Be clear

[P F Tinmore]

Too late for a two state since the hawkish jews have stole so much land and built on it, unless of course the Jews want to return the land?? Another issue the jews there are mainly atheist, secular, and really don't get along with the religious jews so there in you have another problem.

I think if I lived in Israel (God forbid) I'd live in Palestine, gaza , as far away from the jews as can be, I'd rather live with oppressed Palestinians that the arrogant ungodly jews.

Do you mean return it to themselves because they bought it prior to 1948

Give the land back that was stolen, but Israel wont. This will go on till Israel has it all. They are rewriting history as it is, one can't find a WWII movie not bias towards the Jews. The NG and History channels might as well be called "Hitler". I imagine in say 50 years, Palestinians, who were they, just like the Canaanites, just a distance memory. Jews still believe in Yahweh, their war god.

The land is Jewish under International law, and in 1949 the arab muslims forcibly evicted the Jews and took their land. It is detailed in the Jordanian law books if you look. So the facts show that you are talking shite.

6. The question of the availability of State Domain for Jewish settlement requires some explanation. It cannot be maintained that the Palestine Government has the free disposal of such lands, cultivable as well as waste, or that the Arab inhabitants have no claims in their apportionment.

In Appendix VI will be found a statement of registered State Domain, and, in the case of the cultivable areas, particulars of the occupants.

Most of the cultivable State lands had been in occupation and under cultivation by Arabs for generations. They had owned the lands before the Ottoman Land Code was enacted, and, although, comparatively recently the Sultan acquired the titular ownership, the original possessors were not ousted and their position became that of tenants in perpetuity. They were allowed to sell their tenancy rights, and those rights were transmitted by inheritance to their descendants. Their position vis-à-vis the Sultan and, on his deposition, vis-à-vis the Turkish Government, was in some degree analogous to that of owners of ordinary Miri land.

Another question that has aroused considerable discussion is that of the Ghor Mudawwara Agreement of 1921, relating to the Baisan lands. It may be observed in regard to this question that it would not have been possible to grant Jewish settlers a share in the Baisan lands without buying out the rights of the Arabs, with their consent. That consent was not likely to have been obtained; nor could public funds have been applied to such a purpose.

The origin of the Ghor Mudawwara Agreement was the following.

In 1920, the Palestine Government attempted to regularize the position of tenants of all State Domains, and called upon the cultivator-tenants of the Ghor Mudawwara villages to sign agreements of lease.

The tenants refused, fearing that the leases would be used to prove that the lands were not theirs. They stated that the registration of ownership in the name of the State had in most cases been made in an improper manner; that their ancestors and they had owned the land in unbroken succession, long before the Ottoman Registration Law was enacted; that even after the Sultan had obtained the titular ownership they had remained in possession of the land and had continued to buy and sell rights therein; and that their rights had been transmitted by inheritance without interference. Nor did they conceal their fear that the Government sought to give their lands to Jewish settlers.

The Palestine Government in the circumstances decided to allow the Arabs to re-acquire full Miri rights in the land. The Ghor Mudawwara Agreement was the instrument signed for that purpose: being a contract between the State and tenants which settled the respective rights of both parties. - See more at: Mandate for Palestine - Report of the Mandatory to the League of Nations 31 December 1930

 

[Daniyel]

Too late for a two state since the hawkish jews have stole so much land and built on it, unless of course the Jews want to return the land?? Another issue the jews there are mainly atheist, secular, and really don't get along with the religious jews so there in you have another problem.

I think if I lived in Israel (God forbid) I'd live in Palestine, gaza , as far away from the jews as can be, I'd rather live with oppressed Palestinians that the arrogant ungodly jews.

Do you mean return it to themselves because they bought it prior to 1948

Give the land back that was stolen, but Israel wont. This will go on till Israel has it all. They are rewriting history as it is, one can't find a WWII movie not bias towards the Jews. The NG and History channels might as well be called "Hitler". I imagine in say 50 years, Palestinians, who were they, just like the Canaanites, just a distance memory. Jews still believe in Yahweh, their war god.

The land is Jewish under International law, and in 1949 the arab muslims forcibly evicted the Jews and took their land. It is detailed in the Jordanian law books if you look. So the facts show that you are talking shite.

6. The question of the availability of State Domain for Jewish settlement requires some explanation. It cannot be maintained that the Palestine Government has the free disposal of such lands, cultivable as well as waste, or that the Arab inhabitants have no claims in their apportionment.

In Appendix VI will be found a statement of registered State Domain, and, in the case of the cultivable areas, particulars of the occupants.

Most of the cultivable State lands had been in occupation and under cultivation by Arabs for generations. They had owned the lands before the Ottoman Land Code was enacted, and, although, comparatively recently the Sultan acquired the titular ownership, the original possessors were not ousted and their position became that of tenants in perpetuity. They were allowed to sell their tenancy rights, and those rights were transmitted by inheritance to their descendants. Their position vis-à-vis the Sultan and, on his deposition, vis-à-vis the Turkish Government, was in some degree analogous to that of owners of ordinary Miri land.

Another question that has aroused considerable discussion is that of the Ghor Mudawwara Agreement of 1921, relating to the Baisan lands. It may be observed in regard to this question that it would not have been possible to grant Jewish settlers a share in the Baisan lands without buying out the rights of the Arabs, with their consent. That consent was not likely to have been obtained; nor could public funds have been applied to such a purpose.

The origin of the Ghor Mudawwara Agreement was the following.

In 1920, the Palestine Government attempted to regularize the position of tenants of all State Domains, and called upon the cultivator-tenants of the Ghor Mudawwara villages to sign agreements of lease.

The tenants refused, fearing that the leases would be used to prove that the lands were not theirs. They stated that the registration of ownership in the name of the State had in most cases been made in an improper manner; that their ancestors and they had owned the land in unbroken succession, long before the Ottoman Registration Law was enacted; that even after the Sultan had obtained the titular ownership they had remained in possession of the land and had continued to buy and sell rights therein; and that their rights had been transmitted by inheritance without interference. Nor did they conceal their fear that the Government sought to give their lands to Jewish settlers.

The Palestine Government in the circumstances decided to allow the Arabs to re-acquire full Miri rights in the land. The Ghor Mudawwara Agreement was the instrument signed for that purpose: being a contract between the State and tenants which settled the respective rights of both parties. - See more at: Mandate for Palestine - Report of the Mandatory to the League of Nations 31 December 1930

Wait...but you said...

P F Tinmore, et al,

(COMMENT)
Establishing ownership via private and civil real estate processes are altogether different from establishing sovereignty through the right of self-determination.

Indeed, but Israeli propagandists are always bringing the lack of land ownership of the Palestinians as proof that they have no rights.

My point has always been that the rights belong to the habitual residents.

BTW, have you checked out my link yet?

UNHCR - Draft Articles on Nationality of Natural Persons in relation to the Succession of States with commentaries 1999

Article 4. Prevention of statelessness
States concerned shall take all appropriate meas-
ures to prevent persons who, on the date of the succes-
sion of States, had the nationality of the predecessor
State from becoming stateless as a result of such
succession.

(COMMENT)

You will notice that the first word in the title is "DRAFT." This DRAFT is over a decade old --- very old and unlikely to achieve adoption any time in the near future. It has no veracity or standing in this issue. It is simply one of many law concepts that was suggested and not accepted. But more importantly, even if this was a law ---- made law in 1999, a decade after the State of Palestine Independence; 3 decades after the Six-Day War; a half century after the Israeli War of Independence and the adoption of the Partition Plan; and 8 decades after the Allied Powers at San Remo decided to reconstitute the Jewish National Home. (It is still not law; because the DRAFT doesn't adequately reflect how it works in the real-world; at least not yet.)

Most Respectfully,
R

This may be 1999 but the legal concepts are a hundred years old. They are attempting to define and refine old principles. So don't try to imply that these are new ideas.

In international law, when a state is dissolved and new states are established, “the population follows the change of sovereignty in matters of nationality.”5 As a rule, therefore, citizens of the former state should automatically acquire the nationality of the successor state in which they had already been residing.

Nationality constitutes a legal bond that connects individuals with a specific territory, making them citizens of that territory.

Drawing up the framework of nationality, Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne stated:

“Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become ipso facto, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.”​

The Palestinians are stateless due to politics not law. Or, I would say, due to the violation of law.

They are stateless because of the ignorance of their government.

Indeed, and they have never been allowed to choose their own government. It has always been imposed on them by foreigners.

And we agreed they lack the motive of self determination - so all these beautiful resolutions are meaningless in relation to the Arab Muslims...don't you think?
Still waiting for an answer to my questions.

 

[Phoenall]

The one state idea is intriguing and there are those who think it could work. I'm skeptical - the hate, fear and mistrust on both sides has only hardened. Both have their extremists that are unwilling to bend. The only way it could work would be to have a Nelson Mandella type figure and a truth & reconciliation type of plan but there is nothing remotely like that on the horizon.

Actually I'm more aligning to a "three(or two and a half)" states solution.

I don't think a half state is doable - it isn't working now is it? Are you thinking states of Gaza and Israel and WB half state?

It's little bit more complex than that, but the basics of the land are WB along with the Palestinians to be fully recognized part of Israel, Gaza a state of Palestine along with parts of the Negev(Kerem Shalom areas) - Terror linked Palestinians can only resident in Palestine or either surrender and stand for trial, while the rest would be granted with Israel ID and resettling support from Israel, those unwilling to accept would simply be deported to demilitarized Gaza, this is probably the only thing that can ever work out and be accepted for both parties but not in the current state and not with the current diplomatic chao, its Israel's responsibility to ensure the Palestinians would have their opinion in it rather than Fatah/Hamas IMHO.

Interesting. Something to think about as a possible solution.

However: Terror linked Palestinians can only resident in Palestine or either surrender and stand for trial...

Why not a "truth and reconciliation" effort as South Africa went through?

Chalk and cheese, and if you look the South Africans would welcome back white rule and apartheid in an instant because of the failure to protect the people from violence, rape and murder

 

[Phoenall]

I think all of the posters should make clear if they are for a 2-state solution, one Palestine (Gd forbid) or one Israel. Even Norman Finklestein has come come to the realization that most pro-Palestinians want ALL of Israel. I think this is where we all stand:
pbel-2 states
monte-all Palestine
Billo reilly-2 states
Joe-all Palestine
toastman-2 states
Roudy-all Israel
Penelope-all Palestine

Too late for a two state since the hawkish jews have stole so much land and built on it, unless of course the Jews want to return the land?? Another issue the jews there are mainly atheist, secular, and really don't get along with the religious jews so there in you have another problem.

I think if I lived in Israel (God forbid) I'd live in Palestine, gaza , as far away from the jews as can be, I'd rather live with oppressed Palestinians that the arrogant ungodly jews.

Good, no one in Israel would want a scum Nazi like you anyway. But if you do go to Gaza, make sure there is a psychiatric hospital for you to live in.

No problem. Worshipping jews is not my bag.

But worshipping muslims is ?

 

[Phoenall]

Few questions maybe you'd be able to answer;
1.How does Zionism stopped the Palestinians in the past to establish a state of their own, or even today?

2.Addressing the "Palestinian Problem" as he mentioned is a very misleading term, the real Palestinian Problem is the continuing aggressions in the past and today to violently override the right for self determination of Jews - Judaism is all about Zionism, and there was a room for Palestinians which they didn't accept neither in Israel and Trans Jordan - irrationaly - with the later regrets that comes every few years of why NOT accepting any sort of land to imply they simply want it all, same applies for the term "refugees" which is no longer valid yet accepted even by the UN emphasizing the need of the Palestinians to back to Israel and establish instead a state of Palestine, so apparently Jews are the problem for them, can you disprove that?

3.The claim "one group" is ruling is nonsense, it's all lovely to hear once in a while the laughable claims for apartheid and such but since the Palestinians are refugees it means they're not in Israel, so bang goes the whole claim, unless you'd be able to disprove that either?

4.Yet again he repeat that Jews are the problem for the Palestinians - that suddenly expect us to forget all what they did to us, now that he said it's all because they're not Jews they can't cone back, care to relate to the other one quarter of non Jews that Zionism didn't stopped from living peacefully along with all civil rights?

5.Zionism is an ideology of racism - some very specific term of racism, the one that decide to - quotting "throw Jews into the sea" - Care to relate to that?

Stopped at 5:38.
We can continue after satisfying these questions of which Abunimah defined to construct the entire speech about, so let's observe them first, now I know you are not one of the brightest debaters around here so I will also invite every one that is interested in sharing their opinions, please feel free to elaborate.

The Jews were in Europe and they settled in Palestine to colonize it although more than 95% of the people inhabiting Palestine were Muslims and Christians. That's is why there is a problem. Everything else is bullshit.

Under International law of the time the Jews were invited to migrate and settle because the arab muslims were still living in the 7C. The Italians were in Europe before they invaded and colonised the Americas, so if you where that bothered you would have given your property in the US back to its rightful owners. The fact they inhabited the land meant nothing at the time, and the sovereign owners could do what they wanted. The reason why there is a problem is because the arab muslims want everything and will not settles for a amicable solution. Yes freddy boy everything else you say is NAZI RACIST bullshit

 

[P F Tinmore]

Too late for a two state since the hawkish jews have stole so much land and built on it, unless of course the Jews want to return the land?? Another issue the jews there are mainly atheist, secular, and really don't get along with the religious jews so there in you have another problem.

I think if I lived in Israel (God forbid) I'd live in Palestine, gaza , as far away from the jews as can be, I'd rather live with oppressed Palestinians that the arrogant ungodly jews.

Do you mean return it to themselves because they bought it prior to 1948

Give the land back that was stolen, but Israel wont. This will go on till Israel has it all. They are rewriting history as it is, one can't find a WWII movie not bias towards the Jews. The NG and History channels might as well be called "Hitler". I imagine in say 50 years, Palestinians, who were they, just like the Canaanites, just a distance memory. Jews still believe in Yahweh, their war god.

The land is Jewish under International law, and in 1949 the arab muslims forcibly evicted the Jews and took their land. It is detailed in the Jordanian law books if you look. So the facts show that you are talking shite.

6. The question of the availability of State Domain for Jewish settlement requires some explanation. It cannot be maintained that the Palestine Government has the free disposal of such lands, cultivable as well as waste, or that the Arab inhabitants have no claims in their apportionment.

In Appendix VI will be found a statement of registered State Domain, and, in the case of the cultivable areas, particulars of the occupants.

Most of the cultivable State lands had been in occupation and under cultivation by Arabs for generations. They had owned the lands before the Ottoman Land Code was enacted, and, although, comparatively recently the Sultan acquired the titular ownership, the original possessors were not ousted and their position became that of tenants in perpetuity. They were allowed to sell their tenancy rights, and those rights were transmitted by inheritance to their descendants. Their position vis-à-vis the Sultan and, on his deposition, vis-à-vis the Turkish Government, was in some degree analogous to that of owners of ordinary Miri land.

Another question that has aroused considerable discussion is that of the Ghor Mudawwara Agreement of 1921, relating to the Baisan lands. It may be observed in regard to this question that it would not have been possible to grant Jewish settlers a share in the Baisan lands without buying out the rights of the Arabs, with their consent. That consent was not likely to have been obtained; nor could public funds have been applied to such a purpose.

The origin of the Ghor Mudawwara Agreement was the following.

In 1920, the Palestine Government attempted to regularize the position of tenants of all State Domains, and called upon the cultivator-tenants of the Ghor Mudawwara villages to sign agreements of lease.

The tenants refused, fearing that the leases would be used to prove that the lands were not theirs. They stated that the registration of ownership in the name of the State had in most cases been made in an improper manner; that their ancestors and they had owned the land in unbroken succession, long before the Ottoman Registration Law was enacted; that even after the Sultan had obtained the titular ownership they had remained in possession of the land and had continued to buy and sell rights therein; and that their rights had been transmitted by inheritance without interference. Nor did they conceal their fear that the Government sought to give their lands to Jewish settlers.

The Palestine Government in the circumstances decided to allow the Arabs to re-acquire full Miri rights in the land. The Ghor Mudawwara Agreement was the instrument signed for that purpose: being a contract between the State and tenants which settled the respective rights of both parties. - See more at: Mandate for Palestine - Report of the Mandatory to the League of Nations 31 December 1930

Wait...but you said...

P F Tinmore, et al,

Indeed, but Israeli propagandists are always bringing the lack of land ownership of the Palestinians as proof that they have no rights.

My point has always been that the rights belong to the habitual residents.

BTW, have you checked out my link yet?

UNHCR - Draft Articles on Nationality of Natural Persons in relation to the Succession of States with commentaries 1999

Article 4. Prevention of statelessness
States concerned shall take all appropriate meas-
ures to prevent persons who, on the date of the succes-
sion of States, had the nationality of the predecessor
State from becoming stateless as a result of such
succession.

(COMMENT)

You will notice that the first word in the title is "DRAFT." This DRAFT is over a decade old --- very old and unlikely to achieve adoption any time in the near future. It has no veracity or standing in this issue. It is simply one of many law concepts that was suggested and not accepted. But more importantly, even if this was a law ---- made law in 1999, a decade after the State of Palestine Independence; 3 decades after the Six-Day War; a half century after the Israeli War of Independence and the adoption of the Partition Plan; and 8 decades after the Allied Powers at San Remo decided to reconstitute the Jewish National Home. (It is still not law; because the DRAFT doesn't adequately reflect how it works in the real-world; at least not yet.)

Most Respectfully,
R

This may be 1999 but the legal concepts are a hundred years old. They are attempting to define and refine old principles. So don't try to imply that these are new ideas.

In international law, when a state is dissolved and new states are established, “the population follows the change of sovereignty in matters of nationality.”5 As a rule, therefore, citizens of the former state should automatically acquire the nationality of the successor state in which they had already been residing.

Nationality constitutes a legal bond that connects individuals with a specific territory, making them citizens of that territory.

Drawing up the framework of nationality, Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne stated:

“Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become ipso facto, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.”​

The Palestinians are stateless due to politics not law. Or, I would say, due to the violation of law.

They are stateless because of the ignorance of their government.

Indeed, and they have never been allowed to choose their own government. It has always been imposed on them by foreigners.

And we agreed they lack the motive of self determination - so all these beautiful resolutions are meaningless in relation to the Arab Muslims...don't you think?
Still waiting for an answer to my questions.

I apologize if I missed your questions. Could you repeat?

 

[Phoenall]

Too late for a two state since the hawkish jews have stole so much land and built on it, unless of course the Jews want to return the land?? Another issue the jews there are mainly atheist, secular, and really don't get along with the religious jews so there in you have another problem.

I think if I lived in Israel (God forbid) I'd live in Palestine, gaza , as far away from the jews as can be, I'd rather live with oppressed Palestinians that the arrogant ungodly jews.

Do you mean return it to themselves because they bought it prior to 1948

Give the land back that was stolen, but Israel wont. This will go on till Israel has it all. They are rewriting history as it is, one can't find a WWII movie not bias towards the Jews. The NG and History channels might as well be called "Hitler". I imagine in say 50 years, Palestinians, who were they, just like the Canaanites, just a distance memory. Jews still believe in Yahweh, their war god.

The land is Jewish under International law, and in 1949 the arab muslims forcibly evicted the Jews and took their land. It is detailed in the Jordanian law books if you look. So the facts show that you are talking shite.

6. The question of the availability of State Domain for Jewish settlement requires some explanation. It cannot be maintained that the Palestine Government has the free disposal of such lands, cultivable as well as waste, or that the Arab inhabitants have no claims in their apportionment.

In Appendix VI will be found a statement of registered State Domain, and, in the case of the cultivable areas, particulars of the occupants.

Most of the cultivable State lands had been in occupation and under cultivation by Arabs for generations. They had owned the lands before the Ottoman Land Code was enacted, and, although, comparatively recently the Sultan acquired the titular ownership, the original possessors were not ousted and their position became that of tenants in perpetuity. They were allowed to sell their tenancy rights, and those rights were transmitted by inheritance to their descendants. Their position vis-à-vis the Sultan and, on his deposition, vis-à-vis the Turkish Government, was in some degree analogous to that of owners of ordinary Miri land.

Another question that has aroused considerable discussion is that of the Ghor Mudawwara Agreement of 1921, relating to the Baisan lands. It may be observed in regard to this question that it would not have been possible to grant Jewish settlers a share in the Baisan lands without buying out the rights of the Arabs, with their consent. That consent was not likely to have been obtained; nor could public funds have been applied to such a purpose.

The origin of the Ghor Mudawwara Agreement was the following.

In 1920, the Palestine Government attempted to regularize the position of tenants of all State Domains, and called upon the cultivator-tenants of the Ghor Mudawwara villages to sign agreements of lease.

The tenants refused, fearing that the leases would be used to prove that the lands were not theirs. They stated that the registration of ownership in the name of the State had in most cases been made in an improper manner; that their ancestors and they had owned the land in unbroken succession, long before the Ottoman Registration Law was enacted; that even after the Sultan had obtained the titular ownership they had remained in possession of the land and had continued to buy and sell rights therein; and that their rights had been transmitted by inheritance without interference. Nor did they conceal their fear that the Government sought to give their lands to Jewish settlers.

The Palestine Government in the circumstances decided to allow the Arabs to re-acquire full Miri rights in the land. The Ghor Mudawwara Agreement was the instrument signed for that purpose: being a contract between the State and tenants which settled the respective rights of both parties. - See more at: Mandate for Palestine - Report of the Mandatory to the League of Nations 31 December 1930

Read your cut and paste again and you see that the arab muslims admit they do not own the land, case dismissed.

 

[danielpalos]

I think all of the posters should make clear if they are for a 2-state solution, one Palestine (Gd forbid) oer one Israel. Even Norman Finklestein has come come to the realization that most pro-Palestinians want ALL of Israel. I think this is where we all stand:
pbel-2 states
monte-all Palestine
Billo reilly-2 states
Joe-all Palestine
toastman-2 states
Roudy-all Israel
penelope-all Palestine

Any two state solution can only result in two states at endless war. Unless & until the Palestinian leaders are ever willing to negotiate a lasting peace with Israel, there will remain a No State solution for the Palis.

I disagree. Two States could be tasked with securing natural rights for their citizenry.

In any case, Capitalism only seems useless to the Right.

 

[Daniyel]

Few questions maybe you'd be able to answer;
1.How does Zionism stopped the Palestinians in the past to establish a state of their own, or even today?

2.Addressing the "Palestinian Problem" as he mentioned is a very misleading term, the real Palestinian Problem is the continuing aggressions in the past and today to violently override the right for self determination of Jews - Judaism is all about Zionism, and there was a room for Palestinians which they didn't accept neither in Israel and Trans Jordan - irrationaly - with the later regrets that comes every few years of why NOT accepting any sort of land to imply they simply want it all, same applies for the term "refugees" which is no longer valid yet accepted even by the UN emphasizing the need of the Palestinians to back to Israel and establish instead a state of Palestine, so apparently Jews are the problem for them, can you disprove that?

3.The claim "one group" is ruling is nonsense, it's all lovely to hear once in a while the laughable claims for apartheid and such but since the Palestinians are refugees it means they're not in Israel, so bang goes the whole claim, unless you'd be able to disprove that either?

4.Yet again he repeat that Jews are the problem for the Palestinians - that suddenly expect us to forget all what they did to us, now that he said it's all because they're not Jews they can't cone back, care to relate to the other one quarter of non Jews that Zionism didn't stopped from living peacefully along with all civil rights?

5.Zionism is an ideology of racism - some very specific term of racism, the one that decide to - quotting "throw Jews into the sea" - Care to relate to that?

Stopped at 5:38.
We can continue after satisfying these questions of which Abunimah defined to construct the entire speech about, so let's observe them first, now I know you are not one of the brightest debaters around here so I will also invite every one that is interested in sharing their opinions, please feel free to elaborate.

P F Tinmore

 

[Coyote]

I think all of the posters should make clear if they are for a 2-state solution, one Palestine (Gd forbid) or one Israel. Even Norman Finklestein has come come to the realization that most pro-Palestinians want ALL of Israel. I think this is where we all stand:
pbel-2 states
monte-all Palestine
Billo reilly-2 states
Joe-all Palestine
toastman-2 states
Roudy-all Israel
Penelope-all Palestine

Too late for a two state since the hawkish jews have stole so much land and built on it, unless of course the Jews want to return the land?? Another issue the jews there are mainly atheist, secular, and really don't get along with the religious jews so there in you have another problem.

I think if I lived in Israel (God forbid) I'd live in Palestine, gaza , as far away from the jews as can be, I'd rather live with oppressed Palestinians that the arrogant ungodly jews.

I can understand having issues with Israel and it's policies - but you seem to hate ALL Jews everywhere. That's not very cool.

I can understand your point........being as you are an uneducated Moron.........but I totally disagree with you summation........I love Jews (Some) and Palestinians etc,.

Huh?

 

[danielpalos]

I have stated before that Israel should have annexed all territory captured in 1967. It would have saved them a world of grief.

One state, of Israel.

Which grief is that? I believe Israel should have been to first State to recognize another State in the Middle East; simply for the sake of a monotheistic god and a moral of goodwill toward men.

 

[Coyote]

The one state idea is intriguing and there are those who think it could work. I'm skeptical - the hate, fear and mistrust on both sides has only hardened. Both have their extremists that are unwilling to bend. The only way it could work would be to have a Nelson Mandella type figure and a truth & reconciliation type of plan but there is nothing remotely like that on the horizon.

Actually I'm more aligning to a "three(or two and a half)" states solution.

I don't think a half state is doable - it isn't working now is it? Are you thinking states of Gaza and Israel and WB half state?

It's little bit more complex than that, but the basics of the land are WB along with the Palestinians to be fully recognized part of Israel, Gaza a state of Palestine along with parts of the Negev(Kerem Shalom areas) - Terror linked Palestinians can only resident in Palestine or either surrender and stand for trial, while the rest would be granted with Israel ID and resettling support from Israel, those unwilling to accept would simply be deported to demilitarized Gaza, this is probably the only thing that can ever work out and be accepted for both parties but not in the current state and not with the current diplomatic chao, its Israel's responsibility to ensure the Palestinians would have their opinion in it rather than Fatah/Hamas IMHO.

Interesting. Something to think about as a possible solution.

However: Terror linked Palestinians can only resident in Palestine or either surrender and stand for trial...

Why not a "truth and reconciliation" effort as South Africa went through?

Because unlike SA we are talking about freed murderers that are being motivated by an ideology that causes them to wrap themselves with explosives, run high on drugs and go explode themselves nearby people - there is not much we can do about it and I think it actually makes sense not to want them anywhere nearby.
There is however something we can do for their families if they'd agree to stand for trial, that way it would be possible to filter all the rational minds and give them a fair offer. but those motivated by radical Islam have no place among us since they will never accept to live in peace in the first place.

It really isn't any different than SA. You are talking about terrorists who killed people -ever heard of necklacing? You are also talking about a justice system that is very likely biased on it's application of the law. I don't think you can have a successful out come without a real "truth and reconciliation" where both sides acknowledge and forgive.

 

[Coyote]

The one state idea is intriguing and there are those who think it could work. I'm skeptical - the hate, fear and mistrust on both sides has only hardened. Both have their extremists that are unwilling to bend. The only way it could work would be to have a Nelson Mandella type figure and a truth & reconciliation type of plan but there is nothing remotely like that on the horizon.

Actually I'm more aligning to a "three(or two and a half)" states solution.

I don't think a half state is doable - it isn't working now is it? Are you thinking states of Gaza and Israel and WB half state?

It's little bit more complex than that, but the basics of the land are WB along with the Palestinians to be fully recognized part of Israel, Gaza a state of Palestine along with parts of the Negev(Kerem Shalom areas) - Terror linked Palestinians can only resident in Palestine or either surrender and stand for trial, while the rest would be granted with Israel ID and resettling support from Israel, those unwilling to accept would simply be deported to demilitarized Gaza, this is probably the only thing that can ever work out and be accepted for both parties but not in the current state and not with the current diplomatic chao, its Israel's responsibility to ensure the Palestinians would have their opinion in it rather than Fatah/Hamas IMHO.

Interesting. Something to think about as a possible solution.

However: Terror linked Palestinians can only resident in Palestine or either surrender and stand for trial...

Why not a "truth and reconciliation" effort as South Africa went through?

Chalk and cheese, and if you look the South Africans would welcome back white rule and apartheid in an instant because of the failure to protect the people from violence, rape and murder

I would like to see some real evidence supporting that. You do realize how they were treated under the Apartheid system do you not?

 

[Penelope]

I think all of the posters should make clear if they are for a 2-state solution, one Palestine (Gd forbid) or one Israel. Even Norman Finklestein has come come to the realization that most pro-Palestinians want ALL of Israel. I think this is where we all stand:
pbel-2 states
monte-all Palestine
Billo reilly-2 states
Joe-all Palestine
toastman-2 states
Roudy-all Israel
Penelope-all Palestine

I couldn't care less. What difference does it make? One or two, how are we going to prosper and be a better America either way? Will either way solve our many social and economic woes? Will be freer? Will we have a brighter future? Will it end poverty, homelessness, and suffering in America? Will it end corruption in Washington politics?

I think you're on the wrong Board. If you clicked on the Israel/Palestine Board, then you must want to talk about these issues.

About myself, if Abbas would accept Israel as a Jewish state and give up the right of return, and if Netanyahu would stop building settlements for awhile, then I would support a 2-state solution.

Why would he do that, that is like changing the name of Saudi Arabia to Muslim, but of course mainly muslims live there, but few Israelis are jews. Now jews are not a race, but those who practice Judaism of some sort, which most don't, and since Palestinians are Muslims, Christians, and even Jews why would he even think of calling it a jewish state???

Whoever wrote for Jesus who said they who call themselves Jews but are not, sure knew what he was talking about.

 

[Penelope]

I think Zinn put it very well:

Zinn arrives at a conclusion that Netanyahu and most mainstream Zionists and Palestinians putatively share—a two state solution.

What sort of solution do you want to see when it comes to the resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?
Ideally, there should be a secular state in which Arabs and Jews live together as equals. There are countries around the world where different ethnic groups live side by side. But that is very difficult and therefore the two-state solution seems like the most practical thing, especially since both Jews and Palestinians seem to favor it. It’s odd: All these people on both sides want a two-state solution, but it can’t come into being. The basic problem is the fanaticism of people like Benjamin Netanyahu and people who don’t want to give up the occupied territories.

The settlements also pose a real problem. But it’s a problem that’s solvable. It was solved in the agreement with Egypt [when the settlers were removed from Sinai]. This time it’s more serious, but there are ways in which settlers can be compensated or assured of their rights in a Palestinian state as a quid pro quo for the rights of Arabs in the Jewish state.

http://www.jewishjournal.com/bloggish/item/howard_zinn_israel_was_a_mistake_20100311

Howard Zinn: Israel was a “Mistake.”

by Rob Eshman

March 11, 2010 | 1:58 pm

 

[toastman]

,n t

I think all of the posters should make clear if they are for a 2-state solution, one Palestine (Gd forbid) or one Israel. Even Norman Finklestein has come come to the realization that most pro-Palestinians want ALL of Israel. I think this is where we all stand:
pbel-2 states
monte-all Palestine
Billo reilly-2 states
Joe-all Palestine
toastman-2 states
Roudy-all Israel
Penelope-all Palestine

Too late for a two state since the hawkish jews have stole so much land and built on it, unless of course the Jews want to return the land?? Another issue the jews there are mainly atheist, secular, and really don't get along with the religious jews so there in you have another problem.

I think if I lived in Israel (God forbid) I'd live in Palestine, gaza , as far away from the jews as can be, I'd rather live with oppressed Palestinians that the arrogant ungodly jews.

I can understand having issues with Israel and it's policies - but you seem to hate ALL Jews everywhere. That's not very cool.

I can understand your point........being as you are an uneducated Moron.........but I totally disagree with you summation........I love Jews (Some) and Palestinians etc,.

H

I think all of the posters should make clear if they are for a 2-state solution, one Palestine (Gd forbid) or one Israel. Even Norman Finklestein has come come to the realization that most pro-Palestinians want ALL of Israel. I think this is where we all stand:
pbel-2 states
monte-all Palestine
Billo reilly-2 states
Joe-all Palestine
toastman-2 states
Roudy-all Israel
Penelope-all Palestine

Too late for a two state since the hawkish jews have stole so much land and built on it, unless of course the Jews want to return the land?? Another issue the jews there are mainly atheist, secular, and really don't get along with the religious jews so there in you have another problem.

I think if I lived in Israel (God forbid) I'd live in Palestine, gaza , as far away from the jews as can be, I'd rather live with oppressed Palestinians that the arrogant ungodly jews.

I can understand having issues with Israel and it's policies - but you seem to hate ALL Jews everywhere. That's not very cool.

I can understand your point........being as you are an uneducated Moron.........but I totally disagree with you summation........I love Jews (Some) and Palestinians etc,.

Huh?

Ya, I was gonna post the same thing. I guess he thought you were talking to him, even though none of his posts were quoted.

 

[Daniyel]

Actually I'm more aligning to a "three(or two and a half)" states solution.

I don't think a half state is doable - it isn't working now is it? Are you thinking states of Gaza and Israel and WB half state?

It's little bit more complex than that, but the basics of the land are WB along with the Palestinians to be fully recognized part of Israel, Gaza a state of Palestine along with parts of the Negev(Kerem Shalom areas) - Terror linked Palestinians can only resident in Palestine or either surrender and stand for trial, while the rest would be granted with Israel ID and resettling support from Israel, those unwilling to accept would simply be deported to demilitarized Gaza, this is probably the only thing that can ever work out and be accepted for both parties but not in the current state and not with the current diplomatic chao, its Israel's responsibility to ensure the Palestinians would have their opinion in it rather than Fatah/Hamas IMHO.

Interesting. Something to think about as a possible solution.

However: Terror linked Palestinians can only resident in Palestine or either surrender and stand for trial...

Why not a "truth and reconciliation" effort as South Africa went through?

Because unlike SA we are talking about freed murderers that are being motivated by an ideology that causes them to wrap themselves with explosives, run high on drugs and go explode themselves nearby people - there is not much we can do about it and I think it actually makes sense not to want them anywhere nearby.
There is however something we can do for their families if they'd agree to stand for trial, that way it would be possible to filter all the rational minds and give them a fair offer. but those motivated by radical Islam have no place among us since they will never accept to live in peace in the first place.

It really isn't any different than SA. You are talking about terrorists who killed people -ever heard of necklacing? You are also talking about a justice system that is very likely biased on it's application of the law. I don't think you can have a successful out come without a real "truth and reconciliation" where both sides acknowledge and forgive.

At some point you right but again you are unable to see the real issue here.
Making peace with the radical ideologies is simply impossible since its based on never "surrendering" - even at the cost of life and never accepting peace.
Terrorism is a pure act of forcing the ideology on everyone else, not just a grief over certain points and not a strategic decision, land, properties, mistrust, all can be solved, but an ideology of eradicating others belief is not something you would want to live with and neither do we.
In other words radical Islam and Jews simply won't be able to live under the same roof.
I'm not going to elaborate much about Supreme Court but if it matters it could be Arab Muslim judges as well(I think it's actually mandatory state law) - point is very simple - there must be a process of separating the rotten apples out of the rational minds.

 

[teddyearp]

The Jews could of went on their own, a few at a time, but they had to create WWII to have a reason and some money to do mass immigration to Palestine.

 

[montelatici]

The one state idea is intriguing and there are those who think it could work. I'm skeptical - the hate, fear and mistrust on both sides has only hardened. Both have their extremists that are unwilling to bend. The only way it could work would be to have a Nelson Mandella type figure and a truth & reconciliation type of plan but there is nothing remotely like that on the horizon.

Actually I'm more aligning to a "three(or two and a half)" states solution.

I don't think a half state is doable - it isn't working now is it? Are you thinking states of Gaza and Israel and WB half state?

It's little bit more complex than that, but the basics of the land are WB along with the Palestinians to be fully recognized part of Israel, Gaza a state of Palestine along with parts of the Negev(Kerem Shalom areas) - Terror linked Palestinians can only resident in Palestine or either surrender and stand for trial, while the rest would be granted with Israel ID and resettling support from Israel, those unwilling to accept would simply be deported to demilitarized Gaza, this is probably the only thing that can ever work out and be accepted for both parties but not in the current state and not with the current diplomatic chao, its Israel's responsibility to ensure the Palestinians would have their opinion in it rather than Fatah/Hamas IMHO.

Interesting. Something to think about as a possible solution.

However: Terror linked Palestinians can only resident in Palestine or either surrender and stand for trial...

Why not a "truth and reconciliation" effort as South Africa went through?

Because unlike SA we are talking about freed murderers that are being motivated by an ideology that causes them to wrap themselves with explosives, run high on drugs and go explode themselves nearby people - there is not much we can do about it and I think it actually makes sense not to want them anywhere nearby.
There is however something we can do for their families if they'd agree to stand for trial, that way it would be possible to filter all the rational minds and give them a fair offer. but those motivated by radical Islam have no place among us since they will never accept to live in peace in the first place.

The ANC was far more brutal and violent inside South Africa than the Palestinians have ever been. They also had an organized guerrilla army operating in neighboring states with the approval of the neighboring states which attacked across the border into South Africa frequently.

 

[Coyote]

I don't think a half state is doable - it isn't working now is it? Are you thinking states of Gaza and Israel and WB half state?

It's little bit more complex than that, but the basics of the land are WB along with the Palestinians to be fully recognized part of Israel, Gaza a state of Palestine along with parts of the Negev(Kerem Shalom areas) - Terror linked Palestinians can only resident in Palestine or either surrender and stand for trial, while the rest would be granted with Israel ID and resettling support from Israel, those unwilling to accept would simply be deported to demilitarized Gaza, this is probably the only thing that can ever work out and be accepted for both parties but not in the current state and not with the current diplomatic chao, its Israel's responsibility to ensure the Palestinians would have their opinion in it rather than Fatah/Hamas IMHO.

Interesting. Something to think about as a possible solution.

However: Terror linked Palestinians can only resident in Palestine or either surrender and stand for trial...

Why not a "truth and reconciliation" effort as South Africa went through?

Because unlike SA we are talking about freed murderers that are being motivated by an ideology that causes them to wrap themselves with explosives, run high on drugs and go explode themselves nearby people - there is not much we can do about it and I think it actually makes sense not to want them anywhere nearby.
There is however something we can do for their families if they'd agree to stand for trial, that way it would be possible to filter all the rational minds and give them a fair offer. but those motivated by radical Islam have no place among us since they will never accept to live in peace in the first place.

It really isn't any different than SA. You are talking about terrorists who killed people -ever heard of necklacing? You are also talking about a justice system that is very likely biased on it's application of the law. I don't think you can have a successful out come without a real "truth and reconciliation" where both sides acknowledge and forgive.

At some point you right but again you are unable to see the real issue here.
Making peace with the radical ideologies is simply impossible since its based on never "surrendering" - even at the cost of life and never accepting peace.
Terrorism is a pure act of forcing the ideology on everyone else, not just a grief over certain points and not a strategic decision, land, properties, mistrust, all can be solved, but an ideology of eradicating others belief is not something you would want to live with and neither do we.
In other words radical Islam and Jews simply won't be able to live under the same roof.
I'm not going to elaborate much about Supreme Court but if it matters it could be Arab Muslim judges as well(I think it's actually mandatory state law) - point is very simple - there must be a process of separating the rotten apples out of the rational minds.

I disagree with your assessment here and that is the conflating of the Palestinians with "radical Islam". They have radical factions but so do you - you have the settler movement that espouses violence and has no desire to share land with non-Jews. However there is little evidence to support the idea that many Palestinians support a radical religious ideology any more than most Jews do. Most of the terrorism has been aimed at a fight for land and statehood and recognition. It's not forcing a religious ideology but rather nationalism. How is it any different than the terrorism of Irgun during the formation of Israel? Many of those who were guilty of terrorism aimed at civilian targets went on to become public figures or private citizens with no penalty and no further violence.