The Palestine Solution

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes there is a big difference. But back then, the Hostile Arab Palestinians wanted to eject all the Jewish Immigrants. The idea of a Jewish National Home and a Jewish State are not two separate things. A Jewish National Home could be accomplished in a number of different ways; only one of which was the establishment of a Jewish State.

This is the most ridiculous thing said so far. The entire reason for the establishment of the Jewish National Home, which ultimately formed as the modern State of Israel, was to preserve the Jewish People and provide them a sanctuary so that might better defend themselves against the likes of the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, and Arab Palestinian that was involved in espionage, sabotage, terrorist activity against the British and the Jews, as well as anti-Semitic propaganda on behalf of the NAZI Leadership. OR --- the Commander of the Palestinian Holy War Army, a former member of a Special Commando Unit of the Waffen SS, jointly operated by Abwehr and Grand Mufti al-Husseini; OR --- the Commander of the Palestinian Holy War Army, formerly a Colonel of the Wehrmacht, and had been assigned to Sonderstab F. If there is a party that should be ashamed of the resemblance to the NAZIs, it more be the Arab Palestinians that fought for the NAZIs.

The difference between "homeland" (that was proposed but Britain failed to implement) and "state." (which was imposed by the foreign Jewish Agency inside Palestine)

(OBSERVATION)

41. The Shaw commission, however, did not accept these immediate causes of Arab apprehension as an adequate explanation of the events they were called upon investigate.

• 
  “There can, in our view, be no doubt,” they wrote, “that racial animosity on the part of the Arabs, consequent upon the disappointment of their political and national aspirations and fear for their economic future, was the fundamental cause of the outbreak of August last. In less than ten years three serious attacks have been made by Arabs on Jews. Fore eighty years before the first of these attacks there is no recorded instance of any similar incidents. It is obvious then that the relations between the two races during the past decade must have different in some material respect from those which previously obtained. The Arabs have come to see in the Jewish immigrant not only a menace to their livelihood but a possible overlord of the future.

(COMMENT)

It was this Arab animosity towards the Jewish Immigrants which ultimately blossomed into irreconcilable differences which caused the Jewish National Home effort to shift event further towards a Jewish State Proposal.

The Arab Palestinians always want to shift the blame for everything they dislike as the fault of someone else. They never contributed to the adverse cause. It was that way from the beginning, it was that way in the immediate outbrek of hostilities when the Partition Plan was adopted, and it was that way after the Armistices arrangements were set and the West Bank and Gaza Strip were occupied by the Arab Countries. And it has been that way for more than half a century after the Jewish exercised self-determination and declared independence.

Most Respectfully,
R

In less than ten years three serious attacks have been made by Arabs on Jews. Fore eighty years before the first of these attacks there is no recorded instance of any similar incidents.​

Indeed, a bright spot in a proposed one state solution. Eve Spangler did address that issue.

It was this Arab animosity towards the Jewish Immigrants which ultimately blossomed into irreconcilable differences...​

The Palestinians were always openly opposed to the Zionist colonial project.

 

[teddyearp]

So here we go again. Maybe we should re-read the original post folks:

This thread is intended to explore concrete, specific, step-by-step solutions to the problem of the Israel/Arab conflict. It assumes a two (or three) State solution. It assumes a negotiated, mutually satisfactory solution with an end-of-conflict agreement. It assumes no other pre-conditions -- everything else is on the table. Discussions of a one State solution are not appropriate. Denial of the legitimacy of either side is not appropriate.

I hope participants will use this thread to provide either a "final outcome" template for a peace treaty or to provide the necessary steps towards such a thing. All steps should be as complete and comprehensive as possible. For example, rather than say, "Israel should end the occupation of OPT" please describe exactly what this might entail.

Discussion and debate of why a step may be unacceptable to either party is also welcome.

But instead we have the usual suspects ignoring thoughtful discourse and going back to the same old same old that the OP politely asked NOT to happen here. So a reminder, if all you can do is go back to the 'occupation' and 'legitimacy' discussion, remember, Coyote started a thread for all these things you have posted to try and derail this thread with. It is located here:

The Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[P F Tinmore]

So here we go again. Maybe we should re-read the original post folks:

This thread is intended to explore concrete, specific, step-by-step solutions to the problem of the Israel/Arab conflict. It assumes a two (or three) State solution. It assumes a negotiated, mutually satisfactory solution with an end-of-conflict agreement. It assumes no other pre-conditions -- everything else is on the table. Discussions of a one State solution are not appropriate. Denial of the legitimacy of either side is not appropriate.

I hope participants will use this thread to provide either a "final outcome" template for a peace treaty or to provide the necessary steps towards such a thing. All steps should be as complete and comprehensive as possible. For example, rather than say, "Israel should end the occupation of OPT" please describe exactly what this might entail.

Discussion and debate of why a step may be unacceptable to either party is also welcome.

But instead we have the usual suspects ignoring thoughtful discourse and going back to the same old same old that the OP politely asked NOT to happen here. So a reminder, if all you can do is go back to the 'occupation' and 'legitimacy' discussion, remember, Coyote started a thread for all these things you have posted to try and derail this thread with. It is located here:

The Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

OK, the two state solution.

The two state solution was first proposed in 1937. It has been the "universally accepted" solution for about the last 4 decades.

So, where is it?

I say that the pre conditions of excluding law, rights, and justice from the discussion are the problem. That plus the absence of elected Palestinian representation.

 

[Billo_Really]

So here we go again. Maybe we should re-read the original post folks:

This thread is intended to explore concrete, specific, step-by-step solutions to the problem of the Israel/Arab conflict. It assumes a two (or three) State solution. It assumes a negotiated, mutually satisfactory solution with an end-of-conflict agreement. It assumes no other pre-conditions -- everything else is on the table. Discussions of a one State solution are not appropriate. Denial of the legitimacy of either side is not appropriate.

I hope participants will use this thread to provide either a "final outcome" template for a peace treaty or to provide the necessary steps towards such a thing. All steps should be as complete and comprehensive as possible. For example, rather than say, "Israel should end the occupation of OPT" please describe exactly what this might entail.

Discussion and debate of why a step may be unacceptable to either party is also welcome.

But instead we have the usual suspects ignoring thoughtful discourse and going back to the same old same old that the OP politely asked NOT to happen here. So a reminder, if all you can do is go back to the 'occupation' and 'legitimacy' discussion, remember, Coyote started a thread for all these things you have posted to try and derail this thread with. It is located here:

The Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

You cannot solve a problem, any problem, without dealing with the root causes of that problem.

If the occupation is the cause of all the violence, you cannot end the violence, without dealing with the occupation.

 

[Billo_Really]

This is the most ridiculous thing said so far. The entire reason for the establishment of the Jewish National Home, which ultimately formed as the modern State of Israel, was to preserve the Jewish People and provide them a sanctuary so that might better defend themselves against the likes of the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem,

IHL was to prevent another Holocaust.

[Israel]… denies [the Palestinian] people their basic human rights including those under the Fourth Geneva Convention which governs the treatment of civilians in war and under occupation. There are 149 articles of this Convention. [Israel] violates almost all of them and in so doing is committing war crimes according to international law.

The international notion of a “crime against humanity” was established to define what Hitler did to the Jews. The UNHRC ruled this is what [Israel] is doing to [the Palestinian’s], and that this act is the historical and legal precursor to the international crime of genocide as defined by the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.​

and Arab Palestinian that was involved in espionage, sabotage, terrorist activity against the British and the Jews,

You are literally "out there."



http://www.cjpmo.org/DisplayDocument.aspx?DocumentID=45

as well as anti-Semitic propaganda on behalf of the NAZI Leadership.

And the Nazis got their propaganda from Zionists.

Nazi Propaganda was Based on What Zionists Said
In 1921, Germans in Germany were told that:

“We Jews are aliens… a foreign people in your midst and we… wish to stay that way. A Jew can never be a loyal German; whoever calls the foreign land his Fatherland is a traitor to the Jewish people“.

Who spoke these vile words? It was Jacob Klatzkin, the second of two political Zionist ideologists in Germany at the time, where the Jews of Germany were enjoying full political and civil rights. It was he who had advocated undermining Jewish communities as the one certain way of acquiring a state. “They had no qualms concerning tearing down the existing Jewish communities.”​

OR --- the Commander of the Palestinian Holy War Army, a former member of a Special Commando Unit of the Waffen SS, jointly operated by Abwehr and Grand Mufti al-Husseini; OR --- the Commander of the Palestinian Holy War Army, formerly a Colonel of the Wehrmacht, and had been assigned to Sonderstab F. If there is a party that should be ashamed of the resemblance to the NAZIs, it more be the Arab Palestinians that fought for the NAZIs.

The Jews who fought for Hitler

By not standing against the anti-semitism being spread by the Hostile Arab Palestinians,

Arab hostility has nothing to do with Judaism, but everything to do with Zionists stealing their land.

November 29, 1947 the UN General Assembly passed a resolution calling for the establishment of a Jewish state. It voted to partition Palestine into 2 independent states, one for Jews and the other for the majority Arab population. At that time the Jews comprised one third of the population and owned 6% of the land. But the partition plan gave them 55% of it and created added pressure that led to the 1948 war the Palestinian people didn’t want.​

and by not resisting the Powerful Arab Influences which have been, for more than half a century --- fueling the furnace of war, the Jewish People would have ingnored the mantra of the Survivors: "Don't FORGET."

You don't even have the balls to take ownership over the shit things you do.

Palestinians have endured six decades of shattered hope and dreams. They were uprooted from their homes, denied their basic rights, given little outside recognition or aid, blamed for Israeli crimes, terrorized without mercy, falsely promised peace, yet condemned to a state of siege under which nothing will change without outside pressure to force it.​

The Same Hostile Arabs --- defying the Resolution of the General Assembly, and engaged in deliberate hostile actions to alter by force and external influence, the settlement recommended by the Special Committee and adopted by General Assembly, ignited and have since fueled the conflict for more than half a century.

Not true.

[Zionists] plan was to completely dispossess the indigenous Arab population and create a wholly Jewish state for Jews alone.

Once the Palestinian Arabs caught on to the Zionists’ real intentions, they understood the threat to their own existence and strongly opposed further Jewish immigration. and therein lay the root of the intractable conflict that continues to this day with no sign of resolution.​

The Arab Palestinian defiled the Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States.

Israel is the target of at least 77 UN Resolutions and the Palestinians are the target of 1.

And by obstructing that which was offered to --- and accepted by --- the Jewish People (the descendants of the Death Camp Survivors), they continues to fight on behalf of the horrors of the Axis Regimes.

The Pals are fighting for Germany and Japan?

Holocaust Survivors Who Fight Against Israel's Treatment of Palestinians

Holocaust survivors cite the Holocaust as the very reason they oppose Israeli policy; specifically, its treatment of Palestinians. These people see that oppressing Palestinians is not just unnecessary and wrong, but hypocritical for a nation founded to provide people with a refuge from oppression. For them, the lesson of the Holocaust isn't "never again" for Jews. It's never again for anyone, including Palestinians.​

This comment is designed to lend the impression that the Palestinians never "trash" or "attack" the Jewish of Israel.

That has nothing to do with my comment. Its just your hasbara bullshit.

This comment is designed to suggest that the Palestinians never blame the Jewish of Israel for the conflict. The Palestinians never blame the Israelis for the invasion of their country or the "catastrophe." Nooo!

Wrong again. You can shove that perception management bullshit up your ass!

The Palestinians are treated in the manner in which they present themselves.

You prove my point, by blaming them for you treating them like shit.

Wow! This suggests that the Palestinians never engage in Propaganda. The Palestinians are pretending that they never manipulate the media to their own advantage. They never make video's that condemn the Israelis in everything they do. The Palestinians never incite hostilities and riots; and they certainly don't celebrate martyrs for their assaults on innocent civilians.

More hasbara bullshit.

DEMONIZATION OF MUSLIMS AND ISLAM IN A TIME OF MANUFACTURED FEAR AND ANXIETY

It’s always been open season in Israel and the West to demonize Muslims and Islam with language like “fundamentalist extremists”, “crazed Arabs”, “Jihadists” and “terrorists.”

The “extreme right” in Israel and the West used a heightened and hyped climate of fear to use an old and easy scapegoat to advance their extremist imperial agenda behind the easy cover of patriotism and protecting national security.​

This is to suggest that some Israeli citizens do not have a representation in government, have the same measure of equality. Citizenship issues and the legislation of laws in Israel are a domestic issue. As far as the (so called) Occupation is concerned, the Palestinians have their own issues on the matter of democratic processes to resolve. Palestinians are no Second Class Citizen, because, the are not even citizens of Israel to be included in a class.

Seventy percent of the Arab respondents say that the government treats them as second-class citizens or as hostile citizens who did not deserve equality.

WOW, I simply have not seen (since the independence of Israel in 1948) the Israeli Police and Military rounding up train cars full of Arab Citizens in Israel or Palestinians in the territories, for shipment to Death Camps anywhere in the region. I would really like to know where one of these Death Camps are?

I didn't say......oh fuck it........you're ridiculous.

a systematic campaign of murder and ethnic cleansing in 1947-48, which saw the killing of an estimated 13,000 Palestinians, the forcible eviction of 850,000 and the depopulation and subsequent destruction of nearly 500 villages and localities.

the Knesset has taken the first step toward passing legislation that would evict tens of thousands of Israeli Bedouin — who are some of the Arab citizens of Israel — from land in the Negev where they have lived for generations, since well before Israel’s establishment.​

How do we measure this. Has the Palestinians filed civil or criminal complaints with Israel

• 
  [*]Israel's chief military prosecutor has ordered criminal investigations into two of the most high-profile incidents in the recent Gaza war, the killing of four children in an Israeli air strike at Gaza's port and the shelling of a UN school in Beit Hanounthat left 15 people dead and scores more injured.They are among five cases being investigated for potential criminal misconduct, while dozens more are being considered for investigation. Israeli military orders criminal investigations into Gaza attacks ​

Between 2000 and 2009, the rate of…charges against [IDF] soldiers was about 5 per cent of the total Palestinian complaints.

from 2009 until 2011…the rate of the [Israeli] army's indictments [of its soldiers] amounted to about 2.5 per cent of the 864 complaints by Palestinians.


​

• 
  Again WOW! The utilization of the Phrase "Jewish State" was in the PLAN OF PARTITION WITH ECONOMIC UNION --- PART I Future constitution and government of Palestine --- A. TERMINATION OF MANDATE, PARTITION AND INDEPENDENCE, Paragraph 2, UN Resolution 181 (II), as relayed by the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP) in its Report to the General Assembly (Para #76)(A/364 3 September 1947).

One of the first people to use the word “apartheid” in relation to Israel was Israel’s first prime minister, David Ben Gurion, who warned following the 1967 War of Israel becoming an “apartheid state” if it retained control of the occupied territories.

 

[Weatherman2020]

If Mary and Joseph tried to walk to Bethlehem today they'd likely be murdered by Palestinians.

 

[Weatherman2020]

I think it would be most helpful if we focused on forward thinking, solutions-based discussion rather than on illegitimacy issues or past complaints. In that vein, let's see if we can strip the conversation of accusations of wrong-doing, illegality, and generally bad juju and just work on the solutions.

This is an occupation. The "Laws of Occupation" apply. There is one and only one solution to an occupation. That is to end it.

There are no recognized borders.

That's not true.

The 1949 Armistice Lines have come to be popularly known as the "1967 borders" but those familiar with the actual legal documents and instruments (and I assume you to be one of them, correct me if I am wrong) know this is a falsehood. The treaties which refer to these armistice lines specifically rejects these lines as permanent borders. Additionally, the Oslo Accords claim these lines to be a starting point for negotiation, but require final permanent borders to be the subject of negotiation and treaty.

Again, for the occupation to end, Israel needs to go back to the '67 borders. That was the status quo at the time before the war. In that respect, there's nothing to negotiate.

If someone robs a bank, you don't negotiate with the bank robbers to bring back "some" of the loot.

Please let me know if you do not accept the above as basic facts and we can discuss further. However, if you accept these as facts, with respect to a solution to the conflict, do you reject any negotiation of permanent borders? Or are you willing to negotiate?

After Israel gets their people back over the Green Line, they can negotiate to their hearts content.

I have already agreed to this. The condition for the end of the blockade is the cessation of belligerent attacks on Israeli citizens.

How can that possibly happen, when the blockade is the cause of the attacks? And lets remember, the blockade has nothing to do with security. The blockade started as punishment to Gazans, for not voting for an Israeli puppet like Fatah.

Given that we are devising a peace agreement, that should fall into place. My concern is that you are requesting the blockade to end as a pre-condition to a peace treaty, while I am demanding that a peace treaty be in place and a cessation of belligerent attacks are pre-conditions to the blockade being lifted. First the horse, then the cart.

Again, the blockade is causing the violence. That must end first, before peace can be established.

I entirely disagree with that blockades are war crimes. (You should too). They are perfectly legal. But off-topic for this thread.

Collectively punishing an entire population of people who have committed no crime, is a crime against humanity. And the blockade punishes all 1.5 million Gazans. The blockade is immoral and illegal.

​

Your information appears outdated.

It was 2010.

But again, this is largely irrelevant to the topic.

No its not. This restriction of movement, is making the Palestinian's life a daily hell. Any peace plan must have the removal of these in the cards.

I have already agreed that the IDF will withdraw all military checkpoints internal to the new State of Palestine and will establish a controlled international border between it and Israel.

You said there were only 30. You were 470 short. You can't write a peace plan, if you're not truthful about the relevant facts.

There is no suggestion that Israel should be allowed,

But that is exactly what Israel did.

under provisions of a peace treaty, to build new walls within the sovereign State of Palestine. The question was whether the removal of walls within the State of Palestine was the financial responsibility of Palestine or Israel. I have already accepted that Israel will take responsibility for that.

If you illegally build a wall on my lawn, why should I have to pay for its demolition?

Again, I disagree. The land is not occupied.

Of coarse it is. It's been occupied since 1967. This is the position of the entire world. There isn't a single country on the planet that recognizes Israel's right to that land. Not one. And since it is an occupation, it is illegal for the occupying power to transfer a part of its population in to the area being occupied.

Aside from the Sinai, this is the area Israel needs to vacate.

There are no established borders.

Yes there is.

Israel did not deport or transfer its populations.

Yes it did. Do you see the red dots? That's Israeli population in the occupied territory.

You have changed the negative prohibition against transferring populations into a positive requirement to prevent people of a certain religious faith or ethnic group from purchasing land and homes on territory, at best, under dispute. And again I find this irrelevant to the topic -- which is finding a solution to the problem.

You can't solve any problem until you break it down to the causal level. And this is one issue the Palestinian's claim is the biggest barrier to peace.

The relevance lies in whether or not it is permissible to cause or require people of a certain religious faith or ethnic group to be forced to vacate their homes on the basis of another religious faith or ethnic groups national sovereignty. The relevance lies in whether or not you believe it permissible, legal or morally correct to enforce a limited religious or ethnic homogeneity on a State.

Religion has nothing to do with it. If you illegally occupy a home, you must leave it. You have to obey the law.

Do you believe that Palestine must be Judenrien?

I'm a white, Irish Catholic; it's not my call. I don't care how many Jews are there. I don't care how many Arabs are there. This conflict doesn't affect my daily life. I could cared less about either side.

If so, I propose that all Arab Muslim Palestinians be removed from Israel as an identical provision of the peace treaty. If not, I suggest we discuss citizenship as opposed to religion or ethnicity and that citizenship can and should be part of the peace treaty. There are several possibilities. Permanent residency. Renunciation of prior citizenship in favour of accepting citizenship of the State in which one resides. Dual citizenship.

If you want to discuss religion, do it in the proper forum. I have no interest in discussing it here.

I will take that as a high compliment.

It was.

Do you refer to Texas and California as occupied territory? Shit happens when you lose wars you start.

 

[Billo_Really]

Do you refer to Texas and California as occupied territory? Shit happens when you lose wars you start.

Conquer by Conquest wasn't illegal until the end of WWII.

 

[Billo_Really]

If Mary and Joseph tried to walk to Bethlehem today they'd likely be murdered by Palestinians.

Why would they be murdered by their own relatives?

The Palestinian's today, are the direct decendants of the Israelites.

 

[Coyote]

Here's a map of Palestine...supposing there were to be a 3-state solution - how would it be divided?
For now, let's leave Jeruselum as a seperate issue.

I would think there would have to be:
Continguous borders - you can't create a swiss cheese state with disconnected lands and foreign check points.
Defensible borders - would a "demilitarized zone" approach work?
Sharing of resources - all 3 states would need access to resources, water, gas/oil/minerals, workable farmland, for self-sufficiency and economy.
Settlements and cities - this is the hardest because of the heated and long standing nature of the conflict, how would something like the partition of India be avoided? Would an interim government composed of Israel/UN/Palestinian representatives covering all 3 countries for a long enough period of time to set up a transition work - something long enough so everyone is invested in the outcome rather than immediate revenge....?

I'm throwing ideas out there because there is no easy solution

 

[Boston1]

I doubt many (if any) here believe that a 2 or 3 state solution is possible. But, good luck.

I think we already have a two state situation going. Jordan and Israel, with Gaza being the most likely third soon enough.

The question fast becomes, how many states will it take to satisfy palestinian desires to destroy Israel.

 

[Boston1]

This thread is intended to explore concrete, specific, step-by-step solutions to the problem of the Israel/Arab conflict. It assumes a two (or three) State solution. It assumes a negotiated, mutually satisfactory solution with an end-of-conflict agreement. It assumes no other pre-conditions -- everything else is on the table. Discussions of a one State solution are not appropriate. Denial of the legitimacy of either side is not appropriate.

I hope participants will use this thread to provide either a "final outcome" template for a peace treaty or to provide the necessary steps towards such a thing. All steps should be as complete and comprehensive as possible. For example, rather than say, "Israel should end the occupation of OPT" please describe exactly what this might entail.

Discussion and debate of why a step may be unacceptable to either party is also welcome.

The occupation and blockade is the root cause of all the violence. That has to end. Nothing can move forward without that occurring first. And for the occupation to end, 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.

Peace will occur as soon as the Palestinian's are no longer subjected to martial law and are enjoying the inalienable rights the rest of the world enjoys.

It would also be a pretty good idea for Israeli's to get rid of that megalomaniac PM they have. Or, for that matter, purge the entire Likud Party from government.

Wrong, there is no occupation. Israel is using land set aside for th creation of a Jewish national homeland for exactly that for which it was intended.

Also restrictions are in place to peacefully resist a violent bigoted movement. Anytime the palestinians want to live in peace they are welcome to do so. Once that is established restrictions will not be necessary

 

[Boston1]

If Mary and Joseph tried to walk to Bethlehem today they'd likely be murdered by Palestinians.

Why would they be murdered by their own relatives?

The Palestinian's today, are the direct decendants of the Israelites.

Wrong, the palestinians today are largely of North African descent. SOME of which have ties to the early Hyksos SOME of which eventually progressed into the Judaic peoples.

Hypothetically we could say we are all related but any reasonable look at this will show that most Judaic peoples have specific genetic markers to distinguish them from other North Africans

 

[Shusha]

I would think there would have to be:
Continguous borders - you can't create a swiss cheese state with disconnected lands and foreign check points.
Defensible borders - would a "demilitarized zone" approach work?
Sharing of resources - all 3 states would need access to resources, water, gas/oil/minerals, workable farmland, for self-sufficiency and economy.
Settlements and cities - this is the hardest because of the heated and long standing nature of the conflict, how would something like the partition of India be avoided? Would an interim government composed of Israel/UN/Palestinian representatives covering all 3 countries for a long enough period of time to set up a transition work - something long enough so everyone is invested in the outcome rather than immediate revenge....?

I'm throwing ideas out there because there is no easy solution

So, those of us discussing the OP seem to agree that contiguous borders for Palestine and defensible borders for Israel are necessary. I haven't brought it up before, but I agree that water resources in particular need to be managed with clear areas of responsibility and consequences for failure to uphold.

Some of the larger Jewish settlements will have to be transferred to Israel, imo, because the nascent Palestine state would not be able to keep them safe. But land swaps of equal size can be exchanged for this, and I believe this is fair and reasonable.

In areas where the population is mixed, or in areas where assigning sovereignty to Israel would result in discontiguity for Palestine, the Israeli/Jewish people would have to be evacuated and re-homed, imo. Hebron is going to be somewhat problematic. It should remain in Palestine for contiguity, but has a large Jewish community and Jewish holy sites. The tensions there will make it a particular flashpoint, imo.

All residents would assume the citizenship of the territory in which they are resident. Although, I would like to see dual citizenship as a possibility for those who end up on the "wrong" side of the border. That dual citizenship might or might not be transferrable to children of dual citizens, depending on the laws of each state.

I also think any citizen who ends up on the "wrong" side should be given assistance to relocate if they so desire.

Another option would be to hold elections in areas along the assumed borders and permit residents to vote on which state they would wish to be under the sovereignty of.

 

[Boston1]

As i read through the thread I'm not seeing one very important rational the mandate administrators considered when they began this enterprise. The fair and impartial exchange of populations. The Turkish Greek issues had recently been settled by a mass movement of populations. Million actually. So while the Jewish populations of the middle east, Northern Africa, Europe, Russia and elsewhere were happy to pull up stakes and move, the Arabs of this area refused to do so and those that did are now being used as pawns in some twisted right to return nonsense.

The simple reality is that the 80/20 split in favor of the Arabs was thought to be adequate by the British at the time who never envisioned the level of bigotry and racism that the Arabs of the region had towards the Judaic population.

IMHO there should be no further compromise on land distribution. The disputed territories should remain under Israeli control. Any violent protesters should be deported to palestinian areas ( Jordan or Gaza ) along with their families and anyone wishing to live in peace should be integrated into Israeli society becoming Israel citizens. Those refusing Israeli citizenship should be given 6 month visas at the end of which time they should be required to leave Israel, which IMHO includes ALL of the disputed territories

There is no need for ANOTHER palestionian state. Gaza and Jordan should be enough given that the encompass over 80% of the original British mandate.

Efforts to the contrary are simply attempts to destabilize the already tenuous Israeli position.

No further compromise, not one more inch.

 

[Coyote]

I would think there would have to be:
Continguous borders - you can't create a swiss cheese state with disconnected lands and foreign check points.
Defensible borders - would a "demilitarized zone" approach work?
Sharing of resources - all 3 states would need access to resources, water, gas/oil/minerals, workable farmland, for self-sufficiency and economy.
Settlements and cities - this is the hardest because of the heated and long standing nature of the conflict, how would something like the partition of India be avoided? Would an interim government composed of Israel/UN/Palestinian representatives covering all 3 countries for a long enough period of time to set up a transition work - something long enough so everyone is invested in the outcome rather than immediate revenge....?

I'm throwing ideas out there because there is no easy solution

So, those of us discussing the OP seem to agree that contiguous borders for Palestine and defensible borders for Israel are necessary. I haven't brought it up before, but I agree that water resources in particular need to be managed with clear areas of responsibility and consequences for failure to uphold.

Some of the larger Jewish settlements will have to be transferred to Israel, imo, because the nascent Palestine state would not be able to keep them safe. But land swaps of equal size can be exchanged for this, and I believe this is fair and reasonable.

In areas where the population is mixed, or in areas where assigning sovereignty to Israel would result in discontiguity for Palestine, the Israeli/Jewish people would have to be evacuated and re-homed, imo. Hebron is going to be somewhat problematic. It should remain in Palestine for contiguity, but has a large Jewish community and Jewish holy sites. The tensions there will make it a particular flashpoint, imo.

All residents would assume the citizenship of the territory in which they are resident. Although, I would like to see dual citizenship as a possibility for those who end up on the "wrong" side of the border. That dual citizenship might or might not be transferrable to children of dual citizens, depending on the laws of each state.

I also think any citizen who ends up on the "wrong" side should be given assistance to relocate if they so desire.

Another option would be to hold elections in areas along the assumed borders and permit residents to vote on which state they would wish to be under the sovereignty of.

I see citizenship and protection of civilian populations as big problems given the animosity on both sides. Dual citizenship is an interesting possibility and maybe a good idea. I think there would need to be a lengthy enough transition period to ensure stabilty and prevent bloodshed.

Good point about holy sites, as well as access and protection of those places. Maybe some sort of interim joint government for Hebron to smooth transition? I don't know.

 

[Coyote]

As i read through the thread I'm not seeing one very important rational the mandate administrators considered when they began this enterprise. The fair and impartial exchange of populations. The Turkish Greek issues had recently been settled by a mass movement of populations. Million actually. So while the Jewish populations of the middle east, Northern Africa, Europe, Russia and elsewhere were happy to pull up stakes and move, the Arabs of this area refused to do so and those that did are now being used as pawns in some twisted right to return nonsense.

The simple reality is that the 80/20 split in favor of the Arabs was thought to be adequate by the British at the time who never envisioned the level of bigotry and racism that the Arabs of the region had towards the Judaic population.

IMHO there should be no further compromise on land distribution. The disputed territories should remain under Israeli control. Any violent protesters should be deported to palestinian areas ( Jordan or Gaza ) along with their families and anyone wishing to live in peace should be integrated into Israeli society becoming Israel citizens. Those refusing Israeli citizenship should be given 6 month visas at the end of which time they should be required to leave Israel, which IMHO includes ALL of the disputed territories

There is no need for ANOTHER palestionian state. Gaza and Jordan should be enough given that the encompass over 80% of the original British mandate.

Efforts to the contrary are simply attempts to destabilize the already tenuous Israeli position.

No further compromise, not one more inch.

You can not deport non-Jordanians to Jordan. It's not their country.

 

[Boston1]

Jordan is 100% palestinian, why wouldn't it be considered a palestinian state ?

Its leaders have repeatedly said Jordan is palestine. So why is it so hard for some folks to accept that Jordan is palestine

from

Jordan is Palestine. Palestine is Jordan. « IsraelAmerica

quote
Jordan is Palestine. Palestine is Jordan.This is the royal decree and sentiments of two of the kings of Jordan.

“Palestine and Jordan are one…” said King Abdullah in 1948.

“The truth is that Jordan is Palestine and Palestine is Jordan,”said King Hussein of Jordan, in 1981.


Let’s closely examine the facts of history from the Arab perspective, rather than the Jewish one, regarding Jordan and Palestine.

“Palestine is Jordan and Jordan is Palestine; there is only one land, with one history and one and the same fate,” Prince Hassan of the Jordanian National Assembly was quoted as saying on February 2, 1970.

Accordingly, Abdul Hamid Sharif, Prime Minister of Jordan declared, in 1980, “The Palestinians and Jordanians do not belong to different nationalities. They hold the same Jordanian passports, are Arabs and have the same Jordanian culture.”

In other words, Jordan is Palestine. Arab Palestine. There is absolutely no difference between Jordan and Palestine, nor between Jordanians and Palestinians (all actually Arabs).

end quote

 

[Shusha]

IMHO there should be no further compromise on land distribution. The disputed territories should remain under Israeli control. .

Well, while I understand the sentiment behind this, and I even agree that it is a travesty of justice for the State of Israel to be whittled away as it has been -- Israel truly has no interest in maintaining a large hostile population. Better to let it go.

 

[Boston1]

Better yet to deport hostile palestinians to Arab palestine

Not one more inch