Newly Elected Muslim Congresswomen Favor Eliminating Israel

[rightwinger]

New Muslim congresswomen favor eliminating Israel

I am so happy they stated that is the long term Goal. For that reason alone Israel will never give up any more territory or allow " Right of Return"

Where is the quote where they say they favor eliminating Israel?

The Congress woman removing Israel from her “ map” and renaming the Entire area “ Palestine “ isn’t favoring their destruction?

Show me what she has said

 

[USAF 2023]

New Muslim congresswomen favor eliminating Israel

I am so happy they stated that is the long term Goal. For that reason alone Israel will never give up any more territory or allow " Right of Return"

Where is the quote where they say they favor eliminating Israel?

The Congress woman removing Israel from her “ map” and renaming the Entire area “ Palestine “ isn’t favoring their destruction?

Show me what she has said

Ever hear “ Actions speak louder than words?” Tell us please what her elimination of Israel from the map be interpreted

 

[Coyote]

Quote from the OP article: "It has to be a one state solution. Separate but equal doesn't work".

Doesn't it? Former Yugoslavia? Former Czechoslovakia? Former USSR? There are dozens and dozens of examples of countries forming an Independent self-determination since WWI. In point of fact, "separate but equal" has been the go-to solution for ethnic and cultural and national self-determination for a century. And as a solution to ethnic and cultural conflict. For a century. Why is that when the Jewish people want to do it, it suddenly "doesn't work"?

How well did those former “seperate but equal” entities work in reality?

Seperate but equal in USA WAS ANYTHING BUT. Same with USSR.

Obviously, you missed my point. Why does it "have to be a one state solution"? She is claiming that individual self-determination "doesn't work" but there are dozens of peaceful countries which demonstrate it does work.

It doesn’t HAVE to be a one state solution, but she makes a valid point. The examples you give are mostly countries where a brutal authoritarian government controlled the populace. In the USSR, millions of ethnic minorities were moved out of their homelands to places like Siberia and replaced with ethnic Russians.

It is not suddenly “bad” when the Jewish people want to do it, so so stop playing that card. It wears thin. It is bad in light of today’s ethics and in light of the very real problems it caused. Seperate but equal has seldom meant true equality for all effected. You do not like references to Apartheid but that seems awfully close to what you are advocating.

Name one example of a Democratic or even semi democratic state where seperate but equal has worked for the benefit of all?

How would it work for the Palestinians where they already face inequality in land rights and funding for development and where a rightwing government shows little interest in equality?

 

[Coyote]

It has everything to do with denial of rights to a tiny ethnic minority.
Jew hatred is an irrational psychosis which cannot be controlled, only fought against and exposed.

Jew hatred is your bullshit way of avoiding reality.

It becomes an excuse.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

New Muslim congresswomen favor eliminating Israel

I am so happy they stated that is the long term Goal. For that reason alone Israel will never give up any more territory or allow " Right of Return"

Where is the quote where they say they favor eliminating Israel?

The Congress woman removing Israel from her “ map” and renaming the Entire area “ Palestine “ isn’t favoring their destruction?

Again, cite where she advocates for ‘eliminating’ Israel – not your inane, subjective inference.

 

[saltydancin]

Quote from the OP article: "It has to be a one state solution. Separate but equal doesn't work".

Doesn't it? Former Yugoslavia? Former Czechoslovakia? Former USSR? There are dozens and dozens of examples of countries forming an Independent self-determination since WWI. In point of fact, "separate but equal" has been the go-to solution for ethnic and cultural and national self-determination for a century. And as a solution to ethnic and cultural conflict. For a century. Why is that when the Jewish people want to do it, it suddenly "doesn't work"?

How well did those former “seperate but equal” entities work in reality?

Seperate but equal in USA WAS ANYTHING BUT. Same with USSR.

https://www.memri.org/tv/palestinian-cleric-saed-tubasi-no-normalization-israel-jews-want-arabia-turkey-muslims-must-hate-them/transcript

Who'd of guessed there was so much admiration from the cross conditioned way beyond therapy propaganda for an Islamidiotocracy Christiananality pedophilia business of pedophile mentalities Federal Lynching KKK churchstate lynching enforcement in assaulting one of Ike's WW II Pentagon staff sergeants, born in Washington, D.C.; with their national religion tradition of baptism by urinations for that "serve the Pope or die" diatribe tautology of being one of those "death to the infidels" whom wasn't even aware of nor in attendance for Arab terrorists that threatened POTUS & to nuke Temple Mount just as West Nazi Germany Virginia KKK churchstate cops drugs in synagogues immaculate conceptions lynching enforcement to maintain "almost heaven" "man is God" super egos. Might as well be Palesh-tinians cleric business in the United States .​

 

[rylah]

Quote from the OP article: "It has to be a one state solution. Separate but equal doesn't work".

Doesn't it? Former Yugoslavia? Former Czechoslovakia? Former USSR? There are dozens and dozens of examples of countries forming an Independent self-determination since WWI. In point of fact, "separate but equal" has been the go-to solution for ethnic and cultural and national self-determination for a century. And as a solution to ethnic and cultural conflict. For a century. Why is that when the Jewish people want to do it, it suddenly "doesn't work"?

How well did those former “seperate but equal” entities work in reality?

Seperate but equal in USA WAS ANYTHING BUT. Same with USSR.

Obviously, you missed my point. Why does it "have to be a one state solution"? She is claiming that individual self-determination "doesn't work" but there are dozens of peaceful countries which demonstrate it does work.

It doesn’t HAVE to be a one state solution, but she makes a valid point. The examples you give are mostly countries where a brutal authoritarian government controlled the populace. In the USSR, millions of ethnic minorities were moved out of their homelands to places like Siberia and replaced with ethnic Russians.

It is not suddenly “bad” when the Jewish people want to do it, so so stop playing that card. It wears thin. It is bad in light of today’s ethics and in light of the very real problems it caused. Seperate but equal has seldom meant true equality for all effected. You do not like references to Apartheid but that seems awfully close to what you are advocating.

Name one example of a Democratic or even semi democratic state where seperate but equal has worked for the benefit of all?

How would it work for the Palestinians where they already face inequality in land rights and funding for development and where a rightwing government shows little interest in equality?

Excuse me for answering a post that was not addressed to me, but Your turning simple truth on it's head regarding anything Israel has reached ridiculous proportions.

Tlaib supports total domination of the entire middle east by Arab Muslim rule, through elimination of the only non-Muslim country. While Israel is protecting the independence of a minority in land that's so small that it's not enough to write its name on it on the globe. Actually that same minority that was totally cleansed from all of the Arab countries by a coordinated act of ethnic cleansing in a Muslim dominated middle east.

And You compare tiny liberal capitalist Israel to the USSR??!
I think You are underestimating the intelligence level of most of the posters here.

 

[Sixties Fan]

New Muslim congresswomen favor eliminating Israel

I am so happy they stated that is the long term Goal. For that reason alone Israel will never give up any more territory or allow " Right of Return"

Where is the quote where they say they favor eliminating Israel?

The Congress woman removing Israel from her “ map” and renaming the Entire area “ Palestine “ isn’t favoring their destruction?

Again, cite where she advocates for ‘eliminating’ Israel – not your inane, subjective inference.

When Muslims speak of a One State Solution, it means Muslims taking over Israel and eliminating it as a Jewish State with a majority Muslim.

Why does it have to be "One State". And what "separate but equal" is she referring to when there are no Jews in Gaza or Areas A and B?
No Jews in Jordan. No Jews in Saudi Arabia?

“One state,” she said in response to a question about whether she supports a one- or two-state solution. “It has to be one state. Separate but equal does not work. I’m only 42 years old but my teachers were of that generation that marched with Martin Luther King. This whole idea of a two-state solution, it doesn’t work.”

----------
Martin Luther was pro Israel.
Repeating that" a Two-state solution does not work" actually means that the Arab Palestinians and many other Muslims are going to continue to refuse to create a Palestine State as long as Israel exists.
They have rejected the Partitions of 1937 and 1947, declared war many times and continue not to want to even come and sit for negotiations since Arafat rejected the best deal they could have gotten, ever.

That is the way it has been since 1920 and will continue until the Palestinian and Muslim education continues to "educate" against the existence of Israel, in any shape or form.

What happens in the US is different from what happens in Israel, and
she and others cannot bring the US as an example.

Extreme Arabs are trying to destroy Israel as a country from within and outside.

The issues in the US are not about a minority wanting to create its own country out of parts of the US with violence, rockets, endless riots, rock throwing at American cars, etc.

When Palestinians like Sansour and Tlaib receive the anti Israel education they have, be it in Israel, Gaza, the PA or the USA, their message is going to be the very same as their Muslim leader in 1920:

No sovereign State for the Jews. Not now, not ever

This is the education he has left for the future generations which Abbas, the Saudis and all others are all too happy to teach their people.

"Palestine" replaces Israel | PMW


And who was their Muslim leader in 1920 who began the riots against the Jewish re-creation of their Nation on their ancient homeland?

How the Mufti of Jerusalem Created the Permanent Problem of Palestinian Violence - The Tower

What Hitler and the Grand Mufti Really Said

----------------

So, in reality:

One State Solution, in the eyes of Islam and the 1920 Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, and of Arafat, and of Abbas, and the PLO and of the next "leader" of the Palestinians, and of Hamas, so on and so forth..........


What do you think "One State Solution" in Palestine means?

 

[Coyote]

Seperate equal in practice rather than theory.


Separate but equal - Wikipedia

In practice the separate facilities provided to African Americans were rarely equal; usually they were not even close to equal, or they did not exist at all. For example, according to the 1934–36 report of the Florida Superintendent of Public Instruction, the value of "white school property" in the state was $70,543,000, while the value of African-American school property was $4,900,000. The report says that "in a few south Florida counties and in most north Florida counties many Negro schools are housed in churches, shacks, and lodges, and have no toilets, water supply, desks, blackboards, etc. [See Station One School.] Counties use these schools as a means to get State funds and yet these counties invest little or nothing in them." High school education for African Americans was provided in only 28 of Florida's 67 counties.[2]​

People can and do self segregate, but that is in voluntary communities, not mandated by the government and social and economic mobility within the context of the entire country is still possible. I do not think that is the type of “seperate but equal” being suggested however.

In the case of the Palestinians, how would seperate but equal be reflected in the allocation of resources, development, quality of land and natural resources, land rights? How would it be reflected in the governance of the nation as a whole. Would it and could it it truly be equal in a nation that has defined itself as a Jewish homeland and where an increasingly powerful religious block is making the rules? And before you go there, no I am not criticizing only the Jews for the influence of religion in government. I totally believe in the seperation of Church and state in all religions. There are no examples I can think of where it well for all citizens.

 

[rylah]

New Muslim congresswomen favor eliminating Israel

I am so happy they stated that is the long term Goal. For that reason alone Israel will never give up any more territory or allow " Right of Return"

Where is the quote where they say they favor eliminating Israel?

The Congress woman removing Israel from her “ map” and renaming the Entire area “ Palestine “ isn’t favoring their destruction?

Again, cite where she advocates for ‘eliminating’ Israel – not your inane, subjective inference.

Anyone who supports BDS knows their leaders openly declared the elimination of the Jewish state as the main goal. Support for Hezballah/Hamas means just that only on a wider grand vision of elimination of the Jewish people as a whole.

All of these groups and causes are supported on Tlaib's team.

 

[rylah]

Seperate equal in practice rather than theory.


Separate but equal - Wikipedia

In practice the separate facilities provided to African Americans were rarely equal; usually they were not even close to equal, or they did not exist at all. For example, according to the 1934–36 report of the Florida Superintendent of Public Instruction, the value of "white school property" in the state was $70,543,000, while the value of African-American school property was $4,900,000. The report says that "in a few south Florida counties and in most north Florida counties many Negro schools are housed in churches, shacks, and lodges, and have no toilets, water supply, desks, blackboards, etc. [See Station One School.] Counties use these schools as a means to get State funds and yet these counties invest little or nothing in them." High school education for African Americans was provided in only 28 of Florida's 67 counties.[2]​

People can and do self segregate, but that is in voluntary communities, not mandated by the government and social and economic mobility within the context of the entire country is still possible. I do not think that is the type of “seperate but equal” being suggested however.

In the case of the Palestinians, how would seperate but equal be reflected in the allocation of resources, development, quality of land and natural resources, land rights? How would it be reflected in the governance of the nation as a whole. Would it and could it it truly be equal in a nation that has defined itself as a Jewish homeland and where an increasingly powerful religious block is making the rules? And before you go there, no I am not criticizing only the Jews for the influence of religion in government. I totally believe in the seperation of Church and state in all religions. There are no examples I can think of where it well for all citizens.

In other words Tlaib wants 2 Arabs states and 1 state "for all nations" which they could flood with millions of hostile people. Yeah still trying to sprinkle over the fact that You both are suggesting the elimination of the only Jewish state under false pretense .

The exploitation of the African American civil rights movement to smear Israel is a racist attack on Jews in itself, it has connotations of skin color differentiation of Jews, and to add insult to injury You use it to further excuse the genocidal position of Tlaib and her team.

 

[Coyote]

New Muslim congresswomen favor eliminating Israel

I am so happy they stated that is the long term Goal. For that reason alone Israel will never give up any more territory or allow " Right of Return"

Where is the quote where they say they favor eliminating Israel?

The Congress woman removing Israel from her “ map” and renaming the Entire area “ Palestine “ isn’t favoring their destruction?

Again, cite where she advocates for ‘eliminating’ Israel – not your inane, subjective inference.

When Muslims speak of a One State Solution, it means Muslims taking over Israel and eliminating it as a Jewish State with a majority Muslim.

Why does it have to be "One State". And what "separate but equal" is she referring to when there are no Jews in Gaza or Areas A and B?
No Jews in Jordan. No Jews in Saudi Arabia?

“One state,” she said in response to a question about whether she supports a one- or two-state solution. “It has to be one state. Separate but equal does not work. I’m only 42 years old but my teachers were of that generation that marched with Martin Luther King. This whole idea of a two-state solution, it doesn’t work.”

----------
Martin Luther was pro Israel.
Repeating that" a Two-state solution does not work" actually means that the Arab Palestinians and many other Muslims are going to continue to refuse to create a Palestine State as long as Israel exists.
They have rejected the Partitions of 1937 and 1947, declared war many times and continue not to want to even come and sit for negotiations since Arafat rejected the best deal they could have gotten, ever.

That is the way it has been since 1920 and will continue until the Palestinian and Muslim education continues to "educate" against the existence of Israel, in any shape or form.

What happens in the US is different from what happens in Israel, and
she and others cannot bring the US as an example.

Extreme Arabs are trying to destroy Israel as a country from within and outside.

The issues in the US are not about a minority wanting to create its own country out of parts of the US with violence, rockets, endless riots, rock throwing at American cars, etc.

When Palestinians like Sansour and Tlaib receive the anti Israel education they have, be it in Israel, Gaza, the PA or the USA, their message is going to be the very same as their Muslim leader in 1920:

No sovereign State for the Jews. Not now, not ever

This is the education he has left for the future generations which Abbas, the Saudis and all others are all too happy to teach their people.

"Palestine" replaces Israel | PMW


And who was their Muslim leader in 1920 who began the riots against the Jewish re-creation of their Nation on their ancient homeland?

How the Mufti of Jerusalem Created the Permanent Problem of Palestinian Violence - The Tower

What Hitler and the Grand Mufti Really Said

----------------

So, in reality:

One State Solution, in the eyes of Islam and the 1920 Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, and of Arafat, and of Abbas, and the PLO and of the next "leader" of the Palestinians, and of Hamas, so on and so forth..........


What do you think "One State Solution" in Palestine means?

Hard to say, because I really have not given serious consideration to one state, I have always been a proponent of multiple state or caliphate type ideas.

But now I wonder. There is as much Islamophobic as there is anti Semitic rhetoric swirling through out these arguments. 1920 is almost a century ago yet old history keeps being brought up to maintain the idea that only complete and largely unequal (based on results currently) seperation is possible. Maybe that isn’t so. What if we actually considered that?

This article is a good read, but too long to post all the interesting parts, I will post the concluding portion of it. Maybe it is time to start thinking in terms of one state.

An Israeli-Palestinian Confederation Can Work

Federation is a plan for integration. The United States and Germany are federations: unitary states with a central government, the only body that enters into foreign relations. An Israeli-Palestinian federation could have two national regions — like the bizonal/bicommunal federation concept in Cyprus — but the two peoples would sit in one legislature and share power in an executive. That’s hard to imagine for two nations that have been in a bitter struggle for 70 years. Indeed, the only government shared by Greek and Turkish Cypriots lasted just three years before it collapsed in 1963. Negotiations in Cyprus that began in 1968 have failed for 50 years. The inability to agree on a new formula for sharing power in a single government has stymied any resolution.

The idea of “parallel states” — proposed in Mathias Mossberg and Mark LeVine’s 2014 book, One Land, Two States — allows for complete geographic integration. Anyone could live anywhere, but an Israeli and a Palestinian living one floor apart in the same building would be subject to separate laws; “stacked states” seems more appropriate than “parallel,” implying two lines that never touch. This approach raises considerable legal, ethical, and practical problems, but beyond those, neither side truly wishes to blend people and cultures in a common physical space.

An Israeli-Palestinian confederation, by contrast, would start with the building blocks of two separate and territorially defined independent states. Promoted largely by the civil society group A Land for All, among others, the idea is that there would be two governments, two heads of state, and a border on or near the pre-1967 division, known as the Green Line. Each state would be sovereign and free to define its national character. But a confederation would diverge from the traditional two-state model by creating an agreement to share certain aspects of their sovereignty. The border would be porous, designed to facilitate rather than limit crossings. Freedom of movement — to tour, work, or study — would be the default.

Today, the reverse is the norm. All people are restricted from crossing boundaries; everyone theoretically needs a permit to go somewhere. In practice, Palestinians are severely constrained in their daily life. West Bank residents need a permit to travel anywhere inside Israel, including the settlements and Jerusalem, or between Gaza and the West Bank; an airport permit is almost unobtainable. The permit allowances are byzantine by design and are commonly denied, and checkpoints and the security wall make short distances into lengthy, tortuous trips for all Palestinians. Gazans are almost entirely trapped inside Gaza. Porous borders would release Palestinians from this suffocating constraint on their physical movement.

Israeli Jews face few movement restrictions today. Theoretically, they need a permit to visit the small, Palestinian-run Area A, where most Jews have little desire to be. In fact, there is no real barrier other than a warning sign — and they can glide through settler-designated checkpoints on the return. But full freedom of movement offers Israeli Jews, especially religious ones, something they may not have in a traditional two-state plan: access to the many holy sites inside the West Bank, such as the Tomb of the Patriarchs in Hebron, Rachel’s Tomb near Bethlehem, and Joseph’s Tomb in Nablus — the last is almost inaccessible to Jews today. In a traditional two-state solution, these sites would be well inside Palestine, and the latter could close its border; this is one of numerous reasons Israelis, especially if they are religious, have little interest in reaching such a solution. The confederation model is predicated on open access.

Instead of carving up Jerusalem, the city would remain united under shared sovereignty as the capital of two states. Holy places would be governed by a special regime, possibly with international support, just like in earlier two-state plans. But the delicate urban fabric of Jerusalem would remain intact, with an added Palestinian capital in the east. The border between the two states could run widely around the city, rather than through it. An umbrella municipality of Israelis and Palestinians could run east and west boroughs.

Free movement and a united Jerusalem would require advanced security measures. Such measures could be grounded in the principle of strong security cooperation, based on the system set up by the Oslo Accords still in place today. At present, Israeli security figures commonly cite the ongoing cooperation with Palestinian Authority forces as the main reason there has not been more violence over the last decade. Living under occupation, Palestinians today deeply resent what they consider collaboration, or the “outsourcing” of Israel’s rule to their own security forces. But if Palestine were free under its own civilian government, coordinated security would protect the arrangement itself, serving people rather than controlling them.

The centerpiece of the confederation approach is allowing citizens of one side to live as permanent residents on the other while voting in national elections only in their country of citizenship. Israeli settlers who absolutely must live on holy ground could stay so long as they are law-abiding residents under Palestinian sovereignty; they could participate in local elections but would only vote for national representation in Israel. This will alienate settlers who insist on Jewish sovereignty — but it extends a hand to more moderate settlers who have long resented the left-wing expectation that they must all automatically uproot their homes.

The same provision is a creative concession to Palestinians, since it allows some refugees from 1948 back into Israel under the same terms: permanent residency, provided they are law-abiding and perhaps after Israeli security vetting. The numbers could be determined through mutual agreement. Those residents would vote in national elections only in Palestine and, like settlers, could vote in local Israeli elections. This concept responds to one of the most intractable problems in the conflict: Palestinians insist on recognition of their right to ancestral lands, while Israelis live in mortal fear of returning Palestinians demographically destroying the Jewish state by voting the Jewish government out of office.

In previous rounds of negotiations, the refugee issue has been among the greatest points of contention and remains so in public opinion surveys. Under the confederation proposal, neither side can dominate the national politics of the other, since they may only vote in the state of their national identity.

Other forms of infrastructural cooperation are less emotional but highly pragmatic. Today, the two sides already use the same currency and buy each other’s goods: In 2012, the Bank of Israel found that 81 percent of Palestinian exported goods were sold to Israel while the country sold about $4.5 billion worth of goods to the Palestinian Authority. These numbers have only grown since.

Israeli tech companies have begun hiring Palestinian programmers, quietly but successfully, providing an opportunity for Palestinians who are well-educated but unemployed. Deepening these ties through easier physical mobility and professional associations can only benefit both economies. All this can continue — again, minus Israel’s Oslo-era controls over Palestinian economic life through tax collection and controls over imports and exports. A professional economic council could help manage the difficulties of integrating a weaker economy with a much stronger one. This is a serious challenge. But the alternative of a separated Palestinian state with a hard border, and little access and mobility to Israel, could also lead to economic isolation — which could exacerbate rather than de-escalate the conflict.

Similarly, it hardly seems possible to manage natural resources and infrastructure separately; already, Gaza’s waste floats onto Israel’s nearby beaches, pollutes aquifers, and has forced desalination plants to shut down at times — all while Israel is now reviving its water-saving campaigns due to shortages. The traditional two-state solution would require coordination on essential environmental issues too, but the confederation model favors it in spirit and structure, facilitating both civil society and government coordination instead of making such cooperation the exception.

The liaison is ultimately voluntary. In a federation, secession can lead to war. A confederation approach allows each side the legal right to leave

In a federation, secession can lead to war. A confederation approach allows each side the legal right to leave. Legal secession can be peaceful, such as the referendum-based separation of Serbia and Montenegro in 2006 or Brexit (if it is ever implemented).


The attempt to combine policies from the two-state solution, while drawing on one-state ideas both for pragmatic and symbolic needs, makes this approach appealing for a small but eclectic group from Israel’s left and right, as well as some Palestinians and Arab citizens of Israel. Yossi Beilin, a former stalwart supporter and negotiator for a two-state solution, openly favors it, and President Rivlin has endorsed the idea, albeit without elaborating just what he means.

Only the future will tell whether Israelis and Palestinians choose to live closer together or further apart. But they are unlikely to reach a peace agreement that is only one or the other.
​

 

[Sixties Fan]

THREE States live in Palestine (Mandate for Palestine)

They are not ONE homeland.

The Jordanians would definitely never agree to it, they are not even included in the proposal.
-------------

“Our most basic guideline here is establishing two states – with independent legal systems, economies and police forces – [on the two sides] of the Green Line, with no land swaps at all. With that, we are talking about the idea of open borders.

‘The perfect deal’ to end the conflict

------------
The Arabs have no intention of establishing their own State while Israel exists. They have given every opportunity since 1937.

That is made very clear in the PLO, Fatah, Hamas charters.
Made very clear by the mere establishment of the Arab League.


It is like trying to sell a lake or an ocean in a desert.

 

[Coyote]

Seperate equal in practice rather than theory.


Separate but equal - Wikipedia

In practice the separate facilities provided to African Americans were rarely equal; usually they were not even close to equal, or they did not exist at all. For example, according to the 1934–36 report of the Florida Superintendent of Public Instruction, the value of "white school property" in the state was $70,543,000, while the value of African-American school property was $4,900,000. The report says that "in a few south Florida counties and in most north Florida counties many Negro schools are housed in churches, shacks, and lodges, and have no toilets, water supply, desks, blackboards, etc. [See Station One School.] Counties use these schools as a means to get State funds and yet these counties invest little or nothing in them." High school education for African Americans was provided in only 28 of Florida's 67 counties.[2]​

People can and do self segregate, but that is in voluntary communities, not mandated by the government and social and economic mobility within the context of the entire country is still possible. I do not think that is the type of “seperate but equal” being suggested however.

In the case of the Palestinians, how would seperate but equal be reflected in the allocation of resources, development, quality of land and natural resources, land rights? How would it be reflected in the governance of the nation as a whole. Would it and could it it truly be equal in a nation that has defined itself as a Jewish homeland and where an increasingly powerful religious block is making the rules? And before you go there, no I am not criticizing only the Jews for the influence of religion in government. I totally believe in the seperation of Church and state in all religions. There are no examples I can think of where it well for all citizens.

In other words Tlaib wants 2 Arabs states and 1 state "for all nations" which they could flood with millions of hostile people. Yeah still trying to sprinkle over the fact that You both are suggesting the elimination of the only Jewish state under false pretense .

The exploitation of the African American civil rights movement to smear Israel is a racist attack on Jews in itself, it has connotations of skin color differentiation of Jews, and to add insult to injury You use it to further excuse the genocidal position of Tlaib and her team.

Too funny. And hypocritical. The exploitation of the Africa American civil rights movement...

Exploding Myths About 'Black Power, Jewish Politics'

And you like to use Martin Luther King to justify all things Israel. Exploitation? Indeed.

It is not exploitation to condemn seperate but equal ideologies.

 

[rylah]

New Muslim congresswomen favor eliminating Israel

I am so happy they stated that is the long term Goal. For that reason alone Israel will never give up any more territory or allow " Right of Return"

Where is the quote where they say they favor eliminating Israel?

The Congress woman removing Israel from her “ map” and renaming the Entire area “ Palestine “ isn’t favoring their destruction?

Again, cite where she advocates for ‘eliminating’ Israel – not your inane, subjective inference.

When Muslims speak of a One State Solution, it means Muslims taking over Israel and eliminating it as a Jewish State with a majority Muslim.

Why does it have to be "One State". And what "separate but equal" is she referring to when there are no Jews in Gaza or Areas A and B?
No Jews in Jordan. No Jews in Saudi Arabia?

“One state,” she said in response to a question about whether she supports a one- or two-state solution. “It has to be one state. Separate but equal does not work. I’m only 42 years old but my teachers were of that generation that marched with Martin Luther King. This whole idea of a two-state solution, it doesn’t work.”

----------
Martin Luther was pro Israel.
Repeating that" a Two-state solution does not work" actually means that the Arab Palestinians and many other Muslims are going to continue to refuse to create a Palestine State as long as Israel exists.
They have rejected the Partitions of 1937 and 1947, declared war many times and continue not to want to even come and sit for negotiations since Arafat rejected the best deal they could have gotten, ever.

That is the way it has been since 1920 and will continue until the Palestinian and Muslim education continues to "educate" against the existence of Israel, in any shape or form.

What happens in the US is different from what happens in Israel, and
she and others cannot bring the US as an example.

Extreme Arabs are trying to destroy Israel as a country from within and outside.

The issues in the US are not about a minority wanting to create its own country out of parts of the US with violence, rockets, endless riots, rock throwing at American cars, etc.

When Palestinians like Sansour and Tlaib receive the anti Israel education they have, be it in Israel, Gaza, the PA or the USA, their message is going to be the very same as their Muslim leader in 1920:

No sovereign State for the Jews. Not now, not ever

This is the education he has left for the future generations which Abbas, the Saudis and all others are all too happy to teach their people.

"Palestine" replaces Israel | PMW


And who was their Muslim leader in 1920 who began the riots against the Jewish re-creation of their Nation on their ancient homeland?

How the Mufti of Jerusalem Created the Permanent Problem of Palestinian Violence - The Tower

What Hitler and the Grand Mufti Really Said

----------------

So, in reality:

One State Solution, in the eyes of Islam and the 1920 Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, and of Arafat, and of Abbas, and the PLO and of the next "leader" of the Palestinians, and of Hamas, so on and so forth..........


What do you think "One State Solution" in Palestine means?

Hard to say, because I really have not given serious consideration to one state, I have always been a proponent of multiple state or caliphate type ideas.

But now I wonder. There is as much Islamophobic as there is anti Semitic rhetoric swirling through out these arguments. 1920 is almost a century ago yet old history keeps being brought up to maintain the idea that only complete and largely unequal (based on results currently) seperation is possible. Maybe that isn’t so. What if we actually considered that?

This article is a good read, but too long to post all the interesting parts, I will post the concluding portion of it. Maybe it is time to start thinking in terms of one state.

An Israeli-Palestinian Confederation Can Work

Federation is a plan for integration. The United States and Germany are federations: unitary states with a central government, the only body that enters into foreign relations. An Israeli-Palestinian federation could have two national regions — like the bizonal/bicommunal federation concept in Cyprus — but the two peoples would sit in one legislature and share power in an executive. That’s hard to imagine for two nations that have been in a bitter struggle for 70 years. Indeed, the only government shared by Greek and Turkish Cypriots lasted just three years before it collapsed in 1963. Negotiations in Cyprus that began in 1968 have failed for 50 years. The inability to agree on a new formula for sharing power in a single government has stymied any resolution.

The idea of “parallel states” — proposed in Mathias Mossberg and Mark LeVine’s 2014 book, One Land, Two States — allows for complete geographic integration. Anyone could live anywhere, but an Israeli and a Palestinian living one floor apart in the same building would be subject to separate laws; “stacked states” seems more appropriate than “parallel,” implying two lines that never touch. This approach raises considerable legal, ethical, and practical problems, but beyond those, neither side truly wishes to blend people and cultures in a common physical space.

An Israeli-Palestinian confederation, by contrast, would start with the building blocks of two separate and territorially defined independent states. Promoted largely by the civil society group A Land for All, among others, the idea is that there would be two governments, two heads of state, and a border on or near the pre-1967 division, known as the Green Line. Each state would be sovereign and free to define its national character. But a confederation would diverge from the traditional two-state model by creating an agreement to share certain aspects of their sovereignty. The border would be porous, designed to facilitate rather than limit crossings. Freedom of movement — to tour, work, or study — would be the default.

Today, the reverse is the norm. All people are restricted from crossing boundaries; everyone theoretically needs a permit to go somewhere. In practice, Palestinians are severely constrained in their daily life. West Bank residents need a permit to travel anywhere inside Israel, including the settlements and Jerusalem, or between Gaza and the West Bank; an airport permit is almost unobtainable. The permit allowances are byzantine by design and are commonly denied, and checkpoints and the security wall make short distances into lengthy, tortuous trips for all Palestinians. Gazans are almost entirely trapped inside Gaza. Porous borders would release Palestinians from this suffocating constraint on their physical movement.

Israeli Jews face few movement restrictions today. Theoretically, they need a permit to visit the small, Palestinian-run Area A, where most Jews have little desire to be. In fact, there is no real barrier other than a warning sign — and they can glide through settler-designated checkpoints on the return. But full freedom of movement offers Israeli Jews, especially religious ones, something they may not have in a traditional two-state plan: access to the many holy sites inside the West Bank, such as the Tomb of the Patriarchs in Hebron, Rachel’s Tomb near Bethlehem, and Joseph’s Tomb in Nablus — the last is almost inaccessible to Jews today. In a traditional two-state solution, these sites would be well inside Palestine, and the latter could close its border; this is one of numerous reasons Israelis, especially if they are religious, have little interest in reaching such a solution. The confederation model is predicated on open access.

Instead of carving up Jerusalem, the city would remain united under shared sovereignty as the capital of two states. Holy places would be governed by a special regime, possibly with international support, just like in earlier two-state plans. But the delicate urban fabric of Jerusalem would remain intact, with an added Palestinian capital in the east. The border between the two states could run widely around the city, rather than through it. An umbrella municipality of Israelis and Palestinians could run east and west boroughs.

Free movement and a united Jerusalem would require advanced security measures. Such measures could be grounded in the principle of strong security cooperation, based on the system set up by the Oslo Accords still in place today. At present, Israeli security figures commonly cite the ongoing cooperation with Palestinian Authority forces as the main reason there has not been more violence over the last decade. Living under occupation, Palestinians today deeply resent what they consider collaboration, or the “outsourcing” of Israel’s rule to their own security forces. But if Palestine were free under its own civilian government, coordinated security would protect the arrangement itself, serving people rather than controlling them.

The centerpiece of the confederation approach is allowing citizens of one side to live as permanent residents on the other while voting in national elections only in their country of citizenship. Israeli settlers who absolutely must live on holy ground could stay so long as they are law-abiding residents under Palestinian sovereignty; they could participate in local elections but would only vote for national representation in Israel. This will alienate settlers who insist on Jewish sovereignty — but it extends a hand to more moderate settlers who have long resented the left-wing expectation that they must all automatically uproot their homes.

The same provision is a creative concession to Palestinians, since it allows some refugees from 1948 back into Israel under the same terms: permanent residency, provided they are law-abiding and perhaps after Israeli security vetting. The numbers could be determined through mutual agreement. Those residents would vote in national elections only in Palestine and, like settlers, could vote in local Israeli elections. This concept responds to one of the most intractable problems in the conflict: Palestinians insist on recognition of their right to ancestral lands, while Israelis live in mortal fear of returning Palestinians demographically destroying the Jewish state by voting the Jewish government out of office.

In previous rounds of negotiations, the refugee issue has been among the greatest points of contention and remains so in public opinion surveys. Under the confederation proposal, neither side can dominate the national politics of the other, since they may only vote in the state of their national identity.

Other forms of infrastructural cooperation are less emotional but highly pragmatic. Today, the two sides already use the same currency and buy each other’s goods: In 2012, the Bank of Israel found that 81 percent of Palestinian exported goods were sold to Israel while the country sold about $4.5 billion worth of goods to the Palestinian Authority. These numbers have only grown since.

Israeli tech companies have begun hiring Palestinian programmers, quietly but successfully, providing an opportunity for Palestinians who are well-educated but unemployed. Deepening these ties through easier physical mobility and professional associations can only benefit both economies. All this can continue — again, minus Israel’s Oslo-era controls over Palestinian economic life through tax collection and controls over imports and exports. A professional economic council could help manage the difficulties of integrating a weaker economy with a much stronger one. This is a serious challenge. But the alternative of a separated Palestinian state with a hard border, and little access and mobility to Israel, could also lead to economic isolation — which could exacerbate rather than de-escalate the conflict.

Similarly, it hardly seems possible to manage natural resources and infrastructure separately; already, Gaza’s waste floats onto Israel’s nearby beaches, pollutes aquifers, and has forced desalination plants to shut down at times — all while Israel is now reviving its water-saving campaigns due to shortages. The traditional two-state solution would require coordination on essential environmental issues too, but the confederation model favors it in spirit and structure, facilitating both civil society and government coordination instead of making such cooperation the exception.

The liaison is ultimately voluntary. In a federation, secession can lead to war. A confederation approach allows each side the legal right to leave

In a federation, secession can lead to war. A confederation approach allows each side the legal right to leave. Legal secession can be peaceful, such as the referendum-based separation of Serbia and Montenegro in 2006 or Brexit (if it is ever implemented).


The attempt to combine policies from the two-state solution, while drawing on one-state ideas both for pragmatic and symbolic needs, makes this approach appealing for a small but eclectic group from Israel’s left and right, as well as some Palestinians and Arab citizens of Israel. Yossi Beilin, a former stalwart supporter and negotiator for a two-state solution, openly favors it, and President Rivlin has endorsed the idea, albeit without elaborating just what he means.

Only the future will tell whether Israelis and Palestinians choose to live closer together or further apart. But they are unlikely to reach a peace agreement that is only one or the other.
​

Did You just say a Caliphate was a valid option, and then proceed to accusing those who oppose the elimination of Israel with Islamophobia??

Nice, Tlaib suggests an Arab version of another USSR,
and her supporters talk about a Caliphate "from the river to the sea".
Wonderful, one could only wish for the rest of the enemies of the Jewish people to expose themselves so vividly.

 

[Coyote]

THREE States live in Palestine (Mandate for Palestine)

They are not ONE homeland.

The Jordanians would definitely never agree to it, they are not even included in the proposal.
-------------

“Our most basic guideline here is establishing two states – with independent legal systems, economies and police forces – [on the two sides] of the Green Line, with no land swaps at all. With that, we are talking about the idea of open borders.

‘The perfect deal’ to end the conflict

------------
The Arabs have no intention of establishing their own State while Israel exists. They have given every opportunity since 1937.

That is made very clear in the PLO, Fatah, Hamas charters.
Made very clear by the mere establishment of the Arab League.


It is like trying to sell a lake or an ocean in a desert.

They are one homeland. Two people’s. One land. Frankly seems like a valid idea to try given the failure of everything else and the growing impossibility or support for two states. There is some support for it on both sides. What other solution would you recommend?

 

[Coyote]

Where is the quote where they say they favor eliminating Israel?

The Congress woman removing Israel from her “ map” and renaming the Entire area “ Palestine “ isn’t favoring their destruction?

Again, cite where she advocates for ‘eliminating’ Israel – not your inane, subjective inference.

When Muslims speak of a One State Solution, it means Muslims taking over Israel and eliminating it as a Jewish State with a majority Muslim.

Why does it have to be "One State". And what "separate but equal" is she referring to when there are no Jews in Gaza or Areas A and B?
No Jews in Jordan. No Jews in Saudi Arabia?

“One state,” she said in response to a question about whether she supports a one- or two-state solution. “It has to be one state. Separate but equal does not work. I’m only 42 years old but my teachers were of that generation that marched with Martin Luther King. This whole idea of a two-state solution, it doesn’t work.”

----------
Martin Luther was pro Israel.
Repeating that" a Two-state solution does not work" actually means that the Arab Palestinians and many other Muslims are going to continue to refuse to create a Palestine State as long as Israel exists.
They have rejected the Partitions of 1937 and 1947, declared war many times and continue not to want to even come and sit for negotiations since Arafat rejected the best deal they could have gotten, ever.

That is the way it has been since 1920 and will continue until the Palestinian and Muslim education continues to "educate" against the existence of Israel, in any shape or form.

What happens in the US is different from what happens in Israel, and
she and others cannot bring the US as an example.

Extreme Arabs are trying to destroy Israel as a country from within and outside.

The issues in the US are not about a minority wanting to create its own country out of parts of the US with violence, rockets, endless riots, rock throwing at American cars, etc.

When Palestinians like Sansour and Tlaib receive the anti Israel education they have, be it in Israel, Gaza, the PA or the USA, their message is going to be the very same as their Muslim leader in 1920:

No sovereign State for the Jews. Not now, not ever

This is the education he has left for the future generations which Abbas, the Saudis and all others are all too happy to teach their people.

"Palestine" replaces Israel | PMW


And who was their Muslim leader in 1920 who began the riots against the Jewish re-creation of their Nation on their ancient homeland?

How the Mufti of Jerusalem Created the Permanent Problem of Palestinian Violence - The Tower

What Hitler and the Grand Mufti Really Said

----------------

So, in reality:

One State Solution, in the eyes of Islam and the 1920 Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, and of Arafat, and of Abbas, and the PLO and of the next "leader" of the Palestinians, and of Hamas, so on and so forth..........


What do you think "One State Solution" in Palestine means?

Hard to say, because I really have not given serious consideration to one state, I have always been a proponent of multiple state or caliphate type ideas.

But now I wonder. There is as much Islamophobic as there is anti Semitic rhetoric swirling through out these arguments. 1920 is almost a century ago yet old history keeps being brought up to maintain the idea that only complete and largely unequal (based on results currently) seperation is possible. Maybe that isn’t so. What if we actually considered that?

This article is a good read, but too long to post all the interesting parts, I will post the concluding portion of it. Maybe it is time to start thinking in terms of one state.

An Israeli-Palestinian Confederation Can Work

Federation is a plan for integration. The United States and Germany are federations: unitary states with a central government, the only body that enters into foreign relations. An Israeli-Palestinian federation could have two national regions — like the bizonal/bicommunal federation concept in Cyprus — but the two peoples would sit in one legislature and share power in an executive. That’s hard to imagine for two nations that have been in a bitter struggle for 70 years. Indeed, the only government shared by Greek and Turkish Cypriots lasted just three years before it collapsed in 1963. Negotiations in Cyprus that began in 1968 have failed for 50 years. The inability to agree on a new formula for sharing power in a single government has stymied any resolution.

The idea of “parallel states” — proposed in Mathias Mossberg and Mark LeVine’s 2014 book, One Land, Two States — allows for complete geographic integration. Anyone could live anywhere, but an Israeli and a Palestinian living one floor apart in the same building would be subject to separate laws; “stacked states” seems more appropriate than “parallel,” implying two lines that never touch. This approach raises considerable legal, ethical, and practical problems, but beyond those, neither side truly wishes to blend people and cultures in a common physical space.

An Israeli-Palestinian confederation, by contrast, would start with the building blocks of two separate and territorially defined independent states. Promoted largely by the civil society group A Land for All, among others, the idea is that there would be two governments, two heads of state, and a border on or near the pre-1967 division, known as the Green Line. Each state would be sovereign and free to define its national character. But a confederation would diverge from the traditional two-state model by creating an agreement to share certain aspects of their sovereignty. The border would be porous, designed to facilitate rather than limit crossings. Freedom of movement — to tour, work, or study — would be the default.

Today, the reverse is the norm. All people are restricted from crossing boundaries; everyone theoretically needs a permit to go somewhere. In practice, Palestinians are severely constrained in their daily life. West Bank residents need a permit to travel anywhere inside Israel, including the settlements and Jerusalem, or between Gaza and the West Bank; an airport permit is almost unobtainable. The permit allowances are byzantine by design and are commonly denied, and checkpoints and the security wall make short distances into lengthy, tortuous trips for all Palestinians. Gazans are almost entirely trapped inside Gaza. Porous borders would release Palestinians from this suffocating constraint on their physical movement.

Israeli Jews face few movement restrictions today. Theoretically, they need a permit to visit the small, Palestinian-run Area A, where most Jews have little desire to be. In fact, there is no real barrier other than a warning sign — and they can glide through settler-designated checkpoints on the return. But full freedom of movement offers Israeli Jews, especially religious ones, something they may not have in a traditional two-state plan: access to the many holy sites inside the West Bank, such as the Tomb of the Patriarchs in Hebron, Rachel’s Tomb near Bethlehem, and Joseph’s Tomb in Nablus — the last is almost inaccessible to Jews today. In a traditional two-state solution, these sites would be well inside Palestine, and the latter could close its border; this is one of numerous reasons Israelis, especially if they are religious, have little interest in reaching such a solution. The confederation model is predicated on open access.

Instead of carving up Jerusalem, the city would remain united under shared sovereignty as the capital of two states. Holy places would be governed by a special regime, possibly with international support, just like in earlier two-state plans. But the delicate urban fabric of Jerusalem would remain intact, with an added Palestinian capital in the east. The border between the two states could run widely around the city, rather than through it. An umbrella municipality of Israelis and Palestinians could run east and west boroughs.

Free movement and a united Jerusalem would require advanced security measures. Such measures could be grounded in the principle of strong security cooperation, based on the system set up by the Oslo Accords still in place today. At present, Israeli security figures commonly cite the ongoing cooperation with Palestinian Authority forces as the main reason there has not been more violence over the last decade. Living under occupation, Palestinians today deeply resent what they consider collaboration, or the “outsourcing” of Israel’s rule to their own security forces. But if Palestine were free under its own civilian government, coordinated security would protect the arrangement itself, serving people rather than controlling them.

The centerpiece of the confederation approach is allowing citizens of one side to live as permanent residents on the other while voting in national elections only in their country of citizenship. Israeli settlers who absolutely must live on holy ground could stay so long as they are law-abiding residents under Palestinian sovereignty; they could participate in local elections but would only vote for national representation in Israel. This will alienate settlers who insist on Jewish sovereignty — but it extends a hand to more moderate settlers who have long resented the left-wing expectation that they must all automatically uproot their homes.

The same provision is a creative concession to Palestinians, since it allows some refugees from 1948 back into Israel under the same terms: permanent residency, provided they are law-abiding and perhaps after Israeli security vetting. The numbers could be determined through mutual agreement. Those residents would vote in national elections only in Palestine and, like settlers, could vote in local Israeli elections. This concept responds to one of the most intractable problems in the conflict: Palestinians insist on recognition of their right to ancestral lands, while Israelis live in mortal fear of returning Palestinians demographically destroying the Jewish state by voting the Jewish government out of office.

In previous rounds of negotiations, the refugee issue has been among the greatest points of contention and remains so in public opinion surveys. Under the confederation proposal, neither side can dominate the national politics of the other, since they may only vote in the state of their national identity.

Other forms of infrastructural cooperation are less emotional but highly pragmatic. Today, the two sides already use the same currency and buy each other’s goods: In 2012, the Bank of Israel found that 81 percent of Palestinian exported goods were sold to Israel while the country sold about $4.5 billion worth of goods to the Palestinian Authority. These numbers have only grown since.

Israeli tech companies have begun hiring Palestinian programmers, quietly but successfully, providing an opportunity for Palestinians who are well-educated but unemployed. Deepening these ties through easier physical mobility and professional associations can only benefit both economies. All this can continue — again, minus Israel’s Oslo-era controls over Palestinian economic life through tax collection and controls over imports and exports. A professional economic council could help manage the difficulties of integrating a weaker economy with a much stronger one. This is a serious challenge. But the alternative of a separated Palestinian state with a hard border, and little access and mobility to Israel, could also lead to economic isolation — which could exacerbate rather than de-escalate the conflict.

Similarly, it hardly seems possible to manage natural resources and infrastructure separately; already, Gaza’s waste floats onto Israel’s nearby beaches, pollutes aquifers, and has forced desalination plants to shut down at times — all while Israel is now reviving its water-saving campaigns due to shortages. The traditional two-state solution would require coordination on essential environmental issues too, but the confederation model favors it in spirit and structure, facilitating both civil society and government coordination instead of making such cooperation the exception.

The liaison is ultimately voluntary. In a federation, secession can lead to war. A confederation approach allows each side the legal right to leave

In a federation, secession can lead to war. A confederation approach allows each side the legal right to leave. Legal secession can be peaceful, such as the referendum-based separation of Serbia and Montenegro in 2006 or Brexit (if it is ever implemented).


The attempt to combine policies from the two-state solution, while drawing on one-state ideas both for pragmatic and symbolic needs, makes this approach appealing for a small but eclectic group from Israel’s left and right, as well as some Palestinians and Arab citizens of Israel. Yossi Beilin, a former stalwart supporter and negotiator for a two-state solution, openly favors it, and President Rivlin has endorsed the idea, albeit without elaborating just what he means.

Only the future will tell whether Israelis and Palestinians choose to live closer together or further apart. But they are unlikely to reach a peace agreement that is only one or the other.
​

Did You just say a Caliphate was a valid option, and then proceed to accusing those who oppose the elimination of Israel with Islamophobia??

Hamas on USMB.

I was referring to a solution proposed earlier...by you I think....of rather than a second state, multiple Palestinian semi autonomous caliphate based on tribal affiliations. Is that no longer a valid option in your eyes?

Islamophobia indeed.

 

[Coyote]

Good lord. The audacity of it. How dare they elect a Muslim to office in America. Of course they can’t possibly be qualified!

The problem is neither supports eliminating Israel. They support a one state solution. Something Some pro-Israeli’s have been supporting as well. One supports the right of return in a very eloquent manner that echos the same feelings of “right of return” that Jews have toward the land of their ancestors. Seems the Islamophobia bias is showing.

The so called diatribe was nothing more then answering a specific question from the interviewer. The OP took a tiny fragment of the interview out of a richer context, the entire interview is here:

Rashida Tlaib on Democratic Socialism and Why She Supports the Palestinian Right of Return

The problem is not that she's a Muslim but that she wants to erase the Jewish state.
All mention of 1 or 2 states in case of Arab nationalism is deception. There're already 2 Arab states and 3 Arab governments, at best what they suggest is 2 bigger Arab states - on both sides of the river.
All talk is about no Jewish state and legal backup for antisemitism.

And thats even before we talk about all the other Jew haters on her team.

No. The problem is that she is a Muslim.

More like willful blindness on Your part,
and an attempt to draw attention from the issue of her statements.

It is rather an exception than norm, but there're voices of Muslim support for Israel, and there're Muslims who died protecting Israel as their country, blessed be their memory to honor.
Tlaib and the rest of the Jew haters on her team want the elimination of the only Jewish state, this is in no way the same as those who oppose the creation of another Muslim state on behalf of Israel.

There's an ethnic minority ruling a tiny sliver of land, their only country,
in a sea of hostile Muslim countries, and this Muslim as majority seem to be, wants the elimination of that minority.

Provide a quote where she is advocating that.

 

[Coyote]

New Muslim congresswomen favor eliminating Israel

I am so happy they stated that is the long term Goal. For that reason alone Israel will never give up any more territory or allow " Right of Return"

Where is the quote where they say they favor eliminating Israel?

The Congress woman removing Israel from her “ map” and renaming the Entire area “ Palestine “ isn’t favoring their destruction?

Show me what she has said

Ever hear “ Actions speak louder than words?” Tell us please what her elimination of Israel from the map be interpreted

Where did she actually say that?

 

[Coyote]

Where is the quote where they say they favor eliminating Israel?

The Congress woman removing Israel from her “ map” and renaming the Entire area “ Palestine “ isn’t favoring their destruction?

Again, cite where she advocates for ‘eliminating’ Israel – not your inane, subjective inference.

When Muslims speak of a One State Solution, it means Muslims taking over Israel and eliminating it as a Jewish State with a majority Muslim.

Why does it have to be "One State". And what "separate but equal" is she referring to when there are no Jews in Gaza or Areas A and B?
No Jews in Jordan. No Jews in Saudi Arabia?

“One state,” she said in response to a question about whether she supports a one- or two-state solution. “It has to be one state. Separate but equal does not work. I’m only 42 years old but my teachers were of that generation that marched with Martin Luther King. This whole idea of a two-state solution, it doesn’t work.”

----------
Martin Luther was pro Israel.
Repeating that" a Two-state solution does not work" actually means that the Arab Palestinians and many other Muslims are going to continue to refuse to create a Palestine State as long as Israel exists.
They have rejected the Partitions of 1937 and 1947, declared war many times and continue not to want to even come and sit for negotiations since Arafat rejected the best deal they could have gotten, ever.

That is the way it has been since 1920 and will continue until the Palestinian and Muslim education continues to "educate" against the existence of Israel, in any shape or form.

What happens in the US is different from what happens in Israel, and
she and others cannot bring the US as an example.

Extreme Arabs are trying to destroy Israel as a country from within and outside.

The issues in the US are not about a minority wanting to create its own country out of parts of the US with violence, rockets, endless riots, rock throwing at American cars, etc.

When Palestinians like Sansour and Tlaib receive the anti Israel education they have, be it in Israel, Gaza, the PA or the USA, their message is going to be the very same as their Muslim leader in 1920:

No sovereign State for the Jews. Not now, not ever

This is the education he has left for the future generations which Abbas, the Saudis and all others are all too happy to teach their people.

"Palestine" replaces Israel | PMW


And who was their Muslim leader in 1920 who began the riots against the Jewish re-creation of their Nation on their ancient homeland?

How the Mufti of Jerusalem Created the Permanent Problem of Palestinian Violence - The Tower

What Hitler and the Grand Mufti Really Said

----------------

So, in reality:

One State Solution, in the eyes of Islam and the 1920 Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, and of Arafat, and of Abbas, and the PLO and of the next "leader" of the Palestinians, and of Hamas, so on and so forth..........


What do you think "One State Solution" in Palestine means?

Hard to say, because I really have not given serious consideration to one state, I have always been a proponent of multiple state or caliphate type ideas.

But now I wonder. There is as much Islamophobic as there is anti Semitic rhetoric swirling through out these arguments. 1920 is almost a century ago yet old history keeps being brought up to maintain the idea that only complete and largely unequal (based on results currently) seperation is possible. Maybe that isn’t so. What if we actually considered that?

This article is a good read, but too long to post all the interesting parts, I will post the concluding portion of it. Maybe it is time to start thinking in terms of one state.

An Israeli-Palestinian Confederation Can Work

Federation is a plan for integration. The United States and Germany are federations: unitary states with a central government, the only body that enters into foreign relations. An Israeli-Palestinian federation could have two national regions — like the bizonal/bicommunal federation concept in Cyprus — but the two peoples would sit in one legislature and share power in an executive. That’s hard to imagine for two nations that have been in a bitter struggle for 70 years. Indeed, the only government shared by Greek and Turkish Cypriots lasted just three years before it collapsed in 1963. Negotiations in Cyprus that began in 1968 have failed for 50 years. The inability to agree on a new formula for sharing power in a single government has stymied any resolution.

The idea of “parallel states” — proposed in Mathias Mossberg and Mark LeVine’s 2014 book, One Land, Two States — allows for complete geographic integration. Anyone could live anywhere, but an Israeli and a Palestinian living one floor apart in the same building would be subject to separate laws; “stacked states” seems more appropriate than “parallel,” implying two lines that never touch. This approach raises considerable legal, ethical, and practical problems, but beyond those, neither side truly wishes to blend people and cultures in a common physical space.

An Israeli-Palestinian confederation, by contrast, would start with the building blocks of two separate and territorially defined independent states. Promoted largely by the civil society group A Land for All, among others, the idea is that there would be two governments, two heads of state, and a border on or near the pre-1967 division, known as the Green Line. Each state would be sovereign and free to define its national character. But a confederation would diverge from the traditional two-state model by creating an agreement to share certain aspects of their sovereignty. The border would be porous, designed to facilitate rather than limit crossings. Freedom of movement — to tour, work, or study — would be the default.

Today, the reverse is the norm. All people are restricted from crossing boundaries; everyone theoretically needs a permit to go somewhere. In practice, Palestinians are severely constrained in their daily life. West Bank residents need a permit to travel anywhere inside Israel, including the settlements and Jerusalem, or between Gaza and the West Bank; an airport permit is almost unobtainable. The permit allowances are byzantine by design and are commonly denied, and checkpoints and the security wall make short distances into lengthy, tortuous trips for all Palestinians. Gazans are almost entirely trapped inside Gaza. Porous borders would release Palestinians from this suffocating constraint on their physical movement.

Israeli Jews face few movement restrictions today. Theoretically, they need a permit to visit the small, Palestinian-run Area A, where most Jews have little desire to be. In fact, there is no real barrier other than a warning sign — and they can glide through settler-designated checkpoints on the return. But full freedom of movement offers Israeli Jews, especially religious ones, something they may not have in a traditional two-state plan: access to the many holy sites inside the West Bank, such as the Tomb of the Patriarchs in Hebron, Rachel’s Tomb near Bethlehem, and Joseph’s Tomb in Nablus — the last is almost inaccessible to Jews today. In a traditional two-state solution, these sites would be well inside Palestine, and the latter could close its border; this is one of numerous reasons Israelis, especially if they are religious, have little interest in reaching such a solution. The confederation model is predicated on open access.

Instead of carving up Jerusalem, the city would remain united under shared sovereignty as the capital of two states. Holy places would be governed by a special regime, possibly with international support, just like in earlier two-state plans. But the delicate urban fabric of Jerusalem would remain intact, with an added Palestinian capital in the east. The border between the two states could run widely around the city, rather than through it. An umbrella municipality of Israelis and Palestinians could run east and west boroughs.

Free movement and a united Jerusalem would require advanced security measures. Such measures could be grounded in the principle of strong security cooperation, based on the system set up by the Oslo Accords still in place today. At present, Israeli security figures commonly cite the ongoing cooperation with Palestinian Authority forces as the main reason there has not been more violence over the last decade. Living under occupation, Palestinians today deeply resent what they consider collaboration, or the “outsourcing” of Israel’s rule to their own security forces. But if Palestine were free under its own civilian government, coordinated security would protect the arrangement itself, serving people rather than controlling them.

The centerpiece of the confederation approach is allowing citizens of one side to live as permanent residents on the other while voting in national elections only in their country of citizenship. Israeli settlers who absolutely must live on holy ground could stay so long as they are law-abiding residents under Palestinian sovereignty; they could participate in local elections but would only vote for national representation in Israel. This will alienate settlers who insist on Jewish sovereignty — but it extends a hand to more moderate settlers who have long resented the left-wing expectation that they must all automatically uproot their homes.

The same provision is a creative concession to Palestinians, since it allows some refugees from 1948 back into Israel under the same terms: permanent residency, provided they are law-abiding and perhaps after Israeli security vetting. The numbers could be determined through mutual agreement. Those residents would vote in national elections only in Palestine and, like settlers, could vote in local Israeli elections. This concept responds to one of the most intractable problems in the conflict: Palestinians insist on recognition of their right to ancestral lands, while Israelis live in mortal fear of returning Palestinians demographically destroying the Jewish state by voting the Jewish government out of office.

In previous rounds of negotiations, the refugee issue has been among the greatest points of contention and remains so in public opinion surveys. Under the confederation proposal, neither side can dominate the national politics of the other, since they may only vote in the state of their national identity.

Other forms of infrastructural cooperation are less emotional but highly pragmatic. Today, the two sides already use the same currency and buy each other’s goods: In 2012, the Bank of Israel found that 81 percent of Palestinian exported goods were sold to Israel while the country sold about $4.5 billion worth of goods to the Palestinian Authority. These numbers have only grown since.

Israeli tech companies have begun hiring Palestinian programmers, quietly but successfully, providing an opportunity for Palestinians who are well-educated but unemployed. Deepening these ties through easier physical mobility and professional associations can only benefit both economies. All this can continue — again, minus Israel’s Oslo-era controls over Palestinian economic life through tax collection and controls over imports and exports. A professional economic council could help manage the difficulties of integrating a weaker economy with a much stronger one. This is a serious challenge. But the alternative of a separated Palestinian state with a hard border, and little access and mobility to Israel, could also lead to economic isolation — which could exacerbate rather than de-escalate the conflict.

Similarly, it hardly seems possible to manage natural resources and infrastructure separately; already, Gaza’s waste floats onto Israel’s nearby beaches, pollutes aquifers, and has forced desalination plants to shut down at times — all while Israel is now reviving its water-saving campaigns due to shortages. The traditional two-state solution would require coordination on essential environmental issues too, but the confederation model favors it in spirit and structure, facilitating both civil society and government coordination instead of making such cooperation the exception.

The liaison is ultimately voluntary. In a federation, secession can lead to war. A confederation approach allows each side the legal right to leave

In a federation, secession can lead to war. A confederation approach allows each side the legal right to leave. Legal secession can be peaceful, such as the referendum-based separation of Serbia and Montenegro in 2006 or Brexit (if it is ever implemented).


The attempt to combine policies from the two-state solution, while drawing on one-state ideas both for pragmatic and symbolic needs, makes this approach appealing for a small but eclectic group from Israel’s left and right, as well as some Palestinians and Arab citizens of Israel. Yossi Beilin, a former stalwart supporter and negotiator for a two-state solution, openly favors it, and President Rivlin has endorsed the idea, albeit without elaborating just what he means.

Only the future will tell whether Israelis and Palestinians choose to live closer together or further apart. But they are unlikely to reach a peace agreement that is only one or the other.
​

Did You just say a Caliphate was a valid option, and then proceed to accusing those who oppose the elimination of Israel with Islamophobia??

Nice, Tlaib suggests an Arab version of another USSR,
and her supporters talk about a Caliphate "from the river to the sea".
Wonderful, one could only wish for enemies of Israel to expose themselves so proudly in their call to genocide.

Who is talking about a Caliphate from river to see? You are truly dishonest.