What if Israel Annexes the West Bank and Lets Palestinians Vote

[Spartacactcus]

That's the bottom line. At the root of it. Has been, since time immemorial:

The Jew.

It's only the " bottom line " for those who are struggling with the argument imo

For sure there will be those who are anti Israel because they are Jew haters and there will be those that are pro Israel because they are Arab or Muslim haters.

To use it as a blanket smear of those that disagree with you and can argue their points is disingenuous but to be expected for the reason given in the first sentence

Thanks for nothing.


Irrelevant.

I am just finding my feet here and getting to know the members. I have encountered you before elsewhere and have noticed the same trait, you cannot seem to argue your points so it doesn't come as a surprise that you resort to evidence free blanket smears of those that hold a different view than yourself

 

[Spartacactcus]

]
I read an article awhile back that said there are more Palestinians in Israel than Israeli's, and therefore, Israel would cease to exist if Palestinians were allowed to vote.

I think out of the territory under Israeli control , which is all of the partition plan former Palestine( Israel , the West Bank and Gaza ) , the numbers are pretty similar. IIRC there are around 20% of Isrealis that are of Palestinian origin , around 1.8 million in Gaza and around 2.7 million in the WB.

The illegal settlements in the Golan are obviously an aside

 

[Indeependent]

These are no more legally binding than the UN Declaration of Human Rights which IRONICALLY has a "rights kill switch" embedded in it for the benefit of those many DICTATORSHIPS that SIT in the UNGA or UNSC.... Besides, many of those resolutions applied to JORDAN as well in that Israel had to negotiate with Jordan (and Egypt) for land acquired from the 1967 war..

UNSC resolutions are legally binding and if it were not for the US veto standing in the way of the international consensus there would most likely have been a resolution of the conflict already.

I have stated that there are definitely frustrating weaknesses/contradictions with the UN , namely the UNSC veto power of the big 5, which are incidentally most of the biggest arms dealer nations around, how's that for a conflict of interests ? But support for international laws that are there to aim to keep the peace should be supported by all decent people of the world imo

The UN Charter doesn't start off with " we the governments of the world " , it starts off with " we the peoples of the world " and we , each of us in our own nations , need to stop our governments from flouting international laws and conventions.

Progress is slow with obvious periods of regression but people need to stick with it imo

Resolutions are “Binding”?
An opinion is Binding?!
Really?

UNSC resolutions are legally binding. The opinion was given by experts in international law with access to all of the relevant treaties/conventions/charters etc etc

Really

Uh...no.
It’s an opinion; you just said so yourself.

 

[Indeependent]

Why not?

A two state solution, as originally envisioned, is in a zombie state of perpetual propping up by diplomats. It's support has drastically waned among both Palestinians and Israelis.

With a one state solution (Israel + West Bank) - assuming a scenario where ALL residents are offered the opportunity of citizenship up front, the plus side for Palestinians would be the potential of better representation, political stability, assumption of rights guaranteed by citizenship and funding for infrastructure, education, etc. that is in perpetual shortage with their Palestinian leadership.


Here's what happens if Israel annexes the West Bank and lets Palestinians vote

I read an article awhile back that said there are more Palestinians in Israel than Israeli's, and therefore, Israel would cease to exist if Palestinians were allowed to vote.

Why not?

A two state solution, as originally envisioned, is in a zombie state of perpetual propping up by diplomats. It's support has drastically waned among both Palestinians and Israelis.

With a one state solution (Israel + West Bank) - assuming a scenario where ALL residents are offered the opportunity of citizenship up front, the plus side for Palestinians would be the potential of better representation, political stability, assumption of rights guaranteed by citizenship and funding for infrastructure, education, etc. that is in perpetual shortage with their Palestinian leadership.


Here's what happens if Israel annexes the West Bank and lets Palestinians vote

I read an article awhile back that said there are more Palestinians in Israel than Israeli's, and therefore, Israel would cease to exist if Palestinians were allowed to vote.

And yet most Arabs vote for Jews because Arab leaders have left them in the Stone Age.

 

[Indeependent]

]
I read an article awhile back that said there are more Palestinians in Israel than Israeli's, and therefore, Israel would cease to exist if Palestinians were allowed to vote.

I think out of the territory under Israeli control , which is all of the partition plan former Palestine( Israel , the West Bank and Gaza ) , the numbers are pretty similar. IIRC there are around 20% of Isrealis that are of Palestinian origin , around 1.8 million in Gaza and around 2.7 million in the WB.

The illegal settlements in the Golan are obviously an aside

I guess you missed the part where Syria initiated an attack and lost.

 

[Spartacactcus]

78%, to be exact.

So that's 22% less than what they are entitled to under international law

 

[toomuchtime_]

The fact is that in every negotiation, with Arab nations or with the so called Palestinians, Israel has offered to give up land for peace, and have followed through in good faith when It found a credible partner for peace.
Egypt
Sadat was a better politician than he was a general, and when he did attack in 1973, he was soundly defeated. Israel broke through the anti aircraft barrier the Russians had constructed for Egypt, captured 500 Soviet tanks and tons of ammunition and Israeli tanks were rolling toward Alexandria and Cairo and were only stopped by pressure from the US. The few Egyptian troops left in Sinai could have been destroyed at any time, but under pressure from the US Israel allowed them to remain while occupying significant Egyptian territory across the Canal in order to leave the door open for peace talks. Was Sinai sovereign Egyptian territory? In modern times Sinai was not a part of Egypt until the British attached it their Egyptian colony in 1906 to better secure the Canal. That being the case, it is not at all clear that Egypt had a better right to it than Israel. Nevertheless, Israel was always serious about peace and security and gave up Sinai despite all the pain it caused to secure peace.

Jordan

Before 1948, Jordan was known as Trans Jordan, meaning across the Jordan River, and held no land west of the river, however, in a war of aggression in 1948 Jordan captured Judea and Samaria and held it from 1948 to 1967 despite having no legal right to it. Only Pakistan and the UK recognized Jordan's right to the land, so Jordan had no legitimate claim on the land when negotiating peace with Israel, but again, Israel was so determined to make peace with the Arabs that it agreed to allow Jordan to keep title to some of the land adjacent to the river that it had developed during its illegal occupation of the land. That's how serious Israel was about making peace.

Oslo

While it is true that both Israelis and Palestinians supported Oslo at first, at the end, when Barak offered all of Gaza, 93% of Judea and Samaria, PA jurisdiction over Arab neighborhoods in Jerusalem and Arafat said, no, Israelis still supported the peace process, but the Palestinians turned to violence and launched the second intifada, and it was the intifada that convinced Israelis that it as impossible to negotiate peace with people who turned to violence whenever they don't get everything they want. Israel was very serious about peace with the Palestinians and was willing to make great sacrifices to secure it, but the Palestinians were clearly not serious about peace since they were unwilling to make any compromises to secure it.

Gaza

Sharon gave Gaza to the PA with the understanding that Abbas would maintain peace there, but despite the PA forces outnumbering Hamas and the other terrorists, the PA quickly lost Gaza to Hamas and there was no peace. This was the final nail in the coffin of a negotiated peace between Israel and the Palestinians since it showed that there was no political entity among the Palestinians that could credibly offer peace to Israel.

Chest thumping about how the Israelis defeated the Egyptians in 1973 acknowledged but it didn't alter the fact that Israel " gave back " only sovereign Egyptian territory , like I said.

Same with Jordan. Like I said

Oslo never even offered the Palestinians an end to illegal Israeli settlement building , that's how " serious " it was. It saw the PA being subcontracted in to assist in the subjugation of their own people. I could offer you 80% of Algeria and it would be entirely desert. Percentages should be viewed in terms of value . The percentage Israel allowed istelf to keep was virtually all of the illegal settlement/settlers and control over the water supply.

If Gaza was "given" to the Palestinians you would think that that would mean they could vote into power any one of their political parties ? I mean without the Israelis , US UK etc etc instigating an attempted coup ? That alone is indicative that Gaza was never " given " to the Palestnians
Could control their airspace , economy , borders , coast etc etc

The Gaza disengagement was a pragmatic decision to remove the illegal settlers from there and release the thousands of IDF troops guarding them and move them to illegal settlements in the WB and Golan and, if we are to believe the likes of Dov Weisglass , to " freeze " the peace process

Either way nothing of what you wrote above undermines what it is attempting to do

It is difficult to tell whether your ignorance is the result of your bigotry or your bigotry is the result of your ignorance. Egypt's claim to Sinai is at best dubious since it was never a part of Egypt in modern times until the British attached it to their Egyptian colony. Nevertheless, Egypt was powerless to take Sinai back from Israel, and it was only Israel's desire for peace that led it to trade Sinai for peace with Egypt.

Your claim that the land Israel gave to Jordan in return for peace was sovereign Jordanian land is simply false. Jordan had no legitimate claim on any land west of the river, yet Israel's desire for peace with the Arab nations was so great that Israel gave some of the land west of the river to Jordan anyway.

Nowhere is your ignorance and bigotry more evident than in your discussion of Oslo. Israel offered 93% of the land in Judea and Samaria and jurisdiction over Arab neighborhoods in Jerusalem to the PA and all water resources in Judea and Samaria were under the control of the Joint Water Resources Commision which was made up of an equal number of Israelis and Palestinians. Nearly the entire world, including most Arab countries, thought this was an offer Arafat couldn't refuse, and huge sums of money were pledged to help build the economy of the new Palestinian state, but Arafat did reject it and instead launched the second intifada and in doing so ended the possibility of a Palestinian state.

Shaon gave Gaza to the PA in exchange for a promise that the PA would maintain peace there, and he also closed some of the Israeli settlements in in Samaria. In a letter to President Bush, Sharon explained that he wanted to try again to negotiate peace with the PA, but the PA quickly lost control of Gaza to Hamas, demonstrating it was not a credible partner for peace,

In every case, Israel has offered to give up the land you claim it is scheming to keep for peace, proving conclusively that in all your posts you are expressing nothing but bigotry.

 

[Indeependent]

78%, to be exact.

So that's 22% less than what they are entitled to under international law

Too bad the UN disagrees with you.
The UN recognizes Israel’s borders; they’re just pissed off Israel exists.

 

[Spartacactcus]

]
I guess you missed the part where Syria initiated an attack and lost.

It was relevant to the illegality of the settlements in the Golan so I didn't " miss " anything.

Moshe Dayan conceded years later that around 80% of the border skirmishes that led up to the 1967 war were initiated by Israel

The Syrian, and Jordanian, responses were because they were signed up to a mutual defence pact with Egypt . Israel attacked Egypt first and so triggered the pact

 

[Indeependent]

]
I guess you missed the part where Syria initiated an attack and lost.

It was relevant to the illegality of the settlements in the Golan so I didn't " miss " anything.

Moshe Dayan conceded years later that around 80% of the border skirmishes that led up to the 1967 war were initiated by Israel

The Syrian, and Jordanian, responses were because they were signed up to a mutual defence pact with Egypt . Israel attacked Egypt first and so triggered the pact

Of course the border skirmishes were initiated by Israel...Arabs hate Jews.
Please provide a Link regarding Moshe Dayan.
I found one but it was a Liberal site talking out of it’s arse.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Again, you are full of shit. There is no documentation that shows israelis were not entirely sincere in every agreement they signed on to and every offer of land they made. Your argument is, you just can't trust a Jew.

Ben Gurion in reaction to the Zionist leaderships acceptance of the Peel Commisions plan to partition

"Does the establishment of a Jewish state [in only part of Palestine] advance or retard the conversion of this country into a Jewish country? My assumption (which is why I am a fervent proponent of a state, even though it is now linked to partition) is that a Jewish state on only part of the land is not the end but the beginning.... This is because this increase in possession is of consequence not only in itself, but because through it we increase our strength, and every increase in strength helps in the possession of the land as a whole. The establishment of a state, even if only on a portion of the land, is the maximal reinforcement of our strength at the present time and a powerful boost to our historical endeavors to liberate the entire country"

1937 Ben-Gurion letter - Wikipedia

There are others that anyone can access if they have the will

There is no question but that the early Israelis wanted more land than they were given, but that does not mean they were less than sincere in their acceptance of the land they could have. Ben Gurion is arguing in favor of a pragmatic approach against ideologues who wanted to turn down everything less than all they wanted. There is no suggestion of trickery or scheming in this statement but only an expression of faith in very difficult times that Israel would prosper.

 

[ForeverYoung436]

]
I guess you missed the part where Syria initiated an attack and lost.

It was relevant to the illegality of the settlements in the Golan so I didn't " miss " anything.

Moshe Dayan conceded years later that around 80% of the border skirmishes that led up to the 1967 war were initiated by Israel

The Syrian, and Jordanian, responses were because they were signed up to a mutual defence pact with Egypt . Israel attacked Egypt first and so triggered the pact

Link to that Moshe Dayan quote?

I always heard that the Syrians used to shoot down on Israeli kibbutzim (farms). Since the Syrians held the high ground, that seems to make the most sense.

 

[ForeverYoung436]

78%, to be exact.

So that's 22% less than what they are entitled to under international law

That 22% constitutes all of the land that is currently not part of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, namely Israel proper, as well as the West Bank and Gaza. So if you are saying that Israel is not entitled to ANY of that 22% of land west of the River Jordan, you are basically suggesting that Israel has no right to exist at all. Is that your position?

 

[Mindful]

That's the bottom line. At the root of it. Has been, since time immemorial:

The Jew.

It's only the " bottom line " for those who are struggling with the argument imo

For sure there will be those who are anti Israel because they are Jew haters and there will be those that are pro Israel because they are Arab or Muslim haters.

To use it as a blanket smear of those that disagree with you and can argue their points is disingenuous but to be expected for the reason given in the first sentence

Thanks for nothing.


Irrelevant.

I am just finding my feet here and getting to know the members. I have encountered you before elsewhere and have noticed the same trait, you cannot seem to argue your points so it doesn't come as a surprise that you resort to evidence free blanket smears of those that hold a different view than yourself

Because you (and OL) get up close and personal. Demanding that I argue on your terms.

The I/P discussions follow a circular direction, always the same old, same old. Personal bias. And no interest in facts, historical and otherwise.

 

[Mindful]

]
I guess you missed the part where Syria initiated an attack and lost.

It was relevant to the illegality of the settlements in the Golan so I didn't " miss " anything.

Moshe Dayan conceded years later that around 80% of the border skirmishes that led up to the 1967 war were initiated by Israel

The Syrian, and Jordanian, responses were because they were signed up to a mutual defence pact with Egypt . Israel attacked Egypt first and so triggered the pact

Link to that Moshe Dayan quote?

I always heard that the Syrians used to shoot down on Israeli kibbutzim (farms). Since the Syrians held the high ground, that seems to make the most sense.

I've been several times around the Golan. Saw the Syrian high ground for myself. How easy it was to aim missiles down on the kibbutzim. Eventually, the Israelis had had enough. You know the rest.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

These are no more legally binding than the UN Declaration of Human Rights which IRONICALLY has a "rights kill switch" embedded in it for the benefit of those many DICTATORSHIPS that SIT in the UNGA or UNSC.... Besides, many of those resolutions applied to JORDAN as well in that Israel had to negotiate with Jordan (and Egypt) for land acquired from the 1967 war..

UNSC resolutions are legally binding and if it were not for the US veto standing in the way of the international consensus there would most likely have been a resolution of the conflict already.

I have stated that there are definitely frustrating weaknesses/contradictions with the UN , namely the UNSC veto power of the big 5, which are incidentally most of the biggest arms dealer nations around, how's that for a conflict of interests ? But support for international laws that are there to aim to keep the peace should be supported by all decent people of the world imo

The UN Charter doesn't start off with " we the governments of the world " , it starts off with " we the peoples of the world " and we , each of us in our own nations , need to stop our governments from flouting international laws and conventions.

Progress is slow with obvious periods of regression but people need to stick with it imo

The entire thrust of your Islamist apologia here is based upon two logical fallacies, namely, the appeal to authority and the appeal to popularity. Just because representatives of nation states with an animus towards Jews are allowed to persecute them through their collective might, that does not make such persecution valid or fair.

If you put 198 members of the kkk with 2 black people and had them vote on various resolutions, the resulting resolutions would target blacks. That does not make the resolutions either fair or just, however.


Now, I realize you despise liberalism, but here in our country liberal political philosophy recognizes the notion of the tyranny of the majority. Recognizing the rights of minorities against persecution by the majority is a liberal position, and the United States has stood up for such a tradition against the inherent antisemitism so obviously evident in the U.N.

I, for one, am glad we have.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

The I/P discussions follow a circular direction, always the same old, same old. Personal bias. And no interest in facts, historical and otherwise.

Antisemites do not reason. They merely hate.

 

[The Original Tree]

It is a terrible idea for Israel. They would just end up being the next Lebanon.

Lebanon was formed as the Christian country of the Middle east, and despite the precautions set into place to try to protect that, Muslims simply bred themselves into a position of dominance and the country has suffered. Beirut was called the Paris of the middle east when I was young, but now it is just another Islamic shit hole.

Jewish Israelis are fooling themselves if they don't understand the same thing will happen to them as happened to the Lebanese Christians. Within a generation or two they would be a persecuted minority.

Why let The Trojan Horse in to your gates, when the gates are already locked?

 

[Dogmaphobe]

It is a terrible idea for Israel. They would just end up being the next Lebanon.

Lebanon was formed as the Christian country of the Middle east, and despite the precautions set into place to try to protect that, Muslims simply bred themselves into a position of dominance and the country has suffered. Beirut was called the Paris of the middle east when I was young, but now it is just another Islamic shit hole.

Jewish Israelis are fooling themselves if they don't understand the same thing will happen to them as happened to the Lebanese Christians. Within a generation or two they would be a persecuted minority.

Why let The Trojan Horse in to your gates, when the gates are already locked?

Yep.

It's like dumping a bunch of piranhas into your koi pond.

 

[Mindful]

Deconstructing The Deal of the Century from Trump to Israel and the Palestinians
by Brian of London

My opening opinion on the plan as a whole: this is a great deal and Israel will accept it in a way that is more unified than I have ever seen from Jews before. And you can even include many Israeli Arabs who will quietly go along with this. The Palestinian leadership, tied as it is to enriching itself from perpetual war and keeping their people back, will reject this. They have no interest in a state or good conditions for their people.

I was intending to read the whole thing but I stopped at the last paragraph on the 2nd page when I read a very important section which demonstrates exactly how Jared Kushner thinks (I know it is his point of view because of the interview he gave CNN included below).

The conflict between the State of Israel and the Palestinians has kept other Arab countries from normalizing their relationships and jointly pursuing a stable, secure, and prosperous region. One reason for the intractability of this problem is the conflation of two separate conflicts: a territorial, security and refugee dispute between Israel and the Palestinians and a religious dispute between Israel and the Muslim world regarding control over places of religious significance. The absence of formal relations between Israel and most Muslim and Arab countries has only exacerbated the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians. We believe that if more Muslim and Arab countries normalize relations with Israel it will help advance a just and fair resolution to the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians, and prevent radicals from using this conflict to destabilize the region.

Page 2 Read the rest:


Deconstructing The Deal of the Century from Trump to Israel and the Palestinians