The measure received 14 votes in favour, with the US the sole member to reject it. However, because the US is a permanent member of the council, it has the ability to veto any resolution brought forward
Unlike several previous resolutions regarding a ceasefire in Gaza, Wednesday’s measure was brought forward by all 10 elected members of the Security Council.
The US has vetoed four previous attempts at calling for a ceasefire in Gaza, on most occasions being the lone vote against the measures.
Except they have already agreed to a two state solution.
Yeah when they started killing civilians in an effort to tank the Oslo Accords
What does “Palestine will be free from the river to the sea” mean to you?
Any agreement from the Israelis or Palestinians isn’t worth its weight in shit.
It means unless Israel agrees to a two state solution Palestinians will resist to recapture their stolen land.
Hamas accepts Palestinian state with 1967 borders
I wonder if you actually read that article?
jk, it’s clear you didn’t
I wonder if you actually read that article?
jk, it’s clear you didn’t
Lol, your entire article is about how they only accept a Palestinian state, not an Israeli one
Here’s the funniest quote:
What makes it their land in the first place, some British mandate written by the same people who created the state of Israel?
100 years ago the entire area was part of the Ottoman Empire, both nations of Israel and Palestine are fabrications.
The fact that they were living there, as their families have been for generations and generations. What gives Zionists the right to ethnically cleanse and forcibly displace them from their homes?
You keep posting these propaganda images every day, is it your job or just a hobby?
At any rate, all your image shows is that there was never a Palestinian nation state to begin with. So again, the question remains “what makes it Palestinian land in the first place?”
By your own admission, this region (home to both the original Israelites, Judea, Hebrews, Philistines, and dozens of other nomadic tribes) has been passed around by empire to empire for thousands of years.
You have to rely on the word nation-state to make your case. A western invented term needed because the West split up a great empire into small pieces.
The argument is like saying “well Washington was never a country.”
Furthermore your argument is especially stupid because the Zionists literally said they were going to colonize Palestine.
June 20, 1899 CONFERENCE OF ZIONISTS; Elect Delegates at Their Meeting in Baltimore. WILL COLONIZE PALESTINE
I believe everybody deserves to live a comfortable life. I hate seeing disinformation or bigotry that’s used to justify the extermination of a people or normalize their lives under generations of occupation and Apartheid.
Palestinians have been a people for thousands of years. Recent Palestinian Nationalism is an anti-colonialist movement. They were not an explicit nation-state because there was no need before. That in no way justifies ethnic cleansing. If you want the full story, this book covers the four thousand years of history.
Genuine question: do you repeat the same copy-pasted propaganda so much that you can’t remember having this exact same psedo-historical conversation a few days ago?
You may have infinite energy to repeat the same thing over and over again, but I’m not going to bother with it. Refer to my last correction of the historical record.
Have you stopped posting misinformation? No? Why would the evidence to debunk them change? I’ve already spent plenty of hours aggregating sources to debunk them and they are just as relevant whenever you or anyone else posts the same kind of disinformation.
The slogan From the River to the Sea is about Palestinian liberation that started in the 60s by the PLO for a democratic secular state, not Genocide. The Syrian leader Hafez al-Assad in 1966 maybe, but he’s not Palestinian.
It doesn’t matter who it was started by or whether the resultant state was democratic or secular, as it is an open proclamation of an intent to wipe Israel off the map. It doesn’t take a geography expert to point out that all of Israel exists between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea, does it?
You cannot claim to be anti-genocide if you support wiping Israel off the map.
You cannot claim to support a two-state solution if you support wiping Israel off the map.
Any one-state solution amounts to genocide of the other state, fucking duh.
A two state solution is impossible due to the settlements in the West Bank. Only a One-State Solution with equal rights for both Israelis and Palestinians is possible now
Netanyahu is the one who has explicitly said that ‘from the river to the sea there shall be only Israeli sovereignty’. A direct reference to the ethnic cleansing of all Palestinians.
Peace Process and Solution
Both Hamas and Fatah have agreed to a Two-State solution based on the 1967 borders for decades. Oslo and Camp David were used by Israel to continue settlements in the West Bank and maintain an Apartheid, while preventing any actual Two-State solution
How Avi Shlaim moved from two-state solution to one-state solution
‘One state is a game changer’: A conversation with Ilan Pappe
One State Solution, Foreign Affairs
Well in that case I guess you’ll be glad to know that a one-state solution seems to be on the horizon–where Israel is the one state that controls the region.
Not my preference, but I don’t make the rules.