Posted on 05/22/2014 10:45:22 AM PDT by Olog-hai
The question is not to compare them with how they would be treated in Muslim state but how are they treated in compared to their fellow Jewish citizens. One cannot pardon injustice by saying that I am not as unjust as that other guy.
But that is the question. Israel’s bent over backwards to accommodate the “two-state solution” while the “Palestinians” (and the other “Pan-Arabists” in countries like Egypt and elsewhere—do you know what pan-Arabism is?) have insisted on the one-state solution “from the river to the sea” without fail since 1947.
And you are calling something “unjust” which is not unjust. If one is invaded, as the Arabs did to the Israelis, and the Israelis win, that means the Israelis get the spoils as the victor. Stop listening to UN propaganda.
That is just not true. The Oslo Accords were a promise to head toward a two state solution. As soon as Netanyahu came to office however it was clear that he was slow walking the process to prevent its full implementation. Likewise is his push for settlements to create "facts on the ground" that would make it impossible to pull out of the West Bank. Israel has never offered the Palestinians a fully sovereign state within the 1968 borders.
None of what you said is true. Arafat was the aggressor in Oslo, not Netanyahu. Arafat rejected the accords thereof completely.
Have a nice night. I can go to other websites to read liberal propaganda; I do not want to see it here.
“While am truly not any fan of the Arabs”
You’re truly not a fan of the Israeli’s either, are you.
At the time of the partition the Jews only comprised around 30% of the population yet were to be given half of the land.
The partition never took place. There was a war. The final state did not have a 70% Arab population, because they left, either by invite, or in blind panic after the Jews remained standing and breathing, or in blind panic after the overblown rumors of the Deir Yassin incident.
They ended up with 70% of the land after independence.
This of course is 70% of 30% of the land, since the other 70% was taken from the Jewish Homeland by the League of Nations in order to invent the state of Transjordan.
Additionally, the partition was imposed on the Arabs without negotiations and without their consent.
Ha! The Arabs refused to negotiate, because they refused to consent to a Jewish state or a Jewish homeland of any size whatever, as they did in 1937 as well.
Thus conflict was inevitable.
No, it could have been avoided if the Jews had only abandoned any claim to a Jewish Homeland pursuant to the League of Nations charter ratified by the UN, and agreed to live as dhimme in Southern Syria and Northern Egypt, for so long as they would be tolerated by their Arab neighbors, which would not have been long.
That maybe so, but the Syrians took it, and they had their army in the Golan Heights, when the 1967 war broke out. So, for all practical purposes, the area belonged to Syria.
That’s like claiming the Sudetenland “belonged to Germany”.
Again, let’s look at history. The Muslims that were living in in Israel had a choice, they could live in the country called ISRAEL, or they could leave. The problem was that none of the ARAB LEAGUE nations wanted them. And those that went to Jordan, tried to over throw the government of that country. Those “PALESTINIANS” that weren’t killed (SEPT, 29th Movement) were invited to Lebanon. Where they immediately turned that country in to a “KILLING FIELD”. So, it appears that every where these “PALESTINIANS” were invited to live, they immediately will tear that country to pieces.
So like it or not, they are all Arabs and this is REALLY an ARAB PROBLEM.
C'mon . . . your the rocking horse guy, aren't you?
For someone “not a fan of the Arabs”, he sure takes their side readily and lies about the Israelis, never mind spouts UN propaganda as fact.
“We all know what happens to those who mess with God’s land for His people. Sooner or later it will be painful.
Frankie is literally giving God the finger.”
It’s going to end very badly for her enemies, and those who do not protect her from them.
Glory be to GOD.
But are observant Catholics required to adopt the Pope’s position on this?
Maybe you should ask a Catholic, LOL. Seriously, since it is not dogma, he’s just as likely to make a mistake as your average Joe and Catholics are not required to adopt his position. From my experience though, quite a few Catholics believe the Pope can never make a mistake, so they follow him regardless of what he says.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.