(12-27-2016 01:14 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  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.

Palestinians get to kill Israelis, but Israelis don't get to respond, is a strange definition of equal protection under the law.

I'm quite comfortable standing on that ground. Equal protections under the law. Not discriminating against anyone based on ethnicity or religious views.

(12-27-2016 01:18 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  I'm quite comfortable standing on that ground. Equal protections under the law. Not discriminating against anyone based on ethnicity or religious views.

So you are okay with Palestinians get to kill Israelis, but Israelis don't get to respond? That's your idea of equal protection?

Now you are just being silly. Where do I state anything close to what you are attributing to me? Why do you continue to do that? It's building a straw man. You are creating a scenario that I neither advocate for or endorse. Where do I say Palestinians are free to kill Israeli's. You are not a credible adversary endorsing such talk.


Hint: when you have to do this most people would believe you are losing the argument.

(12-27-2016 01:22 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Now you are just being silly. Where do I state anything close to what you are attributing to me? Why do you continue to do that? It's building a straw man. You are creating a scenario that I neither advocate for or endorse. Where do I say Palestinians are free to kill Israeli's. You are not a credible adversary endorsing such talk.
Hint: when you have to do this most people would believe you are losing the argument.

I've asked you several times to condemn the actions of the Palestinians, and you have failed to do so.

I'll ask again, do you condemn the actions of the Palestinians as human rights atrocities and violations of the Geneva Conventions, if and to the extent that they apply?

If you refuse to condemn them, then you are necessarily taking exactly the position that I describe. I'm trying to figure out what your position is.

If you believe that both sides are violating human rights, that's one thing. If you believe that only one side is doing so, that's a different thing. I'm trying to figure out where you stand. Either it's okay for Palestinians to target and kill Jewish civilians from behind human shields, or it isn't. Which is your position?

Post 135. Again you must have ignored that. I try not to call people liars because it never advances the discussion.

I also let you go with describing the Wiki as a left wing blog. It's a description!

The one-state solution and the similar binational solution are proposed approaches to resolving the Israeli–Palestinian conflict.[1] Proponents of a binational solution to the conflict advocate a single state in Israel, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip,[1][2] with citizenship and equal rights in the combined entity for all inhabitants of all three territories, without regard to ethnicity or religion.[1] While some advocate this solution for ideological reasons,[1] others feel simply that, due to the reality on the ground, it is the de facto situation.[3][4]

Though increasingly debated in academic circles, this approach has remained outside the range of official efforts to resolve the conflict as well as mainstream analysis, where it is eclipsed by the two-state solution. The two-state solution was most recently agreed upon in principle by the Government of Israel and the Palestinian Authority at the November 2007 Annapolis Conference and remains the conceptual basis for negotiations proposed by the administration of U.S. president Barack Obama in 2011. Interest in a one-state solution is growing, however, as the two-state approach fails to accomplish a final agreement.[5][6]


Now how is a description a left wing point of view?

The two state solution is a no go without ethnic cleansing which is a crime against humanity. You won't get people to go. At the end of the day my solution is the only solution. If you find people launching rockets you arrest them. You don't blow up apartment buildings where 95% of the people are innocent. Maybe just maybe when you pay reparations for stealing people's property like a thief in the night and you acknowledge their legal standing you won't have 20% of the population lobbing rockets at you indiscriminately.

(12-27-2016 01:29 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Post 135. Again you must have ignored that. I try not to call people liars because it never advances the discussion.

OK, so you say, yes, but. I didn't ignore it, it's a half-assed admission, so I discounted it. All right, let's take it a step further. When 20% of the Palestinians are committing atrocities, and using the other 80% as human shields, what do you do as Israel? Geneva Conventions, if they apply, say you are pretty much off the hook.

You keep calling out Israel and acting as if they are the only violators here. That's simply not the case. When are you going to call out the Palestinians for their violations, instead of excusing them by saying that it's only 20% (which you don't know to be the case)?

For the record, I don't hold either side all that culpable. They are both dealing with an impossible situation not of their making. The only solution is to replace an impossible situation with a possible one. Either that, or wash our hands and walk away.

Quote:I also let you go with describing the Wiki as a left wing blog. It's a description!

I did not call Wiki a left-wing blog, although I think the description is often appropriate. What I am saying is that Wiki is hardly an authoritative source. It is no better than the sources it is quoting, when it quotes sources. And in this case, the source is hardly an objective one.

Mach, you're usually pretty reasonable, so let's try to find some common ground. I say that unprovoked attacks upon civilian targets with no military value are violations of human rights. Do you agree with that?

(12-27-2016 01:33 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  If you find people launching rockets you arrest them.

How do you implement that when the rockets are being launched from territory in which you have not law enforcement assets?

Quote:Maybe just maybe when you pay reparations for stealing people's property like a thief in the night and you acknowledge their legal standing you won't have 20% of the population lobbing rockets at you indiscriminately.

When Israel abandoned Gaza and tore up the settlements it had built there and returned the land to the Palestinians, how did the Palestinians respond? You are assuming a response on the part of the Palestinians that so far they have shown zero inclination toward doing.

Bump

(12-27-2016 01:38 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Mach, you're usually pretty reasonable, so let's try to find some common ground. I say that unprovoked attacks upon civilian targets with no military value are violations of human rights. Do you agree with that?

(12-27-2016 01:38 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Mach, you're usually pretty reasonable, so let's try to find some common ground. I say that unprovoked attacks upon civilian targets with no military value are violations of human rights. Do you agree with that?

Mach won't answer this question. He believes in violence...just as long as inflicted upon the people he (and other progressives) chooses to attack. Mach loves that terrorist group Black Lives Matter..you know.

You would have police assets there when it is all one country. Look at South Africa. A guy like Netanyahu would NEVER be elected if Palestinians had the right to elect their leaders. The answers are there. You would have compromise. Again a one state solution is your only path forward and it will eventually get there. An economic boycott would do the trick and bring Israel to its senses. If we just labeled exports form Israel as made in Israel it would do the trick.


And yes of course I am against any acts of violence. Attacking any civilian population centers is a crime. Mendela's and MLK's tribulations are the model. Peaceful protests will bring the oppressors to their knees. We as in the "US" need to stop enabling the rogue regimes.

Ohhhh gawd No Bull. What kind rocks do you guys climb out of?

I abhor violence and attacks against innocents. Have you graduated from middle school yet and does your Mom know you are on the computer?


Hate breeds hate. Violence is never the answer.

He's a Muslim dad was mom was catholic

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

The Jews gave them Gaza an now rockets rein down on them twice Israel destroyed gaza. Finally they learned the arabs

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

(12-27-2016 01:55 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Again a one state solution is your only path forward and it will eventually get there.

A one state solution with Palestinians given the vote would lead to a Palestinian majority in a couple of generations, at which point they would impose Islamic law.

Yep, that would be the final solution.

(12-27-2016 01:55 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  You would have police assets there when it is all one country.

But that's not the situation that exists today, and you are criticizing actions that were taken historically when that situation did not exist.

Quote:
Look at South Africa. A guy like Netanyahu would NEVER be elected if Palestinians had the right to elect their leaders. The answers are there. You would have compromise. Again a one state solution is your only path forward and it will eventually get there. An economic boycott would do the trick and bring Israel to its senses. If we just labeled exports form Israel as made in Israel it would do the trick.

How do you engage in a one state solution with an opposite side whose sworn goal is to eradicate you? How about when their every act has been consistent with that goal? You're trying to assume that Cleveland accurately represents what exists in Israel, and that therefore what might work in Cleveland would obviously work in Israel. You ethnocentrism is showing.

You have nothing but an assumption to go on with the claim that there would be compromise. Suppose you are wrong, what then? Suppose that instead a one-state solution results within a few years with an Arab-majority state that outlaws Judaism and imposes sharia law. How's that for a result? Can Israel afford to act as if your assumption would be correct, given the consequences to them if it isn't?

Quote:And yes of course I am against any acts of violence.

That was not the question I asked, but okay. So you are against violence even in response to violence against you?

Quote:Attacking any civilian population centers is a crime.

Attacking valid military targets is not a crime. Locating military targets in the middle of civilian population centers is a crime. What do you do with the enemy locates significant military targets within civilian population centers? Geneva Conventions say you are off the hook in that case. What say you? What do you do? Sing Kumbaya and hope the other side comes around?

Peaceful protests work when people of good intentions come around to the truth. That's not the situation with the Palestinians, or at least to date there has been no indication that it is.

You keep saying that they swear to eradicate you. That is Hamas. Again I show you links where they enjoy less that 20% support. Are you just not educated on this? Why do you keep stating things that are not true? Link to where a majority of Palestinians want to see Israel eradicated.

Start there.

Now in its current Apartheid form I would want to see it eradicated too. Non violently and peacefully where it does not flout international law and is at peace wth its neighbors. In its current state it is a rogue nation. Sharia law???? That kind of talk works on rednecks and people with IQ's less than 90. Let's deal in the real world.

How do you engage in a one state solution with an opposite side whose sworn goal is to eradicate you?


Please provide links