The Palestine Solution

[Hollie]

So...because they choose not exercise that "right" the Palestinians should be made to suffer?

I'm sorry. Where did I say that the Palestinians should be made to suffer? I seem to have missed that post that I supposedly wrote.

And no, the argument that there should be States for the Jewish people in all the ME States is not a stupid argument. Take a look at it. What gives the Arab Muslim Palestinian people the right to self-determination in "Palestine"? Most people on the anti-Israel side would argue that they have that right due to a long-standing community in that territory. Well, the Jewish people also have long-standing, historical communities in the territories in question. Why should they not ALSO be able to exercise their right to sovereign self-determination in territories where they have had long term residence?

What gives the Arab Muslim Palestinian people the right to self-determination in "Palestine"?

Palestinians do not have the right to self determination in Palestine?

Do you have a link to that?

Arab Moslems were from a nation called Palestine?

Got a link to that?

 

[P F Tinmore]

So...the argument seems to be headed towards:

Israel should get the whole enchilada.
The Palestinians should go to Jordan.

Not at all. Again, I am supporting the self-determination of the Palestinians. I'm just pointing out that the Arab demands need to have an end point.

Indeed, restricted by Palestine's international borders.

 

[Slyhunter]

I agree that that view is far more prevalent among Palestinians than Israeli's and the majority of Israeli society condemns such actoins, but the Israeli's are not totally innocent either.

Never did I say that either all Jews or all Israelis are totally innocent. But we agree that "that view" is far more prevalent among Palestinians than Israelis (Jews) and that the majority of Israeli society condemns such actions (in contrast to the majority of Palestinian society which celebrates such actions. That was my entire point and you agree with me.

Explain to me please why carrying a ten pound bomb into a building is terrorism and dropping a 2000 pound bomb from an airplane is not.

different buildings.

OK, but Israel specifically targets families.

Families get rewarded for members committing terrorism they should be punished for it as well.

 

[P F Tinmore]

So...the argument seems to be headed towards:

Israel should get the whole enchilada.
The Palestinians should go to Jordan.

Not at all. Again, I am supporting the self-determination of the Palestinians. I'm just pointing out that the Arab demands need to have an end point.

I agree. Both sides need to have an endpoint.

I think the right of return needs to be given up for example.

See, again, I disagree. The right of return belongs to the Palestinians. They just deserve to have it in the place which will allow them to develop their own vision. And not in a place which serves only to disrupt and destroy the vision of the other people in the region.

You need to read what you just said.

 

[P F Tinmore]

So...because they choose not exercise that "right" the Palestinians should be made to suffer?

I'm sorry. Where did I say that the Palestinians should be made to suffer? I seem to have missed that post that I supposedly wrote.

And no, the argument that there should be States for the Jewish people in all the ME States is not a stupid argument. Take a look at it. What gives the Arab Muslim Palestinian people the right to self-determination in "Palestine"? Most people on the anti-Israel side would argue that they have that right due to a long-standing community in that territory. Well, the Jewish people also have long-standing, historical communities in the territories in question. Why should they not ALSO be able to exercise their right to sovereign self-determination in territories where they have had long term residence?

What gives the Arab Muslim Palestinian people the right to self-determination in "Palestine"?

Palestinians do not have the right to self determination in Palestine?

Do you have a link to that?

Arab Moslems were from a nation called Palestine?

Got a link to that?

The status of Palestine and the nationality of its inhabitants were finally settled by the Treaty of Lausanne from the perspective of public international law. In a report submitted to the League of Nations, the British government pointed out: “The ratification of the Treaty of Lausanne in Aug., 1924, finally regularised the international status of Palestine.”123 And, thereafter, “Palestine could, at last, obtain a separate nationality.”124

• 125 See William Molony, Nationality and the Peace Treaties (London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd., 1934).
• 126 See Paul C. Helmreich, From Paris to Sèvres: The Partition of the Ottoman Empire at the Peace Conf (...)

68Most of the post-World War I peace treaties embodied nationality provisions and the Treaty of Lausanne was no exception.125 It addressed the nationality of the inhabitants in the territories detached from Turkey in Articles 30-6. These articles replaced, with certain modifications, Articles 123-31 of the draft Treaty of Sèvres of 1920.126

69Drawing up the framework of nationality, Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne stated:

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

Article 30 is of a great significance. It constituted a declaration of existing international law and the standard practice of states. This was despite the absence of a definite international law rule of state succession under which the nationals of predecessor state could ipso facto acquire the nationality of the successor.129 “As a rule, however, States have conferred their nationality on the former nationals of the predecessor State.”130 In practice, almost all peace treaties concluded between the Allies and other states at the end of World War I embodied nationality provisions similar to those of the Treaty of Lausanne. The inhabitants of Palestine, as the successors of this territory, henceforth acquired Palestinian nationality even if there was no treaty with Turkey.131

• 129 See C. Fred Fraser, “Transfer of Sovereignty and Non-Recognition as Affecting Nationality,” Albert (...)
• 130 Weis, supra note 96, p. 149.
• 131 See O’Connell, supra note 102, Vol. II, pp. 529-36.

 

[Hollie]

So...because they choose not exercise that "right" the Palestinians should be made to suffer?

I'm sorry. Where did I say that the Palestinians should be made to suffer? I seem to have missed that post that I supposedly wrote.

And no, the argument that there should be States for the Jewish people in all the ME States is not a stupid argument. Take a look at it. What gives the Arab Muslim Palestinian people the right to self-determination in "Palestine"? Most people on the anti-Israel side would argue that they have that right due to a long-standing community in that territory. Well, the Jewish people also have long-standing, historical communities in the territories in question. Why should they not ALSO be able to exercise their right to sovereign self-determination in territories where they have had long term residence?

What gives the Arab Muslim Palestinian people the right to self-determination in "Palestine"?

Palestinians do not have the right to self determination in Palestine?

Do you have a link to that?

Arab Moslems were from a nation called Palestine?

Got a link to that?

The status of Palestine and the nationality of its inhabitants were finally settled by the Treaty of Lausanne from the perspective of public international law. In a report submitted to the League of Nations, the British government pointed out: “The ratification of the Treaty of Lausanne in Aug., 1924, finally regularised the international status of Palestine.”123 And, thereafter, “Palestine could, at last, obtain a separate nationality.”124

• 125 See William Molony, Nationality and the Peace Treaties (London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd., 1934).
• 126 See Paul C. Helmreich, From Paris to Sèvres: The Partition of the Ottoman Empire at the Peace Conf (...)

68Most of the post-World War I peace treaties embodied nationality provisions and the Treaty of Lausanne was no exception.125 It addressed the nationality of the inhabitants in the territories detached from Turkey in Articles 30-6. These articles replaced, with certain modifications, Articles 123-31 of the draft Treaty of Sèvres of 1920.126

69Drawing up the framework of nationality, Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne stated:

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

Article 30 is of a great significance. It constituted a declaration of existing international law and the standard practice of states. This was despite the absence of a definite international law rule of state succession under which the nationals of predecessor state could ipso facto acquire the nationality of the successor.129 “As a rule, however, States have conferred their nationality on the former nationals of the predecessor State.”130 In practice, almost all peace treaties concluded between the Allies and other states at the end of World War I embodied nationality provisions similar to those of the Treaty of Lausanne. The inhabitants of Palestine, as the successors of this territory, henceforth acquired Palestinian nationality even if there was no treaty with Turkey.131

• 129 See C. Fred Fraser, “Transfer of Sovereignty and Non-Recognition as Affecting Nationality,” Albert (...)
• 130 Weis, supra note 96, p. 149.
• 131 See O’Connell, supra note 102, Vol. II, pp. 529-36.

Aside from that long, meaningless cut and paste, anything to indicate there was ever a nation called Palestine?

 

[P F Tinmore]

So...because they choose not exercise that "right" the Palestinians should be made to suffer?

I'm sorry. Where did I say that the Palestinians should be made to suffer? I seem to have missed that post that I supposedly wrote.

And no, the argument that there should be States for the Jewish people in all the ME States is not a stupid argument. Take a look at it. What gives the Arab Muslim Palestinian people the right to self-determination in "Palestine"? Most people on the anti-Israel side would argue that they have that right due to a long-standing community in that territory. Well, the Jewish people also have long-standing, historical communities in the territories in question. Why should they not ALSO be able to exercise their right to sovereign self-determination in territories where they have had long term residence?

What gives the Arab Muslim Palestinian people the right to self-determination in "Palestine"?

Palestinians do not have the right to self determination in Palestine?

Do you have a link to that?

Arab Moslems were from a nation called Palestine?

Got a link to that?

The status of Palestine and the nationality of its inhabitants were finally settled by the Treaty of Lausanne from the perspective of public international law. In a report submitted to the League of Nations, the British government pointed out: “The ratification of the Treaty of Lausanne in Aug., 1924, finally regularised the international status of Palestine.”123 And, thereafter, “Palestine could, at last, obtain a separate nationality.”124

• 125 See William Molony, Nationality and the Peace Treaties (London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd., 1934).
• 126 See Paul C. Helmreich, From Paris to Sèvres: The Partition of the Ottoman Empire at the Peace Conf (...)

68Most of the post-World War I peace treaties embodied nationality provisions and the Treaty of Lausanne was no exception.125 It addressed the nationality of the inhabitants in the territories detached from Turkey in Articles 30-6. These articles replaced, with certain modifications, Articles 123-31 of the draft Treaty of Sèvres of 1920.126

69Drawing up the framework of nationality, Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne stated:

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

Article 30 is of a great significance. It constituted a declaration of existing international law and the standard practice of states. This was despite the absence of a definite international law rule of state succession under which the nationals of predecessor state could ipso facto acquire the nationality of the successor.129 “As a rule, however, States have conferred their nationality on the former nationals of the predecessor State.”130 In practice, almost all peace treaties concluded between the Allies and other states at the end of World War I embodied nationality provisions similar to those of the Treaty of Lausanne. The inhabitants of Palestine, as the successors of this territory, henceforth acquired Palestinian nationality even if there was no treaty with Turkey.131

• 129 See C. Fred Fraser, “Transfer of Sovereignty and Non-Recognition as Affecting Nationality,” Albert (...)
• 130 Weis, supra note 96, p. 149.
• 131 See O’Connell, supra note 102, Vol. II, pp. 529-36.

Aside from that long, meaningless cut and paste, anything to indicate there was ever a nation called Palestine?

“The ratification of the Treaty of Lausanne in Aug., 1924, finally regularised the international status of Palestine.”123 And, thereafter, “Palestine could, at last, obtain a separate nationality.”124

The inhabitants of Palestine, as the successors of this territory, henceforth acquired Palestinian nationality even if there was no treaty with Turkey.131

 

[Hollie]

I'm sorry. Where did I say that the Palestinians should be made to suffer? I seem to have missed that post that I supposedly wrote.

And no, the argument that there should be States for the Jewish people in all the ME States is not a stupid argument. Take a look at it. What gives the Arab Muslim Palestinian people the right to self-determination in "Palestine"? Most people on the anti-Israel side would argue that they have that right due to a long-standing community in that territory. Well, the Jewish people also have long-standing, historical communities in the territories in question. Why should they not ALSO be able to exercise their right to sovereign self-determination in territories where they have had long term residence?

What gives the Arab Muslim Palestinian people the right to self-determination in "Palestine"?

Palestinians do not have the right to self determination in Palestine?

Do you have a link to that?

Arab Moslems were from a nation called Palestine?

Got a link to that?

The status of Palestine and the nationality of its inhabitants were finally settled by the Treaty of Lausanne from the perspective of public international law. In a report submitted to the League of Nations, the British government pointed out: “The ratification of the Treaty of Lausanne in Aug., 1924, finally regularised the international status of Palestine.”123 And, thereafter, “Palestine could, at last, obtain a separate nationality.”124

• 125 See William Molony, Nationality and the Peace Treaties (London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd., 1934).
• 126 See Paul C. Helmreich, From Paris to Sèvres: The Partition of the Ottoman Empire at the Peace Conf (...)

68Most of the post-World War I peace treaties embodied nationality provisions and the Treaty of Lausanne was no exception.125 It addressed the nationality of the inhabitants in the territories detached from Turkey in Articles 30-6. These articles replaced, with certain modifications, Articles 123-31 of the draft Treaty of Sèvres of 1920.126

69Drawing up the framework of nationality, Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne stated:

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

Article 30 is of a great significance. It constituted a declaration of existing international law and the standard practice of states. This was despite the absence of a definite international law rule of state succession under which the nationals of predecessor state could ipso facto acquire the nationality of the successor.129 “As a rule, however, States have conferred their nationality on the former nationals of the predecessor State.”130 In practice, almost all peace treaties concluded between the Allies and other states at the end of World War I embodied nationality provisions similar to those of the Treaty of Lausanne. The inhabitants of Palestine, as the successors of this territory, henceforth acquired Palestinian nationality even if there was no treaty with Turkey.131

• 129 See C. Fred Fraser, “Transfer of Sovereignty and Non-Recognition as Affecting Nationality,” Albert (...)
• 130 Weis, supra note 96, p. 149.
• 131 See O’Connell, supra note 102, Vol. II, pp. 529-36.

Aside from that long, meaningless cut and paste, anything to indicate there was ever a nation called Palestine?

“The ratification of the Treaty of Lausanne in Aug., 1924, finally regularised the international status of Palestine.”123 And, thereafter, “Palestine could, at last, obtain a separate nationality.”124

The inhabitants of Palestine, as the successors of this territory, henceforth acquired Palestinian nationality even if there was no treaty with Turkey.131

Aside from your silliness having been addressed many times before, can you identify when this nonexistent state of Palestine has ever existed?

 

[P F Tinmore]

What gives the Arab Muslim Palestinian people the right to self-determination in "Palestine"?

Palestinians do not have the right to self determination in Palestine?

Do you have a link to that?

Arab Moslems were from a nation called Palestine?

Got a link to that?

The status of Palestine and the nationality of its inhabitants were finally settled by the Treaty of Lausanne from the perspective of public international law. In a report submitted to the League of Nations, the British government pointed out: “The ratification of the Treaty of Lausanne in Aug., 1924, finally regularised the international status of Palestine.”123 And, thereafter, “Palestine could, at last, obtain a separate nationality.”124

• 125 See William Molony, Nationality and the Peace Treaties (London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd., 1934).
• 126 See Paul C. Helmreich, From Paris to Sèvres: The Partition of the Ottoman Empire at the Peace Conf (...)

68Most of the post-World War I peace treaties embodied nationality provisions and the Treaty of Lausanne was no exception.125 It addressed the nationality of the inhabitants in the territories detached from Turkey in Articles 30-6. These articles replaced, with certain modifications, Articles 123-31 of the draft Treaty of Sèvres of 1920.126

69Drawing up the framework of nationality, Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne stated:

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

Article 30 is of a great significance. It constituted a declaration of existing international law and the standard practice of states. This was despite the absence of a definite international law rule of state succession under which the nationals of predecessor state could ipso facto acquire the nationality of the successor.129 “As a rule, however, States have conferred their nationality on the former nationals of the predecessor State.”130 In practice, almost all peace treaties concluded between the Allies and other states at the end of World War I embodied nationality provisions similar to those of the Treaty of Lausanne. The inhabitants of Palestine, as the successors of this territory, henceforth acquired Palestinian nationality even if there was no treaty with Turkey.131

• 129 See C. Fred Fraser, “Transfer of Sovereignty and Non-Recognition as Affecting Nationality,” Albert (...)
• 130 Weis, supra note 96, p. 149.
• 131 See O’Connell, supra note 102, Vol. II, pp. 529-36.

Aside from that long, meaningless cut and paste, anything to indicate there was ever a nation called Palestine?

“The ratification of the Treaty of Lausanne in Aug., 1924, finally regularised the international status of Palestine.”123 And, thereafter, “Palestine could, at last, obtain a separate nationality.”124

The inhabitants of Palestine, as the successors of this territory, henceforth acquired Palestinian nationality even if there was no treaty with Turkey.131

Aside from your silliness having been addressed many times before, can you identify when this nonexistent state of Palestine has ever existed?

In a broader international context, the “Nationality law… showed that the Palestinians formed a nation, and that Palestine was a State, though provisionally under guardianship.”90 The inclusion of Palestinian nationality in the text of the Palestine Mandate was the first step towards an international recognition of the Palestinian people as distinct from the Ottoman people and other peoples. Palestinian nationality, like any other nationality, constitutes the formula by which a certain group of individuals are being legally connected and enabled to form the people element of the state.91

Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel

 

[Coyote]

What do you propose they do?

Stop attacking. Negotiate a peace. Accept a neighbor Jewish State. Share the land. What is so hard about that?

I agree, they have to accept and recognize Israel's right to exist. But it's difficult to demand they "share the land" when Israel's ongoing settlement building activities and it's fracturing of families through the residency permit process make it seem to the Palestinians that the Israeli's have no such intention.

 

[Coyote]

I bet a Palestinian could.

What extensive list of cultural differences would there be between Americans and Canadians? Same language, same ethnic heritage, same religions, same costumes...

I bet a Palestinian couldn't.

The basis for American and Canadian sovereignty are not based on being indigenous.

Now you are changing the goalposts. The Palestinians - like the Jews are a mixture of indiginous and immigrant people. Why would it matter whether or not they had a distinct and different culture - since when is that a determiner?

 

[Coyote]

It wouldn't be a "right of return" if it wasn't to where they had been displaced from.

But the place that they are being displaced from is not a pre-existing, national entity.

What difference does that make? Israel is the same. All were part of different empires at different times.

It is a territory in the process of splitting between two over-lapping claims to sovereignty. Each claim to sovereignty is a claim to self-determination for THAT group. Thus, those "returning", or even, frankly, those staying, SHOULD be a part of the sovereignty of those with whom they self-identify and who accept them as their own. Therefore, theoretically, ALL the Arab, Muslim Palestinians should be participants of their right to self-determination in a State of Palestine and all the Jewish people should be participants of their right to self-determination in Israel. In separate, sovereign States.

If I understand you correctly, I agree. Essentially, two states must be formed out of the area that is now Israel, Occuppied Territories, and Gaza. Three states if there is no way to bridge Gaza and whatever is arranged in the West Bank. Israel's 1948 borders would represent a starting points since those were the borders when it declared itself a state.

 

[Coyote]

So...because they choose not exercise that "right" the Palestinians should be made to suffer?

I'm sorry. Where did I say that the Palestinians should be made to suffer? I seem to have missed that post that I supposedly wrote.

And no, the argument that there should be States for the Jewish people in all the ME States is not a stupid argument. Take a look at it. What gives the Arab Muslim Palestinian people the right to self-determination in "Palestine"? Most people on the anti-Israel side would argue that they have that right due to a long-standing community in that territory. Well, the Jewish people also have long-standing, historical communities in the territories in question. Why should they not ALSO be able to exercise their right to sovereign self-determination in territories where they have had long term residence?

The reason I say it's "stupid" is because you are lumping all Arabic countries into one category as if they are all alike. How far back in history are you going to go to exercise soverign self-determination? Unlike the Jews, who are currently citizens of Israel, with all their rights and priveledges intact - the Palestinians are citizens of no nation. With only those rights Israel is willing to grant, and which Israel can remove at any time for any reason. There's a big difference between those who have a state (Israeli's) and those who don't - the Palestinians.

 

[Slyhunter]

It wouldn't be a "right of return" if it wasn't to where they had been displaced from.

But the place that they are being displaced from is not a pre-existing, national entity.

What difference does that make? Israel is the same. All were part of different empires at different times.

It is a territory in the process of splitting between two over-lapping claims to sovereignty. Each claim to sovereignty is a claim to self-determination for THAT group. Thus, those "returning", or even, frankly, those staying, SHOULD be a part of the sovereignty of those with whom they self-identify and who accept them as their own. Therefore, theoretically, ALL the Arab, Muslim Palestinians should be participants of their right to self-determination in a State of Palestine and all the Jewish people should be participants of their right to self-determination in Israel. In separate, sovereign States.

If I understand you correctly, I agree. Essentially, two states must be formed out of the area that is now Israel, Occuppied Territories, and Gaza. Three states if there is no way to bridge Gaza and whatever is arranged in the West Bank. Israel's 1948 borders would represent a starting points since those were the borders when it declared itself a state.

going back to the 1948 borders is not going to happen. There is a price to be paid for not accepting those borders in the first place and starting the war. Arabs/Palestinians need to pay Israel back for their misdeed.

 

[Coyote]

It wouldn't be a "right of return" if it wasn't to where they had been displaced from.

But the place that they are being displaced from is not a pre-existing, national entity.

What difference does that make? Israel is the same. All were part of different empires at different times.

It is a territory in the process of splitting between two over-lapping claims to sovereignty. Each claim to sovereignty is a claim to self-determination for THAT group. Thus, those "returning", or even, frankly, those staying, SHOULD be a part of the sovereignty of those with whom they self-identify and who accept them as their own. Therefore, theoretically, ALL the Arab, Muslim Palestinians should be participants of their right to self-determination in a State of Palestine and all the Jewish people should be participants of their right to self-determination in Israel. In separate, sovereign States.

If I understand you correctly, I agree. Essentially, two states must be formed out of the area that is now Israel, Occuppied Territories, and Gaza. Three states if there is no way to bridge Gaza and whatever is arranged in the West Bank. Israel's 1948 borders would represent a starting points since those were the borders when it declared itself a state.

going back to the 1948 borders is not going to happen. There is a price to be paid for not accepting those borders in the first place and starting the war. Arabs/Palestinians need to pay Israel back for their misdeed.

I agree it won't. It's just a starting point because that is the only time there were clear borders.

 

[montelatici]

It wouldn't be a "right of return" if it wasn't to where they had been displaced from.

But the place that they are being displaced from is not a pre-existing, national entity.

What difference does that make? Israel is the same. All were part of different empires at different times.

It is a territory in the process of splitting between two over-lapping claims to sovereignty. Each claim to sovereignty is a claim to self-determination for THAT group. Thus, those "returning", or even, frankly, those staying, SHOULD be a part of the sovereignty of those with whom they self-identify and who accept them as their own. Therefore, theoretically, ALL the Arab, Muslim Palestinians should be participants of their right to self-determination in a State of Palestine and all the Jewish people should be participants of their right to self-determination in Israel. In separate, sovereign States.

If I understand you correctly, I agree. Essentially, two states must be formed out of the area that is now Israel, Occuppied Territories, and Gaza. Three states if there is no way to bridge Gaza and whatever is arranged in the West Bank. Israel's 1948 borders would represent a starting points since those were the borders when it declared itself a state.

going back to the 1948 borders is not going to happen. There is a price to be paid for not accepting those borders in the first place and starting the war. Arabs/Palestinians need to pay Israel back for their misdeed.

So 30% of the native people (the Muslims and Christians who made up 45% of the population of the gerrymandered European partition) were expected to passively accept colonization and foreign rule? What planet are you from? What other native people would have accepted foreign colonial rule passively without resisting?

 

[Indeependent]

It wouldn't be a "right of return" if it wasn't to where they had been displaced from.

But the place that they are being displaced from is not a pre-existing, national entity.

What difference does that make? Israel is the same. All were part of different empires at different times.

It is a territory in the process of splitting between two over-lapping claims to sovereignty. Each claim to sovereignty is a claim to self-determination for THAT group. Thus, those "returning", or even, frankly, those staying, SHOULD be a part of the sovereignty of those with whom they self-identify and who accept them as their own. Therefore, theoretically, ALL the Arab, Muslim Palestinians should be participants of their right to self-determination in a State of Palestine and all the Jewish people should be participants of their right to self-determination in Israel. In separate, sovereign States.

If I understand you correctly, I agree. Essentially, two states must be formed out of the area that is now Israel, Occuppied Territories, and Gaza. Three states if there is no way to bridge Gaza and whatever is arranged in the West Bank. Israel's 1948 borders would represent a starting points since those were the borders when it declared itself a state.

going back to the 1948 borders is not going to happen. There is a price to be paid for not accepting those borders in the first place and starting the war. Arabs/Palestinians need to pay Israel back for their misdeed.

So 30% of the native people (the Muslims and Christians who made up 45% of the population of the gerrymandered European partition) were expected to passively accept colonization and foreign rule? What planet are you from? What other native people would have accepted foreign colonial rule passively without resisting?

So how far back in time to we go to rectify misplacement or gerrymandering?
In fact, I'll make it easy...No earlier than 1900.
Your turn.

 

[montelatici]

It was 1947 you idiot.

 

[Indeependent]

It was 1947 you idiot.

No fvckbrain, the 20th Century saw a SHITLOAD of misplacement and gerrymandering which has resulted in 100 years of bitter and bloody fighting between Christians and Muslims that have NOTHING to do with Israel, so answer the question.

 

[montelatici]

This is the I/P forum, what does your question have to do with the I/P situation.