Israel's Legal Right To Exist

[P F Tinmore]

If the Israelis and the Palestinians disagree to the point of open hostilities, that is called a dispute.

It is a one sided dispute.

If I say I own your car is that a dispute?

No it is two sided as they both disagree and start hostilities.

Yes as I hold title and you dont, in the US I believe I can shoot you if you try and take my car under those circumstances

The Palestinians want Palestine. Israel wants Palestine.

The so called dispute is one sided.

I agree. The Palestinians can shoot if someone tries to take Palestine.

 

[montelatici]

P F Tinmore, et al,

The Arab Palestinians have what (exactly)???

...hy should people have to negotiate for their rights?

The Palestinians do not have to negotiate for their rights. Their rights are inherent and inviolable. As are Jewish rights.

The negotiations are to determine the boundaries within which they are permitted to exercise those rights.

The Palestinians already have boundaries along with the right to territorial integrity.

What is this negotiate boundaries thing?

(COMMENT)

The "right" to "territorial integrity" does not mean much if you don't have a territory in which to apply it.

The Allied Powers was granted the Title and Rights to a vast territory; one segment of which was the territory to which the Mandate for Palestine was applied.

What territory did the Title and Rights past to the Arab Palestinians.

If the Israelis and the Palestinians disagree to the point of open hostilities, that is called a dispute. Disputes are normally handled through some peaceful means.

Most Respectfully,
R

No title or rights were granted to the Allied Powers. Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations clearly states that the the Mandatories were responsible for the well-being and development of the inhabitants of the colonies and territories, title did not transfer to the Allies. You continue to make things up Rocco, stop it.

"ARTICLE 22.

To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant."

 

[P F Tinmore]

§ Settle their disputes by peaceful means --- such that --- peace and security are not endangered,

Such as?

Meetting at a neutral venue and negotiating a just resolution to the problems. Something the arab muslims are refusing to do

Those worthless pieces of meat (on both sides) have been blabbering on, and on, and on about peace for over 20 years and they keep getting farther away from peace. So far negotiations have been counterproductive.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

The Arab Palestinians have what (exactly)???

...hy should people have to negotiate for their rights?

The Palestinians do not have to negotiate for their rights. Their rights are inherent and inviolable. As are Jewish rights.

The negotiations are to determine the boundaries within which they are permitted to exercise those rights.

The Palestinians already have boundaries along with the right to territorial integrity.

What is this negotiate boundaries thing?

(COMMENT)

The "right" to "territorial integrity" does not mean much if you don't have a territory in which to apply it.

The Allied Powers was granted the Title and Rights to a vast territory; one segment of which was the territory to which the Mandate for Palestine was applied.

What territory did the Title and Rights past to the Arab Palestinians.

If the Israelis and the Palestinians disagree to the point of open hostilities, that is called a dispute. Disputes are normally handled through some peaceful means.

Most Respectfully,
R

No title or rights were granted to the Allied Powers. Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations clearly states that the the Mandatories were responsible for the well-being and development of the inhabitants of the colonies and territories, title did not transfer to the Allies. You continue to make things up Rocco, stop it.

"ARTICLE 22.

To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant."

You have to excuse Rocco. He is an old government person. Those people think funny like that.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Leaders are a molder of consensus. There are two adversarial parties involved in this conflict. The leader of one party speak unequivocally in the name of the people and Knesset. The leaders of the other country is a contested party chairman.

§ Settle their disputes by peaceful means --- such that --- peace and security are not endangered,

Such as?

(COMMENT)

"Jihad is a propagandistic device which, as need be, resorts to armed struggle – two ingredients common to many ideological movements,"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Professor Maxime Rodinson
​

I could be a smart ass and say visit "http://www.peace-talks.com/" but low and behold, there is actually a Web Site there for a "Family Mediation Service." But they only deal with people of some sanity. That would leave the Palestinians that have already decided to choose Jihad (etc) and armed struggle as the principle means of resolution.

Establish a willingness of the parties to sit down and in good faith open a dialogue intended to reach a beneficial outcome on peace.

(EXTERNAL OBSERVATION)

"Negotiation is a method by which people settle differences. It is a process by which compromise or agreement is reached while avoiding argument and dispute." I do not believe that the capacity rest with the Arab Palestinian Leadership to reach either a compromise of agreement. They want a solution that was lost to them over have a century ago.

The Arab Palestinians have not signaled any intention of seeking a negotiation. They want to reset the clock to a time before they chose Jihad and armed struggle as a solution, and they want territorial control concessions even before the process of negotiation begins.

Most Respectfully,
R

Do you mean endless talks over how to divide the pizza while one is stuffing his face with it as fast as he can?

BTW, why should people have to negotiate for their rights?

Because that is how they get them in the first place. Or do you think that "RIGHTS" just appear out of thin air and are magically applied to only a small part of society. Dont forget what ever rights you apply to the arab muslims are also being applied to the Jews, so why do you find it so hard to accept this simple truth. Also why do you try and deny the Jews these rights while demanding they be handed to the arab muslims on a gold plate.

The Jews have no problems in negotiating for their rights, why do you find it so hard ?

Rights are not given by anybody. They are something a people have without negotiations.

I know, this is all so confusing to you.

 

[MJB12741]

When you travel from a place to conquer an inhabited place far away, in this case on another continent, it is called an invasion.

When you're befuddled about historical events, rattling on with absurdities makes you a buffoon.

The only buffoon is the one that can't accept a simple fact. The Jews were in Europe and invaded Palestine against the wishes of the native people of Palestine.

"Native people of Palestine." You mean the Jews invaded themselves???

The European Jews came from Europe. How could they invade themselves by invading Palestine?

How do ya like that? And here I actually believed the Jews were "native Palestinians" long before there were any Christian, let alone Muslim Palestinians. Amazing what we can learn from Monte.

 

[RoccoR]

montelatici,

Nonsense. This is a timeline failure.

No title or rights were granted to the Allied Powers. Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations clearly states that the the Mandatories were responsible for the well-being and development of the inhabitants of the colonies and territories, title did not transfer to the Allies. You continue to make things up Rocco, stop it.

"ARTICLE 22.

To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant."

(COMMENT)

The Covenant was signed in 1919 and went into force on 10 January 1920. The Treaty of Lausanne was a 1924 product.

ARTICLE I6.

Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.

The provisions of the present Article do not prejudice any special arrangements arising from neighbourly relations which have been or may be concluded between Turkey and any limitrophe countries.
​

Again, in a direct attempt to discredit the information, they actually use the technique to misdirection. Pointing to the Covenant. and it is true, Article 22 of the Covenant does not speak to title and rights. It makes no reference to Palestine at all. HOWEVER, the Treaty of Lausanne (TREATY OF PEACE WITH TURKEY SIGNED AT LAUSANNE) included Article 16 in which the Title and Rights were past to the Allied Powers (not the Arab Palestinians).

You will note that the Article 22 did give objectives to be accomplished that the Arab Palestinians need to participate; "tutelage" and "stand-alone" criteria. The Arab Palestinians rejected all opportunities to become involved in the process.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[montelatici]

When you travel from a place to conquer an inhabited place far away, in this case on another continent, it is called an invasion.

When you're befuddled about historical events, rattling on with absurdities makes you a buffoon.

The only buffoon is the one that can't accept a simple fact. The Jews were in Europe and invaded Palestine against the wishes of the native people of Palestine.

"Native people of Palestine." You mean the Jews invaded themselves???

The European Jews came from Europe. How could they invade themselves by invading Palestine?

How do ya like that? And here I actually believed the Jews were "native Palestinians" long before there were any Christian, let alone Muslim Palestinians. Amazing what we can learn from Monte.

How could people in Europe be Palestinians? Amazing what can be discerned about MJ's ability to process logic. LOL

 

[Hollie]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Leaders are a molder of consensus. There are two adversarial parties involved in this conflict. The leader of one party speak unequivocally in the name of the people and Knesset. The leaders of the other country is a contested party chairman.

§ Settle their disputes by peaceful means --- such that --- peace and security are not endangered,

Such as?

(COMMENT)

"Jihad is a propagandistic device which, as need be, resorts to armed struggle – two ingredients common to many ideological movements,"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Professor Maxime Rodinson
​

I could be a smart ass and say visit "http://www.peace-talks.com/" but low and behold, there is actually a Web Site there for a "Family Mediation Service." But they only deal with people of some sanity. That would leave the Palestinians that have already decided to choose Jihad (etc) and armed struggle as the principle means of resolution.

Establish a willingness of the parties to sit down and in good faith open a dialogue intended to reach a beneficial outcome on peace.

(EXTERNAL OBSERVATION)

"Negotiation is a method by which people settle differences. It is a process by which compromise or agreement is reached while avoiding argument and dispute." I do not believe that the capacity rest with the Arab Palestinian Leadership to reach either a compromise of agreement. They want a solution that was lost to them over have a century ago.

The Arab Palestinians have not signaled any intention of seeking a negotiation. They want to reset the clock to a time before they chose Jihad and armed struggle as a solution, and they want territorial control concessions even before the process of negotiation begins.

Most Respectfully,
R

Do you mean endless talks over how to divide the pizza while one is stuffing his face with it as fast as he can?

BTW, why should people have to negotiate for their rights?

Because that is how they get them in the first place. Or do you think that "RIGHTS" just appear out of thin air and are magically applied to only a small part of society. Dont forget what ever rights you apply to the arab muslims are also being applied to the Jews, so why do you find it so hard to accept this simple truth. Also why do you try and deny the Jews these rights while demanding they be handed to the arab muslims on a gold plate.

The Jews have no problems in negotiating for their rights, why do you find it so hard ?

Rights are not given by anybody. They are something a people have without negotiations.

I know, this is all so confusing to you.

As all of this has been explained to you before, multiple times across multiple threads, it's disappointing you still don't understand.

The Jewish people exercised their right of self-determination. The Arabs-Moslems could not manage that. In anticipation of your usual whining about your invented Pal'istanians in your invented "country of Pal'istan", let's remind you again... for what, the 100th time that your invented "country of Pal'istan" never existed as the land area called "Pal'istan" was ceded by the Turks.

How many more times does that need to be explained to you?

Give us a number.

 

[montelatici]

montelatici,

Nonsense. This is a timeline failure.

No title or rights were granted to the Allied Powers. Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations clearly states that the the Mandatories were responsible for the well-being and development of the inhabitants of the colonies and territories, title did not transfer to the Allies. You continue to make things up Rocco, stop it.

"ARTICLE 22.

To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant."

(COMMENT)

The Covenant was signed in 1919 and went into force on 10 January 1920. The Treaty of Lausanne was a 1924 product.

ARTICLE I6.

Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.

The provisions of the present Article do not prejudice any special arrangements arising from neighbourly relations which have been or may be concluded between Turkey and any limitrophe countries.
​

Again, in a direct attempt to discredit the information, they actually use the technique to misdirection. Pointing to the Covenant. and it is true, Article 22 of the Covenant does not speak to title and rights. It makes no reference to Palestine at all. HOWEVER, the Treaty of Lausanne (TREATY OF PEACE WITH TURKEY SIGNED AT LAUSANNE) included Article 16 in which the Title and Rights were past to the Allied Powers (not the Arab Palestinians).

You will note that the Article 22 did give objectives to be accomplished that the Arab Palestinians need to participate; "tutelage" and "stand-alone" criteria. The Arab Palestinians rejected all opportunities to become involved in the process.

Most Respectfully,
R

No rights or titles were transferred to the allies. The rights and titles were surrendered by Turkey and transferred provisionally (pursuant to Article 22 para. 5) or held in trust by the League of Nations pursuant to Article 22 paras. 1 and 2, for the inhabitants.

The British blocked every attempt by the Christians and Muslims from participating in any tutelage. In fact, the British were unwilling to negotiate with the Christians and Muslims at all and would only negotiate with the Zionist Organization.

To wit:

"while your Delegation is recognised by Mr. Churchill as representing a large section of the Moslem and Christian inhabitants of Palestine, and while the Secretary of State is anxious to discuss his present proposals informally with recognised representatives, such as yourselves, of any important section of the community, he is not in a position to negotiate officially with you or with any other body which claims to represent the whole or, part of the people of Palestine..."

and flatly rejected any possibility of the establishment of any self-government by the Christians and Muslims.

"...it is quite clear that the creation at this stage of a national Government would preclude the fulfilment of the pledge made by the British Government to the Jewish people...."

So stop making things up, Rocco.

https://unispal.un.org/DPA/DPR/unispal.nsf/0/48A7E5584EE1403485256CD8006C3FBE

 

[Hollie]

The Treaty of Lausanne did not modify the Covenant of the League of Nations in any way, the future of the territories was settled and no title transferred to the Allies. The territories, as stated in the Covenant were held in trust by the allies on behalf of the inhabitants.

When you're befuddled about historical events, rattling on with absurdities makes you a buffoon.

The only buffoon is the one that can't accept a simple fact. The Jews were in Europe and invaded Palestine against the wishes of the native people of Palestine.

"Native people of Palestine." You mean the Jews invaded themselves???

The European Jews came from Europe. How could they invade themselves by invading Palestine?

How do ya like that? And here I actually believed the Jews were "native Palestinians" long before there were any Christian, let alone Muslim Palestinians. Amazing what we can learn from Monte.

How could people in Europe be Palestinians? Amazing what can be discerned about MJ's ability to process logic. LOL

How could squatters / invaders from Egypt, Syria and Lebanon be called 'Pal'istanians"?

 

[montelatici]

There were no squatters or invaders except for those from Europe. Stop making things up.

 

[Hollie]

There were no squatters or invaders except for those from Europe. Stop making things up.

Your European Invaders™ slogan is a hoot. It's hilarious to watch you stutter and mumble as you're tasked with addressing such nonsense.

So, you're now stuttering and mumbling over another comment you're hand to address: How could squatters / invaders from Egypt, Syria and Lebanon be called 'Pal'istanians"?

 

[montelatici]

Projecting doesn't make you appear any less moronic. The Egyptians are from Egypt, the Syrians are from Syria and the Lebanese are from Lebanon. The Palestinians are from Palestine and the Jews came from Europe invaded Palestine and are now squatting on Christian and Muslim land. Those are the facts.

 

[P F Tinmore]

ARTICLE I6.

Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.

You post this all the time. Neither the LoN nor the Mandate claimed any sovereignty. The LoN did say who would be the benefactors of their tutelage. They used terms like the people, the inhabitants, the natives, and the indigenous. There was no mention of foreigners.

So who were these people? The treaty of Lausanne spelled that out.

SECTION II .
NATIONALITY.
ARTICLE 30.

Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become ipsofacto, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.​

They were talking about the people who actually lived there being citizens of their respective states. No foreigners were mentioned. The Palestinians have the right to sovereignty on their land as affirmed by subsequent UN resolutions.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

The Arab Palestinians have what (exactly)???

...hy should people have to negotiate for their rights?

The Palestinians do not have to negotiate for their rights. Their rights are inherent and inviolable. As are Jewish rights.

The negotiations are to determine the boundaries within which they are permitted to exercise those rights.

The Palestinians already have boundaries along with the right to territorial integrity.

What is this negotiate boundaries thing?

(COMMENT)

The "right" to "territorial integrity" does not mean much if you don't have a territory in which to apply it.

The Allied Powers was granted the Title and Rights to a vast territory; one segment of which was the territory to which the Mandate for Palestine was applied.

What territory did the Title and Rights past to the Arab Palestinians.

If the Israelis and the Palestinians disagree to the point of open hostilities, that is called a dispute. Disputes are normally handled through some peaceful means.

Most Respectfully,
R

The disagreement is only on the Israeli side. Israel even started their war over their own disagreement. The only problem the Palestinians had was living in Palestine the territory the Zionists wanted for themselves.

So the arab muslims did not disagree with the legal aspects of the mandate system, or was it only the Jewish national home legally created under international law that they disagreed with because it took away dar al islam and introduced dar al harb. Is this the problem the 7C religion and its commands to the muslims to rule the world and never give up one grain of sand.


Now what disagreement is only on the Israeli side as they have constantly asked to live in peace, and the arab muslims have constantly attacked the Jews

 

[Phoenall]

If the Israelis and the Palestinians disagree to the point of open hostilities, that is called a dispute.

It is a one sided dispute.

If I say I own your car is that a dispute?

No it is two sided as they both disagree and start hostilities.

Yes as I hold title and you dont, in the US I believe I can shoot you if you try and take my car under those circumstances

The Palestinians want Palestine. Israel wants Palestine.

The so called dispute is one sided.

I agree. The Palestinians can shoot if someone tries to take Palestine.

The palestinians are the Jews who are the legal owners of the land so they can shoot the arab muslims who were Syrians before 1960

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

The Arab Palestinians have what (exactly)???

...hy should people have to negotiate for their rights?

The Palestinians do not have to negotiate for their rights. Their rights are inherent and inviolable. As are Jewish rights.

The negotiations are to determine the boundaries within which they are permitted to exercise those rights.

The Palestinians already have boundaries along with the right to territorial integrity.

What is this negotiate boundaries thing?

(COMMENT)

The "right" to "territorial integrity" does not mean much if you don't have a territory in which to apply it.

The Allied Powers was granted the Title and Rights to a vast territory; one segment of which was the territory to which the Mandate for Palestine was applied.

What territory did the Title and Rights past to the Arab Palestinians.

If the Israelis and the Palestinians disagree to the point of open hostilities, that is called a dispute. Disputes are normally handled through some peaceful means.

Most Respectfully,
R

No title or rights were granted to the Allied Powers. Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations clearly states that the the Mandatories were responsible for the well-being and development of the inhabitants of the colonies and territories, title did not transfer to the Allies. You continue to make things up Rocco, stop it.

"ARTICLE 22.

To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant."

Seeing as yiou have problems understanding English I have translated the piece into Italian for you



Per quelle colonie e territori che, come conseguenza della fine della guerra hanno cessato di essere sotto la sovranità degli Stati che in precedenza li governato e che sono abitate da popoli non ancora in grado di stare da soli in condizioni impegnative del mondo moderno, ci dovrebbe essere applicato il principio che il benessere e lo sviluppo di tali popoli formano una sacra fiducia di civiltà e che i titoli per le prestazioni di questa fiducia devono essere incluse in questo Patto. "



And also the article in full so that everyone can see how you twist words



To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant.

The best method of giving practical effect to this principle is that the tutelage of such peoples should be entrusted to advanced nations who by reason of their resources, their experience or their geographical position can best undertake this responsibility, and who are willing to accept it, and that this tutelage should be exercised by them as Mandatories on behalf of the League.

The character of the mandate must differ according to the stage of the development of the people, the geographical situation of the territory, its economic conditions and other similar circumstances.

Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory.

Other peoples, especially those of Central Africa, are at such a stage that the Mandatory must be responsible for the administration of the territory under conditions which will guarantee freedom of conscience and religion, subject only to the maintenance of public order and morals, the prohibition of abuses such as the slave trade, the arms traffic and the liquor traffic, and the prevention of the establishment of fortifications or military and naval bases and of military training of the natives for other than police purposes and the defence of territory, and will also secure equal opportunities for the trade and commerce of other Members of the League.

There are territories, such as South-West Africa and certain of the South Pacific Islands, which, owing to the sparseness of their population, or their small size, or their remoteness from the centres of civilisation, or their geographical contiguity to the territory of the Mandatory, and other circumstances, can be best administered under the laws of the Mandatory as integral portions of its territory, subject to the safeguards above mentioned in the interests of the indigenous population.

In every case of mandate, the Mandatory shall render to the Council an annual report in reference to the territory committed to its charge.

The degree of authority, control, or administration to be exercised by the Mandatory shall, if not previously agreed upon by the Members of the League, be explicitly defined in each case by the Council.

 

[Phoenall]

§ Settle their disputes by peaceful means --- such that --- peace and security are not endangered,

Such as?

Meetting at a neutral venue and negotiating a just resolution to the problems. Something the arab muslims are refusing to do

Those worthless pieces of meat (on both sides) have been blabbering on, and on, and on about peace for over 20 years and they keep getting farther away from peace. So far negotiations have been counterproductive.

Only because the arab muslims make demands of pre conditions to stall any talks as they are abject cowards and wont sign up to anything in case they are murdered.


THAT IS THE PROBLEM WE FACE THE THREATS FROM THE REST OF ISLAM

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Leaders are a molder of consensus. There are two adversarial parties involved in this conflict. The leader of one party speak unequivocally in the name of the people and Knesset. The leaders of the other country is a contested party chairman.

§ Settle their disputes by peaceful means --- such that --- peace and security are not endangered,

Such as?

(COMMENT)

"Jihad is a propagandistic device which, as need be, resorts to armed struggle – two ingredients common to many ideological movements,"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Professor Maxime Rodinson
​

I could be a smart ass and say visit "http://www.peace-talks.com/" but low and behold, there is actually a Web Site there for a "Family Mediation Service." But they only deal with people of some sanity. That would leave the Palestinians that have already decided to choose Jihad (etc) and armed struggle as the principle means of resolution.

Establish a willingness of the parties to sit down and in good faith open a dialogue intended to reach a beneficial outcome on peace.

(EXTERNAL OBSERVATION)

"Negotiation is a method by which people settle differences. It is a process by which compromise or agreement is reached while avoiding argument and dispute." I do not believe that the capacity rest with the Arab Palestinian Leadership to reach either a compromise of agreement. They want a solution that was lost to them over have a century ago.

The Arab Palestinians have not signaled any intention of seeking a negotiation. They want to reset the clock to a time before they chose Jihad and armed struggle as a solution, and they want territorial control concessions even before the process of negotiation begins.

Most Respectfully,
R

Do you mean endless talks over how to divide the pizza while one is stuffing his face with it as fast as he can?

BTW, why should people have to negotiate for their rights?

Because that is how they get them in the first place. Or do you think that "RIGHTS" just appear out of thin air and are magically applied to only a small part of society. Dont forget what ever rights you apply to the arab muslims are also being applied to the Jews, so why do you find it so hard to accept this simple truth. Also why do you try and deny the Jews these rights while demanding they be handed to the arab muslims on a gold plate.

The Jews have no problems in negotiating for their rights, why do you find it so hard ?

Rights are not given by anybody. They are something a people have without negotiations.

I know, this is all so confusing to you.

No it is confusing to you as you think rights are magic and just appear out of thin air. When did the right to vote happen for women in the UK. When did the right to protest peacefully become entrenched in international law, when did the right to free determination become a universal concept. All came about by negotiations, all came about because people talked sensibly and intelligently.

To get the rights you demand they cant just take from another people their rights, they have to negotiate a settlement as res 242 demands of all parties at the end of the 6 day war