If no Palestinian state then what??

If you don't know the history of the area and you refuse to look it up there is no common ground for discussion.

 

Fascinating, but seeing as I can back up whatever I say and will answer every single question being asked and am willing to get down to the finest detail over any point one cares to mention I urge anyone to continue duscussion with me and avoid discussion with you as you have very little to offer.

 

Yes.. The whole area was Syria-Palestine as it was called since 500 BC.. and if you recall both Chaucer and Shakespeare referred to Palestine..

By the time I was a Brownie scout we were collecting clothing for Palestinian children and that was 1953.. and there were Christian Palestinians who went to my church.. So WTF are you talking about?

 

That's fairly silly.

 

And numerous times before and after Camp David. They don't really want their own state; they would then have to be responsible for their lil state, not to mention they would lose massive amounts of aid money and have to actually pretend to be somewhat civilized for a change. They would no longer have the faux 'victim' card their fans keep playing for them, and they would have to admit they are no longer entitled to invade Israel and steal everything they can there, the latter being what they really want. We already know giving them another state isn't going to work; they already ahve over 85% of the former Mandate, and that didn't work out either, seems they can't even get along with themselves.

 

they aren't from Jordan.

- - - Updated - - -

this is 100% false, with no supporting evidence.

 

You are dismissing the Palestinians as being a people because there were no Palestinians prior to the 60's (so you claim anyways), but there were no Israelis prior to 1948 so clearly you must agree that no such people exist.

Or are you a hypocrite who won't apply his standards evenly?

 

and look at the same map and tell me wher israel came from.... m

 

I'd love to see the evidence that the 2.1 million Palestinians in the West Bank, came from Jordan during 1949-1967.

 

I have a better question.
Seeing as most progressives opine we shouldn't be allied with Israel anymore nor care about their fate why on earth should we care about the Palestinians? If it's OK in the new era of enlightenment to allow the Jews to be killed outright what's so special about the people trying to kill them?

 

interesting strawman

 

I consider launching rockets into civilian areas an act of war and harbinger of death not a mere political statement. Call me weird that way.

 

Hamas and Israel are at war.

 

Yes. It's called hypocrisy, double standard, etc., but of course the obvious reason is it's just because they're Jews. And if they finally manage to kill all the Jews as per their dream, then they will have to find other people to attribute their abject failure as a 'culture' and kill all of those next, and so on and so on.

 

Have you ever seen the West Bank? Have you ever seen any of the Palestinian refugee camps? Do you remember what it was like before the 1967 war?

 

why is that silly? Would you like to know more?

 

I know alot more than you. In fact most people in this thread do. Plus I've been there. Please feel free to discuss sources to your historical knowledge. And if you don't want to discuss then don't come to our forum.

- - - Updated - - -

Complete rubbish. They didn't reject it numerous times before.

 

What Mello is saying is that the area we know to be Palestine is very close in proximity to Israel. If you 'nuke' Israel, for all intents and purposes you're nuking the Palestinians as well. So if this really is an Arabic uprising, it wouldn't be a prudent uprising to massively kill off your own people. Only so much oppression people can take, before they rise up. If their so-called allies were to nuke them then you'd see all kinds of craziness go off.

 

They aren't going to leave. Quite frankly if they aren't going to make Palestine a state, Israel might as well enact genocide, because otherwise there will be no peace whatsoever anyway.

The only peaceful outcome will be Palestine becomes a state, or Israel wipes them off the map. They aren't going to annex Palestine because they don't want to lose their Jewish majority and no peace will come with Palestine remaining as it is now.

 

Sadly .. I think you are right.. and I think the odds of a Palestinian state are nil..........

 

Part of that is Palestine's fault. The number rule of any negotiation is to at least recognize each other has the right to exist. Palestine as a whole has refused to do that with Israel. And in return Israel continues to annex land that they have agreed not to in the past which pisses off Palestinian people.

I once saw a cartoon in the newspaper many many years ago, that I thought correctly depicted the Israel and Palestine situation. It was a cartoon that showed one Palestinian and one Israeli left after all were gone and the Israeli said "I guess it is just you and me now, we really should try and make peace", and the Palestinian blew himself up with the Israeli. Until Palestinians recognize the BASIC right of Israel to exist, there will be absolutely no peace for them.

I don't agree with how Israel came into existence in the 20th century, but I know well enough you aren't going to get 8 million Israelis to up and move out of the country. Palestine HAS to recognize the basic right of Israel to exists before they get their state.

 

The problem with the Palestinians is they have listened to the ridiculous claims from other nations about how they would support them against Israel. This has given them the illusion that one day they would have enough military force to "push Israel into the sea" so there is a lot of unreasonableness in their stances.

They act like they are negotiating from a position of strength when they have no strength.

 

Likud/Bibi want one state.

too bad it will have 46% Arabs, which means they will rule the country.

 

If you have a version of history that doesn't come from a kook website that has Barak responsible for the collapse of the talks instead of Arafat, I would be interested. I wasn't there at Camp David, so I'm going by what Clinton said.

 

I get that part. I just don't know how much that would go into the consideration of the Iranian leadership for two reasons:

1> Like ISIS, the Iranians have a version of the apocalypse and may just not care. Most liberals don't buy that because they don't understand religion as a motivator. They think all Islamic terrorism is really about poverty or oppression, not God.

2> Shia don't care for Sunni and visa versa. Right know the entire Middle East is in chaos, fighting wars that seem to be pretty close to a Shia/Sunni war (we are on both sides of this apparently). The Iranian leadership may regard collateral damage against Sunni heretics a small price to pay to exterminate Israel.