Fatah and Hamas = Upcoming Palestinian unity government

[webfusion]

The Arab World harbors many minorities, ethnic and religious. These minorites make up about 1/4 of the populations of the Arab States. Among them are the Kurds, the Nilotics, the Berbers, the Druze, the Copts, the Maronites.
The Arabs in their various States rule over these minorities, sometimes discriminating against them moderately, sometimes exercising brutal repression, but everywhere across the MidEast these minorities co-exist without apology or embarrassment on the part of the Arabs.
It would be absurd, even bizarre, to suggest that there is something inherently unjust, or immoral in the Palestinians remaining under the hegemony of the Jewish State.

 

[webfusion]

Are you saying that no population has an inherent right to self-determination, or just that the Palestinians don't?

The universal extension of certain rights strengthens society by promoting peaceful interaction with mutual respect. The "inherent right" is a social fiction we use to promote the idea of universal rights: if we can ingrain into society the idea that certain rights are the "birth-right" of any member of society, then we can avoid wasting energy debating and defending them every time some disgruntled member decides he doesn't like you or me having them, and society maintains the peace.
However, in practice we've seen that a bullet or a machete trumps all rights, so clearly the only thing that keeps our rights intact is our collective willingness to honor and defend them. We mortals may have a touch of the divine, but in our hearts we are beasts.


The Palestinians certainly have inherent rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, but I see nothing to indicate that they have some inherent right to their own State.
Certainly not the "inherent right" to all of Palestine, as an Islamic WAQF.
Which is exactly what they want (not just Gaza and the West Bank).

 

[gdnp]

It would be absurd, even bizarre, to suggest that there is something inherently unjust, or immoral in the Palestinians remaining under the hegemony of the Jewish State.

It would be absurd, even bizarre, to suggest that because other states unjustly and immorally discriminate against their minority populations that it is just or moral for Israel to do so.

 

[webfusion]

It would be absurd, even bizarre, to suggest that because other states unjustly and immorally discriminate against their minority populations that it is just or moral for Israel to do so.

Well, then the Arabs have a big incentive for proposing peace for peace, and stop asking for land. Then, once they give the Israelis a sense of comfort and security within secure borders (and those borders would NOT be the 1949 Lines), we won't feel threatened by the Arabs and we would relax the current restrictions and all discriminatory practices can fade away.
What do you think of that idea?

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5i3lu88EM2QgY-D1nKwKNvGE4QWgw
Israeli Arab Bedouin Attacks Army Base

 

[Thunder]

They have no such inherent right.

And the Jews have a right to a state in Palestine? Please explain this incredible contradiction.

People who have roots going back hundreds of years..do not have a right to a state in this land. People who have zero roots in this land except for possibly 2,000 years ago....have the right to a state.

I am intriugued.

 

[webfusion]

And the Jews have a right to a state in Palestine? Please explain this incredible contradiction.

People who have roots going back hundreds of years..do not have a right to a state in this land. People who have zero roots in this land except for possibly 2,000 years ago....have the right to a state.

I am intriugued.

An 'inherent right" ? No, the Jewish people do not have an inherent right.
However, the rights of different people need to be weighed. Not every group of people on Earth has an inherent right to their own State.

Again this is 2009. Not 0009.

Gaza? They are ruled by Islamists who have not the slightest interest in anything you have proposed. The HAMAS and Jihadists of all stripes can't even agree with their own Palestinian Authority.

East Jerusalem? This boils down basically just to al-Aqsa and the Haram al-Sharif compound. The rest is not very important, and can easily be solved as a side-note.
(by the way, you are aware, I am sure, that the Hebrew University on Mt Scopus, is smack dab in East Jerusalem and is Jewish-owned property, since 1918?)

West Bank? I love this map, it clearly shows what the West Bank really is:
http://strangemaps.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/palestina.jpg

 

[Thunder]

East Jerusalem? This boils down basically just to al-Aqsa and the Haram al-Sharif compound. The rest is not very important, and can easily be solved as a side-note.

Oh, thats good to hear. So Israel should have no problem getting the #### out of the rest of East Jerusalem.

Oh, and by the way, you ARE aware that the Temple was destroyed 2,000 years ago right?

 

[Tin Foil Timothy]

An 'inherent right" ? No, the Jewish people do not have an inherent right.
However, the rights of different people need to be weighed. Not every group of people on Earth has an inherent right to their own State.

So let's get this straight? You just said: "Not every group of people on Earth has an inherent right to their own State." Sounds a bit racist to me?

But you did say: "No, the Jewish people do not have an inherent right."


So could you tell the forum which group has an inherent right to a homeland which do not? And why?


This should be good.


Although I'm expecting the feature presentation to be canceled and replaced by a man dressed in a clown's outfit and spinning plates on sticks while juggling 25 cookies.

 

[gdnp]

Well, then the Arabs have a big incentive for proposing peace for peace, and stop asking for land. Then, once they give the Israelis a sense of comfort and security within secure borders (and those borders would NOT be the 1949 Lines), we won't feel threatened by the Arabs and we would relax the current restrictions and all discriminatory practices can fade away.

I'd say that it would be buying the proverbial pig in a poke. The palestinians give up their right to the land the Israelis confiscated from them to build Jewish-only settlements, and then hope that the Israelis will be so nice as to give it back?

 

[webfusion]

I'd say that it would be buying the proverbial pig in a poke. The palestinians give up their right to the land the Israelis confiscated from them to build Jewish-only settlements, and then hope that the Israelis will be so nice as to give it back?

Yeah, why would anyone expect Israel to return lands captured in 1967?

See: Jordan Treaty (land exchanges, water rights)
See: Egypt Treaty (land return -- including the valuable TABA salient, with a Casino Resort)
See: Gaza Disengagement (land evacuation -- including providing greehouses and Export rights)
See: West Bank (North) Disengagement -- (land evacuation)

The point is this:
Israel will give back lands.
Not ALL the lands over the 1949 Cease Fire Lines, but using a formula of 100% Exchange, the Palestinians are promised to obtain the equivalent of Israeli land for the areas that Israel retains settlements on.

That's the deal.

It has been rejected all along by the Islamists.
You know, the same ones who are in control of Gaza and desire to usurp the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank if given the chance.

 

[Thunder]

That's the deal.

It has been rejected all along by the Islamists.
You know, the same ones who are in control of Gaza and desire to usurp the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank if given the chance.

I hate to say it, but I believe that if Israel offered to give back 97% of the West Bank, including parts of East Jerusalem, there would be a Jewish civil war.

 

[webfusion]

...So Israel should have no problem getting the #### out of the rest of East Jerusalem.

Yep, that's right, and it's exactly what the negotiations are all about -- the future definition of how al-Quds can become the Capital of NewPalestine. The precise drawing of those new lines is already at very advanced stages.

There would be no Jewish Civil War, because we Jews recognize the benefits of Peace.

Just remember, East Jerusalem in 2009 is not the same thing as East Jerusalem in 1949 or even East Jerualem in 1919.
Expecting it to be the same as 1949 is a recipe for disaster.

(by the way, parky76, you have some unanswered qustions in the OTHER thread about palestinian freedom & peace) ---
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4589408#post4589408

 

[The Fool]

There would be no Jewish Civil War, because the Jews are not barbarians.

sigh.....

 

[Thunder]

There would be no Jewish Civil War, because we Jews recognize the benefits of Peace. http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4589408#post4589408

did you see what happened to Rabin?

If Jews are capable of stealing land and ethnically cleansing land, then they are totally capable of civil war.

The true Jew has been dormant for 2,000 years and now he is back.

 

[Thunder]

sigh.....

Funny how he quickly edited this out.

Is he calling the American people barbarians?????

 

[webfusion]

Editing is a normal procedure in the forums. It happens frequently, and allows for revisions of posts that may contain something inappropriate or just for clarification.

I edited the sentence because it could have been interpreted in several ways, and I wanted to clarify. Since it WAS edited, there is no reason to further discuss the non-existent deleted sentence. I am not sure why The Fool insisted on quoting it, since he knew it was altered.

 

[Thunder]

Editing is a normal procedure in the forums. It happens frequently, and allows for revisions of posts that may contain something inappropriate or just for clarification.

I edited the sentence because it could have been interpreted in several ways, and I wanted to clarify. Since it WAS edited, there is no reason to further discuss the non-existent deleted sentence. I am not sure why The Fool insisted on quoting it, since he knew it was altered.

Do you think the American people were barbaric in 1865? Thousands of Jewish-Americans fought in the Civil War you know.

 

[webfusion]

Did you see what happened to Rabin?

I was there that night. Yes.

If Jews are capable of stealing land and ethnically cleansing land, then they are totally capable of civil war.

All people have the capability of turning on their fellows. It is not an exclusively Jewish trait.
(see OP -- Gaza -- HAMAS & FATAH)
http://yalibnan.com/site/archives/2009/02/fatah_rep_hamas.php

The true Jew has been dormant for 2,000 years and now he is back.

And we are better armed.
So, don't 'eff with Israel.
Seems simple enough.

 

[webfusion]

Do you think the American people were barbaric in 1865? Thousands of Jewish-Americans fought in the Civil War you know.

parky76, I have an idea-- why don't you hop into the other thread, and answer the questions that are waiting for you over there?

 

[Thunder]

So, don't 'eff with Israel.

Or $$$$ with their God-given land. Right?

Or $$$$ with their right to give Jewish citizens preferrential treatment over non-Jewish citizens, right?