Is it Possible for Israel and Palestine to Peacefully Coexist?

[Robert W]

The only thing that the Israelis and the Palestinians seem to agree on is that their opposites should not exist as sovereign countries. Is this an immutable law of religious beliefs, or is it a stubborn bargaining position that both sides have taken? Will it ultimately take the removal of millions of Israelis or Palestinians from the area to resolve this conflict?

The idea of resettling local populations to other areas has been around (and practiced) for thousands of years. [Even Hitler wanted to resettle European Jews to the French colony of Madagascar before that became unrealistic.] Are there any geographical options today that might separate these two warring parties before they annihilate each other?

I will check for sure, but I believe it only started under Democrats to call that area Palestine.

All the Arabs need to do is tell Israel in writing that Israel has the right to exist. Arabs living in Israel manage to get along.

Let's see the Capital of Israel.

Then find the capital of Palestine???

Jerusalem

 

[Rigby5]

The Balfour Declaration holds no force in law.

The Mandate for Palestine is very clear that the Mandate territory for Palestine was intended for the reconstitution of the Jewish national home, to be administered and eventually governed for the self-determination of the Jewish people, while protecting the civil rights of those Arabs who would become part of the newly formed State.

Incorrect. It is territory to which only Israel had sovereign claim. It is not illegal to impose sovereignty over your own territory.

Total lies.
The Balfour Declaration is the ONLY claim Israel has at all.
The British Mandate for Palestine was ONLY and entirely to reward the Palestinian natives for their help defeating the Ottoman Empire with Lawrence of Arabia.
The British Mandate for Palestine was established by the Treaty of Sevres and Treaty of San Remo, and there is NOTHING at all about any "Jewish homeland", other than the Balfour Declaration.

And your claim is obviously wrong because the 1922 census showed there were fewer than 5% Jews in Palestine, and the most it ever increased to was 30%. Right now there are 13 million native Palestinians and only 6 million Jews who also are almost entirely illegal immigrants.

Clearly Israel has ZERO legal claim to anything.
This is obvious since all the properties in Palestine were owned by Arab natives.
The illegal immigrant Jews never paid for hardly anything.
They just murdered the natives and took it.

If you want to look it up, then read the letters Albert Einstein wrote the NY Times about the massacre he saw of the women and children natives of Deir Yassin, being gunned down by Menachim Begin's terrorists.

Israel has zero "sovereign claim" to anything. The majority natives were there first, for 8000 years, and hold legal title to all the properties.

 

[ESay]

"Supposed to have"? Israel was "supposed to have" the entire Mandate for Palestine. Israel did, in point of objective legal fact, inherit all of the Mandate for Palestine, save for the part that was carved off for an Arab state (Jordan, the original two-state solution).

The UN does not have the right to arbitrarily divide a state into pieces. It can suggest such a thing, but it can not be implemented without the consent of the parties involved. Belligerent invasion does not cause the invaded state to be divided into pieces.

I will say again, Israel has not expanded into any territory that belonged to another State (with exception of small piece of Syria for security purposes.) Quite the opposite, Israel has voluntarily chosen NOT to apply sovereignty over territory it has sovereign claim to and has willingly given territory to other governing entities (Gaza, Areas A and B).

The entire Mandate for Palestine, I see. On what part of 'international law' (as you claimed above) this claim is based?

Without the consent of parties involved. Exactly. One side never gave their consent. So, the partition should never have happened. According to this logic.

 

[ESay]

I'm not sure what you are asking. If Arabs with Israeli citizenship want to be part of the self-determination of an emerging state of Arab Palestine, who is going to stop them?

If they want to be part of this state with their towns and land.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The Palestinians did not object to the 1948 UN partition that created Israel.
What they objected to was the criminal acts by Menachim Begin to wipe out hundreds of native villages after he blew up the British peacekeepers in the King David Hotel, and the fact none of the native refugees who left to escape the violence, were allowed back to their legally owned properties.

The Arab armies did NOT "attack".
They were sent in so that the massacres of native villages could be stopped.

The Palestinians did not object to the 1948 UN partition that created Israel.

They did not accept the plan.

The Arab armies did NOT "attack".

Just because they were not good enough does not mean they did not attack.

They were sent in so that the massacres of native villages could be stopped.

Hilarious!

 

[Rigby5]

Oh, let's just erase all of Jewish history, shall we?

Most Jewish history is fake, created by the Byzantine Empire around 300 AD.
The reality is the Hebrew were not slaves in Egypt, there was no Exodus, and they invaded and massacred the Canaanites, like at Jericho, around 1000 BC.
But they were so arrogant that everyone hated them and the Assyrians defeated them and kicked them out around 800 BC.
Later the Babylonians also got tired of them and kicked them out.
Then the Persians kicked them out.
Then the Greeks kicked them out.
Then the Seleucids kicked them out.
Then the Romans kicked them out.

And according to the Diaspora Decree, they are not supposed to return to the Mideast until the coming of the Messiah proves they have been forgiven the sins of arrogance and pride.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Wrong.
Israel destroyed over 90% of the buildings, utilities, infrastructure, etc.
Clearly the goal was to steal Gaza.
The goal was not to free hostages because that is impossible with a frontal assault, and the IDF admits that they killed all the hostages that died.

And by the way, you are using the word "antisemitic" all wrong.
The word "Semitic" has to be capitalized as a proper noun, and it comes from Shem, the fabled son of Noah who was to have fathered all Arabs, so it means "of Arab origins". It does not mean "Jewish".

The reality is that Zionists falsely claim to be the "Chosen People", which is not only wrong, but highly arrogant and ridiculous. No real G-d would have a "Chosen People" since it would be totally unfair, and clearly Jews are NOT "Chosen People", and instead are supposed to be atoning for the sins of arrogance and pride.

Israel destroyed over 90% of the buildings, utilities, infrastructure, etc.

FAFO.

 

[ESay]

You are supporting it in your posts.

Interesting. Israel demonstrates her ability to share control of the all the holy sites. But you believe something else.

Also, "guys in hats" is reductive and insulting. If you mean Orthodox Jews, say Orthodox Jews. If you mean extremist Jews, say that.

If this insults you, I'll stop using this name in our conversations. If that insults some others with tantrums about antisemites, they will manage to overcome that.

Orthodox Jews (not sure what you mean by extremist Jews, btw). The way this people behave leaves me with too little hope.

 

[Rigby5]

I will check for sure, but I believe it only started under Democrats to call that area Palestine.

All the Arabs need to do is tell Israel in writing that Israel has the right to exist. Arabs living in Israel manage to get along.

Let's see the Capital of Israel.

Then find the capital of Palestine???

Jerusalem


View attachment 1073766

Wrong.
It has always been the region of Palestine, and Mark Twain refers to Palestine in his 1870 book, "Innocents Abroad".
The sovereign nation of Palestine was officially created in 1920, with the Treaty of San Remo and Treaty of Sevres, to reward the Palestinian native for helping Lawrence of Arabia defeat the Ottoman Empire.

The capital of Palestine is and always has been Jerusalem.
The capital of Israel is Tel Aviv.

The 6 million Israelis are almost all illegal immigrants, while the 13 million native Palestinians go back 8000 years.

 

[Shusha]

Total lies.
The Balfour Declaration is the ONLY claim Israel has at all.
The British Mandate for Palestine was ONLY and entirely to reward the Palestinian natives for their help defeating the Ottoman Empire with Lawrence of Arabia.
The British Mandate for Palestine was established by the Treaty of Sevres and Treaty of San Remo, and there is NOTHING at all about any "Jewish homeland", other than the Balfour Declaration.

Have you read the Mandate for Palestine? The one that reads (excerpts; emphasis mine):

Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country; and

Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country; and

The Mandatory shall be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home, as laid down in the preamble, and the development of self-governing institutions, and also for safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion.

An appropriate Jewish agency shall be recognized as a public body for the purpose of advising and co-operating with the Administration of Palestine in such economic, social and other matters as may affect the establishment of the Jewish national home and the interests of the Jewish population in Palestine, and, subject always to the control of the Administration to assist and take part in the development of the country.

The Administration may arrange with the Jewish agency mentioned in Article 4 to construct or operate, upon fair and equitable terms, any public works, services and utilities, and to develop any of the natural resources of the country, in so far as these matters are not directly undertaken by the Administration. Any such arrangements shall provide that no profits distributed by such agency, directly or indirectly, shall exceed a reasonable rate of interest on the capital, and any further profits shall be utilised by it for the benefit of the country in a manner approved by the Administration.

And your claim is obviously wrong because the 1922 census showed there were fewer than 5% Jews in Palestine, and the most it ever increased to was 30%. Right now there are 13 million native Palestinians and only 6 million Jews who also are almost entirely illegal immigrants.

You are confusing individual rights with collective rights and individual property ownership with sovereignty.

 

[Rigby5]

The Palestinians did not object to the 1948 UN partition that created Israel.

They did not accept the plan.

The Arab armies did NOT "attack".

Just because they were not good enough does not mean they did not attack.

They were sent in so that the massacres of native villages could be stopped.

Hilarious!

Look up Deir Yassin, a very well documented massacre of natives by Menachim Begin.
Then look at a 1946 map compared to a 1950 map.
You will find that hundreds of ancient native villages are totally gone, wiped out.

 

[Shusha]

The entire Mandate for Palestine, I see. On what part of 'international law' (as you claimed above) this claim is based?

The entire Mandate for Palestine was one territory. It was never divided by any legal process (until the Oslo Accords).

Uti possidetis juris. Customary international law where a new sovereign emerges the new state adopts the administrative lines of the previous sovereign, or in this case Mandate). This is a universal law that applies in every case.

Without the consent of parties involved. Exactly. One side never gave their consent. So, the partition should never have happened. According to this logic.

Exactly. Which is why it was never implemented.

 

[Rigby5]

Have you read the Mandate for Palestine? The one that reads (excerpts; emphasis mine):

Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country; and

Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country; and

The Mandatory shall be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home, as laid down in the preamble, and the development of self-governing institutions, and also for safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion.

An appropriate Jewish agency shall be recognized as a public body for the purpose of advising and co-operating with the Administration of Palestine in such economic, social and other matters as may affect the establishment of the Jewish national home and the interests of the Jewish population in Palestine, and, subject always to the control of the Administration to assist and take part in the development of the country.

The Administration may arrange with the Jewish agency mentioned in Article 4 to construct or operate, upon fair and equitable terms, any public works, services and utilities, and to develop any of the natural resources of the country, in so far as these matters are not directly undertaken by the Administration. Any such arrangements shall provide that no profits distributed by such agency, directly or indirectly, shall exceed a reasonable rate of interest on the capital, and any further profits shall be utilised by it for the benefit of the country in a manner approved by the Administration.



You are confusing individual rights with collective rights and individual property ownership with sovereignty.

Wrong.
The meaning of "homeland" never means sovereign, but a place where immigration is facilitated.
That should be obvious since the British never "owned" Palestine, and the agreements for the Palestinians to help Lawrence of Arabia was for England to give Palestine their independence.
For example, the native "homelands" that South Africa created under Apartheid, did not give the tribes sovereignty.

And it should be obvious since England has absolutely no legal authority to give Palestine to anyone but the native Palestinians.
The native Arab Palestinians were always the vast majority as well.
So there is absolutely nothing at all to base the creation of Israel on.

Actual Jews know better than to even go there, since we are supposed to be atoning for the sins of arrogance and pride until the coming of the Messiah lets us know we have been forgiven.

 

[Rigby5]

The entire Mandate for Palestine was one territory. It was never divided by any legal process (until the Oslo Accords).

Uti possidetis juris. Customary international law where a new sovereign emerges the new state adopts the administrative lines of the previous sovereign, or in this case Mandate). This is a universal law that applies in every case.

Exactly. Which is why it was never implemented.

WRONG!
The "British Mandate for Palestine" was entirely for the Arab natives.
The fact they also wanted to make it easier for Jewish refugees to emigrate to Palestine, in no way implies any sovereignty at all, and in fact the British has no authority over Palestine at all.
They did not own it before or after WWI.
The words, "British Mandate" means OBLIGATION.
It means the British were supposed to protect the Palestinians until they could put their own armed forces in place.
The only reason why that did not happen, is that Menachim Begin blew up the British peacekeepers in the King David Hotel.
Does that sound like something sovereign owners would have done to the British peacekeepers?
Clearly the Jews were illegal immigrants, far above the British quotas, and with criminal intent towards everyone, the British and Palestinian natives.

 

[Rigby5]

The entire Mandate for Palestine was one territory. It was never divided by any legal process (until the Oslo Accords).

Uti possidetis juris. Customary international law where a new sovereign emerges the new state adopts the administrative lines of the previous sovereign, or in this case Mandate). This is a universal law that applies in every case.

Exactly. Which is why it was never implemented.

Which means there should NEVER have ever been an "Israel".
It is totally illegal, stolen from the Palestinian natives, and without any legal basis at all.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Look up Deir Yassin, a very well documented massacre of natives by Menachim Begin.
Then look at a 1946 map compared to a 1950 map.
You will find that hundreds of ancient native villages are totally gone, wiped out.

Meh.

 

[Shusha]

The meaning of "homeland" never means sovereign, but a place where immigration is facilitated.
That should be obvious since the British never "owned" Palestine, and the agreements for the Palestinians to help Lawrence of Arabia was for England to give Palestine their independence.
For example, the native "homelands" that South Africa created under Apartheid, did not give the tribes sovereignty.

And it should be obvious since England has absolutely no legal authority to give Palestine to anyone but the native Palestinians.
The native Arab Palestinians were always the vast majority as well.
So there is absolutely nothing at all to base the creation of Israel on.

Sigh. Its hard to take anything you say seriously after you erased all of Jewish history.

The intent was to create a State from the Mandate territory (just like all the other states created under the ME mandate system: Iraq, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon). The intent was for those States reach independence to "stand on their own" with self-government to fulfill the right of self-determination. The State in the Mandate for Palestine territory was intended for the self-determination of the Jewish people, which is clearly outlined in the Mandate for Palestine (a legal document with legal and binding consequences.) The Jewish people are intended to become the government, which is clearly outlined in the Mandate for Palestine.

Of course, Britain had no claim to "ownership" or sovereignty of the Mandate, nor could they "give" it away. They were caretakers until the self-determination of the Jewish people could be realized.

 

[Rigby5]

Wow.

The Jewish people say, let's share the land and live in peace together.

The Arabs/Muslims say, it's all mine and we will use it as we want (and we want you gone).

You support the Arabs/Muslims in their position. I don't know what else to say. I find it morally abhorrent.

That is a lie.
As far back as 1946, it was clear the illegal immigrant Jews were intent on stealing Palestine, even though they had no legal right to anything.
It is a lie to claim that the Jewish people wanted to share the land, because they started massacring hundreds of native villages, and would not allow the Right of Return to those who have fled the violence of 1948.
Even now, Israelis illegal confiscate native properties on a daily basis and are illegal starving with an economic blockade.

 

[Shusha]

WRONG!
The "British Mandate for Palestine" was entirely for the Arab natives.

Weird that it mentions the Jewish people and Jewish agencies so many times, then huh? Does it even mention Arabs?

 

[Rigby5]

Israel owns now more territory now than it was supposed to have in 1947

It's true, the Arabs fucked up.

Wrong.
Israel simply invaded Jerusalem and the West Bank, in total violation of the UN partition.
There is no way to blame the native Palestinians for the 1967 war of aggression by the Israelis.
It was totally a sneak attack and not defensive in any way.