[BeaverFever]

$1:

Did the leadership of Ireland declare a perpetual war of extermination on Britain? No? Then your analogy does not work. You can't do shit at the bargaining table when the otehr side's view is that you should not exist, period.

Certainly many IRA terrorists did declare a perpetual war against the Prostestants but IRA terrorist are not "the leadership of Ireland" are they?

Likewise, "the leaderhsip of Palestine" (is there even such a thing?)hasn't delcared perpetual war agains Israel, even though many of the different terrorist factions have. I think the biggest mistake you guys make is talking about the Palestinians as if they're one group with one leader who speaks for all Palestinians. In reality, they are seprate factions and its more like a group of independent street gangs, all with their own leaders and causes who loosely share a common goal of figting Israel, albeit for different reasons.

[BeaverFever]

ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:

$1:

Palestinians (whether Christian or Muslim) are certainly related to Hebrews. Whether one is descended from the other, or more
likely both are descended from a common Canaanite ancestor.

That's possible but not really relevant, as my point in time is even more recent and you're talking about a people who were conquered by the Israelites around 1000 BCE. It's like claiming the Philistines were the progenitors of the Palestinians. Both groups had disappeared from the books, or been absorbed long before the time I'm referring to. I'm not talking about tenuous ties....I'm talking about hard DNA evidence. Discussions about Canaanites are only relevant if we're discussing links between Phoenicia and Carthage.

Ok fair enough , I'm not so sure that non-Israeli groups disappeared from the area quite so easily as you say, espeically given that the land has historically been and the crossroads of empires and armies and migrants for thousands of years, however we're off topic.

[N_Fiddledog]

Oh screw, these this is like that comparisons that only serve to divert and make things more confusing.

Israel and Palestine (if you choose to believe in such a thing) are what they are.

What we're calling "Palestine" is as we've agreed a mixed, multi-racial grouping sharing a geographical area that was at one time defined by the British Mandate.

Currently they are living in the midst of a conflict between Jews and Muslims.

After a previous war the area of the West Bank was administered by Jordan. The area of Gaza was administered by Egypt.

Another war followed and both areas are now administered by Israel and financially by the United Nations World Relief Agency.

What the borders are of what we're now imagining as Palestine, and who represents what lies within them are currently in dispute.

The Jews have accepted proposals for two state solutions on multiple occasions in the past. The Muslim representatives always ultimately refuse.

Currently there is a kind of double-speak where the Muslims claim they will accept a 2 state solution, but when it comes time to sign it turns out that is not exactly what they are talking about. They demand what they are now calling the "Palestinian right of return".

After the struggles and battles of 1948 the Muslim population fled what is now Israel, either at command of their leaders, or out of fear of Jews, depending on what you believe.

Here's the problem:

$1:

In the West, it’s known as welfare fraud. In the Palestinian Territories, it’s called refugee relief. In both places, the fraud can become a way of life, seen as an entitlement that children and then grandchildren adopt. Only in the Palestinian Territories, though, does the welfare agency see its goal as putting more people on welfare and keeping them there, the better to keep “the Palestinian refugee crisis” alive.

That welfare agency is called the United Nations Relief and Aid Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, or UNRWA as it’s commonly known. UNRWA doesn’t focus its efforts on resettling Palestinian refugees in foreign countries that would welcome them, as might be expected of a refugee agency, or even on resettling them in their own homeland when possible.

UNRWA doesn’t even limit its efforts to what most people, and all dictionaries, would consider “refugees” — in UNRWA’s books, a refugee can be just about anyone who wants to be one. As a result, the number of Palestinian “refugees,” rather than diminishing to nothing, has grown like topsy over the decades.

http://business.financialpost.com/fp-co ... are-racket

So now we're talking about multiple millions who have grown out of thousands. In a democratic system such as Israel that means a Muslim majority. Will you still have a Jewish state with what they are calling the Palestinian right of return, or a two state solution?

A self-loathing Jew or a self-destructive Progressive might think so. Those of us who cannot ignore the obvious do not. To us this becomes a single state solution with the state being a Jew-hating Muslim one. It's just a different avenue towards the long-term goal of pushing the Jews into the sea.

[ShepherdsDog]

$1:

After a previous war the area of the West Bank was administered by Jordan.

No, Jordan formally annexed the West Bank on April 24th, 1950, although no one really recognized the fact. West bank residents had Jordanian citizenship. Israel conquered that little piece of Jordan in '67. Jordan compromised 85% of the old mandate... I'd say the Arabs had their state and then some.

Every time the sandbandits initiated conflicts(outgunning and outmanning the Israelis) and tried to drive the Jews into the sea, Israel expanded. Had they left the Jews alone in 1948, the state of Israel would be smaller, and the West Bank desire for statehood would have been solely a Jordanian problem.

[N_Fiddledog]

ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:

$1:

After a previous war the area of the West Bank was administered by Jordan.

No, Jordan formally annexed the West Bank on April 24th, 1950,

I think we're just talking language here. My main point is it's disputed territory. It's always been disputed territory. Even when Jordan "annexed" the territory so they could "administer" it, the Arab league and others regarded it as illegal. It was in "dispute."

[BeaverFever]

ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:

$1:

After a previous war the area of the West Bank was administered by Jordan.

Had they left the Jews alone in 1948, the state of Israel would be smaller, and the West Bank desire for statehood would have been solely a Jordanian problem.

That's true but just for NF's benefit I'll reiterate that it doesn't support the annexation of the territory.

[BeaverFever]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

Currently they are living in the midst of a conflict between Jews and Muslims.

Why do you keep omitting the Palestinian Christians? Is that deliberate?

$1:

The Jews have accepted proposals for two state solutions on multiple occasions in the past. The Muslim representatives always ultimately refuse.

No that's a lie. First, the only Israeli leader to commit to a 2 state solution was Yitzhak Rabin and he ended up shot to death by a fellow "lone wolf" Israeli who just by pure "coincidence" had ties to extremist political groups that themselves had ties to Mossad. Magically, Israel suddenly abandoned the peace process, never to return. And for the record during that brief period Israel MADE proposals, it didn't "accept" propsals. The Israeli propsals were not surprisingly unduly favourable to Israel, allowing it to grab additional land in the territories and isolate Palestinians in small scattered and unconnected pockets that were completely surrounded by Israeli land on all sides. Some "state".

$1:

Currently there is a kind of double-speak where the Muslims claim they will accept a 2 state solution, but when it comes time to sign it turns out that is not exactly what they are talking about. They demand what they are now calling the "Palestinian right of return".

The right of return is not new. If a Jew whose ancestors left 2000 years ago can "return" then why can't a Palestinian who fled or was driven out 50 or 60 years ago?

Here's the problem:

$1:

So now we're talking about multiple millions who have grown out of thousands. In a democratic system such as Israel that means a Muslim majority. Will you still have a Jewish state

Indeed, democracy and apartheid don't mix very well. All the more reason for a viable Palestinian state.

Also, I'd advise Goys like you against calling any Jewish people "Self loathing Jews".

[N_Fiddledog]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

Currently they are living in the midst of a conflict between Jews and Muslims.

Why do you keep omitting the Palestinian Christians? Is that deliberate?

The war is with Muslims (not just Palestinians, but throughout the levant) who refuse to allow Jews control over area Muslims once conquered. Jews are not allowed to do that according to Mohammedan doctrine, and as you've been shown in the past Mohammed had a major grudge against Jews, preached it, warred it, and demanded the same from his followers.

Christians are not involved unless they want to be, and I can't think of an example of the Muslims at least, letting them be. Show me the Christians who were talking about rivers of blood like the Mohammedans do. I'm not even aware of Christian palestinians being part of the Muslim diaspora of 1948. If you have some information on that please show me. Or even show me some sort of significant Christian presence in Hamas or Hezbollah. Do that and maybe you can convince me it's more than Mohammedan/Jewish conflict.

West bank and Israeli Christians are stuck in the middle, but it's not their fight. They could live in a democracy with the Jews just fine, if the Muslims allowed it.

[BeaverFever]

Hmm maybe you should try something George W called "the Google". Your top hits on palestinian christians will enlighten you.

[N_Fiddledog]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

Hmm maybe you should try something George W called "the Google". Your top hits on palestinian christians will enlighten you.

I think you need to take your own advice. I see the Palestinian Christians as I said - stuck in the middle of a conflict between the Mohammedans and the Jews, but not as propagators of the conflict or even significant participants. You'll see battlers among Christians on both sides, but nothing significant. It's not a Christian versus Jew conflict. It's a Muslim versus Jew conflict.

It's curious, but the Christian population is steadily diminishing since the diaspora, while the Muslim population skyrockets. Christians only make up about 1 to 2% of the population now don't they. They seem to want out of this fight.

The Christians seem to be leaving the conflict. Crazy as it seems the math suggests the Moslems are thriving.

[N_Fiddledog]

Here's both our points.

$1:

Palestinian Christians have not turned violent, Awad emphasized.

"The Christians in the West bank and the Gaza strip are not part of the fighting. We are not fighting on the side of Hamas. We are not fighting on the side of Israel. Most Christians are very, very neutral. We know in our hearts, we side with our Palestinian brothers and sisters, even the Muslims, because we know they are the ones under occupation, they are the ones who are under oppression, and we see that because it is very obvious for people who live here who is actually violating the other human rights," said Awad.

http://www.christianpost.com/news/pales ... ct-123272/

I hear your point. You don't hear mine. Without the Mohammedan push the Jews in the ocean/ Rivers of blood thing there is no conflict. That not a Christian idea. That's my point.

[BeaverFever]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

Hmm maybe you should try something George W called "the Google". Your top hits on palestinian christians will enlighten you.

I think you need to take your own advice. I see the Palestinian Christians as I said - stuck in the middle of a conflict between the Mohammedans and the Jews, but not as propagators of the conflict or even significant participants. You'll see battlers among Christians on both sides, but nothing significant. It's not a Christian versus Jew conflict. It's a Muslim versus Jew conflict.

It's curious, but the Christian population is steadily diminishing since the diaspora, while the Muslim population skyrockets. Christians only make up about 1 to 2% of the population now don't they. They seem to want out of this fight.

The Christians seem to be leaving the conflict. Crazy as it seems the math suggests the Moslems are thriving.

I don't know what the hell youre seeing. The christians live among the mudlims. When Israel shuts off water or electricity or fires a stray missile, or when they bulldoze Palestinian neighbourhoods and build a new settlementsthe Christians suffer equally. And there are Christian Palestinian terrorists such as George Habash, now dead LEADER of the PFLP who masterminded 4 airline hijackings in the 70s, and Chri Bandak, a LEADER in the "Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade" who killed several Israelis during "the second intifada". He was captured in 2003 bit released in a prisoner exchange in 2011.

Oh and it seems most Christians fled during 1948 and 1967 wars but the population has been stable since.

[N_Fiddledog]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

$1:

The Jews have accepted proposals for two state solutions on multiple occasions in the past. The Muslim representatives always ultimately refuse.

No that's a lie.

"MYTH


“The Palestinians have never been offered a state of their own.”

FACT


The Palestinians have actually had numerous opportunities to create an independent state, but have repeatedly rejected the offers:

In 1937, the Peel Commission proposed the partition of Palestine and the creation of an Arab state.

In 1939, the British White Paper proposed the creation of a unitary Arab state.
In 1947, the UN would have created an even larger Arab state as part of its partition plan.

The 1979 Egypt-Israel peace negotiations offered the Palestinians autonomy, which would almost certainly have led to full independence.

The Oslo agreements of the 1990s laid out a path for Palestinian independence, but the process was derailed by terrorism.

In 2000, Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered to create a Palestinian state in all of Gaza and 97 percent of the West Bank.

In 2008, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert offered to withdraw from almost the entire West Bank and partition Jerusalem on a demographic basis.

In addition, from 1948 to 1967, Israel did not control the West Bank. The Palestinians could have demanded an independent state from the Jordanians.

The Palestinians have spurned each of these opportunities. A variety of reasons have been given for why the Palestinians have in Abba Eban’s words, “never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity.”

Historian Benny Morris has suggested that the Palestinians have religious, historical, and practical reasons for opposing an agreement with Israel. He says that “Arafat and his generation cannot give up the vision of the greater land of Israel for the Arabs. [This is true because] this is a holy land, Dar al-Islam [the world of Islam]. It was once in the hands of the Muslims, and it is inconceivable [to them] that infidels like us [the Israelis] would receive it.”"

[N_Fiddledog]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

And there are Christian Palestinian terrorists such as George Habash, now dead LEADER of the PFLP who masterminded 4 airline hijackings in the 70s, and Chri Bandak, a LEADER in the "Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade" who killed several Israelis during "the second intifada". He was captured in 2003 bit released in a prisoner exchange in 2011.

Oh and it seems most Christians fled during 1948 and 1967 wars but the population has been stable since.

Seriously, that's it? That's your proof of a significant Christian influence instigating and propagating a war against Israel?

I don't know how much Christ influenced George Habash as a terrorist, but I do know he was a Marxist and an Arab nationalist. This was 1967 to 2000.

Bandak was pretty minor. I think his claim to fame back in 2002 was he was the only Christian in the Al Aqsa brigade. He was the underling buddy of a thug captain who had to take refuge in a church. Somebody wrote a book about it. Somebody at Salon actually read it.

http://www.salon.com/2003/10/27/bethlehem_3/

Sure these kinds of things will happen. Christians are stuck in the middle of the Muslim/Jewish conflict. Some of them will get swept into the conflict. But wasn't Christians who put what's written below in the Hamas Charter.

$1:

"The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, (evidently a certain kind of tree) would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews." (related by al-Bukhari and Moslem).

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hamas.asp

But sure the odd Christian will sign up. They'll do it on both sides of the conflict, because they're in the middle. The Jews and the Muslims are fighting around them.

Here's a more recent one from 2014.

Number of Arab Christians Joining the IDF On the Rise

[BeaverFever]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

The Palestinians have actually had numerous opportunities to create an independent state, but have repeatedly rejected the offers:

In 1937, the Peel Commission proposed the partition of Palestine and the creation of an Arab state.

Well of course. The British had already promised to give 100% of the land to the Palestinians, now were reneging.

The zionists at the time, had no other entitlements so begrudgingly accepted.
Said Ben Gurion, the then terrorist leader who would later become Prime Minister of Israel of the desl
: "A Jewish state must be established immediately, even if it is only in part of the country. The rest will follow in the course of time. A Jewish state will come."

$1:

In 1939, the British White Paper proposed the creation of a unitary Arab state.

. Correction: a unitary state comprisef of Jews and Arabs, with Britain still able to rule from afar. . Jews objected to this as well.

$1:

In 1947, the UN would have created an even larger Arab state as part of it.

Yes. But the partition required people to leave their homes. Look at the upset we uad here in Caledon when people had to turn over their newly built housing subdivision to First Nations. Of course people are going to resist

$1:

The 1979 Egypt-Israel peace negotiations offered the Palestinians autonomy, which would almost certainly have led to full independence.

The UN General Assembly rejected the Framework for Peace in the Middle East, because the agreement was concluded without participation of UN and PLO and did not comply with the Palestinian right of return, of self-determination and to national independence and sovereignty.

$1:

The Oslo agreements of the 1990s laid out a path for Palestinian independence, but the process was derailed by terrorism.

. Lol you mean the Israeli terrorism where Israeli PM Rabin was assassinated by Israeli(s) for pursuing peace?? If Israel had been committed to peace then:

1) they wouldn't be derailed by terrorists since nobody contols the terrorists
2) Israel would have remained committed to the peace process after Rabin's assassination at the hands of an Israeli right wing extremist(s) instead of immediately and completely reversing course before his body was even cold. In fact they would have redoubled their efforts.

$1:

In 2000, Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered to create a Palestinian state in all of Gaza and 97 percent of the West Bank.

. This is the one where they claim to have made the offer but no written evidence exist because "they only communicated verbally". So doubtful. The written Israeli offer that exists from this summit is an Israeli land grab with several disconnected semi-autonomous palestinian enclaves, each fully surrounded by Israeli contlled land.

$1:

In 2008, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert offered to withdraw from almost the entire West Bank and partition Jerusalem on a demographic basis.

"Almost". Also this propsed that Gaza and West Bank would not be connected. Also it propsed that Israel takes 7% of West Bank in exchange Palestinians get a smaller piece of useless Israeli dessert. But I'll admit it's the best offer they've received.

$1:

In addition, from 1948 to 1967, Israel did not control the West Bank. The Palestinians could have demanded an independent state from the Jordanians.

.
They were made Jordanian citizens not occupied subjects without rights.

$1:

the Palestinians have in Abba Eban’s words, “never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity.”

No doubt they could've done better.

$1:

Historian Benny Morris has suggested that the Palestinians have religious, historical, and practical reasons for opposing an agreement with Israel. He says that “Arafat and his generation cannot give up the vision of the greater land of Israel for the Arabs. [This is true because] this is a holy land, Dar al-Islam [the world of Islam]. It was once in the hands of the Muslims, and it is inconceivable [to them] that infidels like us [the Israelis] would receive it.”"

. Same goes for Israel.

As for your article, those are Isrseli Arabs, not the Christians in the Occupied Territories.