This is how we end it! (solution)

[Shusha]

There can never be peace without mutual recognition and acceptance.

Can you clarify this please?

You have been making this point in a few threads recently and I would like to understand what you mean exactly by "mutual recognition and acceptance".

Cessation of all claims which reject Jewish history, Jewish rights and Jewish presence.
Cessation of all requirements for dissolution of the Jewish State/Israel.
Removing all references to Arab-only or Palestinian-only land in the territory in charters and documents.
Revision of all UNESCO documents to re-claim Jewish/Israeli historical sites as Jewish/Israeli historical sites.
Formal recognition of Israel.

Stuff like that.

 

[P F Tinmore]

• Inalienable rights
√ Just what are (names specifically, not the definition) the inalienable rights that were denied by the Israelis.

3. Reaffirms the inalienable right of the Namibian people, the Palestinian people and all peoples under foreign and colonial domination to self-determination, national independence, territorial integrity, national unity and sovereignty without outside interference;​

All of the above. The worst being the violation of the Palestinian's right to territorial integrity. The rest follow from there. The Palestinians, being the legal citizens (international and domestic law) of a territory defined by international borders, have all of the inherent, inalienable rights listed above as reaffirmed in this and other UN resolutions.

Israel took over most of Palestine by military force in 1948 and the remainder in 1967. Israel prevents the Palestinians from exercising their rights by military force.

 

[Humanity]

There can never be peace without mutual recognition and acceptance.

Can you clarify this please?

You have been making this point in a few threads recently and I would like to understand what you mean exactly by "mutual recognition and acceptance".

Cessation of all claims which reject Jewish history, Jewish rights and Jewish presence.
Cessation of all requirements for dissolution of the Jewish State/Israel.
Removing all references to Arab-only or Palestinian-only land in the territory in charters and documents.
Revision of all UNESCO documents to re-claim Jewish/Israeli historical sites as Jewish/Israeli historical sites.
Formal recognition of Israel.

Stuff like that.

So, "mutual" as in as long as it is 'mutually' Israel.

 

[Lipush]

Together, as the human race, facing reality without lies and distractions.

Roughly 300 Palestinians and Israelis marched along a major West Bank highway Friday afternoon to demand an end to the occupation and to protest Israeli settlements in the West Bank. The monthly protest march is deliberately held on a road that both Palestinians and Israeli settlers use, with the intention of demonstrating a joint Palestinian-Israeli anti-occupation message in full view of settlers.

The march set out from the “Tunnels Checkpoint,” the main checkpoint for settlers entering Jerusalem from the southern West Bank settlements of Gush Etzion.

The march has been organized by a consortium of peace and anti-occupation organizations in recent months. On Friday the most prominent organization was Combatants for Peace. The main slogan was: “There is another way.”

‘There is another way’: Palestinians, Israelis march together against the occupation | +972 Magazine

Likw Shusha said.

Nice protest. No solution.

 

[USAF 2023]

• Inalienable rights
√ Just what are (names specifically, not the definition) the inalienable rights that were denied by the Israelis.

3. Reaffirms the inalienable right of the Namibian people, the Palestinian people and all peoples under foreign and colonial domination to self-determination, national independence, territorial integrity, national unity and sovereignty without outside interference;​

All of the above. The worst being the violation of the Palestinian's right to territorial integrity. The rest follow from there. The Palestinians, being the legal citizens (international and domestic law) of a territory defined by international borders, have all of the inherent, inalienable rights listed above as reaffirmed in this and other UN resolutions.

Israel took over most of Palestine by military force in 1948 and the remainder in 1967. Israel prevents the Palestinians from exercising their rights by military force.

The U.N decided that Israel become a Nation on May 14, 1948. The Arabs initiated the 67 War which Israel won. Prior to this time as per the U.N. Jordan was supposed to let the Israelis have access to their Holy Sites but.of course didn’t

 

[abi]

The Arabs initiated the 67 War which Israel won.

Israel admits this is a lie now. Try to keep current with your propaganda, if nothing else.

In June 1967 we again had a choice. The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him.
http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/foreignpo...ter begin at the national.aspx?ViewMode=Print

 

[P F Tinmore]

• Inalienable rights
√ Just what are (names specifically, not the definition) the inalienable rights that were denied by the Israelis.

3. Reaffirms the inalienable right of the Namibian people, the Palestinian people and all peoples under foreign and colonial domination to self-determination, national independence, territorial integrity, national unity and sovereignty without outside interference;​

All of the above. The worst being the violation of the Palestinian's right to territorial integrity. The rest follow from there. The Palestinians, being the legal citizens (international and domestic law) of a territory defined by international borders, have all of the inherent, inalienable rights listed above as reaffirmed in this and other UN resolutions.

Israel took over most of Palestine by military force in 1948 and the remainder in 1967. Israel prevents the Palestinians from exercising their rights by military force.

The U.N decided that Israel become a Nation on May 14, 1948. The Arabs initiated the 67 War which Israel won. Prior to this time as per the U.N. Jordan was supposed to let the Israelis have access to their Holy Sites but.of course didn’t

So, Israel always thumbs its big fat nose at the UN.

 

[teddyearp]

The Arabs initiated the 67 War which Israel won.

Israel admits this is a lie now. Try to keep current with your propaganda, if nothing else.

In June 1967 we again had a choice. The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him.
http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/foreignpo...ter begin at the national.aspx?ViewMode=Print

Cool. Thanks for admitting the Arabs invaded Israel. Or did you not read that part in your link?

 

[abi]

The Arabs initiated the 67 War which Israel won.

Israel admits this is a lie now. Try to keep current with your propaganda, if nothing else.

In June 1967 we again had a choice. The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him.
http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/foreignpolicy/mfadocuments/yearbook6/pages/55 address by prime minister begin at the national.aspx?ViewMode=Print

Cool. Thanks for admitting the Arabs invaded Israel. Or did you not read that part in your link?

Follow the conversation; we are in '67.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: This is how we end it! (solution)
※→ abi, et al,

Yes, this is all true. The manner of Presentation makes it seem like Israel was the aggressor; which it was not.

The Arabs initiated the 67 War which Israel won.

Israel admits this is a lie now. Try to keep current with your propaganda, if nothing else.

In June 1967 we again had a choice. The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him.
http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/foreignpolicy/mfadocuments/yearbook6/pages/55 address by prime minister begin at the national.aspx?ViewMode=Print

(COMMENT)

In any complex government where there are many contributors to the decision to go to war (in this case a preemptive strike against massed Egyptian Forces on the frontier of Israel) there will be differences in the way various people see the events as they unfold. There is a great outline of events as they unfolded which gives a thumbnail as to the various views about the conflict.

We could argue this all day long and not get anywhere. But, Gerald M. Adler, LLM, JSD, has done a good job putting things n perspective. Yes, of course you will find disagreement among the various observers (insider and outsiders), just as you can find those that disagreed with Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain and the "Peace with Honor" results; or the Truman decision to use the first atomic bombs.

The Israeli Prime Minister was explained his views on:

• The wars of no choice, and
• wars of alternatives.​

"In June 1967 we again had a choice. The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him."​

It is what it is.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[abi]

Israel was the aggressor; which it was not.

Lie.

Of course Israel was the aggressor. Even before '48 zionist terrorists had been on a murderous rampage. The terrorists became Israel's first government. The zionists brought their war of aggression from another continent and it has never stopped.

 

[teddyearp]

The Arabs initiated the 67 War which Israel won.

Israel admits this is a lie now. Try to keep current with your propaganda, if nothing else.

In June 1967 we again had a choice. The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him.
http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/foreignpolicy/mfadocuments/yearbook6/pages/55 address by prime minister begin at the national.aspx?ViewMode=Print

Cool. Thanks for admitting the Arabs invaded Israel. Or did you not read that part in your link?

Follow the conversation; we are in '67.

Follow the conversation, we're talking about a (solution). It is your thread, right?

So, I'm interested in hearing your solution to the Zionist problem.

 

[abi]

Follow the conversation, we're talking about a (solution). It is your thread, right?

So, I'm interested in hearing your solution to the Zionist problem.

Read the thread. Pay special attention to what I posted. Your question has been answered.

 

[teddyearp]

Together, as the human race, facing reality without lies and distractions.

Roughly 300 Palestinians and Israelis marched along a major West Bank highway Friday afternoon to demand an end to the occupation and to protest Israeli settlements in the West Bank. The monthly protest march is deliberately held on a road that both Palestinians and Israeli settlers use, with the intention of demonstrating a joint Palestinian-Israeli anti-occupation message in full view of settlers.

The march set out from the “Tunnels Checkpoint,” the main checkpoint for settlers entering Jerusalem from the southern West Bank settlements of Gush Etzion.

The march has been organized by a consortium of peace and anti-occupation organizations in recent months. On Friday the most prominent organization was Combatants for Peace. The main slogan was: “There is another way.”

‘There is another way’: Palestinians, Israelis march together against the occupation | +972 Magazine

Protest then is the solution to the Zionist problem?

 

[abi]

Protest then is the solution to the Zionist problem?

I asked you to read the thread and pay special attention to what I posted. If you can't even do that, Teddy, you really don't need to be here.

 

[Hollie]

Israel was the aggressor; which it was not.

Lie.

Of course Israel was the aggressor. Even before '48 zionist terrorists had been on a murderous rampage. The terrorists became Israel's first government. The zionists brought their war of aggression from another continent and it has never stopped.

Another of your frantic tirades. In the context of the period in time both with Arab armies massed and with the specific statements by the Arabs regarding their intent to drive the Jews into the sea, it would have been unthinkable for the Israelis not to expect an attack.

 

[teddyearp]

Protest then is the solution to the Zionist problem?

I asked you to read the thread and pay special attention to what I posted. If you can't even do that, Teddy, you really don't need to be here.

I'm on my phone right now. Tapatalk isn't conducive to me quoting every single one of your posts in this thread, so I'll do it later.

So until then I guess I've been banned from this thread now?

 

[abi]

So until then I guess I've been banned from this thread now?

You're funny.

 

[Shusha]

There can never be peace without mutual recognition and acceptance.

Can you clarify this please?

You have been making this point in a few threads recently and I would like to understand what you mean exactly by "mutual recognition and acceptance".

Cessation of all claims which reject Jewish history, Jewish rights and Jewish presence.
Cessation of all requirements for dissolution of the Jewish State/Israel.
Removing all references to Arab-only or Palestinian-only land in the territory in charters and documents.
Revision of all UNESCO documents to re-claim Jewish/Israeli historical sites as Jewish/Israeli historical sites.
Formal recognition of Israel.

Stuff like that.

So, "mutual" as in as long as it is 'mutually' Israel.

No. Of course it has to be mutual. But there is no equivalence to the Arab rejection of Israel on the other side. Have you read abi's posts?

There has to be an end to claims of stealing land, invasion from other continents, real and synthetic Jews, denial of history, Arab waqfs, kill the Jews, the ridiculous Khazar story, and all the other rejections.

The Arab narrative has to accept that the Jewish people have every right to be there, that the Jewish people have a long history there and that it is their homeland, that they had pre-existing holy places where Muslim holy shrines stand now, that the land belongs to the Jewish collective as much as to the Arabs, hat Jerusalem is the Jewish capital and has been for thousands of years, that Jewish people are welcome to live anywhere they want in the territory the same way Arabs are and that the Jewish people must have self-determination, safety and security.

Yes. Of course you are going to argue that Israel must accept Arab Palestinian rights as well. And you are correct. BUT Israel does that already and has for a hundred years. The resistance Israel has to a State of Palestine does not rest on a fundamental rejection of self-determination no matter what. It rests only on the lack of preparedness and on the continuing hostilities.

Just watch this thread. You will see Team P continuing to reject the basis of a Jewish State. While Team I only argues for ensuring Israel's security. We've seen it over and over.

 

[abi]

Whoa!

There has to be an end to claims of stealing land, invasion from other continents, real and synthetic Jews, denial of history, Arab waqfs, kill the Jews, the ridiculous Khazar story, and all the other rejections.

The zionists then, need to stop stealing land, they did come from another continent, so your stuck there, not sure about your real vs synthetic stuff, the history of Palestine and her people is what has been denied, so yes, the Khazar hypothesis was supported by actual science from a well respected Jewish scientist (you know this; you were on the thread posting his conclusion no less) and what other objections?

The Arab narrative has to accept that the Jewish people have every right to be there, that the Jewish people have a long history there and that it is their homeland

The Palestinians have to accept nothing but their land back and their peoples' right to return to their homeland.

Team I only argues for ensuring Israel's security.

No, that is more ziospeak for the zionists can humiliate, dehumanize, torture and kill anyone we want and there will be no consequences.