Let us discuss this openly... What exactly IS the "two states solution"?

[P F Tinmore]

Why should the Palestinians divide their territory.

To end the conflict. To improve the lives of Israelis and Palestinians. So no more people die fighting each other. To have peace. To allow both peoples to grow and flourish and pursue higher goals.

Those seem to me to be exceedingly good reasons.

What about the Palestinians who owned homes, farms, orange groves, and shops in what is now Israel?

How about the Jews who owned homes, farms, orange groves, and shops in what is now Jordan?

How about the Jews who owned homes, farms, orange groves, and shops in what is now Gaza?

How about the Jews who owned homes, farms, orange groves, and shops in what is now the Arab part of Hebron?

Once the right of return is agreed, people can make those claims.

 

[Sixties Fan]

I can find no evidence that Israel has ever legally acquired any land.

Just a lot of smoke and say so.

Demonstrably untrue, but that was not the question Coyote was really asking you. The question is whether or not you can support a two state solution -- a dividing of the territory NOW, legally, by treaty. Yes or no?

The proof will be in Ottoman and British records.

Tel-Aviv was bought on land Jews purchased. A swamp not wanted by anyone else.
They bought land, Arabs bought land.
Jews bought land where the absentee owners wanted to sell the land.

Think-Israel

It is without doubt that the Jews, in their quest to purchase and acquire more land, did not take any land from Arabs unlawfully. Furthermore, Arab absentee landlords living elsewhere and real estate brokers sold their land to Jews at an inflated cost.

As of today, not a single person representing the pro-Palestinian view has been able to contradict this reality using any official documentation, land data or historical records.
---------------------

Private ownership of land does not remove that land from the country.

There was hardly any private ownership by the poor Arabs who were toiling the land.

You insist in forgetting that none of the Arabs in the North of Israel left the land, which had become Israel.
They were not foolish enough to believe the Arab leaders who told the ones in the south to leave and for those who could, fight and kill the Jews.

The Arabs lost the war. They do not get a do over, as they tried again and again in 1957, 1967 and 1973 and lost all the other three times as well.

By all means, choose to forget that Israel did not expel all the Muslims from the North of Israel, or anywhere else in what became Israel in 1948.

Nor did they expel any Muslims in 1957, or 1967 when Israel got the areas of Judea and Samaria. No Muslims were expelled from "East Jerusalem", which had been populated by Jews until 1948. It was known as the Jewish Quarter of the city of Jerusalem until 1948.
Now it is mostly populated by Arabs who will not give back homes belonging to Jews, as you seem to be demanding that Jews return lands, and homes never really owned by Arabs.

The Arabs with proof that the property was theirs are allowed to reclaim their property under Israeli law.

There is no such law under the PLO, the PA, Fatah, or Hamas to return Jewish properties.

 

[Shusha]

What about the Palestinians who owned homes, farms, orange groves, and shops in what is now Israel?

Also -- what about the Jews who owned homes, farms, orange groves and shops in their former places of residence? We can't unbreak that egg. We just can't.

But there are lots of possibilities for restitution. Compensation is probably the most practical. Palestinian descendants of refugees who are stateless and living in unacceptable conditions should be given the option to choose their national citizenship -- Syrian, Jordanian, Lebanese or Palestinian and be relocated there, with generous compensation. Descendants of refugees who have already resettled elsewhere, if they wish to return, should have to apply to which ever country they wish to immigrate to. I think there is room to consider permitting the actual refugees (not the descendants) to return to their places of origin should they wish, and even to their actual homes or orchards or shops, if that is possible.

We can't put things back the way they were. There is no way to do that. But we can ensure that all peoples affected by the conflict live safe, comfortable lives. And that has always been the goal of human rights.

 

[teddyearp]

Spoiler alert: If we just ignore Tinmore's posts in this thread, he will go away.

 

[Shusha]

Spoiler alert: If we just ignore Tinmore's posts in this thread, he will go away.

Ha. He's finally actually contributing to the conversation. The issue of refugees has to be considered as part of the two-state solution, don't you think? What are your thoughts on that?

 

[teddyearp]

Ha. He's finally actually contributing to the conversation. The issue of refugees has to be considered as part of the two-state solution, don't you think? What are your thoughts on that?

I think you put it as good and fair as can be in post #223.

 

[Sixties Fan]

Spoiler alert: If we just ignore Tinmore's posts in this thread, he will go away.

Ha. He's finally actually contributing to the conversation. The issue of refugees has to be considered as part of the two-state solution, don't you think? What are your thoughts on that?

The issue of the refugees is only been perpetuated by the Arabs in order to destroy Israel.

Never in history, including Jews or any Muslims or Arabs, have a people been kept as refugees beyond the generation which was indeed forced to flee any war, etc.

Check the definition for the word refugees.

Then look at the UNWRA created definition of refugees reserved for only those who were expelled during the war originated by the Arabs leaders in order to destroy Israel.

Only one definition is valid.

Jews were forced to become refugees from Europe with WWII and from all Arab/Muslim countries from 1948 on.

There isn't one Jewish person who continues to call themselves refugees, or makes any demands to return to their original homes, even those who are still living.

The refugees from Syria, and other places are looking for a new place to live, to move on.

That is what being a refugee means.

It means that one does not get to return to where one came from, for the most part, especially while a war continues in the area.

Many Palestinians were allowed to return to Israel, due to family.
Israel allowed that.

No Jews have been allowed back into Jordan, Gaza and many areas of Judea and Samaria where they lived, had homes, etc, as they were taken over by the Arabs from 1948 to 1967.

There are refugees from the Arab side?

There are definitely Jewish refugees, forced at gun point, from Judea, Samaria, Jordan and even Gaza.

In other words, the number of Jews expelled from Arab countries is even greater than the number of Arabs told by their leaders or expelled due to violence towards Israel.

One solution is to just call the refugee issue even.

But the Arab Leaders will never accept that. As they will never accept Israel.

 

[Shusha]

Yep. We agree. Israel took care of the Jewish refugees. Arabs can take care of the Arab ones. Sounds fair to me.

 

[Humanity]

Well, I see that this thread has devolved into the direction of every other single thread here. the old grudges, wrongs, and history; when the intent was to look at what is NOW and how to go forward into a peaceful future.

I want to thank Lipush for starting this thread, Shusha, ForeverYoung, Coyote, and Humanity (hope I got them all) for their positive contributions.

The rest, well, thanks for ruining an otherwise good thread.

I'd like to know if either Coyote or Humanity, being Palestinian supporters, agree with the proposals on the thread.

Shusha We are approaching 24 pages of comments on this thread...

There are some posts that have been made that I feel, mostly, cover what I also believe... Sometimes it's difficult to wade through the 'crap' that get's in the way of 'real' comments!

I hope that I have made my 'beliefs' clear enough... And maybe, we are not SO different in wanting a sensible solution, there are exceptions from both sides who choose to either not give their 'path to peace' or simply abuse someone who comes along with a 'different' solution...

Rather than trawling through the 'spam' posts I think it would be incredibly useful for an admin, for example, Error | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum pull out some of the alternative 'ideas' and making a 'pinned'(?) post with those ideas so that those who want to continue in a positive way can?

 

[ForeverYoung436]

Solution:

Although as a Jew it breaks my heart to give away any part of our Promised Land, as a realist I see we have no choice. So the land has to be divided, unfortunately, according to the 1967 lines, with some land swaps. Israel should get Ma'alei Adumim (where there's a large Anglo population, including relatives and friends of mine), and the Gush bloc. Galilee (with its large Arab population), and parts of the Negev can go to Palestine in exchange. Special visiting arrangements for Jews to go to Abraham's, Rachel's, and Joseph's Tombs in Palestine. Palestine can be fully independent economically and diplomatically, but it cannot have an army. The Arab parts of East Jerusalem can be their capital if that's their preference, but that does not include the Old City, which remains under Israeli control. (Hopefully they will make Ramallah their capital.) The current status quo remains on the Temple Mount. No dual citizenship, which means that the current Jewish settlers become Palestinian citizens. Gaza will not be part of the West Bank Palestine. It will do whatever it wants to do. The End.

Finally, another serious reply. And from a pro-Israeli poster, imagine that?

Me, for my part, I would hate to see the whole of the Galilee (and by inference the Golan) to go to the newly independent Palestine, maybe only since there has been a constant Jewish presence in Tiberius and Tzfat. Splitting Jerusalem into East and West sounds workable, as long as Israel can move all embassies and actually claim their portion of Jerusalem finally as their capital. Status quo on the Temple mount, well it would be nice if there was a little more openness there, however I do see that it has been quite the hot spot over the years. As a non-Jew and non-Muslim I sure would like to be able to pray there though.

However, if this two state solution were to actually work, this new state of Palestine should be allowed to have their own army, why not? If they were to use their army to attack Israel, we know historically how that would work out for them.

Last thought is that Israel would still want to have some presence in the Jordan valley for any real or imagined attack that would or could come from Iran or other countries in that direction.

The Golan is an issue between Israel and Syria, and does not involve the Palestinians.

Certainly, Tiberias and Sefad are important cities in Israel. I don't think the Arab-majority Galilee equals all of Northern Israel.

I think the Palestinians have already agreed that their country should be demilitarized.

 

[Humanity]

Spoiler alert: If we just ignore Tinmore's posts in this thread, he will go away.

Ha. He's finally actually contributing to the conversation. The issue of refugees has to be considered as part of the two-state solution, don't you think? What are your thoughts on that?

"refugee" is an emotive word with the current state of world politics...

How about we talk about 'land exchange' rather than focus on people... Provided that there is 'freedom of movement' in the interim...

There will, likely, be displaced people under any two state solution, but its, in my mind, is more important to agree 'land exchange' and then give those living in those lands that are exchanged the rights to choose where they live.

 

[Slyhunter]

Why should the Palestinians divide their territory.

To end the conflict. To improve the lives of Israelis and Palestinians. So no more people die fighting each other. To have peace. To allow both peoples to grow and flourish and pursue higher goals.

Those seem to me to be exceedingly good reasons.

What about the Palestinians who owned homes, farms, orange groves, and shops in what is now Israel?

They sold them. Why let them keep what they sold?

 

[Shusha]

Spoiler alert: If we just ignore Tinmore's posts in this thread, he will go away.

Ha. He's finally actually contributing to the conversation. The issue of refugees has to be considered as part of the two-state solution, don't you think? What are your thoughts on that?

"refugee" is an emotive word with the current state of world politics...

How about we talk about 'land exchange' rather than focus on people... Provided that there is 'freedom of movement' in the interim...

There will, likely, be displaced people under any two state solution, but its, in my mind, is more important to agree 'land exchange' and then give those living in those lands that are exchanged the rights to choose where they live.

Good call. We agree. Perhaps instead of "refugees" we should be discussing "stateless peoples" -- that is people residing in Syria and Jordan, primarily, who have no citizenship in that country. That must be resolved.

We can agree that people of Arab Palestinian ethnicity who live in the US, Chile, Gaza and Palestine are not refugees.

 

[montelatici]

I can find no evidence that Israel has ever legally acquired any land.

Just a lot of smoke and say so.

Demonstrably untrue, but that was not the question Coyote was really asking you. The question is whether or not you can support a two state solution -- a dividing of the territory NOW, legally, by treaty. Yes or no?

The proof will be in Ottoman and British records.

Tel-Aviv was bought on land Jews purchased. A swamp not wanted by anyone else.
They bought land, Arabs bought land.
Jews bought land where the absentee owners wanted to sell the land.

Think-Israel

It is without doubt that the Jews, in their quest to purchase and acquire more land, did not take any land from Arabs unlawfully. Furthermore, Arab absentee landlords living elsewhere and real estate brokers sold their land to Jews at an inflated cost.

As of today, not a single person representing the pro-Palestinian view has been able to contradict this reality using any official documentation, land data or historical records.
---------------------

Private ownership of land does not remove that land from the country.

There was hardly any private ownership by the poor Arabs who were toiling the land.

You insist in forgetting that none of the Arabs in the North of Israel left the land, which had become Israel.
They were not foolish enough to believe the Arab leaders who told the ones in the south to leave and for those who could, fight and kill the Jews.

The Arabs lost the war. They do not get a do over, as they tried again and again in 1957, 1967 and 1973 and lost all the other three times as well.

By all means, choose to forget that Israel did not expel all the Muslims from the North of Israel, or anywhere else in what became Israel in 1948.

Nor did they expel any Muslims in 1957, or 1967 when Israel got the areas of Judea and Samaria. No Muslims were expelled from "East Jerusalem", which had been populated by Jews until 1948. It was known as the Jewish Quarter of the city of Jerusalem until 1948.
Now it is mostly populated by Arabs who will not give back homes belonging to Jews, as you seem to be demanding that Jews return lands, and homes never really owned by Arabs.

The Arabs with proof that the property was theirs are allowed to reclaim their property under Israeli law.

There is no such law under the PLO, the PA, Fatah, or Hamas to return Jewish properties.

No that's what I call a master class in revisionist history, AKA propaganda. Muslims and Christians owned more than 85% of the land in 1946. How this land came into the hands of European colonial settlers legally must have been an amazing magic trick.

To claim that no non-Jews were expelled from Palestine by the colonial settlers is an absurd assertion. The other propaganda ploy is to claim that the Palestinians were exclusively Muslims. Because of their wealth, the Christians owned much more land proportionally than the Muslims, and lost more land proportionally than the Muslim Palestinians. Muslims and Christian Palestinians with deeds and keys to their homes were never allowed to reclaim their homes or land.

 

[Humanity]

Spoiler alert: If we just ignore Tinmore's posts in this thread, he will go away.

Ha. He's finally actually contributing to the conversation. The issue of refugees has to be considered as part of the two-state solution, don't you think? What are your thoughts on that?

"refugee" is an emotive word with the current state of world politics...

How about we talk about 'land exchange' rather than focus on people... Provided that there is 'freedom of movement' in the interim...

There will, likely, be displaced people under any two state solution, but its, in my mind, is more important to agree 'land exchange' and then give those living in those lands that are exchanged the rights to choose where they live.

Good call. We agree. Perhaps instead of "refugees" we should be discussing "stateless peoples" -- that is people residing in Syria and Jordan, primarily, who have no citizenship in that country. That must be resolved.

We can agree that people of Arab Palestinian ethnicity who live in the US, Chile, Gaza and Palestine are not refugees.

Oh, cheap shot....??

"stateless peoples" - So that includes everyone who is NOT Israeli?

Can you clarify your Syria, Jordan comment? Are you talking about JUST Palestinians in those countries?

Your last point is unclear.... There are a great many Arab Palestinian ethnicity living in the countries mentioned. If they are legal immigrants then of course they are not refugees... Please don't ask for links or figures, I don't have any! The point you are trying to make is unclear... Sorry

 

[Shusha]

Oh, cheap shot....??

"stateless peoples" - So that includes everyone who is NOT Israeli?

Can you clarify your Syria, Jordan comment? Are you talking about JUST Palestinians in those countries?

Your last point is unclear.... There are a great many Arab Palestinian ethnicity living in the countries mentioned. If they are legal immigrants then of course they are not refugees... Please don't ask for links or figures, I don't have any! The point you are trying to make is unclear... Sorry

No, no, no. You have entirely misunderstood. Let me clarify.

In a two more state solution ALL residents of Israel, Gaza and Palestine will gain citizenship in the country in which they reside. So no stateless people there.

All people who are already citizens of another country remain citizens of that other country. So no stateless people there.

It is my understanding that there are people of Arab Palestinian descent living in Syria and Jordan who do not have citizenship in those countries and are treated in an appalling and unequal manner. They have no citizenship of any country and are therefore "stateless". These are the people that need to be included in a resolution to the conflict.

THEY should be given their choice of citizenship -- Syrian, Jordanian, Palestinian or Lebanese so as to no longer be stateless.


Make sense?

 

[member]

I'm ready to open this up with the Pro-Palestinians on this board who are willing to have a logal discussion, and those who are not haters who want Israel in the sea.

Let us talk this rationally. What exactly IS the two states solution? One for Israel and one for the Palestinians? What will be the borders of such states?

Can you openly tell me what is the benefit of the so called 67 lines? what good there is in them? and why they are better than a 1 state solution?

Please elaborate. Let us discuss this rationally. No name calling and cusses.

If your looking for a rational discussion it helps to not label your opponents as "haters who want Israel in the sea" I'm assuming you mean haters not as in religious bigots but as "player haters" as in they're just jealous of they're gold rings and pimped out Cadillacs. I know Trump uses that one alot but I dont think you people know what it means, the push them into the sea comment I'm guessing was a random out of context quote from Ahmadinejad from 2004 I think.


here is the older of map of israel

as you can see most of palestine is occupied by Israel, the 1967 agreement, is where most Palestinian groups say Israel should move back to. But since jews were safer in muslim palestine then they were in christian europe most people say this entire occupation was unnecessary and illegal to begin with, and has more to do with white vs arabs then it has anything to do with Jewish people.

Many jews are anti israel, and claim the state goes not only against scripture but causes further persecution of jews, and creates more problems than it solves

so before you label everyone who is against israel as "haters who want Israel in the sea." you should try learning a little bit more than what fox news force feeds you. Then you might know what the "so called 67 lines" are all about

"Let us discuss this openly... What exactly IS the "two states solution"?"



"...you should try learning a little bit more than what fox news force feeds you..."

​

oh stop….


Fox News…









I dunno, that joke of a (1/2) a government: Hamass, get rid of these pathetic terrorists already. Negotiate a 1 or 2 state solution with TERRORISTS.... ?

 

[P F Tinmore]

Spoiler alert: If we just ignore Tinmore's posts in this thread, he will go away.

Ha. He's finally actually contributing to the conversation. The issue of refugees has to be considered as part of the two-state solution, don't you think? What are your thoughts on that?

"refugee" is an emotive word with the current state of world politics...

How about we talk about 'land exchange' rather than focus on people... Provided that there is 'freedom of movement' in the interim...

There will, likely, be displaced people under any two state solution, but its, in my mind, is more important to agree 'land exchange' and then give those living in those lands that are exchanged the rights to choose where they live.

Good call. We agree. Perhaps instead of "refugees" we should be discussing "stateless peoples" -- that is people residing in Syria and Jordan, primarily, who have no citizenship in that country. That must be resolved.

We can agree that people of Arab Palestinian ethnicity who live in the US, Chile, Gaza and Palestine are not refugees.

Oh, cheap shot....??

"stateless peoples" - So that includes everyone who is NOT Israeli?

Can you clarify your Syria, Jordan comment? Are you talking about JUST Palestinians in those countries?

Your last point is unclear.... There are a great many Arab Palestinian ethnicity living in the countries mentioned. If they are legal immigrants then of course they are not refugees... Please don't ask for links or figures, I don't have any! The point you are trying to make is unclear... Sorry

This is the most comprehensive talk that I have seen on refugees. I would be interested in seeing other views on this issue. The bottom line is that Israel has the legal obligation and the acceptance of refugees by other states is discretionary.

 

[Shusha]

This is the most comprehensive talk that I have seen on refugees. I would be interested in seeing other views on this issue. The bottom line is that Israel has the legal obligation and the acceptance of refugees by other states is discretionary.

I would argue that all three States (Israel, Palestine and Gaza) would have a legal obligation -- not just Israel. And since Israel has already taken full responsibility for nearly a million people who were displaced in the conflict, her obligation is largely fulfilled.

 

[Shusha]

I would also argue since stateless persons are permitted to adopt the state of their birth -- both Syria and Jordan have a legal obligation and it is not discretionary, but an entrenched principle of international law.