Israel/Palestine two-state solution is now dead

[Thunder]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091117/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_israel_palestinians

It is pretty clear now that the two-state solution to the Israel/Palestine conflict is now dead. This is because Israel refuses to stop building new homes in settlements in East Jerusalem and the West Bank.

The two biggest issues in the Middle East conflict are land...and peace.

The Israelis want an end to all armed struggle from the Palestinians.

The Palestinians want land for their new state.

But Israel has refused to stop building in existing Jewish settlements, which most of the World considers to be illegal. If not even the USA can convince or force Israel to stop building, then what is the point?

What is the point of negotiating Land for Peace..if Israel insists on taking more land? The "Peace Process" is dead. The two-state solution is dead.

I predict that within the next year or two, the Palestinians will officially declare their opposition to an independent Palestinian state, and demand that Israel annex the territories and offer full citizenship to the Palestinian people. If they keep on seeking the two-state route, they will just end up with a swiss cheese state, with no control over their water, air, or eastern border.

The bi-national state is now the only viable solution left.

http://photos-g.ak.fbcdn.net/photos-ak-sf2p/v651/144/28/567160737/n567160737_1744840_8553.jpg

[Darth Rotor]

[URL]
It is pretty clear now that the two-state solution to the Israel/Palestine conflict is now dead.
Was it ever alive? Methinks not, unless one takes tasty bites of LSD.
This is because Israel refuses to stop building new homes in settlements in East Jerusalem and the West Bank.
Right, only one cause to this problem. :rolleyes::rolleyes:
The two biggest issues in the Middle East conflict are land...and peace.
The Israelis want an end to all armed struggle from the Palestinians.
The Palestinians want land for their new state.

A third grade level understanding of the issue, my, how precocious thou art.
But Israel has refused to stop building in existing Jewish settlements, which most of the World considers to be illegal. If not even the USA can convince or force Israel to stop building, then what is the point?

Indeed, what is the point?
What is the point of negotiating Land for Peace..if Israel insists on taking more land? The "Peace Process" is dead. The two-state solution is dead.

Was it ever alive?
I predict that within the next year or two, the Palestinians will officially declare their opposition to an independent Palestinian state, and demand that Israel annex the territories and offer full citizenship to the Palestinian people. If they keep on seeking the two-state route, they will just end up with a swiss cheese state, with no control over their water, air, or eastern border.

The bi-national state is now the only viable solution left.

http://photos-g.ak.fbcdn.net/photos-ak-sf2p/v651/144/28/567160737/n567160737_1744840_8553.jpg
Riiight, the world comes to parky for The Only Viable Solution Remaining.
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1096246cc63d8933a7.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=7874)

Parky, if they come to you, it will be time for all thinking people to hitch a ride on a comet, as stupid will have replaced life on this planet.

Either that, or Xenu will have returned.

DR

[Thunder]

Well, maybe if Israel had made a real offer to Arafat in 2000, rather then the BS offer that they gave, we wouldn't be in the situation we are today. Israel killed the peace process when they started building the settlements, offered crap at Camp David in 2000, and kept building settlements through today.

Israel doesn't want peace...at least not with a viable Palestinian State. they want the land, all of it, and thats what they should get.

I propose that Israel annex the West Bank immediately.

[Darth Rotor]

I propose that Israel annex the West Bank immediately.
Blood and iron.

How very old school, how very Bismarckian of you parky!

Of course, it will work, won't it? :rolleyes:

[Thunder]

Blut und Eisen. Jawohl!!!!!

But anyways, Israel should annex the West Bank immediately. No one is gonna stop them...so why not?

What could possibly go wrong with annexing all the land to the Jordan river?

...well there is that pesky issue of 5 million Palestinians. what does Israel do with them? hmmmm.......

[theprestige]

...well there is that pesky issue of 5 million Palestinians. what does Israel do with them? hmmmm.......
I'm thinking that the current policy of mostly ignoring them while going about their own business, punctuated by occasional applications of overwhelming force, seems to be working out pretty well. Why rush things?

[Thunder]

Yes. Israel could annex the West Bank and leave the status quo in regards to the Palestinian people.

but what about voting rights? what about civil service? no Western-style liberal Democracy would annex thousands of square miles of land without offering the people on those lands citizenship, the right to vote, and the right to run for public office.

either way, I pray the Palestinians give up on the idea of their own state, and make Israeli annexation their demand.

boy, would that put Israel in quite a pickle.

[theprestige]

Yes. Israel could annex the West Bank and leave the status quo in regards to the Palestinian people.

but what about voting rights? what about civil service? no Western-style liberal Democracy would annex thousands of square miles of land without offering the people on those lands citizenship, the right to vote, and the right to run for public office.

either way, I pray the Palestinians give up on the idea of their own state, and make Israeli annexation their demand.

boy, would that put Israel in quite a pickle.
Not really. They'd just declare them refugees and stick them in camps with even less rights than they have right now. Kind of like how Lebanon, Syria, etc. deal with their own "palestinian problem".

[Thunder]

well, the Palestinians can't really demand a state. but they CAN demand that Israel annex the West Bank and give them citizenship.

oh, I wish this would happen.

and if Israel DID annex the West Bank, but offered the Palestinians something short of full citizenship, they would be declared an Apartheid state.

:(

[the_eye]

Right, only one cause to this problem.

It is one of the major Issues with the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, solving this issue would certainly move the Peace movement along. On the Israeli side, anyway.

Was it ever alive?

What else is the Alternative? The Israeli Government has said that it wouldn't accept Palestinians as Citizens, changing the demographics in favor to Arabs. The current situation is

[the_eye]

edit

[Thunder]

I guess Israel could just keep the status quo....building more and more settlements and stringing along the Palestinians.

but if the Palestinians abandon their goal of their own state, and instead demand citizenship within Israel, they will have to make a choice: annex the land up to the Seperation Wall and say bye bye to the rest of the WB and evacuate the remaining Jews, or annex it all and make the Palestinians citizens of Israel.

[Tailgater]

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=5317363#post5317363

:covereyes

[WildCat]

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=5317363#post5317363

:covereyes
Sorry Tailgator, you don't win the $1 million by predicting the sun rising in the east.

[Policenaut]

There is no solution to this problem because it is too important a propaganda tool to be settled. I don't think the Israelis have a problem with the conflict ending but surely the rest of the arab world does including Hamas. Without the poor Palestinians to hold up as the reason to hate the jews they will only have one reason left: Racism.

Also...it is starting again. The pollution has returned with a vengeance.

[Doctor Evil]

http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?albumid=316&pictureid=1902

[The Fool]

Parky...
A 2 state solution will never be dead. Either will be a one state solution or a stay as we are solution. It all depends on what you say when you are asked what a solution entails as a minimum requirement.

Anyone want to suggest a minimum requirement for proclaiming a solution?

Mine would be "All Stateless people get a state, the state that a simple majority of them agree to. They get zip until they can agree"

shouldn't be too hard eh? Get that done by Sunday...

[mortimer]

Parky, what makes you think that, if the Palestinians demand to be annexed, that Israel will be forced to accept? Who is going to force them to accept?

[Eyeron]

Why, the all powerful United nations of course.

[Darth Rotor]

Parky...
A 2 state solution will never be dead. Either will be a one state solution or a stay as we are solution. It all depends on what you say when you are asked what a solution entails as a minimum requirement.

Anyone want to suggest a minimum requirement for proclaiming a solution?

Mine would be "All Stateless people get a state, the state that a simple majority of them agree to. They get zip until they can agree"

shouldn't be too hard eh? Get that done by Sunday...
I appreciate your support for an independent Kurdistan, TF, warmly and with great feeling. :)

[Pardalis]

I appreciate your support for an independent Kurdistan, TF, warmly and with great feeling. :)

And the Québécois as well. ;)

[Thunder]

Parky, what makes you think that, if the Palestinians demand to be annexed, that Israel will be forced to accept? Who is going to force them to accept?

for what reason would Israel refuse to annex the WB? isn't it their dream to fully control and settle The Land of Israel?

if the Palestinians offer them this dream, I see no reason why they would refuse.

Jews could live anywhere in the West Bank, buy land anywhere in the West Bank, and the Palestinians would have no problem with it. sounds like a dream come true.

[mortimer]

for what reason would Israel refuse to annex the WB? isn't it their dream to fully control and settle The Land of Israel?

if the Palestinians offer them this dream, I see no reason why they would refuse.

Jews could live anywhere in the West Bank, buy land anywhere in the West Bank, and the Palestinians would have no problem with it. sounds like a dream come true.
There's nothing stopping Israel from annexing the entire WB and Gaza now; they don't need an offer from the Palestinians to do so. Why do you think they haven't?

[Thunder]

There's nothing stopping Israel from annexing the entire WB and Gaza now; they don't need an offer from the Palestinians to do so. Why do you think they haven't?

um...they don't like A-Rabs?

[mortimer]

um...they don't like A-Rabs?
Try again.

[Thunder]

Try again.

you are right. i should have said "they don't want 5 million more Arabs...who can vote and run for office."

[Darth Rotor]

And the Québécois as well. ;)

Did I set that trap for me to fall into, or what? :D

I feel like that absent-minded Yukon Fur Trapper who was late for his wedding because he had to limp a hundred miles, having injured himself by stepping in a beaver trap he'd set the week before ...

[mortimer]

you are right. i should have said "they don't want 5 million more Arabs...who can vote and run for office."
Correct. Now, why would a Palestinian demand to be annexed require Israel to annex? Who is going to force Israel to do this against their will?

[The Fool]

I appreciate your support for an independent Kurdistan, TF, warmly and with great feeling. :)
are kurds stateless?

[The Fool]

Correct. Now, why would a Palestinian demand to be annexed require Israel to annex? Who is going to force Israel to do this against their will?
well if they proclaim land to be Israel what about the people living there?

[The Fool]

And the Québécois as well. ;)
are they stateless?

[Thunder]

i find it hard to believe, that if the Palestinians moved to dismantle their self-government, and asked for the Israelis to annex the WB, Israel would be able to refuse.

It is Israel's dream to fully control Eretz Yisrael...and an Arab offer to do just that..would be priceless.

[theprestige]

Parky, what makes you think that, if the Palestinians demand to be annexed, that Israel will be forced to accept? Who is going to force them to accept?
I don't think that's quite what Parky is saying.

As I understand it, Parky's idea is that if Israel did accept the demand, the Palestinians would be in a position to democratically abolish the nation of Israel (and/or impose the tyranny of the state on their erstwhile oppressors). Therefore, Israel will never admit Palestinians as citizens, even if they demand such a thing.

Is that an accurate analysis of your point, Parky?

[Thunder]

I don't think that's quite what Parky is saying.

As I understand it, Parky's idea is that if Israel did accept the demand, the Palestinians would be in a position to democratically abolish the nation of Israel (and/or impose the tyranny of the state on their erstwhile oppressors). Therefore, Israel will never admit Palestinians as citizens, even if they demand such a thing.

Is that an accurate analysis of your point, Parky?

No. I think if the Palestinians demanded annexation and citizenship, Israel would be forced to become a bi-national state. A nation-state for two peoples.

[mortimer]

No. I think if the Palestinians demanded annexation and citizenship, Israel would be forced to become a bi-national state. A nation-state for two peoples.
Forced by whom? Why is this so difficult for you to answer?

[a_unique_person]

Forced by whom? Why is this so difficult for you to answer?

Circumstances.

[Skeptic]

The Arabs, currently, have two destroy-Israel plans: first, using a Palestinian state as a military Hamas base for bombing Israel incessantly (and demanding Israel not reply, since that is a "war crime", you know).

Second, forcing Israel to commit demographic suicide and making it face the fate of all nations with a Arab-Muslim majority, to wit, the eradication and expulsion of the minority by pogroms, threats, economic destruction, formal and actual second-class citizenship, etc., as happened to the Jewish and Christian minorities in all other Muslim-Arab countries.

The nasty ol' racist zionist occupiers have, so far, declined both offers. Isn't it just awful of them?

[The Fool]

The Arabs, currently, have two destroy-Israel plans: first, using a Palestinian state as a military Hamas base for bombing Israel incessantly

so do you think that Hamas is going to defeat the IDF militarily?



Second, forcing Israel to commit demographic suicide and making it face the fate of all nations with a Arab-Muslim majority, to wit, the eradication and expulsion of the minority by pogroms, threats, economic destruction, formal and actual second-class citizenship, etc., as happened to the Jewish and Christian minorities in all other Muslim-Arab countries.

so how are they going to do this? By forcing Israel to make them citizens? How will Israel do that?

[Thunder]

so do you think that Hamas is going to defeat the IDF militarily?


lolol. how many more wars do we need before it becomes clear to all but those in a coma, that Israel cannot be defeated by conventional warfare?

[mortimer]

Circumstances.
What circumstances are going to force Israel to annex the WB and Gaza, after the Palestinians demand it?

[Darth Rotor]

are kurds stateless?
Yes, since the land of the Kurds is currently incorporated into the states of

Turkey, Iran, and Iraq.

For reference.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Kurdish-inhabited_area_by_CIA_(1992).jpg

I was first made aware of this about twenty five years ago, in an article in National Geographic, and how the lines on the map caused a non trivial hardship for this particular group of people whom Woodrow Wilson, and people of his ilk, ignored for convenience. (See also the Wilsonian/Powers' dismissal given to a man from Indochina ... )


DR

[Skeptic]

Yes, since the land of the Kurds is currently incorporated into the states of

Turkey, Iran, and Iraq.

By the way, if the Palestinians succeed in destroying Israel and kicking out or genociding the Jews, it doesn't take a genius to figure out "liberated Palestine" would quickly be divvied up between Egypt, Syria, and Jordan (or perhaps only one or two of those nations).

With the world not caring one bit, of course, since no Jews could be blamed any more.

[Pardalis]

And the Québécois as well. ;)are they stateless?

Yes.

[Thunder]

um, why can't we assume that if Israel and the WB became on bi-national state, things could go smoothly?

[scissorhands]

Smoothly, as in demographic suicide and the end of a jewish state in the middle east, you mean.

[Thunder]

Smoothly, as in demographic suicide and the end of a jewish state in the middle east, you mean.

well, we all know how Israel can prevent this: stop building settlements, resume talks, and leave all or most of the WB and let the Palestinians form a REAL state. not a swiss cheese state with no control over their water, air, and eastern border.

[scissorhands]

well, we all know how Israel can prevent this: stop building settlements, resume talks, and leave all or most of the WB and let the Palestinians form a REAL state. not a swiss cheese state with no control over their water, air, and eastern border.

Thats right, removing Jewish settlements in Gaza and pulling out certainly helped Israels security issues.

[Thunder]

Thats right, removing Jewish settlements in Gaza and pulling out certainly helped Israels security issues.

as I said in a previous thread: perhaps if Israel had coordinated its pull-out from Gaza as part of a broader Gaza-Israel peace treaty or cease-fire, and NOT acted uniliterally, the Gaza situation may have turned out a wee bit differently.

but look on the bright side. Israel can point to Gaza as a failure of Palestinian self-rule. they can say to the world: "see Gaza!! see how peaceful and tolerant it is!! the same will happen if we leave the WB!!!"

how fortunate for Israel..that it turned out this way huh?

makes a skeptic wonder. hmmmmm..

:cool:

but of course, with the failure of the Gaza pull-out, a Palestinian state is purely unworkable. thats why Israel should annex the WB and control the whole lot...RIGHT????

[scissorhands]

how fortunate for Israel..that it turned out this way huh?

Not sure what you are suggesting there.
Were the Israelis forcing Hamas to launch a daily barrage of rockets at Israel and murder their political opponents?

[Thunder]

Not sure what you are suggesting there.
Were the Israelis forcing Hamas to launch a daily barrage of rockets at Israel and murder their political opponents?

I don't know, are you suggesting Hamas forced Israel to put Gaza under an inhumane embargo, that keeps out such dangerous materials as blankets, canned food, and toys?

And now back to why the Two-state Solution is dead.

[mortimer]

well, we all know how Israel can prevent this: stop building settlements, resume talks, and leave all or most of the WB and let the Palestinians form a REAL state. not a swiss cheese state with no control over their water, air, and eastern border.
The PA has laid out more demands than simply halting settlement construction in order for talks to resume. If the Palestinians want their own state so badly, why won't they return to peace talks without preconditions? Israel has offered to restart negotiations without preconditions.

[Thunder]

The PA has laid out more demands than simply halting settlement construction in order for talks to resume. If the Palestinians want their own state so badly, why won't they return to peace talks without preconditions? Israel has offered to restart negotiations without preconditions.

i wonder if Israel would be willing to re-start talks without any pre-conditions, if suicide bombers were still going into Israel from the WB and killing civilians.

i doubt it. maybe that's part of the problem. Israelis now have peace and didn't give up jack.

[MikeMangum]

i wonder if Israel would be willing to re-start talks without any pre-conditions, if suicide bombers were still going into Israel from the WB and killing civilians.

i doubt it. maybe that's part of the problem. Israelis now have peace and didn't give up jack.

And that, my friends, is that.

[WildCat]

And the Québécois as well. ;)are they stateless?Yes.
Well, we can fix that! How would you like Quebec to be #51 Pardalis?








:p

[Thunder]

And that, my friends, is that.

oh, you are right. Israel gave up that pathetic strip of sand called Gaza. HUGE sacrifice on the part of Israel.

My..I just don't understand how they were able to get themselves to let go of such great real estate!!

[The Fool]

Yes, since the land of the Kurds is currently incorporated into the states of

Turkey, Iran, and Iraq.

For reference.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Kurdish-inhabited_area_by_CIA_(1992).jpg

I was first made aware of this about twenty five years ago, in an article in National Geographic, and how the lines on the map caused a non trivial hardship for this particular group of people whom Woodrow Wilson, and people of his ilk, ignored for convenience. (See also the Wilsonian/Powers' dismissal given to a man from Indochina ... )


DR
so all thoise nations have kurds living in them that are not citizens?? The only ones I know off the top of my head are Kurds in Syria that Syria messes around and won't give citizenship...

[The Fool]

Yes. Quebec? Stateless??
well there you go, all this time I thought they were canadians....

[mortimer]

i wonder if Israel would be willing to re-start talks without any pre-conditions, if suicide bombers were still going into Israel from the WB and killing civilians.
What's the point of wondering about hypotheticals? Israel has said they are willing to restart negotiations without preconditions. Ball is in the PA's court.

Not to mention that Israel has agreed to halt new settlements and to restrain their expansion of existing ones temporarily.

[scissorhands]

oh, you are right. Israel gave up that pathetic strip of sand called Gaza. HUGE sacrifice on the part of Israel.

My..I just don't understand how they were able to get themselves to let go of such great real estate!!

The settlements in Gaza were highly productive, something like 15% of Israeli fruit and vegetable production for export and domestic consumption came from there.
Notably since the pullout, much of the infrastructure, many hundreds of acres of greenhouses and the highly developed irrigation systems, have been trashed by marauding gangs ripping out whatever they can sell.
Seems that Hamas would rather Gaza was fed by foreign aid instead.

[The Fool]

What's the point of wondering about hypotheticals? Israel has said they are willing to restart negotiations without preconditions.

yes, they say that a lot.


Ball is in the PA's court.

when is it ever anywhere else?


Not to mention that Israel has agreed to halt new settlements and to restrain their expansion of existing ones temporarily.
yea, whatever....never seen Israel do anything but build as much as they can whenever they can. Whatever the limit of US tollerance is seems to be the rate they build at.

[The Fool]

The settlements in Gaza were highly productive, something like 15% of Israeli fruit and vegetable production for export and domestic consumption came from there.
Notably since the pullout, much of the infrastructure, many hundreds of acres of greenhouses and the highly developed irrigation systems, have been trashed by marauding gangs ripping out whatever they can sell.
Seems that Hamas would rather Gaza was fed by foreign aid instead.

LOl....lets forget about a little thing called blockade when judging the productive output of Gaza greenhouses.

I wonder what the Israeli productivity would have been if say....the USA?....smacked a blockade on the place.

Damned if I can figure out how to blame palestinians for bad weather and rust in my car....but I'm working on it.

[scissorhands]

LOl....lets forget about a little thing called blockade when judging the productive output of Gaza greenhouses.

I wonder what the Israeli productivity would have been if say....the USA?....smacked a blockade on the place.

Damned if I can figure out how to blame palestinians for bad weather and rust in my car....but I'm working on it.

So being under a blockade, your favoured course of action is to rip up a highly sophisticated food production system capable of feeding your population.
Thats brilliant.

[mortimer]

yes, they say that a lot.
Well, no they don't. They have also had preconditions in the past. The most recent precondition they dropped was that the Palestinians recognize Israel as the Jewish state.
when is it ever anywhere else?
When it's not.
yea, whatever....never seen Israel do anything but build as much as they can whenever they can. Whatever the limit of US tollerance is seems to be the rate they build at.
I don't suppose you have any evidence besides your own biases to support this claim?

[Pardalis]

Quebec? Stateless??
well there you go, all this time I thought they were canadians....

Québec is a province. The Québécois as a nation are stateless.

You're Australian, so I'll forgive your ignorance.

ETA: To be on topic, it would be as if the Pals and the Israelis were forced together into one state, the state wouldn't be a "Palestinian" state, now would it?

Let me remind you your comment to which I was responding:

Mine would be "All Stateless people get a state, the state that a simple majority of them agree to. They get zip until they can agree"

[Thunder]

What's the point of wondering about hypotheticals? Israel has said they are willing to restart negotiations without preconditions. Ball is in the PA's court.


you know, maybe you are right. re-start talks...no pre-conditions.

I will write an email right now demanding that Al-Aqsa Martyrs brigade restart their suicide attacks in Tel Aviv.

this won't stop Israel from renewing talks..right?

[mortimer]

you know, maybe you are right. re-start talks...no pre-conditions.

I will write an email right now demanding that Al-Aqsa Martyrs brigade restart their suicide attacks in Tel Aviv.

this won't stop Israel from renewing talks..right?
An email to terrorists from you? No, I doubt that will have any effect on renewing peace talks. But feel free to do so.

[Thunder]

An email to terrorists from you? No, I doubt that will have any effect on renewing peace talks. But feel free to do so.

or I will just ask them to resume suicide attacks on Tel Aviv. Its only fair.

I am a firm believer in tit-for-tat.

[mortimer]

or I will just ask them to resume suicide attacks on Tel Aviv. Its only fair.

I am a firm believer in tit-for-tat.
Again, feel free. I assume they are just waiting for the "go" from you to resume.

p.s. What's their email address? I'd like to ask for some recipes for regional cuisine.

[Thunder]

al-aqsa@martyrs.fatah.edu?

[mortimer]

al-aqsa@martyrs.fatah.edu?
Let me know what they say when you get hold of them.

In the meantime, Israel has offered to restart talks without preconditions, while actually giving in partially to one of the PA's preconditions. What should the next step be for the PA? Continue to resist talks?

[Thunder]

Let me know what they say when you get hold of them.

In the meantime, Israel has offered to restart talks without preconditions, while actually giving in partially to one of the PA's preconditions. What should the next step be for the PA? Continue to resist talks?

I think the PA should also resume talks, while partially resuming suicide attacks. How about..they only attack Jews above the age of 37?

[mortimer]

I think the PA should also resume talks, while partially resuming suicide attacks. How about..they only attack Jews above the age of 37?
That is, of course one option for them. I suspect it would turn out quite poorly for them, however, were they to choose that route.

It's odd that someone who wants a Palestinian state would also advocate for the Palestinians to resume suicide bombings.

[Thunder]

It's odd that someone who wants a Palestinian state would also advocate for the Palestinians to resume suicide bombings.

what can I say?...I can multi-task.

[lionking]

what can I say?...I can multi-task.
Multi-tasking=trolling? I see.

[Pardalis]

I'm sure these guys got Parky on their radar now.

http://www.mossad.gov.il/

So long Parky, it's been interesting.

[The Fool]

Québec is a province. The Québécois as a nation are stateless.

ok, I understand now. You have no Idea what stateless means, thats what the problem is.




ETA: To be on topic, it would be as if the Pals and the Israelis were forced together into one state, the state wouldn't be a "Palestinian" state, now would it?

like Israel is today? It has palestinian citizens....


Let me remind you your comment to which I was responding:
yes, a comment on stateless people and because you apparently don't understand what a stateless person is you started talking about Canadians from quebec.

Hands up all canadian citizens who are stateless.....don't see many hands.

[Pardalis]

I thought you were in support of the two-state solution?

[Pardalis]

Hands up all canadian citizens who are stateless.....don't see many hands.

I think I see what was the misunderstanding, and it's not my misunderstanding of "stateless", but "people".

You talked about stateless people, I understood "people" to mean "nation", I thought you were saying all nations should have their state. But now you seem to have meant "citizens".

My bad.

[The Fool]

I think I see what was the misunderstanding, and it's not my misunderstanding of "stateless", but "people".

You talked about stateless people, I understood "people" to mean "nation", I thought you were saying all nations should have their state. But now you seem to have meant "citizens".

My bad.
fair enough....
when I think of "people" as in a self identifying group. I also think they should get a state. This is the first step required to sort things out, not the end goal.

Palestinian statehood is required to get this mess sorted out.....not the other way around, we don't need to sort out all the mess and be all holding hands around the campfire before statehood gets implemented.

Statehood is not a prize for good behavior, if it was then Israel would never have got statehood in the face of the behavior of early zionist paramilitaries.

[Skeptic]

Not sure what you are suggesting there.
Were the Israelis forcing Hamas to launch a daily barrage of rockets at Israel and murder their political opponents?

He's trying to cover up the obvious and complete failure of the "land for peace" idea with the Palestinians -- both in the Oslo accord and in the Gaza withdrawal.

For parky, pointing out something he believes is wrong is, ipso facto, "zionist propaganda", even if -- especially if -- it is obviously true.

[Skeptic]

I wonder what the Israeli productivity would have been if say....the USA?....smacked a blockade on the place.

Well, it won't be that high, but then again:

1). Israelies do not spend all of their time randomly lobbing missiles at American cities and demanding the USA be wiped off the face of the earth.
2). If there were a blockade, Israelies would probably smuggle things, but they won't use 90% of their smuggling capacity to smuggle rockets, ammunition, etc.

[Skeptic]

The PA has laid out more demands than simply halting settlement construction in order for talks to resume. If the Palestinians want their own state so badly, why won't they return to peace talks without preconditions? Israel has offered to restart negotiations without preconditions.

You are assuming they want a state. They don't.

More precisely about who "they" are: many, indeed most, Palestinians want a state. But the PA and Hamas leadership don't, unless it is made clear they can use that state as a jumping board to destroy Israel completely.

Because fighting Israel is the only thing any of them actually knows how to do, and its destruction is their life's goal.

Almost 20 years after the Oslo accords, the only things the Palestinians got better at was weaponry and Jew-killing, or as they euphemistically call it, "resistance". Building, say, bridges or roads or schools or hospitals or whatever? Fogheabboutit. The enormous amount of international aid that wasn't used for that was simply stolen and ended up in the leaders' Swiss bank accounts.

The PA and Hamas are not fighting Israel to get a state. It's the other way around: they are interested, if at all, in a state solely as a base to continue fighting Israel. As the "moderate" Palestinian Authority's ambassador in Lebanon recently put it, the "two state solution is part of the staged plan for Israel's destruction". Any state that will require giving up the destruction of Israel is not something they want.

Well, thanks for the tip, Mr. ambassador, but tell us something we don't know.

[a_unique_person]

Québec is a province. The Québécois as a nation are stateless.

The Palestinians are stateless, the Quebecois are citizens of the state of Canada.

[The Fool]

2). If there were a blockade, Israelies would probably smuggle things, but they won't use 90% of their smuggling capacity to smuggle rockets, ammunition, etc.
Wow...90%? Where did that figure come from?

[The Fool]

You are assuming they want a state. They don't.


yes, I'm assuming they want a state. I'm also assuming Israel wants peace.

[The Fool]

He's trying to cover up the obvious and complete failure of the "land for peace" idea with the Palestinians -- both in the Oslo accord and in the Gaza withdrawal.

there was a "land for peace" Idea in the gaza withdrawal? Who's Idea was it? Was it ever stated to anyone at all?

[Skeptic]

yes, I'm assuming they want a state. I'm also assuming Israel wants peace.

No, you're not. You're always assuming the worst about Israel, so it is hard to believe you of all people really assume it wants peace.

But anyway, true, Israel wants peace. But peace means real peace -- not the "staged plan" for Israel's destruction, as the PLO, Hamas, & co. routinely and constantly declare.

So far, there is precious little evidence the Palestinians want the former and not the latter.

[Oliver]

It is pretty clear now that the two-state solution to the Israel/Palestine conflict is now dead. This is because Israel refuses to stop building new homes in settlements in East Jerusalem and the West Bank.


For what it's worth ... here's my assessment, Parky:

Israel isn't refusing anything - Israel cannot stop the settlements in WB and EJ because a big chunk of the political spectrum actually wants that territory to be annexed [or at least being controlled] by Israel. Therefore, any Israeli Leadership that would try to kick their fellow Israelis out of the occupied territories would face domestic [and probably violent] opposition from within and lose the abillity to govern Israel due to literally breaking up political coalitions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_legislative_election,_2009#Coalition_proce ss

However, there probably will never be peace between the Palestinians and Israelis unless the Pals get their own state and as a direct result of that, responsibillity to protect that new state against any terrorism, no matter if domestic or foreign terrorism.

So the status quo of controlling the occupied territories and allowing settlements to some degree seems to be the most convenient situation for the Israeli Government, no matter who is in power within the Knesset.

To change that agenda, the US would have to imopse sanctions against Israel or even militarily kick the Israeli religious nuts out of the occupied territories. But we all know that this will not happen because the "too close relations" between the US and Israel that would rather lead to an impeachment of an US President than any opposing policy against Israel. :D

BTW: Funny ****, that is. :)

[Oliver]

Parky?

[Darth Rotor]

so all thoise nations have kurds living in them that are not citizens?? The only ones I know off the top of my head are Kurds in Syria that Syria messes around and won't give citizenship...
I see what you are getting at, with 'stateless' as your gambit.

I return you to how the lines were drawn on the map in 1919, which for one reason or another are sets of lines that really get people all riled up in the Middle East, since they are a common reference point for many peoples in the Middle East. The Durand line and various lines on the Indian sub continent are similar but different cases, while the lines in Africa are -- that's another story, won't derail.

Note, in Europe, how time and again some small "nationality" got to draw their own little lines on the map (see Slovenia, see Croatia) those of Kurdish extraction have been given a nice boot up the arse. (Yes, Syria is yet another case to consider).

I've got more empathy for irredentist Kurds -- mind you, I like Turks -- than I do for the Pals. There was ample opportunity to win what they wished for, rather than continue to be dupes for bigger and tougher local tribes, factions, and nations.

Failed, so they keep fighting with what (few) means they have.

I smell Gotterdamerung, but don't know how to write it in Arabic.

DR

[Thunder]

Parky?

Oliver?

[The Fool]

No, you're not. You're always assuming the worst about Israel, so it is hard to believe you of all people really assume it wants peace.

sorry, I had forgotten about your mind reading abilities.

But anyway, true, Israel wants peace. But peace means real peace -- not the "staged plan" for Israel's destruction, as the PLO, Hamas, & co. routinely and constantly declare.

yep whatever...Hamas is going to destroy Israel...are you a complete defeatist or just in training? As a serving member of The IDF you should be ashamed of your defeatist attitude.

Hamas could not exceed the casualty count of road accidents against Israel. You know this but talking up this non threat is required to rationalize all the stupid policy.

One day son...peace is going to happen despite your attitudes.

[a_unique_person]

What's the point of wondering about hypotheticals? Israel has said they are willing to restart negotiations without preconditions. Ball is in the PA's court.

Not to mention that Israel has agreed to halt new settlements and to restrain their expansion of existing ones temporarily.

That the negotiations will get anywhere is a hypothetical.

[Pardalis]

That the negotiations will get anywhere is a hypothetical.

Wow, got any more of these inane platitudes for us?

[Darth Rotor]

yep whatever...Hamas is going to destroy Israel... peace is going to happen despite your attitudes.
Hehe, snipping can be fun. :D I understand why the media do stuff like this.

Hamas, as a political organization with a particular goal, removing X from Palestine, is not static. They will wax, wane, grow, or go up in flames over time. Thus, I don't think it fair for you to pooh pooh Skeptics (or any Israelis's) concern about the latent threat to Israel that Hamas poses. It is one of a number of related obstacles to the security and peace, both, that Israel is in pursuit of.

DR

[mortimer]

That the negotiations will get anywhere is a hypothetical.
Yes. So you would prefer that they not negotiate? What would you like to see happen?

[Thunder]

I think it is now clear that Israel will not give the Palestinians the state that they deserve, so yes, it is pointless to resume negotiations.

The Palestinians should dismantle the PA, and request annexation and citizenship.

[Darth Rotor]

I think it is now clear that Israel will not give the Palestinians the state that they deserve, so yes, it is pointless to resume negotiations.

The Palestinians should dismantle the PA, and request annexation and citizenship.

Or, the Pals should keep fighting for what they really want.

[Thunder]

Or, the Pals should keep fighting for what they really want.

Qassam rockets and suicide bombs...against M1-Abrams tanks and F-16s.

yeah..that's a great idea.

[The Fool]

Yes. So you would prefer that they not negotiate? What would you like to see happen?
the time for negotiations is long past. Negotiations between the two sides will likely achieve nothing but a continuation of the current situation.

Someone has to sit down for half an hour with a map and pencil, draw a line on a map, write "Israel" on one side and "palestine" on the other...send each side a copy and say "thats it lads".

[Thunder]

Someone has to sit down for half an hour with a map and pencil, draw a line on a map, write "Israel" on one side and "palestine" on the other...send each side a copy and say "thats it lads".

its either this...or someone saying: "folks, its time you all started playing nice."

[Skeptic]

If the Palestinians do demand to be annexed, and Israel does annex the territories, but for some reason the demographic catastrophe that destroys it does not occur, the same folks who are now yelling for the Palestinians to use plan B for Israel's destruction would be screaming at the Jews for being evil, vile conquerors who have wiped an entire nation off the map.

Never mind that Israel only "wiped the Palestinians off the map" reluctantly, at their own request, as well as the request of the usual gang on this forum, with the malice aforethought of doing so as a way to destroy Israel.

That won't matter.

Any national teaching curriculum, funded by Israeli taxpayers' money, which would not renounce zionism as an evil colonialist enterprise which must be wiped off the face of the earth would be condemned by these folks as "brainwashing". Any attempt to integrate the new Israeli citizens with the old one would be renounced as "destroying the Palestinian cultural identity".

And so on and so forth.

It isn't the Palestinians which these folks want to help. It's Israel which they want to destroy, since its very existence is an anathema in their eyes. For both the Jews and the non-Jews among the usual gang in this forum, Israel has committed the cardinal sin: it's Jewish and did something non-Jews don't like.

Like existing.

How RUDE!

What will the goyim say?

[The Fool]

If the Palestinians do demand to be annexed, and Israel does annex the territories, but for some reason the demographic catastrophe that destroys it does not occur, the same folks who are now yelling for the Palestinians to use plan B for Israel's destruction would be screaming at the Jews for being evil, vile conquerors who have wiped an entire nation off the map.

Never mind that Israel only "wiped the Palestinians off the map" reluctantly, at their own request, as well as the request of the usual gang on this forum, with the malice aforethought of doing so as a way to destroy Israel.

That won't matter.

Any national teaching curriculum, funded by Israeli taxpayers' money, which would not renounce zionism as an evil colonialist enterprise which must be wiped off the face of the earth would be condemned by these folks as "brainwashing". Any attempt to integrate the new Israeli citizens with the old one would be renounced as "destroying the Palestinian cultural identity".

And so on and so forth.

It isn't the Palestinians which these folks want to help. It's Israel which they want to destroy, since its very existence is an anathema in their eyes. For both the Jews and the non-Jews among the usual gang in this forum, Israel has committed the cardinal sin: it's Jewish and did something non-Jews don't like.

Like existing.

How RUDE!

What will the goyim say?

I just love the way you make up hilarious little scenarios where these imaginary evil hordes are persecuting your arse off....Oh yes not to mention all the silly arguments you imagine that forum members are putting forth, you know the ones I'm referring to, the ones you lack the courage to name....... still laughing hysterically at your Idea that Palestinians are going to defeat the IDF, sometimes your posts just make my day :)

[Thunder]

if israel annexed the WB and gave the Palestinians full voting rights, Israel/Palestine would become a bi-national state very quickly.

[mortimer]

if israel annexed the WB and gave the Palestinians full voting rights, Israel/Palestine would become a bi-national state very quickly.
What exactly do you mean by "bi-national"? Would there be two governments?

[Thunder]

What exactly do you mean by "bi-national"? Would there be two governments?

Israel/Palestine...whatever they end up calling it..would be a nation-state for two nations: The Jews and the Palestinian Arabs. both nationalities would have special status in terms of education, housing, language, etc etc.

[a_unique_person]

Yes. So you would prefer that they not negotiate? What would you like to see happen?

I'm just going on the past negotiations. It would be nice if they actually produce a result.

What I would like to see is what each side says they want, a two state solution and peace.

[bigjelmapro]

Qassam rockets and suicide bombs...against M1-Abrams tanks and F-16s.

Lol. Merkava tanks. Israel doesn't own M1's, Egypt and Jordan do.

Always found this argument hilarious. Perhaps Israelis should start moving backwards because the Palestinian leadership(s) move backwards.

[bigjelmapro]

Negotiations are at a standstill, yes. What's the point of continuing really if there are major issues in dealing with a unified Palestinian leadership, which it isn't currently. Throwing more 'goodwill' concessions or interim agreements will solve nothing.

The issue of 'settlements', ie Gush Etzion, weren't issues during Oslo since they were to be part of Israel anyways (part of the 3-4%), with adjustments made for this 3-4%. The rest would be pulled back. So why is this still an issue now? Fatah whinging for more aid in perpetuating their stateless status and Hamas to justify their 'resistance'.

I would give it a year or two before these negotiations get back on track.

[The Fool]

I would give it a year or two before these negotiations get back on track.
what would have to change to get them back on track?

[Thunder]

what would have to change to get them back on track?

Israel to be serious about peace.

[Darth Rotor]

Qassam rockets and suicide bombs...against M1-Abrams tanks and F-16s.

yeah..that's a great idea.
You seem unaware of how some national legends get built. Not always via victory. See Kosovo 1389, see the fortress at Masada. It's the size of the fight in the dog ... and in your own country, parky, remember the Alamo.

DR

[bigjelmapro]

The settlement 'expansion' bit is just another peg in the never-ending excuses for the PA not to enter peace negotiations, which apparently is also used as an excuse in a number of media outlets. What they forget to mention is that these settlements will be part of Israel in any final status negotiations, from Camp David to Oslo.

ie Gush Etzion has existed for quite some time now, many of which predate modern Israel and the concept of a Palestinian. No reason why they should be made Judenfrei which Yemen currently is or based on some voided armistice line carved out by a failed war to destroy Israel.

So again, for the time being, its pointless to talk to any Palestinian leadership since they are demanding the pre-'67 armistice lines. This simply isn't going to happen. The PA has no real interest in ending their self-imposed 'plight'.

[The Fool]

The settlement 'expansion' bit is just another peg in the never-ending excuses for the PA not to enter peace negotiations, which apparently is also used as an excuse in a number of media outlets. What they forget to mention is that these settlements will be part of Israel in any final status negotiations, from Camp David to Oslo.

So is it your opinion that the PA is being unreasonable in not allowing the ongoing settlement expansion to continue at whatever rate Israel proposes throughout the negotiations Until agreement is reached on how far they should expand. There being no timetable set on how long it should take to arrive at a borderline. Is that about it?

Can't for the life of me understand why they don't go for that...


So again, for the time being, its pointless to talk to any Palestinian leadership since they are demanding the pre-'67 armistice lines. This simply isn't going to happen. The PA has no real interest in ending their self-imposed 'plight'.
why only for the time being? Can I ask again what you see as changing to get it going again? Do you think that the PA will drop its refusal to talk during settlement expansion?

[bigjelmapro]

So is it your opinion that the PA is being unreasonable in not allowing the ongoing settlement expansion to continue at whatever rate Israel proposes throughout the negotiations Until agreement is reached on how far they should expand. There being no timetable set on how long it should take to arrive at a borderline. Is that about it?

There are no negotiations at this point, so as with Parky's ridiculous comparison of qassams/suicide bombers vs. (non-existent) M1's/F-16's, why should population growth, development and advancements in all areas in Israeli society come to a halt whenever Palestinian negotiations and politics stagnates?

Note though, the Palestinians in the West bank have seen growth in employment rates (decrease unemployment of 3% over the last year), wages (up 24% in the past year), tourism, bilateral trade with Israel increase (ie Palestinian produce exports from the WB increased almost 10x over the last year, overall trade increase by 35%), that the construction of housing within these blocs employs over 12,000 Palestinians from the WB, etc.

The phrase 'settlement expansion' is misleading, as it has obviously mislead you, that there is somehow this expanding boundary within these blocs. There isn't. There's an increase in housing complexes being built within already existing boundaries.


why only for the time being? Can I ask again what you see as changing to get it going again? Do you think that the PA will drop its refusal to talk during settlement expansion?
No non-starter pre-conditions by the PA of demanding voided 1967 armistice lines of another country's (ie Jordan and Syria) in destroying Israel would be a start.

Latter question, see the previous.

[NoZed Avenger]

(What will force Israel to accept a one-state solution?)

Circumstances.

And how many divisions does Circumstances command?

[theprestige]

its either this...or someone saying: "folks, its time you all started playing nice."
Easiest. Peace Prize. EVER.

[Praktik]

Israel should definitely do the "one state solution".

But as a Canadian, I must warn you that the cereal-box language issue will haunt you for decades...

"I'm tired of having to read the (Hebrew OR Arabic) on my cereal boxes!!"

But then again, wont those debates be a little less dramatic then what we got now?

[Darth Rotor]

Israel should definitely do the "one state solution".

But as a Canadian, I must warn you that the cereal-box language issue will haunt you for decades...

"I'm tired of having to read the (Hebrew OR Arabic) on my cereal boxes!!"

But then again, wont those debates be a little less dramatic then what we got now?

Oui!

But if that great mixing occurs, which drop taints whom when the children intermarry? (As they inevitably will).

What's Arabic for Capulet? What's Hebrew for Montague?

[The Fool]

There are no negotiations at this point, so as with Parky's ridiculous comparison of qassams/suicide bombers vs. (non-existent) M1's/F-16's, why should population growth, development and advancements in all areas in Israeli society come to a halt whenever Palestinian negotiations and politics stagnates?

who said that it has to? why do you make stuff up like this? "in all areas in Israeli society come to a halt" sigh....


The phrase 'settlement expansion' is misleading, as it has obviously mislead you, that there is somehow this expanding boundary within these blocs. There isn't. There's an increase in housing complexes being built within already existing boundaries.

its not misleading and they have not stopped expanding both in population and area. If you claim that Israel has permanently stopped expanding the boundries show me the statement where they have agreed to do this.. No doubt the day after any boundry expansion you are back to chanting "we are not expanding the boundries....." well, at least not until the next boundry expansion.

How about this....a statement from Israel saying "we will not longer expand the boundiries in the future, thats it...no more..." don't hold your breath.

[Thunder]

why should population growth, development and advancements in all areas in Israeli society come to a halt whenever Palestinian negotiations and politics stagnates?

Israeli society is welcome to grow and advance as much as it likes....

...in Israel!!!! The West Bank is not Israel. It hasn't even been annexed by Israel.

[bigjelmapro]

who said that it has to? why do you make stuff up like this? "in all areas in Israeli society come to a halt" sigh....

Comparison's been made. I'm pointing that this statement has been made ad nauseum. Made it clear as well that since peace negotiations have stagnated does not imply that everything else should come to a halt, including the building of housing complexes within existing boundaries.


its not misleading and they have not stopped expanding both in population and area. If you claim that Israel has permanently stopped expanding the boundries show me the statement where they have agreed to do this.. No doubt the day after any boundry expansion you are back to chanting "we are not expanding the boundries....." well, at least not until the next boundry expansion.

Distinction between boundary expansion and that of natural population increase. I've made this distinction. No need to restate the obvious.

Never made a claim of permanent cessation of boundaries. Another failed deflection attempt?

[Thunder]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20091125/ts_nm/us_palestinians_israel

And of course, Israel refuses to suspend ALL settlement construction in order to get peace talks going again, even in the West Bank. Netanyahu has offered to suspend all new building permits in the West Bank, but will allow all existing construction to continue, and NEW building permits and construction will be allowed to go forward in the illegally annexed parts of the West Bank that Israel calls part of eastern Jerusalem.

This is why the peace process and the two-state solution is dead, because Israel refuses to stop building settlements, even temporarily.

This is why the two-state solution is dead, and I hope and predict the Palestinians will soon abandon the two-state solution and call for one single secular bi-national nation state.

[MikeMangum]

well, we all know how Israel can prevent this: stop building settlements, resume talks, and leave all or most of the WB and let the Palestinians form a REAL state. not a swiss cheese state with no control over their water, air, and eastern border.

No false dichotomy there at all.

There are other options, btw. Israel could unilaterally decide on final borders, completely seal those borders to the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, develop some good anti mortar and anti rocket defenses (the Phalanx CIWS has been modified for the role and tested in Iraq), and simply go about their business and completely ignore the Palestinians. The Palestinians could then do whatever they want, completely free of Israeli interference...but with no hope of ever pushing the Jews into the sea.

I happen to think that is the likely outcome, frankly.

[Thunder]

No false dichotomy there at all.

There are other options, btw. Israel could unilaterally decide on final borders, completely seal those borders to the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, develop some good anti mortar and anti rocket defenses (the Phalanx CIWS has been modified for the role and tested in Iraq), and simply go about their business and completely ignore the Palestinians. The Palestinians could then do whatever they want, completely free of Israeli interference

ah...but Israel has already said numerous times that they want full control of all water resources in the West Bank, control of the border with Jordan, and control of the airspace.

I think the Palestinians would welcome a unilateral full Israeli withdrawal from 60% of the WB or so, but thats not REALLY in the cards...now is it? ;)

how stupid do you think the world is? I mean, right-wing Zionists keep lying about the "incredibly generous" offer Barak gave to Arafat at Camp David, but always forget to mention that Barak wanted 15% of the WB to remain leased by Israel for perpetuity...never mind Israeli control of the Jordanian border.

again, how stupid do you think the world is? we can read you know.

[The Fool]

No false dichotomy there at all.

There are other options, btw. Israel could unilaterally decide on final borders, completely seal those borders to the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, develop some good anti mortar and anti rocket defenses (the Phalanx CIWS has been modified for the role and tested in Iraq), and simply go about their business and completely ignore the Palestinians. The Palestinians could then do whatever they want, completely free of Israeli interference...but with no hope of ever pushing the Jews into the sea.

I happen to think that is the likely outcome, frankly.

I agree it is the likely outcome. Israel will have to accept that it will not be able to control the water resouces outside its borders.

What about non Israeli citizens within the unilaterally decided borders? What about Israeli citizens outside them?

[Thunder]

I agree it is the likely outcome. Israel will have to accept that it will not be able to control the water resouces outside its borders.

What about non Israeli citizens within the unilaterally decided borders? What about Israeli citizens outside them?

Israel also can't claim to have withdrawn from territory and yet control the water going through it and the air above it. It don't work that way Moishela.

Any Palestinians that live in any land that Israel unilaterally annexes will of course be offered permanent residency status and all the political rights and freedoms that this comes with.

:cool:

[bigjelmapro]

Israel could unilaterally decide on final borders

Borders with Gaza are not disputed by either side.

The WB would involve the voided 1967 armistice lines with 'land swaps' to account for the about 4-5% that will be absorbed by Israel, as stated in Oslo until Netanyahu's recent statements.


completely seal those borders to the Gaza Strip and the West Bank

Gaza is not an issue at this point. The WB have for the past few years not been an issue. Only final agreements and said swaps would need to be finalized.


develop some good anti mortar and anti rocket defenses (the Phalanx CIWS has been modified for the role and tested in Iraq)

Systems are already being field tested. Mind you, I would like to see a few THEL systems used since, albeit a bit expensive investment, were great at shooting down incoming mortars and missiles. Phalanx is on the boards, Iron Dome not so much. I do have reservations about shooting a hail of bullets in various directions since these bullets do have to come down somewhere, regardless if on Israel or Gaza. The West bank, as of yet, do not really need these systems, so PAC 3 (Arrow II and III) will be used here in case something happens with Syria and Lebanon.


simply go about their business and completely ignore the Palestinians.

Gaza for the time being, with Hamas in power, I would agree with you. The WB, however, has seen a great deal of improvements in decreasing unemployment, increasing wages, tourism, bilateral trade, educations and a decrease in roadblocks over the past 2+ years.

The goal is to have a solid economy, educations and quality of life in order to influence a final peace between Israel and a future Palestinian state.

[Thunder]

Gaza is not an issue at this point.

it sure is...especially when Israel wants to control its airspace in any final peace deal.

Independent countries don't have other countries controlling their airspace...or their water resources.

..or their eastern border, in regards to the WB.

Israel's demands for a Palestinian state are still unreachable...and totally unfair.

[bigjelmapro]

Nope. Wrong once again.

The Wye River Memorandum (http://www.state.gov/www/regions/nea/981023_interim_agmt.html)

2. The Israeli and Palestinian sides have agreed on arrangements which will permit the timely opening of the Gaza Industrial Estate. They also have concluded a "Protocol Regarding the Establishment and Operation of the International Airport in the Gaza Strip During the Interim Period."
Mind you, this was offered previously in a number of agreements, although it never got to an official point since the Palestinian leadership, namely Yasser Arafat, usually stormed from the negotiations and never got to specifics.

Gaza has no real water resources. WB and Israel have deals regarding water resources. The WB/Israel border would be transferred in any final status agreement.

How many fails in one day Parky?

[bigjelmapro]

I meant the 'WB/Jordan border'. Oops

[Thunder]

How many fails in one day Parky?

Israeli security concerns

The Israeli negotiators wanted the following requirements to be part of the agreement: Early warning stations inside the Palestinian state; Israeli control of Palestinian airspace; the right of Israel to deploy troops in the Palestinian state in the event of an emergency; the stationing of an international force in the Jordan Valley. Furthermore the Palestinian state was to be demilitarized.[12] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camp_David_2000_Summit#cite_note-11)


Barak offered to form a Palestinian State (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_State) initially on 73% of the West Bank (that is 27% less than the Green Line (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Line_%28Israel%29) borders) and 100% of the Gaza Strip. In 10 to 25 years the West Bank area would expand to 90-91% (94% excluding greater Jerusalem).[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camp_David_2000_Summit#cite_note-rossmap-0)[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camp_David_2000_Summit#cite_note-1)[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camp_David_2000_Summit#cite_note-2)

;)

[bigjelmapro]

Israeli security concerns

The Israeli negotiators wanted the following requirements to be part of the agreement: Early warning stations inside the Palestinian state; Israeli control of Palestinian airspace; the right of Israel to deploy troops in the Palestinian state in the event of an emergency; the stationing of an international force in the Jordan Valley. Furthermore the Palestinian state was to be demilitarized.[12] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camp_David_2000_Summit#cite_note-11)

Ah, the misquoting of wikipedia: "Palestinian sovereignty over Palestinian airspace, with accommodation for Israeli training and operational needs." Does not translate to 'Israeli control of Palestinian airspace'.


Barak offered to form a Palestinian State (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_State) initially on 73% of the West Bank (that is 27% less than the Green Line (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Line_%28Israel%29) borders) and 100% of the Gaza Strip. In 10 to 25 years the West Bank area would expand to 90-91% (94% excluding greater Jerusalem).[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camp_David_2000_Summit#cite_note-rossmap-0)[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camp_David_2000_Summit#cite_note-1)[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camp_David_2000_Summit#cite_note-2)

;)
Keyword initial. Not final offer. Final offer offered at Camp David 2000 was 95% of the West Bank with an additional 1-2% in land swaps of Israeli land which would have totaled 96-97%. So again, misrepresentation of the Clinton Parameters.

Good article summing up peace negotiations:

From Oslo to Camp David to Taba: Setting the Record Straight (full transcript) (http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/templateC07.php?CID=172)

I advise you to read it rather than making these baseless wikipedia claims.

[Thunder]

Keyword initial. Not final offer. Final offer offered at Camp David 2000 was 95% of the West Bank with an additional 1-2% in land swaps of Israeli land which would have totaled 96-97%.

lie. total lie. Israel wanted to "lease" an additional 15% of the WB for a good 20 years.

now, Israel did offer around 95% of the WB at Taba, without any BS leasing idea, but by then Barak was up for election and had no real power to negotiate let alone implement a peace plan.

Israel had its chance at Camp David to make a viable offer to Arafat, and they failed miserably.

[a_unique_person]

Ah, the misquoting of wikipedia: "Palestinian sovereignty over Palestinian airspace, with accommodation for Israeli training and operational needs." Does not translate to 'Israeli control of Palestinian airspace'.


Keyword initial. Not final offer. Final offer offered at Camp David 2000 was 95% of the West Bank with an additional 1-2% in land swaps of Israeli land which would have totaled 96-97%. So again, misrepresentation of the Clinton Parameters.

Good article summing up peace negotiations:

From Oslo to Camp David to Taba: Setting the Record Straight (full transcript) (http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/templateC07.php?CID=172)

I advise you to read it rather than making these baseless wikipedia claims.

I think they were wondering why, if they already lost most of what they had, they had to give up any more, for one thing.

[a_unique_person]

If the Palestinians do demand to be annexed, and Israel does annex the territories, but for some reason the demographic catastrophe that destroys it does not occur, the same folks who are now yelling for the Palestinians to use plan B for Israel's destruction would be screaming at the Jews for being evil, vile conquerors who have wiped an entire nation off the map.

Never mind that Israel only "wiped the Palestinians off the map" reluctantly, at their own request, as well as the request of the usual gang on this forum, with the malice aforethought of doing so as a way to destroy Israel.

That won't matter.

If it means peace and equality it doesn't really matter. Like the song says, 'what we need is a great big melting pot'. Australia is gradually changing color from white to a darker shade. Makes sense, too many white people getting skin cancer.

[bigjelmapro]

lie. total lie. Israel wanted to "lease" an additional 15% of the WB for a good 20 years.

Quote the Clinton parameters. There's no additional. Try again.


now, Israel did offer around 95% of the WB at Taba, without any BS leasing idea, but by then Barak was up for election and had no real power to negotiate let alone implement a peace plan.

Taba reiterated the Clinton parameters with phased withdrawal.


Israel had its chance at Camp David to make a viable offer to Arafat, and they failed miserably.
You didn't read the article linked. I do quite enjoy how erroneous you are in your claims.

[Thunder]

Essentials of the Camp David II Proposals by Israel

1. Palestinian Statehood and Conditions

A Palestinian state would be established in most of the West Bank and all of the Gaza strip, with these conditions:


The state would not have an army with heavy weapons,
The state would not make alliances with other countries without Israeli approval and would not allow introduction of foreign forces west of the River Jordan.
Israel would be allowed deploy troops in the Jordan Valley if Israel were to be threatened by invasion from the east.
Israeli aircraft could overfly Palestinian airspace.
Israeli would install early warning stations in the mountains overlooking the Jordan valley and other areas.
Palestinians would control border crossings with Jordan and Egypt along with Israeli security observation.
The Israelis would retain management over water sources in the West Bank while approving a limited quota to the Palestinians.
Israel would lease areas in the Jordan Valley or maintain temporary sovereignty over them for up to 25 years.

[Thunder]

As Malley pointed out there were no written offers, no maps presenting exactly what it was that Israeli claimed to have offered. Here are a few examples that are the best guesses that can be made as to what Israels ideas looked like on a map.

This is one opinion (http://imeu.net/news/article00148.shtml), and another from Dennis Ross (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Peace/rossmap2.html)'s book on Camp David. Ross’s map fails to include most of the 10% of the West Bank that Israeli wanted to keep under ‘temporary’ Israeli control along the border with Jordan. This is the Gush Shalom view (http://gush-shalom.org/generous/generous.html)and another from Ron Punduk from the Peres Centre for Peace (http://www.peres-center.org/media/Upload/61.pdf) (PDF file – map on last page) and finally a map of the December 2000 'Clinton Plan' from the Foundation for Middle East Peace (http://www.fmep.org/maps/map_data/redeployment/projection_clinton_proposal.pdf) (PDF).

This just goes to show the reality of Camp David - the proposals were so vague that it is diffifcult to reach agreement on what they actually were.

One of the most outlandish claims made of the so-called generous offer, is that Israel was prepared to cede East Jerusalem to the Palestinians. As this has long been a Palestinian demand, this appears to back up the “generous offer” claims. In reality, the Israeli position at Camp David did not suggest ceding control of the area of annexed East Jerusalem. The Palestinians would be given sovereignty over the Christian and Muslim quarters of the old city and certain other Arab neighbourhoods. The extensively enlarged municipal limits as claimed by Israel in it’s 1980 annexation, would appear to have remained under Israeli control, and Israel had no intention of removing any of the illegal 200,000 Israeli settlers in East Jerusalem. In effect, East Jerusalem would remain significantly Israeli. This map (http://imeu.net/news/article00140.shtml) shows the fiction of a Palestinian East Jerusalem under Baraks "generous offer".

Barak’s position was that Israel would keep the major settlement blocks in the West Bank, but there would be an exchange of land. And the generous part is that the land exchange would be at a roughly 9:1 ratio. That is, for each 9 dunams of land Israel proposed to keep in the West Bank, it would give the Palestinians 1 dunam in Israel. And that land area in Israel was almost certain to be the so-called ‘triangle’, an area of land on the West Bank border that has the highest concentrations of Palestinian-Israelis inside Israel. It was long been an aspiration to rid Israel of this particular ‘demographic threat’.

The myth goes that Israel offered 96% of the West Bank to Arafat. Leaving aside the fact that justice isn’t simple arithmetic, the claim itself is false. The areas of East Jersulam that Israel wanted to keep are simply left out of this calculation- they were not negotiable. What ever percentage figure one chooses to refer to, is the area Israel was prepared to negotiate over, which doesn’t include those parts that Israel had already decided belonged to it.

http://israelforumwatch.blogspot.com/2006/10/camp-david-and-generous-offer.html

[Thunder]

http://www.cfr.org/publication/4496/camp_david.html?breadcrumb=%2Fpublication%2Fby_typ e%2Fdaily_analysis

Israel offered to annex 9% of the land in the WB, in exchange for a total area of Israel equivelent to 1% of the West Bank.

why not offer an exchange of land of equal size? boggles the mind.

[Lissa]

Quote the Clinton parameters. There's no additional. Try again.


Taba reiterated the Clinton parameters with phased withdrawal.


You didn't read the article linked. I do quite enjoy how erroneous you are in your claims.

In his memoirs, Bill Clinton wrote the Israeli proposal presented to Arafat at Camp David in 2000 was so "good" that he was shocked Arafat was so "foolish" in rejecting it.

Clinton, in fact, was so furious at Arafat's rejection of the Israeli proposal that when Arafat called him after he left office to tell Clinton he was a great president, Clinton fumed, "I am a failure as president...because of YOU!"

[Thunder]

In his memoirs, Bill Clinton wrote the Israeli proposal presented to Arafat at Camp David in 2000 was so "good" that he was shocked Arafat was so "foolish" in rejecting it.

what does this have to do with the details of the Israeli offer at Camp David?

nada...zippo.

[Lissa]

what does this have to do with the details of the Israeli offer at Camp David?

nada...zippo.

Clinton ran the Camp David negotiations and says Israel submitted such a good proposal to Arafat that Arafat was foolish to reject it.

I tend to go with Clinton's point of view.

[WildCat]

Clinton ran the Camp David negotiations and says Israel submitted such a good proposal to Arafat that Arafat was foolish to reject it.

I tend to go with Clinton's point of view.
Not only did Arafat reject it, he refused to even make a counter-offer.

He was not interested in actually making a peace deal.

[Lissa]

Not only did Arafat reject it, he refused to even make a counter-offer.

He was not interested in actually making a peace deal.

Which is why Clinton has been fuming at Arafat even in Arafat's death. And, not only did Arafat refuse to submit a counter-offer, he went off and started a "little" mass murder intifada against Israel to show his desire for peace.

[Thunder]

it appears that Barak was only interested in making demands...not negotiating with Arafat.

[Lissa]

it appears that Barak was only interested in making demands...not negotiating with Arafat.

Barak risked his political career on the overly generous peace proposal to Arafat, with nothing in return in terms of concessions, and lost his job as a consequence of Arafat's rejection.

The Palestinians do not want peace with Israel and everyone knows this.

[WildCat]

it appears that Barak was only interested in making demands...not negotiating with Arafat.
So you think Clinton was lying in his memoirs?

[mortimer]

it appears that Barak was only interested in making demands...not negotiating with Arafat.
So Barak makes an offer. Arafat walks away. And it's Barak that is not interested in negotiating? What an odd conclusion to draw.

[Thunder]

So Barak makes an offer. Arafat walks away. And it's Barak that is not interested in negotiating? What an odd conclusion to draw.

you are clearly oversimplifying the situation.

[Thunder]

The Palestinians do not want peace with Israel and everyone knows this.

I would be a lot more convinced of Israel's interest in peace, if they could get themselves to suspend ALL settlement construction, if even for 10 months.

but they seem unable to even do that.

the Palestinian's major obstacle to peace, is terrorism.

the Israeli's major obstacle to peace, is settlements.

[Lissa]

So you think Clinton was lying in his memoirs?

Depends on what your definition of "was" was. Wink.

[Lissa]

I would be a lot more convinced of Israel's interest in peace, if they could get themselves to suspend ALL settlement construction, if even for 10 months.

but they seem unable to even do that.

the Palestinian's major obstacle to peace, is terrorism.

the Israeli's major obstacle to peace, is settlements.

Settlements are a red herring. Until Obama made them an issue, they were never an issue between Israel and the Palestinians.

[Thunder]

Until Obama made them an issue, they were never an issue between Israel and the Palestinians.

:) you heard it here first folks!!!

the illegal Israeli Jew-only settlements were NEVER an issue for the Palestinians, until Obama opened his big black liberal mouth.

[Darth Rotor]

Settlements are a red herring. Until Obama made them an issue, they were never an issue between Israel and the Palestinians.
Wait a minute: between 1967 and now, the construction of a variety of Israeli settlements on the West Bank were never an issue between Israel and the Pals?

I find that hard to believe. Maybe you and I have a different understanding of the terms "never" and "issue" here.

Dr Evil made a fine post a bit over a month ago about this. He alluded to the under the table negotiations between the Isr government and some Pal government folks, which did include raising that issue as one of many.

Dr Evil tends to be very pro Israeli in these discussions.

You want to stick with that statement?
Until Obama made them an issue, they were never an issue between Israel and the Palestinians

settlements were NEVER an issue for the Palestinians, until Obama opened his big black liberal mouth.
What's black got to do with this?
parky, WTF are you up to here?

Obama is our President. Presidents make many statements, some better than others. You just being a jerk here?

DR

[Lissa]

Wait a minute: between 1967 and now, the construction of a variety of Israeli settlements on the West Bank were never an issue between Israel and the Pals?

Let me clarify. Israeli settlements were never an obstacle to peace negotiations between Arabs and Israelis until now. The Oslo Accords, for example, say nothing of the settlements.

The settlements did not exist when the Arabs went to war with the Jews in 1947, 1948 and 1967.

Arabs have stated time and again their real goal is the destruction of Israel, not simply dismantling the settlements.

[Thunder]

What's black got to do with this?
parky, WTF are you up to here?

Obama is our President. Presidents make many statements, some better than others. You just being a jerk here?

DR

that part was just my little strawman argument. it was just for laughs. :)

but seriously, thinking the settlements were "never" an issue, until Obama "brought them up", is like...I don't know. what does one call such a statement?

:confused:

[Thunder]

Let me clarify. Israeli settlements were never an obstacle to peace negotiations between Arabs and Israelis until now. The Oslo Accords, for example, say nothing of the settlements. .

Oh my.

though, the Oslo Accords were an interem peace accord, meant to be followed by peace talks leading to a 2-state solution between Israel and Palestine.

[Lissa]

but seriously, thinking the settlements were "never" an issue, until Obama "brought them up", is like...I don't know. what does one call such a statement?

:confused:

One calls such a statement on my part an accurate portrayal of history.

As accurate as your understanding of the West Bank is inaccurate.

[Thunder]

One calls such a statement on my part an accurate portrayal of history.

As accurate as your understanding of the West Bank is inaccurate.

New Blood...indeed.

:)

19 posts and already on the verge of personal attacks? wow.

[Darth Rotor]

Let me clarify. Israeli settlements were never an obstacle to peace negotiations between Arabs and Israelis until now. The Oslo Accords, for example, say nothing of the settlements.
I may have to check the language of Oslo, but I'll for the moment take you at your word.
The settlements did not exist when the Arabs went to war with the Jews in 1947, 1948 and 1967.
Since the land was in TransJordan/Jordan, no kidding. Irrelevant.

I asked you "between 1967 and now" which is when the war, and subsequent Israeli control over that bit of the area became a matter of "what to do next" in resolving the Arab/Israeli disputes. Funny, you didn't actually answer my question.

Arabs have stated time and again their real goal is the destruction of Israel, not simply dismantling the settlements.
I had heard that, maybe one or two or three thousand times on these discussion forums. I have also had a chance to preruse some web based translations of the Hamas charter, for example. I don't doubt that many Arabs, Pals and otherwise, would like nothing more than to see Israeli scrubbed from the map, by means fair or foul. If you are an Israeli, I'll caution you that the Crusaders only managed to stick around in the Holy Land for 150 years. Israel has been going for what, 61? You have your work cut out for you.

Now, if we can try this again: between 1967 and now, the time period when the expansion of Israeli settlements into what was once Jordan is germane, are you still going to stick to "settlements were never an issue" or "were never an obstacle" between Israelis and Pals?

DR

[Thunder]

the israeli settlements is the MAIN issue, along with Jerusalem, borders, and refugees, on the Israeli side.

the palestinian main issue, is the cessation of terror.

to argue that settlements have NEVER been an issue, until 2009, is either willful blindness...or deceit.

[Darth Rotor]

the israeli settlements is the MAIN issue, along with Jerusalem, borders, and refugees, on the Israeli side.

the palestinian main issue, is the cessation of terror.
May I suggest "recognize Israel's right to exist" is probably the main issue, the foundation stone upon which future efforts at negotiation can be built?

DR

[Lissa]

the israeli settlements is the MAIN issue, along with Jerusalem, borders, and refugees, on the Israeli side.

the palestinian main issue, is the cessation of terror.

to argue that settlements have NEVER been an issue, until 2009, is either willful blindness...or deceit.

Maybe in fantasyland, but, not in reality, where I reside. It is generally accepted among experts that Obama stubbed his foreign policy toe in making unilateral demands on Israel to halt all settlement activity as it justified continued Palestinian intransigence in demanding cessation of settlements as a precondition for negotiations. Recognizing his stunning error, Obama has since retracted his settlement demands.

Palestinians' only interest is in the dismantlement of Israel. The settlements are a side show.

[Darth Rotor]

Palestinians' only interest is in the dismantlement of Israel.
A bit broad brush, don't you think? Aren't there some Palestinians who are interested in a future together? :confused:
The settlements are a side show.
Which is why the Israelis are only building tents in the West Bank, eh? :rolleyes:

[Thunder]

Palestinians' only interest is in the dismantlement of Israel. The settlements are a side show.

because YOU say so? right.

I'll listen to the experienced experts, thank you very much.

[Lissa]

I may have to check the language of Oslo, but I'll for the moment take you at your word.

I asked you "between 1967 and now" which is when the war, and subsequent Israeli control over that bit of the area became a matter of "what to do next" in resolving the Arab/Israeli disputes. Funny, you didn't actually answer my question.

After Israel seized control of the territories in '67, they made an offer to the Arab League to return the territory in exchange for a peace treaty. The Arab League rejected the offer. Afterward, Israel commenced with settlement construction.

I guess the Arabs didn't care enough about the territory to want to have peace with Israel, eh?

[WildCat]

I may have to check the language of Oslo, but I'll for the moment take you at your word.

Since the land was in TransJordan/Jordan, no kidding. Irrelevant.

I asked you "between 1967 and now" which is when the war, and subsequent Israeli control over that bit of the area became a matter of "what to do next" in resolving the Arab/Israeli disputes. Funny, you didn't actually answer my question.


I had heard that, maybe one or two or three thousand times on these discussion forums. I have also had a chance to preruse some web based translations of the Hamas charter, for example. I don't doubt that many Arabs, Pals and otherwise, would like nothing more than to see Israeli scrubbed from the map, by means fair or foul. If you are an Israeli, I'll caution you that the Crusaders only managed to stick around in the Holy Land for 150 years. Israel has been going for what, 61? You have your work cut out for you.

Now, if we can try this again: between 1967 and now, the time period when the expansion of Israeli settlements into what was once Jordan is germane, are you still going to stick to "settlements were never an issue" or "were never an obstacle" between Israelis and Pals?

DR
The lack of settlements, nor indeed the 1967 borders, didn't stop the Arabs from trying to destroy Israel in 1967.

What has changed since then DR?

[WildCat]

because YOU say so? right.

I'll listen to the experienced experts, thank you very much.
Which "experienced experts"? I take it the actual elected leaders of Gaza and the West Bank aren't the "experienced experts" of which you speak?

[Thunder]

The lack of settlements, nor indeed the 1967 borders, didn't stop the Arabs from trying to destroy Israel in 1967.

What has changed since then DR?

The Arab realization that Israel cannot be defeated militarily, and the most they can hope to get is all or most of the West Bank, Gaza, and a part of Jerusalem.

Israel (with the support of the West and the USA) is here to stay, and all rational Arabs and Muslims understand this.

[Lissa]

The Arab realization that Israel cannot be defeated militarily, and the most they can hope to get is all or most of the West Bank, Gaza, and a part of Jerusalem.

Israel (with the support of the West and the USA) is here to stay, and all rational Arabs and Muslims understand this.

You overlook the "realization" that Arabs will soon have access to nukes courtesy of Iran to facilitate their attempts to liquidate Israel.

Thus, facts on the ground are changing.

It is common knowledge that Palestinians' strategy is the further encroachment on Israel after gaining any territorial concessions in the West Bank.

Not to place too fine a point on the matter, but, after Israel left Gaza, the Palestinians did not leave Israel alone. Instead, they began bombing Israel.

Those who don't learn from history are condemned to repeat it.

[Lissa]

because YOU say so? right.

I'll listen to the experienced experts, thank you very much.

Maybe you need a new set of "experienced experts"

[Thunder]

You overlook the "realization" that Arabs will soon have access to nukes courtesy of Iran to facilitate their attempts to liquidate Israel.

Those who don't learn from history are condemned to repeat it.

:):D:p;)

I didn't know folks were allowed to use the computer during Shabbos.

[Thunder]

Maybe you need a new set of "experienced experts"

who do you suggest I listen to instead? the Zionist Organization of America?

Chabad Lubavitch? Moledet? The Jewish Press?

Maybe the Jewish Task Force?

[Lissa]

who do you suggest I listen to instead?

I'm not impressed with your supposed experts, who also informed you that there is apartheid in the West Bank when there is no such thing.

[mortimer]

Lissa, I'm so glad you're here, and let me be one of the first to welcome you back to the forums! We've been missing this POV on Israel/Palestine for some time now.

[bigjelmapro]

Interesting article regarding legality of the settlements:

NGO to Clinton: Settlements are legal (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1259243026960&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull)

Like the blog you posted Parky. Even goes as far to mention that E. Jerusalem are considered settlers.

What's the drivel about the water management of the eastern mountain aquifer? Its supplied water to what was the mandate of Palestine (minus Transjordan) in pre-mandate times to post mandate times, why should it change now? Here again, water management is translated into 'sovereignty' and 'control', just as the failed argument of controlling airspace. The PA don't even have a water management division that I know of and don't do anything regarding the 250+ illegal wells within the WB in the north and center that take away water from south for agriculture.

Do you want to discuss this really Parky or are you simply going to cut and paste another article and claim it as your own response?

[bigjelmapro]

Which "experienced experts"? I take it the actual elected leaders of Gaza and the West Bank aren't the "experienced experts" of which you speak?
No. Its the bloggers!

[Thunder]

Interesting article regarding legality of the settlements:

NGO to Clinton: Settlements are legal (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1259243026960&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull)

it has been the standing view of the United States, the United Nations, the European Union, Russia, and most of the planet Earth, that the settlements are illegal, including the ones in East Jerusalem.

I, however, will give a pass to the legality of the settlements in East Jerusalem, since Israel had the balls to at least annex the land and give the local Arabs permanent residency and political rights...unlike in the WB.

the issue has been settled. it was settled a long time ago. no amount or right-wing Jewish whining can change this.

[Thunder]

I'm not impressed with your supposed experts, who also informed you that there is apartheid in the West Bank when there is no such thing.

Apartheid, in its essence, is a system of seperation based on ethnicity, race, or religion. Israel has built many settlements in the West Bank, using the tax dollars of ALL Israeli citizens, yet only Jewish Israelis can live there. There is a system of seperate roads and bridges, to keep Jews and Arabs apart. Israel confiscates Arab private property to build these Jew-only settlements....often times without compensating the property owners. Israel knows that these confiscations and settlements are illegal, otherwise they would not have claimed the confiscations were for military purposes (which is legal under international law) and them in the dead of night, turned them into civilian settlements.

The West Bank version of Seperation, is not identical to the South African version, but is waaay worse then the American version of Segregation, where at least blacks could ride the same buses (though in the back).

Yes, the regime in the West Bank is one of ethnic and religious seperation. That is why the Apartheid label is not without merit.

Try again, Young Blood.

[mortimer]

Israel has built many settlements in the West Bank, using the tax dollars of ALL Israeli citizens, yet only Jewish Israelis can live there.
You know, you repeat this a lot, but have never substantiated it as far as I can tell. Proof that Israeli Arabs are forbidden from living in Israeli West Bank settlements, please?

[Thunder]

You know, you repeat this a lot, but have never substantiated it as far as I can tell. Proof that Israeli Arabs are forbidden from living in Israeli West Bank settlements, please?

are you aware of any settlements that have Arab residents?

[mortimer]

are you aware of any settlements that have Arab residents?
Whether any settlements have Arab residents or not is not evidence that they are restricted from living in them. Perhaps they don't want to?

[Thunder]

Whether any settlements have Arab residents or not is not evidence that they are restricted from living in them. Perhaps they don't want to?

indeed. why would Israeli-Arabs want to live in big houses, with govt. subsidized mortgages, better quality of life, less congestion, more fresh air?

[mortimer]

indeed. why would Israeli-Arabs want to live in big houses, with govt. subsidized mortgages, better quality of life, less congestion, more fresh air?
So I take it that the only evidence you have that Israeli Arabs are forbidden to live in West Bank settlements, is that you know of no Israeli Arabs living in West Bank settlements?

[Thunder]

So I take it that the only evidence you have that Israeli Arabs are forbidden to live in West Bank settlements, is that you know of no Israeli Arabs living in West Bank settlements?

i will contact B'Tselem and find out.

i just sent an email to the ACRI

[Lissa]

are you aware of any settlements that have Arab residents?

There are no Jews living in Arab settlements. There are Arab communities where it is well-known that Jews are vulnerable to being shot if they venture into them.

In Israel and the West Bank, Jewish and Arab populations tend to gravitate to their own respective communities.

[Lissa]

Apartheid, in its essence, is a system of seperation based on ethnicity, race, or religion. Israel has built many settlements in the West Bank, using the tax dollars of ALL Israeli citizens, yet only Jewish Israelis can live there. There is a system of seperate roads and bridges, to keep Jews and Arabs apart. Israel confiscates Arab private property to build these Jew-only settlements....often times without compensating the property owners. Israel knows that these confiscations and settlements are illegal, otherwise they would not have claimed the confiscations were for military purposes (which is legal under international law) and them in the dead of night, turned them into civilian settlements.

The West Bank version of Seperation, is not identical to the South African version, but is waaay worse then the American version of Segregation, where at least blacks could ride the same buses (though in the back).

Yes, the regime in the West Bank is one of ethnic and religious seperation. That is why the Apartheid label is not without merit.

Try again, Young Blood.

You don't actually know what apartheid is.

Apartheid in South Africa was defined as legislated segregation of its Black population for the purpose of exploiting their labor. So, apartheid simply cannot be applied to the Arabs in the West Bank as they are not Israeli citizens and are not exploited by Israel for their labor.

Make up your own term to apply to the matter. Apartheid is not one of them. Don't worry, most people who mistakenly apply apartheid to Israel get it wrong, too.

[Lissa]

A bit broad brush, don't you think? Aren't there some Palestinians who are interested in a future together? :confused:

A future together? How romantic!

Which is why the Israelis are only building tents in the West Bank, eh? :rolleyes:

Arabs live in tents. Jews live in proper homes.

[Lissa]

it has been the standing view of the United States, the United Nations, the European Union, Russia, and most of the planet Earth, that the settlements are illegal, including the ones in East Jerusalem.

Not quite completely true. Obama is the first US president in my memory who has characterized the settlements as illegal. Previous presidents have said they were obstacles , impediments, etc., but not illegal.

[The Fool]

You overlook the "realization" that Arabs will soon have access to nukes courtesy of Iran to facilitate their attempts to liquidate Israel.

so lets look at the premises that are required to support this lot....

1. all arabs are equivalent, ones got a bomb, they all got a bomb. Does that work for white people too?
2. "Arabs" will have nuclear weapons "soon". How soon? Put a number on it?


Thus, facts on the ground are changing.

don't worry, bigger settlements will protect you from all this danger.



It is common knowledge that Palestinians' strategy is the further encroachment on Israel after gaining any territorial concessions in the West Bank.

It is common knowledge that Israel wants all the land west of the jordan and wants to drive the arabs who live there across the river......see how silly the claim of "common knowledge" is.



Not to place too fine a point on the matter, but, after Israel left Gaza, the Palestinians did not leave Israel alone. Instead, they began bombing Israel.

no...lets put a finer point on it. Who besides you (apparently) had any expectations that peace would blossom when Israel moved the troops inside the blockaded zone to the borders of the blockaded zone.

[The Fool]

dup

[bigjelmapro]

it has been the standing view of the United States, the United Nations, the European Union, Russia, and most of the planet Earth, that the settlements are illegal, including the ones in East Jerusalem.

E. Jerusalem aren't settlements. A concept that eludes you. They are neighborhoods, ie Gilo. Only news outlet that got it somewhat right was CNN in terms of E. J'lem.

Point to the illegality of these neighborhoods (since they existed before Jordanians evicted Jews from E. J'lem) and the settlement bloc, ie Gush Etzion, Ma'ale Adumim, and Ariel. And no, the Peace Now allegation against Ma'ale Adumim has long been detracted, although it still sticks on the Wikipedia page:

Peace Now’s Report on Settlement Land (http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=7&x_issue=5&x_article=1234)

These will be part of the land swap deals anyways, as it has been stated in Camp David, Oslo, and Taba.


I, however, will give a pass to the legality of the settlements in East Jerusalem, since Israel had the balls to at least annex the land and give the local Arabs permanent residency and political rights...unlike in the WB.

You give a pass because you have no argument, as stated above. You've stated the distinction of annexation, now you can follow that simple concept through.


the issue has been settled. it was settled a long time ago. no amount or right-wing Jewish whining can change this.
How is this right-wing? Perhaps you could point out this too. Or is it perhaps another knee-jerk response to whoever disagrees with you is a right-winger. :D

[Lissa]

It is common knowledge that Israel wants all the land west of the jordan and wants to drive the arabs who live there across the river......see how silly the claim of "common knowledge" is.

I see it is not common knowledge here that Israel has already surrendered nearly 50% of the West Bank to the Arabs, including control of the West Bank, in signing the Oslo Accords. It's also not common knowledge that Israel surrendered Gaza.

no...lets put a finer point on it. Who besides you (apparently) had any expectations that peace would blossom when Israel moved the troops inside the blockaded zone to the borders of the blockaded zone.

No points have been made, sadly, fine or otherwise.

[Thunder]

E. Jerusalem aren't settlements.

not one nation on Earth recognizes Israel's annexation of E. Jerusalem. therefore, all the Jewish construction in E. Jerusalem since 1967 by Israel is considered to be settlement construction, and the Jewish inhabitants...settlers. This is not my view...but it is the view of the UN, the EU, and the USA.

[Lissa]

not one nation on Earth recognizes Israel's annexation of E. Jerusalem. therefore, all the Jewish construction in E. Jerusalem since 1967 by Israel is considered to be settlement construction, and the Jewish inhabitants...settlers. This is not my view...but it is the view of the UN, the EU, and the USA.

Jerusalem is the historic capital of the Jewish people. It is mentioned in the Bible 700 times. Whether other "nations" recognize this fact has no relevance.

The US has recognized this. Good enough for me.

[Thunder]

Jerusalem is the historic capital of the Jewish people.

this is meaningless. the Jewish people are not a political entity and cannot have a capital city.

furthermore, the ancient Judaean capital was the WALLED CITY, not the many neighborhoods of what is now eastern Jerusalem. so by your own logic, if the capital of ancient Judaea and Israel should remain the capital of Israel, then this only means the Old City, and the Palestinians should be able to control everything east of it, as it was NEVER part of Israel's ancient capital.

;)

[Lissa]

this is meaningless. the Jewish people are not a political entity and cannot have a capital city.

furthermore, the ancient Judaean capital was the WALLED CITY, not the many neighborhoods of what is now eastern Jerusalem. so by your own logic, if the capital of ancient Judaea and Israel should remain the capital of Israel, then this only means the Old City, and the Palestinians should be able to control everything east of it, as it was NEVER part of Israel's ancient capital.

;)

No, it's very meaningful. The Jewish people are very much a "political entity" by virtue of the political and legal establishment of the sovereign state of Israel asa Jewish state.

The US Congress has acknowledged Jerusalem as the Jewish capital.

[Thunder]

No, it's very meaningful. The Jewish people are very much a "political entity" by virtue of the political and legal establishment of the sovereign state of Israel asa Jewish state.

there are 15 million Jews on Earth. are you saying that all 15 million Jews are citizens of Israel?

I am sorry, but the Jews of the world are NOT..a political entity. that is ridiculous.

your posts are gonna get a lot of laughs here at JREF, with such logic.

[Lissa]

there are 15 million Jews on Earth. are you saying that all 15 million Jews are citizens of Israel?

I am sorry, but the Jews of the world are NOT..a political entity. that is ridiculous.

your posts are gonna get a lot of laughs here at JREF, with such logic.

Worldwide Jewish population is 13 million, not 15 million. All Jews are *prospective* citizens of Israel, which is the basis for the creation of the modern state of Israel.

[Darth Rotor]

The lack of settlements, nor indeed the 1967 borders, didn't stop the Arabs from trying to destroy Israel in 1967.

What has changed since then DR?
Don't you mean 1973 on the second reference? It could apply to both the 1967 and 1973 wars, I guess.

The emerging dispute over that bit of land is only relevant since Israel took control in 1967. Before that, "settlements" was a non issue. Since between 1967 and now, settlement in that disputed region (disputed in terms of how to resolve the unresolved matters hanging over from 1967) has occurred, I have a very, very hard time with the statement that "settlement was never and issue" in that area.

[Darth Rotor]

You overlook the "realization" that Arabs will soon have access to nukes courtesy of Iran to facilitate their attempts to liquidate Israel.
Where do you get this fantasy from? Which Arabs do you think Iran would/will trust with nuclear weapons? I am curious.
Not to place too fine a point on the matter, but, after Israel left Gaza, the Palestinians did not leave Israel alone. Instead, they began bombing Israel. Those who don't learn from history are condemned to repeat it.
Indeed. That's a two edged sword.

[Lissa]

Where do you get this fantasy from? Which Arabs do you think Iran would/will trust with nuclear weapons? I am curious.

Indeed. That's a two edged sword.

Hamas, Hezballah, Islamic Jihad, Al-Aqsa Brigades, to name a few.

[Darth Rotor]

Jerusalem is the historic capital of the Jewish people. It is mentioned in the Bible 700 times.
So what. It has also been a significant city of the Turkish Ottoman empire. More recently than the Bible, it was the major city of the Crusader kingdoms. Then Saladin took it back. It became a major city of Islam, see Dome of the Rock.
Whether other "nations" recognize this fact has no relevance.
Actually, if you local neighbord dispute it, it's relevant as hell, since it means you won't know peace.
The US has recognized this. Good enough for me.
I thought the capital of Israel was Tel Aviv. When did this change? IIRC, the American embassy to Israel is in Tel Aviv.

[Thunder]

I have a very, very hard time with the statement that "settlement was never and issue" in that area.

that is because this is one of the stupidest things ever written on JREF, and as someone with a brain, you find it stupid.

btw, this is not an insult, but a recognition of your intelligence on this matter.

[Lissa]

that is because this is one of the stupidest things ever written on JREF, and as someone with a brain, you find it stupid.

I'm assuming you also do not know the largest agreement between Palestinian Arabs and Israelis, the Oslo Accords, does not address settlements.

Be careful calling others stupid.

[Thunder]

I'm assuming you also do not know the largest agreement between Palestinian Arabs and Israelis, the Oslo Accords, does not address settlements.

Be careful calling others stupid.

the Oslo Accords do not mention settlements because the Oslo Accords are an interim agreement meant to be followed by Final Status talks, which will finally settle the issue of the illegal Israeli settlements.

[Darth Rotor]

that is because this is one of the stupidest things ever written on JREF, and as someone with a brain, you find it stupid.
Lissa is a relatively new member. I am trying to be friendly and lively, something (friendly) I often have trouble with. I got all shirty with Fiona the other day, and realizing that I've fallen off the friendly wagon, I am trying to once again be a better poster. You are free to be amused by this, but I am sincere.

An old boss of mine once told me that where you sit influences how you see things.

[Thunder]

Lissa is indeed a "new" member. But she has gotten right into the ****, and I will respond in kind.

with facts, data, quotes, and sources. something many people at JREF refuse to do. like our old buddy, Marc39.

[Lissa]

So what. It has also been a significant city of the Turkish Ottoman empire.

No, not really. Jerusalem was left to rot during Ottoman rule. Jordan, also, left Jerusalem to decay in the 1940s. 50s and 60s.

I thought the capital of Israel was Tel Aviv. When did this change?

Jerusalem Embassy Act, passed by the US Congress in 1995:

Each sovereign nation, under international law and custom, may designate its own capital.

Since 1950, the city of Jerusalem has been the capital of the State of Israel.

The city of Jerusalem is the seat of Israel's President, Parliament, and Supreme Court, and the site of numerous government ministries and social and cultural institutions

In 1967, the city of Jerusalem was reunited during the conflict known as the Six Day War

[Darth Rotor]

No, not really. Jerusalem was left to rot during Ottoman rule. Jordan, also, left Jerusalem to decay in the 1940s. 50s and 60s.



Jerusalem Embassy Act, passed by the US Congress in 1995:

Each sovereign nation, under international law and custom, may designate its own capital.

Since 1950, the city of Jerusalem has been the capital of the State of Israel.

The city of Jerusalem is the seat of Israel's President, Parliament, and Supreme Court, and the site of numerous government ministries and social and cultural institutions

In 1967, the city of Jerusalem was reunited during the conflict known as the Six Day War
Interesting. (http://usembassy-israel.org.il/) Thank you.

The US moved its embassy in Germany from Bonn to Berlin when the capital changed.

I wonder why it doesn't do so in Israel. Maybe no real estate is available, thanks to the continued construction projects for other reasons? :p

[Thunder]

Since 1950, the city of Jerusalem has been the capital of the State of Israel.

I have no problem with the USA moving its embassy into western Jerusalem.

[Lissa]

Interesting. (http://usembassy-israel.org.il/) Thank you.

The US moved its embassy in Germany from Bonn to Berlin when the capital changed.

I wonder why it doesn't do so in Israel. Maybe no real estate is available, thanks to the continued construction projects for other reasons? :p

Since Jerusalem is the historic capital of Israel, it would make sense that Jews be permitted to live there.

[Thunder]

Since Jerusalem is the historic capital of Israel, it would make sense that Jews be permitted to live there.

the Old City is the spiritual capital of the Jews. not the New City or eastern Jerusalem.

by the way, prior to 1969, eastern Jerusalem did not exist.

[Darth Rotor]

Since Jerusalem is the historic capital of Israel, it would make sense that Jews be permitted to live there.
That has nothing to do with what we are talking about. Do you always toss in random sound bytes just to see them on the page?

Since you are appealing now to the "spiritual capital" of the Jews, will you not take seriously the importance Jerusalem has to Muslims?

DR

[Lissa]

That has nothing to do with what we are talking about. Do you always toss in random sound bytes just to see them on the page?

Since you are appealing now to the "spiritual capital" of the Jews, will you not take seriously the importance Jerusalem has to Muslims?

DR

Muslims live in Jerusalem.

[Darth Rotor]

Muslims live in Jerusalem.
Indeed.

[Thunder]

Muslims live in Jerusalem.

why r u avoiding my question?

[bigjelmapro]

not one nation on Earth recognizes Israel's annexation of E. Jerusalem. therefore, all the Jewish construction in E. Jerusalem since 1967 by Israel is considered to be settlement construction, and the Jewish inhabitants...settlers. This is not my view...but it is the view of the UN, the EU, and the USA.
Recognition does not equate to illegality. I've given the treaty where its states that its perfectly legal. You've come back with what? Voided non-binding UN resolutions and the 'nobody on earth recognizes'?

E. Jerusalem is part of......drumroll.....Jerusalem, so not settlements. They were there before, they will continue to be there. Forced eviction by the Jordanians between 1948-67 doesn't change this.

[bigjelmapro]

the Old City is the spiritual capital of the Jews. not the New City or eastern Jerusalem.

by the way, prior to 1969, eastern Jerusalem did not exist.
It wasn't part of Jerusalem municipality in 1969, but as with municipalities, they tend to grow.

Why does a place have to be 'spiritual' in order for Jews to be justified to live there?

Another golden Parky nugget of knowledge. :D

[Thunder]

Why does a place have to be 'spiritual' in order for Jews to be justified to live there?

Another golden Parky nugget of knowledge. :D

Jerusalem, the city that the Jews have prayed for..for generations, exists within the Old City walls.

We did not say "Next Year in Jerusalem" and mean the New City or the Arab neighborhoods of what is now called "East Jerusalem".

Before 1969, 85% of what is now the eastern, northern, and southern sections of the Jerusalem, were NEVER considered part of Jerusalem. not during British rule, not during Turkish rule.

http://photos-e.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc3/hs094.snc3/16145_1208845315308_1653977305_511437_7257344_n.jp g

To suggest that giving the eastern sections of the city to the Palestinians as their capital, some how disconnects Jews from their birthright and from the lands that they have dreamt of returning to for thousands of years, and from their historical and religious capital, is an outright lie.

There is absolutely NO logical or historical or religious reason, why the Palestinians can't have a good portion of those lands on the above map, between the red and blue line, as their capital.

Israelis know it. Jews know it.

[Thunder]

"Next Year in the modern-day municipal boundaries of Jerusalem, even though we know the Old City is where Jerusalem always has been until the late 1890s"

:) soo very stupid.

[Thunder]

If the Israeli govt. actually attempts to argue, that it is unfair to give the Palestinians a major part of eastern Jerusalem, because of the historic and religious connection the Jews have with Jerusalem, and ignore the historic fact of the modern cities municipal expansion, it will be just more evidence of why soo many Europeans are soo very tired of Israeli BS.

Europeans have the same map that I posted above. they know history. they know that historical Jerusalem, the Jerusalem that the Jews are connected to and dreamt about for 2,000 years, is in the Old City. they are not stupid and will not tolerate being treated like idiots.

[Thunder]

Hmm...I guess this means I won the argument.

:)

[bigjelmapro]

Jerusalem, the city that the Jews have prayed for..for generations, exists within the Old City walls.

Thanks for making it apparent that you don't understand the concept of a municipality.

Also, please show me a city/town which has had demarcations, ie walls, that haven't moved for over 2,500 years and have restricted people living outside these demarcations for certain religious groups. I'm curious.

Give me an example of a modern city? Berlin? Warsaw? Even your own New York City?


Before 1969, 85% of what is now the eastern, northern, and southern sections of the Jerusalem, were NEVER considered part of Jerusalem. not during British rule, not during Turkish rule.

Why not go back to say, 1850, still under Turkish rule, where what is claimed to be E. Jerusalem didn't exist at all and was unsettled due to building restrictions. Again, referring to the previous point, how does the rule of the British or the Turks have to do with future demarcations of a city or municipality?

http://www.eretzyisroel.org/~dhershkowitz/pic208-m.jpg
Outside Damascus Gate, 1860
Damascus Gate with the Old City in the Background. The Unihabited areaa to the North of the Walls is now part of Arab "East Jerusalem". "East Jerusalem" only appeared after 1850 when Turkish Authorities allowed structures within 850 meters of the Old City walls.


To suggest that giving the eastern sections of the city to the Palestinians as their capital, some how disconnects Jews from their birthright and from the lands that they have dreamt of returning to for thousands of years, and from their historical and religious capital, is an outright lie.

It does Gush Etzion, Gilo, Atarot, Talpiot, Neve Yaakov and so forth. These places are historical as they were settled previous to the founding of Israel and prior to the forced eviction by the Arab legion and Jordanian forces.

As to the previous point why does a voided armistice line created by the 1948 war have to do with a Palestinian capital? I'm sure you're gong to come back with recognition angle. :D


There is absolutely NO logical or historical or religious reason, why the Palestinians can't have a good portion of those lands on the above map, between the red and blue line, as their capital.

Israelis know it. Jews know it.
Plenty. You have failed to make a valid point outside of providing a map of voided armistice lines and ignore the actual history behind these area.

Try again.

[Thunder]

Plenty. You have failed to make a valid point outside of providing a map of voided armistice lines and ignore the actual history behind these area.

Try again.

its arguments like this that make the people of the world role their eyes at Israelis.

the fact remains, that the city of Jerusalem, the one that my ancestors have dreamed about for 2,000 years, existed within the Old City walls.

the New city only first began to be built in the late 1890s..as you well know.

and up until 1967.....the boundaries of Jerusalem NEVER ventured more then a few hundred feet from the eastern wall of the city.

to argue that the sections of modern municipal Jerusalem ALL the way to the north, east, and south, which were only annexed 40 years ago, are part of the ancient Jerusalem that the Jews have dreamed up for 2,000 years, and part of the historical capital of Judaism and the Jewish people..is an outright lie.

it is a lie. it is pure deceit. the Arabs know this and the Europeans know this. it is arguments like this that give fuel to anti-Semitism. it is arguments like this that help portray Jews as liars.

I am 100% in favor of Israel retaining the Jewish Quarter of the Old City, and perhaps even more. If the Palestinians agree to let Israel keep the Jewish neighborhoods in East Jerusalem, I will accept that too.

But to argue that it is some sort of historical crime, to ask Israel to pull back from parts of Jerusalem that only became Jerusalem for the first time in 3,000 years.....only 40 years ago.....is a pure lie and will do the Jewish people great damage.

I urge you to stop making this argument.

[bigjelmapro]

with facts, data, quotes, and sources. something many people at JREF refuse to do. like our old buddy, Marc39.
Where's the uber large Lol smiley when you need it. It just doesn't suffice :D

[bigjelmapro]

its arguments like this that make the people of the world role their eyes at Israelis.

Nah, its the other way around. People who make ridiculous assertions and statements without justifying their position is why I role my eyes at certain people within the 'international community'.


the fact remains, that the city of Jerusalem, the one that my ancestors have dreamed about for 2,000 years, existed within the Old City walls.

Again, you haven't answered my question.


the New city only first began to be built in the late 1890s..as you well know.

Yes, here you slightly get the gist of expanding municipalities. As is normal in cities worldwide.


and up until 1967.....the boundaries of Jerusalem NEVER ventured more then a few hundred feet from the eastern wall of the city.

And here you completely missed it again.


to argue that the sections of modern municipal Jerusalem ALL the way to the north, east, and south, which were only annexed 40 years ago, are part of the ancient Jerusalem that the Jews have dreamed up for 2,000 years, and part of the historical capital of Judaism and the Jewish people..is an outright lie.

Never made this claim. You are the only one that is.


I am 100% in favor of Israel retaining the Jewish Quarter of the Old City, and perhaps even more. If the Palestinians agree to let Israel keep the Jewish neighborhoods in East Jerusalem, I will accept that too.

Perhaps? You don't even understand where Jews are settled prior to this artificial and voided 1967 armistice line. In your head, the Jewish quarter is the only place Jews are justified to live and the only place where Israel can claim as their capital. The Jewish quarter doesn't even comprise the majority of W. J'lem.

The last sentence contradicts the previous.


But to argue that it is some sort of historical crime, to ask Israel to pull back from parts of Jerusalem that only became Jerusalem for the first time in 3,000 years.....only 40 years ago.....is a pure lie and will do the Jewish people great damage.

I urge you to stop making this argument.
But its ok to argue that Arab villages/towns that were created ~40 years ago should stay? Why? Because the Jordanian army and the Arab league carved it out that way between 1948-67? Here you're justifying a double standard of permissible eviction of Jews during the war of independence (and subsequent re-settlement post-67) and demanding one-sided concessions of splitting up a city, once again (municipality point still stands, no rebuttal as of yet) along artificial lines.

This sentence overall doesn't even make sense. Just hope you can actual rebut what I've stated previously rather than go on a little morality rant once again (with a drizzle of contradictions on your part).

[Thunder]

But its ok to argue that Arab villages/towns that were created ~40 years ago should stay? Why? Because the Jordanian army and the Arab league carved it out that way between 1948-67? Here you're justifying a double standard of permissible eviction of Jews during the war of independence (and subsequent re-settlement post-67) and demanding one-sided concessions of splitting up a city, once again (municipality point still stands, no rebuttal as of yet) along artificial lines.


what villages did Jordan create after 1949?

if there are Jewish villages in East Jerusalem that were built after 1967, but which existed in Palestine before Jordan conquered the area, that of course that should be taken under consideration.

but that is NOT what this is about. this is about liars and fools arguing that NO part of the modern-day municipal city of Jerusalem should be given to the Arabs. not the northern most part, not the southern most part, not the eastern most part....NONE of it.

there is NO historical or logical reason why the Arab areas of East Jerusalem can't go to the Arabs, and the Jewish areas go to the Jews.

can you give me one good reason why such a solution ignores the Jews' historical connection to the ancient city?

[bigjelmapro]

what villages did Jordan create after 1949?

Didn't say Jordan. But I suppose you made the assumption with the sentence following that bolded part.


if there are Jewish villages in East Jerusalem that were built after 1967, but which existed in Palestine before Jordan conquered the area, that of course that should be taken under consideration.

Which are the points I'm arguing here, and a handful which I've mentioned. But here, once again, you contradict yourself on the rest of your post arguing ancient demarcations.


but that is NOT what this is about. this is about liars and fools arguing that NO part of the modern-day municipal city of Jerusalem should be given to the Arabs. not the northern most part, not the southern most part, not the eastern most part....NONE of it.

No. What you argued from the beginning is that Jews should be restricted to areas of religious significance and that a municipality of Jerusalem should exist upon an static, ancient version. Additionally, that this version that came forth out of the 1948 war should be the permanent demarcations of a Palestinian capital. Nobody here is arguing that these parts should be evicted of Arabs at all. Only you are. So stop fooling yourself.

Additionally, the Jerusalem district map used dated 1945 made under the 'Ad Hoc Committee on the Palestine Question' and the haphazard British land reform, which can be researched under 'A survey of Palestine under the British Mandate, 1920-1948' reformed the Ottoman land registry in favor of the Arabs. Prior to this, there was 6-8% private land ownership in all the mandate. I've stated this long ago, but you refuse to address it.

This Jerusalem district map of 1945 also has a remarkable resemblance to the post-67 Jerusalem district.


there is NO historical or logical reason why the Arab areas of East Jerusalem can't go to the Arabs, and the Jewish areas go to the Jews.

I don't see a logical reason for splitting up any city. Sure, the outlying districts to the north in order to have a contiguous swath of land, but not divvying up each neighborhood along demographics. Mind you, this has been tried before and the Arab bloc rejected it.


can you give me one good reason why such a solution ignores the Jews' historical connection to the ancient city?
You keep bringing up this failed argument about an ancient city. Snap yourself out of this mindset. I've rebutted why this is an implausible approach, now reply to it.

[Thunder]

No. What you argued from the beginning is that Jews should be restricted to areas of religious significance and that a municipality of Jerusalem should exist upon an static, ancient version. .

No...I did not. I said and believe that the Jewish areas of East Jerusalem should go to Israel and the Arab areas of East Jerusalem should go to the Arabs. NOT because these areas have been part of ancient Jerusalem (cause they never were), but because some of those areas had Jewish communities before 1948 and frankly there is no reason why the Arabs can't have the Arab areas and the Jews can't have the Jewish areas.

Don't attempt to put words in my mouth..especially when you can't back them up.

[bigjelmapro]

No...I did not. I said and believe that the Jewish areas of East Jerusalem should go to Israel and the Arab areas of East Jerusalem should go to the Arabs. NOT because these areas have been part of ancient Jerusalem (cause they never were), but because some of those areas had Jewish communities before 1948 and frankly there is no reason why the Arabs can't have the Arab areas and the Jews can't have the Jewish areas.

Who is arguing ancient Jerusalem demarcations besides you? We are past these ancient demarcations, so were the Ottomans (which you falsely attributed).

The Arabs can have the Arab sections/neighborhoods, who said they can't? As a separated area (ie PA/Fatah/Hamas controlled and administered), that's another question.


Don't attempt to put words in my mouth..especially when you can't back them up.
Yeah, my fault. I'm attempting to decipher what exactly your position is because quite frankly, I don't know since you have this innate habit of contradicting yourself in many of your posts. Maybe this is some sort of defense mechanism, I don't know. What is your position, as in a concrete one, regarding E. J'lem and whether or not this would become a future Palestinian state. And why?

[Thunder]

Yeah, my fault. I'm attempting to decipher what exactly your position is because quite frankly, I don't know since you have this innate habit of contradicting yourself in many of your posts. Maybe this is some sort of defense mechanism, I don't know. What is your position, as in a concrete one, regarding E. J'lem and whether or not this would become a future Palestinian state. And why?

There is NO historical nor religious reason why the Arab areas of East Jerusalem cannot become the capital of the State of Palestine.

Israel has a legitimate claim to keep the Jewish areas.

[mortimer]

i will contact B'Tselem and find out.

i just sent an email to the ACRI
Heard back yet?

[Thunder]

Heard back yet?

no...i have not. :(

[bigjelmapro]

Awaiting a serious reply Parky. Repeating the same rhetoric/drivel for pages isn't going to give you any points for a serious debater...

[Thunder]

Awaiting a serious reply Parky. Repeating the same rhetoric/drivel for pages isn't going to give you any points for a serious debater...

awaiting a serious reply....to what question?

or is this post just purely a personal attack?

pathetic....but typical. We expect nothing less.

[bigjelmapro]

Who is 'we'?

There's plenty to reply to, even still on this page, but if you continue, I guess this will pass into another page. This your intention?

[Thunder]

Who is 'we'?

There's plenty to reply to, even still on this page, but if you continue, I guess this will pass into another page. This your intention?

that makes zero sense. but I am not surprised. :D

[bigjelmapro]

Of course it doesn't make sense yet. The above material that can be replied to is still on this page. Come on, a few more replies to go and that you can ignore it once again. Like talking against a wall.

[Thunder]

Like talking against a wall.

you're on a roll bro!!!!!!

:p

[bigjelmapro]

you're on a roll bro!!!!!!

:p
Yay, you made it to the next page. Now all the previous pages are a thing of the past (as in passé) and don't exist =)

[Thunder]

Yay, you made it to the next page. Now all the previous pages are a thing of the past (as in passé) and don't exist =)

this is called trolling.

[bigjelmapro]

Lol. The troll accuses me of trolling.

Thing is, this is a tactic you use in order to avoid responding to the actual OP and replies that directly rebut your position.

You reply with drivel in a handful of replies, wait until the next page comes around and pretend the previous posts don't exist.

Its not trolling, ie provoking an emotive response, its forcing you to actually stop playing this infantile game of yours in avoiding an actual reply.

Deal with it. Or as in the rest of your failed threads and positions, fold.

[Thunder]

Lol. The troll accuses me of trolling.

Thing is, this is a tactic you use in order to avoid responding to the actual OP and replies that directly rebut your position.

You reply with drivel in a handful of replies, wait until the next page comes around and pretend the previous posts don't exist.

Its not trolling, ie provoking an emotive response, its forcing you to actually stop playing this infantile game of yours in avoiding an actual reply.

Deal with it. Or as in the rest of your failed threads and positions, fold.

trolling is pretty lame. :p

[bigjelmapro]

So you don't know what trolling is. Thanks for yet another thread of drivel.

Too easy.

[Thunder]

So you don't know what trolling is. Thanks for yet another thread of drivel.

Too easy.

good one!!! :p