Settlements

[Shusha]

We've had this discussion before, and it's the problem of realistic vs idealistic. YES it would be ideal if what you say could happen. I would be all for it. But there are several points to consider. One is TRUST. There is a helluva lack of it on both sides and justifiably.

So let's even it out and demand the same thing for BOTH sides. If they can not trust one another, then they must be separated from one another. IF Arab Palestine MUST be Jew-free to function, then Israel MUST be Arab- free to function.

From the Palestinian side - what they see is an erosion of any possible future state with the settlements, and it is pretty far fetched to imagine (or trust) that Israel is going to let them become part of a future Palestinian state. How would you convince them that there WOULD be a contiguous state, irregardless of the settlements?

Simple. You negotiate for a contiguous State and accept any Jews which are in that area. And then you guarantee their safety and their rights. Its easy. Israel has ALREADY done this with the Arabs. If it can be done on the one side then it can be done on the other. Palestine negotiates a contiguous state and Israel negotiates for guarantees of rights and safety for Jews.

Yes, its idealistic. But the alternative is to create two completely ethnically homogeneous states. Which would you prefer to aim for?

 

[Shusha]

It doesn't matter if "the world" is unanimous. "The world" does not have the legal right to abrogate treaties.

The world now must grow a pair and end this once and for all.

Through lawlessness?

 

[abi]

Through lawlessness?

International law is clear. You lose on every argument because taking land in war is a war crime. So is the collective punishment the zionists have dished out for decades. Keep losing and claiming victory, but the world is clear on Palestine, their peoples' right to self-determination and that Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel.

 

[Coyote]

We've had this discussion before, and it's the problem of realistic vs idealistic. YES it would be ideal if what you say could happen. I would be all for it. But there are several points to consider. One is TRUST. There is a helluva lack of it on both sides and justifiably.

So let's even it out and demand the same thing for BOTH sides. If they can not trust one another, then they must be separated from one another. IF Arab Palestine MUST be Jew-free to function, then Israel MUST be Arab- free to function.

Why?
You would expel 1,786,000 or so people, who have lived for generations in what is now Israel so all of Israel is Arab free?

From the Palestinian side - what they see is an erosion of any possible future state with the settlements, and it is pretty far fetched to imagine (or trust) that Israel is going to let them become part of a future Palestinian state. How would you convince them that there WOULD be a contiguous state, irregardless of the settlements?

Simple. You negotiate for a contiguous State and accept any Jews which are in that area. And then you guarantee their safety and their rights. Its easy. Israel has ALREADY done this with the Arabs. If it can be done on the one side then it can be done on the other. Palestine negotiates a contiguous state and Israel negotiates for guarantees of rights and safety for Jews.

In principle I agree. But the settlements increase the tensions. Leave them as they are NOW until a final status is negotiated. And while your at it - mix the populations. Allow non Jews to live with Jews. And encourage the same in Palestinian areas.

Yes, its idealistic. But the alternative is to create two completely ethnically homogeneous states. Which would you prefer to aim for?

My preference would not be the alternative.

 

[Shusha]

... Netanyahu's slowly insuring (with "facts on the ground") that there will not be two states. Is there any reason to believe otherwise?

Sure. But Netanyahu is being EXCEEDINGLY careful about where he builds. He absolutely is creating facts on the ground. He is absolutely choosing what areas Israel will keep and which they will give up to another State. He is very carefully not creating new settlements and very carefully expanding only those settlements which he intends to keep anyway. It is deliberate, but also restrained. It leaves open plenty of opportunity for a two state solution, should the Arab Palestinians choose it.

 

[Indeependent]

Through lawlessness?

International law is clear. You lose on every argument because taking land in war is a war crime. So is the collective punishment the zionists have dished out for decades. Keep losing and claiming victory, but the world is clear on Palestine, their peoples' right to self-determination and that Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel.

Because the world has always loved the Jews.
No wonder there was a Holocaust!

 

[Coyote]

Shusha

What specifically would you do in the short term to encourage/increase trust and cooperation between the two sides in order to make heterogenous states a more realistic possibility?

 

[Indeependent]

We've had this discussion before, and it's the problem of realistic vs idealistic. YES it would be ideal if what you say could happen. I would be all for it. But there are several points to consider. One is TRUST. There is a helluva lack of it on both sides and justifiably.

So let's even it out and demand the same thing for BOTH sides. If they can not trust one another, then they must be separated from one another. IF Arab Palestine MUST be Jew-free to function, then Israel MUST be Arab- free to function.

Why?
You would expel 1,786,000 or so people, who have lived for generations in what is now Israel so all of Israel is Arab free?

From the Palestinian side - what they see is an erosion of any possible future state with the settlements, and it is pretty far fetched to imagine (or trust) that Israel is going to let them become part of a future Palestinian state. How would you convince them that there WOULD be a contiguous state, irregardless of the settlements?

Simple. You negotiate for a contiguous State and accept any Jews which are in that area. And then you guarantee their safety and their rights. Its easy. Israel has ALREADY done this with the Arabs. If it can be done on the one side then it can be done on the other. Palestine negotiates a contiguous state and Israel negotiates for guarantees of rights and safety for Jews.

In principle I agree. But the settlements increase the tensions. Leave them as they are NOW until a final status is negotiated. And while your at it - mix the populations. Allow non Jews to live with Jews. And encourage the same in Palestinian areas.

Yes, its idealistic. But the alternative is to create two completely ethnically homogeneous states. Which would you prefer to aim for?

My preference would not be the alternative.

Why don't you move to Israel for a year and see what it does to your nerves knowing that an Arab can stab you at any moment.

 

[abi]

Sure. But Netanyahu is being EXCEEDINGLY careful about where he builds.

He demolishes entire towns and builds racial colonies for Jews only. Sheer idiocy.

 

[Indeependent]

Sure. But Netanyahu is being EXCEEDINGLY careful about where he builds.

He demolishes entire towns and builds racial colonies for Jews only. Sheer idiocy.

He's the best!

 

[abi]

Why don't you move to Israel for a year and see what it does to your nerves knowing that an Arab can stab you at any moment.

So leave, problem solved. The whining after stealing land and occupying a people for decades is idiotic.

 

[Shusha]

Israel stopped building "settlements" for twenty years. Did it bring peace?

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Settlements
※→ abi, et al,

I believe that Resolutions like S/RES/2334 (2016) are feel-good devices, like a life vest in the ocean. Such devices make you glad you have it --- keeping you from on the edge, but it is not going to drag you ass out of the water.

They are FLAGRANT VIOLATIONS OF INTERNATIONAL LAW. 14 to zip!
Adopting resolution 2334 (2016) by 14 votes, with the United States abstaining, the Council reiterated its demand that Israel immediately and completely cease all settlement activities in the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem.
Israel’s Settlements Have No Legal Validity, Constitute Flagrant Violation of International Law, Security Council Reaffirms | Meetings Coverage and Press Releases

(COMMENT)

1. Oh, I'm quite aware of what the Security Counsel demanded. But under customary law ⇒ what common law precedent or authority is this based on ⇒ where an earlier Armistice results were enforced by the UN in favor of a party that was not a party to the Armistice?

2. In August 1988, when the Jordanians cut all ties with the West Bank, by what authority does the UN take away the effective control of the West Bank (abandon into the hands of the Israelis) and the hand it to a future government (2012) that would not exist for another quarter of a century ⇒ into the future.

3. The UN can take any action it wants. And any such military or economic actions/sanctions taken will only serve to damage and ultimately destroy the interest of the Regions most successful and developed democratic government. And handing it over to the worst of the failed states in the Region ⇒ serving only makes the region worse-off.

4. Such implied of military or economic actions/sanctions does nothing to advance the prevention and removal of Palestinian Terrorist threats to the peace (Jihadist, the Fedayeen, Hostile Insurgents, Radicalized Islamic Followers, and Asymmetric fighters), or act to reverse the failed military aggression by the Regional Arab Influences that could not (in more than a half century) bring about an Arab solution that would destroy the original intent of establishing a Jewish National Homeland to insure their preservation and security of that culture and people. They will achieve the destruction of Israel UNDER THE COLOR OF LAW where they could not achieve that goal by either the three prior military aggressive actions or previous diplomatic and political approach - all of which ultimately failed.

5. There is a very great risk that it would cause "the military expansion in the scope of the conflict with the Arab Palestinian failed state, and present a new set of donor nation liabilities. It may even allow the Salafi jihadist militant group in the Region an opportunity to secure some of their goals and objectives while the Arab Regional government dump resources into the enforcement of impossible demands by the security council.

6. It may also set the conditions for the envelopment of the entire region into a conflict - that could involve major interests --- the destruction or infliction of heavy damage to the Regional Capitals, as well as, oil/gas production facilities. power facilities, and desalination Plants. It could even result in the destruction of iconic locations as Mecca and Medina (as well as Jerusalem, the Capital of both the Arab Palestinians and Israel). No one, except maybe the political dissidents and insurgents that are looking for ways to topple Kingdoms and Emirates.

7. When the UN says that it will not recognize any changes to the 4 June 1967 lines, including with regard to Jerusalem, other than those agreed by the parties through negotiations; do they include the Oslo Accords, signed by Mahmoud Abbas? Those accords created Area "C", placing Area "C" under which --- the Israeli settlements are encapsulated and, is administered by Israel. When the Arab Palestinians refuse to negotiate because of irreconcilable differences, does this mean the Israelis are a fault?

I am not sure that such demands are even enforceable. They are based on the condition that Israel stop settlements in the Area "C" (an area under an agreement with the Palestinians where full Israeli civil and security control). Israel has no such demands, except the demand that there be no demands. Well the Balfour Declaration is now a century old. Maybe when it is two centuries old, the "Question of Palestine" will be resolved.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Indeependent]

Why don't you move to Israel for a year and see what it does to your nerves knowing that an Arab can stab you at any moment.

So leave, problem solved. The whining after stealing land and occupying a people for decades is idiotic.

The Jews did leave, or said I say they were kicked out...of many Arab nations.
So stick it up yo arse!

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Sure. But Netanyahu is being EXCEEDINGLY careful about where he builds.

He demolishes entire towns and builds racial colonies for Jews only. Sheer idiocy.

Meanwhile you lied when you said countries could not keep land captured in war since WW2 there have been instances of JUST that.

 

[Coyote]

We've had this discussion before, and it's the problem of realistic vs idealistic. YES it would be ideal if what you say could happen. I would be all for it. But there are several points to consider. One is TRUST. There is a helluva lack of it on both sides and justifiably.

So let's even it out and demand the same thing for BOTH sides. If they can not trust one another, then they must be separated from one another. IF Arab Palestine MUST be Jew-free to function, then Israel MUST be Arab- free to function.

Why?
You would expel 1,786,000 or so people, who have lived for generations in what is now Israel so all of Israel is Arab free?

From the Palestinian side - what they see is an erosion of any possible future state with the settlements, and it is pretty far fetched to imagine (or trust) that Israel is going to let them become part of a future Palestinian state. How would you convince them that there WOULD be a contiguous state, irregardless of the settlements?

Simple. You negotiate for a contiguous State and accept any Jews which are in that area. And then you guarantee their safety and their rights. Its easy. Israel has ALREADY done this with the Arabs. If it can be done on the one side then it can be done on the other. Palestine negotiates a contiguous state and Israel negotiates for guarantees of rights and safety for Jews.

In principle I agree. But the settlements increase the tensions. Leave them as they are NOW until a final status is negotiated. And while your at it - mix the populations. Allow non Jews to live with Jews. And encourage the same in Palestinian areas.

Yes, its idealistic. But the alternative is to create two completely ethnically homogeneous states. Which would you prefer to aim for?

My preference would not be the alternative.

Why don't you move to Israel for a year and see what it does to your nerves knowing that an Arab can stab you at any moment.

I suspect the Palestinians feel quite similar not knowing when someone will bust in and take one of their kids in for questioning or shoot a kid for throwing rocks. Works both ways.

 

[Indeependent]

Why don't you move to Israel for a year and see what it does to your nerves knowing that an Arab can stab you at any moment.

So leave, problem solved. The whining after stealing land and occupying a people for decades is idiotic.

Israel's not whining; they're at long last kicking out the enemy.

 

[Indeependent]

We've had this discussion before, and it's the problem of realistic vs idealistic. YES it would be ideal if what you say could happen. I would be all for it. But there are several points to consider. One is TRUST. There is a helluva lack of it on both sides and justifiably.

So let's even it out and demand the same thing for BOTH sides. If they can not trust one another, then they must be separated from one another. IF Arab Palestine MUST be Jew-free to function, then Israel MUST be Arab- free to function.

Why?
You would expel 1,786,000 or so people, who have lived for generations in what is now Israel so all of Israel is Arab free?

From the Palestinian side - what they see is an erosion of any possible future state with the settlements, and it is pretty far fetched to imagine (or trust) that Israel is going to let them become part of a future Palestinian state. How would you convince them that there WOULD be a contiguous state, irregardless of the settlements?

Simple. You negotiate for a contiguous State and accept any Jews which are in that area. And then you guarantee their safety and their rights. Its easy. Israel has ALREADY done this with the Arabs. If it can be done on the one side then it can be done on the other. Palestine negotiates a contiguous state and Israel negotiates for guarantees of rights and safety for Jews.

In principle I agree. But the settlements increase the tensions. Leave them as they are NOW until a final status is negotiated. And while your at it - mix the populations. Allow non Jews to live with Jews. And encourage the same in Palestinian areas.

Yes, its idealistic. But the alternative is to create two completely ethnically homogeneous states. Which would you prefer to aim for?

My preference would not be the alternative.

Why don't you move to Israel for a year and see what it does to your nerves knowing that an Arab can stab you at any moment.

I suspect the Palestinians feel quite similar not knowing when someone will bust in and take one of their kids in for questioning or shoot a kid for throwing rocks. Works both ways.

I'm sure the ones who haven't been ratted out by their fellow Arabs are shaking in their boots.
Can't they just pick up and move to their welcoming Arab brothers?
Nope...because their "brothers" don't want them.
If that doesn't tell you something you're not very bright.

 

[abi]

Israel stopped building "settlements" for twenty years. Did it bring peace?

They never should have (A), and (B) they need to end the occupation entirely before they can claim they want peace.

 

[Indeependent]

Israel stopped building "settlements" for twenty years. Did it bring peace?

They never should have (A), and (B) they need to end the occupation entirely before they can claim they want peace.

You should thank us 10 of us because no one else on earth is paying attention to you here.