unbeliever   10 #25 Posted August 18, 2015 (edited) And perhaps stopped totally ignoring the UN by building more property on land belonging to Palestinians?  This land was taken from Egypt and Syria when then attempted genocide on the people of Israel in 1967. That's after it was illegally taken in another attempted genocide of the Jews from Israel/Palestine in 1948 by those same countries when the UN ordered that the land be partitioned between the Jews and the Muslims. It might be better in the long term interests of peace (i.e. more diplomatic) if Israel would stop settling people on that land, but it's not like they stole it. Edited August 18, 2015 by unbeliever Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
woodmally   10 #26 Posted August 18, 2015 Oh for the love of.... Where should the borders of this state be? Who would have sovereignty over Islamic holy sites currently within the borders of Israel. What about right of return? What do you do with all the Palestinians who live in the West Bank and Gaza Strip who are dependent for their livelihood on work in Israel? What should the Israeli government do when rockets are fired from the newly created sovereign state of Palestine into Israel? The list is endless.  You talk like all that's needed is for the West Bank and Gaza Strip to be declared a single sovereign state and that's the end of it. You realise that these 2 pieces of land are not physically connected? Why don't you ask a Palestinian if that would be acceptable to them?  Yes the two may not be connected. But thats never been an issue for the US you only need to look at Alaska. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
unbeliever   10 #27 Posted August 18, 2015 (edited) Yes the two may not be connected. But thats never been an issue for the US you only need to look at Alaska.  You expect the Israeli's to allow the Palestinians to freely travel from one to the other firing rockets at Israelis as they go? Besides, that's not what the Palestinians are asking for.  Any practical state of Palestine is going involve a resolution to amongst others, the questions I raise above. It's not nice to see people stateless, but the problem is that all the alternatives anybody can come up with are worse.  The modern "Palestinians" are suffering from the fall-out from the crimes of their ancestors. Not from the malice of the Israelis.  It's perfectly legitimate to criticise Israel when they get things wrong, or act selfishly, or for various other things. It's also perfectly reasonable to have sympathy for the plight of the "Palestinians" after all they're not all terrorists and most bear no personal responsibility for the mess that is the Palestine/Israel dispute. Just please don't pretend that the solution is simple. It's really not. Edited August 18, 2015 by unbeliever Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
sgtkate   10 #28 Posted August 18, 2015 This land was taken from Egypt and Syria when then attempted genocide on the people of Israel in 1967. That's after it was illegally taken in another attempted genocide of the Jews from Israel/Palestine in 1948 by those same countries when the UN ordered that the land be partitioned between the Jews and the Muslims. It might be better in the long term interests of peace (i.e. more diplomatic) if Israel would stop settling people on that land, but it's not like they stole it.  I didn't say they stole it as I know the rough history. However, if most countries ignored a UN directive they'd get sanctioned.  ---------- Post added 18-08-2015 at 14:47 ----------  Just please don't pretend that the solution is simple. It's really not.  Totally agreed. If it's not been fixed in the last 50 years, it cannot be simple to sort. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
unbeliever   10 #29 Posted August 18, 2015 I didn't say they stole it as I know the rough history. However, if most countries ignored a UN directive they'd get sanctioned.  I'm pretty sure they're general assembly resolutions. Which are not binding. Security council resolutions are a different matter, unless they're specifically set out as recommendations in which case they're also not binding. A binding security council resolution is usually required if any kind of sanction is to follow. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
buck   11 #30 Posted August 21, 2015 Yes the two may not be connected. But thats never been an issue for the US you only need to look at Alaska.You can add Hawaii to that list. Try asking Alaskans or Hawaiians if they like being American. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Jeffrey Shaw   90 #31 Posted August 24, 2015 It's the state that they're in. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
unbeliever   10 #32 Posted August 25, 2015 You can add Hawaii to that list. Try asking Alaskans or Hawaiians if they like being American.  The key difference there is that you don't have to worry about the Americans firing rockets at Canadians as they pass through or over Canada to get to and from Alaska. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
May Blob   10 #33 Posted August 25, 2015 Originally Posted by The Joker View Post  Iran has agreed to inspections of her nuclear sites at any time  Don't let the Iranians know you've referred to Iran as a her. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Jeffrey Shaw   90 #34 Posted August 27, 2015 Don't let the Iranians know you've referred to Iran as a her. True. Use the third persian singular. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...