Your solution to the ME crisis

[proudveteran06]

Israel was founded by, and populated by, recent immigrants virtually none of which had any ancestors from Palestine. How can you say that it is the refugees who have no real connection to the land?

Israel was created by violating the rights of the natives. Israel cannot continue to exist without violating the rights of the natives.

Explain to me how Israel gets the "right" to violate the rights of others.

I believe in the concept of the Jewish people, and I believe that the Jewish people have an undeniable claim to, and link to, the land upon which the Jewish faith is founded. For me that is immutable, and relatively rare in that the link is so very old. (I would say the same of many indigenous peoples, though.)

At an individual level I agree few Jewish families from Russia can claim that they must live in Hebron because their ancestors lived there 1,000 years ago - but then few do say that. Most Jewish settlers are happy to live somewhere in Israel.

I think Palestinians should be happy to live somewhere in Palestine, unless they have recent and direct ties to Beit Shan or wherever.

I have always said that the Jews have the right to live in Palestine. Even the PLO in their charter says that the native Jews are legitimate citizens of Palestine.

The problem is conflating Israel and Jews. They are two different things. The Jews have as much right to live in Palestine as anyone else. Israel is a different story. Look at the facts:

The Balfour declaration mentioned a homeland for the Jews that would not mess with the rights of the natives. I do not see how that can be translated into "Jewish state." It seems to say the opposite.

The League of Nations Covenant eluded to the fact that the people, (meaning the Muslim, Christian, and Jewish inhabitants) had the rights in that defined territory. It did not mention religion. It did not mention any special rights.

The people (the natives) have the right to self determination without external interference. External interference that denies the people their right to self determination is illegal under international law.

That being said:

The British when they defined the meaning of the mandate in their 1939 white paper, said that they could not impose a Jewish state in Palestine against the will of the people. This complies with international law.

When the UN Security Council contemplated the implementation of resolution 181 they said that they could not impose a Jewish state in Palestine against the will of the people. The Security Council did not implement resolution 181. This complies with international law.

So, how was Israel created?

He believes that the Jews have the right to live in " Palestine?" lol

Let's look at the facts;

Islamic anti-Semitism: 20th century invention? | EuropeNews


Jewish Defence League UK (JDL): Was there really a Jewish/Muslim love-in prior to 1948?

Point of no return: Massacres of Jews by Muslims before 1948


Just a few examples

 

[Mom]

The less land the arabs have to fuck up, the better.

 

[High_Gravity]

Leave.

While I admire your concise use of words, neither Sabra Israelis nor Palestinians born in the area really have the option to leave.

Any solution which determines that millions of people must leave the area they were born in is a solution destined to fail.

America should leave.

Simple as that.

Israel has had enough help. If it can't get along with it's neighbors..it won't survive.

We should also let everyone in the region determine how they are going to manage their affairs.

Well I think we should find an alternative to oil and start to disengage from the Middle East for sure, but I don't think we should abandon Israel one of our few friends in the region.

 

[Mom]

While I admire your concise use of words, neither Sabra Israelis nor Palestinians born in the area really have the option to leave.

Any solution which determines that millions of people must leave the area they were born in is a solution destined to fail.

America should leave.

Simple as that.

Israel has had enough help. If it can't get along with it's neighbors..it won't survive.

We should also let everyone in the region determine how they are going to manage their affairs.

Well I think we should find an alternative to oil and start to disengage from the Middle East for sure, but I don't think we should abandon Israel one of our few friends in the region.

We should just kick the arabs' ass and take their oil, like in Iraq.

 

[Hossfly]

America should leave.

Simple as that.

Israel has had enough help. If it can't get along with it's neighbors..it won't survive.

We should also let everyone in the region determine how they are going to manage their affairs.

Well I think we should find an alternative to oil and start to disengage from the Middle East for sure, but I don't think we should abandon Israel one of our few friends in the region.

We should just kick the arabs' ass and take their oil, like in Iraq.

Tinmore eluded to that. eluded?

 

[High_Gravity]

America should leave.

Simple as that.

Israel has had enough help. If it can't get along with it's neighbors..it won't survive.

We should also let everyone in the region determine how they are going to manage their affairs.

Well I think we should find an alternative to oil and start to disengage from the Middle East for sure, but I don't think we should abandon Israel one of our few friends in the region.

We should just kick the arabs' ass and take their oil, like in Iraq.

What the fuck is your problem?

 

[proudveteran06]

There will never be a " solution". Below is just one reason why;


The Palestinians Want Peace -- Just Not With a Jewish State by Dennis Prager on Creators.com - A Syndicate Of Talent



The Palestinians Want Peace -- Just Not With a Jewish State











Comment

About five years ago, I was invited by the Hoover Institution to lecture at Stanford University over the course of a week. Coincidentally, Israel's Independence Day fell during that week, so I was invited to speak at the celebration held by pro-Israel students. In my talk, I noted that the crux of the problem in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict was that most Palestinians wanted Israel to cease to exist.

After my talk, a woman walked over to me and introduced herself as a peace activist. She told me that she could not agree with me because Palestinians, in her view, were quite willing to accept Israel's existence.

As it happened, about 50 feet behind the pro-Israel celebration was an anti-Israel demonstration led by Palestinian students. So I told the woman to go over and introduce herself to the Palestinian students as a peace activist — that way they would immediately trust her — and ask them if they were willing to acknowledge the right of the Jewish state of Israel to exist. I told her that I would bet her $5 that they would not answer in the affirmative.

She accepted the bet and walked over the Palestinian students.

After about 10 minutes, she returned.

"So," I asked her, "who won the bet?"

"I don't know," she responded.

"I don't understand," I replied. "Didn't they answer you?"

"They asked me, 'What do you mean?'" she answered.

I told her she owed me $5 but that I wouldn't collect.

Earlier this month in Ramallah, the de facto capital of the Palestinian Authority, I interviewed Ghassan Khatib, director of government media for the Palestinian Authority and the spokesman for Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. I asked him the same question: Do the Palestinians recognize Israel as the Jewish state?

He was more direct than the Palestinians students at Stanford.

His long answer amounted to: "No."

There is no Jewish people, he told me, so how could there be a Jewish country? The Palestinian position is that there is a religion called Judaism, but there is no such thing as a Jewish people. (Interestingly, the Jews are referred to belonging to a religion only once in the entire Hebrew Bible — in the Book of Esther, by the anti-Semite Haman.)

In other words, Palestinians — people in a national group that never existed by the name "Palestine" until well into the 20th century — deny the existence of the oldest continuous nation in the world, dating back over 3,000 years.


The above is not the entire post

 

[P F Tinmore]

Well I think we should find an alternative to oil and start to disengage from the Middle East for sure, but I don't think we should abandon Israel one of our few friends in the region.

We should just kick the arabs' ass and take their oil, like in Iraq.

Tinmore eluded to that. eluded?

Sorry, I was thinking of alluded and just fucked up.

 

[Saigon]

So, how was Israel created?
In answer to your question.
"In the beginning, GOD created the heavens and the earth".
That includes Israel.
It was eluded to in the Torah.
Wasn't it?

The Torah is not the basis of modern law - at least not unless you wish to use the Koran as well?

 

[Saigon]

The Buddhists have their Holy Sites in India, Sri Lanka (Ceylon), etc., and a domain to call their own...

The Muslims have their Holy Sites in Arabia and Iraq and Syria, etc., and a domain of their own...

The Christians have their Holy Sites in Italy and Germany and France, etc., and a domain of their own...

And the Muslims and Christians both have some Holy Sites in modern-day Greater Israel...

Christians, for the most part, are entirely OK with the Israelis being the custodians of Christian Holy Places in that land...

Everybody else has huge tracts of land and populations and enough Holy Sites within their own domains to last them an eternity...

The Jews have nothing anywhere on the planet but that pi$$ant tiny scrap of land called Israel...

Don't be miserly and un-generous after what they've been through... let 'em have at least one tiny little slice of land in a place meaningful to them... just let 'em have the damned thing and be done with it...

They're almost done taking back the rest of their ancient spiritual homeland anyway, whether we like it or not.

And nobody is gonna stop 'em before they've completed their annexation and consolidation and mop-up operations.

May as well avoid the Christmas Rush and acknowledge The New Reality.

Very well-argued points Kondor - I do enjoy reading your posts here.

But I also have to point out that the Palestinians have no other homeland. They have lived on that land for 3,000 or so, and deserve to live on their own land as much as the Jews do, surely?

The only solution I can imagine ever working is to divide the land in two.

 

[Hossfly]

So, how was Israel created?

In answer to your question.
"In the beginning, GOD created the heavens and the earth".
That includes Israel.
It was eluded to in the Torah.
Wasn't it?

The Torah is not the basis of modern law - at least not unless you wish to use the Koran as well?[/QUOTE]
I wasn't talking about modern times.

 

[Saigon]

Hossfly -

I am pleased to hear it - but we live in modern times.

Religion and religious intolerance are the reason we have this conflict to begin with - I doubt it is also the solution. Ironically, it may well be that a more secular Israel is also more able to negotiate for peace.

 

[Mom]

Well I think we should find an alternative to oil and start to disengage from the Middle East for sure, but I don't think we should abandon Israel one of our few friends in the region.

We should just kick the arabs' ass and take their oil, like in Iraq.

What the fuck is your problem?

Look, any land occupied by arabs is a waste of really good sand. We already have troops in Saudi Arabia, so let's kick their ass and take their oil, after all, didn't most of the 9/11 hijackers come from there? We would also be doing their women a massive favour.

 

[proudveteran06]

Hossfly -

I am pleased to hear it - but we live in modern times.

Religion and religious intolerance are the reason we have this conflict to begin with - I doubt it is also the solution. Ironically, it may well be that a more secular Israel is also more able to negotiate for peace.

Translation; The end of Israel . Maybe not literally, but figuratively. No one except Abbas ( even though he " retired) is pushing for it. They have to know it's a dead issue.

I keep asking; Why should Israel agree to Borders that were never recognized in the first place, have NO access to their Holy sites, and accept that someday they will be the minority? Notice how not ONE Pro Palestinian answers?

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

Hossfly -

I am pleased to hear it - but we live in modern times.

Religion and religious intolerance are the reason we have this conflict to begin with - I doubt it is also the solution. Ironically, it may well be that a more secular Israel is also more able to negotiate for peace.

Translation; The end of Israel . Maybe not literally, but figuratively. No one except Abbas ( even though he " retired) is pushing for it. They have to know it's a dead issue.

I keep asking; Why should Israel agree to Borders that were never recognized in the first place, have NO access to their Holy sites, and accept that someday they will be the minority? Notice how not ONE Pro Palestinian answers?

Yep!

 

[Saigon]

Hossfly -

I am pleased to hear it - but we live in modern times.

Religion and religious intolerance are the reason we have this conflict to begin with - I doubt it is also the solution. Ironically, it may well be that a more secular Israel is also more able to negotiate for peace.

Translation; The end of Israel . Maybe not literally, but figuratively. No one except Abbas ( even though he " retired) is pushing for it. They have to know it's a dead issue.

I keep asking; Why should Israel agree to Borders that were never recognized in the first place, have NO access to their Holy sites, and accept that someday they will be the minority? Notice how not ONE Pro Palestinian answers?

That makes no sense to me at all...you seem to be suggesting that the only peace settlement Israel should accept is one based on the Talmud!

I am talking about a sane settlement that reflects the realities on the ground more than the ideological or religious ideals people may have.

The 1967 borders WERE recognised by the UN, but would now need to be re-drawn to allow Israel to keep some settlements.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Hossfly -

I am pleased to hear it - but we live in modern times.

Religion and religious intolerance are the reason we have this conflict to begin with - I doubt it is also the solution. Ironically, it may well be that a more secular Israel is also more able to negotiate for peace.

Translation; The end of Israel . Maybe not literally, but figuratively. No one except Abbas ( even though he " retired) is pushing for it. They have to know it's a dead issue.

I keep asking; Why should Israel agree to Borders that were never recognized in the first place, have NO access to their Holy sites, and accept that someday they will be the minority? Notice how not ONE Pro Palestinian answers?

That makes no sense to me at all...you seem to be suggesting that the only peace settlement Israel should accept is one based on the Talmud!

I am talking about a sane settlement that reflects the realities on the ground more than the ideological or religious ideals people may have.

The 1967 borders WERE recognised by the UN, but would now need to be re-drawn to allow Israel to keep some settlements.

The UN "recognized" the 1967 borders because there was nothing else to recognize. Those are still not borders.

That is curious, though, because the UN recognizes borders that the UN specifically said were not to be considered borders. Could someone explain how that happened?

 

[High_Gravity]

We should just kick the arabs' ass and take their oil, like in Iraq.

What the fuck is your problem?

Look, any land occupied by arabs is a waste of really good sand. We already have troops in Saudi Arabia, so let's kick their ass and take their oil, after all, didn't most of the 9/11 hijackers come from there? We would also be doing their women a massive favour.

 

[proudveteran06]

There will never be a solution to the conflict for several reasons;

In an address delivered on September 1, 1982 President Ronald Reagan said:


In the pre-1967 borders Israel was barely 10 miles wide at its narrowest point. The bulk of Israel's population lived within artillery range of hostile Arab armies. I am not about to ask Israel to live that way again...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_242

Dore Gold: Israel's 1967 Borders Aren't Defensible - WSJ.com

Dore Gold: Israel's 1967 Borders Aren't Defensible
Fair observers have never considered the old armistice line as a non-negotiable starting point for peace talks..
Article Comments (330) more in Opinion | Find New $LINKTEXTFIND$ ».
smaller Larger facebooktwittergoogle pluslinked ininShare.0EmailPrintSave ↓ More .
.
smaller Larger
By DORE GOLD
It's no secret that Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas plans to lobby the U.N. General Assembly this September for a resolution that will predetermine the results of any Israeli-Palestinian negotiations on borders. He made clear in a New York Times op-ed this week that he will insist that member states recognize a Palestinian state on 1967 lines, meaning Israel's boundaries before the Six Day War.

Unfortunately, even President Barack Obama appears to have been influenced by this thinking. He asserted in a speech Thursday that Israel's future borders with a Palestinian state "should be based on the 1967 lines," a position he tried to offset by offering "mutually agreed land swaps." Mr. Abbas has said many times that any land swaps would be minuscule.

Remember that before the Six Day War, those lines in the West Bank only demarcated where five Arab armies were halted in their invasion of the nascent state of Israel 19 years earlier. Legally, they formed only an armistice line, not a recognized international border. No Palestinian state ever existed that could have claimed these prewar lines. Jordan occupied the West Bank after the Arab invasion, but its claim to sovereignty was not recognized by any U.N. members except Pakistan and the U.K. As Jordan's U.N. ambassador said before the war, the old armistice lines "did not fix boundaries." Thus the central thrust of Arab-Israeli diplomacy for more than 40 years was that Israel must negotiate an agreed border with its Arab neighbors.

The cornerstone of all postwar diplomacy was U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, passed in November 1967. It did not demand that Israel pull back completely to the pre-1967 lines. Its withdrawal clause only called on Israel to withdraw "from territories," not from all territories. Britain's foreign secretary at the time, George Brown, later underlined the distinction: "The proposal said 'Israel will withdraw from territories that were occupied,' and not from 'the' territories, which means that Israel will not withdraw from all the territories."

Enlarge Image

gold
Closegold
AFP/Getty Images

.
Prior to the Six Day War, Jerusalem had been sliced in two, and the Jewish people were denied access to the Old City and its holy sites. Jerusalem's Christian population also faced limitations. As America's ambassador to the U.N., Arthur Goldberg, would explain, Resolution 242 did not preclude Israel's reunification of Jerusalem. In fact, Resolution 242 became the only agreed basis of all Arab-Israeli peace agreements, from the 1979 Egyptian-Israeli Treaty of Peace to the 1993 Oslo Agreements between Israel and the Palestinians.

How were Israel's legal rights to new boundaries justified? A good explanation came from Judge Stephen Schwebel, who would later be an adviser to the State Department and then president of the International Court of Justice in The Hague. Writing in the American Journal of International Law in 1970, he noted that Israel's title to West Bank territory—in the event that it sought alterations in the pre-Six Day War lines—emanated from the fact that it had acted in lawful exercise of its right to self-defense. It was not the aggressor.

 

[Kondor3]

"...the UN recognizes borders that the UN specifically said were not to be considered borders. Could someone explain how that happened?"

1. force of arms?

2. the passage of time?

3. people changing their minds?

4. concessions to Reality?

5. path of least resistance?

6. weariness and oversight exhaustion?