went out of their way to define from BDS is where JStreet's statements in opposition are bullshit.

They offered no alternatives on how to push back on Israel's expanding settlements
and they also support land swaps that would leave the Palestinians without a
viable state.

Either that or the Israelis in the West Bank become Palestinian Jews, integrate into Palestinian society, and the PA gets compensated for the settlements. That's the only way toward a viable Palestine.

Israel cannot keep what it does not legally own.

Israel may get their way, we'll see. No peace will be able to come from it, but the
leadership there is shortsighted..I am being kind here.

What land specifically belongs to Palestine in a legal sense? When was this determined? By whom?

In current time, you have a response post from me, waiting for you.

It is post #100, perhaps you'll find the time and respond. You refused to respond
to #89 and used the post#57 twice. The thread is titled,

Perhaps you're ready now.

Liberman to Kerry: Forget Israeli-Palestinian accord, focus instead on regional agreement

Most of the land in question isn't technically owned by either state. Israeli settlements over the green line can (and surely will) stay as part of a comprehensive peace plan involving concessions and gains to both sides.

But you seem to think that anything israel doesn't specifically own therefore is owned by the Palestinians. Which is not how this thing works. Neither legally nor ethically.

What about Jewish owned land in east Jerusalem? Why did the Arabs get to keep land they didn't own without eliciting a peep of protest?

Btw, who do you suppose uses all of the land throughout the Mideast that was once owned by those Jews who were ethnically cleansed from the Arab states? Who got to keep that land?

Let's take that one comment first. If the land isn't owned by Israel, as shak states...which is really deceptive and disingenuous, but it floods it with hundreds and hundreds of thousands of illegal settlers...as viewed by the international community and international law, while pushing out the local population (burning their crops, chopping down their groves, making it harder and harder to till their lands)...which is strange since these people seem to have lived there for generations before Israel was a twinkle in any Zionist's eye, then I would say that Israel is knowingly acting outside its legal borders and acting as colonial land pirates: terrorizing the local population.



Apparently flooding land that is not yours with illegal colonial pirates, hostile to the local population, is not negotiable. Russia has already done that shit twice. Is Israel more Russian than democratic in nature then? The above statement is one born from colonial arrogance.


This is poorly thought out logical fallasy. Anything that Israel doesn't own isn't owned by Israel...period. There is no justification for any kind of land grab...especially while that land is occupied by others, and seeing how Israel is a supposed Democracy (in Russian form? ) that democracy is supposed to recognize progressive human rights issues and not blindly ignore them.


What about Palestinian owned land there now? What about Palestinian land owned in pre-Israeli Palestine?



BTW: Attempting to conflate what other countries do (not democracies I may add) with what Israel does as a justification for colonialism, ethnic cleansing, apartheid and land theft is a non-winner. All that does is ask an eye for an eye: leaving the whole world blind.

You should answer the question.

You said Israel has no right to land that Israel doesn't own, period. Yet you seem to believe that Palestinians DO have the right to land they don't own. Why is that?

Why do Palestinians who took over the houses of Jews who were ethnically cleansed from east Jerusalem have more rights to live there than the families said land was stolen from?

I'll enjoy evicerating the rest of your pathetic argument later. First try and answer this question honestly.

I'll give you a preview though:

Russia is a democracy. Democracies aren't "supposed" to be progressive. They are supposed to be representative of their constituent's values. In other words "democracy" isn't a synonym for "agrees with me!"

You would do well to read more. Or maybe travel a little.

Actually it was shak that said Palestinians don't own the land. I never wrote that. I hold to the idea that Israel is an occupying colonial power over the Palestinians while over 500k illegal Israelis squat on land belonging to the future Palestinian state.



That's a great argument for ROR and removal of all illegal Israeli settlements everywhere. I'm not sure shak really thought that one through... again.




I'm not sure that I can agree that Russia is a real big D democracy at all. It apparently is more farcical than factual, but it appears that some want to parade it around as such.

So I am being told that Democracies are't supposed to be progressive but only representative. I can't agree with that either. Without a progressive ideal America would't have abolished slavery or acknowledged women's rights, civil rights LGBT rights or any number of reforms which progressive nations, umm...Democracies do.

If all a democracy is supposed to be, by shaks definition, is representative of its constituent's values without valuing a commitment to human rights as well, then I would have to say that Israel is a backward democracy: resembling the "Jim Crow south." That's not a democracy that I would want to visit, but perhaps Vladimir Putin would feel at home in.

The fact is that Israel isn't going to be pressured into sacrificing 10's of thousands of Israeli lives so the thugs running Gaza and the W.Bank can take advantage of a less secure Israel.

Just like no Americans would agree to an Al-Qaeda or ISIS type state within a couple miles of major population centers like NYC, LA, or Chicago. No American administration could ever be bullied into agreeing to such a ridiculous situation.

The Palestinian leadership needs to be pressured into NOT holding out for 100% of their absurd demands.

colonialism and apartheid, but please convince yourself otherwise.