How about another Mandate? (A solutions thread)

[P F Tinmore]

And we here of the Palestinian's targets month after month, year after year while Israel killing hundreds gets brushed aside. Israel killing hundreds never gets mentioned by Israel's side while the Palestinians get - terrorist, terrorist, terrorist, terrorist, terrorist, terrorist, terrorist, terrorist, terrorist, terrorist, terrorist, terrorist, terrorist, terrorist, terrorist, terrorist, terrorist, terrorist, terrorist, terrorist.

What is it when a civilian is targeted and attacked ( excluding self defense?)

What are you trying to get at?

Terrorism

Are illegal settlers living on stolen land "innocent civilian?"

Do the Palestinians have the right to defend themselves from this?

Don't forget the Fourth Geneva Convention.

Nono one has the right to target and kill civilians, especially children.

Then why don't you post pages against Israeli terrorism?

 

[Coyote]

I have.

 

[P F Tinmore]

I have.

I don't recall you arguing page after page with them about it.

It seems that the terrorist label only applies to the Palestinians.

 

[Coyote]

I have.

I don't recall you arguing page after page with them about it.

I have. Over Op Cast Lead, the unjust juvenile justice system, inequity in how the law is applied between OPalestinians and Jews and on collective punishment.

 

[P F Tinmore]

I have.

I don't recall you arguing page after page with them about it.

I have. Over Op Cast Lead, the unjust juvenile justice system, inequity in how the law is applied between OPalestinians and Jews and on collective punishment.

It is true that you do not shill for Israel like many posters. However, you do have a problem with Palestinian self defense and you do tend to allow Israel to keep everything it has stolen.

 

[Shusha]

Israel negated their right. They did not want a Jewish state.

The Jewish people CLEARLY want a Jewish State.

Can rights of an entire people be negated? Its an interesting question for me given that you are very often remarking that a people's inherent rights can not be abrogated.

Is it possible that the Palestinians don't really want a state? I mean, they haven't really done much to build a state. Does that mean that they can't ever have one?

 

[theliq]

I have.

You are a little soft on this issue with respect Coy,maybe this may help you.

1947..The Zionist policy of Ethnically Cleansing the Palestinians was fervently persued at this time,by the Criminal Zionist Terrorist Groups..Hagan...Irgun and Qiryati...who later morphed into the Israeli Army(I.D.F)...with a desire to complete this WAR CRIME by March 1948.


This you will note was before the STATE OF ISRAEL WAS PROCLAIMED


Once the decision was taken,it took six months to complete the mission.When it was over,more than half of Palestine's native population,close to 800,000 Palestinians had been SLAUGHTERED,UPROOTED AND BRUTALIZED...531 Villages had been destroyed and razed AND ALL INHABITANTS,murdered or expelled to other Countries.to Refugee Camps,where some and their decendents still are..This Ethnic Cleansing is regarded under International Law,as a WAR CRIME.

Coy,I could go on but others have a greater knowledge than I,....Suggested reading.....Any thing by Benny Morris,Jewish Authority on the Massacres on the Palestinians.

Michael Palumbo's excellent "The Palestinian Catastrophe"published 1987....with introduction by the Israeli Prime Minister at the time Yitzhak Rabin.

Dan Kurzman's "Genesis"published in 1970 and again in 1992

Ilan Pappe's outstanding book "The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine" published 2006,and reprinted 4 times in 2007

Note several Heads of the Hagana and Irgan became Prime Ministers of Israel..Begin being the most notable

The Zionists have tried to sweep this Slaughter under the carpet by DENIAL,much like the DENIAL of having Nuclear Capability, Weapons etc., which they have had since Illegally obtaining them in the early 1960's.

The Irony on this board is the way,Zionist Inspired and Zionists to try to make out that the victims(The Palestinians) are the Terrorists......Well what else could the Synthetic Zionists say..but too some Christians on here do the same...Hopefully when they meet their maker...they will be banished into the caldrons of Hell.

Israel was determined by VIOLENT TERRORISTS,WHO STOLE LAND TO CREATE A COUNTRY FOR SYNTHETIC ZIONIST JEWS,WHO WERE NOT JEWS AT ALL,MERELY CONVERTS TO THE FAITH....AT THE EXPENSE OF THE PALESTINIANS AND PEOPLE WORLDWIDE....FAUX WEEPING ABOUT HOW THEY WERE TREATED.......YET INCREDIBLY DID THE SAME TO THE PALESTINIANS....Real Jews and Secular Jews Detest Zionists and like me for Good Reason...steve....

 

[Challenger]

Czechoslovakia?
however they were both able to form a working legit. govt. for their people, unlike the case at hand.

Interesting choice, two peoples who created a country to stop themselves being absorbed by their neighbours, but as soon as the threat dissipated, they went their own ways.

Palestinians tried to work with the British for 20 -odd years, to create an independant nation for themselves, but they were thwarted time and again by British insistance on favouring the Zionist settler colonists over the native population. eventually they had enough and rose up against the "Mandatory" power, but were crushed with Zionist conivance and assistance. By the time the British realised their mistake, Palestinian leadership was either dead, imprisoned or exiled, the Zionists then turned on their British benefactors to complete their project of a "Jewish state."

Even when Palestinians are allowed to choose their own leadership, it can't work if it's not approved by their Zionist overlords. This "mandate" idea is a non starter, unless Zionist Isreal returns to at least it's pre-1967 borders and allows Palestinians to freely determine their own future.

That period in history was full of nationalist self-determination movements in former colonies and in the ME there was the pan Arab movement and the Jewish movement.

What I don't understand is why you seem to support Arab self determination and not Jewish self determination, because that is what I keep hearing in these arguments. The issue, at its most basic, is two peoples, who both have rights, fighting over the same piece of land.

Would you support an independant sovereign Mormon state in America, supported by Russia and China?

The issue between us is that you believe the Zionist lie that Jewish people are a much persecuted ethnicity that "deserves" a "homeland", while I argue that the Zionist project is merely a European settler colonist leftover from the colonial empire era that has no claim, legal or moral, on Palestine other than a tenuous religious one. Zionists (both Jewish and Christian) have successfully exploited European and American anti-semitism and religious fundamentalism to create and maintain their "state" allowing them to disposess, exploit and oppress the native Palestinian population.

Once the pernicious ideaology of Zionism is expunged from the equation, there may be a real chance for a lasting settlement.

 

[rylah]

Does that negate their right?

Israel negated their right. They did not want a Jewish state.

Palestine is a large area. Within it is Israel, the Occupied Territories of West Bank and Gaza.

Is there no room for a Jewish state in that area?

That isn't the question.

Is there no room for a Jewish state in the US?

Jews were indigenous to Palestine.

Why not there?

The indigenous Jews were opposed to a Jewish state.

This is a deception.
Such broad lies are the last resort of Your cult to justify the dissonance in the reasoning.

 

[theliq]

Israel negated their right. They did not want a Jewish state.

Palestine is a large area. Within it is Israel, the Occupied Territories of West Bank and Gaza.

Is there no room for a Jewish state in that area?

That isn't the question.

Is there no room for a Jewish state in the US?

Jews were indigenous to Palestine.

Why not there?

The indigenous Jews were opposed to a Jewish state.

This is a deception.
Such broad lies are the last resort of Your cult to justify the dissonance in the reasoning.

You are recalsegent scum.....Tinmore is Magnificent....end of Story

 

[rylah]

They refused to accept Israel as a state and went to war with Israel. The Palestinians fled due to a variety of reasons: fear of conflict, deliberate Israeli actions to force them out (ethnic cleansing) and Arab promises of victory. You can't absolve the Arab states of responsibility. They used the Palestinians for their own political purposes. It's a shared responsibility.

Israel defending itself from

They refused to accept Israel as a state and went to war with Israel.

They refused to accept Israel on stolen Palestinian land.

What would we do in the US if they tried that crap here?

There were Jews there already....why couldn't they establish a state? I think what I don't understand is why people refuse to acknowledge the rights of both the Palestinians and the Jews to a home.

Only a few percent of Palestinians were Jews and they were opposed to creating a Jewish state.

Does that negate their right?

Israel negated their right. They did not want a Jewish state.

Again You repeat the same dissonance.
The Palestinian Jews, the former Ottoman citizens worked closely with the new Yishuv.
The only problem they had was that they saw the new Yishuv as not being religious enough.
That doesn't mean they didn't want a Jewish state, quiet the opposite.

The Arabs on the other hand didn't want a separate Palestine, they wanted to remain in Greater Syria. They still do and identify with it openly.

 

[montelatici]

They refused to accept Israel on stolen Palestinian land.

What would we do in the US if they tried that crap here?

There were Jews there already....why couldn't they establish a state? I think what I don't understand is why people refuse to acknowledge the rights of both the Palestinians and the Jews to a home.

Only a few percent of Palestinians were Jews and they were opposed to creating a Jewish state.

Does that negate their right?

Israel negated their right. They did not want a Jewish state.

Again You repeat the same dissonance.
The Palestinian Jews, the former Ottoman citizens worked closely with the new Yishuv.
The only problem they had was that they saw the new Yishuv as not being religious enough.
That doesn't mean they didn't want a Jewish state, quiet the opposite.

The Arabs on the other hand didn't want a separate Palestine, they wanted to remain in Greater Syria. They still do and identify with it openly.

At least as early as 1922 the Palestinians have demanded independence as Palestinians. Stop with the propaganda, liar.

"PALESTINE.
CORRESPONDENCE WITH THE PALESTINE ARAB
DELEGATION AND THE ZIONIST ORGANISATION.


No. 1.
The Palestine Arab Delegation to the Secretary of State for the Colonies.


HOTEL CECIL,
London, W.C.,
February 21st, 1922.
Sir,
We wish to express our thanks to the Right Honourable the Secretary of State for the Colonies, for his courtesy in allowing us to see the draft of a proposed Palestine Order in Council embodying a scheme of Government for Palestine, and to discuss the same in our capacity of representatives of the Arab People of Palestine.

• 
  
  We would, therefore, submit the following observations:—

Whilst the position in Palestine is, as it stands to-day, with the British Government holding authority by an occupying force, and using that authority to impose upon the people against their wishes a great immigration of alien Jews, many of them of a Bolshevik revolutionary type, no constitution which would fall short of giving the People of Palestine full control of their own affairs could be acceptable.
If the British Government would revise their present policy in Palestine, end the Zionist con-dominium, put a stop to all alien immigration and grant the People of Palestine — who by Right and Experience are the best judges of what is good and bad to their country — Executive and Legislative powers, the terms of a constitution could be discussed in a different atmosphere. If to-day the People of Palestine assented to any constitution which fell short of giving them full control of their own affairs they would be in the position of agreeing to an instrument of Government which might, and probably would, be used to smother their national life under a flood of alien immigration...."

UK correspondence with Palestine Arab Delegation and Zionist Organization/British policy in Palestine: "Churchill White Paper" - UK documentation Cmd. 1700/Non-UN document (excerpts) (1 July 1922)

 

[rylah]

There were Jews there already....why couldn't they establish a state? I think what I don't understand is why people refuse to acknowledge the rights of both the Palestinians and the Jews to a home.

Only a few percent of Palestinians were Jews and they were opposed to creating a Jewish state.

Does that negate their right?

Israel negated their right. They did not want a Jewish state.

Again You repeat the same dissonance.
The Palestinian Jews, the former Ottoman citizens worked closely with the new Yishuv.
The only problem they had was that they saw the new Yishuv as not being religious enough.
That doesn't mean they didn't want a Jewish state, quiet the opposite.

The Arabs on the other hand didn't want a separate Palestine, they wanted to remain in Greater Syria. They still do and identify with it openly.

At least as early as 1922 the Palestinians have demanded independence as Palestinians. Stop with the propaganda, liar.

"PALESTINE.
CORRESPONDENCE WITH THE PALESTINE ARAB
DELEGATION AND THE ZIONIST ORGANISATION.


No. 1.
The Palestine Arab Delegation to the Secretary of State for the Colonies.


HOTEL CECIL,
London, W.C.,
February 21st, 1922.
Sir,
We wish to express our thanks to the Right Honourable the Secretary of State for the Colonies, for his courtesy in allowing us to see the draft of a proposed Palestine Order in Council embodying a scheme of Government for Palestine, and to discuss the same in our capacity of representatives of the Arab People of Palestine.

• 
  
  We would, therefore, submit the following observations:—

Whilst the position in Palestine is, as it stands to-day, with the British Government holding authority by an occupying force, and using that authority to impose upon the people against their wishes a great immigration of alien Jews, many of them of a Bolshevik revolutionary type, no constitution which would fall short of giving the People of Palestine full control of their own affairs could be acceptable.
If the British Government would revise their present policy in Palestine, end the Zionist con-dominium, put a stop to all alien immigration and grant the People of Palestine — who by Right and Experience are the best judges of what is good and bad to their country — Executive and Legislative powers, the terms of a constitution could be discussed in a different atmosphere. If to-day the People of Palestine assented to any constitution which fell short of giving them full control of their own affairs they would be in the position of agreeing to an instrument of Government which might, and probably would, be used to smother their national life under a flood of alien immigration...."

UK correspondence with Palestine Arab Delegation and Zionist Organization/British policy in Palestine: "Churchill White Paper" - UK documentation Cmd. 1700/Non-UN document (excerpts) (1 July 1922)

Give me a break it's written black on white:

1 . "We consider Palestine as part of Arab Syria as it has never been separated from it at any time. We are connected with it by national, religious, linguistic, natural, economic and geographic bonds. "

3. "In view of the above we desire that one district Southern Syria or Palestine should not be separated from the Independent Arab Syrian Government and to be free from all foreign influence and protection."

First Palestinian Arab Congress

The later congresses saw to fuse the area into another Arab state, the independence of Palestine was not a separate issuse in itself, but the Arab goal of unifying the whole ME under their rule.



The fairytale of 'Palestinian independece'

 

[Humanity]

By the same token, Israel needs to withdraw from ALL occupied territory, annexed or otherwise, and stop the building of settlements!

Place Jerusalem under corpus separatum... Not a very popular solution for Israel for sure....

I think we largely agree (except for Jerusalem, which must stay under Israeli sovereignty). The problem is in defining "all occupied territory". According to Arab Palestinians, and certainly their governments in both Gaza and the West Bank, that means Israel must withdraw from ALL of the territory. That is what fundamentally needs to shift in terms of ideology, as I noted. The question is HOW to accomplish that ideological shift. In particular, the question is how Israel, the international community, and now (finally) some of the Arab countries can accomplish that from the outside.

Even if we define "all occupied territory" as the Green Line, we need to define what that means. Do you mean that land swaps are off the table? Do you mean that every single Jewish person must be removed from that side of the Green Line? Do you mean that the Jewish people can stay, but must renounce their Israeli citizenship and become Palestinians? How do we define a "settlement"? Are we discussing only Jewish settlements? Or must Arab settlements on the table for discussion as well? Must all settlements be dismantled or can they be incorporated into the new states?

We also need to discuss what it means to "withdraw". Does that mean we create an international border between two independent states, with all the standard features of an international border? Does that mean that neither side has on-going obligations to the other -- in terms of provision of services? What happens if there are further incidents of belligerency on either side? What would be the consequences of those acts?

It would be helpful for me for you to define your terms.



The basis for a two state solution is the Green Line with land swaps. Everyone knows this and has known it for decades.

1. Israel unilaterally decides what she is keeping and what she is willing to part with and withdraws accordingly.

2. Israel maintains the status quo.

3. Israel does whatever she wants until the Arab Palestinians get their shit together, shifts their own ideology and hammers out a peace treaty.

So, when you say Israel must withdraw from ALL occupied territory, you seem to be supporting option #1. (And frankly, I tend to lean that direction myself.) But there are some big ass problems with #1. Witness what happened with Gaza. The Arab Palestinians in that situation feel that they are being acted upon rather than having agency. They feel like Israel is still doing things TO them. Rather than shifting their ideology, it cements it. And this gives support to the more extreme ideology.

Part of the purpose of proposing a Mandate is to give Arab Palestinians a voice and a choice along a very specific pathway. Its a mentorship which brings them up, rather than perpetuating their sense of victimhood (being acted upon).

By the same token, Israel needs to withdraw from ALL occupied territory, annexed or otherwise, and stop the building of settlements!

Place Jerusalem under corpus separatum... Not a very popular solution for Israel for sure....

I think we largely agree (except for Jerusalem, which must stay under Israeli sovereignty). The problem is in defining "all occupied territory". According to Arab Palestinians, and certainly their governments in both Gaza and the West Bank, that means Israel must withdraw from ALL of the territory. That is what fundamentally needs to shift in terms of ideology, as I noted. The question is HOW to accomplish that ideological shift. In particular, the question is how Israel, the international community, and now (finally) some of the Arab countries can accomplish that from the outside.

Even if we define "all occupied territory" as the Green Line, we need to define what that means. Do you mean that land swaps are off the table? Do you mean that every single Jewish person must be removed from that side of the Green Line? Do you mean that the Jewish people can stay, but must renounce their Israeli citizenship and become Palestinians? How do we define a "settlement"? Are we discussing only Jewish settlements? Or must Arab settlements on the table for discussion as well? Must all settlements be dismantled or can they be incorporated into the new states?

We also need to discuss what it means to "withdraw". Does that mean we create an international border between two independent states, with all the standard features of an international border? Does that mean that neither side has on-going obligations to the other -- in terms of provision of services? What happens if there are further incidents of belligerency on either side? What would be the consequences of those acts?

It would be helpful for me for you to define your terms.

The basis for a two state solution is the Green Line with land swaps. Everyone knows this and has known it for decades.

1. Israel unilaterally decides what she is keeping and what she is willing to part with and withdraws accordingly.

2. Israel maintains the status quo.

3. Israel does whatever she wants until the Arab Palestinians get their shit together, shifts their own ideology and hammers out a peace treaty.

So, when you say Israel must withdraw from ALL occupied territory, you seem to be supporting option #1. (And frankly, I tend to lean that direction myself.) But there are some big ass problems with #1. Witness what happened with Gaza. The Arab Palestinians in that situation feel that they are being acted upon rather than having agency. They feel like Israel is still doing things TO them. Rather than shifting their ideology, it cements it. And this gives support to the more extreme ideology.

Part of the purpose of proposing a Mandate is to give Arab Palestinians a voice and a choice along a very specific pathway. Its a mentorship which brings them up, rather than perpetuating their sense of victimhood (being acted upon).

I don not think that there is any question that we largely agree... Devil is in the detail...

To try and deal with your comments as made...

Why "must" Jerusalem stay under Israeli sovereignty? Corpus separatum was proposed in the 1947 United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine... For me, as a non Jew and non Muslim, yet with my 'Christian' upbringing, feel that Jerusalem is WAY more important than to be fought and argued over by multiple religions as to the 'ownership' of such an historic place!

Defining "occupied territory" is not so difficult unless you are Israeli! Then it all get's a little more complicated...

Yeah, clearly I do not agree with the mindset of must withdraw from ALL of the territory... There IS no ideological solution, for either side... However, there does need to be an acceptance that BOTH parties exist, Israel and Palestine, particularly Israel... That would be a good start position...

So, for simplicity, let's define the Green Line as de facto so that I can at least answer your questions...

Land swaps should NEVER be off the table! Come on, there does need to be a sensible approach to negotiating peace!

No, of course not, everyone should have the right to live where they choose... I'm a foreigner in my chosen country... There is no reason for it to be different anywhere... And I haven't "renounced" my home country, so why should Jews choosing to stay in Palestine?

Settlements, Jew or Arab, need to be part of the negotiations, included in land swap negotiations maybe? However, there does need to be a sensible approach to this... Why would you have an isolated settlement, Jewish or Arab, in the middle of a defined state?

"international border between two independent states, with all the standard features of an international border" - Yes of course... If we are looking at a two state solution then there MUST be clear, defined borders...

Both sides have an "obligation" to the other... In terms of respecting those "international borders"... However, my chosen country to live has agreements with its neighbouring country to provide "services" ... I don't see that as being unworkable in this instance either... And I should mention that my chosen country to live is NOT that friendly with its neighbour!

Further incidents need to be dealt with... That is given... However, some caution needs to be taken here... I would like to see, as I have said many times before, that ANY aggression, and I am going to single out rocket attacks from Gaza, should be dealt with by an international force and NOT Israel... Yes, I know, you are going to ask why cannot Israel defend herself... It's hardly EVER going to be a 'fair fight' is it... Gaza's military consists of? So, as has been seen, America and allies are very capable of dealing with 'aggressors' in the ME, let them deal with it.... Israel can then never come under criticism for heavy handed tactics!

Yes, I am with you, mostly, in that option 1 is the better option... Though, I must question why it is ONLY Israel who is deciding what she keeps and what she gives away?

As far as Gaza is concerned, yes, Israel withdrew from Gaza... However, it has never relinquished control of Gaza... That is a fundamental issue in itself... I know, I know, it's Israel "protecting" herself... So, in reality, Gaza is still considered as 'occupied' as it is still significantly controlled by Israel... There can never be the shift in ideology until this stops... And yes, it will simply fuel the extreme ideology until Gaza is no longer under ANY control from Israel...

Any mandate has to be put in place with agreements from across the globe... I would go so far as to say that, if there is even a 80% agreement then it should be 'implemented' with the help of the international community...

And one final thing... There needs to be elections, free, open elections within Gaza and Palestine as soon as possible... Carried out under international controls to ensure that there is a) no falsification of results b) that there are elections EVERY 4 years!

 

[ForeverYoung436]

By the same token, Israel needs to withdraw from ALL occupied territory, annexed or otherwise, and stop the building of settlements!

Place Jerusalem under corpus separatum... Not a very popular solution for Israel for sure....

I think we largely agree (except for Jerusalem, which must stay under Israeli sovereignty). The problem is in defining "all occupied territory". According to Arab Palestinians, and certainly their governments in both Gaza and the West Bank, that means Israel must withdraw from ALL of the territory. That is what fundamentally needs to shift in terms of ideology, as I noted. The question is HOW to accomplish that ideological shift. In particular, the question is how Israel, the international community, and now (finally) some of the Arab countries can accomplish that from the outside.

Even if we define "all occupied territory" as the Green Line, we need to define what that means. Do you mean that land swaps are off the table? Do you mean that every single Jewish person must be removed from that side of the Green Line? Do you mean that the Jewish people can stay, but must renounce their Israeli citizenship and become Palestinians? How do we define a "settlement"? Are we discussing only Jewish settlements? Or must Arab settlements on the table for discussion as well? Must all settlements be dismantled or can they be incorporated into the new states?

We also need to discuss what it means to "withdraw". Does that mean we create an international border between two independent states, with all the standard features of an international border? Does that mean that neither side has on-going obligations to the other -- in terms of provision of services? What happens if there are further incidents of belligerency on either side? What would be the consequences of those acts?

It would be helpful for me for you to define your terms.



The basis for a two state solution is the Green Line with land swaps. Everyone knows this and has known it for decades.

1. Israel unilaterally decides what she is keeping and what she is willing to part with and withdraws accordingly.

2. Israel maintains the status quo.

3. Israel does whatever she wants until the Arab Palestinians get their shit together, shifts their own ideology and hammers out a peace treaty.

So, when you say Israel must withdraw from ALL occupied territory, you seem to be supporting option #1. (And frankly, I tend to lean that direction myself.) But there are some big ass problems with #1. Witness what happened with Gaza. The Arab Palestinians in that situation feel that they are being acted upon rather than having agency. They feel like Israel is still doing things TO them. Rather than shifting their ideology, it cements it. And this gives support to the more extreme ideology.

Part of the purpose of proposing a Mandate is to give Arab Palestinians a voice and a choice along a very specific pathway. Its a mentorship which brings them up, rather than perpetuating their sense of victimhood (being acted upon).

By the same token, Israel needs to withdraw from ALL occupied territory, annexed or otherwise, and stop the building of settlements!

Place Jerusalem under corpus separatum... Not a very popular solution for Israel for sure....

I think we largely agree (except for Jerusalem, which must stay under Israeli sovereignty). The problem is in defining "all occupied territory". According to Arab Palestinians, and certainly their governments in both Gaza and the West Bank, that means Israel must withdraw from ALL of the territory. That is what fundamentally needs to shift in terms of ideology, as I noted. The question is HOW to accomplish that ideological shift. In particular, the question is how Israel, the international community, and now (finally) some of the Arab countries can accomplish that from the outside.

Even if we define "all occupied territory" as the Green Line, we need to define what that means. Do you mean that land swaps are off the table? Do you mean that every single Jewish person must be removed from that side of the Green Line? Do you mean that the Jewish people can stay, but must renounce their Israeli citizenship and become Palestinians? How do we define a "settlement"? Are we discussing only Jewish settlements? Or must Arab settlements on the table for discussion as well? Must all settlements be dismantled or can they be incorporated into the new states?

We also need to discuss what it means to "withdraw". Does that mean we create an international border between two independent states, with all the standard features of an international border? Does that mean that neither side has on-going obligations to the other -- in terms of provision of services? What happens if there are further incidents of belligerency on either side? What would be the consequences of those acts?

It would be helpful for me for you to define your terms.

The basis for a two state solution is the Green Line with land swaps. Everyone knows this and has known it for decades.

1. Israel unilaterally decides what she is keeping and what she is willing to part with and withdraws accordingly.

2. Israel maintains the status quo.

3. Israel does whatever she wants until the Arab Palestinians get their shit together, shifts their own ideology and hammers out a peace treaty.

So, when you say Israel must withdraw from ALL occupied territory, you seem to be supporting option #1. (And frankly, I tend to lean that direction myself.) But there are some big ass problems with #1. Witness what happened with Gaza. The Arab Palestinians in that situation feel that they are being acted upon rather than having agency. They feel like Israel is still doing things TO them. Rather than shifting their ideology, it cements it. And this gives support to the more extreme ideology.

Part of the purpose of proposing a Mandate is to give Arab Palestinians a voice and a choice along a very specific pathway. Its a mentorship which brings them up, rather than perpetuating their sense of victimhood (being acted upon).

I don not think that there is any question that we largely agree... Devil is in the detail...

To try and deal with your comments as made...

Why "must" Jerusalem stay under Israeli sovereignty? Corpus separatum was proposed in the 1947 United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine... For me, as a non Jew and non Muslim, yet with my 'Christian' upbringing, feel that Jerusalem is WAY more important than to be fought and argued over by multiple religions as to the 'ownership' of such an historic place!

Defining "occupied territory" is not so difficult unless you are Israeli! Then it all get's a little more complicated...

Yeah, clearly I do not agree with the mindset of must withdraw from ALL of the territory... There IS no ideological solution, for either side... However, there does need to be an acceptance that BOTH parties exist, Israel and Palestine, particularly Israel... That would be a good start position...

So, for simplicity, let's define the Green Line as de facto so that I can at least answer your questions...

Land swaps should NEVER be off the table! Come on, there does need to be a sensible approach to negotiating peace!

No, of course not, everyone should have the right to live where they choose... I'm a foreigner in my chosen country... There is no reason for it to be different anywhere... And I haven't "renounced" my home country, so why should Jews choosing to stay in Palestine?

Settlements, Jew or Arab, need to be part of the negotiations, included in land swap negotiations maybe? However, there does need to be a sensible approach to this... Why would you have an isolated settlement, Jewish or Arab, in the middle of a defined state?

"international border between two independent states, with all the standard features of an international border" - Yes of course... If we are looking at a two state solution then there MUST be clear, defined borders...

Both sides have an "obligation" to the other... In terms of respecting those "international borders"... However, my chosen country to live has agreements with its neighbouring country to provide "services" ... I don't see that as being unworkable in this instance either... And I should mention that my chosen country to live is NOT that friendly with its neighbour!

Further incidents need to be dealt with... That is given... However, some caution needs to be taken here... I would like to see, as I have said many times before, that ANY aggression, and I am going to single out rocket attacks from Gaza, should be dealt with by an international force and NOT Israel... Yes, I know, you are going to ask why cannot Israel defend herself... It's hardly EVER going to be a 'fair fight' is it... Gaza's military consists of? So, as has been seen, America and allies are very capable of dealing with 'aggressors' in the ME, let them deal with it.... Israel can then never come under criticism for heavy handed tactics!

Yes, I am with you, mostly, in that option 1 is the better option... Though, I must question why it is ONLY Israel who is deciding what she keeps and what she gives away?

As far as Gaza is concerned, yes, Israel withdrew from Gaza... However, it has never relinquished control of Gaza... That is a fundamental issue in itself... I know, I know, it's Israel "protecting" herself... So, in reality, Gaza is still considered as 'occupied' as it is still significantly controlled by Israel... There can never be the shift in ideology until this stops... And yes, it will simply fuel the extreme ideology until Gaza is no longer under ANY control from Israel...

Any mandate has to be put in place with agreements from across the globe... I would go so far as to say that, if there is even a 80% agreement then it should be 'implemented' with the help of the international community...

And one final thing... There needs to be elections, free, open elections within Gaza and Palestine as soon as possible... Carried out under international controls to ensure that there is a) no falsification of results b) that there are elections EVERY 4 years!

I am willing to give up the West Bank, which is the heartland of Biblical Israel, but not Jerusalem. It is the heart and soul of the Jewish People. Without Jerusalem, there is no point in there being an Israel at all. So much Jewish blood was not spilled so Tel-Aviv could have its nightlife, clubs and beaches.

 

[Humanity]

By the same token, Israel needs to withdraw from ALL occupied territory, annexed or otherwise, and stop the building of settlements!

Place Jerusalem under corpus separatum... Not a very popular solution for Israel for sure....

I think we largely agree (except for Jerusalem, which must stay under Israeli sovereignty). The problem is in defining "all occupied territory". According to Arab Palestinians, and certainly their governments in both Gaza and the West Bank, that means Israel must withdraw from ALL of the territory. That is what fundamentally needs to shift in terms of ideology, as I noted. The question is HOW to accomplish that ideological shift. In particular, the question is how Israel, the international community, and now (finally) some of the Arab countries can accomplish that from the outside.

Even if we define "all occupied territory" as the Green Line, we need to define what that means. Do you mean that land swaps are off the table? Do you mean that every single Jewish person must be removed from that side of the Green Line? Do you mean that the Jewish people can stay, but must renounce their Israeli citizenship and become Palestinians? How do we define a "settlement"? Are we discussing only Jewish settlements? Or must Arab settlements on the table for discussion as well? Must all settlements be dismantled or can they be incorporated into the new states?

We also need to discuss what it means to "withdraw". Does that mean we create an international border between two independent states, with all the standard features of an international border? Does that mean that neither side has on-going obligations to the other -- in terms of provision of services? What happens if there are further incidents of belligerency on either side? What would be the consequences of those acts?

It would be helpful for me for you to define your terms.



The basis for a two state solution is the Green Line with land swaps. Everyone knows this and has known it for decades.

1. Israel unilaterally decides what she is keeping and what she is willing to part with and withdraws accordingly.

2. Israel maintains the status quo.

3. Israel does whatever she wants until the Arab Palestinians get their shit together, shifts their own ideology and hammers out a peace treaty.

So, when you say Israel must withdraw from ALL occupied territory, you seem to be supporting option #1. (And frankly, I tend to lean that direction myself.) But there are some big ass problems with #1. Witness what happened with Gaza. The Arab Palestinians in that situation feel that they are being acted upon rather than having agency. They feel like Israel is still doing things TO them. Rather than shifting their ideology, it cements it. And this gives support to the more extreme ideology.

Part of the purpose of proposing a Mandate is to give Arab Palestinians a voice and a choice along a very specific pathway. Its a mentorship which brings them up, rather than perpetuating their sense of victimhood (being acted upon).

By the same token, Israel needs to withdraw from ALL occupied territory, annexed or otherwise, and stop the building of settlements!

Place Jerusalem under corpus separatum... Not a very popular solution for Israel for sure....

I think we largely agree (except for Jerusalem, which must stay under Israeli sovereignty). The problem is in defining "all occupied territory". According to Arab Palestinians, and certainly their governments in both Gaza and the West Bank, that means Israel must withdraw from ALL of the territory. That is what fundamentally needs to shift in terms of ideology, as I noted. The question is HOW to accomplish that ideological shift. In particular, the question is how Israel, the international community, and now (finally) some of the Arab countries can accomplish that from the outside.

Even if we define "all occupied territory" as the Green Line, we need to define what that means. Do you mean that land swaps are off the table? Do you mean that every single Jewish person must be removed from that side of the Green Line? Do you mean that the Jewish people can stay, but must renounce their Israeli citizenship and become Palestinians? How do we define a "settlement"? Are we discussing only Jewish settlements? Or must Arab settlements on the table for discussion as well? Must all settlements be dismantled or can they be incorporated into the new states?

We also need to discuss what it means to "withdraw". Does that mean we create an international border between two independent states, with all the standard features of an international border? Does that mean that neither side has on-going obligations to the other -- in terms of provision of services? What happens if there are further incidents of belligerency on either side? What would be the consequences of those acts?

It would be helpful for me for you to define your terms.

The basis for a two state solution is the Green Line with land swaps. Everyone knows this and has known it for decades.

1. Israel unilaterally decides what she is keeping and what she is willing to part with and withdraws accordingly.

2. Israel maintains the status quo.

3. Israel does whatever she wants until the Arab Palestinians get their shit together, shifts their own ideology and hammers out a peace treaty.

So, when you say Israel must withdraw from ALL occupied territory, you seem to be supporting option #1. (And frankly, I tend to lean that direction myself.) But there are some big ass problems with #1. Witness what happened with Gaza. The Arab Palestinians in that situation feel that they are being acted upon rather than having agency. They feel like Israel is still doing things TO them. Rather than shifting their ideology, it cements it. And this gives support to the more extreme ideology.

Part of the purpose of proposing a Mandate is to give Arab Palestinians a voice and a choice along a very specific pathway. Its a mentorship which brings them up, rather than perpetuating their sense of victimhood (being acted upon).

I don not think that there is any question that we largely agree... Devil is in the detail...

To try and deal with your comments as made...

Why "must" Jerusalem stay under Israeli sovereignty? Corpus separatum was proposed in the 1947 United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine... For me, as a non Jew and non Muslim, yet with my 'Christian' upbringing, feel that Jerusalem is WAY more important than to be fought and argued over by multiple religions as to the 'ownership' of such an historic place!

Defining "occupied territory" is not so difficult unless you are Israeli! Then it all get's a little more complicated...

Yeah, clearly I do not agree with the mindset of must withdraw from ALL of the territory... There IS no ideological solution, for either side... However, there does need to be an acceptance that BOTH parties exist, Israel and Palestine, particularly Israel... That would be a good start position...

So, for simplicity, let's define the Green Line as de facto so that I can at least answer your questions...

Land swaps should NEVER be off the table! Come on, there does need to be a sensible approach to negotiating peace!

No, of course not, everyone should have the right to live where they choose... I'm a foreigner in my chosen country... There is no reason for it to be different anywhere... And I haven't "renounced" my home country, so why should Jews choosing to stay in Palestine?

Settlements, Jew or Arab, need to be part of the negotiations, included in land swap negotiations maybe? However, there does need to be a sensible approach to this... Why would you have an isolated settlement, Jewish or Arab, in the middle of a defined state?

"international border between two independent states, with all the standard features of an international border" - Yes of course... If we are looking at a two state solution then there MUST be clear, defined borders...

Both sides have an "obligation" to the other... In terms of respecting those "international borders"... However, my chosen country to live has agreements with its neighbouring country to provide "services" ... I don't see that as being unworkable in this instance either... And I should mention that my chosen country to live is NOT that friendly with its neighbour!

Further incidents need to be dealt with... That is given... However, some caution needs to be taken here... I would like to see, as I have said many times before, that ANY aggression, and I am going to single out rocket attacks from Gaza, should be dealt with by an international force and NOT Israel... Yes, I know, you are going to ask why cannot Israel defend herself... It's hardly EVER going to be a 'fair fight' is it... Gaza's military consists of? So, as has been seen, America and allies are very capable of dealing with 'aggressors' in the ME, let them deal with it.... Israel can then never come under criticism for heavy handed tactics!

Yes, I am with you, mostly, in that option 1 is the better option... Though, I must question why it is ONLY Israel who is deciding what she keeps and what she gives away?

As far as Gaza is concerned, yes, Israel withdrew from Gaza... However, it has never relinquished control of Gaza... That is a fundamental issue in itself... I know, I know, it's Israel "protecting" herself... So, in reality, Gaza is still considered as 'occupied' as it is still significantly controlled by Israel... There can never be the shift in ideology until this stops... And yes, it will simply fuel the extreme ideology until Gaza is no longer under ANY control from Israel...

Any mandate has to be put in place with agreements from across the globe... I would go so far as to say that, if there is even a 80% agreement then it should be 'implemented' with the help of the international community...

And one final thing... There needs to be elections, free, open elections within Gaza and Palestine as soon as possible... Carried out under international controls to ensure that there is a) no falsification of results b) that there are elections EVERY 4 years!

I am willing to give up the West Bank, which is the heartland of Biblical Israel, but not Jerusalem. It is the heart and soul of the Jewish People. Without Jerusalem, there is no point in there being an Israel at all. So much Jewish blood was not spilled so Tel-Aviv could have its nightlife, clubs and beaches.

Thats no surprise...

However, Jerusalem is currently divided... And, I feel, will remain divided even with a negotiated peace solution...

Corpus separatum would give Jerusalem the status it deserves!

 

[P F Tinmore]

Why "must" Jerusalem stay under Israeli sovereignty? Corpus separatum was proposed in the 1947 United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine...

It is interesting that Israel mentioned Resolution 181 in its declaration of independence to claim some legitimacy. Then they violated every provision in that resolution.

 

[Sixties Fan]

By the same token, Israel needs to withdraw from ALL occupied territory, annexed or otherwise, and stop the building of settlements!

Place Jerusalem under corpus separatum... Not a very popular solution for Israel for sure....

I think we largely agree (except for Jerusalem, which must stay under Israeli sovereignty). The problem is in defining "all occupied territory". According to Arab Palestinians, and certainly their governments in both Gaza and the West Bank, that means Israel must withdraw from ALL of the territory. That is what fundamentally needs to shift in terms of ideology, as I noted. The question is HOW to accomplish that ideological shift. In particular, the question is how Israel, the international community, and now (finally) some of the Arab countries can accomplish that from the outside.

Even if we define "all occupied territory" as the Green Line, we need to define what that means. Do you mean that land swaps are off the table? Do you mean that every single Jewish person must be removed from that side of the Green Line? Do you mean that the Jewish people can stay, but must renounce their Israeli citizenship and become Palestinians? How do we define a "settlement"? Are we discussing only Jewish settlements? Or must Arab settlements on the table for discussion as well? Must all settlements be dismantled or can they be incorporated into the new states?

We also need to discuss what it means to "withdraw". Does that mean we create an international border between two independent states, with all the standard features of an international border? Does that mean that neither side has on-going obligations to the other -- in terms of provision of services? What happens if there are further incidents of belligerency on either side? What would be the consequences of those acts?

It would be helpful for me for you to define your terms.



The basis for a two state solution is the Green Line with land swaps. Everyone knows this and has known it for decades.

1. Israel unilaterally decides what she is keeping and what she is willing to part with and withdraws accordingly.

2. Israel maintains the status quo.

3. Israel does whatever she wants until the Arab Palestinians get their shit together, shifts their own ideology and hammers out a peace treaty.

So, when you say Israel must withdraw from ALL occupied territory, you seem to be supporting option #1. (And frankly, I tend to lean that direction myself.) But there are some big ass problems with #1. Witness what happened with Gaza. The Arab Palestinians in that situation feel that they are being acted upon rather than having agency. They feel like Israel is still doing things TO them. Rather than shifting their ideology, it cements it. And this gives support to the more extreme ideology.

Part of the purpose of proposing a Mandate is to give Arab Palestinians a voice and a choice along a very specific pathway. Its a mentorship which brings them up, rather than perpetuating their sense of victimhood (being acted upon).

By the same token, Israel needs to withdraw from ALL occupied territory, annexed or otherwise, and stop the building of settlements!

Place Jerusalem under corpus separatum... Not a very popular solution for Israel for sure....

I think we largely agree (except for Jerusalem, which must stay under Israeli sovereignty). The problem is in defining "all occupied territory". According to Arab Palestinians, and certainly their governments in both Gaza and the West Bank, that means Israel must withdraw from ALL of the territory. That is what fundamentally needs to shift in terms of ideology, as I noted. The question is HOW to accomplish that ideological shift. In particular, the question is how Israel, the international community, and now (finally) some of the Arab countries can accomplish that from the outside.

Even if we define "all occupied territory" as the Green Line, we need to define what that means. Do you mean that land swaps are off the table? Do you mean that every single Jewish person must be removed from that side of the Green Line? Do you mean that the Jewish people can stay, but must renounce their Israeli citizenship and become Palestinians? How do we define a "settlement"? Are we discussing only Jewish settlements? Or must Arab settlements on the table for discussion as well? Must all settlements be dismantled or can they be incorporated into the new states?

We also need to discuss what it means to "withdraw". Does that mean we create an international border between two independent states, with all the standard features of an international border? Does that mean that neither side has on-going obligations to the other -- in terms of provision of services? What happens if there are further incidents of belligerency on either side? What would be the consequences of those acts?

It would be helpful for me for you to define your terms.

The basis for a two state solution is the Green Line with land swaps. Everyone knows this and has known it for decades.

1. Israel unilaterally decides what she is keeping and what she is willing to part with and withdraws accordingly.

2. Israel maintains the status quo.

3. Israel does whatever she wants until the Arab Palestinians get their shit together, shifts their own ideology and hammers out a peace treaty.

So, when you say Israel must withdraw from ALL occupied territory, you seem to be supporting option #1. (And frankly, I tend to lean that direction myself.) But there are some big ass problems with #1. Witness what happened with Gaza. The Arab Palestinians in that situation feel that they are being acted upon rather than having agency. They feel like Israel is still doing things TO them. Rather than shifting their ideology, it cements it. And this gives support to the more extreme ideology.

Part of the purpose of proposing a Mandate is to give Arab Palestinians a voice and a choice along a very specific pathway. Its a mentorship which brings them up, rather than perpetuating their sense of victimhood (being acted upon).

I don not think that there is any question that we largely agree... Devil is in the detail...

To try and deal with your comments as made...

Why "must" Jerusalem stay under Israeli sovereignty? Corpus separatum was proposed in the 1947 United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine... For me, as a non Jew and non Muslim, yet with my 'Christian' upbringing, feel that Jerusalem is WAY more important than to be fought and argued over by multiple religions as to the 'ownership' of such an historic place!

Defining "occupied territory" is not so difficult unless you are Israeli! Then it all get's a little more complicated...

Yeah, clearly I do not agree with the mindset of must withdraw from ALL of the territory... There IS no ideological solution, for either side... However, there does need to be an acceptance that BOTH parties exist, Israel and Palestine, particularly Israel... That would be a good start position...

So, for simplicity, let's define the Green Line as de facto so that I can at least answer your questions...

Land swaps should NEVER be off the table! Come on, there does need to be a sensible approach to negotiating peace!

No, of course not, everyone should have the right to live where they choose... I'm a foreigner in my chosen country... There is no reason for it to be different anywhere... And I haven't "renounced" my home country, so why should Jews choosing to stay in Palestine?

Settlements, Jew or Arab, need to be part of the negotiations, included in land swap negotiations maybe? However, there does need to be a sensible approach to this... Why would you have an isolated settlement, Jewish or Arab, in the middle of a defined state?

"international border between two independent states, with all the standard features of an international border" - Yes of course... If we are looking at a two state solution then there MUST be clear, defined borders...

Both sides have an "obligation" to the other... In terms of respecting those "international borders"... However, my chosen country to live has agreements with its neighbouring country to provide "services" ... I don't see that as being unworkable in this instance either... And I should mention that my chosen country to live is NOT that friendly with its neighbour!

Further incidents need to be dealt with... That is given... However, some caution needs to be taken here... I would like to see, as I have said many times before, that ANY aggression, and I am going to single out rocket attacks from Gaza, should be dealt with by an international force and NOT Israel... Yes, I know, you are going to ask why cannot Israel defend herself... It's hardly EVER going to be a 'fair fight' is it... Gaza's military consists of? So, as has been seen, America and allies are very capable of dealing with 'aggressors' in the ME, let them deal with it.... Israel can then never come under criticism for heavy handed tactics!

Yes, I am with you, mostly, in that option 1 is the better option... Though, I must question why it is ONLY Israel who is deciding what she keeps and what she gives away?

As far as Gaza is concerned, yes, Israel withdrew from Gaza... However, it has never relinquished control of Gaza... That is a fundamental issue in itself... I know, I know, it's Israel "protecting" herself... So, in reality, Gaza is still considered as 'occupied' as it is still significantly controlled by Israel... There can never be the shift in ideology until this stops... And yes, it will simply fuel the extreme ideology until Gaza is no longer under ANY control from Israel...

Any mandate has to be put in place with agreements from across the globe... I would go so far as to say that, if there is even a 80% agreement then it should be 'implemented' with the help of the international community...

And one final thing... There needs to be elections, free, open elections within Gaza and Palestine as soon as possible... Carried out under international controls to ensure that there is a) no falsification of results b) that there are elections EVERY 4 years!

I am willing to give up the West Bank, which is the heartland of Biblical Israel, but not Jerusalem. It is the heart and soul of the Jewish People. Without Jerusalem, there is no point in there being an Israel at all. So much Jewish blood was not spilled so Tel-Aviv could have its nightlife, clubs and beaches.

I can hear my ancestors Cringing at the prospect of abandoning Judea and Samaria forever.

The Arabs are not making these much noise because they want only Judea and Samaria as a trophy against their hated Jews.
They are doing their most, and always have, to deny Jerusalem as the ancient capital of the Jewish People.

The Jordanians did not ethnically cleanse TransJordan and Judea, Samaria and the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem from 1925 to 1948 because Arabs/Muslims like them want to co-exist with the Jews.

The Jordanians are not continuing their war against any Jewish rights in Jerusalem and the Temple Mount because they want to respect the Peace treaty which was signed.

All other Muslim countries are not revving up their attacks on Israel and Jews all over the world because they are capable of accepting the Jewish right to be sovereign over their ancient homeland.

The Muslims got 80% of the original Mandate for Palestine due to British dishonor and Muslim feeling of supremacy over the Jewish People with their endless attacks on mostly unarmed Jewish civilians.

I must say that I do cringe when a new thread about "solutions" is started.

What is the solution to the endless and constant Christian and Muslim education about destroying Israel in the Muslim and Christians countries?

How and when is UNWRA going to be dissolved so that any form of normalcy can return to the word refugee. And many of us are descendants of those who were actually refugees from the German or Arab war against the Jews which took place before or after WWII.

What is the solution to the endless teachings of hatred in Muslim and even Christian schools, etc which perpetuates the impossibility of a real solution to the issue, short of the destruction of Israel and turning Jews into what they have been forced to be for the past 2000 years thanks to 2 PEOPLE.

2 People are responsible for the "religious" hatred of Jews to all eternity. And that is the main contributor for this "conflict" never ending.....

That is .......not until Israel is destroyed and Jews are put BACK in their place.

Anyone has any ideas on how to turn the UN and UNESCO back into what they were before the PLO was founded?

What is the solution to all of these-hate-the-Jews groups which seem to make it impossible for any Moderate Arab/Muslim to be able to really make peace with Israel.

Jordan and Egypt's peace treaties hang by a thread, with endless groups within those two countries continuing their attacks on Israel and the Jews.

As we know, Saudi Arabia and Iran are very much responsible for much of the hatred and attacks against Israel and Jews all over the world, whether they hate each other or not.


Uprooting hatred for Jews has to be the FIRST SOLUTION in order to solving any of this.

Without it............

 

[Sixties Fan]

Exactly what is the solution to this kind of thinking and behavior to bring an end to the conflict?

Palestinians falsely claim Hebron is "fourth holiest site in Islam" ~ Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

How is another "Mandate" going to stop the Muslims from continuing to appropriate everything that is Jewish.

Something, by the way, they never did before Israel became sovereign.

How would a new " Mandate " stop the Muslims from their attempt to steal all things Jewish?

 

[Coyote]

I have.

I don't recall you arguing page after page with them about it.

I have. Over Op Cast Lead, the unjust juvenile justice system, inequity in how the law is applied between OPalestinians and Jews and on collective punishment.

It is true that you do not shill for Israel like many posters. However, you do have a problem with Palestinian self defense and you do tend to allow Israel to keep everything it has stolen.

I don't have a problem with self defense. How is bombing a bus full of children self defense? Driving a car into a crowd of people.

The Palestinians have the right to self defense and so do the Israelis. Would you agree?

As to what they keep and what is "stolen"....while it is true much property was taken under absentee landowner laws, it's also true that jIn cases where property was illegally taken, it should be addressed. And, in those cases perhaps it can be handled in much the same way that looted Jewish property, by the Nazis was and the descendants should have some rights there.

Other than that, Israel has a right to keep its state, and the occupied territories can be settled through landswaps and negotiation.