governments in their home states. That was the driving force for that movement. The assasination of Sadat offered regression to present a more potent strongman, Mubarak, who, as the house of Saud, gained its major backing from the USA. Seeing failure in progressive action within their home states for their desired change, a motivation grew to target their states' major patron.

The issue of Palestine had zero motivation for al Qaeda, other than more recently as a political recruiting tool of serving up another example of US patronage of a power imposing its will upon Arabs, or more specifically in al Qaeda's motivation - Muslims. Despite that, the Shiite radical factions of Hezbolha and Hamas are hardly upon allegiance with al Qaeda.

For the topic of this thread? A repeat of bullshit that has far too often been covered and soundly corrected in other threads concerning Palestine and Israel. A new thread such as this only serves a lobbying purpose of running away from such documented challenges with renewed blank slate vigour to continue tossing shit upon a wall with the hopes that it will stick.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Al Qaeda attacked us because of our strong, steadfast support of Israel. That is pretty much common sense. Why don't you read Bin Laden's "Letter to America". Maybe you missed that back in 2002? It bases attacks primarily on Israel and our support of them. Common sense does not require connecting the dots with facts, but here you go.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/nov/24/theobserver

"The creation and continuation of Israel is one of the greatest crimes, and you are the leaders of its criminals. And of course there is no need to explain and prove the degree of American support for Israel. The creation of Israel is a crime which must be erased. Each and every person whose hands have become polluted in the contribution towards this crime must pay its*price, and pay for it heavily"

Strong is the ignorance in this one...

 

[shira]

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What a stupid comment, the Arabs recognized The Israeli state at the Annapolis conference.

This is an out and out lie. A shameless lie. The Arabs in no way shape or form recognized the Israeli state at this conference. The ONLY product of the conference was the following joint statement, read by President Bush:

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Joint_Understanding_Read_by_President_Bush_at_Annapolis_Conference

PRESIDENT BUSH: The representatives of the government of the state of Israel and the Palestinian Liberation Organization, represented respective by Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, and President Mahmoud Abbas in his capacity as Chairman of the PLO Executive Committee and President of the Palestinian Authority, have convened in Annapolis, Maryland, under the auspices of President George W. Bush of the United States of America, and with the support of the participants of this international conference, having concluded the following joint understanding.

We express our determination to bring an end to bloodshed, suffering and decades of conflict between our peoples; to usher in a new era of peace, based on freedom, security, justice, dignity, respect and mutual recognition; to propagate a culture of peace and nonviolence; to confront terrorism and incitement, whether committed by Palestinians or Israelis. In furtherance of the goal of two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security, we agree to immediately launch good-faith bilateral negotiations in order to conclude a peace treaty, resolving all outstanding issues, including all core issues without exception, as specified in previous agreements.

We agree to engage in vigorous, ongoing and continuous negotiations, and shall make every effort to conclude an agreement before the end of 2008. For this purpose, a steering committee, led jointly by the head of the delegation of each party, will meet continuously, as agreed. The steering committee will develop a joint work plan and establish and oversee the work of negotiations teams to address all issues, to be headed by one lead representative from each party. The first session of the steering committee will be held on 12 December 2007.

President Abbas and Prime Minister Olmert will continue to meet on a bi-weekly basis to follow up the negotiations in order to offer all necessary assistance for their advancement.

The parties also commit to immediately implement their respective obligations under the performance-based road map to a permanent two-state solution to the Israel-Palestinian conflict, issued by the Quartet on 30 April 2003 -- this is called the road map -- and agree to form an American, Palestinian and Israeli mechanism, led by the United States, to follow up on the implementation of the road map.

The parties further commit to continue the implementation of the ongoing obligations of the road map until they reach a peace treaty. The United States will monitor and judge the fulfillment of the commitment of both sides of the road map. Unless otherwise agreed by the parties, implementation of the future peace treaty will be subject to the implementation of the road map, as judged by the United States.

The bolded statement is NOT a recognition of the State of Israel. It's at a statement that the parties will engage in negotiations to work toward the goal of a two-state solution.

If your grasp of history is so loose that you interpret this document as the Arabs recognizing the state of Israel (and note that Hamas protested the conference, so using "Arabs" is already a huge distortion), then NOTHING you write about the Arab-Israeli conflict can be believed.

You're a fvcking liar.

 

[Lemon law]

As Shira said, "The bolded statement is NOT a recognition of the State of Israel. It's at a statement that the parties will engage in negotiations to work toward the goal of a two-state solution." But that ignores many Condi Rice stated goals. In other words, you are only cheery picking documents.

However, progress at the Annapolis Conference would have carried with it signed agreements that the surrounding Arab States recognize Israel right to exist within 1967 borders. And instead, Israel choose not to make any concessions that would have led to that end. While also settling and settling on disputed lands.

Its why most of the world no longer trusts Israel and any any progress on a negotiated solution probably will not occur until a Israeli complete settlement freeze will likely be forced on Israel regardless of how the USA feels.

Right now, all Israeli claims to disputed territories, rests on a continuation of its 44 year over extended military occupation. Don't you all think 44 years is way way way too long?

 

[EagleKeeper]

What Coni stated was for public consumption - not what was actually agreed on.
Annapolis was just like Camp David and Oslo - wanting to put a stamp on the process and hope that no one would see the bandage underneath


The Arabs were offering only one thing - recognition and demanding everything else from Israel.

Remember, those "disputed" lands were won due to her being attacked by those that lived on/controlled those lands and tried to destroy her.

Reward those people for doing wrong - typical entitlement attitude.

From Wiki

The objectives of the conference were in an attempt to produce a substantive document on resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict along the lines of President George W. Bush's Roadmap For Peace, with the eventual establishment of a Palestinian state. A draft document was leaked by Haaretz on November 17, 2007,[3] with the final and forthcoming Annapolis Joint Declaration expected to outline the scope of what will eventually be final peace talks.[4]

What are the Issues

• A declaration of what?
  Several months ago, the Israeli and Palestinian leaderships resolved to reach an agreed joint document ahead of the conference. However, the hopes for this document have been consistently downgraded over the course of time: Original thoughts of hammering out a highly-detailed “framework agreement” gave way to an effort to reach a so-called “declaration of principles”. However, due to Israeli reticence (see Israel above), the document under consideration is now even less ambitious, being termed a “declaration of interests” by Olmert. Israel would like to see the more serious negotiations postponed until after the conference. The Palestinians, on the other hand, want to pack as many details as possible into the document in order to justify their attendance of the conference.
• Settlements: The Palestinians are demanding an immediate freeze on construction in Israel’s West Bank settlements, along with the evacuation of the wildcat outposts, as well as several government-supported settlements. Israel has made no specific commitments on this issue. In previous years, it has committed to evacuating the outposts, but has failed to implement this commitment, primarily due to domestic political constraints. In the past, it had agreed to halt settlement construction only after the Palestinian terrorist organizations were disarmed and disbanded. Under a final-status deal, Israel would likely be prepared to dismantle outlying settlements, while seeking to annex those lying close to the Green Line.
• Borders: The Palestinians want the declaration to state that the future border will be based on the 1967 lines. They are prepared for an exchange of territory with Israel, but want to limit this to 2%-3% of the West Bank in order to prevent the West Bank’s “cantonization”. Israel is willing to relinquish the majority of the West Bank, but has made no specific proposal as to future borders, preferring to defer this question to future negotiations. Unofficially, some Israeli leaders have indicated that they want a border based on the route of the separation barrier, encompassing 6%-8% of the West Bank, and including the majority of the settler population; it has been suggested
  that Israel would cede in exchange a roughly equal amount of its sovereign territory.
• Safe Passage: The Palestinians seek to have sovereignty over a “safe passage” corridor that would link the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Due to security concerns, Israel has historically objected to full Palestinian sovereignty over this corridor. Greater flexibility has been noted of late, with unofficial reports that this corridor might be the land ceded in exchange for parts of the West Bank.
• Refugees: The Palestinians want Israel to recognize its responsibility for the suffering of the Palestinian refugees and to compensate them. Although they have not surrendered their claim for a “right of return” for all Palestinian refugees, press reports indicate that such a concession would be possible. Almost the entire Jewish population of Israel rejects the “right of return”, regarding it as equivalent to a call for Israel’s destruction. Israel would be willing to see Palestinian refugees “return” to a future Palestinian state, and reports indicate that Olmert might consider token refugee return to sovereign Israel under the heading of “family reunification”.
• Jerusalem: The Palestinians want to see East Jerusalem, including the Old City, as the capital of the Palestinian state and under full Palestinian sovereignty. Reports indicate that they are willing to have the joint declaration state more generally that East Jerusalem will be the capital of Palestine and west Jerusalem the capital of Israel. On the Israeli side, Vice Prime Minister, Haim Ramon, has been leading the effort to prepare Israeli public opinion for significant concessions on Jerusalem. Ramon’s plan, which Olmert has not rejected, calls for relinquishing most of the Palestinian Arab neighborhoods of Jerusalem. Less clear are his plans for the Old City and the holy places, including the Temple Mount. A few reports suggest willingness for some concessions on the Old City, in addition to vague “special arrangements” for the holy sites. One report even suggests that Jordan would be given guardianship over the Temple Mount/Haram al-Sharif. Support for Ramon’s ideas seems to be gradually gaining ground among Israeli political leaders.

Seems fairly one sided to me - all for recognition by the Arabs but not the Palestinians and stopping of the terrorist attacks.

both sides knew in advance that was was being talked about was not politically feasible for either side.

All that was agreed on was that they would try to continue the failure of working out differences and follow the road maps.

 

[orbster556]

As for their previous Israeli friends in Turkey, Jordon, and Egypt, Bozo Netanyuhu has alienated them in the space of a single year.

The change in those three named nations' foreign policy is almost entirely a factor of domestic politics or outright regime changes. The Israeli relationship with Turkey and Egypt would have deteriorated irrespective of who was governing Israel and the characteristics of the Israeli leader is mostly irrelevant in the case of Jordon.

 

[Anarchist420]

Everybody should care about this issue. If the whole Israel/Palestinian/Arab thing was settled decades ago there would never have been an Al Qaeda to attack us on 911.

If the Federal government did not act the way it did/does, then there would have been no al-qaeda to attack us on 9/11/01.

I still don't know why this is so important to so many Americans though. If they make a deal, good for them. If they blow each other up, IDGAF because they're violent people and more than that because they're not Americans. Israel is violent because they conscript their citizens like it's going out of style and for occupying land that wasn't its own until the UN (an illegitimate organization) declared it to be and the Arabs are violent for firing rockets at Israeli civilians.

America First!

 

[shira]

As Shira said, "The bolded statement is NOT a recognition of the State of Israel. It's at a statement that the parties will engage in negotiations to work toward the goal of a two-state solution." But that ignores many Condi Rice stated goals. In other words, you are only cheery picking documents.

However, progress at the Annapolis Conference would have carried with it signed agreements that the surrounding Arab States recognize Israel right to exist within 1967 borders. And instead, Israel choose not to make any concessions that would have led to that end. While also settling and settling on disputed lands.

Its why most of the world no longer trusts Israel and any any progress on a negotiated solution probably will not occur until a Israeli complete settlement freeze will likely be forced on Israel regardless of how the USA feels.

Right now, all Israeli claims to disputed territories, rests on a continuation of its 44 year over extended military occupation. Don't you all think 44 years is way way way too long?

Cherry picking? This document was the SOLE product of the conference. In fact, this document was the sole PURPOSE of the conference. Yet your claim is that what Rice said to the American people about the conference is what the Arabs agreed to?

It's 100% clear what the Arabs agreed to: It's all there, in black and white, in the OFFICIAL document I posted.

You know you're lying, yet you persist in this grossly dishonest line of argumentation. You're disgusting.

 

[orbster556]

As long as the Government of Israel is ruled by Netanyuhu, and his coalition of crazed settler parties, peace and progress between Arab, Palestinians, and Israelis will not occur until either one or the another condition occurs. (a) Rational Israelis give Bozo Netanyuhu and his coalition of crazed idiots the ole heave ho.

Is the Netanyuhu regime really any more hard-line than Shamir in '88 or Rabin in '92? I recognize that it is desuctive and convenient to brand an opponant deranged or irrational but there isn't a great deal of difference between the 'crazy' Netanyuhu and the rational Rabin that helped lay a foundation for peace.

Furthermore, Netanyuhu has indicated that Israel is willing to negotiate; Abbas has indicated that unless his preconditions are met then he is unwilling to negotiate. So why are you blaming Natanyuhu? Moreover, why should Israel stop building in Jeruselum? I understand some of the outer-reaches of the West Bank but why is Abbas insisting on a complete freeze?

Abbas has rejected a deal wherein Palestine would get 98% of the pre-1967 borders -- with the difference would be made up through swaps -- and would have sovereignty in East Jerusalem. Yet this is the fault of Netanyuhu? Care to explain?

 

[Lemon law]

Is the Netanyuhu regime really any more hard-line than Shamir in '88 or Rabin in '92? I recognize that it is desuctive and convenient to brand an opponant deranged or irrational but there isn't a great deal of difference between the 'crazy' Netanyuhu and the rational Rabin that helped lay a foundation for peace.

Furthermore, Netanyuhu has indicated that Israel is willing to negotiate; Abbas has indicated that unless his preconditions are met then he is unwilling to negotiate. So why are you blaming Natanyuhu? Moreover, why should Israel stop building in Jeruselum? I understand some of the outer-reaches of the West Bank but why is Abbas insisting on a complete freeze?

Abbas has rejected a deal wherein Palestine would get 98% of the pre-1967 borders -- with the difference would be made up through swaps -- and would have sovereignty in East Jerusalem. Yet this is the fault of Netanyuhu? Care to explain?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Its no problem to object with your false version of events, Israel never offered such a deal to Abbas. It may have been offered to Arifat, who turned it down, because he refused to surrender the Palestinian right to return to the over 50% of Israel robbed Palestinians from them in 1948.

But when Netanuyuhu killed Oslo principles at the 2008 Annapolis conference, he proved Abbas is 100% right to demand a Israeli settlement freeze, and now even Merkel of Germany realizes Bozo Netanyuhu is a lying sack of shit.

Now we have to watch the Palestinian Statehood petition wind its slow way through UN committees, and Bozo Netanyuhu has damn near zero world credibility. The Israeli problem, is that Israel will be far worse off next year, and the year after the next even if Israel succeeds in Kicking the can down down the road. If the USA wants to join Israel in diplomatic isolation, can we in the USA take the heat.

The immediate problem, orbster556, is that we will both watch what happens in the UN.

Why engage in more pissing contests.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Pissing contests are due to revision of historical facts for the purpose of justification of your position.

the Palestinians have been offered a solution multiple times; their handlers say NO.
Because it is not a just solution; the solution has to be all/everything to handicap Israel and restore the Arab ego.

Ignoring the blame of the present situation by going back to the beginning - in other words a redo in children's parlance.

Israel originally asked for one thing - peace. The Arabs and Palestinians refuse. And you expect Israel to bend over backwards to give away security for empty promises.

Those who are Palestinian supporters will state YES.

 

[Whiskey16]

Upon Palestine, outside of the state of Israel, Israel is internationally sanctioned as the aggressor. Yet those who continue to fling shit on the wall, such as Eagle Keeper, keep running away from existing threads where the his and others' proclamations of Israeli expansionist actions and desires as just while the backwards Orwellian portrayal of the Palestinians as the perpetual aggressors upon Israel, and thereby receiving their due. Such points have been defeated upon legal, moral, ethical, and practical terms in numerous past threads... Hence a run away into a new thread as this to argue anew with the same BS propaganda talking points whilst ignoring the true reality on the ground. :thumbsdown:

Pissing contests are due to revision of historical facts for the purpose of justification of your position.
..
the Palestinians have been offered a solution multiple times; their handlers say NO.

Ahem..

Israel originally asked for one thing - peace.

Having:

• one's land colonised
• native people displaced
• demands for it to be militarily occupied by a foreign force into perpetuity
• domestic checkpoints manned and controlled by the foreign belligerent
• domestic natural resources (ie. water) controlled and managed by foreign aggressors
• and a key demand of the enforced demilitaralisation of the domestic state

... are not terms for peace.

Any rational person in this world would expect the subjugated to react.

That the current Palestinian Authority is acting legally and reasonably within the confines of international law and diplomacy is of little consequence to the criminally inclined bigots who support Israeli displacement and subjugation of Palestinians. To the them, the same unreasonable dogma is repeated into insulting ad nauseum -- Israel must do as it needs as Arabs/Muslims are wicked for their incompetence and absolute hatred for Jews.

Those advocates for the continuation of Israeli Zionist expansion are morally and legally bankrupt.

These continued state actions and policy of Israel are all high crimes and an insurance for the continuation of protest and insurgency.

The state of Israel desires this. As Germany of the 1930s the to expand and consolidate power, Israeli state strategy needs a visible enemy. Israel continues enacting such instigating stances of the status quo in order to foster and fabricate a PR security climate to continue international crimes of aggression. Israel does not desire a resolution until it obtains all the the territory that is yet to be annexed under a long lambasted historic state policy of lebensraum.

 

[Nebor]

These continued state actions and policy of Israel are all high crimes and an insurance for the continuation of protest and insurgency.

I don't think that's true. Protest and violence are way down over the past 20 years, so what that tells me is that if Israel keeps doing what they're doing, in another 20 years there won't be any Palestinians left. They'll all have either moved on with their lives or have died clashing with the IDF.

 

[Atreus21]

This is an out and out lie. A shameless lie. The Arabs in no way shape or form recognized the Israeli state at this conference. The ONLY product of the conference was the following joint statement, read by President Bush:

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Joint_Understanding_Read_by_President_Bush_at_Annapolis_Conference



The bolded statement is NOT a recognition of the State of Israel. It's at a statement that the parties will engage in negotiations to work toward the goal of a two-state solution.

If your grasp of history is so loose that you interpret this document as the Arabs recognizing the state of Israel (and note that Hamas protested the conference, so using "Arabs" is already a huge distortion), then NOTHING you write about the Arab-Israeli conflict can be believed.

You're a fvcking liar.

Well spoken.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Upon Palestine, outside of the state of Israel, Israel is internationally sanctioned as the aggressor. Yet those who continue to fling shit on the wall, such as Eagle Keeper, keep running away from existing threads where the his and others' proclamations of Israeli expansionist actions and desires as just while the backwards Orwellian portrayal of the Palestinians as the perpetual aggressors upon Israel, and thereby receiving their due. Such points have been defeated upon legal, moral, ethical, and practical terms in numerous past threads... Hence a run away into a new thread as this to argue anew with the same BS propaganda talking points whilst ignoring the true reality on the ground. :thumbsdown:

Ahem..

Having:

• one's land colonised
• native people displaced
• demands for it to be militarily occupied by a foreign force into perpetuity
• domestic checkpoints manned and controlled by the foreign belligerent
• domestic natural resources (ie. water) controlled and managed by foreign aggressors
• and a key demand of the enforced demilitaralisation of the domestic state

... are not terms for peace.

Any rational person in this world would expect the subjugated to react.

That the current Palestinian Authority is acting legally and reasonably within the confines of international law and diplomacy is of little consequence to the criminally inclined bigots who support Israeli displacement and subjugation of Palestinians. To the them, the same unreasonable dogma is repeated into insulting ad nauseum -- Israel must do as it needs as Arabs/Muslims are wicked for their incompetence and absolute hatred for Jews.

Those advocates for the continuation of Israeli Zionist expansion are morally and legally bankrupt.

These continued state actions and policy of Israel are all high crimes and an insurance for the continuation of protest and insurgency.

The state of Israel desires this. As Germany of the 1930s the to expand and consolidate power, Israeli state strategy needs a visible enemy. Israel continues enacting such instigating stances of the status quo in order to foster and fabricate a PR security climate to continue international crimes of aggression. Israel does not desire a resolution until it obtains all the the territory that is yet to be annexed under a long lambasted historic state policy of lebensraum.

Ignoring that the Palestinians along with the Arabs attempted to destroy Israel multiple times.

That Israel was attack on day one by the Palestinians and Arabs

Call that offering peace?

 

[Macamus Prime]

It's just one rabid dog that is stronger than the other rabid dog.

Give it a few more years and all the land will be occupied by Israel - the Israeli's march in and out of Palestinian land as they please. So, hopefully soon, we can all put this "issue" to rest.

 

[Whiskey16]

Ignoring that the Palestinians along with the Arabs attempted to destroy Israel multiple times.

Your consistently predictable tit-for-tat arguments for the impossible chicken before the egg line of debating are strong evidence for the morally bankrupt side you choose.

THERE IS NO LEGAL NOR MORAL ARGUMENT for Israel annexation of extra-territorial gains.

Eagle Keeper, as I have repeatedly (and likely successfully, as you keep running to new threads) lectured you with outlines of legal citations, where Israel actions upon Palestine are of high crimes of aggression.

Eagle Keeper, you keep argueing with false justifications. Israeli actions are unjust and criminal. Palestinian Authority efforts for recognition and statehood are just and their efforts through the United Nations and with civil disobedience within their territory against an occupational force are morally sound.

The absolute ill in the present for nearly half a century is of Israeli aggression, occupation, colonisation, and subjugation of the natives of Palestine. Not the modern bullshit dellusion of hordes of Arab militaries invading Israel. Whilst ignoring the latter that former shit keeps getting flung on the wall with the propoganda hopes for it to only stick in peoples' minds. You perpetuate the former innanity and will not honestly balance the latter as honesty upon this issue cannot fit with your false narrative of Israel being the defending victim.

Israel has proved itself of defending its territory. It has its territory. Israel may not continue to enact the high crimes of aggression and against humanity with the annexation of another's land and the displacement of those natives. This was unsuccessful for Germany of the past and it will also prove to be Israel's bain.

 

[Whiskey16]

It's just one rabid dog that is stronger than the other rabid dog.

Give it a few more years and all the land will be occupied by Israel - the Israeli's march in and out of Palestinian land as they please. So, hopefully soon, we can all put this "issue" to rest.

'Marching', Macamus Prime? Surely you are not envisioning the IDF goose-stepping across Palestine?

Interesting how often a free pass from critique those who advocate genocide receive on this forum.

The ethical and moral health of a society is the balance of what is presented. It is quite ill here:

Push the Palestinians into the Sinai and let them make a country there.
..
Take back the Sinai by force if you have to and put ALL of the Palestinians there.

Deportation by cattle car as by the Germans or by forced marches into starvation as by the Ottomans?

Eagle Keeper, this is the company and side you choose to keep and tolerate.

Immoral damnation is certainly evident. :thumbsdown:

 

[Macamus Prime]

'Marching', Macamus Prime? Surely you are not envisioning the IDF goose-stepping across Palestine?

Interesting how often a free pass from critique those who advocate genocide receive on this forum.

I don't advocate genocide.

I do see the reality of the situation; Israel will do whatever it wants. The US will not stop Israel. The UN will not stop Israel. The Arabs won't stop Israel. I am looking at it as "just get it over with".

It's a horrible stance and position. But, look at both sides; they both lash out like wild blood thursty animals. There is no regard for innocent life even.

How does that even get fixed?

It doesn't. What will happen is that the stronger side will wipe out the weaker side - as they have been doing since the 60s.

 

[Whiskey16]

I don't advocate genocide.

You are confused and/or ashamed to admit for what your record displays:

Give it a few more years and all the land will be occupied by Israel - the Israeli's march in and out of Palestinian land as they please. So, hopefully soon, we can all put this "issue" to rest.
..
What will happen is that the stronger side will wipe out the weaker side - as they have been doing since the 60s.

The statement of 'hoping' is most certainly an advocation. Your words, and theme of desiring high crimes are consistent with your past posts.

I suggest you not to repeat you past behaviour of get angry with me for accurately critiquing what is said.

You may be best to change your tune by critiquing those states and individuals who enact and advocate what you are now in denial of stating.

Genocide, annexation, and ethnic cleansing, are vile, aren't they? I fully understand your above effort to disassociate with such depravity.

How does that even get fixed?

Israel ceasing occupation and colonisation of territory outside of its borders is certainly a root to a solution. Only Israel is in control to choose such an plausible avenue to peace.

...though Israel will not do as such as, in large part due to the immorality of the USA (plus unfortunately to a much lesser extent, the current Govermnet of Canada), Israel feels unimpeded to continue state policy of lebensraum. Criminals will push boundaries.