The Maps of Israeli Settlements That Shocked Barack Obama

[KBE6EKCTAH_CCP]

I don't like Israel, but the Palestinians have been acting like fools for decades. Coupled with the neighbors refusing to take in any real refugees, and the problem seems to be purposeful. Arabs stop being stupid, and you can get a deal. But they won't and can't, so honestly I hope Israel slowly squeezes them out

Arabs individually are eloquent and extremely capable people.

The problem with them is that their collective IQ drops massively as soon as there are more than 2 of them together. They just can't get along.

 

[Bloodworth]

lol @ Israel "progressing" as a civilization.

They're winning in the same way that North Korea was during the Cold War, i.e. they are completely dependent on foreign aid, arms, and technology. Hell, their entire establishment was based on having 70% of the world's military at their back as a way to pass the moral buck onto the Palestinians for the genocide of Europeans.

Doesn't matter how, right now there is a clear winner.

 

[ElKarlo]

Arabs individually are eloquent and extremely capable people.

The problem with them is that their collective IQ drops massively as soon as there are more than 2 of them together. They just can't get along.

This all day. Well the collective part. They just can't seem to put together much of anything that isn't built on the back of tons of oil money

 

[snakedafunky]

That's a fucked up statement.
1) Hamas runs many Palestinian territories but they are a group, not the whole population. So you can't say that "Palestinians deserve it".
2) Look at the situation Palestinians have to deal with. I can't think of any group on earth (expect perhaps Canadians) who wouldn't resort to armed resistance in this situation. These people have had their shit pushed in by the international community to extents unimaginable.

Fair enough but that stuff is going on for 70 years. If it weren't for a large portion of the population to support the Hamas and other violent groups. You would have had peaceful movement within Palestine by now.

Resorting to armed resistance is fine but it is not working for them.
They are doing it for 70 years and have lost every battle they ever fought. At some point, you would have seen well this is not working. But they can't because their religious delusion is not allowing them to follow a peaceful strategy that would mean victory in the long term.

That being said I am aware that there are a lot of outside influences. But still, 70 years is a long time to come to your senses.

 

[Voodoo_Child906]

OK, you concede AS FACT my points.

Now, your quote wasn't really that. You said:
‘67 borders aside, you recognize Israel’s sovereign right to the land they are on now right?

What do you mean by "the land they are on now right?"

It was tricky as you did not describe that? Are you speaking of the entirety of historic Palestine? Are you including all of Jerusalem or a part of it? Does this include a second state? A state within a state? Are you asking in reference to a democratic state or a Jewish theocracy?

Totally vague, dude.

Do you see at least how this is tricky and no matter what either of us believe how that won't change?

What do you believe is the justified borders of the Jewish state in the region. 67, 48 or would you prefer the state was obliterated and all land be given to the Arabs?

 

[ocfightfan]

I would love to respond to both of these points. I really would and to be honest, they are tricky.

That said, do you both concede as fact everything you quoted from my post? If not, we need to start there... for clarity.

I do not concede. You did not give facts, just hypotheticals, and accusations. And the truth is that you do not need me to concede your claims to answer my question.

1. There have been Jews living in the land for over 3000 years, often in very small numbers, but still there. The so called Palestinians are invaders and squatters some of whom have lived there hundreds of years, and some of who came in because the Jews created job opportunities. At no point was there ever an independent country called Palestine, nor do the so called Palestinian people have a unique language and culture. They are Arabs and the palestinian national identity was invented to disenfranchise the Jews.

2. The reason that the Palestinians are in the position they are in is because they have repeatedly attacked Israel or sided with Arab countries doing so, and have consistently responded to peace deals with violence.

3. The Jewish people were sick of being fucked around by the world while the Arabs periodically slaughtered them so they declared independence. They have repeatedly said yes to peace deals, even ones that would be very advantageous to the Arabs and disadvantageous to them.

I do not believe that the palestinians want their own country or peace. They just want to make sure that Israel is gone and the Jews can't be independent if they are allowed to survive at all.

And now I would like for you to stop dancing around and answer my question. If you get your way what do you think will reasonably happen? Peace and prosperity? Jews living and having authentic equal rights in an Arab majority country?

 

[abiG]

@Voodoo_Child906, @ocfightfan

Neither of you have responded to any questions or points. This series of moving goalposts goes nowhere. I honestly do not believe that either of you know anything relevant on this topic. Your posts speak to this.

VC,

1) The zionists will NEVER accept what I think you are referring to as the '48 borders. If you understood this topic at all, you would know this.

2) Once you start talking about the '67 borders, you must keep in mind a couple things. There is no contiguous Palestine, for one, and we are talking transferring occupied land seized in war. Not only is that in itself clearly illegal under all known international law, it's beyond that as it is known as what we call a 'War Crime' and the regime responsible would need to be tried at the Hague for example, where the world could conduct something similar to the Nuremberg trials. Nuremberg, coincidentally, is where much of the international law in this area comes from.

3) It is not a choice between a 'Jewish state' and the state being obliterated and all land be given to the Arabs... that's just stupid and further illustrates how lost you are on this topic.

ocF,

Your post comes from a script. It is known as 'hasbara.' Israel spends a fortune on creating an image for the world that has nothing to do with reality and tries to make herself seem like the poor, innocent victim, when nothing could be further from the truth.

That whole thing is based on the false notion and the early zionist mantra of "a land without a people for a people without a land." Beyond that, it is abhorrent to deny the existence of these people, mostly Arab-Muslims, some Arab-Christians and even a small group of Arab-Jews.

If you honestly believe that Palestine never existed and these people are an Arab talking point, then you are crazy. Go read the TREATY OF PEACE WITH TURKEY SIGNED AT LAUSANNE which was signed on July 24, 1923. For reference, he document is more commonly called "the Treaty of Lausanne" And then go read the Palestinian citizenship order in council of 1925. The dates are important.

And if you're not a reader, which I'm sensing, but still care to understand how wrong your contention truly is, then take a few minutes and check this out:

 

[Voodoo_Child906]

@Voodoo_Child906, @ocfightfan

Neither of you have responded to any questions or points. This series of moving goalposts goes nowhere. I honestly do not believe that either of you know anything relevant on this topic. Your posts speak to this.

VC,

1) The zionists will NEVER accept what I think you are referring to as the '48 borders. If you understood this topic at all, you would know this.

2) Once you start talking about the '67 borders, you must keep in mind a couple things. There is no contiguous Palestine, for one, and we are talking transferring occupied land seized in war. Not only is that in itself clearly illegal under all known international law, it's beyond that as it is known as what we call a 'War Crime' and the regime responsible would need to be tried at the Hague for example, where the world could conduct something similar to the Nuremberg trials. Nuremberg, coincidentally, is where much of the international law in this area comes from.

3) It is not a choice between a 'Jewish state' and the state being obliterated and all land be given to the Arabs... that's just stupid and further illustrates how lost you are on this topic.

ocF,

Your post comes from a script. It is known as 'hasbara.' Israel spends a fortune on creating an image for the world that has nothing to do with reality and tries to make herself seem like the poor, innocent victim, when nothing could be further from the truth.

That whole thing is based on the false notion and the early zionist mantra of "a land without a people for a people without a land." Beyond that, it is abhorrent to deny the existence of these people, mostly Arab-Muslims, some Arab-Christians and even a small group of Arab-Jews.

If you honestly believe that Palestine never existed and these people are an Arab talking point, then you are crazy. Go read the TREATY OF PEACE WITH TURKEY SIGNED AT LAUSANNE which was signed on July 24, 1923. For reference, he document is more commonly called "the Treaty of Lausanne" And then go read the Palestinian citizenship order in council of 1925. The dates are important.

And if you're not a reader, which I'm sensing, but still care to understand how wrong your contention truly is, then take a few minutes and check this out:

I'm willing to discuss that, my first point was left unanswered though. Are you willing to accept that your statement that "Arafat accepted a 2 state solution" is nuanced and had details that should be clarified before that statement is accepted?

 

[abiG]

I'm willing to discuss that, my first point was left unanswered though. Are you willing to accept that your statement that "Arafat accepted a 2 state solution" is nuanced and had details that should be clarified before that statement is accepted?

Fine, but the point starts with the zionists stating that the Palestinians have never accepted peace, their own state or Israel. That in itself is patently false as they did accept two states twice. I covered this already. See post# 21.

 

[Voodoo_Child906]

Fine, but the point starts with the zionists stating that the Palestinians have never accepted peace, their own state or Israel. That in itself is patently false as they did accept two states twice. I covered this already. See post# 21.

In 1988 what were the terms and borders of the 2 state solution that the Palestinians accepted? The details are just as important.

 

[Rygu]

Israel bless.

 

[abiG]

What were the terms and borders of the 2 state solution that the Palestinians accepted? The details are just as important.

You don't do any of your own research, fair?

In 1988, the Palestinians accepted resolutions 181, 242 and 338.

By 1993, it was far worse for Palestine. It boiled down to the zionists leaving Gaza and Jericho, allowing for Palestinian self governance in these areas and it put a time-frame in place for working out the questions still left unanswered. This would include things like Jerusalem, the refugees and the illegal settlements.

Both sides signed "Letters of Mutual recognition." The entire process was geared towards a permanent peace deal. As far as land, resolutions 242 and 338, mentioned above, would function as the base of this permanent settlement.

 

[Cuauhtemoc]

I don't like Israel, but the Palestinians have been acting like fools for decades. Coupled with the neighbors refusing to take in any real refugees, and the problem seems to be purposeful. Arabs stop being stupid, and you can get a deal. But they won't and can't, so honestly I hope Israel slowly squeezes them out

Why should they opt for a deal when they are on the right? That's what Israel wants, a compromise. They had nothing to start with, so they're winning with this compromise, while the palestinians are losing.
Now, on the other hand, they have to be pragmatic and realize the israelis are strong and they're weak.

 

[ultramanhyata]

 

[Voodoo_Child906]

You don't do any of your own research, fair?

Of course I do my research, in these discussions I find that people talk past each other by not first clarifying their terms and definitions before hand. I want to avoid that here.

In 1988, the Palestinians accepted resolutions 181, 242 and 338.

242 and 338 recognized the right of all states in the region to exist within secure boundaries. When pressed Arafat said:

"The PNC accepted two states, a Palestinian state and a Jewish state, Israel. Is that clear enough?"

Sure but what boundaries, he never answered and with the acceptance of Resolution 181 was he really expecting Israel to agree to 48 borders after 40 years and 3 wars where they defeated 3 different Arab forces?

This was definitely a monumental gesture by Arafat but without terms laid out it stayed a gesture.

By 1993, it was far worse for Palestine. It boiled down to the zionists leaving Gaza and Jericho, allowing for Palestinian self governance in these areas and it put a time-frame in place for working out the questions still left unanswered. This would include things like Jerusalem, the refugees and the illegal settlements.

Both sides signed "Letters of Mutual recognition." The entire process was geared towards a permanent peace deal. As far as land, resolutions 242 and 338, mentioned above, would function as the base of this permanent settlement.

93 was different as terms were laid out and I sincerely applaud Arafat and Rabin for coming to the table in good faith to hammer out a deal. In the end they could not control their extremists as Israeli settlements continued and Hamas/Islamic Jihad attacks continued. It was quite a site to see Arafat’s honest reaction and sadness to Rabin’s assassination by an extremist Zionist terrorist.

The zionists will NEVER accept what I think you are referring to as the '48 borders. If you understood this topic at all, you would know this.

It is not a choice between a 'Jewish state' and the state being obliterated and all land be given to the Arabs... that's just stupid and further illustrates how lost you are on this topic.

I'm asking what would you see as the justified borders for Israel-Palestine.

 

[abiG]

Sure but what boundaries, he never answered and with the acceptance of Resolution 181 was he really expecting Israel to agree to 48 borders after 40 years and 3 wars where they defeated 3 different Arab forces?

This was definitely a monumental gesture by Arafat but without terms laid out it stayed a gesture.

This is why I question your research. You source nothing and make these inane statements.

Read the paragraph that begins with: Mr. Arafat also repeated....
https://www.nytimes.com/1988/12/15/world/right-of-all-parties-accepted-by-arafat-901988.html

Beyond that, three wars of AGGRESSION! This brings us right back to Nuremberg and trying these war criminals in front of the world!

The charges in the Indictment that the defendants planned and waged aggressive wars are charges of the utmost gravity. War is essentially an evil thing. Its consequences are not confined to the belligerent states alone, but affect the whole world.

To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.
--Judge Norman Birkett, on the Tribunal's final judgment.

 

[Voodoo_Child906]

This is why I question your research. You source nothing and make these inane statements.

Read the paragraph that begins with: Mr. Arafat also repeated....
https://www.nytimes.com/1988/12/15/world/right-of-all-parties-accepted-by-arafat-901988.html

"Mr. Arafat also repeated, as he said Tuesday, that the Palestine Liberation Organization now fully accepts United Nations Security Council Resolution 181 of 1947, which provides for separate independent Palestinian and Jewish states in the Middle East, as well as Resolutions 242 and 338. European Support for Arafat"

Isn't that what I said: "with the acceptance of Resolution 181 was he really expecting Israel to agree to 48 borders"

Beyond that, three wars of AGGRESSION! This brings us right back to Nuremberg and trying these war criminals in front of the world!

The charges in the Indictment that the defendants planned and waged aggressive wars are charges of the utmost gravity. War is essentially an evil thing. Its consequences are not confined to the belligerent states alone, but affect the whole world.

To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.
--Judge Norman Birkett, on the Tribunal's final judgment.

3 Wars of Aggression?? What are you talking about, a case can be made for 67 as they attacked first but Nasser did blockade of the Straits of Tiran which is considered as an act of war. 48 and 73 though, are you serious?

Now what about my other points and I'm particular curious as to this question I asked:

"I'm asking what would you see as the justified borders for Israel-Palestine."

 

[abiG]

"Mr. Arafat also repeated, as he said Tuesday, that the Palestine Liberation Organization now fully accepts United Nations Security Council Resolution 181 of 1947, which provides for separate independent Palestinian and Jewish states in the Middle East, as well as Resolutions 242 and 338. European Support for Arafat"

Isn't that what I said: "with the acceptance of Resolution 181 was he really expecting Israel to agree to 48 borders"

Sigh...
as well as Resolutions 242 and 338

 

[Voodoo_Child906]

Sigh...
as well as Resolutions 242 and 338

http://reut-institute.org/Publication.aspx?PublicationId=541

Extent of Israeli withdrawal - The first article of Resolution 242 is an object of controversy because of differences in wording between the English and the French versions of the text. The English version talks about Israeli withdrawal "from territories...", while the French version talks about Israeli withdrawal "from the territories" (des territories...). Thus, the addition of the word "the" in the French version implies that Israel is required to withdraw from all the occupied territories.

Now, on to my other points and questions... can you address them please.

 

[Kindacrazy]

If its true that Obama's administration was unaware of this reality until late in his presidency then that displays a staggering incompetence on their part.