The Two State Option Is Dying

[ForeverYoung436]

Jerusalem was never called Israel until 1948. There was no nation of Israel until 1948. I will never forget Uri Avnerys reaction at hearing what the name of the new Jewish nation would be, he was a soldier ethnically cleansing a Palestinian village when he heard the news. How surreal all of that is! (This is an article about Uri Avnery. In 1950, Avnery offered first Israeli corroboration of ?the Palestinian narrative? | Mondoweiss)

Are you saying that there was no nation of Israel in ancient times?

Jerusalem was not in Israel.

Were Israelites Jews or Pagans?

Was anyone else living there?

I suggest that you take some history courses. I would be embarrassed to make the statements you made, or posed the questions you asked.

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

Are you saying that there was no nation of Israel in ancient times?

Jerusalem was not in Israel.

Were Israelites Jews or Pagans?

Was anyone else living there?

I suggest that you take some history courses. I would be embarrassed to make the statements you made, or posed the questions you asked.

If you are so knowledgeable about history, why cant you answer his questions? And remember the bible is not a history book.

 

[proudveteran06]

Now that proves me wrong.

That post has nothhing to do with proving you wrong. I'm just stating how I feel when I converse with you.

You are the child, I think 13 is your age. You certainly post like it is, as I keep telling you homeschooling is not working well for you. You are always stealing others words and ideas, as if you have none of your own. Here is a challenge, let us see if you can take a position on the thread topic, whether the two state option is dead, take a position and use your own words to defend the position you take.

That's easy. I'll quote Tinmore " There's nothing to Negotiate". Israel is not going to go back to Borders that were never accepted in the first place, give up E. Jerusalem which has their most sacred religious sites, or allow " Right of Return". Whenever I ask a Pro Palestinian why there is always talk about " negotiations" there is no response.

No " negotiations", No " Two State Solution"

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

That post has nothhing to do with proving you wrong. I'm just stating how I feel when I converse with you.

You are the child, I think 13 is your age. You certainly post like it is, as I keep telling you homeschooling is not working well for you. You are always stealing others words and ideas, as if you have none of your own. Here is a challenge, let us see if you can take a position on the thread topic, whether the two state option is dead, take a position and use your own words to defend the position you take.

That's easy. I'll quote Tinmore " There's nothing to Negotiate". Israel is not going to go back to Borders that were never accepted in the first place, give up E. Jerusalem which has their most sacred religious sites, or allow " Right of Return". Whenever I ask a Pro Palestinian why there is always talk about " negotiations" there is no response.

No " negotiations", No " Two State Solution"

Difficult to understand all of this, I asked a poster to set forth his own view and here I find yet another Zionist who cannot do this. A poster should be capable of having a viewpoint that they can possess and clearly set forth without bringing their perceptions of the ideas of other posters into it. I cannot make sense of anything you said in your post.

 

[toastman]

Now that proves me wrong.

That post has nothhing to do with proving you wrong. I'm just stating how I feel when I converse with you.

You are the child, I think 13 is your age. You certainly post like it is, as I keep telling you homeschooling is not working well for you. You are always stealing others words and ideas, as if you have none of your own. Here is a challenge, let us see if you can take a position on the thread topic, whether the two state option is dead, take a position and use your own words to defend the position you take.

What does your post have to do with what you just quoted me saying ???? Do you know how to read?? I'm guessing English isn't your first language eh ?
Sherri, one day you will hopefully realize that the hate that has obviously consumed your miserable life needs to be dealt with. You are nothing but a raving lunatic....

 

[proudveteran06]

You are the child, I think 13 is your age. You certainly post like it is, as I keep telling you homeschooling is not working well for you. You are always stealing others words and ideas, as if you have none of your own. Here is a challenge, let us see if you can take a position on the thread topic, whether the two state option is dead, take a position and use your own words to defend the position you take.

That's easy. I'll quote Tinmore " There's nothing to Negotiate". Israel is not going to go back to Borders that were never accepted in the first place, give up E. Jerusalem which has their most sacred religious sites, or allow " Right of Return". Whenever I ask a Pro Palestinian why there is always talk about " negotiations" there is no response.

No " negotiations", No " Two State Solution"

Difficult to understand all of this, I asked a poster to set forth his own view and here I find yet another Zionist who cannot do this. A poster should be capable of having a viewpoint that they can possess and clearly set forth without bringing their perceptions of the ideas of other posters into it. I cannot make sense of anything you said in your post.

Read SLOWLY. If there is nothing to " negotiate", there will never be a " Two State Solution". Israel is not going back to Borders that the Arabs themselves have never recognized, leave E. Jerusalem where their most religious sites are, or allow " Right of Return". None of that would be in Israel's best interest. Get it now you fake " Christian?"

 

[P F Tinmore]

That's easy. I'll quote Tinmore " There's nothing to Negotiate". Israel is not going to go back to Borders that were never accepted in the first place, give up E. Jerusalem which has their most sacred religious sites, or allow " Right of Return". Whenever I ask a Pro Palestinian why there is always talk about " negotiations" there is no response.

No " negotiations", No " Two State Solution"

Difficult to understand all of this, I asked a poster to set forth his own view and here I find yet another Zionist who cannot do this. A poster should be capable of having a viewpoint that they can possess and clearly set forth without bringing their perceptions of the ideas of other posters into it. I cannot make sense of anything you said in your post.

Read SLOWLY. If there is nothing to " negotiate", there will never be a " Two State Solution". Israel is not going back to Borders that the Arabs themselves have never recognized, leave E. Jerusalem where their most religious sites are, or allow " Right of Return". None of that would be in Israel's best interest. Get it now you fake " Christian?"

The two state solution (The current euphemism for partition) has been on the table since 1937.

Why hasn't it happened yet? It has been over 75 years.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore; proudveteran06; SherriMunnerlyn; et al,

I think, that in a certain sense, Paul is correct here.

Difficult to understand all of this, I asked a poster to set forth his own view and here I find yet another Zionist who cannot do this. A poster should be capable of having a viewpoint that they can possess and clearly set forth without bringing their perceptions of the ideas of other posters into it. I cannot make sense of anything you said in your post.

Read SLOWLY. If there is nothing to " negotiate", there will never be a " Two State Solution". Israel is not going back to Borders that the Arabs themselves have never recognized, leave E. Jerusalem where their most religious sites are, or allow " Right of Return". None of that would be in Israel's best interest. Get it now you fake " Christian?"

The two state solution (The current euphemism for partition) has been on the table since 1937.

Why hasn't it happened yet? It has been over 75 years.

(COMMENT)

The Two-State solution, has over time, appeared in various forms. GA Resolution 181(II) was one such proposal.

The problem with the Two-State solution is that neither side will get what they want; and in not getting what they want (satisfaction), neither agree to accept. Neither side has seen a Two-State solution that they feel is in their best interest.

Having said that, both sides agree, in principle, that a continuation of the status quo (hostilities) is a better option than the acceptance of any Two-State solution presented thus far.

Again, as I said in the other thread, we need to accept that conclusion as a reality of the current situation. Both sides would rather continue the present state of hostilities than reach for any compromise suggested. In this event, we (outside observers) will have to wait until one side or the other self-destructs; with one side or the other losing the will to continue. OR, one side or the other, forces a decisive action that results in a definitive outcome.

In the past, whenever the Arab/Palestinian attempts to force a decisive outcome, the Arab/Palestinian loses more ground. The GA Resolution 181(II) borders are much different than the Treaty and Armistice borders of today. The instigated invasions (1948, 1967, 1973) have not yielded positive results for the Arab/Palestinian.

We (outside observers) need to be very patient, and wait for one side or the other to implode; until one side or the other find that a peaceful solution is more valuable then the continuation of hostilities. This is, more likely to be in the best interest of Israel. Neither Gaza or the West Bank are self-sustaining entities. They are not regimes that can, without western handouts, Iranian bribery, and gratuitous Arab League support, stand-alone as a nation. It has more characteristics of a Failed State of the Third-World, than an emerging state growing in prosperity. Thus, all Israel has to do to maintain the status quo is to hold containment; limiting the impact of hostilities.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[MJB12741]

Oh Sherri, thank you so much for opening my eyes to the truth that the land was "Palestine" when the Israelites built Solomon's Temple. So much to learn. So little time. Please excuse me while I go tell my neighbors.

Jerusalem was never called Israel until 1948. There was no nation of Israel until 1948. I will never forget Uri Avnerys reaction at hearing what the name of the new Jewish nation would be, he was a soldier ethnically cleansing a Palestinian village when he heard the news. How surreal all of that is! (This is an article about Uri Avnery. In 1950, Avnery offered first Israeli corroboration of ?the Palestinian narrative? | Mondoweiss)

Are you saying that there was no nation of Israel in ancient times?

That is right!

 

[Kondor3]

The Jews have a strong historical and spiritual claim to the lands formerly occupied by the so-called 12 Tribes - including the two that survived the longest - Judah and Benjamin - and, of course, over time, the Jews came to consider themselves as Scattered Israel.

It really doesn't matter at all, what they called their kingdom(s) at various times in the run-up to the Diaspora.

It was appropriate for The World At-Large (via the UN in the late 1940s) to find a home for the Jews so that another Holocaust would not happen and somebody had to make way for them.

Palestine was the natural choice but the UN did it badly and left too much to chance and it went sour and badly wrong over time.

There is plenty of land to be had over there but it needs a lot of work to make it viable.

In a saner world we would solve this by shifting populations around a bit and give both sides larger pieces of contiguous, viable, defensible land-mass... some of it sliced off of Jordan or Syria or Lebanon or Gaza-Egypt - but we are not going to get the chance to do that, and the Jews will both hold onto Jerusalem and eventually consume the West Bank and Gaza before they settle down for a few generations and consolidate what they have and begin to enjoy life as an entrenched and accepted presence in the region.

The Arab-Palestinians need a place to live, but I don't think it's going to end-up being where they are now.

Before we have peace, methinks we have some population-shifting ahead of us - all of it Arab-Palestinian - most of it at the expense of the borders of Jordan, Syria or Lebanon.

This has long-since stopped being a matter of what's fair.

Elementary-school kids on the recess-yard argue about what's fair.

This is about what can be done, and what needs to be done.

Think about the population-shift sort of 'ethnic cleansing' that German-speaking folk experienced when they were expelled en masse from East Prussia (now part of Poland) and the Sudentenland (now part of the Czech Republic) at the end of WWII.

Given that the Jews are dug-in and going nowhere, the only thing left is to shift the Arab-Palestinians around so that they are all living together rather than in dozens of scattered pockets of land, and so that they have viable and defensible borders and resources and access to the sea and all of that.

The only way that's gonna happen - and the only what the a two-state solution could ever be made to work in this post-1967-Six-Day-War era, is to give the West Bank and Jerusalem and Gaza to the Israelis, and carve a new Palestinian-Arab state out of pieces of Jordan and Syria and Lebanon, so that the Arab-Palestinians have a shot at creating a state that actually stands a snowball's chance in Hell of staying on its feet for a few generations until they've got the hang of the thing and can sustain themselves.

Of course, the Lebanese and Jordanians and Syrians might have something to say about that, but, it's partially their fault that the Arab-Palestinians are in the jam that they are in (given their decades-long rule of pieces of Palestinian land, their unfulfilled promises to Arab-Palestinians to redeem Palestine for them and defeat the Jews, and their decades-long failures to sustain the Arab-Palestinians in their misfortune, or even for expelling them), so, perhaps it's time for the Arab neighbor-countries to face-up to their own culpability and to compensate their Arab-Palestinian brethren for same.

Without such an undertaking of something truly radical with maps and population-shifts and the like, the only other practical thing to do is for the Arab-Palestinians to begin disbanding and assimilating into the populations of Egypt and Jordan and Syria and Lebanon and Saudi Arabia and the like.

Because what they're doing now - and what few haphazard plans they have for building on the scraps of land that they still have in scattered pockets across the region - sure as hell isn't working, and isn't going to work.

A two-state solution as all of us understand it is dead - or so it truly seems to me.

The only possible solution I see is something radical with maps and population-shifts.

And even that's pretty far-fetched, in light of the stubborn mules and hotheads over there.

 

[toastman]

You are the child, I think 13 is your age. You certainly post like it is, as I keep telling you homeschooling is not working well for you. You are always stealing others words and ideas, as if you have none of your own. Here is a challenge, let us see if you can take a position on the thread topic, whether the two state option is dead, take a position and use your own words to defend the position you take.

That's easy. I'll quote Tinmore " There's nothing to Negotiate". Israel is not going to go back to Borders that were never accepted in the first place, give up E. Jerusalem which has their most sacred religious sites, or allow " Right of Return". Whenever I ask a Pro Palestinian why there is always talk about " negotiations" there is no response.

No " negotiations", No " Two State Solution"

Difficult to understand all of this, I asked a poster to set forth his own view and here I find yet another Zionist who cannot do this. A poster should be capable of having a viewpoint that they can possess and clearly set forth without bringing their perceptions of the ideas of other posters into it. I cannot make sense of anything you said in your post.

The reason it's so difficult to understand is because you cannot see the truth. Your mind is clouded with Arab propaganda that stops you from seeing the truth

 

[proudveteran06]

Difficult to understand all of this, I asked a poster to set forth his own view and here I find yet another Zionist who cannot do this. A poster should be capable of having a viewpoint that they can possess and clearly set forth without bringing their perceptions of the ideas of other posters into it. I cannot make sense of anything you said in your post.

Read SLOWLY. If there is nothing to " negotiate", there will never be a " Two State Solution". Israel is not going back to Borders that the Arabs themselves have never recognized, leave E. Jerusalem where their most religious sites are, or allow " Right of Return". None of that would be in Israel's best interest. Get it now you fake " Christian?"

The two state solution (The current euphemism for partition) has been on the table since 1937.

Why hasn't it happened yet? It has been over 75 years.

Why hasn't it happened?

They rejected it in 1948 and they obviously didn't accept the " 1967 Borders", that's why.


You're the one who claims there's no reason for the Palestinians to " negotiate". That's why it hasn't happened and will not happen. That fake " Christian" won't respond because I'm correct

 

[varelse]

Palestine and Israel both occupy (parts of) (former) Canaan



Just sayin

 

[proudveteran06]

Two-state solution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

From the Palestinian Side; No concessions; No Palestinian State . The Israeli Gov't is never going to go back to the " 1949 Armistice Lines" that were definitely not accepted at the time.

 

[Lipush]

Palestine and Israel both occupy (parts of) (former) Canaan



Just sayin

We're so lucky to have you!

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore; proudveteran06; SherriMunnerlyn; et al,

I think, that in a certain sense, Paul is correct here.

Read SLOWLY. If there is nothing to " negotiate", there will never be a " Two State Solution". Israel is not going back to Borders that the Arabs themselves have never recognized, leave E. Jerusalem where their most religious sites are, or allow " Right of Return". None of that would be in Israel's best interest. Get it now you fake " Christian?"

The two state solution (The current euphemism for partition) has been on the table since 1937.

Why hasn't it happened yet? It has been over 75 years.

(COMMENT)

The Two-State solution, has over time, appeared in various forms. GA Resolution 181(II) was one such proposal.

The problem with the Two-State solution is that neither side will get what they want; and in not getting what they want (satisfaction), neither agree to accept. Neither side has seen a Two-State solution that they feel is in their best interest.

Having said that, both sides agree, in principle, that a continuation of the status quo (hostilities) is a better option than the acceptance of any Two-State solution presented thus far.

Again, as I said in the other thread, we need to accept that conclusion as a reality of the current situation. Both sides would rather continue the present state of hostilities than reach for any compromise suggested. In this event, we (outside observers) will have to wait until one side or the other self-destructs; with one side or the other losing the will to continue. OR, one side or the other, forces a decisive action that results in a definitive outcome.

In the past, whenever the Arab/Palestinian attempts to force a decisive outcome, the Arab/Palestinian loses more ground. The GA Resolution 181(II) borders are much different than the Treaty and Armistice borders of today. The instigated invasions (1948, 1967, 1973) have not yielded positive results for the Arab/Palestinian.

We (outside observers) need to be very patient, and wait for one side or the other to implode; until one side or the other find that a peaceful solution is more valuable then the continuation of hostilities. This is, more likely to be in the best interest of Israel. Neither Gaza or the West Bank are self-sustaining entities. They are not regimes that can, without western handouts, Iranian bribery, and gratuitous Arab League support, stand-alone as a nation. It has more characteristics of a Failed State of the Third-World, than an emerging state growing in prosperity. Thus, all Israel has to do to maintain the status quo is to hold containment; limiting the impact of hostilities.

Most Respectfully,
R

The problem with the Two-State solution is that neither side will get what they want;...

The problem with the two state solution and all the old partition plans is that they all start with the Palestinians ceding most of their land to Israel. This is something they have never done. They have never ceded any land to Israel, and except for a few wannabe oligarchs around Ramallah, they still refuse to do so.

To date Palestine still has the land and borders and Israel has the guns and bombs. This has been the stalemate since 1948.

 

[Katzndogz]

Palestine never wanted a two state solution anyway. They have always wanted only one state, theirs with all Jews dead.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore; et al,

We will never agree on this.

The problem with the two state solution and all the old partition plans is that they all start with the Palestinians ceding most of their land to Israel. This is something they have never done. They have never ceded any land to Israel, and except for a few wannabe oligarchs around Ramallah, they still refuse to do so.

To date Palestine still has the land and borders and Israel has the guns and bombs. This has been the stalemate since 1948.

(COMMENT)

I not seen a single piece of evidence (prior to November of last year) that suggests the Palestinians had land or borders.

I have seen post-War Treaties and Armistices; borders with Israel. Maybe you could show me a Treaty or Armistice with Palestine that grants borders.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore; et al,

We will never agree on this.

The problem with the two state solution and all the old partition plans is that they all start with the Palestinians ceding most of their land to Israel. This is something they have never done. They have never ceded any land to Israel, and except for a few wannabe oligarchs around Ramallah, they still refuse to do so.

To date Palestine still has the land and borders and Israel has the guns and bombs. This has been the stalemate since 1948.

(COMMENT)

I not seen a single piece of evidence (prior to November of last year) that suggests the Palestinians had land or borders.

I have seen post-War Treaties and Armistices; borders with Israel. Maybe you could show me a Treaty or Armistice with Palestine that grants borders.

Most Respectfully,
R

Maybe you could show me a Treaty or Armistice with Palestine that grants borders.

Could you clarify your request?

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

That's easy. I'll quote Tinmore " There's nothing to Negotiate". Israel is not going to go back to Borders that were never accepted in the first place, give up E. Jerusalem which has their most sacred religious sites, or allow " Right of Return". Whenever I ask a Pro Palestinian why there is always talk about " negotiations" there is no response.

No " negotiations", No " Two State Solution"

Difficult to understand all of this, I asked a poster to set forth his own view and here I find yet another Zionist who cannot do this. A poster should be capable of having a viewpoint that they can possess and clearly set forth without bringing their perceptions of the ideas of other posters into it. I cannot make sense of anything you said in your post.

The reason it's so difficult to understand is because you cannot see the truth. Your mind is clouded with Arab propaganda that stops you from seeing the truth

I am still waiting for you to take a position and defend it.