Palestinian Sheikh : We Need a Caliph with His Finger on a Nuclear Button, Like Kim Jong-un

Oslo is as dead as this critter.



We may as well move on to discussing "now." Hamas in Gaza brings a new factor to the table.

Educated Palestinians also know Israeli Jews typically support a Jewish state even if they also support Palestinians having their own state. If they feel Israel's existence deprives them of land inside Israel (i.e. not Gaza or the West Bank), then there is a difficult to resolve clash.

Is it entirely Israel's fault? What about the three no's? Is there reason to believe the Palestinians could have had the second map (UN Partition Plan 1947) forever?

The Christian right didn't make surrounding Arab states attack Israel in 1948.

All well and good, but the deed is done. The question becomes, "What now?" Palestinians are worse off that they were in 1947 and 1967.

 

I guess it depends on what you define as "terrorism"; It pretty much sounds like a synonym for "muslim" coming from you. Like if they were one unique, integral party.

Let's just say that "time we finished once and for all" have some kind of assured finality about it. Please dispel the illusion and tell us what you had in mind when you wrote it, then.

 

Nope. I quoted you in my post 227. The link of your quote is not working, because your post has been removed.

 

There was nothing egregious there. Some overly sensitive soul much have got their panties in a bunch over it and filed a complaint. If there's anything wrong with it, please tell me.

 

It got removed buddy,.. because it was.

I can't quote your deleted post.

 

I see to you there is no problem in reneging on a deal.

Hamas in Gaza brings nothing new to the table. Is this supposed to be your reason for supporting the continued killing of Palestinians, the continued taking of their land, the continued taking of their resources, the continued support for Western Colonisation of Palestine or is it with you the continued desire for Armagedon. Where are your values? The EU had done what people do in such situations with the difficulties Hamas was presenting given their as it happens correct assessment, that Israel was not going to deliver on Oslo. The EU had arranged for people experienced in Conflict Resolution to work with Hamas. The man working with them was ex MI6 and extremely experienced in this work. The work was going well and he believed that the possibility from Hamas's side of a workable solution was there.

But of course there was 911 and its aftermath. Then Bush convinced Blair who people say is a Christian Zionist to work to stop the EU from doing its work as one of the 4 and instead to pull its people out and allow Israel to do exactly what she wanted. Instead of as before complaining about Israel mass destruction and killing of Palestinians they would allow Israel to use one of the best armies in the world against a largely defenceless people. They would also allow Israel to build more jails to keep political activists in without trial and they would allow Israel to assassinate Palestinians whenever she liked.

All this does not bother you. Clearly the reason it doesn't not bother you is because the Palestinians are not white or Western. It must be either that or because you are a Christian Zionist. Nothing else makes sense. You are giving the Israelis a free hand to colonise the Palestinians land and kill as many Palestinians as they want and you expect the Palestinians just to say 'bring it on'. You clearly do not see the Palestinians as human beings worthy of the same respect and rights as white Western people.

Permanent Temporariness
Alistair Crook Yes to an agreement

This is just lame excuses. The Palestinians agreed to give up 78% of Historic Palestine and accept only 22% of their homeland at Oslo.

what are your three No's. I have heard of these with the Syrians but not the Palestinians.

The second map is the UN partition plan. This gave to the zionists who were only 33% of the population mostly new immigrants owning only 6% of the land, 55% of Palestine. The British archives say that the Palestinians were willing to do a deal but that the Zionists would only accept something which was so much in their favour that it would be impossible for the Palestinians to agree to, which this was. The third map is the map which shows the additional land that Israel got while fighting an apparent war of 'defence' in 48. This is the land which the Palestinians agreed to accept at Oslo. The fourth illustrates what you clearly are supporting and no doubt is worse today - that is Israel reneging on Oslo and colonising all of Palestine having kept the people there under Military rule without rights for 50 years.

Did I say they did? 200,000 Palestinian Muslims and Christians had already been either ethnically cleansed or terrified out of Palestine and many many killed and raped before the Arabs half heartedly came in - with some arrangements already made with Israel.

https://www.juancole.com/2010/03/map-story-of-palestinian-nationhood.html

What now if the American Christian Zionists get what they want is Armageddon. Iran is also in their talk, with nuclear war there. All Jews must be put in Israel. This I imagine will happen if the extreme Right gain control in the US and some parts of Europe. They will then deport their Jews to Israel. They will not get all the Jews there because not all of Europe will go to the far right regardless of how bad it gets and not all of the US will support this regardless of how bad this gets.

Then the idea is for two thirds of all Jews to die and the other third seem to become Christian. This makes what Christian Zionists believe are people lacking spirits become Christian and I think they all run off to rapture ridiculously imagining any Divine Being there may be would believe they should be anywhere but any hell there might be.

 

Muslims believed Jews were people of the book and therefore not to be harmed. Amateurs generally Muslim haters who wrongly read the Koran get what they want and incidentally not that different to ISIS types given that they both are reading it in a dip literally for what they want and ignore everything else.

I have already quoted some of the stuff Christians had and have about chasing Jews around rocks and everywhere else who according to the Christian Right are 'dead' people without spirits. Hitler apparently was doing Gods work for him given that these spiritless Jews refused to obey Hertzl and go to Palestine where God has ordained all Jews should be put. Of course the Christian Right are just like ISIS and Muslim haters they read their bibles literally but not even all of it literally where the need for conflicts would be seen and addressed but in pick and choose. I have read that the Christian Right just pay attention to Revelations because it is the one book in which Jesus is apparently violent....and these are the people Trump brought in his Jerusalem declaration to please. God help the world.

 

The Supreme Court ruled Nazis could March at Skokie, IL because, as deplorable as they are, even ****ing Nazis have the right of free speech. Censorship by government is bad because it can too easily be abused. Even with this, our government does impose censorship on some things and non-victims behaviors (e.g. Women topless in public). As such, although I may disagree with them, I support the right of all people to free speech. You obviously do not by your repeated comments on the subject. The very one you quoted in post #227.

 

Is there something to be gained by establishing how both sides violated Oslo?

They bring an unwillingness to negotiate. For example, they would never agree to Oslo.

I thought you were better than making this sort of misrepresentation of my position. My bad.

My values are grounded in the reality that there are millions of both Palestinians and Israeli Jews who know no other home and have nowhere else to go. I don't see them happily living in a single country, so I support a two-state solution.

What on earth is all this about? Hamas has made it clear they're not interested in a two-state solution. That's the new factor they bring to the table--assuming they're even willing to talk about something other than the terms of Israel's surrender.

A completely unprincipled charge. (BTW, Palestinians are Caucasian, for what it's worth to you.)

I'm a Christian? ROFL. I stopped believing in an Imaginary Friend when I was nine.

More outrageous nonsense about my position. It seems as though you're trying to be as offensive as possible.

A lot of the additional territory given to Israel was the Negev Desert. The Palestinians got a reasonably fair share of the arable land in Israel.

Oh, please. I've said I think the third map is what should be the border (with adjustments). Israel has a number of settlements just east of the Green Line that could be swapped for territory on the Israeli side of the Green Line today. I've also said I think there should be a Palestinian land bridge between the West Bank and Gaza.

You'll have to take all this insane stuff up with the religious types.

 

How about this.....
If you do not like the rules from this forum which you do not own, than you're totally free to take your business elsewhere and/or start your own forum with your rules. So far it all looks like we got this teenager not accepting the "this is my house, and so my rules" theme that adults know all to well.

Not true. The western world complete gerrymandered the lands in such a way that the Jews would be in a tiny majority in Israel, with an utterly massive Palestinian minority. Massive parts of Israel would even had a majority of Palestinians in it. While Palestine would hardly have any Jews. The entire principle of having the RIGHT to self-determination, part of international law, got trashed.

If the Palestinians would get their reasonably fair share, than they would have had the bulk of what is now Israel today. That's why the war broke out. That is why the Jews ethnic cleansed the Palestinian civilians since they wanted Israel to be a Jewish homeland... not some country with almost 50% Arabs. And it is so, since the Jews still refuse to accept those civilians to return home to their properties... because it would culturally change their country. It's echoed all over.

 

How about this.

I don't reply to those who lie about me, make personal attacks against me, support terrorism or other nefarious deplorable actions. Have a nice day sir.

As for the topic, there is no doubt in my mind that the Palestinians would commit suicide as a culture in order to kill Jews if they ever acquired a nuclear weapon.

 

So, you do really think they are some kind of "hive mind" species, whose sole goal in existance is the obliteration of another, more worthy people?

Here then is an excellent opportunity to straighten things out: please explain what exactly you had in mind when you wrote this (if you think it's publishable):

Thanks in advance.

 

Now don't get paranoid; Not only I got a deleted post too, but ratting on others really isn't my style. Just ask any mod. I am not intimidated by my opponents' PoV, and I believe in freedom of expression (which was, IIRC, the sense of the deleted post). That's my creed and my infractions, that I wear like Battle Honors, are witnesses to it. Besides, If I were to delete one of your posts as a moderator, it would have been this one, more to protect you than to punish you:

Now, about that "Final Solution" of yours... Do you regret having written it, or are you afraid to elaborate on your toughts?

 

So I guess I'm in the last category, yes?

According to you, is this...

... reason enough for a nation to get nukes?

 

sorry this went off on its own. I am having trouble with this computer. If I have time I will put it up in proper form.

 

That is actually what the Jews are doing. They drive civilian Arabs from their lands, to thieve them. Anybody who objects get killed.

 

Part 1

By all means say how the Palestinians destroyed Oslo. Of course there is something to be gained by looking at things honestly and that is more true with Oslo than with just about anything. Jabotinsky knew the Palestinians would fight for their homeland. To imagine they would not is to believe they are totally different from everyone else alive. He knew they would fight.However he also knew that a time would come when they realised they were not getting their homeland back. They would realise that there was nothing they could do to achieve that. When that time came he believed, they could come to a peaceful agreement - and that time came with Oslo. The Palestinians knew they were never going to get their homeland back. They knew that Israel was here to stay. They accepted that Israel had 78% of their ancient homeland and that they could keep it as a State called Israel which they accepted.They said they would accept only 22% of their ancient homeland given as a viable congruous state.It is massively important that this be looked at as Israel has not delivered. Instead she has taken more of Palestine through the wall and continuous settlement building. She now intends on taking 62% of the West Bank and believes that the Palestinians will accept as a 'State' a couple of bantustans in the West bank, a village outside Jerusalem as their capital and Gaza which is unliveable as well as some of the Sinai which is full of ISIS types who hate the Palestinians in particular Hamas. Of course this is important to discuss unless you are in agreement that there should be One State with citizenship and equal rights for all but even within that yes it is important to be honest about OSLO - that any intention Israel had of delivering died with Rabin and that it simply became a way of getting the Palestinians to do Israel's dirty work while she created more facts on the ground until she is in the position she is in now.

This is not true. Wikileaks reveals how Abbas was willing to throw in the kitchen sink and Israel would have none of it. They spent 20 years discussing Oslo. Twenty years while this Israelis were deliberately expanding their settlements and getting what they call 'facts on the ground' to take over all of Palestine.

All I have seen of your position is that whatever is said you turn it over to make Israel the one who must win. My question was genuine. It clearly must depend on either interest or values. Interest would be that you were a Zionist either Christian or Jewish. If you do not have a personal interest in Israel getting her way then clearly there is some other reason. The most likely would be either a guilt from the holocaust or that you have no problem with Westerners Colonising another people's country. There may be other reasons but those are what has comes to mind. Without re reading you seem to occasionally appear to recognise the position of the Palestinians to some extent but then straight away you make it so that they are in the wrong and the Israelies deserve everything.That is what I remember without relooking. To be honest I had decided not to engage with you as I thought it would be a waste of time. I can't remember what made me change my mind.

The two state solution is dead. It is dead because with settlement expansion there is no longer any ability to create a contiguous, viable state for the Palestinians and even if the desire was there in some Israelis it would create civil war. Of course it is something one can always say to the Israelis, if you do not want one state then get back to 67 lines and there can still be two states. However to continue talking about two states when what is being offered is what is being offered is not being honest.

Whether you like it or not almost all Israelis are immigrants of the last 100 years. As such they threw the people who had been living on the land for up to 5000 years out of their homeland . Although this was not recognised either in 48 or 67 this is now recognised as a crime against humanity. Israel has done wrongs. However people have been living there for some time and an Israeli state is accepted - behind 67 lines but that with small swaps of land is the Palestinians final offer

Khaled Mashal – (note how he says his position which seems to be what you think but then goes on to say that they are however realistic and pragmatic. I get the feeling you have heard the first bit before but not the second.)

https://www.opendemocracy.net/manuela-paraipan/voice-of-hamas

I have noticed in this thread that you have spoken more than once about a two state solution. TBH I have thought that it was possibly due to ignorance of the situation.

 

Part 2

This is quite untrue. I suggest you read above. That was written in 2010 so there is nothing new in Hamas having been willing to accept a two state solution. As I have said though given Israel's settlement expansion Oslo is dead making one state the only possible solution. In the EU Paliestine/Israeli Journal round table of 2009 they made it absolutely clear that if Israel did not pull back on her settlements - that is not just not make more but start dis-manteling them then the only possibility left would be One State. They also suggested trying to get some financial penalties on the companies in the US who were funding this settlement building. I tried many times to get Israelis to understand if they did not stop they would lose the possibility of their 'Jewish State' but no one paid any heed.Why did they not pay heed? Because the States were supporting Israel not honouring Oslo and the people who were doing that most were the Christian Zionists and of course the neo cons. Israel had everything to gain and Israel believed nothing to lose by continuing her settlements and to hell with the 2 States. It is understandable they did this. Most of those who were there at the beginning and who formed the main part of earlier peace efforts died.Younger people were brought up in school with propaganda. When the 'New Historians' came out, the people who had been there at the beginning said they knew. They had always known. There was a brief point there when Israel might have turned. For a short while I think they actually studied the new Historians in school. However that soon stopped and children were not taught the truth which was known and the Archives from which the New Historians had got their material were again shut tight. Most of them left the country.

However I see you were going crazy about my mentioning the work which Alistaire crook did with Hamas with your above quote as if it were not true. You were supplied with a link where the man himself is speaking so if you wish to enlarge your knowledge I suggest you read that.

Now this makes you present yourself as a completely disingenuous person. You were provided with a link which details this to you by the man who was working with them. You are the person making unprincipled charges, Very much so when you were provided with the link.

Well you had better tell Israel about that as she is terrified with Ahed Mamimi looking white that she cannot belong to her Palestinian family. European Jews certainly were white – most of them very much so. Have you never heard any racist Israelis talking about the Palestinians and how they have black blood in them but European Jews do not. It is very much a thing about those 'backward' arabs being less that Western Whites. Has been all the time.

Yet, the Negev was full of people. Why on earth would a desert be a problem to a people who from the beginning were known to be able to make the desert bloom. They are now by the way and in the process deporting the Bedouin and destroying their villages and even taking away their Israeli citizenship. By 2010 Israel had made it impossible for Gaza to work 30% of her arable land. People trying to work the land are frequently are shot. In the West Bank of course also problems and as far as water is concerned, Israel takes it for herself and her settlers. Where West Bank water goes by pipes to even outposts, Palestinians need to collect it on their roofs or go and collect it themselves and carry it home regardless of how old they are - or else buy it. Last time I looked Palestinians were well short of the minimum the WHO considers necessary for water whereas of course settlers can have five baths a day. This has also created a difficulty in agriculture. They cannot water their fields. Now if they leave a field for I think it is a year, not working on it either because they do not have the water it needs or because they are terrified off by attacks from settlers, Israel takes the land and says it is hers. There are I think some laws going through now which will make it very much easier for Israel to take land from the Palestinians.

You believe that giving 55% of Palestine to immigrants who made up around 33% of the population and owned only 6% of the land was just. Well you have told me where you stand. 100 years before Jews were about 4% of the population. A fair number of them Retired Europeans who were living in Jerusalem which was not much more than a village at the time. The rest indigenous Jews many of whom did not go with the Zionists.

However you I am sure know as well as I do that Israel had no intention of just having the 55% of the land which – after much bribery and blackmail got the UN vote in their favour. Had not the British decided to go in with Jordan, Israel likely would have taken what she took in the 67 war then. However deals with Golda Meir before, agreed that Jordan would take the West Bank 'for the time being'. Of course Jerusalem was supposed to be International so that was not discussed but when going in finding Zionists fighting in Jerusalem and throwing Christians and Muslims out, Jordan and Britain decided to take a bit too – East Jerusalem which is to be the Palestinians capital in any genuine two state solution or agreement about Federations or whatever.

It is also understandable that if Zionists wanted a Jewish State the State offered by the UN was not going to provide that. Even at that time some people think it had more arabs than Jews but if it did not it would soon. That does make it understandable that they would want to get arabs out. However it does not make it right. It was an impossible dream. A dream created in the time of colonisation but put in when one of the strong changes which was decided after WW2 was that colonialism created massive problems and the US promised to help people working for freedom from this and self determination. That is one of the main reasons the US State Department was against the so called 2 State Solution.

In addition, in the UN'S suggestion and central to it was that they would share an economic system. The belief being that just as this kept the UK together it would keep the two states from war. Of course nothing of this sort was ever considered because two states were never really considered. The UK's help to Jordan to take the West Bank was also to prevent a Palestinian State.

No that was not clear to me at all. You asked some stupid question as to whether I really expected them to get the UN 2 States back. (map 2)

There is absolutely no way Israel will accept what you put above. Again you must either be being disingenuous or have very little knowledge on this. I clearly cannot understand why you are saying this. I have explained I think quite a lot above why it is not possible. However I will say again. Israeli settlements make any two state solution impossible and if one was tried it would cause civil war in Israel. Israel has no intention on this. Bennett made his position clear at the Saban Forum 3 or 4 years ago. He said there was no possibility of a state for the Palestinians. They would need to be happy with little autonomous spots. He intended annexing area C (62% of the West Bank) At the time the people there who were Israel's strongest American Supporters asked him if he really expected the world to accept that the Palestinians were to be the only people in the world to live for ever without the right of self determination. Bennett said yes, it just takes a little psychological work and they will come round to it and to a large extent that is now so – though the actual formula a bit different as I put it above. Last year I read in the New York Times that this is generally accepted in the US so where you have been I do not know. You are talking about an old idea which has not been a possibility for years and which now almost everybody is willing to be honest about and stop pretending.

There are lots of ways to be dishonest and one of them is to be economical with the truth. Without the American Religious Right, Israel almost certainly would have gone a different way. As it is now it very well might end up in Armageddon. To ignore that till after it happens is to be complicit in allowing it to happen. Christian Zionists and the US Government and people have done Israel no favours in the long run. As I said Trumps announcement of the Jerusalem Declaration was to please the American Christian Right. It is for anyone who does not go with what they stand for to be extremely concerned especially now they are in your Government creating the America they want.

 

That fist map makes no sense. In 1946 both Jews and Muslims were "Palestinian". I suspect the first map shows land owned privately by Jews who reside in Israel, and then everything else is just labeled "Palestinian Land"

 

Palestinians have never agreed to a two state solution. The charters for both the PA and Hamas explicitly reject the two state solution.

 

A second reason it's bogus is because there was never a country named "Palestine". It was "the Palestine Territories" ruled by the Brits after they carved up the Ottoman Empire with the French following WWI.

 

Agreed. The Palestinians have become a death cult who would rather die killing Jews than live with them.

This is part of the problem:


If a handful of Arab nations weren't sitting on top of 56% of the World's oil reserves we wouldn't even be talking about this. No oil, no money. No money, no rampant Islamic terrorism.

 

Fine. You start by saying what the Palestinians did to violate Oslo so I can see you're not as biased as you appear to be.

A completely dishonest claim.

My favorite dishonest and utterly absurd statement of yours (to me):

"Is this supposed to be your reason for supporting the continued killing of Palestinians, the continued taking of their land, the continued taking of their resources, the continued support for Western Colonisation of Palestine or is it with you the continued desire for Armagedon."​

I don't have an Imaginary Friend. I told you that already.

I wasn't born when the Holocaust happened.

Yet another stupid claim.

No need to "engage" with me. I'll just comment on your posts as a I see fit and leave it at that.

Israeli settlements in the West Bank are typically very close to the Green Line. With land swaps, Israel could retain most of their settlements (some further inside the West Bank would have to be removed) and the Palestinians could have a contiguous territory that would encompass an area the size of the West Bank.

No, whether you like it or not, 70% of Israeli Jews were born in Israel.

The two-state solution is in jeopardy, but it isn't dead yet.

 

You made it clear you don't want a two-state solution, so why waste your time?

You made this comment to me and at that point I wrote you off:

"Is this supposed to be your reason for supporting the continued killing of Palestinians, the continued taking of their land, the continued taking of their resources, the continued support for Western Colonisation of Palestine or is it with you the continued desire for Armagedon."​

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2000/05/000509003653.htm​

You're a conclusion seeking premises.

It doesn't matter what happened a century ago. The fact is that 70% of Jews in Israel were born there. They know no other home and many have nowhere else to go. Give it a rest.

Perhaps it's because I'm not an ideologue like yourself.

Israelis are in the driver's seat. If they want a two-state solution, they can make it happen, even over the objections of the Palestinians.

 

No doubt.