If you're asking for my personal views, I want to see the peaceful dismantling of the Zionist state in favour of a unified Palestine that is not based on any inherently racist or religiously-nationalistic ideology. A nation that recognises all creeds, religions and races and includes the Palestinian right of return and excludes the idea of an exclusively Jewish homeland. No invasions. No occupations. No violence. Only unification, freedom, independence and humanity.
Of course, you're only going to resort to one sided hyperbole and political bias using loaded questions and weasel-words like 'destroyed', but hey. Can't expect much more from someone who's so called 'libertarian' attitudes leads them to blind ethno-nationalism and apartheid
If you're asking for my personal views, I want to see the peaceful dismantling of the Zionist state in favour of a unified Palestine that is not based on any inherently racist or religiously-nationalistic ideology. A nation that recognises all creeds, religions and races and includes the Palestinian right of return and excludes the idea of an exclusively Jewish homeland. No invasions. No occupations. No violence. Only unification, freedom, independence and humanity.
So you want to see Israel replaced with a Palestinian state, essentially? And you do this because of your opposition to Jewish nationalism, because you see it as somehow less viable/respectable than Palestinian nationalism. Who, exactly, is going to "peacefully" dismantle Israel?
Of course, you're only going to resort to one sided hyperbole and political bias using loaded questions and weasel-words like 'destroyed', but hey. Can't expect much more from someone who's so called 'libertarian' attitudes leads them to blind ethno-nationalism and apartheid
I don't actually, but it's always good to have a few ad hominems - didn't expect much less if I'm honest. A "unified" Palestinian state would most likely lead to these buzzwords anyway. I support liberty, not democracy in its purest form, so I believe that one Jewish majority state and one Palestinian majority state will invariably lead to more liberty than just one Palestinian majority state.
If as other's pointed out in the last thread the 1967 borders are indefensible then there is no way the Israeli's will ever allow the country to revert back to these borders.
Indefensible? What does that even mean? If Israel created the situation where these borders were indefensible (due to settlement building and the west bank barrier which doesn't follow the true internationally recognised borders), then surely it's not the Palestinians who should be paying the price.
It's exactly like me stealing someone's car, then two years down the line, use the excuse that "having this car has been so convenient" to not give it back.
The fact that it's not internationally recognized beyond the 67 borders.
You fail to understand that a recognition of a Palestinian state inside the 67 borders equals the two state solution.
The international community didn't recognise Israel's borders beyond 1967, before the six day war, but suddenly Israel is arguing against that now, 43 years down the line.
You never know how things end up, and that's his point I think.
Not that I support a Palestinian state beyond these borders anyway
No, it's probably because Israeli murders are just under the limit which would create insurmountable international outrage, notwithstanding the full operation of the zionist propaganda machine 24/7.
Note Israeli efforts having stepped up multi-fold this year on 'promoting its global image'. Why would this be necessary if not for the outrageous massacre of the Gaza strip (no matter how the zionist pigs try to justify this indiscriminate muder of over 1400 by the "dangers caused by rockets" (recorded to have killed a mere 7 in the past so many years), the bulldozing of the homes of thousands in West Bank (oh wait - that's not in Israel either) and the resuming of settlement-building in Palestinian territory (again - NOT your land zionists).
You obviously haven't watched the video in my sig. I recommend it - you won't agree, naturally, but it'll reflect the position I'm coming from a lot better than I believe I can do justice to.
The international community didn't recognise Israel's borders beyond 1967, before the six day war, but suddenly Israel is arguing against that now, 43 years down the line.
Israel is arguing that a Palestinian state should be established as a part of a peace process and not unilaterally.
I'm not sure I'm against a unilateral Palestinian state myself, but there are good arguments against it, based on the results of unilateral steps made in the past.
You never know how things end up, and that's his point I think.
He said that he thinks it will not go against the idea of a one state, while I think that it will be the last nail in the coffin of the one state solution, which is why a part of me tends to support it.
No, it's probably because Israeli murders are just under the limit which would create insurmountable international outrage, notwithstanding the full operation of the zionist propaganda machine 24/7.
Note Israeli efforts having stepped up multi-fold this year on 'promoting its global image'. Why would this be necessary if not for the outrageous massacre of the Gaza strip (no matter how the zionist pigs try to justify this indiscriminate muder of over 1400 by the "dangers caused by rockets" (recorded to have killed a mere 7 in the past so many years), the bulldozing of the homes of thousands in West Bank (oh wait - that's not in Israel either) and the resuming of settlement-building in Palestinian territory (again - NOT your land zionists).
You obviously haven't watched the video in my sig. I recommend it - you won't agree, naturally, but it'll reflect the position I'm coming from a lot better than I believe I can do justice to.
When you say these things, are you aware of the numbers of Palestinians that got killed in Jordan, Lebanon and Gaza at the hands of Arabs and Palestinians?
"He [Palestinian Foreign Minister Riad Malki] told The Associated Press on Monday that he expects Uruguay and Paraguay to recognize Palestinian statehood in the next few days, followed by Bolivia and Ecuador."
What, is it "South America recognises Palestine Week" or summat?
most prob partly to go against usa and also to further cement friendship with iran (ahadinjad) and their trade deals
I welcome the recognition of the 1967 borders as a progressive step towards the creation of a single secular state, but not as a solution.
Then I think that you are very short sighted.
A Palestinian state within 67 means a de facto implementation of the two state solution - two separate states that speak different languages, have separate and independent governments, military, judicial, education health and banking systems.
When you say these things, are you aware of the numbers of Palestinians that got killed in Jordan, Lebanon and Gaza at the hands of Arabs and Palestinians?
Yes we know. Good justification- they take part in thuggery and murder so it's fine if we do as well