Trudeau and Biden adamant about a two-state solution for Israel

[blackbird]

1 hour ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

The RC church hasn’t been at the centre of power since the appearance of the nation-state. Since 1800, of the great powers only France and Austria-Hungary were Catholic and France had a decidedly ambivalent approach to any religion in the running of the state. 

Yes, Hitler and many Nazis were born Catholic but they were running a country that had been stridently anti-Catholic under Bismarck. Hitler had strong support among working class Protestants. 

I brought up Luther just to illustrate that Christian anti-Semitism is a widespread phenomenon not confined to any particular denomination. 
 

 

There is a lot of misinformation in that post.

The RC Church is still very powerful in the world.  There are over one billion Catholics.  The Vatican has ambassadors in countries all over the world and leaders of nations go to the Vatican to hold meetings with the Pope.  They have huge influence in the world.  In Canada, the PM and many cabinet ministers and MPs are Catholic.  Claiming Rome is not the centre of power is not credible.

"Francisco Franco, Head of Spain, allegedly said on 3 May 1945:*

"Adolf Hitler son of the Catholic Church died while defending Christianity. It is therefore understandable that words cannot be found to lament over his death, when so many were found to exalt his life. Over his mortal remains stands his victorious figure. with the palm of the martyr, God gives Hitler the laurels of Victory."

religion - Did Franco consider Hitler a "son of the Catholic Church" who "died while defending Christianity"? - History Stack Exchange

Germany was not anti-Catholic during Hitler's time.  There is no evidence of that.

But that has little to do with the subject.  The Catholic church has a 1700 year history of anti-Semitism and they were under the authority of Rome, a very powerful institution in the world down through history.  Nobody can deny that.

 

 

[WestCanMan]

2 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

Yes of course I know that but it doesn’t change anything. You can’t legally invade and annex territory that doesn’t belong to you, period. 

Really?

Every border on the planet was formed in exactly that manner, and the original territorial division of Israel is just too much of a joke to merit serious consideration.

 

This will be a good story for you guys to throw into your anti-Israel rant: there's a theory that Israel wants to make a second Suez canal stemming from the northern tip of the Gulf of Aqaba, and the easiest route for it to take goes... straight through the middle of where Gaza is/was. The Ben Gurion Canal or something like that.

I have no idea if that's even a real plan, or if it's within the realm of possibility, but it's a story that the Arabs talk about. Some of them say it's the real reason for this war. 

[BeaverFever]

1 minute ago, WestCanMan said:

Really?

Every border on the planet was formed in exactly that manner, and the original territorial division of Israel is just too much of a joke to merit serious consideration.

There are international laws now, the Age on Conquest ended long ago.As I just finished saying on here:

 Funny how conservative hypocrites claim to be the party of law and order while being so quick to ignore and disregard any law and order that’s inconvenient for them

So let’s try to sort through your hypocrisy do Israel and other countries have a right to security and self-defence or a right to invade and conquer others as it suits them?  Both cant be true but you and @CdnFox and @blackbirdare hilariously trying to claim both rights exist simultaneously. 

[blackbird]

15 minutes ago, blackbird said:

I brought up Luther just to illustrate that Christian anti-Semitism is a widespread phenomenon not confined to any particular denomination. 

That is not correct for a number of reasons, but I will mention just one or two.

In America, evangelical church, including many Baptists church interpret the Bible in a way that recognizes Israel has a special place in Bible prophecy and believe God has a special plan in the future for Israel.  They are strong supporters of Israel's right to exist.

Some other churches such as Anglican, Lutheran, and Catholic churches do not particularly believe in Bible prophecy and so do not believe Israel has a special place in the world or future.  The Reformed Church also believes that the Church replaced Israel.  It is called Replacement Theology.  So they are of course not strong supporters of Israel.  

Most churches today may not be anti-Semitic.  But that was not the case centuries ago.

The evangelical and Baptist churches today often strongly support Israel.  There are television programs by Christians which are geared to giving support to Israel as well by Bible believing Christians.  

[blackbird]

6 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

So let’s try to sort through your hypocrisy do Israel and other countries have a right to security and self-defence or a right to invade and conquer others as it suits them?  Both cant be true but you and @CdnFox and @blackbirdare hilariously trying to claim both rights exist simultaneously. 

Ridiculous.  Israel does not invade and conquer other countries as it suits them.  They are defending themselves against aggressors such as Hamas and Hezbollah.

[BeaverFever]

17 minutes ago, blackbird said:

Ridiculous.  Israel does not invade and conquer other countries as it suits them.  They are defending themselves against aggressors such as Hamas and Hezbollah.

Militarily occupying the West Bank and Gaza, building settlements there and administratively ruling over the area, controlling its resources and subjecting it to their laws…. is literally the definition of invading and conquering 

Edited January 21 by BeaverFever

[WestCanMan]

2 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

No not all of them 

The only ones that matter do...

Islam is controlled by the most evil 10% of the population. That's just the way it has always been, ever since the beginning, when its soldiers started getting paid with multiple war brides and slaves. 

Quote

1) Bullshit that they’ve been the only ones trying as there was sincere effort on both sides.

The only reason there are still "refugee camps" is to foment hatred against Israel. 

How many millions of Syrians re-settled within 1 yr of islamic state's existence? 2M? 3M

More Syrians were re-settled since 2020 than the total number of "Palestinian refugees" that have been "in camps" for 75 years. 

Quote

2)While SOME Israelis have been trying and the last one to do so was assassinated by his fellow Israelis. Some Israelis like Netanyahu and his extremist coalition members have only been trying to destroy any chance of peace and over 75 years have been very outspoken about NEVER accepting a Palestinian state.

Arafat backed out of peace plans because he was going to be assassinated too.

Quote

I bet you have never heard of Irgun, Haganah, and Lehi, some of the more prominent Jewish terrorist groups in British Palestine whose regular terrorist attack against British and Arabs alike were as common as Hamas attacks today. Arab Villages slaughtered not unlike Oct 7, civilians gunned down at bus stops, bombing British soldiers,  they did it all.  Today Netanyahu and revere these as “freedom fighters” and national heroes but they were not any different than Hamas.

I know all about the Stern Gang, Yitzhak Shamir, Menachim Begin, etc. 

I'm also aware of what world they were raised in. 

It would be pretty bad if a guy from Saskatchewan ran around doing that right now, there's not much reason for it, but all of the Jews born in the time Likud was formed grew up within a culture where their people were routinely masacred, and the prospect of a Jewish homeland, and relative safety, was just a pipe dream. 

It's important for you to realize that they didn't invent that behaviour, they learned it from watching it happen to their people over and over for centuries, in country after country. Iran, Turkey, Russia, Germany, Armenia, Iraq, etc, etc...

Quote

No, where in any of this have I ever said Israel should do nothing and just continue its usual occupation?Stop being so utterly obtuse 

Stop acting like they're supposed to just make all the same mistakes again. They're moving on now.

Quote

If you honestly believe this indiscriminate bombing campaign and wanton destruction is going to result in fewer terrorist attacks in the future then you’re fooling yourself. As you said the rockets can be easily made and mass produced therefore destroying the ones that exist now is of little use. Also how much do think this months-long military campaign is going to cost Israel ?  Do you understand THOSE economics?

There's nothing that Israel can ever do to be respected by the Arab states. They day they get weak they get dead. All of them. 

The economics of being surrounded on all sides by enemies for centuries to come (they have to plan for that, even though there's only a 1% chance of it) is way more expensive than this war.

Quote

Because you routinely fail to understand what other people are saying and succumb to emotional responses. Consequently, or perhaps causal to this fact, you have poor logic and reasoning skills. Therefore you assume a person’s refusal to agree with you is based upon their failure to understand you instead of your own flawed arguments. 

Grow up, child. 

It's beyond retarded how much the whole leftard world just lies, and how often you get sucked in by your fake news sources, never to learn.

Collusion, hijab hoax, Jussie, vaxtard disinformation, etc, etc, etc.

Tell me Beave, do vaxed people "need to worry about covid"? Hell yeah they do. Is granny safe when they come to visit? Hell no. Aren't you just a little mad that you believed all that? And that you went along with vax-Naziism based on your false beliefs? 

Just because I can't help you understand how much shame you should feel for all of your id10cy doesn't mean that it's not important to tell the truth. 

[WestCanMan]

26 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

There are international laws now, the Age on Conquest ended long ago.As I just finished saying on here:

 Funny how conservative hypocrites claim to be the party of law and order while being so quick to ignore and disregard any law and order that’s inconvenient for them

So let’s try to sort through your hypocrisy do Israel and other countries have a right to security and self-defence or a right to invade and conquer others as it suits them?  Both cant be true but you and @CdnFox and @blackbirdare hilariously trying to claim both rights exist simultaneously. 

Yeah, there are laws, but borders still change. You can't legislate Yugoslavia back together, dummy.

Russia doesn't have to give back Crimea, you can't hire a lawyer to free Tibet, etc. If China decides to take over Taiwan, who's going to stop them? Not the USA, regardless of who the president is. 

[CdnFox]

27 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

There are international laws now, the Age on Conquest ended long ago.As I just finished saying on here:

 Funny how conservative hypocrites claim to be the party of law and order while being so quick to ignore and disregard any law and order that’s inconvenient for them

 

No, there aren't really. Sorry.

Beaver you keep repeating lies despite having proof shoved in  your face that what you're saying is not true.  If all you want to do is lie to yourself lets just lie and say there IS no war and israel and gaza are at peace.  Maybe if we repeat that enough it'll be true.

You're the one who comes up with this crap and you're mad that WE don't listen to it.  "I've invented a fake law you don't believe in - why?!!?"

Quote

So let’s try to sort through your hypocrisy do Israel and other countries have a right to security and self-defence or a right to invade and conquer others as it suits them?  Both cant be true but you and @CdnFox and @blackbirdare hilariously trying to claim both rights exist simultaneously. 

Sure both can be true. Pretty simple.  If another nation is so hostile that it is not possible to live in peace with them and they have attacked you then in the interest of defending yourself you absolutely have the right to invade and conqueror them.

That is LITERALLY WHAT WAR IS FOR.

Gulf war, afghan war. world war 2 Falklands war pretty much every damn war that has been!  that's the point! Generally if that doesn't happen it's not for lack of trying!

That..... is ... what ... a ...War ...is

They go in and blow the bad guys up until they surrender, then they go from there

 

[blackbird]

41 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

Militarily occupying the West Bank and Gaza, building settlements there and administratively ruling over the area, controlling its resources and subjecting it to their laws…. is literally the definition of invading and conquering 

False.  That land belongs to Israel and has for thousands of years.  Here is the history of Jerusalem.   After various parties conquered Jerusalem, the Jews took it back and established the State of Israel again in 1948.

quote

History of Jerusalem:History of Jerusalem: Table of Contents

Chalcolithic Period (4500-3200 BCE)

• 3500 BCE - First Settlement of Jerusalem

Early Bronze Age (3200-2220 BCE)

• 2500 BCE - First Houses Built in Area

Middle Bronze Age (2220-1550 BCE)

• 1800 BCE - Construction of First City Wall

Late Bronze Age (1550-1200 BCE)

• 1400 BCE - First Mention of Jerusalem in Cuneiform Amarna Letters

Iron Age I (1200-1000 BCE)

• 1200 BCE - Jerusalem is conquered by Canaanites (Jebusites)

Iron Age II (1000-529 BCE)

• 1000 BCE - King David Conquers Jerusalem; Declares City Capital of Jewish Kingdom
• 960 BCE - David's Son, King Solomon, Builds First Jewish Temple
• 721 BCE - Assyrians Conquer Samaria; Refugees Flee to Jerusalem and City Expands onto Western Hill
• 701 BCE - Assyrian Ruler Sennacherib Lays Seige to Jerusalem
• 586 BCE - Babylonian Forces Destroy Jerusalem and Demolish First Temple

Persian Period (539-322 BCE)

• 539 BCE - Persian Ruler Cyrus the Great Conquers Babylonian Empire, Including Jerusalem
• 516 BCE - Cyrus Permits Jews in Babylonian Exile to Return to Jerusalem; Second Temple Built
• 445-425 BCE - Nehemiah the Prophet Rebuilds the Walls of Jerusalem; City Confined to Eastern Hill

Hellenistic Period (332-141 BCE)

• 332 BCE - Greek Leader Alexander the Great Conquers Judea and Jerusalem
• 332-141 BCE - Ptolemaic and Seleucid Rule in Jerusalem

Hasmonean Period (141-37 BCE)

• 141 BCE - Hasmonean Dynasty Begins; Jerusalem Again Expands Limits to Western Hill
• 63 BCE - Roman General Pompey captures Jerusalem

Herodian Period (37 BCE - 70 CE)

• 37 BCE - King Herod Restructures Second Temple, Adds Retaining Walls
• 30 CE - Jesus Crucified by Romans in Jerusalem

Roman Period (70 - 324 CE)

• 70 CE - Roman Forces Destroy Jerusalem and Demolish Second Temple
• 135 CE - Jerusalem Rebuilt as a Roman City

Byzantine Period (324-638 CE)

• 335 CE - Church of the Holy Sepulchre Built
• 614 CE - Persians Capture Jerusalem
• 629 CE - Byzantine Christians Recapture Jerusalem from Persians

First Muslim Period (638-1099 CE)

• 638 CE - Caliph Omar Enters Jerusalem
• 661-750 CE - Jerusalem Ruled Under Umayyad Dynasty
• 691 CE - Dome of the Rock Built on Site of Destroyed Jewish Temples
• 750-974 CE - Jerusalem Ruled Under Abassid Dynasty

Crusader Period (1099-1187 CE)

• 1099 CE - First Crusaders Capture Jerusalem

Ayyubid Period (1187-1259 CE)

• 1187 CE - Saladin Captures Jerusalem from Crusaders
• 1229-1244 CE - Crusaders Briefly Recapture Jerusalem Two Times

Mamluk Period (1250-1516)

• 1250 - Muslim Caliph Dismantles Walls of Jerusalem; Population Rapidly Declines

Ottoman Period (1516-1917)

• 1517 - Ottoman Empire Captures Jerusalem
• 1538-1541 - Suleiman the Magnificent Rebuilds the Walls of Jerusalem

British Mandate (1917-1948)

• 1917 - British Capture Jerusalem in World War I

Divided City (1948-1967)

• 1948 - State of Israel Established; Jerusalem Divided By Armistice Lines Between Israel & Jordan

Reunification (1967-Present)

• 1967 - Israel Captures Jerusalem's Old City and Eastern Half; Reunites City
• unquote
• Anti-Semitism - Definition, Meaning & Reasons For (history.com)

 

Edited January 21 by blackbird

[WestCanMan]

23 hours ago, blackbird said:

The RC Church is still very powerful in the world.  There are over one billion Catholics.  The Vatican has ambassadors in countries all over the world and leaders of nations go to the Vatican to hold meetings with the Pope.

Do Catholics even like the pope? Isn't he one of the most unpopular people in the Catholic world?

[Army Guy]

On 1/20/2024 at 10:56 PM, BeaverFever said:

There are international laws now, the Age on Conquest ended long ago.As I just finished saying on here:

 Funny how conservative hypocrites claim to be the party of law and order while being so quick to ignore and disregard any law and order that’s inconvenient for them

So let’s try to sort through your hypocrisy do Israel and other countries have a right to security and self-defence or a right to invade and conquer others as it suits them?  Both cant be true but you and @CdnFox and @blackbirdare hilariously trying to claim both rights exist simultaneously. 

Well both are happening right now, Israel is defending itself, and Russia has invaded a nation, and while NATO is suppling weapons, it is really not doing much else, yes Russia has sanctions that are not very effective, so really the world has stood up condemned Russia, so i guess technically you could invade anyone you wanted if you did not mind the sanctions providing your a nuclear weapons nation.

On the other hand One could also invade in other ways as well , through terrorism, like say Iran, which has heavy influences over lebanon, Syria, yemen , gaza, west bank, Iraq and more...and other than sanctions, what else are we willing to do...

[blackbird]

1 hour ago, WestCanMan said:

Do Catholics even like the pope? Isn't he one of the most unpopular people in the Catholic world?

 Although there are some divisions among them, I would guess he is still popular.  I think they look up to them as a kind of idol.  He holds tremendous power in their minds.

[OftenWrong]

On 1/20/2024 at 4:10 PM, BeaverFever said:

It is you who know nothing.

Actually you are wrong. The history of western law has been explained in this forum in the past. Go look it up. Is based on Roman law, and evolved from the rule of law under the Holy Roman Empire. There's a reason why the courts may ask a person to swear on oath on the bible. Only recently this procedure changed to include other religious books.

[Aristides]

8 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

Actually you are wrong. The history of western law has been explained in this forum in the past. Go look it up. Is based on Roman law, and evolved from the rule of law under the Holy Roman Empire. There's a reason why the courts may ask a person to swear on oath on the bible. Only recently this procedure changed to include other religious books.

Kind of pointless if a person isn't religious.

[Moonlight Graham]

Rewarding terrorism on Oct 7 with massive political gains like a 2 state solution for Palestine after the current fighting is done is a really bad idea that will encourage more terrorism.

[CdnFox]

4 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

Rewarding terrorism on Oct 7 with massive political gains like a 2 state solution for Palestine after the current fighting is done is a really bad idea that will encourage more terrorism.

While i agree with your premise, I don't think that hamas would think a two-state solution is a reward. Having that would require them to acknowledge that Israel has a right to exist and they're not okay with that. They have consistently refused a two state solution.

[WestCanMan]

4 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

Rewarding terrorism on Oct 7 with massive political gains like a 2 state solution for Palestine after the current fighting is done is a really bad idea that will encourage more terrorism.

Maybe it looks more like Israel and the West Bank, with no Gaza. 

From the river to the sea might just be an initial bargaining position, although from a defensive standpoint, river to sea is much better. 

[suds]

On 1/20/2024 at 9:56 PM, BeaverFever said:

There are international laws now, the Age on Conquest ended long ago.As I just finished saying on here:

 Funny how conservative hypocrites claim to be the party of law and order while being so quick to ignore and disregard any law and order that’s inconvenient for them

So let’s try to sort through your hypocrisy do Israel and other countries have a right to security and self-defence or a right to invade and conquer others as it suits them?  Both cant be true but you and @CdnFox and @blackbirdare hilariously trying to claim both rights exist simultaneously. 

So how does rule of law or international law apply to Hamas? Israel and Palestine are both signatories to the Geneva Conventions. Hamas is the 'de facto' government of Gaza which is considered part of Palestine. Article 52 of the UN Charter recognizes the right of a country to defend itself and sets very few limits. Can Israel 'invade and conquer'? I doubt that, but it can do whatever has to be done to remove any threat to its sovereignty.

[Queenmandy85]

The problem is Israel was put in the wrong place. When the UN decided to create Israel, nobody consulted the people who were already living there. I've always believed Israel should have been placed in Oregon. The climate is similar and the neighbours are friendly. I would be upset if the UN suddenly kicked me out of the house my family had lived in for generations.

I object to the silly idea that God promised that land to anyone. God is not a real estate salesperson. The idea is blasphemy. God doesn't chose favourites. God is managing the universe, looking after 28 trillion star systems just in the little section we can see with the JWST. It doesn't have a "chosen" people. I suggested Oregon, but I'm sure the UN could find an alternative.

Who ever named Jerusalem (City of Peace) had an extraordinary sense of sarcasm. 

If we are to take the Israeli claim that they occupied that area 2000 years ago so that it should still be theirs, the Mississippi watershed, from the Great Lakes to the Gulf of Mexico, is actually part of Canada.

[WestCanMan]

8 hours ago, Aristides said:

Kind of pointless if a person isn't religious.

No one's gonna tell the truth there, regardless of what you put their hand on. 

[taxesanddeath]

On 1/20/2024 at 3:42 PM, BeaverFever said:

People from both parties are yelling that actually. 

You are right. Having said that, there are at least over 70% (I remember it is over 80%) on one side believing it but only a few wingnuts on the other side. It is not fair to say that they are the same. Let us get real here, if Yahweh and Allah come down and give you total authority to implement a two-state solution, can you do it? do you roll back to the 1947 stage or make the current stage boundary line? I believe the two-state solution was done after the beginning of the Arab-Israeli war in 1948.

[Legato]

Even if a two state resolution was implemented a problem would still exist.

One state would be Israel, the other would be a hotbed of hate, weapons caches, religious intolerance etc.

[CdnFox]

1 minute ago, Legato said:

Even if a two state resolution was implemented a problem would still exist.

One state would be Israel, the other would be a hotbed of hate, weapons caches, religious intolerance etc.

With neither really believing that the other exists as a sovereign state.

Any possible to state solution Must obviously be predicated on the idea that both parties recognize the other state as legitimate. That is never going to happen

[Legato]

1 minute ago, CdnFox said:

With neither really believing that the other exists as a sovereign state.

Any possible to state solution Must obviously be predicated on the idea that both parties recognize the other state as legitimate. That is never going to happen

Correct. We the plebs can see that. Yet, many so called experts speaking with their all knowing voices keep pushing for it.