WolfBear

Well-known member
I think that it's a red herring. Settlements were evacuated in Gaza, it led to more terrorism, not less. There was also more than enough terrorism before the first settlement was ever founded. There are 700K Jews living in Judea and Samaria, they're not going to ever be evacuated anyway unless as part of an ethnic cleansing campaign by Palestinian terrorists or something like that.

So all in all, the question of the settlements is one of the least important questions in the conflict.

Ariel is not going to be evacuated, more likely that something like Trump's plan would place it within Israel using complex and convoluted borders, and the Arab "Palestinians" will get territory elsewhere as compensation (again, similar to the Trump plan).

Well, I still think that it was a good thing to evacuate Gaza because it put Israeli soldiers less in harm's way. When they had to occupy Gaza, they were in close proximity to over a million angry Arabs while defending less than 10,000 Jews. (Though honestly I think that Gaza should ideally go to Egypt because it needs extra space due to it being overpopulated as Hell right now!)

In theory, Jewish settlers deep in the West Bank could become Jewish citizens of a future Palestinian state, but they would probably want to have their own weapons for self-defense just in case in order to protect themselves from the risk of angry Palestinian Arab mobs.

I don't see the Palestinian Arabs or for that matter the rest of the world ever accepting anything comparable to the Trump Peace Plan. At best, you might be able to get Ariel as an Israeli enclave within a Palestinian state, along with perhaps Kiryat Arba near Hebron as a separate Israeli enclave. A good map would look something like this (except perhaps with the enclaves mentioned above and also with Israel including E-1 in the Jerusalem area):


A-Stable-Border-Proposal-for-land-swaps-2020-scaled.jpg


I personally wouldn't want to keep the Arab parts of East Jerusalem either, especially if they have no religious value to Israel and Jews, due to the fact that these areas would simply be a welfare sink for Israel.
 

GoldRanger

May the power protect you
Founder
Well, I still think that it was a good thing to evacuate Gaza because it put Israeli soldiers less in harm's way. When they had to occupy Gaza, they were in close proximity to over a million angry Arabs while defending less than 10,000 Jews. (Though honestly I think that Gaza should ideally go to Egypt because it needs extra space due to it being overpopulated as Hell right now!)

In theory, Jewish settlers deep in the West Bank could become Jewish citizens of a future Palestinian state, but they would probably want to have their own weapons for self-defense just in case in order to protect themselves from the risk of angry Palestinian Arab mobs.

I don't see the Palestinian Arabs or for that matter the rest of the world ever accepting anything comparable to the Trump Peace Plan. At best, you might be able to get Ariel as an Israeli enclave within a Palestinian state, along with perhaps Kiryat Arba near Hebron as a separate Israeli enclave. A good map would look something like this (except perhaps with the enclaves mentioned above and also with Israel including E-1 in the Jerusalem area):


A-Stable-Border-Proposal-for-land-swaps-2020-scaled.jpg


I personally wouldn't want to keep the Arab parts of East Jerusalem either, especially if they have no religious value to Israel and Jews, due to the fact that these areas would simply be a welfare sink for Israel.
If they would never accept something like the Trump plan then they'll forever remain stateless, and that's, frankly, not my problem. They should learn to compromise.
 

WolfBear

Well-known member
If they would never accept something like the Trump plan then they'll forever remain stateless, and that's, frankly, not my problem. They should learn to compromise.

Israel itself offered them a much better deal in 2000-2001 and 2008. After that, there's no way in Hell that they're ever accepting the Trump plan. And if they remain stateless, then they will push for a one-state solution since that's preferable to the Trump Plan's Bantustans.
 

ATP

Well-known member
I think that it's a red herring. Settlements were evacuated in Gaza, it led to more terrorism, not less. There was also more than enough terrorism before the first settlement was ever founded. There are 700K Jews living in Judea and Samaria, they're not going to ever be evacuated anyway unless as part of an ethnic cleansing campaign by Palestinian terrorists or something like that.

So all in all, the question of the settlements is one of the least important questions in the conflict.

Ariel is not going to be evacuated, more likely that something like Trump's plan would place it within Israel using complex and convoluted borders, and the Arab "Palestinians" will get territory elsewhere as compensation (again, similar to the Trump plan).

They live on land which belong to palestinians.Law of property is for everybody,including palestinians,or nobody - but then jews do not have any rights,too.
@WolfBear ,Izrael support Moscov lies about communism and WW2,and also helped them against Georgia in 2008.It is more then preventing jews emogration,but alliance.
Moscov now have two allies in war on Ukraine - Germany and Izrael.
 

WolfBear

Well-known member
They live on land which belong to palestinians.Law of property is for everybody,including palestinians,or nobody - but then jews do not have any rights,too.
@WolfBear ,Izrael support Moscov lies about communism and WW2,and also helped them against Georgia in 2008.It is more then preventing jews emogration,but alliance.
Moscov now have two allies in war on Ukraine - Germany and Izrael.

Do you support giving the Germans who were expelled en masse from now-Polish territory the right of return to Poland? Though interestingly enough, such a move would probably be less risky for Poland since few Germans will likely come due to Poland still being poorer than Germany and also due to them being required to learn Polish before they could acquire Polish citizenship. But even if all of them would have come, Poland would have still been only about 20% German or so. Ditto for Czechia. Whereas Israel is already around 20% Arab even without any Palestinian Arab right of return!
 

Marduk

Well-known member
Moderator
Staff Member
Do you support giving the Germans who were expelled en masse from now-Polish territory the right of return to Poland? Though interestingly enough, such a move would probably be less risky for Poland since few Germans will likely come due to Poland still being poorer than Germany and also due to them being required to learn Polish before they could acquire Polish citizenship. But even if all of them would have come, Poland would have still been only about 20% German or so. Ditto for Czechia. Whereas Israel is already around 20% Arab even without any Palestinian Arab right of return!
And that's without getting into the fact that Germans aren't indoctrinated by a national-socialist government anymore, successfully raising support among them for paramilitary violence against anyone they consider untermenshen wherever they are.
Secondly, all the usual diverse\multi-ethnic country problems still apply.
 

GoldRanger

May the power protect you
Founder
Israel itself offered them a much better deal in 2000-2001 and 2008. After that, there's no way in Hell that they're ever accepting the Trump plan. And if they remain stateless, then they will push for a one-state solution since that's preferable to the Trump Plan's Bantustans.
That's precisely why they should accept the Trump plan. As time passes they're only going to get progressively worse deals. They missed the amazing 2000 deal, then missed the pretty damn good 2008 deal, now they've missed Trump's still decent deal (whatever you want to say about it, it did grant them a sovereign state, something they don't have right now). In the future they'll get worse and worse deals which they'll keep rejecting because they erroneously believe that time is working in their favor, until one day they'll find themselves with exactly zero chances for a state of their own and nobody giving a fuck about it.
 

Marduk

Well-known member
Moderator
Staff Member
That's precisely why they should accept the Trump plan. As time passes they're only going to get progressively worse deals. They missed the amazing 2000 deal, then missed the pretty damn good 2008 deal, now they've missed Trump's still decent deal (whatever you want to say about it, it did grant them a sovereign state, something they don't have right now). In the future they'll get worse and worse deals which they'll keep rejecting because they erroneously believe that time is working in their favor, until one day they'll find themselves with exactly zero chances for a state of their own and nobody giving a fuck about it.
People in the West are too used to war weariness politics similar to their own, Vietnam, Iraq etc. encouraging some to mistakenly think such things work the same way all around the world.
Authoritarian governments with effectively indoctrinated populations (if they needed to be in the first place), by all observation, play by different rules.
Russia has now lost a similar amount of soldiers as USA through the whole Vietnam war, yet as you can see, no interest in any peace that doesn't happen to spell the same way as victory, spot the difference.
The same goes for Palestinians, possibly more, due to the islamist undertone of the conflict. They don't want just any peace, they don't want some kind of deal, they want victory specifically, their own pride and trust in own side's story means they can't accept anything less.

The second issue is that they don't want a state of their own. It's a position the Arabs have tactically shifted into once it became clear they can't win this the conventional way yet want to continue to fight. The hypothetical "Palestinian cause" is only a proxy war equivalent of a shell company (existing for the same purpose - so that the unsuccessful dodgy moves they do don't blow back at the sponsors, just get contained to Palestine), with Arabs and other islamist hanger-ons being the real actors there. Palestinians of course being part of the former, as even quotes of their own leaders demonstrate. Naturally the supposed "Palestinian state" is not interested in its separation from nearby Arab states, own prosperity or long term feasibility, just grabbing as much land as possible from Israel, preferably everything, and then pressing on until the latter becomes feasible. So, nothing new since 1948.
Everyone knows that if it did somehow achieve a satisfying enough win, it would in some way unite with the other nearby Arab states over the years.
 
Last edited:

Terthna

Professional Lurker
Do you support giving the Germans who were expelled en masse from now-Polish territory the right of return to Poland? Though interestingly enough, such a move would probably be less risky for Poland since few Germans will likely come due to Poland still being poorer than Germany and also due to them being required to learn Polish before they could acquire Polish citizenship. But even if all of them would have come, Poland would have still been only about 20% German or so. Ditto for Czechia. Whereas Israel is already around 20% Arab even without any Palestinian Arab right of return!
No, because from his perspective if it's bad for Poland and the Polish, it's bad period; end of discussion.
 

Marduk

Well-known member
Moderator
Staff Member
No, because from his perspective if it's bad for Poland and the Polish, it's bad period; end of discussion.
Ironically, with the EU existing and all that, it is a moot question. Germans are free to go and live in Poland if they want to, same as the French and the Dutch and the Spanish.
 

ATP

Well-known member
Do you support giving the Germans who were expelled en masse from now-Polish territory the right of return to Poland? Though interestingly enough, such a move would probably be less risky for Poland since few Germans will likely come due to Poland still being poorer than Germany and also due to them being required to learn Polish before they could acquire Polish citizenship. But even if all of them would have come, Poland would have still been only about 20% German or so. Ditto for Czechia. Whereas Israel is already around 20% Arab even without any Palestinian Arab right of return!

Germans started war against us,and we were first victims of their genocide.Tell me,when palestinian attacked jews on their land,and genocided them?
No, because from his perspective if it's bad for Poland and the Polish, it's bad period; end of discussion.

Nope,my uneducated friend - from EVERY perspective germans started war,genocided us,and then lost thanks to their own stupidity.
Tell me,how many world wars paestinians started and lost?
Exactly.
 

Marduk

Well-known member
Moderator
Staff Member
Arabs,not palestinians.Palestinians were still christians then.
There were no "Palestinians" then. There were Byzantine Christians there.
There were no "Palestinians" until 1970's, when Arabs decided that after losing another war they need to make the Palestinian conflict into a more indirect one to not damage their own countries. So the "Arab brothers from Palestine" had to be turned into Palestinians. In politics at least. In reality they still had the same language, culture, and alliances with the rest of Arabs. That's why if you read book or news about this conflict from before then, you will see everyone use terms like "Palestinian Arabs" or simply "Arabs" instead of Palestinians, like it is common in the modern narrative.
This article reaches into the further historical perspective quite nicely, with gems like this:
As late as 1909 the first recorded Arab to use the term “Palestinian” was Farid Georges Kassab, a Beirut-based Orthodox Christian who, in 1909, espoused sympathy for Zionism. Kassab’s 1909 book stated that “the Orthodox Palestinian Ottomans call themselves Arabs, and are in fact Arabs.” Even Kassab decried the use of the term “Palestinian” Arab. Nevertheless, apart from the ancient indigenous Jews in the Levant, the largely Muslim Arab population identified only as Arab and ONLY with the start of the British mandate, was the term used to describe both Jew and Arab. So, the term Palestinian did not take on its current popular meaning until the mid-20th century and was used as a regional reference.

On a related tangent, in 1948, the invasion of Israel by 6 pan-Arab armies had NOTHING to do with creating an Arab Palestinian state but ALL to do with a classic imperialist Muslim scramble for Palestinian territory. Had they succeeded, as the first secretary-general of the Arab League, Abdel Rahman Azzam, admitted to a British reporter, Transjordan “was to swallow up the central hill regions of Palestine with access to the Mediterranean at Gaza. The Egyptians would get the Negev. The Galilee would go to Syria, except that the coastal part as far as Acre would be added to Lebanon.”
And,arabs do not genocided anybody after surrender.
"Only" turn them into serfs\slaves. As Soviets agreed, more efficient than the national socialist's way.
You mistaken it with jews genociding christians after city was taken by Persia earlier.
So it was Jews or Persians doing the genociding?
 
Last edited:

ATP

Well-known member
There were no "Palestinians" then. There were Byzantine Christians there.
There were no "Palestinians" until 1970's, when Arabs decided that after losing another war they need to make the Palestinian conflict into a more indirect one to not damage their own countries. So the "Arab brothers from Palestine" had to be turned into Palestinians. In politics at least. In reality they still had the same language, culture, and alliances with the rest of Arabs. That's why if you read book or news about this conflict from before then, you will see everyone use terms like "Palestinian Arabs" or simply "Arabs" instead of Palestinians, like it is common in the modern narrative.
This article reaches into the further historical perspective quite nicely, with gems like this:


"Only" turn them into serfs\slaves. As Soviets agreed, more efficient than the national socialist's way.

So it was Jews or Persians doing the genociding?

1.Palestinians as people who lived there from bronze age,and taking culture and religion from anybody who win.First they becomed jews,then pagans,then christians,now they are good muslims.
If cargo cultist invade Izrael and win,they would become cargo cultists.
Truly,ideal nation of opportunists.
I almost envy them.Almost.

2.Well,some of them.Rest could live as servants - many christians survived on muslims lands as second-class people.
In Iraq,till USA puppets removed them.

3.Persians gave christians to jews as slaves.Christians do not agree to be slaves,so jews killed them.
Only people who mass-murdered jews in Palestine were pagan romans.
 

Marduk

Well-known member
Moderator
Staff Member
1.Palestinians as people who lived there from bronze age,and taking culture and religion from anybody who win.First they becomed jews,then pagans,then christians,now they are good muslims.
If cargo cultist invade Izrael and win,they would become cargo cultists.
Truly,ideal nation of opportunists.
I almost envy them.Almost.
Cool story. In reality, all the local semitic peoples are quite mixed in terms of what genetics can prove.
The genetic profile of Palestinians has, for the first time, been studied by using human leukocyte antigen (HLA) gene variability and haplotypes. The comparison with other Mediterranean populations by using neighbor-joining dendrograms and correspondence analyses reveal that Palestinians are genetically very close to Jews and other Middle East populations, including Turks (Anatolians), Lebanese, Egyptians, Armenians, and Iranians. Archaeologic and genetic data support that both Jews and Palestinians came from the ancient Canaanites, who extensively mixed with Egyptians, Mesopotamian, and Anatolian peoples in ancient times. Thus, Palestinian-Jewish rivalry is based in cultural and religious, but not in genetic, differences. The relatively close relatedness of both Jews and Palestinians to western Mediterranean populations reflects the continuous circum-Mediterranean cultural and gene flow that have occurred in prehistoric and historic times.
Culturally, they are Arabs. Genetically, they are hard to tell from many of the other people in Middle East that were Ottoman subjects.
2.Well,some of them.Rest could live as servants - many christians survived on muslims lands as second-class people.
In Iraq,till USA puppets removed them.
Not USA, local islamists lost their patience with the "second-class people" getting uppity. I don't think any westerners should aspire to be Arab's servants. If only Arabs were such doormats and aspired to be our servants...

3.Persians gave christians to jews as slaves.Christians do not agree to be slaves,so jews killed them.
Only people who mass-murdered jews in Palestine were pagan romans.
So ME politics as usual. No friends there, only interests.
 

WolfBear

Well-known member
Ironically, with the EU existing and all that, it is a moot question. Germans are free to go and live in Poland if they want to, same as the French and the Dutch and the Spanish.

Just how easy/difficult is it for them to get Polish citizenship?
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top