Trump Deal - details, reactions and development on the ground

[rylah]

Oh here we go again denying homelands. How predictable. We just can't seem to move beyond accepting the fact that this area is the homeland to two different sets of people and therein lies the problem.

Arabs couldn't accept Israel's revival,
demanding domination over the entire middle east.

The problem lies in the fact they can't understand land belongs to a people, not otherwise.
And this land belongs to only one people, and in fact one of the longest records in history of a connection between a people and its land.

What do Arabs have, forging a name the meaning of which they don't even know?

And that view is exactly the problem.

Exactly how?
That's exactly the remedy.

Arabs want domination over the entire middle east, Israel says 'nah, this 1% is mine and has my name written on it, I will never inherit with You, and You will never eat me up, ever."

 

[Coyote]

For example, discuss control of borders, territorial waters, airspace.

I agree these things are NECESSARY for sovereignty and thus, Palestine should have them. (Note its perfectly fine for one State to be completely enclosed by another State. There are several of them in the world.)

How can we give Palestine this control while STILL ensuring Israel's security? (And also protecting the lives of Palestinians by ensuring Israel never has to defend itself.)

I would propose a reversal of the fundamental premise of the clauses in the Trump Framework. The current Framework prioritizes Israel's security, creates a normalization of Israeli security control and conditions removal of security on "good behaviour" by the Palestinians. I suggest we reverse this and make Palestine's sovereignty the default and expect its normalization at some point in the future. Its a subtle shift in attitude, and won't make much difference in practical terms for the near future, but its a necessary step for full Palestinian sovereignty.

That said, any peace deal will HAVE to confront Israeli need for security.

The whole "swiss cheezy" thing becomes a lot more palatable if governance of the Palestinians is largely on a LOCAL level.. Meaning there is no "top heavy" concentration of power at the federal level.. This is the "govt interface" that is MOST stable and offers the maximum CHOICE for Arabs that know all too well how "nation states" in the Mid East all become shotgun toting totalitarian dictatorships in short order..

It's STILL a 2 state solution if you don't press them for ceding their choices and freedom to a bulky fractured centralized govt that all the Intl 3rd party 'peace makers" expect. The "Federation of Palestine" under an Emirate plan would be composed of selected leadership from the City States or Emirates. And ONLY have the powers required to front an internationally recognized team for diplomacy, deal with immigration and customs and borders, trade disputes, issue currency and passports, deliver the mail, etc..

Agree with you here...and the idea of a single bulky centralized state is from our modern idea of what a nation state should look like. And maybe it's time to ignore that.

But the second part - not sure about. What powers would be excluded from this?

But what the current plan LACKS (among other details) is the CONNECTIVITY of these Emirates and the neighboring Arab states for trade. This is another feature of the "idea catalogue" I'm pushing right now to folks to DC..

I think that is what was also bothering me, but I couldn't clearly identify it, and was thinking more in that they don't have direct access to major rivers, their own ports or other borders....trade is awfully dependent on going through Israel.

The military protection aspect for Palestine in the short term would better be solved by having Palis negotiate with Egypt and Jordan and yes ISRAEL for mutual defense.. They would be lunch meat for decades expecting to hold off Iran or Caliphate determined radicals with their own armed forces. And it's not wildly unreasonable for Jordan and Egypt to agree given the progress made from "mutual defense" talks with Israel in the past years..

Mutual regional defense pacts? I think Israel would always have to be involved though.

ALSO -- land is fungible.. And it's reasonable to ask Jordan and Egypt to kick in some to the "Federation of Palestine".. Have them give THEIR Pali refugees a choice between the limbo "non citizen status" they have there now or relocate to areas ADJACENT to the borders of the new "federation" and connected for transit and trade...

Agree!

 

[Coyote]

Oh here we go again denying homelands. How predictable. We just can't seem to move beyond accepting the fact that this area is the homeland to two different sets of people and therein lies the problem.

Arabs couldn't accept Israel's revival,
demanding domination over the entire middle east.

The problem lies in the fact they can't understand land belongs to a people, not otherwise.
And this land belongs to only one people, and in fact one of the longest records in history of a connection between a people and its land.

What do Arabs have, forging a name the meaning of which they don't even know?

And that view is exactly the problem.

Exactly how?
Maybe that's the remedy.

When a land that belongs to multiple peoples who view the land as belonging to only one of them - it creates problems for the other peoples who feel it is their land as well.

 

[Indeependent]

Oh here we go again denying homelands. How predictable. We just can't seem to move beyond accepting the fact that this area is the homeland to two different sets of people and therein lies the problem.

Arabs couldn't accept Israel's revival,
demanding domination over the entire middle east.

The problem lies in the fact they can't understand land belongs to a people, not otherwise.
And this land belongs to only one people, and in fact one of the longest records in history of a connection between a people and its land.

What do Arabs have, forging a name the meaning of which they don't even know?

And that view is exactly the problem.

Exactly how?
Maybe that's the remedy.

When a land that belongs to multiple peoples who view the land as belonging to only one of them - it creates problems for the people's.

That is correct and most of the Eastern Hemisphere shares this issue.
It almost always comes down to might makes right.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Forget two states, Trump’s plan prescribes apartheid

This article is heavy on rhetoric and light on substance. ("Wild-eyed Zionist fanatics" pah-leeze, can we order up some credible journalism, here?)

About the only sentence which even TRIES to discuss the plan is this one:

The envisaged Palestinian entity ... lacks any trappings of statehood: Sovereignty, contiguous territories, a capital, control of borders, armed forces, etc.

What counter-offers could Palestine make to solve these vague complaints? What else is needed to meet the criteria of sovereignty? How can the territories be made contiguous? What is needed in order for a city to be a capital? What is meant by "control of borders"? What sort of armed forces? Also items she forgot to mention, but should have: control over airspace, control over territorial waters.

Before you go all, "But Palestine MUST have a military or else!" on me, a couple things. There are 21 countries in the world with no armed forces, either by choice or by restriction from another State. So no, she doesn't have to have a military. Also, remember this is a PEACE Accord. The base assumption is that the two States agree not to attack each other and that peace is in the BEST INTERESTS of BOTH Parties. Going all Gaza after signing a peace agreement is going to be BAD for the Palestinians. And it will be the responsibility of Palestine to DEMONSTRATE its peaceful nature by agreeing to be monitored by Israel and actively working to prevent the importation of weapons, terrorism, "freedom fighting" and playing the happy little martyrs game.

I agree with you on this - Palestine does not have to have a military and it's important to keep in mind that this agreement is coming off of a defensive war which Israel won. It seems reminds me of the agreements we made with Japan after WW2. No military. I think that is good point to keep.

Palestine does not have to have a military and it's important to keep in mind that this agreement is coming off of a defensive war which Israel won.

Which war was that?

What war did the Palestinians lose?

They in conjunction with the Arab states lost the war against the state of Israel. The plain fact is - Israel is not going away. And for the Palestinians rights and ability to live prosperously and peacefully, that needs to be recognized so something can actually happen to allow the Palestinians to come into their own and define themselves by something other than conflict.

At some point, if you care about the Palestinians AS a people, with rights and a homeland, you need to recognize this and recognize that this is a shared homeland.

So Israel isn't going away. It won't dissolve nor should it. How can the international community help the Palestinians realize a future?

They in conjunction with the Arab states lost the war against the state of Israel.

Palestine never had an army. They never attacked Israel.

They were not part of the1948 war.

 

[Coyote]

Oh here we go again denying homelands. How predictable. We just can't seem to move beyond accepting the fact that this area is the homeland to two different sets of people and therein lies the problem.

Arabs couldn't accept Israel's revival,
demanding domination over the entire middle east.

The problem lies in the fact they can't understand land belongs to a people, not otherwise.
And this land belongs to only one people, and in fact one of the longest records in history of a connection between a people and its land.

What do Arabs have, forging a name the meaning of which they don't even know?

And that view is exactly the problem.

Exactly how?
Maybe that's the remedy.

When a land that belongs to multiple peoples who view the land as belonging to only one of them - it creates problems for the people's.

That is correct and most of the Eastern Hemisphere shares this issue.
It almost always comes down to might makes right.

Yup, that is the reality regardless of all the flowery ethics and moral arguments (which I tend to agree with) - it is the way things are

 

[Coyote]

Forget two states, Trump’s plan prescribes apartheid

This article is heavy on rhetoric and light on substance. ("Wild-eyed Zionist fanatics" pah-leeze, can we order up some credible journalism, here?)

About the only sentence which even TRIES to discuss the plan is this one:

The envisaged Palestinian entity ... lacks any trappings of statehood: Sovereignty, contiguous territories, a capital, control of borders, armed forces, etc.

What counter-offers could Palestine make to solve these vague complaints? What else is needed to meet the criteria of sovereignty? How can the territories be made contiguous? What is needed in order for a city to be a capital? What is meant by "control of borders"? What sort of armed forces? Also items she forgot to mention, but should have: control over airspace, control over territorial waters.

Before you go all, "But Palestine MUST have a military or else!" on me, a couple things. There are 21 countries in the world with no armed forces, either by choice or by restriction from another State. So no, she doesn't have to have a military. Also, remember this is a PEACE Accord. The base assumption is that the two States agree not to attack each other and that peace is in the BEST INTERESTS of BOTH Parties. Going all Gaza after signing a peace agreement is going to be BAD for the Palestinians. And it will be the responsibility of Palestine to DEMONSTRATE its peaceful nature by agreeing to be monitored by Israel and actively working to prevent the importation of weapons, terrorism, "freedom fighting" and playing the happy little martyrs game.

I agree with you on this - Palestine does not have to have a military and it's important to keep in mind that this agreement is coming off of a defensive war which Israel won. It seems reminds me of the agreements we made with Japan after WW2. No military. I think that is good point to keep.

Palestine does not have to have a military and it's important to keep in mind that this agreement is coming off of a defensive war which Israel won.

Which war was that?

What war did the Palestinians lose?

They in conjunction with the Arab states lost the war against the state of Israel. The plain fact is - Israel is not going away. And for the Palestinians rights and ability to live prosperously and peacefully, that needs to be recognized so something can actually happen to allow the Palestinians to come into their own and define themselves by something other than conflict.

At some point, if you care about the Palestinians AS a people, with rights and a homeland, you need to recognize this and recognize that this is a shared homeland.

So Israel isn't going away. It won't dissolve nor should it. How can the international community help the Palestinians realize a future?

They in conjunction with the Arab states lost the war against the state of Israel.

Palestine never had an army. They never attacked Israel.

They were not part of the1948 war.

You don't need a standing army to wage war or attack. Witness ISIS and Al Queda (not that I am comparing their actions to the Palestinian) - but the point is attack and defense isn't dependent on the traditional army.

 

[Indeependent]

Arabs couldn't accept Israel's revival,
demanding domination over the entire middle east.

The problem lies in the fact they can't understand land belongs to a people, not otherwise.
And this land belongs to only one people, and in fact one of the longest records in history of a connection between a people and its land.

What do Arabs have, forging a name the meaning of which they don't even know?

And that view is exactly the problem.

Exactly how?
Maybe that's the remedy.

When a land that belongs to multiple peoples who view the land as belonging to only one of them - it creates problems for the people's.

That is correct and most of the Eastern Hemisphere shares this issue.
It almost always comes down to might makes right.

Yup, that is the reality regardless of all the flowery ethics and moral arguments (which I tend to agree with) - it is the way things are

The UN relies so much on the US that the US gets to dictate policy.
The rest of the Arab world has more that it’s own share of unrest and doesn’t want to get involved.
It’s amazing how many Uber and Lyft drivers escaped from Egypt.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Oh here we go again denying homelands. How predictable. We just can't seem to move beyond accepting the fact that this area is the homeland to two different sets of people and therein lies the problem.

Arabs couldn't accept Israel's revival,
demanding domination over the entire middle east.

The problem lies in the fact they can't understand land belongs to a people, not otherwise.
And this land belongs to only one people, and in fact one of the longest records in history of a connection between a people and its land.

What do Arabs have, forging a name the meaning of which they don't even know?

And that view is exactly the problem.

Exactly how?
Maybe that's the remedy.

When a land that belongs to multiple peoples who view the land as belonging to only one of them - it creates problems for the other peoples who feel it is their land as well.

Does the land belong to the native population or to foreign settlers?

 

[Coyote]

Oh here we go again denying homelands. How predictable. We just can't seem to move beyond accepting the fact that this area is the homeland to two different sets of people and therein lies the problem.

Arabs couldn't accept Israel's revival,
demanding domination over the entire middle east.

The problem lies in the fact they can't understand land belongs to a people, not otherwise.
And this land belongs to only one people, and in fact one of the longest records in history of a connection between a people and its land.

What do Arabs have, forging a name the meaning of which they don't even know?

And that view is exactly the problem.

Exactly how?
Maybe that's the remedy.

When a land that belongs to multiple peoples who view the land as belonging to only one of them - it creates problems for the other peoples who feel it is their land as well.

Does the land belong to the native population or to foreign settlers?

Tricky question. Who is defined as "native" and at what point did they or do they become "native"?

I think the land belongs to many people - and certainly the Jewish people and the Palestinian people qualify in that regard.

Is there really a point in rehashing this?

 

[Shusha]

It's not a "not real" problem because no matter what the logistics of it ARE problematic. So to shuffle it off as a "not real" problem is in my opinion unreal.

Just for reference can you think of any other country that has had to deal with something like this in terms of borders?

Okay, so I've been using "not a real problem" quite a bit. (Though I think rylah actually said it first). Perhaps I should explain what I mean by that.

"Not a real problem" is code for things that one side or the other uses to shut down negotiations, rather than being either a practical problem which needs to be solved, or being a position which is strongly held by either of the Parties for reasons of national importance.

Contiguity is one such "not a real problem". As long as people can freely travel in their own States and not have to cross international borders to get to work, then its not a real problem. (And its actually an improvement over today's situation). It just needs a work around. The reason it is presented as a "real problem" when it is not is to continue to give credence to the demonizing notion of "apartheid". Its a way of keeping up the complaints when there is a perfectly reasonable solution to the problem.

Sovereignty over the Jordan Valley is a real problem. From the Israeli side, its a real security problem. 3 minute response times to incoming rockets, for example. Long border with no control over weapons smuggling. From the Palestinian side, it limits trade and agriculture. Real problem.

Make sense?

 

[Olde Europe]

#2 would be criminal and as a member of Team Palestine I'm totally opposed to any involuntary displacements.

Israel, withdrawing their criminally occupying settlers from the occupied West Bank (except in cases of mutually agreed land swaps), would not only be not criminal, it would be enforcing the law. Moreover, without that, there will be no peaceful, lasting agreement.

 

[Coyote]

It's not a "not real" problem because no matter what the logistics of it ARE problematic. So to shuffle it off as a "not real" problem is in my opinion unreal.

Just for reference can you think of any other country that has had to deal with something like this in terms of borders?

Okay, so I've been using "not a real problem" quite a bit. (Though I think rylah actually said it first). Perhaps I should explain what I mean by that.

"Not a real problem" is code for things that one side or the other uses to shut down negotiations, rather than being either a practical problem which needs to be solved, or being a position which is strongly held by either of the Parties for reasons of national importance.

Contiguity is one such "not a real problem". As long as people can freely travel in their own States and not have to cross international borders to get to work, then its not a real problem. (And its actually an improvement over today's situation). It just needs a work around. The reason it is presented as a "real problem" when it is not is to continue to give credence to the demonizing notion of "apartheid". Its a way of keeping up the complaints when there is a perfectly reasonable solution to the problem.

Sovereignty over the Jordan Valley is a real problem. From the Israeli side, its a real security problem. 3 minute response times to incoming rockets, for example. Long border with no control over weapons smuggling. From the Palestinian side, it limits trade and agriculture. Real problem.

Make sense?

Yup, I see what you mean - thanks for elaborating

 

[ForeverYoung436]

Forget two states, Trump’s plan prescribes apartheid

This article is heavy on rhetoric and light on substance. ("Wild-eyed Zionist fanatics" pah-leeze, can we order up some credible journalism, here?)

About the only sentence which even TRIES to discuss the plan is this one:

The envisaged Palestinian entity ... lacks any trappings of statehood: Sovereignty, contiguous territories, a capital, control of borders, armed forces, etc.

What counter-offers could Palestine make to solve these vague complaints? What else is needed to meet the criteria of sovereignty? How can the territories be made contiguous? What is needed in order for a city to be a capital? What is meant by "control of borders"? What sort of armed forces? Also items she forgot to mention, but should have: control over airspace, control over territorial waters.

Before you go all, "But Palestine MUST have a military or else!" on me, a couple things. There are 21 countries in the world with no armed forces, either by choice or by restriction from another State. So no, she doesn't have to have a military. Also, remember this is a PEACE Accord. The base assumption is that the two States agree not to attack each other and that peace is in the BEST INTERESTS of BOTH Parties. Going all Gaza after signing a peace agreement is going to be BAD for the Palestinians. And it will be the responsibility of Palestine to DEMONSTRATE its peaceful nature by agreeing to be monitored by Israel and actively working to prevent the importation of weapons, terrorism, "freedom fighting" and playing the happy little martyrs game.

I agree with you on this - Palestine does not have to have a military and it's important to keep in mind that this agreement is coming off of a defensive war which Israel won. It seems reminds me of the agreements we made with Japan after WW2. No military. I think that is good point to keep.

Palestine does not have to have a military and it's important to keep in mind that this agreement is coming off of a defensive war which Israel won.

Which war was that?

What war did the Palestinians lose?

They in conjunction with the Arab states lost the war against the state of Israel. The plain fact is - Israel is not going away. And for the Palestinians rights and ability to live prosperously and peacefully, that needs to be recognized so something can actually happen to allow the Palestinians to come into their own and define themselves by something other than conflict.

At some point, if you care about the Palestinians AS a people, with rights and a homeland, you need to recognize this and recognize that this is a shared homeland.

So Israel isn't going away. It won't dissolve nor should it. How can the international community help the Palestinians realize a future?

They in conjunction with the Arab states lost the war against the state of Israel.

Palestine never had an army. They never attacked Israel.

They were not part of the1948 war.

Correct, because they were never a country.

 

[Coyote]

#2 would be criminal and as a member of Team Palestine I'm totally opposed to any involuntary displacements.

Israel, withdrawing their criminally occupying settlers from the occupied West Bank (except in cases of mutually agreed land swaps), would not only be not criminal, it would be enforcing the law. Moreover, without that, there will be no peaceful, lasting agreement.

That is where it get's difficult. And here is why, imo:

Some of those communities (settlements) were built in areas that had had traditionally Jewish populations driven out through conflict.

Some of those communities are now multigenerational.

Some of those communities are legally bought land.

Some of those communities are mere "outposts" with a handful of people and tents (not necessarily legal in Israel's courts).

Some of those communities are on questionably or even illegally obtained land.

Given that - at what point do you justify expelling civilians? How do you decide? If you expel them...does Israel have the right to expel Arabs?

My opinion is in the case of 1,2 and 3 involuntary expulsion would be criminal.

In the case of 4 and 5 courts should decide.

 

[P F Tinmore]

This article is heavy on rhetoric and light on substance. ("Wild-eyed Zionist fanatics" pah-leeze, can we order up some credible journalism, here?)

About the only sentence which even TRIES to discuss the plan is this one:

The envisaged Palestinian entity ... lacks any trappings of statehood: Sovereignty, contiguous territories, a capital, control of borders, armed forces, etc.

What counter-offers could Palestine make to solve these vague complaints? What else is needed to meet the criteria of sovereignty? How can the territories be made contiguous? What is needed in order for a city to be a capital? What is meant by "control of borders"? What sort of armed forces? Also items she forgot to mention, but should have: control over airspace, control over territorial waters.

Before you go all, "But Palestine MUST have a military or else!" on me, a couple things. There are 21 countries in the world with no armed forces, either by choice or by restriction from another State. So no, she doesn't have to have a military. Also, remember this is a PEACE Accord. The base assumption is that the two States agree not to attack each other and that peace is in the BEST INTERESTS of BOTH Parties. Going all Gaza after signing a peace agreement is going to be BAD for the Palestinians. And it will be the responsibility of Palestine to DEMONSTRATE its peaceful nature by agreeing to be monitored by Israel and actively working to prevent the importation of weapons, terrorism, "freedom fighting" and playing the happy little martyrs game.

I agree with you on this - Palestine does not have to have a military and it's important to keep in mind that this agreement is coming off of a defensive war which Israel won. It seems reminds me of the agreements we made with Japan after WW2. No military. I think that is good point to keep.

Palestine does not have to have a military and it's important to keep in mind that this agreement is coming off of a defensive war which Israel won.

Which war was that?

What war did the Palestinians lose?

They in conjunction with the Arab states lost the war against the state of Israel. The plain fact is - Israel is not going away. And for the Palestinians rights and ability to live prosperously and peacefully, that needs to be recognized so something can actually happen to allow the Palestinians to come into their own and define themselves by something other than conflict.

At some point, if you care about the Palestinians AS a people, with rights and a homeland, you need to recognize this and recognize that this is a shared homeland.

So Israel isn't going away. It won't dissolve nor should it. How can the international community help the Palestinians realize a future?

They in conjunction with the Arab states lost the war against the state of Israel.

Palestine never had an army. They never attacked Israel.

They were not part of the1948 war.

You don't need a standing army to wage war or attack. Witness ISIS and Al Queda (not that I am comparing their actions to the Palestinian) - but the point is attack and defense isn't dependent on the traditional army.

The Palestinians were virtually all unarmed civilians attacked by Israel's military that included WWII military equipment.

 

[rylah]

Oh here we go again denying homelands. How predictable. We just can't seem to move beyond accepting the fact that this area is the homeland to two different sets of people and therein lies the problem.

Arabs couldn't accept Israel's revival,
demanding domination over the entire middle east.

The problem lies in the fact they can't understand land belongs to a people, not otherwise.
And this land belongs to only one people, and in fact one of the longest records in history of a connection between a people and its land.

What do Arabs have, forging a name the meaning of which they don't even know?

And that view is exactly the problem.

Exactly how?
Maybe that's the remedy.

When a land that belongs to multiple peoples who view the land as belonging to only one of them - it creates problems for the other peoples who feel it is their land as well.

More like Arabs want domination over the entire middle east,
Israel says 'nah, this 1% is mine and has my name written on it,
I will never inherit with You, and You will never eat me up, ever."

Now back to the theme of the thread,
do you start realizing how a century of zero sum game is now turning on the Arabs?

 

[P F Tinmore]

This article is heavy on rhetoric and light on substance. ("Wild-eyed Zionist fanatics" pah-leeze, can we order up some credible journalism, here?)

About the only sentence which even TRIES to discuss the plan is this one:

The envisaged Palestinian entity ... lacks any trappings of statehood: Sovereignty, contiguous territories, a capital, control of borders, armed forces, etc.

What counter-offers could Palestine make to solve these vague complaints? What else is needed to meet the criteria of sovereignty? How can the territories be made contiguous? What is needed in order for a city to be a capital? What is meant by "control of borders"? What sort of armed forces? Also items she forgot to mention, but should have: control over airspace, control over territorial waters.

Before you go all, "But Palestine MUST have a military or else!" on me, a couple things. There are 21 countries in the world with no armed forces, either by choice or by restriction from another State. So no, she doesn't have to have a military. Also, remember this is a PEACE Accord. The base assumption is that the two States agree not to attack each other and that peace is in the BEST INTERESTS of BOTH Parties. Going all Gaza after signing a peace agreement is going to be BAD for the Palestinians. And it will be the responsibility of Palestine to DEMONSTRATE its peaceful nature by agreeing to be monitored by Israel and actively working to prevent the importation of weapons, terrorism, "freedom fighting" and playing the happy little martyrs game.

I agree with you on this - Palestine does not have to have a military and it's important to keep in mind that this agreement is coming off of a defensive war which Israel won. It seems reminds me of the agreements we made with Japan after WW2. No military. I think that is good point to keep.

Palestine does not have to have a military and it's important to keep in mind that this agreement is coming off of a defensive war which Israel won.

Which war was that?

What war did the Palestinians lose?

They in conjunction with the Arab states lost the war against the state of Israel. The plain fact is - Israel is not going away. And for the Palestinians rights and ability to live prosperously and peacefully, that needs to be recognized so something can actually happen to allow the Palestinians to come into their own and define themselves by something other than conflict.

At some point, if you care about the Palestinians AS a people, with rights and a homeland, you need to recognize this and recognize that this is a shared homeland.

So Israel isn't going away. It won't dissolve nor should it. How can the international community help the Palestinians realize a future?

They in conjunction with the Arab states lost the war against the state of Israel.

Palestine never had an army. They never attacked Israel.

They were not part of the1948 war.

Correct, because they were never a country.

Unsubstantiated Israeli talking point.

 

[Coyote]

I agree with you on this - Palestine does not have to have a military and it's important to keep in mind that this agreement is coming off of a defensive war which Israel won. It seems reminds me of the agreements we made with Japan after WW2. No military. I think that is good point to keep.

Palestine does not have to have a military and it's important to keep in mind that this agreement is coming off of a defensive war which Israel won.

Which war was that?

What war did the Palestinians lose?

They in conjunction with the Arab states lost the war against the state of Israel. The plain fact is - Israel is not going away. And for the Palestinians rights and ability to live prosperously and peacefully, that needs to be recognized so something can actually happen to allow the Palestinians to come into their own and define themselves by something other than conflict.

At some point, if you care about the Palestinians AS a people, with rights and a homeland, you need to recognize this and recognize that this is a shared homeland.

So Israel isn't going away. It won't dissolve nor should it. How can the international community help the Palestinians realize a future?

They in conjunction with the Arab states lost the war against the state of Israel.

Palestine never had an army. They never attacked Israel.

They were not part of the1948 war.

You don't need a standing army to wage war or attack. Witness ISIS and Al Queda (not that I am comparing their actions to the Palestinian) - but the point is attack and defense isn't dependent on the traditional army.

The Palestinians were virtually all unarmed civilians attacked by Israel's military that included WWII military equipment.

It isn't that simple. In the 1948 conflict, they too formed militias and were involved in attacks and fighting. Calling them all "unarmed civilians" is dishonest.

And it doesn't alter the point - war does not need traditional armies. Look at ISIS.

 

[ForeverYoung436]

Oh here we go again denying homelands. How predictable. We just can't seem to move beyond accepting the fact that this area is the homeland to two different sets of people and therein lies the problem.

Arabs couldn't accept Israel's revival,
demanding domination over the entire middle east.

The problem lies in the fact they can't understand land belongs to a people, not otherwise.
And this land belongs to only one people, and in fact one of the longest records in history of a connection between a people and its land.

What do Arabs have, forging a name the meaning of which they don't even know?

And that view is exactly the problem.

Exactly how?
Maybe that's the remedy.

When a land that belongs to multiple peoples who view the land as belonging to only one of them - it creates problems for the other peoples who feel it is their land as well.

Does the land belong to the native population or to foreign settlers?

Most "Palestinians" came from Arab countries as recent settlers after the Zionists created more employment opportunities. They are not "native" to the land or descended from the now-defunct Canaanites. On the other hand, Israelis speak the same language that was spoken 2,000 years ago, as well as use the same currency (proven by archaeology), and celebrate the same national holidays. Most Arabacized names of the cities and towns in Israel and Judea (or the West Bank) come from the Hebrew. So Jews aren't "foreign" to Israel.