P F Tinmore
Diamond Member
- Dec 6, 2009
- 79,776
- 4,414
- 1,815
The Palestine Mandate was not a place.ILOVEISRAEL, et al,
This is a point of negotiation to be addressed by the parties to the dispute (Israel 'v' Palestinian).
(COMMENT)Like I said before:An interesting move by the French...
France to recognise Palestinian state if deadlock with Israel not broken
France had a responsibility to try to keep up efforts to find a two-state solution between Israel and the Palestinians.Everyone is recognizing Palestine as part of the defunct two state solution.
Let there be a " Two State Solution " without returning to the 67 Borders and " Right of Return".
The "Two-State" solution was opposed and rejected by the Arab Higher Committee and Delegation in early 1948. It was a point of dispute in all the wars since. And the "two-State" solution is not a common position held by all Palestinians (maybe not even a majority). The PLO-Negotiation Affairs Department clearly talks about the "Two-State" solution. However the other half of the Unity Government (HAMAS) does not see an Israel in any part of the territory formerly under mandate (HAMAS Policy Position 2012).
This is a matter for the Israelis to decide, once they can get a seat at the Peace Table. A necessary first step.
Most Respectfully,
RHowever the other half of the Unity Government (HAMAS) does not see an Israel in any part of the territory formerly under mandate
Indeed, and Israel does not want that up for debate.
What should be up for debate? That Israel should not exist in any part of the former Palestine Mandate?