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

[Shusha]

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]

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.

<<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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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?

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.

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

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.

<<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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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?

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.

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]

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"?

Of course not.

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

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]

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?

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

 

[P F Tinmore]

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]

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?

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

Answer the question.

 

[P F Tinmore]

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?

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

Answer the question.

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]

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?

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

Answer the question.

Your link is dead.

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]

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]

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?

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

Answer the question.

Your link is dead.

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".

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]

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.

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]

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.

<<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?

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.

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 ?

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.

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]

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?

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.

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 ?

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.

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?

Why the italics? Making me dizzy.

 

[Shusha]

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]

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]

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?

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]

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.

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

 

[Sixties Fan]

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.

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

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]

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?

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.