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 believe the Palestinians want Palestine recognized as a state and are prepared to live in peace. Israel wants peace too but only on conditions. I also think Israel does not want Palestine as a neighbor but would prefer a system of reservations for Palestinians which they could call any name they like.Sadly neither party wants 2 states, or peace.
We are where we are."A summit taking place in Paris on Sunday is expected to try to signal to Israel and the next US president that establishing a Palestinian state is the only path to peace."
Can Paris summit save fading two-state solution? - BBC News
Increasingly, with the increase of Israeli settlements all over the West Bank and the annexation of East Jerusalem, it looks as if the two-state solution to the Israel/Palestine conflict proposed by the United Nations four decades ago has become a pipe dream.
Seventy countries are expected this weekend to reiterate their opposition to Israeli settlements and call for the establishment of a Palestinian state as “the only way” to ensure peace in the region.
According to a draft statement obtained by The Associated Press on Friday, the conference will urge Israel and the Palestinians “to officially restate their commitment to the two-state solution.”
It also will affirm that the international community “will not recognize” changes to Israel’s pre-1967 lines without agreement by both sides.
The draft says that participants will affirm “that a negotiated solution with two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security, is the only way to achieve enduring peace.”
News from The Associated Press
After the conference, French President Hollande intends to meet separately with Benjamin Netanyahu and also with President Mahmoud Abbas.
There is only one objectionable point in the draft statement that the Palestinians could object to and that is the idea of a two-state solution needing to be "negotiated". Experience tells us that talking to the Israelis is pointless as the time is used merely to construct more Israeli settlements in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem.
The Israelis will have none of it because it is their position that what they do in the Occupied Territories is no business of other countries and that they prefer to talk directly to the Palestinians ... and talk and build, and talk and build, and talk and build ad infinitum.
Verdict: It takes two to tango. This conference is D.O.A.
It never was a "solution". Why would we try to save something that is not, and never was, a solution?
If you create a new state, that will just create war in the middle east, that Israel will win, and we'll be right back here where we already are.
There is no solution to this conflict. One side must defeat the other side. Israel has to wipe out, and annex the rest of the territory. That is the only solution.
The cause of the conflict has a lot to do with the immigration of so many European Jews to the Holy Land which was overwhelmingly Arab. There was one Palestine there then but not one state in the community of nations. The establishment of Israel as a Jewish state could only have happened by the dispossession and displacement of the indigenous Arabs, leaving many refugees from Palestine all over the Middle East. Those Arab Palestinians were left with no state of their own and internationally this seemed unjust which is why a state of Palestine in those parts of Palestine which had not become Israel was proposed by the UN decades ago.
If, as you say, there should be only one state and it should be the Jewish state of Israel by means of war and ethnic cleansing, the politicians of only one country might support that, the USA. Others will not and then the war would not be contained to the old Palestinian Mandate. Right now, Israel is doing this with its policy of blockade and occupation. This is judged to be no solution either.
I feel like not trying to answer your long post because you wrote that my "dumb opinion" doesn't matter. Perhaps I am misunderstanding you because USMessageBoard is for people to express their opinions no matter how dumb others think of them.We are where we are."A summit taking place in Paris on Sunday is expected to try to signal to Israel and the next US president that establishing a Palestinian state is the only path to peace."
Can Paris summit save fading two-state solution? - BBC News
Increasingly, with the increase of Israeli settlements all over the West Bank and the annexation of East Jerusalem, it looks as if the two-state solution to the Israel/Palestine conflict proposed by the United Nations four decades ago has become a pipe dream.
Seventy countries are expected this weekend to reiterate their opposition to Israeli settlements and call for the establishment of a Palestinian state as “the only way” to ensure peace in the region.
According to a draft statement obtained by The Associated Press on Friday, the conference will urge Israel and the Palestinians “to officially restate their commitment to the two-state solution.”
It also will affirm that the international community “will not recognize” changes to Israel’s pre-1967 lines without agreement by both sides.
The draft says that participants will affirm “that a negotiated solution with two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security, is the only way to achieve enduring peace.”
News from The Associated Press
After the conference, French President Hollande intends to meet separately with Benjamin Netanyahu and also with President Mahmoud Abbas.
There is only one objectionable point in the draft statement that the Palestinians could object to and that is the idea of a two-state solution needing to be "negotiated". Experience tells us that talking to the Israelis is pointless as the time is used merely to construct more Israeli settlements in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem.
The Israelis will have none of it because it is their position that what they do in the Occupied Territories is no business of other countries and that they prefer to talk directly to the Palestinians ... and talk and build, and talk and build, and talk and build ad infinitum.
Verdict: It takes two to tango. This conference is D.O.A.
It never was a "solution". Why would we try to save something that is not, and never was, a solution?
If you create a new state, that will just create war in the middle east, that Israel will win, and we'll be right back here where we already are.
There is no solution to this conflict. One side must defeat the other side. Israel has to wipe out, and annex the rest of the territory. That is the only solution.
The cause of the conflict has a lot to do with the immigration of so many European Jews to the Holy Land which was overwhelmingly Arab. There was one Palestine there then but not one state in the community of nations. The establishment of Israel as a Jewish state could only have happened by the dispossession and displacement of the indigenous Arabs, leaving many refugees from Palestine all over the Middle East. Those Arab Palestinians were left with no state of their own and internationally this seemed unjust which is why a state of Palestine in those parts of Palestine which had not become Israel was proposed by the UN decades ago.
If, as you say, there should be only one state and it should be the Jewish state of Israel by means of war and ethnic cleansing, the politicians of only one country might support that, the USA. Others will not and then the war would not be contained to the old Palestinian Mandate. Right now, Israel is doing this with its policy of blockade and occupation. This is judged to be no solution either.
First off "indigenous Arabs" is an oxymoron. Second, the Jews are the only people group that have been in the land of Israel, continuously since the time of David the King.
There is no other group that has lived in that land non-stop for the last 2,000 years.
"Those Arab Palestinians were left with no state of their own"
This statement is entirely false. 100%, this is false.
When Israel was being created, they did everything they could to keep the Arab people in the land. This is a fact. They spread leaflets saying that if they stayed in the land, they would be granted Israeli citizenship, and their property rights, and land ownership would be protected.
To this day, there are Arabs who stayed in the land, and became Israeli citizens, and some are even in the Israeli government, as elected representatives of the people.
List of Arab members of the Knesset - Wikipedia
This is a well known established fact. This myth that the IDF showed up and kicked everyone out, is not only false, but the exact opposite of the truth.
Israel was worried that if all the Arabs left, that the economy would implode. So they were very intent that people stay, and that they would become Israeli citizens, and they would keep their property.
The problem is, the Arabs didn't stay, or didn't agree to the terms.
Take the example of Lydda. When Israeli showed up, many people abandoned their property, or worse, joined the Arab Legionaries.
Read how Israel handled this:
The Israeli government set up a committee to handle the Palestinian Arab refugees and their abandoned property. The committee issued an explicit order that forbade "to destroy, burn or demolish Arab towns and villages, to expel the inhabitants of Arab villages, neighborhoods and towns, or to uproot the Arab population from their place of residence" without having previously received, a specific and direct order from the Minister of Defense. Regulations ordered the sealing off of Arab areas to prevent looting and acts of revenge and stated that captured men were to be treated as POWs with the Red Cross notified. Palestinian Arabs who wished to remain were allowed to do so and the confiscation of their property was prohibited.
See? They didn't kick these guys out. Israel is not to blame for this.
Here's how the Arabs responded.
On 12 July, at 11:30 hours, two or three Arab Legion armored cars entered the city, led by Lt. Hamadallah al-Abdullah from the Jordanian 1st Brigade. The Arab Legion armored cars opened fire on the Israeli soldiers combing the old city which created the impression that the Jordanians had staged counterattack. The exchange of gunfire led residents and Arab fighters to believe the Legion had arrived in force, and those still armed started firing at the Israelis too. Local militia once again renewed hostilities and an Israeli patrol were set upon by a rioting mob in the market place.So let's recap. The people of Lydda surrendered to the Israelis, and were guaranteed rights and property.
A few Jordanians showed up, and fired some shots at Israelis, and all of a sudden all these people who surrendered, and had their property and rights protected.... started attacking the Israelis.
So of course.... as any military would... as any nation would.... they killed all the combatants, and expelled the rest.
The Arabs expelled themselves. They attacked the Israelis when they could have been protected Israeli citizens with full rights. Instead they started killing people, and got what they deserved for it.
If, as you say, there should be only one state and it should be the Jewish state of Israel by means of war and ethnic cleansing, the politicians of only one country might support that, the USA. Others will not and then the war would not be contained to the old Palestinian Mandate. Right now, Israel is doing this with its policy of blockade and occupation. This is judged to be no solution either.
No, you don't understand my position. I'm not saying what there should, or should not be. That doesn't matter.
You can argue all day long what YOU think, or what other countries think, or what everyone on else in the world thinks.
None of that matters.
You have two groups of people.
One group believes they have a Divine right, handed down through 4,000 years of human history, and a long standing claim, that is over 2,000 years old, that this tiny bit of land is their own land.
Then you have another group, and they are against the first group having any land of their own at all.
Now which group do you think is going to cave in? "If, as you say, there should be only one state and it should be the Jewish state of Israel by means of war..."..... Which group do you think is going to cave in? "But this is judged to not be a solution...." WHICH GROUP DO YOU THINK IS GOING TO CAVE IN?
"But but but!!! Nations around the world will say...."
WHICH GROUP DO YOU THINK IS GOING TO CAVE IN!?!?!?
See a problem there sparky? One group says there can not be an Israeli state. Another group says it's a divine right handed down for thousands of years.
Which group....... which goal..... do you think.... can be met half way?
View attachment 106657
Do you think a two-state solution is going to fix that?
Goal: Elimination of the state of Israel.
Goal: Creation of a complete Israeli nation, with Jerusalem as the capital.
Solution..... here's a Palestine Arab state.
What do you think, has been fixed here?
You fixed nothing. The only thing you have done, is given Palestine a new way to buy guns and weapons, to start a war with Israel, that will drag in the entire middle east, and many other parts of the world.
The only solution is either Israel is eliminated, or the Arabs are removed. There is no co-exist solution. Doesn't matter what your dumb opinion is, or what other nations think. None of that matters. These two people groups have mutually exclusive goals, and one will succeed, and one will fail. There is no 'half-way' hold-hands, and "sing kumbaya around the camp fire" solution.
We are where we are."A summit taking place in Paris on Sunday is expected to try to signal to Israel and the next US president that establishing a Palestinian state is the only path to peace."
Can Paris summit save fading two-state solution? - BBC News
Increasingly, with the increase of Israeli settlements all over the West Bank and the annexation of East Jerusalem, it looks as if the two-state solution to the Israel/Palestine conflict proposed by the United Nations four decades ago has become a pipe dream.
Seventy countries are expected this weekend to reiterate their opposition to Israeli settlements and call for the establishment of a Palestinian state as “the only way” to ensure peace in the region.
According to a draft statement obtained by The Associated Press on Friday, the conference will urge Israel and the Palestinians “to officially restate their commitment to the two-state solution.”
It also will affirm that the international community “will not recognize” changes to Israel’s pre-1967 lines without agreement by both sides.
The draft says that participants will affirm “that a negotiated solution with two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security, is the only way to achieve enduring peace.”
News from The Associated Press
After the conference, French President Hollande intends to meet separately with Benjamin Netanyahu and also with President Mahmoud Abbas.
There is only one objectionable point in the draft statement that the Palestinians could object to and that is the idea of a two-state solution needing to be "negotiated". Experience tells us that talking to the Israelis is pointless as the time is used merely to construct more Israeli settlements in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem.
The Israelis will have none of it because it is their position that what they do in the Occupied Territories is no business of other countries and that they prefer to talk directly to the Palestinians ... and talk and build, and talk and build, and talk and build ad infinitum.
Verdict: It takes two to tango. This conference is D.O.A.
It never was a "solution". Why would we try to save something that is not, and never was, a solution?
If you create a new state, that will just create war in the middle east, that Israel will win, and we'll be right back here where we already are.
There is no solution to this conflict. One side must defeat the other side. Israel has to wipe out, and annex the rest of the territory. That is the only solution.
The cause of the conflict has a lot to do with the immigration of so many European Jews to the Holy Land which was overwhelmingly Arab. There was one Palestine there then but not one state in the community of nations. The establishment of Israel as a Jewish state could only have happened by the dispossession and displacement of the indigenous Arabs, leaving many refugees from Palestine all over the Middle East. Those Arab Palestinians were left with no state of their own and internationally this seemed unjust which is why a state of Palestine in those parts of Palestine which had not become Israel was proposed by the UN decades ago.
If, as you say, there should be only one state and it should be the Jewish state of Israel by means of war and ethnic cleansing, the politicians of only one country might support that, the USA. Others will not and then the war would not be contained to the old Palestinian Mandate. Right now, Israel is doing this with its policy of blockade and occupation. This is judged to be no solution either.
First off "indigenous Arabs" is an oxymoron. Second, the Jews are the only people group that have been in the land of Israel, continuously since the time of David the King.
There is no other group that has lived in that land non-stop for the last 2,000 years.
"Those Arab Palestinians were left with no state of their own"
This statement is entirely false. 100%, this is false.
When Israel was being created, they did everything they could to keep the Arab people in the land. This is a fact. They spread leaflets saying that if they stayed in the land, they would be granted Israeli citizenship, and their property rights, and land ownership would be protected.
To this day, there are Arabs who stayed in the land, and became Israeli citizens, and some are even in the Israeli government, as elected representatives of the people.
List of Arab members of the Knesset - Wikipedia
This is a well known established fact. This myth that the IDF showed up and kicked everyone out, is not only false, but the exact opposite of the truth.
Israel was worried that if all the Arabs left, that the economy would implode. So they were very intent that people stay, and that they would become Israeli citizens, and they would keep their property.
The problem is, the Arabs didn't stay, or didn't agree to the terms.
Take the example of Lydda. When Israeli showed up, many people abandoned their property, or worse, joined the Arab Legionaries.
Read how Israel handled this:
The Israeli government set up a committee to handle the Palestinian Arab refugees and their abandoned property. The committee issued an explicit order that forbade "to destroy, burn or demolish Arab towns and villages, to expel the inhabitants of Arab villages, neighborhoods and towns, or to uproot the Arab population from their place of residence" without having previously received, a specific and direct order from the Minister of Defense. Regulations ordered the sealing off of Arab areas to prevent looting and acts of revenge and stated that captured men were to be treated as POWs with the Red Cross notified. Palestinian Arabs who wished to remain were allowed to do so and the confiscation of their property was prohibited.
See? They didn't kick these guys out. Israel is not to blame for this.
Here's how the Arabs responded.
On 12 July, at 11:30 hours, two or three Arab Legion armored cars entered the city, led by Lt. Hamadallah al-Abdullah from the Jordanian 1st Brigade. The Arab Legion armored cars opened fire on the Israeli soldiers combing the old city which created the impression that the Jordanians had staged counterattack. The exchange of gunfire led residents and Arab fighters to believe the Legion had arrived in force, and those still armed started firing at the Israelis too. Local militia once again renewed hostilities and an Israeli patrol were set upon by a rioting mob in the market place.So let's recap. The people of Lydda surrendered to the Israelis, and were guaranteed rights and property.
A few Jordanians showed up, and fired some shots at Israelis, and all of a sudden all these people who surrendered, and had their property and rights protected.... started attacking the Israelis.
So of course.... as any military would... as any nation would.... they killed all the combatants, and expelled the rest.
The Arabs expelled themselves. They attacked the Israelis when they could have been protected Israeli citizens with full rights. Instead they started killing people, and got what they deserved for it.
If, as you say, there should be only one state and it should be the Jewish state of Israel by means of war and ethnic cleansing, the politicians of only one country might support that, the USA. Others will not and then the war would not be contained to the old Palestinian Mandate. Right now, Israel is doing this with its policy of blockade and occupation. This is judged to be no solution either.
No, you don't understand my position. I'm not saying what there should, or should not be. That doesn't matter.
You can argue all day long what YOU think, or what other countries think, or what everyone on else in the world thinks.
None of that matters.
You have two groups of people.
One group believes they have a Divine right, handed down through 4,000 years of human history, and a long standing claim, that is over 2,000 years old, that this tiny bit of land is their own land.
Then you have another group, and they are against the first group having any land of their own at all.
Now which group do you think is going to cave in? "If, as you say, there should be only one state and it should be the Jewish state of Israel by means of war..."..... Which group do you think is going to cave in? "But this is judged to not be a solution...." WHICH GROUP DO YOU THINK IS GOING TO CAVE IN?
"But but but!!! Nations around the world will say...."
WHICH GROUP DO YOU THINK IS GOING TO CAVE IN!?!?!?
See a problem there sparky? One group says there can not be an Israeli state. Another group says it's a divine right handed down for thousands of years.
Which group....... which goal..... do you think.... can be met half way?
View attachment 106657
Do you think a two-state solution is going to fix that?
Goal: Elimination of the state of Israel.
Goal: Creation of a complete Israeli nation, with Jerusalem as the capital.
Solution..... here's a Palestine Arab state.
What do you think, has been fixed here?
You fixed nothing. The only thing you have done, is given Palestine a new way to buy guns and weapons, to start a war with Israel, that will drag in the entire middle east, and many other parts of the world.
The only solution is either Israel is eliminated, or the Arabs are removed. There is no co-exist solution. Doesn't matter what your dumb opinion is, or what other nations think. None of that matters. These two people groups have mutually exclusive goals, and one will succeed, and one will fail. There is no 'half-way' hold-hands, and "sing kumbaya around the camp fire" solution.
I don't believe in international summit. 99% of times they end up with nothing..."A summit taking place in Paris on Sunday is expected to try to signal to Israel and the next US president that establishing a Palestinian state is the only path to peace."
Can Paris summit save fading two-state solution? - BBC News
Increasingly, with the increase of Israeli settlements all over the West Bank and the annexation of East Jerusalem, it looks as if the two-state solution to the Israel/Palestine conflict proposed by the United Nations four decades ago has become a pipe dream.
Seventy countries are expected this weekend to reiterate their opposition to Israeli settlements and call for the establishment of a Palestinian state as “the only way” to ensure peace in the region.
According to a draft statement obtained by The Associated Press on Friday, the conference will urge Israel and the Palestinians “to officially restate their commitment to the two-state solution.”
It also will affirm that the international community “will not recognize” changes to Israel’s pre-1967 lines without agreement by both sides.
The draft says that participants will affirm “that a negotiated solution with two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security, is the only way to achieve enduring peace.”
News from The Associated Press
After the conference, French President Hollande intends to meet separately with Benjamin Netanyahu and also with President Mahmoud Abbas.
There is only one objectionable point in the draft statement that the Palestinians could object to and that is the idea of a two-state solution needing to be "negotiated". Experience tells us that talking to the Israelis is pointless as the time is used merely to construct more Israeli settlements in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem.
The Israelis will have none of it because it is their position that what they do in the Occupied Territories is no business of other countries and that they prefer to talk directly to the Palestinians ... and talk and build, and talk and build, and talk and build ad infinitum.
Verdict: It takes two to tango. This conference is D.O.A.
The only solution is either Israel is eliminated, or the Arabs are removed. There is no co-exist solution. Doesn't matter what your dumb opinion is, or what other nations think. None of that matters. These two people groups have mutually exclusive goals, and one will succeed, and one will fail. There is no 'half-way' hold-hands, and "sing kumbaya around the camp fire" solution.
I feel like not trying to answer your long post because you wrote that my "dumb opinion" doesn't matter. Perhaps I am misunderstanding you because USMessageBoard is for people to express their opinions no matter how dumb others think of them.
So, I will keep it brief. Despite what you and the Israelis think, the world nations have come to accept Israel as a sovereign state but with the 1967 cease-fire armistice line. This is the country which is a member state of the United Nations. The UN member state of Israel then does not include any part of the Occupied Territories. For decades the UN has held the opinion that these Occupied Territories should become the state of Palestine with mutually agreed land swaps along the 1967 de facto border.
It is hoped that the seventy countries represented at the Paris summit tomorrow (John Kerry included) will kick-start a serious effort on the part of Israel and Palestine to a two-state solution. This means, according to the draft of the topics, that Israel will stop its opposition to a Palestinian state.
For the reasons I gave earlier in the Opening Post, I cannot see this happening. Consequently, countries will continue to recognize Palestine and the conflict will continue as Israel becomes an apartheid Jewish state in all of the former British Mandate territory or it will change its mind and also recognize Palestine. The world will most certainly not be spectators of an ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian Arabs who are going nowhere.
I don't believe in international summit. 99% of times they end up with nothing...
They just talk during the summit.... and live lavish
Israelis and Palestinians shouldn't think this summit can be useful for them!
I feel like not trying to answer your long post because you wrote that my "dumb opinion" doesn't matter. Perhaps I am misunderstanding you because USMessageBoard is for people to express their opinions no matter how dumb others think of them.We are where we are."A summit taking place in Paris on Sunday is expected to try to signal to Israel and the next US president that establishing a Palestinian state is the only path to peace."
Can Paris summit save fading two-state solution? - BBC News
Increasingly, with the increase of Israeli settlements all over the West Bank and the annexation of East Jerusalem, it looks as if the two-state solution to the Israel/Palestine conflict proposed by the United Nations four decades ago has become a pipe dream.
Seventy countries are expected this weekend to reiterate their opposition to Israeli settlements and call for the establishment of a Palestinian state as “the only way” to ensure peace in the region.
According to a draft statement obtained by The Associated Press on Friday, the conference will urge Israel and the Palestinians “to officially restate their commitment to the two-state solution.”
It also will affirm that the international community “will not recognize” changes to Israel’s pre-1967 lines without agreement by both sides.
The draft says that participants will affirm “that a negotiated solution with two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security, is the only way to achieve enduring peace.”
News from The Associated Press
After the conference, French President Hollande intends to meet separately with Benjamin Netanyahu and also with President Mahmoud Abbas.
There is only one objectionable point in the draft statement that the Palestinians could object to and that is the idea of a two-state solution needing to be "negotiated". Experience tells us that talking to the Israelis is pointless as the time is used merely to construct more Israeli settlements in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem.
The Israelis will have none of it because it is their position that what they do in the Occupied Territories is no business of other countries and that they prefer to talk directly to the Palestinians ... and talk and build, and talk and build, and talk and build ad infinitum.
Verdict: It takes two to tango. This conference is D.O.A.
It never was a "solution". Why would we try to save something that is not, and never was, a solution?
If you create a new state, that will just create war in the middle east, that Israel will win, and we'll be right back here where we already are.
There is no solution to this conflict. One side must defeat the other side. Israel has to wipe out, and annex the rest of the territory. That is the only solution.
The cause of the conflict has a lot to do with the immigration of so many European Jews to the Holy Land which was overwhelmingly Arab. There was one Palestine there then but not one state in the community of nations. The establishment of Israel as a Jewish state could only have happened by the dispossession and displacement of the indigenous Arabs, leaving many refugees from Palestine all over the Middle East. Those Arab Palestinians were left with no state of their own and internationally this seemed unjust which is why a state of Palestine in those parts of Palestine which had not become Israel was proposed by the UN decades ago.
If, as you say, there should be only one state and it should be the Jewish state of Israel by means of war and ethnic cleansing, the politicians of only one country might support that, the USA. Others will not and then the war would not be contained to the old Palestinian Mandate. Right now, Israel is doing this with its policy of blockade and occupation. This is judged to be no solution either.
First off "indigenous Arabs" is an oxymoron. Second, the Jews are the only people group that have been in the land of Israel, continuously since the time of David the King.
There is no other group that has lived in that land non-stop for the last 2,000 years.
"Those Arab Palestinians were left with no state of their own"
This statement is entirely false. 100%, this is false.
When Israel was being created, they did everything they could to keep the Arab people in the land. This is a fact. They spread leaflets saying that if they stayed in the land, they would be granted Israeli citizenship, and their property rights, and land ownership would be protected.
To this day, there are Arabs who stayed in the land, and became Israeli citizens, and some are even in the Israeli government, as elected representatives of the people.
List of Arab members of the Knesset - Wikipedia
This is a well known established fact. This myth that the IDF showed up and kicked everyone out, is not only false, but the exact opposite of the truth.
Israel was worried that if all the Arabs left, that the economy would implode. So they were very intent that people stay, and that they would become Israeli citizens, and they would keep their property.
The problem is, the Arabs didn't stay, or didn't agree to the terms.
Take the example of Lydda. When Israeli showed up, many people abandoned their property, or worse, joined the Arab Legionaries.
Read how Israel handled this:
The Israeli government set up a committee to handle the Palestinian Arab refugees and their abandoned property. The committee issued an explicit order that forbade "to destroy, burn or demolish Arab towns and villages, to expel the inhabitants of Arab villages, neighborhoods and towns, or to uproot the Arab population from their place of residence" without having previously received, a specific and direct order from the Minister of Defense. Regulations ordered the sealing off of Arab areas to prevent looting and acts of revenge and stated that captured men were to be treated as POWs with the Red Cross notified. Palestinian Arabs who wished to remain were allowed to do so and the confiscation of their property was prohibited.
See? They didn't kick these guys out. Israel is not to blame for this.
Here's how the Arabs responded.
On 12 July, at 11:30 hours, two or three Arab Legion armored cars entered the city, led by Lt. Hamadallah al-Abdullah from the Jordanian 1st Brigade. The Arab Legion armored cars opened fire on the Israeli soldiers combing the old city which created the impression that the Jordanians had staged counterattack. The exchange of gunfire led residents and Arab fighters to believe the Legion had arrived in force, and those still armed started firing at the Israelis too. Local militia once again renewed hostilities and an Israeli patrol were set upon by a rioting mob in the market place.So let's recap. The people of Lydda surrendered to the Israelis, and were guaranteed rights and property.
A few Jordanians showed up, and fired some shots at Israelis, and all of a sudden all these people who surrendered, and had their property and rights protected.... started attacking the Israelis.
So of course.... as any military would... as any nation would.... they killed all the combatants, and expelled the rest.
The Arabs expelled themselves. They attacked the Israelis when they could have been protected Israeli citizens with full rights. Instead they started killing people, and got what they deserved for it.
If, as you say, there should be only one state and it should be the Jewish state of Israel by means of war and ethnic cleansing, the politicians of only one country might support that, the USA. Others will not and then the war would not be contained to the old Palestinian Mandate. Right now, Israel is doing this with its policy of blockade and occupation. This is judged to be no solution either.
No, you don't understand my position. I'm not saying what there should, or should not be. That doesn't matter.
You can argue all day long what YOU think, or what other countries think, or what everyone on else in the world thinks.
None of that matters.
You have two groups of people.
One group believes they have a Divine right, handed down through 4,000 years of human history, and a long standing claim, that is over 2,000 years old, that this tiny bit of land is their own land.
Then you have another group, and they are against the first group having any land of their own at all.
Now which group do you think is going to cave in? "If, as you say, there should be only one state and it should be the Jewish state of Israel by means of war..."..... Which group do you think is going to cave in? "But this is judged to not be a solution...." WHICH GROUP DO YOU THINK IS GOING TO CAVE IN?
"But but but!!! Nations around the world will say...."
WHICH GROUP DO YOU THINK IS GOING TO CAVE IN!?!?!?
See a problem there sparky? One group says there can not be an Israeli state. Another group says it's a divine right handed down for thousands of years.
Which group....... which goal..... do you think.... can be met half way?
View attachment 106657
Do you think a two-state solution is going to fix that?
Goal: Elimination of the state of Israel.
Goal: Creation of a complete Israeli nation, with Jerusalem as the capital.
Solution..... here's a Palestine Arab state.
What do you think, has been fixed here?
You fixed nothing. The only thing you have done, is given Palestine a new way to buy guns and weapons, to start a war with Israel, that will drag in the entire middle east, and many other parts of the world.
The only solution is either Israel is eliminated, or the Arabs are removed. There is no co-exist solution. Doesn't matter what your dumb opinion is, or what other nations think. None of that matters. These two people groups have mutually exclusive goals, and one will succeed, and one will fail. There is no 'half-way' hold-hands, and "sing kumbaya around the camp fire" solution.
So, I will keep it brief. Despite what you and the Israelis think, the world nations have come to accept Israel as a sovereign state but with the 1967 cease-fire armistice line. This is the country which is a member state of the United Nations. The UN member state of Israel then does not include any part of the Occupied Territories. For decades the UN has held the opinion that these Occupied Territories should become the state of Palestine with mutually agreed land swaps along the 1967 de facto border.
It is hoped that the seventy countries represented at the Paris summit tomorrow (John Kerry included) will kick-start a serious effort on the part of Israel and Palestine to a two-state solution. This means, according to the draft of the topics, that Israel will stop its opposition to a Palestinian state.
For the reasons I gave earlier in the Opening Post, I cannot see this happening. Consequently, countries will continue to recognize Palestine and the conflict will continue as Israel becomes an apartheid Jewish state in all of the former British Mandate territory or it will change its mind and also recognize Palestine. The world will most certainly not be spectators of an ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian Arabs who are going nowhere.
The Israelis have already written it off as a dead loss.I don't believe in international summit. 99% of times they end up with nothing..."A summit taking place in Paris on Sunday is expected to try to signal to Israel and the next US president that establishing a Palestinian state is the only path to peace."
Can Paris summit save fading two-state solution? - BBC News
Increasingly, with the increase of Israeli settlements all over the West Bank and the annexation of East Jerusalem, it looks as if the two-state solution to the Israel/Palestine conflict proposed by the United Nations four decades ago has become a pipe dream.
Seventy countries are expected this weekend to reiterate their opposition to Israeli settlements and call for the establishment of a Palestinian state as “the only way” to ensure peace in the region.
According to a draft statement obtained by The Associated Press on Friday, the conference will urge Israel and the Palestinians “to officially restate their commitment to the two-state solution.”
It also will affirm that the international community “will not recognize” changes to Israel’s pre-1967 lines without agreement by both sides.
The draft says that participants will affirm “that a negotiated solution with two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security, is the only way to achieve enduring peace.”
News from The Associated Press
After the conference, French President Hollande intends to meet separately with Benjamin Netanyahu and also with President Mahmoud Abbas.
There is only one objectionable point in the draft statement that the Palestinians could object to and that is the idea of a two-state solution needing to be "negotiated". Experience tells us that talking to the Israelis is pointless as the time is used merely to construct more Israeli settlements in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem.
The Israelis will have none of it because it is their position that what they do in the Occupied Territories is no business of other countries and that they prefer to talk directly to the Palestinians ... and talk and build, and talk and build, and talk and build ad infinitum.
Verdict: It takes two to tango. This conference is D.O.A.
They just talk during the summit.... and live lavish
Israelis and Palestinians shouldn't think this summit can be useful for them!
I believe the Palestinians want Palestine recognized as a state and are prepared to live in peace.Sadly neither party wants 2 states, or peace.
Unfortunately I think you can be rightSadly neither party wants 2 states, or peace.
We are where we are."A summit taking place in Paris on Sunday is expected to try to signal to Israel and the next US president that establishing a Palestinian state is the only path to peace."
Can Paris summit save fading two-state solution? - BBC News
Increasingly, with the increase of Israeli settlements all over the West Bank and the annexation of East Jerusalem, it looks as if the two-state solution to the Israel/Palestine conflict proposed by the United Nations four decades ago has become a pipe dream.
Seventy countries are expected this weekend to reiterate their opposition to Israeli settlements and call for the establishment of a Palestinian state as “the only way” to ensure peace in the region.
According to a draft statement obtained by The Associated Press on Friday, the conference will urge Israel and the Palestinians “to officially restate their commitment to the two-state solution.”
It also will affirm that the international community “will not recognize” changes to Israel’s pre-1967 lines without agreement by both sides.
The draft says that participants will affirm “that a negotiated solution with two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security, is the only way to achieve enduring peace.”
News from The Associated Press
After the conference, French President Hollande intends to meet separately with Benjamin Netanyahu and also with President Mahmoud Abbas.
There is only one objectionable point in the draft statement that the Palestinians could object to and that is the idea of a two-state solution needing to be "negotiated". Experience tells us that talking to the Israelis is pointless as the time is used merely to construct more Israeli settlements in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem.
The Israelis will have none of it because it is their position that what they do in the Occupied Territories is no business of other countries and that they prefer to talk directly to the Palestinians ... and talk and build, and talk and build, and talk and build ad infinitum.
Verdict: It takes two to tango. This conference is D.O.A.
It never was a "solution". Why would we try to save something that is not, and never was, a solution?
If you create a new state, that will just create war in the middle east, that Israel will win, and we'll be right back here where we already are.
There is no solution to this conflict. One side must defeat the other side. Israel has to wipe out, and annex the rest of the territory. That is the only solution.
The cause of the conflict has a lot to do with the immigration of so many European Jews to the Holy Land which was overwhelmingly Arab. There was one Palestine there then but not one state in the community of nations. The establishment of Israel as a Jewish state could only have happened by the dispossession and displacement of the indigenous Arabs, leaving many refugees from Palestine all over the Middle East. Those Arab Palestinians were left with no state of their own and internationally this seemed unjust which is why a state of Palestine in those parts of Palestine which had not become Israel was proposed by the UN decades ago.
If, as you say, there should be only one state and it should be the Jewish state of Israel by means of war and ethnic cleansing, the politicians of only one country might support that, the USA. Others will not and then the war would not be contained to the old Palestinian Mandate. Right now, Israel is doing this with its policy of blockade and occupation. This is judged to be no solution either.
I feel like not trying to answer your long post because you wrote that my "dumb opinion" doesn't matter. Perhaps I am misunderstanding you because USMessageBoard is for people to express their opinions no matter how dumb others think of them.We are where we are."A summit taking place in Paris on Sunday is expected to try to signal to Israel and the next US president that establishing a Palestinian state is the only path to peace."
Can Paris summit save fading two-state solution? - BBC News
Increasingly, with the increase of Israeli settlements all over the West Bank and the annexation of East Jerusalem, it looks as if the two-state solution to the Israel/Palestine conflict proposed by the United Nations four decades ago has become a pipe dream.
Seventy countries are expected this weekend to reiterate their opposition to Israeli settlements and call for the establishment of a Palestinian state as “the only way” to ensure peace in the region.
According to a draft statement obtained by The Associated Press on Friday, the conference will urge Israel and the Palestinians “to officially restate their commitment to the two-state solution.”
It also will affirm that the international community “will not recognize” changes to Israel’s pre-1967 lines without agreement by both sides.
The draft says that participants will affirm “that a negotiated solution with two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security, is the only way to achieve enduring peace.”
News from The Associated Press
After the conference, French President Hollande intends to meet separately with Benjamin Netanyahu and also with President Mahmoud Abbas.
There is only one objectionable point in the draft statement that the Palestinians could object to and that is the idea of a two-state solution needing to be "negotiated". Experience tells us that talking to the Israelis is pointless as the time is used merely to construct more Israeli settlements in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem.
The Israelis will have none of it because it is their position that what they do in the Occupied Territories is no business of other countries and that they prefer to talk directly to the Palestinians ... and talk and build, and talk and build, and talk and build ad infinitum.
Verdict: It takes two to tango. This conference is D.O.A.
It never was a "solution". Why would we try to save something that is not, and never was, a solution?
If you create a new state, that will just create war in the middle east, that Israel will win, and we'll be right back here where we already are.
There is no solution to this conflict. One side must defeat the other side. Israel has to wipe out, and annex the rest of the territory. That is the only solution.
The cause of the conflict has a lot to do with the immigration of so many European Jews to the Holy Land which was overwhelmingly Arab. There was one Palestine there then but not one state in the community of nations. The establishment of Israel as a Jewish state could only have happened by the dispossession and displacement of the indigenous Arabs, leaving many refugees from Palestine all over the Middle East. Those Arab Palestinians were left with no state of their own and internationally this seemed unjust which is why a state of Palestine in those parts of Palestine which had not become Israel was proposed by the UN decades ago.
If, as you say, there should be only one state and it should be the Jewish state of Israel by means of war and ethnic cleansing, the politicians of only one country might support that, the USA. Others will not and then the war would not be contained to the old Palestinian Mandate. Right now, Israel is doing this with its policy of blockade and occupation. This is judged to be no solution either.
First off "indigenous Arabs" is an oxymoron. Second, the Jews are the only people group that have been in the land of Israel, continuously since the time of David the King.
There is no other group that has lived in that land non-stop for the last 2,000 years.
"Those Arab Palestinians were left with no state of their own"
This statement is entirely false. 100%, this is false.
When Israel was being created, they did everything they could to keep the Arab people in the land. This is a fact. They spread leaflets saying that if they stayed in the land, they would be granted Israeli citizenship, and their property rights, and land ownership would be protected.
To this day, there are Arabs who stayed in the land, and became Israeli citizens, and some are even in the Israeli government, as elected representatives of the people.
List of Arab members of the Knesset - Wikipedia
This is a well known established fact. This myth that the IDF showed up and kicked everyone out, is not only false, but the exact opposite of the truth.
Israel was worried that if all the Arabs left, that the economy would implode. So they were very intent that people stay, and that they would become Israeli citizens, and they would keep their property.
The problem is, the Arabs didn't stay, or didn't agree to the terms.
Take the example of Lydda. When Israeli showed up, many people abandoned their property, or worse, joined the Arab Legionaries.
Read how Israel handled this:
The Israeli government set up a committee to handle the Palestinian Arab refugees and their abandoned property. The committee issued an explicit order that forbade "to destroy, burn or demolish Arab towns and villages, to expel the inhabitants of Arab villages, neighborhoods and towns, or to uproot the Arab population from their place of residence" without having previously received, a specific and direct order from the Minister of Defense. Regulations ordered the sealing off of Arab areas to prevent looting and acts of revenge and stated that captured men were to be treated as POWs with the Red Cross notified. Palestinian Arabs who wished to remain were allowed to do so and the confiscation of their property was prohibited.
See? They didn't kick these guys out. Israel is not to blame for this.
Here's how the Arabs responded.
On 12 July, at 11:30 hours, two or three Arab Legion armored cars entered the city, led by Lt. Hamadallah al-Abdullah from the Jordanian 1st Brigade. The Arab Legion armored cars opened fire on the Israeli soldiers combing the old city which created the impression that the Jordanians had staged counterattack. The exchange of gunfire led residents and Arab fighters to believe the Legion had arrived in force, and those still armed started firing at the Israelis too. Local militia once again renewed hostilities and an Israeli patrol were set upon by a rioting mob in the market place.So let's recap. The people of Lydda surrendered to the Israelis, and were guaranteed rights and property.
A few Jordanians showed up, and fired some shots at Israelis, and all of a sudden all these people who surrendered, and had their property and rights protected.... started attacking the Israelis.
So of course.... as any military would... as any nation would.... they killed all the combatants, and expelled the rest.
The Arabs expelled themselves. They attacked the Israelis when they could have been protected Israeli citizens with full rights. Instead they started killing people, and got what they deserved for it.
If, as you say, there should be only one state and it should be the Jewish state of Israel by means of war and ethnic cleansing, the politicians of only one country might support that, the USA. Others will not and then the war would not be contained to the old Palestinian Mandate. Right now, Israel is doing this with its policy of blockade and occupation. This is judged to be no solution either.
No, you don't understand my position. I'm not saying what there should, or should not be. That doesn't matter.
You can argue all day long what YOU think, or what other countries think, or what everyone on else in the world thinks.
None of that matters.
You have two groups of people.
One group believes they have a Divine right, handed down through 4,000 years of human history, and a long standing claim, that is over 2,000 years old, that this tiny bit of land is their own land.
Then you have another group, and they are against the first group having any land of their own at all.
Now which group do you think is going to cave in? "If, as you say, there should be only one state and it should be the Jewish state of Israel by means of war..."..... Which group do you think is going to cave in? "But this is judged to not be a solution...." WHICH GROUP DO YOU THINK IS GOING TO CAVE IN?
"But but but!!! Nations around the world will say...."
WHICH GROUP DO YOU THINK IS GOING TO CAVE IN!?!?!?
See a problem there sparky? One group says there can not be an Israeli state. Another group says it's a divine right handed down for thousands of years.
Which group....... which goal..... do you think.... can be met half way?
View attachment 106657
Do you think a two-state solution is going to fix that?
Goal: Elimination of the state of Israel.
Goal: Creation of a complete Israeli nation, with Jerusalem as the capital.
Solution..... here's a Palestine Arab state.
What do you think, has been fixed here?
You fixed nothing. The only thing you have done, is given Palestine a new way to buy guns and weapons, to start a war with Israel, that will drag in the entire middle east, and many other parts of the world.
The only solution is either Israel is eliminated, or the Arabs are removed. There is no co-exist solution. Doesn't matter what your dumb opinion is, or what other nations think. None of that matters. These two people groups have mutually exclusive goals, and one will succeed, and one will fail. There is no 'half-way' hold-hands, and "sing kumbaya around the camp fire" solution.
So, I will keep it brief. Despite what you and the Israelis think, the world nations have come to accept Israel as a sovereign state but with the 1967 cease-fire armistice line. This is the country which is a member state of the United Nations. The UN member state of Israel then does not include any part of the Occupied Territories. For decades the UN has held the opinion that these Occupied Territories should become the state of Palestine with mutually agreed land swaps along the 1967 de facto border.
It is hoped that the seventy countries represented at the Paris summit tomorrow (John Kerry included) will kick-start a serious effort on the part of Israel and Palestine to a two-state solution. This means, according to the draft of the topics, that Israel will stop its opposition to a Palestinian state.
For the reasons I gave earlier in the Opening Post, I cannot see this happening. Consequently, countries will continue to recognize Palestine and the conflict will continue as Israel becomes an apartheid Jewish state in all of the former British Mandate territory or it will change its mind and also recognize Palestine. The world will most certainly not be spectators of an ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian Arabs who are going nowhere.
The Israelis seem not to care about the views of other countries except the USA yet they have a habit of defending Israel through Friends of Israel in foreign political parties and making many accusations about "antisemitism" in other countries, an accusation which puts the fear of God into European politicians given the history of the Final Solution. So, what other countries think does seem to matter to Israelis at the same time.I feel like not trying to answer your long post because you wrote that my "dumb opinion" doesn't matter. Perhaps I am misunderstanding you because USMessageBoard is for people to express their opinions no matter how dumb others think of them.We are where we are."A summit taking place in Paris on Sunday is expected to try to signal to Israel and the next US president that establishing a Palestinian state is the only path to peace."
Can Paris summit save fading two-state solution? - BBC News
Increasingly, with the increase of Israeli settlements all over the West Bank and the annexation of East Jerusalem, it looks as if the two-state solution to the Israel/Palestine conflict proposed by the United Nations four decades ago has become a pipe dream.
Seventy countries are expected this weekend to reiterate their opposition to Israeli settlements and call for the establishment of a Palestinian state as “the only way” to ensure peace in the region.
According to a draft statement obtained by The Associated Press on Friday, the conference will urge Israel and the Palestinians “to officially restate their commitment to the two-state solution.”
It also will affirm that the international community “will not recognize” changes to Israel’s pre-1967 lines without agreement by both sides.
The draft says that participants will affirm “that a negotiated solution with two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security, is the only way to achieve enduring peace.”
News from The Associated Press
After the conference, French President Hollande intends to meet separately with Benjamin Netanyahu and also with President Mahmoud Abbas.
There is only one objectionable point in the draft statement that the Palestinians could object to and that is the idea of a two-state solution needing to be "negotiated". Experience tells us that talking to the Israelis is pointless as the time is used merely to construct more Israeli settlements in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem.
The Israelis will have none of it because it is their position that what they do in the Occupied Territories is no business of other countries and that they prefer to talk directly to the Palestinians ... and talk and build, and talk and build, and talk and build ad infinitum.
Verdict: It takes two to tango. This conference is D.O.A.
It never was a "solution". Why would we try to save something that is not, and never was, a solution?
If you create a new state, that will just create war in the middle east, that Israel will win, and we'll be right back here where we already are.
There is no solution to this conflict. One side must defeat the other side. Israel has to wipe out, and annex the rest of the territory. That is the only solution.
The cause of the conflict has a lot to do with the immigration of so many European Jews to the Holy Land which was overwhelmingly Arab. There was one Palestine there then but not one state in the community of nations. The establishment of Israel as a Jewish state could only have happened by the dispossession and displacement of the indigenous Arabs, leaving many refugees from Palestine all over the Middle East. Those Arab Palestinians were left with no state of their own and internationally this seemed unjust which is why a state of Palestine in those parts of Palestine which had not become Israel was proposed by the UN decades ago.
If, as you say, there should be only one state and it should be the Jewish state of Israel by means of war and ethnic cleansing, the politicians of only one country might support that, the USA. Others will not and then the war would not be contained to the old Palestinian Mandate. Right now, Israel is doing this with its policy of blockade and occupation. This is judged to be no solution either.
First off "indigenous Arabs" is an oxymoron. Second, the Jews are the only people group that have been in the land of Israel, continuously since the time of David the King.
There is no other group that has lived in that land non-stop for the last 2,000 years.
"Those Arab Palestinians were left with no state of their own"
This statement is entirely false. 100%, this is false.
When Israel was being created, they did everything they could to keep the Arab people in the land. This is a fact. They spread leaflets saying that if they stayed in the land, they would be granted Israeli citizenship, and their property rights, and land ownership would be protected.
To this day, there are Arabs who stayed in the land, and became Israeli citizens, and some are even in the Israeli government, as elected representatives of the people.
List of Arab members of the Knesset - Wikipedia
This is a well known established fact. This myth that the IDF showed up and kicked everyone out, is not only false, but the exact opposite of the truth.
Israel was worried that if all the Arabs left, that the economy would implode. So they were very intent that people stay, and that they would become Israeli citizens, and they would keep their property.
The problem is, the Arabs didn't stay, or didn't agree to the terms.
Take the example of Lydda. When Israeli showed up, many people abandoned their property, or worse, joined the Arab Legionaries.
Read how Israel handled this:
The Israeli government set up a committee to handle the Palestinian Arab refugees and their abandoned property. The committee issued an explicit order that forbade "to destroy, burn or demolish Arab towns and villages, to expel the inhabitants of Arab villages, neighborhoods and towns, or to uproot the Arab population from their place of residence" without having previously received, a specific and direct order from the Minister of Defense. Regulations ordered the sealing off of Arab areas to prevent looting and acts of revenge and stated that captured men were to be treated as POWs with the Red Cross notified. Palestinian Arabs who wished to remain were allowed to do so and the confiscation of their property was prohibited.
See? They didn't kick these guys out. Israel is not to blame for this.
Here's how the Arabs responded.
On 12 July, at 11:30 hours, two or three Arab Legion armored cars entered the city, led by Lt. Hamadallah al-Abdullah from the Jordanian 1st Brigade. The Arab Legion armored cars opened fire on the Israeli soldiers combing the old city which created the impression that the Jordanians had staged counterattack. The exchange of gunfire led residents and Arab fighters to believe the Legion had arrived in force, and those still armed started firing at the Israelis too. Local militia once again renewed hostilities and an Israeli patrol were set upon by a rioting mob in the market place.So let's recap. The people of Lydda surrendered to the Israelis, and were guaranteed rights and property.
A few Jordanians showed up, and fired some shots at Israelis, and all of a sudden all these people who surrendered, and had their property and rights protected.... started attacking the Israelis.
So of course.... as any military would... as any nation would.... they killed all the combatants, and expelled the rest.
The Arabs expelled themselves. They attacked the Israelis when they could have been protected Israeli citizens with full rights. Instead they started killing people, and got what they deserved for it.
If, as you say, there should be only one state and it should be the Jewish state of Israel by means of war and ethnic cleansing, the politicians of only one country might support that, the USA. Others will not and then the war would not be contained to the old Palestinian Mandate. Right now, Israel is doing this with its policy of blockade and occupation. This is judged to be no solution either.
No, you don't understand my position. I'm not saying what there should, or should not be. That doesn't matter.
You can argue all day long what YOU think, or what other countries think, or what everyone on else in the world thinks.
None of that matters.
You have two groups of people.
One group believes they have a Divine right, handed down through 4,000 years of human history, and a long standing claim, that is over 2,000 years old, that this tiny bit of land is their own land.
Then you have another group, and they are against the first group having any land of their own at all.
Now which group do you think is going to cave in? "If, as you say, there should be only one state and it should be the Jewish state of Israel by means of war..."..... Which group do you think is going to cave in? "But this is judged to not be a solution...." WHICH GROUP DO YOU THINK IS GOING TO CAVE IN?
"But but but!!! Nations around the world will say...."
WHICH GROUP DO YOU THINK IS GOING TO CAVE IN!?!?!?
See a problem there sparky? One group says there can not be an Israeli state. Another group says it's a divine right handed down for thousands of years.
Which group....... which goal..... do you think.... can be met half way?
View attachment 106657
Do you think a two-state solution is going to fix that?
Goal: Elimination of the state of Israel.
Goal: Creation of a complete Israeli nation, with Jerusalem as the capital.
Solution..... here's a Palestine Arab state.
What do you think, has been fixed here?
You fixed nothing. The only thing you have done, is given Palestine a new way to buy guns and weapons, to start a war with Israel, that will drag in the entire middle east, and many other parts of the world.
The only solution is either Israel is eliminated, or the Arabs are removed. There is no co-exist solution. Doesn't matter what your dumb opinion is, or what other nations think. None of that matters. These two people groups have mutually exclusive goals, and one will succeed, and one will fail. There is no 'half-way' hold-hands, and "sing kumbaya around the camp fire" solution.
So, I will keep it brief. Despite what you and the Israelis think, the world nations have come to accept Israel as a sovereign state but with the 1967 cease-fire armistice line. This is the country which is a member state of the United Nations. The UN member state of Israel then does not include any part of the Occupied Territories. For decades the UN has held the opinion that these Occupied Territories should become the state of Palestine with mutually agreed land swaps along the 1967 de facto border.
It is hoped that the seventy countries represented at the Paris summit tomorrow (John Kerry included) will kick-start a serious effort on the part of Israel and Palestine to a two-state solution. This means, according to the draft of the topics, that Israel will stop its opposition to a Palestinian state.
For the reasons I gave earlier in the Opening Post, I cannot see this happening. Consequently, countries will continue to recognize Palestine and the conflict will continue as Israel becomes an apartheid Jewish state in all of the former British Mandate territory or it will change its mind and also recognize Palestine. The world will most certainly not be spectators of an ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian Arabs who are going nowhere.
I feel like not trying to answer your long post because you wrote that my "dumb opinion" doesn't matter.
The point wasn't to insult you. And there are many many topics we can discuss that perhaps we can reach some conclusion.
The problem with this specific topic, is that everyone's opinion on it, really doesn't matter. The opinions of the people in Israel (Arabs and Jews), are the only opinions that matter. They are the ones being attacked, and attacking back.
If I have a guy move into the house next door to me, and he is set and determined to rape my daughter, and I'm set and determined to stop him.... you or anyone else coming along saying "Well I think you should accept him", I'm not going to care what you think. Me and this dude next door are going to be having a war.
Despite what you and the Israelis think, the world nations have come to accept Israel as a sovereign state but with the 1967 cease-fire armistice line.
That's like saying you don't agree that Crimea is part of Russia now. Do you think the Russians care that we don't accept Crimea as part of Russia? Do you seem them pulling back? Do you see them withdrawing troops? Do you see them stopping the fighting in Ukraine?
That's my point to you.
What you, and the rest of the world "agrees" or "accepts", doesn't matter to either the Jews or the Arabs.
The Jews see the entire land as their rightful ancient home land, and they stake a claim on all of it, whether you or the rest of the world 'agrees' it's theirs or not.
The Arabs see the entire Israeli nation as unacceptable, and they will fight against it until they die, whether you or the rest of the world 'accepts' it or not.
The problem with the "world opinion" is that you are looking at it from the outside, from an outside perspective, with outside views and values.
You need to look at this conflict from the inside perspective, with inside views and perspectives.
Which is why I have said the "two-state solution" is simply not a solution. It simply isn't. All you are going to do, is setup a new way for the Arabs to arm themselves, and form an organized military to fight the Jews with. And the Jews will fight back, and the Arabs will lose, and one of two things will happen... Either we'll end up back where we are now, with Israel occupying Gaza and the west bank, or the conflict will draw in the world, and end up a world war.
It's simply NOT a solution. One of these two groups must win, and the other must lose.
The only good news is that a record number of Palestinians are leaving Gaza.
I believe the Palestinians want Palestine recognized as a state and are prepared to live in peace. Israel wants peace too but only on conditions. I also think Israel does not want Palestine as a neighbor but would prefer a system of reservations for Palestinians which they could call any name they like.Sadly neither party wants 2 states, or peace.
This is not on the Paris agenda.3 state solution.
I think a 3-state solution should be considered...
I think a 3-state solution should be considered...
How about a solution where the Israelis and Palestinians work it out for themselves and where the rest of the world keeps their sticky beaks out of it.
The PLO can negotiate with the Israelis if they want to waste another half century.I believe the Palestinians want Palestine recognized as a state and are prepared to live in peace. Israel wants peace too but only on conditions. I also think Israel does not want Palestine as a neighbor but would prefer a system of reservations for Palestinians which they could call any name they like.Sadly neither party wants 2 states, or peace.
This is not on the Paris agenda.3 state solution.
I think it's more complicated than the article lets on - it's a bit one sided.
Yes the settlements are an obstacle, a big one from the Palestinian perspective as it literally prevents a second viable state and yes, Netanyahu has been giving lip service to a two state solution and buying time by ramping up the settlements.
BUT
There are other obstacles to negotiation that need to be recognized.
Lack of a negotiating partner who can speak for all the Palestinians.
Continued violence against Israeli civilians.
I think a 3-state solution should be considered...
It affects the rest of the world
