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

[P F Tinmore]

...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?

Immigrants.

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?

Except Jews were already there. Colonists = foreigners.

Only a few percent of the original citizens were Jews. The rest were imported by the Zionists for their settler colonial project.

 

[Hollie]

...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?

Immigrants.

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?

Except Jews were already there. Colonists = foreigners.

Only a few percent of the original citizens were Jews. The rest were imported by the Zionists for their settler colonial project.

All your usual silly slogans and clichés.

 

[P F Tinmore]

LMAO, if the European Jews are not foreign "colonizers," then what the hell are they?

Immigrants.

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?

Except Jews were already there. Colonists = foreigners.

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"....

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?

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]

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.

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

Belongs to the Israelites first.

 

[Slyhunter]

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:

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]

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]

...

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.

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.

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.​

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.

 

[Hollie]

...

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

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.

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?

The Palestinians never lost a war to Israel. The Palestinians never lost any land to Israel.

The Magical Kingdom of Disney Pally'land.

 

[Shusha]

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]

...

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

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.

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?

The Palestinians never lost a war to Israel. The Palestinians never lost any land to Israel.

The possessor of the land did, Egypt and Jordan.

 

[P F Tinmore]

...
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.

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.​

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.

The possessor of the land did, Egypt and Jordan.

Egypt and Jordan occupied Palestinian territory. That territory was not theirs to lose.

 

[Slyhunter]

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.

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?

The Palestinians never lost a war to Israel. The Palestinians never lost any land to Israel.

The possessor of the land did, Egypt and Jordan.

Egypt and Jordan occupied Palestinian territory. That territory was not theirs to lose.

There never was a country called Palestine.

 

[P F Tinmore]

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?

The Palestinians never lost a war to Israel. The Palestinians never lost any land to Israel.

The possessor of the land did, Egypt and Jordan.

Egypt and Jordan occupied Palestinian territory. That territory was not theirs to lose.

There never was a country called Palestine.

Pffft, Israeli bullshit talking point.

That is why they are still called Occupied Palestinian Territory.

 

[Hollie]

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.

The possessor of the land did, Egypt and Jordan.

Egypt and Jordan occupied Palestinian territory. That territory was not theirs to lose.

There never was a country called Palestine.

Pffft, Israeli bullshit talking point.

That is why they are still called Occupied Palestinian Territory.

What a hoot - your invented "country of Pally'land".

 

[teddyearp]

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]

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_]

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]

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_]

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?

So without a corridor how would Israelis safely get to these holy places?