Morocco bucks Muslim world trend, raises Israeli flag and plays Israeli anthem at Judo tournament after Israeli Athlete wins Gold

  • mwolverine

    Posts: 5426

    Feb 14, 2016 7:47 PM GMT
    IF You Were A Bona Fide Victim Of "Apartheid", "Ethnic Cleansing", "Land Theft", "Starvation", "Massacres" Let Alone "Genocide", Would You Reject Out-Of-Hand A Compromise That Only Gave You 99.5%?

    I originally posted peace threads in 2008, 2010 and 2012.
    Let's see if in 2016 the Jew-haters posing as just being "anti-Israel" are finally interested in ending rather than perpetuating the conflict.

    Original discussions:
    The two-state solution: Revisiting the Clinton Compromise Parameters and Olmert Plan

    On Dec 09, 2011 11:48 PM (EST), pouncer posted this map:

    This is progress.

    1. Previously he misrepresented not just the Barak Plan, but also the Clinton parameters.
    So he could reject and argue against them.
    To rationalize and justify their rejection by Arafat (while pretending Arafat accepted them).
    How can someone spend hours seeking (and filtering) data, posting selective snippets, and get things so wrong?

    2. Specifically, note the red dots which are Jewish villages that would "be evacuated".
    Previously pouncer argued they would remain, with "access roads" disecting the Arab state-to-be.

    3. How many "cantons" are there above? None! It is one contiguous area.
    (Matching the Ross map I posted years ago.)
    Do you see why Mally & Agha don't make the slogan/soundbite "canton" argument and sleazy false comparisons to SA?
    Do you see why Ross and Clinton explicitly reject this?

    pouncer> The two-state settlement is this (the Palestinian plan):

    4. Now, finally, he's giving us a counter-offer?

    5. Yet the only difference is the size of the "fingers".
    In total, a difference of a mere 30 square miles.
    (For those challenged by math, that's a 3 x 10 mile strip.)

    6. At a cost of creating a sixth of a million Jewish refugees.

    Which is the lesser evil?
    Israel retaining a net 30 square miles of land (on which few Arabs reside)?
    Or forcing an extra 111,000 Jews out of their homes? (Above the 56,000 in Israel's proposal.)
    No surprise that pouncer, always seeking to malign and punish Jews, chooses the latter.

    7. All this for the faux "principle" of making land exchanges 1-to-1, exactly even.
    As if that's that important?
    The problem is that Arabs living on the Israeli side of the 1949 Armistice line don't want their villages ceded to a PA state.
    They (despite all the anti-Israeli propaganda) prefer to live in - their homes & villages to stay in - allegedly "apartheid" Israel.

    Previously (in the Yalla, Peace! topic), pouncer fell silent when asked:
    "What is more important?
    Respecting the wishes of these Arab villagers - who don't want their land ceded to Palestine-to-be
    or Making land swaps 1-to-1?"

    Punish the Jews or let the Arabs live - in Israel - in peace?
    Tough question for someone whose raison d'etre is anti-Jewish animus.

    8. Four months later pouncer figured it out:
    It is more important to respect the wishes of these Arab villagers, thus the 1-to-1 land ratio must be preserved... by uprooting 167,000 Jews!

    9. Hey, why not invent a 1-to-1 "principle" about uprooting people, too?
    If 167,000 Jews are to be uprooted, why not uproot 167,000 Arabs from Israel?
    (For those too dim to understand, I'm not advovcating this. Just showing how ridiculous the faux 1-to-1 "principle" is.)

    10. From pouncer's source, we see this stated by the PA negotiators - in 2008 [17 years into the peace process started in Madrid in 1991!]:
    Saeb [Erakat]: We will examine the matter. We have lots of internal complications.
    ...What matters is that we have begun to participate and cooperate.

    This startling admission in 2008!
    Previously the official PA position was our way or the highway, no negotiation, everything or nothing.

    11. Now consider Israel's reponse:
    [Tzipi] Livni: Perhaps the next thing we will do, after knowing the position of each of us, is to have the experts sit together and discuss the gaps and differences between the two maps.

    12. Unfortunately the PA pulled out of the negotiations before that could happen.
    As documented in the original forum topic (back in 2008!), they regressed to the same ol' same old:
    Abbas's spokesman said. "The Palestinian side will only accept a Palestinian state with territorial continuity, with holy Jerusalem as its capital, without settlements, and on the June 4, 1967 boundaries." He called the Israeli proposal a "waste of time."

    Looks like the PA leadership was wasting its own negotiators' time.
    Just as they had wasted the years from 2000-2008.
    Just as they wasted 2008-2011.
    Just as they continue to waste time (and lives!) now into 2012... and 2016
  • mwolverine

    Posts: 5426

    Feb 14, 2016 7:49 PM GMT
    What do people think of the Clinton compromise parameters?

    This is what then President Clinton proposed in 2000:

    A. The establishment of an independent, internationally recognized and sovereign Palestinian Arab state on a net 97% of the disputed territories.

    B. Including the Arab neighborhoods of eastern Jerusalem.

    C. With some form of shared sovereignty over the Temple Mount

    D. With a so-called "right of return" to the nascent Palestinian Arab state.

    E. And a $30 Billion fund to resettle or compensate the Arab refugees and their descendants.

    F. While it is theoretically possible that Jews living in the areas from which Israel would withdraw (upped to a net of nearly 100% by the Olmert plan) could remain as Palestinian citizens (just as there are 1.2 million Arabs living in Israel), the unpleasant reality is that they would be massacred and must thus be uprooted. (Note that any construction in these areas actually benefits the Palestinian Arabs. I suppose some refugees/descendants could move into these homes - hardly an obstacle to peace, just like construction in the small areas Israel would annex is not an obstacle to peace.)

    Does this sound reasonable?
    If no, what do you object to?

    Let me add another thing from the original topic.
    This coming from sxydrkhair's source (not quoted selectively):

    President Clinton> Arafat turned down the deal I put together that Barak accepted

    President Clinton himself - sxydrkhair's source! - proved both pouncer's and tokugawa's anti-Israel claims are wrong!
    (Which I'm sure wasn't much of a surprise to anyone.)
  • mwolverine

    Posts: 5426

    Feb 14, 2016 7:56 PM GMT
    AyaTrolLiar pouncer boycotted the thread, but took pot shots at it elsewhere:

    Why can't these trolls ever discuss a topic in its place? Is it because the lies they regurgitate were already refuted?)

    ATp> Olmert, who never envisaged more than blatantly unequal Israeli landswaps
    Olmert suggested that Israel pull out of 94 percent of the West Bank, compensating the Palestinians with land in place of the remaining 6 percent.

    ATp> who was unwilling to commit any further suggestions in writing,

    From the link above:
    Abbas didn't respond to Olmert's proposal, instead he presented him in September 2008 with a document listing clarifications. In a May 2009 interview to the Washington Post, Abbas said that despite the understandings he reached with Olmert, "The differences were still great." In an interview to Channel 2 that aired several days ago Abbas denied this, claiming that he and Olmert actually did reach many understandings.

    Rice wrote in her memoirs that she pressed then President George W. Bush to pressure Olmert and Abbas to put what they agreed on to writing in order to solidify the agreement further. But Abbas refused to do so

    ATp> keeping over 60% of the settlers in Israel as the PA had offered.

    I think the above is being twisted despite meaning the opposite, that 63% of these Jews would be uprooted and kicked out of their homes.

    It's not surprising that Olmert would shy away from this given that under his proposal - with equitable land swaps - only 12% of Jews would be expelled from their homes.

    ATp> the only reasonable two-state solution ever offered

    LOL. There's that infamous madrasa logic.
    He has yet to show why other proposals (including Clinton's or Olmert's) weren't "reasonable".

    ATp> was flatly rejected

    We've already seen above that this is false.
    It was Abbas who "flatly rejected" Olmert's offer and broke off negotiations:
    Olmert presented his map to Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas in September of last year [2008]. Abbas did not respond, and negotiations ended. In an interview with Haaretz on Tuesday, Abbas said Olmert had presented several drafts of his map.

    PA rejects Olmert's offer to withdraw from 93% of West Bank
    He [Abbas] called the Israeli proposal a "waste of time."
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 15, 2016 3:24 AM GMT
    Warning to anyone who has joined RJ in the last two years - this thread appears to be the resumption of the endless fight between the OP and Pouncer. I hope the thread fades quickly.

    I don't expect peace between Israel and the Palestinians within the next 50 years, and most of us will no longer be on this earth, so I don't see the point in discussing those countries on RJ.
  • tj85016

    Posts: 4123

    Feb 15, 2016 4:55 AM GMT
    people in the US are so sick and tired of listening to this endless crap for the past 50 years, nobody cares
  • mwolverine

    Posts: 5426

    Feb 15, 2016 4:46 PM GMT
    I remain optimistic. You have to remember that AyaTrolLiar pouncer would be considered an extremist in Gaza. The majority of Palestinian Arabs in the territories have supported the Clinton parameters since Arafat's death in 2004 (though the numbers have recently dropped, with now only 45% supporting the two-state solution).

    Yet even the latest PCPSR poll (December, 2015) shows 50% support for the "Borders and Territorial Exchange" proposed.

    HikerSkier saidI don't expect peace between Israel and the Palestinians within the next 50 years
  • mwolverine

    Posts: 5426

    Feb 18, 2016 3:21 PM GMT
  • mwolverine

    Posts: 5426

    Feb 27, 2016 7:57 AM GMT
    Note that the Arab parties rejected peace before 1967, when there were no Jews in the disputed territories and no Jewish villages ("settlements").

    Furthermore there are 1.2 million Arabs living in Israel. Why can't there be some Jews living in Arab Palestine?

    Worst case: 88% of the "settlers" reside adjacent to the 1949 Armistice line and can be incorporated into Israel with minor border adjustments. Israel has offered to uproot the other 12% since evidently Arab Palestine will be a "no Jews allowed" place (but no, that's not racist or "apartheid").

    Israel has shown that it is willing to uproot "settlements" for peace (e.g. in Sinai) and otherwise (all Jews were ethnically cleansed - by Sharon! - from Gaza in 2005 as Israel withdrew its forces. Alas, rather than any pacific reciprocation, the Palestinian Arab response was the skyrocketing of terrorism from Gaza against Israeli civilians, leading to the blockade.)

    Peace is the solution, and it will solve this "problem", too.
    It does NOT undermine let alone preclude peace based on a two-state solution.

    duluthrunner saida two-state solution but constantly undermine it by expanding Jewish settlements in the West Bank.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 27, 2016 12:47 PM GMT

    Why bother?
  • mwolverine

    Posts: 5426

    Feb 27, 2016 11:35 PM GMT
    How cute. Both AyaTrolLiar and the Nimrod sock puppet are so anti-peace they lift text from here and respond elsewhere. icon_rolleyes.gif
  • mwolverine

    Posts: 5426

    Feb 27, 2016 11:35 PM GMT
    The Arab parties rejected peace before 1967, when there were no Jews in the disputed territories and no Jewish villages ("settlements").

    AyaTrolLiar pouncer> The Zionists in fact regularly refused peace settlements with the Arabs through the British Mandate period and after the 1948 War, subsequently flouting and disregarding many of the agreements they signed.

    Ah, the hallmark of a pathological liar: Jews/Zionists/Israel "flouted" and "disregarded" the "agreements" they "refused" but nonetheless "signed"?

    Name the agreements.

    Surely you don't mean the 1937 Peel Partition compromise, violently rejected by the Arab parties.

    Surely you don't mean the 1947 UN Partition compromise, violently rejected by the Arab parties.

    Surely you don't mean UNGAR 194 in 1949, rejected by the Arab parties.

    After the 1956 war, Israel withdrew from territories it conquered. The Arabs refused to make peace.

    After the 1967 war, Israel accepted UNSCR 242 (which established the "land for peace" formula). The Arab parties rejected it. Egyptian president Sadat would go on to say he would sacrifice 1 million Egyptian soldiers to destroy Israel.

    After yet another failed Arab war in 1973, Sadat finally opted to give peace a chance and accepted UNSCR 242. He found a ready, willing and able Israeli peace partner in Menachem Begin - then, and perhaps still, the most right-wing Israeli prime minister. For doing so, not only was Sadat assassinated, but Egypt (the largest Arab country) was effectively expelled from the Arab League.

    Nimrod Sock Puppet> Incorrect, Israeli built settlements in Palestinian territory conquered by Israel in the Six Day War. These neighborhoods have been a major issue in the peace process since 1967.

    Israel conquered Jordanian territory, Jordan having annexed Judea and Samaria (as they'd been known for thousands of years) as its so-called "West Bank" and "unifying" both banks.

    NSP doesn't quite have all his marbles, though. My point was if the "settlements" are "the obstacle to peace", then why wasn't there peace BEFORE 1967? His answer is about "SINCE 1967"?!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 27, 2016 11:40 PM GMT
    Maybe billions have been spent trying to encourage some kind of resolution....and it all goes to weapons of mass destruction. Y'all need to go fuck yer selves.
  • mwolverine

    Posts: 5426

    Feb 27, 2016 11:42 PM GMT
    There are 1.2 million Arabs living in Israel. Why can't there be some Jews living in Arab Palestine?

    AyaTrolLiar> not as Israelis and surely not at the behest of an occupying power.
    They can live legally in a Palestinian state by applying through the proper channels after it is established.

    What a "clever" way of saying Jews can't live there, or that Jews who lived there before being ethnically cleansed during the Arab invasion of 1948 couldn't return to their homes in 1967. Or ever, if the Palestinian Arabs opt to fight endlessly rather than make peace.

    NSP> 1.2 million Arabs were there before Israel was a Jewish state dumbo and they were lucky they did not leave! If they leave Palestine, they cannot return

    There were 1.2 million ARABS between the river and the sea in 1947.
    Today there are what, 5-6 million?

    Thanks, though, for confirming that the majority of Arabs in 1948 FLED ("left") the Arab-initiated violence and war and were not "forced out".

    NSP> Israeli Zionist Jews do not want to live with the Palestinians, they want them out!

    Do you listen to yourself? It's you who want the Jews out, not vice versa!

  • mwolverine

    Posts: 5426

    Feb 27, 2016 11:51 PM GMT
    Worst case: 88% of the "settlers" reside adjacent to the 1949 Armistice line and can be incorporated into Israel with minor border adjustments. Israel has offered to uproot the other 12% since evidently Arab Palestine will be a "no Jews allowed" place (but no, that's not racist or "apartheid").

    ATLP> Not going to happen. Israel can incorporate about 60% of the settlers with minor border modifications (sacrificing the blocs), but it will not be retaining its northern salients or any presence around Jerusalem, Ramallah or Bethlehem.

    See graphic above - which was his source in 2011!
    (No wonder chickensh*t won't debate this here, eh?)

    NSP> "No Jews allowed" is Israel's racist policy

    So you are saying that Israeli law is "racist" because in honoring the Oslo Accords it doesn't allow - at the request of the PA - Jews to enter Judea & Samaria? You want that Israel should let them in?!

    NSP> settlers that stealing Palestinian lands?

    They initially moved back onto lands they owned before 1948 but now also reside in lands they have purchased more recently.

    Recall that land purchases grate on the PA so much that the FIRST law passed was to not only outlaw the sale of land to Jews, but to make it a CAPITAL offense - punishable by death. You think this is because Jews "steal" land?

    NSP> Palestinian government already said to the Israeli government, Palestinians are willing to allow Israeli Jew settlers become Palestinian citizens.

    Odd that you didn't disagree with ATLP above, who rejected that.
  • mwolverine

    Posts: 5426

    Feb 27, 2016 11:58 PM GMT
    Israel has shown that it is willing to uproot "settlements" for peace (e.g. in Sinai) and otherwise (all Jews were ethnically cleansed - by Sharon! - from Gaza in 2005 as Israel withdrew its forces. Alas, rather than any pacific reciprocation, the Palestinian Arab response was the skyrocketing of terrorism from Gaza against Israeli civilians, leading to the blockade.)

    ATLP> [ignored]

    NSP> Israel did not "willing" to uproot settlement for peace. They cannot afford paying more "security" in Gaza. Hamas did a really good job teaching Israel a lesson not to steal Palestinian properties. Settlements in the Gaza Strip were evacuated and destroyed as part of Israel's unilateral "disengagement" from Gaza in 2005.

    Hamas wasn't even then in power, but it's obvious that they are his heroes and that he embraces them.

    Israel easily could have "afforded" to remain in Gaza. It chose to withdraw. You can view this as a good-faith measure toward peace, or that Sharon knew that the Palestinian Arabs - who never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity - would bungle it and make things infinitely worse for themselves. As has happened.

    Notice how Nimrod can't even fathom peace or peaceful reciprocation?
  • mwolverine

    Posts: 5426

    Mar 02, 2016 12:15 AM GMT
    Curious. AyaTrolLiar pouncer and Nimrod the Sock Puppet, rather than respond to my comments here in the peace thread, both took my comments from here and posted them elsewhere, in a thread about Gaza workouts

    AyaTrolLiar> Your threads are a joke.

    The basis of this thread is a map HE provided.
    Now it's a joke? (I mean, other than that his own source disproved his claim.)

    He pulled text from here but then replied to it there because this thread is a joke?
    Yes, sadly for petty, hatist-racist war-mongers like AyaTrolLiar pouncer, peace is a joke.

  • mwolverine

    Posts: 5426

    Mar 03, 2016 2:43 PM GMT
    It's not a new thing that the Jew/Israel-haters "boycott" peace threads.
    They have nothing to say in peace threads year after year after year:

    2008: UN Security Council Resolution 242, Oslo Accords, Camp David & Taba. I support the CLINTON COMPROMISE parameters. Yet the war-mongering anti-Israel trolls do not.

    2010: Yalla, Peace!

    2012: The two-state solution: Revisiting the Clinton Compromise Parameters and the Olmert Plan

    They are just here to incite and spread their hate.
    What they really desire, the destruction of Israel, cannot be achieved via peace.
    Thus every peace offer is "bad" and unworkable and they're against it.
    They prefer the status quo to an "imperfect" peace, even as they tell us how bad things are, because it's better than making peace.
    It keeps alive the hope of a future destruction of Israel while making peace and ending the conflict forever precludes that.
  • mwolverine

    Posts: 5426

    Mar 04, 2016 3:08 PM GMT
    Still "boycotting" peace, elsewhere:

    AyaTrolLiar pouncer> Hitler advocated peace too, as long as it reflected the outcomes he wanted

    Is he trying to compare Clinton or me to hitler?
    Or former President Carter, whose Camp David peace initiative was rejected by all Arab parties, including the PLO, in the 1970s?
    (Except Egypt's President Sadat, who the AyaTrolLiar considers a traitor.)

    What is it with the letter "H"?
    Hamas, Hizbullah and hitler, and he wants us to believe that only 2 of these are his Heroes?

    Oh, wait, here's another: Husseini the grand mufti of Jerusalem, also the leader of the Arab Higher Command, the agency representing the Arabs of British Mandate Palestine (before they were called Palestinians).

  • mwolverine

    Posts: 5426

    Mar 05, 2016 3:41 PM GMT
    AyaTrolLiar> right-wing Zionists... entreating Hitler at the same time, or to mention the glowingly pro-Hitler stance of the New York Times, the US State Department and Winston Churchill at various times.

    The "same time"? In 1942 and 1944?!

    Anti-semites and idiots like to bring up things like the Haavara (transfer) agreement (1933) which was Zionist cooperating with nazi Germany to extract and rescue Jews. (Prior to late 1941, the nazi imperative was to expel, not eradicate, Jews. The latter becoming the "Final Solution" after no one would take masses of Jewish refugees.)

    Aside from a timing issue, there's a 180° difference between supporting and conspiring with a mass murderer and "entreating" him in order to save lives. Such "nuance" is lost on people driven mad by their own hate.

    Muslim Bosniak soldiers of the Handschar Waffen SS reading a pamphlet written by Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini titled 'Islam and Judaism.

    As usual, speaking from ignorance:

    AyaTrolLiar> it is only a religious leader from Jerusalem appointed by the British (the position didn't even exist prior to the British imperial conquest this monster supports) who is tarnished with Hitler

    The position of Grand Mufti was institutionalized by the Ottoman Turks (the Caliphate) in the late 16th century.

    While the appointment of Haj Amin al-Husseini was made by the British in 1921, and while it was a poor choice which provides insights to British policy at the time, it was done following local tradition. The position became vacant with the untimely death of his brother, Kamel, who when sick designated Amin as his successor. Previously the position was held by their father.
  • mwolverine

    Posts: 5426

    Mar 05, 2016 4:21 PM GMT
    AyaTrolLiar> Israel - an expansionist power using its military advantage to thumb its nose at the international community in a bid to steal more lebensraum.

    Not that I like trying to bail out Dan Quayle, but maybe he had pouncer in mind when he said that "a brain is a terrible thing not to have".

    The nazi policy of lebensraum, described in the Generalplan Ost, was to starve, kill, deport, or enslave populations east of Germany (Poles, Ukrainians, Russians) and replace them with ethnic Germans.

    Israel gained the former so-called "West Bank" OF Trans/Jordan in a defensive war in 1967.

    Tools like the AyaTrolLiar pretends that Israel started the war by ignoring that Egypt and Syria moved troops into demilitarized zones in violation of existing armistice agreements, closed the Straits of Tiran (an international waterway and Israel's passage to the Indian Ocean) to Israeli ships and ships bound to Israel - again in violation of existing agreements, and boasted and threatened of their pending destruction of the "Zionist entity" (another violation of international law).

    Israel pre-emptively attacked the Egyptian Air Force and advised Jordanian King Hussein that Israel had no territorial ambition and would not attack him. Unfortunately for Hussein, he had just signed a mutual defense agreement with Egypt & Syria. But that's not what compelled him to act. Misled by false Egyptian reports that their troops were marching on Tel Aviv, and false Syrian reports that they were marching on Haifa, Hussein attacked lest he be left out of getting his share of the spoils of war. Instead he lost his "West Bank".

    Justice Stephen Schwebel, 2 time President of the International Court of Justice:

    The facts of the June 1967 "Six Day War" demonstrate that Israel reacted defensively against the threat and use of force against her by her Arab neighbors. This is indicated by the fact that Israel responded to Egypt's prior closure of the Straits of Tiran [an international waterway], its proclamation of a blockade of the Israeli port of Eilat, and the manifest threat of the UAR's use of force inherent in its massing of troops in Sinai [in violation of the armistice agreements], coupled with its ejection of UNEF [peacekeepers]. It is indicated by the fact that, upon Israeli responsive action against the UAR, Jordan initiated hostilities against Israel. It is suggested as well by the fact that, despite the most intense efforts by the Arab States and their supporters, led by the Premier of the Soviet Union, to gain condemnation of Israel as an aggressor by the hospitable organs of the United Nations, those efforts were decisively defeated. The conclusion to which these facts lead is that the Israeli conquest of Arab and Arab-held territory was defensive rather than aggressive conquest.

    In Mein Kampf, hitler complains that Germany was limited to only some 500,000 sq km. It sought to expand by another 1 million sq km or more.

    Israel is a total of about 20,000 sq km (8,000 sq miles). The disputed territories are under 6,000 sq km.

    So it's just another example of how people mad with hate are limited to vapid soundbites and silly slogans ("lebensraum", "apartheid", "genocide", "colonialism", "bantustan"). Which is to argument what paint-by-number is to art.

    Inapt as the soundbite is even on its face, as we see in this thread "expansionist" Israel has offered to withdraw from 99.5% of this area in exchange for peace. How insane must one be to describe a border dispute over a few square miles as "lebensraum"?!

    No wonder AyaTrolLiar pouncer can't help but utter such foolishness in other threads.
  • mwolverine

    Posts: 5426

    Mar 05, 2016 4:43 PM GMT
    AyaTrolLiar> I support the international consensus for peace based on the two-state solution - 80% of Palestine to the settler Jews, 20% to the Palestinians. Not because I like it (few do) but because it is preferable to war. Israel rejects it.

    Historic "Palestine" (no such jurisdiction - or demographic group - existed with the Ottoman Empire, it was then the Latin/European name for the Land of Israel) was first divided in 1922. Some 80% of the Sanjak of Acre was made part of Lebanon. The Golan Heights were given to Syria. And Trans-Jordan (78% of the British Mandate of Palestine) was exempted from the Mandate's objective of re-establishing the Jewish state in the Jewish homeland.

    It is that 22% allocated to Jews that AyaTrolLiar considers "Palestine" (consider the conundrum that he believes Arabs within that post WW I border are an ancient nation rather than a post-war development). So his seemingly whopping "80%" figure is not of 100% of post WW I Mandate Palestine, but 80% of the Jewish "half" (22%), or less than 18%. In his perverted mind, Jews are getting too much (but he's also volunteered that Jews shouldn't get anything at all, that "one Jewish state is too many").

    His typical anti-Jewish animus is further clear with his reference to "settler Jews", ignoring that Jews are indigenous to this land and have lived on it, CONTINUOUSLY, for over 3,300 years. In fact, Jews are the only nation of people to ever self-govern on this land (all others being foreign occupiers ruling from afar). More than 75% of Israeli Jews were born in... Israel.

    He's previously also admitted that up to 200,000 Arabs (of a 1.3 million pre-1948 population) were themselves recent illegal immigrants from surrounding Arab regions into Mandate Palestine. Never mind the legal immigrants (including those who entered western Mandate Palestine from Trans-Jordan, who prior to 1938 weren't even counted as immigrants) or those who (like Jews) arrived in the 19th century.

    His reference to "international consensus" is his fallback once his appeals to "international law" were shown false. The Resolution of record is UN Security Council Resolution 242, which is binding on the parties, and the Oslo Accords (signed by Arafat, too). It is this that is supported by the "Quartet" (US, EU, UN and Russia) and Israel - and me. AyaTrolLiar pouncer opposes it.

  • mwolverine

    Posts: 5426

    Mar 05, 2016 4:45 PM GMT
    See also:

    Why does virulent Anti-Semitism play such a large role in MidEast discussions on RJ?

    "Palestine" is the Latin/European name for Eretz Yisrael, the Jewish homeland
    and early 20th century Arab denials of the existence of "Palestine".

    Arabs (like Arabic) NOT indigenous to Israel

    The Palestine Paradox

    The Emergence of Palestinian Arab Nationalism
  • mwolverine

    Posts: 5426

    Mar 05, 2016 4:52 PM GMT
    Now to really understand how petty and immature AyaTrolLiar pouncer is, contemplate that rather than honestly and directly discuss peace in this thread, he continues to hijack Samer's thread about Gaza. Reading here and responding there.

    Gaza - One Of The World's Toughest Workout

    At the same time, in Samer's "P" thread, he pretends to refuse to discuss not only drift discussion but the issue itself because it's off-topic.

    No 'P' in Arabic Means No Palestine

    As if that's not bad enough, recall that he's avoiding ("boycotting") this thread because I posted it, yet that hasn't stopped him from posting his nonsense in another thread I authored:

    Gulf Nations Declare Lebanon's Hezbollah a Terrorist Group

    There is no logic, no consistency, no deep thought - just base surface layer hate.
    A small mind consumed, mad, taken over, with hate.
  • mwolverine

    Posts: 5426

    Mar 08, 2016 5:11 PM GMT
    White House Working on Renewed Mideast Peace Push
    The U.S. is discussing plans to revive Middle East talks before Obama leaves office, including possible Security Council resolution, senior U.S. officials say
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 09, 2016 1:04 AM GMT
    mwolverine saidWhite House Working on Renewed Mideast Peace Push
    The U.S. is discussing plans to revive Middle East talks before Obama leaves office, including possible Security Council resolution, senior U.S. officials say

    As Tom Friedman put it on the radio today, peace talks are dead.