The 77 year old flop

[Phoenall]

The two state solution was first put on the table in 1937. Since then there has been a world wide drumbeat to implement this solution. "Everybody knows" that the two state solution will bring peace.

It is the epitome of insanity.

Link from a reliable unbiased source please ?

What part do you question?

All of your statement as you are a known quantity when it comes to using biased sources and outright lies.

 

[Phoenall]

Link from a reliable unbiased source please ?

What part do you question?

Wow, what a convincing response. You sound like a liar who just got cornered.

More like he sounds like a spoilt child caught with his hand in the sweet jar. Now he will give links to Palestinian terrorists and what they say happened whenthey were 50,000 miles away.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I'm not sure where you got this information. But, the current talks, which started last year, had something different.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Wednesday he would be willing to launch direct peace negotiations with the Palestinians without preconditions in order to reach a historic agreement that would end the conflict.

Speaking to reporters in Warsaw alongside Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk, Netanyahu said the time has come to end the "squabbling over preconditions" and resume negotiations.

SOURCE: Attila Somfalvi, AP Published: 06.12.13, Israel News

(COMMENT)

These are not pre-conditions to the continuation of talks. I'm not sure where you get that from! All the Israeli pre-conditions were dropped last July.

The downward spiral on the talks was initiated when the last of the agreed upon prisoner releases was held-up because the Palestinians were planning to discontinue further negotiations. Israel wanted assurances that if the release was carried-out, the Palestinian would then terminate the talks. The Palestinians have been the "bad faith" partners in the talks from the beginning.

(SIDEBAR)

I (personally) agree that Justice Minister Tzipi Livni has been handicapped by the limitations and directions placed on her negotiating team by some of the decisions coming from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. But this is a domestic matter for the Israelis to consider and evaluate.

Time is on the side of the Israelis. The longer it takes for each side to enter into "good faith" negotiations with a willingness to compromise, the worse the situation becomes for the Palestinians. Neither Fatah or HAMAS are acting in the best interest of the Palestinian People. But, then one can say (similarly) that Likud Party (Chairman Netanyahu) is really not acting in the best interest of Israel and the establishment of peace.

The Israelis will have to decide whether they want to continue along this same path, or if they want to break the mold and try something different.

In any event, unlike Secretary of State John Kerry, I don't blame Israel for the breakdown in the talks. I don't believe that either side really wanted to make the hard choices in compromises that would be necessary for a peace settlement in the disputes.

Most Respectfully,
R

All the Israeli pre-conditions were dropped last July.

Is Israel going to allow Palestinians to have personal weapons and an army?
Is Israel going to allow return of the refugees?
Is Israel going to give up the Jordan valley?
Will East Jerusalem be the capital of Palestine?

Israel gave up those preconditions?
Got a link?

1) They already do

HEAVILY ARMED MILITIAS WREST CONTROL OF WEST BANK PALESTINIAN REFUGEE CAMPS FROM PALESTINIAN AUTHORITY | sreaves32

The situation today is such that the Palestinian security forces don’t dare set foot in those areas, especially the big refugee camps of Nablus (Balata), Tulkarm, Dehaisha – between the Jewish Gush Etzion settlement bloc and Hebron – Askar - east of Nablus, and Jenin. Another no-go area is the Shoafat camp in the municipal area of Jerusalem.

Palestinian security units are afraid of being greeted in the same way as the Israeli military forces, which have cut down on entry to those camps after coming under a hail of automatic fire, firebombs and grenades wielded by gangs of armed thugs. There were also attempts to seize soldiers as hostages.



2) They already have in some cases

https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths3/MFrefugees.html#8

The Arabs rejected all the Israeli compromises. They were unwilling to take any action that might be construed as recognition of Israel. They made repatriation a precondition for negotiations, something Israel rejected. The result was the confinement of the refugees in camps.

Despite the position taken by the Arab states, Israel did release the Arab refugees’ blocked bank accounts, which totaled more than $10 million, paid thousands of claimants cash compensation and granted thousands of acres as alternative holdings.


If Jordan asks them yes, but while Jordan wants them to patrol there NO!

Covered in another thread


Isn't it already.

See the Palestinian declaration of independence.

 

[Phoenall]

An interesting response I saw on another forum:

"Brofor, I think you are living in fantasy land, besides important red lines in the Likud charter which make the establishment of a Palestinian state impossible, the people in power have absolutely no inclination to allow a Palestinian state to be established. The Israelis will never give up the Jordan Valley which is a third of the West Bank and will not give up the West Bank settlements. There is no room for a Palestinian state, why don't you just look at the situation logically from just a geographical point of view. It cannot happen.

"The Jordan Valley must be placed under Israeli sovereignty,"

Deputy Foreign Minister: Jordan Valley must be under Israeli sovereignty | JPost | Israel News





LIKUD Platform:

a. “The Jordan river will be the permanent eastern border of the State of Israel.”



b. “Jerusalem is the eternal, united capital of the State of Israel and only of Israel. The government will flatly reject Palestinian proposals to divide Jerusalem”

c. “The Government of Israel flatly rejects the establishment of a Palestinian Arab state west of the Jordan river.”

d. “The Jewish communities in Judea, Samaria and Gaza are the realization of Zionist values. Settlement of the land is a clear expression of the unassailable right of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel and constitutes an important asset in the defense of the vital interests of the State of Israel. The Likud will continue to strengthen and develop these communities and will prevent their uprooting.”

And under a democracy those could be changed overnight to something more appealing to everyone. You being an ISLAMONAZI do not understand that democracy is the will of the people, and the people can remove the politicians that they feel are not representing them properly.
The fact that there is already a Palestinian state west of the Jordan river and that it has its capital in East Jerusalem shows that the above is a complete fabrication

So, there is a Palestinian state and its capital is East Jerusalem. I will tell the author of that post I quoted that he is full of it.

If there isn't then what are the government of Palestine doing in the UN, and the BBC say that east Jerusalem is the capital of Palestine.

So yes you should, and stop reading ISLAMONAZI sites in future

 

[JakeStarkey]

Greater Israel is becoming the only acceptable solution, with the Palestinians who can't accept it be cleansed to other countries involuntarily. Any resistance inside the country after that to the existence of Israel must be a capital crime and the family removed to other countries.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You are confused.

I'm not sure where you got this information. But, the current talks, which started last year, had something different.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Wednesday he would be willing to launch direct peace negotiations with the Palestinians without preconditions in order to reach a historic agreement that would end the conflict.

Speaking to reporters in Warsaw alongside Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk, Netanyahu said the time has come to end the "squabbling over preconditions" and resume negotiations.

SOURCE: Attila Somfalvi, AP Published: 06.12.13, Israel News

(COMMENT)

These are not pre-conditions to the continuation of talks. I'm not sure where you get that from! All the Israeli pre-conditions were dropped last July.

The downward spiral on the talks was initiated when the last of the agreed upon prisoner releases was held-up because the Palestinians were planning to discontinue further negotiations. Israel wanted assurances that if the release was carried-out, the Palestinian would then terminate the talks. The Palestinians have been the "bad faith" partners in the talks from the beginning.

(SIDEBAR)

I (personally) agree that Justice Minister Tzipi Livni has been handicapped by the limitations and directions placed on her negotiating team by some of the decisions coming from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. But this is a domestic matter for the Israelis to consider and evaluate.

Time is on the side of the Israelis. The longer it takes for each side to enter into "good faith" negotiations with a willingness to compromise, the worse the situation becomes for the Palestinians. Neither Fatah or HAMAS are acting in the best interest of the Palestinian People. But, then one can say (similarly) that Likud Party (Chairman Netanyahu) is really not acting in the best interest of Israel and the establishment of peace.

The Israelis will have to decide whether they want to continue along this same path, or if they want to break the mold and try something different.

In any event, unlike Secretary of State John Kerry, I don't blame Israel for the breakdown in the talks. I don't believe that either side really wanted to make the hard choices in compromises that would be necessary for a peace settlement in the disputes.

Most Respectfully,
R

All the Israeli pre-conditions were dropped last July.

Is Israel going to allow Palestinians to have personal weapons and an army?
Is Israel going to allow return of the refugees?
Is Israel going to give up the Jordan valley?
Will East Jerusalem be the capital of Palestine?

Israel gave up those preconditions?
Got a link?

(COMMENT)

Pre-conditions to the talks are those things set as a requirement even before they start the talks.

Just because there are no pre-conditions, July 2013, does mean those issues are not points for negotiation.

In the recent talks, Israel went in with NO pre-conditions in the resumption of negotiations.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[JakeStarkey]

Is Israel going to allow Palestinians to have personal weapons and an army? Not in Israel.
Is Israel going to allow return of the refugees? No.
Is Israel going to give up the Jordan valley? No.
Will East Jerusalem be the capital of Palestine? Never.

 

[Roudy]

Greater Israel is becoming the only acceptable solution, with the Palestinians who can't accept it be cleansed to other countries involuntarily. Any resistance inside the country after that to the existence of Israel must be a capital crime and the family removed to other countries.

Like I always say, Gaza proved that this is not and has never been about land. Israel should just annex the West Bank, call it by it's correct name for 3000 years JUDEAH AND SAMARIA, before the Arab invaders changed it's name to "West Bank" in 1948, and get this thing over with.

 

[José]

You people never fail to make me laugh.

You are so addicted to debate you even defy the very definition of this activity:

DEBATE:

a discussion between people in which they express different opinions about something

Debate - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

A formal contest of argumentation in which two opposing teams defend and attack a given proposition.

debate - definition of debate by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

You love debating so much you engage in this activity even when there's nothing to debate, even when everybody is in perfect agreement.

Everybody here is perfectly aware that the palestinian people will never sanction the ethnic
cleansing of western palestine, that they will never accept only the WB and Gaza as their historical homeland.

Everybody knows this conflict is not about a few inches of land here, a few inches there... it is about the right of the palestinian people to live in the western half of their homeland.

If you don't believe me just read the small selection I compiled below including quotes by almost all posters who contributed to this thread.

 

[José]

Originally posted by PFTinmore
The two state solution is a 77 yara old flop.

Originally posted by PFTinmore
It is the epitome of insanity (trying the same thing over and over, expecting a different result)

Originally posted by toastman
There will never be peace in the ME.

Originally posted by RoccoR
There is a question as to whether the Palestinians ever wanted to employ peaceful means as a foundation for settlement.

Originally posted by RoccoR
The downward spiral on the talks was initiated when the last of the agreed upon prisoner releases was held-up because the Palestinians were planning to discontinue further negotiations.

Originally posted by RoccoR
The Palestinians have been the "bad faith" partners in the talks from the beginning.

Originally posted by RoccoR
I don't believe that either side really wanted to make the hard choices in compromises that would be necessary for a peace settlement in the disputes.

Originally posted by JakeStarkey
Greater Israel is becoming the only acceptable solution

Originally posted by Roudy
Like I always say, Gaza proved that this is not and has never been about land (meaning the West Bank and Gaza).

Originally posted by Roudy (replying to ForeverYoung who was celebrating Abbas' decision to resume talks with Israel)
If you believe that I have a used car to sell you.

Originally posted by Indeependent (also replying to ForeverYoung's statement that "If he really wanted, Abbas could make peace with Israel today)
Does Abbas want to be assasinated today?

Originally posted by SweetCaroline
Palestinians talk about making peace with Israel in English and about returning to Jaffa, Acre and Jerusalem in Arabic.

Originally posted by proudveteran (a gazillion times)
That's why the palestinian state is DOA!! (palestinian insistence on the right of return)

Originally posted by Kondor3
There isn't a chance in Hell Palestinians will accept the two state solution so relocation to
surrounding arab countries is the only solution.

Originally posted by Lipush (after posting a video showing dozens of palestinian kids saying the name of the villages and towns their parents and grandparents came from and stating they will someday live there again)
Are these the people we are supposed to make peace with?

 

[José]

But by all means people, keep on debating over nothing if this is your idea of fun.

 

[Hossfly]

You people never fail to make me laugh.

You are so addicted to debate you even defy the very definition of this activity:

DEBATE:

a discussion between people in which they express different opinions about something

Debate - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

A formal contest of argumentation in which two opposing teams defend and attack a given proposition.

debate - definition of debate by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

You love debating so much you engage in this activity even when there's nothing to debate, even when everybody is in perfect agreement.

Everybody here is perfectly aware that the palestinian people will never sanction the ethnic
cleansing of western palestine, that they will never accept only the WB and Gaza as their historical homeland.

Everybody knows this conflict is not about a few inches of land here, a few inches there... it is about the right of the palestinian people to live in the western half of their homeland.

If you don't believe me just read the small selection I compiled below including quotes by almost all posters who contributed to this thread.

"You people".

 

[José]

You people never fail to make me laugh.

You are so addicted to debate you even defy the very definition of this activity:

DEBATE:

a discussion between people in which they express different opinions about something

Debate - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

A formal contest of argumentation in which two opposing teams defend and attack a given proposition.

debate - definition of debate by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

You love debating so much you engage in this activity even when there's nothing to debate, even when everybody is in perfect agreement.

Everybody here is perfectly aware that the palestinian people will never sanction the ethnic
cleansing of western palestine, that they will never accept only the WB and Gaza as their historical homeland.

Everybody knows this conflict is not about a few inches of land here, a few inches there... it is about the right of the palestinian people to live in the western half of their homeland.

If you don't believe me just read the small selection I compiled below including quotes by almost all posters who contributed to this thread.

"You people".

Well, I almost included one of your posts in which you refer to the "phoney peace talks" but I couldn't remember your exact words and couldn't spend 5 hours looking for it due to having a real life outside the net.

Anyway:

Welcome to the team, Hossfly!!

The team of those who already realized the palestinian people will never accept neither the partition of their homeland nor the exile imposed on them by the jewish racial dictatorship.

 

[proudveteran06]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I think you are a little bit behind the times. Forget 1937! Come back to the living and the current situation.

The two state solution was first put on the table in 1937. Since then there has been a world wide drumbeat to implement this solution. "Everybody knows" that the two state solution will bring peace.

It is the epitome of insanity.

(OBSERVATION)

Considering that the faithful observance of the principles of international law concerning friendly relations and co-operation among States and the fulfillment in good faith of the obligations assumed by States, in accordance with the Charter, is of the greatest importance for the maintenance of international peace and security and for the implementation of the other purposes of the United Nations,​

States shall accordingly seek early and just settlement of their international disputes by negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements or other peaceful means of their choice. In seeking such a settlement the parties shall agree upon such peaceful means as may be appropriate to the circumstances and nature of the dispute.

The parties to a dispute have the duty, in the event of failure to reach a solution by any one of the above peaceful means, to continue to seek a settlement of the dispute by other peaceful means agreed upon by them.

SOURCE: Rule of Law - A/RES/25/2625

(COMMENT)

Today, a determination has to be made about the Palestinian demands they put forth just to enter into "good faith" negotiations.

The Palestinians have compiled a new list of demands for the continuation of peace talks, the list of demands are: (Article: Palestinians publish new list of demands: PM must agree to East Jerusalem as capital, Elior Levy, Published: 04.03.14, Israel News)

1. A written commitment by Prime Minister Benjamin Netnayahu that the borders of the Palestinian state will be along the 1967 'green-line' and that its capital will be East Jerusalem.
2. The release of 1,200 Palestinian prisoners, including political heavyweights Marwan Barghouti, Ahmed Saadat and Fuad Shubkhi.
3. An end to the Egyptian-Israeli blockade on Gaza, and the formulation of dealing allowing the flow of goods into Gaza.
4. A halt in construction in East Jerusalem.
5. The IDF will not be allowed to enter Area A – the area of the West Bank under autonomous PA control since the Oslo Accords – to conduct arrests or assassinations
6. Israel will permit the PA control over Area C – currently under Israel's control.
7. The Palestinians known as the Church of Nativity deportees – a group of terrorist who barricaded themselves in the Church of the Nativity on April 2, 2002 and were later deported to European nations and the Gaza Strip – will be allowed to return to the West Bank.
8. The reopening of a number of Palestinian development agencies Israel shut down.

Are these legitimate demands as a prerequisite to "good faith negotiations" for peace? Or, is this some kind of devious means at subterfuge --- to break-down the negotiation process? There is a question as to whether the Palestinians ever wanted to employ peaceful means as a foundation for settlement.

Should Israel just step back from the process and allow the current path of events to unfold as they are? (Maintain the status quo.)

If Israel does not meet these negotiation demands, what benefit does a break-down in the negotiations give the Arab Palestinian.

How do these demands help?

Most Respectfully,
R

Look at Israel's pre-conditions.

1)The Palestinians must surrender.
2) They must disarm.
3) No refugees.
4) No Jerusalem.
5) Settlements will stay.
6) Israel will control all imports and exports.
7) Israel will control all travel and tourism.
8) Israel recognized as a Jewish state.​

OK, so who isn't serious?

The Palestinian is lying again;

Israel has offered to give up most of the settlements in the W. Bank


Israel said willing to give up 90% of West Bank | The Times of Israel


Israel said willing to give up 90% of West Bank

Palestinians reportedly insisting on land swaps for no more than 3% of territory; either way, most Jewish settlements would remain in place

By Gavriel Fiske February 6, 2014, 10:55 am 99




The closed-door negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority over the future contours of a Palestinian state, and how much land and settlements Israel will retain, have reportedly come down to a matter of a few percentage points, with both sides agreeing in principle that the majority of Jewish West Bank settlements would be transferred to Israeli sovereignty in a final status deal.

Get The Times of Israel's Daily Edition by email
and never miss our top stories Free Sign up!

Citing anonymous Israeli, Palestinian and American sources close to the negotiations, Walla News reported on Thursday that Israel is seeking to annex about 10 percent of the West Bank’s land area in a final deal. Meanwhile, the Palestinians are seeking to have Israel annex only around 3% of the West Bank, the report said.




Some 70-80% of Jewish West Bank settlements will be transferred to Israel whether Israel retains 10% or 3% of West Bank land, the report noted. According to a source on the American side, “it is clear” that Israel is “willing in principle to give up” control of 90% of the West Bank.


Israel has also offered to share E. Jerusalem. Israel will not control all tourism etc. etc. It does demand that " Palestine" remain unmilitarized for obvious reasons such as Japan was after WW 11. What the Palestinan doesn't mention is that they are demanding some land within the 67 Borders. If they got everything they wanted Israel will eventually be annex to " Palestine". Why should there be a " Palestinian State" but not a " Jewish State?"



The closed-door negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority over the future contours of a Palestinian state, and how much land and settlements Israel will retain, have reportedly come down to a matter of a few percentage points, with both sides agreeing in principle that the majority of Jewish West Bank settlements would be transferred to Israeli sovereignty in a final status deal.

Citing anonymous Israeli, Palestinian and American sources close to the negotiations, Walla News reported on Thursday that Israel is seeking to annex about 10 percent of the West Bank’s land area in a final deal. Meanwhile, the Palestinians are seeking to have Israel annex only around 3% of the West Bank, the report said.







Abbas Shuts Down the Peace Process « Commentary Magazine


Abbas Shuts Down the Peace Process


Tom Wilson | [MENTION=30056]Tom[/MENTION]JamesWilson 02.12.2014 - 2:20 PM





Last week, Jonathan Tobin wrote here of how we were on the eve of a fourth Palestinian “no” to a peace agreement. It would appear that has now arrived, albeit slightly sooner than anyone had expected. Many observers assumed that once Secretary of State John Kerry got around to submitting his framework for a negotiated peace, Palestinian Authority head Mahmoud Abbas would then set about finding an excuse for rejecting it. What few could have predicted was that Abbas would find a way to reject the proposal before it was even submitted. Yet, this is precisely the impressive feat that Abbas has now accomplished.

Earlier today, Abbas’s spokespeople in Ramallah announced the PA’s new set of red lines in any negotiated peace settlement. Each and every one of these red lines blows to pieces anything Kerry was about to propose, as it does to the prospects for an agreement between the two sides in general. These red lines which Abbas details in a letter being sent to the U.S. and the Quartet seamlessly preempts whatever Kerry was likely to outline in his own peace parameters. In this way Abbas artfully dodges a scenario in which the Israelis would agree to a peace plan and the Palestinians would come under pressure not to derail yet another effort to resolve the conflict.



Abbas’s new red lines block just about every concession that the Israelis, and even the U.S., have requested. Abbas demands: a total Israeli withdrawal from all territories that went to Israel in 1967; that Israel complete that withdrawal within three to four years; that the Palestinians not be required to recognize the Jewish state; that east Jerusalem be specified as the capital of a Palestinian state; the release of all Palestinian prisoners; and resolving the refugee issue along the lines of UN General Assembly resolution 194, which in essence means sending those Palestinians claiming to be refugees, not to a Palestinian state, but to Israel, thus terminating the existence of the Jewish state Abbas refuses to recognize.




So, Who isn't serious???

 

[José]

You and Paul Francis Tinmore are in perfect aggreement, veteran:

You have both finally realized that the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is about the right to live in western Palestine and not about settlements, occupation, no matter how many times the western press and even palestinian leaders refer to them as the real obstacles.

As you said so many times:

"That's why the palestinian state is DOA!!"

The only thing that's still unanswered is why on Earth you have the strange idea that there is any disagreement between you two.

 

[proudveteran06]

You and Paul Francis Tinmore are in perfect aggreement, veteran:

You have both finally realized that the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is about the right to live in western Palestine and not about settlements, occupation, no matter how many times the western press and even palestinian leaders refer to them as the real obstacles.

As you said so many times:

"That's why the palestinian state is DOA!!"

The only thing that's still unanswered is why on Earth you have the strange idea that there is any disagreement between you two.

Definition of NEGOTIATE

b: to arrange for or bring about through conference, discussion, and compromise <negotiate a treaty>


Why is there " disagreement?" Try to read the above definition SLOWLY if capable. Israel has shown compromise in many aspects starting with Gaza. Tell us exactly what the Palestinians have been doing to " negotiate?" The Palestinian, on the other hand claims the Palestinians are willing to find a way to end the " Two State Solution" conflict but claims the Israelis are unwilling to " negotiate" Understand now? Doubt it

 

[pbel]

There will never be peace in the ME.

It just seems to good to be true.

Not while Israel keeps stealing land against all international norms...In our lifetime we will see the ME Nuke up.

 

[José]

Originally posted by proudveteran
[Definition of NEGOTIATE

b: to arrange for or bring about through conference, discussion, and compromise <negotiate a treaty>

Why is there " disagreement?" Try to read the above definition SLOWLY if capable. Israel has shown compromise in many aspects starting with Gaza. Tell us exactly what the Palestinians have been doing to " negotiate?" The Palestinian, on the other hand claims the Palestinians are willing to find a way to end the " Two State Solution" conflict but claims the Israelis are unwilling to " negotiate" Understand now? Doubt it

You say:

The palestinian state (ie, the partition of Palestine) is DOA.

Tinmore says:

The two-state solution is nothing but the partition plan palestinians have been unequivocally, constantly rejecting since the first decades of the last century.

Whether or not Palestinians are being reasonable, "serious" by demanding their right to live in western Palestine is a secondary, unimportant question that's totally open to subjective interpretation.

What's really important here is that both of you agree on the crucial, fundamental issue:

The right of the palestinian people to live in an undivided Palestine has always been, is and will always be a non-negotiable point.

Again:

Where's the (important) disagreement?

 

[JakeStarkey]

" the palestinian people will never accept neither the partition of their homeland nor the exile imposed on them by the jewish racial dictatorship."

Yeah, they will. They have no other choice. If they fight, they will be squashed as they always have been already.

 

[montelatici]

The Zionist bloggers/sites blame the Palestinians for the breakdown in negotiations. Kerry blames the Israeli decision to build more settlements. I wonder which source is more reliable.