Is it Possible for Israel and Palestine to Peacefully Coexist?

[ShahdagMountains]

Chosen to be able to murder the native Canaanites in order to steal the Promised Land from them.

You speak for G-D now?

Jesus Christ was chosen wasn’t he? What was he chosen for?

 

[Shusha]

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.

We were speaking specifically about holy sites. It is demonstrably true that holy sites under Israel are governed by the faith that built them or are shared. This is not so with holy sites under Arab or Muslim control.

Oh, right. You erased Jewish history, so ....

 

[Rigby5]

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

It mentions Jewish people only as facilitated immigration.
The Jews were not to have any rule, and the Jewish Congress at Carlsbad disavowed any intent to participate in the government of Palestine.

And the native Arab Palestinians were the only ones mention to rule Palestine.
The Jews were only to have "facilitated immigration".

{...
The mandate document was based on Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations of 28 June 1919 and the Supreme Council of the Principal Allied Powers' San Remo Resolution of 25 April 1920. The objective of the mandates over former territories of Ottoman Empire was to provide "administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone". The border between Palestine and Transjordan was agreed in the final mandate document, and the approximate northern border with the French Mandate for Syria and the Lebanon was agreed in the Paulet–Newcombe Agreement of 23 December 1920.

In Palestine, the Mandate required Britain to put into effect the Balfour Declaration's "national home for the Jewish people" alongside the Palestinian Arabs, who composed the vast majority of the local population; this requirement and others, however, would not apply to the separate Arab emirate to be established in Transjordan. The British controlled Palestine for almost three decades, overseeing a succession of protests, riots and revolts between the Jewish and Palestinian Arab communities. During the Mandate, the area saw the rise of two nationalist movements: the Jews and the Palestinian Arabs. Intercommunal conflict in Mandatory Palestine ultimately produced the 1936–1939 Arab revolt and the 1944–1948 Jewish insurgency. The United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine was passed on 29 November 1947; this envisaged the creation of separate Jewish and Arab states operating under economic union, and with Jerusalem transferred to UN trusteeship.
...}

It clearly says the native Arab Palestinians were the "vast majority of the local population", and majority is what sovereignty is based on.

 

[Rigby5]

You speak for G-D now?

Jesus Christ was chosen wasn’t he? What was he chosen for?

Of course everyone can speak for G-d because for a G-d to exist it would have to conform to standard social norms of decency.
Which the Israelis fail to do.
They were evil in 1000 BC when they massacred the Canaanite women and children in Jericho, and they were evil in 1946 when they blew up the British peacekeepers and started massacring hundreds of native villages like Deir Yassin.

Jesus did not claim the rights to any "Promised Land" like the Hebrew and Zionists illegally did.

 

[Shusha]

And the native Arab Palestinians were the only ones mention to rule Palestine.
The Jews were only to have "facilitated immigration".

That is not what the document actually says.

It clearly says the native Arab Palestinians were the "vast majority of the local population", and majority is what sovereignty is based on.

No, that is not how sovereignty is determined in international law.

 

[ShahdagMountains]

Of course everyone can speak for G-d because for a G-d to exist it would have to conform to standard social norms of decency.
Which the Israelis fail to do.
They were evil in 1000 BC when they massacred the Canaanite women and children in Jericho, and they were evil in 1946 when they blew up the British peacekeepers and started massacring hundreds of native villages like Deir Yassin.

Jesus did not claim the rights to any "Promised Land" like the Hebrew and Zionists illegally did.

There’s no hope for you then.

 

[Rigby5]

We were speaking specifically about holy sites. It is demonstrably true that holy sites under Israel are governed by the faith that built them or are shared. This is not so with holy sites under Arab or Muslim control.

Oh, right. You erased Jewish history, so ....

There are no "holy sites" for Jews in Palestine at all.
Before the Al-Aqsa temple was built on the temple mount, there was NOTHING there at all.
The Romans had totally removed every stone from all construction they did for King Herod, and there was not a single holy site left for Jews.

Most Jewish history is fake.
For example, there was no Israel, Samaria, or Judea under the Romans until the Romans created them as puppets.
For example, King Herod was actually just a Roman who claimed to have converted to Judaism.

 

[Rigby5]

That is not what the document actually says.

No, that is not how sovereignty is determined in international law.

Wrong.
Palestine native Arab sovereignty was created under international law by the Treaty of Sevres and Treaty of San Remo.
The native Palestinians had helped Lawrence of Arabia, so were owed independence.
In contrast, the Jews were owed nothing, since they had not participated in WWI at all.
The meaning of "British Mandate for Palestine" was the obligation the British owed the native Palestinians for their help in WWI.

 

[Rigby5]

There’s no hope for you then.

Why would the Zionists have blown up the British peacekeepers in the King David Hotel if the British intended to establish Jewish sovereignty?

 

[ShahdagMountains]

Why would the Zionists have blown up the British peacekeepers in the King David Hotel if the British intended to establish Jewish sovereignty?

Why do you talk tosh?

 

[Rigby5]

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.

Wrong.
It is clearly a lie to claim anyone ever intended Jewish sovereignty.
The actual documents, like the Churchill White Paper of 1922 totally deny your false claim.
And obviously the Zionists would not have blown up the British peacekeepers in the King David Hotel if there had been any intent by the British to give the Jews sovereignty.
Only the native Arab Palestinians could ever be sovereign.
What you claim is totally contradictor of all legal principles.
What possible excuse could anyone come up with in order to justify 6 million Jewish immigrants to be given sovereignty over the 13 million long standing Arab natives?

 

[Shusha]

Wrong.
Palestine native Arab sovereignty was created under international law by the Treaty of Sevres and Treaty of San Remo.
The native Palestinians had helped Lawrence of Arabia, so were owed independence.
In contrast, the Jews were owed nothing, since they had not participated in WWI at all.
The meaning of "British Mandate for Palestine" was the obligation the British owed the native Palestinians for their help in WWI.

You are once again erasing "Jewish" from every document, just as you erase Jewish history and Jewish holy sites. It is beyond ridiculous.

 

[Rigby5]

Why do you talk tosh?

Obviously the Zionist immigrants stole half of Palestine by force in 1947, and they had no legal right to it.
If they had a legal right, then they would not have blown up the British peacekeepers in the King David Hotel and started massacring native villages. Those are the actions of criminals, not legal residents.

 

[Rigby5]

You are once again erasing "Jewish" from every document, just as you erase Jewish history and Jewish holy sites. It is beyond ridiculous.

There is a huge difference between a Jewish homeland in a native Palestine, and Jewish sovereignty.

 

[ShahdagMountains]

Obviously the Zionist immigrants stole half of Palestine by force in 1947, and they had no legal right to it.
If they had a legal right, then they would not have blown up the British peacekeepers in the King David Hotel and started massacring native villages. Those are the actions of criminals, not legal residents.

Wallow in your delusions if it makes you happy. I don’t care.

You anti semites are all the same. Repeating the age old tropes over and over again. As if you’re all reading from the same script.

 

[Dante]

Is it Possible for Israel and Palestine to Peacefully Coexist?​

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?

Not as long as Rabid Settlers like the people who assassinated Rabin are allowed to act unchallenged.

The assassination of Yitzhak Rabin, the fifth prime minister of Israel, took place on 4 November 1995 (12 Marcheshvan 5756 on the Hebrew calendar) at 21:30, at the end of a rally in support of the Oslo Accords at the Kings of Israel Square in Tel Aviv.

Yigal Amir and din rodef​

Rabin's family mourn at his funeral

The perpetrator was Yigal Amir, a 25-year-old former Hesder student and far-right law student at Bar-Ilan University. Amir had strenuously opposed Rabin's peace initiative, particularly the signing of the Oslo Accords, because he felt that an Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank would deny Jews their "biblical heritage which they had reclaimed by establishing settlements". Amir had come to believe that Rabin was a rodef, meaning a "pursuer" who endangered Jewish lives. The concept of din rodef ("law of the pursuer") is a part of traditional Jewish law. Amir believed he would be justified under din rodef in removing Rabin as a threat to Jews in the territories.[15]

The Oslo Accords are a pair of interim agreements between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO): the Oslo I Accord, signed in Washington, D.C., in 1993;[1] and the Oslo II Accord, signed in Taba, Egypt, in 1995.[2] They marked the start of the Oslo process, a peace process aimed at achieving a peace treaty based on Resolution 242 and Resolution 338 of the United Nations Security Council. The Oslo process began after secret negotiations in Oslo, Norway, resulting in both the recognition of Israel by the PLO and the recognition by Israel of the PLO as the representative of the Palestinian people and as a partner in bilateral negotiations.

 

[ShahdagMountains]

Not as long as Rabid Settlers like the people who assassinated Rabin are allowed to act unchallenged.

The assassination of Yitzhak Rabin, the fifth prime minister of Israel, took place on 4 November 1995 (12 Marcheshvan 5756 on the Hebrew calendar) at 21:30, at the end of a rally in support of the Oslo Accords at the Kings of Israel Square in Tel Aviv.

^ And here’s another one, trotting out the same old repetitive tripe.

 

[Dante]

Wallow in your delusions if it makes you happy. I don’t care.

You anti semites are all the same. Repeating the age old tropes over and over again. As if you’re all reading from the same script.

Wallowing in your delusions seems to make you happy, delighted, gay....

 

[Dante]

^ And here’s another one, trotting out the same old repetitive tripe.

Preceding rally​

In response to the intense street protests by right-wing opponents of the Oslo peace process, a coalition of left-wing parties and peace groups organized a rally in support of the peace process at Tel Aviv's Kings Square on 4 November 1995. Rabin attended the rally, along with others such as Minister of Foreign Affairs Shimon Peres. The rally attracted a crowd in excess of 100,000 people. In his remarks at the rally, Rabin declared, "I always believed that most of the people want peace and are ready to take a risk for it."

Assassination of Yitzhak Rabin - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

No one can imagine Donald Trump ever expressing such a noble sentiment "I always believed that most of the people want peace and are ready to take a risk for it."

Dante's signature (for now):
.
"Can people trust, fully trust a convicted felon?"
.

 

[ShahdagMountains]

Wallowing in your delusions seems to make you happy, delighted, gay....