Here's a two-state solution and how to get there:

1. Israel to unilaterally recognise a right for the Palestinians to have a sovereign state where the 1967 borders will be the basis for the size of Palestine
2. stop all further settlements in WB and evictions in East-Jerusalem, recognise ownership rights in East Jerusalem
3. repeal all discriminatory laws in Israel proper
4. no more collective punishment of Palestinians
5. no more blockade of Gaza and its air space and sea
6. no more mass destruction in response to ineffectual missiles or balloons
7. tear down the wall
8. For the interim period, Gaza and WB remain occupied territories but they will be policed instead of military oppression
9. Palestinians to commit to an indefinite cease fire as long as Israel maintains the above 8 points
edit: 10. forgot: Palestinians to recognise Israel along the 1967 borders as the basis of the size of israel

In other words, stop the crimes. There's no excuse.

Enter into the transition period where Palestine should be set up:
1. include the political wing of Hamas in talks as well as PA
2. land-for-land exchanges to arrive at comparable land size
3. Israel to pay Palestine an amount equal to all the monies spent supporting illegal settlers so it has the means to settle the new lands it receives through the land-for-land exchange
4. Palestine to hire their own first and Israeli contractors second (which will lead to "reparations" flowing back to Israel and creating economic interdependence)
5. have religious leaders negotiate the Temple Mount
6. Jerusalem as independent city-state administered by Palestinians and Israelis alike
7. gradually transition policing activities in Palestine to Palestinians
8. Set up a special task force of like minded Israelis and Palestinians to investigate (terrorist) crimes committed by Israelis against Palestinians and vice versa, where jurisdiction will be with the state of the victim
9. retreat from WB and Gaza and set up border controls
10. Declare a Palestinian state
11. Party with your Israeli neighbours — Benkei

Again playing victim. I have nothing against Jews in Israel. I have a lot against criminals not being brought to justice, especially where it concerns war crimes and colonisation. That some Israeli Jews abuse their Jewishness by equating sick Zionist policies with Jewishness and equating anti-zionism with anti-semitism and that you're not astute enough to tell the difference is fun but it's not going to make me stop repeating it.

Also, to apply your fantastic moral compass to all those Jews killed in ww2: "sorry, they lost!"

Maybe someday you'll start to understand what a consistent moral philosophy looks like.

I don't want sympathy. You seem to misunderstand that what Jews think had become irrelevant. It's about what the rest think and what happens when finally support for the thieving murderers of Israel stops. That useful idiots will defend it until the end of the earth is irrelevant. That others see you have no argument is enough. What we're seeing is the beginning of the end of Israel and when the end is there let's all remember your reply here: "sorry, they lost".

Except of course the Jews went on the offensive in April 1948 with the specific aim to claim territory (Dalet plan), which aim was already illegal decades before that. It remains interesting that aggressors and oppressors keep pretending they're victims. How dare the oppressed demands justice, or worse, actually fight back!

Probably both. It's the Zionist agenda causing this, which is a Jewish thing.

The enemy? You mean all those non-combatants you displaced and then stole their houses and land?

It's theft plain and simple. If I attack you and you successfully defend yourself, you don't get to steal my wallet afterwards. The defence is justified the theft isn't.

But her lies went unchecked, allowed to list off the common anti-Trump hoaxes. — NOS4A2

What lies and hoaxes? Be specific instead of vague aspersions.

I saw classical music was underrepresented so here's a crash course.

Ludwig van Beethoven's Ode to Joy is a celebration of universal brotherhood, Enlightenment ideals and humanist philosophy.



Wagner's Der Ring Des Nibelungen is an exploration of the nature of power, the limits of knowledge, and the role of the gods in human affairs



And Strauss' Also sprach Zarathustra is an obvious candidate also for being reused in a Space Odyssey (or especially so?).



This famous piece by Rachmaninov is often called the Bells of Moscow. That name came about because the Russian publisher, to whom Rachmaninov sold publishing rights for a handful of cash, failed to secure international rights. Then some dimwitted American dubbed it the Bells of Moscow and the legend that the bells are the bells of the Kremlin tolling for each executed prisoner came about and everybody repeats it. Wikipedia gets that wrong. Idiots.

He'll be back in 4 years.

Maybe read the Talmud again and what it says about theft. These principles are as old as dirt.

It's progress, I suppose, you are comparing Israel to other colonizers with your examples. "Look at those guys! They got away with their crimes, so why shouldn't we?"

I'm all in favour of letting natives settle and vote in the US. Oh wait. Already happening.

Yes, that's what you get if you steal. You have to give it back. It beggars belief you're arguing in favour of thieves keeping their spoils.

No it isn't. If being Jewish is based on religious law then insisting on a predominantly Jewish citizenry is religious.

No international lawyer worth his salt talks about war at all anymore due to the abuse of the term during the time of the League of Nations.

I've already answered this pages ago and how current Israeli blood has been diluted to such an extent that their claims to other areas in the world would be significantly stronger than to Israel. But even if we would grant the existence of that right then certainly the rights of recently displaced is much stronger.

Edit: moreover I don't recall Jews being prohibited from settling in Palestine.

On a more serious note, I shouldn't have to explain this to you. Consider traveling to Israel. Then you'll see why so much blood has been shed over it. — BitconnectCarlos

You should explain why people's rights cannot be exercised. This seems self-evident otherwise it's just the arbitrary exercise of power. I know the common reason most Israeli Jews offer. I want to know yours.

I enjoy how quiet this thread had become.

So Palestinians have a right to return but you shouldn't do it because it would be difficult? I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Why would there be fighting in the streets? How do you know? Why couldn't this be managed? What is politically the problem?

No international lawyer describes it as a war because these aren't groups within the same country, it's a group in an occupied territory and another group from a country. The occupied territory is not considered a sovereign nation and even the recent recognition doesn't change this, because there's no de facto sovereignty if you do not control your own territory. It doesn't meet the standards for war, which in any case isn't the appropriate definition anymore.

Today we talk about the use of force, which definition also doesn't really fit if you ask governments that don't recognise Palestine:

All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations. — Un charter 2(4)

Seems rather important since you think it justifies not treating for peace, no? Since I quite obviously disagree and believe the right of return is a basic human right, you should at least make an attempt defending your position.

rhymes with Trump.

The "right of return" results in the destruction of Israel. So no, Hamas does not strive for peace with Israel. For the millionth time, they seek to destroy it. As they always have. — BitconnectCarlos

How does the right of return result in the destruction of Israel? Walk me through it.

BTW, to clarify, when I said a war between equals I mean they should both be sovereign nations I don't expect any kind of equality in power.

But Hamas was amenable to peace. It's been Israel that refused to treat, every time. So one again you lie and use it as an excuse to not treat with them for peace.

a civil war isn't just a war now is it? But this is also not a civil war because Palestinians aren't Israelis. Furthermore, most slave revolts and decolonalisation struggles weren't qualified as a war. So what type of war is this according to you?

It's an armed struggle sure but that doesn't make it war.

Now I have to disagree.

It is a war. Trying to make this conflict to be something else is wrong in my view. A low intensity conflict or a conflict that erupts every once and a while is a war. Even with the 100-years war there were moments when nothing happened with large battles being the exception. — ssu

A war requires two sovereign nations. We have one country basically controlling all the land. It's not a war.

bark bark.

Nice decontextualised quoting there. Maybe read that post again and see what it's juxtaposed against. What is the Palestinian plight according to you?

I don't think it's reasonable to dismiss (pointing out) that there's more than one important problem, and that they're best addressed/resolved in the same round. Is that what you call both-sideism? We all know the history, humanitarianism (including homophobia), etc; besides, it's been re-re-iterated often enough here in the thread. — jorndoe

I'm hardly dismissing it, I'm saying that it depends how it's framed. Invariably, we've only seen one type. Your tendency to share information without context doesn't help.

We have people here defending atrocities and calling it justice. They bark like dogs and call it reason. Case in point:

I would if Israel ever committed a 10/7 with the sole purpose of slaughtering & capturing & raping as many civilians as possible. Even in the darkest depths of WWII Jews never stooped to that. They never gleefully murdered innocent German civilians. But maybe in your reality they just gleefully ride around murdering Palestinians for no reason. :roll: — BitconnectCarlos

The crimes of Israel are multitude and worse in intensity and scale than the crimes of Hamas and have persisted for decades.

Oh they won't. They won't notice at all you or others that do look at both objectively. They just will notice that you are criticizing their side (and thus won't notice you also criticizing the other) . How (and why) would they notice it? — ssu

There's an inherent problem to both-sideism though when people think equal monks, equal hoods but they start forgetting its corollary: unequal monks.

Both sides commit war crimes but this obfuscates the vital difference that war crimes committed by the oppressed are fundamentally different than those of oppressors. The moral dimensions are not the same even when ignoring intensity and scale. And they are grotesquely unalike when taking intensity and scale into account as the past 70 years have shown.

There's no war. These are not equal parties. There's only a struggle for independence made futile by the unconditional support of a coloniser by the West.

no, you call for the destruction of only some oppressors. So you're just a hypocrite. I dare you to be consistent and voice the same about Israel if you believe you're actually offering anything that resembles a solution.

You're just a mean little man filled with hate.

Only a fool ignores what is right in front of him. My posts included a multitude of verifiable links. Good luck.

As I said, read this thread. But you've repeatedly shown zero interest into educating yourself about simple facts which is why I have zero interest in repeating myself.

Maybe question yourself a bit more when you feel the need to lie to yourself to make yourself feel good for defending oppressors and murderers.

You need only peruse this thread. I've set out Hamas' official position for years with reference to official statements. But go ahead and keep digging through tiktoks.

Never mind that this has not been the position of the PLO and hasn't been the position of Hamas for years. So what you're doing is lying, plain and simple. Just stop it.

At the expense of an actual woman's choice. Very logical.

I seek for no law unlike you who's arguing for a prohibition unless local states rule otherwise. So no, it was a dumb archaic and backward ruling and your idiotic defence women can now vote for something they had a god given right to is antithetical to your repeated stance that we shouldn't need governments for rights.

Naive and dumb reduction of my position on government. You seem to miss the point entirely your completely inconsistent. That's a consequence of your ideological hangups.

Doesn't anyone who engages in the democratic process think they have a right to decide for others, and are they not actively trying to get the government to impose their opinions on society? — Tzeentch

No, the political question is to act or not to act. The basic assumption is to not act unless there's a clear benefit that increases positive freedom. Increasing choice, eg. positive freedom, is therefore the moral position.

Edit: in fact, acting here limited negative freedom by introducing a prohibition, limiting personal choice.

And don't get me started on the retarded method of interpretation in the USA that leads to dumb rulings to begin with.

Why do I need to travel to make decisions about my body? Funny how freedom all of a sudden isn't important to you anymore.

Being pro-life isn't degenerate. Thinking you have a right to decide for others is.

It's degenerate because it flows from an archaic worldview that is essentially illiberal. Nobody having an abortion has every hurt anybody. Someone can be pro-life but that doesn't mean they have to enforce that stance on others. And "unborn child" is a logical contradiction. It's either a child or it isn't and it won't be a child unless it's born. Meanwhile, we can take the decision against or in favour or abortion very seriously under the particular circumstances in which they occur - and most people do. It's not like people like getting abortions.