Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I am exposing the fact that you are purposely omitting history relevant to the OP's Thread.This is the I/P forum, what does your question have to do with the I/P situation.
Stop attacking. Negotiate a peace. Accept a neighbor Jewish State. Share the land. What is so hard about that?What do you propose they do?
I agree, they have to accept and recognize Israel's right to exist. But it's difficult to demand they "share the land" when Israel's ongoing settlement building activities and it's fracturing of families through the residency permit process make it seem to the Palestinians that the Israeli's have no such intention.
I am exposing the fact that you are purposely omitting history relevant to the OP's Thread.This is the I/P forum, what does your question have to do with the I/P situation.
The Palestine Solution is an illusion due to the behavior of Muslims PRIOR to 1948 and complaining solely about POST 1948 is Smoke & Mirrors.
Any other questions?
I am exposing the fact that you are purposely omitting history relevant to the OP's Thread.This is the I/P forum, what does your question have to do with the I/P situation.
The Palestine Solution is an illusion due to the behavior of Muslims PRIOR to 1948 and complaining solely about POST 1948 is Smoke & Mirrors.
Any other questions?
I am exposing the fact that you are purposely omitting history relevant to the OP's Thread.This is the I/P forum, what does your question have to do with the I/P situation.
The Palestine Solution is an illusion due to the behavior of Muslims PRIOR to 1948 and complaining solely about POST 1948 is Smoke & Mirrors.
Any other questions?
The native people behaved like any other native people who understood that the Europeans were planning to colonize the land they and their ancestors had inhabited for thousands of years. They attempted to resist colonization. What should have they done? Welcomed the colonizers?
As soon as we have peace everywhere else in the Middle East, there will be peace in Israel.I am exposing the fact that you are purposely omitting history relevant to the OP's Thread.This is the I/P forum, what does your question have to do with the I/P situation.
The Palestine Solution is an illusion due to the behavior of Muslims PRIOR to 1948 and complaining solely about POST 1948 is Smoke & Mirrors.
Any other questions?
The Palestine Solution is an illusion due to the attitudes and behavior of Muslims and their anti-Israel supporters NOW. This thread demonstrates that there is no wish to actually solve the problem -- but only to continue to make arguments about why Israel can have no rights and why the Palestinians have a complete and utter lack of responsibility to end the conflict.
No one here but me is actually putting forth any real suggestions toward a peace plan and treaty.
I am exposing the fact that you are purposely omitting history relevant to the OP's Thread.This is the I/P forum, what does your question have to do with the I/P situation.
The Palestine Solution is an illusion due to the behavior of Muslims PRIOR to 1948 and complaining solely about POST 1948 is Smoke & Mirrors.
Any other questions?
The native people behaved like any other native people who understood that the Europeans were planning to colonize the land they and their ancestors had inhabited for thousands of years. They attempted to resist colonization. What should have they done? Welcomed the colonizers?
So why was Muslim behavior in post-WWI no better anywhere else in the Balkans and the Middle East?
I am exposing the fact that you are purposely omitting history relevant to the OP's Thread.This is the I/P forum, what does your question have to do with the I/P situation.
The Palestine Solution is an illusion due to the behavior of Muslims PRIOR to 1948 and complaining solely about POST 1948 is Smoke & Mirrors.
Any other questions?
The native people behaved like any other native people who understood that the Europeans were planning to colonize the land they and their ancestors had inhabited for thousands of years. They attempted to resist colonization. What should have they done? Welcomed the colonizers?
So why was Muslim behavior in post-WWI no better anywhere else in the Balkans and the Middle East?
Wherever the Muslims were given their rightful independence per the Covenant of the League of Nations, Article 22, post WW1, there were no problems to speak of. You don't know what you are talking about.
As soon as we have peace everywhere else in the Middle East, there will be peace in Israel.I am exposing the fact that you are purposely omitting history relevant to the OP's Thread.This is the I/P forum, what does your question have to do with the I/P situation.
The Palestine Solution is an illusion due to the behavior of Muslims PRIOR to 1948 and complaining solely about POST 1948 is Smoke & Mirrors.
Any other questions?
The Palestine Solution is an illusion due to the attitudes and behavior of Muslims and their anti-Israel supporters NOW. This thread demonstrates that there is no wish to actually solve the problem -- but only to continue to make arguments about why Israel can have no rights and why the Palestinians have a complete and utter lack of responsibility to end the conflict.
No one here but me is actually putting forth any real suggestions toward a peace plan and treaty.
Likely, you think?
I strongly disagree; removing one layer of the onion always releases the next cancer.As soon as we have peace everywhere else in the Middle East, there will be peace in Israel.I am exposing the fact that you are purposely omitting history relevant to the OP's Thread.This is the I/P forum, what does your question have to do with the I/P situation.
The Palestine Solution is an illusion due to the behavior of Muslims PRIOR to 1948 and complaining solely about POST 1948 is Smoke & Mirrors.
Any other questions?
The Palestine Solution is an illusion due to the attitudes and behavior of Muslims and their anti-Israel supporters NOW. This thread demonstrates that there is no wish to actually solve the problem -- but only to continue to make arguments about why Israel can have no rights and why the Palestinians have a complete and utter lack of responsibility to end the conflict.
No one here but me is actually putting forth any real suggestions toward a peace plan and treaty.
Likely, you think?
Not very. I think there will be peace when the Muslim ideology undergoes a transformation. Its happening. Its clearly happening. ISIS is a push-back against the transformation back toward the traditional. But its not happening fast enough and its not widespread enough to provide a tipping point. And unfortunately, the push-back is spreading outward.
I am exposing the fact that you are purposely omitting history relevant to the OP's Thread.This is the I/P forum, what does your question have to do with the I/P situation.
The Palestine Solution is an illusion due to the behavior of Muslims PRIOR to 1948 and complaining solely about POST 1948 is Smoke & Mirrors.
Any other questions?
The native people behaved like any other native people who understood that the Europeans were planning to colonize the land they and their ancestors had inhabited for thousands of years. They attempted to resist colonization. What should have they done? Welcomed the colonizers?
So why was Muslim behavior in post-WWI no better anywhere else in the Balkans and the Middle East?
Wherever the Muslims were given their rightful independence per the Covenant of the League of Nations, Article 22, post WW1, there were no problems to speak of. You don't know what you are talking about.
League of Nations?
That idea worked out real well.
Have you attended any meetings there lately?
Your Jew hating well is drying up read quick.
Besides, you're expecting me to take your statement of Muslims being good neighbors at face value.
Horse hockey.
Stop attacking. Negotiate a peace. Accept a neighbor Jewish State. Share the land. What is so hard about that?What do you propose they do?
I agree, they have to accept and recognize Israel's right to exist. But it's difficult to demand they "share the land" when Israel's ongoing settlement building activities and it's fracturing of families through the residency permit process make it seem to the Palestinians that the Israeli's have no such intention.
So wait, your argument is that they can't share the land with all those Jews around so all the Jews have to go and THEN they will share the land? Please.
You are starting from a false premise -- premise which rather than being solution-oriented just sows further discord and prevents us from moving forward. The premise is this: the presence of Jews prevents Palestinian sovereignty. Here is the test to see if it is a false premise: Does the reverse also hold true? Does the presence of Arab Muslims in Israel prevent Israeli sovereignty? Must the Arab Muslims be removed from Israel?
If you discard the idea that there can't be any Jews in Palestine and instead accept that there can be Jews in Palestine, just as there can be (and are) Arab Muslims in Israel -- then all these problems just go away. Draw a border and be done with it. If members of one group end up on the "wrong" side and want to move -- let them. If members of one group end up on the "wrong" side and want to stay -- let them. If members of one group want dual citizenship -- let them.
What's the big deal? Why are those on the anti-Israeli side making it so difficult?
No my argument is they both have to share.
I"m not sure why you think that is my premise. It isn't.
No my argument is they both have to share.
I"m not sure why you think that is my premise. It isn't.
I think that is your premise because you indicated (paraphrased) that the Palestinians can't share while Israel has settlements on "their" land. We (collective "we" -- those who are actually trying to solve the problem) need to stop using this as an excuse and challenge others when they use it as an excuse not to solve the problem.
Now, having said that you and I have previously agreed that the Jewish people will probably have to be removed for their own safety.
But I can't remember, did we agree that there could be land swaps?
No my argument is they both have to share.
I"m not sure why you think that is my premise. It isn't.
I think that is your premise because you indicated (paraphrased) that the Palestinians can't share while Israel has settlements on "their" land. We (collective "we" -- those who are actually trying to solve the problem) need to stop using this as an excuse and challenge others when they use it as an excuse not to solve the problem.
No, what I'm saying is that as long as Israeli's continue the building of settlements, it will be harder to form a contiguous state. The reality of the situation is not "can they or should they or will they share" - it's that the political will to dismantle any settlements is weak and insuring safety and security for Israeli citizens not on soveriegn Israeli territory is very problematic. The Israeli's who make up the "settler" movement represent the more extreme religious elements of Israeli society and they tend to believe all of biblical Israel is there's by right. They live in Jewish-only settlements and show little more desire to be open to sharing than the more extreme Palestinians. How do you deal with such people?
The ideal would be as you say - dual citizens, a strong civil society that can overcome years of war and hatred....but you have some ingrained attitudes to overcome in the process and very real security concerns.
It's not an "excuse" - it's presenting the reality and asking how do you work within that reality?
Now, having said that you and I have previously agreed that the Jewish people will probably have to be removed for their own safety.
But I can't remember, did we agree that there could be land swaps?
Absolutely land swaps, there is no way the larger settlements could be demolished, and people have now lived there for several generations. To force them out would be unfair.
No my argument is they both have to share.
I"m not sure why you think that is my premise. It isn't.
I think that is your premise because you indicated (paraphrased) that the Palestinians can't share while Israel has settlements on "their" land. We (collective "we" -- those who are actually trying to solve the problem) need to stop using this as an excuse and challenge others when they use it as an excuse not to solve the problem.
No, what I'm saying is that as long as Israeli's continue the building of settlements, it will be harder to form a contiguous state. The reality of the situation is not "can they or should they or will they share" - it's that the political will to dismantle any settlements is weak and insuring safety and security for Israeli citizens not on soveriegn Israeli territory is very problematic. The Israeli's who make up the "settler" movement represent the more extreme religious elements of Israeli society and they tend to believe all of biblical Israel is there's by right. They live in Jewish-only settlements and show little more desire to be open to sharing than the more extreme Palestinians. How do you deal with such people?
The ideal would be as you say - dual citizens, a strong civil society that can overcome years of war and hatred....but you have some ingrained attitudes to overcome in the process and very real security concerns.
It's not an "excuse" - it's presenting the reality and asking how do you work within that reality?
Now, having said that you and I have previously agreed that the Jewish people will probably have to be removed for their own safety.
But I can't remember, did we agree that there could be land swaps?
Absolutely land swaps, there is no way the larger settlements could be demolished, and people have now lived there for several generations. To force them out would be unfair.
I am opposed to destroying any property or removing people from their homes. However since the settlements are on Palestinian land they should remain in Palestine. The settlers should have the option of being Palestinian citizens or moving to Israel.
No my argument is they both have to share.
I"m not sure why you think that is my premise. It isn't.
I think that is your premise because you indicated (paraphrased) that the Palestinians can't share while Israel has settlements on "their" land. We (collective "we" -- those who are actually trying to solve the problem) need to stop using this as an excuse and challenge others when they use it as an excuse not to solve the problem.
No, what I'm saying is that as long as Israeli's continue the building of settlements, it will be harder to form a contiguous state. The reality of the situation is not "can they or should they or will they share" - it's that the political will to dismantle any settlements is weak and insuring safety and security for Israeli citizens not on soveriegn Israeli territory is very problematic. The Israeli's who make up the "settler" movement represent the more extreme religious elements of Israeli society and they tend to believe all of biblical Israel is there's by right. They live in Jewish-only settlements and show little more desire to be open to sharing than the more extreme Palestinians. How do you deal with such people?
The ideal would be as you say - dual citizens, a strong civil society that can overcome years of war and hatred....but you have some ingrained attitudes to overcome in the process and very real security concerns.
It's not an "excuse" - it's presenting the reality and asking how do you work within that reality?
Now, having said that you and I have previously agreed that the Jewish people will probably have to be removed for their own safety.
But I can't remember, did we agree that there could be land swaps?
Absolutely land swaps, there is no way the larger settlements could be demolished, and people have now lived there for several generations. To force them out would be unfair.
Thank you. That was the more nuanced response I was hoping for. And again, we largely agree. It is my understanding that Israel has not permitted any new settlements in more than twenty years, but is building more housing units in existing settlements.
And I agree this creates some urgency for both sides to come up with a solution. Or some responsibility on the Israeli side to preserve the contiguity of Palestine.
Okay, so more agreement. What's next?
I am opposed to destroying any property or removing people from their homes. However since the settlements are on Palestinian land they should remain in Palestine. The settlers should have the option of being Palestinian citizens or moving to Israel.
I do not understand how people can continue to post about "Palestinian land". THERE IS NO PALESTINIAN LAND. Until a treaty between Israel and Palestine is signed -- there is no land which is "Palestine". So get off it already.
But I agree with you that once the borders are established, those resident in each country must become citizens of that country.
You can make all the noise you wish about "Pal'istanian land" but to do so makes you appear quite frantic. As there is no Pal'istine, there are no Pal'istanians.I am opposed to destroying any property or removing people from their homes. However since the settlements are on Palestinian land they should remain in Palestine. The settlers should have the option of being Palestinian citizens or moving to Israel.
I do not understand how people can continue to post about "Palestinian land". THERE IS NO PALESTINIAN LAND. Until a treaty between Israel and Palestine is signed -- there is no land which is "Palestine". So get off it already.
But I agree with you that once the borders are established, those resident in each country must become citizens of that country.
From your radical position that claims that the native people have no right to any land there could be an opposite position that claims that it is all Palestinian land and that it is only a matter of time that the descendants of the colonists will be expelled. Like Algeria, Rhodesia etc.
