France threatens to recognize Palestine

[Ultimate Paragon]

Again I fail to see why this is a "BAD THING".  Maybe I'm not in the right mindset of utterly contemptuous stupid but again, how is this a bad thing?

Ironbite-all I see is this gains Palestine...nothing in terms of actual aid.

I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing either.  Just because I'm pro-Israel doesn't mean I'm anti-Palestine.

You're pro-war and therefore anti-Palestine.

Do you want to get put on ignore?

Huh, I didn't figure UP of all people self-censored our posts.

1. That's not what self-censorship means.

2. I was being sardonic.

[Lt. Fred]

According to this poll, the majority of Israelis support a two-state solution, but don't think it'll happen.  Look at the controversy opposition leader Isaac Herzog caused in his party when he called a two-state solution "unrealistic."  If Israel were truly opposed to a two-state solution, there wouldn't even be any controversy.

Is there any debate at all within government? The public's views are irrelevant.

Yes, there is.  The two-state solution is a major plank in the Israeli Labor Party's platform.

Stated plank. In reality, Labour has never been serious about it. They started the settlement construction to ethnically cleanse the West Bank.

Citation?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_settlement#Settlement_policy

In particular:

"At the presentation of the Oslo II Accord on 5 October 1995 in the Knesset, PM Yitzhak Rabin expounded the Israeli settlement policy in connection with the permanent solution to the conflict. Israel wanted "a Palestinian entity, less than a state, which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank". It wanted to keep settlements beyond the Green Line including Ma'ale Adumim and Givat Ze'ev in East Jerusalem. Blocs of settlements should be established in the West Bank. Rabin promised not to return to the 4 June 1967 lines.[48]"

That was twenty years ago.  At the same time, the Democratic Party was against gays openly serving in the military.

By far the most pro-Palestinian labour prime minister and the last one with a substantial term. Barak was no better.

[Eiki-mun]

That was twenty years ago.  At the same time, the Democratic Party was against gays openly serving in the military.

What we're trying to show you is that throughout Israel's short history, they've been steadily opposed to the idea of a Palestianian state, only really claiming to support it if certain unattainable conditions are met ("oh sure, we'll support a two-state solution, but you replace your government first!"). This was true in 1947 with Ben-Gurion, this was true in 1995 with the Labor party, and it's sure as hell true today under Netanyahu.

[Ultimate Paragon]

That was twenty years ago.  At the same time, the Democratic Party was against gays openly serving in the military.

What we're trying to show you is that throughout Israel's short history, they've been steadily opposed to the idea of a Palestianian state, only really claiming to support it if certain unattainable conditions are met ("oh sure, we'll support a two-state solution, but you replace your government first!"). This was true in 1947 with Ben-Gurion, this was true in 1995 with the Labor party, and it's sure as hell true today under Netanyahu.

How exactly is that unreasonable, considering Hamas explicitly wants to destroy Israel?

[Lt. Fred]

That was twenty years ago.  At the same time, the Democratic Party was against gays openly serving in the military.

What we're trying to show you is that throughout Israel's short history, they've been steadily opposed to the idea of a Palestianian state, only really claiming to support it if certain unattainable conditions are met ("oh sure, we'll support a two-state solution, but you replace your government first!"). This was true in 1947 with Ben-Gurion, this was true in 1995 with the Labor party, and it's sure as hell true today under Netanyahu.

We'll stop shelling you as soon as you promise never to use force under any circumstances including law enforcement. And recognise our right to annex your land.

[Lt. Fred]

That was twenty years ago.  At the same time, the Democratic Party was against gays openly serving in the military.

What we're trying to show you is that throughout Israel's short history, they've been steadily opposed to the idea of a Palestianian state, only really claiming to support it if certain unattainable conditions are met ("oh sure, we'll support a two-state solution, but you replace your government first!"). This was true in 1947 with Ben-Gurion, this was true in 1995 with the Labor party, and it's sure as hell true today under Netanyahu.

How exactly is that unreasonable, considering Hamas explicitly wants to destroy Israel?

As does Likud explicitly want to destroy Palestine. Would a Fatah government be entitled to demand the IDF coup their government before peace? Would that be "reasonable"?

[Ultimate Paragon]

That was twenty years ago.  At the same time, the Democratic Party was against gays openly serving in the military.

What we're trying to show you is that throughout Israel's short history, they've been steadily opposed to the idea of a Palestianian state, only really claiming to support it if certain unattainable conditions are met ("oh sure, we'll support a two-state solution, but you replace your government first!"). This was true in 1947 with Ben-Gurion, this was true in 1995 with the Labor party, and it's sure as hell true today under Netanyahu.

How exactly is that unreasonable, considering Hamas explicitly wants to destroy Israel?

As does Likud explicitly want to destroy Palestine. Would a Fatah government be entitled to demand the IDF coup their government before peace? Would that be "reasonable"?

If that's true, then it's a recent development.  In 2009, Netanyahu was fully supportive of a two-state solution.

Also, I'd like a citation on your claim about Likud explicitly stating it wants to destroy Palestine.

[Lt. Fred]

That was twenty years ago.  At the same time, the Democratic Party was against gays openly serving in the military.

What we're trying to show you is that throughout Israel's short history, they've been steadily opposed to the idea of a Palestianian state, only really claiming to support it if certain unattainable conditions are met ("oh sure, we'll support a two-state solution, but you replace your government first!"). This was true in 1947 with Ben-Gurion, this was true in 1995 with the Labor party, and it's sure as hell true today under Netanyahu.

How exactly is that unreasonable, considering Hamas explicitly wants to destroy Israel?

As does Likud explicitly want to destroy Palestine. Would a Fatah government be entitled to demand the IDF coup their government before peace? Would that be "reasonable"?

If that's true, then it's a recent development.  In 2009, Netanyahu was fully supportive of a two-state solution.

Also, I'd like a citation on your claim about Likud explicitly stating it wants to destroy Palestine.

Bibi circa 2009:

"“I think the Israeli people understand now what I always say: that there cannot be a situation, under any agreement, in which we relinquish security control of the territory west of the River Jordan (translation: where we can accept a Palestinian state).”

The Likud Charter in 1999, which is still the charter:

"a. “The Jordan river will be the permanent eastern border of the State of Israel.”
b. “Jerusalem is the eternal, united capital of the State of Israel and only of Israel.
The government will flatly reject Palestinian proposals to divide Jerusalem”
c. “The Government of Israel flatly rejects the establishment of a Palestinian Arab state west of the Jordan river.”
d. “The Jewish communities in Judea, Samaria and Gaza are the realization of Zionist values. Settlement of the land is a clear expression of the unassailable right of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel and constitutes an important asset in the defense of the vital interests of the State of Israel. The Likud will continue to strengthen and develop these communities and will prevent their uprooting."

http://www.juancole.com/2014/08/charter-destruction-palestinian.html

[Eiki-mun]

While we're at it, here's a HuffPost article from late 2015 about Netanyahu rejecting a two-state solution:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/israel-benjamin-netanyahu-reject-palestinian-state_us_562e5f1be4b0c66bae58b878

WASHINGTON -- Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reaffirmed on Monday that he does not envision a two-state solution for Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories any time soon.

During a parliamentary committee meeting, Netanyahu told members of the Knesset that he has no current plans to surrender control of the occupied West Bank to the Palestinians as part of a peace agreement. “At this time, we need to control all of the territory for the foreseeable future,” he told lawmakers, reported Haaretz.

Netanyahu accused members of the opposition government, who have lobbied for renewed two-state solution negotiations, of indulging in an unrealistic fantasy.

"You think there is a magic wand here, but I disagree,” he told them. “I'm asked if we will forever live by the sword - yes."

Relevant portion quoted, of course.

[Ultimate Paragon]

That was twenty years ago.  At the same time, the Democratic Party was against gays openly serving in the military.

What we're trying to show you is that throughout Israel's short history, they've been steadily opposed to the idea of a Palestianian state, only really claiming to support it if certain unattainable conditions are met ("oh sure, we'll support a two-state solution, but you replace your government first!"). This was true in 1947 with Ben-Gurion, this was true in 1995 with the Labor party, and it's sure as hell true today under Netanyahu.

How exactly is that unreasonable, considering Hamas explicitly wants to destroy Israel?

As does Likud explicitly want to destroy Palestine. Would a Fatah government be entitled to demand the IDF coup their government before peace? Would that be "reasonable"?

If that's true, then it's a recent development.  In 2009, Netanyahu was fully supportive of a two-state solution.

Also, I'd like a citation on your claim about Likud explicitly stating it wants to destroy Palestine.

Bibi circa 2009:

"“I think the Israeli people understand now what I always say: that there cannot be a situation, under any agreement, in which we relinquish security control of the territory west of the River Jordan (translation: where we can accept a Palestinian state).”

The Likud Charter in 1999, which is still the charter:

"a. “The Jordan river will be the permanent eastern border of the State of Israel.”
b. “Jerusalem is the eternal, united capital of the State of Israel and only of Israel.
The government will flatly reject Palestinian proposals to divide Jerusalem”
c. “The Government of Israel flatly rejects the establishment of a Palestinian Arab state west of the Jordan river.”
d. “The Jewish communities in Judea, Samaria and Gaza are the realization of Zionist values. Settlement of the land is a clear expression of the unassailable right of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel and constitutes an important asset in the defense of the vital interests of the State of Israel. The Likud will continue to strengthen and develop these communities and will prevent their uprooting."

http://www.juancole.com/2014/08/charter-destruction-palestinian.html

Alright.  Point made.

[ironbite]

I have still not been told why France recognizing Palestine is a bad thing.

Ironbite-far as I can see it does nothing for the situation.

[Lt. Fred]

That was twenty years ago.  At the same time, the Democratic Party was against gays openly serving in the military.

What we're trying to show you is that throughout Israel's short history, they've been steadily opposed to the idea of a Palestianian state, only really claiming to support it if certain unattainable conditions are met ("oh sure, we'll support a two-state solution, but you replace your government first!"). This was true in 1947 with Ben-Gurion, this was true in 1995 with the Labor party, and it's sure as hell true today under Netanyahu.

How exactly is that unreasonable, considering Hamas explicitly wants to destroy Israel?

As does Likud explicitly want to destroy Palestine. Would a Fatah government be entitled to demand the IDF coup their government before peace? Would that be "reasonable"?

If that's true, then it's a recent development.  In 2009, Netanyahu was fully supportive of a two-state solution.

Also, I'd like a citation on your claim about Likud explicitly stating it wants to destroy Palestine.

Bibi circa 2009:

"“I think the Israeli people understand now what I always say: that there cannot be a situation, under any agreement, in which we relinquish security control of the territory west of the River Jordan (translation: where we can accept a Palestinian state).”

The Likud Charter in 1999, which is still the charter:

"a. “The Jordan river will be the permanent eastern border of the State of Israel.”
b. “Jerusalem is the eternal, united capital of the State of Israel and only of Israel.
The government will flatly reject Palestinian proposals to divide Jerusalem”
c. “The Government of Israel flatly rejects the establishment of a Palestinian Arab state west of the Jordan river.”
d. “The Jewish communities in Judea, Samaria and Gaza are the realization of Zionist values. Settlement of the land is a clear expression of the unassailable right of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel and constitutes an important asset in the defense of the vital interests of the State of Israel. The Likud will continue to strengthen and develop these communities and will prevent their uprooting."

http://www.juancole.com/2014/08/charter-destruction-palestinian.html

Alright.  Point made.

I think this is actually an admission of something.

[The_Queen]

Again I fail to see why this is a "BAD THING".  Maybe I'm not in the right mindset of utterly contemptuous stupid but again, how is this a bad thing?

Ironbite-all I see is this gains Palestine...nothing in terms of actual aid.

I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing either.  Just because I'm pro-Israel doesn't mean I'm anti-Palestine.

You're pro-war and therefore anti-Palestine.

Do you want to get put on ignore?

Can you put me on ignore?

[Tolpuddle Martyr]

Again I fail to see why this is a "BAD THING".  Maybe I'm not in the right mindset of utterly contemptuous stupid but again, how is this a bad thing?

Ironbite-all I see is this gains Palestine...nothing in terms of actual aid.

I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing either.  Just because I'm pro-Israel doesn't mean I'm anti-Palestine.

You're pro-war and therefore anti-Palestine.

Do you want to get put on ignore?

Can you put me on ignore?

Hey, it's no fun for UP if you want ignore him.

[The_Queen]

Again I fail to see why this is a "BAD THING".  Maybe I'm not in the right mindset of utterly contemptuous stupid but again, how is this a bad thing?

Ironbite-all I see is this gains Palestine...nothing in terms of actual aid.

I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing either.  Just because I'm pro-Israel doesn't mean I'm anti-Palestine.

You're pro-war and therefore anti-Palestine.

Do you want to get put on ignore?

Can you put me on ignore?

Hey, it's no fun for UP if you want ignore him.

Yeah, but he ignores my points enough as it is, so this would just give him a legit reason to shirk responses to debate, as well as the direct question rule.