# Let us discuss this openly... What exactly IS the "two states solution"?



## Lipush

I'm ready to open this up with the Pro-Palestinians on this board who are willing to have a logal discussion, and those who are not haters who want Israel in the sea.

Let us talk this rationally. What exactly IS the two states solution? One for Israel and one for the Palestinians? What will be the borders of such states?

Can you openly tell me what is the benefit of the so called 67 lines? what good there is in them? and why they are better than a 1 state solution?

Please elaborate. Let us discuss this rationally. No name calling and cusses.


----------



## montelatici

Lipush, a two state solution is no longer possible without ethnic cleansing of Jews or non-Jews. It will no longer work.  A single state solution is now the only solution.


----------



## PurpleOwl

Lipush said:


> I'm ready to open this up with the Pro-Palestinians on this board who are willing to have a logal discussion, and those who are not haters who want Israel in the sea.
> 
> Let us talk this rationally. What exactly IS the two states solution? One for Israel and one for the Palestinians? What will be the borders of such states?
> 
> Can you openly tell me what is the benefit of the so called 67 lines? what good there is in them? and why they are better than a 1 state solution?
> 
> Please elaborate. Let us discuss this rationally. No name calling and cusses.



If your looking for a rational discussion it helps to not label your opponents as "haters who want Israel in the sea" I'm assuming you mean haters not as in religious bigots but as "player haters" as in they're just jealous of they're gold rings and pimped out Cadillacs. I know Trump uses that one alot but I dont think you people know what it means, the push them into the sea comment I'm guessing was a random out of context quote from Ahmadinejad from 2004 I think.


here is the older of map of israel






as you can see most of palestine is occupied by Israel, the 1967 agreement, is where most Palestinian groups say Israel should move back to. But since jews were safer in muslim palestine then they were in christian europe most people say this entire occupation was unnecessary and illegal to begin with, and has more to do with white vs arabs then it has anything to do with Jewish people.

Many jews are anti israel, and claim the state goes not only against scripture but causes further persecution of jews, and creates more problems than it solves





















so before you label everyone who is against israel as "haters who want Israel in the sea." you should try learning a little bit more than what fox news force feeds you. Then you might know what the "so called 67 lines" are all about


----------



## Lipush

montelatici said:


> Lipush, a two state solution is no longer possible without ethnic cleansing of Jews or non-Jews. It will no longer work.  A single state solution is now the only solution.




Ok. And what will be the regine of such a state?


----------



## Lipush

PurpleOwl said:


> Lipush said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm ready to open this up with the Pro-Palestinians on this board who are willing to have a logal discussion, and those who are not haters who want Israel in the sea.
> 
> Let us talk this rationally. What exactly IS the two states solution? One for Israel and one for the Palestinians? What will be the borders of such states?
> 
> Can you openly tell me what is the benefit of the so called 67 lines? what good there is in them? and why they are better than a 1 state solution?
> 
> Please elaborate. Let us discuss this rationally. No name calling and cusses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If your looking for a rational discussion it helps to not label your opponents as "haters who want Israel in the sea" I'm assuming you mean haters not as in religious bigots but as "player haters" as in they're just jealous of they're gold rings and pimped out Cadillacs. I know Trump uses that one alot but I dont think you people know what it means, the push them into the sea comment I'm guessing was a random out of context quote from Ahmadinejad from 2004 I think.
> 
> 
> here is the older of map of israel
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> as you can see most of palestine is occupied by Israel, the 1967 agreement, is where most Palestinian groups say Israel should move back to. But since jews were safer in muslim palestine then they were in christian europe most people say this entire occupation was unnecessary and illegal to begin with, and has more to do with white vs arabs then it has anything to do with Jewish people.
> 
> Many jews are anti israel, and claim the state goes not only against scripture but causes further persecution of jews, and creates more problems than it solves
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so before you label everyone who is against israel as "haters who want Israel in the sea." you should try learning a little bit more than what fox news force feeds you. Then you might know what the "so called 67 lines" are all about
Click to expand...



You said much without really saying anything.

What is the ideal solution, in that case?


----------



## montelatici

Lipush said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lipush, a two state solution is no longer possible without ethnic cleansing of Jews or non-Jews. It will no longer work.  A single state solution is now the only solution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok. And what will be the regine of such a state?
Click to expand...


Whatever government is democratically elected.


----------



## Lipush

montelatici said:


> Lipush said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lipush, a two state solution is no longer possible without ethnic cleansing of Jews or non-Jews. It will no longer work.  A single state solution is now the only solution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok. And what will be the regine of such a state?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whatever government is democratically elected.
Click to expand...


Ones state solution such as this will cause 10 times more bloodshed than we have already.


----------



## Hollie

montelatici said:


> Lipush said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lipush, a two state solution is no longer possible without ethnic cleansing of Jews or non-Jews. It will no longer work.  A single state solution is now the only solution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok. And what will be the regine of such a state?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whatever government is democratically elected.
Click to expand...


Nice waffle. A democratically elected government means nothing without equal representation. The Hamas terrorists were "democratically elected" but have no conception of terms such as representative government.

I think the problem you're having is that words thrown carelessly around tend to lose all connection to their intrinsic meaning. To suggest that a "democracy" is represented by heavily armed Islamic terrorists forcing a fascistic / ancient theocratic code on a population is just nonsense.


----------



## PurpleOwl

Lipush said:


> PurpleOwl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lipush said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm ready to open this up with the Pro-Palestinians on this board who are willing to have a logal discussion, and those who are not haters who want Israel in the sea.
> 
> Let us talk this rationally. What exactly IS the two states solution? One for Israel and one for the Palestinians? What will be the borders of such states?
> 
> Can you openly tell me what is the benefit of the so called 67 lines? what good there is in them? and why they are better than a 1 state solution?
> 
> Please elaborate. Let us discuss this rationally. No name calling and cusses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If your looking for a rational discussion it helps to not label your opponents as "haters who want Israel in the sea" I'm assuming you mean haters not as in religious bigots but as "player haters" as in they're just jealous of they're gold rings and pimped out Cadillacs. I know Trump uses that one alot but I dont think you people know what it means, the push them into the sea comment I'm guessing was a random out of context quote from Ahmadinejad from 2004 I think.
> 
> 
> here is the older of map of israel
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> as you can see most of palestine is occupied by Israel, the 1967 agreement, is where most Palestinian groups say Israel should move back to. But since jews were safer in muslim palestine then they were in christian europe most people say this entire occupation was unnecessary and illegal to begin with, and has more to do with white vs arabs then it has anything to do with Jewish people.
> 
> Many jews are anti israel, and claim the state goes not only against scripture but causes further persecution of jews, and creates more problems than it solves
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so before you label everyone who is against israel as "haters who want Israel in the sea." you should try learning a little bit more than what fox news force feeds you. Then you might know what the "so called 67 lines" are all about
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You said much without really saying anything.
> 
> What is the ideal solution, in that case?
Click to expand...

there's no ideal solution, other than changing the past, the ideal solution would be if there had been no holocaust, or centuries of jewish persecution throughout christian europe, the creation of israel or palestine which is really just a former british colony.

you could say the ideal solution might be to just create one large democratic state, but not everyone would be happy with that since one group would be the majority. So they bicker over these lines, the 2 state solution means they should have two democratic states for muslims and jews. So they can be separate but equal (sound familiar) but most palestinians would prefer if jews left israel entirely or if they stayed and complied with a majority muslim government. There are plenty of jews living in Lebanon for example that do not need a separate government, jews lived in the area for centuries.

there is also the issue of holy sites that are claimed by both jews and muslims, and since islam worships judaism (the same way christians do) they basically lay claim to all jewish historical sites.


----------



## Pete7469

Lipush said:


> I'm ready to open this up with the Pro-Palestinians on this board who are willing to have a logal discussion, and those who are not haters who want Israel in the sea.
> .



Good luck with that.

Israel haters are generally bed wetting libturds who love jihadists. You'll get nothing of intellectual value from them.

The 2 state solution is summed up this way.

The palescumians get a state with Jerusalem as it's capital, the jews get a state within that state where they accept subservience to islamic sociopaths.


----------



## Lipush

Pete7469 said:


> Lipush said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm ready to open this up with the Pro-Palestinians on this board who are willing to have a logal discussion, and those who are not haters who want Israel in the sea.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good luck with that.
> 
> Israel haters are generally bed wetting libturds who love jihadists. You'll get nothing of intellectual value from them.
> 
> The 2 state solution is summed up this way.
> 
> The palescumians get a state with Jerusalem as it's capital, the jews get a state within that state where they accept subservience to islamic sociopaths.
Click to expand...


Well, that's one way of putting it.


----------



## PurpleOwl

Pete7469 said:


> Lipush said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm ready to open this up with the Pro-Palestinians on this board who are willing to have a logal discussion, and those who are not haters who want Israel in the sea.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good luck with that.
> 
> Israel haters are generally bed wetting libturds who love jihadists. You'll get nothing of intellectual value from them.
> 
> The 2 state solution is summed up this way.
> 
> The palescumians get a state with Jerusalem as it's capital, the jews get a state within that state where they accept subservience to islamic sociopaths.
Click to expand...

you nazis only like jews when theyre killing brown people


----------



## P F Tinmore

I see we are off to a good start. Israel has created a terrible mess that will be difficult to unwind. The two state solution is wrong in many ways. It was first thrown on the table in 1937. Eighty years later we are farther away from a two state solution than we were then. "Everybody knows" that it is the only solution. So if it is such a good idea, why hasn't it happened?


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> I see we are off to a good start. Israel has created a terrible mess that will be difficult to unwind. The two state solution is wrong in many ways. It was first thrown on the table in 1937. Eighty years later we are farther away from a two state solution than we were then. "Everybody knows" that it is the only solution. So if it is such a good idea, why hasn't it happened?



More of your whining as a means to sidestep incompetence on the part of Arabs-Moslems.

Israel created a modern, educated and first world society / economy in spite of the efforts by Arabs-Moslems to prevent that. It is the Arabs-Moslems who created a mess and are still mired in ancient hatreds, their societies horribly dysfunctional.

Get past your petty hatreds and insecurities and face the fact that Arab-Moslem societies across the Islamist Middle East are disasters of tribal rivalries, social and political apartheid, gender discrimination and of course, leadership toward those goals.

Regarding the three state solution - Israel, Gaza'istan and Fatah'istan, things are, as they are. There is no two state solution when the competing Islamic terrorist enclaves have self- interests in the prize that is the UNRWA welfare fraud.


----------



## Lipush

P F Tinmore said:


> I see we are off to a good start. Israel has created a terrible mess that will be difficult to unwind. The two state solution is wrong in many ways. It was first thrown on the table in 1937. Eighty years later we are farther away from a two state solution than we were then. "Everybody knows" that it is the only solution. So if it is such a good idea, why hasn't it happened?



Because it's as bad as the status quo?

And if it is, then what is your solution?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Lipush said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see we are off to a good start. Israel has created a terrible mess that will be difficult to unwind. The two state solution is wrong in many ways. It was first thrown on the table in 1937. Eighty years later we are farther away from a two state solution than we were then. "Everybody knows" that it is the only solution. So if it is such a good idea, why hasn't it happened?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because it's as bad as the status quo?
> 
> And if it is, then what is your solution?
Click to expand...

Decolonization.


----------



## Pete7469




----------



## ForeverYoung436

P F Tinmore said:


> Lipush said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see we are off to a good start. Israel has created a terrible mess that will be difficult to unwind. The two state solution is wrong in many ways. It was first thrown on the table in 1937. Eighty years later we are farther away from a two state solution than we were then. "Everybody knows" that it is the only solution. So if it is such a good idea, why hasn't it happened?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because it's as bad as the status quo?
> 
> And if it is, then what is your solution?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Decolonization.
Click to expand...


That means nothing at all.  You are living in the past.  Any realist can see that there are 2 peoples living in that area right now.  The more both sides dig in their heels, the worse the problem will become.
"Decolonization" doesn't mean anything.  Israelis are a people now.  Six million people are not going to move to Russia, Poland, Yemen, Morocco, the U.S., Ethiopia, etc.  It's stupid and ridiculous.  The only Jewish country in the world is not going to self-destruct for a 23rd dysfunctional Arab state.


----------



## P F Tinmore

ForeverYoung436 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lipush said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see we are off to a good start. Israel has created a terrible mess that will be difficult to unwind. The two state solution is wrong in many ways. It was first thrown on the table in 1937. Eighty years later we are farther away from a two state solution than we were then. "Everybody knows" that it is the only solution. So if it is such a good idea, why hasn't it happened?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because it's as bad as the status quo?
> 
> And if it is, then what is your solution?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Decolonization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That means nothing at all.  You are living in the past.  Any realist can see that there are 2 peoples living in that area right now.  The more both sides dig in their heels, the worse the problem will become.
> "Decolonization" doesn't mean anything.  Israelis are a people now.  Six million people are not going to move to Russia, Poland, Yemen, Morocco, the U.S., Ethiopia, etc.  It's stupid and ridiculous.  The only Jewish country in the world is not going to self-destruct for a 23rd dysfunctional Arab state.
Click to expand...

The two state solution is dead. What are your suggestions?


----------



## Shusha

Lipush said:


> I'm ready to open this up with the Pro-Palestinians on this board who are willing to have a logal discussion, and those who are not haters who want Israel in the sea.



So, Coyote


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> Decolonization.



So, ethnic cleansing of only Jews.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Decolonization.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, ethnic cleansing of only Jews.
Click to expand...

Where does it say that?


----------



## Shusha

In answer to the question, though....

Areas A and B and Gaza to Palestine. Area C to Palestine to create a contiguous state with land swaps.  Israel keeps Gush Etzion, Ma'ale Adumin, Ariel, East Jerusalem, Hebron (especially the holy places) and an access corridor to it.  In exchange, suitable Israeli land with large Arab population and expansion for Gaza.  

Israel controls the Temple Mount/Haram Al Sharif.  But, if possible, a corridor for Palestinian access to same.  

Residents become citizens of territory in which they are resident. Border areas in question have a referendum to decide which side of the line they want to belong to.  Dual citizenship permitted for all who apply, but this carries a risk of deportation for criminal activity or incitement.  Anyone wishing to change residency due to this agreement is given generous incentives to relocate.

Both nations agree to provide equality in cultural and language preservation, education, laws, etc. while acknowledging the essential Jewish or Arab nature of the State.


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Decolonization.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, ethnic cleansing of only Jews.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where does it say that?
Click to expand...


Feel free to clarify what you mean, then.  Be specific.


----------



## fncceo

Lipush said:


> What is the ideal solution, in that case?



I know exactly what his solution is ...







But it ain't gonna happen.


----------



## montelatici

fncceo said:


> Lipush said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is the ideal solution, in that case?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know exactly what his solution is ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But it ain't gonna happen.
Click to expand...


Well yes, the Zionist Jews have adopted many of the tactics of their previous oppressors, but do you think the rest of the world will allow the Zionists to murder all the non-Jews?


----------



## Lipush

P F Tinmore said:


> Lipush said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see we are off to a good start. Israel has created a terrible mess that will be difficult to unwind. The two state solution is wrong in many ways. It was first thrown on the table in 1937. Eighty years later we are farther away from a two state solution than we were then. "Everybody knows" that it is the only solution. So if it is such a good idea, why hasn't it happened?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because it's as bad as the status quo?
> 
> And if it is, then what is your solution?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Decolonization.
Click to expand...



Which means, what, in the field?


----------



## Lipush

montelatici said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lipush said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is the ideal solution, in that case?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know exactly what his solution is ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But it ain't gonna happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well yes, the Zionist Jews have adopted many of the tactics of their previous oppressors, but do you think the rest of the world will allow the Zionists to murder all the non-Jews?
Click to expand...



You think Zionists are "murdering" all the non Jews?

you know more than 20% of Israel's citizens are non-Jews, right? and they have full rights.

At least let us stay true to the facts


----------



## Lipush

Shusha said:


> In answer to the question, though....
> 
> Areas A and B and Gaza to Palestine. Area C to Palestine to create a contiguous state with land swaps.  Israel keeps Gush Etzion, Ma'ale Adumin, Ariel, East Jerusalem, Hebron (especially the holy places) and an access corridor to it.  In exchange, suitable Israeli land with large Arab population and expansion for Gaza.
> 
> Israel controls the Temple Mount/Haram Al Sharif.  But, if possible, a corridor for Palestinian access to same.
> 
> Residents become citizens of territory in which they are resident. Border areas in question have a referendum to decide which side of the line they want to belong to.  Dual citizenship permitted for all who apply, but this carries a risk of deportation for criminal activity or incitement.  Anyone wishing to change residency due to this agreement is given generous incentives to relocate.
> 
> Both nations agree to provide equality in cultural and language preservation, education, laws, etc. while acknowledging the essential Jewish or Arab nature of the State.



Thank you, finally someone takes this thread seriously. But ok, say all of this happens, what about Gaza?


----------



## montelatici

Lipush said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lipush said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is the ideal solution, in that case?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know exactly what his solution is ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But it ain't gonna happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well yes, the Zionist Jews have adopted many of the tactics of their previous oppressors, but do you think the rest of the world will allow the Zionists to murder all the non-Jews?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You think Zionists are "murdering" all the non Jews?
> 
> you know more than 20% of Israel's citizens are non-Jews, right? and they have full rights.
> 
> At least let us stay true to the facts
Click to expand...


Firstly, I asked the question about killing all the non-Jews.  Secondly, the Israelis rule over a population of non-Jews as large or larger than the population of Jews.  You people keep up the charade that Apartheid South Africa kept up with respect to the Bantustans.  You rule over the occupied territories, you control the borders, the air space, the territorial sea, you collect their taxes and you enter the territories with your armed forces wherever and whenever.


----------



## Hollie

montelatici said:


> Lipush said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lipush said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is the ideal solution, in that case?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know exactly what his solution is ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But it ain't gonna happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well yes, the Zionist Jews have adopted many of the tactics of their previous oppressors, but do you think the rest of the world will allow the Zionists to murder all the non-Jews?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You think Zionists are "murdering" all the non Jews?
> 
> you know more than 20% of Israel's citizens are non-Jews, right? and they have full rights.
> 
> At least let us stay true to the facts
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Firstly, I asked the question about killing all the non-Jews.  Secondly, the Israelis rule over a population of non-Jews as large or larger than the population of Jews.  You people keep up the charade that Apartheid South Africa kept up with respect to the Bantustans.  You rule over the occupied territories, you control the borders, the air space, the territorial sea, you collect their taxes and you enter the territories with your armed forces wherever and whenever.
Click to expand...


Frankly, you people are your own worst enemies. Israelis have controls in place that are designed to suppress the worst elements of those who live, breathe and die by the Hamas Charter. Without controls on the borders, air space and territorial sea, the Islamic barbarians would be attempting to fulfill their Charter:

"Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it" (The Martyr, Imam Hassan al-Banna, of blessed memory)."

You people make no pretense about your Nazi ideological gosls.


----------



## fncceo

Lipush said:


> finally someone takes this thread seriously



Did you seriously think anyone here would/could have a meaningful discussion about the I/P Conflict?  Threads like this are like chum in the water to the 'Jews are Nazis' crowd.  And why not?  An anonymous internet forum is only place they can spew their Jew hatred with impunity.  They can't say the things they like to say in public, they can't say them to their co-workers or their friends or relatives.  They have to hide their Jew-hatred in the closet like any other degenerate perversion.

There is no point discussing the I/P Conflict with anyone who isn't an Israeli or Palestinian because no one from outside those two groups will ever dictate a solution to either party.

US Presidents, EU Bureaucrats, Russian Autocrats will all push their solutions on Israel looking to secure their spot in some History book.  These kibitzers will come and go ... Israel will still be there, doing what is best for Israel.

I'm sorry, but I won't engage these Jew-hating vermin in any kind of discussion because that is precisely what they want.


----------



## José

> Originally posted by *fncceo*
> There is no point discussing the I/P Conflict with anyone who isn't an Israeli or Palestinian because no one from outside those two groups will ever dictate a solution to either party.



This is the same point white supremacists in South Africa spent 4 decades telling the rest of the world

*The conflict between South Africa and the Bantu is an internal problem. The international community cannot impose a solution. *

I guess this is the standard babble regurgitated by every supremacist state on their way to the garbage can of human history.


----------



## ForeverYoung436

Shusha said:


> In answer to the question, though....
> 
> Areas A and B and Gaza to Palestine. Area C to Palestine to create a contiguous state with land swaps.  Israel keeps Gush Etzion, Ma'ale Adumin, Ariel, East Jerusalem, Hebron (especially the holy places) and an access corridor to it.  In exchange, suitable Israeli land with large Arab population and expansion for Gaza.
> 
> Israel controls the Temple Mount/Haram Al Sharif.  But, if possible, a corridor for Palestinian access to same.
> 
> Residents become citizens of territory in which they are resident. Border areas in question have a referendum to decide which side of the line they want to belong to.  Dual citizenship permitted for all who apply, but this carries a risk of deportation for criminal activity or incitement.  Anyone wishing to change residency due to this agreement is given generous incentives to relocate.
> 
> Both nations agree to provide equality in cultural and language preservation, education, laws, etc. while acknowledging the essential Jewish or Arab nature of the State.




This is a good plan.


----------



## Hollie

José said:


> Originally posted by *fncceo*
> There is no point discussing the I/P Conflict with anyone who isn't an Israeli or Palestinian because no one from outside those two groups will ever dictate a solution to either party.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is the same point white supremacists in South Africa spent 4 decades telling the rest of the world
> 
> *The conflict between South Africa and the Bantu is an internal problem. The international community cannot impose a solution. *
> 
> I guess this is the standard babble regurgitated by every supremacist state on their way to the garbage can of human history.
Click to expand...


The pointless South Africa references are a staple among the Islamic terrorist Pom Pom flailers. The fact is, the international community cannot negotiate nor can they resolve _anything_ with two competing Islamic terrorist enclaves (Hamas and Fatah) both of which represent competing mini-caliphates viciously antagonistic to one-another.


----------



## José

> Originally posted by *Hollie*
> The pointless South Africa references are a staple among the Islamic terrorist Pom Pom flailers.



As I followed your endless *YOUTUBE VIDEO BATTLES* with Tinmore there was a question I've always wanted to ask you, Hollie:

Do you really think it is morally acceptable to murder, arrest or deport any of these human beings when they try to peacefully return to their places of origin






just because a *MINORITY*, and I repeat, contrary to what the propaganda says, a *MINORITY* among them happens to not believe in the separation between mosque and state?

Do you really think this is OK?


----------



## Hollie

José said:


> Originally posted by *Hollie*
> The pointless South Africa references are a staple among the Islamic terrorist Pom Pom flailers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I followed your endless *YOUTUBE VIDEO BATTLES* with Tinmore there was a question I've always wanted to ask you, Hollie:
> 
> Do you really think it is morally acceptable to murder, arrest or deport any of these human beings when they try to peacefully return to their places of origin
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> just because a *MINORITY*, and I repeat, contrary to what the propaganda says, a *MINORITY* among them happens to not believe in the separation between mosque and state?
> 
> Do you really think this is OK?
Click to expand...


Your undated, un-sourced and unattributed photo tells me nothing. Are those people perhaps Christian Copts who have been forced from their homes in Egypt? Could they be Shia Moslems purged from the Sunni majority Middle East? How about Arab Syrians fleeing from their fellow Arab oppressors? Fatah politburo members expelled from a Gaza?


Note: late edit. I did a search for your image and it linked to a late November 2012 news article.

This is from earlier in November 2012:

Tel Aviv bus hit by bomb; Hamas celebrates


----------



## José

> Originally posted by *Hollie*
> Note: late edit. I did a search for your image and it linked to a late November 2012 news article.
> 
> This is from earlier in November 2012:
> 
> Tel Aviv bus hit by bomb; Hamas celebrates



And the picture shows the entire reason for the Hamas attack.

Non-combatants, totally harmless civilians, including women and children, being prevented, under the threat of death, from moving about their homeland by virtue of being arabs.


----------



## José

The exact same scene could be seen in the West Bank and Gaza in 1948, 4 decades before Hamas was created and years before the first fedayeen attack.


----------



## Hollie

José said:


> Originally posted by *Hollie*
> Note: late edit. I did a search for your image and it linked to a late November 2012 news article.
> 
> This is from earlier in November 2012:
> 
> Tel Aviv bus hit by bomb; Hamas celebrates
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the picture shows the entire reason for the Hamas attack.
> 
> Non-combatants, totally harmless civilians, including women and children, being prevented, under the threat of death, from moving about their homeland by virtue of being arabs.
Click to expand...

Right. Hamas has an entitlement to mass murder Israeli civilians.


----------



## fncceo

José said:


> totally harmless civilians, including women and children, being prevented, under the threat of death, from moving about their homeland



California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas were once the homelands of the Mexican people.  

Pop quiz: What happens to 'harmless civilians' who illegally enter those states - simply by being Mexican?

Israel, like the United States, is a sovereign country.  All sovereign countries have the right to control immigration.


----------



## Shusha

José said:


> Do you really think it is morally acceptable to murder, arrest or deport any of these human beings when they try to peacefully return to their places of origin?
> 
> Do you really think this is OK?






> And the picture shows the entire reason for the Hamas attack.



In light of the second post, Jose, I would like to ask you the same question you asked Hollie.  Do you think it is morally acceptable to murder human beings when they try to peacefully return to their places of origin?  Because the second post I quoted here leads me to believe you find it not only acceptable, but justified and even heroic.


----------



## Lastamender

There is no two state solution. That is due to the Islamic faith.


----------



## Lipush

montelatici said:


> Lipush said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lipush said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is the ideal solution, in that case?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know exactly what his solution is ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But it ain't gonna happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well yes, the Zionist Jews have adopted many of the tactics of their previous oppressors, but do you think the rest of the world will allow the Zionists to murder all the non-Jews?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You think Zionists are "murdering" all the non Jews?
> 
> you know more than 20% of Israel's citizens are non-Jews, right? and they have full rights.
> 
> At least let us stay true to the facts
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Firstly, I asked the question about killing all the non-Jews.  Secondly, the Israelis rule over a population of non-Jews as large or larger than the population of Jews.  You people keep up the charade that Apartheid South Africa kept up with respect to the Bantustans.  You rule over the occupied territories, you control the borders, the air space, the territorial sea, you collect their taxes and you enter the territories with your armed forces wherever and whenever.
Click to expand...


That is true (excluding the taxes part) but that only means that currently they're under Israel's control, which is known already. How does is make it apartheid? Is the separation based on race? no it is not, and you know it. So what gives.


----------



## Lipush

fncceo said:


> Lipush said:
> 
> 
> 
> finally someone takes this thread seriously
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you seriously think anyone here would/could have a meaningful discussion about the I/P Conflict?  Threads like this are like chum in the water to the 'Jews are Nazis' crowd.  And why not?  An anonymous internet forum is only place they can spew their Jew hatred with impunity.  They can't say the things they like to say in public, they can't say them to their co-workers or their friends or relatives.  They have to hide their Jew-hatred in the closet like any other degenerate perversion.
> 
> There is no point discussing the I/P Conflict with anyone who isn't an Israeli or Palestinian because no one from outside those two groups will ever dictate a solution to either party.
> 
> US Presidents, EU Bureaucrats, Russian Autocrats will all push their solutions on Israel looking to secure their spot in some History book.  These kibitzers will come and go ... Israel will still be there, doing what is best for Israel.
> 
> I'm sorry, but I won't engage these Jew-hating vermin in any kind of discussion because that is precisely what they want.
Click to expand...


I hear you.


----------



## Lipush

José said:


> Originally posted by *Hollie*
> The pointless South Africa references are a staple among the Islamic terrorist Pom Pom flailers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I followed your endless *YOUTUBE VIDEO BATTLES* with Tinmore there was a question I've always wanted to ask you, Hollie:
> 
> Do you really think it is morally acceptable to murder, arrest or deport any of these human beings when they try to peacefully return to their places of origin
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> just because a *MINORITY*, and I repeat, contrary to what the propaganda says, a *MINORITY* among them happens to not believe in the separation between mosque and state?
> 
> Do you really think this is OK?
Click to expand...


They want to settle their home where *my home is*, and I just won't let them. Sorry.


----------



## Lipush

José said:


> The exact same scene could be seen in the West Bank and Gaza in 1948, 4 decades before Hamas was created and years before the first fedayeen attack.



I repeat: As long as their mission is to build their home in MY home, kill me and take it away, then I will fight them. 

Simple *shrug*


----------



## ForeverYoung436

PurpleOwl said:


> Lipush said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm ready to open this up with the Pro-Palestinians on this board who are willing to have a logal discussion, and those who are not haters who want Israel in the sea.
> 
> Let us talk this rationally. What exactly IS the two states solution? One for Israel and one for the Palestinians? What will be the borders of such states?
> 
> Can you openly tell me what is the benefit of the so called 67 lines? what good there is in them? and why they are better than a 1 state solution?
> 
> Please elaborate. Let us discuss this rationally. No name calling and cusses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If your looking for a rational discussion it helps to not label your opponents as "haters who want Israel in the sea" I'm assuming you mean haters not as in religious bigots but as "player haters" as in they're just jealous of they're gold rings and pimped out Cadillacs. I know Trump uses that one alot but I dont think you people know what it means, the push them into the sea comment I'm guessing was a random out of context quote from Ahmadinejad from 2004 I think.
> 
> 
> here is the older of map of israel
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> as you can see most of palestine is occupied by Israel, the 1967 agreement, is where most Palestinian groups say Israel should move back to. But since jews were safer in muslim palestine then they were in christian europe most people say this entire occupation was unnecessary and illegal to begin with, and has more to do with white vs arabs then it has anything to do with Jewish people.
> 
> Many jews are anti israel, and claim the state goes not only against scripture but causes further persecution of jews, and creates more problems than it solves
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so before you label everyone who is against israel as "haters who want Israel in the sea." you should try learning a little bit more than what fox news force feeds you. Then you might know what the "so called 67 lines" are all about
Click to expand...


That map of Israel and the West Bank/Gaza from 2005 isn't accurate at all.  Arab propaganda.  The West Bank is still filled with Arabs.


----------



## Lipush

ForeverYoung436 said:


> PurpleOwl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lipush said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm ready to open this up with the Pro-Palestinians on this board who are willing to have a logal discussion, and those who are not haters who want Israel in the sea.
> 
> Let us talk this rationally. What exactly IS the two states solution? One for Israel and one for the Palestinians? What will be the borders of such states?
> 
> Can you openly tell me what is the benefit of the so called 67 lines? what good there is in them? and why they are better than a 1 state solution?
> 
> Please elaborate. Let us discuss this rationally. No name calling and cusses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If your looking for a rational discussion it helps to not label your opponents as "haters who want Israel in the sea" I'm assuming you mean haters not as in religious bigots but as "player haters" as in they're just jealous of they're gold rings and pimped out Cadillacs. I know Trump uses that one alot but I dont think you people know what it means, the push them into the sea comment I'm guessing was a random out of context quote from Ahmadinejad from 2004 I think.
> 
> 
> here is the older of map of israel
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> as you can see most of palestine is occupied by Israel, the 1967 agreement, is where most Palestinian groups say Israel should move back to. But since jews were safer in muslim palestine then they were in christian europe most people say this entire occupation was unnecessary and illegal to begin with, and has more to do with white vs arabs then it has anything to do with Jewish people.
> 
> Many jews are anti israel, and claim the state goes not only against scripture but causes further persecution of jews, and creates more problems than it solves
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so before you label everyone who is against israel as "haters who want Israel in the sea." you should try learning a little bit more than what fox news force feeds you. Then you might know what the "so called 67 lines" are all about
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That map of Israel and the West Bank/Gaza from 2005 isn't accurate at all.  Arab propaganda.  The West Bank is still filled with Arabs.
Click to expand...


Sad that people ignore facts and/or twist them.


----------



## montelatici

Lipush said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lipush said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lipush said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is the ideal solution, in that case?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know exactly what his solution is ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But it ain't gonna happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well yes, the Zionist Jews have adopted many of the tactics of their previous oppressors, but do you think the rest of the world will allow the Zionists to murder all the non-Jews?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You think Zionists are "murdering" all the non Jews?
> 
> you know more than 20% of Israel's citizens are non-Jews, right? and they have full rights.
> 
> At least let us stay true to the facts
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Firstly, I asked the question about killing all the non-Jews.  Secondly, the Israelis rule over a population of non-Jews as large or larger than the population of Jews.  You people keep up the charade that Apartheid South Africa kept up with respect to the Bantustans.  You rule over the occupied territories, you control the borders, the air space, the territorial sea, you collect their taxes and you enter the territories with your armed forces wherever and whenever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is true (excluding the taxes part) but that only means that currently they're under Israel's control, which is known already. How does is make it apartheid? Is the separation based on race? no it is not, and you know it. So what gives.
Click to expand...



I'm always surprised how little Israelis really know about their country's treatment of the Palestinians.  Everyone except Israelis know that Israel collects almost all of the taxes paid by the Palestinians.

"Israel has halted transfers of the tax revenue it collects on behalf of the Palestinians in retaliation for their move to join the international criminal court in the Hague, according to Israeli media."

Israel freezes Palestinian tax funds over international criminal court move


----------



## Lipush

montelatici said:


> Lipush said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lipush said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know exactly what his solution is ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But it ain't gonna happen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well yes, the Zionist Jews have adopted many of the tactics of their previous oppressors, but do you think the rest of the world will allow the Zionists to murder all the non-Jews?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You think Zionists are "murdering" all the non Jews?
> 
> you know more than 20% of Israel's citizens are non-Jews, right? and they have full rights.
> 
> At least let us stay true to the facts
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Firstly, I asked the question about killing all the non-Jews.  Secondly, the Israelis rule over a population of non-Jews as large or larger than the population of Jews.  You people keep up the charade that Apartheid South Africa kept up with respect to the Bantustans.  You rule over the occupied territories, you control the borders, the air space, the territorial sea, you collect their taxes and you enter the territories with your armed forces wherever and whenever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is true (excluding the taxes part) but that only means that currently they're under Israel's control, which is known already. How does is make it apartheid? Is the separation based on race? no it is not, and you know it. So what gives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm always surprised how little Israelis really know about their country's treatment of the Palestinians.  Everyone except Israelis know that Israel collects almost all of the taxes paid by the Palestinians.
> 
> "Israel has halted transfers of the tax revenue it collects on behalf of the Palestinians in retaliation for their move to join the international criminal court in the Hague, according to Israeli media."
> 
> Israel freezes Palestinian tax funds over international criminal court move
Click to expand...


Again with insulting my intelligence. Palestinians 'on paper' pay taxes, but they are in debt of biollions to both electricity and water copmanies.


----------



## montelatici

Lipush said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lipush said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lipush said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well yes, the Zionist Jews have adopted many of the tactics of their previous oppressors, but do you think the rest of the world will allow the Zionists to murder all the non-Jews?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You think Zionists are "murdering" all the non Jews?
> 
> you know more than 20% of Israel's citizens are non-Jews, right? and they have full rights.
> 
> At least let us stay true to the facts
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Firstly, I asked the question about killing all the non-Jews.  Secondly, the Israelis rule over a population of non-Jews as large or larger than the population of Jews.  You people keep up the charade that Apartheid South Africa kept up with respect to the Bantustans.  You rule over the occupied territories, you control the borders, the air space, the territorial sea, you collect their taxes and you enter the territories with your armed forces wherever and whenever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is true (excluding the taxes part) but that only means that currently they're under Israel's control, which is known already. How does is make it apartheid? Is the separation based on race? no it is not, and you know it. So what gives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm always surprised how little Israelis really know about their country's treatment of the Palestinians.  Everyone except Israelis know that Israel collects almost all of the taxes paid by the Palestinians.
> 
> "Israel has halted transfers of the tax revenue it collects on behalf of the Palestinians in retaliation for their move to join the international criminal court in the Hague, according to Israeli media."
> 
> Israel freezes Palestinian tax funds over international criminal court move
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again with insulting my intelligence. Palestinians 'on paper' pay taxes, but they are in debt of biollions to both electricity and water copmanies.
Click to expand...


Oh FFS.  Israel collects Palestinian taxes, what is wrong with you people, you can't just admit fact.


----------



## Lipush

Collects or not. They're in deep debts. Don't argue on things you don't know.


----------



## ForeverYoung436

montelatici said:


> Lipush said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lipush said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know exactly what his solution is ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But it ain't gonna happen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well yes, the Zionist Jews have adopted many of the tactics of their previous oppressors, but do you think the rest of the world will allow the Zionists to murder all the non-Jews?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You think Zionists are "murdering" all the non Jews?
> 
> you know more than 20% of Israel's citizens are non-Jews, right? and they have full rights.
> 
> At least let us stay true to the facts
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Firstly, I asked the question about killing all the non-Jews.  Secondly, the Israelis rule over a population of non-Jews as large or larger than the population of Jews.  You people keep up the charade that Apartheid South Africa kept up with respect to the Bantustans.  You rule over the occupied territories, you control the borders, the air space, the territorial sea, you collect their taxes and you enter the territories with your armed forces wherever and whenever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is true (excluding the taxes part) but that only means that currently they're under Israel's control, which is known already. How does is make it apartheid? Is the separation based on race? no it is not, and you know it. So what gives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm always surprised how little Israelis really know about their country's treatment of the Palestinians.  Everyone except Israelis know that Israel collects almost all of the taxes paid by the Palestinians.
> 
> "Israel has halted transfers of the tax revenue it collects on behalf of the Palestinians in retaliation for their move to join the international criminal court in the Hague, according to Israeli media."
> 
> Israel freezes Palestinian tax funds over international criminal court move
Click to expand...


Did you even read this article that you yourself posted?  It says that Israel collects the tax revenues on behalf of the Palestinians, and then transfers them to the PA each month.


----------



## montelatici

Lipush said:


> Collects or not. They're in deep debts. Don't argue on things you don't know.



It is you that denied that the Israelis collected Palestinian taxes.  Don't argue about things you don't know.


----------



## Lipush

montelatici said:


> Lipush said:
> 
> 
> 
> Collects or not. They're in deep debts. Don't argue on things you don't know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is you that denied that the Israelis collected Palestinian taxes.  Don't argue about things you don't know.
Click to expand...


I did not say such thing! I pointed out the fact that they're in debts! 

So are we clear on that? Cheeses.


----------



## montelatici

ForeverYoung436 said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lipush said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lipush said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well yes, the Zionist Jews have adopted many of the tactics of their previous oppressors, but do you think the rest of the world will allow the Zionists to murder all the non-Jews?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You think Zionists are "murdering" all the non Jews?
> 
> you know more than 20% of Israel's citizens are non-Jews, right? and they have full rights.
> 
> At least let us stay true to the facts
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Firstly, I asked the question about killing all the non-Jews.  Secondly, the Israelis rule over a population of non-Jews as large or larger than the population of Jews.  You people keep up the charade that Apartheid South Africa kept up with respect to the Bantustans.  You rule over the occupied territories, you control the borders, the air space, the territorial sea, you collect their taxes and you enter the territories with your armed forces wherever and whenever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is true (excluding the taxes part) but that only means that currently they're under Israel's control, which is known already. How does is make it apartheid? Is the separation based on race? no it is not, and you know it. So what gives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm always surprised how little Israelis really know about their country's treatment of the Palestinians.  Everyone except Israelis know that Israel collects almost all of the taxes paid by the Palestinians.
> 
> "Israel has halted transfers of the tax revenue it collects on behalf of the Palestinians in retaliation for their move to join the international criminal court in the Hague, according to Israeli media."
> 
> Israel freezes Palestinian tax funds over international criminal court move
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you even read this article that you yourself posted?  It says that Israel collects the tax revenues on behalf of the Palestinians, and then transfers them to the PA each month.
Click to expand...


That was exactly what I stated.  The Israelis collect Palestinian taxes.  That's what Lipush denied.  

And, if you read the article, they have been withholding transferring the taxes to the Palestinians to punish them for going to the ICC, which was not the point I was trying to make.


----------



## montelatici

Lipush said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lipush said:
> 
> 
> 
> Collects or not. They're in deep debts. Don't argue on things you don't know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is you that denied that the Israelis collected Palestinian taxes.  Don't argue about things you don't know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I did not say such thing! I pointed out the fact that they're in debts!
> 
> So are we clear on that? Cheeses.
Click to expand...


No we are not clear you are lying.  This is what you wrote after I wrote that the Israelis collected Palestinian taxes.

"That is true *(excluding the taxes part) *but that only means that currently they're under Israel's control, which is known already. ..."

Can you people ever stick to the truth?


----------



## Lipush

rerading comprahansion. I explained what I meant. I have no intention on repeating myself, you know what I meant.


----------



## P F Tinmore

fncceo said:


> José said:
> 
> 
> 
> totally harmless civilians, including women and children, being prevented, under the threat of death, from moving about their homeland
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas were once the homelands of the Mexican people.
> 
> Pop quiz: What happens to 'harmless civilians' who illegally enter those states - simply by being Mexican?
> 
> Israel, like the United States, is a sovereign country.  All sovereign countries have the right to control immigration.
Click to expand...

It is not about immigration. It is about people going home.


----------



## P F Tinmore

montelatici said:


> Lipush said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lipush said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know exactly what his solution is ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But it ain't gonna happen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well yes, the Zionist Jews have adopted many of the tactics of their previous oppressors, but do you think the rest of the world will allow the Zionists to murder all the non-Jews?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You think Zionists are "murdering" all the non Jews?
> 
> you know more than 20% of Israel's citizens are non-Jews, right? and they have full rights.
> 
> At least let us stay true to the facts
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Firstly, I asked the question about killing all the non-Jews.  Secondly, the Israelis rule over a population of non-Jews as large or larger than the population of Jews.  You people keep up the charade that Apartheid South Africa kept up with respect to the Bantustans.  You rule over the occupied territories, you control the borders, the air space, the territorial sea, you collect their taxes and you enter the territories with your armed forces wherever and whenever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is true (excluding the taxes part) but that only means that currently they're under Israel's control, which is known already. How does is make it apartheid? Is the separation based on race? no it is not, and you know it. So what gives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm always surprised how little Israelis really know about their country's treatment of the Palestinians.  Everyone except Israelis know that Israel collects almost all of the taxes paid by the Palestinians.
> 
> "Israel has halted transfers of the tax revenue it collects on behalf of the Palestinians in retaliation for their move to join the international criminal court in the Hague, according to Israeli media."
> 
> Israel freezes Palestinian tax funds over international criminal court move
Click to expand...

Because all imports and exports are controlled by Israel, Israel collects all of those taxes on the Palestinians behalf. Israel, by treaty, must pass that money to Palestine.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Lipush said:


> Collects or not. They're in deep debts. Don't argue on things you don't know.


Of course they are. That is Israel's master plan.


----------



## José

> Originally posted by *Shusha*
> In light of the second post, Jose, I would like to ask you the same question you asked Hollie. Do you think it is morally acceptable to murder human beings when they try to peacefully return to their places of origin?



Both attacks on civilians and the fencing, murder and arrest of palestinians are morally unacceptable, but the cause and effect relationship between them cannot be denied, the former is the consequence of the latter.


----------



## teddyearp

PurpleOwl said:


> there's no ideal solution, other than changing the past,



But there is no changing the past.  Once an egg is cracked open, you cannot put it back in.  What Lipush is trying to do obviously escapes you.  She (and I) for once would like to look to the future and find an actual peaceful end.


----------



## teddyearp

P F Tinmore said:


> Decolonization.



Translation=destruction of the State of Israel.  But that egg is already opened.  Do have an actual workable solution?


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Lipush said:
> 
> 
> 
> Collects or not. They're in deep debts. Don't argue on things you don't know.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course they are. That is Israel's master plan.
Click to expand...

Your _Grand Conspiracy Theory Master Plan™_


----------



## teddyearp

José said:


> The exact same scene could be seen in the West Bank and Gaza in 1948, 4 decades before Hamas was created and years before the first fedayeen attack.



Again, quit trying to unscramble eggs. I implore you to look at the facts as they are now and try to find a solution moving forward into the future, otherwise, find another thread to bring up the 'old' problems.

Please.  Pretty please.  We have been needing a thread like this for a long time.


----------



## teddyearp

montelatici said:


> Oh FFS.  Israel collects Palestinian taxes, what is wrong with you people, you can't just admit fact.


The purpose of this thread is to find a solution, not to bitch.  Try it, you might like it.


----------



## teddyearp

Lipush, I applaud your attempt here to have the members of this board to attempt to look beyond the past and focus on the future.  As for this:



Shusha said:


> In answer to the question, though....
> 
> Areas A and B and Gaza to Palestine. Area C to Palestine to create a contiguous state with land swaps.  Israel keeps Gush Etzion, Ma'ale Adumin, Ariel, East Jerusalem, Hebron (especially the holy places) and an access corridor to it.  In exchange, *suitable Israeli land with large Arab population* and expansion for Gaza.
> 
> Israel controls the Temple Mount/Haram Al Sharif.  But, if possible, a corridor for Palestinian access to same.
> 
> Residents become citizens of territory in which they are resident. Border areas in question have a referendum to decide which side of the line they want to belong to.  Dual citizenship permitted for all who apply, but this carries a risk of deportation for criminal activity or incitement.  Anyone wishing to change residency due to this agreement is given generous incentives to relocate.
> 
> Both nations agree to provide equality in cultural and language preservation, education, laws, etc. while acknowledging the essential Jewish or Arab nature of the State.


I have many times felt that this is a good solution.  However, I think Israel puts a high value on some control over the Jordan valley. So I would propose that a corridor along Route 90 and Route 1 would be a part of Israel, and a part of the exchange, as Shusha said could be specified as a corridor from Area A leading up to Nazareth, as Nazareth is predominately Arab.


----------



## Shusha

teddyearp said:


> I have many times felt that this is a good solution.  However, I think Israel puts a high value on some control over the Jordan valley. So I would propose that a corridor along Route 90 and Route 1 would be a part of Israel, and a part of the exchange, as Shusha said could be specified as a corridor from Area A leading up to Nazareth, as Nazareth is predominately Arab.



I agree, as long as the Jordan Valley corridor doesn't cut Palestine off from Jordan.  I think Palestine needs not to be completely enclosed by Israel.


----------



## P F Tinmore

teddyearp said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Decolonization.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Translation=destruction of the State of Israel.  But that egg is already opened.  Do have an actual workable solution?
Click to expand...

The United Nations and Decolonization - Declaration


----------



## teddyearp

Shusha said:


> I agree, as long as the Jordan Valley corridor doesn't cut Palestine off from Jordan.  I think Palestine needs not to be completely enclosed by Israel.


Agreed.  There are currently three(?) crossings into Jordan (Allenby Bridge is one), however they all come from Area C, so they could go through; perhaps becoming neutral.


----------



## teddyearp

P F Tinmore said:


> The United Nations and Decolonization - Declaration


That document is 56 years old.  Let's try for something new.


----------



## P F Tinmore

teddyearp said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The United Nations and Decolonization - Declaration
> 
> 
> 
> That document is 56 years old.  Let's try for something new.
Click to expand...

Why? It is still applicable.


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> teddyearp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Decolonization.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Translation=destruction of the State of Israel.  But that egg is already opened.  Do have an actual workable solution?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The United Nations and Decolonization - Declaration
Click to expand...


Didn't that already get taken care of with Oslo?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> teddyearp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Decolonization.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Translation=destruction of the State of Israel.  But that egg is already opened.  Do have an actual workable solution?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The United Nations and Decolonization - Declaration
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Didn't that already get taken care of with Oslo?
Click to expand...

Hardly. Oslo cemented the colonization.


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> teddyearp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Decolonization.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Translation=destruction of the State of Israel.  But that egg is already opened.  Do have an actual workable solution?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The United Nations and Decolonization - Declaration
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Didn't that already get taken care of with Oslo?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hardly. Oslo cemented the colonization.
Click to expand...


Oslo cemented, in treaty, the two state solution which up until then had been only a suggestion.  Indeed, it cemented the ideas presented in the UN declaration you just posted.  

Why is this not a workable solution?  See my post on suggested borders.


----------



## teddyearp

Tinmore, if you cannot see the spirit of this thread and instead want to continue to unscramble eggs, then I implore you to leave it.

Please. Pretty please. Let us forget ALL the past and move forward.


----------



## P F Tinmore

teddyearp said:


> Tinmore, if you cannot see the spirit of this thread and instead want to continue to unscramble eggs, then I implore you to leave it.
> 
> Please. Pretty please. Let us forget ALL the past and move forward.


Colonization is present. It is not past.


----------



## teddyearp

So, tinmore, what is your idea? Your solution? And please don't leave it to just one or two sentences. Please tell us in full detail what you see as the only path to peace in Israel/Palestine.

Don't worry about links, nor the length of your post. I want to really know your full solution.


----------



## Shusha

Decolonization suggests, to me, the forced removal of people from territory, which I would argue is morally wrong.

It is possible to consider a somewhat more voluntary population transfer, though, with incentives -- very generous incentives -- for those affected.  It is entirely possible that these two groups of people are incapable, at this time, of living harmoniously with each other.  Perhaps a "time out" from each other will be just the thing needed.  

I predict that P F Tinmore will decline to provide an answer about what he means when he suggests "decolonization" as even he knows its an abhorrent idea.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> Decolonization suggests, to me, the forced removal of people from territory, which I would argue is morally wrong.
> 
> It is possible to consider a somewhat more voluntary population transfer, though, with incentives -- very generous incentives -- for those affected.  It is entirely possible that these two groups of people are incapable, at this time, of living harmoniously with each other.  Perhaps a "time out" from each other will be just the thing needed.
> 
> I predict that P F Tinmore will decline to provide an answer about what he means when he suggests "decolonization" as even he knows its an abhorrent idea.


You clearly do not understand the mechanisms of decolonization.


----------



## teddyearp

And you, tinmore, clearly do not understand nor know and/or wish to honestly answer my question in post #80.


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> You clearly do not understand the mechanisms of decolonization.



You clearly are capable of articulating them.


----------



## fncceo

P F Tinmore said:


> You clearly do not understand the mechanisms of decolonization



Oh, trust me, we do.  We've been through it before. 







But Eretz Y'srael isn't a colony.  It's the home of the Jews for the last 4,000 years


----------



## Indeependent

I'm waiting for the Southern Baptists to offer me 20 million to move to Israel.
All talk, no action.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You clearly do not understand the mechanisms of decolonization.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You clearly are capable of articulating them.
Click to expand...

I posted the link. What more do you want?


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You clearly do not understand the mechanisms of decolonization.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You clearly are capable of articulating them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I posted the link. What more do you want?
Click to expand...


I want you to do what teddy asked you to do and articulate a clear outline of what you think the solution to the conflict would be. Not a one word answer. A clear step by step plan. 

Can you do that?


----------



## Lipush

P F Tinmore said:


> teddyearp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Decolonization.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Translation=destruction of the State of Israel.  But that egg is already opened.  Do have an actual workable solution?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The United Nations and Decolonization - Declaration
Click to expand...


I don't know how to take any conclusion from it.  Do you have any actually useful thing to suggest?


----------



## Lipush

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Decolonization suggests, to me, the forced removal of people from territory, which I would argue is morally wrong.
> 
> It is possible to consider a somewhat more voluntary population transfer, though, with incentives -- very generous incentives -- for those affected.  It is entirely possible that these two groups of people are incapable, at this time, of living harmoniously with each other.  Perhaps a "time out" from each other will be just the thing needed.
> 
> I predict that P F Tinmore will decline to provide an answer about what he means when he suggests "decolonization" as even he knows its an abhorrent idea.
> 
> 
> 
> You clearly do not understand the mechanisms of decolonization.
Click to expand...


You clearly have no idea what you want to say!  Throwing links says nothing.  You could as well as told me "Google it" for your opinion. 

People usually post lions when they are too lazy or misinformed to offer up a real argument.


----------



## montelatici

Lipush said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Decolonization suggests, to me, the forced removal of people from territory, which I would argue is morally wrong.
> 
> It is possible to consider a somewhat more voluntary population transfer, though, with incentives -- very generous incentives -- for those affected.  It is entirely possible that these two groups of people are incapable, at this time, of living harmoniously with each other.  Perhaps a "time out" from each other will be just the thing needed.
> 
> I predict that P F Tinmore will decline to provide an answer about what he means when he suggests "decolonization" as even he knows its an abhorrent idea.
> 
> 
> 
> You clearly do not understand the mechanisms of decolonization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You clearly have no idea what you want to say!  Throwing links says nothing.  You could as well as told me "Google it" for your opinion.
> 
> People usually post lions when they are too lazy or misinformed to offer up a real argument.
Click to expand...


There are plenty of examples. Rhodesia, Algeria, South Africa, Istria etc. 


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com


----------



## Lipush

All I asked for was a straight forward answer about how those ideals are going to work in Israel. I don't care about other places, they don't face the same problems. If he cannot offer a reasonable answer then why pretending, to begin with


----------



## PurpleOwl

Lipush said:


> All I asked for was a straight forward answer about how those ideals are going to work in Israel. I don't care about other places, they don't face the same problems. If he cannot offer a reasonable answer then why pretending, to begin with


Those ideals whatever they are have worked in "israel" for the past 1000+ years


----------



## Lipush

PurpleOwl said:


> Lipush said:
> 
> 
> 
> All I asked for was a straight forward answer about how those ideals are going to work in Israel. I don't care about other places, they don't face the same problems. If he cannot offer a reasonable answer then why pretending, to begin with
> 
> 
> 
> Those ideals whatever they are have worked in "israel" for the past 1000+ years
Click to expand...


What you you talking about.

And that is just Israel. There is no


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You clearly do not understand the mechanisms of decolonization.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You clearly are capable of articulating them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I posted the link. What more do you want?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I want you to do what teddy asked you to do and articulate a clear outline of what you think the solution to the conflict would be. Not a one word answer. A clear step by step plan.
> 
> Can you do that?
Click to expand...

*4. All armed action or repressive measures of all kinds directed against dependent peoples shall cease* in order to enable them to exercise peacefully and freely their right to complete independence, and *the integrity of their national territory shall be respected.*

5. Immediate steps shall be taken, in Trust and Non-Self-Governing Territories or all other territories which have not yet attained independence, *to transfer all powers to the peoples of those territories, without any conditions or reservations,* in accordance with their freely expressed will and desire, without any distinction as to race, creed or colour, in order to enable them to enjoy complete independence and freedom.

The United Nations and Decolonization - Declaration​
Of course other international law would be in place like it would be illegal to expel any of the legal residents of the territory.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You clearly do not understand the mechanisms of decolonization.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You clearly are capable of articulating them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I posted the link. What more do you want?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I want you to do what teddy asked you to do and articulate a clear outline of what you think the solution to the conflict would be. Not a one word answer. A clear step by step plan.
> 
> Can you do that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *4. All armed action or repressive measures of all kinds directed against dependent peoples shall cease* in order to enable them to exercise peacefully and freely their right to complete independence, and *the integrity of their national territory shall be respected.*
> 
> 5. Immediate steps shall be taken, in Trust and Non-Self-Governing Territories or all other territories which have not yet attained independence, *to transfer all powers to the peoples of those territories, without any conditions or reservations,* in accordance with their freely expressed will and desire, without any distinction as to race, creed or colour, in order to enable them to enjoy complete independence and freedom.
> 
> The United Nations and Decolonization - Declaration​
> Of course other international law would be in place like it would be illegal to expel any of the legal residents of the territory.
Click to expand...


Laws are subject to context and interpretation. Perhaps not so much in the alternate reality of Islamic terrorists "elected" to government rule but in the relevant first world, we need to take an approach toward matters that is not shackled by precepts of a notorious 7th century theocratic code.

From your link:

"...in accordance with their freely expressed will and desire..."

When such "freely expressed will and desire" is defined by:

"Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it" (The Martyr, Imam Hassan al-Banna, of blessed memory).",

We need to take an approach that recognizes there are certain ideologies which are incompatible with the relevant first world.

Your practice of rote cutting and pasting of snippets from UN proclamations without any thought toward context is time wasting.


----------



## fncceo

P F Tinmore said:


> international law would be in place



You think someone broke international law?  Call an international cop.


----------



## fanger

They had them in Nuremberg


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> *4. All armed action or repressive measures of all kinds directed against dependent peoples shall cease* in order to enable them to exercise peacefully and freely their right to complete independence, and *the integrity of their national territory shall be respected.*
> 
> 5. Immediate steps shall be taken, in Trust and Non-Self-Governing Territories or all other territories which have not yet attained independence, *to transfer all powers to the peoples of those territories, without any conditions or reservations,* in accordance with their freely expressed will and desire, without any distinction as to race, creed or colour, in order to enable them to enjoy complete independence and freedom.
> 
> The United Nations and Decolonization - Declaration​
> Of course other international law would be in place like it would be illegal to expel any of the legal residents of the territory.



1.  What armed action or repressive measures are still directed against the peoples?  Be specific. Do you mean to prevent Israeli military and LEOs from entering Areas A and B?  Do you mean to remove all rights of self-defense from Israel?  Do you mean the dismantling of the Israeli army?  Do you mean to do to Israel what you and monte claim would not be acceptable for Palestine -- total disarmament?  

2.  Define the national territory.  If you mean the entire territory -- a one state solution -- do you mean the Israeli government must be dismantled and replaced with an Arab Palestinian one?  Which one?  Fatah?  Hamas?  A new one?

3.  Which powers have not been transferred to Hamas and the PA which you think should be transferred?  Be specific.


----------



## louie888

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *4. All armed action or repressive measures of all kinds directed against dependent peoples shall cease* in order to enable them to exercise peacefully and freely their right to complete independence, and *the integrity of their national territory shall be respected.*
> 
> 5. Immediate steps shall be taken, in Trust and Non-Self-Governing Territories or all other territories which have not yet attained independence, *to transfer all powers to the peoples of those territories, without any conditions or reservations,* in accordance with their freely expressed will and desire, without any distinction as to race, creed or colour, in order to enable them to enjoy complete independence and freedom.
> 
> The United Nations and Decolonization - Declaration​
> Of course other international law would be in place like it would be illegal to expel any of the legal residents of the territory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  What armed action or repressive measures are still directed against the peoples?  Be specific. Do you mean to prevent Israeli military and LEOs from entering Areas A and B?  Do you mean to remove all rights of self-defense from Israel?  Do you mean the dismantling of the Israeli army?  Do you mean to do to Israel what you and monte claim would not be acceptable for Palestine -- total disarmament?
> 
> 2.  Define the national territory.  If you mean the entire territory -- a one state solution -- do you mean the Israeli government must be dismantled and replaced with an Arab Palestinian one?  Which one?  Fatah?  Hamas?  A new one?
> 
> 3.  Which powers have not been transferred to Hamas and the PA which you think should be transferred?  Be specific.
Click to expand...

All you do is troll. But it's fun watching your dumb.


----------



## teddyearp

montelatici said:


> There are plenty of examples. Rhodesia, Algeria, South Africa, Istria etc.


Did you even read the OP?  When you do, then get back to us with a real solution that applies to Israel and Palestine, not some other country.

It is a simple request. And I know you are not a simpleton.


----------



## teddyearp

P F Tinmore said:


> *4. All armed action or repressive measures of all kinds directed against dependent peoples shall cease* in order to enable them to exercise peacefully and freely their right to complete independence, and *the integrity of their national territory shall be respected.*
> 
> 5. Immediate steps shall be taken, in Trust and Non-Self-Governing Territories or all other territories which have not yet attained independence, *to transfer all powers to the peoples of those territories, without any conditions or reservations,* in accordance with their freely expressed will and desire, without any distinction as to race, creed or colour, in order to enable them to enjoy complete independence and freedom.
> 
> The United Nations and Decolonization - Declaration​
> Of course other international law would be in place like it would be illegal to expel any of the legal residents of the territory.


While this is a baby step in a direction, you still fall far far short of what Lipush and now I and now Shusha is asking of you. You do not even suggest anything at all concrete in your copy/paste, like borders for example.

Instead of copying and pasting from old documents, can you post *in your own words* what your opinion of a workable solution is?


----------



## teddyearp

louie888 said:


> All you do is troll. But it's fun watching your dumb.


Trolling? Just because you don't know how to post in an intelligent manner; I can see why you would call that trolling.

Oh hey BTW grammar cop, "it's fun watching your dumb". What do you mean there?

All you do is try to get under peoples' skin.  I know you're starting to get under mine.


> One who posts a deliberately provocative message to a newsgroup or message board with the intention of causing* maximum disruption *and argument


Link:Urban Dictionary: troll

I wonder who that could be here?


----------



## Shusha

louie888 said:


> All you do is troll. But it's fun watching your dumb.



I know, right?  How DARE I post an intelligent response, in keeping with the topic of the thread, engaging in real conversation in my own words instead of posting a senseless and inflammatory and off-topic meme!  Damn, Jews are just NASTY, aren't they?  

Here's a nice random meme to make you feel better:


----------



## Indeependent

louie888 said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *4. All armed action or repressive measures of all kinds directed against dependent peoples shall cease* in order to enable them to exercise peacefully and freely their right to complete independence, and *the integrity of their national territory shall be respected.*
> 
> 5. Immediate steps shall be taken, in Trust and Non-Self-Governing Territories or all other territories which have not yet attained independence, *to transfer all powers to the peoples of those territories, without any conditions or reservations,* in accordance with their freely expressed will and desire, without any distinction as to race, creed or colour, in order to enable them to enjoy complete independence and freedom.
> 
> The United Nations and Decolonization - Declaration​
> Of course other international law would be in place like it would be illegal to expel any of the legal residents of the territory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  What armed action or repressive measures are still directed against the peoples?  Be specific. Do you mean to prevent Israeli military and LEOs from entering Areas A and B?  Do you mean to remove all rights of self-defense from Israel?  Do you mean the dismantling of the Israeli army?  Do you mean to do to Israel what you and monte claim would not be acceptable for Palestine -- total disarmament?
> 
> 2.  Define the national territory.  If you mean the entire territory -- a one state solution -- do you mean the Israeli government must be dismantled and replaced with an Arab Palestinian one?  Which one?  Fatah?  Hamas?  A new one?
> 
> 3.  Which powers have not been transferred to Hamas and the PA which you think should be transferred?  Be specific.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All you do is troll. But it's fun watching your dumb.
Click to expand...

I suggest you take the advice of your avatar.


----------



## louie888

Shusha said:


> louie888 said:
> 
> 
> 
> All you do is troll. But it's fun watching your dumb.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know, right?  How DARE I post an intelligent response, in keeping with the topic of the thread, engaging in real conversation in my own words instead of posting a senseless and inflammatory and off-topic meme!  Damn, Jews are just NASTY, aren't they?
> 
> Here's a nice random meme to make you feel better:
Click to expand...

You missed the point entirely are simply asking stupid questions to avoid the obvious truth.

That is trolling.


----------



## teddyearp

louie888 said:


> You missed the point entirely are simply asking stupid questions to avoid the obvious truth.
> 
> That is trolling.


You have missed the point of this thread entirely and instead are making stupid posts to avoid making one that actually addresses this thread.

As for 'trolling' see my post #103 above.  You're welcome.


----------



## Shusha

louie888 

What is your proposed solution to the conflict?


----------



## fanger

One person One vote would be a start


----------



## Shusha

fanger said:


> One person One vote would be a start



In the PA and Gaza?  I agree wholeheartedly.  Let's get an election going for the Palestinians.


----------



## fanger

Shusha said:


> fanger said:
> 
> 
> 
> One person One vote would be a start
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the PA and Gaza?  I agree wholeheartedly.  Let's get an election going for the Palestinians.
Click to expand...

Many of your fellow Zionists claim there is no such thing as Palestinian's from one side of their mouth's, while actually calling the people Palestinian's
If israel is the democracy they claim to be let all inhabitant's under israeli control vote in the israeli 
election's


----------



## teddyearp

fanger said:


> Many of your fellow Zionists claim there is no such thing as Palestinian's from one side of their mouth's, while actually calling the people Palestinian's



Yes, there have been threads about this, but this is not one of them.



fanger said:


> If israel is the democracy they claim to be let all inhabitant's under israeli control vote in the israeli
> election's


By "all inhabitants under Israeli control" do you mean those who live in Areas A and B and C?  Do they want to vote as Israeli's?


----------



## Shusha

fanger said:


> If israel is the democracy they claim to be let all inhabitant's under israeli control vote in the israeli
> election's



So, you suggest dismantling the two Palestinian governments?  That's a one state solution.  I'll start a thread for that.  Did you have a solution for two states?


----------



## fanger

teddyearp said:


> fanger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Many of your fellow Zionists claim there is no such thing as Palestinian's from one side of their mouth's, while actually calling the people Palestinian's
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, there have been threads about this, but this is not one of them.
> 
> 
> 
> fanger said:
> 
> 
> 
> If israel is the democracy they claim to be let all inhabitant's under israeli control vote in the israeli
> election's
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By "all inhabitants under Israeli control" do you mean those who live in Areas A and B and C?  Do they want to vote as Israeli's?
Click to expand...

They may wish to vote as fellow Humans


----------



## teddyearp

Am I the only one who notices which posters are actually trying to find a workable solution here?  That they are the ones who are pretty much pro-Israel?  Who have been called 'Hasbara' here and other threads? Lipush, the one who started this thread lives in Israel and is definitely pro-Israel. Yet, the anti-Israel crowd have not posted any original solutions at all, but continues with the old arguments.

I find this very telling, am I alone?


----------



## louie888

Shusha said:


> louie888
> 
> What is your proposed solution to the conflict?


 and ignore the obvious.

I stand with the traditional Jewish rabbis. One Palestinian state as it was before all the mass murder began.


----------



## fanger

Shusha said:


> fanger said:
> 
> 
> 
> If israel is the democracy they claim to be let all inhabitant's under israeli control vote in the israeli
> election's
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, you suggest dismantling the two Palestinian governments?  That's a one state solution.  I'll start a thread for that.  Did you have a solution for two states?
Click to expand...

there was a solution for a two state option but sadly that option has passed, say hello to your new leaders, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing Jewish communities in Palestine


----------



## teddyearp

fanger said:


> They may wish to vote as fellow Humans


Well, that is funny, but not at all an attempt at a working solution as your reply is so ambiguous as to leave too much to be considered rational.

What, in your own words fanger is your detailed solution as asked for in this thread?  Don't worry about the length, no, don't just post a single sentence, nor some copy and paste.  Tell us how YOU would really solve the problem.


----------



## fanger

teddyearp said:


> Am I the only one who notices which posters are actually trying to find a workable solution here?  That they are the ones who are pretty much pro-Israel?  Who have been called 'Hasbara' here and other threads? Lipush, the one who started this thread lives in Israel and is definitely pro-Israel. Yet, the anti-Israel crowd have not posted any original solutions at all, but continues with the old arguments.
> 
> I find this very telling, am I alone?


Yep, your alone, probably wanking over porn


----------



## Shusha

louie888 said:


> I stand with the traditional Jewish rabbis. One Palestinian state as it was before all the mass murder began.



Then I kindly direct you to the other thread which I just posted.


----------



## Shusha

teddyearp said:


> I find this very telling, am I alone?



You are most certainly not alone.  The only Team Palestine member who seriously discusses solutions is Coyote.  But, in fairness to them, most of them would prefer a one state solution.


----------



## louie888

Shusha said:


> teddyearp said:
> 
> 
> 
> I find this very telling, am I alone?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are most certainly not alone.  The only Team Palestine member who seriously discusses solutions is Coyote.  But, in fairness to them, most of them would prefer a one state solution.
Click to expand...

If you think coyote is team Palestine, then you have been hoodwinked.

AND THE ONE STATE SOLUTION IS THE SOLUTION FROM OUR TRADITIONAL RABBIS! 

Nice spin, though.


----------



## Shusha

fanger said:


> there was a solution for a two state option but sadly that option has passed, say hello to your new leaders, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing Jewish communities in Palestine



Why has that option passed? Why not both Jewish sovereignty and Palestinian sovereignty?  Why does it HAVE to be a zero sum game?


----------



## louie888

Shusha said:


> louie888 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I stand with the traditional Jewish rabbis. One Palestinian state as it was before all the mass murder began.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then I kindly direct you to the other thread which I just posted.
Click to expand...

links?


----------



## Coyote

louie888 said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> teddyearp said:
> 
> 
> 
> I find this very telling, am I alone?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are most certainly not alone.  The only Team Palestine member who seriously discusses solutions is Coyote.  But, in fairness to them, most of them would prefer a one state solution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you think coyote is team Palestine, then you have been hoodwinked.
> 
> AND THE ONE STATE SOLUTION IS THE SOLUTION FROM OUR TRADITIONAL RABBIS!
> 
> Nice spin, though.
Click to expand...


What's your solution?


----------



## louie888

Coyote said:


> louie888 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> teddyearp said:
> 
> 
> 
> I find this very telling, am I alone?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are most certainly not alone.  The only Team Palestine member who seriously discusses solutions is Coyote.  But, in fairness to them, most of them would prefer a one state solution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you think coyote is team Palestine, then you have been hoodwinked.
> 
> AND THE ONE STATE SOLUTION IS THE SOLUTION FROM OUR TRADITIONAL RABBIS!
> 
> Nice spin, though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's your solution?
Click to expand...

Me? Read what I just had to write... TWICE!

LOL


----------



## Coyote

Shusha said:


> fanger said:
> 
> 
> 
> there was a solution for a two state option but sadly that option has passed, say hello to your new leaders, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing Jewish communities in Palestine
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why has that option passed? Why not both Jewish sovereignty and Palestinian sovereignty?  Why does it HAVE to be a zero sum game?
Click to expand...


That's part of the problem - too many people look at it in terms of winners and losers, or a zero sum.  It's still possible to have two - or more likely - three states.

I also wonder if some sort of federation is possible?


----------



## Shusha

louie888 said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> louie888 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I stand with the traditional Jewish rabbis. One Palestinian state as it was before all the mass murder began.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then I kindly direct you to the other thread which I just posted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> links?
Click to expand...


Oh please.  You know how to navigate this board.


----------



## teddyearp

louie888 said:


> I stand with the traditional Jewish rabbis. One Palestinian state as it was before all the mass murder began.


Have you ever tried to put an egg back into its shell as if not opened?  Have you ever tried to unscramble eggs?

Try again, boy.


----------



## teddyearp

fanger said:


> Yep, your alone, probably wanking over porn


Thank you so much for your intelligent contribution. Very telling indeed.


----------



## louie888

teddyearp said:


> louie888 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I stand with the traditional Jewish rabbis. One Palestinian state as it was before all the mass murder began.
> 
> 
> 
> Have you ever tried to put an egg back into its shell as if not opened?  Have you ever tried to unscramble eggs?
> 
> Try again, boy.
Click to expand...

The peaceful dismantling of the terrorist state would not be that difficult. And it sure would be a helluva lot better than the never ending mass murder.


----------



## teddyearp

Shusha said:


> You are most certainly not alone.  The only Team Palestine member who seriously discusses solutions is Coyote.  But, in fairness to them, most of them would prefer a one state solution.


I prefer the term "pro-Palestinian", but there's another who I will now mention.

Humanity , care to weigh in here? I know you can post intelligently as well.


----------



## teddyearp

Off topic, but Coyote sometimes I wonder if it wouldn't be best to rename this section to the Israel/Palestine Conflict Endless Bashing of Each Side Forever, and then create a child called Israel Palestine Solutions. LOL!


----------



## ForeverYoung436

Solution:

Although as a Jew it breaks my heart to give away any part of our Promised Land, as a realist I see we have no choice.  So the land has to be divided, unfortunately, according to the 1967 lines, with some land swaps.  Israel should get Ma'alei Adumim (where there's a large Anglo population, including relatives and friends of mine), and the Gush bloc.  Galilee (with its large Arab population), and parts of the Negev can go to Palestine in exchange.  Special visiting arrangements for Jews to go to Abraham's, Rachel's, and Joseph's Tombs in Palestine.  Palestine can be fully independent economically and diplomatically, but it cannot have an army.  The Arab parts of East Jerusalem can be their capital if that's their preference, but that does not include the Old City, which remains under Israeli control.  (Hopefully they will make Ramallah their capital.)  The current status quo remains on the Temple Mount.  No dual citizenship, which means that the current Jewish settlers become Palestinian citizens.  Gaza will not be part of the West Bank Palestine.  It will do whatever it wants to do.  The End.


----------



## Shusha

teddyearp said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are most certainly not alone.  The only Team Palestine member who seriously discusses solutions is Coyote.  But, in fairness to them, most of them would prefer a one state solution.
> 
> 
> 
> I prefer the term "pro-Palestinian", but there's another who I will now mention.
> 
> Humanity , care to weigh in here? I know you can post intelligently as well.
Click to expand...


I'd also like to hear from Humanity. Thank you for reminding me. 

I don't like the Pro- Anti- designations because it seems to me to support the zero sum game. 

The "team" designations have the implication to me of who you generally play for which allows some room for mutual respect. 

To each his own, I guess.


----------



## teddyearp

ForeverYoung436 said:


> Solution:
> 
> Although as a Jew it breaks my heart to give away any part of our Promised Land, as a realist I see we have no choice.  So the land has to be divided, unfortunately, according to the 1967 lines, with some land swaps.  Israel should get Ma'alei Adumim (where there's a large Anglo population, including relatives and friends of mine), and the Gush bloc.  Galilee (with its large Arab population), and parts of the Negev can go to Palestine in exchange.  Special visiting arrangements for Jews to go to Abraham's, Rachel's, and Joseph's Tombs in Palestine.  Palestine can be fully independent economically and diplomatically, but it cannot have an army.  The Arab parts of East Jerusalem can be their capital if that's their preference, but that does not include the Old City, which remains under Israeli control.  (Hopefully they will make Ramallah their capital.)  The current status quo remains on the Temple Mount.  No dual citizenship, which means that the current Jewish settlers become Palestinian citizens.  Gaza will not be part of the West Bank Palestine.  It will do whatever it wants to do.  The End.


Finally, another serious reply.  And from a pro-Israeli poster, imagine that?

Me, for my part, I would hate to see the whole of the Galilee (and by inference the Golan) to go to the newly independent Palestine, maybe only since there has been a constant Jewish presence in Tiberius and Tzfat. Splitting Jerusalem into East and West sounds workable, as long as Israel can move all embassies and actually claim their portion of Jerusalem finally as their capital. Status quo on the Temple mount, well it would be nice if there was a little more openness there, however I do see that it has been quite the hot spot over the years. As a non-Jew and non-Muslim I sure would like to be able to pray there though.

However, if this two state solution were to actually work, this new state of Palestine should be allowed to have their own army, why not? If they were to use their army to attack Israel, we know historically how that would work out for them.

Last thought is that Israel would still want to have some presence in the Jordan valley for any real or imagined attack that would or could come from Iran or other countries in that direction.


----------



## louie888

ForeverYoung436 said:


> Solution:
> 
> Although as a Jew it breaks my heart to give away any part of our Promised Land, as a realist I see we have no choice.  So the land has to be divided, unfortunately, according to the 1967 lines, with some land swaps.  Israel should get Ma'alei Adumim (where there's a large Anglo population, including relatives and friends of mine), and the Gush bloc.  Galilee (with its large Arab population), and parts of the Negev can go to Palestine in exchange.  Special visiting arrangements for Jews to go to Abraham's, Rachel's, and Joseph's Tombs in Palestine.  Palestine can be fully independent economically and diplomatically, but it cannot have an army.  The Arab parts of East Jerusalem can be their capital if that's their preference, but that does not include the Old City, which remains under Israeli control.  (Hopefully they will make Ramallah their capital.)  The current status quo remains on the Temple Mount.  No dual citizenship, which means that the current Jewish settlers become Palestinian citizens.  Gaza will not be part of the West Bank Palestine.  It will do whatever it wants to do.  The End.


*"our Promised Land"*
YOU KNOW NOTHING.
LMAO!


----------



## P F Tinmore

teddyearp said:


> Am I the only one who notices which posters are actually trying to find a workable solution here?  That they are the ones who are pretty much pro-Israel?  Who have been called 'Hasbara' here and other threads? Lipush, the one who started this thread lives in Israel and is definitely pro-Israel. Yet, the anti-Israel crowd have not posted any original solutions at all, but continues with the old arguments.
> 
> I find this very telling, am I alone?


All of the "Israeli" solutions deny the rights of over half of the Palestinians.


----------



## teddyearp

...


----------



## louie888

teddyearp said:


> louie888 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *"our Promised Land"*
> YOU KNOW NOTHING.
> LMAO!
> 
> 
> 
> OK, I've fucking had it.  When you have something useful to post you fucking piece of shit asshole, then do so.
> 
> Otherwise please go and securely fuck yourself in your momma basement.
Click to expand...

Maximum butthurt achieved?

Look, neither of you understand the religion you are supporting. Fulfill the covenant first and then we'll (and G-d) will talk. Bottom line.


----------



## teddyearp

louie888 said:


> Maximum butthurt achieved?


I only briefly played into your trolls hand since you post from your momma's basement and have no skills to actually address this thread seriously.

The rest of your post is off topic. Actually, all your posts in this thread are off topic.


----------



## teddyearp

P F Tinmore said:


> All of the "Israeli" solutions deny the rights of over half of the Palestinians.


And when are you going to post your solution as I asked in post #80?  In your own words without any cutting and pasting?


----------



## louie888

teddyearp said:


> louie888 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maximum butthurt achieved?
> 
> 
> 
> I only briefly played into your trolls hand since you post from your momma's basement and have no skills to actually address this thread seriously.
> 
> The rest of your post is off topic. Actually, all your posts in this thread are off topic.
Click to expand...

Off topic lol!

And I explained the solution put forth by our rabbis.... So fail!


----------



## Weatherman2020

PurpleOwl said:


> Lipush said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm ready to open this up with the Pro-Palestinians on this board who are willing to have a logal discussion, and those who are not haters who want Israel in the sea.
> 
> Let us talk this rationally. What exactly IS the two states solution? One for Israel and one for the Palestinians? What will be the borders of such states?
> 
> Can you openly tell me what is the benefit of the so called 67 lines? what good there is in them? and why they are better than a 1 state solution?
> 
> Please elaborate. Let us discuss this rationally. No name calling and cusses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If your looking for a rational discussion it helps to not label your opponents as "haters who want Israel in the sea" I'm assuming you mean haters not as in religious bigots but as "player haters" as in they're just jealous of they're gold rings and pimped out Cadillacs. I know Trump uses that one alot but I dont think you people know what it means, the push them into the sea comment I'm guessing was a random out of context quote from Ahmadinejad from 2004 I think.
> 
> 
> here is the older of map of israel
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> as you can see most of palestine is occupied by Israel, the 1967 agreement, is where most Palestinian groups say Israel should move back to. But since jews were safer in muslim palestine then they were in christian europe most people say this entire occupation was unnecessary and illegal to begin with, and has more to do with white vs arabs then it has anything to do with Jewish people.
> 
> Many jews are anti israel, and claim the state goes not only against scripture but causes further persecution of jews, and creates more problems than it solves
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so before you label everyone who is against israel as "haters who want Israel in the sea." you should try learning a little bit more than what fox news force feeds you. Then you might know what the "so called 67 lines" are all about
Click to expand...

Shit happens when you lose wars you start.


----------



## teddyearp

louie888 said:


> Maximum butthurt achieved?



Only gave you what you wanted. Now go clean up your ejaculation before your momma comes down to the basement and sees it.


----------



## Slyhunter

The only workable solution is the 3 state solution.


----------



## P F Tinmore

teddyearp said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> All of the "Israeli" solutions deny the rights of over half of the Palestinians.
> 
> 
> 
> And when are you going to post your solution as I asked in post #80?  In your own words without any cutting and pasting?
Click to expand...

It is just that the Palestinians call for equal rights and the Israelis call for expelling and killing.

I think this is indicative of the moral values of the people involved.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> teddyearp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> All of the "Israeli" solutions deny the rights of over half of the Palestinians.
> 
> 
> 
> And when are you going to post your solution as I asked in post #80?  In your own words without any cutting and pasting?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is just that the Palestinians call for equal rights and the Israelis call for expelling and killing.
> 
> I think this is indicative of the moral values of the people involved.
Click to expand...

The Pal'istanians call for equal rights?

"Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it" (The Martyr, Imam Hassan al-Banna, of blessed memory)."


----------



## Coyote

teddyearp said:


> Off topic, but Coyote sometimes I wonder if it wouldn't be best to rename this section to the Israel/Palestine Conflict Endless Bashing of Each Side Forever, and then create a child called Israel Palestine Solutions. LOL!





And how much do you want to bet that the Solutions forum will probably consist of 4 posters max, while the rest are bashing the same topics over and over on the other side!


----------



## Slyhunter

path 1; Destroy all Jews.           --> The Arabs will simply move on to the next victim.
path 2; destroy all Palestinians. --> Problem solved.


----------



## Coyote

P F Tinmore said:


> teddyearp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> All of the "Israeli" solutions deny the rights of over half of the Palestinians.
> 
> 
> 
> And when are you going to post your solution as I asked in post #80?  In your own words without any cutting and pasting?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is just that the Palestinians call for equal rights and the Israelis call for expelling and killing.
> 
> I think this is indicative of the moral values of the people involved.
Click to expand...


I don't think it is that simple.

The Palestinians might be calling for equal rights but many are also unwilling to allow Israeli Jews to remain there in the settlements should that become part of their new state.  In other words they are calling for expelling.  Likewise...they are and have been killing.

I think it's a mistake to broad brush the moral values of a people in that way - neither the Palestinians nor the Israeli's.


----------



## Coyote

Slyhunter said:


> path 1; Destroy all Jews.           --> The Arabs will simply move on to the next victim.
> path 2; destroy all Palestinians. --> Problem solved.



Of course, we're always going to have genocidal freaks proclaiming genocidal solutions.


----------



## Slyhunter

Coyote said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> path 1; Destroy all Jews.           --> The Arabs will simply move on to the next victim.
> path 2; destroy all Palestinians. --> Problem solved.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, we're always going to have genocidal freaks proclaiming genocidal solutions.
Click to expand...

It isn't genocidal to kill all Palestinians. That's like saying it's genocidal to kill all Texans.


----------



## Coyote

Slyhunter said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> path 1; Destroy all Jews.           --> The Arabs will simply move on to the next victim.
> path 2; destroy all Palestinians. --> Problem solved.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, we're always going to have genocidal freaks proclaiming genocidal solutions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It isn't genocidal to kill all Palestinians. That's like saying it's genocidal to kill all Texans.
Click to expand...


That is genocide.  You seem to have a funny idea of genocide.


----------



## Shusha

ForeverYoung436 said:


> Solution:
> 
> Although as a Jew it breaks my heart to give away any part of our Promised Land, as a realist I see we have no choice.  So the land has to be divided, unfortunately, according to the 1967 lines, with some land swaps.  Israel should get Ma'alei Adumim (where there's a large Anglo population, including relatives and friends of mine), and the Gush bloc.  Galilee (with its large Arab population), and parts of the Negev can go to Palestine in exchange.  Special visiting arrangements for Jews to go to Abraham's, Rachel's, and Joseph's Tombs in Palestine.  Palestine can be fully independent economically and diplomatically, but it cannot have an army.  The Arab parts of East Jerusalem can be their capital if that's their preference, but that does not include the Old City, which remains under Israeli control.  (Hopefully they will make Ramallah their capital.)  The current status quo remains on the Temple Mount.  No dual citizenship, which means that the current Jewish settlers become Palestinian citizens.  Gaza will not be part of the West Bank Palestine.  It will do whatever it wants to do.  The End.



I don't think Israel should give up the tombs.  That seems too risky from the POV of preserving Jewish history and tangible cultural artifacts.  

I'm okay with giving up parts of Jerusalem (not the old city) -- perhaps we trade that tit for this tat?

The status quo on the Temple Mount definitely needs to be changed.  Equality must prevail there -- rights for everyone.

I agree we are discussing, more realistically a two-more-states solution:  Gaza and Palestine.

I'm pretty flexible on disarming Palestine.  (Not so much with disarming Gaza).  My preference would be for a temporary disarmament in exchange for military protection in the short term, with Palestine being gradually given the ability to develop its own military (as is a fundamental right of all nations) over the course of ~ten years, conditional on absolute peace with Israel and containment and control of terrorism.  


Why no dual citizenship?


----------



## José

> Originally posted by *teddyearp*
> Again, quit trying to unscramble eggs. I implore you to look at the facts as they are now and try to find a solution moving forward into the future, otherwise, find another thread to bring up the 'old' problems.
> 
> Please.  Pretty please.  We have been needing a thread like this for a long time.



teddy...

If you call the 2-state illusion a "solution", I don't wanna know what you call a miserable failure.


----------



## Lipush

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You clearly do not understand the mechanisms of decolonization.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You clearly are capable of articulating them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I posted the link. What more do you want?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I want you to do what teddy asked you to do and articulate a clear outline of what you think the solution to the conflict would be. Not a one word answer. A clear step by step plan.
> 
> Can you do that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *4. All armed action or repressive measures of all kinds directed against dependent peoples shall cease* in order to enable them to exercise peacefully and freely their right to complete independence, and *the integrity of their national territory shall be respected.*
> 
> 5. Immediate steps shall be taken, in Trust and Non-Self-Governing Territories or all other territories which have not yet attained independence, *to transfer all powers to the peoples of those territories, without any conditions or reservations,* in accordance with their freely expressed will and desire, without any distinction as to race, creed or colour, in order to enable them to enjoy complete independence and freedom.
> 
> The United Nations and Decolonization - Declaration​
> Of course other international law would be in place like it would be illegal to expel any of the legal residents of the territory.
Click to expand...


On which lands? What will Israel gain out of it?


----------



## Lipush

fanger said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fanger said:
> 
> 
> 
> One person One vote would be a start
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the PA and Gaza?  I agree wholeheartedly.  Let's get an election going for the Palestinians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Many of your fellow Zionists claim there is no such thing as Palestinian's from one side of their mouth's, while actually calling the people Palestinian's
> If israel is the democracy they claim to be let all inhabitant's under israeli control vote in the israeli
> election's
Click to expand...



They don't want to, so there isn't any problem, now, is there?


----------



## Lipush

ForeverYoung436 said:


> Solution:
> 
> Although as a Jew it breaks my heart to give away any part of our Promised Land, as a realist I see we have no choice.  So the land has to be divided, unfortunately, according to the 1967 lines, with some land swaps.  Israel should get Ma'alei Adumim (where there's a large Anglo population, including relatives and friends of mine), and the Gush bloc.  Galilee (with its large Arab population), *and parts of the Negev can go to Palestine in exchange*.  Special visiting arrangements for Jews to go to Abraham's, Rachel's, and Joseph's Tombs in Palestine.  Palestine can be fully independent economically and diplomatically, but it cannot have an army.  The Arab parts of East Jerusalem can be their capital if that's their preference, but that does not include the Old City, which remains under Israeli control.  (Hopefully they will make Ramallah their capital.)  The current status quo remains on the Temple Mount.  No dual citizenship, which means that the current Jewish settlers become Palestinian citizens.  Gaza will not be part of the West Bank Palestine.  It will do whatever it wants to do.  The End.



*Excuse you!?
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	








*


----------



## Lipush

ForeverYoung436 said:


> Solution:
> 
> Although as a Jew it breaks my heart to give away any part of our Promised Land, as a realist I see we have no choice.  So the land has to be divided, unfortunately, according to the 1967 lines, with some land swaps.  Israel should get Ma'alei Adumim (where there's a large Anglo population, including relatives and friends of mine), and the Gush bloc.  Galilee (with its large Arab population), and parts of the Negev can go to Palestine in exchange.  Special visiting arrangements for Jews to go to Abraham's, Rachel's, and Joseph's Tombs in Palestine.  Palestine can be fully independent economically and diplomatically, but it cannot have an army.  The Arab parts of East Jerusalem can be their capital if that's their preference, but that does not include the Old City, which remains under Israeli control.  (Hopefully they will make Ramallah their capital.)  The current status quo remains on the Temple Mount.  No dual citizenship, which means that the current Jewish settlers become Palestinian citizens.  Gaza will not be part of the West Bank Palestine.  It will do whatever it wants to do.  The End.



After I got over my initial anger, I will respond

First of, no lands of the Negev will go to 'Palestine'. ever. EVER. That is a crazy idea and no southerner will agree to it. Hell, the day that's even suggested is the day I myself put on a uniform. 

So if the Galilee is given and the Negev is given, so are we to become "The State of Tel Aviv"? I find it hard to see how it's going to work, honest. East Jerusalem will probably be Palestinian, if and only Israel is to have full acess to the holy places. 

Settlers will have to become Palestinian civizens, I guess we have no choice there, but the PA will have to guarantee their safety, and we trust them as much as we understand them...

Gaza will belong to Palestine, if Hamas wants control there, so be it. But it will mean that if one rocket is launch, Israel will have the right to turn it into one big parking lot.


----------



## Lipush

Slyhunter said:


> path 1; Destroy all Jews.           --> The Arabs will simply move on to the next victim.
> path 2; destroy all Palestinians. --> Problem solved.




That's the dumbest plan ever


----------



## Humanity

teddyearp said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are most certainly not alone.  The only Team Palestine member who seriously discusses solutions is Coyote.  But, in fairness to them, most of them would prefer a one state solution.
> 
> 
> 
> I prefer the term "pro-Palestinian", but there's another who I will now mention.
> 
> Humanity , care to weigh in here? I know you can post intelligently as well.
Click to expand...


teddyearp Hmmm a hot potato if ever there was one...

For me the 2 or 3 state solution feels the best option though I have my doubts this will ever happen...

Land swaps are certainly something that would need to happen. Though, again, this is an option that is never going to be easy to resolve!

What MUST happen, in any attempt to achieve a 2 or 3 state solution would be for groups like Hamas, as an example, to call elections and halt any hostilities... At the same time, Israel to halt all settlement activities...

How the rest is achieved? Sorry, I am only human, I, like most, can only take this so far before it all turns into arguing and rhetoric! 

My personal belief, and no, I have nothing to back up this belief, is that Israel will not allow a 2/3 state solution, has no interest other than 'ownership' of the whole area... As I say, I have no proof, no links to provide, just my 'theory'.

There was a good post earlier, sorry, I can't recall who it was, who came up with a 'solution' that, though not perfect and slightly weighted toward the Israel camp, makes as much sense. more sense, than most I have seen here....

Those who choose NOT to answer the question, preferring to just 'spoil' honest comments, should be blocked from threads like this where open thinking people from both sides are trying to have an adult discussion about a very difficult subject!

"Team Palestine" - I find this so the wrong phrase to use... It simply feels wrong... Also, it suggests that Team Palestine is competing against Team Israel and there will be a winner and a loser... At the moment there ONLY losers, and there will continue to be ONLY losers until a satisfactory peaceful solution can be achieved!

More importantly....

STOP KILLING EACH OTHER!!!!


----------



## Lipush

Don't know which solution will come to pass, one thing is clear, it won't come from the joke that is the UN, the Arab league, or even the USA. It can only come from us. 

You cannot force us to give away anything against our will. This is not YOUR house or YOUR backyard or YOUR children dying, it's Israelis and Palestinians to pay the price of each failiure, or taste the fruit of success.


----------



## Humanity

Lipush said:


> Don't know which solution will come to pass, one thing is clear, it won't come from the joke that is the UN, the Arab league, or even the USA. It can only come from us.
> 
> You cannot force us to give away anything against our will. This is not YOUR house or YOUR backyard or YOUR children dying, it's Israelis and Palestinians to pay the price of each failiure, or taste the fruit of success.



Absolutely right!

The only ones who can decide on peace are the Israelis and Palestinians!

We can all throw in our thoughts, views and opinions but they are just that and who are we to influence what is ACTUALLY going to happen unless we are Israeli or Palestinian!

I haven't had time to read all of the posts in this thread but I wonder is a 3 state solution may be the best option?

Gaza, Israel and 'free' Palestine... A 'free' Palestine where both Arab and Jew can live and work together under Palestinian 'governance'... Someone suggested not allowing 'dual nationality'... Ok, devil in the detail, but recognise and accept the 'nationality', the identity of both!

An 'army' for 'free' Palestine? How about just a security force? There is no need for an 'army' as such... If a moderate 'free' Palestinian government can work with Israel in creating this 'free' area then it would not be in either interest to start a war!

Cooperation and collaboration is the way forward to creating a 3rd state.

Gaza? Well, sorry, IF Gaza wants to move forward in negotiations then Hamas need to hold free an open elections and, should they win, take a more open, more moderate stance. If this is not possible then they should not have any involvement in the negotiations! Also, if Hamas are unwilling to do either then there should be international pressure put upon Hamas to move to a more moderate stance...

At this time I do not believe 'moderate' is a word that can be used to describe leaders within Gaza or Israel...


----------



## Lipush

Humanity said:


> Lipush said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't know which solution will come to pass, one thing is clear, it won't come from the joke that is the UN, the Arab league, or even the USA. It can only come from us.
> 
> You cannot force us to give away anything against our will. This is not YOUR house or YOUR backyard or YOUR children dying, it's Israelis and Palestinians to pay the price of each failiure, or taste the fruit of success.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely right!
> 
> The only ones who can decide on peace are the Israelis and Palestinians!
> 
> We can all throw in our thoughts, views and opinions but they are just that and who are we to influence what is ACTUALLY going to happen unless we are Israeli or Palestinian!
> 
> I haven't had time to read all of the posts in this thread but I wonder is a 3 state solution may be the best option?
> 
> Gaza, Israel and 'free' Palestine... A 'free' Palestine where both Arab and Jew can live and work together under Palestinian 'governance'... Someone suggested not allowing 'dual nationality'... Ok, devil in the detail, but recognise and accept the 'nationality', the identity of both!
> 
> An 'army' for 'free' Palestine? How about just a security force? There is no need for an 'army' as such... If a moderate 'free' Palestinian government can work with Israel in creating this 'free' area then it would not be in either interest to start a war!
> 
> Cooperation and collaboration is the way forward to creating a 3rd state.
> 
> Gaza? Well, sorry, IF Gaza wants to move forward in negotiations then Hamas need to hold free an open elections and, should they win, take a more open, more moderate stance. If this is not possible then they should not have any involvement in the negotiations! Also, if Hamas are unwilling to do either then there should be international pressure put upon Hamas to move to a more moderate stance...
> 
> At this time I do not believe 'moderate' is a word that can be used to describe leaders within Gaza or Israel...
Click to expand...


I'm not at all sure what's supposed to happen in Gaza. What we want is Israel where there is a majority of Jews and controlled by a democratic Knesset with rights to all its civilians. A free Palestine can have what it wants, I could really care less. They want a democracy, let them have it. They want a king? let them have it.

We just want them out of our hair. As long as there is no war with us, they can knock themselves out for all we care.


----------



## Humanity

Lipush said:


> Humanity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lipush said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't know which solution will come to pass, one thing is clear, it won't come from the joke that is the UN, the Arab league, or even the USA. It can only come from us.
> 
> You cannot force us to give away anything against our will. This is not YOUR house or YOUR backyard or YOUR children dying, it's Israelis and Palestinians to pay the price of each failiure, or taste the fruit of success.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely right!
> 
> The only ones who can decide on peace are the Israelis and Palestinians!
> 
> We can all throw in our thoughts, views and opinions but they are just that and who are we to influence what is ACTUALLY going to happen unless we are Israeli or Palestinian!
> 
> I haven't had time to read all of the posts in this thread but I wonder is a 3 state solution may be the best option?
> 
> Gaza, Israel and 'free' Palestine... A 'free' Palestine where both Arab and Jew can live and work together under Palestinian 'governance'... Someone suggested not allowing 'dual nationality'... Ok, devil in the detail, but recognise and accept the 'nationality', the identity of both!
> 
> An 'army' for 'free' Palestine? How about just a security force? There is no need for an 'army' as such... If a moderate 'free' Palestinian government can work with Israel in creating this 'free' area then it would not be in either interest to start a war!
> 
> Cooperation and collaboration is the way forward to creating a 3rd state.
> 
> Gaza? Well, sorry, IF Gaza wants to move forward in negotiations then Hamas need to hold free an open elections and, should they win, take a more open, more moderate stance. If this is not possible then they should not have any involvement in the negotiations! Also, if Hamas are unwilling to do either then there should be international pressure put upon Hamas to move to a more moderate stance...
> 
> At this time I do not believe 'moderate' is a word that can be used to describe leaders within Gaza or Israel...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not at all sure what's supposed to happen in Gaza. What we want is Israel where there is a majority of Jews and controlled by a democratic Knesset with rights to all its civilians. A free Palestine can have what it wants, I could really care less. They want a democracy, let them have it. They want a king? let them have it.
> 
> We just want them out of our hair. As long as there is no war with us, they can knock themselves out for all we care.
Click to expand...


Why do you feel that Israel should be majority Jews?

I do think that it's wrong to 'not' care what happens with a 'free Palestine'... Especially considering that a 'free Palestine' would likely incorporate settlements and require some land swap deals... I think it's very important to care what happens!

I agree however, if 'free Palestine' were a democracy or a kingdom is not that relevant PROVIDED that there is a moderate and open policy!


----------



## Lipush

Humanity said:


> Lipush said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humanity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lipush said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't know which solution will come to pass, one thing is clear, it won't come from the joke that is the UN, the Arab league, or even the USA. It can only come from us.
> 
> You cannot force us to give away anything against our will. This is not YOUR house or YOUR backyard or YOUR children dying, it's Israelis and Palestinians to pay the price of each failiure, or taste the fruit of success.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely right!
> 
> The only ones who can decide on peace are the Israelis and Palestinians!
> 
> We can all throw in our thoughts, views and opinions but they are just that and who are we to influence what is ACTUALLY going to happen unless we are Israeli or Palestinian!
> 
> I haven't had time to read all of the posts in this thread but I wonder is a 3 state solution may be the best option?
> 
> Gaza, Israel and 'free' Palestine... A 'free' Palestine where both Arab and Jew can live and work together under Palestinian 'governance'... Someone suggested not allowing 'dual nationality'... Ok, devil in the detail, but recognise and accept the 'nationality', the identity of both!
> 
> An 'army' for 'free' Palestine? How about just a security force? There is no need for an 'army' as such... If a moderate 'free' Palestinian government can work with Israel in creating this 'free' area then it would not be in either interest to start a war!
> 
> Cooperation and collaboration is the way forward to creating a 3rd state.
> 
> Gaza? Well, sorry, IF Gaza wants to move forward in negotiations then Hamas need to hold free an open elections and, should they win, take a more open, more moderate stance. If this is not possible then they should not have any involvement in the negotiations! Also, if Hamas are unwilling to do either then there should be international pressure put upon Hamas to move to a more moderate stance...
> 
> At this time I do not believe 'moderate' is a word that can be used to describe leaders within Gaza or Israel...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not at all sure what's supposed to happen in Gaza. What we want is Israel where there is a majority of Jews and controlled by a democratic Knesset with rights to all its civilians. A free Palestine can have what it wants, I could really care less. They want a democracy, let them have it. They want a king? let them have it.
> 
> We just want them out of our hair. As long as there is no war with us, they can knock themselves out for all we care.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you feel that Israel should be majority Jews?
> 
> I do think that it's wrong to 'not' care what happens with a 'free Palestine'... Especially considering that a 'free Palestine' would likely incorporate settlements and require some land swap deals... I think it's very important to care what happens!
> 
> I agree however, if 'free Palestine' were a democracy or a kingdom is not that relevant PROVIDED that there is a moderate and open policy!
Click to expand...



I want the stateo of Israel be majority of Jews because that's the idea of a Jewish state. we want our values and our behavior and belief to be based on our common history, costums and religion. I don't see the wrong in that. I'm a Zionist and so was my mother, and her mother, and her mother before her. That's the idea behind the right of self definition.

And just like, I don't want them to get involved in our lives, I don't need to get involved in theirs. What I means that in the way to achieve a free palestine we will need to care, of course, but once's we're "free" of THEM, then let them do whatever they want.


----------



## montelatici

Lipush said:


> Humanity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lipush said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't know which solution will come to pass, one thing is clear, it won't come from the joke that is the UN, the Arab league, or even the USA. It can only come from us.
> 
> You cannot force us to give away anything against our will. This is not YOUR house or YOUR backyard or YOUR children dying, it's Israelis and Palestinians to pay the price of each failiure, or taste the fruit of success.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely right!
> 
> The only ones who can decide on peace are the Israelis and Palestinians!
> 
> We can all throw in our thoughts, views and opinions but they are just that and who are we to influence what is ACTUALLY going to happen unless we are Israeli or Palestinian!
> 
> I haven't had time to read all of the posts in this thread but I wonder is a 3 state solution may be the best option?
> 
> Gaza, Israel and 'free' Palestine... A 'free' Palestine where both Arab and Jew can live and work together under Palestinian 'governance'... Someone suggested not allowing 'dual nationality'... Ok, devil in the detail, but recognise and accept the 'nationality', the identity of both!
> 
> An 'army' for 'free' Palestine? How about just a security force? There is no need for an 'army' as such... If a moderate 'free' Palestinian government can work with Israel in creating this 'free' area then it would not be in either interest to start a war!
> 
> Cooperation and collaboration is the way forward to creating a 3rd state.
> 
> Gaza? Well, sorry, IF Gaza wants to move forward in negotiations then Hamas need to hold free an open elections and, should they win, take a more open, more moderate stance. If this is not possible then they should not have any involvement in the negotiations! Also, if Hamas are unwilling to do either then there should be international pressure put upon Hamas to move to a more moderate stance...
> 
> At this time I do not believe 'moderate' is a word that can be used to describe leaders within Gaza or Israel...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not at all sure what's supposed to happen in Gaza. What we want is Israel where there is a majority of Jews and controlled by a democratic Knesset with rights to all its civilians. A free Palestine can have what it wants, I could really care less. They want a democracy, let them have it. They want a king? let them have it.
> 
> We just want them out of our hair. As long as there is no war with us, they can knock themselves out for all we care.
Click to expand...


Why is it racist (Nazi)  for Americans to state that they want to maintain a European majority, while Israelis think it is just normal that they should be able to maintain a Jew majority?


----------



## Lipush

I don't care what Americans say they want.  None of my business.


----------



## The Sage of Main Street

Lipush said:


> I'm ready to open this up with the Pro-Palestinians on this board who are willing to have a logal discussion,
> 
> Let us talk this rationally. What exactly IS the two states solution? One for Israel and one for the Palestinians? What will be the borders of such states?
> 
> 
> .


*Rabid Arab Rabble Gets the Same Deal Iran Got*

The Paleonasties get a missile base and the Israelis get painted a bullseye so big and flashy that it can be seen from a satelllite.  The Israelis get peace, as in Rest in Peace.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Coyote said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> teddyearp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> All of the "Israeli" solutions deny the rights of over half of the Palestinians.
> 
> 
> 
> And when are you going to post your solution as I asked in post #80?  In your own words without any cutting and pasting?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is just that the Palestinians call for equal rights and the Israelis call for expelling and killing.
> 
> I think this is indicative of the moral values of the people involved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think it is that simple.
> 
> The Palestinians might be calling for equal rights but many are also unwilling to allow Israeli Jews to remain there in the settlements should that become part of their new state.  In other words they are calling for expelling.  Likewise...they are and have been killing.
> 
> I think it's a mistake to broad brush the moral values of a people in that way - neither the Palestinians nor the Israeli's.
Click to expand...

This is a difficult topic to discuss because the truth is untenable. Mentioning the truth brings an onslaught name calling and accusations. We will never achieve peace until the core issues are addressed. When the Palestinians, and others, call Israel 1948 occupied Palestine they are correct. No amount of time or political recognition will change that fact.

Israel is a settler colonial project. Both Britain and the Zionists said this regularly during the mandate period. That is what they called it. That is what it was. The facts on the ground confirm it. Nobody can deny it.

Settler colonialism is not an event it is a process that continues to today. Settler colonialism is the removal of the native population and replacing them with another people. We can see this process before our eyes. It is in the news all the time.

Now, how do we unwind this and fix the problem?


----------



## Coyote

P F Tinmore said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> teddyearp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> All of the "Israeli" solutions deny the rights of over half of the Palestinians.
> 
> 
> 
> And when are you going to post your solution as I asked in post #80?  In your own words without any cutting and pasting?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is just that the Palestinians call for equal rights and the Israelis call for expelling and killing.
> 
> I think this is indicative of the moral values of the people involved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think it is that simple.
> 
> The Palestinians might be calling for equal rights but many are also unwilling to allow Israeli Jews to remain there in the settlements should that become part of their new state.  In other words they are calling for expelling.  Likewise...they are and have been killing.
> 
> I think it's a mistake to broad brush the moral values of a people in that way - neither the Palestinians nor the Israeli's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is a difficult topic to discuss because the truth is untenable. Mentioning the truth brings an onslaught name calling and accusations. We will never achieve peace until the core issues are addressed. When the Palestinians, and others, call Israel 1948 occupied Palestine they are correct. No amount of time or political recognition will change that fact.
> 
> Israel is a settler colonial project. Both Britain and the Zionists said this regularly during the mandate period. That is what they called it. That is what it was. The facts on the ground confirm it. Nobody can deny it.
> 
> Settler colonialism is not an event it is a process that continues to today. Settler colonialism is the removal of the native population and replacing them with another people. We can see this process before our eyes. It is in the news all the time.
> 
> Now, how do we unwind this and fix the problem?
Click to expand...


The problem is, 1948 is 70 years ago.  And in the meantime a state has been established.  You can't unwind it.

There is also another aspect that is ignored.  It's inaccurate to claim it's just the Jews colonizing a foreign land.  It isn't just that.  It's a bit of land, where multiple peoples live and have a heritage.  During the Jewish nationalistic struggle for that bit of land, there was an Arab nationalistic struggle for that same land.  But there seems to be a deliberate ignoring of the fact that the Jews were just as much the local people.  There are arguments about immigration. You have one side claiming the Palestinians are all foreign squatters and the other claiming the Jews are all foreign invaders.  But the truth is - both are native, and both sustained an influx of immigration.  Going against the "colonial settlement" model is the fact that Jews were also indiginous.  There have always been Jewish people there, even though many more migrated in.  Now if you are going to complain about that then why aren't you complaining the Arabs who immigrated into the area and are just as foreign as the Europeans?  And - why don't you acknowledge that the Jews also have a right to be there and have as much right to form a state in that period of time as the Palestinian Arabs did?

I don't think your going to fix the problem by "unwinding" history and you can't fix an injustice by creating more injustices.  You have to take what is there as it is now and work with it.  That means Israel, as a Jewish state, is not going to disappear.  It's established, it's proven it can run and hold a state, even though it most certainly has serious issues regarding equality and justice,  it's far more democratic, and has a far higher standard of human rights and religious freedom then any of it's neighboring states.  So fixing the problem should not be ending Israel's existence as a Jewish state because the Jews have as much right as the Palestinians to be there and to form a state.


----------



## ForeverYoung436

P F Tinmore said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> teddyearp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> All of the "Israeli" solutions deny the rights of over half of the Palestinians.
> 
> 
> 
> And when are you going to post your solution as I asked in post #80?  In your own words without any cutting and pasting?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is just that the Palestinians call for equal rights and the Israelis call for expelling and killing.
> 
> I think this is indicative of the moral values of the people involved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think it is that simple.
> 
> The Palestinians might be calling for equal rights but many are also unwilling to allow Israeli Jews to remain there in the settlements should that become part of their new state.  In other words they are calling for expelling.  Likewise...they are and have been killing.
> 
> I think it's a mistake to broad brush the moral values of a people in that way - neither the Palestinians nor the Israeli's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is a difficult topic to discuss because the truth is untenable. Mentioning the truth brings an onslaught name calling and accusations. We will never achieve peace until the core issues are addressed. When the Palestinians, and others, call Israel 1948 occupied Palestine they are correct. No amount of time or political recognition will change that fact.
> 
> Israel is a settler colonial project. Both Britain and the Zionists said this regularly during the mandate period. That is what they called it. That is what it was. The facts on the ground confirm it. Nobody can deny it.
> 
> Settler colonialism is not an event it is a process that continues to today. Settler colonialism is the removal of the native population and replacing them with another people. We can see this process before our eyes. It is in the news all the time.
> 
> Now, how do we unwind this and fix the problem?
Click to expand...


You haven't proposed any solution to the problem, which was the topic of this thread, and which I myself did earlier in the thread.  I presented concrete proposals, which represented an evolution in my views over the years.  You just reiterated what you've said a million times before, and confirmed what I've always known--that you're living in the past.  With people like you who are unable to move on, that is precisely why a resolution to this conflict is very unlikely.


----------



## Sixties Fan

Coyote said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> teddyearp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> All of the "Israeli" solutions deny the rights of over half of the Palestinians.
> 
> 
> 
> And when are you going to post your solution as I asked in post #80?  In your own words without any cutting and pasting?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is just that the Palestinians call for equal rights and the Israelis call for expelling and killing.
> 
> I think this is indicative of the moral values of the people involved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think it is that simple.
> 
> The Palestinians might be calling for equal rights but many are also unwilling to allow Israeli Jews to remain there in the settlements should that become part of their new state.  In other words they are calling for expelling.  Likewise...they are and have been killing.
> 
> I think it's a mistake to broad brush the moral values of a people in that way - neither the Palestinians nor the Israeli's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is a difficult topic to discuss because the truth is untenable. Mentioning the truth brings an onslaught name calling and accusations. We will never achieve peace until the core issues are addressed. When the Palestinians, and others, call Israel 1948 occupied Palestine they are correct. No amount of time or political recognition will change that fact.
> 
> Israel is a settler colonial project. Both Britain and the Zionists said this regularly during the mandate period. That is what they called it. That is what it was. The facts on the ground confirm it. Nobody can deny it.
> 
> Settler colonialism is not an event it is a process that continues to today. Settler colonialism is the removal of the native population and replacing them with another people. We can see this process before our eyes. It is in the news all the time.
> 
> Now, how do we unwind this and fix the problem?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem is, 1948 is 70 years ago.  And in the meantime a state has been established.  You can't unwind it.
> 
> There is also another aspect that is ignored.  It's inaccurate to claim it's just the Jews colonizing a foreign land.  It isn't just that.  It's a bit of land, where multiple peoples live and have a heritage.  During the Jewish nationalistic struggle for that bit of land, there was an Arab nationalistic struggle for that same land.  But there seems to be a deliberate ignoring of the fact that the Jews were just as much the local people.  There are arguments about immigration. You have one side claiming the Palestinians are all foreign squatters and the other claiming the Jews are all foreign invaders.  But the truth is - both are native, and both sustained an influx of immigration.  Going against the "colonial settlement" model is the fact that Jews were also indiginous.  There have always been Jewish people there, even though many more migrated in.  Now if you are going to complain about that then why aren't you complaining the Arabs who immigrated into the area and are just as foreign as the Europeans?  And - why don't you acknowledge that the Jews also have a right to be there and have as much right to form a state in that period of time as the Palestinian Arabs did?
> 
> I don't think your going to fix the problem by "unwinding" history and you can't fix an injustice by creating more injustices.  You have to take what is there as it is now and work with it.  That means Israel, as a Jewish state, is not going to disappear.  It's established, it's proven it can run and hold a state, even though it most certainly has serious issues regarding equality and justice,  it's far more democratic, and has a far higher standard of human rights and religious freedom then any of it's neighboring states.  So fixing the problem should not be ending Israel's existence as a Jewish state because the Jews have as much right as the Palestinians to be there and to form a state.
Click to expand...



<<But the truth is - both are native, and both sustained an influx of immigration.>>

You seem to miss the meaning of the word Native/Indigenous.

All the tribes living in the Americas and Australia, Hawaii, New Zealand before the 1492 European "discovery" and colonization are the Indigenous, Native people of the land.

The people who had a Nation, culture and history living at the time of the various European invasions, or even the Assyrian invasion, were the Jewish People, also known as the Jewish Nation.

They were there when the Greeks, Romans, Byzantine and the Muslims arrived on that land.  It is all recorded in their documents, books, etc

Native = Indigenous = having formed a distinct people whose ancient history happened on that piece of land.

There are the Pagan, Christian and Muslim invaders of the Jewish Homeland, what had been the Nation of Israel.

A new majority due to Muslim and Christian migration to the land does not make that land, or in the Americas, etc.... any less belonging to any of the 500 First Nations, or the Mayans, Aztecs, etc.

All it means is that since that invasion the Indigenous people lost sovereignty over their land.

The Jews worked for and regained sovereignty over some of their land. Only 20% out of 100% of it, as it had been promised.

Muslims are totally against any Muslim conquered land being taken away from them by non Muslims.

THAT, in a nutshell, is the core of the conflict.  And why hamas and the PA will never accept any peace treaty with Israel as Egypt and Jordan were forced to do, due to financial considerations for their countries.

Jordan is already a State carved out of Palestine.
Gaza should have become another one once Israel withdrew all Israelis in 2005.
Hamas did not want a State.  
Their charter demands the destruction of all of Israel as a Jewish State, and a Muslim one in its place.
It is the same thing with Abbas, the PLO, Fatah.

Defunding those Muslim organizations and UNWRA would be the first step to having those groups accept Israel as a State, and accepting to negotiate a Peace Treaty.

Egypt and Jordan did it.

Now is time for the other Muslims to do the same.


----------



## Coyote

Sixties Fan said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> teddyearp said:
> 
> 
> 
> And when are you going to post your solution as I asked in post #80?  In your own words without any cutting and pasting?
> 
> 
> 
> It is just that the Palestinians call for equal rights and the Israelis call for expelling and killing.
> 
> I think this is indicative of the moral values of the people involved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think it is that simple.
> 
> The Palestinians might be calling for equal rights but many are also unwilling to allow Israeli Jews to remain there in the settlements should that become part of their new state.  In other words they are calling for expelling.  Likewise...they are and have been killing.
> 
> I think it's a mistake to broad brush the moral values of a people in that way - neither the Palestinians nor the Israeli's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is a difficult topic to discuss because the truth is untenable. Mentioning the truth brings an onslaught name calling and accusations. We will never achieve peace until the core issues are addressed. When the Palestinians, and others, call Israel 1948 occupied Palestine they are correct. No amount of time or political recognition will change that fact.
> 
> Israel is a settler colonial project. Both Britain and the Zionists said this regularly during the mandate period. That is what they called it. That is what it was. The facts on the ground confirm it. Nobody can deny it.
> 
> Settler colonialism is not an event it is a process that continues to today. Settler colonialism is the removal of the native population and replacing them with another people. We can see this process before our eyes. It is in the news all the time.
> 
> Now, how do we unwind this and fix the problem?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem is, 1948 is 70 years ago.  And in the meantime a state has been established.  You can't unwind it.
> 
> There is also another aspect that is ignored.  It's inaccurate to claim it's just the Jews colonizing a foreign land.  It isn't just that.  It's a bit of land, where multiple peoples live and have a heritage.  During the Jewish nationalistic struggle for that bit of land, there was an Arab nationalistic struggle for that same land.  But there seems to be a deliberate ignoring of the fact that the Jews were just as much the local people.  There are arguments about immigration. You have one side claiming the Palestinians are all foreign squatters and the other claiming the Jews are all foreign invaders.  But the truth is - both are native, and both sustained an influx of immigration.  Going against the "colonial settlement" model is the fact that Jews were also indiginous.  There have always been Jewish people there, even though many more migrated in.  Now if you are going to complain about that then why aren't you complaining the Arabs who immigrated into the area and are just as foreign as the Europeans?  And - why don't you acknowledge that the Jews also have a right to be there and have as much right to form a state in that period of time as the Palestinian Arabs did?
> 
> I don't think your going to fix the problem by "unwinding" history and you can't fix an injustice by creating more injustices.  You have to take what is there as it is now and work with it.  That means Israel, as a Jewish state, is not going to disappear.  It's established, it's proven it can run and hold a state, even though it most certainly has serious issues regarding equality and justice,  it's far more democratic, and has a far higher standard of human rights and religious freedom then any of it's neighboring states.  So fixing the problem should not be ending Israel's existence as a Jewish state because the Jews have as much right as the Palestinians to be there and to form a state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> <<But the truth is - both are native, and both sustained an influx of immigration.>>
> 
> You seem to miss the meaning of the word Native/Indigenous.
> 
> All the tribes living in the Americas and Australia, Hawaii, New Zealand before the 1492 European "discovery" and colonization are the Indigenous, Native people of the land.
> 
> The people who had a Nation, culture and history living at the time of the various European invasions, or even the Assyrian invasion, were the Jewish People, also known as the Jewish Nation.
> 
> They were there when the Greeks, Romans, Byzantine and the Muslims arrived on that land.  It is all recorded in their documents, books, etc
> 
> Native = Indigenous = having formed a distinct people whose ancient history happened on that piece of land.
> 
> There are the Pagan, Christian and Muslim invaders of the Jewish Homeland, what had been the Nation of Israel.
> 
> A new majority due to Muslim and Christian migration to the land does not make that land, or in the Americas, etc.... any less belonging to any of the 500 First Nations, or the Mayans, Aztecs, etc.
> 
> All it means is that since that invasion the Indigenous people lost sovereignty over their land.
> 
> The Jews worked for and regained sovereignty over some of their land. Only 20% out of 100% of it, as it had been promised.
Click to expand...


I totally disagree.  Who is or is not "indiginous" in the strict meaning of the term is irrelevent.  It's irrelevant in the face of the fact that you have thousands of people who have been living in that region for generations, centuries, millinia including many who were once Jews and converted to invading religions (and this too is documented in history) and in the people's genome.  It's irrelevent because you can't just tell people with deep roots and ties that all of a sudden they don't belong there and it does nothing to provide a solution.


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> Now, how do we unwind this and fix the problem?



Since you are the only one on this thread to frame the problem this way, you are the only one who can answer this question.

So, what do you suggest?  Removing the "settler colonists"?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Coyote said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> teddyearp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> All of the "Israeli" solutions deny the rights of over half of the Palestinians.
> 
> 
> 
> And when are you going to post your solution as I asked in post #80?  In your own words without any cutting and pasting?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is just that the Palestinians call for equal rights and the Israelis call for expelling and killing.
> 
> I think this is indicative of the moral values of the people involved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think it is that simple.
> 
> The Palestinians might be calling for equal rights but many are also unwilling to allow Israeli Jews to remain there in the settlements should that become part of their new state.  In other words they are calling for expelling.  Likewise...they are and have been killing.
> 
> I think it's a mistake to broad brush the moral values of a people in that way - neither the Palestinians nor the Israeli's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is a difficult topic to discuss because the truth is untenable. Mentioning the truth brings an onslaught name calling and accusations. We will never achieve peace until the core issues are addressed. When the Palestinians, and others, call Israel 1948 occupied Palestine they are correct. No amount of time or political recognition will change that fact.
> 
> Israel is a settler colonial project. Both Britain and the Zionists said this regularly during the mandate period. That is what they called it. That is what it was. The facts on the ground confirm it. Nobody can deny it.
> 
> Settler colonialism is not an event it is a process that continues to today. Settler colonialism is the removal of the native population and replacing them with another people. We can see this process before our eyes. It is in the news all the time.
> 
> Now, how do we unwind this and fix the problem?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem is, 1948 is 70 years ago.  And in the meantime a state has been established.  You can't unwind it.
> 
> There is also another aspect that is ignored.  It's inaccurate to claim it's just the Jews colonizing a foreign land.  It isn't just that.  It's a bit of land, where multiple peoples live and have a heritage.  During the Jewish nationalistic struggle for that bit of land, there was an Arab nationalistic struggle for that same land.  But there seems to be a deliberate ignoring of the fact that the Jews were just as much the local people.  There are arguments about immigration. You have one side claiming the Palestinians are all foreign squatters and the other claiming the Jews are all foreign invaders.  But the truth is - both are native, and both sustained an influx of immigration.  Going against the "colonial settlement" model is the fact that Jews were also indiginous.  There have always been Jewish people there, even though many more migrated in.  Now if you are going to complain about that then why aren't you complaining the Arabs who immigrated into the area and are just as foreign as the Europeans?  And - why don't you acknowledge that the Jews also have a right to be there and have as much right to form a state in that period of time as the Palestinian Arabs did?
> 
> I don't think your going to fix the problem by "unwinding" history and you can't fix an injustice by creating more injustices.  You have to take what is there as it is now and work with it.  That means Israel, as a Jewish state, is not going to disappear.  It's established, it's proven it can run and hold a state, even though it most certainly has serious issues regarding equality and justice,  it's far more democratic, and has a far higher standard of human rights and religious freedom then any of it's neighboring states.  So fixing the problem should not be ending Israel's existence as a Jewish state because the Jews have as much right as the Palestinians to be there and to form a state.
Click to expand...

You are giving Israel's narrative. Are you saying that we should let injustice slide? What justification can you give for that. Israel has created a massive problem and you want to let them off the hook. Why?


----------



## Coyote

P F Tinmore said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> teddyearp said:
> 
> 
> 
> And when are you going to post your solution as I asked in post #80?  In your own words without any cutting and pasting?
> 
> 
> 
> It is just that the Palestinians call for equal rights and the Israelis call for expelling and killing.
> 
> I think this is indicative of the moral values of the people involved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think it is that simple.
> 
> The Palestinians might be calling for equal rights but many are also unwilling to allow Israeli Jews to remain there in the settlements should that become part of their new state.  In other words they are calling for expelling.  Likewise...they are and have been killing.
> 
> I think it's a mistake to broad brush the moral values of a people in that way - neither the Palestinians nor the Israeli's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is a difficult topic to discuss because the truth is untenable. Mentioning the truth brings an onslaught name calling and accusations. We will never achieve peace until the core issues are addressed. When the Palestinians, and others, call Israel 1948 occupied Palestine they are correct. No amount of time or political recognition will change that fact.
> 
> Israel is a settler colonial project. Both Britain and the Zionists said this regularly during the mandate period. That is what they called it. That is what it was. The facts on the ground confirm it. Nobody can deny it.
> 
> Settler colonialism is not an event it is a process that continues to today. Settler colonialism is the removal of the native population and replacing them with another people. We can see this process before our eyes. It is in the news all the time.
> 
> Now, how do we unwind this and fix the problem?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem is, 1948 is 70 years ago.  And in the meantime a state has been established.  You can't unwind it.
> 
> There is also another aspect that is ignored.  It's inaccurate to claim it's just the Jews colonizing a foreign land.  It isn't just that.  It's a bit of land, where multiple peoples live and have a heritage.  During the Jewish nationalistic struggle for that bit of land, there was an Arab nationalistic struggle for that same land.  But there seems to be a deliberate ignoring of the fact that the Jews were just as much the local people.  There are arguments about immigration. You have one side claiming the Palestinians are all foreign squatters and the other claiming the Jews are all foreign invaders.  But the truth is - both are native, and both sustained an influx of immigration.  Going against the "colonial settlement" model is the fact that Jews were also indiginous.  There have always been Jewish people there, even though many more migrated in.  Now if you are going to complain about that then why aren't you complaining the Arabs who immigrated into the area and are just as foreign as the Europeans?  And - why don't you acknowledge that the Jews also have a right to be there and have as much right to form a state in that period of time as the Palestinian Arabs did?
> 
> I don't think your going to fix the problem by "unwinding" history and you can't fix an injustice by creating more injustices.  You have to take what is there as it is now and work with it.  That means Israel, as a Jewish state, is not going to disappear.  It's established, it's proven it can run and hold a state, even though it most certainly has serious issues regarding equality and justice,  it's far more democratic, and has a far higher standard of human rights and religious freedom then any of it's neighboring states.  So fixing the problem should not be ending Israel's existence as a Jewish state because the Jews have as much right as the Palestinians to be there and to form a state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are giving Israel's narrative. Are you saying that we should let injustice slide? What justification can you give for that. Israel has created a massive problem and you want to let them off the hook. Why?
Click to expand...


No...I'm not giving Israel's narrative.

But you can not right an injustice by creating a another - right?  So how do you go about fixing it?  And in fairness - who is it Israel that created a massive problem?  Seems to me it took TWO to tango since at multiple points the Arabs could have accepted that Israel would have a state and they could develop a state alongside.  The lack of peace is complicated by a lack of recognition of each for the rights of the other. It's by no means one sided.


----------



## Sixties Fan

Coyote said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is just that the Palestinians call for equal rights and the Israelis call for expelling and killing.
> 
> I think this is indicative of the moral values of the people involved.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think it is that simple.
> 
> The Palestinians might be calling for equal rights but many are also unwilling to allow Israeli Jews to remain there in the settlements should that become part of their new state.  In other words they are calling for expelling.  Likewise...they are and have been killing.
> 
> I think it's a mistake to broad brush the moral values of a people in that way - neither the Palestinians nor the Israeli's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is a difficult topic to discuss because the truth is untenable. Mentioning the truth brings an onslaught name calling and accusations. We will never achieve peace until the core issues are addressed. When the Palestinians, and others, call Israel 1948 occupied Palestine they are correct. No amount of time or political recognition will change that fact.
> 
> Israel is a settler colonial project. Both Britain and the Zionists said this regularly during the mandate period. That is what they called it. That is what it was. The facts on the ground confirm it. Nobody can deny it.
> 
> Settler colonialism is not an event it is a process that continues to today. Settler colonialism is the removal of the native population and replacing them with another people. We can see this process before our eyes. It is in the news all the time.
> 
> Now, how do we unwind this and fix the problem?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem is, 1948 is 70 years ago.  And in the meantime a state has been established.  You can't unwind it.
> 
> There is also another aspect that is ignored.  It's inaccurate to claim it's just the Jews colonizing a foreign land.  It isn't just that.  It's a bit of land, where multiple peoples live and have a heritage.  During the Jewish nationalistic struggle for that bit of land, there was an Arab nationalistic struggle for that same land.  But there seems to be a deliberate ignoring of the fact that the Jews were just as much the local people.  There are arguments about immigration. You have one side claiming the Palestinians are all foreign squatters and the other claiming the Jews are all foreign invaders.  But the truth is - both are native, and both sustained an influx of immigration.  Going against the "colonial settlement" model is the fact that Jews were also indiginous.  There have always been Jewish people there, even though many more migrated in.  Now if you are going to complain about that then why aren't you complaining the Arabs who immigrated into the area and are just as foreign as the Europeans?  And - why don't you acknowledge that the Jews also have a right to be there and have as much right to form a state in that period of time as the Palestinian Arabs did?
> 
> I don't think your going to fix the problem by "unwinding" history and you can't fix an injustice by creating more injustices.  You have to take what is there as it is now and work with it.  That means Israel, as a Jewish state, is not going to disappear.  It's established, it's proven it can run and hold a state, even though it most certainly has serious issues regarding equality and justice,  it's far more democratic, and has a far higher standard of human rights and religious freedom then any of it's neighboring states.  So fixing the problem should not be ending Israel's existence as a Jewish state because the Jews have as much right as the Palestinians to be there and to form a state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> <<But the truth is - both are native, and both sustained an influx of immigration.>>
> 
> You seem to miss the meaning of the word Native/Indigenous.
> 
> All the tribes living in the Americas and Australia, Hawaii, New Zealand before the 1492 European "discovery" and colonization are the Indigenous, Native people of the land.
> 
> The people who had a Nation, culture and history living at the time of the various European invasions, or even the Assyrian invasion, were the Jewish People, also known as the Jewish Nation.
> 
> They were there when the Greeks, Romans, Byzantine and the Muslims arrived on that land.  It is all recorded in their documents, books, etc
> 
> Native = Indigenous = having formed a distinct people whose ancient history happened on that piece of land.
> 
> There are the Pagan, Christian and Muslim invaders of the Jewish Homeland, what had been the Nation of Israel.
> 
> A new majority due to Muslim and Christian migration to the land does not make that land, or in the Americas, etc.... any less belonging to any of the 500 First Nations, or the Mayans, Aztecs, etc.
> 
> All it means is that since that invasion the Indigenous people lost sovereignty over their land.
> 
> The Jews worked for and regained sovereignty over some of their land. Only 20% out of 100% of it, as it had been promised.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I totally disagree.  Who is or is not "indiginous" in the strict meaning of the term is irrelevent.  It's irrelevant in the face of the fact that you have thousands of people who have been living in that region for generations, centuries, millinia including many who were once Jews and converted to invading religions (and this too is documented in history) and in the people's genome.  It's irrelevent because you can't just tell people with deep roots and ties that all of a sudden they don't belong there and it does nothing to provide a solution.
Click to expand...



You may have missed somewhere that there are no non Muslims living in what was known in TranJordan today, although they did live in it until 1925 when the British simply gave a recently arrived Arab Muslim clan 77% of the Mandate for Palestine, which was part of the Jewish Homeland and where  Jews were going to be allowed to stay and live in it, as they had done for thousands of years.

Or, you missed where there were Jews living in the area of the Gaza Strip for thousands of years, until 1920, when they were expelled by the British for "security" concerns.

Or you missed where all the Jews were expelled from the oldest Jewish town in the area, around 3800 years, in 1929 when they were attacked by Muslims and then expelled by the British (Mandate, anyone?) instead of expelling those who were responsible for the attacks.

Or....you may have missed when Jordan's Hashemite clan invaded Israel, with the help of the British who had just given up their Mandate,after Israel's Independence and murdered and expelled ALL JEWS from ALL of Judea, Samaria and the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem (known, now, to some as "Arab East Jerusalem)


So, your point is that it is irrelevant as to who is the indigenous people, with ancestral rights (like any other ancestral people) to their ancient homeland.

The Muslims disagree.

They do know that the Jews are the ancestral people of that ancestral land.  But that is not the point in Islam to many Muslims.
It is about never allowing Jews to be sovereign to even a tiny piece of what is left since the British betrayed the Jews in 1922 and decided to give 77% of the Mandate to Arabs who had just been kicked out of THEIR homeland in Arabia by another Arab clan.

Also, you are assuming, because it has been repeated a Million times by Jew haters, that ALL Jews on that land had converted to Christianity or Islam.

That is totally incorrect.  And NO, the Jews who returned to the Jewish homeland (and had always done so in every century since the fall of the Roman Empire) are not "Europeans", as in .....their ancestral homes were in Germany, England, France, Spain, etc, etc.

They are descendants of those Jews who at one point or another did go to Europe, like anyone else and created communities (Italian, English, Spanish, Scottish, etc) somewhere else.

They continue to be descendants from those who came from Asia Minor, from the land of Israel, from the Nation of Israel.

 Apaches who moves to Europe for many centuries are still Apaches, their ancient homeland is still where it is in the USA, and no Apache will be telling them that they have no right of return to their homeland.

Jews from Europe, Americas, Mesopotamia, Iran, Syria, Egypt, etc.
All of them have the right to their ancient homeland, and be known as the indigenous people of that land.


Final point:

There are 2.5 Million non-Jews living in Israel, still.  None of them were uprooted.  They stayed on the land during the Independence war of 1948.  They were not asked to leave or expelled by Israel.

Just look at all the expulsions done by Arabs and the British of the Jewish population from 1920 to 1948.

How many Jews are left in Muslim countries?

Saudi Arabia = 0
Jordan = 0
Egypt =  40-50
Iraq = about 7
Yemen =300
Bahrai = 36
Iran = 12,000
Lebanon = 200

Jewish population by country - Wikipedia

The Jewish populations in all of those countries were much larger before 1948.  Since then Jews were expelled or forced to escape.
What did they have to do with Israel?  They were Jews.

The same thing is happening in Europe where Jews are being forced to leave due to the increase in the Muslim population and their anti Israel/Jewish sentiments.

Increase in Muslim population = increase in attacks on Jews.
Not just Israelis.


No Jews in Gaza.
No Jews in areas A and B or the West Bank (Judea and Samaria)


Just which people have been told that they do not belong and have no roots to the land?
And which people have avoided accepting a partition in 1947, or Peace treaties in 2000 and 2008?

Which people took all of their people out of an area which protected the South of Israel from rocket attacks, only to have the other people continue to attack with about 14,000 rockets and no intent of negotiations for Peace, since 2005?


Think about all the points I made before you answer.

Do you actually believe that Hawaiians, Maoris, Aboriginal tribes, Amazonian tribes, etc, do not care if they are called the Indigenous people of the land, with what that word actually means?  And with the endless attempts to take more and more of their land?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Coyote said:


> It's irrelevent because *you can't just tell people with deep roots and ties that all of a sudden they don't belong there* and it does nothing to provide a solution.


As Israel does to the Palestinians.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now, how do we unwind this and fix the problem?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since you are the only one on this thread to frame the problem this way, you are the only one who can answer this question.
> 
> So, what do you suggest?  Removing the "settler colonists"?
Click to expand...

Of course not.


----------



## Sixties Fan

Coyote said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is just that the Palestinians call for equal rights and the Israelis call for expelling and killing.
> 
> I think this is indicative of the moral values of the people involved.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think it is that simple.
> 
> The Palestinians might be calling for equal rights but many are also unwilling to allow Israeli Jews to remain there in the settlements should that become part of their new state.  In other words they are calling for expelling.  Likewise...they are and have been killing.
> 
> I think it's a mistake to broad brush the moral values of a people in that way - neither the Palestinians nor the Israeli's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is a difficult topic to discuss because the truth is untenable. Mentioning the truth brings an onslaught name calling and accusations. We will never achieve peace until the core issues are addressed. When the Palestinians, and others, call Israel 1948 occupied Palestine they are correct. No amount of time or political recognition will change that fact.
> 
> Israel is a settler colonial project. Both Britain and the Zionists said this regularly during the mandate period. That is what they called it. That is what it was. The facts on the ground confirm it. Nobody can deny it.
> 
> Settler colonialism is not an event it is a process that continues to today. Settler colonialism is the removal of the native population and replacing them with another people. We can see this process before our eyes. It is in the news all the time.
> 
> Now, how do we unwind this and fix the problem?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem is, 1948 is 70 years ago.  And in the meantime a state has been established.  You can't unwind it.
> 
> There is also another aspect that is ignored.  It's inaccurate to claim it's just the Jews colonizing a foreign land.  It isn't just that.  It's a bit of land, where multiple peoples live and have a heritage.  During the Jewish nationalistic struggle for that bit of land, there was an Arab nationalistic struggle for that same land.  But there seems to be a deliberate ignoring of the fact that the Jews were just as much the local people.  There are arguments about immigration. You have one side claiming the Palestinians are all foreign squatters and the other claiming the Jews are all foreign invaders.  But the truth is - both are native, and both sustained an influx of immigration.  Going against the "colonial settlement" model is the fact that Jews were also indiginous.  There have always been Jewish people there, even though many more migrated in.  Now if you are going to complain about that then why aren't you complaining the Arabs who immigrated into the area and are just as foreign as the Europeans?  And - why don't you acknowledge that the Jews also have a right to be there and have as much right to form a state in that period of time as the Palestinian Arabs did?
> 
> I don't think your going to fix the problem by "unwinding" history and you can't fix an injustice by creating more injustices.  You have to take what is there as it is now and work with it.  That means Israel, as a Jewish state, is not going to disappear.  It's established, it's proven it can run and hold a state, even though it most certainly has serious issues regarding equality and justice,  it's far more democratic, and has a far higher standard of human rights and religious freedom then any of it's neighboring states.  So fixing the problem should not be ending Israel's existence as a Jewish state because the Jews have as much right as the Palestinians to be there and to form a state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are giving Israel's narrative. Are you saying that we should let injustice slide? What justification can you give for that. Israel has created a massive problem and you want to let them off the hook. Why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No...I'm not giving Israel's narrative.
> 
> But you can not right an injustice by creating a another - right?  So how do you go about fixing it?  And in fairness - who is it Israel that created a massive problem?  Seems to me it took TWO to tango since at multiple points the Arabs could have accepted that Israel would have a state and they could develop a state alongside.  The lack of peace is complicated by a lack of recognition of each for the rights of the other. It's by no means one sided.
Click to expand...


From your first sentence:
Who are you talking about when you say one cannot right an injustice by creating another?

And to answer your other sentences:
IF the Muslims/Arabs have not been the ones rejecting the Partition in 1947 and all other peace offers put in front of them, which even Arab countries post 2000 thought the Palestinian leaders thought they were crazy to not accept and put an end to the conflict, then who has?

1947 Partition  = Rejected by the Palestinians
2000 and 2008 Peace Treaties rejected by the Palestinians 
Negotiations  =  rejected by Abbas
Come to the table to negotiate = rejected by Abbas.


Why are you generalizing without giving specifics as to how things got to the way they are?


----------



## Sixties Fan

Coyote said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is just that the Palestinians call for equal rights and the Israelis call for expelling and killing.
> 
> I think this is indicative of the moral values of the people involved.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think it is that simple.
> 
> The Palestinians might be calling for equal rights but many are also unwilling to allow Israeli Jews to remain there in the settlements should that become part of their new state.  In other words they are calling for expelling.  Likewise...they are and have been killing.
> 
> I think it's a mistake to broad brush the moral values of a people in that way - neither the Palestinians nor the Israeli's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is a difficult topic to discuss because the truth is untenable. Mentioning the truth brings an onslaught name calling and accusations. We will never achieve peace until the core issues are addressed. When the Palestinians, and others, call Israel 1948 occupied Palestine they are correct. No amount of time or political recognition will change that fact.
> 
> Israel is a settler colonial project. Both Britain and the Zionists said this regularly during the mandate period. That is what they called it. That is what it was. The facts on the ground confirm it. Nobody can deny it.
> 
> Settler colonialism is not an event it is a process that continues to today. Settler colonialism is the removal of the native population and replacing them with another people. We can see this process before our eyes. It is in the news all the time.
> 
> Now, how do we unwind this and fix the problem?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem is, 1948 is 70 years ago.  And in the meantime a state has been established.  You can't unwind it.
> 
> There is also another aspect that is ignored.  It's inaccurate to claim it's just the Jews colonizing a foreign land.  It isn't just that.  It's a bit of land, where multiple peoples live and have a heritage.  During the Jewish nationalistic struggle for that bit of land, there was an Arab nationalistic struggle for that same land.  But there seems to be a deliberate ignoring of the fact that the Jews were just as much the local people.  There are arguments about immigration. You have one side claiming the Palestinians are all foreign squatters and the other claiming the Jews are all foreign invaders.  But the truth is - both are native, and both sustained an influx of immigration.  Going against the "colonial settlement" model is the fact that Jews were also indiginous.  There have always been Jewish people there, even though many more migrated in.  Now if you are going to complain about that then why aren't you complaining the Arabs who immigrated into the area and are just as foreign as the Europeans?  And - why don't you acknowledge that the Jews also have a right to be there and have as much right to form a state in that period of time as the Palestinian Arabs did?
> 
> I don't think your going to fix the problem by "unwinding" history and you can't fix an injustice by creating more injustices.  You have to take what is there as it is now and work with it.  That means Israel, as a Jewish state, is not going to disappear.  It's established, it's proven it can run and hold a state, even though it most certainly has serious issues regarding equality and justice,  it's far more democratic, and has a far higher standard of human rights and religious freedom then any of it's neighboring states.  So fixing the problem should not be ending Israel's existence as a Jewish state because the Jews have as much right as the Palestinians to be there and to form a state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are giving Israel's narrative. Are you saying that we should let injustice slide? What justification can you give for that. Israel has created a massive problem and you want to let them off the hook. Why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No...I'm not giving Israel's narrative.
> 
> But you can not right an injustice by creating a another - right?  So how do you go about fixing it?  And in fairness - who is it Israel that created a massive problem?  Seems to me it took TWO to tango since at multiple points the Arabs could have accepted that Israel would have a state and they could develop a state alongside.  The lack of peace is complicated by a lack of recognition of each for the rights of the other. It's by no means one sided.
Click to expand...



<<The lack of peace is complicated by a lack of recognition of each for the rights of the other>>

You have no idea what you are saying in that sentence.

Again, how many Jews living in Gaza or areas A and B of the West Bank?

How many Arab Christians or Muslims living in Israel and Area C or the West Bank?


----------



## fanger

If someone invaded your house by force of Arms, would you negotiate the return of your kitchen and part of the garage?


----------



## Sixties Fan

fanger said:


> If someone invaded your house by force of Arms, would you negotiate the return of your kitchen and part of the garage?



The Jews had no arms and they did not invade their own homeland in all the centuries they returned to their homeland due to oppression or persecution.

The only time the Jews saw the need for weapons was when the Mandate was affirmed and the Arab leaders set riots against them, and they had to defend themselves.

So, yes, when the rightful owners to the land, who had to buy the land back in order to work and live in it, are attacked by gangs of angry anti Jewish Muslims, the Jews will most definitely  stand up and protect their lives and properties, just as the natives from other areas of the world had to do with the invading Europeans, as North Africa, Spain and other areas had to do with the invasion of other Arab/Muslim armies and groups.

The Muslims lost the wars of WWI, WWII.

 The 1948 war against Israel, and also the wars of 1957, 1967 and 1973.

The invading Muslims who lost all of those wars against the indigenous Jews from 1948 to present need to stop wanting all Jews dead and Israel destroyed and once and for all make peace with Israel just as Egypt and Jordan had the courage to do.


----------



## Coyote

Sixties Fan said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think it is that simple.
> 
> The Palestinians might be calling for equal rights but many are also unwilling to allow Israeli Jews to remain there in the settlements should that become part of their new state.  In other words they are calling for expelling.  Likewise...they are and have been killing.
> 
> I think it's a mistake to broad brush the moral values of a people in that way - neither the Palestinians nor the Israeli's.
> 
> 
> 
> This is a difficult topic to discuss because the truth is untenable. Mentioning the truth brings an onslaught name calling and accusations. We will never achieve peace until the core issues are addressed. When the Palestinians, and others, call Israel 1948 occupied Palestine they are correct. No amount of time or political recognition will change that fact.
> 
> Israel is a settler colonial project. Both Britain and the Zionists said this regularly during the mandate period. That is what they called it. That is what it was. The facts on the ground confirm it. Nobody can deny it.
> 
> Settler colonialism is not an event it is a process that continues to today. Settler colonialism is the removal of the native population and replacing them with another people. We can see this process before our eyes. It is in the news all the time.
> 
> Now, how do we unwind this and fix the problem?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem is, 1948 is 70 years ago.  And in the meantime a state has been established.  You can't unwind it.
> 
> There is also another aspect that is ignored.  It's inaccurate to claim it's just the Jews colonizing a foreign land.  It isn't just that.  It's a bit of land, where multiple peoples live and have a heritage.  During the Jewish nationalistic struggle for that bit of land, there was an Arab nationalistic struggle for that same land.  But there seems to be a deliberate ignoring of the fact that the Jews were just as much the local people.  There are arguments about immigration. You have one side claiming the Palestinians are all foreign squatters and the other claiming the Jews are all foreign invaders.  But the truth is - both are native, and both sustained an influx of immigration.  Going against the "colonial settlement" model is the fact that Jews were also indiginous.  There have always been Jewish people there, even though many more migrated in.  Now if you are going to complain about that then why aren't you complaining the Arabs who immigrated into the area and are just as foreign as the Europeans?  And - why don't you acknowledge that the Jews also have a right to be there and have as much right to form a state in that period of time as the Palestinian Arabs did?
> 
> I don't think your going to fix the problem by "unwinding" history and you can't fix an injustice by creating more injustices.  You have to take what is there as it is now and work with it.  That means Israel, as a Jewish state, is not going to disappear.  It's established, it's proven it can run and hold a state, even though it most certainly has serious issues regarding equality and justice,  it's far more democratic, and has a far higher standard of human rights and religious freedom then any of it's neighboring states.  So fixing the problem should not be ending Israel's existence as a Jewish state because the Jews have as much right as the Palestinians to be there and to form a state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are giving Israel's narrative. Are you saying that we should let injustice slide? What justification can you give for that. Israel has created a massive problem and you want to let them off the hook. Why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No...I'm not giving Israel's narrative.
> 
> But you can not right an injustice by creating a another - right?  So how do you go about fixing it?  And in fairness - who is it Israel that created a massive problem?  Seems to me it took TWO to tango since at multiple points the Arabs could have accepted that Israel would have a state and they could develop a state alongside.  The lack of peace is complicated by a lack of recognition of each for the rights of the other. It's by no means one sided.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> <<The lack of peace is complicated by a lack of recognition of each for the rights of the other>>
> 
> You have no idea what you are saying in that sentence.
> 
> Again, how many Jews living in Gaza or areas A and B of the West Bank?
> 
> How many Arab Christians or Muslims living in Israel and Area C or the West Bank?
Click to expand...


Yes, I absolutely no what I'm saying.

_A lack of recognition of each for the rights the other..._

One example would be the continued and even increased settlement building.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Sixties Fan said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think it is that simple.
> 
> The Palestinians might be calling for equal rights but many are also unwilling to allow Israeli Jews to remain there in the settlements should that become part of their new state.  In other words they are calling for expelling.  Likewise...they are and have been killing.
> 
> I think it's a mistake to broad brush the moral values of a people in that way - neither the Palestinians nor the Israeli's.
> 
> 
> 
> This is a difficult topic to discuss because the truth is untenable. Mentioning the truth brings an onslaught name calling and accusations. We will never achieve peace until the core issues are addressed. When the Palestinians, and others, call Israel 1948 occupied Palestine they are correct. No amount of time or political recognition will change that fact.
> 
> Israel is a settler colonial project. Both Britain and the Zionists said this regularly during the mandate period. That is what they called it. That is what it was. The facts on the ground confirm it. Nobody can deny it.
> 
> Settler colonialism is not an event it is a process that continues to today. Settler colonialism is the removal of the native population and replacing them with another people. We can see this process before our eyes. It is in the news all the time.
> 
> Now, how do we unwind this and fix the problem?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem is, 1948 is 70 years ago.  And in the meantime a state has been established.  You can't unwind it.
> 
> There is also another aspect that is ignored.  It's inaccurate to claim it's just the Jews colonizing a foreign land.  It isn't just that.  It's a bit of land, where multiple peoples live and have a heritage.  During the Jewish nationalistic struggle for that bit of land, there was an Arab nationalistic struggle for that same land.  But there seems to be a deliberate ignoring of the fact that the Jews were just as much the local people.  There are arguments about immigration. You have one side claiming the Palestinians are all foreign squatters and the other claiming the Jews are all foreign invaders.  But the truth is - both are native, and both sustained an influx of immigration.  Going against the "colonial settlement" model is the fact that Jews were also indiginous.  There have always been Jewish people there, even though many more migrated in.  Now if you are going to complain about that then why aren't you complaining the Arabs who immigrated into the area and are just as foreign as the Europeans?  And - why don't you acknowledge that the Jews also have a right to be there and have as much right to form a state in that period of time as the Palestinian Arabs did?
> 
> I don't think your going to fix the problem by "unwinding" history and you can't fix an injustice by creating more injustices.  You have to take what is there as it is now and work with it.  That means Israel, as a Jewish state, is not going to disappear.  It's established, it's proven it can run and hold a state, even though it most certainly has serious issues regarding equality and justice,  it's far more democratic, and has a far higher standard of human rights and religious freedom then any of it's neighboring states.  So fixing the problem should not be ending Israel's existence as a Jewish state because the Jews have as much right as the Palestinians to be there and to form a state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are giving Israel's narrative. Are you saying that we should let injustice slide? What justification can you give for that. Israel has created a massive problem and you want to let them off the hook. Why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No...I'm not giving Israel's narrative.
> 
> But you can not right an injustice by creating a another - right?  So how do you go about fixing it?  And in fairness - who is it Israel that created a massive problem?  Seems to me it took TWO to tango since at multiple points the Arabs could have accepted that Israel would have a state and they could develop a state alongside.  The lack of peace is complicated by a lack of recognition of each for the rights of the other. It's by no means one sided.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From your first sentence:
> Who are you talking about when you say one cannot right an injustice by creating another?
> 
> And to answer your other sentences:
> IF the Muslims/Arabs have not been the ones rejecting the Partition in 1947 and all other peace offers put in front of them, which even Arab countries post 2000 thought the Palestinian leaders thought they were crazy to not accept and put an end to the conflict, then who has?
> 
> 1947 Partition  = Rejected by the Palestinians
> 2000 and 2008 Peace Treaties rejected by the Palestinians
> Negotiations  =  rejected by Abbas
> Come to the table to negotiate = rejected by Abbas.
> 
> 
> Why are you generalizing without giving specifics as to how things got to the way they are?
Click to expand...

All of those required the Palestinians to surrender and cede land.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Coyote said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a difficult topic to discuss because the truth is untenable. Mentioning the truth brings an onslaught name calling and accusations. We will never achieve peace until the core issues are addressed. When the Palestinians, and others, call Israel 1948 occupied Palestine they are correct. No amount of time or political recognition will change that fact.
> 
> Israel is a settler colonial project. Both Britain and the Zionists said this regularly during the mandate period. That is what they called it. That is what it was. The facts on the ground confirm it. Nobody can deny it.
> 
> Settler colonialism is not an event it is a process that continues to today. Settler colonialism is the removal of the native population and replacing them with another people. We can see this process before our eyes. It is in the news all the time.
> 
> Now, how do we unwind this and fix the problem?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is, 1948 is 70 years ago.  And in the meantime a state has been established.  You can't unwind it.
> 
> There is also another aspect that is ignored.  It's inaccurate to claim it's just the Jews colonizing a foreign land.  It isn't just that.  It's a bit of land, where multiple peoples live and have a heritage.  During the Jewish nationalistic struggle for that bit of land, there was an Arab nationalistic struggle for that same land.  But there seems to be a deliberate ignoring of the fact that the Jews were just as much the local people.  There are arguments about immigration. You have one side claiming the Palestinians are all foreign squatters and the other claiming the Jews are all foreign invaders.  But the truth is - both are native, and both sustained an influx of immigration.  Going against the "colonial settlement" model is the fact that Jews were also indiginous.  There have always been Jewish people there, even though many more migrated in.  Now if you are going to complain about that then why aren't you complaining the Arabs who immigrated into the area and are just as foreign as the Europeans?  And - why don't you acknowledge that the Jews also have a right to be there and have as much right to form a state in that period of time as the Palestinian Arabs did?
> 
> I don't think your going to fix the problem by "unwinding" history and you can't fix an injustice by creating more injustices.  You have to take what is there as it is now and work with it.  That means Israel, as a Jewish state, is not going to disappear.  It's established, it's proven it can run and hold a state, even though it most certainly has serious issues regarding equality and justice,  it's far more democratic, and has a far higher standard of human rights and religious freedom then any of it's neighboring states.  So fixing the problem should not be ending Israel's existence as a Jewish state because the Jews have as much right as the Palestinians to be there and to form a state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are giving Israel's narrative. Are you saying that we should let injustice slide? What justification can you give for that. Israel has created a massive problem and you want to let them off the hook. Why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No...I'm not giving Israel's narrative.
> 
> But you can not right an injustice by creating a another - right?  So how do you go about fixing it?  And in fairness - who is it Israel that created a massive problem?  Seems to me it took TWO to tango since at multiple points the Arabs could have accepted that Israel would have a state and they could develop a state alongside.  The lack of peace is complicated by a lack of recognition of each for the rights of the other. It's by no means one sided.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> <<The lack of peace is complicated by a lack of recognition of each for the rights of the other>>
> 
> You have no idea what you are saying in that sentence.
> 
> Again, how many Jews living in Gaza or areas A and B of the West Bank?
> 
> How many Arab Christians or Muslims living in Israel and Area C or the West Bank?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I absolutely no what I'm saying.
> 
> _A lack of recognition of each for the rights the other..._
> 
> One example would be the continued and even increased settlement building.
Click to expand...

Indeed, the continuation of the settler colonial process.


----------



## Sixties Fan

Coyote said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a difficult topic to discuss because the truth is untenable. Mentioning the truth brings an onslaught name calling and accusations. We will never achieve peace until the core issues are addressed. When the Palestinians, and others, call Israel 1948 occupied Palestine they are correct. No amount of time or political recognition will change that fact.
> 
> Israel is a settler colonial project. Both Britain and the Zionists said this regularly during the mandate period. That is what they called it. That is what it was. The facts on the ground confirm it. Nobody can deny it.
> 
> Settler colonialism is not an event it is a process that continues to today. Settler colonialism is the removal of the native population and replacing them with another people. We can see this process before our eyes. It is in the news all the time.
> 
> Now, how do we unwind this and fix the problem?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is, 1948 is 70 years ago.  And in the meantime a state has been established.  You can't unwind it.
> 
> There is also another aspect that is ignored.  It's inaccurate to claim it's just the Jews colonizing a foreign land.  It isn't just that.  It's a bit of land, where multiple peoples live and have a heritage.  During the Jewish nationalistic struggle for that bit of land, there was an Arab nationalistic struggle for that same land.  But there seems to be a deliberate ignoring of the fact that the Jews were just as much the local people.  There are arguments about immigration. You have one side claiming the Palestinians are all foreign squatters and the other claiming the Jews are all foreign invaders.  But the truth is - both are native, and both sustained an influx of immigration.  Going against the "colonial settlement" model is the fact that Jews were also indiginous.  There have always been Jewish people there, even though many more migrated in.  Now if you are going to complain about that then why aren't you complaining the Arabs who immigrated into the area and are just as foreign as the Europeans?  And - why don't you acknowledge that the Jews also have a right to be there and have as much right to form a state in that period of time as the Palestinian Arabs did?
> 
> I don't think your going to fix the problem by "unwinding" history and you can't fix an injustice by creating more injustices.  You have to take what is there as it is now and work with it.  That means Israel, as a Jewish state, is not going to disappear.  It's established, it's proven it can run and hold a state, even though it most certainly has serious issues regarding equality and justice,  it's far more democratic, and has a far higher standard of human rights and religious freedom then any of it's neighboring states.  So fixing the problem should not be ending Israel's existence as a Jewish state because the Jews have as much right as the Palestinians to be there and to form a state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are giving Israel's narrative. Are you saying that we should let injustice slide? What justification can you give for that. Israel has created a massive problem and you want to let them off the hook. Why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No...I'm not giving Israel's narrative.
> 
> But you can not right an injustice by creating a another - right?  So how do you go about fixing it?  And in fairness - who is it Israel that created a massive problem?  Seems to me it took TWO to tango since at multiple points the Arabs could have accepted that Israel would have a state and they could develop a state alongside.  The lack of peace is complicated by a lack of recognition of each for the rights of the other. It's by no means one sided.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> <<The lack of peace is complicated by a lack of recognition of each for the rights of the other>>
> 
> You have no idea what you are saying in that sentence.
> 
> Again, how many Jews living in Gaza or areas A and B of the West Bank?
> 
> How many Arab Christians or Muslims living in Israel and Area C or the West Bank?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I absolutely no what I'm saying.
> 
> _A lack of recognition of each for the rights the other..._
> 
> One example would be the continued and even increased settlement building.
Click to expand...



When Israel only builds within the existing cities or villages in Areas A and B, as per the Oslo Accords (do you know what the Oslo Accords say?) , and even builds for Arabs who live in those areas, just how is that lacking recognition of the other ?

Tell me of homes built for Jews in Areas A and B?

And also, why do you keep ignoring the lack of Jews in their ancient land of Gaza and TransJordan since 1920, as they were expelled by the Muslims and the British?

The Muslims want to make Judea and Samaria ( where the birth of Judaism was, and where the ancient kingdoms of King David and all the other Kings were rooted) Jewish free.  
No Jews will be allowed to live on ancient Jewish land (Abbas has said so himself).

You may not know it, but you are definitely repeating someone's narrative, you simply do not know that you are doing it.


----------



## Coyote

Sixties Fan said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think it is that simple.
> 
> The Palestinians might be calling for equal rights but many are also unwilling to allow Israeli Jews to remain there in the settlements should that become part of their new state.  In other words they are calling for expelling.  Likewise...they are and have been killing.
> 
> I think it's a mistake to broad brush the moral values of a people in that way - neither the Palestinians nor the Israeli's.
> 
> 
> 
> This is a difficult topic to discuss because the truth is untenable. Mentioning the truth brings an onslaught name calling and accusations. We will never achieve peace until the core issues are addressed. When the Palestinians, and others, call Israel 1948 occupied Palestine they are correct. No amount of time or political recognition will change that fact.
> 
> Israel is a settler colonial project. Both Britain and the Zionists said this regularly during the mandate period. That is what they called it. That is what it was. The facts on the ground confirm it. Nobody can deny it.
> 
> Settler colonialism is not an event it is a process that continues to today. Settler colonialism is the removal of the native population and replacing them with another people. We can see this process before our eyes. It is in the news all the time.
> 
> Now, how do we unwind this and fix the problem?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem is, 1948 is 70 years ago.  And in the meantime a state has been established.  You can't unwind it.
> 
> There is also another aspect that is ignored.  It's inaccurate to claim it's just the Jews colonizing a foreign land.  It isn't just that.  It's a bit of land, where multiple peoples live and have a heritage.  During the Jewish nationalistic struggle for that bit of land, there was an Arab nationalistic struggle for that same land.  But there seems to be a deliberate ignoring of the fact that the Jews were just as much the local people.  There are arguments about immigration. You have one side claiming the Palestinians are all foreign squatters and the other claiming the Jews are all foreign invaders.  But the truth is - both are native, and both sustained an influx of immigration.  Going against the "colonial settlement" model is the fact that Jews were also indiginous.  There have always been Jewish people there, even though many more migrated in.  Now if you are going to complain about that then why aren't you complaining the Arabs who immigrated into the area and are just as foreign as the Europeans?  And - why don't you acknowledge that the Jews also have a right to be there and have as much right to form a state in that period of time as the Palestinian Arabs did?
> 
> I don't think your going to fix the problem by "unwinding" history and you can't fix an injustice by creating more injustices.  You have to take what is there as it is now and work with it.  That means Israel, as a Jewish state, is not going to disappear.  It's established, it's proven it can run and hold a state, even though it most certainly has serious issues regarding equality and justice,  it's far more democratic, and has a far higher standard of human rights and religious freedom then any of it's neighboring states.  So fixing the problem should not be ending Israel's existence as a Jewish state because the Jews have as much right as the Palestinians to be there and to form a state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> <<But the truth is - both are native, and both sustained an influx of immigration.>>
> 
> You seem to miss the meaning of the word Native/Indigenous.
> 
> All the tribes living in the Americas and Australia, Hawaii, New Zealand before the 1492 European "discovery" and colonization are the Indigenous, Native people of the land.
> 
> The people who had a Nation, culture and history living at the time of the various European invasions, or even the Assyrian invasion, were the Jewish People, also known as the Jewish Nation.
> 
> They were there when the Greeks, Romans, Byzantine and the Muslims arrived on that land.  It is all recorded in their documents, books, etc
> 
> Native = Indigenous = having formed a distinct people whose ancient history happened on that piece of land.
> 
> There are the Pagan, Christian and Muslim invaders of the Jewish Homeland, what had been the Nation of Israel.
> 
> A new majority due to Muslim and Christian migration to the land does not make that land, or in the Americas, etc.... any less belonging to any of the 500 First Nations, or the Mayans, Aztecs, etc.
> 
> All it means is that since that invasion the Indigenous people lost sovereignty over their land.
> 
> The Jews worked for and regained sovereignty over some of their land. Only 20% out of 100% of it, as it had been promised.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I totally disagree.  Who is or is not "indiginous" in the strict meaning of the term is irrelevent.  It's irrelevant in the face of the fact that you have thousands of people who have been living in that region for generations, centuries, millinia including many who were once Jews and converted to invading religions (and this too is documented in history) and in the people's genome.  It's irrelevent because you can't just tell people with deep roots and ties that all of a sudden they don't belong there and it does nothing to provide a solution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You may have missed somewhere that there are no non Muslims living in what was known in TranJordan today, although they did live in it until 1925 when the British simply gave a recently arrived Arab Muslim clan 77% of the Mandate for Palestine, which was part of the Jewish Homeland and where  Jews were going to be allowed to stay and live in it, as they had done for thousands of years.
> 
> Or, you missed where there were Jews living in the area of the Gaza Strip for thousands of years, until 1920, when they were expelled by the British for "security" concerns.
> 
> Or you missed where all the Jews were expelled from the oldest Jewish town in the area, around 3800 years, in 1929 when they were attacked by Muslims and then expelled by the British (Mandate, anyone?) instead of expelling those who were responsible for the attacks.
> 
> Or....you may have missed when Jordan's Hashemite clan invaded Israel, with the help of the British who had just given up their Mandate,after Israel's Independence and murdered and expelled ALL JEWS from ALL of Judea, Samaria and the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem (known, now, to some as "Arab East Jerusalem)
> 
> 
> So, your point is that it is irrelevant as to who is the indigenous people, with ancestral rights (like any other ancestral people) to their ancient homeland.
Click to expand...


Frankly I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here.

Both sets of people have rights to that area.  Yes or no?

If no, why not?

Both sets of people have suffered under expulsions and through war.  Yes or no?

So what is your point?



> The Muslims disagree.
> 
> They do know that the Jews are the ancestral people of that ancestral land.  But that is not the point in Islam to many Muslims.
> It is about never allowing Jews to be sovereign to even a tiny piece of what is left since the British betrayed the Jews in 1922 and decided to give 77% of the Mandate to Arabs who had just been kicked out of THEIR homeland in Arabia by another Arab clan.
> 
> Also, you are assuming, because it has been repeated a Million times by Jew haters, that ALL Jews on that land had converted to Christianity or Islam.



Actually, you're the one who seems to be doing a lot of assuming.  Maybe you ought to read what people actually post for a change instead of reverting to labels.

I've never claimed that "all Jews" converted to another religion nor am I about to.  However, with each successive wave of conquests you have a number of people who end up converting to the dominant religion.  Or...are you going to claim that all the none Jews are foreign invaders?



> That is totally incorrect.  And NO, the Jews who returned to the Jewish homeland (and had always done so in every century since the fall of the Roman Empire) are not "Europeans", as in .....their ancestral homes were in Germany, England, France, Spain, etc, etc.



And, in many instances - the people in Europe at one time came from elsewhere as well through successive waves of migration and conquest.  The Jews that came from Europe, who had established roots in Europe for thousands of years are as European as any other European and infact almost certainly married Europeans in the process.



> They are descendants of those Jews who at one point or another did go to Europe, like anyone else and created communities (Italian, English, Spanish, Scottish, etc) somewhere else.
> 
> They continue to be descendants from those who came from Asia Minor, from the land of Israel, from the Nation of Israel.
> 
> Apaches who moves to Europe for many centuries are still Apaches, their ancient homeland is still where it is in the USA, and no Apache will be telling them that they have no right of return to their homeland.
> 
> Jews from Europe, Americas, Mesopotamia, Iran, Syria, Egypt, etc.
> All of them have the right to their ancient homeland, and be known as the indigenous people of that land.



They have no more right then any of the other people's living there.



> Final point:
> 
> There are 2.5 Million non-Jews living in Israel, still.  None of them were uprooted.  They stayed on the land during the Independence war of 1948.  They were not asked to leave or expelled by Israel.
> 
> Just look at all the expulsions done by Arabs and the British of the Jewish population from 1920 to 1948.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's your point with this exactly?  There were a good many Palestinians expelled during the war as well, and the myth that it was soley due to Arab leaders telling them to flee is a myth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many Jews are left in Muslim countries?
> 
> Saudi Arabia = 0
> Jordan = 0
> Egypt =  40-50
> Iraq = about 7
> Yemen =300
> Bahrai = 36
> Iran = 12,000
> Lebanon = 200
> 
> Jewish population by country - Wikipedia
> 
> The Jewish populations in all of those countries were much larger before 1948.  Since then Jews were expelled or forced to escape.
> What did they have to do with Israel?  They were Jews.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agree, there was an expulsion of Jews from Arab countries during this time.  Not sure where you are going with this since no one is arguing that there wasn't or justifying it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The same thing is happening in Europe where Jews are being forced to leave due to the increase in the Muslim population and their anti Israel/Jewish sentiments.
> 
> Increase in Muslim population = increase in attacks on Jews.
> Not just Israelis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok, are you a muslim hater then?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No Jews in Gaza.
> No Jews in areas A and B or the West Bank (Judea and Samaria)
> 
> 
> Just which people have been told that they do not belong and have no roots to the land?
> And which people have avoided accepting a partition in 1947, or Peace treaties in 2000 and 2008?
> 
> Which people took all of their people out of an area which protected the South of Israel from rocket attacks, only to have the other people continue to attack with about 14,000 rockets and no intent of negotiations for Peace, since 2005?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So...again, what is your point here in relation to what I've said?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Think about all the points I made before you answer.
> 
> Do you actually believe that Hawaiians, Maoris, Aboriginal tribes, Amazonian tribes, etc, do not care if they are called the Indigenous people of the land, with what that word actually means?  And with the endless attempts to take more and more of their land?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When thousands of years have passed, and other peoples have inhabited that area for that long - even as long - then what does it mean?  It means nothing in terms of RIGHTS.  In other words - they have no greater rights than the people living there.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Coyote

Sixties Fan said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is, 1948 is 70 years ago.  And in the meantime a state has been established.  You can't unwind it.
> 
> There is also another aspect that is ignored.  It's inaccurate to claim it's just the Jews colonizing a foreign land.  It isn't just that.  It's a bit of land, where multiple peoples live and have a heritage.  During the Jewish nationalistic struggle for that bit of land, there was an Arab nationalistic struggle for that same land.  But there seems to be a deliberate ignoring of the fact that the Jews were just as much the local people.  There are arguments about immigration. You have one side claiming the Palestinians are all foreign squatters and the other claiming the Jews are all foreign invaders.  But the truth is - both are native, and both sustained an influx of immigration.  Going against the "colonial settlement" model is the fact that Jews were also indiginous.  There have always been Jewish people there, even though many more migrated in.  Now if you are going to complain about that then why aren't you complaining the Arabs who immigrated into the area and are just as foreign as the Europeans?  And - why don't you acknowledge that the Jews also have a right to be there and have as much right to form a state in that period of time as the Palestinian Arabs did?
> 
> I don't think your going to fix the problem by "unwinding" history and you can't fix an injustice by creating more injustices.  You have to take what is there as it is now and work with it.  That means Israel, as a Jewish state, is not going to disappear.  It's established, it's proven it can run and hold a state, even though it most certainly has serious issues regarding equality and justice,  it's far more democratic, and has a far higher standard of human rights and religious freedom then any of it's neighboring states.  So fixing the problem should not be ending Israel's existence as a Jewish state because the Jews have as much right as the Palestinians to be there and to form a state.
> 
> 
> 
> You are giving Israel's narrative. Are you saying that we should let injustice slide? What justification can you give for that. Israel has created a massive problem and you want to let them off the hook. Why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No...I'm not giving Israel's narrative.
> 
> But you can not right an injustice by creating a another - right?  So how do you go about fixing it?  And in fairness - who is it Israel that created a massive problem?  Seems to me it took TWO to tango since at multiple points the Arabs could have accepted that Israel would have a state and they could develop a state alongside.  The lack of peace is complicated by a lack of recognition of each for the rights of the other. It's by no means one sided.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> <<The lack of peace is complicated by a lack of recognition of each for the rights of the other>>
> 
> You have no idea what you are saying in that sentence.
> 
> Again, how many Jews living in Gaza or areas A and B of the West Bank?
> 
> How many Arab Christians or Muslims living in Israel and Area C or the West Bank?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I absolutely no what I'm saying.
> 
> _A lack of recognition of each for the rights the other..._
> 
> One example would be the continued and even increased settlement building.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> When Israel only builds within the existing cities or villages in Areas A and B, as per the Oslo Accords (do you know what the Oslo Accords say?) , and even builds for Arabs who live in those areas, just how is that lacking recognition of the other ?
Click to expand...


How many new Arab settlements or expansions have been approved?
How many new Jewish settlements or expansions have been approved?



> Tell me of homes built for Jews in Areas A and B?
> 
> And also, why do you keep ignoring the lack of Jews in their ancient land of Gaza and TransJordan since 1920, as they were expelled by the Muslims and the British?
> 
> The Muslims want to make Judea and Samaria ( where the birth of Judaism was, and where the ancient kingdoms of King David and all the other Kings were rooted) Jewish free.



You are trying to make the argument that Israel recognizes the rights of the Palestinians and Palestinians do not recognize the rights of Israel.

I'm making the argument that NEITHER recognizes the rights of the other.  The only argument you've come up with is Israel is a little better than the Palestinians in this.  



> *No Jews will be allowed to live on ancient Jewish land (Abbas has said so himself).*
> 
> You may not know it, but you are definitely repeating someone's narrative, you simply do not know that you are doing it.



No...Abbas didn't say that.  That's a frequently misquoted statement and taken out of context:

_“In a final resolution, we would not see the presence of a single * Israeli *— civilian or soldier — on our lands,” Abbas said following a meeting with interim Egyptian President Adly Mansour in Cairo._


----------



## ForeverYoung436

Sixties Fan said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is, 1948 is 70 years ago.  And in the meantime a state has been established.  You can't unwind it.
> 
> There is also another aspect that is ignored.  It's inaccurate to claim it's just the Jews colonizing a foreign land.  It isn't just that.  It's a bit of land, where multiple peoples live and have a heritage.  During the Jewish nationalistic struggle for that bit of land, there was an Arab nationalistic struggle for that same land.  But there seems to be a deliberate ignoring of the fact that the Jews were just as much the local people.  There are arguments about immigration. You have one side claiming the Palestinians are all foreign squatters and the other claiming the Jews are all foreign invaders.  But the truth is - both are native, and both sustained an influx of immigration.  Going against the "colonial settlement" model is the fact that Jews were also indiginous.  There have always been Jewish people there, even though many more migrated in.  Now if you are going to complain about that then why aren't you complaining the Arabs who immigrated into the area and are just as foreign as the Europeans?  And - why don't you acknowledge that the Jews also have a right to be there and have as much right to form a state in that period of time as the Palestinian Arabs did?
> 
> I don't think your going to fix the problem by "unwinding" history and you can't fix an injustice by creating more injustices.  You have to take what is there as it is now and work with it.  That means Israel, as a Jewish state, is not going to disappear.  It's established, it's proven it can run and hold a state, even though it most certainly has serious issues regarding equality and justice,  it's far more democratic, and has a far higher standard of human rights and religious freedom then any of it's neighboring states.  So fixing the problem should not be ending Israel's existence as a Jewish state because the Jews have as much right as the Palestinians to be there and to form a state.
> 
> 
> 
> You are giving Israel's narrative. Are you saying that we should let injustice slide? What justification can you give for that. Israel has created a massive problem and you want to let them off the hook. Why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No...I'm not giving Israel's narrative.
> 
> But you can not right an injustice by creating a another - right?  So how do you go about fixing it?  And in fairness - who is it Israel that created a massive problem?  Seems to me it took TWO to tango since at multiple points the Arabs could have accepted that Israel would have a state and they could develop a state alongside.  The lack of peace is complicated by a lack of recognition of each for the rights of the other. It's by no means one sided.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> <<The lack of peace is complicated by a lack of recognition of each for the rights of the other>>
> 
> You have no idea what you are saying in that sentence.
> 
> Again, how many Jews living in Gaza or areas A and B of the West Bank?
> 
> How many Arab Christians or Muslims living in Israel and Area C or the West Bank?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I absolutely no what I'm saying.
> 
> _A lack of recognition of each for the rights the other..._
> 
> One example would be the continued and even increased settlement building.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> When Israel only builds within the existing cities or villages in Areas A and B, as per the Oslo Accords (do you know what the Oslo Accords say?) , and even builds for Arabs who live in those areas, just how is that lacking recognition of the other ?
> 
> Tell me of homes built for Jews in Areas A and B?
> 
> And also, why do you keep ignoring the lack of Jews in their ancient land of Gaza and TransJordan since 1920, as they were expelled by the Muslims and the British?
> 
> The Muslims want to make Judea and Samaria ( where the birth of Judaism was, and where the ancient kingdoms of King David and all the other Kings were rooted) Jewish free.
> No Jews will be allowed to live on ancient Jewish land (Abbas has said so himself).
> 
> You may not know it, but you are definitely repeating someone's narrative, you simply do not know that you are doing it.
Click to expand...


Actually, if you want to be technical about ancient Israel, then Gaza and even Transjordan weren't a vital part of that land.  Gaza was ruled by the Philistines, a la Samson and Delilah.  As for Transjordan, the tribes of Reuben and Gad took up about half of what is today Jordan.  Furthermore, G-d told Moses to ascend Mount Nebo in Jordan and peer across the river to the Holy Land because he would never set foot there.  At least part of Jordan were the Lands of Moab and Ammon.


----------



## ForeverYoung436

P F Tinmore said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a difficult topic to discuss because the truth is untenable. Mentioning the truth brings an onslaught name calling and accusations. We will never achieve peace until the core issues are addressed. When the Palestinians, and others, call Israel 1948 occupied Palestine they are correct. No amount of time or political recognition will change that fact.
> 
> Israel is a settler colonial project. Both Britain and the Zionists said this regularly during the mandate period. That is what they called it. That is what it was. The facts on the ground confirm it. Nobody can deny it.
> 
> Settler colonialism is not an event it is a process that continues to today. Settler colonialism is the removal of the native population and replacing them with another people. We can see this process before our eyes. It is in the news all the time.
> 
> Now, how do we unwind this and fix the problem?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is, 1948 is 70 years ago.  And in the meantime a state has been established.  You can't unwind it.
> 
> There is also another aspect that is ignored.  It's inaccurate to claim it's just the Jews colonizing a foreign land.  It isn't just that.  It's a bit of land, where multiple peoples live and have a heritage.  During the Jewish nationalistic struggle for that bit of land, there was an Arab nationalistic struggle for that same land.  But there seems to be a deliberate ignoring of the fact that the Jews were just as much the local people.  There are arguments about immigration. You have one side claiming the Palestinians are all foreign squatters and the other claiming the Jews are all foreign invaders.  But the truth is - both are native, and both sustained an influx of immigration.  Going against the "colonial settlement" model is the fact that Jews were also indiginous.  There have always been Jewish people there, even though many more migrated in.  Now if you are going to complain about that then why aren't you complaining the Arabs who immigrated into the area and are just as foreign as the Europeans?  And - why don't you acknowledge that the Jews also have a right to be there and have as much right to form a state in that period of time as the Palestinian Arabs did?
> 
> I don't think your going to fix the problem by "unwinding" history and you can't fix an injustice by creating more injustices.  You have to take what is there as it is now and work with it.  That means Israel, as a Jewish state, is not going to disappear.  It's established, it's proven it can run and hold a state, even though it most certainly has serious issues regarding equality and justice,  it's far more democratic, and has a far higher standard of human rights and religious freedom then any of it's neighboring states.  So fixing the problem should not be ending Israel's existence as a Jewish state because the Jews have as much right as the Palestinians to be there and to form a state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are giving Israel's narrative. Are you saying that we should let injustice slide? What justification can you give for that. Israel has created a massive problem and you want to let them off the hook. Why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No...I'm not giving Israel's narrative.
> 
> But you can not right an injustice by creating a another - right?  So how do you go about fixing it?  And in fairness - who is it Israel that created a massive problem?  Seems to me it took TWO to tango since at multiple points the Arabs could have accepted that Israel would have a state and they could develop a state alongside.  The lack of peace is complicated by a lack of recognition of each for the rights of the other. It's by no means one sided.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From your first sentence:
> Who are you talking about when you say one cannot right an injustice by creating another?
> 
> And to answer your other sentences:
> IF the Muslims/Arabs have not been the ones rejecting the Partition in 1947 and all other peace offers put in front of them, which even Arab countries post 2000 thought the Palestinian leaders thought they were crazy to not accept and put an end to the conflict, then who has?
> 
> 1947 Partition  = Rejected by the Palestinians
> 2000 and 2008 Peace Treaties rejected by the Palestinians
> Negotiations  =  rejected by Abbas
> Come to the table to negotiate = rejected by Abbas.
> 
> 
> Why are you generalizing without giving specifics as to how things got to the way they are?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All of those required the Palestinians to surrender and cede land.
Click to expand...


You are not a Palestinian and therefore have no right to tell the Palestinians not to make concessions for peace.  It is thanks to people like you that there is no peace in the Holy Land.  Do you think that, as a Jew, it's not difficult for me to see parts of Eretz Yisroel being given away to the Arabs, who have sooo much land and oil already?


----------



## teddyearp

P F Tinmore said:


> teddyearp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> All of the "Israeli" solutions deny the rights of over half of the Palestinians.
> 
> 
> 
> And when are you going to post your solution as I asked in post #80?  In your own words without any cutting and pasting?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is just that the Palestinians call for equal rights and the Israelis call for expelling and killing.
> 
> I think this is indicative of the moral values of the people involved.
Click to expand...

In other words, though you have plenty of vignettes, after numerous polite requests, you refuse to reveal your full solution.

Groan!


----------



## Coyote

Sixties Fan said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think it is that simple.
> 
> The Palestinians might be calling for equal rights but many are also unwilling to allow Israeli Jews to remain there in the settlements should that become part of their new state.  In other words they are calling for expelling.  Likewise...they are and have been killing.
> 
> I think it's a mistake to broad brush the moral values of a people in that way - neither the Palestinians nor the Israeli's.
> 
> 
> 
> This is a difficult topic to discuss because the truth is untenable. Mentioning the truth brings an onslaught name calling and accusations. We will never achieve peace until the core issues are addressed. When the Palestinians, and others, call Israel 1948 occupied Palestine they are correct. No amount of time or political recognition will change that fact.
> 
> Israel is a settler colonial project. Both Britain and the Zionists said this regularly during the mandate period. That is what they called it. That is what it was. The facts on the ground confirm it. Nobody can deny it.
> 
> Settler colonialism is not an event it is a process that continues to today. Settler colonialism is the removal of the native population and replacing them with another people. We can see this process before our eyes. It is in the news all the time.
> 
> Now, how do we unwind this and fix the problem?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem is, 1948 is 70 years ago.  And in the meantime a state has been established.  You can't unwind it.
> 
> There is also another aspect that is ignored.  It's inaccurate to claim it's just the Jews colonizing a foreign land.  It isn't just that.  It's a bit of land, where multiple peoples live and have a heritage.  During the Jewish nationalistic struggle for that bit of land, there was an Arab nationalistic struggle for that same land.  But there seems to be a deliberate ignoring of the fact that the Jews were just as much the local people.  There are arguments about immigration. You have one side claiming the Palestinians are all foreign squatters and the other claiming the Jews are all foreign invaders.  But the truth is - both are native, and both sustained an influx of immigration.  Going against the "colonial settlement" model is the fact that Jews were also indiginous.  There have always been Jewish people there, even though many more migrated in.  Now if you are going to complain about that then why aren't you complaining the Arabs who immigrated into the area and are just as foreign as the Europeans?  And - why don't you acknowledge that the Jews also have a right to be there and have as much right to form a state in that period of time as the Palestinian Arabs did?
> 
> I don't think your going to fix the problem by "unwinding" history and you can't fix an injustice by creating more injustices.  You have to take what is there as it is now and work with it.  That means Israel, as a Jewish state, is not going to disappear.  It's established, it's proven it can run and hold a state, even though it most certainly has serious issues regarding equality and justice,  it's far more democratic, and has a far higher standard of human rights and religious freedom then any of it's neighboring states.  So fixing the problem should not be ending Israel's existence as a Jewish state because the Jews have as much right as the Palestinians to be there and to form a state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are giving Israel's narrative. Are you saying that we should let injustice slide? What justification can you give for that. Israel has created a massive problem and you want to let them off the hook. Why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No...I'm not giving Israel's narrative.
> 
> But you can not right an injustice by creating a another - right?  So how do you go about fixing it?  And in fairness - who is it Israel that created a massive problem?  Seems to me it took TWO to tango since at multiple points the Arabs could have accepted that Israel would have a state and they could develop a state alongside.  The lack of peace is complicated by a lack of recognition of each for the rights of the other. It's by no means one sided.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From your first sentence:
> Who are you talking about when you say one cannot right an injustice by creating another?
Click to expand...


The creation of Israel - as a means to redress the horror that the holocaust perpetrated on the Jewish people created another injustice to the people who were displaced or opposed Israel.  In the process of it's creation - the Jews,, like the Arabs, utilized terrorism, took land from villagers that fled, refused to allow them to return and made it tremendously difficult for displaced Palestinians to reclaim property (while conversely made it easy for Jews to).  So there were injustices there. 

But - Israel has formed a state, it's succeeded, it's established law and order, it's thriving in a largely democratic society, it's peaceful other than the conflict with the Palestinians and even there - it's often provoked first.  You have generations of people now who have lived there, it's there home, and it's the  home of the Middle Eastern Jews for even longer.  It's the only place in the world where they aren't persecuted or a minority.  That counts for something.  You can't uproot people and send them elsewhere (as some call for) and forcing that - exposing all those people to the mercies of those who hate them - dispersing them again would be a crime against humanity and a great injustice.  So you aren't going to fix the problem that way.



> And to answer your other sentences:
> IF the Muslims/Arabs have not been the ones rejecting the Partition in 1947 and all other peace offers put in front of them, which even Arab countries post 2000 thought the Palestinian leaders thought they were crazy to not accept and put an end to the conflict, then who has?
> 
> 1947 Partition  = Rejected by the Palestinians
> 2000 and 2008 Peace Treaties rejected by the Palestinians
> Negotiations  =  rejected by Abbas
> Come to the table to negotiate = rejected by Abbas.
> 
> 
> Why are you generalizing without giving specifics as to how things got to the way they are?



Generalizing about what?


----------



## Coyote

P F Tinmore said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a difficult topic to discuss because the truth is untenable. Mentioning the truth brings an onslaught name calling and accusations. We will never achieve peace until the core issues are addressed. When the Palestinians, and others, call Israel 1948 occupied Palestine they are correct. No amount of time or political recognition will change that fact.
> 
> Israel is a settler colonial project. Both Britain and the Zionists said this regularly during the mandate period. That is what they called it. That is what it was. The facts on the ground confirm it. Nobody can deny it.
> 
> Settler colonialism is not an event it is a process that continues to today. Settler colonialism is the removal of the native population and replacing them with another people. We can see this process before our eyes. It is in the news all the time.
> 
> Now, how do we unwind this and fix the problem?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is, 1948 is 70 years ago.  And in the meantime a state has been established.  You can't unwind it.
> 
> There is also another aspect that is ignored.  It's inaccurate to claim it's just the Jews colonizing a foreign land.  It isn't just that.  It's a bit of land, where multiple peoples live and have a heritage.  During the Jewish nationalistic struggle for that bit of land, there was an Arab nationalistic struggle for that same land.  But there seems to be a deliberate ignoring of the fact that the Jews were just as much the local people.  There are arguments about immigration. You have one side claiming the Palestinians are all foreign squatters and the other claiming the Jews are all foreign invaders.  But the truth is - both are native, and both sustained an influx of immigration.  Going against the "colonial settlement" model is the fact that Jews were also indiginous.  There have always been Jewish people there, even though many more migrated in.  Now if you are going to complain about that then why aren't you complaining the Arabs who immigrated into the area and are just as foreign as the Europeans?  And - why don't you acknowledge that the Jews also have a right to be there and have as much right to form a state in that period of time as the Palestinian Arabs did?
> 
> I don't think your going to fix the problem by "unwinding" history and you can't fix an injustice by creating more injustices.  You have to take what is there as it is now and work with it.  That means Israel, as a Jewish state, is not going to disappear.  It's established, it's proven it can run and hold a state, even though it most certainly has serious issues regarding equality and justice,  it's far more democratic, and has a far higher standard of human rights and religious freedom then any of it's neighboring states.  So fixing the problem should not be ending Israel's existence as a Jewish state because the Jews have as much right as the Palestinians to be there and to form a state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are giving Israel's narrative. Are you saying that we should let injustice slide? What justification can you give for that. Israel has created a massive problem and you want to let them off the hook. Why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No...I'm not giving Israel's narrative.
> 
> But you can not right an injustice by creating a another - right?  So how do you go about fixing it?  And in fairness - who is it Israel that created a massive problem?  Seems to me it took TWO to tango since at multiple points the Arabs could have accepted that Israel would have a state and they could develop a state alongside.  The lack of peace is complicated by a lack of recognition of each for the rights of the other. It's by no means one sided.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From your first sentence:
> Who are you talking about when you say one cannot right an injustice by creating another?
> 
> And to answer your other sentences:
> IF the Muslims/Arabs have not been the ones rejecting the Partition in 1947 and all other peace offers put in front of them, which even Arab countries post 2000 thought the Palestinian leaders thought they were crazy to not accept and put an end to the conflict, then who has?
> 
> 1947 Partition  = Rejected by the Palestinians
> 2000 and 2008 Peace Treaties rejected by the Palestinians
> Negotiations  =  rejected by Abbas
> Come to the table to negotiate = rejected by Abbas.
> 
> 
> Why are you generalizing without giving specifics as to how things got to the way they are?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All of those required the Palestinians to surrender and cede land.
Click to expand...


When you say that - do you accept ANY land as rightfully that of Israel?


----------



## Shusha

Both peoples have suffered injustices. Both peoples have rights. There is no point in re-hashing the obvious. What are the solutions?

Here we are discussing a solution wherein both peoples are allotted territory and self-governance. If you don't think that should happen, you should be on the other thread. If you do think that should happen. -- how should it happen?

There have already been some great suggestions from several posters. And those posters are largely in agreement. Maybe that's all there is to it and we've actually found the two state solution.


----------



## Coyote

I've always felt that a good solution is going to involve land swaps.  I'm going to go back and look at foreveryoung's posts.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Coyote said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is, 1948 is 70 years ago.  And in the meantime a state has been established.  You can't unwind it.
> 
> There is also another aspect that is ignored.  It's inaccurate to claim it's just the Jews colonizing a foreign land.  It isn't just that.  It's a bit of land, where multiple peoples live and have a heritage.  During the Jewish nationalistic struggle for that bit of land, there was an Arab nationalistic struggle for that same land.  But there seems to be a deliberate ignoring of the fact that the Jews were just as much the local people.  There are arguments about immigration. You have one side claiming the Palestinians are all foreign squatters and the other claiming the Jews are all foreign invaders.  But the truth is - both are native, and both sustained an influx of immigration.  Going against the "colonial settlement" model is the fact that Jews were also indiginous.  There have always been Jewish people there, even though many more migrated in.  Now if you are going to complain about that then why aren't you complaining the Arabs who immigrated into the area and are just as foreign as the Europeans?  And - why don't you acknowledge that the Jews also have a right to be there and have as much right to form a state in that period of time as the Palestinian Arabs did?
> 
> I don't think your going to fix the problem by "unwinding" history and you can't fix an injustice by creating more injustices.  You have to take what is there as it is now and work with it.  That means Israel, as a Jewish state, is not going to disappear.  It's established, it's proven it can run and hold a state, even though it most certainly has serious issues regarding equality and justice,  it's far more democratic, and has a far higher standard of human rights and religious freedom then any of it's neighboring states.  So fixing the problem should not be ending Israel's existence as a Jewish state because the Jews have as much right as the Palestinians to be there and to form a state.
> 
> 
> 
> You are giving Israel's narrative. Are you saying that we should let injustice slide? What justification can you give for that. Israel has created a massive problem and you want to let them off the hook. Why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No...I'm not giving Israel's narrative.
> 
> But you can not right an injustice by creating a another - right?  So how do you go about fixing it?  And in fairness - who is it Israel that created a massive problem?  Seems to me it took TWO to tango since at multiple points the Arabs could have accepted that Israel would have a state and they could develop a state alongside.  The lack of peace is complicated by a lack of recognition of each for the rights of the other. It's by no means one sided.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From your first sentence:
> Who are you talking about when you say one cannot right an injustice by creating another?
> 
> And to answer your other sentences:
> IF the Muslims/Arabs have not been the ones rejecting the Partition in 1947 and all other peace offers put in front of them, which even Arab countries post 2000 thought the Palestinian leaders thought they were crazy to not accept and put an end to the conflict, then who has?
> 
> 1947 Partition  = Rejected by the Palestinians
> 2000 and 2008 Peace Treaties rejected by the Palestinians
> Negotiations  =  rejected by Abbas
> Come to the table to negotiate = rejected by Abbas.
> 
> 
> Why are you generalizing without giving specifics as to how things got to the way they are?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All of those required the Palestinians to surrender and cede land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When you say that - do you accept ANY land as rightfully that of Israel?
Click to expand...

I can find no evidence that Israel has ever legally acquired any land.

Just a lot of smoke and say so.


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now, how do we unwind this and fix the problem?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since you are the only one on this thread to frame the problem this way, you are the only one who can answer this question.
> 
> So, what do you suggest?  Removing the "settler colonists"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course not.
Click to expand...


Well?!  What ARE you suggesting?  Why are you even participating on this thread if you won't address the topic?


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> I can find no evidence that Israel has ever legally acquired any land.
> 
> Just a lot of smoke and say so.



Demonstrably untrue, but that was not the question Coyote was really asking you.  The question is whether or not you can support a two state solution -- a dividing of the territory NOW, legally, by treaty.  Yes or no?


----------



## Sixties Fan

Coyote said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a difficult topic to discuss because the truth is untenable. Mentioning the truth brings an onslaught name calling and accusations. We will never achieve peace until the core issues are addressed. When the Palestinians, and others, call Israel 1948 occupied Palestine they are correct. No amount of time or political recognition will change that fact.
> 
> Israel is a settler colonial project. Both Britain and the Zionists said this regularly during the mandate period. That is what they called it. That is what it was. The facts on the ground confirm it. Nobody can deny it.
> 
> Settler colonialism is not an event it is a process that continues to today. Settler colonialism is the removal of the native population and replacing them with another people. We can see this process before our eyes. It is in the news all the time.
> 
> Now, how do we unwind this and fix the problem?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is, 1948 is 70 years ago.  And in the meantime a state has been established.  You can't unwind it.
> 
> There is also another aspect that is ignored.  It's inaccurate to claim it's just the Jews colonizing a foreign land.  It isn't just that.  It's a bit of land, where multiple peoples live and have a heritage.  During the Jewish nationalistic struggle for that bit of land, there was an Arab nationalistic struggle for that same land.  But there seems to be a deliberate ignoring of the fact that the Jews were just as much the local people.  There are arguments about immigration. You have one side claiming the Palestinians are all foreign squatters and the other claiming the Jews are all foreign invaders.  But the truth is - both are native, and both sustained an influx of immigration.  Going against the "colonial settlement" model is the fact that Jews were also indiginous.  There have always been Jewish people there, even though many more migrated in.  Now if you are going to complain about that then why aren't you complaining the Arabs who immigrated into the area and are just as foreign as the Europeans?  And - why don't you acknowledge that the Jews also have a right to be there and have as much right to form a state in that period of time as the Palestinian Arabs did?
> 
> I don't think your going to fix the problem by "unwinding" history and you can't fix an injustice by creating more injustices.  You have to take what is there as it is now and work with it.  That means Israel, as a Jewish state, is not going to disappear.  It's established, it's proven it can run and hold a state, even though it most certainly has serious issues regarding equality and justice,  it's far more democratic, and has a far higher standard of human rights and religious freedom then any of it's neighboring states.  So fixing the problem should not be ending Israel's existence as a Jewish state because the Jews have as much right as the Palestinians to be there and to form a state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> <<But the truth is - both are native, and both sustained an influx of immigration.>>
> 
> You seem to miss the meaning of the word Native/Indigenous.
> 
> All the tribes living in the Americas and Australia, Hawaii, New Zealand before the 1492 European "discovery" and colonization are the Indigenous, Native people of the land.
> 
> The people who had a Nation, culture and history living at the time of the various European invasions, or even the Assyrian invasion, were the Jewish People, also known as the Jewish Nation.
> 
> They were there when the Greeks, Romans, Byzantine and the Muslims arrived on that land.  It is all recorded in their documents, books, etc
> 
> Native = Indigenous = having formed a distinct people whose ancient history happened on that piece of land.
> 
> There are the Pagan, Christian and Muslim invaders of the Jewish Homeland, what had been the Nation of Israel.
> 
> A new majority due to Muslim and Christian migration to the land does not make that land, or in the Americas, etc.... any less belonging to any of the 500 First Nations, or the Mayans, Aztecs, etc.
> 
> All it means is that since that invasion the Indigenous people lost sovereignty over their land.
> 
> The Jews worked for and regained sovereignty over some of their land. Only 20% out of 100% of it, as it had been promised.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I totally disagree.  Who is or is not "indiginous" in the strict meaning of the term is irrelevent.  It's irrelevant in the face of the fact that you have thousands of people who have been living in that region for generations, centuries, millinia including many who were once Jews and converted to invading religions (and this too is documented in history) and in the people's genome.  It's irrelevent because you can't just tell people with deep roots and ties that all of a sudden they don't belong there and it does nothing to provide a solution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You may have missed somewhere that there are no non Muslims living in what was known in TranJordan today, although they did live in it until 1925 when the British simply gave a recently arrived Arab Muslim clan 77% of the Mandate for Palestine, which was part of the Jewish Homeland and where  Jews were going to be allowed to stay and live in it, as they had done for thousands of years.
> 
> Or, you missed where there were Jews living in the area of the Gaza Strip for thousands of years, until 1920, when they were expelled by the British for "security" concerns.
> 
> Or you missed where all the Jews were expelled from the oldest Jewish town in the area, around 3800 years, in 1929 when they were attacked by Muslims and then expelled by the British (Mandate, anyone?) instead of expelling those who were responsible for the attacks.
> 
> Or....you may have missed when Jordan's Hashemite clan invaded Israel, with the help of the British who had just given up their Mandate,after Israel's Independence and murdered and expelled ALL JEWS from ALL of Judea, Samaria and the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem (known, now, to some as "Arab East Jerusalem)
> 
> 
> So, your point is that it is irrelevant as to who is the indigenous people, with ancestral rights (like any other ancestral people) to their ancient homeland.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Frankly I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here.
> 
> Both sets of people have rights to that area.  Yes or no?
> 
> If no, why not?
> 
> Both sets of people have suffered under expulsions and through war.  Yes or no?
> 
> So what is your point?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Muslims disagree.
> 
> They do know that the Jews are the ancestral people of that ancestral land.  But that is not the point in Islam to many Muslims.
> It is about never allowing Jews to be sovereign to even a tiny piece of what is left since the British betrayed the Jews in 1922 and decided to give 77% of the Mandate to Arabs who had just been kicked out of THEIR homeland in Arabia by another Arab clan.
> 
> Also, you are assuming, because it has been repeated a Million times by Jew haters, that ALL Jews on that land had converted to Christianity or Islam.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, you're the one who seems to be doing a lot of assuming.  Maybe you ought to read what people actually post for a change instead of reverting to labels.
> 
> I've never claimed that "all Jews" converted to another religion nor am I about to.  However, with each successive wave of conquests you have a number of people who end up converting to the dominant religion.  Or...are you going to claim that all the none Jews are foreign invaders?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is totally incorrect.  And NO, the Jews who returned to the Jewish homeland (and had always done so in every century since the fall of the Roman Empire) are not "Europeans", as in .....their ancestral homes were in Germany, England, France, Spain, etc, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And, in many instances - the people in Europe at one time came from elsewhere as well through successive waves of migration and conquest.  The Jews that came from Europe, who had established roots in Europe for thousands of years are as European as any other European and infact almost certainly married Europeans in the process.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are descendants of those Jews who at one point or another did go to Europe, like anyone else and created communities (Italian, English, Spanish, Scottish, etc) somewhere else.
> 
> They continue to be descendants from those who came from Asia Minor, from the land of Israel, from the Nation of Israel.
> 
> Apaches who moves to Europe for many centuries are still Apaches, their ancient homeland is still where it is in the USA, and no Apache will be telling them that they have no right of return to their homeland.
> 
> Jews from Europe, Americas, Mesopotamia, Iran, Syria, Egypt, etc.
> All of them have the right to their ancient homeland, and be known as the indigenous people of that land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They have no more right then any of the other people's living there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Final point:
> 
> There are 2.5 Million non-Jews living in Israel, still.  None of them were uprooted.  They stayed on the land during the Independence war of 1948.  They were not asked to leave or expelled by Israel.
> 
> Just look at all the expulsions done by Arabs and the British of the Jewish population from 1920 to 1948.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's your point with this exactly?  There were a good many Palestinians expelled during the war as well, and the myth that it was soley due to Arab leaders telling them to flee is a myth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many Jews are left in Muslim countries?
> 
> Saudi Arabia = 0
> Jordan = 0
> Egypt =  40-50
> Iraq = about 7
> Yemen =300
> Bahrai = 36
> Iran = 12,000
> Lebanon = 200
> 
> Jewish population by country - Wikipedia
> 
> The Jewish populations in all of those countries were much larger before 1948.  Since then Jews were expelled or forced to escape.
> What did they have to do with Israel?  They were Jews.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Agree, there was an expulsion of Jews from Arab countries during this time.  Not sure where you are going with this since no one is arguing that there wasn't or justifying it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The same thing is happening in Europe where Jews are being forced to leave due to the increase in the Muslim population and their anti Israel/Jewish sentiments.
> 
> Increase in Muslim population = increase in attacks on Jews.
> Not just Israelis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok, are you a muslim hater then?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No Jews in Gaza.
> No Jews in areas A and B or the West Bank (Judea and Samaria)
> 
> 
> Just which people have been told that they do not belong and have no roots to the land?
> And which people have avoided accepting a partition in 1947, or Peace treaties in 2000 and 2008?
> 
> Which people took all of their people out of an area which protected the South of Israel from rocket attacks, only to have the other people continue to attack with about 14,000 rockets and no intent of negotiations for Peace, since 2005?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So...again, what is your point here in relation to what I've said?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Think about all the points I made before you answer.
> 
> Do you actually believe that Hawaiians, Maoris, Aboriginal tribes, Amazonian tribes, etc, do not care if they are called the Indigenous people of the land, with what that word actually means?  And with the endless attempts to take more and more of their land?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When thousands of years have passed, and other peoples have inhabited that area for that long - even as long - then what does it mean?  It means nothing in terms of RIGHTS.  In other words - they have no greater rights than the people living there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Israelis and Palestinians have the right to land on what is left of the


Coyote said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a difficult topic to discuss because the truth is untenable. Mentioning the truth brings an onslaught name calling and accusations. We will never achieve peace until the core issues are addressed. When the Palestinians, and others, call Israel 1948 occupied Palestine they are correct. No amount of time or political recognition will change that fact.
> 
> Israel is a settler colonial project. Both Britain and the Zionists said this regularly during the mandate period. That is what they called it. That is what it was. The facts on the ground confirm it. Nobody can deny it.
> 
> Settler colonialism is not an event it is a process that continues to today. Settler colonialism is the removal of the native population and replacing them with another people. We can see this process before our eyes. It is in the news all the time.
> 
> Now, how do we unwind this and fix the problem?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is, 1948 is 70 years ago.  And in the meantime a state has been established.  You can't unwind it.
> 
> There is also another aspect that is ignored.  It's inaccurate to claim it's just the Jews colonizing a foreign land.  It isn't just that.  It's a bit of land, where multiple peoples live and have a heritage.  During the Jewish nationalistic struggle for that bit of land, there was an Arab nationalistic struggle for that same land.  But there seems to be a deliberate ignoring of the fact that the Jews were just as much the local people.  There are arguments about immigration. You have one side claiming the Palestinians are all foreign squatters and the other claiming the Jews are all foreign invaders.  But the truth is - both are native, and both sustained an influx of immigration.  Going against the "colonial settlement" model is the fact that Jews were also indiginous.  There have always been Jewish people there, even though many more migrated in.  Now if you are going to complain about that then why aren't you complaining the Arabs who immigrated into the area and are just as foreign as the Europeans?  And - why don't you acknowledge that the Jews also have a right to be there and have as much right to form a state in that period of time as the Palestinian Arabs did?
> 
> I don't think your going to fix the problem by "unwinding" history and you can't fix an injustice by creating more injustices.  You have to take what is there as it is now and work with it.  That means Israel, as a Jewish state, is not going to disappear.  It's established, it's proven it can run and hold a state, even though it most certainly has serious issues regarding equality and justice,  it's far more democratic, and has a far higher standard of human rights and religious freedom then any of it's neighboring states.  So fixing the problem should not be ending Israel's existence as a Jewish state because the Jews have as much right as the Palestinians to be there and to form a state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> <<But the truth is - both are native, and both sustained an influx of immigration.>>
> 
> You seem to miss the meaning of the word Native/Indigenous.
> 
> All the tribes living in the Americas and Australia, Hawaii, New Zealand before the 1492 European "discovery" and colonization are the Indigenous, Native people of the land.
> 
> The people who had a Nation, culture and history living at the time of the various European invasions, or even the Assyrian invasion, were the Jewish People, also known as the Jewish Nation.
> 
> They were there when the Greeks, Romans, Byzantine and the Muslims arrived on that land.  It is all recorded in their documents, books, etc
> 
> Native = Indigenous = having formed a distinct people whose ancient history happened on that piece of land.
> 
> There are the Pagan, Christian and Muslim invaders of the Jewish Homeland, what had been the Nation of Israel.
> 
> A new majority due to Muslim and Christian migration to the land does not make that land, or in the Americas, etc.... any less belonging to any of the 500 First Nations, or the Mayans, Aztecs, etc.
> 
> All it means is that since that invasion the Indigenous people lost sovereignty over their land.
> 
> The Jews worked for and regained sovereignty over some of their land. Only 20% out of 100% of it, as it had been promised.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I totally disagree.  Who is or is not "indiginous" in the strict meaning of the term is irrelevent.  It's irrelevant in the face of the fact that you have thousands of people who have been living in that region for generations, centuries, millinia including many who were once Jews and converted to invading religions (and this too is documented in history) and in the people's genome.  It's irrelevent because you can't just tell people with deep roots and ties that all of a sudden they don't belong there and it does nothing to provide a solution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You may have missed somewhere that there are no non Muslims living in what was known in TranJordan today, although they did live in it until 1925 when the British simply gave a recently arrived Arab Muslim clan 77% of the Mandate for Palestine, which was part of the Jewish Homeland and where  Jews were going to be allowed to stay and live in it, as they had done for thousands of years.
> 
> Or, you missed where there were Jews living in the area of the Gaza Strip for thousands of years, until 1920, when they were expelled by the British for "security" concerns.
> 
> Or you missed where all the Jews were expelled from the oldest Jewish town in the area, around 3800 years, in 1929 when they were attacked by Muslims and then expelled by the British (Mandate, anyone?) instead of expelling those who were responsible for the attacks.
> 
> Or....you may have missed when Jordan's Hashemite clan invaded Israel, with the help of the British who had just given up their Mandate,after Israel's Independence and murdered and expelled ALL JEWS from ALL of Judea, Samaria and the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem (known, now, to some as "Arab East Jerusalem)
> 
> 
> So, your point is that it is irrelevant as to who is the indigenous people, with ancestral rights (like any other ancestral people) to their ancient homeland.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Frankly I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here.
> 
> Both sets of people have rights to that area.  Yes or no?
> 
> If no, why not?
> 
> Both sets of people have suffered under expulsions and through war.  Yes or no?
> 
> So what is your point?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Muslims disagree.
> 
> They do know that the Jews are the ancestral people of that ancestral land.  But that is not the point in Islam to many Muslims.
> It is about never allowing Jews to be sovereign to even a tiny piece of what is left since the British betrayed the Jews in 1922 and decided to give 77% of the Mandate to Arabs who had just been kicked out of THEIR homeland in Arabia by another Arab clan.
> 
> Also, you are assuming, because it has been repeated a Million times by Jew haters, that ALL Jews on that land had converted to Christianity or Islam.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, you're the one who seems to be doing a lot of assuming.  Maybe you ought to read what people actually post for a change instead of reverting to labels.
> 
> I've never claimed that "all Jews" converted to another religion nor am I about to.  However, with each successive wave of conquests you have a number of people who end up converting to the dominant religion.  Or...are you going to claim that all the none Jews are foreign invaders?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is totally incorrect.  And NO, the Jews who returned to the Jewish homeland (and had always done so in every century since the fall of the Roman Empire) are not "Europeans", as in .....their ancestral homes were in Germany, England, France, Spain, etc, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And, in many instances - the people in Europe at one time came from elsewhere as well through successive waves of migration and conquest.  The Jews that came from Europe, who had established roots in Europe for thousands of years are as European as any other European and infact almost certainly married Europeans in the process.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are descendants of those Jews who at one point or another did go to Europe, like anyone else and created communities (Italian, English, Spanish, Scottish, etc) somewhere else.
> 
> They continue to be descendants from those who came from Asia Minor, from the land of Israel, from the Nation of Israel.
> 
> Apaches who moves to Europe for many centuries are still Apaches, their ancient homeland is still where it is in the USA, and no Apache will be telling them that they have no right of return to their homeland.
> 
> Jews from Europe, Americas, Mesopotamia, Iran, Syria, Egypt, etc.
> All of them have the right to their ancient homeland, and be known as the indigenous people of that land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They have no more right then any of the other people's living there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Final point:
> 
> There are 2.5 Million non-Jews living in Israel, still.  None of them were uprooted.  They stayed on the land during the Independence war of 1948.  They were not asked to leave or expelled by Israel.
> 
> Just look at all the expulsions done by Arabs and the British of the Jewish population from 1920 to 1948.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's your point with this exactly?  There were a good many Palestinians expelled during the war as well, and the myth that it was soley due to Arab leaders telling them to flee is a myth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many Jews are left in Muslim countries?
> 
> Saudi Arabia = 0
> Jordan = 0
> Egypt =  40-50
> Iraq = about 7
> Yemen =300
> Bahrai = 36
> Iran = 12,000
> Lebanon = 200
> 
> Jewish population by country - Wikipedia
> 
> The Jewish populations in all of those countries were much larger before 1948.  Since then Jews were expelled or forced to escape.
> What did they have to do with Israel?  They were Jews.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Agree, there was an expulsion of Jews from Arab countries during this time.  Not sure where you are going with this since no one is arguing that there wasn't or justifying it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The same thing is happening in Europe where Jews are being forced to leave due to the increase in the Muslim population and their anti Israel/Jewish sentiments.
> 
> Increase in Muslim population = increase in attacks on Jews.
> Not just Israelis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok, are you a muslim hater then?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No Jews in Gaza.
> No Jews in areas A and B or the West Bank (Judea and Samaria)
> 
> 
> Just which people have been told that they do not belong and have no roots to the land?
> And which people have avoided accepting a partition in 1947, or Peace treaties in 2000 and 2008?
> 
> Which people took all of their people out of an area which protected the South of Israel from rocket attacks, only to have the other people continue to attack with about 14,000 rockets and no intent of negotiations for Peace, since 2005?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So...again, what is your point here in relation to what I've said?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Think about all the points I made before you answer.
> 
> Do you actually believe that Hawaiians, Maoris, Aboriginal tribes, Amazonian tribes, etc, do not care if they are called the Indigenous people of the land, with what that word actually means?  And with the endless attempts to take more and more of their land?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When thousands of years have passed, and other peoples have inhabited that area for that long - even as long - then what does it mean?  It means nothing in terms of RIGHTS.  In other words - they have no greater rights than the people living there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...



In other words, in your world, if people have been invaded, or they lost a war, then the ones who lost the war should stop fighting and  live with the consequences of losing that war.

The Palestinians started each and every war against the Jews, and riots, from 1920 to 1948, from 1948 to 1973. 

The intention of the Palestinian Leaders has not been about "rights" of the Arab people who were living alongside Jews since the 7th Century Invasion of the Arabs (Islam).

The intention has been to destroy Israel, not live along Israel.

The intention has been to take away the sovereignty achieved by Jews to live in their own State, protecting themselves in a way they have not been allowed to protect themselves during the Muslim domination of their land.  

The Intention is bring Jews back to their previous status in the region dominated  by Islam.  That of dhimmitude, where non Muslims are second class, subhumans, have to wear clothes which identify them as such, and pay taxes to be allowed to live on that land.
That had been the history of non Muslims in Muslim conquered land.

Explain to me, considering that the intention of the Palestinian Arab Muslims is to destroy Israel and deprive Jews of any and all rights, and they always had, what exactly happens to the "Rights for both people"?

There is no such thing as if people live in Europe for a long time then they are Europeans.  

Descendants of Irish, after 300 years of being born in America are still descendants of Irish, and their ancestral home is still Ireland.
The same goes for all people.

You do not know or care to know what an ancestral home is for all people and what it means to each and everyone from any tribe, Nation in the world.
It does not go away.

Many ex African slaves have discovered where their ancestors came from on that continent and have returned to the area, or now country.

So, why should it be different for the Jewish People?

The Arabs have the right to live in the area.  They have a right to their own State, despite the fact that 99% of the Ottoman Empire went back to the Arab invaders and not the indigenous people who lived there and had every right to any part of their land.  But the Allies did not see it that way, and did not give any of the land back to any of the indigenous people.

Once someone converts to Judaism, they become part of the Nation.
It is the same with Christians and Muslims.  They are not considered 
"foreign invaders".

You are telling me that all the descendants of those of Jewish ancestry forced to convert to Islam in the 7th century by Mohammad and forced to assimilate and mix,  would be considered "foreign invaders" if one group of Muslims they belonged to decided to take over Arabia?

Wouldn't they have Arab DNA, and have rights to that land, as any other full blooded Arab?

Why is it that only with the Jewish People, and only for the past 100 years, that this kind of "logic" keeps being repeated?

The Jewish People/Nation is not a foreign power to the land.

The Jewish People/Nation is not an invader to the land.

The Jewish People have rights which the Muslims do not want to grant them in any shape or form to any part of the land.

Muslims already got, through their wars on the Jews and Israel, 80% of the Ancient Jewish Nation land, since 1920.

What is so hard to allow the Jews and Israel exist peacefully in the 20% of land, their ancient land, which is left out of what was the Mandate for Palestine?

Muslims......have 99 % of all of the Ottoman Empire, with no rights granted to ANY of the indigenous people living on those lands.

And Muslims want the same to be true over what is known as Israel.

The Muslim mentality about land they have conquered is no different from the German mentality about land, which led to WWI and WWII.


No land they have conquered must leave Muslim or German hands.
It is the same with Russia and their Soviet Union, and the attacks on Georgia, Crimea, and Ukraine.

What rights do Georgia and the Ukraine have in comparison  to what Russia wants, or believes is Russia's rights?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now, how do we unwind this and fix the problem?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since you are the only one on this thread to frame the problem this way, you are the only one who can answer this question.
> 
> So, what do you suggest?  Removing the "settler colonists"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well?!  What ARE you suggesting?  Why are you even participating on this thread if you won't address the topic?
Click to expand...

Most Israelis were not involved in the settler colonial project. They were merely pawns in that scheme. There is no legal or moral justification to remove them from their homes.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can find no evidence that Israel has ever legally acquired any land.
> 
> Just a lot of smoke and say so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Demonstrably untrue, but that was not the question Coyote was really asking you.  The question is whether or not you can support a two state solution -- a dividing of the territory NOW, legally, by treaty.  Yes or no?
Click to expand...

It is not "the territory" it is Palestinian territory.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Sixties Fan said:


> The Palestinians started each and every war against the Jews, and riots, from 1920 to 1948, from 1948 to 1973.


Not true. Did the Palestinians go to Europe and attack the Jews?


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can find no evidence that Israel has ever legally acquired any land.
> 
> Just a lot of smoke and say so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Demonstrably untrue, but that was not the question Coyote was really asking you.  The question is whether or not you can support a two state solution -- a dividing of the territory NOW, legally, by treaty.  Yes or no?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is not "the territory" it is Palestinian territory.
Click to expand...


Answer the question.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can find no evidence that Israel has ever legally acquired any land.
> 
> Just a lot of smoke and say so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Demonstrably untrue, but that was not the question Coyote was really asking you.  The question is whether or not you can support a two state solution -- a dividing of the territory NOW, legally, by treaty.  Yes or no?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is not "the territory" it is Palestinian territory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Answer the question.
Click to expand...

Your link is dead.


----------



## teddyearp

Well, I see that this thread has devolved into the direction of every other single thread here.  the old grudges, wrongs, and history; when the intent was to look at what is NOW and how to go forward into a peaceful future.

I want to thank Lipush for starting this thread, Shusha, ForeverYoung, Coyote, and Humanity (hope I got them all) for their positive contributions.

The rest, well, thanks for ruining an otherwise good thread.


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can find no evidence that Israel has ever legally acquired any land.
> 
> Just a lot of smoke and say so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Demonstrably untrue, but that was not the question Coyote was really asking you.  The question is whether or not you can support a two state solution -- a dividing of the territory NOW, legally, by treaty.  Yes or no?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is not "the territory" it is Palestinian territory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Answer the question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your link is dead.
Click to expand...


I know.  I fixed it.  I was just trying to find a video of the mad Irish man in Braveheart -- "answer the f*cking question".


----------



## teddyearp

Shusha said:


> I know.  I fixed it.  I was just trying to find a video of the mad Irish man in Braveheart -- "answer the f*cking question".


I know you know this, but it is clear at this point that Tinmore has no intention of posting anything useful in this thread.  No, he just wants to turn this into the same old, same old. Quit wasting your time with him.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can find no evidence that Israel has ever legally acquired any land.
> 
> Just a lot of smoke and say so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Demonstrably untrue, but that was not the question Coyote was really asking you.  The question is whether or not you can support a two state solution -- a dividing of the territory NOW, legally, by treaty.  Yes or no?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is not "the territory" it is Palestinian territory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Answer the question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your link is dead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know.  I fixed it.  I was just trying to find a video of the mad Irish man in Braveheart -- "answer the f*cking question".
Click to expand...

Why should the Palestinians divide their territory. They have been saying no to that since 1937. You would think people would get the hint.


----------



## Shusha

teddyearp said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know.  I fixed it.  I was just trying to find a video of the mad Irish man in Braveheart -- "answer the f*cking question".
> 
> 
> 
> I know you know this, but it is clear at this point that Tinmore has no intention of posting anything useful in this thread.  No, he just wants to turn this into the same old, same old. Quit wasting your time with him.
Click to expand...


He's a one-stater.  We all know this.  He is the one who should be answering my OP on the other thread.


----------



## Sixties Fan

Coyote said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are giving Israel's narrative. Are you saying that we should let injustice slide? What justification can you give for that. Israel has created a massive problem and you want to let them off the hook. Why?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No...I'm not giving Israel's narrative.
> 
> But you can not right an injustice by creating a another - right?  So how do you go about fixing it?  And in fairness - who is it Israel that created a massive problem?  Seems to me it took TWO to tango since at multiple points the Arabs could have accepted that Israel would have a state and they could develop a state alongside.  The lack of peace is complicated by a lack of recognition of each for the rights of the other. It's by no means one sided.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> <<The lack of peace is complicated by a lack of recognition of each for the rights of the other>>
> 
> You have no idea what you are saying in that sentence.
> 
> Again, how many Jews living in Gaza or areas A and B of the West Bank?
> 
> How many Arab Christians or Muslims living in Israel and Area C or the West Bank?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I absolutely no what I'm saying.
> 
> _A lack of recognition of each for the rights the other..._
> 
> One example would be the continued and even increased settlement building.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> When Israel only builds within the existing cities or villages in Areas A and B, as per the Oslo Accords (do you know what the Oslo Accords say?) , and even builds for Arabs who live in those areas, just how is that lacking recognition of the other ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many new Arab settlements or expansions have been approved?
> How many new Jewish settlements or expansions have been approved?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me of homes built for Jews in Areas A and B?
> 
> And also, why do you keep ignoring the lack of Jews in their ancient land of Gaza and TransJordan since 1920, as they were expelled by the Muslims and the British?
> 
> The Muslims want to make Judea and Samaria ( where the birth of Judaism was, and where the ancient kingdoms of King David and all the other Kings were rooted) Jewish free.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are trying to make the argument that Israel recognizes the rights of the Palestinians and Palestinians do not recognize the rights of Israel.
> 
> I'm making the argument that NEITHER recognizes the rights of the other.  The only argument you've come up with is Israel is a little better than the Palestinians in this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *No Jews will be allowed to live on ancient Jewish land (Abbas has said so himself).*
> 
> You may not know it, but you are definitely repeating someone's narrative, you simply do not know that you are doing it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No...Abbas didn't say that.  That's a frequently misquoted statement and taken out of context:
> 
> _“In a final resolution, we would not see the presence of a single * Israeli *— civilian or soldier — on our lands,” Abbas said following a meeting with interim Egyptian President Adly Mansour in Cairo._
Click to expand...



Judea and Samaria are Ancient Jewish Land.

If it came to be that all settlements were taken down from all of Judea and Samaria (ancient Jewish land) then the following which you quoted from Abbas would come to pass just as you posted that he said:

_“In a final resolution, we would not see the presence of a single *Israeli *— civilian or soldier — on our lands,”
---------

He meant the whole of the area of Judea and Samaria, plus East Jerusalem, taken over by the Jordanians from 1948 to 1967 where ALL the Jews were driven out.....of their homes, their lands, their Ancient Jewish land.

Abbas call the whole area taken by the Jordanians, which the Jordanians attempted to annex to Jordan in 1950, as OUR LANDS.

When did Jewish Ancient land, where Jews had been living on until 1948, when they were forcibly removed........OUR  LAND ?
Where not even Jewish Civilians are going to be allowed to live on
(just as in the case of  TransJordan since 1925, Gaza 1920 to 1967 and then from 2005 on) ?

Land where Muslims are told to leave in 1948 by their Arab leaders, or they were expelled because they lost the war and ended up being expelled for the safety of the population in Israel, is to be divided between Jews and Muslims.

But land where the Jews were attacked and expelled from in 1948 ("The West Bank" a name given to Judea and Samaria by the Jordans as they were trying to annex the land to their new country) ........
that land is "Palestinian Land", OUR LAND, as Abbas put it.


Do you understand the difference between Israel expelling some of the Arabs who were fighting Israel ...
(as the US would have expelled the British who fought against them) (most left the Israel area because the Arab leaders promised them they would win over the Jews after Independence was declared, and would take the land back and kill all the Jews)

....and what Abbas' plan is?

No Jewish civilians, means exactly what it means.  NO JEWS.

It means exactly what has happened in the 80 % of Ancient Jewish Land in Jordan and Gaza.  NO JEWS.

What exactly is your argument against exactly what Abbas has said, which is what he has promised his people, just as the Arab leaders in 1948 did?_


----------



## ForeverYoung436

Sixties Fan said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> No...I'm not giving Israel's narrative.
> 
> But you can not right an injustice by creating a another - right?  So how do you go about fixing it?  And in fairness - who is it Israel that created a massive problem?  Seems to me it took TWO to tango since at multiple points the Arabs could have accepted that Israel would have a state and they could develop a state alongside.  The lack of peace is complicated by a lack of recognition of each for the rights of the other. It's by no means one sided.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> <<The lack of peace is complicated by a lack of recognition of each for the rights of the other>>
> 
> You have no idea what you are saying in that sentence.
> 
> Again, how many Jews living in Gaza or areas A and B of the West Bank?
> 
> How many Arab Christians or Muslims living in Israel and Area C or the West Bank?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I absolutely no what I'm saying.
> 
> _A lack of recognition of each for the rights the other..._
> 
> One example would be the continued and even increased settlement building.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> When Israel only builds within the existing cities or villages in Areas A and B, as per the Oslo Accords (do you know what the Oslo Accords say?) , and even builds for Arabs who live in those areas, just how is that lacking recognition of the other ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many new Arab settlements or expansions have been approved?
> How many new Jewish settlements or expansions have been approved?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me of homes built for Jews in Areas A and B?
> 
> And also, why do you keep ignoring the lack of Jews in their ancient land of Gaza and TransJordan since 1920, as they were expelled by the Muslims and the British?
> 
> The Muslims want to make Judea and Samaria ( where the birth of Judaism was, and where the ancient kingdoms of King David and all the other Kings were rooted) Jewish free.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are trying to make the argument that Israel recognizes the rights of the Palestinians and Palestinians do not recognize the rights of Israel.
> 
> I'm making the argument that NEITHER recognizes the rights of the other.  The only argument you've come up with is Israel is a little better than the Palestinians in this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *No Jews will be allowed to live on ancient Jewish land (Abbas has said so himself).*
> 
> You may not know it, but you are definitely repeating someone's narrative, you simply do not know that you are doing it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No...Abbas didn't say that.  That's a frequently misquoted statement and taken out of context:
> 
> _“In a final resolution, we would not see the presence of a single * Israeli *— civilian or soldier — on our lands,” Abbas said following a meeting with interim Egyptian President Adly Mansour in Cairo._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Judea and Samaria are Ancient Jewish Land.
> 
> If it came to be that all settlements were taken down from all of Judea and Samaria (ancient Jewish land) then the following which you quoted from Abbas would come to pass just as you posted that he said:
> 
> _“In a final resolution, we would not see the presence of a single *Israeli *— civilian or soldier — on our lands,”
> ---------
> 
> He meant the whole of the area of Judea and Samaria, plus East Jerusalem, taken over by the Jordanians from 1948 to 1967 where ALL the Jews were driven out.....of their homes, their lands, their Ancient Jewish land.
> 
> Abbas call the whole area taken by the Jordanians, which the Jordanians attempted to annex to Jordan in 1950, as OUR LANDS.
> 
> When did Jewish Ancient land, where Jews had been living on until 1948, when they were forcibly removed........OUR  LAND ?
> Where not even Jewish Civilians are going to be allowed to live on
> (just as in the case of  TransJordan since 1925, Gaza 1920 to 1967 and then from 2005 on) ?
> 
> Land where Muslims are told to leave in 1948 by their Arab leaders, or they were expelled because they lost the war and ended up being expelled for the safety of the population in Israel, is to be divided between Jews and Muslims.
> 
> But land where the Jews were attacked and expelled from in 1948 ("The West Bank" a name given to Judea and Samaria by the Jordans as they were trying to annex the land to their new country) ........
> that land is "Palestinian Land", OUR LAND, as Abbas put it.
> 
> 
> Do you understand the difference between Israel expelling some of the Arabs who were fighting Israel ...
> (as the US would have expelled the British who fought against them) (most left the Israel area because the Arab leaders promised them they would win over the Jews after Independence was declared, and would take the land back and kill all the Jews)
> 
> ....and what Abbas' plan is?
> 
> No Jewish civilians, means exactly what it means.  NO JEWS.
> 
> It means exactly what has happened in the 80 % of Ancient Jewish Land in Jordan and Gaza.  NO JEWS.
> 
> What exactly is your argument against exactly what Abbas has said, which is what he has promised his people, just as the Arab leaders in 1948 did?_
Click to expand...


Why the italics?  Making me dizzy.


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> Why should the Palestinians divide their territory.



To end the conflict.  To improve the lives of Israelis and Palestinians.  So no more people die fighting each other.  To have peace.  To allow both peoples to grow and flourish and pursue higher goals.  

Those seem to me to be exceedingly good reasons.


----------



## Shusha

teddyearp said:


> Well, I see that this thread has devolved into the direction of every other single thread here.  the old grudges, wrongs, and history; when the intent was to look at what is NOW and how to go forward into a peaceful future.
> 
> I want to thank Lipush for starting this thread, Shusha, ForeverYoung, Coyote, and Humanity (hope I got them all) for their positive contributions.
> 
> The rest, well, thanks for ruining an otherwise good thread.



I'd like to know if either Coyote or Humanity, being Palestinian supporters, agree with the proposals on the thread.


----------



## Sixties Fan

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can find no evidence that Israel has ever legally acquired any land.
> 
> Just a lot of smoke and say so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Demonstrably untrue, but that was not the question Coyote was really asking you.  The question is whether or not you can support a two state solution -- a dividing of the territory NOW, legally, by treaty.  Yes or no?
Click to expand...


The proof will be in Ottoman and British records.

Tel-Aviv was bought on land Jews purchased.  A swamp not wanted by anyone else.
They bought land, Arabs bought land.
Jews bought land where the absentee owners wanted to sell the land.

Think-Israel

It is without doubt that the Jews, in their quest to purchase and acquire more land, did not take any land from Arabs unlawfully. Furthermore, Arab absentee landlords living elsewhere and real estate brokers sold their land to Jews at an inflated cost.

As of today, not a single person representing the pro-Palestinian view has been able to contradict this reality using any official documentation, land data or historical records.
---------------------


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why should the Palestinians divide their territory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To end the conflict.  To improve the lives of Israelis and Palestinians.  So no more people die fighting each other.  To have peace.  To allow both peoples to grow and flourish and pursue higher goals.
> 
> Those seem to me to be exceedingly good reasons.
Click to expand...

What about the Palestinians who owned homes, farms, orange groves, and shops in what is now Israel?


----------



## Sixties Fan

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why should the Palestinians divide their territory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To end the conflict.  To improve the lives of Israelis and Palestinians.  So no more people die fighting each other.  To have peace.  To allow both peoples to grow and flourish and pursue higher goals.
> 
> Those seem to me to be exceedingly good reasons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What about the Palestinians who owned homes, farms, orange groves, and shops in what is now Israel?
Click to expand...


How about the Jews who owned homes, farms, orange groves, and shops in what is now Jordan?

How about the Jews who owned homes, farms, orange groves, and shops in what is now Gaza?

How about the Jews who owned homes, farms, orange groves, and shops in what is now the Arab part of Hebron?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Sixties Fan said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can find no evidence that Israel has ever legally acquired any land.
> 
> Just a lot of smoke and say so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Demonstrably untrue, but that was not the question Coyote was really asking you.  The question is whether or not you can support a two state solution -- a dividing of the territory NOW, legally, by treaty.  Yes or no?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The proof will be in Ottoman and British records.
> 
> Tel-Aviv was bought on land Jews purchased.  A swamp not wanted by anyone else.
> They bought land, Arabs bought land.
> Jews bought land where the absentee owners wanted to sell the land.
> 
> Think-Israel
> 
> It is without doubt that the Jews, in their quest to purchase and acquire more land, did not take any land from Arabs unlawfully. Furthermore, Arab absentee landlords living elsewhere and real estate brokers sold their land to Jews at an inflated cost.
> 
> As of today, not a single person representing the pro-Palestinian view has been able to contradict this reality using any official documentation, land data or historical records.
> ---------------------
Click to expand...

Private ownership of land does not remove that land from the country.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Sixties Fan said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why should the Palestinians divide their territory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To end the conflict.  To improve the lives of Israelis and Palestinians.  So no more people die fighting each other.  To have peace.  To allow both peoples to grow and flourish and pursue higher goals.
> 
> Those seem to me to be exceedingly good reasons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What about the Palestinians who owned homes, farms, orange groves, and shops in what is now Israel?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How about the Jews who owned homes, farms, orange groves, and shops in what is now Jordan?
> 
> How about the Jews who owned homes, farms, orange groves, and shops in what is now Gaza?
> 
> How about the Jews who owned homes, farms, orange groves, and shops in what is now the Arab part of Hebron?
Click to expand...

Once the right of return is agreed, people can make those claims.


----------



## Sixties Fan

P F Tinmore said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can find no evidence that Israel has ever legally acquired any land.
> 
> Just a lot of smoke and say so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Demonstrably untrue, but that was not the question Coyote was really asking you.  The question is whether or not you can support a two state solution -- a dividing of the territory NOW, legally, by treaty.  Yes or no?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The proof will be in Ottoman and British records.
> 
> Tel-Aviv was bought on land Jews purchased.  A swamp not wanted by anyone else.
> They bought land, Arabs bought land.
> Jews bought land where the absentee owners wanted to sell the land.
> 
> Think-Israel
> 
> It is without doubt that the Jews, in their quest to purchase and acquire more land, did not take any land from Arabs unlawfully. Furthermore, Arab absentee landlords living elsewhere and real estate brokers sold their land to Jews at an inflated cost.
> 
> As of today, not a single person representing the pro-Palestinian view has been able to contradict this reality using any official documentation, land data or historical records.
> ---------------------
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Private ownership of land does not remove that land from the country.
Click to expand...


There was hardly any private ownership by the poor Arabs who were toiling the land.

You insist in forgetting that none of the Arabs in the North of Israel left the land, which had become Israel.
They were not foolish enough to believe the Arab leaders who told the ones in the south to leave and for those who could, fight and kill the Jews.

The Arabs lost the war.  They do not get a do over, as they tried again and again in 1957, 1967 and 1973 and lost all the other three times as well.

By all means, choose to forget that Israel did not expel all the Muslims from the North of Israel, or anywhere else in what became Israel in 1948.

Nor did they expel any Muslims in 1957, or 1967 when Israel got the areas of Judea and Samaria.  No Muslims were expelled from "East Jerusalem", which had been populated by Jews until 1948.  It was known as the Jewish Quarter of the city of Jerusalem until 1948.
Now it is mostly populated by Arabs who will not give back homes belonging to Jews, as you seem to be demanding that Jews return lands, and homes never really owned by Arabs.

The Arabs with proof that the property was theirs are allowed to reclaim their property under Israeli law.

There is no such law under the PLO, the PA, Fatah, or Hamas to return Jewish properties.


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> What about the Palestinians who owned homes, farms, orange groves, and shops in what is now Israel?



Also -- what about the Jews who owned homes, farms, orange groves and shops in their former places of residence?  We can't unbreak that egg.  We just can't.  

But there are lots of possibilities for restitution.  Compensation is probably the most practical.  Palestinian descendants of refugees who are stateless and living in unacceptable conditions should be given the option to choose their national citizenship -- Syrian, Jordanian, Lebanese or Palestinian and be relocated there, with generous compensation.  Descendants of refugees who have already resettled elsewhere, if they wish to return, should have to apply to which ever country they wish to immigrate to.  I think there is room to consider permitting the actual refugees (not the descendants) to return to their places of origin should they wish, and even to their actual homes or orchards or shops, if that is possible.  

We can't put things back the way they were.  There is no way to do that.  But we can ensure that all peoples affected by the conflict live safe, comfortable lives.  And that has always been the goal of human rights.


----------



## teddyearp

Spoiler alert: If we just ignore Tinmore's posts in this thread, he will go away.


----------



## Shusha

teddyearp said:


> Spoiler alert: If we just ignore Tinmore's posts in this thread, he will go away.



Ha.  He's finally actually contributing to the conversation.  The issue of refugees has to be considered as part of the two-state solution, don't you think?  What are your thoughts on that?


----------



## teddyearp

Shusha said:


> Ha.  He's finally actually contributing to the conversation.  The issue of refugees has to be considered as part of the two-state solution, don't you think?  What are your thoughts on that?


I think you put it as good and fair as can be in post #223.


----------



## Sixties Fan

Shusha said:


> teddyearp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler alert: If we just ignore Tinmore's posts in this thread, he will go away.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ha.  He's finally actually contributing to the conversation.  The issue of refugees has to be considered as part of the two-state solution, don't you think?  What are your thoughts on that?
Click to expand...


The issue of the refugees is only been perpetuated by the Arabs in order to destroy Israel.

Never in history, including Jews or any Muslims or Arabs, have a people been kept as refugees beyond the generation which was indeed forced to flee any war, etc.

Check the definition for the word refugees.

Then look at the UNWRA created definition of refugees reserved for only those who were expelled during the war originated by the Arabs leaders in order to destroy Israel.

Only one definition is valid.

Jews were forced to become refugees from Europe with WWII and from all Arab/Muslim countries from 1948 on.

There isn't one Jewish person who continues to call themselves refugees, or makes any demands to return to their original homes, even those who are still living.

The refugees from Syria, and other places are looking for a new place to live, to move on.

That is what being a refugee means.

It means that one does not get to return to where one came from, for the most part, especially while a war continues in the area.

Many Palestinians were allowed to return to Israel, due to family.
Israel allowed that.

No Jews have been allowed back into Jordan, Gaza and many areas of Judea and Samaria where they lived, had homes, etc, as they were taken over by the Arabs from 1948 to 1967.

There are refugees from the Arab side?

There are definitely Jewish refugees, forced at gun point, from Judea, Samaria, Jordan and even Gaza.

In other words, the number of Jews expelled from Arab countries is even greater than the number of Arabs told by their leaders or expelled due to violence towards Israel.

One solution is to just call the refugee issue even.

But the Arab Leaders will never accept that.  As they will never accept Israel.


----------



## Shusha

Yep.  We agree.  Israel took care of the Jewish refugees.  Arabs can take care of the Arab ones.  Sounds fair to me.


----------



## Humanity

Shusha said:


> teddyearp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I see that this thread has devolved into the direction of every other single thread here.  the old grudges, wrongs, and history; when the intent was to look at what is NOW and how to go forward into a peaceful future.
> 
> I want to thank Lipush for starting this thread, Shusha, ForeverYoung, Coyote, and Humanity (hope I got them all) for their positive contributions.
> 
> The rest, well, thanks for ruining an otherwise good thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'd like to know if either Coyote or Humanity, being Palestinian supporters, agree with the proposals on the thread.
Click to expand...


Shusha We are approaching 24 pages of comments on this thread...

There are some posts that have been made that I feel, mostly, cover what I also believe... Sometimes it's difficult to wade through the 'crap' that get's in the way of 'real' comments!

I hope that I have made my 'beliefs' clear enough... And maybe, we are not SO different in wanting a sensible solution, there are exceptions from both sides who choose to either not give their 'path to peace' or simply abuse someone who comes along with a 'different' solution...

Rather than trawling through the 'spam' posts I think it would be incredibly useful for an admin, for example, Error | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum pull out some of the alternative 'ideas' and making a 'pinned'(?) post with those ideas so that those who want to continue in a positive way can?


----------



## ForeverYoung436

teddyearp said:


> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Solution:
> 
> Although as a Jew it breaks my heart to give away any part of our Promised Land, as a realist I see we have no choice.  So the land has to be divided, unfortunately, according to the 1967 lines, with some land swaps.  Israel should get Ma'alei Adumim (where there's a large Anglo population, including relatives and friends of mine), and the Gush bloc.  Galilee (with its large Arab population), and parts of the Negev can go to Palestine in exchange.  Special visiting arrangements for Jews to go to Abraham's, Rachel's, and Joseph's Tombs in Palestine.  Palestine can be fully independent economically and diplomatically, but it cannot have an army.  The Arab parts of East Jerusalem can be their capital if that's their preference, but that does not include the Old City, which remains under Israeli control.  (Hopefully they will make Ramallah their capital.)  The current status quo remains on the Temple Mount.  No dual citizenship, which means that the current Jewish settlers become Palestinian citizens.  Gaza will not be part of the West Bank Palestine.  It will do whatever it wants to do.  The End.
> 
> 
> 
> Finally, another serious reply.  And from a pro-Israeli poster, imagine that?
> 
> Me, for my part, I would hate to see the whole of the Galilee (and by inference the Golan) to go to the newly independent Palestine, maybe only since there has been a constant Jewish presence in Tiberius and Tzfat. Splitting Jerusalem into East and West sounds workable, as long as Israel can move all embassies and actually claim their portion of Jerusalem finally as their capital. Status quo on the Temple mount, well it would be nice if there was a little more openness there, however I do see that it has been quite the hot spot over the years. As a non-Jew and non-Muslim I sure would like to be able to pray there though.
> 
> However, if this two state solution were to actually work, this new state of Palestine should be allowed to have their own army, why not? If they were to use their army to attack Israel, we know historically how that would work out for them.
> 
> Last thought is that Israel would still want to have some presence in the Jordan valley for any real or imagined attack that would or could come from Iran or other countries in that direction.
Click to expand...


The Golan is an issue between Israel and Syria, and does not involve the Palestinians.

Certainly, Tiberias and Sefad are important cities in Israel.  I don't think the Arab-majority Galilee equals all of Northern Israel.

I think the Palestinians have already agreed that their country should be demilitarized.


----------



## Humanity

Shusha said:


> teddyearp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler alert: If we just ignore Tinmore's posts in this thread, he will go away.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ha.  He's finally actually contributing to the conversation.  The issue of refugees has to be considered as part of the two-state solution, don't you think?  What are your thoughts on that?
Click to expand...


"refugee" is an emotive word with the current state of world politics...

How about we talk about 'land exchange' rather than focus on people... Provided that there is 'freedom of movement' in the interim...

There will, likely, be displaced people under any two state solution, but its, in my mind, is more important to agree 'land exchange' and then give those living in those lands that are exchanged the rights to choose where they live.


----------



## Slyhunter

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why should the Palestinians divide their territory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To end the conflict.  To improve the lives of Israelis and Palestinians.  So no more people die fighting each other.  To have peace.  To allow both peoples to grow and flourish and pursue higher goals.
> 
> Those seem to me to be exceedingly good reasons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What about the Palestinians who owned homes, farms, orange groves, and shops in what is now Israel?
Click to expand...

They sold them. Why let them keep what they sold?


----------



## Shusha

Humanity said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> teddyearp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler alert: If we just ignore Tinmore's posts in this thread, he will go away.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ha.  He's finally actually contributing to the conversation.  The issue of refugees has to be considered as part of the two-state solution, don't you think?  What are your thoughts on that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "refugee" is an emotive word with the current state of world politics...
> 
> How about we talk about 'land exchange' rather than focus on people... Provided that there is 'freedom of movement' in the interim...
> 
> There will, likely, be displaced people under any two state solution, but its, in my mind, is more important to agree 'land exchange' and then give those living in those lands that are exchanged the rights to choose where they live.
Click to expand...


Good call.  We agree.  Perhaps instead of "refugees" we should be discussing "stateless peoples" -- that is people residing in Syria and Jordan, primarily, who have no citizenship in that country.  That must be resolved.

We can agree that people of Arab Palestinian ethnicity who live in the US, Chile, Gaza and Palestine are not refugees.


----------



## montelatici

Sixties Fan said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can find no evidence that Israel has ever legally acquired any land.
> 
> Just a lot of smoke and say so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Demonstrably untrue, but that was not the question Coyote was really asking you.  The question is whether or not you can support a two state solution -- a dividing of the territory NOW, legally, by treaty.  Yes or no?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The proof will be in Ottoman and British records.
> 
> Tel-Aviv was bought on land Jews purchased.  A swamp not wanted by anyone else.
> They bought land, Arabs bought land.
> Jews bought land where the absentee owners wanted to sell the land.
> 
> Think-Israel
> 
> It is without doubt that the Jews, in their quest to purchase and acquire more land, did not take any land from Arabs unlawfully. Furthermore, Arab absentee landlords living elsewhere and real estate brokers sold their land to Jews at an inflated cost.
> 
> As of today, not a single person representing the pro-Palestinian view has been able to contradict this reality using any official documentation, land data or historical records.
> ---------------------
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Private ownership of land does not remove that land from the country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There was hardly any private ownership by the poor Arabs who were toiling the land.
> 
> You insist in forgetting that none of the Arabs in the North of Israel left the land, which had become Israel.
> They were not foolish enough to believe the Arab leaders who told the ones in the south to leave and for those who could, fight and kill the Jews.
> 
> The Arabs lost the war.  They do not get a do over, as they tried again and again in 1957, 1967 and 1973 and lost all the other three times as well.
> 
> By all means, choose to forget that Israel did not expel all the Muslims from the North of Israel, or anywhere else in what became Israel in 1948.
> 
> Nor did they expel any Muslims in 1957, or 1967 when Israel got the areas of Judea and Samaria.  No Muslims were expelled from "East Jerusalem", which had been populated by Jews until 1948.  It was known as the Jewish Quarter of the city of Jerusalem until 1948.
> Now it is mostly populated by Arabs who will not give back homes belonging to Jews, as you seem to be demanding that Jews return lands, and homes never really owned by Arabs.
> 
> The Arabs with proof that the property was theirs are allowed to reclaim their property under Israeli law.
> 
> There is no such law under the PLO, the PA, Fatah, or Hamas to return Jewish properties.
Click to expand...


No that's what I call a master class in revisionist history, AKA propaganda.  Muslims and Christians owned more than 85% of the land in 1946.  How this land came into the hands of European colonial settlers legally must have been an amazing magic trick.  

To claim that no non-Jews were expelled from Palestine by the colonial settlers is an absurd assertion.  The other propaganda ploy is to claim that the Palestinians were exclusively Muslims.  Because of their wealth, the Christians owned much more land proportionally than the Muslims, and lost more land proportionally than the Muslim Palestinians.  Muslims and Christian Palestinians with deeds and keys to their homes were never allowed to reclaim their homes or land.


----------



## Humanity

Shusha said:


> Humanity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> teddyearp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler alert: If we just ignore Tinmore's posts in this thread, he will go away.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ha.  He's finally actually contributing to the conversation.  The issue of refugees has to be considered as part of the two-state solution, don't you think?  What are your thoughts on that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "refugee" is an emotive word with the current state of world politics...
> 
> How about we talk about 'land exchange' rather than focus on people... Provided that there is 'freedom of movement' in the interim...
> 
> There will, likely, be displaced people under any two state solution, but its, in my mind, is more important to agree 'land exchange' and then give those living in those lands that are exchanged the rights to choose where they live.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good call.  We agree.  Perhaps instead of "refugees" we should be discussing "stateless peoples" -- that is people residing in Syria and Jordan, primarily, who have no citizenship in that country.  That must be resolved.
> 
> We can agree that people of Arab Palestinian ethnicity who live in the US, Chile, Gaza and Palestine are not refugees.
Click to expand...


Oh, cheap shot....??

"stateless peoples" - So that includes everyone who is NOT Israeli?

Can you clarify your Syria, Jordan comment? Are you talking about JUST Palestinians in those countries?

Your last point is unclear.... There are a great many Arab Palestinian ethnicity living in the countries mentioned. If they are legal immigrants then of course they are not refugees... Please don't ask for links or figures, I don't have any! The point you are trying to make is unclear... Sorry


----------



## Shusha

Humanity said:


> Oh, cheap shot....??
> 
> "stateless peoples" - So that includes everyone who is NOT Israeli?
> 
> Can you clarify your Syria, Jordan comment? Are you talking about JUST Palestinians in those countries?
> 
> Your last point is unclear.... There are a great many Arab Palestinian ethnicity living in the countries mentioned. If they are legal immigrants then of course they are not refugees... Please don't ask for links or figures, I don't have any! The point you are trying to make is unclear... Sorry




No, no, no.  You have entirely misunderstood.  Let me clarify.  

In a two more state solution ALL residents of Israel, Gaza and Palestine will gain citizenship in the country in which they reside.  So no stateless people there.  

All people who are already citizens of another country remain citizens of that other country.  So no stateless people there.  

It is my understanding that there are people of Arab Palestinian descent living in Syria and Jordan who do not have citizenship in those countries and are treated in an appalling and unequal manner.  They have no citizenship of any country and are therefore "stateless".  These are the people that need to be included in a resolution to the conflict.  

THEY should be given their choice of citizenship -- Syrian, Jordanian, Palestinian or Lebanese so as to no longer be stateless. 


Make sense?


----------



## member

PurpleOwl said:


> Lipush said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm ready to open this up with the Pro-Palestinians on this board who are willing to have a logal discussion, and those who are not haters who want Israel in the sea.
> 
> Let us talk this rationally. What exactly IS the two states solution? One for Israel and one for the Palestinians? What will be the borders of such states?
> 
> Can you openly tell me what is the benefit of the so called 67 lines? what good there is in them? and why they are better than a 1 state solution?
> 
> Please elaborate. Let us discuss this rationally. No name calling and cusses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If your looking for a rational discussion it helps to not label your opponents as "haters who want Israel in the sea" I'm assuming you mean haters not as in religious bigots but as "player haters" as in they're just jealous of they're gold rings and pimped out Cadillacs. I know Trump uses that one alot but I dont think you people know what it means, the push them into the sea comment I'm guessing was a random out of context quote from Ahmadinejad from 2004 I think.
> 
> 
> here is the older of map of israel
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> as you can see most of palestine is occupied by Israel, the 1967 agreement, is where most Palestinian groups say Israel should move back to. But since jews were safer in muslim palestine then they were in christian europe most people say this entire occupation was unnecessary and illegal to begin with, and has more to do with white vs arabs then it has anything to do with Jewish people.
> 
> Many jews are anti israel, and claim the state goes not only against scripture but causes further persecution of jews, and creates more problems than it solves
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so before you label everyone who is against israel as "haters who want Israel in the sea." you should try learning a little bit more than what fox news force feeds you. Then you might know what the "so called 67 lines" are all about
Click to expand...




*"Let us discuss* 

 _*this openly... What exactly IS the "two states solution"?"*_





* "...you should try learning a little bit more than what fox news force feeds you..."*




​



 oh stop….






 Fox News…















I dunno, that joke of a (_1/2_) a government: Hamass, get rid of these pathetic terrorists already.  Negotiate a 1 or 2 state solution with TERRORISTS.... ?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Humanity said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humanity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> teddyearp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler alert: If we just ignore Tinmore's posts in this thread, he will go away.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ha.  He's finally actually contributing to the conversation.  The issue of refugees has to be considered as part of the two-state solution, don't you think?  What are your thoughts on that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "refugee" is an emotive word with the current state of world politics...
> 
> How about we talk about 'land exchange' rather than focus on people... Provided that there is 'freedom of movement' in the interim...
> 
> There will, likely, be displaced people under any two state solution, but its, in my mind, is more important to agree 'land exchange' and then give those living in those lands that are exchanged the rights to choose where they live.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good call.  We agree.  Perhaps instead of "refugees" we should be discussing "stateless peoples" -- that is people residing in Syria and Jordan, primarily, who have no citizenship in that country.  That must be resolved.
> 
> We can agree that people of Arab Palestinian ethnicity who live in the US, Chile, Gaza and Palestine are not refugees.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, cheap shot....??
> 
> "stateless peoples" - So that includes everyone who is NOT Israeli?
> 
> Can you clarify your Syria, Jordan comment? Are you talking about JUST Palestinians in those countries?
> 
> Your last point is unclear.... There are a great many Arab Palestinian ethnicity living in the countries mentioned. If they are legal immigrants then of course they are not refugees... Please don't ask for links or figures, I don't have any! The point you are trying to make is unclear... Sorry
Click to expand...

This is the most comprehensive talk that I have seen on refugees. I would be interested in seeing other views on this issue. The bottom line is that Israel has the legal obligation and the acceptance of refugees by other states is discretionary.


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> This is the most comprehensive talk that I have seen on refugees. I would be interested in seeing other views on this issue. The bottom line is that Israel has the legal obligation and the acceptance of refugees by other states is discretionary.



I would argue that all three States (Israel, Palestine and Gaza) would have a legal obligation -- not just Israel.  And since Israel has already taken full responsibility for nearly a million people who were displaced in the conflict, her obligation is largely fulfilled.


----------



## Shusha

I would also argue since stateless persons are permitted to adopt the state of their birth -- both Syria and Jordan have a legal obligation and it is not discretionary, but an entrenched principle of international law.


----------



## Shusha

I think it might be very important to define our terms here when discussing "refugees".  I do not consider anyone to be a "refugee" unless they are living in a condition of statelessness.  This is differentiated from displaced peoples, and descendants of displaced peoples. who may be eligible for compensation or some sort of restitution.  

I think it is also important to note that polls show MOST displaced Arab Palestinians would be happy to accept compensation and a home in Gaza or Palestine as fair remedy for their loss.  Only about 10% of displaced Arab Palestinians and their descendants insist on returning to the exact location they were displaced from.  And there is absolutely NO requirement in international law for this.  Typically international law says that returnees must be permitted to return to the nation -- not to the specific piece of land.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> I would also argue since stateless persons are permitted to adopt the state of their birth -- both Syria and Jordan have a legal obligation and it is not discretionary, but an entrenched principle of international law.


I don't know for sure. I think is has something to do with local law. In the US, for example, anyone born here can claim citizenship. That might have something to do with the fact that we were a relatively new immigrant nation. Like I say, I don't know.


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would also argue since stateless persons are permitted to adopt the state of their birth -- both Syria and Jordan have a legal obligation and it is not discretionary, but an entrenched principle of international law.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know for sure. I think is has something to do with local law. In the US, for example, anyone born here can claim citizenship. That might have something to do with the fact that we were a relatively new immigrant nation. Like I say, I don't know.
Click to expand...


Sure.  That is the difference between jus soli (citizenship based on land or place of birth) and jus sanguinis (citizenship based on blood or nationality of parents).  But international law permits stateless people to adopt either the nationality of their birth OR the nationality of one (sometimes both) of their parents.  So that places an obligation on Jordan and Syria.

And in terms of human rights, I think it is important to give agency to the refugees themselves.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would also argue since stateless persons are permitted to adopt the state of their birth -- both Syria and Jordan have a legal obligation and it is not discretionary, but an entrenched principle of international law.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know for sure. I think is has something to do with local law. In the US, for example, anyone born here can claim citizenship. That might have something to do with the fact that we were a relatively new immigrant nation. Like I say, I don't know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure.  That is the difference between jus soli (citizenship based on land or place of birth) and jus sanguinis (citizenship based on blood or nationality of parents).  But international law permits stateless people to adopt either the nationality of their birth OR the nationality of one (sometimes both) of their parents.  So that places an obligation on Jordan and Syria.
> 
> And in terms of human rights, I think it is important to give agency to the refugees themselves.
Click to expand...

Interesting. I would like to see info if you have it. However, the right of return does not just apply to refugees. It does apply to all Palestinians, as a nationality, who left their country for any reason. It does not matter why they left.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> And in terms of human rights, I think it is important to give agency to the refugees themselves.


Refugees have the right to choose: return, settlement in host country, and settlement in a third country. Return is the legal obligation of their home state. The other two are at the discretion of the other countries.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would also argue since stateless persons are permitted to adopt the state of their birth -- both Syria and Jordan have a legal obligation and it is not discretionary, but an entrenched principle of international law.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know for sure. I think is has something to do with local law. In the US, for example, anyone born here can claim citizenship. That might have something to do with the fact that we were a relatively new immigrant nation. Like I say, I don't know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure.  That is the difference between jus soli (citizenship based on land or place of birth) and jus sanguinis (citizenship based on blood or nationality of parents).  But international law permits stateless people to adopt either the nationality of their birth OR the nationality of one (sometimes both) of their parents.  So that places an obligation on Jordan and Syria.
> 
> And in terms of human rights, I think it is important to give agency to the refugees themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Interesting. I would like to see info if you have it. However, the right of return does not just apply to refugees. It does apply to all Palestinians, as a nationality, who left their country for any reason. It does not matter why they left.
Click to expand...

The "country of Pally'land"?


----------



## Sixties Fan

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is the most comprehensive talk that I have seen on refugees. I would be interested in seeing other views on this issue. The bottom line is that Israel has the legal obligation and the acceptance of refugees by other states is discretionary.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would argue that all three States (Israel, Palestine and Gaza) would have a legal obligation -- not just Israel.  And since Israel has already taken full responsibility for nearly a million people who were displaced in the conflict, her obligation is largely fulfilled.
Click to expand...


Israel is a recognized State, by the United Nation.

Neither Gaza, nor Palestine are yet recognized by the UN as States.

The "State of Palestine" is at the UN as an observer .
Abbas is trying to force a State recognition without negotiating with Israel, as per the Oslo Accords signed by Arafat.

None of the Arab countries will make it easier on their Arab bothers by ending their refugee status and allowing all who have been born on the land become citizens of their countries.

Neither in Gaza, nor in the PA, the leaders have any intention of ending the refugee issue by turning Gaza into a State, which could have been done once Israel withdrew in 2005.

All Abbas has to do is sit down and negotiate.
Areas A and B will be the State of Palestine, if they so wish.

It will put an end to UNWRA.
UNWRA will be not happy about it at all.  They like the job, and the paychecks.


----------



## Sixties Fan

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> And in terms of human rights, I think it is important to give agency to the refugees themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> Refugees have the right to choose: return, settlement in host country, and settlement in a third country. Return is the legal obligation of their home state. The other two are at the discretion of the other countries.
Click to expand...


Then 850,000 Jews have the right to return to the Arab controlled countries they were expelled from, along with their descendants.

It is not one size fits for the Palestinians, but not for all.

Many Palestinians want to become citizens of their host countries.
But their host countries will not allow them to do so.
No decent jobs, no schools, no good housing.

There is something you should ask all the Arab host countries about:

WHY do you not allow those who want to become Jordanians, Lebanese, Syrians, Iraqis, etc, to become citizens of these countries and let them become a positive contribution to the countries they were born in.

Time for all the Arab countries to embrace their Arab brothers and put an end to the refugee problem.

No more than about 20,000 Arabs are left of those who were told to flee Israel, or ended up being expelled.
Their descendants do not count, anymore than they would if they were not Arabs who fled on May 15, 1948.

Many did not, and they contribute to the country they chose to stay in.

All Jewish refugees from Europe and the Arab countries have been taken care of.

Time for the Arab countries to do the same with their refugees.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Sixties Fan said:


> Then 850,000 Jews have the right to return to the Arab controlled countries they were expelled from, along with their descendants.


Sure, where is the Jewish BDS making that call?


----------



## Sixties Fan

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would also argue since stateless persons are permitted to adopt the state of their birth -- both Syria and Jordan have a legal obligation and it is not discretionary, but an entrenched principle of international law.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know for sure. I think is has something to do with local law. In the US, for example, anyone born here can claim citizenship. That might have something to do with the fact that we were a relatively new immigrant nation. Like I say, I don't know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure.  That is the difference between jus soli (citizenship based on land or place of birth) and jus sanguinis (citizenship based on blood or nationality of parents).  But international law permits stateless people to adopt either the nationality of their birth OR the nationality of one (sometimes both) of their parents.  So that places an obligation on Jordan and Syria.
> 
> And in terms of human rights, I think it is important to give agency to the refugees themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Interesting. I would like to see info if you have it. However, the right of return does not just apply to refugees. It does apply to all Palestinians, as a nationality, who left their country for any reason. It does not matter why they left.
Click to expand...


Exactly when was the "country" of Palestine founded?
It is not mentioned anywhere in history.
It is not mentioned anywhere in the Muslim, Crusader, Ottoman or British records before the Mandate for Palestine.

The inhabitants did not call themselves Palestinians before the mandate for Palestine started granting anyone, Jews, Muslims, etc, a Palestinian (for the Mandate) passport for travel.

Then, the right of return would apply to all Jews from Arab, Iranian countries, and from Europe to be allowed to return to the lands, or homes they left, also for whichever reason?

The Nationality of "Palestinians" has only existed since 1964, after Arafat adopted it as a way to delegitimize Israel.

That is what the "Nationality of Palestine", as far it being referred to Arabs only, is all about.

During the Mandate, all who lived there were known as Palestinians.
Because of the Mandate, and nothing else.
The Mandate which was to recreate the Jewish State, for the Jewish People on their ancient Jewish Homeland.

Where Jews remained a presence during all the 3800 years Judaism has existed.

But now, some call the whole of Israel "Palestine" because the Muslims, who hate Jews, want to see an end to a sovereign Jewish State, where it belongs.

Hurray for the endless hatred for Jews.  2000 years and growing.


----------



## Sixties Fan

P F Tinmore said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then 850,000 Jews have the right to return to the Arab controlled countries they were expelled from, along with their descendants.
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, where is the Jewish BDS making that call?
Click to expand...


Jews do not want to go back to the oppression they experienced for 1300 years under Muslim control.

Sure....you say, as if you had a mandate from the Muslims to make any kind of deal.

The Muslims do not want them.  The Jews would never return.
They would be oppressed, attacked and killed, which is what happened rather often during the 1300 years before the State of Israel came to be.

Thanks for the thought though.

But I would say that the Jews would say:

Thanks, but no thanks.

Even the Yemenite Jews are trying to get out, but are not being allowed to.  

Most Jews have been expelled or fled with nearly nothing, even before Israel became a State.

Yeah, because the Arabs loved them so much, and simply could live without them, since 1920 all Arab countries made the lives of Jews total hell.  It got worse when they began to sympathize with Hitler.

The Arab leaders.  What a bunch !


----------



## P F Tinmore

Sixties Fan said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then 850,000 Jews have the right to return to the Arab controlled countries they were expelled from, along with their descendants.
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, where is the Jewish BDS making that call?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jews do not want to go back to the oppression they experienced for 1300 years under Muslim control.
> 
> Sure....you say, as if you had a mandate from the Muslims to make any kind of deal.
> 
> The Muslims do not want them.  The Jews would never return.
> They would be oppressed, attacked and killed, which is what happened rather often during the 1300 years before the State of Israel came to be.
> 
> Thanks for the thought though.
> 
> But I would say that the Jews would say:
> 
> Thanks, but no thanks.
> 
> Even the Yemenite Jews are trying to get out, but are not being allowed to.
> 
> Most Jews have been expelled or fled with nearly nothing, even before Israel became a State.
> 
> Yeah, because the Arabs loved them so much, and simply could live without them, since 1920 all Arab countries made the lives of Jews total hell.  It got worse when they began to sympathize with Hitler.
> 
> The Arab leaders.  What a bunch !
Click to expand...

So then, what are you bitching about?


----------



## Indeependent

P F Tinmore said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then 850,000 Jews have the right to return to the Arab controlled countries they were expelled from, along with their descendants.
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, where is the Jewish BDS making that call?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jews do not want to go back to the oppression they experienced for 1300 years under Muslim control.
> 
> Sure....you say, as if you had a mandate from the Muslims to make any kind of deal.
> 
> The Muslims do not want them.  The Jews would never return.
> They would be oppressed, attacked and killed, which is what happened rather often during the 1300 years before the State of Israel came to be.
> 
> Thanks for the thought though.
> 
> But I would say that the Jews would say:
> 
> Thanks, but no thanks.
> 
> Even the Yemenite Jews are trying to get out, but are not being allowed to.
> 
> Most Jews have been expelled or fled with nearly nothing, even before Israel became a State.
> 
> Yeah, because the Arabs loved them so much, and simply could live without them, since 1920 all Arab countries made the lives of Jews total hell.  It got worse when they began to sympathize with Hitler.
> 
> The Arab leaders.  What a bunch !
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So then, what are you bitching about?
Click to expand...

It seems to me that *you're* the one who's constantly complaining.
But what can I expect from a Muslim imbecile living in the US.


----------



## Lipush

P F Tinmore said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> teddyearp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> All of the "Israeli" solutions deny the rights of over half of the Palestinians.
> 
> 
> 
> And when are you going to post your solution as I asked in post #80?  In your own words without any cutting and pasting?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is just that the Palestinians call for equal rights and the Israelis call for expelling and killing.
> 
> I think this is indicative of the moral values of the people involved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think it is that simple.
> 
> The Palestinians might be calling for equal rights but many are also unwilling to allow Israeli Jews to remain there in the settlements should that become part of their new state.  In other words they are calling for expelling.  Likewise...they are and have been killing.
> 
> I think it's a mistake to broad brush the moral values of a people in that way - neither the Palestinians nor the Israeli's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is a difficult topic to discuss because the truth is untenable. Mentioning the truth brings an onslaught name calling and accusations. We will never achieve peace until the core issues are addressed. When the Palestinians, and others, call Israel 1948 occupied Palestine they are correct. No amount of time or political recognition will change that fact.
> 
> Israel is a settler colonial project. Both Britain and the Zionists said this regularly during the mandate period. That is what they called it. That is what it was. The facts on the ground confirm it. Nobody can deny it.
> 
> Settler colonialism is not an event it is a process that continues to today. Settler colonialism is the removal of the native population and replacing them with another people. We can see this process before our eyes. It is in the news all the time.
> 
> Now, how do we unwind this and fix the problem?
Click to expand...



The best solution for the Palestinians will be realizing that the Israelis are NOT GOING ANYWHERE.

Stop being stuck on 1948. You cannot return to those times anymore than you can force a full developed newborn back to its mother's womb.

Israel exists. Deal with it.


----------



## Lipush

P F Tinmore said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> teddyearp said:
> 
> 
> 
> And when are you going to post your solution as I asked in post #80?  In your own words without any cutting and pasting?
> 
> 
> 
> It is just that the Palestinians call for equal rights and the Israelis call for expelling and killing.
> 
> I think this is indicative of the moral values of the people involved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think it is that simple.
> 
> The Palestinians might be calling for equal rights but many are also unwilling to allow Israeli Jews to remain there in the settlements should that become part of their new state.  In other words they are calling for expelling.  Likewise...they are and have been killing.
> 
> I think it's a mistake to broad brush the moral values of a people in that way - neither the Palestinians nor the Israeli's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is a difficult topic to discuss because the truth is untenable. Mentioning the truth brings an onslaught name calling and accusations. We will never achieve peace until the core issues are addressed. When the Palestinians, and others, call Israel 1948 occupied Palestine they are correct. No amount of time or political recognition will change that fact.
> 
> Israel is a settler colonial project. Both Britain and the Zionists said this regularly during the mandate period. That is what they called it. That is what it was. The facts on the ground confirm it. Nobody can deny it.
> 
> Settler colonialism is not an event it is a process that continues to today. Settler colonialism is the removal of the native population and replacing them with another people. We can see this process before our eyes. It is in the news all the time.
> 
> Now, how do we unwind this and fix the problem?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem is, 1948 is 70 years ago.  And in the meantime a state has been established.  You can't unwind it.
> 
> There is also another aspect that is ignored.  It's inaccurate to claim it's just the Jews colonizing a foreign land.  It isn't just that.  It's a bit of land, where multiple peoples live and have a heritage.  During the Jewish nationalistic struggle for that bit of land, there was an Arab nationalistic struggle for that same land.  But there seems to be a deliberate ignoring of the fact that the Jews were just as much the local people.  There are arguments about immigration. You have one side claiming the Palestinians are all foreign squatters and the other claiming the Jews are all foreign invaders.  But the truth is - both are native, and both sustained an influx of immigration.  Going against the "colonial settlement" model is the fact that Jews were also indiginous.  There have always been Jewish people there, even though many more migrated in.  Now if you are going to complain about that then why aren't you complaining the Arabs who immigrated into the area and are just as foreign as the Europeans?  And - why don't you acknowledge that the Jews also have a right to be there and have as much right to form a state in that period of time as the Palestinian Arabs did?
> 
> I don't think your going to fix the problem by "unwinding" history and you can't fix an injustice by creating more injustices.  You have to take what is there as it is now and work with it.  That means Israel, as a Jewish state, is not going to disappear.  It's established, it's proven it can run and hold a state, even though it most certainly has serious issues regarding equality and justice,  it's far more democratic, and has a far higher standard of human rights and religious freedom then any of it's neighboring states.  So fixing the problem should not be ending Israel's existence as a Jewish state because the Jews have as much right as the Palestinians to be there and to form a state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are giving Israel's narrative. Are you saying that we should let injustice slide? What justification can you give for that. Israel has created a massive problem and you want to let them off the hook. Why?
Click to expand...


Israek created a massive problem, huh.

Israel is in conflict with itself?

It always amazes me how you think Palestinian are retarded, backforward, primitive creatures who have no responsibility over anything and don't know jack about what they do.

Considering you're pro-Palestinian, that's almost sad.


----------



## Lipush

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Demonstrably untrue, but that was not the question Coyote was really asking you.  The question is whether or not you can support a two state solution -- a dividing of the territory NOW, legally, by treaty.  Yes or no?
> 
> 
> 
> It is not "the territory" it is Palestinian territory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Answer the question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your link is dead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know.  I fixed it.  I was just trying to find a video of the mad Irish man in Braveheart -- "answer the f*cking question".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why should the Palestinians divide their territory. They have been saying no to that since 1937. You would think people would get the hint.
Click to expand...



Why should I give up my house, for that matter? That land belonged to my family since the previous century?


----------



## Lipush

Shusha said:


> teddyearp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler alert: If we just ignore Tinmore's posts in this thread, he will go away.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ha.  He's finally actually contributing to the conversation.  The issue of refugees has to be considered as part of the two-state solution, don't you think?  What are your thoughts on that?
Click to expand...


Hang on a second! 

Let's say there IS at one point a "Palestine", so the 'refugees' will naturally move there.

That's the entire idea. We don't want those people inside OUR state.


----------



## Lipush

Sixties Fan said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> teddyearp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler alert: If we just ignore Tinmore's posts in this thread, he will go away.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ha.  He's finally actually contributing to the conversation.  The issue of refugees has to be considered as part of the two-state solution, don't you think?  What are your thoughts on that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The issue of the refugees is only been perpetuated by the Arabs in order to destroy Israel.
> 
> Never in history, including Jews or any Muslims or Arabs, have a people been kept as refugees beyond the generation which was indeed forced to flee any war, etc.
> 
> Check the definition for the word refugees.
> 
> Then look at the UNWRA created definition of refugees reserved for only those who were expelled during the war originated by the Arabs leaders in order to destroy Israel.
> 
> Only one definition is valid.
> 
> Jews were forced to become refugees from Europe with WWII and from all Arab/Muslim countries from 1948 on.
> 
> There isn't one Jewish person who continues to call themselves refugees, or makes any demands to return to their original homes, even those who are still living.
> 
> The refugees from Syria, and other places are looking for a new place to live, to move on.
> 
> That is what being a refugee means.
> 
> It means that one does not get to return to where one came from, for the most part, especially while a war continues in the area.
> 
> Many Palestinians were allowed to return to Israel, due to family.
> Israel allowed that.
> 
> No Jews have been allowed back into Jordan, Gaza and many areas of Judea and Samaria where they lived, had homes, etc, as they were taken over by the Arabs from 1948 to 1967.
> 
> There are refugees from the Arab side?
> 
> There are definitely Jewish refugees, forced at gun point, from Judea, Samaria, Jordan and even Gaza.
> 
> In other words, the number of Jews expelled from Arab countries is even greater than the number of Arabs told by their leaders or expelled due to violence towards Israel.
> 
> One solution is to just call the refugee issue even.
> 
> But the Arab Leaders will never accept that.  As they will never accept Israel.
Click to expand...


^
l
l
l
l

I don't know who this guy is, but I love him!


----------



## Lipush

Humanity said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humanity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> teddyearp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler alert: If we just ignore Tinmore's posts in this thread, he will go away.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ha.  He's finally actually contributing to the conversation.  The issue of refugees has to be considered as part of the two-state solution, don't you think?  What are your thoughts on that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "refugee" is an emotive word with the current state of world politics...
> 
> How about we talk about 'land exchange' rather than focus on people... Provided that there is 'freedom of movement' in the interim...
> 
> There will, likely, be displaced people under any two state solution, but its, in my mind, is more important to agree 'land exchange' and then give those living in those lands that are exchanged the rights to choose where they live.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good call.  We agree.  Perhaps instead of "refugees" we should be discussing "stateless peoples" -- that is people residing in Syria and Jordan, primarily, who have no citizenship in that country.  That must be resolved.
> 
> We can agree that people of Arab Palestinian ethnicity who live in the US, Chile, Gaza and Palestine are not refugees.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, cheap shot....??
> 
> "stateless peoples" - So that includes everyone who is NOT Israeli?
> 
> Can you clarify your Syria, Jordan comment? Are you talking about JUST Palestinians in those countries?
> 
> Your last point is unclear.... There are a great many Arab Palestinian ethnicity living in the countries mentioned. If they are legal immigrants then of course they are not refugees... Please don't ask for links or figures, I don't have any! The point you are trying to make is unclear... Sorry
Click to expand...


In Gaza there are ":refugee camps". 

Now, look for the definition of refugees, people who have been forced to leave their natural state.

But Gaza belongs to the "Palestinian state", and they live there, so how can they be refugees, if they're in their home territory?

That's like saying the people who were expelled from Gush Katif (who live inside the green line) are refugees.

Oh, oh, you mean, refugees from the "complete land of Palestine"? But that certain state never existed, And you cannot be a refugee from a place that never was.

So once the terminiology itself is less sinning to reality, we can move on to more important stuff.


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> It does apply to all Palestinians, as a nationality, who left their country for any reason. It does not matter why they left.



Palestine, when it becomes a State, is welcome to invite back anyone it wants to.  But if you are trying to argue that Israel is obligated to accept anyone who left the territory at any time and for any reason, you are foolishly mistaken, both in terms of international law and in terms of "facts on the ground".  

We (collective we) are obligated to ensure that people have their basic human rights met.  Those human rights do not extend to unbreaking eggs.


----------



## Sixties Fan

Here is a recent report from a Christian Journalist on the "state" of the Two State Solution.

And if a One State Solution, who should be in charge of it:

Christian Journalist’s Myth-Busting Report on the Truth in Israel Goes Viral [VIDEO]


----------



## Sixties Fan

Lipush said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> teddyearp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler alert: If we just ignore Tinmore's posts in this thread, he will go away.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ha.  He's finally actually contributing to the conversation.  The issue of refugees has to be considered as part of the two-state solution, don't you think?  What are your thoughts on that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hang on a second!
> 
> Let's say there IS at one point a "Palestine", so the 'refugees' will naturally move there.
> 
> That's the entire idea. We don't want those people inside OUR state.
Click to expand...


Some of the "refugees" are already in "Palestine".  Gaza, Areas A and B of Judea and Samaria, and even in Jordan (part of the Mandate for Palestine).

It is not about Palestine, though.  It is about Muslim honor, which cannot stand having lost the wars of 1948, 1957, 1967 and 1973 to their dhimmis. And especially to their Dhimmi Jews.

There is no incentive for the leaders to think about peace and co-exitence as long as too many Muslim and Christian countries keep donating to their "cause" which is really all about destroying Israel.

Israel does what it can, jobs, education, health, technology, helping in all of those fields, to let those who do not know it, that Israel is not occupying any "Palestinian" land, that it is a land in dispute as Israel did not expel all Arab inhabitants from Judea and Samaria in 1967 as the Arabs had done in 1948.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Sixties Fan said:


> Lipush said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> teddyearp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler alert: If we just ignore Tinmore's posts in this thread, he will go away.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ha.  He's finally actually contributing to the conversation.  The issue of refugees has to be considered as part of the two-state solution, don't you think?  What are your thoughts on that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hang on a second!
> 
> Let's say there IS at one point a "Palestine", so the 'refugees' will naturally move there.
> 
> That's the entire idea. We don't want those people inside OUR state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some of the "refugees" are already in "Palestine".  Gaza, Areas A and B of Judea and Samaria, and even in Jordan (part of the Mandate for Palestine).
> 
> It is not about Palestine, though.  It is about Muslim honor, which cannot stand having lost the wars of 1948, 1957, 1967 and 1973 to their dhimmis. And especially to their Dhimmi Jews.
> 
> There is no incentive for the leaders to think about peace and co-exitence as long as too many Muslim and Christian countries keep donating to their "cause" which is really all about destroying Israel.
> 
> Israel does what it can, jobs, education, health, technology, helping in all of those fields, to let those who do not know it, that Israel is not occupying any "Palestinian" land, that it is a land in dispute as Israel did not expel all Arab inhabitants from Judea and Samaria in 1967 as the Arabs had done in 1948.
Click to expand...

The refugees are not to just return to Palestine but to their homes and property.

11. _Resolves_ that the refugees wishing to *return to their homes* and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that *compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return* and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible;

 Instructs the Conciliation Commission to facilitate the repatriation, resettlement and economic and social rehabilitation of the refugees and the payment of compensation,

A/RES/194 (III) of 11 December 1948​


----------



## esthermoon

Lipush said:


> I'm ready to open this up with the Pro-Palestinians on this board who are willing to have a logal discussion, and those who are not haters who want Israel in the sea.
> 
> Let us talk this rationally. What exactly IS the two states solution? One for Israel and one for the Palestinians? What will be the borders of such states?
> 
> Can you openly tell me what is the benefit of the so called 67 lines? what good there is in them? and why they are better than a 1 state solution?
> 
> Please elaborate. Let us discuss this rationally. No name calling and cusses.


I think that those who want the 2 states solution just mean one for Israelis and one for the Palestinians.
For what concerns the borders I imagine they mean these "borders" (actually those weren't borders but pre 1967 armistice lines)


----------



## montelatici

Palestinian priest wants one-state solution with Palestinians in charge goes viral in Muslim world.


----------



## Sixties Fan

P F Tinmore said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lipush said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> teddyearp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler alert: If we just ignore Tinmore's posts in this thread, he will go away.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ha.  He's finally actually contributing to the conversation.  The issue of refugees has to be considered as part of the two-state solution, don't you think?  What are your thoughts on that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hang on a second!
> 
> Let's say there IS at one point a "Palestine", so the 'refugees' will naturally move there.
> 
> That's the entire idea. We don't want those people inside OUR state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some of the "refugees" are already in "Palestine".  Gaza, Areas A and B of Judea and Samaria, and even in Jordan (part of the Mandate for Palestine).
> 
> It is not about Palestine, though.  It is about Muslim honor, which cannot stand having lost the wars of 1948, 1957, 1967 and 1973 to their dhimmis. And especially to their Dhimmi Jews.
> 
> There is no incentive for the leaders to think about peace and co-exitence as long as too many Muslim and Christian countries keep donating to their "cause" which is really all about destroying Israel.
> 
> Israel does what it can, jobs, education, health, technology, helping in all of those fields, to let those who do not know it, that Israel is not occupying any "Palestinian" land, that it is a land in dispute as Israel did not expel all Arab inhabitants from Judea and Samaria in 1967 as the Arabs had done in 1948.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The refugees are not to just return to Palestine but to their homes and property.
> 
> 11. _Resolves_ that the refugees wishing to *return to their homes* and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that *compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return* and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible;
> 
> Instructs the Conciliation Commission to facilitate the repatriation, resettlement and economic and social rehabilitation of the refugees and the payment of compensation,
> 
> A/RES/194 (III) of 11 December 1948​
Click to expand...



Jews expelled from Europe and "Arab countries" are still waiting to be allowed to return to exactly the homes they were forced to leave from 
1920 to 1970s.

As there are more Jews who were made to be refugees than there were Arabs, the Arabs can do the math and duly compensate the Jews  for any loss of property.

Jews who attempted to return to their homes in Europe, found their homes occupied and the new "owners" not willing to return the property.
Some were even killed.

But, since the Muslims decided to help Hitler kill Jews in Europe, the Bosnia Muslim SS Division for example, it is only fair that the Muslims should help compensate the Jews who lost not only their properties but their lives:

Here is the Palestinian Leader Al-Husseini and his Bosnia Troop:

The Role of Muslim SS divisions in Yugoslavia's Holocaust

Here is what other Jews in Europe should have expected after the Holocaust, but did not :

Restitution of Holocaust-Era Assets: Promises and Reality | Jerusalem Center For Public Affairs

Reclaiming Jewish Property in Krakow | Krakow Post

Richard Cohen - What Helen Thomas missed

Since Al-Husseini, as leader of the Arabs in mandate Palestine, is the one responsible for declaring war on the Jews  to keep them from having a state, then all of those Arabs who have become leaders, and continued the assault on Jews and Israel in order to "reclaim" Muslim land, they are all responsible for all the deaths and restitution for any lives and property lost because of that one "Leader" 's decision to riot and kill Jews in 1920.

Actions have consequences.

Muslims refuse the consequences part.

They lost to the Jews.  There is no restitution for any of the Arabs who is still intent in killing Jews, simply because it has been their sport for the previous 1400 years.


----------



## ForeverYoung436

P F Tinmore said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lipush said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> teddyearp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler alert: If we just ignore Tinmore's posts in this thread, he will go away.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ha.  He's finally actually contributing to the conversation.  The issue of refugees has to be considered as part of the two-state solution, don't you think?  What are your thoughts on that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hang on a second!
> 
> Let's say there IS at one point a "Palestine", so the 'refugees' will naturally move there.
> 
> That's the entire idea. We don't want those people inside OUR state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some of the "refugees" are already in "Palestine".  Gaza, Areas A and B of Judea and Samaria, and even in Jordan (part of the Mandate for Palestine).
> 
> It is not about Palestine, though.  It is about Muslim honor, which cannot stand having lost the wars of 1948, 1957, 1967 and 1973 to their dhimmis. And especially to their Dhimmi Jews.
> 
> There is no incentive for the leaders to think about peace and co-exitence as long as too many Muslim and Christian countries keep donating to their "cause" which is really all about destroying Israel.
> 
> Israel does what it can, jobs, education, health, technology, helping in all of those fields, to let those who do not know it, that Israel is not occupying any "Palestinian" land, that it is a land in dispute as Israel did not expel all Arab inhabitants from Judea and Samaria in 1967 as the Arabs had done in 1948.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The refugees are not to just return to Palestine but to their homes and property.
> 
> 11. _Resolves_ that the refugees wishing to *return to their homes* and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that *compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return* and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible;
> 
> Instructs the Conciliation Commission to facilitate the repatriation, resettlement and economic and social rehabilitation of the refugees and the payment of compensation,
> 
> A/RES/194 (III) of 11 December 1948​
Click to expand...


Oh, come on, do you have to be so exact about it?  Monetary compensation isn't enough?  My parents were driven out of Poland in WW2.  My mom was in Siberia, and my dad was in a DP camp in Germany.  They were left penniless.  Since then, they became very successful, and I never thought of them as being refugees, though they were at one time.  Like Tom Petty sang,  "You don't have to live like a Refugee!"


----------



## Sixties Fan

montelatici said:


> Palestinian priest wants one-state solution with Palestinians in charge goes viral in Muslim world.





montelatici said:


> Palestinian priest wants one-state solution with Palestinians in charge goes viral in Muslim world.



Christian Arab Priest says:

"I want all of those who surround me to be Arabs'

"We are fighting for a just cause"

Yes, to have all of the Mandate Palestine Jew free.

Jordan = Jew free
Gaza  = Jew free
Areas A and B = Jew Free

A future State of Palestine, per Abbas' words =  Jew Free


A Christian Arab Palestinian who is a poster boy for Christian Hatred of Jews


----------



## P F Tinmore

montelatici said:


> Palestinian priest wants one-state solution with Palestinians in charge goes viral in Muslim world.


From the church in Gaza.


----------



## The Sage of Main Street

ForeverYoung436 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> teddyearp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> All of the "Israeli" solutions deny the rights of over half of the Palestinians.
> 
> 
> 
> And when are you going to post your solution as I asked in post #80?  In your own words without any cutting and pasting?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is just that the Palestinians call for equal rights and the Israelis call for expelling and killing.
> 
> I think this is indicative of the moral values of the people involved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think it is that simple.
> 
> The Palestinians might be calling for equal rights but many are also unwilling to allow Israeli Jews to remain there in the settlements should that become part of their new state.  In other words they are calling for expelling.  Likewise...they are and have been killing.
> 
> I think it's a mistake to broad brush the moral values of a people in that way - neither the Palestinians nor the Israeli's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is a difficult topic to discuss because the truth is untenable. Mentioning the truth brings an onslaught name calling and accusations. We will never achieve peace until the core issues are addressed. When the Palestinians, and others, call Israel 1948 occupied Palestine they are correct. No amount of time or political recognition will change that fact.
> 
> Israel is a settler colonial project. Both Britain and the Zionists said this regularly during the mandate period. That is what they called it. That is what it was. The facts on the ground confirm it. Nobody can deny it.
> 
> Settler colonialism is not an event it is a process that continues to today. Settler colonialism is the removal of the native population and replacing them with another people. We can see this process before our eyes. It is in the news all the time.
> 
> Now, how do we unwind this and fix the problem?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You haven't proposed any solution to the problem, which was the topic of this thread, and which I myself did earlier in the thread.  I presented concrete proposals, which represented an evolution in my views over the years.  You just reiterated what you've said a million times before, and confirmed what I've always known--that you're living in the past.  With people like you who are unable to move on, that is precisely why a resolution to this conflict is very unlikely.
Click to expand...

*A Road Map for Truck Bombs*

Suppose that after the Pearl Harbor attack, some appeaser proposed a two-state solution for the Pacific.  Japan would get the Philippines, Hawaii, and southern California and would agree to supply us with free body bags.


----------



## Sixties Fan

P F Tinmore said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Palestinian priest wants one-state solution with Palestinians in charge goes viral in Muslim world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From the church in Gaza.
Click to expand...


Directly from Gaza:

Reporter:  Tell me Sir, how do you like to live in Gaza which is free of Jews.

Gaza Resident:  Just love it. That is how all Muslim Land should be.
Jew Free.
We are lucky that no Jews live here.
We have only our leaders to blame around here....... secretly.
They start a war, we blame Israel
No water, we blame Israel.
No electricity, we blame Israel.
No homes, we blame Israel.
No medicine, taken by Hamas, we blame Israel.
No peace, we blame Israel.

And the Jews can do nothing about it   

I just love living in Jew Free Gaza !!!!


----------



## ForeverYoung436

P F Tinmore said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Palestinian priest wants one-state solution with Palestinians in charge goes viral in Muslim world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From the church in Gaza.
Click to expand...


They have to leave at least one token church around, for the time being at least.


----------



## The Sage of Main Street

Sixties Fan said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> teddyearp said:
> 
> 
> 
> And when are you going to post your solution as I asked in post #80?  In your own words without any cutting and pasting?
> 
> 
> 
> It is just that the Palestinians call for equal rights and the Israelis call for expelling and killing.
> 
> I think this is indicative of the moral values of the people involved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think it is that simple.
> 
> The Palestinians might be calling for equal rights but many are also unwilling to allow Israeli Jews to remain there in the settlements should that become part of their new state.  In other words they are calling for expelling.  Likewise...they are and have been killing.
> 
> I think it's a mistake to broad brush the moral values of a people in that way - neither the Palestinians nor the Israeli's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is a difficult topic to discuss because the truth is untenable. Mentioning the truth brings an onslaught name calling and accusations. We will never achieve peace until the core issues are addressed. When the Palestinians, and others, call Israel 1948 occupied Palestine they are correct. No amount of time or political recognition will change that fact.
> 
> Israel is a settler colonial project. Both Britain and the Zionists said this regularly during the mandate period. That is what they called it. That is what it was. The facts on the ground confirm it. Nobody can deny it.
> 
> Settler colonialism is not an event it is a process that continues to today. Settler colonialism is the removal of the native population and replacing them with another people. We can see this process before our eyes. It is in the news all the time.
> 
> Now, how do we unwind this and fix the problem?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem is, 1948 is 70 years ago.  And in the meantime a state has been established.  You can't unwind it.
> 
> There is also another aspect that is ignored.  It's inaccurate to claim it's just the Jews colonizing a foreign land.  It isn't just that.  It's a bit of land, where multiple peoples live and have a heritage.  During the Jewish nationalistic struggle for that bit of land, there was an Arab nationalistic struggle for that same land.  But there seems to be a deliberate ignoring of the fact that the Jews were just as much the local people.  There are arguments about immigration. You have one side claiming the Palestinians are all foreign squatters and the other claiming the Jews are all foreign invaders.  But the truth is - both are native, and both sustained an influx of immigration.  Going against the "colonial settlement" model is the fact that Jews were also indiginous.  There have always been Jewish people there, even though many more migrated in.  Now if you are going to complain about that then why aren't you complaining the Arabs who immigrated into the area and are just as foreign as the Europeans?  And - why don't you acknowledge that the Jews also have a right to be there and have as much right to form a state in that period of time as the Palestinian Arabs did?
> 
> I don't think your going to fix the problem by "unwinding" history and you can't fix an injustice by creating more injustices.  You have to take what is there as it is now and work with it.  That means Israel, as a Jewish state, is not going to disappear.  It's established, it's proven it can run and hold a state, even though it most certainly has serious issues regarding equality and justice,  it's far more democratic, and has a far higher standard of human rights and religious freedom then any of it's neighboring states.  So fixing the problem should not be ending Israel's existence as a Jewish state because the Jews have as much right as the Palestinians to be there and to form a state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> <<But the truth is - both are native, and both sustained an influx of immigration.>>
> 
> You seem to miss the meaning of the word Native/Indigenous.
> 
> All the tribes living in the Americas and Australia, Hawaii, New Zealand before the 1492 European "discovery" and colonization are the Indigenous, Native people of the land.
> 
> The people who had a Nation, culture and history living at the time of the various European invasions, or even the Assyrian invasion, were the Jewish People, also known as the Jewish Nation.
> 
> They were there when the Greeks, Romans, Byzantine and the Muslims arrived on that land.  It is all recorded in their documents, books, etc
> 
> Native = Indigenous = having formed a distinct people whose ancient history happened on that piece of land.
> 
> There are the Pagan, Christian and Muslim invaders of the Jewish Homeland, what had been the Nation of Israel.
> 
> A new majority due to Muslim and Christian migration to the land does not make that land, or in the Americas, etc.... any less belonging to any of the 500 First Nations, or the Mayans, Aztecs, etc.
> 
> All it means is that since that invasion the Indigenous people lost sovereignty over their land.
> 
> The Jews worked for and regained sovereignty over some of their land. Only 20% out of 100% of it, as it had been promised.
> 
> Muslims are totally against any Muslim conquered land being taken away from them by non Muslims.
> 
> THAT, in a nutshell, is the core of the conflict.  And why hamas and the PA will never accept any peace treaty with Israel as Egypt and Jordan were forced to do, due to financial considerations for their countries.
> 
> Jordan is already a State carved out of Palestine.
> Gaza should have become another one once Israel withdrew all Israelis in 2005.
> Hamas did not want a State.
> Their charter demands the destruction of all of Israel as a Jewish State, and a Muslim one in its place.
> It is the same thing with Abbas, the PLO, Fatah.
> 
> Defunding those Muslim organizations and UNWRA would be the first step to having those groups accept Israel as a State, and accepting to negotiate a Peace Treaty.
> 
> Egypt and Jordan did it.
> 
> Now is time for the other Muslims to do the same.
Click to expand...


*The Holy Land Was Hollow Before the Jews Returned*

The rational historical analogy is just the opposite.  The Israelis are our brave and productive pioneers, the Arabs are the useless Indian savages.


----------



## Sixties Fan

ForeverYoung436 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Palestinian priest wants one-state solution with Palestinians in charge goes viral in Muslim world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From the church in Gaza.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They have to leave at least one token church around, for the time being at least.
Click to expand...


It is the ROMAN CATHOLIC church in Gaza, no less, and its Monsignor.

Ah, Roman Catholic Christianity and how well it has taught others to hate all Jews.

Nope, nothing funny about it.


----------



## Sixties Fan

The Sage of Main Street said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is just that the Palestinians call for equal rights and the Israelis call for expelling and killing.
> 
> I think this is indicative of the moral values of the people involved.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think it is that simple.
> 
> The Palestinians might be calling for equal rights but many are also unwilling to allow Israeli Jews to remain there in the settlements should that become part of their new state.  In other words they are calling for expelling.  Likewise...they are and have been killing.
> 
> I think it's a mistake to broad brush the moral values of a people in that way - neither the Palestinians nor the Israeli's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is a difficult topic to discuss because the truth is untenable. Mentioning the truth brings an onslaught name calling and accusations. We will never achieve peace until the core issues are addressed. When the Palestinians, and others, call Israel 1948 occupied Palestine they are correct. No amount of time or political recognition will change that fact.
> 
> Israel is a settler colonial project. Both Britain and the Zionists said this regularly during the mandate period. That is what they called it. That is what it was. The facts on the ground confirm it. Nobody can deny it.
> 
> Settler colonialism is not an event it is a process that continues to today. Settler colonialism is the removal of the native population and replacing them with another people. We can see this process before our eyes. It is in the news all the time.
> 
> Now, how do we unwind this and fix the problem?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem is, 1948 is 70 years ago.  And in the meantime a state has been established.  You can't unwind it.
> 
> There is also another aspect that is ignored.  It's inaccurate to claim it's just the Jews colonizing a foreign land.  It isn't just that.  It's a bit of land, where multiple peoples live and have a heritage.  During the Jewish nationalistic struggle for that bit of land, there was an Arab nationalistic struggle for that same land.  But there seems to be a deliberate ignoring of the fact that the Jews were just as much the local people.  There are arguments about immigration. You have one side claiming the Palestinians are all foreign squatters and the other claiming the Jews are all foreign invaders.  But the truth is - both are native, and both sustained an influx of immigration.  Going against the "colonial settlement" model is the fact that Jews were also indiginous.  There have always been Jewish people there, even though many more migrated in.  Now if you are going to complain about that then why aren't you complaining the Arabs who immigrated into the area and are just as foreign as the Europeans?  And - why don't you acknowledge that the Jews also have a right to be there and have as much right to form a state in that period of time as the Palestinian Arabs did?
> 
> I don't think your going to fix the problem by "unwinding" history and you can't fix an injustice by creating more injustices.  You have to take what is there as it is now and work with it.  That means Israel, as a Jewish state, is not going to disappear.  It's established, it's proven it can run and hold a state, even though it most certainly has serious issues regarding equality and justice,  it's far more democratic, and has a far higher standard of human rights and religious freedom then any of it's neighboring states.  So fixing the problem should not be ending Israel's existence as a Jewish state because the Jews have as much right as the Palestinians to be there and to form a state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> <<But the truth is - both are native, and both sustained an influx of immigration.>>
> 
> You seem to miss the meaning of the word Native/Indigenous.
> 
> All the tribes living in the Americas and Australia, Hawaii, New Zealand before the 1492 European "discovery" and colonization are the Indigenous, Native people of the land.
> 
> The people who had a Nation, culture and history living at the time of the various European invasions, or even the Assyrian invasion, were the Jewish People, also known as the Jewish Nation.
> 
> They were there when the Greeks, Romans, Byzantine and the Muslims arrived on that land.  It is all recorded in their documents, books, etc
> 
> Native = Indigenous = having formed a distinct people whose ancient history happened on that piece of land.
> 
> There are the Pagan, Christian and Muslim invaders of the Jewish Homeland, what had been the Nation of Israel.
> 
> A new majority due to Muslim and Christian migration to the land does not make that land, or in the Americas, etc.... any less belonging to any of the 500 First Nations, or the Mayans, Aztecs, etc.
> 
> All it means is that since that invasion the Indigenous people lost sovereignty over their land.
> 
> The Jews worked for and regained sovereignty over some of their land. Only 20% out of 100% of it, as it had been promised.
> 
> Muslims are totally against any Muslim conquered land being taken away from them by non Muslims.
> 
> THAT, in a nutshell, is the core of the conflict.  And why hamas and the PA will never accept any peace treaty with Israel as Egypt and Jordan were forced to do, due to financial considerations for their countries.
> 
> Jordan is already a State carved out of Palestine.
> Gaza should have become another one once Israel withdrew all Israelis in 2005.
> Hamas did not want a State.
> Their charter demands the destruction of all of Israel as a Jewish State, and a Muslim one in its place.
> It is the same thing with Abbas, the PLO, Fatah.
> 
> Defunding those Muslim organizations and UNWRA would be the first step to having those groups accept Israel as a State, and accepting to negotiate a Peace Treaty.
> 
> Egypt and Jordan did it.
> 
> Now is time for the other Muslims to do the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *The Holy Land Was Hollow Before the Jews Returned*
> 
> The rational historical analogy is just the opposite.  The Israelis are our brave and productive pioneers, the Arabs are the useless Indian savages.
Click to expand...


Please, do not offend the First Nations.    They were really there first before the Mayflower and all others began to arrive and not be happy later with what was available for them.
All water for Europeans, all desert for the Indians.

Arabs are from Arabia

Jews are from Judea


----------



## fanger

Sixties Fan said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Palestinian priest wants one-state solution with Palestinians in charge goes viral in Muslim world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From the church in Gaza.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Directly from Gaza:
> 
> Reporter:  Tell me Sir, how do you like to live in Gaza which is free of Jews.
> 
> Gaza Resident:  Just love it. That is how all Muslim Land should be.
> Jew Free.
> We are lucky that no Jews live here.
> We have only our leaders to blame around here....... secretly.
> They start a war, we blame Israel
> No water, we blame Israel.
> No electricity, we blame Israel.
> No homes, we blame Israel.
> No medicine, taken by Hamas, we blame Israel.
> No peace, we blame Israel.
> 
> And the Jews can do nothing about it
> 
> I just love living in Jew Free Gaza !!!!
Click to expand...

Fake quote


----------



## Coyote

Sixties Fan said:


> The Sage of Main Street said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think it is that simple.
> 
> The Palestinians might be calling for equal rights but many are also unwilling to allow Israeli Jews to remain there in the settlements should that become part of their new state.  In other words they are calling for expelling.  Likewise...they are and have been killing.
> 
> I think it's a mistake to broad brush the moral values of a people in that way - neither the Palestinians nor the Israeli's.
> 
> 
> 
> This is a difficult topic to discuss because the truth is untenable. Mentioning the truth brings an onslaught name calling and accusations. We will never achieve peace until the core issues are addressed. When the Palestinians, and others, call Israel 1948 occupied Palestine they are correct. No amount of time or political recognition will change that fact.
> 
> Israel is a settler colonial project. Both Britain and the Zionists said this regularly during the mandate period. That is what they called it. That is what it was. The facts on the ground confirm it. Nobody can deny it.
> 
> Settler colonialism is not an event it is a process that continues to today. Settler colonialism is the removal of the native population and replacing them with another people. We can see this process before our eyes. It is in the news all the time.
> 
> Now, how do we unwind this and fix the problem?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem is, 1948 is 70 years ago.  And in the meantime a state has been established.  You can't unwind it.
> 
> There is also another aspect that is ignored.  It's inaccurate to claim it's just the Jews colonizing a foreign land.  It isn't just that.  It's a bit of land, where multiple peoples live and have a heritage.  During the Jewish nationalistic struggle for that bit of land, there was an Arab nationalistic struggle for that same land.  But there seems to be a deliberate ignoring of the fact that the Jews were just as much the local people.  There are arguments about immigration. You have one side claiming the Palestinians are all foreign squatters and the other claiming the Jews are all foreign invaders.  But the truth is - both are native, and both sustained an influx of immigration.  Going against the "colonial settlement" model is the fact that Jews were also indiginous.  There have always been Jewish people there, even though many more migrated in.  Now if you are going to complain about that then why aren't you complaining the Arabs who immigrated into the area and are just as foreign as the Europeans?  And - why don't you acknowledge that the Jews also have a right to be there and have as much right to form a state in that period of time as the Palestinian Arabs did?
> 
> I don't think your going to fix the problem by "unwinding" history and you can't fix an injustice by creating more injustices.  You have to take what is there as it is now and work with it.  That means Israel, as a Jewish state, is not going to disappear.  It's established, it's proven it can run and hold a state, even though it most certainly has serious issues regarding equality and justice,  it's far more democratic, and has a far higher standard of human rights and religious freedom then any of it's neighboring states.  So fixing the problem should not be ending Israel's existence as a Jewish state because the Jews have as much right as the Palestinians to be there and to form a state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> <<But the truth is - both are native, and both sustained an influx of immigration.>>
> 
> You seem to miss the meaning of the word Native/Indigenous.
> 
> All the tribes living in the Americas and Australia, Hawaii, New Zealand before the 1492 European "discovery" and colonization are the Indigenous, Native people of the land.
> 
> The people who had a Nation, culture and history living at the time of the various European invasions, or even the Assyrian invasion, were the Jewish People, also known as the Jewish Nation.
> 
> They were there when the Greeks, Romans, Byzantine and the Muslims arrived on that land.  It is all recorded in their documents, books, etc
> 
> Native = Indigenous = having formed a distinct people whose ancient history happened on that piece of land.
> 
> There are the Pagan, Christian and Muslim invaders of the Jewish Homeland, what had been the Nation of Israel.
> 
> A new majority due to Muslim and Christian migration to the land does not make that land, or in the Americas, etc.... any less belonging to any of the 500 First Nations, or the Mayans, Aztecs, etc.
> 
> All it means is that since that invasion the Indigenous people lost sovereignty over their land.
> 
> The Jews worked for and regained sovereignty over some of their land. Only 20% out of 100% of it, as it had been promised.
> 
> Muslims are totally against any Muslim conquered land being taken away from them by non Muslims.
> 
> THAT, in a nutshell, is the core of the conflict.  And why hamas and the PA will never accept any peace treaty with Israel as Egypt and Jordan were forced to do, due to financial considerations for their countries.
> 
> Jordan is already a State carved out of Palestine.
> Gaza should have become another one once Israel withdrew all Israelis in 2005.
> Hamas did not want a State.
> Their charter demands the destruction of all of Israel as a Jewish State, and a Muslim one in its place.
> It is the same thing with Abbas, the PLO, Fatah.
> 
> Defunding those Muslim organizations and UNWRA would be the first step to having those groups accept Israel as a State, and accepting to negotiate a Peace Treaty.
> 
> Egypt and Jordan did it.
> 
> Now is time for the other Muslims to do the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *The Holy Land Was Hollow Before the Jews Returned*
> 
> The rational historical analogy is just the opposite.  The Israelis are our brave and productive pioneers, the Arabs are the useless Indian savages.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please, do not offend the First Nations.    They were really there first before the Mayflower and all others began to arrive and not be happy later with what was available for them.
> All water for Europeans, all desert for the Indians.
> 
> *Arabs are from Arabia*
> 
> Jews are from Judea
Click to expand...


That's not really true.  The term "Arab" has come to include a wide variety of peoples who's cultures have been "Arabisized"  - Arabic is the common language, and the culture is Arab influenced but that doesn't mean they came from Arabia.


----------



## The Sage of Main Street

Sixties Fan said:


> The Sage of Main Street said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think it is that simple.
> 
> The Palestinians might be calling for equal rights but many are also unwilling to allow Israeli Jews to remain there in the settlements should that become part of their new state.  In other words they are calling for expelling.  Likewise...they are and have been killing.
> 
> I think it's a mistake to broad brush the moral values of a people in that way - neither the Palestinians nor the Israeli's.
> 
> 
> 
> This is a difficult topic to discuss because the truth is untenable. Mentioning the truth brings an onslaught name calling and accusations. We will never achieve peace until the core issues are addressed. When the Palestinians, and others, call Israel 1948 occupied Palestine they are correct. No amount of time or political recognition will change that fact.
> 
> Israel is a settler colonial project. Both Britain and the Zionists said this regularly during the mandate period. That is what they called it. That is what it was. The facts on the ground confirm it. Nobody can deny it.
> 
> Settler colonialism is not an event it is a process that continues to today. Settler colonialism is the removal of the native population and replacing them with another people. We can see this process before our eyes. It is in the news all the time.
> 
> Now, how do we unwind this and fix the problem?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem is, 1948 is 70 years ago.  And in the meantime a state has been established.  You can't unwind it.
> 
> There is also another aspect that is ignored.  It's inaccurate to claim it's just the Jews colonizing a foreign land.  It isn't just that.  It's a bit of land, where multiple peoples live and have a heritage.  During the Jewish nationalistic struggle for that bit of land, there was an Arab nationalistic struggle for that same land.  But there seems to be a deliberate ignoring of the fact that the Jews were just as much the local people.  There are arguments about immigration. You have one side claiming the Palestinians are all foreign squatters and the other claiming the Jews are all foreign invaders.  But the truth is - both are native, and both sustained an influx of immigration.  Going against the "colonial settlement" model is the fact that Jews were also indiginous.  There have always been Jewish people there, even though many more migrated in.  Now if you are going to complain about that then why aren't you complaining the Arabs who immigrated into the area and are just as foreign as the Europeans?  And - why don't you acknowledge that the Jews also have a right to be there and have as much right to form a state in that period of time as the Palestinian Arabs did?
> 
> I don't think your going to fix the problem by "unwinding" history and you can't fix an injustice by creating more injustices.  You have to take what is there as it is now and work with it.  That means Israel, as a Jewish state, is not going to disappear.  It's established, it's proven it can run and hold a state, even though it most certainly has serious issues regarding equality and justice,  it's far more democratic, and has a far higher standard of human rights and religious freedom then any of it's neighboring states.  So fixing the problem should not be ending Israel's existence as a Jewish state because the Jews have as much right as the Palestinians to be there and to form a state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> <<But the truth is - both are native, and both sustained an influx of immigration.>>
> 
> You seem to miss the meaning of the word Native/Indigenous.
> 
> All the tribes living in the Americas and Australia, Hawaii, New Zealand before the 1492 European "discovery" and colonization are the Indigenous, Native people of the land.
> 
> The people who had a Nation, culture and history living at the time of the various European invasions, or even the Assyrian invasion, were the Jewish People, also known as the Jewish Nation.
> 
> They were there when the Greeks, Romans, Byzantine and the Muslims arrived on that land.  It is all recorded in their documents, books, etc
> 
> Native = Indigenous = having formed a distinct people whose ancient history happened on that piece of land.
> 
> There are the Pagan, Christian and Muslim invaders of the Jewish Homeland, what had been the Nation of Israel.
> 
> A new majority due to Muslim and Christian migration to the land does not make that land, or in the Americas, etc.... any less belonging to any of the 500 First Nations, or the Mayans, Aztecs, etc.
> 
> All it means is that since that invasion the Indigenous people lost sovereignty over their land.
> 
> The Jews worked for and regained sovereignty over some of their land. Only 20% out of 100% of it, as it had been promised.
> 
> Muslims are totally against any Muslim conquered land being taken away from them by non Muslims.
> 
> THAT, in a nutshell, is the core of the conflict.  And why hamas and the PA will never accept any peace treaty with Israel as Egypt and Jordan were forced to do, due to financial considerations for their countries.
> 
> Jordan is already a State carved out of Palestine.
> Gaza should have become another one once Israel withdrew all Israelis in 2005.
> Hamas did not want a State.
> Their charter demands the destruction of all of Israel as a Jewish State, and a Muslim one in its place.
> It is the same thing with Abbas, the PLO, Fatah.
> 
> Defunding those Muslim organizations and UNWRA would be the first step to having those groups accept Israel as a State, and accepting to negotiate a Peace Treaty.
> 
> Egypt and Jordan did it.
> 
> Now is time for the other Muslims to do the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *The Holy Land Was Hollow Before the Jews Returned*
> 
> The rational historical analogy is just the opposite.  The Israelis are our brave and productive pioneers, the Arabs are the useless Indian savages.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please, do not offend the First Nations.    They were really there first before the Mayflower and all others began to arrive and not be happy later with what was available for them.
> All water for Europeans, all desert for the Indians.
> 
> Arabs are from Arabia
> 
> Jews are from Judea
Click to expand...

*This Was the Neanderthal-Like Species the Great Wall of China Was Built Against*

They were never nations; they were tribal gangs continually engaging in genocide of any other tribe that got in their way.  You can't call some diverse horde a nation if all those in the nation only identify with a tiny part of that pseudo-nation.

  Prehistorically, the Indians came across from Siberia as criminal fugitives.  That's why these Mongoloids were driven into Siberia in the first place.  It may make you feel morally superior to adopt the glittery decadent richkids' Whiteys Hating Whitey attitude, but they also hate you.


----------



## Coyote

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> What about the Palestinians who owned homes, farms, orange groves, and shops in what is now Israel?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also -- what about the Jews who owned homes, farms, orange groves and shops in their former places of residence?  We can't unbreak that egg.  We just can't.
> 
> But there are lots of possibilities for restitution.  Compensation is probably the most practical.  Palestinian descendants of refugees who are stateless and living in unacceptable conditions should be given the option to choose their national citizenship -- Syrian, Jordanian, Lebanese or Palestinian and be relocated there, with generous compensation.  Descendants of refugees who have already resettled elsewhere, if they wish to return, should have to apply to which ever country they wish to immigrate to.  I think there is room to consider permitting the actual refugees (not the descendants) to return to their places of origin should they wish, and even to their actual homes or orchards or shops, if that is possible.
> 
> We can't put things back the way they were.  There is no way to do that.  But we can ensure that all peoples affected by the conflict live safe, comfortable lives.  And that has always been the goal of human rights.
Click to expand...


I've had a long time to think about this, and the injustice of losing old family property and being reduced to living in far worse circumstances through events you  had no ability to redress is very unjust.  But I think this probably the most fair and realistic situation.  You can't put broken eggs back together.   And you break even more in the process of trying.


----------



## Sixties Fan

Coyote said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Sage of Main Street said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a difficult topic to discuss because the truth is untenable. Mentioning the truth brings an onslaught name calling and accusations. We will never achieve peace until the core issues are addressed. When the Palestinians, and others, call Israel 1948 occupied Palestine they are correct. No amount of time or political recognition will change that fact.
> 
> Israel is a settler colonial project. Both Britain and the Zionists said this regularly during the mandate period. That is what they called it. That is what it was. The facts on the ground confirm it. Nobody can deny it.
> 
> Settler colonialism is not an event it is a process that continues to today. Settler colonialism is the removal of the native population and replacing them with another people. We can see this process before our eyes. It is in the news all the time.
> 
> Now, how do we unwind this and fix the problem?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is, 1948 is 70 years ago.  And in the meantime a state has been established.  You can't unwind it.
> 
> There is also another aspect that is ignored.  It's inaccurate to claim it's just the Jews colonizing a foreign land.  It isn't just that.  It's a bit of land, where multiple peoples live and have a heritage.  During the Jewish nationalistic struggle for that bit of land, there was an Arab nationalistic struggle for that same land.  But there seems to be a deliberate ignoring of the fact that the Jews were just as much the local people.  There are arguments about immigration. You have one side claiming the Palestinians are all foreign squatters and the other claiming the Jews are all foreign invaders.  But the truth is - both are native, and both sustained an influx of immigration.  Going against the "colonial settlement" model is the fact that Jews were also indiginous.  There have always been Jewish people there, even though many more migrated in.  Now if you are going to complain about that then why aren't you complaining the Arabs who immigrated into the area and are just as foreign as the Europeans?  And - why don't you acknowledge that the Jews also have a right to be there and have as much right to form a state in that period of time as the Palestinian Arabs did?
> 
> I don't think your going to fix the problem by "unwinding" history and you can't fix an injustice by creating more injustices.  You have to take what is there as it is now and work with it.  That means Israel, as a Jewish state, is not going to disappear.  It's established, it's proven it can run and hold a state, even though it most certainly has serious issues regarding equality and justice,  it's far more democratic, and has a far higher standard of human rights and religious freedom then any of it's neighboring states.  So fixing the problem should not be ending Israel's existence as a Jewish state because the Jews have as much right as the Palestinians to be there and to form a state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> <<But the truth is - both are native, and both sustained an influx of immigration.>>
> 
> You seem to miss the meaning of the word Native/Indigenous.
> 
> All the tribes living in the Americas and Australia, Hawaii, New Zealand before the 1492 European "discovery" and colonization are the Indigenous, Native people of the land.
> 
> The people who had a Nation, culture and history living at the time of the various European invasions, or even the Assyrian invasion, were the Jewish People, also known as the Jewish Nation.
> 
> They were there when the Greeks, Romans, Byzantine and the Muslims arrived on that land.  It is all recorded in their documents, books, etc
> 
> Native = Indigenous = having formed a distinct people whose ancient history happened on that piece of land.
> 
> There are the Pagan, Christian and Muslim invaders of the Jewish Homeland, what had been the Nation of Israel.
> 
> A new majority due to Muslim and Christian migration to the land does not make that land, or in the Americas, etc.... any less belonging to any of the 500 First Nations, or the Mayans, Aztecs, etc.
> 
> All it means is that since that invasion the Indigenous people lost sovereignty over their land.
> 
> The Jews worked for and regained sovereignty over some of their land. Only 20% out of 100% of it, as it had been promised.
> 
> Muslims are totally against any Muslim conquered land being taken away from them by non Muslims.
> 
> THAT, in a nutshell, is the core of the conflict.  And why hamas and the PA will never accept any peace treaty with Israel as Egypt and Jordan were forced to do, due to financial considerations for their countries.
> 
> Jordan is already a State carved out of Palestine.
> Gaza should have become another one once Israel withdrew all Israelis in 2005.
> Hamas did not want a State.
> Their charter demands the destruction of all of Israel as a Jewish State, and a Muslim one in its place.
> It is the same thing with Abbas, the PLO, Fatah.
> 
> Defunding those Muslim organizations and UNWRA would be the first step to having those groups accept Israel as a State, and accepting to negotiate a Peace Treaty.
> 
> Egypt and Jordan did it.
> 
> Now is time for the other Muslims to do the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *The Holy Land Was Hollow Before the Jews Returned*
> 
> The rational historical analogy is just the opposite.  The Israelis are our brave and productive pioneers, the Arabs are the useless Indian savages.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please, do not offend the First Nations.    They were really there first before the Mayflower and all others began to arrive and not be happy later with what was available for them.
> All water for Europeans, all desert for the Indians.
> 
> *Arabs are from Arabia*
> 
> Jews are from Judea
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's not really true.  The term "Arab" has come to include a wide variety of peoples who's cultures have been "Arabisized"  - Arabic is the common language, and the culture is Arab influenced but that doesn't mean they came from Arabia.
Click to expand...



The term Arab means all who identify as such having come from the Arabian Peninsula.  The Saudi, the Hashemites, the Husseini, the Yemenites, the UAE, Qatar, are all Arab, in language, culture, etc because they developed that history more then 2000 years ago.
It is melting pot, an ethnicity, not a race.

The same goes for the Jews.  Most Jews are from the area of Ancient Canaan.  A melting pot of all the Canaanite tribes which formed the Nation of Israel, and eventually the people came to be known as Jews, from the area of Judea (Judah, one of the twelve tribes).

Arabs, with all who eventually moved to Arabia and were born there ages ago, are known as Arabs.

Berbers and any other ethnicity, like the Kurds, Copts, Yazidis, Assyrians,  etc are not Arabs.
They call themselves Berbers, and not Arabs.  I have met one.
He spoke Arabic, but did not call himself an Arab, because he was a Berber, which is a distinct group from the Arabs.


Being "Arabized" is not the same thing as being an Arab.
Speaking Arabic, as many Jews did in Arab countries, does not make anyone an Arab. Copts in Egypt speak Arabic, and they are not Arabs.

Arabs now live all over the world.  It does not mean that they did not originate from the Arabian Peninsula.  If not, they would not call themselves Arabs, as the Husseini and their descendants, who came from Arabia into Jerusalem in the 11th century , did.

Jews are not Jews?

Arabs are not Arabs?

Seriously????


----------



## Sixties Fan

The Sage of Main Street said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Sage of Main Street said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a difficult topic to discuss because the truth is untenable. Mentioning the truth brings an onslaught name calling and accusations. We will never achieve peace until the core issues are addressed. When the Palestinians, and others, call Israel 1948 occupied Palestine they are correct. No amount of time or political recognition will change that fact.
> 
> Israel is a settler colonial project. Both Britain and the Zionists said this regularly during the mandate period. That is what they called it. That is what it was. The facts on the ground confirm it. Nobody can deny it.
> 
> Settler colonialism is not an event it is a process that continues to today. Settler colonialism is the removal of the native population and replacing them with another people. We can see this process before our eyes. It is in the news all the time.
> 
> Now, how do we unwind this and fix the problem?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is, 1948 is 70 years ago.  And in the meantime a state has been established.  You can't unwind it.
> 
> There is also another aspect that is ignored.  It's inaccurate to claim it's just the Jews colonizing a foreign land.  It isn't just that.  It's a bit of land, where multiple peoples live and have a heritage.  During the Jewish nationalistic struggle for that bit of land, there was an Arab nationalistic struggle for that same land.  But there seems to be a deliberate ignoring of the fact that the Jews were just as much the local people.  There are arguments about immigration. You have one side claiming the Palestinians are all foreign squatters and the other claiming the Jews are all foreign invaders.  But the truth is - both are native, and both sustained an influx of immigration.  Going against the "colonial settlement" model is the fact that Jews were also indiginous.  There have always been Jewish people there, even though many more migrated in.  Now if you are going to complain about that then why aren't you complaining the Arabs who immigrated into the area and are just as foreign as the Europeans?  And - why don't you acknowledge that the Jews also have a right to be there and have as much right to form a state in that period of time as the Palestinian Arabs did?
> 
> I don't think your going to fix the problem by "unwinding" history and you can't fix an injustice by creating more injustices.  You have to take what is there as it is now and work with it.  That means Israel, as a Jewish state, is not going to disappear.  It's established, it's proven it can run and hold a state, even though it most certainly has serious issues regarding equality and justice,  it's far more democratic, and has a far higher standard of human rights and religious freedom then any of it's neighboring states.  So fixing the problem should not be ending Israel's existence as a Jewish state because the Jews have as much right as the Palestinians to be there and to form a state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> <<But the truth is - both are native, and both sustained an influx of immigration.>>
> 
> You seem to miss the meaning of the word Native/Indigenous.
> 
> All the tribes living in the Americas and Australia, Hawaii, New Zealand before the 1492 European "discovery" and colonization are the Indigenous, Native people of the land.
> 
> The people who had a Nation, culture and history living at the time of the various European invasions, or even the Assyrian invasion, were the Jewish People, also known as the Jewish Nation.
> 
> They were there when the Greeks, Romans, Byzantine and the Muslims arrived on that land.  It is all recorded in their documents, books, etc
> 
> Native = Indigenous = having formed a distinct people whose ancient history happened on that piece of land.
> 
> There are the Pagan, Christian and Muslim invaders of the Jewish Homeland, what had been the Nation of Israel.
> 
> A new majority due to Muslim and Christian migration to the land does not make that land, or in the Americas, etc.... any less belonging to any of the 500 First Nations, or the Mayans, Aztecs, etc.
> 
> All it means is that since that invasion the Indigenous people lost sovereignty over their land.
> 
> The Jews worked for and regained sovereignty over some of their land. Only 20% out of 100% of it, as it had been promised.
> 
> Muslims are totally against any Muslim conquered land being taken away from them by non Muslims.
> 
> THAT, in a nutshell, is the core of the conflict.  And why hamas and the PA will never accept any peace treaty with Israel as Egypt and Jordan were forced to do, due to financial considerations for their countries.
> 
> Jordan is already a State carved out of Palestine.
> Gaza should have become another one once Israel withdrew all Israelis in 2005.
> Hamas did not want a State.
> Their charter demands the destruction of all of Israel as a Jewish State, and a Muslim one in its place.
> It is the same thing with Abbas, the PLO, Fatah.
> 
> Defunding those Muslim organizations and UNWRA would be the first step to having those groups accept Israel as a State, and accepting to negotiate a Peace Treaty.
> 
> Egypt and Jordan did it.
> 
> Now is time for the other Muslims to do the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *The Holy Land Was Hollow Before the Jews Returned*
> 
> The rational historical analogy is just the opposite.  The Israelis are our brave and productive pioneers, the Arabs are the useless Indian savages.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please, do not offend the First Nations.    They were really there first before the Mayflower and all others began to arrive and not be happy later with what was available for them.
> All water for Europeans, all desert for the Indians.
> 
> Arabs are from Arabia
> 
> Jews are from Judea
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *This Was the Neanderthal-Like Species the Great Wall of China Was Built Against*
> 
> They were never nations; they were tribal gangs continually engaging in genocide of any other tribe that got in their way.  You can't call some diverse horde a nation if all those in the nation only identify with a tiny part of that pseudo-nation.
> 
> Prehistorically, the Indians came across from Siberia as criminal fugitives.  That's why these Mongoloids were driven into Siberia in the first place.  It may make you feel morally superior to adopt the glittery decadent richkids' Whiteys Hating Whitey attitude, but they also hate you.
Click to expand...


Delegitimizing the First Nations of America, now?
And the ones from Australia, Hawaii, New Zealand, and other Americas as well????

Just let any one of them hear you say that .  Or that all First Nations would agree that they hate Jews, too.

Tsk, Tsk, Tsk

Discredit one, discredit all.

Wholesale discrediting


----------



## Coyote

...


Sixties Fan said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can find no evidence that Israel has ever legally acquired any land.
> 
> Just a lot of smoke and say so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Demonstrably untrue, but that was not the question Coyote was really asking you.  The question is whether or not you can support a two state solution -- a dividing of the territory NOW, legally, by treaty.  Yes or no?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The proof will be in Ottoman and British records.
> 
> Tel-Aviv was bought on land Jews purchased.  A swamp not wanted by anyone else.
> They bought land, Arabs bought land.
> Jews bought land where the absentee owners wanted to sell the land.
> 
> Think-Israel
> 
> It is without doubt that the Jews, in their quest to purchase and acquire more land, did not take any land from Arabs unlawfully. Furthermore, Arab absentee landlords living elsewhere and real estate brokers sold their land to Jews at an inflated cost.
> 
> As of today, not a single person representing the pro-Palestinian view has been able to contradict this reality using any official documentation, land data or historical records.
> ---------------------
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Private ownership of land does not remove that land from the country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There was hardly any private ownership by the poor Arabs who were toiling the land.
> 
> You insist in forgetting that none of the Arabs in the North of Israel left the land, which had become Israel.
> They were not foolish enough to believe the Arab leaders who told the ones in the south to leave and for those who could, fight and kill the Jews.
> 
> The Arabs lost the war.  They do not get a do over, as they tried again and again in 1957, 1967 and 1973 and lost all the other three times as well.
> 
> By all means, choose to forget that Israel did not expel all the Muslims from the North of Israel, or anywhere else in what became Israel in 1948.
> 
> Nor did they expel any Muslims in 1957, or 1967 when Israel got the areas of Judea and Samaria.  No Muslims were expelled from "East Jerusalem", which had been populated by Jews until 1948.  It was known as the Jewish Quarter of the city of Jerusalem until 1948.
> Now it is mostly populated by Arabs who will not give back homes belonging to Jews, as you seem to be demanding that Jews return lands, and homes never really owned by Arabs.
> 
> *The Arabs with proof that the property was theirs are allowed to reclaim their property under Israeli law.*
> 
> There is no such law under the PLO, the PA, Fatah, or Hamas to return Jewish properties.
Click to expand...


Not necessarily.

Israel can now legally seize Palestinians' homes in Jerusalem
http://www.catholicregister.org/hom...-west-bank-landowners-cant-get-to-their-land=
Israeli Aide Bars Policy of Seizing Arab Land


----------



## Coyote

...


Sixties Fan said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can find no evidence that Israel has ever legally acquired any land.
> 
> Just a lot of smoke and say so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Demonstrably untrue, but that was not the question Coyote was really asking you.  The question is whether or not you can support a two state solution -- a dividing of the territory NOW, legally, by treaty.  Yes or no?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The proof will be in Ottoman and British records.
> 
> Tel-Aviv was bought on land Jews purchased.  A swamp not wanted by anyone else.
> They bought land, Arabs bought land.
> Jews bought land where the absentee owners wanted to sell the land.
> 
> Think-Israel
> 
> It is without doubt that the Jews, in their quest to purchase and acquire more land, did not take any land from Arabs unlawfully. Furthermore, Arab absentee landlords living elsewhere and real estate brokers sold their land to Jews at an inflated cost.
> 
> As of today, not a single person representing the pro-Palestinian view has been able to contradict this reality using any official documentation, land data or historical records.
> ---------------------
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Private ownership of land does not remove that land from the country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There was hardly any private ownership by the poor Arabs who were toiling the land.
> 
> You insist in forgetting that none of the Arabs in the North of Israel left the land, which had become Israel.
> They were not foolish enough to believe the Arab leaders who told the ones in the south to leave and for those who could, fight and kill the Jews.
> 
> The Arabs lost the war.  They do not get a do over, as they tried again and again in 1957, 1967 and 1973 and lost all the other three times as well.
> 
> By all means, choose to forget that Israel did not expel all the Muslims from the North of Israel, or anywhere else in what became Israel in 1948.
> 
> Nor did they expel any Muslims in 1957, or 1967 when Israel got the areas of Judea and Samaria.  No Muslims were expelled from "East Jerusalem", which had been populated by Jews until 1948.  It was known as the Jewish Quarter of the city of Jerusalem until 1948.
> Now it is mostly populated by Arabs who will not give back homes belonging to Jews, as you seem to be demanding that Jews return lands, and homes never really owned by Arabs.
> 
> *The Arabs with proof that the property was theirs are allowed to reclaim their property under Israeli law.*
> 
> There is no such law under the PLO, the PA, Fatah, or Hamas to return Jewish properties.
Click to expand...


Not necessarily.

Israel can now legally seize Palestinians' homes in Jerusalem
Absentee landowners? West Bank landowners can't get to their land
Israeli Aide Bars Policy of Seizing Arab Land


----------



## Sixties Fan

Coyote said:


> ...
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can find no evidence that Israel has ever legally acquired any land.
> 
> Just a lot of smoke and say so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Demonstrably untrue, but that was not the question Coyote was really asking you.  The question is whether or not you can support a two state solution -- a dividing of the territory NOW, legally, by treaty.  Yes or no?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The proof will be in Ottoman and British records.
> 
> Tel-Aviv was bought on land Jews purchased.  A swamp not wanted by anyone else.
> They bought land, Arabs bought land.
> Jews bought land where the absentee owners wanted to sell the land.
> 
> Think-Israel
> 
> It is without doubt that the Jews, in their quest to purchase and acquire more land, did not take any land from Arabs unlawfully. Furthermore, Arab absentee landlords living elsewhere and real estate brokers sold their land to Jews at an inflated cost.
> 
> As of today, not a single person representing the pro-Palestinian view has been able to contradict this reality using any official documentation, land data or historical records.
> ---------------------
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Private ownership of land does not remove that land from the country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There was hardly any private ownership by the poor Arabs who were toiling the land.
> 
> You insist in forgetting that none of the Arabs in the North of Israel left the land, which had become Israel.
> They were not foolish enough to believe the Arab leaders who told the ones in the south to leave and for those who could, fight and kill the Jews.
> 
> The Arabs lost the war.  They do not get a do over, as they tried again and again in 1957, 1967 and 1973 and lost all the other three times as well.
> 
> By all means, choose to forget that Israel did not expel all the Muslims from the North of Israel, or anywhere else in what became Israel in 1948.
> 
> Nor did they expel any Muslims in 1957, or 1967 when Israel got the areas of Judea and Samaria.  No Muslims were expelled from "East Jerusalem", which had been populated by Jews until 1948.  It was known as the Jewish Quarter of the city of Jerusalem until 1948.
> Now it is mostly populated by Arabs who will not give back homes belonging to Jews, as you seem to be demanding that Jews return lands, and homes never really owned by Arabs.
> 
> *The Arabs with proof that the property was theirs are allowed to reclaim their property under Israeli law.*
> 
> There is no such law under the PLO, the PA, Fatah, or Hamas to return Jewish properties.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not necessarily.
> 
> Israel can now legally seize Palestinians' homes in Jerusalem
> Absentee landowners? West Bank landowners can't get to their land
> Israeli Aide Bars Policy of Seizing Arab Land
Click to expand...



Are you at all aware that Jewish property has been seized by Arabs from 1920 to 1948, in Gaza, Hebron, Sfad, TransJordan, and later in all the Arab countries where they were expelled?

They "legally" seized all of those properties by law, by stripping all Jews of their citizenship in those Arab and European countries as well.

If the Landowner is absentee, and cannot be found, in the case of any property in Israel, the State does have the right after many years of trying to have the owners come forward, to take over said property.

It would be the same in any country.

Israel is not lawless.  The courts usually favor the Arabs in their claims for property, even if they do not show any proof of it.

Anywhere in the world, if one cannot show proof of ownership of land, the land reverts back to the State.


----------



## Coyote

Sixties Fan said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Sage of Main Street said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is, 1948 is 70 years ago.  And in the meantime a state has been established.  You can't unwind it.
> 
> There is also another aspect that is ignored.  It's inaccurate to claim it's just the Jews colonizing a foreign land.  It isn't just that.  It's a bit of land, where multiple peoples live and have a heritage.  During the Jewish nationalistic struggle for that bit of land, there was an Arab nationalistic struggle for that same land.  But there seems to be a deliberate ignoring of the fact that the Jews were just as much the local people.  There are arguments about immigration. You have one side claiming the Palestinians are all foreign squatters and the other claiming the Jews are all foreign invaders.  But the truth is - both are native, and both sustained an influx of immigration.  Going against the "colonial settlement" model is the fact that Jews were also indiginous.  There have always been Jewish people there, even though many more migrated in.  Now if you are going to complain about that then why aren't you complaining the Arabs who immigrated into the area and are just as foreign as the Europeans?  And - why don't you acknowledge that the Jews also have a right to be there and have as much right to form a state in that period of time as the Palestinian Arabs did?
> 
> I don't think your going to fix the problem by "unwinding" history and you can't fix an injustice by creating more injustices.  You have to take what is there as it is now and work with it.  That means Israel, as a Jewish state, is not going to disappear.  It's established, it's proven it can run and hold a state, even though it most certainly has serious issues regarding equality and justice,  it's far more democratic, and has a far higher standard of human rights and religious freedom then any of it's neighboring states.  So fixing the problem should not be ending Israel's existence as a Jewish state because the Jews have as much right as the Palestinians to be there and to form a state.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> <<But the truth is - both are native, and both sustained an influx of immigration.>>
> 
> You seem to miss the meaning of the word Native/Indigenous.
> 
> All the tribes living in the Americas and Australia, Hawaii, New Zealand before the 1492 European "discovery" and colonization are the Indigenous, Native people of the land.
> 
> The people who had a Nation, culture and history living at the time of the various European invasions, or even the Assyrian invasion, were the Jewish People, also known as the Jewish Nation.
> 
> They were there when the Greeks, Romans, Byzantine and the Muslims arrived on that land.  It is all recorded in their documents, books, etc
> 
> Native = Indigenous = having formed a distinct people whose ancient history happened on that piece of land.
> 
> There are the Pagan, Christian and Muslim invaders of the Jewish Homeland, what had been the Nation of Israel.
> 
> A new majority due to Muslim and Christian migration to the land does not make that land, or in the Americas, etc.... any less belonging to any of the 500 First Nations, or the Mayans, Aztecs, etc.
> 
> All it means is that since that invasion the Indigenous people lost sovereignty over their land.
> 
> The Jews worked for and regained sovereignty over some of their land. Only 20% out of 100% of it, as it had been promised.
> 
> Muslims are totally against any Muslim conquered land being taken away from them by non Muslims.
> 
> THAT, in a nutshell, is the core of the conflict.  And why hamas and the PA will never accept any peace treaty with Israel as Egypt and Jordan were forced to do, due to financial considerations for their countries.
> 
> Jordan is already a State carved out of Palestine.
> Gaza should have become another one once Israel withdrew all Israelis in 2005.
> Hamas did not want a State.
> Their charter demands the destruction of all of Israel as a Jewish State, and a Muslim one in its place.
> It is the same thing with Abbas, the PLO, Fatah.
> 
> Defunding those Muslim organizations and UNWRA would be the first step to having those groups accept Israel as a State, and accepting to negotiate a Peace Treaty.
> 
> Egypt and Jordan did it.
> 
> Now is time for the other Muslims to do the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *The Holy Land Was Hollow Before the Jews Returned*
> 
> The rational historical analogy is just the opposite.  The Israelis are our brave and productive pioneers, the Arabs are the useless Indian savages.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please, do not offend the First Nations.    They were really there first before the Mayflower and all others began to arrive and not be happy later with what was available for them.
> All water for Europeans, all desert for the Indians.
> 
> *Arabs are from Arabia*
> 
> Jews are from Judea
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's not really true.  The term "Arab" has come to include a wide variety of peoples who's cultures have been "Arabisized"  - Arabic is the common language, and the culture is Arab influenced but that doesn't mean they came from Arabia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The term Arab means all who identify as such having come from the Arabian Peninsula.  The Saudi, the Hashemites, the Husseini, the Yemenites, the UAE, Qatar, are all Arab, in language, culture, etc because they developed that history more then 2000 years ago.
> It is melting pot, an ethnicity, not a race.
> 
> The same goes for the Jews.  Most Jews are from the area of Ancient Canaan.  A melting pot of all the Canaanite tribes which formed the Nation of Israel, and eventually the people came to be known as Jews, from the area of Judea (Judah, one of the twelve tribes).
> 
> Arabs, with all who eventually moved to Arabia and were born there ages ago, are known as Arabs.
> 
> Berbers and any other ethnicity, like the Kurds, Copts, Yazidis, Assyrians,  etc are not Arabs.
> They call themselves Berbers, and not Arabs.  I have met one.
> He spoke Arabic, but did not call himself an Arab, because he was a Berber, which is a distinct group from the Arabs.
> 
> 
> Being "Arabized" is not the same thing as being an Arab.
> Speaking Arabic, as many Jews did in Arab countries, does not make anyone an Arab. Copts in Egypt speak Arabic, and they are not Arabs.
> 
> Arabs now live all over the world.  It does not mean that they did not originate from the Arabian Peninsula.  If not, they would not call themselves Arabs, as the Husseini and their descendants, who came from Arabia into Jerusalem in the 11th century , did.
> 
> Jews are not Jews?
> 
> Arabs are not Arabs?
> 
> Seriously????
Click to expand...


Let me ask you before I go further:  are you arguing that all the "Arab" people in what is now referred to as Palestine/Israel came from elsewhere?


----------



## Sixties Fan

Coyote said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Sage of Main Street said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> <<But the truth is - both are native, and both sustained an influx of immigration.>>
> 
> You seem to miss the meaning of the word Native/Indigenous.
> 
> All the tribes living in the Americas and Australia, Hawaii, New Zealand before the 1492 European "discovery" and colonization are the Indigenous, Native people of the land.
> 
> The people who had a Nation, culture and history living at the time of the various European invasions, or even the Assyrian invasion, were the Jewish People, also known as the Jewish Nation.
> 
> They were there when the Greeks, Romans, Byzantine and the Muslims arrived on that land.  It is all recorded in their documents, books, etc
> 
> Native = Indigenous = having formed a distinct people whose ancient history happened on that piece of land.
> 
> There are the Pagan, Christian and Muslim invaders of the Jewish Homeland, what had been the Nation of Israel.
> 
> A new majority due to Muslim and Christian migration to the land does not make that land, or in the Americas, etc.... any less belonging to any of the 500 First Nations, or the Mayans, Aztecs, etc.
> 
> All it means is that since that invasion the Indigenous people lost sovereignty over their land.
> 
> The Jews worked for and regained sovereignty over some of their land. Only 20% out of 100% of it, as it had been promised.
> 
> Muslims are totally against any Muslim conquered land being taken away from them by non Muslims.
> 
> THAT, in a nutshell, is the core of the conflict.  And why hamas and the PA will never accept any peace treaty with Israel as Egypt and Jordan were forced to do, due to financial considerations for their countries.
> 
> Jordan is already a State carved out of Palestine.
> Gaza should have become another one once Israel withdrew all Israelis in 2005.
> Hamas did not want a State.
> Their charter demands the destruction of all of Israel as a Jewish State, and a Muslim one in its place.
> It is the same thing with Abbas, the PLO, Fatah.
> 
> Defunding those Muslim organizations and UNWRA would be the first step to having those groups accept Israel as a State, and accepting to negotiate a Peace Treaty.
> 
> Egypt and Jordan did it.
> 
> Now is time for the other Muslims to do the same.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The Holy Land Was Hollow Before the Jews Returned*
> 
> The rational historical analogy is just the opposite.  The Israelis are our brave and productive pioneers, the Arabs are the useless Indian savages.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please, do not offend the First Nations.    They were really there first before the Mayflower and all others began to arrive and not be happy later with what was available for them.
> All water for Europeans, all desert for the Indians.
> 
> *Arabs are from Arabia*
> 
> Jews are from Judea
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's not really true.  The term "Arab" has come to include a wide variety of peoples who's cultures have been "Arabisized"  - Arabic is the common language, and the culture is Arab influenced but that doesn't mean they came from Arabia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The term Arab means all who identify as such having come from the Arabian Peninsula.  The Saudi, the Hashemites, the Husseini, the Yemenites, the UAE, Qatar, are all Arab, in language, culture, etc because they developed that history more then 2000 years ago.
> It is melting pot, an ethnicity, not a race.
> 
> The same goes for the Jews.  Most Jews are from the area of Ancient Canaan.  A melting pot of all the Canaanite tribes which formed the Nation of Israel, and eventually the people came to be known as Jews, from the area of Judea (Judah, one of the twelve tribes).
> 
> Arabs, with all who eventually moved to Arabia and were born there ages ago, are known as Arabs.
> 
> Berbers and any other ethnicity, like the Kurds, Copts, Yazidis, Assyrians,  etc are not Arabs.
> They call themselves Berbers, and not Arabs.  I have met one.
> He spoke Arabic, but did not call himself an Arab, because he was a Berber, which is a distinct group from the Arabs.
> 
> 
> Being "Arabized" is not the same thing as being an Arab.
> Speaking Arabic, as many Jews did in Arab countries, does not make anyone an Arab. Copts in Egypt speak Arabic, and they are not Arabs.
> 
> Arabs now live all over the world.  It does not mean that they did not originate from the Arabian Peninsula.  If not, they would not call themselves Arabs, as the Husseini and their descendants, who came from Arabia into Jerusalem in the 11th century , did.
> 
> Jews are not Jews?
> 
> Arabs are not Arabs?
> 
> Seriously????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me ask you before I go further:  are you arguing that all the "Arab" people in what is now referred to as Palestine/Israel came from elsewhere?
Click to expand...



That is the meaning of the word Arab.  Those who come from Arabia.
Like anyone else, they have moved outside Arabia, especially after the 7th century CE.

They went to other parts of Asia, Europe, Americas, Australia.
They are still, and will continue to be, indigenous of the Arabian Peninsula where they originated.

The Jews just did the same thing, even before the Greek and Roman invasions. Going to Europe with Caesar or during the 70 CE revolt.  They are still indigenous from the ancient Land of Canaan, the Land of Israel.

Palestine is a Region.
There was never a Palestinian People on that land, be it the Jews, or anyone else.

A Palestinian People arose from the Arab leaders in the area needing to keep the Jews from recreating their National Homeland.

Yes, there were Arabs on the land since the 7th Century invasion.
They never called themselves Palestinians or anything else but Arabs and Muslims until 1964.  
If the Mandate for Palestine had been called the Mandate for Israel, they would be calling themselves the real Israelites, now.
If it had been called the Mandate for Canaan, they would be calling themselves Canaanites, now.

But in reality, Arabs are Arabs, and they are indigenous of Arabia.

Palestinian Authority Head Admits "Palestinian People" Don't Exist

Do Berbers call themselves Arabs?  No
Do the Copts?  No.
Do any other indigenous people in the Middle East call themselves Arabs, besides the Arabs?  No

Not the Kurds.  And they are in Mesopotamia, Iraq.
Not the Assyrians, who are in Syria.


Who are the Palestinian Arabs?
Where did all their ancestors come from?


----------



## Coyote

Sixties Fan said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Demonstrably untrue, but that was not the question Coyote was really asking you.  The question is whether or not you can support a two state solution -- a dividing of the territory NOW, legally, by treaty.  Yes or no?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The proof will be in Ottoman and British records.
> 
> Tel-Aviv was bought on land Jews purchased.  A swamp not wanted by anyone else.
> They bought land, Arabs bought land.
> Jews bought land where the absentee owners wanted to sell the land.
> 
> Think-Israel
> 
> It is without doubt that the Jews, in their quest to purchase and acquire more land, did not take any land from Arabs unlawfully. Furthermore, Arab absentee landlords living elsewhere and real estate brokers sold their land to Jews at an inflated cost.
> 
> As of today, not a single person representing the pro-Palestinian view has been able to contradict this reality using any official documentation, land data or historical records.
> ---------------------
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Private ownership of land does not remove that land from the country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There was hardly any private ownership by the poor Arabs who were toiling the land.
> 
> You insist in forgetting that none of the Arabs in the North of Israel left the land, which had become Israel.
> They were not foolish enough to believe the Arab leaders who told the ones in the south to leave and for those who could, fight and kill the Jews.
> 
> The Arabs lost the war.  They do not get a do over, as they tried again and again in 1957, 1967 and 1973 and lost all the other three times as well.
> 
> By all means, choose to forget that Israel did not expel all the Muslims from the North of Israel, or anywhere else in what became Israel in 1948.
> 
> Nor did they expel any Muslims in 1957, or 1967 when Israel got the areas of Judea and Samaria.  No Muslims were expelled from "East Jerusalem", which had been populated by Jews until 1948.  It was known as the Jewish Quarter of the city of Jerusalem until 1948.
> Now it is mostly populated by Arabs who will not give back homes belonging to Jews, as you seem to be demanding that Jews return lands, and homes never really owned by Arabs.
> 
> *The Arabs with proof that the property was theirs are allowed to reclaim their property under Israeli law.*
> 
> There is no such law under the PLO, the PA, Fatah, or Hamas to return Jewish properties.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not necessarily.
> 
> Israel can now legally seize Palestinians' homes in Jerusalem
> Absentee landowners? West Bank landowners can't get to their land
> Israeli Aide Bars Policy of Seizing Arab Land
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Are you at all aware that Jewish property has been seized by Arabs from 1920 to 1948, in Gaza, Hebron, Sfad, TransJordan, and later in all the Arab countries where they were expelled?
> 
> They "legally" seized all of those properties by law, by stripping all Jews of their citizenship in those Arab and European countries as well.
Click to expand...


Yes, I was "at all aware" of that, as well as the explusion of Jews from Arab countries and the treatment of Jews in Europe.  I'm not sure how that is any sort of justification for continuing the practice of seizures and confiscations.

Those who's lands were confiscated during the expulsions should get compensation.



> If the Landowner is absentee, and cannot be found, in the case of any property in Israel, the State does have the right after many years of trying to have the owners come forward, to take over said property.
> 
> It would be the same in any country.
> 
> Israel is not lawless.  The courts usually favor the Arabs in their claims for property, even if they do not show any proof of it.
> 
> Anywhere in the world, if one cannot show proof of ownership of land, the land reverts back to the State.



I would be the first to agree that land law and land rights in that part of the world are extremely complicated compared to say the US or Europe. But in my view there is little question that the absentee land owners law, and associated later laws were put in place primarily to allow for easy confiscation of property.

Of course Israel is not a lawless state, but that doesn't mean it's laws are always just.

In the case of "absentee land owner laws" - I disagree with you.  Quite often the owner CAN be found, but is unable to enter the country.  These laws are also frequently used to confiscate property, and in fact that was a large reason they were created in the first place.  Jews have a lower burden of proof in order to reclaim property than Palestinians.

Arabs, Jews don't have equal rights to recover property
_In 1950, the Knesset passed the Absentees Property Law, which declared that *any property situated within the post-war boundaries of Israel and owned by an Arab who had left the country between November 29, 1947 and May 19, 1948, or by a Palestinian who went abroad or to an area of Palestine held by hostile forces up to September 1, 1948, lost all rights to that property.*

The law appointed a Custodianship Council for Absentees' Property, whose president was to be known as the custodian of absentees' property. It then declared that "every right an absentee had in any property shall pass automatically to the custodian at the time of the vesting of the property; and the status of the custodian shall be the same as was that of the owner of the property."

In other words, the law stated that all property belonging to "absentee" owners *was irretrievably lost to them.*..

...Ironically, the Palestinians who are being evicted from Sheikh Jarrah were in exactly the same positions as the Jewish owners of the land they have lived on since 1956. They owned property in west Jerusalem and lost it as a result of the War of Independence, while the Sephardic Community and Knesset Israel committees owned land in east Jerusalem and lost it as a result of the War of Independence.

The difference is, however, that *because of Israeli legislation, the Jewish landowners could recover their land once the city was united, but the Palestinian landowners could not.*_​


----------



## Coyote

Sixties Fan said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Sage of Main Street said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The Holy Land Was Hollow Before the Jews Returned*
> 
> The rational historical analogy is just the opposite.  The Israelis are our brave and productive pioneers, the Arabs are the useless Indian savages.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please, do not offend the First Nations.    They were really there first before the Mayflower and all others began to arrive and not be happy later with what was available for them.
> All water for Europeans, all desert for the Indians.
> 
> *Arabs are from Arabia*
> 
> Jews are from Judea
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's not really true.  The term "Arab" has come to include a wide variety of peoples who's cultures have been "Arabisized"  - Arabic is the common language, and the culture is Arab influenced but that doesn't mean they came from Arabia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The term Arab means all who identify as such having come from the Arabian Peninsula.  The Saudi, the Hashemites, the Husseini, the Yemenites, the UAE, Qatar, are all Arab, in language, culture, etc because they developed that history more then 2000 years ago.
> It is melting pot, an ethnicity, not a race.
> 
> The same goes for the Jews.  Most Jews are from the area of Ancient Canaan.  A melting pot of all the Canaanite tribes which formed the Nation of Israel, and eventually the people came to be known as Jews, from the area of Judea (Judah, one of the twelve tribes).
> 
> Arabs, with all who eventually moved to Arabia and were born there ages ago, are known as Arabs.
> 
> Berbers and any other ethnicity, like the Kurds, Copts, Yazidis, Assyrians,  etc are not Arabs.
> They call themselves Berbers, and not Arabs.  I have met one.
> He spoke Arabic, but did not call himself an Arab, because he was a Berber, which is a distinct group from the Arabs.
> 
> 
> Being "Arabized" is not the same thing as being an Arab.
> Speaking Arabic, as many Jews did in Arab countries, does not make anyone an Arab. Copts in Egypt speak Arabic, and they are not Arabs.
> 
> Arabs now live all over the world.  It does not mean that they did not originate from the Arabian Peninsula.  If not, they would not call themselves Arabs, as the Husseini and their descendants, who came from Arabia into Jerusalem in the 11th century , did.
> 
> Jews are not Jews?
> 
> Arabs are not Arabs?
> 
> Seriously????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me ask you before I go further:  are you arguing that all the "Arab" people in what is now referred to as Palestine/Israel came from elsewhere?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That is the meaning of the word Arab.  Those who come from Arabia.
> Like anyone else, they have moved outside Arabia, especially after the 7th century CE.
> 
> They went to other parts of Asia, Europe, Americas, Australia.
> They are still, and will continue to be, indigenous of the Arabian Peninsula where they originated.
> 
> The Jews just did the same thing, even before the Greek and Roman invasions. Going to Europe with Caesar or during the 70 CE revolt.  They are still indigenous from the ancient Land of Canaan, the Land of Israel.
> 
> Palestine is a Region.
> There was never a Palestinian People on that land, be it the Jews, or anyone else.
> 
> A Palestinian People arose from the Arab leaders in the area needing to keep the Jews from recreating their National Homeland.
> 
> Yes, there were Arabs on the land since the 7th Century invasion.
> They never called themselves Palestinians or anything else but Arabs and Muslims until 1964.
> If the Mandate for Palestine had been called the Mandate for Israel, they would be calling themselves the real Israelites, now.
> If it had been called the Mandate for Canaan, they would be calling themselves Canaanites, now.
> 
> But in reality, Arabs are Arabs, and they are indigenous of Arabia.
> 
> Palestinian Authority Head Admits "Palestinian People" Don't Exist
> 
> Do Berbers call themselves Arabs?  No
> Do the Copts?  No.
> Do any other indigenous people in the Middle East call themselves Arabs, besides the Arabs?  No
> 
> Not the Kurds.  And they are in Mesopotamia, Iraq.
> Not the Assyrians, who are in Syria.
> 
> 
> Who are the Palestinian Arabs?
> Where did all their ancestors come from?
Click to expand...


Who are the Palestinian Arabs?

*Blood brothers: Palestinians and Jews share genetic roots*
Blood brothers with Jews and Druze.  


*What is the Arab history in Palestine?*
*Arabs are not a singular people. Origins are complex and intermingled with many peoples and lines.* According to tradition, true Arabs are descendants of Abraham and his son Ishmael and prior to the 20th century, “Arab” designated the Bedouin, tribal-based society of the Arabian desert, which is the birthplace of Arabic. *Other Arabs are ethnic groups that have been extant in their lands of origin for millennia.* Modern Arab nationalism is a product of 19th- and 20th-century developments and has no prior historical basis. *Before the rise of nationalism, most Arabic-speakers identified themselves as members of a particular family or tribe; as residents of a village, town, or region; as Muslims, Christians, or Jews; or as subjects of large political entities such as the Ottoman empire*.


----------



## Sixties Fan

Coyote said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> The proof will be in Ottoman and British records.
> 
> Tel-Aviv was bought on land Jews purchased.  A swamp not wanted by anyone else.
> They bought land, Arabs bought land.
> Jews bought land where the absentee owners wanted to sell the land.
> 
> Think-Israel
> 
> It is without doubt that the Jews, in their quest to purchase and acquire more land, did not take any land from Arabs unlawfully. Furthermore, Arab absentee landlords living elsewhere and real estate brokers sold their land to Jews at an inflated cost.
> 
> As of today, not a single person representing the pro-Palestinian view has been able to contradict this reality using any official documentation, land data or historical records.
> ---------------------
> 
> 
> 
> Private ownership of land does not remove that land from the country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There was hardly any private ownership by the poor Arabs who were toiling the land.
> 
> You insist in forgetting that none of the Arabs in the North of Israel left the land, which had become Israel.
> They were not foolish enough to believe the Arab leaders who told the ones in the south to leave and for those who could, fight and kill the Jews.
> 
> The Arabs lost the war.  They do not get a do over, as they tried again and again in 1957, 1967 and 1973 and lost all the other three times as well.
> 
> By all means, choose to forget that Israel did not expel all the Muslims from the North of Israel, or anywhere else in what became Israel in 1948.
> 
> Nor did they expel any Muslims in 1957, or 1967 when Israel got the areas of Judea and Samaria.  No Muslims were expelled from "East Jerusalem", which had been populated by Jews until 1948.  It was known as the Jewish Quarter of the city of Jerusalem until 1948.
> Now it is mostly populated by Arabs who will not give back homes belonging to Jews, as you seem to be demanding that Jews return lands, and homes never really owned by Arabs.
> 
> *The Arabs with proof that the property was theirs are allowed to reclaim their property under Israeli law.*
> 
> There is no such law under the PLO, the PA, Fatah, or Hamas to return Jewish properties.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not necessarily.
> 
> Israel can now legally seize Palestinians' homes in Jerusalem
> Absentee landowners? West Bank landowners can't get to their land
> Israeli Aide Bars Policy of Seizing Arab Land
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Are you at all aware that Jewish property has been seized by Arabs from 1920 to 1948, in Gaza, Hebron, Sfad, TransJordan, and later in all the Arab countries where they were expelled?
> 
> They "legally" seized all of those properties by law, by stripping all Jews of their citizenship in those Arab and European countries as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I was "at all aware" of that, as well as the explusion of Jews from Arab countries and the treatment of Jews in Europe.  I'm not sure how that is any sort of justification for continuing the practice of seizures and confiscations.
> 
> Those who's lands were confiscated during the expulsions should get compensation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the Landowner is absentee, and cannot be found, in the case of any property in Israel, the State does have the right after many years of trying to have the owners come forward, to take over said property.
> 
> It would be the same in any country.
> 
> Israel is not lawless.  The courts usually favor the Arabs in their claims for property, even if they do not show any proof of it.
> 
> Anywhere in the world, if one cannot show proof of ownership of land, the land reverts back to the State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would be the first to agree that land law and land rights in that part of the world are extremely complicated compared to say the US or Europe. But in my view there is little question that the absentee land owners law, and associated later laws were put in place primarily to allow for easy confiscation of property.
> 
> Of course Israel is not a lawless state, but that doesn't mean it's laws are always just.
> 
> In the case of "absentee land owner laws" - I disagree with you.  Quite often the owner CAN be found, but is unable to enter the country.  These laws are also frequently used to confiscate property, and in fact that was a large reason they were created in the first place.  Jews have a lower burden of proof in order to reclaim property than Palestinians.
> 
> Arabs, Jews don't have equal rights to recover property
> _In 1950, the Knesset passed the Absentees Property Law, which declared that *any property situated within the post-war boundaries of Israel and owned by an Arab who had left the country between November 29, 1947 and May 19, 1948, or by a Palestinian who went abroad or to an area of Palestine held by hostile forces up to September 1, 1948, lost all rights to that property.*
> 
> The law appointed a Custodianship Council for Absentees' Property, whose president was to be known as the custodian of absentees' property. It then declared that "every right an absentee had in any property shall pass automatically to the custodian at the time of the vesting of the property; and the status of the custodian shall be the same as was that of the owner of the property."
> 
> In other words, the law stated that all property belonging to "absentee" owners *was irretrievably lost to them.*..
> 
> ...Ironically, the Palestinians who are being evicted from Sheikh Jarrah were in exactly the same positions as the Jewish owners of the land they have lived on since 1956. They owned property in west Jerusalem and lost it as a result of the War of Independence, while the Sephardic Community and Knesset Israel committees owned land in east Jerusalem and lost it as a result of the War of Independence.
> 
> The difference is, however, that *because of Israeli legislation, the Jewish landowners could recover their land once the city was united, but the Palestinian landowners could not.*_​
Click to expand...



1)  Jews did not start the riots or wars from 1920 on.

2)  The Jews did not start the wars of 1948, and 1967
Israel won all of those wars. 

The losers of wars do not get to make demands.

Israel has done more to allowing Arabs back into Israel because of family reunification (when they could have had the families in Israel simply leave) than either Egypt, Jordan, the PLO or any other Arab organization. 

Just as the Jordanians and Egyptians refused to allow Jews to buy, reside or recover any property between 1920 and 1967, Israel has no obligation to give "back" any Arab land.

Although it does all the time, as I said.

Jews are being evicted from Amona, exactly because an Arab claimed part of the land, or all of it, and the court agreed with them.
So the Jews are being evicted.

Israeli police begin forced removal of Amona settlers in the West Bank

3)  The Jews, once Jerusalem was unified, did not get to just go to their homes and reclaim them.  It was the Jewish Quarter in 1948, when it was taken over by Jordan.
It became the Arab Quarter, and it is still known as that as most who still live there, in houses previously owned by Jews, are Arabs who moved into that Quarter after 1948.

Very few Jews have, through the courts and decades of fighting it, been given back the keys to their homes in East Jerusalem after 1948. Or anywhere else in Judea and Samaria.  

Instead they have built villages near the cities they were made to leave. 

No Arabs have been made to leave Hebron ( or any other previously Jewish city like Jericho, Shilo, etc)   which was a majority Jewish city in 1948, and is now a small minority since 1967.

All of those cities, all of Judea and Samaria and the Jewish Quarters were completely cleansed of all Jews.

Where has Israel done the same thing since 1948, in all the wars, as it regained Judea and Samaria and the Jewish Quarter back?


----------



## Sixties Fan

Coyote said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please, do not offend the First Nations.    They were really there first before the Mayflower and all others began to arrive and not be happy later with what was available for them.
> All water for Europeans, all desert for the Indians.
> 
> *Arabs are from Arabia*
> 
> Jews are from Judea
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's not really true.  The term "Arab" has come to include a wide variety of peoples who's cultures have been "Arabisized"  - Arabic is the common language, and the culture is Arab influenced but that doesn't mean they came from Arabia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The term Arab means all who identify as such having come from the Arabian Peninsula.  The Saudi, the Hashemites, the Husseini, the Yemenites, the UAE, Qatar, are all Arab, in language, culture, etc because they developed that history more then 2000 years ago.
> It is melting pot, an ethnicity, not a race.
> 
> The same goes for the Jews.  Most Jews are from the area of Ancient Canaan.  A melting pot of all the Canaanite tribes which formed the Nation of Israel, and eventually the people came to be known as Jews, from the area of Judea (Judah, one of the twelve tribes).
> 
> Arabs, with all who eventually moved to Arabia and were born there ages ago, are known as Arabs.
> 
> Berbers and any other ethnicity, like the Kurds, Copts, Yazidis, Assyrians,  etc are not Arabs.
> They call themselves Berbers, and not Arabs.  I have met one.
> He spoke Arabic, but did not call himself an Arab, because he was a Berber, which is a distinct group from the Arabs.
> 
> 
> Being "Arabized" is not the same thing as being an Arab.
> Speaking Arabic, as many Jews did in Arab countries, does not make anyone an Arab. Copts in Egypt speak Arabic, and they are not Arabs.
> 
> Arabs now live all over the world.  It does not mean that they did not originate from the Arabian Peninsula.  If not, they would not call themselves Arabs, as the Husseini and their descendants, who came from Arabia into Jerusalem in the 11th century , did.
> 
> Jews are not Jews?
> 
> Arabs are not Arabs?
> 
> Seriously????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me ask you before I go further:  are you arguing that all the "Arab" people in what is now referred to as Palestine/Israel came from elsewhere?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That is the meaning of the word Arab.  Those who come from Arabia.
> Like anyone else, they have moved outside Arabia, especially after the 7th century CE.
> 
> They went to other parts of Asia, Europe, Americas, Australia.
> They are still, and will continue to be, indigenous of the Arabian Peninsula where they originated.
> 
> The Jews just did the same thing, even before the Greek and Roman invasions. Going to Europe with Caesar or during the 70 CE revolt.  They are still indigenous from the ancient Land of Canaan, the Land of Israel.
> 
> Palestine is a Region.
> There was never a Palestinian People on that land, be it the Jews, or anyone else.
> 
> A Palestinian People arose from the Arab leaders in the area needing to keep the Jews from recreating their National Homeland.
> 
> Yes, there were Arabs on the land since the 7th Century invasion.
> They never called themselves Palestinians or anything else but Arabs and Muslims until 1964.
> If the Mandate for Palestine had been called the Mandate for Israel, they would be calling themselves the real Israelites, now.
> If it had been called the Mandate for Canaan, they would be calling themselves Canaanites, now.
> 
> But in reality, Arabs are Arabs, and they are indigenous of Arabia.
> 
> Palestinian Authority Head Admits "Palestinian People" Don't Exist
> 
> Do Berbers call themselves Arabs?  No
> Do the Copts?  No.
> Do any other indigenous people in the Middle East call themselves Arabs, besides the Arabs?  No
> 
> Not the Kurds.  And they are in Mesopotamia, Iraq.
> Not the Assyrians, who are in Syria.
> 
> 
> Who are the Palestinian Arabs?
> Where did all their ancestors come from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who are the Palestinian Arabs?
> 
> *Blood brothers: Palestinians and Jews share genetic roots*
> Blood brothers with Jews and Druze.
> 
> 
> *What is the Arab history in Palestine?*
> *Arabs are not a singular people. Origins are complex and intermingled with many peoples and lines.* According to tradition, true Arabs are descendants of Abraham and his son Ishmael and prior to the 20th century, “Arab” designated the Bedouin, tribal-based society of the Arabian desert, which is the birthplace of Arabic. *Other Arabs are ethnic groups that have been extant in their lands of origin for millennia.* Modern Arab nationalism is a product of 19th- and 20th-century developments and has no prior historical basis. *Before the rise of nationalism, most Arabic-speakers identified themselves as members of a particular family or tribe; as residents of a village, town, or region; as Muslims, Christians, or Jews; or as subjects of large political entities such as the Ottoman empire*.
Click to expand...


Please, spare me the "Palestinians and Jews share genetic roots"
nonsense.

They never said that BEFORE they were to lose the land of Israel to the Jews.  And right now, it is only 20% of the Jewish Homeland.
Which they want very badly, and with no Jews around, or very few.
Vide Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Bahrain, Yemen.

That is total nonsense and all it takes is for the Arabs to take a DNA test to prove if they came from the region of Ancient Canaan, or from the region of Arabia.

Some Jews being forced into Islam and or intermarrying with Arabs for the past 100 years, does not make Jews and Arabs of the same genetic root.


----------



## Coyote

Sixties Fan said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's not really true.  The term "Arab" has come to include a wide variety of peoples who's cultures have been "Arabisized"  - Arabic is the common language, and the culture is Arab influenced but that doesn't mean they came from Arabia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The term Arab means all who identify as such having come from the Arabian Peninsula.  The Saudi, the Hashemites, the Husseini, the Yemenites, the UAE, Qatar, are all Arab, in language, culture, etc because they developed that history more then 2000 years ago.
> It is melting pot, an ethnicity, not a race.
> 
> The same goes for the Jews.  Most Jews are from the area of Ancient Canaan.  A melting pot of all the Canaanite tribes which formed the Nation of Israel, and eventually the people came to be known as Jews, from the area of Judea (Judah, one of the twelve tribes).
> 
> Arabs, with all who eventually moved to Arabia and were born there ages ago, are known as Arabs.
> 
> Berbers and any other ethnicity, like the Kurds, Copts, Yazidis, Assyrians,  etc are not Arabs.
> They call themselves Berbers, and not Arabs.  I have met one.
> He spoke Arabic, but did not call himself an Arab, because he was a Berber, which is a distinct group from the Arabs.
> 
> 
> Being "Arabized" is not the same thing as being an Arab.
> Speaking Arabic, as many Jews did in Arab countries, does not make anyone an Arab. Copts in Egypt speak Arabic, and they are not Arabs.
> 
> Arabs now live all over the world.  It does not mean that they did not originate from the Arabian Peninsula.  If not, they would not call themselves Arabs, as the Husseini and their descendants, who came from Arabia into Jerusalem in the 11th century , did.
> 
> Jews are not Jews?
> 
> Arabs are not Arabs?
> 
> Seriously????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me ask you before I go further:  are you arguing that all the "Arab" people in what is now referred to as Palestine/Israel came from elsewhere?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That is the meaning of the word Arab.  Those who come from Arabia.
> Like anyone else, they have moved outside Arabia, especially after the 7th century CE.
> 
> They went to other parts of Asia, Europe, Americas, Australia.
> They are still, and will continue to be, indigenous of the Arabian Peninsula where they originated.
> 
> The Jews just did the same thing, even before the Greek and Roman invasions. Going to Europe with Caesar or during the 70 CE revolt.  They are still indigenous from the ancient Land of Canaan, the Land of Israel.
> 
> Palestine is a Region.
> There was never a Palestinian People on that land, be it the Jews, or anyone else.
> 
> A Palestinian People arose from the Arab leaders in the area needing to keep the Jews from recreating their National Homeland.
> 
> Yes, there were Arabs on the land since the 7th Century invasion.
> They never called themselves Palestinians or anything else but Arabs and Muslims until 1964.
> If the Mandate for Palestine had been called the Mandate for Israel, they would be calling themselves the real Israelites, now.
> If it had been called the Mandate for Canaan, they would be calling themselves Canaanites, now.
> 
> But in reality, Arabs are Arabs, and they are indigenous of Arabia.
> 
> Palestinian Authority Head Admits "Palestinian People" Don't Exist
> 
> Do Berbers call themselves Arabs?  No
> Do the Copts?  No.
> Do any other indigenous people in the Middle East call themselves Arabs, besides the Arabs?  No
> 
> Not the Kurds.  And they are in Mesopotamia, Iraq.
> Not the Assyrians, who are in Syria.
> 
> 
> Who are the Palestinian Arabs?
> Where did all their ancestors come from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who are the Palestinian Arabs?
> 
> *Blood brothers: Palestinians and Jews share genetic roots*
> Blood brothers with Jews and Druze.
> 
> 
> *What is the Arab history in Palestine?*
> *Arabs are not a singular people. Origins are complex and intermingled with many peoples and lines.* According to tradition, true Arabs are descendants of Abraham and his son Ishmael and prior to the 20th century, “Arab” designated the Bedouin, tribal-based society of the Arabian desert, which is the birthplace of Arabic. *Other Arabs are ethnic groups that have been extant in their lands of origin for millennia.* Modern Arab nationalism is a product of 19th- and 20th-century developments and has no prior historical basis. *Before the rise of nationalism, most Arabic-speakers identified themselves as members of a particular family or tribe; as residents of a village, town, or region; as Muslims, Christians, or Jews; or as subjects of large political entities such as the Ottoman empire*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please, spare me the "Palestinians and Jews share genetic roots"
> nonsense.
Click to expand...


Fine.  Ignore the science if you want to.

It really shouldn't suprise you given the movements and migrations of people in that area throughout a long period of history.



> They never said that BEFORE they were to lose the land of Israel to the Jews.  And right now, it is only 20% of the Jewish Homeland.
> Which they want very badly, and with no Jews around, or very few.
> Vide Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Bahrain, Yemen.



None of which has any bearing on the science of it.

Why does the fact that they are closely related upset you so much?




> That is total nonsense and all it takes is for the Arabs to take a DNA test to prove if they came from the region of Ancient Canaan, or from the region of Arabia.
> 
> Some Jews being forced into Islam and or intermarrying with Arabs for the past 100 years, does not make Jews and Arabs of the same genetic root.



It does if you accept the fact that "arab" applies to a wide group of people.  If anything it's fascinating as it gives an insight into the interrelatedness and movements of different ancient people.

It also means that the myth that the Palestinians are mostly "foreign invaders" is just that, a myth just like the myth that the European Jews are foreign "colonizers".

And the only purpose of perpetrating those memes is to delegitimize one or the other and that leads to *no solutions.  *That's also why "indiginous" is meaningless in resolving this conflict.


----------



## Coyote

Sixties Fan said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Private ownership of land does not remove that land from the country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There was hardly any private ownership by the poor Arabs who were toiling the land.
> 
> You insist in forgetting that none of the Arabs in the North of Israel left the land, which had become Israel.
> They were not foolish enough to believe the Arab leaders who told the ones in the south to leave and for those who could, fight and kill the Jews.
> 
> The Arabs lost the war.  They do not get a do over, as they tried again and again in 1957, 1967 and 1973 and lost all the other three times as well.
> 
> By all means, choose to forget that Israel did not expel all the Muslims from the North of Israel, or anywhere else in what became Israel in 1948.
> 
> Nor did they expel any Muslims in 1957, or 1967 when Israel got the areas of Judea and Samaria.  No Muslims were expelled from "East Jerusalem", which had been populated by Jews until 1948.  It was known as the Jewish Quarter of the city of Jerusalem until 1948.
> Now it is mostly populated by Arabs who will not give back homes belonging to Jews, as you seem to be demanding that Jews return lands, and homes never really owned by Arabs.
> 
> *The Arabs with proof that the property was theirs are allowed to reclaim their property under Israeli law.*
> 
> There is no such law under the PLO, the PA, Fatah, or Hamas to return Jewish properties.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not necessarily.
> 
> Israel can now legally seize Palestinians' homes in Jerusalem
> Absentee landowners? West Bank landowners can't get to their land
> Israeli Aide Bars Policy of Seizing Arab Land
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Are you at all aware that Jewish property has been seized by Arabs from 1920 to 1948, in Gaza, Hebron, Sfad, TransJordan, and later in all the Arab countries where they were expelled?
> 
> They "legally" seized all of those properties by law, by stripping all Jews of their citizenship in those Arab and European countries as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I was "at all aware" of that, as well as the explusion of Jews from Arab countries and the treatment of Jews in Europe.  I'm not sure how that is any sort of justification for continuing the practice of seizures and confiscations.
> 
> Those who's lands were confiscated during the expulsions should get compensation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the Landowner is absentee, and cannot be found, in the case of any property in Israel, the State does have the right after many years of trying to have the owners come forward, to take over said property.
> 
> It would be the same in any country.
> 
> Israel is not lawless.  The courts usually favor the Arabs in their claims for property, even if they do not show any proof of it.
> 
> Anywhere in the world, if one cannot show proof of ownership of land, the land reverts back to the State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would be the first to agree that land law and land rights in that part of the world are extremely complicated compared to say the US or Europe. But in my view there is little question that the absentee land owners law, and associated later laws were put in place primarily to allow for easy confiscation of property.
> 
> Of course Israel is not a lawless state, but that doesn't mean it's laws are always just.
> 
> In the case of "absentee land owner laws" - I disagree with you.  Quite often the owner CAN be found, but is unable to enter the country.  These laws are also frequently used to confiscate property, and in fact that was a large reason they were created in the first place.  Jews have a lower burden of proof in order to reclaim property than Palestinians.
> 
> Arabs, Jews don't have equal rights to recover property
> _In 1950, the Knesset passed the Absentees Property Law, which declared that *any property situated within the post-war boundaries of Israel and owned by an Arab who had left the country between November 29, 1947 and May 19, 1948, or by a Palestinian who went abroad or to an area of Palestine held by hostile forces up to September 1, 1948, lost all rights to that property.*
> 
> The law appointed a Custodianship Council for Absentees' Property, whose president was to be known as the custodian of absentees' property. It then declared that "every right an absentee had in any property shall pass automatically to the custodian at the time of the vesting of the property; and the status of the custodian shall be the same as was that of the owner of the property."
> 
> In other words, the law stated that all property belonging to "absentee" owners *was irretrievably lost to them.*..
> 
> ...Ironically, the Palestinians who are being evicted from Sheikh Jarrah were in exactly the same positions as the Jewish owners of the land they have lived on since 1956. They owned property in west Jerusalem and lost it as a result of the War of Independence, while the Sephardic Community and Knesset Israel committees owned land in east Jerusalem and lost it as a result of the War of Independence.
> 
> The difference is, however, that *because of Israeli legislation, the Jewish landowners could recover their land once the city was united, but the Palestinian landowners could not.*_​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1)  Jews did not start the riots or wars from 1920 on.
> 
> 2)  The Jews did not start the wars of 1948, and 1967
> Israel won all of those wars.
> 
> The losers of wars do not get to make demands.
> 
> Israel has done more to allowing Arabs back into Israel because of family reunification (when they could have had the families in Israel simply leave) than either Egypt, Jordan, the PLO or any other Arab organization.
> 
> Just as the Jordanians and Egyptians refused to allow Jews to buy, reside or recover any property between 1920 and 1967, Israel has no obligation to give "back" any Arab land.
> 
> Although it does all the time, as I said.
> 
> Jews are being evicted from Amona, exactly because an Arab claimed part of the land, or all of it, and the court agreed with them.
> So the Jews are being evicted.
> 
> Israeli police begin forced removal of Amona settlers in the West Bank
> 
> 3)  The Jews, once Jerusalem was unified, did not get to just go to their homes and reclaim them.  It was the Jewish Quarter in 1948, when it was taken over by Jordan.
> It became the Arab Quarter, and it is still known as that as most who still live there, in houses previously owned by Jews, are Arabs who moved into that Quarter after 1948.
> 
> Very few Jews have, through the courts and decades of fighting it, been given back the keys to their homes in East Jerusalem after 1948. Or anywhere else in Judea and Samaria.
> 
> Instead they have built villages near the cities they were made to leave.
> 
> No Arabs have been made to leave Hebron ( or any other previously Jewish city like Jericho, Shilo, etc)   which was a majority Jewish city in 1948, and is now a small minority since 1967.
> 
> All of those cities, all of Judea and Samaria and the Jewish Quarters were completely cleansed of all Jews.
> 
> Where has Israel done the same thing since 1948, in all the wars, as it regained Judea and Samaria and the Jewish Quarter back?
Click to expand...



So what is your solution to the current situation?  One state? Two states?  Under what conditions?  Because it sounds like you don't grant any legitimacy to the Palestinians.


----------



## louie888

Coyote said:


> ...It also means that the myth that the Palestinians are mostly "foreign invaders" is just that, a myth just like the myth that the European Jews are foreign "colonizers"....


LMAO, if the European Jews are not foreign "colonizers," then what the hell are they?


----------



## Coyote

louie888 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...It also means that the myth that the Palestinians are mostly "foreign invaders" is just that, a myth just like the myth that the European Jews are foreign "colonizers"....
> 
> 
> 
> LMAO, if the European Jews are not foreign "colonizers," then what the hell are they?
Click to expand...


Immigrants.


----------



## Sixties Fan

Coyote said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> The term Arab means all who identify as such having come from the Arabian Peninsula.  The Saudi, the Hashemites, the Husseini, the Yemenites, the UAE, Qatar, are all Arab, in language, culture, etc because they developed that history more then 2000 years ago.
> It is melting pot, an ethnicity, not a race.
> 
> The same goes for the Jews.  Most Jews are from the area of Ancient Canaan.  A melting pot of all the Canaanite tribes which formed the Nation of Israel, and eventually the people came to be known as Jews, from the area of Judea (Judah, one of the twelve tribes).
> 
> Arabs, with all who eventually moved to Arabia and were born there ages ago, are known as Arabs.
> 
> Berbers and any other ethnicity, like the Kurds, Copts, Yazidis, Assyrians,  etc are not Arabs.
> They call themselves Berbers, and not Arabs.  I have met one.
> He spoke Arabic, but did not call himself an Arab, because he was a Berber, which is a distinct group from the Arabs.
> 
> 
> Being "Arabized" is not the same thing as being an Arab.
> Speaking Arabic, as many Jews did in Arab countries, does not make anyone an Arab. Copts in Egypt speak Arabic, and they are not Arabs.
> 
> Arabs now live all over the world.  It does not mean that they did not originate from the Arabian Peninsula.  If not, they would not call themselves Arabs, as the Husseini and their descendants, who came from Arabia into Jerusalem in the 11th century , did.
> 
> Jews are not Jews?
> 
> Arabs are not Arabs?
> 
> Seriously????
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me ask you before I go further:  are you arguing that all the "Arab" people in what is now referred to as Palestine/Israel came from elsewhere?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That is the meaning of the word Arab.  Those who come from Arabia.
> Like anyone else, they have moved outside Arabia, especially after the 7th century CE.
> 
> They went to other parts of Asia, Europe, Americas, Australia.
> They are still, and will continue to be, indigenous of the Arabian Peninsula where they originated.
> 
> The Jews just did the same thing, even before the Greek and Roman invasions. Going to Europe with Caesar or during the 70 CE revolt.  They are still indigenous from the ancient Land of Canaan, the Land of Israel.
> 
> Palestine is a Region.
> There was never a Palestinian People on that land, be it the Jews, or anyone else.
> 
> A Palestinian People arose from the Arab leaders in the area needing to keep the Jews from recreating their National Homeland.
> 
> Yes, there were Arabs on the land since the 7th Century invasion.
> They never called themselves Palestinians or anything else but Arabs and Muslims until 1964.
> If the Mandate for Palestine had been called the Mandate for Israel, they would be calling themselves the real Israelites, now.
> If it had been called the Mandate for Canaan, they would be calling themselves Canaanites, now.
> 
> But in reality, Arabs are Arabs, and they are indigenous of Arabia.
> 
> Palestinian Authority Head Admits "Palestinian People" Don't Exist
> 
> Do Berbers call themselves Arabs?  No
> Do the Copts?  No.
> Do any other indigenous people in the Middle East call themselves Arabs, besides the Arabs?  No
> 
> Not the Kurds.  And they are in Mesopotamia, Iraq.
> Not the Assyrians, who are in Syria.
> 
> 
> Who are the Palestinian Arabs?
> Where did all their ancestors come from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who are the Palestinian Arabs?
> 
> *Blood brothers: Palestinians and Jews share genetic roots*
> Blood brothers with Jews and Druze.
> 
> 
> *What is the Arab history in Palestine?*
> *Arabs are not a singular people. Origins are complex and intermingled with many peoples and lines.* According to tradition, true Arabs are descendants of Abraham and his son Ishmael and prior to the 20th century, “Arab” designated the Bedouin, tribal-based society of the Arabian desert, which is the birthplace of Arabic. *Other Arabs are ethnic groups that have been extant in their lands of origin for millennia.* Modern Arab nationalism is a product of 19th- and 20th-century developments and has no prior historical basis. *Before the rise of nationalism, most Arabic-speakers identified themselves as members of a particular family or tribe; as residents of a village, town, or region; as Muslims, Christians, or Jews; or as subjects of large political entities such as the Ottoman empire*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please, spare me the "Palestinians and Jews share genetic roots"
> nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fine.  Ignore the science if you want to.
> 
> It really shouldn't suprise you given the movements and migrations of people in that area throughout a long period of history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They never said that BEFORE they were to lose the land of Israel to the Jews.  And right now, it is only 20% of the Jewish Homeland.
> Which they want very badly, and with no Jews around, or very few.
> Vide Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Bahrain, Yemen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> None of which has any bearing on the science of it.
> 
> Why does the fact that they are closely related upset you so much?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is total nonsense and all it takes is for the Arabs to take a DNA test to prove if they came from the region of Ancient Canaan, or from the region of Arabia.
> 
> Some Jews being forced into Islam and or intermarrying with Arabs for the past 100 years, does not make Jews and Arabs of the same genetic root.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It does if you accept the fact that "arab" applies to a wide group of people.  If anything it's fascinating as it gives an insight into the interrelatedness and movements of different ancient people.
> 
> It also means that the myth that the Palestinians are mostly "foreign invaders" is just that, a myth just like the myth that the European Jews are foreign "colonizers".
> 
> And the only purpose of perpetrating those memes is to delegitimize one or the other and that leads to *no solutions.  *That's also why "indiginous" is meaningless in resolving this conflict.
Click to expand...



You are ignoring the Jewish DNA and the studies about it.

How many of those who got tested by the results you are providing have gone to Jewish labs and taken a DNA test to prove that they have any Jewish DNA in them?

I can tell you.  Zero.

Why? Because those who have made the tests you are providing, would never provide the same people they tested to prove via a Jewish DNA test, that they actually have any Jewish DNA in them.

Which does not mean that those Arabs who have any Jewish DNA in them are Jewish, all it means it that at some point in the past 1700 years, their ancestors had relations with those from the one Jewish Tribe from Arabia, whose females and children were sold into slavery in the 7th Century, or any other Jews who were forced to convert to Islam in any part of Islam conquered land, or somewho have intermarried with Arabs, since the last century, including in Israel.


Same genetic root does not mean what you seem to think it does.

Semitic is a group of languages.  The languages are similar, but not the same.

If it was a matter of being "Semitic" then all Arameic, Samaritians, etc would be also of the same genetic root as the Arabs.
So would the Copts, the Syrians, the Kurds.
All must have had intermarriages with the Arabs at some point, no matter what the number is.

DNA, the genetic roots, is about where the people come from, that is what a DNA test proves.

Can any Arab take the test and prove that they have Jewish DNA, aka, some ancestor came from the ancient land of Canaan/Israel?

That is what many are proving, from China, India, Ethiopia, etc.

When are the Arabs going to do allow Israel to conduct DNA tests on those who claim to have Jewish Ancestry?

Still, it does not mean that ALL Arabs, as they come from Arabia, have Jewish ancestry, common genetic roots, in them.

As you can tell, it is not that Arabs ARE genetically connected to Jews, is that they have been lying for the past 50 years that they have any ancestral connection at all.

Root means, Jews and Arabs come from the same place.

They do not, and Arabs know that.

Another attempt to displace the Jews from their ancient Land and turning Ancient Israel into a majority, or only, Arab population with an unproven test is nothing to get upset about.


The Jews have the part of Israel they have and they are keeping it, and keeping the country and the population safe, despite all the attempts to the contrary.

No different than it was during Greek or Roman control of their land.

No Arabs in sight.


----------



## louie888

Coyote said:


> louie888 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...It also means that the myth that the Palestinians are mostly "foreign invaders" is just that, a myth just like the myth that the European Jews are foreign "colonizers"....
> 
> 
> 
> LMAO, if the European Jews are not foreign "colonizers," then what the hell are they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Immigrants.
Click to expand...

*verb (used with object), colonized, colonizing.  

1. 
to establish a colony in; settle: 
England colonized Australia.

2. 
to form a colony of: 
to colonize laborers in a mining region.



verb (used without object), colonized, colonizing. 

3. 
to form a colony: 
They went out to Australia to colonize.

4. 
to settle in a colony. 

the definition of colonizer
*
Care to try again?


----------



## Sixties Fan

Coyote said:


> louie888 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...It also means that the myth that the Palestinians are mostly "foreign invaders" is just that, a myth just like the myth that the European Jews are foreign "colonizers"....
> 
> 
> 
> LMAO, if the European Jews are not foreign "colonizers," then what the hell are they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Immigrants.
Click to expand...



Arabs returning to Arabia are "immigrants" ?

Irish returning to Ireland are immigrants ?

Germans returning to Germany are immigrants?


Thousands of Arabs "immigrated" to the Ottoman Empire and later Mandate for Palestine.  They were not covered by a dome which  allowed those Arabs living there to only "multiply naturally".


80 % of the Mandate for Palestine, the Land of Israel, is officially in the hands of Arabs.

Could Abbas, please, change the map he has of "Palestine" to not include all of Israel?


----------



## Coyote

Sixties Fan said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me ask you before I go further:  are you arguing that all the "Arab" people in what is now referred to as Palestine/Israel came from elsewhere?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is the meaning of the word Arab.  Those who come from Arabia.
> Like anyone else, they have moved outside Arabia, especially after the 7th century CE.
> 
> They went to other parts of Asia, Europe, Americas, Australia.
> They are still, and will continue to be, indigenous of the Arabian Peninsula where they originated.
> 
> The Jews just did the same thing, even before the Greek and Roman invasions. Going to Europe with Caesar or during the 70 CE revolt.  They are still indigenous from the ancient Land of Canaan, the Land of Israel.
> 
> Palestine is a Region.
> There was never a Palestinian People on that land, be it the Jews, or anyone else.
> 
> A Palestinian People arose from the Arab leaders in the area needing to keep the Jews from recreating their National Homeland.
> 
> Yes, there were Arabs on the land since the 7th Century invasion.
> They never called themselves Palestinians or anything else but Arabs and Muslims until 1964.
> If the Mandate for Palestine had been called the Mandate for Israel, they would be calling themselves the real Israelites, now.
> If it had been called the Mandate for Canaan, they would be calling themselves Canaanites, now.
> 
> But in reality, Arabs are Arabs, and they are indigenous of Arabia.
> 
> Palestinian Authority Head Admits "Palestinian People" Don't Exist
> 
> Do Berbers call themselves Arabs?  No
> Do the Copts?  No.
> Do any other indigenous people in the Middle East call themselves Arabs, besides the Arabs?  No
> 
> Not the Kurds.  And they are in Mesopotamia, Iraq.
> Not the Assyrians, who are in Syria.
> 
> 
> Who are the Palestinian Arabs?
> Where did all their ancestors come from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who are the Palestinian Arabs?
> 
> *Blood brothers: Palestinians and Jews share genetic roots*
> Blood brothers with Jews and Druze.
> 
> 
> *What is the Arab history in Palestine?*
> *Arabs are not a singular people. Origins are complex and intermingled with many peoples and lines.* According to tradition, true Arabs are descendants of Abraham and his son Ishmael and prior to the 20th century, “Arab” designated the Bedouin, tribal-based society of the Arabian desert, which is the birthplace of Arabic. *Other Arabs are ethnic groups that have been extant in their lands of origin for millennia.* Modern Arab nationalism is a product of 19th- and 20th-century developments and has no prior historical basis. *Before the rise of nationalism, most Arabic-speakers identified themselves as members of a particular family or tribe; as residents of a village, town, or region; as Muslims, Christians, or Jews; or as subjects of large political entities such as the Ottoman empire*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please, spare me the "Palestinians and Jews share genetic roots"
> nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fine.  Ignore the science if you want to.
> 
> It really shouldn't suprise you given the movements and migrations of people in that area throughout a long period of history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They never said that BEFORE they were to lose the land of Israel to the Jews.  And right now, it is only 20% of the Jewish Homeland.
> Which they want very badly, and with no Jews around, or very few.
> Vide Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Bahrain, Yemen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> None of which has any bearing on the science of it.
> 
> Why does the fact that they are closely related upset you so much?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is total nonsense and all it takes is for the Arabs to take a DNA test to prove if they came from the region of Ancient Canaan, or from the region of Arabia.
> 
> Some Jews being forced into Islam and or intermarrying with Arabs for the past 100 years, does not make Jews and Arabs of the same genetic root.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It does if you accept the fact that "arab" applies to a wide group of people.  If anything it's fascinating as it gives an insight into the interrelatedness and movements of different ancient people.
> 
> It also means that the myth that the Palestinians are mostly "foreign invaders" is just that, a myth just like the myth that the European Jews are foreign "colonizers".
> 
> And the only purpose of perpetrating those memes is to delegitimize one or the other and that leads to *no solutions.  *That's also why "indiginous" is meaningless in resolving this conflict.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are ignoring the Jewish DNA and the studies about it.
> 
> How many of those who got tested by the results you are providing have gone to Jewish labs and taken a DNA test to prove that they have any Jewish DNA in them?
> 
> I can tell you.  Zero.
> 
> Why? Because those who have made the tests you are providing, would never provide the same people they tested to prove via a Jewish DNA test, that they actually have any Jewish DNA in them.
Click to expand...


So...you are saying that unless these genetic studies are done in a "Jewish lab" they are fraudulant?  



> Which does not mean that those Arabs who have any Jewish DNA in them are Jewish, all it means it that at some point in the past 1700 years, their ancestors had relations with those from the one Jewish Tribe from Arabia, whose females and children were sold into slavery in the 7th Century, or any other Jews who were forced to convert to Islam in any part of Islam conquered land, or somewho have intermarried with Arabs, since the last century, including in Israel.



I'm not saying they ARE Jewish - I'm saying they are CLOSELY RELATED and in fact MORE CLOSELY RELATED to some of the Jewish groups than to some of the Arab groups.

Why does it bother you so much to acknowledge they are closely related?



> Same genetic root does not mean what you seem to think it does.
> 
> Semitic is a group of languages.  The languages are similar, but not the same.
> 
> If it was a matter of being "Semitic" then all Arameic, Samaritians, etc would be also of the same genetic root as the Arabs.
> So would the Copts, the Syrians, the Kurds.
> All must have had intermarriages with the Arabs at some point, no matter what the number is.
> 
> DNA, the genetic roots, is about where the people come from, that is what a DNA test proves.
> 
> Can any Arab take the test and prove that they have Jewish DNA, aka, some ancestor came from the ancient land of Canaan/Israel?
> 
> That is what many are proving, from China, India, Ethiopia, etc.
> 
> When are the Arabs going to do allow Israel to conduct DNA tests on those who claim to have Jewish Ancestry?
> 
> Still, it does not mean that ALL Arabs, as they come from Arabia, have Jewish ancestry, common genetic roots, in them.
> 
> As you can tell, it is not that Arabs ARE genetically connected to Jews, is that they have been lying for the past 50 years that they have any ancestral connection at all.
> 
> Root means, Jews and Arabs come from the same place.
> 
> They do not, and Arabs know that.
> 
> Another attempt to displace the Jews from their ancient Land and turning Ancient Israel into a majority, or only, Arab population with an unproven test is nothing to get upset about.
> 
> 
> The Jews have the part of Israel they have and they are keeping it, and keeping the country and the population safe, despite all the attempts to the contrary.
> 
> No different than it was during Greek or Roman control of their land.
> 
> No Arabs in sight.



Are you winding me up?


----------



## Shusha

Coyote said:


> _In 1950, the Knesset passed the Absentees Property Law, which declared that any property situated within the post-war boundaries of Israel and *owned by an Arab* who had left the country between November 29, 1947 and May 19, 1948, or by a Palestinian who went abroad or to an area of Palestine held by hostile forces up to September 1, 1948, lost all rights to that property. _​


_
_
The Absentees Property Law says nothing about either Arabs or Jews.​


----------



## Coyote

Sixties Fan said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> louie888 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...It also means that the myth that the Palestinians are mostly "foreign invaders" is just that, a myth just like the myth that the European Jews are foreign "colonizers"....
> 
> 
> 
> LMAO, if the European Jews are not foreign "colonizers," then what the hell are they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Immigrants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Arabs returning to Arabia are "immigrants" ?
> 
> Irish returning to Ireland are immigrants ?
> 
> Germans returning to Germany are immigrants?
Click to expand...


Are they citizens of or ever lived in an Arab country?
Are they citizens of or ever lived in Ireland?
Are they citizens of or ever lived in Germany?

If no they are immigrants, migrants or tourists.



> Thousands of Arabs "immigrated" to the Ottoman Empire and later Mandate for Palestine.  They were not covered by a dome which  allowed those Arabs living there to only "multiply naturally".
> 
> 
> 80 % of the Mandate for Palestine, the Land of Israel, is officially in the hands of Arabs.
> 
> Could Abbas, please, change the map he has of "Palestine" to not include all of Israel?



Your point is...?


----------



## Coyote

Shusha said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> _In 1950, the Knesset passed the Absentees Property Law, which declared that any property situated within the post-war boundaries of Israel and *owned by an Arab* who had left the country between November 29, 1947 and May 19, 1948, or by a Palestinian who went abroad or to an area of Palestine held by hostile forces up to September 1, 1948, lost all rights to that property. _​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Absentees Property Law says nothing about either Arabs or Jews.​
Click to expand...


The way it is applied disproportionately effects Palestinians.


----------



## Coyote

louie888 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> louie888 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...It also means that the myth that the Palestinians are mostly "foreign invaders" is just that, a myth just like the myth that the European Jews are foreign "colonizers"....
> 
> 
> 
> LMAO, if the European Jews are not foreign "colonizers," then what the hell are they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Immigrants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *verb (used with object), colonized, colonizing.
> 
> 1.
> to establish a colony in; settle:
> England colonized Australia.
> 
> 2.
> to form a colony of:
> to colonize laborers in a mining region.
> 
> 
> 
> verb (used without object), colonized, colonizing.
> 
> 3.
> to form a colony:
> They went out to Australia to colonize.
> 
> 4.
> to settle in a colony.
> 
> the definition of colonizer
> *
> Care to try again?
Click to expand...



Except Jews were already there. Colonists = foreigners.


----------



## Coyote

ForeverYoung436 said:


> Solution:
> 
> Although as a Jew it breaks my heart to give away any part of our Promised Land, as a realist I see we have no choice.  So the land has to be divided, unfortunately, according to the 1967 lines, with some land swaps.  Israel should get Ma'alei Adumim (where there's a large Anglo population, including relatives and friends of mine), and the Gush bloc.  Galilee (with its large Arab population), and parts of the Negev can go to Palestine in exchange.  Special visiting arrangements for Jews to go to Abraham's, Rachel's, and Joseph's Tombs in Palestine.  Palestine can be fully independent economically and diplomatically, but it cannot have an army.  The Arab parts of East Jerusalem can be their capital if that's their preference, but that does not include the Old City, which remains under Israeli control.  (Hopefully they will make Ramallah their capital.)  The current status quo remains on the Temple Mount.  No dual citizenship, which means that the current Jewish settlers become Palestinian citizens.  Gaza will not be part of the West Bank Palestine.  It will do whatever it wants to do.  The End.



I'm not sure about no dual citizenship...but I agree on Gaza.  There is no reasonable way to link it without compromising on Israel's security.


----------



## montelatici

Sixties Fan said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Sage of Main Street said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The Holy Land Was Hollow Before the Jews Returned*
> 
> The rational historical analogy is just the opposite.  The Israelis are our brave and productive pioneers, the Arabs are the useless Indian savages.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please, do not offend the First Nations.    They were really there first before the Mayflower and all others began to arrive and not be happy later with what was available for them.
> All water for Europeans, all desert for the Indians.
> 
> *Arabs are from Arabia*
> 
> Jews are from Judea
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's not really true.  The term "Arab" has come to include a wide variety of peoples who's cultures have been "Arabisized"  - Arabic is the common language, and the culture is Arab influenced but that doesn't mean they came from Arabia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The term Arab means all who identify as such having come from the Arabian Peninsula.  The Saudi, the Hashemites, the Husseini, the Yemenites, the UAE, Qatar, are all Arab, in language, culture, etc because they developed that history more then 2000 years ago.
> It is melting pot, an ethnicity, not a race.
> 
> The same goes for the Jews.  Most Jews are from the area of Ancient Canaan.  A melting pot of all the Canaanite tribes which formed the Nation of Israel, and eventually the people came to be known as Jews, from the area of Judea (Judah, one of the twelve tribes).
> 
> Arabs, with all who eventually moved to Arabia and were born there ages ago, are known as Arabs.
> 
> Berbers and any other ethnicity, like the Kurds, Copts, Yazidis, Assyrians,  etc are not Arabs.
> They call themselves Berbers, and not Arabs.  I have met one.
> He spoke Arabic, but did not call himself an Arab, because he was a Berber, which is a distinct group from the Arabs.
> 
> 
> Being "Arabized" is not the same thing as being an Arab.
> Speaking Arabic, as many Jews did in Arab countries, does not make anyone an Arab. Copts in Egypt speak Arabic, and they are not Arabs.
> 
> Arabs now live all over the world.  It does not mean that they did not originate from the Arabian Peninsula.  If not, they would not call themselves Arabs, as the Husseini and their descendants, who came from Arabia into Jerusalem in the 11th century , did.
> 
> Jews are not Jews?
> 
> Arabs are not Arabs?
> 
> Seriously????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me ask you before I go further:  are you arguing that all the "Arab" people in what is now referred to as Palestine/Israel came from elsewhere?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That is the meaning of the word Arab.  Those who come from Arabia.
> Like anyone else, they have moved outside Arabia, especially after the 7th century CE.
> 
> They went to other parts of Asia, Europe, Americas, Australia.
> They are still, and will continue to be, indigenous of the Arabian Peninsula where they originated.
> 
> The Jews just did the same thing, even before the Greek and Roman invasions. Going to Europe with Caesar or during the 70 CE revolt.  They are still indigenous from the ancient Land of Canaan, the Land of Israel.
> 
> Palestine is a Region.
> There was never a Palestinian People on that land, be it the Jews, or anyone else.
> 
> A Palestinian People arose from the Arab leaders in the area needing to keep the Jews from recreating their National Homeland.
> 
> Yes, there were Arabs on the land since the 7th Century invasion.
> They never called themselves Palestinians or anything else but Arabs and Muslims until 1964.
> If the Mandate for Palestine had been called the Mandate for Israel, they would be calling themselves the real Israelites, now.
> If it had been called the Mandate for Canaan, they would be calling themselves Canaanites, now.
> 
> But in reality, Arabs are Arabs, and they are indigenous of Arabia.
> 
> Palestinian Authority Head Admits "Palestinian People" Don't Exist
> 
> Do Berbers call themselves Arabs?  No
> Do the Copts?  No.
> Do any other indigenous people in the Middle East call themselves Arabs, besides the Arabs?  No
> 
> Not the Kurds.  And they are in Mesopotamia, Iraq.
> Not the Assyrians, who are in Syria.
> 
> 
> Who are the Palestinian Arabs?
> Where did all their ancestors come from?
Click to expand...



People whose language is Arabic, call themselves Arabs.  That's what an Arab is.  An Arabian, on the other hand, is a person from the Arabian peninsula.

Tunisians have less Arabian genes than Ashkenazi Jews, yet they call themselves Arabs.  Because they speak Arabic.

The Palestinians have been DNA tested and they are not from Arabia. They are from Palestine/Canaan. Israel blocked the publishing of the results through Jewish surrogates in America and had surrogates sue the authors of the report.   

"Immunologist faces court case"

Unprecedented censorhip at Human Immunology | The BMJ

"A keynote research paper showing that Middle Eastern Jews and Palestinians are genetically almost identical has been pulled from a leading journal.

Academics who have already received copies of Human Immunology have been urged to rip out the offending pages and throw them away."


"In common with earlier studies, the team found no data to support the idea that Jewish people were genetically distinct from other people in the region. In doing so, the team's research challenges claims that Jews are a special, chosen people and that Judaism can only be inherited."

Journal axes gene research on Jews and Palestinians

Details:

"The Eurocentric confusion “Arab = Muslim” has also lowered the Palestinian identity by identifying the country where Mohammed was born (Saudi Arabia) with the Muslim religion; it also has artificially divided peoples both coming from ancient Canaanites (Jews and Palestinians)."




_Arnaiz-Villena, A., Elaiwa, N., Silvera, C., Rostom, A., Moscoso, J., Gómez-Casado, E., Allende, L., Varela, P., & Martínez-Laso, J. (2001). The origin of Palestinians and their genetic relatedness with other Mediterranean populations. Human Immunology, 62, 889-900._

_*ABSTRACT*: The genetic profile of Palestinians has, for the first time, been studied by using human leukocyte antigen (HLA) gene variability and haplotypes. The comparison with other Mediterranean populations by using neighbor-joining dendrograms and correspondence analyses reveal that Palestinians are genetically very close to Jews and other Middle East populations, including Turks (Anatolians), Lebanese, Egyptians, Armenians and Iranians. Archaeologic and genetic data support that both Jews and Palestinians came from the ancient Canaanites, who extensively mixed with Egyptians, Mesopotamian and Anatolian peoples in ancient times. Thus, Palestinian-Jewish rivalry is based in cultural and religious, but not in genetic, differences. The relatively close relatedness of both Jews and Palestinians to western Mediterranean populations reflects the continuous circum-Mediterranean cultural and gene flow that have occurred in prehistoric and historic times. This flow overtly contradicts the demic diffusion model of western Mediterranean populations substitution by agriculturalists coming from the Middle East in the Mesolithic-Neolithic transition.

Hebrew Vision News: The Origin Of Palestinians And Their Genetic Relatedness With Other Mediterranean Populations (PDF)_


----------



## Coyote

Shusha said:


> teddyearp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I see that this thread has devolved into the direction of every other single thread here.  the old grudges, wrongs, and history; when the intent was to look at what is NOW and how to go forward into a peaceful future.
> 
> I want to thank Lipush for starting this thread, Shusha, ForeverYoung, Coyote, and Humanity (hope I got them all) for their positive contributions.
> 
> The rest, well, thanks for ruining an otherwise good thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'd like to know if either Coyote or Humanity, being Palestinian supporters, agree with the proposals on the thread.
Click to expand...


I agree with Foreveryoung I think but would like to see a map.  It's hard to visualize it.  I also wonder why dual citizenship would be opposed but maybe I missed the explanation.


----------



## Shusha

Coyote said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> _In 1950, the Knesset passed the Absentees Property Law, which declared that any property situated within the post-war boundaries of Israel and owned by an Arab who had left the country between November 29, 1947 and May 19, 1948, or by a Palestinian who went abroad or to an area of Palestine held by *hostile forces* up to September 1, 1948, lost all rights to that property. _​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Absentees Property Law says nothing about either Arabs or Jews.​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The way it is applied disproportionately effects Palestinians.
Click to expand...


Of course.  The intent is to identify people who were hostile to the nascent Israeli State.  The same law was enacted by Jordan and affects primarily Jews. 

Do you think this is an egg we can unbreak? Compensation is the only reasonable remedy here for both Jews and Arabs.


----------



## Shusha

Coyote said:


> I agree with Foreveryoung I think but would like to see a map.  It's hard to visualize it.  I also wonder why dual citizenship would be opposed but maybe I missed the explanation.



Something like this:


----------



## louie888

Coyote said:


> louie888 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> louie888 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...It also means that the myth that the Palestinians are mostly "foreign invaders" is just that, a myth just like the myth that the European Jews are foreign "colonizers"....
> 
> 
> 
> LMAO, if the European Jews are not foreign "colonizers," then what the hell are they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Immigrants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *verb (used with object), colonized, colonizing.
> 
> 1.
> to establish a colony in; settle:
> England colonized Australia.
> 
> 2.
> to form a colony of:
> to colonize laborers in a mining region.
> 
> 
> 
> verb (used without object), colonized, colonizing.
> 
> 3.
> to form a colony:
> They went out to Australia to colonize.
> 
> 4.
> to settle in a colony.
> 
> the definition of colonizer
> *
> Care to try again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Except Jews were already there. Colonists = foreigners.
Click to expand...

Not the same "Jews." We are talking about Europeans.

Remember what you said?  

*a myth just like the myth that the European Jews are foreign "colonizers"....*


----------



## Shusha

With respect to above map -- Teddy suggested a Jordan Valley corridor to remain with Israel.  And I suggested a corridor to Hebron to preserve the Jewish Holy Places there.


----------



## Coyote

Sixties Fan said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> teddyearp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler alert: If we just ignore Tinmore's posts in this thread, he will go away.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ha.  He's finally actually contributing to the conversation.  The issue of refugees has to be considered as part of the two-state solution, don't you think?  What are your thoughts on that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The issue of the refugees is only been perpetuated by the Arabs in order to destroy Israel.
> 
> *Never in history, including Jews or any Muslims or Arabs, have a people been kept as refugees beyond the generation which was indeed forced to flee any war, etc.*
> 
> Check the definition for the word refugees.
> 
> Then look at the UNWRA created definition of refugees reserved for only those who were expelled during the war originated by the Arabs leaders in order to destroy Israel.
> 
> Only one definition is valid.
> 
> Jews were forced to become refugees from Europe with WWII and from all Arab/Muslim countries from 1948 on.
> 
> There isn't one Jewish person who continues to call themselves refugees, or makes any demands to return to their original homes, even those who are still living.
> 
> The refugees from Syria, and other places are looking for a new place to live, to move on.
> 
> That is what being a refugee means.
> 
> It means that one does not get to return to where one came from, for the most part, especially while a war continues in the area.
> 
> Many Palestinians were allowed to return to Israel, due to family.
> Israel allowed that.
> 
> No Jews have been allowed back into Jordan, Gaza and many areas of Judea and Samaria where they lived, had homes, etc, as they were taken over by the Arabs from 1948 to 1967.
> 
> There are refugees from the Arab side?
> 
> There are definitely Jewish refugees, forced at gun point, from Judea, Samaria, Jordan and even Gaza.
> 
> In other words, the number of Jews expelled from Arab countries is even greater than the number of Arabs told by their leaders or expelled due to violence towards Israel.
> 
> One solution is to just call the refugee issue even.
> 
> But the Arab Leaders will never accept that.  As they will never accept Israel.
Click to expand...



I will politely disagree here with your first statement - there are many unresolved refugee situations that are long term and ongoing.  This one is not unique - it's just that the others get little attention in comparison.  One of the oldest is Coopers Camp in West Bengal, India - that was est. in 1946 who's people remain stateless and without citizenship in India.

It's true that the Arab countries have used the Palestinian refugees for their own political purposes - but some have taken in a great many Palestinians.  If there is a Palestinian state, then I think that state should negotiate with the Arab countries and Israel on a solution to the refugees.  I think at one time the PA flat out refused to include any refugees outside of the region in the new state.


----------



## Coyote

Shusha said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> _In 1950, the Knesset passed the Absentees Property Law, which declared that any property situated within the post-war boundaries of Israel and owned by an Arab who had left the country between November 29, 1947 and May 19, 1948, or by a Palestinian who went abroad or to an area of Palestine held by *hostile forces* up to September 1, 1948, lost all rights to that property. _​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Absentees Property Law says nothing about either Arabs or Jews.​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The way it is applied disproportionately effects Palestinians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course.  The intent is to identify people who were hostile to the nascent Israeli State.  The same law was enacted by Jordan and affects primarily Jews.
> 
> Do you think this is an egg we can unbreak? Compensation is the only reasonable remedy here for both Jews and Arabs.
Click to expand...


I disagree - I think the there was also substantial intent to gain land and prevent Palestinians from claiming it as per the link.

I think that more recent uses of it it can be reviewed in courts (if they haven't been already) and the courts can decide.  I think in older cases, compensation is the best route - you can't go back.


----------



## Coyote

louie888 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> louie888 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> louie888 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...It also means that the myth that the Palestinians are mostly "foreign invaders" is just that, a myth just like the myth that the European Jews are foreign "colonizers"....
> 
> 
> 
> LMAO, if the European Jews are not foreign "colonizers," then what the hell are they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Immigrants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *verb (used with object), colonized, colonizing.
> 
> 1.
> to establish a colony in; settle:
> England colonized Australia.
> 
> 2.
> to form a colony of:
> to colonize laborers in a mining region.
> 
> 
> 
> verb (used without object), colonized, colonizing.
> 
> 3.
> to form a colony:
> They went out to Australia to colonize.
> 
> 4.
> to settle in a colony.
> 
> the definition of colonizer
> *
> Care to try again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Except Jews were already there. Colonists = foreigners.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not the same "Jews." We are talking about Europeans.
> 
> Remember what you said?
> 
> *a myth just like the myth that the European Jews are foreign "colonizers"....*
Click to expand...


A _colonist_ is a member of a government-backed group that settles in a new country or region. The land that's claimed by a _colonist_ is usually already occupied by another group of people.

What government?
Are they "colonists" if the land was already occupied by their people?


----------



## Coyote

Shusha said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with Foreveryoung I think but would like to see a map.  It's hard to visualize it.  I also wonder why dual citizenship would be opposed but maybe I missed the explanation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Something like this:
Click to expand...


I'm somewhat ignorant of the geography of Israel...so maybe remedies for this was discussed already but - the disontinuity of areas between Jerusalem and Salit seem really problematic.


----------



## Shusha

Coyote said:


> I'm somewhat ignorant of the geography of Israel...so maybe remedies for this was discussed already but - the disontinuity of areas between Jerusalem and Salit seem really problematic.



I think the Palestinian portions can be made contiguous.


----------



## Coyote

Shusha said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm somewhat ignorant of the geography of Israel...so maybe remedies for this was discussed already but - the disontinuity of areas between Jerusalem and Salit seem really problematic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think the Palestinian portions can be made contiguous.
Click to expand...

That could be more workable.

What's your thought on dual citizenship?


----------



## louie888

Coyote said:


> louie888 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> louie888 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> louie888 said:
> 
> 
> 
> LMAO, if the European Jews are not foreign "colonizers," then what the hell are they?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immigrants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *verb (used with object), colonized, colonizing.
> 
> 1.
> to establish a colony in; settle:
> England colonized Australia.
> 
> 2.
> to form a colony of:
> to colonize laborers in a mining region.
> 
> 
> 
> verb (used without object), colonized, colonizing.
> 
> 3.
> to form a colony:
> They went out to Australia to colonize.
> 
> 4.
> to settle in a colony.
> 
> the definition of colonizer
> *
> Care to try again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Except Jews were already there. Colonists = foreigners.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not the same "Jews." We are talking about Europeans.
> 
> Remember what you said?
> 
> *a myth just like the myth that the European Jews are foreign "colonizers"....*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A _colonist_ is a member of a government-backed group that settles in a new country or region. The land that's claimed by a _colonist_ is usually already occupied by another group of people.
> 
> What government?
> Are they "colonists" if the land was already occupied by their people?
Click to expand...

You're not following the conversation and the definition was posted prior.


----------



## Shusha

Coyote said:


> What's your thought on dual citizenship?



I'm mildly for it.  But I'm pretty sure neither the Israelis nor the Palestinians will go for it.  A possible advantage is that if people misbehave they can be extradited to the other nationality.  But that could also be seen as  a disadvantage too.  Depends on how actually peaceful the eventual peace treaty is.


----------



## Coyote

Shusha said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's your thought on dual citizenship?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm mildly for it.  But I'm pretty sure neither the Israelis nor the Palestinians will go for it.  A possible advantage is that if people misbehave they can be extradited to the other nationality.  But that could also be seen as  a disadvantage too.  Depends on how actually peaceful the eventual peace treaty is.
Click to expand...


I can see the disadvantages - when you two states formed that have been in conflict for so long, there could always be questions and concerns about loyalty.


----------



## Sixties Fan

Coyote said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is the meaning of the word Arab.  Those who come from Arabia.
> Like anyone else, they have moved outside Arabia, especially after the 7th century CE.
> 
> They went to other parts of Asia, Europe, Americas, Australia.
> They are still, and will continue to be, indigenous of the Arabian Peninsula where they originated.
> 
> The Jews just did the same thing, even before the Greek and Roman invasions. Going to Europe with Caesar or during the 70 CE revolt.  They are still indigenous from the ancient Land of Canaan, the Land of Israel.
> 
> Palestine is a Region.
> There was never a Palestinian People on that land, be it the Jews, or anyone else.
> 
> A Palestinian People arose from the Arab leaders in the area needing to keep the Jews from recreating their National Homeland.
> 
> Yes, there were Arabs on the land since the 7th Century invasion.
> They never called themselves Palestinians or anything else but Arabs and Muslims until 1964.
> If the Mandate for Palestine had been called the Mandate for Israel, they would be calling themselves the real Israelites, now.
> If it had been called the Mandate for Canaan, they would be calling themselves Canaanites, now.
> 
> But in reality, Arabs are Arabs, and they are indigenous of Arabia.
> 
> Palestinian Authority Head Admits "Palestinian People" Don't Exist
> 
> Do Berbers call themselves Arabs?  No
> Do the Copts?  No.
> Do any other indigenous people in the Middle East call themselves Arabs, besides the Arabs?  No
> 
> Not the Kurds.  And they are in Mesopotamia, Iraq.
> Not the Assyrians, who are in Syria.
> 
> 
> Who are the Palestinian Arabs?
> Where did all their ancestors come from?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who are the Palestinian Arabs?
> 
> *Blood brothers: Palestinians and Jews share genetic roots*
> Blood brothers with Jews and Druze.
> 
> 
> *What is the Arab history in Palestine?*
> *Arabs are not a singular people. Origins are complex and intermingled with many peoples and lines.* According to tradition, true Arabs are descendants of Abraham and his son Ishmael and prior to the 20th century, “Arab” designated the Bedouin, tribal-based society of the Arabian desert, which is the birthplace of Arabic. *Other Arabs are ethnic groups that have been extant in their lands of origin for millennia.* Modern Arab nationalism is a product of 19th- and 20th-century developments and has no prior historical basis. *Before the rise of nationalism, most Arabic-speakers identified themselves as members of a particular family or tribe; as residents of a village, town, or region; as Muslims, Christians, or Jews; or as subjects of large political entities such as the Ottoman empire*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please, spare me the "Palestinians and Jews share genetic roots"
> nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fine.  Ignore the science if you want to.
> 
> It really shouldn't suprise you given the movements and migrations of people in that area throughout a long period of history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They never said that BEFORE they were to lose the land of Israel to the Jews.  And right now, it is only 20% of the Jewish Homeland.
> Which they want very badly, and with no Jews around, or very few.
> Vide Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Bahrain, Yemen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> None of which has any bearing on the science of it.
> 
> Why does the fact that they are closely related upset you so much?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is total nonsense and all it takes is for the Arabs to take a DNA test to prove if they came from the region of Ancient Canaan, or from the region of Arabia.
> 
> Some Jews being forced into Islam and or intermarrying with Arabs for the past 100 years, does not make Jews and Arabs of the same genetic root.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It does if you accept the fact that "arab" applies to a wide group of people.  If anything it's fascinating as it gives an insight into the interrelatedness and movements of different ancient people.
> 
> It also means that the myth that the Palestinians are mostly "foreign invaders" is just that, a myth just like the myth that the European Jews are foreign "colonizers".
> 
> And the only purpose of perpetrating those memes is to delegitimize one or the other and that leads to *no solutions.  *That's also why "indiginous" is meaningless in resolving this conflict.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are ignoring the Jewish DNA and the studies about it.
> 
> How many of those who got tested by the results you are providing have gone to Jewish labs and taken a DNA test to prove that they have any Jewish DNA in them?
> 
> I can tell you.  Zero.
> 
> Why? Because those who have made the tests you are providing, would never provide the same people they tested to prove via a Jewish DNA test, that they actually have any Jewish DNA in them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So...you are saying that unless these genetic studies are done in a "Jewish lab" they are fraudulant?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which does not mean that those Arabs who have any Jewish DNA in them are Jewish, all it means it that at some point in the past 1700 years, their ancestors had relations with those from the one Jewish Tribe from Arabia, whose females and children were sold into slavery in the 7th Century, or any other Jews who were forced to convert to Islam in any part of Islam conquered land, or somewho have intermarried with Arabs, since the last century, including in Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not saying they ARE Jewish - I'm saying they are CLOSELY RELATED and in fact MORE CLOSELY RELATED to some of the Jewish groups than to some of the Arab groups.
> 
> Why does it bother you so much to acknowledge they are closely related?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Same genetic root does not mean what you seem to think it does.
> 
> Semitic is a group of languages.  The languages are similar, but not the same.
> 
> If it was a matter of being "Semitic" then all Arameic, Samaritians, etc would be also of the same genetic root as the Arabs.
> So would the Copts, the Syrians, the Kurds.
> All must have had intermarriages with the Arabs at some point, no matter what the number is.
> 
> DNA, the genetic roots, is about where the people come from, that is what a DNA test proves.
> 
> Can any Arab take the test and prove that they have Jewish DNA, aka, some ancestor came from the ancient land of Canaan/Israel?
> 
> That is what many are proving, from China, India, Ethiopia, etc.
> 
> When are the Arabs going to do allow Israel to conduct DNA tests on those who claim to have Jewish Ancestry?
> 
> Still, it does not mean that ALL Arabs, as they come from Arabia, have Jewish ancestry, common genetic roots, in them.
> 
> As you can tell, it is not that Arabs ARE genetically connected to Jews, is that they have been lying for the past 50 years that they have any ancestral connection at all.
> 
> Root means, Jews and Arabs come from the same place.
> 
> They do not, and Arabs know that.
> 
> Another attempt to displace the Jews from their ancient Land and turning Ancient Israel into a majority, or only, Arab population with an unproven test is nothing to get upset about.
> 
> 
> The Jews have the part of Israel they have and they are keeping it, and keeping the country and the population safe, despite all the attempts to the contrary.
> 
> No different than it was during Greek or Roman control of their land.
> 
> No Arabs in sight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you winding me up?
Click to expand...



I am saying:

What is the evidence that those labs had Jewish DNA to compare to?

Exactly where are the documents from any of these studies and have they been seen or studied by Jewish geneticists experts?
I see no articles or studies determining that it ever occurred.
That the study, the tests, have either been confirmed or not, by any Israeli, or Jewish lab with the ability to study the results.

What are the names of the people who were part of those studies, and would they subject to another test, one from a lab which could compare their DNA with the Jewish DNA?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Coyote said:


> louie888 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...It also means that the myth that the Palestinians are mostly "foreign invaders" is just that, a myth just like the myth that the European Jews are foreign "colonizers"....
> 
> 
> 
> LMAO, if the European Jews are not foreign "colonizers," then what the hell are they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Immigrants.
Click to expand...

*NOT!*


----------



## P F Tinmore

Coyote said:


> louie888 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> louie888 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...It also means that the myth that the Palestinians are mostly "foreign invaders" is just that, a myth just like the myth that the European Jews are foreign "colonizers"....
> 
> 
> 
> LMAO, if the European Jews are not foreign "colonizers," then what the hell are they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Immigrants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *verb (used with object), colonized, colonizing.
> 
> 1.
> to establish a colony in; settle:
> England colonized Australia.
> 
> 2.
> to form a colony of:
> to colonize laborers in a mining region.
> 
> 
> 
> verb (used without object), colonized, colonizing.
> 
> 3.
> to form a colony:
> They went out to Australia to colonize.
> 
> 4.
> to settle in a colony.
> 
> the definition of colonizer
> *
> Care to try again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Except Jews were already there. Colonists = foreigners.
Click to expand...

Only a few percent of the original citizens were Jews. The rest were imported by the Zionists for their settler colonial project.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> louie888 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> louie888 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...It also means that the myth that the Palestinians are mostly "foreign invaders" is just that, a myth just like the myth that the European Jews are foreign "colonizers"....
> 
> 
> 
> LMAO, if the European Jews are not foreign "colonizers," then what the hell are they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Immigrants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *verb (used with object), colonized, colonizing.
> 
> 1.
> to establish a colony in; settle:
> England colonized Australia.
> 
> 2.
> to form a colony of:
> to colonize laborers in a mining region.
> 
> 
> 
> verb (used without object), colonized, colonizing.
> 
> 3.
> to form a colony:
> They went out to Australia to colonize.
> 
> 4.
> to settle in a colony.
> 
> the definition of colonizer
> *
> Care to try again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Except Jews were already there. Colonists = foreigners.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only a few percent of the original citizens were Jews. The rest were imported by the Zionists for their settler colonial project.
Click to expand...


All your usual silly slogans and clichés.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Coyote said:


> louie888 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> louie888 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> louie888 said:
> 
> 
> 
> LMAO, if the European Jews are not foreign "colonizers," then what the hell are they?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immigrants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *verb (used with object), colonized, colonizing.
> 
> 1.
> to establish a colony in; settle:
> England colonized Australia.
> 
> 2.
> to form a colony of:
> to colonize laborers in a mining region.
> 
> 
> 
> verb (used without object), colonized, colonizing.
> 
> 3.
> to form a colony:
> They went out to Australia to colonize.
> 
> 4.
> to settle in a colony.
> 
> the definition of colonizer
> *
> Care to try again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Except Jews were already there. Colonists = foreigners.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not the same "Jews." We are talking about Europeans.
> 
> Remember what you said?
> 
> *a myth just like the myth that the European Jews are foreign "colonizers"....*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A _colonist_ is a member of a government-backed group that settles in a new country or region. The land that's claimed by a _colonist_ is usually already occupied by another group of people.
> 
> What government?
> Are they "colonists" if the land was already occupied by their people?
Click to expand...

Settler colonialism differs from classic colonialism.

Essays consider how race, sexuality and gender, and ethnicity shape experiences of settler colonialism, how public and private space are administered, how citizenship laws establish boundaries of national inclusion and exclusion, how religious motives drive settler colonialism, and how settler colonial regimes appropriate and “cleanse” indigenous cultures and histories.

Settler Colonialism​


----------



## Slyhunter

Lipush said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is not "the territory" it is Palestinian territory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Answer the question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your link is dead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know.  I fixed it.  I was just trying to find a video of the mad Irish man in Braveheart -- "answer the f*cking question".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why should the Palestinians divide their territory. They have been saying no to that since 1937. You would think people would get the hint.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why should I give up my house, for that matter? That land belonged to my family since the previous century?
Click to expand...

Belongs to the Israelites first.


----------



## Slyhunter

Shusha said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with Foreveryoung I think but would like to see a map.  It's hard to visualize it.  I also wonder why dual citizenship would be opposed but maybe I missed the explanation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Something like this:
Click to expand...

Why do they need safe passage route? Why do they need that tiny bit of land in Gaza when all it does is divide Israel?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Sixties Fan said:


> If the Landowner is absentee, and cannot be found, in the case of any property in Israel, the State does have the right after many years of trying to have the owners come forward, to take over said property.


This is standard for Israel to do. They will designate land a closed military zone, put the land on the other side of a wall, deny permits to build homes and plant trees, or the owner may live in a refugee camp in Lebanon.

Then Israel says that the owner is absent and takes the land.

All quite legal, you see.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Sixties Fan said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Private ownership of land does not remove that land from the country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There was hardly any private ownership by the poor Arabs who were toiling the land.
> 
> You insist in forgetting that none of the Arabs in the North of Israel left the land, which had become Israel.
> They were not foolish enough to believe the Arab leaders who told the ones in the south to leave and for those who could, fight and kill the Jews.
> 
> The Arabs lost the war.  They do not get a do over, as they tried again and again in 1957, 1967 and 1973 and lost all the other three times as well.
> 
> By all means, choose to forget that Israel did not expel all the Muslims from the North of Israel, or anywhere else in what became Israel in 1948.
> 
> Nor did they expel any Muslims in 1957, or 1967 when Israel got the areas of Judea and Samaria.  No Muslims were expelled from "East Jerusalem", which had been populated by Jews until 1948.  It was known as the Jewish Quarter of the city of Jerusalem until 1948.
> Now it is mostly populated by Arabs who will not give back homes belonging to Jews, as you seem to be demanding that Jews return lands, and homes never really owned by Arabs.
> 
> *The Arabs with proof that the property was theirs are allowed to reclaim their property under Israeli law.*
> 
> There is no such law under the PLO, the PA, Fatah, or Hamas to return Jewish properties.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not necessarily.
> 
> Israel can now legally seize Palestinians' homes in Jerusalem
> Absentee landowners? West Bank landowners can't get to their land
> Israeli Aide Bars Policy of Seizing Arab Land
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Are you at all aware that Jewish property has been seized by Arabs from 1920 to 1948, in Gaza, Hebron, Sfad, TransJordan, and later in all the Arab countries where they were expelled?
> 
> They "legally" seized all of those properties by law, by stripping all Jews of their citizenship in those Arab and European countries as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I was "at all aware" of that, as well as the explusion of Jews from Arab countries and the treatment of Jews in Europe.  I'm not sure how that is any sort of justification for continuing the practice of seizures and confiscations.
> 
> Those who's lands were confiscated during the expulsions should get compensation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the Landowner is absentee, and cannot be found, in the case of any property in Israel, the State does have the right after many years of trying to have the owners come forward, to take over said property.
> 
> It would be the same in any country.
> 
> Israel is not lawless.  The courts usually favor the Arabs in their claims for property, even if they do not show any proof of it.
> 
> Anywhere in the world, if one cannot show proof of ownership of land, the land reverts back to the State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would be the first to agree that land law and land rights in that part of the world are extremely complicated compared to say the US or Europe. But in my view there is little question that the absentee land owners law, and associated later laws were put in place primarily to allow for easy confiscation of property.
> 
> Of course Israel is not a lawless state, but that doesn't mean it's laws are always just.
> 
> In the case of "absentee land owner laws" - I disagree with you.  Quite often the owner CAN be found, but is unable to enter the country.  These laws are also frequently used to confiscate property, and in fact that was a large reason they were created in the first place.  Jews have a lower burden of proof in order to reclaim property than Palestinians.
> 
> Arabs, Jews don't have equal rights to recover property
> _In 1950, the Knesset passed the Absentees Property Law, which declared that *any property situated within the post-war boundaries of Israel and owned by an Arab who had left the country between November 29, 1947 and May 19, 1948, or by a Palestinian who went abroad or to an area of Palestine held by hostile forces up to September 1, 1948, lost all rights to that property.*
> 
> The law appointed a Custodianship Council for Absentees' Property, whose president was to be known as the custodian of absentees' property. It then declared that "every right an absentee had in any property shall pass automatically to the custodian at the time of the vesting of the property; and the status of the custodian shall be the same as was that of the owner of the property."
> 
> In other words, the law stated that all property belonging to "absentee" owners *was irretrievably lost to them.*..
> 
> ...Ironically, the Palestinians who are being evicted from Sheikh Jarrah were in exactly the same positions as the Jewish owners of the land they have lived on since 1956. They owned property in west Jerusalem and lost it as a result of the War of Independence, while the Sephardic Community and Knesset Israel committees owned land in east Jerusalem and lost it as a result of the War of Independence.
> 
> The difference is, however, that *because of Israeli legislation, the Jewish landowners could recover their land once the city was united, but the Palestinian landowners could not.*_​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1)  Jews did not start the riots or wars from 1920 on.
> 
> 2)  The Jews did not start the wars of 1948, and 1967
> Israel won all of those wars.
> 
> The losers of wars do not get to make demands.
> 
> Israel has done more to allowing Arabs back into Israel because of family reunification (when they could have had the families in Israel simply leave) than either Egypt, Jordan, the PLO or any other Arab organization.
> 
> Just as the Jordanians and Egyptians refused to allow Jews to buy, reside or recover any property between 1920 and 1967, Israel has no obligation to give "back" any Arab land.
> 
> Although it does all the time, as I said.
> 
> Jews are being evicted from Amona, exactly because an Arab claimed part of the land, or all of it, and the court agreed with them.
> So the Jews are being evicted.
> 
> Israeli police begin forced removal of Amona settlers in the West Bank
> 
> 3)  The Jews, once Jerusalem was unified, did not get to just go to their homes and reclaim them.  It was the Jewish Quarter in 1948, when it was taken over by Jordan.
> It became the Arab Quarter, and it is still known as that as most who still live there, in houses previously owned by Jews, are Arabs who moved into that Quarter after 1948.
> 
> Very few Jews have, through the courts and decades of fighting it, been given back the keys to their homes in East Jerusalem after 1948. Or anywhere else in Judea and Samaria.
> 
> Instead they have built villages near the cities they were made to leave.
> 
> No Arabs have been made to leave Hebron ( or any other previously Jewish city like Jericho, Shilo, etc)   which was a majority Jewish city in 1948, and is now a small minority since 1967.
> 
> All of those cities, all of Judea and Samaria and the Jewish Quarters were completely cleansed of all Jews.
> 
> Where has Israel done the same thing since 1948, in all the wars, as it regained Judea and Samaria and the Jewish Quarter back?
Click to expand...

The Palestinians never lost a war to Israel. The Palestinians never lost any land to Israel.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> There was hardly any private ownership by the poor Arabs who were toiling the land.
> 
> You insist in forgetting that none of the Arabs in the North of Israel left the land, which had become Israel.
> They were not foolish enough to believe the Arab leaders who told the ones in the south to leave and for those who could, fight and kill the Jews.
> 
> The Arabs lost the war.  They do not get a do over, as they tried again and again in 1957, 1967 and 1973 and lost all the other three times as well.
> 
> By all means, choose to forget that Israel did not expel all the Muslims from the North of Israel, or anywhere else in what became Israel in 1948.
> 
> Nor did they expel any Muslims in 1957, or 1967 when Israel got the areas of Judea and Samaria.  No Muslims were expelled from "East Jerusalem", which had been populated by Jews until 1948.  It was known as the Jewish Quarter of the city of Jerusalem until 1948.
> Now it is mostly populated by Arabs who will not give back homes belonging to Jews, as you seem to be demanding that Jews return lands, and homes never really owned by Arabs.
> 
> *The Arabs with proof that the property was theirs are allowed to reclaim their property under Israeli law.*
> 
> There is no such law under the PLO, the PA, Fatah, or Hamas to return Jewish properties.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not necessarily.
> 
> Israel can now legally seize Palestinians' homes in Jerusalem
> Absentee landowners? West Bank landowners can't get to their land
> Israeli Aide Bars Policy of Seizing Arab Land
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Are you at all aware that Jewish property has been seized by Arabs from 1920 to 1948, in Gaza, Hebron, Sfad, TransJordan, and later in all the Arab countries where they were expelled?
> 
> They "legally" seized all of those properties by law, by stripping all Jews of their citizenship in those Arab and European countries as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I was "at all aware" of that, as well as the explusion of Jews from Arab countries and the treatment of Jews in Europe.  I'm not sure how that is any sort of justification for continuing the practice of seizures and confiscations.
> 
> Those who's lands were confiscated during the expulsions should get compensation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the Landowner is absentee, and cannot be found, in the case of any property in Israel, the State does have the right after many years of trying to have the owners come forward, to take over said property.
> 
> It would be the same in any country.
> 
> Israel is not lawless.  The courts usually favor the Arabs in their claims for property, even if they do not show any proof of it.
> 
> Anywhere in the world, if one cannot show proof of ownership of land, the land reverts back to the State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would be the first to agree that land law and land rights in that part of the world are extremely complicated compared to say the US or Europe. But in my view there is little question that the absentee land owners law, and associated later laws were put in place primarily to allow for easy confiscation of property.
> 
> Of course Israel is not a lawless state, but that doesn't mean it's laws are always just.
> 
> In the case of "absentee land owner laws" - I disagree with you.  Quite often the owner CAN be found, but is unable to enter the country.  These laws are also frequently used to confiscate property, and in fact that was a large reason they were created in the first place.  Jews have a lower burden of proof in order to reclaim property than Palestinians.
> 
> Arabs, Jews don't have equal rights to recover property
> _In 1950, the Knesset passed the Absentees Property Law, which declared that *any property situated within the post-war boundaries of Israel and owned by an Arab who had left the country between November 29, 1947 and May 19, 1948, or by a Palestinian who went abroad or to an area of Palestine held by hostile forces up to September 1, 1948, lost all rights to that property.*
> 
> The law appointed a Custodianship Council for Absentees' Property, whose president was to be known as the custodian of absentees' property. It then declared that "every right an absentee had in any property shall pass automatically to the custodian at the time of the vesting of the property; and the status of the custodian shall be the same as was that of the owner of the property."
> 
> In other words, the law stated that all property belonging to "absentee" owners *was irretrievably lost to them.*..
> 
> ...Ironically, the Palestinians who are being evicted from Sheikh Jarrah were in exactly the same positions as the Jewish owners of the land they have lived on since 1956. They owned property in west Jerusalem and lost it as a result of the War of Independence, while the Sephardic Community and Knesset Israel committees owned land in east Jerusalem and lost it as a result of the War of Independence.
> 
> The difference is, however, that *because of Israeli legislation, the Jewish landowners could recover their land once the city was united, but the Palestinian landowners could not.*_​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1)  Jews did not start the riots or wars from 1920 on.
> 
> 2)  The Jews did not start the wars of 1948, and 1967
> Israel won all of those wars.
> 
> The losers of wars do not get to make demands.
> 
> Israel has done more to allowing Arabs back into Israel because of family reunification (when they could have had the families in Israel simply leave) than either Egypt, Jordan, the PLO or any other Arab organization.
> 
> Just as the Jordanians and Egyptians refused to allow Jews to buy, reside or recover any property between 1920 and 1967, Israel has no obligation to give "back" any Arab land.
> 
> Although it does all the time, as I said.
> 
> Jews are being evicted from Amona, exactly because an Arab claimed part of the land, or all of it, and the court agreed with them.
> So the Jews are being evicted.
> 
> Israeli police begin forced removal of Amona settlers in the West Bank
> 
> 3)  The Jews, once Jerusalem was unified, did not get to just go to their homes and reclaim them.  It was the Jewish Quarter in 1948, when it was taken over by Jordan.
> It became the Arab Quarter, and it is still known as that as most who still live there, in houses previously owned by Jews, are Arabs who moved into that Quarter after 1948.
> 
> Very few Jews have, through the courts and decades of fighting it, been given back the keys to their homes in East Jerusalem after 1948. Or anywhere else in Judea and Samaria.
> 
> Instead they have built villages near the cities they were made to leave.
> 
> No Arabs have been made to leave Hebron ( or any other previously Jewish city like Jericho, Shilo, etc)   which was a majority Jewish city in 1948, and is now a small minority since 1967.
> 
> All of those cities, all of Judea and Samaria and the Jewish Quarters were completely cleansed of all Jews.
> 
> Where has Israel done the same thing since 1948, in all the wars, as it regained Judea and Samaria and the Jewish Quarter back?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Palestinians never lost a war to Israel. The Palestinians never lost any land to Israel.
Click to expand...


The Magical Kingdom of Disney Pally'land.


----------



## Shusha

Slyhunter said:


> Why do they need safe passage route? Why do they need that tiny bit of land in Gaza when all it does is divide Israel?



I think a safe passage route between Gaza and Palestine is ridiculous at this point.  They aren't exactly playing for the same team, now, are they?  So I would remove that from the map.


----------



## Slyhunter

P F Tinmore said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> There was hardly any private ownership by the poor Arabs who were toiling the land.
> 
> You insist in forgetting that none of the Arabs in the North of Israel left the land, which had become Israel.
> They were not foolish enough to believe the Arab leaders who told the ones in the south to leave and for those who could, fight and kill the Jews.
> 
> The Arabs lost the war.  They do not get a do over, as they tried again and again in 1957, 1967 and 1973 and lost all the other three times as well.
> 
> By all means, choose to forget that Israel did not expel all the Muslims from the North of Israel, or anywhere else in what became Israel in 1948.
> 
> Nor did they expel any Muslims in 1957, or 1967 when Israel got the areas of Judea and Samaria.  No Muslims were expelled from "East Jerusalem", which had been populated by Jews until 1948.  It was known as the Jewish Quarter of the city of Jerusalem until 1948.
> Now it is mostly populated by Arabs who will not give back homes belonging to Jews, as you seem to be demanding that Jews return lands, and homes never really owned by Arabs.
> 
> *The Arabs with proof that the property was theirs are allowed to reclaim their property under Israeli law.*
> 
> There is no such law under the PLO, the PA, Fatah, or Hamas to return Jewish properties.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not necessarily.
> 
> Israel can now legally seize Palestinians' homes in Jerusalem
> Absentee landowners? West Bank landowners can't get to their land
> Israeli Aide Bars Policy of Seizing Arab Land
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Are you at all aware that Jewish property has been seized by Arabs from 1920 to 1948, in Gaza, Hebron, Sfad, TransJordan, and later in all the Arab countries where they were expelled?
> 
> They "legally" seized all of those properties by law, by stripping all Jews of their citizenship in those Arab and European countries as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I was "at all aware" of that, as well as the explusion of Jews from Arab countries and the treatment of Jews in Europe.  I'm not sure how that is any sort of justification for continuing the practice of seizures and confiscations.
> 
> Those who's lands were confiscated during the expulsions should get compensation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the Landowner is absentee, and cannot be found, in the case of any property in Israel, the State does have the right after many years of trying to have the owners come forward, to take over said property.
> 
> It would be the same in any country.
> 
> Israel is not lawless.  The courts usually favor the Arabs in their claims for property, even if they do not show any proof of it.
> 
> Anywhere in the world, if one cannot show proof of ownership of land, the land reverts back to the State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would be the first to agree that land law and land rights in that part of the world are extremely complicated compared to say the US or Europe. But in my view there is little question that the absentee land owners law, and associated later laws were put in place primarily to allow for easy confiscation of property.
> 
> Of course Israel is not a lawless state, but that doesn't mean it's laws are always just.
> 
> In the case of "absentee land owner laws" - I disagree with you.  Quite often the owner CAN be found, but is unable to enter the country.  These laws are also frequently used to confiscate property, and in fact that was a large reason they were created in the first place.  Jews have a lower burden of proof in order to reclaim property than Palestinians.
> 
> Arabs, Jews don't have equal rights to recover property
> _In 1950, the Knesset passed the Absentees Property Law, which declared that *any property situated within the post-war boundaries of Israel and owned by an Arab who had left the country between November 29, 1947 and May 19, 1948, or by a Palestinian who went abroad or to an area of Palestine held by hostile forces up to September 1, 1948, lost all rights to that property.*
> 
> The law appointed a Custodianship Council for Absentees' Property, whose president was to be known as the custodian of absentees' property. It then declared that "every right an absentee had in any property shall pass automatically to the custodian at the time of the vesting of the property; and the status of the custodian shall be the same as was that of the owner of the property."
> 
> In other words, the law stated that all property belonging to "absentee" owners *was irretrievably lost to them.*..
> 
> ...Ironically, the Palestinians who are being evicted from Sheikh Jarrah were in exactly the same positions as the Jewish owners of the land they have lived on since 1956. They owned property in west Jerusalem and lost it as a result of the War of Independence, while the Sephardic Community and Knesset Israel committees owned land in east Jerusalem and lost it as a result of the War of Independence.
> 
> The difference is, however, that *because of Israeli legislation, the Jewish landowners could recover their land once the city was united, but the Palestinian landowners could not.*_​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1)  Jews did not start the riots or wars from 1920 on.
> 
> 2)  The Jews did not start the wars of 1948, and 1967
> Israel won all of those wars.
> 
> The losers of wars do not get to make demands.
> 
> Israel has done more to allowing Arabs back into Israel because of family reunification (when they could have had the families in Israel simply leave) than either Egypt, Jordan, the PLO or any other Arab organization.
> 
> Just as the Jordanians and Egyptians refused to allow Jews to buy, reside or recover any property between 1920 and 1967, Israel has no obligation to give "back" any Arab land.
> 
> Although it does all the time, as I said.
> 
> Jews are being evicted from Amona, exactly because an Arab claimed part of the land, or all of it, and the court agreed with them.
> So the Jews are being evicted.
> 
> Israeli police begin forced removal of Amona settlers in the West Bank
> 
> 3)  The Jews, once Jerusalem was unified, did not get to just go to their homes and reclaim them.  It was the Jewish Quarter in 1948, when it was taken over by Jordan.
> It became the Arab Quarter, and it is still known as that as most who still live there, in houses previously owned by Jews, are Arabs who moved into that Quarter after 1948.
> 
> Very few Jews have, through the courts and decades of fighting it, been given back the keys to their homes in East Jerusalem after 1948. Or anywhere else in Judea and Samaria.
> 
> Instead they have built villages near the cities they were made to leave.
> 
> No Arabs have been made to leave Hebron ( or any other previously Jewish city like Jericho, Shilo, etc)   which was a majority Jewish city in 1948, and is now a small minority since 1967.
> 
> All of those cities, all of Judea and Samaria and the Jewish Quarters were completely cleansed of all Jews.
> 
> Where has Israel done the same thing since 1948, in all the wars, as it regained Judea and Samaria and the Jewish Quarter back?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Palestinians never lost a war to Israel. The Palestinians never lost any land to Israel.
Click to expand...

The possessor of the land did, Egypt and Jordan.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Slyhunter said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> Not necessarily.
> 
> Israel can now legally seize Palestinians' homes in Jerusalem
> Absentee landowners? West Bank landowners can't get to their land
> Israeli Aide Bars Policy of Seizing Arab Land
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you at all aware that Jewish property has been seized by Arabs from 1920 to 1948, in Gaza, Hebron, Sfad, TransJordan, and later in all the Arab countries where they were expelled?
> 
> They "legally" seized all of those properties by law, by stripping all Jews of their citizenship in those Arab and European countries as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I was "at all aware" of that, as well as the explusion of Jews from Arab countries and the treatment of Jews in Europe.  I'm not sure how that is any sort of justification for continuing the practice of seizures and confiscations.
> 
> Those who's lands were confiscated during the expulsions should get compensation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the Landowner is absentee, and cannot be found, in the case of any property in Israel, the State does have the right after many years of trying to have the owners come forward, to take over said property.
> 
> It would be the same in any country.
> 
> Israel is not lawless.  The courts usually favor the Arabs in their claims for property, even if they do not show any proof of it.
> 
> Anywhere in the world, if one cannot show proof of ownership of land, the land reverts back to the State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would be the first to agree that land law and land rights in that part of the world are extremely complicated compared to say the US or Europe. But in my view there is little question that the absentee land owners law, and associated later laws were put in place primarily to allow for easy confiscation of property.
> 
> Of course Israel is not a lawless state, but that doesn't mean it's laws are always just.
> 
> In the case of "absentee land owner laws" - I disagree with you.  Quite often the owner CAN be found, but is unable to enter the country.  These laws are also frequently used to confiscate property, and in fact that was a large reason they were created in the first place.  Jews have a lower burden of proof in order to reclaim property than Palestinians.
> 
> Arabs, Jews don't have equal rights to recover property
> _In 1950, the Knesset passed the Absentees Property Law, which declared that *any property situated within the post-war boundaries of Israel and owned by an Arab who had left the country between November 29, 1947 and May 19, 1948, or by a Palestinian who went abroad or to an area of Palestine held by hostile forces up to September 1, 1948, lost all rights to that property.*
> 
> The law appointed a Custodianship Council for Absentees' Property, whose president was to be known as the custodian of absentees' property. It then declared that "every right an absentee had in any property shall pass automatically to the custodian at the time of the vesting of the property; and the status of the custodian shall be the same as was that of the owner of the property."
> 
> In other words, the law stated that all property belonging to "absentee" owners *was irretrievably lost to them.*..
> 
> ...Ironically, the Palestinians who are being evicted from Sheikh Jarrah were in exactly the same positions as the Jewish owners of the land they have lived on since 1956. They owned property in west Jerusalem and lost it as a result of the War of Independence, while the Sephardic Community and Knesset Israel committees owned land in east Jerusalem and lost it as a result of the War of Independence.
> 
> The difference is, however, that *because of Israeli legislation, the Jewish landowners could recover their land once the city was united, but the Palestinian landowners could not.*_​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1)  Jews did not start the riots or wars from 1920 on.
> 
> 2)  The Jews did not start the wars of 1948, and 1967
> Israel won all of those wars.
> 
> The losers of wars do not get to make demands.
> 
> Israel has done more to allowing Arabs back into Israel because of family reunification (when they could have had the families in Israel simply leave) than either Egypt, Jordan, the PLO or any other Arab organization.
> 
> Just as the Jordanians and Egyptians refused to allow Jews to buy, reside or recover any property between 1920 and 1967, Israel has no obligation to give "back" any Arab land.
> 
> Although it does all the time, as I said.
> 
> Jews are being evicted from Amona, exactly because an Arab claimed part of the land, or all of it, and the court agreed with them.
> So the Jews are being evicted.
> 
> Israeli police begin forced removal of Amona settlers in the West Bank
> 
> 3)  The Jews, once Jerusalem was unified, did not get to just go to their homes and reclaim them.  It was the Jewish Quarter in 1948, when it was taken over by Jordan.
> It became the Arab Quarter, and it is still known as that as most who still live there, in houses previously owned by Jews, are Arabs who moved into that Quarter after 1948.
> 
> Very few Jews have, through the courts and decades of fighting it, been given back the keys to their homes in East Jerusalem after 1948. Or anywhere else in Judea and Samaria.
> 
> Instead they have built villages near the cities they were made to leave.
> 
> No Arabs have been made to leave Hebron ( or any other previously Jewish city like Jericho, Shilo, etc)   which was a majority Jewish city in 1948, and is now a small minority since 1967.
> 
> All of those cities, all of Judea and Samaria and the Jewish Quarters were completely cleansed of all Jews.
> 
> Where has Israel done the same thing since 1948, in all the wars, as it regained Judea and Samaria and the Jewish Quarter back?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Palestinians never lost a war to Israel. The Palestinians never lost any land to Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The possessor of the land did, Egypt and Jordan.
Click to expand...

Egypt and Jordan occupied Palestinian territory. That territory was not theirs to lose.


----------



## Slyhunter

P F Tinmore said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you at all aware that Jewish property has been seized by Arabs from 1920 to 1948, in Gaza, Hebron, Sfad, TransJordan, and later in all the Arab countries where they were expelled?
> 
> They "legally" seized all of those properties by law, by stripping all Jews of their citizenship in those Arab and European countries as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I was "at all aware" of that, as well as the explusion of Jews from Arab countries and the treatment of Jews in Europe.  I'm not sure how that is any sort of justification for continuing the practice of seizures and confiscations.
> 
> Those who's lands were confiscated during the expulsions should get compensation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the Landowner is absentee, and cannot be found, in the case of any property in Israel, the State does have the right after many years of trying to have the owners come forward, to take over said property.
> 
> It would be the same in any country.
> 
> Israel is not lawless.  The courts usually favor the Arabs in their claims for property, even if they do not show any proof of it.
> 
> Anywhere in the world, if one cannot show proof of ownership of land, the land reverts back to the State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would be the first to agree that land law and land rights in that part of the world are extremely complicated compared to say the US or Europe. But in my view there is little question that the absentee land owners law, and associated later laws were put in place primarily to allow for easy confiscation of property.
> 
> Of course Israel is not a lawless state, but that doesn't mean it's laws are always just.
> 
> In the case of "absentee land owner laws" - I disagree with you.  Quite often the owner CAN be found, but is unable to enter the country.  These laws are also frequently used to confiscate property, and in fact that was a large reason they were created in the first place.  Jews have a lower burden of proof in order to reclaim property than Palestinians.
> 
> Arabs, Jews don't have equal rights to recover property
> _In 1950, the Knesset passed the Absentees Property Law, which declared that *any property situated within the post-war boundaries of Israel and owned by an Arab who had left the country between November 29, 1947 and May 19, 1948, or by a Palestinian who went abroad or to an area of Palestine held by hostile forces up to September 1, 1948, lost all rights to that property.*
> 
> The law appointed a Custodianship Council for Absentees' Property, whose president was to be known as the custodian of absentees' property. It then declared that "every right an absentee had in any property shall pass automatically to the custodian at the time of the vesting of the property; and the status of the custodian shall be the same as was that of the owner of the property."
> 
> In other words, the law stated that all property belonging to "absentee" owners *was irretrievably lost to them.*..
> 
> ...Ironically, the Palestinians who are being evicted from Sheikh Jarrah were in exactly the same positions as the Jewish owners of the land they have lived on since 1956. They owned property in west Jerusalem and lost it as a result of the War of Independence, while the Sephardic Community and Knesset Israel committees owned land in east Jerusalem and lost it as a result of the War of Independence.
> 
> The difference is, however, that *because of Israeli legislation, the Jewish landowners could recover their land once the city was united, but the Palestinian landowners could not.*_​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1)  Jews did not start the riots or wars from 1920 on.
> 
> 2)  The Jews did not start the wars of 1948, and 1967
> Israel won all of those wars.
> 
> The losers of wars do not get to make demands.
> 
> Israel has done more to allowing Arabs back into Israel because of family reunification (when they could have had the families in Israel simply leave) than either Egypt, Jordan, the PLO or any other Arab organization.
> 
> Just as the Jordanians and Egyptians refused to allow Jews to buy, reside or recover any property between 1920 and 1967, Israel has no obligation to give "back" any Arab land.
> 
> Although it does all the time, as I said.
> 
> Jews are being evicted from Amona, exactly because an Arab claimed part of the land, or all of it, and the court agreed with them.
> So the Jews are being evicted.
> 
> Israeli police begin forced removal of Amona settlers in the West Bank
> 
> 3)  The Jews, once Jerusalem was unified, did not get to just go to their homes and reclaim them.  It was the Jewish Quarter in 1948, when it was taken over by Jordan.
> It became the Arab Quarter, and it is still known as that as most who still live there, in houses previously owned by Jews, are Arabs who moved into that Quarter after 1948.
> 
> Very few Jews have, through the courts and decades of fighting it, been given back the keys to their homes in East Jerusalem after 1948. Or anywhere else in Judea and Samaria.
> 
> Instead they have built villages near the cities they were made to leave.
> 
> No Arabs have been made to leave Hebron ( or any other previously Jewish city like Jericho, Shilo, etc)   which was a majority Jewish city in 1948, and is now a small minority since 1967.
> 
> All of those cities, all of Judea and Samaria and the Jewish Quarters were completely cleansed of all Jews.
> 
> Where has Israel done the same thing since 1948, in all the wars, as it regained Judea and Samaria and the Jewish Quarter back?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Palestinians never lost a war to Israel. The Palestinians never lost any land to Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The possessor of the land did, Egypt and Jordan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Egypt and Jordan occupied Palestinian territory. That territory was not theirs to lose.
Click to expand...

There never was a country called Palestine.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Slyhunter said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I was "at all aware" of that, as well as the explusion of Jews from Arab countries and the treatment of Jews in Europe.  I'm not sure how that is any sort of justification for continuing the practice of seizures and confiscations.
> 
> Those who's lands were confiscated during the expulsions should get compensation.
> 
> I would be the first to agree that land law and land rights in that part of the world are extremely complicated compared to say the US or Europe. But in my view there is little question that the absentee land owners law, and associated later laws were put in place primarily to allow for easy confiscation of property.
> 
> Of course Israel is not a lawless state, but that doesn't mean it's laws are always just.
> 
> In the case of "absentee land owner laws" - I disagree with you.  Quite often the owner CAN be found, but is unable to enter the country.  These laws are also frequently used to confiscate property, and in fact that was a large reason they were created in the first place.  Jews have a lower burden of proof in order to reclaim property than Palestinians.
> 
> Arabs, Jews don't have equal rights to recover property
> _In 1950, the Knesset passed the Absentees Property Law, which declared that *any property situated within the post-war boundaries of Israel and owned by an Arab who had left the country between November 29, 1947 and May 19, 1948, or by a Palestinian who went abroad or to an area of Palestine held by hostile forces up to September 1, 1948, lost all rights to that property.*
> 
> The law appointed a Custodianship Council for Absentees' Property, whose president was to be known as the custodian of absentees' property. It then declared that "every right an absentee had in any property shall pass automatically to the custodian at the time of the vesting of the property; and the status of the custodian shall be the same as was that of the owner of the property."
> 
> In other words, the law stated that all property belonging to "absentee" owners *was irretrievably lost to them.*..
> 
> ...Ironically, the Palestinians who are being evicted from Sheikh Jarrah were in exactly the same positions as the Jewish owners of the land they have lived on since 1956. They owned property in west Jerusalem and lost it as a result of the War of Independence, while the Sephardic Community and Knesset Israel committees owned land in east Jerusalem and lost it as a result of the War of Independence.
> 
> The difference is, however, that *because of Israeli legislation, the Jewish landowners could recover their land once the city was united, but the Palestinian landowners could not.*_​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1)  Jews did not start the riots or wars from 1920 on.
> 
> 2)  The Jews did not start the wars of 1948, and 1967
> Israel won all of those wars.
> 
> The losers of wars do not get to make demands.
> 
> Israel has done more to allowing Arabs back into Israel because of family reunification (when they could have had the families in Israel simply leave) than either Egypt, Jordan, the PLO or any other Arab organization.
> 
> Just as the Jordanians and Egyptians refused to allow Jews to buy, reside or recover any property between 1920 and 1967, Israel has no obligation to give "back" any Arab land.
> 
> Although it does all the time, as I said.
> 
> Jews are being evicted from Amona, exactly because an Arab claimed part of the land, or all of it, and the court agreed with them.
> So the Jews are being evicted.
> 
> Israeli police begin forced removal of Amona settlers in the West Bank
> 
> 3)  The Jews, once Jerusalem was unified, did not get to just go to their homes and reclaim them.  It was the Jewish Quarter in 1948, when it was taken over by Jordan.
> It became the Arab Quarter, and it is still known as that as most who still live there, in houses previously owned by Jews, are Arabs who moved into that Quarter after 1948.
> 
> Very few Jews have, through the courts and decades of fighting it, been given back the keys to their homes in East Jerusalem after 1948. Or anywhere else in Judea and Samaria.
> 
> Instead they have built villages near the cities they were made to leave.
> 
> No Arabs have been made to leave Hebron ( or any other previously Jewish city like Jericho, Shilo, etc)   which was a majority Jewish city in 1948, and is now a small minority since 1967.
> 
> All of those cities, all of Judea and Samaria and the Jewish Quarters were completely cleansed of all Jews.
> 
> Where has Israel done the same thing since 1948, in all the wars, as it regained Judea and Samaria and the Jewish Quarter back?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Palestinians never lost a war to Israel. The Palestinians never lost any land to Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The possessor of the land did, Egypt and Jordan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Egypt and Jordan occupied Palestinian territory. That territory was not theirs to lose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There never was a country called Palestine.
Click to expand...

Pffft, Israeli bullshit talking point.

That is why they are still called Occupied Palestinian Territory.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1)  Jews did not start the riots or wars from 1920 on.
> 
> 2)  The Jews did not start the wars of 1948, and 1967
> Israel won all of those wars.
> 
> The losers of wars do not get to make demands.
> 
> Israel has done more to allowing Arabs back into Israel because of family reunification (when they could have had the families in Israel simply leave) than either Egypt, Jordan, the PLO or any other Arab organization.
> 
> Just as the Jordanians and Egyptians refused to allow Jews to buy, reside or recover any property between 1920 and 1967, Israel has no obligation to give "back" any Arab land.
> 
> Although it does all the time, as I said.
> 
> Jews are being evicted from Amona, exactly because an Arab claimed part of the land, or all of it, and the court agreed with them.
> So the Jews are being evicted.
> 
> Israeli police begin forced removal of Amona settlers in the West Bank
> 
> 3)  The Jews, once Jerusalem was unified, did not get to just go to their homes and reclaim them.  It was the Jewish Quarter in 1948, when it was taken over by Jordan.
> It became the Arab Quarter, and it is still known as that as most who still live there, in houses previously owned by Jews, are Arabs who moved into that Quarter after 1948.
> 
> Very few Jews have, through the courts and decades of fighting it, been given back the keys to their homes in East Jerusalem after 1948. Or anywhere else in Judea and Samaria.
> 
> Instead they have built villages near the cities they were made to leave.
> 
> No Arabs have been made to leave Hebron ( or any other previously Jewish city like Jericho, Shilo, etc)   which was a majority Jewish city in 1948, and is now a small minority since 1967.
> 
> All of those cities, all of Judea and Samaria and the Jewish Quarters were completely cleansed of all Jews.
> 
> Where has Israel done the same thing since 1948, in all the wars, as it regained Judea and Samaria and the Jewish Quarter back?
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians never lost a war to Israel. The Palestinians never lost any land to Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The possessor of the land did, Egypt and Jordan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Egypt and Jordan occupied Palestinian territory. That territory was not theirs to lose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There never was a country called Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Pffft, Israeli bullshit talking point.
> 
> That is why they are still called Occupied Palestinian Territory.
Click to expand...


What a hoot - your invented "country of Pally'land".


----------



## teddyearp

Shusha said:


> With respect to above map -- Teddy suggested a Jordan Valley corridor to remain with Israel.  And I suggested a corridor to Hebron to preserve the Jewish Holy Places there.


And to further that, in exchange for these additional parcels to be in Israeli control, extend from Jenin up to Nazareth.  Sorry Afula, but I think it would be a fair trade, Afula for Hebron. Afula used to be mostly Arab and Nazareth is now. And I pull back on my previous agreement with ForeverYoung in regard to the Negev.


----------



## teddyearp

Coyote said:


> I'm somewhat ignorant of the geography of Israel...so maybe remedies for this was discussed already but - the disontinuity of areas between Jerusalem and Salit seem really problematic.


Salit can (and already probably is) easily accessed off Rt 444 then to rt 5533.


----------



## Shusha

Bump for toomuchtime_



Something like this:






[

Three state solution based on contiguous Palestine, separate state for Gaza and land swaps.

Israel keeps Ma'aleh Adumim, Gush Etzion, Ariel, some, but not all of East Jerusalem.  Israel retains sovereignty over the Old City and the Temple Mount, but guarantees access for Palestinians. 

We decided to nix the corridor between Gaza and Palestine.  Some want a Jordan Valley corridor to remain with Israel.  I would like to see Israeli control over the Hebron Holy Places and a corridor to same. 

We are still on the fence about whether or not to allow dual citizenship.  

That's the basics.  Thoughts?


----------



## toomuchtime_

Shusha said:


> Bump for toomuchtime_
> 
> 
> 
> Something like this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Three state solution based on contiguous Palestine, separate state for Gaza and land swaps.
> 
> Israel keeps Ma'aleh Adumim, Gush Etzion, Ariel, some, but not all of East Jerusalem.  Israel retains sovereignty over the Old City and the Temple Mount, but guarantees access for Palestinians.
> 
> We decided to nix the corridor between Gaza and Palestine.  Some want a Jordan Valley corridor to remain with Israel.  I would like to see Israeli control over the Hebron Holy Places and a corridor to same.
> 
> We are still on the fence about whether or not to allow dual citizenship.
> 
> That's the basics.  Thoughts?


You are discussing only land, which is the easiest part to negotiate, but even so, both Arafat and Abbas have refused to allow any of the Israeli communities in Judea and Samaria to stay with Israeland both rejected giving up any part of east Jerusalem.  Similarly, while polls have shown the majority of Israelis would be willing to make deep land concessions in a final status agreement, they have also shown Jerusalem is off the table. 

 The more difficult issue is security.  First, Gaza cannot be allowed to become a state with control of its borders while it is still ruled by a gang of terrorists.  Similarly, since Abbas so old and weak and the government structure of the PA so weak, the PA cannot be allowed to have control over its borders.  Remember Israel turned Gaza over to the PA but despite more than a year of security coordination between the IDF and PA security forces and despite the fact the PA forces outnumbered the Hamas forces by 4 to 1 in Gaza, the PA quickly lost Gaza to Hamas.  To prevent this from happening in Judea and Samaria, Israeli security forces must be in control of the borders and be able to operate throughout Judea and Samaria.  In the last negotiations, it was Israel's insistence on discussing the security implications of any land deal that so enraged Obama and Kerry and finally ended the talks.

And we still haven't gotten to Abbas' insistence that the millions of so called refugees be allowed to return to Israel.  I don't see any area in which Abbas and Netanyahu can agree.


----------



## Coyote

Shusha said:


> Bump for toomuchtime_
> 
> 
> 
> Something like this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Three state solution based on contiguous Palestine, separate state for Gaza and land swaps.
> 
> Israel keeps Ma'aleh Adumim, Gush Etzion, Ariel, some, but not all of East Jerusalem.  Israel retains sovereignty over the Old City and the Temple Mount, but guarantees access for Palestinians.
> 
> We decided to nix the corridor between Gaza and Palestine.  Some want a Jordan Valley corridor to remain with Israel.  I would like to see Israeli control over the Hebron Holy Places and a corridor to same.
> 
> We are still on the fence about whether or not to allow dual citizenship.
> 
> That's the basics.  Thoughts?



I think corridors are difficult to manage, and Hebron is almost in the middle of what would be Palestine.  Couldn't the control of the Holy Places be co-managed much as the Temple is?


----------



## toomuchtime_

Coyote said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bump for toomuchtime_
> 
> 
> 
> Something like this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Three state solution based on contiguous Palestine, separate state for Gaza and land swaps.
> 
> Israel keeps Ma'aleh Adumim, Gush Etzion, Ariel, some, but not all of East Jerusalem.  Israel retains sovereignty over the Old City and the Temple Mount, but guarantees access for Palestinians.
> 
> We decided to nix the corridor between Gaza and Palestine.  Some want a Jordan Valley corridor to remain with Israel.  I would like to see Israeli control over the Hebron Holy Places and a corridor to same.
> 
> We are still on the fence about whether or not to allow dual citizenship.
> 
> That's the basics.  Thoughts?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think corridors are difficult to manage, and Hebron is almost in the middle of what would be Palestine.  Couldn't the control of the Holy Places be co-managed much as the Temple is?
Click to expand...

So without a corridor how would Israelis safely get to these holy places?


----------



## Coyote

toomuchtime_ said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bump for toomuchtime_
> 
> 
> 
> Something like this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Three state solution based on contiguous Palestine, separate state for Gaza and land swaps.
> 
> Israel keeps Ma'aleh Adumim, Gush Etzion, Ariel, some, but not all of East Jerusalem.  Israel retains sovereignty over the Old City and the Temple Mount, but guarantees access for Palestinians.
> 
> We decided to nix the corridor between Gaza and Palestine.  Some want a Jordan Valley corridor to remain with Israel.  I would like to see Israeli control over the Hebron Holy Places and a corridor to same.
> 
> We are still on the fence about whether or not to allow dual citizenship.
> 
> That's the basics.  Thoughts?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think corridors are difficult to manage, and Hebron is almost in the middle of what would be Palestine.  Couldn't the control of the Holy Places be co-managed much as the Temple is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So without a corridor how would Israelis safely get to these holy places?
Click to expand...


Good point, I see what you mean.


----------



## Coyote

toomuchtime_ said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bump for toomuchtime_
> 
> 
> 
> Something like this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Three state solution based on contiguous Palestine, separate state for Gaza and land swaps.
> 
> Israel keeps Ma'aleh Adumim, Gush Etzion, Ariel, some, but not all of East Jerusalem.  Israel retains sovereignty over the Old City and the Temple Mount, but guarantees access for Palestinians.
> 
> We decided to nix the corridor between Gaza and Palestine.  Some want a Jordan Valley corridor to remain with Israel.  I would like to see Israeli control over the Hebron Holy Places and a corridor to same.
> 
> We are still on the fence about whether or not to allow dual citizenship.
> 
> That's the basics.  Thoughts?
> 
> 
> 
> You are discussing only land, which is the easiest part to negotiate, but even so, both Arafat and Abbas have refused to allow any of the Israeli communities in Judea and Samaria to stay with Israeland both rejected giving up any part of east Jerusalem.  Similarly, while polls have shown the majority of Israelis would be willing to make deep land concessions in a final status agreement, they have also shown Jerusalem is off the table.
> 
> The more difficult issue is security.  First, Gaza cannot be allowed to become a state with control of its borders while it is still ruled by a gang of terrorists.  Similarly, since Abbas so old and weak and the government structure of the PA so weak, the PA cannot be allowed to have control over its borders.  Remember Israel turned Gaza over to the PA but despite more than a year of security coordination between the IDF and PA security forces and despite the fact the PA forces outnumbered the Hamas forces by 4 to 1 in Gaza, the PA quickly lost Gaza to Hamas.  To prevent this from happening in Judea and Samaria, Israeli security forces must be in control of the borders and be able to operate throughout Judea and Samaria.  In the last negotiations, it was Israel's insistence on discussing the security implications of any land deal that so enraged Obama and Kerry and finally ended the talks.
> 
> And we still haven't gotten to Abbas' insistence that the millions of so called refugees be allowed to return to Israel.  I don't see any area in which Abbas and Netanyahu can agree.
Click to expand...


I think the PA would have to have control over it's own borders.  Gaza is a different demographic then the WB, a lot more extreme.


----------



## toomuchtime_

Coyote said:


> toomuchtime_ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bump for toomuchtime_
> 
> 
> 
> Something like this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Three state solution based on contiguous Palestine, separate state for Gaza and land swaps.
> 
> Israel keeps Ma'aleh Adumim, Gush Etzion, Ariel, some, but not all of East Jerusalem.  Israel retains sovereignty over the Old City and the Temple Mount, but guarantees access for Palestinians.
> 
> We decided to nix the corridor between Gaza and Palestine.  Some want a Jordan Valley corridor to remain with Israel.  I would like to see Israeli control over the Hebron Holy Places and a corridor to same.
> 
> We are still on the fence about whether or not to allow dual citizenship.
> 
> That's the basics.  Thoughts?
> 
> 
> 
> You are discussing only land, which is the easiest part to negotiate, but even so, both Arafat and Abbas have refused to allow any of the Israeli communities in Judea and Samaria to stay with Israeland both rejected giving up any part of east Jerusalem.  Similarly, while polls have shown the majority of Israelis would be willing to make deep land concessions in a final status agreement, they have also shown Jerusalem is off the table.
> 
> The more difficult issue is security.  First, Gaza cannot be allowed to become a state with control of its borders while it is still ruled by a gang of terrorists.  Similarly, since Abbas so old and weak and the government structure of the PA so weak, the PA cannot be allowed to have control over its borders.  Remember Israel turned Gaza over to the PA but despite more than a year of security coordination between the IDF and PA security forces and despite the fact the PA forces outnumbered the Hamas forces by 4 to 1 in Gaza, the PA quickly lost Gaza to Hamas.  To prevent this from happening in Judea and Samaria, Israeli security forces must be in control of the borders and be able to operate throughout Judea and Samaria.  In the last negotiations, it was Israel's insistence on discussing the security implications of any land deal that so enraged Obama and Kerry and finally ended the talks.
> 
> And we still haven't gotten to Abbas' insistence that the millions of so called refugees be allowed to return to Israel.  I don't see any area in which Abbas and Netanyahu can agree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think the PA would have to have control over it's own borders.  Gaza is a different demographic then the WB, a lot more extreme.
Click to expand...

Without Israeli security forces operating throughout Judea and Samaria, the PA would long ago have been overthrown by Hamas and Islamic Jihad.  The security cooperation Abbas likes to talk about and which the Arabs in Judea and Samaria complain so much about is entirely about arresting Hamas and Islamic Jihad operatives who are as often after Abbas and after Israelis.  It would be dangerous for Israel, Jordan and the PA for the PA to have control over the border.


----------



## P F Tinmore

toomuchtime_ said:


> The security cooperation Abbas likes to talk about and which the Arabs in Judea and Samaria complain so much about is entirely about arresting Hamas and Islamic Jihad operatives


Indeed, these are the people Hamas kicked out of Gaza in 2007 for obvious reasons.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> toomuchtime_ said:
> 
> 
> 
> The security cooperation Abbas likes to talk about and which the Arabs in Judea and Samaria complain so much about is entirely about arresting Hamas and Islamic Jihad operatives
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, these are the people Hamas kicked out of Gaza in 2007 for obvious reasons.
Click to expand...

Indeed, the Hamas vs. Fatah civil war was a ruthless turf war that also included control over UNRWA welfare fraud


----------



## toomuchtime_

P F Tinmore said:


> toomuchtime_ said:
> 
> 
> 
> The security cooperation Abbas likes to talk about and which the Arabs in Judea and Samaria complain so much about is entirely about arresting Hamas and Islamic Jihad operatives
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, these are the people Hamas kicked out of Gaza in 2007 for obvious reasons.
Click to expand...

Exactly my point, if Israel were foolish enough to allow a fully sovereign Arab state in Judea and Samaria it would quickly turn into another Hamastan.


----------



## montelatici

Without a fully sovereign state of Palestine, i.e. with continued Israeli military occupation, it would not be a "two-state" solution. It would continue to be an Apartheid state, i.e. the same as South Africa with the Bantustans.


----------



## Shusha

toomuchtime_ said:


> [
> You are discussing only land, which is the easiest part to negotiate,


Agreed.  But I'm open to discussing other issues like citizenship, control of the Holy Places, water agreements, security, etc.  I can't see why others wouldn't be. 



> but even so, both Arafat and Abbas have refused to allow any of the Israeli communities in Judea and Samaria to stay with Israel


Well, practically, if they think they are going to get a Jew-free 1949 armistice line at this point they are just kidding themselves.  And I think Abbas, at least, knows that.  I don't think his sticking points are Gush Etzion and Ma'aleh Adumim.  Those are a given on all sides. 



> and both rejected giving up any part of east Jerusalem.  Similarly, while polls have shown the majority of Israelis would be willing to make deep land concessions in a final status agreement, they have also shown Jerusalem is off the table.


Yep.  We agree.  Jerusalem is going to be a huge sticking point.  Personally, if I were on Team Palestine -- I would give it to Israel (provided there was access to the Dome of the Rock and the Al-Aqsa Mosque for Palestinians) but use that concession to get something BIG that I wanted. 

Israel has demonstrated, over the past 60-odd years that she will ensure access of Muslims to their Holy Places.  The Jordanians/Palestinians have amply demonstrated that they will not, so in my mind, it is absolutely imperative that Israel retains sovereignty over the Old City and the Mount. 

Some sort of international arrangement MAY be possible, but not until the international community, including the UN (if it manages to survive the next decade), drastically changes their tune about the Jewish connection to obviously Jewish religious and historical places.  The fact that we have to argue obvious facts in that regard is the very reason why we won't give up Jerusalem, imo. 



> The more difficult issue is security.  First, Gaza cannot be allowed to become a state with control of its borders while it is still ruled by a gang of terrorists. Similarly, since Abbas so old and weak and the government structure of the PA so weak, the PA cannot be allowed to have control over its borders.


Could not agree with you more.  Eventually, though, as a long-term solution, Palestine will have to control its own borders.  But it could be a gradual change.  Doesn't have to happen overnight.  We can do baby steps.  Try, anyway.



> To prevent this from happening in Judea and Samaria, Israeli security forces must be in control of the borders and be able to operate throughout Judea and Samaria.


I think you are arguing that the status quo must be maintained yet as the Palestinians aren't ready for a solution.  We don't disagree. 



> And we still haven't gotten to Abbas' insistence that the millions of so called refugees be allowed to return to Israel.  I don't see any area in which Abbas and Netanyahu can agree.


Again, this is something that any reasonable person will see can't be permitted to happen.  We actually did discuss this, I neglected to mention.  My solution is that any person of Palestinian origin who has been resettled anywhere in the world is no longer a refugee and therefore needs no more solutions.  If they want to return to their ethnic home they can apply to immigrate just like anyone else.  Any persons who are still truly refugees (ie stateless persons living in unacceptable conditions) should be given the choice of citizenship:  Jordanian, Syrian, Palestinian, Lebanese and re-located to that country.

If we are going to provide compensation to people who lost homes and livelihoods due to the various wars -- and I don't see why we shouldn't -- both the Jewish and the Arabs should be compensated.  And since the Jewish people have all ready been taken care of by the Jewish people, the Arabs should take care of the Arabs.


----------



## Shusha

montelatici said:


> Without a fully sovereign state of Palestine, i.e. with continued Israeli military occupation, it would not be a "two-state" solution.



I actually agree with this.  Palestine has to be permitted to have full sovereignty.  BUT that doesn't have to happen right away or all at once.  AND she must be required to demonstrate peaceful intentions and control over extremist groups before she gains full sovereignty.


----------



## Shusha

So, another questions comes up for me....

Is it useful to determine borders (even if unilaterally, though preferrably mutually) without resolving all this other stuff?  It seems to me this is what Israel is doing -- building up areas it intends to keep -- including, btw, quietly building Palestinian towns in Area C.

Is there a reason to do this more formally?


----------



## Sixties Fan

Shusha said:


> So, another questions comes up for me....
> 
> Is it useful to determine borders (even if unilaterally, though preferrably mutually) without resolving all this other stuff?  It seems to me this is what Israel is doing -- building up areas it intends to keep -- including, btw, quietly building Palestinian towns in Area C.
> 
> Is there a reason to do this more formally?



Both the PA and Israel have been building on the areas they mean to keep.
The PA builds in areas A and B, per Oslo Accords
Israel builds in area C.

No Jews are living in Areas A and B
Arab Palestinians are living in Area C.

Israel does not illegally build on areas A and B.
The PA, with the EU, has been illegally building on area C, to try to add any land for the Palestinian side.

The border issues can only be determined through negotiations and a Peace Treaty as it happened with Egypt and Jordan.


----------



## Shusha

Sixties Fan said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, another questions comes up for me....
> 
> Is it useful to determine borders (even if unilaterally, though preferrably mutually) without resolving all this other stuff?  It seems to me this is what Israel is doing -- building up areas it intends to keep -- including, btw, quietly building Palestinian towns in Area C.
> 
> Is there a reason to do this more formally?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Both the PA and Israel have been building on the areas they mean to keep.
> The PA builds in areas A and B, per Oslo Accords
> Israel builds in area C.
> 
> No Jews are living in Areas A and B
> Arab Palestinians are living in Area C.
> 
> Israel does not illegally build on areas A and B.
> The PA, with the EU, has been illegally building on area C, to try to add any land for the Palestinian side.
> 
> The border issues can only be determined through negotiations and a Peace Treaty as it happened with Egypt and Jordan.
Click to expand...


We agree.  But I'm not sure you answered my question.

Would it be a good idea for Israel to more formally divide Area C into two bordered areas-- land it intends to keep and land it intends to give away in a peace treaty and act accordingly -- such as not demolishing homes in the parts it doesn't want to keep anyway?

Its drawing a line in the sand, to be sure.  But isn't it also sending a clear message that it intends to give Palestine a contiguous territory?


----------



## Sixties Fan

Shusha said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, another questions comes up for me....
> 
> Is it useful to determine borders (even if unilaterally, though preferrably mutually) without resolving all this other stuff?  It seems to me this is what Israel is doing -- building up areas it intends to keep -- including, btw, quietly building Palestinian towns in Area C.
> 
> Is there a reason to do this more formally?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Both the PA and Israel have been building on the areas they mean to keep.
> The PA builds in areas A and B, per Oslo Accords
> Israel builds in area C.
> 
> No Jews are living in Areas A and B
> Arab Palestinians are living in Area C.
> 
> Israel does not illegally build on areas A and B.
> The PA, with the EU, has been illegally building on area C, to try to add any land for the Palestinian side.
> 
> The border issues can only be determined through negotiations and a Peace Treaty as it happened with Egypt and Jordan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We agree.  But I'm not sure you answered my question.
> 
> Would it be a good idea for Israel to more formally divide Area C into two bordered areas-- land it intends to keep and land it intends to give away in a peace treaty and act accordingly -- such as not demolishing homes in the parts it doesn't want to keep anyway?
> 
> Its drawing a line in the sand, to be sure.  But isn't it also sending a clear message that it intends to give Palestine a contiguous territory?
Click to expand...


Here is what the Oslo Accords say:

West Bank Areas in the Oslo II Accord - Wikipedia

I see no reason for Israel to divide Area C.
Palestinians living on it comprise a very small percentage, which could be absorbed into Israel if it is negotiated that all of it will be annexed.

Parts of it were to be supposed to be transferred to the PA.  Israel offered 97% of the West Bank during the 2000 and 2008 negotiations.  The Arabs refused it.

Now, I do not see why Jews should be made to leave again (1948 they were all expelled by Jordan) their very ancient homeland of Judea and Samaria.

Jews not living in Judea, Samaria and all of Jerusalem is the Arab intention.

It comes from the Romans eventually closing Jerusalem to the Jews .  Their Capital.  Arabs think that if they can make the Jews lose all three, then not only Jews will lose the want to defend themselves, but would eventually give up more land, and eventually all of Israel, and return to being second class citizens.

There is not one thing the Arabs have honored as far as the Oslo Accords go.

They have not stopped teaching their generations hatred for Jews and Israel.
They continue to incite.
They have not changed their charters which require the destruction of Israel sot that a Sovereign Arab one will come into its place with Jews either a minority or gone.

One can discuss the Two State solution forever, but in the mind of the Arab leaders there is only one solution.  One State, an Arab, Muslims State/Empire, with non Arab/Muslims as a minority as it had been for the past 1300 years, from the Arab invasion to the Ottoman Empire control of the land.

Can there truly be a Two State solution where Hamas and the PA will cease wanting Israel to be destroyed?

Not now, that is for sure.

It will require very powerful moderate leaders for that to happen, as it happened with Egypt and Jordan.  An end of the endless donations to the PA and Gaza, which is only mostly pocketed by the leaders.

The two State Partition would have worked in 1937 or 1947, and even before, if it had not been to the Husseini Clan which started riots against the Jews and became the leaders of denying a Jewish State.  Arafat is part of that clan.

There are many parts to this puzzle and unless the Arab side changes, or are made to change, no Two State Solution will ever come out for the coming future.

I hope I have answered some of your questions.


----------



## Shusha

Sixties Fan said:


> I see no reason for Israel to divide Area C.



To ensure a contiguous Palestine.


----------



## Shusha

Sixties Fan said:


> ...Jews not living in Judea, Samaria and all of Jerusalem is the Arab intention.
> 
> ...Arabs think that if they can make the Jews lose all three, then not only Jews will lose the want to defend themselves, but would eventually give up more land, and eventually all of Israel, and return to being second class citizens.
> 
> They have not stopped teaching their generations hatred for Jews and Israel.
> They continue to incite.
> They have not changed their charters which require the destruction of Israel sot that a Sovereign Arab one will come into its place with Jews either a minority or gone.
> 
> One can discuss the Two State solution forever, but in the mind of the Arab leaders there is only one solution.  One State, an Arab, Muslims State/Empire, with non Arab/Muslims as a minority as it had been for the past 1300 years, from the Arab invasion to the Ottoman Empire control of the land.


We agree.  In fact, one of the purposes why I try to hold discussion about actual solutions is to illuminate how ridiculously easy it is to solve the conflict IF one isn't intent on destroying Israel, but actually wants to work out a fair and reasonable solution. 

The fact that the Arabs don't have yet another state or two in Palestine and Gaza is evidence that the problem is not too hard to solve.  Its easy to solve.  We've practically done it on this thread. 



> Not now, that is for sure.
> 
> It will require very powerful moderate leaders for that to happen, as it happened with Egypt and Jordan.  An end of the endless donations to the PA and Gaza, which is only mostly pocketed by the leaders.


We agree wholeheartedly.


----------



## ForeverYoung436

Shusha said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see no reason for Israel to divide Area C.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To ensure a contiguous Palestine.
Click to expand...


If you want a contiguous Palestine, you would have to give them Hebron, which you said you're not willing to do.


----------



## Sixties Fan

Shusha said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see no reason for Israel to divide Area C.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To ensure a contiguous Palestine.
Click to expand...


Basically, the contiguous Palestine is all a ruse.

The Mandate for Palestine was to have ALL of the Mandate eventually become Jewish majority with a non Jewish population as a minority.
TransJordan was given to non Jews in 1925.

With all the riots from 1920 on, the Arabs have done nothing but refuse to divide any of the land.
They refused in 1937.  In 1948.  Four military wars between that and 1973 to destroy Israel.  More wars from Gaza and Hizbollah to destroy Israel.

Rejection of the 2000 and 2008 Peace Talks.
They would have basically have had ALL of Judea and Samaria and East Jerusalem as a Capital.

They chose "intifadas" and more attempts to destroy Israel domestically and internationally.

BDS is nothing but an attempt to destroy any Pro Israel efforts in and out of Israel.

Nothing they have done or are going to continue to do, via BDS, the UN, UNESCO and others, is an effort to lead to negotiations and peace.


They have shown that they do not want peace but ALL of the Mandate for Palestine in the sovereign hands of Muslims.

So, truly, no.  They made their beds, now they need to enjoy the thorns they put on it.

The Jews are not going to leave Judea and Samaria.

Land transfer, is possible.

Hamas is a totally different government from the PA and should have called the Independence of that area in 2007.  But it wants ALL of the Mandate, not just Gaza.

It will be Four States, if negotiations ever come to be.

Jordan, Israel, Gaza and the Areas A and B of Judea and Samaria.

Right now, only two are countries.  Jordan and Israel (which nearly wasn't thanks to the British and their intention of keeping the area to themselves)


----------



## Sixties Fan

Shusha said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...Jews not living in Judea, Samaria and all of Jerusalem is the Arab intention.
> 
> ...Arabs think that if they can make the Jews lose all three, then not only Jews will lose the want to defend themselves, but would eventually give up more land, and eventually all of Israel, and return to being second class citizens.
> 
> They have not stopped teaching their generations hatred for Jews and Israel.
> They continue to incite.
> They have not changed their charters which require the destruction of Israel sot that a Sovereign Arab one will come into its place with Jews either a minority or gone.
> 
> One can discuss the Two State solution forever, but in the mind of the Arab leaders there is only one solution.  One State, an Arab, Muslims State/Empire, with non Arab/Muslims as a minority as it had been for the past 1300 years, from the Arab invasion to the Ottoman Empire control of the land.
> 
> 
> 
> We agree.  In fact, one of the purposes why I try to hold discussion about actual solutions is to illuminate how ridiculously easy it is to solve the conflict IF one isn't intent on destroying Israel, but actually wants to work out a fair and reasonable solution.
> 
> The fact that the Arabs don't have yet another state or two in Palestine and Gaza is evidence that the problem is not too hard to solve.  Its easy to solve.  We've practically done it on this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not now, that is for sure.
> 
> It will require very powerful moderate leaders for that to happen, as it happened with Egypt and Jordan.  An end of the endless donations to the PA and Gaza, which is only mostly pocketed by the leaders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We agree wholeheartedly.
Click to expand...



It is actually Impossible to solve.

As long as they follow word for word of the Quran, and demand that Muslim conquered land remains in Muslim hands, there will be no solution.

Abbas has done everything to undermine Israel, and all Jewish holy places by turning one by one " a Muslim site".

The UN and UNESCO and UNWRA are part of the problem, as it is full of Muslim and Christian States which are against Israel.

They add to the rejection for negotiations and a final solution for the problem.

It was not like that with Egypt and Jordan.  Those organizations were not as 
taken by anti Israel elements as it is now.


----------



## toomuchtime_

Shusha said:


> toomuchtime_ said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> You are discussing only land, which is the easiest part to negotiate,
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed.  But I'm open to discussing other issues like citizenship, control of the Holy Places, water agreements, security, etc.  I can't see why others wouldn't be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> but even so, both Arafat and Abbas have refused to allow any of the Israeli communities in Judea and Samaria to stay with Israel
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, practically, if they think they are going to get a Jew-free 1949 armistice line at this point they are just kidding themselves.  And I think Abbas, at least, knows that.  I don't think his sticking points are Gush Etzion and Ma'aleh Adumim.  Those are a given on all sides.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and both rejected giving up any part of east Jerusalem.  Similarly, while polls have shown the majority of Israelis would be willing to make deep land concessions in a final status agreement, they have also shown Jerusalem is off the table.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yep.  We agree.  Jerusalem is going to be a huge sticking point.  Personally, if I were on Team Palestine -- I would give it to Israel (provided there was access to the Dome of the Rock and the Al-Aqsa Mosque for Palestinians) but use that concession to get something BIG that I wanted.
> 
> Israel has demonstrated, over the past 60-odd years that she will ensure access of Muslims to their Holy Places.  The Jordanians/Palestinians have amply demonstrated that they will not, so in my mind, it is absolutely imperative that Israel retains sovereignty over the Old City and the Mount.
> 
> Some sort of international arrangement MAY be possible, but not until the international community, including the UN (if it manages to survive the next decade), drastically changes their tune about the Jewish connection to obviously Jewish religious and historical places.  The fact that we have to argue obvious facts in that regard is the very reason why we won't give up Jerusalem, imo.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The more difficult issue is security.  First, Gaza cannot be allowed to become a state with control of its borders while it is still ruled by a gang of terrorists. Similarly, since Abbas so old and weak and the government structure of the PA so weak, the PA cannot be allowed to have control over its borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Could not agree with you more.  Eventually, though, as a long-term solution, Palestine will have to control its own borders.  But it could be a gradual change.  Doesn't have to happen overnight.  We can do baby steps.  Try, anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To prevent this from happening in Judea and Samaria, Israeli security forces must be in control of the borders and be able to operate throughout Judea and Samaria.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think you are arguing that the status quo must be maintained yet as the Palestinians aren't ready for a solution.  We don't disagree.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And we still haven't gotten to Abbas' insistence that the millions of so called refugees be allowed to return to Israel.  I don't see any area in which Abbas and Netanyahu can agree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, this is something that any reasonable person will see can't be permitted to happen.  We actually did discuss this, I neglected to mention.  My solution is that any person of Palestinian origin who has been resettled anywhere in the world is no longer a refugee and therefore needs no more solutions.  If they want to return to their ethnic home they can apply to immigrate just like anyone else.  Any persons who are still truly refugees (ie stateless persons living in unacceptable conditions) should be given the choice of citizenship:  Jordanian, Syrian, Palestinian, Lebanese and re-located to that country.
> 
> If we are going to provide compensation to people who lost homes and livelihoods due to the various wars -- and I don't see why we shouldn't -- both the Jewish and the Arabs should be compensated.  And since the Jewish people have all ready been taken care of by the Jewish people, the Arabs should take care of the Arabs.
Click to expand...

We agree on a lot of things, but as far as Israel is concerned, there is no Palestine, there is only the PA and the PA has no borders.  Land and border issues cannot be profitably discussed without also discussing the security implications of any land or border agreement, and it is unimaginable that Israel's security can be protected without Israel's security forces operation throughout Judea and Samaria; it is also unimaginable that the Arabs would agree to this.  So no matter how clever we are on this forum about working out equitable arrangements on land, borders and refugees, there can be no sovereign Arab state in any part of the territories unless Israel can be persuaded it no longer has to have its security forces operate throughout the territories, and I can't see that happening in the foreseeable future.


----------



## Sixties Fan

toomuchtime_ said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toomuchtime_ said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> You are discussing only land, which is the easiest part to negotiate,
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed.  But I'm open to discussing other issues like citizenship, control of the Holy Places, water agreements, security, etc.  I can't see why others wouldn't be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> but even so, both Arafat and Abbas have refused to allow any of the Israeli communities in Judea and Samaria to stay with Israel
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, practically, if they think they are going to get a Jew-free 1949 armistice line at this point they are just kidding themselves.  And I think Abbas, at least, knows that.  I don't think his sticking points are Gush Etzion and Ma'aleh Adumim.  Those are a given on all sides.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and both rejected giving up any part of east Jerusalem.  Similarly, while polls have shown the majority of Israelis would be willing to make deep land concessions in a final status agreement, they have also shown Jerusalem is off the table.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yep.  We agree.  Jerusalem is going to be a huge sticking point.  Personally, if I were on Team Palestine -- I would give it to Israel (provided there was access to the Dome of the Rock and the Al-Aqsa Mosque for Palestinians) but use that concession to get something BIG that I wanted.
> 
> Israel has demonstrated, over the past 60-odd years that she will ensure access of Muslims to their Holy Places.  The Jordanians/Palestinians have amply demonstrated that they will not, so in my mind, it is absolutely imperative that Israel retains sovereignty over the Old City and the Mount.
> 
> Some sort of international arrangement MAY be possible, but not until the international community, including the UN (if it manages to survive the next decade), drastically changes their tune about the Jewish connection to obviously Jewish religious and historical places.  The fact that we have to argue obvious facts in that regard is the very reason why we won't give up Jerusalem, imo.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The more difficult issue is security.  First, Gaza cannot be allowed to become a state with control of its borders while it is still ruled by a gang of terrorists. Similarly, since Abbas so old and weak and the government structure of the PA so weak, the PA cannot be allowed to have control over its borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Could not agree with you more.  Eventually, though, as a long-term solution, Palestine will have to control its own borders.  But it could be a gradual change.  Doesn't have to happen overnight.  We can do baby steps.  Try, anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To prevent this from happening in Judea and Samaria, Israeli security forces must be in control of the borders and be able to operate throughout Judea and Samaria.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think you are arguing that the status quo must be maintained yet as the Palestinians aren't ready for a solution.  We don't disagree.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And we still haven't gotten to Abbas' insistence that the millions of so called refugees be allowed to return to Israel.  I don't see any area in which Abbas and Netanyahu can agree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, this is something that any reasonable person will see can't be permitted to happen.  We actually did discuss this, I neglected to mention.  My solution is that any person of Palestinian origin who has been resettled anywhere in the world is no longer a refugee and therefore needs no more solutions.  If they want to return to their ethnic home they can apply to immigrate just like anyone else.  Any persons who are still truly refugees (ie stateless persons living in unacceptable conditions) should be given the choice of citizenship:  Jordanian, Syrian, Palestinian, Lebanese and re-located to that country.
> 
> If we are going to provide compensation to people who lost homes and livelihoods due to the various wars -- and I don't see why we shouldn't -- both the Jewish and the Arabs should be compensated.  And since the Jewish people have all ready been taken care of by the Jewish people, the Arabs should take care of the Arabs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We agree on a lot of things, but as far as Israel is concerned, there is no Palestine, there is only the PA and the PA has no borders.  Land and border issues cannot be profitably discussed without also discussing the security implications of any land or border agreement, and it is unimaginable that Israel's security can be protected without Israel's security forces operation throughout Judea and Samaria; it is also unimaginable that the Arabs would agree to this.  So no matter how clever we are on this forum about working out equitable arrangements on land, borders and refugees, there can be no sovereign Arab state in any part of the territories unless Israel can be persuaded it no longer has to have its security forces operate throughout the territories, and I can't see that happening in the foreseeable future.
Click to expand...


This article shows how impossible Arabs have made it for Gaza and the PA to come to negotiations.

As long as they believe that they can make Israel cede more land, or anything else, they will never sign a Peace treaty.

Arabs still suffer from Israel Derangement Syndrome (Petra Marquardt-Bigman) ~ Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News


----------



## toomuchtime_

Sixties Fan said:


> toomuchtime_ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toomuchtime_ said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> You are discussing only land, which is the easiest part to negotiate,
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed.  But I'm open to discussing other issues like citizenship, control of the Holy Places, water agreements, security, etc.  I can't see why others wouldn't be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> but even so, both Arafat and Abbas have refused to allow any of the Israeli communities in Judea and Samaria to stay with Israel
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, practically, if they think they are going to get a Jew-free 1949 armistice line at this point they are just kidding themselves.  And I think Abbas, at least, knows that.  I don't think his sticking points are Gush Etzion and Ma'aleh Adumim.  Those are a given on all sides.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and both rejected giving up any part of east Jerusalem.  Similarly, while polls have shown the majority of Israelis would be willing to make deep land concessions in a final status agreement, they have also shown Jerusalem is off the table.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yep.  We agree.  Jerusalem is going to be a huge sticking point.  Personally, if I were on Team Palestine -- I would give it to Israel (provided there was access to the Dome of the Rock and the Al-Aqsa Mosque for Palestinians) but use that concession to get something BIG that I wanted.
> 
> Israel has demonstrated, over the past 60-odd years that she will ensure access of Muslims to their Holy Places.  The Jordanians/Palestinians have amply demonstrated that they will not, so in my mind, it is absolutely imperative that Israel retains sovereignty over the Old City and the Mount.
> 
> Some sort of international arrangement MAY be possible, but not until the international community, including the UN (if it manages to survive the next decade), drastically changes their tune about the Jewish connection to obviously Jewish religious and historical places.  The fact that we have to argue obvious facts in that regard is the very reason why we won't give up Jerusalem, imo.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The more difficult issue is security.  First, Gaza cannot be allowed to become a state with control of its borders while it is still ruled by a gang of terrorists. Similarly, since Abbas so old and weak and the government structure of the PA so weak, the PA cannot be allowed to have control over its borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Could not agree with you more.  Eventually, though, as a long-term solution, Palestine will have to control its own borders.  But it could be a gradual change.  Doesn't have to happen overnight.  We can do baby steps.  Try, anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To prevent this from happening in Judea and Samaria, Israeli security forces must be in control of the borders and be able to operate throughout Judea and Samaria.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think you are arguing that the status quo must be maintained yet as the Palestinians aren't ready for a solution.  We don't disagree.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And we still haven't gotten to Abbas' insistence that the millions of so called refugees be allowed to return to Israel.  I don't see any area in which Abbas and Netanyahu can agree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, this is something that any reasonable person will see can't be permitted to happen.  We actually did discuss this, I neglected to mention.  My solution is that any person of Palestinian origin who has been resettled anywhere in the world is no longer a refugee and therefore needs no more solutions.  If they want to return to their ethnic home they can apply to immigrate just like anyone else.  Any persons who are still truly refugees (ie stateless persons living in unacceptable conditions) should be given the choice of citizenship:  Jordanian, Syrian, Palestinian, Lebanese and re-located to that country.
> 
> If we are going to provide compensation to people who lost homes and livelihoods due to the various wars -- and I don't see why we shouldn't -- both the Jewish and the Arabs should be compensated.  And since the Jewish people have all ready been taken care of by the Jewish people, the Arabs should take care of the Arabs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We agree on a lot of things, but as far as Israel is concerned, there is no Palestine, there is only the PA and the PA has no borders.  Land and border issues cannot be profitably discussed without also discussing the security implications of any land or border agreement, and it is unimaginable that Israel's security can be protected without Israel's security forces operation throughout Judea and Samaria; it is also unimaginable that the Arabs would agree to this.  So no matter how clever we are on this forum about working out equitable arrangements on land, borders and refugees, there can be no sovereign Arab state in any part of the territories unless Israel can be persuaded it no longer has to have its security forces operate throughout the territories, and I can't see that happening in the foreseeable future.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This article shows how impossible Arabs have made it for Gaza and the PA to come to negotiations.
> 
> As long as they believe that they can make Israel cede more land, or anything else, they will never sign a Peace treaty.
> 
> Arabs still suffer from Israel Derangement Syndrome (Petra Marquardt-Bigman) ~ Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News
Click to expand...

There is a huge cultural gap between the Arab ME and the West, so while some Arab leaders may decide to work with Israel as Sadat did, the Arab street in general distrusts it leaders almost as much as they distrust Israelis, so even if some kind of workable relationships develop between Israel and some of the Gulf Arab states, it will be impossible for Arab leaders to make it public.


----------



## Shusha

ForeverYoung436 said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see no reason for Israel to divide Area C.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To ensure a contiguous Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you want a contiguous Palestine, you would have to give them Hebron, which you said you're not willing to do.
Click to expand...


That's where silly things like corridors come into play.  But frankly, I don't trust them with Hebron.


----------



## Shusha

Sixties Fan said:


> They have shown that they do not want peace but ALL of the Mandate for Palestine in the sovereign hands of Muslims



We agree.  The problem is that we don't want THEM.  Its not just a matter of land -- its a hostile population of millions which don't play nice with each other, let alone with Jews.  

The point is not to get rid of land -- its to get rid of them.  Without going down the morally abhorrent road of ethnic cleansing.


----------



## Shusha

Sixties Fan said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...Jews not living in Judea, Samaria and all of Jerusalem is the Arab intention.
> 
> ...Arabs think that if they can make the Jews lose all three, then not only Jews will lose the want to defend themselves, but would eventually give up more land, and eventually all of Israel, and return to being second class citizens.
> 
> They have not stopped teaching their generations hatred for Jews and Israel.
> They continue to incite.
> They have not changed their charters which require the destruction of Israel sot that a Sovereign Arab one will come into its place with Jews either a minority or gone.
> 
> One can discuss the Two State solution forever, but in the mind of the Arab leaders there is only one solution.  One State, an Arab, Muslims State/Empire, with non Arab/Muslims as a minority as it had been for the past 1300 years, from the Arab invasion to the Ottoman Empire control of the land.
> 
> 
> 
> We agree.  In fact, one of the purposes why I try to hold discussion about actual solutions is to illuminate how ridiculously easy it is to solve the conflict IF one isn't intent on destroying Israel, but actually wants to work out a fair and reasonable solution.
> 
> The fact that the Arabs don't have yet another state or two in Palestine and Gaza is evidence that the problem is not too hard to solve.  Its easy to solve.  We've practically done it on this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not now, that is for sure.
> 
> It will require very powerful moderate leaders for that to happen, as it happened with Egypt and Jordan.  An end of the endless donations to the PA and Gaza, which is only mostly pocketed by the leaders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We agree wholeheartedly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It is actually Impossible to solve.
> 
> As long as they follow word for word of the Quran, and demand that Muslim conquered land remains in Muslim hands, there will be no solution.
> 
> Abbas has done everything to undermine Israel, and all Jewish holy places by turning one by one " a Muslim site".
> 
> The UN and UNESCO and UNWRA are part of the problem, as it is full of Muslim and Christian States which are against Israel.
> 
> They add to the rejection for negotiations and a final solution for the problem.
> 
> It was not like that with Egypt and Jordan.  Those organizations were not as
> taken by anti Israel elements as it is now.
Click to expand...



Okay, so what do we DO then?  Continue on with the status quo?  Hope for the Arabs and the Muslims to start fighting amongst themselves?  How do we get rid of the extremist Muslim problem?  What do we DO with that?


----------



## Shusha

Sixties Fan said:


> As long as they believe that they can make Israel cede more land, or anything else, they will never sign a Peace treaty.



We agree.  

So I guess the solution has to be for Israel to be more heavy-handed, rather than less?


----------



## teddyearp

Shusha said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Without a fully sovereign state of Palestine, i.e. with continued Israeli military occupation, it would not be a "two-state" solution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I actually agree with this.  Palestine has to be permitted to have full sovereignty.  BUT that doesn't have to happen right away or all at once.  AND she must be required to demonstrate peaceful intentions and control over extremist groups before she gains full sovereignty.
Click to expand...

I also agree with that portion of Monti's post.  However, though Israel has serious trust issues, the rest of your post Shusha has been quite the sticking point in the past.  Either Palestine is actually created and Israel pulls all of its troops out or it just doesn't happen. This Palestine should have control over its borders, just like we have in North America. They vet who comes in, and Israel vets who comes the other way. Period. Let them create a military as well. As for Gaza, the same for them whether they are separate or connected to the West Bank.

I mean fuck it. Go big or stay home. This new Palestine would then (or should) immediately sign peace treaties with its neighbors. Or not. And if they chose to attack their neighbors, suffer the consequences like any other nation on the face of the Earth. Then, if they are actual countries the electronicintefada propaganda machine can be dismantled.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Sixties Fan said:


> Israel offered 97% of the West Bank during the 2000 and 2008 negotiations. The Arabs refused it.


Indeed, Israel offered the Palestinians all of the prison except for the doors and walls.


----------



## teddyearp

P F Tinmore said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel offered 97% of the West Bank during the 2000 and 2008 negotiations. The Arabs refused it.
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, Israel offered the Palestinians all of the prison except for the doors and walls.
Click to expand...

Agreed, in theory.  Those are the sticking points I mentioned in the post right above yours.  That is why I now say fuck it. The rest is in post #366. I don't want to spam the board.


----------



## P F Tinmore

A good two state solution.

Dump half of Israel in Germany and dump the other half in Britain.


----------



## teddyearp

And then it would be a land without a people again.  All the pals in Germany, all the jews in England.


----------



## ForeverYoung436

Shusha said:


> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see no reason for Israel to divide Area C.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To ensure a contiguous Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you want a contiguous Palestine, you would have to give them Hebron, which you said you're not willing to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's where silly things like corridors come into play.  But frankly, I don't trust them with Hebron.
Click to expand...


The way the situation is in Hebron now, isn't working.  The 800 Jews there are in a ghetto, being protected by too many soldiers, who could be used to guard the borders.  The 120,000 Arabs there can't move around the city, and it takes them hours just to get to school and work.  The Arabs throw stones at the Jews.  The Jews throw garbage on the Arabs.  It's a very volatile situation that culminated in the Goldstein massacre.

The Arabs themselves are to blame for this.  Before 1980, Jews lived nearby in a settlement called Kiryat Arba.  They only came to Hebron on the Sabbath, to pray at the Tomb of the Patriarchs (the second holiest site in Judaism).  But in 1980, six Yeshiva (Hebrew-school) students were killed in Hebron after praying at the Tomb, by the bloodthirsty Arabs.  It was then, in an act of revenge, that the Israeli gov't allowed Jews to move back into Hebron.  (The Jews had been chased out of there in 1929, after a massacre.)

The Arabs/Muslims don't recognize the validity of Joseph's and Rachel's Tombs, which is why they try to destroy them.  But they consider the Tomb of the Patriarchs to be holy, just like the Jews do.  They pray there too.  So I would trust them with the burial-place of Abraham and Sarah, Isaac and Rebecca, and Jacob and Leah.  They call it the Ibrahimi Mosque.  Let the Jews return to Kiryat Arba.  The peaceful situation that existed before 1980 can be restored.


----------



## GHook93

montelatici said:


> Lipush, a two state solution is no longer possible without ethnic cleansing of Jews or non-Jews. It will no longer work.  A single state solution is now the only solution.



Coming from the dumbest fuck on the board!


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com


----------



## GHook93

P F Tinmore said:


> I see we are off to a good start. Israel has created a terrible mess that will be difficult to unwind. The two state solution is wrong in many ways. It was first thrown on the table in 1937. Eighty years later we are farther away from a two state solution than we were then. "Everybody knows" that it is the only solution. So if it is such a good idea, why hasn't it happened?



Get rid of then 2 state solution by kicking all the camel fucker out of Israel, Judea, Samaria and Gaza.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com


----------



## montelatici

GHook93 said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lipush, a two state solution is no longer possible without ethnic cleansing of Jews or non-Jews. It will no longer work.  A single state solution is now the only solution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coming from the dumbest fuck on the board!
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
Click to expand...


The punk projects as usual.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> The problem is that we don't want THEM. Its not just a matter of land -- its a hostile population of millions


Who are opposed to the Zionist's settler colonial project in Palestine.


----------



## Shusha

ForeverYoung436 said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see no reason for Israel to divide Area C.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To ensure a contiguous Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you want a contiguous Palestine, you would have to give them Hebron, which you said you're not willing to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's where silly things like corridors come into play.  But frankly, I don't trust them with Hebron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The way the situation is in Hebron now, isn't working.  The 800 Jews there are in a ghetto, being protected by too many soldiers, who could be used to guard the borders.  The 120,000 Arabs there can't move around the city, and it takes them hours just to get to school and work.  The Arabs throw stones at the Jews.  The Jews throw garbage on the Arabs.  It's a very volatile situation that culminated in the Goldstein massacre.
> 
> The Arabs themselves are to blame for this.  Before 1980, Jews lived nearby in a settlement called Kiryat Arba.  They only came to Hebron on the Sabbath, to pray at the Tomb of the Patriarchs (the second holiest site in Judaism).  But in 1980, six Yeshiva (Hebrew-school) students were killed in Hebron after praying at the Tomb, by the bloodthirsty Arabs.  It was then, in an act of revenge, that the Israeli gov't allowed Jews to move back into Hebron.  (The Jews had been chased out of there in 1929, after a massacre.)
> 
> The Arabs/Muslims don't recognize the validity of Joseph's and Rachel's Tombs, which is why they try to destroy them.  But they consider the Tomb of the Patriarchs to be holy, just like the Jews do.  They pray there too.  So I would trust them with the burial-place of Abraham and Sarah, Isaac and Rebecca, and Jacob and Leah.  They call it the Ibrahimi Mosque.  Let the Jews return to Kiryat Arba.  The peaceful situation that existed before 1980 can be restored.
Click to expand...



Fine.  I don't like it.  But as a negotiating point, I'll give it.  They can have Hebron and the Tomb of the Patriarchs, as long as Jews have peaceful access.


----------



## ForeverYoung436

Shusha said:


> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see no reason for Israel to divide Area C.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To ensure a contiguous Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you want a contiguous Palestine, you would have to give them Hebron, which you said you're not willing to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's where silly things like corridors come into play.  But frankly, I don't trust them with Hebron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The way the situation is in Hebron now, isn't working.  The 800 Jews there are in a ghetto, being protected by too many soldiers, who could be used to guard the borders.  The 120,000 Arabs there can't move around the city, and it takes them hours just to get to school and work.  The Arabs throw stones at the Jews.  The Jews throw garbage on the Arabs.  It's a very volatile situation that culminated in the Goldstein massacre.
> 
> The Arabs themselves are to blame for this.  Before 1980, Jews lived nearby in a settlement called Kiryat Arba.  They only came to Hebron on the Sabbath, to pray at the Tomb of the Patriarchs (the second holiest site in Judaism).  But in 1980, six Yeshiva (Hebrew-school) students were killed in Hebron after praying at the Tomb, by the bloodthirsty Arabs.  It was then, in an act of revenge, that the Israeli gov't allowed Jews to move back into Hebron.  (The Jews had been chased out of there in 1929, after a massacre.)
> 
> The Arabs/Muslims don't recognize the validity of Joseph's and Rachel's Tombs, which is why they try to destroy them.  But they consider the Tomb of the Patriarchs to be holy, just like the Jews do.  They pray there too.  So I would trust them with the burial-place of Abraham and Sarah, Isaac and Rebecca, and Jacob and Leah.  They call it the Ibrahimi Mosque.  Let the Jews return to Kiryat Arba.  The peaceful situation that existed before 1980 can be restored.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Fine.  I don't like it.  But as a negotiating point, I'll give it.  They can have Hebron and the Tomb of the Patriarchs, as long as Jews have peaceful access.
Click to expand...


Actually, the Arab population of Hebron is between 170,000--180,000.  Sorry for the error.


----------



## Book of Jeremiah

Lipush said:


> I'm ready to open this up with the Pro-Palestinians on this board who are willing to have a logal discussion, and those who are not haters who want Israel in the sea.
> 
> Let us talk this rationally. What exactly IS the two states solution? One for Israel and one for the Palestinians? What will be the borders of such states?
> 
> Can you openly tell me what is the benefit of the so called 67 lines? what good there is in them? and why they are better than a 1 state solution?
> 
> Please elaborate. Let us discuss this rationally. No name calling and cusses.


What exactly is a two state solution?  A very bad idea.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Book of Jeremiah said:


> Lipush said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm ready to open this up with the Pro-Palestinians on this board who are willing to have a logal discussion, and those who are not haters who want Israel in the sea.
> 
> Let us talk this rationally. What exactly IS the two states solution? One for Israel and one for the Palestinians? What will be the borders of such states?
> 
> Can you openly tell me what is the benefit of the so called 67 lines? what good there is in them? and why they are better than a 1 state solution?
> 
> Please elaborate. Let us discuss this rationally. No name calling and cusses.
> 
> 
> 
> What exactly is a two state solution?  A very bad idea.
Click to expand...

Indeed, they have been kicking that dead horse since 1937.


----------



## Indeependent

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is that we don't want THEM. Its not just a matter of land -- its a hostile population of millions
> 
> 
> 
> Who are opposed to the Zionist's settler colonial project in Palestine.
Click to expand...

You seem to abhor legal transactions.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Indeependent said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is that we don't want THEM. Its not just a matter of land -- its a hostile population of millions
> 
> 
> 
> Who are opposed to the Zionist's settler colonial project in Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You seem to abhor legal transactions.
Click to expand...

Settler colonialism is legal?

Link?


----------



## Indeependent

P F Tinmore said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is that we don't want THEM. Its not just a matter of land -- its a hostile population of millions
> 
> 
> 
> Who are opposed to the Zionist's settler colonial project in Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You seem to abhor legal transactions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Settler colonialism is legal?
> 
> Link?
Click to expand...

No jerk wad, buying land is legal.
You and Monty better get together and figure out whose revisionist history is better.


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is that we don't want THEM. Its not just a matter of land -- its a hostile population of millions
> 
> 
> 
> Who are opposed to the Zionist's settler colonial project in Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You seem to abhor legal transactions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Settler colonialism is legal?
> 
> Link?
Click to expand...


Of course migration of peoples is legal. Why wouldn't it be?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is that we don't want THEM. Its not just a matter of land -- its a hostile population of millions
> 
> 
> 
> Who are opposed to the Zionist's settler colonial project in Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You seem to abhor legal transactions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Settler colonialism is legal?
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course migration of peoples is legal. Why wouldn't it be?
Click to expand...

Apples & oranges.


----------



## Indeependent

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is that we don't want THEM. Its not just a matter of land -- its a hostile population of millions
> 
> 
> 
> Who are opposed to the Zionist's settler colonial project in Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You seem to abhor legal transactions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Settler colonialism is legal?
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course migration of peoples is legal. Why wouldn't it be?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Apples & oranges.
Click to expand...

We don't care what your favorite Children's show is, we're discussing the fact that you don't recognize legal transactions.


----------



## montelatici

Indeependent said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is that we don't want THEM. Its not just a matter of land -- its a hostile population of millions
> 
> 
> 
> Who are opposed to the Zionist's settler colonial project in Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You seem to abhor legal transactions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Settler colonialism is legal?
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No jerk wad, buying land is legal.
> You and Monty better get together and figure out whose revisionist history is better.
Click to expand...


The Jews had bought less than 15% of the land of Palestine by the time of partition.  The only revisionism is from you people. The facts are archived at the UN.


----------



## montelatici

More archival data:





A Survey of Palestine Volume 2  | Berman Jewish Policy Archive @ Stanford University


----------



## montelatici

More archival data:


*"UNITED*​*NATIONS​**A*







*General Assembly*













 A/364
3 September 1947

*OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE SECOND SESSION OF *​*THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY​*​*SUPPLEMENT No. 11​*
​*UNITED NATIONS
SPECIAL COMMITTEE
ON PALESTINE​*
​*REPORT TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY​*
164. The Arab population, despite the strenuous efforts of Jews to acquire land in Palestine, at present remains in possession of approximately 85 per cent of the land. "

A/364 of 3 September 1947


----------



## Indeependent

montelatici said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is that we don't want THEM. Its not just a matter of land -- its a hostile population of millions
> 
> 
> 
> Who are opposed to the Zionist's settler colonial project in Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You seem to abhor legal transactions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Settler colonialism is legal?
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No jerk wad, buying land is legal.
> You and Monty better get together and figure out whose revisionist history is better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Jews had bought less than 15% of the land of Palestine by the time of partition.  The only revisionism is from you people. The facts are archived at the UN.
Click to expand...

Oh, look!  Another map without context.


----------



## fncceo

Indeependent said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who are opposed to the Zionist's settler colonial project in Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to abhor legal transactions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Settler colonialism is legal?
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No jerk wad, buying land is legal.
> You and Monty better get together and figure out whose revisionist history is better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Jews had bought less than 15% of the land of Palestine by the time of partition.  The only revisionism is from you people. The facts are archived at the UN.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, look!  Another map without context.
Click to expand...


Here's some more recent data ...






100% Jewish ... Choke on it.


----------



## Indeependent

fncceo said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to abhor legal transactions.
> 
> 
> 
> Settler colonialism is legal?
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No jerk wad, buying land is legal.
> You and Monty better get together and figure out whose revisionist history is better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Jews had bought less than 15% of the land of Palestine by the time of partition.  The only revisionism is from you people. The facts are archived at the UN.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, look!  Another map without context.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here's some more recent data ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 100% Jewish ... Choke on it.
Click to expand...

More maps, baby, more!
Maps are *so* erotic!


----------



## montelatici

Just the facts in maps, tables and in UN resolutions.  LOL You people are hilarious.


----------



## Indeependent

montelatici said:


> Just the facts in maps, tables and in UN resolutions.  LOL You people are hilarious.


Keep bringing up the maps and the UN Resolutions.
You can already see your fan club growing by leaps and bounds in the last few years.


----------



## montelatici

fncceo said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to abhor legal transactions.
> 
> 
> 
> Settler colonialism is legal?
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No jerk wad, buying land is legal.
> You and Monty better get together and figure out whose revisionist history is better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Jews had bought less than 15% of the land of Palestine by the time of partition.  The only revisionism is from you people. The facts are archived at the UN.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, look!  Another map without context.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here's some more recent data ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 100% Jewish ... Choke on it.
Click to expand...


Of course, we all know the land was stolen from the previous owners, that's nothing new.


----------



## Indeependent

montelatici said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Settler colonialism is legal?
> 
> Link?
> 
> 
> 
> No jerk wad, buying land is legal.
> You and Monty better get together and figure out whose revisionist history is better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Jews had bought less than 15% of the land of Palestine by the time of partition.  The only revisionism is from you people. The facts are archived at the UN.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, look!  Another map without context.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here's some more recent data ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 100% Jewish ... Choke on it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course, we all know the land was stolen from the previous owners, that's nothing new.
Click to expand...

Are you referring to Lebanon being stolen by Syria?


----------



## fncceo

montelatici said:


> Of course, we all know the land was stolen from the previous owners, that's nothing new.



England ceded the land to the State of Israel.  For 500 years before that, the owner of that land was Turkey. 

For someone obsessed with History... you don't seem to know much about it.


----------



## montelatici

fncceo said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, we all know the land was stolen from the previous owners, that's nothing new.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> England ceded the land to the State of Israel.  For 500 years before that, the owner of that land was Turkey.
> 
> For someone obsessed with History... you don't seem to know much about it.
Click to expand...


Where is there any document that indicates that any land of Palestine was ceded by "England" to the state of Israel?  The land was not "England's", or more accurately 'Great Britain's", to cede.  Where did you get that preposterous idea? You people haven't a clue about what actually happened, you are conditioned and brainwashed with Zionist propaganda or you just make things up.

Palestine, like certain other territories previously under the sovereignty of the Central Powers, were not ceded.  In accordance with Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, Palestine was to be held in trust on behalf of its inhabitants, who were the native Muslims and Christians.  The Jews inhabited Europe.


Covenant of the League of Nations:
*"ARTICLE 22.*
To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which *are inhabited by peoples* not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of *such peoples form a sacred trust* of civilisation and that securities for *the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant*...."

Avalon Project - The Covenant of the League of Nations


----------



## P F Tinmore

montelatici said:


> The land was not "England's", or more accurately 'Great Britain's", to cede.


That is correct. Britain never annexed or otherwise laid claim on that land. It was not theirs to give away and they did not.


----------



## ForeverYoung436

P F Tinmore said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The land was not "England's", or more accurately 'Great Britain's", to cede.
> 
> 
> 
> That is correct. Britain never annexed or otherwise laid claim on that land. It was not theirs to give away and they did not.
Click to expand...


Great Britain won the land from the Ottoman Empire in World War 1.  To the victor go the spoils.  And Britain promised the land to both the Jews and the Arabs.  The Arabs inherited vast amounts of land and oil from the defunct Ottoman Empire.  Considering the special relationship between the Jewish People and the Land of Israel, from where they gave the Bible to half-the-world, the British did not think that the Arabs would begrudge sharing one tiny strip of land out of their vast empire.  Boy, were the British wrong about that one!


----------



## montelatici

ForeverYoung436 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The land was not "England's", or more accurately 'Great Britain's", to cede.
> 
> 
> 
> That is correct. Britain never annexed or otherwise laid claim on that land. It was not theirs to give away and they did not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Great Britain won the land from the Ottoman Empire in World War 1.  To the victor go the spoils.  And Britain promised the land to both the Jews and the Arabs.  The Arabs inherited vast amounts of land and oil from the defunct Ottoman Empire.  Considering the special relationship between the Jewish People and the Land of Israel, from where they gave the Bible to half-the-world, the British did not think that the Arabs would begrudge sharing one tiny strip of land out of their vast empire.  Boy, were the British wrong about that one!
Click to expand...


The indigenous people have a much more special relationship to the land than colonists from another continent whose ancestors happened to convert to Judaism.


----------



## abu afak

montelatici said:


> ...
> Covenant of the League of Nations:
> *"ARTICLE 22.*
> To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which *are inhabited by peoples* not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of *such peoples form a sacred trust* of civilisation and that securities for *the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant*...."
> Avalon Project - The Covenant of the League of Nations


Your usual DISHONESTY/Taqiyyah.
*Article 22* Was settled in re Jews/Palestine.
OOOPS!
The Avalon Project : The Palestine Mandate

*The Palestine Mandate*

*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, (BALFOUR), 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; *and

Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have selected His Britannic Majesty as the Mandatory for Palestine; and

Whereas the mandate in respect of Palestine has been formulated in the following terms and submitted to the Council of the League for approval; and

Whereas His Britannic Majesty has accepted the mandate in respect of Palestine and undertaken to exercise it on behalf of the League of Nations in conformity with the following provisions; and

*Whereas by the afore-mentioned ARTICLE 22 (paragraph 8), it is provided that the degree of authority, control or administration to be exercised by the Mandatory,* not having been previously agreed upon by the Members of the League, shall be explicitly defined by the Council of the League Of Nations;

confirming the said Mandate, defines its terms as follows:

*ARTICLE 1.*
The Mandatory shall have full powers of legislation and of administration, save as they may be limited by the terms of this mandate.

*ART. 2.*
The Mandatory shall be responsible for *placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will Secure the Establishment of the Jewish National Home, as laid down in the Preamble,* and the development of self-governing institutions, and also for safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion.

*ART. 3.*
The Mandatory shall, so far as circumstances permit, encourage local autonomy.

*ART. 4.*
*An appropriate Jewish agency shall be recognised as a public body for the purpose of advising and co-operating with the Administration of Palestine in such economic, social and other matters as may affect the establishment of the Jewish National home and the interests of the Jewish population in Palestine,* and, subject always to the control of the Administration to assist and take part in the development of the country.

*The Zionist organization, so long as its organization and constitution are in the opinion of the Mandatory appropriate, shall be Recognised as such agency.* It shall take steps in consultation with His Britannic Majesty's Government to secure the co-operation of all Jews who are willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish national home.

*ART. 5.*
The Mandatory shall be responsible for seeing that no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way placed under the control of the Government of any foreign Power.

*ART. 6.*
The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes.

*ART. 7.*
The Administration of Palestine shall be responsible for enacting a nationality law. *There shall be included in this law provisions framed so as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine.
[......]

So your uncontexted quote was DISHONEST. Your usual.
You can't debate me you Clown!
`*

EDIT:
Note the Idiot Twerp PJ Tinhead below.
Under *Article 22, Britain, AS the Mandatory, could, indeed Must, exercise the will of the League of Nations as the designated 'Mandatory.'*
IOW, Montel-al-leechie and Tinhead, were Porked.
`​


----------



## P F Tinmore

abu afak said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> Covenant of the League of Nations:
> *"ARTICLE 22.*
> To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which *are inhabited by peoples* not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of *such peoples form a sacred trust* of civilisation and that securities for *the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant*...."
> Avalon Project - The Covenant of the League of Nations
> 
> 
> 
> Your usual DISHONESTY/Taqiyyah.
> *Article 22* Was settled in re Jews/Palestine.
> OOOPS!
> The Avalon Project : The Palestine Mandate
> 
> *The Palestine Mandate*
> 
> *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, (BALFOUR), 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; *and
> 
> Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have selected His Britannic Majesty as the Mandatory for Palestine; and
> 
> Whereas the mandate in respect of Palestine has been formulated in the following terms and submitted to the Council of the League for approval; and
> 
> Whereas His Britannic Majesty has accepted the mandate in respect of Palestine and undertaken to exercise it on behalf of the League of Nations in conformity with the following provisions; and
> 
> *Whereas by the afore-mentioned ARTICLE 22 (paragraph 8), it is provided that the degree of authority, control or administration to be exercised by the Mandatory,* not having been previously agreed upon by the Members of the League, shall be explicitly defined by the Council of the League Of Nations;
> 
> confirming the said Mandate, defines its terms as follows:
> 
> *ARTICLE 1.*
> The Mandatory shall have full powers of legislation and of administration, save as they may be limited by the terms of this mandate.
> 
> *ART. 2.*
> The Mandatory shall be responsible for *placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will Secure the Establishment of the Jewish National Home, as laid down in the Preamble,* and the development of self-governing institutions, and also for safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion.
> 
> *ART. 3.*
> The Mandatory shall, so far as circumstances permit, encourage local autonomy.
> 
> *ART. 4.*
> *An appropriate Jewish agency shall be recognised as a public body for the purpose of advising and co-operating with the Administration of Palestine in such economic, social and other matters as may affect the establishment of the Jewish National home and the interests of the Jewish population in Palestine,* and, subject always to the control of the Administration to assist and take part in the development of the country.
> 
> *The Zionist organization, so long as its organization and constitution are in the opinion of the Mandatory appropriate, shall be Recognised as such agency.* It shall take steps in consultation with His Britannic Majesty's Government to secure the co-operation of all Jews who are willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish national home.
> 
> *ART. 5.*
> The Mandatory shall be responsible for seeing that no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way placed under the control of the Government of any foreign Power.
> 
> *ART. 6.*
> The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes.
> 
> *ART. 7.*
> The Administration of Palestine shall be responsible for enacting a nationality law. *There shall be included in this law provisions framed so as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine.
> [......]
> 
> So your uncontexted quote was DISHONEST. Your usual.
> You can't debate me you Clown!
> `*​
Click to expand...

Britain could not promise that land to anyone. It was not theirs to give away. And they did not.


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## fncceo

P F Tinmore said:


>



Like most cartoons... absolutely no basis in reality.


----------



## P F Tinmore

fncceo said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like most cartoons... absolutely no basis in reality.
Click to expand...

What part of Palestinian controlled areas have access to the outside world?


----------



## montelatici

abu afak said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> Covenant of the League of Nations:
> *"ARTICLE 22.*
> To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which *are inhabited by peoples* not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of *such peoples form a sacred trust* of civilisation and that securities for *the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant*...."
> Avalon Project - The Covenant of the League of Nations
> 
> 
> 
> Your usual DISHONESTY/Taqiyyah.
> *Article 22* Was settled in re Jews/Palestine.
> OOOPS!
> The Avalon Project : The Palestine Mandate
> 
> *The Palestine Mandate*
> 
> *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, (BALFOUR), 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; *and
> 
> Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have selected His Britannic Majesty as the Mandatory for Palestine; and
> 
> Whereas the mandate in respect of Palestine has been formulated in the following terms and submitted to the Council of the League for approval; and
> 
> Whereas His Britannic Majesty has accepted the mandate in respect of Palestine and undertaken to exercise it on behalf of the League of Nations in conformity with the following provisions; and
> 
> *Whereas by the afore-mentioned ARTICLE 22 (paragraph 8), it is provided that the degree of authority, control or administration to be exercised by the Mandatory,* not having been previously agreed upon by the Members of the League, shall be explicitly defined by the Council of the League Of Nations;
> 
> confirming the said Mandate, defines its terms as follows:
> 
> *ARTICLE 1.*
> The Mandatory shall have full powers of legislation and of administration, save as they may be limited by the terms of this mandate.
> 
> *ART. 2.*
> The Mandatory shall be responsible for *placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will Secure the Establishment of the Jewish National Home, as laid down in the Preamble,* and the development of self-governing institutions, and also for safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion.
> 
> *ART. 3.*
> The Mandatory shall, so far as circumstances permit, encourage local autonomy.
> 
> *ART. 4.*
> *An appropriate Jewish agency shall be recognised as a public body for the purpose of advising and co-operating with the Administration of Palestine in such economic, social and other matters as may affect the establishment of the Jewish National home and the interests of the Jewish population in Palestine,* and, subject always to the control of the Administration to assist and take part in the development of the country.
> 
> *The Zionist organization, so long as its organization and constitution are in the opinion of the Mandatory appropriate, shall be Recognised as such agency.* It shall take steps in consultation with His Britannic Majesty's Government to secure the co-operation of all Jews who are willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish national home.
> 
> *ART. 5.*
> The Mandatory shall be responsible for seeing that no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way placed under the control of the Government of any foreign Power.
> 
> *ART. 6.*
> The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes.
> 
> *ART. 7.*
> The Administration of Palestine shall be responsible for enacting a nationality law. *There shall be included in this law provisions framed so as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine.
> [......]
> 
> So your uncontexted quote was DISHONEST. Your usual.
> You can't debate me you Clown!
> `*
> 
> EDIT:
> Note the Idiot Twerp PJ Tinhead below.
> Under *Article 22, Britain, AS the Mandatory, could, indeed Must, exercise the will of the League of Nations as the designated 'Mandatory.'*
> IOW, Montel-al-leechie and Tinhead, were Porked.
> `​
Click to expand...


You stupid, dishonest, lying asshole. 

The Covenant of the League of Nations was signed before the Mandate was signed. Article 22 of the Covenant required that the territory be held in trust for the inhabitants.  The inhabitants were the Muslim and Christian natives. The Jews were on another continent.  Furthermore The Covenant  under Article 20 required that the signatories abrogate any prior agreement inconsistent with the Covenant, by signing the Covenant Britain abrogated the Balfour Declaration.

*ARTICLE 20.*
The Members of the League severally agree that *this Covenant is accepted as abrogating all obligations or understandings inter se which are inconsistent with the terms thereof,* and solemnly undertake that they will not hereafter enter into any engagements inconsistent with the terms thereof.

*In case any Member of the League shall, before becoming a Member of the League, have undertaken any obligations inconsistent with the terms of this Covenant, it shall be the duty of such Member to take immediate steps to procure its release from such obligations.
*
Avalon Project - The Covenant of the League of Nations



 *ABU AFAK blown out of the water again!*


----------



## fncceo

P F Tinmore said:


> What part of Palestinian controlled areas have access to the outside world?



Those are administrative regions, not borders ... but you already knew that.

Area C is administered jointly by Israeli military and the Palestinian Authority,  

Did you notice that long blue line on the East side of the West Bank?  That's the border with Jordan -- a border that Jordan (not Israel) has closed tighter than Tupperware.


----------



## abu afak

montelatici said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> Covenant of the League of Nations:
> *"ARTICLE 22.*
> To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which *are inhabited by peoples* not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of *such peoples form a sacred trust* of civilisation and that securities for *the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant*...."
> Avalon Project - The Covenant of the League of Nations
> 
> 
> 
> Your usual DISHONESTY/Taqiyyah.
> *Article 22* Was settled in re Jews/Palestine.
> OOOPS!
> The Avalon Project : The Palestine Mandate
> 
> *The Palestine Mandate*
> 
> *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, (BALFOUR), 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; *and
> 
> Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have selected His Britannic Majesty as the Mandatory for Palestine; and
> 
> Whereas the mandate in respect of Palestine has been formulated in the following terms and submitted to the Council of the League for approval; and
> 
> Whereas His Britannic Majesty has accepted the mandate in respect of Palestine and undertaken to exercise it on behalf of the League of Nations in conformity with the following provisions; and
> 
> *Whereas by the afore-mentioned ARTICLE 22 (paragraph 8), it is provided that the degree of authority, control or administration to be exercised by the Mandatory,* not having been previously agreed upon by the Members of the League, shall be explicitly defined by the Council of the League Of Nations;
> 
> confirming the said Mandate, defines its terms as follows:
> 
> *ARTICLE 1.*
> The Mandatory shall have full powers of legislation and of administration, save as they may be limited by the terms of this mandate.
> 
> *ART. 2.*
> The Mandatory shall be responsible for *placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will Secure the Establishment of the Jewish National Home, as laid down in the Preamble,* and the development of self-governing institutions, and also for safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion.
> 
> *ART. 3.*
> The Mandatory shall, so far as circumstances permit, encourage local autonomy.
> 
> *ART. 4.*
> *An appropriate Jewish agency shall be recognised as a public body for the purpose of advising and co-operating with the Administration of Palestine in such economic, social and other matters as may affect the establishment of the Jewish National home and the interests of the Jewish population in Palestine,* and, subject always to the control of the Administration to assist and take part in the development of the country.
> 
> *The Zionist organization, so long as its organization and constitution are in the opinion of the Mandatory appropriate, shall be Recognised as such agency.* It shall take steps in consultation with His Britannic Majesty's Government to secure the co-operation of all Jews who are willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish national home.
> 
> *ART. 5.*
> The Mandatory shall be responsible for seeing that no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way placed under the control of the Government of any foreign Power.
> 
> *ART. 6.*
> The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes.
> 
> *ART. 7.*
> The Administration of Palestine shall be responsible for enacting a nationality law. *There shall be included in this law provisions framed so as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine.
> [......]
> 
> So your uncontexted quote was DISHONEST. Your usual.
> You can't debate me you Clown!
> `*
> 
> EDIT:
> Note the Idiot Twerp PJ Tinhead below.
> Under *Article 22, Britain, AS the Mandatory, could, indeed Must, exercise the will of the League of Nations as the designated 'Mandatory.'*
> IOW, Montel-al-leechie and Tinhead, were Porked.
> `​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You stupid, dishonest, lying asshole.
> 
> The Covenant of the League of Nations was signed before the Mandate was signed. Article 22 of the Covenant required that the territory be held in trust for the inhabitants.  The inhabitants were the Muslim and Christian natives. The Jews were on another continent.  Furthermore The Covenant  under Article 20 required that the signatories abrogate any prior agreement inconsistent with the Covenant, by signing the Covenant Britain abrogated the Balfour Declaration.
> 
> *ARTICLE 20.*
> The Members of the League severally agree that *this Covenant is accepted as abrogating all obligations or understandings inter se which are inconsistent with the terms thereof,* and solemnly undertake that they will not hereafter enter into any engagements inconsistent with the terms thereof.
> 
> *In case any Member of the League shall, before becoming a Member of the League, have undertaken any obligations inconsistent with the terms of this Covenant, it shall be the duty of such Member to take immediate steps to procure its release from such obligations.*
> Avalon Project - The Covenant of the League of Nations\\
> *ABU AFAK blown out of the water again!*
Click to expand...

No, Dishonest Taqiyyah Akhmed...
*You Got PORKED by YOUR OWN "Article 22", (paragraph 8) (THANKS!) which provides for the Mandatory to do the parsing. 
You're so DISHONEST, and now so HUMILIATED/Caught. (you had to go to oversize Fonts)

The League of Nations decided Palestine, consistent with Balfour, was to Provide a NATIONAL HOME FOR THE JEWISH PEOPLE.*
Period.
UP Your camel's/wife's ass. YOU LOSE.

Now go Blow yourself again up Crooked-tongued Shahidi. You failed yet again. (#12,976)

*
EDIT To Montel-Williams-A-rab below. 
(I use edit because it's OVER and I love this page on which Montel-Cheety got OUTED as the LIAR he is)

NO, League of Nations, CONSISTENT with Article 22, par 8, and it's Charter, decided that Palestine was to be the NATIONAL HOME OF THE JEWISH PEOPLE.*
Screw your own little BIGOT interpretation of Their Charter and decision.
YOU LOSE MONTEL
Even Better: YOU LOSE ON EVERYTHING YOU EVER TRIED TO FOIST because of this exchange.
You don't have the IQ to debate a Jew.
`


----------



## P F Tinmore

fncceo said:


> Area C is administered jointly by Israeli military and the Palestinian Authority,


Read the legend. Area C is under complete Israeli military control.


----------



## montelatici

abu afak said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> Covenant of the League of Nations:
> *"ARTICLE 22.*
> To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which *are inhabited by peoples* not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of *such peoples form a sacred trust* of civilisation and that securities for *the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant*...."
> Avalon Project - The Covenant of the League of Nations
> 
> 
> 
> Your usual DISHONESTY/Taqiyyah.
> *Article 22* Was settled in re Jews/Palestine.
> OOOPS!
> The Avalon Project : The Palestine Mandate
> 
> *The Palestine Mandate*
> 
> *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, (BALFOUR), 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; *and
> 
> Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have selected His Britannic Majesty as the Mandatory for Palestine; and
> 
> Whereas the mandate in respect of Palestine has been formulated in the following terms and submitted to the Council of the League for approval; and
> 
> Whereas His Britannic Majesty has accepted the mandate in respect of Palestine and undertaken to exercise it on behalf of the League of Nations in conformity with the following provisions; and
> 
> *Whereas by the afore-mentioned ARTICLE 22 (paragraph 8), it is provided that the degree of authority, control or administration to be exercised by the Mandatory,* not having been previously agreed upon by the Members of the League, shall be explicitly defined by the Council of the League Of Nations;
> 
> confirming the said Mandate, defines its terms as follows:
> 
> *ARTICLE 1.*
> The Mandatory shall have full powers of legislation and of administration, save as they may be limited by the terms of this mandate.
> 
> *ART. 2.*
> The Mandatory shall be responsible for *placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will Secure the Establishment of the Jewish National Home, as laid down in the Preamble,* and the development of self-governing institutions, and also for safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion.
> 
> *ART. 3.*
> The Mandatory shall, so far as circumstances permit, encourage local autonomy.
> 
> *ART. 4.*
> *An appropriate Jewish agency shall be recognised as a public body for the purpose of advising and co-operating with the Administration of Palestine in such economic, social and other matters as may affect the establishment of the Jewish National home and the interests of the Jewish population in Palestine,* and, subject always to the control of the Administration to assist and take part in the development of the country.
> 
> *The Zionist organization, so long as its organization and constitution are in the opinion of the Mandatory appropriate, shall be Recognised as such agency.* It shall take steps in consultation with His Britannic Majesty's Government to secure the co-operation of all Jews who are willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish national home.
> 
> *ART. 5.*
> The Mandatory shall be responsible for seeing that no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way placed under the control of the Government of any foreign Power.
> 
> *ART. 6.*
> The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes.
> 
> *ART. 7.*
> The Administration of Palestine shall be responsible for enacting a nationality law. *There shall be included in this law provisions framed so as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine.
> [......]
> 
> So your uncontexted quote was DISHONEST. Your usual.
> You can't debate me you Clown!
> `*
> 
> EDIT:
> Note the Idiot Twerp PJ Tinhead below.
> Under *Article 22, Britain, AS the Mandatory, could, indeed Must, exercise the will of the League of Nations as the designated 'Mandatory.'*
> IOW, Montel-al-leechie and Tinhead, were Porked.
> `​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You stupid, dishonest, lying asshole.
> 
> The Covenant of the League of Nations was signed before the Mandate was signed. Article 22 of the Covenant required that the territory be held in trust for the inhabitants.  The inhabitants were the Muslim and Christian natives. The Jews were on another continent.  Furthermore The Covenant  under Article 20 required that the signatories abrogate any prior agreement inconsistent with the Covenant, by signing the Covenant Britain abrogated the Balfour Declaration.
> 
> *ARTICLE 20.*
> The Members of the League severally agree that *this Covenant is accepted as abrogating all obligations or understandings inter se which are inconsistent with the terms thereof,* and solemnly undertake that they will not hereafter enter into any engagements inconsistent with the terms thereof.
> 
> *In case any Member of the League shall, before becoming a Member of the League, have undertaken any obligations inconsistent with the terms of this Covenant, it shall be the duty of such Member to take immediate steps to procure its release from such obligations.*
> Avalon Project - The Covenant of the League of Nations\\
> *ABU AFAK blown out of the water again!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, Dishonest Taqiyyah Akhmed...
> *You Got PORKED by YOUR OWN "Article 22", (paragraph 8) (THANKS!) which provides for the Mandatory to do the parsing.
> 
> The League of Nations decided Palestine, consistent with Balfour, was to Provide a NATIONAL HOME FOR THE JEWISH PEOPLE.*
> Period.
> UP Your camel's ass. YOU LOSE
> 
> Now go Blow yourself again up Crooked tongued Shahidi. You failed yet again. (#12,976)
> `
Click to expand...


*The Balfour Declaration was inconsistent with the Covenant, and by signing the Covenant Britain warranted that pursuant to Article 10 that 

"this Covenant is accepted as abrogating all obligations or understandings inter se which are inconsistent with the terms thereof.."  the Balfour Declaration was therefore abrogated as inconsistent with Article 22, wherein the territory was to be held in trust for the inhabitants, not people living on another continent.

You got reamed again because you failed to read the Covenant and are stupid. 

You lose as usual. *


----------



## fncceo

P F Tinmore said:


> Read the legend. Area C is under complete Israeli military control.



The Electronic Intifada version ... doesn't change the fact that Area C is joint controlled Israel and PA


----------



## P F Tinmore

fncceo said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Read the legend. Area C is under complete Israeli military control.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Electronic Intifada version ... doesn't change the fact that Area C is joint controlled Israel and PA
Click to expand...

What does the Electronic Intifada have to do with a UN map?


----------



## abu afak

P F Tinhead is an juvenile IDIOT and a Nonconversant TROLL.

So he 'debates' with Cartoons, graphics, and youtubes.
Or rather, intentionally Destroy's Lost debate with them.
ALL his posts are Board Blight.
`


----------



## montelatici

fncceo said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Read the legend. Area C is under complete Israeli military control.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Electronic Intifada version ... doesn't change the fact that Area C is joint controlled Israel and PA
Click to expand...






https://www.ochaopt.org/documents/ocha_opt_area_c_map_2011_02_22.pdf


----------



## montelatici

These idiots just don't know what they are talking about and are lying pieces of crap that get reamed every time they post their nonsense.


----------



## Shusha

Comparing Areas A and B to the Warsaw Ghetto is wrong both morally and factually.  The Warsaw Ghetto was not just a restriction on movement into and out of a specific territory -- *the conditions of the Ghetto were not sufficient to sustain life*.  Making such an egregious and inappropriate comparison is nothing more than a demonization of Israel.


----------



## Shusha

It is fascinating to witness the need for team Palestine to constantly make false and demonizing comparisons.  Why is it necessary to paint Israel in false demon colors?  Isn't there plenty of valid criticisms to be made of Israel?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> Comparing Areas A and B to the Warsaw Ghetto is wrong both morally and factually.  The Warsaw Ghetto was not just a restriction on movement into and out of a specific territory -- *the conditions of the Ghetto were not sufficient to sustain life*.  Making such an egregious and inappropriate comparison is nothing more than a demonization of Israel.


The you need to read up. Israel cuts farm land off from villages leaving them without subsistence.


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Comparing Areas A and B to the Warsaw Ghetto is wrong both morally and factually.  The Warsaw Ghetto was not just a restriction on movement into and out of a specific territory -- *the conditions of the Ghetto were not sufficient to sustain life*.  Making such an egregious and inappropriate comparison is nothing more than a demonization of Israel.
> 
> 
> 
> The you need to read up. Israel cuts farm land off from villages leaving them without subsistence.
Click to expand...


Seriously?  You are trying to sell me on the idea that *conditions in the "West Bank" are inadequate to sustain life and that there is, therefore, a widespread loss of life*? 

You can't possibly be stupid enough to believe that. 

Qalqilyah's population doubled between 1997 and 2007.  It has 145 grocery stores, 35 produce stores, 18 bakeries, 18 butcheries and a ZOO!  The city is known for its citrus crops and 25% of the population works in the agriculture industry.   

Come on.  Bring your game up.  This is embarrassing.


----------



## montelatici




----------



## abu afak

montelatici said:


>


That's funny, cause:
Baltimore Sun:
*Palestinians enjoy the weekend at the beach of Gaza City: June 20, 2014.*


----------



## Shusha

montelatici said:


>




Not addressing my point.  Only adding to the stupidity and embarrassment.


----------



## montelatici

abu afak said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's funny, cause:
> Baltimore Sun:
> *Palestinians enjoy the weekend at the beach of Gaza City: June 20, 2014.*
Click to expand...


You are so damn stupid. You actually put a probably fake photo taken before Israel attacked Gaza, which was July 8, 2014. Reamed again. A glutton for punishment.

By the way, here what it really looks like.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Comparing Areas A and B to the Warsaw Ghetto is wrong both morally and factually.  The Warsaw Ghetto was not just a restriction on movement into and out of a specific territory -- *the conditions of the Ghetto were not sufficient to sustain life*.  Making such an egregious and inappropriate comparison is nothing more than a demonization of Israel.
> 
> 
> 
> The you need to read up. Israel cuts farm land off from villages leaving them without subsistence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seriously?  You are trying to sell me on the idea that *conditions in the "West Bank" are inadequate to sustain life and that there is, therefore, a widespread loss of life*?
> 
> You can't possibly be stupid enough to believe that.
> 
> Qalqilyah's population doubled between 1997 and 2007.  It has 145 grocery stores, 35 produce stores, 18 bakeries, 18 butcheries and a ZOO!  The city is known for its citrus crops and 25% of the population works in the agriculture industry.
> 
> Come on.  Bring your game up.  This is embarrassing.
Click to expand...

Civil Administration contractors accompanied by Israeli soldiers uprooted around 250 Palestinian-owned olive trees Sunday near the West Bank city of Qalqilya, as part of a larger plan to build a settler bypass road in the area.

The Nabi Elias bypass road will include the expropriation of 25 acres of Palestinian land — including a total 700 olive trees — belonging to the Palestinian villages of Izbat Tabib, Azzun, and Nabi Elias, just east of Ramallah.

PHOTOS: Israeli authorities uproot olive trees to build settler-only road | +972 Magazine


----------



## abu afak

montelatici said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's funny, cause:
> Baltimore Sun:
> *Palestinians enjoy the weekend at the beach of Gaza City: June 20, 2014.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are so damn stupid. You actually put a probably fake photo taken before Israel attacked Gaza, which was July 8, 2014. Reamed again. A glutton for punishment.
> 
> By the way, here what it really looks like.
Click to expand...

*Yes!, That's the Rubble of ONE building photographically Exaggerated by being put in the Foreground, against the Much Wider Backdrop* of what is NOT a "Refugee camp". oooops
NOT "starving"
But the world's most CODDLED group.
We can't in good conscience call these people 'refugees' any more, while the rest of the world Has REAL Refugees.

Pressure Points » Ending UNRWA and Advancing Peace
*"...Once there were 750,000; now there are Five Million people considered by UNRWA to be “Palestinian refugees.” And
UNRWA is now the Largest UN agency, with a staff of 30,000. 
UNHCR Cares for the Rest of the WORLD with about 7,500 personnel!*
.....""

Summer Camps considered refugee agency work?
Real refugees are starving worldwide.
Marathons organized by UNRWA schools.
Maybe speak to the Saudis/Gulf States about funding them. The USA/EU can't afford all but dire need these days.
Gaza children run marathon to raise funds for UN summer camps - Haaretz | Israel News




_Runners take part in a 10 km race, as part of the *second annual Gaza Marathon, 
organized by the UNRWA in Khan Younis, in the southern Gaza Strip* March 1, 2012. 
Reuters._


*Meanwhile in ie, Kenya, the world's largest/REAL Refugee camp at 1/2 a Million*





_*Somali boys fetch water from a puddle that formed after rain 
at the sprawling Dadaab refugee complex in Kenya, October 2011.*_
World

Others in Africa are in even worse straights with no agencies/no pictures. UN is too busy demonizing Israel by Pampering "_Persecuted-Palestinians_ into the 4th generation of refugee-hood.
*
And Allah SnackBar!.. did I NAIL YOU for your DISHONEST and Misleading post about the League of Nations and Article 22!
What a Backfiring Debacle for you Baghdad Bob!*
You usually can get away with your DISHONEST BS, but not when I'm around.
`


----------



## montelatici

abu afak said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's funny, cause:
> Baltimore Sun:
> *Palestinians enjoy the weekend at the beach of Gaza City: June 20, 2014.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are so damn stupid. You actually put a probably fake photo taken before Israel attacked Gaza, which was July 8, 2014. Reamed again. A glutton for punishment.
> 
> By the way, here what it really looks like.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Yes!, That's the Rubble of ONE building photographically Exaggerated by being put in the Foreground, against the Much Wider Backdrop* of what is NOT a "Refugee camp". oooops
> NOT "starving"
> But the world's most CODDLED group.
> We can't in good conscience call these people 'refugees' any more, while the rest of the world Has REAL Refugees.
> 
> Pressure Points » Ending UNRWA and Advancing Peace
> *"...Once there were 750,000; now there are Five Million people considered by UNRWA to be “Palestinian refugees.” And
> UNRWA is now the Largest UN agency, with a staff of 30,000.
> UNHCR Cares for the Rest of the WORLD with about 7,500 personnel!*
> .....""
> 
> Summer Camps considered refugee agency work?
> Real refugees are starving worldwide.
> Marathons organized by UNRWA schools.
> Maybe speak to the Saudis/Gulf States about funding them. The USA/EU can't afford all but dire need these days.
> Gaza children run marathon to raise funds for UN summer camps - Haaretz | Israel News
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Runners take part in a 10 km race, as part of the *second annual Gaza Marathon,
> organized by the UNRWA in Khan Younis, in the southern Gaza Strip* March 1, 2012.
> Reuters._
> 
> 
> *Meanwhile in ie, Kenya, the world's largest/REAL Refugee camp at 1/2 a Million*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _*Somali boys fetch water from a puddle that formed after rain
> at the sprawling Dadaab refugee complex in Kenya, October 2011.*_
> World
> 
> Others in Africa are in even worse straights with no agencies/no pictures. UN is too busy demonizing Israel by Pampering "_Persecuted-Palestinians_ into the 4th generation of refugee-hood.
> *
> And Allah SnackBar!.. did I NAIL YOU for your DISHONEST and Misleading post about the League of Nations and Article 22!
> What a Backfiring Debacle for you Baghdad Bob!*
> You usually can get away with your DISHONEST BS, but not when I'm around.
> `
Click to expand...


You are such a fool. You post a phot of Gaza from before the 2014 Israeli attack and you call me a liar. LOL

You are not only a liar, but you are also a fool.  Now you think projecting will make you look like less of a fool.  There is nothing misleading regarding Article 22.  It states what it states you lying moron.

*"ARTICLE 22.*
To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and* which are inhabited* by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant."

Don't see anything about inhabitants of Europe, Jew or otherwise.




As far as Gaza, quit lying no one believes you.  











http://www.unitar.org/unosat/map/2073


Keep posting moron, you'll get reamed every time, you are just too stupid to lie without getting caught immediately.


----------



## teddyearp

P F Tinmore said:


> Britain could not promise that land to anyone. It was not theirs to give away. And they did not.


Oh, but they could. Now if the Ottomans had NOT entered WWI on the side of the Germans, no. But they did. And they lost.  The British and French won. Spoils of war gave them every right, supported by the League of Nations and subsequent agreement says so.


----------



## teddyearp

montelatici said:


> You stupid, dishonest, lying asshole



Again, following the electronic intifada troll docrine of intimidation and name calling.



montelatici said:


> The Covenant of the League of Nations was signed before the Mandate was signed.



Therefore the Mandate was a later agreement and binding.


----------



## teddyearp

montelatici said:


> *You got reamed again because you failed to read the Covenant and are stupid.*


*
*
Yup, posting in enlarged and bold font and name calling proves that one is smarter than anyone else, lest we forget:


----------



## teddyearp

montelatici said:


> These idiots just don't know what they are talking about and are lying pieces of crap that get reamed every time they post their nonsense.


Hmm, how many points did you hit now in the electronic intifada troll list?


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Comparing Areas A and B to the Warsaw Ghetto is wrong both morally and factually.  The Warsaw Ghetto was not just a restriction on movement into and out of a specific territory -- *the conditions of the Ghetto were not sufficient to sustain life*.  Making such an egregious and inappropriate comparison is nothing more than a demonization of Israel.
> 
> 
> 
> The you need to read up. Israel cuts farm land off from villages leaving them without subsistence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seriously?  You are trying to sell me on the idea that *conditions in the "West Bank" are inadequate to sustain life and that there is, therefore, a widespread loss of life*?
> 
> You can't possibly be stupid enough to believe that.
> 
> Qalqilyah's population doubled between 1997 and 2007.  It has 145 grocery stores, 35 produce stores, 18 bakeries, 18 butcheries and a ZOO!  The city is known for its citrus crops and 25% of the population works in the agriculture industry.
> 
> Come on.  Bring your game up.  This is embarrassing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Civil Administration contractors accompanied by Israeli soldiers uprooted around 250 Palestinian-owned olive trees Sunday near the West Bank city of Qalqilya, as part of a larger plan to build a settler bypass road in the area.
> 
> The Nabi Elias bypass road will include the expropriation of 25 acres of Palestinian land — including a total 700 olive trees — belonging to the Palestinian villages of Izbat Tabib, Azzun, and Nabi Elias, just east of Ramallah.
> 
> PHOTOS: Israeli authorities uproot olive trees to build settler-only road | +972 Magazine
Click to expand...


You keep throwing stuff like this at the wall. It ain't going to stick. 

The Warsaw Ghetto had conditions that were incompatible with sustaining life. 

No one in Qalqilya is dying from lack of basic necessities for life. No one in the West Bank is dying from lack of basic necessities for life. 

We can discuss all you want about agricultural land vs land for urban requirements.  But that is NOT the equivalent of the Warsaw Ghetto.  Where the conditions were incompatible with life. 

We can't talk about the real issues until all this embarrassing foolishness stops.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Comparing Areas A and B to the Warsaw Ghetto is wrong both morally and factually.  The Warsaw Ghetto was not just a restriction on movement into and out of a specific territory -- *the conditions of the Ghetto were not sufficient to sustain life*.  Making such an egregious and inappropriate comparison is nothing more than a demonization of Israel.
> 
> 
> 
> The you need to read up. Israel cuts farm land off from villages leaving them without subsistence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seriously?  You are trying to sell me on the idea that *conditions in the "West Bank" are inadequate to sustain life and that there is, therefore, a widespread loss of life*?
> 
> You can't possibly be stupid enough to believe that.
> 
> Qalqilyah's population doubled between 1997 and 2007.  It has 145 grocery stores, 35 produce stores, 18 bakeries, 18 butcheries and a ZOO!  The city is known for its citrus crops and 25% of the population works in the agriculture industry.
> 
> Come on.  Bring your game up.  This is embarrassing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Civil Administration contractors accompanied by Israeli soldiers uprooted around 250 Palestinian-owned olive trees Sunday near the West Bank city of Qalqilya, as part of a larger plan to build a settler bypass road in the area.
> 
> The Nabi Elias bypass road will include the expropriation of 25 acres of Palestinian land — including a total 700 olive trees — belonging to the Palestinian villages of Izbat Tabib, Azzun, and Nabi Elias, just east of Ramallah.
> 
> PHOTOS: Israeli authorities uproot olive trees to build settler-only road | +972 Magazine
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You keep throwing stuff like this at the wall. It ain't going to stick.
> 
> The Warsaw Ghetto had conditions that were incompatible with sustaining life.
> 
> No one in Qalqilya is dying from lack of basic necessities for life. No one in the West Bank is dying from lack of basic necessities for life.
> 
> We can discuss all you want about agricultural land vs land for urban requirements.  But that is NOT the equivalent of the Warsaw Ghetto.  Where the conditions were incompatible with life.
> 
> We can't talk about the real issues until all this embarrassing foolishness stops.
Click to expand...

That is because you do not know the meaning of independent.


----------



## teddyearp

P F Tinmore said:


> That is because you do not know the meaning of independent.


No, it is because you do not know the meaning of this thread. But keep twisting your pretzel.

Come on, Tinmore, as louie888 has posted, the Jews/Israelis have been hated in every country they have been in for 2,000 years.  Can not the world allow them a tiny piece of the planet that they have now made their own for almost 70 years; that is the size of New Jersey to now call their own?  Please?


----------



## P F Tinmore

teddyearp said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is because you do not know the meaning of independent.
> 
> 
> 
> No, it is because you do not know the meaning of this thread. But keep twisting your pretzel.
> 
> Come on, Tinmore, as louie888 has posted, the Jews/Israelis have been hated in every country they have been in for 2,000 years.  Can not the world allow them a tiny piece of the planet that they have now made their own for almost 70 years; that is the size of New Jersey to now call their own?  Please?
Click to expand...

You missed the point.


----------



## teddyearp

Keep twisting.


----------



## montelatici

teddyearp said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is because you do not know the meaning of independent.
> 
> 
> 
> No, it is because you do not know the meaning of this thread. But keep twisting your pretzel.
> 
> Come on, Tinmore, as louie888 has posted, the Jews/Israelis have been hated in every country they have been in for 2,000 years.  Can not the world allow them a tiny piece of the planet that they have now made their own for almost 70 years; that is the size of New Jersey to now call their own?  Please?
Click to expand...


It has nothing to do with Jews.  It has to do with the people they dispossessed.  Don't you get it? Though it does not represent the values of Western culture, most have no problem with people that prefer to isolate themselves religiously, be it Judaism or Islam.  The problem is that a people (multi-religious) were dispossessed, to make it possible for a single religion to isolate itself.


----------



## Shusha

Were the Jewish people not dispossessed?


----------



## montelatici

Shusha said:


> Were the Jewish people not dispossessed?



Since the people that practiced Judaism (or other religions) in Roman Palestine converted to Christianity after 380 AD, and subsequently most to Islam, they continued to live in (and own) the same land, so no, they were not dispossessed.


----------



## Shusha

montelatici said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Were the Jewish people not dispossessed?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since the people that practiced Judaism (or other religions) in Roman Palestine converted to Christianity after 380 AD, and subsequently most to Islam, they continued to live in (and own) the same land, so no, they were not dispossessed.
Click to expand...


Its ridiculous to believe that no Jews were forced into a diaspora.  But even if that were true, you don't think forced conversion is a dispossession?


----------



## montelatici

Shusha said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Were the Jewish people not dispossessed?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since the people that practiced Judaism (or other religions) in Roman Palestine converted to Christianity after 380 AD, and subsequently most to Islam, they continued to live in (and own) the same land, so no, they were not dispossessed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its ridiculous to believe that no Jews were forced into a diaspora.  But even if that were true, you don't think forced conversion is a dispossession?
Click to expand...


Very few were dispossessed as a percentage of the population.   The highest estimate, by Flavius Josephus (a Romanized Jewish historian) is 90,000, out of a population of over a million. 

No, I don't think conversion (forced or unforced) is dispossession, if the converted are not dispossessed of their land, livelihood, etc.. The Christians of Palestine that converted to Islam under Muslim rule were not dispossessed.


----------



## Shusha

montelatici said:


> No, I don't think conversion (forced or unforced) is dispossession, if the converted are not dispossessed of their land, livelihood, etc.. The Christians of Palestine that converted to Islam under Muslim rule were not dispossessed.



Then the Palestinians are not being dispossessed now.  They are just under Jewish rule and you have no complaint against Israel.


----------



## montelatici

Shusha said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I don't think conversion (forced or unforced) is dispossession, if the converted are not dispossessed of their land, livelihood, etc.. The Christians of Palestine that converted to Islam under Muslim rule were not dispossessed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then the Palestinians are not being dispossessed now.  They are just under Jewish rule and you have no complaint against Israel.
Click to expand...


Many of the Palestinians that were dispossessed and ethnically cleansed are not in the WB, Gaza or Jerusalem and lost their homes and land, hence dispossessed.  And a large number of Muslims and Christians who lost their homes and land to Jews, hence dispossessed, now live in those areas. Their homes and lands are in what is now called Israel.


----------



## abu afak

Shusha said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I don't think conversion (forced or unforced) is dispossession, if the converted are not dispossessed of their land, livelihood, etc.. The Christians of Palestine that converted to Islam under Muslim rule were not dispossessed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then the Palestinians are not being dispossessed now.  They are just under Jewish rule and you have no complaint against Israel.
Click to expand...

The Partition entailed NOT a single Arab having to move. Not one.
Alas....
`


----------



## montelatici

abu afak said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I don't think conversion (forced or unforced) is dispossession, if the converted are not dispossessed of their land, livelihood, etc.. The Christians of Palestine that converted to Islam under Muslim rule were not dispossessed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then the Palestinians are not being dispossessed now.  They are just under Jewish rule and you have no complaint against Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Partition entailed NOT a single Arab having to move. Not one.
> Alas....
> `
Click to expand...


You're right, Hagganah and Irgun did.

*"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'

The documents, which have a remarkable contemporary resonance, reveal how British officials looked on as Jewish settlers took over more and more Arab land.

In the weeks leading up to the partition of Palestine in 1948, when Britain gave up its UN mandate, Jewish terrorist groups were mounting increasing attacks ....................
After an increase in violent attacks by the militant Zionists of the Stern group and Irgun, British officials reported later in 1946: "Arab leaders appear to be still disposed to defer active opposition so long as a chance of a political decision acceptable to Arab interests exists." But they warned: "There is a real danger lest any further Jewish provocation may result in isolated acts of retaliation spreading inevitably to wider Arab-Jewish clashes".


British officials predicted war – and Arab defeat – in Palestine in 1948


----------



## abu afak

montelatici said:


> You're right, Hagganah and Irgun did.
> 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'...
> *In the weeks leading up to the partition of Palestine in 1948, when Britain gave up its UN mandate, Jewish terrorist groups were mounting increasing attacks*.........
> After an increase in violent attacks by the militant Zionists of the Stern group and Irgun, British officials reported later in 1946: "Arab leaders appear to be still disposed to defer active opposition so long as a chance of a political decision acceptable to Arab interests exists." But they warned: "There is a real danger lest any further Jewish provocation may result in isolated acts of retaliation spreading inevitably to wider Arab-Jewish clashes".
> British officials predicted war – and Arab defeat – in Palestine in 1948


LOL
Richard Norton-Williams in Notoriously anti-Israel _al-Guardian_.
*BUSTED*

*Jewish “terrorists” vs Arab “fighters”: An open letter to the Guardian’s Richard Norton-Taylor*
BY ADAM LEVICK ON APRIL 29, 2013

...Another SEVERELY ERRONEOUS statement in your article was this:

*“In the weeks leading up to the partition of Palestine in 1948, when Britain gave up its UN mandate, Jewish terrorist groups were mounting increasing attacks on UK forces and Arab fighters, the Colonial Office papers show.”*

It is not clear what time period is meant here.  If the reference is prior to November 29, 1947 (the UN Partition Plan vote) then it is true that some Jews did engage in “terrorism” and Jewish forces did attack British forces (which the British always called “terrorism” even the targets were legitimate military targets and no British soldiers were killed).  But there was also plenty of Arab terrorism, meaning the random murder of unarmed Jews and Britons that had occurred during the same time.  The British, too, engaged in “terrorism” of their own from time to time (see the book “Major Farran’s Hat“). Singling Jews out as “terrorists” is grossly misleading.

*If the reference is to the period between November 29, 1947 and May 15, 1948, then the statement is a Flat-Out Lie.
Arab forces attacked Jews all across Palestine the Very Next Day after the UN Vote. *Dozens of Jews were killed immediately, the Jews tried to organize to defend themselves. Since the British were leaving, and the Jews had their hands full just protecting themselves from the Arabs, all anti-British operations ceased. I am not aware of a single significant incident of Jews attacking Britons during this time period.

The British, on the other hand, continued to severely oppress the Jews and prevent them from acquiring the necessary arms to defend themselves.  Moreover, many Britons openly aligned themselves with Arabs and some participated in anti-Jewish terror (e.g, the February, 1948 bombing of Ben Yehudah Street in Jerusalem).

*The very characterization of Jews as “terrorists” and the Arabs as “fighters” when it was Arab terrorist violence that launched the 1947-48 war to start with reveals a deep prejudice that belies any semblance of objective reporting.".."*​
*
Mont-al-Cheati you Dishonest POS, you STILL CAN'T debate me!
All you do is Misrepresent source material, hoping others won't bother...
or post anti-Israel BS from al-Guardian.

abu afak/mbig*


----------



## teddyearp

montelatici said:


> Since the people that practiced Judaism (or other religions) in Roman Palestine converted to Christianity after 380 AD, and subsequently most to Islam, they continued to live in (and own) the same land, so no, they were not dispossessed.


----------



## teddyearp

montelatici said:


> Very few were dispossessed as a percentage of the population.   The highest estimate, by Flavius Josephus (a Romanized Jewish historian) is 90,000, out of a population of over a million



Um, no:


> In 70, the Romans destroyed the Second Temple in Jerusalem. A large part of the Jewish population was either massacred or exiled. In Judea, the area near present day Israel, 25% of the Jewish population was exterminated and 10% enslaved. Jews became a minority in their own land.
> 
> Many Jews fled to Mesopotamia, which is modern Iraq, and the rest fled to lands around the Mediterranean, presently known as southeastern Spain, southern France, southern Italy, Greece, Cyprus, and Turkey. Later, the Jews began to head north (to present day northern France, Belgium, Holland, and Germany, Austria, Bulgaria, Bosnia) and northern Africa (Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, Algeria, Morocco).
> 
> By 300, about three million Jews had settled in most parts of the Roman Empire, except Britain. A million lived west of Macedonia (Greece) with the majority settling throughout Asia Minor and east to the Caspian Sea and the Persian Gulf. * Jews lived as far north as Cologne, Germany.*


*
*
Link: Jewish Displacement

And hey, monti, that is from a university.


----------



## montelatici

abu afak said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're right, Hagganah and Irgun did.
> 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'...
> *In the weeks leading up to the partition of Palestine in 1948, when Britain gave up its UN mandate, Jewish terrorist groups were mounting increasing attacks*.........
> After an increase in violent attacks by the militant Zionists of the Stern group and Irgun, British officials reported later in 1946: "Arab leaders appear to be still disposed to defer active opposition so long as a chance of a political decision acceptable to Arab interests exists." But they warned: "There is a real danger lest any further Jewish provocation may result in isolated acts of retaliation spreading inevitably to wider Arab-Jewish clashes".
> British officials predicted war – and Arab defeat – in Palestine in 1948
> 
> 
> 
> LOL
> Richard Norton-Williams in Notoriously anti-Israel _al-Guardian_.
> *BUSTED*
> 
> *Jewish “terrorists” vs Arab “fighters”: An open letter to the Guardian’s Richard Norton-Taylor*
> BY ADAM LEVICK ON APRIL 29, 2013
> 
> ...Another SEVERELY ERRONEOUS statement in your article was this:
> 
> *“In the weeks leading up to the partition of Palestine in 1948, when Britain gave up its UN mandate, Jewish terrorist groups were mounting increasing attacks on UK forces and Arab fighters, the Colonial Office papers show.”*
> 
> It is not clear what time period is meant here.  If the reference is prior to November 29, 1947 (the UN Partition Plan vote) then it is true that some Jews did engage in “terrorism” and Jewish forces did attack British forces (which the British always called “terrorism” even the targets were legitimate military targets and no British soldiers were killed).  But there was also plenty of Arab terrorism, meaning the random murder of unarmed Jews and Britons that had occurred during the same time.  The British, too, engaged in “terrorism” of their own from time to time (see the book “Major Farran’s Hat“). Singling Jews out as “terrorists” is grossly misleading.
> 
> *If the reference is to the period between November 29, 1947 and May 15, 1948, then the statement is a Flat-Out Lie.
> Arab forces attacked Jews all across Palestine the Very Next Day after the UN Vote. *Dozens of Jews were killed immediately, the Jews tried to organize to defend themselves. Since the British were leaving, and the Jews had their hands full just protecting themselves from the Arabs, all anti-British operations ceased. I am not aware of a single significant incident of Jews attacking Britons during this time period.
> 
> The British, on the other hand, continued to severely oppress the Jews and prevent them from acquiring the necessary arms to defend themselves.  Moreover, many Britons openly aligned themselves with Arabs and some participated in anti-Jewish terror (e.g, the February, 1948 bombing of Ben Yehudah Street in Jerusalem).
> 
> *The very characterization of Jews as “terrorists” and the Arabs as “fighters” when it was Arab terrorist violence that launched the 1947-48 war to start with reveals a deep prejudice that belies any semblance of objective reporting.".."*​
> *
> Mont-al-Cheati you Dishonest POS, you STILL CAN'T debate me!
> All you do is Misrepresent source material, hoping others won't bother...
> or post anti-Israel BS from al-Guardian.
> 
> abu afak/mbig*
Click to expand...


You post propaganda and I post fact.  That's the difference.  You post the writings of a Hasbara shill and I post excerpts from British intelligence reports that were recently declassified.  

You will always lose because you are a dimwit.


----------



## montelatici

teddyearp said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Very few were dispossessed as a percentage of the population.   The highest estimate, by Flavius Josephus (a Romanized Jewish historian) is 90,000, out of a population of over a million
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Um, no:
> 
> 
> 
> In 70, the Romans destroyed the Second Temple in Jerusalem. A large part of the Jewish population was either massacred or exiled. In Judea, the area near present day Israel, 25% of the Jewish population was exterminated and 10% enslaved. Jews became a minority in their own land.
> 
> Many Jews fled to Mesopotamia, which is modern Iraq, and the rest fled to lands around the Mediterranean, presently known as southeastern Spain, southern France, southern Italy, Greece, Cyprus, and Turkey. Later, the Jews began to head north (to present day northern France, Belgium, Holland, and Germany, Austria, Bulgaria, Bosnia) and northern Africa (Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, Algeria, Morocco).
> 
> By 300, about three million Jews had settled in most parts of the Roman Empire, except Britain. A million lived west of Macedonia (Greece) with the majority settling throughout Asia Minor and east to the Caspian Sea and the Persian Gulf. * Jews lived as far north as Cologne, Germany.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Link: Jewish Displacement
> 
> And hey, monti, that is from a university.
Click to expand...


"A teacher's guide to the Holocaust" is a university? Sounds more like  a Hasbara teaching tool to me. And, it is certainly bullshit given what has been written by serious historians writing contemporaneously, e.g. Flavius Josephus.  But then, all you have ever read and believed is propaganda.


----------



## montelatici

abu afak said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're right, Hagganah and Irgun did.
> 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'...
> *In the weeks leading up to the partition of Palestine in 1948, when Britain gave up its UN mandate, Jewish terrorist groups were mounting increasing attacks*.........
> After an increase in violent attacks by the militant Zionists of the Stern group and Irgun, British officials reported later in 1946: "Arab leaders appear to be still disposed to defer active opposition so long as a chance of a political decision acceptable to Arab interests exists." But they warned: "There is a real danger lest any further Jewish provocation may result in isolated acts of retaliation spreading inevitably to wider Arab-Jewish clashes".
> British officials predicted war – and Arab defeat – in Palestine in 1948
> 
> 
> 
> LOL
> Richard Norton-Williams in Notoriously anti-Israel _al-Guardian_.
> *BUSTED*
> 
> *Jewish “terrorists” vs Arab “fighters”: An open letter to the Guardian’s Richard Norton-Taylor*
> BY ADAM LEVICK ON APRIL 29, 2013
> 
> ...Another SEVERELY ERRONEOUS statement in your article was this:
> 
> *“In the weeks leading up to the partition of Palestine in 1948, when Britain gave up its UN mandate, Jewish terrorist groups were mounting increasing attacks on UK forces and Arab fighters, the Colonial Office papers show.”*
> 
> It is not clear what time period is meant here.  If the reference is prior to November 29, 1947 (the UN Partition Plan vote) then it is true that some Jews did engage in “terrorism” and Jewish forces did attack British forces (which the British always called “terrorism” even the targets were legitimate military targets and no British soldiers were killed).  But there was also plenty of Arab terrorism, meaning the random murder of unarmed Jews and Britons that had occurred during the same time.  The British, too, engaged in “terrorism” of their own from time to time (see the book “Major Farran’s Hat“). Singling Jews out as “terrorists” is grossly misleading.
> 
> *If the reference is to the period between November 29, 1947 and May 15, 1948, then the statement is a Flat-Out Lie.
> Arab forces attacked Jews all across Palestine the Very Next Day after the UN Vote. *Dozens of Jews were killed immediately, the Jews tried to organize to defend themselves. Since the British were leaving, and the Jews had their hands full just protecting themselves from the Arabs, all anti-British operations ceased. I am not aware of a single significant incident of Jews attacking Britons during this time period.
> 
> The British, on the other hand, continued to severely oppress the Jews and prevent them from acquiring the necessary arms to defend themselves.  Moreover, many Britons openly aligned themselves with Arabs and some participated in anti-Jewish terror (e.g, the February, 1948 bombing of Ben Yehudah Street in Jerusalem).
> 
> *The very characterization of Jews as “terrorists” and the Arabs as “fighters” when it was Arab terrorist violence that launched the 1947-48 war to start with reveals a deep prejudice that belies any semblance of objective reporting.".."*​
> *
> Mont-al-Cheati you Dishonest POS, you STILL CAN'T debate me!
> All you do is Misrepresent source material, hoping others won't bother...
> or post anti-Israel BS from al-Guardian.
> 
> abu afak/mbig*
Click to expand...


I will always win against idiots like you, because you post Hasbara propaganda opinion pieces and I post facts, e.g. British Intelligence reports. Besides, you are a moron too.

It was Jew terrorist violence that started the war.  The siege of Haifa for example.  Haifa was put under seige by the Jews weeks or months before partition and was forced to surrender to the Jew terrorist forces before partition and before the Israel's declaration of independence. That's just a fact.  You haven't got any facts, just propaganda moron.


----------



## Book of Jeremiah

montelatici said:


> Lipush, a two state solution is no longer possible without ethnic cleansing of Jews or non-Jews. It will no longer work.  A single state solution is now the only solution.


I agree.  When will the Arab Muslims be leaving?


----------



## montelatici

Book of Jeremiah said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lipush, a two state solution is no longer possible without ethnic cleansing of Jews or non-Jews. It will no longer work.  A single state solution is now the only solution.
> 
> 
> 
> I agree.  When will the Arab Muslims be leaving?
Click to expand...


The Muslims and Christians won't be leaving.  Time is on their side demographically.  There are no large Jewish populations left except the U.S., and American Jews won't immigrate en-masse to Israel.


----------



## teddyearp

montelatici said:


> "A teacher's guide to the Holocaust" is a university?



Did you read the linked information?  Did you read the part at the very bottom?



> College of Education, University of South Florida © 1997-2013.





montelatici said:


> Sounds more like  a Hasbara teaching tool to me. And, it is certainly bullshit given what has been written by serious historians writing contemporaneously, e.g. Flavius Josephus.  But then, all you have ever read and believed is propaganda.


You know, I try my hardest not to stoop to your very low level of the endless name calling, but check it out you low life lying son of a bitch mother fucking lying ass photoshop your 'serious historian' and 'source document' bitch wizard of OZ scum.

It says University of South Florida, you fuck face mother fucker. Liar. Fucker.


----------



## teddyearp

montelatici said:


> <snip>idiots like you,<snip>Besides, you are a moron too.<snip>You haven't got any facts, just propaganda moron.



This is you looking in the mirror.


----------



## P F Tinmore

abu afak said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're right, Hagganah and Irgun did.
> 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'...
> *In the weeks leading up to the partition of Palestine in 1948, when Britain gave up its UN mandate, Jewish terrorist groups were mounting increasing attacks*.........
> After an increase in violent attacks by the militant Zionists of the Stern group and Irgun, British officials reported later in 1946: "Arab leaders appear to be still disposed to defer active opposition so long as a chance of a political decision acceptable to Arab interests exists." But they warned: "There is a real danger lest any further Jewish provocation may result in isolated acts of retaliation spreading inevitably to wider Arab-Jewish clashes".
> British officials predicted war – and Arab defeat – in Palestine in 1948
> 
> 
> 
> LOL
> Richard Norton-Williams in Notoriously anti-Israel _al-Guardian_.
> *BUSTED*
> 
> *Jewish “terrorists” vs Arab “fighters”: An open letter to the Guardian’s Richard Norton-Taylor*
> BY ADAM LEVICK ON APRIL 29, 2013
> 
> ...Another SEVERELY ERRONEOUS statement in your article was this:
> 
> *“In the weeks leading up to the partition of Palestine in 1948, when Britain gave up its UN mandate, Jewish terrorist groups were mounting increasing attacks on UK forces and Arab fighters, the Colonial Office papers show.”*
> 
> It is not clear what time period is meant here.  If the reference is prior to November 29, 1947 (the UN Partition Plan vote) then it is true that some Jews did engage in “terrorism” and Jewish forces did attack British forces (which the British always called “terrorism” even the targets were legitimate military targets and no British soldiers were killed).  But there was also plenty of Arab terrorism, meaning the random murder of unarmed Jews and Britons that had occurred during the same time.  The British, too, engaged in “terrorism” of their own from time to time (see the book “Major Farran’s Hat“). Singling Jews out as “terrorists” is grossly misleading.
> 
> *If the reference is to the period between November 29, 1947 and May 15, 1948, then the statement is a Flat-Out Lie.
> Arab forces attacked Jews all across Palestine the Very Next Day after the UN Vote. *Dozens of Jews were killed immediately, the Jews tried to organize to defend themselves. Since the British were leaving, and the Jews had their hands full just protecting themselves from the Arabs, all anti-British operations ceased. I am not aware of a single significant incident of Jews attacking Britons during this time period.
> 
> The British, on the other hand, continued to severely oppress the Jews and prevent them from acquiring the necessary arms to defend themselves.  Moreover, many Britons openly aligned themselves with Arabs and some participated in anti-Jewish terror (e.g, the February, 1948 bombing of Ben Yehudah Street in Jerusalem).
> 
> *The very characterization of Jews as “terrorists” and the Arabs as “fighters” when it was Arab terrorist violence that launched the 1947-48 war to start with reveals a deep prejudice that belies any semblance of objective reporting.".."*​
> *
> Mont-al-Cheati you Dishonest POS, you STILL CAN'T debate me!
> All you do is Misrepresent source material, hoping others won't bother...
> or post anti-Israel BS from al-Guardian.
> 
> abu afak/mbig*
Click to expand...

The bottom line is that "terrorist" is a political name calling thing.


----------



## yiostheoy

Lipush said:


> I'm ready to open this up with the Pro-Palestinians on this board who are willing to have a logal discussion, and those who are not haters who want Israel in the sea.
> 
> Let us talk this rationally. What exactly IS the two states solution? One for Israel and one for the Palestinians? What will be the borders of such states?
> 
> Can you openly tell me what is the benefit of the so called 67 lines? what good there is in them? and why they are better than a 1 state solution?
> 
> Please elaborate. Let us discuss this rationally. No name calling and cusses.


I am guessing that the Palestinians want their own independent nation too.

I am guessing they want all of the "occupied lands" back.

I would be in favor of giving them the far south around Hebron.

That would be all I would give them.

But it will probably never happen.

DJ Trump may craft a deal that neither one likes -- the Israeli's nor the Palestinians.


----------



## teddyearp

teddyearp said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> "A teacher's guide to the Holocaust" is a university?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you read the linked information?  Did you read the part at the very bottom?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> College of Education, University of South Florida © 1997-2013.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Well, monti? What about that for a university?


















Crickets . . . . . .


----------



## montelatici

teddyearp said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> "A teacher's guide to the Holocaust" is a university?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you read the linked information?  Did you read the part at the very bottom?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> College of Education, University of South Florida © 1997-2013.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds more like  a Hasbara teaching tool to me. And, it is certainly bullshit given what has been written by serious historians writing contemporaneously, e.g. Flavius Josephus.  But then, all you have ever read and believed is propaganda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You know, I try my hardest not to stoop to your very low level of the endless name calling, but check it out you low life lying son of a bitch mother fucking lying ass photoshop your 'serious historian' and 'source document' bitch wizard of OZ scum.
> 
> It says University of South Florida, you fuck face mother fucker. Liar. Fucker.
Click to expand...


Oh dear, the little punk is overwhelmed. I should have known that the facts were getting to you after you decided to change your signature in my honor.

But, rather than a propagandistic children's teacher's guide, how about some facts from an historian.

"The Myth of the Jewish Exile from the Land of Israel"

Project MUSE - The Myth of the Jewish Exile from the Land of Israel: A Demonstration of Irenic Scholarship


----------



## teddyearp

montelatici said:


> Oh dear, the little punk is overwhelmed. I should have known that the facts were getting to you after you decided to change your signature in my honor.
> 
> But, rather than a propagandistic children's teacher's guide, how about some facts from an historian.
> 
> "The Myth of the Jewish Exile from the Land of Israel"
> 
> Project MUSE - The Myth of the Jewish Exile from the Land of Israel: A Demonstration of Irenic Scholarship


This road runs both ways, pal. First you claimed that my source was not from any institute of higher learning, and then when confronted with the fact that it indeed is, instead of admitting your fault (which is why I created  my sig in your dis-honor to warn the world that you are a self-centered, self-important, narcissistic, pompous person), you then impugn it calling it propagandist (the proper term, BTW).

So let's take a look at your 'historian'.  Yes, he is a Zionist.  And yes, he feels as though the creation of the state of Israel was at the expense of some of the Arab/Muslums that now call themselves Palestinians. And on that point, I have said before and will say again now, in part I do agree. But getting off on a tangent.

Your 'historian' says this:


> Even as a "profession," history is still a tool that advances national and particularistic agendas, and these do not provide the cultural and mental equipment needed for the establishment of an era of reconciliation and peace. For that reason, I prefer to assign another task to historical studies:* to construct histories* that educate toward self-criticism and the tolerance of conflicting national narratives.



Now we all know where you are coming from for sure. As shown in all your posts, your 'source' documents, your photoshopped documents, etc. You are 'constructing' a history that fits your narrative and only use and 'construct' documents that support it.  All the while stating that:


----------



## montelatici

teddyearp said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh dear, the little punk is overwhelmed. I should have known that the facts were getting to you after you decided to change your signature in my honor.
> 
> But, rather than a propagandistic children's teacher's guide, how about some facts from an historian.
> 
> "The Myth of the Jewish Exile from the Land of Israel"
> 
> Project MUSE - The Myth of the Jewish Exile from the Land of Israel: A Demonstration of Irenic Scholarship
> 
> 
> 
> This road runs both ways, pal. First you claimed that my source was not from any institute of higher learning, and then when confronted with the fact that it indeed is, instead of admitting your fault (which is why I created  my sig in your dis-honor to warn the world that you are a self-centered, self-important, narcissistic, pompous person), you then impugn it calling it propagandist (the proper term, BTW).
> 
> So let's take a look at your 'historian'.  Yes, he is a Zionist.  And yes, he feels as though the creation of the state of Israel was at the expense of some of the Arab/Muslums that now call themselves Palestinians. And on that point, I have said before and will say again now, in part I do agree. But getting off on a tangent.
> 
> Your 'historian' says this:
> 
> 
> 
> Even as a "profession," history is still a tool that advances national and particularistic agendas, and these do not provide the cultural and mental equipment needed for the establishment of an era of reconciliation and peace. For that reason, I prefer to assign another task to historical studies:* to construct histories* that educate toward self-criticism and the tolerance of conflicting national narratives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now we all know where you are coming from for sure. As shown in all your posts, your 'source' documents, your photoshopped documents, etc. You are 'constructing' a history that fits your narrative and only use and 'construct' documents that support it.  All the while stating that:
Click to expand...


You are a typical Hasbara nut.  Nothing was "photoshopped" adjoining pages were aligned on charts that went across two pages as requested by a Zionist nutter, similar to you, and the source document was provided as a link with the page numbers. 

I provide source documents that describe fact, not the Zionist myth that you and your moronic associates attempt to foist on others. 

The basis of your myth is so ridiculously false, I wonder why we go beyond the Zionist claim that Palestine was devoid of people when the European Zionists began to colonize the territory.


----------



## Kondor3

PurpleOwl said:


> Lipush said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm ready to open this up with the Pro-Palestinians on this board who are willing to have a logal discussion, and those who are not haters who want Israel in the sea.
> 
> Let us talk this rationally. What exactly IS the two states solution? One for Israel and one for the Palestinians? What will be the borders of such states?
> 
> Can you openly tell me what is the benefit of the so called 67 lines? what good there is in them? and why they are better than a 1 state solution?
> 
> Please elaborate. Let us discuss this rationally. No name calling and cusses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If your looking for a rational discussion it helps to not label your opponents as "haters who want Israel in the sea" I'm assuming you mean haters not as in religious bigots but as "player haters" as in they're just jealous of they're gold rings and pimped out Cadillacs. I know Trump uses that one alot but I dont think you people know what it means, the push them into the sea comment I'm guessing was a random out of context quote from Ahmadinejad from 2004 I think.
> 
> 
> here is the older of map of israel
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> as you can see most of palestine is occupied by Israel, the 1967 agreement, is where most Palestinian groups say Israel should move back to. But since jews were safer in muslim palestine then they were in christian europe most people say this entire occupation was unnecessary and illegal to begin with, and has more to do with white vs arabs then it has anything to do with Jewish people.
> 
> Many jews are anti israel, and claim the state goes not only against scripture but causes further persecution of jews, and creates more problems than it solves
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so before you label everyone who is against israel as "haters who want Israel in the sea." you should try learning a little bit more than what fox news force feeds you. Then you might know what the "so called 67 lines" are all about
Click to expand...

Not to worry... those are Weakling Jews... the kind who walked into the ovens without a fight...

However, the Fighting Jews of modern-day Israel know better, and ignore their Weakling brethren, as they should...


----------



## Kondor3

What exactly *IS* the "_Two State Solution_"?

As dead as Julius Caesar.


----------



## montelatici

Yes, dead.  It will be an Apartheid solution for a generation or two, then it will be the Rhodesia or South African solution.


----------



## P F Tinmore

*Leila Farsakh: Can an Alternative Solution be Found? *

**


----------



## Sixties Fan

P F Tinmore said:


> *Leila Farsakh: Can an Alternative Solution be Found? *
> 
> **




Isn't it fascinating that Tinmore posts a video of a Palestinian who supports the ONE STATE solution, on a TWO STATE discussion thread.

One State Conference at Harvard: Analysis of Speakers and NGO Involvement

*Leila Farsakh*
Leila Farsakh supports a one-state framework and claims “[t]he area is heading to the abyss of an apartheid state system rather than to a viable two-state solution, let alone peace.” Farsakh also edited a book entitled “Commemorating the Naksa [a term which refers to results of the 1967 war] Evoking the Nakba,” which states that the security barrier “signaled the existence of the last apartheid regime of the 21st century” and says that Israel turned “the territories” into “incarceration camps” (Editor’s Note p.8). Farsakh teaches at the University of Massachusetts, Boston.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Sixties Fan said:


> Isn't it fascinating that Tinmore posts a video of a Palestinian who supports the ONE STATE solution, on a TWO STATE discussion thread.


If you had not noticed, the one state thread has been closed. Since the one state/two state solution is still up in the air I had no options.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't it fascinating that Tinmore posts a video of a Palestinian who supports the ONE STATE solution, on a TWO STATE discussion thread.
> 
> 
> 
> If you had not noticed, the one state thread has been closed. Since the one state/two state solution is still up in the air I had no options.
Click to expand...


Indeed, you were _forced_ to spam this thread.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Sixties Fan said:


> Isn't it fascinating that Tinmore posts a video of a Palestinian who supports the ONE STATE solution, on a TWO STATE discussion thread.


If you had not noticed, the one state thread has been closed. Since the one state/two state solution is still up in the air I had no options. 


Sixties Fan said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Leila Farsakh: Can an Alternative Solution be Found? *
> 
> **
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't it fascinating that Tinmore posts a video of a Palestinian who supports the ONE STATE solution, on a TWO STATE discussion thread.
> 
> One State Conference at Harvard: Analysis of Speakers and NGO Involvement
> 
> *Leila Farsakh*
> Leila Farsakh supports a one-state framework and claims “[t]he area is heading to the abyss of an apartheid state system rather than to a viable two-state solution, let alone peace.” Farsakh also edited a book entitled “Commemorating the Naksa [a term which refers to results of the 1967 war] Evoking the Nakba,” which states that the security barrier “signaled the existence of the last apartheid regime of the 21st century” and says that Israel turned “the territories” into “incarceration camps” (Editor’s Note p.8). Farsakh teaches at the University of Massachusetts, Boston.
Click to expand...

Thank you. An impressive lineup of speakers. It would have been an interesting conference.


----------



## Linkiloo

Israel isn't an aprtheid state except in anti-semitic propaganda. In South Africa proper there were no black citizens having a vote. Their constitutional structure allowed for whites to dominate over Indian and so-called coloured houses of parliament, with no black house. In Israel 20% of the population is Palestinian and has a vote with no division of races/groups. In South Africa, black persons were not permitted to eat at restaurants, be treated in hospitals, qualify for politics etc. In Israel none of this is the case. The solution is a two state one, with palestinians accepting the borders they once rejected. But it won't happen as they do not seek peace. They are the cause of their own suffering. Very sad.


----------



## Linkiloo

Sixties Fan said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Leila Farsakh: Can an Alternative Solution be Found? *
> 
> **
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't it fascinating that Tinmore posts a video of a Palestinian who supports the ONE STATE solution, on a TWO STATE discussion thread.
> 
> One State Conference at Harvard: Analysis of Speakers and NGO Involvement
> 
> *Leila Farsakh*
> Leila Farsakh supports a one-state framework and claims “[t]he area is heading to the abyss of an apartheid state system rather than to a viable two-state solution, let alone peace.” Farsakh also edited a book entitled “Commemorating the Naksa [a term which refers to results of the 1967 war] Evoking the Nakba,” which states that the security barrier “signaled the existence of the last apartheid regime of the 21st century” and says that Israel turned “the territories” into “incarceration camps” (Editor’s Note p.8). Farsakh teaches at the University of Massachusetts, Boston.
Click to expand...


It is a joke that anyone would seriously advocate that the Jews happily accept a one state solution under Palestinian control. None of the countries in which a muslim majority has control involves any democracy as we know it. On the contrary, they are plagued by human rights abuses.


----------



## montelatici

Tunisia, Lebanon, Albania, Bosnia Herzogovina, Indonesia, Malaysia are all makority Muslim and democratic.  Unlike Israel, they don't provide special privileges for citizens of a particular religion like Israel does for Jews.  Turkey used to be on the list but Erdogan has changed that.


----------



## Shusha

montelatici said:


> Tunisia, Lebanon, Albania, Bosnia Herzogovina, Indonesia, Malaysia are all makority Muslim and democratic.  Unlike Israel, they don't provide special privileges for citizens of a particular religion like Israel does for Jews.  Turkey used to be on the list but Erdogan has changed that.




You've GOT to be kidding me. The same Malaysia where non-Muslims are prohibited by law from speaking the word "Allah"?


----------



## montelatici

Have you ever been to Malaysia?


----------



## Shusha

Would that be the same Malaysia where any Jewish religious items are illegal?  Where one has to get permission from the Sharia Court to change religious faiths?  Where non-Muslims can't get custody of their children?  Where one is not permitted to proselytize to Muslims, but Muslims are permitted to proselytize to non-Muslims?  Where religious donations by Muslims result in a tax refund, while religious donations of other faiths do not?  Where Hindu temples are destroyed? 

That Malaysia?  Nope, I haven't been there.  Not likely to.


----------



## Shusha

Or we can talk about Tunisia, if you want.  I haven't been there either.  But I understand that the president must be Muslim.  Very democratic.  (Not).


----------



## montelatici

Shusha said:


> Would that be the same Malaysia where any Jewish religious items are illegal?  Where one has to get permission from the Sharia Court to change religious faiths?  Where non-Muslims can't get custody of their children?  Where one is not permitted to proselytize to Muslims, but Muslims are permitted to proselytize to non-Muslims?  Where religious donations by Muslims result in a tax refund, while religious donations of other faiths do not?  Where Hindu temples are destroyed?
> 
> That Malaysia?  Nope, I haven't been there.  Not likely to.



Much like in Israel for the Jews, Malays, who are almost exclusively Muslim, are given preferential treatment.  This is to maintain the "Malay" nature of the country, much like the Jews maintain the Jewish nature of Israel.  Only Muslims have to go to the Sharia court to change religions.  A Hindu can freely convert to Christianity and vice versa.  Much like Jewish courts in Israel handle matters like marriage for Jews. In Israel only certified Section 46 charitable organizations can receive tax deductible charitable contributions, there are no Muslim charities so certified, so israel does effectively the same thing as the Malaysians. And finally, Malaysia doesn't hold millions of non-Muslims in virtual concentration camps (in the original meaning of the term) as Israel does for the population in Gaza and the WB.


----------



## montelatici

Shusha said:


> Or we can talk about Tunisia, if you want.  I haven't been there either.  But I understand that the president must be Muslim.  Very democratic.  (Not).



Since Israel doesn't have a constitution it is not clear that a non-Jew could become the president of Israel. Israeli Basic Law says any Israeli citizen is qualified to become president, but no non-Jew would pass the loyalty test.  No difference.


----------



## The Great Goose

It doesn't matter if there is one State. No one should be homeless in that State. i'm sure the Israelis can arrange a better and fairer country.


----------



## Hollie

montelatici said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would that be the same Malaysia where any Jewish religious items are illegal?  Where one has to get permission from the Sharia Court to change religious faiths?  Where non-Muslims can't get custody of their children?  Where one is not permitted to proselytize to Muslims, but Muslims are permitted to proselytize to non-Muslims?  Where religious donations by Muslims result in a tax refund, while religious donations of other faiths do not?  Where Hindu temples are destroyed?
> 
> That Malaysia?  Nope, I haven't been there.  Not likely to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Much like in Israel for the Jews, Malays, who are almost exclusively Muslim, are given preferential treatment.  This is to maintain the "Malay" nature of the country, much like the Jews maintain the Jewish nature of Israel.  Only Muslims have to go to the Sharia court to change religions.  A Hindu can freely convert to Christianity and vice versa.  Much like Jewish courts in Israel handle matters like marriage for Jews. In Israel only certified Section 46 charitable organizations can receive tax deductible charitable contributions, there are no Muslim charities so certified, so israel does effectively the same thing as the Malaysians. And finally, Malaysia doesn't hold millions of non-Muslims in virtual concentration camps (in the original meaning of the term) as Israel does for the population in Gaza and the WB.
Click to expand...


It's comical to watch you do your best Micheal Jackson moonwalk as your feeble attempt at argument comes crashing to the ground.


----------



## JoelT1

montelatici said:


> Tunisia, Lebanon, Albania, Bosnia Herzogovina, Indonesia, Malaysia are all makority Muslim and democratic.  Unlike Israel, they don't provide special privileges for citizens of a particular religion like Israel does for Jews.  Turkey used to be on the list but Erdogan has changed that.



Persecuted Ahmadi Muslims: In Israel we are free!


----------



## JoelT1

montelatici said:


> Tunisia, Lebanon, Albania, Bosnia Herzogovina, Indonesia, Malaysia are all makority Muslim and democratic.  Unlike Israel, they don't provide special privileges for citizens of a particular religion like Israel does for Jews.  Turkey used to be on the list but Erdogan has changed that.



Persecuted Circassian Muslims: In Israel, we are free!


----------



## JoelT1

montelatici said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would that be the same Malaysia where any Jewish religious items are illegal?  Where one has to get permission from the Sharia Court to change religious faiths?  Where non-Muslims can't get custody of their children?  Where one is not permitted to proselytize to Muslims, but Muslims are permitted to proselytize to non-Muslims?  Where religious donations by Muslims result in a tax refund, while religious donations of other faiths do not?  Where Hindu temples are destroyed?
> 
> That Malaysia?  Nope, I haven't been there.  Not likely to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Much like in Israel for the Jews, Malays, who are almost exclusively Muslim, are given preferential treatment.  This is to maintain the "Malay" nature of the country, much like the Jews maintain the Jewish nature of Israel.  Only Muslims have to go to the Sharia court to change religions.  A Hindu can freely convert to Christianity and vice versa.  Much like Jewish courts in Israel handle matters like marriage for Jews. In Israel only certified Section 46 charitable organizations can receive tax deductible charitable contributions, there are no Muslim charities so certified, so israel does effectively the same thing as the Malaysians. And finally, Malaysia doesn't hold millions of non-Muslims in virtual concentration camps (in the original meaning of the term) as Israel does for the population in Gaza and the WB.
Click to expand...




montelatici said:


> Tunisia, Lebanon, Albania, Bosnia Herzogovina, Indonesia, Malaysia are all makority Muslim and democratic.  Unlike Israel, they don't provide special privileges for citizens of a particular religion like Israel does for Jews.  Turkey used to be on the list but Erdogan has changed that.



Persecuted Baha’i: In Israel we are free! Baha’i World Headquarters In Israel Why is the Baha'i World Centre in Israel? - Baha'i Blog


----------



## JoelT1

Muslim physician & human rights activist Dr Qanta Ahmed: Israel’s Freedom Is Inspiration For The Islamic World http://www.jewishpress.com/blogs/un...on-to-islamic-world/2013/07/09/?src=ataglance


----------



## Lastamender

montelatici said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or we can talk about Tunisia, if you want.  I haven't been there either.  But I understand that the president must be Muslim.  Very democratic.  (Not).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since Israel doesn't have a constitution it is not clear that a non-Jew could become the president of Israel. Israeli Basic Law says any Israeli citizen is qualified to become president, but no non-Jew would pass the loyalty test.  No difference.
Click to expand...

Guess what, it is a Jewish state and a sovereign country. It can do what it wishes about who can be president


----------



## JoelT1

Lastamender said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or we can talk about Tunisia, if you want.  I haven't been there either.  But I understand that the president must be Muslim.  Very democratic.  (Not).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since Israel doesn't have a constitution it is not clear that a non-Jew could become the president of Israel. Israeli Basic Law says any Israeli citizen is qualified to become president, but no non-Jew would pass the loyalty test.  No difference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Guess what, it is a Jewish state and a sovereign country. It can do what it wishes about who can be president
Click to expand...


Muslim President of Israel LOL 

How many Jewish and Christian Presidents among 57 Islamic countries? LOL


----------



## montelatici

"Michel Aoun, the former Lebanese army chief, has been elected president of Lebanon, ending more than two years of deadlock surrounding the vacancy...."

Michel Aoun is a Christian.


----------



## JoelT1

montelatici said:


> "Michel Aoun, the former Lebanese army chief, has been elected president of Lebanon, ending more than two years of deadlock surrounding the vacancy...."
> 
> Michel Aoun is a Christian.



Birdbrain: Lebanon is controlled by Hezbollah, Muslims


----------



## Sixties Fan

Belief in Palestinian Openness to Two-State Solution Amounts to Insanity


----------



## montelatici

JoelT1 said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Michel Aoun, the former Lebanese army chief, has been elected president of Lebanon, ending more than two years of deadlock surrounding the vacancy...."
> 
> Michel Aoun is a Christian.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Birdbrain: Lebanon is controlled by Hezbollah, Muslims
Click to expand...

 
Dimwit, the President of Lebanon is a Christian, the Prime Minister is a Sunni and the Speaker of the Parliament is Shiite.

Hezbollah hold 11 seats in a parliament of 128 members.


----------



## JoelT1

montelatici said:


> JoelT1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Michel Aoun, the former Lebanese army chief, has been elected president of Lebanon, ending more than two years of deadlock surrounding the vacancy...."
> 
> Michel Aoun is a Christian.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Birdbrain: Lebanon is controlled by Hezbollah, Muslims
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dimwit, the President of Lebanon is a Christian, the Prime Minister is a Sunni and the Speaker of the Parliament is Shiite.
> 
> Hezbollah hold 11 seats in a parliament of 128 members.
Click to expand...


President of Lebanon is a ceremonial position. Hezbollah controls Lebanon.

Now you know


----------



## montelatici

The PM is a Sunni.  How does Hezbollah "control" Lebanon?  Hezbollah is not even the largest Shiite party in Parliament.


----------



## theliq

montelatici said:


> The PM is a Sunni.  How does Hezbollah "control" Lebanon?  Hezbollah is not even the largest Shiite party in Parliament.


Thank You Monte,as usual


----------



## Sixties Fan

theliq said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The PM is a Sunni.  How does Hezbollah "control" Lebanon?  Hezbollah is not even the largest Shiite party in Parliament.
> 
> 
> 
> Thank You Monte,as usual
Click to expand...

Yes, thank Monte who is hiding Hezbollah wherever he can.
Lebanon sees Hezbollah very well.  Shhhhh....So does Iran.....

Thank you Monte and theliq, as usual.


----------



## theliq

Sixties Fan said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The PM is a Sunni.  How does Hezbollah "control" Lebanon?  Hezbollah is not even the largest Shiite party in Parliament.
> 
> 
> 
> Thank You Monte,as usual
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, thank Monte who is hiding Hezbollah wherever he can.
> Lebanon sees Hezbollah very well.  Shhhhh....So does Iran.....
> 
> Thank you Monte and theliq, as usual.
Click to expand...

Uncalled for 60's.....What is so awful is how the Zionists have corrupted the entire entity of the Jews,and to the total detriment of Judaism and the Jewish way of life.............Zionists Control Israel...........

 Shhhh, but they don't want me to know that,they parade as wolves in sheep's clothing.


----------



## Sixties Fan

theliq said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The PM is a Sunni.  How does Hezbollah "control" Lebanon?  Hezbollah is not even the largest Shiite party in Parliament.
> 
> 
> 
> Thank You Monte,as usual
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, thank Monte who is hiding Hezbollah wherever he can.
> Lebanon sees Hezbollah very well.  Shhhhh....So does Iran.....
> 
> Thank you Monte and theliq, as usual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Uncalled for 60's.....What is so awful is how the Zionists have corrupted the entire entity of the Jews,and to the total detriment of Judaism and the Jewish way of life.............Zionists Control Israel...........
> 
> Shhhh, but they don't want me to know that,they parade as wolves in sheep's clothing.
Click to expand...

You do not know anything about Judaism, Zionism or Israel.

You are a wolf in sheep's clothing and anyone can see the wolf from under all of those sheepish clothes.


----------



## theliq

Sixties Fan said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The PM is a Sunni.  How does Hezbollah "control" Lebanon?  Hezbollah is not even the largest Shiite party in Parliament.
> 
> 
> 
> Thank You Monte,as usual
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, thank Monte who is hiding Hezbollah wherever he can.
> Lebanon sees Hezbollah very well.  Shhhhh....So does Iran.....
> 
> Thank you Monte and theliq, as usual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Uncalled for 60's.....What is so awful is how the Zionists have corrupted the entire entity of the Jews,and to the total detriment of Judaism and the Jewish way of life.............Zionists Control Israel...........
> 
> Shhhh, but they don't want me to know that,they parade as wolves in sheep's clothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You do not anything about Judaism, Zionism or Israel.
> 
> You are a wolf in sheep's clothing and anyone can see the wolf from under all of those sheepish clothes.
Click to expand...

Well that was a cheap shot at me 60's,moreover using all my words....I know Israel very well,considering I worked as a Tourist Guide for EL AL, it was at that time I saw for myself how Zionists threatened,berated and abused non Zionist Jews,let alone the Palestinians...So don't tell me I don't understand,the mentality and in my honest opinion their deliberate threatening behaviour towards those that don't conform to their mantra....I have seen it with my own eyes and given them a verbal spray with my own mouth,so you need not deny me the truth of my life experiences.....

but thanks for trying to put the Boot in embers of 2017....steven


----------



## fncceo

theliq said:


> to the total detriment of Judaism and the Jewish way of life...



Yea ...  we're so much harder to kill these days ..  that must frustrate the heck out of you.


----------



## P F Tinmore

fncceo said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> to the total detriment of Judaism and the Jewish way of life...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yea ...  we're so much harder to kill these days ..  that must frustrate the heck out of you.
Click to expand...

Indeed, look at all the stuff they can MOOCH.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> to the total detriment of Judaism and the Jewish way of life...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yea ...  we're so much harder to kill these days ..  that must frustrate the heck out of you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed, look at all the stuff they can MOOCH.
Click to expand...


Indeed, you poor, disgruntled Islamist. Your Arab-Moslem armies tried on multiple occasions to push the Israelis into the sea and you were handed humiliating defeats. Those defeats you suffered were accomplished by the Israeli armies without assistance from the Great Satan™️. 

Your weak excuses won’t minimize the ineffectual and incompetent tactics and strategies that lead to those Arab-Moslem defeats.


----------



## fncceo

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> to the total detriment of Judaism and the Jewish way of life...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yea ...  we're so much harder to kill these days ..  that must frustrate the heck out of you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed, look at all the stuff they can MOOCH.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indeed, you poor, disgruntled Islamist. Your Arab-Moslem armies tried on multiple occasions to push the Israelis into the sea and you were handed humiliating defeats. Those defeats you suffered were accomplished by the Israeli armies without assistance from the Great Satan™️.
> 
> Your weak excuses won’t minimize the ineffectual and incompetent tactics and strategies that lead to those Arab-Moslem defeats.
Click to expand...


The US offered F-15s (and subsequently the F-16) to Israel because up to that time, the Israeli-built Nesher was proving itself to be one of the premier air combat fighters of that time.  The 100% Israeli -built Nesher had 100+ Mig kills in its short 5-year operational history and was poised to be a top-seller in the International arms market.

By supplying F-15s to Israel, McDonnell Douglas was able to prove it's combat effectiveness to the world and subsequently remove the Nesher as competition.


----------



## Hollie

fncceo said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> to the total detriment of Judaism and the Jewish way of life...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yea ...  we're so much harder to kill these days ..  that must frustrate the heck out of you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed, look at all the stuff they can MOOCH.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indeed, you poor, disgruntled Islamist. Your Arab-Moslem armies tried on multiple occasions to push the Israelis into the sea and you were handed humiliating defeats. Those defeats you suffered were accomplished by the Israeli armies without assistance from the Great Satan™️.
> 
> Your weak excuses won’t minimize the ineffectual and incompetent tactics and strategies that lead to those Arab-Moslem defeats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The US offered F-15s (and subsequently the F-16) to Israel because up to that time, the Israeli-built Nesher was proving itself to be one of the premier air combat fighters of that time.  The 100% Israeli -built Nesher had 100+ Mig kills in its short 5-year operational history and was poised to be a top-seller in the International arms market.
> 
> By supplying F-15s to Israel, McDonnell Douglas was able to prove it's combat effectiveness to the world and subsequently remove the Nesher as competition.
Click to expand...


I was trying to help PF Tinmore learn a bit of history. In 1948, Israeli military equipment was a collection of arms and armor purchased from a variety of overseas sources. His usual “mooch” slogan simply displays a need to remain ignorant.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> to the total detriment of Judaism and the Jewish way of life...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yea ...  we're so much harder to kill these days ..  that must frustrate the heck out of you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed, look at all the stuff they can MOOCH.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indeed, you poor, disgruntled Islamist. Your Arab-Moslem armies tried on multiple occasions to push the Israelis into the sea and you were handed humiliating defeats. Those defeats you suffered were accomplished by the Israeli armies without assistance from the Great Satan™️.
> 
> Your weak excuses won’t minimize the ineffectual and incompetent tactics and strategies that lead to those Arab-Moslem defeats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The US offered F-15s (and subsequently the F-16) to Israel because up to that time, the Israeli-built Nesher was proving itself to be one of the premier air combat fighters of that time.  The 100% Israeli -built Nesher had 100+ Mig kills in its short 5-year operational history and was poised to be a top-seller in the International arms market.
> 
> By supplying F-15s to Israel, McDonnell Douglas was able to prove it's combat effectiveness to the world and subsequently remove the Nesher as competition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was trying to help PF Tinmore learn a bit of history. In 1948, Israeli military equipment was a collection of arms and armor purchased from a variety of overseas sources. His usual “mooch” slogan simply displays a need to remain ignorant.
Click to expand...

You forgot to mention that Golda Meir went to to US to mooch the money to buy those weapons.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yea ...  we're so much harder to kill these days ..  that must frustrate the heck out of you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, look at all the stuff they can MOOCH.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indeed, you poor, disgruntled Islamist. Your Arab-Moslem armies tried on multiple occasions to push the Israelis into the sea and you were handed humiliating defeats. Those defeats you suffered were accomplished by the Israeli armies without assistance from the Great Satan™️.
> 
> Your weak excuses won’t minimize the ineffectual and incompetent tactics and strategies that lead to those Arab-Moslem defeats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The US offered F-15s (and subsequently the F-16) to Israel because up to that time, the Israeli-built Nesher was proving itself to be one of the premier air combat fighters of that time.  The 100% Israeli -built Nesher had 100+ Mig kills in its short 5-year operational history and was poised to be a top-seller in the International arms market.
> 
> By supplying F-15s to Israel, McDonnell Douglas was able to prove it's combat effectiveness to the world and subsequently remove the Nesher as competition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was trying to help PF Tinmore learn a bit of history. In 1948, Israeli military equipment was a collection of arms and armor purchased from a variety of overseas sources. His usual “mooch” slogan simply displays a need to remain ignorant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You forgot to mention that Golda Meir went to to US to mooch the money to buy those weapons.
Click to expand...


You forgot to study your history lessons. Golda Meir was not a part of the JNC in 1948.


----------



## theliq

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, look at all the stuff they can MOOCH.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, you poor, disgruntled Islamist. Your Arab-Moslem armies tried on multiple occasions to push the Israelis into the sea and you were handed humiliating defeats. Those defeats you suffered were accomplished by the Israeli armies without assistance from the Great Satan™️.
> 
> Your weak excuses won’t minimize the ineffectual and incompetent tactics and strategies that lead to those Arab-Moslem defeats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The US offered F-15s (and subsequently the F-16) to Israel because up to that time, the Israeli-built Nesher was proving itself to be one of the premier air combat fighters of that time.  The 100% Israeli -built Nesher had 100+ Mig kills in its short 5-year operational history and was poised to be a top-seller in the International arms market.
> 
> By supplying F-15s to Israel, McDonnell Douglas was able to prove it's combat effectiveness to the world and subsequently remove the Nesher as competition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was trying to help PF Tinmore learn a bit of history. In 1948, Israeli military equipment was a collection of arms and armor purchased from a variety of overseas sources. His usual “mooch” slogan simply displays a need to remain ignorant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You forgot to mention that Golda Meir went to to US to mooch the money to buy those weapons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You forgot to study your history lessons. Golda Meir was not a part of the JNC in 1948.
Click to expand...

she was a Zionist,end of


----------



## theliq

fncceo said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> to the total detriment of Judaism and the Jewish way of life...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yea ...  we're so much harder to kill these days ..  that must frustrate the heck out of you.
Click to expand...

me,love Jews but Zionist shit like you no way


----------



## fncceo

theliq said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> to the total detriment of Judaism and the Jewish way of life...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yea ...  we're so much harder to kill these days ..  that must frustrate the heck out of you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> me,love Jews but Zionist shit like you no way
Click to expand...


Since 99.9% of all Jews are Zionists ... you must not know a lot of Jews.

Probably just your boss, your landlord, and your court-appointed attorney.


----------



## theliq

fncceo said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> to the total detriment of Judaism and the Jewish way of life...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yea ...  we're so much harder to kill these days ..  that must frustrate the heck out of you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> me,love Jews but Zionist shit like you no way
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since 99.9% of all Jews are Zionists ... you must not know a lot of Jews.
> 
> Probably just your boss, your landlord, and your court-appointed attorney.
Click to expand...

I'm the boss.I'm also a land lord,and haven't been to Court yet but will do in some time in 2018 when the person who murdered my daughter Rebekka(Becky) is brought to trail,when I give my impact statement

actually only 89 percent of Israeli Jews claimmm to be Zionists but in reality most only give lip service to this...Worldwide only about 50 percent of Jews claim to be Zionists...they are far more educated than their Israeli counter parts


----------



## fncceo

theliq said:


> is brought to trail,


----------



## theliq

fncceo said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> is brought to trail,
Click to expand...

You knew what I mean't...hardly a subject to laugh about.unless you are a scumbag


----------



## teddyearp

What's this thread about again?


----------



## theliq

Pete7469 said:


> Lipush said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm ready to open this up with the Pro-Palestinians on this board who are willing to have a logal discussion, and those who are not haters who want Israel in the sea.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good luck with that.
> 
> Israel haters are generally bed wetting libturds who love jihadists. You'll get nothing of intellectual value from them.
> 
> The 2 state solution is summed up this way.
> 
> The palescumians get a state with Jerusalem as it's capital, the jews get a state within that state where they accept subservience to islamic sociopaths.
Click to expand...

IDIOT SPEAKS JIBBERISH,A TYPICAL ZIONIST NON JEW....These Clowns hate Jews and everyone else,They are a horde of Gypo's who are parading as Wolves in Jews Clothing........THEY ARE NOT JEWS BUT SYNTHETIC GYPO CONVERTS TO JUDIASM.....they have no real association to real Jews any more that I do,or a Dogs Hind Leg for that matter...Of course Real Jewish folk HATE THEM,give me one reason they should not????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????mind you there are some Zionists I do like actually but overall the main Zionist Leaders/hip are so awful


----------



## theliq

teddyearp said:


> What's this thread about again?


Hi Teddy,thanks for your answer to my question but I often do not understand certain things Jewish....This will be the last time I ask but what do "Bnei Yehuda and Bnei Sakhnin" mean......steve....trust the family and thee are OK


----------

