• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Fayyad walks out of Peace Talks

alexa

DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2009
Messages
4,684
Reaction score
1,340
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Looks like there are serious problems with the Peace Talks

Fayyad left the Ad-Hoc Liaison Committee meeting furious due to an argument he had with Ayalon, who refused to agree to a version of the meeting's summary because it included the words "two states."

Ayalon told Ynet that he suggested instead that it read "two states for two peoples - Jewish and Palestinian," and demanded guarantees that committee donations don't go towards incitement or boycotting of Israeli goods.

The Quartet of Mideast peacemakers shepherding newly started direct Israeli-Palestinian negotiations abruptly canceled a planned a news conference at the United Nations, after failing to reach agreement on who would appear on behalf of the group.
Fayyad storms out of New York meeting with Ayalon
 

TacticalEvilDan

Shankmasta Killa
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 16, 2008
Messages
10,444
Reaction score
4,479
Location
Western NY and Geneva, CH
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Call me clueless, doesn't a statement like that -- either "two states" or "two states for two peoples" -- help the Palestinians?

I would've thought it would be the Israelis who would object to such language.

Could someone straighten me out on this?
 

alexa

DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2009
Messages
4,684
Reaction score
1,340
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Call me clueless, doesn't a statement like that -- either "two states" or "two states for two peoples" -- help the Palestinians?

I would've thought it would be the Israelis who would object to such language.

Could someone straighten me out on this?
I think it has something to do with Israeli Arabs having to swear an oath of loyalty to Israel as a Jewish State or possibly lose their citizenship and also possibly that Israeli Arabs will need to give up their citizenship anyway.

It is a very serious issue.
 

alexa

DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2009
Messages
4,684
Reaction score
1,340
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Well, I could see that as being an issue (I guess), but it didn't even get a mention in this article.
Yes indeed. The next day there is a little more information

"What I say is that if the Palestinians are not willing to talk about two states for two peoples, let alone a Jewish state for Israel, then there's nothing to talk about," Ayalon told the Post in a telephone interview. "And also, I said if the Palestinians mean, at the end of the process, to have one Palestinian state and one bi-national state, this will not happen."
Fayyad storms out of New York meeting with Ayalon
 

CJ 2.0

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 13, 2010
Messages
5,418
Reaction score
1,903
Location
Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Call me clueless, doesn't a statement like that -- either "two states" or "two states for two peoples" -- help the Palestinians?

I would've thought it would be the Israelis who would object to such language.

Could someone straighten me out on this?
Sure. The palestinians are not actually interested in peace. they are interested in gaining tactical advantage through these talks to further their never-changed objective of destroying Israel.

The Palestinians figure that the best way peace talks can "succeed" would be for there to be one Palestinian state in the west bank and gaza, and one state called Israel that has a requirement to accept any Palestinian as a citizen, so that the Palestinians can control Israel too through its democratic institutions.

this is why the Palestinians object to the "two peoples" language, just like they object to recognizing Israel as a state for the Jewish people and refer to the "right of return" as inalienable and not something any Palestinian leader can give away.

The whole thing is a shell game, where the PLO tries to convince the world that they have changed their ultimate objective from when they were founded in 1964, even though they never have. What has changed are the strategies and means used to further that objective.

In any event, they want talks to fail, but only in a way that allows them to make diplomatic mileage off its failure and/or provides them cover to start the next round of violence.

Palestinian behaviour over the past 20 years makes no sense when viewed through the lens of the Palestinians actually wantng independence and peace with Israel. That is not because the facts about Palestinian behaviour are wrong, but because the premise is wrong. When viewed through the lens of the Palestinians never really giving up on their ultimate goal, all of their actions over the past 20 years make perfect sense.

As does this nonsense "walkout" from talks based on the premise of two nation states, one of them belonging to people other than the Palestinians.
 
Last edited:

CJ 2.0

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 13, 2010
Messages
5,418
Reaction score
1,903
Location
Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I think it has something to do with Israeli Arabs having to swear an oath of loyalty to Israel as a Jewish State or possibly lose their citizenship and also possibly that Israeli Arabs will need to give up their citizenship anyway.

It is a very serious issue.
It is also totally convoluted and made up. Both because none of it is true with respect to Israel, and because the Palestinianleadership doesn't actually give a rats ass about the well being of Israeli Arabs. They don't even care about the well being of those under their sovereignty.
 

alexa

DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2009
Messages
4,684
Reaction score
1,340
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
It is also totally convoluted and made up.
I am not sure how much to ignore you. What are you trying to say. What is convoluted. You do not know that Lieberman was elected on the promise of trying to get Loyalty oaths from Israeli Arabs, that is loyalty oaths to a Jewish State when they are not even Jewish. Most States make a point of including their minorities but Israel is doing the opposite. It is his intention to remove the citizenship of all who will not take this oath. That means Israeli Arabs must take an oath to be second Class citizens.

Both because none of it is true with respect to Israel, and because the Palestinianleadership doesn't actually give a rats ass about the well being of Israeli Arabs. They don't even care about the well being of those under their sovereignty.
This is just pure emotion, like throwing eggs. In Post 5 I have given a quote from the Jewish Post that Ayalon is saying there will not be a bi-national state. This is indeed going even further than the 'Loyalty Oath'. That sounds pretty clear to me that he is wanting the Arabs out of Israel.

I am not prepared to continue discussing with you if you do not start talking properly.
 

alexa

DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2009
Messages
4,684
Reaction score
1,340
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Here we go TED a little more information

Avigdor Lieberman is at it again. The right-wing Israeli foreign minister wants the Palestinian Authority (PA) to effectively accept the expulsion of Palestinian-Israelis (or Israeli-Arabs as they are known inside Israel) as part of an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement.

Speaking to a government committee on Sunday, Lieberman said that the guiding principle of the current Palestinian-Israeli negotiations should be the exchange of land and populations and not land for peace. In other words a peace treaty should involve the Israeli annexation of heavily populated Jewish settlements in the West Bank and the PA taking the Palestinian population of Israel into territories under its jurisdiction.

According to Palestinian officials, Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian president, rejected that demand during the first round of direct talks in Washington earlier this month on two grounds. The first being that it would be a betrayal of the rights of Palestinian-Israelis to stay in their homeland and to fight for equal civil rights and the second that it would amount to forfeiting the right of return for Palestinian refugees.

But these two reasons are exactly why Israel is pushing for Arab recognition of Israel as a Jewish state. It wants the Palestinian leadership in one swift move to legitimise the expulsion of Palestinian-Israelis and to end any discussion of the right of return.
Palestinians and the 'Jewish state' - In Depth - Al Jazeera English
 
Last edited:

CJ 2.0

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 13, 2010
Messages
5,418
Reaction score
1,903
Location
Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I am not sure how much to ignore you. What are you trying to say. What is convoluted. You do not know that Lieberman was elected on the promise of trying to get Loyalty oaths from Israeli Arabs, that is loyalty oaths to a Jewish State when they are not even Jewish. Most States make a point of including their minorities but Israel is doing the opposite. It is his intention to remove the citizenship of all who will not take this oath. That means Israeli Arabs must take an oath to be second Class citizens.
You can ignore me as much as you like. Doens't change the facts.

Lieberman was elected in a proportionate representation system, which is always full of crackpots. There are a whole bunch of Anti-Israel Arabs elected as well, but no one purports to claim their views, or their platforms, represent actual positions of the state.

There is absolutely zero chance of the position Lieberman campaigned on actually becoming law. Pretending otherwise is simply an exercise in manipulation, which I recognize is par for the course in the Israel talking points handbook but isn't even remotely factual.

This is just pure emotion, like throwing eggs. In Post 5 I have given a quote from the Jewish Post that Ayalon is saying there will not be a bi-national state. This is indeed going even further than the 'Loyalty Oath'. That sounds pretty clear to me that he is wanting the Arabs out of Israel.

I am not prepared to continue discussing with you if you do not start talking properly.
ouch. Talking proeprly as in towing the party line. Sorry for not following the script of anti-Israel talking points.

In any event, I'm sitting here finding it extremely amusing that you are using Ayalon's position that there will be no bi-national state against Israel, considering this is the core issue here and precisely what I was talking about when I said the Palestinians are not even remotely interested in any sort of end of conflict short of victory.

The Palestinians want Israel. We get it. But Israel is and will remain a Jewish state, and the Palestinians will need to recognize this and give up claims to it in order to reach any sort of agreement with Israel. That they can get their proverbial panties in a bunch and walk out in a huff because Israel had the gall to actually say it will remain independent from them is compelling evidence that the Palestinians are not even remotely serious about the process or about peace.

And judging by your attempt to cast this Palestinian ploy as perfectly reasonable, neither are you.

There is absolutely no reason Israel should be a "bionational" state (i.e., a state for two nations, Israelis and Palestinians) any more than Canada should be a bi-national state for Canadians and Quebecers. Canada is a single state, and citizens are Canadian. If Canada wants to ban citizens from holding dual-citizenship, that's fully within its right. it also has the right to determine who can become a citizen. Arab states go way further than Canada or Israel, actually restricting whether people born in the countries are considered citizens as of right (e.g., people born in lebanon of Palestinian descent are treated essentially as sub-human).

You can obfuscate all you like, but the object of Palestinian participation in any peace discussions has always been to achieve the destruction of Israel through non-viokent means or to advance the Palestinians' position to allow them to pursue vioolent means, rather than as any sort of real attempt to make peace with an independent Israeli state on which they and their people agree to renounce all claims.
 
Last edited:

Apocalypse

DEATH TO ANTARCTICA!!!
DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2009
Messages
19,755
Reaction score
6,217
Location
Israel
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
I think it has something to do with Israeli Arabs having to swear an oath of loyalty to Israel as a Jewish State or possibly lose their citizenship and also possibly that Israeli Arabs will need to give up their citizenship anyway.

It is a very serious issue.
Nope, it has to do with the Palestinian refusal to recognize Israel as a Jewish state.
They do not wish to use statements like "two states for two peoples" as two peoples means Jewish and Palestinian.
 

CJ 2.0

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 13, 2010
Messages
5,418
Reaction score
1,903
Location
Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Nope, it has to do with the Palestinian refusal to recognize Israel as a Jewish state.
They do not wish to use statements like "two states for two peoples" as two peoples means Jewish and Palestinian.
At this point, I say screw them. Talks should be done.

They can get back to us when they're serious (likely never).

In the meantime, pick borders, disengage, maintain control over borders, and wait.
 
Last edited:

Gardener

free market communist
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 5, 2005
Messages
26,661
Reaction score
15,927
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
At this point, I say screw them. Talks should be done.

They can get back to us when they're serious (likely never).

In the meantime, pick borders, disengage, maintain control over borders, and wait.
You might as well try to domesticate a badger as far as I'm concerned.

The problem with this sort of dialogue in general, though, is that the Pallies have so many useful idiots in the west parroting their party line, and they are hoping to use such to further this notion of "a state for the those who did not exist as a people until a few decades ago, but those who have been a people for over three millenium wanting a state? -- HOW DARE THEY!". For the life of me, I cannot understand how anybody could be so stupid as to fall for this double standard, but millions do, and just repeat the dogma as if it were gospel.
 

donsutherland1

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 17, 2007
Messages
11,795
Reaction score
10,133
Location
New York
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
If one takes a careful look at the verbiage with respect to the phrase "two states for two peoples," that phrase rules out solutions that would alter Israel's demographics. It is clear that the Palestinian state that would be established would include Palestinians. There's no dispute on that issue.

With respect to Israel, the Palestinian leadership and Israeli government have dramatically different positions. Israel is currently a Jewish majority state and, consistent with the 1947 partition plan, serves as the homeland for the Jewish people (a second people). "Two states for two peoples" would recognize that reality.

As such, it would rule out the notion of a so-called "right" of Palestinian refugees to relocate to Israel (a situation that would transform Israel's demographics and risk converting Israel into a Jewish minority state). Hence, as the Palestinians have been unwilling to date to compromise on the refugee issue, it comes as no surprise that the Palestinian Prime Minister would reject language that would represent compromise.

Ultimately, though compromise will be key to reaching an agreement. The Palestinian maximum position on refugees poses an existential threat to Israel. As a result, Israel cannot reasonably be expected to agree to that position, as it would negate the original intent of its re-establishment under the partition plan.
 

CJ 2.0

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 13, 2010
Messages
5,418
Reaction score
1,903
Location
Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
If one takes a careful look at the verbiage with respect to the phrase "two states for two peoples," that phrase rules out solutions that would alter Israel's demographics. It is clear that the Palestinian state that would be established would include Palestinians. There's no dispute on that issue.

With respect to Israel, the Palestinian leadership and Israeli government have dramatically different positions. Israel is currently a Jewish majority state and, consistent with the 1947 partition plan, serves as the homeland for the Jewish people (a second people). "Two states for two peoples" would recognize that reality.

As such, it would rule out the notion of a so-called "right" of Palestinian refugees to relocate to Israel (a situation that would transform Israel's demographics and risk converting Israel into a Jewish minority state). Hence, as the Palestinians have been unwilling to date to compromise on the refugee issue, it comes as no surprise that the Palestinian Prime Minister would reject language that would represent compromise.

Ultimately, though compromise will be key to reaching an agreement. The Palestinian maximum position on refugees poses an existential threat to Israel. As a result, Israel cannot reasonably be expected to agree to that position, as it would negate the original intent of its re-establishment under the partition plan.
This of course begs the question - why?

Why would the Palestinians cling to what they know is a completely unacceptable condition, particularly as the self-cast "weak" party in negotiations? Falls in line with similar questions about why the Palestinians have never been willing to compromise on anything, why they would reject independence to wage terror wars, and why they continue to lionize murders and inculcate rejectionism.

The answer is rather obvious, but people seem utterly afraid to recognize it - the Palestinians were not interested in peace, are not interested in peace, and are working to ensure that they will not in the future be interested in peace. The Palestinians will never agree to or accept anything that erodes their ability to continue the struggle against Israel's existence - something for free, sure. Something for a "price that does not involve giving up a claim to or an ability to fight Israel, fine. But productive steps, like recognizing Israel as a non-Palestinian state, "relinquishing" the nonsense right of return, resettling nth generation "refugees" in newly built communities, stop inculcating maximalist demands and expectations in the population, never. Cause that would harm the struggle. And we can't have that.

This is the perfect illustration of why it is the Palestinians who are to blame for their situation.
 

Demon of Light

Bohemian Revolutionary
DP Veteran
Joined
May 7, 2010
Messages
5,095
Reaction score
1,544
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Honestly, I object to any characterization of any state as being for any specific people. Israel should be a state for all its people, not just the ones who are Jewish. Describing it any other way just makes the Israeli-Arabs second-class citizens or guests in their own country.
 

ido_

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 13, 2010
Messages
3,406
Reaction score
1,561
Location
Israel
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
I am not sure how much to ignore you. What are you trying to say. What is convoluted. You do not know that Lieberman was elected on the promise of trying to get Loyalty oaths from Israeli Arabs, that is loyalty oaths to a Jewish State when they are not even Jewish. Most States make a point of including their minorities but Israel is doing the opposite. It is his intention to remove the citizenship of all who will not take this oath. That means Israeli Arabs must take an oath to be second Class citizens.
Liberman has about the same mandates in the Knesset as the Arab parties who with to revoke Israel's charecter as a Jewish state.
Israeli citizens will never have to sign loyalty oaths to hold their citizenships, its just absurd...

Palestinians are refusing to say "Two states for two people" because they want both states to be for their people.
 

TacticalEvilDan

Shankmasta Killa
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 16, 2008
Messages
10,444
Reaction score
4,479
Location
Western NY and Geneva, CH
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
If one takes a careful look at the verbiage with respect to the phrase "two states for two peoples," that phrase rules out solutions that would alter Israel's demographics. It is clear that the Palestinian state that would be established would include Palestinians. There's no dispute on that issue.

With respect to Israel, the Palestinian leadership and Israeli government have dramatically different positions. Israel is currently a Jewish majority state and, consistent with the 1947 partition plan, serves as the homeland for the Jewish people (a second people). "Two states for two peoples" would recognize that reality.

As such, it would rule out the notion of a so-called "right" of Palestinian refugees to relocate to Israel (a situation that would transform Israel's demographics and risk converting Israel into a Jewish minority state). Hence, as the Palestinians have been unwilling to date to compromise on the refugee issue, it comes as no surprise that the Palestinian Prime Minister would reject language that would represent compromise.

Ultimately, though compromise will be key to reaching an agreement. The Palestinian maximum position on refugees poses an existential threat to Israel. As a result, Israel cannot reasonably be expected to agree to that position, as it would negate the original intent of its re-establishment under the partition plan.
Okay, see, THAT was what I wasn't understanding.

Thanks! :D
 

donsutherland1

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 17, 2007
Messages
11,795
Reaction score
10,133
Location
New York
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
This of course begs the question - why?

Why would the Palestinians cling to what they know is a completely unacceptable condition, particularly as the self-cast "weak" party in negotiations? Falls in line with similar questions about why the Palestinians have never been willing to compromise on anything, why they would reject independence to wage terror wars, and why they continue to lionize murders and inculcate rejectionism.

The answer is rather obvious, but people seem utterly afraid to recognize it - the Palestinians were not interested in peace, are not interested in peace, and are working to ensure that they will not in the future be interested in peace. The Palestinians will never agree to or accept anything that erodes their ability to continue the struggle against Israel's existence - something for free, sure. Something for a "price that does not involve giving up a claim to or an ability to fight Israel, fine. But productive steps, like recognizing Israel as a non-Palestinian state, "relinquishing" the nonsense right of return, resettling nth generation "refugees" in newly built communities, stop inculcating maximalist demands and expectations in the population, never. Cause that would harm the struggle. And we can't have that.

This is the perfect illustration of why it is the Palestinians who are to blame for their situation.
There is little doubt that it will take great political courage for a Palestinian leader to accept a position that shatters the myth that Palestinian refugees and their descendants have a "right" to move to Israel. Instead, the Palestinian leadership will need to make clear that Palestinian refugees and their descendants can only expect to be able to move to the new Palestinian state, not Israel.

Given how past generations of Palestinian leaders have continually and loudly proclaimed a so-called "right of return" to Israel, the belief in such a "right" among Palestinian refugees and their descendants was cultivated and reinforced. That belief remains very strong today. As a result, a political decision that would acknowledge that such an unlimited "right" did not and does not exist would be deeply unpopular among many in the Palestinian diaspora. Hence, courageous, even heroic, leadership will be required from the Palestinians on that issue. Nonetheless, difficult as it might be for the Palestinian leadership to do so, compromise that falls short of the Palestinian maximum demand on refugees is exactly what will be needed if a peace agreement is to be reached. No sovereign state can reasonably be expected to accept a position that poses an existential threat.
 

Degreez

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 2, 2006
Messages
3,216
Reaction score
1,021
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
There is little doubt that it will take great political courage for a Palestinian leader to accept a position that shatters the myth that Palestinian refugees and their descendants have a "right" to move to Israel. Instead, the Palestinian leadership will need to make clear that Palestinian refugees and their descendants can only expect to be able to move to the new Palestinian state, not Israel.

Given how past generations of Palestinian leaders have continually and loudly proclaimed a so-called "right of return" to Israel, the belief in such a "right" among Palestinian refugees and their descendants was cultivated and reinforced. That belief remains very strong today. As a result, a political decision that would acknowledge that such an unlimited "right" did not and does not exist would be deeply unpopular among many in the Palestinian diaspora. Hence, courageous, even heroic, leadership will be required from the Palestinians on that issue. Nonetheless, difficult as it might be for the Palestinian leadership to do so, compromise that falls short of the Palestinian maximum demand on refugees is exactly what will be needed if a peace agreement is to be reached. No sovereign state can reasonably be expected to accept a position that poses an existential threat.
Weird, this "mythical" right somehow exists in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

don, what is so "mythical" about the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?

don, what is so "mythical" about Israel's right of return?

One more thing you never answered:

Right of return for Palestinians to Israel is a "demographic threat". Continued settler expanision and construction is a "demographic threat" to Palestine. When the Partition was announced, the newly State of Israel would have a 45% population that was non-Jewish. Within a decade, non-Jews would have been the majority of the new State of Israel. Therefore, time was the demographic threat to Israel.

Are ethnic population transfers somehow "right" because they solved the "demographic threat" that the new Israel faced?
 

donsutherland1

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 17, 2007
Messages
11,795
Reaction score
10,133
Location
New York
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Weird, this "mythical" right somehow exists in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

don, what is so "mythical" about the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?

don, what is so "mythical" about Israel's right of return?

One more thing you never answered:

Right of return for Palestinians to Israel is a "demographic threat". Continued settler expanision and construction is a "demographic threat" to Palestine. When the Partition was announced, the newly State of Israel would have a 45% population that was non-Jewish. Within a decade, non-Jews would have been the majority of the new State of Israel. Therefore, time was the demographic threat to Israel.

Are ethnic population transfers somehow "right" because they solved the "demographic threat" that the new Israel faced?
The Universal Declaration of Rights was adopted in December 1948. The rise of the refugee situation predated it. Moreover, 25%-33% of the recorded refugees became refugees during the ethnic fighting before Israel had even been re-established. Finally, the UN Security Council adopted no resolutions on the refugee issue and, in practical terms, one has not seen similar or larger refugee problems e.g., population exchanges following the partition of India dealt with in a similar fashion.

Like any other sovereign state, Israel has the authority to establish its own immigration, naturalization, and citizenship policies. That it established aliya, which helps promote the core purpose behind Israel's re-establishment, is not surprising and fully within Israel's authority as a sovereign state. When a Palestinian state is established at some time in the future, it will also have the authority to set its own policies on immigration, naturalization, and citizenship.
 

expandmymind

Banned
Joined
Sep 14, 2010
Messages
229
Reaction score
120
Location
Scotland
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
The Universal Declaration of Rights was adopted in December 1948. The rise of the refugee situation predated it.
So? What exactly are you trying to imply? That the Declaration does not apply to Palestinians from that time? I think you will find that opinion is incorrect; the relevant laws mention nothing about a starting date. Not only that, but the Palestinians have been supported on numerous occasions by resolutions so your point is quite invalid indeed.

Please stop referring to the right of return as 'mythical'. It is shameful to hear someone debating the Israeli side try to go down this road when Israel themselves have their own, truly mythical right of return based on no more than a 2000 year old claim to the land and religious texts.

And the right of return supersedes any national laws of immigration. This is irrelevant anyway because the Palestinians themselves have more or less accepted that they won't actually return themselves, most of them at least. Instead, they will be offered some form of compensation - similar to what the Jews received, and some still do receive, from Germany.
 

expandmymind

Banned
Joined
Sep 14, 2010
Messages
229
Reaction score
120
Location
Scotland
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
There is little doubt that it will take great political courage for a Palestinian leader to accept a position that shatters the myth that Palestinian refugees and their descendants have a "right" to move to Israel. Instead, the Palestinian leadership will need to make clear that Palestinian refugees and their descendants can only expect to be able to move to the new Palestinian state, not Israel.
They do have a right, which is spelled out clearly in international law and has been accepted by the entire world community bar Israel and her uncle (Sam).
 

CJ 2.0

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 13, 2010
Messages
5,418
Reaction score
1,903
Location
Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
So? What exactly are you trying to imply? That the Declaration does not apply to Palestinians from that time? I think you will find that opinion is incorrect; the relevant laws mention nothing about a starting date. Not only that, but the Palestinians have been supported on numerous occasions by resolutions so your point is quite invalid indeed.
nonsense. It is "mythical" because it has never actually existed anywhere for anyone else. indians and pakistanis? Nope. Sudeten Germans? Nope. Palestinians - ABSOLUTE RIGHT!!!

Please stop referring to the right of return as 'mythical'. It is shameful to hear someone debating the Israeli side try to go down this road when Israel themselves have their own, truly mythical right of return based on no more than a 2000 year old claim to the land and religious texts.
uh-huh. Israel's law of return, similar to that in place in many many countries aroudn the world, is a domestic law passed by a sovereign parliament establishing criteria for immigration. The Palestinians' "right of return" is a made up right that no one else has that was designed and is clung to with such ferocity because it is THE weapon the Palestinians want to use to destroy Israel as the Jewish national home.

We all know this to be the case, so you can just drop the act.

And the right of return supersedes any national laws of immigration.
It would were it not completely fictional. And if rights actually made the slightest bit of difference.

If the Palestinians want their own idnependent state, fine. Accept one. But if they insist on destroying Israel too, with respect, **** them. They get nothing.

And you can pretend you care about them all you like, insisting on "rights" and "justice" and rainbows. But here in real life you have a small group of people, who have a worldwide base of like 15 million people and who saw one third of their population systematically murdered (with the wholehearted support of the palestinian leadership, incidentally), laying claim to sovereignty over a sliver of territory and declaring they will never again be left at the mercy of others to protect them.

On the other side, you have a subset of the wider population that tried to finish the job, who have been offered territory and independence on repeated occassions whio continually reject those offers, launch terrorist attacks against civilians, and refuse to contemplate any sort of end of conflcit that would allow those Jews to maintain sovereign control over that sliver of territory.

And then you have the "enlightened" international left, pretending to be fixated on "rights" and "law" and "justice", and preternding even more fervently to be pro-Palestinian, when they are merely anti-Israel reactionaries, content to latch onto whatever excuses they can find to oppose Israel and its existence as an endependent homeland for Jews to exercise sovereignty and provide themselves the collective self-defence that has been denied for so long.

They pretend to be pro-Palestinian, but that could not possibly be true, because they never actually propose policies or advocate positions that would benefit the Palestinians. A pro-Palestinian would encourage compromise. A pro-Palestinian would oppose Hamas and its illiberal quest for control over the population. A
pro-Palestinian would condemn efforts to inculcate a death cult among Palestinian children, rather than obfuscating and providing cover for those who are doing so.

And that most certainly does not describe any "pro-Palestinian" I've ever encountered on any of these fora. "Pro-Palestinians" will only ever provide arguments and narratives that are anti-Israel. That harm Israel's cause, undermine the justice of its continued existence, seek to bring Israel down rather than helping the Palestinians up.

Your positions have nothing to do with the best interests of the Palestinians, and everything to do with denying those 15 million people the right to exercise sovereignty over the territory in which they currently do.

It is a shameful position. And you can try to dress this pig up in "rights" and "justice" and other distorted terms. But it's still a pig.

This is irrelevant anyway because the Palestinians themselves have more or less accepted that they won't actually return themselves, most of them at least. Instead, they will be offered some form of compensation - similar to what the Jews received, and some still do receive, from Germany.
Yeah, because germany going into foreign countries and systematically murdering entire populations is TOTALLY like Israel and the Arab world engaging in apopulation exchange during a war initiated by those Arabs that resulted in the death of 1% of the entire Israeli population. :roll:

and for the record (not that you care) the Palestinians most definitely have not given up this demand for the fake right of return. it is, as they continually repeat, a core demand. Which makes sense, as they are not fighting for independence, they are fighting for Israel.

You would know that if you tried paying attention, rather than fixating on fake rights and phony justice.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom