The Palestine Solution

[RoccoR]

Hollie, aris2chat, Shusha, P F Tinmore, et al,

I once was told that there is less than 500 years of recorded human history [roughly 6000 years -- from proto-writing in Jiahu symbols (ca. 6600 BCE), past Vinča signs (ca. 5300 BCE), and early Indus script (ca. 3500 BCE)] when the known world was at peace. War is not based solely on the political or economic reasons (driving the political-military solution); but, more on the willingness of a people to assume the risk. If the Arab League thought that it was more likely that they would fail in the joint uniformed attack on Israel in 1948, it would be unreasonable to assume that the would adopt that solution. Similarly, if the Egyptians has thought that there would be a formidable military opposition solution in 1967, they would have thought twice about closing the Straits of Titan and move the two Re-enforced Egyptian Corps into the buffer zone of the Sinai. Nor would have Egypt mounted a second combined military operations during 1973 Holiday of Yom Kipper if they would have known that the entire Egyptian 3d Army were to be placed at risk and likely surrounded in the Sinai; without an Air Defense umbrella, cut-off from resupply, and repulsed with heavy casualties.

Then again, how do you divide the pie when one keeps eating it during fake peace talks?

Your analogy is faulty. Israel is not eating the pie. Or pieces of the pie.

What Israel is doing is permitting the Jewish people to move onto land and then protecting them. What Israel is doing is placing pieces of pepperoni on a cheese pizza.

And the Palestinians are saying, "There must not be any pepperoni on our pizza (which is racism, of course).

So Israel says,"No worries, we get that you don't like pepperoni, so we'll take the ones with the pepperoni and you can have these pieces over here which have no pepperoni on it -- the same size pieces and the same number of pieces. 4 for you and 4 for us. No problem."

And the Palestinians say, "No! no! We must have that particular piece of pizza. But you must remove all the pepperoni (which is ethnic cleansing -- removing people due to their ethnicity).

The reason why there is no peace, is not that Israel is taking land -- its that Palestinians refuse to have a multi-ethnic, diverse, fair and equal society. (Something which is common to all Muslim nations).

And here's the test to see if you are comfortable with racism and ethnic cleansing being applied equally: if all the Jews must leave Palestine, do all the Arab Palestinians have to leave Israel? Is the point to make two homogeneous States, with none of the "other" in each State? If it is not -- why are you insisting on it for the one side?

People forget how much of the land was owned by jews before '47 or Jordan annexed the WB and palestinians nullified all sales of land to jews years after the fact.

When palestinians end the violence they can sit down and talk to Israel and work out some compromise agreement so there can be a palestinian state that recognizes Israel's right to exist as a jewish state.

It is Israel's war. Only Israel can end the violence.

Nonsense. Read the Hamas Charter.

(COMMENT)

Today, even with history --- the complete decimation of the Holy War Army and the Arab Liberation Army (quasi-Irregular Palestinians Forces), today's Hostile Arab Palestinian and its totally unsuccessful and fail government leadership of more than a quarter century --- and more that four decades of failed jihadist / terrorist attacks, the Palestinians still attempt to make demands on the opening criteria and agenda that sets the conditions for negotiation. In essence, the HoAP still has the will to settle their disputes through violence.

The conflict with the Jewish State of Israel initiated by the combined military Arabs attack within a day of Israeli independence, will end with a good faith effort and willingness to compromise by the last remaining initiator (the Palestinians). Or, the Palestinians assume the responsibility for the continuation of hostilities; and the adverse impact it has on the development of the Palestinian People who politically supported the combative Jihadist and Fedayeen.

ISIS Declares War On Israel In Palestine, Promising To Make It A Graveyard For Jews
26 DECEMBER 2015 | by: Zachary Volkert

In no uncertain terms, the Islamic extremist group’s leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi released a social media audio statement that promised a war in Palestine against Israel and the Jewish people. ISIS, the message revealed, is putting specific emphasis on the contested area in its efforts to gain control in the region, reported The Times of Israel.

“Israel will pay a heavy price at the hands of our fighters… Palestine will not be your land or your home. It will be a graveyard for you. Allah has gathered you in Palestine so that the Muslims may kill you… The Jews thought that we forgot about Palestine and diverted our attention from it. Never, Jews. We have not forgotten Palestine for a moment. The leaders of the jihad fighters will surround you on a day you think is far, but we see it as close. We are coming closer to you day by day.”
​

Is there a connection between the Palestinians and Islamic State (DAESH)? It is interesting to note that the Salafist-jihadi ("extreme form of Sunni Islamism that rejects democracy") organizations and the Radicalized Islamic counterparts are attempting to make an association between DAESH (Islamic State) with Israel and the US. This is a very disparate attempt by the Sunni Salafist-jihadi to make some kind of villainous image for political purposes. But most people, who have some knowledge of the US or Israel, know that the life-style has very little in common with the radicalized Islamic organizations such as:

• Ansar Bait al-Maqdis (aka Ansar Jerusalem) Gaza 2012–present
• Ansar al-Sharia (Egypt) Egypt 2012–present
• Jaish al-Ummah (JaU) Israel (Gaza) 2007–present
• Jaish al-Islam (aka Tawhid and Jihad Brigades) Gaza, Egypt (Sinai) 2005–present
• Jamaat Ansar Bayt al-Maqdis Egypt (Sinai) 2011–present
• Mujahideen Shura Council Gaza, Egypt (Sinai) 2011–present
• Muhammad Jamal Network (MJN) Egypt 2011–present

Saudi Grand Mufti calls ISIS “part of the Israeli army”
Bruce Riedel | December 28, 2015

The revealing interview this week with Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia Sheikh Abdulaziz Al Sheikh provides important insight into the Wahhabi establishment, which is the core partner of the House of Saud.

The Mufti praised the creation of an Islamic military alliance to fight terrorism, promising the alliance will defeat the Islamic State, which he labeled a heretical and un-Islamic movement. The new alliance is the brainchild of Deputy Crown Prince and Defense Minister Prince Muhammed bin Salman, the king’s favorite son.

The 72-year old cleric was asked about comments made by Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the self proclaimed caliph of the Islamic State, that the new alliance is not serious because it is not "killing Jews and liberating Palestine." Al-Baghadi called the new Saudi-led alliance a pawn of the United States and Israel, promising that the "tanks of the mujahideen are moving closer to Israel day after day."
​

While the Charter of the Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS) is somewhat dated, it basic concepts are still imbedded in the foundation of the organization. Just last May, (2015) Palestinian Authority (PA) Chairman Mahmoud Abbas's Fatah faction marked "Nakba" day - signifying the "catastrophe" of the establishment of the modern state of Israel - by calling for terrorism to destroy Israel and conquer the state as the "only" way. And the quarter century old HAMAS Covenant is not so readically different from todays HAMAS:

"3. We will not, in any way, recognize the legitimacy of the occupation. This is a principled, political, and moral position. We do not recognize the legitimacy of the Israeli occupation of Palestine, nor do we acknowledge “Israel” or the legality of its presence on any part of Palestine no matter how long it remains, and Allah willing, this will not be long. All that has occurred in Palestine, including its occupation, settlements, Judaization, the changing of its landmarks and the falsification of facts in its regard is wrong and must end, Allah willing. "

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[rhodescholar]

Your analogy is faulty. Israel is not eating the pie. Or pieces of the pie.

What Israel is doing is permitting the Jewish people to move onto land and then protecting them. What Israel is doing is placing pieces of pepperoni on a cheese pizza.

And the Palestinians are saying, "There must not be any pepperoni on our pizza (which is racism, of course).

So Israel says,"No worries, we get that you don't like pepperoni, so we'll take the ones with the pepperoni and you can have these pieces over here which have no pepperoni on it -- the same size pieces and the same number of pieces. 4 for you and 4 for us. No problem."

And the Palestinians say, "No! no! We must have that particular piece of pizza. But you must remove all the pepperoni (which is ethnic cleansing -- removing people due to their ethnicity).

The reason why there is no peace, is not that Israel is taking land -- its that Palestinians refuse to have a multi-ethnic, diverse, fair and equal society. (Something which is common to all Muslim nations).

And here's the test to see if you are comfortable with racism and ethnic cleansing being applied equally: if all the Jews must leave Palestine, do all the Arab Palestinians have to leave Israel? Is the point to make two homogeneous States, with none of the "other" in each State? If it is not -- why are you insisting on it for the one side?

The ***** won't admit to that because it would expose them as frauds, showing that they believe jews have no right to an inch of land in the region, and that only muslims can be sovereign in the mideast.

Notice how the leftist trash / far left allies of the arab muslims never seem to have an issue with the ethnic cleansing of non-muslims out of the mideast - right now ISIS is clearing non-muslim minorities out of syria and iraq, but the verminous jew-hating turds won't focus on that.

All you have to do to expose the arab muslim filth and their jew-hating allied dung is to ask if jews or any other minorities have a right to sovereignty in the mideast; when they refuse to respond, or equivocate their answer, you know you are dealing the racist trash that perfectly presents the arab muslim racist state of mind: that only arab muslims can be sovereign there. But sadly, this racism is never called out by the leftist news media, or organizations pretending to be for human rights.

 

[montelatici]

The Arab League was attempting to prevent the killing and ethnic cleansing of the non-Jews by the European colonists. What are you on about Rocco? They failed, but it would have been criminal if they hadn't at least tried to save the non-Jews. The British were well aware of what the European colonists had in mind. Newly declassified documents confirm this fact

"British officials predicted war – and Arab defeat – in Palestine in 1948

Declassified UK reports document build-up of conflict, Jewish public's endorsement of their leaders' pro-terrorist stance and declare armies of Arab states were Palestinians' 'only hope'.

British officials predicted war – and Arab defeat – in Palestine in 1948

 

[Shusha]

I like to think that but I'm not so sure. There is no Nelson Mandella figure to negotiate peace and reconciliation. Without reconciliation can you have true peace and true justice? I'm thinking about countries like the former Rhodesia where "justice" turned into vengeance.

There can not be justice until the fundamental underlying ideologies change and the Arab Muslims, along with those Westerners who support them, stop demonizing Israel and begin to recognize her rights. Her rights to territory; her rights to be a State for the Jewish people; her rights to her own history; her rights to pray and worship and protect her holy places; the right of her people to determine their own values and laws and culture; the right to defend their citizens, their borders and their territory.

The problem is that there are no Arab Muslims who are willing to really acknowledge and fundamentally believe in the rights of the Jewish people. And there are a shockingly large number of Westerners who also fail to believe in the rights of the Jewish people (witness this forum).

Let's look at Gaza. Israel has no interest in Gaza. It is not home to important holy places, it is not a vital area of security. Israel can give up Gaza with virtually no consequences. Gaza also has a ton of potential as a self-supporting, viable nation (think of the tourism opportunities -- have you seen the beaches?) So it seems to me to be a no-brainer to encourage Gaza to independance.

So Israel pulls entirely out of Gaza -- uprooting 10,000 people and ethnically cleansing Gaza for the Palestinian peoples. The borders are not in dispute. What would have happened if there had been a leader to arise out of Gaza who decided to develop Gaza into a viable nation State, living peacefully alongside with Egypt and Israel, developing trade and the economy, caretaking the water supply, providing social services, developing agriculture and tourism. No rockets, no mortars, no suicide bombers, no tunnels, no kidnapping of soldiers? What would have happened?

It seems to me that we would have a thriving State of Gaza.

So why didn't it happen? Because a thriving State of Gaza is not what the Palestinians want.

And this talk about, "defending themselves" is a load of BS. Defending themselves from whom? What is it, exactly, that the Gazans want Israel to do? Yes, yes -- remove the blockade and normalize the border. I get that. But what makes people think that removing the blockade and normalizing an international border when you are importing weapons and constantly committing attacks on innocent Israeli civilians is going to happen? Are you kidding? The blockade ends when the belligerence ends. If they stopped attacking Israel and just worked on their own shit -- there would not be any more conflict. It would be over.

Do Gazans have a right to defend themselves? Of course they do. But NO ONE is attacking them. A blockade is a DEFENSE not an attack.

So, yes, we need someone in Gaza to lead them to peace. There is no such person there at this point. And unfortunately, far too many people support Hamas; their anti-Israel and antisemitic ideology and their charter which demands that every inch of the territory be returned to Muslim rule.

 

[P F Tinmore]

I like to think that but I'm not so sure. There is no Nelson Mandella figure to negotiate peace and reconciliation. Without reconciliation can you have true peace and true justice? I'm thinking about countries like the former Rhodesia where "justice" turned into vengeance.

There can not be justice until the fundamental underlying ideologies change and the Arab Muslims, along with those Westerners who support them, stop demonizing Israel and begin to recognize her rights. Her rights to territory; her rights to be a State for the Jewish people; her rights to her own history; her rights to pray and worship and protect her holy places; the right of her people to determine their own values and laws and culture; the right to defend their citizens, their borders and their territory.

The problem is that there are no Arab Muslims who are willing to really acknowledge and fundamentally believe in the rights of the Jewish people. And there are a shockingly large number of Westerners who also fail to believe in the rights of the Jewish people (witness this forum).

Let's look at Gaza. Israel has no interest in Gaza. It is not home to important holy places, it is not a vital area of security. Israel can give up Gaza with virtually no consequences. Gaza also has a ton of potential as a self-supporting, viable nation (think of the tourism opportunities -- have you seen the beaches?) So it seems to me to be a no-brainer to encourage Gaza to independance.

So Israel pulls entirely out of Gaza -- uprooting 10,000 people and ethnically cleansing Gaza for the Palestinian peoples. The borders are not in dispute. What would have happened if there had been a leader to arise out of Gaza who decided to develop Gaza into a viable nation State, living peacefully alongside with Egypt and Israel, developing trade and the economy, caretaking the water supply, providing social services, developing agriculture and tourism. No rockets, no mortars, no suicide bombers, no tunnels, no kidnapping of soldiers? What would have happened?

It seems to me that we would have a thriving State of Gaza.

So why didn't it happen? Because a thriving State of Gaza is not what the Palestinians want.

And this talk about, "defending themselves" is a load of BS. Defending themselves from whom? What is it, exactly, that the Gazans want Israel to do? Yes, yes -- remove the blockade and normalize the border. I get that. But what makes people think that removing the blockade and normalizing an international border when you are importing weapons and constantly committing attacks on innocent Israeli civilians is going to happen? Are you kidding? The blockade ends when the belligerence ends. If they stopped attacking Israel and just worked on their own shit -- there would not be any more conflict. It would be over.

Do Gazans have a right to defend themselves? Of course they do. But NO ONE is attacking them. A blockade is a DEFENSE not an attack.

So, yes, we need someone in Gaza to lead them to peace. There is no such person there at this point. And unfortunately, far too many people support Hamas; their anti-Israel and antisemitic ideology and their charter which demands that every inch of the territory be returned to Muslim rule.

It seems to me that we would have a thriving State of Gaza.

So why didn't it happen? Because a thriving State of Gaza is not what the Palestinians want.​

Part of Israel's disengagement was implementing a system of closure. This destroyed Gaza's economy and prevented any further development.

 

[montelatici]

A blockade is an offensive Act of War. The Gazans are entitled to attempt to break the blockade as a defensive measure.

Under international and US law, blockades are acts of war and variously defined as:

– surrounding a nation or objective with hostile forces;

– measures to isolate an enemy;

– encirclement and besieging;

– preventing the passage in or out of supplies, military forces or aid in time of or as an act of war; and

– an act of naval warfare to block access to an enemy’s coastline and deny entry to all vessels and aircraft.

Blockades: Acts of War

 

[Hollie]

I like to think that but I'm not so sure. There is no Nelson Mandella figure to negotiate peace and reconciliation. Without reconciliation can you have true peace and true justice? I'm thinking about countries like the former Rhodesia where "justice" turned into vengeance.

There can not be justice until the fundamental underlying ideologies change and the Arab Muslims, along with those Westerners who support them, stop demonizing Israel and begin to recognize her rights. Her rights to territory; her rights to be a State for the Jewish people; her rights to her own history; her rights to pray and worship and protect her holy places; the right of her people to determine their own values and laws and culture; the right to defend their citizens, their borders and their territory.

The problem is that there are no Arab Muslims who are willing to really acknowledge and fundamentally believe in the rights of the Jewish people. And there are a shockingly large number of Westerners who also fail to believe in the rights of the Jewish people (witness this forum).

Let's look at Gaza. Israel has no interest in Gaza. It is not home to important holy places, it is not a vital area of security. Israel can give up Gaza with virtually no consequences. Gaza also has a ton of potential as a self-supporting, viable nation (think of the tourism opportunities -- have you seen the beaches?) So it seems to me to be a no-brainer to encourage Gaza to independance.

So Israel pulls entirely out of Gaza -- uprooting 10,000 people and ethnically cleansing Gaza for the Palestinian peoples. The borders are not in dispute. What would have happened if there had been a leader to arise out of Gaza who decided to develop Gaza into a viable nation State, living peacefully alongside with Egypt and Israel, developing trade and the economy, caretaking the water supply, providing social services, developing agriculture and tourism. No rockets, no mortars, no suicide bombers, no tunnels, no kidnapping of soldiers? What would have happened?

It seems to me that we would have a thriving State of Gaza.

So why didn't it happen? Because a thriving State of Gaza is not what the Palestinians want.

And this talk about, "defending themselves" is a load of BS. Defending themselves from whom? What is it, exactly, that the Gazans want Israel to do? Yes, yes -- remove the blockade and normalize the border. I get that. But what makes people think that removing the blockade and normalizing an international border when you are importing weapons and constantly committing attacks on innocent Israeli civilians is going to happen? Are you kidding? The blockade ends when the belligerence ends. If they stopped attacking Israel and just worked on their own shit -- there would not be any more conflict. It would be over.

Do Gazans have a right to defend themselves? Of course they do. But NO ONE is attacking them. A blockade is a DEFENSE not an attack.

So, yes, we need someone in Gaza to lead them to peace. There is no such person there at this point. And unfortunately, far too many people support Hamas; their anti-Israel and antisemitic ideology and their charter which demands that every inch of the territory be returned to Muslim rule.

It seems to me that we would have a thriving State of Gaza.

So why didn't it happen? Because a thriving State of Gaza is not what the Palestinians want.​

Part of Israel's disengagement was implementing a system of closure. This destroyed Gaza's economy and prevented any further development.

I'm afraid yours are the stereotypical excuses for Pali-Arab incompetence and ineptitude. The Palis had an opportunity after Israel's unilateral withdraw to establish a functioning society and a viable attempt at industry and commerce. They chose the route of belligerent Islamic terrorist and the attacks at Israel followed soon after.

 

[Hollie]

A blockade is an offensive Act of War. The Gazans are entitled to attempt to break the blockade as a defensive measure.

Under international and US law, blockades are acts of war and variously defined as:

– surrounding a nation or objective with hostile forces;

– measures to isolate an enemy;

– encirclement and besieging;

– preventing the passage in or out of supplies, military forces or aid in time of or as an act of war; and

– an act of naval warfare to block access to an enemy’s coastline and deny entry to all vessels and aircraft.

Blockades: Acts of War

 

[Hollie]

A blockade is an offensive Act of War. The Gazans are entitled to attempt to break the blockade as a defensive measure.

Under international and US law, blockades are acts of war and variously defined as:

– surrounding a nation or objective with hostile forces;

– measures to isolate an enemy;

– encirclement and besieging;

– preventing the passage in or out of supplies, military forces or aid in time of or as an act of war; and

– an act of naval warfare to block access to an enemy’s coastline and deny entry to all vessels and aircraft.

Blockades: Acts of War

Although, blockades can be an effective military tactic against a belligerent enemy.


The War at sea

In January 1916, in reply to an enquiry from former Prime Minister and then First Lord of the Admiralty Arthur Balfour, Commander-in-Chief of The Grand Fleet John Rushworth Jellicoe stressed the importance of playing to the Navy’s main strength – its size – to retain control of the North Sea: ‘…as to a possible naval offensive… I have long arrived at the conclusion that it would be suicidal to divide our main fleet...’ For the first two years of the war the Allies accordingly concentrated their naval efforts on a defensive strategy of protecting trade routes, developing anti-submarine devices and maintaining the blockade rather than actively seeking direct confrontation. - See more at: The War at sea

 

[RoccoR]

montelatici, et al,

Hmmm, I'm confused. Is your complaint about a Declaration of War?

A blockade is an offensive Act of War. The Gazans are entitled to attempt to break the blockade as a defensive measure.

Under international and US law, blockades are acts of war and variously defined as:

– surrounding a nation or objective with hostile forces;

– measures to isolate an enemy;

– encirclement and besieging;

– preventing the passage in or out of supplies, military forces or aid in time of or as an act of war; and

– an act of naval warfare to block access to an enemy’s coastline and deny entry to all vessels and aircraft.

Blockades: Acts of War

(COMMENT)

The Palestinians harbor terrorist, declare Jihad, and dig tunnels to cross the frontier into Israel .... AND THEN .... you complain about border controls over Israeli Borders, and the establishment of a registered blockade to the Program of Action to Prevent, Combat and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects; and to prevent all supplies that could be used for the construct tunnels.

Report: Hamas Accelerating Its Tunnel-Digging Operations Toward Israeli Border Towns
SATURDAY, 2 JANUARY 15 The Algemeiner.
Hamas has accelerated its tunnel-building operations near the Gaza border towards Israeli towns and villages, Israeli military officials said according to Walla news.

Less than two years after Israel delivered Hamas’ tunnel infrastructure a serious blow during Operation Protective Edge in the summer of 2014 Hamas’s fighters have stepped up the pace of their excavations.​

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Slyhunter]

...Israel needs to:

1. Remove all IDF military personnel from the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights.
2. End the blockade of Gaza by opening up the Ezra crossing and stop shooting at Palestinian fishermen in international waters.
3. Dismantle the over 500 roadblocks and checkpoints in the West Bank.
4. Demolish the Iron Curtain that was constructed on Palestinian land.
5. Take back those psychotic, white trash settlers to Israel, or negotiate resident visa's with the PA for them to stay.
6. And if they are given resident visa's, train Hamas and Fatah security forces in methods and operations to protect them.

Thank you. This is exactly what I was looking for. However, I think you are getting ahead of yourself.

1. How can Israel withdraw troops without determining borders to know where to withdraw troops from? So, while it is correct for Israel to withdraw troops, borders need to be established first.

2. I agree that the blockade should and would end in an end-of-conflict agreement. Although again, I think you are putting the cart before the horse.

However, sovereign nations have a right to control entry into their State. An international border established between Gaza and Israel will not change that. Even extremely friendly nations such as the US and Canada have border crossings and checkpoints. Perhaps, I misunderstand what you mean by "opening up the Ezra crossing".

3. Let's not confuse the issue with false information. My understanding is that there are only 39 checkpoints within Area B and none in Area A. There are an additional 36 checkpoints which are entry points into Israel (read international border ). I agree that once borders are established, Israel must remove all military personnel and checkpoints from other States.

4. Again, once borders are determined States can do whatever they wish with any walls built. If you would like to have Israel financially responsible for removal of walls that will be left on the Palestinian or Gazan sides of the border, I can agree to that.

5. Okay, nasty way of framing things aside, citizenship needs to be determined. However, I disagree that removing either Jewish or Arab Muslim people from their homes and sending them across the international border is morally or legally permissible.

6. Of course. The police in all States must be able to protect their citizens.

I would like to make a counter proposal as step one:

1. Borders will be established based on the principal of creating a contiguous Palestinian State and a Gaza State. (3 States).
2. Borders will be based loosely on the lines between Areas B and C with the Jewish populated Area C being transferred to Israel and land swaps given in exchange.

3. Jerusalem is to be divided into areas under Palestinian sovereignty and under Israeli sovereignty but the Old City and the Temple Mount are to remain under Israeli sovereignty with joint caretakership and security between Palestine and Israel. People of all faiths are guaranteed access and freedom of worship. Each State will allow access to citizens of the other State to all holy places.

4. Certain areas will be retained by Israel for security reasons, to be gradually and conditionally turned over to Palestine.

Muslims won't allow anyone freedom to worship except Muslims.

 

[Slyhunter]

Put one huge border around them all and whoever survives gets the land.

 

[Billo_Really]

Your analogy is faulty. Israel is not eating the pie. Or pieces of the pie.

What Israel is doing is permitting the Jewish people to move onto land and then protecting them.

And that is a violation of international law.

You cannot change the demographics of an area under occupation.

You cannot transfer a part of your population into an area you occupy.

 

[montelatici]

...Israel needs to:

1. Remove all IDF military personnel from the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights.
2. End the blockade of Gaza by opening up the Ezra crossing and stop shooting at Palestinian fishermen in international waters.
3. Dismantle the over 500 roadblocks and checkpoints in the West Bank.
4. Demolish the Iron Curtain that was constructed on Palestinian land.
5. Take back those psychotic, white trash settlers to Israel, or negotiate resident visa's with the PA for them to stay.
6. And if they are given resident visa's, train Hamas and Fatah security forces in methods and operations to protect them.

Thank you. This is exactly what I was looking for. However, I think you are getting ahead of yourself.

1. How can Israel withdraw troops without determining borders to know where to withdraw troops from? So, while it is correct for Israel to withdraw troops, borders need to be established first.

2. I agree that the blockade should and would end in an end-of-conflict agreement. Although again, I think you are putting the cart before the horse.

However, sovereign nations have a right to control entry into their State. An international border established between Gaza and Israel will not change that. Even extremely friendly nations such as the US and Canada have border crossings and checkpoints. Perhaps, I misunderstand what you mean by "opening up the Ezra crossing".

3. Let's not confuse the issue with false information. My understanding is that there are only 39 checkpoints within Area B and none in Area A. There are an additional 36 checkpoints which are entry points into Israel (read international border ). I agree that once borders are established, Israel must remove all military personnel and checkpoints from other States.

4. Again, once borders are determined States can do whatever they wish with any walls built. If you would like to have Israel financially responsible for removal of walls that will be left on the Palestinian or Gazan sides of the border, I can agree to that.

5. Okay, nasty way of framing things aside, citizenship needs to be determined. However, I disagree that removing either Jewish or Arab Muslim people from their homes and sending them across the international border is morally or legally permissible.

6. Of course. The police in all States must be able to protect their citizens.

I would like to make a counter proposal as step one:

1. Borders will be established based on the principal of creating a contiguous Palestinian State and a Gaza State. (3 States).
2. Borders will be based loosely on the lines between Areas B and C with the Jewish populated Area C being transferred to Israel and land swaps given in exchange.

3. Jerusalem is to be divided into areas under Palestinian sovereignty and under Israeli sovereignty but the Old City and the Temple Mount are to remain under Israeli sovereignty with joint caretakership and security between Palestine and Israel. People of all faiths are guaranteed access and freedom of worship. Each State will allow access to citizens of the other State to all holy places.

4. Certain areas will be retained by Israel for security reasons, to be gradually and conditionally turned over to Palestine.

Muslims won't allow anyone freedom to worship except Muslims.

 

[Billo_Really]

Nonsense. Read the Hamas Charter.

The Hamas Charter is a 40 year old document that is outdated not followed anymore. Hamas leaders say it needs to be revised, but the occupation and blockade must end first.

 

[RoccoR]

Billo_Really, et al,

The Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS)

Nonsense. Read the Hamas Charter.

The Hamas Charter is a 40 year old document that is outdated not followed anymore. Hamas leaders say it needs to be revised, but the occupation and blockade must end first.

(COMMENT)

It is all about being a radicalized Salafi-Islamic fundamentalist organization. When you say they want to revisit the Covenant, what did you mean - change the font? HAMAS is every bit a threat to peace today, as it was in 1988. OK so the language is 21st Century: "Jihad and armed resistance is the correct and authentic means for the liberation of Palestine and the restoration of all rights. " I think it translates.

We will not, in any way, recognize the legitimacy of the occupation. This is a principled, political, and moral position. We do not recognize the legitimacy of the Israeli occupation of Palestine, nor do we acknowledge “Israel” or the legality of its presence on any part of Palestine no matter how long it remains, and Allah willing, this will not be long. All that has occurred in Palestine, including its occupation, settlements, Judaization, the changing of its landmarks and the falsification of facts in its regard is wrong and must end, Allah willing !

What Is Hamas’s Mission?

As outlined in its 1988 charter (www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/mideast/hamas.htm), Hamas’s principal objective is the confrontation of Israel, which it considers a foreign cancer on sacred Muslim land. Indeed, without this mission, Hamas has no reason to exist; it would simply revert to being the Muslim Brotherhood. Numerous routes exist for achieving this goal, ranging from the evolutionary Islamization of Palestinian society, which would overwhelm Israel through demography, to the armed struggle against the Jewish state. (SOURCE: A Primer on Hamas: Origins, Tactics, Strategy, and Response By Robert Satloff)
​

HAMAS Current Political Position 2012

• Hamas political thought and stances in light of the …
https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/downloads/documents/130319...
1 Hamas’ political thought and stances in light of the Arab uprisings By Khalid Mishaal . This document was originally a paper presented by Mr Khalid Mishaal ...
• Hamas Political thought and stances in light of the Arab ...
pcomalaysia.com/en/hamas-political-thought-and-stances-in-light-of...
Hamas In KL. Mishaal: The occupation has no future on the land of Palestine 12 December 2015. Mishaal talks to the PIC on his visit to Malaysia, Intifada

• Political thought and strategies of Hamas in light of the ...
  www.amec.org.za/palestine-israel/item/1018-political-thought-and...
  ... Islamists in the Arab World and the Palestinian Issue in Light of the Arab uprisings... regarding the uprisings and how they affect Hamas ... Political Islam ...

Most Respectfully,
R​

 

[P F Tinmore]

I like to think that but I'm not so sure. There is no Nelson Mandella figure to negotiate peace and reconciliation. Without reconciliation can you have true peace and true justice? I'm thinking about countries like the former Rhodesia where "justice" turned into vengeance.

There can not be justice until the fundamental underlying ideologies change and the Arab Muslims, along with those Westerners who support them, stop demonizing Israel and begin to recognize her rights. Her rights to territory; her rights to be a State for the Jewish people; her rights to her own history; her rights to pray and worship and protect her holy places; the right of her people to determine their own values and laws and culture; the right to defend their citizens, their borders and their territory.

The problem is that there are no Arab Muslims who are willing to really acknowledge and fundamentally believe in the rights of the Jewish people. And there are a shockingly large number of Westerners who also fail to believe in the rights of the Jewish people (witness this forum).

Let's look at Gaza. Israel has no interest in Gaza. It is not home to important holy places, it is not a vital area of security. Israel can give up Gaza with virtually no consequences. Gaza also has a ton of potential as a self-supporting, viable nation (think of the tourism opportunities -- have you seen the beaches?) So it seems to me to be a no-brainer to encourage Gaza to independance.

So Israel pulls entirely out of Gaza -- uprooting 10,000 people and ethnically cleansing Gaza for the Palestinian peoples. The borders are not in dispute. What would have happened if there had been a leader to arise out of Gaza who decided to develop Gaza into a viable nation State, living peacefully alongside with Egypt and Israel, developing trade and the economy, caretaking the water supply, providing social services, developing agriculture and tourism. No rockets, no mortars, no suicide bombers, no tunnels, no kidnapping of soldiers? What would have happened?

It seems to me that we would have a thriving State of Gaza.

So why didn't it happen? Because a thriving State of Gaza is not what the Palestinians want.

And this talk about, "defending themselves" is a load of BS. Defending themselves from whom? What is it, exactly, that the Gazans want Israel to do? Yes, yes -- remove the blockade and normalize the border. I get that. But what makes people think that removing the blockade and normalizing an international border when you are importing weapons and constantly committing attacks on innocent Israeli civilians is going to happen? Are you kidding? The blockade ends when the belligerence ends. If they stopped attacking Israel and just worked on their own shit -- there would not be any more conflict. It would be over.

Do Gazans have a right to defend themselves? Of course they do. But NO ONE is attacking them. A blockade is a DEFENSE not an attack.

So, yes, we need someone in Gaza to lead them to peace. There is no such person there at this point. And unfortunately, far too many people support Hamas; their anti-Israel and antisemitic ideology and their charter which demands that every inch of the territory be returned to Muslim rule.

It seems to me that we would have a thriving State of Gaza.

So why didn't it happen? Because a thriving State of Gaza is not what the Palestinians want.​

Part of Israel's disengagement was implementing a system of closure. This destroyed Gaza's economy and prevented any further development.

I'm afraid yours are the stereotypical excuses for Pali-Arab incompetence and ineptitude. The Palis had an opportunity after Israel's unilateral withdraw to establish a functioning society and a viable attempt at industry and commerce. They chose the route of belligerent Islamic terrorist and the attacks at Israel followed soon after.

You have been misinformed.

 

[Hollie]

Nonsense. Read the Hamas Charter.

The Hamas Charter is a 40 year old document that is outdated not followed anymore. Hamas leaders say it needs to be revised, but the occupation and blockade must end first.

The Hamas Charter is a statement of Islamic fascism which is as relevant to Islamists today as it was 40 years ago.

 

[Hollie]

I like to think that but I'm not so sure. There is no Nelson Mandella figure to negotiate peace and reconciliation. Without reconciliation can you have true peace and true justice? I'm thinking about countries like the former Rhodesia where "justice" turned into vengeance.

There can not be justice until the fundamental underlying ideologies change and the Arab Muslims, along with those Westerners who support them, stop demonizing Israel and begin to recognize her rights. Her rights to territory; her rights to be a State for the Jewish people; her rights to her own history; her rights to pray and worship and protect her holy places; the right of her people to determine their own values and laws and culture; the right to defend their citizens, their borders and their territory.

The problem is that there are no Arab Muslims who are willing to really acknowledge and fundamentally believe in the rights of the Jewish people. And there are a shockingly large number of Westerners who also fail to believe in the rights of the Jewish people (witness this forum).

Let's look at Gaza. Israel has no interest in Gaza. It is not home to important holy places, it is not a vital area of security. Israel can give up Gaza with virtually no consequences. Gaza also has a ton of potential as a self-supporting, viable nation (think of the tourism opportunities -- have you seen the beaches?) So it seems to me to be a no-brainer to encourage Gaza to independance.

So Israel pulls entirely out of Gaza -- uprooting 10,000 people and ethnically cleansing Gaza for the Palestinian peoples. The borders are not in dispute. What would have happened if there had been a leader to arise out of Gaza who decided to develop Gaza into a viable nation State, living peacefully alongside with Egypt and Israel, developing trade and the economy, caretaking the water supply, providing social services, developing agriculture and tourism. No rockets, no mortars, no suicide bombers, no tunnels, no kidnapping of soldiers? What would have happened?

It seems to me that we would have a thriving State of Gaza.

So why didn't it happen? Because a thriving State of Gaza is not what the Palestinians want.

And this talk about, "defending themselves" is a load of BS. Defending themselves from whom? What is it, exactly, that the Gazans want Israel to do? Yes, yes -- remove the blockade and normalize the border. I get that. But what makes people think that removing the blockade and normalizing an international border when you are importing weapons and constantly committing attacks on innocent Israeli civilians is going to happen? Are you kidding? The blockade ends when the belligerence ends. If they stopped attacking Israel and just worked on their own shit -- there would not be any more conflict. It would be over.

Do Gazans have a right to defend themselves? Of course they do. But NO ONE is attacking them. A blockade is a DEFENSE not an attack.

So, yes, we need someone in Gaza to lead them to peace. There is no such person there at this point. And unfortunately, far too many people support Hamas; their anti-Israel and antisemitic ideology and their charter which demands that every inch of the territory be returned to Muslim rule.

It seems to me that we would have a thriving State of Gaza.

So why didn't it happen? Because a thriving State of Gaza is not what the Palestinians want.​

Part of Israel's disengagement was implementing a system of closure. This destroyed Gaza's economy and prevented any further development.

I'm afraid yours are the stereotypical excuses for Pali-Arab incompetence and ineptitude. The Palis had an opportunity after Israel's unilateral withdraw to establish a functioning society and a viable attempt at industry and commerce. They chose the route of belligerent Islamic terrorist and the attacks at Israel followed soon after.

You have been misinformed.

You are ignorant of islamo-history.

 

[P F Tinmore]

montelatici, et al,

Hmmm, I'm confused. Is your complaint about a Declaration of War?

A blockade is an offensive Act of War. The Gazans are entitled to attempt to break the blockade as a defensive measure.

Under international and US law, blockades are acts of war and variously defined as:

– surrounding a nation or objective with hostile forces;

– measures to isolate an enemy;

– encirclement and besieging;

– preventing the passage in or out of supplies, military forces or aid in time of or as an act of war; and

– an act of naval warfare to block access to an enemy’s coastline and deny entry to all vessels and aircraft.

Blockades: Acts of War

(COMMENT)

The Palestinians harbor terrorist, declare Jihad, and dig tunnels to cross the frontier into Israel .... AND THEN .... you complain about border controls over Israeli Borders, and the establishment of a registered blockade to the Program of Action to Prevent, Combat and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects; and to prevent all supplies that could be used for the construct tunnels.

Report: Hamas Accelerating Its Tunnel-Digging Operations Toward Israeli Border Towns
SATURDAY, 2 JANUARY 15 The Algemeiner.
Hamas has accelerated its tunnel-building operations near the Gaza border towards Israeli towns and villages, Israeli military officials said according to Walla news.

Less than two years after Israel delivered Hamas’ tunnel infrastructure a serious blow during Operation Protective Edge in the summer of 2014 Hamas’s fighters have stepped up the pace of their excavations.​

Most Respectfully,
R

Are you still pimping Israeli propaganda?