# The Palestine Solution



## Shusha (Dec 19, 2015)

This thread is intended to explore concrete, specific, step-by-step solutions to the problem of the Israel/Arab conflict.  It assumes a two (or three) State solution. It assumes a negotiated, mutually satisfactory solution with an end-of-conflict agreement.  It assumes no other pre-conditions -- everything else is on the table.  Discussions of a one State solution are not appropriate.  Denial of the legitimacy of either side is not appropriate.

I hope participants will use this thread to provide either a "final outcome" template for a peace treaty or to provide the necessary steps towards such a thing.  All steps should be as complete and comprehensive as possible.  For example, rather than say, "Israel should end the occupation of OPT" please describe exactly what this might entail.

Discussion and debate of why a step may be unacceptable to either party is also welcome.


----------



## montelatici (Dec 19, 2015)

There is no longer a 2-state or 3-state solution.  There is only a single state solution possible, in a generation or two.  The Israelis have made it clear that there will not be a separate sovereign state under the control of non-Jews.


----------



## aris2chat (Dec 19, 2015)

BTDT for years.


----------



## Shusha (Dec 19, 2015)

montelatici said:


> There is no longer a 2-state or 3-state solution.  There is only a single state solution possible, in a generation or two.  The Israelis have made it clear that there will not be a separate sovereign state under the control of non-Jews.



If you believe that, then this is not an appropriate thread for you to be posting on.  Off-topic.


----------



## montelatici (Dec 19, 2015)

I doubt many (if any) here believe that a 2 or 3 state solution is possible.  But, good luck.


----------



## Billo_Really (Dec 19, 2015)

Shusha said:


> This thread is intended to explore concrete, specific, step-by-step solutions to the problem of the Israel/Arab conflict.  It assumes a two (or three) State solution. It assumes a negotiated, mutually satisfactory solution with an end-of-conflict agreement.  It assumes no other pre-conditions -- everything else is on the table.  Discussions of a one State solution are not appropriate.  Denial of the legitimacy of either side is not appropriate.
> 
> I hope participants will use this thread to provide either a "final outcome" template for a peace treaty or to provide the necessary steps towards such a thing.  All steps should be as complete and comprehensive as possible.  For example, rather than say, "Israel should end the occupation of OPT" please describe exactly what this might entail.
> 
> Discussion and debate of why a step may be unacceptable to either party is also welcome.


The occupation and blockade is the root cause of all the violence.  That has to end.  Nothing can move forward without that occurring first.  And for the occupation to end, Israel needs to:

Remove all IDF military personnel from the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights.
End the blockade of Gaza by opening up the Ezra crossing and stop shooting at Palestinian fishermen in international waters.
Dismantle the over 500 roadblocks and checkpoints in the West Bank.
Demolish the Iron Curtain that was constructed on Palestinian land.
Take back those psychotic, white trash settlers to Israel, or negotiate resident visa's with the PA for them to stay.
And if they are given resident visa's, train Hamas and Fatah security forces in methods and operations to protect them.
Peace will occur as soon as the Palestinian's are no longer subjected to martial law and are enjoying the inalienable rights the rest of the world enjoys.

It would also be a pretty good idea for Israeli's to get rid of that megalomaniac PM they have.  Or, for that matter, purge the entire Likud Party from government.


----------



## ILOVEISRAEL (Dec 19, 2015)

Shusha said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > There is no longer a 2-state or 3-state solution.  There is only a single state solution possible, in a generation or two.  The Israelis have made it clear that there will not be a separate sovereign state under the control of non-Jews.
> ...



He's right but for the wrong reason . He " forgets" to mention that the Palestinians have made it clear they will not accept a State with a Jewish Majority .


----------



## montelatici (Dec 19, 2015)

Would a Palestinian state have a Jewish majority?


----------



## ILOVEISRAEL (Dec 19, 2015)

Billo_Really said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > This thread is intended to explore concrete, specific, step-by-step solutions to the problem of the Israel/Arab conflict.  It assumes a two (or three) State solution. It assumes a negotiated, mutually satisfactory solution with an end-of-conflict agreement.  It assumes no other pre-conditions -- everything else is on the table.  Discussions of a one State solution are not appropriate.  Denial of the legitimacy of either side is not appropriate.
> ...



 Didn't realize all those Roadblocks, Checkpoints etc. etc. we're present before 1967


----------



## Shusha (Dec 19, 2015)

Billo_Really said:


> ...Israel needs to:
> 
> Remove all IDF military personnel from the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights.
> End the blockade of Gaza by opening up the Ezra crossing and stop shooting at Palestinian fishermen in international waters.
> ...




Thank you.  This is exactly what I was looking for.  However, I think you are getting ahead of yourself.

1.  How can Israel withdraw troops without determining borders to know where to withdraw troops from?  So, while it is correct for Israel to withdraw troops, borders need to be established first.  

2.  I agree that the blockade should and would end in an end-of-conflict agreement.  Although again, I think you are putting the cart before the horse.  

However, sovereign nations have a right to control entry into their State.  An international border established between Gaza and Israel will not change that.  Even extremely friendly nations such as the US and Canada have border crossings and checkpoints. Perhaps, I misunderstand what you mean by "opening up the Ezra crossing".  

3.  Let's not confuse the issue with false information.  My understanding is that there are only 39 checkpoints within Area B and none in Area A.  There are an additional 36 checkpoints which are entry points into Israel (read international border ).  I agree that once borders are established, Israel must remove all military personnel and checkpoints from other States.  

4.  Again, once borders are determined States can do whatever they wish with any walls built.  If you would like to have Israel financially responsible for removal of walls that will be left on the Palestinian or Gazan sides of the border, I can agree to that.  

5.  Okay, nasty way of framing things aside, citizenship needs to be determined.  However, I disagree that removing either Jewish or Arab Muslim people from their homes and sending them across the international border is morally or legally permissible. 

6.  Of course.  The police in all States must be able to protect their citizens.  

I would like to make a counter proposal as step one:

1.  Borders will be established based on the principal of creating a contiguous Palestinian State and a Gaza State.  (3 States).  
2.  Borders will be based loosely on the lines between Areas B and C with the Jewish populated Area C being transferred to Israel and land swaps given in exchange.  

3.  Jerusalem is to be divided into areas under Palestinian sovereignty and under Israeli sovereignty but the Old City and the Temple Mount are to remain under Israeli sovereignty with joint caretakership and security between Palestine and Israel.  People of all faiths are guaranteed access and freedom of worship.  Each State will allow access to citizens of the other State to all holy places.  

4.  Certain areas will be retained by Israel for security reasons, to be gradually and conditionally turned over to Palestine.


----------



## Billo_Really (Dec 19, 2015)

ILOVEISRAEL said:


> Didn't realize all those Roadblocks, Checkpoints etc. etc. we're present before 1967


I didn't say they were.


----------



## Billo_Really (Dec 19, 2015)

Shusha said:


> Thank you.  This is exactly what I was looking for.  However, I think you are getting ahead of yourself.
> 
> 1.  How can Israel withdraw troops without determining borders to know where to withdraw troops from?  So, while it is correct for Israel to withdraw troops, borders need to be established first.


Pre-'67 war are the recognized borders.  Israel needs to withdraw their troops west of the Green Line.




Shusha said:


> 2.  I agree that the blockade should and would end in an end-of-conflict agreement.  Although again, I think you are putting the cart before the horse.


The blockade needs to end, because it is "collective punishment".  And that's a war crime.





Shusha said:


> However, sovereign nations have a right to control entry into their State.  An international border established between Gaza and Israel will not change that.  Even extremely friendly nations such as the US and Canada have border crossings and checkpoints. Perhaps, I misunderstand what you mean by "opening up the Ezra crossing".


I can drive to Canada without being stopped.  If I wanted to go to Mexico, I'd have to go through customs.




Shusha said:


> 3.  Let's not confuse the issue with false information.  My understanding is that there are only 39 checkpoints within Area B and none in Area A.  There are an additional 36 checkpoints which are entry points into Israel (read international border ).  I agree that once borders are established, Israel must remove all military personnel and checkpoints from other States.


According to the _*UN*_, their are over 500 checkpoints and roadblocks in the OPT.

_In the comprehensive closure survey completed by the end of March 2010, OCHA field teams documented and mapped *505 obstacles* *blocking internal Palestinian movement and access throughout the West Bank.* These include 65 permanently staffed checkpoints, 22 partial checkpoints (staffed on an ad-hoc basis) and 418 unstaffed obstacles, including roadblocks, earthmounds, earth walls, road gates, road barriers, and trenches. _​So it's not false information.




Shusha said:


> 4.  Again, once borders are determined States can do whatever they wish with any walls built.  If you would like to have Israel financially responsible for removal of walls that will be left on the Palestinian or Gazan sides of the border, I can agree to that.


You cannot build a wall on your neighbor's property.




Shusha said:


> 5.  Okay, nasty way of framing things aside, citizenship needs to be determined.  However, I disagree that removing either Jewish or Arab Muslim people from their homes and sending them across the international border is morally or legally permissible.


Settlers in the OPT are not legal residents.

*Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.
Article 49*
_The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies._​
The settlements are illegal and should be treated as such.




Shusha said:


> 6.  Of course.  The police in all States must be able to protect their citizens.


I agree.




Shusha said:


> I would like to make a counter proposal as step one:
> 
> 1.  Borders will be established based on the principal of creating a contiguous Palestinian State and a Gaza State.  (3 States).
> 2.  Borders will be based loosely on the lines between Areas B and C with the Jewish populated Area C being transferred to Israel and land swaps given in exchange.
> ...


Allowing Israel to keep any of the territory it seized in the '67 war, would be the same as saying it was okay for Hitler to annex Poland and that ain't gonna happen.


I appreciate your civility.  *RoccoR* finally has some company.


----------



## Roudy (Dec 20, 2015)

Well I guess we are entitled to enjoy our own fantasies.

Meanwhile, Israel's annexation of the West Bank is no longer a question of if but when.


----------



## Shusha (Dec 20, 2015)

I think it would be most helpful if we focused on forward thinking, solutions-based discussion rather than on illegitimacy issues or past complaints.  In that vein, let's see if we can strip the conversation of accusations of wrong-doing, illegality, and generally bad juju and just work on the solutions.  



Billo_Really said:


> Pre-'67 war are the recognized borders.  Israel needs to withdraw their troops west of the Green Line.


There are no recognized borders.  The 1949 Armistice Lines have come to be popularly known as the "1967 borders" but those familiar with the actual legal documents and instruments (and I assume you to be one of them, correct me if I am wrong) know this is a falsehood. The treaties which refer to these armistice lines specifically rejects these lines as permanent borders.  Additionally, the Oslo Accords claim these lines to be a starting point for negotiation, but require final permanent borders to be the subject of negotiation and treaty.  

Please let me know if you do not accept the above as basic facts and we can discuss further.  However, if you accept these as facts, with respect to a solution to the conflict, do you reject any negotiation of permanent borders?  Or are you willing to negotiate?



> The blockade needs to end


I have already agreed to this. The condition for the end of the blockade is the cessation of belligerent attacks on Israeli citizens.  Given that we are devising a peace agreement, that should fall into place.  My concern is that you are requesting the blockade to end as a pre-condition to a peace treaty, while I am demanding that a peace treaty be in place and a cessation of belligerent attacks are pre-conditions to the blockade being lifted.  First the horse, then the cart.  

,





> because it is "collective punishment".  And that's a war crime.


I entirely disagree with that blockades are war crimes. (You should too). They are perfectly legal.  But off-topic for this thread.




> I can drive to Canada without being stopped.


Well, you can.  But its still illegal.  And most unmanned crossing points are monitored by electronic surveillance.  This is largely a consequence of the extremely long and undefended border between allies.  This also exists between allied European nations.  Not the case with a border between Gaza and Israel.  



> If I wanted to go to Mexico, I'd have to go through customs.


Yes, this is typical of crossing into a foreign country.  The question relevant to this thread is how you envision the international border between Gaza and Israel.  In particular, I wonder why international border checkpoints are relevant at all to the creation of a peace treaty.  




> According to the _*UN*_, their are over 500 checkpoints and roadblocks in the OPT.
> 
> _In the comprehensive closure survey completed by the end of March 2010, OCHA field teams documented and mapped *505 obstacles* *blocking internal Palestinian movement and access throughout the West Bank.* These include 65 permanently staffed checkpoints, 22 partial checkpoints (staffed on an ad-hoc basis) and 418 unstaffed obstacles, including roadblocks, earthmounds, earth walls, road gates, road barriers, and trenches. _​


​Your information appears outdated.  But again, this is largely irrelevant to the topic.  I have already agreed that the IDF will withdraw all military checkpoints internal to the new State of Palestine and will establish a controlled international border between it and Israel.  



> You cannot build a wall on your neighbor's property.


There is no suggestion that Israel should be allowed, under provisions of a peace treaty, to build new walls within the sovereign State of Palestine.  The question was whether the removal of walls within the State of Palestine was the financial responsibility of Palestine or Israel.  I have already accepted that Israel will take responsibility for that.  




> Settlers in the OPT are not legal residents.
> 
> *Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.
> Article 49*
> ...



Again, I disagree.  The land is not occupied. There are no established borders. Israel did not deport or transfer its populations.  You have changed the negative prohibition against transferring populations into a positive requirement to prevent people of a certain religious faith or ethnic group from purchasing land and homes on territory, at best, under dispute.   And again I find this irrelevant to the topic -- which is finding a solution to the problem.  

The relevance lies in whether or not it is permissible to cause or require people of a certain religious faith or ethnic group to be forced to vacate their homes on the basis of another religious faith or ethnic groups national sovereignty.  The relevance lies in whether or not you believe it permissible, legal or morally correct to enforce a limited religious or ethnic homogeneity on a State.  

Do you believe that Palestine must be Judenrien?  If so, I propose that all Arab Muslim Palestinians be removed from Israel as an identical provision of the peace treaty.  If not, I suggest we discuss citizenship as opposed to religion or ethnicity and that citizenship can and should be part of the peace treaty.  There are several possibilities.  Permanent residency.  Renunciation of prior citizenship in favour of accepting citizenship of the State in which one resides.  Dual citizenship.  




> I appreciate your civility.  *RoccoR* finally has some company.


I will take that as a high compliment.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Dec 20, 2015)

Just go with the armistice lines. The settlements will be Palestinian territory. Palestinians will have equal rights to live in the settlements and Jews will be allowed to live wherever they want in Palestine if they opt for Palestinian citizenship. Any Jew who does not want Palestinian citizenship must move to the Israeli side and liquidate his property. No settlements would need to be destroyed and nobody would be required to leave their homes.

That is the easy part. Now what to do with the other 2/3 of the Palestinians?


----------



## Hollie (Dec 20, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> Just go with the armistice lines. The settlements will be Palestinian territory. Palestinians will have equal rights to live in the settlements and Jews will be allowed to live wherever they want in Palestine if they opt for Palestinian citizenship. Any Jew who does not want Palestinian citizenship must move to the Israeli side and liquidate his property. No settlements would need to be destroyed and nobody would be required to leave their homes.
> 
> That is the easy part. Now what to do with the other 2/3 of the Palestinians?


Jews, (Israeli or otherwise), will be allowed to live in a future state of Abbas'istan? Not according to Mahmoud.

Will Jews be Able to Live in a Future Palestinian State?

"If we want an independent state, I will not accept any single Israeli in our territories," Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas said at a dinner with Jewish leaders in 2010 hosted by the S. Daniel Abraham Center for Middle East Peace.



Looking more broadly across the globe, there's not a single Islamist majority nation that provides equal rights / protections for Jews or other competing religions. And the fact is, across the Islamist Middle East, Jews and Christians are under siege and being systematically purged from that entire region of the globe.


----------



## Billo_Really (Dec 20, 2015)

Shusha said:


> I think it would be most helpful if we focused on forward thinking, solutions-based discussion rather than on illegitimacy issues or past complaints.  In that vein, let's see if we can strip the conversation of accusations of wrong-doing, illegality, and generally bad juju and just work on the solutions.


This is an occupation.  The "Laws of Occupation" apply.  There is one and only one solution to an occupation.  That is to end it.




Shusha said:


> There are no recognized borders.


That's not true.




Shusha said:


> The 1949 Armistice Lines have come to be popularly known as the "1967 borders" but those familiar with the actual legal documents and instruments (and I assume you to be one of them, correct me if I am wrong) know this is a falsehood. The treaties which refer to these armistice lines specifically rejects these lines as permanent borders.  Additionally, the Oslo Accords claim these lines to be a starting point for negotiation, but require final permanent borders to be the subject of negotiation and treaty.


Again, for the occupation to end, Israel needs to go back to the '67 borders.  That was the status quo at the time before the war.  In that respect, there's nothing to negotiate. 

If someone robs a bank, you don't negotiate with the bank robbers to bring back "some" of the loot.




Shusha said:


> Please let me know if you do not accept the above as basic facts and we can discuss further.  However, if you accept these as facts, with respect to a solution to the conflict, do you reject any negotiation of permanent borders?  Or are you willing to negotiate?


After Israel gets their people back over the Green Line, they can negotiate to their hearts content.




Shusha said:


> I have already agreed to this. The condition for the end of the blockade is the cessation of belligerent attacks on Israeli citizens.


How can that possibly happen, when the blockade is the cause of the attacks?  And lets remember, the blockade has nothing to do with security.  The blockade started as punishment to Gazans, for not voting for an Israeli puppet like Fatah.




Shusha said:


> Given that we are devising a peace agreement, that should fall into place.  My concern is that you are requesting the blockade to end as a pre-condition to a peace treaty, while I am demanding that a peace treaty be in place and a cessation of belligerent attacks are pre-conditions to the blockade being lifted.  First the horse, then the cart.


Again, the blockade is causing the violence.  That must end first, before peace can be established.




Shusha said:


> I entirely disagree with that blockades are war crimes. (You should too). They are perfectly legal.  But off-topic for this thread.


Collectively punishing an entire population of people who have committed no crime, is a crime against humanity.  And the blockade punishes all 1.5 million Gazans.  The blockade is immoral and illegal.




Shusha said:


> ​Your information appears outdated.


It was 2010. 




Shusha said:


> But again, this is largely irrelevant to the topic.


No its not.  This restriction of movement, is making the Palestinian's life a daily hell.  Any peace plan must have the removal of these in the cards.




Shusha said:


> I have already agreed that the IDF will withdraw all military checkpoints internal to the new State of Palestine and will establish a controlled international border between it and Israel.


You said there were only 30.  You were 470 short.  You can't write a peace plan, if you're not truthful about the relevant facts.




Shusha said:


> There is no suggestion that Israel should be allowed,


But that is exactly what Israel did.




Shusha said:


> under provisions of a peace treaty, to build new walls within the sovereign State of Palestine.  The question was whether the removal of walls within the State of Palestine was the financial responsibility of Palestine or Israel.  I have already accepted that Israel will take responsibility for that.


If you illegally build a wall on my lawn, why should I have to pay for its demolition?




Shusha said:


> Again, I disagree.  The land is not occupied.


Of coarse it is.  It's been occupied since 1967.  This is the position of the entire world. There isn't a single country on the planet that recognizes Israel's right to that land.  Not one.  And since it is an occupation, it is illegal for the occupying power to transfer a part of its population in to the area being occupied.

Aside from the Sinai, this is the area Israel needs to vacate.








Shusha said:


> There are no established borders.


Yes there is.









Shusha said:


> Israel did not deport or transfer its populations.


Yes it did.  Do you see the red dots?  That's Israeli population in the occupied territory.








Shusha said:


> You have changed the negative prohibition against transferring populations into a positive requirement to prevent people of a certain religious faith or ethnic group from purchasing land and homes on territory, at best, under dispute.   And again I find this irrelevant to the topic -- which is finding a solution to the problem.


You can't solve any problem until you break it down to the causal level.  And this is one issue the Palestinian's claim is the biggest barrier to peace.




Shusha said:


> The relevance lies in whether or not it is permissible to cause or require people of a certain religious faith or ethnic group to be forced to vacate their homes on the basis of another religious faith or ethnic groups national sovereignty.  The relevance lies in whether or not you believe it permissible, legal or morally correct to enforce a limited religious or ethnic homogeneity on a State.


Religion has nothing to do with it.  If you illegally occupy a home, you must leave it.  You have to obey the law.




Shusha said:


> Do you believe that Palestine must be Judenrien?


I'm a white, Irish Catholic; it's not my call.  I don't care how many Jews are there.  I don't care how many Arabs are there.  This conflict doesn't affect my daily life.  I could cared less about either side.




Shusha said:


> If so, I propose that all Arab Muslim Palestinians be removed from Israel as an identical provision of the peace treaty.  If not, I suggest we discuss citizenship as opposed to religion or ethnicity and that citizenship can and should be part of the peace treaty.  There are several possibilities.  Permanent residency.  Renunciation of prior citizenship in favour of accepting citizenship of the State in which one resides.  Dual citizenship.


If you want to discuss religion, do it in the proper forum. I have no interest in discussing it here.




Shusha said:


> I will take that as a high compliment.


It was.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Dec 20, 2015)

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Just go with the armistice lines. The settlements will be Palestinian territory. Palestinians will have equal rights to live in the settlements and Jews will be allowed to live wherever they want in Palestine if they opt for Palestinian citizenship. Any Jew who does not want Palestinian citizenship must move to the Israeli side and liquidate his property. No settlements would need to be destroyed and nobody would be required to leave their homes.
> ...


Why did he say no Israelis and you say no Jews? Did you misquote him to promote an agenda?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Dec 20, 2015)

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Just go with the armistice lines. The settlements will be Palestinian territory. Palestinians will have equal rights to live in the settlements and Jews will be allowed to live wherever they want in Palestine if they opt for Palestinian citizenship. Any Jew who does not want Palestinian citizenship must move to the Israeli side and liquidate his property. No settlements would need to be destroyed and nobody would be required to leave their homes.
> ...


Really interesting @ 8:00


----------



## Shusha (Dec 20, 2015)

Billo_Really ,

There is no point re-hashing things which I have already agreed to.  We agree that the checkpoints and military presence of Israel will be removed from all areas in the sovereign Palestinian State.  We agree that the portions of the wall in sovereign Palestine will be dismantled at Israel's expense.  We agree that the blockade will end (with the cessation of hostilities).

Let's talk about borders. 

There are no "1967 borders".  The Israel/Jordan Armistice Agreement of April 13, 1949 states:

_“No provision of this Agreement shall in any way prejudice the rights, claims and positions of either Party hereto in the ultimate peaceful settlement of the Palestine question, the provisions of this Agreement being dictated exclusively by military considerations.”

“The basic purpose of the Armistice Demarcation Lines is to delineate the lines beyond which the armed forces of the respective Parties shall not move.”

“The provisions of this article shall not be interpreted as prejudicing, in any sense, an ultimate political settlement between the Parties to this Agreement.”

“The Armistice Demarcation Lines defined in…this Agreement are agreed upon by the Parties without prejudice to future territorial settlements or boundary lines or to claims of either Party relating thereto.”  
_
The 1949 demarcation lines are specifically stated to have only a military purpose (and this is confirmed in UNSC 62).  They are excluded as having any permanent effect on the claims of either party or on the future of territorial settlements or permanent boundaries. 

Further, the Oslo Accords (Article 17.1)  state that permanent borders are to be settled with negotiations: "...issues that will be negotiated in the permanent status negotiations:  Jerusalem, settlements, specified military locations, Palestinian refugees, *borders*, foreign relations and Israelis; and ... powers and responsibilities not transferred to the Council".  (emphasis mine)

There is absolutely no requirement or obligation for Israel accept the 1949 Armistice Demarcation Lines (or Green Line) as the boundaries of its State or as the boundaries of a future Palestinian State.  And Palestinians have absolutely no right to demand such a thing. On the contrary, these lines are specifically excluded in numerous agreements from being so. 

On that note, then, rather than dwelling obstinately on inaccurate assumptions and pre-conditions, what we should be considering are the purposes for creating borders.  My positions: 

1.  Palestine must be contiguous.  (Excluding Gaza).
2.  Ethnic cleansing on either side is reprehensible and must be avoided.
3.  Each State must have the ability to defend itself, its citizens and protect peoples they have interests in.
4.  Land swaps should be considered.as a reasonable way of
5.  Historical and holy places must be protected and accessible to all.  Freedom to practice religious must be ensured.

Please let me know your thoughts on this. 

Also, to clarify, are you suggesting that borders between Gaza and Israel be open with no border controls, checkpoints or customs procedures?  What is your reasoning behind this?


----------



## Shusha (Dec 20, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> Just go with the armistice lines. The settlements will be Palestinian territory. Palestinians will have equal rights to live in the settlements and Jews will be allowed to live wherever they want in Palestine if they opt for Palestinian citizenship. Any Jew who does not want Palestinian citizenship must move to the Israeli side and liquidate his property. No settlements would need to be destroyed and nobody would be required to leave their homes.
> 
> That is the easy part. Now what to do with the other 2/3 of the Palestinians?



If we could trust that Jews would be safe, this might be an option.  Jews haven't fared too well in Muslim countries.  So, I don't think this is currently an option.  

Why would Palestine want to take on 500,000 Jews?  What purpose would it serve?  Why are the 1949 Armistice Lines so important?  Especially when other territory would be given in exchange?  

The other 2/3 of Palestinians?  You mean the "refugees"?  I believe they should be given the option to return to Gaza or the new Palestinian State or become citizens (with full and equal rights) of the nations where they currently reside.  (Which is SOP in the rest of the world).  I believe Israel should adopt a family reunification program where applicable.


----------



## Shusha (Dec 20, 2015)

Billo_Really said:


> Collectively punishing an entire population of people who have committed no crime, is a crime against humanity.  And the blockade punishes all 1.5 million Gazans.  The blockade is immoral and illegal.



Blockades are permissable actions against belligerence.  Are you claiming that all blockades are collective punishment, a position entirely unsupportable in law, or are you claiming that Israel is an exception to normal, usual international law?  

Indiscriminate rocket and mortar attacks are not only belligerent acts, they are WAR CRIMES.  Period.


----------



## Hollie (Dec 20, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


Not in your mythical Pal'istan?

How many Jews are in Gaza?

How many Jews in the areas occupied by the PA?


----------



## Billo_Really (Dec 20, 2015)

Shusha said:


> There is no point re-hashing things which I have already agreed to.  We agree that the checkpoints and military presence of Israel will be removed from all areas in the sovereign Palestinian State.  We agree that the portions of the wall in sovereign Palestine will be dismantled at Israel's expense.


Okay.




Shusha said:


> We agree that the blockade will end (with the cessation of hostilities).


No, we don't agree.  The blockade must end now.




Shusha said:


> Let's talk about borders.


The bookstore?




Shusha said:


> There are no "1967 borders".  The Israel/Jordan Armistice Agreement of April 13, 1949 states:
> 
> _“No provision of this Agreement shall in any way prejudice the rights, claims and positions of either Party hereto in the ultimate peaceful settlement of the Palestine question, the provisions of this Agreement being dictated exclusively by military considerations.”
> 
> ...


The Armistice Agreements and Oslo Accords do not give Israel the right to hold onto land it seized in a war.  UN resolution 242, which is binding on all member states, tells Israel to remove all its forces from areas it seized during the '67 war.  Permanently negotiated boundaries is a completely separate issue.




Shusha said:


> On that note, then, rather than dwelling obstinately on inaccurate assumptions and pre-conditions, what we should be considering are the purposes for creating borders.


I disagree my assumptions are inaccurate.




Shusha said:


> My positions:


Like doggy, or missionary?  Sorry, I've had a few beers today.




Shusha said:


> 1.  Palestine must be contiguous.  (Excluding Gaza).


Having borders that look like sunspots is ridiculous.









Shusha said:


> 2.  Ethnic cleansing on either side is reprehensible and must be avoided.


I agree, but tell that to the Bedouins.




Shusha said:


> 3.  Each State must have the ability to defend itself, its citizens and protect peoples they have interests in.


Including Gaza?




Shusha said:


> 4.  Land swaps should be considered.as a reasonable way of


That's between the parties doing the swap and is none of my business.




Shusha said:


> 5.  Historical and holy places must be protected and accessible to all.  Freedom to practice religious must be ensured.


I agree.




Shusha said:


> Please let me know your thoughts on this.
> 
> Also, to clarify, are you suggesting that borders between Gaza and Israel be open with no border controls, checkpoints or customs procedures?  What is your reasoning behind this?


I'm saying the Israeli's should not shut down the borders as a form of punishment to the Palestinian's.  Denying a Canadian citizen (who traveled to Gaza for a family funeral), the right to return to Canada, is bullshit.


----------



## Billo_Really (Dec 20, 2015)

Shusha said:


> Blockades are permissable actions against belligerence.  Are you claiming that all blockades are collective punishment, a position entirely unsupportable in law, or are you claiming that Israel is an exception to normal, usual international law?


Blockades are legal between two country's at war.  That is not the case here.  It is illegal to start a blockade as a form of economic punishment.

Do you think someone should be punished for a crime they didn't commit?




Shusha said:


> Indiscriminate rocket and mortar attacks are not only belligerent acts, they are WAR CRIMES.  Period.


Indiscriminant weapons, are a war crime.  Attacking civilians who do not take part in hostilities, is a war crime. But that's just what the blockade does.  It attacks civilians who have committed no crime.


----------



## Shusha (Dec 20, 2015)

Billo_Really said:


> Permanently negotiated boundaries is a completely separate issue.



But THAT is what this thread is about.  

Though it is ironic that you bring up UNSC 242 which states:  _Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force._


----------



## P F Tinmore (Dec 20, 2015)

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Just go with the armistice lines. The settlements will be Palestinian territory. Palestinians will have equal rights to live in the settlements and Jews will be allowed to live wherever they want in Palestine if they opt for Palestinian citizenship. Any Jew who does not want Palestinian citizenship must move to the Israeli side and liquidate his property. No settlements would need to be destroyed and nobody would be required to leave their homes.
> ...


You are off base on the right to return.


----------



## Coyote (Dec 20, 2015)

This is a really interesting thread...any solution has to be able to include:

A mutual recognition of the rights of each to exist as a state.
Security concerns for Israel need to be addressed.
What ever state the Palestinians end up with needs to be contiguous and reasonably whole.
The Palestinians need to have a unified voice and leadership - either one that speaks for all, or one that speaks for Gaza and one that speaks for West Bank, negotiations are impossible otherwise.

I used to to think 2-states but now...maybe 3 is more realistic.

There is no doubt there will need to be land swaps and everything will need to be on the table.  Perhaps we start with Israel's borders when it became a state.  They retain Golan Heights because that is between Syria and Israel.

The Palestinians, for their part, need to give up the "right of return" and in addition, the Palestinian leadership needs to take responsibility for bringing home the refugees currently residing in refugee camps around the ME - they would be incorporated into the new Palestinian state.

Up for negotiation and swaps would be the areas that Israel occupies that were not part of it's original territory.

People in areas to be swapped would be given choices of citizenship.  The tricky thing though...would be maintaining security, preventing panic or a bloodbath (like the partitian of India)....perhaps a transition government can be put in place to ensure that?


----------



## Shusha (Dec 20, 2015)

Coyote said:


> This is a really interesting thread...



Thanks.  We seem to spend so much time delegitimizing and demonizing each other, I thought it would be a good idea to talk about solutions instead.


----------



## Shusha (Dec 20, 2015)

P F Tinmore,

That is a loooooong video and I'm hearing impaired so listening to videos is especially difficult for me.  I miss much.  Can you summarize the contents briefly for us?


----------



## Shusha (Dec 20, 2015)

Indeependent said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,
> ...



Thanks much.  I don't mind the documents.  If it has to do with Israel/Palestine I've read them all anyways.  But the videos are a pain in the ass.  And the videos are not always relevant or intelligent.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Dec 21, 2015)

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore,
> 
> That is a loooooong video and I'm hearing impaired so listening to videos is especially difficult for me.  I miss much.  Can you summarize the contents briefly for us?


This goes through the web of laws that are used to confirm the right to return on different angles. One of these I discovered in my own research before I saw this video and this video says the same thing. It is the law regarding the succession of states.

What this says is that when one state takes over the territory of another, it is required to accept the residents of that territory as its own citizens. There are treaties and other documents that confirm this principle of international law. This was mentioned in the Treaty of Lausanne, the Palestinian Citizenship order of 1925. It was also one of the articles of UN Resolution 181.

What this means is that if Israel is a legitimate state (that is another discussion for another day) then all of the Palestinians who normally lived in the territory that became Israel are Israeli citizens. All Palestinian refugees from the territory that became Israel are, by law, Israeli citizens. It is not a matter of immigration policy. It is people entering the state where they are citizens.

There is also the right to a nationality. It is illegal to expatriate citizens due to race, religion, etc..

Nobody has the authority to negotiate away these rights.


----------



## Billo_Really (Dec 21, 2015)

Shusha said:


> But THAT is what this thread is about.


And I'm saying, the occupation must end before any negotiation of land can start.  Earlier, you said I was putting the cart before the horse.  Well, trying to negotiate while Israel is still occupying land it has no clear title to, is putting the cart before the horse.




Shusha said:


> Though it is ironic that you bring up UNSC 242 which states:  _Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force. _


*242* also states...

_*"Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;"*_​
In addition to that, 242 states what I've been trying to tell you this entire thread...

_*"Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war..."*_​
That is why you cannot negotiate before the occupation has ended.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Dec 21, 2015)

Billo_Really said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > But THAT is what this thread is about.
> ...


And besides, treaties between the occupied and the occupying power are considered void due to the perceived coercion.


----------



## Shusha (Dec 21, 2015)

Billo_Really said:


> And I'm saying, the occupation must end before any negotiation of land can start.  Earlier, you said I was putting the cart before the horse.  Well, trying to negotiate while Israel is still occupying land it has no clear title to, is putting the cart before the horse.



Again, there is no occupation.  In order to prove occupation, please answer these questions and provide supporting documentation:

Who has sovereign title over whatever land you claim to be occupied? 
When was that sovereignty acquired?
What are the borders of that sovereign territory?

Israel has BETTER title to that land than anyone else. 




> also states..._*"Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;" *_


Interpretation that this means "all" territories rather than "some" territories is unsupportable. 



> In addition to that, 242 states what I've been trying to tell you this entire thread...
> 
> *"Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war..."*​


Exactly.  Territory can not be acquired through acts of aggression.  The aggressors in the 1967 war were:  Jordan, Egypt, and Syria.  Territory gained through defensive actions against aggressors leaves the defender with the better claim and title to the land since the aggressors can not gain territory by war and force.


----------



## Shusha (Dec 21, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> And besides, treaties between the occupied and the occupying power are considered void due to the perceived coercion.



Source?


----------



## Shusha (Dec 21, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,
> ...



I am familiar with this argument.  I can't remember the source for it though.  Do you know it?


----------



## RoccoR (Dec 21, 2015)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

Certainly there is truth embedded here.



P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

But, the truth that is here, is often coupled with a controversial application.

Yes, the general rule is that the people/residents of a given territory, follow the nationality and citizenship of that territory.

I live in Ohio.  If the US sells Ohio to Canada, I still own my land, but my sovereignty has changed to that of Canadian; barring any other action or event.

What happens here is that Palestinians try to assert The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) of 1948, which never went into effect as law, with the events of 1948.  And that becomes a sticking point.

Similarly, the Palestinians want not recognize UN Resolution 181, and invoke Resolution 181 at the same time.  The want to argue that UN Resolution 181 was never enacted, yet claim that certain rules must be observed as if it were binding.  And the Palestinians want to say that UN Resolution 181 was never implemented, then try to invoke certain clauses and understanding of 181.  

In this argument, the implication is, that if you agree with our friend P F Tinmore, then he will attempt to apply this to All Palestinian refugees from the territory.   Then he will attempt to suggest that all registered Palestinian Refugees with the UNRWA will be entitled to citizenship.

The argument is not so much about what truth is being manipulated, but the dangerous implications that follow. 

*(EXTRAPOLATION)*

If you where a Palestinian, and 1 day old on 15 May 48; then today, you would be about 67 years old.



 So, we would not to see very many Palestinians who normally lived in the territory of 1948 in 2025.  AND, even today, you would not expect to see ≈ 23,000 (of the original 700,000) 




Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## montelatici (Dec 21, 2015)

As usual Rocco does not know what he is talking about:

Procedural Standards for Refugee Status Determination under UNHCR’s Mandate is very clear that in accordance with the refugee’s right to family unity, refugee status is transferred through the generations. According to Chapter 5.1.2 "the categories of persons who should be considered to be eligible for derivative status under the right to family unity include:" "all unmarried children of the Principal Applicant who are under 18 years."

Chapter 5.1.1 makes it clear that this status is retained after the age of 18. It states "individuals who obtain derivative refugee status enjoy the same rights and entitlements as other recognised refugees and should retain this status notwithstanding the subsequent dissolution of the family through separation, divorce, death, or the fact that the child reaches the age of majority."

Exploding the myths: UNRWA, UNHCR and the Palestine refugees | UNRWA


----------



## Shusha (Dec 21, 2015)

montelatici said:


> Procedural Standards for Refugee Status Determination under UNHCR’s Mandate is very clear that in accordance with the refugee’s right to family unity, refugee status is transferred through the generations. ...




Wouldn't that make ALL of the Jewish people in the diaspora refugees with a right of return to Israel, Judea and Samaria?  

Just sayin...


----------



## Shusha (Dec 21, 2015)

The refugee issue, especially in the spirit of this thread, requires a practical solution. Here's what I think should happen, which is perfectly in line with existing customary laws and the only politically acceptable solution:

1.  Palestinian refugees and their descendants choose to return to the newly created States of Gaza or Palestine and become citizens of those nations OR choose to become citizens of their country of residence.

2.  Israel accepts a number Palestinian refugees for family reunification reasons and grants Israeli citizenship to them.  

3.  Palestinian refugees are compensated by Israel and Jewish refugees are compensated by the Arab countries which expelled them.  

To suggest anything else which will lead to the end of the Jewish homeland or State is just unacceptable.  Sometimes practical just has to win the day.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Dec 21, 2015)

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Shusha said:
> ...


Most of the post-World War I peace treaties embodied nationality provisions and the Treaty of Lausanne was no exception.125 It addressed the nationality of the inhabitants in the territories detached from Turkey in Articles 30-6. These articles replaced, with certain modifications, Articles 123-31 of the draft Treaty of Sèvres of 1920.126

69Drawing up the framework of nationality, Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne stated:

“Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become _ipso facto_, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.”​
Article 30 is of a great significance. It constituted a declaration of existing international law and the standard practice of states. This was despite the absence of a definite international law rule of state succession under which the nationals of predecessor state could _ipso facto_ acquire the nationality of the successor.129
--------------------------------
The automatic, _ipso facto_, change from Ottoman to Palestinian nationality was dealt with in Article 1, paragraph 1, of the Citizenship Order, which declared:

“Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine upon the 1st day of August, 1925, shall become Palestinian citizens.”​--------------------------------
*Chapter 3: Citizenship, International Conventions and Financial Obligations*
1. Citizenship Palestinian citizens residing in Palestine outside the City of Jerusalem, as well as Arabs and Jews who, not holding Palestinian citizenship, reside in Palestine outside the City of Jerusalem shall, upon the recognition of independence, become citizens of the State in which they are resident and enjoy full civil and political rights.

The Avalon Project : UN General Assembly Resolution 181


----------



## Shusha (Dec 21, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> Drawing up the framework of nationality, Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne stated:
> 
> “Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become _ipso facto_, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.”​
> --------------------------------
> ...



You can't use 181.  It was never implemented.  (Due to Arab rejection). 

The other two I accept. They claim that Turkish subjects will become nationals of the State to which the territory is transferred, which would be the Mandate for Palestine which became Israel. 

There is still no requirement, under customary law, for refugees to be required to be returned to their countries of origin, especially during times of continued political upheaval and conflict.  It is merely one of three customary options.  UNHRC even states it is the preferred option, but this does not make it incumbent upon States to accept the return of a staggeringly huge number of belligerent (or potentially belligerent) refugees.  (And it certainly does not grant those refugees the right to self-determination.  Imagine 6 million Jewish refugees returning to the surrounding Arab nations and demanding self-determination?  And using the exact same arguments that those calling for Palestinian self-determination are doing.)

One could argue that the conflict in Israel is essentially a civil war,(as opposed to a war between nations) and thus the refugees would be returning to Israel, but under a peace treaty will be a new sovereign State seceding from Israel.

Either way, practicality rules the day with respect to customary law and refugees.  What do you think of my solution to the refugee problem?


----------



## Billo_Really (Dec 21, 2015)

Shusha said:


> Again, there is no occupation.


This is not a debatable issue.

They've been called the "occupied territories" for the last 50 years and you're not going to change definition now.  There isn't a country on the planet that agrees with you.




Shusha said:


> In order to prove occupation, please answer these questions and provide supporting documentation:
> 
> Who has sovereign title over whatever land you claim to be occupied?
> When was that sovereignty acquired?
> What are the borders of that sovereign territory?


Those questions do not define the existence of an "occupation".  Per *IHL*...

_Under IHL, there is occupation when a *State exercises an unconsented-to effective control over a territory on which it has no sovereign title.*_​



Shusha said:


> Israel has BETTER title to that land than anyone else.


Israel has no title to those territories.




Shusha said:


> Interpretation that this means "all" territories rather than "some" territories is unsupportable.


I don't see the words _"all"_ or_ "some"_ in that statement.




Shusha said:


> Exactly.  Territory can not be acquired through acts of aggression.  The aggressors in the 1967 war were:  Jordan, Egypt, and Syria.


Wrong.  Israel rolled its tanks into Egypt and was provoking Syria by trying to take their water resources.




Shusha said:


> Territory gained through defensive actions against aggressors leaves the defender with the better claim and title to the land since the aggressors can not gain territory by war and force.


It doesn't matter.  If you take territory in a war, you cannot hold onto it. 

You're being very disingenuous. You keep trying to spin the obvious into something ridiculous.  I applaud the effort you are putting into finding a solution and completely support you in those efforts.  But if you're not willing to be honest about the facts, you won't find a solution.


----------



## Billo_Really (Dec 21, 2015)

Shusha said:


> You can't use 181.  It was never implemented.


Tell that to *RoccoR*.

He seems to think that dog can still hunt.


----------



## Billo_Really (Dec 21, 2015)

Shusha said:


> Wouldn't that make ALL of the Jewish people in the diaspora refugees with a right of return to Israel, Judea and Samaria?
> 
> Just sayin...


If Jews can return after 2000 years, why can't Arabs return after 70 years?

That's a rhetorical question.  I've seen your comments on the_ "right of return"_ and I actually agree with them.  I like you.  You're one of the few pro-Israeli posters who happen to live on planet earth.  You and *RoccoR*.

If we had more posters like you two, we probably could find a solution to the Palestinian problem_.................eventually._


----------



## Shusha (Dec 21, 2015)

Billo_Really said:


> That's a rhetorical question.  I've seen your comments on the_ "right of return"_ and I actually agree with them.  I like you.  You're one of the few pro-Israeli posters who happen to live on planet earth.  You and *RoccoR*.
> 
> If we had more posters like you two, we probably could find a solution to the Palestinian problem_.................eventually._



Thank you, I like you too.  You don't seem hell bent on denying the Jewish people a homeland.  And on the contrary, I think you and I can solve the Palestinian problem in a matter of days.  Look how much we have already agreed upon.  And we can add the refugee problem to the list of agreements.  Grin.

Now on to this disingenuousness you speak of....


----------



## Shusha (Dec 21, 2015)

Billo_Really said:


> They've been called the "occupied territories" for the last 50 years and you're not going to change definition now.  There isn't a country on the planet that agrees with you.


Logical fallacy:  _argumentum ad populum,  _And on the contrary, the territories in question have had a slow and gradual name change by the UN over the past 50 years.  They were first territories, territories where it was cautioned against using terms such as "illegal" and "occupation".  They gradually became "occupied territories".  Then "occupied Palestinian territories".  Then, "Occupied Palestinian Territories".  Then "Occupied Palestine".   The changing name, however, does not confer sovereignty or create any legally binding changes in law.



> Those questions do not define the existence of an "occupation".  Per *IHL*...
> 
> _Under IHL, there is occupation when a *State exercises an unconsented-to effective control over a territory on which it has no sovereign title.*_​


​
Right.  So answering those questions are KEY to solving the question of whether or not any territory is "occupied".  If it is Israel, then, by definition, there can be no occupation.  If it is not Israel -- whose is it?  When was the title transferred?  By what legal instrument?  Is it Jordan's?  Why or why not?  In 1967 did it belong to an entity which did not exist at the time?  How can that be? What are the territorial limits of those territories -- their boundaries?  How did these boundaries come into existence?  And when?  And by what legal instrument?  What if there was an absence of sovereignty in those areas?  Could Israel's occupation then create sovereignty?  (Yes, it can). These are exactly the questions which must be answered before we can discuss Israel's withdrawal from the "occupied territories" or even define what those "occupied territories" are.

Here's the real kicker.  There is no way for the Palestinian side to "win" this argument.  At least not in all my years of debating this issue.  I challenge you to surprise me.  If you pick Israel as the sovereign, you have a problem.  If you pick Jordan as the sovereign, you have a problem.  If you pick some sort of self-governing Palestinian peoples, you have a problem.  If you pick an absence of sovereignty, you have a problem.  Which problem do you want?

And keep in mind the reason why we are even discussing this.  I want to solve the problem by negotiating mutually agreeable borders.  You want to unilaterally place pre-conditions on the negotiations by assuming, factually incorrectly, that borders all ready exist.  Which I have already shown not to be true.




> Israel has no title to those territories.


Incorrect.  Israel has the best claim of sovereignty to those territories.  (Or they did, until the Oslo Accords were signed.)  Why?  Shortest version:  The Ottoman Empire was dissolved.  The Mandates were created, incorporating the Balfour Declaration into the Mandate for Palestine for the express purpose of establishing a national homeland in the entirety of an undivided Palestine for the Jewish people and no others (the Arab people secured Syria, Iraq, Lebanon and Jordan).  The LoN established the conditions of the Mandates, including the requirement that no land be transferred to another Power. The UN was obligated to adopt the pre-existing instruments of the LoN and had no power to change them.  Ergo, Israel had sovereignty over all of the Palestinian Mandate west of the Jordan River until such time as she signed the Oslo Accords.  Which means there is no occupation.




> I don't see the words _"all"_ or_ "some"_ in that statement.


Exactly.  It isn't there.  The Arabs wanted the statement to include the word "all".  That was rejected because the intent of the UNSC resolution did not demand that Israel withdraw from all of the territories.  In fact, there is much evidence that it was common knowledge that Israel would not relinquish all of the territories, but only some.  Therefore, the _interpretation _that the phrase requires Israel to withdraw entirely from territories in question is false.  Given that Israel has withdrawn from some of the territories, the obligation of 242 has been fulfilled by Israel.




> Wrong.  Israel rolled its tanks into Egypt and was provoking Syria by trying to take their water resources.


I'm just going to leave this as it is largely off-topic.  But no. Just no.  Please don't tell me you believe the 1967 war was a war of aggression by Israel.



> It doesn't matter.  If you take territory in a war, you cannot hold onto it.


Not true.  This applies only to wars of aggression.  Defensive wars can permit, in certain circumstances, the defendant to claim the territory.



> But if you're not willing to be honest about the facts, you won't find a solution.


Its very unfortunate that some people who choose to debate this topic are unaware of the facts.  They just assume logical fallacies like "but everyone knows it!" are the facts and parrot things they have heard like "collective punishment", "transfer of populations", "but resolution 181" without truly understanding them.  I encourage you to have more conversations with me and perhaps I can change your mind.


----------



## montelatici (Dec 22, 2015)

Colonial projects of the late 19th and 20th century have all undegone decolonization. Israel is the last one.  Eventually, given the surrounding demographics and the demographics within the territory under Israeli control, one would conclude that minority  European rule will eventually end as it has in Rhodesia, South Africa, Algeria, etc.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Dec 22, 2015)

Shusha said:


> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> > They've been called the "occupied territories" for the last 50 years and you're not going to change definition now.  There isn't a country on the planet that agrees with you.
> ...


The Mandates were created, incorporating the Balfour Declaration into the Mandate for Palestine for the express purpose of establishing a national homeland in the entirety of an undivided Palestine for the Jewish people and no others (the Arab people secured Syria, Iraq, Lebanon and Jordan).​
Do you have any documents showing that Palestine was given exclusively to the Jews?

Same for land given exclusively to the Arabs.


----------



## Coyote (Dec 22, 2015)

For those that seem to be advocating one unified state, because despite the premise of the OP, it seems to crop up anyway, I have some questions.

How will it be governed and by whom?
What sort of government and who will determine it?
How would you insure minority rights and lives are adequately preserved and protected?
There is a lot of anger, generations of hate in this conflict that won't disipate upon a political solution - and it's been taught on both sides.  What will you do with that hate and how will you prevent bloodshed?
Since you can not force other countries to take in millions of people for political convenience - what will happen to people deemed "undesirable" by the majority or the ruling class?  I'm remembering how well Egypt's newly elected democratic government "protected" religious minorities and the Israeli embassy from "popular" attacks and persecution. Or the suggestions made by some that undesirables can simply moved enmasse to other countries against their wills.

I am not convinced that a one-state solution can be fair or equitable, that it would protect the rights of all or that it would not end up as a nation with different "tiers" of citizenship and rights.

Three states makes the most sense.


----------



## Shusha (Dec 22, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> Do you have any documents showing that Palestine was given exclusively to the Jews? Same for land given exclusively to the Arabs.



You're kidding, right?  Have you read San Remo?  Have you read the Mandate for Palestine?  Look, I'm not going to go into it here as it is off-topic for this thread, and you know better.  Bring it up on another thread or on the Mandate thread if you really want me to address it.  

But, here on the solution thread, let me throw out one of the consequences of your presumed claim, which is that there should be more than one sovereign in the mandated territories arising from the Mandate itself:

Do you support multiple sovereign Jewish nations in the other Mandate territories?  In other words, a return of those Jewish people and all of their millions of descendants expelled from the surrounding nations during and immediately after the Mandate period to their home countries in order for them to form sovereign governments and carve out sovereign nations in Syria, Jordan, Iraq and Lebanon?  Do you believe there should be five Jewish States as well as five Arab States?  Why or why not?  And where, exactly, do you find provisions for this in the legal instruments of the Mandates?
_
_


----------



## teddyearp (Dec 23, 2015)

Billo_Really said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > You can't use 181.  It was never implemented.
> ...



You can tell that to Tinmore as well.  It is funny (odd)  that he marked the post as funny.  He will on one hand say that it does not apply because it was never implemented, and then a few posts later use it to further his 'narrative'.  How would you call that?  That Tinmore thinks that dog can hunt only when he says so?


----------



## teddyearp (Dec 23, 2015)

Here's my idea for a solution.  I've posted it a few times before; those previous times it was for a two state solution, but now reality tells me that a three state solution may have to be.  Why?  Well beyond the fact that geographically it is hard to get a contiguous state for the West Bank and Gaza to create the State of Palestine; it is the FACT that Gaza is ruled by Hamas, West Bank by the PA and/or Fatah and hardly ever do the two find themselves in enough of a union.

So, again.  This is almost like "I have a Dream". If the Palestinians would just declare themselves an Independent peaceful State and denounce any further violence against Israel things would change.  If they stopped allowing children's toys encouraging rock throwing, stop the music videos encouraging stabbings and car rammings, no more statements about "filthy feet", the children's shows calling for killing Jews, etc., things would have to change. Instead of the PA (Abbas) calling for peaceful resistance meaning stabbings and other attacks; if Abbas would highly condemn them, things would have to change and rapidly.

Once a true peace settled upon the area, Israel would have to withdraw any troops from the new state of Palestine, would have to negotiate possible land swaps, would have to recognize Palestinian autonomy and sovereignty.  They would have no choice and no excuse not to at that point.

Moving forward, possible land swaps, etc. could be that the settlers in the interior may have to leave and/or accept Palestinian citizenship.  Those at the perimeters may be traded for a bit to the north, like Afula and on to Nazareth as long as all involved agreed to it.  But now I've gone beyond my initial 'dream'.

It could happen, I do not see why not.


----------



## Billo_Really (Dec 23, 2015)

Shusha said:


> Logical fallacy:  _argumentum ad populum,  _And on the contrary, the territories in question have had a slow and gradual name change by the UN over the past 50 years.  They were first territories, territories where it was cautioned against using terms such as "illegal" and "occupation".  They gradually became "occupied territories".  Then "occupied Palestinian territories".  Then, "Occupied Palestinian Territories".  Then "Occupied Palestine".   The changing name, however, does not confer sovereignty or create any legally binding changes in law.


That's nonsense.  They've always been referred to as the "occupied territories".

_*Nov. 22, 1967  UN issues resolution 242* 
Calls for the withdrawal of Israel armed forces from Palestinian and other *territories occupied* in the 1967 war.

*March 1, 1980 UN issues resolution 465*
5. Determines that all measures taken by Israel to change the physical character, demographic composition, institutional structure or status of the Palestinian and other *Arab territories occupied since 1967*, including Jerusalem, or any part thereof, *have no legal validity* and that *Israel's policy and practices of settling parts of its population* and new immigrants in those territories *constitute a flagrant violation* of the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War and also constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East; 
_
_*March 10, 2005 Sasson Report*_ 
_Report on Israeli government involvement in the establishment of settlement outposts in *Palestinian Occupied Territories*._​Only Israel is trying to get away with calling them "disputed territories", but no country on the planet agrees with this.




Shusha said:


> Right.  So answering those questions are KEY to solving the question of whether or not any territory is "occupied".  If it is Israel, then, by definition, there can be no occupation.  If it is not Israel -- whose is it?  When was the title transferred?  By what legal instrument?  Is it Jordan's?  Why or why not?  In 1967 did it belong to an entity which did not exist at the time?  How can that be? What are the territorial limits of those territories -- their boundaries?  How did these boundaries come into existence?  And when?  And by what legal instrument?  What if there was an absence of sovereignty in those areas?  Could Israel's occupation then create sovereignty?  (Yes, it can). These are exactly the questions which must be answered before we can discuss Israel's withdrawal from the "occupied territories" or even define what those "occupied territories" are.


How can you come up with a solution to the Palestinian problem, when you keep trying to argue against the obvious.  The occupation is not a debatable issue; ending it is.




Shusha said:


> Here's the real kicker.  There is no way for the Palestinian side to "win" this argument.  At least not in all my years of debating this issue.  I challenge you to surprise me.  If you pick Israel as the sovereign, you have a problem.  If you pick Jordan as the sovereign, you have a problem.  If you pick some sort of self-governing Palestinian peoples, you have a problem.  If you pick an absence of sovereignty, you have a problem.  Which problem do you want?


Israel is sovereign west of the Green Line.  That's it.  You should feel lucky it has that.  At the time Zionists declared Israel was a nation, Jews were only 30% of the population.  But as the British vacated the area, Jewish terrorist groups like Irgun, took more land than what was given to them.




Shusha said:


> And keep in mind the reason why we are even discussing this.  I want to solve the problem by negotiating mutually agreeable borders.  You want to unilaterally place pre-conditions on the negotiations by assuming, factually incorrectly, that borders all ready exist.  Which I have already shown not to be true.


No, I'm saying the occupation must end before any negotiation can take place.  How many more times do I have to state this?




Shusha said:


> Incorrect.  Israel has the best claim of sovereignty to those territories.  (Or they did, until the Oslo Accords were signed.)  Why?  Shortest version:  The Ottoman Empire was dissolved.  The Mandates were created, incorporating the Balfour Declaration into the Mandate for Palestine for the express purpose of establishing a national homeland in the entirety of an undivided Palestine for the Jewish people and no others (the Arab people secured Syria, Iraq, Lebanon and Jordan).  The LoN established the conditions of the Mandates, including the requirement that no land be transferred to another Power. The UN was obligated to adopt the pre-existing instruments of the LoN and had no power to change them.  Ergo, Israel had sovereignty over all of the Palestinian Mandate west of the Jordan River until such time as she signed the Oslo Accords.  Which means there is no occupation.


Israel was in breach of the Balfour Declaration on May 15, 1948.  Lord Balfour stated Israel could have its country as long as it didn't disenfranchise the rights of the existing non-Jewish community.  But that's not what Zionists did.




Shusha said:


> Exactly.  It isn't there.


Then why did you use them?




Shusha said:


> The Arabs wanted the statement to include the word "all".  That was rejected because the intent of the UNSC resolution did not demand that Israel withdraw from all of the territories.


Oh, yes it did. 242 said it was inadmissible to acquire land by force.  That means "any" land.




Shusha said:


> In fact, there is much evidence that it was common knowledge that Israel would not relinquish all of the territories, but only some.  Therefore, the _interpretation _that the phrase requires Israel to withdraw entirely from territories in question is false.  Given that Israel has withdrawn from some of the territories, the obligation of 242 has been fulfilled by Israel.


Israel is going to relinquish those territories.  They either do it voluntarily, or they will be forced to.




Shusha said:


> I'm just going to leave this as it is largely off-topic.  But no. Just no.  Please don't tell me you believe the 1967 war was a war of aggression by Israel.


Invading a country is aggression.  Israel did it to Egypt.  Then again to Lebanon.  Gaza, etc.  Israel has started the last 5 out of 6 wars its been in.

Hey, there's a solution to the Palestinian problem; Israel needs to stop attacking its neighbor's.




Shusha said:


> Not true.  This applies only to wars of aggression.  Defensive wars can permit, in certain circumstances, the defendant to claim the territory.


Show me the international law that states that.




Shusha said:


> Its very unfortunate that some people who choose to debate this topic are unaware of the facts.  They just assume logical fallacies like "but everyone knows it!" are the facts and parrot things they have heard like "collective punishment", "transfer of populations", "but resolution 181" without truly understanding them.  I encourage you to have more conversations with me and perhaps I can change your mind.


For that to happen, your arguments need to get a whole lot better.  And it wouldn't hurt to spend a little more time understanding my point, so I wouldn't have to repeat myself so much.


----------



## montelatici (Dec 23, 2015)

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Do you have any documents showing that Palestine was given exclusively to the Jews? Same for land given exclusively to the Arabs.
> ...



If The San Remo Conference or the Mandate for Palestine called for the removal of the native population to make room for a European colony, then they were in contravention of the Covenant of the League Nations.


----------



## Shusha (Dec 23, 2015)

teddyearp said:


> Here's my idea for a solution.  I've posted it a few times before; those previous times it was for a two state solution, but now reality tells me that a three state solution may have to be.  Why?  Well beyond the fact that geographically it is hard to get a contiguous state for the West Bank and Gaza to create the State of Palestine; it is the FACT that Gaza is ruled by Hamas, West Bank by the PA and/or Fatah and hardly ever do the two find themselves in enough of a union.
> 
> So, again.  This is almost like "I have a Dream". If the Palestinians would just declare themselves an Independent peaceful State and denounce any further violence against Israel things would change.  If they stopped allowing children's toys encouraging rock throwing, stop the music videos encouraging stabbings and car rammings, no more statements about "filthy feet", the children's shows calling for killing Jews, etc., things would have to change. Instead of the PA (Abbas) calling for peaceful resistance meaning stabbings and other attacks; if Abbas would highly condemn them, things would have to change and rapidly.
> 
> ...



We agree.  And given that the Oslo Accords require negotiation for permanent borders (as does every other legal instrument in the conflict), its just a matter of sitting down and hashing out which land will eventually be Palestine and which will be Israel. Practically speaking, a few land swaps will take care of the majority of the areas where there is a large number of the "wrong" ethnic group.  

1.  This agreement is an end of conflict.
2.  Three State solution.
3.  Contiguous Palestine along a negotiated border.
4.  Land swaps.
5.  Divided Jerusalem.
6.  Shared caretakership of all holy sites and equal religious access to all.
7.  Return or rehoming of refugees, with financial compensation on both sides.  
8.  Address Israel's ongoing security concerns with a gradual withdrawal from the Jordan valley.

Really, I don't understand why this is so hard as a practical solution.  Seems like a no-brainer.


----------



## Shusha (Dec 23, 2015)

montelatici said:


> If The San Remo Conference or the Mandate for Palestine called for the removal of the native population to make room for a European colony, then they were in contravention of the Covenant of the League Nations.



They don't.  So, it doesn't.


----------



## Shusha (Dec 23, 2015)

Billo_Really said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > And on the contrary, the territories in question have had a slow and gradual name change by the UN over the past 50 years.  They were first territories ... They gradually became "occupied territories".  Then "occupied Palestinian territories".  Then, "Occupied Palestinian Territories".  Then "Occupied Palestine".   The changing name, however, does not confer sovereignty or create any legally binding changes in law.
> ...


​Thank you for doing the work to prove my point.  I could come up with more, but you've done a neat job for me.  



> Only Israel is trying to get away with calling them "disputed territories", but no country on the planet agrees with this.


Do you know what _argumentum ad populum_ means?  You should look it up.  Seriously.  Stop using a logical fallacy to make your case.  Its embarrassing.  If the answer to the question about sovereignty is obvious, then it should easily be able to demonstrate why I am wrong without resorting to a logical fallacy.  Who had sovereignty over the territory in question in 1967? When did they obtain it?  Through what legal instrument or point of law?  Your silence on the matter is a banshee screaming.  



> Israel is sovereign west of the Green Line.  That's it.


  Well then, you should find it remarkably easy to point out who is sovereign east of the Green Line and how and when they obtained that sovereignty.  Or find me some other documentation which divides Palestine into two sections, other than the documents I have already provided with prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the Green Line can not be used to prejudice or assume or assign permanent status or borders.  



> Israel was in breach of the Balfour Declaration on May 15, 1948.  Lord Balfour stated Israel could have its country as long as it didn't disenfranchise the rights of the existing non-Jewish community.


The civil rights of the non-Jewish community.  They were given no political rights to sovereignty.  Just as the Jewish people in Syria, Jordan, Lebanon and Iraq were given no political rights to sovereignty.  I will ask you the same question I asked Tinmore:  Should there be five Jewish States as well as five Arab States?  Why or why not?  


The whole point of this thread is to set aside the whole "but they don't deserve it" issues and focus on going into the future and coming up with a plan that everyone can live with.  In the end, the borders will have to be negotiated.  So let's just negotiate them already.


----------



## Billo_Really (Dec 23, 2015)

Shusha said:


> ​Thank you for doing the work to prove my point.  I could come up with more, but you've done a neat job for me.


Are you on crack?

You claimed the name of the OPT has changed over the years in the eyes of the UN and I just proved it didn't.  I provided 3 UN documents from '67, '80 and 2005.  All of them refer to this area as the "occupied territories".




Shusha said:


> Do you know what _argumentum ad populum_ means?  You should look it up.  Seriously.  Stop using a logical fallacy to make your case.  Its embarrassing.


You expect me to believe that Israel is right and the rest of the world is wrong?  It would be a logical fallacy if it wasn't backed up by international law, UN resolutions and the UN Charter.  Not to mention all the non-partisan organizations like ICRC, AI and the ICC who have experts in the field of international law.

If you had a heart condition and went to 3 doctors and they all said you need surgery, would you blow it off as  _argumentum ad populum?
_



Shusha said:


> If the answer to the question about sovereignty is obvious, then it should easily be able to demonstrate why I am wrong without resorting to a logical fallacy.  Who had sovereignty over the territory in question in 1967? When did they obtain it?  Through what legal instrument or point of law?  Your silence on the matter is a banshee screaming.


I've already provided the legal instruments.  Where's yours?  I believe I asked you to produce the document that says you can hold onto land seized in a war.  Defensive war, as you claim.  And to date, I'm still waiting.

I disagree that it was a defensive war, but for the sake of argument, lets say it was.  If its a defensive war, what are you defending?  You're defending your sovereign territory from a foreign force.  You cannot possibly defend something that is not yours, unless invited to do so.  The moment your troops leave your sovereign territory, you are no longer defending that territory, you are invading territory that is not yours.  And that's all you need to know.  It doesn't matter who's territory it is, all that matters is its not yours.  Also, if there's no one sovereign in that territory, then who are you defending the territory from?




Shusha said:


> Well then, you should find it remarkably easy to point out who is sovereign east of the Green Line and how and when they obtained that sovereignty.


It doesn't matter who's sovereign in territory's that are not Israel's.  Its none of Israel's business who's sovereign anywhere its not Israel.




Shusha said:


> Or find me some other documentation which divides Palestine into two sections, other than the documents I have already provided with prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the Green Line can not be used to prejudice or assume or assign permanent status or borders.


Here you go...








Shusha said:


> The civil rights of the non-Jewish community.  They were given no political rights to sovereignty.


You cannot move into an area and automatically have more rights than the people already living there.  Not only do they have rights, they have inalienable rights to self determination. 30% of the population has no right telling the other 70% it's their country now and the majority population has no say so in the matter.

Not to mention this was codified by *UN resolution 54/152*.




Shusha said:


> Just as the Jewish people in Syria, Jordan, Lebanon and Iraq were given no political rights to sovereignty.  I will ask you the same question I asked Tinmore:  Should there be five Jewish States as well as five Arab States?  Why or why not?


According to the Three Oaths in the Torah, there shouldn't even be one, until God comes back down to earth.




Shusha said:


> The whole point of this thread is to set aside the whole "but they don't deserve it" issues and focus on going into the future and coming up with a plan that everyone can live with.  In the end, the borders will have to be negotiated.  So let's just negotiate them already.


You cannot negotiate with someone advocating lawlessness.  And you certainly don't want to negotiate with a country doing the same things the Nazis did in WWII.  You want Abbas to start acting like Neville Chamberlain?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Dec 23, 2015)

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Drawing up the framework of nationality, Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne stated:
> ...


You can't use 181. It was never implemented. (Due to Arab rejection).​
I know that Resolution 181 flopped and has no meaning. I only referenced it to show that the rules of succession were mentioned there also.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Dec 24, 2015)

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Do you have any documents showing that Palestine was given exclusively to the Jews? Same for land given exclusively to the Arabs.
> ...


Have you read San Remo?​I have.
Have you read the Mandate for Palestine?​I have.

You haven't proven your point.


----------



## Shusha (Dec 24, 2015)

Billo_Really said:


> It doesn't matter who's sovereign in territory's that are not Israel's.



Nothing sums up the Palestinian narrative better than this.  It doesn't matter what is right, or who has rights, as long as Israel has none.  

It doesn't matter what is fair, or practical, or workable, or reasonable or effective or ends the conflict.  And that is why there is no peace.


----------



## Shusha (Dec 24, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> You haven't proven your point.



And you haven't answered my question.  The Mandate for Palestine grants the geographical area referred to as "Palestine" to the Jewish people for the purpose of re-constituting a national homeland based on historical claims to sovereignty in that territory from which they were ethnically cleansed and forcefully removed. 

Your claim seems to be that the areas named in the Mandate should have multiple sovereignty and that the areas for these multiple sovereignty are delineated within the Mandate legal documents with borders and everything.  Or do you think those administrating the Mandate intended this, but OOPS! forgot to mention it in any of the documents?  But even if this is so in Palestine, why is it not so in Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Jordan? 

If you have a document which provides for multiple sovereignty in the Mandate territories, just show it to me.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Dec 24, 2015)

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > You haven't proven your point.
> ...


You ducked my question first. That answer would answer your question.


----------



## Shusha (Dec 24, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> You ducked my question first. That answer would answer your question.



The Mandate for Palestine clearly gives the geographical area named Palestine to the Jewish people.  It says it gives it to the Jewish people.  It gives reasons why it gives it to the Jewish people.  It names no other people.  It names no division of territory.  It names no other sovereign.  It says absolutely nothing about anyone other than the Jewish people.  If you think that lack of mention warrants a second sovereign, you have some fast dancing to do.  Did they just forget to mention that?  OOPS! 

*The Council of the League of Nations:*
_Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have agreed, for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, to entrust to a Mandatory selected by the said Powers the administration of the territory of Palestine, which formerly belonged to the Turkish Empire, within such boundaries as may be fixed by them; and

Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favor of *the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people*, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country; and

Whereas *recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country...*
_
The preamble, stating the intent of the Mandate, assigns the trust to the Jewish people in recognition of their historical rights and notes that CIVIL and RELIGIOUS rights are to be guaranteed to the non-Jewish people, but no political rights.  The rights and political status of the Jewish people are also noted in the Mandate. 

Saying that the Mandate meant to include another sovereign, but OOPS! forgot to mention it is BS of the highest order. Seriously?  Honestly, the use of silence in legal instruments to promote your cause is bordering on the ridiculous.

_
_


----------



## P F Tinmore (Dec 24, 2015)

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > You ducked my question first. That answer would answer your question.
> ...


Not true. Read it again.


----------



## Shusha (Dec 24, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> Not true. Read it again.



Look, there is nothing in there about a second sovereign.  If you want to have a conversation, do the work.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Dec 24, 2015)

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Not true. Read it again.
> ...


Nothing was given to the Jews. It was recognized that the Jews had the right to live in Palestine with the Palestinians. They would have Palestinian citizenship like the rest of the Palestinians.

So it is true that there would not be a second sovereign.


----------



## montelatici (Dec 24, 2015)

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > You haven't proven your point.
> ...



It says nothing of the sort.  In fact, the Mandatory denied that it meant anything of the sort in the June 1922 declarations by the British government:

"Unauthorized statements have been made to the effect that the purpose in view is to create a wholly Jewish Palestine. Phrases have been used such as that Palestine is to become "as Jewish as England is English." His Majesty's Government regard any such expectation as impracticable and have no such aim in view. *Nor have they at any time contemplated, as appears to be feared by the Arab delegation, the disappearance or the subordination of the Arabic population, language, or culture in Palestine.....
In this connection it has been observed with satisfaction that at a meeting of the Zionist Congress, the supreme governing body of the Zionist Organization, held at Carlsbad in September, 1921, a resolution was passed expressing as the official statement of Zionist aims "the determination of the Jewish people to live with the Arab people on terms of unity and mutual respect, and together with them to make the common home into a flourishing community, the upbuilding of which may assure to each of its peoples an undisturbed national development."
*
It is also necessary to point out that the Zionist Commission in Palestine, now termed the Palestine Zionist Executive, has not desired to possess, and does not possess, any share in the general administration of the country. Nor does the special position assigned to the Zionist Organization in Article IV of the Draft Mandate for Palestine imply any such functions. That special position relates to the measures to be taken in Palestine affecting the Jewish population, and contemplates that the organization may assist in the general development of the country, but does not entitle it to share in any degree in its government.

Further, it is contemplated that the status of all citizens of Palestine in the eyes of the law shall be Palestinian, and it has never been intended that they, or any section of them, should possess any other juridical status. So far as the Jewish population of Palestine are concerned it appears that some among them are apprehensive that His Majesty's Government may depart from the policy embodied in the Declaration of 1917. *It is necessary, therefore, once more to affirm that these fears are unfounded, *and that that Declaration, re affirmed by the Conference of the Principle Allied Powers at San Remo and again in the Treaty of Sevres, is not susceptible of change."

The Avalon Project : British White Paper of June 1922


----------



## montelatici (Dec 24, 2015)

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > You ducked my question first. That answer would answer your question.
> ...



The Mandate for Palestine specifically did not assign sovereignty to the Jews in Palestine as was explained in the June 1922 British White Paper.  In fact, it could not without contravening the terms of the Covenant of the League of Nations which promised eventual statehood for the Christian and Muslim inhabitants of Palestine, who were at the time of signing, more than 95% of the population.  To believe that the definition of "inhabitant" in the Covenant was limited to Jews and not 95% of the population is an absurdity.


----------



## Billo_Really (Dec 24, 2015)

Shusha said:


> Nothing sums up the Palestinian narrative better than this.  It doesn't matter what is right, or who has rights, as long as Israel has none.


That's not what I said.  Israel has rights in Israel.  It doesn't have rights in the West Bank, Gaza, Golan Heights, East Jerusalem, China, Germany, Argentina, etc.

You really need to dump that line of thinking; Israel is not the victim here.  As long as the occupation continues, Israel is the aggressor.  And an occupational force, cannot claim self defense.




Shusha said:


> It doesn't matter what is fair, or practical, or workable, or reasonable or effective or ends the conflict.  And that is why there is no peace.


It's not workable or reasonable to treat an entire population like garbage for 50 years and think the problem is with "THEM".

You have to go all the way back to Nazi, Germany, to find a population of people treated worse than the Palestinian's.


----------



## Shusha (Dec 24, 2015)

The Jewish people do not need "permission" to live anywhere.  That statement is anti-semitic.  

Comparing the Jewish people to Nazi's is both anti-semitic and vile, as if one can equate stuffing 95% of some countries Jewish people into OVENS with anything the Palestinians have experienced. Although I do have to say this is a step up from the last board I was on.  There I was told I was an animal and deserved to be nuked or stabbed. 

Happy Xmas to those who celebrate it.  And appropriate other seasonal greetings to those who don't.


----------



## montelatici (Dec 24, 2015)

Shusha said:


> The Jewish people do not need "permission" to live anywhere.  That statement is anti-semitic.
> 
> Comparing the Jewish people to Nazi's is both anti-semitic and vile, as if one can equate stuffing 95% of some countries Jewish people into OVENS with anything the Palestinians have experienced. Although I do have to say this is a step up from the last board I was on.  There I was told I was an animal and deserved to be nuked or stabbed.
> 
> Happy Xmas to those who celebrate it.  And appropriate other seasonal greetings to those who don't.



“Everybody is somebody’s Jew and today the Palestinians are the Jews of the Israelis.”

Primo Levi, Auschwitz survivor and author.


----------



## Indeependent (Dec 24, 2015)

montelatici said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > The Jewish people do not need "permission" to live anywhere.  That statement is anti-semitic.
> ...



And George Soros, Holocaust Survivor, is an atheist and Bernie Sanders does not identify as a Jew.
Your point?
Other than from a numbers point of view, non-believing Christians far outnumber non-believing Jews.


----------



## Billo_Really (Dec 25, 2015)

Shusha said:


> The Jewish people do not need "permission" to live anywhere.  That statement is anti-semitic.
> 
> Comparing the Jewish people to Nazi's is both anti-semitic and vile, as if one can equate stuffing 95% of some countries Jewish people into OVENS with anything the Palestinians have experienced. Although I do have to say this is a step up from the last board I was on.  There I was told I was an animal and deserved to be nuked or stabbed.
> 
> Happy Xmas to those who celebrate it.  And appropriate other seasonal greetings to those who don't.


How could my statement be anti-Semitic when I didn't say anything about Judaism?  I was talking about Israeli's.  And yes, you do need permission to live in other country's.  That "permission", comes in the form of a resident visa.  Without it, you're either in the country illegally, or you get deported.

As far as your other claim, if you have to lie in order to make your point, then you have no point to make.  I didn't compare Jews to Nazis, that's the lie you tell.  I said Israel is treating the Pals, like the Nazis treated the Jews.  Let me be clear on this, I was not referring to the period of the Holocaust, but the 10 years prior leading up to it.  The Holocaust didn't just happen overnight.  There were years and years of hate ramping up in many forms.  And those "forms" are present today in the way the Palestinian's are treated.


Palestinian's are trashed 24/7, just like the Nazis trashed the Jews.
Palestinian's are scapegoated for all the problems in the country, just like the Nazis scapegoated the Jews.
Palestinian's are treated like they are sub-human, just like the Nazis treated the Jews.
The government provides non-stop propaganda demonizing the Pals, just like the Nazis did with the Jews.
Laws are enacted making   Pals 2nd class citizens, just like the Nazis did to the Jews.
Palestinian's are being ethnically cleansed from the area, just like the Nazis did to the Jews.
Any violence against the Pals (no matter how horrific), is acceptable to the general population, just like violence against the Jews was accepted by Germans.
Zionists want Israel to be known as the Jewish State; Nazis wanted Germany to be known as the Aryan Nation.
I could go on, but I'll stop there.

All there really needs to happen for a Palestinian solution, is for Israel to obey the law and stop acting like I noted above.  It is interesting to note all these international laws and even the UN Charter, was a direct result of what the world experienced in WWII.  That's why "aggression" was made illegal at the Nuremberg Tribunals. That's why you can't hold onto land seized in a war.  That's why the only thing you can do with an occupation, is end it.  And ending it, is not calling it something else, as many of the  pro-Israeli are trying to get away with doing.

By not respecting IHL and the UN Charter, you are shitting on the graves of all the Jews who died in the Holocaust.  Because the laws we have today, were designed to prevent another one.


----------



## RoccoR (Dec 25, 2015)

Billo_Really,  et al,

I have to admit, our friend "Billo_Really's" commentary was put together very well.  It has form and structure you seldom see in normal attacks to discredit is the Jewish People of Israel.



Billo_Really said:


> By not respecting IHL and the UN Charter, you are shitting on the graves of all the Jews who died in the Holocaust.  Because the laws we have today, were designed to prevent another one.


*(COMMENT)*

This is the most ridiculous thing said so far.  The entire reason for the establishment of the Jewish National Home, which ultimately formed as the modern State of Israel, was to preserve the Jewish People and provide them a sanctuary so that might better defend themselves against the likes of the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, and Arab Palestinian that was involved in espionage, sabotage, terrorist activity against the British and the Jews, as well as anti-Semitic propaganda on behalf of the NAZI Leadership.  OR --- the Commander of the Palestinian Holy War Army, a former member of a Special Commando Unit of the Waffen SS, jointly operated by Abwehr and Grand Mufti al-Husseini; OR --- the Commander of the Palestinian Holy War Army, formerly a Colonel of the Wehrmacht, and had been assigned to Sonderstab F.  If there is a party that should be ashamed of the resemblance to the NAZIs, it more be the Arab Palestinians that fought for the NAZIs.

By not standing against the anti-semitism being spread by the Hostile Arab Palestinians, and by not resisting the Powerful Arab Influences which have been, for more than half a century --- fueling the furnace of war, the Jewish People would have ingnored the mantra of the Survivors:  "Don't FORGET."

The Same Hostile Arabs --- defying the Resolution of the General Assembly, and engaged in deliberate hostile actions to alter by force and external influence, the settlement recommended by the Special Committee and adopted by General Assembly, ignited and have since fueled the conflict for more than half a century. 

The Arab Palestinian defiled the Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States.  And by obstructing that which was offered to --- and accepted by --- the Jewish People _(the descendants of the Death Camp Survivors)_, they continues to fight on behalf of the horrors of the Axis Regimes.
*
(***TRUNCATED*** *by RoccoR*)*

_Billo_Really,  Palestinian's are trashed 24/7, just like the Nazis trashed the Jews._
This comment is designed to lend the impression that the Palestinians never "trash" or "attack" the Jewish of Israel.

_Billo_Really,  Palestinian's are scapegoated for all the problems in the country, just like the Nazis scapegoated the Jews._
This comment is designed to suggest that the Palestinians never blame the Jewish of Israel for the conflict.  The Palestinians never blame the Israelis for the invasion of their country or the "catastrophe."  Nooo!

_Billo_Really,  Palestinian's are treated like they are sub-human, just like the Nazis treated the Jews._
The Palestinians are treated in the manner in which they present themselves.

_Billo_Really,  The government provides non-stop propaganda demonizing the Pals, just like the Nazis did with the Jews._
Wow!  This suggests that the Palestinians never engage in Propaganda.  The Palestinians are pretending that they never manipulate the media to their own advantage.  They never make video's that condemn the Israelis in everything they do.  The Palestinians never incite hostilities and riots; and they certainly don't celebrate martyrs for their assaults on innocent civilians.

_Billo_Really,  Laws are enacted making  Pals 2nd class citizens, just like the Nazis did to the Jews._
This is to suggest that some Israeli citizens do not have a representation in government, have the same measure of equality.  Citizenship issues and the legislation of laws in Israel are a domestic issue.  As far as the _(so called)_ Occupation is concerned, the Palestinians have their own issues on the matter of democratic processes to resolve.  Palestinians are no Second Class Citizen, because, the are not even citizens of Israel to be included in a class. 

_Billo_Really,  Palestinian's are being ethnically cleansed from the area, just like the Nazis did to the Jews._
WOW, I simply have not seen _(since the independence of Israel in 1948)_ the Israeli Police and Military rounding up train cars full of Arab Citizens in Israel or Palestinians in the territories, for shipment to Death Camps anywhere in the region.  I would really like to know where one of these Death Camps are? 

_Billo_Really,  Any violence against the Pals (no matter how horrific), is acceptable to the general population, just like violence against the Jews was accepted by Germans._
How do we measure this.  Has the Palestinians filed civil or criminal complaints with Israel
[*]Israel's chief military prosecutor has ordered criminal investigations into two of the most high-profile incidents in the recent Gaza war, the killing of four children in an Israeli air strike at Gaza's port and the shelling of a UN school in Beit Hanounthat left 15 people dead and scores more injured.They are among five cases being investigated for potential criminal misconduct, while dozens more are being considered for investigation.  *Israeli military orders criminal investigations into Gaza attacks*​


_Billo_Really,  Zionists want Israel to be known as the Jewish State; Nazis wanted Germany to be known as the Aryan Nation._
Again WOW!  The utilization of the Phrase "Jewish State" was in the PLAN OF PARTITION WITH ECONOMIC UNION --- PART I  Future constitution and government of Palestine --- A. TERMINATION OF MANDATE, PARTITION AND INDEPENDENCE, Paragraph 2, *UN Resolution 181 (II)*, as relayed by the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP) in its Report to the General Assembly (Para #76)(A/364 3 September 1947).

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## aris2chat (Dec 25, 2015)

Shusha said:


> The Jewish people do not need "permission" to live anywhere.  That statement is anti-semitic.
> 
> Comparing the Jewish people to Nazi's is both anti-semitic and vile, as if one can equate stuffing 95% of some countries Jewish people into OVENS with anything the Palestinians have experienced. Although I do have to say this is a step up from the last board I was on.  There I was told I was an animal and deserved to be nuked or stabbed.
> 
> Happy Xmas to those who celebrate it.  And appropriate other seasonal greetings to those who don't.



A bill has been submitted for freedom of prayer at any place of worship.  That will mean a person of any religion will be allowed to pray at any church, synagogue or mosque.

Abbas might have declared a state but he does not control Jerusalem or the mount.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Dec 25, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> Billo_Really,  et al,
> 
> I have to admit, our friend "Billo_Really's" commentary was put together very well.  It has form and structure you seldom see in normal attacks to discredit is the Jewish People of Israel.
> 
> ...


The difference between "homeland" (that was proposed but Britain failed to implement) and "state." (which was imposed by the foreign Jewish Agency inside Palestine)


----------



## RoccoR (Dec 25, 2015)

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes there is a big difference.  But back then, the Hostile Arab Palestinians wanted to eject all the Jewish Immigrants.  The idea of a Jewish National Home and a Jewish State are not two separate things.  A Jewish National Home could be accomplished in a number of different ways; only one of which was the establishment of a Jewish State.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > This is the most ridiculous thing said so far.  The entire reason for the establishment of the Jewish National Home, which ultimately formed as the modern State of Israel, was to preserve the Jewish People and provide them a sanctuary so that might better defend themselves against the likes of the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, and Arab Palestinian that was involved in espionage, sabotage, terrorist activity against the British and the Jews, as well as anti-Semitic propaganda on behalf of the NAZI Leadership.  OR --- the Commander of the Palestinian Holy War Army, a former member of a Special Commando Unit of the Waffen SS, jointly operated by Abwehr and Grand Mufti al-Husseini; OR --- the Commander of the Palestinian Holy War Army, formerly a Colonel of the Wehrmacht, and had been assigned to Sonderstab F.  If there is a party that should be ashamed of the resemblance to the NAZIs, it more be the Arab Palestinians that fought for the NAZIs.
> ...


*(OBSERVATION)*

41. The Shaw commission, however, did not accept these immediate causes of Arab apprehension as an adequate explanation of the events they were called upon investigate.


“There can, in our view, be no doubt,” they wrote, “that racial animosity on the part of the Arabs, consequent upon the disappointment of their political and national aspirations and fear for their economic future, was the fundamental cause of the outbreak of August last. In less than ten years three serious attacks have been made by Arabs on Jews. Fore eighty years before the first of these attacks there is no recorded instance of any similar incidents. It is obvious then that the relations between the two races during the past decade must have different in some material respect from those which previously obtained. The Arabs have come to see in the Jewish immigrant not only a menace to their livelihood but a possible overlord of the future.
*(COMMENT)*

It was this Arab animosity towards the Jewish Immigrants which ultimately blossomed into irreconcilable differences which caused the Jewish National Home effort to shift event further towards a Jewish State Proposal.  

The Arab Palestinians always want to shift the blame for everything they dislike as the fault of someone else.  They never contributed to the adverse cause.  It was that way from the beginning, it was that way in the immediate outbrek of hostilities when the Partition Plan was adopted, and it was that way after the Armistices arrangements were set and the West Bank and Gaza Strip were occupied by the Arab Countries.  And it has been that way for more than half a century after the Jewish exercised self-determination and declared independence.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Dec 25, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> Yes there is a big difference.  But back then, the Hostile Arab Palestinians wanted to eject all the Jewish Immigrants.  The idea of a Jewish National Home and a Jewish State are not two separate things.  A Jewish National Home could be accomplished in a number of different ways; only one of which was the establishment of a Jewish State.
> 
> ...


In less than ten years three serious attacks have been made by Arabs on Jews. Fore eighty years before the first of these attacks there is no recorded instance of any similar incidents.​
Indeed, a bright spot in a  proposed one state solution. Eve Spangler did address that issue.

It was this Arab animosity towards the Jewish Immigrants which ultimately blossomed into irreconcilable differences...​
The Palestinians were always openly opposed to the Zionist colonial project.


----------



## teddyearp (Dec 25, 2015)

So here we go again.  Maybe we should re-read the original post folks:



Shusha said:


> This thread is intended to explore concrete, specific, step-by-step solutions to the problem of the Israel/Arab conflict.  It assumes a two (or three) State solution. It assumes a negotiated, mutually satisfactory solution with an end-of-conflict agreement.  *It assumes no other pre-conditions *-- everything else is on the table.  Discussions of a one State solution are not appropriate.  *Denial of the legitimacy of either side is not appropriate.*
> 
> I hope participants will use this thread to provide either a "final outcome" template for a peace treaty or to provide the necessary steps towards such a thing.  All steps should be as complete and comprehensive as possible.  For example,* rather than say, "Israel should end the occupation of OPT" please describe exactly what this might entail.*
> 
> Discussion and debate of why a step may be unacceptable to either party is also welcome.



But instead we have the usual suspects ignoring thoughtful discourse and going back to the same old same old that the OP politely asked NOT to happen here.  So a reminder, if all you can do is go back to the 'occupation' and 'legitimacy' discussion, remember, Coyote started a thread for all these things you have posted to try and derail this thread with.  It is located here:

The Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


----------



## P F Tinmore (Dec 25, 2015)

teddyearp said:


> So here we go again.  Maybe we should re-read the original post folks:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


OK, the two state solution.

The two state solution was first proposed in 1937. It has been the "universally accepted" solution for about the last 4 decades.

So, where is it?

I say that the pre conditions of excluding law, rights, and justice from the discussion are the problem. That plus the absence of elected Palestinian representation.


----------



## Billo_Really (Dec 25, 2015)

teddyearp said:


> So here we go again.  Maybe we should re-read the original post folks:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You cannot solve a problem, any problem, without dealing with the root causes of that problem.

If the occupation is the cause of all the violence, you cannot end the violence, without dealing with the occupation.


----------



## Billo_Really (Dec 25, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> This is the most ridiculous thing said so far.  The entire reason for the establishment of the Jewish National Home, which ultimately formed as the modern State of Israel, was to preserve the Jewish People and provide them a sanctuary so that might better defend themselves against the likes of the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem,


IHL was to prevent another Holocaust. 

_[Israel]… denies [the Palestinian] people their basic human rights including those under the Fourth Geneva Convention which governs the treatment of civilians in war and under occupation. There are 149 articles of this Convention. [Israel] violates almost all of them and in so doing is committing war crimes according to international law._

_The international notion of a “crime against humanity” was established to define what Hitler did to the Jews. The UNHRC ruled this is what [Israel] is doing to [the Palestinian’s], and that this act is the historical and legal precursor to the international crime of genocide as defined by the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide._​


RoccoR said:


> and Arab Palestinian that was involved in espionage, sabotage, terrorist activity against the British and the Jews,


You are literally _"out there."_





http://www.cjpmo.org/DisplayDocument.aspx?DocumentID=45



RoccoR said:


> as well as anti-Semitic propaganda on behalf of the NAZI Leadership.


And the Nazis got their propaganda from Zionists.

*Nazi Propaganda was Based on What Zionists Said*
_In 1921, Germans in Germany were told that:

“We Jews are aliens… a foreign people in your midst and we… wish to stay that way. A Jew can never be a loyal German; whoever calls the foreign land his Fatherland is a traitor to the Jewish people“.

Who spoke these vile words? It was Jacob Klatzkin, the second of two political Zionist ideologists in Germany at the time, where the Jews of Germany were enjoying full political and civil rights. It was he who had advocated undermining Jewish communities as the one certain way of acquiring a state. “They had no qualms concerning tearing down the existing Jewish communities.”_​



RoccoR said:


> OR --- the Commander of the Palestinian Holy War Army, a former member of a Special Commando Unit of the Waffen SS, jointly operated by Abwehr and Grand Mufti al-Husseini; OR --- the Commander of the Palestinian Holy War Army, formerly a Colonel of the Wehrmacht, and had been assigned to Sonderstab F.  If there is a party that should be ashamed of the resemblance to the NAZIs, it more be the Arab Palestinians that fought for the NAZIs.



*The Jews who fought for Hitler*




RoccoR said:


> By not standing against the anti-semitism being spread by the Hostile Arab Palestinians,



Arab hostility has nothing to do with Judaism, but everything to do with Zionists *stealing their land*.
_
November 29, 1947 the UN General Assembly passed a resolution calling for the establishment of a Jewish state. It voted to partition Palestine into 2 independent states, one for Jews and the other for the majority Arab population. At that time the Jews comprised one third of the population and owned 6% of the land. But the partition plan gave them 55% of it and created added pressure that led to the 1948 war the Palestinian people didn’t want._​



RoccoR said:


> and by not resisting the Powerful Arab Influences which have been, for more than half a century --- fueling the furnace of war, the Jewish People would have ingnored the mantra of the Survivors:  "Don't FORGET."


You don't even have the balls to take ownership over the shit things you do.

_Palestinians have endured six decades __of shattered hope and dreams. They were uprooted from their homes, denied their basic rights, given little outside recognition or aid, blamed for Israeli crimes, terrorized without mercy, falsely promised peace, yet condemned to a state of siege under which nothing will change without outside pressure to force it._​


RoccoR said:


> The Same Hostile Arabs --- defying the Resolution of the General Assembly, and engaged in deliberate hostile actions to alter by force and external influence, the settlement recommended by the Special Committee and adopted by General Assembly, ignited and have since fueled the conflict for more than half a century.


Not true.

_[Zionists] plan was to completely dispossess the indigenous Arab population and create a wholly Jewish state for Jews alone.  

Once the Palestinian Arabs caught on to the Zionists’ real intentions, they understood the threat to their own existence and strongly opposed further Jewish immigration. and therein lay the root of the intractable conflict that continues to this day with no sign of resolution._​


RoccoR said:


> The Arab Palestinian defiled the Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States.



_Israel is the target of at least 77 UN Resolutions and the Palestinians are the target of 1._



RoccoR said:


> And by obstructing that which was offered to --- and accepted by --- the Jewish People _(the descendants of the Death Camp Survivors)_, they continues to fight on behalf of the horrors of the Axis Regimes.


The Pals are fighting for Germany and Japan?

*Holocaust Survivors Who Fight Against Israel's Treatment of Palestinians*
_
Holocaust survivors cite the Holocaust as the very reason they oppose Israeli policy; specifically, its treatment of Palestinians. These people see that oppressing Palestinians is not just unnecessary and wrong, but hypocritical for a nation founded to provide people with a refuge from oppression. For them, the lesson of the Holocaust isn't "never again" for Jews. It's never again for anyone, including Palestinians._​



RoccoR said:


> This comment is designed to lend the impression that the Palestinians never "trash" or "attack" the Jewish of Israel.


That has nothing to do with my comment.  Its just your hasbara bullshit.




RoccoR said:


> This comment is designed to suggest that the Palestinians never blame the Jewish of Israel for the conflict.  The Palestinians never blame the Israelis for the invasion of their country or the "catastrophe."  Nooo!


Wrong again.  You can shove that perception management bullshit up your ass!




RoccoR said:


> The Palestinians are treated in the manner in which they present themselves.


You prove my point, by blaming them for you treating them like shit.




RoccoR said:


> Wow!  This suggests that the Palestinians never engage in Propaganda.  The Palestinians are pretending that they never manipulate the media to their own advantage.  They never make video's that condemn the Israelis in everything they do.  The Palestinians never incite hostilities and riots; and they certainly don't celebrate martyrs for their assaults on innocent civilians.


More hasbara bullshit.

*DEMONIZATION OF MUSLIMS AND ISLAM IN A TIME OF MANUFACTURED FEAR AND ANXIETY*
_
It’s always been open season in Israel and the West to demonize Muslims and Islam with language like “fundamentalist extremists”, “crazed Arabs”, “Jihadists” and “terrorists.” 

The “extreme right” in Israel and the West used a heightened and hyped climate of fear to use an old and easy scapegoat to advance their extremist imperial agenda behind the easy cover of patriotism and protecting national security._​



RoccoR said:


> This is to suggest that some Israeli citizens do not have a representation in government, have the same measure of equality.  Citizenship issues and the legislation of laws in Israel are a domestic issue.  As far as the _(so called)_ Occupation is concerned, the Palestinians have their own issues on the matter of democratic processes to resolve.  Palestinians are no Second Class Citizen, because, the are not even citizens of Israel to be included in a class.


Seventy percent of the Arab respondents say that the government treats them as second-class citizens or as hostile citizens who did not deserve equality.




RoccoR said:


> WOW, I simply have not seen _(since the independence of Israel in 1948)_ the Israeli Police and Military rounding up train cars full of Arab Citizens in Israel or Palestinians in the territories, for shipment to Death Camps anywhere in the region.  I would really like to know where one of these Death Camps are?


I didn't say......oh fuck it........you're ridiculous.

_a __systematic campaign__ of murder and ethnic cleansing in 1947-48, which saw the killing of an estimated 13,000 Palestinians, the forcible eviction of 850,000 and the depopulation and subsequent destruction of nearly 500 villages and localities.

the Knesset has taken the first step toward passing legislation that would evict tens of thousands of Israeli Bedouin — who are some of the Arab citizens of Israel — from land in the Negev where they have lived for generations, since well before Israel’s establishment._​



RoccoR said:


> How do we measure this.  Has the Palestinians filed civil or criminal complaints with Israel
> 
> 
> [*]Israel's chief military prosecutor has ordered criminal investigations into two of the most high-profile incidents in the recent Gaza war, the killing of four children in an Israeli air strike at Gaza's port and the shelling of a UN school in Beit Hanounthat left 15 people dead and scores more injured.They are among five cases being investigated for potential criminal misconduct, while dozens more are being considered for investigation.  *Israeli military orders criminal investigations into Gaza attacks* ​




_Between 2000 and 2009, the rate of…charges against [IDF] soldiers was about 5 per cent of the total Palestinian complaints._

_from 2009 until 2011…the rate of the [Israeli] army's indictments [of its soldiers] amounted to about 2.5 per cent of the 864 complaints by Palestinians._


​


RoccoR said:


> Again WOW!  The utilization of the Phrase "Jewish State" was in the PLAN OF PARTITION WITH ECONOMIC UNION --- PART I  Future constitution and government of Palestine --- A. TERMINATION OF MANDATE, PARTITION AND INDEPENDENCE, Paragraph 2, *UN Resolution 181 (II)*, as relayed by the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP) in its Report to the General Assembly (Para #76)(A/364 3 September 1947).



One of the first people to use the word “apartheid” in relation to Israel was Israel’s first prime minister, David Ben Gurion, who warned following the 1967 War of Israel becoming an “apartheid state” if it retained control of the occupied territories.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Dec 25, 2015)

If Mary and Joseph tried to walk to Bethlehem today they'd likely be murdered by Palestinians.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Dec 25, 2015)

Billo_Really said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > I think it would be most helpful if we focused on forward thinking, solutions-based discussion rather than on illegitimacy issues or past complaints.  In that vein, let's see if we can strip the conversation of accusations of wrong-doing, illegality, and generally bad juju and just work on the solutions.
> ...


Do you refer to Texas and California as occupied territory?  Shit happens when you lose wars you start.


----------



## Billo_Really (Dec 26, 2015)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Do you refer to Texas and California as occupied territory?  Shit happens when you lose wars you start.


_Conquer by Conquest_ wasn't   illegal until the end of WWII.


----------



## Billo_Really (Dec 26, 2015)

Weatherman2020 said:


> If Mary and Joseph tried to walk to Bethlehem today they'd likely be murdered by Palestinians.


Why would they be murdered by their own relatives?

The Palestinian's today, are the direct decendants of the Israelites.


----------



## Coyote (Dec 26, 2015)

Here's a map of Palestine...supposing there were to be a 3-state solution - how would it be divided?  
For now, let's leave Jeruselum as a seperate issue.

I would think there would have to be:
Continguous borders - you can't create a swiss cheese state with disconnected lands and foreign check points.
Defensible borders - would a "demilitarized zone" approach work?
Sharing of resources - all 3 states would need access to resources, water, gas/oil/minerals, workable farmland, for self-sufficiency and economy.
Settlements and cities - this is the hardest because of the heated and long standing nature of the conflict, how would something like the partition of India be avoided?  Would an interim government composed of Israel/UN/Palestinian representatives covering all 3 countries for a long enough period of time to set up a transition work - something long enough so everyone is invested in the outcome rather than immediate revenge....?  

I'm throwing ideas out there because there is no easy solution


----------



## Boston1 (Dec 26, 2015)

montelatici said:


> I doubt many (if any) here believe that a 2 or 3 state solution is possible.  But, good luck.



I think we already have a two state situation going. Jordan and Israel, with Gaza being the most likely third soon enough. 

The question fast becomes, how many states will it take to satisfy palestinian desires to destroy Israel.


----------



## Boston1 (Dec 26, 2015)

Billo_Really said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > This thread is intended to explore concrete, specific, step-by-step solutions to the problem of the Israel/Arab conflict.  It assumes a two (or three) State solution. It assumes a negotiated, mutually satisfactory solution with an end-of-conflict agreement.  It assumes no other pre-conditions -- everything else is on the table.  Discussions of a one State solution are not appropriate.  Denial of the legitimacy of either side is not appropriate.
> ...



Wrong, there is no occupation. Israel is using land set aside for th creation of a Jewish national homeland for exactly that for which it was intended. 

Also restrictions are in place to peacefully resist a violent bigoted movement. Anytime the palestinians want to live in peace they are welcome to do so. Once that is established restrictions will not be necessary


----------



## Boston1 (Dec 26, 2015)

Billo_Really said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > If Mary and Joseph tried to walk to Bethlehem today they'd likely be murdered by Palestinians.
> ...



Wrong, the palestinians today are largely of North African descent. SOME of which have ties to the early Hyksos SOME of which eventually progressed into the Judaic peoples. 

Hypothetically we could say we are all related but any reasonable look at this will show that most Judaic peoples have specific genetic markers to distinguish them from other North Africans


----------



## Shusha (Dec 26, 2015)

Coyote said:


> I would think there would have to be:
> Continguous borders - you can't create a swiss cheese state with disconnected lands and foreign check points.
> Defensible borders - would a "demilitarized zone" approach work?
> Sharing of resources - all 3 states would need access to resources, water, gas/oil/minerals, workable farmland, for self-sufficiency and economy.
> ...



So, those of us discussing the OP seem to agree that contiguous borders for Palestine and defensible borders for Israel are necessary.  I haven't brought it up before, but I agree that water resources in particular need to be managed with clear areas of responsibility and consequences for failure to uphold.  

Some of the larger Jewish settlements will have to be transferred to Israel, imo, because the nascent Palestine state would not be able to keep them safe.  But land swaps of equal size can be exchanged for this, and I believe this is fair and reasonable.  

In areas where the population is mixed, or in areas where assigning sovereignty to Israel would result in discontiguity for Palestine, the Israeli/Jewish people would have to be evacuated and re-homed, imo.  Hebron is going to be somewhat problematic.  It should remain in Palestine for contiguity, but has a large Jewish community and Jewish holy sites.  The tensions there will make it a particular flashpoint, imo.  

All residents would assume the citizenship of the territory in which they are resident.  Although, I would like to see dual citizenship as a possibility for those who end up on the "wrong" side of the border.  That dual citizenship might or might not be transferrable to children of dual citizens, depending on the laws of each state.  

I also think any citizen who ends up on the "wrong" side should be given assistance to relocate if they so desire. 

Another option would be to hold elections in areas along the assumed borders and permit residents to vote on which state they would wish to be under the sovereignty of.


----------



## Boston1 (Dec 26, 2015)

As i read through the thread I'm not seeing one very important rational the mandate administrators considered when they began this enterprise. The fair and impartial exchange of populations. The Turkish Greek issues had recently been settled by a mass movement of populations. Million actually. So while the Jewish populations of the middle east, Northern Africa, Europe, Russia and elsewhere were happy to pull up stakes and move, the Arabs of this area refused to do so and those that did are now being used as pawns in some twisted right to return nonsense. 

The simple reality is that the 80/20 split in favor of the Arabs was thought to be adequate by the British at the time who never envisioned the level of bigotry and racism that the Arabs of the region had towards the Judaic population. 

IMHO there should be no further compromise on land distribution. The disputed territories should remain under Israeli control. Any violent protesters should be deported to palestinian areas ( Jordan or Gaza ) along with their families and anyone wishing to live in peace should be integrated into Israeli society becoming Israel citizens. Those refusing Israeli citizenship should be given 6 month visas at the end of which time they should be required to leave Israel, which IMHO includes ALL of the disputed territories 

There is no need for ANOTHER palestionian state. Gaza and Jordan should be enough given that the encompass over 80% of the original British mandate. 

Efforts to the contrary are simply attempts to destabilize the already tenuous Israeli position. 

No further compromise, not one more inch.


----------



## Coyote (Dec 26, 2015)

Shusha said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > I would think there would have to be:
> ...



I see citizenship and protection of civilian populations as big problems given the animosity on both sides.  Dual citizenship is an interesting possibility and maybe a good idea.  I think there would need to be a lengthy enough transition period to ensure stabilty and prevent bloodshed.

Good point about holy sites, as well as access and protection of those places.  Maybe some sort of interim joint government for Hebron to smooth transition?  I don't know.


----------



## Coyote (Dec 26, 2015)

Boston1 said:


> As i read through the thread I'm not seeing one very important rational the mandate administrators considered when they began this enterprise. The fair and impartial exchange of populations. The Turkish Greek issues had recently been settled by a mass movement of populations. Million actually. So while the Jewish populations of the middle east, Northern Africa, Europe, Russia and elsewhere were happy to pull up stakes and move, the Arabs of this area refused to do so and those that did are now being used as pawns in some twisted right to return nonsense.
> 
> The simple reality is that the 80/20 split in favor of the Arabs was thought to be adequate by the British at the time who never envisioned the level of bigotry and racism that the Arabs of the region had towards the Judaic population.
> 
> ...



You can not deport non-Jordanians to Jordan.  It's not their country.


----------



## Boston1 (Dec 26, 2015)

Jordan is 100% palestinian, why wouldn't it be considered a palestinian state ? 

Its leaders have repeatedly said Jordan is palestine. So why is it so hard for some folks to accept that Jordan is palestine 

from 

Jordan is Palestine. Palestine is Jordan. « IsraelAmerica

quote 
J*ordan is Palestine. Palestine is Jordan.*This is the royal decree and sentiments of two of the kings of Jordan.

_“Palestine and Jordan are one…”_ said King Abdullah in 1948.

_“The truth is that Jordan is Palestine and Palestine is Jordan,”_said King Hussein of Jordan, in 1981.


Let’s closely examine the facts of history from the Arab perspective, rather than the Jewish one, regarding Jordan and Palestine.

_“Palestine is Jordan and Jordan is Palestine; there is only one land, with one history and one and the same fate,”_ Prince Hassan of the Jordanian National Assembly was quoted as saying on February 2, 1970.

Accordingly, Abdul Hamid Sharif, Prime Minister of Jordan declared, in 1980, _“The Palestinians and Jordanians do not belong to different nationalities. They hold the same Jordanian passports, are Arabs and have the same Jordanian culture.”_

In other words, Jordan is Palestine. Arab Palestine. There is absolutely no difference between Jordan and Palestine, nor between Jordanians and Palestinians (all actually Arabs).

end quote


----------



## Shusha (Dec 26, 2015)

Boston1 said:


> IMHO there should be no further compromise on land distribution. The disputed territories should remain under Israeli control. .



Well, while I understand the sentiment behind this, and I even agree that it is a travesty of justice for the State of Israel to be whittled away as it has been -- Israel truly has no interest in maintaining a large hostile population.  Better to let it go.


----------



## Boston1 (Dec 26, 2015)

Better yet to deport hostile palestinians to Arab palestine 

Not one more inch


----------



## Shusha (Dec 26, 2015)

Coyote said:


> Good point about holy sites, as well as access and protection of those places.  Maybe some sort of interim joint government for Hebron to smooth transition?  I don't know.



Which is essentially what there is now, put in place with Oslo.  Half of the city is under the PA and half under Israel and supposedly security co-operation at the holy site. That is obviously not a permanent solution.  Israel may have to annex its half of Hebron and access to it?  But perhaps that could be temporary?


----------



## Shusha (Dec 26, 2015)

Boston1 said:


> Better yet to deport hostile palestinians to Arab palestine
> 
> Not one more inch



Yeah, well, deportation tends to be frowned upon these days.  Not to mention a violation of law.  So, I can't agree with you.


----------



## Billo_Really (Dec 26, 2015)

Boston1 said:


> Wrong, there is no occupation. Israel is using land set aside for th creation of a Jewish national homeland for exactly that for which it was intended.
> 
> Also restrictions are in place to peacefully resist a violent bigoted movement. Anytime the palestinians want to live in peace they are welcome to do so. Once that is established restrictions will not be necessary


If there was no occupation, there would be no restrictions.


----------



## Billo_Really (Dec 26, 2015)

Boston1 said:


> Better yet to deport hostile palestinians to Arab palestine
> 
> Not one more inch


They're already in Arab Palestine.  They're not going anywhere.  The Israeli's are the ones who are going to pack up and leave.

The world community wouldn't let Hitler keep Poland and its not going to let Israel keep the OPT.


----------



## Billo_Really (Dec 26, 2015)

Boston1 said:


> As i read through the thread I'm not seeing one very important rational the mandate administrators considered when they began this enterprise. The fair and impartial exchange of populations. The Turkish Greek issues had recently been settled by a mass movement of populations. Million actually. So while the Jewish populations of the middle east, Northern Africa, Europe, Russia and elsewhere were happy to pull up stakes and move, the Arabs of this area refused to do so and those that did are now being used as pawns in some twisted right to return nonsense.
> 
> The simple reality is that the 80/20 split in favor of the Arabs was thought to be adequate by the British at the time who never envisioned the level of bigotry and racism that the Arabs of the region had towards the Judaic population.
> 
> ...


There are only two solutions on the Israeli table:

Leave voluntarily
or be forced to
Now pick!


----------



## Billo_Really (Dec 26, 2015)

Boston1 said:


> Wrong, the palestinians today are largely of North African descent. SOME of which have ties to the early Hyksos SOME of which eventually progressed into the Judaic peoples.
> 
> Hypothetically we could say we are all related but any reasonable look at this will show that most Judaic peoples have specific genetic markers to distinguish them from other North Africans


Nope.  Colonial Jews are from Russia and as for the Palestinian's...

_*Israeli Historian: Palestinians Are Biological Descendants of Bible’s Jews* _​


----------



## Shusha (Dec 26, 2015)

Billo_Really said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > Wrong, the palestinians today are largely of North African descent. SOME of which have ties to the early Hyksos SOME of which eventually progressed into the Judaic peoples.
> ...




This is totally off-topic, but I just can't let this kind of false information sit here without response.

1.  There is little evidence for the Khazar theory.  And experts in the field (of which Sand is not) reject this theory.
2.  Genetic (ie biological) evidence is clear that all groups of Jews descend from Middle East ancestry, with some admixture of European ancestry -- as would be expected in diaspora.  Let's be clear that the biological descendants of the "Bible's Jews" are BOTH the Palestinian people (with an admixture of other Arabs) AND the Jewish people in the diaspora (with an admixture of Europeans).  

Having said that, I will again point out that using genetics to include or exclude people or groups of people from an ethnic or cultural group is smacks of "purity" racism.  Especially when that "purity" racism is applied to only one group.  And even more especially when it is applied for political purposes.  

Additionally, a key point to defining indigenous populations and the right to self-determination is self-identification.  The group in question decides who does or who does not belong to their group.  Outsiders have no say in the matter.


----------



## Boston1 (Dec 26, 2015)

Two things. Its not illegal to deport palestinians from Israel controlled areas to Jordanian or Gazan controlled areas as all those areas were originally Judea and as such eventually called palestine. Palestine was divided in a time when the exchange of populations was perfectly acceptable ( I gave the Greek Turk example ) Ergo since the Judaic populations of these areas to a huge degree left areas of Arab influence the Arabs of the Israeli areas failed to do so. Deporting the violent among them to another areas within the  original British mandate is perfectly acceptable. And will continue.

As for lineage there is ample evidence that the present day palestinians are largely of Northern African descent and that the Judaic people are largely of a more segregated descent with specific genetic markers typical of Jewish heritage, being significantly more prevalent.

Its not a popular subject but the revisionists just can't be allowed to have it all their way

quote

In accord with most geneticists, Ostrer firmly rejects the fashionable postmodernist dismissal of the concept of race as genetically naive, opting for a more nuanced perspective.

Read more: Jews Are a 'Race,' Genes Reveal

End quote


----------



## Coyote (Dec 26, 2015)

You can expel huge numbers of people who have lived there for generations for no reason than that you want their land - that's an unjust and inhumane "solution" that amounts to ethnic cleansing.  People who  propose it have only to look at the humanitarian crisis caused by the Syrian civil war and the conflict in Iraq, and the millions of displaced people in camps around the region to realize that.  Any real solution has to accept that the Israeli's are here to stay and the Palestinians are here to stay and some means must be found to create a lasting peace.


----------



## Coyote (Dec 26, 2015)

Boston1 said:


> Jordan is 100% palestinian, why wouldn't it be considered a palestinian state ?
> 
> Its leaders have repeatedly said Jordan is palestine. So why is it so hard for some folks to accept that Jordan is palestine
> 
> ...



So you are talking about Jordan annexing the land where the Palestinians currently lived and have lived for many generations?  That would be a one state solution then.


----------



## Coyote (Dec 26, 2015)

Boston1 said:


> Two things. Its not illegal to deport palestinians from Israel controlled areas to Jordanian or Gazan controlled areas as all those areas were originally Judea and as such eventually called palestine. Palestine was divided in a time when the exchange of populations was perfectly acceptable ( I gave the Greek Turk example ) Ergo since the Judaic populations of these areas to a huge degree left areas of Arab influence the Arabs of the Israeli areas failed to do so. Deporting the violent among them to another areas within the  original British mandate is perfectly acceptable. And will continue.
> 
> *As for lineage there is ample evidence that the present day palestinians are largely of Northern African descent and that the Judaic people are largely of a more segregated descent with specific genetic markers typical of Jewish heritage, being significantly more prevalent.*
> 
> ...



As far as lineage - it's irrelevant and a distraction.  The history of three thousand years ago has no bearing on the current situation and using it and genetics is nothing more than an attempt to disenfranchise the rights of a people whether it's claiming that the Ashkanazi Jews are invaders or claiming that the Palestinians are not indiginous.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Dec 26, 2015)

Billo_Really said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > If Mary and Joseph tried to walk to Bethlehem today they'd likely be murdered by Palestinians.
> ...


Where in the world did you get that whopper from?  Palestinians immigrated into thevregion, mostly to get jobs as the Jews turned the region prosperous in the past 70 years.  Read Mark Twains eyewitness account of his trip there - the region was void of people.


----------



## Billo_Really (Dec 26, 2015)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Where in the world did you get that whopper from?  Palestinians immigrated into thevregion, mostly to get jobs as the Jews turned the region prosperous in the past 70 years.  Read Mark Twains eyewitness account of his trip there - the region was void of people.


Mark Twain wrote fiction novels. He was not an anthropologist.

As far as the Palestinian's...

_"In 2001, *Human Immunology magazine* published a genetic study conducted by Prof. Antonio Arnez-Vilna, a Spanish researcher from the University of Complutense in Madrid, who discovered that *the immune systems of the Jews and the Palestinians are extremely close to one another in a way that almost absolutely demonstrates a similar genetic identity*._

_...a 2002 test by Tel Aviv University researchers, determined that only two groups in the world - *Ashkenazi Jews and Palestinians* - were genetically susceptible to an inherited deafness syndrome._

_[all DNA studies] show that *"the Palestinians are genetically much closer to Ashkenazi Jews than they are to the Arabs."*_​And as far as jobs...

That is total bullshit.  For only Jews, could work on Jewish farms.  Hiring anyone but a Jew, would get the land owner fined by the leasing company.

*Keren Kayemet draft lease: Employment of Jewish labour only*

_ "... The lessee undertakes to execute all works connected with the cultivation of the holding *only with Jewish labour*. Failure to comply with this duty by the employment of non-Jewish labour *shall render the lessee liable* to the payment of compensation ..."_
​


----------



## Kondor3 (Dec 26, 2015)

Billo_Really said:


> ...Mark Twain wrote fiction novels. He was not an anthropologist...


He was also a social commentator; neither of which is a prerequisite for using one's own eyes, and observing a scarcity of human presence.


----------



## Boston1 (Dec 26, 2015)

Actually if you read my post you'll see I kept it to violent palestinians and I'd add,  their families or households. 

And NO 
You completely misunderstood my suggestion


----------



## Billo_Really (Dec 26, 2015)

Kondor3 said:


> He was also a social commentator; neither of which is a prerequisite for using one's own eyes, and observing a scarcity of human presence.


Here's a statement by Lord Curzon, of the British government, in 1920...

_"Here is a country with 580,000 Arabs and 30,000 or is it 60,000 Jews (by no means all Zionists)."_ ​
Mark Twain's comments don't supersede comments from the government administering the area.


----------



## Billo_Really (Dec 26, 2015)

Boston1 said:


> Actually if you read my post you'll see I kept it to violent palestinians and I'd add,  their families or households.
> 
> And NO
> You completely misunderstood my suggestion


Who are you talking to?


----------



## Coyote (Dec 26, 2015)

*Let's get back to the topic please...*


----------



## Boston1 (Dec 26, 2015)

Billo_Really said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > Billo_Really said:
> ...



Again a distortion. Of course people within a given area of the world will have interbred to some degree and genetic markers will be similar. But that doesn't mean there aren't specific markers for specific groups distinguishing them from one another 


See 

Jews worldwide share genetic ties : Nature News


----------



## Boston1 (Dec 26, 2015)

Coyote said:


> *Let's get back to the topic please...*



The solution is quite simple. Anytime a palestinian is found guilty of engaging in a violent act against the state he/she is to be summarily deported along with his/her immediate family members/housemates. 

And before I'm berated for offering another nonviolent sollution I think its important to realize that previously applied restrictions are limiting the weapons to knives and clunkers. Nonviolent solutions do work.


----------



## Coyote (Dec 26, 2015)

*The topic - from the OP - we're talking about 2 or 3 state solutions to end the conflict.  Here's a refresher:*



Shusha said:


> This thread is intended to explore concrete, specific, step-by-step solutions to the problem of the Israel/Arab conflict.  It assumes a two (or three) State solution. It assumes a negotiated, mutually satisfactory solution with an end-of-conflict agreement.  It assumes no other pre-conditions -- everything else is on the table.  Discussions of a one State solution are not appropriate.  Denial of the legitimacy of either side is not appropriate.
> 
> I hope participants will use this thread to provide either a "final outcome" template for a peace treaty or to provide the necessary steps towards such a thing.  All steps should be as complete and comprehensive as possible.  For example, rather than say, "Israel should end the occupation of OPT" please describe exactly what this might entail.
> 
> Discussion and debate of why a step may be unacceptable to either party is also welcome.


----------



## Boston1 (Dec 26, 2015)

Thank you for the refresher 

I think any more states crammed into the original mandate would be detrimental to the survival of the Jewish state. Jordan ( roughly 80% of the original territory and 100% palestinian ) already takes up the lions share. Soon enough we'll have Gaza seeking statehood and then of course there is Israel. The palestinians who don't want to live within the Israeli sphere or that can't live in peace should be deported to one of the Arab areas OUTSIDE of Israeli influence and problem solved. 

Not one more inch should be given over to Arab interests in destroying Israel


----------



## Kondor3 (Dec 27, 2015)

Billo_Really said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > He was also a social commentator; neither of which is a prerequisite for using one's own eyes, and observing a scarcity of human presence.
> ...


Never said they did.

In truth, the only numbers that signify in such a context are those of authoritative and statistically reliable census operations.

And even then...

None of that old shit matters in the slightest any longer, in the Reality of today...

What _*truly*_ matters is who has possession _*now*_...

And who has the muscle to _*hold*_ it...

Bottom line... when you get right down to where the bear shits in the woods,that's all that's _*ever*_ mattered...

It belongs to the Jews now, and you can't have it back...

There will be no two- or three-state solution, forthcoming...

There has been no practical possibility of a multi-state solution, for quite some time now...

And, of course, there is no longer sufficient land remaining under so-called Palestinian control, to establish and sustain a viable Palestinian state...

The dumbass Palestinians are already standing on each others' shoulders, in a handful of disconnected scraps and slivers of land, fenced off, to keep the mad dog Palestinians from harming others...

There will be no further surrender of Israeli-controlled land, but there _*will*_ be a continuation of construction on the Barrier Wall, and further encroaching on what tiny slivers of land are left to the Palestinians, as that Wall continues to grow, and as the Wall continues to be flexed and pushed outwards, to seize more and more of the small fragments of land remaining outside of Israeli control...

This isn't a state of affairs that lends itself to equitable division of land and resources...

This is a state of affairs that lends itself to a complete Jewish victory and take-over, and expulsion of hostile Muslim populations, who will be absolutely powerless to stop it...

This is a Reconquista...

One that is nearly completed already, and that cannot be stopped...

All foolish pie-in-the-sky hopes on the part of militant Muslims and their fifth-columnist supporters in The West, notwithstanding...


----------



## Billo_Really (Dec 27, 2015)

Kondor3 said:


> Never said they did.
> 
> In truth, the only numbers that signify in such a context are those of authoritative and statistically reliable census operations.


What makes you think they are not?  And those numbers have increased.  Arabs are still the majority population and they deserve to have a state for themselves.

Israel got theirs; the Palestinian's have a right to have theirs as well.  And the only way possible for that to occur, is by obeying (or honoring) the law.  As an American citizen, living in a country based on the rule of law, that is the way I see is the only possible solution to this conflict.

You, on the other hand, think differently...



Kondor3 said:


> And even then...
> 
> None of that old shit matters in the slightest any longer, in the Reality of today...


Old shit?  You mean *old shit *like this?

_We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that *they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights*, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, *Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed*, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, *it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it*, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness._​
Or *old shit* like this?

*Article 1*
_The Purposes of the United Nations are:_

_To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the *suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace*, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, *adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace*;_
_To develop friendly relations among nations *based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples*, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;_
*Article 2*
_The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles._

_The Organization is based on the principle of the *sovereign equality* *of all its Members*._
_All Members, *in order to ensure to all of them the rights and benefits resulting from membership*, shall fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the present Charter._
_*All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means* in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered._
_All Members *shall refrain* in their international relations *from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state*, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations._

Old shit like that? Or shit like this...

_Given [the] authoritarian direction of the state...Ignorant of the crimes of which we know today, the people have fought with loyalty, self-sacrifice, and courage, and they have suffered too in this life-and-death struggle into which they were arbitrarily thrust. The [Israeli] people are free from blame._​
*The victor will always be the judge, and the vanquished the accused.*​
_the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.
_​Yeah, that's *the shit* you're in to!




Kondor3 said:


> What _*truly*_ matters is who has possession _*now*_...
> 
> And who has the muscle to _*hold*_ it...
> 
> ...


There's only one shit for you;  and that is this shit...









Get the fuck out of this country and go live somewhere else.  I'm sure the Israeli's will take you in, since you don't embrace American values.


----------



## Billo_Really (Dec 27, 2015)

Boston1 said:


> The solution is quite simple. Anytime a palestinian is found guilty of engaging in a violent act against the state he/she is to be summarily deported along with his/her immediate family members/housemates.
> 
> And before I'm berated for offering another nonviolent sollution I think its important to realize that previously applied restrictions are limiting the weapons to knives and clunkers. Nonviolent solutions do work.


Palestinian's have a legal right to resist occupation; Israel does not have a legal right to continue it.

The only possible, non-violent solution, is to end the occupation.


----------



## Kondor3 (Dec 27, 2015)

Billo_Really said:


> ...Israel got theirs; the Palestinian's have a right to have theirs as well...


They lost that right when they skedaddled in 1948.

"_He who pees his pants, then runs away, lives to regret it, for many a day._"

Welcome to your consequences.

Enjoy.



> ...And the only way possible for that to occur, is by obeying (or honoring) the law...


There are many ways to interpret law.

Just as there are many laws from which interpretation may be gleaned.



> ...As an American citizen, living in a country based on the rule of law, that is the way I see is the only possible solution to this conflict...


Yes. It is understood that *you* see a two-state solution as the only way out.

Trouble is, that way was tried, time and again, to no avail.

Consequently, that window of opportunity has now closed...  permanently.

Time's up.



> ...You, on the other hand, think differently...


Indeed I do. When calls for compromise are ignored time and again, as the Palestinians have ignored such calls over time, eventually, the other side stops offering.



> ..._We hold these truths to be self-evident_...


Whatever in the world makes you think that foreigners are bound by our history or governing guidelines?



> ...There's only one shit for you;  and that is this shit...


How does any of this address my observation that the time is now past for a two- or three-state solution?

Observations that I served-up without resorting to childish personal attacks.

Perhaps you can photo-shop us another American battleship, firing-off its 16" naval guns at the Israelis, to better illustrate that little boy's fantasy world that you and your ideas about the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict live within...



> ...Get the fuck out of this country and go live somewhere else.  I'm sure the Israeli's will take you in, since you don't embrace American values.


Sit down, Princess, and behave yourself.

Oh, and, *DO* try to stay on-topic, yes?


----------



## Boston1 (Dec 27, 2015)

Billo_Really said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > The solution is quite simple. Anytime a palestinian is found guilty of engaging in a violent act against the state he/she is to be summarily deported along with his/her immediate family members/housemates.
> ...



There is no occupation, the Israeli's are doing exactly what was intended exactly where it was intended. And the palestinians already received 80+% of the mandated territories. So whats the problem ? 

The palestinians have no right to MORE land. They already have enough and we can all see what they've done with it. Open pit sewers, hopelessly inefficient use of fresh clean water, garbage everywhere, they are simply despicable custodians of the land. Not to mention the constant desecration of religious sites. 

No the correct response to palestinain violence in Israel ( which of course includes ALL of the disputed territories )  is deportation. But humanely, family groups should not be separated, nor should households regardless of marital status. as groups they should be packed up and driven to the Jordanian border. 

It would be another nonviolent restriction to combat the violent among them.


----------



## Boston1 (Dec 27, 2015)

Condor #126 

A bit harsh but well done. I agree. 

While many legal avenues remain to justify Israeli's position on the map one of the more overlooked is the simple reality of military victory. 

Virtually all countries were born out of military action. So why not Israel. we have many countries today who were formed very recently from military action. Yet the palestinian narrative would have us believe only Israel is the culprit. And demand retroactive action. We've seen how well that works in Vietnam. 

But well done Condor. A bit harsh but well done.


----------



## Billo_Really (Dec 27, 2015)

Boston1 said:


> There is no occupation, the Israeli's are doing exactly what was intended exactly where it was intended. And the palestinians already received 80+% of the mandated territories. So whats the problem ?


There can be no solution with people who have reality issues, as you have so demonstrated.

The existence of the occupation is not a debatable issue and you must be on crack, if you think the Pals have 80% of that land.




Boston1 said:


> The palestinians have no right to MORE land. They already have enough and we can all see what they've done with it. Open pit sewers, hopelessly inefficient use of fresh clean water, garbage everywhere, they are simply despicable custodians of the land.


The sewers and water are probably a result of Israel targeting their sewage and water treatment plants.  Both are war crimes.




Boston1 said:


> Not to mention the constant desecration of religious sites.


So is the IDF writing "death to Arabs" with their own feces on the walls or deliberately targeting mosques with 2000 pound bombs.




Boston1 said:


> No the correct response to palestinain violence in Israel ( which of course includes ALL of the disputed territories )  is deportation. But humanely, family groups should not be separated, nor should households regardless of marital status. as groups they should be packed up and driven to the Jordanian border.


Interesting how you never talk about Israeli violence?  Which outnumbers Palestinian violence 75 to 1.

There are currently 75 UN resolutions against Israel; only 1 against the Pals.




Boston1 said:


> It would be another nonviolent restriction to combat the violent among them.


You have no right restricting the movement of people on their own land.

Why don't you come over to my house and try to tell me what to do on my own property and see what happens next?  I would personally show you how wrong that is.


----------



## Billo_Really (Dec 27, 2015)

Kondor3 said:


> They lost that right when they skedaddled in 1948.


Not according to *UN resolution 54/152*.




Kondor3 said:


> Whatever in the world makes you think that foreigners are bound by our history or governing guidelines?


It's pretty hypocritical thinking the idea and philosophy behind those words only apply to America.

It says,_ "All men are created equal..."._ 

It doesn't say,_ "All Americans are created equal..."._




Kondor3 said:


> How does any of this address my observation that the time is now past for a two- or three-state solution?


Because your position is the exact same as Goering's.




Kondor3 said:


> Observations that I served-up without resorting to childish personal attacks
> 
> Sit down, Princess, and behave yourself.


...


----------



## Coyote (Dec 27, 2015)

Boston1 said:


> Thank you for the refresher
> 
> I think any more states crammed into the original mandate would be detrimental to the survival of the Jewish state. Jordan ( roughly 80% of the original territory and 100% palestinian ) already takes up the lions share. Soon enough we'll have Gaza seeking statehood and then of course there is Israel. The palestinians who don't want to live within the Israeli sphere or that can't live in peace should be deported to one of the Arab areas OUTSIDE of Israeli influence and problem solved.
> 
> Not one more inch should be given over to Arab interests in destroying Israel


 
The thing is - you can not "deport" people to countries they have no ties to - they were never citizens of Jordan or any other Arab country.  They are displaced people (those in refugee camps) and people currently living where there ancestors have lived for generations (both the Jewish community and the Palestinian community include immigrants).  

Jordan has no obligation to take them nor does any other Arab country.  If they say "no" what are you going to do - create more refugee camps?

What you are proposing is no different than the Jewish expulsions from Arab lands that took place during the formation of Israel and that would never fly - particularly given the current humanitarian crisis in displaced people.  Countries like Jordan, Lebenon and Turkey are overwelmed with refugees (having taken the bulk of them).  I don't think the Mandate is a useful template anymore for peace anymore, there have been far too many changes.

Another complication - ok, let's say Israel annexes all that territory and, for the sake of argument the majority of the citizens agree to become Israeli citizens - how will that affect the demographics of Israel and it's ability to retain it's identity as a "Jewish State"?

I think Gaza would have to become it's own state - there is  no reasonable way to connect it with other Palestinian territory....Egypt doesn't want it either.


----------



## Boston1 (Dec 27, 2015)

Billo you seem to be quite enamored of the UN 

Maybe you should do some reading on the issue. 

Israel at the UN: A History of Bias and Progress - 2013 - Anti ...

Australia is right to challenge the UN's anti-Israel bias ...

UN chief admits bias against Israel - Israel News, Ynetnews

Articles: UN Bias Against Israel Continues - American Thinker

The amount of literature supporting my view that the UN is an extremely bias organization is staggering. 

I would also add that the UN failure initially to establish the second ( a Jewish state ) within the mandated area is the root cause of this bias. Jordan was established without difficulty, however when it came time to establish the Jewish state it resulted in a display of prejudice and bigotry like no other. The Arabs refused all agreements and began a war of terrorism against the British. Some Judaic groups also engaged in military force. The simple reality is the UN has been thoroughly embarrassed by its failures and to this day belittles Israel's efforts to establish its homeland within the prescribed borders. 

If you notice one of those links speaks of a two state solution. Two stated within the mandated area. One Jewish and one Arab. And today we have them. The Jewish state called Israel and the Arab state called Jordan. So whats the problem ? 

The UN has reacted with bias against the Israeli's were they are simply outvoted. Its called tyranny by majority.


----------



## Boston1 (Dec 27, 2015)

Coyote said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > Thank you for the refresher
> ...



No ties to ? really ? 

Its been made quite clear over decades of history that Jordan IS THE ARAB state suggested in the original charter for the British mandate. 

If you don't want to hear it from me thats fine. But what would you believe if not one, but several of the Heshimite palestinian Kings says it. 

Quote 
J*ordan is Palestine. Palestine is Jordan.*This is the royal decree and sentiments of two of the kings of Jordan.

_“Palestine and Jordan are one…”_ said King Abdullah in 1948.

_“The truth is that Jordan is Palestine and Palestine is Jordan,”_said King Hussein of Jordan, in 1981.

Let’s closely examine the facts of history from the Arab perspective, rather than the Jewish one, regarding Jordan and Palestine.

_“Palestine is Jordan and Jordan is Palestine; there is only one land, with one history and one and the same fate,”_ Prince Hassan of the Jordanian National Assembly was quoted as saying on February 2, 1970.

Accordingly, Abdul Hamid Sharif, Prime Minister of Jordan declared, in 1980, _“The Palestinians and Jordanians do not belong to different nationalities. They hold the same Jordanian passports, are Arabs and have the same Jordanian culture.”_

In other words, Jordan is Palestine. Arab Palestine. There is absolutely no difference between Jordan and Palestine, nor between Jordanians and Palestinians (all actually Arabs).

This fact is also confirmed by other Arabs, Jordanians and ‘Palestinans’ who were either rulers or scholars.

_“There should be a kind of linkage because Jordanians and Palestinians are considered by the PLO as one people,”_according to Farouk Kaddoumi, then head of the PLO Political Department, who gave the statement to Newsweek on March 14, 1977. Distinguished Arab-American Princeton University historian Philip Hitti testified before the Anglo-American Committee,

End Quote. 

See
Jordan is Palestine. Palestine is Jordan. « IsraelAmerica

I have numerous references to this simple fact of history if you require more proof. 

I think this pretty well lays to rest any further argument about Jordan having no ties to the palestinian people. Obviously it does and obviously Jordan being an Arab state and it being set up by the British in the area designated for the two peoples to enjoy states of their own it is the Arab state held within the two state solution.


----------



## Kondor3 (Dec 27, 2015)

Billo_Really said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > They lost that right when they skedaddled in 1948.
> ...


Too late... 50 years after the events of 1948-1949...

Besides, nobody pays attention to the General Assembly anymore... a.k.a. the _New York Old Ladies International Debating Club_

Plenty of small-time players in there, kissing Arab ass, to keep the oil flowing.... MEH.


> ...It says,_ "All men are created equal...". _It doesn't say,_ "All Americans are created equal..."._


Quite true. Nolo contendere. It is silent, however, regarding our own role in implementing such ideals on a global scale.

Especially amongst barbarians like your Palestine brethren, to the detriment of our friends and allies.

Hell, the Founding Fathers didn't much care for 'Mohammedans', and we've been fighting them off and on since the days of Adams and Jefferson.

With good reason... and having great fun while doing it.



> ...Because your position is the exact same as Goering's...


Fatso Goering _*also*_ believed that a two-state solution in Palestine was impossible? Wow! Who knew? Go figure! Oh, well... at least Fatso got _one_ thing right, eh?


----------



## Coyote (Dec 27, 2015)

Boston1 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Boston1 said:
> ...



The people that are now called "Palestinians" have lived there, as indiginous people for thousands of years.  They are a mixture of many peoples - including Jews - who have been conquered and reconquered but have stayed essentially in that area and converted to what ever faith the conquerers brought with them.  There have also been migrations of others into that area.  But they didn't march over from modern Jordan.  

Playing games with semantics doesn't alter the fact that many of them are indiginous to where they now are and they have a right to stay there.  The same mandate you refer to did not include widespread population transfers such as you are suggesting.  If you want to give that land to Jordan, that is one thing but if you want to forceably transfer whole native populations (this is also known as ethnic cleansing) - that will be very problematic for Israel. It's like suggesting a forceable transfer of Jews back to Europe.  Jordan has no obligation to take the people, unless it annexes the land.


----------



## Coyote (Dec 27, 2015)

Boston1 said:


> [
> See
> Jordan is Palestine. Palestine is Jordan. « IsraelAmerica
> 
> ...



http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2010/07/2010748131864654.html
_
*Immoral and illegal*

Today Jordan is home to about 1.9 million Palestinian refugees, more than 337,000 of whom live in the country's 10 official refugee camps. 

The argument that the majority of Jordanians are of Palestinian origin and that Jordan is therefore already the de facto homeland of the Palestinians is hypocritical and erroneous.


*There are no precise statistics but it is true that at least half of Jordan's population of about 6.2 million people are of Palestinian origin. But that is a result of Israeli expansionism and a deliberate policy of emptying Palestinian lands of Palestinians.*

If Jordan was the original home of the Palestinian people,* Israel would not have had to demolish around 450 Palestinian villages or to devise policies to expel the Palestinian population.*


Moreover, there was already a community with its own traditions, costumes and dialect specific to the east of Jordan before the establishment of Israel.

 Furthermore, the whole principle of evicting a population, erasing their villages, and bringing in settlers so as to change an area's demographics is simply immoral and illegal under international law._​


----------



## Boston1 (Dec 27, 2015)

Quote

 But they didn't march over from modern Jordan.

Playing games with semantics doesn't alter the fact that many of them  Jordan has no obligation to take the people, unless it annexes the land.

End Quote

WOW you just aren't able to grasp this. JORDAN IS THE NAME GIVEN TO THE PALESTINIAN ARAB STATE.

Need I repeat it ?

JORDAN IS THE PALESTINIAN STATE

Try it with me

JORDAN IS THE PALESTINIAN STATE

How are we doing over there. Need I repeat also what the Jordanians themselves have to say about this simple fact


Quote

J*ordan is Palestine. Palestine is Jordan.*This is the royal decree and sentiments of two of the kings of Jordan.

_“Palestine and Jordan are one…”_ said King Abdullah in 1948.

_“The truth is that Jordan is Palestine and Palestine is Jordan,”_said King Hussein of Jordan, in 1981.

Let’s closely examine the facts of history from the Arab perspective, rather than the Jewish one, regarding Jordan and Palestine.

_“Palestine is Jordan and Jordan is Palestine; there is only one land, with one history and one and the same fate,”_ Prince Hassan of the Jordanian National Assembly was quoted as saying on February 2, 1970.

Accordingly, Abdul Hamid Sharif, Prime Minister of Jordan declared, in 1980, _“The Palestinians and Jordanians do not belong to different nationalities. They hold the same Jordanian passports, are Arabs and have the same Jordanian culture.”_

In other words, Jordan is Palestine. Arab Palestine. There is absolutely no difference between Jordan and Palestine, nor between Jordanians and Palestinians (all actually Arabs).

This fact is also confirmed by other Arabs, Jordanians and ‘Palestinans’ who were either rulers or scholars.

_“There should be a kind of linkage because Jordanians and Palestinians are considered by the PLO as one people,”_according to Farouk Kaddoumi, then head of the PLO Political Department, who gave the statement to Newsweek on March 14, 1977. Distinguished Arab-American Princeton University historian Philip Hitti testified before the Anglo-American Committee,

End Quote

This simple reality is so well established its seldom argued today other than by the revisionists who seek to run a new palestinian narrative up the flag pole after all the others have failed.

Maybe a map might help you comprehend the issue.








I'm not sure why you would refuse to admit this simple fact other than in an effort to maintain the pro palestinian revisionist narrative. In which case I think its fair to use one of the more polite references to this kind of behavior

LIAR LIAR PANTS ON FIRE

Ergo removing palestinian Arabs to the palestinian Arab state should be perfectly legal, before spin. After spin, and to no ones great surprise  the palestinan Arabs are simply demanding more land in order to destabilize Israel through political means when violent means have failed.

IE
Your not fooling anyone


----------



## Kondor3 (Dec 27, 2015)

Coyote said:


> ...The people that are now called "Palestinians" have lived there, as indiginous people for thousands of years...


True, at least in large part.



> ...They are a mixture of many peoples - including Jews - who have been conquered and reconquered but have stayed essentially in that area and converted to what ever faith the conquerers brought with them...


True, at least in large part.



> ...There have also been migrations of others into that area.  But they didn't march over from modern Jordan...


True, at least in large part.



> ...Playing games with semantics doesn't alter the fact that many of them are indiginous to where they now are...


True, at least in large part.



> ...and they have a right to stay there...


True, at least in large part, or, more accurately, they HAD (past tense) a right to stay there. They are now being squeezed off the land and driven out. Vae victus.

Happens all the time throughout history. The difference between HAVING a right and having the ability to ENFORCE a right is vast, and is measured by Victory and Defeat.

Just ask the American Indians... the Native Americans who were displaced, in order to provide you with a country of your own... same principle... natural selection.



> ...The same mandate you refer to did not include widespread population transfers such as you are suggesting...


The nature of the mandate is immaterial... we are dealing with a clear case of Vae Victus here.



> ...If you want to give that land to Jordan, that is one thing but if you want to forceably transfer whole native populations (this is also known as ethnic cleansing) - that will be very problematic for Israel. It's like suggesting a forceable transfer of Jews back to Europe.  Jordan has no obligation to take the people, unless it annexes the land.


True.

The Israelis need to divide-up the Palestinians and scatter them to the Four Winds, anyway.

Then again, the Jordanians extended Jordanian citizenship to the Palestinians, so, it's of little consequence.

Some go to Jordan, some to Egypt, some to Lebanon, some to Saudi Arabia, and the rest can be walked across the border to Syria, through the Golan Heights gateway.

If a one-state solution will not work...

If a two-state solution will not work...

If the Israelis refuse to surrender their vast military advantage and bare their throats to the barbarians at the gate...

That leaves the so-called 'Palestinians' on the short end of the stick...

And all the legalities (real and imagined and spun) in the world aren't going to make a lick of difference...

Under such circumstances, the party with the upper hand has two remaining options...

1. exterminate the Enemy...

2. expel the Enemy

Expulsion is far more humane then Extermination; at least the Expelled are alive at the end of the sequence, and can build new lives and a future, in safety, elsewhere.

Expulsion is also far less messy... otherwise, there's all that gore and goo to mop up... too much fuss... too much paperwork... too much bad long-term P(ublic) R(elations).

Expulsion will be met with a few years' worth of light-to-medium sanctions that will fizzle and fade over the course of a handful of years... with little or no permanent impact.

From the Israeli perspective, it's the only way out.


----------



## Boston1 (Dec 27, 2015)

Coyote said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



You are funny

Virtually every contention you are making is based off a false premise. You are misrepresenting what I've said.

Lets take them one at a time or at least some of them

I didn't argue that Jordan is the defacto home of the palestinians. I argued that Jordan is the Arab state set up by the British within the mandated area. I didn't argue that Jordan was a defacto palestinian state. I said it was the palestinian state assuming we are using the term to define the Arab residence of Judea or the mandated area. The mandate included provisions for two states within the area specified, one for the Arabic peoples and one Judaic . IT DID NOT specify what those states were to be named.

Being that Jordan lies entirely within the British mandate for palestine its reasonable to say that all its inhabitants at this time would be referred to as palestinians. Ergo 100% of the people of Jordan at its inception were palestinian. Same holds true of Israel. Its not I who is playing semantic games ;--)

Also you have provided no proof that palestinians or the group of palestinians you say lived in its own separate culture from other palestinians east of the Jordan but within the british mandate area designated as palestine were culturally distinct. I'm extensively read on the middle east conflict and its origins. So I would be most interested to read whatever references you are using to establish your position.

Lastly you claim that the exchange of populations is illegal. However you have the cart ahead of the horse again. Once more you have forgotten the element of time. In the period when this whole mess started it was perfectly acceptable to exchange populations. It wasn't until after the war of 67. Right around 74 as I recall that provisions were established by that ever so unbiased organization the UN that support your view. You are very convieniently applying these provisions retroactively to one single group, the Judaic people, and that smacks of bigotry, since you are not applying those edicts universally


----------



## Boston1 (Dec 27, 2015)

Kondor3 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > ...The people that are now called "Palestinians" have lived there, as indiginous people for thousands of years...
> ...



Kondor, bloody great post. 

I don't often take up the vae victus approach as there are many other avenues to disassemble the revisionist diatribe however it is the defining factor in the way things are today. 

I guess I just find it more entertaining to place the revisionist nonsense under closer scrutiny so as to expose it for what it is. Which is miles form historically accurate. And its always interesting to gauge the pro terrorist response to what the basic history says. 

Denial is most entertaining. 

Anyway many good and accurate points, which are always appreciated


----------



## Kondor3 (Dec 27, 2015)

Boston1 said:


> ...I don't often take up the vae victus approach as there are many other avenues to disassemble the revisionist diatribe *however it is the defining factor in the way things are today*...


Agreed. It tends to cut through the bullshit and goes straight to the practical heart of the matter. No point in getting their little hopes up with zero prospect for success.

It's far kinder to nudge them back towards reality and sanity and the prospect of a better life, elsewhere; something that can only be done through frank pronouncements.


----------



## Boston1 (Dec 27, 2015)

Kondor3 said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > ...I don't often take up the vae victus approach as there are many other avenues to disassemble the revisionist diatribe however it is the defining factor in the way things are today...
> ...



Again agreed, but by delving into the revisionist diatribe its possible to convince at least some of them that the palestinian chaired and UN funded school system from which they draw their diatribe is nothing more than PR spin used by the powers that be to incite more generations of kids to a fruitless battle. There is very little truth to be found within the palestinian narrative and its by exposing that narrative for what it is that we MIGHT make some progress here. Although I doubt it and I fear you are right again. The only solution will be a military one. Which is why I suggest mass deportations of all violent offenders and their families across the Arab Jewish demarcation line and into Jordan.


----------



## Kondor3 (Dec 27, 2015)

Boston1 said:


> ...There is very little truth to be found within the palestinian narrative...


Oh, I don't dispute the value of persistently highlighting the details of the sham that Palestinian and other Arab leadership have foisted upon these hapless fools.

Both approaches are effective and both have their place in the grander scheme of things in this context.


----------



## Boston1 (Dec 27, 2015)

Kondor3 said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > ...There is very little truth to be found within the palestinian narrative...
> ...



I just think its important that people realize the revisionist narrative is demonstrably false. Unfortunately the solution is most likely military in nature rather than a political one. The politics are rife with the revisionist BS and tyranny by majority.


----------



## Humanity (Dec 28, 2015)

Boston1 said:


> Quote
> 
> But they didn't march over from modern Jordan.
> 
> ...



Best map I have seen for a long time....

Look... NO ISRAEL!!!


----------



## Kondor3 (Dec 28, 2015)

Humanity said:


> ...Look... NO ISRAEL!!!


Only in your dreams, Achmed...


----------



## Hollie (Dec 28, 2015)

Humanity said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > Quote
> ...


Flail your Pom Poms all you like, but the Palestine Solution is a foregone conclusion. The islamist Middle Eastern nations near and adjacent to the Islamic terrorist "Pal'istanians" have, about a decade ago, made the choice to distance themselves from the economic and political liability of the eternal welfare fraud called "Pal'istanians".

The greater good comes from the greater cooperation. Egypt, Jordan and even Turkey are seeing where their greater economic and political interests can be directed and that is with (even a grudging admission), that aligning with success is better than promoting failure and ineptitude. 

When ISIS starts 'asplodin Moslems in Egypt, Turkey and the areas occupied by the Pal'istanians who they find contemptable, who do you think those neighboring nations will align with?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Dec 28, 2015)

Kondor3 said:


> Humanity said:
> 
> 
> > ...Look... NO ISRAEL!!!
> ...


Not everyone holds your view.

delegitimize israel - YouTube


----------



## Boston1 (Dec 28, 2015)

No one is responsible for the plight of the palestinians but the palestinians themselves. If they wish to remain in Israel they are going to have to behave themselves. Its either that or inevitable death or deportation. End of subject.

The Israeli government is already stepping up deportations.

See
'If violence continues, Israel to begin banishing Palestinians ...

Yes a logical and peaceful solution to the daily palestinian violence. Personally I'd prefer to see them deported to Jordan as Gaza is overcrowded already but in the end I don't care where they go as long as they are gone.

The obvious solution to the palestinians who refuse to live peacefully within society is to remove them from society and let them live in anarchy elsewhere, if they insist.


----------



## montelatici (Dec 28, 2015)

Boston1 said:


> No one is responsible for the plight of the palestinians but the palestinians themselves. If they wish to remain in Israel they are going to have to behave themselves. Its either that or inevitable death or deportation. End of subject.
> 
> The Israeli government is already stepping up deportations.
> 
> ...



How can the native people that were colonized by people from another continent be responsible for their plight?  That is cognitive dissonance of the highest order.


----------



## Hollie (Dec 28, 2015)

montelatici said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > No one is responsible for the plight of the palestinians but the palestinians themselves. If they wish to remain in Israel they are going to have to behave themselves. Its either that or inevitable death or deportation. End of subject.
> ...


You fail to realize that the "native people" were not native at all but Islamist colonizers who used war and rapine as their method of colonization. 

You're suffering from what is called cognitive dissonance.


----------



## Boston1 (Dec 28, 2015)

montelatici said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > No one is responsible for the plight of the palestinians but the palestinians themselves. If they wish to remain in Israel they are going to have to behave themselves. Its either that or inevitable death or deportation. End of subject.
> ...



Yikes, how far will the revisionist lies go. 

Only about 35% of Israelis returned from Europe. 25% fled or were forced to flee from Arab countries. They returned to their native homeland Judea. And while the local Arab population was willing to sell their land ( at inflated prices ) to the refugees so much land was willingly sold that the remaining Arabs made laws forbidding any further sales to Jews. A blatantly racist policy. 

From there we all know what happened 

The local arabs rose up to engage in another pogrom against the Judaic people except this time 

THEY LOST

In which case, once again, the palestinians have no one to blame but themselves


----------



## Boston1 (Dec 28, 2015)

Hollie said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > Boston1 said:
> ...



Bingo


----------



## montelatici (Dec 28, 2015)

The native people of Palestine resisted colonization by Europeans. Jews owned less than 95% of the land before partition.


----------



## montelatici (Dec 28, 2015)

BTW you are fighting a losing battle.  There is no way any neutral observer will blame colonization on the colonized.  It is illogical.


----------



## Boston1 (Dec 28, 2015)

BTW the subject is the palestinian solution. 

To which restrictions and deportation is the answer. 

as far as any claims of Arabs being the native peoples of Judea.


----------



## Shusha (Dec 28, 2015)

montelatici said:


> BTW you are fighting a losing battle.  There is no way any neutral observer will blame colonization on the colonized.  It is illogical.



There is no way any neutral observer could label the Jewish people colonizers of their own homeland.


----------



## Boston1 (Dec 28, 2015)

Shusha said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > BTW you are fighting a losing battle.  There is no way any neutral observer will blame colonization on the colonized.  It is illogical.
> ...



Bingo 

where's the thanks button on this thing ?


----------



## Shusha (Dec 28, 2015)

The solution to the problem is to dump the ideology that the Jewish people have no rights to self-determination AND to dump the ideology that the Palestinians have no rights to self-determination.  Everyone needs to just stop discussing the lack of rights and start discussing an acknowledgement of rights.  

The solution to the problem is to drop all of the arguments about why this people or that people should have no rights or limited rights and instead focus on what steps may be practical, reasonable, fair, balanced and will move us forward.  In other words, to do what every resolution and every treaty has done since this whole thing started after WWI.  What can people live with? 

Personally, I don't think the Palestinians, or some groups of Muslims, are capable of any of these things.  But we, as in those on this forum, should be able to let go of our ideologies and biases long enough to solve the problem.  And then, together, maybe we can talk some sense into them on an international scale.  

So let's focus on the future:  what can both the Jewish people and the Palestinian people accept?


----------



## montelatici (Dec 28, 2015)

Shusha said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > BTW you are fighting a losing battle.  There is no way any neutral observer will blame colonization on the colonized.  It is illogical.
> ...



Not only would a neutral observer label the Zionists colonizers, they labeled themselves colonizers in writing as early as 1899.


----------



## montelatici (Dec 28, 2015)

And again in 1926:

*Successful Jewish Colonization Will Extend Beyond Palestine Frontier, Weizmann Tells Actions Committee*

July 25, 1926
“Due to the success of our colonization work in Palestine proper, it is possible that eventually our colonization work will be extended beyond the frontiers of Transjordania. It is true that the Palestine government has not taken a clear stand in regard to its economic policy, but well founded demands have every prospect of being agreed to. A great deal has been achieved during the last months,” Dr. Weizmann said.

Successful Jewish Colonization Will Extend Beyond Palestine Frontier, Weizmann Tells Actions Committ


----------



## Boston1 (Dec 28, 2015)

montelatici said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...





Shusha said:


> The solution to the problem is to dump the ideology that the Jewish people have no rights to self-determination AND to dump the ideology that the Palestinians have no rights to self-determination.  Everyone needs to just stop discussing the lack of rights and start discussing an acknowledgement of rights.
> 
> The solution to the problem is to drop all of the arguments about why this people or that people should have no rights or limited rights and instead focus on what steps may be practical, reasonable, fair, balanced and will move us forward.  In other words, to do what every resolution and every treaty has done since this whole thing started after WWI.  What can people live with?
> 
> ...




I'd agree that we need to start talking about mutual rights however its not mutual rights that are the real problem, its the palestinians penchant towards violence thats the problem and that has led to the restrictions and now the deportations. Until the violence stops, all the talk in the world isn't going to help. 

As for colonization. I wonder if Montie realizes that palestinians where flocking to sell their land to Zionists so fast that the powers that be at that time ended making laws lest the ENTIRE COUNTRY be sold. 

Show me anyone else known as a colonizer in history that ACTUALLY PURCHASED THEIR LAND ;--)


----------



## Hollie (Dec 28, 2015)

Shusha said:


> The solution to the problem is to dump the ideology that the Jewish people have no rights to self-determination AND to dump the ideology that the Palestinians have no rights to self-determination.  Everyone needs to just stop discussing the lack of rights and start discussing an acknowledgement of rights.
> 
> The solution to the problem is to drop all of the arguments about why this people or that people should have no rights or limited rights and instead focus on what steps may be practical, reasonable, fair, balanced and will move us forward.  In other words, to do what every resolution and every treaty has done since this whole thing started after WWI.  What can people live with?
> 
> ...




_"So let's focus on the future:  what can both the Jewish people and the Palestinian people accept?"_

Let's start there. 
The State of Israel has returned and withdrawn from captured territory greater than the size of Israel itself--Sinai, Egyptian land west of the Nile, land east of the Golan to the suburbs of Damascus, southern Lebanon, Gaza; and, the expressed governmental policy of the State of Israel is to trade land for a secured peace with her neighbors, including the so-called "Pal'istanians". The Israelis have shown a willingness to accept secure borders for peace.

What will Hamas accept in connection with their Charter?


----------



## Shusha (Dec 28, 2015)

Do we really need to review what the term "colony" means?


----------



## Boston1 (Dec 28, 2015)

montelatici said:


> And again in 1926:
> 
> *Successful Jewish Colonization Will Extend Beyond Palestine Frontier, Weizmann Tells Actions Committee*
> 
> ...



Are you really going to prattle on about Zionist literature from nearly 100 years ago and present it is applicable today ?


----------



## montelatici (Dec 28, 2015)

Unless you want to change the definition of colonization, I think I have made my point.


----------



## Hollie (Dec 28, 2015)

montelatici said:


> And again in 1926:
> 
> *Successful Jewish Colonization Will Extend Beyond Palestine Frontier, Weizmann Tells Actions Committee*
> 
> ...


Let's put that in the context of the collapse of the Ottoman Empire where Moslem hordes colonized the land through war, forced conversion and rapine.


----------



## Shusha (Dec 28, 2015)

Boston1 said:


> ... its not mutual rights that are the real problem, its the palestinians penchant towards violence thats the problem...



I would argue it is the Palestinian (read also: some Muslim) ideology which is the foundation of the problem.  The violence won't stop until the ideology changes.


----------



## Billo_Really (Dec 28, 2015)

Hollie said:


> You fail to realize that the "native people" were not native at all but Islamist colonizers who used war and rapine as their method of colonization.


That's a load of crap!

Palestinian's have been living in that area for the last 2000 years.  They are the genetic descendants of ancient Jews.

_"In 2001, *Human Immunology magazine* published a genetic study conducted by Prof. Antonio Arnez-Vilna, a Spanish researcher from the University of Complutense in Madrid, who discovered that *the immune systems of the Jews and the Palestinians are extremely close to one another* in a way that almost absolutely demonstrates a similar genetic identity."_​
Other DNA studies show...

_...that *"the Palestinians are genetically much closer to Ashkenazi Jews than they are to the Arabs."*_​
So no, they were not "Islamist colonizers", as you claim.


You're suffering from what is called cognitive dissonance. [/QUOTE]You cannot have "cognitive dissonance" without the presence of new evidence and you, twisted sister, have not provided any.


----------



## Hollie (Dec 28, 2015)

montelatici said:


> Unless you want to change the definition of colonization, I think I have made my point.


And what point would that be?


----------



## montelatici (Dec 28, 2015)

The foundational problem is Zionist ideology.  The violence won't stop until the Zionists accept that they colonized Palestine and evicted the native people and start negotiating terms.


----------



## Hollie (Dec 28, 2015)

Billo_Really said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > You fail to realize that the "native people" were not native at all but Islamist colonizers who used war and rapine as their method of colonization.
> ...


You cannot have "cognitive dissonance" without the presence of new evidence and you, twisted sister, have not provided any.[/QUOTE]
Sweetie, do a google search with the term "Ottoman Empire" and see if your few remaining synapses can still fire.


----------



## Shusha (Dec 28, 2015)

col·o·ny
ˈkälənē/
_noun_

*1*.
a country or area under the *full or partial political control of another country*, typically a distant one, and occupied by settlers from that country.
synonyms: settlement, dependency, protectorate, satellite, territory, outpost,province
"a French colony"




*2*.
a group of people of *one nationality or ethnic group living in a foreign city or country*.


What country are the European Jews claiming Israel and Judea for?  Germany?  Poland?  France?  

A peoples exercising self-determination on their own ancestral lands can not be colonizers.  By definition.


----------



## Hollie (Dec 28, 2015)

montelatici said:


> The foundational problem is Zionist ideology.  The violence won't stop until the Zionists accept that they colonized Palestine and evicted the native people and start negotiating terms.


False. The foundational problem is Islamist fascism.

Read the Hamas Charter for a look into the gaping maw of islamo-fascism.


----------



## Boston1 (Dec 28, 2015)

montelatici said:


> Unless you want to change the definition of colonization, I think I have made my point.



Name one other instance where so called colonizers PURCHASED LAND LEGALLY


----------



## montelatici (Dec 28, 2015)

It is the Zionist Jews themselves that considered themselves European colonizers.  People going from another continent to colonize land on a different continent are, by definition colonizers.  Palestine was not ancestral land of Europeans, of whatever faith.


----------



## Billo_Really (Dec 28, 2015)

Hollie said:


> Sweetie, do a google search with the term "Ottoman Empire" and see if your few remaining synapses can still fire.


You make the claim, you provide the evidence.

BTW, the Palestinian's were living there during the Ottoman Empire as well.

They didn't just ride in with the Otto's.


----------



## montelatici (Dec 28, 2015)

Boston1 said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > Unless you want to change the definition of colonization, I think I have made my point.
> ...



The Jews did not purchase the land legally or otherwise.  What are you talking about?


----------



## Hollie (Dec 28, 2015)

montelatici said:


> It is the Zionist Jews themselves that considered themselves European colonizers.  People going from another continent to colonize land on a different continent are, by definition colonizers.  Palestine was not ancestral land of Europeans, of whatever faith.


Its convenient to ignore the Moslem hordes which invaded and colonized the geographic area called "Palestine" as colonizers, but your attempt at argument then self-contradicts.


----------



## Shusha (Dec 28, 2015)

montelatici said:


> It is the Zionist Jews themselves that considered themselves European colonizers.  People going from another continent to colonize land on a different continent are, by definition colonizers.  Palestine was not ancestral land of Europeans, of whatever faith.



By that frame of reference all that needs to be done to turn an indigenous person into a colonizer is to remove them from their land.  Is that really what you are arguing?


----------



## Boston1 (Dec 28, 2015)

Billo_Really said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > You fail to realize that the "native people" were not native at all but Islamist colonizers who used war and rapine as their method of colonization.
> ...



Pure utter nonsense.

From
Demographic history of Palestine - Wikipedia, the free ...

Quote

It is known that the Arab population of Palestine doubled during the British Mandate era, from 670,000 in 1922 to over 1.2 million in 1948,

End Quote

Do you really think the presentation of one lie after another is doing anything to further your cause, whatever that might be.


----------



## Billo_Really (Dec 28, 2015)

Boston1 said:


> Name one other instance where so called colonizers PURCHASED LAND LEGALLY


According to *UN records*, as the British vacated the area, Zionist terrorist squads moved in and took more land that was given to them in the Partition Plan.

_From writings of Zionist leaders, it is evident that Zionist policy was to occupy, during the period of withdrawal, as much territory as possible *(including the "West Bank") beyond the boundaries assigned to the Jewish State by the partition resolution*._​


----------



## Shusha (Dec 28, 2015)

montelatici said:


> People going from another continent to colonize land on a different continent are, by definition colonizers.  Palestine was not ancestral land of Europeans, of whatever faith.



Israel and Judah  ARE the ancestral lands of the Jewish people.  You can't seriously be denying the connection of the Jewish people to the land of Israel, can you?


----------



## montelatici (Dec 28, 2015)

You are full of crap as usual.  You are making a fool of yourself.  As I said, we have debunked your propaganda with source documentation over and over again.

*OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE SECOND SESSION OF *​*THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY​*​*SUPPLEMENT No. 11​*
​*UNITED NATIONS
SPECIAL COMMITTEE
ON PALESTINE​*
​*REPORT TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY​*​*VOLUME 1​*​



*Lake Success*
*New York*
*1947*


(b)IMMIGRATION AND NATURAL INCREASE

15. These changes in the population have been brought about by two forces: natural increase and immigration. The great increase in the Jewish population is due in the main to immigration. From 1920 to 1946, the total number of recorded Jewish immigrants into Palestine was about 376,000, or an average of over 8,000 per year. The flow has not been regular, however, being fairly high in 1924 to 1926, falling in the next few years (there was a net emigration in 1927) and rising to even higher levels between 1933 and 1936 as a result of the Nazi persecution in Europe. Between the census year of 1931 and the year 1936, the proportion of Jews to the total population rose from 18 per cent to nearly 30 per cent.

*16. The Arab population has increased almost entirely as a result of an excess of births over deaths.*


----------



## montelatici (Dec 28, 2015)

Shusha said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > People going from another continent to colonize land on a different continent are, by definition colonizers.  Palestine was not ancestral land of Europeans, of whatever faith.
> ...



Of course we are denying that fairly tale.


----------



## Billo_Really (Dec 28, 2015)

Boston1 said:


> Pure utter nonsense.


Prove it.  Prove the DNA studies were wrong.




Boston1 said:


> From
> Demographic history of Palestine - Wikipedia, the free ...


From your own link...

_the make-up of the population of Palestine is debated due to data being sparse in the historical record._​
DNA testing is anything but "sparse".




Boston1 said:


> Quote
> 
> It is known that the Arab population of Palestine doubled during the British Mandate era, from 670,000 in 1922 to over 1.2 million in 1948,
> 
> End Quote


According to UN records...

*The transformation of Mandated Palestine*

*The Jewish population:*
_ At the culmination of a quarter century of Mandatory rule, Palestine had been radically transformed in demographic terms. The population of Palestine had increased tremendously - from the 750,000 of the 1922 census to almost 1,850,000 at the end of 1946 - an increase of nearly 250 per cent. During this period the Jewish population had soared from 56,000 after the First World War to 84,000 in 1922 to 608,000 in 1946, an increase of about 725 per cent.* From constituting less than a tenth of the population in Palestine after the First World War, the Jewish community in 1947 constituted nearly a third.*_​
725% increase in the Jewish population and they still only amounted to a 1/3 of the total residents.

Here's the official *immigration records* according to the UN...





Do you see that?  Over 5,000 Jews immigrated in (a good third illegally) and only a little over 1,300 Arabs migrated into the area during that same period.

Embrace the horror, Arabs have been the majority population in that area for the last 2000 years.




Boston1 said:


> Do you really think the presentation of one lie after another is doing anything to further your cause, whatever that might be.


Why don't you prove they are lies, instead just saying they are?


----------



## montelatici (Dec 28, 2015)

Boston has only access to Zionist propaganda.  He has never researched the source documentation.  Hasbara types never do.


----------



## Shusha (Dec 28, 2015)

montelatici said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > Israel and Judah  ARE the ancestral lands of the Jewish people.  You can't seriously be denying the connection of the Jewish people to the land of Israel, can you?
> ...



I am honestly at a loss as to how one can deny the connection of the Jewish people to the lands of our ancestors.  It is an impressively inaccurate ideology.  I can't even imagine what hoops you must jump through to believe this.  

Please, you will have to explain this to me.  I will start another thread.


----------



## Shusha (Dec 28, 2015)

All DNA evidence "proves" is that the Arab peoples living in Israel/Mandate for Palestine are closely related to the Jewish people living all over the world, with the Arab peoples having an admixture of various Arab populations and the Jewish people having an admixture of various European populations.  (Which, of course, makes perfect sense as people do tend to procreate with the people around them.  Procreation with people who are far away is decidely problematic.)

Enough of that.  DNA is not a valid measure of people's rights.


----------



## RoccoR (Dec 28, 2015)

montelatici,  et al,

WOW!



montelatici said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...


*(OBSERVATION)*

Jerusalem Post Diplomacy & Politics --- Abbas denies the Jewish connection to Jerusalem
12.29.2015 | 17 Tevet, 5776

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas denied the Jewish connection to Jerusalem on Tuesday, the same day he spoke by phone with both Defense Minister Ehud Barak and Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s envoy Yitzhak Molcho.

Abbas issued a statement Tuesday, marking the 43rd anniversary of an attempt by deranged Australian Christian Denis Michael Rohan to set fire to al-Aksa mosque, saying that Jerusalem’s Arab and Islamic identity was a Palestinian red line.​*(COMMENT)*

This is not unusual for the pro-Palestinians to make this claim/denial.  This claim made periodically.  What I find some remarkable is that so many actually believe it.

*Palestinian Leaders Deny Jerusalem's Past*
Wall Street Journal (WSJ) By BARI WEISS
Updated Sept. 25, 2009 12:01 a.m. ET

Jews have no history in the city of Jerusalem: They have never lived there, the Temple never existed, and Israeli archaeologists have admitted as much. Those who deny this are simply liars. Or so says Sheik Tayseer Rajab Tamimi, chief Islamic judge of the Palestinian Authority.

His claims, made last month, would be laughable if they weren't so common among Palestinians. Sheik Tamimi is only the latest to insist that, in his words, Jerusalem is solely "an Arab and Islamic city and it has always been so." His comments come on the heels of those by Shamekh Alawneh, a lecturer in modern history at Al Quds University. On an Aug. 11 PA television program, "Jerusalem—History and Culture," Mr. Alawneh argued that the Jews invented their connection to Jerusalem. "It has no historical roots," he said, adding that the Jews are engaging in "an attack on history, theft of culture, falsification of facts, erasure of the truth, and Judaization of the place."​
Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## aris2chat (Dec 28, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> WOW!
> 
> ...




Some mosques around the world are still calling jews pigs and dogs or shaitan that should be killed.

What happened to people of the book and religion of peace?


----------



## RoccoR (Dec 28, 2015)

aris2chat,  et al,

It is a mistake to consider any group of people as a "people of the book and religion of peace;" especially and Islamic groups that practices or advocate "jihad" and moves to "incite or radicalize people to commit a terrorist act or acts; providing support, active or passive, to entities or persons involved in terrorist acts, including by suppressing recruitment of members of terrorist groups and eliminating the supply of weapons to terrorists; (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping.



aris2chat said:


> Some mosques around the world are still calling jews pigs and dogs or shaitan that should be killed.
> 
> What happened to people of the book and religion of peace?


*(COMMENT)*

The pro-Palestinian that is radicalized believes that the Hostile Arab Palestinian has some special exemption to the general rule that nothing can justify terrorism — ever.  No grievance, no goal, no cause can excuse terrorist acts; to include their political cause.  

But Hostile Arab Palestinians are of the exact same moral depravity as any other sociopaths or psychopaths are incapable of feeling shame, guilt or remorse for the indifference innocent death; nor can they distinguish between inadvertent deaths and that of intentional targeting.  Psychopaths have no guilt of performing an act that will cause innocent deaths through their depraved indifference; a Machiavellian policy of using any means they considered necessary to achieve their political objective in establishing an Islamic State.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## montelatici (Dec 28, 2015)

It is the Zionists that believe that their child murdering is justified.  They cannot fathom the thought that bombing a school filled with children or an apartment building housing women and children is a murderous act.  The Zionists are psychopaths and they feel no guilt when they cause thousands of innocent deaths.  It is the rule in a Zionist state. The Zionists hope to achieve their political objectives through the murder of innocents.  But, the worlds is turning against them.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Dec 28, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> aris2chat,  et al,
> 
> It is a mistake to consider any group of people as a "people of the book and religion of peace;" especially and Islamic groups that practices or advocate "jihad" and moves to "incite or radicalize people to commit a terrorist act or acts; providing support, active or passive, to entities or persons involved in terrorist acts, including by suppressing recruitment of members of terrorist groups and eliminating the supply of weapons to terrorists; (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping.
> 
> ...


*The main question was about the settlers: Are they civilians or not? According to the Geneva Accord they are not. Even according to the Israelis they are not.*
In 2003 we went to Cairo. The Egyptians asked whether Hamas is ready to stop the martyrdom operations or not. We gave the Egyptians a better offer. We were ready to have an agreement to stop targeting civilians [on] both sides. The army is supposed to fight, but civilians should be out of it. The Egyptians agreed and passed it on to the Israelis.

Ariel Sharon sent Efraim Halevi, who was the head of Shin Bet at the time. The Egyptians, who were the mediators, negotiated with Halevi. When we reached the definition of civilians, *we accepted the definition put forward by the Geneva Accord. The Israelis were surprised, as they did not expect that. We said that the settlers are not civilians and the answer was, yes, they are not.*

A Dialogue with Hamas - Part 1 - Worldpress.org


----------



## RoccoR (Dec 28, 2015)

P F Tinmore, et al,

Some one is pulling you leg.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > aris2chat,  et al,
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

The Definition of "civilians" in Rule #5, is quite specific.  There is only one exception to the Rule.  The ICRC never change that Rule.  If that Rule were changed, then the Palestinian Complaint before the ICC would have no validity.

The definition of civilians as persons who are not members of the armed forces is set forth in Article 50 of Additional Protocol I, to which no reservations have been made.  It is also contained in numerous military manuals.  It is reflected in reported practice.[3]  This practice includes that of States not, or not at the time, party to Additional Protocol I.

In its judgment in the _Blaškić case _in 2000, the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia defined civilians as “persons who are not, or no longer, members of the armed forces”. 

The definition that "any person who is not a member of armed forces is considered to be a civilian" and that "the civilian population comprises all persons who are civilians" was included in the draft of Additional Protocol II.

*Exception
*
An exception to this rule is the _levée en masse_, whereby the inhabitants of a country which has not yet been occupied, on the approach of the enemy, spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading troops without having time to form themselves into an armed force. Such persons are considered combatants if they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war (see commentary to Rule 106). This is a long-standing rule of customary international humanitarian law already recognized in the Lieber Code and the Brussels Declaration.  It is codified in the Hague Regulations and the Third Geneva Convention.  Although of limited current application, the _levée en masse_ is still repeated in many military manuals, including very recent ones.

Most Respectfully,
R​


----------



## montelatici (Dec 28, 2015)

Most of the settlers are active duty military, and armed by the military.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Dec 28, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> Some one is pulling you leg.
> 
> ...


They were using the lay term. The actual term is protected persons. GCIV exempts the nationals of an occupying power from protected status.

So when Israel says that Palestinians are targeting "civilians" they are just shoveling shit.


----------



## RoccoR (Dec 28, 2015)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

Well that is also wrong.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore, et al,
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

The are two difference terms, both in use in ICRC Geneva Convention.

Protected Persons are NOT necessarily civilians.  A POW is a protected person but not a civilian.  The unarmed, non-service connect civilian of the enemy occupied territory is generally a "protected person."  In the case of the Israeli citizen, the are "civilians" but not "protected persons."

Both the "protect person" and the "civilian" are addressed and covered separately in the ICRC Geneva Convention.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Dec 28, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Well that is also wrong.
> 
> ...


Thank you, that clarifies what I said.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Dec 28, 2015)

Boston1 said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > Unless you want to change the definition of colonization, I think I have made my point.
> ...


Indeed, the Jews only purchased about 7% of the land. The rest they took at the point of a gun.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Dec 28, 2015)

Shusha said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > BTW you are fighting a losing battle.  There is no way any neutral observer will blame colonization on the colonized.  It is illogical.
> ...


The problem with your post is that virtually none of the colonizers have any ancestors from Palestine.


----------



## Shusha (Dec 29, 2015)

montelatici said:


> It is the Zionists that believe that their child murdering is justified.  They cannot fathom the thought that bombing a school filled with children or an apartment building housing women and children is a murderous act.  .



On the contrary, it is the Gazans who believe placing weapons in schools and hospitals and mosques and in the proximity of innocents is an effective means of warfare -- that the consequence of dead children is not only justified, but leaves them blameless.


----------



## Shusha (Dec 29, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...




ALL of the Jewish people originate from Israel and Judah.  They all have ancestors from Israel and Judah.  Otherwise they would not be JEWISH.  

What are you proposing as a measure of who has ancestors from "Palestine"?  And do you apply it universally?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Dec 29, 2015)

Hollie said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > The foundational problem is Zionist ideology.  The violence won't stop until the Zionists accept that they colonized Palestine and evicted the native people and start negotiating terms.
> ...


OK, but the occupation started 40 years before there was a Hamas.

Who was Israel's boogyman before Hamas?


----------



## aris2chat (Dec 29, 2015)

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Shusha said:
> ...




  Now they can add the Irish to originating from the middle east.  Must be the red hair


----------



## montelatici (Dec 29, 2015)

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Shusha said:
> ...



Most of the European Jews have little or no connection with the Middle East or Palestine, no more than other Europeans, particularly southern Europeans.  They were Europeans that converted to Judaism.

*Ashkenazi Jewish women descended mostly from Italian converts*
Jon Entine | October 8, 2013 | Genetic Literacy Project

Ashkenazi Jewish women descended mostly from Italian converts, new study asserts | Genetic Literacy Project

Anyone can become Jewish.  An Eskimo with not a hint of an ancestor from Palestine can convert to Judaism and can immigrate to Palestine under the Jewish right of return.


----------



## Shusha (Dec 29, 2015)

montelatici said:


> Most of the European Jews have little or no connection with the Middle East or Palestine, no more than other Europeans, particularly southern Europeans.  They were Europeans that converted to Judaism.
> 
> *Ashkenazi Jewish women descended mostly from Italian converts*
> Jon Entine | October 8, 2013 | Genetic Literacy Project
> ...



The article in your link doesn't say what you claim it says.  But to be clear about your point -- you believe that mitochondrial DNA should be the determining factor in self-determination of an ethnic or cultural group and that the right of return should be based on that?  

As far as solutions, then, are you suggesting we do genetic testing on all the citizens of Israel and the disputed territories and only retain those with the "correct" DNA?  What percentage of the "correct" mDNA would be suitable?  Shall we also test all the Palestinian refugees before they can be re-settled?  And eliminate all those with Egyptian, Saudi, Persian or whatever other DNA might have crept in?  Shall we ignore paternal ancestry altogether?


----------



## rhodescholar (Dec 29, 2015)

aris2chat said:


> Now they can add the Irish to originating from the middle east.  Must be the red hair



When will ***** like you stop complaining about jews?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Dec 29, 2015)

Shusha said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > Most of the European Jews have little or no connection with the Middle East or Palestine, no more than other Europeans, particularly southern Europeans.  They were Europeans that converted to Judaism.
> ...


That is a crazy Idea. All of the Jews who were born there have the right to live there. Of course that applies to everyone else also.


----------



## aris2chat (Dec 29, 2015)

rhodescholar said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> > Now they can add the Irish to originating from the middle east.  Must be the red hair
> ...



First the language was out of order.
How was referencing a news report of Irish origin complaining about jews?


----------



## montelatici (Dec 29, 2015)

Shusha said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > Most of the European Jews have little or no connection with the Middle East or Palestine, no more than other Europeans, particularly southern Europeans.  They were Europeans that converted to Judaism.
> ...



The Zionists are the Europeans that invaded Palestine and dispossessed the natives that were living in Palestine based on their claim that they had more right to the land than the natives. The natives whose ancestors have been living there for thousands of years don't need to demonstrate anything. They are the natives, the Zionists came from elsewhere.


----------



## Hollie (Dec 29, 2015)

montelatici said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...


That's really just an ignorant and desperate attempt to backtrack on your earlier cutting and pasting which clearly refutes your own feverish, chest-heaving rants about _The Zionists™.
_
Since when were the Arab crusaders / colonists the native population?


----------



## Shusha (Dec 29, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> That is a crazy Idea. All of the Jews who were born there have the right to live there. Of course that applies to everyone else also.



So Abbas can't stay, then.


----------



## Shusha (Dec 29, 2015)

montelatici said:


> The Zionists are the Europeans that invaded Palestine and dispossessed the natives that were living in Palestine based on their claim that they had more right to the land than the natives. The natives whose ancestors have been living there for thousands of years don't need to demonstrate anything. They are the natives, the Zionists came from elsewhere.



Okay.  So only the Jewish people have to be tested to see if they have enough "correct" mDNA to remain in their homeland.  Or are you saying that all Jewish people are automatically assumed not to have enough?  The Palestinians are automatically assumed to have enough. You do know how racist that sounds, right?  

And you also would be of the opinion that Palestinians who were dispossessed have no rights to the land, since that is your position on the Jewish people.  Or are you admitting a racist opinion there as well?


----------



## Shusha (Dec 29, 2015)

So, back to solutions....

Question for the group:  Who should be citizens of the State of Israel and the new State of Palestine?  What criteria would you use to determine who is eligible for citizenship?  What should happen to those not eligible for citizenship of one country of the other?


----------



## montelatici (Dec 29, 2015)

Shusha said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > The Zionists are the Europeans that invaded Palestine and dispossessed the natives that were living in Palestine based on their claim that they had more right to the land than the natives. The natives whose ancestors have been living there for thousands of years don't need to demonstrate anything. They are the natives, the Zionists came from elsewhere.
> ...



The Zionists came from Europe and were Europeans, Palestine is/was not their homeland.  It is the homeland of the people that have lived there for thousands of years, not Europeans of a particular religion who decide to colonize the place. 

Many Romanians claim that their homeland is in Italy and many may have some Roman heritage, it doesn't mean that the Italians should allow Romanians to constitute a Romanian colony in Italy, call it Rome and declare a state. And Romanians live on the same continent.


----------



## Shusha (Dec 29, 2015)

montelatici said:


> The Zionists came from Europe and were Europeans, Palestine is/was not their homeland.  It is the homeland of the people that have lived there for thousands of years, not Europeans of a particular religion who decide to colonize the place.



I obviously disagree with you.  But...in terms of a solution to the current conflict -- what do you suggest with respect to citizenship?


----------



## rhodescholar (Dec 29, 2015)

aris2chat said:


> First the language was out of order.



Those who support the mass death of jews deserve far more than just harsh language.



> How was referencing a news report of Irish origin complaining about jews?



Asshole, YOU said "Irish to originating from the middle east..." as if the jews are not indigenous to the region, which they most certainly are, you worthless fucking trash.


----------



## aris2chat (Dec 29, 2015)

rhodescholar said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> > First the language was out of order.
> ...



How does middle easterners settling in Ireland 5000 yrs ago support the mass death of jews?  Before jumping to the conclusion there was any suggestion of insult to hate towards jews, you might have done your own search or asked for more information.  To be more specific, the DNA origins are from the Caspian Steppe, basically north of today's Armenia and Georgia.

How does that in any way support harm to jews?  Even if they had Phoenician DNA it would in no way support harm to jews.

You can shove your language an attitude where the sun doesn't shine.


----------



## Indeependent (Dec 29, 2015)

rhodescholar said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> > First the language was out of order.
> ...



You are misinterpreting aris2chat's sarcasm.


----------



## Coyote (Dec 30, 2015)

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Shusha said:
> ...



Not necessarily...I think it's much more complicated that that.  For example http://news.sciencemag.org/biology/2013/10/did-modern-jews-originate-italy.
_
Richards acknowledges that the work is likely to be controversial. “I’d anticipate some resistance to our conclusions in certain quarters,” he says. One way to reconcile his team’s findings with those of other researchers, he says, is to assume that the founders of the male Ashkenazi lineages were indeed originally from the Middle East, but that the maternal line arose in Europe much earlier. The European women then converted to Judaism after male Jews moved into the continent, establishing the Ashkenazi lineages that we see today. *That suggestion fits with the contention of some historians that many women converted to Judaism across Mediterranean Europe during the so-called Hellenistic period between about 300 B.C.E. and 30 B.C.E*._​
It would make sense since the population that fled the ME would be far to small to sustain itself without conversions and marriage outside the faith.

I think the "tie" to Israel and Judah is more one of religious heritage than genetics, much like the Muslim tie to Mecca.

The problem with trying to determine "a measure of who has ancestors from "Palestine" is you really can't in any but an arbritrary way.  People moved and migrated many times since the earliest recorded histories there and even the Israelites were not the original peoples.  You have people who moved on, moved in and people who stayed - and changed with the succeeding invasions - converting to new religions in the process.  For example, when Christianity became the dominant religion, many Jews converted.  When Islam became the dominant religion many Christians and Jews converted. And those are just the main religions - not the many smaller groups. The peoples may not have changed, but their religious and cultural identities transformed.  So given that - how can you determine who has a greater "tie" or "right" to be there?


----------



## Coyote (Dec 30, 2015)

Hollie said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > Shusha said:
> ...



If you are talking about the Palestinians....since quite a long time ago...http://www.rense.com/general48/palestinians.pdf


----------



## Shusha (Dec 30, 2015)

Coyote said:


> So given that - how can you determine who has a greater "tie" or "right" to be there?



Be clear on my position.  My criteria is very broad and very simple and can be applied universally:  is there a self-identifying, culturally recognizable group of people with historical ties to the territory in question?  Do they want self-determination?  Then they should get it.  

Personally, I think using genetic testing to support or deny a people's right to self-identification and self-determination to be heinous.  Its technology-assisted racism.  People's rights should be no more based on their mDNA or haplotype than on their skin color or the shapes of their noses.

Near as I can tell, I am the only person on this whole forum not trying to deny rights to the "other" group or claim that one group's rights supercede or replace the other's.


----------



## montelatici (Dec 30, 2015)

So, the Palestinians and their offspring that were evicted from their historical homeland in what is now Israel should have a right to return to what is now Israel and "get self determination"?  

That would solve the problem.


----------



## Shusha (Dec 30, 2015)

montelatici said:


> So, the Palestinians and their offspring that were evicted from their historical homeland in what is now Israel should have a right to return to what is now Israel and "get self determination"?
> 
> That would solve the problem.



Its called the two state solution.  The Palestinians and their descendants return to the newly formed state of Palestine.  Israelis stay in Israel.  Satisfactory conclusion to the conflict.


----------



## montelatici (Dec 30, 2015)

Israel has rejected the notion of the establishment of a sovereign Palestinian state.  So how can there be a  two-state solution?


----------



## Hollie (Dec 30, 2015)

montelatici said:


> Israel has rejected the notion of the establishment of a sovereign Palestinian state.  So how can there be a  two-state solution?


Hamas via their Charter has rejected a two-state solution. 

Isreal has repeatedly made concessions via return of land won in war and via attempts at negotiation for a two-state solution. 

You should make an attempt to review the history before you stumble over the facts.


----------



## Shusha (Dec 30, 2015)

montelatici said:


> Israel has rejected the notion of the establishment of a sovereign Palestinian state.  So how can there be a  two-state solution?



Netanyahu has rejected a Palestinian State in the current climate of hostility for security reasons.  But that doesn't matter for this thread.  The purpose of this thread is to see if WE (those participating) can come up with a solution that is fair, balanced and reasonable.  One which puts in place broad concepts for finding a peace and an end to the conflict.


----------



## montelatici (Dec 30, 2015)

There cannot be a two state solution any longer.  The populations of Jews and non-Jews are living too close to each other in a very crowded land.  There will be a million Jewish Israelis in the West Bank before long and they aren't going anywhere.  The non-Jewish citizens of Israel have grown to 25% of the population (Arab and non-Arab gentiles) and the natural growth of the non-Jews exceeds that of the Jews.  The Jewish Israelis living in the West Bank are approaching 10% of the Jewish citizens of Israel.  So in fact, over 30% of the Israeli citizens living in Israel proper, are not Jewish.


----------



## Coyote (Dec 31, 2015)

Shusha said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > So given that - how can you determine who has a greater "tie" or "right" to be there?
> ...



I agree with your conclusion - I just don't see the means to determine it.  How far back in history do you go to determine "historical ties"?  How do you untangle the snarl of historical claims in lands where migrations and invasions have been frequent?  You have multiple groups with overlapping claims.



> Personally, I think using genetic testing to support or deny a people's right to self-identification and self-determination to be heinous.  Its technology-assisted racism.  People's rights should be no more based on their mDNA or haplotype than on their skin color or the shapes of their noses.



Agree, and when it's used to try to determine legitimacy, it's only purpose is to disenfranchise the claims of the other side.



> Near as I can tell, I am the only person on this whole forum not trying to deny rights to the "other" group or claim that one group's rights supercede or replace the other's.



No, I agree with you - both sides have a just claim.  The indiginous population consisted of a variety of ethnic and religious people that included Jews, Christians, Muslims, Druze and other smaller sects.  You can say any one is an "invader" or a "squatters" etc. - historically, they've been there a long time.

The issue is how to divide the pie when they don't get along.


----------



## Shusha (Dec 31, 2015)

Coyote said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



If we agree that both the Jewish people and the Palestinian people have overlapping, but valid claims -- its just a matter of deciding on a border.  And you and I have agreed to the basic concepts, yes?  

Contiguity.  Security.  Splitting of Jerusalem along population lines.  Allowing the residents themselves, especially those along the border some choice.  Dual citizenship.  Family reunification.  Shared caretakership of holy sites with equal access?

Wouldn't you say that we agree as to the concepts?


----------



## RoccoR (Dec 31, 2015)

Coyote, et al,

And that is the million dollar question...



Coyote said:


> The issue is how to divide the pie when they don't get along.


*(COMMENT)*

The US has not learned yet, that it is so very often true --- you cannot just give "peace," and "security" to a people.  In most cases --- you cannot just hand over a liberated country to the people.

Not one single faction within the ranks of the Palestinians has demonstrated that they have the necessary abilities, and the prerequisite skills to organized a peace settlement --- let alone the abilities to set-up a productive negotiation framework.

And I get the feel that while the Israeli's have the knowledge, skills and abilities to organize such a framework for peace and negotiate a settlement, --- they would need a hell'of'alot of Oxycodone prescription (for the pain) and 200mg of Thorazine for each delegate (antipsychotic medication) just to maintain an atmosphere of a civil dull roar. 

We best remember that the Palestinian is still operating under the Khartoum Resolution, which was:  The “Three NOs” with respect to Israel:


NO peace with Israel
NO recognition of Israel
NO negotiations with Israel

Right off the bat, that kind of political position demonstrates the unwillingness to achieve some peaceful solution.  They want the conflict to continue because they think they can inflict more political pain on the Israelis --- and that the UN and the Humanitarian strap hangers will insure that Israel is not allowed to develop a strategic military solution and impose peace.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Coyote (Dec 31, 2015)

Shusha said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Shusha said:
> ...



Yes, we do


----------



## P F Tinmore (Dec 31, 2015)

Coyote said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...


Then again, how do you divide the pie when one keeps eating it during fake peace talks?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Dec 31, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> Coyote, et al,
> 
> And that is the million dollar question...
> 
> ...


When there is justice peace will follow.


----------



## rhodescholar (Dec 31, 2015)

aris2chat said:


> How does middle easterners settling in Ireland 5000 yrs ago support the mass death of jews?  Before jumping to the conclusion there was any suggestion of insult to hate towards jews, you might have done your own search or asked for more information.  To be more specific, the DNA origins are from the Caspian Steppe, basically north of today's Armenia and Georgia. How does that in any way support harm to jews?  Even if they had Phoenician DNA it would in no way support harm to jews. You can shove your language an attitude where the sun doesn't shine.



I was told you are a supporter of jews and Israel and have mistaken you for another poster with a similar name, if not here than on another of the 30+ forums I regularly participate on. 

If that is the case, my apologies and I retract all negative comments and personal insults.  I reserve them for use against the various jew-hating filth in my signature, not against supporters of Israel and the sane.


----------



## Billo_Really (Dec 31, 2015)

rhodescholar said:


> I was told you are a supporter of jews and Israel and have mistaken you for another poster with a similar name, if not here than on another of the 30+ forums I regularly participate on.
> 
> If that is the case, my apologies and I retract all negative comments and personal insults.  I reserve them for use against the various jew-hating filth in my signature, not against supporters of Israel and the sane.


Hey, where's my apology?

I support Jews _(up on Pico Blvd)._


----------



## Billo_Really (Dec 31, 2015)

Indeependent said:


> You are misinterpreting aris2chat's sarcasm.


_Shssssssh..._


----------



## Hossfly (Dec 31, 2015)

Billo_Really said:


> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> > I was told you are a supporter of jews and Israel and have mistaken you for another poster with a similar name, if not here than on another of the 30+ forums I regularly participate on.
> ...


Then you win a seegar, Billy O.


----------



## aris2chat (Dec 31, 2015)

rhodescholar said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> > How does middle easterners settling in Ireland 5000 yrs ago support the mass death of jews?  Before jumping to the conclusion there was any suggestion of insult to hate towards jews, you might have done your own search or asked for more information.  To be more specific, the DNA origins are from the Caspian Steppe, basically north of today's Armenia and Georgia. How does that in any way support harm to jews?  Even if they had Phoenician DNA it would in no way support harm to jews. You can shove your language an attitude where the sun doesn't shine.
> ...



I have tried to be a supporter of truth, reason and peace since the 70's working in the camps.  I'm anti-terrorism, irrational hate and violence.
I have my grudges and enemies but they do not include whole populations ........... maybe ISIS.  I've had my fill of war, bigotry, propaganda, terrorism and bombings.


----------



## Hollie (Dec 31, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Shusha said:
> ...



Agreed. 

The Avalon Project : Hamas Covenant 1988


----------



## Billo_Really (Dec 31, 2015)

Hossfly said:


> Then you win a seegar, Billy O.


And you win a new avatar!








As far as the Palestinian solution is concerned,  what needs to happen is for Israel to obey international law and stop acting like it lives by a different set of rules than everyone else.


----------



## Shusha (Dec 31, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> Then again, how do you divide the pie when one keeps eating it during fake peace talks?



Your analogy is faulty.  Israel is not eating the pie.  Or pieces of the pie. 

What Israel is doing is permitting the Jewish people to move onto land and then protecting them.  What Israel is doing is placing pieces of pepperoni on a cheese pizza.  

And the Palestinians are saying,  "There must not be any pepperoni on our pizza (which is racism, of course). 

So Israel says,"No worries, we get that you don't like pepperoni, so we'll take the ones with the pepperoni and you can have these pieces over here which have no pepperoni on it -- the same size pieces and the same number of pieces.  4 for you and 4 for us.  No problem."  

And the Palestinians say, "No! no!  We must have that particular piece of pizza.  But you must remove all the pepperoni (which is ethnic cleansing -- removing people due to their ethnicity).  

The reason why there is no peace, is not that Israel is taking land -- its that Palestinians refuse to have a multi-ethnic, diverse, fair and equal society.  (Something which is common to all Muslim nations).  

And here's the test to see if you are comfortable with racism and ethnic cleansing being applied equally:  if all the Jews must leave Palestine, do all the Arab Palestinians have to leave Israel?  Is the point to make two homogeneous States, with none of the "other" in each State?  If it is not -- why are you insisting on it for the one side?


----------



## montelatici (Dec 31, 2015)

Why would the Arabs living Israel leave their homeland.  Their ancestors were there long before the European Zionists arrived and dispossessed most of them.


----------



## Hollie (Dec 31, 2015)

montelatici said:


> Why would the Arabs living Israel leave their homeland.  Their ancestors were there long before the European Zionists arrived and dispossessed most of them.


Arabs living in Israel or in the areas they occupy in Gaza'istan and the West Bank of Israel have no right of return to their homelands in Egypt, Syria, Jordan, etc.  They have made themselves into nothing but a financial and political burden.


----------



## Shusha (Dec 31, 2015)

montelatici said:


> Why would the Arabs living Israel leave their homeland.  Their ancestors were there long before the European Zionists arrived and dispossessed most of them.



Why should the Jewish people have to leave their homeland?  Land that they would have been living  on for thousands of years if they hadn't been forced out? 

And why is it permissible to ethnically cleanse a land for any reason?  

Why can't the Palestinians just accept some of the Jewish people as citizens?  Seriously, why is that so freaking hard?  Wouldn't have anything to do with the whole apes and pigs thing they have learned from the cradle, would it?


----------



## montelatici (Dec 31, 2015)

The Palestinians have always stated that the inhabitants of Palestine should be afforded citizenship and equal rights regardless of religion.  The European Zionists would not accept anything but Jewish rule over the non-Jews. 

As early as 1922 the Christian-Muslim Delegation to London said as much, in writing in a letter to the Colonial Office:

*"PALESTINE.*

*CORRESPONDENCE *
*WITH THE*
*PALESTINE ARAB DELEGATION*
*AND THE *
*ZIONIST ORGANISATION.*

*Presented to Parliament by Command of His Majesty.*
*JUNE, 1922.*
*LONDON:*

The Delegation requests that the constitution for Palestine should—




(1) Safeguard the civil, political and economic interests of the People.

(2) Provide for the creation of a national independent Government in accordance with the spirit of paragraph 4, Article 22, of the Covenant of the League of Nations.

(3) Safeguard the legal rights of foreigners.

(4) Guarantee religious equality to all peoples.

(5) Guarantee the rights of minorities.

(6) Guarantee the rights of the Assisting Power.


The Delegation is quite confident that the justice of the British Government and its sense of fair play will make it consider the above remarks with a sympathetic mind, since the Delegation's chief object is to lay in Palestine the foundation of a stable Government that would command the respect of the inhabitants and guarantee peace and prosperity to all.

"UK correspondence with Palestine Arab Delegation and Zionist Organization/British policy in Palestine: "Churchill White Paper" - UK documentation Cmd. 1700/Non-UN document (excerpts) (1 July 1922)


----------



## Hollie (Dec 31, 2015)

montelatici said:


> The Palestinians have always stated that the inhabitants of Palestine should be afforded citizenship and equal rights regardless of religion.  The European Zionists would not accept anything but Jewish rule over the non-Jews.
> 
> As early as 1922 the Christian-Muslim Delegation to London said as much, in writing in a letter to the Colonial Office:
> 
> ...



That bit of taqiyya-speak was as pointless then as now.

That Arab invaders had no intention of that list applying to them.


----------



## Shusha (Dec 31, 2015)

montelatici said:


> The Palestinians have always stated that the inhabitants of Palestine should be afforded citizenship and equal rights regardless of religion.



Then why can't the Jewish people pray at our own holy site?


----------



## montelatici (Dec 31, 2015)

Shusha said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > The Palestinians have always stated that the inhabitants of Palestine should be afforded citizenship and equal rights regardless of religion.
> ...



You would have to ask the Israeli and Jordanian governments.  The Palestinians are not a party to the treaty between Jordan and Israel.


----------



## Shusha (Dec 31, 2015)

montelatici said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...




But it is the _Palestinians_ who are creating a fuss (a violent fuss) when Jewish people walk on or pray at our holy site.  Your claim is that _Palestinians_ support equal rights regardless of religion.  IF the _Palestinians_ did support that, surely the _Palestinians_ wouldn't be hiring women to harass Jews and hiring young men to hoard weapons inside the mosque.


----------



## aris2chat (Dec 31, 2015)

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Then again, how do you divide the pie when one keeps eating it during fake peace talks?
> ...




People forget how much of the land was owned by jews before '47 or Jordan annexed the WB and palestinians nullified all sales of land to jews years after the fact.

When palestinians end the violence they can sit down and talk to Israel and work out some compromise agreement so there can be a palestinian state that recognizes Israel's right to exist as a jewish state.


----------



## montelatici (Dec 31, 2015)

aris2chat said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



I know exactly how much land was owned by the Jews before 1947.  Less than 5%.






Berman Jewish Policy Archive

A Survey of Palestine Volume 2  | Berman Jewish Policy Archive @ NYU Wagner


----------



## Coyote (Jan 1, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote, et al,
> ...




I like to think that but I'm not so sure.  There is no Nelson Mandella figure to negotiate peace and reconciliation.  Without reconciliation can you have true peace and true justice?  I'm thinking about countries like the former Rhodesia where "justice" turned into vengeance.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jan 1, 2016)

aris2chat said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


It is Israel's war. Only Israel can end the violence.


----------



## Hollie (Jan 1, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> > Shusha said:
> ...


Nonsense. Read the Hamas Charter.


----------



## Hollie (Jan 1, 2016)

montelatici said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> > Shusha said:
> ...


That's not surprising as the greater Arab population would have been the result of the Ottoman colonizers who had earlier invaded the area.


----------



## Indeependent (Jan 1, 2016)

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > aris2chat said:
> ...



Tinmore's copy of the Hamas Charter is different than yours; or anybody else's.


----------



## montelatici (Jan 1, 2016)

Indeependent said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



What does the Hamas charter have to do with anything?  It has as much to with the issue as the Likud Charter which states in part:


"....... Judea and Samaria will not be handed to any foreign administration; between the Sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty.

A plan which relinquishes parts of western Eretz Israel, undermines our right to the country, unavoidably leads to the establishment of a "Palestinian State," jeopardizes the security of the Jewish population, endangers the existence of the State of Israel......"


----------



## Hollie (Jan 1, 2016)

montelatici said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


The Hamas Charter has everything to do with Arab-Islamist fascism. 

You should take the time to read it so you can perhaps respond with a middling amount of relevant commentary.


----------



## RoccoR (Jan 1, 2016)

Hollie, aris2chat, Shusha, P F Tinmore, et al,

I once was told that there is less than 500 years of recorded human history [roughly 6000 years -- from proto-writing in Jiahu symbols (ca. 6600 BCE), past Vinča signs (ca. 5300 BCE), and early Indus script (ca. 3500 BCE)] when the known world was at peace.  War is not based solely on the political or economic reasons (driving the political-military solution); but, more on the willingness of a people to assume the risk.  If the Arab League thought that it was more likely that they would fail in the joint uniformed attack on Israel in 1948, it would be unreasonable to assume that the would adopt that solution.   Similarly, if the Egyptians has thought that there would be a formidable military opposition solution in 1967, they would have thought twice about closing the Straits of Titan and move the two Re-enforced Egyptian Corps into the buffer zone of the Sinai.  Nor would have Egypt mounted a second combined military operations during 1973 Holiday of Yom Kipper if they would have known that the entire Egyptian 3d Army were to be placed at risk and likely surrounded in the Sinai; without an Air Defense umbrella, cut-off from resupply, and repulsed with heavy casualties.



Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > aris2chat said:
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

Today,  even with history --- the complete decimation of the Holy War Army and the Arab Liberation Army (quasi-Irregular Palestinians Forces), today's Hostile Arab Palestinian and its totally unsuccessful and fail government leadership of more than a quarter century  --- and more that four decades of failed jihadist / terrorist attacks, the Palestinians still attempt to make demands on the opening criteria and agenda that sets the conditions for negotiation.   In essence, the HoAP still has the will to settle their disputes through violence.

The conflict with the Jewish State of Israel initiated by the combined military Arabs attack within a day of Israeli independence, will end with a good faith effort and willingness to compromise by the last remaining initiator (the Palestinians).  Or, the Palestinians assume the responsibility for the continuation of hostilities; and the adverse impact it has on the development of the Palestinian People who politically supported the combative Jihadist and Fedayeen.

ISIS Declares War On Israel In Palestine, Promising To Make It A Graveyard For Jews
26 DECEMBER 2015 | by: Zachary Volkert

In no uncertain terms, the Islamic extremist group’s leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi released a social media audio statement that promised a war in Palestine against Israel and the Jewish people. ISIS, the message revealed, is putting specific emphasis on the contested area in its efforts to gain control in the region, reported _The Times of Israel_.

“Israel will pay a heavy price at the hands of our fighters… Palestine will not be your land or your home. It will be a graveyard for you. Allah has gathered you in Palestine so that the Muslims may kill you… The Jews thought that we forgot about Palestine and diverted our attention from it. Never, Jews. We have not forgotten Palestine for a moment. The leaders of the jihad fighters will surround you on a day you think is far, but we see it as close. We are coming closer to you day by day.”​
Is there a connection between the Palestinians and Islamic State (DAESH)?  It is interesting to note that the Salafist-jihadi ("extreme form of Sunni Islamism that rejects democracy") organizations and the Radicalized Islamic counterparts are attempting to make an association between DAESH (Islamic State) with Israel and the US.  This is a very disparate attempt by the Sunni Salafist-jihadi to make some kind of villainous image for political purposes.  But most people, who have some knowledge of the US or Israel, know that the life-style has very little in common with the radicalized Islamic organizations such as:

Ansar Bait al-Maqdis (aka Ansar Jerusalem) Gaza 2012–present
Ansar al-Sharia (Egypt) Egypt 2012–present
Jaish al-Ummah (JaU) Israel (Gaza) 2007–present
Jaish al-Islam (aka Tawhid and Jihad Brigades) Gaza, Egypt (Sinai) 2005–present
Jamaat Ansar Bayt al-Maqdis Egypt (Sinai) 2011–present
Mujahideen Shura Council Gaza, Egypt (Sinai) 2011–present
Muhammad Jamal Network (MJN) Egypt 2011–present

*Saudi Grand Mufti calls ISIS “part of the Israeli army”*
Bruce Riedel | December 28, 2015

The revealing interview this week with Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia Sheikh Abdulaziz Al Sheikh provides important insight into the Wahhabi establishment, which is the core partner of the House of Saud.

The Mufti praised the creation of an Islamic military alliance to fight terrorism, promising the alliance will defeat the Islamic State, which he labeled a heretical and un-Islamic movement. The new alliance is the brainchild of Deputy Crown Prince and Defense Minister Prince Muhammed bin Salman, the king’s favorite son.

The 72-year old cleric was asked about comments made by Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the self proclaimed caliph of the Islamic State, that the new alliance is not serious because it is not "killing Jews and liberating Palestine." Al-Baghadi called the new Saudi-led alliance a pawn of the United States and Israel, promising that the "tanks of the _mujahideen_ are moving closer to Israel day after day."​
While the Charter of the Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS) is somewhat dated, it basic concepts are still imbedded in the foundation of the organization.  Just last May, (2015) Palestinian Authority (PA) Chairman Mahmoud Abbas's Fatah faction marked "Nakba" day - signifying the "catastrophe" of the establishment of the modern state of Israel - by calling for terrorism to destroy Israel and conquer the state as the "only" way.    And the quarter century old HAMAS Covenant is not so readically different from todays HAMAS:



			
				Khalid Mishaal said:
			
		

> "3. We will not, in any way, recognize the legitimacy of the occupation. This is a principled, political, and moral position. We do not recognize the legitimacy of the Israeli occupation of Palestine, nor do we acknowledge “Israel” or the legality of its presence on any part of Palestine no matter how long it remains, and Allah willing, this will not be long. All that has occurred in Palestine, including its occupation, settlements, Judaization, the changing of its landmarks and the falsification of facts in its regard is wrong and must end, Allah willing. "



Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## rhodescholar (Jan 1, 2016)

Shusha said:


> Your analogy is faulty.  Israel is not eating the pie.  Or pieces of the pie.
> 
> What Israel is doing is permitting the Jewish people to move onto land and then protecting them.  What Israel is doing is placing pieces of pepperoni on a cheese pizza.
> 
> ...



The ***** won't admit to that because it would expose them as frauds, showing that they believe jews have no right to an inch of land in the region, and that only muslims can be sovereign in the mideast.  

Notice how the leftist trash / far left allies of the arab muslims never seem to have an issue with the ethnic cleansing of non-muslims out of the mideast - right now ISIS is clearing non-muslim minorities out of syria and iraq, but the verminous jew-hating turds won't focus on that.

All you have to do to expose the arab muslim filth and their jew-hating allied dung is to ask if jews or any other minorities have a right to sovereignty in the mideast; when they refuse to respond, or equivocate their answer, you know you are dealing the racist trash that perfectly presents the arab muslim racist state of mind: that only arab muslims can be sovereign there.  But sadly, this racism is never called out by the leftist news media, or organizations pretending to be for human rights.


----------



## montelatici (Jan 1, 2016)

The Arab League was attempting to prevent the killing and ethnic cleansing of the non-Jews by the European colonists.  What are you on about Rocco?  They failed, but it would have been criminal if they hadn't at least tried to save the non-Jews. The British were well aware of what the European colonists had in mind. Newly declassified documents confirm this fact

*"British officials predicted war – and Arab defeat – in Palestine in 1948*

Declassified UK reports document build-up of conflict, Jewish public's endorsement of their leaders' pro-terrorist stance and *declare armies of Arab states were Palestinians' 'only hope'.*

*British officials predicted war – and Arab defeat – in Palestine in 1948*


----------



## Shusha (Jan 1, 2016)

Coyote said:


> I like to think that but I'm not so sure.  There is no Nelson Mandella figure to negotiate peace and reconciliation.  Without reconciliation can you have true peace and true justice?  I'm thinking about countries like the former Rhodesia where "justice" turned into vengeance.



There can not be justice until the fundamental underlying ideologies change and the Arab Muslims, along with those Westerners who support them, stop demonizing Israel and begin to recognize her rights.  Her rights to territory; her rights to be a State for the Jewish people; her rights to her own history; her rights to pray and worship and protect her holy places; the right of her people to determine their own values and laws and culture; the right to defend their citizens, their borders and their territory.  

The problem is that there are no Arab Muslims who are willing to really acknowledge and fundamentally believe in the rights of the Jewish people.  And there are a shockingly large number of Westerners who also fail to believe in the rights of the Jewish people (witness this forum).  

Let's look at Gaza.  Israel has no interest in Gaza.  It is not home to important holy places, it is not a vital area of security.  Israel can give up Gaza with virtually no consequences.  Gaza also has a ton of potential as a self-supporting, viable nation  (think of the tourism opportunities -- have you seen the beaches?)  So it seems to me to be a no-brainer to encourage Gaza to independance.

So Israel pulls entirely out of Gaza -- uprooting 10,000 people and ethnically cleansing Gaza for the Palestinian peoples.  The borders are not in dispute.   What would have happened if there had been a leader to arise out of Gaza who decided to develop Gaza into a viable nation State, living peacefully alongside with Egypt and Israel, developing trade and the economy, caretaking the water supply, providing social services, developing agriculture and tourism.  No rockets, no mortars, no suicide bombers, no tunnels, no kidnapping of soldiers?  What would have happened?  

It seems to me that we would have a thriving State of Gaza.  

So why didn't it happen?  Because a thriving State of Gaza is not what the Palestinians want. 

And this talk about, "defending themselves" is a load of BS.  Defending themselves from whom?  What is it, exactly, that the Gazans want Israel to do?  Yes, yes -- remove the blockade and normalize the border.  I get that.  But what makes people think that removing the blockade and normalizing an international border when you are importing weapons and constantly committing attacks on innocent Israeli civilians is going to happen?   Are you kidding?  The blockade ends when the belligerence ends.  If they stopped attacking Israel and just worked on their own shit -- there would not be any more conflict.  It would be over.  

Do Gazans have a right to defend themselves?  Of course they do.  But NO ONE is attacking them.  A blockade is a DEFENSE not an attack. 

So, yes, we need someone in Gaza to lead them to peace.  There is no such person there at this point.  And unfortunately, far too many people support Hamas; their anti-Israel and antisemitic ideology and their charter which demands that every inch of the territory be returned to Muslim rule.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jan 1, 2016)

Shusha said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > I like to think that but I'm not so sure.  There is no Nelson Mandella figure to negotiate peace and reconciliation.  Without reconciliation can you have true peace and true justice?  I'm thinking about countries like the former Rhodesia where "justice" turned into vengeance.
> ...


It seems to me that we would have a thriving State of Gaza.

So why didn't it happen? Because a thriving State of Gaza is not what the Palestinians want.​
Part of Israel's disengagement was implementing a system of closure. This destroyed Gaza's economy and prevented any further development.


----------



## montelatici (Jan 1, 2016)

A blockade is an offensive Act of War.  The Gazans are entitled to attempt to break the blockade as a defensive measure.

Under international and US law, blockades are acts of war and variously defined as:

– surrounding a nation or objective with hostile forces;

– measures to isolate an enemy;

– encirclement and besieging;

– preventing the passage in or out of supplies, military forces or aid in time of or as an act of war; and

– an act of naval warfare to block access to an enemy’s coastline and deny entry to all vessels and aircraft.

Blockades: Acts of War


----------



## Hollie (Jan 1, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...


I'm afraid yours are the stereotypical excuses for Pali-Arab incompetence and ineptitude. The Palis had an opportunity after Israel's unilateral withdraw to establish a functioning society and a viable attempt at industry and commerce. They chose the route of belligerent Islamic terrorist and the attacks at Israel followed soon after.


----------



## Hollie (Jan 1, 2016)

montelatici said:


> A blockade is an offensive Act of War.  The Gazans are entitled to attempt to break the blockade as a defensive measure.
> 
> Under international and US law, blockades are acts of war and variously defined as:
> 
> ...


----------



## Hollie (Jan 1, 2016)

montelatici said:


> A blockade is an offensive Act of War.  The Gazans are entitled to attempt to break the blockade as a defensive measure.
> 
> Under international and US law, blockades are acts of war and variously defined as:
> 
> ...


Although, blockades can be an effective military tactic against a belligerent enemy.


The War at sea

In January 1916, in reply to an enquiry from former Prime Minister and then First Lord of the Admiralty Arthur Balfour, Commander-in-Chief of The Grand Fleet John Rushworth Jellicoe stressed the importance of playing to the Navy’s main strength – its size – to retain control of the North Sea: ‘…as to a possible naval offensive… I have long arrived at the conclusion that it would be suicidal to divide our main fleet...’ For the first two years of the war the Allies accordingly concentrated their naval efforts on a defensive strategy of protecting trade routes, developing anti-submarine devices and maintaining the blockade rather than actively seeking direct confrontation. - See more at: The War at sea


----------



## RoccoR (Jan 1, 2016)

montelatici,  et al,

Hmmm, I'm confused.  Is your complaint about a Declaration of War?



montelatici said:


> A blockade is an offensive Act of War.  The Gazans are entitled to attempt to break the blockade as a defensive measure.
> 
> Under international and US law, blockades are acts of war and variously defined as:
> 
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

The Palestinians harbor terrorist, declare Jihad, and dig tunnels to cross the frontier into Israel .... AND THEN .... you complain about border controls over Israeli Borders, and the establishment of a registered blockade to the Program of Action to Prevent, Combat and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects; and to prevent all supplies that could be used for the construct tunnels.


*Report: Hamas Accelerating Its Tunnel-Digging Operations Toward Israeli Border Towns*
*SATURDAY*, 2 JANUARY 15 The Algemeiner.
Hamas has accelerated its tunnel-building operations near the Gaza border towards Israeli towns and villages, Israeli military officials said according to _Walla _news.

Less than two years after Israel delivered Hamas’ tunnel infrastructure a serious blow during Operation Protective Edge in the summer of 2014 Hamas’s fighters have stepped up the pace of their excavations.​
Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Slyhunter (Jan 1, 2016)

Shusha said:


> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> > ...Israel needs to:
> ...


Muslims won't allow anyone freedom to worship except Muslims.


----------



## Slyhunter (Jan 1, 2016)

Put one huge border around them all and whoever survives gets the land.


----------



## Billo_Really (Jan 1, 2016)

Shusha said:


> Your analogy is faulty.  Israel is not eating the pie.  Or pieces of the pie.
> 
> What Israel is doing is permitting the Jewish people to move onto land and then protecting them.


And that is a violation of international law.

You cannot change the demographics of an area under occupation.

You cannot transfer a part of your population into an area you occupy.


----------



## montelatici (Jan 1, 2016)

Slyhunter said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > Billo_Really said:
> ...


----------



## Billo_Really (Jan 1, 2016)

Hollie said:


> Nonsense. Read the Hamas Charter.


The Hamas Charter is a 40 year old document that is outdated not followed anymore.  Hamas leaders say it needs to be revised, but the occupation and blockade must end first.


----------



## RoccoR (Jan 1, 2016)

Billo_Really,  et al,

The Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS) 



Billo_Really said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Nonsense. Read the Hamas Charter.
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

It is all about being a radicalized Salafi-Islamic fundamentalist organization.  When you say they want to revisit the Covenant, what did you mean - change the font?  HAMAS is every bit a threat to peace today, as it was in 1988.  OK so the language is 21st Century:  "Jihad and armed resistance is the correct and authentic means for the liberation of Palestine and the restoration of all rights. "  I think it translates.  

We will not, in any way, recognize the legitimacy of the occupation. This is a principled, political, and moral position. We do not recognize the legitimacy of the Israeli occupation of Palestine, nor do we acknowledge “Israel” or the legality of its presence on any part of Palestine no matter how long it remains, and Allah willing, this will not be long. All that has occurred in Palestine, including its occupation, settlements, Judaization, the changing of its landmarks and the falsification of facts in its regard is wrong and must end, Allah willing ! 

What Is Hamas’s Mission?

As outlined in its 1988 charter (www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/mideast/hamas.htm), Hamas’s principal objective is the confrontation of Israel, which it considers a foreign cancer on sacred Muslim land. Indeed, without this mission, Hamas has no reason to exist; it would simply revert to being the Muslim Brotherhood. Numerous routes exist for achieving this goal, ranging from the evolutionary Islamization of Palestinian society, which would overwhelm Israel through demography, to the armed struggle against the Jewish state.  (_*SOURCE*_:  A Primer on Hamas: Origins, Tactics, Strategy, and Response By Robert Satloff)​*HAMAS Current Political Position 2012*

*•  Hamas political thought and stances in light of the …*
https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/downloads/documents/130319...
1 Hamas’ political thought and stances in light of the Arab uprisings By Khalid Mishaal . This document was originally a paper presented by Mr Khalid Mishaal ...
*•  Hamas Political thought and stances in light of the Arab ...*
pcomalaysia.com/en/hamas-political-thought-and-stances-in-light-of...
Hamas In KL. Mishaal: The occupation has no future on the land of Palestine 12 December 2015. Mishaal talks to the PIC on his visit to Malaysia, Intifada

*Political thought and strategies of Hamas in light of the ...*
www.amec.org.za/palestine-israel/item/1018-political-thought-and...
... Islamists in the Arab World and the Palestinian Issue in Light of the Arab uprisings... regarding the uprisings and how they affect Hamas ... Political Islam ...
Most Respectfully,
R​


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jan 1, 2016)

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Shusha said:
> ...


You have been misinformed.


----------



## Hollie (Jan 1, 2016)

Billo_Really said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Nonsense. Read the Hamas Charter.
> ...


The Hamas Charter is a statement of Islamic fascism which is as relevant to Islamists today as it was 40 years ago.


----------



## Hollie (Jan 1, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


You are ignorant of islamo-history.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jan 1, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> Hmmm, I'm confused.  Is your complaint about a Declaration of War?
> 
> ...


Are you still pimping Israeli propaganda?


----------



## Billo_Really (Jan 1, 2016)

Hollie said:


> The Hamas Charter is a statement of Islamic fascism which is as relevant to Islamists today as it was 40 years ago.


Not according to recent statements by Hamas leaders.


----------



## aris2chat (Jan 1, 2016)

Slyhunter said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > Billo_Really said:
> ...




Freedom to worship is relative.  Other sects are seen as heretics and abused, forced to convert or killed in many cases.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jan 2, 2016)

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Shusha said:
> ...


----------



## Hollie (Jan 2, 2016)

Billo_Really said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > The Hamas Charter is a statement of Islamic fascism which is as relevant to Islamists today as it was 40 years ago.
> ...


Sorry, pointless, but no affirmative steps are being taken by the Islamic terrorists in Gaza to change any of the fascistic ideologies that the Hamas Charter is drenched in.

As recently as today:

Israel strikes Gaza sites after rocket fire


----------



## Shusha (Jan 2, 2016)

montelatici said:


> A blockade is an offensive Act of War.  The Gazans are entitled to attempt to break the blockade as a defensive measure.



Okay.  Let's say that the blockade is an Act of War.  Let's (still!) on this thread, look towards solutions rather than laying blame.

The blockade is a legal Act of War in response to specific, belligerent, indiscriminate, illegal attacks on Israeli citizens.  Again, Israel has no interest in keeping Gaza's territory or in bringing the people of Gaza under her sovereignty.  I think it is pretty apparent why, but to be clear:  its a population hostile to Israel.

There is no way in hell that Israel is going to remove the blockade to such a hostile population.  Especially with so many other Muslim nations and groups willing to fund anyone to attack Israel and, let's be honest, Jews.  It would be suicide to do so. Well, maybe not suicide to Israel, but it would result in some nasty attacks on Israel followed by an even nastier response.  The blockade is, in actual fact, protecting the region from a violent conflict on a much larger scale.  

SO, in light of this and looking for solutions:  What would be the most reasonable thing for the Gazans to do?  Stop attacking Israel.  Seek peaceful relations with Israel.  Grow their own economy.  Use the funds given to them for the benefit of their people.  Obtain sovereignty.  Build really, really nice hotels along the beaches.

Why are Gazans NOT doing this?  What are they hoping to accomplish by NOT doing this?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jan 2, 2016)

Shusha said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > A blockade is an offensive Act of War.  The Gazans are entitled to attempt to break the blockade as a defensive measure.
> ...


Seek peaceful relations with Israel.​
Indeed, why aren't they discussing options.

Hamas offered a truce. What's happening with that?


----------



## Hollie (Jan 2, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...


What's happening with that is acts of war were perpetrated just today by Hamas.

When, outside of the areas occupied by Islamic terrorists, is a truce reinforced by acts of war?

Ultimately, there will never be even a first step toward a Palestine solution without first ending the UN funded welfare system that maintains the funding for Islamic terrorist franchises in Gaza.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jan 2, 2016)

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Shusha said:
> ...


What's happening with that is acts of war were perpetrated just today by Hamas.​
Was that a violation of a truce?


----------



## Shusha (Jan 2, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Hamas offered a truce. What's happening with that?



This truce?  The one accompanied by nearly 3000 rockets that month? 

Here's the deal:  the blockade does not end until the rockets, suicide bombers and tunnel-building ends.  The blockade ends when PEACE becomes the new norm.  Again, I ask, WHY are the Gazan people NOT stopping the violent, belligerent, indiscriminate, illegal attacks?  Instead of "truce" -- why not make a permanent peace treaty with Israel and develop a mutually rewarding relationship?


----------



## montelatici (Jan 2, 2016)

Until Israel removes the blockade, Israel is making war.  When and if Israel removes the blockade, there could be negotiations, until then the Palestinians have every right to try to break the blockade. The fact of the matter is that Israel has no intention of relinquishing control of Gaza whether the Palestinians resist or not.


----------



## Hollie (Jan 2, 2016)

For anyone not familiar with Islamist ideology, the "truce" suggested by Tinmore is not a concept known to Islamism. What tinmore is referring to, and what the Islamic terrorists in Gaza have practiced is a _Hudna. 
_
From the link below:
_
"For a hudna is not a "truce" in the Western sense of that word.  As Dr. Denis MacEoin, writing in the Middle East Quarterly has observed, thereare more thanseven other Arabic words for truce or cease-fire in Arabic. A better understanding of the full cultural baggage attached to hudna is necessary in order to grasp what Marzouk has really said:

A hudna is always temporary, and not for a duration of more than ten years. As a concept, it does not carry within it the potential to develop into a full peace. Rather, it is arrived at during times of Muslim weakness, when it is perceived as desirable to seek a respite from open hostilities. 

Historically hudna is associated with the Truce of al-Hudaybiyya in the seventh century.  Muhammad and his followers had abandoned Mecca to non-Muslims because they did not have sufficient strength to hold it.  At Hudaybiyya, a truce was negotiated that was to permit the Muslims to return unarmed to Mecca annually for the next ten years for purposes of religious pilgrimage. Two years later, however, using an infraction of the agreement as a pretext, Muhammad and his followers, who then had sufficient strength, moved in and took Mecca; its residents, believing they had a truce with Muhammad, were unprepared to do battle."



Read more: Blog: Really Missing the Point on 'Hudna' 
_


----------



## Hollie (Jan 2, 2016)

montelatici said:


> Until Israel removes the blockade, Israel is making war.  When and if Israel removes the blockade, there could be negotiations, until then the Palestinians have every right to try to break the blockade. The fact of the matter is that Israel has no intention of relinquishing control of Gaza whether the Palestinians resist or not.


You're suffering from what is called _cognitive dissonance_. 

The blockade is an effective military tactic that aids in keeping arms, ammunition and war-making supplies from Islamic terrorists occupying Gaza. 

Every national government has a responsibility to protect its citizens. Preventing the flow of arms to the Islamic terrorists in Gaza is a responsibility of the Israeli government to prevent further and continued acts of war being perpetrated by Hamas.


----------



## Shusha (Jan 2, 2016)

montelatici said:


> Until Israel removes the blockade, Israel is making war.  When and if Israel removes the blockade, there could be negotiations, until then the Palestinians have every right to try to break the blockade. The fact of the matter is that Israel has no intention of relinquishing control of Gaza whether the Palestinians resist or not.



The blockade is a response to Hamas making war.  When Hamas stops making war, then negotiations can begin and the blockade can be removed when Hamas (or the government of Gaza) proves its willingness to cease making war and start making peace.  

Again, it would increase the conflict (to Gaza's detriment) to remove the blockade of a hostile, belligerent population with allies willing to fund the destruction of Israel and Jews.

Again, if the goal is simply to end the blockade -- the easiest, most reasonable path to that is to simply stop attacking Israel.  

Again, what is the goal of the Gazan people?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jan 2, 2016)

Hollie said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > Until Israel removes the blockade, Israel is making war.  When and if Israel removes the blockade, there could be negotiations, until then the Palestinians have every right to try to break the blockade. The fact of the matter is that Israel has no intention of relinquishing control of Gaza whether the Palestinians resist or not.
> ...


The blockade is an effective military tactic that aids in keeping arms, ammunition and war-making supplies from Islamic terrorists occupying Gaza.​
Is that why Israel gets no rockets?


----------



## Hollie (Jan 2, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...


No. That's why Israel get fewer rockets than without the blockade. 

But cheer up. Hamas still finds ways to spend their welfare dollars for war making supplies. The result of their acts of war are the inevitable dead Pal'istanians, but really, who cares when those bodies make for good YouTube propaganda videos.


----------



## Shusha (Jan 2, 2016)

The blockade is the BEST military tactic to employ in order to minimize the consequences to innocent Israeli citizens while not escalating the conflict or re-occupying Gaza and applying sovereignty.


----------



## montelatici (Jan 2, 2016)

As long as Israel makes war, and the blockade is war, there is no path to peace. Israel must stop making war.

_
 “belligerent measures taken by a nation (to) prevent passage of vessels or aircraft to and from another country. Customary international law recognizes blockades as an act of war because of the belligerent use of force even against third party nations in enforcing the blockade. Blockades as acts of war have been recognized as such in the Declaration of Paris of 1856 and the Declaration of London of 1909 that delineate the international rules of warfare.”

America approved these Declarations, so they’re binding US law as well “as part of general international law and customary international law.” Past US presidents, including Dwight Eisenhower and Jack Kennedy, called blockades acts of war. So has the US Supreme Court."_

Blockades: Acts of War


----------



## Shusha (Jan 2, 2016)

montelatici said:


> As long as Israel makes war, and the blockade is war, there is no path to peace. Israel must stop making war.



Israel is not making war.  Israel is responding to belligerent, indiscriminate, illegal attacks by a hostile population. 

Again, the consequences of removing the blockade are DIRE for everyone in the region, but for the Gazan people in particular.

Again, the consequences of the government of Gaza ceasing its belligerent attacks are POSITIVE for everyone in the region, but the Gazan people in particular.

So again, WHY are the Gazan people not simply ceasing their attacks?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jan 2, 2016)

Shusha said:


> The blockade is the BEST military tactic to employ in order to minimize the consequences to innocent Israeli citizens while not escalating the conflict or re-occupying Gaza and applying sovereignty.


The Israeli military has been pounding Palestinian civilians for over 70 years and has not won yet.

And they call the Palestinians incompetent.


----------



## Shusha (Jan 2, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > The blockade is the BEST military tactic to employ in order to minimize the consequences to innocent Israeli citizens while not escalating the conflict or re-occupying Gaza and applying sovereignty.
> ...



Did you not read my post?  Israel is trying to avoid escalating conflict and occupying Gaza.  What would "winning" look like to Israel?


----------



## Hollie (Jan 2, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > The blockade is the BEST military tactic to employ in order to minimize the consequences to innocent Israeli citizens while not escalating the conflict or re-occupying Gaza and applying sovereignty.
> ...


And yet, the Pal'istanian terrorists are so quick to whine and moan about "disproportionate force" when Israel responds to acts of war.

My view is that Israel has been far to lenient in its response to decades of provocation from islamic terrorists. Decades of attacks from Pal'istanian terrorists have continued because the cost to them has not been so great as to make it unthinkable to continue.


----------



## Coyote (Jan 2, 2016)

Shusha said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > I like to think that but I'm not so sure.  There is no Nelson Mandella figure to negotiate peace and reconciliation.  Without reconciliation can you have true peace and true justice?  I'm thinking about countries like the former Rhodesia where "justice" turned into vengeance.
> ...



I think that's a one-sided look at the causes of hostility here.  There is a great deal of demonizing of the Palestinians going on as well *that goes unacknowledged*.

One example is the claim that the Palestinians routinely teach their children to hate in their schools.  This is a meme repeated so often many just accept it as true and never question it.  Yet a study by the US State Department found that wasn't entirely true and such and that a similar demonization occurred in Israeli textbooks.  In both cases - such negative accounts were rare enough to be statistically insignificant.  What was more significant was how they portrayed events, emphasizing some, minimizing others and a lack of information humanizing the other side.  This was evident in the text books of both the Palestinians and the Israeli's.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/pomegranate/2013/02/israeli-and-palestinian-textbooks
_The report says that Israeli and Palestinian teachers both portray their neighbours as enemies, though Israel does so considerably less. After ploughing through nearly 30,000 pages of text, the researchers found that 49% of texts dealing with Palestinians in Israeli state-issued schoolbooks are negative; in government-funded Orthodox Jewish academies the figure rises to 73%. One such textbook depicts Arabs as “bloodthirsty” and “a nest of murderers”.

In Palestinian textbooks 84% of the references to Israelis are negative. In both Palestinians and Israeli state schools the books promote “martyrdom-sacrifice through death”. Each side glorifies itself, while denigrating the other._​
_Moreover, *the textbooks tend to deny each other’s existence*. Of 800 maps of their contested land studied by the researchers, *87% of the Israeli ones mark none of the land between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan river as Palestinian, whereas 96% of Palestinian maps make no mention of Israel*. “Israeli school maps feed into the Palestinian narrative that Israel wants to grab more and more land, and Palestinian school maps feed an Israeli narrative that Palestinians want to throw them into the sea,” says Bruce Wexler, the Yale professor who oversaw the project. Israeli critics of the report have panned the Council of Religious Institutions of the Holy Land, an association of local rabbis, imams and priests, who commissioned Mr Wexler, a Jewish American._​
I will agree though, that Israel seems to be ahead of Palestine in recognizing the terrible effects of this type of education, or at least calling it too question. A 2012 lynching of an Arab youth promoted some political soul searching among some politicians: The Jewish Week | Connecting the World to Jewish News, Culture, and Opinion
_
“We have had a couple of generations since the 1967 war and the reality of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict,” said Ami Nahshon, president of the New York-based Abraham Fund Initiatives, which works to promote peaceful coexistence between Israeli Jewish and Arab citizens.


“It should be no huge surprise that generations of Israeli youngsters have grown up with attitudes reinforced by public figures and their own communities and families.”


He cited a public opinion poll by the Israel Democracy Institute that found that about one-third of Israeli Jews do not consider Arab citizens “Israeli,” that nearly 40 percent of Jews would not work under an Arab, two-thirds avoid entering an Arab home, and one-third would deny Arab Israelis their voting rights._​
While this culture of hate is not representative of all Israeli's, neither is it representative of all Palestinians - events are overtaking us.  More and more Palestinian knife attacks on Israeli civilians, more and more extremist Israeli attacks on Palestinians.  Attitudes need to change - but that is going to require a determined effort by the political leadership of both sides and a willingness *to acknowledge each other's rights to exist as a people.*

Given that THIS is what is being taught to the children of both sides - why is it no surprise that neither side recognizes the right of the other to exist?  Israel has a right to exist as a sovereign nation, it's make up and culture and laws to be determined by it's own people. Israel has a right to it's own history.  But so do the Palestinians.  Overall, much of the world recognizes Israel's right to exist.  Far fewer (but growing) recognizes the recipricol right for the Palestinians.



> The problem is that there are no Arab Muslims who are willing to really acknowledge and fundamentally believe in the rights of the Jewish people.  And there are a shockingly large number of Westerners who also fail to believe in the rights of the Jewish people (witness this forum).



I disagree.  This forum - IP in particular, attracts extremists and some of the worst anti-semites and islamophobes.  For every anti-Israeli person there is an equally "passionate" anti-Palestinian person.  Look at the number of people calling for Palestinians to be deported to other Arab countries, referring to them as animals,  stating they have no right to any state.  The majority of people here recognize Israel's right to exist, fewer grant that to the Palestinians.  When it comes to having other nations recognize Israel as a "Jewish State" it gets more complicated because it is, in fact, a state with a plurality of religions and more than one definition of "citizenship".  This is not just a westerner's viewpoint, it's a viewpoint expressed by many Israelis themselves.  I think most of the anger comes not from Israel's existence, but from the lack of a just solution for the Palestinians.



> Let's look at Gaza.  Israel has no interest in Gaza.  It is not home to important holy places, it is not a vital area of security.  Israel can give up Gaza with virtually no consequences.  Gaza also has a ton of potential as a self-supporting, viable nation  (think of the tourism opportunities -- have you seen the beaches?)  So it seems to me to be a no-brainer to encourage Gaza to independance.
> 
> So Israel pulls entirely out of Gaza -- uprooting 10,000 people and ethnically cleansing Gaza for the Palestinian peoples.  The borders are not in dispute.   What would have happened if there had been a leader to arise out of Gaza who decided to develop Gaza into a viable nation State, living peacefully alongside with Egypt and Israel, developing trade and the economy, caretaking the water supply, providing social services, developing agriculture and tourism.  No rockets, no mortars, no suicide bombers, no tunnels, no kidnapping of soldiers?  What would have happened?
> 
> ...



What would have happened if Israel chose to recognize the legitimacy of Gaza's elected government and tried to work with them?  I'm not saying Hamas is good etc etc - but as a political power they were never given the chance to prove themselves.



> And this talk about, "defending themselves" is a load of BS.  Defending themselves from whom?  What is it, exactly, that the Gazans want Israel to do?  Yes, yes -- remove the blockade and normalize the border.  I get that.  But what makes people think that removing the blockade and normalizing an international border when you are importing weapons and constantly committing attacks on innocent Israeli civilians is going to happen?   Are you kidding?  The blockade ends when the belligerence ends.  If they stopped attacking Israel and just worked on their own shit -- there would not be any more conflict.  It would be over.



Israel has systematically destroyed Gaza's economy (and yes, Hamas has done little to improve it) but it's kind of what came first the chicken or the egg.  Israel left Gaza (and I wouldn't call it "ethnic cleansing" since the settlements weren't legal), but it still retained control over Gaza’s borders, power grid, trade (import/exports), airspace and coastline - pretty significant if you want to develop an economy.



> Do Gazans have a right to defend themselves?  Of course they do.  But NO ONE is attacking them.  A blockade is a DEFENSE not an attack.



A blockade is a defense to one, and an attack to the other.



> So, yes, we need someone in Gaza to lead them to peace.  *There is no such person there at this point. * And unfortunately, far too many people support Hamas; their anti-Israel and antisemitic ideology and their charter which demands that every inch of the territory be returned to Muslim rule.



Unfortunately, I agree - but it's not just attitudes in Gaza that need to change.  There are far too many Israeli's who believe that Israel has a right to all of those lands and that fear is justified to them in Israeli textbooks and in expanding settlements.


----------



## Shusha (Jan 2, 2016)

Coyote, I appreciate your continued interest in this thread and your continued focus on looking forward and at solutions.  There's alot to address in your post.  I'll do my best, but let me know if I miss something important and I will come back to it.  



Coyote said:


> I think that's a one-sided look at the causes of hostility here.  There is a great deal of demonizing of the Palestinians going on as well *that goes unacknowledged*.
> 
> While this culture of hate is not representative of all Israeli's, neither is it representative of all Palestinians - events are overtaking us.  More and more Palestinian knife attacks on Israeli civilians, more and more extremist Israeli attacks on Palestinians.  Attitudes need to change - but that is going to require a determined effort by the political leadership of both sides and a willingness *to acknowledge each other's rights to exist as a people.*
> 
> Given that THIS is what is being taught to the children of both sides - why is it no surprise that neither side recognizes the right of the other to exist?  Israel has a right to exist as a sovereign nation, it's make up and culture and laws to be determined by it's own people. Israel has a right to it's own history.  But so do the Palestinians.  Overall, much of the world recognizes Israel's right to exist.  Far fewer (but growing) recognizes the recipricol right for the Palestinians.



This is by far the hardest to address.  

Yes, there is some demonizing of Palestinians.  You will get no argument from me on that point.  However, I find it disproportionate in both word and deed on the Palestinian side.  Israelis are not committing hundreds of knife attacks on Arabs.  Though there has been one that I know of.  Jewish people are not harassing Muslims on the Temple Mount when they visit or pray there.  Jewish people are not naming streets for suicide bombers or hanging the names of suicide bombers on Xmas trees outside of universities.  Jewish people are not creating commemorative art displays celebrating dead Arabs in pizza parlours.  Preschool Jewish children do not have holiday plays for their parents which depict killing the Arabs and wearing bombs on themselves.  Etc, etc.  

I ENTIRELY and very strongly disagree that much of the world denies Palestinian right to exist as a sovereign nation.  I also strongly disagree that most Israelis (and Jews) deny the right of the Palestinians to sovereignty.  I think that is an accepted concept in Israel.  




> This forum - IP in particular, attracts extremists and some of the worst anti-semites and islamophobes.  For every anti-Israeli person there is an equally "passionate" anti-Palestinian person.  Look at the number of people calling for Palestinians to be deported to other Arab countries, referring to them as animals,  stating they have no right to any state.



I have admittedly only been here for a few weeks.  And only on I/P, not on the other forums.  I have seen one person call for the deportation of Palestinans (an idea I promptly and strongly disagreed with).  I have seen no one call Palestinians animals.  And I have seen no one state Palestinians have no right to a state (although there has been one person questioning as to whether or not they have a right to another two states).  Now, I don't read every thread.  This board is too busy for that (a plus for me).  

On the other side, anti-semitism is rampant here.  There is a whole party going on on another thread with multiple people claiming all sorts of traditional anti-semitic stereotypes.  



> The majority of people here recognize Israel's right to exist, fewer grant that to the Palestinians.


I disagree.  Only one poster on the pro-Israel+pro-Palestinian side routinely denies two more states for the Palestinians.  He thinks the Palestinians should be happy with just one.  The rest of us, as far as I can see, agree that there should be one or two more Palestinian states.  



> Israel has systematically destroyed Gaza's economy (and yes, Hamas has done little to improve it) but it's kind of what came first the chicken or the egg.  Israel left Gaza (and I wouldn't call it "ethnic cleansing" since the settlements weren't legal), but it still retained control over Gaza’s borders, power grid, trade (import/exports), airspace and coastline - pretty significant if you want to develop an economy.



Of course it was ethnic cleansing.  Removing people from land which they purchased and live because they are the "wrong" ethnic group is the very definition of ethnic cleansing.  It is not illegal for a person of the  "wrong" ethnic group to live under the sovereignty of another ethnic group.  It does not confer or remove sovereignty for a person or a bunch of the "wrong" ethnic group to live in a territory.  Arab Palestinian Muslims living in Israel does not change the sovereignty of Israel.  Those Arab Palestinian Muslims do not have to be removed from Israel in order for Israel to have sovereignty over that territory.  The very idea of removing Arab Muslim Palestinians from Israel is heinous.  You even implied that it was heinous when discussing the one member who suggests deporting Palestinians to Jordan. And yet, when discussing Jews -- no one seems to realize that it is the exact same thing.  It is heinous to uproot people and force them to move because they are the "wrong" ethnicity.  And this applies to everyone!  Not just to Palestinians.  !

Israel has always been very willing to ease restrictions when belligerent attacks are minimized. With no attacks, restrictions would be minimal and would quickly be removed.  But we both know that can not yet happen.  Because Gazans do not yet want a peaceful, co-existence with Israel.



> A blockade is a defense to one, and an attack to the other.


Not so and here's the test.  If the government of Gaza stops its belligerent, indiscriminate, illegal attacks on Israel -- what will happen?  No more conflict. No more war.  No more deaths.  If Israel lifts the blockade -- what will happen? More weapons are imported into Gaza and the conflict escalates.  



> Unfortunately, I agree - but it's not just attitudes in Gaza that need to change.  There are far too many Israeli's who believe that Israel has a right to all of those lands ...



Israel has absolutely no interest in holding onto Gaza.


----------



## Coyote (Jan 2, 2016)

Shusha said:


> Coyote, I appreciate your continued interest in this thread and your continued focus on looking forward and at solutions.  There's alot to address in your post.  I'll do my best, but let me know if I miss something important and I will come back to it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Israeli's are not committing hundreds of knife attacks on Palestinians because they don't have to - they have all the conventional power on their side. They have the military, and the Palestinians are under military law, they can attack back when and if they feel a need to defend themselves and the casualties are always much higher amongst Palestinian civilians than Israeli civilians.  That's not justifying it - but it's the way things happen in an assymetrical conflict.

Personally - holy places should be open to all worshipers who behave themselves - that's what I feel.   Muslim's need to learn to share it with Jewish worshipers.

When it comes to Jewish people "not naming streets for suicide bombers or hanging the names of suicide bombers on Xmas trees outside of universities" - they don't need to any more.  They already did and that time is now passed and is now part of history and they've won their state.  They still commemerate the bombing of the King David Hotel.

Other terrorists commemerated include Menachem Begin ( though like Nelson Mandella, he was able to transcend terrorism and build a nation) - Irgun commander between 1943-48, a time which saw a dramatic increase in civilian attacks.  David Raziel, Irgun commander of Jeruselum,  who's term included a sequence of bloody market-place bombings, is commemerated by a moshav and by streets bearing his name.



> I ENTIRELY and very strongly disagree that much of the world denies Palestinian right to exist as a sovereign nation.  I also strongly disagree that most Israelis (and Jews) deny the right of the Palestinians to sovereignty.  I think that is an accepted concept in Israel.



You have Netanyahu stating clearly there will be no Palestinian state.  According to this article, a poll shows Israeli support for a 2-state solution at only 51% and Palestinian support is also at 51%.  Perhaps more telling is what each side believes the other's goals are:
_"Fifty-six percent of Palestinians think that Israel’s goals are to extend its borders to cover all the area between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea and expel its Arab citizens, and 25 percent think Israel’s goals are to annex the West Bank while denying political rights to the Palestinians."
"Forty-three percent of Israelis think that Palestinians' aspirations in the long run are to conquer the State of Israel and destroy much of the Jewish population._​
But there are some glimmers of light - this poll is kind of interesting: New Poll Shows Most Palestinians for Practical Progress, Tactical Compromises with Israel
_As Mideast experts and advocates conclude their debate about the Iran nuclear deal, their attention may well revert to the Israeli-Palestinian arena. A new poll demonstrates that Palestinians now have surprisingly nuanced views on many current and controversial issues.


By way of example, majorities in both the West Bank and Gaza still want to "liberate all of historic Palestine" someday, and meanwhile voice support for "armed struggle and car attacks against the occupation." *Yet majorities also desire economic cooperation and a Hamas ceasefire with Israel -- and around half even accept the principle of "a state for the Jewish people," one to which Palestinian refugees would have no "right of return." *One reason for these surprises is simply that this poll asked some questions that other pollsters typically do not._​


> > This forum - IP in particular, attracts extremists and some of the worst anti-semites and islamophobes.  For every anti-Israeli person there is an equally "passionate" anti-Palestinian person.  Look at the number of people calling for Palestinians to be deported to other Arab countries, referring to them as animals,  stating they have no right to any state.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I agree, there is a lot of anti-semitism but there is also a lot of racism and anti-islamism as well and a lot of pretty hateful postings particularly when you go outside of IP.  There have been multiple people callling for deportation of Palestinians, and stating they have no right to a state, they are squatters etc (like the other side talking about invaders) it's all there if you look for it.



> > The majority of people here recognize Israel's right to exist, fewer grant that to the Palestinians.
> 
> 
> I disagree.  Only one poster on the pro-Israel+pro-Palestinian side routinely denies two more states for the Palestinians.  He thinks the Palestinians should be happy with just one.  The rest of us, as far as I can see, agree that there should be one or two more Palestinian states.



What do you mean "two more" states?  They don't even have one.  One state would be ideal but there is no way to make Gaza and West Bank one that I can think of.  Multiple posters have expressed the opinion that the Palestinians should be deported to other Arab states and that Israel "should not give up one inch".




> > Israel has systematically destroyed Gaza's economy (and yes, Hamas has done little to improve it) but it's kind of what came first the chicken or the egg.  Israel left Gaza (and I wouldn't call it "ethnic cleansing" since the settlements weren't legal), but it still retained control over Gaza’s borders, power grid, trade (import/exports), airspace and coastline - pretty significant if you want to develop an economy.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it was ethnic cleansing.  Removing people from land which they purchased and live because they are the "wrong" ethnic group is the very definition of ethnic cleansing.  It is not illegal for a person of the  "wrong" ethnic group to live under the sovereignty of another ethnic group.  It does not confer or remove sovereignty for a person or a bunch of the "wrong" ethnic group to live in a territory.  Arab Palestinian Muslims living in Israel does not change the sovereignty of Israel.  Those Arab Palestinian Muslims do not have to be removed from Israel in order for Israel to have sovereignty over that territory.  The very idea of removing Arab Muslim Palestinians from Israel is heinous.  You even implied that it was heinous when discussing the one member who suggests deporting Palestinians to Jordan. And yet, when discussing Jews -- no one seems to realize that it is the exact same thing.  *It is heinous to uproot people and force them to move because they are the "wrong" ethnicity.*  And this applies to everyone!  Not just to Palestinians.  !



How can it be "ethnic cleansing" when the settlements in Gaza were there illegally?  I agree, it's heinous to force people to move but I also question the authorities in allowing people to build in occupied territories and allowing the situation to occur.  I would consider the expulsion of the Jews from Arab countries following the establishment of Israel as ethnic cleansing, but not the settlements in Gaza.



> Israel has always been very willing to ease restrictions when belligerent attacks are minimized. With no attacks, restrictions would be minimal and would quickly be removed.  But we both know that can not yet happen.  Because Gazans do not yet want a peaceful, co-existence with Israel.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



My impression was that the blockade went up in retaliation for the election of Hamas.



> > Unfortunately, I agree - but it's not just attitudes in Gaza that need to change.  There are far too many Israeli's who believe that Israel has a right to all of those lands ...
> 
> 
> 
> Israel has absolutely no interest in holding onto Gaza.



No, but there is the West Bank.
How can it be "ethnic cleansing" when the settlements in Gaza were there illegally?


----------



## Slyhunter (Jan 2, 2016)

montelatici said:


> Until Israel removes the blockade, Israel is making war.  When and if Israel removes the blockade, there could be negotiations, until then the Palestinians have every right to try to break the blockade. The fact of the matter is that Israel has no intention of relinquishing control of Gaza whether the Palestinians resist or not.


You don't know that until you try the recommended step of following the truce long enough for the rest of the world to know you are serious this time. Until then there is no reason to remove the blockade.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Jan 3, 2016)

Billo_Really said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > Do you refer to Texas and California as occupied territory?  Shit happens when you lose wars you start.
> ...


You can inform the Czech and Slovak citizens as well as Vietnamese, Cambodian, Koreans, Burmese, Sudanese, Ugandans, Tibetians, Congoans, Polish, Argentine, Ethiopians........

But you lefties don't care about what goes on around the world.  Just that 5 mile wide strip of sand where the Jews live.


----------



## Billo_Really (Jan 3, 2016)

Weatherman2020 said:


> You can inform the Czech and Slovak citizens as well as Vietnamese, Cambodian, Koreans, Burmese, Sudanese, Ugandans, Tibetians, Congoans, Polish, Argentine, Ethiopians........
> 
> But you lefties don't care about what goes on around the world.  Just that 5 mile wide strip of sand where the Jews live.


Actually, I don't care about that either.

The only strip of sand I care about, is Sunset Beach, Ca.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Jan 3, 2016)

Billo_Really said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > You can inform the Czech and Slovak citizens as well as Vietnamese, Cambodian, Koreans, Burmese, Sudanese, Ugandans, Tibetians, Congoans, Polish, Argentine, Ethiopians........
> ...


No, you post jibberish about it being illegal to take land by war. That's bullshit.  Sh*t happens when you lose wars you start, and losing land is one of them.

The entire world that is full of bullshit evil focuses upon one tiny strip of sand for one reason and one reason only - the Jews really are Gods chosen people.


----------



## montelatici (Jan 3, 2016)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...


Well, there you go. When a people hold themselves to be better than others, like Germans and others before them did, the problems begin.


----------



## Indeependent (Jan 3, 2016)

montelatici said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > Billo_Really said:
> ...


And when a people damn others to Eternal Hell Fire?


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Jan 3, 2016)

montelatici said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > Billo_Really said:
> ...


More jibberish.  Israel has been the one attacked.  And kicked Islamofascist ass for it.


----------



## Shusha (Jan 3, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Israeli's are not committing hundreds of knife attacks on Palestinians because they don't have to - they have all the conventional power on their side. ...



Really?  That's the reason?  So you believe that Israelis would resort to terrorism -- individually stabbing people and driving cars into bus stops and sending suicide bombers on missions to pizza parlours?  If only they were on the weaker side?  You believe that it is a normal, inevitable function of humanity to resort to terrorism?  Canadians would do it too?  You feel that the reason why 85% of Palestinians feel that terrorism and suicide attacks are justified is because they are victims?  Or that 89% of them believe it is justified to kill someone to defend Islam?  You don't think it has anything to do with a foundational ideology?  Or you think Israelis have the same ideology?




> When it comes to Jewish people "not naming streets for suicide bombers or hanging the names of suicide bombers on Xmas trees outside of universities" - they don't need to any more.  They already did and that time is now passed and is now part of history and they've won their state.  They still commemerate the bombing of the King David Hotel.



I think you attempting to draw an equivalency between the celebration of "martyrs" in Palestinian culture reveals that there is no comparison. First, everyone brings up the King David Hotel bombing.  Everyone.  It isn't even close to the best one to bring up if you want to talk about Jewish terrorism.  Terrorism committed by Jews or Israelis exists.  No doubt about it.  But it is rare.  So rare that everyone brings up the King David Hotel bombing as their go-to move.  An event which happened in the midst of a war more than 60 years ago.  And which was without doubt a viable military target.  Without doubt.  And one which was vital to the success of the Israeli war effort.  And one in which plans to mitigate or prevent civilian deaths were put in place.  AND the commemorative plaque on the hotel recalls the tragedy of those deaths -- it does not celebrate those deaths.

This is in stark contrast to the jubilant celebration of the deaths of Israelis (read also: Jews) that we find in Palestinian culture.
The Palestinian ideology is that the murder of Israelis (read also: Jews) is entirely justified as none are innocent and all are viable military targets.  Those who murder Israelis (Jews) are to be celebrated as heroes, not for having achieved a military victory or a victory of self-determination -- but for killing Jews.  



> What do you mean "two more" states?  They don't even have one.  One state would be ideal but there is no way to make Gaza and West Bank one that I can think of.  Multiple posters have expressed the opinion that the Palestinians should be deported to other Arab states and that Israel "should not give up one inch".



Jordan was the first State created for the self-determination of the Arab Muslim people out of the Palestinian Mandate.  The remainder was intended for the State of the Jewish people.  Now, the Arab Muslims would like another State in Judea and Samaria.  And yet a third in Gaza.  (We agree that reconciliation between Gaza and the PA is unlikely).  Do you think after that they will want a fourth state in Nazareth?  And a fifth in Haifa? Maybe a sixth in the Negev?  As Israel becomes smaller and smaller and smaller?  At what point do we say that,no, THIS land is for the Jewish people?



> How can it be "ethnic cleansing" when the settlements in Gaza were there illegally?



I dispute the idea that the "settlements" are illegal.  The entire concept of the illegality of the settlements rests on the idea that Palestine must be Judenrein -- that no Jews be permitted to live on Palestinian soil -- nor any soil which MAY eventually become Palestinian.  That concept is vile and violates all concepts of human rights against racism and ethnicity.

Land ownership does not confer sovereignty.  And to demand that a territory not contain people of a certain ethnic group is heinous. There is nothing about having Jews living in Gaza or Judea/Samaria which prevents Palestinian sovereignty.

Gaza and Judea and Samaria were ethnically cleansed of all Jewish people in 1948 when Jordan and Egypt occupied the area.  Why is no one screaming for the return of all of those Jewish people and their descendants to their former homes?  Why is it that when a Jew buys a house or builds a house it is considered illegal but when an Arab Muslim buys or builds a house it is not?  Double standards of the most vile variety.

Now, having said that, practically, knowing how ideologically opposed the Arab Muslim Palestinians are to sharing (ahem, cough, cough) "their" land and "their" holy site with the dreadful Jews, it is, perhaps, provocative of Israel to permit Jews to buy houses and walk on Temple Mount.  (And I do hope you sincerely hear how utterly ridiculous that sounds).  Practically speaking, the Jewish people will have to make Gaza and a new State of Palestine Judenrein.  Without the protection of Israel, they simply will not be safe.

Likewise, while you and and I agree that ALL people should (duh!) have access to holy sites -- the Jewish people will have to curtail our rights in order to prevent a holy war by billions of Muslims.  Its not fair.  Its not right.  But what are you to do with billions of Muslims who won't share?



> My impression was that the blockade went up in retaliation for the election of Hamas.



I believe you are mistaken.  Following Hamas' election, they were asked if they would renouce violence against Israel and honor the treaties and agreements already in place.  They refused.  Economic sanctions were put in place (not a blockade).  They responded with belligerent, indiscriminate, illegal attacks.  Blockade was instituted.


However, and again, none of this moves us forward.  I will ask you, since no one else has dared to answer it:  Why are the Gazan people NOT moving toward self-determination and peace alongside Israel?  There is no border dispute.  There is nothing much even to be negotiated.  Why do they not simply cease their attacks?  What is their goal?


----------



## montelatici (Jan 3, 2016)

"Jordan was the first State created for the self-determination of the Arab Muslim people out of the Palestinian Mandate. The remainder was intended for the State of the Jewish people."

Jordan was never intended for the Palestinian people.  It was intended to assuage the Hashemites and their Bedouin tribe for having supported the British in WW1 (Lawrence of Arabia).  Palestine was never intended as a state for the Jewish people. As explained by the British (Churchill):

 "These apprehensions, so far as the Arabs are concerned, are partly based upon exaggerated interpretations of the meaning of the Declaration favouring the establishment of a Jewish National Home in Palestine, made on behalf of His Majesty's Government on 2nd November, 1917. Unauthorised statements have been made to the effect that the purpose in view is to create a wholly Jewish Palestine. Phrases have been used such as that Palestine is to become "as Jewish as England is English." His Majesty's Government regard any such expectation as impracticable and have no such aim in view. Nor have they at any time contemplated, as appears to be feared by the Arab Delegation, the disappearance or the subordination of the Arabic population, language or culture in Palestine..............should be converted into a Jewish National Home, *but that such a Home should be founded in Palestine *In this connection it has been observed with satisfaction that at the meeting of the Zionist Congress, the supreme governing body of the Zionist Organisation, held at Carlsbad in September, 1921, a resolution was passed expressing as the official statement of Zionist aims "the determination of the Jewish people to live with the Arab people on terms of unity and mutual respect, and together with them to make the common home into a flourishing community, the upbuilding of which may assure to each of the peoples an undisturbed national development."...................Further, it is contemplated that the status of all citizens of Palestine in the eyes of the law shall be Palestinian, and it has never been intended that they, or any section of them, should possess any other juridical status."

http://israelipalestinian.procon.org/sourcefiles/ispaldoc1922a.pdf


----------



## Coyote (Jan 4, 2016)

I'm going to answer this in seperate posts - seperating the quotes gets complicated 



Shusha said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Israeli's are not committing hundreds of knife attacks on Palestinians because they don't have to - they have all the conventional power on their side. ...
> ...



Yes I believe Israelis would resort to terrorism* because they did* when they were trying to win a state.  Whether it is inevitable or not...I don't know, I had not thought too much about that but it leads to a question.  In the many conflicts that involved seperatist movements, freedom and rights movements, the creation of new states - did any of them not involve some level of terrorism?


----------



## Coyote (Jan 4, 2016)

Shusha said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > When it comes to Jewish people "not naming streets for suicide bombers or hanging the names of suicide bombers on Xmas trees outside of universities" - they don't need to any more.  They already did and that time is now passed and is now part of history and they've won their state.  They still commemerate the bombing of the King David Hotel.
> ...



I disagree that it is a false equivalency.  I bring up the King David,  because it was a huge bombing and it's contentious as to whether it was a legitimate military target.  But even if you take away that event, you are left with quite a few others: List of Irgun attacks - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia  This list includes cafe bombings, multiple market place bombings, cinima bombings, bus bombings - without doubt civilian targets.  And there are a lot of them.



> This is in stark contrast to the jubilant celebration of the deaths of Israelis (read also: Jews) that we find in Palestinian culture.
> 
> The Palestinian ideology is that the murder of Israelis (read also: Jews) is entirely justified as none are innocent and all are viable military targets.  Those who murder Israelis (Jews) are to be celebrated as heroes, not for having achieved a military victory or a victory of self-determination -- but for killing Jews.



I agree that that view is far more prevalent among Palestinians than Israeli's and the majority of Israeli society condemns such actoins, but the Israeli's are not totally innocent either. 

Look at those (a minority admitedly) who celebrated the Dumas arson murders: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/25/w...eh-arson-death-israel-wedding-video.html?_r=0 and that is not an isolated view among that segment of Israeli society.


----------



## Coyote (Jan 4, 2016)

Shusha said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > What do you mean "two more" states?  They don't even have one.  One state would be ideal but there is no way to make Gaza and West Bank one that I can think of.  Multiple posters have expressed the opinion that the Palestinians should be deported to other Arab states and that Israel "should not give up one inch".
> ...



That was 1922, almost a century ago and there is a lot of dispute about it - RoccoR and Tinmore know more than I do so I won't make any arguments about it except to say we need to look at it the way things stand now.  Jordan is Jordan.  The people living in the West Bank did not come from Jordan.  Jordan houses a huge number of Palestinian refugees but Jordan is not a Palestine.  When people make the argument that the Palestinians already have a state (ie Jordan) it's nothing more than a transparent attempt to disenfranchise them.  So the Palestinians currently have no state.  I think one state is ideal, but I see the issue of combining Gaza and parts of the West Bank as more of a geographical and security problem than a political one - hence, making them two sounds better unless you have a better option?

At what point do we say - yes, like the Jews, the Palestinians deserve a homeland?




> > How can it be "ethnic cleansing" when the settlements in Gaza were there illegally?
> 
> 
> 
> I dispute the idea that the "settlements" are illegal.  The entire concept of the illegality of the settlements rests on the idea that Palestine must be Judenrein -- that no Jews be permitted to live on Palestinian soil -- nor any soil which MAY eventually become Palestinian.  That concept is vile and violates all concepts of human rights against racism and ethnicity.



I disagree - they are illegal because they are built on Occupied Territory, and that is under international law.

Also, I question the claim that the Palestinians say Palestine must be Judenrien.  When I have heard that claim made - it is usually through a distortion of Abbas' quote where he said he would allow no Israeli presence in Palestine.  Are there other supports for that claim? Realistically - I think hatred towards Israeli Jews is so high it would be difficult to guarantee the safety of Jewish citizens in a Palestinian state so you would have a defacto "judenrien" situation.

It is vile, I agree.

But so are the attitudes reflected in these polls of Israeli's towards Arab Israeli citizens:
Poll: Half of Israeli high schoolers oppose equal rights for Arabs
Survey: Most Israeli Jews wouldn't give Palestinians vote if West Bank was annexed



> Land ownership does not confer sovereignty.  *And to demand that a territory not contain people of a certain ethnic group is heinous. *There is nothing about having Jews living in Gaza or Judea/Samaria which prevents Palestinian sovereignty.



Agree - but where is that demand being made?  How about the many communities in Israel that bar Arab-Israeli's from living there?



> Gaza and Judea and Samaria were ethnically cleansed of all Jewish people in 1948 when Jordan and Egypt occupied the area.  Why is no one screaming for the return of all of those Jewish people and their descendants to their former homes?  Why is it that when a Jew buys a house or builds a house it is considered illegal but when an Arab Muslim buys or builds a house it is not?  Double standards of the most vile variety.



There's no double standard.  Are those Jewish people calling for a right of return?  If so - I have heard nothing of it.  If they haven't - then how can you call it a "double standard" when they haven't made a claim?  If they make a claim - I would support it to the same extent I do the Palestinian claims.

When an Arab Muslim builds a house - it's usually demolished because he is unable to get a permit for it .... permits are almost always granted for Jewish expansions.  Isn't that a double standard?



> Now, having said that, practically, knowing how ideologically opposed the Arab Muslim Palestinians are to sharing (ahem, cough, cough) "their" land and "their" holy site with the dreadful Jews, it is, perhaps, provocative of Israel to permit Jews to buy houses and walk on Temple Mount.  (And I do hope you sincerely hear how utterly ridiculous that sounds).  Practically speaking, the Jewish people will have to make Gaza and a new State of Palestine Judenrein.  *Without the protection of Israel, they simply will not be safe*.



From a very real practical sense - I think so.  But looking at Gaza and West Bank seperately, do you think that a future state incorporating portions of Westbank might possibly be able to incorporate Jews?  I don't see it in Gaza - but public opinion polls of Gazans have always been more extreme than those of West Bank Palestinians.



> Likewise, while you and and I agree that ALL people should (duh!) have access to holy sites -- the Jewish people will have to curtail our rights in order to prevent a holy war by billions of Muslims.  Its not fair.  Its not right.  But what are you to do with billions of Muslims who won't share?



I agree it's not fair and I applaud the Israeli authorities who have to walk a fine line in maintaining both peace and access.  It's not right but I don't know the answer.  Perhaps once the issue of a Palestinian state is settled - these other fires will become less important.  Religion is irrational.


----------



## montelatici (Jan 4, 2016)

Weatherman2020 said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...



To put it into simple terms so that even you can understand.

The Zionists were in Europe and the Palestinians lived in Palestine, they were the native people.  The Zionists went from Europe to Palestine to evict the native people.  How can the native people possibly be the attackers?


----------



## Coyote (Jan 4, 2016)

Shusha said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > However, and again, none of this moves us forward.  I will ask you, since no one else has dared to answer it:  Why are the Gazan people NOT moving toward self-determination and peace alongside Israel?  There is no border dispute.  There is nothing much even to be negotiated.  Why do they not simply cease their attacks?  What is their goal?



For one, I think Hamas has failed them and they have not held elections since Hamas took over.

For another....there may not be a border dispute, but Israel still controlled much of Gaza - they control their airspace, coastline, border crossing etc.

Gaza Fact Check: 10 myths for 10 years of disengagement | Gaza Gateway | Facts and Analysis about the Crossings

_*1. Israel disengaged from Gaza (and all it got in return were rockets).*

*In a nutshell:* Israel controls Gaza’s territorial waters, air space and most of its border crossings. This isn’t disengagement, just remote control.

When the last Israeli soldier serving in the Gaza Strip exited the territory, on September 11, 2005, a key feature of Israel’s presence in the lives of Gaza residents came to an end. Yet, Israel maintained control of all crossings along its border with Gaza, as well as Gaza’s territorial waters and air space. Israel continues to control the majority of supply of water, electricity and fuel to Gaza. It controls cellular and electronic communication lines and a portion of Gaza’s territory, inside the Strip, in an area the military designates a “no-go zone”. Israeli politicians discuss among themselves whether to allow Gaza residents to build and operate a seaport. Israel allows the entry of construction materials designated for Gaza’s reconstruction, but under condition that it approve every single purchase. It has used Gaza’s fishing zone as a bargaining chip in every ceasefire negotiation at the cessation of hostilities, and refuses to even engage in a conversation about the rebuilding of Gaza’s airport, which lays in ruins after being bombed in 2001 (and 2009).

As for rockets, regrettably, communities in southern Israel have been suffering from rocket fire since 2001, when Israel had a permanent ground presence in Gaza. Israel is facing real security threats. But the way it has chosen to address them is wreaking havoc on the lives of the 1.8 million people living in Gaza – a majority of whom are children – and it is failing to provide security to the residents of southern Israel. In fact, security experts have acknowledged that not only has the closure failed to advance Israel’s security, but rather, it is one of the main drivers of instability in the region._​


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jan 4, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...


_When the last Israeli soldier serving in the Gaza Strip exited the territory, on September 11, 2005, a key feature of Israel’s presence in the lives of Gaza residents came to an end. Yet, Israel maintained control of all crossings along its border with Gaza, as well as Gaza’s territorial waters and air space.​_
Israel's so called disengagement included a system of closure. The blockade was not in "response to" it was pre planned.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jan 4, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...


_As for rockets, regrettably, communities in southern Israel...​_
Sderot, for example, is an illegal Israeli settlement built on occupied Palestinian land.

Should this be discussed in another thread?


----------



## Coyote (Jan 4, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Shusha said:
> ...



Probably - the topic should revolve around proposed states


----------



## Slyhunter (Jan 4, 2016)

montelatici said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...


God said so in the bible.


----------



## rhodescholar (Jan 5, 2016)

Shusha said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > I like to think that but I'm not so sure.  There is no Nelson Mandella figure to negotiate peace and reconciliation.  Without reconciliation can you have true peace and true justice?  I'm thinking about countries like the former Rhodesia where "justice" turned into vengeance.
> ...



As long as the current regime of iran exists, peace is impossible in the mideast.  That filth needs this conflict to continue indefinitely, it is an important means of distracting its people as it steals their wealth and slaughters them, while fomenting wars across the region.  Destroy that regime, and the sources of funding and weapons for hamas/hezbollah vanish.


----------



## rhodescholar (Jan 5, 2016)

Shusha said:


> Israel is not making war.  Israel is responding to belligerent, indiscriminate, illegal attacks by a hostile population.
> 
> Again, the consequences of removing the blockade are DIRE for everyone in the region, but for the Gazan people in particular.
> 
> ...



Notice how the pro-arab terror supporters make no effort to condemn the lack of basic human rights in gaza; no freedom of speech, assembly, press, etc., that there has been no elections for ten years, that hamas murdered 20 people in cold blood for demonstrating for democracy, that hamas has ethnically cleansed out minorities including christians out of gaza, that it represses democracy movements such as Tamarod that seek to bring democratic principles to gaza, etc.  hamas is an iranian foreign implant/cancer; until Israel or someone else outside gaza steps in to destroy it, gaza will be under their cancerous oppression forever.


----------



## rhodescholar (Jan 5, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Yes I believe Israelis would resort to terrorism* because they did* when they were trying to win a state.  Whether it is inevitable or not...I don't know, I had not thought too much about that but it leads to a question.  In the many conflicts that involved seperatist movements, freedom and rights movements, the creation of new states - did any of them not involve some level of terrorism?



You are a lying, dishonest asshole, plain and simple.  The jews in germany did not, they did not during the 40s and 50s when they were not militarily powerful - the King David bombing was an attack on british soldiers, which means it is not terrorism - and they have not done so now.

If a person cannot recognize that the arab culture of violence is diseased and in need of absolute reformation, then they are literally too stupid to be posting in this forum.


----------



## Coyote (Jan 5, 2016)

rhodescholar said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Yes I believe Israelis would resort to terrorism* because they did* when they were trying to win a state.  Whether it is inevitable or not...I don't know, I had not thought too much about that but it leads to a question.  In the many conflicts that involved seperatist movements, freedom and rights movements, the creation of new states - did any of them not involve some level of terrorism?
> ...



Did you miss the list of all the civilian bombings Irgun engaged in?  Market places, buses, cinemas etc?  Yes, I guess you did.


----------



## montelatici (Jan 5, 2016)

rhodescholar said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Yes I believe Israelis would resort to terrorism* because they did* when they were trying to win a state.  Whether it is inevitable or not...I don't know, I had not thought too much about that but it leads to a question.  In the many conflicts that involved seperatist movements, freedom and rights movements, the creation of new states - did any of them not involve some level of terrorism?
> ...



Not only did the Jew terrorists murder thousands of Christian and Muslim civilians, the disgusting blood thirsty Jewish killers with their culture of violence also murdered UN peace negotiators, such as Count Bernadotte.  Any one that is so ignorant as to not know the history should not be posting on this forum.


----------



## Shusha (Jan 5, 2016)

Coyote said:


> I agree that that view is far more prevalent among Palestinians than Israeli's and the majority of Israeli society condemns such actoins, but the Israeli's are not totally innocent either.



Never did I say that either all Jews or all Israelis are totally innocent.  But we agree that "that view" is far more prevalent among Palestinians than Israelis (Jews) and that the majority of Israeli society condemns such actions (in contrast to the majority of Palestinian society which celebrates such actions.  That was my entire point and you agree with me.


----------



## Coyote (Jan 5, 2016)

Shusha said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > I agree that that view is far more prevalent among Palestinians than Israeli's and the majority of Israeli society condemns such actoins, but the Israeli's are not totally innocent either.
> ...



I don't know if I'd say the majority of Palestinians "celebrate" such actions, but I do agree the view is certainly more prevalent among Palestinians.  I do find there is a disturbing trend in Israeli public opinion polls though.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jan 5, 2016)

Shusha said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > I agree that that view is far more prevalent among Palestinians than Israeli's and the majority of Israeli society condemns such actoins, but the Israeli's are not totally innocent either.
> ...


Explain to me please why carrying a ten pound bomb into a building is terrorism and dropping a 2000 pound bomb from an airplane is not.


----------



## Indeependent (Jan 5, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



It's not terrorism when people are warned a day in advance to clear the area before being bombed.
Any more of your recursive bullshit?


----------



## Slyhunter (Jan 5, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...


different buildings.


----------



## montelatici (Jan 5, 2016)

Indeependent said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Shusha said:
> ...



No one is warned, that's just Zionist propaganda. It's terrorism.


----------



## Indeependent (Jan 5, 2016)

montelatici said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



More bullshit from the "Roman Catholic" who rejects the veracity of the Torah and needs to be excommunicated.


----------



## Shusha (Jan 5, 2016)

Coyote said:


> When people make the argument that the Palestinians already have a state (ie Jordan) it's nothing more than a transparent attempt to disenfranchise them.



No.  Its not.  The Mandate for Palestine consisted of a specific geographical location.  It was partitioned into two sections -- one intended to be under Arab (Palestinian) sovereignty and one intended to be under Jewish (Palestinian) sovereignty. 

Now, there is the demand that it be partitioned into two more sections -- one intended to be under Arab (Palestinian) sovereignty and one intended to be under Jewish (Palestinian) sovereignty. 

Now, there is the demand that it be partitioned into two more sections -- one intended to be under Gazan Arab (Palestinian) sovereignty and one intended to be under Jewish (Palestinian) sovereignty. 

Next there will be a demand for it to be partitioned into two more sections -- one for Nazarene Arab (Palestinian) sovereignty and one for Jewish (Palestinian) sovereignty.  And then Haifa Arab (Palestinian) sovereignty.  And then Negev Arab (Palestinian) sovereignty.  Sooner or later it has to stop.  Sooner or later people have to recognize that some land must be for the Jewish people. 



What makes Jordanians different from Palestinians?  They share the same language, same religion, same culture, same laws, same mode of dress, same foods.  Why are Palestinians deserving of yet another State?


----------



## montelatici (Jan 5, 2016)

As our Bible states:

Hebrews 8:13

"By calling this covenant "new," he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear."


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jan 5, 2016)

Indeependent said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Shusha said:
> ...


The people of Sderot knew in advance that they were going to get rockets.

What is your point.


----------



## Indeependent (Jan 5, 2016)

montelatici said:


> As our Bible states:
> 
> Hebrews 8:13
> 
> "By calling this covenant "new," he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear."



Nice try...you said the OT was fairy tales.
That statement gets you excommunicated.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jan 5, 2016)

Slyhunter said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Shusha said:
> ...


OK, but Israel specifically targets families.


----------



## montelatici (Jan 5, 2016)

Shusha said:


> [QUOTE="Coyote, post: 13184836, member: 19170"
> When people make the argument that the Palestinians already have a state (ie Jordan) it's nothing more than a transparent attempt to disenfranchise them.



No.  Its not.  The Mandate for Palestine consisted of a specific geographical location.  It was partitioned into two sections -- one intended to be under Arab (Palestinian) sovereignty and one intended to be under Jewish (Palestinian) sovereignty. 

Now, there is the demand that it be partitioned into two more sections -- one intended to be under Arab (Palestinian) sovereignty and one intended to be under Jewish (Palestinian) sovereignty. 

Now, there is the demand that it be partitioned into two more sections -- one intended to be under Gazan Arab (Palestinian) sovereignty and one intended to be under Jewish (Palestinian) sovereignty. 

Next there will be a demand for it to be partitioned into two more sections -- one for Nazarene Arab (Palestinian) sovereignty and one for Jewish (Palestinian) sovereignty.  And then Haifa Arab (Palestinian) sovereignty.  And then Negev Arab (Palestinian) sovereignty.  Sooner or later it has to stop.  Sooner or later people have to recognize that some land must be for the Jewish people. 



What makes Jordanians different from Palestinians?  They share the same language, same religion, same culture, same laws, same mode of dress, same foods.  Why are Palestinians deserving of yet another State?[/QUOTE]


TransJordania was a Bedouin land, part of Arabia, no Christians.  Palestinians were 20% Christian and were Levantine people, not Bedouins.


----------



## Indeependent (Jan 5, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



So did Hamas.
Just because Israeli rockets actually hit their targets isn't my problem.


----------



## Shusha (Jan 5, 2016)

Coyote said:


> I disagree - they are illegal because they are built on Occupied Territory, and that is under international law.



Occupied Territory?  All capitalized and trademarked.  See if you can answer the question NO ONE has been able to answer:  who's territory is it? And under what law or treaty did it come under the sovereignty of that State.  

You are just parroting "what everyone knows" as though the logical fallacy of _argumentum ad populum_ has validity in international law.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jan 5, 2016)

Shusha said:


> [QUOTE="Coyote, post: 13184836, member: 19170"
> When people make the argument that the Palestinians already have a state (ie Jordan) it's nothing more than a transparent attempt to disenfranchise them.



No.  Its not.  The Mandate for Palestine consisted of a specific geographical location.  It was partitioned into two sections -- one intended to be under Arab (Palestinian) sovereignty and one intended to be under Jewish (Palestinian) sovereignty.

Now, there is the demand that it be partitioned into two more sections -- one intended to be under Arab (Palestinian) sovereignty and one intended to be under Jewish (Palestinian) sovereignty.

Now, there is the demand that it be partitioned into two more sections -- one intended to be under Gazan Arab (Palestinian) sovereignty and one intended to be under Jewish (Palestinian) sovereignty.

Next there will be a demand for it to be partitioned into two more sections -- one for Nazarene Arab (Palestinian) sovereignty and one for Jewish (Palestinian) sovereignty.  And then Haifa Arab (Palestinian) sovereignty.  And then Negev Arab (Palestinian) sovereignty.  Sooner or later it has to stop.  Sooner or later people have to recognize that some land must be for the Jewish people.



What makes Jordanians different from Palestinians?  They share the same language, same religion, same culture, same laws, same mode of dress, same foods.  Why are Palestinians deserving of yet another State?[/QUOTE]

What makes Jordanians different from Palestinians?​
They are from two different countries. Jordanians lived in Jordan. Palestinians lived in Palestine.


----------



## montelatici (Jan 5, 2016)

So, if as you claim, it is Israeli territory, then give the inhabitants the right to vote instead of maintaining an Apartheid regime.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jan 5, 2016)

Shusha said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > I disagree - they are illegal because they are built on Occupied Territory, and that is under international law.
> ...


It is Palestinian territory.


----------



## Shusha (Jan 5, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Agree - but where is that demand being made?
> 
> There's no double standard.  Are those Jewish people calling for a right of return?  If so - I have heard nothing of it.  If they haven't - then how can you call it a "double standard" when they haven't made a claim?  If they make a claim - I would support it to the same extent I do the Palestinian claims.



The demand is being made every time someone states that the "settlements" (read: places where Jews live) be emptied of Jews as a precondition to negotiation.  The demand is being made every time someone says that no "settlements" (read: Jews) may exist on land that may someday be part of a new State of Palestine.  The demands are made every time someone says that the "settlements" (read: Jewish homes) are a barrier to peace.  

The Jewish people are not calling for a right of return -- even though they clearly have that right.  BECAUSE THEY WILL BE KILLED IF THEY EXERCISE THAT RIGHT.  Duh.  Seriously.  And further, are you agreeing that there should be a Jewish State for every single Arab State in the area?  A Jewish State carved out of Jordan?  Another carved out of Syria?  Another out of Lebanon?  Another out of Iraq?  How about Morocco?  Or Yemen?  Egypt?  Algeria?  Tunisia?  Should ALL of the ME States which had substantial Jewish communities have a Jewish State carved from them?  You would support that?  A dozen new Jewish States?


----------



## Shusha (Jan 5, 2016)

Coyote said:


> For one, I think Hamas has failed them and they have not held elections since Hamas took over.
> 
> For another....there may not be a border dispute, but Israel still controlled much of Gaza - they control their airspace, coastline, border crossing etc.



Well, duh, Hamas has failed them.  

But you have failed, AGAIN, to answer my question.  WHAT IS THEGOAL?  Sorry for yelling, but this is getting tiresome. Israel has blockaded Gaza because of the belligerent, indiscriminate, illegal attacks being made by Gaza's government and people against innocent Israelis.  What do Gazans want?  What is their goal?  

Please, for the love of all that is holy, will someone answer this question?


----------



## Indeependent (Jan 5, 2016)

Shusha said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > For one, I think Hamas has failed them and they have not held elections since Hamas took over.
> ...



Most Gazans probably want to live in peace but the Arabs with the weapons don't want that.


----------



## montelatici (Jan 5, 2016)

Most Gazans don't want to be blockaded by Jews.


----------



## Coyote (Jan 5, 2016)

Shusha said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > I disagree - they are illegal because they are built on Occupied Territory, and that is under international law.
> ...




Palestinian.

Palestinian territories - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Indeependent (Jan 5, 2016)

montelatici said:


> Most Gazans don't want to be blockaded by Jews.


It depends on what's being blockaded.


----------



## Shusha (Jan 5, 2016)

montelatici said:


> ...  the disgusting blood thirsty Jewish killers with their culture of violence ...



Oh please, really?  I'd put my Jewish culture up against Arab Muslim culture any day.  Did you want to start with the stabbing attacks against innocent Israeli citizens?  Or with the ISIS beheadings?  Or with the rocket attacks?  Or with the slavery and rape of girl children?  Or the murder of apostates?  Or the rights of women?  Or the rights of those in non-cis relationships?  

Give me a break.


----------



## Shusha (Jan 5, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



There is no State of Palestine.  There is no treaty which assigns sovereignty of land to a State of Palestine.  There are no assigned borders to the non-existent State of Palestine which denotes which land is Palestinian and which land is Israeli.  

Try again.


----------



## montelatici (Jan 5, 2016)

There is little difference between Israeli use of modern US weapons to murder thousands of Palestinian women and children  on a regular basis and ISIS.  It's just the sophistication of the weapon.


----------



## Coyote (Jan 5, 2016)

Shusha said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Agree - but where is that demand being made?
> ...



No.  No demand has been made for a right of return. Are those people in the settlements the original people who were driven off?  Are the people driven off demanding the right of return?  Are they even the direct progeny?

From my perspective at this point in time - the right of return for the Palestinians is not going to happen.  It's not feasible demographically and too much time has passed.  Why should Jews be treated any differently?



> The Jewish people are not calling for a right of return -- even though they clearly have that right.  BECAUSE THEY WILL BE KILLED IF THEY EXERCISE THAT RIGHT.  Duh.  Seriously.



So...because they choose not exercise that "right" the Palestinians should be made to suffer?



> And further, are you agreeing that there should be a Jewish State for every single Arab State in the area?



That's a really stupid argument.  As if every Arab state is the same.  Is every European state the same?  
What's this equal number of states crap?  Wait - we don't have a Druze state, nor do we have a Kurdish state - shouldn't there be an equal number of those?  



> A Jewish State carved out of Jordan?  Another carved out of Syria?  Another out of Lebanon?  Another out of Iraq?  How about Morocco?  Or Yemen?  Egypt?  Algeria?  Tunisia?  Should ALL of the ME States which had substantial Jewish communities have a Jewish State carved from them?  You would support that?  A dozen new Jewish States?



Totally. Stupid. Argument.


----------



## montelatici (Jan 5, 2016)

Shusha said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Shusha said:
> ...



You are right, there is just Israel that practices Apartheid and does not enfranchise the people under its control.


----------



## Coyote (Jan 5, 2016)

Shusha said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > What makes Jordanians different from Palestinians?  They share the same language, same religion, same culture, same laws, same mode of dress, same foods.  Why are Palestinians deserving of yet another State?



What makes the English different from the Scottish?  What makes Americans different from Canadians?   Why do they need different states?


----------



## Coyote (Jan 5, 2016)

Shusha said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Shusha said:
> ...



I don't think Israel has assigned borders either...just saying.


----------



## Shusha (Jan 5, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> They are from two different countries. Jordanians lived in Jordan. Palestinians lived in Palestine.



Seriously? Jordan was part of the Mandate for Palestine.  It was part of Palestine.  It was partitioned from Palestine.  There was no place called Jordan.


----------



## Coyote (Jan 5, 2016)

So...the argument seems to be headed towards:

Israel should get the whole enchilada.
The Palestinians should go to Jordan.


----------



## Shusha (Jan 5, 2016)

Coyote said:


> What makes the English different from the Scottish?  What makes Americans different from Canadians?   Why do they need different states?



Clearly you are neither Scots nor Canadian.  Or you would not be asking such a question.  (Yes, I am both)


----------



## Coyote (Jan 5, 2016)

Shusha said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > What makes the English different from the Scottish?  What makes Americans different from Canadians?   Why do they need different states?
> ...



I am not, but you just made my point.

Cultures and people that seem superficially similar aren't - or at least they do not see themselves as such.

Kind of cool you are both


----------



## Shusha (Jan 5, 2016)

Coyote said:


> So...the argument seems to be headed towards:
> 
> Israel should get the whole enchilada.
> The Palestinians should go to Jordan.



Not at all.  Again, I am supporting the self-determination of the Palestinians.  I'm just pointing out that the Arab demands need to have an end point.


----------



## Shusha (Jan 5, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



I hardly made your point.  I actually can provide a list of cultural differences between Scots and English.  My point was rather that they are rather obvious.  Can you provide same for Jordanian and Palestinian?


----------



## Coyote (Jan 5, 2016)

Shusha said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > So...the argument seems to be headed towards:
> ...



I agree.  Both sides need to have an endpoint.

I think the right of return needs to be given up for example.


----------



## Coyote (Jan 5, 2016)

Shusha said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Shusha said:
> ...



I bet a Palestinian could.

What extensive list of cultural differences would there be between Americans and Canadians?  Same language, same ethnic heritage, same religions, same costumes...


----------



## Shusha (Jan 5, 2016)

Coyote said:


> I don't think Israel has assigned borders either...just saying.



I would argue against that.  Israel has borders, in law.  Israel has chosen (quite generously and in pursuit of peace) not to exercise her rights in order to allow space for the Palestinian people.


----------



## montelatici (Jan 5, 2016)

All the Palestinians asked for was independence.  The West denied them independence and transferred a large population of European colonists to the land where they lived on that evicted them from more than half of land that they owned.  For decades they asked for independence on a small portion of the land they formerly lived on, and still it was denied.  Then the Jews began settling under force of arms on what was left of the land they lived on and the Israeli leader stated there would never be a sovereign state for them.  What do you propose they do?


----------



## Shusha (Jan 5, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



See, again, I disagree.  The right of return belongs to the Palestinians.  They just deserve to have it in the place which will allow them to develop their own vision.  And not in a place which serves only to disrupt and destroy the vision of the other people in the region.


----------



## Coyote (Jan 5, 2016)

Shusha said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > I don't think Israel has assigned borders either...just saying.
> ...



I would disagree.  I think Israel hasn't "exercised her rights" because those "rights" are not at all legally clear and there are complex issues at stake.  I don't think it has anything to do with allowing space for the Palestinian people.


----------



## Coyote (Jan 5, 2016)

Shusha said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Shusha said:
> ...



It wouldn't be a "right of return" if it wasn't to where they had been displaced from.


----------



## Shusha (Jan 5, 2016)

montelatici said:


> What do you propose they do?


Stop attacking.  Negotiate a peace.  Accept a neighbor Jewish State.  Share the land.  What is so hard about that?


----------



## Coyote (Jan 5, 2016)

Unfortunately...it's way way too late at my end and I have to wake up in 6 hours.  Will be back later


----------



## Shusha (Jan 6, 2016)

montelatici said:


> Most Gazans don't want to be blockaded by Jews.



Sure.  So the easiest and quickest way out of a military blockade is to stop being a belligerent who fires indiscriminate, illegal weapons at innocents. So why hasn't Gaza stopped doing this?


----------



## Shusha (Jan 6, 2016)

montelatici said:


> There is little difference between Israeli use of modern US weapons to murder thousands of Palestinian women and children  on a regular basis and ISIS.  It's just the sophistication of the weapon.



Bullshit.  

There is all the difference in the world between the ideology of the Jewish people who are defending themselves against those who actively seek our destruction and ISIS who actively and aggressively seek to remake the world to their specifications.


----------



## Shusha (Jan 6, 2016)

Coyote said:


> I bet a Palestinian could.
> 
> What extensive list of cultural differences would there be between Americans and Canadians?  Same language, same ethnic heritage, same religions, same costumes...




I bet a Palestinian couldn't.  

The basis for American and Canadian sovereignty are not based on being indigenous.


----------



## Shusha (Jan 6, 2016)

Coyote said:


> It wouldn't be a "right of return" if it wasn't to where they had been displaced from.



But the place that they are being displaced from is not a pre-existing, national entity.  It is a territory in the process of splitting between two over-lapping claims to sovereignty.  Each claim to sovereignty is a claim to self-determination for THAT group.  Thus, those "returning", or even, frankly, those staying, SHOULD be a part of the sovereignty of those with whom they self-identify and who accept them as their own.  Therefore, theoretically, ALL the Arab, Muslim Palestinians should be participants of their right to self-determination in a State of Palestine and all the Jewish people should be participants of their right to self-determination in Israel.  In separate, sovereign States.


----------



## Shusha (Jan 6, 2016)

Coyote said:


> So...because they choose not exercise that "right" the Palestinians should be made to suffer?



I'm sorry.  Where did I say that the Palestinians should be made to suffer?  I seem to have missed that post that I supposedly wrote.

And no, the argument that there should be States for the Jewish people in all the ME States is not a stupid argument.  Take a look at it.  What gives the Arab Muslim Palestinian people the right to self-determination in "Palestine"?  Most people on the anti-Israel side would argue that they have that right due to a long-standing community in that territory.  Well, the Jewish people also have long-standing, historical communities in the territories in question.  Why should they not ALSO be able to exercise their right to sovereign self-determination in territories where they have had long term residence?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jan 6, 2016)

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > They are from two different countries. Jordanians lived in Jordan. Palestinians lived in Palestine.
> ...


Mandates were temporarily assigned administrations. They had no authority to change residence or demographics.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jan 6, 2016)

Shusha said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > So...because they choose not exercise that "right" the Palestinians should be made to suffer?
> ...


What gives the Arab Muslim Palestinian people the right to self-determination in "Palestine"?​
Palestinians do not have the right to self determination in Palestine?

Do you have a link to that?


----------



## Hollie (Jan 6, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...


Arab Moslems were from a nation called Palestine? 

Got a link to that?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jan 6, 2016)

Shusha said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > So...the argument seems to be headed towards:
> ...


Indeed, restricted by Palestine's international borders.


----------



## Slyhunter (Jan 6, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


Families get rewarded for members committing terrorism they should be punished for it as well.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jan 6, 2016)

Shusha said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Shusha said:
> ...


You need to read what you just said.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jan 6, 2016)

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Shusha said:
> ...


The status of Palestine and the nationality of its inhabitants were finally settled by the Treaty of Lausanne from the perspective of public international law. In a report submitted to the League of Nations, the British government pointed out: “The ratification of the Treaty of Lausanne in Aug., 1924, finally regularised the international status of Palestine.”123 And, thereafter, “Palestine could, at last, obtain a separate nationality.”124

125  See William Molony, _Nationality and the Peace Treaties_ (London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd., 1934).
126  See Paul C. Helmreich, _From Paris to Sèvres: The Partition of the Ottoman Empire at the Peace Conf _(...)

68Most of the post-World War I peace treaties embodied nationality provisions and the Treaty of Lausanne was no exception.125 It addressed the nationality of the inhabitants in the territories detached from Turkey in Articles 30-6. These articles replaced, with certain modifications, Articles 123-31 of the draft Treaty of Sèvres of 1920.126

69Drawing up the framework of nationality, Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne stated:

“Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become _ipso facto_, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.”​
Article 30 is of a great significance. It constituted a declaration of existing international law and the standard practice of states. This was despite the absence of a definite international law rule of state succession under which the nationals of predecessor state could _ipso facto_ acquire the nationality of the successor.129 “As a rule, however, States have conferred their nationality on the former nationals of the predecessor State.”130 In practice, almost all peace treaties concluded between the Allies and other states at the end of World War I embodied nationality provisions similar to those of the Treaty of Lausanne. The inhabitants of Palestine, as the successors of this territory, henceforth acquired Palestinian nationality even if there was no treaty with Turkey.131


129  See C. Fred Fraser, “Transfer of Sovereignty and Non-Recognition as Affecting Nationality,” _Albert _(...)
130  Weis, _supra _note 96, p. 149.
131  See O’Connell, _supra _note 102, Vol. II, pp. 529-36.


----------



## Hollie (Jan 6, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


Aside from that long, meaningless cut and paste, anything to indicate there was ever a nation called Palestine?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jan 6, 2016)

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...




*“The ratification of the Treaty of Lausanne in Aug., 1924, finally regularised the international status of Palestine.”123 And, thereafter, “Palestine could, at last, obtain a separate nationality.”124*

*The inhabitants of Palestine, as the successors of this territory, henceforth acquired Palestinian nationality even if there was no treaty with Turkey.131*


----------



## Hollie (Jan 6, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


*Aside from your silliness having been addressed many times before, can you identify when this nonexistent state of Palestine has ever existed?*


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jan 6, 2016)

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


In a broader international context, *the “Nationality law… showed that the Palestinians formed a nation, and that Palestine was a State, though provisionally under guardianship.*”90 The inclusion of Palestinian nationality in the text of the Palestine Mandate was the first step towards an international recognition of the Palestinian people as distinct from the Ottoman people and other peoples.* Palestinian nationality, like any other nationality, constitutes the formula by which a certain group of individuals are being legally connected and enabled to form the people element of the state.91*

Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel


----------



## Coyote (Jan 6, 2016)

Shusha said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > What do you propose they do?
> ...



I agree, they have to accept and recognize Israel's right to exist.  But it's difficult to demand they "share the land" when Israel's ongoing settlement building activities and it's fracturing of families through the residency permit process make it seem to the Palestinians that the Israeli's have no such intention.


----------



## Coyote (Jan 6, 2016)

Shusha said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > I bet a Palestinian could.
> ...



Now you are changing the goalposts.  The Palestinians - like the Jews are a mixture of indiginous and immigrant people.  Why would it matter whether or not they had a distinct and different culture - since when is that a determiner?


----------



## Coyote (Jan 6, 2016)

Shusha said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > It wouldn't be a "right of return" if it wasn't to where they had been displaced from.
> ...



What difference does that make?  Israel is the same.  All were part of different empires at different times.  



> It is a territory in the process of splitting between two over-lapping claims to sovereignty.  Each claim to sovereignty is a claim to self-determination for THAT group.  Thus, those "returning", or even, frankly, those staying, SHOULD be a part of the sovereignty of those with whom they self-identify and who accept them as their own.  Therefore, theoretically, ALL the Arab, Muslim Palestinians should be participants of their right to self-determination in a State of Palestine and all the Jewish people should be participants of their right to self-determination in Israel.  In separate, sovereign States.



If I understand you correctly, I agree.  Essentially, two states must be formed out of the area that is now Israel, Occuppied Territories, and Gaza.  Three states if there is no way to bridge Gaza and whatever is arranged in the West Bank.  Israel's 1948 borders would represent a starting points since those were the borders when it declared itself a state.


----------



## Coyote (Jan 6, 2016)

Shusha said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > So...because they choose not exercise that "right" the Palestinians should be made to suffer?
> ...



The reason I say it's "stupid" is because you are lumping all Arabic countries into one category as if they are all alike. How far back in history are you going to go to exercise soverign self-determination?  Unlike the Jews, who are currently citizens of Israel, with all their rights and priveledges intact - the Palestinians are citizens of no nation.  With only those rights Israel is willing to grant, and which Israel can remove at any time for any reason.  There's a big difference between those who have a state (Israeli's) and those who don't - the Palestinians.


----------



## Slyhunter (Jan 6, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...


going back to the 1948 borders is not going to happen. There is a price to be paid for not accepting those borders in the first place and starting the war. Arabs/Palestinians need to pay Israel back for their misdeed.


----------



## Coyote (Jan 6, 2016)

Slyhunter said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Shusha said:
> ...



I agree it won't.  It's just a starting point because that is the only time there were clear borders.


----------



## montelatici (Jan 6, 2016)

Slyhunter said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Shusha said:
> ...



So 30% of the native people (the Muslims and Christians who made up 45% of the population of the gerrymandered European partition) were expected to passively accept colonization and foreign rule?  What planet are you from?  What other native people would have accepted foreign colonial rule passively without resisting?


----------



## Indeependent (Jan 6, 2016)

montelatici said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



So how far back in time to we go to rectify misplacement or gerrymandering?
In fact, I'll make it easy...No earlier than 1900.
Your turn.


----------



## montelatici (Jan 6, 2016)

It was 1947 you idiot.


----------



## Indeependent (Jan 6, 2016)

montelatici said:


> It was 1947 you idiot.


No fvckbrain, the 20th Century saw a SHITLOAD of misplacement and gerrymandering which has resulted in 100 years of bitter and bloody fighting between Christians and Muslims that have NOTHING to do with Israel, so answer the question.


----------



## montelatici (Jan 6, 2016)

This is the I/P forum, what does your question have to do with the I/P situation.


----------



## Indeependent (Jan 6, 2016)

montelatici said:


> This is the I/P forum, what does your question have to do with the I/P situation.


I am exposing the fact that you are purposely omitting history relevant to the OP's Thread.
The Palestine Solution is an illusion due to the behavior of Muslims PRIOR to 1948 and complaining solely about POST 1948 is Smoke & Mirrors.
Any other questions?


----------



## Shusha (Jan 6, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...



So wait, your argument is that they can't share the land with all those Jews around so all the Jews have to go and THEN they will share the land?  Please.  

You are starting from a false premise --  premise which rather than being solution-oriented just sows further discord and prevents us from moving forward.  The premise is this:  the presence of Jews prevents Palestinian sovereignty.  Here is the test to see if it is a false premise:  Does the reverse also hold true?  Does the presence of Arab Muslims in Israel prevent Israeli sovereignty? Must the Arab Muslims be removed from Israel?  

If you discard the idea that there can't be any Jews in Palestine and instead accept that there can be Jews in Palestine, just as there can be (and are) Arab Muslims in Israel -- then all these problems just go away.  Draw a border and be done with it.  If members of one group end up on the "wrong" side and want to move -- let them.  If members of one group end up on the "wrong" side and want to stay -- let them.  If members of one group want dual citizenship -- let them.  

What's the big deal?  Why are those on the anti-Israeli side making it so difficult?


----------



## montelatici (Jan 6, 2016)

Indeependent said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > This is the I/P forum, what does your question have to do with the I/P situation.
> ...



The native people behaved like any other native people who understood that the Europeans were planning to colonize the land they and their ancestors had inhabited for thousands of years.  They attempted to resist colonization.  What should have they done?  Welcomed the colonizers?


----------



## Shusha (Jan 6, 2016)

Indeependent said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > This is the I/P forum, what does your question have to do with the I/P situation.
> ...



The Palestine Solution is an illusion due to the attitudes and behavior of Muslims and their anti-Israel supporters NOW.  This thread demonstrates that there is no wish to actually solve the problem -- but only to continue to make arguments about why Israel can have no rights and why the Palestinians have a complete and utter lack of responsibility to end the conflict.  

No one here but me is actually putting forth any real suggestions toward a peace plan and treaty.


----------



## Indeependent (Jan 6, 2016)

montelatici said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...



So why was Muslim behavior in post-WWI no better anywhere else in the Balkans and the Middle East?


----------



## Indeependent (Jan 6, 2016)

Shusha said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...


As soon as we have peace everywhere else in the Middle East, there will be peace in Israel.
Likely, you think?


----------



## montelatici (Jan 6, 2016)

Indeependent said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > Indeependent said:
> ...



Wherever the Muslims were given their rightful independence per the Covenant of the League of Nations, Article 22, post WW1, there were no problems to speak of.  You don't know what you are talking about.


----------



## Indeependent (Jan 6, 2016)

montelatici said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...



League of Nations?
That idea worked out real well.
Have you attended any meetings there lately?
Your Jew hating well is drying up read quick.

Besides, you're expecting me to take your statement of Muslims being good neighbors at face value.
Horse hockey.


----------



## Shusha (Jan 6, 2016)

Indeependent said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > Indeependent said:
> ...




Not very.  I think there will be peace when the Muslim ideology undergoes a transformation.  Its happening.  Its clearly happening.  ISIS is a push-back against the transformation back toward the traditional.  But its not happening fast enough and its not widespread enough to provide a tipping point.  And unfortunately, the push-back is spreading outward.


----------



## Indeependent (Jan 6, 2016)

Shusha said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > Shusha said:
> ...


I strongly disagree; removing one layer of the onion always releases the next cancer.


----------



## montelatici (Jan 6, 2016)

Indeependent said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > Indeependent said:
> ...



The League of Nations Article 22 stated what the world powers that had won WW1 planned for the colonial territories of the losers.  Independence.  There is nothing Jew hating about stating fact and making  observations regarding a conflict objectively.  I don't have a dog in this fight.  You do, so you can't be a dispassionate observer.


----------



## Coyote (Jan 7, 2016)

Shusha said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Shusha said:
> ...



No my argument is they *both *have to share.



> You are starting from a false premise --  premise which rather than being solution-oriented just sows further discord and prevents us from moving forward.  The premise is this:  the presence of Jews prevents Palestinian sovereignty.  Here is the test to see if it is a false premise:  Does the reverse also hold true?  Does the presence of Arab Muslims in Israel prevent Israeli sovereignty? Must the Arab Muslims be removed from Israel?



I"m not sure why you think that is my premise.  It isn't.  



> *If you discard the idea that there can't be any Jews in Palestine* and instead accept that there can be Jews in Palestine, just as there can be (and are) Arab Muslims in Israel -- then all these problems just go away.  Draw a border and be done with it.  If members of one group end up on the "wrong" side and want to move -- let them.  If members of one group end up on the "wrong" side and want to stay -- let them.  If members of one group want dual citizenship -- let them.
> 
> What's the big deal?  Why are those on the anti-Israeli side making it so difficult?




That has never been my idea.


----------



## Shusha (Jan 7, 2016)

Coyote said:


> No my argument is they *both *have to share.
> 
> I"m not sure why you think that is my premise.  It isn't.



I think that is your premise because you indicated (paraphrased) that the Palestinians can't share while Israel has settlements on "their" land.  We (collective "we" -- those who are actually trying to solve the problem) need to stop using this as an excuse and challenge others when they use it as an excuse not to solve the problem. 

Now, having said that you and I have previously agreed that the Jewish people will probably have to be removed for their own safety. 

But I can't remember, did we agree that there could be land swaps?


----------



## Coyote (Jan 7, 2016)

Shusha said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > No my argument is they *both *have to share.
> ...



No, what I'm saying is that as long as Israeli's continue the building of settlements, it will be harder to form a contiguous state.  The reality of the situation is not "can they or should they or will they share" - it's that the political will to dismantle any settlements is weak and insuring safety and security for Israeli citizens not on soveriegn Israeli territory is very problematic.  The Israeli's who make up the "settler" movement represent the more extreme religious elements of Israeli society and they tend to believe all of biblical Israel is there's by right.  They live in Jewish-only settlements and show little more desire to be open to sharing than the more extreme Palestinians.  How do you deal with such people? 

The ideal would be as you say - dual citizens, a strong civil society that can overcome years of war and hatred....but you have some ingrained attitudes to overcome in the process and very real security concerns.  

It's not an "excuse" - it's presenting the reality and asking how do you work within that reality?



> Now, having said that you and I have previously agreed that the Jewish people will probably have to be removed for their own safety.
> 
> But I can't remember, did we agree that there could be land swaps?



Absolutely land swaps, there is no way the larger settlements could be demolished, and people have now lived there for several generations.  To force them out would be unfair.


----------



## Shusha (Jan 7, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



Thank you. That was the more nuanced response I was hoping for.  And again, we largely agree.  It is my understanding that Israel has not permitted any new settlements in more than twenty years, but is building more housing units in existing settlements.  

And I agree this creates some urgency for both sides to come up with a solution.  Or some responsibility on the Israeli side to preserve the contiguity of Palestine.  

Okay, so more agreement.  What's next?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jan 7, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...


Absolutely land swaps, there is no way the larger settlements could be demolished, and people have now lived there for several generations. To force them out would be unfair.​
I am opposed to destroying any property or removing people from their homes. However since the settlements are on Palestinian land they should remain in Palestine. The settlers should have the option of being Palestinian citizens or moving to Israel.


----------



## Shusha (Jan 7, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> I am opposed to destroying any property or removing people from their homes. However since the settlements are on Palestinian land they should remain in Palestine. The settlers should have the option of being Palestinian citizens or moving to Israel.



I do not understand how people can continue to post about "Palestinian land".  THERE IS NO PALESTINIAN LAND.  Until a treaty between Israel and Palestine is signed -- there is no land which is "Palestine".  So get off it already.  

But I agree with you that once the borders are established, those resident in each country must become citizens of that country.


----------



## montelatici (Jan 7, 2016)

Shusha said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Shusha said:
> ...



You would be wrong.  The Israelis have approved additional housing units and have approved two new outposts as of November of this year. Israel is attempting to transfer so much of its population to the West Bank as it can, to prevent a two-state solution. I truly believe that they (those in power) believe they will be able to rule over a majority of non-enfranchised non-Jews for the long-term.

Israel moves to green light 2,200 new settlement units, recognizes outposts  - Israel News


----------



## montelatici (Jan 7, 2016)

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > I am opposed to destroying any property or removing people from their homes. However since the settlements are on Palestinian land they should remain in Palestine. The settlers should have the option of being Palestinian citizens or moving to Israel.
> ...



From your radical position that claims that the native people have no right to any land there could be an opposite position that claims that it is all Palestinian land and that it is only a matter of time that the descendants of the colonists will be expelled. Like Algeria, Rhodesia etc.


----------



## Hollie (Jan 7, 2016)

montelatici said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


You can make all the noise you wish about "Pal'istanian land" but to do so makes you appear quite frantic. As there is no Pal'istine, there are no Pal'istanians. 

Assuming an invented identity for an invented people with an invented nationality (ascribed by the Yassir Arafat in the late 1960's), makes your sweaty, chest-heaving rants really quite silly.


----------



## Coyote (Jan 7, 2016)

Shusha said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Shusha said:
> ...



What would you see as realistic borders and landswaps for both sides?  Jeruselum is what I think is the biggest difficulty.


----------



## Coyote (Jan 7, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Shusha said:
> ...



I could agree to that IF security, safety and rights could be guaranteed to Jewish residents if they stayed but I don't see that happening.  Too much history, and a mass displacement of people is inhumane.


----------



## Shusha (Jan 7, 2016)

montelatici said:


> From your radical position that claims that the native people have no right to any land ...



Do you always make arguments based on an intentional misreading of other's peoples' posts?  Where did I say that the Palestinian people have no RIGHT to land.  I have been a champion of their right to land since day one on this forum.  

What I actually said was that there is no defined,territory which can be claimed to already BE Palestinian land, which is what Tinmore asserted.


----------



## Coyote (Jan 7, 2016)

montelatici said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



Jews are also native indiginous people, and for every immigrant  from Europe, there are also immigrants into Palestine from neighboring Arab countries in search of jobs and opportunities over the past century.  Are you proposing to expell ALL these people?

I think we have to deal with the people that are there here and  now and form a solution based on that, not past history.


----------



## Shusha (Jan 7, 2016)

Coyote said:


> What would you see as realistic borders and landswaps for both sides?  Jeruselum is what I think is the biggest difficulty.



something like this:  








I would extend the Palestinian corridor into Jerusalem, and give some portion of Jerusalem to Palestine.  (THAT is very controversial on the Israeli side, but I'd be willing to do it).  NOT the Old City, though and not the Temple Mount -- that stays in Israel.  My understanding is that further territory can be added to the north, possibly including some of the larger Arab communities there, as well as expanding Gaza's borders.  

Israel would maintain control over the Jordan Valley though.  Probably on a contingency basis until certain security issues are resolved.  A long-term contingency basis.  I'd like to see some sort of security arrangements with Jordan, independant of Palestine as well.


----------



## montelatici (Jan 7, 2016)

Coyote said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > Shusha said:
> ...



How can people that come from elsewhere to be indigenous?  Romanians might claim to be indigenous to Rome, but no one will support that contention.


----------



## Coyote (Jan 7, 2016)

montelatici said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...



Are you saying Jews are not indiginous, because if you are, history contradicts you.  There are Jews that live there that have lived there for thousands of years.


----------



## Coyote (Jan 7, 2016)

Shusha said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > What would you see as realistic borders and landswaps for both sides?  Jeruselum is what I think is the biggest difficulty.
> ...



I have a difficult time visualizing this - would you follow the border indicated by the dashed line?  I admit, I don't have a good sense of the areas with large Jewish or Arab populations, I need to look at more maps.  Also resources.  I wonder what would be considered reasonable land swaps?

RoccoR ... once upon a time we had this thread but it's lost to the software change.  Would you want to chime in?

What about allocation of resources?

How would Jeruselum be governed?


----------



## Shusha (Jan 7, 2016)

Coyote said:


> I have a difficult time visualizing this - would you follow the border indicated by the dashed line?



Nope.  Grey is Palestine, white is Israel.  




Coyote said:


> What about allocation of resources?
> 
> How would Jeruselum be governed?



Resources not my area of expertise.  So, I'd have to look into that more.  Jerusalem would be split.  Each would govern their own part of it.


----------



## montelatici (Jan 8, 2016)

Coyote said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



I am saying that Europeans are not indigenous to Palestine, regardless of religion.  A very small number of Palestinians of the Jewish faith may have continued to live in Palaestina province under Roman rule until Christianity was made the state religion.  After that, the Pagan and Jewish Palestinians were no more. Constantine's mother made sure of that.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jan 8, 2016)

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > I am opposed to destroying any property or removing people from their homes. However since the settlements are on Palestinian land they should remain in Palestine. The settlers should have the option of being Palestinian citizens or moving to Israel.
> ...


You have that wrong. It is Israel that has no land until there is a treaty.


Perhaps it would be better to respond here:

The Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate | Page 23 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


----------



## RoccoR (Jan 8, 2016)

Coyote,  et al,

Well, the easiest of the two issues (IMO) is the question of Resource Management and Exploitation.



Coyote said:


> RoccoR ... once upon a time we had this thread but it's lost to the software change.  Would you want to chime in?
> 
> What about allocation of resources?
> 
> How would Jerusalem be governed?


*(NATURAL RESOURCES)*

OK the Basic Rule is:  All things being equal, the Resources are generally owned by the sovereign.  That is particularly the position most governments take unless there is some legal terms of ownership have been crafted.  

So, it only makes sense that the Natural Resources in the Palestinian territory, belongs to the Palestinians.   The resources in Israel belongs to Israel.  

Because some of the resources are intertwined under sovereign territory, a joint commission needs to be established for management and exploitation purposes of those specifically. 

I think that the Palestinians have an interest in Levant Oil and Gas finds (Gaza Coast - I suspect). This requires either a cooperative or a joint commission.  

*(JERUSALEM) *

AND, I think that, just like the US and Canada have a a bilateral treaty organization called the International Boundary Commission (IBC) the Israelis and Palestinians need a composition bilateral treaty organization [maybe called:  International Resource, Antiquities, and Boundary Commission (IRABC)] which will be a multifaceted commission that Manages all these, and more.  

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## rylah (Feb 17, 2017)

montelatici said:


> As our Bible states:
> 
> Hebrews 8:13
> 
> "By calling this covenant "new," he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear."


_
"*God is not a man* that He should lie, nor is He a mortal that He should relent. *Would He say and not do, speak and not fulfill?*_
_I have received [an instruction] to bless, and He has blessed, *and I cannot retract it.  *
He does not look at evil in Jacob, and has seen no perversity in Israel; the Lord, his God, is with him, and he has the King's friendship."
(Number 23)

"And it shall come to pass that on that day, the Lord shall continue to apply His hand a second time *to acquire the rest of His people, that will remain from Assyria and from Egypt and from Pathros and from Cush and from Elam and from Sumeria and from Hamath and from the islands of the sea.   *
And He shall raise a banner to the nations, and *He shall gather the lost of Israel, and the scattered ones of Judah He shall gather from the four corners of the earth." (Isaiah 11)
*_

*"*Therefore, behold days are coming, says the Lord, and it shall no longer be said, "As the Lord lives, Who brought up the children of Israel from the land of Egypt,"   
*But, "As the Lord lives, Who brought up the children of Israel from the northland and from all the lands where He had driven them, " and I will restore them to their land that I gave to their forefathers. (Jeremiah 16)

Shabat Shalom
*
_

_


----------



## ForeverYoung436 (Feb 17, 2017)

rylah said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > As our Bible states:
> ...



Shabbat Shalom.  We have seen the fulfillment of that promise in our own days!


----------



## montelatici (Feb 17, 2017)

Hebrews 8:13

*"By calling this covenant "new," he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear."*


----------



## ForeverYoung436 (Feb 17, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


 
Once again, this is not Philosophy 101.  Of course, Israel has land!  What nonsense.


----------



## rylah (Feb 18, 2017)

montelatici said:


> Hebrews 8:13
> 
> *"By calling this covenant "new," he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear."*



Must be a a problem there...seeing Israel REAPPEAR against all odds,
capturing Jerusalem in 6 DAYS.

How sweet are the words of Hashem and his Torah:
_
"But despite all this, while they are in the land of their enemies, *I will not despise them nor will I reject them to annihilate them, thereby breaking My covenant that is with them, for I am the Lord their God.*" (Leviticus 44)

"So said the Lord, Who gives the sun to illuminate by day, the laws of the moon and the stars to illuminate at night, Who stirs up the sea and its waves roar, the Lord of Hosts is His name.
*If these laws depart from before Me*, says the Lord, so will the seed of Israel cease being a nation before Me for all time." (Jeremiah 31)
_

Last time I checked, the sun was still there... 
_

_


----------



## montelatici (Feb 18, 2017)

rylah said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > Hebrews 8:13
> ...



Well, with the help of the world's premier colonial empire and the U.S., you did not need God.


----------



## member (Feb 18, 2017)

Shusha said:


> This thread is intended to explore concrete, specific, step-by-step solutions to the problem of the Israel/Arab conflict.  It assumes a two (or three) State solution. It assumes a negotiated, mutually satisfactory solution with an end-of-conflict agreement.  It assumes no other pre-conditions -- everything else is on the table.  Discussions of a one State solution are not appropriate.  Denial of the legitimacy of either side is not appropriate.
> 
> I hope participants will use this thread to provide either a "final outcome" template for a peace treaty or to provide the necessary steps towards such a thing.  All steps should be as complete and comprehensive as possible.  For example, rather than say, "Israel should end the occupation of OPT" please describe exactly what this might entail.
> 
> Discussion and debate of why a step may be unacceptable to either party is also welcome.




_*"This thread is intended to explore concrete, specific, step-by-step solutions to the problem of the Israel/Arab conflict."*_

*STEP 1*:



  Get rid of terrorists and "military wings" and ...."new leaders of military wings."


_*". . .Sinwar, who rejects any reconciliation with Israel, has quickly restored his power in the movement since his return to Gaza..."*_


"*al-Madhoun, a pro-Hamas analyst who runs a Gaza think tank [. . .] got the impression that he is more interested in improving difficult conditions in Gaza than renewed conflict with Israel. "He is interested in stability, the rebuilding of Gaza and easing the blockade,"


"al-Madhoun said. "I felt he is more with the truce rather than conflict."*







- "*Sinwar, who rejects any reconciliation with Israel. . ."
- ". . .I felt he is more with the truce rather than conflict."


*


  ok, whatever you say Al-mad...?? _*"rejects reconciliation with israel ** wants truce rather than conflict."*_

_(already, it's starting -- the confusion)...._


----------



## P F Tinmore (Feb 18, 2017)

rylah said:


> And He shall raise a banner to the nations, and *He shall gather the lost of Israel, and the scattered ones of Judah He shall gather from the four corners of the earth." (Isaiah 11)*


Thank you.

*He shall gather the lost of Israel,
*​Not a bunch of atheists from Europe. This Israel is a fake.


----------



## rylah (Feb 18, 2017)

montelatici said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...



The hearts and minds of kings are in G-d's hands

_"A king's heart is like rivulets of water in the Lord's hand; wherever He wishes, He turns it." Proverbs 21

"But I will harden Pharaoh's heart, and I will increase My signs and My wonders in the land of Egypt." Exodus 7_


----------



## montelatici (Feb 18, 2017)

You know what, This religious bullshit does not help your cause.  Very few believe fairy tales.


----------



## rylah (Feb 18, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> > And He shall raise a banner to the nations, and *He shall gather the lost of Israel, and the scattered ones of Judah He shall gather from the four corners of the earth." (Isaiah 11)*
> ...



Give us time, we're already repenting en mass and getting closer to Hashem. It's actually very inspiring to see former communists fast and pray for their parents on Yom Kippur.

Today a little commandment a simple Jew commits is considered a work of a Tana or an Emorah. We're the generation that faces the most challenges- everything is open and free. However Jews are putting Tefilin on the streets for no reason, rather than just being a Jew- since the 60'

Hashem is the judge of my people, not flesh and blood.


----------



## montelatici (Feb 18, 2017)

rylah said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > rylah said:
> ...



Delusions of grandeur abound.


----------



## rylah (Feb 18, 2017)

montelatici said:


> You know what, This religious bullshit does not help your cause.  Very few believe fairy tales.



Well You have freedom of choice, to worship flesh and blood or the ONE.
Funny people think Israel's power is in the gun, however:

*"Hashem is King, Hashem was King, Hashem will be King forever!"*


*"The main thing, the main thing is to never be afraid, we have the King of the world- he saves us from all."*


----------



## montelatici (Feb 18, 2017)

rylah said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > You know what, This religious bullshit does not help your cause.  Very few believe fairy tales.
> ...



Israel's only power is the gun, provided by the U.S.  God has nothing to do with it. You don't have the king of the world, you delusional nutcase. When the U.S. stops supporting Israel, Israel will disappear.


----------



## rylah (Feb 18, 2017)

montelatici said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...



Hashem doesn't break his promises, and the land belongs to no one but Hashem. We ae here after 2000 years of exile and persecution by your ancestors, gathered from the four corners as promised. And just after 19 years Hashem gave us Jerusalem.

Tell me do You know who called himself Nebuchadnezzar before being hanged in his ruined country? What was the name of that operation?


----------



## montelatici (Feb 18, 2017)

rylah said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > rylah said:
> ...



Oh give me a break, you are a religious nutcase.  Israel will end up like Apartheid South Africa, Rhodesia and/or Algeria.  You just don't have the demographics.  God has nothing to do with it.


----------



## Slyhunter (Feb 18, 2017)

montelatici said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...


If not when and it's not going to happen.


----------



## Slyhunter (Feb 18, 2017)

Islam is actually the big Satan, the Anti-Christ and the world will be against them.


----------



## louie888 (Feb 18, 2017)

Shusha said:


> *...It assumes a two (or three) State solution....*


LOL

Your thread has gone 45 pages and nowhere. Our Rabbi's have been fighting for one state. A Palestinian state...

*Q - What do you advocate?*

*A - We demand, without compromise, the *
*peaceful dismantling of the State of “Israel”. As *
*to whether or how many Jews may remain there *
*once this process is completed, that decision is *
*totally up to the Palestinian leaders and people.*

*http://www.nkusa.org/Books/Pamphlets/Pamphlet.pdf*


----------



## rylah (Feb 19, 2017)

montelatici said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...



Religious nutcase? 
Says who, a guy that calls for new Crusade every week or so- in order to cleanse the land of "unbelievers". Arab and Jew alike- Your words not mine.
Without name calling You have nothing, Just projections on Your "vile Jews"- again Your words.

One thing I can agree upon is - Israel as a state is not the main goal. Those who worship man made structures are probably going to be disappointed. There's a reason why a Jew prays 3 times a day declaring opposition to man made laws and kings.
Hashem is our King, this state is only a mirage with a clear purpose.

Why do You dodge inconvenient questions- "Who proclaimed himself Nebuchadnezzar before being hanged in his own ruined country?
What was the name of the operation?


----------



## ForeverYoung436 (Feb 19, 2017)

rylah said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > rylah said:
> ...



It was Saddam Hussein, yemach shemo (may his name be erased).


----------



## rylah (Feb 19, 2017)

ForeverYoung436 said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...









According to the same principle, those who take the name of Philistines, even though of Ishmael origin- they receive the soul and the historical judgment of that people.
It's a time of payment and justice. America has an incredible opportunity lead by the *redhead president - I've heard rabbis call it "Teshuvat Esau"... we have to remind Hashem of their virtues, how they support us and all the good US done. Therefore bring mercy rather than justice. With the Babylonians it's a whole other story, someone should have called himself *Cyrus.*


----------



## montelatici (Feb 19, 2017)

rylah said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > rylah said:
> ...




Who has called for a Christian Crusade "every week or so".  If you can't understand irony, what Deus Vult means, you need to look up the word.  "Vile Jews" were not my words, they were the words of a Christian Monk, who was present in Jerusalem, who wrote a report of the Jew's massacre of Christians when they entered Jerusalem as allies of the Persians when they conquered Jerusalem. But, having read your Hasbara manual, I know that it is a technique you are taught which hopes to delegitimize critics of Israel. Who do you think you are fooling. LOL


----------



## rylah (Feb 19, 2017)

montelatici said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...



Monte as long as  You're apologizing...

Forums have this beautiful feature of recording the words of vile anti-Semites FOREVER. Very useful- and Your statements are listed:



> Persian rule lasted only 14 years and the Byzantine Christians defeated the Persians and retook Palestine. *The vile Jews were treated accordingly.*


post #3890


> The Romans did not invent Jesus you* vile Jew*. The Romans agreed to crucify our Lord at the insistence of *you vile Jews*.


post #3910



> *Thereupon the vile Jews, enemies of the truth and haters of Christ*


post #3890

And one of my favorite Deus Vult (War Cry) quotes by Monte:


> Yes, *Jerusalem should be 100% Christian*. We have the power, why should we allow non-believers to have any authority in Jerusalem? *Why do we need to be fair or accommodating? *Throw out the troublemakers. Deus Vult.


post #139


----------



## teddyearp (Feb 23, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> > And He shall raise a banner to the nations, and *He shall gather the lost of Israel, and the scattered ones of Judah He shall gather from the four corners of the earth." (Isaiah 11)*
> ...



So according to you, Europe is not on the earth?  What part of four corners of the earth doesn't make sense?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Feb 23, 2017)

teddyearp said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > rylah said:
> ...


Who in the Zionist movement can be called He?


----------



## teddyearp (Feb 23, 2017)

Come on Tinmore, rylah is quoting the Bible and you know it.


----------



## fanger (Feb 23, 2017)

The Bible, Aint that the book wrote by jews?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Feb 23, 2017)

teddyearp said:


> Come on Tinmore, rylah is quoting the Bible and you know it.


Indeed, sorry you didn't understand the question.


----------



## teddyearp (Feb 23, 2017)

It is you who obviously did not understand my reply.  In the Bible when the word "He" with a capital "h" is used, it is referring to God, not a person.


----------



## teddyearp (Feb 23, 2017)

fanger said:


> The Bible, Aint that the book wrote by jews?



Not all of it.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Feb 23, 2017)

teddyearp said:


> It is you who obviously did not understand my reply.  In the Bible when the word "He" with a capital "h" is used, it is referring to God, not a person.


OK, that was my point but what does that mean?


----------



## teddyearp (Feb 23, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> teddyearp said:
> 
> 
> > It is you who obviously did not understand my reply.  In the Bible when the word "He" with a capital "h" is used, it is referring to God, not a person.
> ...



I'm not going to get caught up in your pretzel, nor go down your rabbit hole Tinmore.  You know what it means, quit your bullshit.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Feb 23, 2017)

teddyearp said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > teddyearp said:
> ...


And He shall raise a banner to the nations, and *He shall gather the lost of Israel, and the scattered ones of Judah He shall gather from the four corners of the earth." (Isaiah 11)*
Thank you.

*He shall gather the lost of Israel,*
Not a bunch of atheists from Europe. This Israel is a fake.


----------



## Shusha (Feb 23, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> And He shall raise a banner to the nations, and *He shall gather the lost of Israel, and the scattered ones of Judah He shall gather from the four corners of the earth." (Isaiah 11)*
> 
> Not a bunch of atheists from Europe. This Israel is a fake.



OMG.  You are hilarious.  So when the Lord G-d spoke of gathering the Jewish people from the four corners of the earth -- He meant all of them except the ones in Europe.  Oh and the ones in Africa.  Oh, and the ones in the Americas.  Or India.  Or China.  So what 'four corners' do you think He meant?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Feb 23, 2017)

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > And He shall raise a banner to the nations, and *He shall gather the lost of Israel, and the scattered ones of Judah He shall gather from the four corners of the earth." (Isaiah 11)*
> ...


----------

