peace proposal : 50% of Palestinian lands conquered by the Israelis given back, and halting of the settlement expansion.

[Slyhunter]

Then why not watch this documentary, produced by John Pilger twenty years ago and using the Israeli historian Ilan Pappe as historical advisor, here's a brief write up about it before you start watching it:

Pilger's documentary Palestine Is Still the Issue was released in 2002 and had Ilan Pappé as historical adviser. Pilger said the film describes how an "historic injustice has been done to the Palestinian people, and until Israel's illegal and brutal occupation ends, there will be no peace for anyone, Israelis included". He said the responses of his interviewees "put the lie to the standard Zionist cry that any criticism of Israel is anti-semitic, a claim that insults all those Jewish people who reject the likes of Ariel Sharon acting in their name".[49] Its broadcast resulted in complaints by the Israeli embassy, the Board of Deputies of British Jews, and the Conservative Friends of Israel that it was inaccurate and biased.[50] Michael Green, chairman of Carlton Communications, the company that made the film, also objected to it in an interview with The Jewish Chronicle.[51][52]

The UK television regulator, the Independent Television Commission (ITC), ordered an investigation. The ITC investigation rejected the complaints about the film, stating in its report:


The ITC concluded that in Pilger's documentary "adequate opportunity was given to a pro-Israeli government perspective" and that the programme "was not in breach of the ITC Programme Code".[53][54]

Such a program could never be made in the United States let alone be shown on American evening TV.



Please feel free to point out any factual errors you happen to notice while watching it. I mean that too, don't interpret the documentary, don't approve or disapprove of it just yet, but do point out any factual or historic errors you notice.

600 ce Israeli's was there building their religious sites.

 

[Shusha]

Depends which Arabs you ask. It is clear the Arabs never wanted two states back in 1947 because they refused to accept the partition plan.

Imagine all the immigrants coming over the Mexican border, formed an organization seeking to create a new state that overlapped Texas and New Mexico and Arizona, and lobbied the UN to approve, draft out a partition plan. Do you really believe the American people, especially those living n TX, NM and AZ would "accept a two state solution"?

What ARE you smoking!

I read this as an inversion of reality. The Jewish people were recognized as ONE of the peoples in the territory abandoned by the Ottoman Empire entitled to self-determination in what is without question their homeland. Imagine the Jordanians, the Egyptians, the Syrians, the Iraqis, and the Lebanese coming over the Israeli border seeking to create a new state carved out of the parts of Israel that it could take through belligerent aggression. Then lobbying the UN to form a new state on all of the territory stolen by force. Do you really believe the Israeli people should accept that two-state solution?

 

[Shusha]

and why is a 2-state solution not viable?

A solution to what? All the information we have indicates the overwhelming majority of Palestinians are unwilling to live in peace with Israel

Exactly. In order to solve a problem, we have to have an accurate definition of what the problem is. The "West" defines the problem, in the context of the two-state solution, as:

Two peoples who both want peaceful self-determination on a part of the land.

If that was the problem, then it would seem relatively easy to solve, with some investment and some creativity. But what if that is NOT the problem?

 

[Shusha]

And, adding to the above post, the way the problem is phrased in the "West" is:

end the occupation

Which is problematic in that it doesn't define the problem concretely enough. It assumes there IS an occupation. It assumes the occupier. It does not define the territory of occupation. And it fails to describe the conditions under which the occupation would be considered ended.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

I read this as an inversion of reality.

Yes, I'm sure you did.

The Jewish people were recognized as ONE of the peoples in the territory abandoned by the Ottoman Empire entitled to self-determination in what is without question their homeland.

Yes, just as Mexicans who've lived for generations in Texas are recognized and entitled to self-determination in what is without question their homeland. Something they'd be denied if a new UN imposed "state" was created that encapsulated all the people in TX, NM and AZ and had an already formed unelected government forced upon them.

Imagine the Jordanians, the Egyptians, the Syrians, the Iraqis, and the Lebanese coming over the Israeli border seeking to create a new state carved out of the parts of Israel that it could take through belligerent aggression.

Yes, hope springs eternal.

Then lobbying the UN to form a new state on all of the territory stolen by force. Do you really believe the Israeli people should accept that two-state solution?

No, the Israeli people are powerless, they are weak and have allowed huge crimes to be carried out in their name. They can do nothing, they do not have it in them to right the wrongs that have been done.

Nobody wants a two state "solution" now, the Israeli's never wanted it and the Palestinians long ago stopped believing in it.

All that remains is it seems war, this is the only process the Israelis take seriously anyway.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

And, adding to the above post, the way the problem is phrased in the "West" is:

end the occupation

Which is problematic in that it doesn't define the problem concretely enough. It assumes there IS an occupation. It assumes the occupier. It does not define the territory of occupation. And it fails to describe the conditions under which the occupation would be considered ended.

It doesn't matter, the Israelis always love ambiguity so that they can do as you are now doing, saying "but, but, but" all the time like the deceitful, entitled racial supremacists they are.

The ICJ has interpreted it all for them, it no longer matters what the Zionist think, the law is the law.

 

[Shusha]

Yes, just as Mexicans who've lived for generations in Texas are recognized and entitled to self-determination in what is without question their homeland.

Agreed.

Something they'd be denied if a new UN imposed "state" was created that encapsulated all the people in TX, NM and AZ

Why would they be denied their inherent right to self-determination?

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Agreed.

Why would they be denied their inherent right to self-determination

Because they played no role in determining whether they do or do not want to live in said new state.

 

[Shusha]

It doesn't matter, the Israelis always love ambiguity so that they can do as you are now doing, saying "but, but, but" all the time like the deceitful, entitled racial supremacists they are.

Oops. Your "Zionist" is slipping and revealing your undergarments.

 

[rosends]

Oops. Your "Zionist" is slipping and revealing your undergarments.

Apparently he knows that my nieces and nephew's and the rest of my family love ambiguity. Wow, what insight this is. He can state with confidence things he can't possibly know.