You have to go with basic human rights. You have to end with equal protections under the law. Any scenario that doesn't meet those two criteria will always be under duress. Any country that denies people basic human rights doesn't deserve our support anyways. It's is rotted at it's core.

Owl. You are supporting removing Palestinians from Gaza and the West Bank against their will. The very definition of ethnic cleansing. Seriously that is text book ethnic cleansing.

Truth.

Ethnic cleansing is the systematic forced removal of ethnic or religious groups from a given territory by a more powerful ethnic group, with the intent of making it ethnically homogeneous.[1][page needed] The forces applied may be various forms of forced migration (deportation, population transfer), intimidation, as well as mass murder and genocidal rape.

(12-27-2016 12:45 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  You have to go with basic human rights. You have to end with equal protections under the law. Any scenario that doesn't meet those two criteria will always be under duress. Any country that denies people basic human rights doesn't deserve our support anyways. It's is rotted at it's core.

So, then, the people who don't deserve our support are those who imposed this unworkable situation in Israel and the Palestinians to begin with.

That's what you don't seem to comprehend. There is no workable solution. The Jews and the Palestinians have been stuck in a situation where there is no solution. There is nothing that either side can do that will solve it. One-state, two-state, green state, pink state, there is no solution that works. And there is nothing that either Israel or the Palestinians can do about that.

Just so we can clear this up. Where did I lie? Honestly. We can't even agree on definitions anymore. Israel won't live in peace until they make right with the Palestinians. I also linked to you where Palestinians support the one state solution. One of us provides links and definitions. Another one hurls insults and calls people liars.

You are usually better than this.


I have not lied. I will not support ethnic cleansing. I will not support a rogue nation that continually defies international law.

(12-26-2016 08:23 PM)ODUsmitty Wrote:  I personally know and respect Smudge, and also have a Palestinian Christian friend from college with which I have remained connected. Nothing is ever black and white, particularly with the Middle East. While I strongly disagree with Obama'a non-support of israel, I believe Smudge's point of view is one of the most reasonable I have heard. Israel wants more territory to prevent rocket attacks, etc. Palestinians want a land of their own and no foreign occupation. Maybe a more productive path would be getting each's house in order, proclamations of the other's right to exist, and development of a framework to ensure that happens. Just like race-baiting, this perma-conflict baiting has continued on for too long and needs to have a more peaceful and permanent solution.

I echo these sentiments.

(12-27-2016 12:48 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Owl. You are supporting removing Palestinians from Gaza and the West Bank against their will. The very definition of ethnic cleansing. Seriously that is text book ethnic cleansing.
Truth.
Ethnic cleansing is the systematic forced removal of ethnic or religious groups from a given territory by a more powerful ethnic group, with the intent of making it ethnically homogeneous.[1][page needed] The forces applied may be various forms of forced migration (deportation, population transfer), intimidation, as well as mass murder and genocidal rape.

No, I wouldn't remove anybody against their will. But the Sinai 1) is their ancestral home, not the West Bank, and 2) could very easily be made into a much more attractive destination. Remember, the vast majority of Palestinians on the West Bank are descended from people who moved there from Arab countries where they were outcasts, basically of their own free will, in the 1920s and 1930s. Gaza isn't the same, Gaza has been the historic homeland of the people who are there and couldn't get out for two millennia, but it's such a hell-hole that Sinai would look way better for all of them.

Would every one of them move if a new country called Palestine were created on the spot of the Biblical era Philistia? Probably not. Would enough of them move to essentially eliminate the problem? Almost certainly.

Would you please stop lying about what I am saying? I thought you were better than that.

(12-27-2016 12:52 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  I also linked to you where Palestinians support the one state solution. One of us provides links and definitions.

No, you haven't.

Where did you do this? Links from left-wing blogs don't count.

(12-27-2016 12:52 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Just so we can clear this up. Where did I lie?

Here:

(12-27-2016 12:21 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  You crack me up Owl. You have blatant violations right in front of your nose but you ignore them.

And here:

Quote:I have stated a one state solution where Christian, Jews, and Muslims are equal under the eyes of the law. You continue to support ethnic cleansing.

And here:

(12-27-2016 12:48 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Owl. You are supporting removing Palestinians from Gaza and the West Bank against their will.

When Israel bulldozes homes for security perimeters are they engaging in ethnic cleansing? Yes or No?

One of us speaks out against it and it's not you.

Fact of the matter is it will not stand. Unfortunately, our dysfunctional political system has enabled crimes against humanity. If it wasn't for the US the world would have standed up to Israel decades ago. Call it for what it is. ETHNIC CLEANSING!

(12-27-2016 12:52 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  We can't even agree on definitions anymore.

As long as the only option is for everyone to accept your definitions without question, we're not going to agree.

Post #33

In that post you will read this paragraph along with others.

A one-state solution is generally endorsed by Israeli Arabs. Many are becoming nervous that a two-state solution would result in official pressures for them to move into a Palestinian state in the West Bank and/or Gaza Strip and so lose their homes and access to their communities, businesses and cities inside Israel.[citation needed] Some Israeli government spokespeople have also proposed that Palestinian-majority areas of Israel, such as the area around Umm el-Fahm, be annexed to the new Palestinian state. As this measure would cut these areas off permanently from the rest of Israel's territory, including the coastal cities and other Palestinian towns and villages, Palestinians view this with alarm. Many Palestinian citizens of Israel would therefore prefer a one-state solution because this would allow them to sustain their Israeli citizenship.[40]

(12-27-2016 01:02 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  When Israel bulldozes homes for security perimeters are they engaging in ethnic cleansing? Yes or No?
One of us speaks out against it and it's not you.
Fact of the matter is it will not stand. Unfortunately, our dysfunctional political system has enabled crimes against humanity. If it wasn't for the US the world would have standed up to Israel decades ago. Call it for what it is. ETHNIC CLEANSING!

Depends upon whether valid military targets are involved. If so, then no it is not. If not, then arguably it is.

Now answer me this. When Palestinians launch attacks against Israeli civilians with no military significance, is that a violation of human rights? Yes or no?

(12-27-2016 01:05 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Post #33

So Wikipedia quoting a self-serving pro-Arab position paper is your authoritative source?

How about something from an objective source instead?

Of course it is but understand less than 20% of Palestinians agree with it. You can't collectively punish a civilian population for it yet Israel consistently does.

Mach, can we agree that both sides are doing things that may very well be violations of the Geneva Conventions, if they in fact apply?

You just said I didn't post one. I showed you I did. Again, you hurl accusations that are not true. I think you just forgot or probably ignored my link.

(12-27-2016 01:09 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Of course it is but understand less than 20% of Palestinians agree with it. You can't collectively punish a civilian population for it yet Israel consistently does.

OK, but that less than 20% launches those attacks from behind human shields provided by the 80%. Can we agree that the use of human shields in that manner is a violation of human rights, and of the Geneva Conventions, if and to the extend that they apply?

You're arguing as if all possible human rights violations are being committed by one side, unprovoked. That is not the case.

(12-27-2016 01:11 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  You just said I didn't post one. I showed you I did. Again, you hurl accusations that are not true. I think you just forgot or probably ignored my link.

No, I didn't forget or ignore your link. I don't assign credibility to your link, for the reasons stated.

I said in my post that links from such sources don't count.

It boils down to this.

One of us advocates for equal protections under the law. Christian, Jew, or Muslim.

The better question would be why wouldn't we all demand this? That should be the demanded starting point of any negotiation.

Mach, do you or do you not agree that by attacking Israeli citizens with no regard to military value, and by doing so from launch points behind human shields, the Palestinians are committing human rights atrocities, and violations of the Geneva Conventions to the extent that they apply? Do you or do you not?