So that’s kind of the Yugoslavia solution, right? I’d agree, that would do the trick, but I’d like to point out there’s still pockets of Serbians that think what they did was cool. Putting the onus on one side of the current conflict - and the far less powerful side - to smarten up beforehand seems unfair. That’s how your initial comment read.

In a sense it is similar, I am not as familiar with that situation. That is always a major issue after extended ethnic conflicts unfortunately. I can see how my initial comment could be interpreted that way only when taken out of the context of the conversation “There is issues on the Palestinian side of the conflict that need to be resolved for lasting peace”.

I’m actually pretty hopeful about the feasibility of ending the cycle. Human history is full of ethnic conflicts, and especially recent human history is full of the sides maintaining an uneasy peace afterwards. People might hate, but they want to live in safety far more; this specific conflict is still ongoing because one side has been empowered to do both.

I am hopeful as well, especially considering the history of conflicts like these maintaining that uneasy peace you brought up. Hopefully the greater international community will step in and do what needs to be done before it is too late to resolve the situation.

Seems to me like it’s a good way of trying to make the idea of a free palestine appeal to zionists.

(This is my best attempt at apologism.)

That’s valid, for the record these are recent comments.

Perhaps if Israel committed to giving up its nukes, withdrawing its illegal settlements, and giving Palestinians civilian trials instead of military trials, the Arab world would be open to cooperation

How about we start with the Arab world (and Iran too… they’re not actually Arabic) just recognizing Israel exists? Telling a country they don’t need weapons while also having no respect for their country existing probably isn’t going to do anything.

Mind you that peace deal was HEAVILY biased against the current aggressor, for the most part it was another stalling tactic. But even that wasn’t enough for the Zionist overtone window. For example the Oslo accord prevented the PLA from managing its own water.

Water under the bridge: how the Oslo agreement robbed the Palestinians

Ian Black: 'Cooperation' with Israel over West Bank water supplies helped consolidate illegal settlements and undermine the two-state solution, a new study shows.

the Guardian (www.theguardian.com)

You’re mosfeaming the question…why do they exist under a different set of laws? Why do they have different IDs, even license plates? Sure they exist… But they absolutely do not exist in a state of equal rights.

It’s interesting you would make this point, since there is no right to for a given state to exist in international law. There’s a right to self determination. But that is not the same thing.

It’s interesting you would make this point, since there is no right to for a given state to exist in international law. There’s a right to self determination. But that is not the same thing.

Considering it is International law that grants the states existence in the first place, I would say that is a moot point.

Your disregarding the point.

No I think the question of why Israel is an apartheid state is indeed the point.

That’s just not true. State exists or they don’t de facto. Self determination applies to people, not states. States have a right to territorial integrity, aka not getting attacked, but that’s it.

Zionism is a fascist ideology based upon building an ethno nation states wherein those of other ethnicities are expelled or exterminated.

Why do other ethnic and religious groups exist in modern day Israel if they were all supposed to be expelled or exterminated?

Not arguing against the fact that Israel doesn’t have equal rights for everyone. Arguing against the other person assertion that everyone was expelled or exterminated.

A right to territorial integrity and to not be attacked is literally the right to exist.

Whether or not they have achieved their goal doesn’t change the fact that is the stated goal.

Except it isn’t. They are two different legal concepts.

The simple fact that under international law a state has a right to territorial integrity and safety from aggressive actions means that a state has a right to exist within their borders under international law.

You are free to elaborate at any time on your point of view.

Define “they”.

Zionist leaders and terrorists such as Ben Gurion, Moshe Sharett, the list goes on and on.

“We must expel Arabs and take their places…and, if we have to use force… then we have force at our disposal.” - Ben Gurion

“The compulsory transfer of the [Palestinians] from the valleys of the proposed Jewish state could give us something which we never had, even when we stood on our own during the days of the first and second Temples. We are given an opportunity which we never dared to dream of in our wildest imaginings.” - Ben Gurion

“In many parts of the country new settlement will not be possible without transferring the [Palestinian peasants]… Jewish power, which grows steadily, will also increase our possibilities to carry out the transfer on a large scale.” - Ben Gurion

“With compulsory transfer we [would] have a vast area [for settlement]. I support compulsory transfer. I don’t see anything immoral in it.” - Ben Gurion

“After the formation of a large army in the wake of the establishment of the [Jewish] state, we shall abolish partition and expand to the whole of the Palestine” - Ben Gurion

“[the indigenous Palestinian population was akin to] the rocks of Judea, as obstacles that had to be cleared on a difficult path.” - Chaim Weizmann

"With regard to the refugees, we are determined to be adamant while the war lasts. Once the return tide starts, it will be impossible to stem it, and it will prove our undoing. As for the future, we are equally determined to explore all possibilities of getting rid, once and for all, of the huge [Palestinian] Arab minority [Palestinian Israeli citizens of Israel] which originally threatened us. What can be achieved in this period of storm and stress [the 1948 war] will be quite unattainable once conditions get stabilized. - Moshe Sharett

“…the transfer of [Palestinian] Arab population from the area of the Jewish state does not serve only one aim–to diminish the Arab population. It also serves a second, no less important, aim which is to advocate land presently held and cultivated by the [Palestinian] Arabs and thus to release it for Jewish inhabitants.” - Yosef Weitz (JNF)

“It must be clear that there is no room in the country for both peoples…If the Arabs leave it, the country will become wide and spacious for us…The only solution is a Land of Israel…without Arabs…There is no way but to transfer the Arabs from here to the neighboring countries, to transfer all of them, save perhaps for [the Palestinian Arabs of] Bethlehem, Nazareth, and the old Jerusalem. Not one village must be left, not one tribe.” - Yosef Weitz

Is that clear enough for you? Probably not, no amount of evidence can defeat a zealot’s cognitive dissonance.

If that were the case then a state formed after conquest would be legitimate. But it clearly isn’t.

Feel free to refer to Francesca Albanese, lawyer and scholar of internal law and current UN rapporteur for more question. I have no doubt that she is just vaguely more competent (and clearly more morally correct) than you. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KlbFSpNASO4