"Cutting water, cutting electricity, cutting food to a mass of civilian people is against international law," said EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell in Muscat.
Are you arguing that Jews have no right to be in Jerusalem and the surrounding areas? I am pro for a two state solution. But that means that one is Israel and the other one in Palestine.
The region that is now Israel might have been Palestine before 1948, but only because Arabic inhabitants of the area kicked Jews out, which started the Diaspora, which ultimately lead to the holocaust.
Both Partys have the right to be in that area, which means that only a two state solution can bring peace in the longterm.
Quite the opposite. I feel the same as you, both sides should be allowed to stay. What’s done is done and ethnically cleansing the area is obviously a horrific crime that oughtn’t be advocated for in either direction. Where we differ is that I see the two state solution as setting the region up for the same conflict down the road. After decades of settlement the areas which would make up the Palestinian state would be non-contiguous swiss cheese. It would be an untenable situation.
Instead, a singular, secular, egalitarian state with universal suffrage and human rights guaranteed for all would be a challenging path, but I think ultimately a more stable one. And a path which would leave room for healing in the future.
Bulshit.
The diaspora started in 63BC, under Roman rule.
Everybody could live peacefully side by side in one country, save for the religious nutheads pushing their hatred rhetoric
There’s a reason why every single non politician Palestinian who favors peace wants a single state. If material conditions persist what good will some embassies do Palestine?
Are you arguing that Jews have no right to be in Jerusalem and the surrounding areas? I am pro for a two state solution. But that means that one is Israel and the other one in Palestine.
The region that is now Israel might have been Palestine before 1948, but only because Arabic inhabitants of the area kicked Jews out, which started the Diaspora, which ultimately lead to the holocaust.
Both Partys have the right to be in that area, which means that only a two state solution can bring peace in the longterm.
Quite the opposite. I feel the same as you, both sides should be allowed to stay. What’s done is done and ethnically cleansing the area is obviously a horrific crime that oughtn’t be advocated for in either direction. Where we differ is that I see the two state solution as setting the region up for the same conflict down the road. After decades of settlement the areas which would make up the Palestinian state would be non-contiguous swiss cheese. It would be an untenable situation.
Instead, a singular, secular, egalitarian state with universal suffrage and human rights guaranteed for all would be a challenging path, but I think ultimately a more stable one. And a path which would leave room for healing in the future.
Bulshit. The diaspora started in 63BC, under Roman rule. Everybody could live peacefully side by side in one country, save for the religious nutheads pushing their hatred rhetoric
Are you really saying that Holocaust happened because of the Palestinians.
Jews and Muslims were literally brother before all this western bullshit, so come on.
Unbelievable 🙁
You might want to double check who kicked out the Jews and started the diaspora.
Which country gets the Temple Mount?
There’s a reason why every single non politician Palestinian who favors peace wants a single state. If material conditions persist what good will some embassies do Palestine?