HOME | DD
bolter21 β Two ways to swap lands in a Two State Solution
#occupation #state #two #cartography #israel #maps #palestine #political #solution #war
Published: 2017-08-12 14:15:08 +0000 UTC; Views: 3780; Favourites: 29; Downloads: 51
Redirect to original
Description
Olmert, Israel's Prime Minister from 2006 to 2008, has presented the world with his plan for a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians in 2008. Avigdor Lieberman, Israel's current defence minister and former foreign minister has presented in 2004 his principals for a peace agreement with the Palestinians. I made this map to see how the principals of Lieberman's plan would effect the map.Related content
Comments: 36
π: 0 β©: 0
And what's your solution?
π: 0 β©: 1
One-state solution.
π: 0 β©: 1
Two ethnic and religious groups with different views of the world, politics and a background of violent clashes and differences togther in one state.
What could possibly go wrong?
π: 0 β©: 1
That's a big lie. Palestine people are very secular, Al Fatah was always a secular force. In addition, there are more than two religions. Other thing is Zonists have been fomenting extremism for decades...
π: 0 β©: 1
The latest polls reveal that more than 80% of the Palestinians would support the sharia law as part of the legal system.
π: 1 β©: 1
*80% of Palestinian Islamists
π: 0 β©: 0
This wouldn't solve anything. Both groups would still want to annex the whole of the region.
π: 0 β©: 1
As long as you say "both", you are still being stupid.
π: 0 β©: 1
Really? Don't you see how even though the UN and the government tell the Israeli citizens not to cross the border they still cross over in mass most likely with support from the government that's supposedly trying to stop it? Do you not see how the government forces Muslim Arabs out of their homes in Jerusalem? The one sided and biased views you have is what's stupid. While the Palestinians undeniably want the entire region more and are way more violent and cruel you just can't deny that the Israelis also want the entirety of Palestine. Unless you're in support of the Palestinians which would be highly unlikely seeing as they're the ones terrorizing the borders of Gaza and threatening to kill all Jews.
π: 0 β©: 1
You contradict yourself and don't even feel it.
π: 0 β©: 1
How so if you'd explain yourself.
π: 0 β©: 1
You openly say that Fakestinians are cruel and violent - yet you still claim that Israel wants to take the entire land.
The contradiction is that there can't be "two sides" in such a conflict - one of the sides must be the CORRECT owner, while the other is the USURPER.
Do you think that people, who spend TONS of international aid money on TERRORIST TUNNELS and LAUNCHERS instead of own ACTUAL ECONOMY, are "worthy" of being the "rightful owner"?
If so, you seriously need to get a grip on the REAL life.
π: 0 β©: 1
They're both wrong... it's not a contradiction. The problem is that neither side realizes that the land doesn't belong to solely one of them. Land isn't constant and who lives on the land will change. Honestly the land should be split upon modern ethnic and religious boundaries, but that is hard since both sides want all of Palestine and mainly the old city of Jerusalem which is controlled by the Palestinians. I never chose a side. I'm saying that both sides aren't in the complete right and that both want the entirety of the region. I agree that the Israelis are mainly in the right and deserve the land they have, but the government should do better in keeping the Israeli citizens from going across the borders and making settlement. It's never a one sided issue. It's like if two kids (Palestine and Israel) are given a bucket of candy from their mom (Great Britain) and told to share it. They both want the entire bucket, Palestine may be more violent to get Israel's candy, but every couple seconds Israel will sneak a couple of Palestines when he's not looking.
π: 0 β©: 1
Except that the Israeli kid had been well-behaved since forever, and the Palestinian kid nagged their mom to not leave him without candy, despite never deserving it in the first palce.
Heck, he even started punching his "brother" the moment they got the bucket - because he wanted ALL the candy, instead of SHARING it.
The Israeli kid DIDN'T MIND SHARING, though.
That's also without realizing that the Israeli kid gave mom some of his savings to BUY that candy in the first place, whereas the Pal kid did nothing of the sort.
And finally, the Pal kid doesn't even EAT all of his candy - but uses it for "target practicing" on the neighbor's cat.
Whereas the mom's intention was for them to EAT it, not THROW AROUND.
Etc etc etc.
And this is WITHOUT getting into HISTORY and RELIGION (which would tip the scales MUCH more onto the Israeli kid's side) - *ALL* of the above points are not older than about 100 years or so.
π: 0 β©: 2
π: 0 β©: 0
I don't agree with either the Israelis or the Palestinians. This argument makes it seem like I support the Palestinians which I don't and we're starting to go off in a tangent.
I like any other sane person believe that there should be a co-Arab and Israeli state or two separate states, but I believe that neither the Israelis or Palestinians would be able to do this.
The Israelis would want full control of this supposed nation and would probably control the whole government body contray to how the nation should be and or do what they're doing now and send Israelis across to take over Palestinian land.
While the Palestinians would want there to be a sole Muslim, Arab state and get rid of the Israelis by any means possible.
I agree with you that the Israelis are mostly in the right and I support them in the situation going on in Palestine, but they are still going across the borders illegally.
π: 0 β©: 1
I think the fallacy here is to assume that "legal borders" have a real meaning in this situation.
Also, and probably THE most important factor - Israel is tiny, the surrounding Arab land is huge.
So why don't these Pals simply move a few kilometers into the Arab lands (some of which is rather deserted, so it's not like they'd be encroaching on a CROWDED area)?
You know, why?
Because they want to DESTROY Israel as their ONLY GOAL.
They DON'T care about their own well-being, and neither do their Muslim neighbors.
Their ONE SOLE GOAL is to get rid of the tiny *Jewish* ISLAND in the midst of the *Muslim* SEA.
You are mistakenly assuming that their GOAL is to have a functional state of their own - when it's NOT their goal AT ALL.
They had plenty of chances to achieve it - and ALWAYS REJECTED anything that WASN'T including "destroy Israel".
Heck, Pals are the *ONLY* instance in the *WORLD HISTORY*, when "refugees" RETAINED THEIR STATUS THROUGH *INHERITANCE*!
Their KIDS and GRANDKIDS are still "refugees", despite having been BORN in their current place of living, and NOT HAVING BEEN DISPLACED FROM *ANYWHERE*.
Ya know, "refugee" implies someone who lived in country A, but was expelled from it into country B, and now wishes to return to country A.
But it DOES NOT imply someone who was *born* in country B to begin with.
It does so ONLY for Fakes - and NO single OTHER nation ANYWHERE ELSE.
EVER.
What, you STILL think that BOTH sides have equal GOALS - even after my explanation?
π: 0 β©: 1
"The fallacy here is to assume that "legal borders" have a real meaning in this situation."
They do... They're legal borders which correspond mostly to ethnic and religious boundaries. It's not like people are allowed to cross them and still be legal.
"Why don't these Pals simply move a few kilometers into the Arab lands (some of which is rather deserted, so it's not like they'd be encroaching on a CROWDED area)?"
They can't because that's another nation's land and they'd be illegal immigrants if they did that. Also, you say that like it's easy. How would you feel if you were forced to leave your home and move to a dry and droughted desert a couple miles away with no support in making a living? There's a reason the land is deserted. Also, it'd be hard to move just 1 person let alone 5.8 million others.
"You are mistakenly assuming that their GOAL is to have a functional state of their own - when it's NOT their goal AT ALL."
I just said and I quote "Palestinians want there to be a sole Muslim, Arab state and get rid of the Israelis by any means possible."Β I never said their goal was to create a functional state... I said that was what I wish wouldΒ happen.
"Pals are the *ONLY* instance in the *WORLD HISTORY*, when "refugees" RETAINED THEIR STATUS THROUGH *INHERITANCE*!
Their KIDS and GRANDKIDS are still "refugees", despite having been BORN in their current place of living, and NOT HAVING BEEN DISPLACED FROM *ANYWHERE*."
What? They aren't refugees. A refugee is a person who has to take refuge in a different nation due to problems. Palestinians in Palestine can't be refugees since they were born there... now that's just common sense xD. I don't even know why you put it there since it's not even an argument.
"What, you STILL think that BOTH sides have equal GOALS - even after my explanation?"
I never said they have equal goals either just that neither nationsΒ are in the sole right side in the situation and that they both want the entirety of Palestine... I even gave different situations depending on Arabs and Israelis.
Can you stop with the randomly capitalized words and ***s? They're giving me a stroke reading through this.
π: 0 β©: 1
Yet they CAN infiltrate Israel?
I remind you, that most of them were BORN OUTSIDE of Israel - which makes them NOT "refugees FROM Israel" in the first place.
Or does it only matter for OTHER nations, but Fakes get a free pass to do whatever they want?
By the way, Jews actually RETURNED HOME after 2000 years of diaspora (but some Jews had always been present in Israel, it's NOT like that stupid "European invasion" that antisemitic zombies want you to believe).
So, it's the Arabs who are the INVADERS here (onto the Jewish land, which was NEVER fully Arab, let alone "independent Palestinian", to begin with) - why would I even care about them in this context altogether?
Jews had Israel and Judea THREE THOUSAND YEARS AGO there (for a TOTAL of nearly a MILLENNIUM of being a STATE) - while Palestinians only emerged as a NAMED "nation" in late 20th century, whereas they had been simply Arabs till then, with no "territorial name" whatsoever.
New Yorkers are still Americans, ya know.
Then why are we discussing it to begin with?
If one of the sides want to eliminate the other - and the other doesn't (even if you go into the "conquer the region" FALLACY regarding Israel, it's still NOT the same as "kill em all" by the Muslims).
What is there to discuss at all?
Eternal Palestinian refugees
Seriously, this is a political (and somewhat religious) TOOL, nothing else.
Sorry, bad habits die hard.
i'll try using bold/italic the next time.
Maybe.
π: 0 β©: 1
I'm sorry I'm tired of arguing. It's obvious neither of our opinions is changing. I'm just going to leave you with this: If land belongs to who owned it thousands of years ago then France should be controlled by Celts, America by Natives, North Africa by Moors and Egyptians, Turky by Hittites, and Iraq by Babylonians, etc. Who owned the land before matters not. It's who lives there now that matters. Who controls land isn't a constant and changes many times over centuries. Plus it's unknown if the Yiddish Jews are descended from the Israelites. There are many theories and ideas that they could be descended from the Khazars another Jewish state in the Caucusus region that was ethnically Turkic. The Jews weren't even the first ones in the region. I just want you to know that I agree with you that the Palestinians are doing terrible and terroristic thing and that I do support the Israelis in the region, but that Israel is still not 100% in the right. That's all I'm saying I've never claimed that Palestine didn't want to massacre the Jews, I never said that Israel wants to kill all Palestinians, all I said is that both Israel and Palestine want the entire region.
π: 0 β©: 1
I had said multiple times elsewhere that America is an usurper, so we agree here (in a sense, since there's also the part about "effective resource management" at play).
As of Celts or Hittites (or Canaanites) - those are currently UTTERLY EXTINCT (as distinct nations), which isn't (and never was) the case with *Israeli Jews*.
It is known that ALL Jews are related (even though a SMALL MINORITY of Jews isn't biologically Jewish), so please, stop supporting pseudo-historical propaganda that is based on ignorant fallacies.
Such brain-damaged people will tell you that even Holocaust is a "fake" - despite there still living literal survivors of it, who barely managed to get out of literal death pits.
Those "history denying" people really don't get a grip on reality that isn't their personal delusions.
But I do think that we are veering off-topic, so maybe we should just stop.
π: 0 β©: 1
Yeah, I'd prefer to stop though the idea that Yiddish Jews are mainly descendants of the Khazars is a theory I like. The main reason is mainly biasΒ on my part since I like to think my type of Judaism (Sephardi) is the only European descendant of the Israelites.Β
π: 0 β©: 1
W8, r u Jewish?
What do you mean "your type" of Judaism?
Anyways, there are Kohens and Levites, who are certainly ALL mutually related (that's how it works in the first place, one can't "convert" into becoming a Kohen, unlike becoming a generic Jew).
π: 0 β©: 1
I'm a Sephardi Greek. My family came from Thessaloniki.
π: 0 β©: 1
Huh?
Sephardi Greek?
Do you mean, a Sephardic Jew from Greece - or what?
Also, if you are Jewish, then how come you speak so negatively (and incorrectly) about the Israeli side of the situation?
It's really weird.
π: 0 β©: 1
I'm not negative of Israel at all. I support them. Above all, I'm a Greco-American and don't really follow Judaism as much as my family does.
π: 0 β©: 1
So are you Jewish or not?
That's a genetic thing in most cases (and you clearly aren't a convert) - if your mother (and her mother, etc) is Jewish, so are you.
Your observance is of no issue in that context - you either were born Jewish (and will stay Jewish forever, regardless of your actions or beliefs), or not (and then you would need to convert to become Jewish, which is obviously not your case now).
So, what is it?
π: 0 β©: 1
I never converted to Judaism if that's what you're asking. My family's been Jewish on my mother's side for as long as we can trace back and I consider myself to be Jewish more by birthright than belief.
π: 0 β©: 1
How am I dodging the answer? I specifically said: "My family's been Jewish on my mother's side for as long as we can trace back" in my last comment.
π: 0 β©: 1
Sorry, I somehow misread it.
Well, then our entire conversation turns even weirder, loool.
π: 0 β©: 1
