Annexing West Bank

[P F Tinmore]

In my opinion, and I have stated this before, until the sovereignty is decided, either no one who was not already resident there at the time of occupation should enter and build or ALL should be allowed to with out ethnic bias and if it comes to government funding it should be equatable, not giving preferences to one group.

OKAY! Now we are getting somewhere. So, regardless of ethnicity or nationality, ONLY those resident at the time of occupation (and their descendants) have a right to live in that territory. Immigration is forbidden. See? THERE is an objective definition. (As long as we begin with the FIRST occupation and not the second one.)

There are still issues with this, but at least we've narrowed you down to a good objective definition. And I'll hold you to it. No more defining settlers as Israeli nationals.

The first problem, is obviously, this hasn't happened. On either side.

Israelis are foreign nationals. Palestinians are the natives.

 

[P F Tinmore]

In my opinion, and I have stated this before, until the sovereignty is decided, either no one who was not already resident there at the time of occupation should enter and build or ALL should be allowed to with out ethnic bias and if it comes to government funding it should be equatable, not giving preferences to one group.

OKAY! Now we are getting somewhere. So, regardless of ethnicity or nationality, ONLY those resident at the time of occupation (and their descendants) have a right to live in that territory. Immigration is forbidden. See? THERE is an objective definition. (As long as we begin with the FIRST occupation and not the second one.)

There are still issues with this, but at least we've narrowed you down to a good objective definition. And I'll hold you to it. No more defining settlers as Israeli nationals.

The first problem, is obviously, this hasn't happened. On either side.

When was the first occupation though...how far back do you go? You have to pick a point and since the idea of settlements as a specific program started in 1967 that would be a logical point. I would not define settlements as part of the natural migrations of people because a government supported plan.

Are you drinking kool aid?
Are you using sites that omit the 7 Day War?
5 nations attacked and lost land.

I asked for 3 sites...where’s your response?

Interesting opinion.
What land did Lebanon lose?
What land did Syria lose?
What land did Iraq lose?
What land did Jordan lose?
What land did Egypt lose?

 

[P F Tinmore]

When was the first occupation though...how far back do you go? You have to pick a point and since the idea of settlements as a specific program started in 1967 that would be a logical point. I would not define settlements as part of the natural migrations of people because a government supported plan.

You go back to the first occupation since the time the territory ceased to be Ottoman territory. You go back to the initial dispute. Otherwise you are saying that if Arabs invade and occupy its fine, but when Israelis(Jews) return the favor its suddenly not okay.

Why just that far?

Indeed, nobody talks about the 1948 occupation.

 

[P F Tinmore]

How many Israeli Jewish settlements have been created?

How many Israeli Arab settlements?

That depends entirely on your definition of "settlements" By your new definition, anyone who was not a resident in 1948 (and their descendants) is an illegal settler.

By your new definition, Israelis have every right to set up a village in the place of their old farmlands. And to live in the Jewish Quarter.

We would have to reexamine the entire idea. No one has this information.

Any jew who has family from the Jewish quarter should be able to reclaim their land. Any random Jew, no.

 

[P F Tinmore]

I guess not. It was supposed be an Arab state from the partition.

Well, no. It was SUPPOSED to be ONE Jewish State and ONE Arab State. That would be Israel and Jordan. Beyond that, there was NO authority, ever, at any time, which created a legal foundation for a THIRD State UNTIL the development of the distinct Arab Palestinian identity sometime in the 70s and 80s.

But even if there was supposed to be THREE States created, instead of the two, STILL, Jordan has no right to territory outside its international boundaries and therefore had no right to other territory, whether it was intended for a Jewish state (which it was) or for another Arab state (which it wasn't).

Its really, really important to address this incorrect information. The Partition Plan(s) were suggestions, but in no way legally binding.

STILL, Jordan has no right to territory outside its international boundaries and therefore had no right to other territory,

Couldn't we say the same thing about Israel?

 

[Shusha]

I guess not. It was supposed be an Arab state from the partition.

Well, no. It was SUPPOSED to be ONE Jewish State and ONE Arab State. That would be Israel and Jordan. Beyond that, there was NO authority, ever, at any time, which created a legal foundation for a THIRD State UNTIL the development of the distinct Arab Palestinian identity sometime in the 70s and 80s.

But even if there was supposed to be THREE States created, instead of the two, STILL, Jordan has no right to territory outside its international boundaries and therefore had no right to other territory, whether it was intended for a Jewish state (which it was) or for another Arab state (which it wasn't).

Its really, really important to address this incorrect information. The Partition Plan(s) were suggestions, but in no way legally binding.

STILL, Jordan has no right to territory outside its international boundaries and therefore had no right to other territory,

Couldn't we say the same thing about Israel?

No. Not even remotely. The dispute between Jewish Palestinians and Arab Palestinians is a civil dispute within an international boundary.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Nationality is hereditary.

Absolutely untrue. Nationality is determined by the laws of the nation offering nationality and citizenship and governed solely by that nation.

Not so. Nationality is determined by international law. citizenship is determined by domestic law but must conform with international law.

Show me the international law which says that nationality is hereditary. As opposed to determined by the domestic laws of each individual State.

In international law the people are "married" to the land. The people cannot be removed from their land, i.e. ethnic cleansing. The land cannot be removed from the people, i.e. conquest.

Both are illegal.

 

[P F Tinmore]

I guess not. It was supposed be an Arab state from the partition.

Well, no. It was SUPPOSED to be ONE Jewish State and ONE Arab State. That would be Israel and Jordan. Beyond that, there was NO authority, ever, at any time, which created a legal foundation for a THIRD State UNTIL the development of the distinct Arab Palestinian identity sometime in the 70s and 80s.

But even if there was supposed to be THREE States created, instead of the two, STILL, Jordan has no right to territory outside its international boundaries and therefore had no right to other territory, whether it was intended for a Jewish state (which it was) or for another Arab state (which it wasn't).

Its really, really important to address this incorrect information. The Partition Plan(s) were suggestions, but in no way legally binding.

STILL, Jordan has no right to territory outside its international boundaries and therefore had no right to other territory,

Couldn't we say the same thing about Israel?

No. Not even remotely. The dispute between Jewish Palestinians and Arab Palestinians is a civil dispute within an international boundary.

Whose international boundaries? The Palestinian's.
Who belongs in that territory? The Palestinians.

You see a dispute where there is none.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Annexing West Bank
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Yeah, you even answer your own questions wrong.

Whose international boundaries? The Palestinian's.
Who belongs in that territory? The Palestinians.

You see a dispute where there is none.

(COMMENT)

At what time did the Arab Palestinians assume sovereignty over the territory?

→ Never. And so the Palestinians had no established boundaries.
→ It is not exclusively inhabited by any single entiry.
→ There is NO territory in which the Arab Palestinians have any exclusive rights; not in the last several centuries anyway.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Annexing West Bank
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Yeah, you even answer your own questions wrong.

Whose international boundaries? The Palestinian's.
Who belongs in that territory? The Palestinians.

You see a dispute where there is none.

(COMMENT)

At what time did the Arab Palestinians assume sovereignty over the territory?

→ Never. And so the Palestinians had no established boundaries.
→ It is not exclusively inhabited by any single entiry.
→ There is NO territory in which the Arab Palestinians have any exclusive rights; not in the last several centuries anyway.

Most Respectfully,
R

There is no Palestine, blah, blah, blah.

You always regurgitate Israel's BS talking points.

 

[Sixties Fan]

Why are Jewish settlements funded and supported by the political apparatus of Israel but not Arab settlements?

Two reasons. 1. Israel has the ability to do it because they've invested in government and infrastructure and economy and peace for 100 years. 2. Israel has legal control over the territory by treaty.

So Arab Israeli’s are actively discriminated against when it comes to building settlements?

Both Arabs and Jews are discriminated against over building anywhere if they do not get the right permits for building.

And I have read where more Jewish buildings or even cities/settlements have been demolished than Arab ones.

You ask your questions in such an accusatory way when it comes to Israel doing far worse against its Jewish citizens than it does against the Arab ones who do not have the proper permits to build.

Arab Israelis live in Israel, and not in Judea and Samaria, aka, West Bank.

They must follow the same laws as the Jews, Druze, Bedouins and all others who are citizens or residents of the country.

I ask questions that DO NOT get answered.

How many Arab settlements have been created in Area C?

And for the record it has been well established that Arabs are far more likely to have illegal construction torn down and less likely to get permits. In addition many illegal Jewish settlements get tacit approval by the government and even investment in infrastructure and schools.

Here is the thing, Coyote.

There were Jews and Arabs living in Judea and Samaria in 1948.
With the Arab declaration of war in 1948 and the invasion by the Jordan forces, aided by the British, all Jews lost their homes and lands, and some even their lives. They had to flee to what is now Israel.

Therefore, no Jews, only Arabs living in Judea and Samaria between 1948 and 1967, with how many more Arabs being allowed to "settle" into those areas without anyone saying anything against it?

The Arabs again declared war in 1967 and again Jordan tried to get more land. Jordan was told by Israel to stay out of the war. It did not. Jordan lost the war with the other Arab countries in 6 days and lost the land, the same way as Egypt lost Gaza.

Israel wanted to give Gaza back to Egypt, Egypt said NO Thanks!

After the 1967 defensive war Jews were then allowed to return, not necessarily to the same areas, the same villages where they had been expelled from, but they were allowed to return and build.

Do remember that Hevron is a totally different issue, as Jews were expelled from that city after the massacre in 1929.

So, considering the history of how Arab Palestinians acquired land, not because they fought the Jews in a fair war and won, but because their Arab tribe brothers fought the wars and at first won, in 1948, and then lost in 1967..........

How many "new settlements" did the Arabs build in a Jew Free Judea and Samaria?

How many new "settlements" have the Arabs been allowed to build, since 1967?

Or better still, how many Arab settlements have been evacuated by the Jews/Israel since 1967 to make way for the Jews who lived there before 1948, as it was done to the Jews?

Arabs are mainly organized in Areas A and B which are mostly under the PA since 1993 with the Oslo Accords. Not one city or "settlement" has been destroyed or evacuated by Israel since 1967.

When you are talking about new settlements in Area C, are you talking about more Arabs besides the 300,000 living there who live in their own cities and villages?

Arabs, meaning whole clans, moving into area C from areas A and B, and being allowed to create their own villages or cities? Or are you talking about the villages and cities which already exist there which are allowed to expand with the right permits to build?


Now, put yourself in the place of Israel.

The Arabs went as far as initiating two military wars against your people in order to destroy your country. They took land, killed Jews, and expelled Jews.

Israel and the Jews wanted none of those wars. But that is what they got. They defended themselves and won, survived.

The Oslo Accords was about the Arabs accepting living with the Jews, working towards a peace treaty. Instead, we are in the constant state of a Hudna. And you do know what that means.

You want new settlements for Arabs built on Area C ? In exchange for what?
What does Israel and the Jews who are still expelled from Hebron and many other ancient Jewish cities get in return?

I ask because it has been the Arab, in general, idea, that they will wait, and wait, and wait until the get what they want. They do not have to sit and talk, sit and negotiate, they just sit and wait.....for the Jews to get tired and give them what they want. As in the time of Mohammad, when the Jews helped him and got their heads chopped in return.


Israel does NOT occupy land in its ancient homeland, where they were to be allowed to live under the Mandate for Palestine.

78% of that ancient land was TAKEN by 1925 by the newly arrived Hashemites. Then the Hashemites wanted more and took more. Then they wanted more and lost what they took the second time.

Judea and Samaria is Jewish land. Always has been, no matter who invaded, moved in, occupied. Jews have the Right to live anywhere in that area. But the chant continues to be that Jews are "Europeans" , "Colonizers", "Invaders", who "took" land from the Arabs.

How many Arab settlements have been built in area C since Oslo?

I hope ABSOLUTELY NONE !!!!!

Arabs have already stolen more than they should have from the Jewish people, not allowing them to live in their ancient lands of TransJordan and Gaza.


And I hope that Israel does stay strong in not allowing the PA, PLO and their European friends continue with their attempts to "Make Facts On The Ground", by allowing Millions of Arab and European money be wasted instead of helping the Arabs who really need it with infrastructure and jobs, etc, the PA refused to create.

Area C does need to be annexed by Israel. It is more than about time.
We do see what Hamas, the PA and others continue to attempt to do in Israel, in Jerusalem to deny any and all Jewish right to any of their ancient homeland.

And all you can come and cry about is "Arabs are not being allowed to build NEW settlements in area C" ? Are they allowed to expand on existing settlements as the Jews are? That is more than enough, then.

History matters. What the Arab Leaders think they can achieve in place of what they should be achieving, matters.


Are you going to read and reflect on what I have written above, or are you going to come back and simply continue to ask " How many Arab settlements have been created in area C? "


I gave the answer. And the why's. Now, it is your turn to take some time and think about all the facts on the ground since 1948. (It would be since 1920 when the first Jews were expelled from Gaza, but.......Should I ask, how many Jewish settlements exist in Gaza now, and how many new settlements are being built in Gaza? If the answer is Zero, should I ask why, when Jews always lived there before the expulsion in 1920 and then the later expulsion in 2005 to give the Arabs what they wanted ? )

 

[Sixties Fan]

.

When did Jordan get back right to it’s West Bank that it lost in war?

When did Jordan EVER have rights to the West Bank? Oh, yeah. Never.

I guess not. It was supposed be an Arab state from the partition.


West Bank - Wikipedia
In 1947, it was subsequently designated as part of a proposed Arab state by the United Nations (UN) partition plan for Palestine. The resolution recommended partition of the British Mandate into a Jewish State, an Arab State, and an internationally administered enclave of Jerusalem;[16] a broader region of the modern-day West Bank was assigned to the Arab State. The resolution designated the territory described as "the hill country of Samaria and Judea" (including what is now also known as the "West Bank") as part of the proposed Arab state, but following the 1948 Arab–Israeli War this area was captured by Transjordan (renamed Jordan two years after independence in 1946).

You seem to have a total lack of understanding that the Arabs, were not interested in a Arab State and a Jewish State. They were and still are, ONLY interested in ONE Arab State, where there are or (as they would prefer) there are no Jews at all, as we have with Jordan and Gaza right now.

The PA has made it very clear, that there will be no Jews living in the State of Palestine, showing a map which includes ALL of Israel.

Now, if there are NO new Arab settlements in Area C, can you understand why?

 

[Indeependent]

Jordan however annexed it and gave full citizenship rights to the Palestinians there. Did they have a program of settlement building in the area?

So who else occupied it?

So wait, what?!

You don't have a problem with Jordan (a FOREIGN STATE with no rights to the territory) ANNEXES territory which does not belong to it?! But you have a problem with Israel?! (Who actually has full legal rights to that territory?!) What?!

Jordan expelled every single Jew. Claimed all of the property belonging to Jews. Destroyed nearly every synagogue. ERASED the Jewish people in that place. They then took over the territory and applied Jordanian sovereignty to territory which was OUTSIDE its legal sovereignty. Then they gave away *I don't even know how many dunams of land* to Arabs, creating the entire system of "but its my land, its been in my family for generations" that haunts Area C today.

If you are okay with mass expulsion and annexing of territory that does not belong to you then just let Israel do it. Sheesh.

You are engaged in a discussion with someone using alternate universe facts.
The only reason she responds to you is because you are foolish enough to fall into the “compromise” trap.

Actually it is because she and Rocco and maybe one or two others are the only ones who attempt discussion.

They attempt compromise on Israel’s legitimate land victories while you bring up out of context, out of chronological order, nonsense.
You just admitted within a few pages that you were incorrect concerning Jordan, but facts don’t seem to matter to you until someone else presents them.
The fact is you will converse with anyone willing to consider Israel giving land to people who attack Israel.

 

[Foxfyre]

Link to a post of mine then.

Stupid people tend to agree with stupid posts. Yet they never seem to be able to support their claims.

We agree on this one. The tendency to pile on with agreement when nobody is supporting their opinions is a sad fact on message boards. You and I can disagree on Palestine and Israel, but the fact that you sympathize with the Palestinians in no may means that you hate the Jews as has been suggested. I find that extrapolation to be ridiculous.

And the fact that I think the Palestinians have refused myriad opportunities to compromise on a peace plan and/or have violated agreements and they have pretty well forfeited their claim to that land does not mean I hate the Palestinians.

The best solution now is for the UN to find and buy a nice piece of land approximately the size of Israel and move the Palestinians there. Islam will never agree to that, however, as it would remove their ability to use the Palestinians for political purposes in their ultimate goal which is to destroy Israel and the Jews.

Foxie, you can not forceably move millians of people who have roots, families and ties to that region going back hundreds if not thousands of years. It isnt a question of whether Islam would accept but it but whether any decent human being could accept it.

It would be difficult for sure. But when a people will not compromise, will not agree that the Jews should be allowed to live, and who consistently initiate deadly hostilities with the Jews after seventy years of working to accommodate those same people, it is time to stop trying and do something that will work. The Jews also have roots, families, and ties to that region going back much further than Islam does. And it is Islam that objects to Israel, not the rank and file population per se'. Israel deserves to be left alone and live as who and what they are in peace. They do not initiate the hostilities but they do finish the fights. They would like to not have to have the fights.

The Arabs expelled almost all Jews from their countries and have refused to allow the Palestinians to immigrate to their countries and the Israelis would be committing literal suicide if they do. So we should go for the next best solution to the problem.

During that time there were many expulsions....Arabs expelled Jews and Jews expelled Arabs. There was also a lot of myth building by both sides. This occurred close to a century ago....when you think of it. Ethics have changed.

Would you really support forcing millions of families to leave their homeland? I wouldn’t.

Millions have done it. Look at how America was built. This is the only peaceful solution I see.

They did it when they left Israel in the first place. Hundreds of thousands quietly left the country so that the Arabs could exterminate the Jews. I don't blame the Jews for not welcoming them back. They certainly demonstrated they had no intention of living peacefully with the Jews.

And Islam is not about to allow them into their countries where they would no longer be useful to use as pawns to generate sympathy and antipathy for the Jews from even the non-Islam world. They don't care about the Palestinians. They put their missile and rocket launcher in the midst of children, women, old men hoping some will be killed or injured when Israel returns fire and thereby eliminate all support for Israel. I have read accounts suggesting the Islamic militants, when collateral damage doesn't happen or isn't 'enough', actually create some collateral damage to ensure more criticism of Israel.

There is no reason those Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank can't stay there as long as they wish.. I'm sure Israel won't object. But I'm pretty sure that if a homeland was provided for them--much more land than they currently have even though their new homeland would be roughly the size of tiny Israel, and they had the option to move, a great many, perhaps all, would move.

Will the UN do that? Probably not as long as so many militant Islamic countries have a say in it. A solution for the Palestinians is not their concern. The destruction of Israel is.

 

[Foxfyre]

We agree on this one. The tendency to pile on with agreement when nobody is supporting their opinions is a sad fact on message boards. You and I can disagree on Palestine and Israel, but the fact that you sympathize with the Palestinians in no may means that you hate the Jews as has been suggested. I find that extrapolation to be ridiculous.

And the fact that I think the Palestinians have refused myriad opportunities to compromise on a peace plan and/or have violated agreements and they have pretty well forfeited their claim to that land does not mean I hate the Palestinians.

The best solution now is for the UN to find and buy a nice piece of land approximately the size of Israel and move the Palestinians there. Islam will never agree to that, however, as it would remove their ability to use the Palestinians for political purposes in their ultimate goal which is to destroy Israel and the Jews.

Foxie, you can not forceably move millians of people who have roots, families and ties to that region going back hundreds if not thousands of years. It isnt a question of whether Islam would accept but it but whether any decent human being could accept it.

It would be difficult for sure. But when a people will not compromise, will not agree that the Jews should be allowed to live, and who consistently initiate deadly hostilities with the Jews after seventy years of working to accommodate those same people, it is time to stop trying and do something that will work. The Jews also have roots, families, and ties to that region going back much further than Islam does. And it is Islam that objects to Israel, not the rank and file population per se'. Israel deserves to be left alone and live as who and what they are in peace. They do not initiate the hostilities but they do finish the fights. They would like to not have to have the fights.

The Arabs expelled almost all Jews from their countries and have refused to allow the Palestinians to immigrate to their countries and the Israelis would be committing literal suicide if they do. So we should go for the next best solution to the problem.

During that time there were many expulsions....Arabs expelled Jews and Jews expelled Arabs. There was also a lot of myth building by both sides. This occurred close to a century ago....when you think of it. Ethics have changed.

Would you really support forcing millions of families to leave their homeland? I wouldn’t.

Millions have done it. Look at how America was built. This is the only peaceful solution I see.

America was built on the back of slavery.

Forced expulsions are not peaceful solutions otherwise you would have no problem applying it to Jews as well.

America was NOT built on the back of slavery. Slavery existed and precious few condoned it then and nobody living does today. But most of the states were not slave states and America was built just fine.

 

[Foxfyre]

It would be difficult for sure. But when a people will not compromise, will not agree that the Jews should be allowed to live, and who consistently initiate deadly hostilities with the Jews after seventy years of working to accommodate those same people, it is time to stop trying and do something that will work. The Jews also have roots, families, and ties to that region going back much further than Islam does. And it is Islam that objects to Israel, not the rank and file population per se'. Israel deserves to be left alone and live as who and what they are in peace. They do not initiate the hostilities but they do finish the fights. They would like to not have to have the fights.

The Arabs expelled almost all Jews from their countries and have refused to allow the Palestinians to immigrate to their countries and the Israelis would be committing literal suicide if they do. So we should go for the next best solution to the problem.

During that time there were many expulsions....Arabs expelled Jews and Jews expelled Arabs. There was also a lot of myth building by both sides. This occurred close to a century ago....when you think of it. Ethics have changed.

Would you really support forcing millions of families to leave their homeland? I wouldn’t.

Millions have done it. Look at how America was built. This is the only peaceful solution I see.

America was built on the back of slavery.

Forced expulsions are not peaceful solutions otherwise you would have no problem applying it to Jews as well.

Slavery was only in the South. Built on innovation and mass immigration. You should take a history class.

The economic benefits of slavery were felt throughout the nation. Mass voluntary immigration.

That is true. But America was built on an idea, a concept that did not include slavery. Yes cotton was important to the industrial revolution and much of that was produced by slaves on plantations. But it would have happened anyway.

Israel does not and has never had slavery of any form. In fact many of the Israelis probably descended from slaves in Egypt and Babylonia (mostly modern day Iraq) in their own history. I can't see what the history of slavery in America has to do with them and the Palestinian situation and it sort of derails the thread to push the discussion in that direction.

 

[Foxfyre]

During that time there were many expulsions....Arabs expelled Jews and Jews expelled Arabs. There was also a lot of myth building by both sides. This occurred close to a century ago....when you think of it. Ethics have changed.

Would you really support forcing millions of families to leave their homeland? I wouldn’t.

Millions have done it. Look at how America was built. This is the only peaceful solution I see.

America was built on the back of slavery.

Forced expulsions are not peaceful solutions otherwise you would have no problem applying it to Jews as well.

Slavery was only in the South. Built on innovation and mass immigration. You should take a history class.

The economic benefits of slavery were felt throughout the nation. Mass voluntary immigration.

Slavery ended in 1864. Since then America has been a land of opportunity for millions who decided to leave their ancestral homes. The “Palestinians” are obviously unhappy so why stay and remain unhappy? You know there is zero chance they become a one state country and also zero chance for a two state solution. Only solution is immigration. Adios.

Except neither the Arabs or the Egyptians will allow the Palestinians to immigrate into their countries. The only solution is for the U.N. to provide the Palestinians with their own land, their own country as they did for the Israelis. And that won't happen because Egypt and those same Arab countries do not WANT a solution for the Palestinians. They use the Palestinians as their pawns and excuse to demand the destruction of Israel.

It is important to remember that the Jews were not required to move to Israel. But millions did once they were provided their own homeland and many are still pulling up stakes in the hostile places that they live and relocating to Israel.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Millions have done it. Look at how America was built. This is the only peaceful solution I see.

America was built on the back of slavery.

Forced expulsions are not peaceful solutions otherwise you would have no problem applying it to Jews as well.

Slavery was only in the South. Built on innovation and mass immigration. You should take a history class.

The economic benefits of slavery were felt throughout the nation. Mass voluntary immigration.

Slavery ended in 1864. Since then America has been a land of opportunity for millions who decided to leave their ancestral homes. The “Palestinians” are obviously unhappy so why stay and remain unhappy? You know there is zero chance they become a one state country and also zero chance for a two state solution. Only solution is immigration. Adios.

Except neither the Arabs or the Egyptians will allow the Palestinians to immigrate into their countries. The only solution is for the U.N. to provide the Palestinians with their own land, their own country as they did for the Israelis. And that won't happen because Egypt and those same Arab countries do not WANT a solution for the Palestinians. They use the Palestinians as their pawns and excuse to demand the destruction of Israel.

It is important to remember that the Jews were not required to move to Israel. But millions did once they were provided their own homeland and many are still pulling up stakes in the hostile places that they live and relocating to Israel.

Oh I completely agree. I should have been more clear. If the Muslim world wanted to help the "Palestinians" they would have by now but to your point they don't.

 

[Coyote]

Nationality is hereditary.

Absolutely untrue. Nationality is determined by the laws of the nation offering nationality and citizenship and governed solely by that nation.

Not so. Nationality is determined by international law. citizenship is determined by domestic law but must conform with international law.

Show me the international law which says that nationality is hereditary. As opposed to determined by the domestic laws of each individual State.

In international law the people are "married" to the land. The people cannot be removed from their land, i.e. ethnic cleansing. The land cannot be removed from the people, i.e. conquest.

Both are illegal.

In that case Shusha has a valid point, what about the Jews expelled and displaced by Arabs in 1948?

 

[Coyote]

.

When did Jordan get back right to it’s West Bank that it lost in war?

When did Jordan EVER have rights to the West Bank? Oh, yeah. Never.

I guess not. It was supposed be an Arab state from the partition.


West Bank - Wikipedia
In 1947, it was subsequently designated as part of a proposed Arab state by the United Nations (UN) partition plan for Palestine. The resolution recommended partition of the British Mandate into a Jewish State, an Arab State, and an internationally administered enclave of Jerusalem;[16] a broader region of the modern-day West Bank was assigned to the Arab State. The resolution designated the territory described as "the hill country of Samaria and Judea" (including what is now also known as the "West Bank") as part of the proposed Arab state, but following the 1948 Arab–Israeli War this area was captured by Transjordan (renamed Jordan two years after independence in 1946).

You seem to have a total lack of understanding that the Arabs, were not interested in a Arab State and a Jewish State. They were and still are, ONLY interested in ONE Arab State, where there are or (as they would prefer) there are no Jews at all, as we have with Jordan and Gaza right now.

The PA has made it very clear, that there will be no Jews living in the State of Palestine, showing a map which includes ALL of Israel.

Now, if there are NO new Arab settlements in Area C, can you understand why?

Your bias precedes your understanding. There are no arab Israeli settlements because only Jews are allowed to build there.