What would be your red lines/main goals in an Israel/Palestinian peace deal?

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

Southern Segregationist Alabama Racist YaBB God ★★★★★ Posts: 1488

How should we deal with Jim Crow in the South « on: January 31, 1950, 10:0:00 pm »Red lines that cannot be crossed: - Southern White sovereignty in the most literal sense of the word, i.e. the White population in the American South makes political decisions for themselves, particularly on issues of survival, life and death. This can never be compromised. A democratic system where everyone can vote is unacceptable, and a framework in which blacks hold veto power over the safety and security of whites is also unacceptable, because ultimately, as whites, we have always been on our own and we will always be on our own. - States right to control what happens within their borders. At least the large sharecropping plantations have to be controlled by whites. - Allowing black people to live in the same neighborhoods as white people is a no-go. - Ceding control and taking apart Confederate monuments and decorations in the South would be a red line (has already happened in some cases though). Goal: An American South that is as safe, secure and white as possible, ideally with as much segregation as possible.

Spoken like a true Corbynist.

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

Southern Segregationist Alabama Racist YaBB God ★★★★★ Posts: 1488

How should we deal with Jim Crow in the South « on: January 31, 1950, 10:0:00 pm »Red lines that cannot be crossed: - Southern White sovereignty in the most literal sense of the word, i.e. the White population in the American South makes political decisions for themselves, particularly on issues of survival, life and death. This can never be compromised. A democratic system where everyone can vote is unacceptable, and a framework in which blacks hold veto power over the safety and security of whites is also unacceptable, because ultimately, as whites, we have always been on our own and we will always be on our own. - States right to control what happens within their borders. At least the large sharecropping plantations have to be controlled by whites. - Allowing black people to live in the same neighborhoods as white people is a no-go. - Ceding control and taking apart Confederate monuments and decorations in the South would be a red line (has already happened in some cases though). Goal: An American South that is as safe, secure and white as possible, ideally with as much segregation as possible.

Spoken like a true Corbynist.

I was more so transforming/mocking the post DavidB. posted.

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

Southern Segregationist Alabama Racist YaBB God ★★★★★ Posts: 1488

How should we deal with Jim Crow in the South « on: January 31, 1950, 10:0:00 pm »Red lines that cannot be crossed: - Southern White sovereignty in the most literal sense of the word, i.e. the White population in the American South makes political decisions for themselves, particularly on issues of survival, life and death. This can never be compromised. A democratic system where everyone can vote is unacceptable, and a framework in which blacks hold veto power over the safety and security of whites is also unacceptable, because ultimately, as whites, we have always been on our own and we will always be on our own. - States right to control what happens within their borders. At least the large sharecropping plantations have to be controlled by whites. - Allowing black people to live in the same neighborhoods as white people is a no-go. - Ceding control and taking apart Confederate monuments and decorations in the South would be a red line (has already happened in some cases though). Goal: An American South that is as safe, secure and white as possible, ideally with as much segregation as possible.

Spoken like a true Corbynist.

I was more so transforming/mocking the post DavidB. posted.

I got your intention. You were comparing Zionism to southern racism, like a true Corbynist would.

[America Needs R'hllor]

Palestine would have to forgo any claim on East Jerusalem. Whether 1967 was right or wrong is irrelevant, demographics in Jerusalem have changed and it would be unfair to put the Jews there under a Palestinian government (assuming they were even allowed to stay). They would also have to give up right of return, with polls showing the vast majority of Palestinians support suicide bombers it's simply too dangerous.

Palestine would have to cut all ties with Hezbollah and Hamas, and stop all education of children that glorified terrorism.

Palestine would receive full control of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, but it would be demilitarized for a 25 year period. If Palestine had gotten terrorism under control at the end of that period, it would be given full rights.

Wow you're actually slightly to my right, who knew? About Eastern Jerusalem, while obviously giving the whole thing is a non-starter (my campus is in Eastern Jerusalem lol), the more eastern neighbourhoods are basically a whole different country. I mean, the people there don't even have an Israeli citizenship. When Israeli politicians proudly say that "Jerusalem is unified" they're bluffing- there's a literal wall separating the two Jerusalems. It's completely useless to Israel, so I wouldn't mind giving it (though the Western Wall should remain firmly ours and Al Aqsa should remain under international control). In the end, security concerns about a Palestinian Eastern Jerusalem don't hold water- these areas are already extremely dangerous for Jews, so it doesn't matter. If they want to put their capital in this... sorry, but this hellhole, then it's their choice.

[Lord Halifax]

Palestine would have to forgo any claim on East Jerusalem. Whether 1967 was right or wrong is irrelevant, demographics in Jerusalem have changed and it would be unfair to put the Jews there under a Palestinian government (assuming they were even allowed to stay). They would also have to give up right of return, with polls showing the vast majority of Palestinians support suicide bombers it's simply too dangerous.

Palestine would have to cut all ties with Hezbollah and Hamas, and stop all education of children that glorified terrorism.

Palestine would receive full control of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, but it would be demilitarized for a 25 year period. If Palestine had gotten terrorism under control at the end of that period, it would be given full rights.

Wow you're actually slightly to my right, who knew? About Eastern Jerusalem, while obviously giving the whole thing is a non-starter (my campus is in Eastern Jerusalem lol), the more eastern neighbourhoods are basically a whole different country. I mean, the people there don't even have an Israeli citizenship. When Israeli politicians proudly say that "Jerusalem is unified" they're bluffing- there's a literal wall separating the two Jerusalems. It's completely useless to Israel, so I wouldn't mind giving it (though the Western Wall should remain firmly ours and Al Aqsa should remain under international control). In the end, security concerns about a Palestinian Eastern Jerusalem don't hold water- these areas are already extremely dangerous for Jews, so it doesn't matter. If they want to put their capital in this... sorry, but this hellhole, then it's their choice.

Isn't there a ring of Jewish suburbs around East Jerusalem?

[Cory]

- Palestine will have to relinquish claims on East Jerusalem. The horse is just utterly out of the barn on that one.

- Israel rolls back the settlement program over time.

- A U.S led NATO peacekeeping force will be deployed to the West Bank to assist in counter-terrorism and, yes, nation building.

Here's the sticker: Fatah would have to enter into these negotiations alone and as far as the Gaza Strip is concerned it's final status will be settled at a later date due to the presence of Hamas.

So really this would be the Israel/West Bank peace deal.

[Lord Halifax]

- A U.S led NATO peacekeeping force will be deployed to the West Bank to assist in counter-terrorism and, yes, nation building.

The US has zero credibility on this. A NATO peacekeeping force might be a good idea, but it shouldn't include Americans.

[DavidB.]

[snip]

Comparing Jews to Nazis totally and definitely doesn't make you look like an antisemite, congrats.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

[snip]

Comparing Jews Zionists to Nazis totally and definitely doesn't make you look like an antisemite, congrats.

FTFY, unless you meant to imply that all Germans were Nazis.

[Lord Halifax]

[snip]

Comparing Jews Zionists to Nazis totally and definitely doesn't make you look like an antisemite, congrats.

FTFY, unless you meant to imply that all Germans were Nazis.

That switch really doesn't make it any better. Its still a despicable comparison.

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

[snip]

Comparing Jews Zionists to Nazis totally and definitely doesn't make you look like an antisemite, congrats.

FTFY, unless you meant to imply that all Germans were Nazis.

I don't think calling Jews who believe in their right to self-determination Nazis is much better than calling all Jews Nazis. It basically means "surrender your rights and protection, or we'll equate you to your worst tormentors with the implication that you deserve the same fate".

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

[snip]

Comparing Jews Zionists to Nazis totally and definitely doesn't make you look like an antisemite, congrats.

FTFY, unless you meant to imply that all Germans were Nazis.

I don't think calling Jews who believe in their right to self-determination Nazis is much better than calling all Jews Nazis. It basically means "surrender your rights and protection, or we'll equate you to your worst tormentors with the implication that you deserve the same fate".

As is often the case when there is a conflict, we have a conflict of rights here. In this the case the right of Jews to self-determination in their ancestral homeland versus the right of those living in the area prior to the State of Israel  (and of their descendants) to live there with full self-determination.

I don't have much sympathy for any claims of ancestral homelands, be they by Jews, Arabs, or other ethnic groups.  What I do see is one ethnic group telling another that they can live in the disjointed pieces of land we think its not worth the effort of clearing you out of.  Under those circumstances, comparisons to other groups that have done so in the past are pretty much inevitable.  Whether it be to the ghettos of Europe, the bantustans of South Africa, the reservations of the United States, or any number of other similar situations, the comparisons are going to be made. That what Israel is doing in the West Bank is far from the worst examples of such activity doesn't make what they are doing right. Also, unlike many who pursue such policies, Israel does have legitimate security concerns. My principal complaint about what Israel is doing is that in the long term, it can't work.  No country has ever maintained military superiority over all its neighbors forever and there is no reason to think Israel has ended history.

[Zinneke]

[snip]

Comparing Jews Zionists to Nazis totally and definitely doesn't make you look like an antisemite, congrats.

FTFY, unless you meant to imply that all Germans were Nazis.

I don't think calling Jews who believe in their right to self-determination Nazis is much better than calling all Jews Nazis. It basically means "surrender your rights and protection, or we'll equate you to your worst tormentors with the implication that you deserve the same fate".

David isn't defending this though, he's defending separate development theories. Apartheid would have been a more accurate term than Nazi, granted.

[Kingpoleon]

1. Salam Fayyad, Hanan Ashrawi, Rami Hamdallah, and Ismail Haniyeh should be the four representatives of Palestine. Fayyad shall serve as President, Hamdallah as Governor of the West Bank, Haniyeh as Governor of Gaza, and Ashrawi as Prime Minister. Elections will be held for each said position once every three years.

2. Arabic suburbs of Jerusalem and Jewish suburbs will be vexed to the appropriate state.

3. East and West Jeruslem will become official policy.

4. A DMZ composed of forces from Lebanon, Egypt, and Jordan shall serve as border guards.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

4. A DMZ composed of forces from Lebanon, Egypt, and Jordan shall serve as border guards.

Maybe just maybe that might be acceptable if there were a double DMZ with a Pan-Arabic force buffering the Palestinian side and another force acceptable to Israel on the Israeli side, but I doubt it, and it's hard to see where there would be room for a single DMZ, let alone a doubled DMZ.